College Accreditation Reforms: Education Department Initiatives

The landscape of college accreditation is undergoing significant changes, driven by both federal and state-level initiatives. These reforms aim to address concerns about quality assurance, accountability, and the influence of certain ideologies within higher education. The Department of Education (DOE) has taken initial actions to comply with President Trump’s Executive Order, Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education, with the goal of fostering innovation and removing barriers to institutional improvement.

Background and Executive Order

Accreditation plays a crucial role in ensuring the quality of higher education institutions. Accreditors evaluate institutions and programs, and their approval is often necessary for institutions to access federal student aid. Concerns have arisen regarding the effectiveness of the accreditation process, with critics arguing that accreditors have not adequately addressed issues such as low graduation rates and rising student debt.

President Trump’s Executive Order sought to reform higher education accreditation by promoting transparency and accountability and limiting the influence of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). The order encourages the development of new accrediting agencies and compels colleges and universities to prove concrete outcomes in areas like student performance, graduation rates, and cost.

Department of Education Actions

The Department of Education announced initial actions to comply with President Trump’s Executive Order, Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education, which instructed the Department to allow institutions to more freely change accreditors and begin reviewing new accreditors. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement about the guidance. “President Trump’s Executive Order and our actions today will ensure this Department no longer stands as a gatekeeper to block aspiring innovators from becoming new accreditors nor will this Department unnecessarily micromanage an institution’s choice of accreditor."

Revoking Previous Guidance

In July and September 2022, the Biden-Harris Administration released two DCLs which created a pre-clearance process to scrutinize the decision of an institution to choose a new accreditor. These have been revoked. The new guidance recognizes that institutions may choose to change accreditors for a variety of reasons.

Streamlining the Accreditation Change Process

The Higher Education Act (HEA) and subsequent regulations require an institution to provide the Department with materials related to its prior accreditation and materials demonstrating reasonable cause for changing an accreditor. Implementing regulations list a series of adverse circumstances under which the Department may not approve an institution’s request for a change in accreditor, but they do not otherwise state the Department should withhold approval.Today’s DCL explains that: “the law and regulation describe the requirements regarding what constitutes reasonable cause for changing an accrediting agency. It is not the Department’s prerogative to infer any other meanings from the basic requirements or contrive a multi-step investigation. This guidance re-establishes a simple process that will remove unnecessary requirements and barriers to institutional innovation.” Thursday’s letter, signed by Deputy Under Secretary James P. Bergeron wrote in the Dear Colleague letter “The law and regulation do not dictate a robust or onerous process for receiving the Department’s approval for a change in accrediting agencies or maintaining multiple accreditation,”

Reasons for Accreditation Changes

The new guidance recognizes that institutions may choose to change accreditors for a variety of reasons, including:

To find an accreditor who better aligns with a religious mission
If there is a shift in the type of academic programs offered
If state law requires a change in accreditor
If the institution wants to leave an accreditor for the types of standards it is imposing on the institution, such as requiring the institution to adopt discriminatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices and principles, among a variety of other reasons.

Lifting the Moratorium on New Accreditor Review

On October 29, 2024, the Office of Postsecondary Education, placed a temporary pause on accepting and reviewing applications of potential new accreditors for initial recognition, citing a large volume of existing accrediting agencies currently under review for the upcoming year. One prospective new accreditor that had filed an application was notified that its application would be temporarily paused.

State-Level Reforms

Protecting free speech and improving higher education are major priorities for the states and the federal government in 2025. Several states have already taken steps to reform accreditation at the state level.

Florida: In 2022, Florida passed Senate Bill 7044, which mandated public colleges and universities rotate their institutional accreditors every cycle, thereby reducing dependency on long-standing agencies, such as the Southern Association of Colleges and School Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). The law also introduced new requirements for transparency in tuition, syllabi, and textbook pricing, while requiring post-tenure reviews every five years.
North Carolina: North Carolina passed House Bill 8 (2023), which also requires public universities and community colleges to switch accreditors every cycle unless they can show no alternative exists. The law allows for legal action against individuals who deliberately submit false information to accreditors and establishes a state commission to explore alternatives to traditional accreditation systems.

Together, these state-level changes provided a foundation that the Trump administration has now elevated to a national level.

Perspectives on the Reforms

The accreditation reforms have generated a range of reactions from different stakeholders.

Supporters: Supporters of the reforms argue that they will promote competition among accreditors, encourage innovation in higher education, and reduce the influence of potentially biased standards. ALEC believes free markets allow for competition, which creates incentives for all businesses, in this case, accreditors and the universities they evaluate, to provide a better service and create a better outcome. "The Defense of Freedom Institute applauds the Trump administration for taking bold, necessary action to restore integrity, accountability, and competition to our broken accreditation system.
Critics: Critics express concerns that the reforms could lead to a weakening of accreditation standards and a decline in the quality of higher education. Wesley Whistle, project director for student success and affordability in the higher education initiative at New America, a left-leaning think tank, told Inside Higher Ed that the new process amounts to a rubber stamp for changing accreditors. Whistle also suggested the compressed timeline for ED approval within 30 days limits any actual oversight. "This guarantees there will be no meaningful review. This isn’t about streamlining, it’s surrender.

Concerns about DEI standards

Some critics have raised concerns about accreditors imposing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) standards on institutions. They argue that these standards may be discriminatory and that accreditors should focus on student outcomes rather than ideological agendas.

Section 1. Purpose. A group of higher education accreditors are the gatekeepers that decide which colleges and universities American students can spend the more than $100 billion in Federal student loans and Pell Grants dispersed each year. The accreditors’ job is to determine which institutions provide a quality education - and therefore merit accreditation. Accreditors routinely approve institutions that are low-quality by the most important measures. The national six-year undergraduate graduation rate was an alarming 64 percent in 2020. Notwithstanding this slide in graduation rates and graduates’ performance in the labor market, the spike in debt obligations in relation to expected earnings, and repayment rates on student loans, accreditors have remained improperly focused on compelling adoption of discriminatory ideology, rather than on student outcomes. Some accreditors make the adoption of unlawfully discriminatory practices a formal standard of accreditation, and therefore a condition of accessing Federal aid, through “diversity, equity, and inclusion” or “DEI”-based standards of accreditation that require institutions to “share results on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the context of their mission by considering . . . demographics . . . v. Sec. 2. Holding Accreditors Accountable for Unlawful Actions. (c) The Attorney General and the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall investigate and take appropriate action to terminate unlawful discrimination by American medical schools or graduate medical education entities that is advanced by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education or other accreditors of graduate medical education, including unlawful “diversity, equity, and inclusion” requirements under the guise of accreditation standards.

HLC's Response.

HLC will continue its practice of seeking member input, and we intend to do so as these accreditation reforms are being discussed and formulated. HLC will monitor these issues through our contacts in the Triad and at higher ed organizations. As details emerge, we will keep you informed. See HLC’s Relationship within the Triad for how we provide value to members by working with states and federal agencies.

Read also: Becoming a Neonatal Nurse

tags: #college #accreditation #reforms #education #department