WRAP UP

Transcription

WRAP UP

V o l u m e 7 , I ss u e 3
NAFSA: ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATOR S
WRAP
December 2010
UP
A NEWSLETTER FOR THE RECRUITMENT, ADMISSIONS, AND PREPARATION KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITY
INSIDE THIS ISSUE:
A Message from the RAP Chair
Welcome
1
Editor’s Rap
2
By Evelyn Levinson
RAP Chair
EducationUSA
Updates
3
Dear RAP Colleagues,
Q&A w/Jim Frey
6
RAP Publications
7
As 2010 draws to a close, I wanted to reflect on a productive and
exciting year, and to thank all the volunteer member national and
regional leaders who have made this year so successful.
Accreditation Mills
8
Canada
12
Caribbean
16
Europe
21
France
24
India
32
South Africa
35
U.S.A.
39
Accreditation
This publication has been developed
by NAFSA members for use by their
newsletter
without
No
may
written
part
be
of
this
reproduced
permission
At the annual conference in Kansas City this year, we introduced an IEM basics workshop and
an advanced IEM seminar to start the strategic conversation going. This theme will be
reinforced and continued in Vancouver and beyond.
Rotating off our national RAP team at the end of December are:
Featured topic in
this issue:
colleagues.
Our networks saw some significant changes this year in numbers of
subscribers, resources, and discussions, especially in the area of
International Enrollment Management (IEM).
- The International Enrollment Management (IEM) discussion forum launched just before the
conference is providing a new venue to discuss important aspects of this growing area.
- Julie Sinclair‟s paper International Enrollment Management: Framing the Conversation has
moved the conversation forward within and outside NAFSA.
- We published four more informative issues of our wRAP Up newsletter.
- And, thanks to Susan Whipple and her efforts, we nearly doubled the number of countries in
the popular Online Guide to Educational Systems Around the World, now with over 100
countries!
from
- Julie Sinclair, Michigan State University, Past RAP Chair and RAP Coordinator for the 2011
Vancouver Annual Conference Committee (ACC)
- Aimee Thostensen, St. Catherine University, Admissions and Credential Evaluation
Coordinator and Network Leader
- Erick Kish, Wittenberg University, Marketing and Recruiting Coordinator and Network Leader
- Chris Peltier, Northern Arizona University, Training Coordination Subcommittee
- John Ericksen, Bryant University, Regional Outreach Liaison
Our team will miss their energy, humor, insights, and ideas as they leave our leadership, but not
our community.
NAFSA: Association of International
Educators.
RAP also welcomes the following new members to our team for 2011:
The opinions expressed in wRap Up
solely reflect those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect those
of
NAFSA:
Association
of
International Educators. wRap Up
and NAFSA neither endorse nor are
responsible
for
the
accuracy
of
content and/or opinions expressed.
Page 1
- Cindy Barnes Ochoa, EC San Francisco English Language Center, RAP Chair Elect
- Rosie Edmond, American University, Marketing and Recruiting Coordinator and Network
Leader
- Lynne Warner, Training Coordination Subcommittee
- Mariya Chetyrkina, Case Western Reserve University, Admissions and Credential Evaluation
Coordinator and Network Leader
(Continued on page 2)
wRAP Up - December 2010
EDITOR’S RAP
I've had a wonderful time in my years working on the newsletter, and each issue always seems
like it's the most fun, the most interesting, the most relevant right then. However, I've got to
say that none of the topics we've covered before have ever appealed to me as much as
accreditation/recognition. I love so many aspects of the field of international education, but
researching accreditation/recognition has got to be one of my absolute favorites (except when
I can't find an answer!). It's gotten to the point where I've saved literally thousands of web
pages to my computer and compiled hundreds of pages of web links of recognized institutions
or educational structures, and, oh, gosh, few things excite me as much as getting new resource
materials! Handouts, books, emails – they seriously make me giddy! So I am incredibly
pleased and bursting with pride over the quality – and quantity – of information we've
compiled for this two-part series, which focuses on accreditation/recognition.
When we originally discussed this issue, it seemed like a nice idea, but it has grown into
something truly fabulous. And when I say grown, I mean it's huge! We tried to cover as
much of the globe as we could in these pages, and we've come up with some pretty amazing
authors who've written some terrific articles. In fact, we received so much terrific material
that we are going to publish it in two separate editions just so we don't steal all the bandwidth from the NAFSA web site when
people go to download it!
We start out with an article that explains accreditation in general to give us some reference for the rest of the issue. We were very
grateful to have several different EducationUSA Regional Educational Advising Coordinators (REACs) who were able to provide
us with information about changes, complicated structures, or overviews of the various systems in their regions. We also look at
accreditation/recognition in specific countries such as Canada, India, South Africa, and the U.S. Then we explore more narrow
areas of accreditation such as Caribbean medical schools and French private higher education.
Okay, I feel confident that this will be the best issue yet! Until next time, anyway...
wRAP on,
Peggy Bell Hendrickson
Transcript Research
(A Message from the RAP Chair continued from page 1)
They will join our continuing national volunteer leaders Caroline Gear, Emily Tse, Ellen Silverman, Craig Hastings, Maria
Mercedes Salmon, Susan Kassab, and incoming RAP chair Kemale Pinar in leading RAP for the 2011 cycle. I would also like to
thank our amazing wRAP Up newsletter editor Peggy Bell Hendrickson and her team for producing this excellent resource for the
international education community.
Finally, a few personal reflections as I too rotate off as your 2010 RAP chair. It has been an honor and privilege to serve NAFSA
and the RAP community this past year, and to work with such a creative, dynamic, and dedicated group of colleagues. Special
thanks to Julie Sinclair for being an extraordinary mentor, friend, and member of the RAP chair stream.
Bringing together our ACE, ELTA, SPA, OEA, M + R, IEM, TCS, SIM, and Bologna specialists across the US and around the
world to represent a unified, strong professional development knowledge community was my personal goal when I started last
January. I hope that goal was achieved and wish Kemale and the 2011 team much success as RAP and IEM continue to grow
within the international education arena.
I wish you all a very happy holiday season, and look forward to seeing you online and in Vancouver in 2011!
Warm wishes,
Evelyn
Evelyn Levinson
NAFSA 2010 RAP Chair
Director of International Admissions
American University
Washington, DC
Page 2
E D U C AT I O N U S A U P D AT E S
EducationUSA Expands Services to U.S. Higher Education Community
After hosting a successful pavilion at the NAFSA Annual Conference in Kansas City, EducationUSA held its inaugural Forum
in Washington DC in late June. Over 200 U.S. institutional representatives attended this first-ever event where nearly 50
members of the EducationUSA community presented on the variety of recruitment opportunities available worldwide, education
system overviews, and national scholarship programs for international students to study in the U.S. The presentations from the
EducationUSA Forum are now available on the EducationUSA web site.
Accredited U.S. colleges and universities as well as higher education membership association staff (e.g. NACAC, AACRAO,
NAFSA, IIE, NAGAP, AIEA, CIS, etc.) are eligible to receive login access to the Higher Education section of our
EducationUSA web site. The benefits of this access include:
Send Materials to Our Centers – a downloadable spreadsheet of exactly what kinds of information each center can
receive, maximum quantities of each item, and specific mailing addresses
Submit Information to Weekly Update – our weekly newsletter goes out to 400+ centers in 170 countries with new
academic program & scholarship information for international students
Request Our Logo – get a hyperlinked version of our logo for your international admissions web site to direct
prospective students to our centers for on-the-ground, in-country support for U.S. institutions.
Access U.S. Higher Education Resource Section – this collection of searchable documents allows representatives to
retrieve presentations, conference registration materials, and other resources quickly.
Print/Save Center and Country Fact Sheets – after logging on when accessing the individual centers‟ web pages and
the clicking on the countries listed on the REAC (Regional Educational Advising Coordinator) pages, you can
print/save a 1-2 page fact sheet for that center and/or country.
Take advantage of these free services by requesting your login today.
Connect with EducationUSA
http://www.youtube.com/EducationUSAtv
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Q&A
WITH JIM FREY
Question:
When we admitted a student from an institute of technology in
Taiwan several semesters ago, we decided that no
undergraduate transfer of credit would be granted because it is
a technical junior college. The student now wants to receive
credit. Does anyone grant credit for courses completed at this
type of institution?
Response:
Several basic philosophical questions need to be answered
before you can find an appropriate response to the situation
you have described.
1. How does your institution establish policies concerning
transfer of credit?
2. Who establishes them?
3. What is the pedagogical reason for each policy?
4. Who can waive, modify, or replace a policy?
5. On what basis are policies waived, modified, or replaced?
In responding to these questions, you probably will not say
"because that's what another educational institution does" or
"because that is what the student wants."
Presumably there is a pedagogically sound reason why you
decided not to grant transfer of credit to this student when the
admissions decision was made. Presumably that is the same
decision you would have made if the technical junior college
involved had been located in the United States instead of
Taiwan.
It may indeed be appropriate to review your policy, to
determine whether or not the reasons for it are still
pedagogically sound in light of changes that might have
occurred in your institution's academic programs in the years
since the policy was established. It is usually a good idea to
review all academic policies periodically to make certain they
are in line with an institution's current educational philosophy
and mission.
A request from a student can serve as a catalyst for scheduling
a review of a particular policy. It should not serve as a reason
for changing that policy.
It is not pedagogically sound for educational policies to be
institution-specific or country-specific, but it can be
pedagogically sound to waive a policy because of special
circumstances. For example: Your institution might develop a
special working relationship with one technical junior college
and within that relationship and based upon the additional
information provided through that relationship you might
waive a policy that applies to technical junior college
programs at other institutions.
A waiver of a policy should be based upon solid criteria. That
means it should be based upon information obtained by the
Page 6
policy-making institution and analyzed by it. It does not mean
relying upon policies made by other institutions.
It would be convenient for the student in question if you were
to change your policy quickly so he could get transfer of
credit and thus be able to graduate earlier and with a lesser
outlay of tuition and other expenses. However, he does have
the option of reaching that goal by transferring to another U.S.
institution that already has a policy more favorable to him
than he perceives your policy to be.
If this student was promised transfer of credit at the point of
admission, or if the transfer of credit decision was not
communicated to him then, or was communicated in a vague
or ambiguous way, then there might be a sound reason for
waiving this policy for this particular student. However, if the
decision to grant no transfer of credit was clearly
communicated to the student at the point of admission, the
student indicated his acceptance of the decision by enrolling.
Waiving a policy can have repercussions. Other students may
hear of it. Some faculty members and administrators will learn
of it. Waivers tend to be interpreted as precedents unless the
specific reasons for a waiver are spelled out clearly.
Changing your policy is an official act. A new policy should
be applicable to technical junior college or community college
programs at other institutions in Taiwan, in other countries,
and in the United States. It should be stated clearly so that it
can be uniformly applied by your administrators and
consistently explained to your applicants. If a new policy
incorporates exceptions (e.g., "except for a student who is
enrolling in a degree program in engineering" or "except for a
student who is enrolling in a degree program in liberal arts"),
these must be stated clearly as part of the policy.
R A P P U B L I C AT I O N S U P D AT E
This column provides an update of resources and new
publications for international educators.
International enrollment management (IEM) is a hot topic
these days in both international education and enrollment
management. Professionals are in need of resources to help
them create, evaluate, and advocate for strategic international
enrollment plans. International Enrollment Management:
Framing the Conversation, by Julie Sinclair, provides a
framework for these discussions about international
enrollment management.
http://www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/NAFSA_Home/
Resource_Library_Assets/Networks/MR/IEM%20White%
20Paper%202010%20-%20Sinclair.pdf
Colleges and universities looking for new resources about
Morocco will want to visit
http://www.ece.org/webfiles/morocco-final-3-2-10.pdf and
download MOROCCO: A Guide to Its Educational System
and Advice for the Admission and Placement of Students
Educated in Morocco, published with assistance from the
Pioneer Fund. The Pioneer Fund was established in 2003
with donations from individuals and agencies in the field of
international admissions in memory of colleagues in the field
of international admissions. The purpose was to solicit
proposals for research topics from knowledgeable
professionals in order to publish their findings to assist
colleagues who evaluate educational credentials from other
systems of education.
As the new admissions cycle begins, the following publications NAFSA‟s On-line Guide to Educational Systems Around the
(though not new) may be helpful for admissions counselors
World (http://www.nafsa.org/publication.sec/epublications/
and credential evaluators:
online_guide_to) now includes over 100 updates. Recent
additions include Afghanistan, Croatia, and Peru. Countries
will continue to be added as they are produced.
Evaluating Foreign Educational Credentials: An Introductory
Guide, an e-publication helps you make sense of foreign
Updates for the On-line Guide have been authored by
educational credentials, giving you a starting point for
EducationUSA advisors, admissions counselors, and
evaluations. Example documents are shown throughout.
credential evaluators. This valuable resource is available to all
Topics covered include: Overview of the U.S. Education
international educators, regardless of membership status in
System; Accreditation, Documentation Required for
NAFSA, or country of residence. Authors are needed to
Credential Evaluation; How to Research Foreign Educational
update the remaining countries. One need not be an expert,
Systems; Evaluation of Secondary School Credentials;
and collaborations are encouraged. If you would like to serve
Evaluation of Undergraduate Credentials; Evaluation of
as an author – or recommend a colleague – please contact
Graduate Credentials; Common Credential Types; Translating Susan Whipple, the project‟s editor, at
Credentials with Non-Western Alphabets; Translation
[email protected].
Glossary; and Non-Western Numbers,
http://www.nafsa.org/resourcelibrary/Default.aspx?id=20048
The Index of Secondary Credentials, published by the
International Education Research Foundation (IERF), is a
handy companion to The New Country Index, and serves as a
helpful reference tool for registrars and admissions officers in
the assessment and placement of international students.
This resource includes a listing of the names of secondary
credentials from nearly 200 educational systems, a collection
of sample documents from 35 countries, and an introductory
article on O and A Level qualifications. Please email
[email protected] to request a complimentary copy.
BE ON THE LOOKOUT…
The January/February International Educator
will feature an article on accreditation mills on
pages 32-42.
Page 7
A C C R E D I TAT I O N M I L L S
The Minefield of Accreditation / Deception by Design by ALLEN EZELL
Define Accreditation
What Is an Accreditation Mill (AM)
„Accreditation‟ has been defined many ways, including these
definitions from merriam-webster.com:
(1) to give official authorization to or approval of:
a: to provide with credentials;
b: to recognize or vouch for as confirming with a
standard;
c: to recognize (an educational institution) as
maintaining standards that qualify the graduates for
admission to higher or more specialized institutions
or for professional practice; and
(2) to consider or recognize as outstanding.
(3) And from glossary.com; the act of granting credit or
recognition especially with respect to educational
institution that maintains suitable standards...
I believe an Accreditation Mill (AM) is:
An organization not recognized by the U.S. Department
of Education or by CHEA which grants „accreditation‟
without requiring the purported college or university to
meet generally accepted standards for such
„accreditation‟;
It either receives fees from its so-called „accredited‟
institution on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentations,
or it makes it possible for the purported college or
university receiving such „accreditation‟ (or its
„graduates‟) to perpetrate a fraud on the public;
Has no rigid standards relating to academics or staff;
Has no procedures in place to measure level of
compliance or enforcement procedures;
Sometimes „accredits‟ schools without their knowledge;
Does not perform on-site inspections prior to granting
„accreditation‟ and
Only communicates by mail and telephone.
