Send message to Author

Paper abstract:

Six years have passed since Kyrgyzstan implemented the new quality assurance system through independent accreditation agencies based on legal documents and amendments to the Law on Education in Kyrgyzstan (The Government of the KR, 2003). The National Accreditation Board of the Ministry of Education and Sciences recognized five local independent accreditation agencies and one Kazakhstani agency. Despite the fact that Accreditation of Educational Institutions aimed at quality assurance and integration into the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), the accreditation process has opened new channels for corruption and led to more problems in the higher education. Since there are no specialized professional accreditation agencies in the country, all accreditation agencies accredit all kinds of programs. State HEIs choose the accreditation agency through the system of tender depending on the institution’s financial ability. For example, one agency can charge 150 thousand soms (~ $1765) for accreditation of a program, while another agency can charge 35 thousand soms (~ $410) for the same type of program accreditation. It seems that each institution negotiates with the accreditation agency the cost of the accreditation and the results of accreditation individually. There are cases when one agency did not accredit a program for not meeting the accreditation standards, but the other accreditation agency accredited it shortly thereafter.

There is no system for internal quality assurance; institutions failed to develop an institutional quality assurance policy. The absence of Institutional Research Centers does not allow HEIs to collect and analyze data about educational practices and internal quality assurance policies on a regular basis. HEIs start collecting data for accreditation just a few weeks before the accreditation site visit. The implementation of new independent accreditation has not brought expected results in improvement of quality of education and establishment of quality culture. HEIs did not create mechanisms for the continuous improvement of the quality of education, instead they perceive the independent accreditation as the same external inspection for compliance of educational programs with the State Educational Standards that takes place every five years.

The biggest problem is that accreditation has not promoted quality of education due to poor management of the accreditation process at different levels (Ministry of Education and Sciences, accreditation agencies, and HEIs), absence of Institutional Research Centers and specialized professional accreditation agencies, insufficient training of faculty and accreditation specialists, and misunderstanding of the essence of quality culture.