Whiteis makes a point that resonates with me. I am concerned about the arguments concerning access, for traditional institutions actually place distance students at a financial disadvantage (well, so does federal policy on financial aid, for that matter). That is, on campus students exist in a highly subsidized environment (tuition and fees don't really pay the full bills for what they get on campus); distance education, particularly online education, is expected to pay for itself. Thus many online courses and programs currently carry a higher price, and I am told that the students who really value the convenience of online education usually are ready to pay the premium. That tells me a lot about the financial capacity of those students. If resources in traditional institutions are actually funnelled from programs that assure access to programs that bring in more dollars, then we confront a significant problem.

I have to object to Perley and Tanguay's continual insistence that Jones International University simply could not meet accreditation standards. The Commission's requirements are not hidden: they are available to everyone at our website: www.ncacihe.org. The President of JIU told me that she has given the self-study to several folks who asked for it, but no one from AAUP did. I can't help but think that once someone counted two full-time faculty at JIU at the time of the last visit, the decision was made that faculty simply could not be effectively involved in curriculum design, shared governance, and program evaluation. The fact is that probably a couple of dozen people share in a variety of faculty roles at the institution, but I doubt that some people are interested in learning about that sharing, particularly if full-time status is the basic foundation.

Last night I wrote a message that did not mail completely (I just learned). I am not sure it will be added to the discussion at this point. But I simply argued that it is not accurate or fair to assign to JIU all of the fears and concerns about the potential abuse in online education. JIU deserves to be studied and understood for the model of faculty governance it represents, and that model is not the one glibly assigned by its critics.

At least in the U.S. context, I disagree with George Brown that accreditation is useless in sorting degree mills from legitimate online enterprises. Sure, mills can create fraudulent accrediting agencies and statuses, thus making the careful consumer move to a second or third level of inquiry (e.g., is this a federally or CHEA recognized agency?). At this point, accreditation is probably not particularly useful in distinguishing quality among the legitimate, accredited enterprises. But is doesn't claim to provide that service for campuses, either. It is true that the international context makes all of this tricky. Perhaps GATE will be a solution. Some quality assurance agencies emerging in Europe and Asia suggest that an international program of mutual recognition might be effective, too.

Professor Summerville suggests we ought to be about the business of learning what really works in distance education, discerning what should constitute good practices and benchmarks of effectiveness. I agree. I have learned the most from WICHE's Western Cooperative for Telecommunications, particularly from its listserv and from its superb annual meetings (next one in Portland, November 3-6). And I am learning from this discussion as well.

-- Steve Crow, Executive Director, NCA/CIHE (posted 10/27, 3:51 p.m., E.D.T.)

previous response

next response

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name: Your title & institution: Your phone: Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.