Talk:Educational accreditation

UotC accreditation conversation

I realize this is off-topic, but we have a discussion going on in Talk:University of the Cumberlands regarding school accreditation and accreditation agencies that may be of interest to visitors to this talk page.
Posted to: Talk:Diploma mill and Talk:School accreditation
~Kylu (u|t) 04:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What the hell?

User:Ngb was crazy enough to put a Globalize tag on this article. As far as I know, the U.S. is the only country with this problem because of our unique system of federalism where the states are the plenary sovereigns and the federal government has to go through all kinds of crazy contortions and legal fictions if it wants to preempt state power over an issue. Most other countries don't have this problem because the national government has plenary power so it can regulate anything it wants. Unless Ngb can show that there is any other country where school accreditation actually occurs (that is, self-regulation of schools through private associations), I'm going to delete the tag. --Coolcaesar 05:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If that's true, there should be a mention on the front page that schools are only accredited in the United States. --Tim4christ17 07:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, firstly, calling other contributors 'crazy' is not a great way to foster a spirit of cooperation on the encyclopaedia.

School accreditation goes on all over the world. Some accreditation is performed by governments, some is performed by private organisations (for instance, the Business School at my institution was recently accredited by EQUIS). Anyway, the key point is that school accreditation is a worldwide thing: it doesn't just happen in the US.

If the article is going to deal exclusively with a 'unique legal problem' in the United States then it should be moved to School accreditation in the United States or similar. If it's going to deal with school accreditation worldwide then it needs some information about school accreditation worldwide: hence the {{globalize}} tag. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 09:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure the correct term is accreditation when it's performed by governments? My understanding is that accreditation refers to a process carried out by private parties pursuant to a contract. If the government directly inspects the schools and gives them an official document saying they meet all legal standards, that's called regulation or licensing in American English. For example, we have many unaccredited institutions in California that are not accredited by WASC, but are directly regulated by the rather ineffective California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education. If European institutions are using "accreditation" to refer to both government and private inspection processes, then we may be looking at yet another strange dialect difference between American and British English. --Coolcaesar 22:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Terms, some facts about Germany and Europe and - a few thoughts

Here in Germany we also have a federal system - the individual states are in charge of all education matters, including school licensing. The vast majority of all Universities are either state Universities operating under public charters, or they are private Universities that in fact are public-private partnerships where the same applies. Accreditation (Akkreditierung) is a concept that only was established quite recently, and it refers to the acceptance of individual study programmers (Bachelors and Masters programmers instead of the classical national award schemes) as part of the Bologna process of educational harmonization within the European Union. It strikes me as a tremendously stiff and bureaucratic process. Aside from that in Germany - and in fact in most EU countries - the term "University" is protected. It is legal to set up, for example, a distance learning school, for which a state license is required that also includes a quality assurance process, however, there is absolutely no way to call it a University. If the operators of such a school do, they are in for an extended period of free room and board on state costs. I find it absolutely ridiculous that in parts of the United States a letter box company can call itself a University. Most people from other countries will not even give it a second thought and automatically will believe that such an entity is a legitimate school. At the same time the accreditation process in the US also has the smell of a cartel. --Wassermensch 10:45, 16 October 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.6.56.18 (talk)

National Accreditation v. Religious Accreditation

The religious accreditation section needs to be either removed or changed - The United States Department of Education's Office of Postsecondary Education recognizes only regional and national accreditation, listing religious accrediting agencies (such as the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools) as national accrediting agencies. --Tim4christ17 07:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no need to change it. Religious accreditation is national and there are only a few regional accreditators. Regional is recognized as more solid in terms of transferring credits and having degrees recognized. Many private Christian schools have both regional and national. It would be someone's bias, which would want to change the wording. CaliEd 20:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, what Tim4christ17 is trying to get across is that religious accreditors are a subset of national accreditors as opposed to a third category. It's the difference between having a list of three different ranks, 1, 2, 3, versus having a list of two ranks of which the latter has two subranks: 1, 2a, 2b. --Coolcaesar 21:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Coolcaesar here. It seems uneven to single out a subset of national accreditation bodies simply because they are religious. You could conceivably make the same or an even greater subset for medical science accrediting bodies. The implied bias here may be that religious accreditors and/or religious education are somewhow not equivalently recognized...and this is not the case according to the US Gov't. I say get rid of the subset.--danzieg 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I edited the article with the idea that there are two accrediting categories, plus unaccredited institutions, including "Diploma Mills". THis seems like a more fair breakdown to me..--danzieg 16:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I though I was signed in while editing (still learning). The above-mentioned edit was done under an IP address 216.141.143.222 and not my name. I appologize for the obfuscation.--Danzieg 03:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

We have a possible vandal, heads up everyone

Just caught this. On 20 July 2006 someone with IP address 67.176.24.203 deleted an entire passage of mine for no reason. See diff: [1] I was too busy to catch the vandalism but fortunately I did catch it this week and I put back my text. Everyone please be on the lookout for this vandal and be prepared to revert as needed. --Coolcaesar 07:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

School accreditation is voluntary

Actually, it is voluntary in the sense that it is private. An accreditor is a private organization formed between peers. If a government agency licenses an institution and thereby directly supervises its operations, then there is no need for accreditors. --Coolcaesar 05:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously this differs depending on the country in which the institution is located. It's certainly voluntary for private colleges and universities in the US. --ElKevbo 10:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please cite a source for it being "voluntary," diploma mills make that claim. Yet, most countries do not consider it voluntary, such as Sweden, Germany, UK, etc.

While Wyoming requires all schools to either be seeking accreditation or have it, read the actual law here: [2]. Meanwhile in Texas you need accreditation to issue degrees and call it a seminary.[[3] Thus, your opinion is without a source. CaliEd 03:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

California considers it voluntary, indeed, I just checked and you edited the article on the BPPVE on June 30, so you should know about it. We also have law schools that are not approved or accredited by anyone, including the BPPVE. (see the official full list of California law schools and scroll down to the bottom [4]) Finally, I don't have the time right now to pull the actual precedents and statutes that state that accreditation is purely voluntary, but I did find a quick source on Google. The GAO in a 2004 report on diploma mills stated that accreditation is voluntary [5] (warning: PDF). I'll look for a more authoritative source when I have the time.--Coolcaesar 03:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to put in the article that it is voluntary for California you need a source, and to explain that the BPPVE exists and has educational requirements higher education must meet. Also help me out, what page of that GAO report? I think the 2006 Wyoming law trumps the 2004 report in the sense that you can't claim something for the entire US with the 2004 now. Yes, I would like a more authoritative source when you have the time. CaliEd 03:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The ACE publication An Overview of Higher Education in the United States: Diversity, Access, and the Role of the Marketplace states that "two sets of voluntary organizations act as bulwarks against excessive government control of higher education: accrediting organizations that monitor quality assurance, and membership associations that represent institutions to the federal and state governments." Peterson's states that "earning an accreditation in the United States is a voluntary, nongovernmental process." Further, the very existence of non-accredited institutions (that are not diploma mills) attests to the fact that in some states (perhaps not all - we should probably clarify that if necessary) accreditation is indeed voluntary. It's rare that an institution would purposely not seek accreditation and my sense is that it is getting even more rare as even holdouts like Pensacola Christian College seek accreditation from one of the recognized Christian accreditation agencies. There are also many academic departments that do not seek accreditation in their specific field; Harvard's school of education is the most famous example (and a noteable one because they're not at all hurt by their lack of NCATE accreditation - they're Harvard and for good or bad their name speaks for itself as to the quality of their program). --ElKevbo 04:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Voluntary for some places, not in others (see above for what i cited on Wyoming). We need to specify those places with sources. Also according to the Texas Board of Education:

Accreditation is “voluntary,” so doesn't that mean it is optional and not necessary?

Accreditation is voluntary in that the process of accreditation requires the full cooperation with and complete participation in the process of accreditation by the college or university seeking accreditation. At the heart of the accreditation process is a self-study prepared by the college or university demonstrating its commitment to the standards of accreditation.

Since accreditation is the primary means of determining the legitimacy and quality of colleges and universities in the United States, to describe the process as "voluntary" is not to describe it as "optional" or "unnecessary."[6]

CaliEd 19:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, as demonstrated by the handful of institutions that are not accredited but whose education is still held in high regard, accreditation is by definition "voluntary" at least in some states. I don't understand how one could dispute that fact (and I don't think anyone is - I think we're just splitting hairs at this point).

Moving on: does anyone know of or have any good resources that detail the different laws and regulations surrounding accreditation in the various states and territories? At the very least, it seems perfectly clear to me that we can use the sources we've already pulled together to discuss the exactly how "voluntary" accreditation really is for most institutions. Obviously in some states it's mandatory. But, let's face it, even in the other states there are very few institutions that can both survive financially without being accredited (and thus eligible for federal financial aid) and survice academically without an objective, accepted measure of their programs' quality. --ElKevbo 19:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I keep having a strange feeling about the educational accreditation practice in the US. The state does not charter institutions (which I would consider the most normal thing in the world). Establishing private Universities is relatively easy. When a private University is established, it is in fact a private organization - a company, basically. And then the state de-facto forces this private entity to seek licensing from another private entity which ultimately is under the control of the new company's main competitors - that is the large Universities - and which establishes criteria that are not entirely academically in nature but - like in all quality assurance processes, e.g. ISO 9000 - mainly consists of forbiddingly expensive formal and bureaucratic requirements. Imagine you have a small startup software company that wants to bring a new and innovative computer operating system onto the market - and you need to get a permission from an "accreditor" that is operated by Microsoft, Apple and IBM. I am not sure if this is a system in accordance with American ideas of freedom and innovation. I am even less sure if it is constitutional in the first place. --Wassermensch 11:00, 16 October 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.6.56.18 (talk)

Hi Wassermensch, a quick response because the real purpose of this page is discussin ghow to improve the article not for discussions on the article's topic. Each of the RA organizations are so large that I don't think your concern is really valid. Also, most members of the RA organization are NOT profit oriented. TallMagic (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

North Dakota does not accept unaccredited degrees

Source: [7] (section 15-20.4-15.)

