• <div class="header-image" style="background-image: url(/live/image/gid/4/2897_V6N9_Header.rev.1540219621.jpg);">​</div><div class="header-background-color"/>

Postsecondary Institution Accreditation: The Tension Between Consumer Protection and Higher Education Innovation

October 28, 2018
Accreditation provides a vital role in allocating federal student aid to postsecondary institutions of higher education (IHEs). As gatekeepers of the Higher Education Act’s (HEA) Title IV funds, accrediting agencies are expected to be “reliable authorities on the quality of education being offered.”[1] For this reason, the United States Department of Education’s (ED) use of accreditation facilitates its decision-making on which IHEs receive funds. However, with more than $14 trillion in outstanding federal student loan debt, the accreditation process has come under scrutiny.[2]

Image: In addition to rising student loan debt, cumulative default rates have increased the longer the borrower maintains balances on their loan. Source: The Brookings Institution

Image: In addition to rising student loan debt, cumulative default rates have increased the longer the borrower maintains balances on their loan. Source: The Brookings Institution

This article will explore the accreditation process, obstacles, and potential policy solutions through the lens of recent newsworthy events: 1) the upcoming negotiated rulemaking sessions by ED for the deregulation of the accreditation system and 2) the shutdown of two accredited IHEs for fraudulent practices. Two themes emerge as obstacles to stakeholder consensus: the tension between institutional and pedagogical innovation and the protection of student loan borrowers and taxpayer funds from predatory institutions.[3]

 

II. The Accreditation Process and Limitations


ED’s budget proposal for the 2019 Fiscal Year included a request for $129.5 billion in new federal student aid. With 53 million recipients benefitting from loans and grants, understanding the accreditation process provides insight on the present discourse.

 

A. The Accreditation Evaluation Process


Generally, the accreditation evaluation process includes:


1. A self-study based on performance measures such as student achievement, curricula, faculty, admissions, and operations conducted by the IHE seeking accreditation;
2. A peer review of the self-study by a “volunteer team of institutional peers” combined with a site visit;
3. A final decision by accreditors after examining the peer review recommendations and the IHE’s self-study;
4. Authorization of IHEs to receive Title IV funds by ED;
5. Performance management of accredited IHEs and undergoing re-evaluation every 10 years.[4]

 

B. Shortcomings in the Accreditation Process


The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a 2017 report indicating that there are “positive aspects of the accreditation system’s nongovernmental structure… [however] these features may limit the effectiveness of oversight of academic quality at schools”:[5]


• Peer reviewers may not be well-trained on evaluation best practices;
• Narrow interaction with students;
• Limited resources to manage IHE evaluations;
• Unfamiliarity with newer instructional models: distance learning programs, competency-based education; and
• Conflict of interests since membership fees are paid by IHEs to join accreditation associations.[6]

 

Furthermore, ED Office of Inspector General’s 2018 audit of the ED Office of Postsecondary Education found that this agency component rarely, if ever, interacts with accreditors once they are authorized by ED.

 

III. Recent Issues and Policy Recommendations

 

Image: Trends in online and distance learning models of instruction. Source: The Chronicle for Higher Education

Image: Trends in online and distance learning models of instruction. Source: The Chronicle for Higher Education

 

A. Negotiated Rulemaking to Foster Higher Education Innovation


In August 2018, ED announced a negotiated rulemaking agenda for FY19 that sought to reduce regulatory compliance standards. With the proposed changes, this would shift the accreditation emphasis towards educational quality and improvement rather than the extensive list of federally-mandated metrics.

A leading policy initiative promoting new models of instruction is the Educational Quality Through Innovative Partnerships Program (EQUIP). Supported by both the Obama and Trump administrations, EQUIP “provides a pathway to Title IV aid for students enrolled in programs not offered by approved IHEs,”[7] With the approval of accreditors, IHEs can partner with more unconventional and short-term programs that yields a significant increase in salaries for students in high-demand positions, such as coding boot camps.[8] EQUIP is also experimenting with results-based metrics such as licensing/certification passing rates and relevant industry employment rates. These indicators are intended to measure the efficacy of claims made by the program, i.e. whether the student gained new knowledge or skills as advertised by program.[9]

