Proposed Federal Accreditation Regulations & Public Comments

Proposed Federal Accreditation Regulations May Impact Accredited Programs

In April and May 2026, the United States Department of Education (“the Department”) convened negotiated rulemaking sessions focused on accreditation through an Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) committee. The purpose of these sessions was to evaluate the role of accreditation in higher education, including how it intersects with student outcomes, institutional accountability, and innovation.

On May 21, 2026, the AIM negotiators reached consensus with participating stakeholders on a proposed set of regulations. The public comment period was launched on August 9 and concludes on September 21, 2026.

As a USDE-recognized accrediting agency and member of the Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors (ASPA), ACEN is sharing this information with you as some of the proposed new regulations, if approved, could have an impact on your accredited program. Based on this information, you may wish to submit comments that reflect the impact the proposed regulations may have on your accredited program.

Resources

‍

Key Proposed New Regulations

1. Eligibility determination for recognition

Eligibility for an accrediting agency will be based on whether the agency can demonstrate that its accreditation is required for access to federal funding. The accrediting agency will have to provide documentation that the federal link is currently utilized by programs/students, not that it was just available or the link would enable access to such funds (as currently stated in the HEA).

Impact: Accredited programs will need to document and report to the accrediting agency all federal funding that is being used by its students.

2. New conflict of interest (COI) requirements

Voting members involved in standards or policy development would be prohibited from voting on final adoption of those standards or policies if they are officers, directors, or employees of institutions or programs affected by those standards or policies.

Impact: Subject matter experts (e.g. faculty, administrators) of the decision-making (accrediting) body must recuse themselves from votes on setting standards and policy. If individuals with academic and practice expertise are not permitted to vote on standards, this puts public members as the sole approving authority over standards and policies.

3. Standards

The Department proposed new and prescriptive requirements regarding the content of required standards, and what accreditors must evaluate during accreditation reviews. Policies must be in place to protect civil rights, First Amendment rights, and academic freedom (broadly defined).

Impact: Accredited programs and institutions will need to create and enforce new policies that will be required adding to cost and documentation burden. It may also add more subjectivity to the accreditation process, particularly in determining areas such as “academic freedom.” This proposed regulation also expands the accreditor’s role beyond the quality of an educational program.

4. Student Achievement and Outcomes

Programs must maintain educational objectives that are developed and regularly reviewed “using reliable data.” Minimum criteria for assessment of student achievement must include:

State licensing or certification exam results.
Program retention, completion, or graduation rates.
Post-graduation outcomes including employment and continued education.
- Relevant standardized assessments (i.e., student scores on graduate school admissions exams such as the GMAT, LSAT, and GRE).
- Economic returns relative to the total cost of attendance (tuition and fees, room and board, supplies etc.) based on earnings data.

Impact: Accredited programs will need to collect a significant amount of student achievement and outcomes data that they currently do not collect adding to cost and documentation burden. In addition, there are a number of significant concerns related to some of the proposed outcome measures such as:

Relationship between completing one academic program and the score on a future standardized examination that is impacted by time, relevance to the primary degree, and other factors.
Correlating the economic return if a student chooses to attend a school with a high cost of attendance. The nursing program does not control the cost of housing, meal plans, institutional fees, among other expenses. And a student may choose a college or university for other reasons beyond cost.

5. Policies and Research

The accreditor must ensure there are policies in place whereby programs maintain the integrity of research, including policies that prevent any misconduct, as well as those that address the use of AI in research.

Impact: Accredited programs will need to create and enforce new policies that impact research.

6. Budget, Resources, Strategic Plan, Facility Maintenance and Compliance

Accrediting agencies will be required to evaluate budget, resource utilization and allocation, any available business or strategic plan, and the cost/benefit analysis of activities used to justify any associated financial, administrative or opportunity costs. They will also be required to submit evidence regarding facility maintenance and compliance with applicable safety standards, laws, and regulations.

Impact: Accredited programs will need to collect and submit evidence to the accrediting agency that describes the areas listed above. These areas have not historically been collected at the program level and will add to the documentation burden.

Call to Action

Programs may wish to submit public comments if they feel they may be negatively impacted by some of the recommendations.

Public comments may be submitted at this link: Federal Register : Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization: The Secretary's Recognition of Accrediting Agencies: Institutional Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended, Student Assistance General Provisions

‍

News and Updates