Evolution The Educational Societies We Live Within The Social Learning Experiences Field Work

The Educational Societies We Live WithinThe Social Learning Experiences & ED.S: Field Work

The following is a compilation of educational material derived from various source documentsand research within the divisions of traditional and nontraditional, residential and nonresidential campus educational paradigms over the evolution of modern transformational educational curriculum design & development meeting the diversity of today’s student. Dr. Sheila Jocelyn Karena Shaw, D.B.A/M.B.A March 12, 2015

THE VALUE OF A DEGREE www. chea. org/pdf/ Value_of_ Degree.pdf http://www.eric.ed.gov/The Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)

Social capital necessary for success in college and the workforce http://media.collegeboard.com/CollegePlanning/media/pdf/BigFuture-School-Counselors- Strategic-Planning-Tool.pdfEvery student should graduate from high school with the educational preparation and socialcapital necessary for success in college and the workforce.School counselors are well positioned as the school professionals best able to guide all studentstoward college and career readiness. To be effective leaders in establishing a college-goingculture, counselors must be strong advocates for their students and their profession and possessthe skills to drive positive change in the school.Strategic planning is an essential tool for school counselors to use to drive positive change inschools. Strategic planning helps school counselors use data to set clear goals and developstrategies with measurable outcomes for student achievement and success. Using this processhelps school counselors to align college and career counseling with school improvement plans. Itmakes the case that college counseling is an effective way to meet the goals set by principals anddistrict leaders. This allows counselors to become school leaders and advocates for all students.A clear plan enables them to build college and career readiness programs at each level of K–12education.STEP 1: Collect, analyze and interpret data to identify gaps in student outcomes.

Examine data elements that describe student outcomes, disaggregated by race/ ethnicity, gender,family income and other relevant measures, in order to identify student, school and communityneeds. Analyze data to identify inequities. STEP 2: Develop and prioritize measurable, data-driven goals aligned with school, district, state and national goals. Goals should be specific,quantifiable, time-sensitive statements of what is going to be achieved and when it will beachieved. STEP 3: Develop strategies and interventions to meet goals. Develop solutions andinterventions that can be successfully implemented within the context of the school andcommunity and will gain support from stakeholders. STEP 4: Develop and implement theplans for each goal, including benchmarks to monitor progress. Develop multilevel actionplans for each goal. Identify action items, the specific individuals responsible for implementationand key milestones, and timelines that correspond to each goal. STEP 5: Collect and reportoutcome data to all stakeholders, and adjust strategies and interventions as needed basedon results. Collect results data to determine whether the goals were reached and if strategies orimplementations need to be adjusted. Present results to administrators and other stakeholders.STEP 6: Institutionalize policies, practices and procedures to sustain gains in equity.Identify the strategies and interventions that result in positive student outcomes and equity gainsto make them standard operating procedure within the context of the school. The College BoardNational Office for School Counselor Advocacy (NOSCA) The College Board’s NationalOffice for School Counselor Advocacy (NOSCA) promotes the value of school counselors asleaders in advancing school reform and student achievement. It seeks to endorse andinstitutionalize school counseling practice that advocates for equitable educational access andrigorous academic preparation necessary for college readiness for all students. For moreinformation, please visit www.collegeboard.com/nosca. Equity • Leadership • Transformation

What Is GAAP? (http://www.degree.net/accreditation/accreditation-guide_199911302316.html)Any school can claim that it is accredited; the use of that word is not regulated in any way. So,how can you tell if a school is on the level? The following simple guidelines delineate whether ornot a school can be considered to be accredited by an agency recognized under GAAP, GenerallyAccepted Accrediting Principles. (The acronym is, of course, borrowed from the field ofaccounting. GAAP standards are the highest to which accountants can be held, and we feel thataccreditation should be viewed as an equally serious matter.) In the U.S., there is near-unanimous agreement on GAAP (although not everyone calls it this, the concept is the same) bythe relevant key decision-makers: university registrars and admissions officers, corporate humanresources officers, and government agencies.Note that in some countries, the word accredited is not used, although that country's evaluationprocess (e.g., the British Royal Charter) is accepted as \"accredited\" under GAAP. Note too thataccreditors that do not meet the standards of GAAP are not necessarily bad, illegal, or fake. Theysimply would not be generally accepted as recognized accreditors.GAAP CriteriaTo offer recognized accreditation under GAAP, and accrediting agency must meet at least one ofthe following four criteria:Recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation in Washington, DC

Recognized by the U.S. Department of EducationRecognized by (or more commonly, a part of) their relevant national education agencySchools they accredit are routinely listed in one or more of the following publications: theInternational Handbook of Universities (a UNESCO publication), the CommonwealthUniversities Yearbook, the World Education Series, published by PIER, or the Countries Series,published by NOOSR in Australia.Accreditation: The Whole StoryAccreditation is perhaps the most complex, confusing, and important issue in higher education. Itis surely the most misunderstood and the most misused concept both intentionally andunintentionally. In selecting a school, there are four important things to know aboutaccreditation:What is it?Why is it important in certain situations?What are the many kinds of accreditors?What are the controversies surrounding accreditation?We will address these matters more or less in this order.What Is Accreditation?Quite simply, it is a validation a statement by a group of persons who are, theoretically, impartialexperts in higher education, that a given school, or department within a school, has beenthoroughly investigated and found worthy of approval.

Accreditation is a peculiarly American concept. In every other country in the world, all collegesand universities either are operated by the government, or gain the full right to grant degreesdirectly from the government, so there is no need for a separate, independent agency to say that agiven school is OK.In the United States, accreditation is an entirely voluntary process, done by private,nongovernmental agencies. As a result of this lack of central control or authority, there haveevolved good accrediting agencies and bad ones, recognized ones and unrecognized ones,legitimate ones and phony ones.So when a school says, \"we are accredited,\" that statement alone means nothing. You mustalways ask, \"Accredited by whom?\" Unfortunately, many consumer-oriented articles andbulletins simply say that one is much safer dealing only with accredited schools, but they do notattempt to unravel the complex situation. We hear regularly from distressed people who say,about the degrees they have just learned are worthless, \"But the school was accredited; I evenchecked with the accrediting agency.\" The agency, needless to say, turned out to be as phony asthe school. The wrong kind of accreditation can be worse than none at all.

