In 2020, then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos deregulated college and university accreditation by ending regional accreditors’ monopoly status. The purpose of the move was to introduce innovation and competition to a process that had become hidebound and expensive. Four years later, the floodgates have opened.
Already, several new accreditors are on the horizon. The Postsecondary Commission, the American Academy for Liberal Education (AALE), and the National Association of Academic Excellence (NAAE) have begun the arduous federal process to become new institutional accreditors. Each has a slightly different approach to accreditation.
States, either individually or together, could create their own accrediting agencies.The AALE is currently a programmatic accreditor that “promote[s] excellence in liberal education by providing recognition of schools and programs that maintain the highest standards of liberal arts learning.” Led by Robert Manzer, AALE currently has both postsecondary programs and PK-12 members.
The NAAE, led by Anthony Bieda, describes itself as “an emerging institutional accreditor that validates colleges and universities that are committed to academic excellence, robust scholarship, and freedom of thought and inquiry toward the formation of the human person.”
Stig Leschly leads the Postsecondary Commission. Its mission is to “accredit institutions that produce strong economic returns for their students, are transparent about their results, agree to be held accountable for the wage gains they provide to their students, and are innovative in their work.” (The Martin Center wrote about the Commission here.)
But another possibility exists. States, either individually or together, could create their own accrediting agencies.
A model “Accreditation Autonomy Resolution” from the National Association of Scholars provides one way for states to speed the process. NAS writes,
The most effective means for states to solve the problem of unaccountable higher education accrediting organizations imposing social justice requirements on their public university systems is to found their own accrediting organization. Several states should jointly found such an accrediting organization, which would focus on certifying financial good health, refrain from imposing burdensome bureaucracies and social justice requirements, and remain accountable to state governments. This accrediting organization should also welcome private institutions, but the state governments should retain control of this accreditor.
“The AAR puts a state legislative majority on record as wanting a new accrediting organization; that will give a governor the authority of popular support as he moves to (jointly) create one,” said NAS director of research David Randall. “Now is a particularly good time to do so because the public realizes just how badly the accreditation cartel has served the public, and they want decisive and effective action to restore high standards and depoliticization to higher education.”
State-run agencies would likely have better access to relevant data, allowing for more accurate and timely evaluations of institutional performance.The benefits of states creating their own higher-education accrediting agencies are myriad and significant. By establishing state-based accrediting bodies, states can reduce duplication of efforts, streamlining the accreditation process to be more efficient and tailored to local needs. This would lead to greater financial certainty and stability for institutions, as they would no longer be subject to the expensive and unevenly applied standards of legacy accreditors.
Additionally, state-run agencies would likely have better access to relevant data, allowing for more accurate and timely evaluations of institutional performance.
Importantly, these state agencies would refrain from interfering with legitimate oversight and governance issues, as they would be designed to complement rather than replace existing accountability measures. For instance, a state-created accreditor would not attempt to derail a state institution’s presidential search. Furthermore, state governments would likely find it easier to navigate the U.S. Department of Education’s approval process, as they are more familiar with the specific needs and contexts of their own higher-education systems. This localized approach could lead to more responsive and effective accreditation, ultimately benefiting students, institutions, taxpayers, and the broader educational landscape.
Now may be the opportune time for states to act. Recent legislation in both Florida and North Carolina mandates that colleges and universities find new accreditors within the next decade. The legislation was prompted, at least in part, by SACSCOC’s interference in governance issues. A recent publication from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, “The Politicization of Higher Education Accreditation,” details how SACS has “punish[ed] legitimate activity and stifle[d] innovation and reform.”
Two instances of SACS interference in Florida and North Carolina university governance are included in the report:
In May 2021, SACS interfered with the Florida State University (FSU) presidential search when it complained that candidate Richard Corcoran (today president of New College of Florida) was also on the governing board. SACS president Belle Wheelan argued that Corcoran should step down in order to be a candidate. Yet he was also the state’s education commissioner, and “The state Constitution requires the education commissioner to have a seat on the university system’s Board of Governors.” (Dailey, 2021, para. 13)
And:
In January 2023, the Board of Trustees of the University of North Carolina (UNC) voted to create a new School of Civic Life and Leadership. Of course, this kind of decision is squarely within the prerogatives of the board (Guskiewicz, 2023). In response to news reports, SACS president Belle Wheelan commented on February 7 that she would “either get them to change it, or the institution will be on warning with [SACS], I’m sure.” She said that the board had not gotten input from the administration (other than the board itself) or from the faculty, and “that’s kind of not the way we do business” (Robinson, 2023, paras. 4, 5). In response, almost the entire Republican congressional delegation, led by Representative Virginia Foxx, wrote Wheelan on March 1: “we expect accreditors not to pre-judge actions of governing boards, follow normal processes, be attentive to such matters of public importance, and act in accord[ance] with federal and state law.” (CJ Staff, 2023, para. 9)
Competition between accreditors and the emergence of new accreditors will increase innovation, improve quality, and potentially lower costs for universities. It will allow universities to find accreditors that suit their needs and encourage differentiation between institutions. This innovation in accreditation will benefit students, universities, and the taxpayers and citizens who fund public education.
Jenna A. Robinson is president of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
This article was originally published at www.jamesgmartin.center
