Accreditation and Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act

Accreditation and the Reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act
Updated January 25, 2007
Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Jody Feder
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division

Accreditation and the Reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act
Summary
Under the Higher Education Act (HEA), institutions of higher education (IHEs)
must be accredited by an agency or association recognized by the Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Education (ED) to participate in HEA Title IV federal student aid
programs. While this process is voluntary, failure to obtain accreditation could have
a dramatic effect on an institution’s student enrollment, as only students attending
accredited institutions are eligible to receive federal student aid (e.g., Pell grants and
student loans). Accrediting agencies are private organizations set up to review the
qualifications of member institutions based on self-initiated quality guidelines and
self-improvement efforts.
This report provides an overview of some of the possible accreditation issues
that Congress may address during the HEA reauthorization process. For example,
as Congress considers reauthorizing the HEA, it may consider making changes to the
role accreditation plays with respect to federal student aid or to the accreditation
process itself, such as the factors accrediting agencies must consider when evaluating
an institution. More specifically, potential issues for consideration include, but are
not limited to, the use of accreditation as a gauge of institutional quality, the
elimination of accreditation as a prerequisite for participation in HEA Title IV
programs, accreditation and distance education, accreditation and transfer of credit,
and due process requirements that apply to accrediting agencies.
In the 109^th Congress, both H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act
of 2005, and S. 1614, the Higher Education Amendments of 2005, the primary
vehicles for HEA reauthorization, would have altered accreditation requirements.
Most notably, both bills would have added new requirements related to considering
the mission of an institution when performing evaluations, outcome measures,
distance education, transfer of credit, due process, and accrediting agency operations.
HEA reauthorization may also be considered by the 110^th Congress. This report
will be updated as warranted by legislative action.

Contents
Reauthorization Issues..............................................2
Accreditation as an Indicator of Institutional Quality..................2
Elimination of Accreditation as a Prerequisite for Title IV Eligibility.....3
Distance Education and Accreditation..............................3
Transfer of Credit..............................................3
Due Process..................................................5
Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education......9
Brief Overview of Relevant Legislation from the 109^th Congress............10

Accreditation and the Reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act
Under the Higher Education Act (HEA), institutions of higher education (IHEs)
must be accredited by an agency or association recognized by the Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Education (ED) to participate in HEA Title IV federal student aid
programs.¹ While this process is voluntary, failure to obtain accreditation could have
a dramatic effect on an institution’s student enrollment, as only students attending
accredited institutions are eligible to receive federal student aid (e.g., Pell grants and
student loans). Accrediting agencies are private organizations set up to review the
qualifications of member institutions based on self-initiated quality guidelines and
self-improvement efforts.
This process and its critical role in determining institutional eligibility to
participate in Title IV has sometimes been controversial.² As the 110^th Congress
considers reauthorizing the HEA, it may consider making changes to the role
accreditation plays with respect to federal student aid or to the accreditation process
itself, such as the factors accrediting agencies must consider when evaluating an
institution. This report provides an overview of some of the possible accreditation
issues that Congress may address during the reauthorization process, a discussion of
the findings and recommendations regarding accreditation from the Secretary of
Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education’s final report, and a brief
overview of relevant legislation from the 109^th Congress that addressed accreditation
issues.³

¹ The provisions that govern the recognition of accrediting agencies may be found in §§ 102
and 496 of the HEA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1002, 1099b, 1099c). For the purposes of this report, the
term “accrediting agency” encompasses both accrediting agencies and associations.
² See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on
21^st Century Competitiveness, H.R. 4283, the College Access and Opportunity Act: Does
Accreditation Provide Student and Parents with Accountability and Quality?, hearings,^th^st
108 Cong., 2004. (Hereafter cited as House Subcommittee on 21 Century
Competitiveness, Accreditation.) Also see “Opening the Door on Accreditation,” (July 16,
2004); and “A Common Yardstick? The Bush Administration Wants to Standardize
Accreditation; Educators Say It Is Too Complex for That,” (Aug. 15, 2003), both from The
Chronicle of Higher Education.
³ For detailed information about institutional eligibility to participate in Title IV programs,
the accreditation process, or federal requirements for accreditation, see CRS Report
RL31926, Institutional Eligibility for Participation in Title IV Student Aid Programs Under
the Higher Education Act: Background and Issues, by Rebecca Skinner. (Hereafter referred
to as CRS Report RL31926, Institutional Eligibility.)

