# data[].attributes.body
Continuing Our Regulatory Odyssey: Final Accreditation Regulations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Earlier this year, the Department of Education engaged in negotiated rulemaking around several issues including state authorization and reciprocity, accreditation, distance education and innovation, regular and substantive interaction, competency-based education (CBE), TEACH grants, and faith-based institutions. Despite all odds and expectations, negotiators reached consensus on a comprehensive set of proposed regulations. In July of 2019, the Department released the first of three sets of proposed rules for public comment-those rules concerning state authorization, reciprocity, public disclosures, and accreditation. On October 31 st, the Department responded to almost 200 public comments and released final regulations.

Cheryl Dowd and Dan Silverman provided excellent analysis of the final state authorization, reciprocity, and public disclosure regulations. And if you are interested in taking a spin down memory lane and revisiting the larger saga of the 2019 negotiated rulemaking you can do so here, here, and here. Today, though, we are going to examine the final accreditation regulations with an eye towards what has changed and how they might impact your institution-specifically the regional scope of accreditation, the approval of new accreditors, changes to reviewer qualifications, faculty credentialing, and substantive change requirements.

A brief explanation of why the Department of Education is interested in accreditation

Accreditation is considered foundational to quality assurance in the American higher education system; in fact, accreditation by a federally recognized agency allows institutions to access federal financial aid. Historically, accreditors focused on institutional academic quality, but as both the cost of higher education and the amount of federal dollars flowing into higher education through financial aid have increased, accreditors have faced increased pressures to focus their attention on student success and institutional accountability and, when necessary, remove accreditation from poor performing institutions.

The most recent updates represent a shift in the purpose of accreditation and the role of accreditors.

Historically, accreditation was viewed as a voluntary effort that institutions could use to distinguish themselves from other schools. Many of the voluntary organizations that emerged were regional in nature and, as a result, accreditation from one of the seven regional accreditors (Middle States Commission on Higher Education, New England Association of Colleges and Schools, Higher Learning Commission, Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, and the Accrediting Commission on Community and Junior Colleges) was viewed by some to be the "gold standard" in accreditation. In addition to these seven regional accreditors, the Department of Education also recognizes five national accreditors and a number of organizations that accredit programs.

Regional scope of accreditation, 34 CFR 602.11 (b) and 602.14

The issue

Even though the Department of Education uses the exact same standards for all institutional accreditation agencies, regional accreditation is sometimes perceived as a superior and more rigorous form of accreditation. As a result, some institutions enacted policies that only allowed students to transfer credit from regionally accredited institutions. Additionally, some states restricted professional licensure to only graduates from regionally accredited institutions. As a result, some critics, including several within the Department, have argued that national accreditors suffer from bias and that students at nationally accredited institutions are unfairly targeted. As a result, Department of Education officials removed the distinction between regional and national accreditation, a priority during the most recent negotiated rulemaking.

Consensus and final language

The Department's final regulations did not include any changes to the consensus language, but did remove "geographic area" from the current scope of recognition definition and broaden the definition of the geographic area of accrediting activities found in 34 CFR 602.11 (b). Under the new definition, the geographic area of activity is no longer a region that includes at least three states and now becomes any region/states in which the accreditor chooses to function. The Department no longer recognizes a distinction between regional and national accreditors, but has instead focused on institutional accreditors versus programmatic accreditors.

Institutional impact

Institutional impact of this change will likely be minimal, although it is possible that states that include the term "regional accreditation" in their statutes could be impacted. In WCET's comments to the Department of Education, we raised a concern that because some state legislatures would not meet until 2021, it might be difficult for those states that cite regional accreditation in statute to come into compliance with federal regulations. The Department declined to delay this section of the regulations and countered, "it is incumbent upon State regulators to ensure the laws pertaining to an academic institution's required accreditation to qualify graduates for licensure and the procedures used to implement those laws do not disadvantage students who enroll in and complete programs at institutionally accredited institutions."

