Setting Standards - 100 Years of Accredited Career Education

iii

Fo rward vAcknowledgements 1Chapter 1 A Century of Change: Accreditation for a Better Future 2 John D. Rockefeller 14 FOUNDING MEMBER: Boyles Business College, Omaha, Nebraska 15

Chapter 2 Humble Roots, High Aspirations 16 Wallace Hume Carothers 25 FOUNDING MEMBER: Elliott Commercial College, Wheeling, West Virginia 27

Chapter 3 Growth and Transformation: Adapting to a Changing World 28 Annie Harper Jones 37 FOUNDING MEMBER: Jamestown Business College, Jamestown, New York 39

Chapter 4 Workforce in Flux 40 Ron K. Bailey 50 FOUNDING MEMBER: Lincoln Business College, Lincoln, Nebraska 51

Chapter 5 Public Good, Private Initiative 52 Joseph W. Fehrer 61 FOUNDING MEMBER: Miami-Jacobs Career College, Dayton, Ohio 62

Chapter 6 Federal Largess for all Post-secondary Institutions 64 Larry McMurtry 73 FOUNDING MEMBER: Miller School of Business, New York, New York 75

Chapter 7 Better Access, Tighter Policy 76 Senator Paul Simon 87 Jim Phillips and Steve Parker 88 FOUNDING MEMBER: Spencerian Commercial School, Louisville, Kentucky 89

Chapter 8 Prosperity and Disparity of Opportunity 90 Brice Phillips 102 FOUNDING MEMBER: Duff ’s College, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103

Chapter 9 Policy, Politics at Dawn of New Millennium 104 Dana R. Hart 116 FOUNDING MEMBER: Northwestern Business College, Chicago, Illinois 117

Chapter 10 Accrediting Career Education’s Past, Present and Future 118 Caroline Nestmann Peck 126 Janice Parker 127 FOUNDING MEMBER: Waterloo College, Waterloo, Iowa 129

CONTENTS

00_aci0077893697_fm.indd iii00_aci0077893697_fm.indd iii 13/09/12 1:59 AM13/09/12 1:59 AM

iv

Appendix A President/Chair of the Board 132Appendix B Chair of Accrediting Commission/Council 134Appendix C Chief Executives 135Appendix D Founding Members, December 12, 1912 136Appendix E Members of the Centennial Century Club 137Appendix F Recipients of the Commission’s/Council’s Evaluator Awards 138Appendix G ACICS Directory of Accredited Institutions 139Endnotes 149Picture Credits 153Index 155

00_aci0077893697_fm.indd iv00_aci0077893697_fm.indd iv 13/09/12 1:59 AM13/09/12 1:59 AM

v

FO RWARD

Th e history of ACICS and its predecessor organizations spans 100 years in the United States,

directly illustrating the impetus for self-governance and voluntary quality assurance that came from

the owners and operators of private career colleges and schools. While the history describes many

aspects of an evolving, national organization with many functions related to membership, the core

enterprise was and is the assurance of educational quality and the preservation of institutional integ-

rity. As is the case for all accredited institutions of higher learning in the U.S., the accreditation of

career colleges and schools under the imprimatur of ACICS relies on the review of peers by peers. It

assumes that no one is better suited to evaluate the quality and suffi ciency of an educational program

than the professionals who develop, deliver, operate and manage career education programs at other

institutions. Th is is their story.

00_aci0077893697_fm.indd v00_aci0077893697_fm.indd v 13/09/12 1:59 AM13/09/12 1:59 AM

00_aci0077893697_fm.indd vi00_aci0077893697_fm.indd vi 13/09/12 1:59 AM13/09/12 1:59 AM

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Th is refl ection on the fi rst 100 years of the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and

Schools would not have been possible without the generous and informed support of a number of

key individuals who gave their time and thoughtful consideration during interviews and exchanges

of correspondence. Th ey represent some of the most knowledgeable sources of information about

ACICS, career education and the discipline of peer-reviewed quality assurance. Th ey are George

Blount, Joyce Caton, Rene Champaign, Tom Duff , Stephen and Jan Friedheim, Al Gray, Jim Hutton,

David Hyslop, Dean Johnston, Don Jones, Joe Lee, John Lee, Larry Luing, Scott Ober, Janice Parker,

Al Sullivan, Roger Swartzwelder and Bill Winger. Deep appreciat ion as well to the Centennial

Steering Committee, Jill DeAtley, Gary Carlson, Scott Rhude, Matt Johnston, Jamie Morley and

Tom Duff . Finally, recognition is in order for the 2012 ACICS Council and Board for exerting

leadership and support to this commemorative endeavor.

