Tag: Accreditation

Posted on

What is the likely future for institutional accreditation as the current US structure is unravelled?

June 26, 2026, by Chet Haskell  – A little history. The accreditation of colleges and universities in the United States dates back to the late 19th century, when institutions joined together in voluntary non-profit associations to establish basic standards and to distinguish themselves from types of secondary schools. These associations evolved into the principal regional accreditation organizations at the center of institutional accreditation today.

The 1944 GI Bill legislation took the first step to utilize the accreditation bodies as gatekeepers for the distribution of Federal aid. This was followed by the Veterans Readjustment Act of 1952, which included a provision that funding under the Act should only go to institutions recognized by “reliable authorities.”

The 1965 Higher Education Act (HEA) not only established forms of loans and grants under Title IV  (like the Pell Grants) but stipulated that such funding could only go to students enrolled in institutions accredited by the associations that were also recognized by the Department of Education. This relationship of Title IV aid to accreditors was further specified by the 1992 renewal of HEA. Accreditors, states, and the Department of Education each were given specific roles. The accreditors would establish and review quality standards. The states would assure legal authority to operate. The Department of Education would oversee institutional financial capacity to manage Federal funds. This as the so-called “Program Integration Triad.” Finally, the 2008 legislation provided for increased guarantees of institutional independence against fears of Federalization of higher education more generally.

The stakes for institutions, accreditors, and students are high. In 2024-25 alone, more than $88 billion in student loans were made, along with $38 billion in student grants. Such tremendous resources frame the debates about the roles of accreditors.

Where things stand today

The longstanding monopsony of the seven regional accreditors began eroding in the first Trump Administration when the regional boundaries were removed, enabling institutions to seek accreditation wherever they could. While most schools remained in their historic regional associations, a few began searching for alternatives they felt best met their needs. For example, the University of Arizona shifted its accreditation from the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) to the WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSC). Similarly, Brigham Young University – Hawaii moved its accreditation from the Northwest Commission to WSCUC. Most of the institutions that did not pursue change presumably remained where they were because of factors such as familiarity, not seeing any advantage to change, and the like. However, this door has been opened.

The second Trump Administration has taken such changes to their logical end. To the removal of regional boundaries is now added the likelihood of new accreditors, including new state groupings and accreditors with different characteristics. The bottom line for institutions (existing and new) is that there will be accreditation options. This is also an opportunity for a group of academic institutions to form their own accreditors – perhaps regional public institutions, community colleges, specialized professional schools, or private liberal arts colleges – with standards and processes that more directly relate to their primary quality concerns. In other words, a marketplace for accreditation is developing.

What is not entirely clear is the future connection between accreditation and Federal financial aid under Title IV. The regional accreditation structure served to regularize the gatekeeper status of US institutional accreditors. Access to Title IV meant that accreditation was required, and the source of that accreditation largely depended on location.

Accreditation of international institutions

There have always been exceptions to the regional gatekeepers. For example, some specialized institutions have associations that are authorized accreditors, such as the National Association of Schools of Music. However, the connection between accreditation and Federal aid is evolving.

Recall that accreditation was originally an initiative by institutions to set some basic standards for quality and to provide consumer information. The modern regime of the traditional regional accreditors was empowered by the link to financial aid. Institutions in a certain region had to get regional accreditation if they were to have access to the lifeblood of Title IV funding. Gaining access to funding meant having to play the accreditation game.

The exception to this reality is the growing number of institutions outside the United States that have successfully sought accreditation from one of the traditional accreditors. Currently, almost 150 institutions and branch campuses hold US regional accreditation. These institutions are not motivated by the need to access Title IV aid, as they are clearly ineligible. Their motivations have been about the pursuit of quality (or the perceptions of quality) and the value of being seen as comparable to top US institutions. Some institutions with US accreditation present this fact as demonstrating their comparability with prominent American universities, even though, in reality, accreditation is an indicator of minimum quality, not excellence. Reputation and branding  (potential “halo effects”) are the principal motivations, not access to aid resources.

Additionally, the global increase in access to higher education continues to grow as nations everywhere seek to respond to both societal and national educational needs and interests. However, it is important to note that most of the international institutions seeking US accreditation are not viewed as among the best. Cambridge, Tsinghua, Toronto, the Sorbonne, and the like have not seen any value in US accreditation. They are confident in their capacity to compete with the Harvards, Stanfords, and best Carnegie R1 publics at the top tier of global higher education markets. Those seeking US accreditation are largely relatively new and growing, and are seeking to distinguish themselves in their local markets.

The specialized or programmatic accreditation model

There is another model of accreditation that is based on quality assurance but not tied to financial aid: the global specialized accreditors that have no national restrictions. One example is in engineering and computer science, where ABET is globally recognized, while the European counterpart, the EUR-ACE, is a growing competitor. Crucially, both of these accreditors directly engage representatives of employers as a way to assure quality is tied to professional outcomes.

Another example is in the world of business education. There are MBA programs around the world. AACSB originally had the lead in accrediting the largest number, but it has been challenged by AMBA from the UK and EQUIS from the European Union. There are also a number of smaller, less well-regarded business accreditors. There are several business programs around the world boasting of being ‘triple accredited,” meaning their program has been approved by each of the three major business accreditors. This, of course, is not a demonstration of excellence, but instead a matter of branding and marketing.

Where are things heading?

So what are the implications of multiple competing accreditors, unlimited by geography? The interest of international institutions in US institutional accreditation, combined with the moves towards global programmatic or specialized accreditation, shows a likely path. The legacy institutional accreditors in the US will be joined by new US accreditors, while there may be a move towards some form of international institutional accreditation.

Accrediting bodies based in the US are non-profit membership institutions. Their funding comes from the member institutions, not from government or other sources. (This is not always the case elsewhere, such as in much of Europe.) As membership institutions, they have incentives to grow (and perhaps merge). While mergers are possible, it is more likely that accrediting bodies in a competitive environment will take one of two paths. They may seek to attract as many new institutions as possible and thus grow. One recent example is the decision of the Northwest Commission to take steps to go its own way and be able to expand its membership.

The other path will be to limit membership in order to promote higher levels of perceived quality and thus create an air of exclusivity. Limiting membership is also a practical step. It is difficult to serve very large numbers of diverse institutions. While membership revenue is always important, there is a sort of “Goldilocks” scale – not too small, not too big – to such organizations.

At the end of the day, the institutions must make their own choices. Indeed, institutional independence is at the heart of the American accreditation system. Individual colleges and universities make their own decisions about faculty hiring, admissions, curricula, and so forth. The principal influence is not the accreditor or the government (except for the important fact of access to financial aid), but the competitive environment for higher education. The top institutions compete directly for faculty and student talent, and the criteria for doing so are set at the institutional level in a market context.

The US Federal government has chosen a market-oriented path to institutional accreditation with new accreditors and no regional boundaries. This is likely to lead to an era of relative chaos as accrediting bodies, both new and long-established, will be trying to clarify their quality and attractiveness to institutions. One would expect an eventual market sorting out along lines of perceived quality or, perhaps, ease of accreditation. One would assume the Department of Education will have to establish some form of threshold conditions for recognition to at least assert that there exists sufficient institutional quality to warrant access to Federal student aid. Whatever the actual connection between forms of accreditation and access to funding, some accrediting bodies eventually will rise to the top based on perceptions of their value, much like multiple business accrediting bodies have sorted into quality or reputational tiers.

Alternatively, many observers fear that the Federal government seeks to use its authorization of accreditors and future decisions about access to Federal financial aid as a way to influence what colleges and universities teach and what students are taught. Thus, there may well be a Federal “thumb on the scale” that pressures accreditors and institutional independence alike. Early indications of this have been the assaults on leading universities regarding diversity initiatives and the use of Federal research funding as a cudgel for removing such initiatives.

The pending disruptions may lead some academic institutions to create new accrediting entities that might promote earlier visions of quality assurance. Artificial intelligence tools may have a variety of impacts. Interest in US accreditation by international institutions may wane, at least for a while, as the new state of accreditation becomes clearer and turbulence in American international affairs calms down. Whatever the case, the future will not look much like US accreditation of the past 40 years. Each American college and university will have to make its own decisions as to which “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” best suits its interests, while at the same time assuring continued access to forms of student aid.

Dr. Chet Haskell serves as Co-Head for the College Partnerships and Alliances for the Edu Alliance Group. Chet is a higher education leader with extensive experience in academic administration, institutional strategy, and governance. He recently completed six and a half years as Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and University Provost at Antioch University, where he played a central role in creating the Coalition for the Common Good with Otterbein University. Earlier in his career, he spent 13 years at Harvard University in senior academic positions, including Executive Director of the Center for International Affairs and Associate Dean of the Kennedy School of Government.

He later served as Dean of the College at Simmons College and as President of both the Monterey Institute of International Studies and Cogswell Polytechnical College, successfully guiding both institutions through mergers. An experienced consultant, Dr. Haskell has advised universities and ministries of education in the United States, Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East on issues of finance, strategy, and accreditation. His teaching and research have focused on leadership and nonprofit governance, with a particular emphasis on helping smaller institutions adapt to financial and structural challenges. He earned DPA and MPA degrees from the University of Southern California, an MA from the University of Virginia, and an AB cum laude from Harvard University.

Posted on

Thoughts About Accreditation and Small Colleges

April 20, 2026, By Chet Haskell – Like all higher education institutions in the United States, small colleges operate within a complex regulatory framework known as institutional accreditation. Originally an initiative by colleges and universities to ensure basic quality and a level of consumer protection, various accreditation entities have evolved in multiple ways, most importantly as gatekeepers to access to Federal Government Title IV student financial aid resources. Over the twentieth century, this framework developed what is often referred to as the “triad”: the federal government, state agencies, and accrediting bodies (formerly known as “regional accreditors”).

Key Aspects of Accreditation

Prior to 2020, the nation was divided into six large regions, covering every state and US territory. This monopsony controlled higher education but had somewhat varied approaches, policies, and practices. It is now possible to be accredited by one “regional” despite being located outside their region (or even outside of the US). This situation is about to change further, as pending changes to the US Department of Education’s accreditation requirements will allow more types of accreditors and greater competition.

It is also important to understand that there are other types of “specialized” accreditors. These bodies focus on specific disciplines or professional fields to ensure minimum quality standards in academic programs. For example, ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) oversees accreditation of engineering programs in the US and in 40 other countries, covering more than 950 institutions. There are competing specialized accreditors for business programs, many health care programs, and a plethora of other specialized professional fields.

The key thing to remember is that specialized accreditation assumes the base institution is also accredited. Specialized accreditors are generally less important to small colleges that largely lack graduate professional programs.

US Title IV aid requirements mean that virtually every institution needs accreditation recognition by the Federal government in order for its students to receive Federally related financial aid. Such student aid is the lifeblood of most institutions and especially so for small, private non-profit colleges. These institutions generally rely almost totally on revenue from enrollments, and Federal student aid typically accounts for at least 35% to 40% of that revenue. However, access to Title IV comes with strings. Most importantly, institutional accreditation bodies authorized by the Federal Government are supposed to hold institutions to certain standards in order to be accredited.

The final important element is that the institutional accreditors are membership organizations that receive their funding from member fees and similar sources. Unlike the case in many other countries, these accreditors do not receive funding from the US Government.

Thus, the situation exists in which the institutional accreditors (originally the six “regional accreditors”) are de facto agents of the US government while strenuously defending their independent roles as peer-dominated institutions committed to quality assurance and improvement. While access to Title IV is the essential link to government, the fact of an institution’s accreditation is, of itself, of great reputational value. Every accredited institution proclaims its status as an accredited institution as a seal of approval or badge of excellence. This can be critically important for the recruitment of students, faculty, and administrators, as well as attractiveness for research and other grants.

Accreditation as Adequacy, not Excellence

In reality, accreditation standards are a lowest-common-denominator model. For example, WSCUC (formerly WASC, now the WASC Senior College and University Commission), the traditional accreditor for California, Hawaii, and the Pacific territories, has a set of standards that must apply equally and fairly to top universities like the University of California or Stanford University, as well as tiny religious schools and every type of academic institution in between. The general standards remain the same, but the expected outcomes cannot. Institutional accreditation is a necessary condition for an institution to exist, but it is hardly an indicator of more than minimal quality. (There are examples of smaller institutions with none of the assets of a Stanford proclaiming that they have the same accreditation as Stanford as evidence of their quality. This, of course, is misleading, at best.)

This entire situation arises from one of the strengths of American higher education – its diversity. Institutions have different missions, academic approaches, scales, specializations, and so on. Students seeking education have a tremendous range of institutional opportunities –from huge public universities to minuscule specialized schools. However, all of these institutions are bound to a single accreditation regime due to Title IV student aid funding.

It also creates a paradox: institutional diversity within a complex ecosystem is generally seen as valuable, yet accreditation requirements often constrain the expression of that diversity. There are significant accreditation pressures that push institutions to become similar in many ways. These standards also make it difficult for institutions to be truly innovative. There is a set of isomorphic norms, expectations, leadership requirements, and best practices. All the diverse institutions, in some ways, look quite similar. The student outcomes – degrees that certify a certain level of educational achievement – are similar whether one attends an elite research university, a small regional public institution, or a minuscule independent school. Yes, there are subjective reputational differences, but in many ways, a degree is a ticket punched.

