Volume 71 - Winter 1999	Download

Executive Director’s corner The Higher Education Amendments of 1998: Impact on Accreditation and Distance Learning

In late Fall 1998, the President signed into law the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (HEA98) as Public Law 105-244. The new legislation reauthorizes for five yeas the Higher Education Act. That act is the basic framework for federal policies in higher education and impacts the recognition requirements placed on NAACLS. The policies on accreditation are somewhat more positive then those within the HEA legislation passed in 1992. Some federal administrative burdens mandated for the accreditation process were reduced and no new ones added.

There are NAACLS committees now working to revise all Essentials. The reasoning behind the timing of this activity relates in part to rapid changes taking place within the professions. But it also closely relates to the need for NAACLS, as an accrediting body recognized by the USDE, to conform to mandates from both the old and new legislation. A process of negotiated rulemaking now taking place will determine the details of how the new law is implemented.

Discussion of the new legislation went on nationally for many months and several drafts appeared. NAACLS representatives were active in advocating for and against specific components of the legislation that related to our accrediting responsibilities. We were able to do this by collaborating with the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), the Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors (ASPA), and through an informal consortium of higher education leaders based in Washington.

One area of great concern to accreditors centered on the possibility that new criteria for assessing distance education programs would be developed. However, CHEA, ASPA and others were able to influence lawmakers and, as a result, distance education programs will fall under the same criteria as other programs and will not be subject to new and separate criteria. This is good news for programs undergoing accreditation and for accrediting bodies that already have criteria in place.

More good news related to distance education warrants mention. The HEA legislation established a new authority, Distance Education Demonstration Programs (DEDP). This authority permits the Secretary to select annually up to five institutions of higher education or consortia to experiment with waivers of federal rules. Such waivers could expand student aid access to distance learners who are not eligible under the regular rules.

In establishing the new authority, Congress was responding to rapid developments in distance education and broad political support for technology based innovations in delivery systems. At the same time, Congress was able to maintain an established system of quality assurance, which included the successful 1992 reforms that reduced fraud and abuse in student aid programs.

Institutions that will apply under DEDP will be required to demonstrate prior consultation with recognized accrediting bodies on quality assurance. It is significant that quality assurance and voluntary accreditation were given prominent roles in this demonstration. Some in Washington believe that it may lead to major policy changes in federal support for distance learners.

The earlier, 1992 HEA placed into the statute new and detailed standards for accrediting organizations to meet in order to be recognized by the Secretary of Education as an authority on the quality of education. The activities and responsibilities of voluntary accreditors were expanded to include many administrative and financial requirements. Through numerous small changes and some revised terminology, several administrative burdens on institutions and accreditors were reduced by HEA98. For example, the requirement related to unannounced site visits was eliminated. These are now optional instead of mandated.

While we are still bound to many responsibilities that were not traditionally the purview of accrediting bodies, for example the requirement to review default rates, there are improvements. From our viewpoint HEA98 reversed the attitude of Congress that accreditation was inadequate to meet certain requirements of student aid programs. HEA98 expresses more support for accreditation by reducing some administrative burdens. Further, it added no new burdens, it did not mandate new and separate criteria for distance education, and it clearly recognizes the role of voluntary accreditation within the DEDP. We can only hope that the negotiated rulemaking will continue the pattern of increasing federal appreciation for voluntary accreditation.

Top of the News
			A Bold New Look: the NAACLS accreditation/approval documents by Jennifer Zielinski, Gwen James Oriaikhi, and Monica Mitchell
			A call for volunteers by Megan Hennessy Eggert Meetings and Publicity Coordinator
			Designing professional curriculum using three taxonomic levels by Jane Adrian, EdM, MT(ASCP) NAACLS Site Visitor and Former CLSPRC Member
			Program Revitalization: a professional priority by Megan Hennessy Eggert Meetings and Publicity Coordinator
			Progress Reports for Initial Programs encouraging effective program evaluation by Monica Mitchell, MA Administrative Liaison
			Public Hearing announcement on CLS/MT Essentials
Features
			Dear Dr. NAACLS Systematic program review
			Executive Director’s corner The Higher Education Amendments of 1998: Impact on Accreditation and Distance Learning
			President’s report by Joeline D. Davidson, MBA, CLS(NCA), MT(ASCP) President, Board of Directors

