The Accrediting System and
Its
Impact on Finance of
Ins
t1Î
tutions of Higher Education
恆 the
United States
Shuh-Kuen Chen
Department of Education College of Education
One of the features of higher education in the United States is the practice of ac口editation which has been employed as an important means to improve the quality of higher education、 ln contrast to many other countries, the accredita‘
tion system of hìgher educatìon in America is unique. While most-other countries control the qua1ity of higher education through government authorities,
accredìting activities of the United States are primarily done by voluntary and nongovernmental agencìès. It is so unique that many people are curious about the reason why accrediting activities are dominated by voluntary and nongovern-mental agencies rather than by government authorities. How does the system work:, and what ìs its impact on finance in collegìate institutions? This study is intended to answer these questions.
What is accreditation:
“
AccreditaHon" is the noun fonn of the verb “accredit竹， which, according to Webster's Third- New Internatìonal Díctíonary,
means“
to put (as by common consent) into a reputable or outstanding category: consider, recognize, or accla加E as rightfully p'ossessing an uncontested status." In other words, it 油lp1iesthat for an -institution to be“
accredited" is a good thing; it betokens a commendable and meritorious status; the status- is assigned by some other party or parties; it is not self-assumed (O'rlans 1975, p. 1-2).Bulletin of National Taiwan Normal University Vol. XXVII
One authoritative source defines accreditation as
“
a process of recognizing those educational institutions whose performance and integrity entitle them to the confidence of the educational community and the public." Another holds that it is“
the recognition accorded to an institution that meets the standards or criteria established by a competent agency or association." In 1968, the U. S. Office of Education defined accrediting as" the voluntary process where by an agency or association grants public recognition to a school, institution,col1ege, universìty, or specialìzed program of study that meets certain established qua1ifications and educational stardar白， as determìned through initìal and perìodic evaluation." (Orlans 1975, p. 2). In 1974, the word“
voluntary" was dropped probably for the fact that a report characterized the“
perception of accreditation as a private activity" 的“anachronistic." (National Commission on Accredìtìng 1972, p. 5). The use of accreditation to determine eligibility for government furtds and other public benefits has lent an involuntary and public character to accrediting activities once regarded as entirely“
vo1untary and private".In examining the above definitions, it seems that the last one given by the
U. S. Office of Education is more inclusive than the other two, because it demonstrates at least 4 distinguished elements of accreditation. That is, accredi-tation is a vo1untary process in nature originally, subject to change due、 to the federal government's intrusion, but many people are sti1l against this kind of change; its purpose is to grant public recognition to either an institution or a specialized program of study; that institution or program should meet some specific standards or criteria; that the agency or association grants accreditation by means of initial periodic evaluations. In addition, We would find that a definition given by the Middle State Association of Colleges and schools could add an even more explicit explanation about accreditation to a layman.
The Association describes that
“
A Middle State evaluation is a longrange process designed to help an institution analyze its functions, appraise -its educational effectiveness, and discover means by which its work can be streng-thened. Accreditation is involved, but as a by-product rather than as the primary factor. Accreditation is simply a recognition, afteThe Accrediting System and Its Impact on Finance of lnstitution of 扭曲er Education in the United States which society and the educational world have a right to expect of it" (Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools 1978, p. 111). This definition tells people that the .accrediting activity has laid special emphasis on evaluation acti-vities, and that is perhape the most important reason why people consider accreditation as an efficient device to improve the qua1ity of higher education in America.