Objectivity and Subjectivity in Accreditation

The process by which standards are set and evaluated is, by its very nature, highly subjective despite efforts at measurement. The actual standards have objective elements. For example, each institution must have a CEO and a CFO, an independent board of trustees, a statement of mission, and meet certain (minimal) financial standards; it must have ways of measuring student outcomes, and so forth. But assessing the degree to which an institution a) meets these minimum standards and b) can demonstrate some measure of quality is largely subjective in nature. Indeed, assessment is conducted by volunteer peer panels undertaking periodic reviews and reporting their findings. The essential value inherent in the process is “peer review.” Colleges and universities essentially review and rate each other, rather than having a government agency or other private, non-educational entity do so. Peer review has its strengths and weaknesses, but is often considered a preferred alternative to having the government perform the task.

Peer review teams typically include a senior financial officer, whose assessment of the financial status of the institution is combined with assessments of other members focusing on non-financial topics. While the comprehensive reports are important, the stark reality is that viability of institutional finances is key. After all, nothing else matters if the institution is not financially sustainable.

Accreditors also look at other sources of information. Institutions are required to submit annual reports, augmented by independent audits. Some accreditors have dashboards that provide partial financial data. However, most rely heavily on the Combined Federal Index (CFI, compiled by the Department of Education). While such data sources are valuable, they suffer from two inevitable limitations. First, broad comprehensive indices may not explain much about the particular financial issues of an individual institution. Second, all of these sources are retrospective in nature and may be of little value in looking forward.

An accrediting body staff (sometimes assisted by outside experts) will look carefully at an institution when the CFI and other indices are too low or when a peer review team raises significant financial concerns. But accreditors covering hundreds of institutions do not have the capacity to examine each institution’s situation in detail, leading to a necessary triaging approach. But are no “bright lines” unless an institution cannot make payroll or otherwise demonstrates extreme stress and by then, it is usually too late.

An institution seeking accreditation must demonstrate that it has the financial wherewithal to operate for the foreseeable future. After all, it is reasonable for prospective students and their parents to assume the institution will survive at least long enough for degrees to be completed. However, the typical reaccreditation cycle of 8-10 years means that outside of standard annual reports, the accreditor has little information about institutions that may be in financial trouble. There are no effective early warning systems, and institutions in trouble have few incentives to inform their accreditors, lest word of the problem further endanger the institution’s fiscal health by discouraging students from staying or even applying.

At the end of the day, the institutions themselves are fundamental to their own financial situations. The accreditors and the Department of Education may ring alarms in extreme cases, but the institutions –and especially the private institutions – are basically on their own in many ways.

How do these aspects of accreditation affect small colleges and universities?

Much attention has been paid of late to the number of smaller private institutions that have had to close and the growing risk of many more in the years ahead. Such closures – or the growing number of mergers and acquisitions among small colleges that are alternatives to closure—are at root financial in nature. No institution is saying that they have sufficient financial resources but do not care to continue.

The basic economics of small private colleges are well known. They have limited endowment resources and are almost totally dependent on tuition revenues. Their costs are rising, but the pool of traditional-age students is falling. Competition among all manner of institutions is increasing for the same students. In this situation, some institutions seek additional revenue sources by offering non-degree certificates or microcredentials, adding limited graduate programs, pursuing distance education, or increasing auxiliary activities. But at the end of the day, the core of any small college is its academic programs, and the only significant source of additional revenue for most is fundraising.

Competition among small institutions takes many forms. In some cases, it refers to academic environments, programs, and opportunities. In others, it refers to reputation, faculty, or facilities. Crucially, however, a principal competition is in pricing. These institutions have posted sticker prices, but almost all offer significant discounts (often exceeding 50%) to attract more students. The impact of this financial arms race is to constrain further the resources available to fund the institution.

A central problem for these institutions is one of scale, or more accurately, lack of scale. They have few opportunities to operate with any economies of scale. The cost of providing a class to 10 students is essentially the same as providing one to 30 students. Unlike larger institutions, these small schools do not have large introductory classes of 100 or more students that can, in effect, subsidize smaller specialized classes.

