|
|
THE
STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234 |
|
TO: |
The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents |
|
FROM: |
Johanna Duncan-Poitier |
|
COMMITTEE: |
Higher Education and Professional Practice |
|
TITLE OF
ITEM: |
The King’s College: Confirmation of Compliance with the Standards for Accreditation in Part 4 of the Rules of the Board of Regents and Renewal of Institutional Accreditation with Condition |
|
DATE OF
SUBMISSION: |
February 18, 2005 |
|
PROPOSED
HANDLING: |
Approval |
|
RATIONALE FOR
ITEM: |
Action on The King’s College application for renewal of institutional accreditation is needed because the College has designated the Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Education as its nationally recognized accrediting agency |
|
STRATEGIC
GOAL: |
Goal 2 |
|
AUTHORIZATION(S): |
|
SUMMARY:
This item was submitted for action at the
January 10, 2005 Regents meeting and was held over for additional information.
·
The King’s
College, New York City, seeks a renewal of its institutional accreditation by
the Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Education, pursuant to the
standards and procedures set forth in Part 4 of the Rules of the Board of
Regents. The King’s College is a
Regents-chartered independent college offering an Associate in Arts (A.A.)
degree program in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, and Bachelor of Science
(B.S.) degree programs in Organizational Management, Business Management, and
Childhood Education. The College was initially established in Briarcliff Manor
and was authorized to confer degrees in 1955. The Regents have accredited it since
1955. It ceased operation in
December 1994 due to financial difficulties. However, the College’s charter remained
in force. In 1999, it sought and
received approval of a charter amendment and master plan amendment to establish
the College in its new location in New York City.
·
The
College’s institutional accreditation, based on a transitional review conducted
in 2001, was for a period of three years extending to March 18, 2005. The conditions imposed based on that
review--to develop a strategic plan, a formal faculty governance structure, and
a system to track student achievement--were all met within the specified time
frame.
·
In November
2004, following a review of the College’s self-study, a team composed of peer
reviewers, a staff member, and a staff review coordinator visited the College as
part of the review for renewal of institutional accreditation to assess the
College's compliance with the standards for institutional accreditation. Department staff and the peer reviewers
drafted the compliance review report of their findings and recommendations. The Department transmitted the draft
report to the College for review and comment. The team's overall assessment was
that the College had made significant progress since the prior review and was in
substantial compliance with the standards for accreditation.
·
The
Department’s Office of Audit Services reviewed the College’s audited financial
statements for the period ending August 31, 2004. Although the College had exhibited
financial weaknesses in the past, the College has the stability to operate
effectively and has adequate assets to demonstrate financial viability.
1.
It has net
assets of $8.2 million.
2.
It is and
has been heavily dependent on donations to meet its fiscal needs, specifically
80 percent of its revenue during the period reviewed. However, tuition revenues have been
steadily increasing.
3.
In instances
of a revenue shortfall, the College has two lines of credit totaling
approximately $4.5 million. The
College states that it is under contract to sell property for $10.5 million,
increasing the availability of additional liquid
assets.
·
Based on the
perception that the College is in a period of transition, the team recommended
that the College’s accreditation be renewed for a period of five years with the
following conditions:
1.
Submit a
progress report by June 30, 2006, on the effectiveness of the institutional
assessment plan in supporting the mission and meeting institutional
goals.
2.
Submit a
progress report by June 30, 2006, on the development of new programs of study
and an evaluation of student outcomes in the existing curricula, to include a
survey of student views of the new curricula.
· The College accepted the recommendations in the draft report and noted the measures that had been or were already in the process of being implemented in response to many of the suggested actions.
· Upon receiving The King’s College’s comments, the Department prepared a final report, including its recommendation for accreditation action, and transmitted it to the Regents Advisory Council on Institutional Accreditation for consideration. (The Regents Advisory Council is established in §3.12(d) of the Rules of the Board of Regents.)
· The Advisory Council met on December 10, 2004. It considered the Department’s recommendation for accreditation action and the self-study and report underlying that recommendation; met with representatives of the College; and, following discussion, agreed with the Department’s conclusion that The King’s College is in substantial compliance with the standards for accreditation. The Department’s summary of the renewal review and recommendation for accreditation action is attached to this item.
· The Advisory Council unanimously endorsed the Department’s recommendation that the Regents renew The King’s College’s accreditation with condition for a period of five years. Neither the College nor the Deputy Commissioner has appealed the Advisory Council’s recommendation.
· The Department agrees with the findings and recommendations of the Regents Advisory Council on Institutional Accreditation and recommends that the institutional accreditation of The King’s College be renewed for five years with condition.
· Regents with a conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict of interest, on this application are asked to recuse themselves from participating in this deliberation and decision.
Recommendation: I join the Regents Advisory Council on Institutional Accreditation in recommending that the Regents take the following action:
VOTED, That the Board of Regents renew the institutional accreditation of The King’s College, effective March 18, 2005 and ending on March 17, 2010, with the following conditions:
1.
Submit a
progress report by June 30, 2006, on the effectiveness of the institutional
assessment plan in supporting the mission and meeting institutional
goals.
2.
Submit a
progress report by June 30, 2006, on the development of new programs of study
and an evaluation of student outcomes in the existing curricula, to include a
survey of student views of the new curricula.
Attachment