Approval of new accreditors, 34 CFR 602.12

The issue

Under existing federal regulations, an accrediting agency that wishes to be recognized by the Department of Education must have conducted at least two years of accrediting activities-a hard sell to institutions if their accreditation will not be recognized by the Department of Education for student Title IV financial aid eligibility. Additionally, current regulations also require that accrediting agencies that wish to expand their scope must already have accredited institutions/programs in area of expanded scope. The Department pushed for a change to these regulations in order to allow accreditors to "focus on education quality and allow competition."

Consensus and final language

The Department's final regulations do not include any changes to the consensus language. The final regulations remove the requirement that new accreditors seeking Department of Education approval must have conducted at least two years of accrediting activities as long as the organization is an "affiliate" or a division of a recognized accreditor. Additionally, the final regulations also remove the requirement that agencies that wish to expand their scope must already have accredited institutions in the expansion area.

Institutional impact

Although this change in the approval process of accreditors is perhaps one of the most controversial parts of the final regulations, its impact on institutions will likely be minimal. Critics of the new regulations argue that by easing the standards governing the approval of new accreditors, the Department will create a "race to the bottom" with newly recognized accreditors subject to much laxer standards. Additionally, those same critics suggest that easing restrictions on existing accreditors expanding their coverage area will result in institutions beginning to "shop" for less rigorous accreditors.

Changes to reviewer qualifications, 34 CFR 602.15

The issue

Current federal regulations require accreditation reviewers to have both appropriate education and experience for their review duties. As a result, accreditation committee members tend to be drawn from the ranks of academia and few subject matter experts employed outside of the academy are on review committees. Critics, including staff at the Department, have argued that this effectively excludes potential employers and other industry experts who have direct knowledge and experience with rapidly changing workforce needs and expectations. Although this may not be critical for institutional level accreditation, it could prove critical for program level accreditation.

Consensus and final language

The Department's final regulations do not include any changes to the consensus language. The final regulations remove the requirement that reviewers have both education and experience and instead require that although reviewers might have both, expertise in only one area-education or experience-is now required.

In addition to the changes to reviewer qualifications, the final regulations also explicitly make the inclusion of a student on an accreditor's decision-making body optional-an option that was not explicitly addressed in previous regulations.

Institutional impact

Although these changes are not likely to impact institution-level accreditation activities, they could have a significant impact on program-level accreditation activities. By equally valuing both academic knowledge and workforce experience, the Department is, in essence, signaling that accreditors should be more concerned with assuring that institutions are aligned with current and anticipated workforce needs and that graduates of those programs are well prepared to enter the workforce. This is a departure from the current focus of accreditation on academic quality and integrity.

Faculty credentials (for dual enrollment), 34 CFR 602.16

The issue

Dual and concurrent enrollment programs have exploded in the last several years-an 80 percent increase between 2002/03 and 2010/11 resulting in 1.2 million students enrolled in dual credit courses in the 2010/11 academic year, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics. Many school districts struggle with finding enough qualified faculty to teach dual credit courses, however, since accreditors require a different set of instructor credentials and standards for college level courses than are required for high school level courses. Similarly, colleges and universities sometimes struggle to find instructors for career and technical education programs associated with relatively new fields. Although it is possible to find practitioners who have the subject matter expertise to teach in these programs, they often do not have the traditional academic credentials preferred by accreditors. Accreditors do allow institutions to make exceptions to the credentialing requirements when appropriate, but many institutions are hesitant to do so, afraid that it will open them up to additional scrutiny during the accreditation process.

Consensus and final language

Although the Department's final regulations do not differ from the consensus language, they do slightly differ from the draft language published in June. When the Department published the draft regulations in June, it inadvertently omitted 602.16 (g) (4) which allows for the establishment of differing credential requirements for dual credit and career and technical education instructors. The final regulations include the consensus language that allows accreditors to adopt separate instructor credentialing standards for dual credit and career and technical education instructors.

