TITLE Series. INSTITUTION PUB DATE 93 60p. AVAILABLE FROM · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 378 928 HE 028 102 TITLE Independence or Interdependence: Can Government and. ... David Rhodes, School

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 378 928 HE 028 102

TITLE Independence or Interdependence: Can Government andAccrediting Organizations Get Along? 75th AnniversarySeries.

INSTITUTION Commission on Higher Education, Philadelphia, Pa.Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools.

PUB DATE 93NOTE 60p.AVAILABLE FROM Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States

Association of Colleges and Schools, 3624 Market St.,Philadelphia, PA 19104 ($2.50).

F"B TYPE Collected Works General (020)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Accrediting Agencies; Agency Cooperation; Federal

Government; *Federal Legislation; *FederalRegulation; Government Role; Government SchoolRelationship; *Higher Education; Partnerships inEducation; Policy Formation; Public Agencies; PublicPolicy; State Regulation

IDENTIFIERS *Department of Education; *Higher Education ActAmendments 1992; Middle States Association ofColleges and Schools

ABSTRACTThis publication reports on two December 1993 events

of the Commission on Higher Education events which addressed thereauthorized Higher Education Act and regulations to be issued by theDepartment of Education during January 1994. The first eventdescribed in the report featured United States Secretary ofEducation, Richard W. Riley. The report from that event also includesLeon M. Goldstein's short introduction of Secretary Riley followed bythe text of Riley's remarks titled "Reforms, Accountability, andPartnerships in an Age of Transition." This is followed by hisresponses at a question-and-answer session to queries on such topicsas the purpose and value of unannounced visits to institutions andadministration ideas for fostering partnerships between secondary andpostsecondary institutions. The report from the panel on "Living withMore Regulation," a discussion of regulations flowing from the HigherEducation Act, contains "An Overview of the Legislation" (Terry W.Hartle); "The Impact of Flawed Legislation" (Patricia McGuire); "LessPassive and More Active Accrediting Agencies" (David Rhodes);"Rulemaking at the Federal and State Levels" (Jane Stockdale); and"Concluding Observations" (Terry W. Hartle). An appendix contains theguest list for the meeting with Secretary Riley. (JB)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

75th Anniversary Series

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERICI."

INDEPENDENCEor

INTERDEPENDENCE

CAN GOVERNMENT AND ACCREDITINGORGANIZATIONS GET ALONG?

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOnce or Educahonal Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

CLZIs document has been reproduced asreceived 1,01h the person or organicattoncolgmehng $1

O Minor changes have been made to Improvereoroduchon dually

PoInts of view or ormnions Stiand III this docu-ment dO not necessarily represent othclalOE RI positron or policy

COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATIONMiddle States Association of Colleges and Schools

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

75th Anniversary Series

INDEPENDENCE

or

INTERDEPENDENCE

CAN GOVERNMENT AND ACCREDITINGORGANIZATIONS GET ALONG?

1 9 1 9 - 1 9 9 4

75THANNIVERSARY

COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATIONMiddle States Association of Colleges and Schools

3

Published by the

Commission on Higher Education of theMiddle States Association of Colleges and Schools3624 Market StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19104(215) 662-5606

The proceedings were recorded, edited, and typeset byidea Management Associates, Washington, D.C.

CO Copyright 1993, by the Commission onHigher Education

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States ofAmerica

4

a

ContentsPage

PrefaceHoward L. Simmons, Executive Director, CHE

The 1992 Reauthorization ofthe Higher Education Act

IntroductionLeon M. Goldstein, Chair, CHE 1

Reforms, Accountability, and Partnershipsin an Age of TransitionRichard W. Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education 3

Living with More Regulation:A Panel Discussion

An Overview of the LegislationTerry W. Hartle, American Council on Education 10

The Impact of Flawed LegislationPatricia McGuire, Trinity College 17

Less Passive and More Active Accrediting AgenciesDavid Rhodes, School of Visual Arts 24

Rulemaking at the Federal and State LevelsJane Stockdale, Pennsylvania Department of Education . 29

Concluding ObservationsTerry W. Hartle 33

Appendix:Guest List for the Meeting with Secretary Riley 47

r";

Preface

This publication brings together reports of twoimportant Commission events that occurred just days

apart. The first, held on December 6, 1993, was a specialmeeting in Washington to inaugurate the Commission's75th Anniversary observance. We were pleased to haveU.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley with us asthe guest of honor on that occasion. The second event,which took place on December 10 at the Middle StatesAnnual Meeting, was a panel discussion led by highereducation colleagues in the Middle States region.

Although the speakers at the two December affairswere separated in space and time, their remarks,summarized in the following pages, constitute the initialstages of a colloquy on matters of importance to theeducational future of our nation. We hope this modestbeginning will stimulate continuing dialogue between theCommission and the Department of Education on bothcurrent and long-range issues.

On the most immediate level, the subject for discussionon December 6 and 10 was the reauthorized HigherEducation Act and the proposed regulations that theDepartment of Education will publish during January1994. The Commission has urged its member institutionsto participate vigorously in shaping these regulations andcontinues to do so even as this publication goes to press.The Commission's most recent memorandum, datedDecember 20, 1993, asked all institutions to respond atonce to the proposed regulations after careful study ofthe legislation itself.

As Commissioner/panelist Patricia McGuire points out,the legislation is deeply flawed in its assumptions aboutthe role and pruposes of voluntary accreditation.

6

vi Independence or Interdependence

Nevertheless, for the time being, we are bound by thelaw and will be so bound unless and until it can bechanged. Of more immediate concern for our collegesand universities are the impending regulations.

The regional accrediting directors, through theirrecently establishf:d National Policy Board, expressed"grave concern" about the regulations, particularly theirprescriptiveness and excessive detail, the undue burdensthey would place on institutions and accrediting agencies,and the duplication of federal and state responsibilities.Of special concern is the gap between the intent of thelaw and the regulations that would implement it.

The statute, for example, specifies that "nothing in thisAct shall be construed to permit the Secreary to establishstandards for accrediting agencies or associations thatare not required by this section (of the 1992 HigherEducation Amendments)..." Yet, the proposed regulationsprescribe in detail the specific content of 12 standardsthat accrediting agencies must assess, including suchmatters as minimum and maximum program lengths andtuition and fee charges; measurements of programs inclock hours or credit hours; and standards regulatingstudent refunds, among others.

Responding to the proposed regulations, then, shouldstill be a priority for all institutions of higher education.

The immediacy of our concerns with the regulationsshould not blind us, however, to the underlying themesthat we must continue to address. On a deeper level, thedialogue now in progress concerns the dual claims offreedom and responsibility, both within the educationalcommunity itself and between our community and thegovernment.

Balancing freedom and responsibility within theeducational community has long been of concern to theCommission and, indeed, remains a central point in anydiscussion of accreditation. We support unequivocally theprinciples stated in the Commission's policy on

7

Independence or Interdependence vii

institutional responsibilities, reissued with eachsucceeding policy review since it was first promulgatedin 1978:

There are few privileges without obligations, andfreedom without responsibility is an invitation to chaos.The educational community has enjoyed a privilegedposition in the United States, and freedom is the lifebloodof its strength. That privileged position obligateseducators and their institutions to strive for the highestlevel of quality and achievement possible. That freedomrequires that higher education so condt'ct its affairs as toexemplify the meaning of responsibility. Accreditationand the accrediting process are means to that end.

Freedom and responsibility. We acknowledge that thecircumstances which gave birth to the amended HigherEducation Act have cast doubt in some minds on theeducational community's ability to act both freely andresponsibly. But even as we seek to develop moreeffective ways of doing our work and responding tolegitimate public concerns about educational quality, theCommission firmly believes that we have no alternative toself-regulation and peer review as means of stimulatingeducational improvement and quality.

Governmental regulation has never been and is notnow a viable alternative but, rather, one distinct facet ofa tripartite separation of powers. It has been clear fromthe early stages of discussion about the Higher EducationAct, when accreditation was about to be removed fromthe "triad," that what is required to meet our jointresponsibility to the public is a judicious balance ofpowers among the major partners federal, state, andvoluntary accreditation.

What, then, is our dilemma? The Secretary ofEducation has stated his agreement with the principledescribed above. In the "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,"summarizing the regulations governing the recognition ofaccrediting agencies, he comments on the complementarynature of the components of the "triad": "[T]he focus for

viii Independence or Interdependence

accrediting agencies is the quality of education; for theStates' evaluation of institutions the focus is primarilyconsumer protection; and for the Secretary the focus isthe administrative and financial capacity of institutions toparticipate in the Student Financial Aid programs...."

Yet, the principles embedded in this three-waypartnership have become attenuatedindeed, all butobliterated in some respectsboth in the HigherEducation Amendments and the proposed regulations,especially with regard to the role and function ofvoluntary accreditation.

Over a decade ago, the Middle States Associationpublished MSA and Government, a policy statementwhich refers to the "calculated interdependence betweengovernment and education that was built into theAmerican democratic policy...." The challenge beforeus now, its urgency heightened by the 1992 HigherEducation Amendments, is to develop strategies for moreclearly defining that interdependence and making it work.

