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 Liang, 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: January 10, 2024

Re: Accreditation Proposals

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Eliminate the Concept of Substantial Compliance 2

Strengthen the Definition of a Public Member 2

Create an On-Ramp for Newly Recognized Accrediting Agencies 4

Strengthen Requirements for Student Achievement Standards 5

Ensure Risk-Based Reviews of Institutions by Accrediting Agencies 7

Ensure Reasonable Enforcement Timeframes for Accreditor Actions 9

Strengthen Substantive Change Requirements for Written Arrangements 13

Strengthen Complaint Procedures 14

Improve Disclosures to Students of Changes in Accreditation Status 17

Improve the Caliber of Teach-Out Plans and Agreements for High-Risk Institutions 18

Improve Accreditor Oversight of Institutional Credit Transfer Policies 21

Increase Transparency and Public Input in the Recognition Process 22

Establish Risk-Based Reviews of Accrediting Agencies by the Department 26

Additional Language Changes 27

NOTE: Text in red was proposed by the Department; text in red and highlighted in yellow is proposed by 

these negotiators.
2 

Eliminate the Concept of Substantial Compliance

602.3

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.

We strongly urge the Department to eliminate this concept from the regulations. However, should the 

Department be unwilling to eliminate it, we propose that ED limit the use of this status for institutions 

that are behaving appropriately, but which need to make documentation or paperwork updates to meet 

the Department's bar for recognition. We also propose changing the name to reflect the temporary and 

paperwork nature of the non-compliance. (Note that while we have changed the name here, we have 

not included all necessary conforming changes to references to substantial compliance. 

§602.3 What definitions apply to this part?

* * *

(b) The following 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— 

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

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

compliant practices.

* * *

Substantial Minor non-compliance means the agency demonstrated to the Department that it has 

appropriate the necessary policies, practices, and standards in place and generally adheres with fidelity 

to those policies, practices, and standards and applies those standards consistently; and its written or 

the agency has policies, practices, and standards in place that need only minor modifications to reflect 

its generally compliant practice.

Strengthen the Definition of a Public Member

602.3

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 
3 

from institutional backgrounds (including 12 of 38 at agencies formerly known as regional accreditors 

and 10 of 31 at national accreditors).

The Department proposed to define public membership as preventing current and former employees or 

associates of an institution accredited by that agency (or that has applied for accreditation with that 

agency); current or former employees or associations of a trade association/membership organization 

related to the accreditor; current or former employees or consultants of the accreditor; current or 

former employees of another member of the program integrity triad (ED, state agencies, or other 

accreditors); or a close family member of those individuals.

The Department’s proposed definition is strong, and we support it. However, we suggest a few small 

changes. Namely, we suggest also prohibiting anyone with a fiduciary obligation to a regulated entity, 

like another institution of higher education, from serving as a public member. This would mean that, 

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 think the program integrity triad prohibition might be overly broad; we suggested clarifying that 

only a current member of the triad (and not a former employee of a state, for instance) cannot be 

considered a public member. We think, for instance, someone who formerly worked for a state AG or a 

state higher education regulatory body might have good insights to share with an accrediting 

commission. Proposed changes to (b)(3) are purely technical, because the language ED proposed is 

duplicative of (1).

§602.3 What definitions apply to this part?

* * *

(b) The following definitions apply to this part:

* * *

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

 

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

education;

 

(32) 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 
4 

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

preaccreditation; 

 

(43) A current or former employee of or consultant to the agency;

 

(4)(3) A 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), or (5) of this definition.

 

Create an On-Ramp for Newly Recognized Accrediting Agencies

602.12

Accreditors seeking recognition for the very first time are required, among other things, to show they 

have accredited at least one institution and have conducted at least two years of accrediting activities 

before their application is submitted. This is designed to ensure some basis for the Department to 

evaluate the agency’s application, and to avoid rushing approval to an agency that will have Title IV 

gatekeeping authority to approve colleges. 

We proposed to build out the current framework for new accrediting agencies. Rather than making a 

new accreditor either entirely with or without recognition -- and thus with or without gatekeeping 

status -- we propose an “on-ramp” for new agencies to begin slowly accrediting institutions. Specifically, 

they would not be permitted to accredit more than two times the number of schools they had 

accredited as of when they submit their application during their initial recognition period. This would 

balance the need for a responsible and cautious approach to enabling new accreditors with the interest 

some have in enabling new agencies to enter the system.

§602.12 Accrediting experience. 

(a) An agency seeking initial recognition--

(1) must demonstrate that it has--

(i1) Granted accreditation or preaccreditation prior to submitting an application for 

recognition— 

(Ai) To one or more institutions if it is requesting recognition as an institutional 

accrediting agency and to one or more programs if it is requesting recognition as a 

programmatic accrediting agency;

(Bii) That covers the range of the specific degrees, certificates, institutions, and 

programs for which it seeks recognition; and
5 

 

(Ciii) In the geographic area for which it seeks recognition; and

 

(ii2) Conducted effective accrediting activities, including deciding whether to grant or deny 

accreditation or preaccreditation, for at least two years prior to seeking recognition, unless the 

agency seeking initial recognition is affiliated with, or is a division of, an already recognized 

agency.

(2) Shall not be approved to accredit more than two times the number of institutions or programs it 

accredited under paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) for its initial recognition period.

 

* * *

Strengthen Requirements for Student Achievement Standards

602.16(b) (proposed), 604.14(b)

The statute currently outlines 10 areas in which accreditors are required to set standards. The first of 

those is “success with respect to student achievement in relation to the institution’s mission,” designed 

to ensure that accreditors look at student outcomes. However, accreditors have often fallen short in 

doing so. As research has shown, many accreditors lack specific performance expectations for their 

institutions, and others fail to act even when their institutions fall short.

