NACIQI Transcript - June 8, 2011 (MS Word)

1 1 2 1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 2 3 + + + + + 4 5 NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INSTITUTIONAL 6 QUALITY AND INTEGRITY 7 8 + + + + + 9 10 MEETING 11 12 + + + + + 13 14 WEDNESDAY 15 JUNE 8, 2011 16 17 + + + + + 18 19 The Advisory Committee met in the 20 Commonwealth Ballroom in the Alexandria 21 Holiday Inn, 625 First Street, Alexandria, 22 Virginia, at 8:30 a.m., Cameron Staples, 23 Chair, presiding. 24 25 PRESENT: 26 27 CAMERON C. STAPLES, Committee Chair, 28 Partner, Neubert, Pepe, & Monteith law 29 firm 30 ARTHUR J. ROTHKOPF, Committee Vice-Chair, 31 President Emeritus, Lafayette College 32 EARL LEWIS, Provost and Executive Vice 33 President for Academic Affairs, Emory 34 University 35 WILFRED M. McCLAY, SunTrust Bank Chair of 36 Excellence in Humanities, University 37 of Tennessee at Chattanooga 38 ANNE D. NEAL, President, American Council of 39 Trustees and Alumni 40 WILLIAM PEPICELLO, Provost and President, 41 University of Phoenix 42 SUSAN D. PHILLIPS, Provost and 43 Vice-President 44 for Academic Affairs, State University 45 of New York at Albany 46 BETER-ARON SHIMELES, Student Member, 1 2 2 1 Fellow, Peer Health Exchange 2 JAMIENNE S. STUDLEY, President and CEO, Public 3 Advocates, Inc. 4 LARRY N. VANDERHOEF, Former Chancellor, 5 University of California, Davis 6 CAROLYN WILLIAMS, President, Bronx Community 7 College of the City University of New 8 York 9 FRANK H. WU, Chancellor and Dean, University 10 of California, Hastings College of Law 11 FREDERICO ZARAGOZA, Vice-Chancellor of 12 Economic and Workforce Development, 13 Alamo Colleges 14 15 STAFF PRESENT: 16 17 MELISSA LEWIS 18 SALLY WANNER 19 KAY GILCHER 20 CAROL GRIFFITHS 21 ELIZABETH DAGGETT 22 KAREN DUKE 23 JENNIFER HONG-SILWANY 24 JOYCE JONES 25 CHUCK MULA 26 STEVE PORCELLI 27 CATHY SHEFFIELD 28 RACHAEL SHULTZ 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 3 2 1 2 T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 3 4 Welcome and Introductions...... 6 5 Overview of Procedures for Committee Review of 6 Petitions 7 Cameron Staples, Chairperson, NACIQI. .8 8 Melissa Lewis, Committee Executive 9 Director, U.S. Department of Education 9 10 11 Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and 12 Colleges 13 NACIQI Primary Reader: 14 Wilfred McClay...... 14 15 Department Staff: 16 Chuck Mula...... 16 17 Representatives of the Agency: 18 Ronald S. Blumenthal, Chairman. 17 19 Michale S. McComis, Executive . . . 20 Director...... 22 21 22 America Psychological Association, Commission 23 on Accreditation 24 Action for Consideration: Petition for Renewal 25 of Recognition 26 NACIQI Primary Readers: 27 Arthur Rothkopf...... 28 28 Department Staff: Joyce Jones...... 30 29 Representatives of the Agency: 30 Joyce Illfelder-Kaye, Associate 31 Chair for Program Review...... 51 32 Elizabeth A. Klonoff, Associate . 33 Chair for Quality Assurance...... 53 34 Susan F. Zlotlow, Director, 35 Office of Program Consultation 36 and Accreditation, Education 37 Directorate...... 54 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 4 2 1 Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges 2 and Schools 3 NACIQI Primary Readers: 4 William Pepicello...... 119 5 Federico Zaragoza...... 6 Department Staff: 7 Steve Porcelli...... 121 8 Representatives of the Agency: 9 Gary R. Carlson, Chairman.....134 10 Albert C. Gray, Executive 11 Director and Chief Executive 12 Officer...... 140 13 Roger Swartzwelder, Chair-Elect142 14 Thomas Wickenden, Deputy 15 Executive Director...... 144 16 17 LUNCH 18 19 Commission on Accrediting of the Association 20 of Theological Schools 21 NACIQI Primary Readers: 22 Wilfred McClay...... 207 23 Department Staff: 24 Chuck Mula...... 209 25 Representatives of the Agency: 26 Dan Aleshire, Executive Director216 27 28 Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools 29 NACIQI Primary Readers: 30 Beter-Aron Shimeles...... 234 31 Department Staff: 32 Elizabeth Daggett...... 238 33 Representatives of the Agency: 34 Linda Swisher, Chairman...... 240 35 Delores Gioffre, Member, ABHES 36 Committee on Degree Policies and 37 Procedures...... 241 38 Michael White, Director of Legal 39 and Regulatory Affairs...... 241 40 Carol Moneymaker, Executive ..... 41 Director...... 241 42 43 Third-Party Oral Comments 44 Omar Franco...... 245 45 46 1 5 2 1 Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and 2 Oriental Medicine 3 NACIQI Primary Readers: 4 Susan Phillips...... 246 5 Department Staff: 6 Rachael Shultz...... 248 7 Representatives of the Agency: 8 Mark S. McKenzie, Chair...... 252 9 William W. Goding, Interim ...... 10 Executive Director...... 252 11 12 American Osteopathic Association, Commission 13 on Osteopathic College Accreditation 14 NACIQI Primary Readers: 15 Carolyn G. Williams...... 256 16 Department Staff: 17 Jennifer Hong-Silwany...... 257 18 Representatives of the Agency: 19 Kenneth J. Veit, Chair...... 259 20 Andrea Williams, Assistant ...... 21 Secretary...... 260 22 Konrad C. Miskowicz-Retz, ...... 23 Secretary...... 260 24 Third-Party Oral Comments: 25 Dr. Massood Jallali...... 268 26 27 BREAK 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 1 6 2 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S2 8:42 a.m.3 Welcome and Introductions 4 CHAIR STAPLES: I want to thank you5 all for coming. This is a meeting of the 6 NACIQI and we are very eager to get started7 with our business today. My name is Cam8 Staples. I'm the Chair of NACIQI and I think9 to start the meeting off what I would like to10 do is welcome all the members. It's nice to11 see you all again. 12 Then we'll go around the table13 starting with the Vice Chair Mr. Rothkopf to14 my right and ask everyone to please introduce15 yourself for the purposes of the audience and16 members of the Committee.17 MR. ROTHKOPF: I'm Arthur Rothkopf,18 Vice Chair of the Committee.19 MS. PHILLIPS: Susan Phillips,20 Chair of the Policy Subcommittee.21 MS. NEAL: Anne Neal, President of22 the American Council, Trustees and Alumni.23 MR. SHIMELES: Aron Shimeles. I 1 7 2 1 work at Peer Health Exchange.2 MR. WU: Frank Wu, Chancellor and3 dean, University of California, Hastings4 College of Law.5 MR. LEWIS: Earl Lewis. I'm the6 Provost of Emory University.7 MR. McCLAY: Wilfred McClay,8 University of Tennessee.9 MR. VANDERHOEF: I'm Larry10 Vanderhoef, University of California, Davis.11 MR. PEPICELLO: I'm Bill Pepicello,12 President of the University of Phoenix.13 MS. WILLIAMS: I'm Carolyn14 Williams, President of Bronx Community College15 of the City of the University of New York.16 MS. STUDLEY: I'm Jamienne Studley,17 President and CEO of Public Advocates, an18 advocacy group in San Francisco, California.19 MS. WANNER: I'm Sally Wanner. I'm20 not a committee member. I'm with the Office21 of General Counsel, the Department of22 Education.23 MS. GILCHER: I'm Kay Gilcher with 1 8 2 1 the Accreditation Division at the Department2 of Education.3 MS. LEWIS: I'm Melissa Lewis,4 NACIQI Executive Director, the Department of5 Education.6 Overview of Procedures 7 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you,8 everybody. Hopefully we'll get the9 microphones fixed so we won't be torturing you10 in the audience with sound.11 As you all know, one of the primary12 functions of NACIQI is to advise the Secretary13 whether it recognized specific accrediting14 agencies, state approval agencies, and others.15 That's what we will be doing a lot of today16 and tomorrow.17 We also occasionally have requests18 from federal institutions and make19 recommendations to the Secretary about whether20 those institutions should be granted degree21 awarding authority. We have at least one such22 request also during the course of this23 meeting. 1 9 2 1 After that beginning tomorrow and2 into Friday we will be responding, or3 continuing to respond to a request from the4 Secretary that we offer recommendations,5 policy recommendations regarding the6 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.7 That process will continue throughout the rest8 of 2011 but we expect to make some significant9 progress starting tomorrow and into Friday.10 With that, why don't I recognize11 Melissa Lewis who is, as she stated, our12 Executive Director, for other opening remarks.13 Melissa.14 MS. LEWIS: Thank you, Cam. I15 would like to welcome the members and our16 guests to the NACIQI meeting and thank17 everyone for coming. I would like to call18 everyone's attention to the bottom of the19 first page of the agenda and to the guidelines20 for the third party oral presentations, both21 of which are handouts available in the back22 right corner of the room. Both list the order23 of the presentations before the Committee. 1 10 2 1 I would also like to call your2 attention to the procedures concerning public3 commenters. Those interested in making public4 comments at the meeting may sign up at the5 table outside the meeting room. There will be6 up to five public commenters per agency. You7 fill out an application. It will be stamped8 and the public commenters will be selected on9 a first-come first-serve basis.10 The opportunity to sign up to make11 oral comments concerning an agency will close12 once the maximum of five speakers have13 registered or five minutes prior to the14 agency's scheduled review time as shown on the15 agenda depending on which comes first, which16 occurs first. If a person or group requested17 to make comments in advance, they cannot also18 sign up to make comments today.19 With respect to the members we are20 very pleased that 13 of the 17 members are21 joining us today. Bruce Cole, Brit Kirwan,22 Art Keiser and Daniel Klaich are unable to23 attend the meeting. Federico Zaragoza will 1 11 2 1 join us later today.2 Due to recusals Carolyn Williams3 will be here for the first agency's review,4 and then will be recused for the rest of the5 morning. Frederico Zaragoza will also be6 joining us later today.7 Members, if you need to depart8 early from the meeting, please announce your9 departure or your return to the meeting for10 the record.11 Also, concerning recusals, I would12 like to remind the members that if you have13 any conflicts of interest that require you to14 recuse yourself from a review of the agency,15 please announce that you are recusing yourself16 before the primary reader's introduction of17 the agency and to please leave the table at18 that time so that you will not confuse anyone19 concerning your recusal.20 The meeting is being recorded by21 the Neal Gross Court Reporter Company at the22 round table just behind us. Please speak23 clearly into the microphone so that the court 1 12 2 1 reporter may hear your comments. Remember to2 turn off the mic when you're done. I3 have asked John to please let us know if he4 can't hear us.5 I have a few other items to cover.6 I did mention the handouts earlier in addition7 to the agenda and the third party oral comment8 guidelines. There's also a menu from the9 sandwich shop right outside the meeting room,10 as well as the draft June 11 policy agenda11 which list the three issues that we'll be12 considering in the reauthorization portion of13 the meeting, as well as the sub-issues under14 each and other issues that the Committee may15 consider.16 The rest rooms are located just17 past the elevators to my left just outside the18 meeting room. Restaurants. Although the19 hotel restaurant is closed, there are several20 other options in the area. 21 Again, the sandwich shop right22 outside the meeting room. The Giant across23 the street has a large salad bar and large 1 13 2 1 section of prepared foods and they are2 expecting a crowd so they should have plenty3 on hand.4 Also, I've been told that if you5 walk out the front door here, turn left or6 right, go one block and turn left or right,7 and there are a number of luncheon spots, both8 sit-down and fast food available. Concerning9 internet access, you may access the internet10 anywhere in that front corridor along the11 glass wall of the hotel. 12 Also, members, I gave everyone a13 luncheon menu to choose from. The master list14 will be circulated shortly. Please give Jamie15 your money. Please attend to it promptly16 because the order needs to go in by 10:00.17 That's all I have. Thank you very18 much. I look forward to a productive and19 robust meeting.20 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you. I just21 want to make one comment, too, to the members.22 We have some information that has been handed23 out. Sample Language for Motions is in your 1 14 2 1 packet for the readers who are going to be2 looked to to make a recommendation to the3 Committee after they've discussed their4 review. You might want to take a look at this5 in assisting you in formulating your motions.6 I want to make sure you are aware of that.7 Okay. At this time we'll call the8 first agency, the Accrediting Commission of9 Career Schools and Colleges. The primary10 readers are Wilfred --11 I guess it's you today, Wilfred.12 Federico is not here.13 Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and14 Colleges 15 MR. McCLAY: Yes. I've been asked16 to begin the discussion of the Accrediting17 Commission of Career Schools and Colleges.18 This is an accrediting agency that accredits19 775 institutions located throughout the United20 States and in Puerto Rico.21 Schools offer certificates,22 associate degrees, occupational associate's23 degrees, baccalaureate degrees, master's 1 15 2 1 degrees, and distance education programs2 primary in occupational trade and technical3 career areas.4 Most of the agency's accredited5 schools participate in the Federal Student Aid6 Program and this agency is a Title IV7 gatekeeper for those programs.8 In terms of its recognition history9 the institutional history goes back to 1967.10 It started out as the National Association of11 Trade and Technical Schools. I won't go12 through the whole history of mergers and13 metamorphosis until it became what it is14 today.15 It was last reviewed in 2004. At16 that time requested expansion of scope to17 include distance education. This was granted18 by the Secretary in 2005. Then in 200619 expansion of scope was requested to include20 master's programs and that, too, was granted.21 The request that we have before us22 is a petition for continued recognition for23 five years with no change of scope. Staff has 1 16 2 1 recommended that this be granted, recommended2 to the Secretary.3 Do we call -- we can call Chuck4 Mula.5 MR. MULA: Good morning, Mr. Chair,6 and members of the Committee. I will be7 presenting a brief summary of the petition for8 continued recognition of the Accredit9 Commission of Career Schools and Colleges,10 hereafter referred to as ACCSC, or the agency.11 The staff recommendation to the12 Senior Department Official for the agency is13 that he continue the recognition of ACCSC for14 a period of five years. 15 This recommendation is based on my16 review of the agency's petition for continued17 recognition, supporting documentation and the18 observation of a site-team evaluation visit19 for initial accreditation in Fairfax, Virginia20 and an appeals panel session in Arlington,21 Virginia, in the spring of 2011.22 My review of the ACCSC's petition23 found the agency in compliance with the 1 17 2 1 Secretary's criteria for recognition with no2 issues or concern.3 This concludes my report and I am4 available for any questions that you may have.5 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you, Chuck.6 At this time we'll ask for the7 agency representatives to come forward.8 MR. BLUMENTHAL: Good morning, Mr.9 Chairman, members of the Committee.10 CHAIR STAPLES: Good morning.11 MR. BLUMENTHAL: My name is Ronald12 Blumenthal. I'm the Chair of the Accrediting13 Commission of Career Schools and Colleges. On14 behalf of ACCSC Commission our professional15 staff and the nearly 800 institutions that we16 accredit nationwide, it is my distinct17 pleasure to be with you here this morning.18 I'm also joined this morning by Dr.19 Michale McComis, Executive Director, and20 Christopher Lambert, Director of External21 Affairs, who led our organization's efforts22 throughout the re-recognition process.23 As you are aware, ACCSC has been 1 18 2 1 continually recognized by the Secretary since2 1967. Needless to say, we are incredibly3 proud of our track record. I believe that our4 petition for re-recognition which is before5 you today demonstrates that this agency takes6 our responsibility to serve as a reliable7 authority on quality education very seriously.8 From my vantage point the9 recognition process is rigorous and admittedly10 challenging, but we believe that we are11 stronger agents because of our participation12 in re-recognition. We will continue to pursue13 our goal of improvement as a means to enhance14 institutional and student success.15 As a former member of NACIQI I have16 a great appreciation and admiration for the17 important work that you do, fully understand18 and appreciate the role that accreditation19 plays in the higher education regulatory20 scheme.21 To that end I am very pleased, as I22 know my fellow commissioners are, that this23 agency has been able to demonstrate to the 1 19 2 1 Department that we meet every federal2 regulation required as a recognized agency.3 Accountability is a critical4 component to our system of higher education5 and I believe that our petition to the6 Secretary has shown our commitment to this7 task.8 On behalf of the full Commission9 and our staff I'd also like to extend my10 thanks and appreciate to the accreditation11 Department staff for their guidance throughout12 this process. We are happy to respond to any13 questions you might have.14 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you. 15 We have no third party commenters16 signed up so we will proceed to the questions17 portion if members of the Committee have any18 questions.19 Wilfred, if you would like to start20 if you have any.21 MR. McCLAY: No questions. I'm22 ready to make a motion whenever you're ready.23 MR. ROTHKOPF: I have a question. 1 20 2 1 CHAIR STAPLES: Arthur.2 MR. ROTHKOPF: When you take action3 when a report is done and the team goes out4 and reviews an institution and the Commission5 acts, what do you do with the report? Is it6 made public? Any summary made public? Is it7 required to be posted on the institution's8 website? What action do you require, if any,9 regarding the report of your Commission on a10 particular institution?11 MR. McCOMIS: The information that12 we make public through the Commission actions13 includes a summary of reasons an institution14 is placed on probation, summary of reasons for15 institutions that receive an adverse action16 that would include either a denial or17 revocation of accreditation.18 MR. ROTHKOPF: So you report on the19 action but you don't make public the report of20 the Commission or the people who conducted the21 site visit?22 MR. McCOMIS: That is correct.23 MR. ROTHKOPF: May I ask would you 1 21 2 1 consider doing that as something to inform2 potential students of issues that exist3 regarding that institution? Let's assume you4 continue the accreditation but there are5 issues that are of concern that come up. Is6 there a reason you would not make that report7 public, make it available to perspective8 students?9 MR. McCOMIS: Certainly I think the10 Commission would take that into consideration.11 It's not a current requirement under the12 federal regulations but in an attempt to13 create greater transparency that would be14 something that I'm sure the Board would be15 interested in looking at. 16 MR. ROTHKOPF: Just pursuing that,17 do you require institutions to report on their18 website or otherwise to prospective students19 what the completion rate may be of the20 program, actual employment of those who21 complete the program or may not complete the22 program? What sort of outcome information do23 you require, if any, of institutions that you 1 22 2 1 accredit?2 MR. McCOMIS: Effective July 13 we'll require the disclosure of employment4 rates by program. Any other disclosures that5 the institutions make have to be in accordance6 and align with the data that the institution7 has submitted to us through annual reporting.8 Those are the current disclosures that we9 require with regard to outcomes.10 MR. ROTHKOPF: So now disclosure on11 completion rate?12 MR. McCOMIS: There is not a13 current requirement for that. We do require14 the institutions to report that to the15 Commission on an annual basis by program.16 MR. ROTHKOPF: Just to follow up on17 that, is there any reason why you wouldn't18 require an institution to tell perspective19 students what the completion rate is of20 students who are enrolled in the program?21 MR. McCOMIS: The Commission has22 considered that. I think one of the issues is23 that there is not an uniform manner within 1 23 2 1 which institutions are required or do report2 graduation rates and so it's a bit -- even3 though you are giving some information some4 students, it may be a bit like providing5 information for them to compare apples and6 oranges. 7 Certainly if that was something to8 take into consideration, I think it would be9 important to also include disclosures about10 now that rate information is arrived at.11 MR. ROTHKOPF: Thank you.12 CHAIR STAPLES: Any further13 questions?14 Yes, Anne.15 MS. NEAL: Good morning. You note16 in the report that you all have on occasion17 required an independent third party audit of18 schools published rates of student graduation19 and graduate employment. I just wanted to20 hear your experience and have you considered a21 plan yet across the board?22 MR. McCOMIS: Well, our experience23 has been one that the opportunity for the 1 24 2 1 independent third party is to take information2 that the institution has reported to us, have3 it verified through that independent third4 party. Have that information sent directly to5 the Commission at the same time that it's sent6 to the institution so that they see it7 directly from the independent third party.8 It's currently being used in those9 instances where there is some level of concern10 either about the rates themselves or about the11 documentation that has been previously12 submitted where the information provided by13 the institution may raise some level of14 question in regard to either its veracity or15 validity.16 There hasn't been a current17 discussion about making it a standard practice18 but it is an additional arrow in the19 Commission's quiver in terms of actions that20 they can take when they have a certain level21 of concern.22 MS. NEAL: Can you tell me what is23 your association's budget and how many staff 1 25 2 1 do you have?2 MR. McCOMIS: The budget is3 approximately $7.5 million annually and there4 are 34 full-time staff.5 MS. NEAL: Do you assess when you6 deal with the institutions you accredit what7 the expenditure of the accrediting process is8 for them in terms of man hours, FTEs, cost of9 paper, etc.?10 MR. McCOMIS: No, ma'am.11 MS. NEAL: Thank you.12 CHAIR STAPLES: Any further13 questions? Okay. Thank you very much.14 Wilfred, do you have a motion you15 wanted to recommend?16 MR. McCLAY: Yes. I would move17 that NACIQI recommend that ACCSC's requested18 renewal of recognition with its current scope19 of recognition be granted for a period of five20 years based on the agency's compliance with21 the Secretary's criteria for recognition.22 CHAIR STAPLES: Okay. Thank you.23 That's been moved. Is there a second? 1 26 2 1 MS. NEAL: Second.2 CHAIR STAPLES: Moved and seconded.3 Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing4 none, all in favor of the motion say aye.5 ALL: Aye.6 CHAIR STAPLES: Opposed, nay.7 Motion carries.8 The next agency that is up before9 us is the American Psychological Association,10 committee on Accreditation. Arthur and Larry.11 MS. WILLIAMS: Chair?12 CHAIR STAPLES: Yes, ma'am.13 MS. WILLIAMS: Carolyn Williams. I14 am recusing myself from the next group.15 MS. PHILLIPS: Chair, Susan16 Phillips. I'm recusing myself from this17 conversation.18 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you. The19 record will note both of your recusals. Thank20 you.21 Yes, Frank.22 MR. WU: May I ask a question? I23 just wanted to clarify that when we recuse we 1 27 2 1 leave the table but we are permitted to stay2 in the room. Is that correct?3 CHAIR STAPLES: What is the4 standard for that?5 MS. LEWIS: That is correct. You6 are free to stay in the back of the room to7 listen to the conversation or to leave the8 room but definitely do please leave the table.9 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you for10 clarifying that. That's helpful for members11 to know.12 So who would like to lead off?13 American Psychological Association, Commission14 on Accreditation 15 MR. ROTHKOPF: I'll take the lead16 and Larry will supplement as needed. Let me17 give the background of the American18 Psychological Association, Commission on19 Accreditation. It is a programmatic20 accreditor. It currently accredits over 90021 professional education and training programs22 at the doctoral and post-doctoral level in23 psychology. 1 28 2 1 The agency has also identified2 several federal programs that require the3 Secretary's recognition of its accredited4 programs as a prerequisite to participate in5 non-Title IV federal programs and/or federal6 employment. Some of them are listed in the7 report including, for example, the graduate8 psychology education program administered by9 HHS, Department of the Federal Government.10 American Psychological Association11 Commission on Accreditation received its12 initial recognition by the Secretary in 1970.13 Has received continued recognition since that14 time. It was last reviewed for renewal of15 recognition at the fall 2004 meeting of16 NACIQI. 17 Following that meeting the18 Secretary granted continuing recognition for a19 period of five years and found no compliance20 issues. As part of this review the Department21 staff reviewed the petition and supporting22 documentation, observed a decision-making23 meeting and a training workshop. That issue 1 29 2 1 of the continued accreditation or recognition2 of the Commission for Accreditation of APA is3 now on the table.4 MR. VANDERHOEF: That was very5 thorough. I have nothing to add.6 CHAIR STAPLES: I will ask the7 agency members to come forward now. Thank8 you. 9 Joyce, come forward. There you10 are. Go right ahead, Joyce. Now I got it.11 I'm on track.12 MS. JONES: Good morning, everyone,13 Mr. Chair, commission members, committee14 members. My name is Joyce Jones and I would15 like to present a brief summary of the staff16 analysis and recommendation after our review17 of the American Psychological Association18 Commission on Accreditation.19 I think the agenda shows the20 Committee on Accreditation and I would like to21 make that correction to reflect that it is the22 Commission on Accreditation.23 The staff recommendation to the 1 30 2 1 Senior Department Official for this agency is2 to continue the recognition. This is for its3 accreditation in the United States of doctoral4 programs in clinical counseling, school and5 combined professional, scientific psychology,6 predoctoral internship programs, and7 professional psychology and postdoctoral8 residency programs in professional psychology.9 However, we would require, or10 recommend that the agency also submit a11 compliance report in 12 months on just a few12 issues that are identified in the staff13 analysis. We based our recommendation on our14 review, as Arthur stated, of the agency's15 petition, its supporting documentation, its16 supplemental documentation, observation of the17 new commissioner training workshop and of the18 decision meeting.19 Our view of the agency found that20 it substantially complies with the criteria21 for recognition. However, it needs to address22 a few outstanding issues for which they have23 already scheduled for their Commission meeting 1 31 2 1 next month. 2 That is to clarify its current and3 projected financial viability and that is of4 the Commission. To ensure, of course, that5 their public representatives meet the federal6 qualification requirements in way by7 demonstrating that they need it.8 It needs to revise its records9 retention policy and it needs to work on its10 enforcement actions so that they are11 consistent with the criteria timelines with12 respect to enforcement. Also to demonstrate13 clear statements on what could cause these.14 Lastly, to implement changes with regard to15 the public information regarding senior16 administrative staff. 17 Many of these issues the agency18 has on its agenda to address at its commission19 meeting. Therefore, we believe that these20 issues do not place the accredited programs,21 the students, or the federal aid they receive22 from other federal programs such as HHS and23 the VA among others and that the agency 1 32 2 1 certainly can resolve these concerns and2 demonstrate compliance in a written report3 within a year's time. 4 Therefore, as previously stated, we5 are recommending to the Senior Department6 Official that the agency's recognition be7 continued but that the agency submit a8 compliance report in 12 months that9 demonstrates compliance with the issues10 identified in the staff report. Thank you.11 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you, Joyce.12 Any questions for Joyce at this time?13 Joyce, I just have one question.14 I'm skimming through trying to find the15 location of it here. In your analysis you16 mentioned concerning the financial stability17 of the agency. I believe this is your18 comment. "In addition, the agency has not19 provided any documentation to support the20 concern that there is financial stability." 