Okla. Admin. Code § 712:10-5-1

Current through Vol. 42, No. 4, November 1, 2024

Section 712:10-5-1 - Teacher Preparation Program Accreditation And Review Process

(a) Oklahoma teacher education institutions function under an 'accreditation program' system which requires the evaluation of teacher education units and programs on a periodic basis.

(b) Beginning July 1, 1997 institutions which have no accredited teacher education program and which desire to initiate a certificate program shall follow the format outlined herein based on Standards for Oklahoma Accredited Teacher Education Programs and Institutional Plan (see 712:10-5-3) . Institutional plans are defined as plans developed and prepared utilizing input from education stakeholders (teacher preparation faculty, arts and science faculty, teacher candidates, teachers, administrators, business and community leaders, and parents) which follow the general guidelines and standards for pre-service teacher preparation programs outlined in sections 712:10-5-3. On July 1, 1997 the Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation, hereafter referred to as the Commission, shall assume responsibility for accrediting all teacher education programs in Oklahoma's public and private institutions of higher education.

(c) The program accreditation system shall be a multifaceted system based on:

(1) A competency-based teacher preparation program built around the Standards for Oklahoma Accredited Teacher Education Programs and State Department of Education Competencies, herein after referred to as SDE;

(2) Institution plans as outlined in the Standards for Oklahoma Accredited Teacher Education Programs and Institution Plan Format;

(3) On-site accreditation review team visits to the campuses of the institutions of higher education;

(4) Analysis of data related to student success rates on the general education, professional education, and subject matter assessments;

(5) Analysis of student satisfaction data;

(6) Analysis of student/teacher candidate portfolios.

(d) Beginning January 1, 1997 all institutions of higher education with teacher education programs must submit an initial institutional plan outlining how the institution will respond to those standards identified in the Oklahoma Standards for Accredited Teacher Education Programs and Initial Institution Plan (See 712:10-5-3, and OS 70 sections 6-199 through 6-202.)

(1) All initial plans will be reviewed by the Program Accreditation Committee, hereafter referred to as the PAC and recommendations for accreditation for seven years, accreditation for two years with a focused visit, accreditation for two years with a full visit, defer decision or denial of accreditation will be forwarded to the Commission within sixty days of submission.

(2) All PAC members and a minimum of ten prospective members will receive performance training on how to evaluate the initial plans. Only those members demonstrating proficiency in evaluation will be allowed to evaluate the plans.

(3) The performance-based training will be conducted by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, hereinafter referred to as NCATE and/or their designee.

(4) Any Commission member or Commission appointee who is involved in any evaluation and/or accreditation decision related to any teacher education unit and/or program must complete the performance-based training related to the review and accreditation of teacher education units and/or programs prior to voting and/or participating on any accreditation decisions.

(5) Prior to being accredited each institution must meet the NCATE preconditions for accreditation and all requirements of the OCTP, and/or receive the approval of the OSRHE when applicable, and provide required documentation for each precondition.

(A) The institution is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, age, or handicap (consistent with Section 702 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which deals with exemptions for religious corporations, with respect to employment of individuals with specific religious convictions).

(B) A copy of the institution's official action pledging compliance with nondiscriminatory law and practice.

(e) Beginning July 1, 1997 the Commission will become a performance-based partner with the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education (State Regents) and NCATE. All teacher education programs shall be expected to meet all NCATE unit and program standards, SDE competencies, as well as all additional standards established by the Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation.

(1) Application form. The application form containing the required information will be completed by the director of teacher education at the institution seeking Commission accreditation for the teacher education certificate programs.

(2) Institutional plan. The institutional plan shall be utilized by the Commission for program accreditation, State Regents program review, and NCATE accreditation. An institutional plan addressing the standards as outlined in the Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation Standards for Oklahoma Accredited Teacher Education Programs and Institution Plan and criteria established in these rules and as stipulated in OS 70 sections 6-180 through 202 will be sent to the Commission office along with the application form according to the established timeline.