Howard L. SimmonsExecutive Director

CI

The 1992 Reauthorizationof

The Higher Education Act

Introduction

Leon M. GoldsteinChair, Commission on Higher Education

ecretary of Education Richard Riley has dedicateda major portion of his life to public service and to

education reform and improvement at all levels. Becauseof this, he was the first former Governor to be given theHarold W. McGraw, Jr. Prize in Education. His work asGovernor in K-12 reform produced what is widelyreferred to as the most comprehensive education reformpackage in America and directly led to concrete results,including record numbers of South Carolina high schoolgraduates being prepared for, and now going to, college.

Those reforms contained interesting linkages betweenK-12 and postsecondary education. He promotedconnecting high school graduation and college entrancerequirements, creating incentives for greatly expandingAdvanced Placement course participation, improvingteacher education, linking high school vocationalprograms with postsecondary technical education, andnetworking innovative college personnel with the K-12schools that are restructuring.

Also, it is important to note that the last time thathigher education in South Carolina was funded closeto 100 percent of their formula request was almost adecade ago, during Dick Riley's last term as Governor.

I C

2 Independence or Interdependence

As a governor and state legislator, he was very supportiveof innovation and improvements in the State's communityand technical colleges. Also, he created a special stateresearch authority to expand research opportunitiesamong the State's colleges and universities and with theprivate sector. His final major act before being appointedSecretary of Education was to chair, as a private citizen,the fund-raising drive at his undergraduate alma mater,Furman University, which resulted in an $83 millionendowment.

As you can see, Secretary of Education Riley has a setof rich experiences to call upon as he leads our nationforward in educational reform and renewal at all levels.

11

Independence or Interdependence 3

Reforms, Accountability,and Partnerships inan Age of Transition

Richard W. RileyUnited States Secretary of Education

It is a great privilege for me to be with you on theoccasion of your 75th Anniversary as an accrediting

body.1 I congratulate Middle States for its commitment toquality and excellence and for your continuing effort atcollegiality and openness--the free exchange of ideas

that helps students advance in their intellectual journey.

I know that at times in the past, there have been somebumps in the road between the Association and theDepartment of Education regarding the role of accreditingbodies, and a few of you are very concerned about theimplementation of the Higher Education Act Amendmentsof 1992. I want to assure you that I came to Washingtonwhen the President was kind enough to call me because

I have had a lifelong love affair with learning. I have alsospent the better part of my political life committed to theidea that education remains the great democratic rockthat creates and sustains those qualities that are elementalto a civilized society.

1 Edited text of remarks by Secretary Riley at a luncheon held on

December 6, 1993, at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C.

The Commission on Higher Education mailed the full text to memberinstitutions with a memorandum on December 20, 1993, and additional

copies of that text are available upon request.


In 1993, we find ourselves in a unique period oftransition, facing increasing demands on education.Therefore, 1 want to talk to you about our efforts torestore integrity to our troubled financial aid system, thenew public mood of accountability and a desire forhigher standards, and the Higher Education ActAmendments of 1992.

Reform Efforts

One of our first tasks was to help as many people aspossible pay the cost of higher education with a financialaid system of integrity and quality and one that is cost-efficient and accessible.

We are well on our way to creating a new directlending program, and over 1,100 institutions have appliedto participate in the first phase of this new effort. I wantto encourage every institution that did not apply toconsider applying in the next round.

Our second effort at reform has been our strong pushto rebuild the Pell Grant program. When I first became1.1.5. Secretary of Education, I was surprised to discover a$2 billion off-the-book off-the-budget deficit. Fortunately,we have been able to maintain the size of the Pell Grantwe give each student and, at the same time, cut thedeficit by more that one-half.

We also have taken new measures to restore theintegrity to the program. The management of this programhas been worse than lax, the previous department didnot even listen to its own good internal advisors, and asmall minority of participants in the program took fulladvantage of our laxity.

I know you are working hard to reduce your defaultrates. I urge you to continue this good work and makecertain your students understand that a student loan isvery much a personal statement of integrity.

13

Independence or Inter'ependence 5

Our third effort to make higher education moreaccessible is one of our most satisfying. We expect tohave 15,000 to 20,000 young people participating nextyear in AmeriCorps, the President's new national serviceinitiative. I urge your active and full involvement,including the use of your own resources and work-studyresources.

New Sta.dards of Accountability

Whether restoring ethics in politics or questioning thelevels of violence on television, the American people aremoving toward a new spirit of accountability. Whethersetting new standards for what is or what is not sexualharassment or new academic standards for athleticeligibility, the American people are increasinglyrecognizing that a price has been, and continues to be,

paid for the diminishment of standards.Those of us who have been involved in creating a

world-class education system for every child at the K-12level welcome this new attention to standards andaccountability. We are working hard to pass the "Goals

2000: Educate America Act," which will create a set ofnational "voluntary" standards of excellence. These reformefforts at the K-12 level are the concern of highereducation because they will have an enormous impacton all your institutions, from reshaping teacher educationto redesigning your undergraduate programs for an influxof more and better prepared students. It will intensify thedebate on the balance that must be struck betweenresearch and teaching in that taxpaying parents andstudents who attend college will expect first-classprofessors in the undergraduate classroom.

In addition, we are on the threshold of an importantpublic dialogue on the meaning of accountability andstandards for American higher education. A report beingreleased today by the Wingspread Group on Higher

14


Education urges universities and colleges to raise theirexpectations, to accept new levels of accountability, andto strive for higher standards.

So I encourage you to intensify the important dialogueand be extraordinarily sensitive to the spirit of academicfreedom that defines the independence and the veryintegrity of higher education in America. At the sametime, this dialogue ought to reflect the reality that theAmerican higher education community is less thanuniform. Our many technical and community colleges,state colleges and universities, and private colleges arereflections of the American people's quest for knowledge.

Accountability surely will be a watchword for the1990s. To the extent that the higher educationcommunity engages and leads this dialogue with anawareness of its necessity, I assure you that we will allbenefit as a nation.

Higher Education Act Amendments of 1992

Last year, under Title IV of the student aid program,Congress passed a series of amendments that arereshaping what we call the "program integrity triad,"which includes state oversight, accreditation, and federaleligibility and certification.

There is an enormous difference between the manyfine institutions of learning that we have in this countryand the few "certificate mills" that have traded on thedesire of so many hard-working Americans to betterthemselves. Congress now is asking every part of the triadto move from an explicit assumption of responsibilities toa more explicit statement of our ongoing partnership andto define clearly what is expected of each member of thetriad, while respecting the unique role of each.

Over the past year, we have spent a significant amountof time at the table together, as partners in this "sortingout" process, and this is surely what Congress intended in

15


designing the new negotiated rulemaking process. I assureyou that I view this ongoing process as a partnershipwhere like-minded people with similar goals find theirway together. Next month, we will release draftregulations for additional commeit, and please rememberthat these are proposed regulations. As Secretary, I amespecially interested in your comments on the proposedrules, and we will take all of your 'deas seriously. So I askyou to join me in a spirit of cooperation to make theseamendments and the implementing regulations work forus all.

These amendments to the Higher Education Act give anew dimension to your work as an accrediting body. Atthe same time, however, they do not preclude you fromdefining a broader and higher definition of academicexcellence. So we encourage you to see the emergingdialogue on new standards and accountability as aspecial opportunity to demonstrate your collectiveleadership, to set a new tone of excellence, and toconfirm for the American people their strong belief thatAmerican higher education is, and continues to be, thebest in the world.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "The success of theConstitution and laws depends on the progress of thehuman mind." As this great nation of ours seeks to find itsfooting in a new age of information and global change,your great institutions have a rare opportunity to have avital role in fulfilling this powerful charge. We will needthe power of knowledge and the talent of every educatedAmerican. We need your leadership, your sense of vision,your capacity to teach, and surely your capacity toinspirejust as, long ago, you inspired a young student atFurman University named Dick Riley to begin a lifelonglove affair with learning.

-16

Question-and-Answer Session

dqWhat

is the purpose and value of unannounced%isits to institutions that are based on peer review

anutual trust? We find that very troubling.

The Secretary. I understand your concern about howaccrediting commissions have -perated in the past. Theprocess of having a review of certain institutions triggerunannounced visits by State Postsecondary ReviewEntities (SPREs) is still a long way from being resolved.Our regulation.; will attempt to comply with the law bysetting in motion those steps that are required and thenmaking it possible for you to function additionally as yousee fit. I know there will be some procedures that mayappear to you to be changes from the trust and from thehigh level of input and sharing on standards that youhave had, and we will try to work through that. Pleasefeel free to share your ideas on those subjects with us,and we certainly will welcome your suggestions.

Mr. Secretary, other than national service, doesthe administration have any ideas about stimulating

part erships between secondary and postsecondaryinstitutions?

The Secretary. The whole of idea of "Goals 2000" goesto the lifelong learning process. It is built on one of thegoals, which is to have higher education, as part of it.All of us that have worked for improving standards byreforming education in K-12 would say that there is noway for that to occur without having strong connectionsbetween K-12 and higher education. If those twosegments of our education system are to work well, there

1.7

F

.


must be a seamless web, and we have a long way togo to reach that point. In addition, the school-to-worktransition bill that will follow "Goals 2000" makes a directlink between the 75 percent of young people who finishhigh school and do not attend a four-year degree-granting institution and those who attend one-year ortwo-year institutions.

As various disciplines, such as science and history,begin establishing standards, I urge you to becomeinvolved in these consensus-building processes.

is

Living with More RegulationA Panel Discussion at the 107th Annual Meeting of the

Middle States Association of Colleges and SchoolsDecember 9, 1993, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

An Overview of the Legislation

Terry W. Hartle, ModeratorVice President for Governmental RelationsAmerican Council on Education, Washington, D.C.

