Accs Denied Reaffirmation Of Accreditation

I don't wish to be "the sky is falling" prophet, but truth is also important.

today from Joann fitzgerald, of TRACS, I received the email that ACCS was denied reaffirmation of accreditation on April 9th. ACCS has the right to appeal and remains TRACS accredited until 11-03!

socko to my plans?!!?

 

Wow! What a downer.

 

Did she say why? As for you, all your eggs are not in one basket. If ACCS does not work, UNIZUL will work.

 

I hope they get things straightened out. I was considering them in the future after I'm done with SATS.



Kevin

 

What?

Shocking. Absolutely shocking.

Could this be the reason that Levicoff described the school as "mickey mouse"?

North,

What are your thoughts about this? I too, was thinking of signing up for a program.


Roscoe

 

Bill,

Sorry to see this. Do you have any insight into why TRACS made the decision? It seems there were less severe options available.

"Periodic Review

Accreditation is viewed by the Accreditation Commission as a continuing status that, once conferred, is removed
only for cause and then with careful observance of due process. A responsible accrediting program necessarily
includes periodic review of accredited institutions both for their benefit and for the fulfillment of the Accreditation
Commission’s accountability to the academic community and to the public.
During the five-year period following initial recognition, an accredited institution is expected to submit a selfstudy
proposal, begin an institutional self-study process and submit a self-study report. This will be followed by
an evaluation team visit, with accreditation action taken at the Fall meeting of the Accreditation Commission.
The Periodic Review fee is calculated according to the current Fee Structure Chart available from the TRACS
office.
Accreditation will then be granted for a ten-year period with a required Status Report to be filed the fifth year
within the ten-year period. The Status Report is to be submitted along with the supporting documentation sixty
(60) days prior to the November Accreditation Commission Meeting. No later than the November meeting of
the fifth (5th) year, the institution must meet with the Accreditation Commission in its review of reaffirmation of
accreditation. The Status Report should focus on data evidence from the outcomes assessment mechanism which
demonstrates that the institution is accomplishing its stated mission. Every tenth year, a self-study process must
be completed. The institution may propose an alternative model as described on page 16.
The actions the Accreditation Commission may take regarding reaffirmation are noted below. All actions by the
Commission are subject to appeal in accord with due process as specified in the policy entitled “Appeal Procedure
Policy” in the Policies and Procedures Manual. The Accreditation Commission, after review of the selfstudy
report, the evaluation team report, and the evaluation team recommendation, will take the appropriate
action listed below:
1. To reaffirm accredited status without conditions.
2. To reaffirm, with a request for a follow-up report to be submitted by a specified date and/or a staff
visit to be completed by a certain date.
3. To defer a decision to permit an institution time to correct serious weaknesses and report to the Commission
within a limited time.
4. To require an institution to show cause, within a limited period, as to why its accreditation should not
be removed. A show cause order requires an institution to present its case for continued accreditation by means of substantive report and another on-site evaluation. The Accreditation Commission will
specify the nature, purpose and scope of the information to be submitted and of the visit to be made.
The institution retains its accreditation during the period of a show cause or any ensuing appeal.
5. In a case where an institution no longer meets the eligibility requirements, to remove an institution
from the list of accredited institutions holding affiliation with TRACS."

http://www.tracs.org/standards.pdf

 

If I were presently enrolled I would call ACCS immediately and hear what they have to say. If it doesn't sound like they will be returning to their previous status soon I would contact FAITH SEMINARY and/or LUTHER RICE SEMINARY right away to see if there is any way to salvage the work that has already been completed into one of their programs.

BLD

 

BLD: Good idea. Maybe someone with an interest in the outcome should check with TRACS to see if this is going to happen to any other institutions.
I hope ACCS can fix its problems. It's unclear so far why they were not given option 4--a list of problems and deadlines for correcting them. Certainly best wishes to them and their students.

 

===



After posting this I called TRACS trying to get more info. I was told, as I said above, that ACCS has until Nov to fix the problems . This is called "appealing" the TRACS team recommendation.