(3) Records to be kept on file at the institution. The following items and records shall be kept on file at the institution with the director/dean of teacher education.

(A) Copy of the institution plan;

(B) Copy of annual report to the Commission;

(C) Syllabi for courses in the areas of specialization, general education, and professional education will be kept on file with the institution; and

(D) Full faculty resumes will be on file for review. All levels of teaching personnel will be indicated.

(E) Copies of program review reports.

(F) Candidate CEOE scores.

(4) Timelines for evaluation process.

(A) The Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation personnel will establish an accreditation visit schedule in collaboration with the State Regents, NCATE and the institution dean/director of teacher education.

(B) Upon approval by the governing board of the institution, two copies of the institution report and supporting materials including the college catalog shall be sent to the Commission office 75 days prior to the accreditation visit. Upon receiving the names and addresses of the visiting accreditation review team, the institution shall send copies of all documentation to the members of the visiting accreditation review team.

(C) The visiting committee selection process shall be completed a minimum sixty (60) days prior to the accreditation visit.

(D) The on-site accreditation evaluation will be conducted over a three to five day period.

(E) After finalizing the team draft report which results from the accreditation visit, and within fourteen days of the accreditation visit, the team chair shall send the draft report to team members and Commission professional personnel for editing.

(F) Within twenty-one days of the visit the team members and the Commission office shall return their comments and recommendations on the report to the team chair. The chair makes corrections to the report, as appropriate, and sends a copy to the unit head at the institution for factual corrections.

(G) Within twenty-eight days of the visit but not less than five days of the receipt of the report, the unit head sends factual corrections in writing to the team chair. The chair makes changes at his/her discretion, finalizes the report and sends one copy to the Commission office. The report shall be in the format determined by the Commission.

(H) The Commission staff will copy the report with a cover that includes the name of the institution, its location, and the date of the visit.

(I) Utilizing the procedures outlined in 712:10-5-1(e)(8) the Commission will make a final decision regarding the accreditation of the institution's certificate program(s). That decision will be based on the findings and recommendations of the Commission Program Accreditation Committee and any additional information which may be presented by the institution under review.

(J) All certification program reviews must be submitted to NCATE or to the Commission no later than 12 months prior to the first accreditation visit and according to the established NCATE/OCTP timeline prior to a continuing accreditation visit.

(5) Selection of accreditation review team. Selection of the accreditation review team will be coordinated by the Commission staff as soon as possible after the visitation dates are set. All accreditation review team members shall be determined within sixty (60) days prior to the accreditation review team visit. Selection of the accreditation review team shall be based on the following:

(A) All team members must have been trained by NCATE staff and/or their designee in the application of NCATE standards and on the process for evaluating programs for the Commission.

(B) Accreditation team for first accreditation. The membership of a first accreditation review team shall be as follows:

(i) Three to six representatives from the NCATE Board of Examiners (for NCATE accredited institutions).

(ii) State representatives appointed by the Commission including:

(I) One pre-K-12 classroom teacher;

(II) One representative from higher education who is a member of a teacher education unit. For accreditation of private institutions the representative shall be from a private institution; for public institutions this representative shall be from a public institution;

(III) One representative from the Commission;

(IV) One additional at-large member;

(iii) For any institution requesting accreditation of a career technology program(s) an additional accreditation review team member may be recommended by the State Director of Career and Technology Education.

(iv) Special Circumstances:

(I) For accreditation review teams requiring fewer members the Executive Director of the Commission shall collaborate with the Program Accreditation Committee, the director of teacher education at the institution being accredited, and NCATE and Commission staff to determine the team composition.

(v) The Commission will determine observers from representatives of the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, State Department of Education, State Department for Career and Technology Education, professional organizations, and the community-at-large.

(I) Observers shall be actively involved in the data collection process, participate in the accreditation review team meetings, and assist the accreditation review team to understand state nuances. They may assist, but shall not be required to write any sections of the team report. They shall not be a voting member of the team.