The Department asked several guiding questions of the committee on this issue; namely, it sought 

feedback from negotiators on the following questions: How can the Department ensure that standards 

are rigorous, and what factors should the Department consider in ensuring they are rigorous?

We recommended ED make four additions to the text to address student achievement, all of which we 

believe are permissible and would address significant and known flaws in accreditors’ practices.

First, accreditors should be required to use reliable data to measure student achievement, including by 

considering data provided by the Secretary (such as data from the College Scorecard). This is a necessary 

aspect of ensuring accreditors are effective in their assessment of student achievement, and has been a 

problem in the past where agencies like ACICS used job placement rates that turned out to be based on 

misrepresentations.

Second, accreditors should be required to disaggregate data as practicable to look at student subgroups. 

Few agencies look at disaggregated data for anything but enrollment, but a necessary aspect of student 

achievement is understanding whether there are pockets of students who see demonstrably worse 

outcomes, so that accreditors know where they need to focus institutions’ efforts to improve.

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

metrics by institutions. For instance, a common metric for nursing programs is a minimum pass-rate on 

the state licensure exam (NCLEX). Some students who enrolled in nursing programs have reported that, 

despite otherwise completing the program successfully, their schools did not allow them to graduate 
6 

because they failed to meet a minimum score set by the school on a third-party’s standardized practice 

test for the NCLEX. (Two such students addressed this committee directly during the public comment 

period 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 high-stakes exams to prevent 

students from taking the NCLEX and other such practices undermine accreditors’ obligation to oversee 

student achievement by manipulating schools’ performance on commonly used accreditor student 

achievement measures.

Fourth, we suggested that accreditors should be required to identify the standard they will use for each 

institution/program. For instance, if they have a graduation rate standard, they should be required to 

note that Community College A has defined its performance goals as 45%, and Public Four-Year B has set 

its graduation rate goal at 65%. The Department can’t tell agencies what benchmark to use (and even 

accreditors must arrive at these benchmarks in relation to the mission of each institution), but it can 

expect that they should HAVE a benchmark, and that benchmark should be a knowable and reportable 

number.

Finally, while we didn’t provide language, we recommend that the Department consider establishing 

common definitions of certain frequently used student achievement measures, like retention rates, 

graduation rates, and job placement rates. Common measures, defined in the same way, would further 

enhance the reliability of the data, improve comparability across institutions, and address some of the 

problematic definitions (e.g., with respect to misrepresented or gamed job placement rates) that some 

agencies have used. We would welcome the opportunity to work with the Department and other nonfederal negotiators on language.

§602.16 Accreditation and preaccreditation standards.

* * * 

(b) Agencies are required to ensure the standards described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) are effective, which 

shall include:

(1) Using reliable data, including the consideration of standard information on institutional 

performance available to agencies or provided by the Secretary or other Federal sources;

(2) Disaggregating data as practicable to consider the performance of student subgroups within 

student achievement measures; 

(3) Including adequate controls to prevent institutions from manipulating or otherwise inflating their 

performance on the standards; and 
7 

(4) Publicly identifying the standard and performance goal for each institution or program, as 

established in relation to the institution’s mission.

* * * *

§604.10 – Annual report

(a) The State approval agency must demonstrate that it requires each program of nurse education it 

approves to submit a comprehensive annual report that enables the agency to identify problems with a 

program’s continued compliance with agency standards.

(b) The required annual report for each approved program of nurse education must include current 

data, disaggregated by income and race/ethnicity where applicable and as practicable, and information 

in at least the following areas:

(1) Enrollment by class;

(2) Student-teacher ratios;

(3) Admissions data for prior five years;

(4) Graduation/completion data for prior five years;

(5) Performance of students on State licensing examination(s) for prior 5 years;

(6) Any changes to the curricula;

(7) A copy of the course catalog;

(8) Any new contractual arrangements which reflect upon the academic program;

(9) A copy of its audited fiscal report; and

(10) Any other key indicators, as determined by the State approval agency.

Ensure Risk-Based Reviews of Institutions by Accrediting Agencies

602.19(c) (proposed), 602.28(d)

Some schools within the higher education system present an outsized risk to students and taxpayers. Yet 

these high-risk institutions are not always the same ones that receive the greatest amount of attention. 

Some risky schools are able to avoid any added oversight because agencies have no real established 

processes for determining risk. Guidance issued by the Education Department in 2016 further clarified 

how agencies could offer risk-based reviews, but that guidance has received little attention since it was 

published.

Recently, state approval agencies (state oversight entities for institutions and educational providers 

approved for VA dollars) began initiating a risk-based review process for institutions that receive 

veterans education benefits, like the GI Bill. Research has provided insights into the factors for 

identifying institutions that yielded the highest value in a pilot project with several states; we have 
8 

drawn on that research here to propose language for the comparable task of risk-based reviews by 

accreditors.

We propose to insert a new subsection requiring accrediting agencies to conduct risk-based reviews of 

their institutions, assessing risk based on financial stability, academic quality, administrative capability, 

and student achievement. The agencies would be required to use certain factors (complaints received, 

record of noncompliance, year-over-year tuition changes, high net price, year-over-year fluctuations in 

enrollment, low retention rates or high dropout rates, low completion rates, and lower share of 

graduates earning more than a typical high school graduate). These factors, as noted above, are drawn 

from the research into the SAA pilot. To implement this change, we also proposed to require agencies to 

establish procedures for identifying high-risk institutions, evaluating them, and (if appropriate) taking 

action based on an evaluation.

