What the Texas DOE thinks of CCU

"And it's clear that states can restrict the use of college degrees legally granted in other states. In the KWU lawsuit described above, for example, the settlement allowed KWU grads to advertise their degrees in Oregon. But Oregon won the right to require a "disclaimer", stating the unaccredited nature of such degrees."

DETC degrees are accredited. So it would be the burden of a State to prove that a DETC degree is not up to the same standards as degrees that are being recognized in the said state. Based on the decisions you mentioned, it would seem to me that disallowing DETC degrees in TX is a flagrant violation of free speech (and possibly other constitutional amendments.) What must be understood is that quality of education cannot be readily defined. The DETC has rigorous standards of accreditation that are recognized by the USDOE. It may possibly be true that on AVERAGE, RA accredited schools are of higher quality than DETC schools. That does not negate the fact that there are high-quality DETC schools that are better than many RA schools. Texas’ policy is then using a statistical sample: On AVERAGE, RA schools are better than DETC schools, so we will not recognize DETC schools. This policy is grossly unfair. The USDOE has established that DETC is a recognized accrediting agency. Therefore, DETC accreditation has met a threshold for quality of accreditation. Saying that DETC degrees, across the board, are illegitimate, while RA degrees across the board are legitimate, is arbitrary and grossly unfair. I doubt this policy could withstand a court challenge.

 

Bingo! I'd like to hear from one of the lawyers on the list if they disagree with this interpretation.

 

States routinely license colleges that lack USDOE-approved accreditation, and thereby legalize their degrees (at least for in-state use). For example, the State of Wyoming licensed KWU, which is unaccredited. The State of California licensed CCU, back when it was unaccredited. Even the State of Oregon, which is commonly assumed to have the toughest degree law enforcement in the country, has a list of state-approved but unaccredited schools. Other states do as well.

I am not a lawyer or consitutional scholar, but it seems pretty obvious that states have the power to legalize college degrees, regardless of their USDOE accreditation status. Does anyone disagree ?

But if we agree that this is true, then doesn't it also seem possible that states may have the power to criminalize college degrees, regardless of their USDOE accreditation status ?

Then why haven't any DETC-accredited schools, or any students with DETC-accredited degrees, or DETC itself issued such a challenge ?

 

In my opinion, at most a person could be charged under civil law, but to classify use of an accredited degree, aside from for purposes of professional licensure, as criminal because the accreditation is merely not recognized by a particular state seems rather overzealous or possibly unconstitutional.

Employers, including the government, are allowed to determine the educational credentials which they will recognize for purposes of employment within said organization. However, since the US federal government recognizes all institutions approved by USDoE as suitable for educational reimbursement and promotions those in the employ of the federal government, yet working in the state of Texas, would presumably be protected from criminal prosecution by the state of Texas.

 

Apparently somebody did.

A new sentence was added to Texas' Cal Coast entry a few days ago. Now Texas is only labeling Cal Coast degrees awarded prior to 2005 as 'substandard'. That suggests that they have started recognizing DETC.

http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/AAR/PrivateInstitutions/NoTX.cfm

 

A more appropriate notation should read "Cal Coast degrees awarded prior to DETC accreditation (2005) are not recognized." The term substandard is too broad and does not correctly identify the deficiency as being a lack of accreditation by a recognized accreditation body.

 

OK, maybe "criminalize" is too strong. Let's try some different wording.

It seems clear that states have the power to grant legal recognition to college degrees, regardless of their USDOE accreditation status. California, for example, recognized CCU degrees prior to 2005, when USDOE didn't.

But if so, then it seems possible that states also have the power to withhold legal recognition from college degrees, regardless of their USDOE accreditation status.

California historically differed from USDOE on the status of CCU degrees. So why can't Texas differ from USDOE on the status of CCU degrees ?

 

I think the article clearly says that Texas considers non-RA degrees (e.g., DETC) to be "fraudulent" and "substandard" - a "Class B misdemeanor," therefore a CRIMINAL act. So, if the article is accurate, any person who uses a DETC degree in Texas could be charged with a crime...

 

Rich is absolutely correct. I enquired with DOE several months ago about the accreditation issues and unaccredited but state approved schools. According to John Barth of the DOE, the federal government nor the DOE has any jurisdiction over states for accredititation or approval of schools of higher education within states to dictate what accreditation or lack there of to be "legal" or accepted in the individual states. According to John Barth, it would be a matter of amending the Consitution through Congress to do so on the federal level. It is left up to the individual states to regulate higher education and the use of credentials. With that said, any state can regulate what school accredited or not may be used within its juridiction (the individual state).

I believe that Texas is very wrong in what it is doing. And, the 2005 accreditation cut off for recognition of the degrees of CCU, isn't accreditation based on at least two years of a school's academic history and quality count towards the academic quality? Say for instance, a new school has to be in operation for at least two years before applying for accreditation, applies and becomes accredited at the end of the thrid year. Does this mean that the students within the first two years are guinea pigs? Especially those getting a two year degree? And doesn't this stifle the building of new institutions of education?

I know I am in the minority here on this, but I believe this is why we need to get rid of the Regional Accreditation system and go with National Accreditation across the board. We are the only nation that is divided up into regions. I have read postings on here that the owner of Northcentral had to leave CA and start a new school in Arizona to get his school accredited because he couldn't get his school in CA accredited. This implies that each Regional Accreditation does not adhere to the same level of standards across the board.

 

No, because the current Oregon laws don't criminalize telling the truth. It is perfectly legal in Oregon to advertise an state-approved, but unaccredited degree -- as long as you attach a (truthful) disclaimer acknowledging that the degree does not meet Oregon standards. It is only a Misdemeanor if you don't tell the whole truth.

