What the Proposed Federal Accreditation Overhaul Means for Higher Education

On August 19, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that could significantly reshape the federal accreditation landscape. The 354-page proposed rule (yes, it is that long), Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization, addresses everything from student outcomes and transfer credit to academic freedom, faculty evaluation, research integrity, and the recognition of accrediting agencies.

There is a lot here. What generally happens when major regulatory changes are proposed, it can be challenging to separate what institutions need to pay attention to from what may ultimately change before a final rule is issued.

Keep in mind, this is a proposed rule, not a final rule. This distinction is critical! Public comments are due September 21, 2026, and the Department must consider those comments before issuing a final rule. If finalized by November 1, 2026, the changes would take effect July 1, 2027.

That means institutions do not need to begin rewriting policies tomorrow. I do think the proposal gives us a very good indication of where federal conversations about accreditation are headed, and there are several areas higher education leaders, particularly those involved in educator preparation and accreditation, should be closely monitoring.

How We Got Here

The proposed rule implements President Trump's Executive Order 14279, Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education, and follows the negotiated rulemaking process that began in January 2026.

The Department convened the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) Committee, bringing together representatives of accrediting agencies, institutions of higher education, states, students, veterans, taxpayers, the business community, and other stakeholders. After negotiating sessions in April and May, the committee reached consensus on the proposed regulatory package.

At the center of the Department's argument is a concern familiar to anyone who has worked in accreditation, in that they are questioning if accreditation has become too focused on processes, paperwork, and procedures and not focused enough on student outcomes and workforce readiness.

The Department argues that the current system has contributed to unnecessary administrative burden, rising costs, and too much attention to institutional processes rather than measurable student outcomes.

Whether one agrees with every proposed solution is a separate question, but the underlying discussion surrounding outcomes, evidence, transparency, and burden is one higher education has been having for a long time.

Student Outcomes Take Center Stage

For me, one of the most important pieces of this proposal is its increased emphasis on student outcomes. Under the proposed rule, accreditors would be expected to evaluate licensing outcomes, retention and graduation rates, employment, further education, standardized assessments, and educational and economic return relative to the total cost of attendance. Data on earnings and wage possibilities would also become part of the conversation where it is available.

For educator preparation programs (EPPs), the emphasis on outcomes is not entirely new. CAEP and AAQEP already expect programs to examine completer performance, licensure outcomes, employer feedback, and other measures of program effectiveness.; however, what is different is the explicit connection between educational outcomes, cost, and economic return.

That raises some interesting questions for programs whose value cannot be fully represented by salary alone. Teacher preparation is an obvious example. If return on investment becomes a more prominent quality measure, institutions will need to become much better at explaining not only what their graduates earn, but also what students paid, whether they completed, whether they secured employment in their field, where they are hired, and the wider value their programs provide.

In other words, institutions need to understand the story their outcome data tell before someone else tells that story for them.

A More Competitive Accreditation Landscape

Another major component of the proposal is an effort to increase competition among accreditors. The proposed rule would eliminate the historical distinction between regional and national accreditors, lower some of the barriers for new accreditors seeking federal recognition, and make it easier in certain conditions for institutions to change accreditors.

There are potential benefits to greater flexibility, such as institutions have long raised concerns about limited accreditor choice, administrative burden, and the difficulty of moving between accrediting agencies. There are also legitimate questions about unintended consequences. Could greater competition encourage innovation and reduce unnecessary burden? Possibly. Could it also create fragmentation or make it easier for institutions experiencing significant oversight concerns to seek a more favorable accreditor? That concern is quite legitimate and needs to be considered as well.

This is one of those areas where I do not think the answer is as simple as “more competition is good” or “more competition is bad.” I think the real question is whether increased choice can take place while maintaining meaningful and consistent expectations for rigor and quality.

Academic Freedom and Intellectual Diversity Enter the Accreditation Conversation

One of the more significant, and likely more debated, changes involves academic freedom and intellectual diversity. The proposed rule would establish federal accreditation expectations related to civil rights, First Amendment protections where applicable, academic freedom, freedom of inquiry, and intellectual diversity. Accreditors would be expected to consider whether institutional policies protect these principles consistently across viewpoints.

