Thames does not know what "Academics" is? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jan 16, 2005

Thames does not know what "Academics" is?

Date: Jan 16, 2005

Angeline, very good point. SACS has identified the heart of the Thames agenda. SACS is ever vigilant that its member institutions don't run online diploma mills. Satisfying SACS on this issue isn't giong to be a cakewalk.

Date: Jan 16, 2005

The "one issue of concern cited by the association" part of the statement is a bit misleading. Distance learning is a broad category & evaluating all aspects of distance learning is not a brain-dead easy thing to do. OTOH, it appears that SACS didn't cite 460-odd other things that USM might also have to be worrying about, so in that respect it is "good news."

The assertion that SACS' concerns "did not involve the university's academic quality, programming or delivery of academic programs" is utterly bogus. Either SFT is talking through his nose or he simply doesn't have a clue. (I suspect both.) Inasmuch as distance learning programs are instructional, the SACS issues do touch on academic quality -- or rather USM's failure to evaluate academic quality. Distance learning itself is usually uttered in the same sentence with words like "programming" or "delivery of programs," so it's pretty clear from that part of the statement that SFT is cluelessly prevaricating. In most instructional administrators' minds, "distance learning" is defined as an "alternate delivery system"...

And where did the phrase "long distance learning" pop up? Is it in the SACS letter? This is the first time I've ever seend "long" appended to "distance learning." Unless SACS used the phrase, I'm taking it as a bit of spin-doctoring, an attempt to distance (pun intended) the rest of the university from these problems.

USM should not advertise a single online course or program until it resolves these issues. And trust me, without a valued & well-supported institutional research office, Dr. Exline's crew is up an old, familiar creek with no paddle. (One of the first things a SACS reviewer is going to want to see is a longitudinal comparison of grade distributions between online courses & their "traditional" counterparts, with a rationale & action plan to address such things as the higher withdrawal rates that characterize distance learning programs.)

Trust me. I know what I'm talking about. I've been there, done that & bought the souvenir t-shirt.

Date: Jan 16, 2005

The Alice In Wonderland myopic state in which the administration and the Board reside prevents them from comprehending the state of affairs that now exist. Moreover, Thames and his backers have retreated into the bunker. The lines to reality have been cut and their world has become make believe. Like a business facing bankruptcy, they plod on each day hoping that continuing the strategy that brought them to the brink will miraculously restore them to solvency. However, USM is similar to a large bank that is deemed by the regulators as “too big to fail”. Just as bank regulators put the bank into receivership, fire the president, and take over the management until they can find a buyer, USM will face a similar fate. The Board office will be forced to take USM into receivership when the inevitable happens. The process will occupy an immense amount of the board office staff’s time and energy. It also will divert resources from the other universities at a time of thin budgets. While Miss State and Ole Miss supporters may be laughing and cheering over the problems besetting USM, they will get hit by the fallout.

The only potential bright spot in this scenario is that the Board Office and staff are aware of the future burdens they will inherit if this debacle continues. A hint that the Board is cognizant of this headache is the fact that the SACS experts will report to the Board. Assuming that the experts are reputable, and wish to guard their reputations, the Board likely will learn soon that USM is dead in the water and has almost zero chance of being accredited when the real visit is made. If so, the Board Office may attempt to convince the Board that the cost of maintaining the status quo is very high in terms of resources, reputation, and bad publicity. Although the Board has been supportive of Thames, albeit with less unanimity, the cost of continuous support is increasing at an increasing rate. Thames may get too heavy to carry before too long, perhaps as early as this Spring. Conversely, there is a real possibility that all parties responsible for this failure will hunker together in the bunker until the inevitable. The only solace will be to watch the scramble as they attempt to distance themselves after the inevitable disaster.

