Sunday, July 21, 2013

FEMA Independent Study Courses - Michael Gates & federal military retirement points.

ONLINE STORE LINK

http://em-study.com/emsfema/

"Welcome to the online store where you can convert your FEMA EMI Independent Study courses into college credit with Frederick Community College."


http://www.degreeinfo.com/general-distance-learning-discussions/27933-fema-independent-study-courses-michael-gates.html


http://www.iacet.org/iacet-standard/ansi-accreditation

http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/News%20and%20Publications/Brochures/Value%20of%20the%20ANS.pdf


IACET is the premier standard-setting organization for the continuing education and training industry and is an accredited Standards Developing Organization (SDO) by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
Accreditation by ANSI signifies that IACET’s procedures meet the Institute’s essential requirements for openness, balance, consensus and due process. IACET’s process of standards development ensures that interested individuals and organizations representing academia, industry, product users, and governments alike all have an equal vote in determining a standard’s content. 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 nearly every sector in the economy. 
ANSI is the U.S. representative of ISO—the International Organization for Standards—and is a founding member of the International Accreditation Forum. 
A non-profit, member-driven organization, ANSI relies on volunteers and industry experts to improve the global competitiveness of U.S. business by promoting and facilitating voluntary consensus standards and accreditation systems, and safeguarding their integrity. 

Setting and Maintaining a Globally Recognized Standard

IACET publishes the ANSI/IACET Standard and accredits users of its standard. Accreditation verifies that Authorized Providers (APs) are capable of developing continuing education and training programs that meet the standard.
IACET APs can be identified by the Authorized Provider logo, which IACET makes available for APs to place on their collateral. This logo indicates that an AP’s program was developed according to the globally recognized and approved standard.

FREE BUSINESS TOOLS - VIRTUAL STOCK MARKET TOOL- LEARN HOW TO TRADE STOCK

http://www.howthemarketworks.com/

This website was created to help you understand how stock trading works with our virtual stock exchange game. When you register for free , you will receive a brokerage account with a virtual $25,000 in cash and you will be able to begin trading immediately. To help you get started, visit our Education Center for hundreds of articles, videos and tutorials. Teachers, professors, and all registered users can also create their own private contest and challenge their students or friends. Best of all, this site is completely free!


http://clearinghouse.jumpstart.org/search/

Thursday, July 18, 2013

The Complete Home Learning Source Book: The Essential Resource Guide for Homeschoolers, Parents, and Educators Covering Every Subject from Arithmetic to Zoology by Rebecca Rupp

Homeschooling is becoming the "school of choice" for more and more parents
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0609801090/ref=rdr_ext_book

FREE ONLINE BOOKS IN THE FIELD OF PI

http://www.pimall.com/nais/nais.j.html

FREE ONLINE BOOKS NAIS maintains a massive library of free downloadable and online books and training aids you will find quote useful that numbers in the thousands. Many of these investigative manuals and internet aids are downloadable PDF files and some have web based access.



NAIStv
Although NAIStv -the online broadcasting channel of NAIS has it's own separate web site off of www.naistv.com, you can access all of it directly through PEN. NAIStv will soon been an NAIS members only broadcasting network.
VIDEO TRAINING
You will find training videos you can watch inside PEN.

http://www.pimall.com/thomas/rdt.html
FREE COURSE ON PRIVATE INVESTIGATION
http://www.pimall.com/nais/sc.html
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INVESTIGATIVE SPECIALIST
http://www.pimall.com/nais/dir.menu.html
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
INVESTIGATIVE SPECIALISTS

P O Box 82148, Austin, Texas 78708
Phone 512-719-3595 Fax 512-719-3594


INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCE CENTERS
http://www.pimall.com/nais/dir.menu.html


FREE ARTICLES


 OVERVIEW OF NEGLIGENCE
FOR THE LEGAL INVESTIGATOR
By Ralph D. Thomas


Negligence is the largest area of tort litigation found today. The basic concept in negligence is that the defendant acted with less care than is expected from a reasonable person. This reasonable person is an imaginary person used as a model in the negligence concept. Neg gence does not assume that the defendant's action that caused this liability imposed upon him was some thing he did on purpose. How ever, this general legal principle implies that the defendant failed to act or provide due care. Negligence then, is the unintentional failure of a defendant to act as a reasonable man would causing harm to the plaintiff.
There is not another area within the legal/investigative science that needs to be understood more than in the area of negligence. The legal investigator needs a basic understanding of this legal principle to investigate such a case. The volume of case assignments is high, more so than in any other area. This chapter will deal with those concepts most needed when it comes to the investigation of a negligence case.
UNDERSTANDING TORT LAW: A tort is a civil wrong resulting from a violation of a legal right not created by contract for which monetary redress is provided. This may be (a) an act or (b) an omission. More formally, a tort may be defined as a wrongful act or omission arising in the course of social re ships other than contracts which violates a person's legally protected rights for which the law provides a remedy in the form of an action for damages.
There are two basic classifications of torts: (a) negligence which is the result of an unintentional act (b) intentional acts or omissions which results in a breach of someone's rights. There is a third group in this area that should be explained. It is referred to as strict liability.
UNDERSTANDING DIFFERENT DIVISIONS AND REALATING TOPICS: This description and any description of various legal principles as they relate to legal investigation found in this manual covers various points in general terms. Some states will apply one principle and another state another. It is up to the investigator to learn and understand which principles apply.
UNDERSTANDING NEGLIGENCE: Negligence is the failure to exercise that degree of which the law requires to protect others from unreasonable risk or harm. It will measure a person's act or omission against that of "a reasonably prudent man". This measurement is against an unreal person who is used as a standard of conduct. It denotes the failure to act as a reasonably prudent man would have acted under similar circum stances.
DEGREE OF CARE: All that needs to be proven is that the defendant did not act as a reasonable prudent person would under like circum stances. The law of our land has imposed certain degrees of care that become issues under certain conditions. Some of these circumstances can come out in the actual investigation of the facts.
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY: Under some conditions, no neg gence need be shown because the defendant was involved in activity that imposes strict or absolute liability upon him. Under conditions which are dangerous in nature strict liability is generally imposed. To apply strict liability, one needs to consider the activity the defendant is involved in. The strict liability principle can be compared to the accidental shooting in an armed robbery. Under such a condition, the criminal can be charged with murder and the mere fact that the shooting was an accident is immaterial. Under certain conditions, you can see absolute liability can be imposed even in the absence of neg gence.
In most cases, anyone who possesses, stores, maintains, or transports a dangerous instrumentality is absolutely or strictly liable for any injury or damage caused by the instrumentality, regardless of the presence or absence of due care.
CONTRIBUTORY OR COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE: see above
LAST CLEAR CHANCE: In this principle you might show that the plaintiff had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. In such a case, the defendant's liability could be diminished or omitted all together.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK: Under certain conditions it could be held that the plaintiff assumed the risk involved. In such a case, there would be no liability. What this principle means is that, in advance, the plaintiff gave his consent to assume certain risks. What this really does is transfer certain duties from the defendant to the plaintiff. In other words, the plaintiff is then responsible for himself. A good example of this would be owners of certain sinkholes in Florida used by scuba divers. The divers are almost always required to sign a statement that they are assuming all risks before they dive. However, the as tion of risks does not have to be in writing and can be implied.
PROXIMATE CAUSE: This has to do with the relationship between the failed duty of the defendant and the damage suffered by the plaintiff. There are thousands of cases each year where the plaintiff claims damages that were not the result of the actions or accident. In such a case, the defendant needs to show that certain of the plaintiff's damages were not the proximate cause of the accident.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: This has to do with the time limitation imposed upon the plaintiff to seek damages from the defendant. It often can become an issue in any negligence case. Dates and times are important. You will want to know the time limitations in your area.
UNDERSTANDING THE LAST CLEAR CHANCE DOCTRINE
The law imposes a duty of "last clear chance" or requires each and every party to use due care for the safety of themselves and others. This is related to comparative and contributory neg gence. Under this doctrine, any party will have a legal duty to avoid an accident and failure to do so will create a liability. Such a doctrine is set up to avoid a situation where (for example) a person saw the opportunity for an accident to take place and he or she let it happen so damages could be collected.
UNDERSTANDING THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LO QUTUR
Negligence can be proven with circumstantial evidence and one type is res ipsa loquitur. This is a latin term which means, "the thing (act) speaks for itself. There must be four elements present to prove or show negligence with this doctrine. They are:

a) The accident could not have ordinarily occurred without someone being negligent.
b) The accident is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant.
c) The injured party (plaintiff) did not contribute to the negligence.d) The evidence as to the explanation of the accident is more available to the defendant than to the plaintiff.

UNDERSTANDING DAMAGES
Damages have to have resulted in order for the plaintiff to collect anything from the defendant. In relationship to legal principles, there are two types of damages:

(a) SPECIAL DAMAGES: These damages are direct dam ages. For example, in an auto accident they might be: damaged clothing, hospital bills, doctor's office bills, bills for drugs, repair of auto, rental of another vehicle, etc.
(b) PUNITIVE DAMAGES: These damages are not direct but have more to do with pain and suffering. Harder to measure, they can often times be higher than special damages.Punitive damages are more of a punishment of the defendant.

UNDERSTANDING SUBROGATION
As stated a person can be held liable for his or her acts or omissions and be charged with negligence. If the injured party chooses to recover from his own insurance company in part or in whole, then the insurance company in effect purchases the right to seek damages from the defendant. This is commonly referred to as subrogation. From an investigator's point of view, the insurance company will often times order an assets investigation before seeking legal action to determine if the third party has any attachable assets for subrogation.
Since negligence depends upon certain degrees of care imposed upon the tortfeasor, the degree of care required can and often does depend upon the relationship between the two parties involved. In other words, different yardsticks of measurement can be used against the tortfeasor depending upon the re ship between the two parties. Facts concerning the relationship between parties involved need to be established to determine the "yardstick of measurement". Such facts will establish the relationship into one of three classifications.
(A. invitee B. licensee C. trespasser).
INVITEE: An invitee is either a public invitee or a business visitor. A public invitee is one whom enters upon the defendant's land being a member of the general population. He enters upon the defendant's land as the land is opened to the general public. A business visitor is one who enters upon the land for some kind of direct or indirect business dealing with the owner. An invitee is given the greatest degree of protection by the courts as far an negligence is concerned. Moreover, a business visitor is given the greatest degree of protection within the invitee concept. In other words, the degree of care might be different when a person is given a ride in a vehicle if he compensated the owner for the ride than if he was given a ride for free. Such hair-line cases come up daily in the field of negligence.
LICENSEE: A licensee is a person whom enters upon property with an implied or express consent. An example of a licensee would be a social quest. Under most circumstances a licensee is expected to accept the property as he finds it and to look out for his own welfare. Under such circumstances, the knowledge of any danger known by the licensee will preclude the licensee from any type of recovery. However, the owner will be required to inform and give warning to the licensee of any danger. Thus, the defendant would have a legal duty to inform the licensee of any dangers.
TRESPASSER: A trespasser is one who enters upon property without the implied or express consent of the owner. The owner or possessor of the land can not be held liable for any harm done by a trespasser and owes no duty to act as the reasonably prudent man would.
PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE
The burden of proof of negligence is on the plaintiff. In order for the plaintiff to obtain any type of recovery from the de dant, he must establish and prove four basic issues. They are:

1) A legal duty exists to conform to a reasonable standard of conduct. In other words, there was a legal duty to act or not to act on the part or the defendant.
2) The defendant failed to perform the standard of conduct, and there was a breach of the legal duty.
3) The defendant's failure to act in the standard resulted in an injury to the plaintiff. This is often referred to as proximate cause.
4) Actual damages resulted from the incident.

KINDS OF NEGLIGENCE
GROSS NEGLIGENCE: Gross negligence is a term often used in civil litigation today. It refers to the intentional failure to perform the duty expected by a reasonable man.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: This principle has to do with the plaintiff being negligent to some degree also. In those states where contributory negligence is in effect, such a situ ation would rule or bar the plaintiff from any action brought against the defendant. In effect, this is an all or nothing theory.
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE: This principle will meas ure the degree of negligence of both the plaintiff and defendant. A percentage is assigned. In such a case, the defendant would only then be held responsible for that percentage. In other words, if party A, the plaintiff, was found to contribute 20% negligence to the act, and the defendant 80% to the act, the defendant would only have to pay 80% of the total damages. In effect, this principle eliminates the all or nothing theory.


FREE ARTICLES YOU CAN READ
BY RALPH THOMAS

 
 
A MEGASHIFT IN PRIVATE INVESTIGATIVE THINKING
25 LITTLE KNOWN TELEPHONE TIPS!
CONDUCTING COMPUTER COUNTERMEASURES
12 MAJOR TRENDS AND TRAINING IN PRIVATE INVESTIGATION!
COVERTLY RECORDING TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS (AN UPDATE)
BUDDY BOMBET: 2002 NAIS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
TRACKING AND TRACING PEOPLE IN NEWGROUPS
AN INVESTIGATIVE GOLDMINE!
16 TIPS FOR FINDING HIDDEN INFORMATION ON PEOPLE ON THE NET
UNCOVERING THE ELVIS IS ALIVE HOAX
JOHN LAJOIE: 2002 NAIS INVESTIGATOR OF THE YEAR
UNDERSTANDING MICROCHIP VIDEO CAMERA TECHNOLOGY
JIMMIE MESIS: 2002 NAIS SPEAKER OF THE YEAR

CAN BIN LADEN ATTACK THE UNITED STATES
WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

PRIMER ON GPS SURVEILLANCE TRACKING TECHNOLOGY
TOP 20 INVESTIGATIVE SPECIALIZATIONS
HIGH TECH COMMUNICATIONS FOR PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS
EVIDENCE OR FAKERY: BACKYARD PHOTOS OF LEE OSWALD
INVESTIGATIVE CYBERSEX CHEATS


SHINNING STAR IN OUR PROFESSION
PI MAGAZINE RELEASES 1OTH YEAR ANNIVERSARY ISSUE
SONY'S DIGITAL MAVICA CAMERA REVIEW
PROFILE ON ALLAN PINKERTON
THE FATHER OF THE AMERICAN PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR
INDUSTRY ICON HAL LIPSET PASSES AWAY

DISCOVERED HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS REVEAL THE FIRST OFFICIAL MISSING PERSONS INVESTIGATOR, CLARA BARTON
By Barbara Maikell-Thomas (Ralph's Wife)


