More than two years ago, a federal panel that advises the education secretary on accreditation issues recommended a series of modest changes in the nation’s system of higher-education accreditation. On Wednesday the panel heard from higher-education experts that a major overhaul will be needed for that system to survive.
“We can’t just tweak the regulations here. The heart and soul of accreditation is at stake here,” said Judith S. Eaton, president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, which represents some 3,000 degree-granting colleges and recognizes about 60 organizations that accredit institutions or programs.
Ms. Eaton was among six higher-education leaders who were invited to speak to the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, an 18-member panel appointed by members of Congress and the Department of Education. The panel, which is known as Naciqi, asked the speakers to comment on any issues that needed to be added, changed, or clarified in the 2012 report, which was criticized by many for advocating more federal oversight of the accreditation process. (Accreditation is a requirement for institutions to receive federal financial aid.)
But the amount of federal regulation of accreditation is already a significant burden during the process, said Terry W. Hartle, senior vice president for government and public affairs at the American Council on Education. For example, Mr. Hartle said, accreditors are required to ensure that institutions are following fire codes, along with certifying compliance with dozens of complex federal requirements.
M. Peter McPherson, president of the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, said that accreditation needed to get out of the compliance business and back to focusing on academic quality. Instead, the federal and state governments should step up their own enforcement of laws and rules, said Mr. McPherson and others.
Although accreditors are independent, nonprofit organizations, they operate as de facto agents of the government as long as they serve as the gatekeepers for federal student aid, said Arthur J. Rothkopf, who is a president emeritus of Lafayette College and a member of Naciqi. Mr. Rothkopf and another panel member, Anne D. Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, have called for federal aid to be “decoupled” from the accreditation process.
While that change would probably be opposed by most accreditors—removing their only leverage over institutions—some speakers said they may now be willing to accept more change in the process than would have been acceptable two years ago, including, for example, eliminating the geographic boundaries of the nation’s seven regional accreditors (there were six such organizations, until the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges became independent of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges). Instead, colleges would be free to seek accreditation from the agency of their choice.
Such a proposal could work if there were rules to make sure that colleges were not simply shopping for a new accreditor in order to avoid sanctions from another agency, said Mr. Hartle.
Ms. Eaton said any overhaul of accreditation needed to focus on three areas: helping students learn, improving academic and program performance, and promoting innovation. That approach, however, would require all sides to abandon their obsession with process.
“Let’s not start with where we are right now,” Ms. Eaton said, “where every word is sacrosanct.”
