Page images
PDF
EPUB

You were, I thought, indicating that a number of your schools are not appropriately accredited in that respect. Am I correct in my first two sentences?

Mr. CLARK. That is true.

Mr. BRADEMAS. What is it you are proposing? Are you saying you want, to put the matter bluntly, some kind of way that would allow your students to participate though the institution is not accredited? What is it you are saying?

Mr. CLARK. I am saying that the State of Indiana has one of the strongest functions in the country. This has been acknowledged by others, not just myself. The kind of accrediting process that we put the schools through is very detailed and very in depth.

I think it would be most appropriate if once a school having gone through what our State does could qualify for Federal funds without the State of Indiana becoming recognized as a national accrediting body.

Somehow we must set in here dual responsibilities so that perhaps to become an eligible receiver, a student going to an institution, perhaps it will take a status such as we give a school by our State plus a status by an accrediting body.

I do not think that accreditation per se is the only way to look at an institution's eligibility.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I hear you saying that we ought to get back to the pre-Civil War period and leave matters wherein if a State says you are right it doesn't make any difference whether the national Government agrees.

Would not the policy you are suggesting mean that in one State your could have lower standards than in an adjoining State and the students in one State would be attending an institution and participating in Federal student-assistance programs at an institution which was subjected to lower standards of quality than would be the case in the other State?

Mr. CLARK. First of all, I say that does exist right now. Secondly, I would say, no, I wouldn't go back that far. What I said this morning before you were here, which might answer part of your concern, is we believe in our State and in the national association that I represent in what we call our "triangle assistance."

That is, the States do what they can do, the peer associations do what they can do, and the Federal Government does what it can do, so that each, working together, can see to it that the kinds of abuses we now have and problems can, hopefully, be eradicated.

I think it would be incumbent upon Congress to more or less go to these States in some fashion or make a regulation that would kind of push the States to increase so that we would not have a high State and a low State, and a high State and a medium State, so that somehow or another we could unite the States in an almost standard kind of regulatory process.

It could be of invaluable assistance because, as we know now, sir, accreditation itself does not provide necessarily the one thing you are after, and that is accountability, and we must make the institutions accountable.

Mr. BRADEMAS. But you are not then suggesting, or are you-I am not clear on this. I think what you just suggested makes a lot of sense. Are you suggesting that in the final analysis each State ought to be judged in respect of accreditation of the institutions within that State, at least so far as the eligibility of students for participation in Federal assistance is concerned?

Mr. CLARK. I think the States should have a great deal in this decision as to whether or not an institution is viable and therefore should qualify. How this is done would have to be worked out jointly, I think, between standards which would be worked out by you and correspondingly, new kinds of standards in the States.

As you know, the model ECS legislation which was introduced was supposedly to bring about a standardization so that all State laws are about the same. Obviously, we cannot do it until all the State laws have the same kind of teeth in them.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I must tell you in all candor I don't understand what you are trying to tell me. My question is this, put in the most simple English possible: Do you believe that at least with respect to qualification of students at schools of the kind you represent for participation in Federal student-assistance programs, that approval by the State, accreditation by the State suffices?

Mr. CLARK. I would say, yes, if the State has the right kind of laws. You must standardize

Mr. BRADEMAS. You should be a candidate for Congress. What do you mean, if the State has the right kind of laws? It is the whole point of the discussion, Mr. Clark. I am not trying to badger you.

Mr. CLARK. I know what you are saying. First of all, in the simplest terms, the Government should butt out. I think the States should have the responsibility of regulating these schools within their States, but in order to do that we must have a standardization so that each State has the same kind of requirements.

Somehow or another we must do away with the difference which have extremely strong laws and States which have no laws. That would have to be reached by a joint working in this triangle of assistance.

We would have to draw from the people, the Congress, and the people from the accrediting bodies and people from other States to sit down and develop the kind of model law which could be pushed for acceptance in each State.

If that happened and we had the standardization of the kind of regulations necessary, then the States could be the ones to say that this or this school should or should not, based on the evaluation of that State.

Mr. BRADEMAS. In other words, are you saying that we ought to have a minimum, a floor of standards which every State must require in terms of accrediting its institutions?

Mr. CLARK. Correct.

Mr. BRADEMAS. That relieves me because the concern of some of us, at least my concern, is that if you did not have such a floor then you could have pattern in the country of 50 States wherein some States did not require standards of sufficient quality to prevent fly-by-night

[ocr errors]

institutions from bilking the Federal taxpayer in terms of student assistance programs.

Mr. CLARK. We do not want that.

Mr. BRADEMAS. That is very helpful. I think I am clear on your position and I thank you for a very useful statement.

Mr. O'HARA. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Clark, for appearing before us. We would like to stay in touch with your association and with you, as the president of the association, as I indicated because we are as interested as you are in finding a constructive and helpful role for the States in this whole problem.

We think the States can make a contribution and we want to see to it that they do.

Without objection, the materials you have supplied will be included in the record of these hearings.

The subcommittee will now stand in adjournment until tomorrow morning, when we continue our hearings on this general subject of accreditation and institutional eligibility. We will meet at 10 o'clock in room 2261.

[Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m. Friday, July 19, 1974.]

FEDERAL HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS
INSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY

FRIDAY, JULY 19, 1974

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 A.M., pursuant to adjournment, in Cannon House Office Building, Hon. James G. O'Hara (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives O'Hara, Quie and Lehman.

Also present: Webb Buell, counsel, Jim Harrison, staff director; Elnora Teets, clerk; Robert Andringa, minority staff director; and John B. Lee, minority research assistant.

Mr. O'HARA. The Special Subcommittee on Education will come to order. Pursuant to our mission of reviewing and perhaps rewriting title IV of the Higher Education Act with respect to student assistance, we have been looking into the question of qualifications of institutions that will be permitted to enroll students receiving Federal assistance. We have, of course, been looking into the accreditation issue in connection with that, and with the general question of how we can assure that those students who are receiving assistance under various Federal programs funded under title IV will be protected in that they will be protected in terms of the kinds of education and training they receive, in terms of the financial responsibilities of the institutions they attend.

We had witnesses yesterday on this subject. Today we are looking forward to hearing from others who will give us the benefit of their views on entire problem.

Our first witness today will be Mr. Richard Fulton who is the executive director and general counsel of the Association of Independent Colleges and Schools. As I understand, Mr. Fulton is accompanied by Mr. Dana R. Hart, who is executive secretary of the Accrediting Commission of the Association of Independent Colleges and Schools.

Gentlemen, please take your places at the witness table and let us have the benefit of your experience in these matters.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was hoping to be here today at these meetings, but I have an appointment over at the Senate Office Building. I will try to get back from there as quickly as I can. If you will pardon me, I will try to be back to hear the summation of your testimony.

Mr. O'HARA. The chairman thanks the gentleman from Florida who made a special effort to be here.

Mr. FULTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the completeness of the record, I wonder if I might file a formal statement and then

(67)

« PreviousContinue »