Normally, a school wishing to be accredited will make application to the appropriate accreditingagency. After a substantial preliminary investigation to determine that the school is probablyoperating legally and run legitimately, it may be granted correspondent or provisional status.Typically this step will take anywhere from several months to several years or more, and whencompleted does not imply any kind of endorsement or recommendation, but is merely anindication that the first steps on a long path have been taken.Next, teams from the accrediting agency, often composed of faculty of already accreditedinstitutions, will visit the school. These \"visitations,\" conducted at regular intervals throughoutthe year, are to observe the school in action, and to study the copious amounts of informationthat the school must prepare, relating to its legal and academic structure, educational philosophy,curriculum, financial status, planning, and so forth.After these investigations and, normally, following at least two years of successful operation(sometimes a great deal more), the school may be advanced to the status of \"candidate foraccreditation.\" Being a candidate means, in effect, \"Yes, you are probably worthy ofaccreditation, but we want to watch your operation for a while longer.\"This \"while\" can range from a year or two to six years or more. The great majority of schoolsthat reach candidacy status eventually achieve full accreditation. Some accreditors do not have acandidacy status; with them it is an all-or-nothing situation. (The terms \"accredited\" and \"fullyaccredited\" are used interchangeably. There is no such thing as \"partly accredited.\")

Once a school is accredited, it is visited by inspection teams at infrequent intervals (every five toten years is common) to see if it is still worthy of its accreditation. The status is always subject toreview at any time, should new programs be developed or should there be any significant newdevelopments, positive or negative.Note: Everything in the foregoing section applies to accreditation as done by recognizedagencies. Many of the other agencies, even those that are not illegal, will typically accredit a newschool within days, even minutes, of its coming into existence.The Importance of AccreditationAlthough accreditation is undeniably important to both schools and students (and would-bestudents), this importance is undermined and confused by these three factors:

There are no significant national standards for accreditation. What is accreditable in New Yorkmay not be accreditable in California, and vice versa. The demands and standards of the groupthat accredits schools of chemistry may be very different from the people who accredit schoolsof forestry. And so on. Some decent schools (or departments within schools) are not accredited,either by their own choice (since accreditation is a totally voluntary and often very expensiveprocedure), or because they are too new (all schools were unaccredited at one time in their lives)or too experimental (some would say too innovative) for the generally conservative accreditors.Many very bad schools claim to be accredited but it is always by unrecognized, sometimesnonexistent accrediting associations, often of their own creation. Still, accreditation is the onlywidespread system of school evaluation that we have. A school's accreditation status can behelpful to the potential student in this way: while some good schools are not accredited, it is veryunlikely that any very bad or illegal school is authentically accredited. (There have beenexceptions, but they are quite rare.)In other words, authentic accreditation is a pretty good sign that a given school is legitimate. Butit is important to remember that lack of accreditation need not mean that a school is eitherinferior or illegal. Authentic accreditation is based on performance, not proposed performance.We stress the term authentic accreditation, since there are very few laws or regulations anywheregoverning the establishment of an accrediting association. Anyone can start a degree mill, thenturn around and open an accrediting agency next door, give his school its blessing, and beginadvertising \"fully accredited degrees.\" Indeed, this has happened many times.

The crucial question, then, is this: Who accredits the accreditors?Who Accredits the Accreditors?The situation is confusing, unsettled, and still undergoing change and redefinition for the thirdmillennium. To get some sort of a handle on the situation, it will be helpful to have a bit of ahistorical perspective. In this instance, it makes some sense to begin in 1980, when theRepublican party platform echoed Ronald Reagan's belief that the Department of Educationshould be closed down, since it was inappropriate for the federal government to meddle inmatters better left to the states and to private enterprise.At that time, there were two agencies, one private and one governmental, that had responsibilityfor evaluating and approving or recognizing accrediting agencies:

The U.S. Department of Education's Eligibility and Agency Evaluation Staff (EAES), which isrequired by law to \"publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies which [aredetermined] to be reliable . . . as to the quality of training offered.\" This is done as one measureof eligibility for federal financial aid programs for students. EAES also had the job of decidingwhether unaccredited schools could qualify for federal aid programs, or their students forveterans' benefits. This was done primarily by what was called the \"four-by-three\" rule: Proofthat credits from at least four students were accepted by at least three accredited schools (12 totalacceptances). If they were, then the unaccredited school was recognized by the Department ofEducation for that purpose. Schools qualifying under the four-by-three rule had to submitevidence of continued acceptance of their credits by accredited schools in order to maintain theirstatus. COPA, the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation. COPA was a nationwide nonprofitcorporation, formed in 1975 to evaluate accrediting associations and award recognition to thosefound worthy. President Reagan was unable to dismantle the Department of Education during hisadministration, although key people in the department strongly suggested that they should get outof the business of recognizing accrediting agencies, and leave that to the states. \"EducationPresident\" George Bush apparently did not share this view; at least no significant changes weremade during his administration.One of the frequent complaints levied against the recognized accrediting agencies (and not justby Republicans) is that they have, in general, been slow to acknowledge the major trend towardalternative or nontraditional education.

Some years ago, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education conducted research on therelationship between accreditation and nontraditional approaches. Their report, written byAlexander Mood, confirmed that a serious disadvantage of accreditation is \"in the suppression ofinnovation. Schools cannot get far out of line without risking loss of their accreditation a penaltywhich they cannot afford.\" \"Also,\" the report continued, \"loss of accreditation implies that thecurriculum is somewhat inferior and hence that the degree is inferior. Such a large penalty...tends to prevent colleges from striking out in new directions... As we look toward the future, itappears likely that accrediting organizations will lose their usefulness and slowly disappear.Colleges will be judged not by what some educational bureaucracy declares but by what they cando for their students. Of much greater relevance would be statistics on student satisfaction, careeradvancement of graduates, and other such data.\"Faced with high-powered criticism of this sort, some accrediting agencies sponsored (with amajor grant from the Kellogg Foundation) a large-scale study of how the agencies should dealwith nontraditional education.The four-volume report of the findings of this investigation said very much what the Carnegiereport had to say. The accreditors were advised, in effect, not to look at the easy quantitativefactors (percentage of Doctorate-holders on the faculty, Books in the library, student-facultyratio, acres of campus, etc.), but rather to evaluate the far more elusive qualitative factors, ofwhich student satisfaction and student performance are the most crucial.

