Talk:California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education

statement made regarding a defunct organization doesn't make sense

Orlady, I believe the following statement should be removed. "State approval is, however, a prerequisite in order for an institution to become accredited". I don't think it makes sense when the BPPVE is defunct, including the laws associated with it. I believe that it is misleading to reference defunct policies and laws that no longer may apply when supporting statements asserting current situations. Please provide a current reliable source for the statement (getting approval by BPPVE will be a nice trick since BPPVE doesn't exist any longer) or change the assertion to reference the past. I believe it is best to just delete the statement rather than having it refer to the past though, this was not a primary purpose of BPPVE even when it existed. TallMagic (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)--Orlady (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touche! As you guessed, I don't actually know which provisions of the law expired and which still exist. However, I'm sure this can be wordsmithed to accurately reflect the sources (but I'm too tired to do that now); let's not delete it. The current material I've seen from the California Postsecondary Education Commission (e.g., this FAQ) causes me to believe that the schools that were approved by the BPPVE are still deemed to be approved. From that I infer that the requirement for approval is still in force, but there's no entity to oversee the approval process. From a practical standpoint, since accreditation is not conferred until after an institution has compiled a solid track record, no newly formed California school that wasn't approved before July 2007 has a ghost of a chance of getting accredited before the state re-establishes an approval process. --Orlady (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the BPPVE has approved any general education institution in a few years. For example Greenwich University tried to apply to BPPVE when they got booted out of Australia. I agree, I too can't imagine them approving any new ones. Although if the UC or CSU system wanted to start up a new campus I suspect they wouldn't have much trouble. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to lead section

TM, I'm concerned about the factual basis for your recent edits:

BPPVE was not "disbanded"; it was allowed to sunset. (There's a difference.)
Furthermore, the sunset occurred in July 2007, not January 2008. (Either way, however, the article you cite was written before the event -- too soon to know what would happen.)
I think the statement "The agency acquired a reputation for being ineffectual and was disbanded" represents original synthesis, in that it suggests cause and effect. The cited article fully supports the statement that the BPPVE had a reputation for being ineffectual, but it does not indicate what the motives of either the state assembly or the governor were in allowing the BPPVE to sunset.

In keeping with the idea that an article lead section is supposed to summarize the key facts of the article, I accept your view that the lead should include information on the dissolution (albeit with the correct date). However, I don't think that the lead section is the place to talk about the BPPVE's reputation -- save that for the body of the article. --Orlady (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orlady, the word seemed reasonable to me. The BPPVE was disbanded meaning that the BPPVE employees were no longer banded together. This was because the governor vetoed the bill that would have extended their ineffectual flawed existance. If you don't like the word "disbanded" then how about dissolved?, cease existing?, closed? The cause and effect (ineffectual therefore disbanded) was not my synthesis. It was simply what the California governor said when he explained why he was going to allow the BPPVE to be disbanded in his explanation of the veto. I thought it would be nice to capture the governor's reasons for pulling the plug on the BPPVE in the lead. Could it say "ineffectual so the governor forced it to close"? The date that the law that had created the BPPVE ceased was January 1, 2008. I thought that was when the BPPVE actually closed? Perhaps not though? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that "disbanded" is a transitive verb, meaning that someone took action to terminate the organization. In fact, it simply ceased to exist because it was not reauthorized. It's sort of like saying someone was killed when they simply died.

As for the dates, you are using a January 2007 article as your source on things that happened in July 2007 and January 2008. That article was prospective, in that it described what was expected to happen. It is not a reliable source on what actually did happen. --Orlady (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not everyone was apoplectic (as I was) over the fallacy of citing a January 2007 as a source regarding events in June 2007 and beyond. I thought it imperative to fix that situation, and I made numerous other edits along the way (including addition of a couple more references). I hope the contents work... --Orlady (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the real story?

This California Assembly bill summary dated May 19, 2008 appears to be a reliable summary of the current status of the law. From it (and the text of the underlying bill), I glean the following:

The Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform Act of 1989 "became inoperative" on July 1, 2007. That is the date when the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education ceased to exist.
The Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Administration Fund and the Student Tuition Recovery Fund continue to exist until July 1, 2008.
The Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform Act of 1989 was automatically repealed on January 1, 2008. Up until that time, "certain violations" of its provisions were subject to civil penalties and "certain willful violations" were punishable as crimes.

Thus: Not only has the BPPVE ceased to exist, but there are currently no legal requirements for state approval in order for private higher education institutions to operate. The BPPVE-administered funds still exist (for 3 more weeks) under the control of some other component of state government. --Orlady (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - For info on pending legislation in the state assembly relevant to higher education, see http://ct2k2.capitoltrack.com/report.asp?rptid=U29812 --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Disbanding doesn't have that additional meaning for me (although of course it can be used in that way) but if it does for you then a different word should be chosen like "closed"? (Although can't "closed" also carry the transitive verb meaning when used in that way?) July 1, 2007 is a good date for the article then when BPPVE was disbanded( :-) ). I still think that it is fair and reasonable to say something along the lines that BPPVE was allowed to close because it had proven to be ineffectual and fundamentally flawed. If the Inside Higher Ed article didn't support that in your mind then I'd argue that the governor's explanation for vetoing the bill that pulled the plug on the BPPVE seemed to? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]