Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) Negotiated Rulemaking Session Two Recap

AIM Committee Reaches Consensus

Following two week-long negotiated rulemaking sessions, extensive negotiations, multiple revised drafts of regulatory text, and numerous caucuses with the Department of Education, the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) Committee reached consensus on proposed regulatory changes affecting accreditation, institutional oversight, innovation, governance, and related higher education policies.

All negotiators voted in favor of the final consensus package except for the negotiator representing students, student loan borrowers, or groups representing them, Magnus Noble, and the negotiator representing veterans and U.S. military service members or groups representing them, Julie Howell, both of whom abstained from the final consensus vote.

Because the Committee reached consensus, the Department is bound to use the consensus regulatory text in its forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Following the NPRM and the public comment period, the Department is expected to publish final regulations by November 1, 2026, with the regulations scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2027.

The final consensus package includes significant revisions and clarifications across multiple areas of accreditation policy, including issues related to accreditor governance and independence, substantive change and transfer of accreditation processes, branch campuses and additional locations, shared facilities and services, innovation and direct assessment programs, institutional quality assurance expectations, and the application of accreditation standards in accrediting decisions. The negotiations also included extensive discussions regarding First Amendment obligations, academic freedom, intellectual diversity, institutional mission, and student outcomes.

CECU extends our sincere thanks to Jeffrey Bodimer of Post University for serving as the primary negotiator representing proprietary institutions. As both a CECU member representative and negotiator, Jeffrey provided thoughtful leadership, deep subject matter expertise, and strong advocacy for proprietary institutions throughout the negotiations.

CECU provided recaps of each day of negotiations on our blog and will continue reviewing the final consensus language closely. We will provide members with the final language, along with additional analysis and implementation considerations, as the rulemaking process moves forward.

Day 3 Recap

The third day of the Department of Education’s Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) negotiated rulemaking session two focused heavily on revised language related to conflict of interest standards for accreditors, application of accreditation standards, academic freedom, intellectual diversity, student outcomes, and First Amendment related provisions.

The morning began with Department officials presenting revised regulatory language following Tuesday’s caucus discussions on “separate and independent” and conflict of interest issues under §§ 602.14 and 602.15, issues of particular importance to the accreditor negotiators. The Department reorganized portions of the previously proposed language and presented a revised version of the section addressing accreditor conflict of interest expectations and agency oversight responsibilities.

The revised language would prohibit accrediting agencies from sharing personnel, services, facilities, or technology resources with industry or professional associations and would also prohibit agency staff and volunteers from sharing or soliciting feedback from associations regarding accreditor policies. The proposal would additionally require agencies to publicly disclose relationships with trade associations and professional organizations on their websites.

Discussions focused in part on the impact the proposed language could have on programmatic accreditors that traditionally maintain close relationships with professional associations and industry organizations connected to their fields of accreditation.

The afternoon session focused heavily on proposed revisions to § 602.17 addressing the application of accreditation standards in reaching accrediting decisions. Negotiators continued discussing proposed language related to student outcomes, First Amendment obligations, academic freedom, and intellectual diversity.

Negotiators also continued extensive discussions regarding proposed language requiring accreditors to evaluate whether public institutions meet their obligations under the First Amendment. Several negotiators requested additional clarification regarding how accreditors would be expected to assess institutional compliance related to free speech and First Amendment standards and raised concerns regarding the proposed role of accreditors in evaluating those issues.

Discussions additionally continued regarding academic freedom and intellectual diversity language following Tuesday’s caucus discussions. Raymond Rodrigues, representing state officials, raised strong concerns regarding the Department’s decision to move the definition of academic freedom from regulatory text to the preamble of the final rule. Michael Shires, representing taxpayers, and Siri Terjesen, representing workforce development organizations and employers, echoed Raymond’s concerns. Department officials acknowledged the concerns raised by negotiators and indicated they felt emboldened to pursue stronger language on the issue.

Department officials indicated they plan to distribute a revised clean version of the regulatory text to negotiators on Thursday. The Department also stated negotiations are expected to continue with additional review of revised language, the possibility of further caucuses, and a final consensus vote before the conclusion of session two.

Day 2 Recap

The second day of the Department of Education’s Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) negotiated rulemaking session two began with a report from Department officials on the transfer of credit caucus held Monday evening. Department officials stated the caucus discussion was productive and focused on refining language related to institutional transfer of credit policies and accreditor oversight responsibilities. The Department’s updated transfer of credit proposal can be viewed here.

The session then continued with a line by line review of the revised draft regulatory language across several sections of the proposed rules. Discussions throughout the day focused heavily on transfer of credit provisions, academic freedom language, accreditor independence requirements, agency responsibility standards, civil rights issues, and proposed post-completion outcome requirements.

In the morning, Department officials called a caucus involving negotiators representing accreditors, institutions, taxpayers and employers, and the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) constituency groups to further discuss provisions related to “separate and independent” requirements and conflict of interest language affecting accrediting agencies.

The Department also conducted a pulse check on the revised transfer of credit language developed following Monday’s caucus discussions. All negotiators indicated support for the revised transfer of credit language.

The Department later called another caucus involving all negotiators except state officials to discuss provisions related to academic freedom, agency responsibility, and civil rights language.

