Search

Accreditation in the United States is about quality assurance and quality improvement. It is a process to scrutinize higher education institutions and programs. Accreditation is private (nongovernmental) and nonprofit--an outgrowth of the higher education community and not of government. It is funded primarily by the institutions and programs that are accredited. Accreditation has a complex relationship with government, especially in relation to funding higher education. It adds value to society through assuring quality, enabling government to make sound judgments about the use of public funds, aiding the private sector in decisions about financial support and easing transfer of credit. Recognition in the United States is about scrutiny of the quality and effectiveness of accrediting organizations. It is carried out by the higher education enterprise through The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), a private body, and by government [United States Department of Education (USDE)]. CHEA recognition is funded by institutional dues; USDE recognition is funded by the U.S. Congress. The goals of the two recognition processes are different: (1) CHEA: Assuring that accrediting organizations contribute to maintaining and improving academic quality; and (2) USDE: Assuring that accrediting organizations contribute to maintaining the soundness of institutions and programs that receive federal funds. The two recognition processes are similar: self-evaluation based on standards, site visit and report, award of recognition status. Recognition adds value to society as a vital part of accreditation accountability or "accrediting the accreditors." (Contains 7 footnotes.)

Accreditation is a process of external quality review used by higher education education to scrutinize colleges, universities, and educational programs for quality assurance and quality improvement. In the United States, accreditation is carried out by private, nonprofit organizations designed for this specific purpose. Institutions and educational programs seek accredited status as a means of demonstrating their academic quality to students and the public and to become eligible for federal funds. Numbers of accredited Institutions are as follows: (1) 7,818 institutions are accredited, and (2) 22,654 programs are accredited. These institutions and programs are accredited by organizations recognized either by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) or by organizations recognized by the United States Department of Education (USDE). CHEA or USDE "recognition" is a review of the quality and effectiveness of accrediting organizations based on the respective standards of CHEA or USDE. Of the 7,818 institutions: (1) 4,921 (63%) are degree-granting; (2) 2,897 (37%) are non-degree-granting; (3) 3,909 (50%) are nonprofit; and (4) 3,909 (50%) are for-profit. 7,178 accredited institutions were certified to participate in the federal Title IV (Student Assistance) Program in 2010-2011. Of those institutions, 2,043 were public, 1,869 were private non-profit, and 3,266 were for-profit. If an institution participates in Title IV, students have the opportunity to apply for federal grants and loans to finance their education. Accreditation serves the following purposes: (1) Quality Assurance; (2) Access to Federal Funds; (3) Ease of Transfer; and (4) Private Sector Confidence. CHEA's primary purpose is to assure and strengthen academic quality and ongoing quality improvement in courses, programs, and degrees. USDE's primary purpose is to assure that federal student aid funds are purchasing quality courses and programs. (Provides 5 footnotes.)

Many teachers view "teacher evaluation" or "teacher appraisal" as a means of effecting bureaucratic organisational change in schools. In essence, this change is attributed to "political reconstruction" and the "disciplining" of teachers. As a result, some common phrases associated with this ideological phenomenon of "accountability" are: "quality control", "performance indicators", "calculable teachers", "describable teachers", "comparable teachers", "evaluatory eye", "disciplinary power" and the issue of "professionality" (Smyth, 2001a, p. 117). The writer is of the opinion that teachers are the potential agents of change and not the policy makers situated in their ivory towers. But how can teachers change the world when they are daily subjected to bureaucratic processes designed to control and manipulate their work? For example, even the issue of professionality in teaching has not escaped the gaze of surveillance.

As momentum grows for tracking the role of individual educators in student performance, school districts across the country are implementing projects that involve linking teachers to their students. Programs that link teachers to student outcomes require a verification process for student-teacher linkages. Linkage verification improves accuracy by allowing educators to check for and correct student and course assignment errors. This paper describes a model process for gathering and verifying student-teacher linkage data and offers recommendations at each stage. The model verification process begins with a planning stage, followed by configuration and testing. Once these steps are complete, teachers and administrators can begin verifying data. During verification, administrators and teachers confirm or modify classroom assignments using computer software or a web-based application. Verification takes place in three main steps: an initial administrator review, a teacher review, and a final administrator check. In addition, users can enter additional data during verification, such as the percentage of instructional responsibility for team teachers. After teachers and administrators verify the data, districts should gather and report information about the linkage verification process. Districts should use this information to continuously improve the accuracy and quality of their student-teacher links. An appendix presents use-cases for linkage verification. (Contains 3 footnotes, 2 tables, and 4 figures.)