We also propose to require accrediting agencies to initiate a review of any institution that is subject to a 

review, negative action, or adverse action by a state agency, federal agency, or another recognized 

accrediting agency. This would cover a broader array of actions: warnings, investigations, lawsuits, 

revocations of approval by a state, etc. By triggering a review, the language would require more 

interaction and coordination across the program integrity triad.

§602.19 Monitoring and reevaluation of accredited institutions and programs.

* * *

(c)(1) Each institutional accrediting agency must conduct risk-based reviews of the institutions it 

accredits that present a high risk of financial stability, academic quality, administrative capability, or 

student achievement. The agency must identify high-risk institutions through the consideration of 

factors that include:

(i) Severity and/or high volume of complaints and/or legal proceedings;

(ii) Severity and/or high volume of noncompliance, as reported in program reviews, audits, or 

other compliance actions by the Department;

(iii) Large annual changes in tuition;

(iv) High annual net price, overall or for low-income students;

(v) Large annual fluctuations in enrollment;

(vi) Low annual retention rates or high annual dropout rates, calculated overall, by Pell Grant 

recipient status, and by race/ethnicity;

(vii) Low annual completion rates, calculated overall, by Pell Grant recipient status, and by 

race/ethnicity; and

(viii) Low share of graduates earning more than the typical high school graduate in the State 

where the institution is located.

(2) The agency must establish and publish procedures that describe--

(i) How it identifies high-risk institutions, including through the factors in (c)(1)(i)-(viii);

(ii) Its process for evaluating high-risk institutions; and
9 

(iii) How it determines the appropriate course of action following an evaluation under 

subparagraph (ii).

(d) 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.

* * *

§602.28 Regard for decisions of States and other accrediting agencies. 

(a) If the agency learns that an institution it accredits or preaccredits, or an institution that offers a 

program it accredits or preaccredits, is the subject of a review, lawsuit, negative action, or an adverse 

action by a State or Federal agency or another recognized accrediting agency, or has been placed on 

probation or an equivalent status by another recognized agency, the agency must promptly immediately 

initiate review its of the accreditation or preaccreditation of the institution or program to determine if 

the institution or program is out of compliance with agency standards and should be placed under 

negative actionit should also take adverse action or place the institution or program on probation or 

show cause. 

Ensure Reasonable Enforcement Timeframes for Accreditor Actions

602.20, 604.16(b) and (d)

As noted elsewhere in this document, 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.

We are concerned that the Department proposed to retain a three-year (longer, with a good cause 

extension) timeframe in which institutions can remain out of compliance, now moved from 602.18 to 

602.20. Additionally, while we support the Department restoring pre-2020 timeframes for the 

enforcement of accreditors’ standards (set at 12 months, 18 months, and two years, respectively, for 

schools whose longest programs are less than one year, more than one year but less than two years, or 

two years or longer), we are concerned that the timeframe for student achievement provisions would 

continue to allow accreditors to drag their feet. Specifically, for student achievement-related provisions, 

the Department would allow institutions as long as 18 months, three years, or four years out of 

compliance, respectively -- the lesser of four years or 150 percent of the longest length of a program. 

We first seek clarity from the Department on how the three-year timeframe would apply to the separate 

enforcement timeframes -- whether the Department proposes to allow three years, followed by up to 

two years (for a non-student-achievement matter) or four years (for a student achievement matter); or 

whether the Department proposes for the three-year period to fall within those timeframes. If the 

former, up to seven years’ worth of students could continue to enroll in a school already known to be 
10

out of compliance with accreditors’ standards -- a significant reprieve for institutions, enforced on the 

backs of students. Accordingly, we propose to shorten the three-year timeframe to a one-year 

timeframe.

Additionally, 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.

§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— 

(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 
11

(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 longest program predominant length of the programs

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

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

programs 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 longest program predominant length of the programs

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 may must 

include the enforcement of intermediate checkpoints on the way to that allow the agency to ensure the 

institution will be in 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 

(2) Length of the longest program predominant length of the programs offered byat 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. Such extensions must be reported to the Department, with a brief description of 

the reasons for the extension, within 10 days of approval by the agency’s decision-making body.

* * *

(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 three years one year 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— 
12

(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 to 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 postponed within the time allotted; and 

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

noncompliance will not— 

(i) Contribute 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. 

* * * * 

§604.10 – 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 34 C.F.R. § 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 
13

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 must may include the enforcement of

intermediate checkpoints tothat allow the agency to ensure the institution will be in full compliance by 

the end of the timeline. The timeline on the way to full compliance and must not exceed the lesser of 

four years or 150 percent of the length of the program of nurse education.

* * * 

(d) Nothing [A2] 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 three one years unless the agency 

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

* * * *

Strengthen Substantive Change Requirements for Written Arrangements

602.22(f)

Under these proposed regulations, institutions are required to comply with substantive change 

requirements, submitting an application to their accreditor before making major changes to their 

academic offerings, adding new locations, or their educational levels, among other issues. One of those 

relates to written arrangements (i.e., contracts) with outside entities (including ineligible entities). 

Institutions have long been required to seek 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 propose a new section with requirements specific to reviewing written arrangements. Specifically, 

the proposed language would require accreditors to assess the percentage of a program being 

outsourced – the primary topic covered by the Department’s guidance last year, so a known issue the 

Department is concerned about. It would also require accreditors to evaluate the ineligible entity’s 

capacity to offer the program by investigating its performance in offering similar programs with an 

institution. If the entity offers recruitment/marketing services to the school, the accreditor would also 

need to evaluate those activities for compliance with the agency’s standards on recruitment. 

