2AC Reform Accreditation Page 1 of 13

WARNING: Copyrighted 2017 by DFW Speech & Debate. Only the lawful owner is authorized to use this material.
2AC Reform Accreditation Page 1 of 13
2AC Reform Accreditation

STRATEGY NOTE .................................................................................................1
STANDARD: Increasing education innovation ............................................................................. 2
OPENING QUOTES ...............................................................................................3
Opening Quote: Drain the Swamp of Accreditation ................................................................... 3
Opening Quote: The Accreditation Cartel Undermines Accountability ......................................... 3
INHERENCY: ..........................................................................................................4
Inherency: Purpose of Accrediting Agencies ................................................................................. 4
Inherency: Accreditation Effects Financial Aid Dollars ................................................................. 4
Inherency: How Accrediting Agencies are Authorized .................................................................. 5
SIGNIFICANCE ......................................................................................................6
Significance: Harms innovation ...................................................................................................... 6
Reduces incentive to revise existing business models ............................................................ 6
Limits the Idea and Experience of Higher Education ............................................................. 7
Significance: Accreditation focused on inputs not results .............................................................. 7
Significance: Accreditation does not guarantee academic quality ................................................. 8
Significance: Accreditation Agencies are Funded By the Colleges they Rate ............................... 8
Significance: The Accreditation Process is a Cesspool of Corruption ........................................... 9
Significance: Majority of Accreditation Commissioners work for the colleges they oversee ....... 9
Significance: Specific example of failure ....................................................................................... 9
ACICSs Lax Standards Harm Students ............................................................................... 10
ACICS Accreditation System Has Failed ............................................................................. 10
ACICS Dismal Record .......................................................................................................... 11
SOLVENCY: ................................................................................................................................ 11
Solvency: Plan/reform advocates .......................................................................................... 11
Allow Any Institution to Accredit ........................................................................................ 12
Limited Government Intervention Provides Educational Opportunities .............................. 12
Remove Federal Funding and Accreditation ........................................................................ 13
STRATEGY NOTE
Overview of stock issues
Inherency: Under Inherency the two main points you need to press are Firstly That accreditation
fails to measure quality education. This is true because accrediting agencies only measure the
inputs of institutions, such as their mission statement, how many books they have in their library,
etc., not the outputs like graduation rates, student learning and outcomes, etc. which are essential
to measuring the quality of education. Secondly accreditation is fraught with conflicts of interest.
Whether the conflicts of interest arise from wishes of keeping business and revenue by not
denying renewal of accreditation or decision makers in accreditors being biased towards the
institutions they accredit, the system is extremely fraudulent. These conflicts of interest
encourage badly performing schools entering the system and good ones not, denying students
educational opportunities and quality education.
Significance: There are three main points that are imperative to argue under significance. Firstly
how accreditation doesnt improve the quality of higher education, by providing little incentive
for institutions to enhance their quality and actually preventing innovation. Secondly how
accreditation is actually limiting the educational opportunities of students. They do this by
number one limiting the scope, idea, and experience of higher education and by forcing students
who wish to receive federal financial aid to go to accrediting agencies, whether they provide
quality education or not. The third and final point is that accreditors are not preventing fraudulent
and poorly-performing schools entering the system. Overall this harms the quality of higher
education and harms the quality and learning of students who attend accredited institutions.
Solvency: The most important argument of the day here, is how important that we allow the
private sector to rate the quality of the education of institutions. By allowing them too it spurs
competition, innovation, and improves the quality of education overall. The secondly its
essential to argue how important it is to examine and review student learning and outcomes to
rate the quality of the education institutions provide.
Negative thesis: Because accreditation agencies are stifling innovation with inflexible policies,
we should delink federal funding from accreditation to encourage educational innovation
STANDARD: Increasing education innovation
OPENING QUOTES
Opening Quote: Drain the Swamp of Accreditation
Research Analyst at the American Enterprise Institute Preston Cooper 18 November 2016
(Preston Cooper is a research analyst in education policy at the American Enterprise Institute
and former fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He holds a B.A. in economics from Swarthmore
College) Many Accreditors Have Conflicts Of Interest, published by Forbes,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2016/11/18/the-double-lives-of-higher-educations-
watchdogs/#18253cf461a7
Dealing with Americas college cartel should be high on the agenda for the next Congress and
the new administration. If President-elect Donald Trump truly wants to drain the swamp, he
could start with accreditation.
MPX: Its time we allow the free market to operate, by allowing the private sector to
accredit, and to break the cartel of higher education accreditation and allow competition to
flourish.
Opening Quote: The Accreditation Cartel Undermines Accountability