HIGH THREAT SITUTATIONS FOR BUGGING

http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.thrbug.html

TWELVE RED FLAGS THAT INDICATE EAVESDROPPING
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.redeaves.html

EIGHT WAYS TO GET MORE INVESTIGATIVE BUSINESS
http://pimall.com/nais/n.getbiz.html

STATEMENT ANALYSIS:
TECHNIQUES TO HELP YOU UNCOVER THE TRUTH

http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.intera.html

SIX WAYS AN EAVESDROPER WILL FOOL A COUNTERMEASURES SWEEP
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.counterf.html

NAIS INVESTIGATOR OF THE YEAR 97: KELLY RIDDLE
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.riddle.html
NAIS AUTHOR/SPEAKER OF THE YEAR: JODY BALL
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.ball.html

TRENDS IN LOCATING MISSING PERSONS SPECIALIZATIONS
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.missing3.html


NAIS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD 1997: WILLIAM C. DEAR
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.dear.html
TREND WATCHING IN THE PRIVATE INVESTIGATIVE PROFESSION
What It Is-How To Do It To Grow Your Agency
And Ten Major Trends You Should Be Watching
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.trendw.html
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP OUR K-9 FRIENDS
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.k9.html
DEATH CLAIMS DISAPPEARANCE INVESTIGATION
http://www.pimall.com/nais/disap.html
NEGLIGENCE FOR THE LEGAL INVESTIGATOR
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.negl.html
COURTHOUSE RECORDS CHECKING
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.courtr.html
INVESTIGATION OF INSURANCE DEATH CLAIMS
By Ralph Thomas
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.dcrdt.html


WATCH TV AND LISTEN TO MUSIC RIGHT FROM YOUR
WEB BROWSER WITH NEW PLUG-IN
Amazing review of new Real Video Plug-In
Edited And Partially written By Ralph Thomas
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.livev.html
SEVEN FATAL ERRORS ON WEB SITES
Seven Errors You Must Avoid
By Ralph Thomas
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.w-eror.html
PRODUCT REVIEW
OSCOR: THE OMNI SPECTRAL CORRELATOR
The Hal Computer Of Countermeasures Is Out
Compiled By Ralph Thomas
http://www.pimall.com/nais/e.omni.html

DEFINING COUNTERMEASURES THREAT LEVEL AND ANALYSIS
New Opportunities Exist In Information Security But Require Higher Level
Of Knowledge, Equipment Investment And Selection And Know-How
By Ralph D. Thomas
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.c-lev.html
LEGAL ISSUES IN TAKING TAPE RECORDED WITNESS STATEMENTS
By Ralph Thomas
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.rstat.html
THE COUNTERMEASURES BUSINESS
By Ralph D. Thomas
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.counter.html
GPS AND SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY FOR
COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS IN OUT!

By Ralph Thomas
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.gps.html
THE WORLD UNDER SURVEILLANCE ON THE WEB WITH LIVE CAMS
You'll like this! By Ralph Thomas
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.livcam.html
A PROFILE ON NICK AND PATRICIA BELTRANTE
The dean of private investigation in one of the most important cities in the world.
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.nick.html
WORLD'S BEST WEB AUTHORING SOFTWARE, PAGEMILL 2.0
OUT FOR WINDOWS IN BETA FORM FOR FREE
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.pm.html
THE AUTO REPOSSESSION BUSINESS
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.repo.html
SKIP TRACING TRICKS FOR THE REPO MAN
BAIL ENFORCEMENT AGENT AND OTHERS

By Ralph Thomas
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.skipt.html
ALTERNATIVE WEB ACCESS VIA TV AND TELEPHONE
Internet Access For The Masses Without Computers
By Ralph D. Thomas
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.ephone.html
THE BAIL BOND RECOVERY BUSINESS
By Ralph D. Thomas
http://www.pimall.com/nais/b.bailrec.html
HOW TO MAKE $200.00 PER HOUR WITH YOUR VIDEO CAMERA
Sideline Businesses With Mainstream Profit Series
By Ralph D. Thomas
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.cprof.html
USEFUL PLACES ON AMERICA ONLINE AND COMPUSERVEYou'll love these finds if you use these services.
BOB BROWN: AN INVESTIGATOR OF FAITH
Profile On Orlando, Florida Based Private Investigator Bob Brown
Done By Ralph Thomas. This article orginally appeared in The Private Investigator's
Connection And PI Magazine.
ENTRAPMENT ISSUES
Is it OK to set up a surveillant in an investigation to save the client money?
The Answer Is No-It's NOT! Some surpising answers and DANGERS! By Ralph Thomas
THE ROAD AHEAD-The future of private investigation and info technology.
BEING A MEGA-SUCCESS! What it takes and how to do it!
YELLOW PAGE ADS FOR THE PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR
TO BE OR NOT TO BE--THAT IS THE QUESTION- HERE ARE SOME ANSWERS!
Compiled And Edited By Ralph Thomas
HOW TO DEVELOP YOUR INVESTIGATIVE EXPERTISE Top specializations and tools to develop and establish your expertise.
THE TOP TEN BEST COMPUTER SEARCHES FOR LOCATING MISSING PERSONS
Learn What The Top Sources Are, How To Use Them Correctly And Analyze What You Get Effectively For Successful Skip Tracing.
NEW INVESTIGATIVE TREND EMERGING!
Cyber Investigations: The Cutting Edge

FREE ONLINE FILTERS TO USE ON LOCATING MISSING PERSONS
BY COMPUTERS Free searches you can use before you send money down
SATELLITE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
"The Way We Conduct Surveillance Is About To Change," Ralph D. Thomas

ADDING ANIMATION TO YOUR WEB PAGES
The GIF 89a and sample with and without.
COMPUTER REENACTMENT
A NEW FORM OF INVESTIGATION USING VIRTUAL REALITY
COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY
Compiled And Edited By Ralph D. Thomas

STATE BY STATE LIST OF RECORDING TELEPHONE CONVERSATION LAWS
Compiled By Ralph Thomas from e mail responses from private investigators

DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS
With a covert digital selection of photos of Ralph Thomas as he wrote this article
TOOLS AND TIPS FOR BUILDING YOUR WEB PAGE
Tips, Techniques And Software Recommendations
HOW TO DEVELOP YOUR INVESTIGATIVE EXPERTISE
Top specializations and tools to develop and establish your expertise.
CYBER INVESTIGATIONS: A NEW INDUSTRY TREND
Internet tracking And Digital evidence Discovery/recovery
  A LOOK INSIDE A MODERN HIGH TECH SURVEILLANCE VAN
All the equipment for those will a CIA type budget. Revealing photos.
RALPH THOMAS LIST OF FREE GRAPHICS AND MARKETING
TOOLS FOR WEB PAGES
Spending weeks and weeks searching the web, Thomas has developed powerful resources for your web pages. Here you will find free graphics you can use and free places to link and list your web site.