(II) Observers are expected to participate in the entire visit and all assigned meetings and activities.

(III) The chair of the accreditation review team has the authority to dismiss any observer from the accreditation visit who does not participate in the entire site review and assigned activities.

(C) Accreditation team for continuing accreditation. The membership of a continuing accreditation review team shall be as follows:

(i) NCATE representatives as determined by NCATE (for NCATE accredited institutions);

(ii) State representatives which will number one less than the NCATE representatives;

(iii) The Executive Director for the Commission for Teacher Preparation or his/her designee shall collaborate with the director of teacher education at the institution being reviewed, NCATE, and with the PAC and Commission staff to determine the state committee representation;

(iv) The Commission will determine observers from representatives of the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, State Department of Education, and the community-at-large. If a Career and Technology program is offered at the institution the State Director of Career and Technology Education shall nominate a team member for any institution requesting accreditation of career and technology program(s);

(v) Observers shall be actively involved in the data collection process, participate in the accreditation review team meetings, and assist the accreditation review team with understanding state nuances. They may assist but shall not be required to write any sections of the team report. They shall not be a voting member of the team.

(vi) Observers are expected to participate in the entire visit and all assigned meetings and activities.

(vii) The chair of the accreditation review team has the authority to dismiss any observer from the accreditation visit who does not participate in the entire site review and assigned activities.

(D) Accreditation teams for non-NCATE accredited institutions shall be composed of state representatives.

(E) The Executive Director for the Commission for Teacher Preparation or his/her designee shall collaborate with the director of teacher education at the institution requesting state accreditation, NCATE, the State Regents, PAC and Commission staff to determine the team representation.

(6) Logistics of the accreditation visit.

(A) Each institution shall arrange through the Commission for a pre-visit with the chair of the accreditation review team. The pre-visit should be conducted a minimum of sixty (60) days prior to the team visit. The team chair must have received the institutional report prior to the pre-visit.

(B) If it is to be a joint NCATE and Commission visit, the state chair, the NCATE chair and the Commission staff member responsible for program accreditation shall be included in the pre-visit. Logistical arrangements shall be finalized during the pre-visit.

(C) For state accreditation only, the state chair and the Commission staff member responsible for program accreditation shall be included in the pre-visit. Logistical arrangements shall be finalized during the pre-visit.

(D) A visitation schedule will be prepared and distributed approximately four weeks prior to the scheduled visit. The schedule will be developed cooperatively by the director of teacher education and the Commission staff in cooperation with the team chair(s).

(E) The following stakeholders may be interviewed during the accreditation visit:

(i) Key faculty from the teacher education and the arts and sciences units;

(ii) Administrators from the university teacher education and the arts and sciences units;

(iii) Other individuals identified by the institution;

(iv) Students (both in organized group settings and in informal settings such as in hallways, student lounges, student union, etc.);

(v) Field supervisors and cooperating teachers of student teaching and internships;

(vi) Practitioners from area schools including, but not limited to, principals, school personnel directors, and teachers; and

(vii) Recent graduates.

(F) The individuals to be interviewed should be representative of the student body being served, and consideration shall be made relative to ethnicity, gender, age and individuals with disabilities.

(G) The visitation schedule shall include:

(i) Dates of the accreditation visit;

(ii) Name, location, telephone number of lodging where reservations have been made for committee members;

(iii) Location of visiting team headquarters on the campus of the institution being evaluated;

(iv) Meeting time and place for team organizational meeting;

(v) Meeting time and place for formal team interviews with constituencies listed in 712:10-5-1(e)(6)(E);

(vi) Meeting time and place for team to complete writing assignments;

(vii) Meeting time and place for team to present the exit report; and

(viii) Fax, telephone, and e-mail addresses of members of the unit.

(H) The completed accreditation review team report will be presented to the PAC, NCATE (as applicable), and the Commission.

(I)Visiting team members will be reimbursed for expenses incurred according to state guidelines. Reimbursement forms must be completed by team members on the last day of the visit.

