In higher education, few questions are more consequential than who is trusted to define and guard “quality.” From the late 19th century onward, accreditation bodies have shaped the conditions under which institutions open, degrees are recognized, and students access opportunity. Yet for more than a century, the founders of these accrediting bodies were drawn from a narrow slice of institutional leadership: overwhelmingly white, male, and anchored in elite or majority‑serving institutions (Middle States Commission on Higher Education [MSCHE], 2023; Postsecondary National Policy Institute [PNPI], 2021; UNESCO, 1999).
In 2025, this pattern was disrupted when Dr. Roxanne Kemp founded the International Accrediting Commission for Digital Education (IACDE), becoming the first Black woman documented to create a global accrediting body for educational institutions focused on digital and distance education (Ebed‑Melech University, 2025; Ebed‑Melech Foundation, 2025). This milestone has been recognized not only in higher‑education governance circles but also in local media: the Groesbeck Journal profiled Dr. Kemp as a hometown alumna pioneering a new accreditation model (Groesbeck Journal, 2025). This development is not only a milestone for representation; it is a structural shift in who participates in defining quality in digital accreditation. For presidents, provosts, regulators, and edtech founders in 2026, understanding this historical arc is essential to navigating the next phase of global, digital quality assurance.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗩𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗖𝗹𝘂𝗯𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗙𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗚𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Accreditation in the United States began as a voluntary, nongovernmental, peer‑review mechanism created by institutions themselves, not as a governmental function. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, rapid growth in secondary and higher education led to inconsistent entrance requirements and widely varying academic standards (PNPI, 2021; UNESCO, 1999). In response, secondary school headmasters and college presidents formed regional associations to coordinate expectations and evaluate institutions.
The New England and Middle States associations are emblematic. Their early leadership came from presidents and headmasters of prominent institutions such as Columbia, Cornell, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton, Swarthmore, and leading preparatory schools (MSCHE, 2023; PNPI, 2021). These were voluntary clubs of institutional leaders who agreed to subject themselves to peer scrutiny and to publish lists of schools meeting agreed‑upon criteria.
By the 1920s, six regional accreditors covered most of the United States, using peer visits, self‑studies, and standards to judge institutional quality (PNPI, 2021; Wikipedia, 2010). Distance education followed a similar path: the National Home Study Council, founded in 1926 and later evolving into the Distance Education Accrediting Commission (DEAC), was formed by correspondence‑study providers to self‑regulate and protect legitimacy in a contested field (DEAC, 2023; UNESCO, 1999).
In all these cases, accreditation emerged as:
- Voluntary and nongovernmental, rooted in institutional initiative rather than statute (CHEA, 1998; U.S. Department of Education, 2024).
- Peer‑based, drawing legitimacy from the expertise and authority of academic leaders (CHEA, 2010; ENQA, 2015).
- Concentrated in a homogeneous leadership profile—overwhelmingly white, male, and tied to historically advantaged institutions (MSCHE, 2023; DEAC, 2023).
Only later, particularly after the GI Bill and the Higher Education Act of 1965, did federal policy transform these voluntary associations into gatekeepers for student aid, embedding them in a government‑recognized accreditation regime (Congressional Research Service [CRS], 2024; PNPI, 2021; UNESCO, 1999).
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
𝗪𝗵𝗼 𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀—𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗪𝗵𝗼 𝗪𝗮𝘀 𝗠𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Historical accounts of accreditation focus on institutions and associations, but rarely on the demographic profile of their founders. Where names are recorded, they reflect the dominant power structures of the time. Middle States’ early leadership, for example, was composed of presidents from elite institutions and influential headmasters, operating in an era when Black people and women were systematically excluded from such roles in mainstream higher education (MSCHE, 2023; UNESCO, 1999).
Similarly, the National Home Study Council’s founders—representatives of early correspondence schools—were part of a landscape where control over educational quality remained concentrated among white male administrators and proprietors (DEAC, 2023; UNESCO, 1999). Regional and national accrediting organizations, as they matured and professionalized, continued to draw their governing boards and executive leadership predominantly from historically white institutions and networks (CHEA, 1998; PNPI, 2021).
This pattern matters for at least three reasons.
- Conceptualization of quality. Standards and review practices reflect the lived experience and assumptions of those who design them. When founders share similar institutional and social backgrounds, definitions of “quality” may implicitly privilege particular institutional types, student profiles, and pedagogical models (ENQA, 2015; OECD, 2021).
- Representation of diverse institutional missions. Minority‑serving institutions, faith‑based providers, community‑based organizations, and international or cross‑border institutions were often subjects, not architects, of accreditation systems (CHEA, 2010; UNESCO, 1999).
