3 Programmatic Accreditors Withdraw From Federal Recognition

Three programmatic accreditors have voluntarily withdrawn their petitions to continue being recognized by the federal government, Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent announced in his opening statement at an accreditation advisory meeting this week.

The Midwifery Education Accreditation Council, the Council on Education for Public Health and the Council on Chiropractic Education have all opted out.

At the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity’s two-day meeting, Kent claimed the accreditors refused to be held accountable to new standards. But at least one of the programmatic accreditors said that characterization distorts and oversimplifies their decision to withdraw.

In its first meeting since the Accreditation, Innovation and Modernization negotiated rule making concluded, NACIQI also recommended the denial of recognition for one of the largest cosmetology accreditors and called for further compliance review for several other agencies.

The under secretary accused the three accreditors of withdrawing as a means to “avoid” new regulations that set a higher bar for student outcomes and upend a traditional peer-review model, forcing some accreditors to change who sits on their boards—both of which have been key priorities of the Trump administration in its overhaul of higher ed quality regulation.

“The message is unmistakable,” Kent said. “Accreditors know they are being held to a higher standard under the Trump administration, and some are either unwilling or unable to meet it.”

“If an accreditor is unwilling to acknowledge the need for change, refuses to accept the priority we are placing on quality and outcomes, or simply cannot meet the higher standards expected of a federally recognized accreditor, then it should step aside,” he added.

However, speaking with Inside Higher Ed, the Council on Education for Public Health disputed his claims.

“None of his characterizations were accurate to us,” CEPH’s executive director, Laura Rasar King, said.

“I have been in this position for 20 years and have led four rounds of recognition for my agency. The recognition process has become increasingly political, not just in the current administration but in past administrations as well,” she explained. “I do not want to comment further on [Kent’s] statement … but his characterization oversimplified an incredibly complex issue and a well-reasoned decision made over two years of careful thought and analysis.”

The Midwifery Education Accreditation Council said in a public statement that its decision “followed a period of significant scrutiny in the re-recognition process, during which shifting federal priorities made the timeline and standards for recognition increasingly difficult to predict.”

Withdrawal “was the more responsible course for our member schools and their students,” the statement read. “[It] is not denial, nor is it the end of MEAC’s relationship with the Department of Education. It preserves MEAC’s ability to reapply and puts MEAC in control of its own timeline. We plan to reapply to the USDE from a position of strength.”

The Council on Chiropractic Education did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment.

A Complex Decision

Paul Gaston, an emeritus Trustees Professor at Kent State University who specializes in accreditation, described Kent’s comments as a “presumption that he will in all instances understand the reasons for the decision.”

“At one point Kent says, ‘The message is unmistakable,’ when in fact the message is really quite complex. To dismiss all variables accreditors may be considering as simply irrelevant, to promote the larger message that the [Trump administration’s] accreditation policies are working, seems to be a leap of faith that may not be justified,” Gaston said.

According to Gaston, who worked with programmatic accreditors for years, including as chair of the Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors, accreditors can withdraw for several reasons.

For example, a cost-benefit analysis could show that a renewal application isn’t worth the time and resources. Or members have less need to access federal student aid. Accreditors could also decide that recognition from the Council for Higher Education Accreditation is more relevant than from the Education Department.

Of the roughly 60 specialized programmatic accreditors, only about half are federally recognized, according to ASPA.

Regardless of the reasoning behind the accreditors’ withdrawals, quality standard experts say the practical effect of the decisions will be minimal.

Of the three programmatic accreditors, only MEAC has operated in the role of a Title IV gatekeeper, deciding which of its member institutions meet the quality standards needed to receive federal student aid. And even in that case, MEAC only evaluates aid eligibility for two of its 11 member institutions, Education Department staff noted Thursday. That means that very few institutions and students will be at risk of losing access to the Pell Grant and federal loans as a result of the transition. And those that are at risk have an 18-month window to seek accreditation elsewhere.

Rasar King from the Council on Education for Public Health also noted that withdrawing from federal recognition does not lessen the value of programmatic accreditors for the institutions they serve. For years, she said, the purpose of federal recognition at her agency was maintaining a federal link that provided CEPH’s institutions with access to certain grants. But over the years, those grants “have dwindled.”

What Else Did NACIQI Cover?

Later in the NACIQI meeting, the majority of board members in attendance recommended a denial of recognition for the National Accrediting Commission of Career Arts and Sciences—one of the nation’s largest cosmetology and massage therapy accreditors—due to failed compliance with 17 accreditation standards.

The board also criticized the Council on Occupational Education and the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges, both of which oversee vocational colleges. But in the end, neither received a recommendation of denial. Instead, the committee recommended the agencies file additional compliance reports in the year ahead.

NACIQI is slated to hold one more meeting this year, sometime in September.