| This article is part ofa series on |
| Education in the United States |
|---|
| Summary |
| History |
| Curriculum topics |
| Education policy issues |
| Levels of education |
 Education portal United States portal |
Higher education accreditation in the United States is apeer review process by which the validity of degrees and credits awarded by higher education institutions isassured. It is coordinated by accreditation commissions made up of member institutions. It was first undertaken in the late 19th century by cooperating educational institutions, on a regional basis.
The federal government began to play a limited role inhigher education accreditation in 1952 with reauthorization of theG.I. Bill forveterans of theKorean War. The original GI Bill legislation had stimulated establishment of new colleges and universities to accommodate the influx of new students, but some of these new institutions were of dubious quality. The 1952 legislation designated the existing peer review process as the basis for measuring institutional quality; GI Bill eligibility was limited to students enrolled at accredited institutions included on a list of federally recognized accredited institutions published by theU.S. Commissioner of Education.[1]
TheU.S. Department of Education and theCouncil for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) (anon-governmental organization) both recognize reputable accrediting bodies for institutions ofhigher education and provide guidelines as well as resources and relevant data regarding these accreditors. Neither the U.S. Department of Education nor CHEA accredit individual institutions.[2] With the creation of the U.S. Department of Education and under the terms of theHigher Education Act of 1965, as amended, theU.S. secretary of education is required by law to publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies that the secretary has determined to be reliable authorities on the quality of education or training provided by the institutions of higher education and the higher education programs they accredit.[3]
Professional schools, which are often graduate schools, have separate organizations for accreditation, e.g. American Board of Higher Education (ABHEC).
Institutional accreditation applies to the entire institution, specific programs, anddistance education within an institution.[4]
Prior to 2020, there were regional and national accrediting agencies, both of which were accountable to theDepartment of Education. Regional bodies historically accredited institutions in a particular region of the country. National bodies were established to accredit institutions across the country, and sometimes beyond it. Within American higher education, regional bodies were considered more prestigious. (The regional bodies were older, and included the most well established institutions.)[5]
In February 2020, the Department of Education eliminated the distinction between regional and national accrediting agencies, creating one unified set of institutional accreditors.[6] The department claimed that the change was intended to encourage cooperation between accredited schools to improve student experiences, uphold quality standards, and reduce the cost of higher education by encouraging transparent transfer of credits and mutual recognition of degrees between schools with common standards. It also claimed that the change was intended to allow students to be able to access the best school for their needs no matter what region they reside in.[7]
Four months after this change was made, theWASC Senior College and University Commission became the first accreditor to formally change its membership rules and requirements to allow institutions outside its historical geographic region to apply for membership and accreditation.[8]
Historically, educational accreditation activities in the United States were overseen by seven regional accrediting agencies established in the late 19th and early 20th century to foster articulation between secondary schools and higher education institutions, particularly evaluation of prospective students by colleges and universities.[9][10] These seven agencies were membership organizations of educational institutions within their geographic regions. Initially, the main focus of the organizations was to accredit secondary schools and to establish uniform college entrance requirements.[9][10] Accreditation of colleges and universities followed later, with each of the accrediting agencies splitting into separate organizations with one or more of those organizations focused exclusively on accrediting colleges and universities.[10] The higher education institutions holding regional accreditation were primarilynon-profit institutions, with significant exceptions, as the largest US for-profit universities (e.g.,University of Phoenix,Grand Canyon University) achieved regional accreditation.[11][12][13]
Regionally accredited schools were usually academically oriented and most were non-profit. Nationally accredited schools, a large number of which arefor-profit, typically offered specific vocational, career, or technical programs. Regionally accredited institutions employed large numbers of full-time faculty, and the faculty set the academic policies. Regionally-accredited schools were required to have adequate library facilities. Except for some specific subject areas such as nursing, nationally accredited schools did not hire many full-time faculty, usually hiring faculty by the course, without benefits and with no influence on the school's academic policies, which were determined by non-academic administrators, and ultimately investors. Their library facilities, if they existed at all, were far inferior to those of regionally-accredited schools. While there were some legitimate and well-intentioned nationally accredited schools, similar to for-profit institutions with regional accreditation, some institutions existed with little educational rigor. Some critics considered national accreditation to be not as reputable as regional accreditation.[5] Schools accredited by the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges, a national accreditor, were occasionally sued for leading prospective students to believe, incorrectly, that they would have no problem transferring their credits to a regionally accredited school.[14][15][16]