	Select an Issue   Vol 109 - Fall 2011 Vol 108 - Summer 2011 Vol 107 - Spring 2011 Vol 106 - Volume 106 - Fall NAACLS News Vol 105 - Summer 2010 Vol 104 - Spring 2010 NAACLS News Vol 103 - Fall 2009 NAACLS News Vol 102 - Summer 2009 Vol 101 - Spring 2009 Vol 100 - Winter 2008 Vol 99 - Summer 2008 Vol 98 - Spring 2008 Vol 97 - Winter 2007 Vol 96 - Summer 2007 Vol 95 - Spring 2007 Vol 94 - Winter 2006 Vol 93 - Spring/Summer 2006 Vol 92 - Special Edition Vol 91 - Winter 2005 Vol 90 - Fall 2005 Vol 89 - Spring/Summer 2005 Vol 87 - Fall 2004 Vol 86 - Spring/Summer 2004 Vol 85 - Fall 2003 Vol 84 - Spring/Summer 2003 Vol 83 - Winter 2003 Vol 82 - Fall 2002 Vol 81 - Spring / Summer 2002 Vol 80 - Winter 2002 Vol 79 - Fall 2001 Vol 78 - Spring / Summer 2001 Vol 77 - Winter 2001 Vol 76 - Fall 2000 Vol 75 - Spring / Summer 2000 Vol 74 - Winter 2000 Vol 73 - Fall 1999 Vol 72 - Spring / Summer 1999 Vol 71 - Winter 1999 Vol 70 - Fall 1998 Vol 69 - Spring / Summer 1998 Vol 68 - Winter 1998 Vol 67 - Fall 1997 Vol 66 - Spring 1997 Vol 65 - Winter 1996 Vol 64 - Summer 1996 Vol 63 - Spring 1996 Vol 62 - Winter 1996 Vol 61 - Summer 1995 Vol 60 - Spring 1995 Vol 59 - Fall 1994 Vol 58 - Summer 1994 Vol 57 - Spring 1994 Vol 56 - Fall 1993 Vol 55 - Summer 1993 Vol 54 - Spring 1993 Vol 53 - Fall 1992 Vol 52 - Summer 1992 Vol 51 - Spring 1992 Vol 50 - Fall 1991 Vol 49 - Summer 1991 Vol 48 - Spring 1991 Vol 47 - Fall 1990 Vol 46 - Summer 1990 Vol 45 - Spring 1990 Vol 44 - Fall 1989 Vol 43 - Summer 1989 Vol 42 - Winter 1989 Vol 41 - Fall 1988 Vol 40 - April 1988 Vol 39 - December 1987 Vol 38 - September 1987 Vol 37 - Spring 1987 Vol 36 - Winter 1987 Vol 35 - October 1986 Vol 34 - November 1985 Vol 33 - November 1984 Vol 32 - July 1984 Vol 31 - November 1983 Vol 30 - November 1982 Vol 29 - November 1981 Vol 28 - December 1980 Vol 27 - August 1980 Vol 26 - September 1979 Vol 25 - August 1979 Vol 24 - June 1979 Vol 23 - February 1979 Vol 22 - October 1978 Vol 21 - July 1978 Vol 20 - April 1978 Vol 19 - October 1977 Vol 18 - July 1977 Vol 17 - April 1977 Vol 16 - February 1977 Vol 15 - November 1976 Vol 14 - September 1976 Vol 13 - June 1976 Vol 12 - December 1975 Vol 11 - October 1975 Vol 10 - August 1975 Vol 9 - July 1975 Vol 8 - June 1975 Vol 7 - April 1975 Vol 6 - February 1975 Vol 5 - December 1974 Vol 4 - November 1974 Vol 3 - September 1974 Vol 2 - August 1974 Vol 1 - June 1974