1 Introduction
Higher education in North America is a vast system of over 12,000 providers offering to over 20 million students (Education Data Initiative, 2025, Statistics Canada, 2025, Statista, 2025). Made up of 3 countries (Canada, U.S. and Mexico) the region features highly diverse structures and scales of higher education systems. Mexico, hosting over 5 million students across more than 4000 institutions is the only nation that centrally organises the system. In the U.S. there is both a national oversight as well as state level governance, and close to 20 million students in nearly 6000 institutions. In Canada there is no federal government oversight of education; regulation instead takes place at the more localised level of Canada’s 13 provincial and territorial governments which are responsible for approximately 400 institutions and 1.7 million students. Thus, this chapter presents information from over 60 systems that operate under various models of governance and oversight, ranging in size from over 4000 institutions in Mexico to 1 institution in the Northwest Territories of Canada.
Likewise, the models of regulation across these countries differ. Across Canada, all providers, public or private, must seek government permission to operate and are assigned to an established QA body by the province. There are 10 recognised QA agencies in Canada, each with their own specific jurisdiction and no overlap. In Mexico, the government has significant oversight of the public and private institutions (including programme approvals for privates), but quality assurance is voluntary for all institutions, and there are 36 overlapping agencies available. In the U.S., the federal government influences higher education primarily through funding and student aid, and the state governments have a more hands-on role in funding and governance. While accreditation is voluntary, to access student financial aid, institutions must be accredited
The distinct regulatory paradigms and structures of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico dictate the role and power dynamics of the agencies, institutions and the governments that cooperate to provide quality assurance. Canada, for example, uses the term ‘accreditation’ exclusively for professional programme reviews, where Mexico and the U.S. use the term to encompass both institutional and programmatic external review activities. While the systems are completely independent from each other, and divergent in their activities, the interconnectedness of the region via student, academic and labour market mobility does serve to create some cohesive trends. For example, across the region there is an increasing emphasis on institutional accountability, student mobility, global competition, and professional credential recognition. These common goals support a common understanding of the role quality assurance and accreditation practices as the key to ensuring academic quality, institutional legitimacy, and alignment with workforce needs. (Council for Higher Education Accreditation [CHEA], 2023; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)], 2023).
In this Chapter we aim to find the commonalities across the region while recognising the differences within each jurisdiction. Via a literature review and identification of key milestones, the analyses of data from the global survey and targeted focus groups of External Quality Assurance Providers (External Quality Assurance Provider (EQAP) and Internal Quality Assurance Providers (Internal Quality Assurance Provider (IQAP)), the common experiences, challenges, and goals for auditing institutional practices and assessing programmatic quality are explored to provide a picture of regional activities.
2 The Landscape of Higher Education in North America
Each North American country has developed a distinct higher education system, characterised by different institutional types, governance structures, and accreditation mechanisms. Understanding the institutional diversity allows for a more comprehensive analysis of quality assurance and accreditation mechanisms, challenges, and quality assurance policies across North America.
The United States has the largest higher education sector in North America, characterised by a diverse array of institutional funding models, missions, and academic offerings (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). Public institutions include internationally ranked flagship universities, regional universities serving local needs, and community colleges that provide two-year degrees and non-degree training, in addition to facilitating student transfer to four-year institutions. Private institutions include some of the top research universities in the world, alongside smaller liberal arts colleges focused on undergraduate education, religious institutions affiliated with faith organisations, and for-profit institutions that prioritise career training.
Mexico has a centralised higher education system, with approximately 4,000 institutions enrolling over 5 million students. It is regulated by the Secretariat of Public Education (SEP). Public Institutions include National Autonomous Universities that uphold high academic standards and strong research output, State Public Universities that receive state and federal funding to serve regional populations, and Technological and Polytechnic Universities that focus on engineering, applied sciences, and workforce training. Private Institutions consist of over 2000 comprehensive universities, including elite private universities recognised internationally for their strong academic programmes, as well as religious and specialised private institutions affiliated with various religious organisations or concentrating on fields such as law, business, or the arts.
The Canadian higher education system has approximately 400 institutions, including 100 public universities providing degrees (ISCED 6 and higher) and over 200 public colleges that primarily offer diplomas (ISCED 5) spread over 10 provinces and 3 territories. There are approximately 80 private and specialised degree providers in the country, which typically provide niche academic fields, professional training, or religious studies.
2.2 Governance of Higher Education in North America
Each country in North America follows distinct governance models that reflect their respective political, economic, and cultural contexts. There is limited regional coordination, as evidenced by the lack of a regional framework for qualifications. The following section highlights key elements of system coordination, including the use of qualifications frameworks and adoption of regional/international conventions, that impact quality assurance/accreditation activities.
2.2.1 The United States
Higher education governance in the U.S. has traditionally been through institutional governing boards, with some states also having state-level governance
The U.S. does not presently have a National Qualifications Framework. It has signed, but not ratified, the Lisbon Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region. While the Lisbon Recognition Convention is open to non-UNESCO members like the U.S., it is unlikely that the country will pursue ratification of the convention in the immediate future.