Th e authors and editors of “Setting Standards.”

00_aci0077893697_fm.indd 100_aci0077893697_fm.indd 1 13/09/12 1:59 AM13/09/12 1:59 AM

Preparing for the Future: Students enrolled in a shorthand class, Atchison Business College, Atchison, Kansas, April 11, 1888.

01_aci0077893697_01.indd 201_aci0077893697_01.indd 2 12/09/12 10:38 PM12/09/12 10:38 PM

A Century of Change:

Accreditation for a

Better Future

CHAPTER 1

Welcome to the Centennial Year of the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS). One hundred years have passed since the founding of the antecedent organization, the National Association of Accredited Commercial Schools. For higher education, the centennial year may not be the best of times or the worst of times, but they are certainly very interesting times. Th e demand to achieve a college degree has never been higher. Yet the pressure on higher education to justify itself, both in terms of costs and outcomes, has never been greater.

In the midst of confl icting ideas and strong opinions, accredi-tation stands like a beacon. Lighting the way forward. Charting standards of practice. Defi ning ethical conduct. Assuring institu-tional and academic quality. Protecting students, employers and taxpayers. In sum, helping colleges and universities navigate a surer path to a better future.

Th is is the story of how ACICS has evolved to serve this series of high purposes during 100 years of practice. With nearly 1,000 accredited institutions serving almost 1,000,000 students, ACICS is a lead accrediting agency in career education today.


SETTING STANDARDS4

recounts how the high-minded concerns of a handful of school owners meeting in a Chicago hotel room at the start of the twentieth century have led to a voluntary, self-governing system that draws on the participation of hundreds of peer evaluators, conducting scores of onsite evaluations yearly. In doing so, it recalls the pioneers and recognizes the contributions of present day practitio-ners. Th is narrative describes how the accrediting process itself has grown and changed over time. And it explains how accreditation weaves an impor-tant safety net for all stakeholders, an assurance of quality that undergirds the assertions of particular institutions with fact-based, peer-driven inquiry and empirical evidence.

ACICS accreditation is a living process, but no process exists in a vacuum. On the contrary, during the last 100 years, the education lead-ers who built the institution that ultimately became ACICS were buf-feted by powerful winds of change— headwinds that at times challenged the very commercial and academic viability of the career education sec-tor itself. No tableau of accreditation would be complete without pulling the narrative back to consider these larger forces. Nor can any real appreci-ation of ACICS and its builders be had without viewing the challenge through this wider lens. Th us this book cel-ebrates the Centennial Year by off ering a look back at people and events. But it is also puts the push behind rigorous

THIS BOOK

Winds of Change: Career schools have responded quickly to changes in business methods and technological innovations throughout the last 100 years: A typing class at Jacobs Business College in 1907. (Now Miami-Jacobs Career College, Dayton, Ohio.)


5A Century of Change: Accreditation for a Better Future

…accreditation … is an assurance of quality that undergirds the assertions of particular institutions with fact-based, peer-driven inquiry and empirical evidence.

accreditation of career education into its historical context and shows how the importance of this mission contin-ues to the present day.

EARLY ROLE OF ACCREDITATIONAlthough the roots of accreditation may seem as deeply embedded in the soil of American higher education as the oldest of colleges and universi-ties themselves, this is not the case. On the contrary, accreditation of post- secondary institutions in this country began in the late nineteenth century, driven largely by the frustra-tion of secondary schools attempt-ing to prepare their students to meet the divergent and often confl icting admissions requirements of various colleges and universities. Other cir-cumstances of the day added to the confusion. Some institutions, for instance, operated at both the second-ary and post-secondary level, clouding diff erences between the two. Other “colleges,” true colleges in name only, simply taught a secondary rather than post-secondary course of study.1 From confl ict came consensus, fi rst in the form of the College Entrance Examination Board, and then fol-lowed by regional college associations

focused on the question of admissions standards.2

Regional associations helped to rationalize, systematize and standard-ize what constituted higher education at the turn of the century. Also pushing for order in an otherwise unruly mar-ketplace were industrialists like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, who used philanthropic fundraising as a mechanism for setting standards on those post-secondary institutions considered worthy of receiving their largess. Money worked. Admissions requirements tightened. College fi nances were improved. Salaries increased. Philanthropic giving became the carrot that led to signifi cant post-secondary reform and the adoption of standards.3 Accreditation became, if not the stick, the widely respected mechanism for assuring adherence to a standards-based approach.4

So even in its infancy, accredi-tation in America was subject to strong forces both from within and without. In that sense, nothing has changed. In recent times, accredita-tion has been the subject of Congres-sional hearings and inquiries, while accrediting agencies themselves have deliberated internally whether their

processes and methods have adapted appropriately to the changes in the higher education.

