Accreditation Gets Some Competition

The U.S. Department of Education’s proposed rule to overhaul the federal accreditation system is reshaping the broader national debate over accreditation. 

Among other changes, the proposal would simplify the process for recognizing emerging and existing accreditors, and explicitly encourage a quality-assurance system more focused on student outcomes, academic excellence, and return on investment.

Accreditation performs an essential function in American higher education. The Department of Education recognizes accrediting agencies, and accreditation by an appropriate federally recognized agency can help establish a college or university’s eligibility to participate in federal Title IV student-aid programs. That makes accreditors powerful gatekeepers. But a system designed to protect quality can become overly concerned with proving that institutions have the right policies, committees, reports, and procedures rather than asking whether those processes produce meaningful results.

Some states have already begun experimenting with alternatives to the traditional accreditation model, offering an early look at how greater competition could reshape the system.

Florida was an early challenger to the existing arrangement. A 2022 law required public postsecondary institutions to change accreditors after reaffirmation or a fifth-year review. The Legislature later limited that requirement to a one-time change. In 2026, Florida revised the policy again, giving institutions up to three years after reaffirmation or a fifth-year review to make the change and removing a requirement that the new accreditor be a regional agency.

North Carolina took a similar path in 2023, requiring its public higher-education systems to adopt policies preventing institutions from using the same accreditor for consecutive accreditation cycles, subject to statutory exceptions.

Those state efforts helped create the conditions for something more consequential. In June 2025, six public university systems—in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas—established the Commission for Public Higher Education, or CPHE. It is a new accrediting organization built specifically for public colleges and universities.

CPHE’s model is worth watching because it attempts to shift the center of gravity from institutional process to institutional performance. Its 21 foundational standards emphasize student learning and success, continuous improvement, fiscal and administrative capacity, academic excellence, transparency, and institutional integrity. CPHE also describes its all-public membership model as a way to make peer review more relevant while reducing unnecessary administrative burden.

This makes sense considering the regulatory environment in the public system. Public universities already collect extensive information about student achievement, graduation, finances, programs, and institutional performance. Accreditation should make better use of those data. The central questions should be straightforward: Did students learn? Did they graduate? Are programs sustainable? Did the institution identify weaknesses and improve them?

The federal government is now moving in the same general direction.

In February, the Department of Education issued an interpretive rule intended to reduce barriers for new and emerging accreditors. In May, its Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization negotiated-rulemaking committee reached consensus on a package of accreditation reforms. The August 19 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking put those ideas into a formal federal proposal. The Department says the framework would simplify recognition of new accreditors, promote competition, emphasize student outcomes and return on investment, and make it easier to challenge an accreditation market long dominated by a relatively small number of organizations.

CPHE represents an early example of how a broader accreditation marketplace could develop under proposed federal policy changes with implications extending beyond the state where it originated.

But competition is not, in and of itself, a panacea. CPHE should not receive a free pass simply because it promises serious reform. An accreditor created by public university systems must remain sufficiently independent to identify shortcomings at public universities. Streamlining compliance cannot become an excuse for lowering academic standards, and efficiency cannot substitute for evidence of educational quality.

Creating an accreditor also does not immediately confer status. After all, CPHE is not yet recognized by the Department of Education. The organization says it expects to apply for federal recognition once it satisfies the necessary requirements, likely in late 2027. Until then, participating institutions must maintain existing accreditation arrangements if they rely on federally recognized accreditation for Title IV purposes.

We will learn a lot about this emerging system over the next few years. States have challenged the assumption that institutions should remain indefinitely with the same accreditor. Public university systems have created a new organization centered on outcomes and efficiency. Now the federal government has formally proposed rules intended to make it easier for emerging accreditors to enter the market.

Accreditation should not become easier merely for the sake of being easier. It should become better at determining whether colleges actually deliver a quality education. If competition pushes accreditors toward clearer standards, stronger outcomes, and less bureaucratic compliance, higher education could use more of it.

Christopher Morales is a high school science teacher in Southwest Florida and an adjunct biology instructor at Florida Southwestern State College.