State of California Is a Party to Fraud?

Seems like a most reasonable position to take. I even admit that it is more reasonable than my position. However, it is also more boring. It also doesn't make it as much fun to drive home the real point which is that California State Approval in its current form is very significantly flawed. Even more important, state approval fails catastrophically as a substitute for accreditation.

I agree that the BPPVE does not consciously shelter degree mills. They are allowing PWU to promote themselves as state approved. When they approved them years ago, they approved only the psychology degree. For years PWU has been claiming CA state approval on the one hand but selling degrees in almost anything that anyone wants. This allows people who have purchased any of the degrees to claim that PWU is state approved even though I'm sure that most of the degrees are not even state approved. Is this a reasonable setup from the point of view of the BPPVE? Apparently so since they made PWU state approved. Is any undercover work required to figure this out? The answer to that question is a big fat *NO*. This means to me that BPPVE has been negligant in their enforcement responsibilities, at least as far as PWU is concerned.

Another blast at the BPPVE, they fight to close down CPU but let the likes of PWU fester and ooze for years, what's up with that?

 

It seems to me then you disagree only with the final step in the logic flow. For argument's sake, let's stop short of claiming that California is "party" to fraud. Doesn't it still mean that state approval is weak, flawed, and can't be trusted? It sure seems fair to me to condemn the whole system when you have one known really bad apple like PWU that thrives in the system. It means to me that there are likely others. Why didn't CCU get accredited? Probably because it is not as good as we all thought. Probably because the DETC investigation turned up some problems that were unknown to us. I'm not comparing CCU to PWU. CCU is apparently the cream of the CA state approved crop for general education delivered via distance learning and they couldn't get DETC accreditation, at least not yet.

The current California state approval system is broken. CA state approval is held up by many as an example of how great state approval can be. If California is an example of how great state approval can be then state approval is dangerous and misleading. It doesn't mean what people seem to think that it means.

 

I don't think any bureacratic system either public or private is without its flaws. It would be impractical to argue on the basis of perfection. At the same time, it is impractical to condemn a education system that has fostered and produced notable schools both approved and accredited as well as a licensed, professional body of graduates gainfully employed within the State (not an insignificant State) as well as those successfully employed and contributing their knowledge in both industry and academia.

I fully support enforcement of the California Education Code and taking appropriate action against any school that violates the regulations. I would not go so far as to say the system is broken though, that would mean not functional. The system can no doubt be improved or perhaps established processes need to be followed, as in the case of alleged violations of a particular school.

From my understanding, CCU's accreditation was deferred (as were almost all other applicants) in order to allow for more time to evaluate revised processes in actual practice. This is not a reference to being good or bad.

 

We aren't talking mathematical proofs here. We are talking about sweeping generalizations from single data points.

There are 50 state approval processes out there, 51 if you count DC. I'm not sure if California is in any position to represent all of them.

As to whether California state approval is weak, flawed or can't be trusted, that depends on what we think its purpose is.

I think that your argument is most sound if it's used to attack a straw man: namely the proposition that CA-approval must provide absolute assurance that all approved schools be accreditation-equivalent or academically-standard or something like that.

But I don't think that it's realistic or even useful to expect that.

I think that California has standards in place that make it hard for flat-out scams to operate. Schools have to at least present the appearance of actually providing instruction, having qualified faculty and using reasonable syllabi. They have to have refund policies in place and stuff like that. Other than that, students have to make their own decisions whether particular schools meet their needs.

Why didn't Monash University get accredited?

Maybe, maybe not. (And who is this "we all"?) Even if CCU has to make major changes to meet DETC standards, what does that prove? That CA-approval isn't identical with DETC accreditation? Who thought that it was?

It's only misleading if you have unrealistic expectations about what it is.

I like it because:

A. It skims out the obvious scams and creates a strong probability that an approved school provides real education, of whatever sort.

B. It leaves the bar low enough that it's relatively easy to start a school and to get it approved. Rent an office suite. Get a handful of teachers. It permits a kind of grass-roots scholarship and educational entrepeneurism to flourish in California that's unusual elsewhere.

