User talk:Evenhanded1

Stating that ACICS schools are accredited without any other statements is very misleading. They can be labeled "provisionally accredited", but "accredited" alone is not accurate.Bcf1291 (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. If anything, stating ACICS-accredited schools are un-accredited is simply untrue. ACICS is still an accrediting body, and it is still recognized as such by CHEA. Yes, the Department of Education has withdrawn recognition of ACICS, but that is an action against the accreditor, not the schools, and does not affect the underlying accreditation. The Secretary of Education has stated that he will continue to view ACICS schools as having recognized accreditation during the 18-month window while they seek re-accreditation. There is no practical difference in accreditation status for ACICS now compared to before the Secretary's decision. "Provisionally accredited" has no official meaning that I'm aware of. ACICS institutions have signed "Provisional Program Participation Agreements" with the DoE for Title IV eligibility, but again, that has nothing to do with accreditation per se. Evenhanded1 (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)EvenHanded

If ACICS isn't recognized as an accreditor, and we have reliable sources for that, then it is pretty plain that schools it accredits are effectively not accredited any longer. You can't say a school is accredited by an institution that can't accredit. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no question that ACICS is no longer recognized by the Department of Education. "Effectively not accredited any longer" is simply not true. READ the source above. In it, the Undersecretary of Education states, and I quote, "... the Department considers such schools as holding federally recognized accreditation for a period of up to 18 months." So, EFFECTIVELY, they are accredited; and they retain eligibility for federal financial aid. Is a statement from the Department of Ed that they continue to consider ACICS schools holding accreditation not a "reliable" source? Evenhanded1 (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)EvenHanded1

OK, then, so, why didn't this RS get used in the article? That's FAR better than reverting with mere assertions. That's all we've asked for. We need to be able to verify the information in our articles. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think it needed any explanation...as I pointed out in my previous comments here and accompanying my edits, the accreditation status of ACICS really has not changed. The Department of Education has not taken away ACICS's authority to accredit. They're not recognizing it for the purpose of Title IV eligibility, but even that doesn't kick in for some time. What's currently on the page seems like a reasonable compromise. People have jumped to a lot of conclusions about the ACICS situation. Thanks for listening.Evenhanded1 (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The following statement is not true:

"The accreditation status of ACICS really has not changed. The Department of Education has not taken away ACICS's authority to accredit."

The Department of Education has taken away ACICS's authority to accredit, and the effective date was 12/12/16. That is from a reliable source (the DOE), and it is reported by other independent sources. Other people have assumed that a school accredited by an accreditor with no accrediting power is unaccredited. Some leap of logic is required, but it is not a farfetched assumption. Bcf1291 (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)