EDU-48-06-00005-A Voluntary Institutional Accreditation for Title IV Purposes

3/7/07 N.Y. St. Reg. EDU-48-06-00005-A

NEW YORK STATE REGISTER

VOLUME XXIX, ISSUE 10

March 07, 2007

RULE MAKING ACTIVITIES

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

NOTICE OF ADOPTION

 

I.D No. EDU-48-06-00005-A

Filing No. 215

Filing Date. Feb. 20, 2007

Effective Date. Mar. 08, 2007

Voluntary Institutional Accreditation for Title IV Purposes

PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following action:

Action taken:

Amendment of Subpart 4-1 of Title 8 NYCRR.

Statutory authority:

Education Law, sections 207 (not subdivided), 210 (not subdivided), 214 (not subdivided), 215 (not subdivided), and 305(1) and (2)

Subject:

Voluntary institutional accreditation for Title 8 purposes.

Purpose:

To establish requirements and clarify existing standards and procedures that must be met by institutions of higher education voluntarily seeking institutional accreditation or renewal of such accreditation by the Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Education.

Text or summary was published

in the notice of proposed rule making, I.D. No. EDU-48-06-00005-P, Issue of November 29, 2006.

Final rule as compared with last published rule:

No changes.

Text of rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from:

Anne Marie Koschnick, Legal Assistant, Office of Counsel, Education Department, State Education Bldg., Rm. 148, Albany, NY 12234, [phone], e-mail: [e-mail]

Assessment of Public Comment

The proposed rule was published in the State Register on November 29, 2006. Below is a summary of written comments received by the State Education Department (SED) and SED's assessment of issues raised.

COMMENT: The regulation requires greater accountability for all Regents-accredited institutions of higher education, without exception. All New York State students should benefit from these practices no matter what Regents accredited college they attend.

RESPONSE: SED agrees with the comment. No response to this comment is necessary.

COMMENT: We support the fact that the regulation provides flexibility in cases where there is good cause to extend the term of accreditation. RESPONSE: No response to this comment is necessary.

COMMENT: Accrediting bodies are responding to the nationwide appeal to assist colleges in demonstrating student learning outcomes and in assessment. The emphasis placed on learning outcomes, assessment and related provisions in the regulation are welcome.

RESPONSE: No response to this comment is necessary.

COMMENT: The changing and ever more demanding higher education environment requires that one explore seriously and act upon every opportunity to articulate and apply criteria and standards that will better guarantee the appropriate delivery of higher education to all students in New York State.

RESPONSE: SED agrees. This regulation requires greater accountability from Regents-accredited institutions which, in turn, will benefit students enrolled in higher education institutions in New York State.

COMMENT: The elevation of accrediting standards embodied in the regulation renders the Board of Regents as an accrediting body on par with regional accrediting associations. Some colleges that may have previously contemplated pursuing regional accreditation may now be seriously tempted to consider the Regents accreditation instead.

RESPONSE: No response to this comment is necessary.

COMMENT: This regulation requires regionally accredited institutions to accept transfer credits from Board of Regents accredited institutions.

RESPONSE: This comment is incorrect. The regulation only applies to higher education institutions that have chosen the Regents as their institutional accreditor. This regulation does not affect higher education institutions accredited by a different accrediting agency. This regulation prohibits a Regents-accredited institution from denying transfer credit solely on the sending institution's choice of an accrediting agency approved by the U. S. Secretary of Education and requires the learning objectives of each course offered by a Regents-accredited institution be at a level and rigor that warrants transfer acceptance. This change was made to encourage institutions accredited by other accrediting agencies to do the same.

COMMENT: The regulation revises the current standards for graduation and job placement rates. While the three percent annual improvement rate in the prior regulation was ineffective, the new requirement that institutions submit a plan if its graduation or job placement rates fall more than five percentage points below the statewide mean may not have sufficient rigor. The Department should closely monitor the new standards over a two-year period to ascertain the extent of the regulation's impact and determine whether further revisions are needed.

