Commission Membership|
PowerPoint Presentation "What
Executives Need to Know" June 4, 2007 (Excerpted from a letter to Institutional Presidents and Chancellors from Dr. Barbara Beno) Dear Institutional President or Chancellor: I am writing to inform you that the U.S. Department of Education’s negotiated rulemaking sessions on accreditation concluded on Friday, June 1 with “no consensus.” This means that the Department of Education is free to propose whatever new regulations it might choose. The federal negotiator, however, indicated that the Department would make every effort to use the input and ideas that were generated from the conversations in developing the proposed regulations. As my letter to you dated May 1, 2007 indicted, the U.S. Department of Education convened the team of negotiators to rewrite the federal regulations governing the recognition of accrediting agencies and, thereby, the accreditors’ required evaluation of institutional quality. The Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (CRAC) was represented in these negotiations by Steve Crow (primary negotiator) of the Higher Learning Commission/North Central Association, and Ralph Wolff (alternate negotiator) of the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities/WASC.
CRAC stood firm
on the five principles that I outlined to you in my May 1, 2007
letter. Prior to the June 1 meeting, for example, CRAC registered,
through a letter to the Department, its concerns with the proposed
language on Section 602.16 of the regulations (required performance
data on vocational/technical education and programs leading to
licensure or certification) and the potential expense and burden
they would undoubtedly entail. This critically important section
was not discussed on June 1 because the negotiators took the entire
day to consider language about the process through which accrediting
agencies are recognized by the Department of Education.
Nevertheless, we believe we were able to convey the concerns of the
regional accrediting commissions regarding key areas of student
achievement and the process for recognizing accrediting commissions.
Barbara Beno, Ph.D.
May 1, 2007 RE: Negotiated Rulemaking Update As you know, the U.S. Department of Education has convened a team of negotiators to rewrite the current federal regulations governing the recognition of accrediting agencies. Departmental recognition enables the institutions of higher education that an agency accredits to establish eligibility to participate in Title IV programs. I am writing to update you on key issues related to the new accreditation regulations proposed by the Department of Education during these negotiations. Representatives from the regional accrediting bodies have negotiated in good faith but, along with all the non-federal negotiators, were unable to come to consensus during a third session. The Department has agreed to conduct a fourth and final session in a few weeks at which time it will seek consensus on the “total package” of negotiated changes. Without such agreement, which for past administrations has been binding for its publication seeking public comments on the regulations, the Department may revert to its original version of the regulations which place more responsibility on institutional accreditors to approve and monitor institutional performance in a number of areas. In negotiations, the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (CRAC) has adhered to five key principles:
CRAC has negotiated on the premise that we should accept reasonable changes that address public concerns about accountability, transparency, and transfer of credit. However, insofar as the proposed new regulations will increase responsibilities for institutions and accrediting agencies and have implications for institutional capacity and resources, the Commission is turning to member institutions for feedback. Even though there were numerous items discussed during negotiations, below is a description of the proposed changes that we think will have the greatest impact on institutions. The full text of these proposed regulations can be accessed on the DOE web site. www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/list.jhtml. Standards for Student Achievement (Section 602.16 (a)(1)(i) (Attached are the two most recent versions of the Department’s proposed language.) Current Proposal: The proposed regulations require agencies to have standards that (1) expect an institution to specify its goals for student achievement, establish expected levels of performance, and demonstrate performance against expected levels of performance using quantitative and qualitative evidence, including, as appropriate, external indicators; and (2) expect institutions with pre-baccalaureate vocational programs and degree programs leading to initial professional licensure or certification to demonstrate levels of performance by providing completion rates, job placement rates, and either pass rates on State licensing examinations, as applicable, or other measures of occupational occupancy. In addition, the proposed regulations expect an accrediting agency to demonstrate that its standards and processes allow it (1) to evaluate the acceptability of evidence supporting an institution’s performance and (2) to evaluate an institution’s expected level of performance taking into account externally-set performance measures or criteria. Institutional accreditors may consider this information “in the aggregate,” rather than reviewing individual vocational or degree programs. Previous Proposals: Previous iterations of regulations proposed by the Department required accrediting agencies (1) to set “bright line indicators” of programmatic performance and (2) to establish minimum quantitative standards for completion rates, job placement rates, and pass rates on licensing and professional certification exams for pre-baccalaureate vocational programs and for baccalaureate and professional degree programs leading to initial professional licensure or certification. Standards for the Transfer of Credit (Section 602.16(a)(1)(vii) Current Proposal: The proposed regulations require agencies to have standards on admissions that expect an institution (1) to stipulate that decisions about acceptance of transfer credit are not made solely on the source of accreditation of a sending institution or program and (2) to disclose their policies concerning transfer of credit and acceptance of credentials to prospective students. This is a new regulation and there is no previous federal legislation requiring accreditors to examine transfer of credit. All regional accreditors currently have policy or standards that require these things. Previous Proposal: Previous proposed regulations required accreditors to audit institutional decisions on transfer of credit. Other Proposals of Interest for Institutions The issues identified above are those with proposed changes that may have the greatest impact on institutions. However, there are four other issues that should be examined more closely as institutions prepare comments on the proposals. Substantive Change (Section 602.22 (a), (b), (c), (d). The proposed regulations (1) clarify the change in the scope of academic offerings that would require a substantive