Classifying English instruction courses as humanities satisfies accreditation?

[James]

I joined to ask this question, but first I saw the thread, "Gen ed problems and future outlook," which appeared in a timely manner, so I first read through that. I'm a humanities professor at a small, very non-liberal arts U.S. university's tiny program within a much larger foreign university that puts no particular emphasis on liberal arts. Our unit was recently accredited by one of the standard regional accreditors in the U.S. (the same one accrediting our U.S. university), and students receive diplomas from both universities simultaneously. By rule, we adhere to the U.S. university's curriculum while we are ruled by the foreign university's administrative policies. The U.S. university has a "reduced but well thought out set of core requirements that every student takes," as @mleok put it, which includes one required humanities course followed by one lower division and one upper division humanities elective. There are 4-5 social sciences courses in the rest of the core.

Starting soon, the two humanities electives and two social science electives will be replaced by English as a Second Language (ESL) courses. They are straightforwardly ESL, with titles like "English Language 202," and I was told by the bosses they've secured approval to classify the language classes as humanities courses. Our core curriculum now does not conform to the U.S. university's or its standards, but my question is: do we now fail to adhere to the accreditor's requirements? Their standards require follow-on humanities electives, which we seem to openly contravene due to this reclassification of courses that are for all intents and purposes remedial. My question is: can bringing this situation to the accreditor's attention have any influence on bringing us back into compliance if we have indeed become non-compliant? The risk to me of actually taking this step is a whole different debate; I'd just first like to get a better sense of what it could even accomplish.

I'm not asking if such a re-organization of the curriculum is best or proper or intellectually responsible, etc., because that's a separate debate which I don't want to derail the question I've posed here. I do have complete confidence in the bosses' intentions and professionalism; they are, however, philistines-lite, though they are nice philistines-lite who have lived and let live up to now. I, in turn, have their confidence as the one who didn't get fired. I would only comment that even though ESL seems at first blush to pay increasing returns to students in our particular situation, the kind of language acquisition imparted through our ESL program is of far less use than it appears. The vast majority of students don't need or intend to compete on the international job market, and so will have very little professional use for English after they graduate. There may be the desire to make our students more competitive for graduate school, or to transfer mid-degree to more prestigious foreign institutions, or to have the chance to compete on the international job market, but I only mention this to animate possible legitimate concerns on the part of the bosses; I don't want to direct attention away from my question regarding a failure to adhere to the requirements of accreditation, and if they fail to an extent that it would be worth asking the accrediting body to review the situation.

Weighing all the pros and cons, this is a net negative for me, but not nearly enough to necessarily want to rock the boat even if I could. I am, after all, the big fish in the small pond now, with apparently greater job security, but then there's the concern that I can now also be replaced by a master's in TESOL staff member to turn my course into ESL in all but name.

[Golazo]

If you are actually under the supervision of the US institution, then it might be worth having a conversation about this with stakeholders who care on the US side. But if you are basically in a "franchise" agreement where the non-US institute uses the branding and accreditation of the US institution but manages everything themselves, I would say nothing and look for another job.

[mamselle]

So, are your students primarily local/non-US individuals, or are they US students coming to the country you're in for a US-university program in a different place?

And while the degree is issued simultaneously by both schools, do students tend to follow their undergraduate program with attendance at US schools or other countries' schools?

It seems like those are operant questions in addition to the accreditation issue: does the school as re-configured now prepare them to do what they do next?

M.

[James]

It's not a franchise situation, but the degree to which the U.S. institution exercises their authority over the bosses they've appointed (who are Americans) isn't clear to me. The bosses have a lot of leeway, I expect, but they got approval on this and didn't (and wouldn't) do something precipitous. Also, it's imperative that any action I take be done without the complainer's identity being disclosed here or to the U.S. university for the sake of my own job security. If I determine that an accreditor can and traditionally does do an honest assessment of the situation and may at least possibly take some action in response to a communique from someone like me, then it becomes a question of whether or not I'm willing to risk confiding in the accreditor.

Yes, I hit the job listings hard, but if I'm correct that the situation won't get any worse, then even taking into account the subjective net negative, this is still easily my best prospect, not to mention a bird in the hand.