21 I guess I want to understand that a22 little better. I think earlier you mentioned23 since 2008 there is no evidence regarding the 1 33 2 1 fund balance. How is it that documentation2 isn't provided to you?3 MS. JONES: The agency provided a4 written narrative of what the stabilization5 project but it presented no evidence that6 this, in fact, existed such as an agreement7 representing what they had supporting the8 narrative and that's the kind of information9 that we require.10 It's just like hearsay. We had11 this and we're suppose to believe it but12 that's where the Department has now decided13 that we want to see documentary evidence14 sustaining what they are reporting.15 CHAIR STAPLES: So did the16 Department ask for that --17 MS. JONES: Yes, we did.18 CHAIR STAPLES: -- during this19 review and it wasn't provided?20 MS. JONES: What they provided was21 not sufficient. It was in sufficient to22 demonstrate that they had the financial23 viability to continue because the budget had 1 34 2 1 shown four years of not quite having enough2 money and not explaining where it came from.3 CHAIR STAPLES: I guess I4 understand. I'm trying to understand the5 process but you asked for the documentary6 evidence. You asked for some data about the7 fund balance.8 MS. JONES: Initially, yes.9 CHAIR STAPLES: And they declined10 to provide that to you?11 MS. JONES: They provided a12 narrative and, as a result, that was not13 sufficient.14 CHAIR STAPLES: So the narrative is15 insufficient and please provide us with more16 information.17 MS. JONES: That has been the18 funding or the staff determination on that19 issue. It would not at this time be in the20 record. We would not have reviewed it.21 CHAIR STAPLES: Okay. I just want22 to understand how you hadn't gotten it yet.23 It seems like it makes sense that they would 1 35 2 1 have provided it to you. I'm sure we can ask2 them that.3 Any other questions from members of4 the Committee?5 MR. ROTHKOPF: Just as a follow-up6 on that one, Joyce. Does the Commission on7 accreditation have a financial report8 independent of that of the APA and, if so,9 does it show this $1 million in a10 stabilization fund?11 MS. JONES: The agency, I believe,12 provided a budget, a projected budget, and a13 budget for the current year. They did provide14 a report, a narrative, on the other factors. 15 Specifically I know the response16 did not address with sufficiently what we17 require in terms of evidence showing their18 viability and that is one of the requirements.19 We don't have it yet. It has not been20 reviewed and we've asked the Board as part of21 the demonstration in a follow-up report.22 CHAIR STAPLES: Anne.23 MS. NEAL: I need some 1 36 2 1 clarification. As I look at the entities we2 have before us today, it appears that in two3 cases the staff has recommended full4 recertification and a clean bill of health and5 that in all the other instances they need to6 report back in 12 months.7 As I heard you say it, we were8 basically continuing the accreditation of this9 entity. Am I correct in understanding that10 when we say 12 months and come back with a11 report, they will be coming back with a report12 and if they don't meet the various issues that13 you have addressed, then they either get good14 cause shown or they are out of business or15 potentially shut down. Is that correct?16 MS. JONES: They are not shut down.17 The recommendation from both parties would be18 whether the compliance report demonstrated19 that the agency complied with the criteria for20 recognition. If it does not, the21 recommendation would be not to renew or22 continue the recognition at that point, at23 least from the Department staff's standpoint. 1 37 2 1 MS. NEAL: I guess my question as I2 look at these recommendations of 12 months, in3 some cases there are seven citations of4 problems, 13, 35, 12, 24, 17, 21, 19, but5 obviously the same recommendation is made as6 to each one of them regardless of the number7 of problems that are raised. What is the8 staff's thinking in terms of this?9 MS. GILCHER: When we are looking10 at the areas of noncompliance we are making a11 considered decision about whether or not we12 think the agency could indeed come into13 compliance within that 12-month period of14 time. If we are making that recommendation15 with the 12 months it's on the basis of that16 judgment.17 The number of criteria that an18 agency is out of compliance with is not19 necessarily an indication of the severity of20 the problems being brought forward in terms of21 compliance to the agency. In many cases it's22 a matter of lack of appropriate documentation.23 Or that the council or the 1 38 2 1 Commission has not yet been able to meet in2 order to make a change in policy. They have3 certain requirements for periods of time and4 they meet at only certain times during the5 year.6 MS. NEAL: In all these cases you7 determined that you would not recommend, let's8 say, a two-year period of accreditation or a9 less than five year as opposed to the 1210 months. How do you reach that determination?11 MS. GILCHER: We are not at a point12 in making a recommendation on their actual13 renewal of accreditation until they14 demonstrate compliance so we are continuing15 that recognition with a requirement that they16 demonstrate that they come into compliance17 within that 12-month period of time. 18 At the end of that 12-month period19 of time after they submit their report, in20 reviewing that if there were still issues of21 noncompliance, then we would make a22 determination of whether we would recommend an23 extension for good cause. 1 39 2 1 We also might say that, okay, they2 have demonstrated that they are in compliance3 but we still have concerns about the ongoing4 viability of that agency in certain areas and5 could recommend less than a five-year.6 Actually it would be at that point only a7 four-year period of recognition because the8 one year of the five would already have been9 taken up.10 CHAIR STAPLES: Any further11 comments?12 Frank.13 MR. WU: I'm just wondering how14 often does an agency lose its status? I'm15 just wondering so that we can establish a base16 line to gauge when we see that there are X17 number of problems or this type of problem.18 How often is that cure? Is that it has never19 happened, it rarely happens, it often happens?20 Is it one agency in the past 10 years or 1021 agencies in the past 10 years? 22 I recall the first meeting that we23 had there was an agency that voluntarily 1 40 2 1 withdrew. It was one that primarily, as I2 understood it, worked with K through 12 but3 did a little bit in higher ed and then it4 withdrew. 5 Just so we can set a baseline for6 ourselves in understanding this, how often7 does this happen that an agency just8 altogether despite trying the staff finds they9 don't meet all of the rules and then we think10 the same and then they ultimately lose their11 status?12 MS. GILCHER: It's not a common13 occurrence. However, it certainly has14 happened. In fact, the last time around15 another agency chose to withdraw after having16 had a full review of its petition. We have17 continued to work with them in order to help18 them come into compliance and reapply for19 recognition.20 The way that we approach it is to21 do our best to help an agency come into22 compliance and to offer the advice and23 assistance needed to do so. 1 41 2 1 MR. WU: Just one follow-up2 question. So the typical end game here is the3 agency withdraws. In other words, they never4 push it all the way. If in the rare cases5 where this does happen, they usually withdraw.6 Is that what happens?7 MS. GILCHER: That certainly has8 happened. There are also agencies that choose9 to go the distance and there may be a10 determination that they are to be either11 limited or to lose their recognition.12 MR. ROTHKOPF: I'll just follow up13 with Kay on the procedure points that Anne was14 raising. We've got eight agencies assuming15 the group, the Committee, and then the16 Assistant Secretary agree that there are eight17 agencies who have to do things to come back to18 us.19 We've now got eight items on our20 agenda for either December or next June. Is21 there a way -- I would have to say in some22 cases I think some of these problems could be23 resolved because the Commission is not meeting 1 42 2 1 until July and they are going to adopt a new2 rule that's going to bring them in compliance.3 Some of these are, I would use the term, picky4 but they haven't complied. Some are much more5 serious. 6 The question I guess I have is7 there some way to dispose of these in a way8 that doesn't require us to go through this9 whole drill on each one and add eight more of10 these organizations to our agenda for a full11 discussion where the problems have, at least12 in the review of the staff, and maybe some13 part of the Commission or the Committee, that14 the problems have been resolved in a good way?15 I'm just trying to look at what we're doing16 going forward.17 CHAIR STAPLES: Do you want to18 respond to that?19 MS. GILCHER: I will respond and20 then with backup of my counsel. The21 requirement is that an agency demonstrate its22 compliance with all the criteria. We do not23 have the authority to say that they are in 1 43 2 1 compliance. We're not the decision makers. 2 The process would be that they3 would need to be reviewed by us. We would4 make a recommendation, reviewed by NACIQI and5 they would make a recommendation. You do have6 the option, or potentially have the option, to7 use a consent agenda so if there were no8 particular issues, they had resolved9 everything, then that could addressed on a10 consent agenda. 11 MS. WANNER: I think that's12 complete.13 MS. GILCHER: The other question I14 thought you were going to ask so I'm going to15 answer it has to do with the length of time,16 the 12 months, or less than 12 months. I just17 wanted to let the Committee know that we did18 out of the last meeting send a memo to all of19 the agencies that had compliance reports and20 offered them the option of determining when21 they would submit that compliance report so22 that they could submit it in less than that23 12-month period of time if they chose to do 1 44 2 1 so. 2 Then laid out for them what impact3 that would have in terms of the maximum period4 of recognition that could be recommended for5 them and which meeting of the NACIQI they6 would come forward for review. 7 Of the agencies that had compliance8 reports, six of them, two of them chose to9 come early before the spring 2012 and that was10 because their processes would allow them to11 demonstrate that compliance within that period12 of time.13 MR. ROTHKOPF: Thank you. I was14 actually going there.15 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you very16 much. I think that is a useful discussion to17 have had since we have this issue coming up18 with a number of the agencies.19 Are there any more questions for20 Joyce at this time?21 Larry. Or comment on the subject.22 MR. VANDERHOEF: Just one quick23 question. Given a circumstance like this I 1 45 2 1 agree with Arthur that -- maybe I go a little2 further. I think most of the issues that have3 been raised are not major issues and I don't4 see that there will be problems coming into5 compliance. In this circumstance can a move6 to approve pending straightening these issues7 out within six months or a year, can that be8 made? Can we make that kind of9 recommendation?10 CHAIR STAPLES: Sally, do you want11 to respond to that?12 MS. WANNER: You can certainly make13 a different recommendation than the staff did14 if that is what the question is. If your15 recommendation is that they come into16 compliance or that they report back that they17 have a six-month period to achieve compliance18 and then submit a report within 30 days19 thereafter you could do that.20 CHAIR STAPLES: I don't know if21 it's appropriate for you to respond to that22 idea but I think I want to respond to that23 idea. I have a concern in that with so many 1 46 2 1 agencies, granted some may be technical and2 some may be substantive with issues, it would3 concern me if we were to delegate such a large4 amount of decision making to the staff even5 though some may be technical. 6 If we were to say upon the staff's7 understanding that all these conditions were8 satisfied, they were deemed approved by us, I9 would have concern. I am personally a little10 surprised by the degree to which there is such11 a lack of compliance given the length of time12 these agencies have had. Several years in13 many cases because NACIQI hasn't been in14 operation. That's my two cents about that15 concept.16 MR. WU: I just wanted to ask does17 the staff in some way signal --- and I have18 not looked through everything thoroughly to19 see this. Do they signal if the lack of20 compliance is despite good faith efforts which21 I assume it is in most of these cases? That22 is, they are trying. 23 Due to the amount of detail and the 1 47 2 1 complexity of this they just haven't provided2 all the proof. Or I also assume that in some3 instances there is some foot dragging, bad4 faith, or there is something else going on. 5 Does the staff signal that to us6 whether or not the agency is making a good7 faith effort to comply and doing everything8 versus will it signal to us if there is9 something funny or odd that we should be more10 attentive to.11 CHAIR STAPLES: Joyce winks with12 her right eye when she is trying to signal13 that there is a real problem.14 MS. GILCHER: The record that is15 made available to you includes the response of16 the agency to the draft analysis and then our17 staff analysis of that response so there is18 information available to you to make that19 judgment. I think we are trying to just20 present "just the facts, ma'am" in the21 analysis. 22 MR. WU: Just so I'm clear on this,23 what that means is we could figure it out 1 48 2 1 ourselves by looking at how detailed the2 response was each time in sort of assessing do3 we think they are really trying here. You4 will not independently signal to us. We need5 to sort of match, pull up on our screens at6 the same time what you said and what the7 response is and just look for ourselves to8 see. Would that be accurate?9 MS. GILCHER: Yes. I think the10 process is set up such that there would be11 independent review and recommendation .12 UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Frank, I can13 put just a little color on that having done a14 number of these and looked at the15 documentation versus what was in the staff16 report. I think Kay is right. It's just the17 facts but the facts are, for instance, there18 is something in progress. There has been no19 documentation received. Then we can go in and20 put the color on it as to why that fact is as21 it is.22 CHAIR STAPLES: Any further23 comments? If not, why don't we invite the 1 49 2 1 agency representatives to come forward. This2 is the American Psychological Association that3 we are still on. Little bit of a detour.4 Hope that you enjoyed that discussion.5 Why don't you introduce yourself6 and proceed.7 MS. ILLFELDER-KAYE: Good morning.8 We would like --9 CHAIR STAPLES: Just one second.10 Sally had a comment.11 MS. WANNER: I just wanted to12 clarify on something earlier. I may have13 misunderstood the question. The question14 about whether NACIQI can ask the staff to15 resolve a question and then not have it come16 back. That would not be appropriate Neither17 the staff nor the NACIQI are final decision18 makers.19 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you.20 Please proceed.21 MS. ILLFELDER-KAYE: Good morning.22 We want to thank you for the opportunity to be23 here this morning on behalf of the American 1 50 2 1 Psychological Association Commission on2 Accreditation. 3 I'm Joyce Illfedler-Kaye and I'm a4 psychologist and I serve as the Associate5 Director of the Center for Counseling and6 Psychological Services at Penn State7 University in University Park where I've8 worked for the past 31 years.9 I serve as the Director of10 Internship Training there and I've served in11 that role since 1983. We have an accredited12 predoctoral psychology internship program13 which has been accredited by APA for the past14 28 years.15 In addition to my job at Penn State16 I've been involved in national organizations17 related to training and psychology for many18 years. 19 These roles have included serving20 as President of the Association of Counseling21 Center training agencies which is an22 organization of university counseling center23 psychology internship programs. I've also 1 51 2 1 served as Vice Chair of APIC which is the2 Association for Post-Doctoral and Psychology3 Internship Centers. 4 That's an organization that5 includes psychology, internship, and post-6 doctoral programs in a variety of settings7 including VAs, community mental health8 centers, university counseling centers, and9 hospitals. APIC is the organization actually10 that oversees the internship match process in11 psychology.12 I've served on the Commission on13 Accreditation for APA for the past five years14 and this is my second year serving as15 Associate Chair for Program Review. In this16 role I oversee the program review process17 including the preliminary review process as18 well as the program review process that takes19 place at our meetings and I oversee the voting20 on program accreditation status.21 MS. KLONOFF: And I'll give you a22 quick summary. I'm Elizabeth Klonoff. I23 serve as the Co-Director of Clinical Training 1 52 2 1 for the San Diego State University, University2 of California, San Diego, Joint Doctoral3 Program in Clinical Psychology.4 In terms of my work on the national5 level, I'm the current chair of the Council of6 the University Directors of Clinical7 Psychology which represents the 165 or so8 clinical psychology doctoral programs located9 in traditional university settings.10 I also serve on the board of11 directors for the Council of Clinical Health12 Psychology Training Programs which represents13 training programs at both the doctoral, the14 internship, and the post-doctoral level.15 On the Commission of Accreditation16 I serve as the Associate Chair for Quality17 Assurance so I'm the one who kind of looks and18 crunches some of the numbers. Finally, I do19 want to apologize. Joyce and I are both here20 as associate chairs. Our chair is actually21 out of the country and it takes both of us to22 do what he usually does so, again, Joyce and I23 are here in his stead. 1 53 2 1 MS. ZLOTLOW: And I'm Susan2 Zlotlow. If you notice, there's a theme here3 of all the tall people are at the table. I'm4 the Director of the Office of Program5 Consultation and Accreditation at the American6 Psychological Association.7 I have the good fortune of working8 with the 32 commissioners of the Commission on9 the 911 programs we accredit and that includes10 pretty much contact with all the training11 directors of all those programs. Sometimes12 not on a daily basis but generally at least13 once a month.14 I want to thank Joyce for coming to15 visit us, not once but many more than once.16 Joyce came to one of our regular meetings and17 also sat through a day and a half of training18 of our new commissioners.19 I also really want to thank Carol20 Grifiths. I have been in this position for 1521 years, 13 of which I've had contact with22 Carol. One of the things I want you to note23 is that Carol and I have gone back and forth 1 54 2 1 over the years and agreed to disagree on a2 fairly regular basis and she has been very3 good at listening to my saying, "But how does4 this add value to what we do as accreditors?"5 So we've had that dialogue for 13 years I6 would say. I really appreciate her being open7 and available to have that discussion with me.8 The APA COA values ensuring that9 we provide information to our programs, that10 we provide information to you that adds value11 to the process of what we do in the education12 and training of professional psychologists. 13 We want that information to14 continually improve the quality of programs15 that the APA COA accredits and to demonstrate16 that the programs that we do accredit provide17 all of our publics, students, families of18 students, and the public who will make use of19 the services of the graduates of our20 accredited programs with quality.21 I'm also keenly aware that NACIQI22 is developing and will continue to develop how23 it operates in terms of dealings with issues 1 55 2 1 just as you had this discussion of how the2 final analysis goes along, what is in the3 purview of staff, what is in the purview of4 NACIQI.5 I want to just talk a little bit6 first before going to the meat of the issues7 here in terms of the themes that we talk about8 as accreditors. Not just on COA but with9 other creditors, and that is that we are10 committed to doing what needs to be done to be11 recognized by this agency.12 There are times when we look at the13 list of issues and say again, "How does this14 add value to what we do?" Given that the15 initial review was done with a fine tooth comb16 to detail, which is the job of the staff, we17 would ask that you on NACIQI look at the18 bigger picture of how this relates to what we19 do as an agency which we believe we do with20 quality, and we understand that we can21 continue to improve what we do again for all22 of our publics.23 We want to pose some questions to 1 56 2 1 you. One of the issues that has come up in2 our review in terms of general issues, and3 then I want to speak to specifics, was did we4 provide the documentation? 5 I will discuss that again with the6 specifics, but one of the things came up and7 both Joyce and Carol were very gracious in8 spending some time talking about this with me9 and my staff person Erinn Monteiro, who is10 here, in terms of what is the role of11 providing you with documents as attachments12 and what is the role of the staff person who13 visits the agency. 14 In some cases I'm concerned that if15 we provide documentation that we do everything16 and provide documents from programs that meet17 that, all of that is subject to FOIA. That18 was the discussion during one of the19 negotiated rule making. Every time we would20 provide a document to you we have to excise21 information.22 One of the things I will say on23 some of the issues we were cited on, we do 1 57 2 1 those things. In some cases our polices2 aren't as specific or we didn't provide a3 document to show that but we engage in those4 and my belief is those are things that could5 be handled in a staff review.6 They are not currently part of the7 process. Again, we will do whatever this8 group and the staff say we need to do but9 those are things that I think in moving10 forward might need to be thought out.11 I have some other things to say12 about what I see as the biggest issue but I13 want to discuss the financial issue because14 that came up. One of the things I would point15 to is in terms of our fiscal stability if you16 look at he staff report on page 5 we did17 provide staff with our budget for the last18 several years, the budget that is public19 information from APA that include our20 information.21 One of the things that all of you22 who know budgets know is the budget isn't23 final until well after the year is over. A 1 58 2 1 lot of the information on that budget includes2 not the final, final budget but the final3 aspirational budget. 4 We did make that note. If you'll5 notice, we did provide information in that on6 the fee stabilization fund and the belief of7 how much was in that at the time. When we got8 the initial staff review we were told we9 needed more information. We met with Carol10 and Joyce and discussed what would be needed.11 I did not understand -- I'm going to blame12 myself -- that we needed a document saying13 that rather than our response.14 To that end, I have brought a15 document from the CEO of APA that verifies the16 money in our account. I don't know how to17 proceed with providing that to you. I have an18 original and I have copies. What's your19 pleasure?20 CHAIR STAPLES: Sally, what is the21 mechanisms for taking documents at a meeting?22 There is none I don't think. Right?23 MS. WANNER: I think it can be 1 59 2 1 included in the record here. It's true that2 if it's looked at, I mean, the Committee3 hasn't had the benefit of the staff's analysis4 of it and I don't know that the Committee is5 prepared here or has the time on its agenda to6 analyze it without the staff and make a7 decision.8 MR. ROTHKOPF: I mean, there are, I9 think I'm right in saying, seven issues that10 have been raised. You are addressing one of11 those seven. 12 MS. WANNER: Right.13 MR. ROTHKOPF: I think that's fine.14 I mean, I don't know that it's going to15 necessarily change but I think we ought to16 have it. Obviously Joyce and Carol and the17 staff need to look at it and see whether it18 deals with the concerns that they have raised.19 I think it would be fine to submit it and put20 it on the record.21 CHAIR STAPLES: If we can take it,22 I think it makes sense for us to take it and23 Arthur and the staff can review it as well and 1 60 2 1 help us evaluate it. You want to present that2 to the Sally?3 [Letter from APA attached to transcript.]4 MS. ZLOTLOW: Let me just say what5 is in there is no different in reality than6 our response. You have the budget in the7 initial petition as well as the statement on8 the stabilization fund in the initial9 petition. When we were called upon we wrote a10 statement with the input of all the financial11 folks at APA. 12 This is a verification of that and13 the statement that even though the APA14 Commission on Accreditation is within APA it15 is supported by APA and it has a history of16 supported by APA and it has a history of17 support by the Association.18 I don't know if you want me to go19 on with the other points or you want to take20 this a point at a time.21 CHAIR STAPLES: I think why don't22 you proceed because we want to take a chance23 to read this. Why don't you just continue to 1 61 2 1 go through the issues and then when we get to2 the questions Arthur and Larry can help us3 follow up on that.4 MS. ZLOTLOW: Okay. The other5 thing I would say is one of the things that6 came up, as I see it probably the biggest7 issue in the staff analysis, is dealing with8 issues around probation and good cause. 9 I just want to say something very10 general and then, again, come back to that and11 that is that the APA COA has an educational12 philosophy in terms of how it looks at13 programs and how it accreditates them. 14 It looks at them very carefully.15 Because we start accrediting programs at the16 doctoral level, there's a lot of professional17 judgment involved. There's a lot of time that18 it would take to change the course of a19 program. As such, the COA -- the APA COA,20 because there are a lot of COAs, provides21 significant feedback to programs during the22 review process. 23 It's that educational philosophy 1 62 2 1 with a belief that by in large our programs2 have integrity and mean to do a good job of3 educating future psychologists that that4 feedback has led us to our current policies5 and procedures that when a program is found to6 not meet the standards. 7 It is given notice through a show8 cause letter and given an opportunity to9 respond before being placed on probation and10 then is given time, two years for a doctoral11 program, one year for an internship or post-12 doc, to do what it needs to take to come into13 review. 14 The difference in terms of what the15 staff has called to our attention and what we16 do is that time frame. In reality in the past17 we've always done probation the way we18 currently do and revocation would come19 afterwards.20 The idea is that we wanted to give21 programs the time to engage in educational22 activities that they need to engage in to come23 into compliance with us. The time is correct. 1 63 2 1 The actions that need to occur in that time2 frame are the discussion here. 3 My understanding after spending a4 lot of time with Joyce and Carol is the belief5 that we should have another decision in the6 two-year or one-year time frame as opposed to7 programs demonstrating they meet that8 compliance.9 I just want to say in terms of what10 we do parallels your process. If that needs11 to change, we have already written as staff12 some ways that could change and our Commission13 on Accreditation meets beginning July 14th and14 we'll look at that. 15 But it will be a significant change16 in our educational philosophy and it will17 change how we deal with our institutions and18 it will be difficult for some of the students19 in the pipeline. Again, we will move forward20 with that. That, to me, is the biggest issue21 because it is a huge change in our philosophy.22 In terms of looking at the other23 issues, what I would say in terms of I'm going 1 64 2 1 to take them out of order. I already have.2 The idea we do vet our public members. 3 We will add additional language to4 make sure that we look for whether or not they5 have spouses or children who are engaged in6 the activities or basically the vocation which7 we accredit. My qualifications will be part8 of what is on our public website. As long as9 I can say I'm six feet tall that would be10 good, too. I'm kidding.11 In terms of compliance with12 602.15(b) we were found to be out of13 compliance. Part of the reason we were out of14 compliance was because we actually have a15 records retention policy. 16 If we didn't have that policy, I'm17 not clear that we would be out of compliance18 because, in fact, we do keep records of19 anything, any documentation from a program20 citing that it has a substantive change and21 our follow-up correspondence with them.22 The issue is that the substantive23 change we call them implementing regulations 1 65 2 1 but our policy on that says that we do have an2 implementing regulation on substantive change.3 We have one on records retention. Our records4 retention policy says we will keep all5 documentations between reviews in the programs6 record. 7 We do not specifically state that8 we will keep the substantive change9 correspondence. We will amend our records10 retention to state that we also will maintain11 all such documentation on substantive change.12 The other issue that has been one13 for us is how we monitor the fiscal ability of14 our programs to maintain their stability and15 that is a tough one in that we accredit16 programs, not departments, not institutions.17 Most of the time our programs do not have18 separate budgets. 19 When we look at does the program20 have sufficient resources to provide the21 education and training needed for our22 students, interns, and post-doctoral23 residents, we look at that more by indirect 1 66 2 1 means. We do that in depth during what we2 call the periodic review. 3 As a way to monitor in between4 times of periodic review, we do collect data5 on the key resources that we monitor; faculty,6 staff, and student and trainees. Every year7 we get information on the number of faculty or8 training supervisors in the program. We9 collect that data every year, the number of10 students, interns, post-docs. 11 We look and see if there has been12 significant change from one to the other. If13 there has, we ask the program for additional14 information and we ask if there are other15 issues we need to be aware of. 16 We also monitor key accountability17 indicators like graduation, licensure, and18 attainment of internships in between the time19 they are reviewed. In that sense because we20 look at resources in an indirect manner, what21 we come up with is how do we know there has22 been a change in resources and that for us is23 the program is no longer able to maintain the 1 67 2 1 quality, accountability that it had2 previously. 