This document provides a history of quality review in the United States higher education system from 1965 to the present. It describes four distinct periods: Pre-Quality from 1965-1982 focused on increasing access and affordability; Quality I from 1983-1991 emphasized standardized testing and assessments; Performance Measures from 1992-1999 used measurable indicators like graduation rates; and current Quality II efforts since 2000 aim to build an evidence-based culture but face budget challenges. The decentralized nature of higher education in the U.S. has led to a complex quality review system relying on accreditation processes.

1. Running head: HISTORY OF QUALITY REVIEW 1
History of Quality Review
Rena Takushi
HMP 862: Quality Assurance and Accountability
October 14, 2012

2. HISTORY OF QUALITY REVIEW 2
Introduction
Quality review of higher education in the United States requires the understanding of past
and current conditions. Presently, more than 8,200 higher education institutions and 20,400
programs are accredited by the United States and/or the United States Department of Education
(Council for Higher Education Accreditation, 2012). The states in the U.S. play a direct role to
fund and govern higher education, while the federal government, on the other hand, plays an
indirect role in quality assurance (Ewell, 2007). This paper aims to highlight the history of
quality review in the United States from 1965 to the present to better understand the reasons why
higher education is decentralized, diverse, and complex.
Pre-Quality (1965 – 1982)
The Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 provided students the benefit of going to
college through grants and low-interest rate loans (Ewell, 2007). Additionally, HEA provided the
federal government an opportunity for states to be “gatekeepers” of administering college funds
while ensuring a degree of institutional integrity and credibility (Ewell, 2007, p. 121). The
passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965 contributed to the increase of access and efficiency
to higher education among all students. During this time period, the primary task of the states
was to: make sure that federal funds were spent efficiently and that all students were provided
equal access to the colleges and universities. Higher education was viewed as a public utility
model and addressed quality in the form of establishing admissions tests scores. While large
financial resources were diverted to higher education institutions, minimal attention was
focusedon teaching or learning outcomes (Ewell, 2007). In summary, the affordability and
accessibility to higher education increased through expanded enrollment rates of diverse race and
ethnic student populations during this time.

3. HISTORY OF QUALITY REVIEW 3
Quality I (1983-1991)
During this time period, a flat line of enrollment rates and the desire for increased quality
measures emerged as the notion that higher education could serve as the vehicle towards
economic development, thus positioning the purpose of higher education for the greater good
(Ewell, 2007). Several reports were released to shift higher education towards improved quality.
A report calledA Nation at Risk (USDOE, 1983) necessitated improved quality in elementary and
secondary education. Other reports such asInvolvement in Learning and Integrity(NIE, 1984) in
the College Curriculum (AAC, 1985) contended that learning assessments were required to
transform and improve the teacher-learning process. While this time period did not respond to a
particular problem as in the pre-quality time period, a shift towards standardized achievement
test and assessments were developed to make internal reform and improvements to increase
accountability (Ewell, 2007). Planned proposals included: student-learning outcomes, evidence-
based practices to reach student outcomes, create infrastructure to improve curriculum and
pedagogy, and prepare assessment report to the public. The benefit of developing assessment
mechanisms and reports resulted in additional funding to assist reform efforts. Naturally, higher
education became “institution-centered” through administrative compliance, assessment
operations, and uneven development (Ewell, 2007). Ewell (2007) described uneven development
as separating assessment from academic core. Most prestigious institutions at that time resisted
to the shift for academic improvement and quality assessment.
Performance Measures (1992-1999)
During the decade of the nineties, states faced major cuts that impacted funds for higher
education, which shifted the concept of higher education for the public good to that of public
enterprise (Ewell, 2007). Tax funds were primarily targeted for health care and elementary

4. HISTORY OF QUALITY REVIEW 4
education purposes and higher education therefore used performance measures as a way to
demonstrate cost-effectiveness (Ewell, 2007). Higher education evolved to a “new public
management” approach that used measureable indicators such as, completion of degree, cost per
unit of output, employment rates, social equity, and meeting the demands of employers‟ needs
(Ewell, 2007, p. 128). This type of approach is seen today with the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act flexibility waiver where the Hawaii State Department of Education proposed
indicator-based performance with incentives for schools statewide (HIDOE, 2012). At this time,
the reauthorization of HEA of 1994 required states to examine the effectiveness of post-
secondary access, factors influencing cost of college, impact on HEA student aid programs and
post-secondary distance education (Stedman, 2002). These new approaches to include statistical
analysis on performance minimally addressed quality of teaching (Ewell, 2007).
Quality II (2000-present)
In 2001, the education budget faced sharp declines and as a result, states had less
discretionary funds to improve or monitor quality indicators in higher education, thus tuition and
fees increased dramatically (Ewell, 2007). The federal government added pressure to accrediting
organizations for standards of learning and separated the compliance role of government to that
of promoting academic freedom in allowing institutions to select their own quality issues (Ewell,
2007; Eaton, 2011). Other changes included the training of peer-reviewers, emphasis on
teaching-learning process to promote higher engagement at school, and the accessibility of
reports and evaluations highlighting strengths and areas of improvements to increase public
awareness (Ewell, 2007). The trends in current times include the continuation of accreditation
and further examination of building evidence-based practices (Ewell, 2007).
Conclusion

5. HISTORY OF QUALITY REVIEW 5
This paper briefly highlighted four historical periods of quality review in the United
States to better understand how higher education evolved in becoming decentralized, diverse,
and complex. According to Ewell (2007), higher education in the U.S. evolved through phases of
time starting with Pre-Quality, 1965-1982 (public utility model), Quality, 1983-1991 (public
good), Performance Measures, 1992-1999 (public enterprise), and with the current Quality II,
2000-present that is moving towards building a culture of evidence-based practice. The U.S.
aims to improve teaching-learning process; however, due to massive budget cuts in education in
the past two decades, the future of higher education remains unclear. The most promising
practice of higher education in the U.S. is quality assurance of the accreditation process that
provides comfort, confidence, and security that standards, assessments, and evaluations are the
necessary means to addressing quality education for students.

6. HISTORY OF QUALITY REVIEW 6
References
Association of American Colleges. (1985). Integrity in the college curriculum: A report to the
academic community.Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2012). Database of institutions and programs
accredited by recognized United States accrediting organizations. Retrieved from:
http://www.chea.org/search/default.asp
Eaton, J. S. (2012). The future of accreditation. Planning for Higher Education, 40, 3: 8-15.
Eaton, J. S. (2011). U.S. accreditation: Meeting the challenges of accountability and student
achievement.Evaluation in Higher Education, 5, 1: 1-20.
Ewell, P. T. (2007). The „quality game‟: External review and institutional reaction over three
decades in the United States. In Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B., & Rosa, M. J.
(2007). Quality assurance in higher education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Hawaii State Department of Education. (2012). Hawaii files ESEA flexibility application with U.
S. department of education today. Retrieved from:
http://lilinote.k12.hi.us/STATE/COMM/DOEPRESS.NSF/a1d7af052e94dd120a2561f70
00a037c/8e27c7789f18b6380a257a72001040d7?OpenDocument
National Institute of Education. (1984). Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential of
American higher education. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Stedman, J.B. (2002). Higher education act: Reauthorization status and issues. Retrieved from:
http://www.policyalmanac.org/education/archive/crs_higher_education.shtml
United States Department of Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational
reform. Retrieved from:
http://datacenter.spps.org/uploads/SOTW_A_Nation_at_Risk_1983.pdf