Reauthorization Issues
There are several key issues related to accreditation that may arise during the
reauthorization of the HEA. These issues include, but are not limited to, the use of
accreditation as a gauge of institutional quality, the elimination of accreditation as a
prerequisite for participation in HEA Title IV programs, accreditation and distance
education, accreditation and transfer of credit, and due process requirements that
apply to accrediting agencies.
Accreditation as an Indicator of Institutional Quality
One question that may be raised during the reauthorization process focuses on
whether accreditation can be equated with the provision of a quality education.
Accreditation is used as an indicator that an institution or program has met at least
minimal standards and as evidence of fiscal stability. Nearly all institutions that have
lost their accreditation or have been put on probation by their accrediting agency have
been cited for fiscal mismanagement or lack of fiscal integrity. Based on testimony
provided before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, few
institutions have lost their accreditation due to poor educational performance.⁴
The accreditation process, while required to assess institutions with respect to
student achievement, primarily bases accreditation decisions on the inputs (e.g.,
curricula and faculty) rather than the outcomes (e.g., graduation rates and job
placement rates) of higher education. In light of the increased congressional
emphasis on accountability for outcomes in education programs, Congress may
revisit the extent to which accrediting agencies focus on student outcomes in making
accreditation decisions in order to better gauge the educational quality of institutions
granted accreditation.
If Congress does decide to require accrediting agencies to increase their focus
on outcome measures, there may be a debate about what outcome measures to use
and how they should be measured. For example, would student grades be a valid
indicator of the quality of an institution? Would students’ standardized test scores
(e.g., Graduate Record Exam, Graduate Management Admission Test) be a useful
indicator of institutional quality? Would graduation rates or job placement rates be
valuable measures? Outcomes such as these have various measurement problems,
such as grade inflation, possible biases on standardized tests, differences in how
graduation rates might be calculated, or which jobs should constitute a successful
placement.

⁴ U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Higher
Education Accreditation: How Can the System Better Ensure Quality and Accountability?,^th
hearings, 108 Cong., 2004.

Elimination of Accreditation as a
Prerequisite for Title IV Eligibility
Another possible issue is the elimination of accreditation as a prerequisite for
Title IV institutional eligibility. Some argue that the current accreditation system is
a poor indicator of educational quality and, therefore, should have no bearing on
institutional eligibility decisions.⁵ Others argue that if the accreditation system were
eliminated, the federal government would have to develop its own measures of
educational quality, a potentially costly and controversial action; or the burden would
fall on states, leading to 50 different sets of standards for accreditation.
Currently, ED plays an integral role in determining institutional eligibility to
participate in Title IV programs through the eligibility and certification process.⁶
Some have suggested that it would be appropriate and possible for ED to extend this
role to specify student outcome data that institutions must provide and ED would
collect. Accrediting agencies and organizations would continue to play a role in
evaluating or assisting institutions if the institutions wanted their input. Others have
suggested that accrediting agencies continue in their current role, but another
organization, such as ED, be responsible for evaluating student outcomes. Detractors
of this proposal question whether increased ED involvement or the involvement of
any organization trying to impose specific student outcome criteria on institutions
would undermine the autonomy of postsecondary institutions. They argue that this
autonomy is a critical component to providing high quality education.
Distance Education and Accreditation
Another possible issue that may be debated during HEA reauthorization focuses
on accreditation and distance education. Key issues center on whether accrediting
agencies that accredit distance education programs should meet additional
requirements and whether accrediting agencies that evaluate institutions offering
distance education programs should be required to examine specific measures related
to distance education, such as student achievement for students enrolled in distance
education programs. The Deficit Reduction Act (P.L. 109-171) added a new
requirement that distance education programs must be evaluated by an accrediting
agency recognized by the Secretary of Education as having the evaluation of distance
education programs within its scope of recognition.
Transfer of Credit
Congressional debate during reauthorization may also focus on the issue of
transfer of credit and how to encourage institutions to accept transfer credits, while
still recognizing that not all institutions offer the same level of quality education and
not all courses may merit recognition of credit. Based on a study of bachelor’s

