Outcomes-Focused,DifferentiatedAccreditation
AFrameworkforPolicyandPracticeReform
May2016
Contents
2
I. Groundingrecommendations: fiveinter-relatedelements
II. Frameworkforoutcomes-focused,differentiatedaccreditation
AppendixA:Policyoptionsandrecommendations
AppendixB:Applyingtheframeworktodifferentinstitutional contexts
Complementingthisslidedeckisapolicybrief(availableatwww.educationcounsel.com)thatprovidesadditionalbackgroundanddescribesourtheoryofactioningreaterdetail.
3
I.GROUNDINGRECOMMENDATIONS
3
GroundingRecommendationsOurvisionforaccreditationreformhasfiveinter-relatedelementsthat,together,couldbuildasystemthatismoreresponsive tostudentoutcomesandbetteratdirectingtime,resources,andattentiontothoseinstitutionsthatneeditmost.
4
• YourTextGoeshere• PutTextHere
• YourTextGoeshere• PutTextHere
• YourTextGoeshere• PutTextHere
• YourTextGoeshere• PutTextHere
Focusonstudentoutcomes
Riskassessmentsasthekeylensinaccreditation
Differentiatedengagementwithinstitutions
Alignedrecognitionprocess
Reductionofregulatoryburden
GroundingRecommendations
5
Focusonstudentoutcomes.Forfederalpurposes, traditional"input"measuresofinstitutionalquality(e.g.,curriculumandinstruction, facultyandleadership, studentsupport services,andresourcemanagement)shouldbeevaluatedonlyinlightofstudentoutcomemeasuresthatareavailableforallinstitutions thatreceivefederalfunding. (Programmaticaccreditorslikelyneed todevelopseparateoutcomesmeasuresappropriatefortheirprograms.)
GroundingRecommendations
6
Riskassessmentsasthekeylensinaccreditation.Accreditorsshould useariskassessmenttodetermine theirconfidencelevelsinthequalityofmember institutions.Theassessmentshouldbemadeupofmultiplemeasuresincludingavailablestudentoutcomesdataandtheinstitution's regulatoryhistorywithitsaccreditoraswellasstateandfederalauthorities.
GroundingRecommendations
7
Differentiatedengagementwithinstitutions.Accreditorsshoulddifferentiateamongtheirmember institutions toprovidevaryinglevelsofengagementandsupport basedonresultsfromtheriskassessment.Continuousimprovementshouldbeundertakenbyallinstitutions– andcantakedifferent formsdrivenbydifferentaccreditors– butaccreditorsandothersinthetriadshouldcollaboratetoaddressthose institutionswithlowconfidenceratings.
GroundingRecommendations
8
Alignedrecognitionprocess.USED'saccreditor recognition processshould supportaccreditorsinthemovetooutcomes-focused,differentiatedsystems.Theprocessshouldincludeareviewof themeasuresusedinriskassessmentsandaccreditors'exerciseofprofessional judgment inassigningcategoriesandresponsestoflagsraised(especiallyfor"lowconfidence"schools).Thefocusshouldbeonamixofprocessandoutcomemeasuresanalyzedpursuant toacontinuousimprovementmodel– ratherthanthecurrentcompliance-driven"checklist"approach.
GroundingRecommendations
9
Reductionofregulatoryburden.Asnewfederalrequirementsarecreatedforaccreditation,existingrequirements should beremovediftheycreatecostsandburdens foraccreditorsandinstitutionsbutarenotfundamental totheachievementofcorefederalinterests.Thiscouldinvolvetheremovalofexistingrequirements suchasmandatorysitevisitsregardlessofinstitutionalperformancemetricsandaone-size-fits-allreviewprocessthatforcesallaccreditorsandallinstitutions tocomplywiththesamelengthylistof requirements regardlessofperformance inthoseareas.
10
II.FRAMEWORKFOROUTCOMES-FOCUSED,DIFFERENTIATEDACCREDITATION 10
VisionforOutcomes-Focused,DifferentiatedAccreditationWhatwould theprocesslooklike?
11
1.Outcomes-focusedriskassessment
2.Categoriesforinstitutions
3.Differentiatedresponsesbased
onflags
Highconfidence
Mediumconfidence
Lowconfidence
Continuous improvement
Peerreviewfocusedonflagsinriskassessment
Deepengagementworkingtoward
significantimprovement
Federallegislation andregulationshould setsome
groundrules(discussed indetaillater),butarenotneeded togovernallpartsofthesystem.
Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentRecommendedmeasuresforinstitution-levelaccreditation – allcurrently(orsoon-to-be)availableforallinstitutions
12
StudentprofileandoutcomesAbsolutevaluesandchangesovertime
•Studentpopulation.Howmanystudentsdoestheinstitutionserve?HowmanyarePelleligible?•Retention.Howmanyandwhatpercentageofstudentsareretainedattheinstitution(usingmeasuresappropriateforthesector)?•Completion.Howmanyandwhatpercentageofstudentsgraduatewithin150%ofnormaltime?•Loans.Whatpercentageoftheinstitution'sstudentstakeoutloans?Whatistheloanrepaymentrateoftheinstitution'salumni(includingthosewhodoanddonotcompletetheirprograms)?Whatistheinstitution'scohortdefaultrate?
Regulatoryhistoryandstanding
•Accreditation.Hastheinstitutionbeeningoodstandingwiththeaccreditor?Whatissueshavearisenthathavethreatenedorchangedthatstatus?•Federalcompliance.Doestheinstitutionhaveanacceptablefinancialresponsibilityscore?Hasithadtoproducealetterofcreditrecently?•Statecompliance.Hastheinstitutionbeenappropriatelyauthorizedtooperatebyitsstate– andmaintainedthatstatus?• Investigationsandlawsuits.Areanyfederalorstateinvestigationsorlawsuitscurrentlypendingagainsttheinstitutionthatimplicatetheinstitution'squalityandabilitytofulfillitsobligationstoitsstudents?•Studentcomplaints.Doavailablestudentcomplaintsimplicatetheaccreditor'squalitystandards?
Otherriskfactors
•Enrollmentchanges.Hastheinstitutionexperiencedadramaticenrollmentexpansionorcontraction?Hasitembracednewlearningsettings(e.g.,onlineprograms)inasignificantnewway?•Ownershipchanges.Hastheinstitutionchangeditsorganizationalstructure,beensoldorcomeundernewownership,orreorganizedunderanewbusinessmodel?•Other.Hastheaccreditoridentifiedanyothersignificanteventthatcallsintoquestiontheinstitution'squalityandabilitytofulfillitsobligationstoitsstudents?
Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentDatanotyetfullyavailablethatcouldbehelpful
13
·Improvedgraduationrates(e.g.,incorporatingthestudentachievementmeasureorothermeansofincludingtransferrates)
·Pellretentionrate·Pellfull-timegraduationrateswithin150%ofnormaltime*·Pellrecipientrepaymentrates*·Program-leveloutcomes
Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentAggregateoutcomesv.studentlearningoutcomes
14
2.Categoriesforinstitutions
1.Outcomes-focusedriskassessment
2.Categoriesforinstitutions
3.Differentiatedresponsesbased
onflags
Common,aggregateoutcomes
Havetousedataavailablethatis
alreadyreportedforallinstitutions(incompleteand
imperfectasthesedataare)
Institution-specificlearningoutcomesShouldexamine
institution-specificmeasures,includingthelearningoutcomes
andassessmentmeasuresthatthe
institutionhasselectedforitself(e.g.,DQP).
Step2:CategoriesforInstitutionsBasedonInitialAssessmentBasicframework(toberefinedovertime,particularlyasnewdatabecomeavailable.
15
Impactofrisktotaxpayerandstudentinvestments
Prob
abilityofrisk
tota
xpayer
andstudentinvestm
ents
Lowimpact, lowprobably =highconfidence• Nomeasureinriskassessment raisesflags• No reasontobelievethatthesituationwillchangeintheforeseeablefuture
Highimpact,lowprobability=mediumconfidence• Atleastonemeasureinriskassessment raisesaflag
• Institution hasasignificantstudentpopulationsizeand/ortuition,loan,and/orPelllevelsarehigh
Lowimpact,highprobability=mediumconfidence• Morethanonemeasureinriskassessmentraiseflags
• Institutionhasasmallerstudentpopulationsizeand/ortuition,loan,and/orPelllevelsarelow
Highimpact,highprobability=loworverylowconfidence• Multiplemeasuresinriskassessment raiseflags• Institutioncanbeanysizeandatanytuitionlevel,butinterventionswillvary.
Step2:CategoriesforInstitutionsBasedonInitialAssessmentUnderlyingassumptions
16
Highconfidence Mediumconfidence Lowconfidence
Categoryappliesregardlessofsector,context,students
served,ormission.
Usingaccreditors'professionaljudgment,sector,context,studentsserved,ormissioncaninformdistinctionsbetween
highandmediumconfidence
Federallawmaydefinethethreshold(s)andapplythemtoallaccreditors.
Accreditorsmaydetermineappropriatelinebetweenthetwocategories.
Mostinstitutionswill fallintooneofthesecategories.
Accreditorsmayaddadditionalcategoriesfortheirownpurposes.
Step3:DifferentiatedResponsesRecommendedMeasures
17
• Self-guided continuous improvement•Peerrevieworsitevisitcantakeplace,butnotrequiredbyfederallaw
Highconfidence
•Accreditor-guidedcontinuous improvement•Peerreviewisfocusedonflagsinriskassessment
Mediumconfidence
•Mandatoryimprovementplan•Deeppeerreviewonallaspectsofinstitution•AccreditingagencywillinformandcoordinatewithstatesandUSEDtodeterminetimeline,studentnotifications, andpossible interventions
Lowconfidence
Step3:DifferentiatedResponsesPossibleconsequences forlowconfidenceinstitutions
18
§ Forinstitutions belowthefederal"lowconfidence"threshold basedonfederaldatasources, theDepartmentcouldsendarequestforadditionalinformationfromtherelevantaccreditingagencyandinstitution toexplaintheresults, identify anydataerrors,anddescribeplanned response strategiesbeforedeterminingtheDepartment'sownintervention strategy.
§ TheDepartmentcouldhaveauthoritytoimposearangeofconsequencesforinstitutionsatthelowconfidence levelbeyondrevocationofTitleIVeligibility, suchaslimits ontheamountand/ortypeoffederalfunding availableuntiltheinstitutionmakesmarkedimprovements.
§ Forinstitutions confirmedtobeatthelowconfidencelevel, federallawcouldrequireanoversightgroupofDepartment,stateregulator,andaccreditor representativestobeestablished.
§ Thegroupwoulddefineatimelineforimprovement(potentiallybasedon federallydefinedexpectations)andcoordinatecommunicationrelatedtoeachmember'splannedresponses.
§ Thoughfederallawmaydefinebaselinerules(e.g.,theinstitutionmustshowimprovementwithina2-3yeartimeframeorfacelossofor limitationsonTitleIVeligibility),itcouldallowtheoversightgroup todetermineotherdetailstosuitthespecificcontextoftheinstitution.
§ Othermembersofthetriadcouldpotentiallyalsorequestthatanoversightgroupbeformed.
19
III.POLICYOPTIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS– WORKINGDRAFT 19
Aboutthissection
20
• Thissectionlaysoutthevariouspolicydecisionsthatmustbemadetodesignandimplementoutcomes-focused,differentiatedaccreditation.
• Foreachstepoutlined inSectionIII(theFramework),weidentify severaloptionsthatcouldallowthesystemtomoveforward.
• Optionsareroughly orderedbythelevelofdetailthatwouldgointofederalstatuteand/or thelevelofdirectionthatfederallaworfederalauthoritieswouldhaveovertheprocess.
• Ourrecommendedoption isin blue,boldtext.• Wedonotidentifyoptions thatdonotpresenttherightbalanceofflexibilityand
rigor infederallaw.Forexample,wedonotrecommendthatfederalstatuteleavealldecisionsaboutwhatmeasurestoinclude intheriskassessmentstotheregulatoryprocessand/oraccreditors'owndecisionmaking processes.
Initialdecisiontopursueoutcomes-focused,differentiatedaccreditation
21
• Option1:FederalstatutemandatesbothoutcomesfocusANDdifferentiatedresponses(atleastforlowconfidenceinstitutions).• Thiswouldbeaccompaniedbyasignificantreductionofother
federalaccreditation requirementsnotrelated tothesecorereforms.
• Option2:Federal statuteonlymandatesoutcomesfocus.Accreditorsdecidewhethertopursuedifferentiatedresponsesystems(atleastforhighandmediumconfidenceinstitutions).
• Option3:Federal statuteonlymandatesdifferentiatedresponses,butnotoutcomesfocus.
• Option4:Federal statutemandatesneitheroutcomesfocusnordifferentiatedresponses,butprovidesincentives foraccreditors tomovetothesesystems.
WhyOption1?• Withoutclearguidancefrom
statute,thesystemmaynotbedesignedwiththerightincentivesandparametersinplace.
