Teacher Professional Development Coursework Phoenix or GCU?

I am a CTE high school teacher in Maryland. In December I finished my MS from Lamar and now I looking to complete the last step in obtaining my advanced teacher certification. I need to complete serval 3 credit graduate courses in reading/literacy. Many of my coworkers take the courses face to face for 15 weeks at a local traditional college. I want to avoid this. I managed to find two online universities (Phoenix U. and Grand Caynon U.) that offer teacher professional development graduate courses. These courses would fulfill my state's requirements and are only 4 weeks long.

I am seeking info from others that have maybe taken these courses from these programs.

 

I'm guessing there's no significant difference unless you see something specific in the delivery method of one school that you prefer. All things being equal (I know, they never are) I'd choose the one that's cheapest.

 

Between the two of them? I would choose . . . neither. Both are for-profit schools, and both have been subject to heavy scrutiny by various regulatory agencies. Between the two, Phoenix has the flakier reputation and is more well known - and respected a lot less. Grand Canyon attempted to become a non-profit, but again, various entities rejected that change due to their affiliation with their own service provider. In short, both of them have, at best, a questionable reputation.

My guess is that, with a bit more searching, you will be able to find a non-profit that offers the right courses, that has a clean reputation, and that would not bring disrepute upon your credentials.

 

The schools themselves don't matter, including their for-profit status. They're a means to an end, not the end itself. If credits from these schools will get you want you want, the nature of those two schools is irrelevant. Their reputations--good or bad--won't apply to you.

That said, a fundamental difference between the two is methodology. UoP is unique in it's approach. About 30-40% of your learning--and your grades--occur in peer-based learning teams. It is advanced andragogy, where students learn from each other instead of a teacher. The instructor becomes the facilitator of that learning, not the source of it. Some people love it, some hate it. They love the flexibility and control over their outputs and processes. They often hate it when one or more team members don't pull their weight. But students re-form their teams at the beginning of each new course, so bad actors eventually come around or get weeded out.

As far as I know, GCU takes a more traditional (if online can now be considered traditional) approach. I don't have direct insight, but most online programs use their instructors, again, as facilitators instead of teachers. But UoP is unique with so much of their curricula delivered via learning teams.

 

Doctor Doctor Douglas should know better at this point, having commented on these issues for many years: When you evaluate a program with which you have been professionally associated, it is appropriate to disclose your association with them.

Accordingly, Rich was a faculty member for U. Phoenix several years ago. He has always spoken well of them, but how much of that is due to his past direct association with them? (That, of course, is a rhetorical question.)

I, on the other hand, have never been associated with either Phoenix or Grand Canyon. That's why I lean more toward the view that both schools represent the spawn of Satan, and why (with a few exceptions), I laugh at people who enroll in either of them.

Obviously, not everyone shares my view that for-profit so-called online universities (keeping in mind that Grand Canyon has a large brick-and-mortar campus and Phoenix has local classes in many corporate centers around the country) are intrinsically trash. But there are enough of us out there that do think the for-profits are scum, and we're the ones who laugh at those who get hooked by them.

Having said all that, we're talking about only one course when it comes to what you are looking for. Hopefully a single course from either school will not besmirch the credibility of your Lamar degree (which is as credible as it gets) - in fact, if your M.S. is in CJ, you are not the first person here at DI to have earned it through Lamar.

 

Something you know because I have discussed it on this board many, many times.

I have not "always spoken well of them." I have been highly critical of their recruiting and business model, for example. Even someone with your lack of research experience should be able to determine that before posting such drivel. But I have been positive about their learning methodology, which is andragogically sound, and the content of the programs with which I've been associated.

Your implication that I am somehow biased and that I cover my past work with UoP--now 15 years in the past--is not only wrong, it is beneath you. And that's saying something.

C'mon, Steve. At least get your facts right.

You confuse rhetoric with b.s., the latter in which you specialize, summa cum loudly. Have a nice day!

 

Of course I know it, as does every long-time member of this forum who reads your posts. But the O.P. of this thread is still listed as a “new member” although he has posted occasionally for a few years, and we are constantly engaged with additional newbies that have no clue about you.