It's The Grand Puba!!!! The National Convention of Registrars!!!! (more on accreditation)

http://www.aacrao.org/index.aspx


http://www.degreeinfo.com/general-distance-learning-discussions/8217-gaap.html


http://www.collegerecruiter.com/blog/2013/07/09/making-sure-your-degree-is-accredited/

MAKING SURE YOUR DEGREE IS ACCREDITED
As prospective students search college databases and educational websites, they will notice a term that gets used quite a lot: accreditation. Accreditation agencies (or simply, accreditors) work to evaluate a college degree program and make sure it meets certain standards. These organizations help students identify legitimate, well-respected schools and avoid scams.
Before an accreditation agency recognizes a specific school or degree program, the academic institution must go through a strict evaluation process. This includes meeting agency standards and passing a series of on-site evaluations (as well as future assessments). Most college programs must be accredited by certain agencies or employers will not take them seriously. Make sure you’re getting a reputable degree by researching accreditation before applying to college. Below are some of the most important accreditors for different academic fields.
Law
The American Bar Association (ABA) grants accreditation to law schools nationally, and it has approved 202 institutions offering Juris Doctor degrees in the United States. The ABA publishes an annual guide that details the accreditation process for students applying to ABA-approved law schools. Law schools must pass a rigorous background check, complete a site review, and obtain provisional approval for at least three years before being considered for full ABA approval.
California is the exception to the norm, allowing law schools to pursue accreditation from the ABA or the California Committee of Bar Examiners (CBE). This state-run accreditation agency authorizes law schools to operate within California and administers the state bar exam. Law schools in California may still apply for ABA approval, but they are not required to do so.
Business
There are three accreditation agencies that award approval for business degrees on a national level. They are the Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP), the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), and the International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE).
The ACBSP emphasizes teaching and research institutions, granting accreditation to undergraduate and advanced degree programs in accounting and business. An entire college can seek institutional accreditation or pursue specialized accreditation from the ACBSP, which covers specific degree programs and courses.
The AACSB operates on a general level, awarding accreditation to educational institutions that offer degrees in business, management, and accounting. There are 672 schools in more than 50 countries approved by the AACSB.
The IACBE is based in the U.S. and awards accreditation for associate, bachelor’s, master’s, and Ph.D. programs globally. By 2011, the IACBE had accredited more than 800 business programs worldwide.
Architecture
There is only one agency for architecture degree accreditation recognized throughout the United States: the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB). This agency is dedicated to setting educational standards for architecture students and making sure that schools remain accountable to these guidelines. There are 154 programs approved by NAAB, ranging from the bachelor’s level up to the Doctor of Architecture degree.
Engineering
The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) sets program guidelines and approves engineering programs worldwide. Engineering is not the only field this agency monitors: ABET provides accreditation for 3,100 degree programs in computing, applied science, and engineering technology. Qualified programs must pass an 18-month accreditation process, including a self-study report, readiness questionnaire, on-site visit, and panel review. Colleges in 24 different countries have received accreditation from ABET.
Nursing
The U.S. Secretary of Education has endorsed the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE) as an authority for nursing degree accreditation. The CCNE provides standard guidelines for undergraduate- and graduate-level degree programs; nurse residency programs are also regulated by this agency. Academic institutions applying for CCNE accreditation must provide a self-study document on offered degree programs and third-party comments from degree program constituents vouching for the institution’s educational quality. The CCNE also conducts an on-site evaluation and submits all application materials to an evaluation panel for final approval.
Non-traditional schools and formats
Distance learning, online schools, vocational programs, and for-profit universities are subject to different accreditation processes than traditional brick-and-mortar institutions. The Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) is a non-profit organization that grants national accreditation to distance learning programs, such as correspondence schools and online degree programs.
The Council on Occupational Education (COE) grants accreditation to vocational programs and occupational institutions that provide students with diplomas, certificates, or associate-level degrees. Approved institutions must renew their accreditation status two to six years after they are initially recognized by the COE.
The Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and has conferred accreditation to over 900 national for-profit colleges. These institutions may apply to three different types of accreditation: regional, national, or program-specific.
Accreditation is typically a long process; thorough assessment is required to ensure educational institutions are providing quality programs and degrees to their students. Prospective students should consider the field and educational format they will be pursuing, and then find a program that maintains accreditation from a reputable accrediting agency. Otherwise, they may invest a good deal of time, energy, and money only to learn their degree is not as respected or recognized as they were led to believe.
Source – http://www.accreditedonlinecolleges.com/making-sure-your-degree-is-accredited

Accredited by department or is the degree accredited? What does this mean? What's the difference between ACBSP and AACSB accreditation? Accreditation Directory

What's the difference between ACBSP and AACSB accreditation?
All I know, is that AACSB is the highest accreditation for universities that teach business majors and is seen as "the gold standard". I also know that ACBSP is seen more as silver than gold, but is still better than the third one out there or none at all. I'm just curious because I got into a school (Troy University) that is an AACSB member, but is ACBSP accredited. However, University of Alabama is AACSB accredited but seen as a lesser school than Troy. I've heard it matters most if you're looking to teach, and I'm not. I'm just after a Business bachelor's for now, and a few years later would like to apply for a MBA somewhere that is AACSB accredited. In the mean time, will having a bachelor's in business with an ACBSP accreditation ruin any chances of getting jobs for me? Will people look down upon it, or are most unaware/don't care? Thank you :)

asked by: Jade

Answer: The story goes like this: AACSP used to restrict accreditation to a very small number of research universities. Every other School of Business was locked out. Business Schools started to see that "programmatic" accreditation such as ABET for Engineering, raised standards generally and distinguished good schools from mediocre schools. So, ACBSP was formed, to accredit Schools of Business which claimed to prefer "teaching" over "research." Soon after, a third accreditation agency IACBE split off due to some internal dispute. When these competing agencies started growing rapidly, AACSB changed its policies to allow a broader range of school to apply for accreditation. Once AACSB changed policies and started recruiting, support for ACBSOP and IACBE faded. Today, both remain one-horse operations out of Kansas. Today, the only respected accreditation for USA Business Schools is AACSB. ACBSP and IACBE are seen as accrediting schools which are not good enough for AACSB. Notes: ATMAE accredits a type of degree called "Technology Management" or "Industrial Technology," which combines Business and Technology. Outside the USA, there are two other respected accrediting agencies: AMBA and EQUIS.





Accredited by department or is the degree accredited? What does this mean?



  • The U.S. government itself does not accredit colleges, unlike common practice in many countries. Likewise, the federal government does not accredit or conduct academic evaluation of foreign colleges.
  • U.S. accrediting organizations evaluate colleges and universities in all 50 states, as well as in 97 other countries.
  • There are four types of accreditation, and many different accrediting organizations.
  • Government agencies are not part of the accreditation process, but may recognize or approve certain types of accreditation based on their assessment of the standards and performance of the accrediting agency, their member institutions, and/or the reason for the accreditation.
  • The U.S. Department of Education recognizes accrediting bodies for purposes of institutional financial aid eligibility and other areas in which the federal government has an interest.
  • It’s important to know what kind of accreditation is best for your own purposes as you plan for your future educational and professional goals.
  • Approval by a state government is not accreditation, except in the case of the New York Board of Regents, which is both a state agency and an accrediting body
  • The accreditation of schools is funded primarily through fees and annual dues

  • What are the Different Types of Accreditation?
    1. Regional accreditors are the oldest and most widely accepted standard for accreditation. Regional organizations accredit public and private, mainly non-profit and degree-granting institutions.
      Regional accreditation is:
      • widely accepted as the standard quality indicator by other higher education institutions, employers, state and federal governments, and international partners.
      • used as the standard accreditation for many different purposes, including transfer of credits from one college to another, admission to graduate study, evaluation of the validity of an academic degree, employment and licensing.
    2. National faith-related organizations accredit religiously-affiliated and doctrinally-based institutions, mainly non-profit and degree-granting
    3. National career-related organizations accredit mainly for-profit, career-oriented institutions,
    4. Programmatic accrediting organizations accredit specific programs, professions, and free-standing schools, such as law, medicine, engineering, and health professional schools.