In other words, if the students at a nontraditional, nonresident university regularly produceresearch and dissertations that are as good as those produced at traditional schools, or ifgraduates of nontraditional schools are as likely to gain admission to graduate school or high-level employment and perform satisfactorily there then the nontraditional school may be just asworthy of accreditation as the traditional school.The response of the accrediting agencies was pretty much to say, \"But we already are doing justthose things. No changes are needed.\"But, with the Carnegie and Kellogg reports, the handwriting was on the wall, if still in small andhard-to-read letters. Things would be changing, however.In 1987, then Secretary of Education William Bennett (later to become \"Drug Czar,\" and then abestselling author-philosopher) voiced similar complaints about the failure of accreditingagencies to deal with matters such as student competency and satisfaction. \"Historically,\" hesaid, \"accrediting agencies have examined institutions in terms of the resources they have, suchas the number of faculty with earned Doctorates and the number of books in the library. Now[we] are considering the ways agencies take account of student achievement and development.\"

In 1990, Bennett's successor, Lauro F. Cavazos, while splitting an infinitive or two, said almostexactly the same thing: \"Despite increasing evidence that many of our schools are failing toadequately prepare our children, either for further study or for productive careers, theaccreditation process still focuses on inputs, such as the number of volumes in libraries orpercentage of faculty with appropriate training. It does not examine outcomes how muchstudents learn.\"Around the same time, John W. Harris, chairman of the National Advisory Committee onAccreditation, echoed these concerns: \"It is not enough to know that teachers have certaindegrees and that students have spent so much time in the classroom. The question is, caninstitutions document the achievement of students for the degrees awarded?\"The accrediting agencies continued to assure us that they do deal with such matters.In 1992, Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander went further still, issuing an open invitationfor new accrediting agencies to come forward and seek his department's blessing, stronglyimplying that the existing ones were not doing a satisfactory job. And around the same time, highadministrators at at least three major universities seriously questioned whether accreditation wasnecessary for their school. \"Why should we spend upwards of $100,000 in staff time and realmoney to prepare a self-study for the accreditors?\" said one administrator. \"It is quite likely thatthe University of Wisconsin would still be taken seriously even if it did not have accreditation.\"

In 1992, Secretary Alexander flung down an unignorable gauntlet by denying the usual\"automatic\" reapproval of the powerful Middle States Accrediting Association, because hemaintained that their standards for accreditation did not meet the department's. (Middle Stateshad previously denied reaccreditation to a major school because it did not meet certain standardsof diversity, including \"appropriate\" numbers of minority students and faculty. Alexandersuggested that Middle States was paying attention to the wrong things. Middle States finallybacked down, and made its diversity standards optional.)When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, the accreditation situation was no less murky, and hischoice for Secretary of Education, Richard Riley of South Carolina, seemed more interested inprimary and secondary education than in postsecondary. Into this already murky area came twobombshells.Bombshell #1: First, in 1993, the six regional accrediting associations, claiming that \"the conceptof self-regulation as embodied in regional accreditation is being seriously questioned andpotentially threatened,\" announced that they planned to drop out of the Council on PostsecondaryAccreditation, and start their own new group to represent them in Washington. The Chronicle ofHigher Education reported that \"some higher-education observers said they questioned thesignificance of the action [while] others called it disturbing.\" The president of the AmericanCouncil on Education said that \"Their pulling out is tantamount to the destruction of COPA.\"

Bombshell #2: He was right. In April 1993, at their annual meeting in San Francisco, COPAvoted itself out of existence as of year-end, by a vote of 14 to two, one abstention. One boardmember, C. Peter Magrath, president of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, said that he thought COPA \"focused too much on the minutiae of accreditationand not enough on the big issues of improving the quality of undergraduate education.\"And so, in April 1993, things were indeed unsettled. The six regional associations wereapparently planning to start a new organization to govern themselves, without the participation ofthe dozens of professional accreditors who were part of COPA. COPA was going about itsbusiness, but planning to turn off the lights and shut the door by the end of 1993. And theClinton Department of Education was busily drawing up proposals that would turn the world ofaccreditation and school licensing on its ear.The early thrust of the Clinton/Riley thinking echoed much that had been discussed during theBush/Bennett/Cavazos/Alexander era: giving increased power to the states to decide what canand cannot be done in the way of higher education within their borders. The big stick wielded bythe federal folks, of course, was student aid: loans and grants. The prospect of each state havingdifferent standards by which a student could get a Pell Grant, for instance, was daunting.

Around this time, Ralph A. Wolff, an executive with one of the regional accrediting associations,wrote an important 'think piece' for the influential Chronicle of Higher Education: \"Restoring theCredibility of Accreditation.\" (June 9, 1993, page B1) Wolff wrote that, \"We have constructed aPotemkin Village in which there is less behind the fa?ade of accreditation than we might like toacknowledge. . . . The accreditation process has not held colleges and universities accountablefor issues such as the writing ability of graduates or the effectiveness of general-educationrequirements. . . If accreditation is to regain some of its lost credibility, everyone involved in theprocess needs to refocus on standards and criteria for demonstrating educational effectiveness.Even the most prestigious institutions will need to address how much students are learning andthe quality of student life at the institution.\"Right around the time Wolff was writing, the Department of Education was sending out a limitednumber of \"secret\" (not for publication or circulation) drafts of its proposed new regulations.And the six regional accreditors apparently rose up as one to say, in effect, \"Hey, wait a minute.You, the feds, are telling us how to run our agencies, and we don't like that.\"For instance, the draft regulations would have required accreditors to look at the length ofvarious programs, and their cost vis-a-vis the subject being taught.A response by James T. Rogers, head of the college division of the Southern Association (aregional accreditor) was typical:

If final regulations follow the pattern in this latest draft, the Department of Education will haveco-opted, in very profound ways, members of the private, voluntary accrediting community toserve as enforcement for the department. . . . This is an extremely disturbing abdication of thedepartment's responsibility to police its own operation.The Chronicle reported (August 4, 1993) that \"many of the accrediting groups have sent noticesto their member colleges urging them to be prepared to battle the department if the draft is notsignificantly altered.\"And David Longanecker, Assistant Secretary for postsecondary education, was quoted in theChronicle as saying \"Many people in higher education say 'You can't measure what it is that wedo, it's too valuable.' I don't buy that, and I don't think most people in America buy that today,either.\"The battle lines were drawn or, as the more polite Chronicle put it on August 11, 1993,\"Accreditors and the Education Department [are] locked in a philosophical disagreement overthe role of accreditation.\" At this point, the six regional accreditors announced they would bejoining with seven higher-education groups to form an organization to represent their interests inWashington. This lobbying group was to be called the National Policy Board on HigherEducation Institutional Accreditation, or NPBHEIA. And various subsets of the by-now lameduck COPA were making plans to start as many as three replacement organizations to take oversome or most or all of COPA's functions.

