Staff Report to the Senior Department Official on Recognition Compliance Issues
RECOMMENDATION PAGE
1.
Agency: Council On Occupational Education
(1969/2011)
(The dates provided are the date of initial listing as a recognized agency and the date of the agency’s last grant of recognition.)
2.
Action Item: Petition for Continued Recognition
3.
Current Scope of Recognition: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidacy Status”) throughout the United States of postsecondary occupational education institutions offering non-degree and applied associate degree programs in specific career and technical education fields, including institutions that offer programs via distance education.
4.
Requested Scope of Recognition: Same as above.
5.
Date of Advisory Committee Meeting: June, 2011
6.
Staff Recommendation: Continue the agency's recognition and require the agency to come into compliance within 12 months, and submit a compliance report that demonstrates the agency's compliance with the issues identified below.
7.
Issues or Problems:
The agency must make policy and procedural changes to implement its evaluation of program-level outcomes data as part of its institutional student achievement standard and demonstrate its effective application of its student achievement standards (§602.16(a)(1)(i)).
The agency must clarify and correct all statements including the one noted in this analysis, to accurately reflect its accreditation of distance education as defined by the agency and the Department (§602.16(c)).
The agency must provide evidence of its implementation of its revised detailed report assessing an institution's performance with respect to student achievement (§602.17(f)).
The agency must develop policies that ensure that institutions take appropriate action to come into compliance with the agency's standards within a time period that must not exceed the requirements of this section and demonstrate their effective and compliant application. (§602.20(a)).
The agency must demonstrate that it has implemented its procedures for ensuring that it involves all of the agency's relevant constituencies in the review and affords them a meaningful opportunity to provide input into the review (§602.21(a)(b)).
The agency must demonstrate implementation of the changes it has enacted to its standards revision process (§602.21(c)).
The agency must revise and adhere to a substantive change policy that requires the Commission to review and approve all substantive change requests of the types required by 602.22(a)(2) prior to inclusion into the agency's grant of accreditation. The agency must also provide documentation of its review of various types of substantive changes under its revised policy (§602.22(a)(1)).
The agency must conform its policy to meet the requirements under subsection (vii) of this section. The agency must also demonstrate its review and approval of a substantive change involving entering into contracts with non-Title IV entities (§602.22(a)(2)(i-vii)).
The agency must revise its policy to clearly specify when the changes made or proposed by an institution are or would be substantial enough to require the agency to conduct a new comprehensive evaluation of that institution (§602.22(a)(3)).
The agency must demonstrate that it effectively applies its revised policy regarding the review and approval of additional locations (§602.22(c)(1)).
The agency must demonstrate effective application of its proposed revisions for providing opportunity for third-party comments (§602.23(b)).
The agency must demonstrate its effective application of the revised procedures for the approval of branch campuses (§602.24(a)).
The agency must provide evidence that it follows its procedures for changes in ownership in accordance with the requirements of this section (§602.24(b)).
The agency must demonstrate application of its revised procedures for evaluating teach-out plans (§602.24(c)(2)).
The agency must demonstrate effective application of its revised procedures for evaluating teach-out agreements (§602.24(c)(5)).
The agency must provide documentation of an appeal under the current requirements or state they have not had an appeal under the current requirements (§602.25(f)).
The agency must provide evidence that it adheres to its revised policy on notification of probation to the Secretary and other appropriate agencies, at the same time it notifies the institution of the decision (§602.26(b)).
The agency must provide evidence that it adheres to its revised policy on notification to the public within 24 hours of its notice to an institution or program of its decisions for probation and adverse actions (§602.26(c)).
The agency must provide a thorough and reasonable explanation, consistent with its standards, why the action of the other body did not preclude the agency’s grant of accreditation of the institution described in the agency’s response (§602.28(c)).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PART I: GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE AGENCY
The Council on Occupational Education (COE) is a national institutional accreditor. Its current scope of recognition is for the accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidacy status”) throughout the United States of postsecondary occupational education institutions offering non-degree and applied associate degree programs in specific career and technical education fields, including institutions that offer programs via distance education.
COE was originally established in 1968 as a committee of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). In 1971 the Committee became the Commission on Occupational Education Institutions. In 1995, the agency formally separated from SACS, adopted its present name, and began to accredit and preaccredit institutions throughout the United States.
COE currently accredits 389 institutions and 50 candidate institutions in 31 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. COE’s accreditation enables the institutions it accredits to establish eligibility to participate in Title IV programs; thus it must meet the Secretary’s separate and independent requirements.
Recognition History
The U.S. Commissioner of Education first listed COE as a recognized accrediting agency in 1969 under the name “Committee on Occupational Education Institutions.” The former Secretary of Education last granted COE a recognition period of four years after deferring a decision on the agency's recognition in 2005, due to outstanding issues concerning the agency's review of institutions with distance education, its monitoring process, and its substantive change review process and review procedures. The former Secretary issued her decision letter in the Fall 2007, stating that the agency had sufficiently addressed those outstanding issues.
