Informative Session

U.S. Department of Education, Accreditation and Higher Education

Setting the context…

“Over the years, we’ve invested tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money and just hoped for the best. We deserve better.”

- U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings

The Players

U.S. Department of Education Margaret Spellings, U.S. Secretary of

Education Charles Miller, Chairman of the Spellings

Commission/ Former Chairman of the Board of Regents, University of Texas System

Vickie Schray, Deputy Director for Management and Planning/Negotiated Rulemaking Meeting Facilitator

NACIQI (National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity)

The Players

Representatives of Accrediting Agencies (National, Regional, & Specialized)

Commercial (ACT, ETS, etc) and not-for-profit organizations (NCHEMS, NASULGC, etc)

U.S. Congress

The Game

Congressional reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA, 1965)

Negotiated Rulemaking NACIQI review and recognition of

accrediting bodies The Spellings Commission and its Report The Spellings Summit

The Good…

The Spelling Commission Report (“A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education” – September 2006)

http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/

hiedfuture/reports/pre-pub-report.pdf

Secretary Spellings’ Concerns

Access Affordability Quality Transparency and Accountability Innovation

Commission Findings

Access“We found that access to higher education in the United States is unduly limited by the complex interplay of inadequate preparation, lack of information about college opportunities, and persistent financial barriers.”

Commission Findings

Affordability“Our higher education financing system is increasingly dysfunctional. State subsidies are declining; tuition is rising; and cost per student is increasing faster than inflation or family income . . . Public concern about rising costs may ultimately contribute to the erosion of public confidence in higher education.”

“There is little to no information on why costs are so high and what we’re getting in return.”

– Secretary Spellings

Commission Findings

Quality“Over the past decade, literacy among college graduates has actually declined. Unacceptable numbers of college graduates enter the workforce without the skills employers say they need . . . Where once the United States led the world in educational attainment, recent data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development indicate that our nation is now ranked 12th among major industrialized countries in higher education attainment.”

Commission Findings

Transparency and Accountability “We have noted a remarkable shortage of clear,

accessible information about crucial aspects of American colleges and universities . . . Our complex, decentralized postsecondary education system has no comprehensive strategy, particularly for undergraduate programs, to provide either adequate internal accountability systems or effective public information.”

“No current ranking system of colleges and universities directly measures the most critical point—student performance and learning.”

– Secretary Spellings

Commission Findings

Innovation“As higher education evolves in unexpected ways, this new landscape demands innovation and flexibility from the institutions that serve the nation’s learners . . . American higher education has taken little advantage of important innovations that would increase institutional capacity, effectiveness and productivity. Government and institutional policies created during a different era are impeding the expansion of models designed to meet the nation’s workforce needs.”

Commission Findings

“To meet the challenges of the 21st century, higher education must change from a system primarily based on reputation to one based on performance. We urge the creation of a robust culture of accountability and transparency throughout higher education.”

Impact of the Commission Report

“The commission has propelled and framed an agenda for the need for a national strategy in higher education, building on a bunch of efforts that were already under way . . . This country has never had a conversation and thought hard about how you do something ‘national’ in higher education, and it’s a hard conversation.”

- Jane V. Wellman, higher ed policy expert

The Bad…

According to Commission chairman, Charles Miller, if higher education is “not responsive to change” and “doesn’t have a strategic vision,” then “things are going to be mandated.”

Congressional Approval

Higher Education Act, 1965 Reauthorized approximately every 5 years Congress will attempt reauthorization

again in 2007

Negotiated Rulemaking (Neg-Reg)

Neg-Reg consists of a select group of individuals (accreditors, colleges, stakeholders, etc.)

