The U.S. Education Department today released a report critical of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, saying the regional accrediting organization did not set minimum standards for its member institutions on program length or credit hours. “The lack of requirements could result in inflated credit hours, the improper designation of full-time student status, and the over-awarding of Title IV funds,” states the report, which was issued by the Education Department’s Office of Inspector General. The accreditor responded that “the fundamental concern of higher education’s constituencies is whether students graduate with appropriate knowledge, skills, and competencies, not how many hours they spend in a classroom.”
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
7 Responses to Audit Criticizes Middle States Accreditor Over Credit-Hour Standards
jeff1 - December 15, 2009 at 4:32 pm
That is no a good answer Middle States if indeed that is all you said. Way to engender confidence for your member institutions. Deal with the criticism.
davidbinder - December 15, 2009 at 5:15 pm
The criticism by DOE and Middle States’ response highlights the current confusion over the role of an accreditor. The Middle States response is correct as things are now. The fundamental problem is the linkage of Title IV funding to accreditation. The concept of class hours works in traditional face-to-face classes. The issue becomes far more complex when one looks at online and blended courses. In the context of DOE and CHEA’s push towards accrediting through outcomes assessment, the Middle States response makes sense. It appears that one area in DOE wants outcomes assessment for accreditation and another part is pushing an inputs model for Title IV. Accreditors are caught in the middle.My view is that it is time to separate Title IV from accreditation (they were separate far in the past). DOE then can set whatever standards it wants to deal with Title IV fund eligibility. Regardless, DOE needs to set the standards for Title IV or we will end up with different standards across accreditors. DOE has that authority and, by delegating the issue to accreditors, it is simply passing the “hot potato.”
rpm13 - December 15, 2009 at 10:11 pm
I agree with davidbinder that the fundamental problem is the linkage of Title IV funding to accreditation. There are many side effects of the rules for Title IV funding and a review of the whole landscape is required. At the same time,it does not follow that a single-minded focus on outcomes should be used for accreditation. I think we should award credit for how much time students spend interacting with course material and the professor, not just sitting in the classroom. This works for all kinds of courses. These are key indicators of student engagement. The more time on task, the better the outcomes (greater the mastery of the objectives). Properly assessed objectives are great for specifying the minimum that every student should learn. But in the course of mastering rigorous objectives, different students with different backgrounds and interests will discover and learn different things that are beyond the objectives if they spend enough time engaged by the course. The more time spent with course material, the greater the opportunity for this implicit learning. In the end, incidental or implicit learning is in large part what makes an educated person.
lkelley365 - December 16, 2009 at 8:12 am
The same criticism from the DOE has been leveled against at least 2 other regional accrediting bodies, SACS & HLC. If all of the regional accrediting bodies can be shown to have failed to identify a “standard” for credit hours assigned to a college course, then by default it is obvious that no such “standard” currently exists. Consequently the ability to hold accrediting bodies accountable to the non existent “standard” is nonexistent as well.Furthermore, falling back on the Carnegie definition is a flawed approach. Taken to the extreme the Carnegie definition would lead us to the conclusion that all three credit hour semester based courses would be equal in academic value. Consequently a 3 semester hour introductory course in finance taught in a local community college would be equal to the introductory finance course taught at Harvard, Stanford or Northwestern. IF that were ever accepted as a reality the next obvious question for the DOE is then “Why do these equal courses have different price tags at different institutions?” Such a monolithic and utilitarian evaluation of higher education is very dangerous road to travel.
davidbinder - December 19, 2009 at 12:21 am
I agree with RPM13 that “we should award credit for how much time students spend interacting with course material and the professor, not just sitting in the classroom.” The problem is that the current definition of credits is based on classroom hours and not on time students spend interacting with the material, professor, and/or classmates. An hour of “sage on the stage” is considered the same as an hour of seminar. Clock time in class is a very imperfect measure of the interaction that we both agree is important. I certainly agree that “The more time on task, the better the outcomes (greater the mastery of the objectives)” but the problem is how to show that mastery of the objectives occured. That was the basic issue that has led to the push towards outcomes assessment. Unless outcomes are assessed in some manner, there is no basis to conclude that mastery has occured. If students learn beyond the objectives, that is great. But first they must master the objectives (or they cannot, by definition, have gone beyond them). We need a way to ascertain that.lkelley365 raises an interesting follow-on issue. With the cost of higher education in the spotlight, the concern raised in the post is no longer theoretical. If a community college can provide that introductory finance course for tuition of $X, there will be push-back (already underway in some quarters) as to why public four year institutions should be allowed to charge more than $X. Although all three of the instutions mentioned by name are private NFP universities, it does not take much imagination to see acceptance of state or federal funding (including Title IV) being made contingent on their tuition rates being justified in comparison to the $X. I am concerned that the current antagonism in the Education Department and in Congress towards the for-profit higher education sector is spilling over to the public and private sectors. It appears that HLC has now joined SACS and Middle States in criticism by the Education Department’s OIG regarding defining “minimum standards for its member institutions on program length or credit hours.” As lkelley365 states, “If all of the regional accrediting bodies can be shown to have failed to identify a ‘standard’ for credit hours assigned to a college course, then by default it is obvious that no such standard currently exists”, a view to which I concur. If the Department wants such standards it has the power to issue them and to require they be followed at institutions receiving Title IV funds.
karennokill - December 23, 2009 at 1:44 pm
It appears that the Department of Education’s Office of the Inspector General has found three “accreditation mills,” all of which are being scrutinized for granting accreditation to “diploma mills.”
22162889 - January 25, 2010 at 2:52 pm
It appears to me that the DOE is on a campaign to discredit the accrediting associations. Could it be that the DOE wants to take on this function?