The Commission is seeking public comments on five policies, one guide, revised definitions for the Handbook of Accreditation, and a companion document. For more information, click the link below. Please send comments to policies@wscuc.org by January 18, 2027. The Commission will review and consider all comments for adoption at its February 2027 meeting. In addition, the Commission approved one new document for the Handbook of Accreditation.
 

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS

Definitions of Notice of Concern, Warning, Probation, and Order to Show Cause (to be incorporated in the Handbook of Accreditation, 2023 Revised)

The Commission has revised these definitions to draw clearer distinctions among the sanctions. The revised definitions describe the noncompliance that warrants a Warning, Probation, or an Order to Show Cause. They also state that decisions about Notices of Concern and sanctions rest on the Commission’s judgment, applied to the full record of each institution. After the comment period, the revised definitions will be incorporated into the Handbook.

Staff contact: Barbara Gross Davis
 

Notice of Concern and Sanctions: Questions to Consider (to be posted on the WSCUC website)

This new document poses questions, grouped by theme, to guide peer reviewers and the Commission in distinguishing significant from substantial noncompliance. It emphasizes professional judgment applied to the full record of each institution and makes clear that no single finding determines a particular action. It also includes questions for assessing the progress of institutions already under sanction.

Staff contact: Barbara Gross Davis
 

Institutional Appeals Policy

This policy, first created in 2013, has been revised to improve clarity, organization, and transparency. Provisions on new evidence have been moved into a separate policy (see below), and the standard of review has been clarified and applied consistently throughout. Appeal panels must now receive advice from independent counsel, and panel members must complete training before hearing an appeal. A new provision allows the Commission, in limited circumstances, to rescind an action that is unsupported by the record or that would be unfair or unjust to the institution.

Staff contact: Barbara Gross Davis
 

Reconsideration of Adverse Commission Action and New Evidence Review Policy (new)

This new policy establishes the new evidence proceeding, previously part of the appeals process, as a standalone reconsideration procedure that precedes any formal appeal. Under specified conditions, institutions may present new evidence of compliance for the Commission’s review. The policy meets U.S. Department of Education requirements for appeals involving financial matters, and the Commission has chosen to apply it more broadly, as the Department permits. Separating the two processes streamlines appeals and allows some cases to be resolved without the cost of a formal appeal.

Staff contact: Barbara Gross Davis
 

Agreements with Unaccredited Entities Policy

This policy, last revised in 2015, has been updated to reflect changes in federal regulations. A summary table now shows what institutions must do in each situation. Prior approval is required for arrangements covering more than 25 but less than 50 percent of a program. Arrangements covering 25 percent or less of a program require notification to WSCUC within 30 days, or prior approval for institutions on probation, under recent negative action, or on provisional certification. Arrangements of 50 percent or more will not be approved. The policy also defines how to calculate an entity’s share of a program and adds sections on scope, decision timelines, federal eligibility, distance education, gap-year programs, and student disclosure.

Staff contact: John Hausaman
 

Agreements with Unaccredited Entities Guide

This Guide, last revised in 2017, accompanies the policy and helps institutions apply it in practice. It has been substantially revised to align with the revised policy, federal regulations (34 CFR 668.5), and Department of Education guidance (GEN-22-07). Agreements must now state who employs and pays instructors, the delivery method, estimated costs to students, and whether materials may be adapted.

Staff contact: John Hausaman
 

Dues and Fees Policy (new)

WSCUC’s dues and fees are currently set out only in the Dues and Fees Schedule. This new policy establishes a Commission policy covering the basis for dues, the obligation to pay, billing procedures, late payment, transparency, and the consequences of nonpayment.

Staff contact: Christopher Oberg
 

Institutional Litigation Policy (redistributing for additional comments)

This policy requires institutions to notify the Commission of pending litigation or legal actions with non-WSCUC parties that are material to their ability to meet Commission Standards and policies. The Commission does not comment on the merits of such matters; its interest is limited to compliance. The revision provides more detail, clarifies notification procedures, and describes how peer review teams may be informed. It may be helpful to consult with the institution’s leadership, including its general counsel, who may have valuable feedback to provide om this policy.

Staff contact: Barbara Gross Davis
 

Institutional Emergencies and Disruptions Policy (new)

Institutions may face events beyond their control, such as natural disasters, pandemics, campus violence, cyberattacks, or unforeseen changes that make full compliance temporarily impossible. This new policy, consistent with federal regulations, provides a defined process for institutions to request continued accreditation while temporarily out of compliance. It gives institutions predictability about what to submit and allows the Commission to respond quickly and consistently.

Staff contact: Barbara Gross Davis
 

APPROVED HANDBOOK DOCUMENT

Engagement with WSCUC Between Reaffirmations (added to the Handbook of Accreditation, 2023 Revised)

This new document explains why the Commission engages with institutions between reaffirmation reviews and distinguishes the three mechanisms: Progress Report, Interim Report, and Special Visit. It outlines the process and typical use of each and provides criteria for determining which is appropriate.