 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Handbook of Accreditation and Policy Manual: Part III |
|
Part III - Commission Policies Testimonial Policies Principles of Good Practice in Overseas International Education Programs for Non-U.S. Nationals Principles of Good Practice for Electronically Delivered Academic Degree and Certificate Programs Contractual Relationships with Non-Regionally Accredited Organizations Policy Statement on the Role and Value of Accreditation Policy Statement on Accreditation and Authorization of Distance Learning Through Telecommunications Policy Statement on Considerations When Closing a Postsecondary Educational Institution Joint Policy Statement on Transfer and Award of Academic Credit Relationship Between General and Specialized Agencies Coordinating Guidelines for the WASC Postsecondary Accrediting Commissions Code of Commission Good Practice in Relations with Member Institutions Ethical Responsibilities of Commission Members Accreditation of Institutions and Systems Student and Public Complaints Against Institutions Commission Actions on Institutions Disclosure and Confidentiality of Information Policy Regarding Matters Under Litigation Relations with Government Agencies The Federally-Mandated Unannounced Inspection Commission Membership and Appointment Procedure Testimonial Policies Credit
for Prior Experimental Learning in Undergraduate Programs 1. Before credit for prior experiential learning becomes
part of the student's permanent record, the student completes, at
the credit-granting institution, a sufficient number of units to
establish evidence of a satisfactory learning pattern. 2. Portfolio-based credit for prior experiential learning
is awarded for no more than 30 semester units, or the equivalent,
toward the Associate Degree. Credit is awarded only for documented
learning which ties the prior experience to the theories and data
of the relevant academic field. 3. Credit is awarded only in areas which fall within
the regular curricular offerings of the institution and are part
of the instructional program the student completes. 4. Institutions using documentation and interviews
in lieu of examinations demonstrate that the documentation provides
academic assurances of equivalency to credit earned by traditional
means. 5. No assurances are made in advance regarding the
number of credits to be awarded. 6. Credit is awarded only by faculty holding regular
appointments in the appropriate discipline. The awarding of credit,
and the determination of the amount of such credit, is made by qualified
faculty members. The faculty ensures that assessment procedures
are appropriate for the credit awarded. 7. Only college level learning is creditable, consistent
with the academic standards of the institution. 8. Credit is awarded only to matriculated students
and is identified on the student's transcript as "credit for
prior experiential learning." The institution is prepared,
on request from another institution, to furnish full documentation
showing how such learning was evaluated and the basis on which such
credit was awarded. 9. Steps are taken to ensure that credit for prior
experiential learning does not duplicate credit already awarded
or remaining courses planned for the student's academic program.
10. Policies and procedures for awarding experiential
learning credit are adopted, described in appropriate institutional
publications, and reviewed at regular intervals. 11. Fees charged are realistically related to the cost of the program. Adequate precautions are provided to ensure that payment of fees does not influence the award of credit. Principles
of Good Practice In Overseas International Education Programs For
Non-U.S. Nationals Principles of Good Practice Institutional Mission
2. The faculty, administration, and governing board
of the US institution understand the relationship of the international
program to the institution's stated mission and purposes. 3. The international program has received all appropriate
internal approvals where required, including system administration,
government bodies, and accrediting associations. 4. The international program has received all appropriate
external approvals where required, including system administration,
government bodies, and accrediting associations. 5. The US institution documents the accepted legal
basis for its operations in the host country. 6. The US institution specifies the educational needs
to be met by its international program. 7. The content of the international educational program
is subject to review by the US institution's faculty. 8. The international education program reflects the
educational emphasis of the US institution, including a commitment
to general education when appropriate. 9. The educational program is taught by faculty with
appropriate academic preparation and language proficiencies whose
credentials have been reviewed by the US institution. 10. The standard of student achievement in the international
program is equivalent to the standard of student achievement on
the US campus. 11. The international educational program, where possible
and appropriate, is adapted to the culture of the host country.
12. The institution currently uses and assures the
continuing use of adequate physical facilities for its international
educational program, including classrooms, offices, libraries, and
laboratories, and provides access to computer facilities where appropriate.
13. The US institution has demonstrated its financial
capacity to underwrite the international program without diminishing
its financial support of the US campus. Financing of the international
program is incorporated into the regular budgeting and auditing
process. 14. International students admitted abroad meet admissions
requirements similar to those used for international students admitted
to the US campus, including appropriate language proficiencies.
15. The US institution exercises control over recruitment
and admission of students in the international program. 16. All international students admitted to the US
program are recognized as students of the US institution. 18. The US institution maintains official records
of academic credit earned in its international program. 19. The official transcript of record issued by the
US institution follows the institution's practices in identifying
by site, or through course numbering, the credits earned in its
off-campus programs. 20. The US institution assures that its institutional
program provides a supportive environment for student development,
consistent with the culture and mores of the international setting.
21. Students in the international program are fully
informed as to services that will or will not be provided. 22. The international program is controlled by the
US institution. 23. The teaching and administrative staff abroad responsible
for the educational quality of the international program are accountable
to a resident administrator of the US institution. 24. The US institution formally and regularly reviews
all faculty and staff associated with its international program.
25. The US institution assesses its international
program on a regular basis in light of institutional goals and incorporates
these outcomes into its regular planning process. 26. The US institution can provide to its accrediting
agencies upon request a full accounting of the financing of its
international program, including an accounting of funds designated
for third parties within any contractual relationship. 27. The US institution assures that all media presentations
about the international program are factual, fair, and accurate.
28. The US institution's primary catalog describes
its international program. 29. The US institution does not sell or franchise
the rights to its name or its accreditation. 30. The US institution assures that all references
to transfer of academic credit reflects the reality of US practice.
31. The US institution assures that if US accreditation
is mentioned in materials related to the international program,
the role and purpose of US accreditation is fairly and accurately
explained within these materials. 32. The official contract is in English and the primary
language of the contracting institution. 33. The contract specifically provides that the US
institution controls the international program in conformity with
these guidelines and the requirements of the US institution's accreditations.
34. The US institution confirms that the foreign party
to the contract is legally qualified to enter into the contract.
35. The contract clearly states the legal jurisdiction
under which its provisions will be interpreted will be that of the
US institution. 36. Conditions for program termination specified in
the contract include appropriate protection for enrolled students.
37. All contractual arrangements must be consistent
with the regional commissions' document, "Contractual Relationships
With Non-Regionally Accredited Organizations." Adopted February 12, 1990 by the Executive Directors
of the Regional Institutional Accrediting Bodies: Commission on Higher Education, Middle States Association
of Colleges and Schools Commission Institutions of Higher Education, New England
Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on Vocational, Technical, and Career Institutions,
New England Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, North
Central Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, Northwest Association of Schools
and Colleges Commission on Colleges, Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools Commission on Occupational Education Institutions,
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges,
Western Association of Schools and Colleges Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities,
Western Association of Schools and Colleges Adopted June 1, 1990 by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
Application of the Principles Curriculum and Instruction
Institutional Context and Commitment Role and Mission
Faculty Support
Resources for Learning
Students and Student Services
Commitment to Support
Evaluation and Assessment
Background of the Principles Document These Principles
are the product of a Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications
project, "Balancing Quality and Access: Reducing State Policy
Barriers to Electronically Delivered Higher Education Programs."
The three-year project, supported by the US Department of Education's
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, was designed
to foster an interstate environment that encourages the electronic
delivery of higher education programs across state lines. The Principles
were developed by a group representing the Western states' higher
education regulating agencies, higher education institutions, and
the regional accrediting community. Recognizing that the context for learning in our society
is undergoing profound changes, those charged with developing the
Principles tried not to tie them to or compare them to campus structures.
The Principles were also designed to be sufficiently flexible that
institutions offering a range of programs - from graduate degrees
to certificates - will find them useful. Several assumptions form the basis for these Principles:
"Principles of Good Practice" was approved
by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
on June 11, 1996. 1. The primary purpose of offering such a course or
program is educational. (Although the primary purpose of the offering
must be educational, what ancillary purposes also provide the foundation
for the program or course such as auxiliary services, anticipated
income, and public relations?) 2. Any course offered must be consistent with the
institution's educational purpose and objectives as they were at
the time of the last evaluation. If the institution alters its purpose
and objectives, the regional commission must be notified and the
policy on substantive change applied. (How does the institution
define the specific relationship between the primary and ancillary
purposes and the contracted service and how does it demonstrate
its capability to attain these purposes?) 3. Courses to be offered and the value and level of
their credit must be determined in accordance with established institutional
procedures and under the usual mechanisms of review. (What evidence
exists that established institutional procedures have been followed?)
4. Courses offered for credit must remain under the
sole and direct control of the sponsoring accredited institution
which exercises ultimate and continuing responsibility for the performance
of these functions as reflected in the contract, with provisions
to assure that conduct of the courses meets the standards of its
regular programs as disclosed fully in the institution's publications,
especially as these pertain to: a. Recruitment and counseling of students. b. Admission of students to courses and/or to the
sponsoring institution where credit programs are pursued. Instruction in the courses. d. Evaluation of student progress. e. Record keeping. f. Tuition and/or fees charged, receipt and disbursement
of funds, and refund policy. g. Appointment and validation of credentials of faculty
teaching the course. h. Nature and location of courses. Instructional resources, such as the library. Additional data needed would include course outlines,
syllabi, copies of exams, records of students, and evidence of equivalencies
with established programs. In establishing contractual arrangements with non-regionally
accredited organizations, institutions are expected to utilize the
following guidelines. The not-for-profit institution should establish
that its tax-exempt status, as governed by state or federal regulations,
will not be affected by such contractual arrangements with a for-profit
organization. The Contract 2. Should establish a definite understanding between
the institution and contractor regarding the work to be performed,
the period of the agreement, and the conditions under which any
possible renewal or renegotiation of the contract would take place.