ACICS: ADVANCING CAREER EDUCATIONToday, ACICS brings rigorous scru-tiny to the institutional oversight of its member schools. Th e orga-nization’s mission is to advance educational excellence at independent, nonpublic career schools, colleges, and organizations in the United States and abroad. Th is mission is achieved through a deliberate and thorough accreditation process of quality assur-ance and enhancement as well as ethi-cal business and educational practices.

In essence, “accreditation” is a formal, systematic process of insti-tutional performance appraisal. Vol-untary self-regulation, regular peer review, and an on-going commitment to educational excellence are central tenants of the ACICS creed. ACICS member institutions believe that such an approach to accreditation, educa-tional oversight and quality assurance is far superior to that which can be imposed from the outside. History supports that premise.


SETTING STANDARDS6

Council Meeting, ACICS headquarters, Washington, D.C., 2011.

Offi cially recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as a national institutional accrediting body in 1956 and re-recognized every fi ve years since then, the federal government relies on ACICS quality determina-tions of its accredited schools to safe-guard the distribution of student aid funds. Similarly, state governments rely on the review actions of ACICS and other accrediting agencies for sound funding and licensure deci-sions and thereby as a mechanism

to help protect consumers. ACICS accreditation reassures employers that graduates of ACICS accredited institu-tions have received a quality education, and students attending such schools that their institution off ers the same. Collectively, the U.S. Department of Education, state higher education commissions, and accrediting agencies like ACICS form the “Triad” of higher education oversight.

In pursuing its mission, ACICS does not seek to stifl e innovation or

curtail diversity in educational curricula or delivery systems. Accreditation is an important check on compliance with predefi ned standards and rules, but it can also serve institutions as an impor-tant source of expert guidance, insight and inspiration from sector peers. No post-secondary institution is perfect; all have defi ciencies and areas for con-tinuous improvement. ACICS accredi-tation consists of an extensive body of standards, applied through a robust program of scrutiny by peers, for both review and remediation of problem areas. Th us there are two sides to the accreditation coin— compliance and improvement—and to over value one is to under value the other.

ORGANIZATION, STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONSAs with other professions like engi-neering, law and medicine, the edu-cation professionals who compose the ACICS membership fi rmly believe that no group is better positioned to judge the career education sector than the sector itself. ACICS accredi-tation is fi rst and foremost a mem-ber-driven activity: peers reviewing the performance and outcomes of peers.

A Board of Directors manages and directs the business and fi nancial aff airs of ACICS, overseeing the work of the professional and administra-tive staff , while the Council is respon-sible for accreditation standards,

Accreditation … can also serve institutions as an important source of expert guidance, insight and inspiration from sector peers.


Pages 7-103 are not included in this preview.


Policy, Politics at Dawn

of New Millennium

CHAPTER 9

“At this very critical moment, federal higher education policy has turned a page.”1

So said Terry Hartle, Senior Vice President for Government and Public Aff airs at the American Council on Education. Th e moment to which Hartle referred was the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee in August 2009.

For private sector colleges and universities, Kennedy’s death both turned a page and opened a diffi cult new chapter in the sec-tor’s history. Kennedy had long recognized the role of proprietary schools in helping the most disadvantaged Americans gain access to higher education. He was also adept at keeping issues in perspective and not allowing the missteps of a few to be become representative of the many.

Th is was no more clearly demonstrated than when the Reagan administration introduced a plan to expel schools from Title IV federal student aid programs with greater than a 20 percent student loan default rate. In a 1987 Senate hearing, Kennedy challenged Education Secretary William J. Bennett over the prevalence of bad actors within the ranks of business and trade schools.


SETTING STANDARDS106

in on the most vulnerable young people in our society,” Kennedy said. “Now what we hear is we’re going to save all these kids because we’ve got these hucksters that are there pulling kids out of unem-ployment lines, throwing them into proprietary school, trying to make a buck.”

Addressing Bennett directly, Kennedy said, “If you’ve got evidence for that, let’s have it, Mr. Secretary.”2

Harris Miller, former president of the Career College Association (CCA) and the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities (APSCU), worked with Kennedy from 2007 on. He recalls:

“Senator Kennedy asked tough but fair questions about private sec-tor colleges and universities. By the mid-2000’s, he believed that many of the reforms of the sector that he had helped legislate, with Secretary of Education Bill Bennett, had produced

the desired eff ect and screened out the worst actors. And he understood the sector educated those who could fi nd no place in traditional higher educa-tion. He, therefore, was willing to be reasonable and support at critical times legislation that was extremely important for lower income students. However, with his support came expectations that the schools would improve not just access, but outcomes for students.”

