Taking College Accreditors to School

The college accreditation process in the United States, governed by six separate regional agencies, is up for reauthorization next year under the Higher Education Act (HEA). A relic of a 19th century regulatory model, this old process is ill-poised to address the needs of a national, 21st century education system. American colleges need a modern accreditation system that encourages nationwide marketplace competition among accreditors, based on a common core of fundamental assessment standards. By liberating colleges from the regulatory confines of arcane and anti-competitive accreditation rules, a modern, market-based system would spur innovation to both improve educational outcomes and lower tuition costs.
The Accreditation Monopoly
Since the HEA was enacted in 1965, colleges must be accredited to receive federal grants and the proceeds of federal student loans—with good reason. Accreditation eliminates sham colleges that scam students by charging high tuition costs for a low quality education. Amidst an evolving educational landscape of online classes, for-profit universities, and rising student debt, the need for regulation is apparent.
But even well established and respected educational institutions can run afoul of accreditation standards, as the University of Virginia and UNC Chapel Hill did last summer. Lost accreditation is crippling for two reasons: it abruptly stops the flow of federal grant money and as a result, students leave the school, looking elsewhere for loans. Today, 29 percent of students nationally rely on federal loans to fund tuition, and last year the New York Times described lost accreditation as “a death sentence” for colleges. It is altogether unsurprising, then, that even institutions as prestigious as Stanford University spend over $1 million annually to manage the reaccreditation process.
While the HEA requires all accreditors to develop and enforce standards in 10 broadly defined categories, including faculty qualification, curriculum requirements, and financial and administrative capacity, implementation and enforcement of these standards are delegated to six regional accreditation agencies. In effect, each agency manages a regional monopoly.
The Monopoly Model under the Microscope
Supporters of the current regulatory regime argue that such monopolies allow accreditors to tailor accreditation standards to meet the unique educational interests and needs of their region. Harvard Professor Timothy Bowman, one of 26 members of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges’ (NEASC) college accreditation commission, explained to the HPR, “part of the advantage of having these six regional bodies is the opportunity … to think individually and customize standards for their particular areas and interests.” Bowman favorably compared the regional accreditors’ monopolies to the United States’ system of federalism, whereby “each state has autonomy over how they implement federal standards.”
Yet the challenges facing higher education today require more national solutions than in the past, and traditional regional distinctions may no longer serve as the best way to differentiate accreditation bodies. As students increasingly choose colleges based upon their cost, size, or curriculum rather than location, schools themselves are becoming less regional. Even colleges are recruiting students more broadly. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported in 2011 that public colleges are looking to enroll
a higher proportion of out-of-state students. For example, the University of Michigan has increased its proportion of out-of- state freshmen by 7.1 percent since 2009.
Inconsistent standards also plague the current regional accreditation system. Even though geography has little bearing on a college’s ability to deliver quality education, the current system results in some accreditors penalizing colleges for decisions that would be permissible in other regions. Such differences can restrict colleges from developing programs that suit their students’ needs, thereby forcing students to travel further, and often pay more, to attend schools that offer suitable programs.
This past summer, Sharon Hart, president of Northern Marianas College in the Northern Marianas Islands, experienced the downside of this geographic inconsistency firsthand. Accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), Northern Marianas was prevented from offering both two-year associate and four-year baccalaureate degrees due to a regional regulation. As Hart noted to the HPR, had her college been located in any other region, “we would have been congratulated for everything we were doing. It was just a fact of our region.” As a result, Hart and her staff spent five exhausting and expensive weeks petitioning the Department of Education to persuade WASC to adjust its policies. In the absence of such an appeal, given the college’s remote location far west of Hawaii, students would have been forced to travel thousands of miles to pursue their educational goals.
In addition to regulatory inconsistency, disparities in enforcement exist between the regional organizations. For example, while only one percent of colleges under NEASC’s jurisdiction lack full accreditation, the same is true of nine percent of colleges under the WASC. Such a disparity would seem to indicate variations in enforcement among accreditors, but there is even disagreement among college administrators regarding the true cause for such a difference. Pam Fisher, who served as interim chancellor at City College of San Francisco when the college faced severe accreditation sanctions, told the HPR that she “doesn’t think the Western Association’s enforcement standards are any higher than anyone else’s.” Instead, Fisher cited the long-term failure to adhere to accreditation standards at numerous western colleges as the reason for the statistical disparity. These suggestions of unequal enforcement, which threaten the reputation of the accreditation process, require careful Congressional study and fact-finding in advance of HEA reauthorization.
The Medicine of the Market
In reauthorizing the HEA, Congress should disrupt accreditors’ regional monopolies by allowing colleges to “shop” for accreditation among all six agencies, while developing a comprehensive set of minimum standards that each accreditor must enforce in order to prevent a “race to the bottom.” Over time, each regional accreditor would establish a market reputation and brand, and market differentiation would allow different accreditors to specialize in reviewing different sectors of the higher education market, such as small liberal arts colleges, large research universities, technical and scientific programs, and online offerings.
Without the pressure of competition, the traditional accreditation system has adapted slowly to change. Accreditors like NEASC generally revise their standards every ten years, an insufficient time period given today’s rapidly evolving educational arena. As Barbara Brittingham, president of NEASC’s Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, told the HPR, “the thought now of doing something that would last for 10 years is a lot more humbling, and I am just not sure it’s possible.” A competitive marketplace would spur each regional accreditor to swifter action.
Meanwhile, robust minimum standards and federal oversight would ensure that market competition does not diminish accreditation’s quality control purpose. And market competition would force accreditors to eliminate many of the inefficient standards that currently compel colleges to waste time and resources in order to ensure compliance, allowing them to allocate their resources towards hiring more faculty, building new facilities, or offering financial aid.
When Congress considers HEA reauthorization next year, issues of rising tuition and measuring educational value will dominate the public debate. However, to address these issues, Congress should confront an often-overlooked process: the governing system for accreditation. By seizing the opportunity to move towards a market-oriented regulatory approach, legislators can create an innovative environment that would encourage colleges to tackle core problems of cost, value, and accessibility well into the 21st century.