Couldn't the CA Approved schools get together and form an association and apply for USDOE recognition? Opinions please. Regards, Wes
Theoretically, sure. But the NAPNSC has been turned down 7 times in the last 25 years. It has included some CA-Approved schools in the past including CCU. The USDOE would likely want to know why this accrediting organization is necessary. The regionals and DETC (among others) already cover degree-awarding distance education institutions. And while WASC hasn't been too kind to totally DL schools, it has been open to short-residency programs. I'm not sure if it still exists, but California-approved schools once had an association. But I don't remember it ever striving for recognition as an accreditor. Finally, there is the issue of whether or not these schools want accreditation. I contend they do not. The hassles, expense, scrutiny, and changes in operation necessary to become accredited may not be worth the extra revenues it brings. And it may not even do that. It could have the opposite effect, dropping enrollments considerably as customers--who are looking for a quick, easier, less structured, and non-residential degree program--might decide against the newly designed and accredited schools. CA-approved schools target a certain market, one they might lose if they have to structure their programs to meet accreditation standards. I'm pretty sure they know their target market and how to best meet customer demand. That's why you haven't seen any change in certain CA-approved schools over the years. They've got it down pat. Rich Douglas
Which CA-approved schools? The great majority of the CA-approved-only schools are trade and vocational schools. If you restrict your attention to university-level degree-granting institutions, the great majority of those offer on-campus instruction. The CA-approved totally DL universities are probably about 1% of the entire CA-approved total. The CA-approved sector has lots of issues, but DL probably isn't the foremost among them, except on this group. Since WASC seems very reluctant to accredit universities that are 100% DL and which don't also offer parallel on-campus instruction, and since DETC doesn't accredit doctorates, you might have a small group that could make a complaint on those grounds. But the group would be small. And as Rich points out, while all of them probably complain, not all of them are really motivated to make those sacrifices necessary to seek accreditation. The number that are serious may be less than a dozen. That isn't really the critical mass necessary to create a viable accrediting association. They could venture beyond California and try to form a nationwide DL accreditor. But those schools that are already RA would have no reason to join the association and plenty of reason not to. Joining would simply link them with a bunch of schools of questionable reputation. So established distance education might try to keep them at arms length, even if they privately sympathise. Rather than creating a whole new DL accreditor, I think that it is much more likely that DETC will gradually expand into doctorates and WASC will embrace 100% DL institutions. I'm not really talking about the short-residency requirements here so much as the requirement that schools offer parallel classroom instruction. I expect WASC to back away from that in the next few years. But bottom line, I'm not really sure that there is this this huge mass of quality DL schools that are being held down and which need a new DL accreditor. It seems like most of the candidates are in California already, and they aren't very numerous. I think that those that are really serious should work hard on improving their academic reputations, seek powerful allies and work the existing system. The CA-approved sector has served as an incubator of on-campus RA institutions and it could do so in DL as well if WASC could be roused from its dogmatic slumbers.
