1

Directed Questions to Non-Federal Negotiators

The Department seeks recommendations from negotiators on the following provisions. Please come to 

the next negotiating session prepared to discuss possible solutions, which should take into account and 

not exceed the Department’s existing statutory authority:

1. ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS AND WAIVERS

The Department seeks recommendations from negotiators about when and how agencies should be 

allowed to have alternative standards for meeting agency requirements, such as when they accredit 

institutions with vastly different missions, student populations or educational objectives. The 

Department also seeks recommendations from negotiators about when and how agencies should be 

allowed to grant waivers to one or more standards, such as to allow for educational innovations that 

may not fit neatly into the agency’s typical requirements, or in situations where an institution cannot 

reasonably be expected to comply with a given standard due to circumstances beyond their control, 

or in the event that an institution has agreed to serve as a teach-out provider for students enrolled at 

a closed or closing institution. Should institutions be required to meet minimum performance 

requirements (such as no outstanding program reviews, sufficient financial responsibility scores, or 

sufficient cohort default rates), in order to qualify for waivers?

Background: 

Alternative Standards

There are instances when accreditors may wish to have multiple standards that allow institutions of 

different types or with different missions or even to allow different programs within a single institution 

to meet standards for student achievement, faculty credential requirements, facilities, financial capacity 

and student services in different ways. For example, a small, rural community college may face 

challenges in identifying a sufficient number of instructors who have advanced degrees in their 

academic field, and may elect to hire instructors who demonstrate their qualification to be effective 

educators through other mechanisms. High school teachers who successfully teach advanced courses at 

the high school level may be well qualified to teach remedial or first year courses at the college level –

even if the high school teacher has an advanced degree in education rather than a specific academic 

field. 

In other instances, a comprehensive university may wish to rely on licensure exam pass rates to evaluate 

the performance of some academic programs, but to rely on qualitative measures to evaluate student 

success in arts and humanities programs, and employer feedback or graduate school enrollment to 

evaluate student success in other programs. Accreditors should have flexibility to allow institutions to 

develop outcomes standards that are most relevant to the programs they offer and the promises they 

make to students and employers they serve. 
2

Waivers

There are also instances when an accreditor which has a single set of standards may wish to waive 

certain of those standards because of circumstances beyond the control of the institutions they accredit. 

For example, a programmatic accreditor may have a bright-line standard for licensure pass rates, but 

some states or territories do not require professionals in that field to take the licensure exam in order to 

work in the field. In such situations, an accreditor may wish to waive licensure pass rates and use a 

different standard to evaluate program quality since students who are not required to take licensure 

exams may not do so, or may do so in a way that doesn’t accurately reflect the quality of the program. 

Students may feel less compelled to prepare for or do their best on an exam that has no bearing on 

whether or not they can work in their field. 

Other circumstances that may point to the need for alternative standards or waivers from typical 

standards include:

 An agency may have expectations that institutions employ a shared governance model, but 

since such a model is not required by statute or regulations, it may wish to allow institutions or 

programs focused on meeting workforce needs to have a different governance model that 

prioritizes employers in the decision-making process, and allows for more rapid responses to 

changing curricular needs. 

 An agency may find that a single set of accountability standards set the bar too low for a highly 

selective institution, but at the same time too high for an open enrollment institution, or that a 

single set of standards fails to adequately distinguish between the public service goals of a 

research university and a small rural community college. 

 An agency may wish to allow an institution that is implementing an innovative pedagogical 

strategy or technology to exchange one or more of the agency’s typical standards for alternative 

standards that more appropriately measure the effectiveness of that strategy or technology. 

 An agency may implement enrollment caps for certain academic programs, in part to control 

supply of trained professionals and in part to ensure adequate internship or externship 

opportunities, but may wish to waive those caps in instances where that institution wishes to 

serve students displaced from a closing or closed institution, especially if internship or 

externship sites continue to be available to those students when they transition to a new 

institution. 

