« PreviousContinue »
A JUAL FOR THE PROMOTION OF LEJERSHIP IN EDUCATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
HOWARD M. SOULE, President; 338 West Cinnabar, Phoenix, A
BILL L. TURNEY, Vice President; Tyler State Colfege, Tyler, Tex. 75701.
GERALD S. LEISCHUCK, Director; Director of Institutional Analysis, Auburn Univ., Ala. 36830.
H. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, Director; Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Ill. 60115.
REX K. RECKEWEY, Director; University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebr. 68508.
G. L. BERRY, Director, Dist. 1; University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
WILLIAM K. POSTON, Jr., Director, Dist, II: 2309 E. Hale St., Mesa, Ariz, 85203.
3ERT STARK, JR., Director, Dist. III; State College of Arkansas, Conway, Ark. 72032.
CECIL K. PHILLIPS, Director, Dist. IV; Univ. of
GRADY WOODY, Director, Dist. VII: Dir., Labora tory School, Memphis State Univ., Tenn. 38111. EDITORIAL CONSULTANTS
ROBERT EBEL, Professor of Education and Psychol-
J. LEO FREIWALD, Teacher, Benjamin Franklin
WAYNE O. REED, 4800 Calvert St., NW, Washington,
LOWELL C. ROSE, Executive Secretary; STANLEY
STANLEY M. ELAM, Editor
CARBARA DOUGLAS GILL, Assistant Editor
Published monthly, September through June, by Phi Delta Kopa, Inc., 8th & Union, Bloomington, Ind. 47401 Subscription rate, $3.00 per year. Single copies $1.00 exch, remit with order. Indexed in Education Index, available on microfilm, University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich. Member, Educational Press Association of America. Second-class postage paid at Dayton, O.
Copyright 1974 by Phi Delta Kappa, Inc. Photo-offset reprints of articles appearing in the Kapsan may be obtained from the business office. 1-2 pp. 33 p 1CO: 31 $3; 56 $15, 78 $20. Minimum order 139. O larger orders, write for price schedule. Pise ramit with order.
Adress purchase orders and address changes to Lector of Administrative Services. Allow six weeks for processing address changes. Postmaster: Send Form 5570 to Phi Delta Kappan, 9th & Union, Box 73, Bloomington, Ind. 47401,
THE EDITORS PAGE
The Kappan Platform: Uninhibited,
he November, 1973, Kappan carried an article by Richard B. Morland titled "The External Doctorate in Education: Blessing or Blasphemy?" It was introduced by an editorial comment titled "Nova, as in Innovate." In the same issue President Abraham Fischler of Nova University presented a brief comment voicing his conviction that Mr. Morland had made many misstatements in his article.
In this February issue we are pleased to publish a detailed response to Mr. Morland and the Kappan editorial, written by Donald P. Mitchell of Nova and titled, "Let's Set the Record Straight: The Case for Nova University's External Doctorate in Education." The Kappan has provided Mr. Morland the same opportunity for rebuttal that was provided in November to Mr. Fischler.
This exchange is in the tradition that the Kappan has followed since 1958, when the editorial consultants recommended to the Phi Delta Kappa Board of Directors that the journal take a vigorous editorial approach to important contemporary issues in education. We like the spirited reaction of our readers to the dialogue concerning the external doctorate as it has developed to date. The reaction confirms our judg. ment that the issue is a vital one.
However, we would not want this debate to include any factual inaccuracies or erroneous factual implications. It is clear, for example, that Nova does make use of course examinations, contrary to an implication of the Morland article. We did not intend to imply that
In this Kappan Mr. Mitchell errs when, in his final footnote, page 375, he says the September Kappan referred directly to Nova as a diploma mill, Nova was not mentioned in the September Kappan.
Nova University has a shoddy academic program. On the contrary, it appears to be a reputable institution with a welldeveloped program. Nor did we mean to imply that there has been an improper relationship between Nova and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., decided in 1971, underscores "the profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open." That is also the Kappan commit. ment. (The Supreme Court does not permit nor would the Kappan knowingly permit reckless disregard of the truth.) The external doctorate is an important innovation in education and we believe we are serving the public interest by conducting a debate on its merits without fear or favor.
