Sometime in early August of this year ACHENA/CHSC sent out a six-page manifesto (https://achena.org/refresh/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/CHCAccredChg_Statement_Addendum.pdf) aimed at uniting the homeopathic community into pressuring the Council for Homeopathic Certification (CHC) (https://homeopathcertification.org/) to rescind their decision to make a modification of the CCH exam eligibility requirements.

What happened?

There are three U.S. schools that meet the baseline CHC eligibility requirement of 500 hours of theory/foundations of homeopathy and 500 hours of clinical training. They are not ACHENA accredited schools. They cannot get ACHENA accreditation, through no fault of their own. It is solely because of ACHENA’s miserable failure to become a bona fide accreditation agency that excludes these three schools from seeking accreditation/reaccreditation.

ACHENA (https://www.achena.org), in their 14+ year history, has never gotten recognized by any organization who recognizes accrediting agencies. In Colorado, it would be fraud and a criminal offense for the Homeopathy School International (https://www.homeopathyschool.org/) to claim ACHENA accreditation because ACHENA is an unrecognized accreditation agency. The Los Angeles School of Homeopathy in California (https://www.lahomeopathicschool.com/) and ACHENA candidate school Prometheus Homeopathic Institute in Minnesota (https://prometheushomeopathicinstitute.com/) also struggle with state regulations that preclude them from getting ACHENA accreditation. This is likewise a problem for currently accredited Northwestern Academy of Homeopathy in Minnesota. This is not the school’s fault. This is entirely an ACHENA created problem. These three schools do not have a pathway to the CCH exam because of ACHENA’s continued failure to live up to their promise to the U.S. schools that ACHENA would get recognized by the Department of Education and ACHENA has not fulfilled their promise.

ACHENA has a monopoly on which U.S. graduates are eligible to sit for the CCH exam. Currently, graduates of all U.S. schools must be from ACHENA accredited schools to sit for the CCH exam. If you are a U.S. student and plan to take the CCH exam you are forced to go to an ACHENA accredited school.  Why is it fair that these three non-ACHENA schools should be barred from allowing their students to take the CCH exam when it is because of ACHENA’s inability to become a legitimate accrediting agency that causes the very problem! These three schools brought their situation to the CHC and in the interest of fairness the CHC allowed their graduates access through CHC Pathway 2, a longstanding pathway for foreign homeopaths.

The Big Lie / Taking away accreditation

The ACHENA/CHSC reaction to this slight lessening of their monopoly must have been alarming judging from the ACHENA/CHSC response.  ACHENA’s monopolistic grasp on exam eligibility may be the only tangible benefit ACHENA gives to their accredited schools. How did ACHENA/CHSC respond to this threat? It would be bad PR to try and defend a, likely illegal, monopoly so ACHENA/CHSC chose to misinform the homeopathic community and claim that the CHC was taking away the ACHENA accreditation requirement. The CHC has not removed accreditation. The following are lies and misrepresentations from ACHENA and the CHSC.

The ACHENA/CHSC six-page manifesto falsely claimed:

• “As of January 2025, the CHC exam candidate prerequisite of education from an accredited school is no longer required.”
• “By eliminating accredited education as a CHC prerequisite…”,
• “If the CHC’s requirement for accredited education is dropped…”,
• “…and subsequent removal of the accredited education requirement”, and
• “With removal of the accredited training requirement…”.

None of this was true but ACHENA/CHSC was able to mislead the majority of the homeopathic community that accreditation was being removed.  It has not been removed. It has not changed. No one is taking away accreditation. Schools still have the option of being accredited and of renewing their accreditation. Pathway 1 still requires U.S. graduates to come from an ACHENA school. ACHENA/CHSC continually and intentionally mis-stated the situation to purposely inflame the homeopathic community. ACHENA’s stranglehold on access to the CCH exam has been slightly lessened, that is all.

Nowhere in the ACHENA/CHSC manifesto was there a mention of the central issue and why the eligibility requirement had been modified. Nothing about the plight of the three schools was ever mentioned. The reason for the CHC exam requirement modification was deliberately hidden while ACHENA/CHSC solicited support from the homeopathic community. Why wasn’t ACHENA/CHSC honest and forthright about what was at the center of the CHC’s modification? Instead they duped and misled the homeopathic community to garner support for their agenda to pressure and attack the CHC and preserve the ACHENA exam monopoly.

Quality of Education

This furor is not about “quality of education”. The issue raised about quality of education is spurious. ACHENA linked “quality of education” with the lie that accreditation was being removed. ACHENA lured organizations to support their cause on the pretense of “quality education”. There are, and have been for years, two pathways to the CCH exam. Pathway 1 requires U.S. graduates to come from an ACHENA accredited school (hence the monopoly). Pathway 2 provides access to, among others, foreign graduates, professionals, etc. (https://homeopathcertification.org/get-certified/eligibility-requirements/). Does ACHENA feel that Pathway 2 is less valid than Pathway 1? It is not clear because they never mentioned or explained either of the two pathways in their entire manifesto.  They just hint that there is a non-ACHENA pathway, it is substandard, and the future of homeopathy is threatened.

ACHENA is trying to undermine confidence in the CCH credential for their own selfish reasons, not for the good of the community. So many amazing homeopaths did not go to an ACHENA school. Many of them teach at ACHENA schools. Are they sub-standard homeopaths? Are the three non-ACHENA schools sub-standard as you imply? How would ACHENA know that these three schools are not quality schools? ACHENA never evaluated them. ACHENA cannot even keep up with itself, how can they evaluate any schools? ACHENA Standard 8 was revised December 20, 2023. ACHENA has not contacted their own schools to see if they were adhering to the new standards. No oversight. ACHENA hasn’t put out a President’s message since 2021. ACHENA hasn’t put out a newsletter since Winter/2020. ACHENA’s 3-Year Strategic Plan (6-27-2019) “Part of this Plan focuses on gaining initial recognition as an accrediting agency by the US Department of Education,” Well it’s five years later, what’s happening? ACHENA President Karen Allen recently said that ACHENA will never get Department of Education recognition. The idea that ACHENA is closely monitoring the quality of their schools is ridiculous. According to the ACHENA website (https://achena.org/resources/accredited-school-directory/) two of the schools (AMC and CCHM) have expired accreditation and NAH will expire in October. Why wasn’t ACHENA monitoring and working with them on their accreditation renewal so it would be completed by the deadline? Yet ACHENA wants to tell other organizations how they should run their organization? CHC is on their second accreditation while ACHENA is 14+ years into their “accreditation pursuit” and have yet to generate an application.

ACHENA used to have a prominent disclaimer on their homepage that said they were not recognized by the Department of Education. Now toward the bottom of the homepage it just says, “ACHENA is now seeking recognition by the U.S. Department of Education (USDE)”. Everyplace ACHENA calls itself an accreditation agency should have a disclaimer that states they are not a recognized accrediting agency.

Are leaders of the ACHENA accredited schools CCH certified?

AHE:  Alastair Gray, CCH = No

AHE:  Denise Straiges, CCH = Yes

AMCaP:  Catherine Niemiec, CCH = No

BIH:  Maria Bohle, CCH = Yes

CCHM:  Shahram Ayoubzadeh, CCH = No

NAH:  Stasia Steinhagen, CCH = Yes

SOH:  Mani Norland, CCH = No

CCH credentials on the CHSC = 3 YES, 4 NO.

None of the leaders of the Council of Homeopathic Schools and Colleges graduated from an ACHENA accredited school.

The CHC and Pathway 2

Pathway 2 has been here for years. Without complaints. The ACHENA/CHSC manifesto doesn’t even mention the CHC Pathways. ACHENA, surely you must know Pathway 2 already exists!

Is it only when Pathway 2 starts encroaching on the ACHENA monopoly that you get excited about it? Is ACHENA against the entire Pathway 2 or just the fact that the graduates of three non-ACHENA schools may have access to the CCH exam through Pathway 2?