2.2.2 Mexico
Higher Education in Mexico is supervised by the Ministry of Education, the government department responsible for approving the operation of tertiary education, including different types of institutions, both publicly and privately funded. Following policy set at a federal level, the Secretaries of Education of each of the 32 states complement this role overseeing local public and private universities. Mexico is the only country in the region with a complete national qualifications framework. The Mexican Qualifications Framework (Marco Mexicano de Cualificaciones) (MMC) is a comprehensive framework developed by the General Directorate of Accreditation, Authorisation and Recognition (Direción General de Acreditación, Incorporación y Revalidación) (General Directorate of Accreditation, Authorisation and Recognition (DGAIR)) in 2011 (Ministerio de Educación Nacional, 2023). The MMC has eight levels and is similar in design to the European Qualifications Framework. Competences are evaluated through the National Council for Science and Technology (NSCS), which, in addition to providing for technical and professional education, includes five levels dedicated to vocational qualifications. As of 2024, Mexico has not ratified either the Lisbon or Global Conventions on Credential Recognition.
2.2.3 Canada
The Canadian Federal Government does not have any jurisdiction in educational issues. Each province or territory is independently responsible for organising, funding and directing K-12 and higher education. There are general commonalities across provinces, such as the public funding for research (from
National coordination occurs via the Council of Ministers of Education Canada (CMEC), which deals with policy matters of mutual importance. CMEC published the Ministerial Statement on Quality Assurance of Degree Education in Canada in 2007 (CMEC, 2007) that provides general guidelines on assessing the quality of new degree programmes and new degree-granting institutions. This work also included the Canadian Degree Qualifications Framework (CDQF) which provides guidelines for degree-level standards/expectations for Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Ph.D. programmes across the country (CMEC, 2007).
While the CDQF is non-binding, the various provinces are responsible for ensuring the higher education institution programming adheres to the CDQF (done in principle if not clearly articulated in practice). This is similar to the European Qualifications Framework which provides a reference point for participating nations in conducting and examining their own systems but is not legally binding.
There are two provincial qualifications frameworks: the Ontario Qualifications Framework which has been in existence since 2001, and the Alberta Qualifications Framework introduced in 2023, which are guiding documents for all programming in the provinces, articulating provision parameters including the institutional type authorised to provide the credential. There is also regional grouping of Maritime Provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island) that have collectively agreed to the Maritime Degree Level Qualifications Framework in 2006 and the Maritime University Certificate and Diploma Framework in 2023. Canada has ratified the Lisbon Recognition Convention and is in the process of ratifying the UNESCO Global Convention. Thus, while lacking a complete National Qualifications Framework, there is national cohesion on degree qualification expectation, and alignment with the Lisbon and Global Conventions to support a pan-Canadian system that is loosely coordinated and based on foundations of mutual recognition.
2.3 Comparison of Quality Assurance Frameworks in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico
The regulation and accreditation of higher education institutions across North America differ significantly, reflecting varying levels of government involvement, institutional autonomy, and accreditation mandates.
Higher education in the United States is regulated by the Triad, comprised of (i) Accrediting Agencies, (ii) the Federal Government, and (iii) the State governments. While not specified by law, each part of the Triad is intended to play unique role in ensuring quality in post-secondary institutions. Accrediting agencies “ensure that programmes and institutions of higher education meet acceptable levels of quality … and ensure continuous improvement” of the same, the U.S. Secretary of Education [ED or U.S. Department of Education (USDE)] “recognises” accreditors as “reliable authorities on the quality of education,” by way of the Higher Education Act, and State governments authorise institutions to operate and grant post-secondary degrees and oversee the licensure and certification of professions.
In the U.S., accreditation is a voluntary, non-governmental external quality review process that also plays an important quality improvement role through its emphasis on self-evaluation. Accreditation reviews are performed by peers or subject matter experts and involve an institution-wide review that evaluates academic and organisational structures and systems against the objectives and mission of the institution. The wide variety of educational institutions in the United States includes public institutions operated by individual states, open-admissions community colleges, private vocational schools, and major research institutions. The institutions operate as private non-profit, private for-profit or public entities.
Programmatic accreditors focus their efforts on a programme, department, or school within an institution (which is usually also accredited by an institutional accreditor). These programmes may lead to a profession, such as physical therapy or a focused discipline, like music. Some programmatic accreditors accredit single purpose institutions, such as a cosmetology school or programmes offered in a non-higher education setting, such as a hospital.
To be “recognised,” accreditors are reviewed against established standards set by the U.S. Secretary of Education or the non-governmental Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). The first federal requirements for the recognition were published in 1952. The authority for and responsibility of recognition by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education flows from the Higher Education Act of 1965 and subsequent reauthorisations of the Act. Non-government recognition originated in 1975 when the National Commission on Accrediting and the Federation of Regional Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education merged to form the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA). Following transformations over the years, CHEA was established in 1996, and recognition requirements were adopted in 1998, and accreditors were recognised starting in 2001.
CHEA is a membership organisation of over 3000 colleges and universities. Accreditors are not members of CHEA and CHEA recognition does not provide access to federal programmes. Rather, CHEA recognition, “indicates that an accrediting organisation has met rigorous CHEA standards for the promotion of academic quality, institutional improvement, and advancement of student success; demonstration of public accountability for performance and transparency; and sustains an effective accreditation structure and organisation” (CHEA, 2022).
Accreditors may choose to be recognised by ED or CHEA (and sometimes both) based on the accreditor’s goals. Some accreditors may not be eligible or choose not to be recognised by either body, for instance, a couple of large programmatic accreditors have opted to obtain ISO 9001 certification as an alternative. While a majority of accreditors seek recognition, recognition is not a requirement for accreditors to operate. In the cases where accreditors opt out of recognition, there is no external verification of the quality of the agency. Students attending institutions that are accredited by non-recognised agencies usually face difficulty in transferring credits and may have limited access to employment opportunities.
State governments, the third part of the triad, authorise colleges and universities to operate, provide some consumer protection roles, and oversee the licensure and certification of professions. In some states, institutions must be accredited to provide educational programmes that lead to professions with licensure and certification, including eligibility to sit for licensing exams. States may also prescribe components of education for certain professions, such as the number of hours for experiential placements in some health professions.