The underlying premise in these definitions is the conforming
to a standard, or series of standards, maintaining suitable
standards, and the granting of credit or recognition by a
nationally recognized professional association. Personally, I
like the definition which indicates the „accredited‟ entity is
„free from disease‟. I have not previously seen this definition,
and keeping in mind our subject matter, the entities are
certainly not „free from disease‟, and in fact can best be
described as being rotten to the core.
Benefits of Legitimate Accreditation
U.S. accreditation granted by a legitimate Council for Higher
Education Accreditation (CHEA) or Distance Education and
Training Council (DETC) recognized entity serves an
important role in modern education. Accreditation appears to
be a mid 20th Century American phenomenon. In lieu of a
Ministry of Education, this regional or national accreditation
indicates to a 3rd party that a disinterested outside body has
examined the school and its programs, made one or more site
visits, and determined the school meets its criteria and is
worthy of its “stamp of approval”.
Legitimate accreditation assures quality of the institution and
assists in the improvement of institutional programs. In
addition, accreditation makes the degrees „portable'.
Genuine accreditation assists potential students in their school
selection process, makes the credits transferable, and allows
the student to qualify for government loans and other student
aid. In essence, recognized accreditation makes the students
credits portable and assists employers in determining the
value they will give to the educational credentials presented.
Generally, a legitimate college or university will indicate its
accreditation on its web site and in its literature, matter-offactly; however, a Degree Mill (DM) will embellish their
claimed „accreditation‟ at length.
AM Oddities
Since the AM itself has no official recognition, it cannot
impart to others what it does not have itself. The AM offers
„fast‟ accreditation; permanent or „lifetime‟ accreditation (it
does not state whether this is for the „lifetime‟ of the AM or
the DM); has few, if any, standards published for its
accreditation; does not operate at arm's length with the
institutions it „accredits‟; frequently makes false statements
regarding its address, ownership, staff, length of time in
business, schools it „accredits‟, etc.; sells its „accreditation‟
for a flat up-front fee; sometimes uses addresses in
Washington, DC to imply a government affiliation or convey
a national image (example-Accreditation Governing
Commission (AGC-USA indicates “registered in Washington,
DC”)); may use name similar to legitimate entity (DETC vs.
USDETC or IDETC; COPA vs. COPRA or COCPA, etc.);
may pre-approve a school for accreditation – “for a limited
time only” (similar to the DM using the „impending tuition
increase‟ as a method of increasing enrollment); misleads or
defrauds „graduates‟ of institutions it accredits, and through
all the above, the AM makes it possible for „graduates‟ of its
„accredited‟ institutions to defraud third parties who rely on
these documents and purported accreditation.
Oddly, I have seen several Internet diploma mill universities
and high schools, such as Belford University (BU) and
Rochville University (RU) whose universities and subsidiary
high schools are „accredited‟ by the same organizations,
BOUA (Board of Online Universities Accreditation); IAAOU
(International Accreditation Agency for Online Universities);
WOEAC (World Online Education Accrediting Commission),
and UCOEA (Universal Council for Online Education
Page 8
(Continued from page 8)
Accreditation). Quite typically, IAAOU lists a toll free
telephone number but no address, while UCOEA lists a toll
free telephone number but also indicates they are located in
Missouri City, TX. Another commonality is hidden web
registration on these and other AMs. Not surprisingly,
Belford High School (BHS) encourages its „graduates‟ to
enroll in BU.
If the maze of legitimate accreditation is not confusing
enough to potential students, there are also legitimate nonprofit associations which support the spectrum of distance
education. We have observed instances where criminals have
hijacked the logos of both legitimate accreditors and
educational organizations, then displayed these logos on their
own web sites. Bircham International University (BIU)
displays the logos of about 15 of its accreditors and
associations to which it belongs to give the impression of its
legitimacy. BIU leans heavily on its accreditation by EQAC
(Educational Quality Accrediting Commission) and IARC
(International Accreditation Recognition Council).
RAP: Did you know?
RAP Mission Statement
The RAP KC is a dynamic community that provides leading-edge knowledge for international education professionals in recruiting, admissions, preparation and international enrollment management.
Six networks support RAP activities:
Special Focus Network: Bologna Process
As the Bologna Process moves forward, it will influence
student mobility around the world. This process does
not aim to harmonize national educational systems but
rather to provide tools to connect them. This Special
Focus Network provides information, resources, and
news about the various aspects of the Bologna Process.
What Role Do AMs Play?
Like DMs, AMs are cash cows. As DMs have no learning
facilities, on campus teaching, faculty, retirement nor
medical benefits, and primarily exist in cyberspace, thus they
are „cash cows‟; the same is true for AMs. In fact, many
times the AMs are operated by the same individuals who
operate the DM and also only exist in the virtual world and at
a private mail receiving facility.
AMs are a sales tool used by the DM to increase its
appearance of legitimacy – to sell the end product, the
diploma and transcript. AMs add the appearance of
legitimacy to a DM; they support the credibility of the
school. The AM verifies „accreditation‟ of the DM to
potential students and other end users; while many people
have read warnings about DMs, but few have ever heard
about AMs. Also, contributing to the general confusion
surrounding accreditation is the public‟s lack of knowledge
regarding the eight regional entities, set up geographically to
accredit colleges and universities in their respective regions.
Some people still believe legitimate U.S. accreditation is
government issued. Compounding this, numerous DMs even
exploit this confusion, by discussing accreditation, some
saying „Accreditation is very confusing…”. I certainly do not
think so – either you have it, or you do not.
As an investigator, I recall the old adage, “Where do you
hide an oak tree?” The answer, of course, is with other oak
trees so it will blend in. Some AMs use the tactic of listing
their name (and others) in a listing with that of legitimate
regional accreditors, thus giving the appearance that all these
entities are real and have value. The best examples of this are
the current web sites for BOUA (Board of Online
Universities Accreditation); UCOEA (Universal Council for
Online Education); and OEAC (World Online Education
Accrediting Commission) [a member of Higher Education
Accreditation Commission (HEAC)]. All of this contributes
Page 9
Admissions and Credential Evaluation Network
This network supports professionals, in an academic or
non-academic setting, who are responsible for the admission and placement of international students into
U.S. institutions of higher learning.
English Language Training & Administration
Network
Professionals who have responsibilities in the teaching
and/or management of programs that teach English to
speakers of other languages are served by this network.
Marketing and Recruiting Network
Professionals responsible for institutional recruitment,
promotional campaigns, budgeting, and implementation
of strategic marketing plans will find information pertaining to their work.
Overseas Educational Advising Network
Professionals employed within varying organizational
structures throughout the world will find resources here
to assist them in providing accurate, complete and unbiased information on the full range of educational opportunities in the United States.
Sponsored Program Administration Network
This network addresses the needs of administrators who
work in sponsoring agencies programming agencies,
universities, and other training provider institutions
across the United States and abroad.
to the overall confusion surrounding accreditation. The IAA
(International Accreditation Agency) even has three levels of
membership: recognition, initial, and full.
Probably the most visible AM is World Association of
Universities and Colleges (WAUC), founded in 1993 by its
operator Maxine Asher, a former public school teacher.
WAUC operates from a private mail facility in Henderson,
NV, and from her home in Brentwood, CA. Prior to this, in
1990 Asher founded American World University (located in
SD and MS), which was later „accredited‟ by WAUC. WAUC
accredits 21 schools, has 3 schools with accreditation in
progress, and has 26 member schools. The WAUC logo is
prominent on various web sites. Keep in mind „accreditation'
is offered without a site visit.
Some DM web sites actually post warnings to potential
students about degree acceptability, while AM sites warn
potential students to investigate the school. WAUC states,
“All complaints or concerns relative to the individual schools
must be directed to the schools themselves. It is the
responsibility of the prospective students to carefully
investigate a WAUC school before embarking upon a degree
program or course work.” What does this say about either the
school or the „accreditor‟? WAUC officials are basically
saying to the school or student, Caveat Emptor!
Harm Done by AMs
AMs confuse students and those who rely on this
„accreditation,‟ devalues legitimate accredited schools,
devalues legitimate accreditation, and defrauds students and
end users, particularly foreign students. Once again, the
overall lack of knowledge regarding accreditation makes
students and the public vulnerable to accreditation scams. Of
recent vintage are the „credential evaluation‟ entities, also
normally associated with one or more DMs. This credential
evaluation is touted by the DM as a means to have their
diploma determined to be „equivalent to a regionally
accredited degree‟, and this evaluation can then be used to
satisfy government requirements for an H1B Visa. I have
often mused, since there is no federal statute regarding AMs,
and only the States of Oregon and North Dakota have laws
governing AMs, who then „accredits the accreditor?‟ As you
can see, the answer is no one.
Value of Fraudulent Accreditation
The best example is the recent investigation and prosecution
of eight U.S. citizens (ring-leaders lived in the Spokane,
Washington area) for their operation of the St. Regis
University (SRU) empire. For background, from 1/1/99
through 10/5/05, SRU and its affiliates sold 10,815 degrees to
9,612 customers (included over 350 federal employees) in 131
countries, and grossed over $7,400,000. By far, customers in
the United States accounted for the majority of their business.
In addition, these fraudsters counterfeited 270 diplomas in the
names of 77 legitimate accredited colleges and universities in
the United States.
pales in comparison to the approximate $435,000,000
generated from 1998-2003 in the University Degree Program
(UDP) fraud, SRU stands alone in the corruption it wrought
on the Liberian Government and the number of government
officials who utilized their fraudulent diplomas in the Middle
East. Bribes were paid both here and abroad, fake SRU
faculty members were hired in Liberia, and within a three year
period, these fraudsters acquired a significant degree of
control over the Liberian Minister of Education and were
attempting to destroy the University of Liberia.
To support their network of fake colleges and universities,
high schools, credential evaluators, college placement
services, and credential evaluators, they even established a
fake web site for the Republic of Liberia in Washington, DC.
Thus, from the SRU web site, a potential student could verify
the legitimacy of SRU by a link to this fake embassy site. Of
course, SRU officials had already bribed an official at the
Liberian Embassy in Washington.
SRU subjects stated in recorded conversations with
undercover U.S. Secret Service Agents that they made
considerable money from documents and services used to
support their DMs. In fact, they established the Accrediting
Commission of The National Board of Education (NBOE),
Monrovia, Liberia, and issued certificates of accreditation.
This NBOE accreditation sold for $50,000 for a two year
period, with $20,000 annual renewal thereafter. Several
Internet DMs brandished this NBOE accreditation seal. Also
in support of their operation, they established the Official
Transcript Archive Center, 611 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.,
#211, Washington, DC, and used an aerial photograph of the
U.S. Capitol on their web site. Not surprisingly, this is the
address of a private mail facility (UPS Store). In addition,
SRU subjects also offered for sale turn-key DMs for $35,000,
offered to “help your school obtain government recognition
and many types of accreditation” and even offered to train
three of your staff as part of the package price.
All the largest DMs established AMs as part of their support
network: LaSalle University grossed $32,000,000 and utilized
Council on Post Secondary Christian Accreditation (COPCE)
(similar to COPA); Columbia State University, $1772,000,000, IAAUC (International Accreditation Association
of Universities and Colleges) and ACOPA (American Council
on Post-Secondary Accreditation); Hamilton University, et al,
$15,000,000, FION (Faith in the Order of Nature), and UDP
(University Degree Program) $535,000,000 utilized DLCE
(Distance Learning Council of Europe, ECDOL (European
Council for Distance & Open Learning), and ECHOE
(European Committee for Home and Online Education).
Normally this worthless accreditation or recognition is highly
touted in the school‟s literature, on its web site, and in its print
advertisements or pop-ups. In several advertisements, the
word “Accredited” appears in bold type at the beginning of
the advertisements so all will know what they are selling.
Recent Federal Legislation
The Higher Education Reauthorization Act of 2008 [HR
Although the gross revenues generated by the SRU fraud
Page 10
4137], incorporated into the College Opportunity and
Affordability Act of 2008 (1,100 pages), was signed into law
on 8/14/08, and gives us our first federal definition of a
Degree Mill (DM) as
benchmark of legitimacy for an educational institution and its
importance.
Support federal and state legislation to outlaw,
1.
“An entity that offers, for a fee, degrees, diplomas, or
certificates, that may be used to represent to the general
public that the individual possessing such a degree, diploma,
or certificate had completed a program of postsecondary
education or training; and requires such individual to
complete little or no education or coursework to obtain such
degree, diploma or certificate; and lacks accreditation by an
accrediting agency or association that is recognized as an
accrediting agency or association of institutions of higher
education (as such term is defined under Section 102) by the
Secretary pursuant to subpart I of part H of title IV; or federal
agency, state government, or other organization or
association that recognized accrediting agencies or
association.”
For the first time the academic community, the business
world, state regulators, and local, state, and federal law
enforcement have a definition of a diploma mill on which to
base further action. Regretfully, one year has passed and no
federal agency appears to have accepted this challenge to
march forward as the stand bearer. In fact, with the growth of
the Internet, there are more DMs and AMs today than ever
before. Additionally, this new statute does not specifically
address the issue of counterfeiting operations, thus it is
business as usual for the fraudsters.
DMs/AMs and Counterfeit Diploma and Transcript
Operations (CD&T) gross over one billion dollars each year,
regrettably with little interference from federal or state law
enforcement authorities. Prosecutions are rare in the area of
academic credential fraud. As Dr. George Gollin, Physics
Professor, University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign has said,
“the U.S. diploma mill industry probably „confers‟ more
degrees per year than all the universities in any single state
except for California and New York.” DMs are multinational
cartels, not mom-and-pop businesses printing documents in
the garage. DMs sell M.D. and engineering degrees, damage
higher education systems in the developing world, bribe
government officials, and sell visa-qualifying documents to
potential terrorists.
DMs today hide in the maze of online schools and distance
learning institutions. While some students will do their due
diligence regarding the school, very few (if any) investigate
the claimed „accreditor‟. DM sites normally exhibit a copy of
their accreditation certificate and provide a link to the AM
web site, thus giving credibility to the „accreditation‟.
What Can You Do About AMs?
Educate the public on exactly what accreditation is, and is not;
that it is not „government granted‟ but granted via USDE
recognized entities. Set forth the benefits of both regional
accreditation (considered the „gold standard‟) and by national
accreditation. Get the public to realize that accreditation is the
Page 11
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Operating a degree-issuing entity without proper legal
authority.
Using a diploma mill degree to obtain employment or
promotion.
Issuing accreditation without proper CHEA/USDE
recognition.
Claiming accreditation from an unrecognized accreditor.
When you observe a new DM or AM, take action.
Publicize this new entity as a deterrent to others.
Demand federal law enforcement designate just one or
two investigators to work academic fraud exclusively.
In the absence of any new federal or state legislation,
encourage federal and state authorities to take novel
approaches using existing statutes to combat this problem
of academic fraud.
Without Your Involvement, What Lies Ahead?
My colleagues and I foresee a progression for more state
oversight regarding DMs, a steady movement by states
towards greater restrictions on the use of unaccredited
degrees, possibly even groundbreaking state regulation
regarding both credential evaluators and accrediting entities,
possibly culminating in federal legislation.
We are certain the operators of these criminal enterprises will
use greater sophistication on their web sites, sales techniques,
in the production methods, and in their products themselves;
