Download Report

NACIQI Policy Recommendation Update
On Monday March 23rd, the National Advisor Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity
(NACIQI) hosted a "virtual meeting" in which the sole focus of the agenda was an attempt to
ratify a series of 17 new policy recommendations. The recommendations, outlined in NACIQI's
2015 NACIQI Policy Recommendations Report, which are intended to be presented to Congress
to assist in changing the Higher Education Act in the upcoming reauthorization.
Building upon NACIQI's earlier 2012 NACIQI Policy Recommendations, which the Committee
asserts "still remain important to consider," NACIQI circulated the new January 2, 2015 DRAFT
as part of a February 25, 2015 Federal Register Notice. The Notice called upon all interested
parties to submit comments on the new proposals by March 9, 2015 and also established the
same deadline for interested parties to sign up to participate – in listen only mode – in Monday's
meeting.
The call for comment phase preceding Monday's call generated 16 responses, including
responses from national accrediting agencies (NACCAS and ACCSC), the Council of Regional
Accrediting Commissions, specialized accreditors, and national trade associations representing
institutions of higher education, individual institutions, and other interested parties. Based upon
these recommendations, the NACIQI members and Department staff hosted the virtual
meeting/conference call to determine what revisions, if any, would be made to the existing
proposals before submitting them to Capitol Hill. The meeting/call was presided over by Susan
D. Philips, the Chair of the Committee, who abstained from voting on each of the issues.
Below is a brief description of the outcome for 11 of 17 issues deliberated and approved by the
Committee. The original language, along with any changes (strike and replace) are presented for
each of the 11 issues discussed and approved.
Also included, is the list of six remaining issues which the Committee members were unable to
address in the two-hour time period allotted to complete NACIQI's review. This group includes
several key issues, including one specifically calling upon the Department and the Committee to
"meet periodically for mutual briefings and discussions, including policy issues such as
“gainful employment,” and resulting in policy recommendations."
Since the Committee was unable to complete their deliberations on all of the issues, the
Department and NACIQI Committee members agreed that they would have to host another
meeting/call either between now and the next scheduled Committee meeting in late June, or at
that meeting. Given the timeline outlined by House and Senate leaders, and their desire to move
forward with HEA reauthorization later in the Spring, it would appear that a meeting before the
end of June would be needed in order for these recommendations to have any impact on the
negotiations ahead.
We will have to wait and see whether or not such a meeting/call will be scheduled, and will
monitor and report on it when it happens. For now, here is where each of the issues stands.
OUTCOME OF RECOMMENDATIONS COMPLETED:
Toward simplifying and enhancing nuance in the accreditation and recognition process
1. Ask Encourage accreditation agencies (both programmatic and institutional) to develop
common definitions of accreditation actions and terms, procedures, timelines, process (i.e.,
electronic) including due process and substantive change.
Approved as amended by friendly amendment – Unanimous vote to approve recommendation
2. Require a periodic Departmental review of the criteria for recognition (regulations).
New language likely to be along the lines of
2. Recommend, that in order to streamline the regulations, eliminate duplication, and to
minimize the regulatory burden that a periodic Departmental review of the criteria for
recognition (regulations) is required.
Approved as amended by friendly amendment – Unanimous vote to approve recommendation
3. Re-focus NACIQI reviews to direct greater attention to assessing ensuring the role of an
accrediting agency in ensuring the health and well-being and the quality of institutions of
higher education and their affordability, rather than on technical compliance with the
criteria for recognition. These reviews should be supported by staff analysis that focuses on
the effectiveness of the accrediting agency in performing its work, rather than technical
compliance.
This particular recommendation invoked considerable discussion and clear philosophical
differences of opinion regarding the Committee's roles and responsibilities to evaluate/oversee
the effectiveness of the accrediting agencies. Discussions surrounding the use of the terms
"health and well-being" and "and their affordability" and whether or not "access" should be
added along with affordability Ultimately, the question was called on the revisions proposed
above, and the recommendations passed on a 9-2 vote, with Simon J. Boehme and Federico
Zaragoza, Ph.D. – both U.S. Department of Education appointees, dissenting.
4. Direct NACIQI to identify the essential core elements and areas of the recognition review
process that accrediting agencies are required to take into account for recognition
purposes, focusing of on student learning and student outcomes. It is expected that
NACIQI would identify both the essential areas to include in the recognition process as well
as those to exclude.
Approved as amended by friendly amendment. Although there was little to no discussion, the
amendment did not pass unanimously. Two Committee members, Richard F. O'Donnell and
Cameron C Staples, J.D. – both Senate appointees, but from the Republican and Democratic side
of the isle respectively, dissenting.
5. Grant accrediting agencies greater authority to develop standards tailored to
institutional mission; to create different substantive tiers of accreditation; and to use
different processes for different types of institutions, including expedited processes.
Approved with no discussion on a 10-1 vote with Anne D. Neal, J.D., a Senate Republican
appointee being the lone dissenting view.
6. Establish that the recognition review process differentiate among accrediting agencies
based on risk or need with some identified as requiring greater levels of attention, and
others lesser.
7. Establish that recognition recommendations and decisions include different gradations
of approval of accrediting agencies and different recommendations as to the amount of
time within which an agency is allowed to achieve compliance.
COMBINED INTO ONE Recommendation. New language likely to be along the lines of:
#. Establish that the recognition review process differentiate among accrediting agencies
based on risk or need with some identified as requiring greater levels of attention, and
others lesser. And further, that recognition recommendations and decisions include
different gradations of approval of accrediting agencies and different recommendations as
to the amount of time within which an agency is allowed to achieve compliance.
Discussion were had not with the substance of the proposals, but rather on the ability to combine
the two proposals into one. Approved – Unanimous vote.
