Executive Mandate to Reform Higher Education Accreditation in Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Addressing Deficiencies in Accreditation to Advance SDG 4 (Quality Education)

A recent executive directive outlines a comprehensive reform of the higher education accreditation system, which governs access to over $100 billion in annual Federal student aid. The report identifies significant failures by accrediting bodies to fulfill their primary responsibility of ensuring educational quality, a cornerstone of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education). Key concerns highlighted include:

• A systemic failure to hold low-quality institutions accountable, thereby failing students, families, and taxpayers.
• Accreditation of institutions with poor student success metrics, evidenced by a national six-year undergraduate graduation rate of only 64 percent in 2020.
• A perceived shift in focus away from student outcomes and academic quality towards ideological compliance.

Promoting Economic Viability and Decent Work (SDG 8) through Outcome-Based Education

The directive expresses grave concern over the financial viability of degrees from many accredited institutions, which directly impacts SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). The current system is reported to approve programs that leave students with significant debt and diminished economic prospects. Specific issues include:

• A substantial number of accredited programs offer a negative return on investment, with nearly 25% of bachelor’s degrees and over 40% of master’s degrees leaving graduates financially worse off.
• This trend of high debt relative to modest earnings potential undermines the goal of providing skills for productive employment and decent work.
• Accreditors are also implicated in fostering credential inflation, a practice that imposes unnecessary financial burdens on students without a corresponding increase in value.

Re-evaluating Equity Frameworks to Ensure Non-Discrimination and Strengthen Institutions (SDG 10 & SDG 16)

The report mandates a re-evaluation of accreditation standards related to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), arguing that some current practices constitute unlawful discrimination and undermine institutional integrity. This action aligns with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), specifically Target 10.3 to ensure equal opportunity by eliminating discriminatory policies, and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by promoting the rule of law. The directive cites several examples:

• The American Bar Association (ABA) Council, which accredits law schools, has required institutions to demonstrate a commitment to diversity based on race and ethnicity, a standard the Attorney General has concluded violates the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
• The Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) have standards requiring focused recruitment of individuals from specific racial and ethnic groups, which the directive argues should be replaced with a sole focus on providing the highest quality of care.

Strategic Directives for a New Student-Oriented Accreditation System

Accountability Measures for Accrediting Bodies

To enforce these reforms, the directive issues clear mandates to federal agencies to ensure accreditors adhere to federal law and focus on student-centric outcomes.

1. The Secretary of Education shall hold accreditors accountable for any failure to meet recognition criteria or for engaging in unlawful discrimination, with penalties including the monitoring, suspension, or termination of their federal recognition.
2. The Attorney General and the Secretary of Education are directed to investigate and take action to terminate unlawful discrimination advanced by the ABA Council in law school accreditation.
3. The Attorney General and the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall investigate and act to terminate unlawful discrimination advanced by medical school accreditors like the LCME and ACGME.

New Principles for Accreditation Focused on Sustainable Outcomes

The Secretary of Education is tasked with implementing new principles to realign accreditation with the goals of providing high-quality, high-value education that supports sustainable futures for students, in line with SDG 4 and SDG 8.

1. Ensure accreditation requires institutions to provide high-quality academic programs free from unlawful discrimination.
2. Reduce barriers that prevent institutions from adopting innovative models for credential and degree completion.
3. Require that institutions prioritize and support intellectual diversity among faculty to advance academic freedom and student learning.
4. Prohibit accreditors from compelling institutions to violate state laws.
5. Forbid accrediting practices that result in credential inflation and place unnecessary costs on students.

Implementation Strategy for Enhanced Quality and Accountability

To advance these new principles and foster a more competitive and accountable system, the Secretary of Education is directed to undertake the following actions:

1. Resume the recognition of new accreditors to increase competition and promote a focus on high-quality student outcomes, strengthening institutional frameworks as per SDG 16.
2. Mandate that accreditors require member institutions to use program-level student outcome data to improve performance, without reference to race, ethnicity, or sex.
3. Provide accreditors with any noncompliance findings from the Office of Civil Rights under Title VI or Title IX.
4. Launch an experimental site to accelerate innovation and establish flexible, streamlined pathways for quality assurance in higher education.
5. Increase the efficiency, consistency, and effectiveness of the accreditor recognition process through the use of technology.
6. Streamline the process for higher education institutions to change accreditors.
7. Update the Accreditation Handbook to ensure the recognition process is transparent, efficient, and not unduly burdensome.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education – The article’s central theme is the quality, affordability, and outcomes of higher education in the United States, directly aligning with the goal of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth – The article connects the quality of education to economic outcomes for graduates, such as their performance in the labor market, earnings potential, and ability to manage student debt, which relates to securing decent work.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – The article addresses the concept of equality and non-discrimination in higher education. It argues against specific “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) policies, framing them as a form of “unlawful discrimination” that violates principles of equal opportunity.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – The executive order is an attempt to reform what it calls a “dysfunctional accreditation system.” It focuses on making these institutional gatekeepers more accountable, transparent, and effective, which is a core aspect of SDG 16.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.
     