§ 602.22 Substantive changes and other reporting requirements.
14

(a) 

(1) If the agency accredits institutions, it must maintain adequate written 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— 

* * *

(g) The agency must ensure that written arrangements approved under paragraph (a)(1)(M) must 

include— 

(1) An assessment of the portion of the program included under the arrangement, including the extent 

to which the ineligible entity designs, administers, or instructs the course, to ensure the arrangement 

complies with regulatory limitations;

(2) An evaluation of the ineligible entity’s performance, including analysis of student achievement data, 

in providing similar programs with an institution, to assess the entity’s capability; and

(3) As appropriate, an evaluation of the ineligible entity’s recruitment and marketing practices to ensure 

they are compliant with the agency’s standards.

(hgh) The agency's substantive change policy must define when the changes made or proposed by an 

institution are or would be sufficiently extensive to require the agency to conduct a new comprehensive 

evaluation of that institution.

Strengthen Complaint Procedures

602.23(c), 604.17(b)(iv)

Student complaints are an important mechanism to protect students, providing them with an avenue to 

address institutional misconduct and raise unresolved concerns. Complaints are also a critical tool for 

regulators, providing them with on-the-ground insights into institutions’ behavior and lifting up patterns 

of wrongdoing that may warrant further investigation or action.

However, accrediting agencies have long had deeply flawed complaint processes. Many of the 

institutional accrediting agencies formerly known as regional accreditors have inaccessible or 

convoluted complaint policies. For instance, most required complainants not only to state their 

problem, but to identify the specific section of the accreditor’s standards that they believe is violated. 

Some allow only a one-year window in which complaints can be addressed, or require submissions be 

made by snail-mail.

The Department has already acknowledged many of these shortcomings, issuing new guidance to 

accrediting agencies to clarify its expectations for their complaint processes. We also support the 

Department’s efforts to codify many of these changes in the regulations through these proposed 

regulations. 
15

We suggest some further changes to strengthen these processes. The below changes (highlighted in 

yellow) would clarify that accrediting agencies should take note of complaints submitted through 

traditional venues, as well as other complaints they become aware of through other avenues (such as 

media reports or class-action lawsuits). They would also require accreditors to accept complaints for at 

least five years following an incident or enrollment. And accrediting agencies would be required to 

publish aggregate data on the types and volume of complaints they received.

 

§602.23 Operating procedures all agencies must have. 

* * *

(c) 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. 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--; 

(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 at least five years after the date of the incident 

detailed in the complaint;

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

(ivii) 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 even when the complainant does not technically follow the agency’s 

complaint procedures; 

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

elect to keep their personally identifiable information confidential from the institution or 

program that is the subject of the complaint; 
16

(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 filing 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; and 

(viii) Accessibility for individuals with disabilities. 

(2) Adequately document the review and decision and, if applicable, Ttake and document follow-up 

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

(3) Review in a timely, fair, and equitable manner, and apply unbiased judgment to, any complaints 

against itself and take and document follow-up action, as appropriate, based on the results of its 

review.; and 

(4) Publish data annually on the volume and type of complaints received and otherwise observed.

Proposed 34 C.F.R. Part 604 -- The Secretary’s Recognition of State Agencies for the Approval of Nurse 

Education

604.17 -- Operating Procedures

(b) The State approval agency must--

(1) Review any complaint it receives against an approved program of nurse education that is related to 

the agency's standards or procedures in a timely, fair, and equitable manner. The agency may not 

complete its review and make a decision regarding a complaint unless, in accordance with published 

procedures, it ensures that the program of nurse education 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 approval standard. The State approval agency must 

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

program of nurse education with the agency’s standards, policies, and procedures. The State approval 

agency’s complaint procedures must include – 

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

complainant regarding the status of the complaint;

(ii) Allowance for more than one complaint submission method;
17

(iii) 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 even when the complainant does not technically follow the agency’s 

complaint procedures;

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

elect to keep their personally identifiable information confidential from both the state agency 

and the program of nurse education that is the subject of the complaint;

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

complainant to first submit the complaint to the program of nurse education and to allow the 

program of nurse education to reach a conclusion prior to filing a complaint with the State 

approval agency;

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

agency staff in handling and responding to complaints; and

(vii) Accessibility for individuals with disabilities.

Improve Disclosures to Students of Changes in Accreditation Status

602.23(e), 602.26(e)

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 taking 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...”

We propose to enhance oversight of these types of disclosures to students. Under this proposed 

language, accrediting agencies would be required to take action against institutions that fail to update 

their accreditation status to students following a probation action, show-cause order, or adverse action. 

Additionally, notification to current and prospective students of adverse actions would be required 
18

before such actions become final, to allow students to make informed decisions about where they enroll 

in school.

§602.23 Operating procedures all agencies must have. 

* * *

(e) 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; 

(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 a 

plain-language description of the 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.

(a) For any decision listed in paragraph (c) of this section, or any such decision that is not yet final, 

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, 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;

* * *

Improve the Caliber of Teach-Out Plans and Agreements for High-Risk Institutions

600.2, 602.23(f)(1)(ii), 602.24(c)(2), 602.25(f)(3)

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.
19

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 propose to strengthen references to teach-outs throughout the regulations. This includes clarifying 

the definition of a teach-out agreement includes requirements that the school teaching out the program 

offer the same program as the student’s current course of study, and for a similar cost, and that it must 

have been in existence prior to entering into the agreement. We also propose requiring preaccredited 

institutions to maintain a teach-out agreement, not just a plan. Preaccreditation does not always lead to 

accreditation for institutions, and students enrolled in these programs function as guinea pigs for the 

institution. Thus, we believe that strong student protections are needed. We also propose to require 

teach-out agreements in very high-risk cases in all cases, removing the current language that requires 

agreements only “if practicable.” Finally, we propose to require that teach-out agreements be submitted 

alongside appeals of adverse actions to ensure these institutions on the verge of a potential loss of 

accreditation have conducted adequate planning to protect their students.

