Complaint Review: BPPE - Bureau of Postsecondary Education California Department of Consumer Affairs - Sacramento California

The BPPE was created from a preexisting model known as the Bureau for Private Post-secondary Vocational Education, and had been in place since the 80's. When Schwarzeneggar was Govenor of California, he closed the BPPVE citing a lack of funding. The letter said, "We gave you $10m 10 years ago to fix problems with the system, the state won't be giving you more money as the problems have not been fixed." or words to that effect as I recall.

During the absence of the BPPVE and before the recreation of what is essentially the same organization as the BPPE, what did happen in California was that a host of diploma mills and bogus schools popped up, ripping hard working students and their families off for millions in tuition for credentials, certifications and degrees that are utterly meaningless now. In response to that, the BPPE was REINSTATED from the ashes of the BPPVE as such consumer protections are evidently necessary.

Most of what the BPPE (and formerly BPPVE) regulate are ways that schools do business, maintain records, formulate their contracts, advertise, provide student services, recruitment practices, adminster refunds, handle disputes with students, course cancelations, ability to benefit testing, etc. Curriculum wise, (and I know because I have been part of a BPPVE and BPPE approved school for a decade, approved since the Bureaus initial inception in the 80's) the Bureau is actually pretty flexible. Never have I in the last 10 years ever seen a threat of jail time unless that school was fraudulent and ripping people off. Even when our institution forgot to pay the annual tithing, LOL, they simply sent us a letter asking for it and maintained our status in good standing because of our track record with them for the previous 30 years. Hardly a shoot first, ask questions later approach as you have claimed.

If Linda Christas didn't WANT to jump through the hoops necessary, that's one thing but, there are ways to create a flexible curriculum, specific to each individual students needs AND meet the requirements set forth by the BPPE. Again, I know this because I am part of a school that operates that way. It is very easy to provide what the Bureau needs on paper and provide what your students need in the classroom. Providing creative answers to the standards set forth by the Bureau is essential to survival as the board generally doesn't know education from a pile of rocks and treats ALL schools the same (something that, you're correct, makes no sense). And you're also right that people legislate themselves into positions of power and financial gain. However, again I will simply say that the inability to work within the confines and narrows created by the Bureau sounds more like a problem of creativity on the part of Linda Christas than one where they simply refuse to work with you and threaten legal action. That's just ridiculous.

The Bureau was established, as a branch of the department of consumer affairs (hint hint), to PROTECT students from educational vultures, not to limit how curriculums are delivered. Have you read the act? It is mostly about protecting students rights and making sure schools are on the up and up. Here's a link in case you care to read the legalese.

http://www.bppe.ca.gov/lawsregs/ppe_act.shtml

I challenge you to read that and find a specific citation that limits the way curriculums are delivered.

Good Luck!

You seem to be directing your anger in the wrong direction.  It is the California legislature that writes the law.  BPPE and most other State entities simply enforce what is written.  In the case of your school it is not a BPPE created regulation that stops you from operating, but California Education Code.  You seem to be plugging your own school with this repost after repost of the same text.

Dear Professor,

There are several factors that the numbers you are using are discounting, most of them internally determined in order to comply with federal statute.

The numbers reported do not reflect the actual working bodies in the labs classified differently depending on the wording of the grants. So be it, since you teach statistics, you are aware of all of the jokes, so I will not bore you with any of them.

As far as advocating for what I believe, of course I am doing that. Unfortunately, STATISTICALLY, for every one person willing to admit that one-on-one tutorial formats (that make certain subject matter is not duplicated and the learning style of a student is important), there are ten who have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are, current company included.

Common sense, movies like THE BLIND SIDE, and a thousand demonstrations will not budge such public rhetoric. It is so unpleasant to be offering what every parent wants for BOTH themselves and their children, that is, someone who knows them before trying to teach them, and having it thrown back in one's face for reasons that are unworthy.

Administrators in top-down systems worry about their power. Instead of being in command, in a Linda Chrirstas world, the teachers and students are in command, and administrators become enablers. Those kinds of positions, although much more creative, do not carry with them a thumbs up or down feature routinely.

Teachers are the service providers and the students are the clients in the Lindal Christas format and they are treated as clients are treated in every instance where the law hasn't forced another format, as in teaching and medicine.

For example, in medicine, American doctors are mediocre in comparison to almost any country in Europe, pick one, and yet they are paid $100,000 per year MORE than the average German physician, bankrupting the Nation.  I won't delve into that statistically, because I am outmatched. However, you get the point I am sure. The AMA has artificially kept the numbers of medical schools low on purpose. We have about 700,000 physicians total in the Country who are basically trained to treat pathology instead of the Chinese system where medical professionals are penalized when their clients become ill.

Of course, in the 21st century some time, either Americans will have the courage to overcome the stranglehold teachers unions and physicians have on the Country or we will end up with half the population impoverished. I just don't believe Americans will allow that.

I still have faith that, somewhere in their hearts, Americans are the people who revolted because a king wanted to place a stamp on their tea.

×

1 / 0

❮ ❯

The reference was to the students who win the graduate assistantships in science and mathemataics. In most of the programs, especially the prestigious programs, foreign nationals, particularly from India and China, vastly outnumber Americans.



According to the National Center for Education Statistics (part of the Dept of Ed) 27% of graduate assistants in science/math/engineering are foreign nationals. I teach statistics, and I’m pretty sure that 27% doesn’t equal “vastly outnumber”. For the prestigious programs in science and math (according to US News and World Report) the statistics are

MIT – 42%

Harvard – 31%

Princeton – 34%

Stanford – 22%

Berkeley – 18%

I won’t get into the examples you provide about medical and law school because I believe it’s not really relevant to the current discussion.

And, please professor, would you stop being snippy. As you, I realized as soon as I had pushed the ENTRY key that it was "cited." Just shows that I wouldn't want to be anywhere near your classroom on a sunny day. Do you REALLY behave this way in the classroom?

Pretty much. And my student ratings at the end of the semester are always well above average, so I must be doing something right.  Even the students who don’t pass will tell you that I’m fair, thorough in my teaching, knowledgeable in my discipline, and a good teacher all around.

That said, there are SOME net based stories that lead one to reach the kind of conclusion others have mentioned here.

