Outcomes-Focused, Differentiated Accreditation€¦ · 1. Outcomes-focused risk assessment 2. Categories for institutions 3. Differentiated responses based on flags Common, aggregate

Outcomes-Focused,DifferentiatedAccreditation

AFrameworkforPolicyandPracticeReform

May2016

Contents

2

I. Groundingrecommendations: fiveinter-relatedelements

II. Frameworkforoutcomes-focused,differentiatedaccreditation

AppendixA:Policyoptionsandrecommendations

AppendixB:Applyingtheframeworktodifferentinstitutional contexts

Complementingthisslidedeckisapolicybrief(availableatwww.educationcounsel.com)thatprovidesadditionalbackgroundanddescribesourtheoryofactioningreaterdetail.

3

I.GROUNDINGRECOMMENDATIONS

3

GroundingRecommendationsOurvisionforaccreditationreformhasfiveinter-relatedelementsthat,together,couldbuildasystemthatismoreresponsive tostudentoutcomesandbetteratdirectingtime,resources,andattentiontothoseinstitutionsthatneeditmost.

4

• YourTextGoeshere• PutTextHere




Focusonstudentoutcomes

Riskassessmentsasthekeylensinaccreditation

Differentiatedengagementwithinstitutions

Alignedrecognitionprocess

Reductionofregulatoryburden

GroundingRecommendations

5

Focusonstudentoutcomes.Forfederalpurposes, traditional"input"measuresofinstitutionalquality(e.g.,curriculumandinstruction, facultyandleadership, studentsupport services,andresourcemanagement)shouldbeevaluatedonlyinlightofstudentoutcomemeasuresthatareavailableforallinstitutions thatreceivefederalfunding. (Programmaticaccreditorslikelyneed todevelopseparateoutcomesmeasuresappropriatefortheirprograms.)


6

Riskassessmentsasthekeylensinaccreditation.Accreditorsshould useariskassessmenttodetermine theirconfidencelevelsinthequalityofmember institutions.Theassessmentshouldbemadeupofmultiplemeasuresincludingavailablestudentoutcomesdataandtheinstitution's regulatoryhistorywithitsaccreditoraswellasstateandfederalauthorities.


7

Differentiatedengagementwithinstitutions.Accreditorsshoulddifferentiateamongtheirmember institutions toprovidevaryinglevelsofengagementandsupport basedonresultsfromtheriskassessment.Continuousimprovementshouldbeundertakenbyallinstitutions– andcantakedifferent formsdrivenbydifferentaccreditors– butaccreditorsandothersinthetriadshouldcollaboratetoaddressthose institutionswithlowconfidenceratings.


8

Alignedrecognitionprocess.USED'saccreditor recognition processshould supportaccreditorsinthemovetooutcomes-focused,differentiatedsystems.Theprocessshouldincludeareviewof themeasuresusedinriskassessmentsandaccreditors'exerciseofprofessional judgment inassigningcategoriesandresponsestoflagsraised(especiallyfor"lowconfidence"schools).Thefocusshouldbeonamixofprocessandoutcomemeasuresanalyzedpursuant toacontinuousimprovementmodel– ratherthanthecurrentcompliance-driven"checklist"approach.


9

Reductionofregulatoryburden.Asnewfederalrequirementsarecreatedforaccreditation,existingrequirements should beremovediftheycreatecostsandburdens foraccreditorsandinstitutionsbutarenotfundamental totheachievementofcorefederalinterests.Thiscouldinvolvetheremovalofexistingrequirements suchasmandatorysitevisitsregardlessofinstitutionalperformancemetricsandaone-size-fits-allreviewprocessthatforcesallaccreditorsandallinstitutions tocomplywiththesamelengthylistof requirements regardlessofperformance inthoseareas.

10

II.FRAMEWORKFOROUTCOMES-FOCUSED,DIFFERENTIATEDACCREDITATION 10

VisionforOutcomes-Focused,DifferentiatedAccreditationWhatwould theprocesslooklike?

11

1.Outcomes-focusedriskassessment

2.Categoriesforinstitutions

3.Differentiatedresponsesbased

onflags

Highconfidence

Mediumconfidence

Lowconfidence

Continuous improvement

Peerreviewfocusedonflagsinriskassessment

Deepengagementworkingtoward

significantimprovement

Federallegislation andregulationshould setsome

groundrules(discussed indetaillater),butarenotneeded togovernallpartsofthesystem.

Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentRecommendedmeasuresforinstitution-levelaccreditation – allcurrently(orsoon-to-be)availableforallinstitutions

12

StudentprofileandoutcomesAbsolutevaluesandchangesovertime

•Studentpopulation.Howmanystudentsdoestheinstitutionserve?HowmanyarePelleligible?•Retention.Howmanyandwhatpercentageofstudentsareretainedattheinstitution(usingmeasuresappropriateforthesector)?•Completion.Howmanyandwhatpercentageofstudentsgraduatewithin150%ofnormaltime?•Loans.Whatpercentageoftheinstitution'sstudentstakeoutloans?Whatistheloanrepaymentrateoftheinstitution'salumni(includingthosewhodoanddonotcompletetheirprograms)?Whatistheinstitution'scohortdefaultrate?

Regulatoryhistoryandstanding

•Accreditation.Hastheinstitutionbeeningoodstandingwiththeaccreditor?Whatissueshavearisenthathavethreatenedorchangedthatstatus?•Federalcompliance.Doestheinstitutionhaveanacceptablefinancialresponsibilityscore?Hasithadtoproducealetterofcreditrecently?•Statecompliance.Hastheinstitutionbeenappropriatelyauthorizedtooperatebyitsstate– andmaintainedthatstatus?• Investigationsandlawsuits.Areanyfederalorstateinvestigationsorlawsuitscurrentlypendingagainsttheinstitutionthatimplicatetheinstitution'squalityandabilitytofulfillitsobligationstoitsstudents?•Studentcomplaints.Doavailablestudentcomplaintsimplicatetheaccreditor'squalitystandards?

Otherriskfactors

•Enrollmentchanges.Hastheinstitutionexperiencedadramaticenrollmentexpansionorcontraction?Hasitembracednewlearningsettings(e.g.,onlineprograms)inasignificantnewway?•Ownershipchanges.Hastheinstitutionchangeditsorganizationalstructure,beensoldorcomeundernewownership,orreorganizedunderanewbusinessmodel?•Other.Hastheaccreditoridentifiedanyothersignificanteventthatcallsintoquestiontheinstitution'squalityandabilitytofulfillitsobligationstoitsstudents?

Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentDatanotyetfullyavailablethatcouldbehelpful

13

·Improvedgraduationrates(e.g.,incorporatingthestudentachievementmeasureorothermeansofincludingtransferrates)

·Pellretentionrate·Pellfull-timegraduationrateswithin150%ofnormaltime*·Pellrecipientrepaymentrates*·Program-leveloutcomes

Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentAggregateoutcomesv.studentlearningoutcomes

14


1.Outcomes-focusedriskassessment


3.Differentiatedresponsesbased

onflags

Common,aggregateoutcomes

Havetousedataavailablethatis

alreadyreportedforallinstitutions(incompleteand

imperfectasthesedataare)

Institution-specificlearningoutcomesShouldexamine

institution-specificmeasures,includingthelearningoutcomes

andassessmentmeasuresthatthe

institutionhasselectedforitself(e.g.,DQP).

Step2:CategoriesforInstitutionsBasedonInitialAssessmentBasicframework(toberefinedovertime,particularlyasnewdatabecomeavailable.

15

Impactofrisktotaxpayerandstudentinvestments

Prob

abilityofrisk

tota

xpayer

andstudentinvestm

ents

Lowimpact, lowprobably =highconfidence• Nomeasureinriskassessment raisesflags• No reasontobelievethatthesituationwillchangeintheforeseeablefuture

Highimpact,lowprobability=mediumconfidence• Atleastonemeasureinriskassessment raisesaflag

• Institution hasasignificantstudentpopulationsizeand/ortuition,loan,and/orPelllevelsarehigh

Lowimpact,highprobability=mediumconfidence• Morethanonemeasureinriskassessmentraiseflags

• Institutionhasasmallerstudentpopulationsizeand/ortuition,loan,and/orPelllevelsarelow

Highimpact,highprobability=loworverylowconfidence• Multiplemeasuresinriskassessment raiseflags• Institutioncanbeanysizeandatanytuitionlevel,butinterventionswillvary.

Step2:CategoriesforInstitutionsBasedonInitialAssessmentUnderlyingassumptions

16

Highconfidence Mediumconfidence Lowconfidence

Categoryappliesregardlessofsector,context,students

served,ormission.