3. Should clearly vest the ultimate responsibility
for the performance of the necessary control functions for the educational
offering with the accredited institution granting credit for the
offering. Such performance responsibility by the credit-granting
institution would minimally consist of adequate provision for review
and approval of work performed in each functional area by the contractor.
a. Indirect costs b. Approval of salaries c. Equipment d. Subcontracts and travel e. Property ownership and accountability f. Inventions and patents g. Publications and copyrights h. Accounting records and audits i. Security j. Termination costs k. Tuition refund l. Student records m. Faculty facilities n. Safety regulations o. Insurance coverage Enrollment Agreement 1. The enrollment agreement should clearly outline
the obligations of both the institution and the student, and a copy
of the enrollment agreement should be furnished to the student before
any payment is made. 2. The institution should determine that each applicant
is fully informed as to the nature of the obligation being entered
into and the applicant's responsibilities and rights under the enrollment
agreement before the applicant signs it. 3. No enrollment agreement should be binding until
it has been accepted by the authorities of the institution vested
with this responsibility. Tuition Policies Rates a. The total tuition for any specific course given
should be the same for all persons at any given time. Group training
contracts showing lower individual rates may be negotiated with
business, industrial, or governmental agencies. b. Tuition charges in courses should be bona fide,
effective on specific dates, and applicable to all who enroll thereafter
or are presently in school, provided the enrollment agreement so
stipulates. c. All extra charges and costs incidental to training
should be revealed to the prospective student before enrollment.
d. The institution should show that the total tuition
charges for each of its courses is reasonable in the light of the
service to be rendered, the equipment to be furnished, and its operating
costs. 2. Refunds and Cancellations a. The institution should have a fair and equitable
tuition refund and cancellation policy. b. The institution should publish its tuition refund
and cancellation policy in its catalog or other appropriate literature.
3. Collection Practices a. Methods used by an institution in requesting or
demanding payment should follow sound ethical business practices.
b. If promissory notes or contracts for tuition are
sold or discounted to third parties by the institution, enrollees
or their financial sponsors should be aware of this action. Student Recruitment 1. Advertising and Promotional Literature a. All advertisements and promotional literature used
should be truthful and avoid leaving any false, misleading, or exaggerated
impressions with respect to the school, its personnel, its courses
and services, or the occupational opportunities for its graduates.
b. All advertising and promotional literature used
should clearly indicate that education, and not employment, is being
offered. c. All advertising and promotional literature should
include the correct name of the school. So-called "blind"
advertisements are considered misleading and unethical. 2. Field Agents a. An institution is responsible to its current and
prospective students for the representations made by its field representatives
(including agencies and other authorized persons or firms soliciting
students), and therefore should select each of them with the utmost
care, provide them with adequate training, and arrange for proper
supervision of their work. b. It is the responsibility of an institution to conform
to the laws and regulations of each of the areas in which it operates
or solicits students, and in particular to see that each of its
field representatives is properly licensed or registered as required
by the laws of the state or other entity. c. If field representatives are authorized to prepare
and/or run advertising or to use promotional materials, the institution
should accept full responsibility for the materials used and should
approve any such in advance of their use. d. When field representatives are authorized to collect
money from an applicant for enrollment, they should leave with the
applicant a receipt for the money collected and a copy of the enrollment
agreement. e. No field representative should use any title, such
as "counselor," "advisor," or "registrar,"
that tends to indicate that his duties and responsibilities are
other than they actually are. No field agent should violate orally any of the standards
applicable to advertising and promotional material. How an institution deals with diversity is an important
indicator of its integrity and effectiveness. Institutions accredited
by the Commission consider diversity issues in a thorough and professional
manner. Every institution affiliated with the Commission is expected
to provide and sustain an environment in which all persons in the
college community can interact on a basis of accepting differences,
respecting each individual, and valuing diversity. Each institution
is responsible for assessing the quality and diversity of its campus
environment and for demonstrating how diversity is served by the
goals and mission of the college and district. In addition, institutions
must identify the processes that actively promote diversity in the
everyday environment and the academic programs of the college. Accreditation
teams will evaluate the condition of institutional diversity during
the site visits and include findings and recommendations in written
reports to the Accrediting Commission. The Commission "Statement on Diversity"
is designed to guide institutions and evaluation teams in the self
study and site visit process and to indicate how institution-wide
reviews of issues of diversity should be documented in the self
study and visiting team reports. The Accrediting Commission, taking
into account the mission of the institution and the entirety of
the self study and peer review processes, will evaluate the institution's
effectiveness in addressing issues of diversity. All boards act on behalf of their owners. Owners may
be remote and have a limited range of concerns, or they may have
a more immediate presence and establish rather detailed expectations.
In every case, however, there is a delegation of authority from
owners to trustees, with the clear understanding that trustees may
act on behalf of owners to direct the affairs of the college without
compromising legitimate ownership interests. Boards of public institutions may be elected or appointed
and subject to laws and regulations of the political entity that
owns the institution. The practice in private institutions is ordinarily
appointment of trustees by a self-perpetuating board, appointment
by owners/sponsors, or a combination. The duty of the board is to
make policy, while administration - the day-to-day management of
the institution is the duty of the chief executive officer and staff.
This traditional dividing line is an oversimplification, in that
faculty in many institutions play significant roles in policymaking,
and administrative authority is, in many cases, delegated to others
than the president's staff. In his paper, "Policy and Administration,"
published by the Association of Governing Boards, Charles A. Nelson
defines policy as "a general rule of principle, or a statement
of intent or direction, which provides guidance to administrators
in reaching decisions with respect to the particular matters entrusted
to their care." Institutions in public systems are guided and
directed by laws and regulations that establish basic rights and
responsibilities of their governing boards. Boards that serve private
institutions frequently rely on associations such as the Association
of Governing Boards or institutional associations of private institutions
to offer guidance as to good practice. A board needs to establish the level of policy at
which it will operate, thus determining the levels of policy at
which the administration will operate. Where policy responsibility
is formally shared, as it may with faculties on academic issues,
the board sets boundaries for itself by formal delegation to others.
Size and complexity, and public or private control, will influence
the level of policy at which a board operates. Boards need rules, for themselves as well as for the
institution. Bylaws or policies that establish regular meeting times,
structuring of agendas, decision-making, and codes of ethics, including
prohibitions on conflicts of interest, help to not only make the
board effective but also to build trust in the integrity of the
board. Oversight responsibility - the obligation to ensure
that the mission of the institution is being appropriately served
and that its established goals are faithfully pursued is a major
duty of a board. The board asks questions about achievement of intended
outcomes, as part of its acting on behalf of the owners of the institution.
The board protects the institution from external pressures and is
an advocate for the best interests of the institution. The board must be concerned about its own effectiveness,
as well as that of the executive and the institution. Boards systematically
evaluate the executive and evaluate their own effectiveness. Board
effectiveness may be substantially enhanced by participation in
programs of board education offered by organizations such as the
Association of Governing Boards, the Association of Community College
Trustees, and the Community College League of California. Note: The Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA)
referred to in several policies dissolved in December 1993. The
Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation (CORPA)
was incorporated in January 1994 to continue the recognition process
for accrediting agencies. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation
was incorporated in July 1996 to recognize accrediting bodies, coordinate
accreditation functions, foster innovation in accreditation, assist
in resolving disputes, and serve as a national voice for self-regulation
through accreditation. I. Accreditation is a status granted to an educational
institution or a program that has been found to meet or exceed stated
criteria of educational quality. In the United States accreditation
is voluntarily sought by institutions and programs and is conferred
by nongovernmental bodies. Accreditation has two fundamental purposes: to assure
the quality of the institution or program, and to assist in the
improvement of the institution or program. Accreditation, which
applies to institutions or programs, is to be distinguished from
certification and licensure, which apply to individuals. The bodies conducting institutional accreditation
are national or regional in scope and comprise the institutions
that have achieved and maintain accreditation. A specialized body
conducting accreditation of a program preparing students for a profession
or occupation is often closely associated with professional associations
in the field. Both institutional and specialized bodies conduct
the accreditation process using a common pattern. The pattern requires
integral self study of the institution or program, followed by an
on-site visit by an evaluation team and a subsequent review and
decision by a central governing group. Within this general pattern
the various accrediting bodies have developed a variety of individual
procedures adapted to their own circumstances. Increasingly, attention
has been given to educational outcomes as a basis for evaluation.
Members of the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation
have been found by COPA to meet specific criteria of procedure and
organization regarded as necessary for the effective conduct of
the accrediting process. A COPA-recognized accrediting body can
be regarded as qualified to conduct evaluations of institutions
and/or programs seeking accreditation, and accreditation by such
bodies is generally recognized and accepted in higher education.
Institutional or specialized accreditation cannot
guarantee the quality of individual graduates, or of individual
courses within an institution or program, but can give reasonable
assurance of the context and quality of the education offered. The criteria of an institutional accrediting body
are broad, as is demanded by the attention to an entire institution
and by the presence in the United States of postsecondary institutions
of widely different purposes and scopes. Such criteria also provide
encouragement to institutions to try innovative curricula and procedures
and to adopt them when they prove successful. The accreditation
of an institution by an institutional accrediting body certifies
to the general public that the institution: a. Has appropriate purposes. b. Has the resources needed to accomplish its purposes.
c. Can demonstrate that it is accomplishing its purposes.
d. Gives reason to believe that it will continue to
accomplish its purposes. Institutional improvement is encouraged by an institutional
accrediting body through the requirement that the accredited institution
conduct periodic self-evaluations seeking to identify what the institution
does well, determining the areas in which improvement is needed,
and developing plans to address needed improvements. While the certification of accreditation indicates
an acceptable level of institutional quality, an institution, however
excellent, is capable of improvement, which must come from its own
clear identification and understanding of its strengths and weaknesses.
Institutional improvement is also encouraged by the
institutional accrediting body through the advice and counsel provided
by the visiting team, which is comprised of experienced educators
drawn primarily from accredited institutions, and by the publications
of the accrediting body. In a number of fields (e.g., medicine, law, dentistry)
graduation from an accredited program in the field is a requirement
for receiving a license to practice in the field. Thus, specialized
accreditation is recognized as providing a basic assurance of the
scope and quality of professional or occupational preparation. This
focus of specialized accreditation leads to accreditation requirements
that are generally sharply directed to the nature of the program,
including specific requirements for resources needed to provide
a program satisfactory for professional preparation. Because of
this limitation of focus to a single program, many specialized accrediting
bodies require that the institution offering the program be institutionally
accredited before consideration can be given to program accreditation.
Specialized accreditation encourages program improvement
by application of specific accreditation requirements to measure
characteristics of a program and by making judgments about the overall
quality of the program. For a non-accredited program, the accreditation
requirements serve as specific goals to be achieved. In addition
to accrediting standards, assistance for program improvement is
provided through the counsel of the accreditation visiting team
members, which include practitioners of the profession and experienced
and successful faculty members and administrators in other institutions.