⁵ See for example H.R. 838 introduced by Rep. Petri during the 108^th Congress on Feb. 13,
2003. The bill proposed eliminating accreditation and preaccreditation requirements for
participation in Title IV programs.
⁶ For more information, see CRS Report RL31926, Institutional Eligibility.

degree recipients in 1999-2000, 59% of students attended more than one institution
in their pursuit of an undergraduate degree.⁷ Currently, when a student transfers from
one institution to another, the receiving institution determines which courses taken
at another institution will be accepted as credit toward a degree at the new institution.
A recent GAO study found that receiving institutions base their decisions on which
credits to accept on the type of accreditation held by the sending institution, whether
academic transfer agreements have been established with the sending institution, and
the comparability of coursework.⁸ The study also found that many institutions that
are accredited by regional accrediting agencies would not accept credits earned at
nationally accredited institutions.⁹
The credit review process can be labor intensive and costly, as institutions must
evaluate the quality of education received by the student at previous institutions. In
addition, for each course that the receiving institution awards transfer credit, students
may take one less course at the new institution, translating into a loss of tuition for
the new institution. Thus, institutions may not have incentives to recognize transfer
credits and may even have disincentives to recognize them. For students, this may
result in additional time and money required to complete a degree. Some students
may also reach limits on their federal student aid eligibility (i.e., available federal
student loans) prior to completing their program of study if credits are not accepted
or not accepted in the student’s major.¹⁰ For the federal government, this could
translate into wasted tax dollars if students using federal student aid to pursue a
postsecondary education have to retake courses.
Supporters of efforts to establish transfer of credit requirements argue that any
institution that is accredited by an agency or association recognized by ED should be
acknowledged as providing an education of an acceptable level of quality (or
presumably they would not have received accreditation). Opponents of these
requirements, however, argue that the federal government should not be involved in
determining whether an institution should accept credit for course work from another
institution, and that federal recognition of an accrediting agency establishes only a
minimum level of quality that some institutions may find unacceptable. In addition,
arguments have been made that if institutions are required to analyze each transfer
students’ courses for course compatibility and quality, as opposed to rejecting

⁷ U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2005), The Road
Less Traveled? Students Who Enroll in Multiple Institutions, NCES 2005-157. Available
at [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005157.pdf].
⁸ Government Accountability Office, October 2005, Transfer Students: Postsecondary
Institutions Could Promote More Consistent Consideration of Coursework by Not Basing
Determinations on Accreditation, GAO-06-22. Available online at [http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bi n/ ge t r pt ? GAO-06-22] .
⁹ It should be noted that most proprietary (for-profit) institutions are nationally accredited
institutions. Examples of regionally accredited institutions include the University of
Maryland, a four-year public institution; Williams College, a four-year private non-profit
institution; and Montgomery College, a two-year public college.
¹⁰ For more information about federal student aid limits, see CRS Report RL30656, The
Administration of Federal Student Loan Programs: Background and Provisions, by Adam
Stoll.

