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.
- 89 views
The old model of accreditation had to do with what I call the “brick and mortar” concept. It focused more on peripherals, which may or may not have had an impact on the quality of education. These things included building space, volumes in the library, laboratories, faculty salaries, lounge and recreational facilities for students, etc. I am NOT arguing that these things are totally irrelevant but I’m saying that they in themselves did not necessarily produce a quality education. For example, quality instruction and learning has taken place in less than desirable surroundings and adverse conditions.I do not see focus or over-emphasis on the physical resources with the regional accreditation agencies I’ve investigated. If anything, when they mention facilities, it is in the general “appropriate to support the mission of the institution” vein. And, NO ONE is saying that facilities produce a quality education in, and of, themselves.
The foremost thinking about accreditation today is more toward outcomes rather than process as in the past. There are many ideas, of course, about how measure outcomes. The emphasis is shifting to requiring institutions to clarify their goals and design a strategy for achieving them. Of course, it’s more involved and complicated than this generalized, simple statement. Accreditation is based more on the institution’s self-study and movement toward established goals than “bricks and mortar.” This outlook is more amendable and consistent with the role of DE and digital media.Again, I do not see emphasis on bricks-and-mortar specifically in regional accreditation associations. I especially do not see it at the expense of measuring outcomes and developing strategies to achieve the institutional mission.
“[D] iscussing the whole concept in an abstract sense” is largely unproductive if we do not agree on the facts to begin with. I say “X,” and you say, “Clearly that is actually Y.” There is no way for us to have an abstract discussion.
[RPittman]Brother Pittman, I am assuming men like Apollos and Aqulia while not educated to the level of Paul had for their day a fairly good education. Remember, up to the 1920s, for a man to be educated meant he had a working knowledge of Latin to get into college. I’m not saying early Believers were all brainiacs. The point is they all spoke and in many cases read the language of the New Testament. That is not the case today.[Rob Fall]Oh, how do we know? Other than possibly Paul, can you name other first century Christians who were highly educated? It seems that the common people were the ones who heard Jesus gladly and Paul spoke of not many wise or noble being called. Do you have evidence to the contrary?[Audrey Cahilly]And if well educated according to the standards of the time, they were well versed in logic and rhetoric. Not to mention, if not knowledgeable in Hebrew, they had easy access to believers who were.[dcbii]Not to mention, of course, that they all already spoke fluent Greek.
It’s pretty easy to claim that what worked for the early church is exactly what our churches should do, but unfortunately, most churches today are not in the position of the early church, and frankly, lack the resources.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[RPittman] Although I am a teacher, education is an American fetish. In 1900, there were less than 100,000 high school graduates and less than 30,000 college graduates. People were knowledgeable but they didn’t have the formal education. I understand your position, which I probably held at one time, but I think the early church was pretty much a commoner class akin to the great awakenings in America. Christianity is not based on intellectual qualities but it is something common and in reach of all. Establishmentarian religion tends to make it intellectual because it has little else to offer. Paul is pretty clear that his preaching was not with intellectual persuasion or enticement. Intellectual prowess tends to exalt itself against God.Roland - I think society has changed just a little since the 1900s. The US has moved from a rural, agrarian based lifestyle to urban, industrialized (mechanized?) one. While I won’t disagree with you that Christianity flourishes in the “commoner class” (see I Cor. 1:26-2:13), and I certainly don’t mean to knock the “commoner class” (whatever that is and means), it seems like you, of all people (since you are a teacher by your own admission), ought to recognize that we’ve learned a LOT about theology and scripture, and we ought to make every effort to use whatever we can so long as it is subordinate to correct doctrine.
I am not saying that education doesn’t puff up, but rejecting education just because it might puff up seems to be silly at best and laziness at it’s worst. Besides, the role of the preacher is to take the stuff in God’s Word and make it accessible - more accessible - to everyone else. Education seems to be at least tacitly blessed in the Scriptures. Are we not commanded to study (I Timothy 3:14-16)?
Intellectual ignorance for the sake of ignorance (in order “to remain humble”) is no virtue.
"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
[RPittman]Bro. Pittman- forgive me for not making my question clearer. What I’m thinking is that we are talking as if there are hundreds if not thousands of young men out there called and qualified for ministry. Is that a valid assumption? Is it not more likely that there are very few young men who are called AND qualified who require the kind of training we are speaking of? It seems to me that the very presence of seminaries and Bible colleges has allowed too many young men to call themselves into ministry and qualify themselves with a degree and secure a position in a church with little more than a piece of paper, and there is no sifting process whatsoever to verify their call or qualifications.[Susan R] Aren’t we assuming that there is such a number of called and qualified men needing training that would require a large pooling of resources? Is that assumption accurate?With the advance of digital media, quality large scale can be made available through the local church in a mentorship-apprentice model. The cost is much less than the traditional model and the quality can be comparable. And, the lack of face-to-face interaction is compensated by the pastor mentorship. However, I think traditional institutions resist this because of significant investments in brick and mortar things.