- Voice in the digital transition. As online and distance‑education accreditation emerged, leadership and founding authority again tended to cluster among those already embedded in legacy quality‑assurance networks, limiting the perspectives shaping digital standards (OECD, 2021; TAICEP, 2019).
Against this background, the founding of a global accrediting body by a Black woman is historically significant. It interrupts a 140‑year pattern in which those authorized to define institutional quality in a formal, international accreditation structure were almost exclusively white men.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗜𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗗𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
In 2026, digital accreditation and distance‑education accreditation occupy a central place in quality‑assurance debates. Institutions serve global student populations through online and hybrid modalities, often reaching learners historically excluded from traditional higher education (OECD, 2021; UNESCO, 2023). In this context, founder identity has concrete implications for how digital accreditation is conceptualized and implemented.
𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗻 “𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆”
Founders bring their own experiences of inclusion and exclusion into the design of standards. Research on quality assurance underscores that equity, access, and cultural relevance are increasingly recognized as core dimensions of quality, not merely adjunct concerns (ENQA, 2015; OECD, 2023; UNESCO, 2023). When a Black woman with experience in digital, faith‑based, and international education systems founds an accrediting body, the resulting framework is more likely to:
- Acknowledge diverse learner profiles, including first‑generation, working adult, and global South students.
- Recognize innovative institutional forms, such as micro‑college models, cross‑border partnerships, and ministry‑linked or community‑anchored providers.
- Embed equity‑focused indicators—such as equitable access to technology, culturally responsive pedagogy, and support for historically underserved groups—alongside traditional metrics.
𝗥𝗲𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
Digital accreditation frameworks must grapple with cross‑border provision, platform‑mediated learning, and the use of AI in teaching and assessment (OECD, 2023; UNESCO, 2023). Founder identity influences which risks and opportunities are foregrounded. Leaders with lived experience at the intersections of race, gender, and global education are likely to be alert to:
- The danger that digital systems can reproduce or amplify bias if quality standards focus narrowly on access and completion without interrogating equity (OECD, 2023).
- The need for standards that protect students in jurisdictions where regulatory protections are weaker or unevenly enforced (TAICEP, 2019; UNESCO, 2023).
- The importance of centering student voice, including learners from marginalized communities, in evidence gathered during accreditation reviews.
In this sense, founder identity is not symbolic. It shapes the epistemic foundations of digital accreditation—the questions asked, the data valued, and the institutional innovations recognized as legitimate.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗗𝗿. 𝗥𝗼𝘅𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲 𝗞𝗲𝗺𝗽’𝘀 𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗔𝗖𝗗𝗘
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
In August 2025, public announcements from Ebed‑Melech Academy and the Ebed‑Melech Foundation documented that Dr. Roxanne Kemp, a Black woman higher‑education leader, had founded the International Accrediting Commission for Digital Education (IACDE), described as a global accrediting body focused on digital and distance‑education institutions (Ebed‑Melech Academy, 2025; Ebed‑Melech Foundation, 2025). The announcements reported a landscape review of existing international and national accrediting organizations and concluded that she is the first Black woman on record to found a global accrediting body for educational institutions in this domain (Ebed‑Melech Academy, 2025; Ebed‑Melech Foundation, 2025).
The Groesbeck Journal, Dr. Kemp’s hometown newspaper, subsequently profiled her as a Groesbeck alumna “pioneering a new model for school accreditation,” further documenting local recognition of this global achievement (Groesbeck Journal, 2025). Placed alongside the historical record of accreditor formation, this constitutes a notable break in precedent. From the founding of regional accreditors in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, through the emergence of national quality‑assurance agencies and specialized accreditors like DEAC, accrediting bodies have not historically been founded by Black women, particularly not with an explicit global and digital mandate (DEAC, 2023; MSCHE, 2023; PNPI, 2021; UNESCO, 1999).
The significance of this development can be framed in three dimensions.
- Historical representation. It corrects a 140‑year pattern in which the authority to define accreditation standards and processes at the institutional level was effectively reserved to a narrow demographic.
- Conceptual renewal. It brings perspectives informed by Black academic leadership, faith‑based institutional contexts, and global digital education into the design of standards from the outset, rather than as after‑the‑fact consultations.
- Global signal. For institutions in Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America, Asia, and diasporic communities whose realities have often been peripheral in mainstream accreditation conversations, the founding of IACDE communicates that the definition of quality in digital education is no longer the exclusive domain of historically dominant actors.
This does not diminish the role of long‑standing national and regional agencies. Rather, it expands the field of who is recognized as capable of establishing credible, peer‑review‑based digital accreditation frameworks aligned with international norms (CHEA, 2010; INQAAHE, 2022; UNESCO, 2023).