transfer credits from institutions holding specific accreditation, it will result in a
substantially more costly review process.¹¹
Due Process
Another issue that may arise during HEA reauthorization is whether to make
changes to the statute’s due process requirements. Under Section 496(a)(6) of the
HEA,¹² accrediting agencies recognized by ED must meet certain requirements with
respect to due process. That is, an accrediting agency is required to implement
specific procedures to resolve disputes between the accrediting agency and any
institution that is subject to the accreditation process. Under current law, accrediting
agencies are required to provide an IHE with, at a minimum, the following:
^!adequate specification of requirements and deficiencies at the
institution of higher education or program being examined;
^!the opportunity to have a hearing;
^!the right to appeal any adverse action against it; and
^!the right to be represented by counsel.¹³
During the reauthorization process, Congress may consider revisiting statutory
language relevant to due process. Some proponents of altering the current due
process requirements have, for example, proposed changes that include requiring that
hearing records be kept and that IHE appeals be heard by a panel of three outside
arbitrators.¹⁴ When considering such proposals, Congress may wish to weigh the
benefits that would result from additional protections for IHEs against the
administrative burdens for accrediting agencies that would result from additional
procedural requirements.
Although the due process requirements that apply to accrediting agencies are
statutory in nature, the concept of procedural due process has its origins in the U.S.
Constitution. Both the Fifth Amendment, applicable to federal agencies, and the
Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights
and is applicable to the states, prohibit government action that would deprive any
person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”¹⁵ The premise
behind due process is that the government, for reasons of basic fairness, must provide
certain procedures before taking any of these important interests away from protected
parties.

¹¹ It is unclear whether potential increased costs associated with the proposed change in
transfer of credit policies would ultimately result in increased tuition and fees for students.
¹² 20 U.S.C. § 1099b(a)(6).
¹³ Ibid. Accrediting agencies may provide additional procedures beyond the statutory
minimum if they wish.
¹⁴ Burton Bollag, “College’s Victory in Accreditation Lawsuit Could Spur Changes in the
Process,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 1, 2005, p. A23.
¹⁵ U.S. Constitution amendment V, § 1; Ibid. at amendment XIV, § 1.

The threshold question in a claim alleging a violation of due process rights is
whether there has been a deprivation of life, liberty or property. In order to establish
a due process violation, a challenger must show (a) a deprivation, (b) of a protected
interest and (c) “state action,” either federal or action under the color of state law,
whichever is applicable.¹⁶ Additionally, the petitioner must show that the action was
not a random act but one caused by established procedure.¹⁷
The Supreme Court has stated that due process “is a flexible concept that varies
with the particular situation.”¹⁸ Thus, the degree of procedural protection afforded
is determined on a case-by-case basis, with the amount of procedure due increasing
as the importance of the interest at stake becomes greater. For example, in Lassiter
v. Dept. of Social Services, the Court held that the termination of parental rights
represented a sufficiently high interest such that increased procedural protections
were necessary.¹⁹
In Mathews v. Eldridge, the Court established a balancing test to determine the
procedural protections required in a particular case:
[I]dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires
consideration of three factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by
the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest
through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or
substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest,
including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the²⁰
additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail.
In applying this test, the Court has generally held that due process requires some
type of notice and “some kind of a hearing before the State deprives a person of
liberty or property,”²¹ although the litigant is not necessarily entitled to a trial-type

¹⁶ Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F.2d 477, 479 (6^th Cir. 1991) (citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451
U.S. 527 (1981)).
¹⁷ Brotherton, 923 F.2d at 479 (citing Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532 (1984)).
¹⁸ Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 126, 127 (1989).
¹⁹ 452 U.S. 18, 33-34 (1981).
²⁰ 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).
²¹ Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 127. The Court cited the following cases as evidence of this
proposition: Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) (“‘[T]he root
requirement’ of the Due Process Clause” is “‘that an individual be given an opportunity for
a hearing before he is deprived of any significant protected interest’”; hearing required
before termination of employment (emphasis in original)); Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584,
606-607 (1979) (determination by neutral physician whether statutory admission standard
is met required before confinement of child in mental hospital); Memphis Light, Gas &
Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 18 (1978) (hearing required before cutting off utility
service); Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 579 (1975) (at a minimum, due process requires
“some kind of notice and ... some kind of hearing” (emphasis in original); informal hearing
required before suspension of students from public school); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.

