|
77th
Annual Conference
The following is a summary of the sessions
given at the DETC 77th Annual Conference, April 13-15, 2003
at the Wailea Marriott in Maui, Hawaii. Twenty-one speakers
presented sessions on a wide variety of topics. Our thanks
to the speakers and sponsors, and the 100 people who attended
the Conference. Our special thanks to Terry Franus of the
Marine Corps Institute for chairing the Conference.
Click
here for a printer-freindly pdf file (with pictures)
or
see below.
Monday, April 14th
- Setting Our Sails: Stormy
Seas or Calm Water?
- The Future of Online
Learning: Key Trends and Issues
- Wide World of DETC –
A Panel Session
- Evaluating the Effectiveness
of Your Educational Design
- How to Get Learners to
Learn
- Marketing to the Military
Tuesday, April
15th
- Marching Together on the E-Learning Road
- Distance Learning and the Law: Copyright,
Privacy and Ethics
- How to Develop a Practical Outcomes Assessment
Program
- Strategic Planning for the Real World of
DETC Schools
- Federal Student Aid Briefing
- EDUCAUSE
- Career College Association
- DETC Awards
- Thanks to our Sponsors
Monday, April
14th
Sessions:
Setting Our Sails: Stormy
Seas or Calm Water?
by Henry A. Spille, Chair, DETC Accrediting Commission
To make a judgment about what is ahead in accreditation,
we need to examine the factors that are affecting the condition
of the accreditation sea for distance learning. There are
several:
1. The growth/expansion of distance learning: In 2001,
there were approximately 6,300 institutions and 17,500 programs
at the postsecondary level. More than 4,000 of these institutions
were offering distance learning opportunities, ranging from
a course or two to entire degree programs. In 1997, fewer
than 500 offered distance learning online. This trend will
continue at a rapid pace.
2. Competition: This growth has spawned competition between
regional and national accrediting bodies. It also has spawned
competition among regionally and nationally accredited institutions
to enroll students, especially adult student to whom most
of their marketing efforts are addressed. Institutions from
foreign countries are in the mix too. In this environment,
what is a region? Do national boundaries make any difference?
The way I see it, traditional territories, service areas,
and geographic boundaries are being blurred into extinction.
3. The pending reauthorization of the Higher Education
Act in 2003: Accreditation is on the U.S. Department of
Education’s radar screen. Sally Stroup, Assistant
Secretary for Postsecondary Education has said, “The
Department will look at the role of accreditation to make
sure it’s doing what we think it should do.”
If the administration, the Congress, and the U.S. Department
of Education continue their ways as they look at accreditation,
there is likely to be even greater demand for accountability
in higher education, most likely demonstrated through the
measurement of learning outcomes.
4. Student Financial aid: Eligibility for many federal government
and corporate programs is limited to students attending
regionally accredited institutions. Student eligibility
for the lucrative tax credits is conditioned on an institution’s
Title IV status. In my judgment, higher education opportunities
for service members, employees, and others are diminished
by the exclusion of nationally accredited institutions that
have met the same evaluation criteria by which the U.S.
Department of Education confers recognition status.
5. Transfer of credit: This is another area in which carefully
worded policies of education associations state that academic
credit should not be denied solely on the basis of source
accreditation. Postsecondary education institutions, legally
authorized to operate and accredited to award degrees and
other educational credentials, have a special responsibility
to determine how the learning acquired by students through
course and educational activities fits into an can applied
to their course, degree, and credential requirements. It
is clear to me that after five years of lofty policy pronouncements,
the culture “no nationals need apply” is still
with us.
In view of these factors, we might be led into thinking
that stormy seas lay ahead. There may be come of those.
There may be an occasional calm sea. But I think the seas
are more likely to be choppy and sometimes we may have to
buck some strong headwinds. The encouraging signs that I
see to reduce the likelihood of stormy seas include: (1)
cooperation among accrediting bodies; (2) a concerted effort
to help Congressional members and their staffs to overcome
what former Congressman Steven Gunderson stated in his CHEA/ACE
study report that “ . . . most people on Capitol Hill
are not knowledgeable about accreditation . . . less than
10% of the Congress has a working knowledge of the issue
. . . ” (3) a concreted effort by DETC to do more
to increase the understanding of higher education community
and the public of its accrediting standards and procedures—namely,
that DETC accreditation is a hybrid, including elements
of both institutional and specialized accreditation, and
that it is extremely thorough; and (4) the willingness of
the DETC staff, site team chairs and members, subject specialists,
and the faculty and staffs of its member institutions to
respond to questions and concerns about distance learning
and its accreditation with their expertise, experience,
and talent.
Think back five decades. That’s how long DETC has
spent developing thoughtful, relevant, and practical standards
to assess quality in distance learning. To flourish, it
must maintain its practical, clear-eyed approach to the
business of distance education, but, at the same time, not
lose its sense of direction, adventure, and entrepreneurship.
Stormy seas? I don’t think so. Calm waters? I don’t
think so. Choppy waters and occasional strong headwinds?
I think so. DETC can deal with these. It always has!
back
to top
The Future of Online Learning:
Key Trends and Issues
by Sean Robert Gallagher, Analyst, Eduventures, Inc., Boston,
MA.
As defined by Eduventures, the for-profit education institutions,
educational publishers, services companies, and technology
firms that operate within learning markets comprise a $110
billion education industry in the United States. Within
this framework of a broader education industry—consisting
of pre-K-12, higher education, and corporate training markets—the
higher education sector is the fastest growing and ripe
with opportunity.
Much of the excitement in higher education is in online
distance learning, which has presented a true paradigm shift
to traditional institutions and created lucrative opportunities
for expansion for for-profit education providers. Eduventures
sizes the fully online distance learning market—that
is, students studying entirely at a distance via the Internet—at
488,000 students in the 2001-02 academic year, representing
a $2.4 billion market in tuition revenues. Growth in the
online distance learning market is continuing at a rapid
pace—some 30 percent annually, as more and more students
choose to study online and more institutions harness the
Internet as a delivery vehicle for learning. As the market
grows, and online enrollments grow to represent more than
4 percent of all postsecondary students in the U.S., online
learning is gaining significant credibility and momentum.
Thus there is a tremendous opportunity for entrepreneurial
leaders to exploit online distance learning as a new delivery
vehicle at this important inflection point for the market.
The challenge is for distance learning organizations to
properly anticipate, forecast and adapt to thrive in the
online environment. This presentation provided a high-level
view of select trends and drivers that are shaping the future
of the online distance learning landscape, including:
Marketing and a New Era of Competition in the Online Environment:
• While full of opportunity, the online environment
is a hotbed of greatly enhanced competition. A telling statistic
is the fact that for-profit institutions have taken a clear
leadership position in accounting for nearly one third of
online distance learning enrollments, while accounting for
less than 5 percent of all postsecondary enrollments.
• For-profit institutions spent more than $200 million
(Eduventures estimate) on marketing and promoting online
programs in 2002.
• Lacking established national brands in the early
stages of the market, an opportunity for new brands and
competition on price is emerging as consumer and corporate
online learning options expand.
• The marketing strategies of tomorrow will be predicated
on finding the right channels (online and off), word of
mouth and referrals, and successful partnerships in this
David vs. Goliath battle—as consumers get savvier,
service and quality will rise up as differentiators, with
competition “only a click away.”
The Corporate Consumer Connection:
• While e-learning firms focused on the corporate
market have struggled, non-traditional postsecondary institutions
have prospered, and the opportunity for them to meet the
educational needs of business and industry is growing.
• A particularly compelling opportunity for providers
lies in the small business market, which has been for the
most part passed over by larger firms who have sought big-ticket
contracts with Fortune 500 clients. Small businesses purchase
and access education and training very much like consumers
and the opportunity for them to access online learning as
a convenient replacement to their primary means of training—seminars
and conferences—is growing. Ultimately, small businesses
will seek to access “just in time learning.”
