1 

From: Jessica Morales, Negotiator for Students or Borrowers [Primary]

Emmett Blaney, Negotiator for Students or Borrowers [Alternate]

Carolyn Fast, Negotiator for Civil Rights Organizations and Consumer Advocates [Primary]

Magin Misael Sanchez, Negotiator for Civil Rights Organizations and Consumer Advocates 

[Alternate]

Robyn Smith, Negotiator for Legal Assistance Organizations [Primary]

Sophie Laing, Negotiator for Legal Assistance Organizations [Alternate]

Barmak Nassirian, Negotiator for U.S. Military Service Members, Veterans, or Groups 

Representing Them [Primary]

Ashlynne Haycock-Lohmann, Negotiator for U.S. Military Service Members, Veterans, or Groups 

Representing Them [Alternate]

To: 2024 Negotiated Rulemaking 

Program Integrity and Institutional Quality Committee 

Date: February 6, 2024

Re: Accreditation Proposals for Session Two

NOTE: Red text is Department-proposed text; yellow highlighted text is Department-proposed text that 

is new to Session Two. Negotiator proposals appear in blue highlighted text. 

Table of Contents

Board Members, Public Members, and Conflicts of Interest 2

§ 602.3 What definitions apply to this part? 3

§ 602.14 Purpose and organization. 4

§602.15 Administrative and fiscal responsibilities. 4

Substantial Compliance 5

§ 602.3 What definitions apply to this part? 5

Standards for Accrediting Agencies 6

§ 602.16 Accreditation and preaccreditation standards. 6

Enforcement and Oversight of Institutions 8

§ 602.19 Monitoring and reevaluation of accredited institutions and programs. 9

§ 602.20 Enforcement of standards. 9

§ 604.16 Enforcement of standards 12

Substantive Changes (Written Arrangements) 13

§ 602.22 Substantive changes and other reporting requirements. 13

Complaints 14

§ 602.23 Operating procedures all agencies must have. 14

Disclosures of Accreditation Status 16

§ 602.23 Operating procedures all agencies must have. 16
2 

§ 602.26 Notification of accrediting decisions. 17

Teach-Out Plans and Agreements 19

§ 602.24 Additional procedures certain institutional agencies must have. 19

Credit Transfer 20

§ 602.24 Additional procedures certain institutional agencies must have. 21

Transparency of Accreditor Recognition Decisions 21

§ 602.2 How do I know which agencies the Secretary recognizes? 21

Accreditor Application Procedures 22

§ 602.31 Procedures for submitting applications for recognition and renewal of recognition 22

Limitation Actions for Accrediting Agencies 23

§ 602.31 Procedures for submitting applications for recognition and renewal of recognition 24

§ 602.32 Procedures for review of an expansion of scope, compliance report, or increase in 

headcount enrollment. 24

§602.34 Advisory Committee meetings. 25

§602.37 Appealing the senior Department official’s decision to the Secretary. 26

Board Members, Public Members, and Conflicts of Interest

We appreciate the Department’s commitment to enhancing the definition of a public member. 

Accrediting agencies are required to have public members on their boards (1 for every 7 overall members). 

But research has found that most of those public members are, in reality, from other institutions of higher 

education. As of January 2019, 22 of 69 public members on commissions were from institutional 

backgrounds (including 12 of 38 at agencies formerly known as regional accreditors and 10 of 31 at 

national accreditors).

As we proposed in Session One, we suggest also prohibiting anyone with a current or recent fiduciary 

obligation to a regulated entity, like another institution of higher education, from serving as a public 

member, from reviewing or consulting on the development of an agency’s budget, or from serving as an 

expert (a “competent and knowledgeable individual”) in an agency’s practice. Even if the institution is 

accredited by a different accrediting agency, administrators of a college wouldn’t be able to serve as a 

public member. We hope this would help prevent agencies from simply accessing people with the same 

interests but in another accreditor’s portfolio to fill a role designed to serve as an independent check on 

how the accreditor operates. 

We also propose establishing that an employee of an accrediting agency, or a consultant to the agency, 

cannot serve as a public member, even after the five-year window of recent experience. An individual 

with such close ties to the accrediting agency and the institutions it has approved cannot be expected to 

serve in the independent role of a public representative.
3 

Finally, we propose small changes to § 602.14(b)(3), as we did in Session One, to ensure agencies avoid 

conflicts of interest, applying a clearer responsibility on the entity to ensure conflicts of interest don't 

happen in practice, rather than simply requiring policies that avoid conflicts of interest.

§ 602.3 What definitions apply to this part? 

* * *

Representative of the public means a person who is not-- 

(1) An A current or former employee, member of the governing board, owner, or shareholder of, or 

consultant to, an institution or program that either is accredited or preaccredited by the agency or has 

applied for accreditation or preaccreditation; 

(2) A membercurrent or former member, employee, or representative of any trade association or 

membership organization related to, affiliated with, or associated with the agency; or or an institution 

or program that either is accredited or preaccredited by the agency or has applied for accreditation or 

preaccreditation; 

(3) An current or former current or former employee of or consultant to the agency; 

(4)(3) An current or former employee of a member of the program integrity triad (the Department of 

Education; State higher education agencies or other officials or representatives of the State; and 

accrediting agencies); or 

(5) A spouse, parent, child, or sibling of an individual identified in paragraph (1) or), (2)), (3), or (4) of 

this definition. 

(5) An individual with a fiduciary obligation to a regulated entity, such as an institution of higher 

education;

(65) A person who served in a capacity covered by paragraphs (1), (2), (34), or (45) of this definition in 

the past five years; or 

(67) A family member of an individual identified in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), or (4) of this definition, 

including-- 

(i) Parent or stepparent, sibling or step-sibling, spouse, child or stepchild, or grandchild or 

stepgrandchild; 

(ii) Spouse's parent or stepparent, sibling or step-sibling, child or stepchild, or grandchild or 

step-grandchild; 
4 

(iii) Child's spouse; or 

(iv) Sibling's spouse.

§ 602.14 Purpose and organization.