PART II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
§602.16 Accreditation and preaccreditation standards
(a) The agency must demonstrate that it has standards for accreditation, and preaccreditation, if offered, that are sufficiently rigorous to ensure that the agency is a reliable authority regarding the quality of the education or training provided by the institutions or programs it accredits. The agency meets this requirement if -
(1) The agency's accreditation standards effectively address the quality of the institution or program in the following areas:
(i) Success with respect to student achievement in relation to the institution's mission, which may include different standards for different institutions or programs, as established by the institution, including, as appropriate, consideration of course completion, State licensing examination, and job placement rates.
The agency’s standards for assessing student achievement are found primarily in standards two and three and include requirements such as, appropriate evaluations of knowledge and skills required for the occupation(s) studied; systematic, objective, and equitable evaluation of the competencies essential to success in the occupation; and completion, placement, and licensure pass rates that meet the agency’s annually-specified minimum required benchmarks specific to public institutions, non-public institutions, and job corps centers.
The agency does collect programmatic level data on student outcomes completion, placement and licensure pass rates. They also conduct a cursory review of the accuracy of the data by conducting follow-up on student completions. However, it is unclear what review the agency does of the programmatic data to assess the success of the institution’s educational program in meeting its objectives as part of the agency’s assessment of the institutional success in meeting agency standards. As an institutional accrediting agency that offers vocational programs, the Department expects the agency to collect and assess the program-level data as an effective mechanism to support and determine the institution’s success in meeting its mission and serving the educational goals of all students.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must demonstrate that it evaluates student achievement against program-level data as appropriate to the occupational missions of the institutions it accredits.
Analyst Remarks to Response:
The agency has stated in its response that it has amended its student achievement standard to consider program-level outcomes data in evaluating an institution's compliance with its student achievement standard. The agency provided the amended language which states that benchmarks for placement, completion, and licensure pass rates, as applicable, must be submitted and met by the institution.
As stated in its response, the agency is currently developing the procedure by which it will apply its revised student achievement standard. Upon final approval of such procedures, the agency will make applicable revisions to its policies and practices.
Staff Determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must make policy and procedural changes to implement its evaluation of program-level outcomes data as part of its institutional student achievement standard and demonstrate its effective application of its student achievement standards.
(b) If the agency only accredits programs and does not serve as an institutional accrediting agency for any of those programs, its accreditation standards must address the areas in paragraph (a)(1) of this section in terms of the type and level of the program rather than in terms of the institution.
(c)If the agency has or seeks to include within its scope of recognition the evaluation of the quality of institutions or programs offering distance education or correspondence education, the agency's standards must effectively address the quality of an institution's distance education or correspondence education in the areas identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.The agency is not required to have separate standards, procedures, or policies for the evaluation of distance education or correspondence education;
The agency has appropriately addressed all the preceding standards in terms of how institutions that offer distance education are required to demonstrate compliance. The agency also has an additional standard for institutions that offer distance education, which, in effect, offers guidance as to how institutions that offer distance education are required to meet the agency's standards one through ten. While the agency states in the introduction to the section of the handbook dealing with distance education that "distance education encompasses all modalities of education where students and instructors are not simultaneously present in the same physical location", there are significant differences between distance education and correspondence education, as indicated in the definitions of these terms in the agency materials. The agency has not clearly addressed how it evaluates correspondence education to address the unique characteristics of this mode of delivery. It needs to provide evidence of its effective evaluation of correspondence education.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must make clear in its materials whether it does or does not accredit institutions that provide correspondence education, and if it does, the agency must clearly address how it evaluates correspondence education against its standards to address the unique characteristics of this mode of delivery. The agency must also provide evidence of its effective evaluation of its standards for institutions that provide correspondence education.
Analyst Remarks to Response:
The agency has stated in its response that it is not seeking recognition for the accreditation of correspondence education. However, this response does not address the Department’s concern—that the agency must make clear in its materials whether it does or does not accredit institutions that provide correspondence education, its representation of those activities, and its recognized accreditation activities.
The agency Handbook contains no definition for correspondence education suggesting that the agency does not accredit institutions offering correspondence education. The agency’s Handbook, Section VII, Definitions, contains a definition of distance education that conforms to the Department’s definition for distance education. However, the agency’s statement in the introduction to Section VI, Standard Eleven, of the Handbook states that “distance education encompasses all modalities of education where students and instructors are not simultaneously present in the same physical location.” This statement is incorrect in the context of the agency’s (and the Department’s) definition of distance education. The agency must clarify and correct all statements including the one noted in this analysis, to accurately reflect its accreditation of distance education as defined by the agency and the Department. The agency has also not removed references to correspondence education in its Policies and Rules document.
Staff Determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must clarify and correct all statements including the one noted in this analysis, to accurately reflect its accreditation of distance education as defined by the agency and the Department.
§602.17 Application of standards in reaching an accrediting decision.
The agency must have effective mechanisms for evaluating an institution's or program's compliance with the agency's standards before reaching a decision to accredit or preaccredit the institution or program. The agency meets this requirement if the agency demonstrates that it--
(f) Provides the institution or program with a detailed written report that assesses--
(1) The institution's or program's compliance with the agency's standards, including areas needing improvement; and
(2) The institution's or program's performance with respect to student achievement; and
It is not clear from the agency's narrative or Handbook, whether it has policies that require it to provide institutions a detailed written report in accordance with the requirements of this section.