In California, if you want a new university, then go out and start one. If you want to try something new, then go ahead, who is stopping you?

That leads to a variety of educational offerings that's unprecedented. And the best of these, in turn, win accreditation. That's one reason why we have produced such an unusual array of little accredited institutes and special interest schools.

My point here is that the laxness that you argue damns the California system is actually a peculiar but very real strength.

But I certainly agree with you, and strongly too, that CA-approval is not to be confused with accreditation. It's just state licensing. That's all we should expect it to be. That fact is simultaneously its blessing and its curse.

That's precisely the problem. Unrealistic expectations.

 

I think the main problem in California is a combination of insufficient staff and invertebrate or absent leadership - indeed that agency has not even had a director appointed in months. The problem is not with the intentions of the operational staff - I know them and they have no desire whatsoever to allow carp in their pond. I surmise that they are now acting on the PWU situation.

Another example: the State of Washington has known for months that a fair chunk of the St. Regis fake degree operation is running out of Steve and Dixie Randock's real estate office in Mead. Is the state doing something about it? I hope so. Other states have formally asked them to. Will St. Reptile instantly disappear from the earth? No, it takes a while for justice (or in this case Justice) to happen.

There is an astonishing variety of policy underpinnings in state laws regarding new schools. Pennsylvania has brutally strict financial requirements, Oregon's are more lax. Some states forbid unaccredited startups while Oregon and California welcome them. Minnesota has exceptionally strong laws regarding the delivery of Internet-based instruction to its residents - Oregon does not regulate that at all if it goes to a private individual.

We only review in-state schools every three years. Unless we get a complaint, we have no practical way to know if the provost has run wild and issued PhDs to zebras. The same is true anywhere else in government and in larger organizations in the private sector.

 

Bill Dayson says California does a good job. I disagree, and suspect the existence of the schools he cites relates more to their individual excellence rather than some sort of process imposed by the BPPVE.

The BPPVE allows too many schools to skirt their own rules. PWU, FTIU, and Kennedy-Western are three. Two of these schools have limited approval, yet offer a much wider array of degrees in their "off shore" operations (which are actually run from California using the same school names). The third, K-WU, operates from California without state approva. Then there's CULA, which continues to operate without approval year after year.

Whether they can't do the job, won't do the job, or are prevented from doing the job, the existence of these schools in California indicates the BPPVE is not doing the job. Nothing separates the fine schools Bill lists from operations like Pacific Western; at least, not in the eyes of the law.

 

Sorry, too quick on the trigger. I believe I make it three state regulators.

 

The thread is getting very exciting (at least to me which probably speaks loadly for me being a silly nerd but, I'm not alone so yipee ).

What's the biggest problem here?

1. BPPVE ignoring sad examples of academic slugs leaving slim trails going back years?

2. St. Reptile University (thanks Alan, I love it) leaving a much shorter slim trail but probably dwarfing by slim tonnage the BPPVE saddness.

3. People believing that state approval means more than it really does.

4. Bill Huffman saying uncomplementary things about State Approval.

We can all have our own opinion as to which one of these is the biggest problem. (It's too bad that I can't start a new poll.) My opinion is that number 3 is the worst problem. This is based on the information in the Dr. Douglas dissertation as well as many people that have posted on DegreeInfo.

 

Sorry had to run but I'm back so I'll try to finish my thought.

The problem as I see it is that it is inherently misleading to say state approved. The term "State Approval" seems to have almost magical power over the poorly informed, at least when associated with schools. I believe what needs to be done is to make it illegal in CA, like it is in many other states, to even claim state approval. It is just too misleading. They could even carry the same laws that they do now (although I'd like to see them better enforce the current laws) only say that the schools in the approval category are instead licensed to operate in California rather than approved by the state. Of course it is possible that almost as many people might be deceived by the term "licensed"? So perhaps it would be better to require them to say "unaccredited but licensed to operate in California"?

 

Does this mean that the State of Oregon is now party to fraud?

If California is party to fraud, and Oregon approves three of four unaccredited CA applicant schools, would not Oregon be an accomplice to fraud?