Date: Jan 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Angeline
"Thames says: >"We were very pleased to see there was only one issue of concern cited by the association and that did not involve the university's academic quality, programming or delivery of academic programs," Southern Miss President Shelby Thames said Friday.< This what the letter actually says: >The SACS letter found deficiencies in the school's distance education activities and cited the university for failing to evaluate all its long distance learning activities. Long-distance learning refers to classes offered on other campuses, online programs and interactive video classroom offerings.< And: >The SACS letter found that "although the institution did evaluate one activity in this report, it is clear that more such activities exist, including those operated by the Center for International and Continuing Education and by the institution at sites distance from the home campus." "The institution must now provide a list of all distance learning activities, regardless of location or delivery mode, and evidence of evaluation of all these activities and of use of results of the evaluation to improve them," the letter said.< So, again, how is this "good news" for the university as Thames and Mader protray it? Especially when the whole publically-stated purpose of bringing Lassen to this campus is to vastly increase the number of on-line course offerings? This is NOT a matter of simply filing the paperwork as little to no assessment has ever been done on these programs. Does anyone else see through this charade?"

Of course, the less positive way to spin it is to say that this impacts academics at all teaching sites beyond the home campus. It seems to me that to pin the blame for this on online courses, continuing education, etc., is a very narrow view of the "problem," but it seems to be the web the spinsters are spinning.

Date: Jan 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Cossack
"The only potential bright spot in this scenario is that the Board Office and staff are aware of the future burdens they will inherit if this debacle continues. A hint that the Board is cognizant of this headache is the fact that the SACS experts will report to the Board. Assuming that the experts are reputable, and wish to guard their reputations, the Board likely will learn soon that USM is dead in the water and has almost zero chance of being accredited when the real visit is made. "

You are correct on this.

Based on my contacts with IHL board staff, they have been aware of the gross failures of USM's management at least since the enrollment debacle over a year ago. They don't trust numbers coming from USM until they have independently verified them. And they don't have the resources to do that in every case. The IHL staff doesn't trust USM's administration, but it would be improper for mid- and lower-tier staffers to voice these concerns to the board & the upper-tier folks at IHL basically have their hands tied with political ropes.

"If so, the Board Office may attempt to convince the Board that the cost of maintaining the status quo is very high in terms of resources, reputation, and bad publicity. Although the Board has been supportive of Thames, albeit with less unanimity, the cost of continuous support is increasing at an increasing rate. Thames may get too heavy to carry before too long, perhaps as early as this Spring. Conversely, there is a real possibility that all parties responsible for this failure will hunker together in the bunker until the inevitable. The only solace will be to watch the scramble as they attempt to distance themselves after the inevitable disaster."

<CONSPIRACY THEORY>
I disagree with you on this. The Board is a political creature & at least a few board members openly promote partisan agendas. What Klumb et al are pushing is very much in line with the governor's agenda. Privatization, "mining" public institutions for personal gain, autocratic top-down governance, even cronyism etc., are all hallmarks of what I'm talking about. If this were Italy around 1930, it would have a name that a lot of you don't want to hear. So let's call it "corporatism."

The IHL staff know the truth about USM. The IHL board doesn't care, has never cared & isn't likely to start caring any time soon. It all serves a higher purpose in their minds.

[Out of the letters that I sent to each IHL board member in December, I have received not a single reply. No acknowledgement. Nada. Zip. Not even the esteemed Virginia Newton, who I now believe is just a front for the more vocal "reformers" on the Board. Remember, she was appointed by the same governor who appointed Roy Klumb. This means ultimately she supports the same ideology.]
</CONSPIRACY THEORY>

The simple fact that Shelby Thames wasn't publicly cussed out at the December board meeting & that he is obviously not worried about his future employment at president at USM is proof enough for me. And you can bet the farm that he is going to get some praise at the January meeting for his "exemplary efforts" to keep this SACS thing under control. I've given up hoping that IHL will remove Shelby from office.

But I don't think he will be president much longer.

Date: Jan 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" But I don't think he will be president much longer. "

My dear Invictus . . . .

That was a lovely little cliffhanger you staged at the end of your last post . . . . is this gut instinct or is there something in the wind.

A lot of faculty are brushing off their resumes and dossiers. Whether more than that happens may very well have to do with what happens vis a vis renewel this spring. If the end can be in sight -- some of us might stay. If this looks like it will go on . . . I suspect there will be another wave of mass defections from those who have been holding on and holding out.

Date: Jan 16, 2005

RE: RE: RE: RE: Thames does not know what "Academi

Date: Jan 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" Both in approximately equal measures. Just look closely at the TV interviews."