15-20.4-15. Unlawful to issue, manufacture, or use false academic degrees - Penalty. 1. It is unlawful for a person to knowingly issue or manufacture a false academic degree. A person that violates this subsection is guilty of a class C felony. 2. a. It is unlawful for an individual to knowingly use or claim to have a false academic degree: (1) To obtain employment; (2) To obtain a promotion or higher compensation in employment; (3) To obtain admission to an institution of higher learning; or (4) In connection with any business, trade, profession, or occupation. b. An individual who violates this subsection is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. 3. As used in this section, "false academic degree" means a document such as a degree or certification of completion of a degree, coursework, or degree credit, including a transcript, that provides evidence or demonstrates completion of a course of instruction or coursework that results in the attainment of a rank or level of associate or higher which is issued by a person that is not a duly authorized institution of higher learning. 4. As used in this section, "duly authorized institution of higher learning" means an institution that: a. Has accreditation recognized by the United States secretary of education or has the foreign equivalent of such accreditation; b. Has an authorization to operate under this chapter; c. Operates in this state and is exempt from this chapter under section 15-20.4-02; d. Does not operate in this state and is: (1) Licensed by the appropriate state agency; and (2) An active applicant for accreditation by an accrediting body recognized by the United States secretary of education; or e. Has been found by the state board for career and technical education to meet standards of academic quality comparable to those of an institution located in Page No. 6 the United States that has accreditation recognized by the United States secretary of education to offer degrees of the type and level claimed. CaliEd 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey does not accept unaccredited degrees

New Jersey basically has the same law as North Dakota. New Jersey Statutes & Regulations Regarding Academic Degrees [8]

A person shall not append to his name any letters in the same form designated by the Commission on Higher Education as entitled to the protection accorded to an academic degree unless the person has received from a duly authorized institution of higher education the degree or certificate for which the letters are registered. For the purposes of this section, a duly authorized institution of higher education means an in-State institution licensed by the Commission on Higher Education or an out-of-State institution licensed by the appropriate state agency and regionally accredited or seeking accreditation by the appropriate accrediting body recognized by the Council on Postsecondary Education or the United States Department of Education.

It is sections: L.1986,c.87,s.3; amended 1994,c.48,s.36. CaliEd 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Washington does not accept unaccredited degrees

Washington State: "State senators unanimously amended and approved a bill that would make giving or using a fake or otherwise unaccredited degree a class C felony, a crime of fraud that could warrant five years in prison and a $10,000 fine."[9]

Here is the law: HB 2507 - 2005-06 :Prohibiting false or misleading college degrees.[10] (top of page three)

False academic credential" means a document that provides evidence or demonstrates completion of an academic or professional course of instruction beyond the secondary level that results in the attainment of an academic certificate, degree, or rank, and that is not issued by a person or entity that: (i) Is an entity accredited by an agency recognized as such by rule of the higher education coordinating board or has the international equivalents of such accreditation; or (ii) is an entity authorized as a degree-granting institution by the higher education coordinating board; or (iii) is an entity exempt from the requirements of authorization as a degree-granting institution by the higher education coordinating board; or (iv) is an entity that has been granted a waiver by the higher education coordinating board from the requirements of authorization by the board. Such documents include, but are not limited to, academic certificates, degrees, coursework, degree credits, transcripts, or certification of completion of a degree.

"Board" of course refers to the Washington Board of education. CaliEd 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oregon does not accept unaccredited degrees

Oregon does not accept unaccredited degrees, unless it is approved by Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization. [11]

583-050-0014

Unaccredited Degrees

(1) Users of unaccredited degrees may use the degrees in the following ways.

(a) Unaccredited degrees that have achieved ODA approval under ORS 348.609(d) can be used without a disclaimer.

(b) Unaccredited degrees that have not achieved ODA approval under ORS 348.609(d) can only be used with a disclaimer.

(c) Degrees issued by degree mills are invalid for use, with or without a disclaimer.

(2) Process for approval under ORS 348.609(d). A claimant of an unaccredited U.S. degree may submit to the Office information indicating that the school conferring the degree has the legal authority to issue degrees in another state and could reasonably be considered for approval in Oregon under OAR 583-030.

(a) A reasonable possibility of approval can be demonstrated by submitting to ODA the appropriate review fee and sufficient evidence that the unaccredited institution could meet ODA academic standards under OAR 583-030 for authorization to operate in Oregon if it chose to make such an application.

(b) ODA may, upon its own motion, evaluate an unaccredited institution and determine whether it has a reasonable chance to meet Oregon authorization standards without a degree user making such a request.

(c) If a request for evaluation under this section is not made to ODA within 30 days of notification that an unaccredited degree is being used contrary to Oregon law, the degree user's right to such a review is waived and ODA may pursue appropriate enforcement action. Degree users may, within the first 30 days, request up to 30 additional days for the purpose of gathering material necessary to apply for an evaluation.

(3) A claimant of a non-U.S. degree issued by a degree supplier not accredited by a U.S. accreditor may submit to the Office information proving that the supplier issuing the degree has the following characteristics.

(a) The supplier is operating legally as a degree-granting institution in its host country.

(b) The host country has a postsecondary approval system equivalent to U.S. accreditation in that it applies qualitative measures by a neutral external party recognized in that role by the government.

(c) The supplier has been approved through the demonstrable application of appropriate standards by the host country's accreditor equivalent.

(d) All degrees issued by the supplier are legally valid for use and professional licensure within the host country.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 348.609 Stats. Implemented: ORS 348.603, 348.609, 348.992 & SB 1039 (2005 OL, Ch. 546) Hist.: ODA 2-1998, f. & cert. ef. 8-12-98; ODA 1-2001, f. & cert. ef. 6-27-01; ODA 3-2003, f. 10-29-03, cert. ef. 11-1-03; ODA 4-2004, f. & cert. ef. 5-14-04; ODA 3-2005, f. 9-27-05, cert. ef. 9-30-05; Renumbered from 583-050-0031, ODA 4-2005, f. & cert. ef. 10-18-05

Thus, if you have an unaccredited degree it must be approved by the ODA. CaliEd 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Indiana does not accept unaccredited doctorates

Indiana does not accept unaccredited doctorates unless they have a religious nature and "clearly identify the religious character of the educational program." [12]

SECTION 1. IC 24-5-0.5-12 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE]: Sec. 12. (a) It is an incurable deceptive act for an individual, while soliciting or performing a consumer transaction, to claim, either orally or in writing, to possess a doctorate degree or use a title, a word, letters, an insignia, or an abbreviation associated with a doctorate degree, unless the individual: (1) has been awarded a doctorate degree from an institution that is: (A) accredited by a regional or professional accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education or the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation; (B) a religious seminary, institute, college, or university whose certificates, diplomas, or degrees clearly identify the religious character of the educational program; or (C) operated and supported by a governmental agency

SECTION 1. IC 24-5-0.5-12 IS CaliEd 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Diploma Mills

I just removed the section about diploma mills from the Religious accreditation section of the page - as it refered to unaccredited schools and that section was about accredited schools. It should be further noted that religious accredition is just as "legit" as national accredition, since religious accrediting agencies are national accrediting agencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim4christ17 (talk • contribs)

Religious accreditation is legitimate, this version states the case neutrally enough, if people think there is a particular issue with unaccredited religious schools then we should discuss how it can e included. Just zis Guy you know? 21:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note that some states require accreditation and have exemption for religious schools, and that exemption is sometimes used by diploma mills. Tim4christ17 removed that cited fact. CaliEd 03:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't realize that - why don't you move that fact somewhere else in the article - that section is for national accrediting agencies, and what you're talking about would be with schools that are not accredited. --Tim4christ17 21:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why move it? It is under a section for US accreditation, and a subsection discussing religious accreditation. Where do you want to move it? CaliEd 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's under a section for U.S. Accredition, a subsection dealing with national accredation of religious bodies (NOT national religious accreditation - as the accrediting process/level of legitimacy is identical). Since your concerns are about state religious accreditation, it should be moved. Further, since it is a legal issue, it might be appropriate to put it under Legal Issues, where there is already a mention of diploma mills. --Tim4christ17 21:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we need a section on Diploma Mills, but why is a discussion of "Diploma Mills" happening under the "National Accreditation" (and the "Religious accreditation") category? The implication here is that there is a connection. Diploma Mills are almost exclusively the domain of unaccredited or unrecognized (by the US Dept. of ED or CHEA) colleges and accrediting agencies. None of the citations say otherwise. By US Gov't standards and oversight, recognized national accrediting agencies are legit, and the schools that submit to their accreditation processes are working hard at complying with accreditation standards. It is blatantly unfair to put them into bed with diploma mills. Let's create a "diploma mill" category as before Danzieg 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

Not all unaccredited schools using religious exemption are diploma mills. CaliEd 20:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is correct. But there are religious diploma mills. I believe there are legitimate unaccredited universities in all fields (you have to start somewhere), on the other hand all diploma mills I have come across are unaccredited. Just zis Guy you know? 20:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with your implication that the only legitimate unaccreditated institutions are those that are just starting out. There are a handful of legitimate institutions that choose, typically for philosophical reasons, to simply not pursue accreditation. Whether or not that is a good choice or they have good reasons for making that choice is certainly a matter of serious debate. But they do exist and I don't think it's fair to cast aspersions on the quality of their education simply because they choose not to seek accreditation. I agree that it's a huge signal that the institution may warrant serious investigation - but it's still just a signal to conduct investigation and it may not be the ultimate conclusion (although for many students it will be and understandable so). --ElKevbo 17:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As noted by the U.S. Department of Education, failure to obtain accreditation does not mean that a school is necessarily a bad school. DOE notes that it is possible for a school to otherwise provide a good education even though they don't have (or seek) accreditation by third parties. DOE is right to point out that people should do investigation of schools and particularly those that have chosen not to pursue accreditation, but even they admit that it is possible for a good school to choose to remain unaccredited. Vivaldi (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Globalize

"In many other countries, higher education institutions must receive the permission of the government to operate, and thus accreditation is performed by the government."

