Order Code RL32989
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Accreditation and the Reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act
Updated March 27, 2006
Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Jody Feder
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Accreditation and the Reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act
Summary
Under the Higher Education Act (HEA), institutions of higher education (IHEs)
must be accredited by an agency or association recognized by the Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Education (ED) to participate in HEA Title IV federal student aid
programs. While this process is voluntary, failure to obtain accreditation could have
a dramatic effect on an institution’s student enrollment, as only students attending
accredited institutions are eligible to receive federal student aid (e.g., Pell grants and
student loans). Accrediting agencies are private organizations set up to review the
qualifications of member institutions based on self-initiated quality guidelines and
self-improvement efforts.
This report provides an overview of some of the possible accreditation issues
that Congress may address during the reauthorization process. For example, as
Congress considers reauthorizing the HEA, it may consider making changes to the
role accreditation plays with respect to federal student aid or to the accreditation
process itself, such as the factors accrediting agencies must consider when evaluating
an institution. More specifically, potential issues for consideration include, but are
not limited to, the use of accreditation as a gauge of institutional quality, the
elimination of accreditation as a prerequisite for participation in HEA Title IV
programs, accreditation and distance education, accreditation and transfer of credit,
and due process requirements that apply to accrediting agencies.
Both H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005, and S. 1614,
the Higher Education Amendments of 2005, the primary vehicles for HEA
reauthorization, would alter accreditation requirements. Most notably, both bills
would add new requirements related to considering the mission of an institution
when performing evaluations, outcome measures, distance education, transfer of
credit, due process, and accrediting agency operations. The House bill would also
permit state agencies not currently recognized by the Secretary of Education as
accrediting agencies to seek this recognition. This report summarizes key legislative
action with respect to accreditation issues.
This report will be updated as warranted by legislative action.
Contents
Reauthorization Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Accreditation as an Indicator of Institutional Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Elimination of Accreditation as a Prerequisite
for Title IV Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Distance Education and Accreditation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Transfer of Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Due Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Relevant Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
State Accrediting Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Mission of the Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Distance Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Transfer of Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Due Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Accrediting Agency Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Accreditation and the Reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act
Under the Higher Education Act (HEA), institutions of higher education (IHEs)
must be accredited by an agency or association recognized by the Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Education (ED) to participate in HEA Title IV federal student aid
programs.1 While this process is voluntary, failure to obtain accreditation could have
a dramatic effect on an institution’s student enrollment, as only students attending
accredited institutions are eligible to receive federal student aid (e.g., Pell grants and
student loans). Accrediting agencies are private organizations set up to review the
qualifications of member institutions based on self-initiated quality guidelines and
self-improvement efforts.
This process and its critical role in determining institutional eligibility to
participate in Title IV has sometimes been controversial.2 As the 109th Congress
considers reauthorizing the HEA, it may consider making changes to the role
accreditation plays with respect to federal student aid or to the accreditation process
itself, such as the factors accrediting agencies must consider when evaluating an
institution. This report provides an overview of some of the possible accreditation
issues that Congress may address during the reauthorization process, and summarizes
key legislative action with respect to accreditation.3
1 20 U.S.C. §§ 1002, 1099c. The provisions that govern the recognition of accrediting
agencies may be found at 20 U.S.C. § 1099b. See also HEA §§ 102 and 496. For the
purposes of this report, the term “accrediting agency” encompasses both accrediting
agencies and associations.
2 See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on
21st Century Competitiveness, H.R. 4283, the College Access and Opportunity Act: Does
Accreditation Provide Student and Parents with Accountability and Quality?, hearings,
108th Cong., 2004. (Hereafter cited as House Subcommittee on 21st Century
Competitiveness, Accreditation.) Also see “Opening the Door on Accreditation,” (July 16,
2004); and “A Common Yardstick? The Bush Administration Wants to Standardize
Accreditation; Educators Say It Is Too Complex for That,” (Aug. 15, 2003), both from The
Chronicle of Higher Education.
3 For detailed information about institutional eligibility to participate in Title IV programs,
the accreditation process, or federal requirements for accreditation, see CRS Report
RL31926, Institutional Eligibility for Participation in Title IV Student Aid Programs Under
the Higher Education Act: Background and Issues, by Rebecca Skinner.