Thank you for sharing the links. I read them, but am concerned that, once again, they are opinions, not facts. My take on these particular articles was that faculty need to think harder about how they can improve their skills. To that end, most schools I’ve taught for require that I provide a self-evaluation at the end of the semester detailing what worked, what didn’t, and how I intend to improve. My willingness to engage in critical reflection is why I am always asked to return. I WANT to be a good teacher. I WANT my students to succeed, and I am not afraid to change my teaching methods if it is in the best interest of the student.  And while there are bad teachers at every college, I think they are the minority, not the majority.

Currently 1.5 million students in the United States have parents who mistrust government/regional accreditation to such an extent that they use such an accreditation as a sign that the school bearing it is to be avoided.

The only reference I can find for this information pertains to the public K-12 system, which is not what we’re discussing. It also didn’t state (in so many words) that accreditation was the issue. What it DID state was that parents preferred to home school for religious reasons, concerns over safety, and a belief they could better instruct their own child.  That’s great, and I applaud any parent who can do that. However, homeschoolers often miss the important socialization aspect of school, the experience of group projects, school sports and clubs, etc. There are, based on my research, recent attempts by several national agencies to help coordinate homeschooling parents so that they can better provide these extracurricular activities for their child. I think that will help a lot.

Many of us are just learning that group thinking relative to education must somehow be overcome if we want to preserve a student's individuality and creativity.



Then please help change the system! It is apparent that you believe the LC model to be “superior” to traditional education models. If this is true, why aren’t you making a stronger effort to present this model to the rest of the higher ed community? I often attend conferences to learn “best practices” where different educators can say, “We tried to do it this way and it really worked”. Or, “This method isn’t effective with type of student, but works well with…”. This is one way in which educators can grow professionally – by sharing and learning from others’ successes and failures. If your model is superior, and results in better graduates, I’d like to know more. 

I think we’ve gotten off topic a bit, so I went back and re-read all the posts. The core issue is that your “camp” seems to believe your model is better than traditional education. There are also many references to how regional accreditation prohibits the delivery of your model. Although I am very familiar with the accreditation standards for my college (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools – a very conservative body), I re-read the guidelines from the perspective of implementing the LC model. There is NOTHING in the guidelines that dictates I have to teach from a “syllabus-driven” model. In fact, the word “syllabus” never appears. There is nothing in there that says I can’t consider the individual student’s characteristics before designing their curriculum. In that regard, it only states that my curriculum must be cohesive and appropriate to its stated goals.

It is the Dean's hope that the dialog here can come to an end.

Free and open dialogue is the hallmark of any good society. An intellectual debate can be informative, thought-provoking, and facilitate change.

Although I got the per capita number correct, that is, one attorney for every 260 Amiercans, the total number was wrong since I was thinking of the number of prisoners (3.2 million, the most of any nation).

The correct number of attorneys is 1.2 million with 20,000 new laws passed by all levels of government annually in the United States, again the most of any nation by far.

By contrast, France has only one attorney for every 1500 citizens, and Japan plans to INCREASE the number of attorneys by 2018 to one for every 2400 citizens. Even at that level, the Japanese are afraid they will become too much like America.

No worry there for awhile.

×

1 / 0

❮ ❯

Dear Everyone:

I have just spoken with the Dean concerning this dialog. He was unaware of it. After reading the back and forth, his reaction was sympathetic to both sidesHowever, after saying that, he simply pointed out that, if someone is convinced state sponsored accreditation ensures that every student in every classroom is provided a first rate learning experience, he can certainly support what the professor is advocating.

On the other hand, after Linda Christas makes certain a teacher is competent in his or her subject area, there are only a few common sense criteria both LC and parents use to judge competence.

Is the student learning and blossoming in each of his or her subjects? Is the student excited about doing his or her assignments? Does the student feel cared for and served? If any of the answers to those questions is no, then, from Linda Christas' perspective, its program isn't doing its job. LC then reevaluates, not after months of wasting both the teacher's and the student's time, but after the first class or two. And, never, ever would Linda Christas be happy with losing a student because a class was designed improperly, not taking into account the student's learning style, aptitudes, skill level in each subject, interests and maturity level.

All the accreditations in the world don't mean a thing if  some students aren't reaching potential because a system allows the designing of classes without taking the individuals to be instructed into account.

Currently 1.5 million students in the United States have parents who mistrust government/regional accreditation to such an extent that they use such an accreditation as a sign that the school bearing it is to be avoided.

And, more and more, the most "progressive" colleges in the Nation, those who come the closest to following the Linda Christas model, are choosing students for their student bodies that have not been subject to the state system of accreditation at the high school level.

Even colleges who aren't particularly progressive, like the Ivies, accept students from the secondary level who have not graduated from accredited schools, but have been home schooled, at a 36% rate, while accepting only 10% on average of the valedictorians graduating from so called accredited public high schools. This from their own records. Please check with the individual schools if  there is any doubt about these percentages.

Many of us are just learning that group thinking relative to education must somehow be overcome if we want to preserve a student's individuality and creativity.

The current accreditation system approved by the Department of Education, U.S. was taken from an Army manual. If that kind of system is acceptable or even desirable to some, Linda Christas has nothing to offer such individuals.

Parents love their children, know their children and want those who instruct them to know and love them as well. 

Linda Christas does of course make certain that each of our teachers is competent in his or her subject. However, in addition to that, the LC system requires that a teacher understand that LC is a loco parentis organization.  Each student is to be treated as if he or she were the teacher's own child. Nothing less is acceptable.

If state accreditation fulfills those requirements, so be it. Nothing else is relevant in LC's view, certainly not whether a federal employee on the 7th floor of the LBJ building in Washington D.C. nods his or her head in approval.

It is the Dean's hope that the dialog here can come to an end. It is clear that we have two camps, those who want a universal accreditation and believe that such an accreditation is meaningful in a positive sense, and those who believe that such an accreditation is a symptom of an educational structure that plans curricula before knowing who the students are. And, truly never the twain shall meet.

He is asking all to please accept the irreconcilability of the two camps, and allow this dialog to come to an end.

Let's allow parents to decide. Those who believe, as the Professor here believes, will continue to choose state accredited institutions. Those who want something very personal will choose to home school or, when parental competence is exceeded, will choose a  tutorial model in a

loco parentis setting.

Linda Christas is perfectly willing to leave it at that.

×

1 / 0

❮ ❯

Dear Professor,

I wanted to thank you personally for your interest in Linda Christas and for the dialog. One thing though, and it is important.

According to Google, only about 17% of the material published in the US is captured by their data base.

