The federal government recognizes only one accrediting agency in the field of Montessori teacher education. Sadly, this agency is too restrictive for the conduct of institutions that function outside the popular conventional brands in the field. While the purpose of such recognition is technically to qualify accredited institutions for federal student loans, it is typically used to pressure and manipulate the approval of schools in other ways as well, such as in the state teacher training restrictions for teaching in a Montessori school. Since the accrediting agency of IMS, known as International Montessori Accreditation Council, has been denied a similar federal “recognition”, it has been put in a position of disadvantage with another accrediting agency, which hold exclusive “Montessori” recognition in the field, known as MACTE. Since state government often use federal recognition as the basis for approval of specialized schools, such as “Montessori”, this situation has led to an erosion of competition and choice in the field.
Beyond “Montessori”, the negative effects of this “recognition” of private accrediting agencies has done great damage to the quality and value of ALL higher education, and is becoming widely known by many who call for reform in this whole field.
For many years, I have been a part of this movement to reform the federal regulation of private accrediting agencies under the Higher Education Act (HEA). The basic need is to amend this act by eliminating the “recognition” process for accrediting agencies (20 USC 1099b) while retaining the financial disclosure and oversight mechanisms in the eligibility and certification procedures to qualify for federal funds (20 USC 1099c). The goal is to scrap federal control over private accrediting agencies while preserving safeguards for federal funds, such as student tuition loans, through institutional financial responsibility standards.
Below is a draft of specific legislative language to amend the HEA, reflecting the arguments I and others have made, such as were also endorsed by the Americans for Choice in Education (ACE) coalition, which argued that the recognition process stifles competition, choice, and innovation, while adequate protections against fraud can be maintained through existing financial oversight mechanisms.
Proposed Legislation: Higher Education Freedom and Accountability Act
Section 1. Short Title
This Act may be cited as the “Higher Education Freedom and Accountability Act.”
Section 2. Purpose
The purpose of this Act is to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to eliminate federal recognition of private accrediting agencies, thereby promoting competition, choice, and innovation in higher education, while retaining institutional eligibility and certification procedures to ensure financial accountability and protect federal funds for student tuition loans and grants.
Section 3. Repeal of Accrediting Agency Recognition
(a) Repeal of 20 USC 1099b
Section 496 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 USC 1099b), relating to the recognition of accrediting agencies or associations, is repealed in its entirety.
(b) Conforming Amendments
The Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended as follows:
(1) In Section 101(a)(5) (20 USC 1001(a)(5)), strike “recognized by the Secretary” and insert “operating as a private entity providing voluntary oversight of institutions of higher education.”
(2) In Section 102(a)(2)(A) (20 USC 1002(a)(2)(A)), strike “accredited by an agency or association recognized by the Secretary pursuant to section 496” and insert “subject to voluntary accreditation by a private accrediting agency or association, or otherwise meeting eligibility requirements under section 499.”
(3) In Section 487(a) (20 USC 1094(a)), strike any reference to “accreditation by an agency recognized by the Secretary” and replace with “voluntary accreditation by a private accrediting agency or association, if applicable.”
Section 4. Retention and Modification of Eligibility and Certification Procedures
(a) Amendment to 20 USC 1099c
Section 499 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 USC 1099c) is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a), strike “the accreditation status,” and insert “the financial responsibility and administrative capability of an institution of higher education, as determined by the Secretary based on the requirements of this section.”
(2) In subsection (b)(1), strike “accreditation,” and insert “financial responsibility and administrative capability.”
(3) In subsection (c)(1), revise to read:
“The Secretary shall determine whether an institution has the financial responsibility required by this subchapter and part C of subchapter I of chapter 34 of title 42 based on whether the institution can:
(A) provide the services described in its official publications and statements;
(B) provide the administrative resources necessary to comply with the requirements of this subchapter and part C of subchapter I of chapter 34 of title 42; and
(C) meet all of its financial obligations, including but not limited to refunds of institutional charges and repayments to the Secretary for liabilities and debts incurred in programs administered by the Secretary, as evidenced by financial statements and disclosures required under this section.”
(4) Add a new subsection (h):
“(h) Elimination of Accreditation Requirement
For purposes of eligibility under this subchapter, an institution of higher education shall not be required to obtain accreditation from any accrediting agency or association. The Secretary shall rely solely on the financial responsibility and administrative capability standards in this section to determine eligibility for participation in federal student assistance programs.”
Section 5. Findings and Intent
(a) Congressional Findings
(1) Federal recognition of private accrediting agencies under 20 USC 1099b has created barriers to competition, innovation, and choice in higher education by favoring large, established institutions over smaller, innovative ones.
(2) The recognition process has led to undue federal interference in private education, distorting the free market and limiting the diversity of educational options.
(3) Existing eligibility and certification procedures under 20 USC 1099c provide sufficient oversight to protect federal funds from fraud and abuse, rendering the recognition of accrediting agencies unnecessary.
(b) Legislative Intent
This Act intends to restore a free market in higher education accreditation by eliminating federal control over private accrediting agencies while ensuring accountability for federal student aid through robust financial disclosure and institutional oversight mechanisms.
Section 6. Effective Date
This Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment.
Explanation of Key Provisions
- Repeal of 20 USC 1099b:
- This eliminates the entire framework for federal recognition of accrediting agencies, aligning with the argument of Havis and that of ACE that it’s an “undue and unnecessary interference” that restricts competition and choice. The repeal frees private accrediting agencies to operate independently without federal oversight, as they did before the HEA’s expansion into this area.
- Retention of 20 USC 1099c:
- The eligibility and certification procedures are preserved and refocused solely on financial responsibility and administrative capability. This ensures that federal funds for student loans and grants are protected without relying on accreditation as a proxy for quality. The financial disclosure requirements (e.g., audited statements, third-party guarantees) are already robust enough to guard against “diploma mills” and fraud, as stated elsewhere.
- Conforming Amendments:
- References to “recognized” accrediting agencies throughout the HEA are replaced with language that allows voluntary accreditation or removes the requirement entirely. This ensures the law remains coherent after the repeal.
- New Subsection (h) in 20 USC 1099c:
- Explicitly states that accreditation is not required for federal aid eligibility, shifting the burden entirely to financial and administrative standards. This reflects the view that quality assurance can occur through market mechanisms and state oversight, not federal mandates.
Rationale
This proposal directly addresses the concerns I expressed elsewhere –
- Havis’s Critique: He argues that recognition creates a “system of censorship and monopoly,” harming small innovators like the International Montessori Society. Scrapping 20 USC 1099b eliminates this federal bottleneck.
- ACE’s Resolution: The coalition calls for withdrawing recognition to encourage “free market enterprise and individual freedom of choice.” This amendment achieves that by deregulating accreditation while keeping fiscal safeguards.
- Clinton’s Counterpoint: The former president’s letter defends recognition as a quality assurance tool. This proposal counters that financial oversight under 20 USC 1099c is sufficient, avoiding the pitfalls of politicized accreditation standards.
This legislative language balances deregulation with accountability, ensuring federal funds are protected without stifling educational diversity. That said, I think this reform to HEA is aligned well with the new Trump administration policy to reduce unnecessary regulations. So, I’m hopeful that finally there will be a better public understanding of the harm of censorship and monopoly in the current law, and action to reform the law to assure greater competition and choice in the free market economy, especially in the field of higher education.