RESPONSE: The three percent annual improvement rate in the previous regulation was ineffective. This regulation holds institutions more accountable for their graduation and job placement rates. The five percentage point requirement is a stepping stone for those institutions who are currently just meeting the three percent annual improvement standard. SED will monitor the effect of the new standards for graduation and job placement to see whether these standards should be made more rigorous in the future.

COMMENT: The regulation gives the Commissioner the flexibility to extend a term of accreditation for up to 12 years for good cause.

RESPONSE: This comment is incorrect. The proposed amendment provides the Commissioner with the ability to extend a term of accreditation for up to 12 months for good cause; not 12 years as the comment suggests.

COMMENT: A commenter supports the regulation to the extent it expands on what should be included in an institutional mission statement, upgrading the minimum credentials expected of faculty teaching in undergraduate programs, and requiring an institution to file a notice of intent to appeal an adverse decision or a decision to grant probationary accreditation before commencing an appeal.

RESPONSE: No response to this comment is necessary.

COMMENT: The proposed regulation assumes that the goal of higher education is job placement. As many as one-third of the students at our institution are enrolled not for the purposes of “job placement” but personal enrichment. Furthermore, there exists no “standard” by which to measure job placement in ministry; as defined by our institutional mission, we prepare for ministry lay persons (volunteers) as well as clergy.

RESPONSE: The current regulation, specifically § 4-1.4(b)(3)(ii) of the Rules of the Board of Regents uses job placement rates as an evaluation standard. The regulation amends the current job placement standard to make institutions more accountable for their job placement rates. The Board of Regents cannot ignore job placement as a dimension of assessment of student achievement. The U.S. Secretary of Education requires every Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agency to include, as appropriate, job placement rates in its assessment of “[s]uccess with respect to student achievement in relation to the institution's mission” [34 CFR § 602.16(a)(i)]. Moreover, § 4-1.4(b)(3)(ii) of the Rules of the Board of Regents does not assume that “the goal of higher education is job placement”. In fact, the regulation limits the applicability of job placement rates to “an institution whose mission includes preparation of students for employment.” If an institution's mission includes the preparation of some of its students for employment, the requirement for job placement rates will only apply with respect to those students seeking gainful employment. Therefore, no revision to the regulation is necessary.

COMMENT: The regulation requires all institutions to provide instruction in information literacy. As a graduate institution, our institution requires information literacy as a prerequisite.

RESPONSE: If an institution requires information literacy as a prerequisite for admission, then in SED's judgment the institution would meet this requirement of the regulation.

COMMENT: The proposed amendment would require an institution to archive annually all print and online catalogs and retain archived copies permanently. The commenter asked whether permanently meant “eternally and beyond,” whether such a requirement is necessary and realistic, and whether it is the intent of the regulation to require an institution to archive both print and online catalogs.

RESPONSE: Permanent is defined as “continuing or enduring without fundamental or marked change: stable” [Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary and Thesaurus]. Consequently, this regulation requires an institution to maintain a continuing or enduring archive of both its print and online catalogs. SED believes this requirement is both necessary and realistic. It would codify, for accredited institutions, an SED policy applicable to all degree-granting institutions in the State to assure that both former students and peer reviewers have access to historical as well as current information about an institution and its programs and services. Therefore, no revision is necessary.

COMMENT: A commenter supports the regulation to the extent that it provides a plan to improve student achievement for institutions reporting associate degree completion rates more than five percentage points below the mean associate degree completion rate for all institutions in the state.

RESPONSE: No response to this comment is necessary.

COMMENT: The regulation provides that an institution “shall not refuse a student's request for transfer of credit based solely upon the source of accreditation of the sending institution”. It is recommended that the Regents and the Department enact similar regulatory language applying to all degree-granting institutions in New York State.

RESPONSE: This regulation only applies to higher education institutions that have chosen the Regents as their accrediting agency. However, it was made to encourage institutions accredited by other accrediting agencies to do the same. Applying such language to all degree-granting institutions in the State would require amending Part 52 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, which is not before the Board of Regents at this time.

COMMENT: The proposed amendments are appropriate and likely to improve the accreditation process and the institutions affected.

RESPONSE: SED agrees. No response to this comment is necessary.