§600.2 Definitions.

Teach-out agreement: A written agreement between institutions that provides for the equitable 

treatment of students and a reasonable opportunity for students to complete their current program of 

study for a similar cost if an institution, or an institutional location that provides 100 percent of at least 

one program offered, ceases to operate or plans to cease operations before all enrolled students have 

completed their program of study. The institution offering the teach-out agreement must have operated 

the program for at least two years, and must not be under a warning or other negative action by an 

institutional accrediting agency, state authorizing agency, or the Secretary.

§602.23 Operating procedures all agencies must have.

(a)(1) If preaccreditation is offered— 

(i) The agency's preaccreditation policies must limit the status to institutions or programs that 

the agency has determined are likely to succeed in obtaining accreditation;

(ii) The agency must require all preaccredited institutions to have a teach-out planagreement, 

which must ensure students completing the teach-out would meet curricular requirements for 

professional licensure or certification, if any, and which must include a list of academic programs 
20

offered by the institution and the names of other institutions that offer similar programs and 

that could potentially enter into a teach-out agreement with the institution;

(iii) An agency that denies accreditation to an institution it has preaccredited may maintain the 

institution's preaccreditation for currently enrolled students until the institution has had a 

reasonable time to complete the activities in its teach-out plan to assist students in transferring 

or completing their programs, but for no more than 120 days unless approved by the agency for 

good cause; and

(iv) The agency may not move an accredited institution or program from accredited to 

preaccredited status unless, following the loss of accreditation, the institution or program 

applies for initial accreditation and is awarded preaccreditation status under the new 

application. Institutions that participated in the title IV, HEA programs before the loss of 

accreditation are subject to the requirements of 34 C.F.R. § 600.11(c).

(2) All credits and degrees earned and issued by an institution or program holding preaccreditation from 

a nationally recognized agency are considered by the Secretary to be from an accredited institution or 

program.

§ 602.24 Additional procedures certain institutional agencies must have.

(a) Teach-out plans and agreements.

(1) The agency must require an institution it accredits to submit a teach-out plan as defined in 34 C.F.R. 

§ 600.2 to the agency for approval upon the occurrence of any of the following events:

(i) For a nonprofit or proprietary institution, the Secretary notifies the agency of a determination by the 

institution's independent auditor expressing doubt about the institution's ability to operate as a going 

concern or indicating an adverse opinion or a finding of material weakness related to financial stability.

(ii) The agency acts to place the institution on probation or equivalent status.

(iii) The Secretary notifies the agency that the institution is participating in title IV, HEA programs 

under a provisional program participation agreement and the Secretary has required a teach- out plan 

as a condition of participation.

(2) The agency must require an institution it accredits or preaccredits to submit a teach-out plan and, if 

practicable, teach-out agreements (as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 600.2) to the agency for approval upon the 

occurrence of any of the following events:

* * *

§602.25 Due process.
21

(a) Provides an opportunity, upon written request of an institution or program, for the institution or 

program to appeal any adverse action prior to the action becoming final.

 

(1) The appeal must take place at a hearing before an appeals panel that--

 

(i) May not include current members of the agency's decision-making body that took the initial 

adverse action;

(ii) Is subject to a conflict of interest policy;

 

(iii) Does not serve only an advisory or procedural role, and has and uses the authority to make 

the following decisions: To affirm, amend, or remand adverse actions of the original decisionmaking body; and

 

(iv) Affirms, amends, or remands the adverse action. A decision to affirm or amend the adverse 

action is implemented by the appeals panel or by the original decision-making body, at the 

agency's option; however, in the event of a decision by the appeals panel to remand the adverse 

action to the original decision-making body for further consideration, the appeals panel must 

explain the basis for a decision that differs from that of the original decision-making body and 

the original decision-making body in a remand must act in a manner consistent with the appeals 

panel's decisions or instructions.

 

(2) The agency must recognize the right of the institution or program to employ counsel to represent the 

institution or program during its appeal, including to make any presentation that the agency permits the 

institution or program to make on its own during the appeal.

(3) The institution must submit a teach-out agreement alongside its appeal.

Improve Accreditor Oversight of Institutional Credit Transfer Policies

602.24(e)

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. 

To that end, we propose that the Department enhance existing requirements that accreditors review 

institutional transfer of credit policies. In addition to requiring that such policies be publicly disclosed 

and clear in their statements of institutional criteria, we propose that accrediting agencies assess actual 

credit transfer rates (overall and within the student’s course of study), average time to completion for 
22

transfer students, and the share of transfer students who are enrolled at the institution. We also 

propose that accrediting agencies conduct a review of the institutions’ use of widely accepted best 

practices to improve transfer outcomes.

§ 602.24 Additional procedures certain institutional agencies must have.

(e) Transfer of credit policies. The accrediting agency must confirm, as part of its review for initial 

accreditation or preaccreditation, or renewal of accreditation, that the institution has transfer of credit 

policies that— 

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

(2) Include an assessment of credit transfer acceptance rates, overall and within the course of study, the 

average time to completion for transfer students, and the share of transfer students enrolled at the 

institution of higher education;

(3) Evaluate the institution’s use of widely accepted best practices, such as common course numbering, 

establishment of articulation agreements, and application of transfer credits toward the program of 

study; and

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

earned at another institution of higher education.