Sadly, exaggeration, anecdote and innuendo would eventually trump careful discourse and thoughtful delib-eration. In the depths of a prolonged economic recession during 2009, year-round enrollment at career col-leges accounted for 12 percent of all post-secondary enrollments. Th e growth attracted plenty of attention. Within a year of Kennedy’s death, private sector colleges and univer-sities were under strenuous attack from numerous quarters, including the media, plaintiff ’s attorneys, Wall Street short-sellers, state attorneys gen-eral in a small number of states, con-sumer and higher education policy advocates, and, most notably, in the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee of the U.S. Senate.

ADVENT OF GAO SECRET SHOPPINGIn August 2010, the Government Accountability Offi ce released the results of an undercover investigation into deceptive marketing practices, claiming misrepresentation at 15 for-profi t schools. Th e report drove

“WE’RE MOVING

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Chair of Senate H.E.L.P. Committee, 2001–2003 and 2007–2009.


headlines, although it was later revised to correct signifi cant inaccuracies. At the same time, attorneys general from ten states appeared to be gear-ing up for a large scale inquiry into private post-secondary education, and the attorneys general for Illinois and Kentucky fi led individual law-suits. And the Department of Edu-cation stepped up its own eff orts at oversight, issuing new regulations in October 2010, in such areas as incen-tive compensation for marketing and recruitment, misrepresentations, and credit hour awards (a fi nal regulation introducing a complicated formula to defi ne the phrase “gainful employ-ment” followed in June 2011).

For accrediting agencies them-selves, questions about the quality and value of for-profi t education culmi-nated in a Committee hearing held on March 10, 2011.

“It seems that many of these for-profi t education companies are becom-ing multi-state corporations, and their main focus is becoming their bottom line rather than their students,” said HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA). “In their current state, are our accreditation agencies equipped to oversee billion-dollar, multi-state corporations?”

Senator Harkin answered his own question, promising legislation aimed

at reforming regulatory oversight of the for-profi t education sector.

Years earlier, Congress explicitly authorized the Department of Educa-tion to be the enforcement agency for wrong-doing involving federal student aid programs. Yet the accrediting agen-cies were taking the rap for failing to police the government’s regulations. Critics of accreditation generally focused their complaints in several areas:

• Th e peer review process and the ability of schools to control assessments;

• Th e lack of public members in the accreditation evaluation process;

• Th e lack of willingness to investigate and punish poorly performing schools;

• Th e reliance of accrediting agencies on their dues paying members;

• Low standards of educational quality generally;

• Accreditation venue hopping to fi nd the lowest acceptable standards or to avoid sanction;

• Schools purchasing other schools to acquire regional accreditation, particularly for institutions engaged in large-scale distance education;

• Th e inability of students to transfer credits from nationally to regionally accredited schools

• Th e rejection of nationally accredited school awards by employers or professional groups and the view that national accreditation is somehow less rigorous or robust than regional accreditationStudents at Sanford-Brown Institute, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

107Policy, Politics at Dawn of New Millennium



President Barack Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, July 24, 2009.

Senator Lamar Alexandar during a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee hearing about for-profit education, June 24, 2010.

With so many issues raised, is the system for assuring post-secondary quality and integrity broken? Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), a former Secretary of Education, speaking at a HELP Committee hearing in 2010, put private post-secondary education and accreditation into perspective. He warned lawmakers of the dangers of “shooting quail with a cannon.”

“We’ve got 6,000 higher education institutions in the country,” Alexander said. “Th ey are the best system in the world altogether…It’s one of the things that the U.S. does well. Th e reason is that they are autonomous. People have a choice in those institutions. Th ey can go to Nashville Auto Diesel College or they can go to Harvard or they can go to the University of Iowa, wherever they choose to go. Th e money follows them. Whenever that happens, you have problems as we’ve seen today.”

Alexander recommended that the government isolate bad actors among institutions by working with accredit-ing bodies.3

PEER REVIEW OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: WHICH IS THE AUTHORITY ON QUALITY?Th e possibility of federal govern-ment encroachment into a more prescriptive type of oversight drew an open letter to Senator Harkin from Dr. Judith Eaton, President of the Council for Higher Education


109Policy, Politics at Dawn of New Millennium

Accreditation (CHEA). Following on the heels of the HELP Committee’s March 2011 hearing, Dr. Eaton wrote, “How did we move so quickly from identifi cation of a modest number of concerns to a wholesale condemnation of the accreditation enterprise? How is this judgment warranted? While we must address the concerns that have been raised, are we on a path that could, at the same time, signifi cantly diminish the value of accreditation to students, society and government?”

