Significant Changes Would Reshape Accreditation
After more than a month of deliberation, the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) negotiated rulemaking committee reached consensus on regulatory amendments that will bring substantial changes to the Title IV accreditation process.
While some of the proposed changes are less welcome than others, the final package represents a substantial improvement over the Department’s original proposal, and the consensus vote means that the Department must publish proposed regulations that reflect the language agreed upon by the negotiators. The Department has stated that it intends to publish final accreditation regulations by November 1, 2026, in order to implement the new rules on July 1, 2027.
The negotiated rulemaking represents the culmination of President Trump’s campaign promise to use accreditation as a “secret weapon” to drive higher education reform. While the consensus language would address a broad range of accreditation topics, some of the key issues affecting institutions of higher education are summarized below.
Transfer of Credit. Although the transfer of credit provisions are notably more reasonable than the version originally proposed by the Department, the consensus language would make significant changes to how institutions handle requests for transfer of credit. Specifically, institutions would have to provide a timely, course-specific written rationale for any decision to deny comparable undergraduate credits. Additionally, institutions would no longer be able to deny credits based on the type of accrediting agency that accredits the institution, so long as the accreditor is federally recognized.
Accreditation Standards. While accreditors must still, as set forth in the statute, specify requirements for success with respect to student achievement that are established by the institution in accordance with its mission, the consensus draft would mandate that such requirements be established at the institutional and program levels and would add numerous new requirements outlining how accreditors must apply their standards. Among other things, accreditors would be required to evaluate institutions on a much broader array of factors, including educational and economic returns, faculty policies, scholarly misconduct, and cost/benefit analyses of facilities, equipment, supplies, and student support services.
Protections for Civil Liberties and Rights. The consensus language would address the Trump Administration’s priorities regarding protections for assorted civil liberties and rights by requiring accreditors to, among other things, evaluate whether institutions maintain academic freedom protections, employ policies that protect the First Amendment for public institutions and any similar policies for private institutions, and have policies to protect civil rights. Additionally, accreditors would be required to assess whether institutions maintain policies designed to support, promote, and appropriately prioritize intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas among faculty, including measurement of student and faculty perceptions on the range of viewpoints and perspectives offered by the institution or program.
“Separate and Independent” Requirements. The consensus language would make significant changes to current regulations requiring accreditors to be “separate and independent” of any related trade association or membership organization. While the goal appears to target allegations of collusive behavior between accreditors and related trade associations, the draft regulations are likely to significantly disrupt the operations of some accreditors, particularly programmatic ones. For example, the consensus language would prohibit accreditors from sharing personnel, facilities, services, or technology resources with related associations and from sharing or soliciting feedback from related associations regarding their policies.
New Accreditors, Switching Accreditors, and Multiple Accreditation. The consensus language contains numerous provisions that would facilitate the recognition of new accreditors and the ability to change accreditors or obtain accreditation from multiple accreditors. For example, the draft proposal would shorten the process for new accreditors to gain federal recognition by streamlining the requirements around the types of accreditation activities that accreditors must conduct prior to seeking such recognition, thus formally enshrining a significant portion of prior agency guidance into federal law.
Reducing Burden. The consensus language would require accreditors to conduct their activities in a manner that seeks to avoid unnecessary financial, compliance, and administrative burdens, including by avoiding duplicative reporting, excessive documentation requirements, and unwarranted prescriptive processes. It also would require accreditors to apply their standards in a manner that reduces unnecessary barriers that prevent institutions or programs from adopting practices that improve student access, accelerate completion, or support innovative models. Despite this language on reducing burden, the sheer number of new requirements that would be added to the full package suggests that the overall regulatory burden is likely to increase rather than diminish.
For more information, please contact:
Jody Feder