This has been changed before to remove the word 'many'. Can any of you say for certain that every place outside of the USA requires state accreditation? Until you can don't remove it. Citing the laws of a few countries is not the whole world. Is it required in Somalia? What about the 200 or so other countries? --Kalmia 20:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

School accreditation is voluntary in the United States

I just found the correct sources. In the United States Code, Congress has defined the term accrediting agency. The citation is 20 U.S.C. § 1099b. Please read the article on the United States Code if you do not understand how to read the citation. Specifically, at paragraph (a)(2)(A)(i), an accrediting agency "has a voluntary membership of institutions of higher education and has as a principal purpose the accrediting of institutions of higher education." In the Code of Federal Regulations, the Department of Education has adhered to the statutory mandate by promulgating the following definition at 34 CFR 602.3: "Accrediting agency or agency means a legal entity, or that part of a legal entity, that conducts accrediting activities through voluntary, non-Federal peer review and makes decisions concerning the accreditation or preaccreditation status of institutions, programs, or both." Under the Chevron doctrine (see Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.), this regulation also carries the force of law. I hope this makes the voluntary status of accreditation clearer. --Coolcaesar 18:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees that accreditation is voluntary in that context. However there are specific contexts where accreditation is mandatory, namely, if you are a school that is purporting to train medical doctors, engineers, accountants, nurses, and various other professional schools, with an ultimate goal of professional practice in those fields, then it is not voluntary process. It is against the law, and rightly so, that we make our professionals obtain their degrees from reputable institutions that pass the rigours of the accreditation process. Vivaldi (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The main concern boils over why it is necessary to certify a religious school at all. It seems like anyone's religious beliefs are a pretty much unverifiable and unscientific thing. We don't put ministers in jail for malpractice when they interpret the bible, or Koran, in a manner that is inconsistent with traditional thought. I can see why there is a need for accreditation to exist, and I can see why a religious school and a religious student would value the accreditation process as a means to identify a school that has at least some minimum standards in quality of education -- however I can also understand that it is possible for a school to object to accreditation on philisophical grounds, and for a student to accept that knowledge with full understanding of the implications involved. Some people don't care that their preacher went to an unaccredited Bible school. In fact, some very successful ministers have achieved great success in their field after attending unaccrediting bible schools. Vivaldi (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as I've pointed out above, California has many types of unaccredited schools. We have unaccredited nursing schools, law schools, theology schools, psychology schools, trade schools, etc. Hawaii is even worse; its weak legal system has made it a haven for outright scams. See [this article] from the Pacific Business Journal. This is because in the United States, our strong history of libertarianism supports a caveat emptor view of how business should work.

Furthermore, accreditation is a voluntary process in the sense that it is a peer process and not having accreditation does not lead to an instant shutdown. That is, a medical or accounting school could operate in many states within the United States without accreditation, in that it accepts tuition, holds classes, and awards degrees, even though no one will hire its graduates. After all, California has many unaccredited law schools that do precisely that, even though their graduates rarely pass the bar exam and rarely find jobs.

In contrast, if an ordinary business operates without paying the required business license fee to the local city or county, then the local prosecutor can get an injunction to shut it down immediately, and lock the doors and seize control of the premises. Similarly, if a business doesn't carry workers' compensation insurance as required by law, then the workers' comp agency can get a "stop order" to shut down the business immediately. That's the difference between licensing and accreditation.

Failure to hold a license leads to immediate consequences. For example, a physician who practices without a license is breaking the law and will face immediate legal consequences. The failure of one's school to gain accreditation means that one can still earn a degree but not necessarily a license based on that degree. This is a subtle but important distinction in American law. --Coolcaesar 18:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, I'm interested in seeing some citations, a hypothetical (namely your claim: "I can also understand that it is possible for a school to object to accreditation on philisophical grounds") doesn't cut it. Could you specifically cite some examples? This is an encyclopedia and your claims must meet WP:V. I know Strassford University says "None of the recognized regional accrediting organizations accept as members institutions that are not dedicated to traditional education that requires residency and classroom attendance." Thus, it doesnt "desire" traditional accreditation.[13] I also know Strassford University is listed by the Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization as part of a diploma mill operation. [14]Arbusto 06:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The only case where it might be necessary to certify a religious school would be if that school was offering degrees other than in their religion. For example, if that school wanted to offer desgrees in mathmatics, or computer science, it would need to be accredited. However, it is not necessary for a religious institution to seek to be accredited if all it is offering is training in its particular faith.Bagginator 04:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's true and it's not supported by any of the evidence cited so far. Can you please cite some evidence supporting your claim? --ElKevbo 05:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would say, a Muslim school, that teaches its students how to be clerics need to be accredited? As long as the leaders in the Muslim faith accepted the school that is all that would be needed. The same thing applies to any other religion.Bagginator 06:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I wasn't very clear. Can you please cite evidence supporting your assertion that schools that offer degrees in mathematics or computer science would need to be accredited? To the best of my knowledge, that isn't true in the United States and I would be very appreciative if you can help me fill in what may be a hole in my knowledge. --ElKevbo 23:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point, school accreditation is voluntary. Arbusto 00:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please cite that. You are talking about an institution that issues a bachelor's degree or one that offers Sunday school classes? Arbusto 23:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither Arbustoo. Funny though! And no ElKevbo, I cannot cite any evidence to support my assertion that schools that offer degrees in mathematics or computer science would need to be accredited. Nor could I cite evidence to support an assertion that schools that offer degrees in mathemeatics or computer science would not need to be accredited. However, schools that offer neither, which is my point, do not need to be accredited. I go back to a Muslim school as my example. As long as those who practice Islam agree that their leaders be trained in a particular way and those requirements are met, secular accreditation is not needed.Bagginator 23:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

1) Training for Ordination is different than a Bachelor's degree. If you disagree bring some sources and propose a merge between Ordination and bachelor's degree. 2) Seminaries do have accreditors, which include secular accreditators as well. What's your point? Arbusto 23:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

1)I don't disagree. That's my point. Training for ordination is different than a Bachelor's degree.2) Seminaries that only train for ordination (Unlike say David Lipscomb University which trains for BA and BS degrees as well) do not need to be accredited. That's my point.Bagginator 04:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That they're seminaries has nothing to do with their requirement for accreditation or lack thereof. Unless there are state laws to the contrary, accreditation for *all* institution in America is voluntary. Your education may not be worth very much (or anything) if obtained from an unaccredited instution and you may not even be able to say you have a college degree. But the institution is still allowed to operate and you're still allowed to attend. --ElKevbo 05:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Religious accreditation

My recent edit just changed the wording that JzG chose. His wording suggested that religious-related accreditation bodies actually succeed in their goal to always accredit religious institutions without compromising doctrinal statements of those institutions. Since there exist a number of schools that specifically cite doctrinal reasons as primary reasons for refusing to undergo the certification process, it seems like a number of people disagree with the assumption that JzG seems to imply is a universal truth. My compromise edit just changes the wording to say that these religious accreditation bodies "seek" to provide accreditation without interfering with doctrine. Certainly most people would suggest that they are able to do so, but a significant number have argued that any accredition at all is against their religious doctrine. I also fixed a minor typo. Vivaldi (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, your point is made quite clearly in the case of San Diego Christian College which is an accredited school. You'll see at the link these words lack of evidence to support that the College is sufficiently autonomous from the supporting church to be an accreditable entity. It is possible that the San Diego Christian College, which is currently accredited, will no longer be so after March of 2007. Clearly this would be a choice the school has to make. Does it wish to remain affiliated with the supporting church and therefore lose its accreditation, or will it choose autonomy and remain accredited.Bagginator 06:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The full quote is "The Commission found the College to be operating in substantial noncompliance with Standards 1 and 3 with respect to leadership and governance, financial planning, and lack of evidence to support that the College is sufficiently autonomous from the supporting church to be an accreditable entity." Arbusto 23:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Vivaldi. It should be mentioned that some religious schools claim not to want accreditation for restrictions. It needs to also be mentioned that diploma mills also claim not to want accreditation fearing restrictions as well. All parties of unaccredited schools should get equal say. Arbusto 00:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How is this done?