Increase Transparency and Public Input in the Recognition Process

602.30(f)(v) and (vi), 602.31(b) and (f), 602.32(a)(1), 602.34(c)

The Department of Education’s process of recognizing accrediting agencies is a high-stakes one: While 

approved, accreditors provide a signal of quality assurance to students and serve as gatekeepers to 

billions of dollars in taxpayer-financed student aid. However, this process has often lacked transparency 

and public accountability, with an internally-focused protocol that provides too little information to the 

public. The Department has an opportunity in this rulemaking to enhance transparency and increase 

public trust in the system; in this proposal, we include a range of proposals all dedicated to these goals.

In proposed changes to § 602.30(f), we propose to require accrediting agencies to post their recognition 

materials on their websites at least 30 days prior to the NACIQI meeting at which their petitions will be 

assessed, and to certify that the redactions they submitted to the Department were made accurately 

and in good faith. The Department has worked in recent years to increase transparency into accreditor 

materials, but the redaction and disclosure process under FOIA has created significant slow-downs in 

that work. It is our hope that this language will assist, though not replace, the process of the 

Department's review and release of materials.

In proposed changes to §§602.31(b) and (f) and 602.32(a)(1), we propose several ways to enhance the 

public comment process during recognition proceedings to ensure the public can provide more timely 

and actionable information to the Department and NACIQI. In §602.31(b) and §602.32(a)(1), we seek to 
23

establish in the regulations that the public comment period should be at least 30 days -- consistent with 

the timeframe typically used by the Department already. 

In §602.31(f) and §602.32(a)(1), we propose to ensure the Department will publish the draft staff 

analysis it develops for an agency and a compliance report submitted by an agency, respectively. 

Currently, members of the public do not have access to this information, and as a result cannot provide 

meaningful comment to the Department on areas where it should dive more deeply or potential aspects 

of noncompliance in the agency’s policies or practice. 

For both sections, we would ensure that these materials are available prior to seeking public 

information on the agency. In the case of recognition proceedings in §602.31(f), this would entail a 

second public comment period, closer to the date of the NACIQI meeting than the current comment 

period opened when an agency submits its petition. Under the current process, public comments are 

due well over a year before the NACIQI meeting for the agency in question, and before the draft analysis 

is completed. That means, by the time the Senior Department Official makes a decision, the only written 

public comments submitted are based on stale information, and are non-responsive to any compliance 

issues or evidence raised throughout the rulemaking process. By creating a second comment process, 

this time based on the draft analysis, the public can provide more extensive, useful, and actionable 

information to those involved in the process -- including Department staff, NACIQI members, and the 

SDO.

Finally, we also propose to provide an opportunity for members of NACIQI to provide input to the 

Department and inform the site visit, file review, and other aspects of the analysis. This is particularly 

important because, by retaining the file review process as the basis for the analysis of an application, the 

record provided to NACIQI is less complete than when more of the documentation was provided by the 

agency as part of its petition. It will also ensure NACIQI members have an opportunity to ask questions 

as part of the initial review (providing agencies with more time to respond to the questions that 

members raise), rather than raising those issues only in live NACIQI discussions.

§602.30 [Removed and Reserved] 

§ 602.31 Agency applications and reports to be submitted to the Department.

* * *

(f) Public availability of agency records obtained by the Department.

(1) The Secretary's processing and decision-making on requests for public disclosure of agency 

materials reviewed under this part are governed by the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; the 

Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905; the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a; the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appdx. 1; and all other applicable laws. In recognition proceedings, 

agencies must, before submission to the Department— 
24

(i) Redact the names and any other personally identifiable information about individual students and 

any other individuals who are not agents of the agency or of an institution or program the agency is 

reviewing;

(ii) Redact the personal addresses, personal telephone numbers, personal email addresses, Social 

Security numbers, and any other personally identifiable information regarding individuals who are acting 

as agents of the agency or of an institution or program under review;

(iii) Designate all business information within agency submissions that the agency believes would be 

exempt from disclosure under exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). 

A blanket designation of all information contained within a submission, or of a category of documents, 

as meeting this exemption will not be considered a good faith effort and will be disregarded; and

(iv) Ensure documents submitted are only those required for Department review or as requested by 

Department officials; 

(v) Post the redacted materials on their websites not less than 30 days prior to the Advisory Committee 

meeting at which the agency’s recognition will be discussed; and

(vi) Certify under penalty of perjury that the agency has made a good-faith effort to make all necessary 

redactions and to redact only information that would be exempt from disclosure, as identified in 

paragraphs (i)-(iii). 

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

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

* * *

(b) An agency seeking initial recognition must follow the policies and procedures outlined in paragraph 

(a) of this section, but in addition must also submit— 

(1) Letters of support for the agency from at least three accredited institutions or programs, three 

educators, and, if appropriate, three employers or practitioners, explaining the role for such an agency 

and the reasons for their support; and

(2) Letters from at least one program or institution that will rely on the agency as its link to a Federal 

program upon recognition of the agency or intends to seek multiple accreditation which will allow it in 

the future to designate the agency as its Federal link.

(c) After receipt of an agency’s application for initial or renewal of recognition, Department staff 

publishes a notice in the Federal Register stating that the of the agency's submittedssion of an 

application in the Federal Register and inviting the public to comment provide information concerning 

the performance of on the agency's compliance to assist the Department in determining whether the 

agency meets the criteria for recognition and with the criteria for recognition and establishing a 

deadline for receipt of information from the public comment. of not less than 30 days. 