Research Analyst at the American Enterprise Institute Preston Cooper 15 June 2016 (Preston
Cooper is a research analyst in education policy at the American Enterprise Institute and former
fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He holds a B.A. in economics from Swarthmore College)
College Accreditors Get An F, published by Forbes,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2016/06/15/college-accreditors-get-an-
f/#65271dd314c6
The winners here are colleges, which have access to an effectively-unlimited stream of federal
money with very few measures to keep them accountable. That this framework attracts some
unsavory institutions such as Corinthian Colleges and ITT Educational Services should surprise
no one. The root of the problem is not ACICSit is the structure of the whole system.
MPX: Its important to realize that this issue of corruption and conflicts of interest is not
isolated just to ACICS, but like a contagious disease, it has spread to and harmed the whole
system.
INHERENCY:
Inherency: Purpose of Accrediting Agencies
ACICS (Accrediting Council For Independent Colleges And Schools), (The Accrediting Council
for Independent Colleges and Schools is a non-profit education corporation that was formerly
recognized by the United States Department of Education as an independent and autonomous
national accrediting body), The Role of Accrediting Agencies, published by ACICS,
http://www.acics.org/accreditation/content.aspx?id=1916
Accreditation is a deliberate and thorough process and is entered into voluntarily for purposes
of quality assurance and institutional enhancement. Accrediting agencies assess compliance with
published administrative and academic standards and seek a continuous striving for excellence
on the part of the institutions they accredit. As such the accrediting agencies serve students,
society, higher education, as well as their accredited institutions and entities by striving to ensure
academic excellence and ethical standards.
MPX: To summarize accrediting agencies examine and review institutions to ensure that
they are meeting academic quality and standards.
Inherency: Accreditation Effects Financial Aid Dollars

Contributing Writer at Pacific Standard Magazine Dwyer Gunn 17 June 2016 (Dwyer Gunn is a
contributing writer at Pacific Standard Magazine and a Freelance writer and editor. Dwyer has
her Bachelor's Degree in Economics from Wellesley College), Higher Educations
Accreditation Problem, published by Pacific Standard Magazine,
https://psmag.com/news/higher-educations-accreditation-problem
But if Wednesdays recommendation is implemented, the consequences will be significant.
Accrediting agencies like ACICS are responsible for evaluating schools to ensure that theyre
providing students with a high-quality education. Students at schools that receive accreditation
from a DOE-recognized agency can use federal student aid to pay for their loans; if ACICS loses
its status, schools will have to look elsewhere for accreditation, or lose their eligibility for federal
financial aid dollars.
MPX: Essentially when an institution has an accreditation, it is liable to receive federal
financial aid because of that to finance their loans.
Inherency: How Accrediting Agencies are Authorized

Fellow in Education in the Domestic Policy Studies Department Lindsey M. Burke and Director
of the Center for Policy Innovation at The Heritage Foundation PhD Stuart M. Butler 21
September 2012,Accreditation: Removing the Barrier to Higher Education Reform, published
by The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/education/report/accreditation-removing-
the-barrier-higher-education-reform
Authorizing Accrediting Institutions. In the United States, accreditation is a complicated,
expensive, and time-consuming process. First, it must be determined which organization will
perform the accreditation. The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) authorizes a limited number
of such accrediting bodies, which then have the authority to accredit colleges and universities.
The DOE and the Secretary of Education wield significant power in determining which
institutions are allowed to accredit colleges and universities. Specifically, the Secretary:
Determines which accrediting agencies are reliable judges of the quality of a particular college,
university, or educational program; Publishes a list of these approved accrediting institutions;
and Appoints six of the 18 members of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality
and Integrity (NACIQI), which provides recommendations for approval of accrediting
institutions.
MPX: In essence to be an accrediting agency that is allowed to hand out federal financial
aid to institutions you must first be approved by the Department of Education beforehand.
SIGNIFICANCE
Significance: Harms innovation
Reduces incentive to revise existing business models
Hindering Innovation. In addition to insulating colleges from normal market forces, the existing
accreditation system reduces the incentive for colleges to revise their existing business models
and make the reforms needed to spark innovation. For instance, one regional accreditation
agencythe Western Association of Schools and Collegesrequires any university that wants
to make a substantive change (defined broadly as anything that may affect the schools quality or
objectives) to submit a detailed report to the agency at least four months before the
implementation date of the proposed change. Since almost any and every change a college would
contemplate meets the definition of substantive change per the accreditation agency, almost
any modification would take many months to be approved, making a quick response to
changing market conditions impossible.
MPX: Essentially the standards currently in place in the accrediting agencies, actually go
against colleges trying to make changes or innovate, because they would take an extremely
long time for those changes to be approved.
Limits the Idea and Experience of Higher Education