    How does the Accreditation Process Work?

    • Accrediting organizations develop standards that must be met in order to be accredited.
    • Institutions and programs undertake self-studies based on standards.
    • Institutions and programs are subject to peer review, including site visits and team reports.
    • Accrediting organizations make a judgment based on standards through their decision-making commissions and award (or do not award) accredited status.
    • Institutions and programs undergo periodic review by accrediting organizations to maintain accredited status.
    Accreditation in the United States

            What is "accreditation"?

    Accreditation is a process of external quality review created and used by higher            education to scrutinize colleges, universities and [degree] programs for quality            assurance and quality improvement. — Judith Eaton, President of the                Council on Higher Education Accreditation


            Accreditation is an indicator that an institution has met a set of accepted standards        of academic quality that are defined and recognized by other higher education institutions,        and is the primary standard for quality assurance in U.S. higher education, and        is used both here and internationally to determine the value of a college degree        earned at a college or university in the United States.   
            For more information on accreditation, see             The Council for Higher Education Accreditation website, which provides extensive        resources, articles and             videos about accreditation.

            Who is Responsible for Accreditation?

            The accreditation process is based on the premise [that] higher education institutions            have primary responsibility for academic quality: They are the leaders and the primary            sources of authority in academic matters.from Accreditation and Recognition in the United States published by the Council                for Higher Education Accreditation in September 2008


            In the United States, accreditation of colleges is carried out by private, non-profit        organizations. In other countries, accreditation may be a function of the national        government, a regional oversight body, or standards used in another country (such        as U.S. accreditation) may be used as a measure of quality.

            How can I Find Out Which Accrediting Organizations are "Recognized"?

            Click here for a        complete list of legitimate accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Department        of Education.

            How can I Find Out if a School is Accredited?

            There are two searchable databases on the Internet that provide reliable information        about the accreditation of institutions and academic programs.
            Be aware that most schools will claim accreditation if they have it, but it’s still        a good idea to verify that their accreditation is one that will be recognized by        other schools, employers, licensing boards, and government agencies.
            Here is a list of unaccredited schools offering degrees that are not valid in Oregon. Claiming a degree from one of these schools in Oregon for employment, education, or business purposes, may result in legal action against the degree-holder.
    Unaccredited schools offering degrees that are not valid in Oregon

            Is "Accreditation" Required?

    • Accreditation by an organization recognized by the U.S. Department of Education            is required for access to federal student aid funds and federal programs.
    • Both federal and state governments consider accreditation to be a reliable indicator            of academic quality. However, all accrediting organizations are not considered equally            reliable. The U.S. Department of Education "recognizes" accrediting organizations            for the purpose of determining access to federal financial aid. Some states also            "approve" or "recognize" specific accrediting organizations.
    • Most colleges and universities will only accept credits for transfer if the credits            were earned at an institution with recognized accreditation. Some institutions will            require a specific type of accreditation.
    • Degree mills are schools that offer degrees without the proper legal authority to            do so. There are also "accreditation mills" which are organizations, usually operated            by degree mills, that don’t have any recognition to make their accreditation valid.            Accreditation is only useful if it is recognized.
    source:

    http://www.oregonstudentaid.gov/oda-degree-validation-accreditation-faq.aspx



    How Do I Verify Regional Accreditation of a College or University?

    Please see below for instructions on how to find out if a college or university is regionally-accredited.
    Department of Education certification regulations generally require that college credits be shown on the transcript of a regionally accredited institution of higher education. N.J.A.C. 6A:9-11.5(c). In most cases these credits must also appear on the transcript of a regionally-accredited, four year institution of higher education. Exceptions include some of the requirements for the educational interpreter certificate, the military science certificate, experience-based career and technical education certificates, and career and technical education certificates for which the department accepts courses from regionally-accredited two year institutions of higher education.
    Please note, per below, that regional accreditation does not provide automatic acceptance of course credits.
    In addition, a “regionally accredited college or university” is defined as (N.J.A.C. 6A:9-2):
    “Regionally accredited college or university” means an institution of higher education accredited by one of the following regional accreditation associations:
    1. Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools:
    2. New England Association of Schools and Colleges;
    3. North Central Association of Colleges and Schools;
    4. Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges;
    5. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools; and
    6. Western Association of Schools and Colleges.
    Instructions: Is a College or University Regionally-Accredited?
    Go to www.chea.org/search/default.asp, scroll to the bottom of the page, and agree to the search conditions.
    On the next page, enter the name, state, and country of the institution in question, choose ‘Any Accreditor,’ and click on the ‘Search for Institutional Accreditation’ button. (Sometimes the name of the institution is a little different than what you would expect, and you may have to try different variations. For example, you can find out about Rutgers University by typing in either Rutgers or Rutgers the State University of New Jersey, but not by typing in Rutgers University.)
    If successful, you will retrieve a link to the institution you are seeking.
    Click on that link. The information then provided will indicate the address, phone number(s) and institutional accreditation.
    If the institutional accreditation matches one of the six allowed by regulation, then credits from this institution may be accepted by the Department of Education.
    Limitations on Accepting Credits Include:
    • All certification titles have specific degree and content/subject requirements that must be met, regardless of which regionally-accredited institution one has attended.
    • Some certification titles generally require that one complete a particular program that is specifically approved by the department. These include alternate route certificates for Teacher of Students with Disabilities, English as a Second Language, Bilingual/Bicultural Education, and School Library Media Specialist.
    • A graduating cumulative grade point average (GPA) cannot be improved by taking just any post-graduation courses at the same institution, nor does the department re-calculate a graduating GPA by considering courses from institutions other than the one(s) from which you graduate.
    Please refer to Licensing regulations for details on the certificates for which you might apply. In addition, application requirements for many certificates are summarized at this page.

    http://www.nj.gov/education/educators/license/usaccred.htm


    About Accreditation

    What is the difference between APA accreditation and institutional accreditation?

