Hybrid model of accreditation offers a more promising future

When a university receives accreditation from a recognised body, it signals trust, legitimacy and a baseline of quality. Yet, as the global landscape of higher education rapidly evolves – driven by digital transformation, political polarisation and transnational student mobility – accreditation systems themselves face growing scrutiny.

In April, this debate reached a flashpoint in the United States when President Donald Trump issued an executive order radically reforming the country’s longstanding accreditation framework.

The shift immediately ignited urgent questions: What should accreditation authentically measure in a rapidly changing landscape?

Who truly holds the authority to set its standards, and whose interests do those standards serve? And how profoundly do these decisions impact not only domestic higher education but also its global interconnectedness?

This dynamic tension between accountability and autonomy, and the shift from input-based to outcome-based assessment, forms a core driver of this critical debate.

A distinctly American innovation

Accreditation has long been a cornerstone of quality assurance, ensuring that institutions uphold established standards of academic integrity, governance and student outcomes.

While informal mechanisms for evaluating educational quality have existed globally, the modern accreditation model – grounded in peer review and independent oversight – emerged in the United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

In response to the rapid expansion of higher education, American colleges and universities established regional associations to develop shared evaluation criteria. This decentralised, voluntary system became a distinctly American innovation and ultimately influenced international practices.

Over time, accreditation in the US has evolved into a powerful regulatory tool, particularly after it became linked to federal student aid. Despite being technically non-governmental, accrediting agencies gained substantial influence over institutional legitimacy and access to public funding.

The traditional model relies on peer-reviewed, cyclical processes of institutional self-assessment, external evaluation and periodic re-evaluation.

While accrediting agencies operate independently, they must be recognised by the US Department of Education. Common criteria include institutional mission, academic governance, faculty qualifications, student support services and financial sustainability.

While this model has been instrumental in maintaining academic standards and international credibility, it faces growing criticism for being bureaucratic and slow to adapt.

Institutions often encounter multi-year delays in securing approval for new programmes, particularly in emerging fields such as online education and digital credentials. For example, the rise of coding bootcamps and micro-credentials often outpaced traditional accreditation cycles, hindering innovation.

Additionally, its reliance on compliance-driven and input-focused metrics is increasingly seen as insufficiently responsive to modern demands for measurable outcomes.

One of the most contentious aspects has been the incorporation of social standards like diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).

While critics argue these extend beyond the technical scope of quality assurance and risk politicising academic governance, proponents contend that inclusive environments are integral to comprehensive educational quality and student success.

Global accreditation frameworks

Accreditation practices vary across the world, yet international models often strive for a balance between innovation, transparency and public accountability.

UNESCO plays a key role in advancing quality assurance systems, particularly in the Global South, by promoting context-sensitive frameworks that are both inclusive and globally recognised.

These efforts prioritise equitable access to education and facilitate student mobility across borders. UNESCO’s regional frameworks – the Tokyo, Addis and Buenos Aires conventions – promote cross-border recognition and quality assurance in the Asia-Pacific, Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean, respectively.

In the European Union, the Bologna Process and the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG) have helped create a harmonised regional system.

While institutions maintain autonomy, they must adhere to publicly accessible standards, undergo periodic evaluations, and follow stakeholder engagement protocols.

Compared to the US system, the EU model is more centrally coordinated, often operating in alignment with national higher education policies. It prioritises evidence-based practices while fostering institutional diversity and innovation.

The European Qualifications Framework (EQF) serves as a reference framework for comparing qualifications across Europe by defining learning outcomes at different levels.

While it does not directly accredit higher education institutions, it provides guidance to accreditation bodies and higher education institutions by aligning programmes with transparent, level-based outcomes that enhance quality assurance and facilitate cross-border recognition.

Despite variations in structure and regulatory intensity, both UNESCO and the EU promote an accreditation model that enhances cross-border comparability and reinforces international trust.

These principles are increasingly at odds with the unilateral, market-orientated shift seen in recent US reforms, implicitly highlighting the distinctiveness and potential divergence of the US approach.

The 2025 Trump administration reform

The 2025 executive order issued by President Donald Trump signalled a significant shift away from the traditional accreditation philosophy of the US.

