Tag: Accreditation

  • Louisiana Joins Southern States in Alternative Accreditation Initiative

    Louisiana Joins Southern States in Alternative Accreditation Initiative

    Louisiana Governor Jeff LandryLouisiana Governor Jeff Landry announced that his state will join six other Southern university systems in creating an alternative accrediting body, marking a significant departure from established higher education standards. Through an executive order, Louisiana becomes the seventh state to participate in the Commission for Public Higher Education, which launched in June with university systems from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

    The new commission is currently seeking expedited approval from the U.S. Department of Education to serve as an official accreditor responsible for maintaining quality standards at colleges and universities. This development represents a direct challenge to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, the traditional accrediting body that currently evaluates institutions across Louisiana and ten other Southern states including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

    The formation of this alternative accrediting body stems from growing tensions between conservative politicians and established accreditors. These conflicts have centered on traditional accreditors’ standards related to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, as well as their requirements for safeguards designed to limit external political influence in public higher education governance.

    Landry’s executive order establishes a Task Force on Public Higher Education Reform charged with developing recommendations for implementing the new commission. The task force will specifically focus on creating a pilot program for dual accreditation, allowing Louisiana schools to maintain authorization from both the new commission and the Southern Association simultaneously.

    The governor highlighted the ideological motivations behind the move in his announcement. 

    “This task force will ensure Louisiana’s public universities move away from DEI-driven mandates and toward a system rooted in merit-based achievement,” Landry said.

    Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who helped launch the original commission, articulated similar sentiments when announcing the new accreditor in June. 

    “[The Commission for Public Higher Education] will upend the monopoly of the woke accreditation cartels, and it will provide institutions with an alternative that focuses on student achievement, rather than the ideological fads that have so permeated those accrediting bodies over the years,” DeSantis declared.

    The practical implementation of this new accrediting system faces a significant hurdle, as U.S. Department of Education approval is mandatory before any institution accredited solely by the new commission can receive federal financial aid. This requirement could potentially affect students’ access to federal funding programs if the transition is not handled carefully.

    The composition of Louisiana’s new task force reflects the governor’s significant influence over the state’s higher education leadership structure. With the exception of Commissioner of Higher Education Kim Hunter Reed, every task force member has been directly appointed by Landry or his conservative legislative allies. The task force includes Board of Regents Chairwoman Misti Cordell, University of Louisiana System Board Chairman Mark Romero, LSU System Board Chairman Scott Ballard, Southern University System Board Chairman Tony Clayton, Louisiana Community and Technical College Systems Chairman Tim Hardy, Senate Education Committee Chairman Sen. Rick Edmonds, and House Education Committee Chairwoman Rep. Laurie Schlegel.

    Additionally, Landry has appointed his executive counsel Angelique Freel and Commissioner of Administration Taylor Barras to the task force, with the option for them to send designees in their place. The governor retains the authority to select three additional task force members, further consolidating his influence over the group’s composition and direction.

    This level of gubernatorial control over higher education governance represents a recent shift in Louisiana’s political landscape. Last year, Landry successfully advocated for legislative changes that granted him direct appointment power over the chairs of the state’s five higher education boards, positions that were previously elected from within the boards’ memberships. An earlier version of this legislation would have extended Landry’s authority to include direct hiring of university system presidents, but this provision was ultimately removed due to concerns that such concentration of political power could jeopardize existing accreditation status.

    The task force operates under a compressed timeline that reflects the urgency Landry places on this initiative. The group must convene its inaugural meeting no later than August 31 and maintain a regular schedule with meetings occurring at least once every two months. The task force faces a deadline of January 30, 2026, to submit its comprehensive recommendations for implementing the new accrediting system in Louisiana.

     

    Source link

  • Arbitrators Reject Saint Augustine’s Accreditation Appeal

    Arbitrators Reject Saint Augustine’s Accreditation Appeal

    Saint Augustine’s University has lost another appeal to maintain its accreditation status, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges announced Monday.

    But the historically Black university in North Carolina is continuing to fight to stay open, and leaders say recent loans and efforts to streamline operations are cause for optimism. Classes will be held online this fall but otherwise proceed as planned.

    SACS initially stripped accreditation from the university in December 2023 due to financial and governance issues, setting off a lengthy battle between SAU and its accreditor. SAU appealed that decision and lost in February 2024 but took the fight to court and won last July, when an arbitration committee agreed to restore SAU’s accreditation. 

    However, SACS pulled Saint Augustine’s accreditation again in December 2024, prompting another appeal, which was denied in March. Leadership at the embattled university once again sought a legal remedy only for a panel of arbitrators to side with the accreditor. Arbitrators determined that Saint Augustine’s “did not meet the burden of proof to show” that the accreditor “failed to follow its procedures and that such failure significantly attributed to the decision to remove the institution from membership,” according to details SACS released on Monday. 

    But in the Monday news release, SAU officials wrote that the “fight is far from over.” 

