Monday, July 5, 2010

D.C. killed my school

You may already be aware that hottest topic on the Department of Education's agenda these days surrounds the issue of accredited nonprofit colleges and universities being purchased by for-profit entities. Given the current political climate in Washington, it should be no surprise that DOE's stance is decidedly against such events taking place, regardless of whatever merits there may be. There is even a snarky term applied to the practice: "Accreditation Shopping".

I won't say that abuses could not or have not occurred in such transactions, but I must point out that the term itself belies the realities of such a purchase taking place. A company buying a school does not automatically receive the accreditation of its purchase; it must submit a "Change of Control" request. In essence, the school is renewing its accreditation at that time, albeit, with a new and peculiar type of scrutiny.

Now, accreditation is not granted by the government, but it is required if a school is to receive any government monies. The unfortunate state of higher education at present is that most schools will find it impossible to operate without that money. Furthermore, no one wants to go to an unaccredited institution. Thus, accrediting agencies are under enormous pressure from Washington to bend with the political winds regarding education. So, if D.C. doesn’t want accredited nonprofit schools being bought by for-profit entities, the accrediting agencies are the tool to keep that from happening.

So, why do I care about any of this? Indeed, why do I even know about any of this? Well, it seems my Alma Matter, 126-year-old Dana College of Blair, NE, is one of the first to fall prey to the latest political attitudes on this subject. I don’t want to retell the whole story, frankly I’m exhausted with is, but here is link to one of the most comprehensive early articles from the Lincoln Journal Star. Here’s another, interesting one.

As an alum of Dana College, I've been monitoring the situation closely, and while I won’t diminish the role of the school leadership in allowing the college to arrive at the financial state it is in, it looks to me that the Higher Learning Commission pulled a fast one on Dana. The school acted in good faith to fulfill all the HLC's requests and address their concerns only to be turned on at the end.

The purchasing entity, the Dana Education Corporation (mind the name) was formed solely for the purpose of acquiring and strengthening the school based upon it's established mission. Kevin Abourezk of the Lincoln Journal Star states the situation most succinctly when he writes, "In denying Dana College's request for continuing accreditation, the Higher Learning Commission essentially rejected the proposed buyers' assertions they would retain the college's mission."

In a related Omaha World Herald story, Dana's board chairman and the president of the DEC are both sited believing that the accrediting body made its decision to send a message — that it's going to be much tougher for for-profit groups to buy nonprofit colleges than in the past — rather than simply reacting to the facts of Dana's specific situation.

At this time, the college, with support from various Nebraska leaders, including the governor, hope to pressure the HLC into reconsidering its decision. Of course, there is no formal appeal process, nor are the official reasons for denial of accreditation released to the public, or even the requesting institution, for that matter.

These practices, when viewed along with the matter at hand, put one question in my mind: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

No comments:

Post a Comment

Chime in, disagree, ask questions, or go off on a tangent. I try to get back to everyone, but be patient. The occasional expletive is understood, but try to keep the conversation polite. I prefer not to moderate comments, so don't give me any reason to.