Dept. of Ed. on Student Learning Outcomes

The Department of Education finally released its long-anticipated regulatory proposal dealing with the measurement of student learning outcomes. The proposal was included in a package of proposals that are being considered at the negotiated rulemaking session on accreditation that began Monday, March 26.

Although the protocols adopted at the negotiated rulemaking group's February meetings stated that meeting materials should be provided at least seven days in advance, the material was not sent to negotiators until late on Thursday, March 22. This was widely viewed as a step taken to ensure that those attending the Secretary's Summit on Higher Education that same day (see preceding story) would not have the details in front of them as they debated the Summit's vague language on accreditation. Given the complexity and the far-reaching nature of the changes being proposed, it is troubling that negotiators will have so little time to review the material.

At first glance, three issues stand out as being particularly problematic:

C Rigid requirements for the measurement of student learning outcomes;
C Regulation of transfer of credit decisions; and
C New accreditation disclosures.

Here are the specifics about each area.

Measurement of student learning outcomes: In its February meeting, the negotiated rulemaking committee specifically rejected a Department proposal to require the establishment of measurable and comparable student learning outcome standards on the basis that the Department has no legal basis for imposing such requirements. (See WIR, 2/28/07.) Nevertheless, the Department has gone forward with such a proposal.

• For any pre-baccalaureate vocational program or any program that prepares students for occupations in fields requiring certification or licensure, the agency must set quantitative standards for completion, job placement, and state licensure (or related) exams.
• For other institutions, accreditors would be required to pick one of three ways to measure institutional success with respect to student achievement: Specific quantitative and qualitative measures of student achievement, and an expected level of performance; 
• A variety of qualitative and quantitative measures ("evaluative rubrics") applied to groups of institutions with similar missions, which the accreditor then weights for each institution and specifies an expected level of performance for each measure; or
• Qualitative and quantitative measures developed by the institution for each program it offers, and an expected level of performance on the measures which must satisfy the accreditor. The institution would then be required to make all this information available to the public, along with actual performance figures.

Transfer of credit: Accreditors would be required to assure that institutions do not consider the type of accreditation of the sending institution in making decisions about acceptance of transfer credits or education credentials. Accreditors must also monitor the information an institution provides to prospective students to ensure they are informed of the institution's transfer policies. These regulations have been proposed even though there is absolutely no statutory language in the Higher Education Act relating to transfer of credit. (See WIR, 2/13/07.)

New Accreditation Disclosures: Under the proposal, accreditors are to require institutions to publish information about the effectiveness of accredited programs, especially regarding student outcomes. Characterized, curiously, as a public information activity, this portion of the proposal would also require accreditors to establish performance expectations for each of their standards.

Taken as a whole, the most disturbing aspect about these proposals is the extent to which they federalize the private accreditation process. The existence of private accreditation in lieu of a centralized ministry of education is the reason that a diverse array of higher education options are available in this country. Usurping this process by turning accreditors into federal enforcement officials will ultimately undermine the greatest strengths of our system. There is a lot at stake at next week's meetings, and the higher education community will be watching closely.

For more information, contact Susan Hattan, susan@naicu.edu