Tag: Accreditation

  • 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

  • Department of Education Relaxes Accreditation Change Rules, Raising Quality Concerns

    Department of Education Relaxes Accreditation Change Rules, Raising Quality Concerns


    The U.S. Department of Education announced Thursday it will eliminate the rigorous review process previously required for colleges and universities seeking to change accreditors, a move critics warn could undermine educational quality standards.

    The announcement, which implements parts of President Trump’s Executive Order on “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education,” simultaneously lifts a moratorium on reviewing applications for new accrediting bodies.

    In a statement, Education Secretary Linda McMahon framed the policy change as promoting competition.

    “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.” she said.

    However, higher education policy experts expressed concerns that the streamlined process could enable institutions to evade accountability by shopping for less stringent accreditors.

    The Department’s new Dear Colleague Letter revokes guidance issued by the Biden administration in 2022 that had established a pre-clearance process for institutional accreditor changes. The new guidance explicitly allows institutions to change accreditors for reasons including finding one that “better aligns with a religious mission,” accommodating shifts in academic programs, complying with state law requirements, or avoiding accreditors that impose “discriminatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices and principles.”

    Education advocates worry the policy shift prioritizes institutional freedom over student protections.

    “When we make it easier for colleges to switch accreditors without thorough vetting, we risk creating a race to the bottom where standards are compromised,” said one higher education researcher. “The students who will suffer most are often those from historically underrepresented groups who depend on accreditation as an assurance of quality.”

    The Department characterized its previous approach as overreaching, stating in the new guidance.

    “It is not the Department’s prerogative to infer any other meanings from the basic requirements or contrive a multi-step investigation. This guidance re-establishes a simple process that will remove unnecessary requirements and barriers to institutional innovation.”

    The policy change also rescinds the October 2024 pause on reviewing applications for new accrediting agencies. At least one prospective accreditor that had its application temporarily paused has now been notified that its review will proceed.

    Critics contend that enabling more accreditors with potentially varying standards could fragment the higher education quality assurance landscape in ways that confuse students and employers.

    “The fundamental question is whether reducing oversight will actually improve educational outcomes or simply make it easier for underperforming institutions to avoid consequences,” said a public university president, who asked to remain anonymous, for fear of retaliation. “History suggests the latter is more likely.”

    The Department has not announced specific metrics to evaluate whether the policy changes lead to improved outcomes for students or institutions.

    Source link

  • ‘The gatekeepers’: Trump’s action on accreditation sparks concerns over government intrusion

    ‘The gatekeepers’: Trump’s action on accreditation sparks concerns over government intrusion

    Dive Brief:

    • Some higher education experts slammed President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to reshape the accreditation system, raising warnings about government intrusion into academic matters, while the accreditation sector defended its work. 
    • The president took aim at accreditor criteria related to diversity and equity while calling for new requirements of what he called “intellectual diversity” in faculty. He also called on U.S. Secretary Linda McMahon to “resume recognizing new accreditors to increase competition and accountability.” 
    • The order was part of a bevy of higher education-related executive orders that Trump signed late Wednesday night affecting different aspects of the sector, including workforce development and historically Black colleges.

    Dive Insight:

     In his order on accreditation, Trump decried the quality-control bodies as “the gatekeepers that decide which colleges and universities American students can spend the more than $100 billion in Federal student loans and Pell Grants dispersed each year.”

    He accused the organizations of having “failed in this responsibility to students, families, and American taxpayers,” and also of having “abused their enormous authority.”

    In the order, Trump launched into a 350-word castigation of accreditors’ diversity, equity and inclusion criteria. 

    He specifically named the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical programs, and the American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, which accredits law schools. 

    The ABA is suing the U.S. Department of Justice over allegations the department canceled federal grants as retaliation for the association “taking positions the current Administration disfavors,” including its diversity requirements. 

    “Federal recognition will not be provided to accreditors engaging in unlawful discrimination in violation of Federal law,” Trump said in the order, without specifying which DEI criteria and laws may come in conflict.