• Theoutcomesfocusanddifferentiatedresponses arepartofa"bargain"thathighperforminginstitutionsmayreceivesomerelieffromregulatoryburdensiftheycandemonstratestrongoutcomes.
• Withoutoutcomes,differentiatedaccreditationcouldbebasedonawiderangeoffactorsthatmayburystudentoutcomesasadriver.
• Withoutdifferentiation,accreditorsandinstitutionsmaynotbeabletofocusresourcesappropriately.
Changestotherecognitionprocess
22
• Option1:Therecognitionprocessinvolvesanoutcomes-focused,differentiatedreviewofaccreditors.
• Option2:Therecognitionprocessdoesnotmakeaccreditorsdirectlyaccountableforthestudentoutcomesoftheirinstitutions,butdoesrequireaccreditorstodescribeandjustifytheirpoliciesandpracticesrelatedtomeasuresandaccreditors'exerciseofprofessionaljudgmentinassigningcategoriesanddevelopingdifferentiatedresponsestoflagsraised(especiallyforlowconfidenceschools).Theprocessmaydifferentiateamongaccreditorsbasedonflagsraisedinthisprocess(i.e.,spendmoretimereviewingaccreditorswithill-definedsystemsand/orinadequatefoundationsfortheirdecisions).• Thiswouldbeaccompaniedbyasignificantreduction
ofotherfederalaccreditationrequirementsnotrelatedtothesecorereforms.
Corerecommendations tosupport thisframeworkWhyOption2?• Thisallowsthe
recognitionprocesstobeanimportantcheck onaccreditors'ownreforms,butallowsaccreditorstodesignthesystemsthatworkbest intheircontexts.
• Accreditorsdonothavedirectoversightoverstudentoutcomesattheirmemberinstitutions–makingthemaccountableinthiswaynotonlymakesoneentityresponsibleforanother'sperformance,butalsomaymuddleaccreditors'incentives tomakeauthenticconfidenceassessmentsoftheirinstitutions.
Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessment
23
• Option1:Federalstatuteidentifiesallmeasurestobeincluded.
• Option2:Federalstatuteidentifiescoremeasurestobeincluded,andallowsaccreditorstoaddotheroutcomes-basedmeasuresthataremeaningfulfortheirparticulargroupofinstitutions(e.g.,licensureratesforprogrammaticaccreditors).
• Option3:Federalstatuteprovidesbroadcategoriesofmeasuresbutallowsmeasurestobepreciselydefinedthrough theregulatoryprocess(e.g.,negotiated rulemakingornotice-and-comment).Accreditorsmayaddotheroutcomes-basedmeasuresthataremeaningful fortheirparticulargroupofinstitutions.
Whichmetricstoinclude?WhyOption 2?• Therearesomemeasures
thatareavailableforallinstitutions thatshouldbeacommonbaseline.
• Somesectorsandprogramshaveadditionalmeasuresthattheiraccreditorsmaychoosetousetosupplement.
Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessment
24
• Option1:FederalstatutemandatesthatUSEDprovidesstudentoutcomesmeasuresaswellasanyrelevantfederalregulatoryhistoryforeachinstitution. Accreditorssupplement thesedatawiththeirownregulatoryhistorywiththeinstitutionsaswellasanyinformation receivedfromstateregulators.
• Option2:Federallawcouldrequireaccreditorstoshowthatdataandinformationusedarefromreliable,validsourcessuchasfederaldatabases.Accreditorscouldsupplementthesedatawiththeirownregulatoryhistorywiththeinstitutionsaswellasanyrelevantinformationreceivedfromstateandfederalauthorities.
Whoruns theriskassessment?WhyOption 2?• Alldatawehave
identified inthisFrameworkisalreadypublicly availableorcouldbeavailablethrougheffectivecommunications linesamongmembersofthetriad.
• Thiswould notrequireanewreportingrequirementforinstitutions.
25
• Option1:Federalstatute(or regulations)define thresholds foreverycategory.
• Option2:Federalstatuteonlydefinesthresholdsforthelowconfidencelevel.Accreditorsmaydecidethethresholdsformediumandhighconfidence(andanyothercategoriestheychoosetoadopt,e.g.,forthehighestconfidenceschools).Accreditorswouldneedtoidentifyandjustifythesethresholdsintherecognitionprocess.
Step2:CategoriesforInstitutionsBasedonInitialAssessmentHowshould thresholdsbedetermined?