• Today, across small businesses and larger corporations,
just a small percentage of tuition reimbursed programs are
delivered online.
• A credentialing explosion is underway for consumers
of education, where millions of certificates and licenses
are issued each year, driven by professional associations
and licensing bodies in areas such as finance, business,
health care, trades, and real estate.
• The “brand and demand” behind a credential,
and its portability, are key to value for the education
consumer.
• There is a growing preference in postsecondary education
for short, accelerated programs (which are well-suited to
the online environment) as degrees yield to a portfolio
of credentials for each learning consumer.
The Future of Learning Technologies and Content:
• Predicated on standards, learning platforms are
moving toward more interoperable, open and flexible systems.
• Vendor visions are stratifying and consolidation
and price fluctuations continue, while content and authoring
tools are becoming standardized, easier to use, and more
powerful.
• Investment in creating online content demands portability
– the ability for the course to be delivered on any
device, platform or via any delivery means (“create
once, write anywhere”).
• Content is becoming more interactive while simulation
and game-based learning are gaining traction online. Interactive
content will be key to success in the asynchronous online
environment, and the drive toward more interactive, engaging
content is already underway with K-12 students.
Toward a Global Education Market
• Economic and demographic drivers are creating a
global pipeline of students who seek postsecondary education—online
distance learning will help address this supply/demand problem.
• However, many of the largest and more successful
institutions operating online have yet to seize a leadership
position in international markets, leaving a number of niche
opportunities.
• Infrastructure and bandwidth, high risk levels and
marketing costs, intellectual property protections, and
localizing and adapting content will be key challenges in
the international arena.
In conclusion, Internet accessibility and a more competitive
environment are driving us toward education as a convenient
consumer good. Tomorrow’s online education environment
will be defined by personalization, customization, and flexibility.
In the years ahead, offerings will need to be increasingly
differentiated as education becomes nearly ubiquitous.
back
to top
Wide World of DETC –
A Panel Session
by John H. Peterson, President of JP Educational and Training
Consultants (Jpetc.), Moderator. Panel Members: Yanping
Chen, University of Management and Technology; David Curd,
College of Humanities and Sciences; Tomoki Hotta, Babel
University Professional School of Translation; Jan Munnik,
University of South Africa; and Wendy West, Rhodec International
Introduction by John Peterson
DETC has taken the opportunity and leadership in recent
years to reach out worldwide as the recognized front-runner
and catalyst for identifying and promoting quality distance
education. The acceptance of DETC accreditation is expanding
in ever widening circles of influence as evidenced by the
institutions represented on the panel. This array of unique
institutions includes members from the following: Babel
University, College of the Humanities and Sciences, Rhodec
International, University of Management and Technology,
and the University of South Africa.
What do institutions offering courses in interior design,
translation, humanities, information technology, and religion
and theology have in common? The answer is the common bond
of meeting the high standards set by an accreditation process
that in some sense is more important than the product of
accreditation itself.
The panel participants represent some of DETC’s most
forward thinking distance education institutions offering
a myriad of programs, courses, and degrees on a global scale.
International institutions going through the process of
accreditation provided innumerable challenges to both the
evaluation team and institutions. As pitfalls surfaced in
the application, self-evaluation report development and
on-site visitation, the guidance provided by DETC staff
and team members maintained the quest for educational excellence
and opportunities. Each institution operating internationally
or with an international student population had to deal
with the variables of language, cultural differences, ethnicity,
governmental oversite, educational credentials and expectations
as these related to the DETC standards. The enrichment to
the viability, flexibility, and reliability of the DETC
process is evidenced by the broad scope and spectrum of
the institutions represented on the panel.
The advent of new technology, the worldwide web, the Internet
and other electronic delivery systems has brought about
a low-cost instantaneous delivery of courses. Subsequently,
institutions have great opportunity for previously isolated
student learners. For DETC members the potential to interface
through credit transfers, partnerships, and articulation
agreements is most reasonable. The chance to transcend our
borders and imaginations is a reality and the wide world
of DETC continues to expand.
• Dr. Yanping Chen, President and
Co-Founder of the University of Management and Technology
in Arlington, VA.
The University of Management and Technology (UMT) was established
in 1998 and accredited by the DETC Accrediting Commission
in 2002. UMT’s primary mission is to offer the best
management and technology education to students throughout
the world. UMT is a world leader in the area of project
management education and training. Our faculty is world
renown. For example, five of our faculty has published a
total of twenty books in project management. Several of
these are business management best sellers.
Currently, UMT serves two audiences. Globally, we have
degree programs in the U.S., China, France, Taiwan, UK and
Australia. This year, we will rollout additional programs
in Poland and Morocco. In the U.S., we also serve corporate
and government clients. We deliver executive education programs
and courses to corporate clients, such as Morgan Stanley,
Credit Suisse First Boston, Capital One, Citibank, Fannie
Mae, Westinghouse and Boeing Aircraft; and to government
clients, such as the Department of Defense, Department of
Energy, IRS, Social Security Administration, Army Corps
of Engineers, NSA and the World Bank.
UMT’s education programs and courses are delivered
through two major mechanisms: 1) instructor-led, for academic
and many corporate programs; and 2) self-paced, for individual
students seeking to meet their professional development
needs.
Key challenges we face in developing global programs are:
• Dealing with local regulations. To handle local
regulations, we work with qualified local partners to recruit
students and to support learning. For example, in China
we work with seven of the ten highest ranked universities
in the country. Our partners include: China—Beijing
University; France—Lille University; Australia—University
of New South Wales; and UK—Warwick University.
• Establishing tuition levels that reflect local purchasing
power. You cannot charge one rate globally.
• Collecting payment for tuition. We use the local
universities to collect payments from students.
• Working out currency conversion and local tax issues
from country to country.
• David W. Curd, President and Co-Founder
of the College of the Humanities and Sciences in Tempe,
AZ.
The College of the Humanities and Sciences is a Great Books,
Great Ideas distance learning college that offers undergraduate
and graduate education in the humanities with concentrations
in imaginative literature, natural sciences, philosophy
and religion, and social science. The College of the Humanities
and Sciences promotes student-faculty scholarship through
research, discussion, and the development of collaborative
publications.
Many students attracted to distance education tend to be
self-directed, independent learners dedicated to the pursuit
of knowledge. It is the vision of the founders of the College
of the Humanities and Sciences to offer the opportunity
for students with the guidance of an instructional team,
consisting of a Mentor, Tutors, and Portfolio Evaluators,
to design a program of study that meets their individual
educational goals.
All programs at the College are discussion based; therefore,
it is as if students and Tutors at the college are participating
with the great authors in conversation on ideas and issues
that have concerned people in every epoch, and cover a whole
range of humanities inquiries and interests. The curriculum
leads to an Associate, Bachelor and Master’s of Arts
in Humanities, and a diploma program.
Faculty of the college have contributed to and supported
the Nature of Life: Readings in Biology (2002) in its second
printing and Making Things Whole: Readings in Environmental
Science (2003) to be released in August 2003. The faculty
also contribute to The Common Review, the magazine of the
Great Books Foundation.
Students and faculty actively participate in discussion
groups throughout the United States from Maine to California
and in Canada, France, Italy, and Mexico. The college annually
hosts, on President’s weekend, natural science discussions
at Columbia University’s Biosphere 2 Center, in Oracle,
Arizona, and imaginative literature discussions and events
in Chicago, in May and November.
Since accreditation in January 2003, the college has doubled
in enrollment and has had a significant increase in web
site and e-mail inquiries. The college is doing the appropriate
paperwork for DANTES and Veteran’s approvals at this
time. The college will be launching an international marketing
campaign this summer.
