How to Reinvent Accreditation (and Not by Using Geography)

Article tools

Printer friendly	E-mail article	Subscribe	Order reprints
	Discuss any Chronicle article in our forums
Latest Headlines Universities Must Disclose More Data on Animal Research A court settlement requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to make public more information about research on animals, prompting some academic researchers to worry about further attacks by animal-rights extremists. 2-Year Colleges Streamline Student Aid and Focus on Counseling For Provost Who Fled Lebanon, U. of Dayton Is His 'Village' Letters Home From World War II Soldiers Are Found in College Basement

By MILTON GREENBERG

This year's renewal of the Higher Education Act has demonstrated that the federal government will inevitably continue to regulate colleges and universities. The renewal process has also shown that we in higher education can mitigate the impact of such government oversight by being accountable and policing ourselves — which will in turn allow us to maintain important institutional autonomy and academic freedom. But to accomplish that, we will have to reconsider the fundamental structure of our accreditation system so as to clarify differences among institutional missions and to establish mission-based accountability.

Six major regional accrediting commissions — Middle States, New England, North Central, Northwest, Southern, and Western — now accredit most traditional colleges and universities. That includes community colleges, liberal-arts institutions, research universities, and others, with varying missions, enrollment patterns, and programs. Together the "regionals" accredit about 3,000 institutions, enrolling close to 17 million students.

Organizing higher-education accreditation by regions has historical roots, but such a structure is hardly relevant in contemporary America. Accrediting groups, which began developing sporadically in the 1880s in geographic regions and various professions, were at first voluntary attempts to ascertain "What is a college?" In the 1950s and 60s, however, the idea of accreditation changed significantly as colleges multiplied and the federal government designated accreditors as gatekeepers to its financial largess — in essence, transforming accrediting bodies into semiregulatory partners.

Meanwhile, the answer to "What is a college?" broadened over the years from traditional liberal-arts colleges to a variety of postsecondary institutions, including community colleges and specialized schools, eventually resulting in the accreditation of almost any college or university according to its self-defined mission. Today one would be hard-pressed to see any significant regional differences in the types or quality of education that colleges and universities provide. Differences among institutions stem from their missions, not their locations, especially now that online education programs make geographic location irrelevant.

A more realistic framework for accreditation would be based on the types and levels of education that similar postsecondary institutions offer, or what could be called sector accreditation. Community colleges would have their own accreditors, as would Ph.D.-granting research universities, and so on. With that approach, institutions and accreditors within each sector would establish the requirements and standards, as defined mainly by their missions, that would allow them to develop comparative data and accountability measures much more easily than they can now.

How would such a system operate? There are various, albeit politically difficult, pathways to achieving sector accreditation. But one readily available approach is to work through the major higher-education associations. They represent specific types of institutions and are more academically and politically attuned to their members' special needs than the regional accreditation agencies are. The key groups that I have in mind include the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the Association of American Universities, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Some institutions fit into more than one of those groups, but should such an accreditation system be devised, each college or university would choose the one that best reflects its mission for accreditation purposes.

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching's extensive classification of colleges and universities could also serve as the basis of a new accreditation system. That classification system lends itself quite handily to selection for accreditation purposes because it is designed to take into account the true differences among institutions and to facilitate comparisons among them.

For example, the Carnegie classifications list three sets of doctorate-granting universities, based on the extent of research activity; three groups of master's-degree-level colleges and universities, based largely on their size; three sets of baccalaureate colleges, based on program emphasis; and several listings of associate-degree institutions, mainly community colleges, based on type and whether rural or urban. The classifications also include specialized institutions like law and medical schools.

Sector accreditation under one of those systems would facilitate the setting of clear objectives by colleges and the measurement and comparison of results. Accreditation based on higher-education sectors would also encourage the formulation and publication of standards closely tailored to particular types of institutions, making accountability measures clearer and more meaningful. And it could help pacify government regulators who are impatient with higher education's perceived tendency to resist change and accountability.

Of course, a major reorganization like the one I'm recommending would raise political, legal, financial, and organizational issues. But none of those are insurmountable or even unusual when undertaking major institutional change. New accrediting commissions and rules of procedure would be required, but usable models exist. State and federal laws and regulations might need amending, but that is familiar terrain to higher-education lobbyists. Many academic leaders will be concerned about the fate of the staffs of the regional accrediting bodies, whose dedicated professionalism is recognized and valued. But although the regionals would disappear, their staff members would surely be essential sources for the leadership of the newly established sector accreditors.

To be sure, establishing new sector accreditors would be stressful and require extensive consultations among existing and newly formed associations of colleges. The resulting clarification of higher education's diversity of missions, however, would be salutary for students, parents, political leaders, and the public.

There is precedent for such nationwide academic change. In the mid-1990s, after voluntary accreditation was put at great risk by Congress for its perceived inadequacies, college presidents established the Council for Higher Education Accreditation to coordinate and serve as a public voice for disparate accrediting agencies.

Change would require acceptance of more inevitable federal regulation, adjustments that would preserve essential beliefs through self-regulated accountability, and reorganization from regional to sector accreditation. The options offered here take advantage of familiar organizations and concepts commonly understood in the academic world.

Higher-education institutions and accreditors are obliged to find ways to satisfy demands for accountability while maintaining, to the utmost degree possible, institutional autonomy, self-regulation, and academic freedom. If institutions and programs are to be evaluated on their self-defined missions, then each should be free to choose the accrediting body best suited to evaluate its performance. Such a choice is not likely to be based on geography.

Milton Greenberg is a professor emeritus of government at American University, where he served as provost and interim president. This article is adapted from a paper distributed this fall at the Council for Higher Education Accreditation's National Accreditation Forum.