* * *

(b) For purposes of this section, “separate and independent” means that— 

(1) The members of the agency's decision-making body, who decide the accreditation or 

preaccreditation status of institutions or programs, establish the agency's accreditation policies, or both, 

are not elected or selected by the board or chief executive officer of any related, associated, or affiliated 

trade association, professional organization, or membership organization and are not staff of the 

related, associated, or affiliated trade association, professional organization, or membership 

organization;

 

(2) At least one member of the agency's decision-making body is a representative of the public, and at 

least one-seventh of the body consists of representatives of the public;

 

(3) The agency has established and implemented effective guidelines for each member of the decisionmaking body, including ensuring members avoid guidelines on avoiding conflicts of interest in making 

decisions;

 

(4) The agency's dues are paid separately from any dues paid to any related, associated, or affiliated 

trade association or membership organization; and

 

(5) The agency develops and determines its own budget, with no review by or consultation with any 

other entity or organization or by any individual with a fiduciary obligation to a regulated entity, such as 

an institution of higher education. 

* * * *

§602.15 Administrative and fiscal responsibilities. 

The agency must have the administrative and fiscal capability to effectively carry out its accreditation 

activities in light of its requested scope of recognition. The agency meets this requirement if the agency 

demonstrates that— 

(a) The agency has— 

(1) Adequate administrative staff, data and technology infrastructure, and financial resources to carry 

out its accrediting responsibilities; 
5 

(2) Competent and knowledgeable individuals, qualified by education or experience in their own right 

and trained by the agency on their responsibilities, as appropriate for their roles, regarding the agency's 

standards, policies, and procedures, to conduct its on-site evaluations, apply or establish its policies, and 

make its accrediting and preaccrediting decisions, including, if applicable to the agency's scope, their 

responsibilities regarding distance education and correspondence courses, except that the agency shall 

not include provided that individuals described in 34 CFR 668.14(b)(18)(i) or (ii) or 668.16(k) or 

individuals with a fiduciary obligation to a regulated entity, such as an institution of higher education do 

not meet this requirement; 

* * * *

Substantial Compliance

We are concerned that the concept of substantial compliance (for which institutions are subject to a 

monitoring report) is too subjective to be reliably enforced. In the wrong hands, substantial compliance 

could be used to allow an institution to operate with non-compliant practices in ways that cause 

significant harm to students.

As we did in Session One, we propose that the Department limit the use of this status for institutions 

that are behaving appropriately and are compliant in their practice, but which need to make 

documentation or paperwork updates to meet the Department's bar for recognition.

§ 602.3 What definitions apply to this part? 

* * * 

Monitoring report means a report that an agency is required to submit to Department staff when it is 

found to be substantially compliant. The report contains documentation to demonstrate that t— 

(i) The agency is implementing its current or corrected policies; or 

(ii) The agency, which is compliant in practice, has updated its policies to align with those 

compliant practices. 

* * *

Substantial compliance means the agency demonstrated to the Department that it has the necessary 

policies, practices, and standards in place and generally adheres with fidelity to those policies, practices, 

and standards; the agency has policies, practices, and standards in place that need minor modifications 

to reflect its generally compliant practice.;, or the agency needs to enact policies, practices, or standards 

to reflect its compliant practice. 
6 

Standards for Accrediting Agencies

We appreciate the Department’s changes to ensure accreditors meet their statutory obligations to review 

institutions against standards that include student achievement, fiscal and administrative capacity, and 

student support services, among others. However, we are concerned that accrediting agencies too often 

fall short of the yardstick of serving as a “reliable authority regarding the quality of the education or 

training provided.” 

To that end, we suggest several language changes that would enhance the expectations of accrediting 

agencies, including ensuring that agencies’ standards are effective; using federal data wherever such data 

are available; and establishing appropriate performance goals for each institution across the standards. 

We also recommend clarifying within the requirement that accreditors look at student achievement that 

they consider the achievement of all students in the school, measured across subgroups.

Finally, we propose to require that accreditors establish adequate controls to avoid manipulation of the 

standards by institutions (similar to language we suggested in Session One). For instance, a common 

student achievement metric for nursing programs is a minimum pass-rate on the licensure exam (NCLEX), 

as is mentioned in the statute for student achievement standards. Some students who enrolled in nursing 

programs have reported that, despite otherwise completing the program successfully, their schools did 

not allow them to graduate because they failed to meet a minimum score set by the school on a thirdparty’s standardized practice test for the NCLEX. (Two such students addressed this committee directly 

during the public comment periods on January 8 and January 9.) One student ended up with nearly 

$30,000 in debt, and no degree to show for it. Another exhausted most of his GI Bill benefits and was 

forced to appeal to the school to be readmitted and permitted to retake the practice test. When schools 

prevent students who have otherwise completed the curriculum from graduating and sitting for a 

licensure exam, they artificially inflate their licensure exam pass-rate. Allowing schools to use such highstakes exams to prevent students from taking the NCLEX and other such manipulative practices 

undermine accreditors’ obligation to oversee institutional quality by manipulating schools’ performance 

on commonly used accreditor student achievement measures.

§ 602.16 Accreditation and preaccreditation standards. 

(a) The agency must demonstrate that it has standards for accreditation, and preaccreditation, if 

offered, that are sufficiently rigorous to ensure that the agency is a reliable authority regarding the 

quality of the education or training provided by the institutions or programs it accredits. The agency 

meets this requirement if the following conditions are met: 

(1) The agency’s accreditation standards must set forth clear expectations for the institutions or 

programs it accredits in the following areas:(1) The agency's accreditation standards must set forth clear 

and effective minimum expectations of performance that the agency must verify and enforce for 

eachthe institutions or programs it accredits, including by using, where appropriate, validconsistent, and 
7 

reliable data, which shallmay include Federal data where available. The accreditation standards must 

set forth minimum expectations, including, as applicable, a quantified and statistically appropriate 

performance goal for each institution or program, in the following areas: 

(i) Success with respect to student achievement in relation to the institution's mission, which 

may include different standards for different institutions or programs and which includes 

student achievement for student subgroups, as established by the institution, including, as 

appropriate, consideration of State licensing examinations, course completion, and job 

placement rates. 

(ii) Curricula. 

(iii) Faculty. 

(iv) Facilities, equipment, and supplies. 

(v) Fiscal and administrative capacity as appropriate to the specified scale of operations. 

(vi) Student support services. 

