| 摘要 | Editor’s note: The next president is in for a rough welcome to the Oval Office given the list of immediate crises and slow-burning policy challenges, both foreign and domestic. What should Washington do? Why should the average American care? We’ve set out to clearly define US strategic interests and provide actionable policy solutions to help the new administration build a 2017 agenda that strengthens American leadership abroad while bolstering prosperity at home.
What to Do: Policy Recommendations for 2017 is an ongoing project from AEI. Click here for access to the complete series, which addresses a wide range of issues from rebuilding America’s military to higher education reform to helping people find work.
Key Points
State authorization is the regulatory process by which postsecondary institutions obtain the approval of a state agency to serve students in the state.
Most state authorizers do not require outcomes data from colleges when they initially apply for authorization, although a majority of agencies compile student outcomes data either during reauthorization or through annual reports. Roughly a third of authorizers do not require any outcomes information on an annual basis.
Most authorizing agencies do not disclose outcomes data annually for all authorized institutions, and there are concerns about the reliability of the data reported to state agencies by institutions. Just a few agencies have minimum performance thresholds for institutions.
To improve how states monitor institutional performance, state agencies should look to develop minimum performance thresholds; require and disclose program-level outcomes measurements; standardize outcomes measurements across agencies; and minimize institutional reporting while also linking reported data to other state administrative data sources.
Read the full PDF.
Executive Summary
In recent years, most proposals to reform quality assurance in higher education have targeted the federal government’s role in overseeing postsecondary institutions. In this context, it is easy to forget that state governments play a significant role too, through a process called state authorization.
State authorization is the regulatory process by which postsecondary institutions obtain the approval of a state agency to serve students within the state. In this capacity, states act as gatekeepers for their postsecondary systems. They are responsible for greenlighting colleges to operate within their borders, and over time they have the duty to protect state residents from poor-performing and fraudulent institutions. Federal law specifies little about states’ individual authorization processes, and authorization varies greatly by state.
Using a comprehensive survey of more than 5,500 regulatory documents from 69 state authorizing agencies across the 50 states and the District of Columbia, this report explores how state authorizers monitor the performance of postsecondary institutions: when and how must postsecondary institutions report information on their outcomes? What types of outcomes information do agencies require? How, if at all, do agencies disclose that information to students, parents, and the public? Are there repercussions for poor-performing institutions?
This analysis finds that most state authorizers do not require outcomes data from colleges when they initially apply for authorization, although a majority of agencies compile student outcomes data either during reauthorization or through annual reports. Roughly a third of state authorizers, however, do not require institutions to report any outcomes data on an annual basis. In addition, just a handful of authorizing agencies publicize the reported information on student outcomes for all authorized institutions. Numerous agencies require institutions themselves to disclose student outcomes to prospective enrollees.
Furthermore, this analysis found that few state authorizers have explicit minimum performance standards for institutions (such as a minimum completion rate or retention rate). While it is possible authorizers have unstated performance criteria in mind when overseeing institutional outcomes, it is not clear that indicators of performance are a factor in agencies’ authorization decisions. The outcomes data agencies collect can also be unreliable, particularly when it is self-reported by postsecondary institutions themselves. Definitions of outcome measurements vary from agency to agency as well.
In light of these findings, this report offers recommendations for states looking to shore up, standardize, and streamline their regulatory frameworks. It suggests that authorizers should:
Implement explicit minimum performance thresholds for institutions, which would help identify and sanction poorly performing schools;
Require and disclose program-level outcomes, in addition to institution-level outcomes;
Work to standardize outcomes reporting across agencies, and potentially use existing state authorization reciprocity agreements as a vehicle for producing common definitions for student outcomes measurements; and
Rely less on institutions to report certain outcomes indicators and, instead, require only basic and essential reported data from institutions. Authorizers should then and link that information to independently verifiable, administrative data sources so as to produce more and better information on outcomes.
Introduction
For generations, many have considered American higher education the best in the world. Our nation’s top universities consistently trounce other countries’ schools in international rankings. Many then assume that standard of excellence is true for all American colleges, top to bottom.1
In reality, some colleges are great, some are good, and some are downright bad. The US Department of Education’s College Scorecard shows, for instance, that 172 four-year institutions graduate more than 80 percent of their students in six years, but 1,402 institutions graduate less than half of their students in that time.2 Fortunately, policymakers are finally getting the memo, calling for better quality assurance for postsecondary institutions.3
The majority of proposed reforms address the federal role in higher education, particularly surrounding transparency, accountability, and consumer protection. Largely absent from these debates, however, is the role of state government. State governments have the responsibility of approving the postsecondary institutions in their state, a process called state authorization. A school must be formally authorized by the state(s) in which it operates to receive federal Title IV funds. State authorizing agencies also notably oversee institutions not participating in federal financial aid, schools largely outside of the purview of the federal government and accreditors.
Policymaker interest in state authorization has gradually gained speed. After years of minimal oversight, the Department of Education enacted regulations around state authorization in 2010, mandating that a school must comply with state law in all states where it educates students, not just the one state in which it is based. While courts struck down a portion of these regulations on procedural grounds, the regulations grabbed the attention of both institutions and state agencies.4 In 2016, the Obama administration has again proposed new rules requiring “institutions offering distance education or correspondence courses to be authorized by each state in which the institution enrolls students, if such authorization is required by the state.”5 These rules have not yet been enacted, and it is not clear if they will be before the next administration.6
Despite this activity, federal law specifies little about what states’ authorization processes actually entail. Authorization thus varies greatly across states. Many institutions—mostly online schools—also operate in multiple states, oftentimes having to seek authorization in each.7 This can be quite burdensome on both institutions and authorizers.8 In response, an effort to develop interstate reciprocity agreements—a common set of authorization standards across states—has emerged to lighten compliance and regulatory loads for schools and state agencies, respectively.9
While policymakers have paid little attention to state-level regulatory apparatuses, researchers have paid even less.10 As a result, we know less than we should about how states hold postsecondary institutions accountable for their performance.
In 2015, AEI’s Center on Higher Education Reform surveyed states’ regulatory regimes in a report titled Inputs, Outcomes, Quality Assurance: A Closer Look at State Oversight of Higher Education. The report asked basic questions such as: What types of agencies are involved in authorization processes? Do regulatory policies and approval processes focus on inputs—measures of an organization’s physical and human resources—or outcomes? What do states require of institutions in terms of consumer protections, such as tuition refunds or other safeguards?
The report found that state authorization processes overwhelmingly consider inputs—faculty qualifications, facilities, equipment, curricula, syllabi, library resources—when approving new colleges. Moreover, states rarely renew schools’ authorizations based on indicators of performance, even though many agencies require schools to report their outcomes to some extent.11 In short, state authorization all too often emphasizes the wrong end of the education process, focusing on inputs rather than outcomes.
In light of those findings, this report dives deeper into the outcomes portion of state authorization. It asks the following questions: Do states consider institutions’ outcomes in other states when those institutions are seeking authorization in their state? Do states monitor the outcomes of institutions on an annual basis, less frequently, or not at all? What kinds of outcomes measures do states require institutions to report, if any? Do states disclose outcomes to students? Do institutions face repercussions for poor performance?
To answer these questions and others, this paper builds on the methodology of the initial AEI report by coding the laws, regulations, and authorization applications of each state agency for rules around the reporting and disclosure of student outcomes. The analysis makes no effort to assess the effectiveness or burden of different agencies’ regulatory schemes. Instead, it examines state policies under the precept that an ideal regulatory system should monitor and disclose the performance of postsecondary institutions to protect consumers.
Read the full report.
Notes |
