Geographic, Programmatic or Aligned: The Demand for Accreditation Alternatives

When the earth moved for higher education accreditation in 2020, the bookshelves at academia swayed a bit but then came to rest with little immediate consequence[i]. ED.Gov’s removal of distinctions between regional and national accreditation lowered barriers for the six largest legacy agencies to encroach on each other’s legacy territories. The disruption has led some to call for new, state-specific accreditation sources.

Missing from the current conversation about accreditation reform is consideration of factors other than geography. While gaining better control over source of accreditation has some merit, the downsides are considerable, including building capacity and expertise at the state level, seeking, and gaining recognition from ED.Gov, and establishing a robust reciprocity compact to facilitate credit transfer between states, necessary to preserve the ability of students to transfer academic credit.

A push for state-based accreditation disguises the fundamental impetus for the current form of accreditation reform. That is, the need for closer alignment between the mission and purposes of the public universities and their source of accreditation. These large institutions reflect and propagate the independence, freedom and demands for academic excellence of their constituents and primary funding sources, their citizens, and taxpayers.

In forming NAAE as new institutional accreditation resource with a national scope, the entity has developed standards and criteria that augment the strengths of these institutions while preserving their cultural independence and governance autonomy. NAAE places emphasis on institutional alignment and strength, rather than geographic location. Quality assurance that fortifies a college or university’s commitment to excellence and scholarship defines geography; it ensures the standards and methods or accreditation align closely with the operational and strategic aspirations of member institutions.

[i] Footnote: Since 2020, several U.S. institutions have taken advantage of new policies allowing historically regional accrediting agencies to operate outside their traditional geographic areas. The Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), for instance, was the first to open its accreditation to institutions beyond its original West Coast region, and it has since attracted schools from states like New York, Ohio, and Colorado, as well as international applicants. Similarly, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, traditionally covering mid-Atlantic states, expanded nationally and globally, accrediting institutions in countries such as Bahrain, Qatar, and others.

These changes followed a U.S. Department of Education rule revision that allowed more flexibility for institutions to choose accrediting bodies regardless of geographic boundaries. This increased competition has led to more institutions switching accreditors, though exact numbers are not consistently tracked across all agencies. It is known that WASC, for example, has several institutions in its accreditation pipeline from outside its historic region, and other agencies like the Higher Learning Commission and Southern Association of Colleges and Schools have seen similar expansions​

Inside Higher Ed