Distance Learning
Expert-for-a-Day Discussion: Accreditation
September 29, 2004
The following is a transcript of the September 29, 2004 Expert(s)-for-a-Day
Listserv Conversation featuring ACCREDITATION topics with Dr. Randy
Rhine and Dr. Marianne Phelps, sponsored by UCEA Distance Learning
Community of Practice (DLCoP).
Dear Distance Learning Community of Practice Members,
I am pleased to officially open today’s forum and welcome
Dr. Randy Rhine as our accreditation expert from 9 to 3 pm Eastern.
(Dr. Marianne Phelps will join us from 3 to 5 pm Eastern and lurking
in the background throughout the day, if he has access while he
travels in Canada, is Dr. Ron Baker, Deputy Executive Director for
the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.) I have received
some questions from our membership that I will feed to the listserv
throughout the day. Remember that your responses are not moderated
and will appear in all 329 of our email boxes shortly after submission
and that our experts are NOT expected to answer immediately but
as they have time throughout the day. I will prepare an archive
of our discussions and post to our section of the UCEA Web site
afterwards.
We thank Randy and Marianne for joining us today and remind all
of our community that any responses or opinions expressed by these
experts are their own, are not binding in anyway, and do not necessarily
reflect the official views of any of the six regional accrediting
institutions.
--Scott Howell
Brief Biographical Sketches of our Two Experts
Dr. Randy Rhine is the Dean of the College of Professional
Studies and Lifelong Learning at Montana State University-Billings
and has served as an evaluator for the Northwest Association of
Schools and of Colleges and Universities, Commission on Colleges
and Universities for seven years and participated on eight campus
review teams. He has authored or co-authored three substantive changes
documents for new programs or efforts while at MSU-Billings. He
also contributed to the 1998 MSU-Billings Self Study, subsequent
Focused Interim Visit related to Distance Delivery of Courses, Programs,
or Instruction. Randy also organized the Focused Visit and Report
related to the Substantive Change for the Offering of Selected Courses
of MSU-Billings in Japan and contributed to the 2003 Five Year Campus
Visit.
Dr. Marianne R. Phelps is a higher education consultant
in the areas of distance education, accreditation, and institutional
assessment working both with individual institutions and educational
organizations. She is also a member of the Walden University adjunct
faculty. Dr. Phelps has significant experience in University administration
and academic policy having held a number of posts at George Washington
University including University Planning Officer and Associate Provost.
Between 1990 and 1993, Dr. Phelps held the position of Vice President
of the Council for Postsecondary Education and worked specifically
on the 1992 Amendments to the Higher Education Act, which first
put teeth into the requirements for recognition of accrediting agencies.
Between 1993 and 2001, she was employed by the U.S. Department of
Education in several capacities. After the 1998 Reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act, which provided the authority for the
Distance Education Demonstration Program, she assumed the responsibility
for implementing that program. She has also held positions as Chief
of Staff to the Assistant Secretary and Director of the Institutional
Participation and Oversight Service, which included responsibility
for the unit responsible for Departmental recognition of accrediting
agencies for federal purposes. For her work in reengineering the
Oversight Service, she received the Secretary of Education’s
Executive Management award. Dr. Phelps holds a bachelors degree
from the University of Michigan and two master’s degrees (University
of Wisconsin and George Washington University). She earned her PhD
degree from George Washington University.
NOW: RANDY RHINE
Dear DLCOP members, Good morning and thank you for having me participate
in this discussion. I have been asked to participate in this discussion
in part because of my experience as an accreditation review team
member and work on accreditation preparation and issues on my campus
at Montana State University-Billings. My responses to questions
are based on my opinions and experiences and should not be construed
as official positions of the Northwest Commission on Colleges and
Universities.
My responses to the questions listed below are as follows:
Q1. What general advice about the accreditation
experience would you give continuing education (CE) administrators
who are preparing for their next reaccredidation?