    Trump also directed McMahon to hold accreditors “accountable” by denying, monitoring, suspending or terminating of accreditation powers for those who “fail to meet the applicable recognition criteria or otherwise violate Federal law.” 

    His order specifically mandates that accreditors require institutions to use program data on student outcomes “without reference to race, ethnicity, or sex.”

    Other elements of the order would smooth the path for federal recognition of new accreditors.

    The order also includes a provision directing McMahon to ensure “institutions support and appropriately prioritize intellectual diversity amongst faculty in order to advance academic freedom, intellectual inquiry, and student learning.”

    Trump also issued executive orders Wednesday on workforce development, artificial intelligence, foreign funding reporting requirements for colleges, and historically Black colleges and universities.

    Trump’s accreditation order drew a fierce rebuke from the American Association of University Professors, among others.

    Accreditors have been “important mechanisms for ensuring that academic institutions are accessible and inclusive, and provide high-quality education for all students,” the faculty group said in a statement Wednesday. 

    It added, “This executive order, however, uses the administration’s cruel and absurdist weaponization of antidiscrimination and civil rights law to prevent accrediting agencies from requiring that institutions take basic steps to ensure they are accessible to and inclusive of all students.”

    AAUP President Todd Wolfson described the order’s call for “intellectual diversity” as “code for a partisan agenda that will muzzle faculty who do not espouse Trump’s ideological agenda.”

    Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, similarly condemned the order, saying that it “undermines the aspects of the accreditation process that are designed to protect classroom instruction from political interference.”

    Gadkaree also panned the order’s ban on using demographic data to evaluate programs, warning that without that option “accreditors — along with researchers, evaluators, and policymakers — will lack the information they need to truly assess quality.” 

    Responses from the accreditation sector were quieter, but they defended the work of accreditors.  

    Accreditor’s DEI standards are “predicated on institutions implementing such requirements in accordance with applicable state and federal laws,” the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions said in a statement Wednesday.  

    C-RAC called for the order’s required changes to be worked out through the Education Department’s negotiated rulemaking process, which brings together higher education representatives to hash out policy details. The organization also pointed to the regulated process for removing accreditor recognition, noting, “Ultimately, concerns about accreditor recognition can be escalated to federal court.”

    The Council for Higher Education Accreditation, an industry group that both vets and advocates for accrediting bodies, issued a statement Wednesday largely describing the work, standards and innovation already in place at accreditors and institutions. 

    “Our focus is and always will be academic assurances,” said Cynthia Jackson Hammond, the organization’s president. “CHEA-recognized accreditation organizations meet those standards.”

    She closed by saying, “The independence of the accreditation process is essential in order to preserve and protect the integrity of quality assurance in higher education.”

    Source link

  • Trump’s Latest Executive Orders Target Accreditation

    Trump’s Latest Executive Orders Target Accreditation

    President Donald Trump took aim at college accreditors in an executive order signed Wednesday that targets two accrediting agencies for investigation and suggests others could lose federal recognition altogether.

    The order was one of seven issued Wednesday as Trump nears the end of his first 100 days. Others directed the Education Department to enforce the law requiring colleges to disclose some foreign gifts and contracts, aimed to support historically Black colleges and universities, and outlined several policy changes for K-12 schools. With the accreditation order and the others, Trump and White House officials argued they were refocusing the education system on meritocracy.

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who was in the Oval Office for the signing, opened her follow-up statement by praising the accreditation order and saying it would “bring long-overdue change” and “create a competitive marketplace.”

    “America’s higher education accreditation system is broken,” she wrote. “Instead of pushing schools to adopt a divisive DEI ideology, accreditors should be focused on helping schools improve graduation rates and graduates’ performance in the labor market.”

    Some of the immediate public reactions from higher ed groups criticized the accreditation order, describing it as yet another attempt to put more power in the hands of the president and threaten academic freedom.

