The Opportunity Costs of Accreditation
- Jun 9
- 3 min read
The NAIS Commission on Accreditation was a specialized internal oversight board established by the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS) in 2001, acting as a central authority that provided quality assurance and accountability for the accreditation programs of its state, regional, and international member associations. It operated as a distinct committee until its disbandment in June 2018.
In July 2018, the NAIS Commission was replaced by a newly formed 501(c)(3), the International Council Advancing Independent School Accreditation (ICAISA). This change was driven by the need to separate advocacy from evaluation, standardize regional boards, and facilitate global expansion. The restructuring established a “neutral,” third-party oversight body (ICAISA) designed to strengthen the legitimacy of private school diplomas through accreditation amid increasing government scrutiny.
The new structure was supposed to allow the peer-review process to be customized to a school’s specific identity, whether it is single sex, identifies as a progressive school, or operates as a boarding school. Seemingly at odds with separating advocacy and evaluation, NAIS would continue to be heavily involved in publishing Criteria for Effective Independent School Accreditation and in requiring schools to be accredited to become members of NAIS, even though accreditation is voluntary for private schools in most states.
With the change, “School Culture” is elevated to an accreditation core pillar. Evaluation rubrics would require qualitative evidence of psychological safety, student emotional well-being, and explicit institutional structures for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ). Hiring, admissions, and financial aid systems would be audited to ensure they actively support equitable student belonging.
Has advocacy been separated from evaluation?
Accreditors continue to claim support for the independence of each school to establish and fulfill its unique mission, while at the same time compelling DEI and treating it as a benchmark of high-quality modern schooling. How are schools to deal with this inherent contradiction? We asked the accreditors again:
Read for yourself:
Their response, which is the same response we received 5 years ago, ends with:
“We remain committed to supporting the independence of each school to establish and fulfill its unique mission.” -Bonnie Ricci, Executive Director, ICAISA
Sara Wilson, Executive Director of AISNE, shared our letter with her AISNE Heads Group. Her plea to the heads of schools seemed to contradict the ICAISA’s commitment to supporting each school’s independence. Accreditors continue to cling to this ideology.
Among other things, she highlighted:
“A commitment to the values of equity and inclusion is central to AISNE’s mission and will remain a throughline within AISNE’s standards for accreditation.”
“AISNE will not waver in our efforts to provide professional learning, peer dialogue, programs, and services that support your school’s inclusion work—from our annual adult and student DEIB conferences and BIPOC Symposium, to an intentional thread of programming throughout the rest of our events.”
“I encourage you to continue moving forward with clarity and conviction: remain committed to fostering inclusion and belonging in your communities, and continue investing in the people, programs, and resources that make this essential work possible.“
What is a school to do given the conflicting standards?
Why do supposedly independent schools conform to the standards set by accreditors?
While some trustees and heads of schools embrace the ideology regardless of their missions, other schools acquiesce out of fear of losing accreditation and accept the recommendations of the visiting team, which usually means more DEI.
According to Bonnie Ricci’s response, independent schools should be free to determine what kind of institution they want to be, unencumbered by the DEI coercion. Would schools lose accreditation status if they moved on from DEI? It doesn’t seem so.
What causes a school to lose accreditation?
Independent schools primarily lose accreditation due to severe financial distress or insolvency, a failure to document and track student learning data, or governance malfeasance such as conflicts of interest and board micromanagement.
What to do?
Schools need to rethink the influence of accreditation and stand up for the school’s true purpose. There is an opportunity cost to allocating so much time and so many resources to DEI. While each school should evaluate its unique priorities, one area that may be a better use of resources is AI strategy. We recommend:
Reallocate alphabet resources from DEIBJ+ to AI.
Create a sense of urgency to develop an AI strategy, not just a policy
Confirm where all the data lives at your school and start to centralize it. Schools need to own their own data as they begin using AI and training LLMs.
Determine how to ensure that NAIS, the repository of significant independent school data, doesn’t use your data for its own AI strategy.
Confirm that your school is teaching the foundational knowledge students need to meet the moment and prepare for a future where human judgment and critical thinking will be more important than ever.
Summer reading suggestion:
Thanks for reading Parents Unite! Subscribe to our Substack for free to receive new posts and support our work.