Student Aid

The federal government should end its relationship with accrediting bodies. It should also end federal financial aid. Because of financial aid the federal government has a stake in where its money goes After all its the taxpayers money which means there has to be some form of accountability. Without federal financial aid the need to make sure that federal money gets used at legitimate institutions of higher ed becomes mute.

Thomassowellfan, at 8:45 am EDT on May 4, 2007

What about the US congress ?

Contreras’s proposal addresses some of the difficulties that must be faced in order to reform the antiquated, one-hundred year system of higher education accreditation that we have been saddled with in this country.

But there is one problem that he ignores, one which ultimately undermines his proposal – the need to convince Congress.

Without legislative changes – significant legislative changes – to the Higher Education Act, no proposed “decoupling” can occur.

With the 1992 amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965, Congress did, in fact, initiate the transformation of the accrediting agencies to “serve federal purposes,” that is, for institutional Title IV eligibility purposes. Thus, the accreditors now have eligibility determination responsibilities at the institutional level that flow from these legislative initiatives. The Program Integrity Sec 496 (Part H) was Congress’s way of assigning this task to the accreditors.

The problem is that the US Department of Education caved-in to institutional and accreditor pressure, and backed away from requiring the accreditors to establish “minimum standards” for a range of inputs, including student achievement, faculty qualifications, etc. (This is the reason that there are no minimum standards for educational quality.)

What we are seeing now, thirteen years later, are the consequences of the Secretary’s decision played out in the context of radically intensified credential inflation. This makes the needed structural changes even more difficult, since the stakes for maintaining the status quo are that much higher. See, for example, CHEA’s recent response: http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/05/02/qt.

Glen S. McGhee, Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project, at 9:55 am EDT on May 4, 2007

An awful marriage, but better than a divorce

Yes, on the surface, it sounds great to separate federal aid oversight from the accreditation process. But invariably this will lead to ever more absurd and intrusive federal rules applied to colleges; it’s impossible for the politicians to do anything else. So in the end, we’d be far worse off than we are now. Of course the current situation puts tons of pressure on accreditors, but they are our only defense against wrong-headed governmental proposals. We need accreditors, as awkward as it is for them, to act as a buffer between us and the government. Keep this marraige together — “for the sake of the children.”

bBill Barrett, Executive Director at AICAD, at 11:10 am EDT on May 4, 2007

Alan Contreras is right, Part H of the HEA “only applies to accreditors that seek federal recognition.”

However, for any accreditor to “declin[e] to reapply for federal recognition,” as he suggests, would be tantamount to self-immolation on the village green.

Any institutions accredited by an accreditor that fails to seek re-recognition from the Secretary would be forced to apply for it somewhere else to stay open, a lengthy and laborious process.

An interesting counterexample is Hillsdale College, the single institution that refuses federal aid, but which continues to be accredited by the North Central Association.

This points to yet another important motive for institutional accreditation, which serves as a symbolic marker for educational quality, that was originally more important than providing access to federal funds.

Historically, institutional legitimation was the reason for the emergence of the regional accrediting associations over one-hundred years ago, well before there were “federal purposes” in higher education.

Glen S. McGhee, Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project, at 7:05 pm EDT on May 4, 2007

Why be accredited?

I appreciate Glen’s comments. Hillsdale gains a significant advantage from being NC accredited: its credits and degrees are widely accepted and adjudged roughly comparable to those at similar accredited colleges.

My theory is that if a regional accreditor declined to reapply, and was backed by many of its schools, the feds would not dare to deny the schools financial aid and would have to develop an alternate process for evaluation.

Keeping the present system “for the sake of the children” means that accreditors are in fact an arm of the federal government, and more and more courts will force them to act like one, with far more complex, elaborate and expensive processes. And it will be essentially impossible to de-accredit a school or deny accreditation under such conditions. This in turn will lead to lower and lower standards for what constitutes an accredited school.

Alan Contreras, State of Oregon, at 11:35 am EDT on May 7, 2007