THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234

 

 

TO:

Committee on Higher Education and Professional Practice

 

FROM:

Johanna Duncan-Poitier

SUBJECT:

Report on Institutional Accreditation by the Board of Regents

 

DATE:

May 3, 2005

 

STRATEGIC GOAL:

Goal 2

 

AUTHORIZATION(S):

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Issue for Discussion

 

          Update and training on the institutional accreditation activities of the Board of Regents and Commissioner of Education.

 

Proposed Handling

 

          Department staff will report on the accreditation activities of the Board of Regents and Commissioner of Education in its role as an accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education.

 

Procedural History

 

Twice a year, members of the Board of Regents receive updates on the accreditation standards, policies, and procedures, as required by the U.S. Department of Education.

 

Background Information

 

Members of the Board of Regents have been engaged in the evaluation of quality in higher education in New York State since 1787.  Since 1952, the federal government has recognized the Board as a nationally recognized accrediting agency.  Most recently, at its June 2004 meeting, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity unanimously voted to recommend to the Secretary of Education an extension of the recognition of the New York State Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Education for a period of three years to October 2007.  The U.S. Secretary of Education, after considering the recommendation, extended the Board’s recognition as recommended by the Committee.

 

Federal criteria for recognition require, among other things, that a recognized accrediting agency, “…competent and knowledgeable individuals, qualified by education and experience in their own right and trained by the agency on its standards, policies, and procedures, to conduct its on-site evaluations, establish its policies, and make its accrediting and preaccrediting decisions.” 

 

Recommendation

 

          N/A

 

Timetable for Implementation

 

          N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment


REPORT ON INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITATION

BY THE BOARD OF REGENTS

 

INTRODUCTION

 

          The federal government has recognized the Board of Regents as a national institutional accrediting agency since 1952.  In October 2002, the U.S. Secretary of Education renewed this recognition of the Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Education for three years and in November 2004, the Secretary extended the term of recognition to October 2007.  

 

          Institutional accreditation is voluntary.  The institutional accreditation process is separate and distinct from the Regents role in the accreditation of teacher education programs.  It is separate and distinct from the Regents authority to approve institutions to operate and from the Commissioner’s authority to register degree and certificate programs. Accreditation is not required for authority to operate or for program registration.  However, only degree-granting institutions that already hold all required State approvals, including degree authority and program registration, may seek accreditation from the Board of Regents and Commissioner of Education.

 

Why would an institution seek accreditation if accreditation is voluntary?  The most compelling reason is that students who attend colleges accredited by an accrediting body recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education are eligible for federal student financial aid (e.g., Pell Grants and student loans).  There are additional reasons for institutions to seek accreditation. The accreditation process verifies that an institution or program meets established standards.  This information may be helpful to consumers in selecting a college.  Accreditation may assist institutions in determining the acceptability of transfer credits.  Private and public agencies often require that an institution be accredited prior to investing funds or providing grants to that institution.

Accreditation is important to the institution as an impetus for self-reflection and continued improvement.  It assists the institution in creating a culture of involvement across the college or university in institutional evaluation and planning. Accreditation also provides a unique process for peer review and constructive feedback and recommendations for improvement.

The Regents Advisory Council on Institutional Accreditation (RAC) is a key external accreditation component of the Regents institutional accreditation process.  It has nine voting members who are educators and public representatives. Its purpose is to review applications for accreditation and renewal of accreditation of New York colleges and universities voluntarily seeking accreditation by the Regents and the Commissioner and to make recommendations to the Regents and the Commissioner based on its review. The RAC also reviews such other matters as the Department may ask it to review.  It also advises the Department on institutional accreditation procedures, standards, and policies (§3.12(d)(1) of the Regents Rules).

The RAC meets twice a year to review all applications for accreditation and renewal of accreditation that are submitted to it by the Deputy Commissioner for Higher Education. The organization, procedures and responsibilities of the RAC are set forth in its bylaws. Attachment A is a list of the current members of the RAC.

Twenty of the 268 colleges and universities in New York State (7.5 percent) have been granted institutional accreditation by the Regents.   Of the 20 institutions, 14 (70 percent) are independent colleges and universities and 6 (30 percent) are proprietary colleges.  The size and scope of institutions vary greatly. Twelve of the institutions (60 percent) offer undergraduate programs (3 at the baccalaureate level and 9 at the associate level); the other 8 institutions (40 percent) offer only graduate programs and do not enroll undergraduates.  In the fall of 2004, the accredited institutions enrolled a total of 12,150 students with the smallest enrollment, 3 graduate students, at North Shore-Long Island Jewish Graduate School of Molecular Medicine. The largest enrollment is at Interboro Institute where 3,829 students are seeking associate degrees.

 

This report has three parts:  a summary of accreditation actions; a summary of the peer review training and selection; and an update on the process for renewal of the recognition of the Board of Regents and Commissioner of Education as an institutional accrediting agency.

 

Discussion of this report will meet the federal requirement to update the Board of Regents twice a year on accreditation standards, policies, and procedures.  Federal regulations require every recognized accrediting agency to assure that it has “competent and knowledgeable individuals, qualified by education and experience in their own right and trained by the agency on its standards, policies, and procedures, to conduct its on-site evaluations, establish its policies, and make its accrediting and preaccrediting decisions.”  An accrediting agency also must maintain a systematic program of review of its accreditation standards to demonstrate that the standards are adequate to evaluate the quality of the education and training provided and relevant to the educational and training needs of students.  The Department included such a program of evaluation in the application for renewal of recognition. 

 

PART I - ACCREDITATION ACTIONS

 

The Regents accreditation action is the culmination of an intensive process of review:

 

Ø     An institution applying for voluntary accreditation must submit a self-study.  This comprehensive process should involve the entire community of the college under review. The self-study requires an examination of the institution and the contributions of its departments to the institution as a whole. The process is intended to assure compliance with the accreditation standards as well as to help identify areas that need strengthening and suggest future actions.

 

Ø     The self-study and supporting documents are reviewed by a peer review team and the team conducts a site visit, led by Department staff.  The comprehensive site visit results in a draft report.

 

Ø     The institution has an opportunity to respond to the report to correct errors of fact and provide additional information.

 

Ø     The institution’s response, the review team’s recommendation for accreditation and the draft report comprise the compliance report.

 

Ø     The compliance report and other materials are reviewed by the RAC at its bi-annual meeting.  Presentation by staff, the institution’s representatives, and readers from the RAC contribute to the process.

 

Ø     After review, the RAC makes its recommendation to the Commissioner and the Board of Regents.

 

Ø     In the case of a recommendation that is other than accreditation without condition, the institution and/or the Deputy Commissioner has the right to appeal the RAC’s accreditation decision as set forth in Section 4-1.5(b)(9) of Regents Rules.

 

Ø     If neither the institution nor the Deputy Commissioner appeals the RAC’s findings and recommendation, the Commissioner adopts the RAC’s findings and recommendation as the Commissioner’s findings and recommendation to the Regents.

 

Ø     At a regularly scheduled public meeting, the Board of Regents considers the Commissioner’s findings and recommendation and makes the final determination on accreditation action.

 

The Regents may act or defer action in the accreditation process. The possible accreditation actions under the Protocol for the Review of Institutions Seeking Accreditation or Renewal of Accreditation, as listed in the Handbook for Institutional Accreditation, are:

 

·        Accreditation without condition.  The institution is in full compliance with the standards for institutional accreditation.  Any follow-up matters are not, in the judgment of the Regents, of a nature or scope that affects the institution’s capacity to maintain adherence to the institutional accreditation standards for the period of accreditation.  Recommendations or any follow-up reports relate either to minor compliance matters or to the strengthening of practices that meet the standards of compliance.  Accreditation without condition may be for a period of up to ten years.  Accreditation without condition may apply to institutions seeking initial accreditation or renewal of accreditation.

 

·        Accreditation with condition. The institution is in substantial compliance with the standards for institutional accreditation.  Any areas of non-compliance are not of such nature or scope as to call into question the institution’s substantive adherence to the institutional accreditation standards during the term of accreditation.  The institution has demonstrated the intent and capacity to rectify identified deficiencies and strengthen practice in marginally acceptable matters within no more than two years.  Department accreditation staff and/or peer reviewers may make follow-up visits to confirm compliance on specified matters.  Accreditation with condition may be for a period of up to ten years, contingent on a finding of compliance within no more than two years on any areas for deficiency cited in the Regents accreditation action.  Accreditation with condition may apply to institutions seeking initial accreditation or renewal of accreditation.

 

·        Probationary accreditation.  The institution is in partial compliance with institutional accreditation standards and may reasonably be expected to meet accreditation standards within no more than two years.  During this period, the institution provides documentation of compliance with standards, particularly all standards that were not met at the time of the Regents action.  A follow-up visit by Department staff and/or peer reviewers may be required following provision of a required report. Probationary accreditation may apply only to institutions seeking renewal of accreditation.

 

·        Denial of accreditation.  The institution does not meet standards for institutional accreditation and cannot reasonably be expected to meet those standards within two years.  Denial of accreditation may apply to institutions seeking initial accreditation or renewal of accreditation.

 

During the past five years, the Regents have deferred action once and extended the terms of two institutions pending accreditation reviews and action. The attached chart details the accreditation actions of the Regents since 2000.  In summary, the Regents have taken the following actions:

 

Ø      Accreditation without conditions:        13 institutions

 

Ø      Accreditation with conditions:            11 institutions

 

Ø      Probationary accreditation:               1 institution

 

Ø      Denial of accreditation:                     1 institution

 

 Both the RAC and the Board of Regents have amended accreditation recommendations after a thoughtful review of an institution’s accreditation materials.  The following illustrates the changes from the review team/staff recommendation to Regents action.

 

·        18 accreditation recommendations were adopted without change from the review team’s* recommendation to the RAC to the Regents.

 

·        Six accreditation recommendations were changed by the RAC from the review team’s recommendation; the Regents adopted the RAC changes.

 

·        The Regents changed three accreditation recommendations from the review team/RAC’s recommendation.

 

·        One recommendation was changed by the RAC, and changed again by the Regents.

 

Please see Attachment B for a complete list of all accreditation actions since 2001.

 

Requirements for maintaining accreditation.  The institutions that received accreditation are required to submit annual reports to the Department and a self-study at the mid-point of the accreditation period.  The Department may use what it learns from the annual reports and mid-term self-study to raise questions about compliance with the standards and may schedule a site visit to review compliance, if necessary.

 

Requirements for institutions achieving accreditation with conditions.  The institutions that received accreditation with conditions were found to have areas needing improvement but are in substantial compliance with the accreditation standards.  They generally received shorter accreditation terms than institutions achieving accreditation without condition, and are required to make specific reports on the areas of improvement identified, in addition to the annual reports and mid-term self-studies required of all accredited institutions.  The Department may schedule a site visit to review specific areas, if necessary.

 

Requirements for institutions granted probationary accreditation.  The institution granted probationary accreditation was found not to be in substantial compliance with one or more standards; however, the Regents determined that the institution had reasonable prospects of coming into compliance within two years.  The institution was required to make periodic progress reports.  Peer review teams visited the institution towards the end of the probationary period to review compliance with the standards at issue.  The Regents subsequently determined that the institution met the standards for accreditation but required additional reports of progress in specified areas in order to monitor its continuing compliance.

 

Denial of accreditation.  One institution was denied accreditation.  That institution appealed the action and the appeals process was utilized for the first time.  A standing committee of members of the Board of Regents Higher Education and Professional Practice Committee were appointed to hear the appeal.  The appeal was subsequently denied and the accreditation action was upheld by the full Board of Regents. 

Renewal of Accreditation.  The initial and renewal of accreditation process follow the accreditation process outlined earlier in this report.

 

 

PART II - THE PROCESS FOR RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION

 

In the fall of 2006, the Department will submit an application to the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) for renewal of recognition. The National Advisory Committee will consider the application in the spring of 2007.  USDE staff provide guidance in submission of the application. 