Institutional impact

Unlike many of the regulatory changes associated with accreditation, this change could be very impactful for institutions by potentially making it easier to find dual credit and career and technical education instructors. It's important to note, however, that although the new regulations make allowances for differing instructor credentialing standards, accreditors are not required to establish different instructor credentialing standards. Institutions will only be impacted if their accreditor decides to establish different instructor credentialing standards.

Substantive change requirements, 34 CFR 602.22

The issue

Under the previous regulations, institutions were required to seek accreditor approval for a wide range of "substantive" changes that included the establishment of new modalities, new institutional locations, and any new degree program at a different level than those already at the institution. The substantive change process could add months to the implementation of new programs and modalities and often involved significant institutional resources. Some critics argued that these substantive change regulations made it more difficult for institutions to be responsive to regional or national demands for new types of programs and credentials, especially those closely associated with emerging workforce needs.

Consensus and final language

The Department made two minor technical corrections that are reflected in the final regulations but neither substantively changes the consensus language. The final regulations do make a number of changes to the substantive change approval process. By specifying in 602.22 (2) that the regulations are designed to only focus on "high-impact, high-risk changes," the Department effectively decreases the number of institutional and programmatic changes that will require accreditor approval. For example, whereas past regulations required accreditor approval for offering any new credential level, the final regulations only require accreditor approval if an institution not currently offering graduate programs wishes to begin doing so. Additionally, institutions in good standing which have already received approval to open two additional locations are no longer required to seek accreditor approval for opening additional locations; they simply must notify the accreditor of the new location. Equally important, the new regulations allow for several substantive changes to be approved by accreditor staff rather than be reviewed by full teams. These staff level approvals include:

changes in modality;

programs that represent a "significant departure" for the institution;

changes in how student progress is measured;

the acquisition of a teach out site; and

agreements with non-Title IV eligible organizations to offer 25-50 percent of a program.

The final category requires accreditor staff to provide a response within 90 days unless additional review is required (and then staff only have up to 180 days to respond).

Institutional impact

More than any other section of the revised accreditation regulations, the changes to this section could greatly impact institutions. The revised regulations are designed to reduce the number of substantive change approvals that institutions must pursue and streamline many of the remaining approvals.

As a result, institutions will be able to more readily and more quickly offer new programs and delivery modalities.

And unlike the changes in 34 CFR 602.16 which allow but do not require accreditors to make changes to instructor credentialing standards, these regulations make the changes to the substantive change process mandatory.

Our Regulatory Odyssey

Folks who've been watching the negotiated rulemaking process for the last eighteenth months know that this saga is far from over. If the actual rulemaking process earlier this year was analogous to Homer's Iliad (and the Trojan War), then the slow release of proposed rules, public comment, and final regulations must be the regulatory equivalent of Homer's Odyssey. In the Odyssey, Homer chronicles the (mis)adventures of Odysseus and his crew as they spend ten years attempting to return home after the Trojan War. During those years, Odysseus loses all of his crew to a rogue's gallery of cyclopeses, witches, sirens, cannibals, and petulant gods. He finally returns to his home in Ithaca, only to find a group of boisterous suitors attempting to marry his wife, Penelope.

I'll leave it to you, dear reader, to decide who in this ongoing regulatory saga is Polyphemus the cyclopes, the cannibalistic Laestrygonians, the lazy Lotus Eaters, Circe the witch, the bewitching Sirens, a vengeful Poseidon, the bothersome suitors, or even the ever faithful Penelope. One thing is certain, though; our regulatory odyssey is far from over and there are still obstacles to be traversed. For future regulatory packages, how many of the consensus regulations survive the journey or how many will succumb to the regulatory equivalent of Odysseus' rogue's gallery remains to be seen.