Then I called ACCS. I spoke with a Caroline Gentry, the Pres' exec asst., who has worked on the TRACS situation, and she told me that ACCS was confident that it could remedy the faults by Nov. and thus receive TRACS OK again.

I have paid for four courses at about $600 per course. I've finished three. I plan not to pay for anymore until Nov comes and the issue is settled. I have enjoyed the work and like it "at" ACCS!

Looking at another DMin program is no option because only ACCS offers it in Bib/Theo. As the Unizul is research only there's no transfer there.

Were ACCS not to be renewed in accred, probably I'll just forget the two docs at once deal....just one doc, what an embarrassment!

 

Bill,

I'm so sorry to learn of this and to see how this affects your plans. This has to be frustrating, considering what you went through with Trinity.

Then again, everything happens for a reason. Stay encouraged.

Roscoe

 

Re: Re: Accs Denied Reaffirmation Of Accreditation

Bill,

Did either TRACS or ACCS state what the issues were which caused denial of reaffirmation? ACCS is certainly not the first school to be given a probationary period to correct inconsistencies. Some RA institutions experienced similar situations, but corrected the problem and kept their accreditation. Hopefully, ACCS will do the same.

 

Thanks Roscoe

It is true that I think I was balancing and benefiting from the two coincidental programs. ACCS may come out OK in the end. If it does not ,my sorrow will be for ACCS and other students not so fortunate as I to have Unizul on which to then focus;of course that I do have the UZ connection is the direct result of degree info and helpful pals like North,Russell and others being here.

 

Re: Re: Re: Accs Denied Reaffirmation Of Accreditation

===

The TRACS person said the issues were many, but she did not say they were insurmountable! She acted like she did not know specifics. My hunch is that were the difficulties not of some substance then some sort of warning that accreditation would be removed if deficiencies were not remedied might have been the position TRACS took.

The ACCS person said these problems were inherited from the preceding administration, but she was not definitive either as to what they were.

Again TRACS did not say ACCS could not recover and ACCS said they felt confident they could. So, we'll hope it does.

 

If I remember correctly, there was a fundraising appeal from ACCS sent out quite a few months ago stating something along the lines of having to have a certain amount of money on hand to satisfy TRACS.

BLD

 

They evidently didn't come up with an adequate bribe. Fools.

 

Money on hand? Well, that's certainly a surreal requirement. Bill, I think I have a vague idea of how you might feel; Cal State, Dominguez Hills was placed on warning status by the Western Association during the final year I was enrolled (its accreditation was reaffirmed in the end). Here's hoping this situation is nothing more than a reflection of the fact that TRACS hasn't really developed a warning or probationary process yet, and that this will all come out in the wash. Good luck, and keep us posted.


Peace,

 

Not trying to be funny.

Hey guys,

Hope this didn't come across as sarcasm. If it did, that was not my intention. And I apologize.

It's just that I was trying to remember something that Levicoff said a while back. His post gave me the impression that perhaps he knew something that we did not know.

I'm now thinking that maybe he saw it coming. (No, not suggesting he had anything to do with it.) Maybe his wealth of knowledge about this stuff gave him insight into what may happen.

Just a thought.

I hope he will see this and comment.


Roscoe

 

==

Thanks Tom

 

===

Unk

as I read it, TRACS did not do option 1 or 2, but they have not as yet done 5 either, so it looks like 3 or 4 was done...doesn't it?

 

Well, to say the least this news did not make my day. I have a lot of effort, time and money invested in a doctorate that I am hoping to have completed in Dec. or Jan.

I am somewhat re assured by ACCS' belief/confidence that they can correct these issues and continue on.

I am curious about TRACS methodology. It is certainly the norm that a school has deficiencies that need to be corrected after a site visit. However, why the 'by 11-03 or else'. That is not very helpful on the part of TRACS in terms of students who are relying on TRACS methodology. What happened to a probationary period should a school fail to correct or definciencies are serious? This is the normal process in many regulatory situations. This seemingly knee jerk reaction by TRACS leads one to question whether TRACS would simply do that to another school you happened to be enrolled in.


North {not a really happy camper}