Session 2 of the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) Committee Negotiated Rulemaking is set to resume May 18-22, 2026.

There have been many discussions and, I am sure, arguments about language and where to go from here. As you all know, no consensus was made during the first week. So, this week’s negotiations are even more critical. There seems to have been some movement, but we will not know until the new drafts are released. The committee will spend the week reviewing draft language and, hopefully, reach a consensus on the final language. If no consensus is reached during the NegReg, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) retains full authority to move forward with its own proposed regulations.

In practical terms, that means the Department can finalize rules based on its draft language, regardless of the concerns raised by negotiators, while still considering the record developed during the process. While the goal of negotiated rulemaking is to produce shared agreement, lack of consensus does not stop the rulemaking; it simply shifts greater responsibility and scrutiny onto the Department’s final decisions. There will be more opportunities for public feedback, so I will keep you updated on what is going on, but I still encourage you to be diligent and engaged to make your thoughts known.

Lore: The upcoming Negotiated Rulemaking Session (May 18–22, 2026) will fundamentally redefine accreditation overnight, with sweeping mandates already decided by the U.S. Department of Education.

Law: Negotiated Rulemaking is an iterative, consensus-driven process, one that is still very much in motion. No final decisions have been made, no consensus has been reached, and multiple areas of significant debate remain unresolved. The May session represents the next phase in refining proposals, not the conclusion of the process.

What We Know So Far

As a brief reminder, ED launched the AIM rulemaking to examine the future of accreditation with a focus on accountability, competition, and alignment to student outcomes. Some of the general issues are listed below.

• A recalibration of roles between federal oversight and accreditor independence.
• A strong, but unsettled, focus on student outcomes.
• Increased attention on competition in accreditation.
• Expansion of federal expectations into areas like accreditation board makeup, academic freedom and faculty evaluation.
• Operational changes affecting substantive change, transfer, and teach-out processes.
• An evolving draft regulation and recognition process with additional revisions expected.

Where the Debate Is Most Active

At the center of these discussions is a broader question: Who defines quality in higher education? Throughout the negotiations, participants have wrestled with how to balance accountability with institutional autonomy, protect students while encouraging innovation, and preserve peer review without expanding federal prescription beyond its traditional role. The issues below represent the areas where those tensions have become most visible and where the outcomes of this rulemaking could have the greatest long-term implications for accreditors, institutions, and students alike.

• Balance between federal direction and accreditor judgment
• Role of student achievement metrics
• Questions around academic freedom, institutional governance, and the First Amendment
• Economic return on education considerations
• Risk-based federal oversight
• Accreditor independence

Things to Watch (May 18–22 Session)

As negotiations move into the next session, institutions and accreditors should pay close attention not only to the substance of the proposals but also to the direction and tone of the discussions. The next round of negotiations will provide important signals about where the Department may ultimately land, where negotiators are beginning to align, and where significant divisions remain. In many ways, these “things to watch” are less about predicting winners and losers and more about understanding the trajectory of accreditation policy and the practical implications these discussions may have for institutional operations, innovation, accountability, and the future balance between federal oversight and peer review.

• Movement toward (or away from) consensus
• Evolution of regulatory language from Version 1.1 to 2.0
• Definition and application of student outcomes
• Balance between federal authority and accreditation
• Competition vs. quality safeguards
• Institutional burden and compliance expectations

Pruitt Perspective

This is one of the most consequential accreditation conversations in years, not because of what has been decided, but because of what is still being shaped. We should welcome accountability. We should embrace transparency. And we should always be willing to examine how accreditation can better serve students.

But accreditation is not and should not be a federal compliance checklist. It is a peer-driven process grounded in the professional judgment of evaluators from various higher education shareholders, institutional missions, and continuous improvement. If we lose that, we risk replacing thoughtful evaluation with prescriptive regulation. And when that happens, innovation slows, differentiation disappears, and the focus shifts from improving outcomes to simply meeting requirements.

At SACSCOC, we will continue to engage constructively, advocate for clarity, push for balance, and support a system that maintains rigor while enabling innovation. Because at the end of the day, this is not about regulation. It is about students.

Students first. Always.

Next Up

I have really enjoyed writing this series. It has forced me to dig into issues that may not have naturally come up in my first year. For the past six months, I have focused on the lore we all deal with regularly. Going forward, I will move Law or Lore to a bimonthly publication. Why? Well, it’s not because I don’t have plenty of material. We are moving toward a new day with new standards, and I want to shift to forward-looking topics. I am also getting to see the incredible work going on at our institutions.

So, in my focus on sharing that great work, I will be moving to discussing what is happening now and sharing those institutional stories. Well, by now you all know I am a big nerd. I love the play Hamilton. So, in a couple of weeks, I plan to issue the first installment of In The Room. There is a lot happening, so let’s start talking about that.