(vii) Recruiting and admissions practices, academic calendars, catalogs, publications, grading, 

and advertising. 

(viii) Measures of program length and the objectives of the degrees or credentials offered. 

(ix) Record of student complaints received by, or available to, the agency. 

(x) Record of compliance with the institution's program responsibilities under title IV of the Act, 

based on the most recent student loan default rate data provided by the Secretary, the results 

of financial or compliance audits, program reviews, and any other information that the Secretary 

may provide to the agency.; and 

(2) The agency’s standards must include adequate controls to prevent institutions from manipulating or 

otherwise inflating their performance on the standards, such as by discouraging or precluding students 

who complete coursework from taking licensure exams or by preventing institutions from inflating their 

job placement rates by counting individuals as employed who are not bona fide employees or who were 

employed in the field prior to graduation.

(23) The agency's preaccreditation standards, if offered, must-- 

(i) Be appropriately related to the agency's accreditation standards; and 
8 

(ii) Not permit the institution or program to hold preaccreditation status for more than five 

years before a final accrediting action is made. 

* * * *

Enforcement and Oversight of Institutions

We propose to enhance expectations for how accrediting agencies oversee institutions and programs, and 

how quickly they enforce their standards for institutions and programs that fall short. Accrediting agency 

approval serves as both an important signal to students about the quality of their institutions, and a 

necessary precursor to receiving federal financial aid to attend that institution. Yet even where accrediting 

agencies have concerns about the caliber or compliance of an institution, they may continue the 

accreditation of that school for years on end, allowing it to run out the clock. Students are sometimes left 

in the dark about these concerns.

As we proposed at Session One, we suggest clarifying in § 602.19 that agencies be required to allow for 

both regular scheduled evaluations of institutions/programs and also that they conduct ongoing oversight 

of their institutions and programs. We also suggest clarifying that agencies have effective procedures to 

monitor institutions and programs by emphasizing the need to use accurate, current, and representative 

information; and by clarifying that data collection/analysis should be regular. We recommend that 

agencies be required to identify, assess, and act accordingly when they identify high-risk institutions, 

which may be those with the most extensive history of noncompliance, severe or a high volume of 

complaints, high tuition, and low retention or completion rates or high dropout rates.

Additionally, we propose some changes to the timeline for enforcement under proposed § 602.20(a), (b), 

and (h). For the enforcement timeframes that the Department proposed, we suggested using the length 

of the predominant program offered at the school, rather than the length of the longest program offered, 

for institutional accreditors, to better reflect the amount of time the school should reasonably need to 

come back into compliance. Under the Department’s proposed language (i.e., current regulations), an 

institution that offers predominantly associate degrees but a single four-year degree program would have 

longer to come into compliance than an institution with entirely associate degrees -- a full six months 

extra for non-student-achievement concerns, and an entire year extra for student achievement issues. 

With respect to subparagraph (h), we seek additional information from the Department in response to 

questions submitted by Carolyn Fast shortly after Session One (available at 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2023/questions-for-department-regardingproposed-34-cfr-submitted-by-carolyn-fast.pdf). In the interim, we retain our proposal from Session One 

to shorten the three-year timeframe to a one-year timeframe.

We also include confirming changes to these requirements in Part 604, the Secretary’s Recognition of 

State Agencies for the Approval of Nurse Education.
9 

§ 602.19 Monitoring and reevaluation of accredited institutions and programs.

 

(a) The agency must reevaluate, at regularly established intervals, and on an ongoing basis as 

appropriate, the institutions or programs it has accredited or preaccredited.

(b) The agency must demonstrate it has, and effectively applies, monitoring and evaluation approaches 

that provide the agency with the most current, representative, and accurate information available, and 

that enable the agency to identify problems with an institution's or program's continued compliance 

with agency standards and that take into account institutional or program strengths and stability. These 

approaches must include periodic reports, periodic audits of a sample of data from institutions, and 

regular collection and analysis of key data and indicators, identified by the agency, including, but not 

limited to, fiscal information and measures of student achievement, consistent with the provisions of § 

602.16(g). This provision does not require institutions or programs to provide annual reports on each 

specific accreditation criterion.

(c) The agency must identify, monitor, evaluate, and act appropriately to address institutions that 

present a high risk of financial instability, low academic quality, lack of administrative capability, and/or 

lack of success with respect to student achievement. The agency’s process for identifying such 

institution must provide for the consideration of institutions’ history of noncompliance, severity and/or

volume of complaints, investigations, and legal proceedings against the institution, high tuition, and low 

retention or completion rates or high annual dropout rates, and other factors determined by the agency 

to be relevant.

(dc) Each agency must monitor overall growth of the institutions or programs it accredits and, at least 

annually, collect head-count enrollment data from those institutions or programs.

* * * *

§ 602.20 Enforcement of standards. 

(a) If the agency's review of an institution or program under any standard, except a standard setting 

forth the agency’s expectations for success with respect to student achievement as required under § 

602.16(a)(1)(i), indicates that the institution or program is not in compliance with that standard, the 

agency must— 

(1) Follow its written policy for notifying the institution or program of the finding of noncompliance; 

(2) Provide the institution or program with a written timeline for coming into compliance that is 

reasonable, as determined by the agency's decision-making body, based on the nature of the finding, 

the stated mission, and educational objectives of the institution or program. The timeline may include 

intermediate checkpoints on the way to full compliance and must not exceed the lesser of four years or 

150 percent of the— 
10

(i) Length of the program in the case of a programmatic accrediting agency; or 

(ii) Length of the longest program at the institution in the case of an institutional accrediting 

agency; 

(3) Follow its written policies and procedures for granting a good cause extension that may exceed the 

standard timeframe described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section when such an extension is determined 

by the agency to be warranted; and 

(4) Have a written policy to evaluate and approve or disapprove monitoring or compliance reports it 

requires, provide ongoing monitoring, if warranted, and evaluate an institution's or program's progress 

in resolving the finding of noncompliance. 

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the agency must have a policy for taking an immediate 

adverse action, and take such action, when the agency has determined that such action is warranted. 

