Accrediting Bodies Draft Distance Education Guidelines

Traditionally, the accreditation of degree-granting institutions in the United States has been performed by commissions in each of six geographic regions (there are eight accrediting commissions because two regions have more than one). The standards each commission applies when accrediting traditional institutions are similar, though not identical. The recent boom in online distance education programs has led to questions about the appropriateness of the regional model and about the applicability of the commissions’ standards, which assume the existence of a significant academic infrastructure in one of the six regions and an on-campus student body. Unlike traditional college programs, those taught electronically can transcend geographic boundaries and do not necessarily need a campus base.

Yet the commissions’ draft concludes that the regional model of accreditation remains appropriate, because most collegiate education occurs in traditional, rather than online, settings, and most online programs leading to degrees are offered by traditional institutions. In addition, the commissioners say that programs taught electronically can be assessed by the underlying mission-based standards used by the commissions, which hold that accredited colleges and universities should have purposes appropriate to higher education and the resources necessary to achieve them. The institutions must also be able to show that they are achieving their stated purposes and can continue to do so.

The draft’s emphasis on integrating distance education and traditional courses is a good one, according to Ruth Flower, the AAUP’s director of government relations and staff to the Association’s Committee on Accrediting of Colleges and Universities. Too often, she says, online courses sidestep normal departmental oversight. But the draft stipulates that programs transmitted electronically should "maintain appropriate academic oversight" and meet institution-wide standards, both to ensure consistent quality and to provide coherence for students who enroll in a mix of online and traditional courses.

Flower also commends the draft’s attention to the quality of course design and instruction. Although the draft allows the "unbundling" of faculty roles by saying, for example, that the same person might not be responsible for course development and instruction, it also states that "academically qualified persons" should fully participate in curricular decisions and be responsible for the "substance of the program."

On the downside, says Flower, the guidelines aren’t specific enough on some points. For example, they state that elements of a distance education program can be contracted out to unaccredited entities, but they don’t specify limits for outsourcing. Could a university contract out the entire first-year writing program to a for-profit tutoring company? The guidelines state that "the importance of appropriate interaction" between instructor and students should be reflected in the design of online courses, but don’t state outright that there must be a live teacher for each course.

"The essence of college education is asking questions," Flower says. "Some currently available courses are completely canned. The creators of these courses try to deal with student questions by having a premade list of answers to frequently asked questions, but this presupposes what students will ask and limits opportunities for faculty members and students to diverge from a planned curriculum to explore new territory. It’s bad for faculty, and it’s bad for students. Online programming or videos can be wonderful tools for teaching, but they can’t replace real teachers and courses."

 Printer-Friendly Page