When the session resumed in the afternoon, Jeff Andrade, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning, and Innovation at the Department of Education, informed negotiators that a compromise had been reached regarding the proposed academic freedom language. The Department will move the definition of academic freedom to the preamble of the final rule rather than codifying the definition directly in regulation, reducing the weight of the provision from having the force of law to merely Department guidance 

The afternoon session continued with negotiators reviewing additional revised regulatory language across multiple sections of the proposed rules. Discussion included proposed §§ 602.16 and 602.17 addressing post-completion and graduation outcomes for accrediting agencies. During the discussion, Jeffrey Bodimer, primary negotiator for proprietary schools, questioned whether the Department intended to remove the proposed provisions in light of the new earnings premium accountability framework already established under federal law. Bodimer asked whether the Department’s proposal would create an additional reporting and compliance burden for institutions beyond existing requirements. CECU is working with Jeffrey and other negotiators to protect against a redundant student earnings outcomes mandate for accreditors.

Jeff Andrade responded that the Department does not intend to create a new separate reporting structure and stated the Department anticipates relying on earnings premium information institutions are already required to collect and report under current federal accountability requirements.

Negotiators also submitted several proposals to the Department on various sections of the proposed regulations during day two discussions. Negotiators are expected to continue reviewing the revised draft regulatory language when the session resumes Wednesday.

The second session of the Department of Education’s Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) negotiated rulemaking began Monday with negotiators reviewing new draft regulatory language circulated by the Department during the break between sessions. The updated draft language reflects revisions and clarifications made following discussions during the first session and can be viewed here.

The day opened with Department officials providing an overview of the schedule and expectations for the remainder of session two. Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education at ED, David Barker, then delivered opening remarks reiterating several themes the Department has emphasized throughout the AIM rulemaking process, including competition, innovation, and modernization within the accreditation system. Barker stated that the absence of competition among accreditors has contributed to what he described as a “race to the bottom” in accreditation and argued that institutional choice among accreditors would improve quality and strengthen higher education outcomes.

Most of the day was spent conducting a line-by-line review of the revised draft language, with negotiators asking questions, proposing revisions, and outlining key concerns and policy positions across multiple sections of the proposed regulations. Discussions focused heavily on provisions related to accreditor authority, institutional flexibility, governance issues, and credit transfer related policies.

One significant discussion focused on proposed revisions to the definition of an accrediting agency under § 602.3. The revised draft language states:

Ҥ 602.3 What definitions apply to this part?

Accrediting agency or agency means a legal entity, or that part of a legal entity, that conducts accrediting activities through voluntary, non-Federal peer review and makes decisions concerning the accreditation or pre-accreditation status of institutions, programs, or both.

Multiple negotiators requested clarification regarding the Department’s decision to strike the word “peer” from the longstanding definition of accrediting review. Several negotiators expressed concern that removing the term could represent a substantive policy shift that may require congressional action rather than regulatory change through negotiated rulemaking. Others raised concerns about altering a foundational and longstanding accreditation concept through the removal of a single word from the regulations.

Department officials clarified that the proposal is not intended to eliminate peer review from the accreditation process, but rather to provide flexibility for accreditors to incorporate non-peer subject matter experts into evaluation and review activities alongside traditional peer reviewers. Mark Becker, primary negotiator for nascent accreditation organizations not currently recognized by the Secretary, stated the proposed change could represent a “tectonic shift” in accreditation policy and structure.

Another discussion focused on proposed language under § 600.11 regarding institutional changes in accrediting agencies. The revised draft language states:

Ҥ 600.11 Special rules regarding institutional accreditation or pre-accreditation.
(a) Change of accrediting agencies.
(2) The institution must publicly disclose within 10 business days on its website and make reasonable efforts to notify all current students and graduates within the prior five years of the change of accrediting agency.

Jeffrey Bodimer, primary negotiator for proprietary institutions, questioned the intent and operational burden associated with the provision, particularly the requirement to notify graduates from the prior five years. Bodimer stated the requirement would be onerous for institutions to implement and asked the Department to strike the five-year language from the proposal. Mark Becker echoed those concerns, stating the requirement would be difficult for institutions to operationalize. Department officials indicated they would take the concerns back for further consideration.

The session concluded with the Department calling a caucus specifically focused on transfer of credit language, which remains one of the more active areas of discussion among negotiators. A report from the caucus is expected Tuesday morning. The language discussed was not publicly posted but is copied below.

§ 602.24 Additional procedures certain institutional agencies must have
Specific location: 602.24(e)

(e) Transfer of credit policies. The accrediting agency must confirm, as part of its review for initial accreditation or pre-accreditation, or renewal of accreditation, that the institution has transfer of credit policies that include provisions that—
(1) Are publicly disclosed in accordance with § 668.43(a)(11), including any equivalency tables, which shall be published in a standardized data format prescribed by the accrediting agency; and
(2) Include a statement of the transfer of credit criteria established by the institution to consider the comparability and applicability of the credit  earned at another institution of higher education that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency approved by the Secretary;

Department officials also indicated they are seeking to move negotiations toward a conclusion more quickly this week. The Department stated it hopes to hold a consensus vote either Wednesday or Thursday. Officials additionally informed negotiators that any final proposals or revised language submissions for Department consideration must be submitted by Tuesday at noon.