    The Council of Higher Education Accreditation said Trump’s directive would “affect the value and independence of accreditation,” while the American Association of University Professors said it would “remov[e] educational decision making from educators and reshap[e] higher education to fit an authoritarian political agenda.”

    Overhauling Accreditation

    Rumored for weeks, the accreditation order was perhaps the most anticipated one of those signed Wednesday, and it will likely have widespread ramifications as Trump seeks to scrutinize and reform the system.

    Historically, accreditors have operated under the radar with little public attention, but in recent years conservatives have focused on the agencies and their role in holding colleges accountable. (The accreditors do hold a lot of power, because universities must be accredited by a federally recognized agency in order to access federal student aid.)

    During his presidential campaign, Trump himself called accreditation reform his “secret weapon” and accused accreditors of failing “to ensure that schools are not ripping off students and taxpayers.”

    The order calls for McMahon to suspend or terminate an accreditor’s federal recognition in order to hold it accountable if it violates federal civil rights law, according to a White House fact sheet. The executive order specifically says that requiring institutions “to engage in unlawful discrimination in accreditation-related activity under the guise of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives” would be considered a violation of the law.

    The order also singles out the American Bar Association, which accredits law schools, and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical schools, and directs cabinet secretaries to investigate them. (The American Bar Association suspended DEI standards for its members in February, as did some other accreditors.)

    Beyond that, McMahon is tasked to “realign accreditation with student-focused principles.” That could include recognizing new accreditors, prioritizing intellectual diversity among faculty and requiring “high-quality, high-value academic programs,” though the fact sheet doesn’t say how that would be measured.

    White House staff secretary Will Scharf said during the event that accreditors have relied on “woke ideology” instead of merit and performance to accredit universities. He didn’t provide evidence for his claims, but the fact sheet cites the national six-year undergraduate graduation rate, which is at 64 percent, as one example of how accreditors have “failed to ensure quality.”

    “The basic idea is to force accreditation to be focused on the merit and the actual results that these universities are providing, as opposed to how woke these universities have gotten,” Scharf said.

    The Trump administration also wants to streamline the process to recognize accreditors and for institutions to change agencies. Some states that have required their public colleges to change accreditors have claimed that the Biden administration made the process too cumbersome.

    Scharf said the order charges the Education Department “to really look holistically at this accreditation mess and hopefully make it much better.”

    Trump didn’t say much about the order or what actions he hopes to see McMahon take next.

    Enforcement of Foreign Gifts

    The president is not the first government official this year who has sought to limit foreign influence on American colleges and universities.

    The House recently passed a bill, known as the DETERRENT ACT, which would amend Section 117 of the Higher Education Act to lower the threshold for what foreign gifts must be reported from $250,000 to $50,000. It also would require the disclosure of all gifts from countries of “concern,” like China and Russia, regardless of amount. The legislation advanced to the Senate in late March following a 241–169 vote.

    Rep. Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican and chair of the committee that introduced the bill, praised Trump’s action Wednesday, saying it “underscores” a Republican commitment to “promoting transparency.”

    “Foreign entities, like the Chinese Communist Party, anonymously funnel billions of dollars into America’s higher education institutions—exploiting these ties to steal research, indoctrinate students, and transform our schools into beachheads in a new age of information warfare,” Walberg wrote in a statement shortly after Trump’s order was signed. “I am glad the Trump administration understands the grave importance of this threat, and I look forward to working with President Trump to protect our students and safeguard the integrity of America’s higher education system.”

    Colleges’ compliance with Section 117 has been a key issue for Republicans over the years. House lawmakers repeatedly criticized the Biden administration’s efforts to enforce the law, but former education secretary Miguel Cardona defended his agency’s actions. They also tried to pass the DETERRENT Act last session, but it was blocked by Democrats in the Senate.

    The executive order is broader than the DETERRENT Act and does little to distinguish itself aside from directing McMahon to work with the attorney general and heads of other departments where appropriate and to reverse or rescind any of Biden’s actions that “permit higher education institutions to maintain improper secrecy.”

