Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Accreditation has witnessed a surge in popularity within K-12 settings, being perceived as a pathway to excellence and a testament to the pursuit of quality education. This study explored the perceptions of 423 educators (teachers, subject coordinators, and school leaders) from 10 Arab Sates focusing on the value of accreditation and its impact on school improvement, through their lenses. A survey with an open-ended question, was used to collect data. Quantitative data underwent statistical analysis using SPSS 25.0, while qualitative data from the open-ended question were analyzed using theme-based analysis. Findings reveal that participants expressed positive views toward accreditation, recognizing its role in ensuring compliance with standards related to safety, resource allocation, and infrastructure provisions. However, participants, particularly teachers, displayed more reserved perspectives on accreditation’s potential to enhance school improvement, expressing concerns that it may lead to cloned schools and diminish teachers’ creativity and autonomy. This study highlights the complexities and divergent perceptions surrounding accreditation’s impact on K-12 education, urging further reflection and dialogue to better align accreditation practices with the genuine pursuit of school improvement and educational excellence.

Plain language summary

Perception of K-12 School Communities on Accreditation as Tool for School Improvement

Over the last decade, accreditation has gained traction in K-12 schools as a marker of excellence and dedication to quality education. This study investigated how teachers, subject coordinators, and school principals perceive accreditation. Findings indicate that while school principals viewed accreditation as linked to school improvement, teachers generally did not make this connection. Subject coordinators fell somewhere in between these perspectives.

Keywords

accreditation school improvement quality assurance K-12 education

Introduction

Accreditation in K-12 settings has gained a rising popularity in the last decade (Brown et al., 2016). A key reason for this booming relates to the perception that when a school is accredited, it entails that it has been vetted by an outside agency for the quality of its academic programs, and adherence to certain educational standards (Michelli & Karp, 2016). This is because accreditation involves rigorous checks to ensure a school meets set standards, and is thus qualified to teach students the programs they are offering (Johnsen et al., 2021).

However, the rise in demand in accreditation have raised the legitimate question about whether or not it has indeed led to improvements in the various aspects of schooling (Coutet, 2022). In fact, a growing body of research has shed light on accreditation, viewing it through a negative lens (Coutet, 2022; Hail et al., 2019; Hughes, 2004; Lewis, 2016; Romanowski, 2017, 2020, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Romanowski & Alkhateeb, 2020). For example, Romanowski and Alkhateeb (2020) criticized international accrediting bodies for ‘McDonaldizing’ accreditation, stating that they led to replicas of American schools across the globe. ‘Macdonaldization’, is a term they borrowed from Ritzer (2000) who initially used it to draw an analogy between the sweeping of the famous McDonald fast-food industry across countries.

In the same vein, the cost of accreditation has been criticized in the literature as being highly expensive. McMurtrie (1999, cited in Gillen, 2020) stated that accreditations are “cumbersome, expensive, secretive and outdated” ( p. 5). Likewise, Neal and Alacbay (2018) and Wheelan and Elgart (2015) made similar critiques raising questions pertaining the degree accreditation was a cost-effective measure for achieving quality. Moreover, Romanowski (2020) criticized the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) for being a tool for neocolonialism, by exerting pressure to control or influence other educational systems in other countries outside the US, by its standards, processes and procedures.

As such, accreditation has been viewed as disparaged for diluting academic freedom (Romanowski & Karkouti, 2024), and impinged institutional autonomy (Gaf, 2010; Gillen et al., 2010; Harvey, 2004). Additionally, and according to Harvey (2004), the accreditation procedures are not benign or apolitical, but represent a power struggle that imposes an extensive bureaucratic burden on educational institutions. In this line, accrediting bodies have been criticized for creating myth images about themselves, serving as abstract authorizing power, thus shifting the power from educators to bureaucrats (Harvey, 2004).

As for the impact of accreditation on learning and teaching, the published work is relatively limited. Many studies claim that accreditation impact positively on the quality of education offered in educational institutions (Ulker & Bakioglu, 2019). Moreover, there is a convergence on the finding that accreditation plays a critical role in influencing the public interest in making decisions pertaining their choice of schools for their children (Afriliandhi & Hasanah, 2023; Cura & Ahmed Alani, 2018; Ibrahim, 2014). Yet, some studies argue that accreditation acts a hurdle confronting innovation and impede pedagogic improvement processes (Harvey, 2004; Romanowski & Karkouti, 2024). Furthermore, accreditation is criticized for lacking the ability to incur a positive effect on outcomes in an educational context (Collins, 2015; van Kemenade & Hardjono, 2009), and for its deficiency in offering real evidences of its impact on educational improvement (Shah, 2012; Tamir & Wilson, 2005).

The majority of the cited studies above have been conducted in higher educational settings. This is because there is a scarcity in the literature of accreditation in K-12 settings. The interest in accreditation in K-12 settings is relatively recent. As such, this study attempted to explore the perceived value of accreditation in K-12 settings through the lenses of teachers, subject coordinators and school leaders, with emphasis on its impact on school improvement initiatives. It was guided by the following research questions:

What are the perceptions of teachers, subject coordinators, and school leaders regarding accreditation?

To what extent do teachers, subject coordinators, and school leaders link accreditation with school improvement?

Literature Review

Accreditation in Higher Education

Accreditation dates back to late 1800s/ early 1900s, where higher education institutions, with high academic standards, suggested this measure to distinguish themselves from institutions that claimed to be colleges whilst offering high school curricula (Alstete, 2004). Since then accreditation underwent continuous development because of the need for confidence in post-secondary degrees issued by the various institutions, especially that all jobs required college degrees for employment (Graves, 2021).

With this, accreditation developed further and gained momentum providing a sense of security, confidence, and serving as means for verification of credibility (Okulova & Shakina, 2022). It became an indicator of quality in higher education (Blanco Ramírez, 2015). Almost all funding provided for students interested in pursuing higher education is now dependent on accreditation. In fact, all governmental aid and scholarships are linked to the acceptance of students in accredited higher education institutions (Healey & Healey, 2023). Perley and Tanguay (2008) suggest that accreditation serve as a “gate keeper” for students, families, and governments providing an accountability mechanism that ensures that funds are well spent and that graduates will be able, post-graduation, to contribute to their societies and economies.

Thus, there are several reasons that underlie the decision of a higher education institution to seek accreditation. These include: (a) the opportunity to receive funds (Graves, 2021); (b) the ability to offer programs leading to certification (Acevedo-De-los-Ríos & Rondinel-Oviedo, 2022); (c) reputation (Stewart et al., 2021); (d) the ability to compete with other institutions and programs (Hou & Cheng, 2022); (e) the development of improvement of programs (Darling-Hammond, 2020); and (f) adhering to compliance requirements (Blanco Ramírez, 2015).

