Accreditation is often treated as a governmental stamp, primarily relevant because it unlocks federal student aid. Yet historically, accreditation began as a voluntary, nongovernmental, peer‑review process created by institutions themselves, long before governments sought to formalize or “monopolize” it through recognition systems and funding rules (CHEA, 1998; PNPI, 2021; U.S. Department of Education, 2024). In 2026, as digital accreditation and distance‑education accreditation gain prominence, revisiting this history is critical for institutional leaders evaluating new quality‑assurance options.
Understanding that accreditation pre‑dated government control reframes digital accreditation initiatives—not as fringe alternatives, but as heirs to an older tradition of independent quality assurance. Organizations such as the International Accrediting Commission for Digital Education (IACDE) operate in this lineage, applying voluntary, peer‑driven standards to global online and hybrid provision while aligning with international quality‑assurance norms (CHEA, 2010; INQAAHE, 2022).
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗩𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗣𝗲𝗲𝗿 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗙𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗚𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Accreditation in the United States emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a collective response to rapid expansion and uneven quality among colleges and secondary schools. Regional associations of institutions formed to establish entrance requirements, agree on preparatory standards, and identify schools that met shared expectations (PNPI, 2021; Wikipedia, 2010). These associations were private, voluntary consortia, not extensions of the state.
By the 1920s, six regional accreditors covered most of the country, using peer visitations and document review to determine whether institutions merited inclusion on accredited lists (PNPI, 2021). The U.S. Department of Education continues to describe accreditation in its essence as “a voluntary, nongovernmental, peer‑review process” by which institutions seek external quality validation (U.S. Department of Education, 2024, para. 1). In this era, accreditation served three primary functions:
- Providing an external, professional check on institutional quality and integrity.
- Facilitating transfer, admissions, and recognition of credentials between institutions.
- Signaling legitimacy to students, employers, and the public without regulatory authority.
The link between accreditation and government intensified only after large‑scale public investment in higher education. Following World War II, the original GI Bill channeled federal funds to veterans’ education and required mechanisms to distinguish serious colleges from fraudulent providers (PNPI, 2021). Rather than building a governmental inspectorate, federal actors relied on existing private accreditors as proxies for quality.
The Higher Education Act of 1965 formalized this arrangement, tying eligibility for federal student aid to accreditation by agencies “recognized” by the U.S. Commissioner (later Secretary) of Education or a national quality body (CRS, 2024). Over time, the recognition process evolved into a meta‑accreditation system: accrediting organizations themselves would be evaluated for rigor, governance, and standards before being allowed to serve as gatekeepers for Title IV funds (CHEA, 1998; CRS, 2024).
This transition effectively layered a governmental monopoly over an originally plural, voluntary ecosystem. While accreditors remained private entities, their practical influence became tightly coupled to federal recognition and financial aid policy, reshaping the incentives and structure of the accreditation landscape (Hartog, 2023; PNPI, 2021).
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗕𝗲𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻?
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
The historical record shows that accreditation’s legitimacy does not intrinsically depend on governmental control. Instead, legitimacy rests on specific design features that can be present in both recognized and independent digital accreditation bodies.
𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗼𝗿, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀
- Peer‑based expertise. Legitimate accreditors rely on peer reviewers with deep disciplinary or sectoral knowledge, able to evaluate evidence of learning, governance, and student support in context (CHEA, 2010; INQAAHE, 2022). In digital accreditation, this requires evaluators who understand online pedagogy, learning analytics, and virtual student services.
- Transparent, published standards. Credible bodies publish criteria and procedures, including expectations for curriculum, outcomes, assessment, and academic integrity (CHEA, 1998; ENQA, 2015). For distance‑education accreditation, these standards must explicitly address online learning design, technology, and cross‑border delivery.
- Independence and conflict‑of‑interest safeguards. Quality assurance is strengthened when accreditors maintain independence from direct governmental control and from institutional capture, with clear policies on conflicts of interest and decision‑making (INQAAHE, 2022; OECD, 2023).
