Accreditation Controversies: Accreditation Politicized.
So what can be contro- versial here? As one author defending the system notes, “Who better, one might ask, to evaluate the quality of a college or university than those who work in the field?” (O’Brien, 2009, p. 2). O’Brien argues that the evaluation and the relation- ship between the accrediting organizations and the institution should not be adversarial, noting, “The evaluators are not inspectors coming in with their white gloves” (O’Brien, 2009, p. 2). But the history of the controversy traces back to the GI Bill passed by Congress after World War II to provide financial assistance to returning soldiers to attend colleges and universities. The government wanted to ensure that the financial assistance went for worthwhile post secondary educa- tional activities, but did not want to get directly into the business of examining col- leges and universities for quality. So, it decided to rely on the independent regional accrediting associations, which were already reviewing colleges and universities, to determine the institutions students could receive financial aid to attend. Today, with increasing costs of higher education and more and more students attending colleges and universities, U.S. loans to students are big business. The government continues to rely on regional accrediting associations to identify the institutions of higher education that are eligible for aid, but has an increasing stake in the qual- ity of those processes given the large amounts of money distributed in student loans and other forms of aid. In addition, the institutions themselves have a large stake in the process, because many students would not attend an institution that is not accredited, for quality and financial aid reasons.
Through the Higher Education Act, originally passed in 1965, the U.S. govern- ment influences higher education in many areas, from student loans to access. In recent years, many in the U.S. Department of Education have become concerned that accreditations are not sufficiently rigorous in weeding out schools that are perform- ing poorly. Even proponents of the system note that current regional accreditation in the United States carries a “light touch” compared with government evaluations of higher education conducted in other countries (Brittingham, 2009, p. 18).
In 2005, the U.S. Department of Education appointed the Commission on the Future of Higher Education to study four issues critical to higher education, one of which was accountability. In “The Need for Accreditation Reform,” a paper prepared for that report, Robert Dickeson called the current U.S. system of ac- creditation, “a crazy-quilt of activities, processes, and structures that is frag- mented, arcane, more historical than logical, and has outlived its usefulness. More important, it is not meeting the expectations required for the future” (2006, p. 1). He concluded that “any serious analysis of accreditation as it is currently practiced results in the unmistakable conclusion that institutional purposes, rather than public purposes, predominate” (Dickeson, 2006, p. 3). He recommended that Con- gress create a National Accreditation Foundation to accredit institutions of higher education. The final report of the Commission, called the Spellings Commission for then Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, was quite critical of current accreditation processes (U.S. Department of Education, 2006, http://www2.ed .gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/final-report.pdf). The report inspired much controversy and discussion in the higher education community, with
134 Part II • Alternative Approaches to Program Evaluation
organizations such as Phi Beta Kappa and the Association of American Colleges and Universities issuing statements both of support and concern regarding the re- port. The final 2008 amendment of the Higher Education Act ultimately chose to ignore some of these recommendations, but the concerns raised by the Commis- sion will continue (O’Brien, 2009) and, for our purposes, reflect some of the political concerns raised about evaluation today and, in particular, about expertise-oriented evaluation.
The regional accrediting associations see their purpose in evaluating institutions of higher education as primarily formative, helping these institutions improve. They see these goals as the best way to serve institutions, their students, and the public. By helping colleges and universities to improve and better achieve their stated mission, the accrediting associations believe they are helping students to receive a better edu- cation. In contrast, the U.S. Department of Education’s emphasis is summative. It is concerned with maintaining the U.S. position in higher education in the world and in providing educated and skilled graduates for the economy of the twenty-first cen- tury. The Department and other critics see the purpose of accreditation as providing parents, students, and other consumers with information to help them decide which institutions they should attend and where they should spend their tuition dollars. In other words, accreditation should help these consumers make summative decisions about which institutions to choose. Further, accreditation should help make sum- mative decisions about which institutions should continue. One critic notes that in the 60 years since the GI Bill was passed, “a mere handful of schools have been shut down and those largely for financial reasons . . . Meanwhile, on the accreditors’ watch, the quality of higher education is slipping” (Neal, 2008, p. 26). So, the accrediting associations have developed a process that is most useful for formative evaluation when critics see the primary purpose as summative.
Increasing Emphasis on Outcomes. Another area of disagreement concerns the factors that should be considered in accreditation. Today, the emphasis in educa- tion, and in much of evaluation around the world, is on outcomes and impacts. (See Chapter 2.) The Spellings Commission report notes the following:
Too many decisions about higher education—from those made by policymakers to those made by students and families—rely heavily on reputation and rankings derived to a large extent from inputs such as financial resources rather than out- comes. Better data about real performance and lifelong learning ability is absolutely essential if we are to meet national needs and improve institutional performance. (U.S. Department of Education, 2006, p. 14)
Just as K–12 education has moved to measuring student learning by focusing al- most entirely on the extent to which state standards are achieved, the Spellings Commission would like evaluations of institutions of higher education to rely much more heavily on measures of student outcomes.3 Although regional accrediting
3One difference between standards for K–12 education and those for higher education is that the standards for higher education would be national ones, not developed at the state level as K-12 standards are.
Chapter 5 • First Approaches: Expertise and Consumer-Oriented Approaches 135
associations have begun to require institutions to provide measures of student out- comes and, for accreditations of professional programs, evidence concerning pas- sage of licensing exams or job placements, the regional accreditation process also emphasizes the importance of input and process variables. Input variables include factors such as the quality of faculty, library holdings, IT capacity, classroom space and facilities, student admissions processes and decisions, and other elements that create the academic environment of the institution. Process variables articulated in standards, reviewed in self-reports, and examined by site visit teams include curricula, course requirements, and teaching quality; assistance to students through tutoring, advising, and other mechanisms; faculty-student interactions; intern- ships; and other elements of the learning process. Regional accrediting associations also consider multiple outcomes, including graduation and drop-out rates, time to graduation, knowledge and skills of graduates, and job placements. Accrediting associations argue that they must examine the entire process of higher education to make a valid judgment of the quality of the institution and to provide advice for improvement. Examining only student outcomes does not give the experts in the accreditation process sufficient information to make useful recommendations for how to change the institution, and its inputs and processes, to achieve better outcomes (Murray, 2009).