蜜桃影视

In October 2012, the accrediting commission of New England Association of Schools and Colleges approved Southern New Hampshire University鈥檚 request to create an online, competency-based program that would partner with employers to provide a college education for just $3,000 per year. The program, College for America, was for providing students with a low-cost, high-quality education, helping to drive the university鈥檚 enrollment toward 100,000.

A few months later, a profile of a similar program offered by Bellevue University appeared in . Bellevue鈥檚 program was also online and competency-based and was targeting a total cost of a degree of $10,000. But as the program gained attention, Bellevue鈥檚 accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission, began to back away and change its position. Ultimately, it demanded that Bellevue shut down the program 鈥� not because of quality or viability, but for arcane governance reasons.

Accreditation in the context of innovation is essentially a game of Russian roulette. It is impossible to know what innovative models can or will be accredited, since similar initiatives are treated differently by different accreditors 鈥� even by the same accreditor at different points in time, or by different accrediting teams looking at the same institution.

This creates uncertainties for institutional leaders and creates untenable risks for schools with limited resources that are considering whether to bring innovative programs forward. Many institutions don鈥檛 feel they can afford the reputational damage involved in having a program shut down, and institutions do not want to risk having their accreditation revoked. Financial losses can also cut deep: Innovation can be expensive, especially when it鈥檚 shut down midstream. Ironically, the institutions that arguably need to innovate the most are often those that are not swimming in resources.

One could look at Southern New Hampshire University鈥檚 success with College for America and conclude that ; rather, perhaps, particular accreditors are. But a process that is so subject to individual interpretation and has a track record of inconsistently applying rules and standards cannot be a foundation for regulation supportive of innovation. As countless scholars have shown, investment in innovation does not thrive in climates of uncertainty.

No one wants to see innovation without quality 鈥� students, parents, and taxpayers are making massive investments into higher education, and is imperative to protecting their interests. So how can accreditors create clear rules of the road for higher education that assure high-quality programs but don鈥檛 stifle or discourage innovation?

First and most importantly, we could move away . Accrediting standards currently focus on making sure an institution has the right ingredients 鈥� professors, processes, committees, curriculum 鈥� and disregard outcomes, such as retention, graduation rates, job placement, salaries, and student satisfaction, almost entirely. Ingredients are a part of the quality puzzle, but they aren鈥檛 the whole picture; food reviewers judge the dishes that come out of the kitchen, not the ingredients that go into them. Similarly, schools that produce strong outcomes should be judged as high-quality; those with consistently weak outcomes shouldn鈥檛 receive taxpayer funding.

Second, accreditors should provide clearer guidance around how they will evaluate nontraditional approaches, and also provide transparency around processes and decisions. Higher education is expensive enough without the costs of schools innovating in the dark, not knowing when they will bump into an accreditation issue. Schools need to be able to design programs to fit accreditation standards 鈥� and if those standards are based on outcomes rather than inputs, this all becomes much easier.

Southern New Hampshire University鈥檚 achievements have led to thousands of students graduating from college who otherwise would have been locked out of higher education. We should want more schools to follow in its footsteps. To unleash innovation in higher education, accreditors must develop clear rules of the road that emphasize outcomes.

Alana Dunagan is a researcher at the Christensen Institute and co-author of .

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 蜜桃影视鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.