and will continue to hide their true origin and location; and to
project more of an international image. As we observed in the
SRU fraud, we believe these operators will continue to
establish their own accrediting entities to give the illusion of
legitimate accreditation and to align themselves with foreign
governments in order to give the illusion of „government
approval‟ and legitimacy. We are certain the criminals will
follow the market demand for fraudulent academic
credentials; like chameleons, they will constantly change
colors to blend in with their surroundings.
Allen Ezell is a retired FBI Agent, and holder of approximately 47 degrees
(including two MD's). He co-authored, Degree Mills with Dr. John Bear, and
authored for AACRAO the only books written on Accreditation Mills, then
Counterfeit Diplomas and Transcripts. He frequently makes presentations to
state and federal agencies, and at AACRAO meetings.
CANADA
Higher Education Accreditation in Canada (Part 1) by DAVE MARSHALL, PhD
This is the first of two articles on higher education
accreditation in Canada: the university (degree-granting)
system and the non-university/vocational/technical system.
Each of these articles is written for the non-Canadian reader
who wants to better understand how educational standards are
established and enforced in Canada.
This particular article addresses the university (degreegranting) accreditation process in Canada. Writing about a
national system of university accreditation in Canada should
be fairly easy.
There isn‟t one.
At least one that is formally called “accreditation.”
One of the reasons that Canada does not have a national
accreditation system is that Canada is perhaps one of the only
countries in the world with no federal department of education
(good riddance some of you will say!). When Canada was
established as a country over 140 years ago, the provincial
and federal jurisdictions divided up the various governmental
powers. The federal government took things like the military
and foreign affairs, and the provinces (there were only 4 at the
time) took control of education. So Canada is one of the few
countries in the world with very little federal or national
involvement in higher education. There are exceptions such as
the education of aboriginals, student aid, the military, and
some research and capital funding that remain federal
jurisdiction, but the fact that there are 10 provinces and 3
territories each with sole responsibility for post-secondary
policy helps explain why there has been little interest in any
national accreditation process for any part of education in
Canada.
However, explaining in a few words why, in the absence of a
national oversight body, the Canadian university system
hasn‟t degraded into chaos and confusion (maybe it has??)
isn‟t so simple. Explaining what exists in its place is equally
challenging.
A place to begin is to be reminded why accreditation systems
are needed. Accreditation systems have evolved in countries
where there is a fairly “open market” for the establishment of
universities and the delivery of university degrees. These
processes need to be put in place to ensure some adherence to
national standards and to provide some level of protection for
the consumer. In this regard, the terms “accountability,”
“quality assurance,” and “accreditation” are used
synonymously and for the same purpose. This “open market”
partially exists in Canada within the non-degree, private
technical/vocational/career college sector, where institutions
go bankrupt on occasion leaving students (often foreign
students) with padlocked doors, empty pocketbooks, and no
credential. The challenges of accreditation in this part of the
Canadian post-secondary system will be addressed in a
subsequent article.
Page 12
But this is not the case within the Canadian university system
or with Canadian degrees. Despite the absence of any formal,
national accreditation system, the international reputation of
Canadian universities and Canadian degrees is mostly
unchallenged. In other words, Canada or Canadian
universities, in general, have never felt the need to have an
external process to validate the quality of degrees for
domestic or international consumer protection.
This is not to say that the Canadian degree-granting
environment is without confusion. For example, there are over
200 degree-granting institutions in Canada today, but only 95
of them are “recognized” public universities. How do we
assess the degrees from the “other” 100 plus institutions that
offer degrees but are not universities? In the absence of a
national accrediting body, and in the apparent presence of
such degree-granting diversity, how can Canadian universities
(and Canadian degree granting in general) enjoy this
reputation for high standards and quality?
The following are some unique characteristics of the Canadian
higher education system in general, and the university degreegranting system specifically, that help put some order to this
confusion.
AUCC: There is, in fact, a national process that “accredits”
Canadian universities: the membership process for the AUCC
(Association of Universities and Colleges in Canada). The
association will deny that is an accrediting body, and some
provincial governments will do the same. But the
membership requirements for AUCC are not dissimilar to the
university accrediting factors in other places in the world. The
process is onerous, the criteria clear, and includes a three-day
site visit. And although some in the higher education
community in Canada don‟t like to admit it, membership in
AUCC is significant for an institution and its students since,
in the absence of any other process, it is treated as an
“accreditation.” For example, some universities will only
admit to graduate and professional programs those students
with baccalaureates from AUCC-member institutions. And
some donors (e.g. banks) have a different donation policy for
AUCC members than for all other post-secondary institutions.
So, at least for the current 95 members of AUCC, membership
ensures that an institution‟s degrees are recognized both
within and outside of Canada. Thus, while AUCC
membership is voluntary, it is fair to say that all degreegranting institutions in Canada would strive for membership,
and all but two public universities in Canada today are
members of AUCC.
However, the challenge remains to define and explain the
other “100 plus” degree-granting institutions.
Nomenclature: Canada has a relatively “binary” labeled postsecondary system: institutions called universities…and all of
the rest. There is no classification range such as the Carnegie
system in the U.S. The label “university” is very strictly
controlled in Canada and can only be used by a provincial
government-approved institution, either public or private. The
label “college” is given to most other types of post-secondary
institutions, both to those that do not offer university
credentials, and to the other 100 plus institutions that are not
universities but offer degrees. This 100 plus includes a mix of
(community) colleges that are allowed to offer “applied”
degrees, theological institutions that are approved for divinity/
theological degrees only, and faith-based university colleges
that offer both secular and theological degrees. For example,
what is called a four-year liberal arts college in the U.S.
would be a called a university in Canada. An institution in
Canada that delivers technical, vocational, and career-focused
programming would be called a college. Recently, the label
“polytechnic” has crept into the Canadian post-secondary
lexicon, but they are not universities and will be part of the
discussion in a subsequent article on the “non-university”
post-secondary system in Canada.
Both the use of the label “university” and degree granting in
general are very government controlled in Canada.
Public vs. Private: In addition to the nomenclature, another
unique characteristic of the Canadian university system is that
it is, to all intents and purposes, a public system. While there
are several categories of private universities (faith based,
secular, not for profit, profit), they are very small in number
and enrollment and do not operate in all provinces. In
addition, there are a number of private foreign universities
operating branch campuses in Canada, but like the other
private universities in Canada, the enrollment levels are very
small, and not all provinces will approve the operation of
foreign universities.
Private for-profit institutions are not eligible for membership
in AUCC, and some of the not-for-profit, faith-based
institutions can‟t meet the AUCC membership requirements
(size and academic freedom are two of the membership
challenges for these institutions).
However, with very few private universities, and with such
strict provincial legislative control over their establishment
and operation, there hasn‟t been much of a need for a national
accreditation process to provide consumer protection from
unfettered commercialization or privatization of degree
granting in Canada.
The Degree of Institutional Differentiation: While all carrying
the same label, Canada‟s 95 universities are very
differentiated in size and scope. There are universities with
student bodies from 1000 to 60,000 students. Some have a
high proportion of students in graduate programs while many
have less than 5% of students in graduate programs, and some
have no graduate programs. Some are urban focused and
others very geographically isolated. But despite the wide
differentiation of Canadian universities, they all operate
within the membership requirements of AUCC: programs,
faculty qualifications, facilities and governance.
Consequently, perhaps due to the AUCC membership
requirements and despite the differences in size and scope,
public Canadian universities operate in relatively homogenous
fashion.
Professional and Licensing Associations: Many Canadian
university programs have curricula and conditions that are
mandated by national professional associations. Interior
design, engineering, architecture, nursing, and teacher
education are a few examples. Some actually do formal
“accreditations” of university degree programs and the
institution that delivers the degree. But even where there is no
formal accreditation process, many of the professions exert
pressure in other ways to ensure that there are degree program
standards for students entering their professions and the
institution has the appropriate conditions to offer the degree.
For example, in some provinces, at some institutions, a
student can‟t enter a post-degree B.Ed. without a degree from
an AUCC-member institution. In addition, there are a number
of licensing requirements at both the provincial and federal
levels that stipulate program content and perform programaccrediting functions. For example, an institution could offer
an engineering degree, but unless the degree is “accredited”
by the national engineering accrediting body, the graduates
could not operate as professional engineers in Canada.
Consequently, almost all professional (and some academic)
degrees in Canada are regulated by either a professional or a
licensing body, ensuring standards of operation and curricula
across the country.
Research Councils: Another homogenizing factor for
Canadian public universities is the operation of the federal
research granting agencies. Canada has three main research
granting agencies that provide most of the competitively
based research funds for Canadian university faculty. These
agencies require certain institutional conditions to be in place
before institutions, and consequently their faculty, are eligible
for these research grants. So in their own way, the research
councils contribute to the homogenization and “accreditation”
of universities in Canada.
Establishing New Universities: One of the reasons for
accrediting systems in other jurisdictions is the need to review
and accredit new universities. This is particularly important
where there is an environment that allows the establishment of
private universities. I have already described how Canada is
essentially a public system. Similarly, establishing a national
accrediting process for new universities would be something
of a waste in Canada since new universities are not
established very often and are done solely at provincial whim.
In fact from 1966 to 2007, there were only 6 new public
universities established in Canada, and most of those were
university colleges that subsequently had their name changed
to university. Over the past couple of years, there has been
something of a flurry of new universities established across
the country; 5 in B.C., 2 in Alberta and one in Ontario. All are
transformations rather than “greenfield” initiatives, and all
Page 13
have gone through the provincial level program and degree
approval processes. And all but 2 are members of AUCC.
So the new university business in Canada doesn‟t warrant a
national accreditation process.
Program Accreditation vs. Institutional Accreditation: While
there aren‟t readily recognizable provincial processes for
institutional accreditation and recognition, almost every
province has a process in place to ensure program/degree level
quality. For example, in Ontario, the PEQAB (Post-Secondary
Education Quality Assessment Board) assesses degree
applications from foreign universities and the (community)
college sector. Alberta has its own CAQC (Campus Alberta
Quality Council) that reviews all new degrees offered by
universities. B.C. has the DQAB (Degree Quality Assessment
Board). Quebec has the CVEP (Program Evaluation Review
Committee). And the Maritime Provinces have the MPHEC
(Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission). In
general, all provinces have some sort of formal quality
assessment process for ensuring degree quality. In addition,
the provinces have worked together under the leadership of
the CMEC (Council of Ministers of Education in Canada) to
establish a degree-outcomes framework for all levels of
university degrees, and all provinces have signed an accord
that ensures that any degree offered in Canada will conform to
these outcome standards.
Consequently, while not necessarily institution accreditation,
there are formal processes to ensure degree recognition/
quality in every province in Canada. This approval process is
very important for those 100 or so degree-granting institutions
that are not universities or members of AUCC, since these
provincial quality assessment processes should assist degree
recognition beyond provincial borders.
Summary and Discussion
There certainly have been calls in Canada over the past few
years for the establishment of some sort of national
accrediting body for Canadian universities and degreegranting institutions. These calls have mostly been from two
sources, both unhappy with AUCC acting as the “defacto”
university accreditation in Canada. These concerns hinge on
the very controversial notion that degrees from the 100 plus
non-AUCC institutions are not as readily recognized as those
from AUCC-member institutions. And there is some evidence
to this fact.
One source of concern is from provincial governments that
resist a “membership” organization like AUCC overriding in
any way a provincial decision to designate an institution a
university, or to approve the offering of a degree. That is,
provincial governments would insist that their approval or
quality assessment of a degree should be good enough for
recognition, and AUCC membership of the institutions should
not make any difference to degree recognition.
The other source of concern is from institutions that can‟t
meet the AUCC criteria and believe that some other type of
accreditation body would provide the “recognition” needed to
ensure that their degrees would be readily accepted both
within Canada and abroad. These institutions are the 100 or so
non-university institutions mentioned at the start of this article
that offer degrees but are not universities or not a member of
AUCC.
However, despite these concerns, there does not appear to be
any urgency to establish a new, national accreditation process
for either universities or degrees in Canada.
Firstly, in the absence of a national accreditation process,
Canada has established a very high quality, well regarded,
university system.
Secondly, there is some recognition that if a university
accreditation system was developed, the accrediting
criteria would not likely look much different than those
used by AUCC today. So most institutions are content to
let AUCC be the proxy for university “accreditation” in
Canada.
Thirdly, at the current time in Canada, there doesn‟t seem
to be much of a need for initial institutional accreditation.
New universities aren‟t established very often. And there
are only 2 public institutions in Canada today that are
called universities and are not members of AUCC.
Fourth, the numbers involved need to be put into
perspective. There are over 1 million students enrolled in
over 10,000 degree programs in Canada. While there
appear to be a large number (100 plus) of non-university
degree-granting institutions, and there are concerns about
the recognition of these degrees, the numbers of students
involved are small, representing perhaps less than 5% of
all of the degree enrollments in Canada. For example the
total enrollment in all applied degrees offered by
Ontario‟s (Community) colleges would only be around
4000. There are only a few private secular universities,
and their total enrollment might be less than 1000. Even
foreign universities well established in their home
countries enroll very few students in Canada. And the
divinity/theological degrees are more concerned with
recognition with their U.S. counterparts than with the
mainstream Canadian university system.
In summary, for the rest of the world looking for a good
university, they can‟t go wrong with any Canadian university.
But if they are looking for an accreditation process in Canada
that assures a certain set of institutional characteristics in a
university, at this time in Canada only the AUCC membership
list appears to represent the list of “recognized” universities in
Canada. These institutions represent almost all of the degrees
offered in Canada, and degrees from these institutions are the
only ones automatically recognized everywhere in Canada and
abroad.
For those looking for information about degree recognition/
accreditation outside of the AUCC-member universities, the
challenge is greater and requires checking the quality
Page 14
assessment processes and recognized degree list in each
province. This does not mean that the degrees from the other
100 or so non-university (non-AUCC) institutions are not
appropriately assessed, approved, of high quality and
potentially recognized across Canada and beyond. But it does
mean that in many instances, in the absence of a national
