Please continue to read FHEAP Commentary at Inside Higher Education :
http://www.insidehighered.com

http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/23/accredit

http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/28/accredit

 

The intense debate between the Secretary of Education and the accreditors has brought HE accreditation processes out into the open, perhaps for the first time, in a way that highlights the weaknesses of the 100 year old institutional regulatory system.

 

Such a ‘peak behind the curtain’ would have been unthinkable even a few short weeks ago, before the Secretary’s proposed changes to 34 CFR 602 were made public. However, once the Secretary’s proposed regulatory changes became known, the predictable outcry from the regional accrediting associations soon followed.

CHEA’s Judy Eaton has claimed that the proposed CFR changes would “set explicit federal standards for what counts as quality at institutions,” which begs the question why students and the public should trust her to tell us what educational “quality” is.  

Steven Crow of the NCA has also loudly protested :
“This is taking what was a government requirement in law that we have a standard that addresses student achievement, and now you’re saying, not only does it have to look this way, but it has to dance this way and act this way.”

This amounts to an astonishing admission by Crow -- that the requirement that accreditors have an objective standard for student achievement, for the institutions that they accredit, IS Federal law. Up until now the accreditors have resolutely denied that there were any such objective requirements. But what decisively undermines Crow’s protest is the fact that, until now, the standards were what the accreditors said they were.

To say, as Crow does, that it is the Department that wants to determine how the standard will “look,” how it will “dance,” and how it will “act,” ignores the fact that this is exactly what the accreditors have been doing all along! They have told everyone, including students and the taxpaying public, that the standard has to “look this way, has to dance this way, has to act this way” – even to the point of saying that standards existed when, in fact, they did not! 

And he admits as much: [If these proposals are accepted, then] “We’ve essentially lost control of our ability to set standards and our ability to implement those standards. I don’t want to argue here that what you’re after is not appropriate. I’m arguing that how you’re doing it is really threatening to me and my organization.”  

No one said that transforming a self-regulating, self-serving guild into a public service commission would be painless.  With any luck, this is the beginning of just such a process of reform.

US DOE proposes major new changes to Higher Education Accreditation
http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/23/accredit

 

All but unnoticed in the halls of American higher education this week were the extensive changes to 34 CFR 602 that were proposed by the US Secretary of Education.

 

These are the regulations that govern the recognition of accrediting agencies, which are then placed on the Secretary’s list of those regional, national and specialized accrediting agencies that have been approved for Federal purposes, i.e., Title IV gatekeeping for access to Title IV financial aid and student loan guarantees.  

NACIQI make-over ?
This draft involves a number of ambitious proposals, including beefing-up of NACIQI’s role in the review of accrediting agencies which, until now, has been to give a rubber-stamp of approval to accreditors.

But all this is about to change. Maybe.

The insertion of an additional layer of accountability into the regulatory structure (i.e., the addition of the senior Department official beneath the Secretary) also gives the federal agency a great deal more flexibility, and is perhaps an attempt to overcome the symptoms of regulatory agency capture by the accrediting guilds that have undermined the overall credibility of the Secretary’s recognition process.

There are, however, at least two major obstacles remaining before moving away from the process model of regulation of the accrediting guilds.

First, these proposed CFR changes must be understood as attempts by the Federal government to transform a mutual benefit association organizational model (the accrediting guilds) into a quasi-governmental instrumentality, that is, into a regulatory arm of the Department of Education.

Viewed in terms of organizational structure, there are many reasons for the accrediting guilds to strenuously resist these kinds of changes.

Historically, the voluntary system of peer review and institutional self-improvement that emerged over 100 years ago has almost nothing in common with the much more recent Federal interests in American higher education, which have now been imposed upon the older organizational base.  Regional accrediting guilds were originally formed for the benefit of their members, and in this regard they have performed admirably well, most notably by resisting interference and change.

It may happen that the accreditors will protest these proposed changes, and unleash their dogs on the Secretary and Congress, as happened during the defeat of the SPREs in the 1990s. Or it may be that the accreditors will publically acquiesce for political reasons, and seek minimal compliance but continue to resist internally.

This brings us to the remaining problem that awaits resolution: the so-called Atomic Bomb problem with the current regulatory structure.