This descriptive work urges U.S. policymakers to consider the English system of school inspections as a way of expanding our understanding of student achievement. Such an innovation is timely, according to the report, because the No Child Left Behind legislation is coming up for reauthorization. Using data largely from the English Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted), the report outlines the English system, including the rubrics it uses in judging teaching, some characteristics of its inspectors, and how much such a system might cost states in the United States. Readers should keep in mind that the report is an advocacy piece and not a research document. No research questions are posed, and few examples from the extensive literature on English school inspections are offered. Thus, the report does not include key research findings, be they supportive or critical, of the process or of the very concept of the inspection service. In order to make sound judgments, policymakers need clear information about alternative approaches, hence the possible attraction of publications such as the one reviewed here. Unfortunately, the potential for "On Her Majesty's School Inspection Service" to provide such help is limited by its design as an advocacy piece. (Contains 16 notes.) [This report reviews "On Her Majesty's School Inspection Service. Education Sector Reports" (ED528608).]

The findings of Education Scotland's sectoral programme of inspections, which sample the providers of education at every stage from the early years to adult learning, provide a key source of evidence on how effectively one of its core public services is performing. The last published summary of inspection findings was produced in 2009 when Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) published "Improving Scottish Education 2005 to 2008." Since then, the fast moving pace of change and challenge across the world and in society at large has been reflected in a continuing ambitious agenda for change in Scottish education. Developments that the HMIE report highlighted three years ago have gathered pace as it seeks to promote the innovation, flexibility and creativity needed to support young people for this ever changing world. The evidence summarised in this report indicates that much progress has been made in embedding new, improved approaches in every-day educational practice. This report describes, for example, steady progress in the implementation for Curriculum for Excellence in all sectors, over the course of the three years it covers. The picture that the inspection evidence paints is consistent with other sources of evidence that have appeared since 2008. In international studies between 2008 and 2011, Scottish children's achievement in science, mathematics and English language were similar to or slightly better than other UK students in England, Wales and North Ireland. Against countries worldwide, Scottish children remain in the middle ranking of achievements in these subject areas. Recent results for the Scottish standards for numeracy assessments reflect levels of achievement the researchers have evaluated in this report over 2008 to 2011. In particular, focus is still needed in the first years of secondary to maintain the earlier gains in primary school. Everyone must remain determined in moving Scottish children to even better achievements, nationally and internationally. Notes on evidence base and evaluation terms used in the document are appended. (Contains 6 footnotes.)

Technological innovation is driving fundamental changes in all aspects of our lives. This is especially true of digital content, as our use of e-books, downloadable music, streaming television and movies, and online social networks has exploded. However, the explosive growth in our use of digital content seems so far to have eluded many of the 50 million students enrolled in public K-12 education. In spite of the fact that states and districts spend $5.5 billion a year in core instructional content, many students are still using textbooks made up of content that is 7 to 10 years old. In 2012, it is still the exception--not the norm--that schools choose to use digital content, which could be updated much more frequently, or opt to use the multitude of high-quality online resources available as a primary source for teaching and learning. The reasons are many, but the result is this: Too few schools are exploiting digital instructional content for all of its benefits. While many in education continue to perpetuate the decades-old textbook-centric approach to providing students and teachers with instructional materials, the gap is widening between what technology allows us to do in our lives--how we communicate, work, learn, and play--and how we're educating our kids. The primary benefit of digital content may be its flexibility. Crucial to realizing the flexibility benefit are open educational resources (OER), resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits their free use or re-purposing by others in perpetuity. States are the key to driving instructional materials innovation. With primary responsibility for determining the process and funding models for instructional materials acquisition in their schools, states have started to implement significant policy changes--in some cases with the support of the federal government--that are giving powerful momentum to the shift from print to digital content. In total, 22 states have introduced either definitional or funding flexibility, launched a digital textbook initiative, and/or launched an OER initiative. Common to virtually all of these efforts are strong state leadership, a culture of innovation, a belief in increased local flexibility in spending and content choice, and strong implementation plans. Given current trends and building upon the real-world experiences of states and leading districts, the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) offers recommendations for K-12 policymakers, school leaders, and publishers searching for ways to collaborate and to reimagine the future of the K-12 textbook. Appended are: (1) Key Questions to Address in Adopting Digital Instructional Materials; and (2) References

