Regulation of California Vocational Schools

In 2007, the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education agency which once regulated California's vocational/trade/career schools ceased to exist, when the legislation which authorized it was allowed to slide, unimpeded, off the book of laws when the legislature failed to renew it. The Bureau was disdained by the schools it regulated and consumer advocates alike. Since that time California's career schools have been under only voluntary regulations and attempts to pass a new law, specifically SB 823, have been unsuccessful as career schools felt the proposed law was too strict.

Now another law, AB 48, has been proposed. The Consumer Federation of California has proposed much needed reforms to the proposed law.

Transfer of credits is one of the most important ones. Credits earned at these career institutions are very seldom taken by regional accredited universities. In own study performed by the career schools themselves, only 18% were taken. Career schools have complained long and hard about this situation and even tried to force the federal government to mandate that their credits would transfer, however, generally, their course work is geared toward preparing students for careers and not academic proficiency thus, they are though to be inferior. Without regards to the merits of this argument, that is the present reality and students need to be made aware of this fact. However, the fact that a career school education is not necessarily portable to a regionally accredited school, is detrimental to its marketability thus for-profit schools wish to obscure this fact. Careers schools should be forced to divulge this information in the enrollment agreement in no uncertain terms.

Alen Janish & CRI - How To Have Access to Federal Aid and Spend it Too

Most of you are aware of CRI and the way it masqueraded as a viable court reporting school when in sobering reality it was merely a vessel to enrich the clever cronies who had ventured upon a clever scheme to separate vulnerable students from government money. Yes, government money. Strange is it not? If its government money, why does it belong to the students you might inquire? Well it belongs to the students because its the students who end up having to pay it back...and that's forever!

Actually Janisch was a bit more advanced than many of the unscrupulous school operators out there. He managed to swindle not just the students but the Department of Education itself, actually not that difficult. The Dept. of Education has a requirement that a school must meet certain financial standards in order to participate in the financial aid program which is literally the lifeblood of any proprietary school since the students do not pay the tuition for most of these schools, they just have to pay the tuition back. Janisch, in order to meet this requirement, engaged in a version of Three Card Monty, with his finances and those of two of his cohorts or elves if you will. The Dept. of Education requirements are not difficult to anticipate inasmuch as they appear at the end of the year regularly, a bit like Santa Claus. Thus, if a school has enough money at the time the DOE checks their finances then they are good to go. Its as if Santa Clause only checks if you're naughty or nice at the end of the year, ignoring your behavior during the rest of it. Read the summary judgment in the CRI bankruptcy case to get an overview of how this worked.

So Janisch, made sure that he had enough money, jewelry, letters of credit, or whatever negotiable instrument he could locate to satisfy the DOE's predictable journey through his books and then as soon as they turned the corner, simply repatriated what ever collateral his friends had loaned him and went on on about his crooked business.

National Accreditation's Use of Dept. of Education to Equate Themselves With Regional Accreditation

It's the argument that nationally accredited schools march out the most in their attempts to declare themselves the equal of regional accredited institutions. Since the Department of Education does not distinguish between regional or national accreditation, then they are equal and, more importantly, then all the institutions that they accredit are equal. For example, the latest incarnation of this theory arises in this letter which appears to have been solicited by the Distance Education Training Council, a national accrediting agency, to bolster their argument that all accreditation is equal.

The pertinent part of the letter reads: "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."

The Department of Education "criteria" has to do with what is expected of an accrediting agency not what is expected of the schools it accredits. What is relevant are the criteria that the accrediting agencies apply to the schools they accredit. Incidentally the Department of Education has nothing to do with the academic or transfer of credit affairs of any school. Thus, what the Department of Education thinks about accreditation is irrelevant. The letter appears to be solicited by the DETC to make the argument that because the Dept. of Education's Criteria for recognition of an accrediting agency is the "same" for all accreditors, then all accreditation is the same. Secondly, the letter clearly states in the second sentence that "... the specific scope of recognition varies according to the type of agency recognized." Thus the scope of recognition varies according to the type, sooooooooo, all accreditation is apparently not the same, contrary to the first statement. 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.

According to the anon users' scenario and the letter purporting to support it, an accrediting agency which only accredits certificate granting vocational schools and there are some, 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 the DETC and other national accrediting agencies and that of a 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. no distinction between national accreditors and regional accreditors there must not be one.

Career Education Corp.'s Cuppeance

Career Education Corporation one of the bigger players in the for-profit education sales-go-round has fallen on difficult times due to numerous federal investigations and journalistic exposes. They just announced that they were having to close several schools after vainly trying to sell them. Since 2005 CEC has been investigated by the Security and Exchanges Commission, the Justice Department and its Civil Division, the Department of Education and its most valuable asset, American Intercontinental University was put on probation by its regional accreditor. Now, where there is stink, there must be some dead vermin somewhere inasmuch as these agencies, especially under the Bush Administration, do not have that fine a sense of smell. There has to be outright stench for them to notice even a slight odor.

Well the problem of course is a business model that is fashioned after sales techniques a big city Three Card Monty player or a serpent lubricant vendor might employ. See, education is not a "final sale" were you can amber way from the transaction at an exponential pace. The mark sticks around for two to four years and in that time is quite likely to find out the falsity of any misrepresentations made during the sale. Now, you can continue the deceptions, however, it becomes increasingly more difficult and CEC ultimately failed.

CEC purchased many career schools around the nation, some of which were venerable or long standing institutions such as California Culinary Academy, Brooks Institute of Photography, Brooks College, Katharine Gibbs School, Lehigh Valley College and then applied a business model more suited to a penny stock boiler room than offering education which is almost a public utility when you consider its importance to individuals and society at large. Let us hope that they are in the process of rethinking this strategy.

Florida Metropolitan University "Settles" With AG over Transfer of Credit "Allegations"

Florida Metropolitan University, has morphed into Everest University and "settled" the Florida AG's inquiry into their transfer of credit wrongdoing. The settlement is humorously redundant and rather hilarious as they basically are going to agree to do what they were already doing, which was "assisting" their students in transferring credits which they knew were not transferable and are still not transferable. This is tantamount to Kevin Trudeau settling an action with the FTC by assisting persons who bought a phony cancer cure, with having the cancer cure work. Coral calcium doesn't cure cancer and the credits that FMU assured its students would transfer to regionally accredited schools are not going to suddenly be transferable simply because most FMU is going to "assist" the students in transferring them. If the portion of the settlement wherein the FMU/Everest will be forced to "better disclose" the fact that the credits do not transfer or i.e., stop lying about them transferring, then it will be beneficial.

Nationally accredited schools complain about the fact that regionals will not take their credits. Whether or not this rejection is fair or not is not the issue, they know that their is a transfer of credit problem, yet do not disclose it to their prospective students and then point to the plight of the students who predictably cannot transfer the credits. So they use the students as unwilling food solders and designated victims in their fight with the regionals. This is illustrated very well by this statement in the article:

"FMU representatives have long maintained that the school has been up-front with prospective students. They also say the problem lies with the transfer schools, for wrongly rejecting credible FMU credits."

The absurd contradictions in that statement would torch any brain cell trying to deal with it. So don't try, you will only hurt yourself. If FMU had been upfront with the students about known credit transfer issues, why would those students be surprised that their credits would not transfer? FMU is like a car dealership that sells you a car that they warrant is perfect when you know it isn't and then getting angry at the unaffiliated service station that will not fix it for free. What's worse still, the cars can never be fixed!

Alen Janisch aka CRI, Retreats to Personal Bankruptcy

For those of you who are not familiar with Court Reporting Institute, Inc. aka CRI, then I suggest the CRI saga website. CRI was basically Alen Janisch adorned with the vestiges and protections afforded by corporate form. Mr. Janisch operated under the guise of CRI, which masqueraded as a educational institution when in reality it was a vehicle for defrauding students, in essence a Venus fly trap, as detailed in the numerous complaints which were sent to the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, a veritable roach motel where only 6% of the students escaped aka graduated and only 1% of those were actually working in the court reporting field.