539, 557-558 (1974) (hearing required before forfeiture of prisoner’s good time credits);

(continued...)

hearing similar to those used in judicial trials or formal administrative trial-type
hearings. In Goldberg v. Kelly,²² the Court held that welfare recipients facing
termination of their benefits were entitled to nearly all of the rights afforded in a trial-
type hearing. In subsequent cases, however, the Court has made it clear that trial
procedures are not essential for every governmental decision that might affect an
individual and that “something less than a full evidentiary hearing is sufficient prior
to adverse administrative action.”²³ Other procedures that courts have at times
recognized as required by due process include the presentation of evidence and
witnesses, legal representation, an impartial decision-maker, a written decision, and
administrative and/or judicial review of the agency’s action. Ultimately, however,
the Court has recognized as constitutionally sufficient many different types of
procedures, depending on the nature of the individual and governmental interests at
stake, and federal agencies currently provide a wide range of procedural protections.
As noted above, constitutional due process requirements apply only to
governmental actors, not private entities. Since accrediting agencies are private
organizations, the courts have generally held that they are not bound by the Due
Process clause of the Constitution.²⁴ Nevertheless, most courts, reasoning that
accrediting agencies serve a quasi-governmental function in their role as the gate-
keepers that determine whether IHEs will be eligible to participate in Title IV student
financial aid programs, have ruled that accrediting agencies are subject to common
law due process principles.²⁵ Under these principles, courts evaluate whether the
decision of an accrediting agency “was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
or reached without observance of procedure required by law.”²⁶
In addition to these common law due process requirements, IHEs that wish to
contest certain accrediting agency decisions may be protected by the HEA’s due
process statutory provisions. Under the HEA, “any civil action brought by an
institution of higher education seeking accreditation from, or accredited by, an
accrediting agency or association recognized by the Secretary … and involving the
denial, withdrawal, or termination of accreditation of the institution of higher

²¹ (...continued)
Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80-84 (1972)(hearing required before issuance of writ
allowing repossession of property); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 264 (1970) (hearing
required before termination of welfare benefits).
²² 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
²³ Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 545.
²⁴ See, e.g., Chicago Sch. of Automatic Transmissions, Inc. v. Accreditation Alliance of
Career Schs. & Colleges, 44 F.3d 447, 449 (7^th Cir. 1994); Medical Inst. of Minnesota v.^th
Nat’l Ass’n of Trade and Technical Schs., 817 F.2d 1310, 1314 (8 Cir. 1987).
²⁵ See, e.g., Foundation for Interior Design Educ. Research v. Savannah College of Art &
Design, 244 F.3d 521, 527-28 (6^th Cir. 2001). The common law is law that is based on
custom and judicial opinions, rather than constitutions or statutes.
²⁶ Thomas M. Cooley Law Sch. v. ABA, 376 F. Supp. 2d. 758, 766 (D. Mich. 2005).

education, shall be brought in the appropriate United States district court.²⁷ It is
unclear, however, whether this jurisdictional provision gives IHEs a private right of
action to sue accrediting agencies,²⁸ and courts have split on this question. For
example, in Thomas M. Cooley Law School v. American Bar Association, the court
noted that “nearly every court to consider the issue in the last twenty-five years has
determined that there is no express or implied private right of action to enforce any
of the HEA’s provisions,” and thus held that the HEA’s jurisdictional provision did
not give the IHE in question the right to enforce the statute’s due process provisions
by suing its accrediting agency directly.²⁹ On the other hand, other courts have
suggested that the HEA’s jurisdictional provision could be interpreted to confer a
private right of action on IHEs, but have not definitively ruled on the point.³⁰
Regardless of how the courts have ruled on the question of whether the statute grants
a private right of action to sue accrediting agencies, they have generally noted that
the lack of such a right is not significant, given that IHEs still have the ability to sue
accrediting agencies under principles of common law due process.³¹
A recent court case between Auburn University and its accrediting agency,
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), provides a good illustration
of how courts approach due process disputes between IHEs and their accrediting
agencies. In the case, Auburn alleged that SACS violated the HEA, common law due
process principles, and the Due Process clause of the Constitution by not following
its own procedures for a planned investigation.³² Although the court declined to rule
that accrediting agencies were governmental actors for purposes of applying
constitutional due process requirements, the court did find that accrediting agencies,
in their role as quasi-governmental entities that act as the gatekeepers to Title IV
student financial aid, are subject to common law due process principles.³³ Applying
those principles, the court held that “Auburn is entitled to some kind of due process
at this stage in the accrediting process.”³⁴ Since the investigation was in an early
phase, the court concluded that the university did not require strong due process
protection at that stage. As a result, the court allowed discovery on whether the
executive director had a conflict of interest under the association’s policies, but

