12 State Attorney Generals Ask Feds to Dump ACICS

Twelve state attorney generals have asked the U.S. Department of Education to drop recognition of ACICS due to its accreditation of several of the for-profit colleges that have made the news the past couple of years. I only have experience with working at a school that is accredited by ACCSC. They required a bunch of pointless documentation and tasks that had nothing to do with quality, and their standards for things that could affect educational quality were low. They also accredit many for-profit and some non-profit colleges that charge exorbitant tuition rates. However, I don't think it's so bad that it should lose recognition. I don't know if ACICS is any worse.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/04/11/state-ags-ask-feds-dump-profit-college-accreditor

 

I have no inside info on this but I'm guessing that ACICS has been in their crosshairs for some time and that this letter is just a formality. ACICS is a zombie accreditor. Still up and moving but really pretty much dead.

 

The bigger they are, the harder they fall, I guess. ACICS is the largest National Accreditor, in number of schools -- over 900.

ACICS' recent troubles include this stuff: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/15/federal-watchdog-seeks-information-national-accreditor-about-profit-colleges

If/when the buzzards are circling, ACCSC and other national accreditors could likely reap a bonanza, re-accrediting former ACICS schools. Well, those schools that qualify, anyway.

J.

 

I'm wondering what would happen to all those ACICS degrees if the DOEdu didn't recognize it anymore. Would they be grandfathered in or would everyone just be screwed? Just seems like a mess.

 

The U.S department of Education doesn't really have a hand in recognizing degrees, per se. Accreditation is the fed's method for providing Title IV access. Accreditation has been picked up by other entities for other purposes. Kind of like how a SSN has a very specific function but now everyone requires it because it's the only unique identified most people have.

You'd still have a degree. That degree would be recognized as accredited by a USDOE recognized accreditor as long as it occurred during the time of recognition. But also, USDOE dropping ACICS doesn't mean CHEA would drop them. With the loss of Title IV access I can't imagine schools will be lining up to keep them. Though, unless ACICS is willing to die quietly it isn't unreasonable to think that they might try to hang on with CHEA and find a niche accrediting smaller, perhaps more questionable schools (imagine that!) who just want something to show they aren't a diploma mill. I don't know if that's a sustainable market. But I imagine that schools like Trinity (Newburgh) that survive without government funds and have embarked on numerous failed attempts at accreditation might jump at the opportunity to pick up a CHEA recognized accreditor just for the modicum of credibility it might provide.

 

If Doe dropped the recognition the agency ACICS will stay recognized by CHEA.
I guess their schools will have to look for loans somewhere else.
The degrees remain considered accredited as long as ACICS is recognized by CHEA.

 

CHEA serves as a vital source for the question, "Is this school accredited?"

The USDoE also serves this function, but they've moved a lot of accreditors out who weren't focused on Title IV, which is the USDoE's main role in accreditation. Thus, CHEA remains vital and not redundant.

That said, if ACICS loses USDoE recognition, it could crash everything under its umbrella. The vast majority of their schools are for-profit and rely heavily on Title IV eligibility to remain viable. Take it away and those schools will have to go shopping elsewhere for accreditation. But if the regionals are interested and DEAC can't take them--and they can't since ACICS emphasizes FTF instruction in its accredited schools--then a whole lot of schools awarding academic degrees and relying on ACICS accreditation will be hurting.

Many of the trade schools will be able to turn elsewhere. ACCSC would be an option for schools awarding academic degrees, but they don't accredit schools awarding the doctorate. (For Title IV purposes.)

This could get ugly.

 

Well, that's true but largely because the public is willing to accept CHEA's role in that respect. CHEA has no official status. They are vehemently opposed to our system being one of the USDOE directly accrediting programs (similar to how many other nations function). CHEA has salaries to pay and office space to maintain and they rely pretty heavily on the fact that they have the gravitas in the higher ed space that you describe. But that gravitas is not legislatively imposed. It exists because the accreditors are willing to pay CHEA and the public, thus far, is willing to trust it.

The USDOE/CHEA split raises a very important question in our system; at the end of the day, who gets to decide what it means to be "accredited" in the US? Right now, both entities do. But if USDOE abruptly drops an accreditor will CHEA follow? Will CHEA rebel and try to assert their autonomy? How would the public, and schools, react beyond Title IV access?

It could get ugly but I wonder if it could widen a rift along a fault line that has thus far remained stable.

 

I think the Professional, Programmatic and Specialty accrediting agencies such as ABET who discontinued their recognition with US DOE and kept only CHEA recognition didn't need the redundancy.
They accredit programs mostly 99% at Regionally Accredited Institutions. There is one CA state school that has ABET accreditation of their Masters program without being NA or RA institutionally accredited.

ABET has world wide recognition, it represents USA in the Washington accord. A person with US nationally accredited degree will have hard time to get their degree recognized in UK even if the accrediting agency has US DOE recognition.

 

I taught for a ACICS-accredited school at the same time I was teaching for an RA school, often teaching the same course simultaneously. There wasn't any real difference in the amount of work expected from each student, and I held them all to the same standards of quality. The big thing I noticed was the quality of the students for the ACICS school took a dramatic nosedive after awhile, with sometimes cringe-worthy results. It didn't come as a surprise that the school went bankrupt and dissolved not long afterwards.

However, I lay that at the feet of the school itself for having lax admission standards, not ACICS. But, as someone else mentioned, it must be tough for them to keep track of the huge number of schools they accredit.

 

Same professor that teaching Engineering at ABET RA UC Davis is teaching in California National University school of Engineering.
Exactly the same classes.
Yet some or many of the licensed P.E's call CNU a diploma mill.

Even in the day and time when ABET accredits 100% on line BSEE degree in Arizona State University.

 

The president of ACICS has resigned suddenly. Must be bad to exit without the usual hemming, hawing, and obfuscation, followed by a resignation to spend more time with one's family.

 

Yes - and some say that's not enough to fix the greater problems at ACICS.

https://www.americanprogress.org/press/statement/2016/04/18/135860/statement-resignation-of-albert-gray-cannot-fix-greater-problems-at-acics-says-caps-ben-miller/

J.

 

It isn't about redundancy, USDOE and CHEA membership provide two separate functions. USDOE provides access to Title IV. CHEA cannot provide much more than legitimacy.

My point was that a CHEA, but not USDOE, recognized accreditor would still carry some weight in the U.S.

You don't know that. The only reason we make these broad assumptions on this board is because of anecdotal information generally surrounding ACICS and DEAC. Do you honestly have some sort of hard evidence that a person with a PhD from Rockefeller University (NYBOR), who might very well hold an Ivy League academic appointment on top of it, would have a "hard time getting their degree recognized?"

NYBOR accredits two top shelf PhD programs. They are NOT NA as they only provide accreditation for programs in NYS. An exception? Of course.

But I think it's far more likely that research scientists from Rockefeller or Sloane Kettering (both NYBOR) would seek employment in either Canada or the UK than the typical person with an ACICS or DEAC degree.

But, interestingly, absolutely none of what I just said or what you said to me initially has anything to do with my original point: USDOE dropping ACICS does not necessarily mean that CHEA will drop ACICS. And, while most of the ACICS schools rely heavily on Title IV and would thus be starved out of the game if they couldn't get picked up by another National Accreditor, that doesn't mean that ACICS couldn't reinvent itself and continue to survive. Is it likely? No idea.

I think ACICS potentially losing USDOE recognition will also be a warning shot for the other accreditors. We've seen similar (but lower grade) threats to HLC. But if this happens, it will serve as a warning to the slightly shadier accreditors (TRACS) that recognition isn't set it stone.

I wouldn't be surprised if this had an impact on future grants of accreditation by other accreditors.

 

Overall it seems that there is more of an interest in education policies. Perhaps it's a function of the national election. We've seen more interest in issues related to Common Core, Every Child Succeeds, for-profits and financial aid issues, larger emphasis on outcomes, degrees that are "worth it," and even the regional accreditors have come under some increased scrutiny. ACICS may just be the canary in the coal mine.

 

That's exactly my point. We are using the treatment of NA degrees as anecdotes to decide how other USDOE recognized, non-RA and non-NA accreditors would be received.

Part of the problem is that people tend to just lump everything into two categories: RA and NA. While convenient, and generally true for the accreditors we speak of, it isn't accurate.


The Faith Based Accreditors might be described as "NA" if they accredit schools without regard for geography. But they are more accurately described as they are, faith based accreditors. I cannot start a Buddhist university and get accredited by TRACS unless, of course, we're the kinds of Buddhists who are willing to proclaim our loyalty to Jesus Christ. I cannot start a Christian Bible Academy and get accredited by AARTS.

The Regional Accreditors are limited by geography. The National Accreditors are not. But the Faith Based Accreditors are limited by faith.

NYBOR is an anomaly but has two prominent PhD programs in the mix. Again, they aren't RA. They aren't NA as their programs are restricted to NYS. They don't fit into a neat category.

In general, if an entity or evaluator isn't favorable to DEAC they likely won't be favorable to ACICS (and vice versa). But we can't really say that those outcomes would be the same for ABHE, ATS, AARTS, NYSBOR or even TRACS.

For starters, I'd wager that someone with a doctorate from an ATS or NYSBOR accredited school in the U.S. would only be going to another country for an academic, clinical or pastoral appointment (as appropriate depending upon the degree) and can likely obtain additional evaluations from in-country that attest to the quality of the degree.

Here's an anecdote to that effect...

When I was in high school I went to a Catholic school. We had a priest from Liberia who applied, unsuccessfully, to the University of Scranton's Master of Science in Counseling program. I don't remember the exact issue, and I don't think he fully understood it when he explained it. However, they rejected his application in part because they didn't feel his education was up to snuff. My understanding is that he had a degree evaluation from a company like WES and it wasn't favorable but he applied to the program anyway.

In part due to diocesan intervention, his application would be reconsidered if he submitted an evaluation by an actual university. The Diocese coordinated an evaluation by a Catholic university in Maryland (he didn't mention which one) which then forwarded it to Scranton which then granted him admission to the program.

I realize that this is a different issue than immigration. But I have a sneaking suspicion that NARIC isn't going to, with a straight face, tell a person with an academic appointment to a public research university that they know the degree better than the receiving institution. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they would. Maybe it has happened and we just don't know about it. Maybe the same would happen to an American born bishop with a degree from a Roman Catholic ATS (and non-RA) accredited seminary. We don't actually know.

But to say that either case would likely follow the same path as a person with a DEAC or ASICS degree? I mean, it's a theory. But I think we should probably just consider the potential limitations of that anecdotal information.