     Explanation: The article directly addresses the quality and affordability of university education. It criticizes accreditors for approving “low-quality” institutions and highlights the financial burden on students, noting that some programs leave them “in enormous debt by charging them exorbitant sums.” The order aims to reform accreditation to focus on “high-quality, high-value academic programs at a reasonable price.”
   • Target 4.4: By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship.
     
     Explanation: The article emphasizes the need for education to translate into positive labor market outcomes. It laments that many degrees have a “negative return on investment” and “modest earnings potential,” indicating that the skills acquired are not sufficiently relevant for high-value employment. The proposed reforms aim to focus accreditation on “student outcomes.”

2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Target 8.6: By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training.
     
     Explanation: Although the target date has passed, the principle remains relevant. The article’s concern about graduates being left “financially worse off” due to high debt and low earnings potential directly impacts their ability to secure decent work and avoid underemployment. A low-quality education that does not lead to a good job contributes to the problem of youth being poorly integrated into the economy.

3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.
     
     Explanation: The article’s primary argument is that certain accreditation standards, specifically those related to DEI, constitute “unlawfully discriminatory practices.” It cites the American Bar Association’s requirement for law schools to have a student body and faculty “that is diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity” as an example of a policy that must be “permanently eradicated.” The executive order aims to “terminate unlawful discrimination” by eliminating these specific policies, thereby seeking to ensure equal opportunity from its specific legal standpoint.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
     
     Explanation: The article explicitly seeks to reform the higher education accreditation system, which it describes as “dysfunctional.” The order calls for holding accreditors “accountable,” increasing “competition and accountability,” making the recognition review process more consistent and efficient, and updating the “Accreditation Handbook to ensure that the accreditor recognition and reauthorization process is transparent, efficient, and not unduly burdensome.” These actions are all aimed at creating more effective and accountable institutions.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 4 (Quality Education)

   • Undergraduate graduation rate: The article explicitly mentions “The national six-year undergraduate graduation rate was an alarming 64 percent in 2020” as a key measure of quality.
   • Return on investment (ROI) of degrees: The article states that “almost 25 percent of bachelor’s degrees and more than 40 percent of master’s degrees” have a negative ROI, implying this is a critical metric for educational value.
   • Repayment rates on student loans: This is mentioned as a key factor that accreditors have overlooked, indicating it’s a measure of the financial viability of an education.
   • Program-level student outcomes: The order mandates that accreditors require institutions to use “data on program-level student outcomes to improve such outcomes,” making this a central indicator for reform.

2. For SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)

   • Graduates’ performance in the labor market: This is cited as a measure of institutional quality that has seen a “slide.”
   • Earnings potential: The article criticizes degrees with “very modest earnings potential” as a sign of low value.
   • Debt obligations in relation to expected earnings: This ratio is mentioned as having seen a “spike,” indicating it is a key measure of the economic burden versus the benefit of a degree.

3. For SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

   • Demographics of student body and faculty: The article cites accreditation standards that require institutions to consider “demographics” and have a student body and faculty “that is diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.” From the article’s perspective, the removal of such demographic-based requirements would be an indicator of progress toward its interpretation of non-discrimination.
   • Resource allocation based on DEI: The article mentions standards that require institutions to consider “resource allocation” in the context of DEI, implying that monitoring how resources are allocated is an indicator related to these policies.

4. For SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

   • Number of recognized accreditors: The order calls to “resume recognizing new accreditors to increase competition,” implying an increase in the number of accrediting bodies is an indicator of a less monopolistic and more accountable system.
   • Transparency and efficiency of the accreditation process: The order calls for updating the “Accreditation Handbook” to make the process “transparent, efficient, and not unduly burdensome,” suggesting that process efficiency and clarity are key indicators of institutional strength.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: whitehouse.gov