[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STRENGTHENING ACCREDITATION TO
BETTER PROTECT STUDENTS
AND TAXPAYERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 27, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-14
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-136 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Duncan Hunter, California Virginia
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ranking Member
Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Todd Rokita, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Jared Polis, Colorado
Luke Messer, Indiana Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Bradley Byrne, Alabama Northern Mariana Islands
David Brat, Virginia Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Mark Takano, California
Elise Stefanik, New York Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
Rick W. Allen, Georgia Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jason Lewis, Minnesota Donald Norcross, New Jersey
Francis Rooney, Florida Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware
Paul Mitchell, Michigan Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania Adriano Espaillat, New York
A. Drew Ferguson, IV, Georgia
Brandon Renz, Staff Director
Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director
-----------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 27, 2017................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Committee on Education and
the Workforce.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
McComis, Mr. Michale S., Executive Director, Accrediting
Commission of Career Schools and Colleges.................. 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Miller, Mr. Ben, Senior Director for Post-Secondary
Education, Center for American Progress.................... 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Petrisko, Ms. Mary Ellen, President, Washington Association
of Schools and Colleges, Senior College and University
Commission................................................. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Pruitt, Dr. George A., President, Thomas Edison State
University................................................. 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Additional Submissions:
Ms. Petrisko:
WASC Senior College and University Commission............ 82
Article: Inside Higher Ed................................ 85
WASC Senior College and University Commission: WSCUC'S
Graduation Rate Dashboard.............................. 89
Dr. Pruitt:
Homeroom................................................. 92
Questions submitted for the record by:
Chairwoman Foxx
Roe, Hon. Phil, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee
Messer, Hon. Luke, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana....................................... 100
Rooney, Hon. Francis, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida
Response to questions submitted:
Mr. McComis.............................................. 96
Ms. Petrisko............................................. 111
Dr. Pruitt............................................... 122
STRENGTHENING ACCREDITATION TO
BETTER PROTECT STUDENTS
AND TAXPAYERS
----------
Thursday, April 27, 2017
House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Virginia Foxx
[chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Foxx, Roe, Thompson, Walberg,
Guthrie, Messer, Byrne, Grothman, Stefanik, Allen, Lewis,
Mitchell, Garrett, Smucker, Ferguson, Scott, Davis, Courtney,
Polis, Bonamici, Takano, Adams, Norcross, Blunt Rochester,
Krishnamoorthi, and Espaillat.
Staff Present: Bethany Aronhalt, Press Secretary; Courtney
Butcher, Director of Member Services and Coalitions; Emmanual
Guillory, Professional Staff Member; Amy Raaf Jones, Director
of Education and Human Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief
Clerk; Dominique McKay, Deputy Press Secretary; James Mullen,
Director of Information Technology; Krisann Pearce, General
Counsel; Jenny Prescott, Professional Staff Member; Alex Ricci,
Legislative Assistant; Mandy Schaumburg, Education Deputy
Director and Senior Counsel; Emily Slack, Professional Staff
Member; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow
Coordinator; Austin Barbera, Minority Press Assistant, Jacque
Chevalier, Minority Director of Education Policy; Denise Forte,
Minority Staff Director; Mishawn Freeman, Minority Staff
Assistant; Christian Haines, Minority Senior Education Policy
Counsel; Carolyn Hughes, Minority Deputy Director Health
Policy/Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Veronique Pluviose,
Minority General Counsel; Katherine Valle, Minority Education
Policy Advisor; and Christopher Zbrozek, Minority Education
Detailee.
Chairwoman Foxx. A quorum being present, the Committee on
Education and the Workforce will come to order.
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing.
Earlier this year, the committee met to examine some of the
challenges facing America's higher education system. Costs are
rising at private and public institutions. Far too many
individuals are failing to complete their education in a timely
manner. Misguided rules are stifling innovation on campuses and
creating new burdens on institutions across the country.
At the same hearing, we discussed opportunities to help
address these challenges, opportunities like empowering
students to make informed decisions, simplifying student aid,
and promoting innovation, access, and completion.
Today, we continue our work to strengthen higher education
by taking a closer look at another one of the key principles
guiding our efforts, providing strong accountability for
students and taxpayers.
In higher education, one way we ensure accountability is
the
accreditation process. Accrediting agencies are voluntary
private organizations made up of members from accredited
colleges and universities. These agencies work with their
member institutions to develop standards and criteria to
determine what constitutes a high quality higher education
institution. Then through a non-governmental system of peer
review, the agencies decide if an institution meets those
standards.
By giving their stamp of approval, accreditation agencies
provide students and parents with an assurance that an
institution meets certain standards when it comes to delivering
a high quality education.
Families rely on accreditors to hold schools accountable
for the education they provide, and to ensure these schools are
producing results for their students.
Congress also relies on accreditors. Accreditation helps
determine which schools are permitted to participate in Federal
student aid programs. These important programs allow students
at eligible schools to receive Federal funds, and we need to
know these hard-earned taxpayer dollars are going only to
institutions that are serving students well.
The accreditation process is critical to providing
accountability in the higher education system. However, like
many aspects of higher education, accreditation is in need of
improvement.
It has never been and should never be the Federal
Government's role to judge the quality of a school's education
programs. Entrusting independent accrediting agencies with that
responsibility protects academic freedom and student choice.
However, in recent years, accreditors have been forced to
focus on compliance rather than promoting academic integrity,
undermining the process and its purpose. It is time for a
better approach.
We need to focus Federal accreditation requirements on
academic quality and student learning. We need to ensure
Federal rules are clear and easy to follow. We need to improve
or do away with regulations that discourage or prevent
innovation in higher education, and we need to make sure that
the Administration, whether Democrat or Republican, does not
have the power to recklessly second-guess the tough decisions
accreditation agencies make.
These are all things Congress can do to improve the
accreditation process, but if we are going to see real change,
accreditors have a job to do as well.
It is not enough to refocus Federal rules. Accreditors must
also embrace the commitment to high quality and improved
outcomes. Students need an honest and accurate assessment when
it comes to the quality of education a school provides. An
accreditation agency's stamp of approval means something to
those students, or at least it should mean something.
Accreditors also need to be open to innovation and the
opportunities it can create in higher education. If we are
going to roll back rigid Federal requirements, it is up to
accrediting agencies to take the flexibility we are working to
provide and do something meaningful with it.
By working together, Congress and accreditors, we can
improve the accreditation system, ensuring a balance between
flexibility for institutions and accountability for students
and taxpayers.
We are here today to gain a better understanding of the
challenges facing the accreditation system, as well as how we
can tackle those challenges.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and advancing
solutions that will provide greater accountability in higher
education, and ensure the accreditation process serves the best
interests of students, families, and taxpayers.
With that, I yield to Ranking Member Scott for his opening
remarks.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairwoman, Committee on
Education and the Workforce
Earlier this year, the committee met to examine some of the
challenges facing America's higher education system. Costs are rising
at private and public institutions. Far too many individuals are
failing to complete their education in a timely manner. Misguided rules
are stifling innovation on campuses and creating new burdens on
institutions across the country.
At that same hearing we discussed opportunities to help address
these challenges--opportunities like empowering students to make
informed decisions; simplifying student aid; and promoting innovation,
access, and completion.
Today, we continue our work to strengthen higher education by
taking a closer look at another one of the key principles guiding our
efforts--providing strong accountability for students and taxpayers.
In higher education, one way we ensure accountability is the
accreditation process. Accrediting agencies are voluntary private
organizations made up of members from accredited colleges and
universities. These agencies work with their member institutions to
develop standards and criteria to determine what constitutes a high-
quality higher education institution. Then, through a non-governmental
system of peer review, the agencies decide if an institution meets
those standards.
By giving their stamp of approval, accreditation agencies provide
students and parents with an assurance that an institution meets
certain standards when it comes to delivering a high-quality education.
Families rely on accreditors to hold schools accountable for the
education they provide and to ensure those schools are producing
results for their students.
Congress also relies on accreditors. Accreditation helps determine
which schools are permitted to participate in federal student aid
programs. These important programs allow students at eligible schools
to receive federal funds, and we need to know those hard-earned
taxpayer dollars are only going to institutions that are serving
students well.
The accreditation process is critical to providing accountability
in the higher education system. However, like many aspects of higher
education, accreditation is in need of improvement.
It has never been and should never be the federal government's role
to judge the quality of a school's education programs. Entrusting
independent accrediting agencies with that responsibility protects
academic freedom and student choice. However, in recent years,
accreditors have been forced to focus on compliance rather than
promoting academic integrity, undermining the process and its purpose.
It's time for a better approach.
We need to refocus federal accreditation requirements on academic
quality and student learning. We need to ensure federal rules are clear
and easy to follow. We need to improve--or do away with--regulations
that discourage or prevent innovation in higher education. And we need
to make sure the administration--whether Democrat or Republican--does
not have the power to recklessly second-guess the tough decisions
accreditation agencies make.
These are all things Congress can do to improve the accreditation
process, but if we are going to see real change, accreditors have a job
to do as well.
It's not enough to refocus federal rules. Accreditors must also
embrace a commitment to high-quality and improved outcomes. Students
need an honest and accurate assessment when it comes to the quality of
education a school provides. An accreditation agency's stamp of
approval means something to those students, or at least it should mean
something.
Accreditors also need to be open to innovation and the
opportunities it can create in higher education. If we are going to
roll back rigid federal requirements, it's up to accrediting agencies
to take the flexibility we are working to provide and do something
meaningful with it.
By working together--Congress and accreditors--we can improve the
accreditation system, ensuring a balance between flexibility for
institutions and accountability for students and taxpayers.
We are here today to gain a better understanding of the challenges
facing the accreditation system, as well as how we can tackle those
challenges. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and advancing
solutions that will provide greater accountability in higher education
and ensure the accreditation process serves the best interests of
students, families, and taxpayers.
______
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to
thank you for calling this hearing, and thank our distinguished
witnesses for being with us today.
The issue of quality in higher education is not one that we
address often in Congress. The higher education system in the
United States is one of if not the best in the world, and we
frequently spend our time debating how to increase access to
the system or how to make college more affordable, and not just
in quality.
While these are topics that I am sure we will continue
debating, it is important to take a step back to determine if
we are ensuring that our higher education system maintains its
high level of quality across all sectors for all students.
While the Federal Government and State authorizers both
have important roles to play in assuring quality, independent
accrediting bodies should be the true arbiters of quality in
our higher education system.
Their thoughtful peer review process is designed to ensure
that institutions are living up to their educational mission,
whether it is providing students with an education that will be
the basis of lifetime learning, or preparing them to excel in a
specific field or career.
The title of this hearing alludes to the fact that while
students depend on accreditors, taxpayers do as well. Over $150
billion in Federal student aid is disbursed every year, and it
can only go to institutions of higher education that have been
accredited by a federally recognized accreditor. As such, there
are huge fiscal implications in the quality and rigor of the
accreditation process.
While the accreditation system works well for many schools,
it must be improved. We know that there have been schools that
were fully accredited up until the day they closed their doors,
leaving students out in the cold and taxpayers holding the bag.
We also know that there are schools that remain accredited
while offering their students little chance to obtain a degree
or get a credential that has little value in the marketplace.
There is emerging research that shows that in some cases,
the outcomes at some fully accredited schools are so poor that
students would have been better off not going to school at all
rather than attending those schools.
The Federal Government has begun to respond to these
problems in accreditation. The Federal Government has an
interest in whether or not a school is accredited because of
the billions of dollars in Federal aid, and if the accreditors
aren't doing the job, the Federal Government has to do the job,
and that is where programs like Gainful Employment and other
measures have come up.
To the extent that the accreditors fail, we are going to
have to come up with those kinds of answers. Over the last two
years, the Department of Education has proposed actions to make
the accreditation system more transparent, and to provide more
information on standards that accreditors use to rate schools.
Last year, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional
Quality and Integrity derecognized the Accrediting Council for
Independent Colleges and Schools, putting other accreditors on
notice that subpar standards and a documented history of
turning a blind eye to bad actors would not be tolerated.
It seems like many accreditors got the message, and we have
seen proposed reforms from accreditors based on recommendations
from the previous Administration.
I know accreditors want to improve, and they want to ensure
that their members still provide a top-notch education, but we
are at a crossroads. There is no guarantee that the new
Administration is going to take a critical view on the need to
improve accreditation, and I worry that the improvements we
have seen of late could falter without the oversight and
pressure from the Federal Government.
Accreditation can be a peer-based program designed to
foster self-improvement and be responsive to data on student
outcomes. It can meet the needs of vastly different
institutions but still use common terms and measures.
It can respect the internal decisions and choices of an
institution and still be transparent.
We can have the best accreditation system in the world for
the best higher education system in the world, and hopefully,
our witnesses today will provide the perspective on how we can
do just that.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 7(c), all members will be permitted to submit
written statements to be included in the permanent hearing
record.
Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for
14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material
referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the official
hearing record.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Ranking Member,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Good morning. I would like to thank Chairwoman Foxx for calling
this hearing and I'd like to thank our distinguished witnesses for
being here today.
The issue of quality in higher education is one that we address
often here in Congress. The higher education system in the United
States is one of, if not the best in the world, and we frequently spend
our time debating how to increase access to the system or how to make
college more affordable. And while these are topics that I'm sure we
will continue debating, it is important that we take a step back and
determine if we are ensuring that our higher education system maintains
its high level of quality across all sectors for all students.
