How Accreditation Changes Could Impact Professional Licenses

President Trump’s proposal to strip the American Bar Association’s accreditation arm of its gatekeeping powers for federal student aid has triggered a cascade of questions and concerns about whether future law school graduates in certain states will be able to obtain an attorney’s license.

Legal and higher ed experts say it will come down to each state’s licensure rules and what, if anything, those rules say about whether practitioners are required to graduate from a law school accredited by a federally recognized agency. But at a time when accreditation is becoming increasingly politicized and volatile, the complex relationship between state licensure regulations and the Education Department’s recognition of accreditors is being tested, they say, creating a sense of uncertainty.

Moreover, lawyers aren’t the only ones facing questions about licensure. Similar concerns have emerged for other professions—especially those related to health care, which may be at even more risk of licensing challenges in the ever-shifting landscape of quality control.

Just a few weeks before the ABA announcement, the Midwifery Education Accreditation Council—the only accreditor for midwifery programs that don’t require students to have prior nursing education—announced that it had voluntarily opted out of federal recognition. The move sparked anxiety about whether direct-entry midwives would be able to obtain a license.

Such fears may soon become more common across other professions: Experts say the number of federally recognized accreditors will likely decrease more, whether by force or by choice. The Education Department is attempting to overhaul the expectations set on each accreditor, programmatic as well as institutional, and the department’s advisory committee has been voting to crack down on the agencies it says aren’t meeting existing standards. Both shifts could lead to a host of conflicts with licensing criteria for the programs and practitioners that depend on that recognition for their livelihood.

“Anyone who’s working with licensed professions should pay attention to what’s happening,” said Robert Shireman, a member of ED’s accreditation advisory board. Many professions are “not in any way linked to federal recognition,” Shireman added, but for those that are, “there could be some snags.”

Which Programs Are at Risk?

Higher education is governed by two kinds of accreditors, programmatic—those that assess the quality of a particular type of program, department or school—and institutional, which evaluate entire institutions. Both types can choose to apply for federal recognition, which would allow them to decide whether an institution can access federal student grants and loans, but they don’t have to. And the Education Department, which decides whether an accreditor is federally recognized, has no control over the licensure of degree earners. That’s determined at the state level by the Legislature or a board and can differ for each profession.

Some state statutes say that in order to qualify for a license in a specific profession, an individual has to have earned their degree from a college or university accredited by a particular programmatic accreditor. For example, to become a licensed occupational therapist in California, one must graduate from a college accredited by the American Occupational Therapy Association’s Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education.

In those cases, federal recognition of the accreditor is not a concern because even if it were to withdraw from or be denied the Education Department’s seal of approval, it could continue to accredit colleges; students at those institutions just wouldn’t be eligible for federal aid unless they also have an institutional accreditor. As long as a college is accredited, graduates in those states can qualify for a license.

But if a state’s regulations say that an individual must graduate from a college accredited by a federally recognized accreditor, then it could become a problem. In those cases, if an institution is accredited only by a programmatic accreditor and that accreditor withdraws from or loses its federal recognition, then its graduates would no longer be able to obtain a license in that state unless the institution found a new accreditor.

When it comes to legal licenses, the ABA’s accreditation council says that only one state requires federal recognition—Florida.

But even in that case, the effect of the ABA’s potential loss of federal recognition appears to be minimal. The Florida Supreme Court order says that in order to qualify for the bar exam, a student must graduate from a college accredited by “a programmatic accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education to accredit programs in legal education” or “an institutional accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education to accredit institutions of higher education, provided the institutional accrediting agency is also approved by the Court.”

Nationally, five stand-alone law schools rely solely on the ABA for accreditation, and at this point their graduates will not qualify for Florida licensure if ABA’s recognition is denied. But 183 of the law schools affiliated with the ABA are part of a larger university, so they have a second and broader institutional accreditor; what remains unclear is whether those institutional accreditors will be approved by the Florida Supreme Court and if they will have to set new programmatic standards specific to J.D.s in order to do so. (Nine stand-alone schools that are not part of a larger university have also hired a second accreditor.)

Earning a license in midwifery may be harder. Unlike the Education Department’s proposal to deny ABA recognition—which must still be finalized—MEAC’s decision to opt out of recognition was voluntary. And multiple midwifery schools told Inside Higher Ed that the accreditor’s decision was made without consulting all member institutions and that it came without warning, leaving little time for the schools to come up with a plan.

