Accreditation Reform and Enhanced Accountability Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 21, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to increase accountability for student outcomes and financial health among higher education institutions by empowering the Department of Education and requiring more rigorous oversight from accrediting agencies.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to significantly reform the accreditation process for institutions of higher education. It grants the Secretary of Education more authority to establish student achievement measures and data definitions for accrediting agencies, mandates enhanced accreditation reviews for institutions facing issues, strengthens conflict of interest rules for accreditors, and requires greater transparency in accreditation status and credit transfer agreements.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the current accreditation system is insufficient in holding institutions accountable for student success and financial stability, leading to poor outcomes for students and misuse of federal funds. They contend this bill will ensure accreditors focus on measurable student achievement, protect students from predatory practices, and increase transparency, ultimately improving the quality of higher education.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that giving the Secretary of Education more power over accreditation standards could lead to political interference in academic affairs and limit institutional autonomy and academic freedom. They may also contend that a one-size-fits-all approach to student achievement measures might not adequately account for the diverse missions and student populations of different institutions.
The bill is moderately complex, requiring careful reading to understand the interplay of new authorities and amendments to existing law, which may exceed the time typically allotted for quick legislative review.
Section 3 of the bill, amending Section 496(g) and (o) of the HEA
Expanded Secretarial Authority over Accreditation Criteria
This section removes statutory language that previously prohibited the Secretary of Education from establishing criteria for accrediting agencies regarding student achievement. It explicitly states the Secretary can establish such regulations, including differentiated recognition processes, but cannot limit academic freedom related to curriculum, faculty, or instructional resources. It also strikes a provision preventing the Secretary from promulgating regulations on accreditation agency standards.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this change is crucial for holding accreditors and, by extension, institutions, accountable for student outcomes, especially given the significant federal investment in higher education. They contend it allows the Secretary to ensure a baseline of quality and protect students from institutions that fail to deliver on their promises.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this grants too much power to the Secretary, potentially leading to political influence over academic standards and curriculum, even with the explicit carve-out for academic freedom. They may fear it could stifle innovation or impose a one-size-fits-all approach that doesn't suit diverse institutional missions.
Tradeoffs
The tension is between federal oversight for accountability and protecting institutional autonomy and academic freedom. The bill attempts to balance this by allowing the Secretary to set student achievement criteria while explicitly prohibiting interference with curriculum or faculty.
Section 4 of the bill, amending Section 496(a) of the HEA
Mandating Benchmarks for Student Achievement Measures
This section requires accrediting agencies to establish benchmarks for student achievement measures and data definitions set by the Secretary (as detailed in new subsection (r)). It also expands the information accreditors must consider, including actions taken against institutions by state or federal governments (investigations, lawsuits, settlements, judgments related to fraud or misconduct), and compliance with Title IV program responsibilities.
Section 5 of the bill, adding new subsection (r) to Section 496 of the HEA
Secretary to Define Student Achievement Measures and Baselines
This section mandates the Secretary to establish specific student achievement measures (e.g., academic progression, loan repayment, post-college earnings, and debt relative to earnings) and their data definitions. Accrediting agencies must then set baseline thresholds for these measures, which institutions must meet to remain accredited. The Secretary will annually provide the necessary data to accreditors and will review agency benchmarks during the recognition process.
Section 6 of the bill, adding new subsection (s) to Section 496 of the HEA
Mandating Enhanced Accreditation Reviews
This section requires accrediting agencies to conduct 'enhanced accreditation reviews' under specific circumstances, such as when an institution is under investigation, settlement, or adverse judgment for fraud/misconduct by a federal or state authority (other than ED), or if the agency believes the institution is failing its program responsibilities or engaged in fraud. These enhanced reviews require investigation of the trigger issue and a determination of accreditation status (withdrawal, suspension, continuous improvement plan). Institutions subject to enhanced review must make additional disclosures to students and the public, including 'accredited with risk' designations and transfer options. Agencies must publicly report on these reviews.
Section 7 of the bill, adding new subsection (t) to Section 496 of the HEA
Mandatory Accreditor Actions for Specific Institutional Events
This section requires accrediting agencies to take specific actions (e.g., enhanced review, formal action, request for information, monitoring recommendation) when certain events occur at an accredited institution. These events include changes in ownership (especially proprietary to nonprofit/public), rapid changes in student population size, and notifications from the Secretary of poor financial health (e.g., lowered credit rating, heightened cash monitoring, letter of credit requirement).
Section 8 of the bill, amending Section 496(a)(7) and (c) of the HEA
Enhanced Notification and Public Disclosure Requirements for Accreditors
This section expands the notification requirements for accrediting agencies, mandating they inform the Secretary, appropriate State licensing or authorizing agency, and the appropriate State Attorney General within 30 days of any 'negative' (formerly 'adverse') action against an institution. It also significantly broadens public disclosure requirements, mandating that accreditors make summaries and justifications for all final accreditation decisions available on their website and submit them to various federal and state entities, including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, FTC, DoD, and VA. It also requires accreditors to turn over all accreditation documents of a closed institution to the Secretary.
Section 9 of the bill, adding new paragraph (9) to Section 496(a) of the HEA
Stricter Conflict of Interest Rules for Accrediting Agencies
This section prohibits individuals with various affiliations from participating in any review or decision-making role in an accrediting agency's process. Prohibited individuals include administrative officers of accredited institutions, those with a financial stake (other than as an employee), those with fiduciary responsibility to an accredited institution, federally registered lobbyists, individuals affiliated with institutions that have a history of administrative/legal action or closure without equitable student treatment, and former executive leaders from accrediting agencies that lost recognition. It also prohibits employees/former employees (within 3 years) of a specific institution from reviewing that institution.
Section 10 of the bill, amending Section 496(l)(1) and (n) of the HEA
Increased Accountability and Fines for Accrediting Agencies
This section allows the Secretary to impose fines on accrediting agencies if they fail to notify the Secretary about an institution's potential fraud/misconduct or fail to take action under new subsection (t)(2). It also mandates the Secretary to conduct a 'performance-based review' of accrediting agencies, making a holistic judgment on their reliability, including their assessment of student achievement outcomes. Crucially, it requires the Secretary to initiate a review of an accrediting agency within 30 days of a federal/state finding of fraud, fiscal misconduct, or deceptive practices against an accredited institution, or if an institution files for bankruptcy. The Secretary must then take action (limit, suspend, terminate recognition, require action, or fine) if the agency failed to apply criteria. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) will review the Secretary's actions every 3 years and make recommendations. Fines imposed on agencies must be assessed equally to all institutions under their jurisdiction.
Section 11 of the bill, adding new paragraph (11) to Section 496(c) of the HEA
Mandating Universal Credit Transfer Agreements
This section requires accrediting agencies, within 4 years, to ensure that every institution under their jurisdiction has a credit transfer agreement with all other institutions accredited by the same agency. These agreements must provide for the transfer of credit for all general education courses and for courses in 'substantially similar programs.' Accreditors must confirm these policies are publicly disclosed and include criteria for credit transfer.
Section 12 of the bill, adding new Section 494A to Title IV of the HEA and amending Section 487(a)
Standardized Online Accreditation Disclosure System
This section mandates the Secretary to establish a standardized online accreditation disclosure system for institutions participating in Title IV programs. Institutions must prominently display their accreditation status (including appeals) on their website, regularly update it, and link to supporting public documentation. The Secretary must also define common accreditation terminology and publish all final accreditation documents (site visit reports, decision letters, review committee lists) on a federally maintained website. Institutions must agree to use this system as part of their program participation agreement.
Section 13 of the bill, adding new subsection (u) to Section 496 of the HEA
'Accredited with Distinction' and 'Accredited with Risk' Designations
This section allows accrediting agencies to designate institutions as 'accredited with distinction' or 'accredited with risk' solely for consumer information purposes. The Secretary will develop definitions for these designations based on student achievement standards in relation to the institution's mission.
Section 14 of the bill, amending Section 496(c)(3) of the HEA
Expanded Requirements for Teach-Out Agreements and Plans
This section significantly expands the circumstances under which institutions must submit teach-out agreements or plans to their accreditor for approval. Teach-out agreements are required if accreditation is withdrawn/suspended, an institution is on show cause, or intends to cease operations. Teach-out plans are required much earlier, within 30 days, if the Department takes action against the institution (e.g., section 487(f)), the accreditor places it on probation/show cause or deems it high-risk, the institution posts a Letter of Credit, is on Heightened Cash Monitoring 2, receives a failing Financial Responsibility Composite Score, or is subject to an enhanced accreditation review. Accreditors cannot approve teach-out agreements/plans involving institutions under investigation for fraud/misconduct. For private institutions, accreditors must ensure sufficient funds are allocated for teach-out plans.
