Federal Intervention in Higher Education
The federal government is changing its policy toward higher education, and the changes could affect every Christian college and seminary in the nation. The net effect of these changes is a significant federal takeover of the educational process. The vehicle through which the changes are being pursued is accreditation, but non-accredited institutions are likely to feel the bite of federal regulation. In order to understand the changes, you have to understand how accreditation works.
Until now, accreditation has been essentially an activity of the private sector. Of course, anyone can establish an accrediting agency, and there are accreditation mills just as there are diploma mills. Consequently, it has been necessary to create an organization to accredit the accreditors.
That organization is the Council on Higher Education in America (CHEA). CHEA was established in the 1990s to fend off a federal takeover of accreditation at that time. It represents the attempt by American institutions of higher education to regulate themselves through a process of peer review. CHEA does, however, get its force from federal involvement. It is the only agency that the United States Department of Education recognizes to accredit the accreditors.
In other words, a school that wants to be accredited works with a regional or national accrediting agency. That agency in turn works with CHEA, and when a school gains accreditation it also becomes a member of CHEA. Consequently, CHEA is the conduit through which the Department of Education recognizes accredited schools. The Department of Education publishes an annual directory that is the Holy Grail of accreditation: if a school is listed there, its accreditation is recognized (in theory) by other institutions.
The cooperative relationship between accreditation and the Department of Education was authorized in the Higher Education Act of 1965, part of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” reforms. The act must be reauthorized periodically, and reauthorization provides the federal government with an opportunity to review and influence the educational process. Reauthorization is generally a stormy time in the relationship between accreditation and the government.
Once the Higher Education Act has been reauthorized, the Department of Education drafts new rules and policies to implement whatever provisions have changed. The last reauthorization occurred in 2008, but its repercussions are only beginning to be felt as the new rules fall into place. The net result is a significant federal takeover of the educational process.
The takeover is driven by two concerns. The first is a public perception that American education is slipping in quality. The second concern is money. The feds pour billions of dollars into higher education, and the government is naturally eager to curtail the waste of federal funds. The federal answer to both problems is identical, namely, increased regulation.
The government now defines what a credit hour is. The government has begun to regulate transfer of credits among institutions. The government is also regulating the burgeoning field of distance education. Finally, the government has begun to regulate the monitoring of student enrollment.
The impact upon higher education is decidedly negative. Educational institutions are supposed to ask what is best for their students. They are now asking what will best please the feds. In order to comply with recent federal regulations, schools must confront a mountain of new paperwork. The byproduct of federal regulation has been—and will be—to drive up costs while distracting institutions from their focus upon education. In accreditation as in many other areas, federal involvement creates far more problems than it solves.
The largest problem, however, is simply the presence of federal intervention in an area that was previously private. In effect, the government is in the process of taking over a huge segment of American society. As this takeover progresses, it will be the federal government that determines who can teach and what will be taught at every college and seminary in America. The federal government will ultimately determine which institutions have the right to grant degrees and which will simply be shut down.
For Christian institutions, the implications of such a takeover are obvious. Christians have had to work doubly hard to gain a foothold in the private accreditation system. Once the feds are in control, accreditation is likely to become the wedge by which the government forces Christian colleges and seminaries to adopt policies that reflect prevailing notions on subjects like evolution and homosexuality. The potential for damage is both real and alarming.
The government is also going after unaccredited institutions. At the moment, the individual states recognize the right of colleges and seminaries to grant degrees. In many states (Minnesota is one of them), religious institutions are completely exempt from the state’s oversight in this area. The Department of Education, however, is using its new leverage to pressure the states to force all degree-granting institutions to gain accreditation. In other words, if the federal government has its way, no unaccredited schools will be allowed to grant degrees.
The hour may already be too late to thwart the federal takeover. The only way that it could be reversed is through a significant public reaction against the increased federal regulation, coupled with a change in those elected officials who want to use the accreditation process as a way of increasing the federal headlock on higher education.
In the meanwhile, Christians need to begin thinking about other models of teaching and learning. Up to now, we have adopted a model borrowed from the medieval universities. We have coupled our educational process with the granting of degrees at the bachelor’s, master’s, and doctor’s levels. That is just what we may not be able to do in the future.
If that happens, we may need to rethink the process of ministry preparation. Future pastors and missionaries do need to be taught, but they do not really need degrees. We might well ask, What will ministry preparation look like in a world in which we are no longer permitted to operate colleges and seminaries? Unless something can be done to reverse the federal juggernaut, that day is almost certain to come.
