Who’s Watching Higher Ed’s Watchdogs?

A college with a 4% graduation rate that saddles students with $25,000 in debt couldn’t possibly be accredited, right?

Wrong. That’s a real college—South University, in Savannah, Georgia—that received $170 million in taxpayer dollars last year. South is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, which is responsible for reviewing the quality of 756 institutions of higher education across 11 states. SACSCOC’s own status as an accreditor is up for evaluation this week by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, or NACIQI. And no, you’re not required to know these acronyms to appreciate how much power they hold.

Will NACIQI, the governing body that rubber-stamps accreditors, hold these watchdogs accountable for bad student outcomes at colleges they oversee? Probably not.

Accreditation is a crucial component of our higher education system, but it’s toothless when accreditors fail to look at what should matter most: how well schools serve students. That’s how taxpayer dollars keep flowing to colleges like South University with abysmal student outcomes. Despite South’s 4% graduation rate, the university still receives federal funding because SACSCOC accredits it. Worse, SACSCOC accredits 100 other schools with graduation rates below 25%.

Clearly, the watchdog has fallen asleep on the job.

Not only have accrediting agencies failed to make institutions answer for their student outcomes, but NACIQI also hasn’t made sufficient use of outcomes data in its review process for accreditors. When accreditors come before NACIQI to make their case for reauthorization once every five years, NACIQI spends more time looking at things like maintenance of records, what’s on the agency’s website, and college library resources than college-completion rates, postgraduate earnings, or student debt loads. 

SACSCOC, up for reauthorization this week, should have to answer for the 41% average graduation rate across the schools it accredits—a full 20 percentage points below the national average. Sure, SACSCOC approves some schools with excellent results, but that does not justify its continuing to prop up poorly performing institutions.

Policymakers must do more to ensure that accreditation lives up to its mission to provide oversight and quality assurance, and that it does so consistently.

Colleges and universities should not receive federal funding without an accreditor’s stamp of approval. That gives accreditors—and NACIQI, as the accreditors’ primary oversight body—a clear accountability lever to uphold standards that ensure students are getting a worthwhile education. As stewards of billions of federal dollars for higher education, accreditors owe that accountability to students and taxpayers.

Yet policymakers take a hands-off approach toward accreditors and NACIQI. Without Congress and the Department of Education holding these oversight groups accountable, accreditors contribute to the student debt mess by giving poor-performing schools a free pass.

This month, NACIQI members need to flip that script and make SACSCOC answer for its institutions’ performance and its stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

With borrowers holding $1.6 trillion in student loan debt and $120 billion in federal funding flowing to colleges each year, it’s time the watchdogs woke up and started protecting the house.