September-October 2004

« AAUP Homepage

If Football Referees Made Accreditation Calls: A Modest Proposal

A handy reference guide to the new art of refereeing accreditation reports.

Robert R. Appleson

Barely a week passes without the Chronicle of Higher Education or another periodical decrying the perverse influence of college football on academic quality. Faculty keep saying (justifiably) that sports advocates care more about athletic prowess than about student learning, that even assistant coaches make more money than tenured faculty, and so forth. Defenders of college football are often reduced to arguing that satisfied fans may eventually contribute a book to the library. That is hardly a ringing defense, but the popular culture, as well as the average alumnus, demands football.

At the same time we decry football within our ranks, higher education accreditation bodies find themselves, as public stewards of institutional quality, under greater scrutiny. In his column in the winter 2003 issue of The Presidency, the magazine of the American Council on Education, Terry Hartle, the organization's senior vice president and director of government and public affairs, suggests several reasons for this situation. He correctly notes that a major challenge for accreditation bodies is that accreditation is not "well understood outside the academy" and that it provides "limited consumer value."

The academy now faces legislative proposals that would steer accreditors away from assessing institutional quality through peer review by faculty and academic administrators. The focus under these new proposals would shift from peer review to the application of cost-benefit and performance ratios, which would downplay less quantitative characteristics, including the rigor of the curriculum. True, more systematic use of such ratios could provide helpful information, but only if their use is informed by factors such as institutional mission, the student population being served, and the level of state support available. Still, we cannot escape the conclusion that academic quality will take a back seat. In his article, Hartle calls for more involvement by institutions in explaining the value of current accreditation practices to lawmakers and the public. But might we not kill two birds with one stone?

What, after all, is better understood by lawmakers and the public than football? And who among them does not recognize the value of referees? Contrast the answers to these questions with the probable answer to a query about people's knowledge of academic quality and accreditors. Most people know that accrediting bodies periodically send evaluation teams to institutions, but consider how accrediting visits are conducted and how their results are reported on many campuses.

An accreditation visit begins when, after reading reams of exciting institutional narrative in something called the "comprehensive self-study," team members scurry about checking the accuracy of the document. At the end of this exercise, the team chair announces a tentative recommendation at a closing interview. Given the formal nature of this announcement, it may be fairly brief and laced with accreditation jargon. Unless someone has been intimately involved with the process, he or she is not likely to gain much understanding. By the time the recommendation is affirmed or slightly modified in the official decision, the team report may be buried in a file to await exhumation before the next visit. In short, most faculty members at the institution, not to mention the public, find it difficult to perceive what transpired and what difference it makes.

But enter now the football referee, someone of even fewer words (for example: "number sixty-three, holding") than the team chair. Yet, no one doubts the referee's meaning. Might this approach achieve a more clearly understood and valued process of accreditation? Envision the team chair at the exit interview clad in a black-and-white striped shirt, with whistle and yellow flag at the ready. Then imagine the following choices of existing calls by football officials, which already cover many accreditation findings. Appropriate symbols signifying the calls could be placed on the Web sites of the accrediting body and the institution fol-lowing the official decision. Not only would the public better understand and value accreditation, but, more important, the chasm between football and academic quality would be bridged.

  • It's good: arms thrust vertically with palms facing inward. The institution is recommended for full ten-year reaccreditation without required reports or focused visits.
  • Ineligible receiver: tapping top of head with right hand. The institution is found to be offering unauthorized online programs.
  • Failure to maintain possession: juggling motion with left and right arms. The institution is cited for juggling its books and poor fiscal management, thus depleting academic budgets.
  • Safety: left and right hands held together over head palm to palm. The institution is found to maintain an inadequate campus police force.
  • Illegally advancing the runner: hands diagonally to side with palms pushing forward. The institution is found to have waived normal progression requirements for its star tailback.
  • False start: arms across chest with hands making fists and moving in circular motion. The institution is found to provide inadequate advisement and placement for entering students.
  • Holding: left hand grasping right wrist and pulling down. The institution is cited for prolonging the dissertation process to maintain its supply of low-cost graduate teaching assistants.
  • Pass interference: hands thrust forward with palms for-ward and fingers up. The institution is cited for failing to provide well-lit, quiet, and odor-free rooms for taking tests.
  • Intentional grounding: arms held forward with elbows bent and forearms slightly to right, moving downward and parallel across body with palms facing each other. The institution is found to have admitted unprepared students with the clear knowledge they will fail.
  • Encroachment: hands on hips with elbows to side. The institution is cited for intrusion by the board of trustees into matters properly left to the faculty or administration.
  • Unsportsmanlike conduct: left arm held horizontally to left and right arm to right, palms down. The institution is cited for failing to make proper accommodations for the visiting accreditation team.
  • Wide right (wide left): arms extended forward and crossing with palms down. The institution is cited for allowing a political agenda to be forced on students.
  • Illegal shift: hands touching in front of chest palms down, with forearms moving to outside. The institution is found to be engaging in instructional activities outside the scope of its mission.
  • Too many players on the field: both hands palms down on top of head with elbows out to sides. The institution is cited for enrolling too many students in relation to the size of the full-time faculty.
  • Personal foul for late hit: right hand chopping on left wrist in front of chest. The institution is found to have charged hidden fees after initial tuition announcement.
  • Illegal formation: same signal as for false start. The institution is cited for having a curricular structure with insufficient breadth and depth.
  • Illegal contact: right hand in fist touching right side of cap with elbow out to side. The institution is found to require too few hours of direct instruction for the credits awarded.
  • Delay of game: arms crossed in front of chest. The institution is cited for failing to offer core courses with sufficient frequency, thus prolonging time to graduation.
  • Clipping: right hand placed behind right knee. The institution is found to have publicized an incomplete account of its accreditation status, leaving out the current restrictions on its status and scope.
  • Tripping: right foot placed behind left ankle. The institution is cited for failing to control drug use in residence halls.
  • Roughing the passer: right hand making tomahawk motion to front. The institution is cited for harassing recent graduates with fund solicitations.


Robert Appleson is associate director of the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.