During the rest of 1993, the Department of Education was busily rewriting its accreditationguidelines, taking into account the unexpectedly fierce \"leave us alone\" response from theregional and professional accreditors. Meanwhile, Congress, not wishing to be left out of the mixentirely, passed, on November 23, 1993, the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1993,which, among much, much else, decreed that the Department of Education was to cause each ofthe 50 states to establish a new State postsecondary review \"entity\" (SPRE) to evaluate schoolswithin each state, both for compliance with various federal aid programs and, unexpectedly, toevaluate those colleges and universities that have \"been subject to a pattern of complaints fromstudents, faculty, or others, including...misleading or inappropriate advertising and promotion ofthe institution's educational programs....\" If that wasn't an invitation for the states to go into theaccreditation business, it was certainly in that direction.Good-bye COPA, Hello CORPA

And while this was going on, the COPA-ending clock was ticking away. Ten days before COPAwas to disappear forever, the formation of a single new entity to replace it was announced.COPA was to be replaced with (small fanfare, please) CORPA, the Commission on Recognitionof Postsecondary Accreditation. All members of COPA were automatically recognized byCORPA. All COPA provisions for recognition of schools were adopted by CORPA, with theunderstanding that they might be refined and modified over time. And CORPA's initialCommittee on Recognition was composed of the members of COPA's Committee onRecognition. All of this appears to be the academic equivalent of saying that The Odyssey wasnot written by Homer, but by another Greek with the same name. The only apparent differencebetween COPA and CORPA is the addition of the \"R\" and the fact that the six regionals were nolonger members.The Department of Education's guidelines were finally published in the Federal Register onJanuary 24, 1994: 24 small-type pages on accreditors, and 20 more on the establishing SPREs,the State Postsecondary Review Entities. Once the regulations were published, the public and thehigher education establishment had 45 days in which to respond. And respond they did. Theheadline in the next week's Chronicle of Higher Education read: \"Accreditors Fight Back.\"It turned out that the six regional accreditors, the American Council on Education, and othergroups had been meeting privately in Arizona to formulate a battle plan. They consideredabandoning the regional approach entirely, in favor of a single national accreditor, but scrappedthat in favor of four still-quite-radical ideas (among others):

Establishment of minimum uniform national standards for accreditation;Setting of higher standards for schools, focusing on teaching and learning (what a novelconcept!);Making public their reports on individual colleges and schools;and Moving toward ceasing to cooperate with the federal government in certifying the eligibilityof colleges for federal financial aid.During the 45-day response period following publishing of the draft guidelines, hundreds of longand serious responses were received from college and university presidents opposing some,most, or all of the regulations that had been proposed by the Department of Education.The issue of diversity and political correctness in accreditation remained just as controversial asbefore. While the Western Association (a regional accreditor) for instance, believes thatacademic quality and ethnic diversity are \"profoundly connected,\" many colleges, large andsmall, apparently agree with Stanford president Gerhard Casper, who said, \"No institution shouldbe required to demonstrate its commitment to diversity to the satisfaction of an external reviewpanel. The [Western Association] is attempting to insert itself in an area in which it has nolegitimate standing.\" Other schools, including the University of California at Berkeley, defendedthe diversity policy.

By early May, 1994, the Department of Education backed away from some of the morecontroversial rules, both in terms of telling the accreditors what to look for, and in the powersgiven to the SPREs. They did this by continuing to say what things an accrediting agency mustevaluate, but only suggesting, not demanding, the ways and means by which they might do it. Inaddition, SPREs would now be limited to dealing with matters of fraud and abuse, and could notinitiate an inquiry for other reasons.Under the then-final guidelines, accrediting agencies were required to evaluate these twelvematters, but the way they do it can be individually determined:CurriculaFacultyFacilities, equipment, and suppliesFiscal and administrative capacityStudent support servicesProgram length, tuition, and fees in relation to academic objectivesProgram length, tuition, and fees in relation to credit receivedStudent achievement (job placement, state licensing exams, etc.)Student loan repaymentsStudent complaints received by or available to the accreditorCompliance with student aid rules and regulationsEverything else, including recruiting, admissions practices, calendars, catalogues and otherpublications, grading practices, advertising and publicity, and so on.

And that is where we had gotten to by 1996. Then, just when it seemed as things were calmingdown a bit, two more bombshells (shall we call them #3 and #4?) were dropped.Bombshell #3: Good-bye CORPA, Hello CHEAIn late 1996, CORPA announced that it was closing down, in favor of a new organization,CHEA, the Council on Higher Education Accreditation, same address, but a new telephonenumber.Bombshell #4: Good-bye AACSB, Hello ConfusionFor years, the main guideline for determining the validity of an accrediting agency has beenwhether it is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (with additional recognition byCOPA, CORPA, or CHEA as an added niceness).Then the U.S. Department of Education determined that the Higher Education Amendments tothe laws required it only to recognize those accreditors who help to enable the schools orprograms they accredit to establish eligibility to participate in certain federal aid and otherfederal programs. As a result of this determination, more than a dozen respectable, well regarded,and formerly recognized accrediting agencies lost their Department of Education recognition,including the very prestigious AACSB, the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools ofBusiness, which accredits Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and suchlike.

Does this mean that the accreditation of those nine agencies is no longer as useful? It is too soonto know, but unlikely, since the various professional fields still support that accreditation. Theforesters, the social workers, the veterinarians, and so on, still regard accreditation by theirprofessional associations as valuable and so, clearly, do the hundreds of schools that have or seekthis accreditation. Finally, it seems more than likely that these nine agencies will retain theirrecognition by CHEA.In any event, after decades of minimal interest and attention, the always fascinating world ofaccreditation is clearly getting more than its fifteen minutes of fame.Words That Do Not Mean \"Accredited\"Some unaccredited schools use terminology in their catalogs or advertising that might have theeffect of misleading unknowledgeable readers. Here are six common phrases:Pursuing accreditation. A school may state that it is \"pursuing accreditation,\" or that it \"intendsto pursue accreditation.\" But that says nothing whatever about its chances for achieving same.It's like saying that you are practicing your tennis game, with the intention of playing in thefinals at Wimbledon. Don't hold your breath.