2.3.2 Mexico
Mexico’s QA framework is characterised by a combination of governmental oversight and voluntary accreditation processes. The federal government, through the Secretariat of Public Education (SEP), oversees higher education institutions, setting standards and policies to ensure quality, supplemented by the Secretaries of Education of the 32 States. In addition to governmental regulation and until recently, the Council for Higher Education Accreditation
The rapid growth of higher education in Mexico has created issues of quality assurance. Most public universities are granted autonomy; unlike private universities, they do not register their programmes with the Ministry. With the explosive growth of private universities without proper oversight by the Department of Education, the challenge has been to ensure that there are processes and mechanisms to assess and maintain institutional quality. The Ministry is responsible for approving private universities and the programmes that private universities wish to offer, as well as monitoring institutional operations. Approval granted by the Ministry for both the establishment of a university and individual programmes offered by the university includes review and approval of the curriculum, faculty list, teaching materials, service areas, and university facilities, but does not include quality assurance processes.
The current QA system of HE in Mexico has evolved into several organisations that operate simultaneously, and although they are intended to perform on a complementary basis, they ultimately carry out overlapping roles. The main agencies are Inter-Institutional Committees for the Evaluation of Higher Education (CIEES), Council for the Accreditation of Higher Education (COPAES), National Centre for the Evaluation of Higher Education (CENEVAL), Federation of Mexican Private Higher Education Institutions (FIMPES) and National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) (more recently relabelled CONAHCYT). The most prominent of these at undergraduate level are CIEES, COPAES and FIMPES; and at the graduate level, CONACYT. Recently, System of Evaluation and Accreditation for Higher Education (SEAES) was established. It is anticipated that the role and nature of COPAES might change as SEAES gains greater traction and momentum.
2.3.3 Canada
The 13 provinces and territories of Canada each have their own system and structure for higher credential provision and quality assurance. Some provinces manage quality of both colleges and university programming directly within the government, others have one body responsible for university/degree level quality assurance activities while college program quality is managed internally within government. The provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia have collectively developed the Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission that is responsible for university-level quality assurance across the region, while college level regulation is managed at the
Government relationships with institutions are also different. For example, some provinces legislate institutions as degree providers, in which case the institutions self-regulate and manage quality assurance through member-based organisations, such as the provincial Council of Ontario Universities (COU), or through voluntary agreements with government agencies (such as British Columbia). Other provinces, such as Alberta, allow each institution to be responsible for their own quality assurance (through governing councils and internal mechanisms) which are then relayed to the government.
2.4 National Differences in Quality Assurance Practices
The differences in accreditation practices across these countries illustrate how their unique governance structures and regulatory approaches have influenced quality assurance. In Canada, each province and territory maintains its own QA mechanisms, granting public and private institutions the authorisation to operate. Similarly, regulated professional programmes such as engineering, medicine, law, and education are accredited by the respective programmatic accreditor for licensure purposes. In contrast, the United States employs a voluntary accreditation system managed by private, non-profit accrediting organisations, but institutions seeking federal financial aid must be accredited by a federally recognised body (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). The oversight structure varies by state, with some states mandating accreditation and others requiring only registration. Institutions can pursue accreditation from any institutional or programmatic accreditor, depending on their institutional mission and offerings.
Mexico’s approach differs from both Canada and the United States due to its centralised regulation by the Secretariat of Public Education (SEP), supported by the secretaries of education in the 32 states. The federal government oversees public and private institutions, including programme approvals for private universities. Despite this oversight, accreditation in Mexico remains voluntary, with institutions choosing from various external QA agencies. Institutional accreditation exists only among a select group of private institutions with FIMPES, while programme accreditation is sought out by most institutions from various external QA agencies, leading to inconsistencies in quality assurance enforcement. (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2019).
These national differences underscore how governance structures shape accreditation practices. Canada’s provincial model fosters regional
2.4.1 Key Milestones in North American Higher Education Quality Assurance
2.4.1.1 Canada
The evolution of quality assurance (QA) in Canadian higher education has been shaped by policy developments, shifts in student demographics, and increasing international engagement.
- –Integration of Indigenous Perspectives in QA Processes: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC, 2015) underscored the importance of integrating indigenous knowledge and perspectives into postsecondary education quality assurance frameworks (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). In response, Canada’s commitment to advancing equitable and inclusive QA practices has taken shape. Ontario’s Indigenous Advanced Education and Skills Council (IAESC) was created to oversee indigenous institutes, ensuring that indigenous knowledge and traditions are central to QA processes (IAESC, 2023). Concurrently, the Indigenous Institutes Quality Assessment Board (IIQAB) was established to evaluate indigenous postsecondary institutions using culturally relevant accreditation models (IIQAB, 2023).
- –Growth and challenges in international student enrolment: between 2020 and 2024, seeing a 63% rise over five years, the rapid growth fuelled concerns regarding the expansion of private and foreign education providers, especially as many public colleges reported that international students comprised more than 70% of their enrolment during 2022–2023. In response, the Government of Canada reduced permit approvals by approximately 360,000 students (Government of Canada, 2024). This measure is projected to significantly impact institutional revenue, particularly for colleges heavily dependent on international tuition fees. As a result, many quality assurance efforts are shifting from programme approvals toward institutional sustainability assessments and programme discontinuations.
