Are the regional accreditors' boundaries evaporating?

 Originally posted on February 18, 2020, on LindaSuskie.com

In November 2019 the US Department of Education (USED) issued “final” regulations for “the secretary’s recognition of accreditation agencies” among other matters. (I put “final” in quotes because things in Washington tend to change every few years.) You can find a link to the relevant pages of the Federal Register here. The new regulations go into effect on July 1, 2020.

Under the new regulations, regional accreditors are no longer required to get Federal approval to change the geographic region in which they accredit (page 58893). A regional accreditor based on the East Coast could, for example, start accepting applications for accreditation from institutions whose main campuses are in Oklahoma.

Will this dramatically change the face of regional accreditation? Let me begin with the caveat that I have not spoken about these regulations with anyone at any of the regional accreditors or anyone involved in the negotiated rules-making process. I’m just interpreting the language in the Federal Register.

The announcement in the Federal Register explains that “the Department seeks to provide increased transparency and introduce greater competition and innovation that could allow an institution…to select an accrediting agency that best aligns with the institution’s mission, program offerings, and student population” (page 58893). The announcement goes further: “The Department expects that the landscape of institutional accrediting agencies may change over time from one where some agencies only accredit institutions headquartered in particular regions to one where institutional accrediting agencies accredit institutions throughout many areas of the United States based on factors such as institutional mission rather than geography” (page 58894). And the announcement speculates, “A shift from strictly geographic orientation may occur over time, probably measured in years, as…greater competition occurs, spurring an evolving dynamic marketplace. Accrediting agencies may align in different combinations that coalesce around specific institutional dimensions or specialties, such as institution size, specialized degrees, or employment opportunities” (page 58897).

So is there going to be a sudden, huge rush among institutions to move from one regional to another? No way. Here’s one of the roadblocks: “[USED will not] require an agency to accept a new institution…for which it did not have capacity or interest to accredit” (page 58894). The regional accreditors are funded by dues paid by member institutions. They run lean operations, both in terms of staffing and dollars. They don’t have the capacity to accept and process applications from significant numbers of institutions without major increases in staffing and funding. While the announcement in the Federal Register speculates, “Accrediting agencies may develop a new focus area or geographic scope over time as they increase resources to expand their operations” (page 58901), I just don’t see a significant increase in resources happening anytime soon, if ever.

Here’s the second roadblock: “[USED] will not require any institution…to change to a different accrediting agency as a result of these regulatory changes” (page 58894). Let’s imagine a wildly hypothetical scenario: one of the regionals decides it wants to accredit only doctoral institutions. It can’t, because it now accredits community colleges, and USED will not require those community colleges to move to another accreditor. Yes, this accreditor could conceivably put in place standards such as for faculty credentials that are amenable to research universities and difficult for community colleges to comply with. But it couldn’t do that until community colleges have another accreditation home, which brings us back to the first roadblock.

I actually like the idea of the regional accreditors going national. I think competition can be healthy, and I like the idea of the regionals differentiating themselves in ways that better serve the incredible diversity of higher education institutions in the United States. I can envision one accreditor developing standards and processes that are particularly suitable for distance learning institutions, another doing the same for traditional institutions, another doing the same for complex institutions… maybe one doing the same for institutions that want an approach to accreditation that relies on documentation without the effort of extensive institutional self-study or analysis. But I don’t think these new regulations are going to move us appreciably down that road.

Some assessment smiles for the holidays

 Originally posted on December 22, 2019, on LindaSuskie.com

I stumbled across an old folder of assessment-related witticisms that I’ve collected over the years—literally decades. Here are some of my favorites. Unfortunately, the sources of some are lost to time. If you know any missing sources, or if you know any other good witticisms, please let me know!

I’m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let’s start with surveys. (Frank Lloyd Wright)

Measurements are not to provide numbers but insight. (Ingrid Bucher)

You cannot fix through analysis what you bungled by design. (Karen Zaruba)

The lasting measure of good teaching is what the individual student learns and carries away. (Stanford Erickson)

Remember that ‘average’ is simply the best of the poorest and the poorest of the best. (Dan Galvin)

Description of a grade: An inadequate report of an inaccurate judgment by a biased and variable judge of the extent to which a student has attained an undefined level of mastery of an unknown proportion of an indefinite material. (P. Dressel)

He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts—for support rather than illumination. (Andrew Lang)

You got to be careful if you don’t know where you’re going, because you might not get there. (Yogi Berra)

The way a question is asked limits and disposes the ways in which any answer to it—right or wrong—may be given. (Susanne Langer)

We don’t know who we are until we see what we can do. (Martha Grimes)

University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small. (Henry Kissinger)

What gets measured, gets managed. (Peter Drucker)

To teachers, students are the end products—all else is a means. Hence there is but one interpretation of high standards in teaching: standards are highest where the maximum number of students—slow learners and fast learners alike—develop to their maximal capacity. (Joseph Seidlin)

Education has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading. (G. M. Trevelyan)

It’s easier to see the mistake on someone else’s paper. (Cynthia Copeland Lewis)

For every complex question there is a simple answer—and it’s wrong. (H. L. Mencken)

For so it is, O Lord my God, I measure it! But what it is I measure, I do not know. (St. Augustine)

To those of you who have received honors, awards and distinctions, I say well done. And to the “C” students, I say: You, too, can be president of the United States. (George W. Bush)

It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it. (Johann von Goethe)

Old teachers never die, they just grade away. (Henny Youngman)

Given particular subject matter or a particular concept, it is easy to ask trivial questions or to lead the child to ask trivial questions. It is also easy to ask impossibly difficult questions. The trick is to find the medium questions that can be asked and take you somewhere. This is the big job of teachers and textbooks. (David Page)

The color of truth is gray. (Andre Gide)

Consistency is always easier to defend than correctness.

Every bureaucracy generates paperwork in a logarithmic fashion. A one-page directive will inevitably lead to a five-page guideline, a ten-page procedure, and a 25-page report. (Ed Karl)

The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant to your critics.

The more time you spend in reporting on what you are doing, the less time you have to do anything. (Dan Galvin)

It’s hard to be nostalgic when you can’t remember anything. Keep critical documents to verify your conclusions.

Stability is achieved then you spend all your time doing nothing but reporting on the nothing you are doing.

When confronted by a difficult problem, you can solve it more easily by reducing it to the question, “How would the Lone Ranger have handled this?” (Karyn Brady)

The last grand act of a dying institution is to issue a newly revised, enlarged edition of the policies and procedures manual. (Eric Hoffer)

If you do a job too well, you’ll get stuck with it. (Roy Slous)