Usingaccreditors'professionaljudgment,sector,context,studentsserved,ormissioncaninformdistinctionsbetween

highandmediumconfidence

Federallawmaydefinethethreshold(s)andapplythemtoallaccreditors.

Accreditorsmaydetermineappropriatelinebetweenthetwocategories.

Mostinstitutionswill fallintooneofthesecategories.

Accreditorsmayaddadditionalcategoriesfortheirownpurposes.

Step3:DifferentiatedResponsesRecommendedMeasures

17

• Self-guided continuous improvement•Peerrevieworsitevisitcantakeplace,butnotrequiredbyfederallaw

Highconfidence

•Accreditor-guidedcontinuous improvement•Peerreviewisfocusedonflagsinriskassessment

Mediumconfidence

•Mandatoryimprovementplan•Deeppeerreviewonallaspectsofinstitution•AccreditingagencywillinformandcoordinatewithstatesandUSEDtodeterminetimeline,studentnotifications, andpossible interventions

Lowconfidence

Step3:DifferentiatedResponsesPossibleconsequences forlowconfidenceinstitutions

18

§ Forinstitutions belowthefederal"lowconfidence"threshold basedonfederaldatasources, theDepartmentcouldsendarequestforadditionalinformationfromtherelevantaccreditingagencyandinstitution toexplaintheresults, identify anydataerrors,anddescribeplanned response strategiesbeforedeterminingtheDepartment'sownintervention strategy.

§ TheDepartmentcouldhaveauthoritytoimposearangeofconsequencesforinstitutionsatthelowconfidence levelbeyondrevocationofTitleIVeligibility, suchaslimits ontheamountand/ortypeoffederalfunding availableuntiltheinstitutionmakesmarkedimprovements.

§ Forinstitutions confirmedtobeatthelowconfidencelevel, federallawcouldrequireanoversightgroupofDepartment,stateregulator,andaccreditor representativestobeestablished.

§ Thegroupwoulddefineatimelineforimprovement(potentiallybasedon federallydefinedexpectations)andcoordinatecommunicationrelatedtoeachmember'splannedresponses.

§ Thoughfederallawmaydefinebaselinerules(e.g.,theinstitutionmustshowimprovementwithina2-3yeartimeframeorfacelossofor limitationsonTitleIVeligibility),itcouldallowtheoversightgroup todetermineotherdetailstosuitthespecificcontextoftheinstitution.

§ Othermembersofthetriadcouldpotentiallyalsorequestthatanoversightgroupbeformed.

19

III.POLICYOPTIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS– WORKINGDRAFT 19

Aboutthissection

20

• Thissectionlaysoutthevariouspolicydecisionsthatmustbemadetodesignandimplementoutcomes-focused,differentiatedaccreditation.

• Foreachstepoutlined inSectionIII(theFramework),weidentify severaloptionsthatcouldallowthesystemtomoveforward.

• Optionsareroughly orderedbythelevelofdetailthatwouldgointofederalstatuteand/or thelevelofdirectionthatfederallaworfederalauthoritieswouldhaveovertheprocess.

• Ourrecommendedoption isin blue,boldtext.• Wedonotidentifyoptions thatdonotpresenttherightbalanceofflexibilityand

rigor infederallaw.Forexample,wedonotrecommendthatfederalstatuteleavealldecisionsaboutwhatmeasurestoinclude intheriskassessmentstotheregulatoryprocessand/oraccreditors'owndecisionmaking processes.

Initialdecisiontopursueoutcomes-focused,differentiatedaccreditation

21

• Option1:FederalstatutemandatesbothoutcomesfocusANDdifferentiatedresponses(atleastforlowconfidenceinstitutions).• Thiswouldbeaccompaniedbyasignificantreductionofother

federalaccreditation requirementsnotrelated tothesecorereforms.

• Option2:Federal statuteonlymandatesoutcomesfocus.Accreditorsdecidewhethertopursuedifferentiatedresponsesystems(atleastforhighandmediumconfidenceinstitutions).

• Option3:Federal statuteonlymandatesdifferentiatedresponses,butnotoutcomesfocus.

• Option4:Federal statutemandatesneitheroutcomesfocusnordifferentiatedresponses,butprovidesincentives foraccreditors tomovetothesesystems.

WhyOption1?• Withoutclearguidancefrom

statute,thesystemmaynotbedesignedwiththerightincentivesandparametersinplace.

• Theoutcomesfocusanddifferentiatedresponses arepartofa"bargain"thathighperforminginstitutionsmayreceivesomerelieffromregulatoryburdensiftheycandemonstratestrongoutcomes.

• Withoutoutcomes,differentiatedaccreditationcouldbebasedonawiderangeoffactorsthatmayburystudentoutcomesasadriver.

• Withoutdifferentiation,accreditorsandinstitutionsmaynotbeabletofocusresourcesappropriately.

Changestotherecognitionprocess

22

• Option1:Therecognitionprocessinvolvesanoutcomes-focused,differentiatedreviewofaccreditors.

• Option2:Therecognitionprocessdoesnotmakeaccreditorsdirectlyaccountableforthestudentoutcomesoftheirinstitutions,butdoesrequireaccreditorstodescribeandjustifytheirpoliciesandpracticesrelatedtomeasuresandaccreditors'exerciseofprofessionaljudgmentinassigningcategoriesanddevelopingdifferentiatedresponsestoflagsraised(especiallyforlowconfidenceschools).Theprocessmaydifferentiateamongaccreditorsbasedonflagsraisedinthisprocess(i.e.,spendmoretimereviewingaccreditorswithill-definedsystemsand/orinadequatefoundationsfortheirdecisions).• Thiswouldbeaccompaniedbyasignificantreduction

ofotherfederalaccreditationrequirementsnotrelatedtothesecorereforms.

Corerecommendations tosupport thisframeworkWhyOption2?• Thisallowsthe

recognitionprocesstobeanimportantcheck onaccreditors'ownreforms,butallowsaccreditorstodesignthesystemsthatworkbest intheircontexts.

• Accreditorsdonothavedirectoversightoverstudentoutcomesattheirmemberinstitutions–makingthemaccountableinthiswaynotonlymakesoneentityresponsibleforanother'sperformance,butalsomaymuddleaccreditors'incentives tomakeauthenticconfidenceassessmentsoftheirinstitutions.

Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessment

23

• Option1:Federalstatuteidentifiesallmeasurestobeincluded.

• Option2:Federalstatuteidentifiescoremeasurestobeincluded,andallowsaccreditorstoaddotheroutcomes-basedmeasuresthataremeaningfulfortheirparticulargroupofinstitutions(e.g.,licensureratesforprogrammaticaccreditors).

• Option3:Federalstatuteprovidesbroadcategoriesofmeasuresbutallowsmeasurestobepreciselydefinedthrough theregulatoryprocess(e.g.,negotiated rulemakingornotice-and-comment).Accreditorsmayaddotheroutcomes-basedmeasuresthataremeaningful fortheirparticulargroupofinstitutions.

Whichmetricstoinclude?WhyOption 2?• Therearesomemeasures

thatareavailableforallinstitutions thatshouldbeacommonbaseline.

• Somesectorsandprogramshaveadditionalmeasuresthattheiraccreditorsmaychoosetousetosupplement.

Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessment

24

• Option1:FederalstatutemandatesthatUSEDprovidesstudentoutcomesmeasuresaswellasanyrelevantfederalregulatoryhistoryforeachinstitution. Accreditorssupplement thesedatawiththeirownregulatoryhistorywiththeinstitutionsaswellasanyinformation receivedfromstateregulators.

• Option2:Federallawcouldrequireaccreditorstoshowthatdataandinformationusedarefromreliable,validsourcessuchasfederaldatabases.Accreditorscouldsupplementthesedatawiththeirownregulatoryhistorywiththeinstitutionsaswellasanyrelevantinformationreceivedfromstateandfederalauthorities.

Whoruns theriskassessment?WhyOption 2?• Alldatawehave

identified inthisFrameworkisalreadypublicly availableorcouldbeavailablethrougheffectivecommunications linesamongmembersofthetriad.

• Thiswould notrequireanewreportingrequirementforinstitutions.

25

• Option1:Federalstatute(or regulations)define thresholds foreverycategory.

• Option2:Federalstatuteonlydefinesthresholdsforthelowconfidencelevel.Accreditorsmaydecidethethresholdsformediumandhighconfidence(andanyothercategoriestheychoosetoadopt,e.g.,forthehighestconfidenceschools).Accreditorswouldneedtoidentifyandjustifythesethresholdsintherecognitionprocess.