Framing the existing model as ideologically biased and obstructive to innovation, the reform proposed a broad transition toward market-driven principles and performance-based outcomes.

While framed as a move toward greater accountability and innovation, critics quickly noted that this emphasis on narrow financial metrics could inadvertently reshape the very purpose of higher education, potentially devaluing broader societal contributions.

Key pillars of the reform included:

• Emphasising measurable performance outcomes such as graduation rates, student loan repayment and post-graduation earnings.

• Restricting accrediting agencies from imposing ideological mandates, particularly those related to DEI standards.

• Expanding accreditation competition by recognising new accrediting bodies to challenge the domination of existing ones.

• Prioritising student and taxpayer value over rigid procedural compliance.

In essence, the proposed reform reimagines accreditation as a performance-based contract between institutions and society, shifting the focus from peer consensus and regulatory tradition to market responsiveness and institutional autonomy.

Ideological ‘neutrality’

The traditional accreditation model emphasises institutional mission, peer review and consensus-based evaluation, ensuring compliance with input-orientated criteria, such as curriculum design, faculty qualifications and governance structures.

In contrast, the reformist model shifts the focus towards performance metrics, student outcomes and market-driven competition.

Rather than prioritising institutional inputs, the reformist approach emphasises measurable results, including graduate earnings, employment rates and return on investment, aiming to enhance accountability and responsiveness to market demands.

Governance also differs sharply. The traditional model relies on a small group of well-established regional and national accreditors, whereas the reform encourages a competitive landscape with multiple bodies vying to certify institutions.

This shift from a peer-driven, collegial oversight model to one based on market competition raises questions about the long-term sustainability of quality assurance and the potential for declining standards as new accreditors seek market share.

While traditional accreditation has increasingly incorporated social criteria such as diversity, equity and inclusion, the reform model asserts ideological neutrality as a guiding principle. This shift may streamline oversight, but it also introduces new political tensions under the guise of objectivity.

However, the assertion of “ideological neutrality” itself is a contested concept in education, as it can inadvertently dismiss the inherent values in pedagogical approaches or the historical inequities that DEI initiatives aim to address.

What is framed as neutral often reflects a specific, implicit set of ideological priorities.

The case of Columbia

This month, the US Department of Education notified the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), the accreditor of Columbia University, that the university was failing to meet federal accreditation standards due to its alleged “deliberate indifference” toward antisemitic harassment on campus.

This marked one of the most high-profile instances in which civil rights enforcement directly intersected with institutional accreditation.

The move signals a growing federal expectation that accrediting agencies go beyond academic evaluation to also ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and other anti-discrimination statutes. Traditionally, accreditors focused on academic quality, institutional governance and student outcomes.

However, this case illustrates the evolving mandate for accreditors to uphold broader ethical and legal responsibilities – encompassing student safety, nondiscrimination and inclusive learning environments.

The Columbia case represents a significant moment in US higher education policy as it suggests that accreditation status may now hinge not only on educational performance but also on an institution’s capacity to respond to social and civil rights issues.

This development blurs the boundaries between traditional peer-reviewed quality assurance and direct federal enforcement, raising new questions about the appropriate role of accrediting bodies in overseeing institutional climate and campus governance.

Risks of a market-based approach

While a market-based accreditation model promises efficiency and innovation, it also introduces significant risks:

• Quality control: The proliferation of accreditors without stringent oversight may weaken standards and enable predatory institutions, particularly in the for-profit sector.

Historical precedents of oversight failures in the for-profit higher education sector highlight the dangers of inadequate quality control when market incentives outweigh academic integrity.

• Overreliance on narrow metrics: Prioritising financial outcomes in accreditation can marginalise disciplines such as the humanities, arts and public service, whose contributions are not easily monetised.

This risks skewing institutional priorities toward vocational training, potentially at the expense of developing critical thinking, civic engagement and broader societal contributions that are harder to quantify monetarily.

• Equity concerns: Institutions serving under-represented populations may face penalties due to lower graduate earnings, even when these stem from systemic inequality rather than institutional shortcomings.

This creates a perverse incentive that could disproportionately harm institutions committed to access and social mobility, effectively penalising them for serving students who face greater systemic barriers.