While the federal government and state authorizers both have
important roles to play in assuring quality, accrediting bodies are the
true arbiters of quality in our higher education system. Their
thoughtful peer review process is designed to ensure that institutions
are living up
to their educational mission--whether it's providing students with
an education that will be the basis for a lifetime of learning or
preparing them to excel in a specific field or career. The title of
this hearing alludes to the fact that while students depend on
accreditors, taxpayers do as well. Over $150 billion in federal student
aid is disbursed every year, and it can only go to institutions of
higher education that have been accredited by a federally recognized
accreditor. As such, there are huge fiscal implications to the quality
and rigor of accreditation reviews.
While the accreditation systems works well for many schools, it
must be improved. We know that there were schools that were fully
accredited up until the point that they closed their doors, leaving
students out in the cold and taxpayers holding the bag. We also know
there are schools that remain accredited while offering their students
little chance to obtain a degree, or a credential that has little value
in the marketplace. There is emerging research that shows in the worst
cases, the outcomes at some fully accredited schools are so poor that
students would have been better off going to no school rather than
attending.
The federal government has begun to respond to these problems in
accreditation. Over the last two years the Department of Education
proposed actions to make the accreditation system more transparent, and
provide more information on the standards that accreditors use to rate
schools. Last year the National Advisory Committee on Institutional
Quality and Integrity, (or NACIQI) derecognized the Accrediting Council
for Independent Colleges and Schools (or ACICS), putting other
accreditors on notice that subpar standards and a documented history of
turning a blind eye to bad actors would not be tolerated.
It seems like many accreditors got the message, and we have seen
proposed reforms from accreditors based on recommendations from the
previous administration. I know accreditors want to improve and they
want to ensure that their members are still providing a top-notch
education. But we are at a crossroads. There is no guarantee that the
new Administration is going to take as critical a view on the need to
improve accreditation, and I worry that the improvements that we've
seen of late could falter without the oversight of the federal
government.
Accreditation can be a peer-based program designed to foster self-
improvement and be responsive to data on student outcomes. It can meet
the needs of vastly different institutions but still use common terms
and actions. It can respect the internal decisions and choices of an
institution and still be transparent. We can have the best
accreditation system in the world for the best higher education system
in the world, and hopefully our witnesses here today will provide
perspective on how we can do just that. Thank you and I yield back the
balance of my time.
______
Chairwoman Foxx. We now turn to introduction of our
distinguished witnesses. Dr. Mary Ellen Petrisko is President
of the Senior College and University Commission at the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges. Dr. Petrisko has extensive
experience in institutional academic leadership and regional
accreditation and State policy.
Dr. George Pruitt is President of the Thomas Edison State
University. Dr. Pruitt has served in executive leadership
positions at several postsecondary institutions, and is past
chairman and a member of the Middle States Commission on Higher
Education.
Mr. Ben Miller is Senior Director for Postsecondary
Education at the Center for American Progress. Mr. Miller's
work focuses on postsecondary education accountability,
affordability, and financial aid, as well as for-profit
colleges and other issues.
Dr. Michale McComis is Executive Director at the
Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges. As the
Executive Director, Dr. McComis manages the day-to-day
operations of ACCSC's office and staff in overseeing the ACCSC
accreditation process.
I now ask our witnesses to raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairwoman Foxx. Let the record reflect the witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony,
let me briefly explain our lighting system. We allow 5 minutes
for each witness to provide testimony. When you begin, the
light in front of you will turn green. When one minute is left,
the light will turn yellow. At the 5 minute mark, the light
will turn red, and you should wrap up your testimony.
Members will each have 5 minutes to ask questions.
I believe we are ready to begin. Dr. Petrisko, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MARY ELLEN PETRISKO, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON
ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES, SENIOR COLLEGE AND
UNIVERSITY COMMISSION
Ms. Petrisko. Chairman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, and
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be
with you today to testify.
As noted, I am the President of the WASC Senior College and
University Commission, which is an accrediting body serving
public and private higher education institutions throughout
California, Hawaii, and the Pacific, and a limited number of
institutions outside of the U.S.
The first accreditor of colleges and universities was
founded in this country in 1885, when there were just 36 States
in the Union. Just as our country has grown and developed over
the past 130 years, so, too, had accreditation changed to
become what it is today, an outcomes-focused system of quality
assurance that relies on voluntary peer review.
The work of accreditation is grounded in standards aligned
with those dictated by U.S. statute and regulations. Since
1952, related to the G.I. Bill, accreditors have been
recognized as quality assurance agencies to protect the Federal
Government's investment in higher education. Accreditation has
traditionally existed as part of a quality assurance triad, in
collaboration with State and Federal Government.
Colleges and universities in the United States have an
international reputation for exceptional quality, as does our
system of accreditation. Indeed, many institutions outside of
the United States aspire to be accredited by U.S. accreditors,
but the fact that our accreditation system is a strong and much
admired system does not mean that it and our larger quality
assurance system triad are perfect.
Today's hearing is focused on opportunities to improve
accreditation. While I believe accreditors largely do a good
job in protecting students, I also believe that steps could be
taken in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act to
create a stronger accountability system and therefore better
serve students.
First, I'd like to tell you about some of the things we at
WSCUC are doing to support student success and protect the
public's investment in higher education.
At WASC, we define ``student success'' as student learning
and retention and completion. With regard to the latter, let me
note that the Federal IPEDS data only measured completion for
first time full-time students at an institution. In the WASC
region, IPEDS covers only about 360,000 of our 900,000
undergraduate students, making more than 500,000 students
invisible.
To address the insufficiency of these data, WASC has
developed what we call the ``Graduation Rate Dashboard,'' a
tool that enables us to see how many students graduate from an
institution, and importantly, no matter their enrollment status
or time to degree.
Given that the majority of our students fall outside the
IPEDS' measure, this is an important development. The Dashboard
can provide institutions with more complete and inclusive
information regarding student success, shine light on
enrollment, retention, and graduation patterns, and allow both
WASC and the institution to better identify and address issues
that affect student success.
I've included additional information about this tool in my
written testimony, as well as information about our work with
the National Student Clearinghouse to expand our ability to
assess institutional effectiveness.
As student completion is important to all accreditors, the
Council of Regional Accreditors, or C-RAC, recently launched a
nationwide effort to place increased emphasis on graduation
rates as part of our ongoing review of colleges and
universities.
Each accrediting body will use at a minimum a 15 percent
IPEDS' graduation rate for two year institutions, and a 25
percent rate for four year institutions--those numbers are
about half the national average--as triggers to more closely
examine institution's student success and plans for
improvement.
Let me conclude by making three recommendations for the
strengthening of our system of accountability related to
innovation, transparency, and appropriate levels of regulation.
First and foremost, I believe it is critical that the HEA
reauthorization support the innovation necessary to serve
current and especially future students, and that it will allow
accreditors the flexibility to review and approve innovations
in a safe zone as is allowed by current experimental sites.
As our regional undergraduate population shows, the
majority of students today do not go to one institution full-
time or finish within four years. I hope that the
reauthorization will keep these changing student demographics
in mind.
Secondly, whatever steps are taken to provide greater
transparency should ensure that students can access accurate
and relevant information on our institutions. Currently
available data from the College Navigator and College Scorecard
are sometimes inaccurate, sometimes in conflict with one
another, and limited due to their reliance on IPEDS. Better
information can help students make better choices and promote
enhanced accountability.
Understanding this, we at WASC have published all of our
team reports and Commission action letters since July of 2012.
Finally, I hope that excessive regulations, such as those
related to substantive change and credit hour, will be
addressed and moderated. Such regulations inhibit innovation,
add costs and burden to institutions, and do not add value.
Chairman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, thank you very much
for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering
your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Petrisko follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. Dr. Pruitt, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE A. PRUITT, PRESIDENT, THOMAS EDISON STATE
UNIVERSITY
Mr. Pruitt. Thank you. Madam Chairwoman and members of the
committee, in December, I completed three successive terms as
Chair of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.
Prior to that, I served for almost 19 years, under five
Secretaries of Education, under three Presidents of both
parties, as a member of the National Advisory Committee on
Institutional Quality and Integrity, otherwise known as NACIQI,
but today I come before you to provide an institutional
perspective.
Thomas Edison State University is a specialty university.
We were created with the mission of providing flexible, high
quality collegiate learning opportunities for self-directed
adults. The average age of our student body is approximately
40, and we do not regularly admit students under the age of 21
unless they are community college graduates or active duty
military.
With an enrollment of 17,500 students, we are the third
largest college or university in the State of New Jersey. We
were among the first institutions in creating what is now known
as ``prior learning assessment.'' We were one of the first
regionally accredited colleges or universities in the United
States to offer complete degree programs online.
While we are noted for our innovation in the serving of
adult learners, we are proudest of the recognition we receive
for the quality and integrity of our academic work.
Regionally accredited institutions value their
participation as members of quality assurance communities.
While reasonable Federal oversight over the use of public funds
is important and necessary, we believe that peer affirmation of
quality tested against agreed upon standards promulgated by
recognized academic authorities, has been essential in
producing the finest set of academic institutions in the world.
There are four basic things we would all like to see from
our accreditors. First, standards that respect the rich
diversity and institutional mission and the different student
populations we serve through a process of self-study and peer
review.
Ten miles down the road from us is Princeton University,
one of the finest institutions in the world, yet our two
universities could not be more different. Both of high quality,
but with very different missions serving two very different
populations that require different analytics to understand us.
Second, accreditation focused on objectively demonstrable
student learning outcomes.
Third, accreditation conclusions about institutional
effectiveness that are based on objective evidence, appropriate
metrics, and where possible, third party validation.
The emphasis should be on appropriate metrics that are
aligned with the individual mission of the institution, and not
a one-size-fits-all template, using misplaced data, such as
graduation rates. If graduation rate is the wrong metric, then
what are some of the right ones?
For example, Thomas Edison State University graduates
achieved the highest pass rate of all New Jersey institutions
on the National Public Accountancy Exam for three of the last
five years.
In 2012 and 2014, the graduates of our Accelerated
Baccalaureate Nursing Program earned a 100 percent pass rate on
the State licensure exam. In fiscal 2016, 77 percent of our
graduates were admitted to graduate schools, and only 7 percent
of the students that stopped out of our institution did so for
academic reasons.
The vast majority of students enrolled in American higher
education today are over the age of 25 and attend college part-
time. The traditional 18-year-old going to college full-time
expecting to graduate in four years is a shrinking piece of the
higher education pie. Accordingly, the metrics of
accountability to be of any value must reflect this new
reality. You'll never get the right answer to the wrong
question.
Finally, accreditors should continue to oppose the
substitution of compliance for quality assurance that is
stemming from well-intentioned but misguided regulation by the
Department of Education.
I believe that Middle States and the other regional
accreditors are meeting these four benchmarks. We all
understand that there have been some well publicized examples
of institutions that have lost their way, compromised the
public trust, misused public resources, and hurt the students
that were enlisted into their care.
While these institutions should be held accountable by
their accreditors, regulators, and consumers, the broad system
of accreditation is fundamentally sound, but we must always be
involved in a process of continuous improvement.
Accreditation should not be expected to prevent the failure
of institutions. Instead, it should be the proverbial canary in
the coal mine, identifying weak institutions, strengthening
them where possible, and alerting the regulators and protecting
students when institutions become severely challenged.
However, in our effort to improve the system, we must not
impose remedies that do more harm than the maladies they seek
to cure.
Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Pruitt follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Dr. Pruitt. Mr. Miller, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF BEN MILLER, SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR POSTSECONDARY
EDUCATION, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member
Scott for the opportunity to testify today.
Every year, students and taxpayers invest billions of
dollars in higher education, seeking better lives and a
stronger economy. We trust a triad of States, the Federal
Government, and accreditation agencies to ensure those
investments pay off. The triad is failing us.
While no part of the triad is blameless, accreditors have
either stood by or acted with molasses-like speed while
taxpayer dollars and student dreams got wasted. Every campus of
Corinthian Colleges maintained accreditation until the day it
closed or was sold, even as allegations of falsified job
placement rates, altered grades, and inadequate education piled
up.
There are many schools of all types today that can proudly
advertise their accreditation status while producing high
levels of borrowing, low completion rates, and poor repayment
outcomes.
Do accreditors know about these problems? Yes. They wag
their fingers and sometimes issue threats. They rarely pull the
plug.
Everyone in this room pays for this inaction. As taxpayers,
we all pay when Federal loans are forgiven due to fraud or aid
does not become a degree.
Today, we are fortunate to hear from two of the most
forward thinking accreditation agencies, but remember, the good
things they are doing are voluntary. Many other agencies have
not followed their lead.
For example, WASC has required the publication of
accreditation team reports for nearly a half decade. No other
accreditor has done so. ACCSC requires independent verification
of outcomes data. The other large national agency blew off the
need for this action until its existence was threatened.
And, just as the accreditation system contains WASC and
ACCSC, so, too, did it have the Accrediting Council for
Independent Colleges and Schools. ACICS served as a safe haven
for troubled colleges fleeing scrutiny from other accreditors.
Its quality assurance work was literal box checking.
ACICS' results were grim. It approved over a dozen schools
that faced Federal or State investigations for wrongdoing.
Those schools received $5.7 billion in Federal aid over just
three years. 90 times ACICS named one of those campuses to its
Honor Roll for an excellent understanding of the accreditation
process.
These problems persist because we have created a system of
quality assurance that says success means doing the things you
said you'd do, not the actual results achieved.
So, what can Congress and accreditors do? First, Congress
should make the system much more outcomes focused. Accreditors
should judge schools primarily on the results of their
students, and the Federal Government in turn should judge
accreditors by how well they do, not just whether they have
mandated standards in place.
Second, the system needs to get a lot tougher on lower
performing colleges. Institutions with abysmal completion rates
or no evidence of learning need stricter scrutiny. They should
pay much more up front for their reviews, giving accreditors
resources needed for deeper dives. A greater focus on the
bottom should also come with an easier approval process for
schools at the top.
Third, we need new alternative approaches to quality
assurance that allow new providers with verifiably outstanding
performance to access Federal aid.
Here is the Center for American Progress's idea for how
that could work. Private third parties would propose indicators
of student outcomes and financial health a program would have
to meet in order to access Federal aid. Only the best should be
able to clear the bars.
The Federal Government would then verify whether the
programs seeking aid meet those standards and take action to
approve or deny a program accordingly.
This approach marries the best elements of the current
system while fixing many of its flaws. It preserves a role for
third parties that have experience judging programs. It solves
conflicts of interest by separating out who sets standards from
who determines eligibility, and it leverages data the Federal
Government already holds on earnings and loan outcomes to
minimize the need for additional data collection.
A high quality college education can unlock a lifetime of
benefits, but low quality programs can cause financial ruin,
especially if Federal student loans are involved. Students and
taxpayers today trust accreditation as a stamp of quality that
their money will be worth it. We have a ways to go to ensure
that is true.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Dr. McComis, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MICHALE S. McCOMIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ACCREDITING COMMISSION OF CAREER SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES
Mr. McComis. Good morning, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
Scott, and members of the committee. My name is Dr. Michale
McComis, and I'm the Executive Director of the Accrediting
Commission of Career Schools and Colleges.
I'm honored to appear before the committee this morning to
discuss accreditation, the contributions it makes to the
quality of education in this country, and the ways it might be
improved.
Accreditation has been relied upon for educational quality
assessment purposes by the Federal Government for over six
decades. Although accreditation has come under increased
scrutiny by policymakers, accreditation can and should continue
to serve in its gatekeeping capacity, albeit in a strengthened
form.
Accreditation employs a collaborative approach within a
peer review network that identifies best practices and assesses
how well an institution meets those best practice standards. It
is not nor can it be a one-size-fits-all system with
rudimentary metrics that do not take into account diverse
objective and qualitative elements of an institution's
operations and success.
Accreditation derives its strength from four essential
pillars that are built upon a foundation of peer review,
standards or best practices, self-evaluation, ongoing
institutional improvement, and accountability.
Accreditation serves a myriad of institutions accredited by
agencies with different standards and expectations of student
outcomes. This is both appropriate and necessary, and should be
viewed as a strength to our system.
But Congress should consider changes to the Higher
Education Act that will strengthen accrediting agencies,
however, without injecting undue Federal intrusion into the
learning process or that might serve as a barrier to
innovation.
Judgments regarding the effectiveness of accreditation
should not lose sight of the fact that the oversight of higher
education is a shared responsibility amongst the triad
partners, accreditors, States, and the Federal Government,
working together, which strengthens the existing oversight
system.
So then, how can accreditation be strengthened through the
Higher Education Act? The following are some suggestions that I
hope the committee might consider.
Outcomes. Outcome measures are not a one-size-fits-all
solution and should not be mandated by Congress or the U.S.
Department of Education. However, accreditors must define the
right set of measures and metrics to evaluate institutional and
student success.
At ACCSC, we measure rates of graduation, employment,
licensure, and required learning and competency assessment.
Transparency. Accreditors should be expected to provide
useful disclosures of the accreditation actions taken that can
help the general public make informed decisions about the
quality of an institution or program.
Differentiation. Allow for differentiated levels of
accreditation which could place schools in different categories
and move beyond binary decisions regarding quality.
Credit hour definition. Seat-time requirements for funding
programs do not preserve academic integrity nor promote
competency-based assessment, and as such, the Federal
definition of a ``credit hour'' and the complex clock hour
conversion formulas should be removed from the Federal
regulations.
Accreditation area of focus. It may be useful to expect
accreditors to focus more narrowly on the types of institutions
accredited in order to ensure a strong peer review foundation
and solid measures related to outcomes and accountability.
Transfer of credit. Accreditors should be expected to have
and enforce standards that prevent institutions from unfairly
or unjustifiably denying credit transfers.
Change of accreditors. Institutions that have been subject
to a monitoring sanction from one accreditor should not be
allowed for Federal financial aid purposes to seek a new
accreditor for some set period of time after the sanction has
been lifted.
Lastly, indemnification. Given the high stakes associated
with the loss of accreditation and the ensuing loss of access
to Title IV student financial aid funding, the Federal
Government should consider affording accreditors some
protection as a means to prevent specious and costly lawsuits
from being brought against accrediting agencies.
I've also included other areas for the committee to
consider within my written testimony, and I hope the committee
finds these recommendations useful as it goes about its work,
and I'm happy to provide additional details regarding each.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
committee this morning, and I look forward to continuing the
dialogue on ways in which we can work together to strengthen
our accreditation system. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. McComis follows:]22-32
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. You win the prize for
coming in under time. I want to thank all of you for your
testimony and your written testimony is even more expansive,
and I am grateful for that.
I will begin the questioning. Dr. Petrisko and Dr. McComis,
I believe very strongly in ensuring accountability for hard-
working taxpayer dollars. Right now, you and your colleagues
are responsible for ensuring $128 billion the Federal
Government sends out in student aid every year, is flowing only
to high quality institutions.
Can you explain to the committee how the current system of
accreditation with the competing roles of quality assurance and
continuous self-improvement is able to accurately measure and
assure institutional quality and protect the taxpayer
investment at the same time?
Why should Congress, and more importantly, students and
parents, continue to rely on your agencies as reliable
authorities for the quality of institutions of higher
education?
Dr. Petrisko, I will start with you, and then come to Dr.
McComis.
Ms. Petrisko. Thank you. It is certainly true that
accreditors balance all the time in our decisions compliance
with our standards and improvements at the institutions. As we
do that, we are very keenly aware of the fact that many
students have no other institution to attend if they are not
able to attend the one where they are currently enrolled.
So, we want to keep institutions strong, make them
stronger, address the issues of non-compliance or weakened
areas of compliance with a range of actions, not pulling the
plug automatically, but with special reports, visits, and
sanctions when necessary, that carry a real threat of loss of
accreditation, but it is to maintain operations of those
institutions that are supporting students and strengthening
them at the same time.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Dr. McComis?
Mr. McComis. I'll echo what Dr. Pruitt said along the lines
of the many successes that we can point to, even amidst some of
the failures that are present as well.
Insofar as measuring quality, that is a difficult aspect to
bring about, so the richness and the diversity, the types of
institution, and the peer review network that brings about
individuals coming together to establish those best practice
standards, the key being really from there setting and
establishing those outcome measures that really set to reflect
what quality can or should be.
So, for example, again with my agency, because we
predominately work with vocational and career oriented
institutions, we can look to measures like graduation rates. We
can look to measures like employment rates. We can look to
measures like licensure rates. But also, at the same time,
acknowledging that in order for a welder really to graduate,
they need to be competent. So, competency assessment measures
as well.
So, all of that woven together into a system that brings
about a highly qualified graduate that can contribute to a
highly qualified workforce is really the main aim here.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. Dr. Pruitt, I agree
with you that Thomas Edison is a special university and applaud
the work your institution has done to serve adult learners.
Can you discuss how a one-size-fits-all system of Federal
accountability might jeopardize the crucial work your
institution and other institutions like yours are doing to
serve contemporary students? Why is it so important that
accreditors have the flexibility to determine appropriate
outcome metrics for ensuring the quality of institutions?
Mr. Pruitt. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It is crucially
important that metrics be mission sensitive. In the absence of
that, metrics tend to assess the demographics of the student
body and not the quality of the institution.
I come back to my favorite subject about the graduation
rates. I saw eyebrows raised from my colleague when we had a
talk about graduation rates in the 20 something percent range,
and everyone looked like, well, that's too low.
Well, it is too low if your assumption is that you're going
to college full-time and expect to graduate in four years. None
of the 17,500 students in my institution--none of them go full-
time, none of them expect to graduate in four years. My
colleague institution down the street, Princeton, all of them
expect to go full-time and graduate in four years.
So, to create one metric that you try to apply across the
board to different institutions without regard to the
individual mission of the institutions or the constituents that
they are serving, distorts the picture of both institutions.
So, the dreaded template never works for diverse
institutions serving diverse populations. It actually misleads
the public and looks for false indicators of quality that kind
of confuses the conversation. That's why it's so important to
have these indicators referenced to the specific mission of
that particular institution against similar institutions and
peers.
You can do that. We have a track record of doing that.
That's the way it should be done, and not the dreaded template.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much, Dr. Pruitt. Mr.
Scott, you are recognized.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Petrisko, should the
cost of the institution be a factor in accreditation?
Ms. Petrisko. Should the cost of the institution be a
factor in accreditation? I want to say a couple of words about
costs. There's a lot of misunderstanding about costs in higher
education because a lot of people take a look at the sticker
price as opposed to the net price.
There is a recent publication of the Association of
Governing Boards, which I will be happy to put into the record,
that talks about the reality of what the real costs are of
education and what the rise in those costs have been.
So, for example, at the four year institution level
publicly, over the last 26 years, this is the highest rate of
increase, the rate of increase of the net price has been about
3.7 percent. For community colleges, it's been about 1 percent
a year, and for the private institutions, it's been less than 1
percent a year. That's the net price.
There's a vast difference because of a lot of discounting
at the private institutions to ensure that there is some
flexibility in pricing schedules to allow students who would
not have the wherewithal to pay the sticker price to attend
that institution.
So, there is a lot of misinformation out there and it's a
complicated issue, but the costs are not what some people might
think they are.
Mr. Scott. Basically, if two schools of equal quality, one
charging two, three times more than the other, should that be a
factor in accreditation?
Ms. Petrisko. I would say no, it depends on how the
students are supported to pay for those costs, and they are
supported in different ways, by loans, grants, and
institutional aid.
Mr. Scott. Should false advertising be a factor in
accreditation? Some schools promise that if you go to their
school, you'll get a job. Others, if you come to school, you'll
get a good education, but you may not be able to get a job.
Ms. Petrisko. Absolutely. There is a form that our
evaluators use to make sure that institutions are giving their
students correct information about costs, what it really costs,
what their job prospects are, and that their recruiting
materials are accurate and true. So, we do require that be
reviewed.
Mr. Scott. I visited Dr. Pruitt's school, and enjoyed the
visit, Dr. Pruitt. He indicated it is inappropriate to judge a
school's outcomes without recognizing the difference in the
demographics of the student body. One could have everybody
coming from the top one percent, others could have high Pell-
eligible .
Can you have a student outcome measure that does not
recognize the diversity in the student body demographics?
Ms. Petrisko. I do not think so. The 20 percent rate that
Dr. Pruitt referred to, which is an IPEDS rate, when I talked
about the Council of Regional Accrediting Bodies, we have
examples at our institutions where the IPEDS rate goes 30
percent, and the actual rate, not taking enrollment into
consideration, and not taking time to degree into consideration
through this Dashboard that I've talked about in my testimony,
the actual rate of one institution in the California State
system with a very high percentage of part-time students and
students taking a very long time to get their degrees is more
like 60 percent.
So, it absolutely is relevant, who the students are, what
their paths to degrees are, and how long those paths take. Just
seeing a certain percentage of an IPEDS rate, the national
available rate, may be an indicator, it's a trigger, as I said,
to look further, but if that percentage, as was the case with
one of the institutions I looked at in our region recently, if
that percentage represents 4 percent of the student population
or for some institutions, like Western Governors, 0 to 1
percent, that is not giving you very good information, and
judgments should not be made about the quality of the
institution based on that data.
Mr. Scott. How do you value the--how do you assess the
value of a four year on-campus private liberal arts degree
where most of the value in fact doesn't even come from the
classroom but from the college experience?
Ms. Petrisko. We expect every institution to state what its
learning outcomes are. Institution learning outcomes, program
learning outcomes, and if they provide evidence of the
assessment of and the achievement of those outcomes.
So, outcomes can be very large, very broad outcomes. We do
expect at the institutions if they state those are outcomes for
their students, that they show us how those students meet those
outcomes.
Mr. Scott. Finally, should we be assessing on a pass/fail
basis or a relative basis throughout the spectrum? Because the
question that we are addressing is whether you participate in
financial aid or not. Should we have a pass/fail or have an
assessment that differentiates all the way through the
spectrum?
Ms. Petrisko. There are differentiations across the
accreditors: status of accreditation, how long, in our case, a
reaffirmation, it could be six, eight, or 10 years, depending
on the strength of the institution, whether there is interim
reporting, whether there are special visits in between those
reaffirmation periods.
But I would say for Federal aid purposes, I wouldn't want
to see differentiation there because the students are taking
different paths to their degrees, and they should all have
access to that support to be able to do so.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr. Byrne, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. This was great. All
your testimony was very helpful.
Mr. Miller's testimony hit some points that I think all of
us would agree we need to talk about, honestly.
I was a Chancellor for Postsecondary Education for Alabama,
and my relationship with our accreditor was, I would call
``appropriate,'' which meant sometimes it was uncomfortable.
For those of you who know Dr. Belle Whelan, you know she is
very nice about making things uncomfortable, but she needed to
make my life uncomfortable from time to time, and that is okay,
so I value that about it.
