The U.S. Department of Education began exploring changes in the college accreditation system last week in an attempt to address problems of accountability in higher education. The changes stem from findings reported by the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, which convened last fall.
Jan Friis, vice president of Government Affairs for the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, said the commission provided 30 recommendations ranging from changing applications for student loans to providing more information about institutions to students and parents.
While some of the recommendations are excellent, others are not as valid, Friis said.
One of the more controversial recommendations involves gathering more detailed information for people who are interested in higher education.
Vickie Schray, deputy director for management and planning of the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, said the current data system is traditionally-based, focusing only on students attending college immediately after high school and graduating in four years.
"The information we have are about half that attend college and does not account for non-traditional students, like part-time students," Schray said.
This detailed information is important because it would enable a more appropriate allocation of federal funds, she said. Approximately $80 billion per year is allocated for federal aid.
Frank Murray, professor of education and psychology and president of the Teacher Education Accreditation Council, said accreditation could be a means to find that information.
Murray said the current accreditation process is voluntary, meaning that institutions ask accreditors to compare self-studies to a university's mission and goals.
One of the main purposes of accreditation is "public assurance of a quality institution," he said. More importantly, institutions cannot receive Title IV funds such as Pell Grants and federal aid if they are not accredited, Murray said.
According to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, there are 19 college and university accrediting organizations in the United States. Approximately 60 organizations in the country review and accredit specific programs, such as teacher education or medical programs.
Accreditors are recognized by the Department of Education, which grants accreditors the ability to officially accredit an institution. If the federal government wanted to encourage certain behaviors in the accrediting community, like what kind of information to examine, it could do so during the accreditation review process, Friis said.
Murray said the Department of Education can put greater pressure on accreditors for more evidence of student learning, which would be provided to students and parents.
"Accreditation should serve as a device for an institution to improve itself," he said.
The process should fix problems rather than "smoke screen" them, Murray said.
Friis said the Department of Education believes that accreditors and the federal government should set standards for learning outcomes, as opposed to organizations like the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, which believes that schools should determine their own standards for student learning outcomes.
"It's a difference in philosophy," he said.
Schray said the Department of Education is not seeking to change accrediting standards.
The goal is to clarify what is being reviewed by accreditors, which is not directly linked to accreditation, she said.
According to Schray, the accredation review looked at factors, such as faculty credentials, which are an indirect measure of success. The Commission on the Future of Higher Education recommended placing more emphasis on results, she said.
There is no plan on the table now, Schray said, only pilot studies to determine the best means of acquiring information from institutions.
Providing information on results is voluntary with no punishment for those that do not comply, she said, yet there is a recommendation that incentives should be given to institutions that do.
If changes do occur, they should be linked to the needs to the institution and include full involvement with the accreditation community, Schray said.
She said the accreditation process should consider what consumers and students want or need.
"That's the voice that people don't hear," Schray said.
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our feed
Contact us through email
Be the first to comment on this article!