* * *
25

(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 — 

 

(1) Prepare a written draft analysis of the agency's application;

(2)

(i) Send to the agency the draft analysis including any identified areas of potential 

noncompliance and all third-party comments and complaints, if applicable, and any other 

materials the Department received by the established deadline or is including in its review; and

(ii) Publish the draft analysis on its website for the public.

 

(3) Publish a notice in the Federal Register stating where the draft analysis is now available, inviting the 

public to provide information concerning the performance of the agency or the agency’s compliance, 

and establishing a deadline for receipt of information from the public of not less than 30 days.

(43) Invite the agency to provide a written response to the draft analysis and third-party comments 

information or other material included in the review, specifying a deadline that provides at least 18090 

days for the agency’s response;

 

(54) 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, suspend, or terminate recognition; and

(65) Provide to the agency, no later than 30 days before the Advisory Committee meeting, the final staff 

analysis and any other available information provided to the Advisory Committee under § 602.34(c).

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

enrollment.

(a) For an expansion of scope, 
26

(1) The Department will only accept such applications in conjunction with an application for recognition, 

except as provided in (a)(2) of this section.

(2) At the discretion of Department staff and on a case-by-case basis, Department staff may review an 

application for an expansion of scope independent of a renewal application. The accrediting agency 

must demonstrate that the Department’s review of the agency’s application for an expansion of scope is 

essential to prevent the delay of educational programs for which high student interest exists and where 

projected enrollment demonstrates support for educational programs associated with the expansion of 

scope.

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

(1) 

(i) Publishes the compliance report on its website; and 

(ii) Publishes in the Federal Register a notice that an agency submitted a compliance report, 

stating where the report is now available, inviting the public to provide information concerning 

the performance of the agency to assist the Department in determining whether the agency 

meets the criteria for recognition identified in the recognition decision and establishing a deadline 

for receipt of information from the public of not less than 30 days; 

* * *

§602.34 Advisory Committee meetings.

* * *

(b) The Chairperson of the Advisory Committee establishes an agenda for the next meeting and, in 

accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, presents it to the Designated Federal Official for 

approval.

(c) Within 7 days of publishing the notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment for an 

application for recognition or renewal to recognition, as described in § 602.31(b), Department staff 

invite members of the Advisory Committee to provide feedback to inform the staff’s analysis of the 

application. 

(dc) Before the Advisory Committee meeting, Department staff provides the Advisory Committee with— 

(1) TheAs applicable, the agency's application for recognition, or renewal of recognition, orthe agency’s 

application for expansion of scope when Advisory Committee review is required, and when the 

application for expansion of scope is reviewed by Department staff under either 34 C.F.R. §§ 

602.32(a)(1) or 602.32(a)(2), or the agency's compliance report, and supporting documentation 

submitted by the agency; 

(2) The final Department staff analysis of the agency developed in accordance with §602.31, § 602.32, or 

§602.33, and any supporting documentation; 

(3) The agency's response to the draft analysis; 
27

(4) Any written third-party commentsinformation the Department received about the agency on or 

before the established deadline; 

(5) Any agency response to third-party commentsinformation; and 

(6) Any other information Department staff relied upon in developing its analysis. 

* * *

Establish Risk-Based Reviews of Accrediting Agencies by the Department

602.33(a)(2)

The Department noted in its issue paper that it is interested in codifying a risk-based review process that 

will help it to more clearly prioritize the review of dozens of agencies. We strongly support the 

Department’s efforts to do so, including the use of factors like the Title IV volume under the accreditor. 

We also propose considering a variety of additional factors, including complaints received about the 

agency; precipitous institutional closures; annual increases in the number of institutions or programs 

accredited by the agency; and state or federal investigations, lawsuits, or settlements. The Department 

already utilizes risk-based reviews, for instance in selecting institutions of higher education for program 

reviews; broadening those efforts to other Department oversight work, and establishing some of the 

ways in which the Department will consider risk-based reviews, will provide significant benefit to 

students and to taxpayers.

§602.33 Procedures for review of agencies during the period of recognition, including the review of 

monitoring reports. 

(a) Department staff may review the compliance of a recognized agency with the criteria for recognition 

at any time— 

(1) Based on the submission of a monitoring report as directed by a decision by the senior Department 

official or Secretary; or 

(2) Based on any information that, as determined by Department staff, appears credible and raises 

concerns relevant to the criteria for recognition, which shall include.: 

(i) The volume of Title IV, HEA funds received by institutions accredited by the agency;

(ii) Severe and/or a high volume of complaints received about the agency or its institutions;

(iii) One or more institutional closures without an approved teach-out plan or agreement in 

place by an institution accredited by the agency;

(iv) Severe deficiencies in the student achievement performance of institutions accredited by 

the agency;
28

(v) Notable annual increases in the number of institutions or programs accredited by the agency; 

and

(vi) Ongoing State or Federal investigations or lawsuits by, or a recent State or Federal 

settlement with, one or more institutions accredited by the agency.

Additional Language Changes

(Throughout)

In addition to the substantive additions and edits to the Department’s redlines, below we provide a 

number of smaller-scale language changes that require less explanation, but that would similarly 

support an improved accreditation system for higher education. Each item under this header is 

explained with a comment bubble.

§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 

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.

* * * *

§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;

 

Commented [A1]: 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.
29

(3) The agency has established and implemented effective guidelines for each member of the decisionmaking body, including guidelines ensuring members avoidon 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.

