ED Issues New Proposed Interpretive Rule Warning Against Use of 'Regional Accreditation' Terminology
By Jill Desjean, Director of Policy Analysis
On Friday, the Department of Education (ED) issued a proposed interpretive rule intended to “revise and clarify” its position on the use of the term “regional accreditation” by accreditors and institutions of higher education alike.
The department’s position is that “regional” is no longer a proper definitional term for accrediting agencies and that accreditors and postsecondary institutions could be seen as misrepresenting their status and misleading students by continuing to refer to regional accreditation, a designation that was eliminated through negotiated rulemaking in 2019.
ED states in the proposed interpretive rule that postsecondary institutions, “should have a general duty to not mislead students,” and includes a citation to the regulations under CFR 668.71(c) on substantial misrepresentation, which includes potential penalties such as revoking the institution’s program participation agreement.
The proposed interpretive rule also “strongly discourages” accrediting agencies from referring to themselves as “regional accreditors.”
The preamble to the 2019 proposed rule stated that the department’s “use of the terms ‘regionally accredited’ and ‘nationally accredited’ related to institutional accreditation would no longer apply in recognition proceedings, although agencies would not be prohibited from identifying themselves as they deem appropriate.”
ED surmises in the new proposed interpretive rule that accreditors may have mistakenly relied on the 2019 proposed rule’s preamble language to continue referring to themselves as “regional” accreditors, despite the fact that preamble language for proposed rules does not carry the same weight as preamble language to final rules, where language is considered “nonbinding interpretive rules.”
In the proposed interpretative rule, ED states that it, “would formally rescind the statement in the preamble to the 2019 proposed rule that stated that accrediting ‘agencies would not be prohibited from identifying themselves as they deem appropriate,’ including as ‘regional’ accreditors.”
ED goes on to note that institutional policies should not rely on the former designation of national versus regional accreditors, specifically calling out the practice of institutions only accepting transfer credits from an institution that was accredited by an accreditor that was formerly recognized as a regional accreditor.
While ED acknowledges it cannot compel action by the states, it strongly encourages them to remove reference to a distinction between regional and national accreditors in their laws and regulations, since there is no longer a way to comply with those rules now that the designation of regional accreditation is obsolete.
“The Department does not recognize accrediting agencies as 'regional' accreditors, and the Department believes that these representations mislead the public, institutions of higher education, and students. Continued assertions that an institution is 'regionally' accredited may send false signals to students and the public that an institution’s accreditation is of a higher quality than institutions that are accredited by accrediting agencies that are nationally recognized.”
ED also has plans to conduct another negotiated rulemaking session focused on accreditation in April and May.
The proposed interpretive rule is currently out for public comment, with comments due on March 16, 2026.
Publication Date: 2/17/2026
Paul F | 2/19/2026 5:28:18 PM
Belittling our colleagues based on their dialect of North American English employing a very commonly used nasalized /t/ is unbecoming. It's sufficiently distracting from your valid critique of accreditors that I had to re-read your entire comment to recall anything other than your jab.
Even offered in jest, such statements can also lead to accusations of racism or creating a hostile work environment.
Cliff B | 2/17/2026 12:37:25 PM
I think the 3rd to last paragraph really gives the meat of the story. There has always seemed to be this idea that classes at a regionally accredited institution were more stringent (or better) than those at a non-regional institution. It was almost as if this is promoted as a selling point to get the student to go to their school versus another. Unfortunately (or not), this is sometimes very far from the truth and deceives a student into believing that you cannot get a good (or as good) of an education at a nationally accredited institution. I personally saw students come into the nationally accredited institution I was at from a regionally accredited one and perform very poorly academically. Therefore, while accreditation is important, I personally feel that there is no guarantee that regionally accredited is better than nationally accredited. Case in point, many, many staff at institutions of higher education will say "accrediDAtion" instead of "accrediTAtion".
Jesse H | 2/17/2026 9:42:25 AM
I think the reason people continue to use those terms is that there's a desire in higher education to distinguish a reputable accreditor from a fly-by-night one or invented ones propped up by less-ethical for-profit colleges to make themselves look good. We almost need accreditors for the accreditors, in other words, if there isn't some other way of recognizing excellence between them.
Paul P | 2/17/2026 7:16:17 AM
Can someone explain to me why ED is publishing this announcement? Usually there is a hidden agenda.
You must be logged in to comment on this page.