RSN Fundraising Banner
Betsy DeVos Reinstates Controversial Gatekeeper of For-Profit Colleges
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=49587"><span class="small">Laura Meckler, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Thursday, 22 November 2018 14:30

Meckler writes: "Education Secretary Betsy DeVos on Wednesday restored federal recognition to a controversial agency that accredits for-profit colleges and that the Obama administration tried to shut down."

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. (photo: Joshua Roberta/Reuters)
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. (photo: Joshua Roberta/Reuters)


Betsy DeVos Reinstates Controversial Gatekeeper of For-Profit Colleges

By Laura Meckler, The Washington Post

22 November 18

 

ducation Secretary Betsy DeVos on Wednesday restored federal recognition to a controversial agency that accredits for-profit colleges and that the Obama administration tried to shut down, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post.

The move is one in a series of steps DeVos has taken to undo an Obama-era crackdown that she argues unfairly singled out for-profit schools for scrutiny not applied to other colleges. But critics say she is propping up an industry with a track record of misleading students and poor educational outcomes.

In December 2016, the Obama administration ruled that the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, known as ACICS, should no longer be allowed to serve as a gatekeeper between colleges and billions of dollars in federal financial aid. It concluded that the agency was incapable of rectifying years of lax oversight and “exhibited a profound lack of compliance” with the “most basic” responsibilities of an accreditor.

But in March, a federal judge ordered DeVos to reconsider that decision, finding that the Obama staff had failed to review thousands of pages of evidence.

A senior Education Department official, Diane Auer Jones, reviewed the record and in September recommended that DeVos reinstate ACICS. She found that the council was out of compliance with two out of 21 criteria but recommended it be given a year to fix those problems. She also recommended monitoring in a handful of other areas.

DeVos agreed and in her decision characterized the Education Department under Obama as having ignored or mischaracterized relevant evidence when ruling that the accrediting agency be removed from the student loan program. DeVos said those recommendations suffered from “circular reasoning” and “a desire to achieve a preordained result.”

In her recommendation, Jones found that ACICS has been asked to make changes and had done so. For instance, it was asked to better monitor job placement by the colleges it accredited, and it implemented a sophisticated system, she said. She also said the prior administration had imposed a double standard — tolerating other accreditors’ failure to catch problems but not this one’s.

And she said the prior administration cited investigations and lawsuits targeting ACICS but not final judgments. “I am concerned that a presumption of guilt guided the decision-making process, and that this sets a troubling precedent,” Jones wrote.

DeVos’s decision was expected to be delivered early Wednesday to ACICS.

For a school to participate in the federal student loan program, it must be accredited by a federally recognized organization. ACICS, once one of the largest national accreditation agencies, was the choice of about 300 for-profit schools, though most found new accreditors after the Obama administration moved to cut off ACICS.

The accreditor’s troubles came to a head in 2015 after it asserted that Corinthian Colleges, a for-profit chain that state and federal authorities said committed fraud, was in good enough standing to get billions of dollars in taxpayer money. The council renewed two of Corinthian’s campuses and authorized a new campus a few months before the Education Department forced the school to close or sell its 120 locations.

In the aftermath of the Corinthian collapse, the Obama administration became increasingly critical of the accrediting process.

In asking DeVos to reconsider ACICS’s standing, the council cited changes it made in response to the concerns. Those include overhauling its collection of school data and a greater focus on student outcomes. In the months before it was ousted, the council heralded increased on-site evaluations, removal of board members with conflicts of interest, new leadership and stepped-up enforcement actions. ACICS’s threat to revoke the accreditation of the for-profit ITT Technical Institute set in motion events that led to its shutdown.

But those efforts failed to quell critics. Liberal lawmakers, state attorneys general and consumer advocates said the accrediting agency allowed schools accused of fraud or possessing abysmal graduation rates to receive millions of dollars in federal loans and grants, despite the risks to students and taxpayers.

The government has depended on private-sector accreditors to be the stewards of federal financial aid, the lifeblood of colleges and universities, since the early 1950s. Each accreditor sets its own standards, which are reviewed by an advisory board at the Education Department, yet the department has no say in how the agencies do their job. Still, the department sets standards and can deny an accrediting agency the recognition it needs to operate.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Last Updated on Thursday, 22 November 2018 09:56
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+1 # chapdrum 2018-11-22 15:57
It looks like anything else other than entirely unprecedented legislation to remove not just Don, but his ENTIRE cabinet...will simply not move us out of our dangerous predicament.
 
 
-1 # 1dfnslblty 2018-11-23 08:02
Headline and conclusion do not match; editor at rsn appears to be asleep.
Find a writer and publisher who condemns charter schools
 
 
+2 # laborequalswealth 2018-11-23 08:12
Why are we giving money to any PRIVATE accreditation organization? This is something the GOVERNMENT should do.

They can find more ways to funnel our tax dollars to thieves.
 
 
0 # economagic 2018-11-23 17:29
I taught at a mostly worthless for-profit business and technical school for a few months in 1969 and was surprised only at how long it took for such schools to make the headlines. Public colleges and universities in the US are subject to accreditation by one or more of a number of non-profit organizations that in turn are accredited by the US Department of Education. The process is a little different in structure at the primary and secondary levels.

ACICSc, in contrast, appears to have the same unregulated relationship to the institutions it rates as the three bond rating services do to the bond merchants who pay them, thus insulating Wall Street firms from knowledge of the actual quality of the bonds. Common sense would have the party who gets screwed if the product is not as advertised pay for the rating directly or by proxy in the way that the bank pays for the appraisal of the house you're trying to trying to sell (and then recoups it at the closing).

What bothers me is how not merely the president has the authority to change many rules by fiat (leaving them open to change by future presidents) but also cabinet officers and apparently some lower-level functionaries.