    The APA Commission on Accreditation is a specialized/professional accreditor. This means that APA accreditation only extends to specific doctoral graduate programs, predoctoral internships and postdoctoral residencies in professional psychology. The accredited status of one specific program does not extend to other programs in the same department or institution.
    Regional accreditation covers entire institutions. There are six regional accrediting bodies in the United States, and each is authorized to accredit institutions in specific states, divided by geographic region. APA-accredited doctoral graduate programs must be housed in an institution that has regional accreditation. However, an institution may hold regional accreditation and not have any APA-accredited programs.
    For more information on regional accrediting bodies, please visit their websites:
    National accreditation also covers entire institutions, and national accrediting agencies operate across the entire United States. Many of their accredited institutions are single-purpose (such as for education in technology) or faith-based.
    Prospective students are encouraged to inquire of programs directly what type of accreditation they, or the institutions in which they are housed, hold. Such status can be confirmed with the appropriate regional, national or specialized/professional accrediting body.
    http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/about-accreditation.aspx?item=3


    Accreditation

    Accreditation is a process of validation in which colleges, universities and other institutions of higher learning are evaluated. The standards for accreditation are set by a peer review board whose members include faculty from various accredited colleges and universities. The board aids in the evaluation of each potential new school accreditation or the renewals of previously accredited colleges/schools. In order for potential colleges to proceed with the accreditation process smoothly, they must meet the general standards set by the peer review accreditation boards. Each college is typically assessed using the following criteria:
    • Overall Mission of the College
    • Objectives and Goals
    • Student Requirements for Admissions
    • Services Available to Students
    • Quality of Education
    • Reputation of Faculty
    Why is accreditation important?
    An important factor in realizing a successful career is choosing a reputable college. Colleges that have been through the accreditation process are more likely to offer degrees that employers and recruiters recognize. Companies want to know that you have a quality education and that you will have something to bring to the table when you join their team. For this purpose, accreditation enables companies to filter those individuals who have obtained a degree from an accredited institution from those who have Financial Aid not. The accreditation process also offers students a better chance of having their credits transfered to other reputable institutions should they decide to obtain a graduate or doctoral level education.
    Do all schools need accreditation?
    Not all schools need accreditation. Some schools offer specialty training programs in technical and art fields that don't fall under the traditional process of accreditation. One way to tell if your school is qualified or not is to do the research and be sure that it is recognized in the community as providing the valuable skills necessary to do the job.
    Do online learning institutions offer the same accreditation as "brick and mortar" institutions?
    All national and regional agencies of accreditation hold online educational institutions and distance learning programs to the same high standards that are held by the traditional "brick and mortar" institutions.
    How do I know if my school has accreditation from a reputable agency?
    Whether you are interested in being a student of an online university, traditional "brick and mortor" college, or an online training program, it is important to be directed to a credible source to obtain the right degree. Knowledge of the accreditation process will help you avoid "diploma mills" or other institutions that grant degrees without providing students a quality education. To avoid these issues, be sure to conduct your due dilligence and read up on the body responsible for accreditation at your college/school before you sign up. You can also find a wealth of information on accrediting bodies at the Council for Higher Education Accreditation's website, www.chea.org. CHEA is recognized as an advocate and institutional voice for self regulation of academic quality through accreditation.

    http://www.50states.com/college-resources/accreditation.htm



    • PROFESSIONAL TRAINING REVIEWED BY ACE (American Council on Education) & NCCRS (National CCRS)
      TESC also awards credit for professional training that has been reviewed by ACE and NCCRS. For more information about professional training please visit Professional Training Programs.
      TESC requires an official ACE transcript for ACE-reviewed professional training, and an official transcript from the credit-awarding organization for NCCRS-reviewed professional training.




    example IU-Bloomington Indiana University Network of Campuses
    https://uaa.iu.edu/academic/accreditation/

    https://www.hlcommission.org/Accreditation-Processes/accreditation.html

    http://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/index.html


    Accreditation Guide

    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 or not a school can be considered to be accredited by an agency recognized under GAAP, Generally Accepted Accrediting Principles. (The acronym is, of course, borrowed from the field of accounting. GAAP standards are the highest to which accountants can be held, and we feel that accreditation 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) by the relevant key decision-makers: university registrars and admissions officers, corporate human resources officers, and government agencies.

    Note that in some countries, the word accredited is not used, although that country's evaluation process (e.g., the British Royal Charter) is accepted as "accredited" under GAAP. Note too that accreditors that do not meet the standards of GAAP are not necessarily bad, illegal, or fake. They simply would not be generally accepted as recognized accreditors.

    GAAP Criteria

    To offer recognized accreditation under GAAP, and accrediting agency must meet at least one of the following four criteria:
    • Recognized by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation in Washington, DC
    • Recognized by the U.S. Department of Education
    • Recognized by (or more commonly, a part of) their relevant national education agency
    • Schools they accredit are routinely listed in one or more of the following publications: the International Handbook of Universities (a UNESCO publication), the Commonwealth Universities Yearbook, the World Education Series, published by PIER, or the Countries Series, published by NOOSR in Australia.

    Accreditation: The Whole Story

    Accreditation is perhaps the most complex, confusing, and important issue in higher education. It is surely the most misunderstood and the most misused concept both intentionally and unintentionally. In selecting a school, there are four important things to know about accreditation:

    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, impartial experts in higher education, that a given school, or department within a school, has been thoroughly investigated and found worthy of approval.

    Accreditation is a peculiarly American concept. In every other country in the world, all colleges and universities either are operated by the government, or gain the full right to grant degrees directly from the government, so there is no need for a separate, independent agency to say that a given 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 have evolved 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 must always ask, "Accredited by whom?" Unfortunately, many consumer-oriented articles and bulletins simply say that one is much safer dealing only with accredited schools, but they do not attempt 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 even checked with the accrediting agency." The agency, needless to say, turned out to be as phony as the 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 accrediting agency. After a substantial preliminary investigation to determine that the school is probably operating 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 when completed does not imply any kind of endorsement or recommendation, but is merely an indication that the first steps on a long path have been taken.

    Next, teams from the accrediting agency, often composed of faculty of already accredited institutions, will visit the school. These "visitations," conducted at regular intervals throughout the year, are to observe the school in action, and to study the copious amounts of information that 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 for accreditation." Being a candidate means, in effect, "Yes, you are probably worthy of accreditation, 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 schools that reach candidacy status eventually achieve full accreditation. Some accreditors do not have a candidacy status; with them it is an all-or-nothing situation. (The terms "accredited" and "fully accredited" 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 to ten years is common) to see if it is still worthy of its accreditation. The status is always subject to review at any time, should new programs be developed or should there be any significant new developments, positive or negative.

    Note: Everything in the foregoing section applies to accreditation as done by recognized agencies. Many of the other agencies, even those that are not illegal, will typically accredit a new school within days, even minutes, of its coming into existence.

    The Importance of Accreditation

    Although accreditation is undeniably important to both schools and students (and would-be students), this importance is undermined and confused by these three factors:

    There are no significant national standards for accreditation. What is accreditable in New York may not be accreditable in California, and vice versa. The demands and standards of the group that accredits schools of chemistry may be very different from the people who accredit schools of 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 expensive procedure), 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, sometimes nonexistent accrediting associations, often of their own creation. Still, accreditation is the only widespread system of school evaluation that we have. A school's accreditation status can be helpful to the potential student in this way: while some good schools are not accredited, it is very unlikely that any very bad or illegal school is authentically accredited. (There have been exceptions, but they are quite rare.)

    In other words, authentic accreditation is a pretty good sign that a given school is legitimate. But it is important to remember that lack of accreditation need not mean that a school is either inferior 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 anywhere governing the establishment of an accrediting association. Anyone can start a degree mill, then turn around and open an accrediting agency next door, give his school its blessing, and begin advertising "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 third millennium. To get some sort of a handle on the situation, it will be helpful to have a bit of a historical perspective. In this instance, it makes some sense to begin in 1980, when the Republican party platform echoed Ronald Reagan's belief that the Department of Education should be closed down, since it was inappropriate for the federal government to meddle in matters better left to the states and to private enterprise.