Van Davis
Policy and Planning Consultant WCET
vdavis@wiche.edu @historydoc

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Continuing Our Regulatory Odyssey: Final Accreditation Regulations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earlier this year, the Department of Education engaged in negotiated rulemaking around several issues including state authorization and reciprocity, accreditation, distance education and innovation, regular and substantive interaction, competency-based education (CBE), TEACH grants, and faith-based institutions. Despite all odds and expectations, negotiators reached consensus on a comprehensive set of proposed regulations.

# data[].attributes.body
Accreditor: MiddleStates
Online Learning History: 11 Years
Program Accreditations: 1
Names: Fabio Chacon
Email: fchacon@bowiestate.edu
Reason for Attending: Oncoming Accredititation

# data[].attributes.body
Accreditor: HLC
Online Learning Institutional History: 10+ years
Program Accreditation: Many and varied
Name: Stephanie Hinshaw
Email: Stephanie.Hinshaw@ace.edu

# data[].attributes.headline
Case Western Reserve University/Weatherhead School of Management

# data[].attributes.subject
Case Western Reserve University/Weatherhead School of Management

# data[].attributes.body
Accreditor: HLC
Online Learning Institutional History:  4-9 years for the broader institution/0-3 for my school
Program Accreditation: AACSB
Name: Suzanne Healy
Email: suzanne.healy@case.edu
Reason for Attending Workshop: To learn more about the accreditation/authorization process

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Menu

COVID-19 Updates

From testing data to health and safety priorities, recent messages to student resources, get our latest COVID-19 information.
Visit our site ➤

Race and Justice

As an institution of higher learning, Case Western Reserve has responsibility to work to eradicate systemic racism and improve our campus climate.
View our recent statements and resources ➤

Our Commitment to Welcoming All

Get updates on immigration developments, find resources for international students and faculty, and learn about our global reach.
Learn about our international presence ➤

Reach for the skies. Literally.

We offer hands-on experiences to nursing students in an advanced critical care setting-and with the nation's first medical helicopter simulator.

Take a look ➤

Want to know more about CWRU?

A quick peek into life around CWRU.

CWRU Entrepreneurship Speaker Series Join the CWRU Veale Institute for Entrepreneurship for a series of online roundtable discussions with business leaders on their careers, entrepreneurship and more.

Check the schedule for upcoming talks ➤

A leader in education and research since 1826.

Invest in our future.

What's going on @CWRU? Find out at:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
u.s. news and world report top universities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Case Western Reserve University - marcominfo@case.edu

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Case Western Reserve University: One of the nation's best

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Menu We offer hands-on experiences to nursing students in an advanced critical care setting-and with the nation's first medical helicopter simulator. Take a look ➤ Want to know more about CWRU? CWRU Entrepreneurship Speaker Series Join the CWRU Veale Institute for Entrepreneurship for a series of online roundtable discussions with business leaders on their careers, entrepreneurship and more.

# data[].attributes.body
Accreditor: HLC
Online Learning Institutional History: 10+ years
Program Accreditation: Many and varied
Name: Karen Pedersen
Email: karenpedersen@ksu.edu

# data[].attributes.body
MSCHE
20+ Years
Program Accreditation: Many
Kristen Betts
kbetts@drexel.edu
Share information about Peer Evaluation

# data[].attributes.body
PPT Slides

# data[].attributes.body
WCET:  https://wcet.wiche.edu

WCET/State Authorization Network (SAN):  https://wcetSAN.wiche.edu

WCET Frontiers: State Authorization Regulations, Nov. 4, 2019:   https://bit.ly/3534UlR

Regulations in the Federal Register:

https://bit.ly/2qXRl8g

Dept. of Ed. 2018-2019 Negotiated Rulemaking Webpage:  https://bit.ly/2NPvdWU

# data[].attributes.body
New England Commission of HE
History: 5 years
Sarah Cloud
sarah.c.cloud@dartmouth.edu
Learn about new policies

# data[].attributes.body
10+ years
NWCCU
Institution history: 10+ years
Program Institution: Oregon State University
Institution history: 10+ years
Program Accreditation
Oregon State University
Shannon Riggs
shannon.riggs@oregonstate.edu
Responsibilities include management of 70+ online programs for Oregon State Ecampus, including compliance and accreditation reporting

# data[].attributes.body
HLC
10+ yrs
Unsure
David Becker
dabecker@iu.edu
Curious to learn more about accreditation workshops.