CRS-2
Reauthorization Issues
There are several key issues related to accreditation that may arise during the
reauthorization of the HEA. These issues include, but are not limited to, the use of
accreditation as a gauge of institutional quality, the elimination of accreditation as a
prerequisite for participation in HEA Title IV programs, accreditation and distance
education, accreditation and transfer of credit, and due process requirements that
apply to accrediting agencies.
Accreditation as an Indicator of Institutional Quality
One question that may be raised during the reauthorization process focuses on
whether accreditation can be equated with the provision of a quality education.
Accreditation is used as an indicator that an institution or program has met at least
minimal standards and as evidence of fiscal stability. Nearly all institutions that have
lost their accreditation or have been put on probation by their accrediting agency have
been cited for fiscal mismanagement or lack of fiscal integrity. Based on testimony
provided before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, few
institutions have lost their accreditation due to poor educational performance.4
The accreditation process, while required to assess institutions with respect to
student achievement, primarily bases accreditation decisions on the inputs (e.g.,
curricula and faculty) rather than the outcomes (e.g., graduation rates and job
placement rates) of higher education. In light of the increased congressional
emphasis on accountability for outcomes in education programs, Congress may
revisit the extent to which accrediting agencies focus on student outcomes in making
accreditation decisions in order to better gauge the educational quality of institutions
granted accreditation.
If Congress does decide to require accrediting agencies to increase their focus
on outcome measures, there may be a debate about what outcome measures to use
and how they should be measured. For example, would student grades be a valid
indicator of the quality of an institution? Would students’ standardized test scores
(e.g., Graduate Record Exam, Graduate Management Admission Test) be a useful
indicator of institutional quality? Would graduation rates or job placement rates be
valuable measures? Outcomes such as these have various measurement problems,
such as grade inflation, possible biases on standardized tests, differences in how
graduation rates might be calculated, or which jobs should constitute a successful
placement.
4 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Higher
Education Accreditation: How Can the System Better Ensure Quality and Accountability?,
hearings, 108th Cong., 2004.
CRS-3
Elimination of Accreditation as a
Prerequisite for Title IV Eligibility
Another possible issue is the elimination of accreditation as a prerequisite for
Title IV institutional eligibility. Some argue that the current accreditation system is
a poor indicator of educational quality and, therefore, should have no bearing on
institutional eligibility decisions.5 Others argue that if the accreditation system were
eliminated, the federal government would have to develop its own measures of
educational quality, a potentially costly and controversial action; or the burden would
fall on states, leading to 50 different sets of standards for accreditation.
Currently, ED plays an integral role in determining institutional eligibility to
participate in Title IV programs through the eligibility and certification process.6
Some have suggested that it would be appropriate and possible for ED to extend this
role to specify student outcome data that institutions must provide and ED would
collect. Accrediting agencies and organizations would continue to play a role in
evaluating or assisting institutions if the institutions wanted their input. Others have
suggested that accrediting agencies continue in their current role, but another
organization, such as ED, be responsible for evaluating student outcomes. Detractors
of this proposal question whether increased ED involvement or the involvement of
any organization trying to impose specific student outcome criteria on institutions
would undermine the autonomy of postsecondary institutions. They argue that this
autonomy is a critical component to providing high quality education.
Distance Education and Accreditation
Another possible issue that may be debated during HEA reauthorization focuses
on accreditation and distance education. Key issues center on whether accrediting
agencies that accredit distance education programs should meet additional
requirements and whether accrediting agencies that evaluate institutions offering
distance education programs should be required to examine specific measures related
to distance education, such as student achievement for students enrolled in distance
education programs.7
5 See for example H.R. 838 introduced by Rep. Petri during the 108th Congress on Feb. 13,
2003. The bill proposed eliminating accreditation and preaccreditation requirements for
participation in Title IV programs.
6 For more information, see CRS Report RL31926, Institutional Eligibility for Participation
in Title IV Student Aid Programs Under the Higher Education Act: Background and Issues,
by Rebecca Skinner..
