REPORT
ON INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITATION
BY THE BOARD OF
REGENTS
INTRODUCTION
Why would
an institution seek accreditation if accreditation is voluntary? The most compelling reason is that
students who attend colleges accredited by an accrediting body recognized by the
U.S. Secretary of Education are eligible for federal student financial aid
(e.g., Pell Grants and student loans).
There are additional reasons for institutions to seek accreditation. The
accreditation process verifies that an institution or program meets established
standards. This information may be
helpful to consumers in selecting a college. Accreditation may assist institutions in
determining the acceptability of transfer credits. Private and public agencies often
require that an institution be accredited prior to investing funds or providing
grants to that institution.
Accreditation
is important to the institution as an impetus for self-reflection and continued
improvement. It assists the
institution in creating a culture of involvement across the college or
university in institutional evaluation and planning. Accreditation also provides
a unique process for peer review and constructive feedback and recommendations
for improvement.
The Regents
Advisory Council on Institutional Accreditation (RAC) is a key external
accreditation component of the Regents institutional accreditation process. It has nine voting members who are
educators and public representatives. Its purpose is to review applications for
accreditation and renewal of accreditation of New York colleges and universities
voluntarily seeking accreditation by the Regents and the Commissioner and to
make recommendations to the Regents and the Commissioner based on its review.
The RAC also reviews such other matters as the Department may ask it to
review. It also advises the
Department on institutional accreditation procedures, standards, and policies
(§3.12(d)(1) of the Regents Rules).
The RAC meets
twice a year to review all applications for accreditation and renewal of
accreditation that are submitted to it by the Deputy Commissioner for Higher
Education. The organization, procedures and responsibilities of the RAC are set
forth in its bylaws. Attachment A is a list of the current members of the
RAC.
Twenty of the 268 colleges and universities
in New York State (7.5 percent) have been granted institutional accreditation by
the Regents. Of the 20
institutions, 14 (70 percent) are independent colleges and universities and 6
(30 percent) are proprietary colleges.
The size and scope of institutions vary greatly. Twelve of the
institutions (60 percent) offer undergraduate programs (3 at the baccalaureate
level and 9 at the associate level); the other 8 institutions (40 percent) offer
only graduate programs and do not enroll undergraduates. In the fall of 2004, the accredited
institutions enrolled a total of 12,150 students with the smallest enrollment, 3
graduate students, at North Shore-Long Island Jewish Graduate School of
Molecular Medicine. The largest enrollment is at Interboro Institute where 3,829
students are seeking associate degrees.
This report has three parts: a summary of accreditation actions; a
summary of the peer review training and selection; and an update on the process
for renewal of the recognition of the Board of Regents and Commissioner of
Education as an institutional accrediting agency.
Discussion of
this report will meet the federal requirement to update the Board of Regents
twice a year on accreditation standards, policies, and procedures. Federal regulations require every
recognized accrediting agency to assure that it has “competent and knowledgeable
individuals, qualified by education and experience in their own right and
trained by the agency on its standards, policies, and procedures, to conduct its
on-site evaluations, establish its policies, and make its accrediting and
preaccrediting decisions.” An
accrediting agency also must maintain a systematic program of review of its
accreditation standards to demonstrate that the standards are adequate to
evaluate the quality of the education and training provided and relevant to the
educational and training needs of students. The Department included such a program
of evaluation in the application for renewal of recognition.
PART I -
ACCREDITATION ACTIONS
The
Regents accreditation action is the culmination of an intensive process of
review:
Ø
An institution
applying for voluntary accreditation must submit a self-study. This comprehensive process should
involve the entire community of the college under review. The self-study
requires an examination of the institution and the contributions of its
departments to the institution as a whole. The process is intended to assure
compliance with the accreditation standards as well as to help identify areas
that need strengthening and suggest future actions.
Ø
The self-study and supporting documents
are reviewed by a peer review team and the team conducts a site visit, led by
Department staff. The comprehensive
site visit results in a draft report.
Ø
The institution has an opportunity to
respond to the report to correct errors of fact and provide additional
information.
Ø
The institution’s response, the review
team’s recommendation for accreditation and the draft report comprise the
compliance report.
Ø
The compliance report and other materials
are reviewed by the RAC at its bi-annual meeting. Presentation by staff, the institution’s
representatives, and readers from the RAC contribute to the process.
Ø
After review, the RAC makes its
recommendation to the Commissioner and the Board of Regents.
Ø
In the case of a
recommendation that is other than accreditation without condition, the
institution and/or the Deputy Commissioner has the right to appeal the RAC’s
accreditation decision as set forth in Section 4-1.5(b)(9) of Regents
Rules.
Ø
If neither the
institution nor the Deputy Commissioner appeals the RAC’s findings and
recommendation, the Commissioner adopts the RAC’s findings and recommendation as
the Commissioner’s findings and recommendation to the Regents.
