State Approval vs. Regional Accreditation

Since I have joined this discussion forum while ago, I have read so many threads on many different topics. What baffles me is when come the DL, accreditation (RA) and state approval and recognition.
I mean isn’t State approval and recognition higher than the RA? Correct me if I am wrong, once the school is given the State approval and recognition to operate and grant degrees, wouldn’t it then up to the each individual State to uphold, be accountable, responsible for the curriculum, academic integrity, academic value, quality of programs, and to carry out relevant quality audits, measurement standards, and to implement what ever policies that are required (i.e. have good strict guidlines that need to be adhere to by the schools) to run a college? And if a school fail to meet the required standards then State agency should put the schools on a close watchdog and restrict its (school's) Autonomy untill such times the school is up the required standard/s.

When comes to Regional Accrediting agencies, who monitor, measures, evaluate the agencies? US department of Education? What if individual States work closely with US department of Education would that erase the need of RA agencies?

The way I see it, each individual States are a separate Nation (country), so the RA agencies are pointless as within each State has its own set of strict requirements govern by the Department of education.

I like to hear your thoughts. I think american education system is over completed in many ways.

Migara

 

In part, the answer lies in your question. The fact of the matter is that there is no consistent quality control across all states. In some states, issuing a license for a school is the same as issuing a license to sell office supplies. In these cases, it could be wrongly perceived that since a shool had a "license" that it was legitimate. When in fact, getting that licence included no academic approval process at all.

The respective RA organization does the follow up with each of its schools.

 

Migara wrote:

> I mean isn’t State approval and recognition higher than the
> RA?

No, State Approval just means that the institution is legal in that state. Anything lower than State Approval is illegal. But in Regional Accreditation, the colleges assess one another, and they hold one another to high standards.

> the RA agencies are pointless

The universities don't think so. Generally, they recognize RA degrees and not SA degrees. State institutions like the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing insist on RA degrees as well (even though California SA is some indication of quality).

> each State has its own set of strict requirements

No, some of them have very lax requirements.

 

Originally posted by Migara
...What baffles me is when come the DL, accreditation (RA) and state approval and recognition. I mean isn’t State approval and recognition higher than the RA?

No-- individual states are not required to accept the licensing evaluations of other states for use of other states' licensed (non-RA) school degrees in their own state. (I do not know the details of why acceptance of one state's drivers licenses by another state is handled differently from acceptance of degrees.) As a result, RA degrees are generally accepted by all states, while state-licensed degrees are less likely to be accepted.

...once the school is given the State approval and recognition to operate and grant degrees, wouldn’t it then up to the each individual State to uphold, be accountable, responsible for the curriculum, academic integrity, academic value, quality of programs, and to carry out relevant quality audits, measurement standards, and to implement what ever policies that are required (i.e. have good strict guidlines that need to be adhere to by the schools) to run a college?

In principle, yes, but some states are more willing than others to put resources into evaluating the quality of their already-licensed schools. There is a VERY large difference in the effectiveness of different states to watch over their non-RA, licensed schools.

When comes to Regional Accrediting agencies, who monitor, measures, evaluate the agencies? US department of Education?

In theory, it's the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. CHEA is a private organization which, in turn, is watched by the U.S. Dept. of Education. See http://www.hep.uiuc.edu/home/g-gollin/oregon_north_dakota/index_OR.html#accreditation for a little more info about the DoE/CHEA relationship.

What if individual States work closely with US department of Education would that erase the need of RA agencies?

The Dept. of Ed. might worry that it didn't have any enforcement power over the states, and would need to be able to perform its own evaluations in order to confirm that the states' licensing judgements were sensible. That sounds like they'd need to reinvent CHEA, but have it be a government agency this time.

The way I see it, each individual States are a separate Nation (country), so the RA agencies are pointless as within each State has its own set of strict requirements govern by the Department of education.

But some states do a lousy job evaluating schools, so it is helpful to other states to have the RA bodies there to let them know that, for example, Rutgers University (part of the New Jersey state university system) is a fine school, but Hamilton University (Laura Callahan's alma mater, and operating legally as a religious "school" through Wyoming) is not.

...I think american education system is over completed in many ways.

I'm not sure what you mean: overly complicated in its regulation, perhaps?

G

 

Migara,

In most countries people see government as naturally being the highest and most trusted authority. In the U.S. we have traditionally been less trusting of and respecting of our government.

Consider the enforcement methods of government: compulsory membership, compulsory taxation, compulsory curriculum, compulsory compliance with every political whim or travesty.

