A new model for accreditation — maybe
At one year old, the Postsecondary Commission is looking to become a federally recognized accreditor. Its elevator pitch is, on top of traditional criteria, an outcomes-based model that judges colleges based on students’ earnings. As intriguing — and maybe problematic — as that approach is, even more interesting to me is another atypical aspect of its proposed model: financial independence from the institutions it evaluates.
But first, some perspective. This whole idea is still very much a proposal, so much so that I really debated whether to write anything about it now. I’m not convinced that what the organization, known as PSC, is trying to accomplish is doable in a scalable or meaningful way. And even if it is, at least three years would go by before the U.S. Department of Education would consider approving the PSC, and then another five to 15 years would be needed for its earnings-measure model to run its course for the first cohorts of students.
Nonetheless, here I go. Why? Because the folks at the helm of this project are credible — and its economic-mobility standard could influence other accreditors and state policies even if the PSC itself never gets off the ground. And if Congress actually does approve the use of Pell Grants for short-term programs (a new bipartisan bill authorizing that is now gaining steam), the PSC could eventually become a gatekeeper for billions in federal dollars flowing not just to existing and new colleges but also to work-force-training organizations.
Also, my yikes antenna goes up when I hear a supposed watchdog talking about using its authority to “responsibly deregulate” colleges. That’s how the PSC’s founder and president, Stig Leschly, put it this fall during a public forum hosted by the American Enterprise Institute. As nice as responsible deregulation sounds, it could spell a lot of trouble for students and taxpayers. For the record, when Leschly and I spoke last week, he told me that the PSC is “devoutly committed to protecting students,” and that by being strict on outcomes, it could give institutions “the freedom to be clever and creative” in how they meet their missions.
The organization has been developing its approach and kicking it around policy-wonk circles for about a year before going a bit more public last week, announcing it would conduct the first pilot test of its economic-mobility model in the Texas State Technical College system. That’s a logical choice. The system is known for a state-funding formula based in large part on how well its graduates fare in the labor market.
The PSC also just published the latest draft of its proposed standards, with new information on how it plans to evaluate “value-added earnings outcomes” and “absolute earnings outcomes.” (I’ll get to the specifics on those shortly.)
Taking the first steps toward federal recognition, the PSC has named 10 commissioners, including Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education; Paul LeBlanc, the longtime but about-to-step-down president of Southern New Hampshire University; Maria Flynn, president and chief executive of Jobs for the Future; and Jim Blew, a co-founder of the Defense of Freedom Institute.
The organization has been a bit vaguer about its financial backing. Its FAQ page says it’s funded by individuals and foundations, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, and the Charles Koch Foundation, but doesn’t indicate the amounts. Leschly told me that so far it has raised “a couple million” in total from 10 donors, enough to cover its operations for just a couple of years. After that it will need additional funds to continue its work, perhaps even once it’s up and running.
The money is another place this model gets interesting to me. Most current accreditors are funded by their own members, which raises questions — for me and others — about how truly independent they can be. It’s an appropriate approach for accreditors’ role in institutional improvement, but dicier when it becomes necessary to crack down or even pull the plug on a member’s access to federal student aid. The PSC is trying to build a model, likely based on philanthropic support and fees, to conduct program evaluations at providers it doesn’t accredit. “We would never charge an institution that we are accrediting,” Leschly said. “We need to be their critical friend.”
Is that independent business model actually sustainable? I don’t know. But if the PSC can pull it off, that would be a real breakthrough. Leschly said the PSC isn’t looking to serve all colleges but hopes to attract institutions that appreciate its approach and the message its accreditation would send.
The commission’s proposed economic-mobility standards are hardly a new idea in general, but they’re novel for accreditation. Magazines like Money and The Washington Monthly bake that into rankings, and the Education Department considered such standards during the Obama administration before abandoning plans to develop a rating system.
The PSC plans two measures of economic outcomes:
- The “absolute earnings” standard would require median wages for cohorts of graduates to clear 150 percent of the poverty line in two of three years after they graduate. Right now that means an annual salary over $22,000.
- The “value-added” standard would require average wage gains for cohorts of all entering students over a five-, 10-, or 15-year period, depending on the credential, to exceed their average costs of education. Those gains would be determined by comparing students’ actual wages to estimated wages for similar people without that education but otherwise from similar circumstances, over similar periods of time. The approach would compel PSC-accredited institutions to increase students’ wage gain by more than the cost of their credential.
Yes, the absolute-earnings minimum seems like a low bar. And the value-added calculation is as complicated as it sounds. Leschly acknowledged the latter. What’s more, the standards can be deployed only in jurisdictions where the PSC can get access to students’ verified wages and, for the comparison-group estimates, to large data sets of wage records. With that access, Leschly said, “this is very doable.”
But forget access — few jurisdictions even have that kind of data right now. ACE’s Mitchell said the PSC model is being built “for a future” when data on students’ backgrounds and incomes are more available.
Economists do these kinds of counterfactual analyses all the time, Leschly said. He’s right. But typically, they run the numbers for research papers, not for high-stakes decisions like access to federal student aid. I also wonder how the commission plans to model the control groups, and whether those calculations might become so malleable that they create a lax standard.
Those aren’t my only questions about this accreditation model, and as Leschly rightly noted, the approach will continue to evolve. I’m sure there will be more to say along the way.
For now I’d love to hear what you think. Is this a good idea? How does it improve on current models of accreditation, and how does it muddle things? Can it actually work? Should it? Please email me your thoughts, and I’ll share some in a future newsletter.
Apply to be Shark Tank: EDU Edition contestants
The Chronicle’s annual pitchfest, now in its ninth year, has become a SXSW EDU tradition to showcase new ventures — or just good new ideas — to improve higher ed from the outside or inside. In March my fellow “sharks” — Catharine Bond Hill, managing director of the Ithaka S+R nonprofit consultancy, and Paul Freedman, an education entrepreneur— will eagerly join me to put some game innovators through their paces.
There’s still no investment money to win (sorry not sorry). But new this year we have a bonus to offer. We will cover registration to the full SXSW EDU event to contestants selected to pitch. Can you plan to be in Austin, Tex., at 4 p.m. on March 5? Got a new company, other venture, or great idea to fix challenges in higher ed? Please use this form to submit the details to be considered.
My conversation with an author who champions the value of college
There’s lots of talk these days questioning the value of college. Ben Wildavsky, author of the new book The Career Arts: Making the Most of College, Credentials, and Connections, doesn’t buy that narrative. To hear why, check out this podcast, guest-hosted by me, where we dissect some of the prevailing critiques of higher ed and highlight the developments in the economy, career counseling, and alternative education that are changing that ecosystem.
Got a tip you’d like to share or a question you’d like me to answer? Let me know, at goldie@chronicle.com. If you have been forwarded this newsletter and would like to see past issues, find them here. To receive your own copy, free, register here. If you want to follow me on the site formerly known as Twitter, @GoldieStandard is my handle. Or find me on BlueSky Social, which I just joined with the same handle.