- Evidence‑based decision‑making. Legitimate accreditation bodies ground judgments in documented evidence: learning outcomes, completion and progression data, student feedback, and evaluation of support systems (ENQA, 2015; OECD, 2023). Digital accreditation adds new forms of evidence, including LMS analytics and online engagement indicators.
These features were present in the early voluntary associations that created accreditation and continue to characterize respected quality‑assurance agencies globally. Digital‑first accreditors such as IACDE derive their legitimacy not from monopolistic control of aid, but from alignment with these principles and with international guidance developed by networks like INQAAHE and regional bodies (CHEA, 2010; INQAAHE, 2022).
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗛𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗡𝗼𝘄 (𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Several trends make the pre‑government history of accreditation particularly salient in 2026.
First, digital education has mainstreamed. Large public systems, private universities, and non‑traditional providers now offer fully online and hybrid programs at scale. Quality assurance in online learning requires standards and review methods that differ from those built for campus‑centric, time‑bound models (OECD, 2021; UNESCO, 2023). Distance‑education accreditation and digital accreditation frameworks have emerged to address issues like online course design, virtual proctoring, and learning analytics.
Second, cross‑border delivery has intensified. Institutions routinely recruit international students into online programs, deliver transnational education through partnerships, and issue micro‑credentials consumed by global labor markets (OECD, 2021; TAICEP, 2019). Traditional national and regional frameworks—often designed for territorially bounded institutions—struggle to keep pace with these cross‑border arrangements.
Third, there is growing scrutiny of existing “accreditation monopolies.” Policy analysts and think tanks have argued that using a limited set of recognized accreditors as the sole gatekeepers for public funds risks entrenching incumbents, stifling innovation, and limiting institutional choice (Hartog, 2023; Nasir, 2025). These critiques have highlighted opportunities to introduce more competition and plurality into quality assurance without compromising protections for students or taxpayers.
Taken together, these developments reopen questions that shaped accreditation’s earliest days: who should define quality, how should standards evolve, and what role should the state play versus the profession? Digital accreditation and distance‑education accreditation bodies rooted in voluntary peer review—such as IACDE—offer one response, drawing on historical precedents to support contemporary needs.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗤𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Outside the United States, quality assurance has largely evolved through national agencies and statutory bodies. In Europe, the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) underpin national systems coordinated by the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA, 2015). In many other regions, ministries or statutory councils directly authorize and periodically review institutions (OECD, 2021; TAICEP, 2019).
Cross‑border digital provision complicates this picture. A university based in one country may enroll students from dozens of jurisdictions, each with its own quality, data‑protection, and professional‑licensing rules. Micro‑credentials and short‑cycle digital offerings add further complexity, as they often fall outside traditional program‑accreditation categories (OECD, 2021; UNESCO, 2023).
Within this evolving landscape, several frontiers of oversight are emerging:
- Cross‑border digital quality frameworks. International bodies have begun articulating principles for cross‑border quality assurance and recognition, emphasizing transparency, comparability of learning outcomes, and student protection (INQAAHE, 2022; OECD, 2023).
- Micro‑credentials and alternative credentials. Policy reports call for coherent approaches to assuring the quality and recognition of micro‑credentials, particularly when issued online and stacked toward degrees (OECD, 2021; UNESCO, 2023).
- AI‑mediated learning and assessment. Institutions face new questions about academic integrity, algorithmic transparency, and oversight of AI‑supported teaching and assessment in digital environments (OECD, 2023).
Independent, digital‑first accreditors can complement national systems by focusing on these cross‑cutting issues. By aligning their digital accreditation standards with global principles articulated by INQAAHE, ENQA, and UNESCO, organizations like IACDE help institutions demonstrate that online and cross‑border offerings meet rigorous, internationally intelligible expectations for quality and integrity (CHEA, 2010; INQAAHE, 2022; UNESCO, 2023).
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
For presidents, provosts, and quality‑assurance leaders, the historical and international dynamics outlined above translate into several strategic priorities.
- Clarify the institution’s accreditation narrative. Institutions increasingly operate under multiple regimes: a legacy regional or national accreditor, programmatic bodies, and potentially a digital accreditation provider for fully online portfolios. Leaders should articulate how these layers fit together, what each signals, and how they collectively support institutional strategy.