WhyOption2?• Thelowconfidence
levelrepresentsasignificantthreattotaxpayerandstudentinterests,andallowingaccreditorsorotherstodefinethislevelmaymaskatleastsomeinstitutions.
• Thisalsoallowsaccreditorsflexibilityinotherareaswheretheirexpertiseandprofessionaljudgmentshouldbeleveraged.
26
• Option1:FederalstatuterequiresUSEDtodirecttheprocess.• Option2:Federalstatutedescribes indetailtherequired
oversightgroup processesaswellasallrequired interventions,specifictimelines,etc.
• Option3:Federalstatuterequiresanoversightgrouptobeestablishedandthatitclearlydefinegoals,interventions,timelines,andstudent/publicnotificationprocedures.Thoughstatutewoulddefinehardlines(e.g.,mustshowimprovementwithina2-3yeartimeframeorfacelossoforlimitationsonTitleIVeligibility).Butfederalstatuteallowstheoversightgrouptodetermineotherdetailstosuitthespecificcontextoftheinstitutionatquestion.
Step3:DifferentiatedResponsesWhodecidesresponses forthelowconfidence schools?
WhyOption3?• Federallawshouldmake
clearwhentheoversightgroupshouldbeestablishedandwhatitsresponsibilitiesinclude.Itcanalsoidentifycommonexpectationsforbaselines(e.g.,student/publicnotificationwhenaninstitutionhasa"material"issue).
• Butitwillbeimpossibletodefineeveryinterventionstrategythatmaytakeplace.Theoversightgroupshouldhavesomediscretiontoactaccordingtowhatbestsuitsthecontext.
27
APPENDIX:APPLYINGTHEFRAMEWORKTODIFFERENTINSTITUTIONALCONTEXTS 27
Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentStudentprofileandoutcomesatInstitutionA
28
#students %Pelleligible #Pellrecipients
Retentionrate Graduationrate #graduates
Loanrepaymentrate
CDR %borrowers
Institution Aisasmallnonprofitprivatecollegethatservesasmallnumberofstudentsonly afewofwhomarePelleligible.TheoverallfederalinvestmentinPellgrants,therefore,isrelativelysmall.
Institution Ahasahighfirsttosecondyearretentionrate.Though,becauseofitssize,ithasarelativelysmallnumberofgraduates,itsgraduationrateislowerthanthatatitspeerinstitutions.
Institution AhasahighloanrepaymentrateandlowerCDR.Butithasahighpercentageofborrowersamongitsstudentbody,meaningthattheoverallstudentinvestmentinthedegreeishigh.
A
Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentRegulatoryhistoryandstanding,other riskatInstitutionA
29
Accreditationhistory
Institution Ahasarecordofgoodstandingwithitsaccreditor,anadequatefederalfinancialresponsibilityscoreforTitleIVeligibility,nopendingstateinvestigations,andnostudentcomplaintsdirectlyrelevanttotheaccreditor'sstandards.ButitisinthemidstofapendingprogramreviewofitsonlineprogramsbyUSED.Therearenospecialcircumstancesthatsuggestotherrisk.
Federalfinancialresponsibilityscore
Pendingfederalinvestigations
Pendingstateinvestigations
Studentcomplaints
n/a
Otherrisk
A
Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentStudentprofileandoutcomesatInstitutionB
30
#students %Pelleligible #Pellrecipients
Retentionrate Graduationrate #graduates
Loanrepaymentrate
CDR %borrowers
Institution Bisalargepublicuniversitythatservesalargenumberofstudents, abouthalfofwhomarePelleligible.TheoverallfederalinvestmentinPellgrants,therefore,ishigh.
InstitutionBhasaveragegraduationandretentionrates,butitslargesizemeansthatitproducesalargenumberofgraduates.Ithasprogramsthatlagfarbehindothers.
Institution BhasahighloanrepaymentrateandlowerCDR.Butithasahighpercentageofborrowersamongitsstudentbody,meaningthattheoverallstudentinvestmentinthedegreeishigh.
B
Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentRegulatoryhistoryandstanding,other riskatInstitutionB
31
Accreditationhistory
Institution Bnopendingfederalinvestigations,nostateinvestigations,andnostudentcomplaintsdirectlyrelevanttotheaccreditor'sstandards.But,historically,ithasreceivedflagsfromitsaccreditor forissuesrelatedtogovernance.(Becauseitisapublicinstitution,USEDdoesnotcalculateafinancialresponsibilityscore.)Therearenospecialcircumstancesthatsuggestotherrisk.
