Search News


Browse Archives

News

Congressional Timeout for Spellings

June 8, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Two weeks after Sen. Lamar Alexander warned the Education Department not to trample on Congress's authority in pursuing changes in federal rules governing accreditation, leaders in the House of Representatives used a legislative procedure to send a similarly direct message.

Tucked into a 2008 spending bill for the Education Department and other agencies that a House subcommittee passed Thursday afternoon (see related article here) was a provision that would prohibit the department from using any of its funds to "promulgate, implement or enforce" new federal regulations related to accreditation. The provision, which is called a "limitation" under House rules, is a time-honored tactic used by members of Congressional appropriations committees to stop federal agencies from taking regulatory or other actions that the lawmakers oppose.

The provision was included at the urging of Rep. David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the Appropriations Committee and of its Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies. The committee's staff director, who as is Congressional standard practice asked not to have her name used, said that the provision was meant to express "bipartisan concern about what the department is doing, and that the department may be exceeding its authority."

The subcommittee aide said that Obey had heard increasing concerns from members of Congressional education committees and from college and university presidents about the negotiated rule making process that the department has undertaken in recent months. They have expressed fears, the staff member said, that "the department is exceeding its statutory authority and may be trying to do an end run" around Congress at a time when the House and Senate are poised (yet again) to consider legislation to renew the Higher Education Act, the federal law that governs accreditation and the federal government's other programs and policies related to higher education.

"There is considerable interest in slowing them down," the House staff member said. She acknowledged that the spending legislation approved by the subcommittee Thursday -- which is unlikely to be signed into law before the fall -- may not be passed in time to stop the department from issuing new regulations, which could come within weeks. "But at the minimum, we can send a strong message that we're concerned."

The legislative maneuver by Obey follows on the late May statement in which Alexander, the former education secretary and University of Tennessee president, said on the Senate floor that he would introduce legislation that would prevent Secretary Margaret Spellings and the department from issuing final rules on accreditation until after Congress passes a bill to renew the Higher Education Act. The two actions signal increasing opposition in Congress to the department's recent efforts to push improvements in higher education in part through the government's role in overseeing accreditation.

Those efforts have been highly controversial among many college officials and accreditors, who have complained that the department's plan to impose new federal rules and to step up the department's oversight of accreditors through its advisory panel amounts to increasing the federal role in higher education -- a charge department officials have repeatedly rejected.

College leaders, who for months have been encouraging members of Congress to step in to slow down the department's efforts, said they welcomed Obey's actions in the wake of Alexander's. "We're gratified that Congressman Obey is taking on this enhanced federalization of accreditation, which has my membership more aggrieved than I've seen them in a long time," said David Ward, president of the American Council on Education, which represents more than 2,000 college presidents.

"We'll still have to make our case to Congress on the substance and merits of the issues," said Ward. "But this makes it clear that [lawmakers do] not want unilateral actions taken by the department until Congress has a chance to act."

A spokeswoman for the department declined to comment on the House panel's vote. But after Alexander sent his similar message last month, the spokeswoman broadly defended the rule making process. “The department has initiated this very important and public dialogue with representatives from all sectors of the higher education and accreditation community. We have extended the invitation to the community to provide input and assistance to the department in developing regulations that respect institutional mission and autonomy while at the same time protecting the public interest. The students, families and taxpayers who spend billions of dollars annually deserve our attention and leadership in assuring quality for the hard earned dollars they spend for college.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Congressional Timeout for Spellings

  • Accreditation is a Mess
  • Posted by William Sumner Scott, J.D. on June 8, 2007 at 8:50am EDT
  • The Department of Education is where experts in education reside. They are the front line to implementation of the educational system. Congress has placed an unreasonable limitation upon government's service to the people by its attempt to limit the Departments Rule making ability.

    Unfortunately, the legal system is too slow to do any of us, including the Department of Education, any good.

    William Sumner Scott, J.D.

    wss@jefound.org

  • the guilds find their man
  • Posted by Glen S. McGhee , Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project on June 8, 2007 at 9:45am EDT
  • Accrediting guilds and their member institutions have found their man for maintaining their monopolistic privileges in the face of pressures for reform. Apparently, members of congress are not getting the message that the time has come for accreditation reform.