Wisdom
(Prov. viii, 22-31)
William Cowper (1731-1800)
Ere God had built the mountains,
Or raised the fruitful hills;
Before He filled the fountains
That feed the running rills;
In me from everlasting,
The wonderful I Am,
Found pleasures never wasting,
And Wisdom is my name.
When, like a tent to dwell in,
He spread the skies abroad,
And swathed about the swelling
Of Ocean’s mighty flood;
He wrought by weight and measure,
And I was with Him then:
Myself the Father’s pleasure,
And mine, the sons of men.
Thus Wisdom’s words discover
Thy glory and Thy grace,
Thou everlasting Lover
Of our unworthy race!
Thy gracious eye surveyed us
Ere stars were seen above;
In wisdom Thou hast made us,
And died for us in love.
And couldst Thou be delighted
With creatures such as we,
Who, when we saw Thee, slighted,
And nailed Thee to a tree?
Unfathomable wonder,
And mystery divine!
The voice that speaks in thunder,
Says, “Sinner, I am thine!”
Kevin T. Bauder Bio
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
- 64 views
Are we pursuing / using the wrong standard(s) to judge expertise?
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
Wouldn’t it make sense for accreditation to examine the quality of education per se, and not where the education came from?But where it “came from” plays a huge part in its quality. Breadth and depth are both important in education, which is why regional accreditation associations generally want to see terminal degrees (for depth) and several institutions represented (for breadth).
[Louise Dan] I understand this, Dr. Bauder. And I am not attacking Central. But you need to recognize that TRACS accreditation is meaningless when they also accredit a university like BJU where even the long time previous president didn’t have a doctorate. And the current president has NO educational degrees outside of BJU. Less than 15% or so of their faculty have terminal degrees from accredited institutions. TRACS accredited your institution, which seems to have exactly the credentials one would expect an accredited institution to have, and BJU, which has exactly the opposite credentials one would expect an accredited institution to have.I think Dr. Bauder is concerned because the government has never traditionally intervened in the definitions and reporting of each school, and now they are. That’s disconcerting because they’re beginning to intervene / interfere in areas they really shouldn’t or haven’t.
But also, you mentioned that the government is encroaching on the definition of a credit hour, the reporting of number of students enrolled, and so forth. It seems that those are all pieces of higher education that SHOULD have a standard definition. I’m curious why the defining of a credit hour seems like encroachment.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Louise Dan] The problem is that this reasoning is totally anecdotal. If a counseling professor who has no training in clinical psychology offers what sounds to be an informed opinion on, say, depression or bipolar disorder, it’s still suspect. There is a reason our society has gone the way of certification. Anecdotal evidence simply can’t be trusted.I disagree. I would say that just because someone can provide proof of training is no guarantee of the existence of understanding or the ability to teach with expertise or understanding. Conversely, just because someone has not received some formal form of education in now way indicates that a person has not studied, pursued, and understood a broad range of views.
I, for one, have had professors that have earned degrees from institutions which would necessarily have required them to study intensely, and yet they were simpleton in their instruction. I have also met those without formal education (or higher forms of it) that were very well read and trained.
The system is artificial. It is what one knows, that what program(s) a person or person(s) have gone through that prove anything. Results, not degrees, are to be examined. Degrees, and from where, are the true anecdotal method. And the failure is (in part) the reason for this entire discussion.
[An example would be a medical doctor being unable to teach in a public high school (or his own children as a home schooling parent) because he does not have a teaching degree from an approved institution. It has nothing to do with what one knows, but rather is a system of control. Pursuing any government approval results in government control, eventually. It has no business in evaluating the teaching of the church, and the church has no business pursuing this evaluation.]
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[Louise Dan] Here’s my final concern. The opening article talks about government oversight like it’s an inappropriate encroachment of authority. On the other hand, maybe this is God’s common grace. He does say that He sets up secular authorities “not as a terror to good conduct, but to bad.”Louise, if the Federal government suddenly started taking a massive interest in making sure that your parenting style was acceptable - that kids’ bedrooms were big enough, that they got what they considered to be enough play time every day, and that all of their toys were on an approved list of acceptable items, would you still be make this argument that it’s a good thing? After all, parenting is nothing more than education and training for God’s service.
…If we take these verses literally, we are hard put to say the government in this case is doing an inappropriate thing. Some Christian institutions HAVE done wrong, though perhaps with good motives. And it is good and right that secular authorities oversee and correct this.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
the current president has NO educational degrees outside of BJU. Less than 15% or so of their faculty have terminal degrees from accredited institutions.Can you give us the accrediting agency guidelines on where degrees come from? I am curious as to what exactly these guidelines are. I have never actually seen anything on them. I did a little looking at SACS the other night and all I could find where the degree requirements for various levels (either Master’s or Doctorate) but no information as to where those degrees come from.