7 This issue is addressed in detail in CRS Report RL32490, Distance Education and Title
IV of the Higher Education Act: Policy, Practice, and Reauthorization, by Jeffrey Kuenzi,
Rebecca Skinner, and David Smole.
CRS-4
Transfer of Credit
Congressional debate during reauthorization may also focus on the issue of
transfer of credit and how to encourage institutions to accept transfer credits, while
still recognizing that not all institutions offer the same level of quality education and
not all courses may merit recognition of credit. Based on a study of bachelor’s
degree recipients in 1999-2000, 59% of students attended more than one institution
in their pursuit of an undergraduate degree.8 Currently, when a student transfers from
one institution to another, the receiving institution determines which courses taken
at another institution will be accepted as credit toward a degree at the new institution.
A recent GAO study found that receiving institutions base their decisions on which
credits to accept on the type of accreditation held by the sending institution, whether
academic transfer agreements have been established with the sending institution, and
the comparability of coursework.9 The study also found that institutions that are
accredited by regional accrediting agencies would not accept credits earned at
nationally accredited institutions.10
The credit review process can be labor intensive and costly, as institutions must
evaluate the quality of education received by the student at previous institutions. In
addition, for each course that the receiving institution awards transfer credit, students
may take one less course at the new institution, translating into a loss of tuition for
the new institution. Thus, institutions may not have incentives to recognize transfer
credits and may even have disincentives to recognize them. For students, this may
result in additional time and money required to complete a degree. Some students
may also reach limits on their federal student aid eligibility (i.e., available federal
student loans) prior to completing their program of study if credits are not accepted
or not accepted in the student’s major.11 For the federal government, this could
translate into wasted tax dollars if students using federal student aid to pursue a
postsecondary education have to retake courses.
8 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2005), The Road
Less Traveled? Students Who Enroll in Multiple Institutions, NCES 2005-157. Available
at [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005157.pdf].
9 Government Accountability Office, October 2005, Transfer Students: Postsecondary
Institutions Could Promote More Consistent Consideration of Coursework by Not Basing
Determinations on Accreditation, GAO-06-22. Available online at [http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-06-22].
10 It should be noted that most proprietary (for-profit) institutions are nationally accredited
institutions. Examples of regionally accredited institutions include the University of
Maryland, a four-year public institution; Williams College, a four-year private non-profit
institution; and Montgomery College, a two-year public college.
11 For more information about federal student aid limits, see CRS Report RL30656, The
Administration of Federal Student Loan Programs: Background and Provisions, by Adam
Stoll.
CRS-5
Due Process
Another issue that may arise during HEA reauthorization is whether to make
changes to the statute’s due process requirements. Under Section 496(a)(6) of the
HEA,12 accrediting agencies recognized by ED must meet certain requirements with
respect to due process. That is, an accrediting agency is required to implement
specific procedures to resolve disputes between the accrediting agency and any
institution that is subject to the accreditation process. Under current law, accrediting
agencies are required to provide an IHE with, at a minimum, the following:
! adequate specification of requirements and deficiencies at the
institution of higher education or program being examined;
! the opportunity to have a hearing;
! the right to appeal any adverse action against it; and
! the right to be represented by counsel.13
During the reauthorization process, Congress may consider revisiting statutory
language relevant to due process. Some proponents of altering the current due
process requirements have, for example, proposed changes that include requiring that
hearing records be kept and that IHE appeals be heard by a panel of three outside
arbitrators.14 When considering such proposals, Congress may wish to weigh the
benefits that would result from additional protections for IHEs against the
administrative burdens for accrediting agencies that would result from additional
procedural requirements.
Although the due process requirements that apply to accrediting agencies are
statutory in nature, the concept of procedural due process has its origins in the U.S.
Constitution. Both the Fifth Amendment, applicable to federal agencies, and the
Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights
and is applicable to the states, prohibit government action that would deprive any
person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”15 The premise
behind due process is that the government, for reasons of basic fairness, must provide
certain procedures before taking any of these important interests away from protected
parties.