Didn't see them . . . If the IHL isn't going to act as you indicated in your previous posts, then I have to believe that you see some indication he he will step down himself (?!).

Health?

I gotta be missing something . . . .

Date: Jan 16, 2005

RE: Thames does not know what "Academics" is?

Date: Jan 16, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Retired prof
"I'd bet on "health." He looks awful."

Yes, but he always did.

Date: Jan 17, 2005

RE: RE: Thames does not know what "Academics"

Date: Jan 17, 2005

RE: Thames does not know what "Academics" is?

Date: Jan 17, 2005

Amen, LVN.

I never knew exactly what the problem was (understaffed, good people but underpaid, bad management, whatever), but every time I tried to work with CE there were problems. It was not with the people; for the most part they were very gracious and tried to be helpful. But as an example, in the project I was most closely associated with, the finances/budget were never straight. I assume, like statistics, everything financial was hand compiled--with a pencil and an eraser.

I also two instances of classes that were CE classes for credit (but not online) where everyone in the class got an A (over 200 of them in one class). In this same class, responsible students complained that it wasn't a real class--that it never met, that there were not requirements, etc.

I also have been told that ORSP was not on the university system either. Wonder if it is now.

Date: Jan 17, 2005

Well, CE had ZERO control over the instructor or course content, and sadly, the "home" department often did not wish to intervene or when they did (in the case of Biology) it was for the worse. If CE was the red-haired stepchild, my office, Independent Study, was the BALD stepchild. We got no respect, and what could have been a really good program was not allowed or encouraged to grow and develop. Some of its problems were internal, but many were the result of money and staffing issues, and no help from the academic side of the house.
Another discouraging thing happened before I left -- we did get permission to pay for some new courses, but the faculty who wrote a couple of badly needed courses did not do a good job (gave me an outline I could have copied from the textbook.) Then I was stuck with the courses and a less than satisfactory instructor. We were just used to get $$, not to promote distance education.

Date: Jan 17, 2005

Very sad. Everyone I came in contact with was trying hard.

Date: Jan 17, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
" We were just used to get $$, not to promote distance education."

Eliminate the second to last word and you have summarized this entire thread and brought it full circle. The Thames administrative agenda is about using academics to get $$, not to promote education.

Date: Jan 17, 2005

as i said on some thread i have a hunch we haven't looked at our international education courses in years, if ever. british studies, the abbey, austrian studies, and like have to assessed and evaluated just like everything else.

Date: Jan 17, 2005

So let me get this straight.

Thames claims that the probation was due to lack of reporting assessment of distance learning programs and that it will be easy to fix so students should not worry because it does not effect their education.

Assessment basically means to appraise or determine the value or worth of something. In education it means to determine if the delivery of information is actually helping the students and they are learning something. Once a course is assessed then, improvements can be made.

Distance learning would include any courses not taught at the H'burg campus, online courses, and IVN courses. I think every student no matter what their major must take ENG203 (World Literature) which as of Fall 2002 is only offered through distance learning as an online course. Furthermore, a student can earn an entire degree online from USM. For example, a Master's in Library and Information Science. (Now the only thing separating us from Univ. of Phoenix is that they are still in good standing with their accrediting agency

!!) Even my senior practicum work was only offered as an IVN class.

Does this mean that assessment has not taken place with all of these courses considered to be distance learning? Or that it has taken place but not reported to SACS? If it has, can't Shelboo just report the assessment procedures, conclusions, and plans for improvement to SACS?

So what I’m really asking is that this probation really does affect the quality of every students education because improvement cannot take place until proper assessment has taken place?
(Unless of course you’re a student who has only taken classes in H’burg, and has never had an online course)

Sorry to rant for so long. I am not being facetious or joking, I am really just trying to simplify and make sense of all this.

NC

Date: Jan 17, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: glum alum
"Now the only thing separating us from Univ. of Phoenix is that they are still in good standing with their accrediting agency "

Not true, we've got a football team! I finally understand the importance of that question in the on-line IDV PHD questionnaire. It's all about product positioning and competitive advantage over Phoenix.

