UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

Issue Paper 5: Accreditation

Session 1: January 8-11, 2024

Issue: Accreditation

Statutory cites: Section 496 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), 20 U.S.C. §

1099b 

Regulatory cites: 34 CFR parts 602 and 604

Summary of issues: Under the HEA, the Department “recognizes” accrediting agencies that the 

Secretary of Education determines to be reliable authorities as to the quality of education or training 

provided by institutions of higher education. For more than half a century, accreditation has set baseline 

standards for postsecondary institutions with the goal of continuous improvement in how well they 

serve students across a diverse array of institutions and educational programs. The Federal government,

and the Department in particular, rely on accreditation to determine whether an institution or 

educational program is a worthwhile investment for Federal financial aid and taxpayer dollars. Robust 

accreditation and oversight of postsecondary educational institutions and programs is critical to 

advancing quality outcomes for students and protecting students and taxpayers. 

Through this rulemaking, the Department seeks to 1) implement a process that focuses on the areas of 

greatest risk among accrediting agencies and in accrediting agencies’ reviews of institutions, 2) increase 

the rigor of accreditation, 3) support and strengthen accreditation as a critical pillar of the regulatory 

triad, and 4) simplify, clarify, and streamline regulations to better align goals across the Department.

Proposal:

Under § 602.3, definition of “Representative of the public”: 

1. Require that public members serving on agency decision-making bodies are independent of 

agencies, associations, and institutions. The Department would exclude the following from 

participation as a public member: current or former employees, members of the governing 

board, owners, shareholders of, or consultants to accredited, preaccredited, and applicant 

institutions or programs; current or former members of any trade association or membership 

organization related to, affiliated with, or associated with the agency; current or former 

employees of, or consultants to, the agency; or members of the program integrity triad. This will 

help ensure that public members are truly independent of the agency or an institution or 

program the agency has accredited and will reduce potential conflicts of interest. 

Under § 602.10, Link to Federal programs:
2

1. Require demonstration of a Federal link. For accrediting agencies that seek recognition by the 

Secretary for the purpose of allowing their institutions and/or programs to meet requirements 

to participate in non-HEA programs at other Federal agencies, the Department would require 

that the accreditor provide verified documentation of the number of accredited institutions or 

programs that participate in the established non-HEA programs, including the amount of Federal 

funding the programs or institutions receive using the agency as a Federal link. By requiring

accreditors to demonstrate and provide sufficient documentation of a non-HEA link, the 

Department seeks to understand and better account for the risk an accreditor presents to 

taxpayers, relative to other accreditors. This would assist the Department in prioritizing its

review of accreditors through a risk-based approach that considers the types of Federal 

assistance for which accreditation by a particular accreditor allows its accredited institutions or 

programs to qualify. This would also help ensure that Department time and resources are not 

used reviewing accreditors that do not have a Federal link.

Under § 602.13, [Reserved (formerly Acceptance of the agency by others)]:

1. Reinstate requirements that an agency be “widely accepted” as a reliable authority regarding 

the quality of the education provided by the institutions or programs the agency accredits. 

Requiring agencies to demonstrate that their accrediting standards, policies, and decisions are 

widely accepted by relevant educators, licensing bodies, practitioners, and employers helps 

ensure that agencies are reliable authorities for the quality of the institutions and programs they 

accredit. 

Under §§ 602.18 and 602.20, Monitoring and reevaluation of accredited institutions and programs and 

Enforcement of standards:

1. Require accreditors to take action more quickly when they identify areas of non-compliance, 

including limiting the amount of time an institution can be out of compliance to the shorter of 

either the length of the longest program at an institution or two years. The reduction in time 

would not apply to instances where an agency takes action because of student achievementrelated compliance failures, given that it may take an institution or program more time to 

demonstrate improvement in this area. The Department proposes to strengthen its regulations 

related to the timeline for monitoring and enforcement actions that an agency must take and to 

eliminate unwarranted exceptions to this timeline, while allowing flexibility for national 

emergencies. The proposed changes to the timeline would help ensure that institutions or 

programs that are out of compliance with an agency’s standards do not remain accredited for 

extended periods of time. 

Under § 602.22, Substantive changes and other reporting requirements: 

1. Revise substantive change requirements to focus on changes of greatest risk. Substantive 

change requirements govern the required review and approval by accrediting agencies when an 

institution seeks to fundamentally change its policies or practices. These regulations are meant 

to ensure consistency and quality across institutions and are an important guardrail to protect
3

students from significant changes that may impact an institution’s resources and capacity. The

Department proposes revising and clarifying its substantive change regulations to require

agencies to visit and approve all additional locations of an institution, to approve distance 

education on an institution’s first offering and at the 50 percent threshold, and to approve the 

addition of programs at any level by an institution that has not previously offered programs at 

such a level. The Department also proposes to eliminate exceptions in existing regulation that

allow agencies to delegate certain substantive change approval decisions to agency staff, rather 

than the agency’s decision-making body, or to permit institutions not to notify agencies of a 

substantive change under certain circumstances. Further, the Department proposes to require 

that, for substantive changes by institutions that are on sanction, negative action, or provisional 

certification status, the agency must evaluate, as part of its decision, whether the substantive 

change could create significant risk to students. Through these changes, the Department seeks 

to streamline, strengthen, and clarify the substantive change requirements, with a focus on the 

areas of greatest potential risk to students and taxpayers. 

Questions for discussion:

1. Are there areas that create significant risk that are not included in an agency’s required definition of 

“substantive change” under § 602.22(a)(1)(ii) but should be? 

2. Should the Department define “significant departure,” as used in § 602.22(a)(1)(ii)(C), and if so, how 

should it define the term?

Under § 602.23(c), Operating procedures all agencies must have: 

1. Clarify the requirement that agencies must review complaints in a timely, fair, and equitable 

manner, including by specifying factors the Department will consider in reviewing complaint 

policies, such as the availability of multiple submission methods, confidentiality of the 

complainant, and whether timelines for reviewing complaints are clear. Complaints can be an 

important indicator of whether an institution or program is providing students a quality 

education, and the Department seeks to ensure that agencies’ complaint polices are fair and 

equitable to anyone wishing to file a complaint. This change would also codify current practice.

Under § 602.30-602.39, Subpart C - The Recognition Process (and conforming changes throughout):

1. Revise and streamline the recognition process to provide more flexibility to the Department in

how it conducts reviews and its timeline for reviewing agency recognition. Previous changes 

created a rigid and extended timeline that, in some instances, draws out reviews and limits the 

ability of the Department to review or address issues in a more timely way. In revising the 

timeline, the Department also seeks to focus its reviews on agency risk categories (See Subpart 

C below). 

Under Part 602, The Secretary’s Recognition of Accrediting Agencies
4 

1. Better align the accreditation regulations with Title IV eligibility regulations. Numerous Title IV 

eligibility regulations implicate institutional review by, and decisions of, accrediting agencies. 

Where appropriate throughout Part 602, the Department seeks to include cross references to 

related Title IV regulations to ensure that accrediting agencies are aware of the Title IV 

implications of their actions and the connection between requirements that apply to accrediting 

agencies and requirements for institutional eligibility. 

Under Proposed Part 604, The Secretary’s Recognition of State Agencies for the Approval of Nurse 

Education: 

1. Regulate standards and recognition processes for State agencies for the approval of nurse 

education. Criteria for the Department’s recognition of State agencies for the approval of nurse 

education are included in a January 16, 1969, Federal Register notice that cites outdated 

statute. By incorporating these criteria, with any appropriate revisions, into Department

regulations at proposed Part 604, the Department would codify existing practice and update the 

criteria and recognition procedures applied to State agencies for the approval of nurse 

education to more closely align with those applied to other agencies. For reference, see the 

1969 Federal Register Notice (pgs. 58-59) here: FR-1969-01-16.pdf (govinfo.gov)1

Questions for Discussion: 

Under § 602.16, Accreditation and preaccreditation standards:

Issue: The HEA and existing regulations require that accrediting agencies have, and effectively apply, 

standards for accreditation that are sufficiently rigorous to ensure that the agency is a reliable authority 

regarding the quality of education provided. The ten categories for which accrediting agencies must 

have and effectively apply clear standards include, among others: success with respect to student 

achievement; fiscal and administrative capacity appropriate to the scale of operations; student support 

services; and recruiting and admissions practices. The Department seeks to further clarify the 

requirement that standards are sufficiently rigorous in these categories to ensure quality, particularly 

with respect to student achievement. Questions for discussion related to this issue may include the 

following: 

1

By selecting the following link, you will be leaving the Department of Education’s (ED’s) website and 

navigating to a third-party site. This site and its contents are managed by organizations that may or may 

not have a business relationship with ED. As such, the Department is not responsible for the product, 

service, or overall website contents nor can it guarantee that any of the above are accessible in 

accordance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. If you need accessibility support, please 

reach out to the third-party vendor for assistance.
5

1. How can the Department ensure that standards are sufficiently rigorous? Should the 

expectations of rigor vary by category? If yes, how so?

2. What factors should the Department consider in evaluating the rigor of an agency’s standards 

generally? 

3. What factors should the Department consider in evaluating the rigor of an agency’s standards, 

specifically, on:

a. Success with respect to student achievement?

b. Fiscal and administrative capacity?

c. Student support services?

d. Recruiting and admissions practices?

