Friday
December 5, 2008
Advertisement
News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Feb. 23, 2007
When Is Student Learning ‘Good Enough’?
Almost from the beginning of its work, the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education made it clear that it considered the American system of higher education accreditation to be falling short of its mission to be the chief guardian of quality among the nation’s colleges. And yet the panel’s leaders, and the Education Department officials charged with carrying out the commission’s recommendations, have also clearly viewed the accreditation system — because it touches virtually all colleges and universities — as a potential lever for bringing about the broader changes they envision for higher education.
Related stories
- Twisting in the Wind, July 1
- Foreseeing the Future of Accreditation, June 30
- ‘Last Bite at the Apple’ on Accreditation?, June 5
- The Future of Accreditation?, March 24
- A Little Help From Its Friends?, Feb. 28
The commission’s foremost recommendation, arguably, is that colleges and universities must do more to ensure that students are actually learning what the institutions are promising to teach them or train them to do. So at the core of the Education Department’s full-court press on accreditors is a desire to have the agencies ratchet up the pressure they in turn place on colleges to measure (and prove) that their students are learning and, importantly, to try to find ways to compare the institutions’ success to one another.
That issue stirred controversy in December when a department advisory committee was accused of trying to unfairly change the criteria it uses to judge accrediting agencies. And it came front and center Thursday on the second day of the Education Department’s first negotiated rule making session on accreditation. (A full recap of Day 1, which might be helpful context for the uninitiated, appears here.)
On Wednesday night, a subgroup of the members of the federal accrediting panel altered an “issue paper” that department officials had proposed on the topic to strip language that said the department was considering requiring accrediting agencies to define a common “core set of student achievement measures, both quantitative and qualitative,” and to define an “acceptable level of performance” that all colleges they oversaw would have to meet.
The working group also dropped language that said that an institution’s performance could only be measured based on “what the performance is being compared to.” In its place appeared mushier language that said: “Given the diversity of institutional missions and the diversity of accrediting agencies, there needs to be further attention on the criteria that each agency applies to determine the adequacy of student academic achievement at the institutions it accredits.”
Despite that softening, though, the ultimate question at the core of the department’s (and the Spellings Commission’s) campaign remained: Noting that accreditors have primarily focused their judgment of institutions’ quality on whether an individual college is showing progress, the statement said: “This institutional improvement model has its strengths, but it does not lead to answers to questions such as whether the performance of the institution is good enough” (emphasis added).
And that question — How does an accreditor measure whether a college or university is doing a “good enough” job educating its students? — got a full if somewhat unsatisfying hearing Thursday, set up by another question posed by Vickie L. Schray, the Education Department’s lead negotiator in the accreditation rule making process. “The law requires accrediting agencies to have a standard for student achievement,” Schray said. “We were curious to hear your various interpretations or definitions of what a ‘standard’ is.”
The accreditors’ answers were enlightening. Thelma Thompson, president of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, described a standard as a “level below which you shouldn’t fall” (an answer that would seem to support the department’s push to get accreditors to set minimum levels of performance for institutions to meet. And Craig Swenson, provost of Western Governors University, said he said believed it was reasonable that accreditors “ought to have a benchmark or a basis of comparison that you establish to say that this is sufficient.”
But several accreditors seemed distinctly uncomfortable with that approach. Ralph Wolff, executive director of the senior college commission of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, which was one of the agencies that felt the ground shift under it at the December meeting mentioned above, said accreditors have traditionally put the onus on “an institution to define its learning outcomes, and to assess the achievement of those outcomes and through that assessment to determine whether improvement is needed.” He added: “We believe we should keep that locus of responsibility at the institutional level.”
Elise Scanlon, executive director of the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology, said it was “very reasonable for an accrediting commission to set expectations for the institutions they accredit and to hold them to that expectation.” But, Scanlon asked Wolff, “what exactly is the standard you’re using to determine whether that institution is a performer or a non-performer?” she asked.
Wolff’s answer – that the agency’s peer reviewers and officials would “rely upon qualitative judgments” to “make sure institutions are using good processes and to improve the processes that institutions are using” – drew an exasperated followup from Scanlon: “Would it ever be possible to say that an institution is not meeting the standard?” Yes, Wolff replied, citing a variety of reasons – “lack of rigor, inadequate assessment activity, lack of good information” – why an institution might be deemed to fall short on student learning outcomes. “What we don’t have are quantitative ‘bright line’ indicators that suggest that if you fall below” your entire institution is in trouble, Wolff said.
But isn’t there a level of performance beneath which institutions shouldn’t fall, asked James H. McCormick, chancellor of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities? “If a college has complete autonomy, they might have low standards and be shown to have met them. Don’t we have to push colleges and universities to aspire higher and to meet certain standards? It’s hard to do, really hard to do. But don’t we have to push people to aspire harder, and aren’t you in a terrific position to push institutions to do that?”
Steven D. Crow, executive director of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools’ Higher Learning Commission, asked Schray whether department officials envisioned finding one or a handful of institution-wide measures that would somehow “summarize performance,” or finding “a number for every program’s success, and we tally those up at the end for an institution’s success.” “I’m just not sure what you’re really looking for. How narrow is this proposal?”
Schray said — as department officials have done repeatedly, in answer to complaints that the government is seeking an oversimplified “one size fits all” solution to the perceived performance problem (like a new standardized test) — that the department is “not looking for one assessment to be used by all institutions.” “We’ve made every effort not to be prescriptive, and to try instead to rely on the expertise of this peer review system” to come up with appropriate performance measures.
But, she pressed on, “we are asking you all to help us figure out the best way to draft regulations that will encourage and support and promote not only the identification of those measures, but also some explicit statement about how you know when there is quality at an institution.”
Mark L. Pelesh, a top official of Corinthian Colleges, Inc., who is representing the Coalition for an American Competitive Workforce on the accrediting panel, suggested that a potential middle ground – or at least a starting point – might be for much greater transparency about the standards that colleges and accreditors are using to judge whether students are learning and advancing.
“If an accrediting agency, in the area of student achievement, makes a decision not to set objective standards,” Pelesh said, “it seems to me what we might do is require accredited institutions to set objectives and goals for the programs they’re offering, require them to show that they’ve made them transparent to their students and customers, collect data on how well they’re meeting those objectives and goals, and then either have the accreditor make a judgment about whether the institution is doing a good enough job, or at least make that information available to the students.”
As the discussion neared its end, Crow insisted that the accreditors were already pushing hard in the general direction the department wants, prodding institutions to “be clear about their goals, find a way to measure their success, and then continue to improve.” He acknowledged that “the product of this needs to be public,” and that the “possibility of benchmarking [one institution’s performance against others] is an important tool that needs to be brought into this.”
But he warned that accreditors had been “trying to encourage this culture shift in the past decade,” oftentimes facing stiff resistance from college leaders and rank and file faculty members, and that the “the very first thing that could kill” the accreditors’ “success in changing this culture” is a federally imposed mandate that is seen as oversimplified and destructive.
“What I’m asking,” Crow said, “is that the regulatory environment not take this plant we’ve been nurturing for so long and try to hothouse it.” That anti-regulation plea was echoed by several other participants in the accreditation rule making session.
That session continues Friday, after which Education Department officials will “go away,” as Schray put it (drawing laughs from the college officials in the crowd, some of whom might not be sorry to see the department vanish right now), to figure out how to turn some or all of the vague ideas and debating points discussed this week into possible new federal rules.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Comments
Poor schools and unmet standards
It is common knowledge, though something no one wants to talk about, that some schools are simply not doing enough to educate their students, acting as “diploma mills” turning out “degreed” students who lack the education that one should be able to expect from any university graduate. What’s more, some schools manage to bypass already lax standards—such as those on minimum hours of classroom instruction—in order to “market” a “product” to people who are more interested in graduation than actually being educated. I don’t know how to solve these problems. Standardized tests are certainly NOT the answer! But something should be done to maintain the integrity of our educational system.
Scott, at 7:25 am EST on February 23, 2007
doing something
Scott, It sounds really nice to say that there are not “standards” are not being met, and that universities are diploma mills, but beyond that slogan, as you know, the issue is a lot more complicated.
Strangely, you say that standardized tests are “NOT” the answer. Why? After all, if you want to see if students meet a standard, a standardized test would seem to be an ideal way to do it.
Secondly, you say that something should be done. What? Should schools be fined for every graduate that doesn’t get into a top 50 graduate program? Should schools be fined for every graduate that works at Starbucks or a job making less than $75,000 per year after graduation? Should schools that graduate women that do become housewives be sanctioned, since they are not putting their education to use? Should departments be forced to teach the same curriculum? Should we end online learning because it is difficult to monitor.