In the early 2020s, conservative state legislators and governors in several states moved beyond criticizing institutional accreditors to begin passing legislation attacking accreditors' independence and authority. In 2022, after theSouthern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) questioned the candidacy ofRichard Corcoran as he campaigned to become president ofFlorida State University, the state passed a law requiring every public college and university to change institutional accreditors every time their accreditation is due to be renewed. The following year, North Carolina passed a similar law. In subsequent years, SACSCOC also posed questions as several states began to pass laws and create policies and practices dismantlingdiversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) work at colleges and universities. In June 2025, Florida governorRon DeSantis announced that six public university system in southern states—theState University System of Florida,Texas A&M University System,University System of Georgia,University of North Carolina System,University of South Carolina System, andUniversity of Tennessee System—were collaborating to form a new institutional accreditor, the Commission for Public Higher Education.[17]
The U.S. Department of Education recognizes the following organizations as institutional accreditors:[18]
These accreditors typically cover a specific program of professional education or training, but in some cases they cover the whole institution. Best practices are shared and developed through affiliation with the Association of Professional and Specialized Accreditors.[19] Both the US Department of Education[20] and CHEA[21] maintain lists of recognized US programmatic accreditors:
TheState Bar of California Committee of Bar Examiners accredits law schools in California and is not recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or CHEA.[22]
Although many schools related to religious organizations hold regional accreditation or secular national accreditation, there are four different agencies that specialize in accreditation of religious schools:
These groups specialize in accrediting theological and religious schools includingseminaries and graduate schools of theology, as well as broader-scope universities that teach from a religious viewpoint and may require students and/or faculty to subscribe to a statement of faith.[citation needed] Additionally, as of 2009, 20 U.S. states andPuerto Rico had some form of exemption provision under which religious institutions can grant religious degrees without accreditation or government oversight.[23][24]
Since 2001, the use of thetop-level internet domain,.edu has been restricted to accredited institutions, but non-qualifying institutions can still use .edu domain names obtained before the current rules came into force.[25] A prominent example of such a domain name registered before the current rules came into force isAcademia.edu, a for-profit social networking site for academics.
Various commenters have written about the role and effectiveness of the American accreditation system. It has drawn particular interest since the rise ofe-learning classes and institutions. A frequent point of discussion and criticism is that the traditional system is limited to measuring "input" factors, such as instructional time forcourse credit, adequate facilities and properly credentialed faculty, rather thanlearning outcomes.[26]
In his 1996 bookCrisis in the Academy, Christopher J. Lucas criticized the accreditation system as too expensive, onerously complicated, incestuous in its organization, and not properly tied to quality.[27][28] Similarly, a 2002 report byGeorge C. Leef and Roxana D. Burris of theAmerican Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) argued that the system does not ensure or protect educational quality, while still imposing significant costs.[29][30] In a 2006 "issue paper", Robert C. Dickeson wrote that a lack of transparency, low and lax standards, and outdated regionalization were among the problems with regional accreditation.[31] Others, such as Edward M. Elmendorf of theAmerican Association of State Colleges and Universities, reject these claims, arguing that they are "picking around the edges" of a proven and necessary system for upholding standards.[27][32] Thomas C. Reeves notes that some schools unable or unwilling to meet the standards of traditional, regional accrediting bodies are closely involved in creating national accrediting agencies with significantly lower standards.[33]
At various times the U.S. government has investigated changes to the accreditation system. In 2002, the House of Representatives Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness criticized the system.[32] Accreditation was a major topic of theSpellings Commission, which released its report on September 26, 2006.[34] TheCouncil for Higher Education Accreditation recognizes that there are criticisms,[35] but has opposed these calls for reform, with President Judith S. Eaton arguing that the system is successful and needs to remain flexible to accommodate differences between schools and disciplines.[32] In 2013, PresidentBarack Obama proposed changes in the accreditation system to hold "colleges accountable for cost, value, and quality".[36] He requested Congress change the Higher Education Act so that affordability and value are considered in determining which institutions are accredited and allow students access to federal financial aid; his criticism was directed at for-profit institutions.[37]
Regional accreditation is considered more prestigious than national accreditation.
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)Accreditation, along with federal and state regulation, can impede creative new approaches as well.
U.S. accreditation, then, is a robust, complex and unwieldy and sometimes controversial enterprise. These are the first things that we see when we 'take a look at ourselves, accreditation...'