Sorry Glum Alum, someone else will have to speak to the larger, sincere issues you raise.

Date: Jan 17, 2005

glum--i can only illuminate a little. i don't know that thames is claiming that it's only distance learning, as much as SACS said that. the letter from SACS apparently indicates that it is distance learning assessment and evaluation. you've got it pretty much on the mark what it means--programs are supposed to discuss and determine what they want students in their respective programs to learn, assess whether they are learning it, and evaluate whether they are achieving those goals. bachelors, masters, and doctoral programs all have to do it.

my take is distance learning programs never got assessed. brad bond formed a university planning and assessment committee three years ago, and the members were supposed to fan out and get all units, from the physical plant to the academic side, to begin this process. i bet it didn't happen on the distance learning end. i think a lot of these distance programs may be great (the study abroad ones for example) but until we decide what we want students in those programs to learn and assess whether they're learning it, we can't make claims as to the greatness of those programs.

Date: Jan 17, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"<SNIP>programs are supposed to discuss and determine what they want students in their respective programs to learn, assess whether they are learning it, and evaluate whether they are achieving those goals.<SNIP>"

Just to add one more component to it (and it's the "magical" one that SACS insists must be present): the institution must demonstrate that it uses the results of assessment to improve the program. Among institutional effectiveness specialists (who are mostly institutional researchers, BTW), this is called "closing the loop." Anybody familiar with the age-old Ralph Tyler curriculum model is familiar with the principle.

Closing the loop is infamous for giving institutional effectiveness officers fits. But right now, assessment is probably the booger-bear for USM. Which raises the question: Without systematic assessment, how does SFT know that USM has "worl' class" programs?

Date: Jan 17, 2005

invictus--so right on the use. a lot of emphasis is being placed on documentation, and for good reason. departments were told they have to start keeping minutes of their meetings; mine has not for 20+ years. NCATE people are emphasizing same. my department did some assessment of our graduate programs and made appropriate modifications. can we document such discussions--no!

Date: Jan 17, 2005

Ahem, we also offer print-based correspondence courses. That was my office. We had rolling, open enrollment, and at any given time we had around 300 active students. We also offered high school independent study courses. Some IS courses have moved to an online format, and some were a sort of hybrid part-print, part-online format (like the NFS course when its instructor moved elsewhere.) Many of the instructors were retirees. I do not know of any "evaluation" of these courses, either by us or by the home departments. See my previous remarks.
One of my first shocks at USM, having been in IR at another university, was the fact that credit hour production was so unimportant. At my previous school, they were a critical component of funding and staffing, and chairs watched our reports like hawks. Independent Study produced a lot of hours and made a lot of money.

Date: Jan 18, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by: glum alum
" . . . I think every student no matter what their major must take ENG203 (World Literature) which as of Fall 2002 is only offered through distance learning as an online course . . . ."

If I may just take a stab at answering this part of Glum Alum's post, let me reply that yes, English 203 is required of all undergraduates at USM, but that it was never offered exclusively online, since new lectures were delivered live every term--I've been one of the lecturers, as has Anne Wallace--that were available to the students either in the lecture hall or online streaming. Students were encouraged to come see the lecturers or post questions on line. For the last year or two, traditional sections of English 203 have been offered as well. In fact, I'm slated to teach one in the fall.

I was on Academic Council when the new university core curriculum (GEC) was under review, and our hybrid delivery came under tremendous fire at the time. (It was one of those wonderful old kind of bloody faculty meetings back when we could disagree rather sharply with each other--remember?) But English had scads of learning assessment data to demonstrate that the instruction delivery method for 203 was at least as effective as traditional classroom methods. So, I don't think anyone need worry about that particular course passing SACS.

Caveat: it's 6:30 a.m. in England, I'm not entirely caffeinated yet, and this is all from memory. Someone may well have more/better information; I imagine that lots of it is online. (No pun intended.)

Jameela

Date: Jan 18, 2005

All of your responses are greatly appreciated.
I just sent a sound off to the Sun Herald, so let's see if the print it, they may already be a lost cause. I'll also see if they will print a letter to the editor also since Robert seemed to have no luck so far.

NC