Statutory Context:

Agencies must abide by, and cannot waive, requirements that are specifically imposed upon them or on 

the institutions or programs they accredit by federal or state law, nor can they expand their scope of 

recognition without Department approval. Agencies must have standards in place for each of the 

recognition requirements specified by statute, including 20 U.S.C. § 1099b, and listed in Section 34 C.F.R. 

§ 602.16(a)(1). While agencies cannot waive any of these statutory recognition requirements for an 
3

accredited institution, agencies have flexibility in defining how an institution must meet those 

requirements. There is nothing that would prohibit an agency from waiving a particular accreditor 

developed requirement designed to fulfill a federal or state requirement as long as the agency has an 

effective alternative requirement that satisfies the state or federal law.

Similarly, there is nothing that would prohibit an agency from maintaining dual or alternate standards 

for meeting those requirements to ensure that institutions with different missions, size or selectivity are 

held accountable in ways most appropriate to their mission and the students they serve. Like all 

standards, the dual or alternative policies must effectively address the quality of the institution or 

program to which it is tailored. In some instances, an agency may not have an alternative standard in 

place, but if an exceptional circumstance arises, it may wish to use a waiver process to allow an 

institution to meet the recognition requirements in a way not anticipated by the agency or included in its 

written standards but that meets the quality assurance requirements of accreditation as well as all other 

applicable legal requirements. 

2. SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT

The Department also seeks recommendations from negotiators on how it could discourage or prevent 

accreditors from aligning with state licensing bodies, professional organizations or other vocational 

credentialing boards to exclude individuals who prepare for work through apprenticeship, the 

military, or other work-based learning pathways from sitting for licensing exams that they could 

otherwise pass. Similarly, the Department seeks recommendations on how to prevent costly and 

unnecessary credential inflation, which is sometimes driven by accreditors in partnership with 

affiliated credentialing organizations.

Background: 

The Department is concerned about the growing number of professional and licensing bodies that have 

joined forces with accreditors to make completion of an accredited program a requirement for an 

individual to qualify to sit for a licensure or certification exam. Many of these licensing bodies once 

honored dual pathways to eligibility so that those who learned through on-the-job training or military 

service could demonstrate competency and earn licensure by sitting for the exam. Some programmatic 

accreditors have gone as far as sending letters to the Secretary of Labor demanding that he not register 

apprenticeship programs that could be equally, if not more effective in preparing individuals to pass 

licensure exams and to work in the field, but at a lower cost to individuals. 

The Department does not have authority over licensing bodies but has the authority, e.g., to ensure that 

accreditors function separately and independently from affiliated membership, professional or trade 

organizations. The Department asks negotiators to provide recommendations on how to ensure that 

accreditors continue to act in the best interest of students, rather than members of professional 

organizations. 
4

Statutory Context:

The separate and independent requirements are found at 20 U.S.C. § 1099b(b). 

3. TRANSFER OF CREDIT

The Department also seeks the advice of negotiators on how to ensure that transfer of credits remain 

the decision of institutions, but disallow institutions from categorically denying credits from national 

accreditors if the courses completed by the student are in alignment with those offered by the 

accepting institution.

Background:

Many institutions have not established criteria by which transfer of credit requests are evaluated, and 

instead leave it to the subjective opinion of the faculty to make that determination. Without established 

criteria, many decisions to accept or deny a transfer of credit request seem arbitrary to students. This 

lack of transparency leaves some students confused about how and why specific TOC decisions were 

made, and can even result in different treatment of TOC requests from one academic department to 

another within the same institution. 

The Department seeks the advice of negotiators on how to ensure that students are treated fairly and 

that transfer of credit decisions are made based on thoughtful analysis of curriculum, content, learning 

objectives or rigor rather than categorical denials because the sending institution is nationally 

accredited, is an open enrollment institution, or offers degrees at a lower level than the receiving 

institution (such as transfer of credits from community colleges to four-year institutions). Institutions 

are permitted to establish their own transfer of credit policies, which could include denying any and all 

transfer credits. However, among institutions that accept transfer credits, the Department is concerned 

that accreditors have put burden of proof on a decision to accept rather than deny transfer of credits. 

Instead of requiring institutions to justify why they did accept transfer of credits, it may be in the best 

interest of students if accreditors required institutions to justify why they did not accept transfer credits. 

It may also be helpful if the Department or accreditors required institutions to report the percentage of 

transfer credit requests approved for the major, approved to fulfill electives or general education 

requirements, and denied. What, if any, provisions should the Department consider in order to 

encourage institutions to issue credit through prior learning assessment?

Statutory Context:

20 U.S.C. 1092(h) requires institutions to disclose their transfer of credit policies that include at a 

minimum, any established criteria used to evaluate transfer credits and a list of any institutions with 

which the institution has an articulation agreement. 
5

Note: Any proposal from the negotiators should encourage institutions to be transparent and 

evenhanded in applying established criteria to transfer of credit requests without requiring an institution 

to adopt a particular policy, procedure, or practice. The Department does not seek to direct, control, or 

supervise the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any institution, or over 

any accrediting agency in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1092(h), and any proposal should not require the 

Department to do so. 

4. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

The Department seeks advice from negotiators on how to ensure continuous improvement and 

rigorous outcomes, while at the same time avoiding one-size-fits-all solutions that fail to 

appropriately account for differences in institutional mission, occupational pathways, or the 

accountability that students have for their own success. 

Background:

The Department is seeking to appropriately balance the need to hold institutions accountable for 

student outcomes with the recognition that open enrollment institutions and less selective institutions, 

by virtue of their mission, will have different outcomes than elite, selective institutions. The 

Department also seeks to expand the ways in which accreditors are permitted to measure student 

achievement to include qualitative as well as quantitative measures and to recognize that for many 

institutions, the number of degrees awarded under-reports the contributions an institution makes to 

students, including to those who do not seek a degree. The Department is concerned that accreditors 

inappropriately have been encouraged and in some cases required to adopt bright-line student 

achievement standards, and to elevate those standards despite the lack of evidence that higher 

standards are reasonable or appropriate or include appropriate statistical techniques to isolate the 

impact of program quality on student outcomes. The Department has also ignored the role of student 

accountability in determining outcomes. The Department wishes to identify ways to ensure continuous 

improvement and rigorous outcomes among institutions, while at the same time avoiding one-size-fitsall solutions that fail to appropriately account for differences in institutional mission, occupational 

pathways, student ambition, or choices about work-life balance. The Department seeks to ensure that 

it, and the Advisory Council, avoid violations of the statutory prohibitions on dictating student 

achievement standards, while at the same time requiring institutions to achieve strong outcomes. 

Statutory Context:

20 U.S.C. § 1099b(g) states: “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit the Secretary to 

establish criteria for accrediting agencies or associations that are not required by this section. Nothing in 

this chapter shall be construed to prohibit or limit any accrediting agency or association from adopting 

additional standards not provided for in this section. Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit 

the Secretary to establish any criteria that specifies, defines, or prescribes the standards that accrediting 

agencies or associations shall use to assess any institution’s success with respect to student 

achievement.” 20 U.S.C. § 1099b(n)(3) states: “The Secretary shall not, under any circumstances, base 
6

decisions on the recognition or denial of recognition of accreditation agencies or associations on criteria 

other than those contained in this section.” 20 U.S.C. § 1099b(p) provides: “Nothing in subsection (a)(5)[, 

which addresses the standards of an accreditation agency or association,] shall be construed to restrict 

the ability of (1) an accrediting agency or association to set, with the involvement of its members, and to 

apply, accreditation standards for or to institutions or programs that seek review by the agency or 

association; or (2) an institution to develop and use institutional standards to show its success with 

respect to student achievement, which achievement may be considered as part of any accreditation 

review”). 20 U.S.C. § 1099b(o) provides: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall 

not promulgate any regulation with respect to the standards of an accreditation agency or association 

described in subsection (a)(5)[, which addresses the standards of an accreditation agency or 

association].” Note also that there is no specific authority for the Department to seek or ensure 

continuous improvement.