If you disparage Pathway 2, aren’t you disparaging all the foreign students, foreign professionals, all the U.S. CCH’s that got credentialed through Pathway 2. If Pathway 2 is so substandard shouldn’t all the Pathway 2 CCH credentials now be voided according to your logic? Are all of the people that graduated from schools before ACHENA accreditation suddenly incompetent? Pathway 2 does not require foreign students to come from an accredited school. Is your aim that all graduates, worldwide, must come from ACHENA schools?

The CHC certifies the competency of homeopaths. Requiring a school to obtain ACHENA accreditation imposes an extra time and money burden on schools to meet standards that have nothing to do with homeopathic competency (Physical Facilities, Infrastructure, student services, etc.). Many of the ACHENA standards will be superseded by state laws anyway (refund policy, advertising, license to operate, etc).

ACHENA – Mind your own failed business

It is really dishonest to keep referring to ACHENA as an accredited organization because what’s implied is that they are recognized by the US Department of Education and they certainly are not. Every reference of ACHENA accreditation should have a disclaimer that they are not a recognized accrediting agency. Saying you are an accrediting agency implies that you are recognized by the Department of Education and that is a fraud.

What is ACHENA’s plan to deal with the fact that they are banned in three states, with more backlash likely coming from other states? States are cracking down on accreditation mills. Fourteen years with no progress toward accreditation makes ACHENA look like a hobby and not a professional organization. ACHENA should get their house in order and develop some credibility, because currently they have none.

ACHENA has not fulfilled their promise to the schools that they would get recognized by the Department of Education. The CHC is on their second accreditation cycle while ACHENA has yet to generate an application.  And now, non-accredited ACHENA is going to tell accredited CHC how the CCH should run their organization?

Stakeholders/Selective Notifications

The ACHENA/CHSC manifesto cried for “Transparency and stakeholder involvement”, ACHENA bemoaned the lack of CHC stakeholder involvement but both ACHENA President Karen Allen (www.achena.org/) and Shahram Ayoubzadeh, Dean of Canadian College of Homeopathic Medicine (https://homeopathycanada.com/), also the President of the Council of Homeopathic Schools and Colleges, refused stakeholders request to attend their 8-21-24 meeting between ACHENA/CHSC/CHC. Why the secrecy? Why the limit on stakeholders? Why were other stakeholders denied access to see the ACHENA/CHSC inquisition of the CHCS meeting? Why were only selected stakeholders allowed? Where was ACHENA/CHSC concern for stakeholder participation? ACHENA does not have a good record of stakeholder involvement. Remember ACHENA’s “Quality Assurance Checkpoints” and the way ACHENA commandeered the Standard 8 revisions?

ACHENA/CHSC created a survey, (“the Statement of Concern survey for you…”). This ACHENA/CHSC public relations survey campaign was manipulative as well as dishonest. They called for the community to post their thoughts on this issue but it was also selectively sent out to certain people/organizations. The comments quickly piled up from known allies and students of ACHENA schools. Most interesting, none of the three non-ACHENA schools received the six-page manifesto nor the survey invitation and subsequent emails so they could respond with their views. Contrary opinions were not posted on the survey site and eventually the site was shut down completely (https://form.jotform.com/242244438638057).

ACHENA/CHSC deliberately excluded the three major stakeholders that are at the center of this issue. They were not surveyed. ACHENA/CHSC didn’t include them on their mailings. They weren’t given an opportunity to respond. The ACHENA/CHSC attempt to control the narrative is duplicitous. ACHENA cannot be trusted to disseminate unbiased information.

Rumors (noun, gossip; hearsay)

The manifesto was replete with rumors. Rumors are where you can insinuate anything you want, against anybody, and you don’t have to back it up with any facts.

To wit:

• “Rumors were heard of plans to remove accredited training as an exam candidate criterion”
• “… reportedly in protest…”
• “Rumors were heard…”
• “It is reported…”
• “If accurate…”

There is no place for rumor mongering in a position paper of a professional organization. This is shameful, unprofessional, and the ACHENA president should resign or be removed.