Policy discussions about funding in higher education focus primarily on revenues needed to balance budgets from year to year, rather than on how funds need to be invested to meet strategic priorities. The data in "Trends" show that the incremental approach to fundraising and spending has resulted in a slow disinvestment in core instructional capacity at a majority of institutions. Now more than ever, we need straightforward and strategic policy conversations about money and priorities that are guided by sound metrics. Decisions need to be based on data and not anecdote, and funding increases, whether from tuition or state appropriations, should be justified based on evidence that resources are going to pay for essential priorities. There are five basic steps that higher education leaders and policymakers can take to refocus finance conversations in a way that addresses the troubling trend of spending more and getting less. These are: (1) Set sharp-edged goals for educational attainment; (2) Look at spending patterns and align spending with strategic priorities; (3) Increase degree productivity by reducing the number of excess credits taken by students and the time it takes students to get a degree; (4) Strengthen public accountability for spending; and (5) Improve governing board oversight of spending.

As rapid change threatens to outpace the skills of an ageing workforce and Europe developed towards a knowledge based society, the European Union, other European countries and the social partners have worked together to establish a policy framework for modernising education and training. In vocational education and training (VET), the EU has developed a platform for voluntary cooperation and coordination between Member States called the Copenhagen process. Under the Copenhagen process, Member States, with the social partners, have established common European tools and principles, namely the: (1) European qualifications framework (EQF); (2) the European credit system for VET (ECVET); (3) Europass; (4) European quality assurance framework for VET (EQAVET); (5) principles and guidelines for identifying and validating non-formal and informal learning; and (6) principles on lifelong guidance and counselling. These tools and principles constitute an integrated framework, the impact of which depends on their consistency and how they interact. Their implementation will increase transparency of qualifications, support mobility and benefit citizens by providing a systematic way to validate and document their knowledge, skills and competence. (Contains 3 boxes and 1 footnote.)

This study of advanced-level high school courses that offer credit toward both a high school diploma and a college degree in Florida compares one such program (dual enrollment) with others, describing the number and characteristics of grade 11 and 12 students enrolled overall and by district. It also examines dual enrollment partnerships between high schools and colleges in nine sample school districts. The findings indicate that: (1) Across Florida, 7.3 percent of students in grades 11 and 12 participated in a college-credit or career dual enrollment course during 2006/07; (2) Dual enrollees were more likely than the population of grade 11 and 12 students to be women (62 percent versus 51 percent) and White (72 percent versus 51 percent) and less likely to be economically disadvantaged (eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; 16 percent versus 31 percent) and English language learner students (0.4 percent versus 4.6 percent); (3) Of the 98,395 students in grades 11 and 12 taking any type of acceleration course in 2006/07, more students enrolled in AP, IB, or AICE courses only (74 percent, driven mainly by AP enrollment) than in dual enrollment only (16 percent); 11 percent participated in both dual enrollment and one or more other acceleration program; (4) Students in dual enrollment only were less likely than students enrolled in AP, IB, or AICE only to be Hispanic (9 percent versus 23 percent), economically disadvantaged (17 percent versus 19 percent), and enrolled in special education (11 percent versus 17 percent); (5) Dual enrollment rates among grade 11 and 12 students ranged from 2.9 percent in Orange County School District to 38 percent in Bay County School District; (6) Four district and five college partner administrators (in six districts) identified Florida K-20 Education Code (Florida Statute) section 1007.235 as a primary reason for establishing articulation agreements; (7) The most commonly cited challenge in implementing dual enrollment programs (reported in four district and three college partner interviews in five districts) was administrative challenges; (8) The articulation agreements in the nine districts included information on ratification; available courses and programs; recruiting and informing students; student eligibility; institutional responsibility for student screening, program monitoring, and quality assurance; institutional responsibility for program costs; and transportation; and (9) Districts reported using a variety of approaches to inform students of dual enrollment options. These involved print materials, high school counselors, college recruiters at high schools, individual and group meetings, media, word of mouth, and promotion of the College Placement Test. [For the full report, "Who Enrolls in Dual Enrollment and Other Acceleration Programs in Florida High Schools? Issues & Answers. REL 2012-No. 119," see ED526313.]