Consider the methods of the Regional Accreditors: In short, their imprimatur is earned through voluntary compliance with established standards. A school can be denied accreditation but cannot be forced to comply.

So, it comes down to government with its compulsory membership, badges, weapons, jails etc. versus voluntary compliance under threat of expulsion.

I will opt for the voluntary over the compulsory.

 

<<Migara,

In most countries people see government as naturally being the highest and most trusted authority. In the U.S. we have traditionally been less trusting of and respecting of our government.

Consider the enforcement methods of government: compulsory membership, compulsory taxation, compulsory curriculum, compulsory compliance with every political whim or travesty.

Consider the methods of the Regional Accreditors: In short, their imprimatur is earned through voluntary compliance with established standards. A school can be denied accreditation but cannot be forced to comply.

So, it comes down to government with its compulsory membership, badges, weapons, jails etc. versus voluntary compliance under threat of expulsion.

I will opt for the voluntary over the compulsory.>>


All true, but our voluntary system is still in need of a major facelift. The RA agencies don't always view other RA agencies as their equals, thus denying transfer of credit by students. Furthermore, there are many very good NA schools out there whose students are penalized because MANY of the RA schools won't accept credits earned at NA schools! The accrediting agencies have become kind of a "members only" clique. It's really sad. While I agree that a voluntary system of accreditation is a very good system in theory, there needs to be some type of legislation that requires the different agencies to "play nice" with one another. This is what CHEA was supposed to be able to do when they drafted their recommendations for accepting transfer credit. The only problem is that CHEA has no teeth. They are only recommendations (not requirements), and few of the RA schools actually follow them.

Pug

 

"Freedom in messy." is a quote I like. I recognize the problems of competing accrediting bodies but what is the alternative? Innately political governmental agencies dictating the One-True-Way of whichever political philosophy is devious enough to prevail?

I'll take the competitive model along with its messiness. Better some small messes than the all-encompassing blunder.

 

These are descriptors of the situation, but what, exactly, is the problem? How would the system be improved if these things were changed?

It isn't enough to describe the symptoms and say the symptoms would go away if we made them go away. How would it be better, and for whom?

 

One major problem with having the Federal government do the accreditation would be religious schools such as Notre Dame, Univeristy of San Franciso, Azusa Pacific, and even Bob Jones. With the separation of church and state how could they be accredited? And what of the accredited seminars (and there are several (Graduate Theological Union accredited by WASC being one, as well as Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion).

And do not cite other countries.

 

<<These are descriptors of the situation, but what, exactly, is the problem? How would the system be improved if these things were changed? >>


I see no reason why credits earned at one institution should be denied by another institution if the course in question is equivalent in nature and is RA accredited. If CHEA deems NA and RA largely comparable then I see no reason why NA credits shouldn't transfer to RA schools. Simple legislation to this point would be easy and would clear up a huge mess for students everywhere.

 

I don't find it sad.

Accrediting associations are membership associations. They decide on standards for membership, they enforce them, and their members generally agree to accept each other's credits in transfer, assuming that the classes are equivalent.

I don't see any reason why members of each accrediting association have to accept credit from members of every other accrediting association. To demand that is essentially to demand that each association surrender the right to set and enforce its own standards.

In such a situation, minimum standards will simply fall to the lowest common denominator.

That btw, is the fatal defect of automatic acceptance of government-approved foreign credits, as St. Regis University has so ably taught us.

Should Washington legally require WASC schools like UC Berkeley to accept credits from schools accredited by the National Accrediting Commission of Cosmetology Arts and Sciences (NACCAS)? The latter is recognized by CHEA.

It seems to me that the peculiar strength of the American system is that it embraces diversity. It leaves educators free to use their professional judgement to create their own standards. It allows different inconsisent standards to simultaneously exist. It makes room for disagreement, allowing different visions to be played out and the results made apparent.

What makes it so interesting is precisely the fact that everything isn't identical, interchangeable and all the same.

 

Is it a huge mess? It is problematic for those students, but do they constitute a "huge mess"?

My point is, just because something seems wrong, or unequal, doesn't make it a problem. Even if the NA-to-RA transfer issue had merit (and I don't think it does), that doesn't make it so large an issue that action by lawmakers is required.

This also begs the question: do we want governmental bureaucracy to that extent? We have a lot of it now in higher education. Would more serve the people better?

 

Berkeley will not automatically except credits from Cal State Hayward, and even from it's own (Berekeley's) continuing education program. They have to be considered equivalent to Berkeley's courses and have to be fit the program you are entering.