• Mr. Tomoki Hotta is the Vice Chancellor
of Babel University Professional School of Translation in
Honolulu, HI.
First, an overview of the founding philosophy behind Babel
University’s Professional School of Translation, which
was established in 1974 in Tokyo, Japan. Japan is a country
of translation. Beginning in the 19th century, Japan imported
and translated into Japanese advanced western cultures and
technologies. We harmonized them with traditional Japanese
culture. In spite of this fact, there was no formal education
in the field of translation until the latter part of the
20th century.
In 1974, Babel established its first educational venture
in the field of translation, and currently we have about
200,000 graduates in non-degree certificate-level translation
education. At the outset, there was much opposition from
professional translators because at that time new translators
entered into apprentice relationships. Therefore, it can
be said that Babel established the educational system in
this field. In 1976, Babel published the first monthly magazine
about translation named “e-Trans,” whose circulation
is now about 50,000. With this magazine and reference books
on translation as the foundation, Babel continued to develop
the theoretical and educational side of translation.
While considering the practical and professional aspects
of translation education, in 1990 Babel established a translation
and localization company, and also began a professional
staffing company. We pooled the graduates into a professional
translators bank named ‘Babel University Members,’
and introduced work opportunities to them.
In order to establish a status for translators, in 1998
we initiated the Babel Professional Translators Qualification
Exam, grading the levels from 1-5. Right now it is the largest
qualification exam for translators in Japan. This examination
has become the standard not only for students who are learning,
but also for professional Japanese translators. Overall,
we at Babel have conceived this integrated translator training
education system.
Fortunately, the name “Babel” has become synonymous
with translation in Japan and other areas in Asia. Based
upon these accomplishments, in 2000 we established the Professional
School of Translation in Honolulu, Hawaii. All of our training
courses are Internet-based, and in January 2002 we were
granted accreditation by DETC as a Master’s degree-granting
school, and also as a Japanese non-degree certificate level
school.
In the future, we would like to expand Babel University’s
translation education all over the world based on our Internet-based
education.
Currently, we have students in twenty countries around
the world. The languages we cover for the certificate level
are Japanese, English, French, German, Chinese and Korean.
On the Master’s degree level we currently cover English
and Japanese.
• Mr. Jan Munnik, Chief Director
of the Collaboration Unit of the University of South Africa
in Pretoria, South Africa.
UNISA was founded in 1873 in Cape Town as the University
of the Cape of Good Hope with an examining function only
for Victoria College, and the University of Cape Town. It
received a Royal Charter from Queen Victoria in 1877.
The University of the Cape of Good Hope was to be incorporated
in a federal University of South Africa. The change was
to be affected on 2 April 1918 and the seat of the university
also changed from Cape Town to Pretoria in the same year.
The Federal university did not teach private students; it
merely examined them. Not all such candidates for its examinations,
however, were entirely deprived of instruction, for even
before the disappearance of the University of the Cape of
Good Hope, tutorial classes and correspondence colleges
had been founded in South Africa to cater for their needs.
By 1944 there were more than twenty businesses teaching
the private students and UNISA’s Council appointed
a Director of External Studies on a temporary basis for
one year. The Higher Education Amendment Act of 1946 officially
enabled UNISA to undertake the tuition and guidance of the
candidates for its examinations and UNISA thus became the
first public university in the world to teach exclusively
by means of distance education.
UNISA moved into various buildings in Pretoria since 1918
and during 1972 it moved into the first of several new buildings
that were built on Muckleneuk Ridge in Pretoria. Regional
Centres of the University were also opened in Cape Town,
Durban and Polokwane from the 1970s in order to provide
a better administrative, library and registration service
to its students. Career guidance, tutoring help and various
other facilities were later added to the menu of services
available to students at the Regional Centres. Various other
buildings were later added to the university’s properties
and UNISA also shares registration facilities with the Technikon
Southern Africa in 15 other centres in South Africa as well
as in Namibia.
UNISA received DETC accreditation on January 2002. During
2002, UNISA awarded 3,687 Diploma’s; 7,969 Bachelor’s
degrees; and 677 Master’s degrees. It currently has:
475 examination centres all over the world; 2,701 different
study units in which it offers tuition; 52 teaching departments;
13 bureaux, centres and institutes; 17 administrative and
professional departments; 1,207 teaching and research staff;
2,045 non-teaching staff; and 43 collaboration agreements
with licensees in foreign countries
UNISA provides equal education regardless of race, gender,
sex, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation,
age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture or
language to nearly 140 000 students. About 78 000 students
are female, 62 000 male, 30 years old on average and 13
532 of them reside outside the borders of South Africa.
Admission to all public Universities in South Africa is
determined by legislation.
UNISA’s external students grew from 208 in 1919 to
nearly 140,000 in 2002. UNISA sought DETC accreditation
for a number of reasons, including:
- a desire for national and international bench marking
of the quality of its teaching and services;
- an external source of stimulation to improve services,
programmes and staff;
- the benefits of its graduates of having a degree from
a university accredited in the USA; and
- the possibility of attracting USA students because of
the accreditation.
• Ms. Wendy West is the Manager/Registrar
of Rhodec International in Brighton, England.
Rhodec International is a correspondence college that offers
courses in Interior Design and was established in 1960.
Our courses range from a one year Associate Diploma through
to a three-year Diploma with the option of going on to take
a BA.
The Associate Diploma is usually taken by the student who
either wants to learn to be able to design interiors for
their own home, or take on small commissions. Whereas the
Diploma Course is usually taken by those who wish to become
Interior Designers and maybe set up their own business or
work alongside others such as architects.
With the BA option, it is possible for a student to enroll
in the one year course, then progress to the Diploma, and
then earn a BA. The whole process for this takes approximately
five years. One of our students who has worked through the
Associate and Diploma and is now nearing completion of the
BA was nominated as one of DETC’s Outstanding Graduates
this year.
We have students from all over the world, as far apart as
New Zealand and one studying from a weather station at the
North Pole. Since DETC accreditation we have increased the
number of our American students to such an extent that we
now have a separate Rhodec office in Boston, MA. The U.S.
office deals exclusively with all American queries, registrations,
enrollments etc. We also have U..S. tutors for marking and
assessing of American students tests.
Since most of Europe now has the same currency, the Euro,
we have noticed a definite increase in European students.
I should also mention that our membership of the EADL has
also helped enormously. It is important to the appropriate
accreditations and memberships and we have these recognitions
in the U.S., Europe and, of course, our British accreditation
with the ODLQC (Open and Distance Learning Quality Council.)
We understand that not everyone in the world has the freedom
of finance or access to be able to complete their studies
purely by eLearning and indeed not all subjects lend themselves
to the eLearning teaching system. Our study materials are
available in printed format or CD-ROM and we do have a version
of the Diploma Course available online. We believe that
the student should have the option of how they wish to view
their study material.
Students from certain parts of the world find it easier
to obtain materials and equipment than others. We have to
view each country, in fact each student, on the area they
come from, their cultural differences, financial condition
of their country, respecting the holy days of other religions
and take all this in to consideration when assessing their
work. Rhodec teaches students to be able to find their own
strengths in the design field. By the time they have completed
one of our courses they will be able to interpret their
own ideas to any interior design project and be confident
in the fact they have all the skills necessary to be able
to do so. The standards of teaching and assessment must
remain at the same high level throughout. All students must
achieve the same high level of work and this is achieved
even by taking in to consideration the points I have raised
about differences.
back
to top
Evaluating the Effectiveness
of Your Educational Design
by Jack R. Goetz, President and Dean, Concord University
School of Law
DETC institutions are known for their sense of mission,
demonstrated in their ability to meet the educational and
career goals of their students. Formalized program evaluations,
based upon outcomes assessments, can reinforce your mission
to your internal constituencies and broadcast your success
to your external constituencies. Outcomes assessment will
demonstrate that your school is in operation to deliver
student learning, not merely instruction. This presentation
is designed to present a compilation of some of the theory
behind developing a solid outcomes assessment program; my
colleague, Mary Adams, will show you later a more tactical,
hands-on approach to setting up such a program.