And this is no different from the laws that apply everywhere to another major form of credential in our society, which is the state license. Go ask any professional board in your home state -- like your state bar association, your accounting board, your engineering board, etc -- if you can advertise an out-of-state professional license, like a CPA or PE license. They'll tell you that it's OK, but only if you make it clear that your out-of-state license has no validity in your home state. Otherwise it's illegal.

Oregon uses this approach with degrees, as well as for professional licenses. And why not? Why should degrees be treated differently from other state-authorized credentials?

 

Because of Freedom of Speech, which is protected by the Constitution.

If you advertise a license, you are telling the public that you are authorized to perform a given service. If you are unlicensed in your state, then your statement is a lie.

On the other hand, if you proclaim that you have a level of education that is a bachelor’s degree, you are making a statement about your level of education and knowledge. If your degree is legitimate, you are not misleading or lying to the public. If the state of Texas believes your education is poor and unworthy, let them prove it.

As I have pointed out in previous posts, it may be correct that on AVERAGE, RA accredited schools are higher quality than DETC schools. But there are also DETC schools that are higher quality then many RA schools. DETC is a recognized accrediting agency that has set educational standards that are acceptable to the USDOE. Therefore, if Texas wants to deny your freedom of proclaiming your degree, the burden of proof is on them.

Some here have asked, if the DETC has a case, why don’t they take the State of Texas to court? I’ll ask a different question: Has the State of Texas ever prosecuted anyone for using a DETC degree? I’m certain the answer is no. Does anyone believe that the state of Texas will ever prosecute anyone in the future for using a DETC degree? Again, I believe the answer is no, because then they’d be paying legal fees to have their own laws struck down.

 

According the Accreditation Dept of the USDOE, all accreditation agencies recognized by the Secretary of the USDOE are equal under their eyes as all are held to the same high standards. The Regionals are no better than the Nationals so far as accreditation. It is the Regionals that are the big boys in this country in regards to education by history and it will take time to break down the barriers this system has established.

 

To me, this makes more sense. I can understand the State of Texas not recognizing CCU degrees awarded prior to their accreditation by DETC. They were unaccredited. No problem there.

But, what about DETC in general? Is this an accrediting body recognized by the State of Texas, or not? Not recognizing a degree or accrediting body is one thing, and I'll grant that states probably have that right...but making use of a degree granted by an institution recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Ed a CRIMINAL offense? That goes too far.

 

States establish standards for professional licenses. States establish standards for college degrees. There is no difference.

Your out-of-state license may or may not be considered as proof of competency by your in-state professional board, which may or may not grant you a reciprocal license. Your out-of-state degree may or may not be accepted as proof of education by your in-state education board, which may or may not recognize your degree. Again, there is no difference.

Everyone would agree with that statement. Unfortunately, however, it is completely meaningless, unless there is consensus on the definition of the term "legitimate".

My point is that the State has the ultimate say on what is "legitimate". You would apparently prefer that it be USDOE. But that's not how it works. The States can make determinations independently of USDOE -- just as California did when CCU was originally licensed as an unaccredited school.

If California can make determinations about the legitimacy of CCU independently of USDOE, then why can't Texas do the same ?

Like it or not, states have the right to establish their own standards for college degrees, just as they establish their own standards for professional licenses. They don't have to "prove" anything.

Some states restrict the use of unaccredited degrees. Some states restrict the use of nationally accredited degrees. Some states even restrict the use of regionally accredited degrees.

For example, Concord Law School is now regionally accredited, and is legally authorized to grant JD (law) degrees in California. Are these degrees "legitimate"? In California, they clearly are. But in other states, they would not be considered "legitimate", because they do not meet in-state standards, which call for ABA accreditation. If you tried to advertise yourself as a "JD" outside of California, most out-of-state bar associations and education depts. would come down on you like a ton of bricks. Texas is probably no exception.

And this is an RA degree. If Texas can restrict the use of RA degrees, why can't they restrict the use of NA degrees?

 

Actually, people with Concord degrees routinely call themselves JD in states other than California. Most of Concorde’s students do not reside in California and have no intention of taking the bar. These people, as well as people with NA degrees, have every right to represent their educational accomplishments. That is my opinion. States can set standards for degrees that are authorized in their home state. Texas has the right not to grant a license to DETC schools. What they have no right to do is restrict people from describing their educational accomplishments. It’s up to the individual employer to make the determination as to the quality of the degree being claimed.

 

I agree that states should not restrict one's ability to describe a legally earned out-of-state degree or license.

However, states do have the right to regulate or restrict the use of out-of-state credentials. For example, states can require disclaimers for out-of-state credentials that do not meet in-state standards. Or they can disallow the use of the credential for certain purposes (as, for example, most states do with Concord law degrees, even though they have USDOE-recognized NA or RA). This approach strikes a balance between the individual's right to describe their credentials, and the state's right to develop standards for such credentials.

 

It is the law in Texas and a number of other states. I assume that you're saying that Texas doesn't have that right because of the constitutional right to free speech and telling the simple truth? I suspect that some day we'll see a challenge to such a law. It will be interesting to see the outcome.

 

That's so true! For example, Florida does not reciprocate firefighting certifications from other states, so when out-of-state firefighters move to Florida, they are always stunned to learn that Florida requires them to attend Florida's firefighting curriculum! We've had some seasoned, well educated firefighters who had to attend the basic firefighting academy with all the rookies. This serves as an example that states do not have to recoginize other accrediting bodies and each state can set its own standards.