Higher Education Accreditation Reform: ED Eyes Rules Rewrite as Kent Blames Accreditors at CHEA

The CHEA Keynote That Sparked Nationwide Debate

In a fiery keynote address at the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) annual conference in Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent delivered a scathing critique of the higher education accreditation system. Speaking for over 35 minutes, Kent declared the system 'fundamentally broken,' accusing accreditors of fostering monopolies, stifling innovation, and prioritizing ideology over student success. This bold statement comes amid the Department's announcement of a major negotiated rulemaking process aimed at overhauling accreditation regulations, signaling a pivotal moment for U.S. colleges and universities.

Kent's remarks, delivered just days ago, have ignited discussions across the higher education landscape. He urged accreditors to adapt or risk obsolescence, famously warning, 'It’s better to be at the table than on the menu.' The speech ties directly into broader Trump administration efforts to reshape federal oversight of postsecondary institutions, focusing on accountability, competition, and value for taxpayers and students alike.

Decoding the U.S. Higher Education Accreditation System

Higher education accreditation in the United States is a voluntary, peer-review process designed to ensure quality and integrity at colleges, universities, and programs. Unlike in many other countries where governments directly accredit institutions, the U.S. relies on a network of independent agencies recognized by the Secretary of Education. These accreditors serve as the gatekeepers for eligibility in federal student aid programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA), which disburses over $150 billion annually in grants, loans, and work-study funds.

There are two primary types: institutional accreditors, which evaluate entire schools, and programmatic ones, which focus on specific fields like nursing or engineering. Regional accreditors—seven organizations covering geographic areas, such as the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) for the Midwest or Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE)—traditionally accredit nonprofit, degree-granting universities. National accreditors handle vocational or faith-based institutions. The CHEA, a nonprofit umbrella group, recognizes many of these agencies alongside the Department of Education (ED), creating a 'regulatory triad' with states.

The process involves self-studies, peer site visits, and ongoing compliance reviews every 5-10 years. While intended to promote excellence, critics argue it has evolved into a rigid cartel that inflates costs and hampers change.

Kent's Core Criticisms: From Monopoly to Misplaced Priorities

Under Secretary Kent pulled no punches, labeling accreditors an 'accreditation-industrial complex' that colludes to block competitors and enforces political agendas. He blamed them for higher education's plummeting public trust, citing poor student outcomes like low graduation rates and high debt with meager returns on investment (ROI). 'Accreditation today is no longer a reliable indicator of the gold standard of education,' Kent stated.

• Monopolistic Practices: Existing accreditors allegedly hinder new entrants, limiting institutional choice and innovation.
• Cost Escalation: Burdensome standards contribute to administrative bloat and tuition hikes, with U.S. college costs rising 180% since 1980 adjusted for inflation.
• Poor Accountability: Failure to prioritize data-driven metrics like completion rates (national average ~60% for four-year publics) and employment outcomes.
• Ideological Bias: Imposition of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) mandates seen as discriminatory under civil rights laws.

Kent highlighted positive shifts, such as the Higher Learning Commission's embrace of short-term credentials and WASC dropping DEI criteria, as signs of potential reform.

The Education Department's Bold Reform Initiative

Building on Kent's rhetoric, the Department of Education issued a press release announcing the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) negotiated rulemaking committee. This statutory process under HEA Section 492 brings stakeholders together to draft proposed regulations. Nominations for negotiators—from students to accreditors and states—are due February 26, 2026, with sessions slated for April 13-17 and May 18-22 in Washington, D.C.

The initiative fulfills Executive Order 14279, 'Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education.' Recent actions include lifting Biden-era moratoriums on new accreditors and easing switches between agencies. For more details, see the official ED press release.

Key Topics on the Negotiation Table

The Federal Register outlines up to 10 issues, emphasizing deregulation and outcomes:

• Streamlining recognition for new accreditors and easing institutional switches.
• Shifting standards to student achievement data, excluding race/ethnicity proxies.
• Expediting actions on civil rights violations (e.g., Title VI, IX).
• Preventing trade association influence and misleading labels like 'regional.'
• Supporting innovative models and intellectual diversity among faculty.
• Reforming credit transfers to cut unnecessary debt.

These changes aim to foster competition, reduce costs, and align accreditation with workforce needs. View the full notice at the Federal Register.

Stakeholder Reactions: A Divided Higher Ed Community

Responses range from cautious optimism to outright concern. CHEA President Nasser Paydar stressed preserving peer review and institutional autonomy. Middle States' Heather Perfetti found 'common ground' on transparency. Critics like the American Council on Education worry about government overreach infringing on academic freedom.

Supporters, including the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, applaud innovation incentives. Florida's push for a new public accreditor exemplifies state-level momentum. Accreditors like Distance Education Accrediting Commission rejected 'cartel' labels but pledged collaboration.

For in-depth analysis, check Inside Higher Ed's coverage.

Real-World Impacts: Case Studies and Examples

Recent developments preview reforms' effects. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools accredited a 90-hour bachelor's—a nod to competency-based models. Community colleges adopting ROI metrics show accreditors adapting. Harvard and Columbia faced ED notifications to accreditors over alleged antisemitism, testing enforcement speed.

States like Florida are launching alternatives, potentially allowing institutions to bypass traditional gatekeepers. This could lower barriers for online innovators but risks quality dilution if oversight weakens.

Navigating DEI, Innovation, and Student ROI

A flashpoint is DEI: ED seeks to eliminate standards enabling race-based policies, following executive orders targeting law and medical accreditors. Proponents argue for merit-based evaluation; opponents fear backlash against equity efforts.

Innovation gets a boost via regs supporting new delivery models and faculty diversity (including conservative viewpoints). Student ROI—measured by earnings premiums post-degree—could become central, with data from College Scorecard showing variances (e.g., 40% of programs yield negative returns).

For faculty eyeing shifts, resources like our academic CV guide can help.

Implications for Higher Ed Careers and Institutions

Reforms could reshape hiring. More accreditor choice might spur specialized agencies favoring certain missions, affecting faculty positions and admin roles. Institutions switching accreditors may prioritize outcomes-aligned programs, boosting demand for data-savvy leaders.

Job seekers should monitor changes via higher ed jobs board. Rate professors on Rate My Professor to gauge institutional quality amid flux.

• Admins: Prepare for streamlined reviews, less paperwork.
• Faculty: Expect emphasis on teaching outcomes, intellectual diversity.
• Students: Potentially better value, more program options.

Future Outlook: Challenges, Opportunities, and Action Steps

Success hinges on balanced negotiations—enhancing competition without eroding standards. Risks include fragmentation or lax quality; upsides are affordability and relevance. Timeline: Proposed rules post-May 2026, final by late 2026/early 2027.

Stakeholders can nominate via negregnominations@ed.gov. Explore higher ed career advice, university jobs, or post a job to stay ahead. This reform wave positions higher education for a more dynamic era.