Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    College Advising
    Serving Higher Ed
    Chronicle Festival 2025
Sign In
News

Consensus or Chaos? Education Dept.’s Rule-Making Session Reaches Agreement

By Eric Kelderman April 4, 2019
Betsy DeVos, U.S. education secretary
Betsy DeVos, U.S. education secretaryChronicle photo by Julia Schmalz

In January, the the U.S. Department of Education began a round of negotiated rule making that seemed destined, even designed, to fail. From the beginning, the question on the lips of those watching, and even at the negotiating table, was: “What problem are they trying to fix?”

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Betsy DeVos, U.S. education secretary
Betsy DeVos, U.S. education secretaryChronicle photo by Julia Schmalz

In January, the the U.S. Department of Education began a round of negotiated rule making that seemed destined, even designed, to fail. From the beginning, the question on the lips of those watching, and even at the negotiating table, was: “What problem are they trying to fix?”

The number of topics to be discussed was unusually large and required a main committee and subcommittees for issues that involve distance education, Teach Grants, and faith-based colleges. Several of the department’s proposals were controversial and seemingly gratuitous, such as allowing third-party companies to offer entire academic programs under the banner of an accredited college. Another would have altered the number of states that could be overseen by the nation’s seven regional accreditors.

Standards mean little when you can choose which ones to apply and with no transparency.

But negotiators on Wednesday seemed to snatch consensus from the jaws of chaos, in part by rejecting many of the most controversial proposals. Instead, the committee unanimously approved compromise language covering all of the topics under consideration. If finalized, the changes will loosen the department’s oversight of accreditors and give accrediting agencies more flexibility to approve new programs and branch campuses, and more time to sanction colleges that are out of compliance.

Diane Auer Jones, the principal deputy undersecretary at the department who led the process, said the most important outcome of the rule-making session was that it restored the public’s faith in the process. “Many people assumed that we didn’t want to reach consensus,” she said in a Thursday call with reporters, “but it was just the opposite.”

Barbara Gellman-Danley, a negotiator who is president of the Higher Learning Commission, one of the nation’s seven regional accreditors, said the result required a lot of give and take. “I think if you look at the original proposals and the draft language, what you will see is a great deal of compromise,” she said.

Critics of the department and some advocates for students, however, called the result a sell-out for the interests of accreditors and institutions in the name of “innovation.”

“New changes allow accreditors to have multiple sets of standards to be applied at will for ‘innovative’ programs,” wrote Antoinette Flores, an associate director for postsecondary education at the Center for American Progress, in a tweetstorm responding to the committee’s vote.

“Standards mean little when you can choose which ones to apply and with no transparency,” she added.

What Is Being Fixed?

Among the recommendations that the rule-making committee approved this week, were proposals to lower the regulatory bar for approving new academic programs and branch campuses. A proposal to allow greater outsourcing of academic programs, however, was rejected.

ADVERTISEMENT

Auer Jones said the proposals would open up new opportunities for individualized learning and nontraditional students who need and want greater flexibility in their academic programs. In addition, the recommendations would allow colleges to save money by partnering with companies that already have expensive equipment and facilities to provide training in a field.

Accreditors would also have more time to sanction other colleges that are not meeting accreditation standards. A college that is out of compliance now has two years to meet the accreditor’s standards. The proposal approved by the negotiators this week would double that time, up to four years.

“This is not about providing more time for failing institutions,” Auer Jones said, “this is about giving more time for institutions that just need more time to make changes.” Accreditors are still expected and required to take action if a college is engaged in fraud, for example, or where the financial viability of an institution is in doubt.

The approved language will also loosen regulations on how the department oversees accreditors and what accreditors must consider when approving a college. These measures were meant to “clear away the clutter,” Auer Jones said, so that accreditors could “focus on what happens in the classroom, not if somebody signed the form in the right place.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Meanwhile, a proposal to alter the number of states that are overseen by regional accreditors was shelved. That’s a big relief to the accrediting agencies.

“Our bottom line was met,” Gellman-Danley said. “We are regional accreditors, and we were able to help the group understand that and the importance of the history” of accreditation, she said.