“What gets measured gets done” is a frequent
refrain of program evaluators, but represents a good mantra
for DETC institutions known for being results oriented.
A good outcomes assessment program provides mechanisms for
goal setting and calibration amongst the school community
and ensures the school stays in sync with its mission. The
program also can raise credibility within both the internal
and external community.
Support from top management and specific resources devoted
to task are harbingers of a strong institutional assessment
program. Faculty knowledge of the program and participation
in the program are essential for success. Evaluations measuring
institutional success are important, but should be kept
separately from evaluations measuring effective student
learning. For example, measuring response time for student
services may be important for congruence with an institution’s
mission, but it is not a measurement of student learning.
Measurements of student learning can be divided into direct
and indirect measures. Direct measures of student learning
may include recognized barometers, such as performance on
licensing examinations, external evaluations of internships,
portfolio assessments or even a capstone project. Some other
indirect measures of student learning include student, employer
or alumni surveys, retention studies, and graduation rates
and job placement data.
Program evaluations divide into “summative evaluations”
and “formative evaluations.” Summative evaluations
are used to judge a program’s merit or worth, in situations
where a cost-benefits analysis needs to be made. Summative
evaluations are also used in deciding accreditation or licensing
status. “Evaluate no program before it is proud”
is a refrain often heard with summative evaluations, because
of the finality attached to the findings.
Formative evaluations are generally used to improve the
quality of the programs, rather than making judgments about
their existence. Formative evaluations provide for continuous
improvement and quality enhancement, allowing more effective
management with their ability to identify strengths and
weaknesses of the programs. The difference between the two
have been described as “when the cook tastes the soup,
that is formative; when the guests taste the soup, that
is summative.”
We believe most DETC schools will want to develop more
formative evaluation processes as part of a quality improvement
program, and therefore, are more likely to use internal
evaluators. However, an institution may choose to use external
evaluators if they lack the internal expertise for their
program evaluations. Advantages of using internal evaluators
include efficiency, in that the evaluator would know the
organization better, as well as quicker start-up times and
follow-up and smaller costs. The learning from the evaluation
also can stay “in-house.” The advantage of an
external evaluator includes being shielded from organizational
politics and the benefit of an outside perspective. Program
personnel may be more likely to “open up” to
external evaluators. Finally, external evaluators also may
be more credible to outside sources. There are organizations
that can help institutions locate evaluators, including
the American Evaluation Association (www.eval.org).
Starting any evaluation begins with identifying stakeholders
who can act upon the information gathered through the evaluation
process. There may be multiple stakeholders in any process,
including management and funding sources. For an evaluation
to be successful, it begins with interviewing the stakeholders,
finding out what they want to know about the program and
how they would act upon the findings.
Concord Law School is using a specialized type of evaluation
known as “utilization-focused evaluation.” These
evaluations allow Concord to focus on outcomes assessments
with data from a variety of programs, rather than looking
at each program individually. The stakeholders who were
contacted in setting up the evaluation process included
the management team as well as the parent company.
Evaluations reach maximum effectiveness when what is being
evaluated is responsive to the institution mission and when
feedback loops are established into which the results can
be channeled. The Chief Academic Officer of the institution
also may end up being the Institutional Assessment officer.
Successful programs may include issuing report cards periodically
to various departments, and publishing the results to parts
or all of the school community on a quarterly, bi-annual,
or annual basis.
back
to top
How to Get Learners to Learn
by Kay Dawn Dortch, Director of Operations, Andrew Jackson
University, Birmingham, AL.
Helping learners learn more, or in other words, helping
students continue and progress through their studies, is
accomplished by knowing our students–who they are,
how they learn, and what they want; identifying barriers
or insecurities to distance learning; and implementing policies
and services that will help students overcome these barriers.
The Adult Student Profile: The adult student population
is the fastest growing segment of higher education today
and, if not already, older students will soon constitute
the majority. Based on Malcolm Knowles’ theory of
adult learning, Jeffrey Cantor and Patricia Cranton outlined
a number of assumptions about adult learners:
• adults are autonomous and self-directed
• adults are goal oriented
• adults are relevancy oriented (problem centered)–they
need to know why they are learning something
• adults are practical and problem-solvers
• adults have accumulated life experiences
Cantor points out that adults typically have different
motivations for learning than children:
• professional advancement
• to meet external expectations (i.e., the boss says
you have to upgrade skill X to keep your job)
• learn to better serve others
• to make or maintain social relationships
• escape or stimulation
• pure interest
Awareness of possible motivations behind students’
enrollment allows better insight into how to remove barriers
or obstacles to distance learning.
Insecurities about Learning at a Distance: Adult learners
bring to the distance learning environment a number of insecurities
about resuming their studies. These include:
• Ability to benefit – Do I have what it takes
to succeed in this program?
• Willingness to make the sacrifice.
• Scheduling problems.
• Lack of time.
• Lack of money.
• Distance education unknowns.
• Learning styles.
• Feeling trapped in a long program.
• Feeling alienated and isolated.
• Perceived lack of instructor contact.
• Perceived lack of support services.
• Lack of student training in uses of technology.
Removing the Barriers to Distance Learning: Helping students
learn more means that we design policies, programs, curricula,
and services that minimize barriers.
• Ability to Benefit and Willingness to Make the
Sacrifice: Dr. Kempfer, in his book How to Reduce Dropouts
in Distance Education, outlined some universal principles
that, if applied, will benefit any distance learning program.
Weed out non-starts early by providing in advance full
written information about courses, instructional materials,
and methods of study to all who express interest. “Many
curious folk with little sincere interest will decide not
to enroll.”
1. Counsel personally by telephone or mail with all interested
persons. Compare their academic and sociological qualifications
and motivation with those required for success.
2. Establish minimum requirements for each course or curriculum,
including evidence of adequate reading ability, mathematics,
and study skills necessary for success.
3. Require inquirers to examine a sample assignment in the
course desired, including study materials and an average
passing response with instructor comments.
4. Ask applicants to prove their ability (can) and motivation
(will) to succeed by submitting three or four satisfactorily
completed assignments within a reasonable time.
• Scheduling Problems and Lack of Time: We can remove
these barriers by (1) determining that applicants actually
have the time to study and (2) teaching students how to
plan and optimize their time.
• Lack of Money: This barrier may be overcome by
(1) addressing this issue prior to enrollment and (2) offering
a variety of payment and loan options.
• Distance Education Unknowns: Students who enroll
with little or no experience in distance study are at risk
of dropping out unless they develop study survival skills
as rapidly as possible. Dr. Kempfer suggests that students
are to review a sample assignment prior to enrollment. In
addition, students may be given a detailed student manual
that outlines what is expected in terms of procuring proctors,
submitting assignments, contacting instructors, etc.
• Learning Style: One key to getting (and keeping)
students actively involved in learning lies in understanding
learning style preferences, which can positively or negatively
influence a student’s performance. This barrier can
be overcome by (1) helping students discover their learning
style preferences, and (2) ensuring that instructors produce
quality study materials that meet the needs of a variety
of learning styles.
• Feeling Trapped in a Long Program: Awarding transfer
credit for previously completed coursework; recognizing
American Council on Education recommendations for credit-by-examination,
training programs, and educational experience in the Armed
Services; and teaching students how to complete portfolios
for prior learning assessment evaluations help students
benefit from previous experience and expedite the time needed
to complete an undergraduate degree program.