process, these degrees are examined on an individual basis.
Finally, perhaps the Canadian system of accreditation is better
understood by shifting the concern from university or
institutional “accreditation” to credential or degree
“recognition” and quality assessment. After all, the concern of
a student should not be the status of the institution they attend
(unless “reputation” is a deciding factor), but rather the status
of the credential that they receive. And Canada has a robust
system of degree quality assessment, whether the institution is
a recognized university or a non-university offering a degree.
There, that was easy…..eh??
Dave Marshall, PhD
President, Mount Royal University
References:
Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials
(CICIC) http://www.cicic.ca
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC)
http://www.AUCC.ca
MARSHALL, D.G. (2004). “Access to Degrees in the
Knowledge Economy.” Options Politiques, August, pp. 7682.
MARSHALL, D.G. (2004). “Degree Accreditation in
Canada.” The Canadian Journal of Higher Education,
Volume XXXIV, No. 2, pages 69-96.
MARSHALL, D.G. (2005). “What‟s It Worth? The Tiering
of Canadian Degrees.” Education Canada, Volume 46, No. 1,
pages 55-57.
MARSHALL, D.G. (2008). “Differentiation by Degrees:
System Design and the Changing Undergraduate Environment
in Canada.” The Canadian Journal of Higher Education,
Volume 38, No. 3, pages 1-20.
.
Page 15
MEDICAL EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN:
Accreditation and Quality Issues by LORNA PARKINS
Introduction
The Caribbean region encompasses that area between the
United States and Canada to the north, Colombia and
Venezuela to the south, and Central America to the west. To
the east is the Atlantic and Africa, a major player in our
historical past. Historically, the English-speaking territories
are linked to Britain, but due to geographic proximity, are
influenced greatly by events in North America. As a result,
the Caribbean is a cultural and ethnic melting pot of
Europeans, Africans, East Indians and indigenous people.
Background to the development of medical education and
medical education accreditation in the Caribbean.
Medical education in the Anglophone Caribbean began with
thirty three (33) students in 1948 at the foundation of the
University College of the West Indies (UCWI), at the Mona
Campus in Jamaica. The UCWI was then a constituent part of
the University of London and remained so until 1962 when it
sought independence from London. What became the
University of the West Indies (UWI) was constituted and
founded by a Royal Charter as a full degree-granting
university in that year.
Despite the positioning of the campus in Jamaica, the
University was conceived as a regional body from the outset
to serve the needs of the English-speaking Caribbean peoples.
Over time, the University has expanded with the
establishment of two other full campuses in Trinidad and
Barbados which now also offer the full five-year medical
education program. Since 1997 clinical training has been
offered in the Bahamas in order to cope with the increased
intake of students. Students sit a common final examination
with the examiners moving across the campuses to ensure
uniformity of standards.
Since 1948 there have been over 6,000 medical graduates
from the University of the West Indies (UWI) who continue to
contribute to the region and beyond making a name for
themselves and their alma mater.
From its inception and even after full university status was
achieved in 1962, the medical education program of the UWI
was accredited by the General Medical Council (GMC) of the
UK. This gave national, regional, and international
recognition to UWI graduates who were able to register freely
in the UK and other Commonwealth countries. This practice
continued over the years, as various changes took place in
medical education at the University of the West Indies (UWI).
The GMC discontinued the practice of accrediting all overseas
institutions in 2001.
Over the last thirty years, there has been significant change
and growth in medical education in the Caribbean region. In
1969, the University of Suriname established its medical
school, and in 1985, the University of Guyana also established
Page 16
a medical school. Prior to the establishment of the Caribbean
Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and Other
Health Professions (CAAM-HP), this medical school had not
undergone an accreditation exercise.
As part of its Medical Sciences program, the UWI established
schools in Dentistry and Veterinary Science at Mount Hope in
Trinidad in 1989; since then, other „offshore‟ schools of
Dental and Veterinary Medicine have been established in the
region.
In addition to the traditional schools, there has been an influx
of for-profit offshore medical schools of varying size and
reputed quality aimed primarily at students from the United
States. The first of these schools, St. George‟s University
School of Medicine, was established on the island of Grenada
in 1977, and over the years has been evaluated by a number of
state agencies in the US and by the CAAM-HP.
Next was Ross University School of Medicine on the island of
Dominica in 1978; over the years it has been accredited by
Dominica Medical Board and more recently by the CAAMHP.
According to the International Medical Education Directory
(IMED), there are over 30 such schools in the Englishspeaking Caribbean today. Researchers from the Foundation
for Advancement of International Medical Education and
Research (FAIMER), in an overview of the world‟s medical
schools in 2007, reported that this region has a higher density
of medical schools per capita – with 1.42 medical schools per
1 million inhabitants – than any other region of the world. In
contrast, Western Europe has 0.60 and North America has
0.50 medical schools per 1 million inhabitants.
The region, therefore, has three different types of medical
schools: the regional university (UWI), national universities
(University of Guyana and the University of Suriname), and
the offshore, for-profit schools.
Issues
Against the background of the foregoing developments, the
following issues of quality, scale of operation, student
populations, and oversight mechanisms have become
increasingly important in the Caribbean and elsewhere:
The tendency on the part of persons external to the region
to lump together Caribbean medical schools with no
distinction being made regarding the length of time of
operation, missions, admission requirements, variability
in training programs, and the performance of students.
Lack of sufficient resources for clinical training where
these schools are established.
Accreditation is voluntary, hence some schools in the
region have never undergone a formal accreditation
process by an external review body.
Lack of appreciation for the value of the system.
Encouragement by governments to establish medical
schools aimed primarily at international students due to
the institutions‟ potential contribution to the islands‟
economic development and provision of scholarships to
local students.
In some countries the initial granting of a charter is the
only requirement for operation.
Variation in quality-control oversight measures by an
external body, a rigorous review process, transparency of
the process, and standards used in the region.
Absence of regionally or internationally accepted
accreditation procedures in some countries.
Achieving reliable accreditation in countries with only
one or a few medical schools and without independent
experts, is particularly difficult.
Establishment of the Caribbean Accreditation Authority
for Education in Medicine and Other Health Professions
(CAAM-HP)
In response to these developments and the regional thrust to
ensure quality education and training in the context of the
Caribbean Community‟s (CARICOM) Single Market and
Economy (CSME), a regional accreditation system, The
Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine
and Other Health Professions (CAAM-HP), was established
under the aegis of CARICOM in July 2004.
The purpose of this body is the accreditation of undergraduate
programs leading to qualifications in medicine, dentistry,
veterinary medicine, and the other health professions offered
in member states of the Caribbean Community. By judging
the compliance of medical education programs with national
and internationally accepted standards of educational quality,
CAAM-HP serves the interests of the general public in the
Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the interest of the
students enrolled in the programs of the schools.
CARICOM is a political and economic affiliation of 15
member countries and includes Antigua and Barbuda, The
Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana,
Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St.
Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Trinidad and
Tobago. Associate members include Anguilla, British Virgin
Islands, Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
Objectives
The objectives of the CAAM-HP are:
To achieve and maintain standards of excellence,
To establish an efficient system of regulation in relation
Page 17
to the standards and quality,
To secure international recognition, and
To maintain confidence in the quality of medical and
other health professions training offered in the region.
What Is Accreditation
For the CAAM-HP, accreditation is a peer review process of
quality assurance based on standards for process and
outcomes; it addresses functions, structure, and performance
and is designed to foster improvements in institutions and
programs. The process is applied to both new and established
educational programs.
Accreditation Process
The accreditation process adopted by the Caribbean
Health Professions uses established criteria, standards, and
processes. The standards deal with the following areas:
The Institutional Setting
The Students
Education Programs
The Faculty
Educational Resources
Internship
Continuing Professional Education
Compilation of these standards took into account the
circumstances within the region as well as the standards of
the General Medical Council of Great Britain (GMC) and
those of the Liaison Committee on Medical Education
(LCME) of the United States and Canada. The following are
the general aims of the accreditation process:
To certify that a medical education program meets
the prescribed standards, of structure, function and
performance
To promote institutional self-evaluation and
improvement
To assure society and the medical profession that
graduates of accredited schools meet the educational
requirements for further training and the health care
needs of the people of the Caribbean
The standards are therefore written to assure governments,
students and the public that graduates of medical schools in
CARICOM countries have attained educational standards that
allow them to adapt to practice anywhere in the world.
However, when seeking to practice in CARICOM countries,
graduate doctors must also meet the standards for independent
practice in these countries. These are reflected in the
standards for Internship and meeting the equivalent levels of
knowledge and clinical competencies determined by the
regional registration body, the Caribbean Association of
Medical Councils (CAMC). Essentially, accreditation asks
the following questions:
What are the objectives of the medical education
program?
Has the institution organized its program and
resources to accomplish these objectives?
What is the evidence that the school is accomplishing
its objectives?
The CAAM-HP process is characterized by an Institutional
Self Study (self analysis) by the school, an on-site review by a
team of surveyors (external reviewers) and a review of the
survey team‟s written report by the CAAM-HP, which forms
the basis of the determination of a program‟s accreditation
status.
Institutional Self Study
The Institutional Self-Study is central to the accreditation
process and is built around standards for accreditation. In the
Self-Study, a medical school brings together representatives
of the administration, academic staff, student body, and other
stakeholders to:
Collect and review data about the medical school and its
educational programs,
Identify institutional strengths and issues requiring action,
and
Define strategies to ensure that the strengths are
maintained and any problems addressed.
Site Visit
The CAAM-HP Secretariat recruits and trains an ad hoc team
of four to six surveyors from the Caribbean, North America,
and Europe comprising basic science and clinical educators
from its pool of experienced and knowledgeable medical
educators. The team assesses how well the medical education
program at the assigned school complies with the
accreditation standards. In order to accomplish its
responsibility, the team, headed by a Chair and served by a
team secretary, makes on-site observations to corroborate and
evaluate data provided by the institution.
During the visit the team meets with those persons or groups
needed to obtain or verify necessary information, including
faculty, students and administrators. Meetings with
representatives of the student body take place at informal
luncheon sessions to discuss student issues and perspectives.
At the end of the visit, the team gives a confidential oral
summation of its findings and conclusions to the dean and to
the university‟s chief executive.
Report Development and Review
These findings and conclusions are incorporated into a written
report which is sent to the CAAM-HP Secretariat, which in
turn sends it to the dean who is asked to correct any errors of
fact and discuss any disagreement with the tone or
conclusions of the report with the team secretary. The team
secretary will bring the matter to the team chair. On receipt of
the final report by the Secretariat, it is sent to CAAM-HP
members for review prior to its next meeting.
CAAM-HP Action
When the CAAM-HP meets, it considers and discusses the
content of the survey report and makes a decision about the
accreditation status of the medical education program. The
school is notified by letter to which the final report is
attached, from the Secretariat to the vice chancellor/president
of the university with a copy to the dean of the medical
school. Governments of the region are also advised via a
letter from the Secretariat to the Secretary-General of the
Caribbean Community.
The accreditation status determined by the CAAM-HP is
considered public information; however, the survey report and
its findings remain confidential but may be published by the
school as it deems appropriate.
Full accreditation is awarded or renewed when a school‟s
medical education program is deemed to have met the CAAM
-HP‟s standards. To date, the CAAM-HP has carried out
accreditation exercises at the University of the West Indies
(medical and veterinary education programs), the University
of Guyana, St. George‟s University, and Ross University, in
addition to evaluation of proposals for the establishment of
new, for-profit schools in the region.
Impacts and Outcomes
The summary report resulting from the Self-Study process
provides an evaluation of the quality of the medical education
program and the adequacy of resources that support it. The
report identifies the school‟s strengths, weaknesses, and issues
which require attention either to ensure compliance with
accreditation standards or to improve institutional/program
quality.
In addition, the Self-Study process includes an independent
evaluation by the medical students. Accrediting teams pay
special attention to the perceptions of students about their
experiences in medical school. They provide a unique
perspective on the environment for teaching and learning, the
quality of the educational program, and the availability of
support services. By participating in the accreditation
process, students contribute to validating or improving their
school‟s educational program and ensure that legacy for their
successors.
The usefulness of the Self-Study as a guide for planning and
change is enhanced when participation is broad and
Page 18
representative, and the resulting analysis and conclusions are
widely disseminated. Because of the time and resources
required to conduct a Self-Study, medical schools are advised
to give careful thought to other purposes that may be served
by the process such as serving as a vehicle to reaffirm the
school's mission and goals or set new strategic directions.
Weaknesses/deficiencies identified by the schools themselves
in the Institutional Self-Study and later corroborated by the
survey team are pointed out by the CAAM-HP in its
communication to the schools as having been deemed to be
either non-compliant or partially compliant with the standards.
Schools are required to submit reports to the CAAM-HP on
the progress being made in addressing areas of weaknesses/
deficiencies. In addition, schools are monitored on a regular
basis through submission to the CAAM-HP of an Annual
Medical School Questionnaire (AMSQ) which provides
information on any significant changes to staffing, student
numbers, student financing, examination results and progress
of students, institution‟s financial resources, publications by
staff and placement of interns.
International Recognition/Affiliations
The CAAM-HP has the responsibility to establish affiliations
and secure international recognition. Furthermore, the
increasing international interest in assuring and recognizing
quality in medical education has called for a number of
initiatives including establishment of international
partnerships, collaboration in forums and conventions, and
publication of information on the accreditation status of
medical schools aimed at fostering quality improvement of
medical education as all schools strive for inclusion.
To this end, a partnership has been forged with the World
Federation of Medical Education (WFME), the global
organization dedicated to enhancing the quality of education
and training of medical doctors worldwide. The WFME‟s
overall goal is to strive for the highest scientific and ethical
standards in medical education, taking initiatives with respect
to new methods and new tools and management of medical
education. Specifically, the WFME is involved in performing
an assessment of the accrediting organization's standards and
procedures. So far, the CAAM-HP has included a WFME
advisor as an external reviewer on one of its site visit teams.
With assistance from the Educational Commission for Foreign
Medical Graduates (ECFMG), CAAM-HP and the WFME
successfully hosted an Invitational Conference on
Accreditation of Medical Education Programs in the
Caribbean in Jamaica in 2007. The conference brought
together 80 leading regional and international experts from
more than 20 organizations, institutions and governments
from the Caribbean, South America, North America, and