In defending peer review, Dr. Eaton said in her letter that “deference to professional judgment of quality” is a Dr. Judith Eaton, President of the Council for

Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA)

system that works. She noted, however, that accreditor judgment is being “augmented or supplanted by govern-ment judgment.” Th e government, she said, is moving from its position of assur-ing that accrediting bodies have stan-dards to a position of both determining what the standards should be and decid-ing how they should be carried out.

While critics of the peer review pro-cess point to the potential for confl ict of interest in school experts judging each other’s schools, the reality is that profes-sions of every type rely on peer review to determine quality and profi ciency. Earlier in his career, Dr. Albert C. Gray,

Commissioners and ACICS staff at work during a Council Meeting. Institutions go through an extensive peer review process before they are approved for a grant of accreditation. The process includes a self-study, an onsite evaluation team visit and report, assessment by the Intermediate Review Committee, file review by the Council, pictured above, and a final decision by the full 15 member Council (2011).


important safeguard of quality and integrity. Public members serve on the Council Board, Intermediate Review Committee and on evaluation teams. In terms of evaluation team make-up and credibility, ACICS teams are usually chaired by public members and the number of public members included on a team often exceeds Department of Education requirements.

Public members are professionals from outside the private post- secondary sector and hold expertise in school administration, business education or specialized technical subject areas. Public members add balance to and serve as a check on potential confl icts of interest or other ethical lapses. Being more familiar with the day to day oper-ations of a career college, team evalu-ators from inside the sector may have a diff erent view of “business as usual.” Th is synthesis of inside and outside points of view is most likely to assure quality education for students.

Bias, of course, is not the logical result of objective inquiry. For instance, the view that national accreditation is less rigorous than regional accreditation is not supported by facts. Both national accreditation agencies like ACICS and the regional accrediting bodies undergo the same recognition process by the

Executive Director and CEO of ACICS, established the accreditation process for public health agencies across the coun-try. A licensed civil and environmental engineer, Dr. Gray said peer review is a basic concept in most fi elds of profes-sional endeavor. He dismissed confl ict of interest as a major concern, explain-ing that peers have a responsibility to set a high, not a low, bar. “By doing so, they elevate their own stature,” Dr. Gray said. “It is inherently disadvantageous to allow institutions to be accredited that do not meet the standard.”

Accreditation for higher education is, then, a peer review process based on continuous process improvement. Dr. James Hutton, Owner, Hutton Education, former ACICS Council Chairman, makes a distinction between

stronger rules for enforcement and stronger assessment. “ACICS is not supposed to be able to do a program review,” he said. Dr. Hutton noted that certifi ed public accountants, not accreditors, audit the fi nancial records and fi nancial aid records of higher edu-cation institutions. Th is audit process, not accreditation, is designed to iden-tify and report fraud and abuse.

Public member participation in the ACICS accreditation is another

Dr. Albert C. Gray speaks at the 2011 ACICS Annual Meeting, Grapevine, Texas.


Public members add balance to and serve as a check on potential conflicts of interest or other ethical lapses.


Pages 111-115 are not included in this preview.

DANA R. HART

Hart brought these qualities with him to Capitol Hill, serving as what Fulton termed “a fi rst rate witness.” Fulton recalled that during the years when the whole system of accreditation was under attack, [Hart’s] “steady, unequivocal response to a Congressional question both justifi ed the AICS conceptual position and exposed but gently and without basis for offense the non-comprehension of the examiner.”

In a summary, Fulton said of Hart, “He wanted the Accrediting Commission to be a fair and practical organization, engaged in achieving practical ends, for real people, who sometimes were in real trouble.”5

Hart was a graduate of Texas Wesleyan College, where he also served as athletic director and basketball coach. He later earned a master’s degree at North Texas State University.6

Hart later served as vice president and manager of Draughon Business, owned by Texas Wesleyan College. Texas Wesleyan named Hart its alumnus of the year in 1961. A World War II veteran, Hart was awarded the Purple Heart for a combat wound suffered at the Battle of the Bulge.

AICS established the Dana R. Hart Memorial Research Grant in 1977 to “stimulate, encourage and reward outstanding contributions to the fi eld of proprietary business education.7

Although Dana R. Hart did not live a long life, he made a lasting contribution to ACICS and business education.

A Texas native, Hart joined the Association of Independent Colleges and Schools staff in 1956 and became executive secretary of the Accrediting Commission in 1969. His leadership helped expand the role of accreditation in proprietary education.

In a tribute to Hart in 1977, AICS Executive Director Richard Fulton called his late colleague’s decision to relocate the Commission to Washington, D.C. and to modernize its procedures “a turning point in the course of ever increasing acceptance of AICS accreditation.” To Fulton, Hart was a truly fair, decent person, while still being tough enough to stand up to the pressures of his job. While association politics swirled around him, Fulton said Hart remained focused on the ability of schools to serve students and the quality of the education being provided.


N orthwestern Business College was established

in Chicago in 1902 by J.F. Fish. It was not unusual in those days for a young man to start a school for the teaching of typing and shorthand. Chicago alone

had 75. However, one aspect was unique: the previous year, Fish had gone blind. Th e trouble started in 1899. Fish was on his hon-eymoon at the family homestead in Mount Vernon, Ohio, when he was struck by a falling tree. His optic nerves were paralyzed in the freak accident. By 1901 his sight was completely gone.

For many people, such a devastating injury could have proven ruinous. Not for Fish. He proved to be both an able school administrator and a leader of the private school sector, leading the National Commercial Teachers Federation and serv-ing as vice president of the National Association of Accredited Commercial Schools, forerunner of ACICS. Northwestern Busi-ness College became a founding member of NAACS in 1912. Th e disability failed to sap his prodigious energies in other areas. Fish worked on prestigious federal Bureau of Education commit-tees with the likes of Stanford University’s Leland Stanford Jr. and Cyrus McCormick of International Harvester.

Th e Fish story took another dramatic turn in 1930. After running the Northwestern Business College with his wife for almost 30 years, Fish regained his lost eyesight. Th e remarkable recovery was reported by newspapers across the country. A mod-ern day Gulliver, in these accounts Fish described his wonder at the changed Chicago cityscape and its people since he had last seen them at the turn of the century.

Mrs. Fish, having grown matronly in the intervening 30 years, must have demonstrated great fortitude when Mr. Fish told read-ers of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, “Now that God has given me back my sight I have found a new and very kindly woman, one I can recognize best by pressing back her cheeks until she seems the same slender girl she was before I was blinded.”

He may not have helped matters when she asked, “Do I look old and wrinkled and gray?” and he answered, “No more than I do.”

Founding MemberNorthwestern Business College,

Chicago, Illinois

One of the sights Fish found most amazing was the fast moving automobiles. Sadly, he would himself be involved in an extremely serious car accident in 1937, after which he retired from school ownership.

Fish sold his school to Myrtle M. Voss, who operated Voss Business College in Chicago’s Loop. In 1958 Violet Schumacher, a former Northwestern Business College student, purchased the school. At that time, the school had 60 students. In addition to attending Northwestern, Violet had worked there in the 1940s, rising from receptionist to director. In 1977, Violet Schumacher sold the institution to Lancelot Inc., owned by her children Lawrence W. Schumacher and Nancy Schumacher Kucienski. During this period, the institution greatly expanded its focus beyond traditional business subjects.

Lawrence Schumacher, a former ACICS Commis-sioner, became the sole owner of the school in 2007. In 2008, Northwestern Business College changed its name to Northwest-ern College, better refl ecting the diversity of its program off erings.

Th e school received degree granting status by the Illinois Board of Higher Education in 1973 and was accredited by the Accrediting Commission of the Association of Independent Colleges and Schools in the same year. In the 1990s, Northwest-ern received accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.

Today, Northwestern is the oldest privately owned business college in Chicago, and maintains campuses in Chicago, Bridgeview and Naperville, Illinois. Th e institution maintains an enrollment of approximately 2000 students. Two year and certifi cate programs include accounting, information technology, paralegal services, hospitality, medical assisting and travel.


For 100 years ACICS accreditation has assured institutional and academic quality, helped colleges and universities navigate a surer path to a better future, and worked to improve the educational opportunities for millions of students.


Accrediting Career Education’s Past, Present and Future

CHAPTER 10

In the midst of current controversies, ground truth prevails. Career education is more important today than ever and accredited career colleges are best able to provide it.

Why is career education more important than ever?Ground truth: the “race of life” does not place every runner at the

same starting line. With widely diverging backgrounds, life experi-ences and personal expectations, many people fi nd their motivation at diff erent times and places, certainly not all while in high school or at age 18. Rather than going on to college following high school graduation, individuals go into the workforce, start families, join the military or travel alternative paths into adulthood and responsibility. And of course far too many young people drop out of high school.