(1) Immediately initiate adverse action against the institution or program; or 

(2) Require the institution or program to take appropriate action to bring itself into compliance with the 

agency's standards within a time period that must not exceed-- 

(i) Twelve months, if the program, or the predominant length of the programslongest program

offered by the institution, is less than one year in length; 

(ii) Eighteen months, if the program, or the predominant length of the programslongest program

offered by the institution, is at least one year, but less than two years, in length; or 

(iii) Two years, if the program, or the predominant length of the programslongest program

offered by the institution, is at least two years in length. 

(b) If the agency’s review of an institution’s or program’s compliance with a standard setting forth the 

agency’s expectations for success with respect to student achievement, as required under 34 C.F.R. § 

602.16(a)(1)(i), indicates that the institution or program is not in compliance with that standard, the 

agency must provide the institution or program with a written timeline for coming into compliance that 

is reasonable, as determined by the agency's decision-making body, based on the nature of the finding, 

the stated mission, and the educational objectives of the institution or program. The timeline mustmay

include the enforcement of intermediate checkpoints that allow the agency to ensure the institution will 

be inon the way to full compliance by the end of the timeline. The timelineand must not exceed the 

lesser of four years or 150 percent of the— 

(1) Length of the program in the case of a programmatic accrediting agency; or 
11

(2) Length of the predominant length of the programs offered bylongest program at the institution in 

the case of an institutional accrediting agency. 

(c) If the institution or program does not bring itself into compliance within the specified period, the 

agency must take immediate adverse action unless the agency, for good cause, extends the period for 

achieving compliance for a maximum of one additional year. 

* * *

(h) Nothing in this part prohibits an agency from permitting the institution or program to be out of 

compliance with one or more of its standards, policies, and procedures adopted in satisfaction of §§ 

602.16, 602.17, 602.19, 602.22, and 602.24 for a period of time, as determined by the agency annually, 

not to exceed onethree years unless the agency determines there is good cause to extend the period of 

time, and if— 

(1) The agency and the institution or program can show that the circumstances requiring the period of 

noncompliance are beyond the institution's or program's control, such as— 

(i) A natural disaster or other catastrophic event significantly impacting an institution's or 

program's operations; 

(ii) Accepting students from another institution that is implementing a teach-out or closing; 

(iii) Significant and documented local or national economic changes, such as an economic 

recession or closure of a large local employer; 

(iv) Changes relating toin State licensure requirements; 

(v) The normal application of the agency's standards creates an undue hardship on students; or 

(vi) Instructors who do not meet the agency's typical faculty standards, but who are otherwise 

qualified by education or work experience, to teach courses within a dual or concurrent 

enrollment program, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801, or career and technical education courses; 

(2) The grant of the period of noncompliance is approved by the agency's decision-making body; 

(3) The agency projects that the institution or program has the resources necessary to achieve 

compliance with the standard, policy, or procedure within the time allotted; and 

(4) The institution or program demonstrates to the satisfaction of the agency that the period of 

noncompliance will not— 
12

(i) IncreaseContribute to the cost of the program to the student without the student's consent; 

(ii) Create any undue hardship on, or harm to, students; or 

(iii) Compromise the program's academic quality. 

(5) An institution out of compliance as described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section is not 

permittedentitled to the extension provided for in this paragraph (h) unless the special circumstances 

described in this paragraph constitute a new and independent cause for the noncompliance, and such 

extension is provided at the sole discretion of the agency. 

* * * *

§ 604.16 Enforcement of standards 

* * *

(b) If the State approval agency’s review of a program of nurse education’s compliance with a standard 

setting forth the agency’s expectations for success with respect to student achievement, as required 

under § 604.12(a), indicates that the program of nurse education is not in compliance with that 

standard, the State approval agency must provide the program of nurse education with a written 

timeline for coming into compliance that is reasonable, as determined by the State approval agency’s 

decision-making body, based on the nature of the finding, the stated mission, and the educational 

objectives of the institution or program. The timeline mustmay include the enforcement of intermediate 

checkpoints that allow the agency to ensure the institution will be inon the way to full compliance by 

the end of the timeline. The timelineand must not exceed the lesser of four years or 150 percent of the 

length of the program of nurse education.

* * *

(d) Nothing in this part prohibits a State approval agency from permitting the program of nurse 

education to be out of compliance with one or more of its standards, policies, and procedures for a 

period of time, as determined by the agency annually, not to exceed onethree years unless the agency 

determines there is good cause to extend the period of time, and if – 

* * * *

Substantive Changes (Written Arrangements)

We support and appreciate the Department’s proposal to strengthen oversight of substantive changes, 

including with respect to written arrangements. As you know, institutions have long been required to seek 
13

accreditor approval for written arrangements where an ineligible entity (non-Title IV-provider) will offer 

25-50 percent of a program; and outsourcing of more than 50 percent is prohibited. These arrangements 

can include contracts with online program management companies, coding bootcamps, and others. 

As the Department noted in recent guidance, however, some of these written arrangements are “not 

compliant” with Title IV requirements, in part because “institutions and their accrediting agencies do not 

always accurately account for the percentage of a program that is provided by an ineligible entity...” 

Research from 2021 further identified that accrediting agencies’ policies were inadequate, often with little 

scrutiny into the provider or the nature of the arrangement, and proposed some policy reforms to 

enhance oversight of these types of arrangements. We are concerned that the Department’s proposed 

changes do not explicitly codify that guidance, and/or remind agencies of their existing obligation to 

oversee the percentage of a program provided under an arrangement with an ineligible entity.

Finally, we note that in the Department’s proposed subparagraph (a)(1) of § 602.22, the Department 

proposed to replace a requirement for “adequate” substantive change policies with a requirement for 

“written” substantive change policies. We agree that such policies should be written; but we also believe 

the written policies should be adequate, and have suggested adding back that term.

§ 602.22 Substantive changes and other reporting requirements. 