    This is starting to look like a replay of the SPREs debacle of the 1990s, right down to the involvement of college presidents, except that now Lamar Alexander wants to be on the winning side.

    The sad truth is that self-regulation in higher education means no regulation at all, no regulation with the consumer’s interests at the fore. We have seen this plainly enough in the student loan corruption recently revealed, and it applies as well to accreditation.

    Should the federal initiative collapse, it behooves the states to pick up the slack. As Florida has recently demonstrated regarding its dual enrollment courses, this is the way to go when congress rolls over at the behest of the accrediting guilds. There may be no other option.

  • Seriously?
  • Posted by SB on June 8, 2007 at 9:45am EDT
  • I predict that we will be having the same exact conversations in June 2017 when the higher ed establishment will still have done nothing to be accountable to the taxpaying public for the billions of dollars they're putting into it. (After all, what sane enterprise would want to hold itself more accountable?)

    These conversations began in 1992 (and even earlier), and the fact that we're still having them today is a telling sign.

  • Moving too fast
  • Posted by Ben Haskell , Academic Dean at NESCom on June 8, 2007 at 9:45am EDT
  • The Dept of Ed has moved to fast on Accreditation regulation. The majority of accrediting bodies, already under DOE oversight , maintain high standards both for themselves and the schools they accredit. Knee-jerk changes from the Fed's will trickle down to the schools and colleges forcing us to spend more time and provide more paperwork which translates into less time for education and more cost to the school and that of course will be passed on to the student. We all lose with this heavy handed approach from the U.S.Department of Ed.

  • Posted by LOL on June 8, 2007 at 9:45am EDT
  • "The Department of Education is where experts in education reside."
    I love to start my day with a good laugh!

  • Experts?
  • Posted by JAM on June 8, 2007 at 9:55am EDT
  • The comment above that the USDOED is where experts reside seems incredibly naive at best. What seems abundantly clear to many that have been dealing with the staff and political appointees, including some members of the NACIQI is that they seem to have a very light grasp of what the real problems are and how to address them. All too often they mouth empty phrases like "student success" or "accountability" and the like, but cannot follow that up with specifics, aside from meaningless data, like graduation rates. Further, they are not sophisticated enough to understand measures that are not data points, such as the evaluation from experts in the field. They often come across like a professor: who is asked by a student what are the components of a good essay? And responds: I cannot tell you that, but will let you know when I read one. The these "experts" do not treat each agency the same as others - witness the comment made by a new appointee to NACIQI last week noting that agencies seemed to not really know what NACIQI is looking for, asking if anything had changed, and the resulting laughter from the audience. There are undoubtedly some good people in the USDOED, but all too few of them have any understanding of what quality in education means, beyond the most simply of measures or treating all education as having the end of producing workers.

  • Administrative Fiat Foiled
  • Posted by Robert A. Watkins on June 8, 2007 at 10:30am EDT
  • Good to see that Sen. Alexander has Congressional allies reminding Spellings and the DOE that in this country higher education institutions are NOT under MOE diktat. Yes, at some level accreditation needs to be examined, analyzed, suggestions for improvement incorporated, etc. But it should NOT be as an Administrative end-run around Congress (which was clear when it killed transfer credit clauses in the HE Re-Auth debate disingenously put forth by the GOP House members fronting for their large donors the FOR-PROFIT institutions.

    The irony is that 'guilds' existed to support professions for crassly economic motives and that is precisely what is causing the For-Profits and their 'accountability' cheerleaders to rail against 'the system.' There is too much money being denied the For-Profits because they are unwilling or unable to meet regional academic accrediting standards and their alums are complaining and bringing suits because those credits do not transfer to the vast majority of HE institutions that DO subject themselves to that level of scrutiny.

