|
Testimony of Dr. James Davis Committee on Education and the Workforce Hearing on June 22, 2004 Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Kildee, and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate having the opportunity to appear today to discuss accreditation and its role in U.S. higher education. My name is Jim Davis, and I am president of Shenandoah University. I have been involved with accreditation for approximately the past 28 years and have served in a variety of capacities with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. I am testifying on behalf of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), which represents nearly 1,000 private, non-profit institutions of higher education. NAICU membership reflects the diversity of private, non-profit higher education in the United States – including traditional liberal arts colleges, major research universities, church- and faith-related institutions, historically black colleges and universities, women’s colleges, performing and visual arts institutions, two-year colleges, and schools of law, medicine, engineering, business, and other professions. Accreditation in the United States The accreditation process is a private one that long pre-dates the enactment of the Higher Education Act. It was devised as a means by which institutions could engage in peer review and self study in order to maintain and expand the quality of their educational offerings. Accreditation is a uniquely American institution. In most other nations, quality reviews are generally conducted by centralized governmental authorities. The tradition of institutional autonomy in the United States called for a different approach. It is an approach that has proven highly successful over the years. It has allowed a diversity of institutions to flourish and has helped make American higher education the standard for the world. The private-public partnership between the accreditation process and the federal government began over 50 years ago with the enactment of the "Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952" (commonly known as the GI Bill). That act required the U.S. Commissioner of Education to publish a list of accrediting agencies and associations that he regarded as reliable authorities as to the quality of training offered by an educational institution. This requirement was subsequently restated in other federal education laws, including the Higher Education Act of 1965. Federal reliance on accreditation in determining the quality of institutional offerings was further formalized in the 1992 amendments to the Higher Education Act as part of a broader effort to articulate the respective roles of States (consumer protection), accreditors (quality), and the Department of Education (program integrity and administrative capacity) in the so-called "triad." This basic division of responsibility remains sound in concept but requires careful delineation of roles to operate successfully. The failure, for example, to limit the scope of State Postsecondary Review Entities (SPREs) to consumer protection activities led to the repeal of this portion of the 1992 amendments. Clearly defining roles and maintaining an appropriate balance among the entities that have a role in maintaining public confidence in higher education is a challenging task, but it can be accomplished. And it important to do so—not only to preserve the autonomy of higher education but also to permit accreditors and others to focus on what they do best. Accreditation Provisions of H.R. 4283 The accreditation provisions of the "College Access and Opportunity Act" (H.R. 4283) cover a broad range of topics, including consumer information disclosures, distance education, governance, student learning outcomes, student complaints, and the transfer of credit. In addition, the measure permits states to become accreditors. Many of these provisions may well lead to unintended consequences. Some provisions turn accreditation agencies into surrogate federal enforcers, while others ask accreditors to assume responsibilities that are far removed from assessing educational quality. Taken as a whole, these proposals raise substantial concerns that the purpose and effectiveness of accreditation will be weakened. Read simply, this bill would interfere with the ability of accreditors to do their jobs well. Our mutual goal is to assure that the quality of higher education in the United States remains high and that the public can have confidence in our institutions. I would like to highlight several of the provisions that I believe will have unintended consequences. 1. States as accreditors. Permitting states to become accreditors would set us on the path towards the kinds of problems that Congress rightly chose to address by repealing SPRE. There is a division of responsibility among States, the federal government, and accreditors that should be maintained. Otherwise, we will end up with inconsistent and uncoordinated regulation. Moreover, NAICU member institutions are, by their very nature as private, non-profit institutions, not under the direct control of State governments. They should not be placed indirectly under such control through the accreditation process. If that occurs, we could easily start to look and feel like state institutions—losing the overall diversity of American higher education. 