I'm working on designing an internal accreditation process for a group of related organizations. It would be helpful for reference purposes if the article had a description of how a typical accreditation process works. Is it confidential? What kinds of sources are used? What modalities (self-reporting, independently measured metrics, physical inspection, financial audit, etc.) are used? -- Beland 00:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• A quick Google search reveals e.g. http://www.chea.org/public_info/index.asp#how -- Beland 00:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Name change?

I would like to suggest that the name of this article be changed to be more globally inclusive as 'school accreditation' does not make sense to me in a UK/European context. I suggest something along the lines of Higher education accreditation or Higher learning accreditation (clunky to me but in keeping with the other linked articles) as this would be more globally inclusive encompassing all forms of higher education/types of higher education systems. Madmedea 13:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the current title is misleading. However, to be truly global, I would prefer Academic accreditation. In the United States, essentially the same accreditation process also applies to lower schools, but the U.S. federal government is not involved in "recognizing" accreditors for primary and secondary education. Accreditation of higher education institutions should be treated as a subtopic of the overall topic of academic accreditation. --orlady 13:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Well you learn something everday. I had no idea that 'schools' (i.e. K-12) were accredited in the US. Yes, Academic accreditation would be a good overall article title with sections on "higher education/learning accreditation" (using the current info) and also High School etc. accreditation as I don't think that is covered on Wikipedia at present (oh that's going to be fun coming up with a section title).Madmedea 15:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Contributors to the school accreditation article have been pretty persistent about focusing on higher education. However, the accreditation of lower schools is addressed to varying degrees in Regional accreditation and the articles about the specific regional accreditors in the U.S.--orlady 17:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the accreditation of lower schools is mentioned in [15]--orlady 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Transfer of Credit Issues?

There is the issue of transfer of credits from nationally accredited schools to regionally accredited schools. Regionals, in many cases, will not accept the credits because the feel the nationals are vocational schools and the credits do not satisfy there more academically inclined environment. I put in a section about this in For-profit school. I wonder if it would be more appropriate here? Mysteryquest 05:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• That problem is not specific to national accreditation (not all nationally accredited institutions have that problem, and transfer students often find that some credits are not transferable regardless of who accredited the institution). I suggest that the information belongs mainly in the for-profit article and articles about the specific accreditors that have an issue, but it also could be mentioned here.--orlady 13:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is specific to national accreditation and apparently so do the national accreditors since they have been lobbying the Congress and the Secretary of Education to pass a new rule or law saying that regionally accredited schools shouldn't be able to reject their credits just because they are nationally accredited. Obviously, not all nationally accredited schools have that problem but most do, to hear them tell it. And of course not all credits are transferable regardless of where they are taken. Nothing is absolute. However, this is the source of a lot of controversy even if its been trumped up as I think it is. Did you review the transfer of credit section in the for profit school?Mysteryquest 19:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned here. Indeed, I put it in this article several years ago and it was in the article for at least two years until someone else took it out (probably someone working for one of those nationally accredited schools). I have been too busy working on Lawyer and working as a lawyer to deal with this issue. If you dig through the article history, you should be able to find the original edit and the citation I later provided to support my assertion about the credit transfer problem. --Coolcaesar 07:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Do all regionaly accredited schools allow all other regionaly accredited schools regardless of what regional acreddedation school credits transfer then?--209.181.16.93 (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Credit transfer is up to the institution that is evaluating the credits. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Also from a pragmatic point of view it is frequently open to negotiation. TallMagic (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

So what is unique about the regional v national accredidation209.181.16.93 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Put Accreditation in Historical Context

I've seen people like John Gray's wiki carry specific references to his degree being from a non-accredited institution. And I've seen legitimate institutions bashed because in historical context they were non-accredited. Who accredited Harvard? When? Yale? University of Indiana? It's clear that many Universities and Colleges in the USA were not formed when accrediting bodies were around. And when non-traditional schools evolved there were differing forms of accreditation around. Some would argue that if a State grants a University or College with the ability to grant legal degrees that this is a from of accreditation. What happens when one state says the degree is legal but another say it isn't? What happens when North Central won't accredit but states do, and major companies recognize the degree as valid? It seems to me to be grossly unfair to people who earned legal degrees in a significant state in the USA, but was not accredited by an organization that many years later is deemed to be important. It's not likely they will be granting retroactive accreditations... In summary the subject (And apparent attacks) need to be put into historical context. 74.138.83.249 00:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)curthawley

Criticism of accreditation processes

I removed the following from the article lead:

It is by no means accepted in academic circles that educational accreditation plays any positive role at all: on the contrary. Thus it is widely argued that in fact accreditation processes are recent hyperbureaucratic avatars of the managerialist ideology and destined, if anything, to undermine the functioning of educational institutions by replacing real-life criteria of quality by artificial "indicator"-driven criteria.[16] Bruce Charlton and Peter Andras write that in the case of the British system applied to higher education and policed by the so-called Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), "the damage inflicted ... cannot merely be measured in terms of time and money wasted. Much more significant is the institutionalisation of dishonesty in the higher education sector, the reciprocal culture of cynicism, and the permeation of the system with misinformation that prevents good decision-making.Charlton and Andras on the Failure of Accreditation in British Higher Education

It would be worthwhile for the article to include a balanced treatment of issues and trends related to educational accreditation, but it should not be in the article lead, it needs to be balanced (this one isn't), and it needs to be thoroughly researched and supported by citations. (One of the URL citations in this piece was broken as added -- I fixed it above, but have not yet looked at it -- and the other is not accurately represented in the above passage.) --Orlady 14:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• A new passage has now been added in the lead, with supporting citations on both (positive and critical) sides of the argument. The citations are accurately represented in the passage. The lead is the only place where such a passage fits, since the rest of the article is divided into geographically specific sections while this topic is general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzieka (talk • contribs) 22:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

First off let me welcome you to Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that you enjoy editing here. I encourage your interest in Wikipedia and this article in particular. Orlady is correct that this is not information that belongs in the lead paragraph. In addition I question some of the assertions but won't read the references for now because it will be reverted based on its current location. Perhaps you should consider adding a new section? Regards, TallMagic 23:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Muzieka, here's your proposed paragraph,

Accreditation is a controversial matter. Although it has been widely introduced in educational systems throughout the western world, it has not only strong supporters but also passionate critics. Thus it is argued on the one hand that the public, the students and the educational institutions themselves benefit from accreditation in diverse ways, while it also serves the professions.[1] On the other hand some experts deny that educational accreditation plays any positive role at all. On this view, accreditation processes are hyperbureaucratic avatars of the managerialist ideology.[2].

The very first sentence, I would consider controversial, especially without any context. The first sentence seems to be contradicted by the first phrase of you first reference. "Accreditation is an activity long accepted in the United States" I've taken the liberty of marking assertions made that seem to me to need better references. --TallMagic 00:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Muzieka, according to Wikipedia:Lead section, the lead section of an article is supposed to be a concise overview of the article. Accordingly, if information about critiques of the accreditation process is added to this article, it should be added in a whole new section, not in the lead section. As for content, inserting references in place of the "citation needed" tags added by TallMagic would not even come close to making this proposed addition acceptable under Wikipedia policy. The policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view sets a high bar for articles about controversial topics. Since educational accreditation means different things in different parts of the world and has been criticized by people with diametrically different perspectives and goals, writing a fully balanced (NPOV) article section about critiques of educational accreditation is particularly challenging. (When I say that educational accreditation has been criticized by people with diametrically different perspectives and goals, I mean that libertarians criticize it for philosophical reasons, some educators are criticize the process for fostering lax standards, other educators think that the process is too political, some politicians don't trust accreditation because it is controlled by educators (instead of politicians), diploma mill operators don't like it because it makes it more difficult for them to defraud prospective students... I could go on and on...) As for the reference citations themselves, note that it is very important to represent their contents accurately and ensure that they truly support the points made in the article. The references you provided do not do this. For example, the article entitled "Auditing as a tool of public policy - The misuse of quality assurance techniques in the UK university expansion" (not "Failure of Accreditation in British Higher Education") by Bruce G Charlton and Peter Andras does not come close to providing support for the broad statement that "some experts" say that "accreditation processes are hyperbureaucratic avatars of the managerialist ideology." (See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also, in connection with that statement about "some experts" and "hyperbureaucratic avatars", check out Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms.)

My bottom line: Unfortunately, this is a topic more suitable for a term paper (if not a dissertation) than a short paragraph. Rather than trying to draft a short paragraph on the fly and insert it into this article, I suggest that you research the topic, write that term paper, then distill your findings in a few paragraphs to be included in the article. If you want the writing of the term paper to be a collaborative project, talk pages and special-purpose sandboxes can be used for that.