Europe. The purposes of the conference were to reflect on the
process of accreditation as it is conducted regionally and
worldwide and to examine efficient and effective options for
maintaining and improving established accreditation systems
such as the CAAM-HP.
This forum presented a unique opportunity for participants
from outside the Caribbean to enhance their understanding of
the complexity of the issues in the region. It also stimulated
an increased recognition of the value of accreditation for
schools in the Caribbean as well as thought and discussion
from delegates on how they could collaborate with or act as a
resource to the CAAM-HP. It was also noted that CAAM-HP
can serve as a model for other regional initiatives.
Through full membership with organizations such as the
International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in
Higher Education (INQAAHE), the Caribbean Area Network
for Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education (CANQATE),
and participation (by invitation) in meetings of the Federation
of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and Administrators in
Medicine (AIM) and the Educational Commission for Foreign
Medical Graduates (ECFMG), CAAM-HP has achieved
international recognition and global dissemination.
Furthermore, in January 2008, the UK government gave
formal recognition to the CAAM-HP as the authority
responsible for the accreditation of new and developing
medical schools for the British Overseas Territories located in
the Caribbean. The UK government will only endorse a new
school for listing in the WHO World Directory of Medical
Schools and/or the International Medical Education Directory
(IMED) when the CAAM-HP has issued provisional
accreditation. Local legislation to give effect to this decision
has been enacted in Anguilla and Montserrat.
Journal Publication
A manuscript titled, Accreditation of Undergraduate Medical
Education in the Caribbean: Report on the Caribbean
Health Professions, and co-authored by staff from the WFME,
ECFMG and CAAM-HP was published in the June 2009
issue of Academic Medicine.
Conclusion
The medical schools which have voluntarily undergone the
accreditation process have reported that the task of compiling
information and carrying out a critical and comparative
analysis has been extremely useful. The highly structured
nature of the required processes necessitated a very detailed
review of all aspects of the functioning of the medical schools
exceeding that which accompanies internal reviews. Faculty
members have become more aware of how data should be
stored, sorted and requested in the future to allow for retrieval
of accurate information in a timely and efficient manner.
Generally speaking, the schools have also acknowledged the
importance of regular accreditation for quality assurance and
the maintenance of international standing. In both the shortand long-term, the accreditation exercise serves to improve
the educational program and the quality of the graduates of
the respective programs.
Page 19
Overall, the cyclical process of institutional self-study and
assessment, coupled with external validation by a team of
professional peers, provides a mechanism for on-going quality
improvement. That quality assurance focus is closely linked
to licensing requirements for medical practice and access to
postgraduate education.
We feel that the development and implementation of an
oversight body such as CAAM-HP is a step forward in
increasing the quality of medical education, especially in a
region such as the Caribbean, which has a large number of
training programs that vary substantially across numerous
criteria, including admission standards, size of program and
facilities, available resources, medical science curriculum and
clinical training opportunities. In the light of the challenges
inherent in promoting and implementing an accreditation
process we look forward to further development in this area as
efforts are made to implement a system of encouraging
excellence in medical education in the CARICOM region.
Lorna Parkins, Executive Director, CAAM-HP
Page 20
ACCREDITATION AND MUTUAL RECOGNITION IN EUROPE
By DR. MARK FREDERIKS (Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie (NVAO); ECA Coordinator)
Accreditation systems in Europe are different from American
accreditation in a number of ways:
1. Accreditation is a relatively new phenomenon in many
European countries. Most accreditation systems (with the
exception of some Eastern European countries) started
after the signing of the Bologna declaration in 1999.
Since the late 1980s, there were external quality
assurance systems in place in some countries, e.g. in
France, the Netherlands, and the UK. In the 1990s, an
increasing number of countries introduced external
quality assurance in higher education. Government
policies changed from control of institutions to more
institutional autonomy in exchange for becoming
accountable through external quality assurance. These
systems were known under different names, such as
evaluation, quality assessment, and audit. Many of these
systems included program reviews but some also focused
on institutional reviews. There were commonalities such
as self-evaluations and site visits, but there was a wide
variety in national systems.
2. Due to these different national origins, accreditation
systems in Europe are also diverse. Some accreditation
and accreditation-like procedures are still nationally
known under other names (e.g. audit or assessment). To
distinguish accreditation and accreditation-like practices
from other quality assurance procedures, we use the
following definition of accreditation: A formal and
independent decision indicating that a program and/or an
institution meets certain predefined quality standards.
3. Another major difference between U.S. and European
accreditation is that the latter is usually not “owned” by
the institutions or professions. There are only few
exceptions, most notably in the UK (professional
accreditation) and in some disciplines, where a number of
European institutions have started accreditation services.
In most cases, accreditation agencies are independent
public bodies created by the government. As a
consequence, in most European countries there is only
one national agency. Furthermore, accountability
requirements set by the government are a given.
Although there can be tensions between accountability
and quality improvement goals, the debate between
government and accreditors on this issue is by no means
as fierce as in the USA.
It is important to keep these differences in mind when viewing
the impact Bologna has made on accreditation and the aim for
mutual recognition – the focus of this article – in particular.
The Bologna declaration was signed in June 1999 by the
ministers of 27 countries and regions and marked the
beginning of restructuring of higher education in Europe. The
Bologna declaration has to be viewed as a political response
to the appeal made by the ministers of Higher Education of
France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy in 1998, on the
occasion of the 800th anniversary of the Sorbonne in Paris.
Page 21
The appeal from the four ministers consisted of a conclusion
on one hand that “Europe” was in danger of losing the
connection with higher education in the United States and
parts of Asia; on the other hand, it consists of an invitation to
bring the variety of European education systems into line in
order to enable Europe to develop into one Higher Education
arena. Both the Sorbonne declaration and the Bologna
declaration clearly stated that this development should not
have any adverse effects on the cultural diversity that
characterizes Europe and is one of its trump cards in a
globalizing society. „Bologna‟ is a powerful response. The
fact that the Bologna declaration is not a treaty but a series of
ministerial agreements between countries, a number of which
are not member states of the EU, makes this process even
more remarkable.
Comparability of the quality of study programs is a
prerequisite for the implementation of the Bologna process
and for the mobility of students and staff. The need for close
co-operation of quality assurance agencies and acceptance of
national quality assurance systems has been emphasized by
the ministers responsible for higher education in Europe since
2001. In the Bergen Communiqué of 2005, the Ministers
underlined “the importance of co-operation between
nationally recognized agencies with a view to enhancing the
mutual recognition of accreditation or quality assurance
decisions.”
Against this background, European national accreditation
organizations work together in the European Consortium for
Accreditation (ECA) in higher education with the primary aim
to achieve mutual recognition of accreditation decisions
among members. By January 2010, ECA has 17 members
from 11 countries: Austria, Denmark, Flanders, France,
Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, and
Switzerland. ECA is an affiliated body of the European
Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
(ENQA). All quality assurance agencies in the now 46
Bologna signatory states can apply for ENQA membership.
The objectives and activities of the ECA project are in line
with the ministerial communiqués of the Bologna process and
with the recommendation of the European Parliament and the
Council of the European Union. ECA members believe that
mutual recognition of accreditation or quality assurance
decisions can substantially reduce existing barriers in the
recognition of qualifications and thereby enhance academic
and professional mobility in Europe. Moreover, mutual
recognition of accreditation decisions would prevent the need
for joint programs and joint degrees to be accredited in each
of the participating countries.
Mutual trust among accreditation organizations is an
indispensable element and the basis for mutual recognition
agreements. ECA members decided that the envisioned trust
should be built up step-by-step and should be based on
information exchange, commonly agreed tools and
instruments, co-operation projects, and external reviews of
members. This confidence shall enable the participating
agencies to accept the accreditation results and decisions of
other ECA members as equivalent to their own.
The approach to mutual recognition had to be invented from
scratch. It involved many working papers and discussions in
ECA working groups and workshops. It started with surveys
of the structure of the accreditation organizations, the
procedures ECA members were carrying out, and a broad
outline of the standards and criteria they employed. This led
to the conviction that, in spite of the differences, the
organizations had enough in common to continue their
journey. Gradually, a road map toward mutual recognition
was carved out. As an evaluation by the end of 2004 showed,
it was this clear timetable with expected results, as well as the
benefits of a not too large and not too diverse group of
agencies, that was crucial for success.
A first milestone on the road map was the Code of Good
Practice that set 17 standards which ECA members agreed to
implement in 2006 and to be externally reviewed against in
2007. This Code of Good Practice was signed in December
2004, before the finalization of the ENQA European
Standards and Guidelines, and its subsequent adoption by the
Ministers in Bergen in May 2005. It was no coincidence that
the Code of Good Practice mostly overlapped with the
European Standards and Guidelines for external quality
assurance agencies. In September 2005, the ENQA Board
acknowledged the correspondence between the European
standards for external quality assurance agencies and the ECA
Code of Good Practice. The implication was that the external
reviews of agencies could combine evaluations against both
set of standards.
A second milestone was the agreement on Principles for the
selection of experts in June 2005. These Principles still
constitute a unique European agreement on selection
procedures and composition of expert panels. It may well
pave the way for possible future developments like a
European training program and a pool of experts.
In 2005, representatives of ENIC/NARICs in the ECA
countries started to join ECA meetings. ENIC/NARIC is a
Council of Europe group that develops policy and practice for
the recognition of qualifications. This co-operation was quite
important because it brought the connection between the
recognition of accreditation decisions and the recognition of
qualifications to the fore. It resulted in a new milestone,
namely a Joint Declaration which was signed by both
accreditation organizations and ENIC/NARICs. In 2006, six
countries were signatories of this agreement which promotes
an almost “automatic” recognition of qualifications based on
mutual recognition of accreditation decisions.
An intermediate step toward mutual recognition was taken in
2006, when ECA members agreed to consider the respective
accreditation tools and instruments as compatible and free of
Page 22
substantial differences. This was put to the test in 2005, 2006,
and especially in 2007, when many co-operation activities
between ECA members proved that accreditation procedures,
standards, and results were free of significant differences.
The reports of these comparisons and mutual observations
were accessible to everyone in ECA, and they were also
discussed in several ECA meetings. It goes without saying
that these practical experiences made a large contribution to
the eventual signing of mutual recognition agreements. Many
agencies took the availability of a positive experience with an
in-depth comparison and observation as prerequisites for
signing a mutual recognition agreement.
From the start of ECA there had been, apart from the benefits
the co-operation in ECA would bring to the agencies
themselves, two important “external” reasons to strive for
mutual recognition of accreditation decisions. One was to
facilitate the European mobility of students and graduates by
recognizing the accreditation, and therefore the quality of the
obtained or to-be-obtained foreign qualification. A second
reason was the increasing number of joint programs. These
joint programs are subject to the national quality assurance
procedures of the participating institutions. By mutually
recognizing accreditation decisions, one would be able to
overcome obstacles concerning multiple accreditation
procedures. Mutual recognition would make it a lot easier for
institutions to set up joint programs, and for students to move
freely between institutions, without having to worry about the
quality of the program or the recognition of the resulting
qualification (particularly if the joint declaration would
apply). ECA members quickly agreed that, in spite of the
complexities of joint programs, these should be part of mutual
recognition agreements. In order to increase trust and
transparency, however, it was important to come to a set of
principles for accreditation procedures regarding joint
programs. These principles were agreed in June 2007, and the
expectation is that these principles can also be useful for the
accreditation of joint programs when there is no mutual
recognition agreement between the agencies involved.
The end of 2007 brought two major achievements. One was
the development of an on-line information tool for
accreditation decisions, resulting in the demonstration of the
web site Qrossroads: http://www.qrossroads.eu/. The other
was the actual signing of the mutual recognition agreements.
The agreements can be downloaded from: http://
www.ecaconsortium.net/conference/documents2.php.
The following twelve mutual recognition agreements
involving eight ECA member countries were signed:
AAC (Austria) - NOKUT (Norway)*
AAC (Austria) - NVAO (Netherlands and Flanders)*
AAC (Austria) - OAQ (Switzerland)*
AAC (Austria) - PKA (Poland)*
FHR (Austria) - NOKUT (Norway)*
FHR (Austria) - NVAO (Netherlands and Flanders)*
CTI (France) - NVAO (Netherlands and Flanders)
CTI (France) - OAQ (Switzerland)
NOKUT (Norway) - NVAO (Netherlands and Flanders)*
NVAO (Netherlands and Flanders)- OAQ (Switzerland)*
NVAO (Netherlands and Flanders) - PKA (Poland)*
OAQ (Switzerland) - ANECA (Spain).
* These agreements have been signed by accreditation
organizations that are signatories to the “Joint declaration
concerning the automatic recognition of qualifications.”
Mutual recognition of accreditation decisions is one of the
preconditions for “ automatic” recognition of qualifications
between these countries.
The core of the mutual recognition agreements is that “the
signing accreditation organizations agree to regard their
accreditation procedures, standards and decisions or results as
free of significant differences; and confirm that within their
competences they accept the decisions or results of the
accreditation procedures of the other signing organization.”
There are some conditions attached to the agreements. One
concerns a continuous information exchange, especially about
changes in the accreditation system. In the other, it is agreed
to give each other access to all relevant documents relating to
the accreditation decisions. The agreement is valid for 3 years
and can be extended.
This first wave of mutual recognition agreements is not meant
to be the last. In 2008, ECA renewed itself to work, in
addition to new goals, toward expanding mutual recognition
and fully implementing the existing agreements. Many
challenges lay ahead: changes in several accreditation systems
put the firmness of the agreements to the test; institutions and
students need to experience the benefits of mutual
recognition, particularly with regard to joint programs.
Several questions arise: is it possible to streamline the ECA
methodology so that it takes less time for newcomers to enter
into mutual recognition? Can bilateral agreements be
replaced with multilateral agreements? Can the co-operation
with ENIC/NARICs be intensified? Is the web site
Qrossroads able to fulfill its promise as the on-line search tool
for both accreditation decisions and qualifications, thereby
crossing the roads of accreditation and recognition of
qualifications?
And further ahead in time: can ECA‟s approach to mutual
Page 23
recognition be transferred to other quality assurance agencies,
perhaps even to the whole of the European Higher Education
Area? Could ECA‟s work serve as a bridge to other
continents that are working or would like to work on mutual
recognition? Is there a future for mutual recognition
agreements across continents, e.g. between European
countries and the USA?
Dr. Mark Frederiks (NVAO; ECA Coordinator)
UNDERSTANDING RECOGNITION PRACTICES FOR BUSINESS SCHOOL
QUALIFICATIONS IN FRANCE By MARIE-CATHERINE GLASER & TRACIE WELLS
Diplomas from French business schools have become more
prevalent in admissions offices and evaluation services in
recent years. Compared to university diplomas, which are
fairly straightforward due to their national recognition, there
have been few available English-language resources that aid
in the understanding of professional qualifications earned at
non-university institutions. This article aims to provide
evaluation strategies and information on qualifications earned
at business and management schools in France.
The Coexistence of Several Types of Training Institutions
in the French Higher Education System
Business and management schools in France represent one of
the many types of institution that welcomes French students
who wish to pursue higher education after the secondary
baccalauréat examination. Higher education institutions in
France include the following: universities and the university
institutes of technology (IUT) which are also housed there;
the grands établissements, which should not be confused with
the grandes écoles that will be described more in-depth
below; the Écoles normales supérieures (ENS); the
preparatory classes for the grandes écoles (CPGE); and the
sections de technicien supérieur (STS), which prepare
students for the brevet de technicien supérieur (BTS).
Additionally, there are separate engineering schools,
paramedical and social schools, schools of architecture, higher
artistic schools, other schools of diverse specializations
(veterinary, journalism, administration, etc.) and schools of
business and management. Higher education institutions can
be either public, private or, in the case of business schools,
consular (which means that they are administered by a
chamber of commerce and industry).
The grandes écoles warrant a special discussion given their
uniqueness to the French higher education system and the
confusion they sometimes cause. Among the grandes écoles,
one can find establishments of diverse statutes that prepare
students for a variety of types of training, although the
majority of them focus on engineering and management. The
Conference of Grandes Écoles is an association (Law 1901)
composed of public, private or consular higher education
institutions that distinguish themselves from other higher
education institutions in their manner of recruiting students,
their pedagogy, their nationally recognized excellence in
training and the prestige of their diplomas.
Business and Management Schools
In an educational landscape that can often seem complex to
navigate, business and management schools have become
more and more popular in recent years. While the number of
schools has remained relatively stable in the past ten years
with 208 schools in 2008-09, the number of students enrolled
has almost doubled, increasing from 51,329 students ten years
ago to nearly 96,000 students enrolled in the 2008-09 school
year. The appeal of these schools can be explained by the fact
Page 24
that secondary schools diploma holders are seeking training
where their progress and preparation for the professional
world is closely monitored by the school. Indeed, these
schools play a very active role in students‟ academic and
professional lives and are focused on job placement and job
security.
As mentioned above, the business schools can be either
private or consular and are classified in one of three groups.
Group I includes 81 educational institutions with State
recognition and where at least one diploma has qualified for
the visa of the Ministry of Higher Education and Research
(i.e. diplôme visé), the highest form of recognition possible.
Group II is comprised of 39 institutions that are also
recognized by the State, but which do not award any diplomas
with the Ministry visa. Finally, the 88 schools that make up
Group III are not recognized by the State and their diplomas
are also not sanctioned by the Ministry visa.
The largest number of business students can be found in one
of the recognized schools from the first group. Indeed, there
were 74,000 students enrolled in a Group I institution in 200809. The schools from this first group mainly recruit students
enrolled in preparatory classes for entrance into the grandes
écoles or baccalauréat holders straight out of high school, in
both cases based on their performance on a competitive
entrance examination. Only 7,800 students attended the
recognized schools from Group II in 2008-09. Slightly less
competitive, these students include secondary diploma
holders, university students or students from the STS or the
IUT. Finally, Group III accepts only 14.7% of all business
students in France even though this group incorporates the
largest number of business schools.
The State Seals
The business and management schools benefit from two types
of state seal or recognition: the recognition of the institution
by the State and the authorization to award diplomas
sanctioned by the state visa (diplôme visé).
State Recognition
State recognition suggests that an institution contributes
something significant to the higher education structure. It
stems from an inspection of the functioning of the institution,
its offerings and its teaching and training personnel. State
recognition also allows the school to provide students with
state funding, while also permitting the hiring of teachers
from the public sector and access to public grants to support
institutional costs. Finally, state recognition allows an
institution to request the authorization to award a diplôme
visé.
State recognition is granted on a case-by-case basis by the
Minister of Higher Education, following local and national
proceedings. It is granted by ministerial order without a
predetermined length of validity. That is to say, this
recognition can be retracted.
Authorization to Award the Diplôme Visé
The authorization to award diplomas with the state-sanctioned
visa can be granted by ministerial order to schools with state
recognition following a rigorous pedagogical inspection of the
training programs and the selection of admission and diploma
committees.
Endowed with the visa, these diplomas boast the State‟s
guarantee as to the quality of the program of study. They are
awarded by the school in the name of the State.
The procedures to evaluate the quality of technical higher
education institutions, both consular and private, have
improved in the context of a European higher education
system. In particular, the decree of March 2001 modifies the
conditions in which the State visa is issued by imposing a
time limit of six years or less to the validity of a visa in order
to allow, if needed, the adjustments deemed necessary. This
reform put an end to the ministerial visa without attached time
limits that was granted in the past.
This decree was followed in April of the same year by another
important decree leading to the creation of the Commission
d’Évaluation des Formations et Diplômes de Gestion
(Commission of Evaluation of Training and Management
Diplomas) that carries out a general mission of supervision of
the quality of training provided in consular and private
institutions of advanced training in business and management.
The Creation of the Degree of “Master”
The decree 99-747 (August 1999) introduces the degree of
"mastaire" as a higher education qualification, later slightly
modified to be called “master.” This stems from the desire for
a common reference system for training and diplomas in
Europe by using levels and internationally comprehended and
comparable degree structures. The master, new to the French
educational structure, puts a variety of diplomas and titles of
comparable level under the same umbrella based on State
recognition and visa and authorization to award a degree with
this name, in the case of schools that are not part of the
university structure.
Indeed, for the first time, higher schools of business and
management are authorized to award a degree with the same
name as a diploma of a similar level awarded by the
university. It is important to note, however, that the
authorization to award a diplôme visé does not automatically
mean that a school can award the degree of “master.” This
authorization is granted by the Ministry of Higher Education
following proceedings with the National Advising Committee
of Higher Education and Research.
The criteria leading to the authorization to award the diploma
of master are demanding, especially regarding the place of the
school in the network of international exchange and in the
capacity of the pedagogical teams and institutions to create a
valuable research environment leading to tangible results.
The list of higher technical schools and institutions authorized
to award a diplôme visé, both with and without the degree of
master, is published by ministerial law. http://
www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/pid20536/rubriquebo.html?cid_bo=23771
The National Commission of Professional Certification
and the National Repertoire of Professional Certifications
The National Commission of Professional Certification
(CNCP) was created in January 2002. Its main mission is to
itemize the various professional certifications in the National
Repertoire of Professional Certifications (RNCP). The CNCP
further aims to contribute to international and European
efforts to make educational qualifications more transparent.
Although all the qualifications awarded by schools of business
and management are not recognized by the State as academic
qualifications (i.e. diplôme visé or master), they can all
potentially be registered with the RNCP for professional
recognition. In this case, information regarding the level of
the qualification can be found on any qualification that is
registered. In the case of older qualifications (“Titres
homologués”), the level of homologation can be found in the
RNCP. For the Titres homologués, the NSF code located on
the certificate may be useful in locating information on the
credential on the RNCP database.
There are two types of registration with the RNCP, automatic
registration and registration following a formal request by the
school. Qualifications recognized by the State are
automatically registered with the RNCP. Other certificates are
registered on a case-by-case basis following an investigation
and assessment by the CNCP. It is important to note that an
institutional request for registration with the CNCP is not
automatic and can be rejected.
The certifications framework is organized by level in order to
understand the professional worth of a given qualification.
Two ways of designating levels have been used in the RNCP.
The first was created in 1967 and defines the level of training
by the number of years it takes to complete the program. With
this type of level designation, qualifications of higher
education may be considered Level III or I/II. Level III
qualifications correspond to the professional equivalent of two
years of study after secondary schooling and are comparable
to BTS or DEUG training (Diplôme d'études universitaires
generals). Level I/II qualifications refer to training that is
comparable to the professional equivalent of the Licence, a
diploma from one of the engineering schools, etc. These
qualifications typically require a minimum of three years of
study and often more.
The method of designating levels was slightly transformed in
1969 to refer to the level of responsibility needed to be
Page 25
employed in a company. The CNCP has the intention of
adapting this level system further to allow for international
and European comparisons. In fact, the question of the reform
of these classifications was instigated by the LMD reform
(License-Master-Doctorate), especially since the progressive
disappearance of first cycle diplomas such as the DEUG.
The RNCP can be consulted online (www.cncp.org), but it is
still a work in progress. It now covers all the national
certifications that originate from seven certifying ministries
(National Education, Employment, Agriculture, Youth and
Sports, Social Affairs, Health, and Culture). The Ministry of
Higher Education, also a certifying ministry, only has a
limited number of certifications included in the registry
currently (i.e. DUT, DEUST and the Licence professionnelle).
However, additional certifications from this ministry and the
diplômes visés will be added in 2010. Furthermore, the RNCP
will continue to expand in the near future with translations of
its registered qualifications in English, Spanish and German.
The Example of the IDRAC School
In order to illustrate the presentation of the different types of
recognition for qualifications from business and management
schools, we will use the example of the IDRAC school. This
school is a private business school that has State recognition
and has a network of 7 locations throughout France (Paris,
Lyon, Nice, Montpellier, Nantes, Toulouse and Grenoble). It
belongs to the Group I category of schools since it offers a
diplôme visé called the “program école de commerce en 4
ans,” which was recently replaced by another diplôme visé
called the “program international grande école en 5 ans.”
However, you will not find these qualifications registered
with the RNCP since the diplômes visés have not yet been
included in this database.
Furthermore, students can earn the nationally recognized
Brevet de Technicien Supérieur and other diplomas registered
with the RNCP at Level I (Manager de la performance) or II
(Responsable du développement commercial et marketing,
Responsable du développement marketing et commercial
interorganisationnel).
On the next few pages, sample diplomas from IDRAC are
included. The following are some helpful RNCP links:
Manager de la performance marketing et commerciale
(Niveau I)
http://www.cncp.gouv.fr/grand-public/visualisationFiche?
format=fr&fiche=2430
Responsable du développement commercial er marketing
(Niveau II)
Page 26
Responsable du développement marketing et commercial
interorganisationnel (NiveauII)
Conclusion
Despite the relative complexity of determining the recognition
of French business and management schools, the authors have
attempted to provide information and resources on the
recognition process for these schools. In order to recommend
an academic equivalency in the United States, it is important
to look first to see if the school is recognized by the State in
France. If it is one of the schools that offers a diplôme visé
and belongs to Group I, it has State recognition. Only the
diplôme visés possess the State visa that guarantees their
quality. However, qualifications that are not diplômes visés
have an important professional value in France as long as the
institution has state recognition. Diploma holders may even be
more employable than those with traditional university
diplomas given the specialized and individualized training
they receive in the business and management schools. The
RNCP is a great resource for determining the level of
qualifications earned in the business schools. Although this
database is not yet complete and does not contain information
on the diplômes visés and many other qualifications that have
not yet been registered, it is an important resource for those in
international admissions and foreign credentials evaluation.
Contact the authors:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
UNTANGLING THE ACCREDITATION WEB IN INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION
By UJJAINI SAHASRABUDHE & SWETHA MUTHANNA
The origins of India‟s present system of education can be
traced back to the mid-nineteenth century when Christian
missionaries and the British East India Company introduced
policies that veered away from indigenous learning and
established higher education institutions based on the British
university model. The Indian educational system has
undergone many changes since then.
Structurally, primary and secondary education in India is ten
years in duration, followed by two years of senior secondary
education (equivalent to completion of senior high school
graduation in the United States). Higher education starts upon
completion of Year 12 and generally requires three years of
undergraduate studies to earn the Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), the
Bachelor of Science (B.Sc), or the Bachelor of Commerce
(B.Com) pass or honors degree. Professional (first) degrees in
fields such as agriculture, medicine, engineering, law,
dentistry usually require four to five years of study (and an
additional six months of compulsory internship, where
applicable). Master‟s degrees are generally of two years‟
duration, but some courses like the Master of Computer
Application (MCA) may require three years of study. Upon
completion of the master‟s program, students complete an
additional year or two of study to earn the Master of
Philosophy (M.Phil) degree. The Doctor of Philosophy
usually involves two or more years of research following the
M.Phil.
Recent years have seen the growth of the Postgraduate
Diploma, which is earned after the bachelor‟s degree and is
more professionally-focused and specialized than the master‟s
degree. These usually require one year of full-time or two
years of part-time study upon completion of an undergraduate
degree. Professional qualifications which award
memberships based on a series of examinations are also
becoming more popular in India. This article aims to outline
the basic system of regulation that governs these
qualifications and the institutions that offer them.
PRIMARY INSTITUTIONS THAT PROVIDE HIGHER
EDUCATION
Universities and its constituent colleges are the main institutes
of higher education in India.
Universities-State and Central: Universities are established
by State and Central Acts and offer degree courses at the
undergraduate and graduate levels. These universities belong
to two categories− unitary and affiliating. Unitary universities
have a single campus and mainly concentrate on graduate
education although a few may also provide undergraduate
study. Affiliating universities have a central campus and a
variable number of colleges affiliated to them. These colleges
are located in districts within the jurisdiction of the university.
They primarily offer undergraduate study and may be run by
the government or privately managed. They are, however, all
required to follow norms that are laid down by the University
Page 32
to which they are affiliated. The power of granting affiliation
status to a college rests with the respective university and is
exercised in consultation with the state government. The
university (and not the affiliating college) is responsible for
determining courses of study, conduct of examinations, and
awarding of degrees. Among affiliated colleges there is a
special category called autonomous colleges, which enjoys
greater academic freedom in areas such as admission,
curriculum, and method of evaluation. The degree is always
issued by the university in question, irrespective of the status
of the college.
Deemed to be Universities/Deemed Universities: The
Government of India‟s Ministry of Human Resource
Development is responsible for assigning deemed university