Chartered. In some places, a charter is the necessary document that a school needs to grantdegrees. A common ploy by diploma mill operators is to form a corporation, and state in thearticles of incorporation that one of the purposes of the corporation is to grant degrees. This islike forming a corporation whose charter says that it has the right to appoint the Pope. You cansay it, but that doesn't make it so.Licensed or registered. This usually refers to nothing more than a business license, granted bythe city or county in which the school is located, but which has nothing to do with the legality ofthe school, or the usefulness of its degrees.Recognized. This can have many possible meanings, ranging from some level of genuine officialrecognition at the state level, to having been listed in some directory often unrelated toeducation, perhaps published by the school itself. Two ambitious degree mills (Columbia StateUniversity and American International University) have published entire books that look at firstglance like this one, solely for the purpose of being able to devote lengthy sections in them todescribing their phony schools as \"the best in America.\"Authorized. In California, this has had a specific meaning (see chapter 7). Elsewhere, the termcan be used to mean almost anything the school wants it to sometimes legitimate, sometimes not.A Canadian degree mill once claimed to be \"authorized to grant degrees.\" It turned out that theowner had authorized his wife to go ahead and print the diplomas.

Approved. In California, this has a specific meaning (see chapter 7). In other locations, it isimportant to know who is doing the approving. Some not-for-profit schools call themselves\"approved by the U.S. Government,\" which means only that the Internal Revenue Service hasapproved their nonprofit status for income taxes and nothing more. At one time, some Britishschools called themselves \"Government Approved,\" when the approval related only to theschool-lunch program.The Second-to-Last Word on AccreditationThere have been quite an extraordinary number of new accrediting associations started in the lastfew years, and they are getting harder and harder to check out, either because they seem to existonly on the Internet, or because they exist in so many places: an address in Hawaii, another inSwitzerland, a third in Germany, a fourth in Hong Kong, and so on. Some new ones haveadopted the clever idea of bestowing their accreditation on some major universities, quitepossibly unbeknownst to those schools. Then they can say truthfully, but misleadingly, that theyaccredit such well-known schools. This is the accreditation equivalent of those degree mills thatsend their diplomas to some famous people, and then list those people as graduates.The Last Word on AccreditationDon't believe everything anyone says. It seems extraordinary that any school would lie aboutsomething so easily checked as accreditation, but it is done. Degree mills have unabashedlyclaimed accreditation by a recognized agency. Such claims are totally untrue. They are countingon the fact that many people won't check up on these claims.

Salespeople trying to recruit students sometimes make accreditation claims that are patentlyfalse. Quite a few schools ballyhoo their \"fully accredited\" status but never mention that theaccrediting agency is unrecognized, and so the accreditation is of little or (in most cases) novalue.One accrediting agency (the unrecognized International Accrediting Commission for Schools,Colleges and Theological Seminaries) boasted that two copies of every accreditation report theyissue are \"deposited in the Library of Congress.\" That sounds impressive, until you learn that for$20, anyone can copyright anything and be able to make the identical claim.- See more at: http://www.degree.net/accreditation/accreditation-guide_199911302316.html#sthash.gkzqY20X.dpufhttp://www.iacet.org/iacet-standard/ansi-accreditationIACET is the premier standard-setting organization for the continuing education and trainingindustry and is an accredited Standards Developing Organization (SDO) by the AmericanNational Standards Institute (ANSI).

Accreditation by ANSI signifies that IACET’s procedures meet the Institute’s essentialrequirements for openness, balance, consensus and due process. IACET’s process of standardsdevelopment ensures that interested individuals and organizations representing academia,industry, product users, and governments alike all have an equal vote in determining a standard’scontent. Participants are welcome from anywhere in the world.What is ANSI?ANSI is the U.S. standards and conformity assessment organization. It oversees the creation,distribution and use of thousands of norms and guidelines that directly impact business in nearlyevery sector in the economy.ANSI is the U.S. representative of ISO—the International Organization for Standards—and is afounding member of the International Accreditation Forum.A non-profit, member-driven organization, ANSI relies on volunteers and industry experts toimprove the global competitiveness of U.S. business by promoting and facilitating voluntaryconsensus standards and accreditation systems, and safeguarding their integrity.Setting and Maintaining a Globally Recognized StandardIACET publishes the ANSI/IACET Standard and accredits users of its standard. Accreditationverifies that Authorized Providers (APs) are capable of developing continuing education andtraining programs that meet the standard.IACET APs can be identified by the Authorized Provider logo, which IACET makes availablefor APs to place on their collateral. This logo indicates that an AP’s program was developedaccording to the globally recognized and approved standard.

http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/News%20and%20Publications/Brochures/Value%20of%20the%20ANS.pdfThe Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) has produced four short videosposted on YouTube. They address: ● Accreditation and Its Value to You ● Types of Accreditation: What’s the Difference? ● Degree Mills and Accreditation Mills ● The Council for Higher Education Accreditationhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/naciqi.htmlQ. Does the Department of Education accredit any postsecondary institutions orprograms?No, the Department of Education does not accredit any postsecondary institutions or programs.However, the U.S. Secretary of Education (Secretary) is required by law to publish a list ofnationally recognized accrediting agenciesthat the Secretary determines to be reliableauthorities as to the quality of education or training provided by the institutions of highereducation and the higher education programs they accredit. The Secretary also recognizes Stateagencies for the approval of public postsecondary vocational education and nurse education.Q. May the U.S. Department of Education interfere with an institution’s decisionconcerning a student or faculty matter?A. No, The Department of Education’s Organization Act does not permit the Department tohave any control over an institution’s academic, student, or personnel administration. Section103(b) of that Act reads:\"No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of theDepartment shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any other such officer to exerciseany direction, supervision of control over the curriculum, program of instruction,administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any

accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources,textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or schools system,except to the extent authorized by law.\"Q. How do I file a complaint about a school or accrediting body?A. Matters concerning disputes between a student and a faculty member or an administratorover such issues as billing, grading, financial aid, or employment is considered an individualdispute between the parties at an institution. Such disputes are best resolved by the partiesinvolved, through an institution’s Ombudsman, or through the legal system.Contact an institution’s accrediting body if there is evidence that appears to support theinstitution’s non-compliance with one or more of its accrediting body’s standards. Clearlyidentify the standard and how the institution allegedly does not comply. Accrediting agenciesshould not be contacted in regard to admission information or issues involving application ofan institution’s academic policies.What’s the difference between regional vs. national accreditation?This gets a bit complicated. The U.S. Department of Education says: “The U.S. Department ofEducation does not have the authority to accredit private or public elementary or secondaryschools, and the Department does not recognize accrediting bodies for the accreditation ofprivate or public elementary and secondary schools. However, the U.S. Department ofEducation does recognize accrediting bodies for the accreditation of institutions of higher(postsecondary) education.”Translation: The U.S. Department of Education doesn’t accredit schools directly. It does,however, recognize organizations that provide accreditation to individual schools. And it getseven more complicated, because there are lots of different USDE-approved accreditingagencies. Some are regional, while others accredit specific types of schools. Here’s a partiallist.Accreditation bodies with nationwide reach . . . ● Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools – Web address: www.abhes.org ● Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges - Web address: www.accsc.org ● Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training - Web address: www.accet.org ● Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training – Web address: www.acics.org ● Council on Occupational Education –Web address: www.council.org

● Distance Education and Training Council - Web address: www.detc.orgRegional college accrediting bodies (partial list) . . . ● Middle States Commission on Higher Education (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) - Web address: www.msche.org ● New England Association of Schools and Colleges (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) - Web address: www.neasc.org ● North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, (AZ, MI, MN, MO, NE, NM, ND, OH, OK, SD, WV, WI, WY) - Web address: www.ncahigherlearningcommission.org ● Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (AL, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA) – Web address: www.nwccu.org ● Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (AL, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA) - Web address: www.sacscoc.org(http://www.straighterline.com/online-education-resources/how-to-make-sure-your-credits-and-your-degree-count)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_specialistChat with student Advisor or Education Specialistshere's one sourcehttps://server.iad.liveperson.net/hc/38311917/?cmd=file&file=visitorWantsToChat&site=38311917The videos provide helpful information to anyone with an interest in knowing more aboutaccreditation. Each directs viewers to the CHEA Website for more in-depth information.

Council for Higher Education Accreditation One Dupont Circle NW Suite 510 Washington, DC 20036 (tel) 202-955-6126 (fax) [email protected] BANKSInstant Transcripts from a Credit BankExcelsior College7 Columbia Circle, Albany, NY 12203-5159International Phone: 518-464-8500Thomas Edison State College101 W. State St.Trenton, NJ 08608-1176(888) 442-8372 (toll free)Fax: (609) 777-2956E-mail: [email protected] Oak State College55 Paul J. Manafort Drive

New Britain, CT 06053-2150(860) 832-3800E-mail: [email protected] CREDITS/TRANSFER CREDIT/TRANSCRIPTSEXAMPLE INDIANA UNIVERSITYSelf-Acquired Competency CreditAs a student in the General Studies Degree program, you may be able to earn academic creditsfor professional experiences. These self-aquired competency (SAC) credits are awarded based ondocumentation you provide.In general, self-acquired competency credit is awarded based on the following guidelines: ● You must be admitted to the School of Continuing Studies, have completed 12 credit hours at Indiana University subsequent to admission, and be in good academic standing before we can evaluate credit for self-acquired competency. ● You can apply a maximum of 30 credit hours toward the B.G.S. ● If you plan to seek SAC credits, you must consult with your general studies academic advisor as early as possible. SAC credit must be carefully integrated with your total degree plan. ● Learning must parallel courses in the Indiana University curriculum in order to be recognized as specific-course credit. Learning of college-level caliber that cannot be equated to specific course content might be awarded as general-elective credit. ● The general studies director or advisor arranges to have your SAC portfolio assessed by faculty of the appropriate school or department. ● The fee you will be charged per credit hour for SAC credit is generally the per-credit- hour fee charged for undergraduate Independent Study Program courses at the time the SAC credit is transcribed to your official student record.Read more about self-acquired competency credits - including a list of steps you will need totake in order to complete a SAC portfoliohttp://www.chea.org/pdf/RecognitionWellman_Jan1998.pdfRecognition vs. AccreditationRecognition of accreditation agencies is often thought of as equivalent of accreditation ofinstitutions,

the diff erence being that agencies are “recognized” while institutions are accredited. Yet the twoare quitedistinct, despite similarities in vocabulary and process.Accreditation is a nongovernmental peer process designed both to assure minimum standards andtohelp institutions assess and improve themselves. All accrediting of U.S. higher educationinstitutions isdone by nongovernmental accreditors. Institutions that are not accredited by ED- recognizedaccreditation associations may not receive public funds. Accreditation also is used for stateoversight purposes,both as a substitute for state review of accredited institutions’ quality (in some states) and inrelation toprofessional school licensing examinations. Institutions themselves use accreditation status as ameans ofdetermining whether credits students have earned elsewhere will be accepted for admissions ortransferpurposes. (Accreditation is not the sole criterion for such determinations, but it typically doesplay arole.) Finally, being accredited has public value and benefit; it confirms to parents, students, andemployers that the institution meets minimum educational standards.As stated earlier, recognition is both governmental and nongovernmental. Governmentalrecognition is a regulatory process conducted by the U.S. Department of Education on behalf ofthe Secretaryof Education. The federal regulatory process is directed primarily toward ensuring thatassociations meetminimum standards for structure, governance, procedures, and academic standards. The benefitsof recognition are real: associations that fail the federal process are not eligible to be“gatekeepers” for studentfinancial aid or other federal funding.Nongovernmental recognition, on the other hand, is a review process for membership in a privateorganization. It is a form of self-regulation, through the development and promotion ofcommunitystandards of best practice in accrediting associations, enforced through the review of applicationformembership. As a form of self-regulation, the “sanction” for an association that does not meetrecognition standards is loss of membership in the organization. The meaning ofnongovernmental recognition issomewhat obscure; there is no easy way for the public to tell whether an association withoutrecognition

failed to meet the standard or simply chose not to apply for recognition. Thus, nongovernmentalrecognition is much less prescriptive than federal recognition; it is oriented more towardimprovement than toassurance of meeting minimum standards.The public demands considerable information about recognition status. Knowing that aninstitution is accredited by an association recognized by ED or COPA/CORPA helps ensure thatstandards ofquality assessment and control are in place. Unfortunately, the ambiguity of “recognition”compromisesthe eff ectiveness of the consumer information role because the public typically cannotdistinguish between agencies that are “approved” (ED) or “recognized” (COPA/CORPA) andthose that claim to be“licensed” or “certified” by a fictitious entity.Analysis of the range of options for the future role of accreditation recognition should begroundedin a thorough understanding of the current structure and of how the governmental andnongovernmentalprocess are organized. A brief history of the evolution of those two processes and a synopsis ofthe majordiff erences between them follow....No comprehensive mandatorysystem covers all accreditors.(3) Not all things required by the public must be performed by government. For example, aprivateentity can obtain information about and publish an institution’s accreditation status.(4) The template set in current federal law, with the Department of Education as the primaryregulator of accreditation, is not inviolate. The Higher Education Act is reauthorizedperiodically, andamendments to it are possible. Also, it is not self-evident that all things that might be regulatedby government must be regulated by government, or within the federal government by theDepartment of Education. A clear demarcation within government of the roles andresponsibilitiesof the states and the federal government on one hand, and of federal agencies on the other, wouldseem to be preferable to the current cobbled system.The Higher Education Act is being amended in 1998, and CHEA and others have requested

amendments that would improve the accreditation section of the law by clarifying roles andresponsibilities and by limiting federal authority over academic standards. A fundamentalrecastingof the recognition role, including a possible shifting of oversight away from ED or to a systemthat relies explicitly on a public/private partnership, is not requested at this time. Through such ashift is unlikely, it should be discussed....Seven million college courses and transfer equivalency options, twenty thousand transfer guidesand over college listings put your future at your fingertips!MORE ABOUT TESTINGOnline Education Database LibraryThis library links to open courseware, broadcast learning, educational video, archives, lecturewebcasts and podcasts from a range of colleges, and scholarly journals.Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)MIT offers 1,800 free lecture notes, exams, and videos in a variety of subjects, along withsupplemental resources.University of California, BerkeleyThe University of California, Berkeley, presents free podcasts and webcasts of its current andarchived courses.Open Learning InitiativeCarnegie Mellon University provides free online courses and course material in modern biology,French, economics, chemistry, and other subjects.Learner.orgThe Annenberg Foundation's website for teacher professional development offers streamingvideo and course materials in a variety of subjects.

HippoCampusThis site contains multimedia lessons and course materials.The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) has produced four short videosposted on YouTube. They address:Accreditation and Its Value to YouTypes of Accreditation: What’s the Difference?Degree Mills and Accreditation MillsThe Council for Higher Education Accreditationhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/naciqi.htmlQ. Does the Department of Education accredit any postsecondary institutions or programs?No, the Department of Education does not accredit any postsecondary institutions or programs.However, the U.S. Secretary of Education (Secretary) is required by law to publish a list ofnationally recognized accrediting agenciesthat the Secretary determines to be reliableauthorities as to the quality of education or training provided by the institutions of highereducation and the higher education programs they accredit. The Secretary also recognizes Stateagencies for the approval of public postsecondary vocational education and nurse education.Q. May the U.S. Department of Education interfere with an institution’s decision concerning astudent or faculty matter?

A. No, The Department of Education’s Organization Act does not permit the Department tohave any control over an institution’s academic, student, or personnel administration. Section103(b) of that Act reads:\"No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of theDepartment shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any other such officer to exerciseany direction, supervision of control over the curriculum, program of instruction,administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over anyaccrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources,textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or schools system,except to the extent authorized by law.\"Q. How do I file a complaint about a school or accrediting body?A. Matters concerning disputes between a student and a faculty member or an administratorover such issues as billing, grading, financial aid, or employment is considered an individualdispute between the parties at an institution. Such disputes are best resolved by the partiesinvolved, through an institution’s Ombudsman, or through the legal system.Contact an institution’s accrediting body if there is evidence that appears to support theinstitution’s non-compliance with one or more of its accrediting body’s standards. Clearlyidentify the standard and how the institution allegedly does not comply. Accrediting agenciesshould not be contacted in regard to admission information or issues involving application ofan institution’s academic policies.

What’s the difference between regional vs. national accreditation?This gets a bit complicated. The U.S. Department of Education says: “The U.S. Department ofEducation does not have the authority to accredit private or public elementary or secondaryschools, and the Department does not recognize accrediting bodies for the accreditation ofprivate or public elementary and secondary schools. However, the U.S. Department ofEducation does recognize accrediting bodies for the accreditation of institutions of higher(postsecondary) education.”Translation: The U.S. Department of Education doesn’t accredit schools directly. It does,however, recognize organizations that provide accreditation to individual schools. And it getseven more complicated, because there are lots of different USDE-approved accreditingagencies. Some are regional, while others accredit specific types of schools. Here’s a partiallist.Accreditation bodies with nationwide reach . . .Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools – Web address: www.abhes.orgAccrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges - Web address: www.accsc.orgAccrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training - Web address: www.accet.orgAccrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training – Web address: www.acics.orgCouncil on Occupational Education –Web address: www.council.orgDistance Education and Training Council - Web address: www.detc.orgRegional college accrediting bodies (partial list) . . .Middle States Commission on Higher Education (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA, Puerto Rico, and

the U.S. Virgin Islands) - Web address: www.msche.orgNew England Association of Schools and Colleges (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) - Webaddress: www.neasc.orgNorth Central Association of Colleges and Schools, (AZ, MI, MN, MO, NE, NM, ND, OH,OK, SD, WV, WI, WY) - Web address: www.ncahigherlearningcommission.orgNorthwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (AL, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA) – Webaddress: www.nwccu.orgSouthern Association of Colleges and Schools (AL, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX,VA) - Web address: www.sacscoc.org(http://www.straighterline.com/online-education-resources/how-to-make-sure-your-credits-and-your-degree-count)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_specialistChat with student Advisor or Education Specialistshere's one sourcehttps://server.iad.liveperson.net/hc/38311917/?cmd=file&file=visitorWantsToChat&site=38311917

The videos provide helpful information to anyone with an interest in knowing more aboutaccreditation. Each directs viewers to the CHEA Website for more in-depth information. Council for Higher

Education Accreditation One Dupont Circle NW Suite 510 Washington, DC 20036 (tel) 202-955-6126 (fax) [email protected] BANKSInstant Transcripts from a Credit BankExcelsior College7 Columbia Circle, Albany, NY 12203-5159International Phone: 518-464-8500Thomas Edison State College101 W. State St.Trenton, NJ 08608-1176(888) 442-8372 (toll free)Fax: (609) 777-2956E-mail: [email protected] Oak State College55 Paul J. Manafort Drive

New Britain, CT 06053-2150(860) 832-3800E-mail: [email protected] CREDITS/TRANSFER CREDIT/TRANSCRIPTSEXAMPLE INDIANA UNIVERSITYSelf-Acquired Competency CreditAs a student in the General Studies Degree program, you may be able to earn academic creditsfor professional experiences. These self-aquired competency (SAC) credits are awarded based ondocumentation you provide.In general, self-acquired competency credit is awarded based on the following guidelines:You must be admitted to the School of Continuing Studies, have completed 12 credit hours atIndiana University subsequent to admission, and be in good academic standing before we canevaluate credit for self-acquired competency.You can apply a maximum of 30 credit hours toward the B.G.S.If you plan to seek SAC credits, you must consult with your general studies academic advisor asearly as possible. SAC credit must be carefully integrated with your total degree plan.Learning must parallel courses in the Indiana University curriculum in order to be recognized asspecific-course credit. Learning of college-level caliber that cannot be equated to specific coursecontent might be awarded as general-elective credit.

The general studies director or advisor arranges to have your SAC portfolio assessed by facultyof the appropriate school or department.The fee you will be charged per credit hour for SAC credit is generally the per-credit-hour feecharged for undergraduate Independent Study Program courses at the time the SAC credit istranscribed to your official student record.Read more about self-acquired competency credits - including a list of steps you will need totake in order to complete a SAC portfoliohttp://www.chea.org/pdf/RecognitionWellman_Jan1998.pdfRecognition vs. AccreditationRecognition of accreditation agencies is often thought of as equivalent of accreditation ofinstitutions,the diff erence being that agencies are “recognized” while institutions are accredited. Yet the twoare quitedistinct, despite similarities in vocabulary and process.Accreditation is a nongovernmental peer process designed both to assure minimum standards andtohelp institutions assess and improve themselves. All accrediting of U.S. higher educationinstitutions is

done by nongovernmental accreditors. Institutions that are not accredited by ED- recognizedaccreditation associations may not receive public funds. Accreditation also is used for stateoversight purposes,both as a substitute for state review of accredited institutions’ quality (in some states) and inrelation toprofessional school licensing examinations. Institutions themselves use accreditation status as ameans ofdetermining whether credits students have earned elsewhere will be accepted for admissions ortransferpurposes. (Accreditation is not the sole criterion for such determinations, but it typically doesplay arole.) Finally, being accredited has public value and benefit; it confirms to parents, students, andemployers that the institution meets minimum educational standards.As stated earlier, recognition is both governmental and nongovernmental. Governmentalrecognition is a regulatory process conducted by the U.S. Department of Education on behalf ofthe Secretaryof Education. The federal regulatory process is directed primarily toward ensuring thatassociations meetminimum standards for structure, governance, procedures, and academic standards. The benefitsof recognition are real: associations that fail the federal process are not eligible to be“gatekeepers” for studentfinancial aid or other federal funding.Nongovernmental recognition, on the other hand, is a review process for membership in a private

organization. It is a form of self-regulation, through the development and promotion ofcommunitystandards of best practice in accrediting associations, enforced through the review of applicationformembership. As a form of self-regulation, the “sanction” for an association that does not meetrecognition standards is loss of membership in the organization. The meaning ofnongovernmental recognition issomewhat obscure; there is no easy way for the public to tell whether an association withoutrecognitionfailed to meet the standard or simply chose not to apply for recognition. Thus, nongovernmentalrecognition is much less prescriptive than federal recognition; it is oriented more towardimprovement than toassurance of meeting minimum standards.The public demands considerable information about recognition status. Knowing that aninstitution is accredited by an association recognized by ED or COPA/CORPA helps ensure thatstandards ofquality assessment and control are in place. Unfortunately, the ambiguity of “recognition”compromisesthe eff ectiveness of the consumer information role because the public typically cannotdistinguish between agencies that are “approved” (ED) or “recognized” (COPA/CORPA) andthose that claim to be“licensed” or “certified” by a fictitious entity.

Analysis of the range of options for the future role of accreditation recognition should begroundedin a thorough understanding of the current structure and of how the governmental andnongovernmentalprocess are organized. A brief history of the evolution of those two processes and a synopsis ofthe majordiff erences between them follow....No comprehensive mandatorysystem covers all accreditors.(3) Not all things required by the public must be performed by government. For example, aprivateentity can obtain information about and publish an institution’s accreditation status.(4) The template set in current federal law, with the Department of Education as the primaryregulator of accreditation, is not inviolate. The Higher Education Act is reauthorizedperiodically, andamendments to it are possible. Also, it is not self-evident that all things that might be regulatedby government must be regulated by government, or within the federal government by theDepartment of Education. A clear demarcation within government of the roles andresponsibilitiesof the states and the federal government on one hand, and of federal agencies on the other, would

seem to be preferable to the current cobbled system.The Higher Education Act is being amended in 1998, and CHEA and others have requestedamendments that would improve the accreditation section of the law by clarifying roles andresponsibilities and by limiting federal authority over academic standards. A fundamentalrecastingof the recognition role, including a possible shifting of oversight away from ED or to a systemthat relies explicitly on a public/private partnership, is not requested at this time. Through such ashift is unlikely, it should be discussed....http://educationtopicsnow.blogspot.com/2011/10/whats-your-learning-style-visual.html?m=1Visual (spatial):You prefer using pictures, images, and spatial understanding.Aural (auditory-musical): You prefer using sound and music.Verbal (linguistic): You prefer using words, both in speech and writing.Physical (kinesthetic): You prefer using your body, hands and sense of touch.Logical (mathematical): You prefer using logic, reasoning and systems.Social (interpersonal): You prefer to learn in groups or with other people.Solitary (intrapersonal): You prefer to work alone and use self-study.Why Learning Styles? Understand the basis of learning stylesYour learning styles have more influence than you may realize. Your preferred styles guide theway you learn. They also change the way you internally represent experiences, the way you