Ø
At a regularly
scheduled public meeting, the Board of Regents considers the Commissioner’s
findings and recommendation and makes the final determination on accreditation
action.
The
Regents may act or defer action in the accreditation process. The possible
accreditation actions under the Protocol for the Review of Institutions Seeking
Accreditation or Renewal of Accreditation, as listed in the Handbook for
Institutional Accreditation, are:
·
Accreditation without
condition. The institution is
in full compliance with the standards for institutional accreditation. Any follow-up matters are not, in the
judgment of the Regents, of a nature or scope that affects the institution’s
capacity to maintain adherence to the institutional accreditation standards for
the period of accreditation.
Recommendations or any follow-up reports relate either to minor
compliance matters or to the strengthening of practices that meet the standards
of compliance. Accreditation
without condition may be for a period of up to ten years. Accreditation without condition may
apply to institutions seeking initial accreditation or renewal of
accreditation.
·
Accreditation with condition. The
institution is in substantial compliance with the standards for institutional
accreditation. Any areas of
non-compliance are not of such nature or scope as to call into question the
institution’s substantive adherence to the institutional accreditation standards
during the term of accreditation.
The institution has demonstrated the intent and capacity to rectify
identified deficiencies and strengthen practice in marginally acceptable matters
within no more than two years.
Department accreditation staff and/or peer reviewers may make follow-up
visits to confirm compliance on specified matters. Accreditation with condition may be for
a period of up to ten years, contingent on a finding of compliance within no
more than two years on any areas for deficiency cited in the Regents
accreditation action. Accreditation
with condition may apply to institutions seeking initial accreditation or
renewal of accreditation.
·
Probationary accreditation. The institution is in partial compliance
with institutional accreditation standards and may reasonably be expected to
meet accreditation standards within no more than two years. During this period, the institution
provides documentation of compliance with standards, particularly all standards
that were not met at the time of the Regents action. A follow-up visit by Department staff
and/or peer reviewers may be required following provision of a required report.
Probationary accreditation may apply only to institutions seeking renewal of
accreditation.
·
Denial of accreditation. The institution does not meet standards
for institutional accreditation and cannot reasonably be expected to meet those
standards within two years. Denial
of accreditation may apply to institutions seeking initial accreditation or
renewal of accreditation.
During
the past five years, the Regents have deferred action once and extended the
terms of two institutions pending accreditation reviews and
action. The attached
chart details the accreditation actions of the Regents since 2000. In summary, the Regents have taken the
following actions:
Ø
Accreditation without
conditions: 13
institutions
Ø
Accreditation with
conditions:
11 institutions
Ø
Probationary
accreditation:
1 institution
Ø
Denial of
accreditation:
1 institution
Both the RAC and the Board of Regents have
amended accreditation recommendations after a thoughtful review of an
institution’s accreditation materials.
The following illustrates the changes from the review team/staff
recommendation to Regents action.
·
18 accreditation recommendations were
adopted without change from the review team’s recommendation to the RAC to the
Regents.
·
Six accreditation recommendations were
changed by the RAC from the review team’s recommendation; the Regents adopted
the RAC changes.
·
The Regents changed three accreditation
recommendations from the review team/RAC’s recommendation.
·
One recommendation was changed by the RAC,
and changed again by the Regents.
Please
see Attachment B for a complete list of all accreditation actions since
2001.
Requirements for maintaining
accreditation.
The
institutions that received accreditation are required to submit annual reports
to the Department and a self-study at the mid-point of the accreditation
period. The Department may use what
it learns from the annual reports and mid-term self-study to raise questions
about compliance with the standards and may schedule a site visit to review
compliance, if necessary.
Requirements for institutions achieving
accreditation with conditions.
The
institutions that received accreditation with conditions were found to have
areas needing improvement but are in substantial compliance with the
accreditation standards. They
generally received shorter accreditation terms than institutions achieving
accreditation without condition, and are required to make specific reports on
the areas of improvement identified, in addition to the annual reports and
mid-term self-studies required of all accredited institutions. The Department may schedule a site visit
to review specific areas, if necessary.
Requirements for institutions granted
probationary accreditation.
The
institution granted probationary accreditation was found not to be in
substantial compliance with one or more standards; however, the Regents
determined that the institution had reasonable prospects of coming into
compliance within two years. The
institution was required to make periodic progress reports. Peer review teams visited the
institution towards the end of the probationary period to review compliance with
the standards at issue. The Regents
subsequently determined that the institution met the standards for accreditation
but required additional reports of progress in specified areas in order to
monitor its continuing compliance.
Denial of
accreditation.
One institution was denied accreditation. That institution appealed the action and
the appeals process was utilized for the first time. A standing committee of members of the
Board of Regents Higher Education and Professional Practice Committee were
appointed to hear the appeal. The
appeal was subsequently denied and the accreditation action was upheld by the
full Board of Regents.
Renewal of
Accreditation. The initial and renewal of accreditation
process follow the accreditation process outlined earlier in this report.