The Clinton administration is planning to extend theDepartment of Education's oversight of higher

education in a way that threatens the academicindependence of colleges and universities. The threatcomes in the form of draft regulations to implement theHigher Education Act Amendments of 1992, dealing withaccreditation, State review of postsecondary educationinstitutions, and financial responsibility of colleges anduniversities that participate in the Federal student aidprogram.

These regulatory initiatives are required by the 1992Higher Education Act, and colleges cannot hope that theDepartment of Education will simply change its mind anddecide not to issue regulations. The Department ofEducation must implement the law, and the regulatoryprocess does not provide the opportunity to rewrite thestatute, much as we may like to do that.

Higher education institutions can and should demandthat the Department of Education implement the law ina way that is faithful to what the law requires. Thedepartment's draft regulations, I believe, go well beyondthe requirements of the statute, violate the academic


independence of colleges and universities, and imposesignificant administrative bu,dens on higher educationinstitutions. Indeed, taken together, it is not anexaggeration to say that the draft regulations thedepartment has been considering pose the most serious

threat to the academic freedom of colleges anduniversities since the modern Federal role in educationbegan with the National Education Defense Act of 1958.

State Review of Institutions

The first initiative is the State 7ostsecondary ReviewEntities (SPREs). It was a provision enacted in response tothe abuse of the student loan program by sonic schools.It provides funds to States to review institutions of highereducation that are identified by the Secretary as having

trouble under the Federal student aid programs.

Schools will be chosen for a review by the Secretary ifthey meet one of the criteria specified in the Lwthat isto say, they trip one of the "triggers" in the law. Triggersinclude, for example, a default rate in excess of25 percent, rapid increase in the utilization of Federalstudent aid funds, a negative audit finding, or the failureto submit audit reports in a timely fashion.

State agencies will review the schools, using 11 reviewstandards that are specified in the law, and States willdevelop their own operational definitions for each of the11 standards and apply their definitions to the institutions

in their State.The standards that the States will develop are

potentially troublesome. The draft regulations require that

States develop "acceptable" completion and graduationrates, withdrawal rates, placement rates, and pass rates

on licensure examinations. We are talking aboutthreshold percentagesin other words, minimum

standards.

20

V


During the debate on the Higher Education Act,collegiate institutions sought and won an assurance thatonly schools that met one of the criteria and weretriggered for a review by action of the secretary would besubject to State review, but the draft regulations appearto permit States to use part H authority to review anyState that they want to.

In addition, the draft regulations would explicitly allowStates to require any institution of higher education,whether or not it had been subjected to a review, tocollect, maintain, and report data needed by the State toreview the institution in the future.

I think that as a result of the draft regulations, thepotential for mischief by State bureaucrats and for theimposition of laborious, costly, and invasive datarequirements is quite high.

I should emphasize that not all States want thisauthority. Some would prefer to avoid theseresponsibilities altogether, and some State officials willsurely implement such authority very carefully andthoughtfully. Still, the potential for heavy-handed actionby Federally-funded State officials is present.

The Clinton administration has requested, and hasalready received, $25 million to implement the Statereview authority, even before they have published draftregulations to tell the States and the schools exactly whatit is they are supposed to be doing. There is, within theDepartment of Education, a great deal of enthusiasm forimplementing this quickly. One can only hope that thereis an equal enthusiasm for implementing it well.

Accreditation of Colleges and Universities

The second area of potential regulatory trouble is theaccreditation of colleges and universities. Since 1952,the Federal Government has used accreditation as anassurance of the academic quality of institutions that

21

Independence interdependence 13

participate it 7:ederal student aid programs. That is going

to continue for the future. However, the ExecutiveBranch and the Congress, in recent years, have grownincreasingly skeptical of accreditation as a guarantee of

academic quality.The cumulative damage of this loss of confidence by

the Federal Government has been pretty severe. In 1992,Congress flirted with the idea of taking accreditation outof the student aid eligibility process altogether, in favor of

letting somebody else, presumably States, tackle the job

of assuring the Federal Government that institutions wereoffering a high quality education.

In the end, accreditation remained part of the eligibility

process, but the price was a major expansion in the

Federal Government's role in the accreditation process.For the first time, accrediting agencies must havestatutorily specified standards if they wish to be approved

by the secretary. For example, accrediting agenciesmust now have, by law, and report to the secretarystandards for program length, tuition and fees, studentachievementincluding course completion and success

on state licensing examinationsand job placement rights.

The draft regulations circulated by the secretary so far

impose heavy requirements that appear to go beyond

the statute. For example, accrediting agencies will be

required to review institutional refund policies, monitorthe accreditation decisions at other accreditingassociations, and promptly review institutions if another

agency takes action against a school.

Accrediting associations must make sure, according to

the draft regulations, that catalogs and other publications

are "accurate, complete, and consistent" and collectinformation every year on the financial and administrativecapacity of the schools they accredit. None of theseprovisions are required in the law.

Ultimately, the risk is that the draft regulations, if

finalized in the form that we have seen, will turn the

2''


accrediting agencies into regulatory extensions of theDepartment of Education and impose significantadministrative burdens on them that will, in turn, bepassed to the schools.

Financial Responsibility

The third regulatory initiative that appears problematicdeals with the area of financial responsibility. TheDepartment of Education must certify that schools arefinancially solid before they participate in the Federalstudent aid programs. This is a good idea because if theschools are not solid, and they go out of business, thetaxpayers and students are often left holding the bag.

A key part here is the test of financial responsibilitythat the Department of Education will impose. Congressstiffened the financial responsibility requirements in the1992 Higher Education Act Amendments, and theDepartment of Education is drafting regulations toimplement this particular provision as well.

I should point out that the regulations dealing withState postsecondary review and accreditation have beendrafted and were ready for publication until they wererecently pulled back for further review. The draftregulations on financial responsibility have a much greaterdistance to go, and they are not yet finalized.

The early draft that we have seen of the regulationssuggests that the Department of Education has beenconsidering the imposition of an accounting methodologyon colleges and universities that is inconsistent with theaccounting systems currently used by most colleges.Indeed, one initial review of these standards suggests thatbetween 300 and 500 private colleges may well fail topass the financial responsibility test, including some verylarge and stable institutions with substantial endowments.

To repeat, our feeling', that these draft standards gobeyond what Congress had in mind and go beyond what

23


is in the best interest of the Federal Government. Thedraft standards for financial responsibility appear to us tobe a magnet that will attract schools, as opposed to a netthat will catch and identify schools that are in seriousfinancial difficulties.

This is not an idle consideration. Granted, if you failthe financial responsibility test, the Department ofEducation can grant you provisional eligibility orprovisional certification. However, if you fail the financialresponsibility test, you have passed a trigger for anautomatic SPRE review, and the State agency would becoming to look at you in connection with that. It couldcomplicate efforts to attract students and, in fund raising,to explain to people why you were only provisionallycertified by the Department of Education.

The Rulemaking Process

We are about to really staq the regulatory process withrespect to the Higher Education Act Amendments of1992. What has been going on so far is really a sort ofprelude. The department went through a series of openmeetings called negotiated rulemaking. We felt thatparticular process did not really meet the test ofnegotiated rulemaking as we had hoped. We did not feelit was an effort by all parties to find a mutuallyacceptable middle ground, so we were unhappy withthat. The department now must publish regulations, aNotice of Proposed Rulemaking that would then be putout for comment by the higher education community,including the accreditation associations and theassociations and organizations that represent highereducation in Washington, D.C.

The department was scheduled to publish the draftregulations on November 30th. At the last minute, thedepartment decided that they wanted to review these alittle further, perhaps recognizing that some of the

2 4

Or


concerns that had been expressed about these draftregulations were indeed legitimate and appropriate. Weare very pleased that they have indicated they wish tokeep looking at these and thinking about the best way toimplement this partiular set of regulations.

The financial responsibility regulations, as I mentioned,are not quite on the same track. The department nowindicates that the acccreditation and SPRE regulationsshould be published by the middle of January, and thehigher education community will have approximately60 days to comment. The Department of Educationthen will review the comments and will publish finalregulations sometime next year.

This regulatory process is a public process, designed toencourage and solicit public comment and observation.I think it is very important that all of you in this roomrepresenting institutions of higher education and anaccrediting association take a careful look at the statuteand the draft regulations, see how they are going to affectyour own organization or campus, and communicate yourconcerns, both pro and con, to the secretary of educationas part of the process.

I would reiterate that we cannot take issue with thelaw. This is the law of the land. It has been signed intolaw by the President. The Department of Education mustimplement the law. At some point, if we decide to do so,we can try to change the law, but that is not somethingwe can fight as part of the regulatory process.

What we can do and what we must do in theregulatory process is try to ensure that the Department ofEducation implements the statute as it is written and doesnot go beyond the statute, that it does so in a way that issensitive to the academic independence of colleges anduniversities, and that it does not impose an extraordinaryregulatory burden on institutions of higher education.

25


The Impact of Flawed Legislation

Patricia McGuirePresident, Trinity College, Washington, D.C.Member, Commission on Higher Education

Wearing my Commissioner's hat and my president'shat, I believe that the law jeopardizes not only the

future of private voluntary accreditation but all of highereducation. It will have a debilitating and negative impacton independent institutions of higher education,especially on the small special-mission institutions thathave fewer resources to be able to cope with increasingregulatory burdens and the costs associated with that,and it will affect our public colleagues as well. Thismust be of special concern in the Middle States region,which perhaps has more per-capita special-missioninstitutionswomen's colleges, religiously-affiliatedcolleges, historically Black collegesthan any otheraccrediting region in the country, and we need to takespecial note of that.