Federalfinancialresponsibilityscore
Pendingfederalinvestigations
Pendingstateinvestigations
Studentcomplaints
n/a
n/a
Otherrisk
B
Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentStudentprofileandoutcomesatInstitutionC
32
#students %Pelleligible #Pellrecipients
Retentionrate Graduationrate #graduates
Loanrepaymentrate
CDR %borrowers
Institution Cisalargeprivateuniversitythatservesalargenumberofstudents, amajorityofwhomarePelleligible.TheoverallfederalinvestmentinPellgrants,therefore,ishigh.
InstitutionChasaverageretentionandlowgraduationrates,butitslargesizemeansthatitproducesarelativelylargenumberofgraduates.
InstitutionChasalowloanrepaymentrateandhighnumberofborrowers,eventhoughitsCDRissufficientforTitleIVeligibility. Thus,theoverallstudentinvestmentinthedegreeishigh.
C
Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentRegulatoryhistoryandstanding,other riskatInstitutionC
33
Accreditationhistory
Institution ChasanadequatefederalfinancialresponsibilityscoreforTitleIVeligibility,butsignificantotherregulatorystandingconcerns:ithasreceivedflagsfromitsaccreditor andisthesubjectofseparatefederalandstateinvestigationsrelatedtoitsrecruitmentpractices.Allthreemembersofthetriadhavereceivedstudentcomplaintsrelatedtothesesconcerns.Moreover,theinstitutionisseekingtoexpandtonewcampuses.
Federalfinancialresponsibilityscore
Pendingfederalinvestigations
Pendingstateinvestigations
Studentcomplaints
Otherrisk
C
Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentStudentprofileandoutcomesatInstitutionD
34
#students %Pelleligible #Pellrecipients
Retentionrate Graduationrate #graduates
Loanrepaymentrate
CDR %borrowers
Institution Disamidsizeprivateuniversitythatservesalargenumberofstudents, aboutaquarterofwhomarePelleligible.TheoverallfederalinvestmentinPellgrants,therefore,islow-medium.
Institution Dhashighretentionandhighgraduationrates.Itproducesamediumnumberofgraduatesperyear.
Institution DhasahighloanrepaymentrateanditsCDRissufficientforTitleIVeligibility.Morethanhalfitsstudentsborrow,though,sotheoverallstudentinvestmentinthedegreeismediumhigh.
D
Step1:Outcomes-FocusedRiskAssessmentRegulatoryhistoryandstanding,other riskatInstitutionD
35
Accreditationhistory
Institution Chasagoodhistorywithitsaccreditor,anadequatefederalfinancialresponsibilityscoreforTitleIVeligibility,nopendingstateorfederalinvestigations,nosignificantstudentcomplaints,andnootherriskfactors.
Federalfinancialresponsibilityscore
Pendingfederalinvestigations
Pendingstateinvestigations
Studentcomplaints
Otherrisk
D
n/a
Step2:CategoriesforInstitutionsBasedonInitialAssessmentBasicframework(toberefinedovertime,particularlyasnewdatabecomeavailable.
36
Impactofrisktotaxpayerandstudentinvestments
Prob
abilityofrisk
tota
xpayer
andstudentinvestm
ents
Lowimpact, lowprobably =highconfidence Highimpact,lowprobability=mediumconfidence
Lowimpact,highprobability=mediumconfidence
Highimpact,highprobability=loworverylowconfidence
C
B
APeerreviewfocusesonwhythegraduationrateislow
Peerreviewfocusesonwhygraduationandretentionratesareaverage,particularlyinlowerperformingprograms
Significantinterventionsbyallmembersoftriad
DOptionalpeerreview
Acknowledgements
EducationCounsel,withsupportfromLuminaFoundation,hasbeenworkingonaccreditationreformforseveralyears.ThispolicybriefbuildsontworecentwhitepapersfromEducationCounsel:NewDirectionsinRegulatoryReform:ProspectsforReducingRegulatoryBurdenThroughRisk-InformedApproachesinFederalLaw (December2014)andGettingOurHouseinOrder:TransformingtheFederalRegulationofHigherEducationasAmericaPreparesfortheChallengesofTomorrow(March2015).
Thisprojectwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutthecontributionsofmanypolicyexperts,practitioners,andstakeholders,includingthoserepresentinginstitutions,students,andaccreditors,whosethoughtfulfeedbackandcommentarysignificantlyshapedthisframework.