I remember how it was -- JR
The Mission Driven University is Facing a Crisis. New Accreditors Are Here to Help
Michael has written before about the value of the reforms to university accreditation implemented by the US Department of Education (ED) under the leadership of Secretary Betsy DeVos. Passed in 2019, these regulations significantly overhauled the way accreditors are recognized and governed, holding legacy agencies accountable and opening the doors for new ones to enter the space and compete with established counterparts.
In just the several years since their enactment, some states (such as Florida and North Carolina) are already moving to have their public institutions switch accreditors. Texas is considering a similar move. Meanwhile, for the first time in recent memory, new accrediting agencies are cropping up, challenging the regional monopoly formerly enjoyed by six legacy accreditors. Promisingly, some of those legacy accreditors are consequently moving outside their traditional regions and making their own cases to institutions willing to switch.
Michael has also written about the looming presence of new guidelines expected to be finalized by the current administration within the coming months. Although unlikely to be a wholesale reversal of the DeVos changes, these are still likely to pose a serious threat to much of the progress brought about by their predecessor. Among other things, the proposed regulations would make it far more risky for universities to form relationships with non-legacy accreditors by raising the bar for how they can qualify to gain recognition from ED. They would also put a cap on the number of institutions a new accreditor can take on, hindering new entrants from gaining the momentum needed to stay afloat.
All of this represents a unique challenge that will have consequences for a number of parties within the world of higher education, perhaps most notably for the newer accreditors who are just starting to make strides toward ED recognition. Last week, Michael hosted a web event with the heads of three of these agencies to talk about the work they’re doing and see how they’re thinking about the future of their roles.
Anthony S. Bieda serves as the executive director of the National Association for Academic Excellence (NAAE), an agency that he started building just several months ago. In Bieda’s words, “NAAE will be the accreditor for institutions that want to be rewarded, encouraged, and nudged towards academic excellence, towards robust scholarship, and the ability to promote independent thinking, freely from any kind of doctrine or other political influences.” It is this standard of academic excellence that, in Bieda’s view, is absent from the goals of current accreditors and in need of fulfillment.
Stig Leschly takes a markedly different approach in his role as the president of the Postsecondary Commission. He aims to provide accreditation “for institutions that want to be recognized for and held accountable for doing extraordinary things for the economic opportunity of their students.” Throughout the event, Leschly emphasized the importance of universities providing their students with high returns on investment and how the Postsecondary Commission intends to reward institutions that generate the best results in this dimension.
Robert Manzer, the president of the American Academy for Liberal Education, aims to tackle a more narrowly tailored educational goal in his role as an accreditor, serving universities that specifically wish to advance the principles of liberal education. “Liberal education is the cornerstone of higher education,” Manzer said, “we believe that the disappearance of this notion has a lot to do with higher education’s sinking reputation and the perception of politicization that is so widespread.”
Manzer was particularly optimistic about the potential for inter-accreditor competition fostered by the 2019 regulations. “The opportunity,” he noted, “is to have accreditors that are actually interested in the quality of academics, the quality of academic programs, [and] the quality of the student outcomes.” This particular insight seemed to resonate with his co-panelists, who agreed that it’s high time to move beyond a one-size-fits-all solution to accreditation.
The debate over the primary goals of higher education is having something of a moment right now in the public sphere. Despite their organizations’ missions reflecting very different answers to this question, a shared attitude toward how the debate should be settled is perhaps the common thread joining our three guests together. Not only is there room for different approaches regarding higher education’s aims, they might agree, but variance ought to be actively fostered among competitors. Only when universities are given the ability to freely pursue their aims will hundreds of flowers be able to bloom and consumers have the power to collectively decide which actors thrive.
https://heartlanddailynews.com/2024/06/university-facing-crisis-new-accreditors-help/
***********************************************Ivy League school to offer course on ‘Politics Of Fatness’ to examine how fatphobia intersects with oppression
Brown University is offering a summer course on the "Politics of Fatness," providing students with the opportunity to explore the concept of "fatphobia."
The pre-college course at the Ivy League school, "The F-Word: Examining the Science, Culture, and Politics of Fatness," will teach students "about the many perspectives surrounding fatness throughout history and across cultures," according to the course description.
"You will consider the pathologization of fatness in the medical community and the rising prevalence of eating disorders, as well as how fatphobia intersects with other systems of oppression," the description states.
