The Other 85 Percent

What does the future hold for college accreditors?

April 17, 2008 | Filed under: Capella, Capella University, Mike Offerman, New York Times, The Other 85 Percent, Transparency by Design, college, distance learning, elearning, higher education, learning outcomes, online learning

Response to comment by Janet Duke to the post “What is the risk in colleges and universities being more transparent / accountable”

First, thanks for posting the New York Times article.  Second, I chose to wait to reply until after the annual meeting of the Higher Learning Commission in Chicago that took place over the past few days.  I wanted to get a sense of what is happening at the largest of the regional accrediting agencies.  The theme was “Finding Common Ground:  Accreditation, Assessment and Accountability.”

There is no question that the regional accrediting agencies are searching for new ways to do their work.  But, it is my impression that the expectations for accrediting agencies have changed dramatically.  So, rather than assuming that they have failed, it is more accurate to recognize that what is expected of them is much more demanding now than it has been in the past.  One speaker mentioned that, in the past, the accrediting agencies were expected to assess and recognize “adequacy” on the part of accredited institutions.  That is adequacy to plan, deliver and assess quality at their institution.  The current expectation is to set a common, high standard for quality.  Those are very different things.  There is no question that the current expectation is to assess outcomes rather than inputs.  This is a good thing, but it is also challenging for institutions and accrediting agencies to make the change. 

In one session for institution presidents and board members, three national accountability initiatives were described:

•    U-Can of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities
•    College Portrait of the National Association of State Universities and Land
•    Transparency by Design

The presidents and board members were asked if the Higher Learning Commission should require participation in one of these three efforts by the institutions it accredits.  I cannot say how the other small groups reacted, but in the small group I joined it was agreed that it would be too soon for the Higher Learning Commission to make such a move.  Depending on the success and evolution of the various efforts, it may be that such a move would be desirable in the future.

I think the overarching significance of the three national initiatives and the spirit they share is a strong commitment to transparency.  The regional accrediting associations can and will benefit from increased institutional transparency, as will the institutions and their students.  One reason there are three initiatives is that there is such variation in the missions of American institutions of higher education.  And that variation in mission and purpose is what makes me very concerned about any attempt for a “one size fits all” set of minimum standards for evaluating colleges.  The basic premise of this blog is that the prevailing view that dominates higher education public policy, including discussions about quality standards, is seriously out of touch with reality.  While higher education service to full-time on-campus students who come to the campus directly from high school is important, that type of student is in the distinct minority.  Most college students are older, working, participating on a part-time basis, and have many competing responsibilities.  An example of wrong-headedness in what might be an important metric is the idea of completing a bachelor’s degree in four years.  How relevant is that to the working mother who is taking a course or two at a time?  And there are lots of folks in that situation, many more than the full-time, twenty-year-old, on-campus student.  My fear is that a single set of standards will follow the same tired path and focus on an out-dated view of who attends college and how they participate.  Adult students will not be recognized and their needs will not be addressed in a single, unified standard.

Now, it is possible that the standard would be about actual learning outcomes, like those addressed in Transparency by Design.  But, what I see so far is mainly a desire to restate existing measures, and those measures are not about learning outcomes. They are based on the dated view of a full-time, on-campus, young student as the norm.

Your thoughts?

Mike

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.