Teaching with an NA Degree

Just out of curiosity, why are NA degrees not acceptable for teaching careers? Doesnt the Dept of Education consider NA and RA equal?

 

You can find people teaching with NA degrees (and sometimes unaccredited degrees) if you really look, but if teaching is your ultimate goal then RA is the way to go.

It's very telling that several NA schools will only accept faculty applications from people with RA degrees. Apparently their own graduates aren't qualified to teach at their school.

 

As Bruce said, it really depends on the individual. I've earned my BSBA and MBA from an NA school, and I am an adjunct professor at three universities and colleges, two of which are NA schools and the other is an RA community college. Securing teaching positions goes way beyond just having a college degree, regardless of who accredits the school.

 

The Dept of Education's web site does not say anything about equality. It says regional and national accrediting agencies are recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education as reliable authorities concerning the quality of education or training offered by the institutions of higher education or higher education programs they accredit.

Quality is a interesting word - to some it is a measure of how good or bad an item or service is - but technically it is a measure of how well a product or service conforms to requirements. If one could plot quality requirements as a binomial distributions I am sure there would be overlap betwen DETC and RA schools but institutions like CalTech would be towards the extreme right.

 

My understanding is that the whole ‘equality’ debacle comes from the 1970’s when, in response to backlash from the 1960’s, verbiage was changed from ‘degree’ to ‘regionally accredited degree’ to solve for some embarrassing hires and promote the perception of rigor and quality, primarily in the military and government and later spilling into private markets. The current bias mindset and language, while fading very slowly, remains as residue from that backlash.

I believe that over time it is the natural evolution of systems to converge and equalize, which suggests that over time NA/RA won’t matter in the same way it does today. What can’t be known is if this is a 10 year convergence, or an 80 year convergence.

The choice before us is to decide what part we will play. When I think NA, what I really think is DETC. From my research the DETC is hands down the most recognized and credible of the NA lot. The choice is vocal advocacy for the DETC or observational silence.

DEL

 

The emergence of academic degrees accredited by national agencies is a recent event. Thirty years ago, DETC (then the National Home Study Council) accredited two schools awarding the bachelor's degree, and none awarding graduate degrees.

Acceptance of non-RA accreditation by the RA's should be--and is--a slow process. After all, the RA's are products of their member schools, who banded together to form these associations and to set standards. It would seem natural, then, that they would expect NA schools to meet their (the RA) standard. After all, every NA school comes under the geographic jurisdiction of an RA. Why not, the thinking might go, don't they apply for the "real thing"?

As a contemporary observer of the emergence of NA accreditation of academic programs--especially DETC--I have a couple of observations. First, for a very long time, no DETC-accredited school went on to RA status. (That's changed only very recently, and in only a couple of cases). This despite the fact that many 100% non-residential schools have/had become RA. It could be argued that NA (or, more relevantly, DETC) accreditation is an "end around" regional accreditation. (There was a time, briefly, when DETC accreditation was the only avenue for such schools, but Capella, Jones International, Beacon, Excelsior, TESC, COSC, WGU, and many others, all RA, have blown that argument.)

So, what are the RA's to do? They see a bunch of schools going off and getting accredited by another, non-RA, agency, then awarding the same degrees RA universities do. All the while, the RA's are adapting their viewpoints on distance learning, recognizing many schools similar to those accredited by DETC. Their message, IMHO: "Hey, you want us to recognize you? Then join us and meet our standards." Fair? I think so, but not perfect.

I think DETC is doing a good job, and I think they should try to become a programmatic accreditor of DL programs in RA schools. That's their true, long-term niche. Otherwise, the increasing acceptance of DL schools by the RA's may make DETC irrelevant some day.

 

The USDOE and CHEA consider regional accreditation and national accreditation to be equally legitimate; however, the RA schools consider themselves to be superior to NA schools.

 

Are you suggesting that DETC also ought to entirely abandon being an institutional accreditor of 100% online schools? I don't think that would be good. As for becoming a professional accreditor of DL programs in RA B&M schools, I don't see too many schools wanting DETC accreditation after they already have RA. Perceptionwise, it'd be a step down for the RA school to take DETC accreditation. Your suggestion would be the death of the DETC.

 

No. It could do both. In fact, its accreditation of DL programs offered by RA schools would serve to enhance its institutional accreditation of 100% DL schools.

Is your vision tuned to the present or to the future possibilities? This is true presently, but DETC should look at the future. And the real future is that most (all?) of its accredited schools that can become RA will become RA. What does that say about their 2nd-tier status?

Or, if done well, it could be an expansion of its credibility to have its DL programs accredited by the (hypothetically) nation's leader in accrediting DL. That's the vision DETC ought to develop and seek.