2.4.1.2 Mexico
Several key milestones have shaped Mexico’s current landscape. These developments have played a crucial role in strengthening academic quality, fostering
- –Formation of the Mexican Federation of Private Higher Education Institutions (FIMPES): the Mexican Federation of Private Higher Education Institutions (FIMPES) was established in 1981 to enhance the credibility of private institutions. Officially recognised by the Ministry of Public Education (SEP), FIMPES became a formally acknowledged quality assurance agency in 2018, accrediting private institutions and promoting educational standards (Council for Higher Education Accreditation [CHEA], 2020).
- –Creation of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (COPAES): the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (COPAES) was created under SEP to standardise national accreditation practices. As the sole federal entity authorised to recognise programme accrediting organisations, COPAES ensures consistency and quality assurance across Mexican higher education (CHEA, 2024).
- –Establishment of the System of Evaluation and Accreditation for Higher Education (SEAES): In response concerns about quality assurance, outdated curricula, and weak links with the labour market the Secretariat of Public Education (SEP) encouraged institutions to engage in self-evaluation, which led to the development of SEAES in 2021 and actual operation in 2022. SEAES was designed to standardise evaluation mechanisms across institutions, ensuring consistent quality assurance practices throughout Mexico.
2.4.1.3 The United States
The current model for external quality assurance in the United States emerged after World War II (Phillips & Kinser, 2018), when the federal government tasked accreditation agencies with evaluating institutions for educational funding eligibility – a system solidified by the Higher Education Act of 1965 (U.S. Department of Education, 2020).
- –Establishment of institutional accreditation choice: as of 2020, institutions can choose any federally recognised accreditation agency, whether regional or national. This increased competition among accreditors (CHEA, 2020).
- –Challenges facing the U.S. accreditation: U.S. accreditors face challenges regarding student outcomes, transparency, and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) (Phillips & Kinser, 2018). The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) has called for clearer student outcome thresholds (CHEA, 2020). Gainful employment regulations target for-profit institutions to address student debt and career outcomes (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). DEI initiatives have become politically
contentious, with some states restricting related funding (NACIQI, 2023), and the federal government beginning to target these areas.
3 The Future of North American Quality Assurance and Accreditation
North America’s higher education quality assurance and accreditation systems share a common goal: ensuring educational quality, institutional accountability, and global competitiveness. However, as new technologies, policies, and societal changes emerge, accrediting bodies must adapt to remain effective and relevant.
- –Modernisation and harmonisation of QA policies: with the rapid expansion of online learning, micro-credentials, and AI-driven education models, accrediting bodies are under pressure to modernise quality assurance frameworks. In the United States, the U.S. Department of Education (2023) has issued updated accreditation guidelines for competency-based education (CBE) and hybrid learning models. In Canada, provincial QA agencies are evaluating micro-credential accreditation models, particularly in sectors requiring rapid skills development (PEQAB, 2024, CMEC, 2023). Mexico’s Secretariat of Public Education (SEP, 2023) is developing policies to ensure that digital education models align with national accreditation standards. These reforms signal a shift toward greater flexibility in accreditation while ensuring rigorous academic standards.
- –Enhancing cross-border recognition and student mobility: as international student mobility increases, accrediting agencies are working toward greater cross-border recognition of credentials. The Lisbon Recognition Convention, ratified by Canada, continues to support degree recognition among signatory countries (UNESCO, 2023). The United States has not ratified the convention but participates in bilateral agreements to facilitate student and professional mobility (CHEA, 2023). In Mexico, the Mexican Qualifications Framework (MMC) is being harmonised with regional and international accreditation systems to enhance global recognition of Mexican degrees (OECD, 2023). This trend highlights North America’s growing engagement with international QA frameworks.
- –Increased transparency and accountability: public demand for greater transparency in accreditation processes is driving efforts to increase institutional accountability. CHEA (2023) has introduced new guidelines for accrediting agencies to publish clear institutional performance metrics. The U.S. Department of Education (2023) is considering stricter regulations
on accreditation transparency, requiring institutions to report graduation rates, employment outcomes, and student loan repayment statistics. In Canada, some provincial QA bodies are developing open-access databases to track institutional performance metrics (MPHEC, 2023). These efforts aim to increase public trust in higher education quality assurance. - –The role of artificial intelligence (AI): AI-driven technologies are beginning to transform the accreditation process, enabling more efficient institutional evaluations. AI-based assessment tools are being tested by some U.S. accreditors to analyse student learning outcomes (CHEA, 2023). Canadian QA agencies are exploring AI-driven institutional audits to enhance efficiency in accreditation reviews (CMEC, 2023). Mexico’s SEAES framework is considering the integration of AI-based institutional self-assessments to improve accreditation efficiency (SEP, 2023). While AI adoption in quality assurance remains in its early stages, it represents a significant innovation that could reshape higher education accreditation.
4 Methodology
This study of the North American QA landscape explored the issues via case study analysis, the collection of baseline data, a literature review, surveys of both EQAP s and IQAP s and focus groups.
4.1 Case Studies and Literature Review
Baseline data was collected to determine the size and scope of providers across the three countries and to identify key aspects of the regional landscape of higher education systems and quality assurance/accreditation practices. This information was used to support the development of three national case studies overviewing the past, present, and future issues of quality assurance and higher education. These case studies served to inform the focus of the literature review, interpretations of the survey data supported the understanding of the nuanced discussions in the focus groups.