Purpose: to negotiate the rules that carry out the laws and requirements stipulated by congress (HEA)

Three, 3-day sessions (Feb. 21-23; March 26-28; April 24-26) – last done in 1999

If agreement is not reached by the end of negotiations, the Dept. can interpret its own rules

Cautions and Concerns…

U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions letter to Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings

Executive Director, ASPA letter to Secretary Spellings

Cautions and Concerns

“Clearly the secretary wants to move in certain directions, and there is strong support in [NACIQI] for many of those recommendations, as they will be clarified over time, but perhaps there are some things that we cannot do by administrative fiat, and that are better done by engaging the impressing accreditation system that we have . . . ”

- Lawrence J. DeNardis, NACIQI panel member

Cautions and Concerns

“ . . . Excellent concepts, even if they pass muster eventually, need to be institutionalized before they are operationalized,” he said. “And they need to be institutionalized first with members of Congress, who will want to play a role . . . ”

- Lawrence J. DeNardis, NACIQI panel member

What Happened to John Barth?

Director of Accreditation and State Liaison Dept of Ed’s top career staff official (not a

political appointee) on accreditation Oversaw staff reports/reviews of

accrediting agencies used by NACIQI December 2006 NACIQI reviews were

changed to reflect Dept of Ed efforts WASC, AALE, & ABA

Shifted to position in the Federal Student Aid Ombudsman’s office

What Happened to John Barth?

“The simultaneity of this change coupled with the initiation of negotiated rulemaking before Congress has acted on reauthorization suggests that the department is very anxious to impose a new agenda on accrediting agencies.”

- Terry W. Hartle, Senior Vice President for Government and Public Affairs at the

American Council on Education

The Ugly…

Using reinterpreted negotiated rules Entering new Negotiated Rulemaking

before Congress reauthorizes the Higher Education Act with any changes (Neg-Reg usually happens after reauthorization)

Using Neg-Reg to drive Dept. of Ed. agenda

Federalizing reforms in accreditation rather than leading a voluntary national movement

Sticking Points in Current Negotiations

Concern for self-regulation and the qualifications of peer evaluators

Giving Dept of Ed greater authority in the monitoring of accreditors, including the power to “conduct an investigation” into an accrediting agency “at any time, on its own initiative, at the request of [NACIQI], or in response to a third party complaint.”

Sticking Points in Current Negotiations

More liberal transfer policies (Dept. of Ed. wants to require regionally accredited institutions to accept transfer credits from non-regionally accredited schools)

Requiring accreditors to set minimum levels of acceptable performance toward institutional success (e.g., graduation rates, retention, student outcomes, etc.)… and yet not have a “one-size-fits-all solution.

Is There Contradiction?

“Faculty must be at the forefront of defining educational objectives for students and developing meaningful, evidence-based measures of their progress toward those goals” (Report of the Commission, 24).

Higher education institutions should measure student learning using quality assessment data from instruments such as, for example, the Collegiate Learning Assessment . . . and the Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress” (Report of the Commission, 24).

Is There Contradiction?

“Faculty must be at the forefront of defining educational objectives for students and developing meaningful, evidence-based measures of their progress toward those goals” (Report of the Commission, 24).

“A framework that aligns and expands existing accreditation standards should be established to (i) allow comparisons among institutions regarding learning outcomes and other performance measures” (Report of the Commission, 25).

Big IPEDS?

Dept of Ed wants (wanted?) an even larger dataset than IPEDS currently collects Include part-time/non-traditional enrollment Include more types of data (such as learning

outcomes?) User-friendly interface for querying this

dataset by user-entered weights (to provide a list of “top schools” based on these weights – like PhDs.org)

Are they backing off… or just regrouping? Federal Register entry, March 8, 2006

In Summary…

The Spellings Commission and its report have generated some much needed conversation in the areas of quality and accountability from both institutions and accrediting agencies

Most agree with the issues of concern addressed by the report (opposition usually center’s on the report’s lack of concern for the arts and humanities)

Some agencies and organizations are already endeavoring to find solutions

In Summary…

Unfortunately, the Higher Ed community is slow in its willingness and ability to 1) change, and 2) lose autonomy

Unfortunately, the Dept of Ed is taking a heavy-handed approach to bring about change

Any new implementation will be untidy and will likely have its own deficiencies

How will the 2009 White House and administration reshape this dialog?

U.S. Department of Education, Accreditation and Higher Education

Paul Johnson

Assessment Analyst

Tulsa Community College