²⁷ 20 U.S.C. § 1099b(f).
²⁸ In general, lawsuits brought by individuals who claim federal statutes are being violated,
can only be brought against the agency that administers those laws. Thus, IHEs cannot bring
statutory suits directly against accrediting agencies unless the HEA is interpreted to grant
schools a private right of action.
²⁹ Thomas M. Cooley, 376 F. Supp. 2d. at 765 (quoting McCulloch v. PNC Bank, Inc., 298
F.3d 1217, 1221 (11^th Cir. 2002).
³⁰ See, e.g., W. State Univ. of S. Cal. v. ABA, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1134-35 (D. Cal. 2004);
Auburn Univ. v. S. Ass’n of Colleges & Schs., Inc., No. 1:01-CV-2069-JOF 2002 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 26478 at *47-48 (D. Ga., Jan. 14, 2002).
³¹ See, e.g., Thomas M. Cooley, 376 F. Supp. 2d. at 766, n.2.
³² Auburn, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26478 at *1-2.
³³ Ibid. at *17-30.
³⁴ Ibid. at *30.

denied a preliminary injunction.³⁵ In addition, the court rejected Auburn’s HEA
claim because, although the court found that the statute’s jurisdictional provision
might contain an implied private right of action, the lawsuit did not challenge the
“denial, withdrawal, or termination of accreditation” as required by the statute.³⁶
More recently, Edward Waters College (Jacksonville, FL) and Hiwassee College
(Madisonville, TN) sued their accrediting agency, SACS, based on the denial of due
process. Edward Waters College was found to have plagiarized material on a report
due to the accrediting agency. The school, however, claimed that SACS did not
provide it with due process when the agency took action to remove the college’s
accreditation based on this infraction.³⁷ The case was settled out of court, and
Edward Waters College retained its accreditation in exchange for dropping the
lawsuit.³⁸ Hiwassee College is also suing SACS on the grounds that due process was
denied when its accreditation status became threatened by issues of fiscal
mismanagement. While the case is considered, a federal court has issued an
injunction requiring SACS to reinstate the accreditation of Hiwassee College.³⁹
Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future
of Higher Education
In September 2006, the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of
Higher Education (the Commission) released its final report examining the current
state of higher education.⁴⁰ The report included recommendations for improving
access to higher education and making higher education more affordable for students.
Included in its examination of higher education and related recommendations were
several findings and recommendations specifically related to accreditation.
The Commission found that accreditors play a gate-keeping function with
respect to federal student aid programs. Despite this public function and increased

³⁵ Ibid. at *31-37.
³⁶ Ibid. at *47-48.
³⁷ It should be noted that the lawsuit did not dispute the plagiarism. Rather, the lawsuit
focused on whether SACS provided Edward Waters College with due process in
determining the sanction, if any, for the alleged plagiarism.
³⁸ Kelly Field, “Florida College Reaches Tentative Settlement,” The Chronicle of Higher
Education, June 17, 2005, p. A21. The accreditation of Edward Waters College, however,
is currently on warning status. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Questions
Regarding the Status of Edward Waters College, June 30, 2005, [http://www.sacscoc.org/
disclosure/j une2005/Edward%20Waters%20College.pdf].
³⁹ Burton Bollag, “Court Injunctions Against Accreditor’s Decisions Arouse Fears About
the Process,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Apr. 8, 2005, p. A25. Prior to the Edward
Waters College case being settled out of court, a federal court had issued an injunction
requiring the SACS to reinstate the college’s accreditation until the case was resolved.
⁴⁰ Commission on the Future of Higher Education. (2006). A Test of Leadership: Charting
the Future of U.S. Higher Education. Available online at
[http://www.ed.gov/about/bds comm/list/hiedfuture/index.html ].