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
For institutional leaders, this shift in who founds accrediting bodies carries strategic implications that extend beyond symbolism.
- Re‑examining whose standards institutions are following. Institutions can audit whose assumptions and histories are embedded in their current accreditation frameworks and ask whether additional perspectives—such as those offered by digital‑first, globally oriented bodies—can strengthen alignment with their mission and student population.
- Aligning digital strategy with suitable accreditation. Institutions expanding online and cross‑border offerings should consider digital accreditation frameworks designed specifically for these modalities, including those founded and led by individuals with direct experience of serving underrepresented learners and international cohorts (OECD, 2021; UNESCO, 2023).
- Incorporating equity and representation into quality governance. Governing boards and academic councils can see the founding of IACDE as a prompt to embed questions of equity, representation, and global relevance into their own internal quality‑assurance structures.
- Anticipating normative shifts. As more diverse actors exercise authority in accreditation—across gender, race, region, and institutional type—norms around what counts as “quality” will continue to evolve. Institutions that engage proactively with these shifts will be better positioned to demonstrate quality to multiple stakeholders, from regulators to employers to international partners (ENQA, 2015; INQAAHE, 2022).
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
The history of accreditation’s founders reveals more than a chronology; it exposes a long‑standing concentration of power over who defines educational quality. The emergence of digital accreditation and distance‑education accreditation, led in part by new actors such as Dr. Roxanne Kemp and IACDE, demonstrates that this power can be shared and reimagined.
Institutions that wish to act on these insights can take two immediate steps.
- Engage with a digital‑first quality‑assurance community. Institutions seeking to benchmark and enhance the quality of their online and distance‑education portfolios can explore membership opportunities through the International Accrediting Commission for Digital Education at: https://iacde.org/become-a-member/
- Formalize commitment to rigorous digital accreditation. Institutions ready to subject their digital and distance‑education offerings to structured external review under standards shaped by diverse leadership can begin an application with IACDE at: https://iacde.org/apply-now/
In doing so, institutions participate in a broader recalibration of global quality assurance—one that honors accreditation’s voluntary, peer‑driven origins while acknowledging that, in 2026, who founds accrediting bodies is itself a matter of quality and justice.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
CHEA. (1998). Recognition of accreditation organizations. Council for Higher Education Accreditation. https://www.chea.org/sites/default/files/other-content/RecognitionWellman_Jan1998.pdf
CHEA. (2010). The value of accreditation. Council for Higher Education Accreditation. https://www.chea.org/value-accreditation
Congressional Research Service. (2024, December 3). An overview of accreditation of higher education in the United States (CRS Report R43826). https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R43826
DEAC. (2023). DEAC history. Distance Education Accrediting Commission. https://www.deac.org/discover-deac/deac-history/
Ebed‑Melech University. (2025, August 4). Dr. Roxanne Kemp, Ph.D., makes history as first Black woman to found global accrediting body for digital education. https://ebedmelech.ac/dr-roxanne-kemp-ph-d-makes-history-as-first-black-woman-to-found-global-accrediting-body-for-digital-education/
Ebed‑Melech Foundation. (2025, August 4). Dr. Roxanne Kemp, Ph.D., makes history as first Black woman to found global accrediting body for digital education. https://ebedmelech.org/uncategorized/dr-roxanne-kemp-ph-d-makes-history-as-first-black-woman-to-found-global-accrediting-body-for-digital-education/
ENQA. (2015). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf
Groesbeck Journal. (2025, November 5). Groesbeck alumna pioneers new model for school accreditation. Groesbeck Journal. https://www.groesbeckjournal.com/local/groesbeck-alumna-pioneers-new-model-school-accreditation
INQAAHE. (2022). Guidelines of good practice in quality assurance. International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education. https://www.inqaahe.org
Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2023). 1919–2019: The 100‑year history of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. https://www.msche.org/about-us/history/
OECD. (2021). Micro-credential innovations in higher education. Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/education
OECD. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities. Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/education/ai-in-education.htm
Postsecondary National Policy Institute. (2021, June). Higher education accreditation: A primer. https://pnpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/PNPI_AccreditationPrimer_June2021.pdf
TAICEP. (2019). The changing landscape of accreditation: A guide to secondary school and higher education accreditation. The Association for International Credential Evaluation Professionals. https://www.taicep.org
U.S. Department of Education. (2024). Accreditation in the United States. https://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation.html
UNESCO. (1999). Accreditation and quality assurance in higher education: United States case study. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000129295
UNESCO. (2023). Guidelines on quality assurance for cross-border higher education in the digital era. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://www.unesco.org
Wikipedia. (2010, September 27). Higher education accreditation in the United States. In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_education_accreditation_in_the_United_States
Comments are closed