Still, the question is...

... why is regional accreditation being held as the “gold standard” when there is evidence that the standards that they use are virtually meaningless?

Steve Bowman, at 8:25 am EDT on August 13, 2007

Ms. Curris obviously knows very little about the accreditation process, in fact, I would venture to guess that she has never conducted an onsite evaluation of a regionally accredited school or a nationally accredited school. If she had ever gotten down to that level, which apparently her “higher education” credentials preclude her doing so, she would realize that most national accreditors hold their schools to a higher level of scrutiny then the regionals. I spent twelve years on the inside of a national accrediting agency and therefore, I can say such things. I have seen both sides of the coin. The real question is why are students that have taken courses at educationally sound nationally accredited schools kicked to the curb when it comes to transferring credits? It seems to me that Ms. Curris and her brethren like to have their hands around all of the money. This is really about money not educational quality.

Rebecca Busacca, President at Accreditation Training Advisors, at 8:25 am EDT on August 13, 2007

Kind of makes me wonder how knowledgeable commentators are when they refer to “Ms. Curris.” Last I knew, “Constantine” was typically a male name. Certainly, the pictures of Curris that come up on Google look pretty masculine. If you can’t get the basics right, why should I listen to your detailed analysis?

As regards honoring requests for transfer credit, the current system is certainly outmoded and under strain. However, there’s a baby somewhere in that bathwater, that’s worth saving. And the free market isn’t the answer to this particular question.

Rick, at 9:25 am EDT on August 13, 2007

While I am sometimes less than impressed and satisfied by the consistency of regional accreditors, I have been completely appalled by the nationals who have demonstrated absolute irresponsibility in endorsing disreputable schools wholesaling programs through their unethical corporate overlords. Am I being over the top here? I think not. Does this mean students should be penalized? Absolutely NOT.

Here’s an idea. Merge “regional” and “national” agencies into “Accreditation Senates.” Each Senate needs to have reps from all sectors. Then, decide what is best for students, academically and professionally. And please DO have matching standards amongst all these Senates. Otherwise, those of us who cross state lines and regions will always be at a disadvantage.

If accreditors want to keep course content out of Government hands, then all accreditation agencies need to step up to the plate and help solve their own problems.

kgotthardt, at 11:40 am EDT on August 13, 2007

Puffer redux, anyone?

K. says, Here’s an idea. Merge “regional” and “national” agencies into “Accreditation Senates.”

Well, does anyone remember the Puffer Report?

For those that don’t, July 1970 saw the release of the highly anticipated Puffer Report, so named due to the guiding influence of Claude E. Puffer, and the support of Allan O. Pfnister and John Lombardi [a frequent contributor to IHE] — all ranking members of FRACHE (Federation of Regional Accrediting Commissions of Higher Education) which initiated the study.

The study, in two volumes, was intended to be a comprehensive study of institutional accrediting in higher education, and called for the creation of a national agency with ultimate authority over institutional accrediting. Actual accrediting was to continue to be performed by the regional commissions, but using uniform standards determined by the national organization rather than on a regional basis. In fact, the two largest accreditors, NCA and SACS, were deemed much too large to be effective, and were to be split up into smaller components to better serve their constituencies (Puffer Vol. I : 276).

In response to increased pressure for public accountability, the national agency that was proposed thirty-seven years ago by the Puffer Report was to more closely resemble a “public utility commission with a responsibility for protecting the public [that] becomes less oriented toward the membership and more toward the public as a whole” (Puffer, Vol I : 261). This was, in part, driven by the growing awareness that accreditation standards differed wildly between regions, leading a few college presidents “who had had experience in more than one region” to report that “an institution which might not be accredited in one region would almost certainly be accredited in another and vice versa” (Puffer, Vol I : 269).

The proposed national agency was to be called RE-FRACHE, but as history attests, it was never born.

None of the regionals ever seriously considered its recommendations because, of course, accepting them would have brought to an end the guild’s privileged status as self-regulators — a key characteristic that, I might add, has grown immeasurably more valuable to their members as time has passed.

Glen S. McGhee, Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project, at 12:10 pm EDT on August 13, 2007

Look at what is at stake by this division

Let us be very clear about one point in this discussion: every school should make their own decision to accept or reject transfer credit based their own standards, using all the factors they consider important, regardless of whether the school is regionally or nationally accredited.

So what are the key elements for determining if a course is equivalent? Each school should decide for itself. There are many factors that our institution takes into consideration ranging from the detailed course description, what text book is used (and how it is used), the length of the course (student contact hours), the academic credentials of the faculty, the applicability of the course credit here (is it to be used to fill major, elective or general education requirements) and lastly will it be used to waive a strict degree requirement here. We also consider the school’s reputation—good or bad.

