What do we know/think about NAPNSC?

http://www.napnsc.org/

I know it's not USDE- or CHEA-approved, though it has made at least 8 applications for same since the '70s. And I recall that Rich Douglas once, in another thread here, characterized it as the only one of the non-USDE/CHEA-approved accreditors that might actually be worth a damn (and, Rich, if I've misstated and/or mischaracterized what you said or meant, please chime-in and correct me).

But what else do we know? Or think, just generally?

Thoughts, comments or questions... anyone?

I'll start:

1. Why can't it get approved?
   
2. Is it because its web site looks too home-spun?
   
3. Is it still a going concern, or is it sort of just standing still and/or maybe beginning to fade away? And will it try for USDE/CHEA approval a 9th time?
   
4. If Trinity College of the Bible and Trinity Theological Seminary (what some call "Trinity Newburgh") gets RA next summer, as it believes it will, will it drop NAPNSC and, if it does, will that be a fatal blow thereto?[/list=1]Just sorta' kiddin' around on that second one... er... well... a little. Actually, it shouldn't matter... but I fear it does... at least a little.

 

ADDENDUM

Oh, yeah... though I had planned to include it in my thread-starting post, somehow I left out what John Bear and co-author Allen Ezell wrote about NAPNSC in their recent book Degree Mills:

• National Association of Private Nontraditional Schools and Colleges (NAPNSC). Established in Grand Junction, Colorado, in the 1970s by people associated with Western Colorado University. It has seemed to make sincere efforts but has been repeatedly rejected by the US Department of Education. At its peak it had several dozen accreditees, now only four.

And, I fear, about to lose yet another (Trinity Newburgh, once it becomes RA). Oh... and, for the record, Western Colorado University was unaccredited, but credible and legitimate. It existed for about 13 years, I believe, ending... let's see... was it in the late '80s or early '90s?

 

Maybe it's IASHS

If a federal agency grants recognition to NAPNSC, then that in turn could imply federal recognition of the NAPNSC-accredited Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, located (surprisingly enough) in San Francisco.

Possibly the Washington bureaucrats do not wish to be associated -- however indirectly -- with an institution that offers courses like "Personal Sexual Enrichment/Education" (2 units), "Sexual Pleasure Education" (1 unit), "Sexological Body Therapy" (3 units), "Sexual Artifacts" (1 unit), or "Male Homosexual Erotica" (1 unit). Although it must be admitted that the IASHS curriculum appears to be significantly more interesting than those of other NAPNSC-accredited institutions (e.g. Cook's Institute of Electronics Engineering; Trinity College of the Bible).

Incidentally, some of the IASHS course requirements can be addressed through DL, though 2-3 weeks of residency is required per trimester.

 

Re: Maybe it's IASHS

Well... there's always been phone sex.

But seriously... do you really believe that IASHS's sexual theme is enough to put off the feds to the point of not approving NAPNSC; or are you saying the IASHS isn't worthy of accreditation, just generally, even if its theme were underwater basketweaving or just about anything less titillating and/or potentially offensive?

 

Overstated, Gregg. I once said that I though the NAPNSC was a legitimate effort to establish a recognized accreditor. I still think it was. But I don't anymore. Not because I think they've somehow slipped, but because (after 7 failures), the USDoE has decided otherwise. Hard to argue with failure.

The NAPNSC has its roots in Western Colorado University, established by that school's officers when it became clear WCU wasn't getting anywhere with its RA. But WCU folded, and the NAPNSC's constituency--DL schools ignored by the RA's--is very much more served today by both the RA's and the DETC. The NAPNSC no longer has a unique constituency--check it's size these days.

It's dead, but it doesn't know it. Yet.

 

Re: Re: Maybe it's IASHS

In my experience, government bureaucrats are often reluctant to make decisions that could have obviously embarrassing consequences. And the IASHS seems awfully conspicuous within the tiny group of NAPNSC-accredited schools.