 

Should I find PWU on the list of unaccredited degrees that are accepted by the ODA then I'll be the first to post a new poll!

 

The important distinction in California approval is that the State "certifies" the quality of the institution it approves and subsequently licenses. This is specifically stated in the CA Ed Code as well as the elements that make up that approval. This is not accreditation but the standards are accreditation-like. The question is how thoroughly the State carries out their responsibilities (there have no doubt been some mistakes by the BPPVE or misrepresentations by some schools). Certainly the blueprint and framework is there. And there have been some notable successes in fostering new and innovative educational approaches.

The CA approach is more extensive and somewhat unique than the licensing function that most States perform. And it permits professional licensing within California for law and some health professions, which can transfer to other States with certain time in service restrictions. I believe many States have a mechanism called approval which also results in licensing (e.g. Virginia, Oregon, Connecticut) however I don't believe the State certifies the school's quality, only evaluates it for licensing purposes, thus making it legal to operate within that jurisdiction.

 

So as far as state approvals go, you're saying that California does a better job than most states? I'm saying that PWU as a specific example proves that the job still falls short in CA. I'm saying is that I believe that the term "state approval" does not live up to what the general public seems to expect from the label "State Approved". As such it is misleading to allow the schools to call themselves state approved and since California is apparently one of the better systems at state approval, no institution from any state should be allowed to claim that they are state approved unless they are accredited.

 

In Oregon we usually use the phrase "authorized to issue degrees" though sometimes we slip and say approved. We issue no licenses. Our process (for schools operating in-state) is program-specific, so it is possible for a school to be approved to issue some degrees and denied for others. Each degree program undergoes a separate evaluation unless they are closely related (e.g., BA and BS in business would be one review since they'd only have a few different courses).

How many state evaluators are here? I can think of me and Jeff Brunton from Hawaii, who posts info occasionally. Who else? I am not very familiar with who is on the forum or who the mystery names are.

 

The person who was in line for the California agency head job sidestepped into another position. Thus it may be open for a while.

 

Taking your points in order:
1. Yes, I think California does a better job than most States
2. Time will tell if action is brought against the alleged violator
3. I'm not sure what the general public seems to expect from the label State Approved. In CA, it is what it is. The term and standards are defined and unambiguous.
4. I don't agree that it is misleading to say you are what the State says you are.
5. As far as what institutions should be allowed to claim: I don't share your opinion. Since accreditation is voluntary and States are responsible for education within their jurisdictions, I believe State Approval should be mandatory and should be based on a consistent set of standards amongst the States. Not unlike driver's licenses that indicate a consistent level of training and assumed skill.

 

From my point of view as someone who gets the complaint calls, a major issue with unaccredited state-approved schools is that some of them do much of their sales, pardon me, their degree programs in foreign countries (especially in Africa and Asia) where the vic ... excuse me, the students have no idea what the difference between state approval and the various kinds of accreditation are.

For example, we get complaints and pleas for help from Malaysia, Singapore etc. regarding the overseas operations of Preston, Pacific Western etc. People get the degrees, find out they are useless and by then the local contacts have melted away along with the money. The new owner of one very low-end California supplier has said that they plan to market mostly in China !

How about a standard that state-approved suppliers can't offer degrees to non-U.S. residents, and that only accredited schools can do that?

 

What about schools such as SCUPS? Since the ODA has approved SCUPS' Psy.D. program does this mean Oregon has approved the SCUPS sale's department?

 

When we approve a degree program by validating someone's degree through the application process, what it means is that the degree can legally be used as a credential in Oregon. It does not necessarily mean that the degree can be used for professional licensure, but it allows the person to list it on a resume, etc.

Thus we are not approving every aspect of a school (or even every degree program), just saying that the particular program we evaluated (in this case, the SCUPS psychology PhD issued in California) is legal for use in Oregon.

The standard for approval, by the way, is not brutally high. It is simply that using certain criteria (faculty qualifications, policies on the award of credit, content of curriculum and admissions requirements), the entity could meet Oregon requirements were it to apply here to set up a school. In effect we piggyback the school requirements onto the validation law, which means the process is pretty fast and clean with no guesswork.