Toward reconsidering the relationship between quality assurance processes and access to
Title IV funds
8. Make accreditation reports about institutions available to the public. Further discussion
is needed about what reports to include, and about how to increase information and
transparency while sustaining other critical values in the accreditation process.
Approved – Unanimous vote.
9. Afford institutions the widest possible array of choice of accreditor for access to Title IV
funds. Encourage place-based accreditation agencies to expand their scope. Provide greater
flexibility for institutions to re-align themselves along sector, institution-type, or other
appropriate lines.
10. Allow for alternative accrediting organizations.
COMBINED INTO ONE Recommendation. New language likely to be along the lines of:
#. Afford institutions the widest possible array of choice of accreditor for access to Title IV
funds, including all place-based accreditors. Encourage place-based accreditation agencies
to expand their scope. Provide greater flexibility for institutions to re-align themselves
along sector, institution-type, or other appropriate lines. And provide for alternative
accrediting organizations.
Approved – Unanimous vote.
11. Establish less burdensome access to Title IV funding for high-quality, low-risk
institutions.
Committee members first discussed whether or not this recommendation should be moved and
combined with recommendation #5. However, following discussions regarding the distinctions
between the major category headings, the directives intent, what would need to be developed to
define "high-quality, low-risk institution,” and the practicality of how such a broad
recommendation could be enforced. It was agreed that the recommendation must not be
combined, and should stand alone as a clear directive, to both accrediting agencies and the
Department (NACIQI). Once again the vote was split 10-1, with Anne D. Neal, J.D. dissenting.
(Note: My official count was nine to two, with both Roberta L. (Bobbie) Derlin, Ph.D. and
Anne D. Neal, J.D. dissenting, but the stated tally was 10-1.)
REMAINING ISSUES OUTSTANDING FOR CONSIDERATION:
12. Before eligibility for Title IV, require institutions to provide audited data on key
metrics of access, cost and student success. These metrics would be in a consistent format
across institutions, and easy for students and the public to access.
13. Establish a range of accreditation statuses that provides differential access to Title IV
funds.
Toward reconsidering the roles and functions of the NACIQI
14. Reconstitute the NACIQI as a committee with terminal decision-making authority and
a staff. This will establish NACIQI as the final decision-making authority on accrediting
agency recognition. In addition, ensure that the staff recommendation is provided to the
NACIQI for its consideration and that the NACIQI decision will be the singular final
action communicated to the Senior Department official.
15. Establish that in the event of an accrediting agency’s appeal of the recommendation,
NACIQI, sans Department staff, will respond to the accrediting agency’s appeal submittal
to the Department.
16. Establish that the NACIQI and the Education Secretary and other Department officials
meet periodically for mutual briefings and discussions, including policy issues such as
“gainful employment,” and resulting in policy recommendations.
17. Establish that the NACIQI, itself, timely disseminates its reports to the Department and
to the appropriate Congressional committees.
AACS Members Help Achieve Record Number of House Members Signatures on Letter
Seeking Restoration of ATB Student Access
With the potential for additional Members of Congress to add their names to the current list of 27
Representatives who have contacted NY Delegation Representatives Chris Gibson and Eliot
Engel who have sponsored the FY16 ATB Appropriations Request, it is clear that our
community remains concerned with student access and the need to restore it for students who do
not possess a high school diploma, GED, or its equivalency.
In less than a week, 216 individual AACS school members generated over 1,202 messages to
100 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.
As we have done in each of the four preceding years since access and eligibility for former
Ability-to-Benefit students was repealed, AACS has worked with a coalition of likeminded
advocates and their clients, seeking full restoration – or if necessary compromises short of full
restoration, which would provide a fair and equitable solution for all students to regain the ability
to pursue postsecondary education with the support of federal student financial assistance. In
years past, these efforts have resulted in varying levels of support, and the inclusion of a partial
solution - championed by Senator Patty Murray – which targeted eligibility linked to "Eligible
Career Pathways" programs.
As you know and the community know, after three plus years of seeking her amendment,
Senator Murray was successful in having revisions to the HEA added back in which provides
access for students participating in career pathways programs. A positive step, but one which
does not provide equity, as only approximately a dozen states have programs meeting the
definitions established by the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services to provide
the robust set of adult education and training services required to meet the definition. (AACS
and Ritzert-Leyton hosted a Webinar on this topic – archived on the AACSAction website.)
AACS' and our partners' goal is to build upon the recognition and incremental progress contained
in the Murray Career Pathways revision to the statute by once again calling for additional
modification through a two-pronged approach targeting both authorizing and appropriations
legislation. On the one-hand, we will continue to seek revisions in the annual appropriations
process - "must pass" funding legislation which Congress is supposed to complete by no later
than September 30th of each year, but in recent year's completes shortly before the end of the
calendar year. On the other-hand, we are also pursuing the inclusion of revisions in the pending
reauthorization of HEA – which is scheduled for House and Senate passage this year as well.
Regardless of the legislative vehicle, AACS and the GRC remain committed to restoring
eligibility for this important student demographic as part of our comprehensive legislative
strategy.
THE LIST OF CO-SIGNORS ON THE LETTER INCLUDE:
Chris Gibson
Eliot Engel
Charles Rangel
Paul Tonko
Nydia Velasquez
Danny K. Davis
Eleanor Holmes
Norton
Peter DeFazio
Barbara Lee
Gregory W. Meeks
Brian Higgins
Kathleen M. Rice
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Bobby L. Rush
Jerrold Nadler
Albio Sires
Frederica S. Wilson
Stephen F. Lynch
Loretta Sanchez
Tim Walz
Suzan DelBene
Jim McDermott
Pete King
Carlos Curbelo
Alcee L. Hastings
Kyrsten Sinema
Brenda Lawrence