4.2 The Surveys
In autumn of 2023, North American institutions and EQAP s were surveyed on quality assurance practices and concerns, as well as to identify emerging trends and pressing challenges they face. The survey was in the field between October 2023 and January 2024. All EQAP s across the nations were recruited via email with an invitation to participate. In total, 32 EQAP s responded, representing 18% of Canadian, 11% of Mexican and 6% of U.S. EQAP s. The IQAP
4.3 Focus Group Discussions
With the language and contextual differences among the three nations in North America, it was determined that focus groups would be organised by country and then separated into EQAP and IQAP s. This resulted in 2 focus groups per country. Individual participants were recruited for participation based on EQAP type, region, and scope, and the role of the individual. Similarly, institutional representatives were targeted based on institutional size, credential type, geographic location, their role in institutional quality assurance and accreditation activities. Overall, 45 individuals participated in the sessions, with groups ranging from 3 to 13 individuals. Each of the focus groups was led by a national expert in QA with experience in focus group facilitation. Each of the 1.5 hour Zoom sessions were recorded, transcribed by Fireflies, and, in the case of the Mexican focus groups hosted in Spanish, translated into English.
The focus group discussions followed a structured guide on key themes in QA in North American higher education. The first theme, Legitimacy, examined perceptions of QA independence, stakeholder engagement effectiveness, and challenges in building trust. The second theme, Internationalisation, looked at the impact of global perspectives and the role of international networks in QA development. The Recognition of Qualifications theme assessed how well QA systems support regional recognition and incorporate qualifications frameworks. Efficiency discussions focused on factors influencing QA effectiveness, external expert panels’ impacts, and perceived benefits and shortcomings. The Relevance theme evaluated the adequacy of QA standards for various educational types and the frequency of updates. Finally, the Transformative Power theme discussed QA’s role in driving change in higher education, past achievements, ongoing challenges, and opportunities for better learning recognition support. This guide ensured comprehensive exploration of QA in the focus groups.
5 Analyses
Survey data were analysed using both quantitative and qualitative analytic techniques. Data from the surveys were cleaned, then recoded or collapsed
6 Results
6.1 External Quality Assurance Providers
This section discusses the results of the survey from 32 respondents (U.S. 16, México 8, Canada 8). As the sample size from all countries is very small, any statistics reported may or may not accurately represent the actual situation in these countries, though all conclusions were vetted by regional experts. Where appropriate, distinctions between countries will be noted.
6.1.1 Scope of Operations
The majority (68.8%) of EQAP s operate at the national level in their respective countries. Respondents indicate that 31.3% operate regionally. International activities are conducted by 34.4% of EQAP s. The majority of EQAP s accredit institutions or programmes that grant Bachelors and Masters (12%) and Doctoral degrees (53.1%). It is important to note that the survey did not distinguish between entry-to-practice doctorates (practical doctorates (which are common in many healthcare professions in the U.S.), and research doctorates (PHD s). Approximately one-fifth (21.9%) of EQAP s reported having a regulatory function.
6.1.2 Scope of Autonomy
Most EQAP s reported being fully independent in establishing the various aspects of the quality assurance function such as definitions of quality and standards, as well as the practical aspects of running reviews including the selection of external reviewers and the production of the final recommendation. Typically, the governing board of the EQAP has final authority for the higher-level functions such as strategic planning, and more operational functions (staffing decisions) are handled by the executive director. Functions that are not in the purview
6.1.3 EQAP s Review Aspects at Institutional and Programme Levels
There were high levels of consistency in the aspects which the EQAP’s include in the reviews, including institutional accountability procedures (93.8%), complaint system (93.8%), and transparency of institutional operations (93.9%), with slight variation in whether or not the institution internal QA policy was reviewed (84.4%). This can be attributed to the programme accreditation providers that do not have the entire institution within their purview.
6.1.4 Definition of Quality
The most commonly accepted definition of quality coming from the region was ‘value for money’ with 46.9% of participants selecting this choice. Fitness for purpose was the second most common definition, with 18.8% identifying with the notion that the reviews intended to ensure the programmes and institutions are achieving their stated goals and activities, with only 3.1% indicating that the reviews considered the ‘fitness of purpose’ considering quality via an examination of the appropriateness of those goals and activities.
6.1.5 External Factors
Major external factors that influenced EQAP s operations throughout the last 5 years fell into the categories of Health and Safety (51.3%) and technological (56.3%) primarily due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the shift to online site visits. Economic issues were also significant, as the agencies noted the financial challenges in higher education. Geopolitical (34.4%) and Social issues (25%) were also key factors in the EQAP experiences in the period of 2019–2024.
6.2 Internal Quality Assurance of TEI s
This section discusses the results of the survey from 96 respondents (U.S. 11, México 68, Canada 17). As the samples from Canada and the U.S. is very small, any statistics reported may or may not accurately represent the actual situation in these countries. Where appropriate, distinctions between countries will be noted. IQAP s described their legal status as Government (17.7%), Public (independent from government yet subsidised by public funds/taxes – 30.2%), Private with public functions (10.4%) and Private for profit (15.6%).
The analysis of participating (TEI s) reveals a diverse range of institutions, as seen in the credentials offered. A significant 74.0% of TEI s grant Bachelor’s
6.2.1 International Activities
IQAP s (24%) indicated that they review programmes in foreign settings in conjunction with local institutions (21%) or their own branch campus (3%). Of these 80.2% operate in 1 country only and 15.6% in 25 countries. Almost all institutions (99%) offer fewer than 25% of their programmes in foreign settings.
6.2.2 Internal Institutional Quality Assurance
All respondents indicated that they have internal quality assurance (IQA) processes in place, though the range of activities differs. Table 13.1 below notes the elements of internal quality assurance activities, which indicates that just of 40% of the institutions do not have an institutional IQA, and a similar percent do not conduct regular programme monitoring.