# data[].attributes.body
HLC
10+ years
Miscellaneous Program Accreditation
Jennifer Mattingly
jmattingly@niu.edu
I’d like to learn more about navigating accreditation.

# data[].attributes.body
(Tennessee)
SACSCOC
Online Learning Institutional History: (10+ years)
Program Accreditation: various/many
Name: Amor Moran
Email: moranl@apsu.edu
Reason for attending workshop: Information and awareness so we can be forward looking and contribute to the university.

# data[].attributes.body
Accreditor:  Ontario Ministry of Colleges and Universities; Council on Chiropractic Education
Online Learning Institutional History: 4-9 yrs
Program Accreditation: DC degree (residential only); no full online degree programs - only some courses.
Name: David Wickes
Email: dwickes@cmcc.ca
Reason for Attending Workshop:  long history of accreditation with NWCCU, HLC, CCE (site team visitor, evaluator, review panel)

# data[].attributes.body
HLC
10+ years
Karen Gebhardt
karen.gebhardt@colorado.edu
To learn more about accreditation

# data[].attributes.body
SACS
10+ years online/over 20 years distance learning (remember VHS tapes?)
Brendan Haynie
bhaynie@liberty.edu
Interested in learning about all things accreditation

# data[].attributes.body
SACSCOC
Online Learning-Institutional History: 10+ years
Program Accreditation: 2-year
Name: Niki Whiteside
Email: niki.whiteside@sjcd.edu
Reason for attending: continuous improvement

# data[].attributes.body
SACSCOC
6 yrs
Veronica McEachin
Vmceachin@susla.edu
Need to learn more

# data[].attributes.body
SOCSCOC
History:
Program Accreditation: Many
Tracy Barley
Email: tracy_barley@subr.edu

# data[].attributes.body
Mohamed Ismail
mohamed.ismail@qatar.tamu.edu
Interested in learning about the accreditation process

# data[].attributes.body
Accreditor: SACSCOC
Online Learning History: 10+ years
Program accreditations: various including AACSB, ABET, CCNE, CSWE, etc.
Name: Dana R. Willett
Email: drw134@txstate.edu
Reason for Attending Workshop: Decennial reaffirmation approaching.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Denise M. Trauth is the ninth president of Texas State University, having served in the role since 2002. During that time, the university has been designated one of the state's Emerging Research Universities as well as a federal Hispanic-Serving Institution.

# data[].attributes.body
Middle states
0-3 years
None
Colleen Mayowski
mayowski@pitt.edu
Personal interest/teaching accreditation

# data[].attributes.body
WCET Frontiers:
https://wcetfrontiers.org

# data[].attributes.body
Accreditor: SACSCOC
Online Learning-Institutional History: 10+years
Program Accreditation: 2 - 5
Names: Katrieva Jones Munroe
Email: jones_kat@utpb.edu
Reason for Attending Workshop: to learn more about online programs rules and policies

# data[].attributes.body
Accreditor: MSCHE
Online Learning Institutional History: School-level initiative over the past year, first program to matriculate in Spring 2020
Program accreditation: CAPTE (physical therapy), ARC-PA (physician assistant)
Names: Dave Wert (PT), Dave Beck (PA)
email: Dave Wert (dmw29@pitt.edu), Dave Beck (dbeck@pitt.edu)
Reason for Attending Workshop: understanding language and best approach to presenting hybrid programs to professional accreditors (CAPTE, ARC-PA)