The Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) negotiating rulemaking committee has completed its first of two weeklong sessions. At the conclusion of the week, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) released a second iteration of the regulations. The negotiated rulemaking committee will now break for one month, to meet again from May 18–22, 2026.
 
ED has indicated that this version of the regulations should serve as “the basis for proposals for round two.” ED will be accepting proposals from negotiators until close of business on Monday, April 27. ED will then “look at those, and [ED] will turn those around on or about May 11th for version 2.0.”
 
HLC encourages members to make their voices heard by providing feedback on the proposed regulations to the negotiators representing them before April 27.
 
All materials related to the AIM Committee, including proposals already put forward by negotiators, can be found on ED’s website.

HLC’s Response

HLC closely followed the committee’s first session and maintained frequent communications with negotiators throughout, providing data corrections, perspectives on the opinions being expressed, and suggestions for alternate language. A number of the proposed regulatory changes would significantly increase the specificity or prescriptiveness of accreditors’ standards, thereby increasing institutional burden. HLC will continue to offer input wherever possible throughout this process.

What This Means for HLC Members

The newer draft of the regulations continues to include provisions that were concerning to some negotiators. As noted in Inside Higher Ed, ED “made some changes in an effort to address these concerns, but they appear to be largely structural, not substantive.” These provisions include:

Institutional Authority Over Accreditation Standards and Policy

The proposed regulations require that “members of the [accreditor’s] standards and policy-making body, which may be different than the decision-making body, do not vote on, supervise, or otherwise participate in the setting of standards or policies (including student achievement standards) that directly or indirectly impact or affect any institution or program that such a member is an officer, director, or employee” (602.14(b)(3), pg. 32).
 
This provision would prohibit institutional representatives on HLC’s Board of Trustees from participating in HLC policy-setting.

Institutional Authority Over Transfer Decisions

The proposed regulations require accreditors to “confirm” that each institution has policies that “[p]resume the transferability of undergraduate credits earned at another institution accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency count toward general education requirements, or electives, absent a detailed, written, academic rationale that is specific to the courses completed by the student and does [sic] not consider the selectivity or accreditation of the institution at which the student completed the coursework”
(602.24(e)(3), pgs. 110–111).

Institutional Authority Over Faculty Review

The proposed regulations require accreditors to “evaluate whether an institution or program… [m]aintains a sufficient number of appropriately qualified faculty and other subject matter instructors who are regularly evaluated on the performance of their instructional, research, or service responsibilities.” The regulations further specify that this accreditor review must consider, among other items, whether an institution “[m]aintains faculty appointment structures that permit the institution or program to address persistent deficiencies in instructional quality, program relevance, or institutional effectiveness” and “maintains sufficient flexibility in instructional staffing to respond to material changes in student demand, program viability, or financial condition” (602.17(a)(3), pgs. 51–52).

Requirement for Accreditors to Review Details of Institutional Financial Decisions

The proposed regulations require accreditors to conduct reviews of “facilities, equipment, and supplies” and “student support services” that must include “a cost/benefit analysis, which means a review by the agency of the institution’s budget, resource utilization and allocation, and if existing, its business/strategic plan, continuous improvement strategic plan, and review of whether the institution considers whether the expected benefits of the institution’s activities justify the associated financial, administrative and opportunity costs, and the impact of capital expenditures on future operating expenses” and “a review of the sufficiency and proper maintenance of the institution’s facilities and that such facilities comply with applicable safety standards, laws, and regulations” (602.17(b)(2)(i), pgs. 55–56).

Requirement for Accreditors to Review Academic Freedom Protections and Adherence to Civil Rights and Constitutional Law

The proposed regulations require accreditors to assess an institution’s compliance with the First Amendment, civil rights law, and academic freedom protections. This includes reviewing whether an institution:

• “Maintains academic freedom protections that are clearly articulated and applied consistently to faculty regardless of appointment classification, race or other immutable characteristics, viewpoint, or ideology” (602.17(a)(3)(iii), pg. 52);
• “In the case of public institutions, fulfills their obligations under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The agency should similarly evaluate any private institutions that, through their institutional policies, guarantee the same or similar protections for students or faculty” (602.17(a)(3)(v), pg. 53); and
• “[H]as a policy or policies to protect civil rights and, as applicable, First Amendment rights…” related to faculty, student support services, and recruiting and admissions practices, including several specific elements such as “academic freedom and freedom of inquiry protections for faculty in teaching, scholarship and research within the subject matter of a course and research within their academic discipline, including conditions under which a range of academic perspectives may be expressed and examined without adverse action based on lawful viewpoints unrelated to professional or academic competence” (602.17(b)(3), pg. 56). 

Next Steps

HLC members may wish to contact negotiators who represent their institutions or with whom the institution has a particular connection. Public institutions, private nonprofit institutions, and proprietary institutions each have two negotiators speaking of their behalf. The committee also includes two negotiators representing state officials (from Florida and Ohio).
 
Please feel free to reach out to HLC at [email protected] if you have specific questions about content or ideas for how HLC can help tell your story.
 
If you would like to watch the second session of the AIM Committee, you may register to do so here.
 
Following the conclusion of the second negotiated rulemaking session, ED will publish its proposed rule and open a public comment period, during which institutions may also provide feedback.

Keeping You Informed

HLC will continue its ongoing dialogue with negotiators to provide suggestions regarding the draft language. As more details emerge, we will keep you informed.

See HLC’s Relationship within the Triad for how we provide value to members by working with states and federal agencies. See HLC’s Advocacy Agenda for information about HLC’s advocacy priorities.