This leads to a larger concern about the appropriate role of accreditation. Accreditors have always evaluated institutional policies and practices related to educational quality, but how far should that oversight extend into academic freedom, intellectual diversity, and First Amendment compliance?

Reasonable and logical people will disagree. Regardless of where institutions fall in that debate, however, this is an appropriate time to review academic freedom and free speech policies and ask whether they are clear, consistently applied, and aligned with institutional mission and applicable law.

Faculty Evaluation and Institutional Flexibility

The proposal also includes new expectations around faculty performance evaluation. Accreditors would evaluate whether institutions maintain written and periodic faculty evaluations with clearly defined standards and meaningful processes for addressing sustained nonperformance. Institutions would also be expected to demonstrate sufficient flexibility in instructional staffing to respond to changes in enrollment, program viability, and financial conditions. This could become complicated for institutions operating within tenure, collective bargaining, and shared governance structures.

I would caution against immediately interpreting the proposal as an attack on tenure or shared governance. The draft does not explicitly say that. However, institutions should pay attention to how terms such as “meaningful mechanisms” and “sufficient flexibility” are defined and interpreted. Those definitions could have very different implications across institutional contexts.

Research Integrity, and AI, Move into the Debate

Another area worth watching, very carefully, is research integrity. The proposed rule would require accreditors to examine institutional policies addressing plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, citation manipulation, selective reporting, authorship practices, and related research misconduct.

The inclusion of artificial intelligence in this conversation is particularly important. Many institutions are still developing policies governing AI in teaching, research, authorship, assessment, and scholarly work. AI use is evolving much faster than most institutional policy processes, so it is important to stay ahead of the curve and ensure forward thinking is taking place.

Even if this particular provision changes before the rule becomes final, the larger issue is not going away. Institutions need clear, usable expectations around responsible AI use, not just because an accreditor may eventually ask for them, but because faculty, researchers, and students need the direction.

Transfer Credit Becomes More Transparent

The proposed rule also addresses a long-standing frustration for many students: transfer credit. Rather than creating an automatic presumption that transfer credits must be accepted, the proposal emphasizes transparency. Institutions would need to provide student-specific explanations when comparable coursework is denied, communicate decisions before students make enrollment or financial commitments, explain the time and cost associated with replacing denied credits, and provide an avenue for appeal.

From a student perspective, there is a lot to appreciate here. From an institutional perspective, there could also be considerable administrative work involved. Programs should begin looking at whether their transfer decisions are consistent, transparent, documented, and easy for students to understand. That is good practice regardless of what happens with the final regulation.

What About the Accreditors Themselves?

Some of the most consequential changes may affect accreditors more directly than institutions. The proposed rule strengthens requirements that accrediting agencies remain separate and independent from affiliated trade associations, membership organizations, and professional bodies. It also includes additional conflict-of-interest protections and governance expectations.

For institutions, particularly those working with specialized and programmatic accreditors, this is an area to watch rather than one where immediate action is necessary. Educator preparation programs should pay close attention to how organizations such as CAEP and AAQEP interpret and respond to the final requirements. If organizational or governance changes become necessary, they could eventually affect accreditation processes, expectations, timelines, or costs.

What about DEI?

The proposal would also restrict accreditors from maintaining standards that require institutions to provide preferences based on race, color, national origin, or sex in areas such as admissions, hiring, and contracting. This provision exists within a much larger and quickly changing legal and policy environment surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education.

For institutions, the immediate task is not to make assumptions about what the final regulation will be, but to understand exactly what current accreditation standards say, how institutional policies are written, and where changes in federal requirements could eventually create areas of conflict or needed revision.

The Interesting Paradox: Deregulation and More Oversight

One of the things I find most interesting about the proposal is its tension between deregulation and expanded oversight. On one hand, the Department is proposing greater accreditor competition, increased institutional flexibility, and reductions in what it views as unnecessary accreditation burden. On the other hand, the proposal introduces new expectations involving student ROI, faculty evaluation, academic freedom, intellectual diversity, research integrity, AI, transfer credit, accreditor independence, and other areas.

