Committee hears bill allowing postsecondary institutions more choice of accreditors and a cause of action against retaliatory accreditor actions

The Senate education committee opened a hearing on Senate Bill 78, a bill that would require postsecondary institutions to identify eligible accrediting agencies, review accreditation policies by a specified date and prohibit an accreditor from compelling an institution to violate state law. The bill also provides a civil cause of action if an accreditor takes adverse action for that reason.

Committee counsel described the bill as requiring each governing body of a postsecondary institution to identify accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and update policies so institutions can pursue accreditation appropriate to their programs. The statute as amended by the Senate would include Regents institutions, municipal universities, private postsecondary institutions and community colleges. The Senate passed the bill on final action 38 to 2.

Michael Brickman of Cicer Action (testifying remotely) told the committee that changes at the U.S. Department of Education have given states and institutions more flexibility to choose accreditors, and that some accreditors have in other states imposed expectations on governance or social-policy matters that states saw as improper. Brickman said the bill does not force institutions to change accreditors but provides neutrality and freedom to pick an accreditor that matches a school's mission, and noted new accreditors are coming online.

Paige Terryberry, a visiting fellow at Opportunity Solutions Project, testified that accreditors sometimes act as gatekeepers of federal Title IV funds and have "wielded authorities they should not possess," at times weighing in on governance or ideological standards rather than student outcomes. Terryberry asked the committee to support SB 78 to give institutions flexibility and a way to hold accreditors accountable, and noted the bill would require institutions to notify the legislature of any related violation.

Committee members asked whether programmatic accreditors (for example, those for social work or music) are affected; conferees clarified the bill applies to institutional accreditors and generally does not change program-level accreditation rules. Representative Haskins asked whether an institution would be protected if a program-level accreditor required a standard that conflicted with state law (for example, a DEI requirement); counsel said the statute's cause of action applies to adverse effects on the institution as a whole and would raise factual questions about whether an institution had a compensable injury.

Committee members asked whether any Kansas institution had previously sued an accreditor; the reviser said not to his knowledge. The Board of Regents representative was not present for oral testimony; written testimony was noted as received. The committee heard technical and policy questions and ended the hearing without immediate action.

No formal committee vote on SB 78 was taken at this hearing; the committee concluded the public testimony and questions.