Published on 2013/01/30

Regulating Higher Education: Roles and Responsibilities

Regulating Higher Education: Roles and Responsibilities
While it is critical for the government to provide some level of oversight to the higher education industry to ensure students are being protected, higher education institutions should continue to use peer accreditation as a balance to that oversight.

Much has been written and discussed in the past decade about the need for greater oversight of the costs and productivity of American higher education. The federal government is concerned about its investment of billions of dollars in financial aid each year, especially in the wake of several scandals among some of the private, for-profit colleges. The states and localities that have historically made the largest financial contributions to public university systems and community colleges are facing the fiscal realities of a great recession and a slow economic recovery. The colleges and universities themselves — via peer regional accreditation agencies — are significantly more aware of the importance of costs, assessment, student outcomes and overall academic quality. The purpose of this article is to examine the agencies most involved in providing oversight and regulating our higher education system and to argue that all have critical roles to play.

The federal government has the right to protect its investment in financial aid programs (and does so through the Department of Education), and should do everything necessary to prevent fraud and abuse. Purveyors of unscrupulous and illegal practices in the higher education private, for-profit sector, as documented in 2011 by the undercover investigation of the Government Accountability Office[1], should be punished severely with steep fines and, if need be, the threat of disqualification from participation in federal financial aid programs for repeated offenses. A 2012 Senate Investigative Report[2] also highlighted the practices of some of these colleges in terms of misleading students and overselling the benefits of their programs, especially with regards to employment opportunities after degree completion. The federal government should be aggressive in pursuing these abuses. Especially given the amount of financial aid money spent on such programs, and the amount of personal debt students can accrue from enrolling with institutions not interested in seeing them through to graduation.

State education departments are responsible for developing and supporting public and higher education opportunities in this country. Depending on their history, economic culture and willingness to invest in higher education, some states have performed better than others in regulating colleges and universities. The Massachusetts Department of Higher Education, for instance, is arguably the most scrupulous in developing guidelines and evaluating the academic integrity of the institutions that operate within its borders. More states would be wise to follow Massachusetts’ example. This is especially true now that online education has allowed colleges and universities to operate seamlessly across geographical boundaries. States need to rigorously examine and reexamine their evaluation guidelines for colleges and universities to operate within their borders regardless of how instruction is delivered. Issues related to gainful employment, time to degree, faculty qualifications, terms of employment and provision of support services are among the criteria that need closer examination and scrutiny.

American higher education has relied extensively on evaluation by independent accreditation agencies approved by the federal Department of Education. Agencies such as the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and the Middle States Commission on Higher Education take their responsibilities seriously and have been ahead of the curve in requiring colleges and universities to assess the quality of academic programs. In the 1990s, the regional accreditation agencies revamped their standards for evaluation substantially by adding new requirements for assessment, especially with regard to student outcomes. The accreditation agencies have also developed standards relating to distance and online learning. If we want to maintain the professionalism of American higher education (and, I would argue, the reputation it enjoys throughout the world) the existing accrediting agencies have a most important role to play.

In closing, no organizations welcome oversight and regulation but, given the importance of the higher education sector for the success of our society and way of life, they are necessary. No single agency has the wherewithal or expertise to do this alone. Federal, state and local governmental agencies can provide the leadership, but they have to be careful of political influences and well-financed lobbying campaigns that distort sound practice for other purposes and financial gain. The colleges and universities themselves, through peer accreditation as well as their own internal reviews, need to continually evaluate the quality of their programs to provide a balance to government oversight. Ultimately, by working together, all can maintain American higher education as a model for the rest of the world.

– – – –


[1] Experiences of Undercover Students Enrolled in Online Classes at Selected Colleges GAO-12-150, Oct 31, 2011.

[2] For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Consolidated Administration: The Key to Delivering a 60-Year Curriculum

Shift the status quo to achieve long-term success and viability for your university.

Read here

Readers Comments

WA Anderson 2013/01/30 at 10:09 am

This article begs the question: could more direction be given from the top (that is, the federal government) in terms of developing assessment standards? While understanding that state education departments ultimately need to retain control of this process, the federal government could play a bigger role in encouraging states — particularly those that are less rigorous in their evaluations — to revisit and modify their existing standards/guidelines.

I’m not saying the federal government would have to start developing national standards/guidelines, but it could perhaps act as a facilitator for information sharing among states to develop “best practices.” As the author points out, online and distance learning is allowing colleges and universities to cross state borders. It would be wise to have evaluations of institutions do the same.

Greg Allen 2013/01/30 at 3:03 pm

I think this article does a good job of pointing out how the different agencies that provide oversight are complementary. As Picciano points out, each one performs a necessary function, be it assessing the quality of academic programs offered or faculty selection processes. This system of checks and balances will ensure that our institutions remain among the top in the world.

M L GUPTA 2016/03/14 at 11:35 am

I opened this article to learn about the mechanism in America to carry out necessary oversight over university professors, whether they are doing their academic work in a professional and honest manner or simply misguiding students and indulging in student politics as our JNU professors. I couldn’t get what I was looking for because in India it is all the Government of India expenditure to run a JNU whereas it seems to be different in America. We can’t afford to waste the precious time and money of the public, students and academic profession generally. Hope to learn more at another place. Thanks you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *