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.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)