Creating a Limited Vision of What Higher Education Can Be. Perhaps most frustrating of all,
however, is the manner in which the existing accreditation regime limits the vision of higher
education and creates an inflexible college experience for students. While the 1952 G.I. Bill and
the Higher Education Act of 1965 first coupled accreditation with federal funding, federal
regulations in the 1992 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA), cemented the idea of
higher education as youth-centered and campus-based, with the student population assumed to
be homogenous with regard to age and work status. Instead of being able to shop around for
individual classes that might meet their professional or academic needs, under the existing
accreditation regime in the U.S., students are largely consigned to an off-the-shelf college
experience at a government-accredited institution. This one-size-fits-all college experience
pigeonholes the typical student as someone who will require four years of undergraduate work to
complete training in a given field, no matter what area of study the student has chosen to pursue.
The current regime also disregards the flexibility and access to content that online learning has
produced over the past several decades.
MPX: Because of the one-size-fits-all standards of accrediting agencies this limits the
idea, experience, and scope for students of higher education which hinders the education
and opportunities a student can receive.
Significance: Accreditation focused on inputs not results

Colleges Insulated from Competition from Higher Education Start-ups. Part of the reason
colleges can offer courses of dubious academic rigor or educational value is that the current
accreditation process (along with other factors such as easy access to federal student aid)
insulates them from the competitive pressures of the market. As George Leef of the John
William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy notes: The accreditation process does nothing
to enhance the markets requirement that schools be good enough to meet the competition.
Accreditors base their decisions not on educational results, but on institutional inputs, whether
schools do things the right wayenough books in the library, faculty members with
proper credentials, adequate financial support, and so on. Conforming to those criteria does
not ensure that their students will in fact gain any educational benefits.
MPX: This evidence shows how the current accreditation system only measures the inputs
of universities not the outputs (or results of students, such as graduation rates). This does
nothing to ensure that students are receiving beneficial education and educational
opportunities.
Significance: Accreditation does not guarantee academic quality

Measuring Inputs, Not the Quality of Outcomes. Even though it is a de facto requirement for
colleges, accreditation does not guarantee academic quality. Indeed, it is granted largely on the
basis of the inputs a college reports to the accrediting agency. Such inputsfor example, the
number of library books in the university library, the schools disciplinary code, and its mission
statementare among the criteria used by accrediting agencies to grant accreditation status to a
college. Despite having a dubious link to student performance, skill acquisition, and
employability, these criteria continue to be used by accrediting agencies; measurable student
learning gains or instructional quality have little impact. As ACTA states, If the accrediting
process were applied to automobile inspection, cars would pass as long as they had tires, doors,
and an enginewithout anyone ever turning the key to see if the car actually operated.
MPX: The current standards of accreditation do nothing to guarantee academic and
educational quality which is essential for students to receive the best education they
possibly can. Colleges only measure inputs, not outputs, which are essential to measuring
educational quality.
Significance: Accreditation Agencies are Funded By the Colleges they Rate

