Major change proposed in Calif. school licensing law

Yesterday the Senate staff recommended what seems like a significant change in AB48, the proposed law to re-establish school regulation in the state.

In essence, they seems to be saying that there be no new Bureau at this time, but instead a 7-person advisory committee (people from schools, consumers, and the public), which would have more than five years to produce a report on what kind of regulation there should be. After this report is submitted in 2015, then the legislature would, in 2016, consider its recommendations, and then decide whether or not to establish a new regulation bureau. Nothing mentioned, as far as I can tell, about whether there would be any regulation at all for the next 6 or 7 years.

Incidentally, what's the difference between a "public" member and a "consumer" member?

Details: http://tinyurl.com/p363zc

 

Unfortunately, this proposal looks like a giant step backwards... Isn't it obvious that post-secondary schools that have nexus in California (degree granting or otherwise) should have to pay an annual fee to operate under the old California Education Code and that this fee could fund the enforcement of said code? Hence, decide on an equitable fee structure and you're done...

Geez, who did we elect to represent us in Sacratomato?

 

Things are swirling down the California crapper, bigtime.

It isn't really surprising though. There's no way that the legislature is going to appropriate funds for a new regulatory agency in this economic climate, when they can't even pay the employees that they already have.

It's going to be a complete disaster. Mills are already flocking to California, but have been kind of deterred by the idea that a new regulatory agency might appear at any time to sweep them out again. But if mills are going to be more or less guaranteed 6 or 7 years of anything-goes grace, the sudden overnight appearance of bogus new "California universities" is going to something to behold. That will only tarnish California's strong international reputation in higher education.

Non-accredited schools in California are going to become a world-wide bad-joke. And that might finally kill the old California-approved world that I've been so fond of for so long. The credible few will be indistinguishable from a huge mass of total and absolute scams. Maybe more of my CA-approved favorites will pursue accreditation. Where that's not possible for some reason (shaky finances, unconventional educational models or whatever) they may just close. Real educators and subject-matter buffs aren't going to want to start anything interesting or experimental in the new con-artist-friendly climate.

Oh well, our peculiarly Californian grass-roots academia was fun for a generation and nothing lasts forever.

 

Well said, Bill...! (Emphasis mine.)

 

Public member: an individual with no affiliation or connections to an institution of higher learning being regulated by the new Bureau?

Consumer member: an individual who is a student at an institution being regulated by the new Bureau?

 

Anybody care to speculate on what effect, if any, this will have on the unaccredited law schools in California?

Sideman JD

 

I thought the CA JD programs were under the oversight of the California Bar, so there would be no effect. Correct?

 

Correct. The bill, at least in its current form, would have no impact on California law schools. They will remain under the oversight of the Committee of Bar Examiniers.