Last week I wrote about how the voluntary college accrediting process first became involved in the federal government’s review in 1952 with the GI Bill.  The involvement grew. In 1965, Congress enacted the Higher Education Act (HEA). The new legislation increased federal resources given to colleges and universities, and created student scholarships and loans. The legislation also generated greater federal oversight of accreditation.

The 1992 reauthorization of the HEA (it is reauthorized every five years or so) allowed the Department of Education to rely on accrediting bodies for part of the approval process for access to federal resources. To be eligible, accrediting bodies must meet standards outlined in the HEA.

To assure standards, the reauthorization stipulated the creation of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality (NACIQI).  This group advises the Secretary of Education regarding the criteria for approving accrediting agencies.  To be approved, each accrediting groups is required to apply for recognition and be reviewed by NACIQI every five years.

With this action, accreditation became more closely intertwined with government action. Technically remaining independent, accrediting bodies now applied for governmental approval, agreed to adjust processes to match government regulations, and agreed to submit to government scrutiny. 

Independence of the once totally voluntary associations was diminished by the increase of federal review.

During the past 40 years, new accrediting bodies have developed.  In addition to regional associations, there now are national and specialized groups approved for federal participation.  all of the accrediting bodies desiring recognition by the Department of Education must meet the same standards and follow the same processes specified by the Higher Education Act and are reviewed regularly by NACIQI.

Ten days ago, Hiwassee College began a review process with a national accrediting body approved by the U.S. Department of Education.  We are well on our way to being accredited by this group.  We also are reapplying to SACS.  Both bodies meet the same federal standards.

Interestingly, a 2006 review of SACS by NACIQI noted issues with their policies and procedures.  Some of those issues were raised in our litigation.  At the same time, the national body with whom we are working was reviewed with minimal comment.

While regional accreditation has been the norm for a hundred years, quality institutional review and accreditation can be found in national bodies meeting the same standards and following the same review process.