IV. Institutional and specialized accreditation are
complementary. The focus of an institutional accrediting body on
an institution as a total operating unit provides assurance that
the general characteristics of the institution have been examined
and found to be satisfactory. The focus of a specialized accrediting
body on a specific program provides assurance that the details of
that particular program meet the external accreditation standards.
Institutional accreditation, concerned with evaluating the institution
as a whole, does not seek to deal with any particular program in
great detail, although programs are reviewed as a part of the consideration
of the entire institution. Specialized accreditation, speaking to
a specific program, does not seek to deal significantly with the
general conditions of the institution, although certain general
conditions are considered in the context in which the accredited
program is offered. Occasionally there are institutions offering
but a single program ("free-standing" schools), which
may seek institutional and/or specialized accreditation. In such
cases, the certification of the accreditation is appropriate to
either institutional or specialized accreditation and does not imply
both certifications, although a specialized body accrediting such
an institution is expected to look at the whole institution, just
as the institutional body is expected to consider the single educational
program. To the public, the values of accreditation include:
a. An assurance of external evaluation of the institution
or program and a finding that there is conformity to general expectations
in higher education or the professional field. b. An identification of institutions and programs
which have voluntarily undertaken explicit activities directed at
improving the quality of the institution and its professional programs
and are carrying them out successfully. c. An improvement in the professional services available
to the public, as accredited programs modify their requirements
to reflect changes in knowledge and practice generally accepted
in the field. d. A decreased need for intervention by public agencies
in the operations of educational institutions, since their institutions
through accreditation are providing privately for the maintenance
and enhancement of educational quality. To students, accreditation provides: a. An assurance that the educational activities of
an accredited institution or program have been found to be satisfactory
and therefore meet the needs of students. b. Assistance in the transfer of credits between institutions,
or in the admission of students to advanced degrees through the
general acceptance of credits among accredited institutions when
the performance of the student has been satisfactory and the credits
to be transferred are appropriate to the receiving institution.
c. A prerequisite in many cases for entering a profession.
Institutions of higher education benefit from accreditation
through: a. The stimulus provided for self-evaluation and self-directed
institutional and program improvement. b. The strengthening of institutional and program
self-evaluation by the review and counsel provided through the accrediting
body. c. The application of criteria of accrediting bodies,
generally accepted throughout higher education, which help guard
against external encroachments harmful to institutional or program
quality by providing benchmarks independent of forces that might
impinge on individual institutions. d. The enhancing of the reputation of an accredited
institution or program because of public regard for accreditation.
e. The use of accreditation as one means by which
an institution can gain eligibility for the participation of itself
and its students in certain programs of governmental aid to postsecondary
education. Accreditation is also usually relied upon by private
foundations as a highly desirable indicator of institutional and
program quality. Accreditation serves the professions by: a. Providing a means for the participation of practitioners
in setting the requirements for preparation to enter the professions.
b. Contributing to the unity of the professions by
bringing together practitioners, teachers, and students in an activity
directed at improving professional preparation and professional
practice. Adopted by the COPA Board Preface Preconditions 1. That the institutions/programs and accrediting
bodies are partners in the system of voluntary nongovernmental evaluation.
2. That there is a mutual commitment among institutions/programs
and accrediting bodies to: a. Voluntary self-regulation b. Assessment and enhancement of educational quality c. Candor d. Cooperation e. Integrity f. Confidence and trust Given these preconditions, there are certain reciprocal
institutional/programmatic and accrediting body rights and responsibilities
that relate directly (1) to the development and promulgation of
accreditation standards and (2) to the various stages of the accrediting
process. A. Development and Promulgation of Standards Institutions/programs and accrediting bodies, in cooperation
with each other, have the responsibility to: 1. Involve broad participation of affected constituencies
in the development and acceptance of standards and policies. 2. Develop standards and policies which: a. Are consistent with the purposes of accreditation.
b. Are sufficiently flexible to allow diversity and
effective program development. c. Allow and encourage institutional/programmatic
freedom and autonomy. d. Allow the institution/program to exercise its rights
within a reasonable set of parameters relevant to the quality of
education and, in professional fields, to prepare individuals effectively
for practice in the profession. 3. Conduct periodic reviews of the standards. B. Five Stages of Accreditation Actions or Process
and Concomitant Statements of Rights and Responsibilities Stage 1: Basic Procedures b. The institution/program develops an effective mechanism
to ensure the internal coordination of accrediting activities. c. In corresponding with representatives on campus,
the accrediting body routinely provides copies to the chief executive
and, where appropriate, the chief academic officer and/or director
of the program. d. The accrediting body refrains from advertising
or soliciting applications for accreditation from institutions/programs.
Stage 2: Information Requested and Supplied (Including
the Self Study) a. The institution/program determines how it will
conduct its self study and the accrediting body specifies the items
to be addressed in the report. b. The accrediting body requires only information
that is relevant to accrediting standards and policies, and, whenever
possible, this information will be coordinated with information
requested by other accrediting bodies. c. The institution/program involves broad and appropriate
constituent groups in the preparation and process of self study.
d. The institution/program discloses to the accrediting
body that information which is required to carry out the accrediting
body's evaluation and accrediting functions (with due regard to
individual privacy). e. The accrediting body and institution/program respect
the confidentiality of information required and evaluated in the
accrediting process. Stage 3: The Site Visit and Review a. When requested by the institution/program, the
accrediting body (in consultation with the institution/program and
when feasible) conducts joint, concurrent, coordinated, consolidated,
or phased visits. b. The accrediting body, in consultation with the
institution/program, selects site visitors who are: 1. Competent by virtue of experience, training, and
orientation. 2. Sensitive to the uniqueness of the institution
and/or program. and 3. Impartial, objective, and without conflict of interest.
c. The accrediting body ensures that the composition,
team size, and length of the visit are: 1. Determined in consultation with the institution/program.
2. Determined with regard to the size and complexity
of the institution/program. Most appropriate to accomplish the objectives of the
visit. d. The institution/program provides maximum opportunity
for communication with all relevant constituencies. e. The accrediting body communicates its findings
derived from the site visit to the institution/program. f. The accrediting body ensures that the report identifies
and distinguishes clearly between statements directly related to
quality-assessment and those representing suggestions for quality-improvement.
g. The accrediting body provides the chief executive
officer of the institution (and the chief academic officer and/or
the director of the program) with an opportunity to comment on the
written report of the visiting team and to file supplemental materials
pertinent to the facts and conclusions therein before the accrediting
body takes action on the report. Stage 4: The Decision (Including the Following)
a. The accrediting body permits the withdrawal of
a request for any status of accreditation at any time prior to the
decision on that request. b. The accrediting body makes decisions solely on
the basis of published standards, policies, and procedures using
information available and made known to the institution/program.
c. The accrediting body avoids conflicts of interest
in the decision-making process. d. The accrediting body ensures the confidentiality
of those deliberations in which accrediting decisions are made,
but due process will be observed in all deliberations. e. The accrediting body notifies institutions and
programs promptly in writing of accrediting decisions, giving reasons
for the actions. f. The accrediting body ensures that the communication
of the final accrediting decision, i.e., the notification letter
and/or final report, identifies and clearly distinguishes between
statements directly related to quality-assessment and those representing
suggestions for quality-improvement. g. The institution/program has a right to appeal an
accrediting decision in accordance with the policies of the accrediting
body and to maintain its accredited status during the appeal. h. The accrediting body publishes accrediting decisions,
both affirmative and negative, except for initial denial which need
not be made public. i. The accrediting body maintains the confidentiality
of the final report, but it may request that corrective action be
taken if an institution/program releases information misrepresenting
or distorting any accreditation action taken by the body or the
status of affiliation with the accrediting body. If the institution/program
is not prompt in taking corrective action, the accrediting body
may further release a public statement providing the correct information.
Stage 5: Follow-Up (Including Interim Reports and
Reapplication) a. The accrediting body can request periodic reports,
special reports, and consultative activities relevant to the institution's/program's
accreditation status. b. The accrediting body provides written notice to
the institution/program of the action taken in relation to a special
report or visit. c. The accrediting body may request the reevaluation
of an institution/program at any time for cause. d. The institution/program has an obligation to inform
the accrediting body of any substantive changes. e. The institution/program has a right to have pertinent
information provided concerning reapplication requirements for accreditation
under the terms and conditions specified by the accrediting body.
f. Separate from the accrediting process leading to
a decision on accredited status, the accrediting body assists and
stimulates improvement of the educational effectiveness of an institution/program,
and to this end makes provision for appropriate assistance. Adopted by the COPA Board April 19, 1985 Reviewed by ACCJC 1990, 1996 I. Advertising, Publications, Promotional Literature
1. Educational programs and services offered should
be the primary emphasis of all advertisements, publications, promotional
literature, and recruitment activities. 2. All statements and representations should be clear,
factually accurate, and current. Supporting information should be
kept on file and readily available for review. 3. Catalogs and other official publications should
be readily available and accurately depict: a. Institutional purposes and objectives. b. Entrance requirements and procedures. c. Basic information on programs and courses, with
required sequences and frequency of course offerings explicitly
stated. d. Degree and program completion requirements, including
length of time required to obtain a degree or certification of completion.
e. Faculty (full-time and part-time listed separately)
with degrees held and the conferring institution. f. Institutional facilities readily available for
educational use. g. Rules and regulations for conduct. h. Tuition, fees, and other program costs. Opportunities and requirements for financial aid.