Outside real diploma mills (i.e. the kind located in someone’s basement), doing “something” is just a political slogan, unless you really want to punish schools for making the Starbucks army larger.
Larry, at 8:45 am EST on February 23, 2007
School Outcome Comparison Impossible
Because a school is good in history does not necessarily equate to good in English lit.
What is going on now is comparison of intelligence and advantages afforded to students before entry and after graduation.
By subject comparisons are possible. Learning measurements require a test by subject on the way in and another test on the same subject on the way out.
Many schools have those tests, commonly called “comprehensives”. Also, see comments to the IHE article titled Fault Lines on Accreditation published 2-22-07.
William Sumner Scott, J.D.
Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.
William Sumner Scott, J.D., at 9:05 am EST on February 23, 2007
School Outcome Comparison Impossible
By subject major is possible.
Because a school is good in History does not necessarily equate to good in English Lit.
What is going on now is comparison of intelligence and advantages afforded to student before entry and after graduation.
Learning measurements require a test by subject on the way in and another test on the same subject on the way out. Many schools have those tests, commonly called “comprehensives”.
William Sumner Scott, at 9:50 am EST on February 23, 2007
evidence of no learning?
I am not necessarily opposed to an appropriate level of accountability. We in higher ed have an obligation to provide high quality learning experiences to our students. However, I am tired of hearing that students are not learning in college. Please show me the evidence of this. A few anecdotes from business leaders, legislators, etc are credible evidence. Show me the evidence that there is a large-scale systemic problem that needs a large-scale systemic solution.
Jim, at 9:55 am EST on February 23, 2007
no real evidence
Jim, I think you mean “A few anecdotes from business leaders, legislators, etc are NOT credible evidence.” Otherwise, I agree with you. Somehow or other, the republic remains strong.
I don’t understand why people take the word of self-proclaimed “business leaders” seriously. No company has too much trouble finding qualified people if they pay right. Paying kids $40,000 is not enough. Even if they could get qualified people working for them, the lack of money and low morale would eventually turn their work into crap.
Maybe certain accredited schools should be singled out for low standards. If the standards were really that low, the lack of learning would be empirically verifiable. Graduates would be fired from jobs. Graduates would be on welfare, and utterly unable to get into graduate programs.
Larry, at 10:45 am EST on February 23, 2007
Literacy
Jim, Check out the recent studies that show that many college grads are illiterate and can’t do basic tasks like choose the correct bus from a bus schedule. I think that’s proof that we have a problem. Several studies have also shown that employers are not happy with new grads.Allow me to provide one concrete example of poor college instruction: when college students submit term papers, the papers are simply returned to them with a grade on them. Instead, students should be given the opportunity to submit multiple drafts of one paper, trying to improve their writing with each draft. It is only through back-and-forth feedback and revisions that students’ writing skills will improve.
Mr. UN-Common Sense (New Name), at 11:10 am EST on February 23, 2007
Larry — what about ‘tenure effect?’
The first-tier colleges are not of concern. It is the lower-tier colleges — with not only tenure, but also unionization, that can significantly impede appropriate attempts to improve educational performance.
How do you get the tenured Prof. Slowsky to update his syllabus to the year 2007? The reality is, it can take hundreds of thousands of $$$ to effect change. That — or an enormous amount of torture (e.g., freshman orientation committee assignment, student-athlete tutoring group). Or — external performance standards.
C. Bigsby, at 11:21 am EST on February 23, 2007
Mr. Un-common sense:
What department do you work in? What school?In the community colleges where I have worked, the members of the English department DO required drafts on which they commment; DO require students to obtain individual consultations with the Center for Reading and Writing; and DO have 5 classes of 22 students each, committee meetings, club advising, division meetings, etc., etc., etc.
Bigsby: I took a graduate course from a state university that was abysmally taught. I took copious notes. I complained with evidence. I don’t see that instructor’s name in the catalog anymore. True, he wasn’t tenured, but don’t tell me colleges can’t get rid of incompetent faculty.
In this country we are attempting to educate an entire population—the physically disabled, the emotionally disabled, the abused, the homeless, the poor, the learning disabled—to the highest standard that any civilization has ever attempted. We’re asking K-12 teachers to be responsible for student’s physical and emotional well-being and for their socialization skills as well as teaching them reading, writing, math, science, history, computer literacy skills, health maintenance skills, art, music, sports, crafts, and god knows what else.
So stop telling me teachers are doing a bad job. I work in an open-enrollment school. We have to take every single person who comes here with a GED or a high school diploma. We have to teach them when they are mentally ill. We have to document and prove that a student is actively disrupting not our ability to teach but the ability of other students to learn. Then we have to take the time and emotional resources to pick up the pieces. What do you expect of us? At least get the government off our backs! or let me tell the legislature how to run things. I could do a lot better job off the top of my head. After all, they don’t have any special training. I do.
Jane, at 12:10 pm EST on February 23, 2007
reply on tenure
C. Bigsby, In my experience there is no correlation between the “tier” of the school and the “quality” undergraduate classes. Indeed, there are out-of-date syllabuses at “first tier” schools and “fourth” tier schools. The difference is that people will assume that “first tier” graduate is somehow more intelligent than a “fourth” tier one, regardless of what professors’ classes were taken.
That said, tenure and unions do not prevent a professor from being dismissed for being incompetent. The discussion here doesn’t seem to center around genuinely incompetent professors, but rather the risk that some students might figure out a way to fall though the cracks and learn very little. This problem could exist at any school.
But, assuming the problem you say does exist, and exists at certain schools, it isn’t really a matter of spending a lot of money to correct it, but hiring a strong president that will hold professors academically accountable. Unfortunately, few schools really want to do this, because presidents are usually more concerned with other things.
While it is nice to say “external standards” they are next to impossible to define, and even if we could do so, they are quite hard to apply in real time. But, if you have any ideas, why not shout them out.
Larry, at 12:11 pm EST on February 23, 2007
Big Brother 1984 or 2014
As they say: be careful what your ask for! We will end up with special Fed test like in our elementary & high schools. Of course create a whole new bureaucratic department with a new B.S. (and I do not mean science) and a new wave of paperwork that the TA will of course fill out.
Less government is good government in this case. Do we really need more “big brother” atmosphere at higher education facilities.
Let the market place prevail and oh gosh! Let some fail along the wayside so they can realize that education is not a gift but something that is earned individually. We have enough “helicopter mothers & fathers” —-do we really need a “helicopter big brother” hovering over America!
Al Lewandowski, at 1:20 pm EST on February 23, 2007
Natural Selection
At some point in the future, when governmental agencies start processing data they already have available, then the awful truth may start leaking.
The awful truth being, that some mid-tier schools may be teaching or “educating” their students more than tier-I schools.
Like herding cats (even with social promotion in effect at university) not all students take to education. How many students enter the same classroom each fall (22? 50? 500?) and how many receive the same instruction; the same textbooks; the same on-line back-up help for said textbooks; the same basic opportunities?
Yet, what percent of each group (flock, covey, herd) of students make good use of those opportunities?
If students from those mid-tier state colleges and state universities score at similar levels of the GRE, MSAT, MCAT, etc. (and remember, the state college students (often)came in with lower SATs, lower ACTs, and lower class rank (and lower family incomes) — then brothers and sisters, we will STOP hearing big business and government calling for outcomes testing and comparison.
Suzy and Johnny will continue to be hired by their family-owned businesses or by friend’s family owned businesses. Kids from lower S.E.S. families will continue to work at Starbucks and MacDonalds — regardless of MCAT, MSAT, or GRE scores.
Dr. F. Gump, at 3:55 pm EST on February 23, 2007
So, an Ivy league institution that gives a diploma to a 2.5 student, who later becomes President of the United States, isn’t doing their job? An Ivy league drop-out becomes the richest man in the world, and his college failed him? Good luck trying to set a common standard in this country. The free market will ultimately yield the most accurate measure of learning outcomes.
Dan Nannini, Transfer Center Coordinator at Santa Monica College, at 9:51 pm EST on February 23, 2007
Are they even learning at all?
Year after year the agencies public and private worldwide do their league tables and usually spot an overwhelming proportion of schools in the States in the top one hundred. So, in the eyes of educators and administrators worldwide, evidently some of the USA schools are getting it right.
There are two examples I know of first hand that have gone both ways on the question of enforcing quality. Neither of them gets it right
Japan: Tertiary Education-No audits or expectations for quality and for years the graduating tertiary students have been entering into the workplace in a system that actually does what one might expect the tertiary institutions to do—prepare them for actually doing their work. For four years the Japanese are warehoused in daigaku (post-secondary institutions) and upon release they actually begin the process of training (as opposed to education) in banks and factories etc. This training period is two to three years and considered by industry as a necessary but expensive aspect of new hires. The results are telling. This period of training exists for the simple reason that Japanese tertiary institutions are not committed to preparing students for anything at all—they are simply holding them off the labour market to prevent a mass deluge following secondary school. The major companies are sending their more promising employees to the States for education and training in myriad fields.
Yearly government stats, however, simply publish tertiary completion rates when in fact the schools only have a ‘pass as is’ policy simply for attending—16 years in tertiary education in Japan made this very clear to me.
New Zealand: Secondary Education-The Qualifications Authority (NZQA) has imposed minimums nationwide. The quality of the university entrance NCEA exams (Levels 1-3 for the last three years of secondary school) which are supposed to demonstrate how well the students are prepared for university studies are bogged down in false premises and the percentage of students who actually rate the minimum level, “Achieved,” are hardly 100%. NCEA has two sections, Internally Assessed and Externally Assessed. Internally Assessed are assessed by the schools while Externally Assessed are done by outside assessors. The Internally Assessed get a much higher pass rate than the Externally Assessed.
Failure to meet the minimal levels (‘Achieved’) in 2004 in the Externally Assessed Standards (NCEA is “Achievement Standards”) ranged from 3.1% to 74.5% for Level 1 (i.e. some subjects were failed by as few as 3.1% of the students taking the exam and others by as many as 74.5%), 17.9% to 74.6% for Level 2 and 10.6 to 86.6% for Level 3 (http://www.educationforum.org.nz/...e_newsletter/03_05/Mar05_Bentley.htm Byron Bentley et al “Analysis of NCEA Results”. See page 2-5 for specific results). And it seems to be worsening. Of the 3 Literacy/English sections for Level 2, failure rates varied from 28% to 58% in 2003. This increased in 2004 with failure rates between 57% and 66% (see Bentley, et al page 4)
On the other hand, reading the official documents put out by the NZQA would lead one to believe that nearly 100% pass (http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/publications/docs/secondarystats-2004.pdf page 6). The actual results of this system are deliberately obscured. Failures are not noted and percentages of students that actually passed their levels are either obscured or simply omitted.
Students who fail to acquire a sufficient number of NCEA credits will finish their secondary schooling with nothing more than evidence of attendance being granted. Those who are not granted university entrance may then simply take bridging courses (i.e. remedial level, see for example http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/story8476.html) in the hopes of entering one of the universities or, more commonly, one of the many lower level tertiary institutions where they may be able to attain degrees that are granted the same status as university degrees.
Significantly, NZ like Japan simply passes on the problems to the next level; in Japan, to business and industry, in NZ to the tertiary education providers. In either case, it simply means extra time to bring the students up to speed. Given NZ’s abbreviated three-year degree programmes, this has significant effects on the level of work the students do in their studies after secondary school.
Both examples would seem to reflect attitudes in the USA. Japan’s tertiary institutional autonomy (which reflects that of the US institutions) which has lead to nothing more than four-year warehouses and NZ’s highly regulated system (reflecting possibly the strategic goals of the US government) which is overwhelmed by policy bloat resulting in the same warehousing for secondary students.
It may be that using either approach could lead to greater certainty in quality but these two prominent examples and the attendant subterfuge used to cover it up indicate the pitfalls present or in the future for such an attempt at either approach
Thomas Simmons, Dr., at 9:51 pm EST on February 23, 2007
It’s about volition & will
“.. learn very little. This problem could exist at any school ..”
Actually, there are theories that posit students from the top-tier colleges do well because they are so motivated and intelligent. That is, put them in any setting, and they would do well. College has little, if anything, to do with how well they do in life.
” .. tenure and unions do not prevent a professor from being dismissed for being incompetent ..”
Oh, Larry, please. If the number of lawyers being brought before state bar review boards are any indication of professional competence — we are to assume that tenured faculty are 100,000x more competent than lawyers? That flies in the face of basic statistics and common sense, Lar. Think about it.
” .. a strong president that will hold professors academically accountable. Unfortunately, few schools really want to do this, because presidents are usually more concerned with other things ..”
Yes, Larry. As noted by the new DOD secretary, formerly president of Texas A&M. Who noted his years as Texas A&M president was like being in a “re-education camp” where presidents, if they want to survive, better smile at the faculty. Yet one more reason cited for standards.
” .. True, he wasn’t tenured, but ..”
Yo — that was the frakin’ point. Tenure — and unionization. Which sets the bar of performance so low, standards have to be erected. That was the point.
Yes — a total-yahoo get zapped on ratemyprof.com and taken out. An average-type can get by with low performance, year after year, thanks to tenure and unions.
C. Bigsby, at 10:00 pm EST on February 24, 2007
the other subject teachers on my campus (other than English) have class sizes of 35+ and a five-course teaching load—and no TFs. Do you really expect them to comment on 200 drafts?
Even the students in my college noticed that the Board of Trustees does not contain one single person with any background in education. Bankers, investment bankers, farmers, yes. Of course, you can refuse to give a loan or mortgage to a bad risk. You can sell or kill a disabled animal. But it just took us four weeks to get a student off campus who was so severely psychologically disturbed that she still had no idea how to find the assignment, even though I had gone over where the assignments were on the syllabus and what the assignments were every single day for 2 weeks. She accused teachers of refusing to give her materials that she had been given, and she disrupted learning for the remaining students. But we couldn’t just refuse to let her stay—six professionals had to document all her behavior before we could do anything.
Members of boards of education do not need any credentials at all. Teachers must have college degrees, graduate degrees, certifications, and ongoing training. So what makes some person who won an election competent to tell me what to do in my classroom?
Jane (again), Furthermore,, at 10:00 pm EST on February 24, 2007
Um....Who has the authority?
*But he warned that accreditors had been “trying to encourage this culture shift in the past decade,” oftentimes facing stiff resistance from college leaders and rank and file faculty members...*
Accreditation is a VOLUNTARY process. No one forces an institution to be accredited. An institution that is turning out students who are worse off than when they entered the institution do us all a disservice, and it is the responsibility of the accreditors to help make sure this does not happen. Stop playing nice with irresponsible institutions—and you know the ones I am talking about because the problems are severe, systemic, and long-term.
This means yes, you might have to stop extending accreditation for an entire decade. Ten years is a long time. Institutionally, a lot can happen in ten years, and not all of it good. If you accredit for ten years, you better make sure that ten years worth of graduating students have received a quality educational product.
Furthermore, institutions that break laws in addition to breaking regulations need to have their accreditation suspended if not revoked. “Probation” sugar coats the problem, does not discourage some students from enrolling, and basically sends the message that it’s okay to have serious academic and administrative problems and still remain accredited. This undermines the worth of accreditation and the credibility of those who accredit. It does nothing to protect the students or the faculty who struggle to maintain standards in a substandard institution.
Finally, realize I am addressing serious issues in higher education. State schools that turn out “average” students are not the offenders here (though we would hope faculty encourage excellence and not just the minimum). What do I mean by average? I am referring to students who graduate, can writer a cover letter, can get a job, and can function in a job that requires a college education. Not every college student must graduate and be able to make superstar status in the workforce, especially if he/she has no actual experience in the field he/she has chosen. He or she must be able to work effectively and maintain a viable job.
Is my view of college too “vocational” as one professor termed it? Perhaps. But unless students are pursuing college in hopes of entering academia, then it might be we need a practical and vocational perspective (and I am not sure jobs in academia should be exempt here, either). Is this to say we dump philosophy classes?No. It means we teach core courses, relate those courses to contemporary and “real life” and we teach students how to use this stuff we call education in the workplace. It means our students can get and keep jobs, take care of their families, and be good citizens. And if we turn out philosophical Wal-mart mangers (who earn more than many teachers)? Even better.
Accreditors, do not dismiss this like it has nothing to do with you. It has EVERYTHING to do with you and your responsibility as role models for academic and institutional standards. But maybe accreditors do not see themselves as role models. As one person posting on an earlier article put it, maybe accreditation is just a club: “You visit my school, I’ll visit your school,” and we can all walk around looking so very important.
kgotthardt, at 12:05 pm EST on February 25, 2007
Accreditation
How ironic! For the last 15-20 years the accreditation for High Schools has changed radically because of Government and State pressures, but more so because of COLLEGE and UNIVERSITY pressure that seems to presume we do not know how to teach and that PROFESSORS know better. I have taught college for a number of years as well as high school and I have to say college teachers do not have clue what it means to teach on the high school level.