We urge our readers to examine Mr. Mitchell's presentation as published in this issue of the Kappan, along with Mr. Morland's brief rebuttal. We urge also that you reread Mr. Morland's original article and our editorial.
We expect to continue publishing dialogue on the external degree in the Kappan. We hope that other publications also take up the debate. -- SME and LCR.
Senator PELL. Our next witnesses are Dana R. Hart, executive secretary of the Accrediting Commission, and Richard Fulton, executive director, both representing the Association of Independent Colleges and Schools.
I welcome you both here.
Mr. Fulton I welcome particularly, because as you know, the Boston Globe has alleged an improper relationship between us. As you and I both know, there is no improper relationship.
I have worked with, liked you, over the years, appreciated your help and support. At the same time, as you know, I recognize the problems that you face and I have done what I can to assist your organization in tightening up its accrediting process.
I strongly believe that it is just as important, or more important in many cases that a man or woman be educated, trained, for a career as it is to put out one more history or philosophy A.B. I think sometimes we have too many of these.
Right at this juncture in our national life we have too many liberal arts graduates, and too few adequately trained individuals.
So I want to make sure this emphasis on career training continues. At the same time I want to make sure that the outrageous abuses that have occurred, particularly in Massachusetts and other States that have been reported, are eliminated.
But I do not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. This is the basic problem we face here. I think your organization serves a very important role in both getting people educated toward careers, and at the same time somehow helping to avoid the abuses.
In regard to the actual rate of default, and so forth, I understand that next week witnesses will appear on this subject.
I have been trying to find out what the rates of default are as they compare with the different classes of, or kinds of, education institutions. It has been like pulling teeth to get these figures. I have tried for more than a year, and so far have not received them.
As you know, just about a year ago, I sought to jack up your organization to tighten up its requirements for accreditation, long before the Boston Globe reaching for a story in some cases, I thought, was onto it.
I thank you very much. Would you both proceed as you will. I notice your testimony is awfully long. If you would care to abbreviate it, and it will be put in the record in full, we will be glad to hear your
STATEMENT OF DANA R. HART, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ACCREDITING COMMISSION; AND RICHARD A. FULTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS
Mr. FULTON. Thank you for your information and candor, Mr. Chairman.
I want to assure you that we have no intention of reading the entire statement. It was prepared because your congressional announcement of these hearings covered several subjects. We thought we would
take an opportunity to put a written statement in in several allied
Senator PELL. It will be included in the record at the conclusion of your testimony.
Mr. FULTON. For purposes of the record, I am Richard Fulton. Senator PELL. If I may interrupt, I had the opportunity of going over and reading your statement last night, so I am reasonably informed on it.
Mr. FULTON. My colleague, Mr. Dana Hart, is the executive secretary of our Accrediting Commission. I would add that our Accrediting Commission serves not only proprietary, but nonprofit institutions. It serves both collegiate and noncollegiate institutions.
Senator PELL. As we go along, excuse me if I interrupt you, but I am trying to educate myself as we move along.
What is the percentage of profit and nonprofit, or as you put it, taxpaying and nontaxpaying institutions in your organization?
Mr. FULTON. Somewhere around 15 percent of the institutions in our organization are nonprofit.
Senator PELL. What is the difference between your group and the next group, the National Association of Trade and Technical Schools and the National Home Study Council?
Mr. FULTON. Of course, the Home Study people aggregate a group of schools that deliver their services via correspondence, whereas our schools are residential.
Senator PELL. Not residential, but you have to go to it. I do not think your schools in general are residential.
In other words, the students do not reside in dormitories?
Mr. FULTON. Some do, and some do not. Many more than people realize. It is quite surprising.
In fact, one of my favorite anecdotes, which some one asked me was: give me an example of a proprietary school. I said Katherine Gibbs.
He said, gee, that is such a good school I didn't even know it was proprietary.
I could say the same thing about many schools that have dormitory facilities.
Time Magazine once asked me to give them a stereotyped, or a typical. That is the very essence of our area of education, that we are not stereotyped.
Senator PELL. We have a secretarial school, New England Business Academy, that is seeking accreditation. It is applying, I think, to your organization, not the National Association of Trade and Technical Schools. Why would it be applying to yours as opposed to the other one?
Mr. FULTON. Mr. Hart I believe can answer that specifically.
Mr. HART. The Accrediting Commission of the Association of Independent Colleges and Schools limits its accreditation to institutions of the business or business related programs.
I will have to let the National Association of Trade and Technical Schools speak for themselves, but generally they accredit institutions offering programs other than those which are business and business related.
Senator PELL. OK. Carry on.
Mr. FULTON. We both respond to this invitation in our individual capacities. While we think we have some background on the subject, certainly it is individual opinion and suggestions we offer.
Again, we state our view of the student-aid programs, for example, accreditation is only an element of eligibility. We think this may be misunderstood by some well-intentioned researchers. I think if one will look at the law, you will see it is very clear. Apparently the Office of Education agrees with us. In part of their testimony they gave to the O'Hara Committee, they divided eligibility into three elements, separating State authority from accreditation as separate ele
But curiously enough, in other parts of their testimony they will talk about beginning to rely upon States for determinations.
As I understand the law, and particularly the guaranteed student loan program, which has occupied a great deal of attention, for 9 years there has been a set of definitions on the books. Now, whether or not the law has been administered by the program administrators at the OE with regard to determinations or if schools have State authority, and if they are offering meaningful programs leading to employment, that is a question of the administration of the law.
I do think this, that statistically you do not have to belabor the obvious or quantitate the unnecessary to establish that where proprietary school students have been involved in high default rates, there have been absent one of two factors.
Let us look at the facts in New York. New York has a very fine system of State regulation and administration.
Senator PELL. Excuse me. I do not mean to be discourteous to my colleagues on Senator Javits' staff, but I wish you would focus not only on New York, but on Boston, where these problems seem to be particularly acute.
Mr. FULTON. I will shift to Boston then.
Senator PELL. We want to hear about New York, too.
Mr. FULTON. One of the curious things in the Boston Globe articles, in the first series, no school accredited by us was mentioned at all. And nowhere in the series is there any allegation that AICS has been derelict in its responsibilities with regard to the one school they did discuss.
As a matter of fact, I infer that they were rather irritated when they, by some means, found out we had the school under investigation. We had informed the school that the course offerings they had told us at one point were not the same as they were offering in a subsequent point. Further that we were working with the Office of Education.
However the Globe apparently successfully showed that the State people had not kept up with the facts, but nowhere in the story is there any allegation that we were derelict.
Senator PELL. Focus on both cities, if you will.
Mr. FULTON. Let us include California also. There was the West Coast Trade School problem, where those schools were licensed by the State of California, but they were not accredited. There were default problems, there were dropout problems.
Now, let us shift to a series of States where there was no State authority initially, but there were accreditation schools, I mean Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, States like that.
Again you have problems in the default rate of schools having been declared eligible when there was no State authority. New York, you can take the actual facts from the New York Higher Education Assistance Corp., and the accredited school with State authority of very low default rates, or they are comparable to the other institutions of higher education.
On the other hand, New York schools that were not accredited indicate a higher default rate. My point is this, accreditation is not a cure-all. State legislation or authority is not a cure-all. It takes at least a combination, in conjunction with another set of authorities. That is for the USOE to implement the authority they have had for 2 years, to deeligibilize an otherwise eligible institution.
They are asking us, or continue to ask us to do indirectly for them what they should be doing directly. I do not think we are going to have enough money. In 1971 and 1972, just about the time you asked me to report to the commission on what we were doing, the Office of Education came to us and pointed out some statistical abnormalities, and asked us to look into some schools, and we did.
Senator PELL. Excuse me. Was that 1971-72, or 1972-73 that I asked you?
Mr. FULTON. In 1971-72 the United States Office of Education (USOE) contacted us. You requested a report in 1973 of which a copy is attached.
Mr. HART. That is correct.
Senator PELL. I did not realize I asked you so long ago. I am glad I did.
Mr. FULTON. The USOE people made a personal appearance before our accrediting commission in 1972. The program administrators told us what they thought was wrong, or that we should go look at it, and so we did.
It showed, first, an accrediting agency can act responsibly when it is given the facts. But, secondly, it illustrates what can happen to an accrediting agency when it undertakes to do somebody else's work of deeligibilizing.
We rewrote our bylaws. We appointed a review board. We wrote new procedures. We were very proud when we reported to you in September 1973, that we had withdrawn accreditation of 23-it was a number of institutions.