j. Policies and procedures for refunding fees and
charges to students who withdraw from enrollment.(4)
4. In college catalogs and/or official publications
describing career opportunities, clear and accurate information
should be provided on: a. National and/or state legal requirements for eligibility
for licensure or entry into an occupation or profession for which
education and training are offered. b. Any unique requirements for career paths, or for
employment and advancement opportunities in the profession or occupation
described. II. Student Recruitment for Admissions (5)
2. Independent contractors or agents used by the institution
for recruiting purposes shall be governed by the same Principles
as institutional admissions officers and volunteers. 3. The following practices in student recruitment
are to be scrupulously avoided: a. Assuring employment unless employment arrangements
have been made and can be verified. b. Misrepresenting job placement and employment opportunities
for graduates. c. Misrepresenting program costs. d. Misrepresenting abilities required to complete
intended program. e. Offering to agencies or individual persons money
or inducements other than educational services of the institution
in exchange for student enrollment. (Except for awards of privately endowed restricted
funds, grants or scholarships are to be offered only on the basis
of specific criteria related to merit or financial need.) III. Representation of Accredited Status 1. The term "accreditation" is to be used
only when accredited status is conferred by an accrediting body
recognized by the Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation
and/or the US Secretary of Education. 2. No statement should be made about possible future
accreditation status or qualification not yet conferred by the accrediting
body. Statements like the following are not permissible: "(Name
of institution) has applied for candidacy with the Commission on
Colleges of the _____________ Association;" "The _____________
program is being evaluated by the National Association of _____________
and it is anticipated that accreditation will be granted in the
near future." 3. Any reference to state approval should be limited
to a brief statement concerning the actual charter, incorporation,
license, or registration given. 4. The phrase "fully accredited" should
be avoided, since no partial accreditation is possible. 5. When accredited status is affirmed in institutional
catalogs and other official publications, it should be stated accurately
and fully in a comprehensive statement, including: a. Identifying the accrediting body by name. b. Indicating the scope of accreditation as: 1) Institutional (regional or national). Example: 2) Programmatic (curriculum or unit accredited must
be specified). Examples: The Department of Music at the University of Hiawatha
is accredited by the National Association of Schools of Music, a
specialized accrediting body recognized by the Commission on Recognition
of Postsecondary Accreditation (and/or the US Department of Education).
Programs for the preparation of elementary, secondary,
and special education teachers at the bachelor's and master's level,
for the preparation of guidance counselors at the master's and specialist
degree level, and for school superintendents at the specialist and
doctoral degree level, are accredited by the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education, a specialized accrediting body
recognized by the Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation
(and/or the US Department of Education). 6. The accredited status of a program should not be
misrepresented. a. The accreditation granted by an institutional accrediting
body has reference to the quality of the institution as a whole.
Since institutional accreditation does not imply specific accreditation
of any particular program in the institution, statements like "this
program is accredited," or "this degree is accredited,"
are incorrect and misleading. b. "Freestanding" institutions offering
programs in a single field, e.g., a school of art, engineering,
theology, granted accreditation by a regional or national institutional
accrediting body alone, should clearly state that this accreditation
does not imply specialized accreditation of the program offered.
Member agencies of CORPA should assume responsibility
for informing the CORPA office of improper or misleading advertising
or unethical practices which come to their attention, so that CORPA
may inform the appropriate accrediting association or associations.
Adopted by the COPA Board A series of task forces and advisory committees were
responsible for developing the components in the statement. During
their deliberations, each group affirmed the need to address the
quality of telecommunications instruction within the existing assessment
framework, which includes state authorization, non-government voluntary
accreditation, and institutional self-regulation. This belief is
reinforced in the principles and procedures which follow. The following
definition was used during the study: Telecommunications instruction is any course or series
of courses offered or sponsored by a postsecondary education institution,
consortium of institutions, or other organization, for which credit
is offered or awarded toward a certificate, diploma, or degree.
The course or courses must have, as the primary mode of delivery,
television, video cassette or disc, film, radio, computer, or other
supportive devices which build upon the audio-video format. In many
instances, the telecommunications course is supported by textbooks,
study guides, library resources, and other study aids, and may also
involve personal interaction with faculty, tutors, or other educational
personnel by telephone, mail, or in face-to-face meetings. The policies and procedures for assessing long distance
learning should not discourage the development and use of technology
for educational purposes. Specific requirements by state authorizing
agencies and accrediting bodies should accommodate constructive
innovation. C. The focus of states' authorization and of non-governmental
accreditation activity in long-distance learning by telecommunications
should be on postsecondary institutions and other organizations
which award credit that can be applied toward academic degrees,
or which provide other credentials that have credit bearing significance,
such as programs leading to certification of proficiency or licensure.
Authorization and accreditation requirements should not apply to
those institutions and organizations which are involved only in
the production of courses or support materials. State authorization activities are and should be the
initial step and a necessary prerequisite to accreditation in the
assessment of long-distance learning by telecommunications. E. The states have a responsibility in consumer protection
which should be reinforced as necessary. States without adequate
authorization legislation are urged to develop such legislation.
Institutions and other organizations involved in telecommunications
instruction, as in other instructional activities, should use and
further develop rigorous outcome measures to assess program effectiveness.
Accrediting bodies and state authorizing agencies should validate
and use such measures to the greatest possible extent in their evaluation
activities. G. The focus of the assessment activity for long-distance
learning by telecommunications conducted by educational institutions
should be accreditation, either institutional or professional, as
appropriate to the offerings. The interests of higher education and the general
public are best served when institutions voluntarily seek appropriate
approval, even in situations in which they may not be required to
do so. Toward this end, the accreditation and authorization of telecommunications-based
educational programs should be thorough and reasonable. If this
can be accomplished, then the institutional burden of seeking approval
will be a reasonable price to pay for increased public confidence.
The necessity of an institution's seeking state authorization
depends in large measure upon the institution's "physical presence"
in the state or states in which it wishes to operate. Although there
is yet no clear legal definition of "physical presence,"
the following guidelines have been developed: The act of transmitting an electronic signal into
another state without any other contact within that state does not,
under current laws, constitute physical presence. Similarly, the
use of an interstate interactive computer system to deliver educational
services - absent any other in-state contact would not necessarily
create jurisdiction over the out-of-state institution. The use of interstate mail and telephone services
to provide instructional and related services to students involves
protected interstate commerce and, therefore, generally cannot be
subjected to state regulation. The presence of an institutional recruiter (agent)
in a state may constitute sufficient physical presence of an institution
in that state to subject it to licensure. It may also subject the
institution to other legal constraints. Support services that include institutional representatives
in a state, such as tutors, counselors, or instructors, in most
instances establish physical presence sufficient to afford the state
jurisdiction through its approval mechanism. 1. With respect to the states: States should provide mechanisms to exchange information
with each other and with accrediting bodies concerning standards,
procedures, and actions relating to the authorization of institutions
to operate and grant degrees. State-authorizing agencies should seek more uniform
authorization requirements so that educational institutions eventually
can receive authorization in all jurisdictions through common assessment
procedures. The states have constitutional and statutory responsibility
to provide and supervise education. In those states where statutes
providing supervision of postsecondary institutions currently do
not exist, appropriate legislation should be sought, and the means
for reviewing and authorizing educational operations and institutions
should be established. Due consideration should be given to instruction
delivered by telecommunications. The State Higher Education Executive Officers Association
should continue to work closely with the states to attain these
objectives. 2. With respect to regional, national, and specialized
accrediting bodies: Accrediting bodies should continue to develop standards
and procedures for off-campus programs, including instruction delivered
by telecommunications, in harmony with the COPA policy statement
on off-campus operations and institutional and accrediting bodies'
agreements of understanding. Accrediting bodies, through COPA, should create better
mechanisms for the exchange of information with each other and with
all affected state agencies concerning standards, procedures, and
actions relating to the accreditation of institutions and programs
and their off-campus activities, including instruction delivered
by telecommunications. Accrediting bodies, as they do now for all other programs,
should require institutions involved in long-distance learning by
telecommunications to have the appropriate authorization to operate
in any state in which they wish to offer instruction. Accrediting bodies should require demonstration by
an institution or, in the case of specialized accreditation, by
the program under evaluation that its students achieve the educational
objectives set for them. Currently-accepted criteria of accreditation
can be applied to institutions and programs offering long-distance
learning or using telecommunications and other electronic techniques.
These criteria require, in accordance with accreditation standards,
that institutions or programs: 1) Have clearly-defined and appropriate educational
objectives. 2) Have the resources and structure needed to accomplish
these objectives. Demonstrate that these objectives are being accomplished.
4) Give reasons to believe that these objectives will
continue to be accomplished. The Council on Postsecondary Accreditation should
continue to work closely with accrediting bodies to attain these
objectives. The following specific procedures are suggested to
effect these recommendations: An institution should give to the appropriate state
agencies and accrediting bodies advance notice of intent to initiate
programs using telecommunications that provide credit applicable
toward degrees. B. To obtain appropriate recognition from state agencies
and accrediting bodies, the following strategy is suggested: An institution would provide documentation on the
objectives and scope of its programs using telecommunications, including
provision for instruction and instructional support. This information
would be provided on the "Institutional Profile for Telecommunications
Instruction," a document designed to provide state agencies
and accrediting bodies with crucial information about telecommunications
based activities. State agencies and accrediting bodies would review
the documentation to determine whether the instruction and instructional
support meet the established requirements and standards. The documentation would be audited, as appropriate,
by state agencies and accrediting bodies and certified as being
complete, accurate, and representative of the institution's telecommunications
activities. The certified documentation could then be made available
to any state agency or accrediting body needing such information.
If proper quality and quality controls are evident,
approval would be granted by state agencies and accrediting bodies
to include the activity within the institution's recognized status.
If necessary to reach a sound decision, a state agency
or accrediting body might request additional documentation or schedule
an on-site visit. The institution, for its part, might withdraw
its request without prejudice or appeal any adverse decision to
the appropriate body or bodies consistent with due process procedures.
Interregional or other agreements envisioning a single
accrediting activity for an institution, conducted cooperatively
by two or more accrediting bodies, should be fully implemented as
they relate to long distance learning so that the accreditation
of an institution can be conducted in a single process. Conclusion The principles and procedures recommended in this
statement were formulated to ensure the highest quality and integrity
of instruction delivered by telecommunications. If adopted by state-authorizing
agencies and accrediting bodies, there will be a better likelihood
of increased cooperation between them, and an important step will
have been taken toward instituting common, reasonable, and thorough
approval practices. Adopted by the COPA Board and by the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association August 1, 1984 I. Preparing the Way Tradition and sentiment are important considerations,
but sentimentality should not be allowed to determine events. A
decision to close should never be made or reversed simply on the
basis of fears, hopes, or aspirations that have little relation
to reality. Neither should it be delayed to the point where the
institution has lost its viability and its educational program no
longer retains quality and integrity. Since the immediate interests
of current students and faculty are most directly affected, their
present and future prospects require especially sensitive attention
and involvement. It is assumed that closing an institution means a
decision permanently to discontinue its educational activities,
not merely to suspend them for an indefinite period in the hope
that circumstances may someday permit their resumption. But it should
be noted that most institutions of higher education are corporations
established under the provisions of state law, and as such may have
legal responsibilities (holding title to real property, for example)
that may necessitate the continued existence of the corporation
after the educational activities of the institution have been terminated.
Indeed, it is probable that such continued corporate existence,
at least for a time, will prove to be the usual situation. It is
unlikely that in most cases corporate existence and educational
activities can be terminated simultaneously. This statement makes only incidental reference to
such corporate responsibilities and always in the educational context.
It is imperative, therefore, that a Board of Trustees considering
closing an institution under its care should be guided not only
by guidelines such as these and by the state educational authorities,
but also by advice of legal counsel. Special counsel to advise with
respect to problems of closing may be desirable for the institution.
Institutional and specialized accrediting bodies should also be
consulted and be kept fully apprised of developments. A. The Students B. Academic Records and Financial Aid Transcripts
D. Provision for Faculty and Staff Every effort should be made to develop publicly-defensible
policies for dividing the resources equitably among those with claims
against the institution. One of the best ways of achieving this
goal is to involve potential claimants in the process of developing
the policies. Time and effort devoted to carrying the process to
a judicious conclusion may considerably reduce the likelihood of
lawsuits or other forms of confrontation. It is impossible to anticipate in advance the many
claims that might be made against remaining resources of an institution,
but the following three principles may help to sort out possible
claims and to set priorities: a. Students have the right to expect basic minimal
services during the final semester, not only in the academic division
but also in the business office, financial aid office, registrar's
office, counseling, and other essential support services. Staff
should be retained long enough to provide these services. It may
be appropriate to offer special incentives to keep key personnel
present. b. Reasonable notice is given to all employees, explaining
the possibility of early termination of contracts and that the reasons
for retaining some personnel longer than others are based on satisfying
the minimal needs of students and the legal requirements for closing.
c. Every effort should be made to honor long-term
financial obligations (loans, debentures, etc.) even though the
parties holding such claims may choose not to press them. IV. The Closing Date All concerned federal and state agencies need to be
apprised of the institution's situation and any obligations relating
to estate or federal funds need to be cleared with the proper agencies.
VI. Other Considerations VII. Conclusion Note: The most recent and comprehensive reference
work, which includes summaries of state regulations regarding disposition
of student records and dissolution of nonprofit colleges and universities
is the following: O'Neill, Joseph P. and Barnett, Samuel. College and
Corporate Change:Merger, Bankruptcy, and Closure. Princeton, N.J.,
Conference University Press, 1980. Adopted by the COPA Board This statement is directed to institutions of postsecondary
education and others concerned with the transfer of academic credit
among institutions and award of academic credit for extra-institutional
learning. Basic to this statement is the principle that each institution
is responsible for determining its own policies and practices with
regard to the transfer and award of credit. Institutions are encouraged
to review their policies and practices periodically to assure that
they accomplish the institution's objectives and that they function
in a manner that is fair and equitable to students. Any statements,
this one or others referred to, should be used as guides, not as
substitutes, for institutional policies and practices. Transfer of credit is a concept that now involves
transfer between dissimilar institutions and curricula and recognition
of extra-institutional learning, as well as transfer between institutions
and curricula of similar characteristics. As their personal circumstances
and educational objectives change, students seek to have their learning,
wherever and however attained, recognized by institutions where
they enroll for further study. It is important for reasons of social
equity and educational effectiveness, as well as the wise use of
resources, for all institutions to develop reasonable and definitive
policies and procedures for acceptance of transfer credit. Such
policies and procedures should provide maximum consideration for
the individual student who has changed institutions or objectives.
It is the receiving institution's responsibility to provide reasonable
and definitive policies and procedures for determining a student's
knowledge in required subject areas. All institutions have a responsibility
to furnish transcripts and other documents necessary for a receiving
institution to judge the quality and quantity of the work. Institutions
also have a responsibility to advise the students that the work
reflected on the transcript may or may not be accepted by a receiving
institution. Inter-institutional Transfer of Credit Transfer of credit from one institution to another
involves at least the following three considerations: 1. The educational quality of the institution from
which the student transfers. 2. The comparability of the nature, content, and level
of credit earned to that offered by the receiving institution. 3. The appropriateness and applicability of the credit
earned to the programs offered by the receiving institution, in
light of the student's educational goals. Accredited Institutions 1. Regional accrediting commissions (which historically
accredited the more traditional colleges and universities but which
now accredit proprietary, vocational-technical, and single-purpose
institutions as well). 2. National accrediting bodies that accredit various
kinds of specialized institutions. 3. Certain professional organizations that accredit
freestanding professional schools, in addition to programs within
multi-purpose institutions. (COPA annually publishes a list of recognized
accrediting bodies, as well as a directory of institutions accredited
by these organizations.) Although accrediting agencies vary in the ways they
are organized and in their statements of scope and mission, all
accrediting bodies that meet COPA's standards for recognition function
to assure that the institutions or programs they accredit have met
generally-accepted minimum standards for accreditation. Comparability and Applicability Accreditation affords reason for confidence in an
institution's or a program's purposes, in the appropriateness of
its resources and plans for carrying out these purposes, and in
its effectiveness in accomplishing its goals, insofar as these things
can be judged. Accreditation speaks to the probability, but does
not guarantee, that students have met acceptable standards of educational
accomplishment. Admissions and Degree Purposes Institutions have a responsibility to make this distinction,
and its implications, clear to students before they decide to enroll.
This should be a matter of full disclosure, with the best interests
of the student in mind. Institutions also should make every reasonable
effort to reduce the gap between credits accepted and credits applied
toward an educational credential. Unaccredited Institutions Foreign Institutions Validation of Extra-institutional and Experiential
Learning for Transfer Purposes For learning that has not been validated through the
ACE formal credit recommendation process or through credit-by-examination
programs, institutions are urged to explore the Council for Advancement
of Experiential Learning (CAEL) procedures and processes. Pertinent
CAEL publications designed for this purpose are also listed. Uses of this Statement Institutions are encouraged to use this statement
as a basis for discussions in developing or reviewing institutional
policies with regard to transfer. If the statement reflects an institution's
policies, that institution might want to use this publication to
inform faculty, staff, and students. It is recommended that accrediting bodies reflect
the essential precepts of this statement in their criteria. Approved by the American Council on Education/Commission
on Educational Credit December 5, 1978 Approved by the Executive Committee, American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers November 21, 1978 The guidelines were drafted by NACUBO's Student-Related
Programs Committee and were reviewed by persons representing a wide
range of institutions and professional responsibilities. Associations
that have approved the guidelines are listed below. The guidelines
have gained acceptance by officials in the US Office of Education.
Leo Kornfeld, Deputy Commissioner for Student Financial Assistance,
lauded the effort as important progress toward self-regulation and
indicated that, as a result, the USOE will not proceed with developing
regulations for tuition refund policies of colleges and universities.
The guidelines summarize elements of fair and equitable
policy in refunding tuition, room, board, and other charges for
students who withdraw from their studies or otherwise discontinue
their use of an institution's services before the end of an academic
term. They offer a balanced approach to issues related to refunds,
including the financial commitments incurred by the institution
and the responsibility to treat both withdrawing and continuing
students fairly. Overall, they allow institutions to ensure that
their students' rights to fair and equitable treatment are fully
recognized. Colleges and universities are urged to use the guidelines
to evaluate and, where necessary, modify current institutional policies
and practices to meet the spirit and intent of the guidelines. GUIDELINE TWO. Institutions should seek consumer views
in the process of establishing and amending charge and refund structures.
Decisions regarding institutional funds are ultimately the sole
responsibility of the institution's legally designated fund custodians.
However, consumer concerns do affect decision making, and involving
consumers in decision making related to charges and refunds is a
desirable approach for assessing student needs and creating public
awareness of institutional requirements. GUIDELINE THREE. Institutions should publish a current
schedule of all student charges, a statement of the purpose for
such charges and related refund policies, and have them readily
available free of charge to current and prospective students. Students
and parents have a right to know what charges they will be expected
to pay and what will or will not be refunded. They also have a right
to know what services accompany payment of the charges. Informational
materials published free for students and prospective students are
ideal for this purpose. GUIDELINE FOUR. Institutions should clearly designate
all optional charges as "optional" in all published schedules
and related materials. Clearly, charges that are mandatory and charges
that are optional must be plainly differentiated in all printed
materials. Also, the institution should state clearly in its schedule
if a charge is optional for some students but required for others.
Statements accompanying the schedule may include institutional endorsements
of the optional program or service. GUIDELINE FIVE. Institutions should clearly identify
charges and deposits that are nonrefundable as "nonrefundable"
on all published schedules. Institutions determine on an individual
basis which of their charges are refundable or nonrefundable. In
general, admissions fees, application fees, laboratory fees, facility
and student activity fees, and other similar charges are not refundable.
Such fees are generally charged to cover the costs of activities
such as processing applications and other student information, reserving
academic positions, and establishing the limits of institutional
programs and services, reserving housing space, and otherwise setting
the fixed costs of the institution for the coming academic period.
Institutions determine on an individual basis which
of their deposits are refundable or nonrefundable. Some deposits
will be nonrefundable or will be credited to a student's account
(e.g., tuition deposits). Others are refundable according to the
terms of the deposit agreement (e.g., deposits for breakage). GUIDELINE SIX. Institutions should refund housing
rental charges, less a deposit, so long as written notification
of cancellation is made prior to a well-publicized date that provides
reasonable opportunity to make the space available to other students.
Written notification on or before the beginning of the term of the
contract is necessary to ensure utilization of housing units. During
the term of the contract, room charges are generally nonrefundable.
However, based on the program offered, space availability, debt
service requirements, state and local laws, and other individual
circumstances, institutions may provide for some more flexible refund
guideline for housing. GUIDELINE SEVEN. Institutions should refund board
charges in full, less a deposit, if written notification of cancellation
is made prior to a well-publicized date that falls on or before
the beginning of the term of the contract. Subsequent board charges
should be refunded on a pro rata basis less a withdrawal fee. It
is reasonable to make a refund for those goods and services not
consumed. The withdrawal charge should reflect that portion of an
institution's costs that are fixed for the term of the contract.