Quite the opposite. With the RA's finally stepping fully into the business of accrediting DL schools--complete with doctoral programs--the DETC will have but one choice. It can stay second class, or it can develop a complimentary--and field-leading--niche that adds real value. If not, it will be left accrediting DL schools that, for one reason or another, cannot cut it with regional accreditation. First, we saw this with schools who sought--and received--DETC accreditation while also seeking RA. (Remember how they were able to get DETC accreditation much sooner?) Now we see it with schools like Kaplan/Concord and APUS who are migrating to RA. Finally, we see it with schools like Jones International, who before would be limited to the DETC ghetto. But no more.

I don't think DETC will ever become the 7th (virtual) regional as long as the RA's are occupying that turf. Instead, DETC will need to cut out its own, unique role. It changed from an accreditor of mail order trade schools (which it still does) to one who bestows a recognition to schools of "accredited, but not quite as accredited as RA." But with the migration of its better schools, and the encroachment of the RA's into its territory, DETC is doomed if it stays put.

 

I think DETC serves a distinct purpose in accrediting specialized DL schools that are a better fit with DETC then with RA because of school size and program flexibility.
The entire concept of “better” accreditation makes no sense, in my opinion, as accreditation only measures “minimally acceptable” standards.
I’ve seen people with NA degrees being accepted to the finest law and business schools on the basis of high standardized test scores.
I also think that the fault line for degree acceptance is greater for DL vs. classroom then for RA vs. NA.

 

Brigham Young University doesn't seem to think so, since its independent study division has applied for DETC accreditation.

http://www.detc.org/new_applicants.html

 

What does 'NA' mean?

Does the NY Regents accredited Rockefeller University count as NA? Has it got anything at all in common with Cal Coast?

What is a 'teaching career'?

Adult education auto mechanics classes? K-12? Adjunct business teaching? A tenure track astrophysics position at Berkeley? Aren't different employers looking for very different things?

(I have a friend who's a master mechanic but doesn't have any degrees. He's in demand in adult-education vo-tech courses. I can't imagine that a DETC, ACICS or ACCSCT degree would hurt him any.)

I think that one reason why DETC and ACICS don't get a lot of consideration in high-end university teaching is because their schools offer few doctoral programs, none of which is research productive or intellectually prominent. But if a DETC or ACICS school could somehow generate a little excitement, then I doubt if the accreditor would be any more of a factor than the NY Regents are for Rockefeller. The school's own reputation would open doors.

 

The Dept. Of Ed. considers NA and RA to meet standards of acceptability, but it does not establish equivalency of quality. Those who have been around Degreeinfo for awhile remember lists of faculty with NA (or non-accredited) degrees who are teaching at colleges and unviersities. I know a few of them myself.

Institutions that hire faculty each have their own standards, biases and priorities, which may include the type of degree that a candidate holds and where she or he obtained that degree. There is still a distinct bias toward degrees from regionally accredited institutions over nationally accredited institutions, when it comes to hiring full-time tenure-track faculty. My colleagues with NA graduate degrees tend to be one of the following:

1. Adjunct (part-time) faculty
2. Temporary full-time (non tenure-track) faculty
3. Community college faculty with RA BA & MA degrees that received their NA degrees after they were hired (for promotion & salary)
4. University faculty in the same situation as #3 above
5. Administrators and classified staff

 

Has anyone compiled a list of states that accept NA for teaching? Do any states allow it?

 

It's up to individual schools (and their accreditors), not the states.

 

If you really think about it from an unbiased, non-traditional view, in today’s fast paced, cyber linked in, pop internet culture world, geographic based ‘regional’ education doesn’t really make sense anymore at the higher education level. Yes, primary and secondary education are a state responsibility, which makes sense to me because it is supported by public taxes, and there is a logic to having your taxes go directly to support your children in your town.

But higher education, by its very nature and goal, is not a regional education it is, honestly, a national education that is designed for national usage. If you think about it unbiased, it isn’t the RA model that makes sense anymore but the DETC NA model that makes sense now. Tradition and history aside..

 

It isn't about history or tradition. It's about the law, government, and market forces.

The Federal government doesn't have the role of regulating higher education. Education isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, for example. Like K-12, it is left to the states (and people).

Accrediting agencies are self-regulating membership organizations. They enjoy some quasi-legal recognition. (the USDoE maintains a list for Title IV considerations, for example, states often require accreditation from its domicile schools or to approve candidates for certain licensure processes.) Still, accreditation's roots are firmly planted in the private sector.

Without serious change at the Federal level, higher education will remain largely what it is. And, frankly, there is little reason to change it.

 

No Rich, you’re missing the point, I don’t think you understand how to forecast and predict the natural evolution of competitive markets and innovative systems. There are market and social forces at work that drive to a common destination, which is predictable in the long run. The higher educational system over time will:

Continue to evolve to an increasing degree of ideality.
Continue to transition to higher level systems.
Become increasingly flexible.
Become increasingly complete.
Harmonize with surrounding systems.

The only question that remains is how long the evolutionary cycles are, which is also predictable but not as transparent.

DEL