By Scott Filter, Director, Government Relations, AACRAO
During recent conversations and presentations, I have found that one important change in federal accreditation policy has not been widely understood: the Department of Education no longer distinguishes between regional and national accreditors. What changed, why did it change, and what does it mean for institutions?
What are regional accreditors?
Accreditation is a peer-review process through which colleges and universities demonstrate that they meet standards for academic quality, governance, financial stability, student achievement, and continuous improvement. Accreditation by a Department of Education-recognized institutional accreditor is a prerequisite for participation in Title IV federal student aid programs.
Historically, the Department recognized two broad categories of institutional accreditors:
- Regional accreditors: accredited institutions within a defined geographic area and primarily served traditional nonprofit colleges and universities
- National accreditors: generally accredited institutions nationwide and often focused on career, vocational, technical, or faith-based institutions.
Did Something Change?
Yes. In November 2019, the Department of Education published a final rule that eliminated the distinction between regional and national accreditors by removing geographic scope from the federal recognition criteria (34 CFR Part 602). The regulations became effective in July 2020.
The Department concluded that accrediting agencies were increasingly operating outside their traditional geographic regions, that geographic restrictions unnecessarily limited institutional choice, and that the distinction between regional and national accreditors had created unwarranted perceptions about institutional quality.
In February, 2020, the Department reinforced this position in a letter to state officials, stating that it “holds all accrediting agencies to the same standards” and that distinctions between regional and national accrediting agencies are “unfounded.” Going forward, ED indicated that it would “only distinguish between institutional and programmatic accrediting agencies.”
What Does This Mean?
As a result of these regulatory changes, “regional accreditor” is no longer a federal designation. The Department recognizes institutional accrediting agencies, not regional or national accreditors. Consequently, many accrediting agencies that were historically known as regional accreditors now describe themselves simply as institutional accreditors.
This shift is reflected in how accrediting agencies describe themselves:
- “HLC is an institutional accreditor, accrediting the institution as a whole.”
- “The Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) is a global institutional accreditor recognized by the United States Secretary of Education since 1952.”
- “WSCUC is recognized as an institutional accrediting agency, and reviewed periodically for renewal by the US Department of Education.”
- The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), the association for institutional accreditors that were previously regional accreditors also has moved to the term “institutional accrediting organization.”
Practical Implications
Institutions should consider updating their terminology in catalogs, transfer policies, websites, disclosures, and other public-facing documents. Continuing to refer to “regional accreditation” may confuse learners because many accrediting agencies no longer use that terminology, and future institutional accreditors will never receive a regional designation.
Because the Department of Education no longer recognizes accrediting agencies as “regional,” any newly recognized institutional accreditor will not receive a regional designation. Institutions that rely on “regional accreditation” as a policy criterion may inadvertently exclude future institutional accreditors that meet the same quality expectations but are not described using historical terminology.
Will institutions get in trouble?
No, the Department of Education has not prohibited institutions from using the term “regional accreditation” nor has it indicated that doing so would affect Title IV eligibility. The issue is not regulatory compliance but accuracy. Continuing to use outdated terminology may confuse learners and is inconsistent with current federal policy.
Recommendation
AACRAO recommends that institutions review public-facing materials, including catalogs, transfer policies, and disclosures, and replace reference to “regional accreditors” with “institutional accreditors” or “institutional accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.” If it is necessary to distinguish agencies that were historically regional accreditors, consider using phrases such as “formerly regional accreditor” or “institutional accreditor formerly recognized as a regional accreditor,” while identifying the specific accrediting agencies being referenced.
Although continued use of the term “regional accreditation” is not a compliance issue, it no longer reflects the Department of Education’s regulatory framework. Updating institutional terminology will improve clarity, better align communications with current federal policy, and help ensure students receive accurate information about accreditation and institutional quality.
If you have any questions, please contact AACRAO Government Relations at gr@aacrao.org.
share