The threshold question in a claim alleging a violation of due process rights is
whether there has been a deprivation of life, liberty or property. In order to establish
a due process violation, a challenger must show (a) a deprivation, (b) of a protected
interest and (c) “state action,” either federal or action under the color of state law,
12 20 U.S.C. § 1099b(a)(6).
13 Ibid. Accrediting agencies may provide additional procedures beyond the statutory
minimum if they wish.
14 Burton Bollag, “College’s Victory in Accreditation Lawsuit Could Spur Changes in the
Process,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 1, 2005, p. A23.
15 U.S. Constitution amendment V, § 1; Ibid. at amendment XIV, § 1.
CRS-6
whichever is applicable.16 Additionally, the petitioner must show that the action was
not a random act but one caused by established procedure.17
The Supreme Court has stated that due process “is a flexible concept that varies
with the particular situation.”18 Thus, the degree of procedural protection afforded
is determined on a case-by-case basis, with the amount of procedure due increasing
as the importance of the interest at stake becomes greater. For example, in Lassiter
v. Dept. of Social Services, the Court held that the termination of parental rights
represented a sufficiently high interest such that increased procedural protections
were necessary.19
In Mathews v. Eldridge, the Court established a balancing test to determine the
procedural protections required in a particular case:
[I]dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires
consideration of three factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by
the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest
through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or
substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest,
including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the
additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail.20
In applying this test, the Court has generally held that due process requires some
type of notice and “some kind of a hearing before the State deprives a person of
liberty or property,”21 although the litigant is not necessarily entitled to a trial-type
hearing similar to those used in judicial trials or formal administrative trial-type
16 Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F.2d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1991) (citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451
U.S. 527 (1981)).
17 Brotherton, 923 F.2d at 479 (citing Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532 (1984)).
18 Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 126, 127 (1989).
19 452 U.S. 18, 33-34 (1981).
20 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).
21 Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 127. The Court cited the following cases as evidence of this
proposition: Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) (“‘[T]he root
requirement’ of the Due Process Clause” is “‘that an individual be given an opportunity for
a hearing before he is deprived of any significant protected interest’”; hearing required
before termination of employment (emphasis in original)); Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584,
606-607 (1979) (determination by neutral physician whether statutory admission standard
is met required before confinement of child in mental hospital); Memphis Light, Gas &
Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 18 (1978) (hearing required before cutting off utility
service); Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 579 (1975) (at a minimum, due process requires
“some kind of notice and ... some kind of hearing” (emphasis in original); informal hearing
required before suspension of students from public school); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.
539, 557-558 (1974) (hearing required before forfeiture of prisoner’s good time credits);
Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80-84 (1972)(hearing required before issuance of writ
allowing repossession of property); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 264 (1970) (hearing
required before termination of welfare benefits).
CRS-7
hearings. In Goldberg v. Kelly,22 the Court held that welfare recipients facing
termination of their benefits were entitled to nearly all of the rights afforded in a trial-
type hearing. In subsequent cases, however, the Court has made it clear that trial
procedures are not essential for every governmental decision that might affect an
individual and that “something less than a full evidentiary hearing is sufficient prior
to adverse administrative action.”23 Other procedures that courts have at times
recognized as required by due process include the presentation of evidence and
witnesses, legal representation, an impartial decision-maker, a written decision, and
administrative and/or judicial review of the agency’s action. Ultimately, however,
the Court has recognized as constitutionally sufficient many different types of
procedures, depending on the nature of the individual and governmental interests at
stake, and federal agencies currently provide a wide range of procedural protections.
As noted above, constitutional due process requirements apply only to
governmental actors, not private entities. Since accrediting agencies are private
organizations, the courts have generally held that they are not bound by the Due
Process clause of the Constitution.24 Nevertheless, most courts, reasoning that
accrediting agencies serve a quasi-governmental function in their role as the gate-
keepers that determine whether IHEs will be eligible to participate in Title IV student
financial aid programs, have ruled that accrediting agencies are subject to common
law due process principles.25 Under these principles, courts evaluate whether the
decision of an accrediting agency “was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
or reached without observance of procedure required by law.”26
In addition to these common law due process requirements, IHEs that wish to
contest certain accrediting agency decisions may be protected by the HEA’s due
process statutory provisions. Under the HEA, “any civil action brought by an
institution of higher education seeking accreditation from, or accredited by, an
accrediting agency or association recognized by the Secretary … and involving the
denial, withdrawal, or termination of accreditation of the institution of higher
education, shall be brought in the appropriate United States district court.27 It is
unclear, however, whether this jurisdictional provision gives IHEs a private right of
action to sue accrediting agencies,28 and courts have split on this question. For
22 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
23 Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 545.
