California Approval law inches closer

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by John Bear, Sep 4, 2009.

Loading...
  1. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    California is still without any law regulating schools, but the measure now before the Senate moves closer. It was amended yesterday to eliminate the "independent" advisory council to oversee things, replacing it with an internal 11-person council within the Bureau of Consumer Affairs. And the exemption for schools run by "well-recognized" religions was changed to any religious school run by a non-profit religious corporation. That's probably very sensible; the state would otherwise have to have decided that Religion A was better-recognized* than Religion B.

    ______
    * "Oh, I recognize you. You're a Hindu." "No, Madam, I'm a Hassidic Jew..."
     
  2. Dave Wagner

    Dave Wagner Active Member

    Frankly, I find the idea of forming an advisory council for future legislation a huge disappointment... too little and too late.
     
  3. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    Something significant happened yesterday . . .

    . . . and it doesn't look good.

    The bill has been in the Appropriations Committee, where it pretty much sailed through its first two readings (out of three required), with only one dissent.

    But yesterday, it came up for its crucial third vote, and look, here comes Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, out of the blue, who moves to reconsider the whole shebang, and she prevails by a vote of 18 to 17.

    What's going on here? I have no idea. McLeod, a Democrat from Chino (southern California), lists as one of her main priorities, "ensuring the affordability and access to higher education..." Well, her 10 children, 27 grandchildren, and 14 great grandchildren will now all have easy access to Breyer State and all the rest. 18 to 17. What a thing. Wonder how many of the 18 really knew what they were voting on?
     
  4. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    A flurry of activity, on the last days of the legislative session. That's it until December, unless a special session is called (which is not uncommon).

    Sept. 9 Assembly: Read third time, passage refused. (Ayes 18. Noes 17.) Motion to reconsider made by Senator Negrete McLeod. Reconsideration granted. (Ayes 40. Noes 0.)

    Sept. 11 Senate: Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 26. Noes 10.)

    Sept. 12 Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment.

    Now I'm trying to learn what those words mean: "concurrence" and "enrollment."
     
  5. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Here's a helpful glossary of legislature-speak:

    http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/ACCESS/GUIDES/AP3GLOS.HTM

    So apparently the California Legislature has agreed on something and then successfully passed it. (Amazing.) I'm heartened by that. Dunno what the text actually says though.
     
  6. David Boyd

    David Boyd New Member

    For the degree granting schools AB 48 won't make many major changes from the old law. Fees look more reasonable. The refund provisions will generally follow the federal rules. For the most part, academic requirements will be set through regulation. (We'll see how this plays out. This has been the problem area in the past.)

    However, it's a huge victory for the vocational schools. Most of the Maxine Waters provisions are gone.
     
  7. ShotoJuku

    ShotoJuku New Member

    Does this mean that schools such as Breyer State (now located in California) will be covered/approved by this outcome?
     
  8. David Boyd

    David Boyd New Member

    It does. Any new schools would need to apply. But if past history is any indication it could take a couple of years before any action is taken.
     
  9. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    Has AB48 actually passed? Mixed messages.

    Well I'm royally confused (again). The official site of the California Legislature, which is usually up to date and accurate, says nothing whatever new about AB48; it appeared dead for this year.

    However this article by the California Consumer Federation, which has opposed the bill, says that it was passed by both houses at the last minute and is on the governor's desk. (The article also includes their fairly detailed analysis and grounds for opposition.)

    http://www.consumercal.org/article.php?id=854
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 21, 2009
  10. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    I see the following status for AB48 at the Cal legislature site:
    As I understand it, "enrollment" means final preparation of the bill for submittal to the governor.
     
  11. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    This appears to be the text of AB 48, as most recently amended.

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_48_bill_20090904_amended_sen_v91.html

    The part that's of most relevance to Degreeinfo is a ways down, commencing at section 94800 with -

    CHAPTER 8. PRIVATE POSTSECONDARY INSTITUTIONS

    Skimming through it, here's a few highlights that caught my layman's eye...

    The former BPPVE has been renamed and refocused as the BPPE, the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education.

