The U.S. Department of Education revealed on January 27, 2026, its intent to form a negotiated rulemaking committee focused on revising regulations for accrediting agencies and related institutional eligibility under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. This move, detailed in Federal Register Volume 91, Number 17, seeks to streamline processes, enhance focus on student outcomes, and promote innovation while addressing potential barriers like anti-competitive practices. The announcement follows public hearings and comments from 2025, highlighting a push to reduce burdens on institutions and ensure high-quality education. By involving diverse stakeholders, the department aims to develop proposed rules that could reshape how accrediting agencies operate and how institutions qualify for federal aid, potentially influencing college costs, academic freedom, and equity in higher education.
Background and Legal Foundation
The initiative is rooted in Section 492 of the Higher Education Act, which mandates public involvement and negotiated rulemaking for regulations affecting Title IV programs. These programs provide federal student aid, and accrediting agencies play a key role in determining institutional eligibility. The department's action builds on a prior notice published on April 4, 2025, in the Federal Register (90 FR 14741), which solicited public feedback on improving student financial assistance regulations. Hearings held on April 29 and May 1, 2025, gathered input on streamlining rules to cut unnecessary costs, foster innovation, and curb rising tuition.
Public comments, accessible via Docket ID ED-2025-OPE-0016 on regulations.gov, emphasized reducing regulatory burdens and focusing on outcomes. The department reviewed these to identify priorities, leading to the formation of the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization Committee. This process aligns with historical negotiated rulemaking efforts, such as those in 2019 that revised accreditation standards to encourage flexibility and competition among agencies.
Key Issues for Negotiation
The committee will tackle a range of topics outlined in the Federal Register notice. Primary among them is simplifying regulations in 34 CFR parts 602 and 600, which govern agency recognition and institutional eligibility. For instance, the department proposes easing requirements for new accrediting agencies to boost competition and allow institutions to switch agencies without conflicting with their missions.
Another focus is revising recognition criteria to prioritize student achievement and outcomes, such as graduation rates and employment data, while eliminating anti-competitive or discriminatory elements that may inflate credentials and costs. The notice specifies requiring agencies to use program-level data without regard to race, ethnicity, or sex, as stated: 'requiring all accrediting agencies and associations to have standards that consider program-level student achievement and outcomes data to improve such outcomes without reference to race, ethnicity, or sex.'
Oversight and compliance issues are also highlighted, including expedited actions on findings from Office of Civil Rights investigations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. This aims to ensure prompt resolution of noncompliance related to discrimination.
Additionally, the committee will examine the 'regulatory triad' involving accrediting agencies, states, and the department, assessing which standards might contravene federal or state law. The notice calls for safeguards against unlawful discrimination under the guise of diversity, equity, and inclusion standards, promoting programs free from such violations.
Innovation is a key theme, with proposals to clarify regulations like 34 CFR 602.18 to support new learning models without impedance. Faculty standards may expand to prioritize intellectual diversity, advancing academic freedom. Other items include separating agencies from trade associations and making technical corrections.
Stakeholders and Negotiation Process
The department is seeking nominations for negotiators representing various constituencies, due by February 26, 2026. These include students, veterans, taxpayers, workforce organizations, legal advocates, accrediting agencies, public and private institutions, proprietary schools, and state officials. The notice lists specific groups, such as 'Public institutions of higher education, including community colleges, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities.'
Negotiators must demonstrate expertise in the topics, with primary and alternate members selected to ensure balanced representation. The department will also appoint representatives from the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity and an advisor with accreditation expertise. As per the notice, 'Consensus means that there is no dissent by any member of the Committee, including the Committee member representing the Department.'
Meetings are scheduled for April 13-17, 2026, and May 18-22, 2026, in Washington, DC, with in-person attendance and livestream options. This structure allows for public observation, aligning with transparency requirements.
Perspectives and Implications
Different stakeholders offer varied views on these reforms. Institutions may welcome reduced burdens and greater flexibility in choosing accreditors, potentially lowering costs and encouraging innovation. For example, proprietary institutions and those with religious missions could benefit from easier agency switches, as the notice addresses standards 'antithetical to their values and missions.'
Consumer advocates and civil rights groups might emphasize the need for strong oversight to prevent discrimination, appreciating the focus on expeditious resolution of Title VI and Title IX issues. However, some could argue that emphasizing outcomes without demographic considerations risks overlooking equity gaps.
Accrediting agencies face potential scrutiny over anti-competitive practices, which could lead to more diverse options but also challenge established entities. State officials and the department's triad partners may debate the balance of responsibilities, ensuring accreditation does not override laws.
Short-term implications include the development of proposed rules by late 2026, following committee consensus. Long-term effects could involve improved student outcomes, reduced tuition inflation, and enhanced academic freedom, though challenges in implementation might arise if consensus fails.
In summary, this negotiated rulemaking represents a significant effort to modernize accreditation, drawing on public input to create more efficient, outcome-focused regulations. The process underscores the department's commitment to involving affected parties in shaping federal education policy.