(a) (1) If the agency accredits institutions, it must maintain adequate adequatewritten substantive 

change policies that ensure that any substantive change, as defined in this section, after the agency has 

accredited or preaccredited the institution does not adversely affect the capacity of the institution to 

continue to meet the agency's standards. The agency meets this requirement if— 

(i) The agency requires the institution to obtain the agency's approval of the substantive change 

before the agency includes the change in the scope of accreditation or preaccreditation it 

previously granted to the institution; and 

(ii) The agency's definition of substantive change covers high-impact, high-risk changes, 

including includes at least the following: 

* * *

(N)(M) Entering into a written arrangement under 34 C.F.R. § 668.5 under which an institution 

or organization not certified to participate in the title IV, HEA programs offers more than 25 and 

up to 50 percent of one or more of the accredited institution's educational programs. The 

agency’s evaluation of a written arrangement must be based on the agency’s standards for 

executing a written arrangement with an ineligible institution or organization. At a minimum, 

those standards must include an assessment of the ineligible institution’s or organization’s 

administrative and financial capacity and expertise to deliver the portion of the program 

provided under the arrangement.; The agency must also confirm that, for a written arrangement 
14

between an eligible institution and an ineligible institution or organization, the arrangement 

complies with limitations on the amount of the program that the ineligible institution or 

organization provides as described in 34 CFR 668.5(c)(3). 

* * * *

Complaints

We appreciate the Department’s substantial improvements to the regulations governing accreditors’ 

complaint processes. The lengthened time frame requiring agencies to accept complaints received up to 

five years after the date of an incident will enable much stronger protections for students and taxpayers; 

and the requirement for agencies to accept complaints in which the identity of the complainant remains 

private will ensure accreditors can review potential issues even where the individual’s concern cannot be 

directly resolved. To further strengthen this goal, we propose adding language in § 602.23(d)(1) that 

would ensure complaints are accepted at least for monitoring, whether or not the complaint was first 

submitted to the institution; and in (d)(2) that would ensure accrediting agencies document not only their 

resolution of complaints received, but also their process for monitoring complaints (including anonymous 

complaints) to identify any potential patterns of quality concerns or misconduct by institutions. Our 

proposed changes would also require the agency to make publicly available complaints data on at least 

an annual basis, as the Department proposed to require of organizations that lead state authorization 

reciprocity agreements.

§ 602.23 Operating procedures all agencies must have. 

* * *

(d) The accrediting agency must-- 

(1) Review any complaint it receives or otherwise becomes aware of against an accredited or 

preaccredited institution or program that is related to the agency’s standards or procedures in a timely, 

fair, and equitable manner any complaint it receives against an accredited institution or program that is 

related to the agency's standards or procedures. The agency may not complete its review and make a 

decision regarding a complaint unless, in accordance with published procedures, it ensures that the 

institution or program has sufficient opportunity to provide a response to the complaint and may not 

refuse to accept a complaint on the basis that it does not identify the complainant or specify a particular 

accreditation standard or that the complainant did not first submit the complaint to the institution or 

program and allow the institution or program to reach a conclusion. The agency must review 

complaints to determine whether they raise concerns related to possible noncompliance by the 

institution or program with the agency’s standards, policies, and procedures. The agency’s complaint 

procedures must include--; 
15

(i) Clear timelines for the complaint review process, including the timely notification of the 

complainant regarding the status of the complaint; 

(ii) Acceptance of complaints submitted within five years after the date of the incident detailed 

in the complaint; 

(iii) Allowance for more than one complaint submission method; 

(iv) A requirement that agency staff must provide feedback to a complainant who does not 

submit a complaint correctly under the agency’s prescribed method(s), or that the agency must 

accept a complaint that sufficiently satisfies the agency’s complaint procedures such that it can 

pursue the issue raised even when the complainant does not technically follow the agency’s 

complaint procedures; 

(v) Allowance for the confidentiality of the complainant, including the complainant’s ability to 

elect to keep their personally identifiable information confidential, to the maximum extent 

possible, from the institution or program that is the subject of the complaint, and maintain a 

procedure to inform the complainant if it is necessary to share their identity with the institution 

to continue investigating the complaint. That procedure must include the option for the 

complainant to request that the resolution of the complaint not be pursued, but the agency 

shall be required to pursue any systemic noncompliance indicated by the content of the 

complaint; 

(vi) A clear explanation of whether, and under what circumstances, an agency requires the 

complainant to first submit the complaint to the institution or program and to allow the 

institution or program to reach a conclusion prior to the agency pursuing a resolution of the 

complaintfiling a complaint with the accrediting agency; 

(vii) Clear complaint procedures, including with respect to the responsibilities and roles of 

agency staff in handling and responding to complaints; 

(viii) A process to make information received on complaints public at least annually, including 

but not limited to the number and type of complaints by institution that is approved by the 

agency and the resolution of such complaints; and 

(ixviii) Accessibility for individuals with disabilities; 

(2) Adequately document the agency’s review of, and decision concerning, any complaints it receives 

against accredited or preaccredited institutions and programs, including the agency’s process of

monitoring of all complaints (including anonymous complaints) received to identify patterns of systemic 

noncompliance and, if applicable, Ttake and document follow-up action, as necessary, including 

enforcement action, if necessary, based on the results of its review; and 
16

Disclosures of Accreditation Status

Accrediting agencies must require institutions to provide notice to students within seven days of a final 

decision to deny, withdraw, suspend, revoke, or terminate accreditation, or of any other adverse action 

as defined by the agency. This notice serves as a critical signal to students about concerns related to the 

institution where they are investing their time and money, and, since institutions must be accredited in 

order to access federal financial aid under the Title IV programs, a timely warning about the loss of 

accreditation.

However, in some cases, institutions have failed to provide accurate, timely warnings about the actions 

taken against their schools -- including actions like probation, as well as those that result in the loss of 

accreditation. In one case, for example, a publicly traded institution faced serious action from its 

accreditor -- but reported the issue twice to its investors before it disclosed the fact directly to students. 

In another, a for-profit company effectively hid its loss of accreditation from students for months, but 

continued to tell students “we remain accredited...” even after being told by the accrediting agency that 

it was required to report to students that its “courses or degrees are not accredited...”

As we did in Session One, we propose to enhance oversight of these types of disclosures to students. 

Specifically, we have included our prior suggestion in proposed subparagraph (f)(2) of § 602.23 that 

agencies must take action against a school that fails to update its accreditation status to students in a 

timely and prominent manner after a serious action like probation, show cause, or adverse actions. We 

also suggest several additional changes, including disclosures of negative actions and the reasons for such 

actions (in subparagraph (e)) and related changes in § 602.26(c)(3), (d), and a new subparagraph (f) that 

would require disclosure to the Department and the public of negative actions, not just adverse actions.