So, if I am looking to my computer to challenge opinion, I personally am very careful, as I see you have been.  Simply saying we cannot find something on the computer is definitely not the same thing as it not existing, so I am confident that is not what you meant in your commentary.

That said, there are SOME net based stories that lead one to reach the kind of conclusion others have mentioned here.

Here are three:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/11/17/harvards-gatekeeper-what-does-it-take/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/world/americas/10iht-harvard.1.5648618.html

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/02/changing-how-teachers-improve/

I personally have seen the Crimson story relative to taking teaching more seriously. I too do not find it currently on any of the Google searches I did.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ann, Linda Christas

Although I support Ms. Thomasetti's thoughts as far as they go, I think one would have to add a good dose of Europeans in terms of the number of science and math assistantships on the graduate level on American university campuses.

Berkeley, for example, is noted for awarding positions of this kind to German, French, and British students,when they can be persuaded to come, given the dropping quality of college programs throughout the US over the past several decades.

In addition, I do appreciate the (woman) Professor's continued interest in this complaint.

Sounds like there might be some middle ground. I have a sneaking suspicion that if this Professor were offered a position with Linda Christas, one where she was routinely given all the information about every student about a week before class began, and a great lineup of materials depending on various criteria, subject to her judgment overall, I think this Professor would jump at the chance.

It is just great when 95% of a class will remember a great professor in future years as opposed to the typical 5%. Linda Christas students are so thrilled with the difference, that is, no longer sitting in row upon row as faceless non-entities, that they begin to bloom just because the "system" is set up with their individuality as the prime focus, rather than what we  call "the syllabus driven system" in the United States.

To add to Ms. Thomasetti's reference to "progressive" colleges, because I am not at all certain our good Professor is clear on the point, when Juniata is referred to as "closer" to the Linda Christas model (the Professor use the term progressive), and therefore better, that doesn't mean that they couldn't be a lot better still.

It means that instead of being at 40% efficiency, they are at 70%, using Linda Christas as the 90-100% model. At 70%, it is no wonder their graduates achieve more than the 40 percenters routinely.

Put another way, when the TOTAL focus shifts from professorial stardom, textbooks and syllabus to concern for who the student is; when the one text book format is abandoned in favor of a multifaceted approach, with mixing and matching of visual, auditory and tactile approaches going on depending on student need, THEN we are getting closer to the Linda Christas model. 

Not to be schmaltzy about it, but when we introduce the concept of "loving thy neighbor" into the American classroom, we will be getting closer to the Linda Christas model.

How many American colleges actually practice anything but the Bell Curve and cutthroat competition in their classrooms, all ruled over, whether smiling or not, by professors who are more than happy to flunk a student if he or she doesn't "measure up." (When I was in a traditional college in the East, a big name college at that, one of my professors actually said to me in front of the class, "Are you still here?" Made my year, I can tell you. And, he wasn't alone. Many other students were subject to harassment and even sexual exploitation by professors who were so full of themselves it was difficult for us to get into the classrooms for the size of their heads. That kind of thing still goes on at too many American colleges. Way too many. And, the system we have encourages that kind of behavior. If you have a personality on a college campus prone to abusive s****..

×

1 / 0

❮ ❯

Again, the point is being missed here by the Professor.

When the word "staffed" was used, it was NOT referring to the employees of the graduate schools. Nor did the comment refer to our mediocre medical schools or law schools. 

The reference was to the students who win the graduate assistantships in science and mathemataics. In most of the programs, especially the prestigious programs, foreign nationals, particularly from India and China, vastly outnumber Americans.

Medical schools for examaple are not counted because American medicine is now ranked something like twelfth in the world in most categories, like infant mortality, hospital error leading to death, etc.

We are just not very good.

And, of course, law school wasn't counted either. with 3.2 million lawyers, it seems like everyone goes to law school, and, as a society we really pay for having so many people concerned with "rules."

With 20,000 new laws every year (counting all levels of government), and 3.2 million lawyers, all believing they need to make a great living, we are becoming a country where the average citizen cannot move without running into some restriction or another. And, our outsize prison population is an indication of the legal sickness.

Compare France with one lawyer for every 1500 citizens, with the US with one lawyer for every 260 citizens.

No doubt the 4.4 percent included all of these very mediocre schools.

The Japanese think we are going to Hades in a hand basket, and I can't disagree.

And, please professor, would you stop being snippy. As you, I realized as soon as I had pushed the ENTRY key that it was "cited." Just shows that I wouldn't want to be anywhere near your classroom on a sunny day.

Do you REALLY behave this way in the classroom?

×

1 / 0

❮ ❯

I know I said I was not going to post anymore, but I have shared all this with some other faculty and they would like to keep the dialogue going. They’re going to use this as an exercise in their critical thinking classes. Unfortunately, I cannot, as my students will recognize my “voice” and may be biased in their interpretations.

It is still amazing to me that this man, purportedly a professor, continues to miss the points made by others so badly.

As do you. How many times do I have to say I’m a WOMAN?

...the Linda Christas employee was saying that the more personal attention and knowledge of the individual students a college requires, the better off the students are.

I never argued this point, and I agree with it up to a point.

The traditional model awards tenure for publishing, research and successful grant writing.

Teaching is not on the list

 

It is at every college I’ve taught at. I’ve also researched faculty handbooks for as many of the top-tier schools I can find (who publish this information online) and find that ALL of them include successful teaching activities as a consideration for tenure.

 

...as we are reminded constantly by even the very top of the model this professor represents, as the Harvard Crimson continually runs articles begging their teachers to take their teaching seriously.

Searched for a long time and couldn’t find any such articles. Do you have a specific reference I can read? If not, feel free to admit that you have, once again, stated as fact something that can’t be supported by evidence.

Somebody else above suggests that the very best colleges are not football driven, and this fellow retorts, "Oh, but it, Juniata, has a football team." Really really lame, and entirely beside the point.

Did you not recognize the sarcasm? In any event, I actually misunderstood the writer to mean that these schools didn’t have a football team at all, and didn’t catch my error until after it posted.

He says it is ironic that the graduate schools mentioned by the Linda Christas employee, being accredited by the traditional model, it is somehow ironic that they are sited.

Actually, the word you’re looking for is “cited” not “sited”. And yes, I do find it ironic that students from more progressive models of education use entrance to traditional schools as a benchmark of success.

The point was that the graduate schools referred to are staffed mostly by foreign nationals now in the sciences and mathematics. Just go to You Tube and look at who is lecturing in these subjects and doing the research.