R.R. I think it is important for the continuing education
unit on any campus to be familiar with the accreditation standards
that apply to their area specifically, and how their areas of responsibility
are interconnect with other areas of campus and the relation those
activities may have to accreditation standards. Many continuing
education units are involved in distance delivery of educational
programs, contractual relationships to receive or deliver content
in partnership with agency not regionally accredited, operate off-campus
locations, etc. Do not allow the continuing education unit to be
overlooked in the preparation of the campus self study.
Q2. And out of Missouri comes the question,
“Q: To what extent are students in online/distance degree programs
realizing the importance of Regional accreditation?
R.R. My opinion is that students are going to have a keener
interest in whether or not a distance/online degree program in regionally
accredited. Financial aid, transfer of credits between institutions,
problem resolution, and a host of other issues are important to
students. I think regional accreditation standards should provide
students with a sense that the institution providing their instruction
is responsible and accountable.
Q3. Randy, can you tell us briefly about
your role as an evaluator on a team visit—most of us don’t
really know what you do, the sequence of events, and especially
the kinds of discussions and negotiations that sometimes occur behind
the scenes with the rest of the visiting team.
R.R. Being a member of an accreditation team is a very rewarding
experience. In the Northwest Region, generally speaking and assuming
that you have been through evaluator training, you are contacted
by the Commission and asked if you can serve as part of team on
certain dates at a certain institution. If you agree, you receive
confirmation from the Commission and some time later you will also
receive communication from your Team Chair as well as the campus
self study and other supporting material from the Commission. In
the communication from the Commission you will receive your specific
assignment for the review, (specific standards or areas within standards
to be reviewed while on campus). Each reviewer is responsible for
reading the self study, paying particular attention to the standards
they are responsible for on the visit. As I review a self study,
I will also examine all the supporting material and visit the campus
website. Prior to arrival on campus I submit a list of campus people
that I want to visit with while the team is on campus. I generally
try to visit with administrator’s key to the standards I am
responsible for as well as faculty, staff, community members and
boards, and last but certainly not last students. The first night
on campus the team has a meeting and specific assignments are established
and responsibilities for writing certain sections of the report
are made. Generally campus visits are 2.5 days. Over the first two
days I conduct interviews and gather information. The team meets
at the conclusion of day to discuss the day’s findings share
information, and begin to shape the report. On the morning of the
last day final recommendations and commendations are prepared by
team members, drafts of each section of the report are turned in
to the team chair and the exit meeting held with the campus. Sorry
for this long answer!
Q4. How does one go about becoming an
evaluator and do you recommend that more of us consider getting
involved in this process of peer evaluation? Why or why not?
R.R. I believe you are nominated by your liaison officer
on your campus to go to evaluator training. I suspect you can also
volunteer. You then go to evaluator training and hopefully an assignment
soon follows. I think being an evaluator has had a significant impact
on my capabilities and ability to serve my institution. I think
it is also a great way to give something back to our profession
and I highly recommend becoming involved with your regional association.
Q5. Also, how much responsibility does
CE really assume in the accreditation process for academic programs
that they host and provide logistical support, (e.g. registration,
advisement, financial aid, etc.) in partnership with the academic
programs on our campuses that prepare the curriculum and authorize
the instructors. Are evaluators really looking to the academic department
chairs for answers about student learning outcomes for these outreach
programs or CE administrators or both?
R.R. My perspective, the relationship between the CE unit
and the academic programs that it works with/for should be defined,
understood by both parties, and functioning according to the policies
and procedures established for the unit or campus CE activities.
The appropriate reviews and processes should be reflected in campus
policy and consistent with the applicable accreditation standards.
Q6. With respect to NWCCU Policy A-6,
Contractual Relationships with Organizations not Regionally Accredited,
I am not sure this is a “hot accreditation topic”, but
the last couple of accreditation teams I have served on have been
asked to keep this policy in mind as we conducted our review. In
my experience, institutions are becoming more entrepreneurial and
there are more and more opportunities to partner with other institutions
of higher education (public and private, and out of country), public
and private organizations, and a host of other content and service
providers. Policy A-6 recognizes that these opportunities are out
there, may be appropriate for your institution, and provides the
accreditation framework for review and operation of these kinds
of relationships.