However, the recent trends in higher education including internationalization (Abasi et al., 2022; Romanowski, 2022a; Salto, 2022), global competition (Hou & Cheng, 2022; Nuryana, 2022; Romanowski, 2022b) and university rankings (Rybinski, 2022; Zierer, 2023) have all made a significant contribution to the recent popularity of accreditation. Today, many institutions worldwide request accreditation from US based accrediting bodies in order to attract international students, mainly due to the absence of national quality assurance systems in their own countries (Blanco-Ramirez & Luu, 2016), or because they believe that it is more prestigious to receive accreditation from a US accrediting body (Prasad et al., 2019).

Two points need to be raised at this stage pertaining to the revised literature. First, K-12 and higher education institutions in the Arab region seek accreditation from Western accrediting bodies to ensure global recognition and quality assurance (Al-Jammal & Ghamrawi, 2013, 2015; Ghamrawi & Al-Jammal, 2013, 2014). Prominent examples include the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), which sets rigorous standards for teacher preparation programs and is based in the United States. Additionally, organizations such as AdvancED, now part of Cognia, provide accreditation for K-12 schools, emphasizing continuous improvement and accountability. Many Arab universities also pursue accreditation from other Western agencies such as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) and the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), renowned for their comprehensive evaluation processes and international prestige. This reliance on Western accrediting bodies underscores a commitment to maintaining high educational standards and fostering international credibility. CAEP accreditation, being highly sought after, will be discussed in the next section.

On the other hand, the revised literature incorporates two distinct types of scholarly works: international literature (such as Andreani et al., 2022; Coutet, 2020; Haryati, 2014; Oldham, 2018; Perryman et al., 2018; Winterbottom & Piasta, 2014; Ulker & Bakioglu, 2019); as well as studies conducted within the Arab states region such as rich body of research generated by Michael Romanowski (Romanowski, 2017, 2020, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Romanowski & Karkouti, 2024). Both sources emphasize the pivotal role of Western accrediting bodies in shaping educational standards. International literature often highlights the established practices and benefits of these accrediting organizations which are recognized for their rigorous evaluation processes and global prestige. Meanwhile, research from the Arab region underscores the growing trend of local institutions seeking accreditation from these Western bodies to enhance their educational quality and international credibility. This dual focus provides a comprehensive understanding of how Western accrediting bodies influence educational practices and policies in the Arab States.

CAEP Accreditation

CAEP’s accreditation process is designed to promote excellence in educator preparation through evidence-based evaluations with the dual objectives of enhancing candidates’ performance as practitioners in K-12 schools and elevating the overall stature of the teaching profession (Li & Ragin, 2016). To achieve CAEP accreditation, institutions seeking recognition must follow a comprehensive process, including application, self-study, alignment with CAEP’s standards, and submission of annual reports and program reviews, culminating in an on-site visit guided by CAEP’s handbook and various resources.

The accreditation process revolves around five key standards, defining and assessing quality in an institution’s performance: (a) content and pedagogical knowledge; (b) clinical partnerships and practice; (c) candidate quality, recruitment, and selectivity; (d) program impact; and (e) provider quality assurance and continuous improvement (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation [CAEP], 2015). Additionally, there are 22 sub-standards, and CAEP may refer to supplementary standards like the Interstate New Teachers Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Standards and Specialized Professional Associations (SPA) when necessary, as they represent exemplary teaching and best practices in education (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation [CAEP], 2018).

Colleges of education are responsible for establishing efficient systems to collect, manage, and interpret reliable and valid evidence, which are essential for continuous improvement. This evidence includes program and student outcomes, teaching effectiveness, graduates’ impact on K-12 students, and feedback collected from completers and employers regarding hiring decisions (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), 2020). The accumulation of such data serves to demonstrate program effectiveness and candidate quality, ensuring accountability and ongoing improvement within accredited institutions rates, licensure requirements, and other data (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), 2021).

Criticism of Accreditation in Higher Education

Despite its popularity, accreditation in higher education has received a lot of criticism in the literature. In fact, initially, accreditation was hugely criticized for basing its judgments on quantitative factors such the number of books in a library, the number of available equipment, or the student-teacher ratios (Ulker & Bakioglu, 2019). This led to a shift in focus on students’ learning outcomes, which became an integral element of accreditation standards (Andreani et al., 2020). However, the adoption and focus on learning outcomes in accreditation standards became the center of a heated debate pertaining the extent they could be assessed (Romanowski, 2021), and their lack of influence on educational improvement (Volkwein, 2010). As a result, accreditation underwent another shift, and turned into focusing more on learning experiences (Ulker & Bakioglu, 2019). Despite that, accreditation continues to receive criticism for dealing with education as an industry, by adopting standards that focuses more on administrative processes and practices, with less emphasis on the learning and teaching processes (de Paor, 2019).

Another criticism to accreditation accuses it of idolatry (Romanowski, 2021), serving as an authority that can change and brush aside any existing epistemological formations, impose new adjustments, and infringes a range of negative influences on institutions, professors, education and academic disciplines (Romanowski, 2020). In this line, accreditation is considered to occupy an undeserving special esteem; giving it the privilege in costs above any other essential needs at an institution, and exhibiting the power to eliminate the original context of such an institution, rendering it with a totally new context and culture (Romanowski, 2021). Moreover, accreditation is often glorified for no more than the interest in it, becoming an end itself, rather than being means to improvement and effectiveness (Romanowski, 2021).

In the same vein, accreditation is viewed as a tool for neocolonialism (Romanowski, 2022a) and ‘Macdonaldization’ (Romanowski & Al-Khateeb, 2020) by cloning the American system through standardization and imposing it on institutions across the globe. Through this, accreditation tends to dilute and erode academic freedom in higher education institutions (Holt, 2020). Holt (2020) contends that accreditation impinges institutions by ‘distancing them from their defined academic responsibilities (free inquiry, free service, and free teaching/learning) and placing them in a subservient position of tedious task accountancy’ (p. 2006).

Accreditation in K-12 Settings

Accreditation, which has been developed by what is called now the U.S. regional accreditation agencies, is one form of England’s school inspections, organized by its Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted; Bernasconi, 2006). School inspections are famously known to be of British origin and continue to be the British practice for assuring and insuring quality in education (Ehren et al., 2013; Roberts & Abreu, 2018). It is worth mentioning that historically, British type inspection of schools is considered to be the initial attempts for judging quality in schools (Coutet, 2022; Elliot, 2015; Ladd, 2017; Snelling, 2017).

It is argued that all practices world-wide have been inspired by the British model in one way or another (Doherty, 2012). School inspection is a systematic approach used to evaluate a school by external experts pertaining curriculum offerings and enrichment; teaching, learning and assessment; personal and social development of students; health and safety provisions; student attainment and progress; and school leadership (Ghamrawi & Abu-Tineh, 2023; Zheng & Thomas, 2022).

Unlike the UK whose Ofsted is a governmental entity that reports to the British House of Commons (Roberts & Abreu, 2018); the USA favors the provision of QA to be carried out by non-governmental agencies (Doherty, 2012). The U.S. Department of Education has “…no oversight role with respect to school accreditation. Most states have laws requiring or encouraging accreditation for public schools and state-chartered private schools” (USNEI, 2017).

Because it is voluntary, schools do not have to become accredited in order to open their doors or offer their educational services in the US (USNEI, 2017). In this context, assurance that the services and operations of a given school system adheres to the pre-determined set of standards, is made by an external agency (UNESCO, 2015). If standards are met, then the school gets accredited, meaning that the external agency acknowledge that this school’s practices are in accordance with standards (Zheng & Thomas, 2022). Schools that possess accreditation and state approval by authorities recognized at the state level are considered to be recognized schools within the U.S. education system (USNEI, 2017). In addition, private schools that are accredited by other associations recognized by the federal Departments of Defense, Homeland Security and State are also considered to be recognized (USNEI, 2017).

Criticism of Accreditation in K-12 Settings

The demand for academic accreditation in K-12 settings is relatively recent, and has been primarily related to the multiplication of international schools worldwide in the first place (Machin, 2019). According to the ISC Research (2019), the number of international schools grew from 2,584 school in 2000, to 10,400 in 2019. Hayden and Thompson (2013) relate the booming of international schools to the fact that they are no more limited to expats children, but rather accommodate now children of locals who are not satisfied with the quality of educational offerings of their local systems. Therefore, the fact that K-12 accreditation has gained interest only during the past decade justifies the scarcity of research addressing it.

While accreditation is claimed by all accrediting bodies to be growth promoting (Mo & Ulmet, 2019), the validity of the self-evaluation that schools carryout prior to external visits raises concerns. Such concerns relate to the degree of the validity of school self-review reports and the potential fabrication they may undergo to provide a polished image for the accreditors (Haryati, 2014; Oldham, 2018; Perryman et al., 2018). Moreover, Winterbottom and Piasta (2014) argue that accreditation does not improve student performance, but rather ensure that the school is closer to the blue print set by the accrediting body, and is in a better stance to fit its molds.

In the same vein, Coutet (2022) suggests that accreditation in K-12 settings is incurring isomorphism, a concept that is comparable to neocolonialism (Romanowski, 2022a) and “Macdonaldization” (Romanowski & Al-Khateeb, 2022) used to criticize accreditation in higher education. Through isomorphism, Coutet (2022) suggests that all accredited schools become homogeneous in terms of how they both look and function, thus restricting competitiveness and innovation.

Methodology

Research Design

This study employed a survey methodology to investigate accreditation in K-12 settings, aiming to gather both quantitative data and nuanced insights. The survey was meticulously designed to solicit perspectives from a broad spectrum of participants, including teachers, subject coordinators, and school leaders, all concerning school accreditation. An open-ended question was strategically included at the conclusion of the survey to encourage participants to elaborate on their responses, thereby enriching the depth of data collected. The survey served as a pivotal tool in collecting quantitative data and capturing the perspectives of a diverse array of stakeholders, encompassing teachers, subject coordinators, and school leaders, in relation to school accreditation. Furthermore, recognizing the potential limitations of structured survey questions, an open-ended query was incorporated to provide participants with the opportunity to freely articulate additional insights beyond the scope of the structured questionnaire.

Research Instrument and Data Analysis

The survey, developed by the researchers, consisted of three sections. The first section collected demographic data about participants including gender, age, years of experience, and job position. The second section collected participants’ evaluation pertaining accreditation, using 20 items. A 4-points Likert Scale was used for this purpose (4 = strongly agree, 3 = agree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree). The last section invited participants to respond to open ended question. In your opinion, what are the advantages and disadvantages of accreditation in K-12 settings?

The Accreditation and School Improvement Survey (ASIS), comprised initially 24 items covering educators’ perceptions pertaining accreditation regarding three domains: management of school facilities; learning and teaching; and school improvement. To ensure the validity and the reliability of the instrument, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and reliability analysis were conducted. To determine the suitability of the data for factor analysis, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure were employed. The KMO values, which indicate the sampling adequacy, were 0.922 for domain 1, 0.924 for domain 2, and 0.909 for domain 3. These values above 0.60 demonstrate high consistency in the data. Additionally, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity indicated a significant relationship between the variables (p < 0.05), supporting the appropriateness of the data for factor analysis. While quantitative data (fixed-choice survey items) was analyzed statistically using SPSS 25.0, qualitative data (open-ended survey question) was analyzed using thematic analysis.

The Sample and Gaining Access

The sample consisted of 423 participants (teachers, subject coordinators, school principals) who were members of a virtual community of practice (vCoP) serving Arabic speaking educators. A vCoP is an online platform where individuals with shared professional interests come together to learn, collaborate, and exchange knowledge (Ghamrawi, 2022; Ghamrawi et al., 2023, 2024a; 2024b). It serves as a dynamic space for members to connect, regardless of their geographical location, and engage in discussions, share resources, and support one another’s professional growth (Shal et al., 2018, 2024a, 2024b, 2024c). The board of the vCoP was approached requesting access to community members for the purpose of taking part in the study. The researchers submitted along their letter, the consent form, a copy of the survey, and an ethical clearance letter from the Institutional Research Board of the university the researchers belonged. The request was to administer the survey to all the 2000 plus members registered on the platform, such that the first 500 to respond satisfying the selection criteria would constitute part of the sample.

For a participant to be recruited for the study, he/she should satisfy all of the following conditions: (a) should be a teacher, a subject coordinator, or a school leader in a K-12 setting; (b) should be able to communicate in Arabic; (c) should belong to a school that has been accredited during the past 5 years; (d) should have been working in that particular school at the time where it got (re)accredited. The number of returned surveys during one month was 511, but many were dropped because they did not fit the selection criteria. Thus, the number of valid responses was 423, which was the number that constituted the sample (N = 423). As such, the sample consisted of 423 participants, with a slight female majority (55.1%). The majority of participants were aged between 36 and 45 years (53.7%) and had 11 to 20 years of experience (63.6%). The sample included various job positions, with teachers making up 48%, subject coordinators 34.5%, and school principals 17.5%. Participants were drawn from 10 countries, with the highest representations from the UAE (12.1%), Lebanon (11.1%), and Oman (10.9%), while the least represented country was Tunisia (7.3%).

The detailed characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Sample.

Characteristic	Frequency	Percent
Gender
Male	190	44.9
Female	233	55.1
Age
26–35 years	117	27.7
36–45 years	227	53.7
46 years and above	79	18.7
Experience
6–10 years	86	20.3
11–20 years	269	63.6
21 years or more	68	16.1
Job position
Teacher	203	48.0
Subject coordinator	146	34.5
School principal	74	17.5
Country
Algeria	45	10.6
Egypt	35	8.3
Jordan	40	9.5
Lebanon	47	11.1
Morocco	45	10.6
Oman	46	10.9
Qatar	43	10.2
Saudi Arabia	40	9.5
Tunisia	31	7.3
UAE	51	12.1

Findings

Quantitative Data Analysis

Educators’ Perceptions Pertaining to Accreditation

Educators’ perceptions pertaining to accreditation was assessed using 20 items following a 4-points Likert scale from 1 “Strongly Diasgaree” to 4 “Strongly Agree” (Table 2). The top three items showing high perception were: (a) Accreditation procedures support an adequate learning technologies infrastructure at school (average score 3.35 over 4); (b) Accreditation procedures ensure that the provision of safety is adequate at school. (average score 3.32 over 4); and (c) Accreditation procedures support an adequate resource allocation at school. (average score 3.31 over 4).

Table 2.

Educators’ Perceptions Pertaining to Accreditation.

Items	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Agree	Strongly agree	Mean (SD)
Management of school facilities
Accreditation procedures ensure school facilities and infrastructure are in good conditions.	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	366 (86.5%)	57 (13.5%)	3.13 (0.34)
Accreditation procedures impact positively on the management of communication channels amongst faculty.	99 (23.4%)	240 (56.7%)	53 (12.5%)	31 (7.3%)	2.04 (0.81)
Accreditation procedures ensure that the provision of safety is adequate at school.	0 (0.0%)	7 (1.7%)	275 (65.0%)	141 (33.3%)	3.32 (0.50)
Accreditation procedures support an adequate learning technologies infrastructure at school.	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	273 (64.5%)	150 (35.5%)	3.35 (0.48)
Accreditation procedures support an adequate resource allocation at school.	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	291 (68.8%)	132 (31.2%)	3.31 (0.46)
Accreditation procedures support better management operations at school.	13 (3.1%)	220 (52.0%)	171 (40.4%)	19 (4.5%)	2.46 (0.63)
Accreditation procedures support better learning environment for students.	0 (0.0%)	113 (26.7%)	271 (64.1%)	39 (9.2%)	2.83 (0.57)
Accreditation procedures support better working environment for faculty and staff.	72 (17.0%)	225 (53.2%)	107 (25.3%)	19 (4.5%)	2.17 (0.76)
Learning and teaching
The participation in the accreditation process leads to improvements in classroom instruction.	75 (17.7%)	235 (55.6%)	100 (23.6%)	13 (3.1%)	2.12 (0.72)
The participation in the accreditation process leads to improvements in the quality of the professional development offered to teachers.	48 (11.3%)	155 (36.6%)	203 (48.0%)	17 (4.0%)	2.45 (0.75)
The participation in the accreditation process contributes to the development of a professional learning community at school.	151 (35.8%)	198 (46.8%)	59 (13.9%)	15 (3.5%)	1.85 (1.23)
The participation in the accreditation process increases the capacity of faculty in impacting positively the personal and social development of students.	47 (11.1%)	253 (59.8%)	102 (24.1%)	21 (5.0%)	2.23 (0.71)
The participation in the accreditation process increases the reliance of faculty on multi-faceted authentic assessment tools.	7 (1.7%)	306 (72.3%)	87 (20.6%)	23 (5.4%)	2.30 (0.59)
The participation in the accreditation process leads schools to evaluate their curriculum and gain a better understanding of it.	5 (1.2%)	263 (62.2%)	140 (33.1%)	15 (3.5%)	2.39 (0.58)
The participation in the accreditation process support school improvement by distributing leadership in the school (delegation and sharing power).	13 (3.1%)	295 (69.7%)	89 (21.0%)	26 (6.1%)	2.30 (0.63)
Accreditation and school improvement
The participation in the accreditation process is one way to achieve school improvement.	0 (0.0%)	329 (77.8%)	68 (16.1%)	26 (6.1%)	2.28 (0.57)
Accreditation procedures support faculty creativity and risk-taking.	190 (44.9%)	159 (37.6%)	54 (12.8%)	20 (4.7%)	1.77 (0.85)
Accreditation procedures supports organizational effectiveness and long-term planning.	18 (4.3%)	225 (53.2%)	162 (38.3%)	18 (4.3%)	2.43 (0.64)
The efforts directed toward obtaining accreditation are worth the time and energy invested by faculty (because it leads to school improvement).	135 (31.9%)	194 (45.9%)	61 (14.4%)	33 (7.8%)	1.98 (0.88)
Accreditation is a synonym for school improvement.	162 (38.3%)	162 (38.3%)	59 (13.9%)	40 (9.5%)	1.95 (0.95)

On the other hand, the three items showing the lowest perceptions were: (a) Accreditation procedures support faculty creativity and risk-taking (average score 1.77 over 4); (b) The participation in the accreditation process contributed to the development of a professional learning community at school (average score 1.85 over 4); and (c) Accreditation is a synonym for school improvement (average score 1.95 over 4).

The EFA yielded a three-factor structure, explaining 76.69% of the variance in item relationships. The two factors demonstrated high reliabilities, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients surpassing .823 for domain 1, and .897 for domain 2, and .899 for domain 3. Subsequently, four items were eliminated due to cross loading on more than one factor, resulting in a final questionnaire comprising 20 items (Table 3).

Table 3.

Score of Educators’ Perceptions Pertaining to Accreditation.

Educators’ perceptions pertaining to accreditation
Analyzed N	423
Mean	48.02
Median	44.00
Std. Deviation	9.55
Minimum	39.00
Maximum	74.00
Percentiles
25	41.00
50	44.00
75	51.00

Factors Associated With Educators’ Perceptions Pertaining to Accreditation

Perception and Sociodemographic Characteristics

The association between educators’ perceptions pertaining to accreditation and teachers’ sociodemographic characteristics is represented in Table 4. Educators’ perceptions pertaining to accreditation was statistically associated with respondents’ sex (p = .005), age (p < .001), experience (p < .001) and job (p < .001). Results showed that educators’ perceptions pertaining to accreditation was higher in females compared to males, increased with increasing teachers’ age, and also increased with increasing teachers’ experience. Furthermore, educators’ perceptions pertaining to accreditation increased with increased job hierarchy: school principals scored (66.58 ± 4.05 over 80), followed by subject coordinators (46.10 ± 5.16 over 80), and finally teachers (42.64 ± 2.77 over 80).

Table 4.

Correlation Between Perceptions and Sociodemographic Characteristics.

Variables	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Minimum	Maximum	p Value
Sex
Male	190	46.56	8.19	39.00	71.00	.005 ^a
Female	233	49.21	10.40	39.00	74.00
Age
26–35 years	117	43.67	4.52	39.00	61.00		<.001 ^b
36–45 years	227	45.02	6.26	39.00	71.00
46 years and above	79	63.08	8.11	46.00	74.00
Experience
6–10 years	86	43.42	3.55	39.00	50.00	<.001 ^b
11–20 years	269	45.46	7.52	39.00	74.00
21 years or more	68	63.96	4.63	52.00	70.00
Job
Teacher	203	42.64	2.77	39.00	50.00	<.001 ^b
Subject coordinator	146	46.10	5.16	39.00	61.00
School principal	74	66.58	4.05	60.00	74.00

Note. Independent t-test (a) and Anova test (b) were used in the analysis; Bold: Statistically significant correlation set at 5%.

Perception and Countries

Results showed that teachers from Saudi Arabia had the highest perception score with an average of 52.56 ± 7.35 out of 80, followed by teachers from Tunisia with an average score of 49.58 ± 13.47 out of 80. The least scores were for teachers from UAE (44.84 ± 7.35 over 80), and Qatar (45.49 ± 7.74 over 80). ANOVA test (see Table 4) showed a statistically significant association between perception and teachers’ nationality. Tukey and Bonferroni tests showed that a statistically significant difference exists where teachers from Saudi Arabia had higher significant perception compared to teachers from UAE (p = .004) and Qatar (p = .002).

Qualitative Data Analysis

As stated earlier, the survey included one open-ended question: In your opinion, what advantages and disadvantages of accreditation in K-12 settings?

Data derived from this question was analyzed using theme-based analysis. The analysis consisted of open coding, axial coding and then selective coding as recommended by the literature (Charmaz, 2014; Flick, 2009; Williams & Moser, 2019). Such coding was made against pre-determined two general themes: advantages and disadvantages of accreditation, as perceived by participants. Peer debriefing was utilized in order to ensure validity of codes and themes, whereby the coding was carried out by researchers independently, then compared and agreed on (Scharp & Sanders, 2019).

The themes arrived at are presented in Table 5. For ethical considerations, participants are identified using the formula X_yC, where “X” can be T, S, or P accounting for teachers, subject coordinators or school principals respectively; while “z” is the number given to that participant. Moreover, C stands for the first letter of the country this participant came from. For example, T₂E indicates an Egyptian teacher numbered “2”; while P₃A designates an Algerian principal numbered 3.

Table 5.

Themes Emerging From the Analysis of the Open-Ended Question.

Themes	Teachers	Subject coordinators	School principals
Advantages
Recognition	•	•	•
Student enrollment	•	•	•
Infrastructure, safety and resources	•	•	•
Management and administration	•	•	•
Teacher Professional Development		•	•
Continuous improvement		•	•
Disadvantages
No impact on learning and teaching	•
Diluted teacher initiatives	•	•
Cloning schools	•	•
Polished school realities	•
Time consuming	•	•	•
Bound to (re)accreditation time	•
Cost	•	•	•

Table 5 shows that the key advantages of accreditation were almost identical amongst teachers, subject coordinators, and school principals. In fact, all three groups believed that accreditation supported their school in gaining recognition, increasing student enrollment, enhancing its infrastructure and safety measures; and amassing learning resources. However, school coordinators and school principals considered teacher professional development (TPD) and continuous school improvement as part of the advantages incurred by accreditation processes.

First, all groups believed that accreditation supported the recognition of their schools, believing that getting accredited by a foreign accrediting body was quite prestigious for the school.

Accreditation a prestige, a status, a way of telling your target audience that you are trustworthy for educating students (P₂₃L).

Moreover, all groups believed that by virtue of the trust that accredited schools gain, student enrollment tends to increase.

Accreditation promotes increased student enrollment because it sends a strong message to parents telling them that this accredited school is offering quality education (S₁₇S).

In addition, all groups elaborated on the positive impact of accreditation on schools’ infrastructure, safety measures, and learning resources. Participants suggested that schools under accreditation focus a lot on maintaining the school buildings and amenities, ensuring student safety around it, and stocking learning resources.

Accreditation is primer for ensuring that your school is well maintained, technologically equipped, safe for learners, and is rich with all sorts of learning resources (T₃₅₁Q).

However, while almost 30% of subject coordinators and 70% of school principals contended that accreditation contributed to improved teacher professional development that is geared to their needs, not a single teacher among respondents converged on this point.

Accreditation is key for rendering teacher professional development more fit for teachers’ needs (P₁₄₆J).

Likewise, 20% of subject coordinators and 80% of school principals believed that accreditation supported continuous school improvement.

Accreditation keeps us the school thinking of how to improve (S₄₀₂T).

On the other hand, subject coordinators and principals views on the disadvantages of accreditation converged lightly with teachers’ views. In fact, all three groups believed that accreditation was costly and time consuming.

Accreditation is time consuming and very costly (T₃₉₅M, S₂₁₃O, P₉₂U).

Moreover, teachers (almost 60%) and subject coordinators (almost 40%) believed that accreditation diluted teachers’ initiatives, because of the so many restrictions implied on them for complying with accreditation standards.

Accreditation puts a lot of restrictions on what teachers can do in class, and make them less creative. (S₈₂O, T₄₁₆E).

Besides, teachers (almost 75%) and coordinators (almost 40%) contended that accreditation cloned schools, rendering them facsimiles.

Accreditation uses strict standards and as such all schools tend to be copycats of one another (T₃₄U).

The problem with accreditation is that all schools tend to be similar (S₁₈₁T).

Distinctively, only teachers thought that accreditation had no impact on learning and teaching (almost 90%), polished school realities (almost 60%), and was bound to (re)accreditation time only (almost 60%).

Accreditation impacts everything except learning and teaching (T₃₃₉U).

Schools show accreditors what they would like to see. It is not authentic, it is fake. (T₇₂T).

Accreditation is all about the time where external visitors will be arriving. Only at that time school becomes ‘la vie en rose’ [life in pink] and they remember standards (T263L).

Discussion

This study explored the perceptions of teachers, subject coordinators, and school leaders from 10 countries, focusing on their views in regards to the value of accreditation and its impact on school improvement. The findings presented intriguing variations in the evaluations provided by each group, with teachers expressing the lowest appraisal of accreditation, followed by subject coordinators, and school principals who displayed the highest evaluation.

Notably, all researched groups shared a consensus on one aspect—the recognition and status associated with accreditation positively influenced student enrollment, aligning with prior studies conducted by Afriliandhi and Hasanah (2023), Cura and Ahmed Alani (2018), and Ibrahim (2014). Additionally, the study revealed that accreditation processes encouraged schools to invest in their infrastructure, safety measures, and administrative protocols, echoing findings from Blanco Ramírez (2015) and Healey and Healey (2023) that highlight the positive influence of accreditation on these provisions. Nevertheless, the study also pointed out that accreditation was considered a resource-intensive endeavor, in line with the observations made by Blanco Ramírez (2015) and Oldham (2018).

School principals viewed accreditation as an emblem of high-quality education and an instrument for continuous school improvement- findings that resonate with prior research by Blanco Ramírez (2015), Healey and Healey (2023), Okulova and Shakina (2022), and Perley and Tanguay (2008)- which similarly emphasize the positive role of accreditation in fostering school improvement and enhancing educational quality. Conversely, teachers held contrasting views, perceiving that accreditation had little to no impact on school improvement initiatives and the provision of effective learning and teaching experiences, which corroborates the findings of studies conducted by Winterbottom and Piasta (2014), Oldham (2018), and Perryman et al. (2018), who found that accreditation had limited influence on student learning outcomes and overall school improvement efforts.

Moreover, teachers’ perspectives aligned with the concepts of isomorphism (Coutet, 2022), neocolonialism (Romanowski, 2022a), and “Macdonaldization” (Romanowski & Al-Khateeb, 2022), indicating that accreditation standards tended to replicate institutions in appearance and function, leading to cloned schools that stifled teacher initiatives, creativity, and risk-taking. Furthermore, teachers perceived the accreditation process as somewhat disingenuous, wherein schools presented polished images conforming to accreditation standards primarily during external visits. This finding aligns with the literature’s contention that institutions craft tailored images for accreditors, aiming to align with accrediting bodies’ blueprints and fit their molds (Haryati, 2014; Oldham, 2018; Perryman et al., 2018).

Lastly, subject coordinators’ perspectives displayed a mix of agreements and divergences with both school principals and teachers. Like school principals, subject coordinators acknowledged accreditation as a tool for enhancing teacher professional development and fostering school improvement. However, they also shared views similar to teachers, believing that accreditation could lead to the replication of schools and a dilution of teachers’ creativity.

In summary, this study’s reflective examination of educators’ perceptions on accreditation has unveiled a tapestry of diverse views and complexities. The contrasting perspectives across teachers, subject coordinators, and school principals offer valuable insights into the multifaceted nature of accreditation’s impact on school improvement initiatives. These findings call for a deeper contemplation and open dialogue between accreditation bodies, school leadership teams, and educators to craft an adaptive approach that acknowledges the contextual nuances of each institution while ensuring accreditation truly serves as a genuine catalyst for school improvement and educational excellence.

Conclusion

In this study, we explored the perspectives held by teachers, subject coordinators, and school principals within K-12 settings. Our primary objective was to delve into the significance of accreditation in education, particularly its impact on school improvement initiatives. The ensuing findings have unveiled a captivating tapestry of insights, prominently highlighting a discernible disparity in the viewpoints of these key stakeholders.

Remarkably, school principals emerged as the cohort harboring the most positive outlook toward accreditation and its potential to catalyze school improvement. Conversely, teachers expressed the least optimistic attitudes, casting doubt on whether accreditation procedures genuinely fostered positive advancements in school improvement. Some teachers even voiced concerns that these procedures might inadvertently promote uniformity and stifle the creativity and autonomy of educators.

The pronounced contrast in these perspectives among educators calls for immediate attention from both accreditation bodies and school leadership teams. School leadership teams, entrusted with safeguarding the institution’s vision and strategy, must resolutely prioritize student-learning outcomes and adopt a holistic perspective on accreditation, emphasizing its relevance to learning and teaching. Rather than confining their focus solely to operational management, they should place paramount importance on continuous enhancement within the learning and teaching domains.

Furthermore, accrediting bodies must acknowledge the diverse landscape of educational institutions globally, recognizing that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable for every school. The pursuit of rigid uniformity can inadvertently encourage schools to present a superficial facade during the accreditation process, rather than genuinely embracing opportunities for improvement. The imperative, therefore, lies in embracing a flexible and context-sensitive approach to accreditation standards, permitting authentic educational excellence to flourish. Breaking free from the confines of inflexible molds and considering the distinctive characteristics of each school, can render accreditation a potent instrument for fostering meaningful school improvement.

The role of accreditation should not be limited to shaping schools into a standardized mold; instead, it should function as a catalyst for schools to tap into their creative reservoirs and promote innovative educational methodologies. Regrettably, the findings of this study indicate that prevailing practices tend to prioritize business-oriented considerations over the fundamental goal of accreditation as a tool for enhancing educational institutions.

Recommendations for Future Research

Future research endeavors should consider conducting a comprehensive study that explores the tangible impact of accreditation on learning outcomes, moving beyond the scope of self-reported opinions of school community members. While the insights from educators, subject coordinators, and school leaders provide valuable perspectives, an empirical investigation into how accreditation processes correlate with concrete measures of student achievement is crucial. Moreover, conducting a comparative research that examines the effectiveness of various accreditation models (e.g., regional, national, international) in fostering school improvement could offer valuable insights into the benefits and drawbacks of different approaches. Furthermore, it is worth carrying out in-depth case studies of schools that have successfully leveraged accreditation for meaningful improvement, as well as those facing challenges, as such case studies can offer practical insights for educators and accrediting bodies alike.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Open Access funding provided by the Qatar National Library.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Informed Consent

All participants in this study were informed of the purpose of the study and how data will be used. They were assured that their identities would remain anonymous across the study.

Ethical Approval

This study gained the approval of the IRB net at Qatar University (QU-IRB 1771-EA/22).

ORCID iD

Norma Ghamrawi

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Abasi

Farasatkhah

Moazzami

(2022). Analyzing higher education accreditation results with an emphasis on internationalization of higher education. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 27(4), 25–54.

Acevedo-De-los-Ríos

Rondinel-Oviedo

D. R.

(2022). Impact, added value and relevance of an accreditation process on quality assurance in architectural higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 28(2), 186–204.

Afriliandhi

Hasanah

(2023). Indonesian teacher’s perspective about school accreditation. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 13(1), 109–116.

Al-Jammal

Ghamrawi

(2013). Total quality management: Effectiveness in Lebanese schools perceptions of school leaders and teachers. International Journal of Management, 1(12), 488–509.

Al-Jammal

Ghamrawi

(2015). Leading the self: Self-leadership skills of Lebanese private school principals. International Journal of Social Science and Economics Invention, 1(2), 1–20.

Alstete

J. W.

(2004). Accreditation matters: Achieving academic recognition and renewal. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 30(4), 1–160.

Andreani

Russo

Salini

Turri

(2020). Shadows over accreditation in higher education: Some quantitative evidence. Higher Education, 79(4), 691–709.

Bernasconi

(2006). Accreditation of K-12 schools: Cases in the United States, Australia, and Canada. The Journal of Education, 185(3), 73.

Blanco Ramírez

. (2015). Translating quality in higher education: US approaches to accreditation of institutions from around the world. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(7), 943–957.

10.

Blanco-Ramirez

Luu

D. H.

(2016). A qualitative exploration of motivations and challenges for implementing US accreditation in three Canadian Universities. Studies in Higher Education, 5, 1–16.

11.

Brown

McNamara

O’hara

O’Brien

(2016). Exploring the changing face of school inspections. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 16(66), 1–26.

12.

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

13.

Collins

(2015). Using international accreditation in higher education to effect changes in organisational culture: A case study from a Turkish University. Journal of Research in International Education, 14(2), 141–154.

14.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). (2015). Introduction: The CAEP standards. http://caepnet.org/standards/introduction

15.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). (2018). K-6 elementary teacher preparation standards [Initial Licensure Programs]. http://caepnet.org/~/media/Files/caep/standards/2018-caep-k-6-elementary-teacher-prepara.pdf?la=en

16.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). (2020). CAEP consolidated handbook. CAEP. http://caepnet.org/accreditation/caep-accreditation/~/media/Files/caep/accreditation-resources/caep-handbook-final.pdf?la=en

17.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). (2021). Accreditation policies andprocedures. http://caepnet.org/~/media/Files/caep/accreditation-resources/accreditation-policy-final.pdf?la=en

18.

Coutet

(2022). International school accreditation: An isomorphic force against creativity in a growing competitive market. Journal of Research in International Education, 21(2), 105–122.

19.

Cura

Ahmed Alani

(2018). Accreditation effect on quality of education at business schools. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 4(5), 71–82.

20.

Darling-Hammond

(2020). Accountability in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 42(1), 60–71.

21.

de Paor

. (2019). Stakeholder engagement in quality assurance: A case of differentiation and integration. Quality Assurance Review, 9 (1-2), 228–241.

22.

Doherty

(2012). Quality assurance in education. In Savsar

(Ed.), Quality assurance and management (pp. 177–196). InTech. https://www.intechopen.com/books/quality-assurance-and-management/quality-assurance-in-education

23.

Ehren

M. C.

Altrichter

McNamara

O’Hara

(2013). Impact of school inspections on improvement of schools—describing assumptions on causal mechanisms in six European countries. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(1), 3–43.

24.

Elliott

(2015). Teacher performance appraisal: More about performance or development? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(9), 102–116.

25.

Flick

(2009). An introduction to qualitative research: Sage Publications.

26.

Gaf

J. G.

(2010). Academic freedom and accreditation. Council for Higher Education Accreditation. https://www.chea.org/academic-freedom-and-accreditation

27.

Ghamrawi

(2022). Teachers’ virtual communities of practice: A strong response in times of crisis or just another Fad?. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 5889–5915.

28.

Ghamrawi

Abu-Shawish

R. K.

Shal

Ghamrawi

N. A.

(2024a). Teacher leadership in higher education: Why not?. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2366679.

29.

Ghamrawi

Abu-Tineh

(2023). A flat profession? Developing an evidence-based career ladder by teachers for teachers–a case study. Heliyon, 9(4), e15037.

30.

Ghamrawi

Al-Jammal

(2013). Instructional leadership behaviors: The case of Lebanese private school principals. Global Advanced Research Journal of Educational Research and Review, 2(9), 181–189.

31.

Ghamrawi

Al-Jammal

(2014). Leaders and servants: Antonyms or synonyms? Investigating servant leadership in Lebanese schools. Asia Pacific Journal of Research, 1(XIV), 207–221

32.

Ghamrawi

Naccache

Shal

(2023). Teacher leadership and teacher wellbeing: Any relationship?. International Journal of Educational Research, 122, 102261.

33.

Ghamrawi

Shal

Ghamrawi

N.A.R.

(2024b). Leadership development in virtual communities of practice: The case of school principals from the GCC Region. Education and Information Technologies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12784-y

34.

Gillen

(2020). The case for escape hatches from higher education accreditation. Center for Innovation in Education; Texas Public Policy Foundation.

35.

Gillen

Bennett

Vedder

(2010). The inmates running the asylum?Center for College Afordability.

36.

Graves

L. B.

(2021). Faculty perceptions of accreditation in the field of educator preparation. [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kentucky]. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/epe_etds/77/

37.

Hail

Hurst

Change

C. W.

Cooper

(2019). Accreditation in education: One institution’s examination of faculty perceptions. Critical Questions in Education, 10(1), 17–28.

38.

Harvey

(2004). The power of accreditation: Views of academics. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(2), 207–223.

39.

Haryati

(2014). An evaluative review of school accreditation implementation program in Indonesian contexts. International Education Studies, 7(5), 138–146.

40.

Hayden

Thompson

(2013). International schools: Antecedents, current issues and metaphors for the future. In Pearce

(Ed.) International education and schools: Moving beyond the first 40 years (pp. 3–24). Bloomsbury Academic.

41.

Healey

R. L.

(2023). Reviewing the literature on scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL): An academic literacies perspective part 2. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 11. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.11.5

42.

Holt

B. J.

(2020). Identifying and preventing threats to academic freedom. International Journal for Infonomics, 13(2), 2005–2012.

43.

Hou

YW.

Cheng

K.S.Y.

(2022). Opportunities and Challenges Under Globalization on the Higher Education Reforms in Taiwan from 2000 to the Present. In: Zajda

Jacob

W.J.

(eds) Discourses of Globalisation and Higher Education Reforms. Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research, (Vol. 27). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83136-3_12

44.

Hughes

(2004). The opposite intended efect: A case study of how over-standardization can reduce efcacy of teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(3), 43–52.

45.

Ibrahim

H. A. H.

(2014). Quality assurance and accreditation in education. Open Journal of Education, 2(2), 106–110.

46.

ISC Research. (2019). 25 years of ISC research and the international schools market. https://www.iscresearch.com/news-and-events/isc25

47.

Johnsen

S. K.

VanTassel-Baska

Clarenbach

(2021). National standards for the preparation of teachers of gifted students in Pre-K-Grade 12 schools and their relationship to quality programming. In Johnson

Clarenbach

(Eds.), Using the National Gifted Education Standards for Pre-K-Grade 12 professional development (pp. 5–36). Routledge.

48.

Ladd

H. F.

(2017). No child left behind: A deeply flawed federal policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 36, 461–469. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21978

49.

Lewis

S. F.

(2016). Perceptions of university faculty regarding accreditation in a college of education [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of South Florida. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/6300

50.

Ragin

(2016). Information for professional. In Li

(Ed.), Teaching ELLs across content areas: Issues and strategies (pp. 287–320). Information Age Publishing.

51.

Machin

(2019). The organisational evolution of contemporary international schools. Journal of Research in International Education, 18(2), 109–124.

52.

Michelli

N. M.

Dada

Eldridge

Tamim

R. M.

Karp

(Eds.). (2016). Accreditation as a measure of quality. In Teacher quality and teacher education quality (pp. 50–68). Routledge.

53.

Ulmet

(2019). The origin of NCCT international school accreditation in China. Journal of Research in International Education, 18(1), 42–59.

54.

Neal

A. D.

Alacbay

(2018). Fixing a broken accreditation system: How to bring quality assurance into the twenty-frst century. In Phillips

S. D.

Kinser

(Eds.), Accreditation on the edge: Challenging quality assurance in higher education (pp. 67–81). Johns Hopkins University Press.

55.

Nuryana

(2022). Academic reform and sustainability of Islamic higher education in Indonesia. International Journal of Educational Development, 89, 102534.

56.

Okulova

Shakina

(2022). Is there value in international accreditation beyond quality? An empirical analysis of the AACSB accredited schools. Higher Education Quarterly, 76(3), 612–625.

57.

Oldham

(2018). K-12 accreditation’s next move. Education Next, 18(1), 24–39.

58.

Perley

Tanguay

(2008). Institutional accreditation: A call for greater faculty involvement. Academe, 94(2), 89–91.

59.

Perryman

Maguire

Braun

Ball

(2018). Surveillance, governmentality and moving the goalposts: The influence of Ofsted on the work of schools in a post-panoptic era. British Journal of Educational Studies, 66(2), 145–163.

60.

Prasad

Segarra

Villanueva

C. E.

(2019). Academic life under institutional pressures for AACSB accreditation: Insights from faculty members in Mexican business schools. Studies in Higher Education, 44(9), 1605–1618.

61.

Roberts

Abreu

(2018). School inspections in England: Ofsted. (Briefing Paper No. 07091). House of Commons.

62.

Romanowski

M. H.

(2017). Neoliberalism and Western accreditation in the Middle East: A critical discourse analysis of Educational Leadership Constituent Council standards. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(1), 70–84.

63.

Romanowski

M.H.

(2022). CAEP Accreditation: Educational Neocolonialism and Non-US Teacher Education Programs. High Educ Policy 35, 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-020-00205-x

64.

Romanowski

M. H.

(2021). The idolatry of accreditation in higher education: enhancing our understanding. Quality in Higher Education, 2(28), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2021.1948460

65.

Romanowski

M. H.

(2022a). Internationalization and CAEP accreditation: Replicating US teacher education programs abroad. Teaching Education, 33(4), 404–418.

66.

Romanowski

M. H.

(2022b). CAEP accreditation: Educational neocolonialism and non-US teacher education programs. Higher Education Policy, 35(1), 199–217.

67.

Romanowski

M. H.

Alkhateeb

(2020). The McDonaldization of CAEP accreditation and teacher education programs abroad. Teaching and Teacher Education, 90, 103028.

68.

Romanowski

M. H.

Karkouti

I. M.

(2024). United States accreditation in higher education: Does it dilute academic freedom?. Quality in Higher Education, 30(1), 97–111.

69.

Rybinski

(2022). Assessing how QAA accreditation reflects student experience. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(3), 898–918.

70.

Salto

D. J.

(2022). Do academic disciplines matter? An analysis of organizational responses to the accreditation of graduate programs by field of study and sector. Higher Education, 84(3), 569–587.

71.

Scharp

K. M.

Sanders

M. L.

(2019). What is a theme? Teaching thematic analysis in qualitative communication research methods. Communication Teacher, 33(2), 117–121.

72.

Shah

(2012). Ten years of external quality audit in Australia: Evaluating its effectiveness and success. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(6), 761–772.

73.

Shal

El-Kibbi

Ghamrawi

N. A. R.

Ghamrawi

(2018). Web 2.0–a tool for learning or socialization only? Perspectives & experiences of Lebanese school principals. International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences (IJRESS), 8(2), 315–347.

74.

Shal

Ghamrawi

Abu-Tineh

, et al. (2024b). Teacher leadership and virtual communities: Unpacking teacher agency and distributed leadership. Educ Inf Technol. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12446-5

75.

Shal

Ghamrawi

N. A. R.

(2024c). Webinars for teacher professional development: perceptions of members of a virtual professional community of practice. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2023.2296645

76.

Shal

Ghamrawi

N. A.

(2024c). Webinars for teacher professional development: Perceptions of members of a virtual professional community of practice. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 1–17.

77.

Shal

Ghamrawi

Naccache

(2024a). Leadership styles and AI acceptance in academic libraries in higher education. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 50(2), 102849.

78.

Snelling

(2017). Ofsted inspections: Do they promote improvements in teaching quality? [Unpublished thesis]. University of Leicester.

79.

Stewart

Walk

Kuenzi

(2021). Competencies and reputation: What appeals to nonprofit graduate alumni?. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 27(1), 16–33.

80.

Tamir

Wilson

S. M.

(2005). Who should guard the gates? Evidentiary and professional warrants for claiming jurisdiction. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(4), 332–342.

81.

Ulker

Bakioglu

(2019). An international research on the influence of accreditation on academic quality. Studies in Higher Education, 44(9), 1507–1518.

82.

UNESCO. (2015). Accreditation in the USA: Origins, development and future prospects. Paris: UNESCO.

83.

USNEI. (2017). Accreditation and quality assurance: School level. International Affairs Office, U.S. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/international/usnei/us/accred-school.doc

84.

van Kemenade

Hardjono

T. W

. (2009). Professionals freaking out: The case of accreditation in Dutch higher education. The TQM Journal, 21(5), 473–485.

85.

Volkwein

J. F.

(2010). The assessment context: Accreditation, accountability, and performance. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2010(S1), 3–12.

86.

Wheelan

B. S.

Elgart

M. A.

(2015, October 22). Accreditation’s real cost (and value). Inside Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2015/10/22/real-costs-accreditation-and-processs-value-essay

87.

Williams

Moser

(2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. International Management Review, 15(1), 45–55.

88.

Winterbottom

Piasta

S. B.

(2014). Does accreditation matter? School readiness rates for accredited versus nonaccredited child care facilities in Florida’s voluntary pre-kindergarten program. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 29(1), 60–72.

89.

Zheng

Thomas

(2022). The challenges of school inspection practice in demonstrating and improving education quality: Stakeholder perceptions in China. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 34(3), 391–422.

90.

Zierer

(2023). A plea for a more internationalized university education in social work management. In: Arnold

(eds) Handbook of Applied Teaching and Learning in Social Work Management Education. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18038-5_8

Does Accreditation Lead to School Improvement? Perceptions of Educators in K-12 Settings

Abstract

Plain language summary

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Accreditation in Higher Education

CAEP Accreditation

Criticism of Accreditation in Higher Education

Accreditation in K-12 Settings

Criticism of Accreditation in K-12 Settings

Methodology

Research Design

Research Instrument and Data Analysis

The Sample and Gaining Access

Findings

Quantitative Data Analysis

Educators’ Perceptions Pertaining to Accreditation

Factors Associated With Educators’ Perceptions Pertaining to Accreditation

Perception and Sociodemographic Characteristics

Perception and Countries

Qualitative Data Analysis

Discussion

Conclusion

Recommendations for Future Research

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Informed Consent

Ethical Approval

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

References