    At that time, there were two agencies, one private and one governmental, that had responsibility for evaluating and approving or recognizing accrediting agencies:

    The U.S. Department of Education's Eligibility and Agency Evaluation Staff (EAES), which is required by law to "publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies which [are determined] to be reliable . . . as to the quality of training offered." This is done as one measure of eligibility for federal financial aid programs for students. EAES also had the job of deciding whether unaccredited schools could qualify for federal aid programs, or their students for veterans' benefits. This was done primarily by what was called the "four-by-three" rule: Proof that credits from at least four students were accepted by at least three accredited schools (12 total acceptances). If they were, then the unaccredited school was recognized by the Department of Education for that purpose. Schools qualifying under the four-by-three rule had to submit evidence of continued acceptance of their credits by accredited schools in order to maintain their status. COPA, the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation. COPA was a nationwide nonprofit corporation, formed in 1975 to evaluate accrediting associations and award recognition to those found worthy. President Reagan was unable to dismantle the Department of Education during his administration, although key people in the department strongly suggested that they should get out of the business of recognizing accrediting agencies, and leave that to the states. "Education President" George Bush apparently did not share this view; at least no significant changes were made during his administration.

    One of the frequent complaints levied against the recognized accrediting agencies (and not just by Republicans) is that they have, in general, been slow to acknowledge the major trend toward alternative or nontraditional education.

    Some years ago, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education conducted research on the relationship between accreditation and nontraditional approaches. Their report, written by Alexander Mood, confirmed that a serious disadvantage of accreditation is "in the suppression of innovation. Schools cannot get far out of line without risking loss of their accreditation a penalty which they cannot afford." "Also," the report continued, "loss of accreditation implies that the curriculum 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, it appears 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 can do for their students. Of much greater relevance would be statistics on student satisfaction, career advancement of graduates, and other such data."

    Faced with high-powered criticism of this sort, some accrediting agencies sponsored (with a major grant from the Kellogg Foundation) a large-scale study of how the agencies should deal with nontraditional education.

    The four-volume report of the findings of this investigation said very much what the Carnegie report had to say. The accreditors were advised, in effect, not to look at the easy quantitative factors (percentage of Doctorate-holders on the faculty, Books in the library, student-faculty ratio, acres of campus, etc.), but rather to evaluate the far more elusive qualitative factors, of which student satisfaction and student performance are the most crucial.

    In other words, if the students at a nontraditional, nonresident university regularly produce research and dissertations that are as good as those produced at traditional schools, or if graduates 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 as worthy of accreditation as the traditional school.

    The response of the accrediting agencies was pretty much to say, "But we already are doing just those things. No changes are needed."

    But, with the Carnegie and Kellogg reports, the handwriting was on the wall, if still in small and hard-to-read letters. Things would be changing, however.

    In 1987, then Secretary of Education William Bennett (later to become "Drug Czar," and then a bestselling author-philosopher) voiced similar complaints about the failure of accrediting agencies to deal with matters such as student competency and satisfaction. "Historically," he said, "accrediting agencies have examined institutions in terms of the resources they have, such as 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 almost exactly the same thing: "Despite increasing evidence that many of our schools are failing to adequately prepare our children, either for further study or for productive careers, the accreditation process still focuses on inputs, such as the number of volumes in libraries or percentage of faculty with appropriate training. It does not examine outcomes how much students learn."

    Around the same time, John W. Harris, chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Accreditation, echoed these concerns: "It is not enough to know that teachers have certain degrees and that students have spent so much time in the classroom. The question is, can institutions 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 invitation for new accrediting agencies to come forward and seek his department's blessing, strongly implying that the existing ones were not doing a satisfactory job. And around the same time, high administrators at at least three major universities seriously questioned whether accreditation was necessary for their school. "Why should we spend upwards of $100,000 in staff time and real money to prepare a self-study for the accreditors?" said one administrator. "It is quite likely that the 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 he maintained that their standards for accreditation did not meet the department's. (Middle States had previously denied reaccreditation to a major school because it did not meet certain standards of diversity, including "appropriate" numbers of minority students and faculty. Alexander suggested that Middle States was paying attention to the wrong things. Middle States finally backed down, and made its diversity standards optional.)

    When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, the accreditation situation was no less murky, and his choice for Secretary of Education, Richard Riley of South Carolina, seemed more interested in primary and secondary education than in postsecondary. Into this already murky area came two bombshells.

    Bombshell #1: First, in 1993, the six regional accrediting associations, claiming that "the concept of self-regulation as embodied in regional accreditation is being seriously questioned and potentially threatened," announced that they planned to drop out of the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, and start their own new group to represent them in Washington. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that "some higher-education observers said they questioned the significance of the action [while] others called it disturbing." The president of the American Council 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, COPA voted itself out of existence as of year-end, by a vote of 14 to two, one abstention. One board member, 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 accreditation and 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 were apparently planning to start a new organization to govern themselves, without the participation of the dozens of professional accreditors who were part of COPA. COPA was going about its business, but planning to turn off the lights and shut the door by the end of 1993. And the Clinton Department of Education was busily drawing up proposals that would turn the world of accreditation and school licensing on its ear.

    The early thrust of the Clinton/Riley thinking echoed much that had been discussed during the Bush/Bennett/Cavazos/Alexander era: giving increased power to the states to decide what can and cannot be done in the way of higher education within their borders. The big stick wielded by the federal folks, of course, was student aid: loans and grants. The prospect of each state having different 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 the Credibility of Accreditation." (June 9, 1993, page B1) Wolff wrote that, "We have constructed a Potemkin Village in which there is less behind the fa?ade of accreditation than we might like to acknowledge. . . . The accreditation process has not held colleges and universities accountable for issues such as the writing ability of graduates or the effectiveness of general-education requirements. . . If accreditation is to regain some of its lost credibility, everyone involved in the process 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 and the quality of student life at the institution."

    Right around the time Wolff was writing, the Department of Education was sending out a limited number 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 of various 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 (a regional accreditor) was typical:

    If final regulations follow the pattern in this latest draft, the Department of Education will have co-opted, in very profound ways, members of the private, voluntary accrediting community to serve as enforcement for the department. . . . This is an extremely disturbing abdication of the department's responsibility to police its own operation.

    The Chronicle reported (August 4, 1993) that "many of the accrediting groups have sent notices to their member colleges urging them to be prepared to battle the department if the draft is not significantly altered."

    And David Longanecker, Assistant Secretary for postsecondary education, was quoted in the Chronicle as saying "Many people in higher education say 'You can't measure what it is that we do, 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 over the role of accreditation." At this point, the six regional accreditors announced they would be joining with seven higher-education groups to form an organization to represent their interests in Washington. This lobbying group was to be called the National Policy Board on Higher Education Institutional Accreditation, or NPBHEIA. And various subsets of the by-now lame duck COPA were making plans to start as many as three replacement organizations to take over some or most or all of COPA's functions.

    During the rest of 1993, the Department of Education was busily rewriting its accreditation guidelines, taking into account the unexpectedly fierce "leave us alone" response from the regional and professional accreditors. Meanwhile, Congress, not wishing to be left out of the mix entirely, 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 of the 50 states to establish a new State postsecondary review "entity" (SPRE) to evaluate schools within each state, both for compliance with various federal aid programs and, unexpectedly, to evaluate those colleges and universities that have "been subject to a pattern of complaints from students, faculty, or others, including...misleading or inappropriate advertising and promotion of the institution's educational programs...." If that wasn't an invitation for the states to go into the accreditation 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 COPA was 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 Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation. All members of COPA were automatically recognized by CORPA. All COPA provisions for recognition of schools were adopted by CORPA, with the understanding that they might be refined and modified over time. And CORPA's initial Committee on Recognition was composed of the members of COPA's Committee on Recognition. All of this appears to be the academic equivalent of saying that The Odyssey was not written by Homer, but by another Greek with the same name. The only apparent difference between COPA and CORPA is the addition of the "R" and the fact that the six regionals were no longer members.

