What the Texas DOE thinks of CCU

People with professional licenses understand this quite well. States almost always have differing requirements for licenses; sometimes they make sense, and sometimes they don't. But the point is that states have the power to establish and enforce their own standards.

People with college degrees seem to have a much harder time grasping this point. I suspect this is because regional and national accreditation agencies have been so successful at promoting interstate acceptance of degrees that many people are shocked to learn that you can't always take it for granted.

 

In Canada, secondary education is governed by each province or territory in that the graduation requirements vary across jurisdictions. Therefore, when applying to post-secondary institutions the admissions requirements often vary based on the province or territory in which the student completed their secondary education. Post-secondary graduates of public institutions (colleges and universities) have portability of their degree upon graduation. Private post-secondary institutions though have some limitations on whether they are recognized by other institutions. For purposes of employment, the employer determines the educational credentials suitable for their organization.

In the USA, degree portability seems to be governed by each state. For purposes of employment, the employer determines the educational credentials suitable for their organization.

Professional licensing, however, is governed at the state (USA) and province or territory (Canada) level.

 

So this is the statute:

What I do not understand, and perhaps I am reading it wrong, wouldn't California Coast University be legit since it met the requirement of the state it was conferred from? Or is it that she was in residence in Texas when she received it? Would it be substandard if she lived in California when she received her degree?

This is the line that makes me ask those questions:

Hasn't California Coast University been licensed to grant degrees in California since before they go their DETC accreditation?

 

"conferred in another state by an institution that was not accredited by an accreditor recognized by the Coordinating Board and that has not been approved by the Coordinating Board for its degrees to be used in Texas"

This means that any degree issued by a non-RA-accredited institution is considered fraudulent in Texas unless it has been explicitly approved by the TCB.

 

Okay, but why the first clause? Wouldn't the clause you have quoted cover the first?

 

Okay. We have heard plenty about what states do have the power to do; what we have not heard is any informed legal opinion on why the current situation does not violate the full faith and credit clause.

 

The first clause is to disallow degrees that are regionally accredited but nonetheless illegal in a particular state. For example, if University of Phoenix were to open a campus in New York State without seeking the approval of the state, UOP would be operating that campus illegally in NY and Texas would consider that degree to be fraudulent.

 

I’ve come across something quite interesting from Google Books Search:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xRBRFJCugq4C&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=full+faith+and+credit+clause+diplomas&source=web&ots=umUjltKAku&sig=IvyEJswzDRMLyg9bFQjRqjqwu9k

It happens to be from Bear’s Guide to Earning High School Diplomas Untraditionally. It says “Because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution, other states must recognize you as a high school graduate if you have completed any state’s necessary requirements to become one.”

The Full Faith and Credit Clause was ruled not be applicable where it would violate a state’s public policy. I presume that is why professional licenses, in general, are not portable across states. The question is whether a college degree is more like a high school diploma or a professional license.

This is obviously a question for a constitutional scholar.

 

High school diplomas, like college degrees, commonly "travel" across state lines. But in practice (just as for college degrees) interstate acceptance is driven by the existence of regional/national accreditation agencies. For example, the regional accreditation agencies accredit high schools (as well as colleges).

It is legal, in at least some states, to earn a diploma at an unaccredited high schools, or at home. But (just as for college degrees) unaccredited high school diplomas do not necessarily get the same recognition as those from accredited high schools. For example, the Colorado State University explicitly states that "A student who has graduated from a home school program or a non-accredited high school has special requirements." This is in no way unusual.

In practice, there is no guarantee that a legal, but unaccredited high school diploma will be accepted by other states, or even within a given state (just as there is no guaranteed acceptance of a legal, but unaccredited college degree).

 

Isn't the culmination of home schooled students studies to take a GED or equivalent test? And if so, wouldn't this be sanctioned by the state?

 

No, although I'm sure it's done in some cases. Actually, many home school students make a point of refusing to take the GED, because they believe that it unfairly labels them as "high school dropouts". See, for example, this news release.

GEDs are indeed widely recognized, but as noted above, there is no assurance whatsoever that a student with a home-school or unaccredited diploma will have one. For example, Colorado State doesn't expect home-schooled students to have GEDs.

 

I think you are confusing college admission requirements with state recognition. A college can set any admission requirement they choose including what type of high school diplomas they will accept.

 

How about a slippery slope argument here:

If Texas can decide that DETC is not sufficient accreditation, they can then decide that only SACS accredited degrees are adequate in Texas.

Would those supporting the privilege of Texas to not recognize some accreditors that are recognized by the federal government also support the privilege of Texas to only recognize one regional accreditor?

For those who think that can't happen - I know of a state U that advertised a position open and specified credentials accredited by SACS as the only acceptable credentials. It can happen - these legislators understand about as much about accreditation as the general public. We all know that's a pretty low level of understanding.

 

A private university can set any admission requirement they choose. However, a state university, like Colorado State, serves as an example of state policies.

 

Texas could do that. Certainly it would be a bad idea -- just as their failure to recognize DETC is a bad idea -- but they could do it.

They would have one obvious problem justifying such a decision, however, simply because the regional accreditors all mutually recognize each other. In other words, SACS itself acknowledges that NCA, WASC, etc. have comparable standards. It would be hard to defend a SACS-only policy, given that condition.

However, I don't think that the RA "mutual recognition pact" extends to DETC. So the exclusion of DETC by Texas is probably easier to justify.

 

Hey! Why stop there? Why not recognize only Texas schools? For that matter, why not recognize only state schools in Texas?