Draft Regulations on Accreditation Released
Ahead of next week’s convening of the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) negotiated rulemaking committee, the Department of Education released draft discussion materials, including a summary of proposed changes, draft regulatory language, and a list of negotiators who will be gathering to consider new regulations on accreditation that will address the Trump Administration’s priorities.
Some of the key issues that the AIM Committee will consider include:
Transfer of Credit. The Department proposes to require accreditors to ensure that institutions have transfer of credit policies that “presume the transferability of credits earned at another institution accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency count toward general education requirements or electives.” While there is an exemption for institutions that provide a detailed, written rationale that is specific to the courses completed by the student, does not consider the selectivity or accreditation of the transferring institution, and includes the cost to the student of repeating the credits, NAICU is deeply concerned about the threat such a provision would pose to institutions’ autonomy, mission, and ability to determine their own academic criteria.
Student Outcomes. The Department’s proposal would add a number of provisions focused on student outcomes, including program-level outcomes. However, most of these provisions are couched in permissive, not mandatory, language stating that accreditors “should” identify minimum expectations of student performance that “may” include: standardized assessment scores; measures of education or economic return relative to tuition and fees; faculty appointment structures and qualifications; academic freedom protections; cost-benefit analysis of student support services and facilities, equipment, and supplies; compliance with civil rights laws and institutional policies on free expression; and evidence of student learning outcomes sufficient to determine that students have achieved baseline competencies.
NAICU believes that many of these considerations go far beyond what is required by statute or what is appropriate for the federal government to mandate, particularly in light of the constraints that the Higher Education Act places on the Department’s authority to force accreditors to adopt changes outside of the accreditation standards set forth in the law. While that concern is somewhat tempered by the fact that accreditors would not be required to consider such factors, the prospect of enshrining such language in federal regulations could set a dangerous precedent, not to mention would fall outside of the traditional scope of accreditors’ responsibilities.
Reducing Burden. The draft regulations would require accreditors to administer their standards, policies, and procedures in a manner that: minimizes unnecessary compliance costs and administrative burdens on institutions or programs; avoids duplicative reporting, excessive documentation requirements, and prescriptive processes that are unrelated to educational quality or student achievement; and reduces unnecessary barriers that limit institutions or programs from adopting practices that improve student access, accelerate completion, or support innovative models. The proposed regulations would also change certain regulatory provisions that could impede these goals or that place unnecessary burdens on accreditors, including streamlining site visit requirements and conducting risk-based review of accreditor applications for recognition or renewal. NAICU welcomes these proposals.
Violations of Law. The draft regulations would prohibit accreditors from having standards that encourage or require institutions to violate federal or state law, including federal civil rights laws, or that interfere with free speech rights at institutions whose policies guarantee such protections. While the provisions regarding compliance with federal laws appear redundant, given that such actions are already prohibited, the requirements regarding state laws raise concerns about potential conflicts that could occur where federal and state laws differ and about whether monitoring compliance with federal law is an appropriate role for accreditors.
“Separate and Independent” Requirements. In order to qualify for federal recognition, an accreditor must be “separate and independent” of any related trade association or membership organization. The draft regulations would dramatically change the definition of “separate and independent” by adding numerous, highly burdensome requirements that would significantly disrupt the operations of any accreditors affiliated with trade associations and drive up their costs dramatically, particularly for many programmatic accreditors. NAICU is concerned about the impact of these provisions.
New Accreditors, Switching Accreditors, and Multiple Accreditation. The draft regulations contain numerous provisions that would facilitate the recognition of new accreditors and the ability to change accreditors or obtain accreditation from multiple accreditors. NAICU is generally neutral on these provisions, so long as sufficient guardrails exist to prevent potential misconduct.
The Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) Committee meets April 13-17 and May 18-22. NAICU intends to work closely with all the stakeholders at the table, including the nominees for the private, nonprofit sector, and to be actively engaged in the negotiated rulemaking process.
For more information, please contact:
Jody Feder