Section 16 of the bill, amending Section 496(h) of the HEA
Restrictions on Changing Accrediting Agencies
This section significantly restricts an institution's ability to change its accrediting agency. The Secretary will not recognize accreditation from a new agency unless the institution provides all prior accreditation materials, the prior accreditor confirms no active actions/investigations, the institution has not been subject to adverse action/probation/show cause in the preceding 24 months, the switch is voluntary (not state-compelled), and the institution was reaccredited under its prior agency's most recent standards. The Secretary must also publish an annual list of institutions that have changed accreditors.
Section 19 of the bill
Restricting Transfer of Accreditation Oversight to Other Federal Agencies
This section prohibits the Secretary of Education from procuring services, contracting, or transferring activities related to administering Sections 496 and 494A (accreditation recognition and disclosure) to any other Federal agency. It explicitly states that the Economy Act and other relevant provisions do not apply to this Act, with an exception for arrangements in effect on January 20, 2025, and their renewals.
Mandates that any civil action regarding accreditation (Section 496 or its regulations, or denial/withdrawal/termination of accreditation) must be brought in the appropriate United States district court.
Section 15 of the bill, adding new subsection (v) to Section 496 of the HEA
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for establishing jurisdiction, often placed in a general provisions section. However, it represents a significant procedural change for institutions and accreditors.
Case for: Supporters might argue that federal court jurisdiction ensures consistency in legal interpretations of federal higher education law and accreditation standards, preventing a patchwork of state-level rulings and providing a more appropriate forum for disputes involving federal funding eligibility.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision could centralize power in federal courts, potentially making it more difficult or costly for smaller institutions to challenge accreditation decisions. They may also contend that state courts are sometimes better equipped to handle local nuances or specific state laws that might intersect with accreditation.
Estimated impact: Shifts all accreditation-related litigation from state to federal courts, potentially increasing costs and centralizing legal precedent.
Mandates the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Education to review, once every 3 years, the Secretary's actions regarding accrediting agencies and provide recommendations on appropriate fines or actions.
Section 10(a)(2)(B) of the bill, amending Section 496(n) of the HEA
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice for placing oversight mechanisms within the relevant section of law. It's not intentionally evasive but requires careful reading.
Case for: Supporters would argue this provides an essential, independent check on the Secretary's exercise of new powers over accrediting agencies, ensuring accountability within the Department itself and preventing arbitrary or politically motivated actions.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against independent oversight mechanisms like OIG reviews, as they are generally seen as good governance practices.
Estimated impact: Establishes a recurring, independent review of the Department of Education's enforcement of accreditation rules, adding a layer of accountability.
Requires that any monetary penalty or payment assessed by an accrediting agency on institutions subject to its jurisdiction, as a result of a fine imposed on the agency by the Secretary, shall be assessed equally to each institution.
Section 10(a)(2)(D) of the bill, amending Section 496(n) of the HEA
Why it matters:This is a technical detail about how costs are distributed, often placed in fine print. It could be seen as a way to ensure broad distribution of costs rather than targeting specific institutions.
Case for: Supporters might argue this ensures that the burden of accreditor fines is shared broadly across all institutions under an agency's jurisdiction, rather than being concentrated on a few, potentially preventing undue hardship on individual institutions.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision could unfairly burden well-performing institutions by making them share the cost of an accreditor's failure, even if they were not involved in the issues that led to the fine. They may contend it dilutes accountability.
Estimated impact: Distributes the financial burden of accreditor fines across all accredited institutions, potentially increasing costs for well-performing institutions.
Requires the Secretary to provide student achievement data to accrediting agencies, and, to the extent practicable, disaggregate this data by Pell Grant recipient status, race or ethnicity, and gender.
Section 18(y)(2) of the bill, adding new subsection (y) to Section 496 of the HEA
Why it matters:This is a technical detail about data provision, often placed in general provisions. Its placement might not be intentionally evasive but could easily be missed.
Case for: Supporters argue that disaggregated data is essential for identifying and addressing equity gaps in higher education, ensuring that accreditation reviews consider outcomes for all student populations, particularly those historically underserved.
Case against: Critics might argue that disaggregated data, while important for equity, could add complexity to accreditation reviews and potentially lead to institutions being penalized for disparities that are beyond their direct control or reflect broader societal inequities.
Estimated impact: Enables a more granular and equitable assessment of student outcomes by accrediting agencies, potentially highlighting disparities in achievement.