Search News


Browse Archives

News

Accreditor Eyes Course Outsourcing

April 10, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

It turns out that students and faculty members aren't the only ones seeking more information about an arrangement between Fort Hays State University and a company that sells online general education courses for $99 each. The arrangement was a surprise to Fort Hays' accreditor, the North Central Association of College and Schools, which is now asking questions.

North Central is also examining the company's relationship with two for-profit institutions it accredits: Ellis University and Grand Canyon University. The company, StraighterLine, offers the courses online and these institutions pledge to award credit to those who successfully complete them, even though the courses are taught by instructors hired by StraighterLine, which is not a college and does not have accreditation.

Karen L. Solinski, director of legal and governmental affairs for North Central, said no conclusions had been reached about whether there was anything wrong with the relationships. But she said that officials learned of the ties only when they read an article last week in Inside Higher Ed about opposition to the arrangement at Fort Hays State.

"When we saw the article, we naturally had questions," Solinski said, so requests for information have been sent to the three universities. Solinski said that, at this point, she doesn't have enough information to know which of the accreditor's policies may apply to the situation. Generally, she said, colleges have considerable autonomy to decide which transfer credits to accept. But she said that different rules apply when the credits are coming from "unaccredited agencies," and not accredited colleges.

Solinski said another issue may be the faculty role in the curriculum. "It depends on the institution," she said, adding that "we think the faculty have an important role in the approval of curriculum."

At Fort Hays, while some faculty members were involved in reviewing the deal with StraighterLine, there was no formal approval process, and the English department has expressed concern about whether the composition courses offered by StraighterLine in fact are of the same level of rigor as those offered at the university.

The theory behind StraighterLine is that many colleges have poor track records at teaching general education courses. If StraighterLine can do a better job, and selected colleges like Fort Hays grant credit, those colleges may be attractive places for the StraighterLine students to transfer to finish their degrees. Because StraighterLine courses are inexpensive, supporters say that it provides a good option for some students and limited risk of big debts for students who don't do well. Many higher education experts have suggested that the model used by StraighterLine -- in which professors design courses, but don't coach students through them -- has promise. But at Fort Hays, students have organized opposition to the arrangement, saying that it will devalue their degrees, which they feel are based on close student-faculty interaction.

A spokesman for Grand Canyon confirmed that North Central has contacted the university's president and that a conference call is being scheduled to discuss the matter later this month. A spokeswoman for Ellis did not return phone calls about StraighterLine.

Lawrence V. Gould, the provost at Fort Hays, said he had spoken to North Central on Thursday and that the accreditor was "doing exploratory research." Gould said that he didn't see StraighterLine as being any different from the many other institutions that students attend before transferring credit to Fort Hays. Gould acknowledged that the faculty had never signed off on all of the courses and that there are objections, particularly to one composition course being offered. But he said that English professors would work with StraighterLine to "do some readjustment of learning outcomes," and that he anticipated everyone then being satisfied.

Gould said that he personally has been impressed with the quality of courses produced by StraighterLine.

Asked why he didn't tell North Central about the arrangement before starting it, Gould said that "there didn't seem to be a need."

Burck Smith, the CEO of StraighterLine, said he would welcome North Central if it would like to evaluate his courses. StraighterLine recently asked the Distance Education and Training Council, an accrediting body, to evaluate its courses, and the council found that they met or exceeded its standards. The council is a national accreditor, not a regional accreditor like North Central. Smith said that if a regional accreditor would be willing to conduct the same review, he would be pleased, but that he could only find a national accreditor willing to do so. (While advocates for different accrediting bodies dispute their relative quality, regional accreditation is the norm for nonprofit colleges while many for-profit institutions prefer national bodies.)

Smith said he had no concerns about a quality review of his courses, but that he did worry about "whatever political elements might enter the equation."

As to whether colleges that set up relationships with StraighterLine should report those those arrangements to their accreditors, Smith said "it's their decision to make."

At least one StraighterLine college -- Potomac College -- did inform its accreditor about the arrangement, and the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools approved it.

StraighterLine is not the only company entering into relationships to provide content or courses to colleges.

Higher Ed Holdings, a Texas-based company, is providing online master's programs in education at Arkansas State and Lamar Universities, with some controversy at the former. And the company withdrew from negotiations with the University of Toledo over a similar program when faculty members there objected. Lamar did flag the relationship for the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, which is preparing to review the program there.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Accreditor Eyes Course Outsourcing

  • Posted by Glen S. McGhee , Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project on April 10, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • This controversy raises important questions about the difference between online courses provided by the StraighterLine consortium, which are not officially accredited, and those of institutions that are regionally accredited.

    So, at what point should Gould should have gotten prior approval for "his" courses from the regional accreditor, NCA, and when does his own in-house evaluation process suffice?