The legislation and the proposed regulations have beenput off for a few weeks but will not go away. We knowthat if there is a law, there must be regulations not farbehind. Do not think we are out of the woods at all; weare just still on the edge of the forest, about to plunge in.

My task this morning is to speak as a member of theCommission on Higher Education about the implicationsof the legislation for private voluntary accreditation. I amnot going to work through the law or the proposedregulations. I assume either you have read them or willbecome familiar with them, and I think Terry just gave agood summary of the provisions. Instead, I would liketo address three points that are a reflection on thelegislation and the proposed regulations.

First, I believe that the legislation itself is deeply flawedin its underlying assumptions and intentions. Whatever

26

18 independence or Interdependence

regulations emerge to implement the legislation will onlyexacerbate these underlying flaws in the legislation. Whatwe must do is work to contain the exacerbation of theflaws and, perhaps eventually, to change the legislationas well. Second, I will address the impact of the law andregulations on private voluntary accreditation. I believethat potential impact is debilitating, at best, anddevastating, at worst. Third, I will address what I believemust be the cure for private voluntary accreditation tosurvive this process, and I believe it needs to be a radicalcure. I think we have to think about the relationshipbetween private voluntary accreditation and Title IVenforcement, and we presidents need to be willing to fixwhat is wrong with private voluntary accreditation.

Flawed Assumptions of the Legislation

The flaws in the underlying legislation are based onsome seriously wrong-headed assumptions. The firstassumption is that private voluntary accreditation is alegitimate means toTuarantee the integrity of the use ofTitle IV funds. The second bad assumption is that thereis something incredibly wrong with private voluntaryaccreditation because there are some fraudulent andabusive people and institutions misusing Title IV funds.The third wrong-headed assumption is that Federally-mandated standards for accreditation will fix whatever iswrong with the Title IV program; I think that is an absurdassumption.

Underlying all of those obviously flawed assumptions isanother pervasive assumption that we cannot escape inhigher education. That is the assumption, which seemsto go unchallenged these days, that there is somethingterribly wrong with American higher education and thatthe only way to fix what is wrong is massive Federalintervention, much like the railroads and much like

27

Independence or interdependence 19

health care. Everywhere I go in Washington, I hear thateducation will be the next health care.

A Legitimate Means of Enforcement

First, the flawed assumption that private voluntaryaccreditation is a legitimate means to enforce Title IV.Private voluntary accreditation was not designed forthe Title IV program. It was designed to addresscharacteristics of excellence in institutional programsand services in higher education. This point is of criticalimportance in this debate because of the issues ofmethodology and practice that flow from our mission in

accreditation.If our mission were regulatory, then our standards

would be highly prescriptive and quantitative, where atall possible, and their application would be rigorouslyeven-handed among all kinds of institutions, regardlessof size, circumstance, and institutional mission. Becausethe mission of private voluntary accreditation is topromote quality and excellence rather than to ensuremirimal compliance with minimum standards, our criteria

are hortatory rather than prescriptive, and ourmethodology and review practice are carefully tailored bypeer institutions to the size, circumstances, and mission ofeach institution.

This is not waffling, as we have been accused of doing.It is not weaseling out of our job. This flexibility hasensured the vitality, integrity, and diversity of a highereducational system that can and must accommodateinstitutions as diverse as CUNY and Fordham, Templeand Rosemont, and the University of Maryland and myown Trinity College.

Governmentally-driven regulation seeks to reduceand eliminate our institutional differences. Privateaccreditation respects and promotes these differences.


Something is Wrong with Accreditation

With regard to the second assumption, that somethingis really wrong with accreditation, I keep hearing thatfrom legislators, regulators, and even my own colleagues,among presidents and association executives. Let us bereal: there are some things that surely are wrong withprivate voluntary accreditation, and I will come back tothem at the end of these remarks.

Having said that there are flaws in what we do, wesurely cannot sit quietly by while members of Congressand the bureaucrats at USDE say that we are the reasonwhy fraud and abuse exist in Title IV programs.Accreditation does not cheat the government; peoplecheat the government. Can we really sit idly by in silencewhile others point to us and say, "You see, Middle Stateshasn't put any institutions out of business recently. Ifthey're not closing down colleges, they're not doing theirjob." I have heard of "Theory X," but that really takes usquite to a dramatic conclusion. That is absurd.

Having chaired many teams, including some difficultsituations, and having sat through many long andsomewhat agonizing Commission meetings, I can assureyou that we work in the best interest of our studentsand all of higher education. We do not shrink from thedifficult decisions, but we work damned hard to be surethose difficult decisions are well made and in keepingwith the characteristics of each and every institution.

Federally-mandated Standards

The third flawed assumption is that Federally-mandatedstandards will fix what is wrong. Balderdash, and we allknow that. Just look at the mess with Title IV. Who isresponsible for Title IV? There are 7,000 differentregulations that already exist for Title IV. Who isresponsible for that? The U.S. Department of Educationis responsible for the Title IV program, and I think they

0.


have done a rather clever job of pointing their fingers ateverybody else while escaping their own responsibility forfixing what is wrong with the Title IV program.

We must remember that not a single student will learnanything more because of anything in the new law orregulations. That is what we need to be concerned aboutin private accreditation. All of this leads to my secondpoint this morning. The impact of all of this on privatevoluntary accreditation is debilitating and potentially

devastating.Why do I say this in such dramatic terms? Do we not

already do much of what the law calls for anyway? Sure,

we take care of faculty, and we take care of curricula.Can we just accommodate these changes and make do?

I have a different view, as a president and as aCommissioner, especially as the president of a small,mission-driven institution, and I believe in this deeply.

Private voluntary accreditation right now is largely avolunteer-driven enterprise, and the volunteers participatebecause of their deep belief in independent highereducation and all of higher education and its intellectualindependence from government. We volunteer because

we believe it is part of our good citizenship in highereducation. We volunteer because we believe in thepower of peer review to challenge each other to higherstandards, and we believe that this is the methodologyto ensure quality and excellence.

Do we volunteer because we believe we have a dutyto enforce Federal regulations? Absolutely not. Do wevolunteer because we want to spend hours interpretinglaw and regulation to ensure their application to all ofour institutions? Absolutely not. The first casualty in all ofthis new law and regulation will be the volunteer corpsthat drives private voluntary accreditation. Who wantsto do this work if we simply become the agents of theU.S. Department of Education?

3G


Accreditation probably will have io decrease itsreliance on a volunteer corps as it increases the level ofprofessional staff and others who can interpret and applythe law and regulations to the institutions. I suspect wewill have to increase geometrically the number of lawyersinvolved in the process.

Institutions will pay far more for accreditation than theycurrently do, as the cost of this increased professionalactivity escalates. As all of this is Doing on, the StatePostsecondary Review Entities also will be hard at workwith their regulating. At some point, someone will say,"We'll be paying twice or perhaps three times for thesame kind of review. We do not need all of this. Perhapsprivate accreditation does not need to exist anymore."That is the potentially devastating picture.

Three Solutions

In my own view, are three solutions. First of all,it is time for us to wake up and pay attention to what isgoing on. It is hard when we are back on our campuses,busy with all of the things we are busy about. We haveto pay greater attention to all of those notices that cometo our desks and to pick up our dictaphones, if you will,and write those letters to the secretary of education andto Congress when Terry Hartle, Bob Atwell, HowardSimmons, David Warren, and others call.

Second and more seriously, I think we have to beprepared to do something somewhat radical. I think weneed to consider the relationship between privateaccreditation and the program integrity triad and askourselves if we are really in this business because wereally want to be enforcing Federal financial aidstandards. That is a very risky proposition, and I am notsaying that I have come to a conclusion yet, but we needto have this discussion.

31.


Third, before we can have that discussion, we need tofix what is wrong with accreditation. What is wrong withaccreditation? I think the disease we suffer from most isthe natural human disease to want to avoid scrutiny andto want to view our necessary decennial checkups assomething that is a burden that we would rather escape.

I think that the presidents of our institutions need to getmore actively involved. We need presidents to care atleast as much about their accrediting associations asthey do about the NCAA, for example. When I say"presidents," I know there are a lot of presidents in theroom. We also need the presidents of our moredistinguished institutions, if you will, those largerinstitutions who should be here with us this morning.I think the rest of us need to call on our colleagues in ourcities and communities to come with us to these meetings.

We also need to address, honestly and candidly andwith our eyes open, what are some of the defects in ourown process and how can we fix them. So often, Ireceive phone calls in the middle of the day from acolleague saying, "I don't like this, that, or the other thingthat has happened with my accrediting visit." I think weneed a mechanism to address that candidly, honestly,and forthrightly, rather than always trying to sweep thatunder the rug. We talk about that at the Commission,and I know the Commission is most eager to deal withthis problem as well.

3''


Less Passive and More ActiveAccrediting Agencies

David RhodesPresident, School of Visual Arts, New York, NY

I am a firm believer in the peer review process andI have stated many times that it has made the School ofVisual Arts a much better place. The non-quantitativenature of the self-study process causes one to set highstandards, even if they are not always achieved. Muchof this may be lost as we move into the era of the StatePostsecondary Review Entities (SPRE).