The agency does demonstrate through its documentation that it provides institutions with a copy of the institution's site visit report which assesses the institution's compliance with the agency's standards, including areas needing improvement. As noted in a previous section, while the site visit report is essentially a check box format, the agency has crafted its evaluative criteria for measuring compliance with each standard into a series of close-ended questions which are sufficiently clear and specific to provide clear definition of why the institution is complaint or not compliant with the agency’s standards in most instances. However, while the site visit report indicates that the team verified the student achievement data (placement, completion rates) from the institution's annual report it does not include a detailed report of the institution’s performance with respect to student achievement. The agency must provide a more detailed evaluation of an institution’s performance with respect to student achievement.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must demonstrate that it provides the institution with a detailed written report of the institution's performance with respect to student achievement.
Analyst Remarks to Response:
The agency has stated in its response that it intends to provide a more detailed evaluation report which reflects the institution's performance, based on program-level outcomes data, with respect to student achievement. The agency plans to implement such changes after it finalizes its procedures of evaluation under its new student achievement standard.
Staff Determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must provide evidence of its implementation of its revised detailed report assessing an institution's performance with respect to student achievement.
§602.19 Monitoring and reevaluation of accredited institutions and programs.
(d)Institutional accrediting agencies must monitor the growth of programs at institutions experiencing significant enrollment growth, as reasonably defined by the agency.
As stated in the previous section, the agency monitors growth of programs at institutions experiencing significant enrollment growth by way of its annual report. After a trigger of 25% or more over the baseline for enrollment growth is identified, the agency determines from the institution's response, whether specific data by program is required. Depending on what the Commission decides based on these data, the Commission may take action for heightened monitoring and more frequent reporting, or request a focused site visit. However, as required by this section, the agency must continue to monitor growth by program when significant enrollment growth of an institution is triggered, regardless of the institution’s response.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must demonstrate that it monitors growth of programs at institutions experiencing significant enrollment growth.
Analyst Remarks to Response:
The agency has made changes to its policies, but these changes do not correspond to the previous deficiency. This section requires the agency to monitor programmatic growth after an institution has triggered significant enrollment growth which the agency had previously identified as 25% above the baseline for enrollment growth. At that point, instead of requiring reporting of the data at the program level, the agency makes a determination as to whether further action is required. According to the requirements of this section, the agency must monitor the growth of programs at institutions that are experiencing significant enrollment growth.
The agency has since revised its policy to require institutions to report programmatic FTE enrollment increases by 100%; it is not clear that there is a trigger of significant enrollment growth by institution for the agency to initiate monitoring of the institution's programmatic growth.
Furthermore, it is not clear whether the agency has made the corresponding changes to its annual report so that institutions may report such data to the Commission.
The agency also excludes enrollment increases that result from the addition of new sites from its reporting requirement, citing that such increases have been previously approved by the Commission as planned substantive changes. Such an exclusion does not provide the agency with an accurate and meaningful understanding of programmatic growth at an institution, nor does it ensure proper monitoring mechanisms of such growth as required under this section.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must demonstrate that it monitors the growth of programs at institutions experiencing significant enrollment growth.
§602.20 Enforcement of standards
(a) If the agency's review of an institution or program under any standard indicates that the institution or program is not in compliance with that standard, the agency must--
(1) Immediately initiate adverse action against the institution or program; or
(2) Require the institution or program to take appropriate action to bring itself into compliance with the agency's standards within a time period that must not exceed--
(i) Twelve months, if the program, or the longest program offered by the institution, is less than one year in length;
(ii) Eighteen months, if the program, or the longest program offered by the institution, is at least one year, but less than two years, in length; or
(iii) Two years, if the program, or the longest program offered by the institution, is at least two years in length.
The agency has policies that require its accredited institutions to take appropriate action to bring itself into compliance within one year; the agency does not accredit institutions that offer programs longer than two years. However, the agency's standard three requires an institution to meet the minimum required benchmark for completion, placement, and licensure pass rate and to take any action required by the Commission due to overall completion rate being unacceptably lower than rates for peer institutions. As evidenced at the agency's February decision-meeting, an institution may be on continuing review status for two years, then placed on probation status for not meeting benchmarks in the third year. The institution may be on probation status for one year, thereby allowing the institution to be out of compliance with the agency's standard for three years.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must require its institutions to take appropriate action to bring itself into compliance with the agency's standards within a time period that does not exceed the requirement of this section.
Analyst Remarks to Response:
Though the agency has made changes to its policies in accordance with the requirements of this section, the final paragraph of the policy is unclear and contradicting to the changes the agency has made. For example, it is not clear whether the agency is still maintaining a "continuing review" status, and if so, how such a status coheres with the change in the agency's policy to place institutions on probationary status for not meeting student achievement benchmarks. According to the agency's policies, "continuing review" status is not a probationary status; electing to retain the status as it is written in the agency's policies would continue to exceed the enforcement timelines stipulated under this section.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must develop policies that ensure that institutions take appropriate action to come into compliance with the agency's standards within a time period that must not exceed the requirements of this section and demonstrate their effective and compliant application.
§602.21 Review of standards.
