Accreditation and Agendas-Some serious questions (yehuda)

[Guest guest]

Thu, 18 May 2006 16:11:09 -0700 (PDT), yehuda frischman

< wrote:

 

>Legally, what does DoE accreditation mean?

 

There's probably material at a Federal website detailing the legal

definition, if you can read legalese and really want to know.

Practically speaking there are a couple of crucial aspects that

concern us (the schools and the " profession " ):

 

A big one, for students and hence the schools, DoE accreditation

means students are eligible for Federal financial support programs.

 

Beyond that, there's a delicate (and continually fluctuating) balance

between Federal laws/policies and States' rights (laws and policies).

DoE dictates educational standards, usually followed so some extent

by the States, especially in so far as DoE policy can be conditional

for Federal aid programs. On the other hand, States retain rights to

regulate professions themselves. Hence the varieties of State

acupuncture situations. In principle, each State can do whatever it

wants. In practice, there's usually some degree of conformity across

States, motivated by the leverage of Federal funding, and by

political pressure from professional, education and industrial organizations.

 

>Does that mean that one who completes a program is legally not

allowed to use the title Doctor before DoE approval is actually received?

 

Strictly speaking, no; practically, yes. I think this falls under

States' Rights. For instance, California law/regulation specifies

when and how an L.Ac. can use the title Dr/Doctor, which happens to

be tied to having an earned degree from an accredited institution.

But I suspect that a State could legalize a professional title

entirely on its own. And recent law legalizing/regulating naturopathy

in California was altered before enactment to eliminate use of the

term " physician " (at the behest of the Calif. Medical Assoc.) but

allow the use of " doctor " , when a proper doctorate-level education

can be certified (which probably gets into, at least indirectly, some

form of accreditation of the educational institution that traces back

up to the DoE).

 

>What is the meaning of partial accreditation?

 

As Valerie Hobbs sketched (and can perhaps better fill in all the

details), there's a long (actually unending) process: first an

detailed formal application; the application is scrutinized in

detail; when OKed, a " site visit " looks everything over, again in

detail; if OK, then a status of " candidacy " is granted; over a

waiting period, remaining details are fixed, and another " site

visit " often several iterations of this within the candidacy period;

when the accrediting agency is satisfied, then accreditation is

granted, but for a limited period. Then there's an elaborate review

after every couple of years, for " re-accreditation. " And at every

step it costs serious money (at least in the case of the ACAOM).

 

Actually, there's " candidacy " , and " conditional accreditation " , which

means some significant but non-critical issues are unresolved, so

sometimes a shorten period of initial accreditation is granted

(earlier than normal review). I, for one, don't recall coming across

" partial " accreditation.