(7) Preparation of the team report. The accreditation review team work will culminate in preparation of a report outlining the findings of the team. Individual writing assignments will be completed prior to the conclusion of the visit. The report will reflect the team consensus on the review.

(A) The accreditation review team report is to be based on the following:

(i) Validating and supporting documents, through interviews with students, faculty members, administrators, and school personnel;

(ii) Validating the institutional report by visiting facilities and reviewing documents; and

(iii) Specific guidelines and competencies for accredited teacher education programs.

(B) At the exit report, representatives of the accreditation review team will present a summary of its evaluation of the program. The summary will include findings for each standard and state requirement including areas for improvement.

(C) The completed reports will be due to the NCATE and Commission office 52 days after the accreditation review team on-site visit; and

(D) The recommendation of the accreditation review team regarding the program will be made to the PAC and the Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation within 90 days after having received the rejoinder [see 712:10-5-1(e)(8)(B)(iv) and the response to the rejoinder from the team chairs. For NCATE accredited institutions, final accreditation decisions will be made after the NCATE Unit Accreditation Board has forwarded its accreditation decision to the Commission.

(8) Recommendation process.

(A) An electronic copy of the final draft of the accreditation review team report will be forwarded to the Commission personnel and to each of the accreditation review team members who will be given the opportunity to suggest corrections in their respective assignment areas. Additionally, the director of teacher education will be given the opportunity to offer input regarding corrections in factual information.

(B) The head of the unit, in consultation with the chief executive officer of the institution, is required to acknowledge receipt of the report and is given the opportunity to prepare a rejoinder to the accreditation review team report. The unit can file the rejoinder and supplemental materials pertinent to the facts and conclusions found in the report of the accreditation review team.

(i) The institutional rejoinder to the accreditation review team report is a vital part of the evidence that the PAC considers as it makes its determination regarding first and continuing accreditation. The PAC considers the first/continuing accreditation report, accreditation review team report and the institutional rejoinder as it prepares its recommendations for the Program Accreditation Committee and subsequently to the full Commission. The PAC may affirm the accreditation review team citations in areas for improvement or modify them based on evidence provided in the institutional rejoinder or to bring consistency to its decisions across institutions.

(ii) The purpose of the rejoinder is to clarify information presented in the accreditation review team report and to correct any factual errors in the report. If the judgments of the accreditation review team are being disputed by the unit, the rejoinder must indicate the grounds for such a stance and the available documentation to support it. This information should be summarized, cited, and included in an appendix as appropriate. The rejoinder should be concise, to the point, and complete.

(iii) The following conditions must be adhered to as the institutional rejoinder is prepared by the unit:

(I) All evidence must describe what existed at the time of the accreditation visit. Changes made by the unit after the visit cannot be considered by the PAC in its deliberations. Changes after the visit should be reported to the Commission for Teacher Preparation as part of the unit's annual report;

(II) All evidence must relate directly to NCATE standards, state requirements, and all procedures that applied at the time of the accreditation visit;

(III) The rejoinder must be factual in nature. All inaccurate information in the accreditation report should be corrected and appropriate documentation submitted with the rejoinder; and

(IV) When the unit does not respond, in writing, to the unmet standards and areas for improvement in the accreditation report, the PAC assumes that the unit concurs with the accreditation review team citation and decision.

(iv) The institutional rejoinder should contain the following:

(I) Letter from the unit head to the Commission Executive Director acknowledging the receipt of the accreditation report;

(II) Responses to the areas for improvement. If there is evidence that an area for improvement does not exist, the appropriate documentation should be appended;

(III) Perceptions of procedural concerns, if any, regarding the accreditation review team review or process that might have prejudiced the accreditation review team judgments; and

(IV) Appendices that contain information to support any requests for reconsideration of the accreditation review team judgments. If the data were included in the institutional report and not given adequate consideration by the accreditation review team, the appropriate pages should be cited/reproduced; if the reference exceeds three pages in the institutional report, the page numbers should be cited and not duplicated.