 

 The application will include the Department’s report on the comprehensive review of the Regents Institutional Accreditation Standards in assuring quality in higher education.  The standards must be reviewed continually for relevance and effectiveness in assuring quality in higher education.  The current review process began in 2002.   In November 2003, the Department provided the Secretary of Education with an update on its progress in this review. The report summarized the results of two constituent surveys and two colloquia for accredited institutions that the Department hosted, one in the fall of 2002 and one in the fall of 2003.  A third colloquium was held in the fall of 2004.  At the conclusion of the colloquium, representatives of the accredited institutions and others attending the session completed the detailed review of each accreditation standard and the standards as a whole.  Immediately following the colloquium, the Regents Advisory Council on Institutional Accreditation met to review all the input to-date from the various constituency groups.  The Advisory Council continued its review of the suggested revisions to the standards at its December 2004 and April 2005 meetings. In the fall of 2005, the Department will update the Board of Regents on any proposed revisions in the accreditation standards for consideration, followed by a period of public comment.  Regents action would then be necessary to revise the accreditation standards. 

 

The Department has submitted a State legislative proposal to require institutions that requested accreditation by the Board of Regents to pay an annual fee. All other accrediting agencies charge a fee for their services. With the Department’s responsibility for both institutional accreditation and Regents Accreditation of Teacher Education (RATE), additional resources will allow us to continue these functions while at the same time provide other services the Office of College and University Evaluation is required to do pursuant to Commissioner’s Regulations.  The status of this proposal will also be included in the Department’s application to USDE.

 

  

PART III – PEER REVIEWER TRAINING

 

As part of the accreditation process, a peer review team conducts a site visit to the institution seeking accreditation to examine how the institution is addressing the Regents standards for accreditation.  Training the peer reviewers is an important part of the process.

The Office of Higher Education held its third training of peer reviewers in March 2005.  Twenty-six trainees (See Attachment C) attended the March session, representing the public, the independent and the proprietary colleges and universities.  All New York colleges and universities were asked to nominate persons to attend the training, based on criteria provided.  Twenty-eight peer reviewers were selected after a review of all nominations; two were not able to attend.  In the selection process of the trainees, Department staff considered the types of institutions the Regents accredit and gaps in the existing pool of reviewers.  For example, several graduate institutions are now accredited by the Regents, many in the area of the biological sciences.  The nomination and selection process made the training of reviewers with this background a priority.  As a result, the Department has a well-rounded pool of reviewers.

 

The Regents have asked how reviewers are selected for a visit.  Consideration is given to the type of institution, the size of the institution, the programs it offers, and any areas of particular concern that have been identified in the self-study process, the annual report, or other reports and data the Department has reviewed.  The reviewers must sign a statement attesting that there is no conflict of interest and the institution reviews the proposed site visit team list.  An institution may object to a reviewer for cause.  The objection is recognized and the reviewer replaced.  Consideration is also given to the geographic location of a college to avoid using reviewers from competing institutions.

 

A review team is usually comprised of four or five reviewers but may vary depending on the institution and the purpose of the visit.  For example, on the visit to Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the review team was comprised of an Associate Vice Chancellor at the University of Connecticut at Stamford; a Professor and a Professor-Emeritus of Biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and an Associate Professor of Molecular Biology at Princeton University.  The accreditation visit to Wood-Tobe Coburn School, Inc., a small proprietary college in Manhattan, included a Professor of Graphic Arts at Tompkins Cortland Community College; a Professor of Marketing/Retail/Fashion at Nassau Community College; the Assistant Dean of Academic Affairs at Schenectady County Community College; a Professor of Business and Accounting at the College of St. Rose; an Associate Professor of Fashion Design at Cazenovia College; and the Dean of Academic Affairs at North Country Community College.                  

 

An electronic database is maintained as well as a file of the resume of each reviewer.  Expanding the pool of reviewers through the comprehensive training process will continue to be a priority.

 

SUMMARY

 

The Department has seen substantial growth by institutions going through the Regents accreditation process. Institutions have informed Department staff and the Regents Advisory Council on Institutional Accreditation on the ways in which this process has helped to strengthen the institution.