(a) The agency must maintain a systematic program of review that demonstrates that its standards are adequate to evaluate the quality of the education or training provided by the institutions and programs it accredits and relevant to the educational or training needs of students.
(b) The agency determines the specific procedures it follows in evaluating its standards, but the agency must ensure that its program of review--
(1) Is comprehensive;
(2) Occurs at regular, yet reasonable, intervals or on an ongoing basis;
(3) Examines each of the agency's standards and the standards as a whole; and
(4) Involves all of the agency's relevant constituencies in the review and affords them a meaningful opportunity to provide input into the review.
The agency has policies requiring it to conduct a systematic program of review of its standards on an ongoing basis. The agency's policies state that the review will comprehensively address the adequacy and relevancy of the agency's standards for the evaluation of the quality of the programs that the agency accredits, and the appropriateness of the standards for the educational and training needs of its students.
The agency's policies reflect a wide involvement of the agency's relevant constituencies whose feedback is solicited during occupational advisory committee meetings on an annual basis.
The agency provided survey results from its institutional annual report, commissioners, and site visitor evaluations. The agency also provided agendas from the Council Committee on Standards which reflect that changes had been made to the standards. However, it is unclear from the agency's documentation, the extent to which the agency's relevant constituencies were afforded a meaningful opportunity to provide input into the review. Though the agency's policy states that the public and potential employers would be solicited for input, the agency did not provide evidence of such solicitation.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must provide evidence that it involves all of the agency's relevant constituencies in the review and affords them a meaningful opportunity to provide input into the review.
Analyst Remarks to Response:
The agency has made appropriate changes to its policies and procedures to ensure that it involves all of the agency's relevant constituencies in the review and affords them a meaningful opportunity to provide input into the review, particularly for employers and the public as cited in the draft analysis.
In addition to soliciting input from the public and employers through institutional advisory councils, the agency plans to implement a process by which such input would be solicited directly from the public via its website. The agency plans to outreach to institutional members, state and federal authorities, and other accrediting agencies to encourage members of the public and potential employers to provide input through its website. The agency anticipates that it will have the mechanism in place for soliciting such feedback at the end of May. As stated in the original determination, the agency must provide evidence that it involves all of the agency's relevant constituencies in the review and affords them a meaningful opportunity to provide input into the review.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must demonstrate that it has implemented its procedures for ensuring that it involves all of the agency's relevant constituencies in the review and affords them a meaningful opportunity to provide input into the review.
(c) If the agency determines, at any point during its systematic program of review, that it needs to make changes to its standards, the agency must initiate action within 12 months to make the changes and must complete that action within a reasonable period of time. Before finalizing any changes to its standards, the agency must--
(1) Provide notice to all of the agency's relevant constituencies, and other parties who have made their interest known to the agency, of the changes the agency proposes to make;
(2) Give the constituencies and other interested parties adequate opportunity to comment on the proposed changes; and
(3) Take into account any comments on the proposed changes submitted timely by the relevant constituencies and by other interested parties.
Department staff could not verify the agency's policies regarding the requirement that the agency must initiate action within twelve months to make changes to its standards and complete that action within a reasonable period of time, if it determines that it needs to make changes to its standards.
Though the agency provided an e-mail header notifying its constituents of action items, it is not clear whether the notification included potential employers and the public as provided for in its policies. Furthermore, it is not clear from the documentation provided, the extent to which the agency received and took into account any comments on the proposed changes submitted by the relevant constituencies and by other interested parties.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must have policies that require it to initiate action within twelve months to make changes to its standards and complete that action within a reasonable period of time, if it determines that it needs to make changes to its standards. The agency must also provide evidence that it takes into account any comments on the proposed changes submitted timely by the relevant constituencies and by other interested parties. The agency must also provide evidence that it has included members of the public and potential employers in its notification and opportunity for comment in accordance with its policies.
Analyst Remarks to Response:
The agency has revised its policies in accord with its current practice to require it to initiate action within twelve months to make changes to its standards and complete that action within a reasonable period of time, if it determines that it needs to make changes to its standards.
The agency has also provided evidence that it takes into account any comments on the proposed changes submitted timely by the relevant constituencies and by other interested parties. The agency provided a sample of summary of comments from relevant constituencies (with constituency groups identified) that will be forwarded for review by the Council's Committee on Standards and Conditions. The agency also provided survey results from 2010 from its Commissioners and institutional annual reports that it will consider at its standards committee meeting.
The agency has made notable changes to its policies and procedures to ensure that members of the public and potential employers are included in its notification and opportunity for comment in accordance with its policies. The Council will require institutions to make the agency's website available in its publications so that general members of the public are encouraged to comment on the standards review process.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must demonstrate implementation of the changes it has enacted to its standards revision process.
§602.22 Substantive change.
(a) If the agency accredits institutions, it must maintain adequate substantive change policies that ensure that any substantive change to the educational mission, program, or programs of an institution after the agency has accredited or preaccredited the institution does not adversely affect the capacity of the institution to continue to meet the agency's standards. The agency meets this requirement if--
(1) The agency requires the institution to obtain the agency's approval of the substantive change before the agency includes the change in the scope of accreditation or preaccreditation it previously granted to the institution; and
The agency's substantive change policies outline approval procedures for various types of substantive changes and requires institutions to obtain prior approval by the Commission before the change takes place. Institutions must request substantive change approvals as soon as plans are made, but no later than thirty working days prior to the change.
