Approaches to Accreditation
in the Post-Soviet Arena
The appearance and development of theological
schools in the CIS was a spontaneous process. It's clear that under conditions
of freedom one may forget forever the nomenklatura and the centralized decisions
“from above” of all issues concerning academic institutions. It follows that other
systems had to emerge for managing the educational process. One of the most effective
regulators of education is accreditation.
Why accreditation? The experience of schools in developed countries shows that it is one of the
best mechanisms for theological schools to coordinate their work with churches.
Many other school leaders in the CIS have also come to this conclusion having
discussed various possibilities for cooperation from creating of union theological
schools with a rigid hierarchy to weaker forms of associations that would merely
hold conferences or consultative meetings.
Also discussed was the idea of not having any cooperation at all. It was suggested
that maybe it would be better if schools acted completely independent of each
other and if churches recognized such a school than that school had fulfilled
its purpose. But the uncertainties of life underscored the need for associating
with each other. What was needed was not a rigid organizational structure, but
rather an association of ideas…and one of these ideas was accreditation
Under the rubric of “accreditation” is usually understood the idea of evaluation
and self-evaluation of academic programs as well as every aspect of the life of
a school in correspondence with criteria and standards of the educational system
where a given school is located.
The choice of accreditation unites ideas determined by the following:
First of all, accreditation is not something
that is imposed “from above”, but rather proceeds from the need of each school
to receive recognition in its churches, in society, from other schools, as
well as for themselves. The fact that such recognition is necessary is repeatedly
expressed at all meetings and gatherings not only from the mouths of school
leaders, but more often from the students themselves.
Secondly, accreditation provides a large degree
of freedom allowing many questions to be resolved with the mutual help of
other schools; that is, to find the actual position of each school within
the system of theological education and to help it to commensurate its claims
with its possibilities; to determine the needs of programs and standards for
each educational level so as to help them avoid the temptation of deceiving
themselves by designating their graduates as something they are not in regards
to academic and educational titles.
Thirdly, accreditation can help leaders who
are just starting out in establishing a theological school to learn from the
mistakes committed by those who have gone before them thus starting their
school more effectively from the very beginning. That is, the didactic goal
of accreditation is significant and has special importance for recently-started
theological schools in the former Soviet Union where each year many theological
schools begin and end in their early stages of development and which very
often have been organized by people who have no special education or training
for the task. So the general experience of other schools can help new schools
in their academic, administrative, organizational and methodological aspects.
Fourthly, the accreditation system can play a role
in strengthening the information base which has been accumulated concerning teachers,
books, programs, graduates, and so forth.
That is, through the accreditation system each school can possess a much higher
information potential knowing which books are available, what the advantages and
shortcomings of various educational programs are, who teachers are and when they
are available, how better to use graduates, and so forth. Here one can find information
on each school as well as on their current situation.
Fifthly, the accreditation system can also help coordinate the publication of
theological literature, textbooks and other helps which can improve a school's
library resources, its research potential, and so forth.
One could continue enumerating many more positive
aspects of accreditation. It's advantages can not be called into question. This,
undoubtedly, brings up another question:
How should accreditation be organized? The experience of western countries suggests that the work of accreditation
agencies is more effective when it is created at an early stage of the development
of the educational system; when theological schools, which always seem to have
a high level of competition and intensive battle for potential students when they're
located not far from each other, have not yet established various theological
traditions from which it would be hard to extricate themselves, or are under the
dominance of a historical legacy or personage. So the creation of an accreditation
system began in the CIS countries almost immediately following the appearance
of theological schools in the region.
What are the different types of accreditation?
1. Each school can try to obtain government accreditation
As is well known in all countries of the former Soviet Union, under the Ministry
of Education exists an Administration for Accreditation and Attestation. This
Administration elaborates classifications and the direction (branches of knowledge)
of specific specialties in the educational system which have been recognized by
the state as well as the minimal requirements for the preparation of each specialty.
In some countries these have been fully worked out, while others are just beginning
the process.
Theoretically any school can put forward a declaration for accreditation to this
Administration. But this creates more problems than solutions.
The first problem is connected with the fact that a majority of theological schools
have registered with the government as a religious organizations rather than as
a school which in fact they are. However, in our countries there has not been
one instance in which a school with the legal status of a religious organization
has been given government accreditation. This means graduates of theological schools
can not receive government recognition in order to work as specialists within
governmental structures. CIS governments are not ready yet for such an event.
Their formal answer to questions of accrediting religious schools goes something
like this: “In our country the church is separated from the state. Therefore,
your school should be accredited by the church for which you are preparing workers.”
And in a sense this is the correct answer: 'the consumer of production must discuss
its needs with the producer'.
Governments, which have inherited an atheistic worldview, can give no place within
its structures to the renewed children of God and consequently the graduates of
evangelical schools as well. Despite the fact that several leaders of theological
schools would very much like to receive government accreditation, the Lord has
seen fit that the legal and direct way of doing this was not possible.
On the other hand, government accreditation,
while it would give additional weight to evangelical schools, would bring
with it many difficulties. The main difficulty being if in the case of accreditation
the government would begin to dictate: which subjects and in what amount schools
must have. It would send accreditation commissions which would have very little
interest in spiritual criteria or in the spiritual beliefs of a school. But
would pay great attention to financial questions and would demand required
subjects not only in physical education but also in “principles of universal
evolution, the theories of Schiller, Jasper, and others.”
Thus, governmental accreditation according to the conditions set forth by our culture, which cannot by justified either by evangelical or other utilitarian arguments, are unacceptable for our theological schools.