We have had some failures in our accreditation agencies.
So, the question for us is do we come in with a more heavy
handed Federal approach to get accreditors to do what they need
to do, or is there a way for us to turn to the accreditors
themselves and say value your independence, which I think is
one of your great strengths, but at the same time tell you we
have to police ourselves better, because there have been some
key instances where we have not done our job right.
I thought I would like throw it out to any one of you that
want to jump in on that. I am really looking to the other
three, because you sort of laid the critique out there.
I would like for you to respond to that. Do you think the
Federal Government playing a heavier hand is going to help, or
is there something we can do within ourselves, all of us, to
make it work better?
Ms. Petrisko. I think it's very important that accreditors
have the authority to take additional steps where necessary to
improve what we do, learning from very close work with the
institutions and the challenges they face, learning what we
need to do to strengthen our own systems.
There has already been mention made of the failed
institutions recently, and I can tell you one of the big
changes in higher education, from which we have all learned
recently, has been the tremendous growth in the for-profit
sector.
I don't think that's a secret, that public institutions are
very strapped, many non-profit institutions are also
financially challenged and are very concerned with selectivity.
A great deal of growth has been in the for-profit sector.
Just in our Commission, we currently have of our accredited
institutions about 13 percent are for-profits. That's 23 now.
Six years ago, we had one. If you go to the candidates, it's
about 33 percent, if you go to the eligibles, it is about 35
percent, the ones that are just applying, it's about 50 percent
that are for-profits.
So, we are very keenly aware of the fact that we need to
have better and more inclusive information about what's going
on.
So, accordingly, what we have done learning this is we have
commissioned work from PRAGO, a firm that's created the ratio
analysis in higher education, this is what the credit analysis
has done in higher education, pretty much across the country on
the basis of seven financial ratios.
We've worked with them to give us a better foundation.
We're still in the process of getting this report. Getting a
better foundation for how to look not just at institutions but
with their parent companies to get the information from them as
well, on governance and finances, so that we can see how
decisions are being made that are affecting the institution,
where the resources are going, and how those are being
allocated.
I think this is a good example of the fact that we are
stepping up as accreditors when we recognize there are issues
that we are not covering.
Mr. Byrne. That is really not my question. You are doing
your job. We know there are instances where it has not been
done. I want to find the right balance here, because there is a
tension here. Mr. Scott, I think, has done a good job of
stating the tension.
How do we address the balance? Dr. Pruitt, do you have a
thought about that?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, there are institutions that fail, and
they should be held accountable, but the whole system shouldn't
be changed. There are accreditors that have failed, and they
should be held accountable, but the whole system shouldn't be
changed.
Mr. Byrne. How do we hold them accountable?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, the institutions that have failed have
lost accreditation, they've gone out of business.
Mr. Byrne. I am talking about the accreditors.
Mr. Pruitt. I think if they failed, they should be held
accountable, too, and their recognition should be lost as well.
Mr. Byrne. That would come from the U.S. Department of
Education?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes.
Mr. Byrne. So, I guess the question is, Dr. McComis, this
is something I was interested in from you, sometimes it falls
most heavily on the sector that you deal with, how do we assess
an accreditor? What is the basis on which we say an accreditor
is doing its job or not doing its job?
Mr. McComis. In this regard, there are a whole set of
Federal regulations that we go through--
Mr. Byrne. Yes, but are they good?
Mr. McComis. Largely, I think, they are. Consistency would
be one area that I would point to and the application of those.
The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and
Integrity, NACIQI, they are working toward their own
expectations around that, and I think those expectations are
changing, and when we get to a point of greater consistency so
that accreditors better understand what those expectations are.
There currently exists Federal regulations that say
accreditors need to have outcomes around graduation rates or
completion rates and licensure rates, things of that nature,
and what is the consistent application.
The only thing that I would say with regard to that is your
first question about can we rely upon the accreditation system,
what is really rich about it, to Dr. Pruitt's point, is you can
set benchmark outcome standards, and not everybody is going to
meet that standard every single time, but what is the process
that the institution is going through.
That's the richness and the qualitative nature of this
process that accreditors should be expecting and that the
Federal Government should be expecting accreditors to partake
with their institutions to move that quality forward.
So, holding accreditors accountable for the way they work
with their institutions and establish those outcome standards,
I think, is key. Any direction and guidance that the Congress
can give to the Department in the establishment of those
regulations, to talk about the consistent application across
all the creditors, would be useful.
Mr. Byrne. My time is up. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I
yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Ms. Davis, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Thank you very much for the panel. I
know you all recognize the differences in our educational
institutions today. You mentioned more for-profits, other
apprenticeship programs, lots of different ways, I think, that
we need to really support people when they are going through
postsecondary and just everything that is higher ed, everything
that is after high school, but how specifically do you think
accreditors could be involved in reviewing and accrediting the
apprenticeship programs, as one example, that may be different
from other accreditations? How do we do that? How do we apply
that differently?
I think the other question may be, and perhaps we can learn
from programs that are more traditional, how do we listen to
the people that are involved in this, peer review at schools is
something that is a good thing on many levels, but I know from
peer reviewers, a lot of this makes them crazy, and yet they
feel they cannot track our students well enough to really be
able to evaluate their educational experiences as they go into
the work world.
How do we do that? How do we train them? Do you think there
is a good way of doing that today?
Mr. McComis. I'll tackle your first question about
apprenticeships and other kinds of programs, because I
mentioned this a little bit in my written testimony and briefly
in the oral, and that is looking for ways for accreditors and
for institutions to have competency-based systems supported
through the Federal financial aid system as opposed to seat-
time measures or requirements.
So, while there's some allowances there, I think that in
some ways, the requirements that currently exist can serve as
those barriers to innovation.
My agency is very much interested in working with
institutions that work more closely with the employment
community, that work more closely in apprenticeship programs,
and the question that arises is how does that fit into an
overall educational program that can be supported for students
with their Title IV student financial aid dollars. And so,
where I think there's some tension that exists there in trying
to create programs that really can support students' success.
So, I would encourage the committee to think about ways
that those programs can be thought about in a bit of a broader
way.
Mrs. Davis. Mr. Miller, do you have any thoughts about
that?
Mr. Miller. I want to touch on the student part of it and
sort of the student feedback. I think there are a couple of
challenges here. One is as we talk about students are
increasingly older, going part-time, they're not on campuses
much.
So, if you go and conduct your visit during working hours,
you may not be able to find all the students you have. They're
busy; if you sort of say come to this room at this time and
talk to us, you're not going to catch everyone you need to
catch.
Part of it is we need student feedback, not just sort of in
the moment for people who are enrolled somewhere. We should be
talking to people long after they've left, and seeing, you
know, did this result in what you thought it would?
People in the moment don't necessarily know until they
leave. We have seen this with a lot of the troubled schools.
They thought they were getting a good education in the moment.
They left, tried to find a job, found out it totally didn't
work.
The other thing I would just say really quick here is this
is why we have the experimental sites flexibility within the
Higher Education Act to allow Federal aid to test out sort of
new types of approaches.
There is one right now that says maybe we don't need to
have programs be 15 weeks in length to get Federal aid, because
there may be quick training programs that are valuable.
Unfortunately, the current Administration is terminating
them on June 30 without much warning or any information about
what they've learned or anything like that.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you for that. Please, go ahead. I had
another question to ask you as well.
Ms. Petrisko. First, I hope everybody realizes that as far
as the regional accreditors are concerned, we are limited in
the types of institutions that we accredit, so degree granting
institutions within a certain geographic scope.
So, providers that are not degree granting providers, and
we do recognize the world of education is bigger than degrees,
it certainly is, but if they're not degree granting providers,
they do not fall within the scope of what we can do.
Could accreditors do more with different types of programs
with expanded scopes? I believe so because the basic principles
are what are you promising, what are you delivering, how
sustainable is this operation?
Mrs. Davis. Could I turn really quickly to trade schools,
and I know my time is almost up, because I think there is a
concern and certainly maybe it is a misperception, that when
you strengthen accreditation standards that you harm good
actors in these fields. You put additional burdens on them to
show, you know, that they are following through with their
promises.
Do you think that is a problem? Dr. Pruitt?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, that's a problem.
Mrs. Davis. How do we fix it? I think my time is up. Thank
you.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. I think you touched
on a subject we need to talk a little bit more about. Mr.
Guthrie, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Petrisko, I am
pleased to hear that regional accreditors have launched a
nationwide effort to place increased emphasis on graduation
rates as part of their ongoing reviews of colleges and
universities.
If you may, please provide the committee more information
about how the graduation rate information will be used as part
of the review process, and why did the regional accreditors
decide to undertake this effort, and what successes have you
seen so far?
Ms. Petrisko. Okay. So, the last part first, why it was
decided to do this, because there are seven different regional
accreditors and we do things in our own ways, a lot of
alignment, a lot of similarities and overlap, but we do things
with definitions and things in our own ways, it became clear
that without a national statement and a national initiative,
that there would still be a lot of misunderstanding or lack of
understanding of what we're doing, and that we take graduation
rates seriously.
So, we spent a long time thinking about how to set those
rates, and as I said, the rates were set at about half the
national average, and again, they are IPEDS rates, so they are
not reflective of the full student population, but it was
decided that going with those numbers of half the national
average was a good starting point as a trigger to say let's go
further now and see with the institutions that we accredit,
which ones fall in that band, and let's go further and see are
those data accurate. If they're not accurate, why aren't they
accurate, let's get them accurate.
If they are accurate, let's take a look across institutions
of similar types and see how well are institutions doing, which
institutions are doing better that we could learn from, and
when institutions are not doing as well as they should be
doing, what actions are the appropriate actions to take, not
just to get more information, although more information is
always good, but what are the appropriate actions to take to
require institutions to do better.
There's a lot that has been learned about high impact
practices, for example, to assist students in completing and
doing better in their work, so not just to encourage but to
expect institutions to build on the rates once we have the
accurate information, to make sure they are as strong as
possible.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. I want to move to another question.
Dr. Pruitt, good to see you again. In your testimony, you
highlight the importance of peer review as an affirmation of
quality.
Please discuss why you believe peer review is a crucial
aspect of the quality assurance process even among every
different types of institutions, and are there ways the peer
review process can be improved?
Mr. Pruitt. Because all professions look to be calibrated
against the standards set by their profession, and the only way
you can get those standards developed are by other people that
are in your profession.
So, if you're a surgeon, you want the College of Surgeons
to set the standards and evaluate you on your proficiencies.
That's pretty much true of every profession.
So, we look to our colleagues from other institutions to
come in and one, set the standards and the process. Standards
are set by using the institutions that are members of the
association. The application of those standards are done by
peer reviewers from other institutions that understand the
particular mission and purpose of that particular institution
so there's no misapplication of the standards.
At the end of the day, accreditation was formed way before
it was a gatekeeper function, because colleges want the
approval of others in their profession as a process for
continuous improvement, so the peer review process is essential
as opposed to the review of some external third party coming in
to do a compliance measure to see how many wastebaskets you
have or how many seats you have or how many library books or
test tubes you have.
So, at the core, the strength of the system is self-study
and introspection, where you are testing yourself against
commonly identified standards, so that you're not self-
delusional, and then external review to keep you honest against
standards that both the reviewers and the reviewee have bought
into as appropriate measures of quality.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Dr. McComis, because your
organization accredits many vocational-focused schools and
programs, you understand maybe better than some others do the
role of education in preparing students for jobs.
Please talk about how the ACCSC maintains a focus on
student outcomes and how other accreditors can learn from your
expertise, and what work are you doing to ensure that graduates
from the institutions your agency accredits are properly
prepared to enter the workforce with skills needed.
Mr. McComis. Thank you. So, as I said earlier, we almost
view it as a luxury that we work with such mission-centric
institutions that are really focused on employment outcomes.
For two decades, we've had quantitative standards around
graduation rates, employment rates, and most recently we've
added a quantitative measure for licensure rates as well.
We've been able to collect that data.
We've been able to use it again as a benchmark, not as a
floor but as a benchmark to say anything that falls below this,
we're going to begin to really ask questions around the quality
of the institution and how you're really meeting that mission,
and how you're really fulfilling expectations for graduates.
The use of that information is then coupled with competency
assessments so that we can and the institution can have some
relative assurance that graduates that go out into the
employment community are actually able to perform the tasks
that they set out to do.
So, adding those two elements together, student learning
and competency assessment piece, so at that institution it's a
process they have to engage in, with the quantitative measures
and the opportunity for institutions to then provide
qualitative responses to their own performance, we find to
really be the indication of what sets an accreditable
institution apart from one that's not able to meet that
benchmark.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. My time is up.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Mr. Courtney, you are
recognized.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. It is another example of why we need to
do a Higher Education Reauthorization Act, because what we are
hearing, I think, from all the witnesses is just how much
change has happened since 2008, which is the last time Congress
re-upped the law.
Mr. Miller, I wanted to spend a minute just in terms of
some of your testimony and writings in terms of alternative
accreditation to try to deal with non-traditional sort of
programs that are out there.
This is kind of near and dear to Eastern Connecticut. We
have a National Theater Institute, which is also known as The
Eugene O'Neill Theater, it has been around for 50 years, it is
non-profit.
If you went there, it looks like a campus. There are
dormitories, there are rehearsal halls, classrooms, et cetera,
but it does not have tenured faculty because it is actors,
writers, directors, and the term sometimes is just a semester
stint that some of the students attend while they are there.
