Shorter Year than 180 Days
Re: Shorter Year than 180 Days
Some are about validating the schools claims. Others are about meeting CIS criteria. Try B2, B3 and B10, D5E1, among many others.
Reply
@sid
Some is not all, if your process is based on criterion standards than its all criterion standards. CIS criteria is just that their criteria. Clubs (which CIS is) can have membership requirements and certify their membership thats not what accreditation means. CIS is marketing on the meaning of accreditation as its applied and relevant with real accreditation agencies and peddling that using the same language implies they are doing the same thing.
Accreditation requires three minimum conditions:
1) The accreditation must regulate some outcome. IB authorization regulates the issuance of the International Baccalaureate Diploma and other certificates. CIS regulates nothing, no one needs CIS validation to do anything, not having CIS validation restricts an IS from doing anything.
2) The accreditation process enforces fixed criterion standards that allow equivalency and comparison across members. A WASC accredited IS in Shanghai meets the same minimum criterion standards as a WASC accredited IS in Thailand. CISs validation process doesnt do that, individual ISs are compared against themselves. Its the difference between a bank doing an external audit (outside company comes in and verifies the bank is following its own policies) and a compliance inspection (conducted by a regulatory agency that ensures the bank is following the relevant legal requirements). CIS is an outside group that comes into an IS and certifies the ISs claims of what its doing are things they are actually doing. Its the IE "Good Housekeeping" seal or more accurately the Better Business Bureau. Those are clubs, its not the Bureau of Consumer Protection, the FTC, SEC, the State AGs, etc.
3) The accreditation process facilitates some benefit with a moderating authority, or compliance with a regulatory authority. CIS itself is accredited by the National Association of Independent Schools’ Commission on Accreditation, affiliation and membership themselves does not transform them into the accreditor, no more than Cambridge Education 'is' Ofsted.
Some is not all, if your process is based on criterion standards than its all criterion standards. CIS criteria is just that their criteria. Clubs (which CIS is) can have membership requirements and certify their membership thats not what accreditation means. CIS is marketing on the meaning of accreditation as its applied and relevant with real accreditation agencies and peddling that using the same language implies they are doing the same thing.
Accreditation requires three minimum conditions:
1) The accreditation must regulate some outcome. IB authorization regulates the issuance of the International Baccalaureate Diploma and other certificates. CIS regulates nothing, no one needs CIS validation to do anything, not having CIS validation restricts an IS from doing anything.
2) The accreditation process enforces fixed criterion standards that allow equivalency and comparison across members. A WASC accredited IS in Shanghai meets the same minimum criterion standards as a WASC accredited IS in Thailand. CISs validation process doesnt do that, individual ISs are compared against themselves. Its the difference between a bank doing an external audit (outside company comes in and verifies the bank is following its own policies) and a compliance inspection (conducted by a regulatory agency that ensures the bank is following the relevant legal requirements). CIS is an outside group that comes into an IS and certifies the ISs claims of what its doing are things they are actually doing. Its the IE "Good Housekeeping" seal or more accurately the Better Business Bureau. Those are clubs, its not the Bureau of Consumer Protection, the FTC, SEC, the State AGs, etc.
3) The accreditation process facilitates some benefit with a moderating authority, or compliance with a regulatory authority. CIS itself is accredited by the National Association of Independent Schools’ Commission on Accreditation, affiliation and membership themselves does not transform them into the accreditor, no more than Cambridge Education 'is' Ofsted.
Re: Shorter Year than 180 Days
You're so funny.
Enjoy the weekend.
Enjoy the weekend.
Re: Shorter Year than 180 Days
Dave, Dave calm down. It's enough that you're talking rot. Don't make it feverish rot.
You claimed before that NEASC used CIS as "minions" to do all the grunt work in producing their "co-authored" protocol. This is the same instrument (used by NEASC and CIS in all their joint accreditations) that you now say is worthless?
