A Season of Change for Public Health Accreditor

Changes are on the horizon for the Council on Education for Public Health.

The programmatic accreditor is currently working through proposed standard changes that include changing language about social inequities and racism and the impact those have on public health. While the proposed rewrite of that language is still in the draft stages, critics have accused the organization of yielding to pressure from the Trump administration, which has taken aim at diversity, equity and inclusion efforts broadly.

At the same time, the accreditor is voluntarily walking away from federal recognition.

Last month, Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent announced three accreditors, including CEPH, had voluntarily withdrawn petitions to maintain federal recognition. Kent alleged the accreditors refused to meet new accreditation standards pushed by the Trump administration.

But CEPH Executive Director Laura Rasar King disputed that notion.

“Federal recognition is not required, and given the current federal funding environment, there is no longer a meaningful link to federal funding that provides a benefit to our accredited schools and programs. We concluded that the benefits of recognition did not justify the substantial ongoing administrative and reporting requirements involved,” she told Inside Higher Ed.

Changing Standards

As part of the proposed changes to the criteria used to evaluate programs, CEPH is considering stripping language that calls on programs to “discuss the means by which structural bias, social inequities, and racism undermine health and create challenges to achieving health equity at organizational, community, and systemic levels.”

The latest version of the proposed standards asks programs to “examine systemic factors that contribute to inequitable health outcomes for a given community or communities.”

Some critics see the change as a betrayal of the public health programs’ principles.

Michael Siegel, a professor of public health and community medicine at Tufts University, wrote in an emailed statement to Inside Higher Ed that the changes amount to a “whitewashing” of CEPH’s teaching criteria. Siegel also questioned whether the change was made due to fear of federal scrutiny.

“In light of the widespread cowing down to the current administration, this proposed action has the appearance of selling out public health principles to appease the Trump administration,” Siegel wrote.

King declined to comment on the proposed changes in detail before the process is finished, which will likely be in mid- or late 2027. But, she noted, “CEPH is consulting extensively with our field” amid the revision process, and many members “operate in very different legal and policy environments across the country and the globe.” Given that variance, she argued standards must “remain rigorous and meaningful” and “implemented consistently” across the board.

She also rebuffed the notion that the accreditor is watering down its standards on racial inequity.

“I do want to clarify that the proposals under consideration do not represent an abandonment of expectations related to health equity, health disparities, or the racial and other characteristics that contribute to health disparities,” she wrote by email. “The concepts and expectations will remain; the proposed revisions concern how those expectations are expressed in the criteria.”

Tim Leshan, chief external relations and advocacy officer at the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health, told Inside Higher Ed that he has heard concerns from members about state laws conflicting with the standard, especially if it’s “overly directive.”

But, like King, he emphasized the final product is still a long way off.

“It’s in a draft form, and part of this is a little bit unusual in that people are arguing about a draft as opposed to focusing on what the final version will look like,” Leshan said. “I know they’re trying to influence what the final version is, but I think there may be a bit of overreaction in that CEPH is still trying to finalize their criteria when it comes to the issue of racial disparities.”

Dropping Federal Recognition

Walking away from federal recognition appears to come with little fallout for CEPH. Officials representing public health programs and programmatic accreditors echoed King’s comments on federal recognition.

Leshan said he expected little to change with the decision to bow out of federal recognition.

“I think there was a lot of concern about that when it was announced. But I think now people understand that as much as it was great to have the federal recognition that it’s not necessary in order to be accredited by CEPH, and there really aren’t any requirements like federal grant programs that require an accreditation that is certified by the federal government,” he said.

Zach Waymer, executive director of the Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed that CEPH’s decision underscores the optional nature of federal recognition for a programmatic accreditor, whose approval isn’t necessary for federal student aid eligibility.

He emphasized that dropping federal recognition does not mean accreditors are backing off their accountability mission. While he doesn’t believe CEPH’s decision is the beginning of a wholesale retreat from federal recognition, he suggested that others may make similar moves.

“Specialized accreditors are likely to continue evaluating whether federal recognition serves a meaningful purpose for their programs. As the federal recognition process and its requirements change, the costs and benefits of participation will naturally be part of that assessment,” Waymer wrote.