“But my mother said…”
Parents know that line, or a variation of it, well. It’s hard to be the only one sticking to the rule and saying no when others are winking, waving and saying yes. What is intended as some sort of stand-in comes across as awkward, snooty and/or careless, even if the goal involved is admirable.
I’ve been there. It’s not fun. And it gets worse when people who take or create shortcuts are credited as inventors when in fact they are cheating.
In a competitive context, the common term for that is a race to the bottom. Sticking to routine creates friction, which hinders speed. Those without principles can leave quickly. If the first advantage is important and no one enforces the rules, we would expect those who are not burdened by conscience to be overrepresented among the winners.
I will leave the application of this idea to Silicon Valley as a student project.
It was interesting, in a way, to get confirmation of what I was seeing earlier this week in the new NACEP report on dual registration. It is an examination of the laws regarding dual and simultaneous enrollment programs in various states, and recommendations to ensure the best results. It is worth reading.
The part that jumped out at me, however, was the regional breakdown of the extent to which they have established quality assurance laws and systems. Ten states, including our home state of Pennsylvania, are identified as having no relevant state laws at all.
It can confirm. And it’s frustrating and dangerous.
In the absence of reasonable regulations and the presence of many struggling private colleges, driven by enrollment, I see other … freedoms … being taken away that put my college in a difficult position.
For example, we had high schools play against colleges to see who would be most receptive to teacher credentials. If we stand at the level that a high school teacher should have the same credentials that we would expect from a college teacher of the same subject—which we do—we are at a competitive risk when the Nameless Private College (hereafter NPC, which seems fine) shrugs its shoulders and says okay. Some high schools allow students taking a college credit class to sit together with students taking it as a high school class and allow teachers to tell parents that there is no difference between the two; The NPC doesn’t blink. Heck, we need the government to charge two courses in out-of-state schools, but private colleges can offer classes for free as loss leaders.
All this is happening. And the growing effect is the erosion of educational standards. It’s hard to insist on basic standards when an NPC is ready to step in with a moment’s notice and say yes to every request, no matter how unreasonable. It does this because it can and needs to be registered. But in doing so, it undermines the credibility of the entire business.
The language of the Middle States is not clear enough to give colleges a wiggle room, and the state ignores the issue entirely. A very high-ranking person in the provincial government here once told me, in front of a large number of witnesses, that the way of the state is to see what improves and pass laws later. Or, to put it differently, it rewards bad behavior on a scale. That taxed my talent for keeping a straight face.
The NACEP report takes academic rigor as a given and suggests improvements from there. I wish it had been given. It can be; A few basic rules can go a long way. For example, a state can declare that only community colleges are affiliated with high schools and that each college has only one designated area. That will put an end to the phrase “But mom said …”. Or it may require a set level of instructor credentials regardless of the college that awarded the credit. Or it can sponsor dual enrollment at the local community college level of education; high schools that wanted to partner with a local NPC could, but would have to pay the difference.
Any or all of that can make a big difference. What is important is that one sets the ground rules. If they are not, the equivalent of snake oil is being sold and students think they are getting something they are not.
Thank you, NACEP, for making sure it doesn’t have to be this way. It is, but it shouldn’t be. Failure to choose in the middle means undoing the many choices made in the area, many of which are based on convenience rather than quality. The longer it goes on, the harder it will be to remove. Someone has to be willing to refuse the child’s third piece of chocolate cake, no matter what the mother says.