The MEAC’s statement explaining the withdrawal says little to address concerns about licensure other than that it will be “monitoring state-level licensure statutes.” Inside Higher Ed reached out for further comment, but MEAC declined to respond.

Licensure access may also be more uncertain for midwives—especially those without a foundational nursing degree—because the practice isn’t allowed in every state. Only 38 states provide direct-entry licenses, according to the North American Registry of Midwives.

It’s unclear exactly how many states require a federally recognized accreditor for graduates to obtain a midwifery license. But Shireman said it would make sense if they did; in less traditional health-care professions, proving the existence of a federally recognized programmatic accreditor can often be key to lobbying for state-level clearance, he said.

“It sounds meaningful to say that you are a federally recognized accreditor or that you are designated by the U.S. Department of Education as an accrediting body,” he explained—though “it sounds more meaningful than it really is.”

Inside Higher Ed reached out to five of the 11 MEAC-accredited institutions. Three said they are concerned about their graduates’ ability to obtain a license, and two of those said they are actively seeking a second accreditor that is federally recognized. The other two said they are either located in a state that doesn’t require federal recognition or are part of a larger university with a federally recognized institutional accreditor.

Vicki Penwell, co-founder of Mercy in Action College of Midwifery, a direct-entry midwife school that serves students in 34 states through distance learning, said she has been in numerous meetings since MEAC announced its withdrawal to try to find a way to protect her students.

Both Idaho, where the college is based, and NC SARA, the group that streamlines regulations for online college programs across state lines, require federal recognition. So unless Penwell and her team can find a new accreditor by the end of the year, she will have to stop instructing her online students. And if she hasn’t found one by next June, she’ll have to drop her in-state learners as well.

“When MEAC withdrew, no one from the member schools was on board. We would have changed everything if we knew—we could have tried to help problem-solve and address the issues that MEAC said it was withdrawing for,” Penwell said. “The cautionary tale in my mind is that for the people who write the licensure policies and laws, it’s a bad idea to name a particular accreditor and maybe they shouldn’t be naming the Department of Education [and the requirement of federal recognition], either.”

License Challenges

Some critics have questioned why a programmatic accreditor would voluntarily withdraw in the first place. But the Association of Specialized and Professional Accreditors, an advocacy group for programmatic accreditors, put out a statement earlier this week saying that for some, the sacrifices and costs required to qualify for federal recognition may not be worth it, since “federal recognition is not accreditation.”

“A federal link is important where it serves a purpose—but it is not what creates an accreditor, nor is it the only measure of an accreditor’s mission, authority, standards, value, rigor, and outcomes,” the statement reads.

In a follow-up email to Inside Higher Ed, ASPA’s executive director, Zach Waymer, said that concerns about access to professional licenses are valid but driven largely by states, not the programmatic accreditors.

When state laws require federal recognition, “that state and its licensing authority will likely need to determine how the provision applies when an accreditor voluntarily relinquishes federal recognition but continues to accredit programs,” Waymer wrote.

Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent made a similar comment in June when he opted to give the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education one last chance to get in line before stripping its federal recognition. In a letter, Kent said he found the argument that losing federal recognition would “create immediate and measurable disruption” to licensure access and workforce entry “unpersuasive.”

“It must be stated clearly that no accreditor is exempt from the possibility of loss of recognition. If CNME, or any similarly situated accreditor, is concerned about the potential impact of termination on graduates of its accredited programs, it should work with relevant state authorities and the broader profession to mitigate any such effects,” he wrote. “I will not be compelled to continue recognizing a noncompliant accreditor based solely on how an industry has chosen to structure itself.”

Other key programmatic accreditors and their institutional members could soon find themselves confronted with similar decisions.

The Council on Chiropractic Education said it sent a letter to the presidents of its member institutions saying it voted to “begin a process of withdrawal,” weighing risks like licensure eligibility, though nothing has been finalized. And the National Accrediting Commission of Career Arts and Sciences—one of the nation’s largest cosmetology and massage therapy accreditors—may soon lose its recognition involuntarily once Kent makes a final decision. The Education Department’s advisory committee voted 9 to 3 in favor of rejection.

Shireman hopes colleges and accreditors that are in that situation, as well as those not yet affected, are working to be proactive.

“Seeing all of what’s happening right now at the Department of Education with accrediting agencies,” he said, “I would not be surprised if professions start planning ahead, identifying and taking steps to protect against having some period where people can’t get a license.”