    More Support for HBCUs

    Another order creates within the White House an initiative focused on historically Black colleges and universities and revokes a Biden executive order titled “White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity Through Historically Black Colleges and Universities.”

    During his first term, Trump moved an HBCU initiative at the Education Department to the White House as a largely symbolic gesture to show his support for Black colleges. That initiative continued under Joe Biden, though it was returned to the Education Department. Biden also created initiatives focused on Hispanic-serving institutions and tribal colleges. Trump ended those newly created initiatives during his first week in office.

    The executive order also established the President’s Board of Advisors on HBCUs at the Education Department, which appears to already exist. The panel last met in January, according to a Federal Register notice.

    Scharf said the order would ensure that HBCUs are “able to do their job as effectively and as efficiently as possible.”

    Source link

  • Saint Augustine’s University loses appeal to keep accreditation

    Saint Augustine’s University loses appeal to keep accreditation

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • Saint Augustine’s University announced Thursday that its appeal to keep its accreditation has been denied, striking a major blow to the struggling historically Black institution. 
    • Officials at the North Carolina university said they are entering a 90-day arbitration process in another bid to remain accredited. That will also ensure students graduating through May 2025 will earn their diplomas from an accredited institution, according to the university. 
    • Brian Boulware, Saint Augustine’s board chair, struck an optimistic tone in Thursday’s announcement about the arbitration process, saying that the university’s “strengthened financial position and governance will ensure a positive outcome.”

    Dive Insight: 

    Saint Augustine’s has been on the precipice of losing its accreditation for over a year. In 2023, the university’s accreditor — the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges — voted to terminate the university’s accreditation. However, college officials successfully contested that last year through arbitration. 

    Yet in December, SACSCOC once again voted to terminate Saint Augustine’s from its membership, citing issues with the university’s finances and governance. Saint Augustine’s Thursday announcement says that it lost its appeal of that decision, but arbitration once again gives the university another shot at retaining its accreditation. 

    Since the December vote, the university has sought to shore up its budget through widespread cuts and new sources of funding. 

    Still, Saint Augustine’s is grappling with steep declines in enrollment, with just 200 students in the 2024-25 academic year, WRAL reported. That’s down from over 1,100 students just two years ago. 

    In Thursday’s announcement, Saint Augustine’s officials announced they had secured up to $70 million, which they described as a bridge loan, “at competitive market rates and terms” in a deal that they expect to close later this month. University officials did not disclose where the $70 million in funding is coming from, citing nondisclosure agreements. 

    The announcement comes after Saint Augustine’s failed to get approval from the state attorney general’s office to enter a land lease deal with 50 Plus 1 Sports, an athletics development firm. 

    In January, the attorney general’s office said the deal could put the university’s nonprofit status at risk, arguing that the upfront lease payment of up to $70 million was far too low for Saint Augustine’s 103-acre property. The office said the campus had been appraised at over $198 million. 

    Following the decision from the attorney general’s office, the two parties began restructuring the deal to lease less than half of Saint Augustine’s campus to 50 Plus 1 Sports, INDY Week reported. Under the new terms — which circumvent the need for the state office’s sign-off — the sports development firm would also share some of its revenue from its use of the land with the university. 

    Saint Augustine’s did not mention 50 Plus 1 Sports in Thursday’s announcement.

    “This funding is a game-changer,” Hadley Evans, vice chair on Saint Augustine’s board, said in Thursday’s announcement. “We now have the financial leverage to protect SAU’s legacy, enhance academic offerings, and create sustainable revenue streams through strategic campus development.”

    Saint Augustine’s has also drastically cut its workforce amid its financial woes. In November, the university said it was cutting over 130 staff and faculty positions to shave $17 million from its budget.

    Source link

  • Saint Augustine’s accreditation appeal denied again

    Saint Augustine’s accreditation appeal denied again

    The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges denied Saint Augustine’s University’s appeal to remain accredited, SAU announced Thursday.

