[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 106 (Thursday, July 9, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4947-S4948]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             ACCREDITATION

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a copy of my remarks at the Senate Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor and Pensions hearing on ``Reauthorizing the Higher 
Education Act: Evaluating Accreditation's Role in Ensuring Quality.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                             ACCREDITATION

       We're here today to discuss our system for ensuring that 
     colleges are giving students a good education. That's called 
     accreditation.
       Accreditation is a self-governing process that was created 
     by colleges in the 1800s. The organizations they created were 
     intended to help colleges distinguish themselves from high 
     schools and later, to accredit one another.
       At this time there was no federal involvement in higher 
     education or accreditation, and right around the end of World 
     War II, about 5% of the population had earned a college 
     degree.
       Accreditation however took on a new role in the 1950's. 
     After the Korean War, Congress went looking for a way to 
     ensure that the money spent for the GI Bill to help veterans 
     go to college was being used at legitimate, quality 
     institutions.
       Congress had enough sense to know they couldn't do the job 
     of evaluating the diversity of our colleges and universities 
     themselves so they outsourced the task to accreditation. 
     Accreditors became, as many like to say, ``gatekeepers'' to 
     federal funds.

[[Page S4948]]

       The Korean War G.I. Bill of 1952 first established this new 
     responsibility--it said that veterans could only use their 
     benefits at colleges that were accredited by an agency 
     recognized by what was called the Commissioner of Education, 
     and then after the Department of Education was created in 
     1979, the Secretary of Education.
       The Higher Education Act of 1965 used this same idea when 
     it created federal financial aid for non-veteran college 
     students. Around this time, about 10% of the population had 
     received a college degree.
       However, the 1992 Higher Education Act Amendments were the 
     first time the law said much about what standards accreditors 
     needed to use when assessing quality at institutions of 
     higher education.
       Today, current law outlines 10 broad standards that 
     federally recognized accreditors must have when reviewing 
     colleges: student achievement; curriculum; faculty; 
     facilities; fiscal and administrative capacity; student 
     support services; recruiting and admissions practices; 
     measure of program length; student complaints; and compliance 
     with Title IV program responsibility.
       The law tells accreditors that they must measure student 
     achievement, but it doesn't tell them how to do it.
       Colleges and accreditors determine the specifics of the 
     standards--not the Department of Education.
       For the student achievement standard, colleges and 
     universities define how they meet that standard based on 
     their mission--the law specifically doesn't let the 
     Department of Education regulate or define student 
     achievement.
       And in fact, in 2007, when the Department of Education 
     tried to do that, Congress stopped it.
       Still, Congress spends approximately $33 billion for Pell 
     grants each year, and taxpayers will lend over $100 billion 
     in loans this year that students have to pay back.
       So we have a duty to make certain that students are 
     spending that money at quality colleges and universities.
       I believe there are two main concerns about accreditation:
       First, is it ensuring quality?
       And second, is the federal government guilty of getting in 
     the way of accreditors doing their job?
       The Task Force on Government Regulation of Higher 
     Education, which was commissioned by a bipartisan group of 
     senators on this committee, told us in a detailed report that 
     federal rules and regulations on accreditors have turned the 
     process into federal ``micro-management.''
       In addressing these two concerns, I think we should look at 
     five areas:
       First, are accreditors doing enough to ensure that students 
     are learning and receiving a quality education?
       A recent survey commissioned by Inside Higher Ed found that 
     97% of chief academic officers at public colleges and 
     universities believe their institution is ``very or somewhat 
     effective at preparing students for the workforce.''
       But a Gallup survey shows that business leaders aren't so 
     sure--only one-third of American business leaders say that 
     colleges and universities are graduating students with the 
     skills and competencies their businesses need. Nearly a third 
     of business leaders disagree, with 17% going as far as to say 
     that they strongly disagree.
       Second, would more competition and choice among accreditors 
     be one way to improve quality?
       Accreditation is one of the few areas in higher education 
     without choice and competition. Today colleges and 
     universities cannot choose which regional accrediting agency 
     they'd like to use. If they could, would that drive quality?
       Third, do federal rules and regulations force accreditors 
     to spend too much time on issues other than quality?
       Accreditation may now be ``cops on the beat'' for 
     Department of Education rules and regulations unrelated to 
     academic quality. Accreditors review fire codes, 
     institutional finances (something the Department of Education 
     already looks at) and whether a school is in compliance with 
     Department rules for Title IV. To me, these don't seem to be 
     an accreditor's job.
       Fourth, do accreditors have the right tools and flexibility 
     to deal with the many different institutions with many 
     different needs and circumstances?
       Some well-established institutions may not need to go 
     through the same process as everyone else, allowing 
     accreditors to focus on those institutions that need the most 
     help.
       Finally, could the public benefit from more information 
     about accreditation?
       All the public learns from the accreditation process is 
     whether a school is accredited or unaccredited. Even at 
     comparable colleges, quality may vary dramatically, yet all 
     institutions receive the same, blanket ``accredited'' stamp 
     of approval. Seems to me that there could be more information 
     provided to students, families or policymakers.
       We'd better find a way to make accreditation work better.
       There's really not another way to do this--to monitor 
     quality. Because if accreditation doesn't do it, I can assure 
     you that Congress can't. And the Department of Education 
     certainly doesn't have the capacity or know-how.
       They could hire a thousand bureaucrats to run around the 
     country reviewing 6,000 colleges, but you can imagine what 
     that would be like.
       They're already trying to rate colleges, and no one is 
     optimistic about their efforts--I think they'll collapse of 
     their own weight.
       So it's crucial that accrediting of our colleges improve.
       Our witnesses have a variety of viewpoints on accreditation 
     and I look forward to the discussion.

                          ____________________