Opening Black Boxes in California

There are a number of good provisions in SB 823 that should not be left on the table.

For example, there is an actual faculty standard, however minimal, that is a *higher standard* than that now in place used by WASC:

Sec 94877. Faculty shall possess adequate academic, experiential, and professional qualifications to teach the course or to perform the duties as assigned. A faculty member in a program that leads to a degree shall possess a degree of equal or higher level in the occupation for which certification is sought.

Another important feature of SB 823 that should not be discarded is the study proposal for assessing the extent “to which accreditation by accrediting bodies provides sufficient assurance that the various goals of this chapter have been met” by the end of 2009. The report would then provide recommendations as to whether the existing exemptions from the proposed legislation should be continued.

Section 94841…. © (1) By December 31, 2009, the Legislative Analyst’s Office shall conduct a comprehensive review and provide to the Legislature and the Governor a report that assesses the extent to which accreditation by accrediting bodies provides sufficient assurance that the various goals of this chapter have been met. Based on this assessment, the report shall include recommendations for the continuation, elimination, or modification of the exemptions … [and] shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, all of the following issues:

(A) Are the fundamental roles, legal authority and actions of the bureau and regional accrediting bodies recognized and approved by the USDE substantially comparable in practice, force, and effect and if they are different, what are the differences?

(B) Should California law be amended to permanently extend the exemption for all regionally accredited institutions, thus relying upon such accreditation for the purposes of educational oversight and consumer protection?

© If so, should California law be amended to permanently extend or amend the exceptions and monitoring as contained in subdivision (b)?

(D) Should California law be amended to extend the exemptions only for some portion of the regionally accredited institutions or for some portion of the commissions within the accrediting bodies?

(E) Should California law be amended to rely upon such accreditation for some aspect of its oversight, but not all aspects?

(F) Should California law be amended to continue the exemption granted in former Section 94750, and if so, under what specific conditions?

Opening “black boxes” is always potentially dangerous, politically, but these educational quality issues are of such importance to the public that they shouldn’t be left to the politicians.

It is, after all, the taxpayer that funds all this, at the state and federal level. These modest proposals recognize that reality. Let’s keep them in the bill!

Glen S. McGhee, Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project, at 8:45 am EDT on August 28, 2007

Lets be fair!

I believe that until such time as California regulates it’s excessive for profit industry, they should suspend the regulation of nonprofits and publics!

Further, any audit or program review findings pertaining to nonprofits or public institutions found at any time between the date that the law regulating for profits expired and the adoption of any new laws should be thrown out.

Fair is fair, if California is not going to regulate for profits then it would be anticompetitive and unfair to regulate any other higher education entity. Why should forprofits enjoy an advantage that no one else enjoys.

Bob, at 9:50 am EDT on August 28, 2007

Fairness Revisited

Duncan, regulation of for profits, and for that matter accreditation of for profits has historically been about much more than the quality of the education or graduates.

Mostly, it has been about financial aid and student loan fraud, transcript fraud, subpar facilities and unprepared instructors, and I could go on. How about schools that open for two months, collect tuition from prospective students and then close up shop and move to another state.

You can say that most of these things have happened at traditional college’s as well, but not with the frequency or severity.

Focusing the discussion on one narrow dimension of higher education such as the “quality of the graduate” obfuscates the issue and is a cop out.

Of course, it is hard to find an “objective” measure of graduate quality, which is why the attorneys for the for profits keep advancing the issue. The strategy is to move the focus off of the behavior of the school and put it on the graduate.

If the for profits want acceptance they should apply to be accredited by the regionals, but they won’t because they know they would face a different kind of scrutiny then they have in the past. Then their graduates, and institutions would be judged according to the same standards as all other students.

Bob, at 12:50 pm EDT on August 28, 2007

Reply to Duncan

I agree that regulations should be consistent to the extent that they can be, but different entities, under different ownership and governance structures, with similiar but differing missions will need to be treated as such. My suggestion that for profits reaccredit under the regionals would be a good first step toward more consistency and some degree of equivalence.

I disagree as to the frequency issue though. I submit that if you have a neighbor that throws a rock through your window everyday as opposed to your other neighbor whose kid hit his baseball through your window once 5 years ago, you are not going to treat them the same.

For the record, I don’t work for an accrediting agency either.

Bob, at 4:30 pm EDT on August 28, 2007