§ 602.23 Operating procedures all agencies must have. 

* * *

(de) An institution must make a public disclosure of a negative action by an accrediting agency. If an 

institution or program makes such a disclosure, or elects to make a public disclosure of anotherits

accreditation or preaccreditation status, the agency must ensure that the institution or program 

discloses that status accurately, including the specific academic or instructional programs covered by 

that status, the reason(s) for the action, and the name and contact information for the agency. 

(ef) The accrediting agency must--

(1) provide for the public correction of incorrect or misleading information an accredited or 

preaccredited institution or program releases about-- 

(i1) The accreditation or preaccreditation status of the institution or program; 
17

(ii2) The contents of reports of on-site reviews; and 

(iii3) The agency's accrediting or preaccrediting actions with respect to the institution or 

program. 

(2) take action against any institution that fails to update its accreditation status to students, including 

the reason(s) for the action and any consequences and timeline associated with any action, in a timely 

and prominent manner following an action of probation or equivalent status, a show cause order, or an 

adverse action.

* * * *

§ 602.26 Notification of accrediting decisions. 

The agency must demonstrate that it has established and follows written procedures requiring it to 

provide written notice of its accrediting decisions to the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing or 

authorizing agency, the appropriate accrediting agencies, and the public. The agency meets this 

requirement if the agency, following its written procedures-- 

(a) Provides written notice of the following types of decisions to the Secretary, the appropriate State 

licensing or authorizing agency, the appropriate accrediting agencies, and the public no later than 30 

days after it makes the decision: 

(1) A decision to award initial accreditation or preaccreditation to an institution or program. 

(2) A decision to renew an institution's or program's accreditation or preaccreditation; 

(b) Provides the decision letter for written notice of a final decision of a probation or equivalent status 

or an initiated adverse action to the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing or authorizing agency, 

and the appropriate accrediting agencies at the same time it notifies the institution or program of the 

decision and requires the institution or program to disclose such an action within seven business days of 

receipt to all current and prospective students; 

(c) Provides written notice of the following types of decisions to the Secretary, the appropriate State 

licensing or authorizing agency, and the appropriate accrediting agencies at the same time it notifies the 

institution or program of the decision, but no later than 30 days after it reaches the decision: 

(1) A final decision to deny, withdraw, suspend, revoke, or terminate the accreditation or 

preaccreditation of an institution or program. 

(2) A final decision to take any other adverse action, as defined by the agency, not listed in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section; or
18

(3) A final decision to take another negative action (such as a warning, accreditation with conditions, or 

similar action) or a decision to defer an institution’s renewal of accreditation;

(d) Provides prominent written notice, including in the agency’s directory of institutions, to the public of 

the decisions listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section within one business day of its notice to the 

institution or program; 

(e) For any decision listed in paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) of this section, requires the institution or program 

to disclose the decision to current and prospective students within seven business days of receipt and 

makes available to the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing or authorizing agency, and the public, 

no later than 60 days after the decision, the agency's decision letter a brief statement summarizing the 

reasons for the agency’s decision and the official comments that the affected institution or program may 

wish to make with regard to that decision, or evidence that the affected institution has been offered the 

opportunity to provide official comment; 

(f) For any decision listed in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, requires the institution or program to 

disclose the decision to current and prospective students within seven business days of receipt and 

consistent with the requirements in § 602.23(e);

(gf) Notifies the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing or authorizing agency, the appropriate 

accrediting agencies, and, upon request, the public if an accredited or preaccredited institution or 

program— 

(1) Decides to withdraw voluntarily from accreditation or preaccreditation, within 10 business days of 

receiving notification from the institution or program that it is withdrawing voluntarily from 

accreditation or preaccreditation; or 

(2) Lets its accreditation or preaccreditation lapse, within 10 business days of the date on which 

accreditation or preaccreditation lapses. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 

control number 1845-0003); and 

(hg) Notifies the Secretary, the appropriate State licensing or authorizing agency, and the appropriate 

accrediting agencies, if the agency grants an extension for good cause under § 602.20 and provides a 

brief description of the reasons for the extension, within 10 days of approval of the extension by the 

agency’s decision-making body. 

* * * *
19

Teach-Out Plans and Agreements

When institutions are at risk of closure, one of accrediting agencies’ obligations is to ensure continuity for 

students by requiring teach-out plans or agreements of those institutions. Under a teach-out plan, a 

college provides a light sketch of how a closure could be managed; under an agreement, a more formal 

arrangement or contract to ensure that closure plan can be executed.

Unfortunately, however, accrediting agencies have often failed to seek or obtain an actual agreement; 

and these plans have fallen far short of what students deserve. As the Department noted in regulations

last year, “We have seen numerous examples of institutional closures that harmed students, their families, 

and taxpayers.” Research shows that between the 2009 and 2017 school years, over 300 degree-granting 

institutions shut down, including many where students -- particularly marginalized students and students 

of color -- were left unaware and without options to continue their education. Additional recent research

has shown that a large proportion of students attending a college when it abruptly closed are likely to 

never complete their college education as a result. 

We strongly support the Department’s proposed changes to require all institutions to maintain a teachout plan, and to require accrediting agencies to seek a teach-out agreement following certain high-risk 

events. We also support the Department’s proposal to establish the possibility of addition student and 

taxpayer protections for institutions that fail to submit a required teach-out agreement. These changes 

are common-sense and essential to protect students from the possibility of a poorly planned closure of 

their institution.

We also propose a small additional change to § 602.24(c)(8), as proposed, to ensure that the school 

teaching out the program offers the same program as the student’s current course of study, and that it 

must have been in existence prior to entering into the agreement. Such institutions should not be under 

negative actions by a member of the triad, so we similarly propose to require assurances that a teachingout institution is in good standing and not under negative action(s) by an accrediting agency, state, or the 

federal government. 

§ 602.24 Additional procedures certain institutional agencies must have.

(c) Teach-out plans and agreements. 