    The decision is the latest blow to the embattled historically Black university in North Carolina, which has struggled to maintain its accreditation since December 2023, when SACSCOC voted to strip it of its membership due to compliance issues related to governance and finances. Following that decision, SAU lost an appeal to remain accredited; it won a reprieve in the courts last July but lost accreditation again in December. Now that SASCOC has denied SAU’s latest appeal, the university will again pursue a legal remedy, officials announced.

    “We have made substantial progress and are confident that our strengthened financial position and governance will ensure a positive outcome,” Board of Trustees chairman Brian Boulware said in a Thursday statement announcing plans to contest the accreditation decision in court. “SAU is resilient, and we are resolute in our commitment to academic excellence.”

    Beyond accreditation issues, Saint Augustine’s has navigated severe fiscal issues that left it teetering on the brink of closure for months as it pursued various financial lifelines. SAU recently attempted to lease its campus to 50 Plus 1 Sports, a fledgling Florida company. The $70 million deal to lease property for 99 years with development options would have provided much-needed funds for SAU, but following a review required by state law, North Carolina officials declined to sign off on the arrangement due to the transfer of nonprofit assets.

    SAU had unsuccessfully sought approval of the deal before its appeal to SACSCOC last month.

    The North Carolina attorney general’s office, which reviewed the deal, cited insufficient documentation and concerns that SAU was only receiving $70 million for property appraised at $198 million. Saint Augustine’s and 50 Plus 1 Sports have since restructured the terms of the deal.

    In Thursday’s statement, SAU announced it “secured up to $70 million in sustainability-focused funding at competitive market rates and terms,” which it expects to close later this month. It added that nondisclosure agreements “prevent SAU from publicly disclosing the partners’ names.”

    Source link

  • ABA suspends DEI standards for accreditation

    ABA suspends DEI standards for accreditation

    The American Bar Association is suspending diversity, equity, and inclusion standards for the law schools it accredits amid President Donald Trump’s crackdown on DEI efforts, Reuters reported.

    An ABA council reportedly voted on the change Friday, suspending DEI standards through August as the organization—which accredits nearly 200 law schools—considers permanent changes.

    ABA officials did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    The change comes as the ABA has clashed with the Trump administration in recent weeks, accusing the president of “wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself” in issuing rapid-fire executive orders that have targeted DEI and birthright citizenship, and sought to shrink the federal government through mass firings and other actions that some legal scholars have deemed unlawful.

    In the aftermath, the Trump administration barred political appointees to the Federal Trade Commission from holding ABA leadership posts, participating in ABA events, or renewing their memberships. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson accused the ABA of a “long history of leftist advocacy” and said “recent attacks” on the administration made the relationship “untenable.” 

    State officials have also pressured ABA to drop its DEI standards. In January a group of 21 attorneys general, all from red states, sent a letter to the ABA urging it to drop DEI standards.

    The ABA has reportedly been reviewing its standards on DEI since 2023, when the U.S. Supreme Court upended affirmative action with its ruling in favor of Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

    Some Republican officials have celebrated the ABA’s move. “This is a victory for common sense! We are bringing meritocracy back to the legal system,” U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on X.

    ABA’s suspension of DEI standards comes after the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology dropped diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility from its accreditation criteria.

    Source link

  • Meeting Accreditation Standards for Higher Education with Technology

    Meeting Accreditation Standards for Higher Education with Technology

    Tune In To Our Audio Blog

     

    Overview – Reimagining Accreditation

    Let’s get into the actual difficulties surrounding accreditation. You Directors of Accreditation are well-versed in the process and are very much aware that accreditation is not a game. It’s not enough to merely do the necessary compliance tasks, is it? Meeting accreditation criteria, establishing your institution’s value, enduring the never-ending audits, and keeping up with changing regulations are all part of it. The stakes are high and the pressure is intense. It remains constant. Traditional methods? They won’t cut it anymore.

