As new providers enter higher education, concerns about the quality and merits of alternative credentials continue to flare.
Traditional higher education has long relied on its voluntary system of accreditation to assure quality — despite qualms about the system’s effectiveness — and the federal government has depended on the system to help determine eligibility for student aid. But many of the ventures providing alternative credentials aren’t part of that system.
The Chronicle’s Goldie Blumenstyk talked about the implications of that with Barbara Gellman-Danley, president of the Chicago-based Higher Learning Commission, which accredits colleges in 19 states. Their conversation has been edited and condensed.
Q. As we extend our notion of postsecondary credentials, where do accreditors fit in?
A. It’s important that accreditors be very involved. And it’s critical that we look at the big picture. We want to assure that our institutions are comfortable with transfer options from all kinds of programs. So we should be at the forefront.
Q. How do you get there? What do accreditors need to do to play that role?
A. Well, as you know, there was a recent convening at the White House to discuss a lot of these issues, and there were so many new providers there that we certainly could not have known all of them, and they didn’t know each other. It would not be prudent for us to find out about all kinds of initiatives after the fact and we appreciated that the Department of Education was including us.
So Step 1 is to be kept informed and to be kept involved. After that, we need to recognize a variety of kinds of providers, both our institutions of higher education and third-party providers. And just like our institutions, they run the gamut from extremely strong to not so strong, and our focus is on a single stakeholder: learners.
Q. A lot of these discussions about alternative credentials paint traditional accreditors as the enemy, as barriers to innovation. Where do you think that comes from?
A. I believe it’s a perception that grows, like a rumor grows from one end of a table to another when you pass it around in middle school. I don’t think this is accurate. I can name all kinds of innovations that I’ve seen at each of my colleagues’ agencies and regions, and several in the Higher Learning Commission. We are doing a strategic plan as you know, and one of the things that we’re recommending is a creation of a think tank of brilliant people [with ideas that] are not just outside the box but flatten the box.
Q. A lot of this discussion about quality control seems to be employer-driven: Does the credential get the student a job? Any concerns that this will leave accreditors — and, more importantly, their values — out of the loop?
A. We are much more focused on, Are these the right alternatives for our learners? And I’m going to give you a specific example, if I may. I am a person who has an undergraduate degree in speech and English education. It was very rhetorical. It was very well done at Syracuse University, and I have a Ph.D. in communication. I realized that people can go to Toastmasters and learn some basics about public speaking. But I assure you, they didn’t learn about Aristotle. They didn’t learn about Plato. They didn’t learn about the “five canons” [of rhetoric]. And as a result, they also didn’t dig deep as to why people have a real fear of public speaking.
So I have a personal bias [against] stripping education down to a how-to level. And I’m certainly hoping and encouraging that any third-party providers do it the right way.
Q. One of the hot degrees out there right now is this master’s degree that Georgia Tech is offering in collaboration with Udacity and AT&T. A key part of that credential seems to be the AT&T component. Do you think an employer’s involvement might be a bigger draw than a program’s accreditation status?
A. Georgia Tech and Udacity are obviously very well respected. As far as the accreditor’s role, we do not accredit individual programs; we accredit a full institution. We just want to see how everything fits into the overall organization. It’s completely up to the institution. We don’t make those deals ourselves.
Q. Do you see a role for accreditation to advocate for the whole-person education you were discussing?
A. Absolutely. We are working on a 200- year-old system, so it’s important that we really find ways to have very good intellectual conversations with anyone who’s interested, from higher education or business and industry. We want to be able to say, Somebody who really matters to you needs an education. What should that look like?
Goldie Blumenstyk writes about the intersection of business and higher education. Check out www.goldieblumenstyk.com for information on her new book about the higher-education crisis; follow her on Twitter @GoldieStandard; or email her at goldie@chronicle.com.