The nature of accreditation:
Generall speaking, the accrediting system of the United States could be divided into three parts: 1. State governments responsibilities and activities; 2. Voluntary and nongovernmental agencies' accrediting, and 3. Pederal govern-ment's
“
listing" or statistical responsibilities (Harc1eroad 1980, p. 1). But, from a historical perspective, the state governments and federal government never played a role as important as voluntary agencies did 扭 accrediting activities. Therefore, it has been pointed out in preceding statements that accrediting activities are primarily voluntary and nongovernmental in nature.There are many reasons why federal government and state governments did not engage themselves actively in accrediting activities. J erry W. Mi1ler states that the functions accreditation serves for American society could have been estab-lished as a constitutional or statuatory responsibility of government, much as it is in other countries which.have ministries of education. The fact that it was not is attributed by Selden to historical social values and political philosophy in the United States:
The non-eXÌstence of an accrediting program operated by the nationa1 government can be attributed to the principles enunciated 組 theUnited States Constitution and to the American conviction that our socia1 welfare is dependent upon education as a loca1 responsibility. The absence of adequate state accreditation springs from a tradition of laissez-faire independence and sectarian rivalry, a fear of politica1
interference, and a later acceptance of regiona1 associations as the best ínstruments to perform what the states are legally empowered to do (Selden 1960, p.8)
On the other hand, some state governments have exercised the granting of chartersfor institutions of higher education since the establishment of Harvard
Bulletin of National Taiwan Nonnal University Vol. XXVII
col1ege in 1636. But, historical旬， the chartering process has not assured c10se scrutiny of educational standards and academic requirements of institutions, neither at the time institutions began nor on a continuing basis. The American Council on Education states:
The states differ gre"at1y in the qu到ificationsrequired before a private group can obtain a charter to operate a colIege or university. 1n some states, such as New
Y ork, the au thority is assigned to the state department of education and the board of regents; these agencies have set up standards that must be met before a new insti-tution may be issued a charter. In many of the states, however, few standards of anY are maintained
,
and anY group that can afford the cost ofincorporation,or can can persuade the state legislature to issue a charter, can obtain the authority to grant all kinds of degrees regarclIess öf the staff or facilities that it may have for such purposes. In very few states, furthermore, is there any supervision over privately controlIed institutions after they have been established. 晶晶 laxity has pennitted, from time to time, the operation of institutions which do little more than sell degrees or certificates (Sin，斟忱的 1968 ， p.8).ln" explaining the reason of state laxity in chartering and control of institu-tions, Miller pointed out two possible factors: The majority of the early
institu-tions were religious related instituinstitu-tions. Their European heritage led them to be
wawof any governmental influemor con?rol ofeducation-Moreover,
tMition-al1y, acaöeme and society at large believed that all institions, even publicly supported ones, can best serve society when political control is minimized (Mil1er 1973, p. 12). Daniel Webster presented a good reason for steering the institutions
c1ear of political control. He said that it would be a aangerous, a most dangerous,
experiment to subject institutions to the rise and fall of popular parties and the
f1uctuafions of political opinions (Hofstadter and Smith, eds., 1961, p. 211). All in all, these reasons emphasize a critical issue of
“
academic freedom", and these reasons are more than enough to explain why accrediting activities depend mainly on voluntary and nongovernmental agencies rather than on governmental agencles.The origin and development 01 accreditation:
The accrediting movementin the United States as it relates to higher educa-tionaI mstitutìons had its ofÌgins in the need for l
r:
eliable bases upon which theThe Accrediting System and Its Impact on Finance of Instítution of Higher Education in the United States growing number of institutions ca11ing themselves
“
colleges" might be appraised. Indeed, much of this country's early history of accreditation in higher education centered on the question, what is a coUege? (U.S. Department of Hea1th, Educa-tion, and Welfare 1959, p. 9).The development of accreditation could be described in following historical periods:
1. Before 1787, from the founding of Harvard college in 1636 to 1787, there was not a bit of effort to standardize, rate or cIassify collegiate institutions.
2. From 1787-1870.
The Board of Regents of University of the State of New York was
estab-1ished in 1784. Three years later, the Regents were required by law to year1y visit and review the work of every college in the state, register each curriculum at each institution, and report to the legislature. It was not until 1846 lowa became the second state adopting similar activities (Harc1eroad 1980, p.2). Today, there are 1 7 states that have estab1ished agencies or commissions with direct legal charges to
“
accredít" ínstitutions and programs or with general powers that have been used for this purpose (Birch 1979, pp. 172-4).In 1847, the American Medical Association became the first programmatic association which has made a great contributíon to the improvement in medical educatíon after. the so called“Abraham Flexner Study."
