Since students will increasingly blend their learning experiences — taking virtual courses but also continuing to attend place-based institutions in some form, there’s a pressing need to develop a better set of course-level quality indicators.
Rob responds to my suggestion of four outcome-focused quality measures by warning about the potential for providers to cream: soak up public funding but offer little real learning or value-add. In particular, he re-counts the story of how he self-taught himself to test out of his high school civics class. Agreed, there’s no way that I’d want any provider — public, nonprofit or provider — to get full funding for essentially publishing test prep materials.
Rob’s story is also an example of a larger problem — a mandatory, get-it-over-with course with little rigor and expectations so low that it could be encapsulated in a short weekend-cram session. If that’s the case, sounds like he made a great decision to test-out rather than spend an entire semester to learn the same thing. Regardless, his tale is a cautionary example of how we’ll need a balanced-approach.
We both agree that accreditation — at least as currently practiced — is not the answer. Perhaps some of our thoughtful readers can push this conversation further?


Chad Aldeman
Kristen Amundson
John E. Chubb
Constance Clark
Peter Cookson Jr.
Thomas Dawson
Joni Finney
Andrew Gillen
Sara Mead
Sarah Rosenberg
Jeff Selingo
Ben Wildavsky
Mandy Zatynski 