    Institutions that were already approved when the former law expired will have three additional years added after the scheduled expiration date of that approval.

    And there's this...

    The provisions on approval exemptions, beginning with section 94874, are worth reading.

    The religious exemption seem to be essentially unchanged. Exempt degree programs must award degrees with explicitly religious degree-titles (M.Div, D.Min. etc.) and the program subjects must be the doctrines and practices of religion. Extending religious exemptions to programs in the natural sciences is expressly forbidden.

    The former section that made WASC-accredited RA programs exempt is still in there. But this seemingly inconsistent section has been added to it as well, probably as one of the bill's amendments -

    So the University of Phoenix got what it wanted and will be allowed to operate in California without regulation by the state.

    There's an exemption for non-RA schools with US Dept. of Education recognized accreditation as well, but that exemption has been loaded with so many conditions that I expect few schools will be able to qualify for it. The school must have been in operation in California continuously for at least 25 years, be non-profit, have a satisfactory loan-default rate, meet various financal solvency conditions, and more.

    There's a rather amazing section on the BPPE's website and the tremendously expanded information on each school that they are directed to provide on it --

    The Fact Sheets are kind of a cool idea, assuming that the information that they will contain is reliable. (There's going to be all kinds of attempts to finesse this one.) -

    If a school is too new to have compiled the required data, it must inform prospective students that it's untested.

    Apparently the intention is that the new BPPE be funded by fees paid by the regulated community. Those fees include -

    An Application fee for an approval to operate: five thousand dollars ($5,000). An Application fee for the approval to operate a new branch of the institution: three thousand dollars ($3,000). Renewal fee for the main campus of the institution: three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500). Renewal fee for a branch of the institution: three thousand dollars ($3,000). Each institution is also required to pay an annual Institutional fee equal to three-quarters of one percent of the institution's annual revenues derived from students in California, but not exceeding a total of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) annually. (I can already see the dodgier DL schools limiting the number of in-state students they enroll.) There's also an annual branch fee of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each branch or campus of the institution operating in California.

    The provisions on enforcement are worth reading too, since this has always been the Achilles heel of the approval system. These provisions are found at --

    Article 18. Compliance, Enforcement, Process, and Penalties

    Commencing with section 94932.

    There are provisions for both announced and unannounced site-visits. If any violation of state law or regulations are discovered, citations will be issued.

    For the really bad actors, there's this --

     
  12. ShotoJuku

    ShotoJuku New Member

    (b) An institution that did not have a valid approval to operate issued by, and did not have an application for approval to operate pending with, the former Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education on June 30, 2007, that began operations on or after July 1, 2007, may continue to operate, but shall comply with, and is subject to, this chapter, and shall submit an application for an approval to operate to the bureau pursuant to this chapter within six months of that application becoming available.

    Looks like Breyer State is covered too.
     
  13. matona

    matona New Member

    University of SouthCentral Los Angeles

    Does the University of Southcentral Los Ageles exist??????????
     
  14. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Only as a website.

    There's no legitimate and recognized university by that name in Los Angeles.

    The name is actually kind of laughable, since south central Los Angeles is probably the poorest and most troubled part of LA. But this thing isn't intended for southern California students who would be likely know that. It appears to be intended for students outside the US and is trading off its 'USCLA' initials, which manage to rip off both 'UCLA' and 'USC' at once.

    The University of Southcentral LA doesn't seem to have anything to do with the United States at all, apart from its false claims about where it's located and a Los Angeles mail-forwarding address that passes mail on to its overseas owners. Its website is anonymously registered in London.

    Do a search for earlier threads about this. It's been discussed in detail.

    Now some questions for you:

    How did you hear about this "university"? What country are you posting from? Is USCLA advertising where you are located? What kind of marketing and publicity have you seen? Is it being promoted in English or in a different language?
     
  15. andypicken2

    andypicken2 New Member

    trying to get some ideas bill? got a school of your own? :)


    I saw an small online ad in the LA times a few months ago for it although it went to a dead page.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2009
  16. ShotoJuku

    ShotoJuku New Member

Share This Page