    The Higher Education Act stipulates a range of requirements, including prior approval, for schools utilizing ineligible or non-accredited educational programs. This is apparently the case for FHSU, which failed to seek prior approval because StraighterLine is "ineligible." The fact that Substantive Change applications for this new approach did not receive prior approval points to a disconnect between institutions and their accreditors.

    There are other problems as well, including significant differences between regional and national accrediting standards, particularly in regard to faculty qualifications for teaching general education and Baccalaureate level courses, since regional 'best practices' require a Masters degree and 18 graduate semester hour credits in the teaching discipline, and the standards used by Distance Education and Training Council and referenced by StraighterLine, do not. See: http://www.detc.org/downloads/accredhandbook/2009/C9.pdf , page 9.

    Issues such as this speak volumes about the lack of consistency for highed ed QA/QC accreditation processes between regional and national associations.

    Lastly, there is a gaping loophole in the HEA for ineligible schools that provide up to 50% of educational programs that are fully accredited, regionally or nationally. Given the overall laxity of online oversight, this loophole has significant potential for abuse.

  • Oxy-morons
  • Posted by kgotthardt on April 10, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • Why can't the colleges contract with a private, accredited college offering online coursed?

    It's a contradiction to allow an unaccredited college with instructors of questionable backgrounds to provide credited courses for an accredited school.

    Then again, North Central isn't known for adequately justifying their random, politically driven policy.

  • Who teaches what?
  • Posted by Alan Contreras , Oregon Office of Degree Authorization on April 10, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • The key issue here is not what entity provides the courses (although if it is not an accredited college it necessarily requires more evaluation and oversight, not less), the main question is who is teaching what. The Who is whether these courses are taught by qualified faculty (in most cases, people who hold graduate degrees in the field) and the What is whether the curriculum requires student work comparable to that at the receiving institution.

    Presumably these questions, answers to which seem not yet available, are among those that the accreditor will be asking. They should also look at the arrangement that Northcentral University in Arizona has with its feeder in Vietnam. There are all sorts of new arrangements for credit-gathering being tried out. Some are good. Some are not.

  • Investigate
  • Posted by Arbiters of Quality? , Director of Enrollment at New England on April 10, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • Certainly this "arrangement" merits further investigation.

    Although convenient, we need to avoid hasty generalizations about online education based on a scenario that is still under review and with a program that is not quite the same as a regionally accredited online program.

    However, it is interesting to me how those of us in education take every opportunity (whether contextually appropriate or not)to criticize online education as somehow "lacking oversight" and of lesser quality than traditional educational delivery. Perhaps my experience was different. Looking back, as an undergraduate student I can clearly remember dodging students as we exited the 200 seat auditorium to chase down my instructor before he/she made it to the security of his tenured office. However, my online instructors were always just a mouse click away and readily available via telephone. On balance my online courses were slightly better because the content covered what I needed to know rather than what the instrucor liked to talk about or fancied himself an expert. My online instructors utilized assessment rubrics which they strictly adhered to. The rigor of these online graduate courses (much to my delight) handily surpassed those at the AASCB school I earned my first degree.

    Most other traditional university courses were taught by graduate students some who could barely speak English. The academically trained Ph.D's (that mom and dad paid for)when not doing research or squabbling with bigger ego's expected us to bow in reverence as they swished into the auditorium.

    All online education shouldn't be trashed to make a point.

     

  • Appropriate Credentials and Approvals
  • Posted by Burck Smith , CEO at StraighterLine on April 10, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT
  • In response to some of the comments, I want to point out that the article notes that one of our partner colleges did get approval from their regional accreditor prior to working with us. Also, that StraighterLine courses meet all of the faculty credentialing requirements that are stated here. To reiterate, we would welcome review of our courses by regional accreditors. However, regional accreditors typically do not review individual courses, only colleges awarding credit for courses.

  • The point is not online education
  • Posted by AIS , Curriculum Professor on April 11, 2009 at 7:15am EDT
  • I don't think the point of the argument here is online vs. face-to-face courses. It is about the fast growing practice for non-accredited, for-profit organizations to align themselves with accredited schools to offer educational, degree-producing programs. These organizations are offering courses with thousands of students in each class who are being taught and assessed by unqualified instructors.
    I teach online graduate courses and I have continuous interaction with my students and I am the one who read and grade every word they submit to me. Of course, there is no way I can maintain such relationship with over 25 students. I can't, in good conscious, endorse the practice of having hundreds or thousands of students in classes where they are graded by unqualified instructors and there is virtually no interaction between me and my students.
    It is a shame that some institutions of higher education are resorting to such practice to survive in such hard economical times! However, the long-term effects of such practice will be dire for the reputation of these same institutions.

  • Posted by Glen S. McGhee at FHEAP on April 11, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • Another issue of concern would be the extent of program oversight by FHSU faculty. This is a cardinal feature of NCA accreditation "standards," but if these courses are coming from outside the institution, and are being run from outside the institution, as has been stated, then I think you have a problem here as well. And what about student identification (i.e., cheating) safeguards? I know of no foolproof method for preventing this.
    Apparently, accreditation standards aren't fine grained enough to capture subtleties like this. These are the questions that should be raised --
    are current QA/QC processes up to the challenge of keeping up with these changes? Obviously not, as history has shown in the past.

    The question then becomes how to combat the structural inertia that shackles accrediting associations.

  • Posted by Ed , education professor on April 12, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • Higher education is the hottest market for corporate plunderers and venture capitalists. I invite insiderhighered readers to inform themselves about the true motives of these for-profit entities and their campaigns to form partnerships with public universities. This should be a call-to-arms for those who care about the public university tradition. Corporations are aggresively marketing themselves and administrators are buying their sales pitches. Faculty members are the protectors of curriculum and quality through shared governance models. Unless they are diligent in enforcing shared governance oversight procedures, curriculum becomes transformed into products designed to sell more than to educate.

    The issue is not on-line education; the issue is the treatment of higher education as an expliotable market. Straigherline is just one example of corporate plundering. HEH represents the most aggresive attempts to alter higher education through for-profit endeavors. http://stophehcorporateplundering.blogspot.com

    Transparency is the answer. When public institutions fail to exercise with transparency, the press must assume the responsibility of informing the public.

  • What a waste of my life
  • Posted by Guess Who , A big one at Guess on April 12, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • I chose to go to top universities for undergraduate and graduate degrees in my field. I guess I wasted my time earning a Ph.D. and tenure, when a private company can replace university educations. I teach online classes that have substance to them. Neither Straightline nor Higher Ed Holdings can provide the quality of education that I provide. Nor do they provide the advising, public service, and networking that gets high quality jobs for my graduates like I do. If the future of education is with private companies, maybe they could just sell their courses at Wal-Mart.

    I am deeply concerned about so-called feeder programs. Consider that Bernard Madoff used feeders to supply the 65 billion dollars that he stole from investors. The feeders claim that they were just providing a service for investing funds and were not responsbile for due diligence. I have worked with transcripts of students who have credits from many for-profit online colleges, and most of those students are unable to perform well at the level required by my university. That means that they have received As at for-profit colleges and earn Cs, Ds, and Fs at my university. It is a shame that universities accept credits from the for-profits. It gives credence to inferior grade students who probably should have spent their money at a good community college that would have provided them with the skill-set they needed to do high quality work at the university level.

  • Your Not Wasting Your Life - just my time
  • Posted by Typical Arrogance , Just an Adjunct.. at Small College on April 17, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • Professor with all due respect, your arrogant tone is typical of the big University instructors who believe they are the: " "Keepers of the Quality Education Secret". This mentality drives adults who have choices, away and into for profit online universities. In every classroom there are students who excell and those who lag. To say that students with "A's" from online schools somehow do not match the high standards of "Your" University and would earn "C's" and "D's" is complete nonsense. As an online instructor you know this. No one I know or teach wants lower standards in any classroom. My online students in upper level courses, write better, are more focused and are overall more disciplined students. They don't need to be socialized. They are there to learn.

    "For profit" is not a dirty word. It is one way to measure success. All educational institutions must be profitable to stay in business; even yours - your excellency.

  • Online is not the issue - DUH!
  • Posted by George of the Higer Ed Jungle , A real professor with blue collar roots at A university on May 22, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • The issue is not so much online, although for many students online is too often easy, although it need not be! The issue with coroporations, for example HEH, is academic integrity and professional standards. For all those not familiar with the issues look at recent Insider Higher Ed articles, and then go to the following website and read about the problems the Lamar faculty senate is having. It seems there are problems in Camelot.

    http://dept.lamar.edu/committees/minutes.asp?committee=37

    Nuff said.

    George

  • Follow-Up: ACE Approval, FHSU exoneration, and other validation
  • Posted by Burck Smith , CEO at StraighterLine on February 10, 2010 at 4:15pm EST
  • Given the passions that this article and StraighterLine's businss model seems to inspire, it seems like a follow-up is in order. Fort Hays State University continues to be a partner college of StraighterLine's. Their accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission, said that there was nothing improper with StraighterLine and FHSU's relationship. Further, all of StraighterLine's courses were approved by the American Council of Education's credit recommendation service in November of 2009. This is a service adhered to by about 1000 colleges that will award transfer credit in some capacity to ACE approved courses. It is heavily used by the military, but also by civilians. Also, the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) -- a national accreditor recognized by the DoE -- said that SL's courses met or exceeded their standards for online course quality. Lastly, StraighterLine has announced a distinguished Advisory Board composed of former heads of accrediting agencies and current provosts. The number of enrolled students continues to grow. Do not make the mistake of thinking that something must be of low quality simply because it is affordable. Perhaps the converse is true, that something is expensive only because we have become accustomed to it being expensive.