If the number of young men suited for ministry is as small as I think it is, much of this concern over the ability of churches to meet the challenge of teaching and training men for ministry is moot. Can’t a few pastors and elders mentor a couple of young men in their church for a few years? What do we think mentoring entails anyway?
Whereas there may appear to be a glut of men with seminary diplomas, they are unwilling or unsuited temperamentally, spiritually, or otherwise to supply the needs. Thus, I would conclude that we need more training and educating to build a larger pool for drawing suitable candidates for the ministry.Roland’s statement above basically touches on the reasons why I am so concerned about the typical seminary training model:
1. Most men graduate with theological student debt. That’s a huge problem, especially since most churches can’t afford to pay enough for a family, house, car, and debt, if they can afford a F/T pastor to begin with.
2. Graduates, after specializing in ministry for their undergrad and grad schooling, really are at a disadvantage if they can’t find work “in ministry”. Potential employers look at them as not having marketable skills or being overqualified, and expect the graduate to take the position that they would normally offer as a six month stopgap until a church opens up. Without a job, they can’t pay their debts, which keeps them from getting a church that does eventually open up.
3. Graduates also usually have an unsaid assumption that they will be going to churches with a fully funded, fully benefit salaried position. Those F/T positions are rare and hard to get…men who are interested or willing to take a position of a pastor in the Colorado Rockies with a church of ten after getting an M.Div are also incredibly hard to find.
"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
[Jay C.]This quote made me smile. I see the Lord’s hand in how He has guided my life to this point because I have avoided much of the problems of points 1 & 2 by His providence. At first I thought I was a poor sap who wasted his college on a business degree and was called to ministry too late. I had a family and a job. Now I see that the Lord uses folks like myself in situations like the one listed above in # 3. I’ve spent the last 6 years as a hedge fund accountant and part time associate pastor while I complete seminary. What I previously saw as a waste of time, I now know is God preparing me for situations where I would have to work a job as well as pastor a church.Whereas there may appear to be a glut of men with seminary diplomas, they are unwilling or unsuited temperamentally, spiritually, or otherwise to supply the needs. Thus, I would conclude that we need more training and educating to build a larger pool for drawing suitable candidates for the ministry.Roland’s statement above basically touches on the reasons why I am so concerned about the typical seminary training model:
1. Most men graduate with theological student debt. That’s a huge problem, especially since most churches can’t afford to pay enough for a family, house, car, and debt, if they can afford a F/T pastor to begin with.
2. Graduates, after specializing in ministry for their undergrad and grad schooling, really are at a disadvantage if they can’t find work “in ministry”. Potential employers look at them as not having marketable skills or being overqualified, and expect the graduate to take the position that they would normally offer as a six month stopgap until a church opens up. Without a job, they can’t pay their debts, which keeps them from getting a church that does eventually open up.
3. Graduates also usually have an unsaid assumption that they will be going to churches with a fully funded, fully benefit salaried position. Those F/T positions are rare and hard to get…men who are interested or willing to take a position of a pastor in the Colorado Rockies with a church of ten after getting an M.Div are also incredibly hard to find.
THE PROBLEM:Read the bill summary http://edworkforce.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HR_2117_Bill_Summary.pdf] here . Call your U.S. Rep if you want them to support this bill.
Late last year, the Department of Education released a package of regulations they claimed would improve student financial aid programs. Two of these so-called “program integrity regulations” – the credit hour and state authorization regulations – would put the federal government in the middle of issues that have historically been the responsibility of individual academic institutions or states.
THE SOLUTION:
Congress needs to prevent federal overreach in academic affairs and protect student choice in higher education. That’s why Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) has introduced the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act (H.R. 2117) to permanently repeal the unnecessary credit hour and state authorization regulations.
I hope a bit of damage can be slowed or reversed.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
In other words, why not just become accredited by a regional accrediting agency.
MBBC did. Why not NIU or BJU?
how can anyone recommend institutions that are not regionally accredited?If the only thing that mattered about a school was the acceptance of its credits by regionally accredited schools, the implied answer there would clearly be “we can’t.” But as it is, lots of other things matter.
For example, since I’ve never personally sought a degree at a regionally accredited school, it didn’t matter that my previous degree was also not from a regionally accredited school. So in my own experience, regional accreditation has never mattered. It was not even on the list of “things that matter in a school” to me.
All the same, I do think these schools should move in that direction with whatever speed their mix of priorities will allow.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion