The high school accreditation bill being sought for by school leaders in both Wake and Burke counties cleared the state House Education Committee today.
The bill would prohibit North Carolina-run universities, colleges and community colleges from using school accreditation to make admissions, scholarship and loan decisions unless applicants come from high schools accredited by a state agency. It also would require the state Board of Education to begin accrediting North Carolina public high schools at the request - and expense - of the school districts.
Apex Mayor Keith Weatherly, the legislative assistant to House Majority Leader Paul Stam, said the bill was approved on a voice vote. There were both ayes and nays.
The bill now moves to the House Appropriations Committee.
Comments
Does this mean...
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 14:57 — bpuli9999that school systems will now have to pay the state for the accreditation or will they be doing it for free?
From an article I read
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 15:46 — nancyncAbout this initially, the state would charge the school districts a fee for accrediting their schools.
...
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:04 — Sideburnshttp://www2.nbc17.com/news/2011/mar/29/3/will-wake-county-accreditation-keep-kids-state-may-ar-902501/
Very interesting. It seems
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:26 — woodstockVery interesting. It seems AdvancED has done many school systems a favor with their bullying and politically motivated tactics. It helped draw attention to the fact that they are not needed and they are just bilking school system out of money that could be put to much better use.
Not a well thought out plan, as usual
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 22:53 — magnetParentSo what happens to students from out-of-state that want to attend NC universities. If UNC requires state accreditation, are those out-of-state students prohibited from attending even though they attend a top school that is accredited by a regional agency? Or will UNC be forced to remove any accreditation requirements? How is this good for NC?
If they wrote the bill to say that the Universities must accept either regional or state accreditation equally is one thing. But instead, it seems more like a bill written out of spite because AdvancED was "picking on them".
And for the students wanting to attend prestigious universities out-of-state - will a state accredited high school be good enough? Or should our schools be accredited by both? That would cost our schools more.
This bill seems like a bill written to get back at AdvancED, not a bill that is written in the best interest of education and the students. There will be cost in facilitating this state accreditation (I assume the state will really accredit and not just dole out certificates to all who apply) as well as forcing all NC school systems to convert to a different accreditation. I don't see the sense in this move.
Well...
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 23:39 — Bob_SconceFrom what I've seen, the UNC schools don't require students to come from accredited high schools now. Heck, over the past 20 years or so, there has been an explosion of students coming from home-school environments. In many of those cases, the home-school students are academically well ahead of their public school peers.
The NC School Board Association supports the bill. They obviously believe there's some merit to it.
It appears that the prestigeous schools don't really care about accreditation -- their candidates are so strong that the high school's lack of accreditation is completely eclipsed by things like the students' SAT scores, AP tests, the fact that they started a bird sanctuary and saved 4 endangered species, etc.... It's the really marginal schools where accreditation matters -- they're the ones who are using it to tell if Fred, whose sole qualification was a 2.5 GPA from 'Uncle Jim's auto body shop and high school,' is legitimate.. Accreditation won't help you at Harvard, but it may at Albany Tech.
"From what I've seen..."
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 06:35 — magnetParentDid you even look?
UNC-Chapel Hill: "By their anticipated date of enrollment, candidates for admission should have reached the age of 16 and must have graduated from an approved or accredited secondary school. "
NC State: "Applicants must have graduated from an accredited high school with at least a 2.0 GPA minimum grade point requirement will be waived for applicants 21 years and older and transfer students or those who have successfully passed the GED exam."
UNC Asheville: "In order to be considered for admission, all applicants must fulfill North Carolina ’s Minimum Course Requirements:
High school diploma from a regionally accredited secondary school"
UNC Pembroke: "Applicants for the freshman class must be graduates of an approved or accredited high school or home school. "
So why tighten the noose on what the universities are allowed to accept by forcing "state" accreditation on their requirements? This is clearly a bill written out of spite and not a well thought out plan. Additionally, it will affect ALL school systems in the state.
Blame Barber and his flock
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 09:01 — FSandYOUif you don't like where things are going.
So...
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 08:45 — Bob_SconceThe UNC System's requirements are here: http://www.northcarolina.edu/policy/index.php?pg=vb&node_id=448 Accreditation is not listed.
The NC State part you're talking about is to the "Agriculture Institute," not to the University itself, and has the same issues that Albany Tech has.
Further, an "Approved" school is not the same as an "Accredited" school.
Consider this: Raleigh Charter isn't accredited, yet doesn't seem to have any issues placing students in UNC-system schools. Why is that? Clearly they're not using accreditation as a cut-off.
The UNC System requirements
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:38 — magnetParentThe UNC System requirements may not state it, but some of the Universities (UNC-CH, UNC-Ash, UNC-Pem, UNC-Fay) do. As far as "approved" vs "accredited", which schools are on their "approved" list? Most likely RCHS is because it has built up a reputation. Will all Wake County high schools be on their "approved" list? What about those kids in other states that want to attend UNC-CH, but their high school is only accredited by AdvancED, and not by their home state? For that matter, what about those kids in other NC school systems who have been accredited by AdvancED? Again, why put this noose around the University System's neck? This is just a narrow-minded effort (spite) because they did not like what AdvancED said.
So...
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:34 — Bob_SconceUNC Fayetteville says "graduated from an accredited high school or its equivalent"
I think the point with the 'approved' isn't that there's a list, only that the admissions office has to approve the school -- it's like saying "You have to have gone to an accredited school unless we decide it's ok that you didn't."
I think the bill is a policy statement that, basically, says "We don't think accreditation says anything useful about the quality of a college applicant.. So, the UNC system can't use it in their admissions. But, if they want to use this new system we set up, they're welcome to do that."
Given the last 2 decade's enormous increase in students from unaccredited schools who ultimately end up being successful in college, accreditation really doesn't really seem to be a legitimate concern in admssions. Once upon a time, it might have been important. Today, not so much. In addition, dropping this requirement is consistent with the increase in the number of charter schools that we'll soon see.
It's also a change that the UNC system is unlikely to make by itself, since its constituent schools are also accredited by AdvanceEd. The last thing they want to do is tell AdvanceEd "we don't think your accreditation is important." It's much easier if the GA forces them to make the change.
Missing the Point
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:11 — Solon77Y'all are missing the point. Sure the kid with a 5.0 GPA and scores 2400 on the SATs and 30 on the ACT and just discovered the next genetic advancement will not have a problem getting in anywhere. But this is the top 2-3% of the students. What about the 3.5-4.0 GPA student, who tries to go out of state and apply for certain scholarships ?
I think we agreed in an earlier post it is not prudent to throw the baby out with the bath water until all of the ramifications are known and a well thoughtout plan is put forward. I agree with Magnetparent on this. - the Republicans are doing what they do best - throw a temper tantrum, take their ball and go home and crawl into their little shell.
So...
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:53 — Bob_SconceWhen we agreed earlier, it was about WCPSS dropping AdvanceEd accreditation and I agreed that they should have a clear understanding of what is being given up. While there's still a concern about government shooting first and asking questions later, the risk isn't nearly as large on this. But, in any case, the lawmaking process is deliberative -- there was evidently a hearing on this bill yesterday and, at such hearings, there's usually evidence presented. Before the bill is passed into law, there will be more hearings and reports issued on it. Among other things, the admissions folks at the UNC system schools have probably already been in touch with the legislators to voice their opinions.
As to your first paragraph, you're asking about the value of a district dropping AdvanceEd accreditation -- that's a completely separate matter from whether the UNC schools should consider accreditation in admissions. But, I'll answer your last question anyway: the 3.5 student is probably fine on the admissions front (the scholarships... which "certain scholarship" are you talking about? There are tens of thousands of them. Just as some of them won't be available because he doesn't have Irish descent or isn't a Latvian archer, some probably won't be available because his high school wasn't accredited.) The student with the most to lose from a district dropping accreditation is the one with a 2.1 trying to find any college that will accept him.
