The Three A’s in Action: What Accessibility, Accountability, and Accreditation Mean for Institutions Now 

It was a big week for federal higher education policy. Last week began with the launch of negotiated rulemaking for the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) Committee, signaling a bold plan for reform on accreditation. It closed with two significant regulatory actions: the release of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DoJ) interim final rule on digital accessibility and the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) proposed rules addressing accountability.  

These developments signal an important shift that digital learning communities must prepare for as they take on new responsibilities related to accessibility, accountability, and accreditation. 

Accessibility 

On the eve of the April 24, 2026, compliance date for the ADA Title II digital accessibility regulations, the DoJ released the Extension of Compliance Dates for Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities.   

This Interim Final Rule very simply extends the compliance date by one year. For State and local government entities with a total population of 50,000 or more, compliance is extended from April 24, 2026, to April 26, 2027. The compliance date for public entities with a total population of less than 50,000, or any special district government, is extended from April 26, 2027, to April 26, 2028. No other amendments were made to the regulations. Public comments may be submitted (RIN 1190-AA82 or Docket No. CRT150) by June 22, 2026.  

The ADA Title II digital accessibility regulations establish technical standards for web content and mobile applications provided by state and local governments. For higher education, this includes public institutions and state agencies. Institutions remain responsible for ensuring that websites, learning management systems, mobile applications, and other digital content conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 Level AA.  

---

While the compliance timeline has been extended, the expectation to continue accessibility work has not changed. Institutions should proceed with the remediation of existing content and implementation of processes to ensure new materials, such as videos, documents, and instructional content, meet accessibility requirements. 

---

In the Federal Register notice, the DoJ explains that it weighed the potential harm of delayed accessibility improvements against the implementation challenges faced by covered entities. The DoJ cites factors such as technological limitations, resource constraints, and a higher-than-anticipated risk of litigation as entities worked toward compliance. The extension, according to the DoJ, is intended to provide additional time for institutions to better understand the rule’s obligations, apply its exceptions appropriately, and ultimately achieve more effective and sustainable compliance. Importantly, the DoJ signals its intent to pursue future rulemaking addressing the substantive provisions of the 2024 regulation. 

From a process standpoint, the DoJ followed the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in issuing the original rule in April 2024, which became effective in July 2024. The Interim Final Rule takes effect immediately. The Federal Register notes that as a matter of statutory process, agencies may forgo advance notice and comment when there is “good cause” to do so, specifically when such procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. The Interim Final rule is limited to extending the compliance dates.  

As a point of comparison, many in the higher education community are more familiar with negotiated rulemaking processes required under the Higher Education Act (HEA) for Title IV regulations. Unlike those processes, this action does not involve negotiated rulemaking and release of regulations following the Master Calendar for final and effective date parameters. 

For next steps, we suggest the following: 

• Stay the course. Continue remediation and development aligned to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 Level AA. The deadline moved, the standard did not.  

• Prioritize high-impact content. Focus first on public-facing pages, core student workflows, and high-enrollment courses.  

• Strengthen processes. Formalize accessibility checks in procurement, course design, and content publishing (including LMS and video workflows).  

• Document and track. Maintain inventories, remediation plans, and progress metrics to demonstrate good-faith efforts.  

• Train broadly. Provide role-based training for faculty, staff, and content creators on accessible practices.  

• Engage in the process. Consider submitting comments to the U.S. Department of Justice by June 22, 2026, and monitor for future rulemaking on substantive requirements. 

Accountability 

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was released for the second part of the AHEAD negotiated rulemaking addressing accountability. The proposed regulations are available for review.  You may submit public comments, (RIN 1840-AE06 or Docket ID ED-2026-OPE-0100) by May 20, 2026.   

The regulations were developed from consensus from the rulemaking committee that met in January 2026. The rules are to implement institutional and programmatic accountability provisions as directed by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OB3). Because the rulemaking committee came to consensus, the regulations are the agreed upon language of the committee and are now subject to public comment. ED has indicated that after review of public comments, the final rules will be released in late Spring and become effective July 1, 2026, as specifically directed in OB3 rather than following the more general statutorily directed master calendar structure. 

A key element of this accountability framework is the proposed single earnings-premium accountability test for all postsecondary programs to determine eligibility for Title IV federal student aid. This test would apply across all programs, regardless of modality (on-campus, hybrid, or distance education), and across all institutional sectors. 

The proposed regulations implement statutory direction for a “do-no-harm” earnings accountability standard. Under the framework, both undergraduate and graduate programs would be evaluated by comparing the median annual earnings of program completers four years after completion to a defined earnings benchmark. 

Programs that fail to meet the benchmark for two out of three consecutive years would lose eligibility for Direct Loans. In addition, if a failing program represents either half of an institution’s total enrollment or accounts for more than half of Title IV federal student aid disbursed, the program will lose eligibility for all Title IV aid, including Pell Grants. 

As we shared in a January Frontiers post, for the digital learning community, institutions must be aware that hybrid and distance education must meet the same earnings-premium metrics. 

The Federal Register proposed regulations announcement offers directed questions for feedback from the public. This request signals an interest in determining appropriate language for regulatory definitions for the following two terms: General Definitions: Earnings (§ 668.2(b)) and Earnings Threshold (§ 668.2(b)). 