The Regents accreditation standards and the institutional accreditation policies and procedures have been tested and the process works well.  The comprehensive review of the standards; and possible revisions of some of the standards as a result of the reviews at the three colloquia, will lead to a strengthening of the process.  The Department will provide members of the Board of Regents with the suggested revisions to their accreditation standards in the fall of 2005.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Attachment A

 

 

Regents Advisory Council on Institutional Accreditation

Member List

 

 

Russell K. Hotzler

Vice Chancellor for Academic Program Planning

The City University of New York

New York, NY

Advisory Council Chair

Term ends June 30, 2005

 

David Lavalee

Provost and Vice President

  for Academic Affairs

State University College at New Paltz

New Paltz, NY

Term ends: June 30, 2006

Barbara Bartoletti, Legislative Director

New York State League of Women

Voters

Albany, NY

Public Member

Term ends: June 30, 2006

 

Geraldine Pasternak, Professor

Kingsborough Community College

Brooklyn, NY

Term ends: June 30, 2007

 

Charles Callahan III, Vice President

   and Chief Operating Officer

Plaza College

Jackson Heights, NY

Term ends: June 30, 2007

David John Rhodes, President

School of Visual Arts

New York, NY

Advisory Council Vice Chair

Term ends: June 30, 2006

Lilian Gann, Dean

Watson School of Biological Sciences

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Cold Spring Harbor, NY

Term ends: June 30, 2007

 

David J. Triggle

University Distinguished Professor

 of Biochemical Pharmacology

State University of New York at Buffalo

Buffalo, NY

Term ends: June 30, 2006

 

Katherine Webb, Ph.D.

Albany, NY

Public Member

Term ends: June 30, 2005

Johanna Duncan-Poitier

Deputy Commissioner for Higher Education

Ex Officio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Attachment B

 

Accreditation Actions – 2000 through 2005

 

 

Institution

Accreditation Staff Preliminary Recommendation

Regents Advisory Council on Institutional Accreditation Recommendation to Regents (RAC)

Regents

Final Accreditation Action

American Academy of

Dramatic Arts

 (F)

Renew accreditation for a period (of 10 years) ending 2011

Adopted Accreditation Staff recommendation

December 20, 2001

 

Adopted RAC recommendation

 

Bramson ORT

(F)

Deferral of renewal of accreditation for a period of one year

Deferral of renewal of institutional accreditation not to exceed 2 years  (until proposed changes in a number of areas have been satisfactorily documented which may take up to 2 years)

November 2, 2002

 

Defer for 2 years – institution shall provide progress reports on all areas identified by RAC

 

Bramson ORT (#2)

 (F)

Renew accreditation for a period of ten years with reports due (as listed)

Renew accreditation for a period of ten years with progress reports due

December 13, 2002

 

 Adopted RAC recommendation

 

Bryant & Stratton (all campuses)

(T)

Grant probationary accreditation for a period not to exceed 2 years from time of Regents action, with conditions for removal of action as specified.  Require Institute to provide reports to SED as specified in Summary of Recommendations, Responses and Findings

Accreditation with conditions pending a determination by the US Secretary of Education whether or not institution meets Federal standards of financial responsibility

December 13, 2002

Concurs with RAC and requests RAC review at its spring meeting B&S’s compliance with accreditation standards and make such report and recommendation to Regents as may be warranted by Institute circumstances at that time

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (F)

Renew accreditation for a period (of 10 years) ending 2011

Adopted Accreditation Staff recommendation

December 20, 2001

Adopted RAC recommendation

Gamla College

(T)

Probationary accreditation for a period of two years with a progress report due December 2004 and a final report and site visit prior to the end of the probationary accreditation period

Gamla College be granted probationary accreditation for a period of two years, beginning December 12, 2003 and ending December 12, 2005, and that during that period, the College shall provide the reports described

December 12, 2003

HPE Committee recommends and Regents endorse: RAC recommendation is denied.  HPE recommends and Regents endorse: Gamla College be denied an extension of institutional accreditation on the basis of the College's failure to meet accreditation standards in the areas of assessment of student achievement, graduation rates, curricula, resources, and administration.

 

Globe Institute of Technology

(T)

Extend accreditation with conditions for a period of 4 years.