However, the agency's policies also state that substantive changes are reviewed by staff and that approval may be given by the Executive Director. While Department staff observed a decision meeting at which Commissioners approved substantive changes that had been reviewed initially by staff, it is not clear from the agency's policies, which types of substantive changes require Commission approval and which types may be approved by the Executive Director. Because substantive changes identified in 602.22(a)(2) are, in effect, accreditation decisions, the Department requires that all such decisions will be approved by the Commission and not agency staff.
Though the Department observed a decision meeting at which agency staff presented substantive changes to the Council for approval, it is not clear, and the agency did not provide, evidence of its review process leading up to the Council's approval.
Furthermore, while the agency provided one substantive change request application as documentation, this is not sufficient evidence considering the various types of substantive change requests. There was no evidence of the agency’s review and approval of applications in accordance with its policies.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must revise and adhere to a substantive change policy that requires that it is the Commission that reviews and approves all substantive change requests of the types required by 602.22(a)(2) prior to inclusion into the agency's grant of accreditation. The agency must also provide documentation of its review of various types of substantive changes.
Analyst Remarks to Response:
Though the agency has stated that it has made appropriate changes to its policies to ensure that substantive changes are approved by the Commission, the agency's Handbook still permits staff approval of certain substantive changes, for example, of changes to add new programs or changes of the programmatic scope of an institution that may result from the addition of a program at a degree or credential level different from that which is included in the institution's current accreditation or preaccreditation.
Because the agency's policies continue to be non-compliant, the agency has not been able to demonstrate that it approves substantive changes in accordance with the requirements of this section. Though the agency has provided examples of substantive changes, these requests were processed under its former procedures whereby staff makes an initial approval and the Commission makes a final approval. The agency must revise its policies to ensure that they adhere to the requirements of this section. The agency must also demonstrate its effective application of its revised procedures for review of substantive changes.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must revise and adhere to a substantive change policy that requires the Commission to review and approve all substantive change requests of the types required by 602.22(a)(2) prior to inclusion into the agency's grant of accreditation. The agency must also provide documentation of its review of various types of substantive changes under its revised policy.
(2)The agency's definition of substantive change includes at least the following types of change: (i)Any change in the established mission or objectives of the institution. (ii)Any change in the legal status, form of control, or ownership of the institution. (iii)The addition of courses or programs that represent a significant departure from the existing offerings of educational programs, or method of delivery, from those that were offered when the agency last evaluated the institution. (iv)The addition of programs of study at a degree or credential level different from that which is included in the institution's current accreditation or preaccreditation. (v)A change from clock hours to credit hours. (vi)A substantial increase in the number of clock or credit hours awarded for successful completion of a program. (vii)If the agency's accreditation of an institution enables the institution to seek eligibility to participate in title IV, HEA programs, the entering into a contract under which an institution or organization not certified to participate in the title IV, HEA programs offers more than 25 percent of one or more of the accredited institution's educational programs.
The agency has policies that include the types of substantive changes listed under this section except that for the requirement under subsection (vii), the Council recently approved a policy that states that, "students of an accredited institution shall not receive more than 50 percent of their instruction under contract from an external agency, corporation, institution, or individual." The requirement under subsection (vii) however, states that agencies must review as substantive changes, contracts that Title IV institutions have with other non-Title IV entities that offer more than 25 percent of one or more of the accredited institution's educational programs.
Furthermore, though the Council recently approved the heading of "Contract or Consortium Agreements" to be included as a type of substantive change under its list of types of substantive change, it is not clear how the agency plans to review such contracts and consortiums. The agency's corresponding policy on such contracts states only that the agency MAY request review or approval of any contract the institution has with an outside entity, but that in any case, for instructional contracts, the Council provides for a 50% of a program restriction. This is more than the 25% restriction provided for under subsection (vii), and is therefore, not compliant.
As for the requirement under subsection (vi), the agency has defined substantial increase in the number of clock or credit hours awarded for successful completion of a program to be 25% or more, though institutions are still required to notify the Council in writing of changes less than 25% as well. Because the agency has defined a substantial increase, and provided for a control by which it can monitor all increases in clock or credit hours awarded, its policy is compliant with this subsection.
Though the Department observed a decision meeting at which staff presented substantive changes to the Commission for approval, it is not clear what constitutes the review process that leads up to the Commission’s approval, which appears to be heavily reliant on the staff’s review. Also, the agency did not provide evidence of its review.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must conform its policy to meet the requirements under subsection (vii) of this section.
Analyst Remarks to Response:
The agency has revised its policies to prohibit accredited institutions it enables to seek eligibility to participate in title IV, HEA programs, from entering into contracts with non-title IV, HEA organizations that offer more than 25 percent of the institution's instruction.