24 See, e.g., Chicago Sch. of Automatic Transmissions, Inc. v. Accreditation Alliance of
Career Schs. & Colleges, 44 F.3d 447, 449 (7th Cir. 1994); Medical Inst. of Minnesota v.
Nat’l Ass’n of Trade and Technical Schs., 817 F.2d 1310, 1314 (8th Cir. 1987).
25 See, e.g., Foundation for Interior Design Educ. Research v. Savannah College of Art &
Design, 244 F.3d 521, 527-28 (6th Cir. 2001). The common law is law that is based on
custom and judicial opinions, rather than constitutions or statutes.
26 Thomas M. Cooley Law Sch. v. ABA, No. 1:04-cv-221 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11346 at
*20 (S.D. Mich. June 9, 2005).
27 20 U.S.C. § 1099b(f).
28 In general, lawsuits brought by individuals who claim federal statutes are being violated,
(continued...)
CRS-8
example, in Thomas M. Cooley Law School v. American Bar Association, the court
noted that “nearly every court to consider the issue in the last twenty-five years has
determined that there is no express or implied private right of action to enforce any
of the HEA’s provisions,” and thus held that the HEA’s jurisdictional provision did
not give the IHE in question the right to enforce the statute’s due process provisions
by suing its accrediting agency directly.29 On the other hand, other courts have
suggested that the HEA’s jurisdictional provision could be interpreted to confer a
private right of action on IHEs, but have not definitively ruled on the point.30
Regardless of how the courts have ruled on the question of whether the statute grants
a private right of action to sue accrediting agencies, they have generally noted that
the lack of such a right is not significant, given that IHEs still have the ability to sue
accrediting agencies under principles of common law due process.31
A recent court case between Auburn University and its accrediting agency,
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), provides a good illustration
of how courts approach due process disputes between IHEs and their accrediting
agencies. In the case, Auburn alleged that SACS violated the HEA, common law due
process principles, and the Due Process clause of the Constitution by not following
its own procedures for a planned investigation.32 Although the court declined to rule
that accrediting agencies were governmental actors for purposes of applying
constitutional due process requirements, the court did find that accrediting agencies,
in their role as quasi-governmental entities that act as the gatekeepers to Title IV
student financial aid, are subject to common law due process principles.33 Applying
those principles, the court held that “Auburn is entitled to some kind of due process
at this stage in the accrediting process.”34 Since the investigation was in an early
phase, the court concluded that the university did not require strong due process
protection at that stage. As a result, the court allowed discovery on whether the
executive director had a conflict of interest under the association’s policies, but
denied a preliminary injunction.35 In addition, the court rejected Auburn’s HEA
claim because, although the court found that the statute’s jurisdictional provision
28 (...continued)
can only be brought against the agency that administers those laws. Thus, IHEs cannot bring
statutory suits directly against accrediting agencies unless the HEA is interpreted to grant
schools a private right of action.
29 Thomas M. Cooley, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11346 at *15 (quoting McCulloch v. PNC
Bank, Inc., 298 F.3d 1217, 1221 (11th Cir. 2002).
30 See, e.g., W. State Univ. of S. Cal. v. ABA, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1134-35 (D. Cal. 2004);
Auburn Univ. v. S. Ass’n of Colleges & Schs., Inc., No. 1:01-CV-2069-JOF 2002 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 26478 at *47-48 (D. Ga., Jan. 14, 2002).