R.R. With respect to NWCCU Policy A-6, Contractual Relationships
with Organizations not Regionally Accredited, I am not sure this
is a “hot accreditation topic”, but the last couple of
accreditation teams I have served on have been asked to keep this
policy in mind as we conducted our review. In my experience, institutions
are becoming more entrepreneurial and there are more and more opportunities
to partner with other institutions of higher education (public and
private, and out of country), public and private organizations,
and a host of other content and service providers. Policy A-6 recognizes
that these opportunities are out there, may be appropriate for your
institution, and provides the accreditation framework for review
and operation of these kinds of relationships.
Q7. My opinion is that you are better
served as a campus in the self study and review process by disclosing
issues and discussing your current effort to resolve them rather
than hoping that someone might not notice the issue during the campus
visit. Again, this is just my opinion, but generally surprises are
best left to birthdays and Christmas.
R.R. My opinion is that you are better served as a campus
in the self study and review process by disclosing issues and discussing
your current effort to resolve them rather than hoping that someone
might not notice the issue during the campus visit. Again, this
is just my opinion, but generally surprises are best left to birthdays
and Christmas.
Q8. Careful review of the draft report
is critical. At some point after the visit and prior to the final
report going to the Commission for consideration a campus will receive
a draft of the report for review. The review of the draft report
by the campus is not an opportunity for the campus to edit the report
or dispute the findings of the review committee, however, it is
an opportunity to address factual errors.
R.R. Careful review of the draft report is critical. At
some point after the visit and prior to the final report going to
the Commission for consideration a campus will receive a draft of
the report for review. The review of the draft report by the campus
is not an opportunity for the campus to edit the report or dispute
the findings of the review committee, however, it is an opportunity
to address factual errors.
Q9. My experience has been that each
visit has been somewhat unique. Though there are obviously many
similarities between campuses, each has evolved and operates in
a unique context. Experiencing the different contexts that institutions
operate within is one of the great benefits of being an evaluator.
R.R. My experience has been that each visit has been somewhat
unique. Though there are obviously many similarities between campuses,
each has evolved and operates in a unique context. Experiencing
the different contexts that institutions operate within is one of
the great benefits of being an evaluator.
Q10. My opinion is that 10 years is
probably too long between self studies and campus visits. I would
vote for a process that is more on-going, perhaps linking the regional
accreditation bodies more closely with the strategic planning and
review process on campus.
R.R. My opinion is that 10 years is probably too long between
self studies and campus visits. I would vote for a process that
is more on-going, perhaps linking the regional accreditation bodies
more closely with the strategic planning and review process on campus.
Q11. When planning new online programs,
at what point in time should the review or substantive change process
be invoked? Is it once the program is fully developed? What, in
general, are the accreditation issues to address in moving present
programs to an online delivery system?
R.R. Though I am not that familiar with the substantive
change policies of all the regional accreditation bodies, If this
is a completely new effort, notification of the regional association
early in the process is appropriate. The timing may also depends
on where an institution is with internal and state levels of authorization.
I often use the Northwest policy on substantive change as an outline
to guide the development process of new programs or efforts. With
respect to moving existing programs to online delivery, the accreditation
issues will be presented in the standards and will probably not
be too far from the issues of operating a program on campus.
Q12. Are there different levels of substantive
change and if so, how does that impact accreditation? Do evaluators
like you get assigned to review proposed changes or is this something
that the Commission handles?
R.R. There can be different levels of substantive change
(major or minor), I have been involved in reviewing changes that
are incorporated into or happen as part of the review associated
with a campus self study. I have not been a reviewer involved in
a visit related to a singular substantive change.