Uncertainty

David Tandberg, vice president for policy research and strategic initiatives at the State Higher Education Executive Officers, said his head “was still spinning” a day after the committee had completed its work.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The sum total of this negotiated language will be pretty significant,” Tandberg said. “This is one of the largest, most impactful actions on education we’ve seen for a long time.”

Still, it’s not clear that even the negotiators fully understand the scope of the changes that have been approved after what some described as a grueling process. The committees met for eight to 10 hours a day, for three days each in January, February, and March before voting this week.

Flores, with the Center for American Progress, said the committee spent so much time swatting down controversial topics that there was little time to delve into many of the changes that happened rather quickly in the final meeting. “The way the whole process was set up was to get to consensus, to manufacture consensus,” she said.

By the end, the committee was faced with a choice between approving a set of policy proposals that they might not fully agree with, or allowing the Trump administration to write the regulations without any input from stakeholders.

ADVERTISEMENT

The vote this week means the department will have to hew closely to the approved language in a set of proposed rules that are likely to be published later this year. After a comment period, between 30 and 90 days, the department can publish final rules.

And the process may still come to naught. Sen. Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, is pushing for a reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and has made it clear that he would rather Congress be writing laws than the administration writing regulations.

The reauthorization of the higher-education law is also far from certain. Timing and the department’s workload may determine whether the most recent negotiated rule making comes to fruition. The department has several new rules in process, including for Title IX, the federal law protecting gender equity in education.

If the department finalizes the rules by November 1, they will go into effect in July 2020. If the proposed final rule misses that deadline, however, the rules will not be effective until 2021, when new leadership could be in the White House, and Congress could reject the new regulations.

Eric Kelderman writes about money and accountability in higher education, including such areas as state policy, accreditation, and legal affairs. You can find him on Twitter @etkeld, or email him at eric.kelderman@chronicle.com.

A version of this article appeared in the April 26, 2019, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Law & Policy Political Influence & Activism
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
Eric Kelderman
About the Author
Eric Kelderman
Eric Kelderman covers issues of power, politics, and purse strings in higher education. You can email him at eric.kelderman@chronicle.com, or find him on Twitter @etkeld.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

Issues of Accreditation Predominate in New Rule-Making Announced by Education Dept.
Stay Awake for These 5 Issues During Negotiated Rulemaking

More News

Vector illustration of large open scissors  with several workers in seats dangling by white lines
Iced Out
Duke Administrators Accused of Bypassing Shared-Governance Process in Offering Buyouts
Illustration showing money being funnelled into the top of a microscope.
'A New Era'
Higher-Ed Associations Pitch an Alternative to Trump’s Cap on Research Funding
Illustration showing classical columns of various heights, each turning into a stack of coins
Endowment funds
The Nation’s Wealthiest Small Colleges Just Won a Big Tax Exemption
WASHINGTON, DISTICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES - 2025/04/14: A Pro-Palestinian demonstrator holding a sign with Release Mahmud Khalil written on it, stands in front of the ICE building while joining in a protest. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators rally in front of the ICE building, demanding freedom for Mahmoud Khalil and all those targeted for speaking out against genocide in Palestine. Protesters demand an end to U.S. complicity and solidarity with the resistance in Gaza. (Photo by Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Campus Activism
An Anonymous Group’s List of Purported Critics of Israel Helped Steer a U.S. Crackdown on Student Activists

From The Review

John T. Scopes as he stood before the judges stand and was sentenced, July 2025.
The Review | Essay
100 Years Ago, the Scopes Monkey Trial Discovered Academic Freedom
By John K. Wilson
Vector illustration of a suited man with a pair of scissors for a tie and an American flag button on his lapel.
The Review | Opinion
A Damaging Endowment Tax Crosses the Finish Line
By Phillip Levine
University of Virginia President Jim Ryan keeps his emotions in check during a news conference, Monday, Nov. 14, 2022 in Charlottesville. Va. Authorities say three people have been killed and two others were wounded in a shooting at the University of Virginia and a student is in custody. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
The Review | Opinion
Jim Ryan’s Resignation Is a Warning
By Robert Zaretsky

Upcoming Events

07-31-Turbulent-Workday_assets v2_Plain.png
Keeping Your Institution Moving Forward in Turbulent Times
Ascendium_Housing_Plain.png
What It Really Takes to Serve Students’ Basic Needs: Housing
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin