Council sends proposal to shift program approval to accrediting bodies back to working group for more study

Board staff presented a proposal to the Dental Assisting Council asking whether the board should transfer program and course approval, evaluation and reevaluation responsibilities to recognized accrediting agencies such as the Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA), the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) or regional accreditors.

Staff said the board’s reevaluations had found major noncompliance across many providers: missing clinical instruction hours, insufficient student records, missing performance evaluation criteria, improper sequencing of instruction, failure to report program changes within 10 days and reports that many providers were conducting didactic instruction electronically but outsourcing clinical training to employer dentists without adequate documentation. Staff reported that of 21 reevaluations completed in the prior year, 12 resulted in withdrawal of program approval; the board is responsible for 92 RDA programs requiring seven‑year reevaluation and more than 900 other course providers.

Why it matters: Staff argued the board lacks the resources to perform comprehensive oversight of hundreds of programs and providers and suggested moving oversight to accrediting organizations that already maintain review cycles and site‑visit capabilities. The proposal would have statutory language requiring board approval to mean accreditation by recognized agencies (CODA, BPPE, WASC/ACCJC) and proposed a delayed effective date to allow providers time to seek accreditation.

Council and stakeholder response: Council members and representatives from the Dental Assisting Alliance, California Dental Association and several educators agreed the compliance problems are real but raised several practical concerns: CODA accreditation is expensive and designed for degree‑granting programs (about 18 California schools are CODA‑accredited out of roughly 90 RDA approved programs, a stakeholder said); BPPE could cover some stand‑alone course providers but carries its own regulatory costs and requirements; and regional accreditors are tailored to post‑secondary institutions and may be infeasible for many non‑credit or employer‑based pathways.

Multiple council members warned shifting approval to accrediting bodies without affordable alternatives could cause program closures and worsen access to dental education and local workforce shortages. Several presenters suggested incentives or state funding to encourage college programs (for example, higher per‑student funding for allied‑health students) and emphasized the need to account for California‑specific legal requirements (state law and test content) that external accreditors may not cover.

Council action: After extended discussion and public comment, council members agreed to return the proposal to the working group for further stakeholder engagement and additional analysis rather than taking immediate legislative action. Board staff and councilmembers asked for broader stakeholder input, including educators, professional associations and accrediting bodies, and asked the working group to hold multiple stakeholder meetings and report back with refined options at a future council meeting.

Ending: The council did not adopt statutory language; instead it directed staff to continue working with the existing two‑member working group and to convene additional stakeholder meetings before presenting a formal legislative recommendation.