GUIDELINE EIGHT. The institutional tuition refund
policy for an academic period should include the following minimum
guidelines: 1.The institution should refund 100 percent of the
tuition charge, less a deposit fee, if written notification of cancellation
is made prior to a well-publicized date that falls on or before
the first day of classes. 2.The institution should refund at least 25 percent
of the tuition charge, if written notification of withdrawal is
made during the first 25 percent of the academic period. It is reasonable to refund tuition charges on a sliding
scale if a student withdraws from his or her program prior to the
end of the first 25 percent of the academic period unless state
law imposes a more restrictive refund policy. GUIDELINE NINE. The institution should assess no penalty
charges where the institution, as opposed to the student, is In
error. The institution should make refunds in cases where the institution
has assessed charges in error. Penalty charges, such as those involving
late registration fees, change of scheduled fees, late payment fees,
should not be assessed if it is determined that the student is not
responsible for the action causing the charge to be levied. GUIDELINE TEN. Institutions should advise students
that any notifications of withdrawal or cancellation and requests
for a refund must be in writing and addressed to the designated
institutional officer. A student's written notification of withdrawal
or cancellation and request for a refund provides an accurate record
of transactions and also ensures that such requests will be processed
on a timely basis. Acceptance of oral requests is an undesirable
practice. GUIDELINE ELEVEN. Institutions should pay or credit
refunds due on a timely basis. The definition of "timely basis"
should include the time required to process a formal student request
for a refund, to process a check if required, and to allow for mail
delivery, when necessary. If an institution has a policy that a
refund of an inconsequential amount will not be made, such policy
should be published as part of all materials related to refund policies.
GUIDELINE TWELVE. Institutions should publicize, as
a part of their dissemination of information on charges and refunds,
that an appeals process exists for students or parents who feel
that individual circumstances warrant exceptions from published
policy. The informational materials should include the name, title,
and address of the official responsible. Although charges and refund
policies should reflect extensive consideration of student and institutional
needs, it will not be possible to encompass in these structures
the variety of personal circumstances that may exist or develop.
Institutions are required to provide a system of due process to
their students, and charges and refund policies are legitimately
a part of that process. Students and parents should be informed
regularly of procedures for requesting information concerning exceptions
to published policies. An institution should not interpret its general accreditation
as validating a specialized program in the same manner as specialized
accreditation, which by its very nature is a more intensive evaluation
process. A specialized institution may apply for regional accreditation
through ACCJC if it meets the Commission's eligibility requirements.
Public
Access Policy Public Access Policy The Executive Director will mail a preliminary agenda
45 days before each regular meeting of the Commission to the chief
executive officer and accreditation liaison officer of all candidate
and accredited institutions approved by the Commission with the
request that the agenda be posted or otherwise publicized. Observers will be seated at Commission meetings as
space allows. If they wish to speak, observers must give advance
notice to the Executive Director and include the agenda item which
they wish to address. Any specific reference to an individual or
to an institution must be made in the Executive Session, and the
individual or institution will be given an opportunity to be present
or to have a representative present. Verbal participation by observers
at Commission meetings is limited to: 1. Prepared statements noted by the Executive Director
in the agenda at appropriate places. Written copies of all prepared
remarks should be given to the Executive Director at the end of
the statement. 2. Brief comments on specific points in the public
agenda given at the end of Commission discussion of the same topic.
Individuals who wish to bring items to the attention
of the Commission which are not on the agenda should present, not
less than 30 days before Commission meetings, a written statement
to the Executive Director with a request that said item(s) be placed
on the agenda. If individuals wish to meet with members of the Commission,
they should so advise the Executive Director not less than 30 days
before the Commission meeting. The Executive Director will then,
time constraints permitting, arrange for two Commissioners to meet
with the individual(s) to discuss the matter(s) of concern preceding
the meeting of the Commission. The two Commissioners will report
to the Commission as a whole and may recommend a presentation before
the full Commission at an appropriate time. - For an institution which offers a combination of
secondary and lower division college programs, the Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges will assume jurisdiction, consulting
with the Commission for Schools. ACCJC will also retain jurisdiction
of institutions offering limited upper division work which does
not lead to a degree. - For an institution which offers lower division programs
but is adding one or more upper division baccalaureate degree programs
and/or any graduate level work, the Commission for Senior Colleges
and Universities will assume jurisdiction, consulting with the Commission
for Community and Junior Colleges. 2. Evaluation and Recognition - When an institution has been accredited or recognized
as a candidate by the Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
and moves to a higher level, the Commission for Senior Colleges
and Universities will conduct an evaluation in cooperation with
the Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. The Senior Commission
standards and procedures will be used by the institution and the
accrediting team. - The institution will continue to be listed under
the original level. At such time as the total institution qualifies
for recognition by a higher commission, it will come under that
commission's jurisdiction. Generally, the institution has three
years in which to effect a transfer. Adopted by WASC Board of Directors, July 1988 Institutions 1. Make an initial visit to, or evaluation of, an
institution only on the written request of the chief executive officer
of the institution. 2. Revisit an institution only on request by the chief
executive officer, or, if a visit is initiated by the Commission,
after due notice to the institution. 3. Permit withdrawal of a request for initial candidacy
or initial accreditation at any time (even after evaluation) prior
to final action by the Commission. 4. Appraise institutions in the light of their own
stated purposes so long as these are within the general frame of
reference of postsecondary education and consistent with the standards
of the Commission. 5. Use relevant qualitative and quantitative information
in evaluation. 6. Interpret standards for accreditation in ways that
are relevant to the character of the particular institution, respecting
institutional integrity and diversity. 7. Encourage sound educational innovation. 8. Assist and stimulate improvement in the educational
effectiveness of the institution. 9. Emphasize the value and importance of institutional
self study. 10. Publish annually in the newsletter the names of
institutions scheduled for evaluation and specifically invite third
party comment on the institutions. 11. Establish reporting systems for Annual, Midterm,
and self study reports which inform the Commission regarding student
loan default rates and the standing of the institution with respect
to appropriate state agencies, institutional or specialized accrediting
agencies. 12. Consider information regarding adverse actions
against a member institution by another accrediting agency or state
agency and provide an explanation consistent with accreditation
standards why the action by another authority does not result in
an adverse action. 13. Limit oversight required by Federal statute and
regulations to issues expressly required by that mandate. 14. Include on evaluation teams representation from
other institutions of similar purpose and academic program. 15. Provide institutions an opportunity to object,
for cause, to individual members assigned to the team designated
to visit the institution, with special concern for possible conflict
of interest. 16. Arrange consultation during the visit with administration,
staff, students, and trustees, and include a publicized opportunity
for an open hearing during the visit. 17. Protect the confidentiality of the institutional
self study and evaluation team report. An institution, at its discretion,
may make such documents public. In event of a negative action, the
Commission staff will attempt to reach agreement with the institution
on a statement for public distribution, but the Commission reserves
final authority in case of an impasse. Should the institution issue
selective and biased releases or use the public forum to take issue
with negative actions, the Commission and its staff will be free
to make all the documents public. 18. Provide opportunity for the institution to respond
in writing to the team report before it is completed, and to appear
before the Commission when it is considered. The Commission staff
will notify an institution in writing as soon as reasonably possible
regarding Commission decisions. 19. Provide an opportunity for institutional representatives
and the general public to attend those portions of Commission meetings
devoted to policy matters and others of a nonconfidential nature.
20. Encourage discussion and use on campus of major
team recommendations. 21. Revoke accreditation only after advance written
notice to the institution. 22. Provide opportunity for Commission review of its
negative decisions, and, in addition, for appeal of decisions to
deny or terminate candidacy to a panel established by the WASC Board.
23. Refrain from conditioning candidacy or accreditation
upon payment of fees for purposes other than annual fees and evaluation
costs. 24. Encourage continuing close relationships and communication
between the Commission and institutions through the establishment
of liaison officer positions in each institution, with appropriate
visibility and responsibility. (Adopted June 1980, Revised June 1996) These restrictions are not intended to disqualify
participation by a commissioner in the general run of cases which
do not directly or substantially affect the institution with which
he/she is associated or its competitive position with a neighboring
institution under review. The Commission expects that Commission members will
accept and carry out the responsibilities of membership, including:
1. Attending, when possible, all Commission meetings
for their entire duration. 2. Studying documents as assigned prior to the meetings
and serving as readers by arrangement. Voting according to best personal judgment in the
light of existing policy. 4. Respecting the confidentiality of relations between
the Commission and the is institutions it accredits. 5. Assisting in interpreting accreditation. 6. On occasion accepting appointment to the Senior
and the Schools Commissions, to the WASC Board, and to membership
on evaluation teams. 7. Serving on ad hoc or permanent committees of the
Commission. 8. Assisting the staff in training programs and other
activities. 9. Resigning from the Commission if circumstances
change so that time no longer permits carrying out the full responsibilities
of membership. 10. Absenting themselves from deliberation or vote
when a potential conflict of interest exists because of affiliation,
previous relationships, or consultant services. 1. Have an organizational structure which is not a
part of another unit in the system and which includes a core of
full-time faculty, a separate student body, and a resident administration.
2. Offer a program or programs leading to degrees.
Such institution's units will be listed separately
in regional and national directories. The Commission reserves the
right to make the final judgment on the determination of separate
units. Units classified as operationally separate which currently
share the accreditation of a parent institution or system continue
in that status until they can be examined. The Commission will schedule
evaluations as soon as practicable. New, operationally separate
units are expected to seek separate affiliation or accreditation.
Newly founded unaccredited units in multiple-campus
systems and institutions, which merge or affiliate with an accredited
institution, are not considered accredited if they are operationally
separate as defined above. These institutions are expected to seek
affiliation or accreditation through the usual procedures. Programs not classified as operationally separate
by the Commission are included in the Commission's evaluation of
the parent institution, regardless of location. Commissions in other
regions where such programs are located may-be invited to send representatives.
Branch campuses will be visited within six months of commencement
of operations. The above policies for the accreditation of operationally
separate units apply to institutions located within the United States
and in foreign countries. 1. Institutional evaluation with system office and
board participation. 2. Evaluating all institutions simultaneously with
system office and board participation. 3. Evaluating the institutions on a defined schedule
within a single evaluation year with system office and board participation.