* * *

(86) The agency must require an closing institution to include in its teach-out agreement— 

(i) A complete list of students currently enrolled in each program at the institution and the program 

requirements each student has completed; 
20

(ii) A plan to provide all potentially eligible students with information about how to obtain a closed 

school discharge and, if applicable, information on State refund policies; 

(iii) A record retention plan to be provided to all enrolled students that delineates the final disposition 

of teach-out records (e.g., student transcripts, billing, financial aid records); 

(iv) Information on the number and types of credits the teach-out institution is willing to accept prior to 

the student's enrollment; and 

(v) A clear statement to students of the tuition and fees of the educational program and the number and 

types of credits that will be accepted by the teach-out institution.; and

(vi) An assurance that the institution that would offer the program of study under the agreement has 

operated affected students’ current program of study for at least two years, and is not under a negative 

action by an institutional accrediting agency, State authorizing agency, or the Secretary. 

* * * *

Credit Transfer

Millions of students who enroll in higher education attend more than one institution, including hundreds 

of thousands of community college students each year who hope to ultimately transfer to and earn a 

bachelor’s degree. Yet in the process, students often lose many of their credits, adding to the costs of 

earning a degree and often derailing students’ academic pathways so they don’t earn a credit. Accrediting 

agencies do too little to oversee institutions’ transfer of credit policies, failing to ensure students have 

reliable access to transfer pathways. 

We appreciate the Department’s proposed addition of several key data points, including the share of 

transfer students at the school, the average time to completion, and the average transfer rate. To further 

strengthen this section, we propose to clarify that the accreditor evaluate the efficacy of an institution’s 

transfer of credit policies, including by using several of those data points, and that it establish expectations 

for institutional performance. We believe the share of transfer students enrolled at the institution will be 

useful information for students considering enrolling at the school about the institution’s commitment to 

serving transfer students, so we propose to retain that data point as something required of institutions’ 

publicly disclosed transfer policies. We also recommend requiring institutions to explore credit transfer 

specifically with other institutions accredited by the same agency, and to explain cases in which they do 

not accept any credits; given that credit transfer was a core reason for the development of accrediting 

agencies from the beginning, this is an important measure of the degree to which accrediting agencies 

truly are serving as arbiters of quality and the extent to which institutions rely on those measures.

§ 602.24 Additional procedures certain institutional agencies must have.

* * *
21

(e) Transfer of credit policies. The accrediting agency must-- 

(1) Cconfirm, as part of its review for initial accreditation or preaccreditation, or renewal of 

accreditation, that the institution has transfer of credit policies that— 

(i1) Are publicly disclosed in accordance with § 668.43(a)(11); 

(ii2) Include a statement of the criteria established by the institution regarding the transfer of 

credit earned at another institution;.. and 

(iii4) Include information on the share of transfer students enrolled at the institution.; and 

(2) Ensure the institution’s transfer of credit policies are effective in ensuring the success of the 

institution’s transfer student subgroup, including setting forth clear minimum expectations of 

performance and by using consistent and reliable data, including --

(i3) Include information onthe average time to completion for transfer students; 

(4) Include information on the share of transfer students enrolled at the institution; and 

(3)(ii5) Include information oncredit transfer acceptance rates toward general education credits 

and toward requirements for the program of study; and

(3) Assess the institution’s credit transfer acceptance rates from institutions also approved by the 

institution’s accrediting agency, and require the institution to provide an explanation for any such 

institutions from which it does not accept any credits.

* * * *

Transparency of Accreditor Recognition Decisions

Though a small change, we propose that the Department commit to providing information on an action 

to deny, limit, suspend, or terminate the recognition of an accrediting agency on the Department’s 

website, including the reasons for such action. This change would ensure greater public availability of 

information and more transparency into Secretarial actions to deny, limit, suspend, or terminate 

recognition of an agency.

§ 602.2 How do I know which agencies the Secretary recognizes?

(a) Periodically, the Secretary publishes a list of recognized agencies in the Federal Register, together 

with each agency's scope of recognition. You may obtain a copy of the list from the Department at any 

time. The list is also available on the Department's web site.

(b) If the Secretary denies continued recognition to a previously recognized agency, or if the Secretary 

limits, suspends, or terminates the agency's recognition before the end of its recognition period, the 
22

Secretary publishes a notice of that action, including the reasons for the action, in the Federal Register 

and on the Department’s website. The Secretary also makes the reasons for the action available to the 

public, on request. 

* * * *

Accreditor Application Procedures

We strongly support the Department’s proposed changes to accrediting agencies’ procedures for 

submitting an application for recognition or renewal. This change will help the Department to maintain a 

clear focus on the highest-risk agencies -- including those with the greatest connection to or volume in 

the Title IV, HEA programs, as well as those with the greatest track record of compliance concerns. By 

carefully allocating its resources this way, the Department’s efforts to oversee accrediting agencies will 

be more effective and efficient.

We propose a small change to require that all agencies, even those not required to submit a 

comprehensive application, address two additional areas of the criteria: § 602.27(a)(6) is a requirement 

that agencies submit to the Department the name of any institution or program it accredits that the 

agency has reason to believe is failing to meet its Title IV obligations or is engaged in fraud or abuse; and 

§ 602.28 requires agencies to respond to negative actions/decisions by other accreditors and (as proposed 

by the Department this session) by state/federal agencies. Both are significant in their importance to 

students and taxpayers, and should be standard areas for review of any agency during recognition 

proceedings.

§ 602.31 Procedures for submitting applications for recognition and renewal of recognition

§ 602.312 Procedures for submitting an applications for recognition, and renewal of recognition, 

expansion of scope, compliance reports, and increases in enrollment. 

(a) An agency must submit submitting an application for initial or renewal of recognition and meet the 

submission deadline set by the Department. preparing for renewing recognition will submit, 24 months 

prior to the date on which the current recognition expires, and in conjunction with the materials 

required by § 602.31(a), a list of all institutions or programs that the agency plans to consider for an 

award of initial or renewed accreditation over the next year or, if none, over the succeeding year, as well 

as any institutions or programs currently subject to compliance report review or reporting requirements. 