Will this actually reduce accreditation burden? Maybe in some areas. In others, institutions and accreditors may find themselves responsible for collecting, evaluating, and documenting information they have never previously been required to address through accreditation. That tension is definitely worth watching as the rule moves forward.

What Does This Mean for Educator Preparation?

Educator preparation programs sit in an interesting position because many operate within multiple layers of accountability: institutional accreditation, specialized or programmatic accreditation, state authorization or approval, licensure requirements, and institutional quality assurance systems. That makes alignment increasingly important.

EPP leaders should be paying particular attention to several areas:

• Outcome data. What do you know about employment, licensure, persistence, completion, employer satisfaction, and—potentially—earnings?
• Faculty evaluation. Are evaluation processes for full-time, adjunct, and clinical faculty written, periodic, consistent, and documented?
• Transfer credit. Can you clearly explain why coursework was accepted or denied?
• Research and AI integrity. Do your policies reflect how faculty and candidates are actually using AI today?
• Accreditor changes. How are your institutional and specialized accreditors responding to the proposal?

I would resist the urge to create five new committees and twenty new data reports before we know what the final rule actually says. Preparation does not have to mean overreaction.

What Should Institutions Do Now?

Because this is still a proposed rule, I think institutions should focus on readiness rather than compliance.

• Read the proposal and participate in the comment process. If a provision could have an unintended consequence for your institution, students, faculty, or programs, say so. The public comment period exists for a reason.
• Take inventory of your outcome data. Before creating new measures, understand what you already have and where genuine gaps exist.
• Review policies that are likely to be affected. Faculty evaluation, transfer credit, academic freedom, research integrity, and AI governance are logical places to begin.
• Talk with your accreditors. Ask what they are watching and how they are approaching the proposal.
• Do not jump the gun and build an entirely new compliance system around a rule that is not yet final. Good preparation is thoughtful. It is not reactive.

A Balanced Perspective

I do not think this proposal should be dismissed as just being political, nor do I think every proposed change should be embraced as necessary reform. There are legitimate questions being raised about the current accreditation system. How much does accreditation cost institutions? How much of what we collect actually tells us something about educational quality? Are we measuring the outcomes that matter? Do students understand the value of the programs they enter and the credits they earn? Those are important questions.

At the same time, expanding accreditation into areas such as academic freedom, intellectual diversity, faculty staffing, and research integrity raises equally legitimate questions about institutional autonomy and the appropriate boundaries of accreditor and federal oversight. Both of these conversations matter. For institutions I think the most productive response is a practical one:

• What would these expectations mean for us if they became final?
• If an accreditor asked tomorrow for stronger employment and ROI data, what could you provide?
• If reviewers examined faculty evaluation practices, would your written policies match what actually happens?
• If a transfer student asked why a course was denied, could you provide a clear and defensible answer?
• If an accreditor examined your institution's approach to AI and research integrity, would your policies reflect current practice?

Programs already engaged in meaningful continuous improvement may discover that many of these expectations are not as disruptive as they seem. Programs that have relied primarily on documenting processes may have more work ahead.

To me, that is the most useful lens through which to view this proposal, not as something to fear or celebrate, but as an opportunity to examine whether our systems are actually producing the quality, transparency, and student outcomes we say they are.

Point to Ponder

If your accreditor is required tomorrow to evaluate your program's return on investment using wage and employment data, what story would your data tell? Would that story reflect what you believe is truly valuable about your program?

References

• Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2026, August 21). AGB Policy Alert: U.S. Department of Education Releases Proposed Accreditation Rule for Public Comment.
• Executive Order 14279. (2025). Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education.
• Inside Higher Ed. (2026, August 20). ED Releases Accreditation Rule for Public Comment.
• Inside Higher Ed. (2026, May 22). Trump's Accreditation Overhaul Advances.
• Nixon Peabody LLP. (2026, May 26). Department of Education proposes overhauled accreditation rules.
• U.S. Department of Education. (2026, August 19). U.S. Department of Education Issues Proposed Rule to Overhaul and Improve America's Higher Education Accreditation System [Press release].
• U.S. Department of Education. (2026). Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization: The Secretary's Recognition of Accrediting Agencies. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 91 FR 53940.