Step2:CategoriesforInstitutionsBasedonInitialAssessmentHowshould thresholdsbedetermined?

WhyOption2?• Thelowconfidence

levelrepresentsasignificantthreattotaxpayerandstudentinterests,andallowingaccreditorsorotherstodefinethislevelmaymaskatleastsomeinstitutions.

• Thisalsoallowsaccreditorsflexibilityinotherareaswheretheirexpertiseandprofessionaljudgmentshouldbeleveraged.

26

• Option1:FederalstatuterequiresUSEDtodirecttheprocess.• Option2:Federalstatutedescribes indetailtherequired

oversightgroup processesaswellasallrequired interventions,specifictimelines,etc.

• Option3:Federalstatuterequiresanoversightgrouptobeestablishedandthatitclearlydefinegoals,interventions,timelines,andstudent/publicnotificationprocedures.Thoughstatutewoulddefinehardlines(e.g.,mustshowimprovementwithina2-3yeartimeframeorfacelossoforlimitationsonTitleIVeligibility).Butfederalstatuteallowstheoversightgrouptodetermineotherdetailstosuitthespecificcontextoftheinstitutionatquestion.

Step3:DifferentiatedResponsesWhodecidesresponses forthelowconfidence schools?

WhyOption3?• Federallawshouldmake

clearwhentheoversightgroupshouldbeestablishedandwhatitsresponsibilitiesinclude.Itcanalsoidentifycommonexpectationsforbaselines(e.g.,student/publicnotificationwhenaninstitutionhasa"material"issue).

• Butitwillbeimpossibletodefineeveryinterventionstrategythatmaytakeplace.Theoversightgroupshouldhavesomediscretiontoactaccordingtowhatbestsuitsthecontext.

27

APPENDIX:APPLYINGTHEFRAMEWORKTODIFFERENTINSTITUTIONALCONTEXTS 27

Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentStudentprofileandoutcomesatInstitutionA

28

#students %Pelleligible #Pellrecipients

Retentionrate Graduationrate #graduates

Loanrepaymentrate

CDR %borrowers

Institution Aisasmallnonprofitprivatecollegethatservesasmallnumberofstudentsonly afewofwhomarePelleligible.TheoverallfederalinvestmentinPellgrants,therefore,isrelativelysmall.

Institution Ahasahighfirsttosecondyearretentionrate.Though,becauseofitssize,ithasarelativelysmallnumberofgraduates,itsgraduationrateislowerthanthatatitspeerinstitutions.

Institution AhasahighloanrepaymentrateandlowerCDR.Butithasahighpercentageofborrowersamongitsstudentbody,meaningthattheoverallstudentinvestmentinthedegreeishigh.

A

Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentRegulatoryhistoryandstanding,other riskatInstitutionA

29

Accreditationhistory

Institution Ahasarecordofgoodstandingwithitsaccreditor,anadequatefederalfinancialresponsibilityscoreforTitleIVeligibility,nopendingstateinvestigations,andnostudentcomplaintsdirectlyrelevanttotheaccreditor'sstandards.ButitisinthemidstofapendingprogramreviewofitsonlineprogramsbyUSED.Therearenospecialcircumstancesthatsuggestotherrisk.

Federalfinancialresponsibilityscore

Pendingfederalinvestigations

Pendingstateinvestigations

Studentcomplaints

n/a

Otherrisk

A

Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentStudentprofileandoutcomesatInstitutionB

30



Loanrepaymentrate

CDR %borrowers

Institution Bisalargepublicuniversitythatservesalargenumberofstudents, abouthalfofwhomarePelleligible.TheoverallfederalinvestmentinPellgrants,therefore,ishigh.

InstitutionBhasaveragegraduationandretentionrates,butitslargesizemeansthatitproducesalargenumberofgraduates.Ithasprogramsthatlagfarbehindothers.

Institution BhasahighloanrepaymentrateandlowerCDR.Butithasahighpercentageofborrowersamongitsstudentbody,meaningthattheoverallstudentinvestmentinthedegreeishigh.