However, its graduates, people who have come through there
include Meryl Streep, Michael Douglas, Lin-Manuel Miranda did
his first play, In the Heights, while he was at Eugene O'Neill
Theater, John Krasinski, Jim, in The Office, that you may
recall, Jennifer Garner.
Again, its batting average is just outstanding, but it
cannot get accredited. It cannot extend opportunity through
Title IV to a lot of kids who could really turn into tomorrow's
Broadway stars or movie stars.
How does your sort of ideas maybe connect with programs
like that?
Mr. Miller. Yes, I think that's a perfect example of the
type of thing that we think would be a good fit for an
alternative system, basically saying, you know, this is
something that is shorter term, it doesn't necessarily end in
something that we recognize as much as being a clear-cut degree
or certificate, but there's clearly value in it.
What we would basically say is if you can show there's
value there, if you can show that the people who enroll are
able to complete whatever you're offering and they do okay on
the back end in terms of we're not sort of leading them into
financial risk and ruin, why should we care as much about all
these other things we look at right now.
Part of the reason we look at all those things right now is
because we're not as confident about those outcomes on the back
end, so we use sort of up front input checks to deal with that
problem.
What we're saying basically let's just look on the back end
and see what happens. Obviously, yes, there are a range of
outcomes that are useful to higher education beyond just did
you pay your loans or things like that.
We're only concerned about is this a good financial bet for
the government. Should we invest in this, do we think it
promotes opportunity, and when you think about it that way, you
can sort of set aside some of the more complex things that get
used right now in the current system as sort of proxies for
other things.
Mr. Courtney. Go ahead, Dr. Pruitt.
Mr. Pruitt. Congressman, this is a wonderful opportunity to
point out a rule that just drives me nuts; it's the credit hour
rule.
The credit hour rule says that accreditors are required to
ask colleges and universities to first of all, award credits in
credits, and then to define ``credits'' by the number of hours
spent in a seat.
Now, please tell me how an accreditor could apply that rule
to the institution that you just described. It just would be
impossible.
So, there needs to be flexibility and communities that come
and allow institutions like that to prosper and succeed, but it
can't happen unless the regulatory context that accreditors
have to function in allow it to make it happen.
Mr. Miller. May I mention the credit hour? I think one
thing that is important to realize here is part of the reason
why we needed this rule was we had colleges out there that were
inflating credit hours to get more financial aid, so we had
schools claiming they were offering courses worth nine credits
that did not have the amount of learning behind that.
When you do that, students pull down more financial aid
than they should, so they're going to exhaust their lifetime
eligibility sooner, and we're going to pay money out to schools
faster than we should.
So, there is credit hours from the sense of measuring how
much learning and things like that, and then there's credit
hours in the sense that we want to make sure that schools
aren't essentially taking in more money than they should,
making it harder for students to get enough money to finish
their whole program.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Again, I think as we hopefully get
closer to putting pen to paper in terms of a proposed bill, we
would encourage you to continue to share with us your ideas
about ways you can actually sort of structure it so that there
are safeguards, but on the other hand, we are not denying kids
who could be the next author of Hamilton the opportunity to
learn and succeed. With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Courtney. Mr. Lewis, you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lewis. I thank the chair and thank the panel for coming
today. A couple of questions. Let's start with a follow up to
Dr. Pruitt on innovation.
Right now, the accreditation process is compromised, and I
do not want to use the term ``status quo,'' but employees or
members of the traditional system of higher education that we
have used for so long and so successfully.
How do we get independence or maintain independence of
accreditors without Federal Government micromanaging, and at
the same time, open up the system to these new delivery methods
we are talking about, for instance, competency-based education
as opposed to just seat-time?
So, on the one hand, we have a system of current
traditional education, and on the other hand, we do not want
any Federal intervention, but we want independence, too. How do
we get there?
Mr. Pruitt. You get there by focusing on the student
learning outcomes, because these are all processes getting to a
commonly agreed upon destination.
The issue needs to be not how you get there or how the
learning takes place or what form does the learning take place
in, but does the learning take place, and can you certify it
through some valid and reliable assessment process at the end
so that you know the standard gets met.
The regionals have opened up on that. It used to be that
was a problem. If I had been here 10/15 years ago, which I
think I probably was, I would be complaining about a rigidity
from the accrediting community that stifles innovation.
That has pretty much changed in the regional area. The
problem we have now is not so much with our regional
accreditors, but with the regulations that are coming from the
Federal Government.
Mr. Lewis. Can you give me an example, for instance, on the
massive open online courses, the MOOC classes, and
accreditation? Is there an issue there? Is there resistance
there?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, no, not from the accreditors. Students
that go through those experiences can come to Thomas Edison,
and if they're willing to go through an assessment process to
say I went through a MOOC and I was stimulated, I learned all
this stuff, and I want credit for that, they can come to Thomas
Edison, and there's an assessment process you can go through,
and if you can verify that you in fact achieved competencies
that you would have achieved had you taken the course, you can
get credit for that.
We work with StraighterLine and a whole lot of other non-
traditional providers where students that acquire competencies
through the non-traditional providers can come, and if they're
willing to subject themselves to a valid and reliable
assessment process, demonstrate that the learning was acquired,
they can get credit for that.
The key is the assessment of the learning outcome at the
back end and not the process of how you get there.
Mr. Lewis. Very good. I want to shift gears a little bit,
Dr. Petrisko, and ask you a question that may be off the beaten
path a little bit.
The Higher Education Act requires accreditors to
consistently apply and enforce standards that respect the
stated mission of the institution.
Much of this hearing and much of our work here focuses on
the rigors of curriculum and making certain there is academic
competence and all that.
A crucial part of a classic liberal education is preparing
citizenship or preparing good citizens. I have to say I am very
concerned with what I see lately and what appears to be a very
highly charged political environment on our Nation's campuses
that I think is turning into a bit of a threat to free speech
and academic freedom.
Again, may be off the beaten path, but is that part of the
accreditation process, to ensure that we have open and free
dialogue?
Ms. Petrisko. If you look at our standards for what we
expect for an undergraduate education and for graduate
education as well, there are certain things that are stated
within those standards.
In our case, five core competencies, including one which is
critical thinking, which I think would certainly relate to what
you're talking about.
We have asked institutions and expect institutions to give
us evidence of the fact that their graduates actually have
achieved these core competencies, which are going to look
different across institutions.
What Cal Tech is going to do with regard to quantitative
reasoning is going to be quite different than what a seminary
would do, for example, the broad diversity of institutions we
have.
Participation in society and citizenship is something that
we do expect from our institutions, that students get a broad
education and part of that is being part of society and a
peaceful society, and a society where they can have
interaction.
So, I do find it disturbing that there have been a number
of cases recently where there have been issues of what's been
perceived as restriction of free speech on campuses, and I
understand from the campuses' perspective that there was safety
and security concerns, which they balance.
From an accreditation perspective, I think that's what we
expect our institutions to do, to recognize what they exist to
do and to do that in a way while maintaining a campus or an
institution where people are safe and secure, so how to balance
those. We do expect that from our institutions.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Mr. Polis, you are
recognized.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, and thank you to
Ranking Member Scott for this great hearing. Accreditation is
an issue that frankly receives too little attention for its
importance in higher education, and we really need to make sure
that we have an accreditation system that allows for the kind
of innovations to create an effective 21st century higher
education system.
Mr. Miller, as you know, competency-based education allows
for innovation in higher education, and credits can be awarded
based on competency. It allows for more efficient and better
forms of pedagogy that are not tied to seat-time requirements,
allowing students to move faster or slower through their
degree.
I was pleased that in 2015, C-RAC recognized the uniqueness
of competency-based education and announced a framework for
approving competency programs.
Can you share why it is important for accreditors to
consider the distinct qualities of different types of
education, specifically about CBE, what are some areas where
accreditors should take a closer look?
Mr. Miller. Sure. I think competency-based education is one
of the most exciting things that's happening in higher
education today because it's moving beyond the sense of did you
just stay there long enough to eventually get a degree versus
can you actually show that you learned things and that we're
confident you got the knowledge you need to succeed?
So, I think it's still obviously developing, and it's slow
going because, obviously, every time there is new sort of
charted areas, we're looking at that.
I think probably the next space to look at is to think a
little bit more about flexibility on what constitutes a
program. So, right now, we're seeing students who maybe are
acquiring knowledge from multiple different areas and how can
we sort of cobble that together into something that represents
a program.
I don't think we should get down to the level of like
accrediting individual courses. I think in general the return
from any given course is probably not great enough to merit
that. We should think about when you've got things coming from
multiple areas--
Mr. Polis. Does that not also allow for kind of new
combinations of courses, even changing the definition of a
``course'' in terms of ways of getting to a particular outcome?
Mr. Miller. Correct. The thing you have to do to make sure
this all works though, is you have to keep a laser like focus
on outcomes on the back end.
Mr. Polis. Thank you. I wanted to go to Dr. Petrisko
quickly. As a member of C-RAC, and can you share a little bit
about your perspective on the guidance you are working on for
competency-based education?
Ms. Petrisko. I'd love to talk about competency-based
education. It is one of the areas where accreditors really are
partnered with institutions to support the innovation that they
have seen as important in reducing time to degree and allowing
for flexibility and affordability.
This is one of the areas where I hope there will be
attention paid in the Higher Education Reauthorization Act. A
number of accreditors, including us, have been sort of caught,
as have the institutions, in supporting this innovation and at
the same time, when we had an Office of the Inspector General
coming to audit how we do this, being caught with the regular
and substantive faculty initiated interaction.
These programs work differently. We as accreditors make
sure that all the things that have to be taken care of to
ensure the quality and protect the students are done. They are
going to be done in different ways for different programs.
But, the Office of the Inspector General looked at this and
said well, these programs don't have the same kind of regular
and substantive interaction that its faculty initiated, so
there was some back and forth on that. That's just not helpful.
Mr. Polis. So, what we can get with competency-based is we
care about the outcome, regardless of if you find a way to do
it with different interactions with faculty, we care about what
the actual outcome is rather than the inputs.
Ms. Petrisko. Exactly.
Mr. Polis. Back to Ben Miller, I wanted to address another
innovation in higher education, coding boot camps and boot
camps in other fields that relate to job related
certifications.
In Colorado, there are a number of boot camps like Turing
School and Galvanize. They have great track records of placing
students into great jobs, after completing their program, which
are usually a few months of intensive work.
Unfortunately, these programs are not accredited, not
eligible for Federal aid. That means the students either have
to take out higher cost private loans or the programs are
limited to students who can pay for them themselves.
I am very supportive of allowing programs to be eligible
for Federal aid so they can serve more at-risk students, but
only if these programs have a track record of success, and the
transparency and accountability that comes along with it.
Can you share your ideas on supporting innovative models
like Turing and Galvanize, and making sure actors do not take
advantage of flexibility, and at the same time, we give our
more at-risk population a chance to attend these types of
academies?
Mr. Miller. Again, this is something that really hits on
part of why we felt the need for an alternative system that is
really outcomes-focused would be helpful.
A couple of things on that. One is obviously is you keep
track of outcomes, then you can have greater confidence that
it's okay to sort of lend there, to ease them in. We think it's
important that these new providers have some degree of
financial commitment up front, so that we have some sense that
maybe a boot camp that is only a year old actually has the
financial capability to sustain itself, so that we don't run
into a situation where we open up the aid programs, lend to
people, and then being shut down overnight.
I think the other thing is this really speaks to we need to
think more intelligently about how we ease people into the
system, because right now it is basically like we approve you,
and then you're eligible for everything right away, and you can
get as much money as you can get students.
We should probably think about easing people in, letting
them try it with a few students, a little bit more sustainable
growth, that acknowledges maybe you shouldn't go from 100 to
1,000 people overnight, and things like that.
Mr. Polis. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. Mr. Smucker, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Pruitt, I would
like to learn a little more about the peer review process. I
just recently met with the presidents of several local private
colleges, and I am in Pennsylvania, and with the association
that represents many of the private colleges. They have both
been part of the peer review process, in evaluating other
colleges, and have participated in their own organizations.
By the way, they spoke very highly of the Middle States
process. With your expertise, your experience working as an
accreditor, and your experience in higher ed as well, how have
your views on the peer review process changed or been shaped by
working on both sides?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, first, peer review is more than just peer
review. It's peer review. Peer review has to be honed so that
the peers that are evaluating you are peers from comparable
institutions that really understand your institution.
It is true that sometimes--I'm fairly aggressive about
talking about mission differentiation, being evaluated by peers
that share your same mission, sometimes institutions can hide
behind that, so how do you have people that are evaluating you
that can call on your own stuff if you're not being really
candid and are hiding behind a broader definition of your
mission.
So, you have to have peers that come in, that are not only
from other institutions, but other institutions that understand
your kind of institution, so they know when to probe, when to
test. They know what kind of data to look for, that if one set
of metrics isn't the right set of metrics, what is the right
set of metrics.
The peer process starts with the developing of the
standards, the development of the processes, and the
implementation, and then to the teams that evaluate it, and
then after the team does a report, that report goes back to the
accrediting body and gets reviewed again by a different set of
peers to keep some distance and objectivity.
The other thing you'll find, and I know it from Middle
States, and I believe it's true of the other regionals, the
institutions that are in it overwhelmingly support it. There is
anecdotal evidence about people that are ticked off about this
or that process, and it's always going to be the case, but when
you look at an objective evaluation of the data, and we
evaluate everything, including how our institutions are
satisfied with the process, it's overwhelmingly supported by
our members.