Institutional Autonomy

As a New York institution, I have had to contend witha SPRE before there were SPREs. Part 52 of thecommissioner's regulations substantially control what theschool may offer as a program, the length of the program,the length of my semesters, the minimum credits requiredfor the program, minimum contact hours of instruction,how the programs are approved, what must be in mycatalog, and various other kinds of ground rules. Myinstitutional autonomy, such as it is, is clearly constrained,but we have managed somehow to accommodateourselves to it. It does have one virtue: it is a levelplaying field in New York.

In some measure, I find the concept of institutionalautonomy a little baffling. I did a little research and, ofcourse, came across the Dartmouth College case. There,the High Court held that the legislature of NewHampshire could not impose requirements on DartmouthCollege. Unfortunately, the Court's reasoning is notterribly helpful, since they reasoned that the legislatureshould not control an entity which was originally

33


chartered by the king. This case holds no solace for thoseof us founded after the Republic.

More importantly, Congress and the educationdepartment seem to take the view that we defineinstitutional autonomy as our right to take public moneyand do with it as we will. For them, autonomy is a muchless important concept than accountability. It is r ly viewthat if we seriously want to preserve what little autonomywe really have, we need to address the issues ofaccountability forthrightly.

It also would be helpful if I gave you a brief history ofhow we got into this situation in the first place.

Prior to the 1992 reauthorization, Senator Nunn helda series of hearings on abuses of the Federal guaranteedloan program. Unfortunately, our brethren to the Southfigured prominently in Senator Nunn's hearings. As aresult, I was quite surprised to learn, as I was making therounds, arguing for parts of the amendments and againstothers, that some members of Congress and certainly thecongressional staff viewed all accreditors as equivalentand with the same jaundiced eye.

During the reauthorization, the original Goodling-Lowey proposal was offered. What is interesting to noteabout Goodling-Lowey and the State approving agencyconcept is that it has been a proposal from my Statewhich has been lying dormant since 1974. Suddenly, itcame to life, and I think at some point, we need to askourselves why. What did Congress think needed fixingthat we do not perceive as being broken?

The original proposal made no mention of accreditingagencies. The conditions or provisions contained in itreferred only to State approving agencies, now known asSPREs. The proposal was at one point endorsed by theAmerican Council on Education after some modifications.The proposal, unfortunately, did make the accreditingcommunity a little nervous. At one point, as Terry hassaid, on the House side, accrediting agencies were

34


dropped out of the triad. That was apparently an attemptto get everyone's attention. They were put back in, andunfortunately, all of this has been dumped not on theprogrammatic agencies but on the regional or institutionalaccreditors. I believe that had the original Good ling-Lowey bill gone through, we probably would have beenbetter served. In some sense, we have the worst of allpossible worlds.

Pro-rated Rehinds

With respect to institutional autonomy, clearly the mostinvasive provision of the 1992 Amendments is thepro-rated refund policy. As you know, the pro-ratingends after 60 percent of the "period of enrollment" for asemester. This is a compromise, since one of the houseswanted the pro-rating to continue for 75 percent of thesemester while the other only wanted 50 percent.Nonetheless, I do not think this is an issue worth fightingabout. I might add that some of the more artful attemptsat evading these regulations, indicating that theregistration fee should be $500 or thereabouts or thatthe period of enrollment begins when one's deposit ispaid, do not serve us well.

As a corollary, I would suggest that the concern ofMiddle States with having to develop reasonablestandards for refunds is perhaps misplaced. We are noton the side of the angels in that one. Although it isclearly an intrusion, I believe any victories here may bePyrrhic. Furthermore, it seems to me likely that theseproblems will increase as time goes on.

This is an administration obsessed with standards, andI suppose that is what you get obsessed with when youdo not have any money. Secretary Riley has made itclear, most recently at a gathering of the state land grantcolleges, that he intends to have standards similar to

35

independence or Interdependence 27

those of "Goals 2000" applied to higher education. This ispotentially a very bad thing.

Guiding the New Standards

What is required of us, however, is greater leadership.We can either lead, get out of the way, or get run over.I suggest that we try and guide this process, starting now,so that those standardsand there will be quantitativestandardswhen they are imposed are not overlyburdensome.

Those standards also should take account of Federalresponsibilities, especially with respect to financial aid.As you know the Pell grant is worth about 40 percent ofwhat it was originally worth, and there has been noserious attempt to improve it.

In the most recent materials sent to us by Dr. Simmonson November 22, there are, as one can see, substantialproblems. I am most concerned about disclosureregulations. I do think we have to make a clear andcompelling case for some disclosure but not for all of thedisclosure which seems to be implied by the regulations.

I am also concerned that as the process becomes moreroutinized, that substantive due processthus, the needfor lawyerswill be required and that in fact substantivedue process is antithetical to peer review and willdamage the accreditation process beyond repair.

The third potential danger is the SPRE. However, on amore hopeful note, my involvement with the efforts ofNew York State lead me to believe that we will be moreeffective in negotiating reasonable standards at the Statelevel than we will be at the Federal level so thatinstitutional autonomy, in general, will not be infringedupon to any greater degree than it already is in NewYork. As you know, misery loves company, and the SPREswill ensure that you all have to put up with what theyalready go through.

36


Steps To Be Taken

it seems to me that there are four courses of actionavailable to us, if we find these regulations undulyburdensome, as we seem to. The first is education. Wesimply have not done a good enough job explaining tothe public, and more significantly to Congress, whataccreditation is, what institutional autonomy is, and whythese are good things. I would also suggest that we haveprobably spent too much time fighting the wrong battles.

Second, we need to do a better job of negotiation.What I mean by that is, we need to take clear substantivepositions in advance of congressional mandates. Third, forthose very sensitive areas where persuasion has provedunsuccessful, we must seriously consider litigation.

Middle States has litigated those areas in the pastwhich it thought were matters of principle. I believe thatin some of these, we may have to consider it again.

Where the secretary has overreached and will notrelent, I see no alternative, but I think we need to choosevery carefully and wisely, if we go this route. The mattersneed to be substantive and genuinely damaging to theprocess and not things that are merely inconvenient.

Finally, if all else fails, if we are to keep accreditationintact, serious consideration may have to be given to thewithdrawal of regional accrediting agencies from Title IVgatekeeping functions. In essence, we need to be lesspassive and considerably more active than we have inthe past.

37


Rulemaking at the Federal and State Levels

Jane StockdaleChief, Division of Veterans and Military EducationBureau of Postsecondary Education, Pennsylvania Departmentof Education

I n addition to directing the Division of Veterans andII Military Education, which involves a contractualrelationship between the Federal Government and theState, I was recently designated as the director of thePennsylvania Postsecondary Review Entity, which alsoinvolves a contractual relationship between the FederalGovernment and the State.

During the past year, I have spent about 30 days inWashington as a member of two different negotiatedrulemaking teams. I was on the negotiated rulemakingteam for accreditation and the negotiated rulemakingteam for the State Postsecondary Review Entities. I alsowant to say that Pennsylvania is one of the States that willbe approaching the development of its SPRE and itsSPRE reviews "thoughtfully and carefully," to use Terry'slanguage.

I would like to talk about some of the experiences thatI had as a participant in negotiated rulemaking; to discusswhat we expect to do in Pennsylvania, so far as the SPREis concerned; and to reiterate some of the things thatI have heard my colleagues say, in terms of what someof the next steps for this group must be.

The Federal Rulemaking Experience

I spent a lot of time as a negotiator with theaccreditation regulations, thinking about the fact that asledgehammer was being used to crush a gnat. I was notquite sure that was what needed to be done.

35


I heard negotiators for accrediting commission afteraccrediting commission say, "You are making usregulators. That is not what we are in existence to do."This is a legitimate concern and one that may require agreat deal of serious consideration on the part of MiddleStates and, I am sure, other accrediting bodies as well.

It is going to be very important for you to look at theproposed accreditation regulations, when they are issued,

in the context of what the language of the law says andraise some serious questions about anything that is inthere that appears to go beyond the language of thestatute, so far as both accreditation and the SPRE

regulations are concerned.It is important to point out that in one of the initial

drafts of the SPRE regulations, Federal thresholds wereestablished for completion rates, job placement, and pass

rates on exams. As negotiators, we disagreed on a lot ofthings. Not surprisingly, there was disagreement betweenthe proprietary institutions, on one hand, and thetraditional institutions, on the other hand, on many issues.

On these particular areas, however, there was unanimousagreement that establishing thresholds was inappropriatefor the Federal Government.

Instead, there needed to be separate types of reviewstandards for different types of institutions within a State.

One of the things that happened, and I think successfully,during negotiated rulemaking was that those thresholdswere moved from the Federal level to the State level.

SPRE in Pennsylvania

Let me move from those comments to talk a aboutwhat we are planning to do about SPRE in Pennsylvania.The initial SPRE funding is for planning. The planningactivities are of three different types: to develop andpromulgate review standards, begin to develop a systemfor receiving and responding to consumer complaints,


and begin to examine the types of procedures andmechanisms that might be FA in place for informationstorage and retrieval.

Within that context in Pennsylvania, we have decidedthat, to the extent possible, we intend to make use ofexisting resources, we intend to make use of existingregulations, and we intend to make use of existingdatabases. A set of draft proposed review regulationsInPennsylvania, these will become the regulations of theState Board of Education--is ready to mail to institutionswithin about a week. We then will have a consultationprocess that will involve conversations throughoutPennsylvania during the month of January in about fivedifferent locations.