Extend accreditation with conditions (adding that reporting dates recommended in final report be added after the work “conditions” to the Committee’s recommendation to the Regents) for a period of 4 years

May 22, 2002

HPE Committee amended RAC recommendation to extend institutional accreditation only to May 21, 2005 (a period of 3 years) – Regents endorsed and adopted Committee’s recommendation

 

Graduate College of Union University

 (F)

Grant accreditation for a period ending 2014

Adopted Accreditation Staff recommendation

September 10, 2004

Adopted RAC recommendation

 

Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary

(T)

Confirm and extend accreditation for a period of five years, with stipulation

Extend accreditation for a period of five years

March 19, 2002

Adopted RAC recommendation

 

 

 

Institute of Design and Construction

(F)

 

Accreditation with conditions for a period of 10 years

Adopted Accreditation Staff recommendation

November 9, 2001

Adopted RAC recommendation

 

Interboro (1st action)

(F)

Probationary accreditation for a period of 2 years

 

Probationary accreditation with “recommended actions” attached to that recommendation.

 

October 5, 2001

Adopted RAC recommendation

 

 

Interboro (2nd action)

(F)

Renew accreditation for a period of 5 years (beginning October 1, 2003) with conditions

Adopted Accreditation Staff rec. with statements added to accreditation action: With particular focus on extension site outcomes…(see conditions in RAC recommendation). It is recommended that the Department curtail approval of additional ext centers and sites until evidence of their effectiveness is provided

June 17, 2003

 Adopted RAC recommendation

 

The King’s College

(T)

Extend accreditation with conditions for a period of 3 years

Adopted Accreditation Staff recommendation

March 19, 2002

Adopted RAC recommendation

 

The King’s College

 

Renew accreditation with condition.  Period of accreditation: 5 years (March 18, 2005 and ending March 17, 2010)

Endorsed Accreditation Staff recommendation

March 15, 2005

Renewed institutional accreditation for one year effective March 18, 2005 and ending March 17, 2006

 

(Graduate School of Figurative Art of the) New York Academy of Art

(T)

Extend accreditation with conditions for a period of 3 years

Adopted Accreditation Staff recommendation

May 22, 2002

Adopted RAC recommendation

 

New York Academy of Art

Term of accreditation be extended from May 21, 2005 to May 21, 2006

N/A

March 15, 2005

Extended the expiration date of the terms of accreditation from May 21, 2005 to May 21, 2006

 

New York Career Institute

(T)

Confirm compliance and extend accreditation for a period ending 2007 (5 years)

Adopted Accreditation Staff recommendation

December 13, 2002

Adopted RAC recommendation

 

 

Northeastern Seminary

(T)

 Confirm compliance and extend accreditation for a period ending 2007

Adopted Accreditation Staff recommendation

May 22, 2002

 

Adopted RAC recommendation

 

 

Picower Graduate School of Molecular Medicine

(T)

Extend accreditation for a period of four years

Adopted Accreditation Staff recommendation

March 19, 2002

Adopted RAC recommendation with the stipulation that a report on any substantive changes under the School’s new institutional affiliation be provided with the annual report.  The report must contain information on the application pool, those accepted and those who enter the pool.  (Although contained in Staff Summary –it is not included as part of recommendation)

 

 

Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary

(T)

Confirm and extend accreditation for a period of five years…with reports due

Adopted Accreditation Staff recommendation

December 13, 2002

Adopted RAC recommendation

 

 

The Rockefeller University

(T)

Extend accreditation for a period of 5 years

Adopted Accreditation Staff recommendation

March 19, 2002

 

Adopted RAC recommendation

Salvation Army School for Officer Training

(F)

Grant accreditation for a ten year period ending 2015

Endorsed the Staff preliminary recommendation

January 11, 2005

 

Grant institutional accreditation effective immediately and ending on January 10, 2015

Sunbridge College

(T)

Confirm and extend accreditation with conditions for 5 years

Adopted Accreditation Staff recommendation

March 19, 2002

 

 Adopted RAC recommendation

 

 

Technical Career Institutes

(T)

Extend accreditation for a period ending in 2005, with conditions

Adopted Accreditation Staff recommendation

May 22, 2002

 Adopted RAC recommendation

 

Technical Career Institutes

Term of accreditation be extended from May 21, 2005 to May 21, 2006

 

March 15, 2005

Extended the expiration date of the terms of accreditation from May 21, 2005 to May 21, 2006

Utica School of Commerce

(F)

Accreditation with conditions for a period of 10 years

Adopted Accreditation Staff recommendation - with the recommendation that reports be due six months later than proposed dates

November 9, 2001

Adopted RAC recommendation

 

 

 

Wood/Tobe-Coburn School Inc.

