What does it mean to be CA State Approved

I've argued for several years now that California Approval has almost no meaning; that it is no more than licensure since the switch to the DCA. Nice to see someone else agrees.

 

posted 8-25-03 by Rich Douglas

"It seems, based upon my research, that employers DO place greater weight on state approval, even after the distinctions between state licensure, state approval, and recognized accreditation are provided. I think this is the key to the success of the larger California DL schools: employers are okay with them."

How do you reconcile the apparent conflict between these two statements (that are only days apart and on the same thread)? I suggest that if these points are diametrical the credibility of the author would be nil.

 

Kirkland, do you really not understand? Obviously the difference is context. On the one hand we have actual assurance as to what it means to be CA approval, i.e., how good of a job is the CA government agency able to do. On the other hand is the perception of people working in human resources.

The CA approval process is apparently collapsing, falling apart. Too much work and too little resources. The state budget is in horrible shape and I suspect that it is only going to get much worse.

 

Thank you Bill for your input, but the question was directed to Dr. Douglas. Unless, of course, he has appointed you as his agent.

 

I should have been more clear in the recent statement about the BPPVE. I feel they have no academic credibility anymore. I find it very disappointing that employers give it some credence. There is no conflict at all between the two statements. The first is about the academic veracity of California Approval. The second (earlier) statement is about employers' responses to my study.

 

IMHO, when you make a statement of this sort you make the issue seem to be a personal one. You make it seem as if you are not interested in obtaining the information, not interested in getting your question answered. Rather, you make it seem that you are interested in forcing a particular person to answer. Do you really mean to make it a personal issue?
Jack

 

Actually, Bill has it right, as I would expect from anyone reading the two statements. Your impatience seems ill-placed. Look within.

 

Thank you. The two statements seemed to contradict each other. Nothing personal. The question was directed to Dr. Douglas (respectfully) and I simply don't have the time right now to respond to everyone who wanted to jump in.

 

The only one who "jumped in" was Bill and you seem to have had plenty of time to take a swing a him. How transparent.
Jack

 

Jack

How transparent!

 

How transparent?

 

Transparent??? I don't think so at all. If Rich and Huffman want to dish it out they can just take it too. Kirk keeps giving out facts and gets answered with opinions and tired old RA or no way shouting from the same people. California approved has represented a validation process for years and still does. Rich Douglas saying different doesn't make it true. Employers give attention to approved schools for good reason, they have quality. Ask anyone who has done work at CCU if the work is real or not. State approved was good enough to send Greenwich hustling back to Hawaii, its old home. I guess the standards were just too much for them to handle.

 

The level of work cited by CCU students has been below Community College level work (open book unproctored test that were multiple choice). Now that CCU is attempting DETC accreditation it is clear they will have to bring their standard up. Definately a good move on their part.

 

The two statements did not seem to contradict one another. The possibilities that I see are the following.

1. You are not very intelligient.
2. You wanted to take a swipe at Rich.
3. The most likely possibility is that you didn't spend a careful moment of thought even trying to understand what Rich wrote before reacting.

Kirkland, this is a public forum and if you can't handle other people answering your questions then it seems wisest (to me) to send email or personal messages rather than posting publically. Of course, I guess it could be argued that you really wanted to just take a public swipe at Rich which means that perhaps my guess at weighting the different possibilities is incorrect?

 

The BPPVE does not operate alone in regulating approved colleges in California.

CPEC/ California Postsecondary Education Commission is the state planning and coordinating body for higher education under the provisions of the state master plan for higher education. The commission serves a unique role in integrating policy, fiscal, and programmatic analyses about California's entire system of education. The Commission provides the legislative and the executive branches of government with advice and information about major policy issues concerning education beyond high school.

1- The CEPC makes recommendations and advice available to the state legislature.
2- The legislature passes statutory laws regarding the control and standards of California Approved Schools.
3- These statutory laws are interpreted by the BPPVE which then issues executive rules and regulations as to the establishment and operation of approved schools.

The CPEC/State Legislature/BPPVE all act together to ensure the quality of California Approved Schools.

 

Ummm....no. The CPEC makes it clear on its website (which you quote without attribution, BTW) that it is the BPPVE that controls state-approved schools. The BPPVE falls under the Department of Consumer Affairs, not the CPEC.

The legislature has, as anyone who's read Bears' Guides over the years knows, been a disaster in terms of controlling unaccredited schools. From allowing blatant degree mills to operate, to forcing language in the law equating approval with accreditation (widely ignored and now removed, IIRC), to blowing up the CPPVE and putting its remains under a decidedly non-academic agency, to watering down the meaning of state-approval from one of academic distinction to one of mere licensure, the legislature has been utterly negligent.

The BPPVE? There have been a great number of cases where the BPPVE has been asleep at the wheel, most of which have been discussed on this board.

In terms of academic quality, state approval in California means little more than licensure--allowing schools to operate and dealing (maybe) with the most outrageous actors. In fact, it demeans the excellence displayed by some of the better approved schools that Bill Dayson and others like to discuss. And that's sad.

 

Basically, the CPEC audits, keeps statistics and makes recommendations regarding the CSU, UC and WASC-accredited proprietary schools. It contributes nothing to the non-RA private postsecondary institutional sector. In its current incarnation (strictly IMO), CPEC is rather outmoded.

A bill was introduced this year (SB 655 Liu) that would have moved the BPPVE and Student Aid Commission to the CPEC, resulting in a Higher Education Commission similar to ones found in other states. (I'm assuming the CPEC would have received a legislative mandate to analyze/audit the private, non-RA school sector in the same manner as the public, but that part was never exactly clear to me.) Unfortunately, the BPPVE was written out of the bill this month, and the whole thing has been bouncing from committee to committee. Too bad. It might have saved the BPPVE and made CPEC more useful.

 

Rich: "BTW; IIRC; IMO"


Cehi: I need your help. Some of us are novice in decoding the use of the popular accronyms that are repeatedly used on this site. Do you or anyone know what the above accronyms mean? Thank you.

 

Thought I'd step in to see what's been going on and it looks like a general foodfight!! Rich was the author of the two comments I was interested in. Anybody can put their two cents in but don't expect a response. You boys talk like you own this forum. Dave, I have no comment to you, other than you argue like a girl. Bill, you seem irrational and eager to start arguments about almost anything and that's not very intelligent. Jack look to your compatriots if you seek transparency. The attempts here to degrade the California school system which supports the education of hundreds of thousands are absurd and transparent. You guys can beat your heads against a wall and say anything you like about the California State System, but it works for a great many. You have a decided RA bias... and it shows. Prove yourselves. My philosophy is do it, deeds not words. You guys talk about it. Your only source of reference seems to be Bears' Guide and that document admits it's biased but even so, it does not condemn the California system so I'm not sure where you're coming from on that. So, the point remains that Rich's comments were: 1. opinion 2. based on some reference to Bears' Guide and 3. based on some discussions here before (there's a hotbed of objectivity). So, even though everyone has an opinion, and Rich's clearly shows his personal spin on political events in California over the past 30 years... his comments are anectodal and subject to interpretation. Bill, Dave, Jack you comments are emotional and unsubstantiated.

 

LIAL (Lost in Acronym Land)

Cehi: Good topic idea! Go to the off-topic forum.