The Spotlights Are Turned On

A number of groups have started to undertake the task of evaluating accreditation and developing various solutions to what they see as accreditation’s systemic shortcomings.

The Higher Education Opportunity Act is scheduled to be renewed in 2013, and already interested parties are preparing for new legislation that is sure to be proposed that will have a dramatic impact on the future of non-governmental accreditation.

Key efforts to evaluate, with an eye toward transforming, accreditation that are currently underway include:

sustain a balance and distinction between accountability to the federal government and the academic work

of accreditation–its focus on institutional mission and independence, peer/professional review and quality

improvement. Through the Initiative, CHEA is working to build consensus for action on the issues of

greatest importance to the accreditation and higher education communities.

NACIQI: The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity has undertaken a long

term inquiry on accreditation and has invited expert testimony. The inquiry is addressing 3 key issues: 1)

Regulatory Burden and Data Needs (the regulatory burden and costs of accreditation to institutions,

students and taxpayers and the data gathering and reporting required on the part of institutions and accrediting organizations), 2) “The Triad” (federal, state and accreditor entities and their roles,

responsibilities and capacities) and 3) Accreditor Scope, Alignment and Accountability.

NACIQI is also considering such questions such as:

·         Does the current model of accreditation still work given the changing landscape of higher education with new and different providers?

·         Does the current regulatory structure foster or impede innovation? What about access?

·         How can accreditation and higher education be more responsive to the public in terms of accountability and transparency?

·         Are accrediting agencies being over-managed by the federal government?

Congress: The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions has conducted a number of

hearings on postsecondary education over the past year, and one of the issues that will be on the agenda

for future hearings is the topic of accreditation.

GAO: The Government Accountability Office has conducted a number of studies and issued reports on

accreditation as it relates to federal student funding programs, including military tuition assistance and the

G.I. Bill programs.

The Wish List

We cannot predict with certainty what the future holds for accreditation, and how it will change—or be

changed—to accommodate the interests of all its stakeholders.

From my experience in having worked in the field for many years and having served on hundreds of

accrediting teams, and having seen all the good that has been accomplished by accreditors, I respectfully

offer these suggestions to those who undertake the job of changing what has worked well for so long:

1.      Keep the volunteers in voluntary accreditation. They are invaluable to the academy and the government. It is professional judgment of peers that sets apart America’s approach to education assessment. Preserve the ability to exercise unfettered judgment, and avoid the temptation to reduce evaluation of education quality to the level of a State Car Inspection program—complete with 49 quality checkpoints.

2.      Be careful with the political arithmetic. Avoid the temptation to impose arbitrary, numeric standards and a homogenizing set of metrics on something that is impossible to measure solely with numbers: a quality education.

3.      Do not abandon the “inputs” to quality learning in favor of “outputs.” Both are needed for a balanced evaluation. Good schools have good physical plants, great teachers, sterling student services, etc. An institution or program could conceivably produce impressive output numbers but remain a less than quality learning experience for students.

4.      Reject the rush to have “federalization” of a non-governmental enterprise. Do not expect voluntary accreditation to do government’s “police work.” Accreditors do not have any police powers, subpoena powers or the ability to force compliance with regulations.

5.      Remember that one of the important roles of accreditation is to stimulate and encourage institutional self-improvement. To jettison this role would be tragic for students.

6.      Find a solution to the vexatious problem of post-adverse decision school litigation. Litigation is unduly expensive, debilitating, and much too lengthy. All accrediting associations might do well to consider mandating binding arbitration for aggrieved institutions, as DETC has attempted to do.

7.      Finally, find a way to strike a reasonable balance among the needs of students, the needs of government, and the needs of the institutions. This may require the creation of a wholly new system to make institutions eligible for Federal aid programs while not deforming the historic strengths of accreditation.

American higher education remains the envy of the world. It is clear that accreditation helped the

academy get to where it is today. It is also clear that accreditation is being asked to change dramatically to

meet evolving needs of the nation for a competitive workforce and an educated population.

The challenge now is to find the best ways for accreditation to help America live up to its vaunted

reputation as having the best institutions anywhere.

I can only hope that in seeking to transform accreditation, we do not deform or destroy it in the process.

As Dr. Kenneth E. Young, former President of the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, once wrote:

“Institutions should recognize that the greatest value of accreditation is perhaps as an evaluative tool, that

institutions should use the accrediting process as an unequaled opportunity for improving educational

Reprinted from the Fall 2011 DETC News in Cooperation with the DETC