attention to outcome measures, much of the information collected by accreditors is
kept private. The information that is made public tends to focus more on the results
of process reviews, rather than providing information about learning outcomes and
costs. To meet the needs for increased accountability, quality, and transparency,
accreditation must change. They also argued that accreditation and federal and state
regulations impede innovation in higher education, which diminishes the ability of
IHEs to address national workforce needs and compete globally. In addition, the
Commission noted that it needs to be easier for students to transfer between different
kinds of institutions. Current institutional policies with respect to the transfer of
credit are often not clear and result in lost time and money for students and create the
need for additional federal student aid. The Commission also noted that while
accreditation once represented a private relationship between an accreditor and an
institution, it is now a public policy issue and the process needs to be made more
transparent to the public.
The Commission made several recommendations regarding changes to the
accreditation process. For example, the Commission recommended that accreditation
agencies move more quickly to accredit new institutions and new programs at already
accredited institutions, and increase their focus on results and quality, rather than
prescribing requirements for process, inputs, and governance that perpetuate the
current models of evaluation and impede innovation in higher education. The
Commission also recommended that accrediting agencies make performance
outcomes the priority over measures of inputs or process. Accrediting agencies need
to create a framework to align and expand existing standards to permit comparisons
across institutions on performance and outcome measures, to encourage innovation
and continuous improvement, and to require institutions, based on their specific
missions, to move toward world class quality and demonstrate progress in relation
to national and international peers. Finally, the overall accreditation process must
become more transparent and the final findings of the accreditation process must be
made publicly available.
Since the release of the Commission’s report, the Secretary has continued to
focus national dialogue on issues related to accreditation. In November 2006, the
Secretary convened representatives from accrediting organizations and other key
stakeholders to address the Commission’s recommendations. She has also scheduled
a Higher Education Summit for March 2007; accreditation will be a key topic
considered at the summit.⁴¹
Brief Overview of Relevant Legislation from the
109^th Congress
This section provides a brief overview of relevant provisions contained in H.R.
609, the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005, and S. 1614, the Higher
Education Amendments of 2005 — the primary vehicles for HEA reauthorization in
the 109^th Congress. H.R. 609 was passed by the House on March 30, 2006, by a vote

⁴¹ Inside Higher Ed, “Quick Takes,” Dec. 28, 2007, available online at
[http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/12/28/qt].

of 221-199 (H.Rept. 109-231).⁴² S. 1614 was reported by the Senate Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on November 17, 2005, without a report.
A report (S.Rept. 109-218) was subsequently filed on February 28, 2006. It was not
considered on the Senate Floor during the 109^th Congress.
Both the House and Senate bills would have made several changes related to
accreditation issues. For example, both bills would have altered accountability
requirements that accrediting agencies must use in evaluating institutions, adding a
new requirement that accrediting agencies consider the stated mission of the
institution, including religious missions, when applying and enforcing standards to
ensure the courses and programs offered by an institution are of sufficient quality to
achieve their stated objective. Both bills would have added new requirements related
to distance education, including requiring accrediting agencies to have standards that
adequately evaluate distance education programs in the same areas as regular
classroom-based programs⁴³ and requiring accrediting agencies to ensure that IHEs
had implemented a process whereby the institution could determine that the student
who registered for a distance education course or program was the same student who
participated in, completed, and received credit for the course. H.R. 609 and S. 1614
would also have prohibited IHEs from denying the transfer of credit based solely on
the accreditation held by the sending institution and would have required IHEs to
publicly disclose their transfer of credit policies. Finally, both bills would have
modified existing due process requirements. For example, both bills would have
prohibited the appeals panel from including current members of the accrediting
agency’s decision-making body that made the adverse decision, and the appeals panel
would have been subject to a conflict of interest policy.

⁴² For more information, see House Roll Call Vote Number 81, available online at
[http://clerk.house.gov/ evs/2006/roll081.xml].
⁴³ See HEA § 496(a)(5) for current requirements.