change review, (2) create a limited time period for an agency to grant prior approval for the addition of multiple locations, and (3) require an agency to define when institutional changes are extensive to the degree that a comprehensive evaluation of the institution is required. Monitoring Institutions (Section 602.19). The proposed regulations expect an agency to (1) require periodic reports and conduct special evaluations as necessary, (2) regularly collect and analyze information on key performance indicators, and (3) apply a set of monitoring and reevaluation approaches that enable the agency to identify potential problems with an institution’s continued compliance with standards and to take into account institutional strengths and stability. (Not yet discussed) Consideration of Mission in the Application of Standards (Section 602.17). The proposed regulations add a provision requiring an accrediting agency to demonstrate that it applies its standards in a manner that does not undermine the stated religious mission of any institution of higher education. Public Disclosure (Section 602.16(a)(1)(vii)(B). The proposed regulation expects an accrediting agency to require its institutions to publish information related to an institution’s effectiveness in fulfilling its mission, especially indicators for student achievement. (Not yet discussed) CRAC is sending this information to all institutions that are regionally accredited on behalf of each of the regional accrediting commissions. Regional accreditation is conducted through peer evaluation, and the regional commissions recognize that the leaders of member institutions have an important role to play in the outcome of the final regulations. Institutions are encouraged to contact the Executive of their regional accrediting commissions with comments on these proposed regulations. Barbara A. Beno, Chair CRAC April 26, 2007 (Excerpted from a letter to college Presidents, Superintendents, and Chancellors from Dr. E. Jan Kehoe, Commission Chair) RE: Proposed U.S. Department of Education Regulations Regarding Accreditation I know that
some superintendents/presidents and chancellors have been following
the discussions in Washington, D.C. around proposed changes to
accreditation processes and policies. These discussions started with
the Commission on the Future of Higher Education's release of its
report, "A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher
Education" last September. This report was followed by a one-day
meeting in November 2006 to solely discuss accreditation issues. In
March 2007, the Secretary held a two-day National Summit on Higher
Education, and accreditation was one of five key topics discussed.
Section 602.25 Due Process The proposed new regulations would require that accreditors insert a due process step into any decision-making process that results or could result in an adverse action (termination or denial of accreditation). Prior to such an action, the institution would need to be notified of the possibility of such action and have the opportunity to provide written materials to be considered. The regulations also provide for counsel during appeal, and for an appeals panel. These
changes would not be out of alignment with current ACCJC policy and
process. The ACCJC regards these as clarifying changes to the
regulations. This change would increase pressure on accreditors to take adverse action where warranted.
602.22 Substantive Change The proposed language reflects the
Department's willingness to allow accreditors to give institutions
with proven capacity the ability to open and close new sites without
a full substantive change review. But institutions given this
leeway must prove capacity to deliver quality services, as defined
by a specific list of elements, be accredited for 10 years, and be
permitted this flexibility only for a period of five years, after
which its capacity for sub change with integrity must again be
established through a capacity review of some sort. The proposed
language also requires accreditors to have a policy that explains at
what point the institution's substantive change is so great as to
trigger a new comprehensive review. Lastly, the proposed
regulations would deny accreditors the ability to provide
retroactive approval of substantive changes. The
regulations would also require accreditors to track programmatic
performance in the non-career oriented programs. For these
programs, the accreditor could permit the institution to establish
an expected level of performance, but the institution must specify
its educational objectives, base its level of performance in part on
"external criteria," and demonstrate its performance against those
external criteria using quantitative and qualitative measures that
are "externally validated." The accreditor's evaluation would have
to include evaluation of the appropriateness of the levels of
performance as well as of the documentation of that performance.
This issue
is very controversial and sensitive; institutions regard decisions
about transfer as central to upholding institutional educational
quality. The current legislation does not mention anything about
transfer of credit, so some may think the Department's attempt to
regulate in this area oversteps the law. The Higher Education
Community is likely to object to this regulation until Congress
includes reference to transfer in its law. 602.15 Agency Materials The proposed language would no longer require that accreditors keep institutional materials for two cycles, but only for one cycle. This proposed language would require accreditors to provide information to the Department of Education on an institution that is failing, but would prevent the accreditor from notifying the institution that it had provided such information. Accreditors object to this regulation. It would significantly alter the relationship of openness and trust between accreditor and institution that characterizes the present accreditation process. 602.23 Public Information The proposed regulations would require an accreditor to require each program or institution that it accredits to publish performance information, including all quantifiable data required for meeting accreditation standards on vocational education and related programs. This language drops the March proposal that accreditors maintain and publish this information, and makes institutions do it. On the other hand, institutions will not appreciate this. Since Section 602.16 describes the "measures" accreditors must use to evaluate vocational programs, this regulation would in effect force institutions to publish comparable data. Institutions might reasonably argue that data on completion and on job placement is dependent on admission requirements and labor market conditions, respectively, and is not fairly compared to data from other institutions. Institutional leaders are urged to stay abreast of further developments in the negotiated rulemaking sessions concerning accreditation. They may also want to share their views on the proposed changes to accreditation with their representatives in the Congress or with the Department of Education. The Commission
will continue to keep the field
informed about the process and outcomes of negotiated
rulemaking.
|