2. A School could receive accreditation from a Western partner An overwhelming majority of, and possibly all, the theological schools in the CIS have Western partners. These are either sister schools on which they are completely dependent in a academic or financial sense, or are friendly seminaries, colleges, or universities which are not connected with our schools by official contracts or other obligations, but which support them regularly or episodically. Many of our Western partners also offer their assistance in regards to questions of accreditation.
This means that it's possible to conclude an agreement with a Western school which has accreditation in the North American system ATS (Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada), or in the accreditation system of its own state, or in any other Western accreditation agency and receive the status of being a “filial” of that Western school or being its official representative for a specific degree program (for example: Master of Divinity in Biblical Studies) in the CIS. This is the simplest way to receive accreditation, saves school leaders a lot of headaches, and easily gives out prestigious titles. However, it also has many drawbacks.
The chief of these is full dependence on the Western partner. This is a dependence of teachers, in program formulation, goals and means of education; that is, a wholesale transference of Western models of theological education to native soil, even with a few cultural adaptations. A few schools have gone down this road hoping to receive independence in the future. But the experience of countries in the Third World shows that to change a school's traditions or its image is very difficult even after a school has gained full independence. Therefore, not only are a majority of national leaders reluctant to go down this path. But there are more and more voices in the West which have called attention to the dangers copying of American models of education in post-communist countries.
3. A School could on its own join the European Evangelical Accrediting Association Entry into other international Associations is practically impossible seeing that all of them are regional and, according to their charter, cannot accept schools from another region with the solitary exception of the possibility of applying to the European Evangelical Accrediting Association (EEAA). This is a direct and clear way of accreditation and several CIS schools have taken their first steps in this direction. However, the entry of our schools into the EEAA means bringing them up to the academic standards as understood in Western Europe.
It is indisputable that these standards are much higher than North American standards, which in and of itself is something very good. But there is a first question which naturally arises: Is it really possible for us to achieve these standards given our conditions? And when would they be achieved in our schools? Of course this is a difficulty, but not an obstacle for schools in the CIS. A more realistic obstacle involves answering the question: Do we need to orient ourselves toward the Western European model of education?
The model for Western European education is the classical German university. It is very good in academics. It is oriented towards students having a breadth of knowledge of the three ancient languages, exegetical expertise of the original text, a knowledge of all the foundational theological theories and schools of criticism, and so forth. However, it is much less oriented toward the spiritual growth of the students, practical ministry in churches, and the formulation of Christian character and qualities which are needed of church leaders in the 21st century.
Must we take as our standard such a system of criteria and standards which have set the European churches down the path they now find themselves?
This is a serious problem which requires additional, deeper study. But the intuitive viewpoint of many leaders of Eastern European theological schools and churches is that we should go down that road only with great caution.
No less of a serious obstacle are also economic factors; EEAA membership fees alone are more than $ 1,000 not counting the costs of schools receiving visiting accreditation teams.
If one adds to this the language barrier, the necessary informational, library, and educational structures (something which is absent from schools in the CIS) then it is understandable why our schools have such a weak interest in the EEAA.
There remains a last possibility that is the most forward-looking, and yet the most difficult to accomplish.
4. The Schools of the CIS could create their own Accreditation Association. The advantages of having one's own accreditation system are obvious: The chief of which is having one language and one culture.
It is indisputable that those living in the post-communist world, and especially those who were brought up under “developed socialism”, have a very specific mentality. They are united not only by the Russian language, but also by the system of evaluations and viewpoints coming from the recent past.. This, and the general economic situation, distinguishes it completely from the situation in Western Europe. It is also a different pedagogical system, despite the fact that it developed out of the pedagogics of Tsarist Russia, which itself was an outgrowth of the German model of education. This, along with the single, forced, caste-like exclusiveness of the evangelical movement and widespread conservatism, often turns into fundamentalism and singular dogmatic and moral-ethical viewpoints
It's also important to remember that the largest evangelical unions in Europe, according to membership statistics, are found in the East. This is not just in terms of territory, for they exceed all the territory of Western Europe many times, but also in terms of their rate of growth which many times over exceeds the rate of growth in similar unions in the West. Thus, it is not by accident that Christians in many countries in the recent past have turned their attention to the East. Today there are now more evangelical schools on the territory of the former Soviet Union than in all of Western Europe.
Taking all these factors into account this demonstrates and explains why theological leaders in Eurasia decided to form their own Association.
The Euro-Asian Accrediting Association has become a good channel for mutual activity between schools and has become a real help for those schools which still in the beginning stages of their development. It gives them a much greater information and library base, something which is an important advantage but not perceptible at first glance. By having created our own Association we have been able to learn both from the experience of existing accreditation agencies as well as to not repeat their mistakes.
As is well-known, schools in many parts of the world are disturbed by the fact that they cannot quickly address the changing needs of the world around them. Strong traditions of any system make it easier to reject new ideas. At numerous meetings and conferences leaders of evangelical schools have more than once spoken of the need to renew the educational system. In July 1983 in Wheaton, Illinois, USA, an official document was produced entitled: “The ICAA Manifesto” (a manifesto on the renewal of evangelical theological education), which presented the direction and program of reform. However, these very reforms have come along very slowly having met opposition and obstacles.
Lastly, and quite possibly the most important: Participation in one's own Association, even with taking into account the expenses in creating it, costs a lot less than in the West. One of the strongest arguments of schools in the CIS having their own Association is their extremely limited financial resources
So, on the territory which is commonly referred to as “Eurasia”, objectively and subjectively were created the conditions for working out specific criteria, standards and philosophy of accreditation, that is, for the creation of its own association. The experience of the West was utilized in creating this new Association, which is now connected to other international evangelical accreditation associations.
So the existence of the Euro-Asian Accrediting Association is justified from organizational, academic, international and especially practical points of view.