Systems desiring to use options two or three should,
in consultation with the Commission Executive Director, develop
a proposal which meets the following criteria: 1. Faculty and support staff from the operating unit
are involved in developing the proposal. 2. The self study process involves broad participation
by the various constituencies in the evaluation and planning activities.
3. The governing board of the system approves the
proposal by resolution. In addition, requests for a separate evaluation of
the system are encouraged. The Commission does not consider allegations concerning
the personal lives of individuals connected with its affiliated
institutions. It assumes no responsibility for adjudicating isolated
individual grievances between students, faculty, or members of the
public and individual institutions. The Commission will not act
as a court of appeal in matters of admission, granting or transfer
of academic credit, grades, fees, student financial aid, student
discipline, collective bargaining, faculty appointments, promotion,
tenure, and dismissals or similar matters. If the complainant has
instituted litigation against the institution, no action will be
taken by the Commission while the matter is under judicial consideration.
Complaints are considered only when made in writing
and when the complainant is clearly identified. Substantial evidence
should be included in support of the allegation that the institution
is in significant violation of the rules of good practice as stated
in the Commission's criteria, standards, and policies. Such evidence
should state relevant and provable facts. The Commission requires
that each affiliated institution have in place student grievance
and public complaint policies and procedures that are reasonable,
fairly administered, and well-publicized. The complainant should
demonstrate that a serious effort has been made to pursue all review
procedures provided by the institution. When the Commission receives a complaint about a candidate
or accredited institution, it reviews that information to determine
if it is relevant to the compliance of that institution with Commission
standards. If appropriate, such information may be referred to the
institution or to the visiting team next scheduled to evaluate the
institution. The Commission at all times reserves the right to request
information of an affiliated institution and to visit that institution
for purposes of fact-finding consistent with Commission policy.
A pattern of concern which may evidence a significant lack of compliance
with standards could cause the Commission to renew its consideration
of the matter for whatever action may be appropriate. If information
is received raising issues of institutional integrity, the Commission
may invoke the sanctions provided for in policy. Note: California Education Code Section 94332 requires
that complaints filed against WASC-affiliated private institutions
in California with the Council for Private Postsecondary Institutions
be forwarded to WASC for review. Procedures It is the complainant's responsibility to do the following:
a. State the complaint in the clearest possible terms.
b. Provide, in writing, a clear description of the
evidence upon which the allegation is based. c. Demonstrate that all remedies available at the
institution (grievance procedures, appeals hearings, etc.) have
been exhausted. The complainant should describe what has been done
in this regard. d. Attest that the matter in question is not under
litigation. e. Acknowledge awareness that Commission staff may
send a copy of the complaint to the president of the institution.
f. Sign the complaint. 2. If the Executive Director finds the complaint to
be not within the scope of Commission policies and jurisdiction,
the complainant will be so notified. Individual complaints, whether
acted upon or not by the Commission, will be retained in Commission
files. 3. If the complaint appears to be within the scope
of Commission policies and jurisdiction and is substantially documented,
a copy of the complaint will be forwarded to the institution's chief
executive, who will be asked to respond to the Executive Director
within thirty days. The Executive Director will send a copy of the
complaint and correspondence to the chairperson of the Accrediting
Commission. 4. The Commission staff will review the complaint,
the response, and evidence submitted by the institution's president,
and will determine one of the following: a. That the complaint will not be processed further.
b. That the complaint has sufficient substance to
warrant further investigation (which may include referral to the
Commission). Although every effort will be made to expedite this
final decision, it is not possible to guarantee a specific time
frame in which the process will be completed. If further investigation
is warranted, the time required to conduct the investigation may
vary considerably depending on the circumstances and the nature
of the complaint. 5. The complainant and the institution will be notified
of the outcome of the review of the complaint. a. If the complaint is investigated further, as in
4.b above, the complainant and the institution will be notified
of the outcome of the investigation. Prior to the Commission's disposition of the complaint,
the institution will have an opportunity to respond in writing within
thirty days to the findings of the investigation. The complainant
and the institution involved will be notified of the decision. The
decision as communicated by the Executive Director is final. b. If the complaint was referred to ACCJC by another
agency, that agency will receive copies of correspondence that state
the outcome of the complaint. Introduction Most changes, such as adding or dropping courses,
developing new concentrations that are allied with existing offerings,
and changing personnel, are not substantive and fall within the
nature and scope of the institution as it was last evaluated. Special
programs, off-campus educational activities, or new degree levels
may extend learning opportunities to a variety of populations, some
otherwise not served. The Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges seeks neither to inhibit such activities nor to
diminish creative approaches to them. Sometimes, however, an institution
plans a change between evaluations which is a substantive change;
that is, a change which alters the objectives or the scope of the
institution; changes the autonomy, sponsorship, or form of control
of the institution; modifies the nature of the constituencies it
seeks to serve; or changes the geographic area(s) served. While the decision to modify an institution is an
institutional prerogative and responsibility, the Commission is
obligated to determine the effect of the substantive change on the
quality, integrity, and effectiveness of the total institution.
Substantive changes in an institution are subject to review by the
Commission both prior to and subsequent to implementation. Substantive
changes are not automatically covered by the institution's accreditation
or candidate status and may precipitate a review of the accredited
status of the institution. A principle of institutional accreditation
is that everything done in the name of the institution is covered
by its accreditation. Conversely, anything done without appropriate
concern for consistency with an institution's stated mission and
concern for quality and integrity threatens the accredited status
of the entire institution. Notification Commission Action 1 . A concise statement of the proposed change and
the reasons for it. The statement should include a description of
the planning process which led to the request for the change, how
the change relates to the institution's stated mission, and the
assessment of needs and resources which has taken place. 2. Evidence that the institution has any necessary
internal or external approvals. The statement should state clearly
what faculty, administrative, governing board, or regulatory agency
approvals are needed and provide evidence that any legal requirements
have been met. 3. Evidence that the educational purposes of the change
are clear and appropriate. Institutions should provide evidence
that all accreditation standards are fulfilled by the change and
that all relevant Commission policies are addressed. 4. An analysis of the anticipated effect of the proposed
change on the rest of the institution. The institution should address
whether or not the proposed change will have an effect on the ability
of the institution to continue to be able to meet the Eligibility
Requirements and, therefore, continued accreditation status. 5. Evidence that the institution has provided adequate
human, financial, and physical resources and processes to initiate,
maintain, and monitor the change and to assure that the activities
undertaken are accomplished with acceptable quality. 6. Other information requested by Commission staff
that is pertinent to the specific nature of the change. A candidate or accredited institution is expected
to complete this process sufficiently in advance of a substantive
change to permit approval before the change is instituted. In the
event that the change is judged to be of such magnitude as to potentially
affect the accredited status of the institution, the review process
may be expanded to include a review of the accreditation of the
institution. Substantive changes which are approved by the Commission
should be included in the next institutional self study and will
be included as part of the next periodic review of the institution.
If the institution is not due for a comprehensive evaluation within
two years of the approval of the substantive change, an on-site
evaluation, or such other measures as the Commission may determine,
may be required. Costs for an on-site evaluation will be borne by
the institution. (Note: Certain off-campus centers will be subject
to an on-site inspection within the first six months following establishment.)
Examples of Substantive Change 1. Changing an institution's private or public character,
including changes in the denominational character of a religiously-affiliated
institution. 2. Changing sponsorship or form of control, including
change of ownership of a proprietary institution. 3. Merging with another institution. 4. Offering courses or programs outside the geographic
region served by the institution at the time of the previous evaluation
or outside the WASC region, including international sites. 5. Move to a new location or establishment of major
off-campus units. 6. Offering programs at a degree level different from
that listed for the institution in the WASC Directory. (An institution
planning to offer the baccalaureate degree will fall under the jurisdiction
of the WASC Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities,
requiring accreditation by that Commission. Consultation with Commission
staff should begin early in the planning process.) 7. Contracting with a non-regionally accredited organization
for the organization to provide courses or programs on behalf of
the candidate or accredited institution. 8. Change in educational purposes and/or programs
operative at the time of the most recent evaluation, including changes
in constituencies or clientele. Note: Institutions undergoing changes in ownership,
control and/or legal status will be visited within six months of
the implementation of the change. The Commission reserves the right
to request a report and visit to assess the effects of any substantive
change it deems to be a very significant departure from the past.
I. Actions on Candidate Institutions
II. Actions on Initial Accreditation
Note: Each accredited institution submits a Midterm
Report of responses to recommendations three years after each comprehensive
evaluation visit. The Commission will specify the nature, purpose,
and scope of the information to be submitted and of the visit to
be made. If the institution is a candidate for accreditation, candidacy
continues during the period of deferment.
III. Actions on Accredited Institutions
In all cases of negative action, the Commission will
give the institution written reasons for its decision. The Commission will announce publicly, as appropriate,
through its Executive Director and will publish in appropriate publications
and in the WASC annual Directory the status of each institution
subject to a negative action (except warning) in accordance with
the Commission's policy on "Disclosure and Confidentiality
of Information." The Executive Director will attempt to reach
agreement with the institution on a public statement to be used
by both parties. However, the Commission reserves final authority
in event of impasse. If a specific inquiry is made about an institution
which has been warned, placed on probation, or issued a show cause
order, the Executive Director shall inform the inquirer that a negative
action has been taken and the reasons therefore. If an institution so conducts its affairs that they
become a matter of public concern, or uses the public forum to take
issue with a negative action of the Commission relating to that
institution, the Commission may announce, through the Executive
Director, the action taken and the basis for that action, making
public any pertinent information available to it. Institutions whose applications for candidacy, renewal
of candidacy, accreditation, or reaffirmation of accreditation are
denied, or whose candidacy or accreditation is terminated by the
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, may request
a review of the Commission's decision. Such a review must be requested
prior to filing of an appeal by the institution to the Western Association
of Schools and Colleges. The following procedures will govern the
conduct of the Commission's review: 1. If the Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges decides to take any of the actions listed above,
its Executive Director will notify the institution concerned of
the decision by certified mail, return receipt requested, within
approximately seven calendar days of the Commission's decision.