    University officials plan to request an injunction in court “to prevent any disruption to the university’s accreditation status,” according to SAU’s website. While SAU will remain accredited as the legal challenge plays out, the university “will explore all other means of accreditation if necessary.”

    SAU officials also sought to dispel the notion that the university was closing, a prospect that has swirled for more than a year as the HBCU has dealt with various financial setbacks and lawsuits. The university has also struggled to maintain enrollment, which has collapsed since 2022.

    Source link

  • Texas Law School Deans Fight to Keep ABA Accreditation

    Texas Law School Deans Fight to Keep ABA Accreditation

    A group of Texas law school deans is urging the state Supreme Court to uphold American Bar Association accreditation standards for public law schools. The state’s highest court announced in April that it was considering dropping the ABA requirement for licensure, opening a public comment period on the matter that closed July 1.

    “We strongly support continued reliance on ABA accreditation for Texas law schools and licensure eligibility,” the deans of eight of the state’s 10 ABA-accredited law schools wrote in a letter to the Texas Supreme Court. “ABA accreditation provides a nationally recognized framework for quality assurance and transparency; portability of licensure through recognition of ABA accreditation by all 50 states, which is critical for graduates’ career flexibility; consumer protections and public accountability through disclosure standards; and a baseline of educational quality that correlates with higher bar passage rates and better employment outcomes.”

    Though the Texas justices did not say why they were reviewing ABA accreditation, the law deans’ letter noted that the body has already suspended its DEI standards—a move it announced in February and then extended in May through Aug. 31, 2026. That means “the language of the Standard can be revised in accordance with federal constitutional law and Texas state law that bar certain diversity, equity and inclusion practices at state universities,” the deans wrote.

    Of the state’s ABA-accredited law schools’ deans, only Robert Chesney of the University of Texas and Robert Ahdieh of Texas A&M didn’t sign the letter, Reuters reported.

    In his own nine-page letter to the state Supreme Court, Chesney urged the justices to look at “alternative” pathways for ensuring law school standards “to help pave the way for innovative, lower-cost approaches to legal education.”

    Ahdieh told Reuters that whatever the court decides about ABA accreditation, it’s “critical” that law degrees earned in Texas remain portable.

    Source link

  • ‘Strong evidence’ Harvard doesn’t meet accreditation standards, feds say

    ‘Strong evidence’ Harvard doesn’t meet accreditation standards, feds say

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Two federal agencies on Wednesday notified Harvard University’s accreditor of “strong evidence to suggest” the Ivy League institution no longer meets its accreditation standards.
    • In a letter to the New England Commission of Higher Education, the U.S. departments of Education and Health and Human Services cited recent HHS findings alleging that Harvard is in “violent violation” of federal antidiscrimination law and has been “deliberately indifferent” to the harassment of Jewish and Israeli students on its campus.
    • The announcement comes the week after Columbia University got word from its accreditor that its approval “may be in jeopardy” following similar findings by HHS against the New York institution.

    Dive Insight:

    A wide-ranging April executive order from President Donald Trump directed U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to “promptly” provide accreditation agencies with any findings of noncompliance with Title VI, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in federally funded programs.

    On Wednesday, McMahon did so for Harvard’s accreditor, NECHE.

    “By allowing antisemitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers,” she said in a statement. 

    The Education Department expects NECHE to “enforce its policies and practices” and keep the agency “fully informed of its efforts to ensure that Harvard is in compliance with federal law and accreditor standards,” McMahon added.

    Without accreditation, Harvard would lose eligibility to accept federal financial aid — a crucial revenue source for all colleges, even the wealthiest ones.

    After HHS accused the university of violating Title VI last week, NECHE released a FAQ addressing its next steps.

    The commission made clear that the federal government cannot direct it to revoke a college’s accreditation. Likewise, a college does not automatically lose its accreditation if it is put under investigation, the FAQ said.

    NECHE gives institutions “up to four years to come into compliance when found by the Commission to be out of compliance, which can be extended for good cause,” it said, adding that institutions remain accredited during that time.

    Under NECHE policies, the commission will conduct an independent review of the allegations against Harvard.

    Meanwhile, HHS’ findings heavily cited an April report from Harvard on antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias on its campus. The internal report found that Jewish, Israeli and Zionist students and employees at the university felt shunned or harassed at times during the 2023-24 academic year.

    Since the report published in April, the Trump administration has repeatedly used it in attempts to cut off Harvard from enrolling international students and terminate more of its federal funding.

    Harvard also released a second report in tandem that addressed anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias on campus, finding that Harvard students and employees in these demographics also said they experienced harassment and discrimination during the same time frame.

    However, the Trump administration has not highlighted the findings from the second report in its news releases about Harvard’s alleged failure to protect students from harassment. And the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has thus far stayed silent on issues of Islamophobia under Title VI.

    Source link

  • Feds Target Harvard’s Accreditation, Foreign Student Records

    Feds Target Harvard’s Accreditation, Foreign Student Records

    Harvard president Alan Garber at commencement.