Rather than use a social media site like You Tube as a source of information, why don’t you try something more FACTUAL like the Department of Education, which collects this data from all schools?  Their figures indicate that for full time faculty only 4.4% are foreign nationals (data taken from latest available reports, Fall 2007). In terms of graduate students, the National Science Foundation reports that for 2008, foreign nationals accounted for less than 30% of the students pursuing study in science and engineering.

You make point after point emotionally, not seeming to understand anything much.

I understand quite well. I’m merely pointing out that you are making broad generalizations that are based on your own perspective and/or experiences rather than FACTS. The purpose of ROR is for consumers to post complaints for public review, and respondents can offer opposing evidence, comments, and/or advice. Your posts do nothing to inform a consumer about LC and its model, other than it offers more individualized attention than might be given at a more traditional school. This is all well and good, but if you want to sell the model you better provide something more than your own opinion disguised as “fact”, which I have ably demonstrated to be wrong and misleading.

I would be interested to know if any of the other respondents are LC students or graduates. Did any of you pursue a traditional education? What is your educational background? Perhaps if I knew more about you and/or your educational experiences I could weigh your opinions differently. 

As it stands now, I’m surprised LC hasn’t asked the employee to stop posting because you really aren’t representing them very well.

On the issue of accreditation, it seems that LC has either chosen not to pursue regional accreditation, or was rejected. So they invented the International Association for Schools and Colleges, which is NOT recognized by the Department of Education. From the LC website:

“Everyone agrees that ultimately the accreditation process should be about fostering excellence in our university, college and secondary school programs.”

How can you demonstrate this without evidence, or standards against which that evidence can be compared? All regional accrediting bodies require that schools DEMONSTRATE WITH EVIDENCE that they have fulfilled certain requirements, some of which are noticeably lacking from the IASC. For example:

(1) Where does IASC describe faculty credentialing? How would I, as a parent, know that my child-student was going to receive an education provided by a subject matter expert? In a traditional school, x% of the faculty must be terminally degreed (it varies by region). A terminal degree doesn’t necessarily confer expertise, so other criteria can/must be met. 

(2) How would I, as a parent, be assured that the college has the financial resources to maintain itself until my child graduates?

(3) How would I, as a parent, know that the school is preparing graduates for grad school or the work force? Where is the IASC requirement for this data?

If you don’t already have one you might want to consider developing an Office for Institutional Research. Most schools publish their findings online, making it easy for parents and students to make comparisons on the empirical data.

Again from the LC website regarding career counseling:

"The College simply offers a different kind of experience for the serious student who understands that traditional colleges, upon their graduation, divest themselves of responsibility for their futures".

Every college is required to follow up with alumni (it’s part of the real accreditation standards).  I can’t imagine any traditional school telling a graduate, “Oh, you’ve already graduated? Sorry, we can’t help you.” Alumni and career services are an integral part of any college’s measure of success. Moreover, we have to PROVE it to our accrediting body.

Perhaps you could show this to your Provost and ask him/her to respond. I would contact that person myself, but the LC website doesn’t list any of the administration. Curious….. All your Advisory Board members are listed, though. They look impressive, so I researched a few (the first three I think).  I couldn’t find any published articles by/about them, not even the journalist. Curious, once again.

 

Just as a sample of what this professor is not seeing:

He says it is ironic that the graduate schools mentioned by the Linda Christas employee, being accredited by the traditional model, it is somehow ironic that they are sited.

The point was that the graduate schools referred to are staffed mostly by foreign nationals now in the sciences and mathematics. Just go to You Tube and look at who is lecturing in these subjects and doing the research.

The point is that the closer to the Linda Christas model a school becomes the MORE people they can get accepted into the available research slots INSTEAD of foreign nationals.

And, remember, currently THERE IS NO CHOICE. A school MUST  be accredited by a sole sole acceditor in order to have its students be eligible for federal grants.

So, please Professor, stop being so shallow here. It is very unbecoming. You make point after point emotionally, not seeming to understand anything much.

I suppose, as the man said above, it is evidence of just how little people will listen when their own interests are at stake. But that doesn't make them any less a threat to progress.

×

1 / 0

❮ ❯

It is still amazing to me that this man, purportedly a professor, continues to miss the points made by others so badly.

Someone says that "The closer a college gets to the Linda Christas model, the better they are at serving the student population, and this man believes it's relevant to say that the best colleges listed are regionally accredited. (The point is that, of course they are regionally accredited. That's the only way they can qualify for federal programs for their students.  But, underneath, the Linda Christas employee was saying that the more personal attention and knowledge of the individual students a college requires, the better off the students are. For example, NEVER would a Juniata teacher just walk into a class without knowing his or her students. They are given budgets to invite their students-to-be over for dinner, for example. Freshmen are invited by their teachers to do research side by side with the professors, all the while teachers and students getting to know each other. Students sit in on teacher hires. Teachers are promoted based on one criterion only, that is, how well does he or she know his or her students and make them bloom by involving them in the professors "active scholarship."

The traditional model awards tenure for publishing, research and successful grant writing.

Teaching is not on the list as we are reminded constantly by even the very top of the model this professor represents, as the Harvard Crimson continually runs articles begging their teachers to take their teaching seriously. What are they saying? The students are saying that professors need to either leave the classroom or get to know the people they are talking to BEFORE they open their mouths and miss the points as badly as this gentleman does.

I am not picking up any indication that this professor even understands the problem.

Somebody else above suggests that the very best colleges are not football driven, and this fellow retorts, "Oh, but it, Juniata, has a football team." Really really lame, and entirely beside the point. That wasn't the point being made at all. But again, this fellow just doesn't seem to understand that one can have a football team or a chess team and not BECOME the football team or chess team, as is the case on so many campuses. The book referred to above from a graduate professor at Duke describes Duke as just such a place. This man, of course, hasn't read the book. But, in his mind, that doesn't matter.

If he misses these points so badly, what is he doing in a classroom in front of students he does not know.

Believe me when I say, people like this man cumulatively form a wall that is nearly impenetrable, and will serve to entirely frustrate any attempt to do better by our young people.

Just look at the recent fiasco in Wisconsin if you have any doubt as to the motives of folks like this gentleman.

×

1 / 0

❮ ❯

It’s pretty obvious that none of these LC supporters bothered to actually read my rebuttal since (a) they continue to refer to me as a “gentleman”, and (b) they still haven’t provided factual evidence of their claims as requested. They have, however, provided me ample opportunity to share with my students examples of how important critical thinking is and how biased reporting can lead to erroneous conclusions. 