The Atomic Bomb problem refers to the regulatory dilemma that has been previously avoided by the US DOE’s “minimalist” or process approach to HE accreditation, but one which tends to undermine the credibility of the recognition process.

“The Education Department’s accrediting agency evaluation branch has in the past often approached its function regarding accrediting agencies not as a regulator, but as a collegial peer reviewer. While this approach has been helpful in avoiding undue federal influence over higher education, it has also meant that the recognition process has not been effectively used to promote better ‘gatekeeping.’ ... Part of the staff’s reluctance to consider deregulation of an agency resulted from the devastating effect on schools’ eligibility if their accrediting agency were delisted. Students and quality institutions could be seriously harmed by such action. Thus, the consequences of derecognition were so severe that the threat of derecognition was not credible.”

(Source: Jeffrey C. Martin, “Recent Developments Concerning Accrediting Agencies in Postsecondary Education,” Law and Contemporary Problems 57:4, Autumn 1994, pages 121-150.)

This is what Martin calls the “atomic bomb problem,” and although the 1992 HEA provides for a Title IV waiver of up to 18 months for accredited institutions upon the loss of their accreditor, the problem illustrates the kinds of system-wide disincentives that the US DOE/AAEU is forced to operate under. The proposed changes do not address this problem in any way.

The NCA, for example, accredits about 1,000 postsecondary institutions and SACS accredits about 800. The negative repercussions of closing down either of these associations would be difficult to describe, let alone face in actuality. Thus, acting resolutely against non-compliance is simply ruled out. This is the sad legacy of the deterrent of the “Atomic Bomb” problem, which continues to hobble the regulatory scheme, despite the Secretary’s proposed changes.

One recalls the sage advice of the Puffer Report, which urged breaking-up these massive agencies into smaller ones. Perhaps the time has come to reconsider this proposal once again.

Can the US DOE regain lost ground?
Sadly, most commentators have missed the forest for the trees by focusing on the “student learning” standard required by these proposed changes. Rather than see compliance with this new requirement as a simple thing (‘it is only as difficult as you make it’), the more sinister meanings attributed to it have obscured the historical context and its epochal significance. 

This history, in so far as it relates initially to proprietary schools receiving Title IV funds, goes back to the massive student loan defaults of the late 1980s and 1990.

Accrediting standards first appear as part of the 1992 amendments to the Higher Education Act, and were meant to end high rates of student loan defaults. Specifically, the legislative intent was for the US Department of Education to require that accreditors have “minimum standards” for student learning, faculty qualifications, and other standards as well.

But in the uproar over the SPREs, which were also part of the same legislation, both the Department and Congress were forced into retreat. In the confusion, the Department backed-down from implementing the Part H, Program Integrity standards, leaving in place instead minimalist “process” standards, or what I call “standardless-standards.”

What’s happening now is that the Department is playing catch-up, and attempting to regain some of the ground that it lost during the SPREs debacle, albeit in slightly different form.

This complex prior legislative history is why recent events appear to be somewhat confusing but should not obscure the original legislative intent behind Part H of the 1992 HEA, after which, as they say, the train left the tracks. Congress itself bears much blame for this through its laxity and poor oversight, as history will show.

My hope is that, eventually, the accrediting guilds will be transformed more and more to resemble what Claude Puffer called “public utility commissions” in higher education, and come to understand the consumer point of view, rather than to simply advocate for their member institutions.

What we are witnessing is the attempt to gradually reform a one-hundred year old institutional guild, no small feat by any means, and by no means an assured success either. Therefore, there is no certainty that these far-reaching proposals will be actualized; nor is there any assurance that they will be implemented any better than Part H of HEA was. Much depends, for example, on who is appointed to be the new senior Department official, and what his/her marching orders are.

FLORIDA’s PLANTATION PAST

http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/19/ufl

At UF, graduate students of Sociology reported being pressured by professors “not to rock the boat.”

Sadly, the plantation mentality is pervasive across Florida’s education system, from higher ed on down.

And it's not just students that should “know their place,” it’s faculty and personnel as well. The key job qualification for a teaching position in Florida, it seems, is not to “rock the boat.” At least this is what I was told when I first started teaching. For a riveting account of the abuse of power in the Florida community college system, see Marion Brady, Max & Me (1994).