Another well-regarded solution is the elimination of the accreditors’ gatekeeper role in the process. The “decoupling” policy recommendation is a transparency-based system of quality assurance would be similar to the Securities Exchange Commission filings of publicly traded companies.[10] Instead of the accreditation evaluation process, IHEs would only need to file public disclosure of student success and audited financial statements. With the federal government focusing on those with substandard reports, the better performing IHEs are able to have more academic and operational control. As Diane Auer Jones, ED’s Delegated Under Secretary and Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, states: “If we really want innovation to take place, we have to give accreditors a safe space to support that innovation.”[11]

Furthermore, as a result of deregulation, experts anticipate an increased industry-wide need to produce student-focused results that would lead to higher quality of instruction at competitive market rates.[12]

 

B. Taxpayer and Student Protection


The main concern with deregulating accreditation is the reduction of oversight to protect taxpayer funds and student educational investments.[13] At the time of their financial and institutional collapse, Corinthian Colleges and ITT Technical Institute maintained their accreditation from the now-deauthorized Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools.[14]

In 2012, the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions released an investigative report showing accredited IHEs, mostly for-profit institutions (FPI), have engaged in fraudulent and predatory practices such as falsification of job placement rates, underqualified faculty, and nonexistent admissions standards. About three-quarters of all State Attorney Generals were investigating FPIs for claims of fraud, including the $7.3 billion lawsuit of former ITT Technical Institute students in the Indiana State Courts.[15]

In response, the Center for American Progress (CAP) outlines two approaches in improving accreditation. First, the “Values-based Approach to Quality Assurance” where IHEs are evaluated by a non-accreditor third-party entity on a tiered rubric. This removes the conflict of interest and focuses on quality improvement by disregarding the current pass/fail system. With gradiation, high performing IHEs (Platinum level) would be rewarded with additional grant support and eligibility for its student to obtain unsubsidized federal student loans. As for the lower performing institutions (Bronze level), IHEs receive support to improve performance but are required to “buy bonds to support a percentage…. of their students’ federal direct loans.”[16]

Secondly, CAP expands upon improvement of performance metrics data:


• Standardization of the definition of “quality” and data collection practices;
• Clear performance expectations of IHEs; and
• The creation of a federal database that collects student data disaggregated by demographics to facilitate equity analyses.[17]

Recently, two organizations have instituted this approach of consistent in evaluation. The Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions, a group of seven accrediting agencies collaborated to review their institutions with low graduation rates. The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity was provided by ED an accreditor dashboard to understand “the scope of the problem, benchmark agencies against each other, and know which schools are riskiest to students and taxpayers.”[18]

 

IV. Looking Forward – The Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act


Since HEA was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the bill has been reauthorized every four to six years by Congress in order to adjust and make improvements to the language. The last two reauthorizations were enacted in 1998 and 2008. A decade overdue, both parties have put forward their own versions of the HEA. The Republican Party has put forward the Promoting Real Opportunity Success and Prosperity through Education Reform Act (PROSPER Act), which focuses on innovative forms of education, simplification of student aid, and decreased role of the federal government.[19] As for the Democratic Party, the newly-released Aim Higher Act emphasizes college accessibility and affordability, increased accountability of FPI, and protection of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.[20]

With the PROSPER Act stalled in the Senate and the upcoming midterm election season, the likelihood of HEA Reauthorization within the upcoming fiscal year is highly unlikely. Already, the two parties’ version mirror this tension between innovation / deregulation vs. consumer / taxpayer protection. Although various interest groups have differing ideas on the improvement of accreditation, all agree that the policy and procedures should be reviewed and updated to withstand the changing fiscal obstacles and academic structure of higher education.[21]

 

Student Blog Disclaimer
  • The views expressed on the Student Blog are the author’s opinions and don’t necessarily represent the Penn Wharton Public Policy Initiative’s strategies, recommendations, or opinions.

References

  [1] “Database of Postsecondary Institutions and Programs,” Department of Education, accessed September 29, 2018. https://ope.ed.gov/dapip/#/home.