    Libby O’Neill/Getty Images

    In the latest volley in the Trump administration’s war with Harvard University, federal agencies told Harvard’s accreditor the university is violating antidiscrimination laws, while Immigration and Customs Enforcement will subpoena Harvard’s “records, communications, and other documents relevant to the enforcement of immigration laws since January 1, 2020.”

    The Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security announced these moves Wednesday in news releases replete with condemnations from cabinet officials. The pressure comes as Harvard still refuses to bow to all of the Trump administration’s demands from April, which include banning admission of international students “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism.” In May, DHS tried to stop Harvard from enrolling international students by stripping it of its Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, but a judge has blocked that move.

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a Wednesday statement, “By allowing antisemitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers. The Department of Education expects the New England Commission of Higher Education to enforce its policies and practices.” (Only the accreditor can find a college in violation of its policies.)

    Trump officials said last week that Harvard is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on shared ancestry, including antisemitism. They notified that accrediting agency of the HHS Office for Civil Rights’ finding that Harvard is displaying “deliberate indifference” to discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students.

    HHS’s Notice of Violation said multiple sources “present a grim reality of on-campus discrimination that is pervasive, persistent, and effectively unpunished.” Wednesday’s release from HHS said the investigation grew from a review of Harvard Medical School “based on reports of antisemitic incidents during its 2024 commencement ceremony,” into a review of the whole institution from Oct. 7, 2023, through the present.

    HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that “when an institution—no matter how prestigious—abandons its mission and fails to protect its students, it forfeits the legitimacy that accreditation is designed to uphold. HHS and the Department of Education will actively hold Harvard accountable through sustained oversight until it restores public trust and ensures a campus free of discrimination.”

    The Trump administration also notified Columbia University’s accreditor after it concluded Columbia committed a similar violation of federal civil rights law. The accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, then told Columbia that its accreditation could be in jeopardy.

    DHS’s subpoena announcement is the latest move in its targeting of Harvard over its international students, who comprise more than a quarter of its enrollment.

    DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a release, “We tried to do things the easy way with Harvard. Now, through their refusal to cooperate, we have to do things the hard way. Harvard, like other universities, has allowed foreign students to abuse their visa privileges and advocate for violence and terrorism on campus.”

    DHS didn’t provide Inside Higher Ed information on what specific records ICE is subpoenaing. It said in its release that “this comes after the university repeatedly refused past non-coercive requests to hand over the required information for its Student Visitor and Exchange Program [sic] certification.”

    The release said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem “demanded Harvard provide information about the criminality and misconduct of foreign students on its campus” back in April. The release further said that other universities “should take note of Harvard’s actions, and the repercussions, when considering whether or not to comply with similar requests.”

    Harvard pushed back in statements of its own Wednesday. It called the DHS subpoenas “unwarranted” but said it “will continue to cooperate with lawful requests and obligations.”

    “The administration’s ongoing retaliatory actions come as Harvard continues to defend itself and its students, faculty, and staff against harmful government overreach aimed at dictating whom private universities can admit and hire, and what they can teach,” one Harvard statement said. “Harvard remains unwavering in its efforts to protect its community and its core principles against unfounded retribution by the federal government.”

    If Harvard were to lose its accreditation, it would be cut off from federal student aid. In another statement, Harvard officials say they are complying with the New England Commission of Higher Education’s standards “maintaining its accreditation uninterrupted since its initial review in 1929.”

    Neither the Trump administration nor Larry Schall, president of NECHE, provided the letter the administration wrote to the commission. Schall told Inside Higher Ed the commission will request a response from Harvard within 30 days and that, plus the results of the federal investigation, will be presented to the commission at its next regularly scheduled meeting, currently set for September.

    “We have processes we follow,” Schall said. “We follow them whether it’s Harvard or some other institution … Our processes are consistent and actually directed by federal regulation.”

    Source link

  • What Legacy Vendors Won’t Tell You About Accreditation Readiness

    What Legacy Vendors Won’t Tell You About Accreditation Readiness

    30% of Institutions Are Not Accreditation Ready — Is Yours Falling Behind?

    Nearly 1 in 3 higher education institutions struggle to meet accreditation standards — not because of academic shortcomings, but because they lack true accreditation readiness.

    The pressure on QA Directors and Accreditation Heads has never been higher. Regulatory expectations are rising. Documentation demands are expanding. And legacy systems? They’re making it worse — with scattered data, manual tracking, and zero real-time visibility.

    Readiness is no longer optional. It’s a year-round necessity. In this blog, we expose what legacy vendors won’t tell you — and what forward-thinking institutions are doing to stay compliant, connected, and confidently audit-ready.

     

    Key Takeaways

    • Accreditation readiness means real-time, year-round preparedness — not last-minute chaos.
    • Legacy tools create silos, delays, and compliance risks.
    • Modern systems support:
      • Workflow automation
      • Curriculum mapping
      • Faculty credential tracking
    • Institutions that modernize stay audit-ready and aligned with accreditors.