31 See, e.g., Thomas M. Cooley, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11346 at *18, n.2.
32 Auburn, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26478 at *1-2.
33 Ibid. at *17-30.
34 Ibid. at *30.
35 Ibid. at *31-37.
CRS-9
might contain an implied private right of action, the lawsuit did not challenge the
“denial, withdrawal, or termination of accreditation” as required by the statute.36
More recently, Edward Waters College (Jacksonville, FL) and Hiwassee College
(Madisonville, TN) sued their accrediting agency, SACS, based on the denial of due
process. Edward Waters College was found to have plagiarized material on a report
due to the accrediting agency. The school, however, claimed that SACS did not
provide it with due process when the agency took action to remove the college’s
accreditation based on this infraction.37 The case was settled out of court, and
Edward Waters College retained its accreditation in exchange for dropping the
lawsuit.38 Hiwassee College is also suing SACS on the grounds that due process was
denied when its accreditation status became threatened by issues of fiscal
mismanagement. While the case is considered, a federal court has issued an
injunction requiring SACS to reinstate the accreditation of Hiwassee College.39
Relevant Legislation
This section provides an overview of relevant provisions contained in H.R. 609,
the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005, and S. 1614, the Higher Education
Amendments of 2005 — the primary vehicles for HEA reauthorization. H.R. 609
was reported by the House Education and the Workforce Committee on September
22, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-231). It has not been considered on the House Floor. S. 1614
was reported by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on
November 17, 2005, without a report. A report (S.Rept. 109-218) was subsequently
filed on February 28, 2006. It has not been considered on the Senate Floor.
Both the House and Senate bills would make several changes related to
accreditation issues. For example, both bills would alter accountability requirements
that accrediting agencies must use in evaluating institutions, add new requirements
related to distance education, incorporate new restrictions on transfer of credit
policies, and modify existing due process requirements. A brief discussion of each
of these and other relevant issues appears below.
36 Ibid. at *47-48.
37 It should be noted that the lawsuit did not dispute the plagiarism. Rather, the lawsuit
focused on whether SACS provided Edward Waters College with due process in
determining the sanction, if any, for the alleged plagiarism.
38 Kelly Field, “Florida College Reaches Tentative Settlement,” The Chronicle of Higher
Education, June 17, 2005, p. A21. The accreditation of Edward Waters College, however,
is currently on warning status. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Questions
Regarding the Status of Edward Waters College, June 30, 2005, [http://www.sacscoc.org/
disclosure/june2005/Edward%20Waters%20College.pdf].
39 Burton Bollag, “Court Injunctions Against Accreditor’s Decisions Arouse Fears About
the Process,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Apr. 8, 2005, p. A25. Prior to the Edward
Waters College case being settled out of court, a federal court had issued an injunction
requiring the SACS to reinstate the college’s accreditation until the case was resolved.
CRS-10
State Accrediting Agencies
Under current law, state agencies may be recognized as accrediting agencies
only if they were recognized by the Secretary on or before October 1, 1991. H.R. 609
would eliminate this requirement, potentially providing numerous state agencies with
the opportunity to seek recognition as accrediting agencies. S. 1614 does not include
a similar provision.
Mission of the Institution
Under current law, accrediting agencies are required to consistently apply and
enforce standards to ensure the courses and programs offered by an institution are of
sufficient quality to achieve their stated objectives. Both the House and Senate bills
would require accrediting agencies to consider the stated mission of the institution,
including religious missions, in carrying out these responsibilities.40
Outcome Measures
Current law specifies the areas in which accrediting agencies must evaluate
institutions. While current law includes some areas of student outcomes, such as
course and program completion, state licensing examinations, and job placement
rates, many of the areas of evaluation focus on inputs to the education process,
including faculty and curricula. Both the Senate and the House bill would include
new areas in which an institution must be assessed based on student outcomes.
These new areas would include student academic achievement (as determined by the
institution) and student retention. S. 1614 would also include student enrollment in
graduate or professional programs, as appropriate. Both bills would also require, as
appropriate, that accrediting agencies consider other student performance data
selected by the institution, particularly information used by the institution for internal
evaluation or program improvement.
