US unaccredited universities illegal??

[J]

On another forum, Dr Latin Juris posted this from Federal law. I'd like to invite comment on it, particularly from our members with legal training.

UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAWS
105th Congress - Second Session
Convening January 27, 1998
HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1998
"TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
"PART A--DEFINITIONS
<< 20 USCA § 1001 >>

"SEC. 101. GENERAL DEFINITION OF INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

"(a) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.--For purposes of this Act, other than title IV, the term "institution of higher education" means an educational institution in any State that--

"(1) admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate;

"(2) is legally authorized within such State to provide a program of education beyond secondary education;

"(3) provides an educational program for which the institution awards a bachelor's degree or provides not less than a 2-year program that is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree;

"(4) is a public or other nonprofit institution; and

"(5) is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association, or if not so accredited, is an institution that has been granted preaccreditation status by such an agency or association that has been recognized by the Secretary for the granting of preaccreditation status, and the Secretary has determined that there is satisfactory assurance that the institution will meet the accreditation standards of such an agency or association within a reasonable time.

The implications of this to me (I have no legal training) seem far-reaching, and may cause me to revise some of my thinking on US unaccredited schools.

Item 5 appears to *require* an institution of higher education to seek accreditation and to eliminate the possibility of a legal unaccredited sector in the US excepting those institutions that are pursuing recognised accreditation. It would appear to make unaccredited schools such as the CA-approved and WY-licensed sectors illegal under Federal law.

Item 1 says you can't get into a university without a high school diploma.

Who can help unpick this for me? Instinct tells me it isn't that simple.

[dhfr]

I'm not a lawyer either, but I think the key point is that the scope of the U.S. Higher Education Act is quite limited. It provides funding mechanisms for students, for developing institutions, and for improving quality of K-12 teacher training. Its scope does not include authorization of institutions to operate or to grant degrees. These responsibilities remain with the individual States. Though the funding available from the U.S. obviously has a big influence.

[Dennis Ruhl]

Maybe the US government can attempt to define education. However it defines it is irrelevant because it has no power to do so, other than for its own purposes.

[dr. latin juris]

"Educational institutions have no inherent or constitutional right to confer degrees; rather, degree conferral is business conduct, a corporate privilege conferred by the state of incorporation."

(483 A.2d 1172)

[Robert J.]

On another forum, Dr Latin Juris posted this from Federal law. I'd like to invite comment on it, particularly from our members with legal training.

UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAWS
105th Congress - Second Session
Convening January 27, 1998
HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1998
"TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
"PART A--DEFINITIONS
<< 20 USCA § 1001 >>

"SEC. 101. GENERAL DEFINITION OF INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

"(a) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.--For purposes of this Act, other than title IV, the term "institution of higher education" means an educational institution in any State that--

"(1) admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate;

"(2) is legally authorized within such State to provide a program of education beyond secondary education;

"(3) provides an educational program for which the institution awards a bachelor's degree or provides not less than a 2-year program that is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree;

"(4) is a public or other nonprofit institution; and

"(5) is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association, or if not so accredited, is an institution that has been granted preaccreditation status by such an agency or association that has been recognized by the Secretary for the granting of preaccreditation status, and the Secretary has determined that there is satisfactory assurance that the institution will meet the accreditation standards of such an agency or association within a reasonable time.

The implications of this to me (I have no legal training) seem far-reaching, and may cause me to revise some of my thinking on US unaccredited schools.

Item 5 appears to *require* an institution of higher education to seek accreditation and to eliminate the possibility of a legal unaccredited sector in the US excepting those institutions that are pursuing recognised accreditation. It would appear to make unaccredited schools such as the CA-approved and WY-licensed sectors illegal under Federal law.

Item 1 says you can't get into a university without a high school diploma.

Who can help unpick this for me? Instinct tells me it isn't that simple.

I'd just make a few general comments. I don't know what this act is, but it says for purposes of "this act". Meaning this is the definition they are using when referring to higher education institutions. Also what it says as a definition doesn't mean what is not in "this definition" is illegal or anything of that sort. You are implying too much otherwise, just read what it says only.

I believe "1." is merely stating schools whose requirements is a high school diploma, which generally is a college. Nothing more or less is implied.

As far as #5. Again, it's merely the definition of what the Federal Government defines as a high education institution. I am not surprised at all it is saying schools that are accredited, I am not aware of any Government agency that has a policy of accepting unaccredited Degrees as a qualification. I'm not saying training, I am saying as a qualification.

[J]

I'd just make a few general comments. I don't know what this act is, but it says for purposes of "this act". Meaning this is the definition they are using when referring to higher education institutions. Also what it says as a definition doesn't mean what is not in "this definition" is illegal or anything of that sort. You are implying too much otherwise, just read what it says only.

I believe "1." is merely stating schools whose requirements is a high school diploma, which generally is a college. Nothing more or less is implied.

As far as #5. Again, it's merely the definition of what the Federal Government defines as a high education institution. I am not surprised at all it is saying schools that are accredited, I am not aware of any Government agency that has a policy of accepting unaccredited Degrees as a qualification. I'm not saying training, I am saying as a qualification.

That makes a lot of sense to me. I guessed that something like this would come through, otherwise the guys at Kennedy-Western would be getting worried ;)

Thanks everyone for your input.

[dr. latin juris]

"Educational institutions have no inherent or constitutional right to confer degrees; rather, degree conferral is business conduct, a corporate privilege conferred by the state of incorporation."
(483 A.2d 1172)

:D
The establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish the responsibility for education which is reserved to the States and the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States.
20 U.S.C.A. § 3403 § 3403. Relationship with States

[George Brown]

We have a similar model here in Australia. The Commonwealth Act of 1900 devolved education to the states and territories. Whilst we have a Federal Department of Education (for want for a better term) each state and territory decides as to the creation of universities and degree granting approval for higher education providers. Funding for higher education is, however, tied to the Commonwealth. However, since the Greenwich University saga, MCEETYA is consulted and a national rubber stamp is sought.

Cheers,

George

[Dennis Ruhl]

We have a similar model here in Australia. The Commonwealth Act of 1900 devolved education to the states and territories. Whilst we have a Federal Department of Education (for want for a better term) each state and territory decides as to the creation of universities and degree granting approval for higher education providers. Funding for higher education is, however, tied to the Commonwealth. However, since the Greenwich University saga, MCEETYA is consulted and a national rubber stamp is sought.




Since funding was not an issue, under what authority was Greenwich's right to operate terminated? The authority of the big stick, as it relates to governance of Norfolk Island?

[George Brown]

Off the top of my head, it was changes to a particular act which brought the protocols into play for the territories. The name escapes me at the moment.

Cheers,

George