     

    Why Accreditation Readiness Matters More Than Ever

     

     

    What is accreditation readiness, and why is it important?

    Accreditation readiness refers to an institution’s ability to maintain full, ongoing compliance with accreditor standards — not just during evaluation windows, but all year round. It means that your documentation, outcomes, faculty credentials, and curriculum alignment are always audit-ready, accessible, and defensible.

     

    Why this matters now:

    • Accreditors want more reports, greater proof, and clearer learning outcomes on a regular basis.
    • There is more pressure from regulators. Each group, from CHED and PAASCU to ABET and AUN-QA, has its own set of changing standards.
    • The faculty are quite busy. Keeping track of credentials, exams, and program goals by hand makes people more tired.
    • Old systems can’t keep up. Tools and spreadsheets that are kept in separate places don’t have visibility, automation, or built-in support for compliance.

    Institutions that treat accreditation as an “every few years” project are exposed to delays, rejections, and lost funding. But those with modern systems in place for accreditation workflow automation, curriculum mapping, and faculty credential tracking are equipped to respond instantly, with confidence.

    Looking to align outcomes with accreditation standards? Explore our Outcome-Based Education Software.

     

    The Hidden Flaws in Legacy Accreditation Systems

     

     

    What are the limitations of legacy accreditation systems?

    Most traditional accreditation systems were built for a different era — one with fewer programs, simpler standards, and slower timelines. Today, those same systems are liabilities. Here’s what QA Directors and Accreditation Heads face when relying on outdated tech:

     

    What legacy systems don’t tell you:

    • No real-time visibility. You chase files instead of monitoring readiness on a dashboard.
    • Faculty data, outcomes, and evidence are scattered in error-prone spreadsheets.
    • No automation—workflows, reminders, audit logs? Your work is manual.
    • Evidence is scattered in inboxes, shared folders, and obsolete systems.
    • Compliance guesswork—No standards mapping or role-based controls implies memory, not process.

    Legacy tools make you work harder to keep up, not ready.

    Modern institutions need more than storage — they need a college accreditation system that actively supports continuous readiness, not just static compliance.

     

    How Accreditation Gets Delayed — And Why 

    Even well-run institutions miss deadlines — not because of lack of quality, but because their systems fail them.

     

    What causes delays or failures in accreditation audits?

    Most accreditation delays don’t happen at the last mile — they happen months before, in the day-to-day workflows that no one’s watching. Here’s how it breaks down:

    Key reasons accreditation gets delayed:

    • Evidence is incomplete or outdated. Faculty credential tracking, course assessments, and program reviews aren’t updated regularly — so you scramble when auditors request proof.
    • Stakeholders aren’t aligned. QA teams, deans, and faculty operate in silos. Without a unified accreditation management system, responsibilities fall through the cracks.
    • Curriculum data doesn’t align with outcomes. When you don’t have built-in curriculum mapping for accreditation, proving outcome achievement becomes a manual and inconsistent task.
    • No audit trail. Legacy systems don’t offer version control, timestamped approvals, or centralized workflows — which leads to missing context during audits.
    • Everything is reactive. Institutions focus on audit prep only when the review date is near — not realizing that accreditation readiness requires year-round activity and automation.
    • Delays aren’t just inconvenient — they damage institutional credibility and burden your QA teams with avoidable stress. An intelligent, automated accreditation software helps you stay one step ahead, not one step behind.
       

    What Modern Vendors Offer That Legacy Vendors Don’t 

    To be honest, most old systems weren’t made to work with today’s accrediting needs.

    They can’t keep up with changing standards, more paperwork, and the stress that QA teams are under from many campuses and accrediting authorities.

    Accreditation management systems today are not the same. They are made to be improved all the time, not just once. They don’t only keep data; they also let you keep track of it in real time.

     

    Here’s what modern accreditation management systems deliver:

     

     

    • Automate accreditation workflow by triggering activities, approvals, and deadline alerts to avoid mistakes.
    • Centralize qualifications, certifications, and teaching assignments to ensure teachers satisfy program standards across cycles.
    • Curriculum mapping for accreditation shows compliance by seamlessly linking learning outcomes to courses, assessments, and standards.
    • Live audit dashboards for program, department, and standard accreditation preparation with fast evidence.
    • Managed access and verifiable updates help QA teams, deans, and faculty collaborate.
    • Built-in standards alignment—CHED, PAASCU, ABET, AUN-QA—mapped and monitored.

    Modern platforms are strategic pieces for compliance, quality assurance, and institutional growth, not just upgrades.

     

     

    Want consistent curriculum, outcomes, and standards? Visit our Curriculum Mapping Tools.

    Simplify faculty evaluations and credential tracking? Explore our Faculty Management System.

     

    How to Future-Proof Your Accreditation Process 

     

    How can institutions upgrade from legacy to modern accreditation systems?

     

     

    • Audit your gaps—Find old systems that delay or require manual work in your accreditation process.
    • Use cloud-native accreditation software Choose a safe, scalable higher education accrediting solution.
    • Built-in OBE/CBE support Align with CHED, ABET, PAASCU outcomes and standards.
    • Integrate SIS/LMS – Make accreditation automation seamless and avoid redundancy.
    • Train QA teams Give staff tools for faculty credential tracking, task management, and real-time insights.

     

    Final Thoughts — Don’t Let Legacy Hold You Back

     

    What’s the risk of continuing with legacy systems for accreditation?

    Using old tools is not only a waste of time, it’s also dangerous. Missed deadlines, failed audits, not following the rules, and QA teams that are too busy are only the beginning.

    Legacy systems were made for reporting that doesn’t change. But to be ready for accreditation today, every program, campus, and accreditor needs to be flexible, visible, and always in sync.

    Modern universities are going forward with integrated, automated, and standards-aligned accreditation management systems because they have to, not because they want to.

    Don’t wait till the next audit to find the holes. Get Creatrix Campus’s AI rich accreditation system before your old one slows you down

    Source link

  • North Carolina’s Guilford College scrambles for cash to keep its accreditation

    North Carolina’s Guilford College scrambles for cash to keep its accreditation

    Dive Brief:

    • Guilford College is scrambling to raise cash and balance its budget amid an anticipated decline in enrollment revenue. The college needs to provide a balanced fiscal 2026 budget by December in order to remain accredited.
    • Describing the institution as “between the proverbial rock and a hard place,” Acting President Jean Bordewich said this week in a community message that the institution’s fiscal 2026 budget will “almost certainly” need cost cuts to meet a projected revenue dip. 
    • Bordewich also listed recent wins for the private North Carolina college, including fundraising progress and a June conservation agreement with the Piedmont Land Conservancy worth some $8.5 million.

    Dive Insight:

    Come December, Guilford will have been on probation with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges for two years due to financial issues. That’s the maximum time allowed for an institution to be on probation with good cause, per the accreditor’s policy. 

    To stay accredited, the historically Quaker college must show it has the financial resources and ability to manage them to sustain its mission. That in part will require Guilford to submit a balanced budget for fiscal year 2026 to SACSCOC. Accreditation loss would mean Guilford would no longer be eligible to receive federal student aid funds.

    “Progress is being made, but we must plan for multiple contingencies,” Bordewich said this week. “Balancing the cash and accrual budgets is non-negotiable.”

    Given that, the college has been on the hunt for cash. The “For the Good of Guilford” fundraising campaign, launched in March, aims to raise $5 million in unrestricted cash to support the college’s operations. The college so far has raised just under $3.8 million toward the $5 million goal. But that still leaves some $1.2 million to go. 

    The same day Bordewich issued her message, Wess Daniels, director of Guilford’s Friends Center and Quaker Studies, published a plea to alumni, noting that their donations were “needed now more than ever.”

    Daniels drew a parallel between today’s “crisis” and a similar episode of financial distress for the college in 1918. 

    “Guilford’s current crisis mirrors 1918 in striking ways,” Daniels wrote. “Once again, the college faces financial uncertainty. Once again, we ask: Who gave us Guilford College? And more importantly: Who will ensure it continues?”

    Along with fundraising, Guilford’s agreement with Piedmont Land Conservancy is set to bring cash into its coffers. Under the memorandum of understanding, the college would retain ownership of 120 acres of land known as the Guilford Woods, while the conservation organization will purchase the development rights once it raises $8.5 million. 

    “The land will be permanently protected, Guilford College will receive vital financial support for its programs, and the public will gain official access to pristine green space in a rapidly growing part of Greensboro,” Mary Magrinat, incoming president of the conservancy, said in a statement. Bordewich described the land as one of the few large privately owned hardwood forests in Greensboro. 

    The proceeds from the agreement will likely be available by 2028, the college has said.

    Founded by North Carolina Quakers in 1837, Guilford has suffered from declining enrollment in recent years along with many other private liberal arts colleges. Between 2018 and 2023, fall headcount declined 23.4% to 1,208 students. And that number is down 57.3% from 2010. 

    With the shrinking student body has come financial struggle. In fiscal 2024, the college reported a total operating deficit of $2.4 million.

    As it tries to rein in its budget, the college is working toward a strategy to recruit students with less tuition discounting and to ramp up its adult education programs — which once reached 1,300 students but have diminished to serve just 50 — among other efforts. 

    In her message this week, Bordewich noted “positive news” in that the college is expecting a $2 million surplus for its fiscal year 2025 cash operating budget.

    Source link

  • McMahon Sharpens Tone on Accreditation

    McMahon Sharpens Tone on Accreditation

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon has made clear in recent public statements that the current system of college accreditation needs to change.

