It seems that the permissive/proscriptive walk through the SACSCOC standards will be interrupted again as we unpack what little has been shared about the efforts of the University Systems of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee to form a new accreditor. Note that this list of systems comes from Inside Higher Ed. The Chronicle adds the Texas A&M University system to the list.
All we are offered here is that the new accreditor, called the Commission for Public Higher Education, will focus on, “…ensuring institutions provide high-quality, high-value programs, use student data to drive decisions, and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the process.” The articles go on to remind readers of the legislation in Florida and North Carolina that forces all public colleges and universities in those states to switch accreditors. An important note here, and one that most articles have missed about this issue, is that while North Carolina’s legislation currently requires a shift after every accreditation cycle in perpetuity, Florida’s requirement expires 10 years after it was signed, or at least it did when it was written.
There are many things we need to know. What are the measures of a “high-quality, high-value” program? One criticism of current accreditors from politicians is that they are too proscriptive and that they stifle innovation (hence our interrupted blog series about permissive vs. proscriptive SACSCOC standards). Will institutions choose their measures as they do now, or will this new accreditor be proscriptive? What exactly is meant by “improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the process”? What are the measures and methods for this part of the puzzle? So far, we seem to have political-speak with zero detail. That last thought might be redundant.
Here is my take on this. A new accreditor to improve the accreditation landscape? Great! There are many things in the accreditation world that I believe could be made better, simpler, and more effective. A new accreditor so that political ideologies can control higher education? Well, I can think of a million ways that can, and surely will, go wrong. Which is this? We don’t know because nobody seems to know any of the details, including the politicians speaking about it.
I want to know these and many other things about this new accreditor, and I have reached out to my elected officials in Florida in an attempt to discover such details to no avail.
How about practicing a little foresight in Florida? Acknowledge that accreditation is time-consuming and expensive regardless of the accreditor. Suspend the requirement that Florida institutions switch accreditors until this new one is up and running. Let’s not compound a financial problem created by a poorly written piece of legislation. Otherwise, institutions (who have not already) will spend hundreds of hours and considerable money to complete a review by SACSCOC, then spend hundreds of hours and considerable money to switch (most to HLC), then (presumably, given how accreditation and higher ed are viewed by Florida politicians) be required to spend hundreds of hours and considerable money to switch to the Commission for Public Higher Education. I suppose the last switch could be easy, but that depends on the rigor of the new accreditor. A new accreditor we know nothing about, regardless of the speeches by the politicians.