Regional Accrediting Agencies at the Crossroads

Allan O. Pfnister

The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 42:7 (Oct., 1971), pp. 558-573.

During an address at a seminar on accreditation late last year, Frederic W. Ness, the president of the Association of American Colleges, asked the question, “What does the institution get or think it gets from accreditation?” Later in his presentation he responded to his own question by saying, “I think the candid answer must be that for many institutions accreditation and re-accreditation are almost meaningless.” Subsequently he qualified this statement by noting that in spite of the shortcomings of voluntary accreditation, “it is still the best alternative that the academic mind has devised.”¹ But the implication is that there is considerable room for improvement.

In calling accreditation to task, Ness stands in good company. Samuel P. Capen, while serving as chancellor of the University of Buffalo many years ago, established himself as a critic of accreditation in a number of speeches and articles, the most famous of which is the address entitled “Seven Devils in Exchange for One.”² While in particular attacking professional agencies in that address, he criticized all attempts at standardiz­ing in higher education. William K. Selden, during his tenure as executive secretary of the National Commission on Accredit­ing, wrote in School and Society in 1962 about the “Relative Unimportance of Regional Accreditation.” He stated that

it is obvious that accreditation fills an important place during the early stages of development of most educational institutions in their special­ized or professional programs of study. But, as these institutions and their professional programs mature, accreditation becomes pro­gressively less important. In regional accreditation, we have reached this latter stage for all but a small percentage of the universities and four-year colleges in the country. Consequently, regional accredita­tion no longer is relatively important.³

He also suggested that among the presidents of the stronger and more mature institutions accreditation is considered to be “a nuisance, if not an unnecessary interruption of their more interesting and more rewarding responsibilities.”⁴

In the light of statements such as those above -- and a score or more could be collected without difficulty -- one might be led to expect little current activity among the regional agencies. Yet last year the higher commissions of the six regions listed a total of 2,253 institutions as affiliates in all categories. This number included institutions at the “correspondent” level as well as those holding full membership. But more important than the number on the membership rolls is the annual activity of these associations. Seven in number -- the Western Associa­tion of Schools and Colleges maintains a commission for the junior colleges as well as one for the four-year institutions -- the higher commissions during a three-year period from 1966 to 1969 reviewed 950 examining team reports.⁵ Each report [559] represents either some form of examination of an institution, examination for correspondent, candidate, or full membership, or a review of a member institution. That volume of business suggests that the regional associations are very much alive.

Indeed, the evidence is that the associations are actually expanding their activities. A cursory review of the proceedings and annual reports of the higher commissions reveals discussion and debate on such subjects as methods of evaluating multi-campus institutions, the status of technical institutions, the expanding role of the community college, better approaches to the review of member institutions, monitoring new developments in graduate education, the need to revise specific standards or criteria, the requirement of additional staff for research activity, and the initiation of special research projects.

Ness sets the dilemma neatly. On the one hand, the critics of regional accreditation are many. On the other hand, apart from dismissing accreditation entirely --and some have suggested this -- most writers are at a loss to suggest development of something other than the voluntary system we now have. I would go on to say that the convergence of increasing criticism of accreditation and the stubborn conviction of the need for some form of self-direction seems inevitably to be forcing regional accreditation to a crossroads where hard decisions will have to be made about new approaches.

How did we arrive at this point and what is the nature of the decisions which must be faced? First of all, how did we get to this point? No one of the regional accrediting agencies began with the avowed purpose of establishing criteria for the evaluation of schools and colleges or of employing such criteria in the accreditation of educational institutions. Each was established first of all to allow educators to discuss common problems, one of the most pressing at the time being the need for better articulation between colleges and secondary schools. In the process of defining productive activities and of deciding which institutions might become members, each of the agencies soon found itself establishing criteria which eventually became the bases of the first standards for accreditation.

[Regional Accrediting Associations, Phase One.]
The New England Association of Colleges and Secondary [560] Schools was the first of the associations to be established. Developing out of the Massachusetts Classical and High School Teachers Association, it was organized in 1855 to promote the common interests of colleges, high schools, and independent schools of the six New England states. What later became the Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools grew out of an organization of Pennsylvania colleges established in 1887 to encourage the passage of an act “to render impossible further taxation of property used for educational purposes.” The organization was subsequently broadened to include other states, became the College Association of the Middle States and Maryland in 1889, included secondary schools in 1893, and published its first list of accredited colleges in 1921. The North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools came into existence in 1895 to meet some of the critical problems facing higher education in the Middle West. The immediate impetus for the establishment of the association came from the Michigan Schoolmasters Club, under whose auspices the first meeting was held. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools emerged in 1895 as the result of an initial association of six colleges in the southern states seeking to ^“elevate the standard of scholarship and bring about uniformity of entrance requirements.^”6 The chancellor of Vanderbilt University served as the guiding spirit. The Northwest Association of Secondary and Higher Schools came into existence in 1917, and the Western College Association in 1924. It was out of the latter organiza­tion that the Western Association of Schools and Colleges was subsequently formed. The Northwest Association early became involved in accrediting. At the first annual meeting of the association at Spokane, Washington, in April, 1918, some twenty-eight secondary and eight higher schools in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana were accredited.

The movement from a membership organization to accrediting agency may be illustrated by reference to one of the agencies, the North Central Association, which is presently the largest of the regional associations both in geographical extent and in [561] total membership. The developments in the North Central Association are to a degree replicated in all of the regions.

At the first annual meeting of the North Central Association in April, 1896, President James Burrill Angell of the University of Michigan, who also served as the first president of the associa­tion, called for more cooperation between colleges and schools. He called attention to the dual task of high schools, terminal and college preparatory work, and the need for developing better working relationships between secondary schools and colleges:

We must even look below the high schools, and keep ever in mind the essentiality of educational work. Under our forms of organization we have cut the process of education too much into disconnected sec­tions, and placed high barriers of formal and formidable examinations between them. . . . I cannot but hope that the conferences and discus­sions in which the representatives of collegiate and secondary education in this association are to participate, are to bring us into most fruitful intimacy with each other, and to lead us to large and catholic views of education. Never before, I think, has the interest in education been so widespread and profound as it is now.⁷

At the same meeting President Richard H. Jesse of the Uni­versity of Missouri presented at the request of the executive committee of the new association a paper entitled “What Con­stitutes a College and What a Secondary School?”

President Jesse in attempting to outline the essential char­acteristics of collegiate and secondary education pointed up some of the problems faced by each. He recognized the neces­sity for broadening the high school curriculum:

The public high schools, aiming primarily at preparation for life, have been and are still forcing the colleges to revise materially their entrance requirements. In this way the masses of the people are compelling our institutions of higher learning to greater breadth and liberality. May the process go on and by going gather strength.⁸

He then discussed the college admissions requirements and [562] suggested a set of criteria by which various schools could secure unquestioned recognition.

 

[Regional Accrediting Associations: Phase Two.]

The first official standards were adopted by the North Central Association in 1909. In 1923 a revised set of fifteen standards for colleges was adopted, which with modifications continued until 1934. In 1933-1934, with the aid of a grant from the General Education Board, the association undertook completely to revise the standards for accreditation. The move to develop new procedures had been prompted by a report of the Com­mittee on Cost of Instruction, which in 1928 concluded, among other things, “it is evident that excellence is not dependent upon the amount or proportion of income from any specific source such as endowment.”⁹ Staff members visited a select group of higher educational institutions representing the overall member-ship and rated these institutions in order of excellence both on subjective bases and on as many objective bases as might be determined. By means of correlation it was hoped to determine which standards were related to excellence.

With some modification, the standards of  1933-1934 remained in effect until the early 1950’s, when, under a program for the training of college administrative officers, the draft version of what subsequently became a printed guide for the evaluation of institutions of higher education was developed. The association shortly thereafter embarked on a systematic reevaluation of all member institutions in ten-year cycles, soon developed new categories of membership, and now reviews as many as a hun­dred institutional cases per year.

The experience of the North Central Association is in great measure found in each of the other regional associations. There are, to be sure, variations peculiar to the history and orientation of the region, but, in general, as membership groups turned from the primary focus on relations between secondary and higher schools and the improvement of education generally, the associa­tions found themselves forced to develop criteria by which to distinguish levels of quality and by which to determine eligi­bility for membership. Interestingly enough, the first of the [563] associations to be established, the New England Association, was the last formally to enter accreditation as such.

As the membership organizations became accrediting agencies, three governing principles appear to have emerged. These principles, depending upon one^’s point of view, either constitute the abiding strength of the agencies or are at the root of many of the present concerns. The three principles are:

1.    In the accrediting process no distinction is to be made regarding levels of quality. An institution is either worthy of being included in the membership of the association or it falls short of the requirements. The status is that of being accredited or not being accredited.

2.    An institution is evaluated as a whole. That is to say, regional associations emphasize the general rather than the specialized func­tions. Acceptance for membership implies that the institution as a whole rather than any particular program or unit is being accredited.

3.    Each institution is accredited in the light of its own purposes. The regional associations do not presume to determine purposes for the institution-yet, each regional association has required an institution applying for or holding membership to show that it has a basic program of general or liberal education.

The regional associations continue to emphasize that there is no halfway house in accreditation. Nonetheless, since the 1950^’S, after a period during which accrediting activity was severely restricted, the regional associations have found themselves referring to different categories of relationships with institutions. There is still the single category of “member”; this implies “full” accreditation. But prior to establishing membership, a college may be referred to as a “correspondent^” or a “recognized candidate.^” In large part these new categories were established in response to procedures associated with government funding.

[Regional Accrediting Associations: Phase Three.]

Beginning with the Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952 and reaffirmed in subsequent acts of the federal govern­ment, for an institution or program to be eligible to participate in federal funding, it must be accredited by some nationally recognized agency established for that purpose. The com­missioner of education is directed to maintain and publish a list of such agencies and associations “which he determines to [564] be [a] reliable authority as to the quality of the training offered by an educational institution.”¹⁰

As the federal government relies upon accrediting by regional and other agencies, and as institutions seek affiliation with these agencies in order to qualify for federal funds, pressure is upon the accrediting agencies to take under purview institutions and programs which might not otherwise be formally affiliated. This pressure has led to, among other things, the development of the correspondent status which means that an institution as it develops its plant and program is maintaining close cor­respondence with a regional agency. The application of correspondent status varies somewhat among the six regions. The ^“recognized candidate for accreditation” represents an institution that is actively engaged in seeking accreditation. Generally the distinction between the correspondent and the candidate is that the latter represents an institution that has been in operation for some time while the former is an institution that has not yet come to full operation.

A number of the newly developed state and local community colleges and four-year institutions fall under the correspondent status until such time as they are prepared to apply for the candidacy level. Pressure for accreditation has also come from postsecondary technical institutions and from certain profes­sional schools which formerly would not have sought regional accreditation. All of which means that regional associations not only have developed categories other than full membership but have drifted into accrediting specialized programs and institutions.

Not only has the first general principle been challenged, but the second is also under fire. In adopting the principle that accreditation is based on examining and assessing all aspects of the institutional program and activity, the regional associations have been prepared to state that in spite of the fact a college might be strong in some areas and weak in the others, if the overall assessment balances out, the institution as a whole is of reasonable quality and worthy of accreditation. But following [565] World War II, with the rapid expansion of the higher educational enterprise, colleges and universities faced with review and visits by more and different accrediting agencies sought some way of reducing the number of agencies with which they might be involved. At one point it was strongly suggested that most of the basic accreditation functions could be delegated to the regional associations. If implemented, this proposal would have meant that the regional associations would have assumed responsibility not only for general accrediting but for coordinat­ing the work of the various professional agencies. The regional agencies would also have been called upon to accredit separate units and programs contrary to the announced policy of engaging only in institution-wide accreditation.

One consequence of a series of discussions was the formation of the National Commission on Accrediting in 1948. The commission was established to bring together for discussion and decision the various individual accrediting agencies with the end in view of reducing the number of organizations and develop­ing more uniformity in accrediting procedure. Over the years the commission has managed to consolidate accrediting activities to some degree. Yet it too has been faced with the demands for attention to newly developing institutions, and during 1970 the commission raised the question whether it might not be necessary to establish a special agency for postsecondary vocational-technical programs.

In the meantime, in spite of earlier rejecting the wider role, regional agencies have expanded their functions. The North Central Association reviews and accredits institutions by level of program, and while attempting to maintain the orientation toward institution-wide accreditation, it finds itself examining specific programs such as the master’s degree in education or psychology or some other discipline. It is not always a simple task to maintain the institution-wide orientation and at the same time focus on a program at a particular degree level.

Adherence to the third general principle seems also to be weakening. Institutions with other than a basic program in general education have for many years applied for membership in the regional association. In response the Southern Associa [566] tion has created a classification of “special purpose institutions.” The Western Association has developed its two commissions, the one dealing with four-year institutions and the other with junior colleges. The Middle States Association has accepted responsibility for accreditation of separately organized theo­logical seminaries, emphasizing, however, that the seminaries are accredited under the same considerations as any more generally oriented institution. Bible colleges, seminaries, tech­nical institutions, and specialized professional institutions of many kinds have gained admission to one or another of the regional agencies, and at the present time all of the associations have in some degree become involved with special purpose institutions.

Thus by a process of evolution or attrition, depending upon one’s point of view, regional agencies have become or seem to be in the process of becoming quite different in character from what they were even as recently as a decade ago. In assessing these developments one must remember that these are membership agencies and that the policies are ultimately determined in response to the mood of the membership as a whole. These agencies are also voluntary in that technically no institution is required to hold membership. Paradoxically, for these reasons, the agencies are vulnerable to shifts in public opinion. It seems clear that the regional associations have already moved beyond their earlier role as general accrediting agencies. They are now faced with the need to reassess the recent developments, to determine whether they have gone beyond a point of no return or whether they can return to some more restricted role. At this time there is no clear consensus among the commissions as to future direction.

That the regional accrediting agencies are approaching or are at the crossroads can be highlighted by pointing to some of the critical issues growing out of the developments recorded above. First of all, the regional agencies need to establish or reestablish boundaries of responsibility. It may be questioned whether regional accrediting agencies can any longer hold only to general accreditation; the concept of general accreditation may no longer have viability. That is to say, perhaps it is [567] no longer actually possible to accredit an institution as a whole. Regional accrediting agencies now find it difficult to avoid making distinctions according to degree level or to range of academic program. The pressure to do so comes from two sources. The institutions with widely varying purposes say they are serving a public purpose and without accreditation they cannot adequately perform this service; it is incumbent upon the regional agencies to be responsive by providing categories of membership appropriate to them. And the general public seems to be interested in having more information than simply that an institution is accredited as a whole. Individuals and groups of individuals have taken it upon themselves to develop rating scales and to publish results of their assessment. The public seems to want much more specific information about institutions than regional agencies now provide. How should regional agencies respond to the demands?

To express the issue in a slightly different form, can regional accrediting agencies, some of which are already committed to specialized accrediting, step back from earlier commitments and restrict themselves to what is essentially the accreditation of general or liberal arts institutions? Is it possible to encourage the development of other agencies to take care of the specialized institutions? As a case in point, a number of diploma schools of nursing are now seeking regional accreditation. Should regional agencies respond to this request by developing a special membership category for diploma schools? Or should regional agencies divest themselves of any form of specialized accredita­tion?

It seems that almost imperceptibly as they have responded to new issues and problems the regional accrediting agencies have become all-encompassing agencies. In one sense, this shows their “power” and the high regard in which the regional associa­tions are held-their many critics to the contrary notwithstand­ing. On the other hand, if regional associations continue to incorporate more and more types of programs, can they any longer act as general accrediting agencies?

This evolution in roles is pointed up in a second issue. At first the regional associations emphasized that their role was [568] primarily assisting member institutions to improve. Each of the agencies continues to place this particular purpose high on its list of purposes. While providing a list of approved institu­tions for the information of the general public-and they have been doing this for a long period of time-the regional agencies tend to view the publication of the list as a secondary function. But listing by regional agencies has become one basis for deter-mining whether an institution will receive federal funds or foundation funds. The public responsibility of the accrediting agencies has become significantly larger.

 

Recent court cases emphasize even more the growing public accountability of regional agencies. Pressures may be building to the point where the in-house function, that is, the emphasis upon assisting individual institutions to improve, although important, may become a secondary function. While accredit­ing agencies emphasize that their primary role is that of assisting member institutions to improve, the public tends to think of the role as that of certifying a certain level of quality. As the public concern becomes greater, the accrediting agency takes on more of the characteristics of a public utility commission with a responsibility for protecting the public. Does this mean that the agency should be less oriented toward its membership and more toward the general public? Does this mean that commissions ought to have public representation on boards and committees? Will the manner in which criteria are established and the way in which the criteria are employed increasingly come under public scrutiny?

A third issue relates to the agencies’ effectiveness in influencing the quality of education. Even assuming that the primary function of the accrediting agencies is the improvement of the educational programs of member institutions, how effective are the regional agencies in carrying out this function? On the basis of an examination of reports, participation in accrediting visits, and a review of the actions of a number of accrediting agencies, one might easily conclude that the major role of the regional associations is less that of assisting member institutions to improve than that of making decisions about applying institutions or about the current status of member institutions. [569] A great bulk of the activity of the commissions seems to be devoted to making judgments about institutional status.

Of course, it can be argued that the process of critical examina­tion both for reaffirmation of membership and for deciding on new applications is as a matter of fact improving higher educa­tional institutions. If the criteria by which institutions are evaluated have any relation to quality of educational program [on this click here: Troutt, 1979]

, whenever institutions are examined or reviewed they refer to the criteria and they are forced to reconsider their achievements, to determine where improvement is needed, and to work toward better educational programs. Such a process is, according to this view, one of improving education.

 

Only one of the six regional associations has maintained a special commission for experimentation in and improvement of the educational program. The North Central Association has a Commission on Research and Service.¹¹ While the commission may not always have been as effective as some have desired, at least the avowed purpose of this commission has been to go beyond the accrediting and certifying of institutions to carrying on experimentation in educational programming.

One of the subcommittees of the Commission on Research and Service, the Committee on Liberal Arts Education, has for almost three decades worked with smaller liberal arts colleges on evaluation and improvement of all aspects of their educa­tional programs. Through workshops, interinstitutional visita­tion, conferences, and the circulation of reports, this committee has stressed the development of honors programs, the improve­ment of teacher education and liberal arts colleges, the develop­ment of long-range planning in smaller institutions, the improve­ment of internal governance, and the assessment of teaching.

The regional associations have also provided consultants to institutions both for the purpose of preparing institutions for accreditation and for assisting them to work on specific prob­lems. But the overall assessment of commission efforts must conclude that demands placed upon the staffs have been such that precious little time can be given to anything other than [570] the accreditation function, that is, to certifying the maintenance of at least minimal standards. [FHEAP finds Pfnister erred in this assessment.]

 

A fourth issue grows out of the fact that over the years these agencies have been regional associations. On the basis of the manner in which the associations came into existence, regional groupings appear to have been entirely logical. The associa­tions began as forums for institutions located in relative proxim­ity. As the associations took on more evaluation functions, they established criteria for assessing quality. The criteria as developed differed from region to region. These opportunities to try different approaches have undoubtedly contributed to the enrichment of the art of institutional evaluation. There is something to be said for being able to approach accreditation from different perspectives. Many writers suggest that diver­sity in higher education is one of the strengths of the American “system.”

But is variation any longer a function of geographical loca­tion? That is to say, is variation in approach more related to type of institution than to the accident of its geographic loca­tion? With the emergence of patterns of education which ignore state and regional boundaries, is it any longer possible to define quality in terms of the peculiarities of a region? The variations in procedures, criteria, and structure which may indeed have added to the richness of American higher education may now become the basis for serious questioning of accredita­tion as such. Should the criteria differ as much as they appear to differ? Has the time now come for more uniformity in the approach to the evaluation of higher educational institutions? The call for uniformity does not imply the imposition of a single set of rigid standards, but it does suggest that there are basic questions or basic concerns that touch all institutions of higher education and that these matters are quite independent of geographical location. The issue has been sharpened by the development of branches of a single institution within different regional jurisdictions. While the Federation of Regional Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education has helped the regional agencies to meet the issue by calling for separate [571] regional accreditation of each unit of such institutions, the question is still being asked whether general accreditation is a regional rather than a national matter.

 

The regional associations face critical times of decision. In the first place, they must determine whether they can remain general accrediting agencies or, if they have already taken on other responsibilities, whether they can now return to assessing only the overall quality of an institution-whatever “overall quality” means. Whatever the decision, the regional associa­tions have to develop clearer lines of communication with the various professional and specialized agencies.

 

Second, regional associations must also examine whether the increased pressure for public accountability may have an impact upon the nature of the criteria developed and the manner in which these criteria are to be applied.

 

Third, the regional associations must determine whether as a matter of fact they are effective in assisting more directly in the improvement of institutions’ educational programs; whether they are able to go beyond certifying that member institutions have at least reached a minimal level of quality. [FHEAP points out that the Regionals cannot demonstrate that this is happening. Click here.]

 

And in the fourth place, the redefinition of purpose of the regional accrediting agencies, desperately needed at this point in time, involves also the assessment of the geographical orienta­tion of each of the agencies. If the emphasis continues on regional rather than upon general accrediting, the implication is that there are special factors operative in certain geographical regions and that there is a need for an agency that more directly relates itself to the peculiar needs of the region. On the other hand, if the emphasis is to be more clearly upon general accredit­ing, the present regional boundaries may be little more than the results of historical accident. For purposes of administration, there may be good reason for the continuation of certain regional councils or commissions. It is highly questionable, however, whether the present alignment, whatever the orientation of the agencies may be, continues to have much logic.

All of the above is not to suggest that the regional agencies have been unresponsive to the demands placed upon them. A review of their history will show changes in approaches to [572] accreditation, the revision of criteria, and efforts to accom­modate to new types of higher educational programs. But the rapid current developments may require more radical solutions to the problems of accreditation. It was to this end that the Federation of Regional Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education recently called for a study of the policies, procedures, and practices of the regional commissions. The study team has made its report,¹² and the several commissions are reviewing the recommendations. What direction the regional commissions will take in the future remains to be seen. Among other recom­mendations the study team urged the establishment of a stronger federation-or a complete reorganization of the federation-with the object of developing a national approach to general accrediting, more uniformity in criteria and their application, and more effective means of showing public accountability.

 

FOOTNOTES
¹ Frederic W. Ness, ^“The Proper Role of the Institution in Accrediting^” (Address given at the Seminar on Accreditation in the Public Interest, Washington, D.C., November 6, 1970, sponsored by the National Commission on Accrediting and the U.S. Office of Education), pp. 2, 3, 5.

² Samuel P. Capen, “Seven Devils in Exchange for One,” in Coordination of Accrediting Activities, American Council on Education Studies, ser. 1, no. 9 (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1939), pp. 5-17.

³ William K. Selden, “Relative Unimportance of Regional Accreditation,” School and Society, XC (November 3, 1962) p. 375.

⁴Ibid., p. 373.

⁵ The data is from a study of regional accreditation of institutions of higher education under-taken for the Federation of Regional Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education. Much of the remainder of this article is based on an essay prepared by the writer for the study.

⁶ Donald C. Agnew, “Accreditation in the Southern Region,^” in Accreditation in Higher Education, edited by Lloyd E. Blauch (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1959), p. 64.

⁷ George N. Carman, ^“The First Annual Meeting of the Association,^” North Central Associa­tion Quarterly, I (December, 1926), pp. 4-5.

⁸ Ibid., p. 6.

⁹ Floyd W. Reeves and John Dale Russell, ^“Standards for Accredited Colleges,^” North Central Association Quarterly, III (September, 1928), p. 227.

¹⁰ U.S., Office of Education, “Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agencies and Associations,” Federal Register, January 16, 1969, pp. 643-44.

¹¹ The Southern Association has a Committee on Studies and Research.

¹² The report is summarized in Federation of Regional Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education, A Report on Institutional Accreditation in Higher Education (Chicago: The Federa­tion, 1970).