INTRODUCTION The Council of Recognized National Accrediting Agencies (CRNAA) is an alliance of seven accrediting agencies with a national scope. CRNAA members are recognized by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education as reliable authorities as to the quality of education and training offered by accredited institutions for the purpose of institutional eligibility to participate in federal student financial assistance programs. Accreditation is a private, voluntary, non-governmental peer review process. Accrediting agencies enhance the quality of education provided and promote institutional accountability by systematically and comprehensively evaluating institutions based on pre-established standards. The accreditation process determines if the educational programs offered to the public are as claimed in objective, content, and result. The following accrediting agencies comprise CRNAA: Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools (ABHES) Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology (ACCSCT) Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) Council on Occupational Education (COE) Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) National Accrediting Commission of Cosmetology Arts and Sciences (NACCAS) The institutions accredited by the these agencies number over 3,100 with more than 3.8 million students educated and trained in 1996. CRNAA's objective is three-fold: to promote and inspire the continuous peer review and assessment of accreditation practices predicated upon ensuring the quality and integrity of postsecondary education and training; to ensure that the purposes and interests of accreditation, accredited institutions and the students they serve are properly represented and fostered; and to ensure that Congress and the public understand the purposes and limitations of accreditation. The following 10 position papers have been developed to assist national legislators in understanding CRNAA's issues and concerns regarding Part H, Subpart 2, Accrediting Agency Approval, of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (the Act). These papers set forth CRNAA's concerns and include a background discussion on each issue and the rationale for each proposed change to the Act. It is CRNAA's intent that these position papers stimulate useful, discussion and serve as the basis for fair and equitable amendments to the Act when it is debated in the 1997-1998 Congress and within the higher education community. CRNAA Position Paper: TITLE IV OVERSIGHT AND THE REPORTING OF FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE Background: Section 602.26(b)(12), Title 34, Code of Federal Regulations, states that accrediting agencies must have a standard that effectively addresses an institution's "compliance with the institution's program responsibilities under Title IV of the Act, including any results of financial or compliance audits, program reviews, and such other information as the Secretary may provide to the agency." The Appendix to the Regulations (Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 82, April 29, 1995, page 22274) further states that "under this standard, the agency is not expected to do the work of the federal government in reviewing institutions for compliance with their Title IV, HEA program responsibilities. Rather, the agency is expected to review the information provided by the Secretary, determine if that information calls into question the institution's compliance with agency standards, and take follow-up action as appropriate." In addition, Section 602.4(f) requires an accrediting agency to report to the Secretary any institution "the agency has reason to believe is failing to meet its Title IV, HEA program responsibilities or is engaged in fraud or abuse and the reason for the agency's concern." No clarification is provided for this regulation. Proposal: Rationale: References: The language of the law and regulations should make clear that an accrediting agency's responsibilities relative to Title IV oversight are delimited to action based on Departmental findings that may call into question an institution's compliance with the agency's accrediting requirements. This delimitation is consistent with the differentiation of roles between accrediting agencies, which assure accredited institutions' educational/training quality, and the Department, which assures the administrative capability and financial stability of Title IV participating institutions. As a private, voluntary, self-regulatory peer review process, accreditation's functions are unique to accrediting agencies and, at the same time, complementary to the regulatory oversight exercised by government agencies at the federal and state level. While each accrediting agency performs its functions independently, the agency should be kept informed by other agencies regarding any actions that may suggest non-compliance of an accredited institution with legal or accrediting requirements. Maintenance of the selfregulatory nature of accreditation requires that accrediting agencies avoid becoming enforcement agencies for federal and state governments. Accrediting agencies should not be expected to be experts on federal regulations. The matter of Title IV oversight is sufficiently important and potentially problematic to require that it be addressed clearly in the law and regulations rather than being left for clarification in the Appendix to the Regulations. Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, Section 496; House Report 102-630, 102nd Page 4 CRNAA Position Papers CRNAA Position Paper: NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON Background: The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (the Committee) is the successor to the National Advisory Committee on Accreditation and Institutional Eligibility which previously made recommendations to the Secretary on the recognition of accrediting agencies. The Committee advises the Secretary on matters related to accreditation and the process for determining institutional eligibility and certification and financial aid provisions under Title IV of the Act. Proposal: Rationale: References: Although the Secretary makes the actual recognition decision, the Committee's recommendations are almost always followed. Therefore, the Committee's interpretation and application of the recognition criteria and the hearing process it conducts are critical to an agency's recognition. Since the scope of accrediting activity varies considerably among agencies and the institutions they accredit, the Act's requirement for broad Committee representation of the different types of higher education institutions is equally critical. Indeed, the 1992 reauthorization Conference Report indicates that the House agreed to replace the former National Advisory Committee only if such a statutory requirement were retained. However, as originally appointed by the Secretary, the Committee contained no proprietary sector representatives. After this deficiency was pointed out to the Department, the Secretary appointed one member affiliated with an institution accredited by a national accrediting agency. The remaining 14 Committee members include six college and university presidents, one community college system vice chancellor, two individuals currently or recently affiliated with higher education presidents' associations, and a university student. The Committee should be reconstituted to require proprietary sector representation commensurate with proprietary institutions' participation in the student financial assistance programs. The Committee should be composed of three representatives each from proprietary institutions, vocational institutions, traditional colleges and universities, the states, and the public. The Secretary should publicly solicit nominations, provide notice of tentative selections from among the nominees with an opportunity for public comment, and only then make appointments. The reliance of Congress on the Department to use its discretion in meeting the general requirement for broad representation among the Committee's membership has had the result of minimizing the diversity of educational resources, otherwise represented through the recognition process. A specific allocation of Committee seats representing the different types of higher education institutions and other parties interested in higher education should be mandated. The appointment process should also provide for greater input and openness. Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, Sections 481, 1205; 20 U.S.C. §1088, §1145; |