The revamped agency had a broader constituency, a revised training program for the teams of volunteers that visit and review the institutions, and a new set of standards that were intended to be more rigorous. Because it had so toughened its standards, however, a significantly larger proportion of schools and colleges were failing. At the same time, a number of higher education officials began questioning the value of the organization and discussed the possibility of creating an alternative body. We didn't want to develop the state system you'd really have to have in order to get the oversight. The Council of Chief State School Officers made that point clear in a March statement on the national commission's recommendations.
State agencies can also apply such standards.
The important point is the quality of standards met, not which agency enforces them. It is supported by dues from institutions, fees paid by the constituent groups, and foundation grants. Some higher education officials, however, have complained that the actual cost of preparing for the visits runs into the tens of thousands. For many institutions, the expense is worth it. We believe that our public is looking for various external measures of quality in deciding where to go to school, and we feel like being able to say that we have the national accreditation in our field is something that helps bring people to us.