    She’s accused current accreditors of hindering innovation and called for new actors to join the system. Her comments follow an executive order signed last month that targeted diversity, equity and inclusion standards in accreditation; made it easier for colleges to change accreditors; and opened the door for new entrants.

    Firing accreditors is one of the many promises—or threats—President Donald Trump made on the campaign trail as he accused such agencies of failing to hold universities accountable and vowed change. McMahon offered full-throated support for that vision this week, but her comments also raise questions about her understanding of the system she’s aiming to overhaul.

    McMahon Pushes Change

    McMahon criticized the American Bar Association and accreditors broadly in a recent interview with the conservative website PragerU, arguing that such agencies wield too much power and the marketplace would benefit from competition.

    (Contacted by Inside Higher Ed, ABA declined to comment.)

    Her remarks came in response to a question about why more universities aren’t opening. She noted that accreditation was a barrier to launching new institutions and argued that there is “a monopoly on accreditors,” singling out the ABA as the sole accrediting agency for law schools.

    “The president has said, ‘Nope, we need more competition,’” McMahon said.

    Since taking office in March, McMahon has said little about her vision for accreditation changes as she focused on other priorities such as laying off the department’s staff and targeting Columbia and Harvard Universities. But rethinking accreditation is expected to be a top priority for her agency, especially after Trump’s executive order.

    McMahon also argued accreditors have stifled innovation and implied that the accrediting system is still regional.

    “Universities in certain areas of the country can only use that accreditor that’s in that area, so the president is opening it up and he’s saying, ‘Nope, pick any accreditor that you want, anywhere in the country,’ so you’re not bound, then, by that geographical boundary—what’s working, what’s been thought of that you have to do, like, in the Northeast or the Southeast or whatever. That’s really, I think, going to change and open it up for more competition for universities to open as well,” McMahon said in the interview posted Wednesday.

    Regional accreditation was broken up in 2019 during the first Trump administration, and universities have not been bound to regional accreditors since the rules officially changed six years ago. Several institutions have either changed accreditors since then or are in the process of doing so.

    The University of Arizona, for example, jumped from the Higher Learning Commission to the WASC Senior College and University Commission, a move that was announced in 2022. Various Florida institutions are also in the process of decamping from their accreditor, though state officials complained last year that the Biden administration had slowed the process. The Trump administration has since released new guidance to make the process of switching easier.

    Robert Shireman, a senior fellow at the progressive Century Foundation and a member of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, which advises the education secretary on accreditation, told Inside Higher Ed by email that McMahon’s talking points seem dated.

    “It does seem that Secretary McMahon is using some talking points from five or six years ago. The regions are history. That said, accreditation is a complicated and obscure topic, so I’m not surprised that it is taking a while for her to grasp it all while awaiting the confirmation of an undersecretary with more higher education policy experience,” Shireman wrote.

    McMahon also needled the ABA and accreditors broadly in a Wednesday appearance at the conservative Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., where she was featured in a conversation about shutting down the Department of Education. There she was asked about improving accreditation.

    “It’s a really big topic and a big issue right now. In fact, we are looking at expanding the number of accreditors in the Department of Education, which takes a couple of years,” McMahon said.

    She again called out the ABA for being “almost a monopoly” before zooming out broadly and repeating the claim from the PragerU interview that universities were tied to regional accreditors.

    “There are accreditors who are assigned to different regions of the country. So if you’re in Florida and you have an accreditor, that’s part of the Southeast, but you really don’t feel like you’re getting your fair shake from these accreditors, and they may be putting all kinds of demands on you that are not necessarily what are looked at by another group of accreditors, and so you’d like to change your accreditation group, you’re not allowed to do that,” McMahon said.

    Education Department officials offered some clarity Thursday in response to questions from Inside Higher Ed.

    “While accreditors are no longer regional, the pre-clearance requirement put in place by the Biden Administration made it almost impossible for institutions to change accreditors. The President’s EO and Secretary McMahon’s actions will bring additional competition and innovation to the marketplace,” an unidentified department spokesperson wrote by email.

    The spokesperson also included a link to McMahon’s comments on last month’s executive order.

    A New Accreditor?

    On the same day McMahon took shots at accreditors, the University of North Carolina system’s president made a surprise announcement that UNC is “exploring the idea” of establishing a new accrediting agency. That effort, he said in remarks at a UNC Board of Governors committee meeting, would be in conjunction with other public university systems, which he did not name.

    “There are frustrations with the cumbersome, expensive, time-consuming burden the current approach places on our campuses, especially smaller institutions that must dedicate significant resources to the process,” Peter Hans said Wednesday, as first reported by The News & Observer.

    The UNC system is considering a foray into the accreditation world following state legislation passed without debate in 2023 that would require public institutions in the state to change accreditors every cycle. Florida passed similar legislation in 2022 that mandated changing accreditors.

    Both North Carolina and Florida have legislatures with strong Republican majorities. The legislation in both states followed questions from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges over shared governance and presidential hiring processes.

