Accreditation Problems

[GeorgeA]

I was trying to find info about a program I am interested in and I came across a document on the ARC-PA website that lists all of the programs having problems. Not a lot of details but it makes for interesting reading.

 

http://www.arc-pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Accreditation-Actions-2016S-3.2.2017.pdf

 

 

 

 

[MT2PA]

Keep in mind those aren't necessarily 'problems'.

 

All new programs have 'provisional' status until they graduate a class so for anyone looking at that - don't consider provisional status to necessarily be a problem.

 

Probational status, on the other hand, might make for some interesting reading.  

[GeorgeA]

There is narrative to read aside from just the status. One of them said the director was pretty much incompetent. Ouch.

[primadonna22274]

I can speak personally to one of these programs in my neck of the woods. I am helping best I can but quite frankly they should have taken me up on my offer of help in 2012 when I offered, LONG before they enrolled the first class unprepared. #itoldyouso

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GeorgeA]

Here is the new hitlist:

 

http://www.arc-pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Accreditation-Actions-2017Jan-M-5.10.17.pdf

 

There were schools on this list that I might have applied to if I had not seen this. This should be better advertised. Some of these places have multiple big problems - I don't know how they let them run like this.

[MT2PA]

Here is the new hitlist:

 

http://www.arc-pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Accreditation-Actions-2017Jan-M-5.10.17.pdf

 

There were schools on this list that I might have applied to if I had not seen this. This should be better advertised. Some of these places have multiple big problems - I don't know how they let them run like this.

 

Again, the ones to be concerned about are those on probation.  This isn't a 'hitlist'.  This is a list of all the programs that were reviewed by ARC-PA - scheduled reviews.  Every program gets periodically reviewed whether they have problems or not.

 

Also, as far as I know, programs are required to be upfront about their accreditation status.  Every program I applied to I was able to find on their website their accreditation status and their next scheduled review.  Those that were provisional detailed what steps they had to complete before they could accept applications and/or all of the scheduled reviews that would take place before they were granted full accreditation.  

 

ARC-PA isn't hiding anything.  I spent a great deal of time on their site before/when I was applying.  Every applicant has the same opportunity; whether or not they think to research that deep is up to them.

 

EDIT:  I randomly checked one of the schools on probation and it was quite easy to find out that they were on probation on their website.  

[GeorgeA]

Again, the ones to be concerned about are those on probation.  This isn't a 'hitlist'.  This is a list of all the programs that were reviewed by ARC-PA - scheduled reviews.  Every program gets periodically reviewed whether they have problems or not.

 

Personally I'd be concerned about the all the ones with a big report due. The ones on probation with a huge paragraph should not be in business. Look at Loma Linda and Monmouth University. They the program director does not know what they are doing and the objectives for courses and rotations are a hot mess. What does it take to get out of business?

[MT2PA]

Personally I'd be concerned about the all the ones with a big report due. The ones on probation with a huge paragraph should not be in business. Look at Loma Linda and Monmouth University. They the program director does not know what they are doing and the objectives for courses and rotations are a hot mess. What does it take to get out of business?

 

There's a system in place for a reason, though.  If they fail to remediate, then yea, they're out.  There's a lot of jargon on those reports that leave a lot to be desired as far as explanations - sure a program may not be meeting a particular standard (most are related to documentation, not failing to educate) but HOW much are they not meeting it?  Are they neglecting to attempt to complete it?  Or are they doing it and it's just not *quite* the way ARC wants it?  That's why programs are periodically reviewed and why it's not a 'one strike and you're out' system.  We'd have significantly fewer programs if that were the case and that's not necessarily for the better.