The students are 100% citizens of this foreign country. No one comes here from the outside, but there's a provision and encouragement for our kids to do 1-2 years at the U.S. institution. It's not clear how exactly the year or two in the U.S. behooves them beyond a valuable life experience, and only a small percentage ever go because of the expense. Also, their level of English makes U.S, classes that much more difficult for them, difficulties the extra English instruction is hoped to ameliorate. But it won't be nearly enough to close that gap, for reasons of language acquisition patterns that would be a tangent to bring up here. In any case, it's not even clear to me in what way the U.S. institution benefits from the foreign students coming to the U.S. aside from symbolic benefits.

Great value is put on following up our degrees with a graduate degree, though the percentage who can actually afford the more prestigious graduate schools isn't clear. Again, the extra language instruction can only help and can't hurt with respect to a foreign graduate school, but from a language acquisition point of view of what these extra classes can practically accomplish, it's really very little. Without going into that debate, suffice it to say that there's simply no substitute for immersion for up to a year in a foreign language environment supplemented with 1-on-1 instruction if one is to function successfully in a foreign academic environment. These extra classes are little more than a drop in the bucket, and the bosses acknowledge that this is an experiment, the brainchild of the lesser among them who's finally been greenlighted after years of pushing for this.

However, I'm not a fanatic. If indeed the benefit of these extra language classes truly competed with the out-of-their-comfort-zone kinds of problem solving and analysis of ambiguous materials they encounter in humanities study, then I'd think longer and harder about asking an accreditor to change the program back. It may also be best for me personally to let sleeping dogs lie and see a possibly significant personal benefit to me of being the last one standing, and hence very secure, even respected, if only from a distance. Or they're planning to replace me with an ESL teacher at the next contract in three years. In any case, I first want to find out what can traditionally be expected of an accreditor in this situation, because a complaint where the accreditor not only keeps my identity confidential, but handles things in a way that doesn't seem a response to an outside complaint is the only action I can think of that I'm not too fearful to take.

[Hegemony]

I'm surprised no one at the U.S. university thought of the difficulty of trying to insure that a foreign university's curriculum matches up with the U.S. university's curriculum. It's hard enough to get the various divisions of a single university to agree on a curriculum, and on wholesale changes. Trying to get the divisions of a foreign university to abide by the curriculum requirements of a U.S. university — one which essentially has no veto power — it sounds like tilting at windmills. I'm not surprised it has started to come undone. It is just not a workable longterm proposition. Forging connections between the two universities, yes. Keeping them in lockstep — no.

Here's what I would do, James. I would decide to regard the foreign university's new curriculum as "the foreign variant." In other words, if a student attends and gets a degree from the U.S. university, they abide by its requirements. If they attend and get a degree from the foreign university, they abide by its requirements. So, nothing wrong with that. Even if students get a degree that has both universities' name on it, they followed the rules of their home institution, and so be it.

Presumably the U.S. accrediting body does not actually care what the particular rules are, and whether the university requires so many of X courses and so many of Y courses. If accrediting bodies were that particular, the vast diversity in requirements would not happen in the U.S. Presumably the real issue is that the foreign university is counting ESL as a humanities course. Would an accrediting body condemn this? My guess is that they'd tell the university to quit misclassifying the course, but that it wouldn't be a violation that ruins the accreditation. Maybe I'm wrong. But it doesn't seem to me to rise to the level of high crimes and villainy. And if the students are going to spend a year or two taking classes in the U.S., a better command of English probably serves them much better than a year of art history.

The next question is: if the accrediting body, or someone from the U.S. university, notices this, are you personally in a position to get in trouble? If so, that's a concern. If not, I think I'd put it down to one of those sleights of hand that keep universities afloat, and continue going about your business.

[James]

Yes, that all makes sense. I would only add that, as far as I know, the U.S.side has 100% final say over the curriculum, though I imagine the foreign hosting institution has practical lobbying powers to some degree or other. I've seen this same situation at other institutions. Also, I believe that an accreditor's requiring them to properly classify the new courses is tantamount to eliminating them and forcing them back to the previous configuration, as they do seem bound to fully adhering to the U.S. institution's curriculum. They had to get the U.S. institution to assent to this change, so as you point out, I mostly expect the accreditor would allow the same leeway anyway.

I wouldn't make any move if I thought it exposed me, which is why I'm interested in opinions here. The next step would be to inquire anonymously and informally with the accreditor if they're willing to do that. If it ever came out, though, that the accreditor was stepping in to review the situation in response to a complaint, I might not be toast if the institution thought it was one of the disgruntled people who were let go. As I said, it's not clear to me that the new situation is bad for me in the long run. It may be a net negative for the students, more real humanities-style analysis behooving them more than what might turn out to be quite a minimal enhancement of practical English acquisition. I'm happy to stand pat for a while to see how it turns out, but I am interested in ascertaining the degree of villainy perpetrated to mentally file against the day that a reason or opportunity to undo that villainy presents itself.

[Hegemony]

I guess my question would be: do you have a dog in this fight?  What aspect of this situation prompts you to think about complaining to the accrediting body? Counting ESL as a humanities course is sort of not very straightforward, but a lot of people would just shrug and say, "Well, it's complicated, but there it is." What prompts you to try to complain? And I take it you are hoping the accreditation people will threaten to pull the accreditation, which will put pressure on the university to change their curriculum back?  Frankly, I think that would be an unlikely outcome. I could be wrong, but that's my take on it.

My guess is that if anyone cares much, it would be the U.S. university that is putting their name on the foreign students' diplomas as if the foreign students have fulfilled all of the U.S. university's requirements, when actually the students will have missed one requirement, strictly speaking. (That is: the requirement of a humanities course with genuine humanities content.) My guess is that if this is pointed out to them, they will do one of two things. One, they will carefully and deliberately ignore the disparity. Or two, they will have about a year of internal meetings about it, and then request meetings with the foreign university, and will suggest to the foreign university that they need to change the course offerings, and more meetings about this will go on for a year or so, and some administrators will retire or leave in the middle of the process, and it will be left on some agenda of "To be attended to," and no one will actually change anything.

I guess a third option would be that the accrediting body says "This is dishonest course labelling, students are not actually fulfilling the requirements of the U.S. university and therefore their diplomas will be invalid unless you reinstate the humanities courses," and the U.S. university puts enormous pressure on the foreign university, and threatened to dissolve the link between them, and the foreign university restores their former humanities curriculum. As I say, I think this is unlikely.

Someone at the American university will be the administrator who deals with accreditation, and if you want to squeal, I would start by talking to them. Your anonymity may not be preserved, though.

[James]

The costs and benefits to me would be rather revealing, so I'll just say the main benefit of changing things back would be to provide a much better professional atmosphere. I also can't currently assess my job security: am I particularly safe because I'm the only, and necessary One? or having succeeded in replacing Ph.D. faculty with master's in ESL staff, will they see me as the last remaining obstacle to turning a college into a vocational school? I wouldn't think of pursuing the issue, though, if changing back weren't a clear and substantial benefit to students in their particular situation, not just a worthy educational goal in the abstract.

You bring up one eventuality I hadn't thought of: that the issue becomes a process. Interminable or not, I'm pretty sure I'd end up catching shrapnel and likely never receive another contract. I did think of bringing the issue up to whoever signed off on this at the U.S. university, but I feel 100% certain that I'd never receive another contract if I did that. It's just a question of whether or not to throw this Hail Mary to the accreditor on the outside chance they'd find clear and objective fault and put their foot down to effect immediate change. Bringing it to the accreditor, though, could end up the dreaded process as a matter of routine even if the bosses didn't try to force it into a process. That leaves me with viewing myself as the big fish chosen to anchor the humanities and being happy with that (who wouldn't be), while at the same time sending out a feeler to the accreditor to see if they perceive this kind of re-organization as beyond the pail or a minor matter.

[Hegemony]

I think, then, the course of action most likely to produce results would be for the U.S. university somehow "accidentally" to find out or realize that ESL courses are being counted as humanities courses. Are there no periodic reviews of course equivalents? When our students take courses on study abroad, they have to be translated into home equivalents, and if the same happens in your two, that might be one way. The ESL courses could be marked "Fills humanities requirement" or something. Our study-abroad administrators are eagle-eyed and would quickly spot something dubious like that.

But are you sure that the U.S. university's general education requirements are indeed exactly like your foreign university's requirements? I am surprised that that should be so. In my experience, most countries don't have American university's ideals of taking courses across the curriculum. They usually have students specialize in one or at most two fields. But up till now, your foreign university's requirements were exactly like the American university's?  And how did that come to be? Wouldn't that also mean that if the foreign university added a requirement — say, "Everyone has to learn statistics" — then the American university should have that requirement too? 

In any case, it sounds to me as if this is a peculiar situation which was poorly designed in the first place, and now the problems engendered by the poor design are coming to light. If you have other employment options, this might be the time to start making inquiries — just in case.

[Golazo]

Bringing it to the accreditor, though, could end up the dreaded process as a matter of routine even if the bosses didn't try to force it into a process. That leaves me with viewing myself as the big fish chosen to anchor the humanities and being happy with that (who wouldn't be), while at the same time sending out a feeler to the accreditor to see if they perceive this kind of re-organization as beyond the pail or a minor matter.

Don't expect that you would be anonymous if any investigation happens. Investigations by accreditors are are also a process. The accreditors won't care about you.

If your employment is sufficiently precarious that you could get non-renewed in the case that you discussed this with the US university, I would suggest you say nothing and look for something else given the possibility that you might be eventually replaced by an MA holder.

For what its worth, if spun correctly (English IV: Culture and Writing), the ESL classes are unlikely to raise problems and any investigation would likely result in cosmetic changes while you end up as collateral damage.

[James]

if spun correctly (English IV: Culture and Writing), the ESL classes are unlikely to raise problems and any investigation would likely result in cosmetic changes while you end up as collateral damage.

Exactly. I've thought even if they "get caught," it's easily circumvented with the right descriptions and syllabi dressed up properly or with a few minor adjustments added. For example, one page of Shakespeare is still Shakespeare. I'd be exposing myself for nothing. On the other hand, why didn't they do this in the first place? I assume because they've gotten unequivocal support from the U.S. university to do what they've done, and these are professionals with integrity, not ends-justify-the-means fanatics. I think what they're doing is a kind of experiment, but for various reasons I'd rather not discuss, I think they'd have a hard time going back on their own initiative even if they wanted to.

@Hegemony: my understanding (which includes some other similar institutions) is that we adhere 100% to the U.S. university's curriculum and the foreign country has exactly zero say over academics, then 100% say over administrative things. We're governed directly by the course catalog, degree descriptions and requirements, etc. of the U.S. institution so that we don't have separate documents. If this arrangement is unusual, then I hope I haven't identified myself, and I'm hesitant to give more details.

The bottom line is I want to stay here because the region is very, very desirable to me (my personal jackpot), and the teaching position, compensation, and nature of the contract (I can't give details) are about as good as I'm ever going to do, even if it's not as good as before. Unless I'm being bamboozled, it does look like I've become the respected big fish in my tiny pond if I just act the part, which would be fine if there's no more encroachment or surprise non-renewal. But I wouldn't mind having true colleagues and more advanced students, and a greater self-respect as I had before.

[mleok]

If you're the sole humanities professor left, and an accreditation review was initiated because of the misclassification of ESL classes as humanities classes, then the administration will inevitably suspect that you were responsible for this. So, if you like your job, I would think long and hard before rocking the boat. Even if the administration is forced to reverse course, you would still have burned bridges at your institution, and you would likely get replaced.

[James]

Yes, it depends on the accreditor's willingness to exercise the necessary discretion, which people above have expressed little faith in. Note that I'm in the same position if a disgruntled ex-employee lodges the same complaint, suspected no matter how much I publicly support the new initiative or appear to benefit from it.

[ciao_yall]

Can you just ask the people who asked you to make these changes what their reasoning was?

Also, at our college the curriculum committee has to confirm that the course outcomes align to the outcomes of the general ed requirements. So a humanities class has to have course content that aligns with, say the explore of how humans lived in the past, how humans interact with one another, and how cultures and societies are created and evolve.

ESL, first-year composition, etc are not humanities courses by any stretch of the imagination.

[James]

Can you just ask the people who asked you to make these changes what their reasoning was?

Without providing the full context required to make it clear why not, suffice it to say I don't dare inquire beyond what's already been volunteered to me.