Northland Ruled Ineligible for Wisconsin Tuition Grant; TRACS Accreditation Cited as Reason

if the snag over accreditation agencies is overcome, how many students would actually benefit from this since one of the other requirements is wisconsin residency?
http://heab.state.wi.us/programs.html

http://heab.state.wi.us/statutes.html#3930] wisconsin law lays what the accreditation requirements are:

An “accredited” institution is an institution accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or by the Board of Nursing pursuant to s. 441.01 (4), or, if not so accredited, is a nonprofit institution of higher education whose credits are accepted on transfer by not less than 3 institutions which are so accredited, on the same basis as if transferred from an institution so accredited.

but it doesn’t really help explain why tracs doesn’t count as “nationally recognized”.

I’d guess they’re using the DOE’s list of recognized accrediting agencies. See here for more details. I mentioned on another thread that when I recently applied for a federal job, it was explicit that I could include education only from institutions accredited by agencies on this DOE-approved list. My understanding is that this policy was put in place because of a scandal a few years back where a number of high ranking officials were found to have their highest degree (often required for their position) from diploma mills. On my app, it put me in the funny position of having a law degree but no undergrad!

More than likely the Wisconsin residency is a small hurdle to overcome. I know when I went to N, many of the students voted as a Wisconsin resident. It was some ridiculous short amount of time you had to be living in Wisconsin to be considered a resident to vote, like a week.

[Daniel] More than likely the Wisconsin residency is a small hurdle to overcome.

the residency requirements are part of the http://heab.state.wi.us/statutes.html#3627] tuition rules in 36.27 . they seem to be tougher than the voting requirements.

The headline is misleading. The TRACS is not the reason for the denial for tuition grants but the lack of accreditation from “the association used by most schools in the region”. They are not faulting TRACS as if TRACS disqualifies someone, rather they are faulting the school with insufficient accreditation. What they probably are demanding is that the school be regionally accredited and not nationally.

But it is good that this is being appealed. The decision will very likely be in the school’s favor and strengthen TRACS profile. And if they board does not decide in their favor I hope it goes to court.

[Jack] I’d guess they’re using the DOE’s list of recognized accrediting agencies. See here for more details.

except that the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools is in http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg7.html the list .

Thanks for the correction Chris. Now that you mention it, I recall that the relevant detail in my case was that you could only list education if the institution was accredited at the time you earned your degree. So, you’re right - my suggestion could not be the explanation in this case.

I would suggest that these issues will continue to hamper the cause as we further empower non-local church institutions (which must, in part, run as businesses and charge for their services), and institutions that are in some way dependent (directly or indirectly) upon government or external agencies for their financial survival.

TRACS is an approved agency of the DOE. This means it is a nationally recognized accrediting agency and falls under Wisconsin law as acceptable. While private employers may have the option of non acceptance the state of Wisconsin does not according to their own legal standards for these grants. An above poster provided a link to the DOE website of recognized accrediting agencies and TRACS is there.

[Greg Linscott]
Now, the article does say-

[Chicago Tribune]
Agency staff denied the school’s request because it is accredited by an association of Christian colleges (TRACS) and not the association used by most schools in the region.

I don’t see how the headline is misleading.

The headlines implies that the cause of the denial is TRACS accreditation but the headlines does not properly attribute it to the real reason, which is that it was NOT accredited by the association used by most schools in the region. The poorly structured sentence might give someone the impression that the TRACS accreditation has something to do with the denial but the TRACS accreditation is incidental. The denial is “because of of” NOT being accredited by the association used by most schools in the region.

[Chicago Tribune]
Agency staff denied the school’s request because it is (“not”) accredited by an association of Christian colleges (TRACS) and not (the word “not” here goes before “accredited” in the proper grammatical interpretation) the association used by most schools in the region.

The formula for denial is not the accreditation by TRACS but the lack of accreditation by the association used by most schools in the region. The object of the preposition “by” is “association used by most schools” (most specifically just the word association but since association is used in conjunction with both TRACS and “used by most schools” the entire phrase has to be pointed out) and the verb “accredited” is modified by the negative “not” so that it properly should be understood:

Agency staff denied the school’s request because it is not accredited by the association used by most schools in the region, it is accredited by an association of Christian Colleges. The latter clause is inserted between the preposition and the object of the preposition with the negative “not” dislocated from its verb.

Maybe you can submit this to a grammarian, they may have more to say. I certainly am not having heart failure but if I do, well you can make the headline:

”SI Poster Has Heart Failure Because His Cat Was On His Keyboard And Not Being Calm About Grammar And Headlines”

At which point you may find my cat and blame her for not being calm about grammar and headlines. :)

But you have enough to do without me trying to erase your headlines I suppose.

*** Forum Director Comment ****
Please drop the “misleading headline” discussion

Greg answered the issue …. time to move on

****************************************

Not to make light of Northland’s plight, but if someone would call Dave Ramsey with this concern, he would tell them to be thankful and consider it a blessing that they could not apply for a student loan. They are one of the worst financial products available in the United States today, and paralyze many students’ financial futures. They also enable many students to go to college who probably do not really belong there — at least until they mature and know why they are going and learn to appreciate the opportunity.
I agree with Kevin Subra’s point in this sense — it is unfortunate that we have opened the floodgates to dependence upon government to fund our Christian institutions. This story may also be prophetic as government grows increasingly hostile to Christianity — leaving institutions the choice of either compromising spiritually or facing tremendous economic upheaval.