The State’s Role in Ensuring Quality and Consumer Protection in Higher Education: The Case of State Authorization

Written by: David A. Tandberg, State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, Ellie M. Bruecker, University of Wisconsin, and Dustin D. Weeden, State Higher Education Executive Officers Association

The first and foremost role of state higher education agencies (SHEEO agencies) is to advance the state’s interest through postsecondary education. The state’s interest may include increasing educational attainment rates, decreasing unemployment rates, increasing civic engagement, increasing productivity, improving quality of life, decreasing dependency on social welfare programs, and the like. Central to the accomplishment of these goals is the quality of the education students receive from the postsecondary institutions within their state. A quality educational experience is likely to lead to greater learning and an increased likelihood of earning a credential. One potential tool states have in their quality assurance toolbox is the authorization of institutions.

State authorization refers to the process by which the state offers (or declines) approval of an entity to establish itself as a postsecondary institution. It is the first formal act in the legal operation of an institution and often serves as the foundation upon which other quality assurance functions are built (like accreditation). Institutions must seek initial authorization and then, in most cases, seek the renewal of their authorization annually or at some other interval established by the state. Through the authorization process, states can evaluate the capacity of an institution to offer a quality education, protect students, and advance the goals of the state.

We posit that it is time for states to reconsider and reconceptualize how they develop and implement a state authorization process aimed at meeting the needs of their students as well as the strategic goals of the state. This is particularly true given the proliferation of new providers, distance education, alternative credentials, and new technologies. To help states reconsider, reconceptualize, and ultimately improve their authorization processes, we recently published a white paper on the topic. We encourage you to read and consider the information and arguments we provide in the paper.

All SHEEO agencies, regardless of whether they serve as authorizers, have an interest in ensuring their authorization processes are functioning appropriately. (All but a few of our SHEEO agencies have authorization as one of their responsibilities). First, as already argued, SHEEO agencies have a primary role in advancing the state’s interest in delivering quality postsecondary education and in protecting students. As state authorization is meant to provide accountability in both of these areas, SHEEO agency heads ought to be informed and concerned with how authorization in their state is operating. Second, when institutions close, regardless of whether the SHEEO agency has responsibility for the institution, the agency often has the responsibility to coordinate teach-outs, retain student records, and address student complaints and questions. When authorization is functioning well, such closures ought to be less likely. Third, SHEEO agencies must act as the postsecondary experts in the state, advising governors, legislators, other state agencies, and other stakeholders. Their informed advice on state authorization ought to be sought and offered. Finally, in several cases, SHEEO agencies operate the state’s financial aid programs. Ensuring that financial aid dollars are best used to advance the state’s interest and only flow to legitimate postsecondary providers is a critical role of these SHEEO agencies. Well-designed authorization processes are instrumental in fulfilling this role. Therefore, we argue that all SHEEO agencies ought to be concerned with state authorization and work to ensure that it is operating appropriately.

We argue that states should consider the following questions regarding their authorization process:

• What role is the authorization process supposed to play, and is it playing it?
• When was the last time the process was evaluated and reconsidered?
• How does the process relate to the state’s broader goals for higher education?
• Given the state’s interest in quality education and consumer protection, to what extent is its authorization process advancing those goals, and what can be done to improve the authorization process to better advance those goals?
• How can state authorization better reinforce the triad and other state efforts around consumer protection and quality assurance and improvement?

To help states consider how they might improve their authorization processes, we make the following recommendations (we expand on each of these recommendations in our white paper):

• Increase the capacity of authorization offices;
• Improve the mechanisms for measuring and improving quality in state authorization;
• Strengthen the consumer protections in state authorization;
• Update the review of institutional finances in state authorization;
• Avoid regulatory capture and ensure independence of state authorizing boards and offices;
• Advance research on state authorization;
• Develop a shared understanding of the importance, role, and purpose of state authorization; and
• Connect authorization to the state’s larger quality assurance and improvement efforts.

In our white paper, we get into the details of the history and purposes of state authorization and common approaches to state authorization. We provide recommendations and details for how states might improve their approaches, including a lengthy table with specific metrics, assurances, requirements, information, and actions states might consider for the authorization programs.

The central motivating premise of the white paper is that a renewed state interest in assuring institutional quality and appropriate consumer protections is needed, and the place to start is with improved state authorization.