Do you truly believe that all those schools that are jointly accredited (by NEASC and CIS, WASC and CIS or MSA and CIS) not really accredited at all with NEASC, WASC or MSA because they used the CIS protocol, with a CIS Visiting Team Chair, measuring the school against those CIS standards (that you claim to be bogus)?
And yet the schools think they are. NEASC think they are. WASC think they are. MSA think they are. CIS think they are. Is this joint accreditation a myth? Merely a means to squeeze money out of the schools under false pretences? Are you telling us that NEASC, MSA, WASC and CIS are four fraudulent organizations?
Dave, your response to this is even more important than your thoughts on Somalia. We need to know!
You claimed before that NEASC used CIS as "minions" to do all the grunt work in producing their "co-authored" protocol. This is the same instrument (used by NEASC and CIS in all their joint accreditations) that you now say is worthless?
Do you truly believe that all those schools that are jointly accredited (by NEASC and CIS, WASC and CIS or MSA and CIS) not really accredited at all with NEASC, WASC or MSA because they used the CIS protocol, with a CIS Visiting Team Chair, measuring the school against those CIS standards (that you claim to be bogus)?
And yet the schools think they are. NEASC think they are. WASC think they are. MSA think they are. CIS think they are. Is this joint accreditation a myth? Merely a means to squeeze money out of the schools under false pretences? Are you telling us that NEASC, MSA, WASC and CIS are four fraudulent organizations?
Dave, your response to this is even more important than your thoughts on Somalia. We need to know!
Re: Shorter Year than 180 Days
Not fraudulent, me thinks. Mythical.
Reply
@walter
Still dont know what you think you know.
Picking up a binder and following a program does not equal accreditation. Yes the regional accrediting bodies, Ofsted, the IBO are accrediting bodies, because thats what they do. Yes those ISs are accredited by those regional accrediters, CIS just pushes itself into the landscape. They are not an accreditor because they use the same language and associate with actual accreditation agencies.
This doesnt mean that validation doesnt have value, validating by an outside organization that an IS is doing what they claim to be doing ahs value, and importance, but it doesnt make it accreditation.
Still dont know what you think you know.
Picking up a binder and following a program does not equal accreditation. Yes the regional accrediting bodies, Ofsted, the IBO are accrediting bodies, because thats what they do. Yes those ISs are accredited by those regional accrediters, CIS just pushes itself into the landscape. They are not an accreditor because they use the same language and associate with actual accreditation agencies.
This doesnt mean that validation doesnt have value, validating by an outside organization that an IS is doing what they claim to be doing ahs value, and importance, but it doesnt make it accreditation.
Re: Shorter Year than 180 Days
Someone's telling porkies, Dave, and I rather think that most people know whom to trust...
"On specific request by a school, CIS will collaborate with national accreditation agencies to carry out joint or synchronised evaluations, including school visits.
Two U.S. accreditation agencies, the Middle States Association of Schools and Colleges (MSA-CESS) and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) have agreed to collaborate with CIS in carrying out joint evaluations, using the CIS International Accreditation 2016 protocol as one that is philosophically aligned with their own standards and expectations. Joint evaluation means that one Evaluation Team will work in a school using a single accreditation protocol, providing a ‘seamless’ process which avoids duplication of effort. Schools choose and contract with both CIS and the collaborating agency, with each agency making an independent decision regarding the conferral of accreditation. If both agencies' decision is positive, the school will achieve dual accreditation.
Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (MSA/CESS)
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)"
"On specific request by a school, CIS will collaborate with national accreditation agencies to carry out joint or synchronised evaluations, including school visits.
Two U.S. accreditation agencies, the Middle States Association of Schools and Colleges (MSA-CESS) and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) have agreed to collaborate with CIS in carrying out joint evaluations, using the CIS International Accreditation 2016 protocol as one that is philosophically aligned with their own standards and expectations. Joint evaluation means that one Evaluation Team will work in a school using a single accreditation protocol, providing a ‘seamless’ process which avoids duplication of effort. Schools choose and contract with both CIS and the collaborating agency, with each agency making an independent decision regarding the conferral of accreditation. If both agencies' decision is positive, the school will achieve dual accreditation.
Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (MSA/CESS)
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)"
Reply
@Walter
They know its more smoke and mirrors of leadership.
By definition if your collaborating with an accreditor, then you are not the defacto accreditor.
Agreeing to be efficient does not in anyway impart the role of an accreditor onto CIS. An accrediting agency can conduct their inspection and CIS can conduct its validation process, nothing about other agencies accreditation process gives credibility to the CIS process.
They know its more smoke and mirrors of leadership.
By definition if your collaborating with an accreditor, then you are not the defacto accreditor.
Agreeing to be efficient does not in anyway impart the role of an accreditor onto CIS. An accrediting agency can conduct their inspection and CIS can conduct its validation process, nothing about other agencies accreditation process gives credibility to the CIS process.
Re: Shorter Year than 180 Days
Oh so funny.
FYI, the IB doesn't accredit schools. They authorize them.
I like to think that Accreditation is akin to a state issuing a license to a pharmacy. There are rules, and as long as the pharmacy follow them, they can be a pharmacy. Pills have to be accounted for, pharmacists must have licenses, etc.
IB authorization is more like becoming a CVS or a Boots. You have to follow all the accreditation rules, PLUS you have to do things the CVS way. Branding in place. Counter staff and pharmacists trained the Boots way. Stock organized the Boots way both out front and in storage. Etc.
FYI, the IB doesn't accredit schools. They authorize them.
I like to think that Accreditation is akin to a state issuing a license to a pharmacy. There are rules, and as long as the pharmacy follow them, they can be a pharmacy. Pills have to be accounted for, pharmacists must have licenses, etc.
IB authorization is more like becoming a CVS or a Boots. You have to follow all the accreditation rules, PLUS you have to do things the CVS way. Branding in place. Counter staff and pharmacists trained the Boots way. Stock organized the Boots way both out front and in storage. Etc.
Re: Shorter Year than 180 Days
Davy boy, you're thrashing around like a wounded hippo. Listen to what NEASC says about its international school accreditation process:
"The majority of our accredited schools are jointly accredited with the Council of International Schools in Leiden, Netherlands."
I know that it's hard sometimes to be sure what the English language is really saying, but what do you understand by the expression "jointly accredited"?
These, by the way, are the benefits of accreditation according to NEASC:
https://cie.neasc.org/about-accreditati ... reditation
And just as the IB doesn't accredit schools, neither does OFSTED. OFSTED inspects.
"The majority of our accredited schools are jointly accredited with the Council of International Schools in Leiden, Netherlands."
I know that it's hard sometimes to be sure what the English language is really saying, but what do you understand by the expression "jointly accredited"?
These, by the way, are the benefits of accreditation according to NEASC:
https://cie.neasc.org/about-accreditati ... reditation
And just as the IB doesn't accredit schools, neither does OFSTED. OFSTED inspects.
Reply
@sid
Yes, the IBO uses the term authorization, and its just a word. Authorization, inspection, accreditation are all terms that describe equivalent processes.
I can appreciate that comparison. The IBO is as much a 'product' as Apple or Nike.
@Walter
Still dont know what you think you know.
You wouldnt know what a wounded hippo looks like.
NEASC didnt want to offend CIS by referring to their process as other than accreditation. The problem with "joint accreditation" is that one of the agencies isnt an accreditor.
Equivalence of terms, accreditation, inspection, authorization, are terms for equivalent process. You could call accreditation inspection or inspection authorization and it wouldnt change anything. The CIS validation process is not equivalent to the others.
Yes, the IBO uses the term authorization, and its just a word. Authorization, inspection, accreditation are all terms that describe equivalent processes.