Meanwhile, the twin juggernauts of automation and globalization have brought unprecedented pressure to bear on wage earners, dislocat-ing employment, disintermediating businesses, redefi ning what it takes to stake hold to good jobs and a comfortable place in the middle class.

Between the need for skills and the desire for upward mobility in a dramatically changed economy, millions of Americans look for a second or even third chance at post-secondary education.



to this education is not just a national aspira-tion but a matter of statute. Equal entry to college, however, is another matter.

Why are career colleges best able to provide this education? Ground truth: As a practical reality, college entry for many is blocked by a public university system simply too small to handle the volume of applicants, too competitive to serve all who need education ser-vices, and too focused on research and the advancement of knowledge to be diverted to support the more every day concerns of vocational education and skills. In addition, traditional institu-tion’s faculty and staff are not aligned with the challenges of change suffi cient

to respond to the needs of the students served by the career colleges.

For the most intellectually and economically blessed Americans, a suc-cessful undergraduate education can be a liberal arts education, conveying critical thinking skills, a solid founda-tion for graduate degree seeking, and a network of personal connections for future career success. But not for many Americans, who need post-secondary education closely tied to career prepa-ration and skills.

Th e school men of 1912 under-stood how their commercial colleges married a population’s need for new skills with its appetite for upward mobility. Countless men and women

EQUAL ACCESS

Students from different backgrounds and with different experiences have the opportunity to pursue educational aspirations at career schools.


121Accrediting Career Education’s Past, Present and Future

began their working lives as clerks, sec-retaries, and bookkeepers only to rise in the business ranks, to sustain families, to launch companies and create jobs, or even to fi nance still other professional education and career advancement. One hundred years later, the specifi c skills needed to succeed at the entry level have changed; the desire of work-ing Americans for a better life obtained through education, personal sacrifi ce, and hard work eff ort remains fi xed.

Th e school men of 1912 largely owned their own institutions. With their names above the entry door, they

felt a keen responsibility to safeguard educational quality, integrity and rep-utation. Th ese individuals were often pillars of their respective communities, active in civic enterprise and local gov-ernance. Th ey were as a class the mer-chant educators of Main Street. Th ey banded together in a national eff ort to give greater voice to their allegiance to quality in career education.

One hundred years later, the ownership and business model of career colleges have changed. Many family-owned schools have given way to schools owned by publicly

traded education companies or equity investors. Th e schools themselves have largely moved from Main Street to suburban locations more conveniently located for adult students often jug-gling the frenetic schedule of work and academics. What has not changed is the ability of the private sector to expand post-secondary options in local communities, opening doors of oppor-tunity that otherwise simply would not exist. And through accreditation by ACICS, now standing at nearly a thousand institutions across the coun-try in its Centennial year, the school owners of 2012 have the ability to assure that an expanding universe of institutions does not mean a contract-ing level of academic quality.

FINANCING COLLEGE ATTENDANCE: INVESTMENT IN INDIVIDUAL OPPORTUNITYEducation fi nancing has also changed. Th e school men of 1912 dealt with a student population largely paying for education through personal sav-ings. Today most students in private sector colleges and universities pay their tuition through federal grants and loans. Many critics question

The school men of 1912 banded together in a national effort to give greater voice to their allegiance to quality in career education.

An ACICS accredited institution: Minnesota School of Business was founded in 1877. Pictured is the campus in Waite Park, Minnesota.



this practice. Th ey charge that career colleges cost more than community college—a higher cost sorely borne by those often least able to pay.

Ground truth: Private school costs the student more than public school because private school tuition is not subsidized by the taxpayer. For-profi t private schools pay taxes; not-for-profi t public and private schools do not pay taxes on surplus revenue, real property or other valuable assets.

While career college students do pay more than they would at com-munity college, some of these students have already been to and dropped out of community college. According to the 2012 Fact Book of the Imagine America Foundation, 40% of stu-dents attending a four-year career col-lege and 22% attending a two-year career college had previously attended a public or private non-profi t institu-tion. Low cost appears to have little

bearing on important post-secondary outcomes such as retention, gradua-tion and placement. While commu-nity colleges off er a lower risk tuition cost proposition, they are also best suited to dealing with traditional, college-bound students—those who represent a far lower risk of academic failure. As the price and competition for seats at more competitive admis-sion state colleges and universities increases, community colleges have

Career education at the dawn of the 20th Century: Students attending Ohio Valley Business College.