Sorry but
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 22:08 — Solon77Sorry but your points do do come across as very convincing.
there's usually evidence presented - usually ?
there will be more hearings and reports issued on it. - really ? Ron and John what do you think ? Well that's good enough for me, let's move it ahead.
the 3.5 student is probably fine - just probably ?
This issue will make an interesting topic on the Colbert report. NC ranking at the bottom of the country in test scores and public education funding decides to expand government to accredit their own schools citing no evidence that the association with AdvancedED was improving student achievement.
Heh, but there is always the world renowned Albany Tech
Well. . .
Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:25 — Bob_SconceI wasn't at the meeting, so I can't speak as to what happened. I have been at a handful of similar committee meetings at the GA, however, which is why I said 'usually.'
In any case, you're sidestepping the core question. What is the harm in the bill? So UNC system schools are told "You can't use AdvanceEd accreditation in your admissions decisions." So what? Doesn't that mean that the schools need to make decisions based on the merit of each student? Isn't that what we want them to do?
Not saying two wrongs make a
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:41 — CaryCurmudgeonNot saying two wrongs make a right, but who's throwing the temper tantrum, the people who didn't like the outcome of the election and decided they were willing to risk all our students' accreditation?
Given the subjectivity of AdvancEd's investigation and vagueness of their report, the board has no way of knowing exactly what they need to do to appease AdvancEd. In the meantime, the state legislature is doing what they can to protect our students.
You are correct - two wrongs
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 13:20 — magnetParentYou are correct - two wrongs don't make a right.
However, I disagree - the state legislature is not doing what they can to protect our students. They are protecting a bitter school board member that is more focused on "getting back" at AdvancED and shooting themself in the foot at the same time. There is absolutely no benefit to the student, just further complicating their efforts to apply to any college/scholarship they desire. Why mandate ONLY state accreditation if any at all? Why not mandate that if the university requires accreditation that it accepts EITHER state or regional accreditation equally?
There is no specific
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 14:10 — CaryCurmudgeonThere is no specific "roadmap" for WCPSS to retain accreditation. Aside from the fact that AdvancEd has way overstepped their authority and contradicted themselves in the process, we do not have an objective set up criteria which we know, if achieved, will make AdvancEd happy.
Wake County students compete against peers from across the state, and this bill lets them compete on a level playing field. I would not want a Wake County student to lose out on a chance to go to NC State because we didn't have AdvancEd accreditation, would you?
So....
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 13:33 — Bob_SconceThere is a larger policy question about the benefit of using accreditation in the UNC admissions process. Ordinarily, I'd say "well, that's really a question for the UNC folks to decide." But, their judgment may be impaired by the fact that UNC system schools are all accredited by AdvanceEd. Does the UNC system really want to send a shot across the bow of its accrediting body? There's far less chance of bad blood between UNC and AdvanceEd if the GA does the dirty work.
Why shouldn't accreditation be used? Because it unfairly discriminates against home-schooled students and charter school students. When accreditation started, those segments of the education market were tiny. Today, they're huge. Also, accreditation is a poor proxy for the quality of the high school. Does anybody really believe that a typical student from Halifax County is a better candidate than a typical student from Wake County?
The bill states "The Board
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 14:21 — magnetParentThe bill states "The Board of Governors shall adopt a policy that prohibits any constituent 17 institution from soliciting or using information regarding the accreditation of 18 a secondary school that a person attended as a factor affecting admissions, 19 loans, scholarships, or other educational activity at the constituent 20 institution, unless the accreditation was conducted by a State agency "
Again, WHY restrict it to State accreditation? What is being accomplished by that?
So....
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 14:30 — Bob_SconceThey're allowing the state to accredit high schools. Wouldn't it be a bit odd if the same bill told UNC institutions that they couldn't pay attention to that state accreditation?
Note that it doesn't require them to pay attention to state accreditation, but it permits it. Since we don't know anything about what state accreditation would entail, that seems prudent. Perhaps state accreditation will mean something better than AdvanceEd accreditation? Who knows.