So, it works very well. It really does.
Mr. Smucker. Thank you. You also made the comment and I
appreciate it, that compliance is not the substitute for
quality. You mentioned there may be compliance things that
accreditors can look at now required by either the law or
regulation that Congress could potentially remove in the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. I would like you
to expand on that.
Mr. Pruitt. In my testimony, there are three that I
suggested need to go away. The first was credit hour, for
reasons I've already spoken to. The second is State
authorization.
There was earlier discussion about the triad. The triad
does need to be strengthened, and it is reasonable that States
should exercise licensure authority over the colleges and
universities that operate in their States, and there are a
number of States, unfortunately, that have no licensure and no
oversight, and that should be changed.
The current definition of ``State authorization'' extends
that to online courses and even literature. That's just absurd.
It destroys the use of technology that shortens time to
completion, and kills innovation.
The third one is the score card, and I'd love to talk about
that, where the Federal Government has come up with a template
to try to evaluate colleges and universities, and the results
are bizarre.
So, those are three things that I'd like to see go away
right away.
Mr. Smucker. Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Smucker. Ms. Bonamici, you
are next.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Foxx and
Ranking Member Scott. This is an excellent discussion we are
having this morning.
I know like many of my colleagues I am concerned about
institutional quality, and we have heard so much about places
like Corinthian and ITT Tech that provide these recent examples
of financially unsound institutions that were allowed to
operate as accredited schools for way too long.
I know the policy group, Third Way, just noted in a report
issued this year that more than 130 accredited colleges and
universities graduate fewer than 10 percent of new full-time
students.
I appreciate the good work that accreditors are doing, but
there is no doubt that we should look for opportunities to work
together so the accreditation process is really helping to make
sure that students and families who invest in higher education
are not taking unnecessary risks with their future.
I think Mr. Polis left, but I wanted to follow up briefly
on his comment about the coding boot camps. I know that many of
them have now joined a coalition and developed a framework
called the Council on Integrity and Results Reporting, to just
try to get some consistency out there with what they are doing.
That is a conversation we need to have with alternatives like
that.
Mr. Miller, I wanted to ask you, the Department's guidance
from November 2016 encouraged accreditors to provide more
information about the actions they take, and some of the
information is made available on the Department's database of
accredited institutions.
So, what could the Department do to further this effort,
and is the database useful for consumers?
Mr. Miller. So, this is a really important first step, but
it still has a ways to go. We actually try to look at
accreditor actions, and before this comprehensive reporting was
required, it was a total mishmash. You could look in some
places and you could see things for a year, you look at others,
they would have it for five years. The reasons why actions were
taken were sometimes very clear, sometimes they weren't clear
at all.
So, getting the information is a crucial starting point.
Unfortunately, the database now is not exactly the most user
friendly, and I think expecting a student to actually find it
is unlikely. You have to download a spreadsheet, and then click
through to a link that's contained in the spreadsheet, so
nobody is going to get it there.
I think the starting point is the Department needs to make
sure it's starting to use that information, too. A big part of
that is the Obama Administration created an enforcement unit
that was supposed to be able to conduct more investigations and
feed in information from third parties about problems, and
there are real concerns now about whether or not that
enforcement unit will be continued in the current
Administration, and whether or not it will truly be effective.
Ms. Bonamici. I want to follow up. I know that in April
2016, there was a letter to federally recognized accrediting
agencies sent by then Under Secretary Ted Mitchell, outlining
the power that accreditors have to differentiate in their
reviews of institutions under current law.
Do you know what steps if any you are aware of that
accreditors have taken in response to that letter?
Mr. Miller. I know there are many accreditors that are
considering different differentiated processes. WASC is in the
middle of working on one. I believe the Higher Learning
Commission has one as well. I think that's a really important
first step.
It would be nice to see it go further because I think we
should be discussing whether or not there should be
differentiated levels of approval for Federal financial aid.
Right now, it's so all or nothing that it makes it hard to ease
people in, and also ease them out, and we should recognize that
a loan is riskier for a student than a grant.
I think it's still a little early to tell because we
haven't seen exactly how these play out yet, and the process
for accreditation is such a long cycle that it's hard to know,
you know, if you do something over 10 years, we won't know
right away.
Ms. Bonamici. And did you want to respond to that, Dr.
Petrisko?
Ms. Petrisko. Well, just to note that indeed I anticipate
that at the next Commission meeting we will approve a process
that will allow for institutions that have very strong
histories of clear financial sustainability, good learning
outcomes, graduate rates, et cetera, that they would have a
reduced burden as far as visit and as far as reporting is
concerned.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Mr. Miller, in 2014, the GAO
report found that the Department of Education does not
consistently use accreditor sanction information for oversight.
After that, the Department agreed to develop better internal
information sharing systems to enable its analysts to use the
information about sanctions from accreditors to inform the
Department's oversight.
Do you know if this change has been effective, and what
more can the Department be doing to align oversight and
enforcement responsibilities?
Mr. Miller. So, there hasn't been a ton of public
information to judge the effectiveness of this. We do know that
last fall one of the reasons why the Department decided to take
action against ITT Technical Institute was because of some
concerns that came from the accreditor.
It is possible that some of the actions against Corinthian
may have started with accreditors raising concerns about the
accuracy of job placement rates, but the Department has not
been completely transparent on it, and again, if the Department
does not have the people in place who are really taking a
critical eye to looking at the information coming in from
accreditors, it will be for naught.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. As I yield back, I want to
recognize Madison, who is here today shadowing me with Girls,
Inc. She is a junior in high school, and I hope she found this
conversation helpful. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici, and Madison, we
are very glad to have you with us today. Mr. Walberg, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the
panel. I think it has been a very helpful panel today.
Before I ask my questions, Dr. Pruitt, thank you for
helping us to understand very clearly that unless we ask the
right question, we will not get the right answer. Thank you for
the part you play in really stimulating us to think in new
directions, think what works in the present world, not what
worked well in the past, that is fine, and because of what you
and others are doing, I think both Princeton, University of
Michigan, in my case, Michigan State, will be better and will
not rest on laurels because of the competition of new ideas
that entities like your own bring about, so thank you.
Dr. Petrisko, past actions by regional accreditors have
raised concerned that some agencies may be acting
inconsistently with the HEA's requirement that accreditors, and
I quote, ``Consistently apply and enforce standards that
respect the stated mission of the institution of higher
education, including religious missions.''
I am of the opinion that there may not be a war on, but
certainly a battle taking place in society today against some
traditional missions, religious values, First Amendment
liberties, that are not good in continuing freedom in this
country.
Certainly, in academia, there ought to be a high priority
in saying while we may not agree with you, your mission
statement is extremely important for what you are providing for
your students.
Can you discuss how your agency makes accreditation
decisions in light of institutional missions, and particularly
religious missions?
Ms. Petrisko. I think it is probably going to be surprising
to some that about 40 percent of our institutions are actually
faith-based institutions in the WASC region.
Mr. Walberg. A lot of them are feeling put upon. I mean
across the Nation.
Ms. Petrisko. Yes, I understand. We absolutely do respect
mission, and we understand when institutions make decisions and
set goals and set their curricular objectives, et cetera, in
line with their mission, that is to be respected.
There have been cases where there have been internal
struggles at institutions amongst faculty about evolution, for
example, and how to deal with that, what should be taught, what
may be taught, what may not be taught.
We have watched those things closely, but ultimately it is
our position that the institutions must allow for that sort of
discussion with integrity and honesty while supporting its
mission, so not to forbid the conversation but to put forward
the tenets of the faith as they see that, but allow that to be
discussed.
Mr. Walberg. Or to change the mission.
Ms. Petrisko. Pardon?
Mr. Walberg. Or to change the mission also, is that your
position, you are not there to change the mission of that
particular institution.
Ms. Petrisko. We are not there to change a mission,
absolutely not. Sometimes institutions themselves on who they
want to serve and how they want to serve them will amend their
own missions, but that's not our job.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Dr. McComis, how does your agency
determine and set standards for your institutions and what they
are required to meet, and secondly, how do you and other
accreditors update your standards to ensure progress?
Mr. McComis. Well, again, that is all done within the peer
review foundation and establishment for the agency. So, it's
really looking at what are the best practices in a particular
area, and then utilizing those in such a way that they promote
quality, that they promote an opportunity to assess how well an
institution meets those standards, and then going back and
evaluating ourselves for whether or not those standards
actually do what they intended.
So, again, it's a process whereby experts/peers come
together, say these are the practices we want to hold ourselves
and our fellow institutions to, and then creating a process by
which assessment can be done for an institution's adherence to
and promotion of those best practices.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Walberg. Mr. Takano, you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Madam Chair. As has already been
mentioned, last year, the National Advisory Council for
Institutional Quality and Integrity recommended that the
Department of Education withdraw its recognition of the
Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools,
otherwise known as ACICS, which the Department did last year.
ACICS accredited over 200 for-profit institutions with over
800 locations, including several very large online for-profit
networks, notably ITT Technical Institute, which shut down in
September 2016. They also accredited Corinthian Colleges before
the school shut down two years ago today.
The abrupt closures of ITT Technical Institute and
Corinthian Colleges left thousands of students burdened by
loans for degrees they did not complete. This especially
impacted student veterans who lost their post-9/11 G.I. Bill
benefits, because they were unable to complete their courses or
gain transfer credits.
I do not believe accreditors should be--I do believe
accreditors should be in the business of protecting students,
and ACICS in this case clearly was not protecting the students.
My question first is for Mr. Miller, and anyone else who
would like to chime in. Mr. Miller, the Obama Administration
took steps to strengthen accreditation standards, but what more
could be done to ensure that bad actors in the for-profit
industry are held accountable?
Mr. Miller. So, within accreditation, part of it really
needs to be looking more at the outcomes of accreditors and the
quality of their standards when they come before review.
Unfortunately, the current process of reviewing standards tends
to mostly be around do you have something that credibly fills a
requirement in law, not is that requirement any good.
For example, one of the things we saw with ACICS was it was
able to persist with weaker outcomes measures than other
national accreditors because it had something that filled the
box that just said there's an outcomes measure there.
The second thing is we need to make sure the rules that are
in place right now are enforced, so we need to ensure that if a
school has--I'm sorry, a vocational program has too high debt
relative to the earnings of its graduates, that it is held
accountable for that, because we need to make sure they are
sort of moved out of there.
The other big thing is we don't pay enough attention to the
possibility of failure and what might happen there, so one is
the Department of Education is not nearly aggressive enough in
demanding financial commitments from large schools that might
go under. As a result, when schools close, taxpayers have to
foot the bill and students are out of luck.
And, the second thing is the teach-out plan provisions are
not strongly enough verified, essentially. When you have these
large operators, you need to make sure that the plan for what
happens if it closes is actually a real plan and not a piece of
paper, so when you've got a place like Corinthian that shuts
down overnight, if you just have a plan and no one has actually
tested to see if the school that supposedly will take students
actually will, then you are putting yourself at a real risk
that you might be caught unaware and have serious trouble.
Mr. Takano. Well, the Obama Administration also finally
issued the gainful employment rule. In your estimation, does
this rule help accreditors ensure that institutions are best
serving students?
Mr. Miller. I think it absolutely does. First of all, it
puts out there numbers that we never saw before about the
actual earnings of graduates, which is a very important
outcomes measure that we didn't have before.
I think it could go further. The biggest risk is it doesn't
look enough at how many students are actually finishing, so
it's only focused on graduates, so essentially if a program
enrolls 1,000 people, 10 make it through, it may look okay on
gainful employment even though there are a host of other
problems that aren't captured there.
It should be providing a wealth of additional information
for accreditors and giving them cover because something else is
going to step in and remove a problematic actor so they might
not have to.
Mr. Takano. Dr. Petrisko, you look like you want to say
something.
Ms. Petrisko. I did want to say something about Corinthian
and ITT, just to remind everyone that accreditors do not
accredit the parent company of these institutions. We accredit
the institutions.
We have learned from the past failures that we must have
the information from the parent that is going to affect those
institutions.
What was also the case with regard to Corinthian was the
Department of Education had information that we did not have as
accreditors, so there's an issue about who has what information
at the State level, the Federal level, and the accreditors, how
is that information shared appropriately, may it be shared,
what can be shared, so that any of the players in that triad
have a good foundation for the actions that they take.
Mr. Takano. I do not have enough time to get an answer, but
I do want to put the question out there and maybe take it for
the record.
I am interested in the programmatic accreditors and what I
see as possible inflation or credential inflation. I am
thinking of community colleges who used to be able to offer
physician assistance programs, those programs are now requiring
Master's level work, and also the movement towards the
bachelor's of nursing degree.
I realize there is interplay with industry here, but I want
to be able to get reactions from some of you about whether or
not you believe there is inflation of credentials.
I yield back. I am sorry for going over my time, Madam
Chair.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Takano. Dr. Roe, you are
recognized.
Mr. Roe. Thank you. Thank you all for being here, and thank
you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member Scott.
Obviously, the idea in Tennessee, we are very committed to
education and training our people, community college is free in
our State to residents there, and we have a Drive to 55, where
you can go to either a Tennessee college or applied technology
and get a certificate or a degree, and we found that in those
particular schools, 90 percent secure a job upon graduation in
their field, whether it is nursing assistant or phlebotomist,
whatever it may be.
I was 18 years old when I started college. I did not have a
clue what I was going to do. Vietnam war focused that pretty
quickly for me. I decided I was going to do something in
college.