Another impact of institutional scale concerns the process of meeting accreditation standards. Successful accreditation requires various institutional commitments. For example, there are data requirements on student achievement, retention and completion. Such requirements mean an institution must have the administrative capacity to produce data. Furthermore, a central element of the process is the engagement of faculty in both ongoing student assessment and the creation of the documentation needed for demonstration of progress. Such processes cannot be done by staff members alone and require considerable time and commitment on the part of faculty members. Larger institutions have the necessary administrative staff such as institutional researchers to support this process. Smaller institutions are often challenged in this aspect. Again, a large university has plenty of faculty members among whom can be spread the required levels of faculty engagement. This is not the case with smaller institution. Simply put, small institutions carry an extra burden because of accreditation that is more easily borne in larger institutions.

As noted, there are increasing pressures for institutional consolidation. One current barrier is the time and complexity required to put a merger or partnership in place. The actual process of institutional negotiations is complex and difficult. But then the proposed arrangement requires approvals from accreditors, state higher education regulatory bodies, and the US Department of Education, all of which can take years. The cost of pursuing first an agreement and then the approvals is extensive –legal fees, financial advisors, project management and other consultants all add up. Additionally, there are the opportunity costs of institutional leadership being consumed by the merger or partnership process, rather than focusing on the institution’s regular business or on alternative institutional directions.

The pending Trump Administration changes to the accreditation processes are, in some ways, designed to mitigate these constraints. For example, there is a proposal to streamline the Department of Education approval process. And, as noted, the Administration also seeks to promote increased flexibility for institutions and accreditors, in part through more market-centered, competitive approaches to accreditors.

While increased flexibility would be welcome, one expected outcome is to facilitate the entry of for-profit institutions into the competitive space. Prior administrations acted to curb the perceived excesses of earlier for-profit models (think Trump University). A resurgence of for-profit institutions might be welcomed from an institutional diversity perspective. Still, the  impact on the small private colleges is likely to be negative, as it will further increase competition for students.

Another change that is discussed is institutional transparency. While there are efforts to provide dashboards, student cost calculators, and other data-oriented information sources, the fact of the matter is that higher education is complicated. Currently, most of the accreditors post their findings about an institution on their websites. This may simply be a statement that Institution X is accredited. Or it may include more basic information.

One accreditor, WSCUC, posts the actual reports of peer review committees, as well as the formal outcomes of accreditor decisions. The problem with this is that such reports are generally arcane for people outside higher education and are written in a stylized manner designed for other academics and the top accreditor decision-making body. And these reports and decisions are written with great care to avoid, as much as possible, further undercutting institutions. A review that focuses on a college’s financial weaknesses can easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nonetheless, consumer protection goals should tilt toward greater, not lesser, transparency.

Most small colleges need support of various kinds. This may come in the form of advice or access to specialized expertise, the provision of which might be a useful accreditor task. Most accreditors already share experience and knowledge through conferences, workshops and the osmotic effects of peer review itself. Accreditors should consider ways to ease the consolidation process, seeking a balance between becoming more supportive and less regulatory

However, at the end of the day, most problems are not rooted in definitions of academic quality or lack thereof, but in raw finances. All too often, accreditor focus on an institution’s financial problems comes too late and the only remaining task is to ensure options for students to complete their studies through transfers or teachouts. Finding ways to identify such problems earlier and providing access to supportive advice would be salutary.

Small colleges are an essential component of American higher education. The fact of the matter is that most could not exist without governmental support. Rather than direct governmental control, the provision of student financial aid is the principal means for doing this. (While there are other forms of Federal aid, notably research funding, most small institutions have limited capacity to access these resources, which, as has been demonstrated by the Trump Administration, come with additional strings attached.)

Accrediting bodies need to explore ways to fulfill their basic functions while also serving as sources of advice and support for their member institutions, especially the smallest of them. It is in everyone’s interest that they do so.

Dr. Chet Haskell serves as Co-Head for the College Partnerships and Alliances for the Edu Alliance Group. Chet is a higher education leader with extensive experience in academic administration, institutional strategy, and governance. He recently completed six and a half years as Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and University Provost at Antioch University, where he played a central role in creating the Coalition for the Common Good with Otterbein University. Earlier in his career, he spent 13 years at Harvard University in senior academic positions, including Executive Director of the Center for International Affairs and Associate Dean of the Kennedy School of Government. He later served as Dean of the College at Simmons College and as President of both the Monterey Institute of International Studies and Cogswell Polytechnical College, successfully guiding both institutions through mergers.

An experienced consultant, Dr. Haskell has advised universities and ministries of education in the United States, Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East on issues of finance, strategy, and accreditation. His teaching and research have focused on leadership and nonprofit governance, with a particular emphasis on helping smaller institutions adapt to financial and structural challenges. He earned DPA and MPA degrees from the University of Southern California, an MA from the University of Virginia, and an AB cum laude from Harvard University.