    Turning it over to the 'consumers' (read For-Profit non-regionally accredited schools and their alums and current students wanting to go to a QUALITY MBA program)is like asking the Patients to run the hospital or inmates to run the prison. I would agree that federal govt should leave it alone and let us fight this battle out in the States where quality institutions have a chance to prevail through the merits of their arguments rather than be subjective to European-style MOE diktats.

    Robert Watkins
    Austin, TX

  • Know your departments
  • Posted by DWL on June 8, 2007 at 10:30am EDT
  • The U.S. Department of Education is ED. DOE refers to the Department of Energy.

  • Point Taken!
  • Posted by Robert A. Watkins on June 8, 2007 at 11:35am EDT
  • Thanks to DWL for the correction reminder. Those of us in the international HE biz are so caught up in MOEs (and the many variants you find out there) abroad we often slip and say DOE instead of ED. Of course DOE is Engergy, thanks!

    RW

  • Why are students consumers?
  • Posted by Fred Flener , Retired on June 8, 2007 at 11:40am EDT
  • Watkins makes several nice points about treating the students as consumers, but I believe he slightly off when he equates this to the profit oriented schools. Somehow, traditionally education was based on institutions/system having something (knowledge) that we can share with others (students) and it being the responsiblity of the students to gather the knowledge and to use it responsibly to either infuse it into their work or to go on to develop deeper knowledge. Now, it seems that we have become "market driven" and what we are expected to do is to take the knowledge others believe to be important and it has become the responsibility of the institutions to make sure the customer is getting what he/she wants.
    This seems to have begun a couple of decades ago when student evaluations became the basis of judging the effectivness of teaching. Using this approach the consumer's perception of the effectiveness has become more significant that the quality of the product produced. Next, some were concerned about the quality of the product, so they reached out for uniform assessment, and the only approach that seemed reasonable to them was one-size fits all model using standardized tests. Now we want the one-size fits all model for acreditation.
    I wrote this once before, but Thoreau's comment about education's making a "straight-ditch cut" of a meandering stream is still relevant (and maybe much more so) today than it was 150 years ago when he penned those words.

  • Consumers?
  • Posted by Duncan on June 8, 2007 at 2:35pm EDT
  • Yes. I agree with Fred's observation on the 'tradition' role of higher ed institutions. However, that does not mean tradition is all good.

    For one thing, all organizations are part of the society and should response to the society and this is the basic idea why governments do control private organizations through law and regulations. But in essense, all organizations are lived to serve the society's need. The consumer model may not describe the relationship between students and institutions properly. But it does put it in prospective. The argument that higher ed should be exempt from federal requlation is simply not sustainable especially when what accreditation agencies hold on to is the federal recognition.

    In society, capitalism is simply a proved way of offering services in an effecient way. At the core of the capitalism is the idea of leveling the playing ground. Law and regulation are introduced to level the playing ground if necessary. The best way level the playground is to set the objective rules and set institutions free to explore they options.

    In recent years, higher ed had become hot items in the society. Society began to pay attention to how to make it more efficient.
    Like all industries, the idea of leveling the playground come to mind. Currently, accreditation agencies are membership based and are self regulated. This creates the environment that set those traditional institutions in a prestige status and prevent the leveling of playground.

    So. US Department of Education may not handle the situation correctly, but the need for leveling the playground remains.

  • Posted by kgotthardt on June 8, 2007 at 2:35pm EDT
  • So long as there are student loans, students will remain consumers, and so long as these debates continue to ignore the financial burden incurred in the quest for education, we "consumers" will have no protection, even from less-than-ethical institutions.

  • Posted by Prof Ed on June 8, 2007 at 3:45pm EDT
  • The self-inflicted loss of regional accrediting organizations' own credibility certainly opened the door to a grab for more power by a federal bureaucracy. The scare of an imminent possibility that an agency could replace these regional organizations was exactly the kick in the pants these accreditors needed.

    As soon as accreditors realized they had to be accountable or suffer consequences, they finally started holding chancellors, presidents and boards of state institutions accountable too. Let's hope they don't backslide as soon as the threat is taken away.

