In Accreditation Talks, Colleges, Accreditors Have Fewer Votes

As the Trump administration works to codify what it describes as a “revolutionary” overhaul to the nation’s college oversight system, it must first consider feedback from the groups that could be affected by such sweeping regulatory changes.

And while certain groups, like taxpayers and new accreditors, are represented on the committee that’s reviewing the administration’s proposal this week, others—including college administrators, civil rights groups and existing accreditors—have fewer seats at the table when compared to previous rounds of talks.

Multiple higher education policy experts and lobbyists warn that the negotiating committee’s makeup gives the Trump administration too much power in the talks. But one conservative think tank says it is simply a reflection of how priorities and circumstances have changed over time.

If approved, the sweeping 151-page proposal would dramatically change who evaluates the quality of higher education institutions and what standards they use when conducting the evaluation. Among other changes, accreditors would have to set standards related to student achievement and require colleges to ensure intellectual diversity. Other provisions would make it easier for new accreditors to become recognized by the government.

Consolidating Representation

When the first Trump administration met to negotiate changes to the accreditation rules in 2019, college and university administrators occupied eight out of 17 seats, an Inside Higher Ed analysis found. Those seats were parceled out among representatives of public two-years, public four-years, private nonprofits, private for-profits, historically underresourced institutions, religiously affiliated institutions and primarily online institutions. But this time around, only three of the 14 primary negotiators represent institutions, with seats for public institutions, nonprofits and for-profits. (Institutions must be accredited by a federally recognized agency in order to access federal student aid, so the issue is a critical one.)

Similarly, the accrediting agencies themselves have less representation this time around.

Previously the seven core institutional oversight groups had their own seat at the table. But in this week’s talks, those groups—formerly known as regional accreditors—were combined with the national accreditors, smaller agencies that evaluated all the remaining institutions.

Each constituency is represented by a primary and secondary negotiator, but only one person at a time can sit at the table and speak on behalf of the group. So while Heather Perfetti—president of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, a core accreditor—is the secondary negotiator and listens in on much of the discussion, she’s often not the one who gets to share her thoughts.

That means the largest agencies, which collectively oversee 60 percent of the nation’s colleges and 95 percent of its students, lack a consistent voice.

In place of the constituency groups it condensed or terminated, the department created new seats for public interest, the national accreditation advisory committee and leaders from accreditation agencies that have yet to be recognized by the government.

Representing unrecognized accreditors is the Commission for Public Higher Education, which six state university systems created last year as a way to address the “growing dissatisfaction with current practices among the existing institutional accreditors.” (The primary representative for state systems is Raymond Rodrigues, chancellor of the State University System of Florida. Florida is one of the six states that created CPHE.)

Other unrecognized accreditors at the table include: Jade Foster of the National Council for AI Workforce Program Accreditation, who is serving as the secondary committee member for the unrecognized constituency group, and Rebecca Busacca of the National Accreditation Commission, who is serving as the primary representative for programmatic accreditors.

(The secondary representative for programmatic accreditors—Brian Kessler, vice chairman of the Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation—represents a recognized agency.)

Stacking the Deck?

Institutional advocates worry that by diluting the representation of some groups and amplifying the voices of others, the department is preventing nuanced concerns from being voiced. Neither institutions nor the accrediting agencies that hold them accountable are monoliths, and policy experts fear those distinctions are not properly reflected on the committee.

“Each type of college has different needs, so students and institutions are not well served by elimination of their direct seats,” said one institutional lobbyist who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

And while other administrations have also sought to establish constituency groups and appoint committee members who would support their policy goals, another lobbyist who also spoke on the condition of anonymity said this time it’s “pretty obvious.”

“They want to get to consensus, and they want folks at the table who they don’t think will be an undue obstacle to getting what they want,” the source said.

The Education Department, however, says the changes, particularly when it comes to accreditors, are the result of existing regulations. (In 2019, Trump ended the concept of regional accreditors, opening the market and allowing institutions to switch to agencies beyond their geographic area.)

The department is “laser-focused” on “reforming and rightsizing” an accreditation system that has “prioritized processes over student outcomes for far too long,” said department spokesperson Ellen Keast. “The Trump administration is driving meaningful change in higher education by elevating new voices rather than defaulting to legacy players.”

Bob Eitel—co-founder of the Defense of Freedom Institute, a right-leaning think tank—added that the committee’s makeup is just reflective of the “issues at play” and that others are “reading too much into this.”

If the department selects a committee “steeped with policy diversity,” then the chances of consensus are zero to none and officials are condemned for “not getting the job done,” said Eitel, who worked in the department during Trump’s first term. But if they establish a committee with less diversity and reach consensus, they’re criticized for having a “narrow band of thought leaders.”

“Any department of education engaging in negotiating rule making faces a situation where they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t,” he said.

Pushback Continues

But even with a committee that appears stacked in Trump’s favor, reaching consensus isn’t a guarantee. Three days into the first of two week-long meetings, the committee has only made it through the first 97 out of 151 total pages, and members from all viewpoints have pushed back on the department’s policies.

For example, Mark Becker, chair of the CPHE board and the primary representative for unrecognized accreditors, challenged the department’s negotiator, Jeff Andrade, who said colleges were driving up the cost of attendance by wastefully spending on facilities like lazy rivers. Becker—who previously served as president of Georgia State University and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities—said that is far from true.

Jennifer Blum, a Republican-appointed member of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, has also frequently raised objections to the department’s proposals to move away from a peer-review model and toward a corporate governance model, preventing college employees from serving on the accreditation boards that oversee their own institution. Certain aspects of the new proposal could violate existing law, Blum explained.

“I feel really strongly that we can’t bring everything from the private marketplace and the corporate world into this. We can bring some of it. We can’t bring all of it.”

(The story was updated to correct the spelling of Bob Eitel’s name.)