Education Barriers: Access Limitations - Part II
UNEQUAL & IMPROPER ACCREDITATION PROCESSESSupposedly, accreditation is designed to assure the quality of the institution and protect the consumer (the student, or at least parents of students). The US Department of Education has a list of approved accreditation agencies (http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/index.html?src=qc ). However, none of these agencies seem to cooperate in approving institutions. Additionally, there are other external agencies that lay claim to approving particular program (e.g. NASW Council on Social Work Education) that places a stranglehold on institutions. The “big six” accreditation agencies (Middle States, New England, North Central, Northwest, Southern and Western) do not apply accreditation standards equally, even though they are part of the same national organization and use the same basic criteria. If one is seeking milder treatment for accreditation, using the Middle States organization is the agency to seek out. Proprietary schools in the Middle East, especially the Arab Gulf States, have figured this out on the part of the numbers of proprietary elementary and secondary schools, as well as for post-secondary institutions.
While institutions accredited by the “big six” will usually honor credits earned between such schools, doing so is not mandated and schools are free to disallow credits as they see fit. One would think that accreditation would mean that these institutions have some agreement on the topics and domains taught in any given course, but that is not the case. Then, too, those institutions accredited by the “ big six” have a devil of a time changing the curriculum, even if it is only to update a course to meet current standards and areas of expertise. This slow-to-move updating process means that curriculum programs are usually out of date by at least 6 months, but more likely by a couple of years. A delay of this type may not mean much in the field of Philosophy, or perhaps one of the social sciences, but in the field of Information Technology, 6 months is a lifetime.
Then there are the “less-than big six” accreditation agencies, like ACICS, DETC, ABHES, and other national or regional accrediting agencies. Add to that the accreditation bodies for public and private institutions for each state (i.e. New York Regents, California Bureau of Post-Secondary Private Colleges & Universities, Indiana Council On Proprietary Education, etc.) Then we have specialty accreditation agencies for Social Work, Nursing, Chiropractics, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.
One would think that all these accreditation agencies would focus on the quality of the school by primarily focusing on the quality of what occurs in the classroom. Since it is what occurs in the classroom that makes an institution of higher learning valuable in our society, we should expect that there would be intense focus on classroom activities, teacher preparedness, and student achievement. However, having been through accreditation reviews for ACICS (2), New England, Middle States (2), North Central and the European Baccalaureate program, there seems to be a primary focus on the records of a school—which never seem to reflect realities—than what occurs in the classroom. Similar to the emphasis of research over teaching quality we see in the larger research institutions, the quality of instruction, which has a direct correlation to the quality of the graduate produced by the school, is placed low on the scale of what matters to obtain accreditation.
All of us that have attended college can remember the course or professor we had to take that had such a poor instructor that we can barely remember the course content. Accreditation does nothing to prevent this from happening and, quite frankly, neither do most institutions. So much for the accreditation review of governance.
The degree of in-fighting over accreditation doesn’t seem to be anything more than an industry (or a group of industries) protecting a slice of the marketplace that has traditionally been the sole venue of traditional school structures. Not only does this protectionist approach harm the quality of schools in the long-term, it prevents innovation and implementation of more affordable education delivery methods. Additionally, it places barriers between institutions that could, if so inclined, cooperate on degree programs, course offerings and other programs.
The bottom line on accreditation is that it fails to do what it is supposed to do: offer some assurance of the quality of the classroom/student experience. Due to the failure of accreditation to fulfill its intended mission, there are additional barriers that prevent students from achieving.
POORLY IMPLEMENTED TECHNOLOGY
In 1992 a colleague and I purchased a VAX 7/11 computer for the purpose of developing online resources, courses and collegial efforts at Salem State College, Salem, Massachusetts. We made our proposal to the powers-that-be at Salem State and were met with disdain, consternation and ridicule. The first opposing point offered was that the VAX 7/11 was too costly to maintain. When we countered that with the already worked out idea of asking Information Technology students to run the computer as an internship for credit, plus the possibility of obtaining grants for this specific purpose, the powers-that-be opposed the idea on the grounds that it would take too much time and effort to train the Salem State staff and faculty. When faced with the reality that we already had a not-for-profit corporation that would raise the funds and tools necessary to train the SSC staff and faculty, the opposition then trumped out the idea that no one attending a state college would want to take courses online. The rigmarole continued until we exhausted ourselves trying to make our proposal work.
We wanted to tap into SSC for its technology assets. SSC had over forty miles of fiber optics already laid under the streets of Salem ready to tap into the available network infrastructure. The only problem was that SSC had never bothered to get the fiber lit up. There was the equivalent of 5 T-3 lines already connected to the backbone just sitting in the dark.
Fast forward to 2005. Salem State College is now proposing to develop online courses. The college is now struggling with the technology, training and management issues that would have already been addressed had any of its leaders had the foresight to let creative ideas prevail.
