April 14, 2008

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Accreditor's Action Against Hiwassee College

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has upheld an accrediting association’s decision to withdraw the accreditation of Hiwassee College, a two-year United Methodist institution in Madisonville, Tenn., for having inadequate financial resources.

In a ruling issued on Monday, a three-judge panel of the appellate court unanimously upheld a lower-court order last year that was mostly in favor of the accreditor, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The appellate judges said that the Southern association had not denied the college due process in its accreditation action, taken in 2004. —Charles Huckabee

Comments

1. This should prove interesting in relation to the St. Andrew’s Presbyterian College situation

   — odie    Apr 15, 07:25 AM    #

2. I am disturbed that an accreditation team would withhold that designation for other than academic reasons. This trend of withholding accreditation of a college based on a detail of administrative structure or on financial issues seems a dangerous trend – assuming that the academic programs are fine.

   — jim d    Apr 15, 10:00 AM    #

3. Have you not noticed the quickest way to lose accreditation is not havng enough money to pay dues to the accreditor? No matter how screwed up, a public college or university just stays on probation endlessly because they are good for the money. These little private schools don’t have pockets as deep as a state treasury.

   — John M. Hays    Apr 15, 10:14 AM    #

4. jim d, I’d have to disagree. If a school cannot demonstrate its financial viability, that is an issue of great public interest. At the end of the day it’s the students who invested time and tuition to earn a credential that may be worthless if the school closes. In short, accrediting bodies have to look at financial issues as well as the academic integrity of the institution.

   — harris cohen    Apr 15, 10:18 AM    #

5. SACS is clearly attempting to expand its sphere of power in this case. A private school’s financial viability is not an issue of curriculum. Very wrong…and ARROGANT.

   — Phillip Aiai    Apr 15, 10:30 AM    #

6. I would like to respectively disagree with above mentioned comments. If a school is financially lacking resources, this does have a direct effect on the curriculum. When money dries up, programs are cuts, and staff is laid off. I recently read about New College in California. They lost their WASC accreditation due to the same reasons. New College’s finances and administration were so messed up that they stopped paying all faculty in November of 2007. Student aid was also frozen by the government due to New College’s situation. So this is when the accreditor like SACS, WASC, NCA, etc have to step in and take action. The government is increasing pressure on the accrediting bodies to be more strict in their policies. SACS was doing their job in this case.

   — Derrick English, M.Ed    Apr 15, 10:39 AM    #

7. I have been involved with regional and specialized accreditaiton for almost 20 years.

   This action is not sinister, arrogant, an expansion of power, or even a change. Accrediting standards have for decades required evaluation of a schools resources — facilities, staffing, libarary, and financial, as well as governance, planning, faculty, and educational programs.

   No one “stays on probation endlessly.” Federal standards require accrediting bodies to resolve issues promptly with schools on probation. Either the school addresses the problems quickly and effectively or accreditation must be withdrawn. This is meant to insure that the substantial federal support of schools and students (billions of dollars each year) is not wasted on schools that fail to measure up to shared standards of excellence that have been adopted and evaluated by peers from other schools.

   — Jim    Apr 15, 11:58 AM    #

8. I thought the subject would now be moot: the financial backers (the UMC) of that College had raised sufficient funds to insure its viability. Wrong?

   — David Evans Penn College    Apr 15, 12:27 PM    #

9. Remember that accreditation criteria and decisions are not made by SACS (or any other accreditation agency) staffers. It is the membership of peer institutions that determine standards. It is this College’s peers that have said, “No, you don’t meet the mark.” SACS’s due process gives more than ample opportunity to correct deficiencies. There are no surprises here.

   — David Andersen    Apr 15, 01:17 PM    #

10. In response to comment #7…

    Jim, you say that you “have been involved with regional and specialized ‘accreditaiton’ for almost 20 years.”

    This is somewhat discouraging due to the fact you can’t even spell the word accreditation. Also, you might want to take another crack at “libarary.”
    It’s downright scary to know that people like Jim – whose grasp of 5th grade English is suspect – are the ones deciding the fate of our academic institutions.

    — Titan    Apr 16, 02:05 AM    #

11. Well Let me tell you from knowing this school really well….I went there for two years. The academics didnt suffer from the lack of money the teachers there are great and the classes are average. What was wrong about this school was the adminstration and their ability to raise there own salary and still say the college didnt have enough money. If you can understand what I am saying. It was 17,000 to go there for one year. They had money, It just wasnt going to the right bank accounts. HAHA

    — Kraig L.    Apr 23, 11:20 PM    #

12. I taught at Hiwassee in 2005 and the administration was indeed the problem. They played fast and loose with federal finanical aid, and were incapable of preparing poper budget. SACS mostly stripped Hiwassee’s credentials because of the budget issue, and the school still refused to publsh and abide by a proper budget. Moreover, the infrastructure of the school is declining rapidly and the adminstration made little attempt to fix the problem. Lastly, I now teach at at state community college and Hiwassee simply can’t compete with the money the state spends on it’s two-year colleges. One year at a state school is around $3,500 while it would be $16,000 at Hiwassee. The Hiwassee total includes room and board but Hiwassee is so isolated that few students can attend the school without living on campus. The insane thing is the 400+ acres of prime Smoky Mountain real estate that the school sits on and stubbornly refused to sell throughout the real estate boom of the last decade. Clearly, the administration was foolish.

    — Casey    Apr 27, 10:37 PM    #

13. Finances do play a part. The CFO when accreditation was removed was replaced. For the past four years, Hiwassee has been working diligently and successfully at eradicating its debt and adding to its endowment. Ironically, Hiwassee currently carries no debt and is in the black. This is all the more amazing given the uphill climb amid legal proceedings and regional competition for students. It’s true that the academic program was never in question but some professors and staff have moved on; the stress is incredible. Although rarely mentioned, the presence of a president of a competing college on the committee that voted to remove accreditation is deemed by some to be a factor. Abstaining from voting does not equal non-influence of the outcome (removal of accreditation). No one who represents an insititution that stands to gain from a competitor’s fall should be seated on the committee.

    — Kitty    Apr 28, 12:11 PM    #

Previous: 4 Universities in Gaza Shut Down Amid Fuel Shortages
Next: New Mexico State U. Professors Receive Racist Letters