3 I understand that we are being4 asked to look at more than that and that was5 part of my discussion with the staff earlier6 this week which is we can ask for additional7 information as part of our annual monitoring8 but, again, since we don't directly look at9 fiscal indicators, it would have to be10 something very indirect. Again, I'm not clear11 how that would add value to what we do.12 Again, if needed, we will do that.13 As I said, I think the biggest14 issue is probation and the idea of maintaining15 a program on probation for good cause. We do16 have an operating procedure that discusses --17 not an operating procedure. 18 In the accreditation operating19 procedures themselves there is a discussion of20 how a program would be deemed to remain on21 probation for good cause and that is after22 review of a program on probation the program23 has provided enough evidence that although in 1 68 2 1 the professional judgment of the commissioners2 it's not ready to be accredited, it has made3 some progress and that is in our operating4 procedures.5 Again, we are more than willing to6 undertake a change in our educational7 philosophy and we want you to understand that8 will be something that will impact our9 programs and will impact students. We also10 understand that what you're saying to us is11 maybe we need to change our world view of12 saying that our programs should be trusted to13 have integrity. That also will be a huge14 culture shift for us.15 I'm just going to turn it over. Do16 you have anything?17 CHAIR STAPLES: Okay. Did you have18 anymore comments? No?19 Joyce, did you have any response to20 the agency presentation before we begin our21 questions?22 MS. JONES: Yes. Certainly the23 expectation for all involved is that the 1 69 2 1 quality of the educational program is at least2 meeting standards as set by a reliable3 authority. 4 We, the Department, do rely on the5 accreditating agencies to act in that role but6 their role is also tied to the federal link7 and that is that they are assessing through8 their programs, in this instance, federal9 money. 10 In that regard, there are concerns11 that were cited in the staff report which do12 include mechanisms related to our requirements13 for recognition and that is compliance with14 the statutes or with the regulations.15 In terms of the financial issues I16 think it would have been fair that the17 Department have an opportunity to review this18 in its totality rather than outside of a one-19 page document in terms of putting together20 with the other information that we've had to21 review and their response for an assessment. 22 In that regard, I think23 appropriately it would have been better to 1 70 2 1 assess it so I will maintain recommendation or2 determination that the agency will need to3 respond in total to that particular finding.4 With respect to the manner in which5 the agency respects its programs assessment6 and diligence in trying to meet its standards,7 the Department is still concerned about the8 federal link and the quality of the program.9 If it continues to fail, then it is not10 meeting the requirements for compliance with11 the enforcement timelines.12 Over and over and over again these13 timelines have been important to ensure that14 students are not in some way affected by15 ineffective review and enforcement of the16 timelines required by the recognition17 regulations.18 Therefore, I'm glad to hear Susan19 say that the Commission will be reviewing its20 process at its Commission meeting in July. I21 think that the message is very clear that22 compliance to ensure the students receive a23 quality education in the areas in which they 1 71 2 1 accredit is important to them as it is to the2 taxpayer. 3 I think that's pretty much all I4 have to say. I think that the agency in and5 of itself is a good agency. It has certainly6 addressed the specifics with a "we will do7 this." They have not told us how long it8 takes but they do have procedures. 9 Obviously with the length of time10 that they devote to fixing a program, they11 will certainly be very detailed in how they12 fix these problems. I think we will maintain13 our staff analysis and the recommendations.14 Thank you.15 MS. ZLOTLOW: Can I just say one16 thing?17 MS. JONES: Sure.18 MS. ZLOTLOW: I just want to say19 one of the reasons we started off with Joyce20 and Liz kind of telling you what they do is to21 make it very clear that for those of us -- and22 I am a psychologist, although my credentials23 aren't on the website. I am a psychologist. 1 72 2 1 This is not just about recognition2 or accreditation. This is about the3 discipline to which we've devoted our lives4 and we very much want to make sure that means5 quality not just for the students in the6 program but for the public so that when7 someone goes to see a psychologist and they8 know that person has gone to an accredited9 program, it has meaning and it has meaning10 above and beyond recognition. Thank you.11 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you. 12 Members of the Committee, any13 questions? Arthur or Larry?14 MR. ROTHKOPF: Let me just follow15 up this very interesting dialogue. I have to16 say I'm a little surprised that some of these17 seven items couldn't have been resolved before18 we got here. To me the most simple would19 have been if you knew about it posting your20 resumes on the website. 21 I mean, why are we worrying about22 that? Why are we worrying about whether23 children of commission members work for an 1 73 2 1 institution? That should be sort of a simple2 thing to resolve as it seems to me two or3 three of these others shouldn't really be4 something. There are a couple of serious5 issues here which I think you've identified. 6 Somehow or another in the process7 why are we faced with some of these what I8 call picky items that could have been resolved9 and why in the process weren't they resolved?10 I'll ask the Commission people.11 MS. ZLOTLOW: I think the issue on12 some of them is just the timing because by the13 time we got the initial staff report we14 discussed it with the staff. We thought we15 had resolved some of those. When we got the16 final staff analysis there wasn't really time17 to do some of those things. 18 For instance, the posting on the19 website I don't know if that's an easy fix but20 we have to go through our web people. That21 will be done. In terms of changing some of22 the information on the public member, that has23 to go through our Commission. 1 74 2 1 Some of those things are just based2 on the time frame. They're not big issues.3 They will be resolved but the time frame when4 we do exactly what it was that was wanted5 didn't allow us to do it. 6 I was just going to say we were in7 the unfortunate situation of having been8 closed for a couple days in between then9 because the power went out in our part of10 Washington, D.C. There are things that just11 couldn't be done in between when we got the12 staff analysis and our report was due. Are13 those things that will be done? Yes.14 MR. ROTHKOPF: And we'll take one15 other item which is the letter you present. I16 mean, there must be a financial statement. I17 would sort of like to look at an audited18 financial statement. There must be something19 that says is the million dollars there. It's20 not a budget but it's a financial statement21 that says there is a stabilization fund and22 there's a million or whatever else. The23 important thing is -- 1 75 2 1 MS. ZLOTLOW: The budget is in the2 initial petition but that doesn't have the3 final amount that is in the current fee4 stabilization fund. I have to say that as an5 organization the larger APA is audited on a6 regular basis and our budget. Accreditation7 is separately audited. I do not get a8 separate audit report, however. That is9 monitored annually. What you have in the10 letter is, in essence, no different from the11 response we provided except we were told it12 needed to be formal so we have formalized13 that.14 MR. ROTHKOPF: Going to, I think,15 one of the most serious questions, I'll just16 give my own view, there is no -- if you go to17 a psychology department at a university,18 there's probably no separate -- there is no19 separate budget. 20 They are getting money through the21 university system authorized by the provost22 and it goes to that program. You just23 expressed my own view that you look at what it 1 76 2 1 buys. 2 I mean, whatever the amount of3 money is, how many faculty, what kind of4 facilities, and you've got to make a judgment5 as to whether to do the program that you're6 running whether you have enough faculty, the7 right facilities, the right programs, the8 right internships for your students. 9 It's sort of in the result, not10 necessarily -- I mean, you could get more11 money and do a lousy job as opposed to getting12 a certain amount. What kind of job do you do13 and what's the results of what comes out of14 this system as opposed to the amount of money.15 That's my personal view. I assume you agree16 with me.17 MS. ZLOTLOW: Oh, yeah.18 MR. VANDERHOEF: I want to just19 follow up on that. Again, I still think, and20 I think you've confirmed this, that every one21 of these requested changes they may take time22 and there are certain things that have to23 happen between now and the time you make the 1 77 2 1 change. 2 I guess my sort of bigger question3 is do any of them at all, do any of these4 changes violate your values and your5 principles about how you should be operating?6 MS. ZLOTLOW: I'm going to turn to7 the people who are paid big bucks to make8 decisions. We pay their airfare to D.C.9 MS. KLONOFF: In terms of values10 and principles there are some things -- it11 depends on what aspect of the values and12 principles you're talking about. If you're13 talking about does having Susan's vita on the14 APA website impact our ability to evaluate15 programs? Obviously not. So some of these16 things have no relevance at all to our values.17 Things like asking me to report to18 -- I would be one of the people. That's the19 other thing because we are at the final common20 pathway of being the people who are also21 accredited. We recognize, I think, when a22 request is made that seems like an23 unreasonable burden that doesn't really add to 1 78 2 1 the quality of our program. 2 Speaking as a training director now3 asking me to report on the financial aspects4 of my university, I'm in California and I'm a5 joint program. Both of our university systems6 just lost a half a billion dollars. 7 The question really is not is the8 program financially viable per se. I mean, I9 would agree with you, sir. I can't really10 answer that. The issue is has it affected the11 outcome in terms of the students, in terms of12 the courses, etc. 13 From a value perspective I think14 the requests that you're making are not15 unreasonable. They don't go against our16 values. Some of it may just not make sense in17 terms of how to implement it but I don't think18 any of the things you are asking violate any19 of our values or what we feel is important.20 MS. ILLFELDER-KAYE: I did want to21 comment. I agree with Liz that the content22 doesn't -- they don't seem like unreasonable23 requests. I do think the issue about asking 1 79 2 1 programs to document more about their finances2 is complicated. 3 I think one of the things that I4 have had an investment in working on the5 Commission is not asking our members to have6 to do things that don't add value but create a7 real headache for them. As an internship8 training director I can say from my own agency9 it would be very difficult to say what is the10 budget for the internship program. 11 The internship program happens in12 the context of a service delivery agency.13 There are staff people who teach seminars.14 There are staff people who work as15 supervisors. It's very hard to put a dollar16 amount on their time connected to the program.17 It could create, I think, a major18 headache for the people filling out these self19 studies and it's not clear to me what would be20 gained by that. I think there is a value in21 not creating headaches for people that don't22 create any real gain in terms of documenting23 something valuable about the program. 1 80 2 1 MR. VANDERHOEF: I would certainly2 agree with that. The fact is that probably3 everybody around this table has found4 themselves in that circumstance. What you do5 when that happens you go to whoever has to6 carry it out and you say, "This is stupid" but7 it happens to be what we have to do to8 maintain -- that's the higher value, the9 higher good. 10 Again, I just wanted to make sure11 that you were not having to go contrary. You12 might have to go ways that you don't13 necessarily agree with. You might be going14 ways that you don't think add value. The15 bigger question is are they making you behave16 in ways that you consider to be inappropriate.17 MS. ZLOTLOW: Again, the biggest18 thing would be if we change how we view the19 process of putting the program on probation20 and potentially revocation. It doesn't change21 that we value certain things. What it does22 change is it changes our timeline and it is a23 different philosophy but I don't know that it 1 81 2 1 would change our values if that makes sense.2 MS. KLONOFF: If I might respond.3 The other thing I think maybe what we're4 talking about is kind of a developmental stage5 that the discipline is at. I think our6 educational philosophy, our idea of educating7 the programs as they were coming up, was8 really a good one and made really good sense.9 It may be that what you're pointing10 out is that we're at a different developmental11 stage. Maybe we could assume at this point12 that people should have the basics and that13 maybe we might want to consider making that14 change so that now -- but it is indeed a15 change. It will be a change for a lot of16 people.17 CHAIR STAPLES: Bill.18 MR. PEPICELLO: Thank you. I have19 a comment and sort of a rhetorical question20 for the staff. I think we are also looking at21 the developmental stage in the regulatory22 environment for higher education right now.23 One of the things that we've been talking 1 82 2 1 about so far this morning, and we are going to2 continue throughout the day, is the fact that3 the current regulatory environment requires a4 level of granularity that we have not seen in5 higher education previously. 6 It goes to things like people see7 time and time again in the agencies that come8 up today that there are issues of timing.9 It's not that they are not willing to do10 things but the timing isn't there. 11 It's not that there isn't12 documentation but perhaps there's not13 documentation that has been produced14 previously. While it doesn't add value, it15 does add transparency which is part of that16 granularity that we are dealing with right now17 in higher education. 18 I guess, to step down off the19 soapbox, my question to the staff would be is20 there a way that we could work to get to the21 granularity in the first place because as I22 read the staff reports, what I see is that the23 back and forth is that the first time you say, 1 83 2 1 "Well, we need for specificity in this area."2 I think sometimes the agencies3 don't have enough of an idea of exactly what4 it is that we need to be looking for. I think5 that may speak for the timing and may get us6 out of having these particular discussions for7 agency after agency. It's a rhetorical8 question obviously but something I wish we9 could discuss and think about.10 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you, Bill.11 Earl.12 MR. LEWIS: Slightly different kind13 of question. Of all the things I've read and14 heard this morning the most important question15 turns to your economic security. Having read16 the letter I have a question. I just want to17 make sure I understand.18 Since hundreds, if not thousands,19 of individuals depend upon the accreditation20 process that you go through to be able to21 establish themselves as independent22 psychologists, there is a question about your23 own economic health which is sort of implicit 1 84 2 1 in some of the things here, but there is also2 an understanding, if I'm correct, that you3 have structural support then from the larger4 APA. There's not only in your own budget but5 there is essentially back stopping so both6 their reserves and their cash balances from7 each year underwrite your own efforts. Is8 that correct?9 MS. ZLOTLOW: Yes. If you look at10 our budget, which I think it was Appendix 1711 in our initial petition, we have an operating12 budget in terms of revenue close to $313 million. We have on any given day 14 to 1614 staff. They tend to even go on with higher15 education which I think is a positive. We do16 have mechanisms in place. 17 In fact, the fee stabilization fund18 was a way for us to basically have a bank19 account, if you will, for accreditation to20 allow us to allow in more innovative21 initiatives from one time to another beyond22 our current budget. 23 In fact, we set it up to do that 1 85 2 1 and we'll monitor it and continue to monitor2 it so that when those funds get lower, we will3 raise fees. The idea was we wanted to become4 more and more involved in going online with a5 lot of our processes. You need funds to do6 that. We do utilize services at APA. We have7 an overhead that we pay to APA. 8 The reality is if you went in9 dollars and cents it would be hard to say that10 we didn't go over that in terms of some of the11 processes provided at APA so we have a home in12 APA. Although what is currently the13 Commission on Accreditation has a longer14 history than even its recognition here at15 USDE, and that is as an accrediting body there16 was the Evaluation Committee back then17 starting in 1948. 18 That was totally underwritten by19 APA so there is a very, very long-standing20 commitment to the accreditation process and21 the current form that goes back well more than22 50 years.23 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you. 1 86 2 1 Jamie.2 MS. STUDLEY: I am interested in3 monitoring fiscal health and this doesn't go4 for me to the specifics of our action related5 to you but to take advantage of your having6 thought about this one so much with us as we7 go forward in the conversation. Bill is8 talking about thinking about what overall9 accreditation policy ought to be. 10 One quick fact. Do you know what11 proportion of the programs that you review and12 accredit are within institutions that are13 institutionally accredited? Rough kind of14 number most have?15 MS. ZLOTLOW: It depends by level.16 All our doctoral programs have to be in17 regionally accredited institutions.18 Internships vary because they are in different19 settings. There are VA settings. The largest20 two institutions in which we have internships21 are Veterans Affairs and counseling centers in22 universities. Those are all regionally23 accredited. 1 87 2 1 If you look at it, it's 100 percent2 of the doctoral programs. I would say at3 least 40 percent, or close to that, of the4 internships and the post-doctoral residencies5 right now that we accredit are all either in6 Veterans Affairs medical centers or in7 university -- well, medical schools8 themselves.9 MS. STUDLEY: The reason I ask is10 that we are going to be coming back to11 questions about the triad and the respective12 responsibilities of the Department, the13 accrediting agencies, and the states. The14 Department, as many people know, carries out a15 financial responsibility review that is the16 essential part of the Department's role within17 the triad. 18 Like Arthur and some others, I19 think that what you're doing sounds like the20 right kind of look, to look at the program21 quality, the results of the training and to22 ask questions if there are changes or program23 gaps or variances that you think go to whether 1 88 2 1 they are capable of producing comparable2 results into the future. 3 If you could get the kinds of4 budgets that you've already acknowledged would5 be difficult to get, would it change your6 staffing of the teams, your staffing of the7 organization to look at budgets in this way?8 Is that something that you would have to9 change your capacities to do or do you feel10 that you have that ability right now?11 MS. ZLOTLOW: To be honest with12 you, there is no way to do that because --13 okay, so we accredit programs. The programs14 don't have separate budgets. 15 MS. STUDLEY: Right. I'm just16 hypothetically saying if we said you had to do17 a different kind of financial review, would18 that -- would you need a different or19 additional skill set or is that just20 unanswerable for you?21 MS. ZLOTLOW: I don't think it's22 answerable because the reality is the majority23 of programs we accredit, be it doctoral, 1 89 2 1 internship, or post-doctoral residency, do not2 have a budget per se. They are in a larger3 unit that has a budget. 4 Because they have other duties and5 responsibilities, that's part of what they do6 elsewise. To ask for a separate budget for7 the program, I mean, I would turn to my8 colleagues here. I don't know how the9 programs would do that in a way that reflected10 anything that was real.11 MS. STUDLEY: Do either of you have12 a comment on that? I'm really trying to get13 at your skill set, not the feasibility of the14 budget being there.15 MS. ILLFELDER-KAYE: I think it16 does raise questions about our skill set, too,17 because the people who go and do our site18 visitors are people like us. We don't do that19 while we're on the Commission but we're20 psychologists who know about training. 21 We don't really know about22 evaluating budgets. When we do site visitor23 training we are not doing a component on how 1 90 2 1 to evaluate a budget for a program. When the2 self-studies come to the Commission and we3 review programs, again, the people who are4 doing these evaluations are psychologists who5 are invested in education and training. 6 We're not accountants so aside from7 it being difficult as a program to come up8 with a budget, I don't think we're skilled9 people at evaluating those kinds of issues.10 MS. KLONOFF: And if I could add,11 I'm not even sure exactly what the skill would12 be in that context. You know, I'll use my13 program as an example because we actually are14 a line item from the legislature. 15 That line item has long ago --16 although there is a person on campus who could17 pull out that line item and could identify18 salaries that were associated with that line,19 it doesn't support the program. It only20 provides very little evidence of what's going21 on. 22 It's antiquated by now so it's not23 even clear to me what the skill set would be 1 91 2 1 that would allow one to go from a faculty2 salary here and supplies, so you've got paper3 and the faculty salary to a student outcome4 here. I don't even know what that skill set5 would be let alone whether or not we would6 have the ability to do it.7 MS. STUDLEY: Let me just ask one8 final question the other way around. Are you9 comfortable that you have the information that10 you need in terms of using inputs and outputs11 and looking at the delta when that's relevant12 to evaluate and accredit these programs.13 MS. ILLFELDER-KAYE: I would14 absolutely say that we are comfortable with15 that because I've been on the Commission for16 five years. You can tell when a program is in17 trouble. I mean, you think at their self18 study they are losing faculty. They were19 suppose to move to a new building. It hasn't20 happened for X number of years.21 MS. KLONOFF: They are doubling up22 on something.23 MS. ILLFELDER-KAYE: Yeah, there 1 92 2 1 are a lot of indicators. They are not taking2 interns this year because their budget was in3 trouble. There are a lot of indicators that4 tell you when a program is in trouble. Then5 sometimes we will do special site visits when6 we think something is awry here. We have a7 lot of indicators that are quality indicators8 that tell you that there are resource issues.9 MS. KLONOFF: And if I could, for10 the doctoral programs on a year-to-year basis11 we get a report of number of faculty and12 number of students. We actually compute13 changes on overtime year to year. All of a14 sudden you had four faculty and 20 students15 and the next year you had one faculty and 4016 students, we would know that right away17 because we monitor that on a year-to-year18 basis. 19 Again, like Joyce, I'm comfortable20 that looking at time to completion there are a21 million variables that we look at as part of a22 regular ongoing review on a year-to-year basis23 that would provide us with the data that we 1 93 2 1 would need that actually are more meaningful2 than looking at a spreadsheet.3 MS. ZLOTLOW: In fact, our standard4 for resources really discusses does the5 program have enough resources to get from what6 it says its curriculum is to showing us that7 students who graduate from that program are8 competent in the areas that are in the9 standards and that are consistent with the10 program's model. 11 When those things don't match, when12 there is high attrition, low graduation,13 students aren't becoming licensed or other14 goals of the program, that is an issue for us.15 If resources are involved, we look16 at that but it's the broader issue of is the17 program delivering the kind of education and18 training it is saying it delivers and that is19 what we monitor on a regular basis whether it20 be through the self-study process or through21 our annual monitoring.22 MS. STUDLEY: Thank you.23 CHAIR STAPLES: Frank. 1 94 2 1 MR. WU: I have two questions for2 us as a body. The first is a follow up on3 this issue of psychology departments and4 programs typically not having their own stand-5 alone budgets. It seems as if the APA would6 not refuse to recognize such a program, nor7 would it strip a program if it didn't have a8 separate budget. 9 That presents to us the issue of10 how much leeway do we have. If the way that11 our rules are set up are focused on12 institutions that, indeed, have budgets, and I13 can't believe a college that wouldn't have a14 budget but I could understand a department or15 program not having a discrete budget, how much16 leeway do we have if APA just can't do it? 17 It's not that they don't want to.18 They could satisfy the sort of over-arching19 goals that we have but because the programs20 they are looking at don't have separate21 budgets, if we insist that they insist those22 programs have separate budgets, we'll be at a23 standoff. It's not a rhetorical question, 1 95 2 1 just an actual question. Do we have any2 leeway here?3 CHAIR STAPLES: Does anybody have4 anymore questions for the agency or for Joyce?5 If not, I think we can proceed to a motion and6 then we can discuss your questions in light of7 the motion.8 MR. WU: Sure.9 CHAIR STAPLES: If there are no10 more questions, why don't we ask you to step11 back and thank you very much.12 Do we have a motion?13 MR. ROTHKOPF: I'm going to make a14 motion but I want to make clear that I think15 that I agree with the APA people here and I16 look at, and this is preliminary to my motion,17 602.19 which is, I think, the basis for saying18 they've got to have a separate financial19 statement. 20 It says they have to explain the21 compliance with standards that takes into22 account institutional program strengths. Must23 include periodic reports, collection and 1 96 2 1 analysis of key data and indicators including2 but not limited to fiscal information,3 measures of student achievement consistent4 with the provisions of 602.16(f). 5 I think -- I don't know if there is6 anything in here, at least I'm going to7 express a horseback opinion, that it requires8 that there be a financial statement for a9 psychology program at a particular10 institution. I think there is a lot of other11 information that can be collected. 12 I would move that NACIQI recommend13 that the requested renewal of recognition be14 granted for a period of five years and that a15 compliance report be submitted within 1216 months but there be further consideration by17 the staff as to whether or not separate18 financial information is required for that19 department.20 CHAIR STAPLES: Okay. There is a21 motion. Was there a second to that, first?22 Moved and seconded.23 MS. STUDLEY: Second. 1 97 2 1 CHAIR STAPLES: Do you have2 questions about that? I guess I want to3 understand just procedurally we are providing4 five-year recognition regardless of the5 deficiencies that have been noted. What would6 the mechanism -- what do you anticipate a7 mechanisms if the deficiencies are not8 corrected?9 MR. ROTHKOPF: They've got to come10 back. They have to come back and report on11 their compliance with those items which they12 are not in compliance on. The one wrinkle in13 there is that I'm saying, or at least14 suggesting, that there be further15 consideration as to whether the item on16 financial reports be part of that compliance17 or whether or not they are not already in18 compliance.19 CHAIR STAPLES: Perhaps I could20 just ask the staff. It sounds like we would21 be extending their recognition for five years22 without them being fully in compliance. Is23 that an issue or am I misunderstanding that? 1 98 2 1 MS. WANNER: That's not an option2 under the regulations. Our regulations are3 either you are in compliance and we grant you4 one, two, three, four, or five, or we say5 you're not in compliance, you write us a6 report. 7 You come back in however long the8 Committee suggest up to -- or the Senior9 Department Official decides up to 12 months.10 Then if at that point they establish11 compliance, then they can be granted a period12 of recognition up to five years minus the time13 of the continuation. 14 If you can conclude that your15 recommendation is that the agency be out of16 compliance at this time, you would be17 recommending a continuation and not a renewal.18 I would also mention that although19 the staff cited the agency under monitoring,20 by statute and regulation each agency has to21 have standards that go to the fiscal and22 administrative capacity as appropriate to the23 specified scale of operation. 1 99 2 1 That is not something that we can2 completely ignore. I don't think that the3 staff in their analysis has required a4 specific financial statement on the program. 5 In addition, the agency apparently6 in its response said that their standards or7 procedures say programs must be represented in8 the sponsoring institution's budget and plans9 in a manner designed to enable the program to10 achieve its goals and objective in a stable11 manner over time.12 CHAIR STAPLES: So the motion as13 worded sounds like it may be problematic. 14 MR. ROTHKOPF: I'm suggesting that15 -- my motion is that they be continued16 recognition, that they need to file a17 compliance report within 12 months. I'm not18 saying they are out of compliance. 19 I'm saying they must file within 1220 months but I am raising a question as to21 whether or not the staff report is correct on22 the item as to the financial information. I23 think that ought to be reviewed more closely 1 100 2 1 to see whether -- discussed with the agency2 during this next 12 months or whatever the3 period is.4 CHAIR STAPLES: Karen, did you get5 the motion? You have it? Okay. 6 There's a motion on the floor.7 Larry, did you want to comment? 8 MS. WILLIAMS: No.9 CHAIR STAPLES: Frank.10 MR. WU: So the second question I11 had I'll turn into more of a comment. It12 seems to me from the tenor of the conversation13 here we are interested in making a distinction14 between on the one hand an agency that is out15 of compliance where that is serious. You16 know, real major problems.17 Then on the other hand an agency18 that is out of compliance but it's stuff that19 on the face of it looks relatively easy to fix20 and the agency appears to be proceeding in21 good faith. We want to do something that22 signals to the world because we're not23 operating in a vacuum. 1 101 2 1 Lots of people watch this. My2 sense is we don't want the chronicle of higher3 ed reporting APA about to lose its status, you4 know. We want to have some intermediate5 option here. If it isn't exactly how the6 motion is framed, perhaps there is some other7 way, formally or informally, to signal that in8 this case we don't expect that this is some9 terrible virtually insurmountable set of10 problems. 11 We expect this to proceed along12 pretty smoothly if they have a little bit of13 time and now that they understand. That14 is what I understand the tenor of this motion15 to be which I support, although I understand16 from the staff technically we can't do that. 17 I wonder is there some other way18 that technically is there work around here19 that allows us to distinguish between out of20 compliance and really out of compliance.21 CHAIR STAPLES: I think the motion22 is identical to what the staff recommends23 which is that the staff recommendation is 1 102 2 1 continue the recognition and require the2 agency to come into compliance within 123 months and submit a compliance report that4 demonstrates their compliance. 5 That's the motion. The only other6 wrinkle is I would urge that the staff and the7 agency have a further discussion as to the8 financial requirement.9 PARTICIPANT: But that could be10 outside the motion.11 CHAIR STAPLES: Let me just clarify12 because I don't think what you said earlier is13 what you just said. I mean, there is a14 difference between continuing for 12 months.15 That is not a renewal of five years. Your16 original motion as up there says you are17 giving them a five-year renewal. 18 I think if you're suggesting that19 you want to continue for 12 months, then we20 are deferring a renewal decision for 1221 months. If that's how you want to make the22 motion, that's fine but I want to make sure23 that is not the same as what we have up there. 1 103 2 1 MS. LEWIS: It is now but that2 wasn't the original motion.3 CHAIR STAPLES: You put up this4 motion regardless of what he said earlier.5 Okay. That's okay but do you understand?6 MR. ROTHKOPF: I understand all7 that. I'm sort of picking up on Frank's8 point. I don't want the word to go out that9 the APA which, in my view, seems to do a very10 conscientious job of looking at their program,11 is somehow on some probation for the next12 year. They are really not I don't think. I13 think we're saying they've got to come into14 compliance, meet these rules during the core15 and, you know, come into compliance within the16 year.17 CHAIR STAPLES: I think further,18 too, if I'm not mistaken, at the end of the 1219 months with all the information, we could make20 a judgment that we find them in compliance21 based on what they provided regardless of the22 staff recommendation. 23 The staff may say we still think 1 104 2 1 that we need an audited financial statement2 and we could decide at that time we don't3 think you do. We find them in compliance and4 that's our recommendation. I think the5 discussion is giving guidance to the staff.6 We are still able to make that judgment in 127 months.8 Jamie, you had a question.9 MS. STUDLEY: It's a comment on10 Frank's comment. I think that the motion11 before us follows the same standard that the12 staff have told me is their standard which is13 can the agency reasonably accomplish these14 final steps, the additional steps within the15 12-month period. 16 We are nowhere near the virtually17 uncertain, horrible or whatever you're afraid18 of, at the far end of the spectrum of anxiety19 since we're talking about the psychologists.20 I wouldn't vote for an institution where I21 thought that were the case. 22 Where we draw that line or how we23 tell the difference I think we may have other 1 105 2 1 opportunities not doing it in the context of2 the APA which might signal that concern about3 them. 4 That is an important line to draw5 but I think this is not one that raises that6 because we have done -- NACIQI has been asking7 that question and has been approving for8 continuation agencies where we thought they9 were that close to the mark. I think we will10 come back to your good question about what is11 the tipping point between renewal and not good12 enough or what other options that we might13 have.14 CHAIR STAPLES: Yes, Frank.15 MR. WU: One follow up. My only16 concern is that we are consistent. Whatever17 we do here we shouldn't change our mind six18 months from now. Perhaps we should be19 thinking about how do we draw this line20 between, well, there are some things but21 they'll fix it, versus we are really worried.22 Is it that we just make comments23 and people infer from the tenor of our 1 106 2 1 comments or is there some formal way to frame2 the motion, as Art has tried to do, that3 captures that. I don't know the answer so I4 pose the question.5 CHAIR STAPLES: I think those are6 good questions. They may not be resolved7 right now but I think those are good8 questions. The question also is what9 flexibility we have under the regulations. I10 mean, whether we can continue or grant renewal11 when there are technical flaws that cause them12 to be out of compliance. It sounds like there13 is a fair amount of rigidity to that.14 Bill, did you have your hand up?15 Or Larry?16 MR. PEPICELLO: Yeah, I just wanted17 to follow up also because I think for18 consistency sake what we would do is have a19 recommendation such as this because at this20 point all of the recommendations are the same21 regardless of what the severity might be of22 the issues. 23 But I think it's important to say 1 107 2 1 if we're really concerned, I don't think I2 would be really concerned until the compliance3 report came back because we might be concerned4 but it might be something that is fixed quite5 easily by the agency as opposed to them coming6 back in a year and saying, "Wow, you know7 what? We can't do this. We can't come into8 compliance."9 UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: And that is10 exactly why I asked the question early on did11 the agency feel any difficulty in reaching12 compliance. Generally they said no, they13 didn't, they could make it. There were these14 other matters that might be problematic but15 that didn't mean that they couldn't. 16 I just think we're carrying on a17 little too long here frankly. I think we18 should be okay with this. We may have some19 questions when the compliance report comes in.20 The people from the agency have said there is21 not going to be any problem so we're there it22 seems like to me.23 CHAIR STAPLES: I think for what 1 108 2 1 value it has it may be giving a sense of what2 our interests are when we see the report in 123 months in the sense that to the extent the4 staff hears what we are talking about I think5 it's relevant to what we might get back in 126 months and that is probably useful.7 Anne.8 MS. NEAL: If I may add to the9 confusion. It seems to me what Arthur is10 saying here is that one of the disputed areas11 which is the accreditor's right to be looking12 into the finances of the departments is13 somewhat debatable. 14 Because of that he is willing to15 conclude that they are constructively in16 compliance and, therefore, willing to suggest17 that they are entitled to something more than18 a 12-month extension. 19 I think that is a very legitimate20 question because it does seem to me in their21 role in guarantors of educational quality is22 their demanding financial data that is23 probably not available and not necessarily 1 109 2 1 relevant in terms of the departments essential2 to their role as accrediting bodies. 3 I guess I am wondering when we get4 to this situation where the nit picking gets5 to the point of just paper passing. Is there6 ever a point where we just say, "Yes, this is7 acceptable." Could we do it for three years?8 Would that make people happier? 9 Then, alternatively, what we did10 last time allow people to come back in11 sometimes shorter than 12 months in order to12 get their process moving along more rapidly. 13 MR. VANDERHOEF: Just one final14 comment. I'm sorry, Cam.15 CHAIR STAPLES: Go ahead.16 MR. VANDERHOEF: I couldn't agree17 with you more but I think our attorney said18 that under our current circumstances19 impossible. I would like it to be but I think20 what we heard is we can't do that.21 CHAIR STAPLES: I think we can22 allow them to come back sooner. I think the23 motions do allow them to come back sooner. 1 110 2 1 Logistically whether they can get on our2 December agenda may be a different question.3 MR. VANDERHOEF: They can come back4 sooner but we cannot right now say we think5 everything is going to turn on the case so we6 are going to give you the five years.7 CHAIR STAPLES: That's right. 8 In order to try to stay on somewhat9 of our schedule, although we are a little10 behind, if there is no further discussion of11 significance --12 Go right ahead if you want to.13 MR. SHIMELES: I had a question14 procedurally. When we continue the15 recognition for 12 months and request that16 they come back to submit a compliance report,17 this is not probation. That is not the way I18 understood it. It is a pretty standard19 procedure. I'm sort of responding to what20 Arthur is saying. Okay, that was my question.21 I was just making sure because, in my opinion,22 I mean, they are not going to have any issue23 coming into compliance within 12 months or 1 111 2 1 less.2 CHAIR STAPLES: And, in fact, many3 -- correct me if I'm wrong. Many of the4 groups coming before us have had continued5 recognition for quite a long time because6 NACIQI hasn't been meeting. We are catching7 up still with groups that have been continued8 for years beyond the traditional cycle. I9 don't think this is going to impact them in10 anyway.11 MR. SHIMELES: Another question I12 had was with respect to allowing accrediting13 bodies to come before the 12 months, when we14 say that they are going to come back in 1215 months to submit a compliance report, it's 1216 months or less. Correct? So if we put17 specific language in that says --18 CHAIR STAPLES: Within a 12-months19 period.20 MR. SHIMELES: Yeah, within a 12-21 month period. I mean, this isn't to denigrate22 what is being said but is there any point to23 making a motion that would say come back in 1 112 2 1 six months? Don't we want to give these2 accrediting bodies the amount of time3 necessary? If they see fit that they can come4 in in six months, like they can, right?5 CHAIR STAPLES: This permits them6 the discretion, I think, which is a matter of7 scheduling with the Department whether we8 could have it on our December agenda.9 MR. SHIMELES: Okay, great. Thank10 you.11 CHAIR STAPLES: So we have the12 motion before us. Any further discussion13 about the motion? The last time I did a voice14 vote and I was asked this time to do -- it's15 up on the board -- to do it by show of hands.16 MR. LEWIS: Would you read the17 motion? Will someone read it?18 CHAIR STAPLES: Will somebody with19 good eyes read the motion?20 MS. LEWIS: I would be happy to21 read it.22 CHAIR STAPLES: Melissa, go right23 ahead. 1 113 2 1 MS. LEWIS: I move that the NACIQI2 recommend that APA's recognition be continued3 to permit the agency an opportunity to within4 a 12-month period bring itself into compliance5 with the criteria cited in the staff report6 and that it should submit for review within 307 days thereafter a compliance report8 demonstrating compliance with the cited9 criteria and their effective application.10 Such continuation shall be effective until the11 Department reaches a final decision.12 CHAIR STAPLES: Any questions or13 comments? If not, all in favor of the motion14 please raise your hand. Any opposed? The15 motion carries.16 We'll now take -- let's make it a17 10-minute break. Does that sound reasonable?18 We're a little behind schedule.19 MS. LEWIS: That would be fine. I20 have one point, please.21 CHAIR STAPLES: Go ahead.22 MS. LEWIS: If the members would23 please pay Jamie for their lunch. 1 114 2 1 CHAIR STAPLES: We'll see you back2 in 10 minutes.3 (Whereupon, at 10:39 a.m. off the4 record until 11:01 a.m.)5 CHAIR STAPLES: Welcome back. We6 are slightly behind schedule but we will7 certainly make the time that we need to make8 for each of these reviews.9 At this time we are going to take10 up the Accrediting Council for Independent11 Colleges and Schools.12 Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges13 and Schools 14 MR. PEPICELLO: Thank you. This is15 a petition for continued recognition and a16 change in scope. 17 The current scope of recognition is18 accreditation of private and post-secondary19 institutions offering certificates for20 diplomas and post-secondary institutions21 offering associate, bachelor's, or master's22 degrees in programs designed to educate23 students for professional, technical, or 1 115 2 1 occupational careers including those that2 offer those programs via distance education. 3 The requested scope, the request is4 to extend that scope to professional doctoral5 degrees. Otherwise keeping the scope the same6 but going to the doctoral level.7 ACICS accreditation is a required8 element for its accredited institutions to9 apply for eligibility to participate in10 federal student financial assistance programs.11 Over 850 ACICS accredited institutions are12 currently participating in Title IV programs.13 The Secretary of Education first14 recognized ACICS in 1956 under the agency's15 former name the Accrediting Commission for16 Business Schools. In 1985 the agency17 requested an expansion of scope to include its18 accreditation of master degree programs in19 senior colleges of business which was20 subsequently granted by the Secretary. 21 The last full review of ACICS took22 place in June of 2006 at the NACIQI meeting.23 After that review the Secretary renewed the 1 116 2 1 agency's recognition for five years and2 granted the agency's request for an expansion3 of scope of recognition to include its4 accreditation of institutions that offer5 programs via distance education.6 In conjunction with the current7 review the Department staff conducted an8 observation of the agency's Intermediate9 Review Committee held in Washington, D.C. in10 November of 2010. In addition, Department11 staff conducted an observation of the NACICS12 site visit to Straford University's campus in13 Woodbridge, Virginia, in February of 2011.14 As I mentioned, in addition to the15 continuation the agency is requesting an16 expansion of scope to include professional17 doctoral degrees that will be discussed in the18 staff analysis. 19 With that I will turn it over to20 Steve.21 CHAIR STAPLES: Good morning,22 Steve.23 MR. PORCELLI: Good morning. I am 1 117 2 1 Steve Porcelli of the Department's2 Accreditation staff and the staff3 recommendation to the Senior Department4 Official regarding the Accrediting Council for5 Independent Colleges and Schools, or ACICS, is6 to continue the current recognition of the7 agency and to require compliance report in 128 months on the issues identified in the staff9 report.10 This recommendation is based on our11 review of the agency's petition, supporting12 documentation, and observation of an ACICS on-13 site evaluation visit. Our review of the14 agency's petition found that the agency is15 substantially in compliance with the criteria16 for recognition. However, there are a number17 of issues that the agency needs to address. 18 In summary, ACICS needs to document19 the comparability of its doctoral standards20 and its experience in accrediting programs for21 which it is seeking an expansion of scope.22 Until it does so, Department staff is not23 prepared to recommend the requested expansion. 1 118 2 1 The agency needs to have adequate2 representation of both academic and3 administrative personnel on all its entities.4 The agency needs to ensure that all its5 commissioners can access all the institutional6 files before it makes its decisions.7 ACICS needs to evaluate and provide8 each institution with a detailed written9 report assessing student achievement while10 taking program level outcomes into account,11 and to continue monitoring student achievement12 under its new monitoring process.13 The agency needs to clarify the14 point at which an institution may be in15 noncompliance with a threshold and to ensure16 compliance within the mandated time frames. 17 ACICS needs to demonstrate that its18 regular systematic review process effectively19 involves all relevant constituencies as20 appropriate and that they remain involved21 throughout the standards change process.22 ACICS needs to define when substantive changes23 would require a new evaluation visit. 1 119 2 1 Finally, the agency needs to2 document its evaluation of teach-out3 agreements to clarify its new process elements4 and to provide examples of the required5 adverse action summary statements.6 In closing, we believe that these7 issues will not place its institutions and8 students with the financial aid that they9 receive at risk and that the agency can10 resolve the concerns we have identified and11 demonstrate its compliance in a written report12 in one year's time.13 Therefore, as stated earlier, we14 are recommending that the Senior Department15 Official continue the agency's current16 recognition and require a compliance report in17 12 months on the identified issues. Thank18 you.19 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you. Are20 there any questions for Steve at this time?21 Jamie.22 MS. STUDLEY: I appreciate that and23 I appreciate you articulating the standard 1 120 2 1 about whether this places the institution or2 students at risk and whether the agency can3 comply within 12 months.4 I actually just want to signal that5 I'll have some questions later and maybe want6 to ask Steve about them because I think this7 is a complicated one. Thank you.8 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you. Yes,9 certainly Steve is available after the agency10 makes it presentation as well for further11 questions.12 Any other questions? Seeing none,13 could the agency representatives please come14 forward.15 Good morning. Please proceed.16 MR. GRAY: Good morning, Mr. Chair17 and members of the Committee. My name is Dr.18 Albert Gray and I'm the Executive Director and19 the Chief Executive Officer of ACICS, the20 Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges21 and Schools, which is based here in22 Washington, D.C.23 With me today are Dr. Gary Carlson, 1 121 2 1 Chair of our council on my left. To his left2 Mr. Roger Swartzwelder who is the Chair-Elect3 and will be Chair in 2012. And our Deputy4 Executive Director Dr. Thomas Wickenden on my5 right.6 I appreciate the opportunity to7 visit with you about the value we provide, not8 only to the federal government as a gatekeeper9 for student financial aid but as a quality10 assurance guardian for more than 800,00011 students in 46 states enrolled in one of the12 870 career colleges and schools that we13 accredit.14 I've been the Executive Director of15 ACICS for a little more than two years and16 have significant experience both in education17 and non-education accreditation as well as in18 association management, nonprofit management.19 It has given me great satisfaction20 personally to see the effective application of21 quality standards and expectations through the22 ACICS accreditation program for the education23 of students enrolled in these schools. I come 1 122 2 1 before you proudly to defend the record and2 urge you to continue our agency's3 recommendation for another give years.4 ACS, by the way, will mark our5 100th year anniversary in 2012. We were6 founded as a voluntary quality assurance and7 trade association for business schools in8 1912, have grown and evolved a lot since then.9 ACICS has been continuously recognized by the10 Department since 1956.11 The application for recognition12 before you today represents a series of13 extensive conversations, correspondence, and14 dialogue with the Department regarding the15 expectations and requirements for ongoing16 authority as a quality assurance agency.17 In general we have found the18 conversations to be very helpful, respectful,19 very informative. We do thank the Department20 staff for their recommendation for continued21 recognition.22 We fully intend to respond to each23 of the requests for additional information and 1 123 2 1 directions contained in the staff report.2 However, for the record, we would like to take3 exception to a few of these items that were4 cited by the Department staff in their report.5 First, the expansion of scope to6 include the applied doctoral degrees which is7 602.12(b). ACICS has worked diligently during8 the past six years to establish pilot projects9 that six institutions for several degree10 programs that clearly demonstrate our capacity11 to accredit doctoral level programs offered in12 career institutions and universities.13 Those programs cover the range of14 applied professional doctoral degree programs15 that we seek to include in our scope from16 first professional degrees like the Doctorate17 of Pharmacy degree, to advanced practice18 professional degrees like the Doctorate of19 Business Management and Doctorate of Computer20 Engineering.21 Under the quality assurance22 authority of ACICS students have been23 successfully graduating from those programs 1 124 2 1 and gaining employment in those fields for2 several years. As the staff report notes, and3 to our knowledge as well, there have been no4 complaints to the Department or state5 regulatory authorities regarding the quality6 or integrity of those doctoral programs. 7 In addition, the knowledge and8 expertise gained from these pilot9 accreditation projects informed a series of10 refinements and enhancements to the ACICS11 standards, as well as to our procedures and12 operating policies, all of which have been13 provided in great detail to the Department.14 Since we have explicitly excluded15 the Ph.D. degree and the MD degrees, and at16 the request of the Department we have limited17 our request for accreditation for professional18 doctorate degrees in several specific areas19 where we have demonstrated experience and20 capacity, we believe we meet the Department's21 requirements concerning the range of degrees.22 Those areas reflect a growing23 demand for the accreditation of these degrees 1 125 2 1 among our member institutions. We know that2 because we have asked them. 3 Since ACICS clearly meets or4 exceeds the Secretary's expectations that the5 agency "must demonstrate that it has gained6 accreditation covering a range of the specific7 degrees for which it seeks expansion of scope"8 we respectfully request consideration for the9 inclusion of professional doctoral degrees10 ranging from first professional degree to11 advanced practice professional degree within12 our scope of accreditation. We ask that13 NACIQI include the requested expansion of14 scope in the recognition letter without15 condition.16 Secondary we would like to17 highlight our exception to staff report is in18 the area of academic and administrative19 representation on site visit teams, policy20 making and decision making bodies, which is21 Section 602.15(a)(3). I'll say it this way.22 Without exception and in complete23 transparency ACICS utilizes an appropriate and 1 126 2 1 compliant mix of professional, administrative,2 and academic expertise every time we send full3 accreditation teams into the field, every time4 we convene council-made policy or5 accreditation decisions, and every time6 council decision are appealed to the ACICS7 review board.8 So we take acceptance judgments in9 the staff report regarding the proportion of10 academic and administrative personnel11 primarily because the report fails to12 acknowledge that for many of the small and13 medium-sized institutions that we accredit, a14 bright-line between faulty and administrative15 is not reflective of reality. Many of our16 campus directors come from faculty rings and17 continue teaching while they attend to18 administrative obligations. 19 Likewise, many of our accreditation20 evaluators, our commissioners and other new21 board members, have extensive experience both22 as faculty and as managers of the enterprise.23 In addition, the status of being a public 1 127 2 1 representative or member representative is not2 mutually exclusive with being either a faculty3 member or a administrator. 4 Therefore, there should be no5 reason why a public representative cannot also6 be a representative of the faculty or of the7 administration or why the same does not hold8 true for a member representative. So we are9 asking that NACIQI remove from the condition10 attached to Section 602.15 in it11 recommendation for recognition of ACICS.12 Finally, the third issue we would13 like to call to your attention deals with14 accreditation standards at the institution or15 program level which is 602.16. Through its16 history as a recognized authority on17 institutional quality and integrity, ACICS has18 consistently developed and applied standards19 regarding student learning outcomes.20 ACICS' student retention and21 placement thresholds are transparent, bright-22 line institution level standards by which we23 hold all of our colleges and schools 1 128 2 1 accountable on an annual basis. ACICS's2 standards and well-documented practices3 regarding student learning outcomes at the4 institutional level are explicit.5 Every institution every year with6 no exceptions always verified. In the past7 the Department has deemed these standards and8 practices to be in compliance. 9 For the record, although we believe10 a clear reading of the Department's11 regulations does not require the type of12 program level standards that were cited in the13 staff report for institution accreditors of14 which we are one, ACICS has become developing15 program level student learning expectations16 and benchmarks. 17 We fully intend to codify these18 expectations as written standards and19 demonstrate ACICS' capacity to review and20 evaluate program level accreditation.21 In conclusion, ACICS is prepared22 and eager to address the residual findings by23 the staff and to demonstrate full compliance 1 129 2 1 in the report that we will provide within the2 next 12 months. 3 I would now like to turn it over to4 my colleague and our Chair Dr. Gary Carlson.5 DR. CARLSON: Good morning. My6 name is Gary Carlson and I am the Chair of the7 Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges8 and Schools for 2011. I have served on the9 ACICS Council Board for six years but my10 tenure with the organization goes back much11 further. 12 I began serving as a peer evaluator13 for ACICS in 1990. During the course of 2114 years I have participated in many site visits15 and accreditation reviews including as Program16 Specialist, Education Specialist, Student17 Service Reviewer, and Team Chair.18 The organization has earned a19 reputation as being meticulous, perceptive,20 and fair in its application of standards. I21 can personally attest that the reputation is22 based on performance and experience yielded23 from hundreds of effective accreditation 1 130 2 1 reviews.2 My path to Chair of ACICS began a3 long time ago. It has been over 42 years I4 have been working in this field. Through that5 field I have been a adjunct faculty member at6 Creighton University in Nebraska, as well as7 ongoing instruction and academic duties at ITT8 Technical Institutes. An online instructor9 and continue to be an online instructor. 10 I also in the previous 21 years was11 a special educator. I have a bachelor's12 degree in secondary education, a master's13 degree in special education. Then I have a14 doctorate in administration, curriculum, and15 instruction.16 Throughout my tenure at ACICS, like17 many of my colleagues, I have kept my feet on18 both of the administrative and academic19 worlds. I was a teacher first and I have20 always been a teacher. I will continue to21 provide instruction to adult learners for the22 rest of my professional life. 23 That connection to the academic 1 131 2 1 site or the institution is applied regularly2 as a peer evaluator, a member of the ACICS3 council, and in the formation of policy that4 applies to career colleges and schools. 5 The relationship between6 administrative and academic is organic,7 robust, integrated, and it represents strength8 and adaptability in my case and the case of9 most of the professionals at ACICS enlisted to10 conduct site visits, review school files, and11 shape policy.12 I would like to reiterate that as13 the Chair of ACICS I ask that NACIQI14 specifically remove the condition related to15 the agency's administrative matters. The16 requested expansion of scope to include the17 accreditation of applied and professional18 doctorate is granted. 19 Those decisions will align with the20 Secretary's regulations as well as with the21 evidence and information provided to the22 Department through the extension transparent23 process that reflect the best interest of 1 132 2 1 students served by ACICS accredited2 institutions as well. Thank you.3 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you very4 much.5 Steve, did you want an opportunity6 to respond? I think you are next to respond7 to the agency's presentation. Well, I mean,8 that was your presentation, correct? I guess9 the question is would you prefer to go before10 the questions of the members of the Committee11 or do you want to wait for questions?12 Can we have questions for the13 agency representatives? Bill, do you have any14 questions or anybody else?15 MR. PEPICELLO: I don't have any16 further at this time.17 CHAIR STAPLES: Anybody have any18 questions at this time?19 Jamie.20 MS. STUDLEY: I thought this21 particular proposed extension raised some more22 complicated questions. It goes back to what23 Frank asked earlier, in my mind, about the 1 133 2 1 appropriateness of extensions or when we see2 more serious concerns. I thought there were3 some here that went to the substance of the4 really important role of accreditors.5 I would be interested in part in6 knowing what the staff thinks are the most7 serious substantive issues. The one that8 struck me as critical was the evaluation of9 student achievement on a program as well as10 institutional level, the tracking of licensure11 with respect to program, and the ability to,12 if I'm reading the report as intended by the13 staff, to report back to the institution about14 those student outcome measures.15 The heart of the accreditation16 process is being able to make judgments about17 the learning expectations, the goals for the18 program and the institution and student19 achievement, and the back and forth between20 the accrediting agency and the institution.21 I would be interested in hearing, I22 guess, first from the agency. You didn't23 mention those particular areas that were 1 134 2 1 flagged by the staff and were part of the2 twelve-month completion. Yet, that to me are3 quite important ones so I would be interested4 in your response to the staff view that you5 are not there yet, that there is work to be6 done in regard to those standards. Why don't7 we start there.8 MR. GRAY: I'll start and then ask9 my colleagues to also speak to this. One of10 the three issues that I raised that we took11 exception to in the staff report, No. 3 was12 accreditation standards at the institutional13 or program level.14 We have, as been mentioned here,15 been continuously recognized by the Department16 every five years since 1956 as an17 institutional accreditor. Our understanding18 of the regulations as well as the Department's19 administration of the regulations concerning20 institutional accreditors has always been and21 still is, as we read it, institutional22 accreditors are responsible for holding our23 institutions to student outcomes which we 1 135 2 1 think are the most important part of any2 quality assurance program at the institutional3 level. 4 We certainly in that context5 evaluate programs. Obviously when we accredit6 an institution we accredit it to provide7 educational programs specifically within its8 scope of accreditation. We are looking at9 programs, at their efficacy in providing10 education, at their quality assurance, but we11 are not reporting their outcomes because as an12 institutional accreditor that has not been13 required of us, nor have we been advised to do14 so.15 However, in the last year or so our16 commission has been looking at that. As I17 mentioned in my testimony, they have made the18 decision to start to put together a mechanism19 for tracking student outcomes at the program20 level and recording those. 21 They are expected to come out with22 something in the next few months to do that at23 which time we'll advise the Department of 1 136 2 1 where we are on that. We will have an2 explicit monitoring mechanism and approach in3 place before this 12-month interim period is4 up if we still feel that it is not really an5 appropriate reflection of our compliance with6 the Department's regulations regarding our7 recognition as an accreditor.8 MR. SWARTZWELDER: Good morning.9 Let me just add on to what Al said. We heard10 during the discussion this morning that there11 is a renewed focus, a new level of, I think12 the word used was, granularity in documented13 compliance with these standards.14 As Al mentioned, as an15 institutional accreditor we have been16 collecting institutional level data for a17 number of years in making decisions based on18 those data without focusing at any great19 detail at the individual program level bases.20 It is clear from the discussion21 this morning from the staff analysis from a22 review of the regulations that perhaps there23 is a renewed requirement to focus at that 1 137 2 1 lower more detailed program level basis. As2 Al mentioned, the council has been talking3 about this now for several months and is in4 the process of developing standards. 5 It does require a change in the way6 we go about our business and how we evaluated7 institutions and how we make decisions based8 on the data that we collect but we are9 certainly committed to following through with10 development of that process so that we can11 demonstrate full compliance.12 MS. STUDLEY: Could you tell us how13 you reached the institutional criteria of 6014 percent retention and 65 percent placement15 rate as the key measures?16 MR. WICKENDEN: I'm Tom Wickenden,17 Deputy Executive Director. I'm responsible in18 part for accountability reporting. 19 I can tell you the history of that20 was that ACICS took a very standard21 statistical approach initially where you look22 at the average or mean of your institutions23 and you drop down one standard deviation which 1 138 2 1 is a measure of the dispersion and you set2 your threshold at that level so that you're3 putting on reporting so to speak, or setting4 your threshold so that approximately five to5 10 percent of your institutions would fall6 below that level. 7 Then as those institutions begin to8 improve and come up above, you can then9 ratchet that level up a bit.10 After doing that for a few years,11 our commissioners decided that rather than12 have this moving target they would establish13 an absolute percentage level. At that point14 they took what they felt was a satisfactory15 minimum threshold of 60 percent for retention16 and 65 percent for placement.17 Our current averages are in the 70s18 for both of those but we still do each year19 have institutions that fall below those. We20 put them on reporting and also apply other21 sanctions to them.22 MS. STUDLEY: One of the staff's23 comments is that licensure is not used as one 1 139 2 1 of the institutional criteria. Are there2 licensure measures applicable to some of the3 programs within institutions that you4 accredit?5 MR. WICKENDEN: Yes, ma'am. A6 number of our institutions have a number of7 programs where a licensure is required for8 entry level employment so they do require --9 we require them to collect that information10 and report it.11 But as with a number of other12 requirements that we have, we analyze13 licensure pass rates on a qualitative basis.14 For example, we also require institutions to15 survey their graduates and ask them how16 satisfied they were with their preparation for17 their career.18 We also require them to survey the19 employers of those graduates so we take into20 account not only pass rates but also21 satisfaction levels of the students and the22 graduates.23 We also require them to report 1 140 2 1 learning outcomes such as faculty graded2 externships and internships, senior projects,3 portfolio, graded portfolios, etc., and take4 those also into account. We actually report5 to the institution on each program the results6 of that kind of qualitative analysis of all7 those metrics. 8 For example, we have a question9 about asking our evaluators to judge whether10 the program meets the needs of the students.11 If it doesn't, they have to specify in what12 areas and what the evidence was. Even though13 we don't have a bright-line quantitative14 criteria for licensure pass rates, we included15 with a number of other criteria in a16 qualitative analysis.17 MR. GRAY: And I would add to that18 we do look at licensure because in some cases19 licensure is required, as Tom mentioned, as20 required for employment in a field. But21 setting acceptable pass rates is a very22 problematical exercise.23 For example, I'm a licensed 1 141 2 1 engineer in five states. The pass rates for2 engineers, graduate engineers, for the3 licensing exam in the 50 states is different4 drastically in every state. It varies all5 over the map. 6 If we were to try to take an7 institutional approach looking at a particular8 program and say what is a good or acceptable9 licensure pass rate without taking into10 context the variabilities across the11 geographical area, as well as the different12 types of licensure, it becomes a very13 difficult thing to do. 14 It's a whole different world than15 setting a standard for placement or retention.16 We do track it and we understand the17 importance of it. In fact, we also require18 that if licensure is a requirement for19 employment in a particular program, that the20 school must disclose to the student that that21 is part of the requirement for that program.22 MS. STUDLEY: You went just where I23 was going to go. In terms of the requirements 1 142 2 1 for what is disclosed to students, do you2 expect institutions to share the retention and3 placement and licensure rates as part of the4 consumer information side of the accreditation5 standards?6 MR. WICKENDEN: As was mentioned7 earlier, placement rates are required as of8 July 1 to be reported and disclosed to9 students. Regarding the other measures, a10 number of our institutions do disclose those11 because they are proud of them and they use12 them for recruiting purposes. When they do we13 check to validate that they are actually based14 on the data that we've collected and analyzed.15 MS. STUDLEY: I would like to see16 if other people have questions. I do have a17 couple more but I don't want to -- I would18 like to see how other people --19 CHAIR STAPLES: Earl.20 MR. LEWIS: I have a question that21 comes actually out of the report and I'll22 quote it. It says here, "Department staff23 find the ACICS expansion of scope to be so 1 143 2 1 broad that it cannot be justified based on the2 agency's total experience which is the3 accreditation of three doctoral programs to4 date."5 I would ask a question on your own6 organization and administrative apparatus and7 the fiscal sort of elements to underwrite8 that. How do you respond to the statement9 that was in the report? Do you have the10 administrative apparatus, the fiscal11 capability, and the experience to actually12 increase the scope to include a broad range of13 doctoral programs?14 MR. GRAY: We do. The senior staff15 that are involved with managing our16 accreditation programs hold doctorates of17 different types. We, as mentioned, piloted18 over six years three different types of19 applied doctoral programs that represent the20 range of applied doctoral programs. 21 Keep in mind, we're not talking22 about academic or research doctorates. We're23 talking about doctorates that apply to 1 144 2 1 employment in a specific field. The three2 areas that we piloted are representative of3 that range. Furthermore, when we looked at4 our criteria, we formed a committee. 5 Many of our members are whole6 doctors in those areas that we are proposing7 to accredit. We put a committee together and8 they looked at our criteria in light of their9 experience and their own employment in10 academia and made recommendations. 11 We also hired an outside consultant12 who is an expert in higher education at the13 advanced level to critique our approach, our14 criteria, and our policies. We put all of15 that together in developing the set of revised16 criteria. 17 What the staff is seeing are not18 the criteria that we went through the pilot19 program and from which we successfully20 graduated a number of students, but improved a21 more advanced criteria based on the input from22 all of these resources. When I look at those,23 as I said, you're looking at -- we all have 1 145 2 1 experience and haven't gone through doctoral2 programs. 3 The criteria, the credit4 requirements, the specific faculty5 requirements that are set forth meet the6 standard of any doctoral program that I know7 of. I think we do have those standards in8 place as we sit.9 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you.10 Anne.11 MS. NEAL: I would like to pursue12 just a little bit further the issue regarding13 the programmed success rate and student14 achievement. It's my understanding that when15 a regional accreditor accredits an institution16 it is institutional accreditation and in no17 way certifies the quality of particular18 programs within the institution. It simply is19 an institutional accreditation.20 As I hear you saying, that is in21 fact what you're doing but now you are being22 asked to look at programs in addition. Could23 you just explain and help me understand that a 1 146 2 1 bit more.2 MR. GRAY: I'll be brief and start3 out on that and let some others fill in on4 that. We are an institutional accreditor.5 Every institution is an amalgam of educational6 programs. We are responsible, or have been7 responsible, for maintaining quality assurance8 at the institutional level in terms of student9 outcomes and at the program level in terms of10 program quality. 11 We're talking about things like the12 syllabi, the curriculum, the program adequacy,13 the faculty, preparation of faculty, all of14 the standards that go into creating a robust15 strong program. We have specialized experts16 that go out on site visits and verify that all17 of those elements of a program are18 satisfactory. 19 That is part of our scope of20 accreditation. We do have programmatic21 involvement but we're talking about our22 responsibility to report and monitor outcomes,23 student achievement. Again, there is even 1 147 2 1 some of that but I'm going to stop here and2 let time, and maybe Roger, and Gary fill in on3 that.4 MR. WICKENDEN: Obviously for an5 institutional accreditor the programs offered6 by the institution are really the heart of the7 educational activities. As Dr. Gray said, we8 do analyze each program. Every evaluation9 report includes a separate report on each and10 every program. As I mentioned, we do a11 qualitative analysis of all the indicators of12 educational quality including licensure and13 pass rate where that's applicable.14 The difference, however, I think15 that the Department is pointing to is that at16 the institutional level in addition we have17 some bright-line standards for retention and18 placement rates. They are asking why we don't19 have those same or apply those same standards20 down at the program level. 21 I think our answer is that it's22 much better and more appropriate to have a23 qualitative approach at the program level 1 148 2 1 because you have so many factors that are2 involved there including the size of the3 program and the stability of the metrics, etc.4 At the institutional level it makes more sense5 to have a actual bright-line standard,6 quantitative standard. Their expectation is7 that we develop those kinds of standards at8 the program level.9 MR. SWARTZWELDER: And if I could10 just add to that. You know, as we look at the11 regulations, the actual regulatory language,12 if we start, for example, in 602.16(a) it13 talks about the agency having standards for14 accreditation that are sufficiently rigorous15 to ensure that the agency is a reliable16 authority regarding the quality of the17 education or training provided -- and here is18 the key language -- by the institutions or19 programs it accredits.20 This agency does not accredit21 programs. This agency accredits institutions22 and includes within that grant of23 accreditation to the institution the approval 1 149 2 1 of individual programs. That is how this2 agency has operated historically. It is our3 understanding that has been the interpretation4 of this regulation historically. 5 I appears that we now have a new6 interpretation of what this language means.7 As we said earlier, if complying with the new8 interpretation of the regulations is something9 that we are expected to do we, of course, will10 do it but we respectfully suggest, as Tom and11 Al have said, that accreditation at the12 institutional level is, in fact, that. It is13 accreditation of the institutions with review14 and evaluation of the various components of15 that institution including the programs.16 CHAIR STAPLES: Susan.17 MS. PHILLIPS: I wanted to come18 back to clarify something about the scope19 relative to offering doctorate level programs.20 You had mentioned that many of the21 commissioners and yourselves had been in22 doctorate programs. To what extent are there23 individuals who have designed, administered, 1 150 2 1 worked in the programs, not as their consumers2 but as their creators in the commission? 3 MR. WICKENDEN: Yes. A number of4 us on the staff as well as on the commission5 have been involved in the administration,6 development, implementation of programs up7 through the doctoral level. 8 I would like to add, however, that9 in addition addressing the issue of capacity,10 in addition to commissioners we also, of11 course, will need to identify and develop and12 train a cadre of our evaluators who go out and13 do on-site visits to institutions offering all14 these programs. 15 In doing that, at least in our test16 phase, our pilot phase, we would proceed very17 cautiously. In other words, we wouldn't take18 on accreditation of a program until we had a19 sufficient group of evaluators as well as20 members of our intermediate review committee21 and, of course, our commissioners.22 One last comment. The set of23 degrees that we are proposing to approach does 1 151 2 1 not include every professional doctoral2 degree. We have limited to four categories of3 degrees the ones that we are currently4 accrediting. 5 In addition, a number of our6 institutions offer master's degrees and they7 are proposing to offer doctorate degrees in8 those same areas so we currently accredit the9 master's degree level and we have a cadre of10 volunteer evaluators who we can build on and11 make sure we have the capacity.12 Then another category is doctorates13 in fields where there might not be a masters14 yet but where there are related master15 degrees. For example, in the allied health16 fields in nursing.17 We fully intend to proceed very18 carefully. We have limited the specific19 degrees to 13 in number so we feel that we are20 covering the range as well as proceeding to21 develop the capacity.22 DR. CARLSON: And from a commission23 perspective I just want to assure you that 1 152 2 1 from being a doctoral person that has served2 on many dissertation committees and many3 committees as an outsider and doing that that4 we compose a committee that not only5 represented the commission. 6 It was from outsiders also that was7 on that group as a committee. As Al has8 already said, we went very, very carefully9 with that as we moved through and we did10 approach it from a comparable standpoint. 11 The only knowledge that I have is12 what I have already done for the other13 committees that I've served on with other14 universities that are mostly, quite honestly,15 regionally accredited and worked with those16 schools to move forward with where we are at17 today.18 MR. GRAY: And I would also add, I19 don't know if it's been stated but in terms of20 the schools that we accredit, over 80 percent,21 or approximately 80 percent, of schools that22 accredit are degree-granting institutions.23 Most of our evaluators, the academic 1 153 2 1 evaluators, come out of teaching roles in2 those institutions. 3 Not surprisingly since they are4 degree granting many of them hold doctorates.5 When we look to the pool of our evaluators6 coming from those institutions in terms of7 building capacity to look at degree programs8 at that level, we have a pretty good resource9 pool to go to to build that capacity just by10 nature of the fact that the vast majority of11 our schools are granting degrees.12 MS. PHILLIPS: Excuse me. Not13 doctoral degrees but --14 MR. GRAY: No, no. Typically the15 faculty that -- Tom mentioned there are a lot16 of master's programs that would be logical17 programs from which you would proceed to a18 doctorate, business being an example. Many of19 the faculty that teach in those master's20 programs hold doctoral degrees and they end up21 being evaluators of our programs.22 MS. PHILLIPS: Just one last piece.23 You mentioned that you thought that a number 1 154 2 1 of the commissioners and yourselves had been2 involved in the creation and administration3 and offering of doctoral programs. A small4 proportion, large proportion, all, half? What5 is your sense of that quantity?6 DR. CARLSON: Well, one thing as7 chair, and I think as chair-elect and the past8 chair, the makeup of that particular committee9 basically was anybody that was on the10 commission at that time had to have a11 doctorate degree on that committee who had12 experience with actually getting a doctorate13 and serving on committees and that type of14 thing. 15 I wasn't myself on that committee.16 Past commissioners that are now off that17 committee, I would say there was probably --18 if you say 15 commissioners there's probably19 five of us that was on that committee. Then20 we did get outside people on the Committee,21 too. 22 Tom, do you remember about how23 many? I know Richard was one it. Gary Nears 1 155 2 1 was on it.2 MR. WICKENDEN: Just to elaborate,3 we have three official public representatives4 who are not associated with a member5 institution. Each of those have doctoral6 degrees and has been involved in a doctoral7 university or is currently teaching as part of8 a doctoral program. Some of our other9 commissioners also had in addition to10 currently being members, a number of11 institutions have worked at doctoral granting12 institutions.13 MR. ROTHKOPF: Just a couple of14 questions. The history of your agency is that15 of business schools as I understand it. To16 what extent are they business schools now or17 what percentage do they represent of the18 total?19 MR. GRAY: The majority of students20 enrolled in ACICS institutions are enrolled in21 allied health programs. Second to that would22 be business programs. We have a mix. 23 There are probably, I don't know, 1 156 2 1 12 or 15 lead programs right now at ACICS2 institutions but the top few would be the mix3 of allied health which includes nursing and a4 lot of other things, and various types of5 business programs and law enforcement programs6 are some of the top. Information technology7 would be another area.8 MR. ROTHKOPF: On the question of9 student outcomes, I think you indicated that10 if an institution wanted to report it, you11 would check for the accuracy. Did I12 understand that correctly?13 MR. WICKENDEN: Yes, sir. 14 MR. ROTHKOPF: Have you considered15 or do you require all of your institutions to16 report on student outcomes? If not, why not?17 MR. GRAY: All of our institutions18 are required to report student outcomes. We19 have an annual institutional report.20 MR. ROTHKOPF: I mean report to the21 public, not report to you. If they are22 reporting to you are to what the student23 outcomes are, which you do require, have you 1 157 2 1 considered requiring them to report to2 perspective and current students as to what3 the outcomes are?4 MR. GRAY: Well, we considered5 that. As of this time the commission has not6 elected to make it a requirement for schools7 to make public disclosure of that information.8 I would say this, though, If you go to9 catalogs and other information from these10 schools, you'll find most of them voluntarily11 do that because these outcomes are areas that12 they feel they are proud of. 13 As Tom said, the averages are14 actually not at all bright-lines. They are15 closer to low 70 to mid 70 percentage ranges.16 They have been voluntarily disclosing that17 information. I'm not saying that in the18 future that wouldn't be a consideration.19 MR. WICKENDEN: Also, I should note20 that ACICS does disclose a lot of these21 outcome measures in our key operating22 statistics report. It's a published report23 that is also available on our website. We 1 158 2 1 summarize them by state so students in a state2 can look at the average placement rate, for3 example, retention rate, etc., and they can go4 to a school and say, "How do you compare to5 the average for your state?"6 MR. ROTHKOPF: If it's recorded by7 state, I'm not sure I understand. Why8 wouldn't you require them to actually report9 them by school? Why not?10 MR. GRAY: It's just something that11 the council can consider and we'll go back to12 the council with your thoughts on that.13 There's no real why not at this point unless14 one of you guys know something.15 DR. CARLSON: My response, and I16 can hear you loud and clearly, that being17 around a long, long time, I mean, we are18 always in transition and there is always -- we19 make adjustments as we go forward. I've been20 in this since 1990, as I explained, in the21 proprietary side. 22 Since I've been here we've been23 reporting placement and retention for a long, 1 159 2 1 long time. There is a new community, more2 than just students. It's your own community3 where your school is at. Schools in the past4 for those years have not reported that but I5 think we got a new era and the era is the6 accountability era and that accountability. 7 I as a commissioner believe that in8 the future, and I think something that we are9 not just considering but looking at very10 closely, is how we do that professionally and11 do it right.12 CHAIR STAPLES: I would like to13 follow up with one question around the14 doctoral comparability, doctoral standards.15 You said you had done some analysis of that.16 As you know, the staff analysis that they17 presented says that there was nothing that was18 provided by you. 19 I guess my question is is this a20 timing issue again that we've had, that we had21 a prior discussion, or in the sense are you22 planning on providing this information or is23 there some reason why you haven't provided the 1 160 2 1 information regarding what the comparability2 committee found, what the areas of improvement3 were, which I gather the Committee found there4 should be some strengthening of that, what5 your process was. 6 I mean, it sounds like the7 Department -- you told the Department the8 result of your committee's deliberation but9 you didn't tell them what you did, how you did10 it, what the recommendations were, how you are11 implementing those which would certainly12 strengthen their view of what it is that your13 process was. I guess I'm just wondering why14 that hasn't been provided.15 MR. WICKENDEN: In this back and16 forth process of our petition and the staff17 response we initially did provide information18 about what we did, how we did it, and the19 results of it. It was only in the very last20 request or response from the Department that21 they said, "We want to actually see a22 crosswalk of comparability for all the23 standards." 1 161 2 1 They did raise some specific issues2 regarding comparability and we address those.3 For example, they raised an issue of faculty4 preparation and asked what were our5 requirements and we said like all other6 accreditors for doctoral programs we require7 faculty to have a doctoral or terminal degree.8 We actually in our criteria said9 that a professional certification in the field10 is not the equivalent of or adequate in place11 of a doctorate degree. Then they came back12 and asked, "Well, why aren't you requiring13 professional licensure certification?"14 We then pointed out that other15 comparable accreditors do not require16 licensure certification because it depends on17 the field and the conditions of the program.18 We do have a general requirement as others do.19 I looked particularly at SACS as an example of20 a fairly rigorous regional accreditor and they21 have almost exactly the same standards that we22 have. 23 We did even on the issue of 1 162 2 1 comparability regarding the specific questions2 the Department had we did respond but it looks3 now that they are asking for a comparability4 demonstration for all of the requirements of5 standards and we would be glad to provide6 that.7 CHAIR STAPLES: So some of this8 information was requested recently or at a9 stage where you have not yet been able to10 comply but you are going to provide them what11 they are asking for?12 MR. GRAY: Most of the information,13 as Tom said, came back as a response to our14 response to the staff report and we can15 readily provide that. As I said earlier, our16 standards are comparable across the board with17 doctoral standards so we can provide that18 information.19 CHAIR STAPLES: Any further20 questions? 21 Jamie, I'll go back to you. It22 doesn't look like anybody else has any right23 now. Go right ahead. 1 163 2 1 MS. STUDLEY: Coming back to the2 question of academic and administrative3 personnel and the balance within the review4 and team, I certainly heard you, Mr. Gray, and5 I believe Mr. Carlson, to speak to an issue6 that I agree with. 7 In this world of wearing multiple8 hats and doing different things over different9 times that theoretically people can qualify10 for bringing the academic experience to11 qualify as an academic participant in the12 process even if they are doing something else13 at a given moment, but that is not automatic14 or permanent as the staff's comments reflect.15 My own experience includes time in16 academic institutions as an administrator,17 sometimes teaching as a lecturer, sometimes18 being outside academic institutions teaching19 as an adjunct but never claiming to fit the20 academic slot. 21 I have no dispute with your point22 that people might be qualified for the23 academic positions on the teams. What I hear 1 164 2 1 the concern to be is whether you are clear2 about what those standards are, consistent in3 the application, and have sufficient academic4 personnel involved to carry out the5 accreditation responsibilities. 6 Could you speak to those questions,7 whichever of you is appropriate? As I say, I8 have no disagreement with what you said as far9 as you went that people might but I think the10 staff's comments were different in a kind of11 as-applied measure here.12 MR. GRAY: I'll speak13 administratively and ask Gary to speak14 academically. As you have stated very15 eloquently, we have people on our council who16 have been and are -- I mean, here is a prime17 example. Gary currently teaches. 18 He's been in academic19 administration in a large institution for many20 years. Taught for years before that so his21 administrative and academic world has not only22 been sequential, it's been interwoven and23 continuous. He's not unique on our council in 1 165 2 1 that respect.2 But I also understand now, based3 again on the staff analysis, that the4 Department wants to see some level of5 representation on the council which is6 strictly academic and doesn't have any7 intermingling, currently anyway, of8 responsibilities with administration, as well9 as separate administrative duties without10 academic. 11 We understand that now. Again,12 five years ago when we went through this13 process we had a council composition which is14 reflective of what we have now and the 15 Department found that to be an acceptable16 composition and to meet academic,17 administrative, and public needs. 18 That being the case, we actually19 changed our by-laws to now define that20 composition of council to include an academic21 representative, at least one, who is strictly22 an academician who teaches, current teaching23 responsibilities, as well as current 1 166 2 1 administrative. 2 Our bylaws now require the3 composition of all of our decision-making4 bodies which includes our council and our5 review board to have some strict academic and6 some strict administrative. Of course, we've7 always had the three public members8 requirements. That hasn't changed. 9 We have all that now codified. Our10 council meets those conditions. As time goes11 by we work through a nominating process. You12 can't make council changes over night because13 they all have five years, you know, and it's14 with staggered terms so the nominating15 committee is constantly faced with a diversity16 challenge. They want academic. They17 want administrative. They want public. They18 want representatives geographically. They19 want representatives from all types of20 backgrounds, ethnic and otherwise. Within a21 15-member group finding all those diverse22 resources is a challenge but they are faced23 with that challenge and they are up to it. 1 167 2 1 However, with respect to meeting2 the needs right now that the staff has3 identified for academic, administrative, and4 public, we have done that. We have shown how5 we've done it. We are record as having done6 it. We will improve it as time goes by but we7 do have that. We see a different now as a8 result of going through this process between9 having that mixed experience and that discrete10 experience.11 Gary, you may want to pick up on12 that.13 DR. CARLSON: I'll be real short.14 I'm going to tell you that I have a personal15 bias there. Being an administrator, being a16 teacher, you know, 42 years I've always felt I17 was a teacher and I've been doing -- I have18 continued to teach. 19 I think what we are really looking20 for, hopefully we are looking for, any mix21 that we do when we visits schools that we're22 getting people with great experience that23 understand teaching and academics from that 1 168 2 1 point of view. But there are some great2 talent out there. They are also3 administrators. 4 There are great teachers and5 sometimes we get so defined we exclude some6 people that could be very good on these teams7 that have been very good teachers also. I8 think we have to be careful that we put people9 that have experience in that realm and they10 have been teachers. 11 I don't know it's good to say12 you're an administrator or a teacher when you13 are actually, as you all know that have been14 involved in academics or any sort, you've all15 been doing administrative duties since the day16 you started being a teacher. I just don't17 know if you can define it that well. Thank18 you.19 MS. STUDLEY: I think part of what20 its getting at is a set of things in addition21 to being a teacher that the academic slot is22 partly program design as Dr. or Provost23 Phillips was talking about, and evaluation of 1 169 2 1 the effectiveness of programs. That's2 different from being a capable teacher. I've3 struggled with those same kinds of things.4 I wonder if he staff has anything5 they want to add to any of these because we've6 been following up on some of their points.7 CHAIR STAPLES: I think if we're8 done at this point in time, I think that would9 be appropriate. Thank you very much,10 gentlemen.11 MS. STUDLEY: I didn't mean to12 close it off for you.13 CHAIR STAPLES: You may want to ask14 further questions.15 MS. STUDLEY: No, no. No further16 questions. I didn't want to drive your17 process.18 CHAIR STAPLES: I think we'll have19 Steve come up at this point.20 MR. PORCELLI: Thank you for this21 opportunity to add a few comments. I guess my22 biggest concern would be in 12 months how the23 agency responds to the materials. I hope most 1 170 2 1 people and then the audience also realizes the2 complexity of this situation and the3 application and regulations to protect4 students and for-profit schools. 5 We have that uppermost in mind6 while applying the regulations. I also7 realize that 180-page document it is hard to8 see all the nuances in there. I would9 encourage the four gentlemen not to take other10 people's characterizations of what staff said11 but to actually read it for themselves because12 there was quite a bit of mischaracterization13 going on. 14 When you are dealing with an agency15 that has 850 or some odd schools and they run16 them through a process in a very speedy17 fashion, it's very important that the fine18 points are very clear and very well taken care19 of. That was the concern throughout this20 process. 21 The expansion of scope if you get a22 chance to look very closely at that, you will23 see that right now they accredit in their 1 171 2 1 pilot program computer, engineering, doctor2 pharmacy and -- the other one slips my mind at3 the moment. 4 Anyhow, they are asking for 13 --5 they specified 13 programs which they really6 have no experience with. They want to7 accredit doctor of osteopathic medicine. They8 want to accredit doctor of veterinary9 medicine. They want to accredit lawyers.10 They have such a broad expanse. 11 They say in their materials and12 they also nuance their materials. You have to13 be very careful in reading their materials.14 They say, "Right now we will avoid doctor of15 medicine." That's not a very strong statement16 that they will not accredit medical doctors17 and they have zero experience in that. 18 It's just very hard for staff to19 recommend an expansion of scope in such a20 broad area. Especially since it wasn't clear21 how broad the request was when it was first22 put out in the Federal Register. 23 I think other agencies and the 1 172 2 1 public should have an opportunity to at least2 comment on the broadness of this rather than3 to just grant this expansion of scope at this4 point. We wouldn't have the benefit of the5 other comments which we could certainly6 disagree with but it would be only fair to7 give the other agencies an opportunity in8 public to comment on them.9 On the academic and administrators10 on the bodies, the spirit of the regulation is11 really to give the students the best program12 as possible. When they send out a team you13 need the best of the best to go out there and14 look at those programs. They are all15 individual programs. Most of them go into16 professions. 17 Also the decision-making body. I18 understand that most -- many people consider19 themselves super men and super woman. "I did20 this 20 years ago. I did that 30 years ago.21 I can wear all hats. I am wonderful." That22 is not reality as far as evaluating programs23 for students. 1 173 2 1 You want the people to be current2 academics, that they know what is the best3 methods right now so they can evaluate that.4 You want the people that are the best5 administrators right now, not somebody that6 ran a little program 30 or 40 years ago. 7 Yes, the regs if you want to push8 the regs to the very limit they don't specify9 any of this but the spirit is clear to protect10 the students and to give the best evaluation11 possible. 12 If you are only going to send a13 team out to a school five, 10-year period, you14 want the best of the best to go out there and15 the most up-to-date people at that point.16 That's what we were aiming for. We ask for17 academic personnel -- personnel is a plural --18 and they said, "We're going to have one19 academic on our committee." It doesn't even20 meet the letter of the regulation, let alone21 the spirit. 22 The final one, that they argued23 with anyway, the outcome standards at the 1 174 2 1 program levels. In my back and forth with the2 agency they have already said, "We are going3 to work on these things." Nobody asked for4 bright-line. How is there any consistency?5 They don't have any guidance for their people.6 It's just all hit or miss.7 The good thing is that this is8 really a reputable agency. I have a lot of9 faith in how they are doing. I've seen their10 team in operation and they are very well11 trained. They do a very excellent job so12 there is no question about any of these13 things. 14 We are talking about how to better15 meet the regulations. A lot of these items16 they responded and they said, "We are working17 on this and we will have it in place."18 Obviously it's not in place right now so in 1219 months if they wish to work in the spirit of20 cooperation, I believe they will be in21 compliance in 12 months. If they wish to22 fight everything, then we will have a problem23 in one year. Anyhow, I don't know if you have 1 175 2 1 any questions.2 CHAIR STAPLES: Bill, go ahead.3 MR. PEPICELLO: A comment as4 someone who probably put in more time on this5 than most of the folks had an opportunity to6 do. As I read it, and I want to make this7 clear to ACICS, I don't think that, as I read8 things, that you are doing anything wrong. I9 think probably you are doing all the things10 that Steve just mentioned as far as11 composition, as far as diligence.12 You gave us some of the outcomes as13 far as graduating people and their having jobs14 in their fields for the doctoral programs. I15 have no doubt that you had a rigorous process16 for putting together the doctoral programs17 that you did, I want to make that very clear.18 Steve's comments give us a broader19 context which is part of the discussion we've20 been having this morning which is there was21 not sufficient documentation in many of those22 cases for us to know exactly what the quality23 process was. I think that is where there is 1 176 2 1 sort of a question of level of compliance.2 Not that we're saying, at least in3 my mind, saying that no, there's not4 compliance there. I think it's a matter of5 doing the cross-walk, for instance, for the6 doctoral programs. I will speak as someone7 who has put together a professional doctor8 programs at my university and had them9 accredited.10 I understand what kind of11 documentation we might be looking for. I12 think it's that spirit that I read this in. I13 think that is the spirit in which I will make14 my recommendation shortly.15 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you, Bill.16 Any questions for Steve?17 I just have one question, Steve.18 Given the lack of experience that you feel19 they have, the agency has, with a range of20 doctoral programs that they are seeking21 approval for regardless of whether they intend22 to do them anytime soon, are you confident23 that can be addressed, that issue can be 1 177 2 1 addressed in the next 12 months?2 MR. PORCELLI: Yes. The materials3 are accessible to you but everything is so4 extensive. We had asked how did they compare5 their doctoral standards to other common6 practices and so on. They sent a very, very7 lengthy document. 8 Ninety-eight percent of it was the9 consultant's resume and there was just a few10 paragraphs on what they did and it just wasn't11 sufficient. Did they submit a document? Yes.12 Did they submit a very lengthy document? Yes.13 Was it useful? No. So that's part of the14 problem with the wording and the need to15 really drill down as to what is being16 supplied. 17 They said, "We tell our schools18 their standards must be comparable to other19 schools." Just because they tell them they20 have to be comparable doesn't help me as a21 staff person understand what they are looking22 for.23 CHAIR STAPLES: Let me be more 1 178 2 1 specific. What I was asking, in your2 interpretation they are looking for the3 ability to accredit MD degrees, JD degrees.4 That is within the scope of the 14 new5 doctoral programs that they are seeking6 approval for accreditation.7 MR. PORCELLI: They did say they8 would avoid MD at this moment.9 CHAIR STAPLES: But is it within10 their request though? I mean, whether they11 avoid it or not is it something they could do12 if we grant --13 MR. PORCELLI: Yes, they could.14 CHAIR STAPLES: How in the next 1215 months are they going to sufficiently document16 to you their capacity to review MD degrees? I17 mean, it sounds like they are not intending18 to.19 MR. PORCELLI: I think the only20 solution, and I'm not sure if this is even21 satisfactory to them, would be to limit the22 request to the three programs that they23 already credit. They already have the 1 179 2 1 experience and they haven't gotten bad2 feedback from the public. 3 We haven't received any negative4 comments on those three programs. The5 criterion does say they have to show their6 experience. There is experience in the range7 but they really showed experience with those8 three programs. 9 I know they like to compare10 themselves to a regional. They are not11 regional. They are a national agency and the12 regionals do predominately the academic13 degrees which is research based. These14 degrees they are asking for are specific skill15 sets and practices. 16 Several of the ones they are asking17 for are life and death doctors. They are18 asking to accredit medical doctors, doctor of19 osteopathic medicine, acupuncture, oriental20 medicine and so on. We are really dealing21 with a very serious request. If it wasn't so22 open-ended, you know, staff could recommend,23 "Yes, they do a fine job." 1 180 2 1 I saw how they went when they2 evaluated the master's programs at schools.3 They are very thorough. People are very4 thorough so there is no question about their5 qualifications or the qualifications of the6 people they send out. It's just for7 consistency's sake. How do we know they can8 handle all these different practical doctoral9 degrees? That's a concern.10 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you.11 Jamie.12 MS. STUDLEY: Just procedurally. I13 would be interested to hear what motion Bill14 or his co-reader make. Isn't it likely that15 it will be at least a recommendation for16 renewal of their current authority in 1217 months and that the time table for an18 expansion of scope does not have to follow19 that same timing. 20 If they want to make that request,21 they can make it in the appropriate time but22 it's not that we have a rush in order to23 maintain their current standard. I'm just 1 181 2 1 separating those two procedures.2 CHAIR STAPLES: That is true.3 Unless there's other questions of Steve, maybe4 we'll get to Bill and his motion.5 Go ahead, Bill.6 MR. PEPICELLO: Okay. I will try7 to speak slowly and deliberately so you can8 get it up there. I move that the NACIQI9 recommend that ACICS recognition be continued10 to permit the agency an opportunity to within11 a 12-month period bring itself into compliance12 with the criteria cited in the staff report13 and that it submit for review a compliance14 report demonstrating compliance with those15 cited criteria.16 I further move that the NACIQI17 recommend to defer the decision regarding the18 agency's request for expansion of scope19 pending the receipt of the compliance report20 and consideration of the materials contained21 in it.22 CHAIR STAPLES: I thank you.23 Is there a second? 1 182 2 1 MR. McCLAY: Second.2 CHAIR STAPLES: It has been moved3 and seconded. Any further discussion about4 those motions? 5 Frank.6 MR. WU: I just wanted to note that7 I have now heard a number of agencies say they8 take issue with the staff's view on this or9 the staff's view on that. I thought I would10 try to categorize the types of responses that11 I have heard so far and ask if on at least one12 of these categories it's worth our providing13 some guidance both to agencies and to staff.14 One category of response is, "We15 agree with what the standard is that is being16 applied. We also believe we have not met it.17 Give us some time, we'll meet it. We just18 need to submit some more stuff, some19 documents," or whatnot. That's one type of20 response when the agency has been found to not21 meet the standard. That's No. 1.22 No. 2, I've heard some of them say,23 "We don't quarrel with the standard and we 1 183 2 1 think we've met it. In other words, we think2 we've submitted the appropriate stuff that3 meets the standard. We want you to look at4 our stuff more closely than staff and find5 contrary to what staff did that, in fact,6 we've complied."7 Those two responses are just about8 that particular agency. There is a third type9 of response that I think I'm hearing. I'm not10 sure I'm hearing but I think I am. This is11 the one where I wonder should we as a body12 offer guidance.13 The third type of response I think14 I'm hearing every now and then is, "We take15 issue with how staff understands the16 applicable statute and regs. We don't think17 that is what the law is here. I'm hearing18 implicitly so we are not going to do anything19 more." 20 I'm wondering if, indeed, some21 agencies are saying that, at least to some22 specific provisions. If they are saying that,23 then I wonder if we as a body should say 1 184 2 1 something such as, "Agency, you're right.2 Staff is wrong," because we are not bound by3 the staff. 4 Or if we should say, "Actually, the5 staff is right here and we would recommend6 consistently with the staff." In other words,7 should we be giving guidance not just to the8 agency in front of us but all the other9 agencies sitting here and to the public when10 an issue like that arises because it is not11 uncommon that agencies sit down and say, "We12 take issue with what the staff said on X, Y,13 and Z. 14 But taking issue can mean different15 things. Taking issue with whether or not16 we've met the standard or taking issue with17 the whole standard itself. That's just an18 open-ended question for us to think about.19 CHAIR STAPLES: I think that is20 worth us thinking about. I don't pretend to21 be able to respond for everybody now but I22 think some of that is implicit in the motion23 or the action that we take. I understand what 1 185 2 1 you're saying.2 Is there discussion about Bill's3 motion? I think we can still discuss it.4 It's up there and we've heard it. Anybody5 have comments about the motion?6 Jamie.7 MS. STUDLEY: I would just8 appreciate if staff, and this may be one for9 Sally, could just remind us what the different10 steps or stages are of approval. Bill has11 recommended one in this motion, continuation12 of approval for a 12-month period with certain13 conditions. 14 Are there any other options?15 There's terminating an accreditation at one16 end. There's clean and go forward for five17 years version. Is there anything else in18 addition to this option in the space between19 those two?20 CHAIR STAPLES: Sally?21 MS. WANNER: Um --22 CHAIR STAPLES: There is a23 document, by the way, Sally is going to talk 1 186 2 1 about. There is a document in your packet2 that describes the options.3 MS. WANNER: Yes. In addition, you4 can do a limitation that is between denial and5 continuation. Earlier I think Arthur brought6 up a suggestion that you essentially put a7 sense of a committee in the motion. You could8 do that. 9 You could say it's the sense of the10 Committee that the agency is in compliance or11 should work with the staff on this or12 whatever. That kind of thing. Really you can13 put in the motion any sort of message to the14 agency or to anyone else that you would like.15 It's simply that as far as16 procedurally if you are going to renew the17 agency, there can't be any findings. If you18 are going to continue them, it can't be over19 12 months. Then there's the option if you20 want to take a sanction that is short of21 denying them, you can limit them.22 And the limitation, that's where23 factors like limiting as to only continuation 1 187 2 1 of already accredited agencies or significant2 change restriction.3 MS. WANNER: This is an area where4 you can be creative but there aren't that many5 alternatives that we have identified. It's6 not to say that you couldn't identify other7 things that would be acceptable but such8 things as we are not going to recognize you9 for any new schools that you accredit. 10 We are not going to recognize your11 approval of additional substantive changes to12 the institutions you accredit. Those are some13 of the things that we have come up with in the14 past.15 MS. STUDLEY: Thank you.16 CHAIR STAPLES: Any further17 discussion about --18 Yes, Kay.19 MS. GILCHER: I just wanted to add20 something which may be obvious but to point it21 out that you also could say that you are22 continuing with the compliance report and23 specify different subset of the criteria that 1 188 2 1 we have said they are out of compliance with2 or different criteria you are not required to3 say as identified in the staff report.4 CHAIR STAPLES: Frank.5 MR. WU: So in this particular6 instance I have a question. Do we want to7 signal to this agency that we take some of the8 staff's concerns more seriously than perhaps9 the agency takes them? Has that already been10 signals by the discussion or is it worth in11 some way saying that more formally?12 CHAIR STAPLES: That is the13 Committee's prerogative. I mean, I think if14 the motion doesn't have that in it now, if15 anybody wanted to add some language, you are16 certainly free to propose that.17 MR. WU: I'll add one thing that18 staff pointed out which is not specific to19 this agency but in general I'm not sure that20 it's appropriate for us to authorize an agency21 to do certain things on the understanding that22 the agency is reluctant to do it right now but23 we are giving them the authority. 1 189 2 1 That just doesn't seem to me a2 great way to proceed because if we give them3 the authority and they have it for X number of4 years such as with respect to med schools and5 so on, even if now they are expressing they6 are hesitant to do that now, that in no way is7 binding. 8 After the fact will be really hard9 to correct if we or our successors are sitting10 here five years from now and it turns out that11 they got less reluctant 18 months from now.12 That isn't phrased formally to go into the13 motion but I wonder if that thought has any14 support among my colleagues.15 MR. PEPICELLO: I guess my response16 would be assuming good intent on the part of17 the agency that I'm not sure I'd be willing to18 make a judgment at this point that they19 definitely didn't take some things as20 seriously as the staff or the rest of us.21 I think part of what goes on in22 this discussion is informing the agency of the23 broader context and some of the specifics. I 1 190 2 1 think whether or not they take things2 seriously or not will be discovered in the3 compliance report.4 MR. WU: Right. I should be more5 clear. What I'm saying is with respect to6 what they want to do, maybe we just take this7 up 12 months from now with respect to8 accrediting the doctoral programs. 9 I'm reluctant to say you may10 accredit these programs on their understanding11 that they are hesitant or reluctant to do so12 and won't start doing it at this time because13 my sense is once the authority has been14 granted, being reluctant or hesitant is not a15 legally binding category of any sort.16 CHAIR STAPLES: I agree. I'm17 sorry. Go ahead.18 MR. PEPICELLO: But wouldn't it be19 the case then that the agency would have the20 opportunity in it compliance report to say we21 want to scale back? I think that might be the22 mechanism for that.23 MR. WU: I'm fine with that. 1 191 2 1 CHAIR STAPLES: In fact, Steve when2 discussing it mentioned he had similar3 concerns about what the programs were so I4 think we've signaled that is an issue that5 might come back either in staff analysis or in6 our review in 12 months.7 CHAIR STAPLES: Susan.8 MS. PHILLIPS: Just clarify where I9 think the motion is and maybe I'm not10 understanding it correctly. The motion is11 saying make no decision about the expansion of12 scope. If that were accepted, the outcome13 would be there would be no authority to expand14 the scope.15 If I understand, also the staff16 analysis was completely silent on the question17 of scope. I'm not fully sure I understand18 what silence means.19 MS. GILCHER: We are silent in20 terms of the recommendation itself. The first21 compliance issue is the issue of expansion of22 scope. 23 Having them not in compliance with 1 192 2 1 the expansion of scope, having demonstrated2 compliance with what they are requesting as an3 expansion of scope, is implicit in our finding4 that they should not be given the expansion of5 scope at this time. The decision on that6 comes at the end of the compliance report.7 CHAIR STAPLES: Bill, I think, in8 his motion is just building that in that we9 are going to not extend their recognition.10 MR. PEPICELLO: Yeah, I discussed11 that with staff. As I read it in detail, I12 understood why they remain silent but I13 thought it's important that we put it in the14 motion so that it is clear to all of us going15 forward exactly what our intent is.16 CHAIR STAPLES: Any further17 discussion around the motion? Do people18 understand the motion?19 Yes, Jamie.20 MS. STUDLEY: I just wouldn't want21 it to do anything to press the agency to come22 forward regarding its expansion of scope. I23 think the important thing for us is that we 1 193 2 1 are saying you as an agency are authorized to2 continue accrediting institutions. I pulled3 out my phone. 4 I have never used the calculator5 before and apparently it's got limited6 capacity so I could not multiply 800,0007 students times Pell times federal loan8 eligibility. I just got some physics formula9 that was beyond my zeros, but it was a big10 number. 11 My concern is that they come into12 compliance or not and that we know that by the13 end of this year. I don't want that to get14 burdened by them thinking that they only have15 a year on the expansion of scope issue which16 is they are entitled to seek that when they17 want to but I don't want it to get dragged18 along or jeopardize their attention to the19 other issues. That is not a signal, that's a20 statement.21 If people read this motion to be22 consistent with what I've just said, then23 fine. It is a separate sentence but if it 1 194 2 1 needs to say "if they want to continue to seek2 an expansion of scope," they can do that3 whenever they are entitled to do that but we4 are not pressing them to do that within 125 months. 6 What we want from them in 12 months7 is to finalize their -- to make it clear8 whether they meet our standards for continued9 approval as an accrediting agency, if others10 agree with me on that.11 CHAIR STAPLES: Frank.12 MR. WU: May I suggest a potential13 amendment that captures that which is at the14 end of this. The current text ", to such time15 as the agency should submit said request." So16 the agency doesn't have to submit the request17 in 12 months, to such time as the agency18 should submit the request.19 CHAIR STAPLES: At the end of the20 paragraph?21 MR. SHIMELES: That's right. If22 this agency came back 12 months from now for23 renewal and 36 months from now, that would be 1 195 2 1 okay. That is what Jamie wants to capture.2 MS. STUDLEY: Never is also3 acceptable but sooner is acceptable, too, if4 they feel they can meet those criteria. 5 MS. NEAL: Can I ask staff is that6 possible they are not constrained in terms of7 the cycle in terms of the request they can8 make? They can come back at any time for just9 the scope issue?10 MS. GILCHER: That's true.11 CHAIR STAPLES: So that's an12 amendment that you're proposing, Frank?13 MR. WU: It is a motion to amend.14 CHAIR STAPLES: Is there a second15 to that?16 MR. PEPICELLO: Second.17 CHAIR STAPLES: Seconded by Bill.18 Do we have that?19 MS. LEWIS: Could you please repeat20 that?21 MR. WU: I think I said at the end22 ", to such time that the agency submits said23 request for expansion of scope." 1 196 2 1 MS. LEWIS: One moment.2 CHAIR STAPLES: Any discussion? I3 know we're not going yet but any discussion4 around the amendment? Okay. It's been moved5 and seconded. Can we proceed to vote on that?6 Do you want to wait until it's up there?7 CHAIR STAPLES: Acceptable, Frank,8 the edit?9 MR. SHIMELES: Yes.10 CHAIR STAPLES: Bill, you were the11 seconder. Is that acceptable?12 MR. PEPICELLO: Yes.13 CHAIR STAPLES: Any further14 discussion around -- we are going to vote on15 the amendment first. Any further discussion16 around the amendment? If not, please all17 raise your hand in favor of the amendment.18 So that is now the motion that is19 before us, amended motion. Any further20 discussion around the motion? If not, all in21 favor please raise your hand. Any opposed?22 The amendment and the motion carries as23 amended. 1 197 2 1 Because we are one session behind,2 we'll take a 15-minute break and then we will3 reconvene and then we will hear the Commission4 on Accrediting of the Association of5 Theological Schools that was normally6 scheduled for 11:15. We will hear them and7 that might allow us to get back on our8 schedule after lunch. Fifteen minutes we go9 get our lunch and come back and then proceed.10 (Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m. off the11 record for lunch to reconvene at 1:00 p.m.)12 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N13 1:00 p.m.14 CHAIR STAPLES: We will restart our15 review process with the Commission on16 Accrediting of the Association of Theological17 Schools. 18 Commission on Accrediting of the Association19 of Theological Schools 20 Bill and Frank primary readers.21 Whatever your pleasure is.22 MR. McCLAY: I will start. I can't23 help but note that the audience has cleared 1 198 2 1 out for the discussion of theological schools.2 This is perhaps a commentary on American life3 but we will proceed. My computer is down here4 but I will refer to my memory.5 The Commission on Accrediting of6 the Association of Theological Schools has7 been in the business of accrediting8 theological schools since 1952. It split off9 from the main organization at the time of the10 last review by NACIQI in 2004. 11 The actual commission became an12 independent agency. As I said, the last review13 was in 2004 with an expansion of scope to14 include distance education which was granted.15 The action under consideration is petition for16 the renewal of recognition. 17 I wonder, the folks over there, if18 you could take your conversation elsewhere,19 please? Excuse me. Please refrain from20 having conversations while we are having a21 presentation. Thank you.22 MR. McCLAY: The recommendation of23 staff has been to continue recognition for 12 1 199 2 1 months allowing time for the agency to come2 into compliance with regard to the numerous3 findings of staff. 