Harris Miller of CCA Responds to Stephen Burd on For-Profit Accreditation Issues

The following is a response from CCA President and CEO Harris N. Miller to Stephen Burd's "Ed Dept's IG Sends a Shot Across the Bow of Accreditors":

Yesterday I was contemplating our remarkable country...Enabling an individual from a straitened background, “Barry” Obama, as he is now known to local DC radio listeners, to graduate from Harvard Law School and then be elected our nation’s first African American President…President Obama then appointing my friend Howard Schmidt, veteran, former local law enforcement official, and graduate of a groundbreaking institution, the University of Phoenix, to be our nation’s top cybersecurity cop.   My reverie was thrown slightly off kilter, however, when I read another diatribe against private sector higher education from Stephen Burd.   If a doubt existed about Burd’s ability to cover higher education with equal treatment and fairness, let it finally be laid to rest. In his latest screed, Mr. Burd lathers himself in phony outrage by trying – and abjectly failing again – to string together a narrative about poor accreditation oversight of the for-profit higher education sector. Perhaps Mr. Burd’s arguments would be more compelling were his evidentiary support more than the less-than-meaningful combination of: 1) a report about dubious for-profit accreditation from more than a decade ago and 2) a single accreditation issue affecting one college at one time that is based on a debate, as important as it is, between bean counters and academics.

If Mr. Burd deems policing the higher education ranks his personal mission, then one wonders when he will get around to underscoring the shortcomings in other sectors. Notably, Mr. Burd has continued to give short shrift, for instance, to more than 100 not-for-profit schools on the Department of Education’s financial risk list that still hold their accreditation from various regional accreditors despite hanging on the precipice. Mr. Burd also fails to acknowledge the numerous four year programs and community colleges across the country with graduation rates in the thirties, twenties or even teens. If Mr. Burd requires robust facts and hard analysis for his public advocacy, he need not twist what little evidence exists for problems within for-profit higher education. There is plenty of material to chew on beyond the purview of our sector.

What’s most notable is that the Inspector General’s (IG) report that so alarms Mr. Burd added little to substantive problem solving but simply gave vent to hysterics. And for Mr. Burd himself, one can almost see his spittle flying off the screen.  And, of course, he is attacking a body, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), which clearly is “in the bag” to for profit higher education, which is the premise of his attack.  In case no one has looked at the HLC Board of Trustees recently, the members are listed below.  But exactly who among this group is turning a blind eye to alleged shortcomings?  Is it the Ohio Supreme Court Judge?  The leaders of the various community colleges?  The elected officials?  Maybe it is the leader of the for profit sector who serve?  Cannot be them, however, because there are none.  Even without the IG’s “alert memorandum”, the parties in charge were acknowledging changes were in order and action was required. The Higher Learning Commission (HLC) had notified the school involved of concerns about how credit hours in online courses are evaluated long before the IG’s memorandum was ever circulated. The HLC ultimately concluded that while this was an issue that required further examination and action, it did not justify precluding the institution in general from accreditation.

What’s important here is to understand the nature of the dispute. This is a disagreement among academic specialists on how to define and qualify online coursework under the “class time” rubric. While there are differences of opinion—and while the Office of Inspector General has long questioned any form of distance education, so this is nothing new—see, e.g., recent reports on Middle States and SACS and the Acting IG’s testimony before Congress in October--reasonable people should be allowed to disagree without government investigators jumping into the mix.

The uproar over awarding credit hours for online classes springs from the evolution of higher education and the need to embrace innovation in the higher education process. Classroom attendance is not the sole province of academic worthiness. Basing academic credits in such a single-minded and rudimentary way is out of step with the needs of students generally and non-traditional students specifically. The Department of Education has recognized the need to further explore the issue of what constitutes a credit hour in new form of higher education learning, making that a topic of discussion for the current negotiated rulemaking. The Office of Postsecondary Education also released a paper recognizing that learning options have expanded in type and access, and that using the traditional model of “seat time” as a basis for evaluating online education is not acceptable.  And, of course, the recent meta-analysis commissioned by the Department and trumpeted by Secretary Duncan shows distance education can often produce better academic outcomes than “butts in seats” approaches.

Perhaps what is most appalling about Mr. Burd’s post is the reference to “unscrupulous” schools.  Mr. Burd has no qualms about needlessly and unfairly undermining confidence in the Department of Education, the accreditation process, or anyone else who simply does not understand what he learned as “truth” in his college courses—“for profit” and “higher education” never belong in the same sentence.  Not to say his continued willingness to attack the education choice of approximately 2.5 million students being educated at for profit schools, including perhaps the next Howard Schmidt.   Mr. Burd’s has a clear vendetta against for-profit education. Even when the evidence against proprietary schools is outdated, circumstantial or just plain missing, Mr. Burd always sees an attack opportunity. He ignores endorsements by independent third parties, such as recent reports by the National Governors’ Association and Americans for Democratic Action. Perhaps he should be examining his own motives in regards to for profit institutions.

Mr. Robert R. Cupp - Justice, Supreme Court of Ohio  -
Mr. Joseph A. Garcia - President - Colorado State University-Pueblo
Dr. Leslie H. Garner, Jr. - President - Cornell College
Dr. Carmen  L. Gonzales - Vice President for Student Success/Dean of the College of Extended Learning - New Mexico State University
Dr. Lorraine M. Hale - President - Presentation College
Dr. Timothy Hartshorne - Professor of Psychology - Central Michigan University
Mr. David Ho - Vice President of Academic Affairs - Metropolitan Community College
Dr. Cynthia Lindquist Mala - President - Cankdeska Cikana Community College
Dr. Nancy A. McDowell - Professor of Anthropology - Beloit College
Dr. Margaret M. Murdock - Associate Provost for Academic Affairs and Dean of Outreach - University of Wyoming
Dr. Kathleen L. Nelson - President - Lake Superior College
Mr. David  Nething - State Senator - State of North Dakota
Ms. Janis Purdy - President - Services to Nonprofit Organizations
Dr. Marlene I. Strathe - Provost & Sr Vice President - Oklahoma State University
Mr. Michael Strong - Executive Director - Oklahoma Quality Award Foundation, Inc.
Mr. J. Guadalupe Valtierra - Branch Chancellor - Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana
Dr. Jacqueline A. Vietti - President - Butler County Community College
Dr. Albert L. Walker - President - Bluefield State College
Mr. James F. Williams - Dean of Library  Administration - University of Colorado at Boulder