WRAP UP - NAFSA

Page 1 wRAP Up - December 2010

Volume 7 , Issue 3

December 2010

I N S I D E T H I S I S S U E :

Welcome 1

Editor’s Rap 2

EducationUSA Updates

3

Q&A w/Jim Frey 6

RAP Publications 7

Accreditation Mills 8

Canada 12

Caribbean 16

Europe 21

France 24

India 32

South Africa 35

U.S.A. 39

W R A P U P A N E W S L E T T E R F O R T H E R E C R U I T M E N T , A D M I S S I O N S , A N D P R E P A R A T I O N K N O W L E D G E C O M M U N I T Y

NAFSA: ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATORS

A Message from the RAP Chair

By Evelyn Levinson

RAP Chair

Dear RAP Colleagues,

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.

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!

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:

- 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.

RAP also welcomes the following new members to our team for 2011:

- 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)

This publication has been developed

by NAFSA members for use by their

colleagues. No part of this

newsletter may be reproduced

without written permission from

NAFSA: Association of International

Educators.

The opinions expressed in wRap Up

solely reflect those of the authors

and do not necessarily reflect those

o f N A F S A : A s s o c i a t i o n o f

International Educators. wRap Up

and NAFSA neither endorse nor are

responsible for the accuracy of

content and/or opinions expressed.

Featured topic in

this issue:

Accreditation


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

E D I TO R ’ S RA P

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

(A Message from the RAP Chair continued from page 1)


E D U C AT I O N USA 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

http://www.youtube.com/EducationUSATV#p/u/17/qfAGftnI0xw

http://www.youtube.com/EducationUSATV#p/u/18/a9XV5O6W-F0

http://www.educationusa.info/educationusa_forum_2010/ppts.html

http://www.educationusa.info/educationusa_forum_2010/ppts.html

https://www.educationusa.info/secure/signup.php

https://www.educationusa.info/secure/signup.php

http://www.youtube.com/EducationUSAtv




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

Q&A W I T H J I M F R E Y

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.


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.

NAFSA‟s On-line Guide to Educational Systems Around the

World (http://www.nafsa.org/publication.sec/epublications/

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.

Updates for the On-line Guide have been authored by

EducationUSA advisors, admissions counselors, and

credential evaluators. This valuable resource is available to all

international educators, regardless of membership status in

NAFSA, or country of residence. Authors are needed to

update the remaining countries. One need not be an expert,

and collaborations are encouraged. If you would like to serve

as an author – or recommend a colleague – please contact

Susan Whipple, the project‟s editor, at

[email protected].

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

As the new admissions cycle begins, the following publications

(though not new) may be helpful for admissions counselors

and credential evaluators:

Evaluating Foreign Educational Credentials: An Introductory

Guide, an e-publication helps you make sense of foreign

educational credentials, giving you a starting point for

evaluations. Example documents are shown throughout.

Topics covered include: Overview of the U.S. Education

System; Accreditation, Documentation Required for

Credential Evaluation; How to Research Foreign Educational

Systems; Evaluation of Secondary School Credentials;

Evaluation of Undergraduate Credentials; Evaluation of

Graduate Credentials; Common Credential Types; Translating

Credentials with Non-Western Alphabets; Translation

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.

RAP P U B L I C AT I O N S UP D AT E

B E O N T H E L O O K O U T …

The January/February International Educator

will feature an article on accreditation mills on

pages 32-42.

http://www.ece.org/webfiles/morocco-final-3-2-10.pdf

http://www.nafsa.org/publication.sec/epublications/online_guide_to

http://www.nafsa.org/publication.sec/epublications/online_guide_to

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/NAFSA_Home/Resource_Library_Assets/Networks/MR/IEM%20White%20Paper%202010%20-%20Sinclair.pdf



http://www.nafsa.org/resourcelibrary/Default.aspx?id=20048



Define Accreditation

„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...

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-of-

factly; however, a Degree Mill (DM) will embellish their

claimed „accreditation‟ at length.

AC C R E D I TAT I O N M I L L S The Minefield of Accreditation / Deception by Design by ALLEN EZELL

What Is an Accreditation Mill (AM)

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.

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

(Continued on page 9)


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 non-

profit 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).

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

(Continued from page 8)


RAP: Did you know? RAP Mission Statement

The RAP KC is a dynamic community that provides lead-ing-edge knowledge for international education profes-sionals in recruiting, admissions, preparation and inter-national 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.

Admissions and Credential Evaluation Network

This network supports professionals, in an academic or non-academic setting, who are responsible for the ad-

mission 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 per-

taining 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 unbi-

ased information on the full range of educational oppor-tunities 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.

Although the gross revenues generated by the SRU fraud

(Continued from page 9) 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, $17-

72,000,000, 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



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

“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

(Continued from page 10) benchmark of legitimacy for an educational institution and its

importance.

Support federal and state legislation to outlaw,

1. Operating a degree-issuing entity without proper legal

authority.

2. Using a diploma mill degree to obtain employment or

promotion.

3. Issuing accreditation without proper CHEA/USDE

recognition.

4. Claiming accreditation from an unrecognized accreditor.

5. When you observe a new DM or AM, take action.

Publicize this new entity as a deterrent to others.

6. Demand federal law enforcement designate just one or

two investigators to work academic fraud exclusively.

7. 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 (degree-

granting) 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.

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 degree-

granting 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 degree-

granting 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 post-

secondary 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,

(Continued from page 12) 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 program-

accrediting 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



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 degree-

granting 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.

(Continued from page 13) 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 (Continued on page 15)


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. 76-

82.

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.

.


http://www.cicic.ca

http://www.AUCC.ca


MEDICAL EDUCATION IN THE CARIBBEAN:

Accreditation and Quality Issues by LORNA PARKINS

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 CAAM-

HP.

According to the International Medical Education Directory

(IMED), there are over 30 such schools in the English-

speaking 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.


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


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

(Continued from page 16) 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.

(Continued from page 17) 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



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

(Continued from page 18) 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 short-

and long-term, the accreditation exercise serves to improve

the educational program and the quality of the graduates of

the respective programs.



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



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.

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

(Continued from page 21) 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.


http://www.qrossroads.eu/

http://www.ecaconsortium.net/conference/documents2.php

http://www.ecaconsortium.net/conference/documents2.php


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)

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



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

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 2008-

09. 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

(Continued from page 24) 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/rubrique-

bo.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


http://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/pid20536/rubrique-bo.html?cid_bo=23771




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)



(Continued from page 25) 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]

https://webmail.ierf.org/exchange/twells/Inbox/Article-2.EML/

http://www.cncp.gouv.fr/grand-public/visualisationFiche?format=fr&fiche=2430














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

UNTANGLING THE ACCREDITATION WEB IN INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION By UJJAINI SAHASRABUDHE & SWETHA MUTHANNA

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 non-

universities 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.

(Continued from page 32) 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



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 e-

list 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.

(Continued from page 33) 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]

http://www.ugc.ac.in/index.html

http://www.aiuweb.org/

http://naacindia.org/

http://www.aicte.ernet.in/

http://www.nba-aicte.ernet.in/about.html

http://www.icai.org/

http://www.icsi.edu/

http://www.icwai.org/icwai/index.asp




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

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 so-

called 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 levy-

grant 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:

(Continued from page 35) 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


AGRISETA Agriculture Sector Education

and Training Authority (Merged from the two separate SETAs

for Primary and Secondary Agrculture, respectively)

BANKSETA Banking Sector Education and

Training Authority

CETA Construction Education and

Training Authority

CHIETA Chemical Industries Education

and Training Authority

CTFL Clothing, Textiles, Footwear

and Leather Sector Education


ESETA Energy Sector Education and

Training Authority

ETDP Education, Training and

Development Practices

FASSET Financial and Accounting

Services Sector Education and

Training Authority

FIETA Forest Industries Education


FOODBEV Food and Beverages

Manufacturing Industry Sector

Education and Training

Authority

HWSETA Health and Welfare Sector


Authority

INSETA Insurance Sector Education


ISETT Information Systems,

Electronics and

Telecommunication

Technologies Sector


Authority

LGSETA Local Government Sector


Authority

MERSETA Manufacturing, Engineering

and Related Services Sector


Authority

MQA Mining Qualifications

Authority

PSETA 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 Services Sector Education


TETA Transport Education and

Training Authority

THETA Tourism Hospitality and

Sport Education and Training

Authority

W&RSETA Wholesale and Retail Sector


Authority

http://www.agriseta.co.za/

http://www.agriseta.co.za/

http://www.bankseta.org.za/

http://www.bankseta.org.za/

http://www.ceta.org.za/

http://www.ceta.org.za/

http://www.chieta.org.za/

http://www.chieta.org.za/

http://www.ctflseta.co.za/



http://www.eseta.org.za/



http://www.etdpseta.org.za/

http://www.etdpseta.org.za/

http://www.fasset.org.za/



http://www.fieta.org.za/

http://www.fieta.org.za/

http://www.foodbev.co.za/




http://www.hwseta.org.za/



http://www.inseta.org.za/

http://www.inseta.org.za/

http://www.isett.org.za/






http://www.lgseta.co.za/



http://www.merseta.org.za/




http://www.mqa.org.za/

http://www.mqa.org.za/

http://www.pseta.gov.za/



http://www.sasseta.org.za/



http://www.serviceseta.org.za/

http://www.serviceseta.org.za/

http://www.teta.org.za/

http://www.teta.org.za/

http://www.theta.org.za/



http://www.wrseta.org.za/




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

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.

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

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.

(Continued from page 36) 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 sub-

frameworks. 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.

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 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.

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



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

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.

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.

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.

(Continued from page 37) 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.

SOURCES

www.che.ac.za

www.saqa.org.za

www.southafrica.info/doing_business/.../setas_overview.htm

www.umalusi.org.za

Nadina Coetzee is the Director: Foreign Qualifications Evaluation

and Advisory Services of the South African Qualifications

Authority.

Shandukani Manyaka is the Deputy Director: Evaluation in the

same directorate and previously a Deputy Director in the

Directorate Quality Assurance and Development.

http://www.che.ac.za

http://www.saqa.org.za

http://www.southafrica.info/doing_business/.../setas_overview.htm

http://www.umalusi.org.za


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

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 self-

regulation 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


http://www.msche.org/

http://www.neasc.org/

http://www.ncacasi.org/

http://www.northwestaccreditation.org/

http://www.sacs.org/

http://www.wascweb.org/

http://www.chea.org/degreemills/default.htm

http://www.chea.org/degreemills/default.htm

http://www.chea.org/pdf/CHEA_USDE_AllAccred.pdf

http://www.ed.gov/students/prep/college/diplomamills/index.html

http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg6.html


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 AACSB-

Accredited Business Schools


http://www.bestbizschools.com/AACSB-Accredited/default.asp



http://www.bestbizschools.com/

http://www.bestbizschools.com/


Viktar Khotsim EducationUSA—Lithuania [email protected]

Erick Kish

Wittenberg University

[email protected] Doug McBean Senior Policy Advisor, Admissions and Awards University of Toronto [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] Kate Trayte Freeman Senior Global Assessment Specialist International Consultants of Delaware/ CGFNS International [email protected] Ellen Silverman Coordinator of International Training and Development CUNY Welcome Center [email protected] 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]

Editorial Board:

Shelby Cearley Lead Advisor/Designated School Official Texas Tech University [email protected] Peggy Bell Hendrickson Director of Transcript Research [email protected] George F. Kacenga Assistant Director for International Admissions University of Pittsburgh [email protected] Sandra Khan International Admissions Counselor Western Michigan University [email protected] Toni Rico University of Houston-Clear Lake [email protected] Aimee Thostenson Assistant Director, International Admissions St. Catherine University [email protected] Emily Tse Director of Evaluations

International Education Research Foundation, Inc. [email protected] Special Thanks to the Content Committee:

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]

Newsletter Team

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?




















WRAP UP - NAFSA

Documents