* * * *

§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, expertise, and financial resources 

to carry out its accrediting responsibilities;

 

* * * *

§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 and ensure thatfor the 

institutions or programs it accredits remain in compliance in the following areas:

* * *

§602.18 Ensuring consistency in effective decision-making.

(a) The agency must consistently apply and enforce standards that respect the stated mission of the 

institution, including religious mission, and that ensure that the education or training offered by an 

institution or program, including any offered through distance education, correspondence courses, or 

Commented [A2]: We recommend that the 

Department strengthen this provision to avoid conflicts 

of interest, placing an increased burden on the entity to 

ensure conflicts of interest don't happen rather than 

simply requiring policies that avoid conflicts of interest.

Commented [A3]: We suggest this addition to help 

ensure the adequacy of agencies' administrative and 

fiscal capacity.

Commented [A4]: We suggest this addition to enable 

better monitoring and oversight.

Commented [A5]: We recommend strengthening the 

requirement here to ensure compliance, rather than 

simply establish a paperwork requirement for how the 

standards appear in writing.

Commented [A6]: We recommend updating this 

headline to more accurately describe what the section 

entails and what the goals of these regulations should 

be.
30

direct assessment education is of sufficient quality to achieve its stated objective for the duration of any 

accreditation or preaccreditation period.

(b) The agency meets the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section if the agency— 

 

(1) Has written specification of the requirements for accreditation and preaccreditation that include 

clear standards for an institution or program to be accredited or preaccredited;

(2) Has effective controls against the inconsistent application of the agency's standards;

 

(3) Bases decisions regarding accreditation and preaccreditation on the agency's published standards 

and does not use as a negative factor the institution's religious mission-based policies, decisions, and 

practices in the areas covered by § 602.16(a)(1)(ii), (iii), (iv), (vi), and (vii) provided, however, that the 

agency may require that the institution's or program's curricula include all core components required by 

the agency;

 

(4) Has a reasonable basis for determining that the information the agency relies on for making 

accrediting decisions is current, representative, and accurate;

* * * *

§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, 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.

* * * *

§ 602.22 Substantive changes and other reporting requirements.

(a) 

(1) If the agency accredits institutions, it must maintain adequate adequate written substantive change 

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

Commented [A7]: We recommend further clarifying 

the expectations of accrediting agencies to use current 

and representative information.

Commented [A8]: We suggest this language to ensure 

agencies allow for regular scheduled evaluations and 

also that they conduct ongoing oversight of their 

institutions, including via risk-based assessments as 

described in proposed (c).

Commented [A9]: The proposed changes to this 

paragraph would require that agencies conduct more 

effective monitoring by emphasizing the need to use 

accurate, current, and representative information; and 

by clarifying that data collection/analysis should be 

regular.

Commented [A10]: The Department proposed to 

replace "adequate" with "written," but we recommend 

retaining both words to ensure the standards are 

effective.
31

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— 

* * * *

§ 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

Commented [A11]: This language would provide 

additional clarity to the Department's existing authority 

to limit the recognition of an accreditor.
32

(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 

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 in a 

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

Commented [A12]: We believe this language would 

provide more clarity as to how the Department may use 

this existing authority.

Commented [A13]: We believe that this clarification 

would help to inform NACIQI about the extent of its 

authority, which the Higher Education Act specifies is 

as broad as "the recognition of a specific accrediting 

agency or association" (Sec. 114(c)(2)), among other 

topics to be addressed by the committee.

Commented [A14]: We believe this language would 

provide additional clarity as to how the Department can 

exercise this existing authority.

Commented [A15]: We believe this language would 

provide additional clarity as to how the Secretary can 

exercise this existing authority.
33

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.

(g) If relevant and material information pertaining to an agency's compliance with recognition criteria, 

but not contained in the record, comes to the Secretary's attention while a decision regarding the 

agency's recognition is pending before the Secretary, and if the Secretary concludes the recognition 

decision should not be made without consideration of the information, within 12 months the Secretary 

either— 

(1)(i) Does not make a decision regarding recognition of the agency; and

(ii) Refers the matter to Department staff for review and analysis under § 602.31, § 602.32, or § 

602.33, as appropriate; review by the Advisory Committee under § 602.34; and consideration by 

the senior Department official under § 602.36; or

(2)(i) Provides the information to the agency and the senior Department official;

(ii) Permits the agency to respond to the Secretary and the senior Department official in 

writing, and to include additional documentation relevant to the issue, and specifies a deadline;

(iii) Provides the senior Department official with an opportunity to respond in writing to the 

agency's submission under paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section, specifying a deadline; and

(iv) Issues a recognition decision based on all the materials described in paragraphs (e) and (g)

of this section.

* * * *

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

Approval of Nurse Education

 

604.11 – Administrative and fiscal responsibilities

(a) The State approval agency must have an appropriate and adequate organization 

to carry out its approval activities and administrative staff qualified for their roles.

* * * * 

Subpart C – The Recognition Process

Commented [A16]: We believe that providing a long 

but limited timeframe in which the Secretary must issue 

a decision would provide some additional certainty to 

accrediting agencies, institutions, and students.

Commented [A17]: We believe this additional 

language would provide additional clarity about the 

administrative and fiscal capability of agencies.
34

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.

Commented [A18]: We are unclear why four years is 

preferable here. Instead, we recommend aligning the 

approval of state nursing agencies with the approval of 

accreditors and using a five-year recognition period. 

(This would render all of Subpart C beginning with 

"except that..." unnecessary, if the Department agrees.