The Fox Guarding the Henhouse. Alarmingly, and in a manner that parallels the history of
many licensing systems, accreditation now suffers from numerous conflicts of interest. For
instance, regional accrediting agencies are financed in part by college and university membership
in the associations. Colleges are dues-paying members of accrediting associations that determine
their accreditation. Consequently, accreditors are more reluctant to deny accreditation renewal,
an action that would result in the loss of dues-paying members of the association. The desire to
maintain collegiality and not to lose paying association members raises conflict of interest issues
that make the regional accreditors questionable gatekeepers for eligibility for federal funds.
MPX: Essentially accreditors are lenient towards colleges they have accredited and are
receiving funds from so that they dont lose the revenue, no matter the quality of the
college. This means that not only is financial aid being given to untrustworthy colleges but
the very gatekeepers of this aid are conflicted with their own interests over the education of
students.
Significance: The Accreditation Process is a Cesspool of Corruption

Accrediting agencies like ACICS are, in their role as the gatekeepers of federal student aid,
supposed to protect students from these low-quality schools, but theyre failing spectacularly in
their mission. The fact that accreditation standards arent uniform (and the DOE has little control
over the standards) only encourages lax standards. Critics also allege that the accrediting
agencies are hopelessly entangled with and influenced by the schools themselves. Robert
Shireman, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation described the accreditation process as a
giant cesspool of corruption. He told ProPublica that it would be like getting the CEOs of the
airlines together to review whether the airplanes are safe.
MPX: To summarize, accrediting agencies cannot be trusted as unbiased and quality
accreditors of education because their own interests are entangled with the schools they
accredit, which undermines their role as the gatekeepers of federal aid.
Significance: Majority of Accreditation Commissioners work for the colleges they oversee
Research Analyst at the American Enterprise Institute Preston Cooper 18 November 2016
(Preston Cooper is a research analyst in education policy at the American Enterprise Institute
and former fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He holds a B.A. in economics from Swarthmore
College) Many Accreditors Have Conflicts Of Interest, published by Forbes,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2016/11/18/the-double-lives-of-higher-educations-
watchdogs/#18253cf461a7
In a recent report for Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute, I found that two-thirds of the
commissioners who staff regional and national-level accreditation agencies are employed at
colleges and universities which they oversee. In essence, the agencies the government charges
with quality control at federally funded colleges are full of representatives of the colleges
themselves. This framework has the makings of a cartel.
MPX: So not only are the interests of accreditors entangled with their own interest to
continue business and a steady flow of income, but the very members that serve as
employees at accrediting agencies are employed at the very colleges they accredit and
oversee. This constitutes a serious conflict of interests, which impedes for the jobs these
agencies were meant to carry out.
Significance: Specific example of failure

ACICSs Lax Standards Harm Students

ACICS, which works primarily with for-profit institutions, has been under fire for years, most
notably for its accreditation of Corinthian Colleges, a for-profit school that collapsed in 2015
amid allegations of fraud. The institutions detractors, which include Elizabeth Warren,
consumer advocates, and lawmakers, argue that ACICS employs lax accreditation standards and
fails to properly investigate complaints, leaving students vulnerable to for-profit institutions that
happily gobble up federal student loan aid without providing students with much of anything,
other than debt.
MPX: As we can see, in this specific example of the accrediting agency ACICS, their lax
standards not only dont confront flawed institutions but harm the students who are forced
to go to these institutions. This shows how poorly accreditation treats the educational
opportunities of students who want to receive beneficial education.
ACICS Accreditation System Has Failed

Earlier this year, the attorneys general of 13 states submitted a letter to the DOE recommending
that ACICSs status be revoked. In the letter, they didnt mince words in their evaluation of the
agency: ACICSs accreditation failures are both systemic and extreme. Its decisions to accredit
low-quality for-profit schools have ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of vulnerable
students whom it was charged to protect. It has enabled a great fraud upon our students and
taxpayers. ACICS has proven that it is not willing or capable of playing the essential gatekeeping
role required of accreditors. It accordingly should no longer be allowed to do so.
MPX: Essentially the ACICS has failed its duty as an accreditor. Firstly it has ruined the
educational opportunities and education of hundreds of thousands of student, by allowing
fraudulent institutions to slip through their fingers into the system. Secondly they have
harmed the taxpayer by allowing financial aid to flow to ill-performing schools that are
failing their duties as educational institutions.
ACICS Dismal Record