--Orlady 02:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what Orlady has said. I would like to make a cautionary clarification though. Wikipedia has a strict no original research policy. In general, the key policies for review when editing are WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. Have fun, TallMagic 05:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Good points, TallMagic! When I said "term paper" and "dissertation" I was thinking in terms of a lengthy review of the literature, not original research. --Orlady 13:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well (taking by the way the point about the lead), the problem is that as the article now stands, it is unbalanced and may (thus) be argued to lack neutrality: it provides much information about the varieties of accreditation in various lands and sectors but almost no references to the critical literature on accreditation (about which there is, as indeed noted above, so much that one "could go on and on"). But it's not or hardly in the article... I tried to rectify this imbalance - at least in part - by drawing attention to some examples of this literature (probably the dominant variety in Europe - maybe there are some Europe/US differences here). It would be better, rather than deprive the reader of this information, to add information on whatever other significant varieties of criticism exist. As far as the other claims made above are concerned, the deleted passage makes reference not only to Charlton and Andras but first of all to [17] - an article which in fact contains the very terms "mangerialist ideology" and "hyper-bureaucratization", e.g. in the Abstract at p. 1: "... the "commercialization" of higher education and research means in reality their hyper-bureaucratization, via the imposition of so-called evaluation, assessment and accreditation schemes, the latest avatars of the managerialist ideology" - in fact exactly the terms which the comment above suggests lack support in the references! There is no question of weasel words or peacock words, since the "some experts" are not left in the air but provided with specific examples; and the so-called "peacock words" are (see above) in the text referred to; I don't think that Wikpedia wants us to rewrite academic articles or misrepresent their contents! There is no contradiction between the claim that accreditation has been widely introduced in the Western world and it being a controversial matter: many policies introduced and indeed imposed by government or other authority are heavily contested by critics (as the Charlton/Andras piece shows). So what I will do is try to improve the passage (making grateful use of the suggestions above, including those on the varieties of critique) and put this into a separate section - might take a little time. Muzieka —Preceding comment was added at 09:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My primary concern at this point is to not give this position undue weight. I can only speak from an American perspective but as I have a Master's in higher ed, several years experience as an administrator and researcher in higher ed, and am working on my PhD in higher ed, I think I can speak from a position of knowledge and experience. Criticism of the idea of accreditation seems to be very much a minority position; in fact, it's a position I have only encountered in very limited and narrow circumstances. Criticism of the particular methods employed by one or more accrediting agencies seems to be more common, particularly (a) the role of the Department of Education and federal legislation and (b) specific criteria/measurements employed by particular accrediting agencies. --ElKevbo 13:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the first phrase of the reference provided http://www.neasc.org/cihe/ciherole.htm seems to debunk the idea that accreditation in general is under any kind of world global attack/siege/controversy. "Accreditation is an activity long accepted in the United States". So, it is not something that should likely be mentioned in the lead paragraph. It must be covered in the body of the article in any case since the lead paragraph is supposed to contain an introduction and a concise summary of the article. The lead paragraph shouldn't be the only place that such information is presented and if it is mentioned it should be a concise summary of information presented in the body of the article. What I'm trying to say is that the first step, Muzieka, is to get the information properly sourced and stated with a neutral point of view in the body of the article. Once that has been established then we can discuss whether mention in the lead paragraph will be undue weight. TallMagic 16:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That's all good advice and I am in agreement. My comments regarding "undue weight" were not focused specifically at the lead paragraph; we must keep that concept in mind throughout the entire article. Fringe ideas should not receive significant coverage in any article. --ElKevbo 18:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this is where Muzieka is coming from, I'm really not even saying it should go in the article because I've never done a search through the reliable sources for such information but, I've personally seen a lot of controversory regarding accreditation within the unaccredited institution community. That is owners of diploma mills or other unaccredited institutions as well as graduates who hold degrees from diploma mills or other unaccredited institutions. If Muzieka does come up with another proposal for such a paragraph then I'll work on getting a reference to include a sentence about how the diploma mill and other unaccredited institution community does like to try to belittle and denigrate accreditation. While I agree that this is a fringe idea from a community outside the main stream, I think it might be worthy of an interesting sentence? TallMagic 20:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we're now engaged in an interesting discussion. And I get the impression that there is in fact quite a difference between the state of the debate in the US and in Europe.

In Europe, the critique doesn't generally come from unaccredited institutions but from (often very leading) academics who believe that accreditation is part of a drive to subject educational institutions to something like what Michael Power called "the audit culture" (see his book The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification, Oxford UP, 1999). So generally, speaking, the critique comes not from the fringe but from the centre of educational life - from top academics, opposing the managers and government. Like (in the UK) Marilyn Strathern, Mistress of Girton College, Cambridge University, Bruce Charlton, professor at Newcastle University, Richard Gombrich, professor of Sanskrit at Oxford University, Herminio Martins, St Antony's College, Oxford and a lot more. They are scathing about accreditation. In the present context it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing but of giving (I think) some weight to these arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzieka (talk • contribs) 09:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

- And I'm now not sure that, coming from Europe, I have a feel for what that weight might be or - especially - how the above arguments would be interpreted in a North American context. Muzieka —Preceding comment was added at 09:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the simplest way to present it is to explicitly state that it is within the context of Europe. The US accreditation scene has been pretty stable for years now. It is self enforcing organizations made up of the academic community themselves. The biggest change over recent years is that states are passing laws making unaccredited degree use illegal or restricted as a way to combat academic fraud. Which tends to strengthen the accreditation organizations. TallMagic 17:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with both sides that we seem to be encountering one of those weird cultural differences that often pop up on Wikipedia. Having dealt with accreditation issues through some legal work involving the Higher Education Act, I concur with ElKevbo that criticism of the overall accreditation process is very much a minority position in the United States. In the U.S. academic community, criticism of accreditation is widely seen as coming from scam artists operating unaccredited schools who are trying to boost their own legitimacy by attacking the legitimacy of the established accreditation organizations. --Coolcaesar 05:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Supposed Dept. of Education's Equivalence of Accreditation

Dept. of Education's "Equivalence of DETC and regional accreditation"

"The Criteria do not differentiate between types of accrediting agencies, so the recognition granted to all types of accrediting agencies-regional, institutional, specialized, and programmatic-is identical. Only the specific scope of recognition varies according to the type of agency recognized."

Above is the text of the Dept. of Education letter which the anon user purports to use for the proposition that all accreditation is equal at least in the in the eyes of the Department of Education. First, the Dept of Education has nothing to do with the academic or transfer of credit affairs of any school thus what they think of accreditation is irrelevant to these matters. Secondly, the letter clearly states in the second sentence that "... the specific scope of recognition varies according to the type of agency recognized" so all accreditation is apparently not the same, contrary to the first statement. Again, criteria for inclusion as an accrediting agency has to do with Dept. of Education regulation and has nothing to do with the academics of the schools which are being accredited or the particular criteria applied by the accreditors to decide what school it will accredit. Thus, even if the Dept. of Education believes all accreditation is the same, that does not mean that all the accredited schools are the same.

According to the scenario the letter purports to support, a national accrediting agency which only accredits certificate granting vocational schools would be equivalent to the American Bar Association or, in effect, a massage school is equivalent to Harvard Law School. This is, of course, ludicrous. What is relevant are the accrediting criteria of the particular accrediting body, the criteria which schools accredited by that body have to meet. There is obviously a difference between the accrediting criteria of an accreditor who accredits certificate granting purely vocational schools and the accrediting criteria of the American Bar Association, just as there are differences between the criteria of national accrediting agencies and that of a regional accrediting agency. The Department of Education merely recognizes an accrediting agency for the purpose of whether or not the students attending schools accredited by that particular agency can receive federal loans and grants. The Dept. of Ed. does not pass judgment on the equivalence of the criteria of one accreditor vs. another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteryquest (talk • contribs) 19:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the passage that you deleted said The U.S. Department of Education has stated, however, that its accreditation "criteria do not differentiate between types of accrediting agencies, so the recognition granted to all types of accrediting agencies — regional, institutional, specialized, and programmatic — is identical.". The reference cited is Carol Griffiths, US Department of Education Office of Post Secondary Education, letter dated August 30, 2007. I think that the deleted statement is an accurate statement of what the US Dept. of Ed. letter says; it appears to me the Dept of Ed is officially passing judgment, saying that all forms of accreditation are equivalent. You and I may think this is absurd, but it's what the department is saying (maybe the department's views will change under the next president's administration). I restored the deleted statement, but after correcting it to say that the Dept. said its recognition criteria (not "accreditation criteria") are the same. --Orlady (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well you have a point as concerns the Dept. of Education's position, however, as I stated, taking the Dept. of Education's position to its logical conclusion would mean that a massage school would be the equivalent of Harvard Law School, I don't think that any would doubt the absurdity of that statement. The fact is that even if the Dept. of Education believes that all accreditation is equivalent, since it does not pass judgment on the accrediting criteria for the accrediting agencies, i.e. their academic or transfer of credit affairs, then what they think of accrediting is irrelevant and does not change the fact that regionally accredited schools still will not accept all nationally accredited schools credits. The pros and cons of this are well discussed in the sources I cited. Also, there is a phrase in the letter that was left which I will put in which states "Only the specific scope of recognition varies according to the type of agency recognized." That statement would appear to negate the first one, as all accreditation can not be the same if its scope is different. So I'll put that in.Mysteryquest (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Traditionally, Ed only uses accreditation as a requirement for disbursing federal financial aid. As long as the accreditor is recognized by the Department then those institutions qualify for federal financial aid. Thus the statement that "they're all equivalent" is, from that point of view, correct. I don't see the statement as implying anything more, particularly qualitative differences between accreditors.