By the time they complete the course, students will understand "the social, medical and cultural implications of fatness," "apply major theoretical lenses to the study of fatness, including the feminist/gender lens, reader-response lens, historical lens and race lens" and "think critically about differing perspectives relating to the stigmatization of fatness in modern society," according to the description.
"Ten years ago, you could hardly open a magazine without seeing an advertisement for a fad diet," the course description reads. "Today, you can hardly open TikTok without seeing a self-proclaimed ‘body-positive’ influencer, with some even going as far as to call themselves ‘fat-positive.’ Despite these creators' best efforts, the word ‘fat’ still holds an overwhelmingly negative connotation."
The description states that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with thousands of dietitians, continue to speak of "the so-called ‘obesity epidemic.'" It also noted that "several recent sociological publications have gained recognition detailing the racial origins of fatphobia, condemning the anti-fat sentiment of so many authorities."
"All of this begs the question: is this a public health or social justice issue? An introduction to the emerging academic field of ‘Fat Studies,’ this course does not seek to indoctrinate students with the tenets of the body positivity community but rather to provide you with the information and skills necessary to think critically about how fatphobia permeates the fabric of our society," the description continues.
Brown's pre-college programs are for high school students "to explore the challenges and opportunities of the college experience," according to the school's website. The classes are meant to allow them to balance academics with social activities "without the pressure of formal grades."
***********************************************
Fresh warning over ‘politicised’ schools
Lowering the voting age to 16 could “politicise” schools and divide teachers and students, a leading constitutional law expert has warned.
University of Sydney professor Anne Twomey, appearing before a House of Representatives inquiry into civics education in Australia, said a push to lower the democratic franchise from 18 to 16 had some “upsides” but also contained a sweep of risks.
Chief among them, schools could become political zones, as “political parties see a new market for voters”, she said.
The professor added teachers could be swept up into politics and find themselves accused of political activism.
The inquiry, chaired by Labor Jagajaga MP Kate Thwaites, is conducting hearings into how to support greater democratic engagement and participation in an era of escalating misinformation and disinformation.
“In a time when we’re seeing challenges for democracies across the world, and a rise in mis and disinformation, it’s important that every Australian has the opportunity to be informed about and engaged in our democracy,” Ms Thwaites said when starting the inquiry.
“The committee wants to hear Australians’ experiences of civics education and what we can do better to support democratic engagement and participation.
“So many young Australians are passionate about social and political issues, but they may not have access to relevant and reliable information about democratic and electoral processes.”
Some witnesses, including youth democracy organisation Run For It, have argued the voting age should be lowered to engage youngsters in the democratic process.
“Lowering the voting age is not a groundbreaking idea – this policy has already been implemented across many countries,” the group said in its submission to the committee.
“Argentina, Ecuador and Brazil, who also have compulsory voting, have all lowered the voting age to 16.
“Other countries that have enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds include Cuba, Nicaragua, Austria, Ecuador, Argentina, Malta, Scotland and Wales.
“These countries have seen meaningful benefits as a result of lowering the voting age, including increased political engagement from young people. In some cases, young people participated in elections at higher rates than older age groups.”
The Greens Party supports lowering the voting age, and independent Kooyong MP Monique Ryan has also expressed support for the idea.
Professor Twomey, a leading expert in constitutional law, said the move could make voting seem more important to 16 and 17-year-olds and trigger more interest in civics education.
But she also said it would be “wrong” to fine school-age teens for not voting, the current system in place for Australia’s compulsory voting laws.
She also flagged issues of “maturity and influence” and said young people were sometimes not as sophisticated as they might believe themselves to be.
“I am very embarrassed by some of the views I had at that age,” she said. “That also gives me some pause to think as well. “I really wasn’t as sophisticated as I thought I was.”
Professor Twomey recommended critical thinking courses be included in school curriculums to help youngsters defend themselves from wild conspiracy theories and slovenly thinking on the internet.
She also argued social media companies had a “responsibility” to keep discourse civil.
She said anonymity on the internet was “corrosive” and those participating in online discussion should also post their names.
“You need to do that openly, you need to do that with your name and your face,” she said.
She said social media companies should accept they were a “part of the community” and uphold civil standards on their platforms.
******************************************************
My other blogs: Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
******************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment