The CHEA repeatedly hears the same responses to this question. The United States could start by providing better information about its own quality review and being more explicit in its descriptions of how American accreditation operates. The United States could also vigorously expand efforts to promote cooperation and communication about quality assurance and accreditation throughout the world. These are some steps the United States could take to fulfill its obligations as a good colleague in the international quality review community. Institutional accreditation is the province of both regional and national accreditors.
Programmatic accreditation is the province of specialized and professional accreditors.
These accreditors may or may not be recognized and sanctioned either by government or private organizations. The scope of each accreditor is distinctive, and although accreditation practices are similar in many respects, significant variations should be noted. For international colleagues, understanding the U.S. system is further complicated by confusion in the use of key quality-related terms. We have an obligation to improve our understanding of the use of these terms by colleagues in various countries. We would all benefit from a common language of international quality review.