Controversial Proposal on Accreditation Fails to Make Panel's Final Report

Related materials

Article: Uncertainty Greets Report on Colleges by U.S. Panel

Article: Preamble to the Final Draft Report of the Commission on the Future of Higher Education

Article: Plenty of Ideas About Student Aid, but No Road Map

Article: Lengthy Fights Are Expected Over Measures on Accountability

Article: Commission Calls Colleges 'Self-Satisfied' and 'Risk Averse'

Article: Q&A: David Ward Explains Why He Didn't Sign Commission's Report

Opinion: The Spellings Report, 'Warts and All'

Opinion: Underinvesting in the Future

Opinion: Both Lamp and Mirror

Opinion: Science and Math Take Money

Opinion: Give Us the Tools

Opinion: More Than Competition

Colloquy: Read the transcript of a live, online discussion with Charles Miller, chairman of the federal Commission on the Future of Higher Education

Article tools

Printer friendly	E-mail article	Subscribe	Order reprints
	Discuss any Chronicle article in our forums
Latest Headlines U. of Delaware Approves New Diversity Discussions for Students The new, voluntary program will replace one tossed out last fall after coming under criticism as "thought reform." In Tight Employment Market, Career Services Gain Clout Borrowers' Uncertainty Has Colleges in Quandary How It Does It: The RIAA Explains How It Catches Alleged Music Pirates State High-School Exit Tests Do Not Improve Academic Achievement, Study Finds Commentary Business Students Should Learn More About Science

By BURTON BOLLAG

Last March the Commission on the Future of Higher Education released a discussion paper that proposed dismantling the current accreditation system. The paper, which was vehemently attacked by accreditors and some higher-education leaders, called for legislation to establish a national accreditation body to replace the six regional accreditors that oversee 3,000 institutions.

But now the commission's final draft report makes no mention of the idea and takes a softer tone on changing accreditation.

"They removed a number of things that were a cause of concern," says Judith S. Eaton, president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, an umbrella group of accreditors.

The report still speaks of "significant shortcomings" in the accreditation system and says it is in need of a "transformation." But what is significant, says Ms. Eaton, is that the text no longer suggests the government should make the changes.

Still, the draft reflects the mounting pressure on accreditors to do more to ensure the accountability of higher education. Where accreditation was "once primarily a private relationship between an agency and an institution," the report says, it must now primarily serve the public. The commission's report says accrediting bodies should "make performance outcomes, including completion rates and student learning, the core of their assessment."

Accreditation must become more open about its activities and its findings, the report says. It must do more to encourage innovation and quality, move faster to approve new institutions and programs, increase public participation in the governance of accrediting associations and review teams that visit institutions, and make it easier for the public to compare institutions.

Harmful Solutions?

Accreditors generally say they take the recommendations seriously. They add that they have been putting some of the panel's proposals in place for more than a decade. All regional accreditors now require institutions to measure student learning and use the results to improve education, for example, and some now disclose more information from their reviews of institutions.

Yet most accreditation officials are concerned that some of the proposals could lead to simplistic, even harmful policies. They say that comparing institutions in a meaningful way, for instance, is very complex. For example, how do you compare graduation rates at a selective institution with those at one with a policy of open admissions?

Nonetheless, like Ms. Eaton, Steven D. Crow, executive director of the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, the regional accreditor overseeing the largest number of institutions, is also encouraged by the final draft. The report shows shortcomings of the current system, he says. But it contains only "vague recommendations" and leaves it up to the higher-education community to come up with solutions.

Concern Over Openness

The report's most serious difficulty for accreditors appears to be its call for accreditors to disclose more information. The report says agencies should make "the findings of final reviews easily accessible to the public." Accreditors have been moving gingerly in this direction in recent years. Some regional accreditors provide a short explanation on their Web sites whenever an institution is placed on probation or otherwise penalized. But critics, like the higher-education commission, want more disclosure.

For many public institutions, this should not be a problem; they already release their accreditors' reports. But for small, private institutions, in particular, accreditors and educators say, too much disclosure could be damaging. If an institution knows that its problems will be made public, it will be less likely to discuss them candidly with an accreditor's review team.

Cynthia A. Davenport, executive director of the Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors, says she is "very disappointed" with the report's approach toward public disclosure. She says that even a positive review — finding that an institution is in compliance with accreditation standards — may point to a few small shortcomings. These "can be blown out of proportion" by competitors and the local press and "create huge problems for institutions without being a service to the public."

Sandra E. Elman, president of the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, says it would be irresponsible for policy makers to try to impose greater disclosure without serious consultation with accreditors and educators.

Still, accreditors feel the draft contains milder criticism than some had feared. The report can be a catalyst, Ms. Eaton wrote to her colleagues, to enhance accreditation's credibility and service to society.