A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 360.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
The Accreditation Choice and Innovation Act aims to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to reform the accreditation process. It allows States to designate industry-specific quality assurance entities as accrediting agencies. The bill introduces requirements for accrediting agencies to be independent from trade associations and includes specific standards for student success outcomes. It also establishes new protections for the religious missions of institutions of higher education. Additionally, the Act creates a framework for risk-based review processes for institutions.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +5
Does this protect the freedom to practise a religion?
Protects the religious missions of institutions during the accreditation process.
- Scored +4
Would students be better off under this?
Provides enhanced transparency regarding completion, retention, and earnings outcomes.
- Scored +4
Does this make it easier to use public money at a school other than the local one?
Allows states to designate industry-specific quality assurance entities as accreditors.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Does this give the federal government more power?
Shifts some oversight/designation authority to the States.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased State-Level Options for Accreditation: States may designate industry-specific quality assurance entities as accrediting agencies, providing more specific options for education or skills development (Section 2(a)(2)(D)).
-
Enhanced Institutional Independence: The bill requires accrediting agencies to be administratively and financially separate from related trade associations or membership organizations to prevent conflicts of interest (Section 2(a)(3)).
-
Protection of Religious Missions: The bill ensures that accrediting agencies respect the stated religious mission of an institution and do not use a religious mission-based policy or practice as a negative factor for accreditation (Section 2(a)(4)(B)).
-
Focus on Student Success Outcomes: Accreditation standards will include measures for student success, such as completion rates, retention rates, loan repayment rates, and a comparison of total price to value-added earnings (Section 2(a)(5)(A)(i)).
-
Improved Transparency for Students: Accrediting agencies must make certain information publicly available on their websites, including a list of accredited institutions with the years accreditation was granted and anticipated next evaluation dates (Section 2(c)(4)(11)).
-
Flexibility through Risk-Based Reviews: Agencies can establish risk-based processes that reduce compliance requirements, such as on-site inspections, for institutions that meet or exceed established standards (Section 2(p)(1)(C)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Administrative Burden for Institutions: Institutions may be required to submit annual plans to address performance issues if they are identified as not meeting standards (Section 2(c)(2)(B)).
-
Strict Requirements for Instruction Delivery: Institutions using specific instruction delivery models that separate students from instructors must implement processes to verify student identity and completion, which must be implemented in a manner that is "minimally burdensome" (Section 2(a)(4)(C)).
-
New Obligations for Accrediting Agencies: Agencies are now required to develop policies to identify institutions or programs not meeting standards, including annual evaluations of compliance (Section 2(c)(2)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would students be better off under this? — Provides enhanced transparency regarding completion, retention, and earnings outcomes. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Emphasizes student success and value-added earnings metrics. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Provides more clarity on value-added earnings for degree programs.
- Education And Technology
- Does this make it easier to use public money at a school other than the local one? — Allows states to designate industry-specific quality assurance entities as accreditors. Does this make college cost less? — Increases transparency regarding cost-to-earnings ratios for students.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires agencies to publish institution lists and evaluation dates on websites. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Empowers States to designate industry-specific accrediting entities. Does this give the federal government more power? — Shifts some oversight/designation authority to the States.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this protect the freedom to practise a religion? — Protects the religious missions of institutions during the accreditation process.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Improves transparency of institution status and success metrics for students.
- 12/18/2025
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Workforce. H. Rept. 119-414.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 360.
- 7/2/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/25/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 15.
- 6/20/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- Introduced in House
Mark MessmerRepublican · Indiana