IQA processes
| Element | Percentage |
|---|---|
| IQA covers entire institution | 58.3 |
| IQA covers individual programmes | 65.6 |
| Regular programme monitoring | 59.4 |
| Regular programme reviews | 65.6 |
| Faculty/academic staff performance | 64.6 |
| Student performance | 59.4 |
| Budget line for IQA | 61.5 |
| Financial resource allocated to conduct IQA | 56.3 |
6.2.3 External Evaluation
Respondents indicated that they mainly undergo external reviews by national quality assurance bodies (9.4%) and national regulators/accreditors (45.8%). Their last reviews were between less than a year and 10 years – this would be determined by the review cycle of the QA body.
The most significant aspect that challenged the IQAP s was Accreditation fatigue (46.9%) as many programmes are reviewed both by institutional and programmatic accreditors. An additional challenge was the Lack of Contextual Understanding (40.6%) where institutions were challenged to engage the programmes, and the High Cost (37.9%) of the review activities.
6.2.5 Transformation
70.8% indicated major transformation due to undergoing the QA process. The introduction, mapping and assessment of learning outcomes were noted by as major transformations to institutional practices following the QA process. Additionally, more robust and transparent reporting activities was noted as a result, as was the development of new/more robust evaluation practices for experiential and competency-based learning, as well as micro-credentials and online learning.
7 EQA Challenges
The challenges faced by EQAP s and accreditors in higher education can be grouped into several logical categories: trust and legitimacy; regulatory and political pressures; relevance of standards and measurement of learning outcomes; stakeholder involvement; communication; efficiency and the use of technology.
Establishing and maintaining trust – among stakeholders, including institutions, students, and the public – is crucial. The external recognition and legitimacy of accreditors is often questioned amid political discourse and media scrutiny. Furthermore, the credibility of accreditation processes can be undermined by conflicts of interest or perceptions of bias, which necessitates a transparent and objective approach to evaluations. Focus group participants noted the specific challenge of trust when evaluating foreign programmes. They further noted the difficulties of accrediting programmes globally using the same standards while considering cultural, resource, and regulatory differences. Independence, transparency, and fairness in EQA processes are vital to maintaining public and institutional legitimacy.
Regulatory and political pressures also pose challenges, as QA agencies must operate within the constraints of national regulations that can limit their independence. The political landscape can impact perceptions of accreditors, making it difficult to maintain credibility and authority. In the U.S. in particular, the increased visibility of QA processes in public conversations about higher education can further complicate the role of accreditation as a gatekeeper for federal and state support.
Engagement and stakeholder involvement are a fourth challenging aspect of the EQA process. Effectively engaging students, faculty, and industry stakeholders can be difficult. In particular, the involvement of students is rarely sufficient given their direct interest in institutional quality. Further, ensuring that peer reviewers possess the necessary expertise to support the technical role of EQA as well as how it is realised on individual and diverse campuses. Capacity and resource constraints further complicate the situation, as QA agencies often face limitations that affect their ability to conduct thorough evaluations and maintain standards.
Communication and perception issues arise as QA agencies must address misconceptions about their role and effectiveness in ensuring quality education. The confidentiality of much of the QA process can make it challenging to communicate effectively with stakeholders about the importance and benefits of accreditation. This can affect the ability of EQA to effectively navigate criticism and engage in legitimate debate. Effective communication and collaboration among institutions and feedback to the agencies is needed to ensure comprehensive participation in accreditation processes.
Finally, efficiency and the use of technology is a challenge. The importance of capacity building is clear, yet the use of technology for automation to improve efficiency remains a slow and gradual process. The rapid pace of technological change requires continuous updates to evaluation criteria and methodologies and the rise of digital tools and artificial intelligence presents opportunities and challenges. Agencies must ensure that these technologies enhance and improve rather than complicate or diminish the accreditation process.
8 IQA Challenges
Many of the challenges cited with respect to IQA are parallel to those identified for external agencies. These include legitimacy and relevancy of standards; stakeholder involvement; efficiency and capacity building. In addition,
Issues of legitimacy and relevancy emerged prominently, with the alignment between QA standards and the diverse needs of educational programmes surfacing as a critical concern. There is often a disconnect between the QA processes imposed by central administrative teams and the day-to-day quality improvement efforts at the departmental level. This disconnect can lead to a perception that QA activities are merely bureaucratic exercises rather than meaningful processes aimed at enhancing programme quality. Existing QA standards may not adequately reflect the variety of credentials offered by institutions or the specific contexts in which they operate. Moreover, challenges in measuring quality at the institutional level mimicked those heard by EQA. IQA processes that inadequately assess actual learning outcomes and result in mere compliance with standards can undermine the relevance of QA processes and their ability to drive meaningful improvements in educational quality.
Challenges were also noted with stakeholder involvement and buy-in, especially when faculty question the independence and credibility of these systems. Limited involvement from key participants, including students and industry can result in stakeholder perception of accreditation as a “necessary evil,” or irrelevant outside of the university, which diminishes buy-in and understanding of its value. The participation of students was highlighted as a particular concern as they are transitional participants in the IQA processes and may not recognise the benefit of engagement that emerges after graduation.
Efficiency and capacity building in the IQA process is challenging because of financial and human resource constraints. The costs associated with accreditation processes, including membership fees and IQAP staffing, can be burdensome for institutions. This is exacerbated by frequent turnover of key personnel responsible for self-studies. Furthermore, the need to reconcile internal QA requirements with external regulatory demands adds another layer of complexity, often resulting in duplicated efforts and confusion. Continuous improvement in accreditation processes is necessary for maintaining high standards and adapting to evolving educational needs. Technology might be seen as a solution to some of these issues, but it comes with its own issues, as discussions around the use of AI made clear.