However, the precise language of the regulation under this section specifies that agencies must approve as a substantive change entering into contracts with non-title IV, HEA entities that offer more than 25 percent of one or more of the accredited institution's educational programs. The agency's policy as currently written, which places a restriction on 25 percent of the institution’s instruction (and not 25 percent of one or more of the accredited institution’s programs), may allow for non-compliance under this section by not meeting the 25 percent requirement to trigger a substantive change review.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must conform its policy to meet the requirements under subsection (vii) of this section. The agency must also demonstrate its review and approval of a substantive change involving entering into contracts with non-Title IV entities.
(3)The agency's substantive change policy must define when the changes made or proposed by an institution are or would be sufficiently extensive to require the agency to conduct a new comprehensive evaluation of that institution.
The agency has not clearly defined when a request for approval of a substantive change or combination of changes is sufficiently extensive to require a new comprehensive evaluation, but it has outlined in its policy that it reserves the discretion to determine that a request for approval of a substantive change or combination of changes is substantial enough to warrant a requirement that an institution complete a self-study and host a full accreditation visiting team within 18 months of the notice from the Commission.
Because the regulation under this section requires an agency to define when such a new comprehensive evaluation is required, the agency must more clearly set parameters in its policy for when a new comprehensive evaluation is required.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must more clearly define when changes requested by an institution are sufficiently extensive to require a new comprehensive evaluation.
Analyst Remarks to Response:
The agency has not clearly defined when a request for approval of a substantive change or combination of changes is sufficiently extensive to require a new comprehensive evaluation, but it has outlined in its policy that it reserves the discretion to determine that a request for approval of a substantive change or combination of changes is substantial enough to warrant a requirement that an institution complete a self-study and host a full accreditation visiting team within 18 months of the notice from the Commission.
Because the regulation under this section requires an agency to define when such a new comprehensive evaluation is required, the agency must more clearly set parameters in its policy for when a new comprehensive evaluation is required.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must more clearly define when changes requested by an institution are sufficiently extensive to require a new comprehensive evaluation.
(c)(1) A visit, within six months, to each additional location the institution establishes, if the institution--
(i) Has a total of three or fewer additional locations;
(ii) Has not demonstrated, to the agency's satisfaction, that it has a proven record of effective educational oversight of additional locations; or
(iii) Has been placed on warning, probation, or show cause by the agency or is subject to some limitation by the agency on its accreditation or preaccreditation status;
While the agency's procedures for the review of additional locations includes an assessment of an institution's fiscal and administrative capacity as required under section 602.22(c), the agency has not demonstrated that it reviews and approves these types of requests based on the fiscal and administrative capacity to operate the location. The example application provided by the agency did not include evidence of this.
The agency's substantive change procedures require a site visit within 180 days from the date of the Council's Executive Director's initial approval of the additional location, thereby encompassing the requirements of the three subsections under this section.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must more clearly outline and demonstrate its application of its procedures and criteria for granting approval of additional locations.
Analyst Remarks to Response:
The agency has identified additional documentation that reflects the agency requires submission of fiscal and administrative data with the substantive change request application. Staff may provide initial approval of such a request at which time a site visit is scheduled which includes verification of the institution's fiscal and administrative capacity to operate the additional location. The institution's application and site visit report is then forwarded to the Commission for final approval.
According to the agency, the revised review process includes a staff analysis of the applications received to confirm that they are complete to the degree that all requested information is supplied, that financial statements provided (if applicable) are in compliance with Commission criteria, that the institution is not on a violation status preventing approval of the change, and that appropriate fees (if applicable) are paid. Each substantive change application will be assigned two readers and acted upon by the Commission. The Commission will review and approve the substantive changes as specified under 602.22(2)(i-vii) of these regulations.
However, the agency has not demonstrated its application of this newly revised approval procedure.
Staff determination: The agency must demonstrate that it effectively applies its revised policy regarding the review and approval of additional locations.
§602.23 Operating procedures all agencies must have.
(b) In providing public notice that an institution or program subject to its jurisdiction is being considered for accreditation or preaccreditation, the agency must provide an opportunity for third-party comment concerning the institution's or program's qualifications for accreditation or preaccreditation. At the agency's discretion, third-party comment may be received either in writing or at a public hearing, or both.
The agency's policy puts the responsibility for providing public notice on the institution being considered for preaccreditation or accreditation. While this has been found acceptable as an approach to comply with this criterion, the agency did not provide evidence that its institutions provide such an opportunity. The agency has not demonstrated its effective application of this approach to provide public notice to make 3rd party comments.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must demonstrate that it has an effective mechanism to provide an opportunity for third-party comment concerning the institution's or program's qualifications for accreditation or preaccreditation.
Analyst Remarks to Response:
The agency has revised its policy to require institutions to include the Council’s web site address in the advertisement announcing that it is up for reaccreditation in order to encourage comments from the general public regarding accreditation of institutions.
The agency will also solicit third-party comment for regarding an institution’s consideration for accreditation or preaccreditation through its website which it plans to implement in late May 2011.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must demonstrate effective application of its proposed revisions for providing opportunity for third-party comments.
§602.24 Additional procedures certain institutional accreditors must have.
If the agency is an institutional accrediting agency and its accreditation or preaccreditation enables those institutions to obtain eligibility to participate in Title IV, HEA programs, the agency must demonstrate that it has established and uses all of the following procedures:
(a) Branch campus.
