BPPVE JLSRC call for working group

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by Ohnalee, Mar 5, 2003.

Loading...
  1. Ohnalee

    Ohnalee New Member

    February 26, 2003


    TO: Interested Parties – Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education

    FROM: Senator Liz Figueroa, Chair

    SUBJECT: Working Group to Revise the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Reform
    Act of 1989 (Act).

    As you may know, starting last Fall, the Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee (JLSRC) has been conducting an oversight “sunset review” of the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 473.1 (b) and Education Code Section 94990. That process is ongoing, and I expect it will lead to some recommendations by the JLSRC to improve the way California regulates the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education sector. To the extent that legislation is needed to implement the recommendations of the JLSRC, provisions will be drafted and amended into SB 359 (Figueroa) which has been introduced this year to carry provisions related to the JLSRC’s recommendations regarding the BPPVE’s sunset review.

    One issue that was nearly universally addressed by all parties testifying at the JLSRC’s hearing on BPPVE last November, was that the current Act is a conglomeration of different provisions which do not mesh well together to produce coherent and good regulation. Those testifying pointed out that the Act contains ambiguities, contradictory provisions, etc., and should be cleaned-up and streamlined to facilitate better administration of the intended legal protections for students, schools, and the public. Consequently, I believe significant progress could be made to improve the Act beginning this year and with that in mind I would like to invite all interested parties to participate in a “working group” whose task will be to come up with proposed revisions to achieve that result. I believe there are some more technical or straightforward revisions on which there hopefully may be general consensus, while there are other, more substantive changes upon which there will be more controversy and diversity of opinion. I would like to see what progress could be made first on the former and thereafter on the latter.

    I have requested that my consultant, Jay DeFuria, head up this effort. I have scheduled the first meeting of the working group for Thursday, March 6, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the State Capitol, in Room 2040 (2nd Floor, East Annex, N St. side). I would like to extend an invitation to you to attend and participate in the working group beginning with the meeting on March 6. I expect that there will at least be a couple of additional meetings at intervals during the weeks following the initial meeting. If you are interested in participating and if you plan to attend on March 6, please contact Jay J. DeFuria at the Senate Business and Professions Committee office, State Capitol, Room 2053, Sacramento, CA 95814 – Tel: (916) 445-3435, Fax: (916) 324-0917; email: [email protected]. Also, if you know of someone else who would be interested in attending or should be invited to participate, please let Jay know who they are and how to contact them. For those of you who will not be able to attend, but would like to participate via conference call, please call 877-475-9234, enter participant code 889894 to be connected.

    Some of you may already have ideas on what revisions are needed or beneficial, and some of you may already have some proposed draft language for such revisions. I would like to have everyone’s ideas brought to the table for the working group to consider, in the effort to obtain as broad a range of ideas from which to work and on which to obtain as broad a consensus as possible. Therefore, if you have any specific recommendations and/or drafts of proposed revisions I am requesting that you provide those to Mr. DeFuria by Wednesday, March 5th, so that he will be able to have copies made available to everyone at the Thursday meeting.


    Sincerely,

    Senator LIZ FIGUEROA
    Chair
    Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee
    Senate Business and Professions Committee
     
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Ohnalee,

    Is the intent of the JLSRC to eventually disolve the BBPVE, to replace it with a different department or to strengthen its current powers of oversight and enforcement?
     
  3. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    From what I read, it looks like they're trying to improve things, then take those ideas to the legislature when the law is up for renewal.

    California Approval was much more manageable when most unaccredited degree-granting schools were "Authorized." The ones that were "Approved" were really a cut above the rest. But now that so many schools have to be approved, it seems to have been watered down considerably. How good can California Approval be if it applies to Frederick Taylor, Pacific Western, and that ilk?

    My one suggestion would be to have two levels of approval: initial and extended. Initial would apply to new schools who meet reasonable standards for operating. But to continue, the school would have to either obtain recognized accreditation, or meet a standard that would be much more like accreditation, at least in terms of the quality and rigor of education. Allow for high quality schools that are too small or too narrow (or too innovative) for WASC, but turn out the lights on the junk. That would improve the approval process by allowing the BPPVE to concentrate on few schools, letting time and a lack of accreditation take care of the rest.
     
  4. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    What in your view are the problems with Frederick Taylor and Pacific Western? Which CA-approved schools would be a cut above?
     
  5. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    My problem with those two schools in particular is their two-faced operations. They each have a program or two approved by California, then award all their other degrees through their Hawaii setups. But in both cases, everything is run from California. This is a transparent dodge of the state approval process. To me, it shows a deep lack of integrity and academic quality.

    Which schools would make my list? Probably none of the long-standing non-resident schools. I feel they're not accredited because what they do is not accreditable; they don't require what is normally expected of the degrees they award. SCUPS, CCU, and California Pacific, for example, are unaccredited not because they're too small or too narrow in scope. They're unaccredited because their standards, processes, and outcomes are inferior.

    I think California offers some splendid residential options. I also note that many of California's short-residency programs have advanced from Approved status to Accredited. However, WASC remains reluctant to accredit 100% non-resident schools.

    (It's not a matter of jurisdiction; don't blame WASC. Would SCUPS, CCU, or the others be "accreditable" in another region? No. As has been reported on this board, there is a huge quality gap between SCUPS and Northcentral U., even though NCU was purportedly created in Arizona to get out from under WASC. The owners of CCU, FTU, PWU, "IOU," whatever, could do the same if academic quality and legitimacy were the issues. Or they could slog their way through WASC, like Fielding, Saybrook, CIIS, and others. Or they could drop doctoral programs and pursue DETC. Or, or , or.... :)
     
  6. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Thanks.
     
  7. cehi

    cehi New Member

    Rich,

    Fortunately or unfortunately, I have an RA BS and MS. You have presented an opinion that is based on your level of knowledge or exposure. While I welcome and respect your opinion, my concern is that you are making your opinion to represent a rigid fact which I do not think it is the case. Bob Jones University is not accredited and want to stay that way, but nobody has challenged why they do not want to be accredited. However, they are preceived as superior schools. CA schools are not accredited and want to stay that way, but they are constantly categorized as inferior schools because they are not accredited. From the way I see it, something is obviously wrong with the picture. Have you ever thought that It is possible to find some RA schools that are worst than CA schools and also, to find out that most CA schools are worst than RA schools.

    My point is that outsiders will never know why things are the way they are. Only the people who create things as they are know why things are how they are. All we can do is to speculate for or against an issue. I still respect your views. I have read most of your comments with great delight. Thank you for sharing your views. Please be informed that I do have any advocation for or against RA or CA. Thanks again for all your views and opinions or theories on distance eductaion. I will admit that this NG has expanded the body of knowledge (for/against) distance education as it relate to RA and CA.
     
  8. cehi

    cehi New Member

    Regarding......"Please be informed that I do have any advocation for or against RA or CA".

    I meant: Please be informed that I do not have any advocation for or against RA or CA.
     
  9. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I don't know what constitutes "worse" or "better" by any particular person's definition.

    There are a few unaccredited schools that have carved out good reputations in academia. But that should not be projected to the entire class of schools.

    I tend to focus on the utility of the degrees issued by schools. It is fact, not opinion, that degrees from unaccredited schools are far less utile than those from accredited schools. Finding an exception where a degree from a particular unaccredited school enjoys wide acceptance is fine, but it doesn't change the point.

    There are plenty of situations were a degree from a well-respected unaccredited school will simply not be accepted, in spite of the school's good reputation. But the reverse is never true.
     
  10. working1

    working1 New Member

    What is your opinion of William Howard Taft Univeristy in CA?
    It seems like a very reputable, yet unaccredited and state-approved, school.
    Thank you.

    Working, CBM, MBA, BS, BA, AAS, AAS, AA
     
  11. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    My opinion? I don't have one beyond what can be applied generally to unaccredited schools. That would change should they achieve recognized accreditation.

    Their dumping--and suing--the WAUC was pretty good.
     
  12. working1

    working1 New Member

    Chadwick University dumped WAUC. In addition, Chadwick has been state-licensed for more than a few years. That must be good news too.
     
  13. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Yes, but that alone does not equate the two schools. Carl Lewis and I both have two legs. But only one of us was ever the "World's Fastest Human."


    (Hint: It wasn't me.)
     
  14. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I kind of like the California situation right now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    The bottom line question is what CA-approval is intended to be. Why does it exist in the first place?

    I think that it should ensure that an educational institution isn't fraudulent. The school has to really exist. It has to have physical premises and enough institutional stability to be there again tomorrow. It has to have refund policies in place. It has to offer real instruction and/or credible assessments. If it offers degrees and certifications, those have to at least superficially resemble those offered by other schools (in terms of Carnegie hours and stuff). Faculty have to exist and be appropriate for their assigned task. Etc.

    But I think that the BPPVE should continue to see its role as consumer protection. They should not try to turn themselves into some kind of alternative accreditor.

    Creating a multi-tier system would be a mistake. Either the lower tier would be allowed to encompass degree-mills, or the upper tier would get itself into a situation where countless apologists, advertisers and internet discussion group participants would argue endlessly that it was "just as good as" recognized accreditation. All a multi-tier system would accomplish is opening up a squirming can of worms.

    If the upper tier tried to enforce strict well-defined standards, any innovation that sought to create alternatives to those standards would be suppressed. If it didn't enforce strict well-defined standards, then the quasi-accreditation that it represented would just be a sham.

    Our current accreditation system is great. The educational community itself has created RA, enforcing kind of a de-facto national standard similar to that enforced by governments in the European-style systems (including Canada's).

    But credible alternatives are allowed to exist, such as DETC, ACCSCB and ACICS. Then there are all the subject-matter-specific professional accreditors, from the ABA, AMA and ABET to ATS, NLN and NASAD. In these cases, particular professional bodies set their own specialized standards and recognize schools (usually the departments within schools) that meet them.

    It's not clear to me where (or why) the state of California should inject themselves into that. Which of these accreditors (and its associated community) should the bureaucrats preempt and overrule?

    As things stand now, California's approval tells you that a school isn't a fraud and actually provides education as promised. But the state should also tell you that it can't vouch for how good that education is (which is a matter of individual taste, after all), or on whether or not the education will meet the expectations of professional or scholarly communities. To determine the latter, you have to consult the relevant scholarly and professional bodies (the accreditors) themselves. (Which ones are most relevant might vary dramatically from case to case.)
     
  15. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    My suggestion doesn't "inject" California further into the accreditation system. Just the opposite. I think California ought to get out of the approval process, for the most part.

    In 1989, when it eliminated the Authorized category, it should have stuck to its more rigorous, less-inclusive Approval process. Instead, it sought to approve every non-exempt, unaccredited school in the state. I contend it lowered the bar considerably when doing so.

    Raise the bar. Approve a few, credible programs that are not accredited due to non-academic reasons. Approve others for a set period of time while they work towards accreditation. This would allow them to focus on fewer and newer schools.

    Bill: Creating a multi-tier system would be a mistake.

    Rich: They already have one, and have for decades.
     

Share This Page