A subset of the efficiency and capacity building challenge is how institutions can effectively gather, analyse and use data. Data are easily collected, often using automated tools and technology enhanced processes. But this often results in an overwhelming amount of data that resists easy summation. The utility of data is also a challenge, in that IQA may find it difficult to translate reams of data into manageable and actionable plans for improvement. In addition to challenges in gathering and analysing data for informed
Finally, IQA is challenged with imprecise and vague definitions of quality. The inability to firmly define quality in higher education can hinder the ability to assess diverse educational programmes and leads to static standards that reflect past assumptions rather than current realities. Insufficient definitions of quality make standardisation across the institution difficult, as institutions struggle to incorporate diverse cultural perspectives on quality, especially Indigenous knowledge and internationally through different cultural and educational expectations.
9 Discussion
Although the North American Region only includes three countries, each has a distinct QA history and tradition. Canada has a highly decentralised and variable EQA; Mexico has a national qualifications framework and a centralised system; the U.S. is guided by the triad of federal, state and accreditation bodies, each with a distinct role in quality assurance. Institutional autonomy for internal QA likewise varies, with Mexico having specific requirements for assuring degree standards, and the U.S. and Canada showing varying formal structures and accountability.
This leads to country-specific issues that have prominent influence on the precise nature of the QA infrastructure. Briefly, Canada’s provincial-level focus means that regional differences emerge quite strongly. This is visible, for example, in the role of the Indigenous higher education authority in Ontario. Mexico’s strong public/state focus creates a gap in private sector oversight. The U.S. struggles to partition responsibility among the Triad entities, with consequential politicisation of the quality assurance process as the Federal government asserts primacy over the state and accreditation bodies.
Nevertheless, there are still some commonalities that cross the countries. First there is a common belief that quality assurance processes legitimise higher education institutions and define quality in the sector. Across the board, the solution to low quality is more quality assurance, with focus group participants exhibiting faith in the processes established even as they may critique specific aspects of them.
Another commonality is the urge to include stakeholders in quality assurance reviews, and the perception that they are not as engaged as they should be. The importance of business leaders in the QA process was indicative of higher education’s role in the economy and the practical impact it should have
A third common feature in the North American region was the struggle to address the diversity of programmes and institutional types, including new providers and modes of delivery. Academic standards can be modified depending on the programme or institution, but respondents were wary of weakening standards to accommodate untested innovations. For example, there is still a concern – particularly post-pandemic – that evaluators and regulators do not have the right model in place to vet remote access to educational opportunities.
Finally, across the region, technology is both blamed and credited with accelerating the pace of change in education. All the focus groups mentioned artificial intelligence as a potential game-changer for higher education and uncertainty on how to address it with traditionally human focused assessment tools. Technology creates opportunities for more robust data collection and analysis, even as the scale of what is now possible can be overwhelming. QA policies struggle to identify the changes as they are happening and have difficulty keeping up to date with current practice.
10 Conclusion
The landscape of higher education in North America is characterised by diverse governance models, accreditation frameworks, and quality assurance (QA) systems. Despite the differences across Canada, the United States, and Mexico, several common themes and challenges emerge, highlighting the importance of continuous improvement and adaptation in QA practices.
First, a recurring theme across North America is the importance of integrating stakeholder perspectives into QA processes. Engaging students, faculty, and industry representatives is crucial for ensuring that QA mechanisms remain relevant and effective. However, achieving meaningful stakeholder involvement remains a challenge, with varying levels of engagement and buy-in across different regions and institutions. Thus, enhancing trust and legitimacy is crucial. This can be achieved by increasing transparency in decision-making processes and actively engaging stakeholders – including students, faculty, and industry representatives – to ensure their perspectives are valued. Other strategies discussed included focusing on learning outcomes and enhancing mechanisms
Related to this is the need for greater flexibility and adaptability in QA standards. Accreditation bodies should regularly review and update their criteria to reflect current educational trends and practices, allowing for a more responsive approach to the diverse needs of institutions. Collaboration across borders in the region can facilitate the sharing of best practices and address common challenges in quality assurance, while leveraging international expertise can inform the development of QA processes and standards. This includes aligning QA processes with international standards to facilitate the recognition of qualifications across borders, which is particularly important in an increasingly globalised education landscape.
Given the interest in flexibility and adaptability of QA, the need for standardisation is complicated. In Mexico, participants recommended the creation of national standards and indicators that institutions can uniformly adopt, which would help streamline accreditation procedures and make it easier for institutions to demonstrate compliance with quality benchmarks. This, however, was not seen as relevant in the Canadian context with its variable authority by province and challenging – at least in the U.S. – traditions of institutional autonomy.
Even when standardisation was not on the table, streamlining QA processes for greater efficiency was a noted theme. Participants suggested revamping templates and documentation requirements to reduce redundancy and clarify expectations. Centralised support offices that assist departments with their self-studies and internal reviews can also alleviate the burden on individual units. Moreover, combining internal QA with external QA when possible, could minimise duplication of efforts and lessen the administrative load on faculty and staff.
Fostering innovation and improvement is also important. There should be flexibility in standards to accommodate new pedagogical approaches and partnerships that enhance educational quality. Strengthening communication and perception is vital as well; developing effective communication strategies can clarify the role and effectiveness of accreditors in ensuring quality education, while simplifying the complexity of accreditation standards can make them more accessible and understandable for stakeholders.
