CHEA Warns Proposed Rule Would Politicize Accreditation

The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) is warning that proposed federal regulations risk politicizing accreditation and fundamentally changing its purpose. In a formal comment to the U.S. Department of Education, the organization representing accreditors and institutions argues the rules would blur long-standing, distinct responsibilities in higher education oversight.

CHEA supports the stated goals of the proposed Accreditation, Innovation and Modernization regulations, which include stronger accountability and better student outcomes. The organization's members are committed to student success and quality. However, CHEA contends that good goals do not guarantee good policy.

Blurring Distinct Responsibilities

American higher education has long operated on a principle of distinct roles, a structure chosen by Congress. Institutions are responsible for educating students. The federal government determines eligibility for federal student aid. States authorize colleges to operate. Independent accrediting organizations evaluate academic quality through peer review. CHEA argues several provisions in the proposed rule risk eroding these safeguards.

One major concern is whether accreditors should be responsible for determining if a university complies with every applicable federal and state law. While institutions must obey the law, CHEA states that determining violations is the job of government enforcement agencies and the courts. Turning accreditors into legal compliance officers changes accreditation's purpose, the organization says.

Judging Institutional Spending

Another questioned provision involves institutional spending. The proposed rule could require accreditors to determine if a university spends too much on faculty, facilities, or scholarly activity. Accreditation should examine whether an institution has the resources to fulfill its mission, CHEA agrees. But conducting cost-benefit analyses of spending would place accreditors in the role of judging how universities allocate resources. Those decisions belong to institutions and their governing boards, according to CHEA.

These new responsibilities carry real costs. They translate into additional data collection, documentation, and reporting. CHEA suggests policymakers should ask if new requirements are justified by meaningful improvements in quality and student protection before imposing them.

Prescribing Academic Evaluation

The organization also questions whether Washington should prescribe exactly how accreditors evaluate student achievement, academic freedom, and faculty policies. CHEA strongly supports academic freedom and attention to student outcomes. Supporting an objective is different from believing the federal government should dictate what an independent accreditor must measure and how, it argues. The proposed rule too often crosses that line, CHEA states.

There is a key distinction, the organization emphasizes. Federal oversight of accreditation is necessary. Politicization of accreditation is not. This distinction matters especially now as higher education faces difficult questions about cost, value, and public trust.

The Risk to Core Mission

Accreditation cannot respond by defending the status quo, CHEA acknowledges. It must improve, using better information and focusing on student outcomes. But reform should strengthen accreditation's ability to judge educational quality. It should not gradually transform it into an enforcement mechanism for every public policy objective affecting higher education.

The more responsibilities piled onto accreditation, CHEA warns, the greater the danger it becomes less effective mission. In its comment, CHEA identifies provisions it supports and recommends revisions where the proposal expands accreditation beyond its appropriate role. Higher education does not need less accountability, it needs smarter accountability, the organization concludes.

Let institutions remain responsible for fulfilling their missions, CHEA argues. Let government enforce the law. Let states exercise their authority. And let independent accreditors carry out their Congressionally-established role: evaluating educational quality while helping to protect students and support improvement.