Are you intentionally
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 15:57 — magnetParentAre you intentionally ignoring my point? Why restrict it to STATE? Why not say "accreditation is optional, but if you require accreditation, then either state or regional accreditation is acceptable."? With their wording, they are mandating that IF a university requires accreditation, it can only accept STATE accreditation.
Perhaps this intentional wording is an attempt to force all NC school systems to drop their AdvancED accreditation and apply for state accreditation instead. Perhaps it is an attempt to take business away from AdvancED because RM didn't like being "bullied" by that mean-old accreditation company and is doing this out of spite. Again, what are they trying to accomplish with restricting it to STATE?
So....
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 16:20 — Bob_SconceI understand your point -- you're saying "Why not give schools a choice between (a) no accreditation requirement at all, or (b) allowing students to qualify with either NC or AdvanceEd?"
My point is that the GA could reasonably decide that (1) there's no benefit to using AdvanceEd accreditation in admissions decisions -- in fact, it's a harmful distraction; and (2) since there's no experience with the (yet undefined) NC accreditation, schools may find some benefit to using that in admissions decisions. So, it tells schools "No AdvanceEd, but we won't stop you from using NC accreditation when it comes out if you see fit."
It's a little like saying "Hey. We see that you've been using heroin for pain treatments. That's not a good idea, so we'll stop that. But, we're developing this new Ibuprofin internally. It's untested but, if you want to, you can use that instead."
Accreditation used to be
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 16:17 — nancyncAccreditation of our schools in NC used to be optional, then it became mandatory:
Prior to 1988, school systems could voluntarily participate in an accreditation program, which involved site visits to evaluate broad program components and opportunity standards. In 1988 accreditation was changed to a mandatory program which included student performance standards. School systems and schools were also challenged to go beyond accreditation standards and set their own annual goals.
source: http://www.natd.org/Ward96.htm
I don't believe
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:05 — nancyncI don't believe that AdvancEd did anything in this investigation to actually help students, in fact, they threaten the accreditation we pay for based on political issues, not educational issues that impact learning.
The fact that they accredited failing schools should concern every parent.
So you are ok
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:23 — Solon77So you are ok with whoever is in power at the school board to set whatever policy simply on the basis that they were elected ?
With regards to accrediting failing schools - Define a failing school ? Is there a magic number ? What is the criteria ? Who are you seeking to punish ? No schools are 100% failing. So the kids that do well, even though they were not fortunate enough to be assigned to the right school should be subject to being labeled as not having graduated from an accredited school ? Possibly ruining opportunties for admissions and scholarships - would you like to make that call ?
Yes.
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 14:00 — Bob_SconceSo you are ok with whoever is in power at the school board to set whatever policy simply on the basis that they were elected ?
Yes. That's how I feel about Congress, the General Assembly, City Council, and the Board of Commissioner as well, as long as the body stays within the limits provided for in applicable law.
...
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 13:50 — Sideburns"So you are ok with whoever is in power at the school board to set whatever policy simply on the basis that they were elected ? "
You seem to be saying that AdvancED should have oversight over the actual policy that is set. Interesting. IMO, I think that's the sole reason the complaint was filed. And it will backfire -- for the NAACP and AdvancED.
I can see your selective
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 21:26 — Solon77I can see your selective use or not of words. try adding "simply on the basis that they were elected " You seem to support this view. So I guess it is then safe to assume that you support all of Obama's policies and believe that people should just lie down and accept them as they are. After all he was elected by an overwhelming majority and therefore should be able to do as he desires.
...
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 21:51 — SideburnsI did include your "simply on the basis that they were elected" and I disagree with what you are saying. The NAACP is exploiting AdvancED and the OCR in their attempt to bring back the diversity policy. It is the elected Board's job to define policy -- not AdvancED, the NAACP, G-WIS, etc.
I don't support all of Obama's policies but I was part of that overwhelming majority that voted him in. So, whatever.
Look at some of the schools
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 13:29 — nancyncAround this country that are 'accredited' by AdvancEd - inner city Detroit and other areas where exceedingly high failure rates are occuring. Is that representative of 'accreditation' and makes a school and it's students worthy?
The accreditation does not a thing to educate a student, we've witnessed this here.
Their purpose is not focused on the real education of students, which is what colleges and universities are concerned with.
When you have Ivy League schools and other notable schools of higher learning saying that accreditation is not a make or break issue to acceptance of a student, then one has to look at exactly what purpose accreditation serves, or purhapse the question should be WHO it serves.
And as far as the federal government is concerned the word 'accredited' was simply to prove that a high school was not a mill factory, same as with colleges and universities.
We're losing so much ground in preparing our students for the real world but we're tied up in knots over some nonsense accrediting agency that does NOT concern itself with the real purpose of our high schools, which is education of the student. This 'investigation' and 'warning' report did zero for our students education, because it was not about their education at all.
Ivy League schools
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 21:13 — Solon77When you have Ivy League schools and other notable schools of higher learning saying that accreditation is not a make or break issue to acceptance of a student, then one has to look at exactly what purpose accreditation serves, or purhapse the question should be WHO it serves.
These schools hand pick who gets in and who doesn't. When you are in the top 1% there are many things that are not as important. But we are not talking of the top 1%, we are talking of the masses.
Around this country that are 'accredited' by AdvancEd - inner city Detroit and other areas where exceedingly high failure rates are occuring. Is that representative of 'accreditation' and makes a school and it's students worthy?
You are missing the point of accreditation. If a business is ISO9000 certified does it mean it makes a quality product ? - NO. If a doctor is board certified does it make him/her a good doctor ? - NO. If a lawyer passes the BAR does it make him/her a good lawyer ? - NO. If an accountant passes the CPA exam does it make him/her a good accountant ? - NO. So if a school system is accredited does it mean all of its students are academically successful ? - NO
But back to the high failure rate schools - to the student who work hard, pulls him/herself up and makes something of themselves but because they go to a failing school - you can be the one to look them in the face and tell them they are not worthy.
Snort
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 21:48 — Bob_SconceDon't get me started on ISO 9000 certification. http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-10-03/
AdvanceEd seems to disagree with your take. They call accreditation "a significant achievement pronouncing an institution’s quality of education" and a "method of quality assurance."
Exactly
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 21:57 — nancyncExactly Bob, they proclaim they accredit good schools, that their accreditation means the school is worthy - of what should a school be worthy?
If accreditation is simply a rubber stamp that means nothing about the quality of education and the quality of students getting diplomas from that school, it isn't worth the rubber it's made of.
Astonishing
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 21:15 — SatchHHThis bill is astonishing. Two school boards get negative reviews by an outside accrediting agency and the answer is for the legislature to fix the problem. What about the school boards looking at the reports and actually dealing with the problems that led to the negative reviews? In Wake, Superintendent Tata has said that steps have already been taken to address the issues that the Advanced Ed report raised. His own Broad review revealed many of the same problems. Mr. Tata is stepping up. Why don't the legislators let the school boards deal with their issues and not try to sidestep problems by legislating them away? This strategy will not help our students. The NCDPI has enough to do without serving as the state accrediting agency. Our state budget does not need to add this expense. Let's hold people accountable for cleaning up their own messes. Let the WCPSS and Burke school boards act like responsible adults. This bill is a joke. We expect more responsibility from our students (but perhaps not those of these legislators)!
At a higher...
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 15:04 — bpuli9999ideological level, this means that when the free market doesn't work in their favor, the republicans run to the government for help. The very same government, they say, should limit its authority.
Negative reviews and the NAACP
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 09:13 — HenryMillerThose "negative reviews" seem to me to be nothing more than racially motivated bashing made at the instigation of the NAACP.
Pfft...
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 23:41 — Bob_SconceWhat if a core problem that led to the negative review here is just incompetence at AdvanceEd?
Let AdvancED act like
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 21:47 — eddie2Let AdvancED act like responsible adults too. Then the legislature wouldn't need to step in.