4 Is Chuck not here? Oh, there you5 are. I looked in the wrong place for you. I6 think we should get Chuck up here as quickly7 as possible to kind of cut through and8 identify the things that are most worthy of9 identification among the points at issue and10 maybe give us some sense of relative11 seriousness of the various points.12 Chuck, if I may.13 CHAIR STAPLES: Frank, do you want14 to defer until after Chuck's presentation?15 MR. WU: I don't have anything to16 add other than --17 CHAIR STAPLES: Microphone.18 MR. WU: I have nothing to add19 other than in the last go-around distance ed20 was brought within their scope.21 CHAIR STAPLES: Go ahead, Chuck.22 MR. MULA: Good afternoon, Mr.23 Chair, again, and members of the Committee. I 1 200 2 1 will be presenting a summary of the petition2 for continued recognition of the Commission on3 Accrediting of the Association of Theological4 Schools, hereafter referred to as ATS, or the5 agency.6 The staff recommendation to the7 Senior Department Official for ATS is that he8 continue the agency's recognition and require9 ATS to come into compliance within 12 months10 by submitting a report that demonstrates the11 agency's compliance with issues identified in12 the Department staff analysis.13 This recommendation is based on my14 review of the agency's petition, supporting15 documentation, and the observation by staff of16 a joint site visit conducted by ATS in the17 Middle States at Wesley Theological Seminary18 in Washington, D.C. on October 25 through 2719 in 2010.20 The review of the agency petition21 found that there are outstanding issues that22 the agency needs to address. I also found23 that while most of the agency's policies 1 201 2 1 address the processes required by the2 Secretary's criteria it did not provide3 sufficient evidence of the application of a4 number of the requirements.5 These concerns fall primarily in6 the area of this organizational and7 administrative requirements, required8 standards in their application, and the9 agency's required operation policies and10 procedures.11 Specifically, I found that ATS12 needs to demonstrate that it has and that it13 trains the required personnel on its14 evaluation policy and decision-making bodies.15 The agency also needs to provide adequate16 documentation demonstrating the application of17 a standard review process required by the18 criteria specifically cited in the staff's19 analysis.20 And to also demonstrate that it has21 followed its own policies and procedures22 including the application of its new and23 revised standards, policies and procedures 1 202 2 1 required by the regulations effective July 1,2 2010.3 We believe that these issues will4 not place its institutions or programs, its5 students or the financial aid they receive at6 risk and that the agency can resolve the7 concerns I have identified and demonstrate its8 compliance with a written report in a year's9 time.10 Therefore, as I stated earlier, we11 are recommending to the Senior Department12 Official that the agency's recognition be13 continued and that he require a compliance14 report in 12 months on the issues identified15 in the staff report.16 This concludes my report. I am17 available for any questions you may have.18 Thank you.19 Actually, Mr. Chair, as asked, I20 will make comment on the seriousness of the21 issues that were cited. It has been almost 1122 years since it actually had its last review. 23 With the new regulations and the 1 203 2 1 processes and procedures that have been2 required and because it did not get reviewed3 before NACIQI disbanded the first time, it's4 had a lot of catch up to do. Basically the5 agency is in the process of doing that. 6 It has remained in continuance7 communication with staff as continue to ask8 for guidance on how to do this. The9 applications of their processes need to be10 demonstrated so that we can verify that,11 indeed, they are actually applying their own12 standards and procedures.13 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you. I want14 to make sure that both Frank and Bill, do you15 have anymore that you want to add before we16 get to the open questions.17 Bill.18 MR. McCLAY: Well, Chuck, you may19 have already said this. We had a conversation20 this morning before we began. I asked him21 basically what gives here when in the last22 evaluation they were given virtually a clean23 bill of health and then all of these things 1 204 2 1 are adduced. 2 I think he has given the3 explanation for that, that it's the length of4 time that's elapsed. It's the introduction of5 new departmental accounting and accountability6 procedures and data and not any sort of7 latitude or lacking on the part of the agency8 itself. I just wanted to emphasize that.9 MR. MULA: That's correct.10 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you.11 Arthur.12 MR. ROTHKOPF: Just sort of13 following up on the point just made. I'm14 curious. How many -- is this a programmatic15 or institutional accreditor and, I guess, how16 many programs or institutions are currently17 accredited and do you think they've got the18 staff and the personnel to do the job?19 MR. MULA: Great questions.20 Actually, the exact number of institutions I'm21 not real sure of. You might have to address22 that. It's quite a few. They do have23 adequate administrative financial capability 1 205 2 1 to do the accreditation function. 2 We reviewed their budget and their3 financial statement that was audited. We4 reviewed the members, their resumes and5 qualifications to hold the positions that they6 have for their accreditation staff. We found7 them in compliance in an administrative and8 fiscal capacity.9 CHAIR STAPLES: Bill.10 MR. PEPICELLO: I have one question11 for you. There are a number of findings here,12 several pages worth. As I note on timelines13 here, some of these will probably not be14 addressed until February 2012, if I read this15 correctly. I guess my question is do you16 think there is enough time to address all17 these issues and have some documentation that18 things are implemented and moving along within19 12 months?20 MR. MULA: Actually, we have21 communicated with the agency our concerns and22 they know exactly what is needed to do and23 they have assured me that they will work with 1 206 2 1 us in order to provide that documentation.2 If we do find that there is a3 problem because of either a commission meeting4 or the inability to do a site visit where they5 have to have documentation to do that, then we6 will consider that and at that time we'll try7 to make some other kind of arrangements and8 we'll talk to leadership and our legal staff9 to see what we can do.10 MR. WU: I just wanted to provide11 the answer. It's 204 institutions. One12 hundred and 39 of them are free standing13 schools so this agency is the gateway for 8314 of the 139. The remaining 65 are part of a15 larger campus.16 MR. ROTHKOPF: Thank you.17 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you, sir.18 Any further questions for Chuck?19 Okay. I guess not at this time. Thank you.20 Will the agency representatives21 please come forward.22 MR. ALESHIRE: I'm Dan Aleshire and23 I'm the Executive Director and would like just 1 207 2 1 to make a couple of comments as we begin. I2 don't want to occupy too much time but want to3 say a few things.4 To my right is David Esterline who5 is a faculty member at McCormick Theological6 Seminary in Chicago who is chair of our board7 of commissioners. And to my left is William8 Miller, one of our accrediting staff members9 who prepared the petition and who has been10 attending to the changing scope of NACIQI's11 work and the Department work and the12 Secretary's resignation -- recognition. I can13 see where this is going.14 First and most importantly I want15 to assure NACIQI and the Department staff that16 the Commission on Accrediting of ATS will seek17 to comply with the criteria for recognition.18 We do need a year to get it all done. We19 actually need a year and two weeks but we'll20 take a year if we can get it from you. 21 We need the two weeks because some22 of the changes are required changes to the23 corporate by-laws and our members meet at the 1 208 2 1 end of June next year. The first time they2 will have a chance to vote as a membership3 will be just slightly more than a year from4 now.5 We have evaluated each of the6 concerns that have been raised and have7 developed a strategy for responding. First8 several policies will need to be initiated or9 changed by the Board of Commissioners. 10 We just finished our board meeting11 for spring last night and they will meet again12 in February so there is a work plan of what13 will be done between now and February with the14 task force of the board but it will be the15 February meeting before they will be able to16 take action and then we implement a number of17 things in the spring of '12 based on that18 action.19 Second, there are some procedures20 and practices that we can put in place21 immediately and we are working on those at22 this time. Then, as I mentioned, there are23 some changes to corporate by-laws and 1 209 2 1 procedures which are the vote of the member2 schools and will take us to the membership3 meeting in June of '12 to get those votes4 taken.5 Secondly, if I may, just because we6 represent a kind of boutique area of higher7 education I would like to just say a few8 things about the schools that ATS accredits.9 You have heard the number of accredited10 institutions. 11 As you also heard, about 70 percent12 are free standing, special purpose, higher13 education institutions. The other 30 percent14 are educational units of colleges or15 universities. About 15 percent are in Canada16 and the rest of the U.S.17 Of the U.S. freestanding schools 8018 percent are duly accredited by the Commission19 on Accrediting of ATS and a regional agency so20 they could theoretically use either of those21 agencies as their gatekeeper.22 The typical theological school23 enrolls about 200 students in its various 1 210 2 1 degree programs. It has about 15 to 20 full-2 time faculty equivalent, and an equal number3 of professional level administrators. The4 commission data, as best we can construct it,5 suggest that about 80 percent of the students6 who begin the Master of Divinity, which is the7 one program offered by all of our schools,8 complete it.9 While the MDIV is generally offered10 as a three-year degree it takes students on11 average just over four years to complete it12 because of the small percentage who can go to13 seminary full-time.14 On average these schools receive 2515 percent of their income from gross tuition,16 about 38 percent of their income from17 individual and religious organizations, and 2018 percent from endowment or long-term19 investments. Then the other 17 comes from20 rent for student housing, rent on unused21 seminary facilities.22 This past year ATS member schools23 spent on average $43,000 per full-time 1 211 2 1 equivalent student and the average net tuition2 after grants and scholarships excluding loans3 paid by the student was about $9,500. This is4 not a tuition-driven community of schools.5 It's a contribution and endowment-driven6 community of schools.7 We just reaffirmed the8 accreditation of almost 15 schools. We9 checked and of the seven who identified us as10 gatekeepers who were having their11 accreditation reaffirmed, the average default12 rate was 2.8 percent.13 Third, I want to comment on the14 current process of review just briefly. I15 suppose the oldest joke in higher education is16 about the reason the faculty meeting went17 long. It went long because everything had18 been said but not everybody had said it.19 I'm old enough to remember when the joke was20 first told.21 Very smart people in the higher22 education community have raised fundamentally23 important questions with very smart people in 1 212 2 1 the Department and I don't presume to have2 more insight than has been shared, but this is3 the fourth comprehensive review of the4 commission's work that I have been involved in5 across the past 21 years.6 If at some point after we have7 demonstrated compliance and the Secretary8 chooses to renew the commission's recognition9 for another five years, the prospect of a10 fifth comprehensive departmental review is a11 significant motivation for retirement.12 The first review I did was in 199113 and then revised to 1992. I wrote that14 petition. The higher education was struggling15 with bad student default rate and a lot of16 changes were introduced in that most recent,17 at that time, reauthorization of the Higher18 Education Act and resulting regulations19 because we were really trying as a community,20 as a government, as independent accrediting21 agencies and as schools to deal with that.22 That has been addressed to some23 extent. We are now in a different regulatory 1 213 2 1 environment and we are in a regulatory2 environment that, as the word of the morning3 was, it has a certain granularity to it. The4 issue of granularity is not the issue. 5 Is the granularity covering the6 right areas in infinite detail. Can the7 closer watch of higher education by this lens8 accomplish the social goals that are needed9 for a more educated citizenry. I don't know10 the answer to that question. I just thought I11 would let you know I know the question.12 We will comply. Some compliance is13 going to make us better. We need to14 demonstrate that our commissioners are trained15 in issues related to distance education.16 Currently the commission standards don't allow17 any degree that is offered by an ATS school to18 be granted solely by distance education models19 but more schools are implementing distance20 education as part of it.21 Theological education has22 historically been very residential. Our23 commissioners need to get more informed for 1 214 2 1 better decision making. We think that will2 make us a better agency.3 Some compliance will not change the4 commission's work for the better or worse. It5 will require new systems of record keeping for6 issues that have not to this time occurred7 often in accredited theological education. We8 are post-baccalaureate schools. 9 There are some things that the regs10 call us to do that just don't occur much. We11 will invent the structures. We will move12 forward but they are not going to make us a13 better accrediting agency in that sense.14 And there are some compliance15 issues that we will comply with and with16 integrity but we have a concern that they will17 make us a less effective agency. For example,18 we need to change who are the public members19 on our commission. 20 We have historically gone to public21 members who we understood as sort of the22 consumers of the graduates of our schools,23 denominational officials, adjudicatory 1 215 2 1 officials, persons who supervise the work of2 graduate. 3 The conclusion is that because we4 are an institutional accreditor of special5 purpose institutions we also fit the category,6 and I think it's appropriate for professional7 education, that means no ordained clergy could8 be considered for public members so that it9 eliminates from our public membership the10 constituency that is most closely connected to11 the work of the graduates of our schools. 12 We will make the change. We will13 find people who will contribute to the work of14 the board of commissioners, but we think we15 will have lost something in the process.16 It is going to take us a year. The17 task force is under the Chair's appointment.18 It will begin work later this summer. Some of19 these will take a significant amount of work20 to revise documenting systems. Some of21 the documentation is going to be complex it22 looks to us because we have to be able to23 document what we haven't done so we have to 1 216 2 1 create a kind of documentary process that says2 we never had the occasion to do this. 3 Therefore, we didn't do it. That4 is a complex documentary issue. We appreciate5 the work as other agencies of the various6 staff who have worked with us, Steve Porcelli,7 for part of this review, and then Chuck Mula8 in the conclusion of the review. Thank you.9 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you. Any10 questions for the agency representatives?11 Anne.12 MS. NEAL: Given your wonderful13 institutional history here and longevity, as I14 have looked at various petitions this time15 around, it struck me that so many of them were16 dealing with the same criteria and different17 criteria than what I've seen in the past. 18 There was for a while a major focus19 on student achievement. 20 This time around I'm seeing a lot21 on public members, complaints, conflict of22 interest. I just would be interested in your23 comments in terms of did the staff go in waves 1 217 2 1 or does the focus go in predictable waves or2 unpredictable waves? How as an accreditor do3 you deal with the different emphases that4 appear to arise over time?5 MR. ALESHIRE: As I mentioned, this6 is my fourth comprehensive petition. There is7 a bit of a phenomenon of the interpretation du8 jour that we experience. I think if one were9 to look at the work of our board of10 commissioners over 20 years its interpretive11 frames have changed from time to time. That12 happens. 13 The Higher Education Act has been14 reauthorized several times. That has led to a15 new round of regulatory expectations. Then16 that leads to a new round of interpretation of17 regulatory expectations. There is a sense in18 which the focus on sort of the unidentified19 public person is interesting and new and I20 suppose that it reflects a concern that the21 industry can't be trusted. 22 We need external and so there is23 this sense. What occurs to me as an agency we 1 218 2 1 need to have more people, for example, on our2 board who know less about these schools and3 then bring them up with a sufficient amount of4 training. The issue of more public is5 accompanied by more training. 6 Peer evaluation is an expertise-7 driven pattern of evaluation. I think that we8 assume that we were more in compliance than we9 were found to be but preachers find other sins10 from time to time so we'll take our medicine.11 I do think that there is -- I would12 say that many of the things we will do will13 make us a better agency. Many of the things14 we will do are just going to require work and15 energy and will do that with integrity, but in16 the end we won't be advancing the work of17 theological schools as they try to educate a18 generation of religious leaders anymore19 because we have responded to these areas.20 MR. ROTHKOPF: Could I follow up21 and maybe it kind of leads to a discussion22 we're going to have in the next couple of23 days. Do your institutions as you go through 1 219 2 1 the process of viewing your accreditation2 work, are they complaining about the burden3 and the question of whether the cost and4 efforts that go into the accreditation process5 are really worth while?6 MR. ALESHIRE: I will respond, and7 if my colleagues want to respond, too. I want8 them to feel free to.9 A significant portion of ATS10 schools are financially stressed. They are11 small free-standing schools. They live close12 to the margin. We monitor that very13 carefully. They also have a way of out-14 performing their resources so they do more15 effective education than you would think they16 might given the resources they have.17 They are always worried about18 expenses. They have always been willing to19 pay the cost of the accrediting dues and the20 accrediting fees. If they complained about21 it, they don't necessarily complain to the22 accrediting agency about it. We try to keep23 those as inexpensive as possible. 1 220 2 1 As I mentioned, students bear such2 a small percentage of the cost in the average3 theological school environment. They tend to4 be older students so their living expenses or5 their relocating of family to pursue6 theological education create expenses but I7 don't think they associate that with the8 burden of accrediting.9 We've moved from one staff member10 in accrediting, that was me in 1990, to four11 full-time professionals in accrediting now. I12 would attribute one of those positions to the13 changing regulatory environment. I would14 attribute two of them to the growth of the15 number of schools and the expansion of the16 programs they are offering. We are tracking17 more distance education. We are tracking more18 extension site education, etc.19 I suppose for me the issue is not20 is it unduly expensive but is the expense21 gaining the best bang for the buck for the22 public good of what we want in an educated23 citizenry. 1 221 2 1 CHAIR STAPLES: Any other questions2 or comments? Okay. Thank you very much.3 Chuck, did you want to respond to4 anything that was said? Okay. Which of our5 primary readers -- 6 Yes, Kay.7 MS. GILCHER: I just wanted to8 clarify something about your two weeks. The9 date when the 12-month clock starts is the10 date where the Senior Department Official11 signs the letter. He has 90 days following12 this meeting to write that letter.13 MR. ALESHIRE: Please encourage him14 to get out of a vacation if he can.15 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you, Kay. I16 think that's helpful.17 Okay. Who might I recognize for a18 motion? Is it you, Bill?19 MR. McCLAY: I'm just going to use20 the recommended language here. I move that21 NACIQI recommend that ATS's recognition be22 continued to permit the agency --23 By the way, I think there should be 1 222 2 1 a comma after continued there.2 -- to be continued, to permit the3 agency an opportunity to within -- it says4 here 12-month period. Should we make it 125 months and two weeks? Thirteen months maybe.6 We can talk about that.7 -- bring itself into compliance8 with the criteria cited in the staff report9 and then submit for review thereafter a10 compliance report demonstrating compliance11 with the cited criteria and their effective12 application. Such continuation shall be13 effective until the Department reaches a final14 decision. I'm not sure we need that last15 sentence.16 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you for that17 motion. Is there a second?18 MR. ROTHKOPF: Second.19 CHAIR STAPLES: Moved and seconded.20 Any comments or questions about the motion?21 Everyone can see it up there. Okay. No22 questions about the content of the motion.23 All in favor of the motion, please raise your 1 223 2 1 hand. Any opposed? The motion carries. 2 Melissa.3 MS. LEWIS: I would like to note4 for the record that Frederico Zaragoza joined5 us immediately following lunch and6 participated in the review of the Commission7 on Accrediting of the Association of8 Theological Schools. Arthur Keiser will be9 joining us later. Carolyn Williams is10 rejoining us as well. Thank you.11 CHAIR STAPLES: Okay. Why don't we12 proceed right to the next agency, the13 Accrediting Bureau of Health Education14 Schools. Aron and Jamie are primary readers.15 Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools 16 MR. SHIMELES: The Accrediting17 Bureau of Health Education Schools is a18 national institutional and programmatic19 accreditor. 20 It's current scope of recognition21 is the accreditation of private, post-22 secondary institutions in the United States23 offering predominately allied health education 1 224 2 1 programs and the programmatic accreditation of2 medical assistant, medical laboratory3 technician, and surgical technology programs4 leading to a certificate, diploma, associate5 of applied science, associate of occupational6 science, or academic associate degree7 including those offered via distance8 education. 9 The agency is requesting recognized10 scope that would include its accreditation of11 programs at the baccalaureate level.12 ABHES accredits 211 institutions13 and 161 programs. The Secretary's recognition14 of the agency enables it accredited15 institutions to seek eligibility to16 participate in the student financial assistant17 programs administered by the Department of18 Education under Title IV of the HEA of 1965 as19 amended. Consequently, the agency must meet20 separate independent requirements established21 in the regulations.22 And to move on to a little bit23 about the recognition history. The agency 1 225 2 1 received initial recognition in 1969 for its2 accreditation of private and public medical3 laboratory technician programs. The agency's4 recognition has been periodically reviewed.5 Continued recognition has been granted after6 each review. 7 In '74 the agency was granted an8 expansion of scope to include accreditation of9 medical assistant programs in the private10 sector. In '82 the agency was granted another11 expansion of scope with the accreditation of12 private post-secondary institutions offering13 allied health education.14 In '95 it was granted expansion of15 scope to accredit institutions and programs16 leading to the associate of applied science17 and associate of occupational science degrees.18 In '98 the agency was granted an expansion of19 scope to accredit institutions offering20 predominately allied health education21 programs. 22 In '07 the agency was granted an23 expansion of scope to accredit institutions 1 226 2 1 and programs leading to the academic associate2 degree and programs offered to be in distance3 education.4 The last full review the agency was5 conducting in December of '04 NACIQI meeting6 at which the Committee recommended and the7 Secretary concurred the agency's recognition8 be reviewed for five years and that it send an9 interim report addressing issues identified in10 the staff analysis.11 In addition, the Secretary granted12 the agency expansion of scope to include the13 accreditation of surgical technology programs.14 The interim report was reviewed during the15 June '06 meeting with the Committee. The16 Secretary accepted the interim report.17 In conjunction with the current review, the18 agency's renewal petition and supporting19 documentation, Department staff conducted a20 review on the agency in April 2011.21 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you.22 Jamie, anything to add?23 MS. STUDLEY: Nothing to add. 1 227 2 1 CHAIR STAPLES: Okay.2 Elizabeth Daggett, you want to come3 forward.4 MS. DAGGETT: Good afternoon, Mr.5 Chair, and members of the Committee. My name6 is Elizabeth Daggett and I am the member of7 the Accreditation Division staff that8 completed the review of the petition for re-9 recognition for ABHES.10 The staff recommendation to the11 Senior Department Official for this agency is12 to grant the agency's request for an expansion13 of its scope of recognition to include its14 accreditation of baccalaureate degrees,15 continue the agency's current recognition, and16 require a compliance report in 12 months on17 issues identified in the staff report.18 This recommendation is based on our19 review of the agency's petition, its20 supporting documentation, and a file review at21 the agency's offices in April 2011. Our22 review of the agency's petition found that he23 agency is substantially in compliance with the 1 228 2 1 criteria for recognition. 2 There are 12 outstanding issues3 that the agency needs to address in the4 recognition areas of organizational and5 administrative requirements, required6 standards and their application, and7 implementation of required operating policies8 and procedures.9 In brief, the issues concern the10 agency's definition of a public member,11 commissioner and evaluator training, and12 documentation of a new report, substantive13 changes, and teach-out plans and agreements.14 We believe that these remaining15 issues will not place the agency's16 institutions, programs, students or the17 financial aid they receive at risk and that18 the agency can resolve the concerns we have19 identified and demonstrate its compliance in a20 written report in a year's time.21 Therefore, as I stated earlier, the22 staff is recommending to the Senior Department23 Official to grant the agency's request for an 1 229 2 1 expansion of its scope o recognition to2 include its accreditation of baccalaureate3 degrees, continue the agency's current4 recognition, and require a compliance report5 in 12 months on issues identified in the staff6 report. Thank you.7 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you. Any8 questions?9 Okay. Seeing no questions, do we10 have any motions?11 MS. STUDLEY: Do we have12 Representatives of the Agency?13 CHAIR STAPLES: That's what I14 meant. I was just testing you. Very good15 catch, Jamie. Got too excited about moving16 forward, I guess. 17 Agency representatives, please come18 forward.19 MS. SWISHER: Nice test. Mr.20 Chair, committee, and members of the staff, my21 name is Linda Swisher and it is my pleasure to22 be here with you today and to represent ABHES23 as the commission chair. I would like the 1 230 2 1 rest of my colleagues to introduce themselves2 and then we'll open it up for your questions3 and discussion.4 DR. GIOFFRE: Good afternoon,5 everyone. My name Dr. Delores Gioffre and I6 am an ABHES member of the Committee on Degree7 Policies and Procedures. I'm very happy to be8 here today. Thank you.9 MR. WHITE: I'm Michael White and10 I'm a member of the ABHES staff.11 MS. MONEYMAKER: Hello. I'm Carol12 Moneymaker. I'm the executive director of13 ABHES. On behalf of the commission we found14 the review and the staff report to be very15 thorough, rigorous and fair, and we really do16 not see any problem coming into full17 compliance within the 12-month period. We are18 here for any questions you may have.19 CHAIR STAPLES: Are there any20 questions of the agency representatives?21 Okay. I think you're all set.22 Thank you very much.23 Elizabeth, do you have any further 1 231 2 1 comments? No?2 Would someone care to make a3 motion?4 MS. STUDLEY: Yes, I would be happy5 to make a motion. I think you're just in the6 post-lunch smooth process window. If you7 traveled here, I'm sure you have a8 subcommittee meeting this afternoon while you9 are together or you can celebrate.10 The motion is in a slightly11 different format because of the recommendation12 related to scope so I will proceed to track13 the staff recommendation as the motion.14 I move that the NACIQI recommend15 that ABHES' request for an expansion of scope16 that would now include bachelor's degrees be17 granted and that the agency's recognition be18 continued to permit the agency an opportunity19 to with a 12-month period bring itself into20 compliance with the criteria cited in the21 staff report and that it submit for review22 within 30 days thereafter a compliance report23 demonstrating compliance with the cited 1 232 2 1 criteria and their effective application2 Such continuation shall be effective until the3 Department reaches a final decision.4 If the recorder does not have that5 language, I will provide it to you.6 CHAIR STAPLES: So that is the7 motion. 