I can appreciate that comparison. The IBO is as much a 'product' as Apple or Nike.
@Walter
Still dont know what you think you know.
You wouldnt know what a wounded hippo looks like.
NEASC didnt want to offend CIS by referring to their process as other than accreditation. The problem with "joint accreditation" is that one of the agencies isnt an accreditor.
Equivalence of terms, accreditation, inspection, authorization, are terms for equivalent process. You could call accreditation inspection or inspection authorization and it wouldnt change anything. The CIS validation process is not equivalent to the others.
Re: Shorter Year than 180 Days
So now you know the mindset of NEASC in deigning to call the CIS process "accreditation". Interesting.
These terms are not equivalent. Saying so does not make it so. Have you not noticed, PG, that no one has posted anything in support of your views? Could be because you're wrong.
These terms are not equivalent. Saying so does not make it so. Have you not noticed, PG, that no one has posted anything in support of your views? Could be because you're wrong.
Re: Shorter Year than 180 Days
My school had an inspection yesterday. An actual inspection. The kind where the government could have shut us down effective immediately if we didn't pass. Not really the same as an accreditation or an authorization.
Reply
@Sid
I do, but its not a big secret. The division between CIS and NEASC has been growing for some time.
They aren't equal but they are equivalent. The Ofsted inspection process for BSOs (British Schools Overseas) is a voluntary one, and loosely aligned to the same system of regional accreditation in the US. An IS doesnt have to be accredited/inspected.
IBO authorization is different, an IS cant issue an IB baccalaureate diploma without being authorized, but programs such as IPC and IMYC have ported inquiry (and PBL) student centered learning concepts. You need IB authorization to award an IB diploma and certificates but anyone can implement an IB influenced model of inquiry based curriculum. There isnt anything particularly unique about CAS, EE, or TOK...
It could just as easily be that the membership believes Im right. Its more likely the membership recognizes that this discussion is more academic discourse than practical. As was published in the last visitation of the subject, "what does it matter what they are calling what they do".
Im not in error, none of my statements above have been disputed, the claim your arguing as superior, is that leadership considers CIS validation accreditation, and thats what matters. ITs know that what leadership believes doesnt make it true. Membership in the CIS club doesnt make it anything more, solely because leadership deems it so.
No those arent the same. Even if an IB IS had their authorization withdrawn it wouldnt require the IS to cease operations. This is an issue of the definitions of terms. The inspection your IS underwent shares the same term as the inspection a BSO undergoes by an approved Ofsted inspectorate. Those processes share a common name and some similarities, they arent the same process. Within IE how accreditation, inspection, authorization are applied have equivalent meanings because they describe equivalent processes. The process your IS underwent could just as easily be called an 'investigation' as "inspection", its word choice.
This is the issue with the CIS validation process, they have a word choice (accreditation) to describe a process that doesnt fit the same degree of equivalence shared by the other organizations and agencies that provide accreditation with the intention of increasing the credibility of their (the CIS) process. Its no different then a DS or ES putting the word 'international' in their school name even if there is nothing international about the school, its population, program, curriculum, faculty, etc.
I understand that you and leadership want to impart significance to membership in your club. Its a human trait that we associate ourselves with others we deem and esteem as worthy. Every couple years I get a notice that Ive been included in that years book of "Worlds Greatest Inspirational Teachers" and that as an included member Im eligible for a special publishers discounted wholesale price of the book. None of it means anything, whoever buys the book gets their name and autobiography in the book (Ive seem resumes where ITs listed this as an accomplishment). You can be in the CIS membership book; membership doesnt equal quality, doesnt equal standards, doesnt equal performance.
This doesnt mean the CIS validation process doesnt have real meaningful value and significance, but that value and significance doesnt rise to the definition of accreditation.
I do, but its not a big secret. The division between CIS and NEASC has been growing for some time.