(T)

Extend accreditations with conditions for a period of 3 years

Adopted Accreditation Staff with modified conditions

March 19, 2002

 Adopted RAC recommendation

 

Wood/Tobe-Coburn School, Inc.

 

Renew accreditation with condition.  Period of accreditation: 10 years

 Adopted Accreditation Staff recommendation

January 11, 2005

Adopted RAC recommendation


Participants

March 29, 2005

Institutional Accreditation Peer Reviewer Training

 

Robert Adelberg

Coordinator of Accounting

Bramson ORT College

Forest Hills, New York

John M. Anderson, Ph.D.

Vice President for Academic Affairs

Hartwick College

Oneonta, New York

Stuart Blacklaw

Dean, Curriculum & Program Development

Monroe Community College

Rochester, New York

Avrom J. Caplan, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Mt. Sinai School of Medicine of NYU

Dept. of Pharmacology & Biological Chemistry

New York, New York

Mary A. Chance, Director

Office of Graduate Management Studies

St. Joseph’s College

Patchogue, New York

Jerome A. Contee, Ph.D.

Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs

Fordham University

Bronx, New York

Celia A. Evans, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Ecology

Paul Smith’s College

Paul Smiths, New York

Barnett W. Hamberger

Assistant Chancellor

New York University

New York, New York

Rose Mary Healy, Ph.D.

Senior Vice President, Academic Affairs

Berkeley College

West Paterson, New Jersey

Kate S. Herzog

Learning Resources Center Administrator

ITT Technical Institute

Getzville, New York

Harvey Hoffman, Ph.D.

Vice President for Academic Affairs

Technical Career Institute

New York, New York 

 

Shanthi Konkoth

Vice President of Education

ASA Inst. of Bus. & Computer Technology

Brooklyn, New York

Victoria Koprucki, Ph.D.

Prof. & Dir. of Practical Nursing Program

Trocaire College

Buffalo, New York 

 

J. Clay McDonald, Esq.

Executive Vice President of Academic Affairs

New York Chiropractic College

Seneca Falls, New York

Anne C. Myers, Ph.D.

Vice President for Academic Affairs

SUNY College of Agriculture & Technology at Cobleskill

Cobleskill, New York

Frank J. Nicchi, Ph.D., President

New York Chiropractic College

Seneca Falls, New York

Chris C. Osuanah

Department Head & Associate Professor

Business Technologies Department

Dutchess Community College

Poughkeepsie, New York

Maria Palmara, Chairperson

English, Modern Language, and ESL Department

Hudson Valley Community College

Troy, New York

David Potash, Associate Provost

CUNY Bernard M. Baruch College

New York, New York

Mary Reuchlin Rifkin, Ph.D.

Director of Academic Programs

Mt. Sinai School of Medicine of NYU

New York, New York

Elizabeth Ross, Ph.D.

Associate Provost

New School University

New York, New York

Karen Schuhle-Williams

Executive Director

SUNY Brockport Metro Center

Rochester, New York

Neil Surprenant

Dir. of Library & Educational Resources

Paul Smith’s College

Paul Smiths, New York

Phillip Taylor, III, Ph.D.

Dean of Science, Library Arts, and Business

Paul Smith’s College

Paul Smiths, New York

Jeffrey P. Tredo

WNY Market Director

Bryant & Stratton College

Buffalo, New York

Saul B. Troen, Ph.D.

Professor

Bramson ORT College

Forest Hills, New York

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



* State Education Department staff participate in the site visit and recommendations put forth by the review team.