Commentary: Online Colleges Can Be Great for Students, but Accreditation Can Stifle Innovation. Focusing on Quality & Outcomes Can Help
In October 2012, the accrediting commission of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges granted approval to Southern New Hampshire University’s request to establish an online, competency-based program in collaboration with employers, offering a college education for only $3,000 per year. This program, named College for America, was hailed as an innovative solution by then-President Barack Obama for providing students with a high-quality education at an affordable price, resulting in a significant increase in the university’s enrollment, reaching almost 100,000 students.
A few months later, Inside Higher Ed featured a profile on Bellevue University’s comparable program, which was also online and competency-based, aiming for a total degree cost of $10,000. However, as this program gained attention, Bellevue’s accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission, began to distance itself and alter its stance on the program. Eventually, the commission demanded that Bellevue shut down the program, not due to concerns about its quality or viability, but due to technical reasons related to governance.
The process of accreditation in the context of innovation can be likened to playing Russian roulette. It is impossible to predict which innovative models will receive accreditation, as similar initiatives are evaluated differently by various accreditors, including the same accreditor at different points in time, or even by different accrediting teams assessing the same institution.
This uncertainty poses challenges for institutional leaders and presents significant risks for resource-constrained schools weighing the decision to introduce innovative programs. Many institutions fear the potential damage to their reputation if a program is shut down, and they are unwilling to risk having their accreditation revoked. Financial losses can also be substantial, considering that innovation can be costly, particularly when interrupted prematurely. Ironically, it is often the institutions that most desperately need innovation that find themselves lacking sufficient resources.
Some may argue that Southern New Hampshire University’s success with College for America proves that accreditation and innovation are not inherently incompatible, but rather that certain accrediting bodies may be hindering progress. However, a process that is open to individual interpretation and has a history of inconsistently applying rules and standards cannot form the basis for regulation that supports innovation. Numerous scholars have demonstrated that investment in innovation does not thrive in uncertain environments.
Nobody advocates for innovation without quality assurance. Students, parents, and taxpayers invest significant amounts of money in higher education, and it is crucial to protect their interests by ensuring effective quality assurance. Therefore, how can accreditors establish clear standards for higher education that guarantee high-quality programs without stifling or discouraging innovation?
First and foremost, the current system that primarily focuses on inputs should shift to one that prioritizes outcomes. Accrediting standards currently concentrate on ensuring that institutions possess the necessary components, such as faculty, processes, committees, and curriculum, while largely overlooking outcomes, including retention rates, graduation rates, job placement, salaries, and student satisfaction. While ingredients are a crucial part of the quality puzzle, they do not offer a complete representation; instead, it is the final dishes that are judged by food critics, not the individual ingredients. Similarly, institutions that consistently produce positive outcomes should be considered high-quality, while those with consistently weak outcomes should not receive funding from taxpayers.
Secondly, accreditors should establish clearer guidelines on how nontraditional approaches will be evaluated, in addition to providing transparency regarding processes and decisions. Higher education is already expensive enough without the added costs associated with schools innovating blindly, unaware of when they may encounter accreditation issues. Schools need the ability to design programs that align with accreditation standards, and if those standards are based on outcomes rather than inputs, the process becomes much smoother.
The achievements of Southern New Hampshire University have allowed thousands of students to graduate from college who may have otherwise been denied access to higher education. It is in our best interest to encourage more schools to follow in their footsteps. To facilitate innovation in higher education, accreditors must establish clear guidelines that prioritize outcomes.
Alana Dunagan, a researcher at the Christensen Institute and co-author of "Accreditation on the Edge: Challenging Quality Assurance in Higher Education," emphasizes the need for accreditation bodies to create a regulatory framework that supports innovation while ensuring quality assurance.