President's Letters

To Celebrate or Not Celebrate Exceptionalism

(UCEA InFocus, October 2004)
James Broomall, UCEA President 2004-2005

As continuing studies, university engagement, and academic outreach increasingly have become institutionalized among our members, we confront a paradoxical question. To what extent should the continuing studies unit-however it is specifically defined-align its mission with that of the home institution? The question framed a bit more philosophically becomes, "To what extent should we or should we not celebrate our exceptionalism?" These questions go to the fundamental core not only of our organizational role, but also the constellation of beliefs and values that distinguishes continuing higher education. As we are greeted with extended hands from our colleagues in the academic center, we must ask ourselves (to paraphrase Groucho Marx) "Should we belong to any club that would have us as a member?"

At first glance, common sense dictates that yes we should be in alignment with our home institution. First, institutional integrity and energy are both served well when there is congruence among the multiple stakeholders in the contemporary college and university. Both strategic and tactical planning are facilitated when they become operational within a consistent values and goals framework. Second, as educators we have embraced the corporate concept of "brand" and "brand recognition." The programs and services provided by our respective units trade on the brand of our home institution. Therefore, if we are part of the mainstream, we can clearly communicate our position to our clients and students in a cluttered environment marked by hypercompetition. Finally, becoming a part of the academic core has long been seen by continuing educators as a positive alternative to marginalism. When listening to our provosts and presidents speak of the "engaged university," we cannot help but smile as we reflect on the heritage of university extension and public service. There is a well-deserved sense of satisfaction.

But I wonder (like our erstwhile friend with the cigar), do I want to be a member of this club? At a strategic level, the benefits as well as the enhanced prospects for survival are self-evident. Yet, I suggest that we should fulfill our responsibility as the good academic citizen without assuming the full mantle of a card-carrying member. Several factors lead me to this (perhaps) contrarian position. A primary reason is that our threshold definition of quality differs from the academic core. As reflected in collegiate rankings, quality in the academic mainstream is defined first by selectivity; the more difficult it is to enter an institution, the greater the perceived quality.

Continuing studies is committed to serving diverse learners with divergent learning styles. We recognize programming that uses unique delivery systems to reach these audiences across conventional barriers of time and space. Our definition of quality therefore is more eclectic, and emphasizes inclusion rather than exclusion. Second, our measures of success differ. Traditional academy measures of success focus on research dollars obtained and student and faculty awards. Continuing studies' success is determined by how well we enable our students to realize their individual and organizational goals. Success is learner or client-centered and definitions are as disparate as the audiences we serve. The teaching-learning matrix is slightly altered to put learning goals at the top without diminishing the fundamental importance of the teaching transaction. Third, the academy and schooling in general perform the "sorting function" for a democracy; access to opportunities for higher education is the principal means to social mobility. While some are admitted and given the opportunity to move forward, others are denied entrance or fail along the way. Continuing educators provide access to nontraditional learners who are not well served by traditional higher education. A fourth difference is that continuing education programs transcend the departmentalized disciplines which define the academic core. We approach curricula from a problem-centered or learner-oriented approach rather than a subject-centered one. Of course, the disciplines and professional fields are the building blocks and still enjoy hegemony in degree programs. We do though expand the defined ways of knowing to respond more precisely to the issues and needs external to our campuses.

Public demands for accountability from higher education will only continue to grow. Institutions that define quality, accessibility, and mission broadly will have the capacity and resources to respond to these external forces. Here, continuing educators can expand and enhance the dialogue with fulltime faculty and academic administrators to offer a more inclusive definition of mission that recognizes that academic excellence comes in varied forms and can be compatible with access. To do less will limit higher education's ability to meet the well-documented needs of a global, knowledge-based society. To craft a redefinition will lead to membership in a club in which we can serve the greater, public good as manifested in its multifarious forms.

I hope you can join your UCEA colleagues as we continue this and other conversations at future professional development events. The specialized conferences in workforce development, marketing and management will be held this coming January and February. And, very important, we will celebrate UCEA's 90th anniversary March 30-April 2, 2005, at the Association's Annual Conference in Boston. Note these dates on your calendar. I hope to see you at one or more of these programs.