(1) The agency must require the institution to notify the agency if it plans to establish a branch campus and to submit a business plan for the branch campus that describes--
(i) The educational program to be offered at the branch campus;
(ii) The projected revenues and expenditures and cash flow at the branch campus; and
(iii) The operation, management, and physical resources at the branch campus.
(2) The agency may extend accreditation to the branch campus only after it evaluates the business plan and takes whatever other actions it deems necessary to determine that the branch campus has sufficient educational, financial, operational, management, and physical resources to meet the agency's standards.
(3) The agency must undertake a site visit to the branch campus as soon as practicable, but no later than six months after the establishment of that campus.
The agency addresses the establishment of branch campuses as a substantive change. It has compliant written procedures for the review of branch campuses that require submission of a business plan at least thirty days prior to the campus becoming operational in accordance with the requirements of this section. The agency's policy requires the business plan to include all the information provided under subsection (1) of this section. The agency also provided the sample site visit report that demonstrates that the agency conducted a site visit within 180 days of the application in accordance with its policy.
However, the agency’s policies also state that decisions to (initially) approve branch campuses may be made by agency staff. The documentation provided appears to support that policy. If the initial approval of a branch campus enables that entity to participate in Title IV student financial aid programs, the approval is, in effect, an accreditation decision. The Department requires that all such decisions be approved by the Commission and not agency staff.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. It must clarify that initial approval of a branch campus does not include the branch under the institution’s accreditation or it must revise its policies and practices to require that the initial approval of branch campuses in the institution’s grant of accreditation must be made by the recognized accrediting body.
Analyst Remarks to Response:
The agency has appropriately revised its policies and procedures to ensure that the Commission, and not agency staff, approves branch campuses prior to inclusion in an institution's grant of accreditation. The agency needs to demonstrate its application of the revised policy.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. It must demonstrate its effective application of the revised procedures for the approval of branch campuses.
(b) Change of ownership.
The agency must undertake a site visit to an institution that has undergone a change of ownership that resulted in a change of control as soon as practicable, but no later than six months after the change of ownership.
The agency has a policy that requires it to conduct a site visit within 180 days of an institution that has submitted an application for a reinstatement of accreditation due to a change in ownership or control.
Though the agency has provided documentation that it conducts such a visit, the site visit reports shows that the visit was conducted on July 29, 2010 for an initial approval that occurred on September 17, 2009, more than the 180 days provided in the agency's policy and the six months provided for under this section.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must evidence that it follows its procedures for changes in ownership in accordance with the requirements of this section.
Analyst Remarks to Response:
The agency has described how it exercised an exception to its policy in the example it provided with its petition. Due to the institution's forthcoming visit for reaffirmation, the agency elected to conduct the site visit for change in ownership in association with the institution's reaffirmation visit. The agency has stated in its response that it will no longer exercise the waiver of the 180-day requirement for conducting such site visits. While the agency’s exercise of an exemption in the particular case appears to be a reasonable response, the agency must still demonstrate that it adheres to the requirement of this section for the changes of ownership applications it receives.
The agency has provided additional documentation demonstrating that it conducts such visits within the 180-day time frame for branch campuses. However, it has not provided documentation of conducting site visits within the 180-day time frame for changes in ownership.
Staff Determination: The agency must provide evidence that it follows its procedures for changes in ownership in accordance with the requirements of this section.
(2)The agency must evaluate the teach-out plan to ensure it provides for the equitable treatment of students under criteria established by the agency, specifies additional charges, if any, and provides for notification to the students of any additional charges.
The requirement under this section is that agencies have written procedures for the evaluation of teach-out plans that includes agency–developed criteria by which it will assess the effectiveness of the teach-out plan to provide equitable treatment of students, specifically and clearly identify any additional costs and appropriate mechanisms for notifying students of the charges.
The agency’s policy on the equitable treatment of students does not make clear that it has an effective mechanism to conduct such an evaluation to ensure the equitable treatment of students. It is also not clear that the agency has drawn a distinction between teach-out plan requirements and the teach-out agreement requirements. The agency must revise its policy/procedures to define criteria by which it can assess teach-out plans in accord with the requirements of this criterion.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must revise its policy/procedures to define criteria by which it can assess teach-out plans in accord with the requirements of this criterion.
Analyst Remarks to Response:
The agency has since revised its procedures for evaluating teach-out plans and has provided documentation that defines criteria under which it ensures the teach-out plan provides for the equitable treatment of students. These criteria include a curriculum comparison which ensures students will be provided with the instruction promised by the closed educational program; assurance that institutions are working with regulatory agencies for placement of students; and notification to students of additional charges, if any, for completing the course or program at the teach-out institution.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must demonstrate application of its revised procedures for evaluating teach-out plans.
(5) The agency must require an institution it accredits or preaccredits that enters into a teach-out agreement, either on its own or at the request of the agency, with another institution to submit that teach-out agreement to the agency for approval.The agency may approve the teach-out agreement only if the agreement is between institutions that are accredited or preaccredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency, is consistent with applicable standards and regulations, and provides for the equitable treatment of students by ensuring that-- (i) The teach-out institution has the necessary experience, resources, and support services to-- (A) Provide an educational program that is of acceptable quality and reasonably similar in content, structure, and scheduling to that provided by the institution that is ceasing operations either entirely or at one of its locations; and (B)Remain stable, carry out its mission, and meet all obligations to existing students; and (ii) The teach-out institution demonstrates that it can provide students access to the program and services without requiring them to move or travel substantial distances and that it will provide students with information about additional charges, if any.