status to certain higher education institutions, based on the
recommendations of the University Grants Commission (see
below). These universities typically specialize in multiple
subject areas within a particular field of study and are often
created by the industry. Their “university” status is conferred
based on a long tradition of teaching or specialization and
excellence in a particular area of knowledge. Such
institutions enjoy autonomy in developing and implementing
academic programs and have the power to grant their own
degrees, just like other recognized Indian universities.
Institutions of National Importance: These university-level
specialized institutions are funded by the Government of India
and are authorized to award degrees. The Indian Institutes of
Technology (IIT) are the best known in this category.
Open Universities: These universities have been established
for the sole purpose of awarding academic qualifications
through the distance education model. The Indira Gandhi
National Open University (IGNOU) is the best known
institution of its kind and the only one with national
jurisdiction. It has over 150 regional centers around India.
Other open universities operate within particular states.
KEY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THAT REGULATE
HIGHER EDUCATION
In understanding how the higher education system is regulated
it is important to establish the difference between
“accreditation” and “recognition” in India. Until recent years,
being “recognized” was the only mode of validating
postsecondary institutions. The process involved evaluation
of the institution in question by the recognizing agency in
order to establish whether it met the standards and norms put
forth by the agency. Unlike the usual accreditation process
which involves periodic review by the accreditation agency to
ascertain if an institution is meeting its objectives and
established standards, “recognition” is a one-time process.
Recent times have seen the national government take
initiatives to establish a systematic mechanism for
accreditation in order to raise and maintain the quality of
Indian higher education.
University Grants Commission (UGC): This is the apex
body that provides recognition for universities in India. UGC
was established in 1956 as a statutory body of the
Government of India through an Act of Parliament. It is
responsible for the determination and maintenance of
standards of teaching, examination and research within the
context of university education in India. The organization
also keeps track of the financial needs of universities and
allocates and disburses grants to universities and colleges.
The UGC serves as the vital link between the central and state
governments and other institutions of higher learning, and
advises them on the measures necessary for the improvement
of university education.
Association of Indian Universities (AIU): Though not a
regulatory body, AIU has been included in this section due to
its role as an important autonomous inter-university
organization. Most UGC recognized universities and
university level institutions are members of the AIU. Some of
the major objectives of the organization include establishing
equivalence of degrees by Indian and foreign universities
(including those that have tie up arrangements with Indian
institutions), organizing training and orientation programs for
administrators, and representing Indian universities in national
and international forums. It is also responsible for developing
databases for higher education and it publishes the
Universities Handbook every alternate year. The handbook is
an excellent resource that contains detailed information
regarding all recognized Indian universities and lists each of
their affiliated colleges. Importantly, the association also
recognizes individual qualifications from certain nonuniversities such as Indian Institute of Management (IIM),
Indian National Scientific Documentation Center (INSDOC)
and National Institute of Drama (NSD).
The National Assessment and Accreditation Council
(NAAC): This is an autonomous body established by the
UGC in 1994 and is primarily responsible for assessing and
accrediting colleges and universities in India. Once a UGC
recognized institution is deemed eligible for accreditation, the
process involves completion of a self-study report, followed
by a NAAC peer team visit to the institution in order to
validate the self-study report. These factors determine the
final letter grade (ranging from A to D) which NAAC assigns
to the institution as well as its certification and accreditation
status. A list of accredited institutions (140 universities and
3492 affiliating colleges, so far) can be found on the NAAC
web site along with the letter grade and a corresponding
institutional cumulative GPA on a four-point scale. This
grade is valid for a period of 5 years after which institutions
are eligible to seek re-accreditation. While institutional
accreditation is most common, NAAC also provides
departmental and program accreditation. At present, the
process remains voluntary for recognized institutions;
however, UGC is considering a proposal to make NAAC
accreditation mandatory for all institutions under its purview.
All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE): This
organization was established in 1987 as a regulatory council
to ensure proper planning and development of technical
education in India and for maintaining norms and standards
within the field. The areas of study AICTE covers includes
engineering, technology and computer application,
pharmaceutical sciences, architecture, hotel management,
business administration and catering technology. The AICTE
web site has a list of institutions that it has approved to
provide specific qualifications based on areas of study. The
Council has the authority to establish regulatory measures
related to courses, curricula and facilities, grant approval to
start new technical institutions and introduce new courses. It
can also make recommendations regarding the recognition
and de-recognition of institutions and programs through the
National Board of Accreditation.
National Board of Accreditation (NBA): In 1994, AICTE
established the NBA in order to periodically evaluate
technical institutions and programs based on the norms and
standards laid down by the Council. The difference between
AICTE approval and NBA accreditation is that the former
regulates whether the institution meets the initial requirements
of functioning as a technical education provider or offering a
new program, whereas the latter monitors whether the
institution has proved its ability to sustain and improve upon
assessment criteria and has earned credibility by the end users.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND
REGULATORY COUNCILS
This section differentiates between professional qualifications
that are recognized by the Government of India for
employment purposes and those that are recognized by the
AIU for academic purposes.
All Indian Management Association (AIMA), Indian Institute
of Chemical Engineers (IIChE), Institute of Chartered
Financial Analysts of India (ICFAI), Institute of Electronics
and Telecommunication Engineers (IETE), Institution of
Mechanical Engineers: India (IMEI), National Productivity
Council (NPC) and National Council of Cement and Building
Materials (NCB) are some of the leading professional
associations that award diplomas or graduate diplomas to
students in their respective field, usually on the basis of
performances on qualifying examinations. Academic
requirements to qualify for examinations vary but most of
these associations fall under the purview of technical
education, therefore their programs of study are recognized by
AICTE. While some of the associations have special
arrangements with individual universities, policies usually
differ from one institution to another with regard to
recognizing these qualifications for admittance into Master‟s
and Ph.D. programs. All these qualifications are recognized
by the Government of India for employment purposes.
Other professional associations such as Institute of Chartered
Accountants of India (ICAI), Institute of Company Secretaries
of India (ICSI) and Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of
India (ICWAI) offer successive examinations at different
levels, ultimately leading to an association membership. AIU
Page 33
recognizes memberships into all three of these associations as
equivalent to an Indian Master‟s degree (provided the
Bachelor‟s degree was earned first).
Finally, regulatory councils such as Medical Council of India
(MCI), Dental Council of India (DCI), Indian Nursing
Council (INC), National Council for Teacher Education
(NCTE), and Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) are primarily
statutory bodies established to maintain the quality of
professional education within the country. Members of most
of these councils have representatives in AICTE and are
responsible for setting minimum standards for recognition in
their field both as independent bodies and through their
representation in the Council. Many of these regulatory
bodies are also required to approve the establishment of a new
institution in their area of specialization.
UNRECOGNIZED AND FRAUDULENT
UNIVERSITIES AND INSTITUTIONS
As the demand for higher education has grown in India, so has
the proliferation of fake universities as well as unrecognized
institutions that offer postsecondary qualifications. According
to the UGC, no institution other than a university established
or incorporated by a Central Act or a State Act shall be
entitled to use the word "University" associated with its name
in any matter whatsoever. The Commission maintains an
updated list of fake universities on its web site. A similar elist is available on the AICTE web site for courses and
institutions that offer technical education qualifications
without obtaining mandatory approval from the Council. It
also provides detailed lists of institutions which have been
accorded registration by AICTE for conducting programs in
collaboration with foreign universities/institutions and those
that are running unapproved programs.
REFERENCES
L.J. Sweeney & V. Woolston (eds). A P.I.E.R. Workshop
Report on South Asia: The
Admission and Placement of Students from
Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri
Lanka. Washington D.C. American Association of
Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers (AACRAO) and National
Association for Foreign
Student Affairs (NAFSA), 1986.
L.J. Sweeney, et al. India: A Special Report on the Higher
Education System and Guide
to the Academic Placement of Students in
Educational Systems in the United
States. Washington D.C. American Association of
Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers (AACRAO) and National
Association for Foreign
Student Affairs (NAFSA), 1997.
Page 34
University Grants Commission:
http://www.ugc.ac.in/index.html
Association of Indian Universities:
http://www.aiuweb.org/
The National Assessment and Accreditation Council:
http://naacindia.org/
All India Council for Technical Education:
http://www.aicte.ernet.in/
National Board of Accreditation:
http://www.nba-aicte.ernet.in/about.html
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India:
http://www.icai.org/
Institute of Company Secretaries of India:
http://www.icsi.edu/
Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India:
http://www.icwai.org/icwai/index.asp
UJJAINI SAHASRABUDHE
Credential Evaluator
International Education Research Foundation
[email protected]
SWETHA MUTHANNA
Adviser
EducationUSA
[email protected]
ACCREDITATION IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING SYSTEM
By NADINA COETZEE & SHANDUKANI MANYAKA—South African Qualifications Authority
A mammoth task was presented in post-1994 South Africa by
the legacy of a fragmented and unjust education and training
system. In the long term, to reverse the effect of this legacy, it
was imperative that fundamental reform in education and
training needed to take place, so as to ensure
an integrated national framework for learning
achievements;
access to, and mobility and progression within education,
training and career paths;
a good quality of learning;
the redress of past unfair discrimination in education,
training and employment opportunities; and thereby
the full personal development of each learner and the
social and economic development of the nation at large.
The envisaged vehicle for transforming the education and
training system was a National Qualifications Framework
(NQF); the five statements of intent above its formal
objectives. The South African Qualifications Authority Act of
1995 mandated the South African Qualifications Authority
(SAQA) to oversee the development and implementation of
the NQF.
In ensuring that South Africa has a national standards
generation and quality assurance system, SAQA formulated
and published regulations and criteria for the registration of
bodies responsible for establishing education and training
standards or qualifications, as well as for the accreditation of
bodies responsible for monitoring and auditing achievements
in terms of such standards or qualifications. It furthermore
assigned functions to these bodies, registered national
standards and qualifications on a comprehensive NQF
management information system, the National Learners‟
Records Database (NLRD), and ensured compliance with the
provisions for accreditation and the international
comparability of standards.
These milestones ensured the institutionalized, policy driven
pursuit of quality, in a particular fashion, for the first thirteen
years of building the NQF.
A review, since 2001, of NQF architecture came to a close in
2008, when a Joint Policy Statement was issued by the
Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labour (up to that
point the two principals of SAQA). The joint statement
outlined a number of desired changes envisaged for the NQF
landscape. These were formalized through the promulgation
of the new NQF Act, 67 of 2008, which replaced the SAQA
Act of 1995 in its totality and is being implemented in phases
with effect from 1 June 2009.
The new Act brings about a renewed round of radical
transformation in various aspects of the development and
implementation of the NQF; which includes the arrangements
Page 35
for the system for accreditation. This cannot be considered,
however, in isolation from the footprint of previous
developments in this arena.
Accreditation System
One set of regulations developed by SAQA under the SAQA
Act of 1995 made provision for a comprehensive accreditation
system. The regulations define accreditation as “the
certification, usually for a particular period of time, of a
person, a body or an institution as having the capacity to
fulfill a particular function in the quality assurance system set
up by the South African Qualifications Authority in terms of
the Act”.
SAQA accredited bodies that in turn were responsible for the
accreditation and monitoring of education and training
providers. These bodies are called Education and Training
Quality Assurance bodies (ETQAs).
Education and Training Quality Assurance Bodies
An ETQA comprises an organization, or a group of
organizations, who represents a specific sector, meet the
criteria for accreditation contained in the SAQA Regulations
and were granted accreditation by SAQA after a formal
evaluation. Amongst other things the criteria require a
demonstration of both the capacity and the resources to
perform the designated functions, as well as a quality
management system based on the necessary policies,
procedures and review mechanisms. There is one ETQA per
sector and it is assigned specific qualifications, registered on
the NQF, to quality assure. The accreditation lasts three years
and is renewable after an auditing process.
SAQA accredited a total of 31 ETQAs, 23 of which are socalled Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs).
The remaining ETQAs are made up of five professional
bodies, the Council on Higher Education and Umalusi
(previously The Certification Council of South Africa, or
SAFCERT).
Sectors-Specific ETQAs
SETAs were established by the Department of Labor in 2000
through the Skills Development Act of 1998, which provides
a framework for workplace skills development and a levygrant scheme. Each economic sector has one SETA, its
membership made up of trade unions, government and
bargaining councils from appropriate industries.
These bodies replace and extend the work of the old industry
training boards and are responsible to disburse the training
levies payable by all South African employers, each according
to its sector specific skills development plan. Within the
various sectors SETAs not only ensure the identification of
skills requirements and the availability of skills, but also that
the quality of training meets agreed standards as laid out by
the national framework. SETA ETQAs:
AGRISETA
ISETT
Agriculture Sector Education
and Training Authority
BANKSETA
Information Systems,
Electronics and
Telecommunication
Technologies Sector
Education and Training
Authority
Banking Sector Education and
Training Authority
LGSETA
(Merged from the two separate SETAs
for Primary and Secondary
Agrculture, respectively)
CETA
Construction Education and
Training Authority
CHIETA
Chemical Industries Education
CTFL
Local Government Sector
Authority
MERSETA
Manufacturing, Engineering
and Related Services Sector
Authority
Clothing, Textiles, Footwear
and Leather Sector Education
MQA
ESETA
PSETA
Energy Sector Education and
Training Authority
ETDP
Education, Training and
Development Practices
FASSET
Financial and Accounting
Services Sector Education and
Training Authority
FIETA
Mining Qualifications
Authority
Public Service Sector
Authority
SASSETA
Safety and Security Sector
Education & Training
Authority
(Merged from the Defence,
Intelligence and Diplomacy and for
Police, Security and Law,
respectively)
SERVICES SETA
Forest Industries Education
Services Sector Education
FOODBEV
TETA
Food and Beverages
Manufacturing Industry Sector
Authority
THETA
HWSETA
Health and Welfare Sector
Authority
INSETA
Insurance Sector Education
Transport Education and
Training Authority
Tourism Hospitality and
Sport Education and Training
Authority
W&RSETA
Wholesale and Retail Sector
Authority
All the above-mentioned SETA ETQAs are currently still in
operation. In future they will, however, be called Skills
Education and Training Quality Assurance bodies and move
out of the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor.
The economic and social sector ETQAs also include a number
of professional bodies such as statutory councils, institutes
and professional boards. These are listed below:
HPCSA (Health Professions Council of South Africa)
PAB (Professional Accreditation Body)
SABPP (SA Board for People Practices)
SAICA (SA Institute of Chartered Accountants)