The problem is that none of the institutions with which I have had the pleasure to be associated have implemented creative ideas for using technology to deliver instruction. In 1993 I worked with a creative communications instructor that hosted a single semester hour honors course at Radford University involving an instructional team of five diversely trained faculty from different parts of the US. Similarly, I worked with a professor at Pace University delivering a graduate course concerning the ethics of technology. Taking the possibilities further, I worked a similar process with a professor of management at the University of Hawaii-Manoa. My involvement with this approach—team teaching using computer-mediated communication and computer-based education—included courses in Applied Ethics, Education, History, Management, Communications, Logic, and Writing. Yet, some 12 years later, almost none of the institutions that sponsored this type of learning activity has been able to implement a complete program of this kind.
The beauty of such computer-mediated team teaching approaches is that the students—and the institutions—received the benefits of a team of instructors, with diverse views of the profession and standards of the discipline without additional costs. While these initial efforts were employed with small groups of students, the approach could well have been used for groups of 25-40 students without difficulty. Additional benefits included individual attention to students without competition pushing out less assertive students; peer contribution, feedback and review of work submitted with technology employing a public forum (i.e. online chats, interactive blackboard sessions, store-and-forward discussion boards); flexibility of schedules for both instructors and students; archival capabilities; file exchanges and web-based FTP capabilities; homework postings on a web site; and lower costs. That is right, I said less cost.
However, those institutions that have implemented some technology approaches have not seen fit to translate the lower costs into lower tuition. Despite the many benefits of properly implementing the technology at lower costs, many institutions have only viewed computer-mediated instruction as an opportunity to increase revenues. While it might be understandable in private institutions to adopt this revenue-generating approach, it does not make sense for state-sponsored institutions that have a mission and legal mandate to serve the community as a whole.
In 1999, while attending a graduate level course in Education, I submitted a plan for a self-directed cohort program to several vice presidents at Purdue University-Calumet. The program allowed graduate students to choose an alternative approach to pursuing a degree. The student, with collaboration of an academic advisor, a group facilitator and 10-12 cohort peers, would be allowed to pursue research interests that were self-selected. While the research would have to focus on the professional field and standards within the discipline, the student would not be required to meet specific course requirements. However, every research project, report, topical paper and other types of submission would be reviewed by the multi-discipline cohort group, faculty members visiting the cohort group’s web site (every paper needs to be posted), by faculty and professionals invited to review the works, and by the general public. Multiple cohort groups could be running at the same time and an open enrollment policy could allow new groups to be formed at any time. This approach combines the classroom models often found in the US with the research models found in many institutions in Europe, Australia and elsewhere, as well as allowing students to direct their professional training to areas that invite innovation in their respective fields.
Our colleges and universities are filled with computer and communication technologies and it is simply not being used effectively. The creative and mission-based energies have not been able to emerge, evolve or dig the way out from under miles of administrative opposition to creative ways for teaching. Regardless of school ownership, the overall purpose of a college or university is service to the community. In regard to technology use, poor implementation of technology, protectionistic internal politics, administrative entrenchment and a complete lack of foresight presents as a barrier to access to most institutions of higher education.
November 2, 2005
While institutions accredited by the “big six” will usually honor credits earned between such schools, doing so is not mandated and schools are free to disallow credits as they see fit. One would think that accreditation would mean that these institutions have some agreement on the topics and domains taught in any given course, but that is not the case. Then, too, those institutions accredited by the “ big six” have a devil of a time changing the curriculum, even if it is only to update a course to meet current standards and areas of expertise. This slow-to-move updating process means that curriculum programs are usually out of date by at least 6 months, but more likely by a couple of years. A delay of this type may not mean much in the field of Philosophy, or perhaps one of the social sciences, but in the field of Information Technology, 6 months is a lifetime.
Then there are the “less-than big six” accreditation agencies, like ACICS, DETC, ABHES, and other national or regional accrediting agencies. Add to that the accreditation bodies for public and private institutions for each state (i.e. New York Regents, California Bureau of Post-Secondary Private Colleges & Universities, Indiana Council On Proprietary Education, etc.) Then we have specialty accreditation agencies for Social Work, Nursing, Chiropractics, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.
One would think that all these accreditation agencies would focus on the quality of the school by primarily focusing on the quality of what occurs in the classroom. Since it is what occurs in the classroom that makes an institution of higher learning valuable in our society, we should expect that there would be intense focus on classroom activities, teacher preparedness, and student achievement. However, having been through accreditation reviews for ACICS (2), New England, Middle States (2), North Central and the European Baccalaureate program, there seems to be a primary focus on the records of a school—which never seem to reflect realities—than what occurs in the classroom. Similar to the emphasis of research over teaching quality we see in the larger research institutions, the quality of instruction, which has a direct correlation to the quality of the graduate produced by the school, is placed low on the scale of what matters to obtain accreditation.
All of us that have attended college can remember the course or professor we had to take that had such a poor instructor that we can barely remember the course content. Accreditation does nothing to prevent this from happening and, quite frankly, neither do most institutions. So much for the accreditation review of governance.