They aren't equal but they are equivalent. The Ofsted inspection process for BSOs (British Schools Overseas) is a voluntary one, and loosely aligned to the same system of regional accreditation in the US. An IS doesnt have to be accredited/inspected.
IBO authorization is different, an IS cant issue an IB baccalaureate diploma without being authorized, but programs such as IPC and IMYC have ported inquiry (and PBL) student centered learning concepts. You need IB authorization to award an IB diploma and certificates but anyone can implement an IB influenced model of inquiry based curriculum. There isnt anything particularly unique about CAS, EE, or TOK...
It could just as easily be that the membership believes Im right. Its more likely the membership recognizes that this discussion is more academic discourse than practical. As was published in the last visitation of the subject, "what does it matter what they are calling what they do".
Im not in error, none of my statements above have been disputed, the claim your arguing as superior, is that leadership considers CIS validation accreditation, and thats what matters. ITs know that what leadership believes doesnt make it true. Membership in the CIS club doesnt make it anything more, solely because leadership deems it so.
No those arent the same. Even if an IB IS had their authorization withdrawn it wouldnt require the IS to cease operations. This is an issue of the definitions of terms. The inspection your IS underwent shares the same term as the inspection a BSO undergoes by an approved Ofsted inspectorate. Those processes share a common name and some similarities, they arent the same process. Within IE how accreditation, inspection, authorization are applied have equivalent meanings because they describe equivalent processes. The process your IS underwent could just as easily be called an 'investigation' as "inspection", its word choice.
This is the issue with the CIS validation process, they have a word choice (accreditation) to describe a process that doesnt fit the same degree of equivalence shared by the other organizations and agencies that provide accreditation with the intention of increasing the credibility of their (the CIS) process. Its no different then a DS or ES putting the word 'international' in their school name even if there is nothing international about the school, its population, program, curriculum, faculty, etc.
I understand that you and leadership want to impart significance to membership in your club. Its a human trait that we associate ourselves with others we deem and esteem as worthy. Every couple years I get a notice that Ive been included in that years book of "Worlds Greatest Inspirational Teachers" and that as an included member Im eligible for a special publishers discounted wholesale price of the book. None of it means anything, whoever buys the book gets their name and autobiography in the book (Ive seem resumes where ITs listed this as an accomplishment). You can be in the CIS membership book; membership doesnt equal quality, doesnt equal standards, doesnt equal performance.
This doesnt mean the CIS validation process doesnt have real meaningful value and significance, but that value and significance doesnt rise to the definition of accreditation.
Re: Shorter Year than 180 Days
Dave, at this stage in the school year the prospect of more lunacy from you on these pages is the only thing that gets me out of bed. What a service you are performing for thousands of students and hundreds of teachers!
There are so many inconsistencies in what you write, and I really don't have a lot of time, but can you just answer this:
in all of the joint accreditations that CIS undertakes with NEASC and MSA and WASC, the rule is that the self-study the school provides is based on the CIS Accreditation Protocol. The Visiting Team comes with a CIS Chair and the majority of the team members are from CIS. If that is true (and I don't think even you dispute that), then how can it be that, on the evidence supplied through this process, NEASC/MSA/WASC can grant accreditation if you claim that CIS is not authorized to accredit?
I liked your faux story of being the World's Greatest Inspirational Teacher. Of course, that would be more plausible if you actually had a teaching job.
There are so many inconsistencies in what you write, and I really don't have a lot of time, but can you just answer this:
in all of the joint accreditations that CIS undertakes with NEASC and MSA and WASC, the rule is that the self-study the school provides is based on the CIS Accreditation Protocol. The Visiting Team comes with a CIS Chair and the majority of the team members are from CIS. If that is true (and I don't think even you dispute that), then how can it be that, on the evidence supplied through this process, NEASC/MSA/WASC can grant accreditation if you claim that CIS is not authorized to accredit?
I liked your faux story of being the World's Greatest Inspirational Teacher. Of course, that would be more plausible if you actually had a teaching job.