Under § 602.24, Teach-out plans and agreements:

Issue: When abrupt or disorderly closures occur, students are left to navigate a maze of options 

regarding whether and where to transfer or continue their education. Studies have shown that very few 

students affected by such closures are likely to ultimately complete their educational programs, and 

affected students are more likely to default on their loans. Under existing regulations, agencies must 

require an institution to submit a teach-out plan if the institution is subject to certain triggers, such as 

being placed on probation or equivalent status. For more serious triggers, such as an agency taking an 

adverse action against an institution, agencies must require the institution to submit a teach-out plan 

and, if practicable, a teach-out agreement. While teach-out agreements provide students with more 

viable options for transferring than teach-out plans alone, in most instances, either the accrediting 

agency does not require a teach-out agreement or the institution fails to create one even if it is required 

to do so. The Department wants to ensure that students have quality transfer options and guarantees 

when an institution suddenly closes. Questions for discussion related to this issue may include the 

following: 

1. What can the Department do to further address the issue of orderly teach-outs and securing 

teach-out agreements in the event of a sudden closure? 

2. Given that teach-out agreements can be hard to obtain, is there a middle ground between a 

teach-out plan and teach-out agreement that can be executed to provide students with transfer 

options?

3. What should the role and responsibilities of accrediting agencies be in securing options for 

students and communicating information in the event of a sudden closure of an institution an 

agency accredits? 
6

Under Subpart C, The Recognition process

Issue: The Department seeks to create/codify a risk-based review process guiding how the Department 

reviews and approves agencies to protect students and taxpayers. The Department currently recognizes 

53 accrediting agencies under Part 602, four State agencies for the approval of public postsecondary 

vocational education under Part 603, and five State agencies for the approval of nurse education under 

the January 16, 1969, Federal Register notice. The HEA requires that the Department, through the 

recognition process, prioritize its review of agencies based on certain risks, including agencies that 

accredit institutions that participate most extensively in Title IV and agencies that have been the subject 

of the most complaints or legal actions. The incorporation of a risk-based recognition review process

into regulation would assist the Department in implementing this requirement, while also focusing the 

Department’s limited resources on the most important reviews. Under such a system, we would: (1) 

prioritize regular monitoring and more frequent, in-depth reviews of agencies that represent the 

greatest risk; (2) implement a more focused and narrower review of moderate-risk agencies; and (3) 

subject the lowest risk agencies to less frequent and more highly focused reviews under the most critical 

criteria for an agency’s recognition by the Secretary. Factors that could be weighed in determining risk 

include: the amount of Title IV dollars received by the institutions the agency accredits; the total 

number of institutions or programs the agency accredits and/or the number of students at those 

institutions or programs; the agency’s record of compliance with the Department’s criteria for 

recognition; and the record of compliance by accredited institutions or programs with the agency’s 

standards. Questions for discussion related to this issue may include the following: 

1. What factors should the Department consider in determining the relative risk of recognized 

accrediting agencies? 

2. What types of reviews and observations should the Department apply to the various risk 

categories?

Other

Issue: Regulatory changes that went into effect in July 2020, eliminated the formal distinction between 

historically regional and national accrediting agencies and broadened the meaning of geographic area, 

as used in § 602.11, with the goals of: (1) fostering competition among regional agencies so that an 

institution or program can select the agency that best aligns with the institution’s mission; and (2) 

improving transparency about the States in which each agency accredits campuses. 

Since the change, most formerly regional accrediting agencies have expanded their geographic areas to 

accredit throughout the United States, and some institutions have started the process of changing 

accrediting agencies. Legislation passed in 2022 in Florida requires public institutions to switch 

accrediting agencies. North Carolina passed legislation this year requiring all public institutions to switch 
7

agencies every accreditation cycle. Texas recently proposed similar legislation, which was not passed,

and other States are reportedly considering similar legislation. 

While the Department supports the goal of institutional choice in choosing an accrediting agency that 

best fits an institution’s mission and has the potential to improve quality, we remain concerned that

forced switching undermines a key pillar of the Federal triad, hinders accreditation's ability to foster 

continuous improvement and hold institutions accountable, and places unnecessary costs on institutions 

which can be passed on to students. Through rulemaking, the Department seeks to maintain 

institutional choice while protecting against attempts to undermine accreditation through forced 

switching. Questions for discussion related to this issue may include the following: 

1. The Department is interested in ensuring that accrediting agencies consist of voluntary 

memberships, as required by the HEA. How should the Department define voluntary?

2. Before an institution can switch accrediting agencies, it must demonstrate to the Secretary that 

it has reasonable cause to switch. What factors should the Department consider in determining 

reasonable cause? 

3. Should the Department require accrediting agencies to consider additional information in 

evaluating an institution for accreditation when the institution is switching accreditors because 

it is required to do so under State law? If so, what information?