TO: Department of Education-Negotiated Rule Making Committee

FROM: Amy Ackerson, Nursing Program Approvers Constituency

RE: Proposed 34 C.F.R. Part 604 – The Secretary’s Recognition of State Agencies for the 

Approval of Nurse Education (Proposed Changes with Rationale) 

DATE: February 5th, 2024 

Issue:

1. Current language from the 1969 Federal Register is not in line with current 

practice/language that is used by National Council for State Boards of Nursing or the 

State Approval Agencies (Nursing Regulatory Boards). As a reminder, NRB approval 

rules are set in state statute and any change to the rules requires rule making procedures 

at the state level.

2. The goal is to update the register language, move the language to rule, and to align more 

closely to programmatic accreditation. This can be difficult as approval and accreditation 

are fundamentally different. Nursing program accreditation models the standards of 

accreditation after the model rules for approval as supplied by the NCSBN. 

3. Nursing program approval agencies have a regular review process (usually every 5 years) 

that are a thorough review of all aspects of the nursing program. Annual reporting is a 

data collection tool and a compliance tool but not as stringent as the review process that 

is guided by state rule and regulation. 

4. Proposed Changes with rationale: 

a. Subpart A; 604.12 

i. (a) Success with respect to student achievement, including consideration of 

State licensing National Council Licensure Examination (NCLEX) pass rates. All 

states utilize the NCLEX exam for licensure. This is standard practice for all US 

programs and regulatory boards.

ii. (i) Refund policies. The proposal is to eliminate the refund policies as a standard 

of approval. The institutional accreditation has jurisdiction over any financial 

aid issues. In the event that the nursing program is also a stand-alone 

institution, the institution will still be required to maintain an accreditation that 

monitors any Title IV requirements.

b. 604.13 – Site visit and documentation 

i. (b) Allow the program of nurse education the opportunity to respond in writing 

to the report of the onsite review; and Many NRB use a paper survey option or a 

virtual survey option. Requiring the onsite review of approval visits does not 

align with current practice.

c. 604.14 – Annual report
i. (5) Performance of students on State licensing NCLEX examination(s) for prior 5 

years. Again, all states and all NRB use the NCLEX exam for licensure.

ii. (7) A copy of the course catalog; The course catalog will be reviewed during the 

regular review process. Review of an annual course catalog is a redundancy of 

the other documentation that is provided on an annual basis such as curriculum 

changes. If a nursing program is also a stand-alone institution, the institutional 

accreditor will have jurisdiction over institutional policies and procedures and 

financial aid indicators.

iii. (9) A copy of its audited fiscal report; and The audited fiscal report of the 

institution falls under the jurisdiction of the institutional accreditation. The 

concern of the nursing program approval agency is that the nursing education 

program has budgetary allocations that allow the program to operate and meet 

program outcomes. The nursing program budget will be reviewed during the 

regular review process. Many nursing program budgets are not visible in larger 

fiscal reports of the institution.

iv. (8) An attestation of financial resources sufficient to support program 

outcomes. In lieu of a copy of the audited fiscal report, it is recommended that 

the NRB require an attestation that the program has financial resources 

sufficient for program outcomes. The full fiscal report will be reviewed during 

the regular review process. If a program denies that financial resources are 

sufficient, the denial could trigger a review of the program.

d. 604.18 Due Process 

i. Provides for adequate discussion during the on-site visit between the visiting 

team and the faculty, administrative staff, students, and other appropriate 

persons; Many NRB use a paper survey option or a virtual survey option. 

Requiring the onsite review of approval visits does not align with current 

practice.

ii. (iv) Provides the Department head of the institution program with a specific 

statement of reasons for any adverse action, and notice of the right to appeal 

such action before an appeal body designated for that purpose; It is unclear why 

the adverse action notice would go to the head of the institution and not the 

head of the nursing program. All other communications are with the head of 

the nursing program.

e. Subpart C – The Recognition Process

The Department will follow the regulations at Part 602, Subpart C for the recognition 

process except that each State approval agency recognized under this subpart will be 

reevaluated by the Secretary at his discretion, but at least once every four five years. 

Normal review by the DOE is every 5 years for accreditation. Moving to a 5-year review 

instead of a 4-year review will ease the burden on the NRB as well as the Department. It 

is unclear as to the original intent for the tight 4-year time frame.