I urge everybody here who is from a Pennsylvaniainstitution to plan to attend or have your institutionattend these conversations. Every institution inPennsylvania should be on our mailing list. If, for somereason, you have not received the initial notification wesent out about the SPRE, please give me your card oryour name, and I will make sure you are added to themailing list so that you can get information.

As we look at a complaint system, we will beformulating an advisory committee. Once again, we wantto make use of what is already in existence. We want tobuild on and add to mechanisms and systems that arealready in place.

I would like to conclude by saying that it looks asthough, so far as the Federal regulations are concerned,the next couple of months are going to be critical.Federal regulations should be coming out in about amonth. In addition, in Pennsylvania, we are in theprocess of developing regulations. I suggest you watchyour mailboxes. It is very important that you pay attentionto what is in the proposed regulations and what is in thelaw. Where you have concerns, it is important to makecertain that you deal with them.

40


Finally, I want to talk about one other thing that is inthe SPRE law. I do not have any answers, but I have a lotof questions about it. There is a provision in the SPREact that requires the SPRE to contract with recognizedaccrediting bodies or other peer review systems toconduct reviews of or to provide information concerningthe quality of programs at institutions.

Several questions come to mind: Does that putaccrediting bodies even more in the regulatory arena?If so, will every accrediting body be interested inassuming this kind of contractual relationship? Whatabout the fact that this represents a different fundingstream for accrediting bodies? How would this beseparate from what accrediting bodies are constituted todo? Is it a regional accrediting body that has the expertiseto do this, or is it the specialized accrediting bodies, or isit some cornbinaZion of those?

I do not know the answers to any of those questions.I have talked to individuals from several differentaccrediting bodies, and they have some of the samequestions. I am looking forward to a dialogue on thoseissues.

41

4,


Concluding Observations

Terry Hartle, Moderator

David Rhodes made a very important point when hediscussed the issue of education and trying to do a

better job than perhaps we have done in the past ofexplaining what voluntary accreditation is, what it is not,and why it is done.

The fact is that when Congress was considering theHigher Education Act Amendments in 1992 and wasfocusing on the triad, the part of the debate that wasmost alarming to the higher education community dealtwith state postsecondary review entities. This was anew government entity, it was going to be getting newauthority, and it potentially would have authority overhigher education institutions that was not exercised byState bureaucrats before. New York State might have hadsome experience with this because of the State laws ofNew York, but many other States did not. A great deal ofthe attention, as Congress considered accreditation andSPRE, and eligiblity anc4 certification, focused on SPRE,not on accreditation.

Indeed, the provision that Jane mentioned, whereit says that the SPRE shall contract with accreditingassociations or with another recognized peer review bodyto examine the academic quality of institutions, wasadded partly at the behest of the higher educationcommunity, which was very worried about the idea ofState bureaucrats reviewing the academic programs ofinstitutions.

Many of the burdens that Congress ended up puttingon accrediting associations occurred, in part, becauseCongress really did not know much about theaccreditation process and how it worked. The legislationwas an effort to relieve some of the tensions within the

4 (-


higher education. community, focusing on SPREs, theburdens that they might impose on institutions, and theintrusiveness that appeared to be reflected in the concept.

Question-and-Answer Session

As I listened to the comments of some of mycolleagues on the dais, it sounded to me as if I was

liste ing to the tobacco industry responding to discussionsat the Federal level about consumer health protectionor the timber industry worried about environmentalregulations. We clearly have interests, and there seems tobe a knee-jerk reaction that we have in higher educationto the specter of regulation, no matter what.

The keynote speaker this morning spoke eloquentlyabout the importance of our mission and the importanceof strengthening education, top to bottom, in America.It seems to me that we ought not to be so nervous aboutregulation per se but ask ourselves what public purposesare intended to be served.

In financial aid, I have always felt uncomfortable withwhat seemed to me to be abuses, not only by wholecolleges but by individual students. Those abuses seemedto me to inject a negative aspect into our educational life.If some regulation would help terminate those kinds ofabuses, I would be for it, I would support it, and I wouldpay the price at my institution to do my part in makingthat happen.

I think, as we look at these issues, it would behoove usto try to start with the public purposes and ask ourselveswhether those are legitimate, whether we want tosupport them, and then what is the best means? The

43

I2


mere fact that my autonomy as an institution might belimited is not so much important to me, because I thinkwe all have to operate with degrees of freedom. The realissue is: If I give up some autonomy, is some good'achieved by it? I did not hear that kind of discussion from

the participants.

Ms. McGuire. You raise an important point. I haveheard in many fora that one of the dangers in this entirediscussion is that higher education in general, oraccreditation in particular, begins to sound self-protectingand defensive. That is what you are saying.

We might quibble about the comparison to thetobacco industry, because I do not think, at root, we arean industry that promotes something that is bad for yourhealth. I think your point is that we are promotingsomething that is very good for ycur health. Indeed, itis good not only for individual health but for the nationalhealth, and that is part of the struggle.

We are very different, and this is a philosophicalquestion that is very important. As academics, we are inthe business of philosophizing. If anything, highereducation is in the business of teaching individuals todevelop a habit of philosophizing about life. That is whatCardinal Newman said, and that is what we still try to dotoday. I do not read anywhere in subpart H anythingabout philosophizing about life. I read about other things.

It is very important for us to defend the independenceof all higher education, public or private, as a necessarycomponent of maintaining the public good. I think thatis the essential debate in a free society. Higher education

is a very important independent counterweight togovernment in a free society. Love it or hate it, all ofthat contention, conflict, carrying on, and dialogue on ourcampuses is about the "melting pot" and the "bubblingcauldron" of intellectual freedom in this country.

4.4


If we do not work to protect our intellectual freedom,if we accept that someone at the Department ofEducation can dictate the content of our curricula, whatfaculty we can hire, what our students shall do, and whatour tuition shall be, it is a slippery slope, my friends. Wewill lose our intellectual independence if we lose ourindependence as an industry. That makes us verydifferent from tobacco.

Mr. Hartle. Let me add that I also think your point is agood one. There is much truth in what you say. Most ofus do not care much for the tobacco industry, and maybenext time you make this point, you can use a differentanalogy.

A great deal of the efforts that Congress was makingwere born not of malice toward accrediting associations,not of a feeling that accrediting is just a complete andtotal failure, but of ignorance about what accreditation isand what it does. I think we have an educational task infront of us.

I also think we need to look at ourselves and recognizethat the public increasingly wants to know what goes onin publicly-supported institutions and what sort of qualityis coming out of those institutionswhat the outputs are,what the products are. In Federal statutes now, we haveperformance standards for Head Start programs. Thoseare programs for three-, four-, and five-year-olds whocome from disadvantaged backgrounds, and Federal lawhas performance standards for those kinds of programs.

As we do more and more of that in other areas ofsocial policy, it becomes harder for higher education tosay, "We can't give you any idea what it is we are gettingout of higher education. You can't ask us to documentwhat our product is." There is a fair amoul ,t of that goingon. Indeed, when Congress passed the Student Right toKnow Act in 1990, that was part of it. They were saying,

45


it is about time we started putting some clear data on thetable to which people can point.

Accreditation is not designed to provide that type ofdata. I think we probably need to start asking ourselveswhether or not we need to be doing more of thatthrough accreditation, since we tell ourselves and theoutside world that accreditation is the best vehicle wehave for assuring the quality of programs.

With respect to your point on burden and autonomy,there is always a trade-off there. You are absolutely right.There is no question that accrediting associations aregoing to be doing some more and different things.I counted all the requirements in the subpart of thedraft regulations that deal with accreditation and found147 requirements that will be imposed on accreditingassociations by the Department of Education. I think it isreasonable to ask, Do we really need 147? Thoserequirements, in turn, will be imposed on schools.

If you adopt a very prescriptive, regulatory approachlike this, people will show up with checklists. They willlook at your catalogs to see if they are accurate,complete, and consistent. They will look at your coursedescriptions and your schedules. They will not show upin a collegial manner, trying to get at the essence of yourinstitution or to understand what you are doing and whatyou are trying to do at your institution. It will be afundamental change in the accreditation process in whichall of us believe so much.

I share a little of the concern of my brethren hereabout the view of government. I spent some time in

government myself, so I am sympathetic to the problemsand challenges.

Probably all of us here voted in the Presidentialelection, and a few of us cast our votes for Bill Clintonand knew him to be an activist. Maybe these regulationsare reflective of his philosophy and approach to

,.46


governing, although there is a track record, and theseregulations go back in time to other administrations.

I wonder why we do not have a panel here that alsoincludes representation from the people from the nationaleducation department to hear about that perspective?As educators, we are citizens, too. We need to include inthis discussion the view of the people that we put inoffice. Can anyone here comment on why do we nothave someone on the panel from the educationdepartment? Is that letting the fox into the chicken coop?

Mr. Hartle. I cannot answer that particular question.I did not set the panel up, and I do not think any of mycolleagues on the panel did.

Ms. McGuire. I think that is a good question. In thefuture, we might wish to have somebody from theDepartment of Education.

Some of you were with us on Monday at the NationalPress Club, when we had Secretary Riley and AssistantSecretary Longanecker, and Assistant Secretary Kappnerfor lunch as part of the celebration of the Commission's75th Anniversary. There is a great deal of dialoguebetween all of the associations, the regional accreditors,the higher education associations, and the colleges.