2. Consumer information/College Consumer Profile. The bill requires accreditors to assure that institutions develop and make public a "College Consumer Profile." Requiring accreditation agencies to enforce data collection efforts by the Secretary is inappropriate and unnecessary. The Secretary has all the authority he needs to collect data from institutions. Requiring back-up enforcement from accreditors only serves to distract them from their primary purpose–which is to assure the quality of education institutions. I share the interest of members of the subcommittee in seeing that students and parents have access to the information they want and need about an institution of higher education. Institutions currently provide substantial amounts of data to the Department of Education. A concerted effort to determine which of this data is of value to consumers and how to provide it in a user-friendly manner would be useful. As currently devised, however, the proposed College Consumer Profile does not accomplish this goal. 3. Consumer information/Public disclosure. General disclosures of accreditation findings will substantially change the nature of the accreditation process and undermine the frankness and candor that help make the process successful. Inevitably, negative information from a review will be reported out of context—a prospect that can have particularly devastating consequences for small institutions. Again, I believe the challenge here is determining what it is that students and parents want to know. Much of the information provided in accreditation reports is mainly consultative rather than directly related to the standards or requirements. I am not convinced that many students and parents would actually read a summary of accreditation findings. On balance, this proposal would do little to advance public understanding of accreditation and its finding—while having the potential to damage the process. To the extent that the committee wishes to increase public understanding of the accreditation process, I stand ready to help find ways to increase transparency in ways that will not undercut the frank exchanges that are critical to continued improvement. Governance. The bill would require accreditors to assess an institution’s "governance capacity." Most accreditors already review governance and independence of boards that oversee the operations of institutions. Including a standard in legislation only creates complications in definitions, duplication of effort with current efforts by the Internal Revenue Service, and the potential for inappropriate interference in areas such as the board composition of religiously affiliated institutions. 4. Transfer of Credit. The bill sets up accreditation as a means of enforcing proposed new transfer-of-credit requirements. Congressional involvement in transfer of credit issues is unwise because these decisions go to the heart of institutional integrity and ability to shape educational programs. This issue is so complicated and includes so many variables that it would be impossible to legislate appropriately. The stated purpose of these provisions is to assure that transfer credits are not rejected solely on the basis of the type of accreditation of the sending institution. However, the most controversial aspects of the actual language of H.R. 4283 goes well beyond what is necessary to achieve that purpose—causing even greater concern about the pitfalls of legislating in this area. For example, the bill also sets the standards upon which transfer decisions should be made and requires disclosure on an annual and 3-year rolling average the percentage of credits accepted in transfer and fully counted toward degree/certificate completion requirements, disaggregated by four categories: nationally accredited; regionally accredited in the same State; regionally accredited in the same region; and regionally accredited in a different region. 5. Student Learning Outcomes. The bill expands the portion of the law dealing with student achievement standards that must be assessed by an accreditor and provides that accreditors evaluate the substance of the information disclosed to students regarding an institution’s learning objectives for its academic programs. Current law provisions are adequate to deal with review of student learning. Accrediting agencies are placing great emphasis on such reviews now. Linking this review with a new requirement that institutions develop "desired learning outcomes" for each of their academic programs could lead to standardized measurement of those outcomes. Learning outcomes are the basis of the formation of curriculum, which is best left to faculty and institutions to shape. 6. Distance Education. The bill includes additional requirements an accreditor must meet in order to include evaluation of distance education within its scope of recognition and requires that accreditors monitor the growth of distance education programs. Already 90% of institutions of higher education offer some form of distance education for their regular students or for those considered non-traditional. Some refinement of the distance education provisions would help assure that a separate accreditation process for distance offerings is not established. In addition, it is certainly important to monitor the growth of distance education programs. At the same time, protecting student aid programs from fraud and abuse is the direct responsibility of the federal government. This responsibility should not be relegated to the accreditation process, which is neither an authority on Title IV administration nor regular enough to monitor excessive growth in student aid funds. Monitoring the growth of distance education programs should be the responsibility of the Department of Education–not of accreditors. Conclusion I contend that peer accreditation which is relatively free of government involvement is essential to democracy and the concepts of freedom we enjoy today. It is a unique American institution and Congress should not destroy it with creeping legislation that is well intended but directed toward the wrong entity. Peer accreditation has some challenges but it is still considered to be the best system in the world that has produced the best higher education system in the world. |