8 MR. ROTHKOPF: I'll second it.9 CHAIR STAPLES: Made and seconded.10 MS. STUDLEY: It is extensive but11 the content is to grant the expansion of scope12 to include bachelor's degrees and to carry13 forward for a 12-month period to get a14 compliance report through which time the15 agency would be renewed. It will take a16 second to catch that.17 CHAIR STAPLES: While it's being18 typed up, any discussion about the proposal,19 about the content of it? Okay. Why don't we20 just wait a minute so people can actually see21 that motion.22 I apologize for an oversight. We23 have our first third party commenter and it is 1 233 2 1 on this item. Before we proceed, Mr. Omar2 Franco.3 Sit at the table and use the4 microphone, please. Go right ahead.5 MR. FRANCO: Hi. My name is Omar6 Franco. I work for Becker and Poliakoff and I7 represent Dade Medical College. I just wanted8 to let you all know that we've been going9 around just talking to some congressional10 members and we have letters of support for11 full consideration of this request from12 Senators Menendez, Rubio, Nelson, and13 Congresswomen Debbie Masserman Schultz,14 Frederica Wilson, and Congressman Mario Diaz-15 Balart to fully support the recommendations16 that have been given here. 17 I've given copies of those letters18 to staff but it was after the comment period19 so I just wanted you all to be fully aware of20 that.21 CHAIR STAPLES: Okay. Thank you22 very much for coming today.23 MR. FRANCO: Thank you. 1 234 2 1 CHAIR STAPLES: Do we have the2 motion? There it is. Can everybody see that3 or does it need to be read again? Okay. If4 there are no questions about the motion, then5 I would ask all in favor of the motion to6 please raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion7 carries. Thank you very much.8 Okay. We'll now proceed to the9 Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and10 Oriental Medicine. Bill Pepicello and Susan11 Phillips are the two readers.12 Who is proceeding first? Susan.13 Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and14 Oriental Medicine 15 MS. PHILLIPS: The Accreditation16 Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental17 Medicine is a national programmatic and18 institutional accreditor currently accrediting19 and preaccrediting throughout the United20 States in first professional master's degree21 programs, professional master's level,22 certificate and diploma programs in23 acupuncture and Oriental medicine, as well as 1 235 2 1 free-standing institutions and colleges of2 acupuncture for Oriental medicine that offers3 such programs.4 They are requesting an expansion of5 recognized scope to include accreditation and6 pre-accreditation of professional post-7 graduate doctoral programs in acupuncture and8 in Oriental medicine.9 They currently accredit three10 doctoral programs and have four additional11 programs in pre-accreditation status. In12 addition, they accredit or pre-accredit13 programs in institutions in 21 different14 states, 47 of the agencies. Sixty-one15 accredited and candidate programs are in16 single purpose free-standing institutions of17 higher education. 18 Only the accredited free-standing19 institutions of acupuncture and Oriental20 medicine may use the agency's accreditation to21 establish eligibility to participate in22 student financial aid and other related23 programs under the Higher Education Act. 1 236 2 1 They were first recognized by the2 Secretary in 1988 for accreditation at the3 professional master's degree level in4 acupuncture. In 1992 the recognition was5 expanded to include accreditation of first6 professional master's degree and professional7 master's level certificate and diploma8 programs. 9 The last full review was in10 December 2005 and following that meeting the11 Secretary granted the agency continued12 recognition for a period of five years and an13 expansion of scope at that time to include the14 agency's pre-accreditation candidacy status.15 Anything that you care to add,16 Bill?17 Then I would turn to the staff.18 CHAIR STAPLES: Okay. Rachael, go19 right ahead.20 MS. SHULTZ: Good afternoon. I'm21 Rachael Schultz and I will be presenting22 information regarding the petition submitted23 by the Accreditation Commission for 1 237 2 1 Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, or ACAOM.2 The staff recommendation to the3 Senior Department Official is to continue the4 agency's current recognition and grant the5 agency's request for an expansion of scope to6 include the accreditation and pre-7 accreditation of professional post-graduate8 doctoral programs in acupuncture and Oriental9 medicine while requiring the agency to submit10 a report within 12 months that demonstrates11 the agency's compliance with the issues12 identified in the staff analysis.13 This recommendation is based upon14 the staff review of the agency's petition and15 supporting documentation, as well as the file16 review in the agency's offices conducted on17 June 1, 2011. Our review of the agency's18 petition revealed outstanding issues in19 several areas of the criteria. 20 In particular, issues related to21 the area of Organizational and Administrative22 Requirements include the need for more23 information about the agency's site visitor 1 238 2 1 pool and appeals panel pool including the pool2 members' qualifications, assignments, and3 training. More information is also needed4 regarding the agency's records retention5 policy and file management. 6 The issues related to the area of7 Required Standards and Their Application8 largely involve the need for more9 documentation from the agency including more10 information on assessment criteria, the11 materials reviewed by the Commission during12 the decision-making process, information on13 Commission training and the Commission review14 process, and information on the standards15 review process.16 Issues related to three findings in17 the staff analysis in this area were further18 underscored during the file review at the19 agency's offices that was conducted last week.20 The agency must provide additional information21 and documentation regarding its annual22 reports, follow-up actions, and timelines.23 It should be noted that the agency 1 239 2 1 is operating with a relatively new staff but2 has kept open communications with ED staff3 during this transition and is making progress4 in researching and providing the needed5 documentation.6 The majority of issues related to7 the area of Required Operating Policies and8 Procedures involve the need for policy9 revisions and additional documentation in the10 areas of substantive change, review of11 complaints, changes in institutional12 ownership, teach-out plans, submission of13 information to ED and other agencies, and the14 appeals panel process.15 Since many of these issues involve16 slight policy modifications or the need for17 additional documentation, and because we have18 received no record of complaints or concerns19 regarding this agency, we believe that these20 issues will not place ACAOM's institutions,21 program, students, or the financial aid they22 receive at risk and that the agency can23 resolve the concerns we have identified and 1 240 2 1 demonstrate its compliance in a written report2 in a year's time. 3 Therefore, as I stated earlier, we4 are recommending to the Senior Department5 Official that ACAOM's recognition be6 continued, that its expansion of scope be7 granted, and that the agency submit a8 compliance report in twelve months on the9 issues identified in the staff report. Thank10 you.11 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you very12 much.13 Any questions? 14 Would the Representatives of the15 Agency like to come forward?16 MR. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Chair17 and members of the Committee. Thank you,18 Rachael.19 My name is Mark McKenzie. I'm the20 current Chair of the Commission. I am dean of21 the College for Acupuncture and Oriental22 Medicine, Northwestern Health Sciences23 University in Minneapolis. I've been a 1 241 2 1 commissioner for three years. I took over as2 chair in February of this year. 3 I'm going to go ahead and let our4 Interim Executive Director introduce himself.5 MR. GODING: My name is William6 Goding. I am the Interim Executive Director,7 a position I've held for approximately 108 months. We would just like to start by9 thanking the staff for its thorough review10 which helped us tremendously in guiding us to11 what we need to do to come in compliance.12 We are working aggressively to do13 that and we are confident that we will be in14 full compliance in 12 months. We would be15 happy to respond to any of your questions.16 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you. Are17 there any questions? Bill, Susan, anybody18 else?19 Okay. I guess that's all we have20 for you. Thank you.21 Is there a motion?22 MS. PHILLIPS: I would move that23 NACIQI recommend that the agency's current 1 242 2 1 recognition be continued and to require the2 agency to come into compliance within 123 months and submit its compliance report that4 demonstrates compliance with the issues5 identified in the staff report.6 I would further move that its7 request for expansion of scope of recognition8 to include its accreditation and pre-9 accreditation of professional post-graduate10 doctoral programs in Acupuncture and Oriental11 Medicine (DAOM) be granted.12 CHAIR STAPLES: Is there a second?13 MR. PEPICELLO: Second.14 CHAIR STAPLES: It's been moved and15 seconded. We'll wait one minute until that16 comes up.17 Okay. The motion is up there. Can18 everybody see it? It's not finished.19 The motion is before us. Any20 questions about it? Can people see it who21 need to see it?22 Susan, maybe you should repeat it23 just because it's been a couple of minutes to 1 243 2 1 make sure everyone understands what we're2 doing.3 I would move that NACIQI recommend4 that the ACAOM's recognition be continued and5 to require the agency to come into compliance6 within 12 months and submit its compliance7 report that demonstrates the agency's8 compliance with the issues identified in the9 staff report.10 I would further move that its11 request for expansion of scope of recognition12 to include its accreditation and pre-13 accreditation of professional post-graduate14 doctoral programs in Acupuncture and Oriental15 Medicine (DAOM) be granted.16 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you. Anymore17 discussion, or any discussion, about the18 motion? Seeing none, all in favor please19 raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion20 carries. Thank you very much.21 We are now going to take a 15-22 minute break and we will be back at that23 point. 1 244 2 1 (Whereupon, at 1:56 p.m. off the2 record until 2:21 p.m.)3 CHAIR STAPLES: I would call the4 meeting back to order and invite or begin the5 discussion of the American Osteopathic6 Association, Commission on Osteopathic College7 Accreditation petition for renewal of8 recognition. At this time I would like to9 recognize Carolyn Williams.10 American Osteopathic Association, Commission11 on Osteopathic College Accreditation 12 MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. In terms13 of background, the agency is, as was14 indicated, the Commission on Osteopathic15 College Accreditation and the American16 Osteopathic Association.17 The Commission on Osteopathic18 College Accreditation is a standing committee19 of the American Osteopathic Association. The20 COCA currently accredits 23 osteopathic21 colleges of medicine and provisionally22 accredits another three.23 Because these osteopathic medical 1 245 2 1 education programs may be offered in either2 free-standing institutions offering only these3 programs or in larger institutions offering4 other educational programs, the agency is5 considered both an institutional and a6 programmatic accreditor.7 Of the 26 colleges of osteopathic8 medicine accredited or provisionally9 accredited by the agency three are located in10 free-standing institutions. The agency is up11 for renewal of recognition.12 In terms of history, the agency as13 previously configured was first recognized by14 the U.S. Commission of Education in 1952 and15 has received periodic renewal of recognition16 since then.17 The agency was last reviewed for18 continued accreditation in 2005. In 2006 the19 Secretary granted continued recognition to the20 agency for a period of five years and granted21 it a waiver of the separate and independent22 requirements. An interim report was submitted23 in 2007 and at that time it was granted 1 246 2 1 acceptance and renewed.2 I think our staff person, Jennifer,3 is going to fill in the rest.4 CHAIR STAPLES: Go right ahead,5 Jennifer.6 MS. HONG-SILWANY: Good afternoon,7 Mr. Chair, and Committee members. My name is8 Jennifer Hong-Silwany. I'll be providing a9 summary of the staff recommendation for the10 American Osteopathic Association, Commission11 on Osteopathic College Accreditation.12 The staff recommendation to the13 Senior Department Official is to renew the14 agency's recognition for a period of five15 years for its accreditation and pre-16 accreditation, or the agency's equivalent of17 provisional accreditation, throughout the18 United States of free-standing public and19 private non-profit institutions of osteopathic20 medicine and programs leading to the degree of21 doctor of osteopathy or doctor of osteopathic22 medicine.23 This recommendation is based on our 1 247 2 1 review of the agency's petition, supporting2 documentation, and an observation of a3 decision-making meeting on April 30th through4 May 1st 2011 in Chicago, Illinois.5 Our review of the agency's petition6 found that the agency is now fully in7 compliance with the criteria for recognition.8 The issues identified in the draft staff9 analysis were fully addressed and documented10 in the agency's response to the draft staff11 report.12 Therefore, as I stated earlier, we13 are recommending to the Senior Department14 Official that the agency's recognition be15 renewed for a period of five years. Thank16 you.17 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you. Any18 questions for Jennifer? Seeing none, will the19 Representatives of the Agency please come20 forward?21 MR. VEIT: Good afternoon, Mr.22 Chairman.23 CHAIR STAPLES: Good afternoon. 1 248 2 1 MR. VEIT: My name is Ken Veit and2 I am the current Chair of the Commission of3 Osteopathic Medical School Accreditation.4 I've been the chair for approximately one5 year. I sat on the commission for a prior six6 years.7 My day job is I am the provost and8 dean of Philadelphia College of Osteopathic9 Medicine. The job that I take most pride in10 is I am an osteopathic family physician. I11 have participated over many, many years in12 review processes and I'm very proud to be the13 chair of an entity that I believe strongly in14 and our colleges also believe strongly in.15 At this time I would like to turn16 it over to Andrea.17 MS. WILLIAMS: I'm Andrea Williams18 and I am the Assistant Secretary of the COCA.19 MR. MISKOWICZ-RETZ: Good20 afternoon, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, and21 members of the Committee. I'm Konrad22 Miskowicz-Retz. I am the Secretary to the23 Commission. I am the Director of the 1 249 2 1 Department of Accreditation at the American2 Osteopathic Association. 3 We appreciate this opportunity to4 be here before you this afternoon. This is5 the third petition that I have submitted and I6 can say that we have found each time we've7 gone through the process that it has been a8 process that has helped us to strengthen our9 program. We've learned something from it each10 time we go through it. Certainly I can also11 say that we accept the findings of the staff12 analysis.13 We would be happy to answer any14 questions.15 CHAIR STAPLES: Are there any16 questions?17 Arthur.18 MR. ROTHKOPF: Yes. I would be19 interested in your reaction to this. We've20 seen a fair number of organizations come21 before us today. You probably were sitting22 through most of those, or many of them. Many23 have had great difficulty in meeting these 1 250 2 1 requirements and sometimes a long laundry list2 of requirements not met. 3 You all seem to have met them.4 What is the message here? Why are you able to5 do it and others are struggling and have five,6 10, 15 items that they've got to deal with and7 come back to us in a year?8 MR. MISKOWICZ-RETZ: Well, Mr. Vice9 Chair, I think there are a couple of points10 here. No. 1, we have a very great deal of11 respect for the democratic process in this12 country that gives us statutes and13 regulations. We fully accept that once14 regulations are issued, they are regulations15 that apply -- in the case of accrediting16 agencies, of course -- that are regulations17 that we will fully meet.18 The second one is one that I think19 may sound a little bit tired but really you20 have to live this every day. You have to21 always be looking at how can you make your22 programs better. In some cases that is a23 matter of documentation admittedly, the 1 251 2 1 documentation you keep.2 In other cases it's also a matter3 of following what's going on with the external4 publics around you. What's going on with the5 Congress. This is certainly an area, higher6 education accreditation, that is a very active7 one today in the Congress.8 What's going on with the Department9 of Education. We heard a talk earlier this10 morning about granularity. As I've told my11 colleges, I remember the days when you had the12 Higher Ed Act, the authorization, you had one13 set of regs, and you waited for the next14 reauthorization. That's not where we're at15 today.16 Today you have to keep yourself17 attuned to what's going on around you so that18 you're not always in a reactionary mode when19 it comes to good accreditation practice but20 that you can be proactive and respond and stay21 ahead of where you think things are going.22 MR. ROTHKOPF: Thank you.23 MS. STUDLEY: Speaking of where 1 252 2 1 things are going, I noticed that you accredit2 23 colleges and provisionally accredit another3 six -- six?4 PARTICIPANT: It's 23 and three. I5 was corrected in my notes.6 MS. STUDLEY: Oh, then it has7 changed since the documentation that we8 received. If it was six, I was going to ask9 whether that reflects new entrants because10 it's an unusual balance. If it's three, then11 my question is off the table.12 MR. MISKOWICZ-RETZ: We had going13 into the Commission last meeting 20 fully14 accredit and six provisional. Three of those15 moved from the provisional, or the federal16 career accreditation, over to the accredited17 so there was not a net gain by those actions18 but rather a movement.19 MS. STUDLEY: So 20 and 6 becomes20 23 and three.21 MR. MISKOWICZ-RETZ: And three,22 yes.23 MS. STUDLEY: Okay. So while the 1 253 2 1 provisionally accredit knew, and maybe it's a2 different term if somebody slides out of3 accreditation after being fully accredited.4 MR. MISKOWICZ-RETZ: I understand5 your question. The provisionally accredited6 schools are schools that are in the7 development phase. 8 They have not yet graduated their9 first class of students but they have been10 evaluated over all of the standards before11 they are allowed to take students and then12 they are evaluated annually with annual13 reports and annual site visits until they14 graduate the first class and that is the time15 at which a decision on accreditation is made.16 Accreditation is for a seven-year period of17 continuing review.18 MS. STUDLEY: Is this a rising19 pattern? Are there more schools coming into20 your field at a higher rate than in the past?21 MR. MISKOWICZ-RETZ: Like all of22 the other healthcare professions that I am23 aware of there is an intense interest in 1 254 2 1 attempting to meet the healthcare needs of2 this country by making sure that there are3 adequate numbers of students who are being4 educated.5 We are right now working with6 additional schools at the level prior to7 provisional accreditation. We have one school8 in our pre-accreditation. Then we have a9 couple other applicants who are seeking to be10 evaluated for pre-accreditation.11 MS. STUDLEY: And do you have a12 number for the number of students covered by13 the accreditations that you grant?14 MR. MISKOWICZ-RETZ: Right now in15 this current year I believe our authorized16 class size is about 5,000 to 5,100 students so17 if you multiply that out by four it's a little18 bit over 20,000 students total in the19 osteopathic colleges.20 MS. STUDLEY: Thank you.21 CHAIR STAPLES: Any other22 questions?23 Yes, Anne. 1 255 2 1 MS. NEAL: The question I asked of2 some others. How big is your budget and your3 staff and do you ask your institutions to4 quantify what they spend in terms of their5 accreditation process; FTEs, hours,6 duplication, etc., in terms of the cost to7 them?8 MR. MISKOWICZ-RETZ: With regard to9 the last question, we do not ask for that10 information. With regards to our budget, our11 budget is approximately 1 to 1.1 million12 dollars. We have six full-time staff.13 MS. NEAL: Thank you.14 CHAIR STAPLES: Any other15 questions? Okay. Thank you very much.16 We have a third-party commenter,17 Dr. Massood Jallali.18 Good afternoon. Turn your19 microphone on. Just so you are aware, we have20 a three-minute time limit for third-party21 commenters. I know that's a tight time frame22 but maybe you can highlight your remarks in23 three minutes. 1 256 2 1 DR. JALLALI: Good afternoon.2 Again, as I said, I think this time I'm in the3 right place at the right time. I believe my4 written comments clearly speak that this5 agency paints a rosy picture of doing a6 wonderful job. As a matter of fact, this7 agency is the most corrupt incompetent agency8 that is out there.9 This is an agency that was trusted10 by the United States Government and this11 Committee to do the job and the criteria of12 that job was clearly made under Section 602,13 subpart B and numerous subsections. This14 agency failed to do the job that it was15 supposed to do. 16 It was suppose to monitor the17 universities and colleges that are certified18 and give them basically license to participate19 in Title IV of Higher Education Act. By doing20 so, as you all heard today, there are almost21 26 colleges. That is almost 20,000 students.22 Each student attending those schools cost23 about $50,000 a year. 1 257 2 1 That is close to a billion dollars2 that this institution oversees. This billion3 dollars comes from the taxpayers and from the4 government but, yet, they don't even spend the5 time to monitor their universities' procedures6 and policies when it comes to substantive7 change and class size change which clearly in8 the CFR 34 Section 602.22 states any9 substantive change, any class size change must10 be first given approval by the agency. 11 I attended NOVA Southeastern12 University in 1998. That university13 unilaterally changed the graduation14 requirement without telling me and submitting15 fraudulent student loans in my behalf and16 receiving. Then in 2002 notifying me that,17 "Now we have changed your graduation18 requirement." 19 Where was this agency when I filed20 a complaint and I said to them, "According to21 your policy and standards and procedures this22 university is violating those standards and23 procedures that you guys accredited." They 1 258 2 1 did nothing. Nothing. As a matter of fact,2 they did the opposite. They supported the3 university. 4 Mr. Konrad Miskowicz he gave a5 deposition in behalf of the university in the6 legal litigation that I had with the7 university that I want a jury verdict on.8 Nevertheless, business is not going to be as9 usual for them because I have recently filed10 what is called a related complaint which was11 under seal. 12 The United States Government and13 Justice Department had 60 days to review the14 merit of that complaint. After the United15 States Government and Department of Justice16 reviewed that complaint, it found my complaint17 had enough merit to allow me to file --18 CHAIR STAPLES: Excuse me, Dr.19 Massood. You have exceeded your time. Also,20 I think it's important that you wrap up and21 you can make your closing comments to the22 standards that we're looking at today and23 whether the agency meets those standards. I 1 259 2 1 think the details of your particular complaint2 are not relevant for us.3 DR. JALLALI: My statement is that4 they have violated the standards called5 insuring consistent decision making. While6 the agency was asking in their own standard7 that passing NBOME Part II is only required8 for the entering class of 2004-2005. My9 school, NOVA Southeastern University, imposed10 on me way before that entering class comes in.11 Second, 602.19, monitoring the12 accreditations. We told them in the complaint13 that NOVA is not complying. They did nothing.14 Section 602.20, enforcement of standard. They15 have the job and duty. As I said, it is a16 billion dollars a year business that these17 people oversee. They did nothing.18 Also, at the same time 602.22,19 substantive change. In their own policy and20 procedure it requires university to obtain21 approval before they add or subtract classes22 or courses, or asking that the National Board23 of Osteopathic Medical Examiners become as 1 260 2 1 part of graduation requirement. 2 That is a significant substantive3 change. Now I left with no degree, almost a4 couple hundred thousand dollars owed to U.S.5 Government because they failed to do their6 job.7 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you very much8 for your testimony.9 DR. JALLALI: Thank you.10 CHAIR STAPLES: Appreciate that.11 Now there is an opportunity for the12 agency, if they choose, to respond to the13 third-party presentation.14 MR. MISKOWICZ-RETZ: Thank you, Mr.15 Chair. We have given you a detailed written16 response to the third-party comments. I don't17 know if all the commissioners receive that or18 just the primary readers receive that. Does19 everyone receive that?20 CHAIR STAPLES: It's available to21 all of us.22 MR. MISKOWICZ-RETZ: Everyone has23 the availability of that. In that one we 1 261 2 1 describe in detail the handling of the2 original complaint that was filed by the3 commenter, I believe, the end of year 2005 to4 2006. At that time we looked at the complaint5 that had been made. It was reviewed6 independently by a subcommittee. You have7 before you the complete file of the review of8 that complaint.9 Since that time there has also been10 a variety of litigation involved regarding11 this matter. As we mentioned in our detailed12 comments, which are found in the supplemental13 narrative to this complaint, the third-party14 commenter does have an active legal complaint15 with the American Osteopathic Association at16 this time.17 I would point out that the key18 point, I believe, that the commenter is trying19 to make and made in his original complaint in20 2006 was around the issue of the fact that the21 NOVA Southeastern University College of22 Osteopathic Medicine had changed its23 graduation requirements to require not only 1 262 2 1 taking but passing Part II of the National2 Board of Osteopathic Medicine COMLEX3 Examinations.4 The commenter is correct in5 pointing out that this was done prior to it6 being a requirement for all of the colleges of7 osteopathic medicine. This was a requirement8 that was under change at that time. It was9 announced and was one that did not go into10 effect for a couple years after that time.11 This matter was brought before the12 Department of Education, I believe in early13 2007. You have in your materials the letter14 of response that came from the U.S. Department15 of Education pointing out that it was16 certainly within a college's purview to have17 standards that exceeded the standards of its18 accrediting agency.19 It was also pointed out by the20 Department of Education at that time that they21 were supportive of increasing the standards22 for graduation in colleges of osteopathic23 medicine. 1 263 2 1 You heard in the oral comments2 today some concerns about monitoring of3 substantive change and of class size change.4 Both of these are well covered in our original5 petition and in the petition materials. 6 With respect to class size change,7 unlike many other accrediting agencies we have8 considered this a substantive change since the9 time that accrediting agencies were required10 to monitor substantive changes. We have an11 extensive procedure for monitoring the sizes12 of the classes at our schools and for also13 monitoring requests for changes in the class14 size increase.15 It is stated that the accrediting16 agency, that is the AOA-COCA, did nothing with17 response to the original complaint. As you18 see in the materials we provided to you, the19 complaint was handled. The complaint was20 processed. 21 The findings at that time were that22 there was no evidence that the college was in23 violation of any standards of accreditation by 1 264 2 1 raising its standards for accreditation to2 include the passing of the Part II exams. 3 If you look through the record that4 we have provided you with, you will find that5 the college provided a very detailed6 explanation of how this was handled with7 regard to the third-party commenter. 8 If you look also through the9 records, particularly of the findings of the10 State of Florida Appellate Court, you will see11 that they essentially found as facts the same12 facts upon which the AOA-COCA relied upon when13 it evaluated the initial complaint.14 With that, I would be happy to15 answer questions, Mr. Chair.16 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you. Are17 there any questions? Doesn't appear so.18 Thank you very much.19 Jennifer, do you have any20 additional comments? Okay.21 Carolyn, any comments or a motion,22 whatever you choose.23 MS. WILLIAMS: Ready for a motion. 1 265 2 1 I move that the NACIQI recommend that AOA-COCA2 requested renewal of recognition with its3 current scope of recognition be granted for a4 period of five years based on the agency's5 compliance with the Secretary's criteria of6 recognition.7 CHAIR STAPLES: Is there a second8 for that motion?9 MR. ROTHKOPF: Second.10 CHAIR STAPLES: It's been moved and11 seconded. Any comments or discussion? Is the12 motion up there for everyone to see it? Okay.13 No further discussion. Then all in favor of14 the motion please raise your hand. All15 opposed? The motion carries.16 Thank you and that completes our17 agency reviews for today.18 Melissa, do you have any -- we do19 have continued discussion among ourselves but20 that is the finishing of our public portion.21 MS. LEWIS: No. I would just like22 to remind everyone that tomorrow's session23 starts at 8:30 in the morning. The first half 1 266 2 1 of the day will be a typical NACIQI meeting2 where we review agencies for recognition.3 Then starting at noon we'll turn our attention4 to the reauthorization of the Higher Education5 Act and of the Secretary's -- the Committee's6 recommendations concerning that.7 CHAIR STAPLES: Do you want to8 mention what we're doing next? We may have to9 take a break because we may not have Marcella10 here yet. She's coming at 3:00?11 MS. LEWIS: Right. For the12 audience's information, as well as the13 members, the rest of the day will be spent14 giving the members their annual required15 ethics training. It's an administrative16 session so that everyone will feel comfortable17 asking questions. Thank you very much and we18 look forward to seeing you tomorrow.19 CHAIR STAPLES: Thank you very much20 as well. We'll take a break until 3:00 when21 we hope Marcella will be here for that.22 PARTICIPANT: She's here.23 CHAIR STAPLES: Okay. We'll take 1 267 2 1 about a 15-minute break.2 (Whereupon, the recorded3 proceedings went off the record at 2:47 p.m.)456789101112131415161718192021

NACIQI Transcript - June 8, 2011 (MS Word)

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support