• Fragmentation and confusion: A competitive accreditation landscape could make it more difficult for students, employers and international partners to assess institutional legitimacy.

• Global misalignment: The removal of DEI standards and weakened centralised oversight may cause US accreditation to diverge from global norms, potentially harming degree recognition and international student mobility.

Towards a hybrid model

Rather than oscillating between bureaucratic rigidity and unchecked market forces, a hybrid model offers a more sustainable path forward. This approach would integrate:

• Contextualised performance metrics: Combining employment data and loan repayment rates with qualitative indicators such as civic engagement, research output or student satisfaction.

Achieving this balance would necessitate collaborative frameworks involving policymakers, educators and industry leaders to define and operationalise these diverse metrics effectively.

• Streamlined regulatory processes: Accelerating the approval of innovative programmes while maintaining academic quality.

• Rigorous oversight for new accreditors: Ensuring that newly recognised agencies adhere to clear, transparent standards of integrity and expertise.

• Institutional pluralism without ideological barriers: Promoting diverse perspectives while ensuring academic freedom remains protected, free from restrictive ideological requirements.

• Global compatibility: Maintaining alignment with international frameworks, such as UNESCO’s Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications, to facilitate mobility and mutual recognition.

While promising, the implementation of such a hybrid model would undoubtedly face challenges, particularly in overcoming entrenched bureaucratic practices and bridging the ideological divides that currently characterise the accreditation debate.

This pluralistic, outcomes-informed model would preserve the strengths of traditional peer review while adapting to the demands of a rapidly evolving higher education landscape.

Implications for international education

The proposed reforms could have unintended ripple effects on global education. Many countries – particularly those supported by the World Bank – have modelled their quality assurance systems on US accreditation norms.

A shift toward deregulated, ideologically polarised accreditation may undermine mutual recognition agreements and weaken the global credibility of US degrees.

Additionally, the removal of DEI requirements could weaken the US’ reputation in international higher education, especially among partners who prioritise inclusive, equitable learning environments.

In an era where soft power and educational diplomacy play a crucial role, a fragmented and politically charged accreditation system risks diminishing the United States’ leadership in global higher education, as the lack of clear, consistent quality assurance signals can erode international confidence in US credentials and hinder academic partnerships.

Accreditation in the digital and AI age

The future of accreditation depends on its ability to adapt to the transformations of the digital era. AI-powered instruction, micro-credentials and lifelong learning ecosystems require more flexible and responsive models of quality assurance.

Organisations like UNESCO and the EU are already advancing this agenda, promoting stackable credentials, blockchain-verifiable transcripts and interoperability across platforms.

To remain relevant, accrediting agencies must move beyond static, cyclical evaluations and embrace real-time, data-informed monitoring tools, potentially leveraging AI to analyse vast datasets on student progress and institutional performance.

However, they must also navigate the ethical and pedagogical implications of AI-driven learning, ensuring that new credentialing models are fair, transparent and internationally comparable.

Any viable future system must prioritise fairness, adaptability and international comparability to ensure global recognition and credibility.

Thoughtful reform

Accreditation remains essential to maintaining trust and quality in higher education. While the United States’ traditional model has been historically influential, it now faces significant challenges in adapting to innovation, equity and global coordination.

The proposed reforms offer a sharp critique of bureaucracy and ideological overreach, yet their market-first orientation also introduces substantial risks.

A more promising future lies in a hybrid approach – one that integrates outcome-based assessment with transparent governance, academic integrity and global interoperability.

As higher education enters the digital and AI age, accreditation must evolve not through deregulation alone but through thoughtful reform anchored in public accountability, social purpose and international cooperation.

Future research should explore the practical implementation challenges of a hybrid accreditation model, particularly how to establish universally accepted qualitative metrics for educational quality and how to effectively integrate emerging digital credentials into existing international recognition frameworks without compromising integrity.

Min Bahadur Bista is a former professor of education at Tribhuvan University and a former education specialist with UNESCO, having served in various countries across the Asia-Pacific region. He currently works as an independent education consultant, focusing on education policy, governance and reform in developing and transitional contexts.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.