  [2]“Federal Student Aid Portfolio Summary,” Department of Education, accessed September 29, 2018. https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/data-center/student/portfolio.
  [3]Andrew Kreighbaum. “Education Dept.’s Deregulation Push Gets Mixed Reviews,” Inside Higher Ed, accessed September 29, 2018. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/07/31/online-providers-consumer-advocates-odds-over-education-department-regulatory.
  [4]“Higher Education: Expert Views of U.S. Accreditation,” United States Government Accountability Office, accessed September 29, 2018. https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/689171.pdf
  [5]Ibid.
  [6]Ibid.
  [7]Paul Leblanc, “Regulatory Experimentation, Accreditation, and Innovation: EQUIP as a Blueprint for the Future of Higher Education,” in Accreditation on the Edge: challenging quality assurance in higher education, ed. Susan Phillips (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018), 102-116.
  [8]Ibid.
  [9]Ibid.
  [10]Anne D. Neal and Armand Alacbay, “Fixing a Broken Accreditation System: How to Bring Quality Assurance into the Twenty-First Century,” in Accreditation on the Edge, 67-81.
  [11]Andrew Kreighbaum. “DeVos to Announce New Push for Deregulation, Innovation,” Inside Higher Ed, accessed August 1, 2018. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/07/30/trump-administration-official-describes-plan-rethink-higher-education-through.
  [12]Neal, Accreditation on the Edge.

  [13]Barnak Nassirian and Thomas L. Harnisch, “Does Accreditation Protect Students Effectively?” in Accreditation on the Edge, 230-250.
  [14]Ibid.
  [15]Ibid.
  [16]David A. Bergeron, “Managing Risk to Students and Taxpayers in Federal Financial Aid,” in Accreditation on the Edge, 138-156.

  [17]Antoinette Flores, “How College Accreditors Miss the Mark on Student Outcomes,” Center for American Progress, accessed September 29, 2018. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-postsecondary/reports/2018/04/25/449937/college-accreditors-miss-mark-student-outcomes/.
  [18]Michael Itzkowitz, Emily Bouck, and Clare McCann, “Armed with Better Data, Will Accreditors Finally Have to Act?,” New America, accessed September 29, 2018. https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/armed-with-data-will-accreditors-finally-have-to-act/.
  [19]“Fact Sheet on the PROSPER Act,” United States House of Representatives Committee on Education and Workforce, accessed September 29, 2018. https://edworkforce.house.gov/prosper/.
  [20]“Get to know the Aim Higher Act,” Democratic Caucus of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Education and Workforce, accessed September 29, 2018. http://democrats-edworkforce.house.gov/aim-higher.
  [21]Susan D. Phillips and Kevin Kinser, “Accreditation Introduction to a Contested Space,” in Accreditation on the Edge, 1-10.

PENN WHARTON PPI
RESOURCE SPOTLIGHT:

  • <h3>Federal Aviation Administration: Accident & Incident Data</h3><p><img width="100" height="100" alt="" src="/live/image/gid/4/width/100/height/100/80_faa-logo.rev.1402681347.jpg" class="lw_image lw_image80 lw_align_left" srcset="/live/image/scale/2x/gid/4/width/100/height/100/80_faa-logo.rev.1402681347.jpg 2x, /live/image/scale/3x/gid/4/width/100/height/100/80_faa-logo.rev.1402681347.jpg 3x" data-max-w="550" data-max-h="550"/>The NTSB issues an accident report following each investigation. These reports are available online for reports issued since 1996, with older reports coming online soon. The reports listing is sortable by the event date, report date, city, and state.</p><p> Quick link: <a href="http://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident/" target="_blank">http://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident/</a></p><p>See all <a href="/data-resources/">data and resources</a> »</p>
  • <h3>The Penn World Table</h3><p> The Penn World Table provides purchasing power parity and national income accounts converted to international prices for 189 countries/territories for some or all of the years 1950-2010.</p><p><a href="https://pwt.sas.upenn.edu/php_site/pwt71/pwt71_form.php" target="_blank">Quick link.</a> </p><p>See all <a href="/data-resources/">data and resources</a> »</p>
  • <h3>The World Bank Data (U.S.)</h3><p><img width="130" height="118" alt="" src="/live/image/gid/4/width/130/height/118/484_world-bank-logo.rev.1407788945.jpg" class="lw_image lw_image484 lw_align_left" srcset="/live/image/scale/2x/gid/4/width/130/height/118/484_world-bank-logo.rev.1407788945.jpg 2x, /live/image/scale/3x/gid/4/width/130/height/118/484_world-bank-logo.rev.1407788945.jpg 3x" data-max-w="1406" data-max-h="1275"/>The <strong>World Bank</strong> provides World Development Indicators, Surveys, and data on Finances and Climate Change.</p><p> Quick link: <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/country/united-states" target="_blank">http://data.worldbank.org/country/united-states</a></p><p>See all <a href="/data-resources/">data and resources</a> »</p>
  • <h3>MapStats</h3><p> A feature of FedStats, MapStats allows users to search for <strong>state, county, city, congressional district, or Federal judicial district data</strong> (demographic, economic, and geographic).</p><p> Quick link: <a href="http://www.fedstats.gov/mapstats/" target="_blank">http://www.fedstats.gov/mapstats/</a></p><p>See all <a href="/data-resources/">data and resources</a> »</p>
  • <h3>NOAA National Climatic Data Center</h3><p><img width="200" height="198" alt="" src="/live/image/gid/4/width/200/height/198/483_noaa_logo.rev.1407788692.jpg" class="lw_image lw_image483 lw_align_left" srcset="/live/image/scale/2x/gid/4/width/200/height/198/483_noaa_logo.rev.1407788692.jpg 2x, /live/image/scale/3x/gid/4/width/200/height/198/483_noaa_logo.rev.1407788692.jpg 3x" data-max-w="954" data-max-h="945"/>NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) is responsible for preserving, monitoring, assessing, and providing public access to the Nation’s treasure of <strong>climate and historical weather data and information</strong>.</p><p> Quick link to home page: <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/" target="_blank">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/</a></p><p> Quick link to NCDC’s climate and weather datasets, products, and various web pages and resources: <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/quick-links" target="_blank">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/quick-links</a></p><p> Quick link to Text & Map Search: <a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/" target="_blank">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/</a></p><p>See all <a href="/data-resources/">data and resources</a> »</p>
  • <h3>Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED®)</h3><p><strong><img width="180" height="79" alt="" src="/live/image/gid/4/width/180/height/79/481_fred-logo.rev.1407788243.jpg" class="lw_image lw_image481 lw_align_right" data-max-w="222" data-max-h="97"/>An online database consisting of more than 72,000 economic data time series from 54 national, international, public, and private sources.</strong> FRED®, created and maintained by Research Department at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, goes far beyond simply providing data: It combines data with a powerful mix of tools that help the user understand, interact with, display, and disseminate the data.</p><p> Quick link to data page: <a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/tags/series" target="_blank">http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/tags/series</a></p><p>See all <a href="/data-resources/">data and resources</a> »</p>
  • <h3>National Bureau of Economic Research (Public Use Data Archive)</h3><p><img width="180" height="43" alt="" src="/live/image/gid/4/width/180/height/43/478_nber.rev.1407530465.jpg" class="lw_image lw_image478 lw_align_right" data-max-w="329" data-max-h="79"/>Founded in 1920, the <strong>National Bureau of Economic Research</strong> is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to promoting a greater understanding of how the economy works. The NBER is committed to undertaking and disseminating unbiased economic research among public policymakers, business professionals, and the academic community.</p><p> Quick Link to <strong>Public Use Data Archive</strong>: <a href="http://www.nber.org/data/" target="_blank">http://www.nber.org/data/</a></p><p>See all <a href="/data-resources/">data and resources</a> »</p>