An agency that does not anticipate a review of any institution or program for an initial award of 

accreditation or renewed accreditation in the 24 months prior to the date of recognition expiration may 

submit a list of institutions or programs it has reviewed for an initial award of accreditation or renewal 

of accreditation at any time since the prior award of recognition or leading up to the application for an 

initial award of recognition. The type of application that must be submitted, and the scope and priority 

of the Department’s review, is determined by the Department as follows: 
23

(1) If an institutional accrediting agency accredits institutions that participate extensively in title IV, HEA 

programs, the agency must submit a comprehensive application that addresses the agency’s compliance 

with all criteria in subpart B of this part.; 

(2) If an institutional accrediting agency is not identified for review under paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, the agency must submit an application that addresses the agency’s compliance with §§ 602.15, 

602.16, 602.17, 602.19, and 602.20, 602.27(a)(6), and 602.28, and any other criteria as directed by 

Department staff. The agency must also attest that, since its last comprehensive review, the agency’s 

policies and practices have remained in compliance with all criteria in subpart B of this part not 

addressed in its application. 

(3) If an agency has been the subject of a significant number of legal actions, complaints, or other 

compliance issues, the agency must submit a comprehensive application that addresses the agency’s 

compliance with all criteria in subpart B of this part. 

(4) If an agency is only a programmatic accrediting agency and is not identified for review under 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the agency must submit an application that addresses the agency’s 

compliance with the criteria in §§ 602.10, 602.16, 602.17, 602.19, and 602.20, 602.27(a)(6), and 602.28

and any other criteria as directed by Department staff. The agency must also attest that, since its last 

comprehensive review, the agency’s policies and practices have remained in compliance with all criteria 

subpart B of this part not addressed in its application. 

* * * * 

Limitation Actions for Accrediting Agencies

In general, the Department has the authority to limit, suspend, or terminate the recognition of an 

accrediting agency that is out of compliance with the standards. However, as evidenced by the multi-year, 

litigation-heavy process that the Department experienced in withdrawing the recognition of one 

notoriously low-caliber accrediting agency, terminating recognition is not always easy. Nor is it always 

appropriate; some lesser non-compliance warrants a severe action, but may also warrant additional time 

for the accrediting agency to come back into compliance, under appropriate conditions and with adequate 

safeguards in place.

However, the Department rarely uses its limitation authority, including with respect to accrediting 

agencies. We propose changes throughout the accreditation regulations that would provide additional 

clarity about the Department’s existing authority to limit the recognition of an accreditor. While this 

language does not extend or change the authority the Department already has, our hope is that by

providing some illustrative examples in the rules about how the Department may use this authority, it 

may be more likely to do so when appropriate.
24

§ 602.31 Procedures for submitting applications for recognition and renewal of recognition

§ 602.312 Procedures for submitting an applications for recognition, and renewal of recognition, 

expansion of scope, compliance reports, and increases in enrollment. 

* * *

(hf) Except with respect to an application that has been returned and is withdrawn under paragraph (eg) 

of this section, when Department staff completes its evaluation of the agency, the staff may and, after 

July 1, 2021, will — 

* * *

(5) Review the response to the draft analysis the agency submits, if any, and prepares the written final 

analysis— 

(i) Indicating that the agency is in full compliance, substantial compliance, or noncompliance 

with each of the criteria for recognition; and

(ii) Recommending that the senior Department official approve, renew continue recognition 

with compliance reporting requirements due in 12 months, renew continue recognition with 

compliance reporting requirements with a deadline in excess of 12 months based on a finding of 

good cause and extraordinary circumstances, approve with monitoring or other reporting

requirements, or deny, limit (including by limiting the scope of accreditation or number of 

institutions an accreditor may approve), suspend, or terminate recognition; and

* * * *

§ 602.32 Procedures for review of an expansion of scope, compliance report, or increase in headcount 

enrollment.

* * *

(b) For the review of a compliance report, Department staff--

 

* * *

(6) Reviews the response to the draft analysis the agency submits, if any, and prepares the written final 

analysis— 

(i) Indicating that the agency is in full compliance, substantial compliance, or noncompliance 

with each of the criteria for recognition under review; and

(ii) Including a recognition recommendation to the senior Department official, including, but not 

limited to a recommendation that the senior Department official approve, continue recognition 
25

with compliance reporting requirements due in 12 months, continue recognition with 

compliance reporting requirements with a deadline in excess of 12 months based on a finding of 

good cause and extraordinary circumstances, approve with monitoring or other reporting 

requirements, or deny, limit (including by limiting the scope of accreditation or number of 

institutions an accreditor may approve), suspend, or terminate recognition; and

* * * *

§602.34 Advisory Committee meetings.

* * *

(e) The Advisory Committee considers the materials provided under paragraph (c) of this section and 

other materials or information relevant to an agency’s compliance in a public meeting and invites 

Department staff, the agency, and other interested parties to make oral presentations during the 

meeting. A transcript is made of all Advisory Committee meetings.

* * *

(g) After each meeting of the Advisory Committee, the Advisory Committee forwards to the senior 

Department official its recommendation with respect to each agency, which may include, but is not 

limited to— 

(1)

(i) For an agency that is fully compliant, approve initial or renewed recognition; 

(ii) In the case of non-compliance-- 

(A) Continue recognition with a required compliance report to be submitted to the 

Department within 12 months from30 days after the end of the period specified in the 

decision of the senior Department official, which may not exceed 12 months; 

(iiiB) In conjunction with a finding of exceptional circumstances and good cause, continue 

recognition for a specified period in excess of 12 months pending submission of a 

compliance report; or

(C) Deny, limit (including by limiting the scope of accreditation or number of institutions 

an accreditor may approve), suspend, or terminate recognition; 

* * * *

§602.37 Appealing the senior Department official’s decision to the Secretary.

* * *

(f) The Secretary may determine, based on the record, that a decision to deny, limit (including by limiting 

the scope of accreditation or number of institutions an accreditor may approve), suspend, or terminate 

an agency's recognition may be warranted based on a finding that the agency is noncompliant with, or 
26

ineffective in its application with respect to, a criterion or criteria for recognition not identified as an 

area of noncompliance earlier in the proceedings. In that case, the Secretary, without further 

consideration of the appeal, refers the matter to the senior Department official for consideration of the 

issue under § 602.36(g). After the senior Department official makes a decision, the agency may, if 

desired, appeal that decision to the Secretary.

* * * *