- Evaluate digital‑specific quality frameworks. Online and hybrid operations require explicit standards for course design, faculty support, digital assessment, and student engagement. Institutions should compare how different accreditors—regional, programmatic, and digital‑first—address these dimensions and where there may be blind spots or overlaps (ENQA, 2015; OECD, 2021).
- Consider cross‑border and recognition implications. Institutions with international enrollments or transnational partnerships should assess whether their existing accreditation arrangements are intelligible and persuasive to overseas regulators, employers, and credential evaluators (TAICEP, 2019). Engagement with international or digital‑focused accreditors may help bridge gaps.
- Anticipate regulatory shifts. Policy debates about “accreditation monopolies” and calls for more competition in quality assurance suggest that frameworks for recognition and aid eligibility may evolve (CRS, 2024; Hartog, 2023). Institutions that understand accreditation’s pre‑government roots and monitor reform conversations will be better positioned to adapt.
In each of these areas, senior leaders benefit from treating accreditation not as a static compliance requirement but as part of a broader governance and quality‑assurance strategy, particularly for digital and distance‑education operations.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
The history of accreditation before government monopolization offers both a caution and an opportunity. It underscores the risks of concentrating gatekeeping power in a small number of actors and highlights the potential of voluntary, peer‑led systems that evolve with the sector they serve. Digital accreditation and distance‑education accreditation, when grounded in robust standards and international norms, can operationalize these principles for contemporary online and cross‑border provision.
Institutions seeking to translate these insights into action can consider two immediate steps.
- Engage with a digital‑first quality‑assurance community. Institutions that wish to benchmark and strengthen their online and distance‑learning operations can explore membership opportunities through the International Accrediting Commission for Digital Education (IACDE) at: https://iacde.org/become-a-member/
- Formalize commitment to rigorous digital accreditation. Institutions ready to subject their digital and distance‑education portfolios to structured external review can begin an application for digital accreditation with IACDE at: https://iacde.org/apply-now/
Taken together with existing national, regional, and programmatic arrangements, such steps can help institutions build a layered, future‑ready quality‑assurance architecture—one that honors accreditation’s voluntary, peer‑driven origins while meeting the demands of 2026’s global, digital higher‑education environment.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
CHEA. (1998). Recognition of accreditation organizations. Council for Higher Education Accreditation. https://www.chea.org/sites/default/files/other-content/RecognitionWellman_Jan1998.pdf
CHEA. (2010). The value of accreditation. Council for Higher Education Accreditation. https://www.chea.org/value-accreditation
Congressional Research Service. (2024, December 3). An overview of accreditation of higher education in the United States (CRS Report R43826). https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R43826
ENQA. (2015). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. https://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf
Hartog, N. (2023, June 19). It’s time for Congress to dismantle the higher education accreditation cartel. The Heritage Foundation. https://www.heritage.org/education/report/its-time-congress-dismantle-the-higher-education-accreditation-cartel
INQAAHE. (2022). Guidelines of good practice in quality assurance. International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education. https://www.inqaahe.org
Nasir, Z. (2025, November 18). Break up the programmatic accrediting monopolies. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2025/11/19/break-programmatic-accrediting-monopolies-opinion
OECD. (2021). Micro-credential innovations in higher education. Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/education
OECD. (2023). Artificial intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities. Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/education/ai-in-education.htm
PNPI. (2021, June). Higher education accreditation: A primer. Postsecondary National Policy Institute. https://pnpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/PNPI_AccreditationPrimer_June2021.pdf
TAICEP. (2019). The changing landscape of accreditation: A guide to secondary school and higher education accreditation. The Association for International Credential Evaluation Professionals. https://www.taicep.org
U.S. Department of Education. (2024). Accreditation in the United States. https://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation.html
UNESCO. (2023). Guidelines on quality assurance for cross-border higher education in the digital era. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://www.unesco.org
Wikipedia. (2010, September 27). Higher education accreditation in the United States. In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_education_accreditation_in_the_United_States
Comments are closed