Accreditation and faculty control of online vs face-to-face this semester

[mbelvadi]

Hello, all. I would like to hear from you about whether the decision to teach any or all of your classes online vs face to face is in your hands as an instructor, or in the hands of your Dean or other higher administrators. When some of our faculty (we're in Canada and unionized) demanded that it was the faculty's right to choose, the Administration claimed that our accrediting agency accredits programs specifically for in-person vs online so we couldn't continue to offer classes online in programs that were only accredited for face-to-face instruction without endangering our accreditation.

Has that argument been tried (especially successfully) anywhere else?

[downer]

I've noticed a wide variation in how much different schools regulate online learning. Some make faculty take training courses, others don't. One place I teach at is starting to require learning outcomes specified for each module of the online course. This is a school very concerned about their accreditation. I teach adjunct there, and I'm the only adjunct faculty in the dept currently approved to teach online. I haven't actually set foot on their campus for about 3 years, and I'm in a different state.

Other places basically have no requirements specified for online courses -- it is completely up to the dept and the chair. Another place I work as adjunct has no supervision whatsoever.

So I suspect there's a lot of variation from school to school, and even from one accreditation body to another. Presumably they are starting to get more focused on those issues though.

I have seen schools place onerous requirements on faculty saying "we have to do it because of accreditation" when it turns out that isn't really true at all. As always, take whatever the administration says with a large pinch of salt, and ask for the documentation.

[Ruralguy]

In no uncertain terms, determined by the administration with some advice from faculty committees. The DeAn said he'd likely approve reasonable exemptions such as health concerns (meaning, compromised immunity). Some people just decided to teach online anyway, probably as some sort of protest. I don't think the Dean did much about it, though perhaps the provided some sort of docs for an exemption, but they did not originally say so or request of Dean.

[arcturus]

We are required to teach in the modality specified when students registered for classes. This is being touted as required to meet student expectations for classes, just as we are required to teach the content described in the course bulletin. There is some flexibility - if the instructor gets sick they are allowed to teach remotely until they get better - but instructors are not allowed to teach an in-person class via zoom for the entire semester. That said, it is faculty choice regarding modality of our classes, so those teaching in person or online are doing so based on their own preferences.

Our online classes are about to be scrutinized more closely. With the great transition to online in 2020, many faculty with no understanding of the difference between an online course and a correspondence course were suddenly forced into the online environment. Some of these faculty may want to continue teaching online, but their courses may not meet the accreditation requirements in non-emergency times. Thus, our administration is planning to initiate greater oversight of online classes to prevent accreditation problems in the future.

[mamselle]

There are very specific (possibly regional, maybe national?) accreditation guidelines on this.

It impinges on, I think, how online course are distinguished from correspondence courses (for which US loans don't cover tuition, it seems).

One of Polly's entries on, maybe, the "dire straits" thread, discussed it in detail at one point.

But, sorry to say, I don't recall if it was on this forum or its previous incarnation....

M.

[Ruralguy]

There are indeed accreditation standards. However, our accreditor, one of the strictest, from what I hear, has offered a number of exemptions and compromises during the COVID crisis and will likely amend their official rules, if they have not done so already.

[mamselle]

There are very specific (possibly regional, maybe national?) accreditation guidelines on this.

It impinges on, I think, how online course are distinguished from correspondence courses (for which US loans don't cover tuition, it seems).

One of Polly's entries on, maybe, the "dire straits" thread, discussed it in detail at one point.

But, sorry to say, I don't recall if it was on this forum or its previous incarnation....

M.

Found it:

    http://thefora.org/index.php?topic=1483.msg35217#msg35217

M.

[Morden]

Since you're in Canada, it would probably depend on what province you're in, and also what discipline. I know some professions like Nursing have strict national accreditation standards; otherwise, accreditation is a provincial responsibility.

[mamselle]

Sorry, which "you" above is in Canada?

I'm not, and from what little I am sure of I don't think the OP or any other posters are.

But maybe I'm missing the referent, here...

M.

[Ruralguy]

Its the OP who is in Canada.

[downer]

Hello, all. I would like to hear from you about whether the decision to teach any or all of your classes online vs face to face is in your hands as an instructor, or in the hands of your Dean or other higher administrators. When some of our faculty (we're in Canada and unionized) demanded that it was the faculty's right to choose, the Administration claimed that our accrediting agency accredits programs specifically for in-person vs online so we couldn't continue to offer classes online in programs that were only accredited for face-to-face instruction without endangering our accreditation.

Has that argument been tried (especially successfully) anywhere else?

[mamselle]

Reading fail!

Thanks.

M. (red-faced)

[jerseyjay]

At my (public, open-admissions Northeastern) university, the "modality" is set in the schedule and can only be changed with permission from administration (unless, of course, the entire school goes online again). At the same time, we are generally required to make the course available online as well for those students who are unable (prefer not) to get to campus.

That being said, quite a few professors last semester unofficially made their classes online and at least some refused to have an online component for in-person classes.

As far as I am aware, though, none of this has anything to do with accreditation. Rather, there was a desire on the part of the administration for, on the one had, the appearance of normality and, on the other hand, a desire not to put out too many students.

[mamselle]

True, but regardless of their intent, their actions could affect both certification and finances, if the school is forced to return funds paid for by student loans which are later determined not to have qualified as valid classes..if in the US.

In Canada, I don't know. (Obviously!)

But the comments I cited were made by someone who was then working in an administrative area (in the US) that dealt with that kind of fall-out on a first-hand basis, so I'd want to clarify that, as well, since we do get readers from both sides of the border (and elsewhere) who may have related questions, and as reasonable citizens of an open forum, the broader view is important, too.

And I mean that in both (or all) directions, we need to do better about qualifying remarks contextually in many areas. Whether geographic or discipline-specific, or whatever, context, broadly viewed, helps.

M.

[Zeus Bird]

Having tangled with administrators previously over nebulous claims about what accreditors allegedly require, I am suspicious of such claims offered by university officials unless they can be verified independently of administration claims.  YMMV up in Canada, but here in the US there is often far more flexibility in accreditation standards than university officials let on.  "Accreditation standards" are often an administration euphemism for "we want more revenue."