Dr. Pruitt, your students are different, and there are
people I see every day in my community who have lost their jobs
or whatever and are going back while they are working to try to
get some skills so they can take care of their families.
I applaud you for what you are doing at your university. I
think it is incredibly valuable.
I guess for the accreditation part, once I figured out what
I was going to do, could my college get me into medical school.
That is what I was interested in. If I could pass the courses,
could I then pass exams. I had a plan. It could. I did not know
whether it had an accreditation or not, but it provided those
assets and benefits for me as a student because I had an idea
about what I wanted to do.
I think in doing the accreditation, I watch it in medicine
today, how you measure success, how is that done, and then how
do you define it. I think defining it could be graduation
rates, it can be certificates, it can be a lot of things. I
think that definition needs to be broadened, and certainly, how
do you simplify the reporting.
I will give you an example, a 2015 Vanderbilt report on the
cost of regulations in higher education estimated that the
accreditation costs of compliance was $3.4 billion a year for
regional accreditation.
Does that actually bring value to me because I know who is
paying for it, the students. I have written a lot of checks to
colleges for my kids to go to school.
It is not nearly as affordable as it used to be, so does it
really bring value. I want to stop and just ask these three
questions quickly, and I will let you take the rest of the
time.
What are the regulations that are preventing accreditors
from focusing on student outcomes? Number one.
Number two, are there duplicative data collection
requirements the Education Department makes on accreditors and
schools?
Number three, how can innovation in accrediting be
encouraged?
Those three, any of you can take off on any of them. I will
pick on you, Dr. Pruitt.
Mr. Pruitt. Well, there's a long answer to that. There are
a lot of things that need to be changed. I think how you define
``success'' is relative, and that's also very important. I
certainly think if you go to a school, either a professional
school or a graduate school or proprietary school that is
preparing you for a profession, you ought to expect that if you
meet the requirements of the institution, that you ought to be
able to pass the licensure exams to participate in the
profession.
If you go to medical school, they have like a 98 percent
pass rate. If you go to medical school and graduate from
medical school, you're not worried about whether you're going
to pass the exam to participate in your profession.
Mr. Roe. Actually, yes, I was worried, but I did pass it.
Mr. Pruitt. I'm going to take a risk because my data is
about nine years old, but when I was on NICIQI, I had a real
problem with the bar association because law schools are very
selective and very expensive, but the national pass rate from
accredited institutions, law school, was around 70 percent. In
some cases, it was lower than that. John Kennedy graduated from
Harvard and couldn't pass the bar exam. There is something
wrong with that.
If you're going to a school to be a nurse or a teacher, you
ought to be able to pass your licensure exam. Your ability to
participate in the profession that you're going into ought to
be a factor in accreditation in terms of being able to value
the accreditation that you get.
The regulatory environment takes good ideas. The rules that
I'm complaining about, in their concept, they make sense. I
think gainful employment in its concept makes sense, but the
way it got operationalized doesn't make sense.
If you look at the list of bad actors under gainful
employment, Harvard is on that list. So, the challenges, how
you take something conceptually sound, the rules that we have
to execute make no sense.
There needs to be a reengagement between the regulators and
the community, and we used to have that. We lost that. That
reengagement needs to happen again so we can take the good
ideas, work through the consequences and operationalize in a
way that satisfies the public interest and also meets the needs
of the professions.
Mr. Roe. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Foxx. Perhaps the witnesses would be willing to
give Dr. Roe answers to his questions in writing. That would
certainly be very helpful.
Ms. Adams, you are recognized.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ranking
Member Scott. Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.
Dr. Pruitt, good to see you again.
Mr. Miller, how was the Department's decision to publish
accreditor's standards for evaluating student outcomes improve
the accreditation system, and could this be constituted as an
overreach?
Mr. Miller. I don't think it is. I mean basically what the
Department of Education did was went on the websites of all
accreditors that already make their standards public and
essentially put them all in one place. I think it's more of a
useful starting point in the conversation because you can start
to see how things vary and understand maybe there's a good
reason why something varies, but also start to raise questions
about why is it that a branch of one publicly traded for-profit
college has to hit a 70 percent placement rate at say ACCSC,
and maybe only needs to hit 60 percent at a different
accreditor.
So, I think it's a good starting point to start to ask why
do things vary and where is the right line between consistency
versus variation?
Ms. Adams. Thank you. In your testimony, Mr. Miller, you
mentioned that one way to improve student outcomes through the
accreditation process is to increase Federal minimum
requirements for student financial aid.
Would you explain what the current student loan performance
metrics are, and how you would recommend that Congress
strengthen these metrics?
Mr. Miller. I mean, the big problem we have right now is
the only real measure of student loan performance we use is
what's called the cohort default rate, which essentially asks
what percentage of borrowers default within three years of
leaving school. The problem is right now it's just a cliff. So,
essentially if you're nowhere near that 30 percent rate, you
don't have to worry, and functionally basically nobody fails
this.
So, in the most recent data, I believe it was 10 schools
that had about 600 and some odd borrowers total--sorry,
borrowers in default total, that failed that test. So, 99 and
some odd percent of schools and borrowers aren't affected by
this rule.
So, I think the big thing we need to think about is
measuring other problematic loan outcomes that aren't captured
now, particularly people who can't repay their loans, because
one of the problems we're seeing is students maybe aren't
defaulting, but they're not making any progress actually
getting rid of their debt, and the only other fix we have
available to those people is we say to them in 20 years,
basically half your working lifetime, if you do the right
things and keep up with all this paperwork and stuff, we'll
forgive your loan, and that's a long time to make people wait
if they have borrowed a loan that's not helping them.
Ms. Adams. So, what steps could the Department of Education
take right now to encourage accreditors to begin working with
an institution before it has to close and students have to look
for a new school?
Mr. Miller. So, I think one is really trying to take a more
risk-based approach to say, you know, we have some schools here
that maybe they only have 100 students, so if they close, the
risk and the complexity is not that high, but once we get
schools that have thousands and tens of thousands of students,
we should say what are the plans in place in case these things
go under?
It is almost actually some of the same conversations we had
around the big banks, like are we stress testing schools to
make sure they are sound, do we have a plan in place in case
they fail, and are we actually testing that plan?
So, are we calling those schools listed on that teach-out
plan to see how many would you actually take, and will you
actually take them? Are we making sure that the places that are
on that teach out plan actually have good results, and we're
not going to basically kick students from one school that had a
bunch of bad outcomes to another that also got a ton of
challenges as well, and actually make sure we are thinking
about what happened and we are taking risk into account.
You know, a place that gets $1 billion in Federal financial
aid is a much bigger risk to taxpayers and to students than one
that might get $500,000 in Federal aid.
Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. I spent 40 years teaching
on the college campus in Greensboro, North Carolina, been
through many, many accreditations. I have learned a lot here
today, and I thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and I yield
my time back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. Mr. Allen, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you so much for
your insight today as far as the college level. Dr. Pruitt, I
am particularly interested in what you are doing at Thomas
Edison State University based on your testimony.
I called all of our school superintendents or met with them
while we were in the District, just to find out about the
school year, how it is going, graduation rates, that sort of
thing.
The highest graduation rate we have is in a rural county. I
said how are you doing this. He said well, we are actually
teaching the children to get an education, to get a job first.
We are also giving them the skills that if they want to go to
college, they can do that, too, rather than the other way
around. In other words, rather than teaching students to go to
college, we are teaching them the reason they are getting an
education is to get a job.
It sounds like based on your student population that most
of your students have careers or what not, and are now saying
you know, I want to learn more to move up the career track.
I know even with my own children, they entered college on
one track and said well, I do not know if that is what I want
to do, so they are kind of back and forth. They had worked in
our business, but that was kind of all they had done. Well, I
think I want to do this.
We are spending a lot of money on education. Of course, I
hear, too, that the career tracks are very successful as far as
graduation rates. In other words, if you can get young people
to understand kind of where they want to be in life early, they
just get on that track and they are energized and motivated,
and that sort of thing.
Tell me how that is working, and I want to ask the
accreditors, do you look at that as far as accreditation. Go
ahead, Dr. Pruitt.
Mr. Pruitt. Most people ask- see our student body, they
want to know why are your students there, because they are
older, most of them are all working. They are very diverse in
their characteristics. We have students that are 25. We have
had a graduate that was 92.
When you ask them why are you here, it's one thing that
comes back; it's unfinished business. They started college--
pretty much 90 percent of our graduates come to us with
previous college. They started college and life got in the way,
or they weren't ready, or there were financial issues.
There weren't institutions like ours around that could
accommodate them. So, it was an unfilled life objective, and
that's who most of our students are. They are self-directed,
they are well motivated, they are there because they want to be
there, and they have powerful outcomes.
I've given you the data. A lot of that is because of them,
because they are self-directed goal oriented. They are there
because they want to be there. Most of them are paying their
own way, so they take the experience very seriously.
But you raised a really good question. We have to not over
simplify things. To ask an 18-year-old to know what they are
going to do for the rest of their life is not wise. Most 18
year old's don't have a clue. Only 22 percent of the people in
this country are in professions related to their undergraduate
major. Seventy-eight percent of us are in areas that had
nothing to do with our undergraduate major.
I think higher education ought to be accessible and an
opportunity for everyone, but that doesn't mean everyone needs
to go to colleges and universities.
You could make a good case in terms of economic benefit--
Mr. McComis' graduates outperformed teachers, nurses, doctors,
lawyers. I know I am paying a lot of money to a diesel mechanic
right now.
The issue is--I don't want to get too preachy, but if you
go back to Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson said, and I'm
paraphrasing, but basically the future of the country is
dependent upon the quality of the human capital, of our people,
and education is the vehicle developing that human capital.
So, the issue is if you create and build the capacity of an
educated person, let them have choices and options about how
they want to pursue and develop their life, be it higher
education, be it vocational, technical training, and have them
prepared to be able to make those choices, the country will be
okay.
Mr. Allen. That gets back to accreditation. I think in some
colleges, they are misleading these young people. Did you have
a comment on that?
Ms. Petrisko. I just wanted to say there are many paths
through life, many paths to and through education. Some
students will know when they are six years old what they want
to do and what they want to be and they follow that through
forever. Others don't know, change their minds, change careers,
find the wrong institution, et cetera.
I think accreditors absolutely recognize the diversity, we
recognize the diversity of institutions, we recognize the
diversity of students. I don't think institutions mislead
students. I think institutions provide opportunities for
students to figure out what they want to do and how they want
to get there, and provide the support to do that. They don't
force them. They support them.
Mr. Allen. I think we could do a better job. As usual, I am
over time. I yield back.
Chairwoman Foxx. Ms. Blunt Rochester, you are recognized.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and
Ranking Member Scott. I want to thank the panel. This has been
a really great conversation, the questions, across the aisle.
It's been incredible.
When I think of accreditation, I think of not just the
institution but I think of parents, as a parent of college
students, I think of the students. I think of employers. There
are so many pieces to this.
I stepped out of the room for a moment because Delaware's
Teacher of the Year, Wendy Turner, is here, and she actually
started her career as a teacher later in life, so it was a
career change.
My question touches on Congresswoman Bonamici and
Congressman Polis' comments about the boot camps. In Delaware,
we actually have a great program. It is called Zip Code
Wilmington. It is a non-profit. It is a 90-day intensive
software development boot camp. It was developed both with the
employer community, both local and nationally. It actually is
in partnership with Wilmington University and participated in
the U.S. Department of Education's Educational Quality Through
Innovative Partnerships, or EQUIP Program.
The great thing about it is there are Pell eligible
students that get to participate in it. I guess my question is
for Mr. Miller but others can answer as well, about these kinds
of programs that are unique. It is a partnership between a non-
accredited program, teaching entity, and an accredited
university. They even can get college credits and go on to get
a Master's degree or Bachelor's degree. The success rate is
incredible.
How should we evaluate the success of programs like these
that partner career training programs with accredited
institutions?
Mr. Miller. I think fortunately because these are short
term programs and they have very clear discernable goals, you
really start with the question of are people finishing them and
what is happening to them after they finish.
We just want to make sure, you know, are most people
walking in the door graduating, and then are they able to get
jobs and sort of sustain themselves.
I think the trick here is we should ask that question not
just three weeks after they leave, but try to look at it over
time, too, so we can see is this really worthwhile, is it
working, et cetera, and that we need a process in place to sort
of verify if those outcomes are true.
I think this is also a good example of where we should be
experimenting more. I mean there is flexibility in the Higher
Education Act around trying out sort of new methods, new
models, et cetera, and EQUIP is a perfect example of it.
And I think this safe space for Innovation with flexibility
that says, you know, you're a good actor, you have good
outcomes, we're going to trust you a little bit more to try
something new, is how we should approach it. Unfortunately,
what we have done in the past, we sort of tried something, we
think it kind of works, and we blow the doors open to
everybody, so your first 15 actors are great, your next 15 are
so-so, and then your final 15 after that are bad, and you sort
of ruin the model for the good actors because the bad ones have
come in and sort of exploited it.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Quickly, are there any concerns that
you have about programs like this?
Mr. Miller. I mean I think the only major concerns is just
that they are pretty new, so we just don't have a great sense
as to what the long term outcomes look like, and we don't have
a great sense of their financial stability.
