We Need to Restore Credibility to Accreditation
Accreditation is typically the benchmark that signals a college's value and reliability to peers and prospective students. Students look for accreditation to ensure they choose a reputable institution and have more information on affordability. Accreditation unlocks federal and sometimes state dollars to pay for that education through grants, scholarships, and student loans. For those working in industry who seek to go back to school, accreditation is extremely important in determining whether that employee will get reimbursed for their education.
Accreditation began in the late nineteenth century to create a path to college through a uniform set of college entrance standards overseen by seven regional accrediting bodies. The voluntary process of accreditation separated colleges and universities into those that upheld high academic standards versus those that did not. It wasn’t until WWII that the federal government really got involved with accreditation because of the federal GI Bill program for service members to ensure that taxpayer funds were used responsibly.
The government relied on the institutions to self-regulate, thereby ensuring quality programs. Yet, at the same time, there was a change in higher education from a classically based education to a focus on elective programs that represented new and untested fields (like psychology and sociology). So, while the federal government wanted federal dollars to be used responsibly, it had little involvement or oversight in the accreditation process or standards of member institutions.
When the Higher Education Act was reauthorized in 1992, it opened the door to more congressional involvement in the accreditation process through a congressionally appointed committee that ensured academic standards. Today’s accreditation process is still voluntary and is still supposed to represent high academic standards, but it is filled with incentives to game the process.
First, member institutions set the standards to measure themselves. This creates the potential to lower standards arbitrarily or create vague standards for member institutions to continue receiving federal dollars and keep out competition. In fact, 80 percent of regional accreditation commissioners and 62 percent of national accreditation commissioners are employed by institutions accredited by that same body.
Second, accreditation is based on a peer review process, which allows for sub-standard schools to get accreditation with the understanding that they will give favorable reviews of peer institutions when asked to do so. This “backscratching” lowers the standards and academic rigor of the institutions and degrees.
Third, the whole process of accreditation has been called a cartel that kills innovation. This directly impacts students by stealing credits when they transfer from one institution to another, even with the same accrediting body. Under the guise of “accreditation,” most non-workforce-related degree programs have the ability to refuse to accept credits from other accredited schools. Allowing for accreditation choice would create competition in the marketplace, driving up academic standards. This free-market exchange would also allow private companies like the HR Certification Institute (HRCI) to offer Department of Education-recognized programs and receive federal dollars. Currently, HRCI is accredited through the National Commission of Certifying Agencies, which is not recognized by the Department of Education and therefore not able to receive federal dollars of any sort.
Fourth, accreditation is nominally focused on financial viability to protect students from their school declaring bankruptcy in the middle of their program. It is common practice to run a budget deficit through the spring and summer semesters while institutions wait for the influx of federal dollars in the fall. But, when institutions run too much of a deficit and should be sanctioned, they often are not (remember that the member institutions make the rules).
Finally, accreditation is supposed to focus on student learning standards, done through a college’s statement on assessment and a quality enhancement plan. There is no true measure of student learning, as this is done by administrators or assessors unfamiliar with outcome measurement. More importantly, institutions are not graded on post-graduation job placement in any way. This means that institutions can teach and assess whatever they want—however they want—and still receive federal dollars.
If the U.S. truly wants to have the greatest higher education system in the world, the archaic system of college accreditation needs to change fundamentally—and it needs to change now.