    Let's hope it remains a threat and no more than that. Until fairly recently, our universities were the envy of the world; our K-12 schools with disempowered teachers and unsupportive managers have not been. If we wanted higher education to be in the same state as K-12, then having universitity professors being run around by the Department of Education would be the way to go.

  • Students are NOT consumers
  • Posted by Sick of the 'consumer' analogy on June 8, 2007 at 4:40pm EDT
  • Kgotthardt, students simply aren't "consumers" of education; education isn't the portable good that cars, pizzas, handguns, and insect repellent are. Portable goods are made to a specific standard and mass-produced under the assumption that consumers who want those products will purchase them and will simply "shop around" if they want the same type of product from a different vendor. Moreover, consumers don't have much 'input' on the outcome of that product--it's purchased "as is" and that's that (unless you make your own 'improvements to it after the fact).

    Education, on the other hand, isn't so easy to shop for. For starters, in-state vs. out-of-state tuition adjustments force many (if not most) students to shop within their home state. And it isn't easy to "compare products"--that is, individual colleges & unis, or even programs within colleges & unis--when it comes to higher education. This isn't always a fault of higher ed--it's simply the fact that education, unlike other products, is sought for different reasons by different consumers. Some choose it for personal career advancement; some choose it to explore the disciplinary fields and settle on what they want to do for a career; still others elect higher ed for personal reasons having nothing to do with a career but instead with simply becoming smarter, more informed people. And, most importantly, education, unlike portable goods, isn't a pre-packaged product: the inputs of the student--remember "responsibility for one's own education"?--play as critical a role for that student's growth and development as the curriculum that that student participates in.

    So, no. Students aren't consumers of education. At best, they're clients. Really stop and think about that for a second--when you 'shop' for a psychiatrist, or a physician or pediatrician, or an advertising consultant for your business, do you expect a "one size fits all" solution from those professionals that will apply to you, regardless of your circumstances? Or do you expect personalized treatment and concern to influence the decision-making and collaboration that occurs between you and that professional?

  • Consumer analogy
  • Posted by Duncan on June 8, 2007 at 11:10pm EDT
  • The client model do shift most of the responsibility of learning to the students but it does not shield institutions or professors, for that matter, from respond to the need of the society. (I do not reject that model as was shown in my post:
    http://edpond.blogspot.com/2006/11/first-on-docket-accreditation.html)

    But, that is really not the main point of the accreditation. All professional are still compete on the same ground. When I looking for professionals I will check their references and I would not necessary buy a package. I will negotiate my deliverable. Even though not all records are readily available, it does possible to check Doctors' malpractice.

  • Posted by Alphonso Quashie , Legal on June 11, 2007 at 5:40am EDT
  • The thought process that summons a statement such as the Department of Education is where experts in education reside is suspect indeed. The Department of Education, as has been widely reported, is staffed by many refugees from the student lending and for-profit education industry. Moreover, legislatures write laws, not administrators. The purported rules that the Spelling and the DOE are writing strike me as legislation in drag, which is written to benefit for-profit education, especially as concerns striping regionally accredited institutions from considering accreditation in transfer of credit decisions. Is it any wonder that the rule making body is disproportionately weighted toward for-profit education representation? The transfer of credit "rule" appears to be a power grab, or an end run around the Higher Education Act renewal. This might well be because, now that the the Republican for-profit education allies are on the back bench, for-profits must rely on Administration "rule making" to get favorable "legislation."

  • Consumers
  • Posted by kgotthardt on June 11, 2007 at 6:15pm EDT
  • Just for the record, there are many agencies who refer to psychiatric patients as "consumers." So, "Sick," your analogy doesn't quite work here.

    And while students do have the responsibility for properly using the services they purchase (i.e. go to class, do your homework, etc.) they are doing just that: purchasing and "consuming" services by a supposedly reputable institution (read: accredited). When accreditation no longer qualifies as the seal of academic quality and integrity, we consumers have a big problem, as do those who teach and work at the institution.

    Calling students "consumers" does in no way reduce the responsibility of the student, but it DOES put shared responsibility on the institution and those who endorse it, and most certainly the term puts responsibility on the lenders.