Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regulatory Proposal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bureau proposes new regulations to standardize accreditation verification; committee suggests templates for accreditor letters
Summary
BPPE staff proposed amendments to require detailed information when institutions apply for approval by means of accreditation, including dates of accreditation, owners, locations, program details, custodian of records and agent for service of process. Committee members recommended a standard template or form to reduce burdens on accreditors and
The bureau presented draft regulatory text to tighten the information required when an institution seeks approval to operate “by means of accreditation” and during renewals.
“We're proposing regulations that clearly spell out what information must be provided,” Deputy Bureau Chief Manila Longmeni said, describing the bureau’s need for accreditation date, ownership information, locations, program offerings, an agent for service of process and the custodian of records.
Regulation specialist Parker Strohmeyer summarized proposed edits to California Code of Regulations sections 71390 and 71480 (draft language reorganizes subsection b and adds new subparts). The draft asks for accreditation period dates, owner names and ownership percentages, addresses of accredited locations, program lists with credential levels and hours/units, the institution’s custodian of records, and an explicit acknowledgment that accredited institutions must comply with all requirements of the Education Code and bureau rules.
Strohmeyer said the bureau had discussed the proposal with multiple accrediting agencies and listed several that had been contacted. Committee members recommended providing a standard template or form that institutions could submit and accreditors could sign to streamline the process. Michael Zimmerman raised concerns about administrative burden for widely held ownership structures and suggested a percentage threshold rather than listing every stockholder. Licensing leadership and committee members supported the template idea to create consistent, machine‑readable submissions.
Status: the refund policies rulemaking package is moving toward finalization; the approval‑by‑means‑of‑accreditation proposal remains in internal development and will proceed through DCA review and public notice steps.
Why it matters: clearer, standardized accreditation verifications can reduce repeated back‑and‑forth with institutions and accreditors, shortening licensing timelines while ensuring the bureau has the information needed to enforce state law.
What’s next: bureau staff will accept committee input, incorporate feedback such as a template letter, and continue DCA internal reviews before formal public notice and comment.