While ACICS is not the only accrediting agency to run into trouble in recent years, its the
worst of the lot. A ProPublica investigation last year found that only 35 percent of students at
ACICS-accredited four-year colleges graduate, compared to the national rate of 59 percent. The
investigation also found that students at ACICS-accredited schools take on more debt than
typical students and are more likely to struggle with re-payment and default. Last week, the
Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, released a report on ACICSs dismal record.
The report concluded that ACICS accredits an unusually high number of institutions under
investigation and produces the worse student outcomes of any other accrediting agencytrends
which have cost the federal government billions of dollars. ACICSs failures have been more
flagrant than most, but the agencys woes have shed light on systemic flaws in the countrys
higher education accreditation system.
MPX: So now students under ACICS accredited schools are not faced with more debt, but
they having a harder being able to repay those debts, and the ACICS accredits a very high
number of colleges and universities under investigation and produces.
SOLVENCY:
Solvency: Plan/reform advocates
The inflexible, bureaucratic club that is the American college accreditation system is
antithetical to reform. Higher education will remain impervious to change if the perverse
incentives maintained by the accreditation regime are allowed to stay in place. However, a
combination of increased access to online learning, portability of student loans, and a market-
based, private accreditation system could produce dramatic changes in the higher education
structure and ultimately drive down costs while improving quality.
MPX: So not only would the private sector provide better quality education but they would
also reduce the costs of higher education providing more educational opportunities for
students.
Allow Any Institution to Accredit

September 2012, Accreditation: Removing the Barrier to Higher Education Reform, published
Federal Policymakers. Federal policymakers should work to limit Washingtons intervention in
higher educationspecifically, through accreditationso that reform can take place.
Specifically: End government sanctioning of accrediting agencies and allow any institution to
accredit courses. At the same time, accreditation should be voluntary, and accrediting entities
reputations should rest with market forces, not government institutions. The abundance of online
information, coupled with the self-interest of students to be competitive in the job market,
reduces the problem of fraudulently low-quality education to one of de minimis proportions.
MPX: To summarize, not only would the private sector create better competition in the job
market, but it would also reduce the risk of low-quality education slipping into the system.
Limited Government Intervention Provides Educational Opportunities

Establish credential approval seals. Limiting Washingtons intervention in higher education and
accreditation will provide opportunities for the business community to establish metrics,
standards, and, ultimately, credentials for the coursework that students take at various
institutions, as well as other real world or internship experience. In order to provide
independent assessments of and credentials for course work and other skills, businesses,
nonprofits, and other non-governmental entities should work to create an educational analog of
Underwriters Laboratories. By doing so, employers can help to assure future students that if
they succeed in employer-credentialed courses, they will have a far greater chance of finding a
job after graduation.
MPX: Limiting how much the government operates in our higher education system is
important to allow the private sector to form new standards for better quality education.
Remove Federal Funding and Accreditation

Decouple accreditation and federal funding. ACTA notes that once accreditation agencies
became the gatekeepers for federal funding, accreditors essentially gained regulatory control
over colleges. Federal policymakers should therefore decouple accreditation and federal
funding through amendments to the Higher Education Act, eliminating the necessity that
colleges get accredited by the government-sanctioned system. This reform would allow
independent accrediting institutions to enter the market, thereby providing students with
numerous options for creating their degree and shaping their college experience.
MPX: Allowing to the private sector act as the gatekeeper of the measure of quality
education under the current system would allow students to better shape their own
educational opportunities.

2AC Reform Accreditation Page 1 of 13

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2AC Reform Accreditation Page 1 of 13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WARNING: Copyrighted 2017 by DFW Speech & Debate. Only the lawful owner is authorized to use this material.

2AC Reform Accreditation Page 1 of 13

2AC Reform Accreditation

Opening Quote: The Accreditation Cartel Undermines Accountability

Inherency: Accreditation Effects Financial Aid Dollars

Inherency: How Accrediting Agencies are Authorized

Limits the Idea and Experience of Higher Education

Significance: Accreditation focused on inputs not results

Significance: Accreditation does not guarantee academic quality

Significance: Accreditation Agencies are Funded By the Colleges they Rate

Significance: The Accreditation Process is a Cesspool of Corruption

Significance: Specific example of failure

ACICSs Lax Standards Harm Students

ACICS Accreditation System Has Failed

ACICS Dismal Record

Allow Any Institution to Accredit

Limited Government Intervention Provides Educational Opportunities

Remove Federal Funding and Accreditation

You might also like