In early June, the US Department of Education (ED) notified Columbia University’s accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), that Columbia had violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The announcement sparked a wave of strong reactions and discussions about the motivation of such a move. In response, we started to receive questions about what this could mean for Columbia University and for higher education more broadly.

Since college accreditation rarely receives this level of public attention, many people, even those in higher education, are unaware of how the accreditation process works and the relationship between accreditation and the federal government. To help fill in those gaps, we put together a brief explainer on what accreditation is, how it came to be, and how the recent federal actions fit into the bigger picture.

What is accreditation?

Accreditation is a process the federal government uses to ensure that US colleges and universities meet basic standards of quality in order for enrolled students to receive federal funding, including the grants and loans that help students pay for college. In total, accreditation determines access to about $120.8 billion in federal grants, loans, and work-study funds, which in 2024, was awarded to 9.9 million students. The concept of accreditation formed in the late 19th century as an effort to distinguish between secondary (i.e., high school) and postsecondary (“college”) education. The federal government’s role in accreditation initiated with the passage of the GI Bill in 1952. The accreditation process we have today and its relationship to federal funding was formally established in federal law through the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, though it has continued to evolve through subsequent HEA reauthorizations, executive action, and the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008.

To enact the accreditation process, the US Department of Education (ED) authorizes or “recognizes” certain private, typically nonprofit organizations—known as accrediting agencies or accreditors—to evaluate whether colleges and universities meet standards of quality. The agencies are primarily funded through dues from affiliated institutions or fees paid by institutions undergoing an accreditation review. Institutions usually remain affiliated with a single accreditor for many years. Once accredited, the college or university often has to submit annual reports to the accreditor; seek approval for any major changes to their programs or practices, like opening a new campus or launching a new degree program; and “re-affirm” their accreditation every five to 10 years through an intensive, multi-year review.

Accrediting agencies either evaluate entire colleges or universities (“institutional accreditors”) or specific undergraduate or graduate programs (“programmatic accreditors”). Historically, institutional accreditors were either regional or national: regional accreditors focused on specific regions of the country while national accreditors typically evaluated for-profit institutions and religious institutions, regardless of where the institutions operate. In 2020, new regulations from the first Trump administration allowed institutions to choose accreditors regardless of geography, which diminished the distinction between regional and national agencies. Programmatic accreditors typically assess whether academic programs meet appropriate professional standards in specific industries such as law or nursing.

As of 2024, 38 institutional accreditors oversee the quality of approximately 4,997 colleges and universities serving more than 17 million degree-seeking undergraduate and graduate students. Seven of these accreditors, ones previously known as regional accreditors, currently evaluate institutions enrolling over 16.27 million students, roughly 95.6 percent of all degree-seeking students in the US. Four national accreditors evaluate institutions that enroll about 529,000 degree-seeking students, about 72 percent of the remaining students. The rest of the accreditors typically have very small portfolios of schools, including many faith-based and career-focused colleges and universities.

What’s the accreditation process, and how do accreditors respond to performance concerns?

Each accreditor establishes its own standards of quality, and the accrediting organizations use those standards to evaluate the performance of their affiliated institutions. These standards usually cover a range of core areas such as quality of academic programs, the institution’s financial health, and how the school is managed and makes decisions.

Even though each accreditor has their own standards, the accreditation process, especially amongst those previously known as regional accreditors, follows a common structure across agencies. First, the institution conducts an in-depth self-assessment, known as “self-study,” using the accreditor’s standards as a guide. Once complete, a team of volunteer peer reviewers (usually faculty or administrators from institutions accredited by the same agency) visits the campus to assess the institution on each of the accreditor’s standards. Finally, a volunteer advisory panel, composed of representatives from member institutions, then reviews the self-study, site visit findings, and any additional documentation, and determines whether to confirm or deny accreditation.

Federal law dictates the actions an accreditor can take regarding the accreditation decision: granting (for the first time) or reaffirming accreditation (with or without concerns), denying or withdrawing accreditation, and issuing sanctions to institutions when they are out of compliance with the accreditor’s standards. Institutions that are out of compliance can be put on probation for one to two years depending on the severity of the concern. Institutions that fail to remedy these issues over time will have their accreditation denied or withdrawn. Accreditors often give institutions several years or until their next regularly scheduled site visit to come back into compliance, depending on the nature of the standard that has not been met.

Rarely is an institution’s accreditation denied or withdrawn involuntarily, and when it is, the accreditor’s sanctions are most commonly related to serious financial issues at the institution. A 2014 report from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that, within a four and a half year period, about eight percent of accredited schools were sanctioned for not meeting standards, and only about one percent had their accreditation withdrawn. The New England Commission of Higher Education (NECHE), one of the seven previously regional accreditors overseeing about 200 colleges and universities, reported one of the highest involuntary withdrawal rates amongst their peers: they have withdrawn accreditation from five institutions since 2010. The Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), Columbia University’s current accreditor, reports that they withdrew accreditation from only seven institutions between 1995 and 2024.

What actions has the current administration taken?

On June 4, 2025, ED notified the MSCHE that Columbia University “is in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws and therefore fails to meet the standards for accreditation set by the Commission [MSCHE].” Accreditors are responsible for ensuring its institutions are in compliance with specific accreditation standards, in this case, “compliance with all applicable government laws and regulations.” In response, MSCHE asserted that it has the sole responsibility for determining whether the institution is out of compliance with accreditation standards. If such a finding were made, MSCHE would follow its established procedures, allowing Columbia to maintain its accreditation while working to resolve the issues. According to MSCHE policy, institutions found out of compliance are given at least three years to demonstrate corrective action.

Historically, ED’s primary tool for ensuring that institutions meet accreditation standards is through its recognition of accrediting agencies. This recognition process, which occurs every five years, is governed by federal statute and administered by ED in consultation with a bipartisan advisory committee composed of appointees from Congress and the Department. The committee makes recommendations to a senior ED official, who ultimately decides whether an accrediting agency should continue to be recognized. The most recent example of the federal government revoking recognition from an accreditation agency is the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS), a decision which was based on ED’s determination that ACICS had failed to adequately monitor the compliance of its institutions and had insufficient administrative capacity to do so.