Q13. Do you happen to know what happened
to the "seat hours" requirements for learning and what
is the generally accepted formula for figuring out "time in
course" per credit? Are there any standards used by evaluators
right now?
R.R. Outcomes assessment. In the virtual classroom, seat
time is not a relevant concept. There are good strategies to measure
performance in the virtual space and those will help.
Q14. Any good accreditation stories
or anecdotes that you dare share—even if it is doesn’t
necessarily have much to do with our own continuing education about
accreditation? We all promise to not speculate or read more into
any stories than we should.
R.R. Best not to comment too much. Best advice, use the
process as intended and realize that the folks coming to your campus
live on a campus somewhere in your region. My guess is that by the
time you finish the self study process you will know what your issues
are and will either be dealing with them directly or planning a
solution.
NOW: MARIANNE PHELPS (MP) joins us…
Q15. What does the federal government
think is its role in holding institutions of continuing and distance
education accountable?
M.P. Except for grant programs, such as FIPSE, the only
interest of the federal government is insuring the integrity of
the federal student aid programs. The Higher Education Act of 1965
as amended (and now under consideration for reauthorization) provides
the framework institutions must adhere to in order to become and
stay eligible for federal student aid. The regulations implementing
the Act provide the detailed requirements. Currently, the approach
to accountability is to limit the amount of distance education an
institution can provide and still maintain its eligibility to 50%
of courses or 50% of students. Institutions that offer education
by correspondence are not eligible at all. This limitation was passed
in the 1992 Amendments. I don't believe there are any limitations
on continuing education as long as at least 50% of it is provided
onground.
The Distance Education Demonstration Program was authorized in
the 1998 Amendments. I provides waivers of the 50% rules and some
other regulations to schools that are accepted as participants in
that program. So, there are currently a few schools that provide
more than 50% of their courses via distance education (correspondence
excluded) that are participating in federal student aid programs.
Q16. How does accreditation—present
or reformed—fit into any changes that are suggested.
M.P. Since 1952 the federal government has relied on accrediting
agencies to "certify" the quality of institutions that
participate in federal student aid and other federal programs. This
still is the case. However, as time has passed the Congress has
added more and more to the requirements accrediting associations
would have to meet in order to be eligible. In 1998, it passed something
that said accrediting agencies must have distance education included
in it's scope of accreditation. Secretarial approval is required
of each association's scope so there was a process, not at all onerous
to facilitate this. The legislation currently under consideration
for reauthorization of the HEA would add additional requirements.
Off hand I can't remember for sure what specifically is under consideration,
but if I have time in the course of the two hours I'm on, I'll try
to research this.
Q17. How have the “Best Practices
for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs”
that you helped develop assist institutions like ours improve? Any
changes proposed or additional practices to be appended to these
best practices? (We have heard WICHE has been asked to develop another
set of standards, e.g. student services, for a client.)
M.P. I think Sally Johnstone has lots of testimonials as
to their value -- me only a few. However, I think they have been
very helpful in two ways. They represented the best thinking about
those attributes of electronically offered programs that were important
to insuring program quality was sufficient and that the programs
were offered with integrity. (I used the past tense here, because
it's likely that practice has now exceeded the "best practices"
developed in 2001 in some respects.) As a result, they were useful
to educators who were developing and changing programs. They were
also useful and continue to be useful in helping to educate those
individuals who serve as reviewers. The cadre of individuals expert
in this area still is not large enough to insure they will understand
some of the differences between online and on ground programs. The
best practices offer a roadmap for evaluation.
Q18. Can you tell us more about CHEA
and C-RAC and what they are doing to hold the accrediting agencies
themselves more accountable and promote more consistency across
them?
M.P. I can't really speak to CHEA except to say that they
have been working on changing their standards for recognition. I
don't know that increasing accountability is one of the goals, but
I believe CHEA and their Committee on Recognition saw ways they
could improve their standards, particularly those dealing with assessment
in ways that would also improve accreditation.
