Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Program Approval topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council postpones bill to shift program approvals to accrediting bodies after broad stakeholder pushback
Summary
Board staff proposed legislative amendments to recognize certain exam-based credentials and move program/course approval to outside accrediting bodies. Staff reported overwhelming stakeholder opposition at a Sept. 18 meeting and postponed further action to allow additional research and consultation.
Board staff presented a legislative proposal on Nov. 6 seeking amendments to the Business and Professions Code to change how the board approves dental assisting educational programs and courses. The proposal would have recognized successful completion of certain exams (D and B exams) as an option and shifted program approval responsibilities to outside accrediting bodies.
Tina Valerie, chief of the dental assisting unit, said staff held a DAC Working Group and stakeholder meeting on Sept. 18 with heavy attendance (173 participants) and that the correspondence and public input included in meeting materials showed "overwhelming opposition" to transferring approval authority away from the board. Valerie said staff will pause the proposal to conduct additional research and stakeholder consultation before proceeding.
Stakeholders raised multiple concerns. Tara Welch, board counsel, warned about potential loss of clinical experience if program approval shifted entirely away from board oversight. Guy Atchison of the California Academy of General Dentistry cautioned that small, low-volume programs — notably the dental sedation assistant course, which runs intermittently and depends on clinical partnerships — could be unable to meet the cost and complexity of independent accreditation and might disappear under an accreditor-based model.
Representatives of the California Dental Association, California Dental Hygienist Association and other professional groups asked to remain engaged in next steps and urged further analysis of retention and access impacts. Staff told the council they will reconvene stakeholder groups to brainstorm options and increase transparency in follow-up work.
What happens next: The council postponed continued discussion to allow staff to research the proposal’s implications and gather more stakeholder input; no legislative language was adopted at the Nov. 6 meeting.