    Imagine, though, if the tables could be turned. Envision yourself to use technology to not just complete the certification process, but to turn it into an asset. Think of real-time data, seamless procedures, and openness at every level. It’s time to go beyond the minimum and leverage approval to your benefit. Automating, cloud computing, and utilizing artificial intelligence-powered analytics will not only enhance the reputation of your university but also enhance the efficiency of operations.

    To help Directors of Accreditation use technology to improve institutional standards, ease compliance, and streamline accreditation data administration, we have put together this handbook. This will empower you to make critical decisions.

     

    A Dynamic Challenge for Directors: Redefining Accreditation

    As Directors of Accreditation, you are aware of the rapidity with which accreditation standards can evolve. Meeting accreditation standards necessitates a more comprehensive examination of student outcomes, diversity metrics, and the degree to which the institution aligns with its own objectives. No longer is it sufficient to simply mark off boxes.

    One of the hardest things to do? The stress that comes from having up-to-date, correct information at your hands. For accreditation reviews to be valid, the proof must be complete and up-to-date, leaving no room for doubt. Still, getting this information can feel like a race against the clock, especially when old methods can’t keep up with how needs change. Here, technology can really make a difference if it is used in the right way.

     

    Tech-Driven Solutions: Streamlining the Accreditation Journey

    Technology is the game-changer. Think about using AI-powered data analytics to revolutionize your accreditation data management. These smart tools can turn those stacks of paperwork into clear, insightful reports, making the process of proving your credentials not just easier, but a whole lot smarter! No more searching through spreadsheets or endless emails—just clear, usable information that shows your school is following the rules.

     

     

    Furthermore, cloud-based accreditation systems are very useful. Consider them as a safe, central location for all of your compliance-related info. It’s possible to get important data from these options, so your team can work together easily whether they’re at the office or traveling. Adopting these technologies doesn’t just keep you current; it sets a new standard for how quickly and clearly the approval process can be done.

     

    Automation: The Secret to Simplifying Repetitive Accreditation Tasks

    Imagine having more time to work on big-picture projects instead of doing the same old things over and over again. That’s how powerful technology can be in the process of getting accreditation. With the right tools, you can cut down on your work and free up your team to focus on raising institutional standards instead of just checking off tasks.

     

    Accreditation Data Management and Reporting Automation

    Consider the time used in gathering information and writing up reports for accreditation. Reducing the time and effort required to compile metrics in real-time is possible with automation technologies. As a bonus, you’ll spend less time worrying about mistakes and more time presenting accurate, up-to-date information.

     

    Smart Templates and Dashboards

    Meeting certain accreditation body criteria calls for customization, which is absolutely important. Smart templates let you quickly construct evaluations, audits, and self-studies that exactly fit what is required. Imagine having customized dashboards right at hand that clearly show your measurements and progress—no more poring over spreadsheets!

     

    Additional Benefits of Accreditation Data Management Automation

     

    • Maintain accurate, consistent, and up-to-date documentation without the need for manual updates.
    • Maintaining Accountability: A transparent audit trail for all your accrediting operations may be easily created by keeping track of who made changes and revisions.
    • Faster Decision-Making: With real-time insights and easy access to data, your team can make informed decisions quickly, keeping the accreditation process moving forward.
    • Focus on Continuous Improvement: By automating routine tasks, you can spend more time analyzing data and implementing improvements that enhance your institution’s performance and outcomes.

     

    Building Transparency and Trust Through Technology

    Let’s discuss something absolutely important for modern society: openness. Directors of Accreditation have a special opportunity to use technology to establish confidence among all those engaged in the accreditation process. How can you make this happen?

    Real-time dashboards available for stakeholders

    Imagine having real-time dashboards at your fingertips. These tools let you instantly share your accreditation progress with stakeholders—no more waiting for quarterly updates! With just a glance, everyone can see where you stand, thanks to clear visuals of your metrics, timelines, and benchmarks.

    This degree of openness helps everyone to be responsible as well as promotes teamwork. Trust naturally comes when your stakeholders know you are always trying to meet and surpass accreditation criteria.