In short, you have always spoken well of them at times, and critiqued them at times. Stop trying to split hairs – I stand by my statement. As for my lack of research experience, tell us, Rich - how many books have you written? Never mind - that question is also rhetorical. (Hint, hint . . . With your credentials, it's about time that you write one.)

The issue is that you were directly associated with them and failed to disclose that in your earlier post. And that sucks eggs. It is unprofessional, and since you have two doctorates (as you occasionally remind us), I hold you to a professional standard. When you fail to meet that standard, I comment accordingly, short and sweet. So stop whining, and stop trying to make this yet another competition – as a Union grad, you should know better.

Rich, bubaleh, you’ve missed the opportunity to have an innocent “Ooooops!” moment. You screwed up by not including a disclosure statement, and now you’re trying to defend your screw-up. You should have said, “Ooooops!” and moved on.

Get this straight, you piss-ant little turd . . . We are at an age at DegreeInfo in which you are going to eventually be the elder statesman of this forum. John is in the twilight of his years, and so am I. If he were to pass on before me (and nothing is guaranteed), I do not ever intend to be the elder statesman of this or any other forum, and quite likely I will not be around this world that much longer myself. As LBJ said in 1968, "If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve." So it’s time for you to grow up and start acting like the double-doctorate you like to remind us you are. It is time that:

• You learn to ignore personal attacks. Hell, I’m attacked on a regular basis. Most of the time, I ignore the attacks and move on.
  
• Stop insulting people based on their personalities. You’ve recently gone head to head with Chris and Steve F. In fact, you should take a lesson from Steve, of whom I occasionally comment that he runs a Caribbean degree mill. He has never responded to that – to his credit. He, unlike you, knows the fine art of how to ignore someone. (As an afterthought, Steve should be getting close to his own RA doctorate, and you guys are almost neighbors. Why don't y'all do lunch?)
  
• Learn to ignore general challenges as well. Whenever someone says that Union is a “Name It & Frame It” school, I let it slide and move on. On the other hand, I know that you’ll end up responding to it. And you always do. Guess what – you don’t have to. You will always be attacked, usually by people who are not even credentialed.
• Realize when someone is letting you slide. How many years has it been since I mentioned MIGS? You know, the degree mill for which you were the ultimate shill, covered hysterically in the MIGS forum right here on DegreeInfo? Why did I let you slide? Because you finally cleaned up your act and earned two legitimate doctorates. Now it’s time for you to start acting like a doctor. Or a doctor-doctor, as it were.

(Of course, you could argue that I just brought up MIGS here. Yep, but I figure that you deserved it - a gentle reminder that you can never totally shake your past.)

That’s a start, Rich – because it’s funny. And, as Joseph Bologna said in My Favorite Year, you should never mess with funny.

Now, time for some practice. Let’s see if you can ignore this post. Quite simply, do not respond. Frankly, I don’t think you’ll be able to resist - traditionally, you've always felt the need to get the last word. But I’ll set the example – regardless of your response, if any, I’m done with this exchange. Learn from me well, grasshopper.

 

Professional development is just like CEUs. No one cares who gives the credits, just that you got them.

 

Thanks for the replies and the entertaining arguments. Much like Kiz stated these courses are like CEU as long as I get them from somewhere that counts it doesn't matter. In fact many of these courses I had to do for my teacher certificate don't assist or add to my curriculum. If I could I would just pay not to take these irrelevant courses and take courses that would better fit my professional development. Unfortunately the certificate process is bureaucratic and controlled by an education board that is made up of administrators and politicians.

 

As anyone who's read anything on this board certainly knows, Steve is very loose with the insults, accusations, insinuations, etc. I do not agree with what he posted, but I'll just let it stand. Enjoy!

I will disagree with him on one thing: this is his board, no one else's. And it always has been. He sets its tone and its standards. He is the watermark against which all else is compared.

He didn't say that. He said, "Never cut funny." But it's nice to know someone else out there thought that it was a funny movie.