    Source link

  • The trouble with the latest accreditation round for initial teacher education

    The trouble with the latest accreditation round for initial teacher education

    English teacher education has been the subject of ongoing and turbulent policy change for many years. But the radical shift in agenda instigated by the Department for Education (DfE) market review between 2022 and 2024 brought this change to another level. The policy instigated a reaccreditation process for all initial teacher education (ITE) providers awarding qualified teacher status.

    The Conservative government’s attempt at “delivering world-class teacher development” ended up decimating the landscape of ITE, leaving those of us left to pick up the pieces. Now DfE has opened a second round of the accreditation process – has it learned any lessons?

    What went wrong

    Stage 1 of the process the first time around included a written proposal of over 7,000 words outlining compliance with the new standards, including curriculum alignment to the ITE core curriculum framework. Additional details and evidence of partnership and mentoring systems and processes also had to be included. Successful applicants progressed to stage 2. Here, rigorous scrutiny of further preparation and plans began, with each institution being allocated a DfE associate to work with for a further twelve months.

    The additional workload this required stretched the capacity and resources of all education departments within higher education institutions. Academics were simultaneously delivering ongoing provision, continuing recruitment, and writing additional postgraduate (and for many undergraduate) revised provision – and many were under the threat of redundancy. All of the above, under constant threat of looming Ofsted visits.

    A previous Wonkhe article likened to the process to the Netflix series Squid Game, using the metaphor to describe the experience for existing ITT providers – meet the confusing demands and conflicting eligibility requirements, or you’re out.

    A significant number of providers failed to secure accreditation, either losing or giving up their status, with provider numbers reducing from 240 to 179.

    At the time the sector offered collegiate support, forming working groups to foster joint responses when collating the sheer volume of output required. Pressures surfaced including stress and anxiety caused by the increase in workload. Insecurity of jobs and the conflicting and at times confusing advice brought many individuals to the point of exhaustion and burnout.

    Squid: off the menu?

    You would therefore expect an announcement of the opportunity for providers to re-enter the market to be met with a sense of joy. Wouldn’t you?

    However, the new round is only for any lead provider currently working in partnership with an accredited provider. These partnerships are only in their first year and were encouraged by the DfE because of the “cold spots” created when thirteen higher education institutions failed to pass the previous process – despite having proven a history of quality provision.

    The creation of such partnerships added yet more stress and workload to all concerned. No legal advice on governance was provided. They proved incredibly complex to navigate, requiring long standing buy-in to make them workable and financially viable. As of yet no advice has been published of how to exit these partnership arrangements.

    Providers wishing to begin delivering ITT from September 2026 must meet the eligibility criteria. The window for the applications will be open for a much shorter period than the previous round, with the process and outcome to be completed 30 June 2025. This contrasts to the 18 months previously required for providers to demonstrate their “market readiness” in the previous round.

    Stage 1 of the new process will include a written submission of no more than 1500 words – remember, it was 7,000 last time – with applicants submitting a brief summary of their ITT and mentor curricula. In this short piece they will need to “demonstrate how their curriculum meets the quality requirements in the ITT criteria.” A window across March and April 2025 was open to complete and upload this portfolio.

    Stage 2, this time round, is an interview, where applicants “deliver a presentation to a panel, and answer questions further demonstrating how they meet the quality requirement.” Following both the written and verbal submissions, an assessment will be made and moderated by panels of ITT experts.

    For those still haunted by the lived experience of the first round of ITT accreditation, the greatly reduced stringency of the process would appear to make a mockery of the previous, highly controversial, demands and expectations.

    Like last time, success in the accreditation will require a demonstration of compliance with the expectations of the core curriculum framework (or from September, the ITTECF) along with further DfE quality requirements through submission.

    However, unlike last time, prospective providers will not be required to create extensive written responses, detailed curriculum resources or an extensive mentor curriculum (for which many of the requirements were axed overnight in the government’s announcement in November).

    Unbalanced

    How can the two contrasting timelines and expectations possibly be seen as equitable or comparable?

    In addition, how can we guarantee a smooth transition between lead partners and current accredited providers? Some of these partnerships involve undergraduate provision, established as a result of “rationalising” ITT provision. For those students only in year one of a three-year degree, how will this transition work?

    As a sector we recognise that the policy is aimed at meeting the government target of recruiting an extra 6,500 teachers this sitting parliament. And we welcome our peers back into the fold. Many of us are still reeling from the injustice of those colleagues being locked out in the last round (at the time all rated good or better by Ofsted).

    However, as NFER’s recent teacher labour market report pointed out, teachers’ pay and workload remain the highest cited reasons for ongoing difficulties in recruitment and retention. Neither of these things have been addressed by the new accreditation process.

    For those of us still clinging on for dear life, our confidence in the system is fading. One day, just like our stamina and resilience, it will evaporate all together.