    Blockchain for Academic Integrity

    Let’s now explore something somewhat more novel—blockchain technology. Consider blockchain as your new best buddy helping to maintain the integrity of your certification records. Using this technique makes an unchangeable record of all information connected to accreditation. Your accreditation data management is thus not only safe but also transparent and easily verifiable. Imagine being able to assure other stakeholders and accrediting authorities of your absolutely perfect data. Blockchain helps you to reduce the possibility of conflicts over data accuracy and inspires confidence among all the players. This kind of confidence helps to protect the reputation and integrity of your university.

    Enhanced Reporting Capabilities

    Now, let’s be honest: reporting can get draggy unless you trigger the right gear! Imagine being able to quickly and accurately create detailed reports that show your commitment to regulatory compliance and continuous growth. You can easily show accreditation groups how much progress you’re making like you have a superpower. By doing more than just checking off boxes, you’ll be showing that your institution is ready to take on any tasks that come its way. Therefore, why not use that report writing duty as a chance to shine? Using technology can help you stay prepared and make a great impression!

    Joining the Community

    In addition to internal partners, transparency also applies to the public and the rest of the academic community. Sharing your accreditation path will help your university project more professionalism and draw professors and students. Who would not want to be a part of an open and reliable institution?

    Using technology to track your certification procedures and results helps you to identify possible problems before they become serious ones. This proactive strategy lets you act early to maintain everything in line.

     

    Enhancing the Student Experience While Meeting Standards

    Outcome-Based Education (OBE) and Competency Tracking

    Using technology to track your certification procedures and results helps you to identify possible problems before they become serious ones. Being proactive keeps you on target. Improving the Student Experience While Complying with Outcome-Based Education (OBE) and Competency Monitoring.

    Here’s the stars: your pupils! The right technology will improve their experience and satisfy all needs. This is where Outcome-Based Education (OBE) really shines. Imagine a system that not only makes sure that educational results are in line with accreditation standards but also makes sure that student success is the most important thing. You definitely need to keep track of students’ skills and make sure they get the help they need to do well by using technology.

    Feedback Mechanisms & Surveys

    That’s not all, though! Real-time feedback tools and polls are your secret weapons for improving quality. These resources allow you to ask students for honest opinions, which might reveal where you’re succeeding and where you might need some improvement. Engaging with your students and listening to what they have to say goes beyond simply completing goals for continuous improvement.

    In this way, you make a place where students feel appreciated and supported, and you also show accreditation bodies that you’re dedicated to continuous improvement.

     

    Preparing for the Future: Tech Trends Directors Should Watch

     

     

    EdTech Innovations

    As the Director of Accreditation, it’s important to stay on top of things. Take a look at what next year holds! First, EdTech innovations are coming soon and will supposedly make the process of getting accredited even easier. Consider banking on cutting-edge software that makes data analysis better, streamlines reports, and automates tasks!

     

    Being Prepared to Virtual Accreditation Visits

    Next, we’ll go over the basics of preparing for accreditation visits that take place virtually. As more and more things happen online, reviews and audits done from afar are becoming routine. In what ways can you become ready for this change? By acquiring robust technology that facilitates online participation and emphasizes your organization’s achievements. Ensure that all team members are informed about the use of virtual presentation techniques, online document sharing, and video conferencing. Not only will these novel concepts facilitate the acquisition of accreditations, but they will also facilitate collaboration among partners.

     

    Turn Compliance into a Strategic Advantage with Creatrix Campus Accreditation Platform

    By incorporating the appropriate technology, such as the Creatrix Campus Accreditation platform, Directors of Accreditation can elevate compliance from a mundane obligation to a strategic advantage. This strategy will help you satisfy accreditation criteria and match the main objectives of your institution.

    This is the time to simplify your certification application. Explore the Creatrix Campus platform for a smarter, more efficient way to meet standards. Let’s team to surpass simple compliance!

    Source link