  • <h3>Congressional Budget Office</h3><p><img width="180" height="180" alt="" src="/live/image/gid/4/width/180/height/180/380_cbo-logo.rev.1406822035.jpg" class="lw_image lw_image380 lw_align_right" data-max-w="180" data-max-h="180"/>Since its founding in 1974, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has produced independent analyses of budgetary and economic issues to support the Congressional budget process.</p><p> The agency is strictly nonpartisan and conducts objective, impartial analysis, which is evident in each of the dozens of reports and hundreds of cost estimates that its economists and policy analysts produce each year. CBO does not make policy recommendations, and each report and cost estimate discloses the agency’s assumptions and methodologies. <strong>CBO provides budgetary and economic information in a variety of ways and at various points in the legislative process.</strong> Products include baseline budget projections and economic forecasts, analysis of the President’s budget, cost estimates, analysis of federal mandates, working papers, and more.</p><p> Quick link to Products page: <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/about/our-products" target="_blank">http://www.cbo.gov/about/our-products</a></p><p> Quick link to Topics: <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/topics" target="_blank">http://www.cbo.gov/topics</a></p><p>See all <a href="/data-resources/">data and resources</a> »</p>
  • <h3>National Center for Education Statistics</h3><p><strong><img width="400" height="80" alt="" src="/live/image/gid/4/width/400/height/80/479_nces.rev.1407787656.jpg" class="lw_image lw_image479 lw_align_right" data-max-w="400" data-max-h="80"/>The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education in the U.S. and other nations.</strong> NCES is located within the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences. NCES has an extensive Statistical Standards Program that consults and advises on methodological and statistical aspects involved in the design, collection, and analysis of data collections in the Center. To learn more about the NCES, <a href="http://nces.ed.gov/about/" target="_blank">click here</a>.</p><p> Quick link to NCES Data Tools: <a href="http://nces.ed.gov/datatools/index.asp?DataToolSectionID=4" target="_blank">http://nces.ed.gov/datatools/index.asp?DataToolSectionID=4</a></p><p> Quick link to Quick Tables and Figures: <a href="http://nces.ed.gov/quicktables/" target="_blank">http://nces.ed.gov/quicktables/</a></p><p> Quick link to NCES Fast Facts (Note: The primary purpose of the Fast Facts website is to provide users with concise information on a range of educational issues, from early childhood to adult learning.): <a href="http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/" target="_blank">http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/#</a></p><p>See all <a href="/data-resources/">data and resources</a> »</p>
  • <h3>USDA Nutrition Assistance Data</h3><p><img width="180" height="124" alt="" src="/live/image/gid/4/width/180/height/124/485_usda_logo.rev.1407789238.jpg" class="lw_image lw_image485 lw_align_right" srcset="/live/image/scale/2x/gid/4/width/180/height/124/485_usda_logo.rev.1407789238.jpg 2x, /live/image/scale/3x/gid/4/width/180/height/124/485_usda_logo.rev.1407789238.jpg 3x" data-max-w="1233" data-max-h="850"/>Data and research regarding the following <strong>USDA Nutrition Assistance</strong> programs are available through this site:</p><ul><li>Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) </li><li>Food Distribution Programs </li><li>School Meals </li><li>Women, Infants and Children </li></ul><p> Quick link: <a href="http://www.fns.usda.gov/data-and-statistics" target="_blank">http://www.fns.usda.gov/data-and-statistics</a></p><p>See all <a href="/data-resources/">data and resources</a> »</p>
  • <h3>HUD State of the Cities Data Systems</h3><p><strong><img width="200" height="200" alt="" src="/live/image/gid/4/width/200/height/200/482_hud_logo.rev.1407788472.jpg" class="lw_image lw_image482 lw_align_left" srcset="/live/image/scale/2x/gid/4/width/200/height/200/482_hud_logo.rev.1407788472.jpg 2x, /live/image/scale/3x/gid/4/width/200/height/200/482_hud_logo.rev.1407788472.jpg 3x" data-max-w="612" data-max-h="613"/>The SOCDS provides data for individual Metropolitan Areas, Central Cities, and Suburbs.</strong> It is a portal for non-national data made available through a number of outside institutions (e.g. Census, BLS, FBI and others).</p><p> Quick link: <a href="http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/socds.html" target="_blank">http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/socds.html</a></p><p>See all <a href="/data-resources/">data and resources</a> »</p>
  • <h3>Internal Revenue Service: Tax Statistics</h3><p><img width="155" height="200" alt="" src="/live/image/gid/4/width/155/height/200/486_irs_logo.rev.1407789424.jpg" class="lw_image lw_image486 lw_align_left" srcset="/live/image/scale/2x/gid/4/width/155/height/200/486_irs_logo.rev.1407789424.jpg 2x" data-max-w="463" data-max-h="596"/>Find statistics on business tax, individual tax, charitable and exempt organizations, IRS operations and budget, and income (SOI), as well as statistics by form, products, publications, papers, and other IRS data.</p><p> Quick link to <strong>Tax Statistics, where you will find a wide range of tables, articles, and data</strong> that describe and measure elements of the U.S. tax system: <a href="http://www.irs.gov/uac/Tax-Stats-2" target="_blank">http://www.irs.gov/uac/Tax-Stats-2</a></p><p>See all <a href="/data-resources/">data and resources</a> »</p>