HERRAMIENTAS PARA EL ANÁLISIS CUALITATIVO

The broad implication of this paper suggests that currently recommended bright lines would disproportionately impact institutions in ways that policymakers may tend to overlook. If a period of punctuated equilibrium is indeed on the horizon, policymakers must focus on the true goals of implementing bright lines. If we can ultimately agree that institutions must meet these thresholds in order to be considered successful, we must prepare for the economic consequences of school

closings, causing students and faculty to flood the residual higher education market. If nothing else, this research paints a clear picture of the analysis required for any proposed bright lines, setting a precedent for analyzing the effect of each bright line on various groups in higher education. Future research on this topic must continue to evolve with changing calls for reform, keeping a vigilant eye on the Department of Education and its affiliated groups as they navigate a trying time in education policy.

REFERENCES

Baum, S., Ma, J., Pender, M., Bell, D. (2015).Trends in student aid 2015. Washington, D.C.: The College Board.

Bloland, H.G.(2001). Creating the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). Washing- ton, D.C.: The College Board.

Brittingham, B.(2009). Accreditation in the United States: How did we get to where we are? New Directions for Higher Education, 145 (March), 7–27.

Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2010).The value of accreditation. Washington, D.C.: Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2017). CHEA- and USDE-recognized accrediting or-

ganizations. Washington, D.C.: Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

Ewell, P. (2008). Assessment and accountability in America today: Background and context.New Directions for Institutional Research, (September), 7–17.

Ewell, P. (2008).U.S. accreditation and the future of quality assurance: A tenth anniversary report

from The Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Washington, D.C.: Council for Higher

Education Accreditation.

Finkin, M.W. (2009).Who watches the watchman? Washington, D.C.: Council for Higher Educa- tion Accreditation.

Fritschler, A.L. (2008). Accreditation’s dilemma: Serving two masters- universities and govern-

ments. Washington, D.C.: Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

Gillen, A., Bennett, D.L., Vedder, R. (2010). The inmates running the asylum? An analysis of higher education accreditation. Washington, D.C.: Center for College Affordability and Produc- tivity.

Hegji, A. (2016). The Higher Education Act (HEA): A primer. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.

Higher Education Opportunity Act. (2008)Pub.L. 110–315.

Institute for Financial Aid Professionals (2018).Overview of debt-to-earnings rate measure. Wash- ington, D.C.: Institute for Financial Aid Professionals.

Kreighbaum, A. (2016). Tougher scrutiny for colleges with low graduation rates.Inside Higher Ed,

Kreighbaum, A. (2018). Student loan default rate declines slightly. Inside Higher Ed,

Lederman, D. (2018). Where winds are blowing on accreditation Inside Higher Ed,

Morgan, J. (2008). Consumer-driven reforms of higher education: A critical look at new amend- ments to the higher education act. Journal of Law and Policy, 531–578.

National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (2012). Higher Education

Act re-authorization accreditation policy recommendations. Washington, D.C.: United States

Department of Education.

National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (2015). Higher Education

Act re-authorization accreditation policy recommendations. Washington, D.C.: United States

Department of Education.

National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (2017).Recognized institutional

accreditors: Federal postsecondary education and student aid data. Washington, D.C.: United

States Department of Education.

National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (2010). Accreditation and student learning outcomes: A brief history of recent legislative and regulatory activity. Washington, D.C.: National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.

National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (2018). Gainful employment sum-

mary: Debt-to-earnings measures. Washington, D.C.: National Association of Student Financial

Aid Administrators.

National Center for Education Statistics (2017). Fast facts: Graduation rates. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

Olson, K.W. (1974). The G.I. bill, the veterans, and the colleges. University Press of Kentucky.

Postsecondary National Policy Institute (2018). Federal student aid. Washington, D.C.: Postsec- ondary National Policy Institute.

Rose, A.D. (1990). Preparing for veterans: Higher education and the efforts to accredit the learning of World War II servicemen and women. Adult Education Quarterly, 30–45.

Snyder, T.D. (1993).120 years of American education: A statistical portrait. DIANE Publishing.

Thrash, P.A. (2016). Accreditation: A perspective. The Journal of Higher Education, 115–120.

United States Department of Education (2017). National Advisory Committee on Institutional

Quality and Integrity - overview. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education.

United States Department of Education (2017). National Advisory Committee on Institutional

Quality and Integrity - welcome. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education.

United States Department of Education (2018).Official cohort default rates for schools. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education.

United States Department of Education (2018).College scorecard data. Dataset. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Education.

APPENDIX. ADDITIONAL FIGURES