I would commend to you Secretary Riley's remarks,and I think we probably should send them to theinstitutions in some format. I found them to be hearteningand not necessarily in conflict with a great deal of whatwe are saying. He respects the autonomy of highereducation, and he does have duties and responsibilitiesthat we respect. I felt he was enormously gracious, mostconciliatory, and eager to hear our concerns.

One of the accrediting associations asked him directlyabout unannounced site visits, and he said he wanted tohear more about what those concerns were. At least fromthe Secretary, there was an encouragerrant of the

4.7


dialogue and an expression of concern. What some of ussaid to him afterwards was, "The good thing about thisadministration is, we can sit in the same room and arguelike mad at each other, but we are in the same room."That perhaps was not the case in thc' past. There is awelcoming of this dialogue, and that should be animportant message that is heard everywhere.

Mr. Hartle. I want to reinforce that. The process thathas led us to this particular point was not a process thatwas instituted by the Clinton administration. Theregulatory development process began in October orNovember of last year. Meetings were being held andnegotiated rulemaking was held in January and Februaryof this year, well before the Clinton team was in place atthe Department of Education.

We are very much in a position where we can sitdown in a room and talk with Secretary Riley andDeputy Secretary Kunin. They are willing to listen to ourconcerns. I can tell you, from a great deal of personalexperience, they do not always do what we would likethem to do, but they are willing to listen, and they giveus a fair hearing.

Along with other representatives of the highereducation community, we are arranging a meeting withSecretary Riley and Deputy Secretary Kunin for early nextyear to talk about institutional independence and thedraft regulations on SPREs and accreditiation. So we areworking very closely with them. I think it is an indicationof the seriousness with which they take our concerns andtheir own wanting to do right by these issues that theyreached a conclusion that they would not publish thedraft regulations.

Even this spring and summer, once they were gettingtheir people in place in the Department of Education,you may remember that they were completely rewritingthe Federal student loan program, and they had other

4F


things on their plate that were detracting from theattention that they might want to give this particular issue,given how incredibly serious it is, as far as the folks fromour institutions are concerned.

When the Higher Education Act Amendments werebeing debated, this issue of institutional independenceand control over academic programs was very emotional.The folks in the Clinton administration, in the keypolicymaking positions, were not part of those debates,and they did not see that. Riley was a governor, andKunin was a governor, and David Longanecker, for whomI have the greatest admiration and respect, was a Statehigher education executive officer. They do not addressthese issues with the perspectives of institutionalrepresentatives.

They really did not have as much of a backgroundand appreciation for this as perhaps we might wish thatthey did. But they are certainly folks that we have everyintention of working with very closely to try and getthe results right because we want to be on the rightwavelength with them, and they want to do somethingthat implements the law but does not do great damageto our institutions.

Secretary Riley and all the people in the Clintonadministration are bound to establish regulations to

carry out the statutes enacted by Congress. Terry,what is your feeling about the willingness of Congressto back off a little bit and perhaps, in either the nextreauthorization or somewhere in between as asupplement, to amend the most onerous parts of part Hand get it taken out?

Mr. Hartle. That is a very good question and an issuethat we might want to explore as this goes along. Frankly,it would be premature for us to do that right now.

49


We do not know all of the various rubs that there arein the legislation. We do not know what the problemsare. As we go through the rulemaking process, manyissues might be identified that we might want to changeand the Department of Education might agree with usshould be changed. They will be issues that we mightwant to work out with them to see if we can put togethera package of amendments or suggestions for change thatwe can jointly take to Congress and say, it is ourconsidered opinion, working together through thisrulemaking process, that these are things that need to beaddressed through statute to try and eliminate duplicationin this process and to cut down on the burden."

In some conversations, the department has indicatedthat they recognize some things in the legislation createproblems for them that they wish they did not have. I donot think this would be the right time to do it. I think wereally need to see what the draft regulations are that thedepartment feels they would have to implement and thenwork through that process with them.

This is an ongoing process. It is not like a footballgame, where the clock runs out, the game is over, andyou come back at some point in the future. It is anongoing activity. This is part of the business ofgovernment that never stops, where we have to continueto work on it, be vigilant, and look at these issues.We will do that.

I would add, however, what I think Congress might doon these questions. In the technical amendments of1992, they made some changes in the financialresponsibility standards because it was immediatelyapparent that problems had been created in drafting thelegislation. I have every reason to believe that when wefind things that clearly have unintended consequences,that go beyond what Congress intended or do not servea good public purpose, we can try to get them changed.

5G


Mr. Rhodes. On a happier note, I hope you all realizethat the department never finished the regulationsrequired by the previous reauthorization. Perhaps theywill slow the pace somewhat and not finish on thisround. There is always that hope.

Mr. Hartle. That is an excellent point. The Departmentof Education took six years to publish the final regulationson the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1986.

Part of the reason that we are in this situation now,where they are rushing to get regulations out, is that theywere so embarrassed by their own performance last timethat they are committed to not have that happen again.The trade-off seems to be: "We had better get somethingout there, so that we are not beaten up for failing toimplement the law. Even if it is bad and we need tocompletely rewrite it, we will be moving the processalong and able to demonstrate progress."

In addition, the department is dividing the regulationsinto 17 packages, and they have indicated they willrelease the packages as they are ready. They are tryingmuch harder to move that process along.

q I did not plan to speak, except I have drawn theconclusion here from some of those who did speak

that ere is a feeling in the room that the purpose of thepanel or your presentations was to bash government.I just want to say, maybe a little more strongly than youdid, Terry, that I think not.

I have written a number of letters on this topic, and ineach of my letters, I have made it very clear, very early inthe letter, that I do not like the abuses. I do not supportthem, I cannot stand them, and I will work with anyoneand everyone to eliminate them. At the same time, as acitizen and as an educator, I felt I had a responsibility tosay that the way it is being proposed is, in my judgment,not appropriate. So I have come at it from that angle: not

51


that I wanted to bash government, but as a citizen and asan educator, there are other points I wanted to haveheard.

I have heard the word "government" used here todayin the form of a reification, as if the government is someentity other than people, other than human beings, otherthan men and women just like us. Since I have beenclose to the situation and have checked with my nationalassociation in Washington, I know that the principalarchitect of this entire plan is not Bill Clinton and notSecretary Riley. It is one person, just like me, just likeyou, just like all the men and all the women in this room.One person is the principal architect of this entire plan.

We have good reason to believe that there severalpeople within the Department of Education do notsubscribe to the plan. It is one person's plan. It is aperson many of us know and have heard of. Over thelast six years, he has often been quoted in the Chronicleof Higher Education. I have never seen one quote thathas not been insulting to all of higher education. Hewas, at one time, on the staff of William Ford, thecongressman from Michigan.

As long as one person is in a position to say somethingabout higher education, its history, its traditions, where itis now and where it is goingand I am a person whohas spent 36 years in higher educationI think I have aright as a U.S. citizen to write and express my opinion.

I am not government bashing, and I do not thinkany of you in this room would be doing so if you alsotook the opportunity to say what you believe and letit stand alongside this one person's view of what highereducation in the future ought to be in this country.

Mr. Hartle. Your point was very well taken about thisnot being a panel designed to bash government or whatthe Department of Education is doing. These are peoplewrestling with a complicated, long, and often confusing


piece of legislation that they must implement. However,they are implementing it in ways that might well becounter-productive, as far as institutions of highereducation and accrediting associations are concerned.Because this is a public process, and it will go throughpublic comment, we will have an opportunity, to improvethe outcome and make certain that the regulations aswritten are the best for our institutions that we canmanage, given the statute, and yet also meet the publicinterest of accountability.

I wanted just to comment on the operationalaspects of some of these regulations as they will

have impact on schools. We will have a very severedata collection and analysis problem, which will requirea good deal of attention. All of us concerned are trying todemonstrate the quality of our programs. All sorts ofquestions are being asked, with great specificity, aboutparticular programs. In New York State, any one collegecould well have in the tens or sometimes hundreds ofprograms which have different definitions. We would berequired to maintain a variety of outcome studies foreach one of them.

The point I would like to make is, we ought to ask thegovernment's help in trying to trace some of our students.It is next to impossible, if you are running a college on anentry level, to find out where your students have goneafter they have left. There are difficulties involved in jobcompletion and job placement. Those are very concreteproblems and have not been define:Iv/ell by thegovernment.

As a matter of fact, they are asking us to provide datawhich they themselves do not at present have. Results onlicensure examinations are not reliable, although we areasked to provide it. There are different kinds of datacollection which government arbitrarily expects us toprovide, without giving us the resources.

53


If we do go back to them, we have to say: "Yourrequests are reasonable, but what kind of aid are wegoing to be given so as to be able to provide exactly thekind of outcomes studies that would have somesignificance?"

Mr. Rhodes. Most of the data that I see are requiredin these regulations, at least in New York, we are alreadyrequired to report. We !vole to prepare these data as partof the ongoing data collection effort for the State. Inmany instances, it is not an extra burden. Placementfigures may or may not prove to be a burden; it willdepend on how that is defined, when they get aroundto defining it. Licensure pass rates are pretty easy andpresumably will be provided by the State whichadministers the exams. I do not see these, at least inNew York, as being overly burdensome.