In terms of C-RAC, the prefatory statement to the "best practices"
documents agreed to by all the regionals was the first time there
was ever formal agreement among them directed toward consistency.
This is difficult because there are real differences among the various
associations, and, of course, each thinks their approach is best.
There may have been further concrete steps they have taken, but
I'm not aware of them. I know there have been continuing discussions.
Q19. How do you accredit and hold accountable
the increasing number of VIRTUAL universities who really don’t
have a regional headquarters?
M.P. All of them have some physical presence in a state,
which authorizes them to operate there. (I purposely did not use
the term "to offer education" because in some states they
must only be registered as a corporation.) If they are in a state,
they are de facto in the area served by one of the regional accrediting
associations. Perhaps the question also goes to who can one really
examine a "virtual" university. Actually, it's very similar
to an onground university. Each has to write a self-study demonstrating
how they comply with the association's standards. Then, assuming
the self-study is acceptable, a team visits the headquarters and
maybe other locations, if they are important in the self-study,
evaluates whether the self-study accurately represents the situation,
and makes a recommendation concerning what the accrediting action
should be along with any observations the team may have concerning
the strengths and weaknesses of the university.
Q20. Where does reauthorization and
Title IV fit into any proposed changes or reforms impacting accreditation?
Any timing guesses?
M.P. Certainly, there will be no bill passed at least until
after January when the "new" Congress takes up residency
in Washington. It's likely to be later than that. I am hopeful there
will be a bill passed in 2005, but depending on the other issues
the Congress must deal with, it could be later than that.
The bill currently introduced in the House adds several requirements
for accrediting agency recognition. One would require them to determine
whether institutions comply with the new transfer of credit provisions
also in the legislation. This would require schools to consider
credits for transfer earned at any school accredited by a recognized
agency. There are other which I'll try to research in the course
of 2 hours, if I have time.
Q21. You mentioned the government’s
Distance Education Demonstration Program. I heard that this program
has not been as successful as anticipated—one or two of the
institutions apparently misused federal monies even though everyone
thought they were being carefully monitored—and that this unfortunate
event with other known diploma mills has triggered further scrutiny
and concern by Congress as they undergo Reauthorization. Is this
at least partially true?
M.P. One institution was, in fact, removed from the program
because personnel there violated student federal aid requirements
concerning the timing of drawing down funds. This institution then
closed because it was not able or didn't want to pay the liability
for the violation established by the Department of Education. There
is at least one other I know of that has been found to violate federal
regulations. Neither of these institutions could in any sense of
the word be considered diploma mills. I don't necessarily think
that institutions that offer significant amounts of distance education
pose any greater risk to federal funds than any others. All kinds
of schools are found to have violated one or more of the student
aid requirements. Sometimes this is inadvertent. The regulations
are enormously complicated. Sometimes, it's willful as it was in
the case of at least the first institutions I mentioned above.
You mentioned the upcoming Reauthorization. Actually, the bill
introduced in the House would remove the 50% rules and some others
that were previously thought necessary to the integrity of the programs.
You are correct, however, that there have been hearings on diploma
mills, but this has nothing to do with distance education or the
DEMO program.
In terms of the success of the DEMO program, I believe it has been
successful as a bridge to the future if nothing else. The staff
in the Department have learned what some of the obstacles are to
providing aid not so much to distance educational students, but
to those who want to offer programs outside of the mold of semesters,
quarters, and summer vacations. I don't see a lot of interest in
changing this, however. I wish there were.
I hope this is helpful.
Q22. An ERIC document (464 585) written
in August, 2000 entitled, ”Distance Education Accreditation
Standards According to the Regional Accreditation Commissions”
and authored by Vincent E. Flango mentions that one of the topics
that the “Best Practices …” didn’t address was
“intellectual property issues” for CE/DE authors and instructors.