• Feeling Alienated/Isolated, Perceived Lack of Instructor
Contact, and Perceived Lack of Support Services: These barriers
can be mitigated through prompt feedback from faculty and
student services and the use of technological methods such
as e-mail, discussion boards, chat rooms, and e-newsletters.
• Lack of Student Training in Uses of Technology:
If students are undertaking distance learning courses that
require knowledge of computers, technical barriers must
be made a non-issue. Training can be provided in introductory
student materials, through library resources, and can be
incorporated into study materials.
back
to top
Marketing to the Military
by Mr. Roy Winter, President, Grantham University, Slidell,
LA.
Introduction and Purpose: The primary objectives of this
session are to identify the size and composition of the
market and to describe the sources of tuition support for
active duty service members. In addition, the education
level of active duty personnel, as well as the top ten postsecondary
courses and programs in which military students enroll,
were highlighted. Barriers and risks associated with recruiting
and enrolling active duty military personnel are also described.
Market Size and Composition: There are 300 major Armed
Forces bases, posts and stations, according to The Military
Times. The total population of all branches (Army, Navy,
Air Force and Marine Corps) on the installations for fiscal
year 2002 (FY02) was 3.7 million.
Of that number, the Department of Defense reported 2002
military strength for all branches at 1.4 million. That
count is down 30% from a high of over 2.0 million in 1980.
Tuition Support: There are a number of tuition support
programs for active military and veterans. The principal
program addressed in this presentation is Tuition Assistance
(TA). The Department of Defense (DoD) definition for TA
is:
“Funds provided by the Military Services to pay a
percentage of the charges of an educational institution
for the tuition of an active duty member of the Armed Forces
enrolled in courses of study during his or her off-duty
time.”
“Tuition Assistance shall be provided only for courses
offered by postsecondary institutions accredited by a national
or regional accrediting body recognized by the Department
of ED.”
While military strength has declined 30 percent over the
past 20 years, spending for education has increased. Tuition
assistance for FY02 was $187 million, an increase of 56%
over the past 10 years.
The breakdown by branch was: Air Force = $67.2 Million;
Army = 58.9; Navy = 42.6 and Marine Corps = 18.5
Education Level, Degrees Awarded and Top Five Curricula:
Over one million enlisted personnel in 2002 carried a high
school diploma as their highest level of education. There
were 80,000 with an associate degree (or less than four
years of college) and 38,000 with a bachelor’s degree.
Of the 223,000 officers on active duty, over 50 percent
116,000) earned a bachelor’s degree. More than 56,000
earned a graduate degree.
The migration from high school diploma to an associate
degree is a high priority for the military branches. A significant
number DETC schools offer relevant degree programs at the
associate level.
Diplomas/Degrees Awarded: Throughout FY02, active duty
personnel earned 16,000 associate and nearly 7,000 bachelor’s
degrees. There were over 582,000 individual enrollments
in undergraduate courses.
Top Ten Degree Networks: The top ten programs by enrollments
in 2002 are listed below. The list is from the Servicemembers
Opportunity Colleges (SOC) degree networks.
1. Interdisciplinary studies
2. Criminal justice
3. Computer studies
4. Management
5. Business Administration
6. Applied science and technology
7. General business
8. Electronics technology
9. Professional aeronautics
The top five institutions ranked by amount of tuition assistance
collected from the Air Force in FY02 were:
1. University of Maryland
2. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
3. Wayland Baptist University
4. Park University
5. University of Phoenix
These two lists are not conclusive. The first, for example,
excludes the Air Force. The second is exclusively Air Force.
But the results are virtually the same across all branches.
The programs and institutions, with the exception of Embry-Riddle
and professional aeronautics, are similarly ranked in the
Army, Navy and Marines.
Barriers and Risks: The Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges
(SOC) is “… a network of 1700 colleges and universities
that provides educational opportunities to service members
and their families who, because they frequently moved, had
trouble completing college. Member colleges agree to accept
each other’s credits within each curriculum or network.”
Created in 1972, SOC is co-sponsored by:
• American Association of State Colleges and Universities
(AASCU)
• American Association of Community Colleges (AACC)
• In cooperation with 13 other educational associations
• Member colleges accept each other’s credits
within each curriculum or network
The key issue is that DETC institutions face a substantial
barrier in the military market. We are excluded from the
SOC umbrella that coordinates the undergraduate degree networks
for the Army, Army National Guard, Navy, Marines and Coast
Guard. Efforts are underway to get us admitted into the
inner circle of this organization. Until that happens, marketing
to the military will remain a daunting challenge.
back
to top
Tuesday, April 15th
Sessions:
Marching Together on the
E-Learning Road
by Joyce S. Tsunoda, Vincent Linares and Helen Sina, University
of Hawaii Community Colleges
The seven campuses of the University of Hawaii Community
Colleges are part of a single system of public higher education
in Hawaii, the ten-campus University of Hawaii System with
campuses and affiliated education-training centers widely
dispersed geographically throughout the chain of islands,
which make up the State of Hawaii. Each of the ten campuses
is separately accredited, is authorized to offer its own
degrees, and takes pride in its respectively distinctive
mission and role. The academic turf map is likewise complex,
with nearly 600 different certificates and degrees and 5000+
courses offered throughout the ten-campus system.
Yet in spite of the breadth and scope of the offerings
collectively, ready access to programs and course offerings
needed by residents of various parts of the island State
remains uneven and limiting, causing dissatisfaction among
many resident groups, particularly those on the more rural
“neighbor” islands.
“Getting education to the people” has always
been a priority for the State and the University of Hawaii
which began as a land-grant institution in 1907 and to which
the seven open-door community colleges were added in 1965.
Earlier forms of “distance education” took the
form of extension services, traveling faculty, “canned”
lectures, and with developments in technology, expanded
into cable television, interactive television, and online,
Internet-based instruction. Yet until the 1990’s most
of the offerings were single course or program based, and
lacked the coherence of a formal degree.
After three decades of talking, planning and more talking,
the University of Hawaii Community Colleges decided in 1999
to stop talking and start acting on the long-term efforts
to offer an distance-delivered associate in arts degree
and to do so collectively and cooperatively as a consortium
of seven colleges.
The presentation details the whys, hows and outcomes of
the multi-sectorical (faculty, staff and administrative)
team effort that resulted in the successful beginning of
the Community Colleges’ “e-Learning Program:
the Distance Delivered Associate in Arts Degree” which
has the potential of becoming the prototype of a University
of Hawaii Systemwide e-Learn Degrees in the future. To reflect
the actual style and the approach of this team effort, three
presenters who were the initiators of the effort made a
three-way, loosely organized presentation of the project
that is continuing at the current time.
The presentation and discussion covered the Chancellor’s
role in setting the vision and giving the “first push,”
the faculty leader’s efforts which helped to build
interest within the multi-college constituencies, and the
academic administrative leader’s role in coordinating
and facilitating simultaneous (rather than sequential) action
and planning processes, and the eagerness of many passionate,
committed faculty and staff in the UH Community College
system to move a service to students and faculty forward.
In addition to these key motivational components, a number
of factors enabled success: commitment to collaboration;
blending of egos into “ego of one” for the greater
cause; internal and external forces which provided the push
needed for action; rapid implementation into existing, traditional
campus processes; critical value placed on clerical and
technical staff support and cooperation; identifying, dedicating,
and managing funding; seeking technological support; recognizing
the importance of communication, communication, communication;
and infusing sense of humor throughout the process.
Supporting “E-Learn Myths and Realities” reported
by G. Jean Howard (Monroe CC) at the January 2003 CHEA Conference
in Phoenix, Arizona the group reported five key lessons
learned: (1) Change is the theme; (2) Vision is the beacon;
(3) Action is the key. (4) Persistence . . . there is no
other way and (5) Acceptance of different views and values
. . . the glue that holds parts together.
