When the federal Commission on the Future of Higher Education delivered its final report to the secretary of education in September, accreditors and many higher-education leaders breathed a small sigh of relief. The document did not endorse an early recommendation that the current accreditation system be completely dismantled. Now, though, just a few months after the report's release, some of those concerns have returned, mainly because Margaret Spellings, the education secretary, has decided to focus on accreditors as part of her "action plan" to begin the most urgent changes proposed by the commission. Next week Spellings will meet with a few dozen accreditors, higher-education officials, and business leaders in what is being called an Accreditation Forum to discuss ways to make the measurement of student learning central to accreditors' oversight of colleges and universities. Many accreditors and college officials view next week's one-day gathering with varying degrees of suspicion, especially since several of them were never formally invited. Some fear that in the name of increased accountability Spellings will try to use the forum to promote solutions they think are simplistic, like comparing institutions on the basis of a few easily quantifiable indicators. In particular, the agenda circulated for next week's meeting has caused an uproar among the accreditors, who say it contains certain incorrect assumptions. Other higher education officials are worried that the group has an impossible task. Although Ms. Spellings insists she is not seeking a one-size-fits-all solution to the very complex problem of college performance, many officials fear she may be dragging colleges in just that direction. The draft agenda for the secretary's meeting says the gathering should identify strategies to carry out the commission's recommendations, including that accreditors strengthen the measurement of student learning and support "innovation and productivity" at colleges. The problem is, the commission's report recommends little in the way of specific measures for accreditors other than stressing the need for greater openness--disclosing more information to help students make a more informed choice of a college. Some higher education officials are also troubled by the slim number of accreditors who have been invited to next week's meeting. Even so, critics say that in some ways the choice of invited experts is reassuring. The opening panel presentation will be led by Peter Ewell, vice president of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, which specializes in data-driven educational consulting. He, Center for Postsecondary Research's George D. Kuh, the Institute for Higher Education Policy's Jane V. Wellman, and another invitee, Trudy W. Banta, an assessment expert at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, are all widely respected. [Jeffrey Selingo contributed to this article.]