\n\tBy SUSAN JONES<\/p>\n
\n\tThe U.S. Department of Education has released proposed new rules on accreditation<\/a> for colleges and universities, which would make it easier for new accrediting bodies to form and for colleges to change accreditors.<\/p>\n \n\tThe rules also would expand accreditor duties to include oversight of campus policies related to free speech and intellectual diversity.\u00a0<\/p>\n \n\tOne of the key provisions in the reforms is the ability to switch accreditors more easily.<\/p>\n \tPitt Provost Joe McCarthy, who led the University\u2019s last decennial accreditation team, said he has no problem with that idea. Indeed, he said he would recommend schools use Middle States Commission on Higher Education, which Pitt has been working with for more than 100 years.<\/p>\n \t\u201cI do know that one of the moves from the current administration has to do with reducing friction in changing accreditors. It\u2019s ironic that that\u2019s one of their main ones, because I don\u2019t think that Pitt has any interest in changing, because Middle States is doing such a nice job,\u201d he said. \u201cI would be happy to advocate for Middle States to any of our colleagues that want to change.\u201d<\/p>\n \tMcCarthy said Middle States recently made some changes in response to the Education Department\u2019s proposed guidelines.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cSome of the activity in accreditation, because it\u2019s not fully settled, and because it\u2019s a bit of a moving target, is still unclear, but I have paid attention to Middle States\u2019 responses to those changes in accreditation, and I\u2019ve been really pleased with their very deliberate, very intentional responses to the administration\u2019s opinions about accreditation,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \n\tThe other change that McCarthy sees as positive is having some more specific outcomes criteria. He said he recently finished working as a team lead for a peer institution\u2019s information review process.<\/p>\n \n\t\u201cWhat was new for me was actually having the team verify that student graduation rates and some other very specific quantitative measures \u2014 the financial health of the institution, for example \u2014 were things that I had not had to do in prior stints as a team lead, so I think those are positive changes to have, some more quantifiable accountability.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tA negotiating committee also proposed the following changes:<\/p>\n \n\t\t\tStreamlining transfer of credit policies<\/p>\n \n\t\t\tStrengthening conflict of interest controls between accreditors and their affiliated trade associations<\/p>\n \n\t\t\tOpening the market to new competition, which would shorten a requirement that companies conduct accreditation activities for at least two years prior to receiving approval from the department.<\/p>\n \n\t\t\tReducing accreditation cost burdens<\/p>\n \n\t\t\tEmphasizing merit and student outcomes, including performance on standardized assessments, licensure or certification results, retention, completion and graduation rates, post-completion outcomes, and educational and economic returns.<\/p>\n \n\t\t\tProtecting academic freedom and promoting intellectual diversity.\u00a0<\/p>\n \n\tThe Department of Education\u2019s Accreditation, Innovation and Modernization negotiated rulemaking committee reached a final consensus on the new proposals in May. Federal officials must now propose formal regulations that largely adhere to the negotiated draft before opening a window for public feedback.<\/p>\n \n\tIf the rules are finalized by Nov. 1, they would take effect on July 1, 2027.<\/p>\n \n\tPitt will begin its next formal accreditation process in November 2028, McCarthy said, so whatever standards are in place that would be what is used for Pitt.<\/p>\n \n\tSusan Jones is editor of the University Times. Reach her at suejones@pitt.edu<\/a> or 724-244-4042.<\/p>\n \n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n \n\tHave a story idea or news to share? Share<\/a> it with the University Times.<\/p>\n