And then they turn around and force high schools to add and add and add more things that we are supposed to do through the accreditation system. In California you can add the pressures of meeting UC requirements.
My point! What you wish for others may come back to bite you!
Charley Schaefer, English Teacher at Mercy High School, at 10:30 am EST on March 1, 2007
Student Learning
As a college faculty member myself, I can see when students may or may not be learning. Why is my responsibility for the student to learn? You can lead a student to class, but can you really MAKE them think?
Our K-12 systems are already teaching to tests as funding goals are tied to pass rates. Are we not killing the critical thinker and at the same time holding higher education responsible for the challenge created by well-intentioned legislators?
At what point does personal accountability step in? Is it not the student’s responsibility to get the ultimate return on investment? Legislators can only legislate education so far. Are we ready to tie a student’s ability to get a job to the college he/she attended? Then when is industry responsible for making that individual a productive citizen? Who will legislate/measure that outcome?
What happens when legislators dictate a standard that none can meet? Comparing school against school gets mired in funding resources and levels of need.
I, too, believe there needs to be more concrete evidence this is a SYSTEMIC problem for which entropy has happened and a business process reengineering has to take place.
I see accreditation agencies as the auditor and even the auditor can only challenge a process not predict the outcome. I think we need to visit the issue of getting students to learn, but let’s keep it a collaborative conversation not a legislated directive by the well-intentioned who may never see if it worked.
Cathleen Behan, Asst Prof, Business Management at No Va Community College, at 11:51 am EDT on March 23, 2007
Advertisement
Jobs Related to When Is Student Learning ‘Good Enough’?
or search for jobs directly.
Welding Instructor
South Texas College
South Texas College Job Announcement # 2010 – 3046 Position pending Board approval of FY10 Budget Please note that only ... see job
Adjunct Assistant Professor — Electronics
Johnson County Community College
A career at Johnson County Community College is more than a job. We believe it’s important to invest in our employees and ... see job
Assistant Programmer
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Downtown Denver
Posting Description: The University of Colorado Denver is seeking applications for the position of Assistant ... see job
Program Coordinator
Columbus State Community College
Columbus State Community College invests in employee development by providing numerous resources, partnerships, training and ... see job
Adjunct Instructor, Adjunct Assistant Professor
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
DEAN — School of Social/Behavioral Sciences & Multicultural Studies
San Diego Community College District
DEAN School of Social/Behavioral Sciences & Multicultural Studies San Diego Mesa College Job Code: CE08-45 THE POSITION ... see job
Academic Coordinator — Department of Women’s Studies & Department of Asian American Studies
University of California, Irvine
Position: Academic Coordinator The Department in Women’s Studies and the Department in Asian American Studies, in the ... see job
Electrical and Computer Engineering Faculty Position, Tenure-Track
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Professor of Graphic Design, Web-Based Technology
Savannah College of Art and Design
Professor of Graphic Design, Web-based Technology SCAD-Atlanta seeks candidates for full-time faculty positions in graphic ... see job
Department Office Support III
Princeton University
Position Summary: “Position UPDATED FEBRUARY 12,2008″ Reporting to the Center Manager, the position provides ... see job
Home
| Sign up | Log in
| About us
| Work for Us
| Press Releases
| Rights and permissions
| Contact us
| Advertise
| Partners
| RSS 
| Podcasts
| Links
| Privacy
| My Account
© Copyright 2008 Inside Higher Ed
When is a student learning enough?
ISEPS has set up a strong, one on one tutorial system in which each participant has a language skills tutor and an academic/activities tutor. Each participant meets once a week, individually, with each of the two.
Our conclusion is that a student new to Spain needs serious back up. Otherwise too much time is lost in just understanding the new system and culture.
“A student is learning enough” when the tutors who are specialists conclude that interest, resources and capacity are in harmony. It is always an individual issue. THere are participants who have limited ability to “force entry". Others have the confidence to move quickly. Each student is a world. Individual tutorials are one key to a maximum progress in each case.
jerry johnson, academic director at ISEPS, at 6:30 am EST on February 23, 2007