BPPVE Sunset Review

Coming October 2002 to the California state legislature, it's the BPPVE's sunset review!

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm

(I'd tell you more specifics, but that's all I have right now. Watch this space.)

Pam

 

The URL that you provided needs a Bill number.

Thanks,
Bill Huffman

 

Oops.

AB 1720 in the 2001 - 2002 legislative session.

 

I'm currious about the intent of the legislature regarding this. It is true that the degree mill problem within California has been improved significantly since 1989. It also seems likely true that the BBPVE has made the unaccredited schools operating within California to be the best unaccredited schools in the USA.

The problem I have in understanding this is that it seems to me that in a way this is actually doing a disservice to the students enrolled in these unaccredited schools. To me, the bottom line seems to be that the schools are still unaccredited and the general public has a tendency to lump all of the unaccredited schools together. This means that the utility of a CA approved school generally doesn't seem that much better than a plain old degree mill degree.

I admit that my argument makes a number of assumptions that the legislaters my not agree with but why wouldn't it be simpler and safer to make unaccredited schools and degree use illegal in California similar to the Oregon and/or New Jersey laws?

 

Originally posted by Bill Huffman

I'm currious about the intent of the legislature regarding this. It is true that the degree mill problem within California has been improved significantly since 1989.

Another explanation is the elimination of the "Authorized" category, where all the bad schools--and some good ones--operated.

It also seems likely true that the BBPVE has made the unaccredited schools operating within California to be the best unaccredited schools in the USA.

But a poorer job than did the CPPVE. But it's not for a lack of trying.

The CPPVE had the luxury of considering singular programs within schools for approval. That meant it could pick and choose which schools' programs to consider. Only a handful of DL schools had approved programs, most with some approved and the rest authorized. International College, for example, was approved at the master's level and authorized at the doctoral level. CCU was the first DL school to have all of its programs approved. I believe California Pacific was another, eventually. Columbia Pacific, which offered just about any degree under the sun, had one or more programs approved in the late 1980's (IIRC; don't quote me).

With the elimination of the Authorized category, the task grew tremendously, even though so many bad schools were driven out. Education officials of the CPPVE and then BPPVE had to approve ALL unaccredited schools. In addition, the non-degree-awarding bunch were added. Instead of a handful of programs approved by the CPPVE, the BPPVE was faced with approving thousands of schools. Tough task. The results? Many schools (like University of Central California) stopped operating. Others, like the University of Beverly Hills, Golden State, and Kennedy-Western left the state (sort of). But a few schools that were never, ever approved under the old system slipped through the new one, including Pacific Western University. Ugh.

(snipped)

I admit that my argument makes a number of assumptions that the legislaters my not agree with but why wouldn't it be simpler and safer to make unaccredited schools and degree use illegal in California similar to the Oregon and/or New Jersey laws?

California was proud of the fact that its system permitted new and innovative schools to grow and prosper. Without such a system, we might not have Fielding, National, Saybrook, CIIS, and some of the good, unaccredited schools as well. I suspect that trying to put all of the unaccredited schools in California out of business is a political impossibility. And it may not serve the needs of Californians.

 

Rich, thank you for the information as well as for your valuable opinion.

 

There are hundreds and hundreds of state approved schools, from dog grooming to Ph.D. granting. And quite a bit of political clout.

My prediction (based on a blend of rumors, gossip, and hunches) is that the state will move to total deregulation of schools, or at least the degree-granting ones. The Wyoming model, if you will.

 

Rumors
Gossip
Hunches

Which of the three is the most reliable source, John?

 

Please understand that all CA boards and bureaus undergo sunset review every four years. It's automatic. CPPVE's sunset review in 1997 resulted in an actual sunset of the agency. The regulating authority transferred to DCA, which created BPPVE just for the job. The next review should have been in 2001, but DCA asked for and received a 1-year extension.

Many heavy-hitters will be weighing in at the hearings. (Did I just mix sports metaphors? Sorry!) Dr. Bear's comments notwithstanding, I haven't heard any "Wyoming model" rumors. Knock wood.

 

Being a CA resident I have to whimper, "That would be terribly embarrassing."

 

Russell: "Rumors Gossip Hunches
Which of the three is the most reliable source, John?"

John: Gossip. I spent a day hanging out with the BPPVE in Sacramento last spring. Some 'on the record' talk, some 'off.'

I believe this is analagous to what the state did with regard to those dreadful "payday loan services" that advance you $100 at astonishing interest rates for a few weeks. My understanding is that the state tried to regulate these people, got heat for licensing some of the worst ones and for denying licenses to some of the better ones, threw up its hands, and deregulated the industry, hoping (against hope) that Gresham's Law would not apply here.

 

It seems like deregulation would put them back at square one which is what I thought they were trying to avoid in the beginning. From another view, it is hard to picture California deregulating anything.

Ted N.

 

The lamest of the CA-approved schools either operate under religious exemptions or were inherited from the previous regime. They weren't created during the BPPVE's watch.

And the BPPVE continues to approve individual degree programs within a school, doesn't it?

My opinion is that things have neither improved nor deteriorated very much. And I suspect that the single greatest problem the BPPVE faced was simply due to the bureaucratic upheavals associated with creating their new office. So in their infinite wisdom, the legislators propose to improve things by creating still another new office, with all the confusion and down-time that will entail.

What they really need to do is preserve a stable organizational structure, and then give it more funding, increased enforcement powers and a clearer mandate.

 

About six months ago I counted all of the CA-approved schools in each county. They totaled 2,310, though I'm sure the number constantly varies. As you say, they were mostly small sub-university-level trades and vocational schools. Of the 2,310, upwards of 250 offered academic degrees at the associates level or above. (Many of these were trade schools with vocational associates degrees.) Of the degree granting schools, upwards of 100 offered doctorates of some sort, from D.Min. to Ph.D. (If they offer degrees above the associates level, chances are at least 50% that they offer doctorates.)

Regarding their political clout, the recent situation with the California psychology schools may give a reading of its effectiveness. Serious proposals were made to restrict state psychology licensure to RA graduates. The state approved schools rose to combat the proposal, and the final result was a compromise. No *new* state-approved psych programs will be eligible, but the existing schools are grandfathered in.

Here's a 1999 article from a psychology trade publication about the then-current controversy:

http://nationalpsychologist.com/articles/art3992.htm

 

Bill: "Regarding their political clout, the recent situation with the California psychology schools may give a reading of its effectiveness."

John. Agreed. Are such things a matter of public record? Assuming things were not done under the table, is there any public accountability among the elected folk? Any way of determining, for instance, how much (if any) Pacific Western and Kennedy-Western donated?

During my years in Hawaii, there was this charming festivity at the opening of the legislature, in which nearly all the legislators had an open house, with fancy puu-puus and more, and all the lobbyists and special interest people came by and left envelopes or sometimes the actual C-notes on a money tree. I was not aware of any accountability. Wonder if they still do this?

 

Written testimony regarding the Bureau's continued approval to operate will be accepted by Robin Hartley, the consultant for the Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee, at the address on this website:

http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/COMMITTEE/JOINT/SUNSET_REVIEW/_home/

From the newsletter of the California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools (CAPPS):

"The California state Sunset Review Committee, headed by Senator Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont), has set the afternoon of November 19, 2002 for public testimony as part of the process for reconsidering the Reform Act of 1998.

"The current state law that governs the private postsecondary school community in California is The New Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform Act, which became effective in January 1998. The Act contains a sunset review requirement stating that the Review Committee must hold public hearings, in which the BPPVE must demonstrate a "compelling public need" for the continued existence of its regulatory program, and further, that its licensing function is the "least restrictive regulation consistant with the public welfare". "

 

Is it true that unaccredited schools will henceforth be known as "credibility challenged"?

Nosborne, JD