PART II - THE PROCESS FOR RENEWAL OF
RECOGNITION
In the fall of
2006, the Department will submit an application to the U.S. Department of
Education (USDE) for renewal of recognition. The National Advisory Committee
will consider the application in the spring of 2007. USDE staff provide guidance in
submission of the application.
The application will include the
Department’s report on the comprehensive review of the Regents Institutional
Accreditation Standards in assuring quality in higher education. The standards must be reviewed
continually for relevance and effectiveness in assuring quality in higher
education. The current review
process began in 2002. In
November 2003, the Department provided the Secretary of Education with an update
on its progress in this review. The report summarized the results of two
constituent surveys and two colloquia for accredited institutions that the
Department hosted, one in the fall of 2002 and one in the fall of 2003. A third colloquium was held in the fall
of 2004. At the conclusion of the
colloquium, representatives of the accredited institutions and others attending
the session completed the detailed review of each accreditation standard and the
standards as a whole. Immediately
following the colloquium, the Regents Advisory Council on Institutional
Accreditation met to review all the input to-date from the various constituency
groups. The Advisory Council
continued its review of the suggested revisions to the standards at its December
2004 and April 2005 meetings. In the fall of 2005, the Department will update
the Board of Regents on any proposed revisions in the accreditation standards
for consideration, followed by a period of public comment. Regents action would then be necessary
to revise the accreditation standards.
The Department
has submitted a State legislative proposal to require institutions that
requested accreditation by the Board of Regents to pay an annual fee. All other
accrediting agencies charge a fee for their services. With the Department’s
responsibility for both institutional accreditation and Regents Accreditation of
Teacher Education (RATE), additional resources will allow us to continue these
functions while at the same time provide other services the Office of College
and University Evaluation is required to do pursuant to Commissioner’s
Regulations. The status of this
proposal will also be included in the Department’s application to
USDE.
PART III
– PEER REVIEWER TRAINING
As part of the accreditation
process, a peer review team conducts a site visit to the institution seeking
accreditation to examine how the institution is addressing the Regents standards
for accreditation. Training the
peer reviewers is an important part of the process.
The Office of Higher
Education held its third training of peer reviewers in March 2005. Twenty-six trainees (See Attachment C)
attended the March session, representing the public, the independent and the
proprietary colleges and universities.
All New York colleges and universities were asked to nominate persons to
attend the training, based on criteria provided. Twenty-eight peer reviewers were
selected after a review of all nominations; two were not able to attend. In the selection process of the
trainees, Department staff considered the types of institutions the Regents
accredit and gaps in the existing pool of reviewers. For example, several graduate
institutions are now accredited by the Regents, many in the area of the
biological sciences. The nomination
and selection process made the training of reviewers with this background a
priority. As a result, the
Department has a well-rounded pool of reviewers.
The
Regents have asked how reviewers are selected for a visit. Consideration is given to the type of
institution, the size of the institution, the programs it offers, and any areas
of particular concern that have been identified in the self-study process, the
annual report, or other reports and data the Department has reviewed. The reviewers must sign a statement
attesting that there is no conflict of interest and the institution reviews the
proposed site visit team list. An
institution may object to a reviewer for cause. The objection is recognized and the
reviewer replaced. Consideration is
also given to the geographic location of a college to avoid using reviewers from
competing institutions.
A
review team is usually comprised of four or five reviewers but may vary
depending on the institution and the purpose of the visit. For example, on the visit to Cold Spring
Harbor Laboratory, the review team was comprised of an Associate Vice Chancellor
at the University of Connecticut at Stamford; a Professor and a
Professor-Emeritus of Biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and an
Associate Professor of Molecular Biology at Princeton University. The accreditation visit to Wood-Tobe
Coburn School, Inc., a small proprietary college in Manhattan, included a
Professor of Graphic Arts at Tompkins Cortland Community College; a Professor of
Marketing/Retail/Fashion at Nassau Community College; the Assistant Dean of
Academic Affairs at Schenectady County Community College; a Professor of
Business and Accounting at the College of St. Rose; an Associate Professor of
Fashion Design at Cazenovia College; and the Dean of Academic Affairs at North
Country Community College.
An electronic database is
maintained as well as a file of the resume of each reviewer. Expanding the pool of reviewers through
the comprehensive training process will continue to be a
priority.
SUMMARY
The Department
has seen substantial growth by institutions going through the Regents
accreditation process. Institutions have informed Department staff and the
Regents Advisory Council on Institutional Accreditation on the ways in which
this process has helped to strengthen the institution.
The Regents
accreditation standards and the institutional accreditation policies and
procedures have been tested and the process works well. The comprehensive review of the
standards; and possible revisions of some of the standards as a result of the
reviews at the three colloquia, will lead to a strengthening of the
process. The Department will
provide members of the Board of Regents with the suggested revisions to their
accreditation standards in the fall of 2005.
Attachments