If a counseling professor who has no training in clinical psychology offers what sounds to be an informed opinion on, say, depression or bipolar disorder, it’s still suspect.As opposed to someone with no training in accreditation offering what sounds to be an informed opinion on, say, accreditation? :D …
But seriously, why is it suspect? (I am not saying it’s not, but I want to hear your reasons.)
Furthermore, who gets to determine whether or not something is suspect?
Some Christian institutions HAVE done wrong, though perhaps with good motives. And it is good and right that secular authorities oversee and correct this.Do you really think you can make a case that is “wrong” to have professors educated at certain institutions rather than others? I am fairly sure you would not be of the “legalistic” mindset, and that you would cry foul when someone raises “extrabiblical standards” and insists that other live by them. Perhaps I am misreading you on that. Here it sure sounds to me like you are raising up some standards that fall somewhat short of the typical notion of “wrong.”
Are we confident that the federal government is qualified to judge what a good theology professor might look like? Or what a good psychology professor looks like? Given the type of things that the federal government is defending and propogating in public education already, color me skeptical that they will do any better with higher education.
[Greg Long] Louise, please don’t use Romans 13 to justify governmental authority in anything other than what is mentioned in the passage—punishing those who do what is wrong and approving of, protecting, and serving those who do what is right. It has nothing to do with educational oversight.when the powers-that-be are inventing new definitions of “right” and “wrong”. Cooking with lard is now a sin? Angels forfend!
Those of us with nationally accredited degrees are treated the same as those without accredited degrees. We cannot get admittance into most (if not all) secular graduate programs; they are all now requiring a regionally accredited degree.
The closest thing they ever had was that the state of TN Dept. of Ed. approved TTU’s education degrees for certification. My wife got her TN certification after graduating from TTU, but that changed when the state legislature passed a law that necessitated regional accreditation for approved teacher training programs in the state.
I applied for the PACE program in SC (allows folks without teaching degrees to acquire certification), and was denied simply because my degree was from TTU and they are not regionally accredited.Bolded emphasis mine. (All of these quotes from the PCC seeking TRACS thread.)
THIS is the problem. If schools tell students and parents, “We’re accredited!” but fail to mention that their national accreditation will PREVENT the student who graduates with an education degree from getting a teaching certificate in well over half of the states in the nation, then that is WRONG!!!
And if the schools aren’t willing to police themselves, then I think it is good for the Federal government to step in and attempt to fix the problem and protect other students from spending thousands of dollars on degrees that are not recognized as legitimate.
I was also considering the fact that many colleges recognize the worth of life experience- I have been looking into going back to college to earn another degree, and I actually qualify for quite a few credits based on my life experience, and I can test out of several classes (and earn credits) based on my own independent reading and study. I would think that the church can do the same as well- a man given to study and of good character is just as qualified for ministry as he who has an alphabet soup of letters after his name. Personally, I think the character issue outweighs the education issue- you can teach an upright man, but a slime is a slime no matter how smart he is.
Other than for those who are dedicated to pure scholarship (which is a whole other ball of wax), I see no worth in federal accreditation of seminaries for the training of pastors. Gov’t employees are not the ones empowered by God to measure the legitimacy of ministerial qualifications- Paul covered those criteria well enough in Scripture.
If schools tell students and parents, “We’re accredited!” but fail to mention that their national accreditation will PREVENT the student who graduates with an education degree from getting a teaching certificate in well over half of the states in the nation, then that is WRONG!!!The problem is that people don’t take any responsibility to understand accreditation before they plunk down their thousands of dollars. There are a bazillion accrediting agencies out there, and schools right up front have the information of where they received accreditation available for anything with two brain cells to rub together.
But human nature is lazy and likes to lay itself on the doorsteps of others and not take any responsibility for researching and asking questions pertinent to their desired career path. The college is not being dishonest about credits not transferring, it’s the students and parents who aren’t doing their homework. One of the first things any student worth their weight in Skittles should ask is what other schools would accept their credits should they desire to transfer or pursue an advanced degree. And that goes for every college on the planet, not just Christian colleges.
What about the guy who is not a medical doctor claiming to be one? Should we let him practice without oversight? That’s the real analogy here.That’s actually not a good analogy, IMO. The MD and the PhD are two different types of degrees, with two different tracks, and two different purposes. Furthermore, the practice of medicine and the life of academia are two entirely different kinds of lives.