The degree of in-fighting over accreditation doesn’t seem to be anything more than an industry (or a group of industries) protecting a slice of the marketplace that has traditionally been the sole venue of traditional school structures. Not only does this protectionist approach harm the quality of schools in the long-term, it prevents innovation and implementation of more affordable education delivery methods. Additionally, it places barriers between institutions that could, if so inclined, cooperate on degree programs, course offerings and other programs.
The bottom line on accreditation is that it fails to do what it is supposed to do: offer some assurance of the quality of the classroom/student experience. Due to the failure of accreditation to fulfill its intended mission, there are additional barriers that prevent students from achieving.
POORLY IMPLEMENTED TECHNOLOGY
In 1992 a colleague and I purchased a VAX 7/11 computer for the purpose of developing online resources, courses and collegial efforts at Salem State College, Salem, Massachusetts. We made our proposal to the powers-that-be at Salem State and were met with disdain, consternation and ridicule. The first opposing point offered was that the VAX 7/11 was too costly to maintain. When we countered that with the already worked out idea of asking Information Technology students to run the computer as an internship for credit, plus the possibility of obtaining grants for this specific purpose, the powers-that-be opposed the idea on the grounds that it would take too much time and effort to train the Salem State staff and faculty. When faced with the reality that we already had a not-for-profit corporation that would raise the funds and tools necessary to train the SSC staff and faculty, the opposition then trumped out the idea that no one attending a state college would want to take courses online. The rigmarole continued until we exhausted ourselves trying to make our proposal work.
We wanted to tap into SSC for its technology assets. SSC had over forty miles of fiber optics already laid under the streets of Salem ready to tap into the available network infrastructure. The only problem was that SSC had never bothered to get the fiber lit up. There was the equivalent of 5 T-3 lines already connected to the backbone just sitting in the dark.
Fast forward to 2005. Salem State College is now proposing to develop online courses. The college is now struggling with the technology, training and management issues that would have already been addressed had any of its leaders had the foresight to let creative ideas prevail.
The problem is that none of the institutions with which I have had the pleasure to be associated have implemented creative ideas for using technology to deliver instruction. In 1993 I worked with a creative communications instructor that hosted a single semester hour honors course at Radford University involving an instructional team of five diversely trained faculty from different parts of the US. Similarly, I worked with a professor at Pace University delivering a graduate course concerning the ethics of technology. Taking the possibilities further, I worked a similar process with a professor of management at the University of Hawaii-Manoa. My involvement with this approach—team teaching using computer-mediated communication and computer-based education—included courses in Applied Ethics, Education, History, Management, Communications, Logic, and Writing. Yet, some 12 years later, almost none of the institutions that sponsored this type of learning activity has been able to implement a complete program of this kind.
The beauty of such computer-mediated team teaching approaches is that the students—and the institutions—received the benefits of a team of instructors, with diverse views of the profession and standards of the discipline without additional costs. While these initial efforts were employed with small groups of students, the approach could well have been used for groups of 25-40 students without difficulty. Additional benefits included individual attention to students without competition pushing out less assertive students; peer contribution, feedback and review of work submitted with technology employing a public forum (i.e. online chats, interactive blackboard sessions, store-and-forward discussion boards); flexibility of schedules for both instructors and students; archival capabilities; file exchanges and web-based FTP capabilities; homework postings on a web site; and lower costs. That is right, I said less cost.
However, those institutions that have implemented some technology approaches have not seen fit to translate the lower costs into lower tuition. Despite the many benefits of properly implementing the technology at lower costs, many institutions have only viewed computer-mediated instruction as an opportunity to increase revenues. While it might be understandable in private institutions to adopt this revenue-generating approach, it does not make sense for state-sponsored institutions that have a mission and legal mandate to serve the community as a whole.
In 1999, while attending a graduate level course in Education, I submitted a plan for a self-directed cohort program to several vice presidents at Purdue University-Calumet. The program allowed graduate students to choose an alternative approach to pursuing a degree. The student, with collaboration of an academic advisor, a group facilitator and 10-12 cohort peers, would be allowed to pursue research interests that were self-selected. While the research would have to focus on the professional field and standards within the discipline, the student would not be required to meet specific course requirements. However, every research project, report, topical paper and other types of submission would be reviewed by the multi-discipline cohort group, faculty members visiting the cohort group’s web site (every paper needs to be posted), by faculty and professionals invited to review the works, and by the general public. Multiple cohort groups could be running at the same time and an open enrollment policy could allow new groups to be formed at any time. This approach combines the classroom models often found in the US with the research models found in many institutions in Europe, Australia and elsewhere, as well as allowing students to direct their professional training to areas that invite innovation in their respective fields.
Our colleges and universities are filled with computer and communication technologies and it is simply not being used effectively. The creative and mission-based energies have not been able to emerge, evolve or dig the way out from under miles of administrative opposition to creative ways for teaching. Regardless of school ownership, the overall purpose of a college or university is service to the community. In regard to technology use, poor implementation of technology, protectionistic internal politics, administrative entrenchment and a complete lack of foresight presents as a barrier to access to most institutions of higher education.
November 2, 2005
posted by Jim Downey at 5:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home