The Community College system provided 366 distance-delivered
courses in Fall 2003, most of which can be used toward the
distance AA Degree. The UH system as a whole, offered 575
distance-delivered courses. The UH system had 8, 299 registrations
during this Fall semester compared with 4,901 in Fall 1997.
Although there are parts of the islands with no cable television
access and income levels too low to support online delivery
of courses, the greatest growth has been in online courses.
The UH system moved from 7 online courses in Fall 1997 to
192 in Fall 2003.
In supporting student needs, faculty try to meet the students
from each site in person. This effort can play havoc with
on-campus teaching assignments since travel to other islands
usually takes an entire day. On the Big Island, travel time
for faculty involves a 2 ½ hour one-way drive; thus,
the technology delivered modes are preferable to the faculty
member driving to the site. Other support needs are at varying
degrees of adequacy to meet the needs of distance students
and faculty: advising, proctoring, financial aid, bookstore,
library services, monitoring and guiding course management,
course development, and funding.
As many universities across the country have found, most
of the students enroll in distance-delivered courses to
get classes they could not get on-campus or to fit into
their other life commitments. Distance is a catalyst for
action, offering services to those with the greatest access
needs that are then demanded by other students.
A distance roll call of UH campuses shows that although
Hawaii CC primarily delivers to Kona to meet on-island needs
and will be opening additional centers at other locations,
it is beginning to offer courses statewide. Honolulu CC
has built a library of distance offerings based on purchased
courses with local wraps. It also provides a considerable
program to the military. Kapiolani CC provides a number
of general education courses and a growing number of medical
and education programs. Kauai CC has been primarily a receive
site, but is building its library of regularly offered courses.
Leeward CC now provides an AA to Hong Kong. Maui CC continues
its early participation in distance with its programs to
Molokai and Lanai and offers courses statewide as well.
Windward CC is beginning several regularly offered courses.
The University of Hawaii at Hilo provides a number of baccalaureate
degrees by distance in English with an emphasis on Writing,
Computer Science, Psychology, and Marine Science. The University
of Hawaii at Manoa, as the flagship baccalaureate and graduate
institution, offers the bulk of the programs. While involved
faculty are very active, the sheer size of the campus creates
inertia. The University of Hawaii at West Oahu provides
the upper division portion of several bachelor’s degrees
that emphasize service to areas needing access, including
public administration and social services.
Conclusion: As the three presenters look back on the road
that we have come together with our colleagues at the seven
community colleges in Hawaii, we ask ourselves, why did
we take this road? The answer that bounces back to each
of us is the same: We did it because there was the challenge,
we were student-focused, we wanted to improve instruction,
we believed that our “student audience” was
changing, we wanted new things to talk about, and we enjoyed
“suffering” through all the details to make
something new happen.
This e-Learning road has no end. Just more beginnings and
a long, long way to go. We would like to hear from and learn
from others around the country, around the world that have
taken similar journeys. Two particular challenges loom before
us. These are the two A’s: “Assessment”
and “Accreditation.” We are open to all who
wish to work with us, advise us, help us, and wish us well.
back
to top
Distance Learning and the
Law: Copyright, Privacy and Ethics
by Professor Danielle Conway-Jones, The University of Hawaii,
William S. Richardson School of Law
Professor Conway-Jones discussed the standards and implications
of the Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization
Act (TEACH Act), which amends section 110(2) of the 1976
Copyright Act. The TEACH Act essentially allows institutions,
teachers, and students to benefit from distance education
while simultaneously providing safeguards for copyright
holders. The TEACH Act redefines the terms and conditions
on which accredited, nonprofit educational institutions
throughout the United States may use copyright protected
subject matter in distance education without requiring prior
licenses or royalty payments.
The TEACH Act makes five basic changes to the copyright
laws dealing with distance education. First, the TEACH Act
expands the subject matter that can be performed in distance
education to reasonable and limited portions of work, thus
encompassing more than non-dramatic literary works and non-dramatic
musical works, but excluding from the exemption those works
developed primarily for the education market. Second, the
TEACH Act expands the concept of classroom by recognizing
the reception of distance learning courses in homes and
other locations not traditionally considered classrooms.
Third, the TEACH Act permits institutions and teachers to
store copyright protected subject matter on a server for
asynchronous performances and displays. Fourth, the TEACH
Act permits institutions to digitize works that have yet
to be copied in digital format. Finally, the TEACH Act protects
authorized users from claims of vicarious or contributory
copyright infringement.
Although the provisions of the TEACH Act may not be available
to all distance education providers, the law continues to
recognize the viability of the fair use doctrine that is
codified at section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. The fair
use doctrine requires balancing four factors to determine
the applicability of the exemption to a user of copyright
protected subject matter. The fair use doctrine weighs the
purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted
work, the amount and substantiality of the use, and the
effect on the potential market for or the value of the copyrighted
work.
The above is not legal advice, but merely a starting point
for those engaged in providing distance education. It is
prudent to consult with a competent intellectual property
attorney who can better define use as well as protection
strategies for copyright protected subject matter. For additional
information about the TEACH Act visit www.ala.org.
back
to top
How to Develop a Practical
Outcomes Assessment Program
by Ms. Mary Adams, President, ISIM University, Denver, CO.
Outcomes are something most of us have been doing for some
time. The changes to the standard simply require us to report
what we have been doing to the DETC. There are a few key
points to ensure compliance:
• A written plan;
• Documentation that the plan is being followed;
• Certification that the requirement is being met,
annually;
• Document your plan, results, and improvements in
the SER;
• Your students should achieve outcomes that are appropriate
to the mission and to the rigor and depth of the programs
offered;
• Your plan and its implementation need to contribute
to improvement of the school; and
• Your plan must demonstrate your institution is fulfilling
its stated mission.
A few general suggestions for successful implementation
of your outcomes plan include:
• Appoint an “outcomes czar.” This should
be someone whose job description includes accountability
for outcomes and compliance with the standard;
• Study the policy documents;
• Start conducting surveys of students now;
• Gather the information in a usable format;
• Include the three mandatory questions:
1. Did you achieve, or will you have achieved upon completing
your studies, the goals you had when you started the course
or program?
2. Would you recommend these studies to a friend
3. All things considered, were your satisfied with your
studies with us?
• Start gathering graduation rates;
• Implement an ongoing, routine system: Gather data;
Analyze data; and Respond to the data by making changes;
and
• Review the sample plans available on the DETC web
site.
Common elements of an institution’s outcomes assessment
plan include:
1. Introduction. Be sure to tie the outcomes to the mission
statement and identify institutional goals for outcomes.
Two key components of this section are to: 1) establish
terminology for common understanding and 2) the purpose
of collecting outcomes data. This section should clearly
convey your institutional commitment to continuous improvement.
2. Identify School and/or Program Objectives. This section
establishes your benchmark.
3. Identify the tools you will use to measure your outcomes,
including student evaluations—what you will evaluate,
how often you will conduct evaluations and, how the tools
will be implemented. Identify other types of evaluation
you will use. E.g. Art Instruction Schools has portfolios
and art competitions that they include among the tools they
will use. Other types of evaluation include projects, case-studies,
comprehensive exams, progress through the course and transferability
of credit to other institutions.
4. Include an implementation plan. How will the plan be
used? Who has responsibility for implementation? Perhaps
more importantly, who has responsibility for confirming
implementation is ongoing? Your plan should include specifics
about:
• How often you will evaluate the data.
• How you will ensure the accuracy of the data
• How often you will use the information to make improvements
such as policy changes, changes in student services, program
or course changes, content, design, communication
• How you will document that improvements have been
made
• Include a maintenance plan for evaluating how well
the plan is working!
1. Appendices with copies of survey instruments: Demonstrate
change over time; and
2. Methods of Assessment: Additions and subtractions to
your methods.
