A recent executive order (EO) has shone a new spotlight on postsecondary institutional accreditation, an area of higher education that traditionally operates in relative obscurity. Invoking increased accountability, reduced regulatory burdens, and enhanced institutional innovation, the EO seeks to streamline the accreditation process, align post-college outcomes with labor market needs, and allow for greater flexibility in the “who and how” of institutional accreditation. The accreditation system this EO aims to reform was established by the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. Alongside state authorization and the federal Department of Education (ED), accreditation is part of the quality assurance triad. This tripartite structure aims to maintain the quality and integrity of postsecondary institutions that are authorized to participate in federal financial aid programs. For most tuition-dependent institutions, which are the vast majority of all institutions, accreditation access to federal financial aid is an existential necessity.

Stakeholder Reactions

Expectations about the EO had been simmering in advance of it being formally issued, leading to swift responses from higher education advocacy organizations and accreditors themselves. Policy-oriented organizations, like Education Trust and The Institute for College Access & Success, raised concerns about the EO provisions restricting the disaggregation of data by race, which they posit could exacerbate existing efforts to improve student success. The association of major accreditors, the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions, rejected some of the premises upon which the EO is based while emphasizing past and current alignment with some of its goals, including easing the process for institutions to change accreditations and the recognition of new accrediting agencies.

Imagining a Role for NACIQI

Given the profound impact accreditation has on institutional practices and student outcomes, the EO has sparked considerable debate among education leaders, policy analysts, and media commentators alike. Yet notably absent from much of the ongoing public discussion is the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), the federal advisory committee explicitly tasked with advising on accreditation policy and practice.

The EO itself and most media coverage has not referenced NACIQI, the statutory body responsible for advising the Secretary of Education, or their designee, on matters related to accreditation. Over the past several years NACIQI’s statutory role in the initial and continuing recognition of accreditors has received increased attention from a variety of media and advocacy entities focused on higher education, as well as research organizations like Ithaka S+R. That attention is likely to expand as higher education quality and accreditation become more a part of the national conversation in response to the EO.

NACIQI could be well positioned to have influence on how the priorities of the EO are put into practice. Prior to the issuance of the EO on accreditation, NACIQI members discussed some anticipated federal actions, the broad contours of which had been long anticipated. In addition to these discussions, the February 2025 NACIQI meeting provided a forum for other interested parties to express their concerns about the connection between access to federal financial aid and accreditation as well as concerns for the ED staff that support the accreditation process. There was also an extended discussion about the frequency of NACIQI meetings, the pace at which accreditor recognition and re-recognition should occur, and how the body should interact with the public through complaints and third-party comments.

The federal regulations governing NACIQI and the accreditation process specifically empower the body to advise the Secretary of ED on matters of accreditation and institutional eligibility. The members should take this opportunity offered by national attention on accreditation prompted by the EO to create a forum where institutional quality, student success, and the accreditation process itself are discussed and debated publicly by experts in relevant policy and practice, including the NACIQI members themselves. These meetings could also serve as a container for public comment from the very stakeholders most impacted by changes to accreditation, namely accreditors, institutions, and students.