Of course, many are worried about developments over the past few years with the Spelling's Commission and the language regarding accreditation in the current bill pending before the House but those are separate issues... --ElKevbo (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about the fact that ED's use of accreditation for a gatekeeper for disbursing federal financial aid, thus the ED views all accreditation as equivalent from that limited aspect, i.e., eligibility for financial aid. The problem is that national accrediting agencies, are using the ED's narrow view of accreditation for the proposition that national accreditation is the equivalent of regional accreditation. It's a misleading and irrelevant argument which does not flow from Ed's position. The Ed does not rate or pass judgment on the criteria that the accrediting agencies use to decide which schools it will accredit, i.e. in the academic affairs of the school. Thus, Ed's position that all accreditation is equal, from its point of view, is not the same as saying all accredited schools are equal, which is what nationally accredited schools are concluding. If that was the case, then, as I stated before, Ed would be saying that a massage school would be the same as Harvard Law School. Does anyone think that Ed is stating that? So using Ed's narrow view of accreditation for the proposition that all accredited schools are equal and specifically that nationally accredited schools and regionally accredited schools are identical is a Trojan horse argument.Mysteryquest (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You and I appear to be on the same page. That letter is pretty specific so let's keep an eye on the article to ensure it's not made out to be more that what it is. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this article needs some clarification on the distinction between "recognition" of accrediting agencies, and the existence of accreditation agencies themselves. The federal role of "recognition" of agencies in the US needs to be removed entirely, or only mentioned in passing as a minor point. In short, this "recognition" may purport to assure "quality", but, in my experience, it aims to protect the majority institutions from unconventional competing minority agencies - limiting competition and quality through free-market forces in the field.

For example, the recognition of accrediting agencies seems to hinge on "popularity", as if wide acceptance and agreement with one philosophy or position is what makes for what is quality or "reputable". The alleged "gate-keeping" function appears, from my experience, as really a disguise to attempt to control academic content and protected special interests in education through censorship and monopoly through government recognition. The Bush administration, under Spelling, was quite open about using recognition criteria to try to force changes in practices of accredited institutions. A request for mailing list of accrediting institutions seeking recognition under "freedom of information act" was denied without explanation - Again, this seems to be very political to simply cover up controversy. The purpose is to close off discussion among those non-recognized agencies who might create unity to expose and fight against the prejudicial system of government "recognition".

As history, the "gate-keeping" function was removed from state postsecondary agencies by amendment to the HEA in the 1990's. These agencies did not want the government interfering in their practices, and congress yielded to political pressure; the amendment to remove was passed. That was the New Gingrich congress era.

Unfortunately, the affected non-recognized private agencies don't have the political weight or unity as the states. The result of non-recognition leaves an impression of growing censorship and control over unconventional higher education; reduction in competition, and corresponding quality in the field. The article talks about how "recognition" which really needs context to avoid a very cloudy and controversial understanding. I think reference to federal recognition should be minimized or highly clarified in this article, or entirely removed to create balance and reason. There are several articles published on this matter in publications of the International Montessori Society (http://imsmontessori.org). The current article really needs revision in light of this historical context in the US - http://imsmontessori.org/international-montessori-accreditation-council. There is written documentation for much of these points, although no legal case as yet been brought against the US Dept. of Ed as far as I know. The idea of suitable legislative change to remove recognition as unnecessary and contrary to freedom and competition in private education has not, as yet. registered as sufficiently "important" for serious debate in congress. Havis1 (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Things like "in my experience", "seems to", and "from my experience" are examples of what is considered original research here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy is that only wp:verifiable information can be placed in the articles. While the references you point to might make a nice addition to the Montessori method article, I didn't see anything relevant to the educational accreditation article. Note that those references still don't seem to support your assertions on this talk page, at least not directly enough for them to go into any Wikipedia article. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If words like "in my experience" and "seems" were replaced with language like "In legislation bill... it states, ..... which contradicts ... in the article - is that what is more favored? Also, quotations from official letters of the US Dept. of Ed.that draw distncions that challenge some statement in the article? The points I made in rather clumsy personal language was just to infer that citable data might be able to back it up. My comment here is looking a little below the surface of raw facts to see if a suitable edit might be possible. So, clarification on these points is helpful and appreciated. It's clear that any personal experience of my own would be original "research" and outside the scope of inclusion. I still think that there is relevance to the fact that government "recognition" of accrediting agencies is NOT the same as "accreditation" is very relevant - and the article is misleading if that point is not clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Havis1 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Havis1, I don't think that I really understand what you're saying. That's okay, I don't think that I really need to understand. Improvements to the article are, of course, much appreciated. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Template

The {{unaccredited}} template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Unaccredited; please contribute to the debate. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Open & Distance Learning Quality Council

Can anyone tell me why has this been removed? As it is a agency which peforms the same role as other agencies in the distance learning sector. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulha (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would find it helpful if you could point to the diff that you're referring to. TallMagic (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps [18] ? If that's it then Orlady's edit comment seems clear to me. If you disagree with the edit comment then explain what is the relevance of a statement in an article that has zero context, has zero verifiability associated with it, and zero referencability but, instead just throws out a seemingly meaningless suggestion to join an unknown organization? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the Accreditation Process

The following was added to the article.

Critics argue that the accreditation process is flawed in that agencies base their judgements on a few, easily-measured, characteristics of schools, such as the number of books in the library, the student-teacher ratio, or the school's overall expenditure, instead of measuring the abilities of their graduates. Thus, school libraries that save costs by replacing some traditional books with online sources or CD-ROMs will be penalized. The student-teacher ratio can be misleading in several ways. Faculty members who spend most or all of their time doing research instead of teaching will improve the school's ratio, although they do not directly contribute to the students' education. Schools that hire practicing professionals on a part-time basis to teach narrowly-focused courses will be penalized, although such professionals may be very knowedgeable and up-to-date in their specialities. A relatively small budget might indicate that a school is concentrating on the essentials of education at the expense of frills; for example, by having an unremarkable but functional campus. Agencies might also abuse their position by imposing irrelevant or debatable requirements, like affirmative action.

references from above

My opinion is that the above proposed section gave undue weight to a small minority view, hence my reverting of its addition. A while back a similar discussion took place on this talk page. Please see above discussion,Talk:Educational_accreditation#Criticism_of_accreditation_processes. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

KansasOU(Kansas Online University)

Kansas Online University is a member of many official and semiofficial organizations like USDLA -United States Distance Learning Association.

Kansas Online University has the honor of being a Member of USDLA Beside Great international universities like American Intercontinental University.

Overview of Accreditation The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality. Accreditation in the United States involves non-governmental entities as well as governmental agencies. Accrediting agencies, which are private educational associations of regional or national scope, develop evaluation criteria and conduct peer evaluations to assess whether or not those criteria are met. Institutions and/or programs that request an agency's evaluation and that meet an agency's criteria are then "accredited" by that agency

While National Accreditation is common for traditional U.S. institutions of higher learning, utilizing standard teaching methods, we note that every country has its own standards and independent accrediting organizations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansasou (talk • contribs) 15:25, 30 October 2008

Kansasou, welcome to Wikipedia. The above comment that you added makes little sense to me. I'm sorry but I can't find any reference to KOU in the article. You haven't stated what change, if any, you're proposing to the article. Please clarify. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I’ve noticed some individuals just don’t understand the criteria involved to be recognized by either the USDOE or CHEA. Some believe scope’s referring to institutional evaluations, when it’s actually referring to the method of the educational process (degree granting vs. non degree granting). The same criteria are used to evaluate national (degree granting) and regional (degree granting) accreditors. The only difference I’ve noticed is some degree granting national agencies also approve vocational schools (issuing diplomas or certificates). On the other hand, regional accreditors try to separate non-degree vs. degree granting institutions (as demonstrated below). The scope and evaluation process is different concerning the vocational portion but the same for the degree granting portion. If not mistaken, a couple of regional agencies did (maybe still do) lump vocational and degree granting schools in the past. The only noticeable distinction is DETC accredits through the professional doctoral degree level (DBA, Ed.D. etc.), whereas the regionals accredit through the PhD level. That said, the same criteria is used to evaluate each agency up to the level authorized.

The Distance Education and Training Council (DETC): Scope of Recognition: postsecondary institutions in the United States that offer degree programs primarily by the distance education method Up to and including the professional doctoral degree.

Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Higher Education Scope of recognition: the accreditation and preaccreditation ("Candidate for Accreditation") of institutions of higher education in specified States and a limited number of freestanding American-style institutions abroad that are chartered or licensed by an appropriate agency within the Middle States region.

Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Secondary Schools Scope of recognition: the accreditation and preaccreditation ("Candidate for Accreditation") of public vocational/technical schools offering non-degree, postsecondary education in the Middle States region (specified States). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack1237 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC) (Jack1237 (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC))

Invalid reference to Tenth Amendment

The Article says: "The U.S. is a federal republic, and the federal government possesses only specific limited powers, with all others reserved to the states (pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution). Therefore, the authority of the U.S. Department of Education does not extend to authorizing schools to operate, to enroll students, or to award degrees." This is incorrect. Congress has almost unlimited authority to regulate matters within the states on the basis of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which the Supreme Court has interpreted very liberally. You might recall Wickard v. Filburn, which allowed Congress to regulate wheat grown at home for private consumption, and Gonzales v. Raich, which allows Congress to regulate Marijuana grown at home for private consumption. There is no reason why Congress could not (through the Department of Education) regulate schools everywhere, just like it regulates employment, health services, and the design and layout of traffic lights, everywhere. I am proposing that the reference to the Tenth Amendment be deleted. As a practical matter the Tenth Amendment is largely irrelevant today. Rahul (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy either way on this one. What I do think is notable though is that today the states are primarily responsible for the regulation/authorization of schools to operate. TallMagic (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Religious exempt section

In my opinion, this section seems to have gone off on a tangent. It is becoming an advertisement/justification for unaccredited religious oriented degrees. This needs to be refocused on "Educational accreditation", IMHO. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree and just made some edits an effort to put this back in perspective. Probably more could be done to shorten and cleanup, though. Novaseminary (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

belford high school

Is there no website to find out if a school is accredited or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.189.122 (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

They do not appear to be accredited by an accreditors recognized by the US Dept of Education. If they were, they would be listed here. The two "accreditation agencies" by which the institution claims to be recognized don't appear to be recognized by Ed. I'm not very knowledgeable of accreditation in the K-12 sector, though, so I may be missing or misunderstanding something. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Belford has the characteristics of a scam. Responses to several specific points:

• In the United States, the awarding of high school diplomas is regulated by the individual states, not by educational accreditors. To issue valid diplomas, a school would need authorization from a state. Belford does not identify any state that authorizes it to operate.
• Most U.S. high schools do seek educational accreditation for the purposes of institutional quality control, institutional improvement, and outside credibility. This is usually from the organizations listed in Regional accreditation.
• The two organizations from which Belford claims accreditation, International Accreditation Agency for Online Universities and Universal Council for Online Education Accreditation, have the characteristics of accreditation mills. They are both listed at List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning, and the IAAOU has its own article. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Orlady's description matches my understanding. I would just like to add to her second point that I believe that the vast majority of U.S. high schools have regional accreditation. It also may be of interest to visit the Belford University article because I'll guess that it is the same organization. TallMagic (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Unaccredited institutions of higher learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) covers a lot of the same ground in respect of legal implications of non-accreditation and so on. I think that really there is only one subject. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And during the process, perhaps some of the unsupported text can be removed and things cleanedup a bit. Novaseminary (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, at least in part. The topic of the phenomenon of unaccredited institutions is almost unrelated to the topic of the accreditation process. Adding the entire contents of that article to this one would add needless distractions and complications here.

I have an alternative proposal: Unaccredited institutions of higher learning should be merged back into List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. It was split off from the list article a couple of years ago without any discussion (at least no discussion I can remember and none that I can find now). The list article would benefit from restoration of introductory discussion of the general topic.

However, much of the content of Unaccredited institutions of higher learning appears to be original research, personal essay, and other forms of nonencyclopedic embroidery that should be deleted. Content about the accreditation process in various countries and national registries of approved schools could go into Educational accreditation, if properly sourced. Content about controversies over unapproved schools and investigations of unapproved schools could be included in List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. --Orlady (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Unaccredited institutions and educational accreditation should best be kept as separate articles, in my opinion. Educational accreditation is an interesting process that can differ significantly from one jurisdiction to the next. It is only related to unaccredited institutions which usually try to obscure what accreditation is. There is information in both articles that should not best be in the other article. Regarding combining the list with the unaccredited institutions article. I think that it works doing it either way. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. The Educational accreditation article and Unaccredited institutions of higher learning article do seem best separate. In fact, I would consider removing almost all of the discussion of unaccredited institutions from the Education accreditation article with a wikilink to the unaccredited article. It was more the duplication that made me want to combine them initially. I think Guy was on to something, but I think delineation rather than combination is the best way to go. As for whether to combine the list and unaccredited article, I, like TallMagic, would be ok with it either way. Novaseminary (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DO NOT MERGE UNACCREDITED with ACCREDITED!

Sorry, I think it should remain a separate entry. It is more important for people attempting to research the topic, to understand the difference. When multiple topics become combined, it can begin to confuse the reader and lose the meaning/purpose of why one wrote the topic to begin with. If a degree is NOT accredited, people need to understand what this means they are paying for and how it will be viewed, nationally & worldwide. BE CLEAR, DO NOT Confuse the reader!!!

If you are putting much of the same things in both the accredited and unaccredited topics, then maybe you should read what you are writing then validate you are staying ON TOPIC, because they are VERY different definitions and should have COMPLETELY different information and sources. I do believe that each should have a reference to the other topic, and I believe this is imperative! - that's my 2 cents! Marie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Us331242 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• The consensus seems to be against a merge. I have taken the relevant text, placed it in Unaccredited institutions of higher learning, remvoed it from this article, and added a see also from here to Unaccredited institutions of higher learning. That should do it. Novaseminary (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

.edu

I've added the new thread to the bottom of the page. This is where new discussions are typically found. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think vandalism is the issue, I think there are several people that are doing CENSORSHIP! If they don't like a documented, verifiable FACT then they are deleting it and playing the BULLY by stating they are going to block you and cut you off if you continue! This is REAL!!! They are DELETING FACTS, CITED from official sites so that others cannot read the truth. And yes, I'm talking about post-secondary school accreditation! There is no way to contact these people and ask them what's up and what it is they have an issue with; they just want to delete anything that doesn't fit their image. When did Wikipedia become about censorship? Why can't people have all the official facts and make their own conclusions? --Us331242 (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Us331242. You are responding to a comment made 3-1/2 years ago. All communication on this talk page is asynchronous, but I think you're taking it to the extreme! As for the specifics of your comment, you didn't explain them, but your edit history shows that you have been trying to add a longish paragraph about the .edu domain-name extension to this article. It was worthwhile to mention the .edu extension here, but since the topic is only peripherally relevant to educational accreditation and the domain-name extension is the subject of its own separate article, I trimmed the content down to one sentence -- including a link to the separate article -- and User:Novaseminary added a reference citation. I don't see how this is censorship; indeed, it seems to me that it's consistent with the way Wikipedia collaboration is supposed to work. If you believe we have infringed upon freedom of expression, please explain.

PS - For future reference, the signature doohickie (i.e., --~~~~) goes after your message, not in front of it. (I moved your signature for you.) --Orlady (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

SOrry I have NO CLUE HOW to start a topic so, I just added to an area that is close to the same topic. I Since I can't figure out how to tell you what NEEDS to be said, I'll just write wikipedia, because what is happening here is WRONG, and it saddens me, that you cannot see it! I deleted by comment, hope your happy!--Us331242 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Us331242, you are not really making sense to me. If you can't tell Orlady what needs to be said then how are you able to write a letter to wikipedia as to what needs to be said? TallMagic (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Here's an example of why I think that you may be confusing to me, you are apparently upset about something to do with the coverage of the .edu domain name suffix in the article. Yet, in your comments above you don't even mention this! Instead I learned that little tidbit of information from Orlady. How can you expect people to understand what you are trying to say if you can't say what you mean? TallMagic (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Religious-exempt degrees

Text repeatedly added and removed from this article has become a new article, Religious-exempt degrees. I have nominated it for deletion. Editors can weigh-in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious-exempt degrees. Novaseminary (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It does seem like a topic that can and perhaps should be addressed in this article. Why do you object to it? Is it the topic or merely the proposed text? --ElKevbo (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It is the text itself, and the POV pushing. There is already some mention of religious accreditors in this article. This article is about accreditation, not schools that are not accredited. Instead, non-POV text related to this topic could be incorporated into what is already in the U.S. section of Unaccredited institutions of higher learning since the text deals with the topic of unaccredited schools. Novaseminary (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Narrow scope of article to post-secondary

This article already has enough problems with wikilayout and lack of citations. I've narrowed the scope to post-secondary educational institutions by adding the term into the intro. That leaves 120 countries to go in terms of providing accreditation info for their colleges, etc. More than enough. But to include high school, middle school, primary school accreditation is too, too much. Let's KISS.--S. Rich (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have changed the aticle's title to Higher education accreditation to reflect the tightened focus (which is not a huge departure since it has been the primary focus of the article for ages anyway). Novaseminary (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to the recent move to the old title (which I have reverted), I would suggest that pre-tertiary accreditation get its own article. A wikilink from Accreditation and one would be off and running. The issues and most of the accreditors are not the same (even several of the U.S. regional accreditors use different sub-orgs for pre-tertiary). The pre-tertiary topic deserves its own article or conversely, higher education accreditation deserves its own article. I would not even object to a very brief "Education accreditation" article with blurbs and links to the main article for Higher education accreditation and a new Pre-tertiary education accreditation. But this article has always been nearly exclusively focused on higher education (and indicated by the links to it and the text in it). Novaseminary (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

[EC] One brief comment in August and another brief comment in September did not a consensus make. When you "improved" this article by removing content, where did you put the topical content about educational accreditation as it applies across the spectrum of education levels? Here in the U.S. most primary and secondary schools are accredited, and the process (and its relationship to the higher-education accreditation) is of great interest to educators and parents. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it was done mostly with this edit by Srich32977. I then changed the title with this edit and then split the U.S. section into its own article (Higher education accreditation in the United States) with this edit. I agree that pre-tertiary accreditation is an important issue of great interest to many (and, more impoprtanty, would meet WP:N), but it is different enough that it should get it own article. Novaseminary (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The single broad topic is educational accreditation. Higher education accreditation and pretertiary accreditation are subtopics of that. It was not helpful to repurpose the article about the broad topic as an article on one of the subtopics. If you wanted to split out higher education into a separate article, that's what you should have done.

There was additional content here in the past (indeed, it was here for several years) about accreditation of elementary and secondary schools in the U.S. -- for example, in this version from 2007. As best I can tell, that content was deleted because it was presumed to be duplicative of Regional accreditation, then Regional accreditation was converted into a redirect to Higher education accreditation in the United States, which had the effect of obliterating the content.

