Accreditation Regulatory Reform Takes the Next Step: What's Next for Digital Learning?

By Cheryl Dowd

In our June Frontiers post, we examined the consensus draft language developed through the U.S. Department of Education’s Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization negotiated rulemaking committee and what accreditation reform could mean for digital learning. The Department has now released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with proposed regulations that largely reflect that consensus language, with some technical changes.

For digital learning professionals, the key question is not whether the proposal is aimed directly at digital learning. Instead, it is centered on how accreditation changes may eventually shape institutional flexibility, student outcomes expectations, data readiness, transfer policies, substantive change processes, and protections for distance education students.

This post highlights what is proposed, why digital learning professionals should pay attention, what institutions can do now, and how public comments can help the Department understand the practical effects of the proposal on distance education students and digital learning more broadly.

The proposed regulations would revise the federal requirements governing the Department’s recognition of accrediting agencies under 34 CFR 602. In short, the Department is proposing to modernize accreditation, reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, increase attention to student outcomes, and create more room for flexibility and innovation.

The proposed regulations are directed primarily at accreditors, not institutions. However, institutions should pay attention because accreditor standards, policies, and review processes shape how institutions demonstrate compliance, document quality, and make changes to programs. Once the regulations are final, accreditors may need to revise their standards, and those revisions will affect the institutions they accredit.

Key Questions for Digital Learning Professionals as the Process Moves Forward

1. What should digital learning professionals watch as the process moves forward?

The NPRM is not the final rule. The Department is accepting public comments on the proposed regulations through Sept. 21, 2026. During rulemaking meetings, the Department expressed its intention to finalize the regulations by Nov. 1, 2026. Final rules published in the Federal Register by Nov. 1, 2026, would generally allow the regulations, through the Higher Education Act’s Master Calendar requirements, to become effective July 1, 2027.

The language in the proposed regulations could change based on public comments. Institutions should not redesign policies or programs solely to comply with the NPRM, but they can use the proposal to identify areas that may require attention once final regulations and accreditor requirements are known.

Why should digital learning professionals care?

Several of the regulatory areas have direct connections to digital learning, including:

• Institutional flexibility and innovation
  • The Department proposes changes that they express are intended to reduce unnecessary and overly prescriptive accreditation requirements and provide greater flexibility for institutions and accreditors.
  • This could be significant for distance education and other innovative forms of education. Digital learning professionals should watch whether accreditors use this flexibility to support new delivery models, programs, credentials, and approaches to serving students.
    
• Student outcomes and program value
  • The proposal reflects increased attention to student outcomes as part of educational value.    
  • Those expectations may increase the importance of reliable program-level data related to student outcomes, completion, licensure outcomes, and other measures relevant to institutional and program review.
  • Institutions should consider whether they can produce reliable program-level data for distance education students. Relevant areas may include enrollment, retention, completion, achievement, licensure outcomes, and other measures used in institutional or program review. Digital learning professionals can help identify where those data live, how consistently they are collected, and whether distance education student experiences are visible in institutional reporting.
    
• State and federal law
  • The NPRM proposes that accrediting agencies consider institutional compliance with applicable federal and state laws and avoid applying standards or requirements that conflict with those laws.
  • This raises an important question about the role of accreditors in assessing compliance with state and federal law. Meeting accreditor standards does not have the same legal effect as complying with state and federal statutes and regulations, so institutions may need to understand where accreditor expectations align with, differ from, or overlap with legal requirements.
    
• Transfer of credit
  • The NPRM proposes changes to transfer-of-credit requirements, including greater transparency about institutional transfer policies and the basis for accepting or denying credit.
  • This matters to digital learning because distance education students are often highly mobile. They may transfer between institutions, combine credits from multiple institutions, or use courses by distance education to complete requirements at another institution.
  • Institutions can begin reviewing whether their transfer policies are clear, accessible, consistently applied, and understandable to students.
    
• Substantive change
  • Digital programs can evolve quickly. New delivery methods, programs, partnerships, credentials, and other changes may trigger accreditation review.
  • The NPRM proposes changes to the federal requirements governing how accreditors oversee substantive changes, so institutions should begin identifying where accreditation processes may affect their ability to adapt distance education programs while continuing to meet quality and compliance expectations.
    
• Student protection and teach-outs
  • The proposal also addresses teach-out plans, student records, and institutional responsibilities when students need a pathway to complete their education.
  • Digital learning programs should consider these requirements from the perspective of online students. If a program is discontinued or an institution experiences a significant disruption, could students access their records, complete their coursework, or identify a reasonable transfer or teach-out option?

What can institutions do now?

• Know your accreditor. Identify the accreditation standards that currently affect distance education programs and monitor communications about potential changes.
  
• Connect digital learning with accreditation. Digital learning professionals should have a voice in institutional conversations about accreditation reform. They often understand operational and student impacts that may not be visible through an accreditation lens alone.
  
• Review data readiness. Determine whether the institution can readily produce reliable information about distance education student outcomes and program performance.
  
• Map compliance responsibilities. Look across accreditation, federal requirements, and institutional policies. Identify where responsibilities overlap and where documentation may be incomplete.
  
• Identify potential pressure points. Look at distance education programs that involve licensure, multiple states, alternative delivery models, substantive changes, transfer students, or rapidly changing program structures.
  
• Look for unnecessary burden. Identify duplicative accreditation reporting or data collection that could potentially be streamlined under a less prescriptive regulatory environment.

Institutions should not redesign programs or policies based solely on the proposed regulations. Instead, use the NPRM to identify areas that may require attention once final regulations and accreditor requirements are known.

An Opportunity to Comment

The public comment period is an opportunity for institutions and digital learning professionals to provide practical information, not simply to express support or opposition.

Comments may be submitted through the Federal Register NPRM comment page.

Consider sharing practical information from the digital learning environment, such as an implementation challenge, data showing potential effects on online students, an effective institutional practice, or unintended consequences for students in programs offered through distance education.

The NPRM includes Directed Questions for public comment. The Department seeks input on conflict-of-interest requirements, including effects on costs and shared resources, and asks for feedback on data constraints and research on the potential effects of accreditation reform on innovation, competition, quality, and student outcomes.

For the digital learning community, useful comments might address questions such as:

• Would a proposed requirement create unnecessary burdens for distance education programs?
• Could a provision unintentionally limit innovative delivery models?
• What data can institutions realistically produce?
• Could a proposed change improve outcomes or reduce barriers for distance education students?

Practical examples and evidence can help the Department understand how proposed changes could affect distance education students and the institutions that serve them.

What is the Timeline?

Sept. 21, 2026: Public comments close.

Fall 2026: The Department reviews comments and develops final regulations.

By Nov. 1, 2026: The Department has indicated its desire for final regulations to be published by this date.

July 1, 2027: If final regulations are published by Nov. 1, 2026, most provisions could become effective.

July 1, 2027, is not the date to begin paying attention. Accreditors will need time to interpret the final regulations and determine how their standards and processes must change. Institutions will then need to understand and respond to those changes.

For now, digital learning professionals can review the NPRM, participate in the public comment process, connect with accreditation and compliance colleagues, and identify where accreditation requirements intersect with distance education, student support, program innovation, and institutional data systems.

WCET and SAN will continue to follow the rulemaking process and its implications for digital learning. Members can also use the WCET and SAN Policy Tracker to follow federal policy developments.