What was indicated was that the DOE finds the "format" superior.



Once again, the “format” was found to be MODESTLY better; however, if you read the qualifying remarks, the differences may not be due to the format at all.

This gentleman is like so many teachers. He evidently walks into a room not knowing a soul, takes attendance, by the second week may know half the names, and has no idea whether what he says or does in any way penetrates to a student's core in terms of being meaningful or worse, useful. I'm just wondering what this man teaches.

I teach various undergraduate courses in psychology. Right now I’m teaching an online course with 14 students, 8 of whom were in a class of mine previously.  They are all nontraditional adult learners. I know where they work, what they do, I know about their children, their career aspirations, their past academic and personal achievements and failings, and their writing skills.  Of the students I’ve had previously who have already graduated, most are working or in graduate school. Some of them are full time parents who earned the degree as part of their own desire for personal development.  I still email many of my former students and have attended their graduations from various graduate programs.  Is that enough personal involvement for you?  And I’m not the only faculty member who does this. Granted, there are probably far more who don’t, but your sweeping generalization of faculty as uninvolved with their students is just more evidence of your biased thinking.

I am not sure how this gentleman will handle a statement like "Hey, We're nearly last in the developed world currently in the 9-16 years of instruction. Wake Up!"

I find it deplorable, as do most people. But you can’t just blame higher education. Our entire education system needs review, and we need to stop graduating students from high school when they can’t read or write. However, the problems are far more systemic than just education. If you want to compare data from 1960 to the present, you’d see that society as a whole is disintegrating. But this isn’t a social policy blog so I won’t even go there. Suffice it to say that higher ed isn’t the source of the problem.

Nevermind that California outlaws anything that is opposed to new ideas in education.

Actually, this isn’t entirely true and I’m the proof. The university I received my doctorate from is in California, and is about as nontraditional as they come. It’s a distance learning model almost identical to that of LC. They are regionally and professionally accredited and highly selective in their admissions.

After all, I wrote this Rip-Off report because California has outlawed everything progressive in education while places like Stanford teach as high art Jesus Christ engaging in oral sex with young males. I kid you not. That place is as decadent as is possible to get.

This really intrigued me so I did some research. The art you refer to has been the subject of much controversy, but the artist insists it does not depict Christ as having oral sex. It’s not available for viewing online so I don’t know. However, as disgusting as it sounds, the man has a right under the Constitution to freedom of expression.  The subject also lends itself well to academic discussions regarding the Constitution, the role of morality in critical thinking, religion and psychology, and a host of other topics. Just as interesting, is that Stanford is one of the top 10 schools as rated by your own source of information - Dr. Stuart Rojstaczer.

There are very few colleges in the US that satisfy all of the following criteria:

1) Top 10% in terms of graduates being accepted by top ten graduate schools

2) Top 10% in terms of graduates being accepted by top ten professional schools

You mean the graduate and professional schools that have made a name for themselves by following the educational model you despise? The ones that are regionally and professionally accredited? Wow…. The irony.

3) Top 10% in terms of graduates being eventually hired as executives in Standard and Poor's listed companies

The ones with students who earned business, accounting and economics degrees at the colleges who followed the model you despise?

4) Top 10% in terms of graduates eventually being listed in Who's Who in America

I’m in Who’s Who. Anyone can get in if they buy the book for a modest fee of about $125.00.

5) Top 10% in terms of graduates contributing back to the school. Can’t speak to this one.

Kudos to any school that can meet all five of those criteria. But just because a school falls short in one or more areas doesn’t make it a bad school.

Regarding another author you cited as an authority, Dr. Loren Pope: I went to his website on Colleges that Change Lives. Interestingly, all the colleges on his list are regionally accredited, most are private colleges, and many follow the traditional educational model. Yes, they are smaller and have the ability to provide more individualized attention to the student. But there’s a heavy cost involved. For example, Juniata’s tuition is about $40,000 a year. That’s well out of the reach of most students.

My arguments seem to be falling on deaf ears, and, as I said previously, this isn’t a social policy blog so this is my last post.

Except for one last comment. Juniata DOES have a football team :-)

There are very few colleges in the US that satisfy all of the following criteria:

1) Top 10% in terms of graduates being accepted by top ten graduate schools

2) Top 10% in terms of graduates being accepted by top ten professional schools

3) Top 10% in terms of graduates being eventually hired as executives in Standard and Poor's listed companies

4) Top 10% in terms of graduates eventually being listed in Who's Who in America

5) Top 10% in terms of graduates contributing back to the school

In our compilation, we weigh the number of students against the number of placements. That is, if a school wastes lots of lives but has a few Presidents, it won't make the cut. That's why NONE of the Ivies make our cut.

For example, even though several Presidents have graduated from Harvard, 15% or more of Harvard's graduates earn less than poverty wages by the time they reach middle age.

And, none of the students seem to be inspired by the heavy privilege ridden top down teaching at Harvard, as the Harvard Crimson continues to publish articles begging Harvard teachers to take their teaching seriously. Harvard tenure continues to be offered for publishing, successful grant writing and research.  Teaching is nowhere on the list.

The performance of Ivy students on graduate exams demonstrates how this system handicaps even the smartest kids in the land.

But, what are the schools that excel in the categories mentioned above. What are the campuses that actually place in ALL these signature areas:

A few of them are: Wooster, Middlebury, Oberlin, Juniata, Hamilton, Haverford, Union, Kenyon, Colorado, Bowdoin, Denison and Grinnell.

Note that none of them have top ten marching bands or football teams. None of the rah rah and all of the scholarship. Add Davidson, Macalester, Occidental and Pomona to the list as well.

To check, I would suggest contacting the schools themselves OR reading the work of people like Dr. Loren Pope who has spent a lifetime ferreting out these kinds of realities.

The closer a college gets to knowing each student, and working with each student's strengths and compensating for weaknesses from the first day on campus, the closer they get to actually serving the students rather than the teachers and administrators.

Of course, we at Linda Christas consider it a criminal act for someone to walk into a classroom without knowing everything about every student. But then, we are not in power, and we are, by law not welcome in many jurisdictions because there are tens of thousands of voices much like this gentleman's who are willing to look the other way when it comes to preserving the model they know, the model that serves them and all the hard work they have put in by obeying the rules set out by others, others of a different age, when the model we have in place did in fact allow for top scholarship.

Not any more.