I first got involved with this article several years ago after another contributor contacted me with a request that I help him attack the Northwest Association of Accredited Schools as an unrecognized accreditor. I researched the organization and determined that it was a completely legitimate organization, but just didn't happen to be a recognized higher education accreditor because it worked only with elementary and secondary schools. You may note that the article about that organization (which has a new name now) links back to this article (until I edited it just now, the link was actually to School accreditation, which is an old name for this article). Unfortunately, that link doesn't make much sense any more because the relevant subject matter has been scrubbed out of this article and apparently hasn't been moved anywhere else. --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

At the time the article was "repurposed" there was less than a handful of sentences related to anything other than higher education. The article move merely accurately reflected what the article had become. Even in the Regional accreditation article there was little mention of pre-tertiary. Quite simply, one could not split higher ed out of the former educational accreditation article. It was the article. Now, it is fair to say that pre-tertiary should be included in WP. So create that article. This is a subject that had been subject to much content forking. The nore rationale the layers of coverage are (with limited overlap through use of template:Main and the like, the better. And to say this was one brief comment is irrelevant. A course of action was proposed, and then executed without objection. i came along, agreed, then finished it by moving the article. It stood for over a month. Until Orlady came along, that was clearly the consensus. Nothing was hidden, and several pages were moved to rationalize the coverage of the topic. If you think the structure is faulty (Accreditation-->Higher education accreditation-->Higher education accreditation in the United States; with a possible parallel to Accreditation-->Pre-tertiary education accreditation-->Pre-tertiary education accreditation in the United States; and maybe a brief Education accreditation sandwiched between Accreditation and Higher and Pre-tertiary), that is one thing. If not, work within the structure to add in what you feel was lost, which could not have been much, at least withing the last several months. Novaseminary (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Regional accreditation into Higher education accreditation in the United States

Orlady has now also unredirected Regional accreditation from its redirect to Higher education accreditation in the United States where the relevant text was incorporated. All but one blurb in the list related to higher education, not pre-tertiary, and most of the article was sourced to non-RSs. I suggest that Regional accreditation be re-redirect to Higher education accreditation in the United States. I am placing the discussion here because it is related to the broader issue of how to properly cover these improtant subjects. Novaseminary (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

[EC] - See my comments above. --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose the merger. As noted above, the redirect removed a lot of content that had been included in Regional accreditation. The redirect was wrong -- regional accreditation in the U.S. is not limited to higher education, but covers the whole range of education from primary (and probably preprimary, too) through post-tertiary. --Orlady (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Fair enough, but right now the Regional accreditation article hardly mentions anything other than higher ed. That article should be expanded and Higher education accreditation#Regional accreditation should be written in such a way as to avoid duplication and content forking. Novaseminary (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I am withdrawing my merge proposal, but the Regional accreditation article is terrible. I am withdrawing the porposal not because that article is ready for stand-alone status, but because the subject meets WP:N independent of other types of accreditation. And to show that Orlady was incorrect and speaking way out of school when s/he questioned my good faith with this edit. Novaseminary (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Pre-tertiary education accreditation back into Educational accreditation

I believe that the brand-new 2-sentence stub article Pre-tertiary education accreditation needs to be merged and redirected BACK to Educational accreditation (where it came from, essentially). WP:SUMMARY is not about splitting articles in a fashion that creates one large split-off article and leaves the parent article and the other offspring as minimal stubs. There was no particular need to remove ALL of the specific content from this article.

The topic of Educational accreditation sui generis is far broader than the current version of this article reveals. I expect that the article will be expanded now that it is free of the many sections about details of higher education accreditation.

However, the topic of "pre-tertiary education accreditation" has only the most superficial treatment in Wikipedia at this time, and readers are not well served when it is split off into an uninformative stub article. Moreover, because all levels of educational accreditation are closely related historically (if not in the current political scene), pre-tertiary accreditation is better understood in the broader context of "accreditation in general" than in a split-off article. Additionally, it is erroneous to suggest (as the pre-tertiary article currently does) that the regional accreditors (which include the new AdvancED organization) are the only game in U.S. primary and secondary accreditation. There are a number of associations of independent schools and religious schools that are also involved, and the roles of the University of the State of New York, other state entities, and international organizations cannot be ignored.

Finally, the name "Pre-tertiary education accreditation" is not viable. The term "pre-tertiary" is a well-defined term in some circles, but the majority of Americans (where accreditation at this level is predominant) wouldn't recognize a "pre-tertiary" if it kicked them in the groin.

Let's keep the topic of primary and secondary accreditation in this article, at least for now. --Orlady (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose First, I do agree that the article title (Pre-tertiary education accreditation) is not good. Something like Primary and secondary school accreditation might work better. Something like K-12 education accreditation could work if the article were only about the U.S., but I don't think the term K-12 is used outside the U.S. and, of course, this article should be global. But this is not the subject of this proposal.

I oppose this proposed merger because the accreditation of primary and secondary schools is a topic notable in its own right. As a discrete subject, it certainly meets WP:N via WP:GNG. The broader Educational accreditation article can briefly summarize Higher education accreditation and Pre-tertiary education accreditation (or whatever the article is most appropriately titled) with links to the main, more specific articles. The general article can also discuss any other sorts of educational accreditation (pre-K?) there might be.

In the U.S., higher education accreditation and K-12 accreditation are separating even more than they had been in the regional accreditation system as it was in the past (and it is not clear how much this concept applies outside North America, at least as the articles have stood for years). See, for example, AdvancED which was created by the merger of the K-12 accrediting arms of two of the regional accreditors (which already accredited higher ed and K-12 with distinct commissions) and now, it appears, accredits K-12 world-wide. Orlady is right that Pre-tertiary education accreditation should discuss the role of states in accreditation and the role of organizations other than the regional accreditors. But that is all the more reason the subject deserves its own article.

In light of our goal to move articles toward FA status, the best way, in my opinion, is to have a strong higher ed article with spin-offs as appropriate (the U.S. is already spun-off, other countries might warrant a spin-off), a strong primary/secondary article, and a general article tying them together. The general article should also place education accreditation in the broader context of accreditation generally. Accreditation, as an even more general topic, also has and deserves its own article. Merging the article now sill stunt, not aid, the growth of these articles and the coverage of these important topics.

Novaseminary (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Bad article title. But on a more basic level, why isn't accreditation part of/mentioned in Education or Outline of education? The Index of education articles only refers to School accreditation. Seems the articles are being written first and then added to the outline, basic article, index. (A reverse of the method of composition I learned.) We have an overall picture of education that needs fleshing out with the topic of accreditation, and then these specialized articles can be written. Doing so (describing accreditation within the education picture) will give precision and consensus as to which article goes where and with what title.--S. Rich (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Please clarify -- when you say "Oppose" and "Bad article title" are you saying that you oppose the merger or that you oppose the article title "Pre-tertiary education accreditation"? (Or do you oppose the title "Educational accreditation"?) Regarding the fact that accreditation is not mentioned in Education or Outline of education, so what? (If you think the information belongs there, add it yourself.) Wikipedia grows from all directions -- Jimbo Wales did not create a master outline of "All Knowledge" and then recruit volunteers to fill in the details. Finally, as for Index of education articles referring to School accreditation, that's an old name of the article Educational accreditation. It was renamed in June 2007, apparently to clarify that the scope was not limited to "schools" in the U.S. sense, but included all levels of educational institutions. --Orlady (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Clarification Oppose merger. Other points: 1. More basic stuff is being ignored -- like the Outline & Index (with its uncorrected reference to School accreditation). 2. Francis Bacon, not Jimbo, started off with the idea that knowledge of all things was possible and needed for the understanding of the universe, but he recommended planned procedure for the endeavors. Wikipedia is good in that it provides for categories, indexes, portals, projects, etc.--S. Rich (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I agree. I think these subjects/sub-subjects were missing structure and reasoned organization. I think the articles we have now get us there in a conceptual outline; they should be added to the actual outline. As noted, the articles just need better titles and good editing work. As I have harped on before, I think that the improved, less haphard structure will also avoid some of the content-related problems these articles have had, too. Novaseminary (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Since there has been no new comment in months, and consensus seemed to be in opposition, I will remove the tag. Novaseminary (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Unaccredited CA law schools

The fact that the CA State Bar has a list of unaccredited schools does not support an assertion that there are hundreds of legitimate unaccredited schools. The CA State Bar distinguishes these schools from those accredited/approved by the ABA and State Bar accredited schools. The accreditation only goes so far as to allow students in ABA & State Bar accredited schools to forgo the First Year Law Students Bar Examination ("Baby Bar"). A certain number of these unaccredited law schools have accreditation from non-State Bar entities. (I believe examples are the on-line schools.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Educational accreditation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100924155446/http://www.middlestates.org/History.html to http://www.middlestates.org/History.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100907071332/http://www.advanc-ed.org/what-accreditation to http://www.advanc-ed.org/what-accreditation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615135829/http://chea.org/pdf/RecognitionWellman_Jan1998.pdf to http://www.chea.org/pdf/RecognitionWellman_Jan1998.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905095531/http://www.advanc-ed.org/where-we-are to http://www.advanc-ed.org/where-we-are
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120718040608/http://www.acsi.org/Programs/ACSIGlobal/tabid/584/Default.aspx to http://www.acsi.org/Programs/ACSIGlobal/tabid/584/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)