The rise of digital tools and artificial intelligence presents both opportunities and challenges for QA in higher education. These technologies – including adaptive artificial intelligence – can enhance efficiency and provide robust data analysis, but they also risk overwhelming institutions with excessive data. Nevertheless, leveraging technology for QA improvement
Finally, equity, diversity, inclusion, and belonging are critical considerations in QA processes. Initiatives such as Canada’s integration of Indigenous perspectives and the U.S. debates on diversity, equity, and inclusion highlight the intersection of social policy and QA. Ensuring that QA standards reflect diverse educational contexts and promote inclusivity is vital for fostering an equitable higher education environment.
The future of QA and accreditation in North American higher education lies in the ability to adapt to emerging trends, leverage technological advancements, and maintain a commitment to high educational standards. By addressing common challenges and embracing opportunities for innovation, QA agencies and institutions can contribute to the development of a robust and effective higher education sector that is globally competitive and responsive to the needs of its diverse stakeholders.
References
Alberta Government. (2023). Alberta credential framework. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/alberta-credential-framework
Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE). (2023). International student statistics in Canada. https://cbie.ca
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (CFAT). (2022). Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu
Centro Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación Superior (CENEVAL). (2023). National center for higher education evaluation. https://www.ceneval.edu.mx
Comités Interinstitucionales para la Evaluación de la Educación Superior (CIEES). (2023). Higher education evaluation in Mexico. https://www.ciees.edu.mx
Consejo para la Acreditación de la Educación Superior (COPAES). (2023). Accreditation standards for Mexican higher education. https://www.copaes.org.mx
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). (2020). Accreditation and quality assurance in higher education. https://www.chea.org
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). (2023). Accreditation and the evolving higher education landscape. https://www.chea.org
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC). (2007). Ministerial statement on quality assurance of degree education in Canada. https://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/95/QA-Statement-2007.en.pdf
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC). (2023). Postsecondary education in Canada: Key facts. https://www.cmec.ca
Council of Ontario Universities (COU). (2023). Ontario universities quality assurance process. https://www.cou.ca
Consorcio de Universidades Mexicanas (CUMEX). (2021). Mexican consortium of universities: Institutional accreditation standards. https://www.cumex.org
Education Data Initiative. (2025). College Enrollment Statistics [2024]: Total + by Demographic. https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics
Erudera. (2023). International students in Canada: Trends and statistics. https://erudera.com
Federación de Instituciones Mexicanas Particulares de Educación Superior (FIMPES). (2023). Accreditation of private higher education institutions in Mexico. https://www.fimpes.org.mx
Gouvernement du Québec. (2023). Higher education accreditation in Quebec. https://www.quebec.ca
Government of Alberta. (2023). Alberta qualifications framework. https://www.alberta.ca
Government of Alberta. (2023). Campus Alberta Quality Council (CAQC). https://www.alberta.ca
Government of British Columbia. (2023). Degree Quality Assessment Board (DQAB). https://www2.gov.bc.ca
Government of Canada. (2024). Study permit cap policy announcement. https://www.canada.ca
Higher Learning Commission (HLC). (2023). Accreditation criteria. https://www.hlcommission.org
Indigenous Advanced Education and Skills Council (IAESC). (2023). Accreditation framework. https://www.iaesc.ca
Indigenous Institutes Quality Assessment Board (IIQAB). (2023). Institutional review process. https://www.iiqab.ca
International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE). (2023). Quality assurance guidelines and international benchmarks. https://www.inqaahe.org
Lumina Foundation. (n.d.). Degree Qualifications Profile (DQP). https://www.luminafoundation.org
Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission (MPHEC). (2023). Maritime accreditation standards. https://www.mphec.ca
Ministerio de Educación Nacional. (2023). Guide to the Mexican education system. https://www.mineducacion.gov.co/portal/convalidaciones/Convalidaciones-Educacion-Superior/355353:Preguntas-Frecuentes
Mexican Ministry of Education (Secretaría de Educación Pública, SEP). (2024). Higher education policy initiatives in Mexico. https://www.gob.mx
Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE). (2023). Accreditation and assessment standards. https://www.msche.org
Ontario Government. (2022). Ontario qualifications framework. http://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-qualifications-framework
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). Higher education in Mexico: Labour market relevance and outcomes. OECD Publishing.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2023). Higher education trends in Mexico. OECD Publishing.
Phillips, R., & Kinser, K. (2018). Accreditation on the edge: Challenging quality assurance in higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board. (2023). Ontario micro-credentials: Harnessing the potential. https://www.peqab.ca/Publications/OMC%20FINAL%20REPORT%20POSTED.pdf
Statica. (2025). Number of students in higher education in Mexico in the academic year 2023/24, by state. https://www.statista.com/statistics/706128/students-higher-education-mexico-state/
Statistics Canada. (2025). Canadian postsecondary enrolments and graduates, 2022/2023. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/241120/dq241120b-eng.htm
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). (2023). Regional accreditation policies. https://www.sacscoc.org
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC). (2015). Final report: Calls to action. https://www.trc.ca
US Department of Education. (2020, February 26). Final accreditation and state authorisation regulations.
U.S. Department of Education (USDOE). (2020). The condition of education 2020. National Center for Education Statistics.
U.S. Department of Education (USDOE). (2023). Higher education accreditation policies and standards. https://www.ed.gov
USQF. (2025). United States qualification framework. https://usqf.org/
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). (2023). Lisbon recognition convention: Global impact on higher education mobility. https://www.unesco.org
UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). (2021). Competency-based education and the national system of competence standards in Mexico. https://uil.unesco.org
Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC). (2023). Accreditation framework. https://www.wscuc.org