×

1 / 0

❮ ❯

The teacher who is defending California's right to prevent illegal activity is correct as far as it goes.

Nevermind that California outlaws anything that is opposed to new ideas in education.

But, this gentleman will be OK. He will continue to draw salary, and the students will continue to be unemployable at about a 25% rate,  So long as this man is taken care of, he will continue to write his head off in support of all that benefits him. A very natural reaction. After all, I wrote this Rip-Off report because California has outlawed everything progressive in education while places like Stanford teach as high art Jesus Christ engaging in oral sex with  young males.

I kid you not. That place is as decadent as is possible to get. Teachers walk into classes and do whatever they want. But this gentleman understands that, and supports Cailfornia's right to approve or disapprove of whatever they want.

In most places, what Stanford is teaching would expose the perpetrator to arrest, but, not in California. California only outlaws anything other than our teacher commentor's educational format. But, as he said, they have the badges, and they can outlaw anything they wish. It is irrelevant if people are destroyed as a result of authority exercising God given power. (Wait, I thought that was from the people here, and the people are not IN THEORY supposed to be ONLY in the upper ten percent who are happily glorying in their own juices.)

This was the same thinking as in n**i Germany. They are in power, so they have the right to outlaw whatever they want to, and so long as I can report to my classroom and teach and draw a paycheck and drink my schnapps and feel cozy about myself, so be it.

The students? Well it is unfortunate that the State has chosen to legislate against even trying a new format, seeing as how entire high school districts in California have no calculus level courses, because all students are in classrooms with such different levels of skill that the districts must peak at beginning Algebra II. (Segregate by ability? Come on! That's discrimination!)

And, of course, that lack of scholarship carries over to the undergraduate years, with at least 35% of college  kids having to take remedial level courses to qualify to take the most basic college English, again with the same tired format.

It is amazing how law abiding people become when they personally love the strokes they obtain from the system. WHAT ABOUT OTHERS?  OTHERS be hanged!

×

1 / 0

❮ ❯

I can see that no matter the evidence, this gentleman is going to find ways to maintain his position.

What was indicated was that the DOE finds the "format" superior.

What Linda Christas does is expand that format to make the gains greater.

This gentleman is like so many teachers. He evidently walks into a room not knowing a soul, takes attendance, by the second week may know half the names, and has no idea whether what he says or does in any way penetrates to a student's core in terms of being meaningful or worse, useful.

I'm just wondering what this man teaches.

Most of us love the limelight, and this individual seems to want to hold on to it no matter the cost to others.

The current system's results are appalling, and no matter what they are, this man is going to insist that he keep his podium, and to look at the system as merely having "faults," as foreign students, realizing how shallow undergraduate education has become in the US, are now desperately attempting to find alternatives in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, until, as I've also mentioned they can apply for the well funded graduate level over here.

I wager this gentleman is not going to read any of the material suggested by Adelarde above.

The Duke professor Dr. Stuart C. describes beautifully what is going on on the top-down, syllabus driven colleges of America where men like this gentlemen continue to not know anyone in any objective way, plan courses not knowing who will be assigned to them, and, if I may say so, function at approximately 40% of what would be possible for them if they had the advantage of working in a system which provides teachers with everything about each student BEFORE instruction begins, and insists that the teacher structure the presentation to the student and not the student having to accommodate the teacher, as is the case on all syllabus driven campuses.

I am more or less going to have to give up on this man. Obviously it is the hundreds of thousands of entrenched voices like this willing to continue to graduate unemployable individuals, with an average $17,000 in debt that they cannot pay, all for the sake of being able to stroll onto a campus self satisfied that, at least here, he is important.

So be it.

America will remain 26th and dropping in the developed world and spend the most on education; and students will remain cheated so long as individuals of this  are willing to use every semantic irrelevance to support their own way of viewing education.

All I am saying is that the current system, contrary to being described has "having faults" as this gentleman stated, is a failure. And, not only that, it is a destructive failure.

It is a failure because of its premise. It is a failure because of its execution. And, most of all, it is a failure because of its results.

I am not sure how this gentleman will handle a statement like "Hey, We're nearly last in the developed world currently in the 9-16 years of instruction. Wake Up!" However, I'm sure he'll find a way to justify what he wants to see. After all, "I'M #1" is a very powerful idea.

×

1 / 0

❮ ❯

I’d like to respond to the two persons who responded to my initial post. And by the way, I’m a woman, not a gentleman :-)

It seems to me we’re talking about four different things here:

First, the treatment of LC by the BPPE. I can’t really speak to that since I’m not privy to those discussions, but I believe California has a right to decide, legislatively, whether or not a business can or cannot operate within the state. If LC attempts to operate illegally, then they have to face the consequences. I’m not saying there isn’t evidence of rude and unprofessional treatment, but that’s not exactly a rip-off. Just bad business.

Second, the LC model of educating at the individual level.

“He must know that if a teacher walks into a class and starts wherever he or she wishes in a subject, irrespective of where the individuals are in the classroom in that subject, we experience an automatic 40% drop in efficiency built into the final result, as many students will be behind the professor and some beyond and, therefore, wasting their time.”

Seriously? I don’t start wherever I want. Curricula are designed to build upon each other in a sequential or complementary fashion. I teach primarily senior-level courses, so I expect that my students have a similar foundation in the basics of my discipline. The most obvious example would be the sequence of English courses – English 101, followed by English 102, followed usually by a literature course – which require that you develop skills in a logical order, then demonstrate mastery of those skills before proceeding to the next course. Certainly there will always be students who out-perform (or perform less well than) their peers. As long as they meet the criteria for passing my course, they can move on. I would like to believe that most of my faculty peers would believe, as I do, that we have a responsibility to help those who are lagging behind. Likewise, I like to challenge those who are more advanced in their knowledge.

“We must start with each student and build around that person.”



We do. It’s called placement testing and advising.

Third, online versus traditional educational formats.

“What is being referred to is the DOE indicating that their studies show that an online course designed for individuals, whereby students can start where their knowledge leaves off and request  help from an instructor when not understanding a passage or formula, allows students to outperform students in standard classroom situations.”



I finally found the DoE study, read it (all 66 pages plus appendices) and I think you’ve either been misled, or failed to understand their findings. Perhaps you’re just repeating what has been posted on the LC website:

"The U.S. Department of Education has released a study which, once again, affirms that online education provides a superior experience when compared with face to face instruction. If mastering information and developing skills relevant to eventual employment are the goals, online students learn more in a much shorter interval than their on-campus rivals."

 

There is no such statement in the study suggesting that students can start where their knowledge leaves off.  Also, ALL students in traditional education have the opportunity request  help from an instructor when not understanding a passage or formula, and the faculty that I know would respond as appropriate.

 Here are a couple of the relevant conclusions from that study (verbatim), along with some qualifying remarks (also verbatim):

“Students in online conditions performed modestly better, on average, than those learning the same material through traditional face-to-face instruction.

 

Interpretations of this result, however, should take into consideration the fact that online and face-to-face conditions generally differed on multiple dimensions, including the amount of time that learners spent on task. The advantages observed for online learning conditions therefore may be the product of aspects of those treatment conditions other than the instructional delivery medium per se.”

 

“Instruction combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative

to purely face-to-face instruction than did purely online instruction.

The observed advantage for blended learning conditions is not necessarily rooted in the media used per se and may reflect differences in content, pedagogy and learning time.”

 

Notice the use of the word “moderate” (as opposed to “superior”). The issue of time was addressed, and the results actually state that effectiveness increased when online students spent MORE time on task relative to those who spent less time. Nowhere (that I could find) did the report state that online students learned more, in less time.

This is a classic case of how LC supporters (in this particular instance) are interpreting results to fit a bias. It’s what I caution my students against when they take my research course.

So the fourth point of accreditation:

”At most, accreditors will be in classrooms for a few hours before issuing an accreditation.”



Obviously you don’t know anything about the process. I suggest you educate yourself about the requirements for accreditation before you make such an idiotic remark.

 

“What we really want to compare is the scores of students after the process is finished, and that can be done and is done”.

Excellent point, and EXACTLY what accreditation requires.  Colleges document pre-and post scores on a variety of measures to ensure they are delivering a quality education, and so that they can demonstrate the “value added” of their programs. This is done primarily through the use of standardized instruments (e.g., the Major Field Test, MCAT, GRE and LSAT scores, etc.) that have been validated against reasonable constructs and outcomes.

“As a result, after four years at Juniata, their B high school students far outshine the Ivies on tests like the Medical Entrance Exam.”



I find this hard to believe. Can you point to the EVIDENCE that this statement is true?

I suspect that these two previous posters are doing exactly what I’ve been accused of – speaking from emotion rather than fact.  I’ve tried to provide factual evidence to support my position. Can you do the same?

You have asked some very specific questions that I believe deserve an answer, and as a Linda Christas volunteer in Connecticut, I believe I have at least some of the answers to your questions.

1) With regard to the approach of the Bureau of Postsecondary Education in California to our Dean volunteer:

The very first words conveyed to the poor man were Penal Code sections. No, hello, may we ask a few questions. Or are you operating a college in California or anything of the sort. The very first contact from this Bureau within the Department of Consumer Affairs involved the threat of severe penalties if the College were guilty of functioning within the State, including fines and imprisonment.

This is hardly a way to conduct oneself in a State. However, California is renowned for putting its problems behind bars.

As you know, the US now has more people in prison than any nation on Earth, approximately 3.5 million US citizens are now in jail, more than China or Russia, and more per capita than any of the strong man regimes we are so quick to condemn for human rights violations.

However, don't get me started on that. The fact is though that California is ranked 47th in the US in terms of welcoming new enterprise. They are one of the most hostile states to any new ideas, models, entrepreneurship, competition, and protect entrenched business and special

interests without conscience.

2) The gentleman asked about the DOE releasing a report indicating that the LC format was superior to the current format. 

What is being referred to is the DOE indicating that their studies show that an online course designed for individuals, whereby students can start where their knowledge leaves off and request  help from an instructor when not understanding a passage or formula, allows students to outperform students in standard classroom situations.  Not only do the superstars get to teach online courses, and, therefore, make the subjects clearer, they also use fabulous film clips, charts and other things to capture the meanings of the material. And, of course, there isn't the constant distraction of the fellow in the next seat vdoing all sorts of really silly things or slowing down the program to a crawl class after class because his skill levels are far below average in the subject.

Linda Christas combines live teachers and online presentations in addition to preliminary conversations with each student to determine interests, subject skill level, learning style, aptitudes, and maturity level, instruments like the Holland test are used before deciding how best  to present a class to an individual.

In other words, classes are tailored to the individual, not to the group. This is different than programmed instruction where a "package" is purchased and everyone gets the same package. But, even if LC did that, which it doesn't the result is superior to the standard classroom format.

3) The gentleman asked about comparative quality:

The current syllabus first accreditations do nothing to ensure quality from school to school.

At most, accreditors will be in classrooms for a few hours before issuing an accreditation.  What we really want to compare is the scores of students after the process is finished, and that can be done and is done.

However, what this gentleman seems to imply is that if one college has great scores on post graduation evaluation tests and another does not, the second of the two colleges has the inferior program. (If that isn't what he is saying then I don't understand.)

We must keep in mind that there are some schools that are so select in admissions that a monkey could be teaching the classes and the post graduation scores would be wonderful.

So comparisons of that sort, one institution to the next, are not only irrelevant, but in many cases damaging to perhaps a superior model.

For example, in the traditional college world, a college like Juniata only attracts B average high school students, whereas a Princeton will be able to attract an all A student class if it so chooses.

However, Juniata to the extent possible given their accreditation, does offer much more personal attention to students than is offered elsewhere. As a result, after four years at Juniata, their B high school students far outshine the Ivies on tests like the Medical Entrance Exam. It just goes to show that the closer a college gets to the Linda Christas model, the better the students will perform, the more they will bloom as scholars.

I do hope that clarifies things a bit.

4) As far as the BPPE is concerned, they require a standard accreditation, that is a top-down accreditation as well as a campus for them to "visit" in order for a school to receive approval.

Since Linda Christas does not have a brick and mortar campus for students to pay for, and since teachers work from their private homes and professional offices, the BPPE demands that any new college charge students for building a campus for the purpose of state visitations. That's what it boils down to. A brick and mortar campus is not needed.  Linda Christas offers its courses for about 1/5 of the traditional cost imposed on students as a result of the facilities that are required to

offer a standard college model.

Today students are ridden with debt that may take many years to repay. The employment picture for the average liberal arts graduate is not as bright as a student who studied a trade immediately after high school.

So the bromide that Hillary Clinton and Ben Bernanke offer that college graduates have only a 5% unemployment rate is patently dishonest. New college graduates are suffering as much as a 25% unemployment rate.

Linda Christas is very concerned about employment after graduation and the school offers lifetime assistance in that area.

Hopefully I have answered some of the gentleman's concerns or questions.

There just is no excuse for California or any other state to continue to impose such a burden on the student population, that is offering such mediocre to poor learning experiences when there are much more valuable and less expensive college models out there, Linda Christas included.

×

1 / 0

❮ ❯

This is in response to the gentleman who rebutted my original ripoff report.

It is always amazing to me that, in the face of some of the worst results on the planet, someone can and will still defend our sole source system of accreditation as approved by the DOE.

I say sole source because the DOE simply says to a new accreditor, "If you have lots of colleges who want you to serve as their accreditor, we'll consider you."

Of course, since no new accreditor has anything to offer a college UNTIL recognized by the DOE, the question is, Why would any college stipulate that they prefer accreditor number two over number one?" It wouldn't. 

Because the thing the colleges want from an accreditor is access to federal money. If their accreditor is sold on the syllabus first model, as every college in the US is, wonderful. After that, they, the colleges, are satisfied with any accreditor.

So you have the same system of accreditation (this gentleman's universal system) whether it is good for scholarship (which it isn't), being awarded to sole source accreditors year after year, decade after decade.

This gentleman MUST know that approximately 35% of college students in the US are not studying at a level comparable to the average high school senior in places like Belgium.

He must know that if a teacher walks into a class and starts wherever he or she wishes in a subject, irrespective of where the individuals are in the classroom in that subject, we experience an automatic 40% drop in efficiency built into the final result, as many students will be behind the professor and some beyond and, therefore, wasting their time.

The current method of accreditation and the current level of scholarship on America's campuses is generally below mediocre for several reasons, among them the social engineering which began in the 1960's.

When we place students in classes with such wide variations in skill levels, there is only one method of instruction, teaching one student at a time, that will allow classes to rise anywhere near where they were prior to 1960. (But the catch is, IF a college starts with the student INSTEAD of a syllabus, they are in violation of their DOE recognized accreditation.)

The UNIVERSAL accreditation method of ALL DOE recognized accreditors demands that classes be presented from a syllabus. That is, everyone gets the same treatment.

Show me a college whose professors must know the learning style, aptitudes, skill levels, maturity levels, and interests of each student, and must design his or her course depending on the student and not on a syllabus, and I will show you a college that is not accredited by a DOE recognized accreditor. (The gentleman says that he wants to be able to compare one college with another. That is military thinking. Only the military psychology would want a system whereby the individual is the first concern. And, not coincidentally, the current system of accreditation was designed based on a Prussian military manual. Subject segmentation, bells, lines, everything Americans associate with schooling is taken page for page out of the 19th century Prussian military manual, which incidentally helped the Prussians stand up nicely against Napoleon's troops.

The gentleman says that colleges have faults, but they are working. I am stupefied in the face of our national statistics how anyone without a personal interest in this passe model can say such a thing.

In other words, the gentleman who wrote the rebuttal to my rip-off complaint is simply working from emotion without any reference to the comparative numbers 1960 vs 2011.

America was once the very best. It is no longer even close to that at either the K-12 or the undergraduate college level. The graduate programs in science and mathematics on our university campuses must be staffed in a majority way by foreign nationals because there aren't enough Americans who haven't been so handicapped by social engineering and teaching to the masses so as to fail to advance sufficiently to be able to contribute substantial results in a graduate student research science facility.

Do I expect entrenched interests to do exactly what this gentleman is doing? Of course.

But, don't take my word for what the US government approved accreditors and social engineers have done to our undergraduate programs.

There are a slew of books that will describe the horrible problem we have. But there are also a slew of people like this gentleman who, irrespective of reality, will jump on the bandwagon of what he feels rather than going by the sorry state of education as we see it on America's college campuses.

Books:

Gone for Good by Dr. Stuart Rojstaczer of Duke University

And,

Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses - Paperback (Jan. 15, 2011) by Richard Arum

And, there are dozens of others.

There is only ONE solution to our lack of competitiveness on our college campuses, and it isn't more of the same. It is a change in the accrediting format, the way we judge excellence in education.

We must start with each student and build around that person.

By standing in front of a crowd and simply saying whatever a syllabus says to say is today in America a violation  not only of good sense, but a violation of the promise we make to each student to be given the tools necessary to pursue happiness. We will never fulfill our commitment to youth by teaching to the crowds.

And, the fact is, Linda Christas may not have a great football team, and faculty and students may not be able to assemble behind a band, march into an auditorium and root for our army to win.

But, Linda Christas does represent the very best shot we have as a society to save ourselves from a future that looks a lot like the present.

×

1 / 0

❮ ❯

First, I'm not sure you have a lawsuit. You're upset because you didn't get a job you thought was available? If LC wasn't yet operating in California, how was the position advertised? Were you expecting to be hired to get the program up and running?  I'm just curious about that....

Second, I have to take issue with your apparent disdain for how traditional higher education works. Yes, it has its faults, but that doesn't mean it isn't working.  I've taught for many colleges and universities in the last 25 years, and have a broad range of experiences teaching both traditional and nontraditional students, teaching traditional and online courses, and working as an administrator (with a focus on accreditation issues).  Accreditation by the regional agencies (and, just as importantly, by the specialized agencies representing the various professions) is paramount to insuring that students across the board are receiving an education comparable to other colleges within the region or profession. "Comparability" doesn't exclude individuality of the student. Most, if not all, colleges provide students with ample opportunity to explore and excel in their chosen interests. For example, the college I teach at now offers a senior seminar for students in which THEY pick the topic of interest, perform research, and report their results. Each of our disciplines has a similar course, insuring that students across the curriculum have an opportunity to express themselves as individuals. As our students prepare for graduate school or entering the business world they know they have met certain basic requirements to succeed. For example, in accounting the student must take certain pre-requisites to continue on for the CPA exam. End-of-program standardized testing insures that we have provided the student with those pre-reqs.

Third, I went to the Linda Christas website to learn more about their model. There were several references to a Dept of Education study that indicated their model was superior to traditional education models. However, a search of the DoE website and google scholar turned up no such study. If you know where I can find it please post a link.  Additionally, the information posted on the LC website was all written by LC staff and students. I'm all for school loyalty, but prefer to make decisions based on empirical evidence.

Lastly, I find it hard to believe that LC was threatened with JAIL unless they were doing something illegal. What, exactly, happened that elicted this response from the BPPE?