The other thing I would just say is some of the other boot
camps got started really sort of educating people who often
already had a Bachelor's degree and maybe had a couple of years
of work experience, so you probably are looking at changing the
population in some of these places, and I think we just want to
make sure that they are figuring out how to serve people who
might be slightly different learners than the ones they had at
first, and their model is also working for them, or if it's
not, they are adapting it accordingly, and they're not sort of
saying this worked over here, let's try to do something with
completely different people and just assume it will work.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Anyone else? If not, I just want to
say you guys, this was a great panel. Thanks, Dr. Pruitt, for
the history and the preaching, too. That was good.
Mr. McComis. We have had some experience. We have had some
interest and inquiry from some coding boot camps. We have also
received some cautionary tales from some other States, not as
successful as Delaware, in this particular regard.
So, on one hand, accreditors do serve a risk aversion role
and a protection role. So, finding the right balance between
those new entrants, those new providers, how to bring them into
the system, I think as Mr. Miller said, slowly and with some
eye towards potential success without having a whole lot of
past success to rely upon, which is really what accreditors use
now in making their assessments about who gets into the process
and who gets to go to the next step.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. Great. A general question. This can be for
any of you. I do not believe we have touched on this, because
there are criticisms of the accreditation programs in a variety
of areas.
I have heard some evidence in which people feel there are
arbitrary standards and universities sometimes have to spend
money on things that may be unrelated to the actual development
of the student.
Can any of you comment on that or think of any anecdotes
that would apply to?
Mr. Pruitt. You know, one of the things that Middle States
did through its last process was to listen to its critics. We
invited critics from all over the country to talk to us. We
took our standards and threw them in the wastebasket, and we
started all over again and completely redid them.
Most of the criticisms we got came from the things that we
were forced to do because of the compliance issues of the
Department. So, on the new standards, we bifurcated them. We
basically said here are the things that we don't think are
particularly useful, and you know, you don't think are
particularly useful, but we have to do them because we're
required to do them.
Here is the quality assurance piece that your peers have
put together that says these are the things we think you have
to do to meet our qualitative standards.
Probably 90 percent of the problems that we had were from
people that were concerned about the compliance side of the
house, which we had no control over, and once we separated
them, it had a remarkable outcome on the buy-in we got from our
500 and so institutions on the assessment side, because they
saw their community was really looking at the right things.
Mr. Grothman. Can you think of examples of things that
universities had to do in the past that you felt cost them
money but had nothing to do with quality of education?
Mr. Pruitt. If you go back a little bit, accreditation was
an input-based system, how many books did you have in the
library, what was the square footage ratio, what were the
student/faculty ratios.
A lot of things that weren't necessarily tied directly to
learning outcomes. That has pretty much changed, and certainly
with the regionals, that's gone. That is really not the case
anymore.
There are still compliance costs we have in terms of the
reporting, the data requirements. I have four people at my
institution that do nothing but collect data to fill out forms
to report information that doesn't get used very well.
My colleague here talked about the IPEDS stuff, they
exclude my whole student body, the reporting requirements and
financial aid, we have to notify the Department every time a
student drops a course. We start a semester every month. We
don't operate on the traditional calendar.
The complexity of just trying to keep up with the reporting
requirements is very costly and expensive. I understand why the
Department wants to know about student engagement behavior,
because they want to know if you change your eligibility, they
want the financial aid cut off, so I get why it is coming, but
the burden of complying with it is enormous.
The overhead costs of managing Federal programs in some
cases is not worth having the programs.
I could give you a lot of details on that, but that's--
Mr. Grothman. Maybe one more quick thing. I think there is
to a certain extent a trend towards MOOCs, these big huge
courses. I think a lot of time those courses, at least common
sense would tell you, are superior to the courses being offered
in the traditional fashion, better professors, way better
professors.
Could you comment on if you feel there are any unfair
barriers to students using MOOCs more, and just in general, do
you feel they are to become a bigger, bigger share of our
education?
Ms. Petrisko. I'd like to answer that. I'm going to try to
tie two things together here, and that is what is restricting
in regard to innovation and these other kinds of things.
One of the things that is currently a requirement for
accreditors is that if anything is considered to be a
substantive change at an institution, something really
different than what they've done before, it must go through
accreditor's review and approval to be able to be eligible for
Federal financial aid.
There is not a lot of flexibility. There are some very
clear and defined things that we must review, although
education has gone beyond these things as being actually
substantive changes in the institutions.
That costs institutions time and money. For some things
like the MOOCs, for example, some other things that might be
new that are very innovative and effective, we still have to
approve them.
We would like to have the flexibility as accreditors to
determine what really does count as something that is
substantive that we need to review, and where knowing the
institution inside and out as we often do, where the
flexibility can be granted to the institutions to go ahead and
do that without that cost and burden.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Grothman. Mr. Mitchell, you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all
of you, and for your dedication to addressing this issue.
I spent 35 years in postsecondary education with a private
career school group, in fact, sat on an accrediting commission,
not one of those discussed today, let's put it that way.
Dr. Pruitt, I absolutely agree- your comment about
accrediting agencies existed long before it got tied into Title
IV. I think it reflects the need to address the world of
accreditation. As we talk about the Higher Education Act, we
need to start with what should the role of the accrediting
agencies be. They have evolved into being a regulatory agency,
a gatekeeper, which makes it a tremendously distorted approach.
I saw it in my career, I saw it on the accrediting commission.
We have to recognize that the failures that we see in
accreditation simply reflect the failures in postsecondary
education and in all sectors, not just the for-profit sector,
but in fact in the non-profit and public sector.
There is a direct link between--at least an indicated link
between graduation rates and default rates, yet some groups
argue that we cannot measure graduation rates or we should not
measure graduation rates, but only 55 percent of freshmen in
2010 now possess a degree or certificate as of 2016. We know
what the likelihood is, they are more likely to default.
Rather than set up another oversight--I have forgotten what
Mr. Miller called it, the quality assurance group, another
regulatory burden, why is it we do not create a mechanism to
provide consumers information, valid information, so they can
assess the value of education to their future career. What is
so hard about doing that and putting out that information so
that families, citizens, and taxpayers can see what they are
getting for their money. Yet, we seem to struggle with that.
Dr. Petrisko, enlighten me what we do to get there, because
I think consumers desperately need that to understand the
burdens they are taking on. Maybe Dr. Pruitt, you may want to
weigh in, too. Please.
Ms. Petrisko. So, one of the things that we do requires
that all of our institutions make public on their website what
their student learning outcomes are. Then you go to our
website, and there is a page for every institution that we
accredit and outcomes, and there is a link where you can go
directly from our site--
Mr. Mitchell. Let me stop you, you know and I know from my
experience with Michigan State University, there is a
significant difference between the outcome of the nursing
program and the architecture program. It has a fundamental
impact on if people knew that, whether or not they would choose
to invest in it.
Let's be honest, investment in any institution here is
based on what is the likely outcome, whether they are going to
be successful.
What is so hard about drilling down on that data, provide
that to consumers and families?
Ms. Petrisko. Well, what we do as an accreditor, and
perhaps you can comment on whether you think this would be a
good thing to put out to the public, what we require as an
accreditor is that every institution provide us at the time of
reaffirmation, at a mid-cycle review, getting us updated, what
their learning goals are, evidence those goals have been
achieved, who is measuring them, what they're doing about it,
and when their program reviews are.
We do that at the institutional level, we do that for
general education, we do that for every single program.
One of our large campuses at the University of California
has 580 programs, so we do ask that for 580 programs. That can
be drilled down even further. I think it's a question about how
to present that kind of information at that level in that much
detail to the public.
Mr. Mitchell. You may not want to go with 580 programs, do
it by college. You did not indicate employment rates in terms
of the metrics you're talking about. Maybe they are in there
and I do not know.
Ultimately, most of the students that go through your
institutions went through ours. They came there to
theoretically get the skills to go to work. Ultimately, to pay
their loan back hopefully.
Why are we not reporting that in most institutions other
than private and for-profit? Why do we not gather that
information and report it by program? Dr. Pruitt, do you have a
comment?
Mr. Pruitt. I think the key is with a lot of the data is
what is the reasonable expectation of the program. If you're
coming to a program, if you want to be an architect, if you
want to be a nurse, if you want to be a teacher, it's
reasonable to say what is the performance of our graduates in
these areas?
If you're coming in a program where there is no expected
definable employment outcome, you are just coming there to be
educated to increase your own capacity, it's harder to do.
I do think we should and many of us do, if you look at our
websites, you will see that kind of information, and most of us
like to put it up there because we like to brag about it. The
stuff I told you this morning about us, because we wanted to
brag about it. If it wasn't good, I probably wouldn't have told
you about it. We want to do that.
The issue is the system is very complex, so the challenge
is how do you come up with useful data that reinforces and
gives you incredible information on which to make an informed
judgment in the programs where you need that information to
decide, and that varies by program by program, by institution
by institution.
Mr. Mitchell. One of the things I would like to talk to you
further about is the comment you made about the intended
outcome. I guess one of the questions is ultimately it is
taxpayer money being invested in the education of adults,
helping them vocationally. Is it wise to use taxpayer money for
general education from Federal financial aid. I think it is a
question we need to address and goes to some of your concerns.
What are we investing in both as taxpayers, through Pell
grants, Title IV, and through State agencies. It is a huge
amount of money.
Mr. Pruitt. I'd love to finish that conversation with you.
That's a long one.
Mr. Mitchell. We are out of time and the chair has been
patient with me, so thank you for your feedback. Thank you.
Chairwoman Foxx. You have been very patient, too, today. I
want to thank our witnesses again for taking the time to
testify before the committee today.
I think from the comments you have heard from all the
members, they have benefitted a great deal from your testimony
and from this event.
I do not think people's comments were just perfunctory. I
think they really mean that, and I certainly mean it from my
perspective.
I would like to now recognize Ranking Member Scott for his
closing comments.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair. This has been a great
hearing. We got a lot of good information, and it appears
accreditors can identify those institutions of higher learning
that should be eligible or ineligible to participate in the
Federal student financial aid programs, as well as providing
important information that students should have when deciding
how to assess the right postsecondary education program.
The fact that some institutions maintain accreditation
right up to the day they collapse is evidence that more needs
to be done. The Federal Government has $150 billion a year
interest in getting this right.
So either the accrediting agencies, who should be in the
best position to judge the quality of education, must credibly
make the assessments, or the Federal Government will have to
figure something out that is both fair and workable.
Hopefully, the progress we have recently made will continue
so we can rely on the accrediting agencies to assess the
quality of our institutions of higher learning, and I thank the
witnesses for providing us with good information, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Scott. I have found this to
be a very interesting discussion today, too. It raises a lot
more questions for me. I am a little sorry I asked my questions
first. I would like to come back and ask more, but we do not
have time for that.
I think one of the major questions raised, particularly by
Mr. Mitchell, right at the end, is a big discussion going on in
our culture, and that is what is the purpose of ``higher
education.''
I often say that education in our country is basically the
only institution that has not changed for 150 years. We're
still operating on an Agrarian Model. Nine months out of the
year, it started out a long time ago three months out of the
year. It really has not changed, although we have a lot of
alternatives, and I think that is wonderful.
I asked Ranking Member Scott when the question came up
about only 22 percent in jobs related to their degrees. I was
an undergraduate English major. I often point that out. That
should have prepared me for a lot of different jobs, I believe.
I am a firm believer in liberal arts education, but I saw
an article this week that said we have to go more into skills
development and away from liberal arts education, but I think
what we are blessed with in this country, and I want it to stay
that way, is we have a diversity of institutions who are there
to meet the needs of many different people, and the needs of
our culture.
I think we should celebrate that as much as we possibly
can. I thought, Dr. Petrisko, of your comment about one of the
objectives of some schools is to teach critical thinking
skills. Yet, I read reports all the time that say 34 percent of
employers say their employees have no critical thinking skills.
How are we getting at measuring those kinds of things?
It is true, I completely agree with Ranking Member Scott,
we are investing--this is a case where we are spending a lot of
hard-earned taxpayer dollars in these institutions, and we need
to know and the public wants to know if it is getting something
for its money.
I am happy for the issues to have been brought up about
some for-profit institutions being closed precipitously, but
what troubles me is the total lack of concern that the previous
Administration had with the students in those institutions. It
seems to me it was so unkind for the Department to simply pull
the plug, and I cannot blame the accreditors for the students
having the problem because it was the Department who said we
are cutting you off from your money and then they closed,
without the ability to teach out, without the ability to help
those students make a transition.
That was not the fault of the accreditors, I do not think.
The accreditors may have had a responsibility. That was the
fault of very uncaring people in the Department of Education in
my opinion, who did not give one thought to what was going to
happen to the students.
I want for every student in this country, and I believe
Ranking Member Scott does, to have the best possible
educational experience wherever that occurs.
We have to decide as a people are we going to subsidize
that educational experience. Again, with taxpayer dollars.
There is a huge range of issues here to deal with. We
cannot take care of all of them in a hearing on accreditation.
I think this has helped us.
I think one of the things we did not touch on at all that I
have to bring up and that is are the accreditors looking at the
caliber of the students being admitted, and what is the
responsibility of the institutions for admitting students who
cannot graduate, who do not have the skills, and that is a
topic I think for another day.
Lots and lots of issues. I asked the staff while we were
talking because I remembered looking at Kiplinger's Best
College Values, there are institutions in here who after four
years have a 19 percent graduation rate. Lots of issues, not
many answers, but lots of issues to deal with.
I thank you for helping us look at some of those issues.
There being no further business, the committee stands
adjourned.
[Additional submissions by Ms. Petrisko follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]