Institutional accreditation for Title IV purposes.
Purpose:
To conform Regents rules to federal regulations relating to voluntary institutional accreditation for Title IV purposes.
Substance of revised rule:
Paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of section 3.12 of the Rules of the Board of Regents is amended to require that the Regents Advisory Council be comprised of at least 9 members, at least 2 of which shall be senior administrators; at least two 2 shall have experience as full-time faculty members in degree-granting institutions and at least one shall be a full-time faculty member at the time of appointment. At least two other voting members or one-seventh of the total voting members of the council, whichever is greater, shall be representatives of the public as defined in the proposed amendment.
Subdivision (e) shall be added to section 3.12 to create an institutional accreditation appeals board to review and decide appeals from an institution(s) of an adverse accreditation action(s) or probationary accreditation decision(s) of the Board of Regents pursuant the procedures outlined in section 4-1.5 of this Title. The proposed amendment defines the composition of the board.
Subdivision (d) of section 4-1.3 of the Rules of the Board of Regents is amended to clarify that the corrective action period may be extended for a maximum period of 12 months.
Subdivision (f) of section 4-1.3 of the Rules of the Board of Regents is amended to require an institution to obtain approval from the Commissioner and the Board of Regents before the department will include the substantive change in the scope of accreditation it previously granted to the institution.
Paragraph (3) of subdivision (f) of section 4-1.3 of the Rules of the Board of Regents is repealed.
Subdivision (g) of section 4-1.3 of the Rules of the Board of Regents is repealed and a new subdivision (g) is added to prohibit the Commissioner and the Board of Regents from granting initial or a renewal of accreditation to an institution, or a program offered by an institution, if the Commissioner and the Board of Regents knows, or has reasonable cause to know, that the institution is the subject of:
(1) a pending or final action against the institution or a program at such institution by a State agency to suspend, revoke, withdraw, or terminate the institution’s legal authority to provide postsecondary education in the State;
(2) a decision by a nationally recognized accrediting agency to deny accreditation or preaccreditation;
(3) a pending or final action brought by a nationally recognized accrediting agency to suspend, revoke, withdraw, or terminate the institution’s accreditation or preaccreditation; or
(4) probation or an equivalent status imposed by a recognized agency.
A new subdivision (h) shall be added to section 4-1.3 of the Rules of the Board of Regents to provide that if the Commissioner and the Board of Regents learn that an accredited institution, or an institution that offers a program it accredits, is the subject of an adverse action by another recognized accrediting agency or has been placed on probation or an equivalent status by another recognized agency, the Commissioner and the Board of Regents shall promptly review its accreditation through the compliance review procedure in section 4-1.5 of this Subpart to determine if it should also take adverse action or place the institution on probation. The Commissioner and the Board of Regents shall only grant accreditation or a renewal of accreditation to an institution described in subdivision (g) of this section if the institution satisfactorily meets the standards of the compliance review procedure described in section 4-1.5 of this Subpart. If the Commissioner and the Board of Regents grant accreditation or a renewal of accreditation after a compliance review, the Commissioner and the Board of Regents shall provide to the U.S. Secretary of Education, within 30 days of its action, a thorough and reasonable explanation, consistent with its standards, why the action of the other body does not preclude the grant of accreditation or renewal of accreditation.
Subdivision (g) of section 4-1.4 of the Rules of the Board of Regents is amended to require that the process and criteria for accepting transfer of credit be publicly disclosed and include a statement of the criteria established by the institution regarding the transfer of credit earned at another institution of higher education and a list of the institutions with which the institution has established articulation agreements.
Paragraph (2) of subdivision (l) of section 4-1.4 of the Rules of the Board of Regents shall be renumbered to paragraph (3) of subdivision (l) of section 4-1.4 of the Rules of the Board of Regents and a new paragraph (2) shall be added to subdivision (l) of section 4-1.4 to require an institution’s teach-out plan to ensure that it provides for the equitable treatment of students pursuant to criteria established by the Commissioner and the Board of Regents and that the plan specifies additional charges, if any, and provides for notification to the students of any additional charges.
Subdivision (a) of section 4-1.5 of the Rules of the Board of Regents is amended to allow an institution to seek the review of new financial information only once and to clarify that any determination on the new financial information does not provide a basis for appeal.
Subdivision (a) of section 4-1.5 of the Rules of the Board of Regents is amended to specifically provide that the Regents shall review any papers, written responses filed, the record before the advisory council, the record of its deliberations, and its findings and recommendations and any other information considered by the commissioner. In addition, if the Board of Regents decision includes an adverse accreditation action or probationary accreditation, the Board of Regents shall notify the institution of its right to a hearing before the institutional accreditation appeals board.
This subdivision is also amended to set forth the process for an appeal and/or a hearing of a determination of adverse accreditation action or probationary accreditation before the institutional accreditation appeals board.
Section 4-1.5 of the Rules of the Board of Regents shall be amended to require the Board of Regents to review any papers, written responses filed, the record before the advisory council, the record of its deliberations, and its findings and recommendations and any other information considered by the commissioner.
Paragraphs (9) and (10) of subdivision (c) of section 4-1.5 to require the Board of Regents to review any papers, written responses filed, the record before the advisory council, the record of its deliberations, and its findings and recommendations and any other information considered by the commissioner before issuing its decision.
It also describes the process for an institution to appeal a Regents determination of adverse accreditation action or granting probationary accreditation to the institutional accreditation appeals board.
Subdivision (d) of section 4-1.5 of the Rules of the Board of Regents shall be amended to changes the procedures for a change in scope of accreditation when there is a substantive change to conform with the federal requirements.
Revised rule compared with proposed rule:
Substantial revisions were made in section 4-1.5(d)(8).
Text of revised proposed rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from
Mary Gammon, State Education Department, Office of Counsel, 89 Washington Avenue, Room 148, Albany, New York 12234, (518) 474-6400, email: legal@mail.nysed.gov
Data, views or arguments may be submitted to:
Peg Rivers, State Education Department, Office of Higher Education, 89 Washington Avenue, Room 977EBA, Albany, New York 12234, (518) 478-1189, email: privers@mail.nysed.gov
Public comment will be received until:
30 days after publication of this notice.
Revised Regulatory Impact Statement
Section 4-1.5(d)(8) was amended to clarify the procedures for a denial of a change in scope of accreditation to reflect that the Board of Regents makes the final determination on a change in scope of accreditation and that appeals go to the institutional accreditation appeals board rather than the commissioner, to ensure that there is an independent review.
This amendment does not require changes to the previously published Regulatory Impact Statement.
Revised Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The revision does not require any changes to the previously published Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Small Businesses and Local Governments.
Revised Rural Area Flexibility Analysis
The revision does not require any changes to the previously published Rural Area Flexibility Analysis.
Revised Job Impact Statement
The proposed amendment clarifies existing standards and procedures that must be met by institutions of higher education seeking voluntary accreditation by the Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Education. The State Education Department expects that the proposed amendment will not have a negative impact on the number of jobs or employment opportunities at higher education institutions or in any other field, and that higher education institutions will use existing staff to satisfy accreditation requirements as part of their on-going responsibilities. Therefore, the amendment will have no impact on jobs or employment opportunities at these institutions. Because it is evident from the nature of the proposed amendment that it will have no impact on jobs and employment opportunities, no further steps were needed to ascertain these facts and none were taken. Accordingly, a job impact statement was not required and one was not prepared.