To summarize: The institution’s mission statement
should clearly outline programs of study. Each program of
study should have specific goals that are evaluated by measurable
evaluation systems. The evaluation systems will allow calculation
of program performance indicators (outcomes) which are then
regularly compared to preset performance thresholds. Action
plans are developed for outcomes that fall below threshold
levels. Then, the outcomes are reevaluated at specific intervals
to see if the changes were effective.
back
to top
Strategic Planning for the
Real World of DETC Schools
Richard T. Hezel, President and Founder, Hezel Associates,
Syracuse, NY.
Where do you want your organization to be next year? In
three years? In ten years? What size in terms of student
enrollment or revenue or net income? What new programs will
you initiate? How can you make sure that the dreams you
have for the institution will become a reality? These are
just a few of the questions school owners and leaders try
to answer for their stakeholders, shareholders, interested
outsiders and, of course, themselves. The answers might
not be completely predictable, but a good plan will make
the make those dreams happen.
Business plans and financial strategy are critical elements
in the life of any organization. Money is the lifeblood
of the school. Strategic plans, however, are often thought
to be more ephemeral, and as a result they get less attention.
If you think of the strategic plan as the roadmap to your
business development, however, the plan’s centrality
comes into focus. In fact, strategic planning is the means
by which we tie business goals together with the marketing
plan and the operational plan. Furthermore, the strategic
plan provides not only the course or direction, but the
means of measuring progress toward the goals. Regardless
of the type of school—for-profit or non-profit—strategic
planning must be done. But how?
Some “strategic” plans are completed in an
end-of-year flurry. Staff is convened, goals are established,
perhaps a plan document is written, only to gather dust
until the following year. The plan is never revisited through
the year to check on progress. Other “plans”
are little more than archaeological scratchings on a table
napkin, shared no more widely than with the top administrators.
The point is that plans should have some degree of formality,
arise from many stakeholders, and be used as a performance
management tool throughout the year.
The best strategic plans are not fixed, but dynamic, part
of a stream of decisions where intended strategy is modified
by new, emergent strategies, and where some intended strategies
go unrealized. Although decisions are guided by the plan,
detours arise, the environment changes unexpectedly. Good
plans recognize the potential shifts and include contingencies
to take advantage of the changes in the organization or
the market.
Connecting the Strategic Plan to Other Plans: The business
plan addresses the various questions any investor might
ask of a new business: What services or products will be
offered? Who are the competitors and how are we positioned?
How do we go to market? What is the revenue model? How does
the business operate and with what staff? The financial
projections of revenue, net income, cashflow, and return
on investment are essential. After the start-up phase, the
business plan moves into the operational plan. The marketing
plan posts similar questions, but focuses more on target
customers, needs, and marketing messages and image projection,
especially by comparison with competitors.
The strategic plan, by contrast, centers on the process
and methods to achieve goals. The plan includes many familiar
elements: organizational mission, values, philosophy, goals,
and, of course, strategy. It also performs as the connector
between the business and the marketing plans, particularly
after the business becomes operational. A clear understanding
of the market informs successful strategies. Industry trends,
competitive advantage, growth and profitability goals, and
knowledge of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
underpin the strategic plan. Leaders who have the vision
to marry their own organization’s capabilities with
a clear sense of market needs tend to be most successful
in business.
If goals represent the dream list, then strategies are
the reality of the plan. Each goal needs a strategy to bring
it down to earth, and each strategy needs actions, people,
and a schedule to give it legs. Drawing a strategic development
tree can help the conceptualization. For example, if we
set a goal to be among the 10 highest enrollment schools
in a field, then we might use one or more strategies to
reach that goal. We could create new programs within disciplines
and/or we could grow our currently existing programs. If
we decide to grow current programs, we might attempt to
attract new students or we could take steps to increase
retention. And so the strategic process continues until
we arrive at the actions and assignments necessary for the
strategy to work.
How do we know when we have arrived or have been successful?
It is at this point that the genuine value of the strategic
plan is manifest. The strategies, actions, assignments,
and schedules should lead to a set of objectives with outcomes
and measures. This is the crucible of the plan, the make-or-break
aspect on which the plan lives or dies, is successful or
fails. The plan should reveal what will be the measures
of progress toward those goals. Financial metrics (net income,
revenue growth, consecutive quarters of profitability, etc.)
and non-financial measures (enrollment growth, retention,
customer satisfaction, service response time, etc.) could
be applied to the objectives. Naturally, those measures
of goals that are highest priority and that are most closely
aligned to the school’s mission are most critical.
Measures of growth in learning, skills, critical thinking,
and organizational change should be very central to the
school’s strategic progress.
Who should engage in the process of strategic planning?
To some degree everyone who has a stake in the school should
be involved. Strategic thinking should begin with investors,
the board and the top administration. From those leaders
the importance of strategy should be communicated to all
other stakeholders: staff, faculty, even students and outside
suppliers. The process should revolve around a top-down
plus bottom-up method, where needs and issues are continually
percolated to the leadership and strategy is developed,
then executed at the operational level. Finally, when the
school experiences success at reaching strategic goals,
all should celebrate and reset the bar for future growth.
back
to top
Federal Student Aid Briefing
by Dr. Sharon H. Bob, Higher Education Specialist on Policy
and Regulation, Powers Pyles Sutter & Verville, PC.,
Washington, D.C. Also Mr. Bruce Leftwich, Vice President
of Government Relations, Career College Association, Arlington,
VA.
Congressman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA),
Chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness,
and the late Congresswoman Patsy Mink (D-HI), Ranking Member
of the Subcommittee, announced in May 2001, that the Subcommittee
would be seeking recommendations from the higher education
community to ease regulatory burden. By July 24, 2001, the
Subcommittee had received over 3,000 comments in response
to the FED UP Project (“Upping the Effectiveness of
Our Federal Student Aid Programs.”) Mr. McKeon sees
the FED UP Project proceeding in three phases.
1. Reducing Regulatory Burden:
First, in order to reduce regulatory burden, the Department
of Education carried out negotiated rulemaking using many
of the proposals suggested by the higher education community
in response to the FED UP initiative. The Department was
not required to participate in negotiated rulemaking because
there were no statutory changes made in the Higher Education
Act. However, Secretary of Education Rod Paige wanted the
Department to participate in negotiated rulemaking as part
of the FED UP process consistent with the President’s
commitment to improve the administration of the student
financial aid programs.
The Department selected for negotiation those items that
did not require statutory changes and generally would be
non-controversial. The negotiated rulemaking sessions produced
the November 1, 2002 final regulations. Two provisions proved
to be controversial and consensus was not reached, but was
published as part of the final regulations package. The
two provisions included the elimination of the 12-hour rule
for nonstandard term and non-term credit-hour programs and
the provision of “safe-harbor” activities that
would not be seen as volatile of the prohibition on the
payment of bonuses, commissions or other incentive payments
for recruiting or making financial aid awards.
2. Making Technical Changes to the HEA:
The second phase involves efforts to pass a technical measure
that would address some of the non-controversial, more technical
provisions in the Higher Education Act that were suggested
as part of the FED UP process. Mr. McKeon introduced H.R.
12 on January 7, 2003. All of the provisions are budget
neutral, except for the two provisions that expired on September
30, 2002 and a third related to drug convictions and denying
a student Title IV eligibility. The two expired provisions
provided an incentive for institutions to keep their default
rates low and allowed students to receive loan funds faster.
One of the provisions that is considered a “technical”
change is the inclusion of a waiver of the 50 percent restriction
on an institution’s ability to offer coursework through
telecommunications if the school has a cohort default rate
under 10 percent for the three most recent fiscal years.
