Testimony of Dr. Michale S. McComis, Executive Director, Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges (ACCSC)
Before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce For the Hearing
“Strengthening Accreditation to Better Protect Students and Taxpayers”
April 25, 2017
Madame Chair and members of the Committee, my name is Dr. Michale McComis and I am the Executive Director of the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges (ACCSC), a private, non-profit independent national accrediting agency recognized by the United States Secretary of Education. ACCSC accredits over 650 career- and vocational education- oriented postsecondary institutions that annually serve over 150,000 students throughout the United States. ACCSC-accredited institutions offer programs in a diverse array of career and technical fields including traditional trades programs such as: plumbing; heating, ventilation and air conditioning; and welding; health care fields such as nursing; medical assisting; and dental assisting; and in the artisan crafts such as furniture making; preservation carpentry; and wooden boat building.
I am honored to appear before the Committee this morning to discuss accreditation and the contributions that it makes to the quality of education in this country as well as the ways in which accreditation can be strengthened and improved.
Accreditation as an education quality assessment mechanism has been the hallmark of educational success in this country for over a century and has been relied upon by the federal government for this purpose for over six decades. Although accreditation has recently come under increased scrutiny by policy makers, accreditation can and should continue to serve in its gate-keeping capacity, albeit in an enhanced form which I will describe later in my testimony. Accreditation employs an earnest and collaborative approach within a peer-review network that identifies best practices and assesses how well an institution meets those best practice standards. It is not, nor can it be, a one-size-fits-all system with rudimentary metrics that do not take into account both subjective and qualitative elements of an institution’s operations.