Federal activity during this period began in 1867 wíth the estab1ishment of the Department of Educatíon, a statístícal agency with a small budget. In order to fulfill íts reporting and statistical duties, the agency staff found it necessary to col1ect a varíety of facts about the col1eges. The criteria adopted by the Depart呵 ment were quite simple:
“
Any institution that was authorized to grant degrees and that had college students in attendance would be regarded as a college." On this basis, 369 institutions were incIuded in the first 1ist in 1870.3. Between 1870-1914.
In the 1870's the need became urgent for stronger academic standards and institutional evalqation of the rapidly expanding secondary schools and colleges. This critical need led to the development of voluntary associations. Between 1885 and 1895, four out of the six regional accrediting associations were formed, incIuding the New England Association of Col1ege and Secondary Schools (1885);
Bu11etin of National Taiwan Normal University Vol. XXVII
The Middle States Association (1887); The North Central AssocÏation (1895); and the Southern Association (1895). The other two, the Northwest Association and Western Association, were formed in 1917 and 1924 respectively.
Accreditation of colleges by these associations did not necessarily im-mediately fol1ow their founding, the first to formulate an accrediting program was the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools in 1910. The other 5 associations issued their first list of accredited colleges between 1919-1954.
Tab1e 1 gives the speci(ic dates of the formation and initial accrediting of th~se six regionalassociations (Or1ans 1975, p.9):
Six Regional Associations: States of Formation and Inital Accreditìng Year of Initia1
Accreditatìon Standards for
Association Formation College
New England 1885 1954 Midd1e States 1887 1921 North Central 1895 1910 Southern 1895 1919 Northwest 1917 1921 Western 1924 1949
In 1900, the Association of American Universities was founded with an initial membership of 14 institutions which offered advanced orgraduate programs. The initia1 purpose was to consider matters relating to graduate study and it p1ayed an important role in accreditation for 40 ye前s.
In the ear1y 1900's many American students were going to Europe to pursue their education beyond the bachelor's degree. This practice .soon raised questions of the abi1ity of American colleges to prepare students for advanced study. In 1904, the University of Berlin announced that it would admit to graduate study from the United States only those students holding bachelor degrees conferred
The Accrediting System and Its Impact on Finance of
Institution of Higher Education in the United States by members of the AAU. AAU had decided to request the U.S. Bureau of Educa-tion to c1assify the colleges and universities of the nation. The.Bureau in 1911 made
a:
c1assification but was prevented from pub1ishing the 1ist. In 1913, the AAU submitted to German Ministries of Education a 1ist of 119 institutions. 4. Between 1914-1948.A major development in this period was the decision by the Association of American Universities to pub1ish in 1914 the federallist of institutions that was withheld from pub1ication by Presîdents Taft and Wilson (Harcleroad 1980, p.5) During this period the Northwest (1917) and Western (1924) Association were established. In addition, the Middle States (1921), North Central (1910), Southern (1919), and Northwest (1921) Associations estab1ished accrediting standards and put them into operation.
In the 1930's the North Central Association adopted à new principle of accreditation less objective in hature, judging an institution in terms of its purposes and its total pattern as an institution.
A National institutional association started in 1926, when the National Home Study council was formed and began setting standards in correspondence education. More than 20 specialized programmatïc association were started during this period, in such areas as: business (1919), law (1923), chemistry (1936), and journalism (1946).
The pro1iferation of new and specialized associations had brought about a very confusing situation and with it arose a need for coordination of accrediting agencies or associations (Harclerond 1980, p. 22-25).
5. Between 1948-1975.
Major changes took place in every aspect of accreditation during this period. The AAU announced its departure from accreditation 卸 1948. When the pre-stigious AAU 1ist was no longer available, the regional association lists became much more important. As a result, in 1948 the Western College Association embarked on the accreditation task. At the same time, the presidents of a number of major universities established the National Commission on Accrediting (1948) to try to stop the proliferation of new specialized associations and to trim the wings of those in existence.
Another major new development of this time was the passage by Congress 一 143 一
Bulletin of Nationa1 Taiwan Nonnal University Vol. XXVII
of the Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952. This Act allowed the United States Office of Education to adopt the policy of relying on the evalua-tions of the regional associaevalua-tions as. a basis for determining institutional eligibi1ity for federal grants. Since then, the Office of Education has initìated the recogni-tion of accredirecogni-tion agencies and published the recognized accrediting agencies list quadrennìally. But, the Office of Education has retained the policy of avoiding direct eligìbility determinations requiring the judgment of the quality of individual institutions (Orlans 1975, p‘ 46).
Also in this period, many new specialized associations were founded such as hea1th administration (1948), hea1th education (1964), psycho10gy (1952), construction education (1974). Two new national institutional associations a1so came into existence: The Association of Independent College and Schoo1s (1952) and the National Association of Trade and Technical Schools (1965).
In 1968, The Commission of Education established a special Division of Accreditation and Institutional Eligibi1ity which strengthened the influence of the federa1 government over regiona1 accrediting agencies and nationwide associations (Haícleroad 1980, p.27)
In 1949. a National Committee of Regiona1 Accrediting Agencies was set up to coordi
n:
ate the regìonal activities and to ,cooperate with sìmìlar nationalagencies, in the hope that ways mìght be found to minimize the evils that have accompanied the rapidly expanding accrediting movement (Orlans 1975, p.24). The committee was transformed ìnto the Federation of Regiona1 Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education (FRACHE) in 1964.
In the late 1960's and early 1970's ìt became clear that regional and national institutional accrediting forces would have to band together to wield more inf1uence. At the same time, a major study by Claude Puffer (1970) emphasized the need for a national organization or council for all parties interested in accredi-tation. Based on these reasons, the NCA and the FRACHE, described by Orlans
(1975, p.26) 的“Two bears in a cage", combined in 1975 to form the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA)-An umbrella agency covering all kinds of accrediting agencies throughout the country.
6. From
The Accrediting System and Its Impact on Finance of
Instiffition of 血gher Education in the United States the attempt to stem proliferation, and to discourage federal efforts to turn voluntary membership associations into quasi-governmental organizations with po1ice powers (Harc1eroad 1980, p.5). With its broadbased constituency, COPA is also described as a
“
balance wheel for accreditation弋 or “main gear to Ínterrelate (1) the general pub1ic, (2) users of accreditation, (3) general accrediting agencies, (4) specialized accrediting agencies, and (5) national associations representing institutions" (Harcleroad, p.29). Indeed, during its first six year,COPA has thrived and has functioned well in a coordinating role to some extent.
Although the initial purpose of slowing down the proliferation of accrediting agencies has not been achieved, (since the number of active accrediting agencies keeps growing)
,
COPA's major effort in the 缸ea of information dissemination and research has been significant.One additional item desetving attention is that the recent indirect but emphatic fedej['al entry 曲to the accreditation area has led to the use of the term
“
triad" as a symbol of a three-part structure for acαeditation (Kap1in 1975). The“
triad" concept describes three operations: fir泣，states“
charters" or 1icenses and in some cases“
accredit" institutions; second, accrediting associations admit to membership and thus“
accredit .most institutions that provide programs of acceptable educational qua1ity; third., the federal government provides funds to 、postsecondary institutions and students on the basis of 扭stitutional “eligib出ty"
derived from
“
listing" approved, nongovernmental, voluntary accrediting associations (Harc1eroad p.18-19). This uneasy and troubled“
triad" provides the basic structure for accreditation as we enter the 1980's.Having finished the historical review, we shall now turn to the discussion òf the procedures and criteria of accreditation as follows:
Accreditation procedures:
The Procedures of accreditation used by the six regional accrediting agencies are not the same. But, in general, there are four major steps followed by all the agencies. They are:
1. A voluntary app1ication for accreditation, which signifies a wish (and, usua11y,
the hope or belief that the applicant cherishes) to meet the accrediting agency's published standards;
Bulletin of Na尬。叫 Taiwan Nonna1 University Vol. XXVII
2. A searching self-study by the applicant institution or program, which is conducted in accord with general guidelines provided by the accrediting agency;
3. An intensive visit of inspection, which is carried out by a team of volunteers dispatched by the agency;
4. A subsequent decision by the agency's accrediting commission, whichis basèd upon the self-study, the team report, and any other informatio~ avai1able, to grant, deny, or renew accreditation for a given period, and whichsignifies that the applicant does, or does not, meet the agency's standards (Middle states Association of Colleges and Schools 1978, p.26~33).
Of those four steps, two of them are most 泊中 ortant. The first is a self-evaluation by the institution's ful1 academic community. This results in a report which both enables the institution to review and reappraise its work as a whole, and affords visiting eva1unators the background they need. The second is a visit by a team of experienced acadamic colleagues. Their function is to study the in-stitutions analysis of its work, in the light of the facts as they see them, and to give、 the institution the views of competent outsiders on its strengths and weaknesses.
Accrediting standards:
Now, we are going to look into the standards of accreditation used by regional accrediting agencies, in other words, the criteria by which the institutions are being evaluated. The earliest attempts at accreditation by the regional associations were based on simplesets of criteria involving such fundamental institutional characteristics such as size of endowment, number of faculty,
number of years of high school required for admission, and length of the educa-tiona1 program. As interest and need grew, however, the criteria became more numerous, more specific, and more quantitative. Afterward, the criticism of such specific and quantitative standards had beenaroused.
In 1929, the North Central Association embarked upon' a three-year study of its evaluation standards. They found -that there was not a single one of the quantitative standards that could be validatedagainst any of the qualitative measures which were applied to the institutions. Therefore, in 1934, the North
The Accrediting System and Its Impact on Finance of
Institution of Higher Education in the United States Centra1 Association decided to adopt the qua1itative standards instead of the old quantitative standardS. In the years that followed, other regional association moved in the same direction and today all express their criteria predominantly in qualitative terms.
Although the standards which have been used by the accrediting agencies are s1ightly different, there is considerable similarity among all documents in terms òf the broad institutional characteristics examined in the evaluative process. The eight major areas which received consistent attention from all agencies 缸e;
1. Goals and objectives;
2. Governance, administration, and organization; 3. Instructional staff;
4. Educational program;
5. Students and student services; 6. Library;
7. Facilities and equipment;
8. Financial resources (Petersen 1979, p. 13-49)
Just as diverse as the accrediting procedures, the accrediting standards are far,
from uniform. If we examine the six regional accrediting agencies' standards, we will find 'the differences in the varyii1g degrees of details and the specificity of the standards.
It should be noted, however, that all regional standards are based essentially upon two fundamental premises: (1) an institution should be evaluated 卸 terms of its own stated objectives; and (2) accrediting standards should be expressed 詛 qua1itative rather than quantitative terms.
Impact on /inance 0/ institutions 01 higher educat旬n:
Having reviewed the framework of accrediting system
,
we know that accreditation was devised in the United States as a means. by which educational institutions and professional associations could estab1ish standards and conduct self-regulation on a voluntary basis without government restraint or direction. In other words, it was devised initially to improve the quality of higher education and to protect academic autonomy.' However, the implementation of accredita-tion has generated some unexpected' impacts on finance of mstituaccredita-tions of higherBulletin of Nationa1 Taiwan Norma1 Un~versity Vo1. XXVII
educations. Because accreditation has been used as a means to identify institu-tions and programs for the investment of public and private funds by society and to determine e1igibility for federal assistance by federal government. In addition,
accreditation also m站ht help institutions to manipulate resources more effi-cient1y.
In the term of helping identify institutions and programs for the investment of public and private funds, it implies that there are many pub1ic and private funds which are available only to those institutions that h
a:
ve been accredited. For example, when the Fotd Foundation made a ha:lf billion dol1ars available for grants to col1eges and universities in' the mid-1950'已 the first stipulation was that applicants must be accredited. Other philanthropic organizations tend to observe the same -limitation (Harc1eroad 1980, p.27). Under this condition, because accreditation determines whether an institution has the opportunity to get access to external funds, those accredited institutions would certainly be better off than the nonaccredited institutions. Therefore, in order to survive, it is important for an institution to be accredited.The most explicit impact of accreditation on an institutions' finance is, perhaps, that accreditation has been used as a basis for eligibility for federa:l
assistance. The use of accreditation as a test for determining eligibility for federal assistance can be traced back to the Veterans Readjustment Act of 1952. To receive benefits, e1igible veterans were required to enrol1 in courses offered by educational institutions approved by thestate agency. 、The state approving agency could approve courses when such courses had been accredited l;i.nd approved by a
nationally recognized accrediting agëncy or association.
After 1952, many subsequent provisions estab1ishing accreditation as one 'of the criteria for eligibility and directing the Commissioner of Education to publish 1ists of recognized accrediting agencies are to be found in the National Defense Education Act of 1958, Higher Education Act of 1965, War Orphans Educational Assistance Act of 1965, Health Manpower Act of 1968, Vocational Education Amendment of 1968, Nurse Act of 1968, and the
“
Mondale Amendment" in the Education Amendments of 1972(Ørlans 1975, pp. 44-45, p.232).The primary purpose of' the Veterans Readjustment Act of.1952 was to protect the veterans agains
The Accredíting System and Its Impact on Finance of
Institution of Higher Education in the United States ment was concerned with assistance to veterans, not the educational insitutions. For the same reason the provision was inc1uded in the War Orphans Assistance Act and tae National Student Loan Insurance Act. Under other laws federal assistance has as its objective the support of educationa1 institutions and ac" creditation is a requirement for institutional eligibility.
Whi1e these laws define an
“
eligible institution" as an accredited institution,the Commissioner normally is authorized to waive the requirement when he determines that there is no national1y recognized accrediting agency. Under such circumstance, he may utilize an advisory committee to evaluate the program or use the three-letters rule (1etters from three accredited institutions that they wil1
accept credits for transfer). An institution may also be deemed as accredited if the Commissioner determines that within a reasonable time it wil1 be able to meet accreditation standards. The advisory committee approach and three-letíers rule have been employed infrequently (Orlans 1975, p.232).
No matter whether these federallaws were proposed to help students or to support institutions, one thing is certain: accreditation influences an institution's finance in terms of source of students and institutional income. As federal grants become a major financial resource available to those institutions that are suffering scarcity of resources and dec1ined enrollment in the 1980池， the eligibility for federal funds becomes more crucial to an institutions' surviva1. In a word, the impact of accreditation on col1ege and urüversity finance is more significant at present than in previous days.
Finally, we should see how accreditatiol1 affects an institution's inner resource allocation. Accørding to the Middle State Association
,
an institution wil1ing to be accredited must be admitted to the status of candidate foraccredita-tion 曲 advance. During the candidacy petiod the institution is required to file an annual external financial audit report (Middle Statc Association of Colleges and Schools 1978, p.30). The requirement of an externa11y audited financia1 statement by the Assoc.i.ation would allow pub1ic interest groups to supervise how the institutions allocate their revenues. The Association a1so encourages the institutions to prepare an institutional development plan, because the association be1ieves that:
“
No instiBulletin of National Taiwan Nonnal University Vol. XXVII
Schools 1978, p.21). This requirement, we believe, would no doubt lead the Ìnstitutions to mainpulate their resources more efficient1y.
