U.S. Department of Education Eases Accreditation Switching for Colleges, Aims to Boost Competition
The U.S. Department of Education announced a significant policy shift on May 1, 2025, designed to make it easier for colleges and universities to switch accrediting agencies. This move, detailed in a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL), aligns with President Donald Trump's Executive Order, Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education , which seeks to promote innovation and competition in higher education by reducing bureaucratic barriers.
The new guidance revokes policies from the Biden administration that required a detailed review process for institutions seeking to change accreditors. According to the Department, the updated process adheres strictly to the Higher Education Act (HEA) and existing regulations, which mandate that institutions provide materials related to prior accreditation and demonstrate "reasonable cause" for switching. The DCL clarifies: "the law and regulation describe the requirements regarding what constitutes reasonable cause for changing an accrediting agency. It is not the Department's prerogative to infer any other meanings from the basic requirements or contrive a multi-step investigation."
This streamlined approach aims to eliminate unnecessary obstacles, allowing institutions to select accreditors that better align with their mission and goals. "We must foster a competitive marketplace both amongst accreditors and colleges and universities in order to lower college costs and refocus postsecondary education on improving academic and workforce outcomes for students and families," said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon.
The policy change is part of a broader effort to reform the accreditation system, which plays a critical role in determining eligibility for over $100 billion in federal student loans and Pell Grants annually. The Department emphasized that it will no longer "micromanage" an institution's choice of accreditor, giving colleges greater flexibility to pursue innovative educational models.
However, the announcement also noted a temporary pause, effective October 29, 2024, on accepting and reviewing applications from new accrediting agencies. This decision was made due to a high volume of existing accreditors under review, suggesting a cautious approach to expanding the pool of accreditors while prioritizing the new switching process.
The initiative has sparked discussion in higher education circles. Proponents argue it will empower institutions to seek accreditors that support their unique objectives, potentially driving down costs and enhancing program quality. Critics, however, express concern that loosening oversight could complicate accountability, particularly as accreditation remains a key gatekeeper for federal funding.
As colleges navigate this new landscape, the Department's actions signal a commitment to reducing regulatory burdens and encouraging a more dynamic higher education ecosystem.
Originally published on University Herald
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
3 hours ago
- DW
Iran: The dangerous dream of regime change – DW – 06/21/2025
The longer Israel's attack on Iran goes on, the greater the speculation about the possibility of overthrowing the government in Tehran. But regime change has historically had disastrous consequences in the region. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly told the US broadcaster Fox News on Sunday that regime change in Iran "could certainly be the result" of Israel's operation there, because, he said, the government in Tehran was "very weak." US President Donald Trump has meanwhile sent out contradictory signals. "We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding," he announced on his personal social network, Truth Social. "He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now." It remains unclear how long "for now" might last, however. The longer the conflict between Israel and an Iran goes on, the more tempting it might appear to Israel and the United States to get rid not just of the Iranian nuclear program, but of the Islamic Republic as well. "It's extremely doubtful that it would be possible to bring about a regime change like that from the outside, with the push of a button," warns Eckart Woertz, the head of the German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA) in Hamburg. "If it did come to that, whether things would then go in the right direction is a whole other question." Foreign-imposed "regime change" is a highly controversial concept. Under international law, it is a clear violation of the sovereignty of the affected state. Often, it is not democratically legitimized, and it frequently leads to a power vacuum or violence and instability. Newly installed governments often find themselves unable to cope with the challenge of resolving the country's problems, and this results in further crises and conflicts. This is was what happened in Afghanistan. After the terrorist attacks on New York on September 11, 2001, NATO invoked the mutual defense guarantee contained in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty for the first and (so far) only time. A Western military alliance led by the United States resolved to topple Afghanistan's Islamist Taliban regime, and fight the terrorist organization al-Qaeda. Initially, it was quite successful, and by the end of 2001 the Taliban had been driven out of Kabul. But various parties to the alliance disagreed on a number of things, including how military, political and development aid should cooperate. And so, for 20 years, the security situation remained extremely precarious. The country was devastated by attacks as the Taliban launched repeated counteroffensives. Between 2001 and 2021 around 3,600 Western soldiers and almost 50,000 Afghan civilians were killed. The Afghanistan mission cost a total of almost $1 billion (€868 million). After the chaotic withdrawal of the US and its allies in the summer of 2021, the Taliban returned to power. Since then, they have rolled back almost all the progress made over the past 20 years. Afghanistan is isolated and desperately poor, with 23 million people dependent on humanitarian aid. The US once armed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who was in power for more than two decades. In 2003, however, it decided to overthrow him, with help of a "coalition of the willing," but without a mandate from the UN Security Council. Washington justified the decision with the assertion that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda and was in possession of weapons of mass destruction — claims later proven to be false. "Saddam Hussein was overthrown not because he possessed weapons of mass destruction, but because he did not possess them," the Middle East expert Eckhart Woertz says today. And, at the time, Iran took note. Once Saddam Hussein had been toppled, the Americans installed a transitional government, which was later heavily criticized for mismanagement and lack of knowledge of the country. Existing enmities between Iraq's different religious groups deteriorated into a situation akin to civil war between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Deadly attacks were an almost daily occurrence. Soldiers discharged from the Iraqi army started fighting the US troops who had previously toppled Saddam. Twenty years after the American invasion and the attempted regime change in Iraq, the situation has improved. Violence has died down, and the next round of parliamentary elections is due to take place in November. Nonetheless, Iraq remains a country in the process of change. Libya is also still suffering the consequences of an attempted regime change, which came from within and was flanked from abroad. In the wake of the Arab Spring, a civil war there began in 2011 with protests against the rule of longtime dictator Muammar Gaddafi. When attempted to put down the uprisings with bloodshed, NATO intervened militarily in the form of a no-fly zone to protect the civilian population. The regime held on for a few months. Then on October 20, 2011, Gaddafi was killed. But a government acceptable to the entire country was never established. Instead, there have been years of further conflict between rival militias. The state has virtually disintegrated, with two different governments fighting for control since March 2022. The human rights situation remains extremely precarious. Aside from these cautionary examples from recent history, Eckart Woertz sees another problem: Ultimately, ground force would be required to force a change of government in Iran. "I don't see a massively strong rebel movement within Iran that could topple the current regime," says Woertz. And from outside? "While there was a successful regime change in Germany once, at the end of the Second World War, that required a ground invasion," says Woertz. "And then you need a transition backed by local people. It helps if there is a common external enemy — like the Soviet bloc after 1945 — which glosses over the differences. But regime change has never happened with aerial bombardment alone, and I don't think Iran will be an exception now."
Int'l Business Times
21 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Supreme Court Declines To Fast-Track Challenge To Trump-Era Tariffs
The US Supreme Court on Thursday declined to expedite a major legal challenge to former President Donald Trump's tariffs on Chinese imports, opting not to intervene early in a case that could reshape presidential authority over trade policy. Educational toy companies Learning Resources and hand2mind had petitioned the Court to bypass the standard appeals process, citing the "sweeping economic consequences" of the tariffs and their impact on businesses and consumers nationwide. The Court's rejection means the case will proceed under the usual timeline, with the federal government now having until mid-July to file its response, Reuters reported. The companies argue that the tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), were unconstitutional. They contend that the Act does not authorize the president to unilaterally impose trade barriers without congressional oversight. A lower court ruled in their favor in May 2024, stating that Trump lacked the authority to use emergency powers to enact the tariffs. That decision, however, is currently on hold pending appeal. In urging the Court to take up the case directly, the companies stressed what they called "unremitting whiplash" and an "unprecedented economic burden" placed on U.S. businesses. They asked the justices to schedule oral arguments as early as September 2025. The Biden administration opposed the motion, arguing that expedited review was "unwarranted" and that a similar case making its way through the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit presented a more suitable vehicle for resolving the legal questions. Solicitor General D. John Sauer advised the Court to allow the appellate process to play out, suggesting a decision could be better timed for the October 2025 term. While the Court's procedural ruling does not address the underlying legality of the tariffs, it delays any definitive resolution. The justices could still choose to hear the case in the next term or later, depending on the outcome of related appeals.
Int'l Business Times
a day ago
- Int'l Business Times
Iran's Nuclear Programme: From Its Origins To Today's Dispute
A week ago, Israel launched an unprecedented attack against Iran, saying the country was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, a claim Tehran has always denied. Western powers have repeatedly expressed concerns about the rapid expansion of Iran's nuclear programme, questioning in particular the country's accelerated uranium enrichment. The following is a recap of the main developments regarding Iran's nuclear programme, as European foreign ministers are holding nuclear talks with their Iranian counterpart in Switzerland on Friday. Iran laid the foundation for its nuclear programme in the late 1950s with technical assistance from the United States, when Iran's ruling shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, signed a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with the US. In 1970, Iran ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), committing it to declare its nuclear material to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But revelations in the early 2000s about undeclared nuclear sites raised concerns. An 2011 IAEA report, collating "broadly credible" intelligence, said that at least until 2003 Iran "carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device". After suspending enrichment activities, Iran began talks with European and then international powers that would later culminate in a historic deal. On July 14, 2015, Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany reached an accord in Vienna. The deal, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), placed significant restrictions on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief after 12 years of crisis and 21 months of protracted negotiations. But the hard-won deal began to unravel when the US under President Donald Trump walked away from it on May 8, 2018, and reimposed sanctions on Iran. Following the US withdrawal, Iran retaliated by stepping up its nuclear activities as if "a red cape had been waved in front of a bull," said Clement Therme, associate researcher at the Rasanah International Institute for Iranian Studies. According to Therme, Iran "embarked on a strategy of escalation" in a bid to up pressure and obtain help to circumvent sanctions. But Tehran's moves were unsuccessful and came at an "exorbitant economic cost". Iran first began enriching uranium to five percent -- breaching the limit of 3.67 percent imposed by the deal -- before it raised the enrichment levels to 20 and then to 60 percent in 2021, which is a short step from the 90 percent required for use in a weapon. Iran has also increased its stockpiles of enriched uranium, which was set at 202.8 kilogrammes under the deal. Iran's total enriched uranium stockpile is currently believed to be more than 45 times that limit. And Tehran has since exceeded the number of centrifuges -- the machines used to enrich uranium -- it is allowed to have while beginning to produce more material faster by using advanced models at its plants. Efforts to revive the deal have been fruitless so far, with European-led talks on hold since summer 2022. After Trump's return to the White House, talks between Washington and Iran and mediated by Oman resumed in April. While the US president has voiced confidence that Iran would eventually sign a nuclear deal, Tehran has said that Israeli strikes that targeted a slew of military and nuclear sites "dealt a blow" to diplomacy. Faced with Iran's rapidly expanding nuclear programme, the IAEA expressed "serious concern" in its latest quarterly report at the end of May. According to the UN agency, Iran is the only non-nuclear weapon state to enrich uranium to 60 percent. It theoretically has enough near-weapons-grade material, if further refined, for more than nine bombs. However, the manufacturing and delivering of a nuclear bomb requires many other steps, including mastering both ballistics and the miniaturisation of the nuclear charge. The IAEA has said it currently has "no indication" of the existence of a "systematic programme" in Iran to produce a nuclear weapon. US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified to a Senate committee in March that Iran was not actively building a nuclear bomb. Iran has always denied having such ambitions, regularly referring to a long-standing fatwa, or religious edict, by Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei prohibiting atomic weapons.