B

Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentRegulatoryhistoryandstanding,other riskatInstitutionB

31


Institution Bnopendingfederalinvestigations,nostateinvestigations,andnostudentcomplaintsdirectlyrelevanttotheaccreditor'sstandards.But,historically,ithasreceivedflagsfromitsaccreditor forissuesrelatedtogovernance.(Becauseitisapublicinstitution,USEDdoesnotcalculateafinancialresponsibilityscore.)Therearenospecialcircumstancesthatsuggestotherrisk.




Studentcomplaints

n/a

n/a

Otherrisk

B

Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentStudentprofileandoutcomesatInstitutionC

32



Loanrepaymentrate

CDR %borrowers

Institution Cisalargeprivateuniversitythatservesalargenumberofstudents, amajorityofwhomarePelleligible.TheoverallfederalinvestmentinPellgrants,therefore,ishigh.

InstitutionChasaverageretentionandlowgraduationrates,butitslargesizemeansthatitproducesarelativelylargenumberofgraduates.

InstitutionChasalowloanrepaymentrateandhighnumberofborrowers,eventhoughitsCDRissufficientforTitleIVeligibility. Thus,theoverallstudentinvestmentinthedegreeishigh.

C

Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentRegulatoryhistoryandstanding,other riskatInstitutionC

33


Institution ChasanadequatefederalfinancialresponsibilityscoreforTitleIVeligibility,butsignificantotherregulatorystandingconcerns:ithasreceivedflagsfromitsaccreditor andisthesubjectofseparatefederalandstateinvestigationsrelatedtoitsrecruitmentpractices.Allthreemembersofthetriadhavereceivedstudentcomplaintsrelatedtothesesconcerns.Moreover,theinstitutionisseekingtoexpandtonewcampuses.




Studentcomplaints

Otherrisk

C

Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentStudentprofileandoutcomesatInstitutionD

34



Loanrepaymentrate

CDR %borrowers

Institution Disamidsizeprivateuniversitythatservesalargenumberofstudents, aboutaquarterofwhomarePelleligible.TheoverallfederalinvestmentinPellgrants,therefore,islow-medium.

Institution Dhashighretentionandhighgraduationrates.Itproducesamediumnumberofgraduatesperyear.

Institution DhasahighloanrepaymentrateanditsCDRissufficientforTitleIVeligibility.Morethanhalfitsstudentsborrow,though,sotheoverallstudentinvestmentinthedegreeismediumhigh.

D

Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentRegulatoryhistoryandstanding,other riskatInstitutionD

35


Institution Chasagoodhistorywithitsaccreditor,anadequatefederalfinancialresponsibilityscoreforTitleIVeligibility,nopendingstateorfederalinvestigations,nosignificantstudentcomplaints,andnootherriskfactors.




Studentcomplaints

Otherrisk

D

n/a

Step2:CategoriesforInstitutionsBasedonInitialAssessmentBasicframework(toberefinedovertime,particularlyasnewdatabecomeavailable.

36

Impactofrisktotaxpayerandstudentinvestments

Prob

abilityofrisk

tota

xpayer

andstudentinvestm

ents

Lowimpact, lowprobably =highconfidence Highimpact,lowprobability=mediumconfidence

Lowimpact,highprobability=mediumconfidence

Highimpact,highprobability=loworverylowconfidence

C

B

APeerreviewfocusesonwhythegraduationrateislow

Peerreviewfocusesonwhygraduationandretentionratesareaverage,particularlyinlowerperformingprograms

Significantinterventionsbyallmembersoftriad

DOptionalpeerreview

Acknowledgements

EducationCounsel,withsupportfromLuminaFoundation,hasbeenworkingonaccreditationreformforseveralyears.ThispolicybriefbuildsontworecentwhitepapersfromEducationCounsel:NewDirectionsinRegulatoryReform:ProspectsforReducingRegulatoryBurdenThroughRisk-InformedApproachesinFederalLaw (December2014)andGettingOurHouseinOrder:TransformingtheFederalRegulationofHigherEducationasAmericaPreparesfortheChallengesofTomorrow(March2015).

Thisprojectwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutthecontributionsofmanypolicyexperts,practitioners,andstakeholders,includingthoserepresentinginstitutions,students,andaccreditors,whosethoughtfulfeedbackandcommentarysignificantlyshapedthisframework.

Documents

Outcomes-Focused, Differentiated Accreditation€¦ · 1. Outcomes-focused risk assessment 2. Categories for institutions 3. Differentiated responses based on flags Common, aggregate