Behind Closed Doors: CCE Meets as Policy 56 Tightens Grip on Chiropractic Education
With Part IV centralized and accreditation tied to NBCE performance, today’s Council meeting reinforces a system built on coercion, not consensus
A Closed System with No Exit
The Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) is meeting today, July 11, 2025, in Minneapolis. As expected, the meeting is closed to virtual attendees, cannot be recorded, and prohibits distribution of written materials. These restrictions aren’t just about optics — they reflect a deeper pattern of opaque governance and structural abuse.
At the heart of the issue is Policy 56, a CCE accreditation policy that evaluates programs based on student performance on the NBCE’s proprietary board exams, including Part IV — which has now been centralized to a single test site in Colorado, imposing financial and logistical burdens on students nationwide.
What makes this worse? The NBCE is a private corporation, accountable to no public regulatory body, and yet its exams are now functionally tied to accreditation — thanks to the CCE’s policy choices.
This system is not widely accepted, it lacks independence, creates conflicts of interest, and offers no meaningful avenue for public input — all of which place the CCE in violation of multiple U.S. Department of Education recognition criteria under 34 CFR Part 602.
Not Widely Accepted by the Profession or Public
Violation of 34 CFR §602.13
The CCE is required to demonstrate that its standards are “widely accepted in the United States by practitioners, licensing bodies, and educators.” But there is widespread and growing concern throughout the chiropractic profession related to Policy 56 and the centralization of the NBCE Part IV exam to NBCE and FCLB headquarters in Greeley Colorado.
Although NBCE Part IV is not required for graduation from all schools except LIFE, CCE's Policy 56 makes institutional accreditation contingent on student pass rates on NBCE exams — including Part IV. This has pressured schools into aligning their internal policies with NBCE’s testing structure. One clear example is Life University, which, facing possible loss of accreditation due to poor board performance under Policy 56, now requires completion of all NBCE exam parts prior to graduation — a policy change made not for educational reasons, but to survive CCE's enforcement regime.
Meanwhile, NBCE unilaterally centralized the Part IV exam to a single site in Colorado — a decision that no state licensing board formally adopted or publicly reviewed and a decision opposed by several schools. Students must now travel across the country, often at significant cost, just to meet licensure requirements that the CCE then uses to measure institutional viability. While thousands of students have voiced their objection to this decision along with over 60 chiropractic organizations, state, national and international associations, foundations, technique groups, businesses, schools and student groups. CCE has offered no analysis or mitigation of this burden — despite its direct link to accreditation.
“Policy 56 has turned exam scores on a private test into the metric by which chiropractic programs live or die — without input from the profession and despite its objections.”
This model is not widely accepted. It is increasingly resisted, yet institutions and students are powerless to challenge it — a clear violation of §602.13.
No Operational Independence — A Cartel in Practice
Violation of 34 CFR §602.14
Under §602.14, a federally recognized accreditor must operate independently from any entity that benefits from its decisions. The CCE has failed this test.
By embedding NBCE exam outcomes into its accreditation criteria through Policy 56, the CCE has allowed a private testing company — one with no regulatory oversight, no transparency, and no accountability to the public — to shape the future of chiropractic education. This gives NBCE a de facto veto over school accreditation and program viability.
Though the NBCE is not a governmental body, its influence is now institutionalized through CCE accreditation decisions. Institutions must teach to NBCE’s model or face punitive action under CCE policy. This makes NBCE an unregulated, extrajudicial authority over education and licensure — with CCE acting as its enforcement partner.
“The CCE no longer evaluates institutions — it evaluates how well they comply with NBCE's demands.”
This is not independence. This is a cartel — and it violates §602.14.
Policy 56 Creates a Structural Conflict of Interest
Violation of 34 CFR §602.15(a)(6)
The CCE is required to “maintain and apply reasonable conflict of interest policies.” Yet Policy 56 itself creates a fatal structural conflict.
By tying institutional accreditation to student pass rates on NBCE exams, CCE has granted NBCE — a private, self-regulated testing corporation — functional control over who remains accredited and who doesn’t.
NBCE is not accountable to the Department of Education, not answerable to students, and not subject to public oversight. Yet CCE uses NBCE's exam outcomes to make high-stakes accreditation decisions. This means that a private commercial vendor with a financial interest in testing volume now plays a central role in determining whether institutions succeed or fail.
“The CCE has outsourced accreditation power to a corporation with no duty to the public, the profession, or even scientific rigor.”
This is a textbook conflict of interest because the accreditor has built its policy framework around an external, unregulated entity whose success and survival depend on institutional dependency.
That is a direct violation of §602.15(a)(6).
No Reevaluation of Harmful Standards
Violation of 34 CFR §602.21
Under federal law, CCE must monitor and reevaluate its standards to ensure they remain appropriate, fair, and effective. But despite mounting consequences from Policy 56 and the centralization of Part IV, the CCE has refused to review or revise its approach.
The results speak for themselves:
Students face increased travel costs and hardship to access a single Part IV testing site.
Schools feel compelled to change graduation policies just to stay accredited.
The profession is increasingly divided, with entire philosophical and clinical models underrepresented or excluded.
And still, CCE continues to enforce Policy 56 as if none of this is happening.
“A real accreditor would adjust — CCE doubles down.”
This refusal to reevaluate in the face of demonstrable harm violates §602.21.
No Meaningful Public Participation
Violation of 34 CFR §602.23(f)
Today’s Council meeting perfectly illustrates the CCE’s failure to provide a legitimate process for public comment and third-party input:
No livestream
No recording
No distribution of written materials
Pre-registration required weeks in advance
Oral comments only, at the beginning of the meeting, with no right of reply or documentation
More significantly, even though state boards require Part IV for licensure there was never any meaningful state based public process or public review of NBCE’s testing centralization. The very stakeholders most affected — students, faculty, institutions, and the public — have no seat at the table.
“Public comment is meaningless when the public is silenced.”
By suppressing transparency and insulating its decisions from critique, the CCE violates §602.23(f).
Conclusion: It’s Time for the Profession to Pay Attention
The CCE’s enforcement of Policy 56, its silence on the centralization of Part IV, and its reliance on a private, unaccountable testing corporation to drive accreditation decisions should raise alarm bells for everyone in chiropractic education, regulation, and practice.
These developments aren’t just bureaucratic details — they are structural changes that redefine the gateway into the profession. When a federally recognized accreditor conditions programmatic success on the results of a private exam over which it has no control — and then refuses to engage with the public or reassess the consequences — the system is broken.
“Policy 56 and Part IV centralization are not isolated policies — they are symptoms of a deeper problem in how chiropractic is governed.”
It’s time for chiropractic institutions, practitioners, students, and regulators to demand transparency, accountability, and pluralism in education and licensure. Accreditation should reflect the diversity, values, and evolving evidence base of the profession — not serve as a mechanism for preserving control and conformity.
Join Us. Speak Out. Take Chiropractic Back.
Contact the Coalition to share your story, support the complaint, and be part of a profession that values transparency, fairness, and freedom — not coercion, control, and silence.