    Source link

  • ED Announces Further Changes to Accreditation

    ED Announces Further Changes to Accreditation

    Secretary McMahon said the Dear Colleague letter will “foster a competitive marketplace” for accreditors and the institutions they oversee.

    Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

    The Department of Education intends to accelerate the process for changing accreditors, a move announced in a Dear Colleague letter that builds on other recent changes to oversight.

    Last week the Trump administration released a highly anticipated executive order to overhaul accreditation. That order took aim at accreditors who have diversity, equity and inclusion in their standards, threatening to revoke their recognition, and sought to make it easier for institutions to switch from one accrediting body to another and for new accreditors to enter the marketplace.

    The Department of Education cast the Dear Colleague letter as an action to comply with that executive order and announced that ED had “lifted the Biden Administration’s moratorium on accepting and reviewing applications for initial recognition of potential new accreditors.”

    The Trump administration revoked guidance from the Biden administration from 2022 that exerted more scrutiny over changing accreditors, which came after Florida’s Republican-led Legislature passed a bill that year requiring its public institutions to switch accreditors regularly. (The bill came after state officials clashed with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, which accredited all of Florida’s public institutions, over concerns of political influence.)

    “We must foster a competitive marketplace both amongst accreditors and colleges and universities in order to lower college costs and refocus postsecondary education on improving academic and workforce outcomes for students and families,” U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement about the guidance. “President Trump’s Executive Order and our actions today will ensure this Department no longer stands as a gatekeeper to block aspiring innovators from becoming new accreditors nor will this Department unnecessarily micromanage an institution’s choice of accreditor.”

    Thursday’s letter, signed by Deputy Under Secretary James P. Bergeron, emphasized that the U.S. Department of Education aims to expedite the process of changing accreditors by removing what ED called “unnecessary requirements” that officials argued stifle institutional innovation.

    ED will no longer scrutinize reasons for changing accreditors, according to the letter.

    “The law and regulation do not dictate a robust or onerous process for receiving the Department’s approval for a change in accrediting agencies or maintaining multiple accreditation,” Bergeron wrote in the Dear Colleague letter. “Therefore, consistent with statutory and regulatory obligations, the Department will conduct expeditious reviews of applications received except in rare cases where an institution lacks a reasonable cause for making a change.”

    The new guidance noted that institutions can switch to accreditors for a variety of reasons, including better alignment with their religious mission, a change mandated by state law or because an accrediting body requires a university to adopt “discriminatory” DEI principles.

    Additionally, Bergeron wrote, if the department “does not approve a change in accrediting agency within 30 days of the date of its receipt of a complete notice of this change and materials demonstrating reasonable cause, approval will be deemed to have been granted, unless the change or multiple accreditation is prohibited as described” in the Dear Colleague letter.

    Some accreditors offered a positive response to the change.

    The Middle States Commission on Higher Education, which recently launched its own effort to streamline the process of changing accreditors, welcomed the development in a statement.

    “As an accreditor with institutions that have been stalled in the process, this guidance will have a positive impact on the work we have been doing with several institutions. We look forward to helping our institutions understand what this may mean for them and for us,” MSCHE president Heather Perfetti wrote. “We appreciate that there are well-defined restrictions that will not allow for institutions to change accreditors to avoid accountability with an existing accreditor.”

    Thursday’s letter also prompted celebration in some conservative quarters.

    The Defense of Freedom Institute, a conservative think tank, urged ED in February to revoke the Biden administration’s guidance on switching, saying that in doing so the department would “wipe away politically motivated and patently unlawful actions of the previous administration.”

    They argued that doing so would create a more effective accreditation system. Following the release of the Dear Colleague letter Thursday, the organization thanked the Trump administration in a statement.

    “The Defense of Freedom Institute applauds the Trump administration for taking bold, necessary action to restore integrity, accountability, and competition to our broken accreditation system. For too long, accreditors have leveraged their Title IV gatekeeper status to stifle innovation in American higher education and to require ideological litmus tests that undermine civil rights and academic freedom on campus,” DFI president and co-founder Bob Eitel wrote.

    Critics, however, argue that making it easier to switch accreditors will have negative effects.

    Wesley Whistle, project director for student success and affordability in the higher education initiative at New America, a left-leaning think tank, told Inside Higher Ed that the new process amounts to a rubber stamp for changing accreditors. He argued that allowing institutions to switch accreditors more easily will likely drive them toward accreditors with lower standards.

    “What this Dear Colleague letter does is dilute that requirement [to demonstrate reasonable cause to switch accreditors], and undermines a critical safeguard that’s meant to ensure that institutions don’t escape oversight just because they don’t like scrutiny,” Whistle said.

    Whistle also suggested the compressed timeline for ED approval within 30 days limits any actual oversight. Timing is compounded, he added, by the lack of personnel, given the job cuts at the department.

    “This guarantees there will be no meaningful review. This isn’t about streamlining, it’s surrender. It’s the Wild West here: Do whatever you want, just say ‘mission’ and you can change accreditors,” he said.

    Source link