Sex certainly seems like a legitimate scholary topic, with clear connections to history, sociology, art, biology, and medicine. So in principle a school focusing on sex issues should be accreditable. But I know nothing about the academic rigor or reputation of IASHS specifically, and so I have no idea whether this particular institution merits accreditation.

 

Received an email from them not too long ago saying they are in the process of apply to Feds again.

 

Why, I wonder? What was/is it that the feds didn't/don't like? Does anyone know?

 

DesElms: "What was/is it that the feds didn't/don't like? Does anyone know?"

John: Maybe. After one of the rejections, 8 or 9 years ago I think, NAPNSC founder Earl Heusser wrote an extremely angry, bitter, hostile letter to Karen Kershenstein, a power-possessing being in Washington who was in charge of that decision-making process. I know this because he also sent copies to a great many other people, self included. It was really a nasty letter. And, I think, people in Washington have long memories.

Remember that California Coast was a NAPNSC accreditee for many years, and I believe it was quite a blow when they resigned their accreditation.

 

Hmmm. I see. Well... yes... that could do it, couldn't it.

I wonder if Trinity Newburgh will be next.

Based on John's suspicion of what might have caused the problem, that might be a waste of time, no? Or can anyone see a way that NAPNSC can redeem itself? Or, perhaps a better question: Should it?

 

The American Chemical Society?

Most of my knowledge comes from what John Bear and some of the others have posted here, but my answer to that would be:

A. NAPNSC isn't really a free-standing organization. It's a mom-and-pop shop that needs more independence from its owners/founders.

B. NAPNSC doesn't really have a reason for existing. It just duplicates what other accreditors are already doing. USDoEd/CHEA don't want to multiply recognized accreditors to no end.

C. It's too small. It accredits less than ten schools.

D. I assume that it probably doesn't meet USDoEd/CHEA expectations in terms of procedures and standards.

I don't think that website appearance is particularly relevant.

I think that it's fading. It hasn't been able to increase the number of schools that it accredits. I don't think that it has very much chance of being recognized unless it makes dramatic changes. I expect it will disappear soon as its owners/operators get up in years.

You can't kill something that has no life to begin with.

 

Bill Dayson: "...It's a mom-and-pop shop..."

John: I believe Dr. and Mrs. Heusser are the only people involved in running it. Dr. H earned his Bachelor's in 1951. That would put him in his mid to late 70's. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but some people may take it into account.

 

Of course, given the folks around here who are earning bachelors degrees -- even associates degrees -- in their 40's and even older, that might not be the best way to tell. That said, it's nevertheless reliable and accurate in this case. Dr. and Mrs. Heusser are both 76 at this writing.

 

...and she's a month older than he is.

www.zabasearch, eh?

 

Nah. I just up and called 'em this week... and during the conversation Dr. Heusser just happened to mention that he and his wife are both 76. He says "hello," by the way.

 

NAPNSC offers a "Correspondent Status" for schools operating less than two years.

They also offer a "Candidate Status" for schools operating at least 2 years and complying with NAPNCS Eligibility Criteria.

http://www.napnsc.org/Steps.htm

If the regional agencies offered a similar status for bona fide schools more non-traditional schools might take aim at accreditation, rather than operating outside the system.

In this sense it is the system itself that creates "diploma mills," depending on how broadly one defines the term, for it excludes legitimate new schools from the process, or otherwise makes the process one in which it is impossible or impractical for newer schools to participate.

If NAPNSC is looking for a hook to get some federal recognition, this seems like an area on which they could focus. In a sense it can be like a minor league for new schools. They can nurture them, get them aimed in the right direction, then move them up the ladder to RA (or DETC, ACICS, ACCSCT or whatever is appropriate) when they are ready.

If an affordable, practical means of accreditation existed for non-traditional schools, no legitimate school would have any excuse for working outside the system. In other words, tailor the system to embrace legitimate schools, rather than bending the schools to try to fit a system not designed for them.