Accreditation Reform Risks Undermining U.S. Higher Education

The U.S. Education Department's proposed overhaul of accreditation rules risks crossing a legal line and disrupting the balance of power in higher education oversight. Maria Toyoda, CEO of the WASC Senior College and University Commission, raised these concerns in an interview for Inside Higher Ed’s podcast The Key, arguing the 80-page proposal could change the nature of accreditation itself.

A Legal Dichotomy at Risk

Toyoda explained that the Higher Education Act establishes a three-part system of oversight involving the federal government, state agencies, and accreditors. The law creates a clear division, she said. The government can regulate an accreditor's processes but not the substance of its standards. The new proposals, however, appear to prescribe substantive actions. "They are then coming right up to that line that could be crossed from being a process to being something of substance," Toyoda told Inside Higher Ed.

One example is the proposed requirement for accreditors to evaluate institutional policies on academic freedom and First Amendment rights. While the department does not define academic freedom, it wants agencies to check if policies include protections "that are clearly articulated and applied consistently to faculty regardless of appointment classification, race or other immutable characteristics, viewpoint, or ideology." Toyoda noted accreditors already review such policies but do not dictate their specific language. This shift, she warned, could significantly alter the relationship between institutions and their accreditors.

The Threat to Innovation and Diversity

Toyoda argued that imposing uniform rules on all accreditors is unrealistic and counterproductive. Applying the same standard to a small liberal arts college and a large public research university is impractical. It also undermines what she called the genius of U.S. Higher education: the ability to experiment. The department says its goal is to spur innovation, partly by cutting red tape to recognize new accreditors. Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent has suggested more accreditors would create a dynamic market.

Toyoda agrees competition among institutional accreditors is healthy but questions the logic for programmatic accreditors, where it could lead to watered-down standards. Her view finds some support from another major accrediting body. In its public comment, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education supported more competition but urged the department to allow accreditors flexibility in their policies and procedures.

The Unlikely Accreditor Switch

A key department aim is to make it easier for colleges to switch accreditors, fostering competition. Toyoda is skeptical this will happen at scale. While switching might be streamlined, the subsequent workload would be a major burden. Institutions would have to learn new standards and produce a fresh self-study tailored to a new accreditor's expectations. Switching itself is easy, she said. It’s what comes after that’s going to be complicated for institutions.

Data backs her skepticism. A July survey by the American Council on Education of over 320 institutional leaders found only 5 percent said their institution was likely to change accreditors if the rules are adopted. Also, in Inside Higher Ed’s forthcoming survey of chief academic officers, just 17 percent predict the federal overhaul will have a somewhat or strongly positive impact on higher education.

Without broader support from the sector, the department's push for more innovation, competition, and intellectual diversity through these prescribed rules may fail to achieve its goals.