U.S Review of Accreditors Leads To Intense Debate

Jonathan Lekstutis
November 27, 2007

There is intense debate going on in higher-education as the federal agency in charge of evaluating college accreditors begins their evaluation process. College accreditors measure the success of educational institutions. The evaluation of them takes place as the Bush administration is pushing for colleges and universities to do more to demonstrate how well they help students learn.

The federal agency will assess five of the six main regional accreditation bodies and will decide if they are worthy of renewed recognition. This is seen a big moment in higher education as the Education Department, and the accreditors and colleges have all been seeking to take charge in regard to how institutions performances are measured.

At the heart of the issue are questions of what the government should be making colleges measure, who should get to define those benchmarks and what accreditors should be doing to monitor an institutions’ quality effectively. Colleges also need the endorsement of a federally approved accreditor for their students to remain eligible for government-subsidized financial aid, so the stakes are high.

The review agency called the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity or Naciqi has already penalized some smaller accreditors. And this has resulted in leading accreditors worrying that they may have to face the same sanctions.

“They’re apprehensive, given the past several meetings,” said Judith S. Eaton, president of the council for Higher Education Accreditation, an umbrella group of accreditors.

Margaret Spellings, who has been the education secretary for almost three years, has demanded that colleges use more measurement based assessments: such as graduation rates and job-placement rates. She has filled Naciqi with administrators who have followed her lead. She is also a strong proponent of focusing on student outcomes.

The Commission on the Future of Higher Education, which she appointed, debated whether accreditors do enough to hold educational institutions accountable for their performances. Spellings believed in using tests like the Collegiate Learning Assessment. This test measures students success in reading, writing and comprehension.

“Accreditation agencies should make performance outcomes, including completion rates and student learning, the core of their assessment as a priority over inputs or processes,” said the commissions final report, issued in September 2006.

So as the debate continues, accreditors, colleges, Naciqi, and the government will all try to make their case for how educational institutions should be judged.