The other thing I would say is, probably we all ought tohave most of this information anyway. We ought to knowwhat our graduates are doing. We ought to know howmany of our students, who come in at the beginning,graduate four or six years later. I think those are thingswe all ought to have, independent of these regulations.It would seem to me, they would be part of anyreasonable self-study that we might want to make of ourown institutions.

Ms. McGuire. I would like to respond with a slightlydifferent point of view. I resonate to what the gentlemanjust said. I think that is all well and good: we should becollecting much of these data. There are many things wewould like to do, but for many of us, the critical questionis: What happens with teaching and learning on ourcampuses, and what is going on in our classrooms? Therest of this is all very nice, but is that really about thequality of what our students are learning and about thespecial mission of each and every campus?

5.1


I have to say, quite franklyand I will confess my owninstitutional sins, rather than picking on anyone elsethatthese proposed regulations are enormously burdensomefor my own institution. Indeed, the 7,000 regulations thatcurrently exist to implement Title IV are also enormouslyburdensome.

We have just been advised by our lawyers and othersthat we need to double the size of our financial aid staff,just to keep up with the paperwork and do the necessarycompliance even better. In a small college that has todecide whether to add a staff person or add anotherfaculty member, we do not have another $35,000 tospend on that. We do not have another $50,000 tospend on more lawyers.

Each new regulation comes with an additional staffmember, an additional paperwork burden, and anadditional lawyer's fee attached with it to provide us withan opinion on what to do about that. The cumulativeeffect, on a small special-mission institution at least, ispotentially devastating because a lot of us are lookingat the choice between adding laboratory equipment,computer equipment, faculty, or compliance staff.

Those of us who see this need perhaps are special anddifferent from larger institutions that can simply respondto regulatory burdens by saying, "Fine. We will add fivemore stiff, and that will be taken care of." I have to askmyself, "How is this going to improve the quality ofteaching and learning on my campus?" That is the onlyrelevant question for me as a college president. Theanswer is, it does not. Not one student will learn betteron my campus because of these new regulations, andI think Congress needs to hear that this is not improvingquality in higher education. It is increasing cost, and it iswasting time.

55

Meeting with Secretary Richard W. RileyNational Press Club, Washington, D.C.

December 6, 1993

Guest List

Members of the Commission on Higher Education

Dr. Leon Goldstein, President, Kingsborough Community College, CityUniversity of New York - CHAIR

Dr. Margarita Benitez, Chancellor, Cayey University College, University ofPuerto Rico

Dr. William Harris, Executive Director, The College Board, Middle StatesRegional Office

Sr. Marian William Hoben, I.H.M., President Err-A-Ka, Immaculata College

Patricia McGuire, Esq., President, Trinity College

Dr. Robert E. Parilla, President, Montgomery College

Dr. Frank G. Pogue, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Special Programs,State University of New York

Dr. David Roselle, President, University of Delaware

Dr. Niara Sudarkasa, President, Lincoln University

CommissionerNomineesDr. Carlos R. Hortas, Dean of Humanities and the Arts, Hunter College

Dr. Peter A. Spina, President, Monroe Community College

Ms. Eleanor Stone, Executive Director, Association of Jewish Federations ofNew Jersey

Commission on Higher Education Staff

Dr. Howard L. Simmons, Executive Director

Dr. Minna F. Weinstein, Senior Associate Director

Dr. John H. Erickson, Associate Director

Dr. Robin Dasher-Alston, Assistant Director

Ms. Alice Schell, Assistant Director

Ms. Margaret Robbins, Office Assistant

5C


Government RepresentativesUnited States Department of Education

Dr. Augusta Kappner, Assistant Secretary for Vocational and AdultEducation

Dr. David A. Longanecker, Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary EducationMr. Rhoads Alderson, Confidential Assistant, Scheduling and AdvanceMs. Stephanie Babyak, Public Affairs SpecialistMs. Audrey Marie Hutchinson, Special Assistant to Dr. KappnerMr. Terry Peterson, Counselor to the SecretaryMs. Stephanie Willerton, Confidential Assistant, Public Affairs

United States House of RepresentativesMr. Daniel Giosta, Legislative Aide to Rep. Austin Murphy

United States SenateMr. A. Clayton Spencer, Chief Eduction Counsel, Committee on Labor

and Human Resources

Institutional Representatives

AMERICAN UNIVERSITYMr. Elliott S. Milstein, Interim President

BROOKDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGEDr. Peter F. Burnham, President

CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIADr. Angelo Armenti, President

CATONSVILLE COMMUNITY COLLEGEDr. Frederick J. Walsh, President

CENTENARY COLLEGEDr. Stephanie M. Bennett-Smith, PresidentMs. Jean Webb

CHESAPEAKE COLLEGEDr. John R. Kotula, President

COLUMBIA UNION COLLEGEDr. Charles Scriven, President

DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITYDr. Henry N. Tisdale, Vice President for Academic Affairs

DE SALES SCHOOL OF THEOLOGYJohn Crossin, President

ESSEX COUNTY COLLEGEDr. A. Zachary Yamba, President

FRANKLIN AND MARSHALL COLLEGEDr. Susanne Woods, Dean of the College

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITYDr. Heidi Byrnes, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs

57


GOLDEYBEACOM COLLEGEDr. William R. Baldt, President

GROVE CITY COLLEGEDr. Jerry Combee, President

HOWARD UNIVERSITYDr. Lorraine Williams, Former Vice President for Academic Affairs and

Professor Emerita; Member, CHE Advisory Group for Equityand Diversity

IONA COLLEGEDr. William O'Neill, Assistant to the President

INTERAMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICODr. Jose R. Gonzalez, President

JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICEDr. Mary D. Rothlein, Vice President for Public Affairs

KINGSBOROUGH COMMUNITY COLLEGEMr. Robert Berryman, Director of PersonnelMs. Marilyn Chernin, Dean of Student LifeDr. Ralph Edwards, Vice President for Administration and PlanningMs. Judith Fink, Director of Public RelationsDr. Gene J. Flanagan, Dean of Continuing EducationDr. David Gomez, Dean of Instructional ServicesDr. Otis Hill, Dean of StudentsDr. Fred Malamet, Dean of FacultyDean Thelma Malle, Dean for Open Admissions Special ProgramsMr. Joseph Musicus, Business ManagerDr. Natalie Rubinton, Dean of Student DevelopmentDr. Michael Zibrin, Vice President and Provost

MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITYDr. Earl S. Richardson, President

QUEENS COLLEGEDr. Shirley Strum-Kenny, President

RUTGERS UNIVERSITYDr. Susan G. Forman, Vice President for Undergraduate Education

SETON HILL COLLEGEDr. JoAnne W. Boyle, President

SOJOURNER-DOUGLASS COLLEGEDr. Charles W. Simmons, President

SUNY COLLEGE AT BUFFALODr. F. C. Richardson, President

SUNY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AT UTIOVROMEDr. Peter J. Cayan, President

THADDEUS STEVENS STATE SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGYDr. Alan K. Cohen, President

UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCESDr. Michael N. Sheridan, Associate Dean for Graduate Education

5E


UNIVERSITY OF DELAWAREMs. Mary Hempel, Director, Office of Public Relations

UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIADr. Julius F. Nimmons, Jr., Provost

UNIVERSITY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDSDr. Orville Kean, President

WILMINGTON COLLEGEDr. Ronald Watts, Vice President for Academic Support Services;

Chair, CHE 75th Anniversary Planning Committee

YORK COLLEGECUNYDr. Josephine D. Davis, PresidentDr. Daisy DeFilippis, Associate Dean for Academic Administration

Higher Education AssociationsASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN COLLEGES

Dr. Paula Brownlee, President

COUNCIL OF INDEPENDENT COLLEGESDr. Allen P. Splete, President

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT COLLEGESAND UNIVERSITIES

Dr. David Warren, President

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND LAND GRANT COLLEGESAND UNIVERSITIES

Ms. Roz Hiebert, Director of Public Affairs

Accrediting Organization Representatives

COUNCIL ON POSTSECONDARY ACCREDITATIONDr. Dorothy C. Fenwick, Acting President

MIDDLE STATES COMMISSION ON SECONDARY SCHOOLSDr. John Michalcewiz, Executive Director

NATIONAL POLICY BOARD ON HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONALACCREDITATION

Dr. Billie A. Stewart, Consultant

NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND SCHOOLSDr. Patricia A. Thrash, Executive Director, Commission on Institutions

of Higher Education

SOUTHERN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND SCHOOLSDr. Kenneth W. Tidwell, Executive Director Emeritus, Commission

on Occupational Education Institutions

59

INS


State Departments of Higher Education

D.C. EDUCATION LICENSURE COMMISSIONDr. Shirley Graham Evans, Executive DirectorMr. David Ray

MARYLAND HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSIONDr. Shaila R. Mille, Secretary

PENNSYLVANIA STATE SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATIONDr. Mary W. Burger, Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs

PUERTO RICO COUNCIL ON HIGHER EDUCATIONDr. Ismael Ramirez Soto, Executive Director

CHE Counsel: Yolanda R. Gallegos, Esq. (representing Michael Goldstein,Esq.), Dow, Lohnes, & Albertson

Press Liaison: Mr. Sy Schwartz, Rubenstein Associates

Publication Consultant: Oswald M. T. Ratteray, Idea Management Associates

6G

Documents

TITLE Series. INSTITUTION PUB DATE 93 60p. AVAILABLE FROM · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 378 928 HE 028 102 TITLE Independence or Interdependence: Can Government and. ... David Rhodes, School