SANC (SA Nursing Council)
SAPC (South African Pharmacy Council)
Certification
Amongst other functions, ETQAs are required to award
certificates to successful learners. Education and training
providers are mandated to issue certificates to learners only on
completion of short-courses and skills program. However,
higher education providers award their own certificates.
ETQAs for Education and Training Sub-Systems
The two education and training sub-system ETQAs until
recently were Umalusi and the Council on Higher Education
(CHE), both of which largely quality assured public
education. The roles of these two bodies are changing
dramatically in terms of the provisions of the new NQF Act
(2008). Under the provisions of the SAQA Act (1995)
Umalusi was accredited by SAQA as the quality assurance
body for general and further education (from levels 1 to 4 on
the pre-2009 NQF). This body is currently responsible for the
accreditation and monitoring of private providers such as
independent schools, private further education and training
colleges and private adult education and training providers. It
also monitors the quality of both private provision and of the
assessment offered by the public assessment system.
Qualifications offered by providers which are accredited by
Umalusi are the Senior Certificate which will have phased out
in 2011, the National Senior Certificate that is being phased in
to replace it, the National Technical Certificate (N3) which is
phasing out but may be reintroduced, the National Senior
Certificate (vocational) which is phasing out, the National
Certificate Vocational and the General Education and
Training Certificate for adults.
The CHE, through its standing Higher Education Quality
Committee (HEQC), was accredited by SAQA as the quality
assurance body for higher education offered at levels 5 to 8 of
the pre-2009 NQF. The quality assurance role of the CHE and
the HEQC are outlined in the Higher Education Act of 1997.
Part of this role constitutes the auditing of higher education
institutions, which are required to have established internal
Page 36
quality assurance systems, in order to ensure that teaching and
learning, research and community engagement are of an
adequate standard.
Contrary to the other ETQAs, the CHE undertakes
institutional and program accreditation as separate processes.
Any program offered by a public or private provider must first
be accredited by the HEQC. Programs aspiring for
accreditation must lead to full qualifications in accordance
with the rules and regulations as stipulated by SAQA.
Providers must be accredited per program offered.
The program accreditation process is aligned with the work of
other role players. The Department of Education (currently the
Department of Higher Education and Training) is responsible
for the registration of private providers to offer specific
programs. It also regulates the program mixes for public
higher education and funds the programs when CHE
accredited. Where this is relevant, program accreditation
happens in collaboration with SETAs and statutory
professional councils.
Certification
The CHE does not have a certification function. Certification
is done by both public and private providers in the higher
education sector, as well as by further education and training
colleges under auspices of Umalusi. Umalusi certifies school
leaving qualifications.
Education and Training Providers
THE NEW NQF LANDSCAPE AND THE
IMPLICATIONS FOR ACCREDITATION
After the NQF review, a number of Acts were passed in 2008
to provide the legislative framework for an enhanced NQF.
These are the Skills Development Amendment Act, the
Higher Education Amendment Act, the General and Further
Education and Training Quality Assurance Amendment Act
and ultimately the National Qualifications Framework Act.
Changes Under the New Act
First and foremost, the levels of the previous eight-level
framework will be increased to ten. The NQF will be a single
integrated system comprising three coordinated qualifications
sub-frameworks as contemplated in the various Acts
complementing the NQF Act. The sub-frameworks provide
for
General and Further Education and Training;
Higher Education; and
Trades and Occupations
In line with the above, three sector-based Quality Councils
will henceforth have the task of developing and quality
assuring all the qualifications in their respective subframeworks. SAQA - previously responsible for these
functions - will be involved in these in future at a systemic
and oversight level. The new policy retains the original
objectives of the NQF but envisages changes in its
organizational structures to improve the efficiency and
efficacy of implementation.
For a provider to be able to offer NQF registered
qualifications, it has to be registered with the Department of
Education and be accredited by one of the ETQAs. The
accreditation process follows criteria which originate from
generic criteria developed by SAQA, but were customized by
the ETQA to account for the unique considerations of the
particular sector while still supporting the principles and
objectives of the NQF.
Both the Quality Council for the General and Further
Education and Training sub-framework (Umalusi) and the
Council on Higher Education (CHE) will have executive
authority for standards generation and the quality assurance of
qualifications, provision and learning achievements to be
undertaken. As quality councils, Umalusi and the CHE will
operate from NQF 1 to 4 and NQF Level 5 to 10, respectively.
The process follows a model with four stages:
Submission by the education and training provider
Desktop evaluation of the submission by the ETQA
A site visit to verify the information obtained on the
submission
A final decision that is communicated to the provider
The envisaged Quality Council for Trades and Occupations
(QTCO) is yet to be established. Once established, it will be
responsible for all work-place based education and training
qualifications up to NQF Level 10. In the interim, as part of
an agreement, SAQA will continue to fulfill the standards
setting and quality assurance functions of the QCTO until
such time that it has been established.
Education and training providers are accredited for a specific
period not exceeding five years. ETQAs are mandated to
monitor and audit the performance of these providers in the
course of the accreditation period. Providers have an
obligation to regularly report to ETQAs on their progress.
SAQA remains the custodian of, and will be responsible to
advance the objectives of the NQF and oversee its further
development and implementation. Importantly, SAQA also
must coordinate the three sub-frameworks. In doing so, it has
adopted a position of communication, coordination and
collaboration.
A new role for SAQA is that, in addition to the continued
registration of qualifications and part qualifications in
accordance with agreed policy, it must, in consultation with
Page 37
statutory and non-statutory bodies of expert practitioners in
occupational fields and with the Quality Councils, develop
and implement policy and criteria for the recognition of
professional bodies and the registration of professional
designations; and recognize professional bodies and register
their professional designations if the relevant criteria have
been met.
Further Changes
CONCLUSION
South Africa strives through a bold vision, hard work and
commitment to continuously improve its education and
training system in general, and quality assurance in
particular, to feature among the leading countries in the
world. New policy and the envisaged changes will go a long
way in contributing to the full personal development of each
learner and the social and economic development of the
nation at large.
Following national elections, cabinet changes announced on
May 10, 2009, included the decision that the Ministry of
Education will be split into two separate ministries. This move
not only impacts ministerial jurisdictions and relationships as
outlined in the NQF Act, but has a number of other
implications for the already fluid landscape.
SOURCES
The Ministry of Basic Education will have jurisdiction over
school education as a whole, while the responsibility for
further (post-school) education moves in under the Ministry of
Higher Education and Training together with higher
education. This means that Umalusi, the Quality Council for
both general and further education and training, will report to
the Minister of Basic Education in respect of basic education
(schools), but to the Minister of Higher Education and
Training as far as further education and training (colleges) is
concerned.
Nadina Coetzee is the Director: Foreign Qualifications Evaluation
and Advisory Services of the South African Qualifications
Authority.
As a manifestation of the strong intent to integrate education
and training, jurisdiction over the Skills Development Act
(and therefore also skills levies) over SETAs and over the
envisaged Quality Council for Trades and Occupations
(QCTO) moves from the Minister of Labor to the Minister of
Higher Education and Training. SAQA falls under jurisdiction
of the Ministry of Higher Education and Training.
Page 38
www.che.ac.za
www.saqa.org.za
www.southafrica.info/doing_business/.../setas_overview.htm
www.umalusi.org.za
Shandukani Manyaka is the Deputy Director: Evaluation in the
same directorate and previously a Deputy Director in the
Directorate Quality Assurance and Development.
U.S. Accreditation–One of the Most Important Things You’ll Teach Your Students
by AACSB International
The United States is no stranger to post-secondary
accreditation. Since the early 1800‟s, and possibly even
before, universities have sought approval for their programs.
But, now that there are universities on literally every corner
and across the Internet, examining a school‟s accreditation is
more than simply important. It can be the difference between
your students getting a job after graduation or not. So, what
do you need to teach your students about accreditation to
prevent them from attending a school that may not provide
them with the tools they need to succeed in today‟s
workplace?
The first step is to understand how accreditation works in the
U.S. Despite what many people believe, the U.S. Department
of Education does not accredit institutions. Accreditation is
done by non-governmental, private agencies. The
accreditation procedure typically includes variations of quality
standards, peer- and self-reviews, on-site evaluations, and
long-term monitoring. Because of the freedom that is given to
universities and accrediting bodies, degree programs in the
U.S. can vary widely–from no quality at all to some of the
best in the world.
Types of Accreditations
There are two types of accreditation a university can earn. The
first is “institutional” accreditation or a review of the entire
university. In the U.S., institutional accreditation is done by
six primary regional accrediting bodies. These regional
agencies perform a review of the entire university, from its
operating budgets to its student services. Depending on where
the university is located, it must be approved by one of these
agencies in order to grant degrees and be considered
legitimate.
The six regional accrediting bodies are:
1. Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools
2. New England Association of Schools and Colleges
3. North Central Association of Colleges and Schools
4. Northwest Association of Accredited Schools
5. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
6. Western Association of Schools and Colleges
The web sites of each of these accrediting bodies are a great
place to learn more about the institutions that they accredit.
Once institutional accreditation is earned, most universities in
the U.S. take accreditation a step further and seek
“specialized” or “professional” accreditations for each of their
fields of study. These specialized reviews are also done by
non-governmental, private agencies that are knowledgeable
about a particular discipline. For example, a College of
Medicine can apply for specialized accreditations that
specifically review its medical programs. Specialized
accreditation tells other schools, potential employers, and the
general public that the university‟s degree programs in a
Page 39
particular field have passed a rigorous review and that
students are learning all they need to know about that area of
study.
Specialized accreditation is important. It can affect the ability
of graduates to find employment, the ability of students to
transfer classes between universities, and even the ability to
pursue additional degrees at other universities and in other
countries. However, not all specialized accreditations are the
same. Some specialized accreditations are recognized
nationally (within the U.S. only), and others are recognized
internationally. There are specialized accreditations that only
cover community colleges and two-year programs, and those
that include undergraduate, master‟s, and doctoral-level
degree programs and schools. And, there are some
accreditations that even come from “accreditation mills.” An
accreditation mill is an organization that provides an
unreliable stamp of approval to a school that would otherwise
not be accredited.
Learning More About the Types of Accreditations
There are two primary locations to learn about the various
institutional and specialized accrediting bodies in the U.S. The
first is through the Council for Higher Education
Accreditation (CHEA). CHEA is a U.S. advocate for selfregulation of academic quality through accreditation. It is a
great resource to learn more about accreditation mills,
diploma mills, and which specialized accrediting bodies are
considered acceptable.
The second is through the U.S. Department of Education,
which provides a variety of information on how accreditation
works, as well as the agencies that are recognized.
Important Questions about Accreditation, Degree Mills, and
Accreditation Mills
Council for Higher Education Accreditation
Recognized Accrediting Bodies as of 2009
Council for Higher Education Accreditation
Diploma Mills and Accreditation
US Department of Education
Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agencies
US Department of Education
Specialized Accreditation Example–Business and
Accounting Degree Programs
Within the discipline of business, The Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International is the
oldest and largest global, specialized accrediting body for
undergraduate, master‟s, and doctoral programs. Founded in
1916, AACSB accredits 579 business schools in 35 countries.
AACSB is also a membership organization more than 1,200
institutions, governmental and corporate entities worldwide.
The association provides professional development, research
and reports, data, publications, and resources to the business
education community.
AACSB accreditation is not easy to earn. Most schools spend
between five and seven years complying with the AACSB
accreditation standards. It assesses many aspects of a business
school and its programs–from faculty qualifications to
assurance of learning. Once an institution has earned AACSB
accreditation, it is reviewed on a five-year cycle to be sure
that its quality has remained consistent and that it is
committed to continuous improvement.
AACSB International also provides an additional
accreditation for institutions with accounting programs. Of the
579 schools that AACSB accredits, 171 have earned the
additional specialized accreditation for their accounting
programs. A school must already hold AACSB accreditation
to apply for the accounting designation. It is an in-depth
review solely of the school‟s accounting programs.
Specialized accreditation has become particularly important
for business schools in the U.S., as well as worldwide. With
nearly 11,000 business schools in the world, there are limited
quality assurance methods that ensure students are learning all
they need to know about the discipline. Additionally, there are
limited quality assurance methods that cross borders; such as
AACSB‟s accreditation. This is why it is especially important
that your aspiring business students understand accreditation
and what to look for before choosing a university.
Learn More About AACSB Accreditation and Why It Matters
When Selecting a B-School
Visit the AACSB Student Web Site to Search Only AACSBAccredited Business Schools
Page 40
Newsletter Team
Editorial Board:
Viktar Khotsim
EducationUSA—Lithuania
[email protected]
Shelby Cearley
Lead Advisor/Designated School Official
Texas Tech University
[email protected]
Erick Kish
Wittenberg University
[email protected]
Peggy Bell Hendrickson
Director of Transcript Research
[email protected]
Doug McBean
Senior Policy Advisor, Admissions and Awards
University of Toronto
[email protected]
George F. Kacenga
Assistant Director for International Admissions
University of Pittsburgh
[email protected]
Maria Mercedes Salmon
Country Coordinator for Educational Advising
OEA Coordinator and Network Leader for NAFSA's RAP KC
Fulbright Commission-Ecuador
[email protected]
Sandra Khan
International Admissions Counselor
Western Michigan University
[email protected]
Kate Trayte Freeman
Senior Global Assessment Specialist
International Consultants of Delaware/
CGFNS International
[email protected]
Toni Rico
University of Houston-Clear Lake
[email protected]
Aimee Thostenson
Ellen Silverman
Assistant Director, International Admissions
St. Catherine University
[email protected]
Coordinator of International Training and Development
CUNY Welcome Center
[email protected]
Emily Tse
Director of Evaluations
International Education Research Foundation, Inc.
[email protected]
Special Thanks to the Content Committee:
Susan Whipple
Assistant Director of International Education
Marquette University
[email protected]
Robert Watkins
Assistant Director of Graduate and International Admissions
University of Texas at Austin
[email protected]
Mario Caruso
Director of Graduate Admissions
CUNY Queens College
[email protected]
Caroline Gear
Director of Programs
International Language Institute of Massachusetts
[email protected]
Susan Kassab
Director of University Admission Services
ELS Educational Services
[email protected]
Questions? Feedback? E-mail: [email protected]
What credentials would you like evaluated?
What topics would you like covered?
What did you like about this newsletter?
What can we improve upon?
Page 41

WRAP UP

Transcription

Similar documents

survival guide - Rio Hondo College

OMHSAS Policy Clarification Regarding BSC

December 2014 - KW Habilitation

Demystifying Accreditation “Simply put, an accredited - MSA-CESS

Recent Developments With Degree Mills: Accreditation

Public Disclosure Notice on Wentworth Military Academy and

Every Child, Inc. Implements Staunton Farm

Teach Accounting

Evaluating International Qualifications and Combating

FORUM JABATAN STANDARD MALAYSIA BERSAMA MAKMAL