Intellectual property rights continues to be a big issue for most
of us administrators working with faculty and I am interested in
why it wasn’t included as one of the Best Practices, even if
it is just a statement that requires each unit to establish their
own policy and adhere to it.
M.P. There were not doubt other things missed. Another criticism
I have heard is that the Best Practices don't deal with the need
to accommodate disabled students. I think at the time the real concern
was getting at those issues that were closely related to distance
education, the assumption being that institutions would know those
laws and regulations that impacted onground education would also
apply in distance education.
Q23. Do you know what the DOE standards
are that are “currently in law in its review of the distance
learning capacity?” (April 26, 2000 letter from Judith Eaton
to Lee Fritschler). Does the DOE have any CE/DE laws in place concerning
us that we should also know about in addition to standards, policies,
and practices adopted by our accrediting agencies? If so, where
can we find them? (Some of us were surprised to hear about the Feds
recently fining the University of Phoenix some $9.8 million because
they “violated a rule banning pay incentives for recruiters
in an effort to boost enrollment.”)
M.P. I think what Judith Eaton was concerned about was that
DOE was requiring accrediting agencies to demonstrate that they
had been accrediting schools that offer distance education in order
for "distance education" to be added to their scope of
accreditation. I may not be remembering correctly, however.
Other than the 50% rules, I can't think of any requirements affecting
distance learning per se. Federal regulations do govern things like
recruiting practices, because there had been lots of abuses in this
area in past years. They also govern many other matters such as
term structure, which affect institutions that would like to break
the straight jacket of the semester or quarter and similar matters.
One thing I learned in administering the Distance Education Demonstration
Program is that academic administrators and student aid administrators
don't converse. There has to be an expert at your institution. There
needs to be more communication. You need to take into account what
limitations federal regulations may place on your programs.
Several years ago I did a session at a UCEA conference, and the
biggest complaint from the participants was that their student aid
administrator had told them their students were not eligible for
aid. I suspect this is still true and that the reason for this is
that continuing education programs frequently involve another pattern
which does not fit the financial aid computer system. Good communication
among educators and staff is critical.
Q.24 What are your thoughts about bill
H.R. 4283 that is before Congress? Overall, is it good? Are their
some parts that we should review and provide feedback on to our
own elected officials? Apparently it calls for accreditation agencies
to make more public or transparent their findings, their evaluators,
and so forth; institutions to make more disclosures to students
about programs and institutions; and fair credit transfer provisions
across institutions among other items. Is this bill part of reauthorization?
M.P. Yes, it is, and you are correct about what it proposes.
I pasted the language concerning what accrediting agencies would
need to do with respect to distance education. Below is some more
language from the bill.
(3) in paragraph (5)--
(A) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
`(A) success with respect to student achievement in relation to
the institution's mission, including, as appropriate, consideration
of student academic achievement as determined by the institution
(in accordance with standards of the accrediting agency or association)
related to each institution's articulation of desired learning outcomes,
retention, course and program completion, State licensing examinations,
and job placement rates; and other student performance data selected
by the institution, particularly data used by the institution to
evaluate or strengthen its educational programs, and including thresholds
for course completion and job placement rates if the institution
offers certificate-granting vocation or technical programs;';
(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking `fiscal and administrative
capacity' and inserting `fiscal, administrative, and governance
capacity'; and
(C) by amending subparagraph (I) to read as follows:
`(I) record of student complaints received by the agency or association,
including those resulting from the process described in section
485(a)(1)(J); and';
(4) by striking `and' at the end of paragraph (7); and
(5) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following:
`(8) such agency or association shall make available to the public,
and submit to the Secretary, for use in consumer information programs,
a summary of agency or association actions, including--
`(A) the award of accreditation or reaccreditation of an institution
and any findings made in connection with the accreditation or reaccreditation;
`(B) final denial, withdrawal, suspension, or termination of accreditation,
or placement on probation of an institution;
`(C) any other adverse action taken with respect to an institution;
`(D) a list of the individuals who comprise the inspection and review
teams for each agency or association, including each individual's
name, agency affiliation, and relevant professional experience;
`(E) a description of the agency's or association's process for
selecting, training, and evaluating such individuals; and
`(F) the agency's or association's code of conduct for its commissioners
and such individuals; and
`(9) such agency or association shall--
`(A) review, during its onsite comprehensive review, the transfer
of credit policies of programs and institutions under its accreditation;
and
`(B) not adopt or apply standards, policies, or practices that restrict
or deny the transfer of credits earned by a student completing courses
or programs at other eligible institutions of higher education solely
on the basis of the agency or association that accredited such other
eligible institution if that agency or association--
`(i) is recognized by the Secretary pursuant to this section to
be a reliable authority as to the quality of the education or training
offered; and
`(ii) is currently listed by the Secretary pursuant to section 101(c).'.
