Controlling the Controllables: International Lessons on Quality Assurance in Uncertain Regulatory Times

Across the United States, there is growing speculation about what the future holds for accreditation and higher education regulation. Federal proposals, state mandates, and partisan rhetoric often seem to shift overnight. Institutions are investing significant energy and anxiety into decoding what these changes might mean, who they might affect first, and how best to prepare for a future that feels more reactive than planned. Yet for much of the world, this ambiguity is not new. Institutions operating internationally have long navigated layered, sometimes contradictory regulatory frameworks. They have learned not only to respond to shifting policies, but to build quality systems that can withstand and even thrive amid change. Perhaps it is time for U.S.-based institutions to take note.  

At Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, we are not strangers to this complexity. We maintain specialized accreditations with AABI, ABET, ACBSP, and other disciplinary bodies; adhere to the standards of our institutional accreditor, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC); comply with 28 U.S. state authorizing agencies; operate under the NC-SARA reciprocity agreement; and meet the educational requirements of eight different foreign governments. In addition to these regulatory structures, we operate more than 100 off-campus instructional sites across multiple continents and offer courses and programs online to students around the world. We are fully immersed in the reality that compliance is not uniform, predictable, or always transparent. But rather than let that become an excuse for confusion or inaction, we have taken a different approach: we focus on what we can control.

The truth is that good quality assurance should not hinge on which entity is in charge. The underlying principles of accreditation and external quality review—academic rigor, institutional integrity, student learning, and continuous improvement—are sound. What changes, often, is the packaging. Whether we are reporting to a U.S. accreditor, a European ministry of education, or a military contract auditor, the core of what we do should be the same. And if it is, we are far less vulnerable to the whims of politics, bureaucracy, or restructured oversight.  

This is not to suggest that compliance is easy or unimportant. It matters, and it must be done well. But when compliance becomes the goal rather than the byproduct of a quality-focused culture, we lose our way. Internationally, there are instructive models of how to avoid this trap. For example, the United Kingdom’s Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) emphasizes enhancement-led review, encouraging institutions to focus on development rather than defensiveness. In Australia, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) reinforces risk-based regulation, reserving the most intense scrutiny for institutions that demonstrate inconsistent or poor outcomes. These systems reward proactive quality cultures rather than merely reactive rule-following.

In the United States, too often we fall into the trap of responding to external changes by layering on more policies, forms, and procedural checkboxes. What we should be doing instead is doubling down on internal accountability systems that prioritize student success, institutional performance, and learning outcomes—regardless of the form in which we report them. Accreditation, in its ideal form, is meant to be a mirror, not a magnifying glass. Its purpose is to reflect who we are and how we grow, not to spotlight our imperfections for others to dissect. That perspective shift matters.  

At Embry-Riddle, we have built our quality assurance infrastructure around this principle. We start with clear Institutional Learning Outcomes—professional competence, critical thinking, effective communication, and technology and skill proficiency—and map them vertically and horizontally through our programs and general education curriculum. We use dashboards not to track compliance deadlines, but to understand patterns of student achievement, identify points of intervention, and engage faculty in improvement conversations. We categorize our key performance indicators (KPIs) into what can be viewed as three tiers: Volume (enrollment, participation, throughput), Efficiency (time to degree, credit accumulation, administrative responsiveness), and Impact (learning outcomes, career placement, student satisfaction, alumni value). These are the metrics that matter. If we do them well, we will meet any accreditor’s standards—regardless of who that accreditor is.

There is growing international consensus on this point. Institutional quality work must be owned by academic and administrative leadership, not delegated solely to accreditation liaisons or compliance officers. Sustainable quality assurance depends on integrating improvement into the core practices of the institution rather than framing it as an episodic requirement from outside. Too much emphasis on external audit can inhibit innovation and responsiveness, especially when institutions fear sanctions more than they seek growth. Internationally, the move is toward meaningful quality culture—and U.S. institutions and accreditors would benefit from joining that movement.  

The challenge, of course, is that many of our internal structures were not built with agility in mind. It can feel easier to respond to each new mandate with a new form, policy, or position description. But that piecemeal approach creates fragility. The stronger strategy is to build systems that endure across changes in leadership, government, or accreditor preferences. That means rooting improvement in habits, expectations, and shared values. It means equipping faculty and staff to understand not just what to do, but why it matters.

We often remind our teams of the phrase “control the controllables.” It is a mindset that prioritizes focus, clarity, and resilience. We cannot control whether a state passes a new education bill or whether a federal agency restructures the accreditation landscape. But we can control whether our continuous improvement systems are transparent. We can control how we align resources with outcomes. We can ensure that our students are learning, graduating, and entering the workforce with the skills and confidence to succeed. When those things are true, any bureaucratic change is just a new label—not a new challenge.

In an era where regulatory and political pressures are intensifying, especially in the United States, the international experience offers a hopeful reminder: institutions that focus on quality, on improvement, and on student success can thrive regardless of external flux. Accreditation, when centered on impact rather than paperwork, becomes a catalyst rather than a constraint. Compliance becomes easier when excellence is already present. The same dashboards, metrics, and improvement plans used for self-reflection can be repurposed to meet any reporting need. The work does not have to be duplicated—it only has to be done well.

As higher education institutions worldwide continue to face pressure to prove their value, the best strategy may be the simplest: invest in doing the right things, and do them well. The most successful institutions are those that treat accreditation not as a hurdle, but as a conversation—an opportunity to refine, recommit, and reimagine their role in the lives of learners and the broader society. That is the mindset we should strive for.

In the end, the future of regulation will remain unpredictable. But our commitment to quality does not have to be. By focusing on continuous improvement in learning, finances, assessment, and student success, we can build institutions capable of weathering any change. The paperwork may shift. The logos may change. But the essence of good education—and the systems that sustain it—remain remarkably consistent.