Department data shows heavy concentration among former regional accreditors; negotiators press for evidence linking switching to student outcomes

A presentation by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of the Chief Economist laid out preliminary evidence the department says shows limited competition in the accreditation marketplace and wide variation in student outcomes among institutions accredited by the same agency.

Cody Christensen presented analysis from DAPIP, the College Scorecard and Program Performance Data, saying that in 2026 seven former regional accreditors still account for roughly 60% of all colleges and that about 95% of Title IV students attend colleges accredited by one of those seven. "These 7 have the lion's share of the enrollment," Christensen said, and he pointed to persistently high market shares in former regional boundaries even after the department removed geographic restrictions in 2020.

The presentation identified two features the department deems problematic: barriers to entry for new accreditors (the number of institutional accrediting agencies has not meaningfully increased despite market growth) and very low voluntary switching rates among institutions. Christensen said voluntary switching is rare—well under 1% per year in recent decades—and that fewer than 5% of institutions have ever voluntarily changed institutional accreditors.

Christensen also showed box‑and‑whisker plots illustrating large within‑accreditor variation in outcomes—graduation rates, stopout rates, earnings and loan repayment—arguing that accreditation currently does not map tightly to student outcomes. He noted limitations and called the analysis preliminary.

Committee members pressed presenters for causal evidence that switching accreditors improves student outcomes and raised concerns that opening competition without safeguards could incentivize a "race to the bottom." Magnus Noble (student representative) and others asked why institutions would switch if benefits were unclear; Jeff Andre, the department official, said some institutions seek a better mission fit and that switching can take time. Multiple negotiators asked the department to further analyze graduate‑level outcomes, to examine whether institutional switches led to improved results, and to clarify dataset definitions.

The committee also discussed conflicts of interest in programmatic accreditation, citing a working paper that found many programmatic accreditors have structural or financial ties to the professional associations they accredit. Christensen said the department plans additional analysis and reminded negotiators the data used in the presentation were preliminary.

Presenters said the department would make the slide deck and source data available to committee members and return to a line‑by‑line walkthrough of draft regulations after lunch.