This week, House Bill 1705 and its companion Senate Bill 757 were heard in both the House Higher Education Committee and the Senate Education K-16 Committee. These bills change higher education accrediting standards, removing the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) as the statutorily mandated agency in the education code. Why is this important?
The U.S. has no centralized authority exercising national control over postsecondary educational institutions. The Department of Education gives colleges and universities autonomy over their education standards, which is why education can vary so much depending on the institution. To ensure a basic level of quality, the practice of accreditation arose in the U.S. as a means of conducting non-governmental, peer evaluations of educational institutions and programs. SACS is one of seven major regional accrediting agencies recognized by the federal government, acting as an institutional accreditor for quality assurance.
If a public college, university, or health institution is not accredited by an agency federally recognized like SACS, its students will no longer be eligible for federal student financial aid, its degrees will not be recognized at other institutions or corporations, and it will be ineligible for federal research grants and certain private grants. Some employers, institutions, and licensing boards only recognize degrees earned from institutions accredited by a federally recognized agency. In some states, it can be illegal to use a degree from an institution that is not accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency, unless approved by the state licensing agency.
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) has the authority to designate agencies Texas institutions may be accredited by. The list includes general accrediting and specialized accrediting entities. Under current law, institutions in Texas may choose from the list so long as the accrediting entity is appropriate to the mission and content of the institution’s activities. The current education code specifically names SACS as an accrediting entity and allows the THECB to designate additional accrediting entities.
What HB 1705 and SB 757 aim to do is allow the THECB to designate any organization or agency they see fit, without requiring SACS or another federally recognized agency to be on the list. While the current THECB list of recognized agencies is all federally recognized, and its current process for recognition is thorough, it may not always be this way. The issue lies in the assumption that the THECB will always recognize agencies that are also federally recognized.
It’s also important to remember that these board members are appointed by the governor, and depending on who is in power, the THECB’s focus is subject to change.
Higher education members came out this week to testify against these bills. Dr. David Albert, president of Austin Community College AFT, provided perspective on how this would affect his community college students:
“If you get rid of SACS, you risk the reputation and credibility of these universities that made them the crown jewels of Texas. This will allow colleges and universities to use accreditors with lower standards. Protect the opportunity for my students to get a great education by defending the process of accreditation, which has worked well for decades.”
In his testimony, Dr. Brian Evans, president of Texas AAUP-AFT, focused on how SACS and similar agencies protect faculty representation at their campuses:
“SACS enables faculty to provide recommendations to the administration on curriculum and governance matters. It gives institutional support for faculty to have the freedom to teach, so students have the freedom to learn. SACS ensures a significant faculty voice to improve the learning environments for students and working environments for faculty and staff. All of which help in recruiting and retaining students, staff, and faculty.”
We suspect Republicans in the Legislature are attempting to loosen regulations on accreditation because of the misconception that agencies like SACS require “DEI,” diversity, equity, and inclusion programming, at institutions. However, the truth is that SACS and the other seven regional accrediting bodies protect faculty input in university matters and due process, require academic freedom, and ensure there are adequate support structures for student success.
It’s important to maintain SACS’ explicit inclusion in the education code, so we can safeguard against the ever-changing higher education landscape by ensuring a federally recognized agency remains on THECB’s recognized organization list. The bills were left pending in both the House and Senate committees.