It is important to note in this discussion that all accrediting bodies generally use the same peer review model. The personnel conducting the visits have for the most part the same educational credentials and experience from a mix of known and not-so-known schools. Each agency evaluates candidate schools for the same required elements the U.S. Department of Education demands and a few they don’t. All agencies strive to improve their processes.

It may surprise some people in this discussion to learn that many excellent schools make a conscious decision to become accredited with national associations simply because of the elitist attitude and antiquated thinking of some regional associations. Our institution, for example, provides critical legal knowledge to the aerospace and defense industries regarding U.S. export laws of both the State Department and the U.S. Department of Commerce. The dynamic knowledge we provide is absolutely critical to our country’s national security. We could have chosen to be accredited by a regional but opted to be nationally accredited by the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC), founded in 1926. Why? Because we learned in our research that nearly every regional accreditor went to DETC to learn how to accredit online learning. And maybe it helped that Franklin Delano Roosevelt attended a DETC school. In other words, we went with the acknowledged leader.

We are proud of our faculty, like many other nationally accredited schools, our faculty all have advanced degrees. (I might add that most of these degrees were earned at regional schools.) Interestingly, because we are an online university and our faculty is mostly adjunct, they also teach at other colleges and universities too—including some of America’s top regionally accredited schools. Education and its delivery have changed in this country.

We also found that DETC holds schools to a higher standard than most regionals. Unlike regional schools that only accredited the school, DETC must also accredit each and every course its schools offer to ensure they meet strict requirements related to stated content and defined, measurable learning outcomes. DETC states that by keeping this tight control, they ensure the high quality of the education students are buying. This is not a sales pitch for DETC, but an acknowledgement that schools can attain the level of measured outcomes that Secretary of Education Margaret Spelling discussed in her address on education in America last fall.

As a product of regionally accredited, well-respected schools myself, I can attest that on far too many occasions what was stated in the course listing was not the course taught. I paid for one course description and was given another. As an educator, I hear from others about their experiences and discovered it is a common complaint. As a student I didn’t complain, I just moved on toward my degree. Isn’t it time, as the Secretary of Education said, that all schools be held accountable to teach to defined and stated learning outcomes?

The American education system has evolved and will continue to evolve. We are no longer an agrarian society, where schools were separated by a poor national transportation system that necessitated the adoption of a regional accreditation model that made the peer-review accreditation system work.

In my opinion, there are more students and schools now because the educational system in America did not meet the needs of people in the last part of the twentieth century. Leveraging technology and being at a different place in their careers that allows them to return to school, people are returning in large numbers. The diversity of the education offerings accessible is continuing to grow to meet the need. Why else are new schools emerging? They are not attempting to be a Harvard or Yale. They are trying to help educate America, trying to help keep our nation strong and competitive. These schools are trying to keep our nation’s promise to the youth of America—that education is affordable and available to those who strive to meet the test. Why should a few registrars fear of having to investigate unknown schools to determine the value of their transfer credit be the issue here? The future of our country in the global marketplace is at stake.

It is time for Congress to step in and level the playing field and ensure the U.S. Department of Education’s single definition of accredited institution means just that. With our country’s mobile society—with major shifts in population and companies moving operations from one coast to another—transfer of credit is critical to our nation’s economic survival. The petty issues some people have discussed here are minor when compared to what is at stake.

Dr. Donald N Burton, President at International Import-Export Institute, at 5:20 am EDT on August 15, 2007

Regional Accreditation

As current Registrar at a regionally and nationally accredited art and design college and past Registrar for ten years at another regionally and nationally accredited art and design college I have participated in self-evaluations by both regional and national accrediting agencies. They each serve different purposes. Regional accreditation agencies ensure that general standards are met while national accreditors (such as the National Association of Schools of Art and Design — NASAD) focus on a more focused set of standards particular to a specific range of instituions. As such, each type of accreditor is of value in guiding colleges and universities in providing the optimum education to their students.

It raises alarms for me when proprietary schools refuse to seek accreditation by regional agencies. The standards which regionals set for institutions are designed to guarantee that students, faculty, and staff participate in an optimum educational setting that protects their rights and safeguards the quality of the educational experience.

Most Nationals serve a narrower purpose, focusing upon the promotion of pedagogical standards that enhance their professions. Both types of accrediting bodies are necessary.

I think that no one will deny, however, that there are some questionable national accrediting agencies rubber stamping proprietary institutions for the price of a membership fee. These sorts of accreditors should be revealed for what they are and denied the right to trumpet their shabby assertions, confusing families when they are trying to make decisions about postsecondary education for their children.

The institutions with which I have been associated have not accepted transfer credits from proprietary art schools unless they are regionally accredited. This accreditation guarantees that the college in question has a serious respect for higher education, including admissions standards beyond the applicant’s bank balance and whether he or she can copy the cartoon on a matchbook cover.

River Montijo, Registrar at Virginia Commonwealth University School of the Arts in Qatar, at 5:45 am EDT on August 19, 2007