In advance of the start of next week’s long-anticipated negotiated-rulemaking sessions (commonly referred to as “neg reg”) on accreditation, the Education Department (ED) has announced the negotiators and released draft regulations. The draft will be subject to two week-long negotiation sessions, in mid-April and mid-May.
As has been the case with recent neg-reg committees established by the Trump administration, two- and four-year public institutions have been given only one seat at the table. Fortunately for community colleges, Monty Sullivan, former president of the Louisiana Community and Technical College System, has been chosen as the lead negotiator for this slot. Sullivan’s alternate is Luciano DeCastro from the University of Iowa. A variety of non-academic individuals have landed seats on the committee.
Long reach of draft rules
The draft regulations are extensive and reach far into academic and other campus processes that previously have not been subject to federal regulation via accreditation. Although a longstanding stated goal of the administration has been to reduce the regulatory burden and cost of accreditation, the highly prescriptive, detailed nature of the draft regulations — which, of course, can and likely will change in the upcoming discussions — could well mitigate against that.
The draft regulations have a much sharper focus on program outcomes than in previous regulations and place an emphasis on cost-effectiveness. For example, they would require implementation of policies that use cost-benefit analysis in justifying investment in student support services. Accreditors are also encouraged to work against what is commonly referred to as “credential creep.”
Accreditors would also play a more significant role in Title IV compliance under the administration’s proposal. The draft regulations also have as a stated aim ensuring First Amendment and related protections that are, in fact, already guaranteed at public institutions. Similar objectives are outlined for private institutions, though they operate under different legal constraints.
The second of the two rulemaking sessions is scheduled to conclude on May 22. If there is consensus on the rules at that time, ED will have to release a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that tracks the consensus document. If not, the department may write a proposed rule of its choosing.
The latter prospect can potentially drive consensus from parties who otherwise do not support various aspects of the regulations. However, before there’s a final consensus vote, much spirited discussion will have taken place on these consequential issues — issues that go to the heart of how the federal government places itself in relation to higher education.