It is not clear what will happen to H.R. 12.S.109, the
companion bill, was recently introduced in the Senate Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Even though these
two technical bills have been introduced, many believe that
there will not be any bills that are passed this session
related to the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
3. Reauthorization of the HEA:
The third phase of the FED UP initiative is the reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act (HEA), which is set to expire
in 2003, but will likely be extended for another year. There
is much to be accomplished before Congress takes up the
HEA. Congressman McKeon called for recommendations for reauthorization
of the HEA. Proposals were to be submitted by December 31,
2002 on the Subcommittee’s Web site: www.house.gov/ed_workforce/.
The House focus will be on accountability, accessibility,
affordability, and quality. As a result, accreditation will
be closely examined.
The Department of Education also has requested proposals
on the reauthorization of the HEA. Assistant Secretary for
Postsecondary Education Sally Stroup said the Administration
would use the principles of accountability and performance
that were the basis of the No Child Left Behind legislation
to guide the Department’s approach to reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act.
On March 5, 2003, Congressman Howard P. “Buck”
McKeon (R-CA) announced that he will be introducing the
College Affordability in Higher Education Act of 2003. Mr.
McKeon’s bill would create a “College Affordability
Index” that would serve as a standard measurement
for institutions of higher education whose tuition and fee
costs increase beyond reasonable rates. If an institution’s
tuition and fee charges increase by twice the rate of inflation,
the institution would have to provide the Department of
Education with an explanation and a strategic plan to hold
down future tuition increases. Sanctions would be triggered,
including the withdrawal of eligibility for federal financial
assistance, if the rate of increase is not reduced.
The bill would also prohibit the denial of transfers of
credit based on the accreditation of the institution from
which a student transfers.
Mike Lambert of DETC has met with Mr. McKeon’s staff
and Assistant Secretary of Postsecondary Education Sally
Stroup to discuss recommendations for the reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act. DETC’s recommendations
were well received.
back
to top
EDUCAUSE: Educause,
the association of information technology in higher education,
which began assigning the .edu addresses 16 months ago,
and the U.S. Department of Commerce have announced that,
effective April 15, 2003, eligibility for .edu names is
extended to postsecondary institutions that are institutionally
accredited by agencies recognized by the U.S. Department
of Education.
The .edu domain had been restricted to postsecondary degree-granting
institutions that are accredited by one of the six regional
accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Department of
Education. The policy change was approved by the U.S. Department
of Commerce in response to a recommendation by the .edu
Policy Board and following a review of suggestions received
through a comment forum on the .edu Web site. The policy
board includes representatives from EDUCAUSE, the American
Council on Education, and the National Association of College
and University Attorneys. Many of the comments asserted
that the distinction between regional accreditation and
national accreditation was not warranted. This change in
policy was in large part due to the efforts of Mike Lambert
of DETC and others. The revised rules of eligibility are
now available at: www.educause.edu/edudomain/.
back
to top
Mr. Bruce D. Leftwich, Vice President
of Government Relations, Career College Association, Washington,
D.C.
The Career College Association is a voluntary membership
organization of private, postsecondary schools, institutes,
colleges and universities that provide career-specific educational
programs. CCA’s 1,100 members educate and support
more than a million students each year for employment in
over 200 occupational fields. These schools and colleges
graduate approximately one-half of the technically trained
workers who enter the U.S. workforce each year and also
provide retraining for displaced workers and skills-upgrading
for a wide variety of public and private employers.
Most CCA member institutions participate in federal student
financial assistance programs under Title IV of the Higher
Education Act. In order to participate, they must be licensed
by the state in which they are located, accredited by a
nationally recognized accrediting body, and approved by
the U.S. Department of Education. Many CCA member schools
and colleges also participate in other federal, state, and
local education and workforce training programs.
Career colleges comprise 46% of all postsecondary educational
institutions in the United States. Of the schools participant
in Title IV programs, private career colleges account for
38%. Tuition at career colleges is lower than at private
non-profit institutions, but higher than at most public
institutions. Without the benefit of state appropriations
or private endowments, 80% of career schools and college
students receive federal financial aid.
Graduation rates at career colleges are higher than at
other comparable institutions. Students at career colleges
are more like to graduate, and are more likely to complete
their program sooner than are community college students.
Occupations requiring postsecondary career training will
have a significant increase in job growth through 2010.
Career college programs meet the market needs of high growth
occupations, such as computer support; information systems;
business, nursing, dental and medical assisting, occupational
and physical therapy, health technology, and legal assisting.
With this marketable educational training, career college
graduates will earn on average 38% more than high school
graduates.
back
to top
DETC Awards
The Distinguished Recognition Award was
presented to Ms. Mary A. Adams, President of ISIM University
in Denver, CO.
The Distinguished Service Award was presented
to Mr. Roy E. Winter, President, Grantham University, Slidell,
LA.
Although not at the conference, Ms. Susan Reilly, Director
of Accreditation for DETC, received the Distinguished
Service Award.
back
to top
Thanks for Our Sponsors
The DETC sends a warm note of thanks to the following sponsors
for helping to cover the cost of the Conference:
• Allied Business Schools, George “Jay”
Achenbach, President, for sponsoring Sunday evening’s
entertainment;
• American School, William H. Hunding, President for
sponsoring the Tuesday Awards Luncheon;
• Art Instruction Schools, James B. Stuart, Vice President,
for co-sponsoring the Luau on Sunday;
• Babel University, Miyoko Yuasa, Chancellor and Tomoki
Hotta, Vice Chancellor for co-sponsoring the reception at
Sunday’s Luau;
• Cleveland Institute of Electronics, John R. Drinko,
President, for co-sponsoring the reception at Sunday’s
Luau;
• Columbia Southern University, Bob Mays, President,
for sponsoring the Conference Favors;
• Education Direct, David Beach, President, for sponsoring
Monday’s Welcoming Luncheon;
• Educational Financial Services, Phil Rosen, Vice
President, for sponsoring Tuesday’s Annual Reception
and providing the Name Badges;
• Gemological Institute of America, Brook Ellis, Vice
President of Education, for sponsoring Tuesday’s Awards
Luncheon;
• Grantham University, Roy Winter, President, for
co-sponsoring Sunday’s Luau.
• Library and Information Resources Network, Patrick
K. Dugan, President, for sponsoring Tuesday evening’s
Entertainment;
• Professional Career Development Institute, Gary
M. Keisling, President, for sponsoring the Annual Banquet
on Tuesday;
• Speciality Books, Mark Martukovich, Representative,
for co- sponsoring the Entertainment on Sunday evening;
• TFC Credit Corp, Matt Beggs, Representative, for
sponsoring Sunday’s photographer, ice sculpture, and
floral arrangements and the floral arrangements on Tuesday
evening; and
• University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences,
Stanley V. Paris, President, for co-sponsoring Sunday’s
Reception at the Luau.
AND — A special thanks to Zackary Lewis, Andrew Ronchetti
and Kristy Wingfield of Liquid Compass for the “live”
broadcast of the sessions via DETC’s web site.
AND— Carol Lambert for designing the program and the
Report from the Executive Director covers!
back
to top
DETC Events
Mark your calendars now for:
• DETC International Seminar, July 13-15, 2003 at
the Institute of Public Administration. Attendees stay at
the Berkeley Court Hotel in Dublin, Ireland.
• Fall Distance Education Workshop, October 26-28
at the Omni Tucson National Golf & Spa in Tucson, AZ.
• Accreditation Seminar, October 29, at the Omni Tucson
National Golf & Spa.
• 78th Annual Conference, April 17 – 20, 2004
at the Westin Grand Hotel in Washington, D.C.
• Accreditation Seminar, October 11th at the Center
for Continuing Education at the University of Notre Dame,
Notre Dame, IN.
• Distance Education Workshop, October 12-13, Center
for Continuing Education, University of Notre Dame.
• 79th Annual Conference, April 16-19, 2005 at the
The Westin Francis Marion in Charleston, SC.
|