Furthermore, in the world of academia, one of the cherished principles is academic freedom which amounts, in many cases, to the lack of oversight (or at least a lack of teeth in the oversight). No one in an oversight position dare challenge the academic freedom of a tenured professor. Of course, this is inconsistently applied, but it is a principled dogma. Medicine doesn’t really celebrate freedom. In fact, failure to practice accepted medical norms can lead to all kinds of problems, including multi-million dollar lawsuits.
A professor at a regionally accredited can say something unorthodox every class period without any vetting and no one can call him on it. New medical advances have to go through long periods of testing and evaluation before they are even able to be labeled as “experimental.” And patients have to be fully informed that something is experimental.
[Louise Dan] What about the guy who is not a medical doctor claiming to be one? Should we let him practice without oversight? That’s the real analogy here. Personally, I don’t want to operated on by a guy with an honorary doctorate.Louise, my analogy stands. A piece of paper proves nothing either way. The whole accreditation scheme is artificial. That’s my point.
I’m addressing the superficial process whereby people or institutions are OK‘d. And I don’t think it has a place within the Church. There’s no such discussion in Scripture. The Word is the measure, not where one went to school, or who accredited someone. The local church selects their leaders with the help of other leaders. No mention is made of their diverse training backgrounds, etc.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
[Larry]Larry, I believe you’ve missed the point that was being made. No one is trying to say that PhD’s are out there trying to practice medicine. However, there are:What about the guy who is not a medical doctor claiming to be one? Should we let him practice without oversight? That’s the real analogy here.That’s actually not a good analogy, IMO. The MD and the PhD are two different types of degrees, with two different tracks, and two different purposes. Furthermore, the practice of medicine and the life of academia are two entirely different kinds of lives.
1. HONORARY DOCTORATES out there teaching/acting as if these are EARNED DOCTORATES
2. Professors whose highest degree is a BACHELOR’s DEGREE teaching students who are attempting to earn their BACHELOR’S DEGREE
This was the analogy … that there are professors teaching at TRACS schools who do not have the qualifications normally recognized to meet the requirements to do so.
Once again, I think you’ve got it wrong way ‘round. The Feds are not going after accreditation because of the nationals. They are going after accreditation because of the regionals.
The Feds are tired of paying money for students to attend institutions with national accreditation, only to have those students required to repeat the same hours when they transfer into a regionally accredited school. The Feds are tired of having regionally-accredited schools reject applicants for graduate programs when those applicants have graduated from nationally accredited undergrad institutions. It’s regionally accredited institutions that are creating the problem with their prejudicial attitude toward national accreditation (not just TRACS, but organizations like ABHE, DETC, etc., whose standards are sometimes more stringent than the regionals).
Here is a paragraph from a communication dated 14 Sept. 2009. It is from Robert Gomez of the Information Resource Center at the US Department of Education.
“There is no quality difference between regional and national accrediting agencies, nor does one outrank the other. Basically, regional agencies accredit public or private colleges and universities within a specific state or region, whereas the national agencies are specialized, meaning they accredit “programs” (programs, departments, schools) within a larger institution/university that is already accredited by a regional. It is really only a small group of the national agencies that accredit free-standing “institutions” like rabbinical, allied health, bible colleges, distance education, business, and vocational/occupational/trade/technical schools. “
This is pursuant to a separate communication dated 30 Aug. 2007, in which Carol A. Griffiths (chief of the Accrediting Agency Evaluation Unit of the Department of Education) stated,
“In order to be recognized by the Secretary, an accrediting agency must demonstrate to the Secretary’s satisfaction that it meets the Criteria for Recognition, which are stated in Federal regulation. The Criteria do not differentiate between types of accrediting agencies, so the recognition granted to all types of accrediting agencies-regional, institutional, specialized, and programmatic-is identical.”
Get it? In the eyes of the Feds, the nationals are just as good as the regionals. THAT’S the problem. When some regionally accredited institutions act prejudicially against some nationally accredited institutions, the Feds see money going down the drain.
Ironically, there are plenty of nationally accredited schools (including some TRACS schools) that are salivating for a Federal takeover. They see this as a quick way to solve problems of transfer credits, etc.
Accreditation never guarantees transfer of credits or recognition of degrees from other institutions, not even between regionally accredited schools. In virtually every case, other criteria will also be factored into the decision. Every institution (whether regionally or nationally accredited) will have its own rubrics for deciding those questions. The Feds are pushing for standardization. CHEA and the regionals are resisting—and I’m glad they are.
There is a real problem, but it is not the one you think. There is a need for standardization. The question is whether the solution to that problem should be left in the hands of the private sector (as it has always been), or whether it should simply be taken over by the government. If there is a government takeover, then all non-accredited institutions will lose the privilege (not right!) of granting degrees. For this and other reasons, I see a government takeover in this area as highly problematic.
Discussion