    The Department of Education's guidelines were finally published in the Federal Register on January 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 the higher education establishment had 45 days in which to respond. And respond they did. The headline 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 other groups had been meeting privately in Arizona to formulate a battle plan. They considered abandoning the regional approach entirely, in favor of a single national accreditor, but scrapped that 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 novel concept!);
    Making public their reports on individual colleges and schools;
    and Moving toward ceasing to cooperate with the federal government in certifying the eligibility of colleges for federal financial aid.

    During the 45-day response period following publishing of the draft guidelines, hundreds of long and 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 as before. While the Western Association (a regional accreditor) for instance, believes that academic quality and ethnic diversity are "profoundly connected," many colleges, large and small, apparently agree with Stanford president Gerhard Casper, who said, "No institution should be required to demonstrate its commitment to diversity to the satisfaction of an external review panel. The [Western Association] is attempting to insert itself in an area in which it has no legitimate standing." Other schools, including the University of California at Berkeley, defended the diversity policy.

    By early May, 1994, the Department of Education backed away from some of the more controversial rules, both in terms of telling the accreditors what to look for, and in the powers given to the SPREs. They did this by continuing to say what things an accrediting agency must evaluate, but only suggesting, not demanding, the ways and means by which they might do it. In addition, SPREs would now be limited to dealing with matters of fraud and abuse, and could not initiate an inquiry for other reasons.

    Under the then-final guidelines, accrediting agencies were required to evaluate these twelve matters, but the way they do it can be individually determined:
    • Curricula
    • Faculty
    • Facilities, equipment, and supplies
    • Fiscal and administrative capacity
    • Student support services
    • Program length, tuition, and fees in relation to academic objectives
    • Program length, tuition, and fees in relation to credit received
    • Student achievement (job placement, state licensing exams, etc.)
    • Student loan repayments
    • Student complaints received by or available to the accreditor
    • Compliance with student aid rules and regulations

    Everything else, including recruiting, admissions practices, calendars, catalogues and other publications, 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 calming down a bit, two more bombshells (shall we call them #3 and #4?) were dropped.

    Bombshell #3: Good-bye CORPA, Hello CHEA

    In 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 telephone number.

    Bombshell #4: Good-bye AACSB, Hello Confusion

    For years, the main guideline for determining the validity of an accrediting agency has been whether it is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (with additional recognition by COPA, CORPA, or CHEA as an added niceness).

    Then the U.S. Department of Education determined that the Higher Education Amendments to the laws required it only to recognize those accreditors who help to enable the schools or programs they accredit to establish eligibility to participate in certain federal aid and other federal 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 of Business, 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 soon to know, but unlikely, since the various professional fields still support that accreditation. The foresters, the social workers, the veterinarians, and so on, still regard accreditation by their professional associations as valuable and so, clearly, do the hundreds of schools that have or seek this accreditation. Finally, it seems more than likely that these nine agencies will retain their recognition by CHEA.

    In any event, after decades of minimal interest and attention, the always fascinating world of accreditation 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 the effect of misleading unknowledgeable readers. Here are six common phrases:
    • Pursuing accreditation. A school may state that it is "pursuing accreditation," or that it "intends to 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 the finals at Wimbledon. Don't hold your breath.

    • Chartered. In some places, a charter is the necessary document that a school needs to grant degrees. A common ploy by diploma mill operators is to form a corporation, and state in the articles of incorporation that one of the purposes of the corporation is to grant degrees. This is like forming a corporation whose charter says that it has the right to appoint the Pope. You can say it, but that doesn't make it so.

    • Licensed or registered. This usually refers to nothing more than a business license, granted by the city or county in which the school is located, but which has nothing to do with the legality of the school, or the usefulness of its degrees.

    • Recognized. This can have many possible meanings, ranging from some level of genuine official recognition at the state level, to having been listed in some directory often unrelated to education, perhaps published by the school itself. Two ambitious degree mills (Columbia State University and American International University) have published entire books that look at first glance like this one, solely for the purpose of being able to devote lengthy sections in them to describing their phony schools as "the best in America."

    • Authorized. In California, this has had a specific meaning (see chapter 7). Elsewhere, the term can 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 the owner 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 is important 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 has approved their nonprofit status for income taxes and nothing more. At one time, some British schools called themselves "Government Approved," when the approval related only to the school-lunch program.

    The Second-to-Last Word on Accreditation

    There have been quite an extraordinary number of new accrediting associations started in the last few years, and they are getting harder and harder to check out, either because they seem to exist only on the Internet, or because they exist in so many places: an address in Hawaii, another in Switzerland, a third in Germany, a fourth in Hong Kong, and so on. Some new ones have adopted the clever idea of bestowing their accreditation on some major universities, quite possibly unbeknownst to those schools. Then they can say truthfully, but misleadingly, that they accredit such well-known schools. This is the accreditation equivalent of those degree mills that send their diplomas to some famous people, and then list those people as graduates.

    The Last Word on Accreditation

    Don't believe everything anyone says. It seems extraordinary that any school would lie about something so easily checked as accreditation, but it is done. Degree mills have unabashedly claimed accreditation by a recognized agency. Such claims are totally untrue. They are counting on the fact that many people won't check up on these claims.

    Salespeople trying to recruit students sometimes make accreditation claims that are patently false. Quite a few schools ballyhoo their "fully accredited" status but never mention that the accrediting agency is unrecognized, and so the accreditation is of little or (in most cases) no value.

    One accrediting agency (the unrecognized International Accrediting Commission for Schools, Colleges and Theological Seminaries) boasted that two copies of every accreditation report they issue 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.dpuf



    http://www.iacet.org/iacet-standard/ansi-accreditation


    IACET is the premier standard-setting organization for the continuing education and training industry and is an accredited Standards Developing Organization (SDO) by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
    Accreditation by ANSI signifies that IACET’s procedures meet the Institute’s essential requirements for openness, balance, consensus and due process. IACET’s process of standards development ensures that interested individuals and organizations representing academia, industry, product users, and governments alike all have an equal vote in determining a standard’s content. 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 nearly every sector in the economy. 
    ANSI is the U.S. representative of ISO—the International Organization for Standards—and is a founding member of the International Accreditation Forum. 
    A non-profit, member-driven organization, ANSI relies on volunteers and industry experts to improve the global competitiveness of U.S. business by promoting and facilitating voluntary consensus standards and accreditation systems, and safeguarding their integrity. 

    Setting and Maintaining a Globally Recognized Standard

    IACET publishes the ANSI/IACET Standard and accredits users of its standard. Accreditation verifies that Authorized Providers (APs) are capable of developing continuing education and training programs that meet the standard.
    IACET APs can be identified by the Authorized Provider logo, which IACET makes available for APs to place on their collateral. This logo indicates that an AP’s program was developed according to the globally recognized and approved standard.


    http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/News%20and%20Publications/Brochures/Value%20of%20the%20ANS.pdf