Said notification shall contain a succinct statement of the reasons
for the Commission's decision. 2. If the institution wishes a review by the Commission,
it shall file with the Executive Director a request for such a review
under the policies and procedures of the Commission. This request
should be submitted by the chief executive officer of the institution
and, in the case of private institutions, co-signed by the chairperson
of the governing board. Requests for review by an institution in
a multi-college system shall be cosigned by the chief executive
officer of the system. This request must be received by certified
mail, return receipt requested, within twenty-eight calendar days
of the date of the mailing of the Commission's notification of its
decision to the institution. 3. Within twenty-one calendar days after the date
of its request for a review, the institution, through its chief
administrative officer, must submit a written statement of the reasons
why, in the institution's opinion, a review of the Commission's
decision is warranted. As a general rule, this written statement
should respond only to the Commission's statement of the reasons
for the Commission's decision and to the evidence that was before
the Commission at the time of its decision. However, if the institution
believes that there are compelling reasons to expand the scope of
the response, or if it wishes to introduce new evidence which may
have been generated or discovered since the time of the Commission's
decision, it may do so in a separate section of its response. 4. On receipt of the institution's written statement
referred to in paragraph 3, the chairperson of the Commission will
select a review committee of three or more persons. A roster of
the review committee will be sent to the institution normally within
twenty-one calendar days of the date of the Commission's receipt
of the institution's written statement. 5. Within a reasonable period of time after the review
committee has been selected, the Executive Director will schedule
a visit to the institution by the review committee. 6. Prior to the visit to the institution, the review
committee will review available information. If additional information
is needed, the chairperson of the review committee may request such
information from the chief executive officer of the institution.
7. The review visit will be investigative and designed
to determine if the Commission's decision was substantially supported
by the evidence before the Commission at the time of the Commission's
decision. If, however, in the judgment of the review committee,
changes have occurred which might materially affect the decision
of the Commission, the review committee chairperson, with the approval
of the members, may accept new evidence bearing on these changes.
8. The committee should open and close its visit with
a meeting with the chief executive officer of the institution. At
the closing meeting the chairperson should, among other matters,
attempt to ascertain whether or not the institution has any complaints
about any aspect of the visit. 9. The committee should prepare a report which cites
and evaluates the evidence which the committee considers relevant
to the question of whether the Commission's original decision was
substantially supported by the evidence before the Commission at
the time of its decision. If the committee accepts evidence of changes
which occurred subsequent to the committee's original decision,
the review committee should include a summary and analysis of such
evidence in its report identifying it as new evidence and describing
the weight given it. 10. The chairperson of the review committee will submit
a copy of the committee's report, which is referred to in paragraph
9, to the chief executive officer of the institution, the chairperson
of the institution's governing board, and the Executive Director
of the Commission, normally within twenty-one calendar days of the
end of the review committee's visit. 11. Within fourteen calendar days of the institution's
receipt of the review committee's report, the chief executive officer
may submit a written response to the Executive Director of the Commission,
with a copy to the chairperson of the review committee. Failure
of the institution to submit a response shall constitute an acceptance
by the institution of the Commission's original decision. 12. In a confidential letter to the Commission, the
review committee shall make one of the following recommendations:
a. The decision of the Commission was substantially
supported by the evidence before the Commission at the time of the
Commission's decision. b. The decision of the Commission was not substantially
supported by the evidence before the Commission at the time of the
Commission's decision. c. The decision of the Commission was substantially
supported by the evidence available at the time of the Commission's
decision; but the institution has taken significant steps to improve
conditions and remedy deficiencies, and the Commission should reevaluate
its decision in light of these steps. The recommendation of the review committee to the
Commission shall not be disclosed to the institution being reviewed.
The recommendation is not binding on the Commission. 13. The chief executive officer of the institution
and a limited number of the staff will be invited to meet with the
two readers of the committee's report and the chairperson of the
review committee shortly before the meeting of the Commission at
which the report will be acted upon. Discussion at this preliminary
meeting will be confined to the report of the review committee referred
to in section 9 and the institution's response to this report. 14. The two readers will report the substance of this
meeting to the Commission when it meets. If institutional representatives
wish to appear before the Commission at that time, their request
will be granted; but the meeting with the readers is intended to
obviate the need for such an appearance except in unusual circumstances.
15. In making its decision on the institution's status,
the Commission will consider the evidence available to it and then
reach a final decision to (a) reaffirm its original decision; (b)
modify it; or (c) reverse it. As soon after the meeting as practicable,
the Executive Director will notify the chief executive officer of
the institution by certified mail of the Commission's decision.
16. The decision of the Commission, referred to in
paragraph 15, shall be final as far as the Accrediting Commission
for Community and Junior Colleges is concerned. However, if the
institution remains aggrieved, it may file an appeal with the President
of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges through the Executive
Director of the Commission in accordance with the provisions of
Article VI of the Constitution of the Western Association of Schools
and Colleges. 17. An institution retains its accredited or candidate
status until the review process of the Commission is completed.
If the institution files a subsequent appeal with the Western Association
of Schools and Colleges, its status remains unchanged until that
appeal has been heard and decided. 18. The cost of the review will be borne by the institution. The request for a review must be accompanied by a deposit set by the Commission. If the actual cost is less than this amount, the excess will be refunded. If it is greater, the institution will be billed for the difference. Disclosure And Confidentiality
Of Information It is the obligation of every institution applying
for candidacy, extension of candidacy, accreditation, or reaffirmation
of accreditation, and of every candidate or accredited institution
to provide the Commission with access to all parts of its operations,
with due regard for the rights of individual privacy, and with complete
and accurate information with respect to the institution's affairs,
including reports of other accrediting, licensing, and auditing
agencies. Failure to do so, or to make complete, accurate, and honest
disclosure, is sufficient reason in and of itself to deny or revoke
candidacy or accreditation. The Commission will maintain inviolate the confidentiality
of information supplied by the institution except in those rare
cases where it is deemed necessary by the Commission to make public
information which forms a substantive basis for the Commission's
decision. The Commission may announce publicly, as appropriate,
through its Executive Director and will publish in the WASC Bulletin
and/or annual Directory the fact that: 1. The institution's application for candidacy or
accreditation has been denied. 2. An institution has been granted candidacy or accredited.
3. The institution's candidacy has not been extended
or its accreditation reaffirmed. 4. The institution has been placed on probation. 5. The institution has been given a show cause order
effective at a specific date. 6. The institution's candidacy has not been renewed
or its accreditation has been terminated. If an institution so conducts its affairs that they
become a matter of public concern, the Commission may announce,
through its Executive Director, any action the Commission has taken
and the basis for that action, making public any pertinent information
available to it. Because of the sensitivities created when litigation
is pending during a site visit by an evaluation team, the Commission
has developed the following guidelines. Responsibility of the Institution Responsibility of Visiting Teams If questions arise prior to, during, or after a visit,
Commission staff should be consulted. The Commission notifies the Department of Education,
and relevant state agencies, of all institutional actions immediately
following the meeting at which action is taken. Copies of publications such as the Commission Newsletter
and the WASC Directory are routinely sent to the state and federal
agencies with which the Commission communicates. The Commission maintains regular communication with
the Department of Education and relevant state agencies. It responds
to inquiries from government agencies and forwards responses to
complaints against institutions that have been routed to the Commission
by those agencies. In the event clear evidence of Title IV fraud and
abuse is obtained by the Commission, that information is forwarded
to the Department of Education. Institutions are notified and asked to respond if
complaints or allegations of fraud and abuse are communicated to
the Commission by the Department of Education. The inspection may be conducted by Commission staff,
or by one or more individuals selected from the Commission's pool
of evaluators. A written record shall be made stating the identity
of the visitor, the date and time of the visit, and the findings
of the inspection. The report will be retained by the Commission
and made available to the Department of Education upon request.
The Commission shall not take accrediting actions
on the basis of the unannounced inspection. However, if the unannounced
inspection raises an issue of concern, the Commission may address
the matter through its regular processes. Independent research shall be commissioned prior to
issuance of each edition of the Handbook of Accreditation, so that
the revision may be informed by the findings of that research. Each
such project shall include a survey of member institutions and participants
in the processes of accreditation. Through a variety of means, information
shall be sought to establish: 1. Institutional attitudes about validity and utility
of standards. 2. Consistency of application of standards. 3. Consistency of application of the "Commission
Actions on Institutions Policy." 4. Trust in the evaluation team and Commission action
processes. 5. Effects of Commission actions and team recommendations
on institutional practices. 6. Detailed knowledge of the state of the art of institutional
evaluation, as practiced by academic quality assurance and accrediting
agencies, and by business and industry. COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP AND APPOINTMENT
PROCEDURE Commission Membership A Commissioner appointed to a membership category
defined by position or status is expected to maintain that status
for the entire term. If the Commissioner's position or status changes
during a term so that the Commissioner no longer meets the requirement
for the category to which appointed, the Commissioner shall notify
the Commission's chairperson or Executive Director in a timely manner.
A Commissioner whose status has so changed is considered to have
completed the term on the date that the new status is actually assumed.
Commission Officers Conflict of Interest Commissioners who have participated as a team member
in an institutional evaluation may take part in the Commission review
but shall not participate in the vote. Appointment Procedure All applicants and nominees will be asked to submit
the following by the published deadline (ordinarily in late April):
1. A letter of application, stating their interest
in the Commission. 2. A completed ACCJC data form. 3. Optional - a professional resume and/or letter
of recommendation. Selection Committee Appointments for Terms Beginning July 1 The Selection Committee, established pursuant to Section
3b of the WASC Constitution, shall meet to consider nominees and
applicants and to make appointments to the Commission. The chairperson of the Commission shall designate
a member of the Selection Committee to serve as its chair. The Executive Director shall serve as the nonvoting
secretary of the Selection Committee. Appointments Out of Normal Sequence 2. Willingham, Warren W. Principles of Good Practice in Assessing Experiential Learning. CAEL, American City Building, Suite 40-3, Columbia, MD 21044, 1977. 3. American Council on Education. "Principles of Good Practice for Alternative and External Degree Programs for Adults." ACE, Publications Department A, One Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C. 20036, 1990. 4. See ACE Guidelines #1: "Policy Guidelines for Refund of Student Charges" 5. See ACE Guidelines #2: "Joint Statement of Principles of Good Practice in College Admissions and Recruitment." 6. If a system headquarters desires a separate evaluation of its operations, a request should be submitted to the Executive Director. The fee for this evaluation will be based on actual costs. |