(v) The institutional rejoinder must be submitted to the Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation within 30 days of the receipt of the accreditation review team report. When accreditation review team reports are sent to an institution during semester breaks, additional time to prepare the rejoinder will be considered. Additional time beyond the date indicated in the transmittal letter must be approved by the Commission Executive Director.

(C) Final action on the reports and institutional accreditation will proceed according to Section 712:10-5-1(e).

(D) Final action by the Commission may include the following actions:

(i) First and Continuing Accreditation for seven years.

(I) This accreditation decision is granted to the education unit and program(s) if the Commission finds that standards have been adequately addressed to merit accreditation. This accreditation decision indicates that the unit meets each of the six NCATE standards for unit accreditation. Areas for improvement may be cited, indicating problems warranting the institution's attention. In its annual report the institution will be expected to address progress on the areas for improvement cited in the Commission accreditation report. When the Commission has determined that an education unit is not making progress toward the removal of the areas for improvements cited during their visit, the institution will be notified that the unit will be required to submit a plan and timeline for addressing the areas for improvement. If at the end of six (6) months the Commission determines the education unit has not submitted sufficient data documenting adequate progress toward the removal of the areas for improvement, a state-level Focus Visit will be warranted within 18 months. After such Focus Visit the Commission will have the option of granting continuing accreditation or revoking accreditation. This progress will be reviewed, annually, by the PAC. First accreditation is retroactive to the semester in which the accreditation visit occurred.

(ii) Accreditation for two years with a focused visit.

(I) This accreditation decision indicates that the unit has not met one or more of the standards. When the PAC renders this decision, the unit has or maintains its accredited status; but must satisfy provisions by meeting previously unmet standard(s) within an established time period.

(II) If Accreditation for two years with a focused visit is granted, the PAC will require a focused visit on the unmet standard(s) within two years of the semester of the accreditation decision. After a focused visit, the PAC will (1) grant accreditation or (2) revoke accreditation.

(III) If accreditation is granted, the next on-site visit is scheduled for seven years following the semester in which the accreditation visit preceding the focused visit occurred.

(iii) Accreditation for two years with a full visit.

(I) This accreditation decision indicates that the unit has not met one or more of the NCATE standards, and serious problems exist across standards. When the PAC renders this decision, the unit has or maintains its accredited status, but must satisfy conditions by meeting the previously unmet standard(s) within an established time period.

(II) If accreditation for two years with a full visit is granted, the PAC will require a full visit on the unmet standard(s) within two years of the accreditation decision. After a full visit, the PAC will (1) continue accreditation or (2) revoke accreditation.

(III) If accreditation is granted, the next on-site visit is scheduled for seven years following the semester in which the continuing accreditation visit occurred.

(iv) Defer Decision

(I) The UAB or PAC/Commission will make this decision if the BOE team recommended that any standard(s) was met for which the UAB or PAC/Commission did not accept the team's recommendation.

(II) A supplemental rejoinder related to the new unmet standard(s) may be submitted for review by the UAB or PAC/Commission. The supplemental rejoinder must be based on evidence available at the time of the visit. The institution will be required to submit said documentation to the UAB or PAC/Commission as applicable.

(III) For NCATE/State institutions, the PAC/Commission will defer decision until the next NCATE UAB meeting. For State only institutions, the PAC/Commission will defer decision for no more than sixty (60) days.

(IV) If the standard(s) continues to be unmet after the supplemental rejoinder, accreditation will be granted for 18 months with either a focused or full visit.

(v) Denial of accreditation (First).

(I) Denial of accreditation is rendered when the PAC finds that the professional education unit and/or programs have severe and/or numerous areas for improvement that limits its capacity to offer quality programs.

(II) All students who have been admitted to the program must be notified by mail, within 30 days of receipt of the PAC/Commission decision, as to the denial of program accreditation of the unit and programs.