This study of advanced-level high school courses that offer credit toward both a high school diploma and a college degree in Florida compares one such program (dual enrollment) with others, describing the number and characteristics of grade 11 and 12 students enrolled overall and by district. It also examines dual enrollment partnerships between high schools and colleges in nine sample school districts. The findings indicate that: (1) Across Florida, 7.3 percent of students in grades 11 and 12 participated in a college-credit or career dual enrollment course during 2006/07; (2) Dual enrollees were more likely than the population of grade 11 and 12 students to be women (62 percent versus 51 percent) and White (72 percent versus 51 percent) and less likely to be economically disadvantaged (eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; 16 percent versus 31 percent) and English language learner students (0.4 percent versus 4.6 percent); (3) Of the 98,395 students in grades 11 and 12 taking any type of acceleration course in 2006/07, more students enrolled in AP, IB, or AICE courses only (74 percent, driven mainly by AP enrollment) than in dual enrollment only (16 percent); 11 percent participated in both dual enrollment and one or more other acceleration program; (4) Students in dual enrollment only were less likely than students enrolled in AP, IB, or AICE only to be Hispanic (9 percent versus 23 percent), economically disadvantaged (17 percent versus 19 percent), and enrolled in special education (11 percent versus 17 percent); (5) Dual enrollment rates among grade 11 and 12 students ranged from 2.9 percent in Orange County School District to 38 percent in Bay County School District; (6) Four district and five college partner administrators (in six districts) identified Florida K-20 Education Code (Florida Statute) section 1007.235 as a primary reason for establishing articulation agreements; (7) The most commonly cited challenge in implementing dual enrollment programs (reported in four district and three college partner interviews in five districts) was administrative challenges; (8) The articulation agreements in the nine districts included information on ratification; available courses and programs; recruiting and informing students; student eligibility; institutional responsibility for student screening, program monitoring, and quality assurance; institutional responsibility for program costs; and transportation; and (9) Districts reported using a variety of approaches to inform students of dual enrollment options. These involved print materials, high school counselors, college recruiters at high schools, individual and group meetings, media, word of mouth, and promotion of the College Placement Test. Appended are: (1) Methodology; (2) Florida Department of Education sample articulation agreement; (3) District interview protocol; and (4) College interview protocol. (Contains 2 boxes, 1 map, 15 tables and 2 notes.) [For "Who Enrolls in Dual Enrollment and Other Acceleration Programs in Florida High Schools? Summary. Issues & Answers. REL 2012-No. 119," see ED526314.]

The charter school landscape is dramatically different today compared to when the federal government first forayed into the field in 1994. That year it established the Charter School Program as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA. The Charter School Program, which is designed to support the startup of new public charter schools, was established at a time when only seven states had charter school laws on the books and 60 charter schools were in operation. Today, there are more than 5,000 charter schools in 40 states and the District of Columbia, and the long waiting lists indicate that there is a demand for many more charters. Meanwhile, concerns over quality, accountability, and access continue to be hot-button issues for the charter sector. The long overdue ESEA reauthorization presents an opportunity to take stock of the small but growing and changing role of charter schools in American education. The Obama administration has recently offered states flexibility around the current law while Congress continues to debate revising ESEA. The new flexibility does not address charter schools. So ESEA remains the main vehicle for addressing charter schools in the country. This paper outlines some of the key issues facing the charter sector at this important juncture. Congress and other policymakers should bear these issues in mind as they determine how best to support the next generation of effective charter schools. Namely, Congress should: (1) Ensure charter schools are held to the same accountability standards as traditional public schools and support the creation and expansion of high-quality charters that serve the needs of all students; (2) Ensure equitable funding for charter schools; (3) Strengthen charter authorizing practices; (4) Encourage states to lift caps on the development of high-quality charter schools; (5) Prioritize states that implement smart effective quality control policies for federal competitive dollars; and (6) Reward states and districts that engage high-quality charters in turning around their chronically underperforming schools. The effectiveness of charter schools: What does the research say? is appended. (Contains 39 endnotes.)

