The federal panel that advises the education secretary on accreditation issues is taking a second look at its 2012 recommendations for how the coming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act should deal with accreditation.
The question is whether the panel’s recommendations will matter in an environment where questions of higher-education quality have increasingly been taken over by politics.
On Wednesday and Thursday, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity heard from representatives of accreditors and institutions, who said accreditation had largely become an exercise in determining compliance with federal rules rather than an opportunity to help improve the academic programs and student learning at colleges.
The advisory-panel members then spent nearly two hours discussing the role of accreditors in ensuring academic quality and regulatory compliance, as well as their own purpose in advising the education secretary on federal recognition of accrediting agencies, by the U.S. Department of Education.
At the end, the panel voted to reconsider its earlier report, which called for mostly modest changes in the accreditation process. Susan D. Phillips, chairwoman of the 18-member panel and provost at the State University of New York at Albany, outlined four broad policy issues that the group will consider over the summer, including streamlining the accreditation process and revising how the panel goes about recommending accreditors for federal recognition.
Some of those who testified during the two days accused the panel of sacrificing its independence by relying too heavily on information from the Education Department staff members who provide reports on the accrediting agencies that are applying to be recognized.
Accreditation and Student Aid
Most important, the group will also reconsider its recommendation to continue the connection between federal student aid and accreditation. In 2012 just two of the group’s members supported a proposal that accreditors not serve as gatekeepers of federal aid.
At the same time, several panel members wondered about the consequences of “decoupling” accreditation from federal student aid, including whether accreditors would be left with no way to enforce their standards, and what organization would then be responsible for determining colleges’ eligibility for federal dollars.
“One option is to blow up the system,” said John W. Etchemendy, a member of the advisory panel and provost at Stanford University. Instead, he suggested, accreditors could separate the determinations of academic quality and eligibility for financial aid.
But events well outside the panel’s purview set the tone for much of the discussion, as Congress and the White House have overshadowed the accreditation process with their efforts to protect the federal investment in higher education and consumers’ wallets.
President Obama has called for a ratings system that expands on recent federal efforts to report basic consumer and academic information on colleges’ performance to the public. The Department of Education has revised efforts hold colleges accountable for their students’ employability and to force states to step up their oversight of distance education. And, most recently, members of California’s Congressional delegation have blasted an accreditor for not reversing its decision to revoke the accreditation of the City College of San Francisco.
Simon J. Boehme, the student member of the panel and a recent graduate of Cornell University, was one of those who urged the committee to consider how accreditation might influence issues of access and affordability for students.
“There are a whole slew of issues. … I’m not sure these four areas really encourage accreditors and institutions to up their game,” Mr. Boehme said. “Millions of students are counting on this body to encourage institutions to do better.”