Distance Education
Both the Senate and the House bills would add new requirements with respect
to distance education. Under both bills, an institution would not be considered
eligible to offer programs primarily through distance education unless, among other
requirements, it had been accredited by an agency or association recognized by the
Secretary that has the evaluation of distance education within the scope of its
recognition. Both bills would also require that accrediting agencies and associations
seeking the aforementioned scope of recognition would also have to have standards
that adequately evaluate distance education programs in the same areas as regular
classroom-based programs.41 These agencies would also have to require any
institution offering distance education to have implemented a process by which the
40 S. 1932 requires accrediting agencies to consider “religious missions.” H.R. 609 requires
accrediting agencies to consider institutions’ missions “including such missions as
inculcation of religious values.”
41 See HEA § 496(a)(5) for current requirements.
CRS-11
institution can determine that the student who registered for a distance education
course or program is the same student who participated in, completed, and received
credit for the course. H.R. 609 would also require accrediting agencies to monitor
the enrollment growth of distance education to ensure than an institution
experiencing significant growth has the capacity to serve students effectively. S.
1614 includes a similar requirement but would apply it to growth in any program, not
specifically to distance education programs.
Transfer of Credit
Current law does not include any requirements related to the transfer of credit
between institutions. Both H.R. 609 and S. 1614 include provisions that would
require institutions to publicly disclose their transfer of credit policies and include a
statement in their policy that the institution will not base transfer of credit decisions
solely on the basis of the accreditation held by the sending institution provided that
the sending institution is accredited by an agency or association recognized by the
Secretary. S. 1614 would also require each institution to include in its policy
disclosure a list of institutions with which it has established articulation agreements
and data on the percentage of students who successfully transferred credits to the
institution. The latter must be updated annually.
Supporters of these new transfer of credit requirements argue that any institution
that is accredited by an agency or association recognized by ED should be
acknowledged as providing an education of an acceptable level of quality (or
presumably they would not have received accreditation). Opponents of these
requirements, however, argue that the federal government should not be involved in
determining whether an institution should accept credit for course work from another
institution, and that federal recognition of an accrediting agency establishes only a
minimum level of quality that some institutions may find unacceptable. In addition,
arguments have been made that if institutions are required to analyze each transfer
students’ courses for course compatibility and quality, as opposed to rejecting
transfer credits from institutions holding specific accreditation, it will result in a
substantially more costly review process.42
Due Process
Both the Senate and House bills would make similar modifications to existing
due process requirements for an institution opposing an adverse action taken by its
accrediting agency. For example, both the House and Senate bills would provide an
institution with an opportunity to submit a written response to be included in the
evaluation and withdrawal proceedings.43 Both bills would maintain that an
institution has the right to appeal any adverse action but would require an institution
to submit a written request for an appeal. Both bills would add new statutory
42 It is unclear whether potential increased costs associated with the proposed change in
transfer of credit policies would ultimately result in increased tuition and fees for students.
43 S. 1932 specifies that an institution must be provided with an opportunity to submit a
written response prior to final action.
CRS-12
provisions focused on maintaining the impartiality of the appeals panel. Under the
Senate and House bill, the appeals panel could not include current members of the
accrediting agency’s decision-making body that made the adverse decision. In
addition, the appeals panel would be subject to a conflict of interest policy under both
bills.
Accrediting Agency Operations
Both the Senate and House bills would add new requirements for how
accrediting agencies must operate. For example, both bills would require
accreditation team members to be knowledgeable of their responsibilities, including
those regarding distance education. They would also add specific language requiring
accrediting agencies to determine whether an institution provides federally required
information to current and prospective students.44 Both bills would also require
accrediting agencies to publicly disclose information about final adverse actions.45
S. 1614, but not H.R. 609, would require accrediting agencies to require institutions
to submit teach-out plans under certain circumstances. H.R. 609, but not S. 1614,
would add requirements for the public disclosure of information about the agency’s
evaluation teams, including a list of individuals who participated on an evaluation
team during the prior calendar year.
crsphpgw
44 See HEA § 485(a)(1) for federally required information.
45 S. 1932 would also require accrediting agencies to disclose information about the award
of accreditation or reaccreditation to an institution.