You asked about my opinion of the Bill. I hate to see a lot more
responsibilities placed on accrediting associations. They try to
operate on a shoe string so as not to raise costs to institutions.
For institutions, I think it is better that accrediting associations
do this than government employees, many of whom don't know a lot
about higher education. I'd suggest following the progress of the
legislation. I don't think it is particularly the time to write
at this point since there could be a lot of changes, but i would
certainly encourage you to do so when the various bills are being
debated in committee. For the House -- Google House of Representatives,
then Committee on Education and the Workforce, and I think you will
find the bill along with others that have been introduced by Democrats.
Q.25 Any thoughts about the Higher Learning
Commission’s requirement that they include, among others, over
and above the “Best Practices…” that “The institution
assesses student capability to succeed in distance education programs
and applies this information to admission and recruiting policies
and decisions?” The ability to assess student capability to
succeed in CE/DE is a thorny and difficult issue for not just us
but higher education too, especially when increased access is called
for by educational stakeholders. What do you do then if you identify
someone that may not have capability—how do you provide access
and accommodate? Furthermore, most of us don’t really know
how to assess this capability and there doesn’t appear to be
any standards or acceptable instruments for this kind of assessment.
M.P. Again a difficult question! I'd start with how does
your institution consider capability in general. This would certainly
be different in selective institutions as opposed to open admissions.
One important difference is facility with technology -- important
to all students, but especially to de students. If your school's
mission is more oriented toward access, then I would think you would
want to be looking to what student services are needed to give the
student a chance at success. Have you looked at what factors seem
to be associated with success with your students as opposed to failure?
This would be another starting point. I would also talk with someone
at HLC or at least ask whomever is your liaison to the Commission
to do so.
I said I would try to find the language of the Bill reauthorizing
the Higher Education Act, currently under consideration in the House.
Here's the language:
`(B) if such agency or association already has or seeks to include
within its scope of recognition the evaluation of the quality of
institutions or programs offering distance education, such agency
or association shall, in addition to meeting the other requirements
of this subpart--
`(i) demonstrate to the Secretary that, through application of its
standards, procedures, and policies, particularly those required
under paragraph (5) of this subsection, the agency or association
determines that the quality of instruction and student support services
for distance education is comparable to that provided by the institution
in its classrooms and on its campuses (or if distance education
is the only mode of delivery used by the institution, comparable
to the quality of instruction and student support services provided
in campus settings); and
`(ii) evaluate how an institution offering distance education ensures
the integrity of student participation in its distance education
programs;'.
(D) by inserting after `standards' the following: `(including standards
to assess the quality of distance education that are comparable
to the standards used for face-to-face classroom instruction)';
This is bill language which dumps in only the new language and
references other provisions that are not available, but this should
give you a good idea of what would be required of institutions to
comply.
If you would like a little more guidance re: how to stay up to
date with the legislation, email me at mrphelps@starpower.net,
and I'll get something to you. Realizing I am on a list serve and
more than one person might ask, I'll respond to whatever list of
people who have asked in two weeks -- hoping to include all of those
who are interested.
|
