Disruptive Innovation…Sound at all familiar????????
In John Weeks’ June 2011 Roundup in the Integrator, I noticed a comment in a short piece about a dissident organization in the massage profession in which he compared them to CAN and referred to us both as “disruptive innovators”. In following the links, I found this:
https://www.claytonchristensen.com/disruptive_innovation.html
This is business geek theory, coming from no less notable a direction than Harvard Business School, but I’ll be damned if he isn’t talking about US! Maybe it’s just my own geekiness poking through, but I’m finding a whole lot in the embedded video and some of the related materials that I think might be of help as we continue to POCA-fy and present the case in more mainstream settings.
Author: Brent Ottley, L.Ac.
I am shifting from BA to CA because after many years in all kinds of practice situations, I just finally said ENOUGH. It's either do this or quit practicing. Time to put my money where my mouth is. All of you have been immeasurably helpful to me in making the jump. There is much to do to make this work, because I'm doing it insanely fast on a shoestring budget, but the support is coming in from all directions, and hell or high water, it goes live on 6/29/09. The community you have created is making a difference, and I am grateful to be a part of it.
Good to see
that the words Clayton and disruptive can apply to something other than me.
I love seeing new and different ways of explaining how and why community acupuncture works. As a person with poor to shitty communication skills it’s good to add more ways of thinking about what we do in a simple and clear message.
Nice find.
ACAOM
Hmm?! Is the following innovative? Hell no! Is it disruptive? Hell yes.
ACAOM Appears Before USDE
On June 8, 2011, Mark S. McKenzie, LAc MsOM DiplOM, ACAOM Chair and William W Goding, MEd RRT, ACAOM Interim Executive Director, appeared before the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) as part of ACAOM’s renewal of recognition by the U.S. Department of Education (USDE), which occurs every 5 years.
NACIQI unanimously approved the following recommendation to the Secretary of Education:
Grant the agency’s request for an expansion of its scope of recognition to include its accreditation and pre-accreditation of professional post-graduate doctoral programs in acupuncture and in Oriental Medicine (DAOM). Continue the agency’s current recognition and require the agency to come into compliance within 12 months, and submit a compliance report that demonstrates the agency’s compliance with the issues identified below [in the full report].
Once the recommendation is approved by the Secretary of Education, ACAOM’s scope of recognition for pre-accreditation (Candidacy) and accreditation will include post-graduate DAOM programs.
ACAOM will be working diligently over the next 12 months to complete the process of demonstrating compliance with all the USDE regulations [34 CFR 602].
The ACAOM has 12 months to
The ACAOM has 12 months to come into compliance, and submit a compliance report to the U.S. Department of Education that demonstrates the agency’s compliance with the issues identified.
For example:
“The agency must provide additional information and documentation to demonstrate that feedback from ALL OF THE AGENCY’S CONSTITUENCIES is solicited and considered prior to the adoption of revised standards. [602.21(c)]”
Duly Noted.
If you have anything else you’d like us to look at, feel free to send an email to info@CommunityAcupunctureNetwork.org. Thanks!
The full report on the
The full report on the ACAOM’s petition for continued recognition states that “[t]he Department did not receive any written third-party comments regarding this agency.” (See page 153 of 246. Click on the following link to download this document: https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/naciqi-dir/2011-spring/staff-analyses-6-2011.pdf
; See pages 120 through 153.)
Did CAN not file any complaints against the ACAOM with the Department?
ACAOM Is in Trouble
It is pretty clear that ACAOM is in trouble with USDE. According to the USDE staff report, ACAOM was found in violation of over 20 of the Department of Ed’s requirements for accrediting agencies. And they are giving ACAOM 12 months to come into compliance.
The applicable regulations can be found at the following link under Sections 603.36(e)(3)(i) & (ii): https://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg14.html#RecognitionProcess
I also cut and pasted the relevant regulations below followed by a brief explanation:
(3)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section, if a recognized agency fails to demonstrate compliance with or effective application of a criterion or criteria, but the senior Department official concludes that the agency will demonstrate or achieve compliance with the criteria for recognition and effective application of those criteria within 12 months or less, the senior Department official may continue the agency’s recognition, pending submission by the agency of a compliance report, review of the report under §§602.32 and 602.34, and review of the report by the senior Department official under this section. In such a case, the senior Department official specifies the criteria the compliance report must address, and a time period, not longer than 12 months, during which the agency must achieve compliance and effectively apply the criteria. The compliance report documenting compliance and effective application of criteria is due not later than 30 days after the end of the period specified in the senior Department official’s decision.
(ii) If the record includes a compliance report, and the senior Department official determines that an agency has not complied with the criteria for recognition, or has not effectively applied those criteria, during the time period specified by the senior Department official in accordance with paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section, the senior Department official denies, limits, suspends, or terminates recognition, except, in extraordinary circumstances, upon a showing of good cause for an extension of time as determined by the senior Department official and detailed in the senior Department official’s decision. If the senior Department official determines good cause for an extension has been shown, the senior Department official specifies the length of the extension and what the agency must do during it to merit a renewal of recognition.
My read of these sections is that ACAOM’s recognition did NOT get renewed based on violations of the requirements for accreditors. What the Department did do was “Continue the agency’s current recognition and require the agency to come into compliance within 12 months, and submit a compliance report that demonstrates the agency’s compliance…”
Thus under subsection ii of the rules, if ACAOM doesn’t correct all the 20+ violations of Dept of Ed requirements within 12 months, ACAOM will loose US Dept of Ed recognition and the schools (as well as their students) would loose federal financial aid eligibility unless ACAOM can show the “extraordinary circumstances” for seeking an extension for coming into compliance.
This looks to be very serious for ACAOM.