This kind of thing extends beyond those 'institutionalized' as was seen this past week, when the Chancellor of the State University System came by to discuss the challenges facing higher education in Florida with the residents of Bay County, and other local education officials.

But when the time came for public comments, there were none. No one from the county showed up!

It just goes to show that, after 100 years of running the Florida University system like a plantation, you cannot expect the slaves to start making suggestions or raising concerns. They are too well trained for that! Remember we’ve all been told, “Don’t rock the boat!”  

And it is equally true that “Unless people come forth and martyr themselves, nothing can be done.” Retaliation for disagreement is common place. The launching of FHEAP attests to this, in both aspects.

“I want to get my degree so I won’t say anything.” This comment suggests that credentialism plays a prominent role in the kinds of differential power abuse described at UF. It is the main reason that students are afraid to fight back against unethical administrators and educators, and it is the reason they can get away with it.

This is an example of one of the things that can happen when everyone is looking at the end of the pipeline, and not paying attention to what is going on in the pipe, while students are in school. I just feel sorry for the students and the administrators courageous enough to draw attention to these abuses. They have no idea what they are in for.

Dual Enrollment Turn-Around in Florida ?

In a surprise move last month, the Florida council of community college presidents voted to approve a comprehensive overhaul of dual enrollment courses for the entire state. The initiative is unparalled in its breadth and scope.

[Click at AT BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE  for “Statement of Standards” Feb 23, 2007]

In sharp contrast with the laissez faire attitude of the past, the Council of Presidents, an administrative body made up of community college presidents, has defined an ambitious set of goals for shoring up the lax oversight of the statewide program that allows tens of thousands of high school students to earn both high school and college credit while taking college level courses. These courses are usually given at local high schools by high school instructors for college credit that is transferable to 2 year and 4 year colleges and universities. Community colleges are responsible for the awarding of dual enrollment (called Early College by the Council) college credits.

 

The central challenge facing the state has been the problem of bridging the organizational and historical gaps between the 28 community colleges and the 68 school districts in the state. Compounding these difficulties, is the fact that over the past decade, dual enrollment programs have sprung up around Florida in great variety and with diverse levels of rigor and quality.

 

The initiative is comprised of standards covering every aspect of the articulating relationships between the community colleges and local school districts, including standards for admission into dual enrollment courses, faculty credentialing and oversight, curriculum standards, classroom expectations, assessment and program review, and Articulation Agreements.

For example, in prior years, community colleges sometimes did not have written agreements (Articulation Agreements) with school districts in which EC/DE courses were given, and this has resulted in deep concern regarding the quality of these courses.

[Click here for FHEAP’s 2006 formal complaint to the US Department of Education regarding DE laxity. See Finding # 3.]

 

It remains to be seen, however, how this ambitious initiative will be implemented. The Statement of Standards included no deadlines, and the group promulgating it has no legal standing to enforce it. It is also unclear why the Council of Presidents, a relatively minor body, has taken the lead on this rather than the Office of Articulation or the Division of Community Colleges and Workforce Education, FL DOE. These state agencies have been working hard to standardize college level offerings and improve student transition within the state postsecondary system. [More on FL Council of Presidents.]

But by its very nature, dual enrollment / Early College programs inhabit a murky zone that straddles the realms of secondary and postsecondary education. The present initiative, however, seeks to bridge this gap in unprecedented ways that may also have an impact on other states.

 

The regional accrediting association for the South, SACS, for example, has taken an interest in how dual enrollment is administered by community colleges in the 11 states that it accredits. However, since 2002, SACS has been officially moving away from enforcing faculty standards, which apply to courses and course credits awarded by community colleges. This has left much confusion in its wake, and makes the provisions in the Florida DE overhaul problematic.

 

At this time, it is unclear what additional measures will be needed to fill the vacuum created by SACS backing away from faculty standards, thereby leaving it up to the individual institutions themselves to decide who can teach college-level courses. The diversity for which the South is famous makes this problematic, especially with the spotlight now on standards and quality control in higher education.

 

In any case, the Statement of Standards goes a long way -- a very long way -- to addressing the complex set of issues that implicate dual enrollment / Early College quality and administration.

 ###