After 18 years, the Washington State Workforce Board refused to renew CRI/Janisch's license to teach court reporting, then CRI/Janisch was the subject of a distinctly unfavorable article in the Seattle Times and students left in droves. Janisch/CRI closed its "stores" and then when it became clear that its pursuers would not stop...well, pursuing, CRI declared bankruptcy. At the first bankruptcy hearing Janisch declared that CRI had no assets. Hmmm, it turned out that Janisch had withdrawn almost a million dollars out of "CRI" immediately prior to its "fiscal" demise as he admitted in his deposition. The Bankruptcy Trustee promptly filed a lawsuit against Mr. Janisch himself and then moved for summary judgment, to force him to return the money and now, possibly to evade that obligation, he has declared "personal" bankruptcy. Actually CRI/Janisch owes a lot of money.

In his personal bankruptcy filing Janisch states he has around $10,000 in assets and around $10 million in liabilities. Actually, these are debts that CRI incurred. Mr. Janisch's 2837 listed creditors, parallel, surprise, CRI's and include approximately 2800 students who attended his ... enterprise. Ironic when you are seeking to discharge obligations students might have AGAINST YOU. One would think that you SHOULD OWE the students. Guess he listed all those students since 13 of them are suing him and the bankruptcy automatic stay will stop that civil action. Perhaps he was expecting, and rightfully so, those other 2782 to sue him as well. After all, he still owes them money or an education. He took the former and never gave the latter.

For-Profit Education is Just Like Any Other Business?

There has been some controversy over University of Irvine at California and Capella University's agreement that Capella will pay UCI $500 for each student that transfers to Capella University...a marketing fee, consulting fee, cost reimbursement fee, fee split, bounty, kickback, depending on what how you feel about such arrangements. UCI is a public, non-profit institution and Capella is a for-profit private university.

I got into a vigorous discussion/debate with another "blogger" as to how this situation should be treated in an online encyclopedia. That person felt that because the US Department of Education's declared that such an agreement was legal, it was therefore ethical, as if its legality precluded any inquiry into its morality. I pointed out, that credit card companies can legally charge 20% interest rates to their customers, and banks can legally charge $35.00 for overdrafts, and mortgage companies can legally offer home financing with ARMs loans which contain time bomb rates which ultimately explode on the unsuspecting users. The legality of these practices have not precluded or eclipsed discussions on their morality.

When I pointed out, that, as the article cited, there are those who view such an arrangement as making the student a commodity, an object to be traded upon and profited from. This person cheerfully replied that if the agreement treated students as a commodity that was what they are. Students were recruited to attend certain schools, both non-profit and profit, to pay tuition and spend money. Thus they were a "source of production and income." Well, I do not agree with such a statement and see it as one of the biggest problems with for-profit education. They see students as merely commodities and nothing else.

I feel such practices as a school paying another school to refer it students as a conflict of interest and is not ethical. I do not see students as commodities but as consumers of a very valuable and special service, to wit, education. Education is not your ordinary consumable product, like a car, or a sofa. My opinion is that access to education is on a par with access to medical care and legal services. There is a duty that is owed to a patient by a doctor and duty that is owed to client by a lawyer and a duty that is owed to a student by an adviser or school. I feel that they are morally equivalent. Of course money enters into the equation and there are conflicts of interest in the law and medical fields but it is frowned upon and when they are discovered they are news and controversial unlike what might happen in any other "business" where there is no particular duty owed to the "consumer". Education, like health care and legal services is a quality of life issue. It is the key to economic advancement which contributes much to the prosperity of society. When students are treated as "marks" or commodities or persons to profit from, I don't believe that's ethical. Offering kickbacks, marketing fees, referrals or whatever you want call them, has a great potential to obscure the true role of advisers which is to advise the student for the student's sake, not for how much money or profit can be made from them. The practice raises the distinct possibility that students are getting advice which is more dependent on how much money can be gained from them rather that what is truly in their best interest.

My "antagonist" was not completely deterred and stated that paying a school is merely a marketing fee and is a good business practice. Now if Capella was running some other kind of business, maybe it paying another school to refer students to it, would not be controversial, however, they are running a school which is funded by money from the federal government aka the tax payers, so they are going to suffer more scrutiny than a car lot dealership and rightly so. A good business practice for Mercedes Benz is not not necessarily a good business practice for a school!

And that's the problem, many of these for-profit schools are just businesses spewing out diplomas, certificates and degrees like so many cars and interested only in profit with no regard for the desires of the customer. Moreover, they are profiting not only at the expense of the student but at the expense of society and the federal government which underwrites their forays into designer education.