Summary and conclusion:
Accreditation is a unique system in the U.S.A. It improves the quality of higher education and protects academic autonomy. One of its characteristics is its voluntary and nongovernmental nature. From a historical point ofview, it was the state of New York which first provided for
“
accreditatíon" of col1eges and universities. In 1787, the regents of the University of the State of New York were required to register (accredit) al1 institutions of higher education under their jurisdictíon. Most other state, however, did not establish such an agency unti1 atleast a centurylater and some stìll not up to this day. Finally, in the 1870's and 1880's the need became critical for stronger academic standards and instítutional evaluation of the rapidly expanding secondary schools and colleges. It provided the opportuníty to establish v01untary membership associations. These associa-tions proliferated very fast both in number and in variety. Today there are six regiona1 accrediting agencies and 48 professional and vocationa1 assôciations recognized by the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (Petersen 1980).
The procedures and standards set up by the voluntary regional agencies to eva1uate institutions are various. However, their basic components are quite simi1ar. For example, in terms of procedures. They all emphasize se1f-study and on-site visits. They all emphasize qualitative standards instead of quantitative 扭 the evaluation of institutions.
Constitutiona11y, the. federal goVernment is not responsib1e for education, But, through its governmental1isting responsibi1ities the Department of Education has been involved in accreditation by way of summarizing the state educational activities and publishing a list since 1870. Most important thing is that 恆 1952 the Office of Education published a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations as a main source of information regarding the e1igibi1ity of institutions to participate in federa1 funding programs. Since then, the federal government has been relying more directly on higher educatíon's own
“
volun-tary" accreditíng system in de.termining which colleges and universities are elibible for federal funds.The Accrediting System and Its Impact on Finance of
InstÏtution of Higher Education in the United States The implementation of accredit1ltion has some impact on an institution's finance. First, the need of submitting annua1ly audited fmancial statements and preparing institutional development plans as a requirement to be accredited would encourage an institution to manipulate its finances more efficiently. Second, the use of accreditation as a criteria for determining an institutions el站ibility for federal funds and other pub1ic or private funds has exercised tremendous impact on the source of students and institutional income. Under the scarcity of resources and dec1ined enrollment of the 1980's, accreditation would have a significant impact on institutional survival.
REFERENCES
1. Birch, Garnet E., State Higher Education Agency Responsibility For the Evaluation and Accreditation o[ Public Four-Year Institutions o[ Higher Education. University of Arizona, 1979.
2. Blauch, L10yd E. ed., Accreditation in Higher Education. U.S. Office of
Education, 1959.
3. Harc1ero祠， Fred F., Accreditation: History, Process, and Problems. American Association for Higher Education, 1980.
4. Hofstadter, Richard and Smith, Wilson. Editors. American Higher Education: A Documentary History. University of Chicago Press, 1961.
5. Kaplin, William A., Respective Roles o[ Federal Government, State Govern-ments and Private Accrediting Agencies in the Governance o[ Postsecondary Education. Washington, D. 仁， COPA， 1975.
6. Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, Policies and Procedures.
Philadelphia, PA. 1978.
7. Miller Jerry W., Organizatiònal Structure o[ Nongovernmental Postsecondary Accreditation: Relationship to Uses o[ Accreditation. Washington, D.C.:
National Commission on Accrediting, 1973.
8. National Commission on Accredition., Bylaws. Ap ril , 1972. Washington,tD.
c.
9. Orlans, Harold., Private Accreditation and Public Eligibility. Lexington,Massachusetts, 1975.
Bulletìn of Natìona1 Taiwan Nonnal University Vol. XXVII
10. Petersen, Dorothy G., A Current Pro.βle: Accrediting Standards and Guide-lines. Washington, D.C. COPA, 1979.
11. . A Guide to Recognized Accrediting Agencies 1980-82. Wash-ington, D.C. Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, 1980.
12. Puffer, Claude E. et a1., Regional Accreditation of Institutions of Higher Education, Federation of Regional Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education. Chicago, July 1970 (offset), Vol. 1. pp. 266-7.
13. Selden, Wil1iam K., Accreditation: A Struggle over Standards in Higher Education. New York: Haper and Brothers, 1960.
14. Singletary, Otis A. ed., American Universities and Colleges. 10th edition.
美國大專認可制度及其對學校經費方面之影響