For next steps, we suggest the following: 

• Review the proposed rules in detail. Assess the U.S. Department of Education accountability proposals for potential impacts on your programs, particularly those tied to earnings outcomes and financial value metrics.  

• Identify at-risk programs. Conduct an internal scan of programs that may fall below proposed thresholds and evaluate potential exposure.  

• Strengthen data validation. Ensure accuracy and consistency of reporting across student outcomes, earnings data, and program costs.  

• Align program review processes. Integrate federal accountability metrics into existing academic program review and approval workflows.  

• Evaluate program costs and pricing. Consider how tuition, fees, and debt levels align with anticipated earnings and regulatory expectations.  

• Engage leadership and stakeholders. Brief academic leaders, finance teams, and institutional research staff on potential implications and decision points.  

• Prepare for public comment. Consider submitting feedback to the Department to highlight institutional perspectives, implementation concerns, and recommended refinements.  

• Plan for contingencies. Begin scenario planning for programs that may require modification, teach-out strategies, or enhanced student disclosures. 

Accreditation 

Week one of negotiated rulemaking for the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) Committee convened to consider the ED’s plans to amend and develop federal regulations related to accrediting agencies. Unlike the previously discussed accountability regulations developed through the AHEAD committee, which were directly responsive to congressional direction under the recently enacted OB3, this rulemaking reflects Executive Branch and ED priorities to revise existing regulatory frameworks and processes under current HEA authority. 

ED outlined its intended goals in the Intent To establish Negotiated Rulemaking Committee. During the first week, committee members conducted a rule-by-rule review of the ED’s draft regulatory language, as detailed in the 151-page Summary and Discussion of Initial Draft Regulations, released in advance of the meetings. Negotiators were given the opportunity to provide comments, ask questions, and discuss ED’s goals in its original draft language to be taken under advisement by ED to develop amended draft language. None of the typical temperature checks of the negotiators on approval of negotiated language were taken during Week 1. Amended draft language documents 602.16 -17 New Language 04172026 and AIM Draft Regulations Version 1.1 Updated 04172026 were provided to the negotiators on day five and later published to ED’s rulemaking website. 

From the initial moments of the committee’s first session, ED signaled that it intends to re-envision the postsecondary quality assurance framework. In opening remarks, Under Secretary Nicholas Kent outlined a bold reform agenda focused on reducing barriers to credit transfer, clarifying the separation between trade associations and programmatic accreditors for licensed programs, increasing competition among accreditors, strengthening outcomes-based accountability, and improving transparency in accreditor oversight. Reinforcing this direction, Federal Negotiator Jeffrey Andrade provided an overview of the federal role in accreditation, noting that the ED’s proposed reforms are grounded in principles articulated in Executive Order 14279: Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education.   

Throughout the week, negotiators raised a number of substantive points in response to the initial draft regulatory language. Discussions during the first week focused on the recognition of both existing and new institutional and programmatic accreditors, as well as strengthening accreditor oversight of member institutions. This included consideration of how accreditors evaluate emerging learning models and innovative program delivery approaches. 

Discussions exposed tension between encouraging innovation and maintaining appropriate guardrails. Negotiators also focused on the Department’s proposed direction for accreditation and preaccreditation standards, particularly as they relate to student achievement, along with potential changes to substantive change requirements aimed at reducing administrative burden and increased emphasis on expanding transfer of credit. 

In addition, there were ongoing questions about how to define and operationalize the concept of “intellectual diversity” as introduced by the Department. Negotiators raised concerns about implementation challenges and the potential for First Amendment implications, underscoring the complexity of incorporating this concept into accreditor expectations. 

The second and final session of the committee is scheduled for May 18–22, 2026, where members will work toward consensus and vote on the proposed regulatory language. During the Day 5 session, it was mentioned that the revised draft language will be available May 11, in advance of the May 18 beginning of the second week of rulemaking. Any new or amended regulations resulting from this process are not expected to take effect until July 1, 2027, at the earliest. 

For next steps, we suggest the following: 

• Monitor developments closely. Track outcomes from the U.S. Department of Education AIM negotiated rulemaking, particularly following the May session where consensus will be considered.  

• Assess exposure to proposed changes. Review current accreditation status, including substantive change processes, preaccreditation considerations, and areas tied to student outcomes.  

• Strengthen outcomes tracking. Ensure data systems and internal processes can clearly demonstrate student achievement, completion, and other performance metrics.  

• Review transfer credit policies. Evaluate institutional policies and practices for transferability in anticipation of increased federal and accreditor focus.  

• Prepare for innovation scrutiny. If offering or planning new delivery models (e.g., short-term programs, partnerships, direct assessment), confirm alignment with accreditor expectations and documentation practices.  

• Engage accreditors early. Maintain proactive communication with your accrediting agency regarding potential regulatory changes and institutional implications.  

• Follow emerging issues. Monitor developments related to topics such as intellectual diversity and potential changes to accreditor standards or recognition criteria. 

Taken together, the developments across accessibility, accountability, and accreditation reflect a more closely aligned federal focus on postsecondary oversight, quality assurance, as well as student and taxpayer protection.  

WCET and SAN will continue to track these developments closely. We encourage our community to stay engaged and stay coordinated. 

Be sure to follow updates through the WCET & SAN Federal Policy Tracker, where we synthesize regulatory activity and provide resources to help institutions navigate these changes. 

---