Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Accreditation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs legislative language to address accreditation candidacy and remove obsolete BPPE approval references
Summary
The committee unanimously directed staff to draft amendments to clarify treatment of degrees from programs in accreditation candidacy, require clearer student notification of accreditation risk, and remove statutory references to BPPE approval with a grandfather clause for degrees awarded on or before Jan. 1, 2015.
The Policy & Advocacy Committee on June 16 voted to recommend that the Board pursue legislative amendments addressing degree accreditation candidacy and obsolete references to BPPE approval in the practice acts for LMFT and LPCC, and to add clarifying language across relevant statutes.
Roseann Helms, legislative manager, said the board’s registration unit has seen a rise in applicants from programs in accreditation candidacy and that unlike LCSW law — which permits associate registration but bars clinical exam eligibility until a school receives accreditation — LMFT and LPCC statutes lack parallel language. She explained the statutory cleanup would add comparable candidacy language and clarify that failure to obtain accreditation should prevent renewal of associate registration.
Helms summarized the BPPE/legislative history and staff proposal: "SB 1247 required institutions offering degree programs in California to become accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the US Department of Education," she said, and observed that BPPE now issues provisional approval and typically requires evidence of candidacy within 2 years and accreditation within 5 years. Staff proposed removing BPPE approval references from board law and inserting a grandfather clause accepting degrees awarded on or before Jan. 1, 2015 if the school had unconditional approval at the time.
Committee members asked staff to make the student‑notification requirement more prescriptive (for example, a separate signed notice, clear placement and font) so students are not misled by buried marketing language; staff agreed to draft stronger notice language modeled on the education code. Stakeholder commenters from CAMFT supported the amendments but asked staff to assess any unintended impacts for applicants who graduated during the 2015 transition period. Ben Caldwell (MFT), commenting remotely, asked about candidacy timelines and extensions; staff said BPPE generally expects accreditation within 5 years and that limited extensions are possible.
The committee voted unanimously to direct staff to make discussed edits to attachments A and B, draft the recommended language and return the package to the board as a legislative proposal. The committee instructed staff to include a specific student‑notification requirement in the drafting instructions.