The agency's policy mirrors the requirements of this section.
While the agency's policy mirrors the requirements of this section, the agency must define the criteria it will use to ensure that it provides for the equitable treatment of students given the parameters provided for under this section. The agency must more clearly define the evaluative factors it will adopt to approve teach-out agreements.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must define the criteria it will use to ensure that it provides for the equitable treatment of students when approving teach-out agreements.
Analyst Remarks to Response:
The agency has since revised its procedures for evaluating teach-out agreements and has provided documentation that defines criteria under which it ensures the teach-out agreement provides for the equitable treatment of students, and that the teach out institution has the necessary experience, resources, and support services in accordance with the requirements of this section. The agency has adopted criteria in its evaluation of teach-out agreement to include the following: assurance that agreements are between institutions in candidate or accredited status with an accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education; that the teach-out institution is geographically proximate to the closed program/institution; that the teach-out institution can remain stable, carry out its mission, and meet all obligations to existing students; that the teach-out institution can demonstrate compatibility of its program structure and scheduling to that of the closed program/institution; and, that the teach-out institution will provide students with information about additional charges, if any.
Staff Determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must demonstrate effective application of its revised procedures for evaluating teach-out agreements.
§602.25 Due process
(f)Provides an opportunity, upon written request of an institution or program, for the institution or program to appeal any adverse action prior to the action becoming final. (1)The appeal must take place at a hearing before an appeals panel that-- (i)May not include current members of the agency's decision-making body that took the initial adverse action; (ii)Is subject to a conflict of interest policy; (iii)Does not serve only an advisory or procedural role, and has and uses the authority to make the following decisions:to affirm, amend, or reverse adverse actions of the original decision-making body; and (iv)Affirms, amends, reverses, or remands the adverse action.A decision to affirm, amend, or reverse the adverse action is implemented by the appeals panel or by the original decision-making body, at the agency's option.In a decision to remand the adverse action to the original decision-making body for further consideration, the appeals panel must identify specific issues that the original decision-making body must address.In a decision that is implemented by or remanded to the original decision-making body, that body must act in a manner consistent with the appeals panel's decisions or instructions. (2)The agency must recognize the right of the institution or program to employ counsel to represent the institution or program during its appeal, including to make any presentation that the agency permits the institution or program to make on its own during the appeal.
The agency has clearly written procedures for the conduct of an appeal. The agency's conflict of interest policy applies to its appeal panel members and its appeal procedures also state the agency's expectations that panel members appropriately disclose potential conflicts of interest and restrict panel members from the same state of the appellate institution to hear the appeal.
The agency's appeal panel includes 45 members nominated by the agency's nominating committee and elected by the agency's Council from chief administrative officers accredited by the Council. Of the 45 members, six panel members are selected to hear an appeal. Also in accordance with this section, the agency's policy includes a restriction from current commissioners and agency staff to serve on the appeal panel to restrict members who were involved in making the original adverse decision. However, it is not clear from the agency’s documentation how it ensures that public members and academic and administrastive personnel are represented on its appeal board.
The agency's policy makes clear the appeal board's authority as required under subsections (iii) and (iv) of this section. The agency's procedures also recognize the right of the institution to be represented by counsel.
As demonstrated by the documentation provided for a sample appeal, the agency followed its appeal procedures in accordance with its policies at the time of the appeal and within the requirements of this section applicable at that time. However, the agency needs to provide documentation of an appeal under the current requirements or state they have not had an appeal under the current requirements.
Staff determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must provide documentation of an appeal under the current requirements or state they have not had an appeal under the current requirements. The agency must also provide documentation of how it ensures that the appeal board includes academic and administrative personnel and a representative of the public.
Analyst Remarks to Response:
Though the agency has provided documentation that demonstrates how it ensures that the appeal board includes academic and administrative personnel and a representative of the public in accordance with the requirements for a decision-making body, the agency has not responded to the provision of documentation for the conduct of an appeal to verify its conduct of appeals in accordance with the regulatory requirements of 602.25(f).
Staff Determination: The agency does not meet the requirements of this section. The agency must provide documentation of an appeal under the current requirements or state they have not had an appeal under the current requirements.
§602.26 Notification of accrediting decisions
The agency must demonstrate that it has established and follows written procedures requiring it to provide written notice of its accrediting decisions to the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing or authorizing agency, the appropriate accrediting agencies, and the public. The agency meets this requirement if the agency, following its written procedures--
(b) Provides written notice of the following types of decisions to the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing or authorizing agency, and the appropriate accrediting agencies at the same time it notifies the institution or program of the decision, but no later than 30 days after it reaches the decision:
(1) A final decision to place an institution or program on probation or an equivalent status.
(2) A final decision to deny, withdraw, suspend, revoke, or terminate the accreditation or preaccreditation of an institution or program;
Skip navigation