(III) Institutions that are denied accreditation may recommend candidates for certification for one year from the end of the semester in which accreditation is denied.

(vi) Revocation of accreditation (Continuing).

(I) Revocation of accreditation terminates current accreditation after a two-year visit if the PAC/Commission finds that critical areas for improvement are not corrected. Accreditation will be terminated at the end of the semester in which the PAC/Commission revokes accreditation.

(II) All students who have been admitted to the program must be notified by mail, within 30 days of receipt of the PAC/Commission decision, as to the revocation of accreditation of the unit and programs.

(III) Institutions that lose their accreditation may recommend candidates for certification for one year from the end of the semester in which accreditation is revoked.

(IV) An on-site interim accreditation visit may be requested by the Appeals Board, hereinafter referred to as AB, acting on behalf of the Commission Administrative Committee. This visit would result from the committee's determination that compelling reasons exist to authorize reexamination of the accreditation of an institution's professional education unit and/or programs. If the AB determines that a complaint received by the committee needs to be investigated, the committee will authorize an interim accreditation review team visit to the campus. The interim accreditation review team will consist of one member from the first or continuing accreditation review team and the remainder of the members will be appointed by the PAC following the guidelines outlined in 712-10-5(e)(5).

(V) The interim accreditation review team will prepare a report for the PAC. At the next PAC meeting following such a visit, the PAC will recommend the institution's accreditation status to the Commission.

(VI) The Commission may revoke accreditation if the unit and/or program(s) (a) no longer meets the Standards for Oklahoma Accredited Teacher Education Programs, (b) fails to submit annual reports and other documents required for accreditation; (c) misrepresents its accreditation status to the public; (d) fails to meet timelines of conditional or probationary accreditation or (e) fails over a three-year period to meet and maintain teacher candidate performance standards on the competency-based assessments as established by the Commission

(VII) All accreditation decisions shall be reported annually in the Commission annual report to the Education Oversight Board and all entities as outlined in OS 70 section 6-186.

(VIII) In the event that accreditation is denied or revoked, an institution may reapply for first accreditation following a three-year waiting period. Before a first visit may occur, a minimum of three years must have lapsed since accreditation was denied. Reapplication shall occur based on the Standards for Oklahoma Accredited Teacher Education Programs and Institutional Plan (See 712:10-5-3) . All procedures for first accreditation will be followed during the reapplication process.

(9) Appeals Board.

(A) For NCATE accredited units the AB shall consider the recommendations of the NCATE appeals board for unit accreditation;

(B) For appeals related to program(s) and non-NCATE accredited institutions the following procedures shall be followed.

(C) Membership of Commission Appeals Board shall be:

(i) Commission chair. The Commission Chair shall be the Chair of the Appeals Board;

(ii) Chair of Program Accreditation Committee;

(iii) Program subject matter and/or standards expert(s). If the appeal is related to a specific program, the program expert shall be in the area(s) being appealed;

(iv) One PK-12 school classroom teacher;

(v) One member from the NCATE Board of Examiners (when applicable);

(vi) One teacher educator; and

(vii) One representative from the arts and sciences faculty or from school administration.

(D) The appeals board shall serve an initial term of two years, with the exception of the Commission Chair, Chair of the Program Accreditation Committee, and the program expert(s).The program subject matter expert(s) shall be appointed by the Commission Chair and serve on the AB only when an appeal is related to a program(s) appeal.

(10) Conditions for appeals.

(A) Any institution that is the object of an adverse decision, as determined by one of the Commission teacher education program review committees and/or unit accrediting committees, may appeal that decision to the Commission Appeals Board.

(B) An adverse decision is defined as the denial or revocation of program(s) or unit accreditation.

(C) An institution may also appeal, in writing, accreditation for two years with a focused visit, accreditation for two years with a full visit, and defer decision accreditation decisions. A adverse decision may be appealed only on the following grounds:

(i) Stated procedures were not followed;

(ii) Evidence favorable to the institution was provided to the accreditation review team but was not considered;

(iii) Evidence was presented to the appropriate board in the form of a rejoinder or stipulation response but was not considered;

(iv) If a college or university believes that one or more of these conditions was a factor in its accreditation, the only available means of redress is through the appeals process; or

(v) There was a lack of the full number of team members due to last minute emergencies; however, that factor alone is not sufficient to uphold an appeal.

(I) The institution must convincingly demonstrate that this fact made a difference in the accreditation decision.

(II) The institution shall prove actual prejudice to it and that the prejudice changed the accreditation decision.

(III) The fact that the institution did not recommend canceling the visit would be evidence that it, at least before the visit, believed that the assembled team would be sufficient to conduct a fair and complete visit.

(D) The findings and recommendations of the AB are received by the full Commission at its first meeting following the meeting of the AB.

(E) Subsequent actions shall be based on grounds upheld by the full Commission and may include, but are not limited to:

(i) Assigning another accreditation review team to revisit an institution;

(ii) Reinstating accreditation or

(iii) Upholding the initial recommendation for denial or revocation of accreditation.

(F) The status of the appellant at the time of the visit remains unchanged until the appeals process has been exhausted.

(11) Process for appeal. The following provisions govern the appellate process:

(A) Within 15 days of receiving notice of the adverse decision, an institution electing to appeal an adverse decision of the Commission must present the Commission Executive Director and the board or committee which issued the adverse decision written notification of its intention to appeal.

(B) No later than 30 days from the date that it submits its notification, the institution must submit a brief to the Executive Director which sets forth the specifics of its appeal and includes full documentation.

(C) The Commission Chair shall convene the AB within 30 days after an appeal brief has been filed. The AB will hear and act on the appeal within this time frame.

(D) The appellant shall have the right to present a 30-minute oral argument on its brief. The appellant shall also have the right to be represented by counsel during the appeal, but may not call witnesses or introduce new evidence on its own behalf.

(E) If the decision appealed is accreditation for two years with a focus visit, accreditation for two years with a full visit or defer decision the appellant's right to appeal is limited to the submission of written documentation.

(F) In the case of an accreditation decision review, the AB has the right to seek clarification of the accreditation review team report from the state team chair, and clarification of the PAC's deliberations from the chair of the PAC.

(G) In the case of an accreditation decision review, all evidence presented in the appellant's brief and considered by the AB must be confined to conditions existing at the time of the accreditation review team visit as cited in the final report, or in the case of a petition for stipulation removal, to conditions existing at the time the petition for stipulation removal was submitted.

(12) Cost of review.

(A) If the appeal leads to an affirmation of the Commission's original decision, the appellant will be liable for the expenses of the AB, the second accreditation review team visit, and all expenses related to the review. All expenses will be reimbursed according to state travel reimbursement guidelines.

(B) If the AB finds in favor of the institution, the Commission will be liable for expenses of the AB and second accreditation review team. All expenses will be reimbursed according to state travel reimbursement guidelines.

Okla. Admin. Code § 712:10-5-1

Added at 14 Ok Reg 3198, eff 7-25-97; Amended at 17 Ok Reg 3238, eff 8-11-00; Amended at 18 Ok Reg 416, eff 11-21-00 (emergency); Amended at 18 Ok Reg 3131, eff 7-12-01; Amended at 19 Ok Reg 2449, eff 6-27-02; Amended at 20 Ok Reg 227, eff 10-11-02 (emergency); Amended at 20 Ok Reg 2186, eff 6-26-03; Amended at 22 Ok Reg 2633, eff 7-11-05; Amended at 26 Ok Reg 1334, eff 11-1-09; Amended at 27 Ok Reg 1613, eff 7-1-10; Amended at 28 Ok Reg 1851, eff 7-1-11; Amended at 29 Ok Reg 840, eff 7-1-12

Amended by Oklahoma Register, Volume 31, Issue 24, September 2, 2014, eff. 9/12/2014