The U.S. Department of Education (ED) has published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) related to accreditation. The proposed rule’s 30-day public comment period is currently open and ends September 21, 2026.  

HLC encourages institutions and others affected by these regulatory changes to make their voices heard by providing comments on the proposed rule before September 21, 2026.  

In May, the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) negotiated rulemaking committee completed the second of two weeklong sessions. At the conclusion of the week, the committee voted to reach consensus on negotiated regulatory language. Because the negotiated rulemaking committee reached consensus, the agreed-upon language became the basis for ED’s proposed rule in the NPRM. ED intends for the final rule to take effect July 2027. 

All materials related to the AIM Committee can be found on ED’s website.  

HLC’s Response

Many of the proposed regulatory changes would significantly increase the specificity or prescriptiveness of accreditors’ standards, thereby increasing institutional burden.   

HLC’s comment submission will affirm our commitment to innovation, respecting the individual mission of each institution, reducing unnecessary burden while maintaining rigorous quality assurance, and partnering with member institutions to foster continuous improvement. We will also highlight our concerns regarding the burden the regulatory changes would put on colleges and universities.  

HLC has the capacity to implement the proposed changes and is assessing how to implement the proposed new requirements to reduce uncertainty and additional burden for members, where possible.  

What This Means for HLC Members

The draft regulations contain several provisions that institutions should review closely in order to understand the implications for institutional activities and operations. Ultimately, requirements for accreditors become requirements for institutions. Several provisions in the Proposed Rule may require institutions to develop extensive policies, procedures, and systems that may not currently exist to maintain accreditation. 

Requirement for Accreditors to Review Specified Educational Objectives and Student Success Outcomes 

The proposed regulations require accreditors to evaluate whether an institution or program “[m]aintains clearly specified educational objectives… that are consistent with its mission and appropriate in light of the degrees or certificates awarded that are developed, regularly reviewed, and updated using reliable data…” The regulations would also require a review of “an institution’s student success with respect to student achievement at both the institutional and program levels, including minimum expectations, by assessing:   

(A) State licensing or certification examination results, where applicable to the program of study;  

(B) Program retention, completion, or graduation rates, including as appropriate the extent to which grades meaningfully reflect student learning and support progression through the program of study;  

(C) Post-completion or graduation outcomes, including employment and continued education;  

(D) Scores on relevant standardized assessments taken for admission to a higher-level degree, during and after the time of enrollment at an institution, as available; and  

(E) Educational and economic returns aligned to the program’s credential level, length, and occupational context relative to the total cost of attendance. Such returns shall be assessed using the earnings data calculated under 34 CFR 668 Subpart Q, enhanced Unemployment Insurance wage records, or other reliable earnings data available to the agency.” (34 CFR §602.17(a)(1))  

Institutional Authority Over Faculty Review 

The proposed regulations require accreditors to evaluate whether an institution maintains “[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” and “[w]ritten faculty performance evaluation policies that include defined performance criteria and are conducted on a periodic basis.” The regulations further specify that this accreditor review must consider, among other items, whether an institution maintains “[s]ufficient flexibility in instructional staffing policies to respond to persistent material changes in student demand, program viability, or financial conditions.” (34 CFR §602.17(a)(2))  

Requirement for Accreditors to Review Details of Institutional Financial Decisions 

The proposed regulations require accreditors to conduct reviews of an institution’s “facilities, equipment, and supplies” and “student support services,” which 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.” With respect to facilities, accreditors must also review “the sufficiency and proper maintenance of the institution’s facilities and that such facilities comply with applicable safety standards, laws, and regulations.” (34 CFR §602.17(a)(3))  

Institutional Authority Over Transfer Decisions 

The proposed regulations require accreditors to “confirm” that each institution has policies to “[a]ward transfer credit for undergraduate programs for coursework that has been successfully completed at another institution that is accredited by an agency recognized by the Secretary and is comparable in content and learning outcomes to the institution’s own course offerings, unless the institution provides a written basis for denial…” Such policies cannot “deny the transfer of credit based on the institution at which the student completed the coursework or the agency that accredits that institution, so long as the agency is recognized by the Secretary.” If an institution declines to award transfer credit in these circumstances, it must “[p]rovide the student an opportunity to appeal the decision within 15 calendar days of [the student’s] receipt of the…written notification” to decline to award transfer credit. (34 CFR §602.24(e)) 

Requirement for Accreditors to Review an Institution’s 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 (or equivalent policies for private institutions), civil rights law, and academic freedom protections. This includes reviewing whether an institution:  

• “Maintains… [a]cademic freedom protections that are clearly articulated and applied consistently to faculty regardless of appointment classification, race or other immutable characteristics, viewpoint, or ideology, unless the institution has a religious mission. If an institution has a religious mission, the agency evaluates whether the institution maintains academic freedom protections that are consistent with the institution’s religious mission and applied consistently to faculty regardless of appointment classification, race or other immutable characteristics.” (34 CFR §602.17(a)(2)(iii))  
• “In the case of public institutions, consistently applied polices that protect 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.” (34 CFR §602.17(a)(2)(v)) 
• “Maintains… [a] policy or policies to protect civil rights and, as applicable, First Amendment rights…” that includes, among other elements, “[a]cademic 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, unless the institution has a religious mission.” (34 CFR §602.17(a)(2)(vii))  

Requirement for Accreditors to Review Intellectual Diversity 

The proposed regulations require accreditors to review whether an institution maintains “[a] policy that is designed to support, promote, and appropriately prioritize intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas amongst faculty, to include elements that address intellectual inquiry and student learning, and measures student and faculty perceptions on the range of viewpoints and perspectives offered by the institution or program, unless the institution or program has a religious mission. If an institution or program has a religious mission, the policy shall include elements that address intellectual inquiry and student learning that are consistent with the institution’s religious mission.” (34 CFR §602.17(a)(2)(viii)) 

Requirement for Accreditors to Review Research Misconduct 

The proposed regulations require that an accreditor “evaluates whether an institution maintains… [p]olicies regarding the integrity of scholarly activity and research and practices designed to prevent, detect, and address fabrication, material misrepresentation or falsification, plagiarism, and other forms of research misconduct as well as mechanisms for timely investigation, corrective actions, and, as appropriate, public disclosure.” (34 CFR §602.17(a)(2)(vi))  

Institutional Authority Over Accreditation Standards and Policy 

The proposed regulations require that “members of the standards-setting body [of an accreditor], which may include members of the decision-making body [of the accreditor], do not vote as members of the decision-making body on the setting of standards or policies that affect any institution or program of which such a member is an officer, director, or employee.”(34 CFR §602.15(e)(2)) 

This provision would prohibit institutional representatives on HLC’s Board of Trustees from participating in HLC standards-setting.  

Next Steps

HLC members may wish to submit comments to ED regarding the proposed rule. The deadline to submit comments is September 21.  

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.  
 

Keeping You Informed

HLC will continue to engage with ED to provide comments on the proposed rule and to clarify lingering questions. As more details emerge, we will keep you informed. Once public, HLC will also publish the comment on HLC’s website and share with members.  

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.