123Accrediting Career Education’s Past, Present and Future

increasingly fi lled with otherwise academically gifted students seeking a lower cost way to fulfi ll their general education course requirements. Th e net result is that most community col-leges have waiting lists for their more popular programs, such as nursing. With their enrollments bursting at the seams, local and state governments are stymied on how to enlarge their facili-ties to respond to the demand without raising taxes; a particularly unpleasant choice in an election year.

Ironically, recent policies pro-mote the availability and value of community colleges over a for-profi t delivery system even though gradu-ation statistics for these institutions nationwide trail the results of insti-tutions like those recognized by ACICS.

Critics also charge that career college education is of lessor caliber than lower cost community college education.

Ground truth: placement rates suggest that employers do not see a

diff erence. And much of this criticism is the product of crosstalk. Non-traditional students are higher risk students and often need a more indi-vidualized and immersive approach to post-secondary education to be suc-cessful. ACICS member institutions have pioneered pedagogical processes and methods that recognize risk fac-tors and support learning style diff er-ences. Some students, for instance, are more attuned to hands-on instruction rather than “talk and chalk” classroom lectures and presentations. Class size makes a critical diff erence in learning, with students often requiring frequent and direct interaction with instructor. Curriculum alignment is also a key dif-ference. Many schools off er programs with single courses presented in logical sequence over a shorter, more intense period of time. One course provides the foundation for the next, and stu-dents are in less danger of failing to have a course scheduled or to be locked out because the required course is over subscribed.

Critics maintain that higher student loan default rates indicate that career colleges are failing in their mission and should be held accountable.

Ground truth: many career college students complete their programs, go to work in their chosen fi elds of endeavor, and repay their loans. Cohort default rates on federal stu-dent loans are higher for career college students than other post-secondary students, but career college students are also more economically disad-vantaged than other students. Th e margin of error for these individuals is thinner. Th ey are more likely to be knocked off stride by a deep and pro-longed economic recession, a job lay-off , a sick relative, credit card debt or other contingency. People with fewer fi nancial resources are more likely to default on loans wherever they attend college, whether career college, com-munity college, or historically black or Hispanic college.

Many career colleges provide programs with hands-on instruction, specifically tailored to support student’s needs and different learning styles.

Students at Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts in Atlanta, Georgia, put their education to practice by volunteering their skills at a community service event, May 2012.


CAROLINE NESTMANN PECK

of Egyptology for several years, her service interrupted by her husband’s sabbaticals in Los Alamos, New Mexico and Philadelphia. Finding herself on the wrong side of offi ce politics would end her career within the Egyptology Department in 1972, although she continued her work related to Naga ed-Der for another fi ve years.

Clearly a woman ahead of her time, Caroline spent the last ten years of her life working as a stenographer for Rhode Island Legal Services.

way, she picked up language skills in Hebrew, Akkadian and Egyptian and helped in publication of Henri Frankfort’s authoritative Kingship and the Gods. By the time she graduated from the University of Chicago in 1945, the young woman had traveled light years from her starting point in Wheeling. Yet her life’s journey was just getting started.

Again attending school part-time, Caroline earned her master’s degree at the University of Chicago in 1949, whereupon she was inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa honor society. That year, she accepted an offer to become a technical assistant, instructor and graduate student at Brown University. During that time, Caroline worked with leading Egyptologists and, in her doctoral dissertation, focused on an expedition to Naga ed-Der in Southern Egypt.

By then married to Russell Peck, an assistant professor of Physics at Brown, Caroline gained appointment as the Kathryn McHale Fellow of the American Association of University Women in 1956. War that year between Egypt and Israel ended what would prove to be her one and only opportunity to work in Egypt. Caroline continued on and off as a teaching associate within the Brown University Department

There is no doubt that Caroline Nestmann was a smart kid. When she enrolled at the Elliott School of Business in Wheeling, West Virginia, she had already graduated class valedictorian at Wheeling High School. Who knew, however, that the young woman would leverage her talents in typing and shorthand to become an Ivy League Egyptologist and scholar of the ancient world.

Born in 1921, Caroline was one of four children. Her parents both worked: Carl as a church organist and choir director; Louise as a school teacher. Caroline knew she would need bankable skills if she were to pursue her original academic objective: astronomy. She used her business school training from the Elliott School to land a job as a secretary in the Research Division of the Standard Oil Company. Her self-improvement plan worked. Caroline enrolled at the University of Chicago in 1942, but continued to work part-time as a secretary in the Department of Oriental Languages and Literatures.

Ability clearly met opportunity. Caroline gained a promotion to editorial assistant in the Oriental Languages Department and switched her major fi eld of study from asteroids to ancient tombs. Along the


.

Documents

Setting Standards - 100 Years of Accredited Career Education