5 Misconceptions of High School Accreditation
Two insiders tout the value of peer reviews of practices of local school ecosystems

Robert Baldwin (standing), superintendent in Fairhaven, Mass., decided to expand accreditation from a single school to the full district. PHOTO COURTESY OF FAIRHAVEN, MASS., PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Even high-performing schools improve when they regularly examine their practices, challenge their assumptions about their strategies, consider the best practices in use across the educational landscape and invite external review of their peers.

That’s what one of us (Groves) discovered while serving as superintendent of a school district in Northern California for 23 years. The Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District found the accreditation process run by a regional accrediting body to be a vehicle for positive change, resulting in greater student learning.

The district, with its 4,300 students, experienced nine continuous years of measurable academic student test score gains that included narrowing of the achievement gap among student subgroups.

In Massachusetts, several school districts recently incorporated the accreditation process into their strategic planning and the hard work of improving teaching and learning. These districts are leveraging the accreditation framework to advance their educational goals and priorities, and their leaders see accreditation as a valuable tool to guide their improvement efforts.

“We have found the process and new standards very helpful,” says Bella Wong, superintendent of the Lincoln-Sudbury Regional School District, about 30 miles west of Boston. “We are premising our creation of a strategic plan on the work we are doing for the re-accreditation process. It is all dovetailing nicely for us.”

In the 2,100-student Fairhaven School District in southeastern Massachusetts, superintendent Robert Baldwin says he expects to extend the accreditation process from his single high school to the entire K-12 district. “Students are not born in grade 9, so using this school improvement process can benefit the practices vertically,” he says.

A Positive Embrace

As the leaders of two of the four regional accreditation agencies operating in the United States, we’ve seen school communities em-brace the accreditation process as an avenue to understand the challenges and opportunities and to embrace a positive culture and a practice of continuous improvement.

High school accreditation in the United States varies by state with fewer than half requiring public schools to be accredited and none mandating accreditation for private schools. There are no federal requirements for high school accreditation as there are for postsecondary institutions that accept federally backed financial aid. While our specific approaches vary across our agencies, we believe high school accreditation is best accomplished through the four nonprofit regional accreditation agencies that rely on a peer-focused holistic review and study.

The reviews examine teaching and learning practices; formative and summative assessments of student work; parent, teacher and student surveys; school improvement plans; professional development plans; grading practices; measures of college and career readiness; as well as statistical data such as graduation rates and attendance information.

Even so, misconceptions persist widely among superintendents and principals about accreditation’s value and relevance. Some prefer to see it as a process that must be tolerated to placate certain community and school stakeholder groups.

These are what we view as five misconceptions over school accreditation as carried out by our regional bodies.

»Misconception No. 1: Accreditation does not lead to greater student learning.

The accreditation process assists schools and districts to focus on improving student academic achievement through protocols and established standards and rubrics. Founded on a growth mindset, the process focuses on continuous learning facilitated in an environment that nurtures cooperation in a transparent manner.

Examining and identifying schools’ strengths and shortcomings through a self-study process and participating on visits to other schools is excellent professional development for teachers and school and district administrators. The process helps schools and districts organize, focus and benchmark their improvement plans, which positively impacts achievement for all students.

Schools get better by looking inward — by conducting a deep-dive self-study, undergoing a peer review from fellow educators and developing a specific plan for improvement founded on these assessments. No one path is best for all schools or districts. It is the entire local educational ecosystem that determines student outcomes.

All school and district leaders want to improve their students’ educational outcomes, and school accreditation provides the framework grounded in research-based standards and validated best practices to help them do that.

»Misconception No. 2: Accreditation is a compliance-driven activity.

Most high school accreditation has been driven by compliance to a set of state standards. Today accreditation is not driven by check-lists or must haves or must do’s. The process includes a multiday peer assessment with a review of the school’s self-evaluation documents, classroom visitations, stakeholder interviews and past accreditation reports. It is a holistic view of the school using re-search-based standards and rubrics. While state assessments provide schools and districts with a set of test outcomes, accreditation offers specific actionable recommendations.

Quality assurance and continuous improvement are the goals of school accreditation. Accreditation ensures quality to the public, students and their families, signaling that schools have met the threshold of quality standards and have the capacity and commitment to improve student success in the future.

Accreditation assures school communities and employers that the school’s purposes are appropriate and being accomplished through a successful educational program. It ensures the focus on school improvement is being managed through regular assessing, planning, implementing, monitoring and reassessing. By emphasizing continuous improvement, accreditation helps schools increase student academic achievement.

»Misconception No. 3: Colleges and universities don’t care about a high school’s accreditation.

From left, Lisa McCauley, president of the Middle States Association Commission on Elementary and Secondary Schools; Barry Groves, president of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges Accreditation Commission for Schools; and Cameron Staples, CEO of the New England Association of Colleges and Schools. PHOTO COURTESY OF BARRY GROVES

Many public and private colleges and universities prefer that students graduate from accredited high schools to gain admission and have policies requiring consideration of a school’s accredited status when assessing student applicants. Some colleges explicitly require that students come from accredited schools to be considered through regular admissions channels.

The regional accreditation agencies are recognized worldwide and accredit English-speaking schools globally. Although accreditation is not required for admission by all postsecondary institutions, applicants from unaccredited schools may be subject to more rigorous review of their school’s academic program during the admissions process. In New England, the regional accreditor for colleges and universities has adopted a policy stating that higher education institutions should consider in their admissions decisions whether an applicant is graduating from an accredited school.

»Misconception No. 4: Accreditation does not help in managing schoolwide change.

The accreditation process helps schools manage change by providing a validated framework for regular assessment, planning, implementation, monitoring and reassessment. The staff works together on an action plan for whole school improvement based on accepted best practices and guided by ongoing review and assessments of success.

All high schools, whether public, charter or independent, should strive for continuous improvement. This is best achieved through a robust school accreditation process that involves the collective wisdom of peer review and ensures currency and consistency with recognized best practices. Best of all, when accreditation is embraced by districts and schools, it leads to better student outcomes.

»Misconception No. 5: Accreditation is too costly.

The cost of accreditation to schools and districts includes annual dues and the expenses for outside professionals to attend a decennial accreditation visit. These costs vary from region to region but tend to be about half the cost to educate one student on an annual basis.

The cost of an accreditation visit includes the expertise of a group of trained observers for 3-4 days. If you consider the costs of hiring this level of expertise from a professional consulting group, the expense of accreditation is a considerable value. Accreditation also provides a valuable professional development opportunity for teachers and administrators in a school or district.

BARRY GROVES, a former superintendent in California for 23 years, is the president of the Accreditation Commission for Schools, Western Association of Schools and Colleges in Burlingame, Calif. Twitter: @barryrgroves. CAMERON STAPLES is president/chief executive officer of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges in Burlington, Mass.