This report examines the contribution of self-evaluation to internal review processes in Scotland's colleges. It identifies the range of methodologies used by colleges, what makes these effective and what needs to improve further. It explores in particular, the extent to which self-evaluation has a positive impact on learners' experiences. The report addresses these aims through: (1) evaluating the extent to which self-evaluation has improved over time, including taking into account equality and diversity issues; (2) evaluating the contribution made by external stakeholders and college learners as part of the self-evaluation process; (3) identifying and disseminating examples of excellence or sector-leading and innovative practice; and (4) making recommendations for improvement to current practice. The Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) report, "Effective self-evaluation reporting in Scotland's colleges (2007)," identified a number of positive features. HMIE has provided other analyses of self-evaluation and internal review arrangements in colleges. The most recent was through the HMIE publication, "Improving Scottish Education (2009)." This report identifies the progress that colleges have made, since the publication of these two reports, in improving their approaches to self-evaluation and internal review. Appended are: (1) Colleges visited in the fieldwork for this report; and (2) Glossary of terms. (Contains 7 footnotes.)

Digital learning makes possible the "unbundling" of school provisions--that is, it allows children to be served by providers from almost anywhere, in new and more customized ways. At the same time, because it destandardizes and decentralizes educational delivery, digital education is far harder to bring under the yoke of the quality-control systems and metrics that have been devised for traditional school structures. In this paper, Hess explores the pros and cons of input regulation, outcome-based accountability, and market signals as solutions to the quality challenge. In the end, he recommends using all three approaches in careful combination so as to leverage their strengths and offset their weaknesses. In practice, that means demanding transparent financial information from providers, holding them to account for student achievement gains whenever possible, and developing "crowd-sourcing" reporting systems to help educators, parents, and students identify the most effective purveyors of online learning. (Contains 14 footnotes.)

Developing a music program based on quality curriculum is the key to success. The purpose of my research was to explore whether teachers used curriculum for quality control in an Elementary music program. Using student questionnaires, teacher interviews, and teacher observations I found that the music curriculum in each school was different. There were no similarities in lesson plans and methods which is detrimental to the quality of a music program. (Contains 5 figures and 3 tables.)

This paper will focus on the island of Tobago and indicate what practical solutions are best suited for administrators to manage quality and access at higher educational institutions on the island. The key areas to managing quality identified are the inclusiveness of a quality plan, administrators desire to see quality as an institutional culture and consideration of the cost of staff's attitude to the institution whilst not ignoring the impact the physical environment has on the senses and the significant role it plays in quality standards on campus. Tobago also presents its own features in managing access to higher educational institutions on the island. The distance and rural feature of the island is significant in that it places some local communities at a disadvantage. Higher education needs to be more accessible to men and persons with disabilities whilst also focusing on key programmes which will meet the demands of the labour market and foster development of Tobago and its people.

In fiscal year 2009, the Department of Defense's (DOD) Military Tuition Assistance (TA) Program provided $517 million in tuition assistance to approximately 377,000 service members. US Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to report on (1) DOD's oversight of schools receiving TA funds, and (2) the extent to which DOD coordinates with accrediting agencies and the U.S. Department of Education (Education) in its oversight activities. GAO conducted site visits to selected military education centers and interviewed officials from DOD, its contractors, Education, accrediting agencies and their association, and postsecondary institutions. GAO recommends that DOD (1) improve accountability for recommendations made by third-party quality reviews, (2) develop a centralized process to track complaints against schools, (3) conduct a systemic review of its oversight processes, (4) take actions to ensure TA funds are used only for accreditor-approved courses and programs, and (5) require and verify state authorization for all schools. DOD agreed with our recommendations. Also, DOD and Education provided technical comments on the draft report. We incorporated each agency's comments as appropriate. Appended are: (1) Scope and Methodology; (2) Selected Postsecondary Institutions GAO Interviewed at Selected Education Centers; (3) Comments from the Department of Defense; and (4) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 1 table, 2 figures and 30 footnotes.)