When people see these educational innovations like you describe in your blog post, someone almost inevitably asks, "What about accreditation?"
And that's the problem, maybe the main problem with our current education system.
Accreditation is the effort to measure and control quality from a central perspective. According to the US Department of Education, "The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality." It's a great idea in theory. Accreditation is supposed to make it easy to gauge the value or effectiveness or transferability of an educational experience. It sends a message to students and those who pay for it that the student has met a certain level of skill development or understanding.
The problem is that it's a false measure. First, the stamp of approval of an accrediting body is no guarantee of quality education. Second, education and the context in which it is used takes place locally, not globally (although education clearly has global effects), and what counts as mastery and understanding varies depending on context.
Third, accreditation becomes a distraction, both for the educational institution and for the student. Instead of making student learning and achievement the highest priority, the accreditation process shifts the focus on meeting organizational needs and requirements.The accreditation process takes what should be an individualized effort, or perhaps a community effort with an individualized focus, and turns it into an effort to mass produce a consistent product of predetermined quality.
The student seeking an accredited education doesn't ask, "What will it take to master this skill or subject?" and "What does mastery of this skill or subject mean in my life and my community?" Instead, the student asks, "What does it take to get an A?" (or B or C or whatever the student thinks is required) and "What will an A from this institution mean for my future employability?"
Similarly, instead of focusing on students, the administrator asks, "How many students have to fail for us to retain our accreditation?" and "What subjects will the accrediting body require us to offer?" and "What kinds of accreditation will keep us fiscally solvent?" and so on.
When we encounter a great educational idea or product, "What about accreditation?" is the wrong question to ask. The first questions should be something like these: "Does it work?" "Does it help students (or this particular student) learn and grow and develop into good human beings and effective members of communities?" and "Does it strengthen the local community?"
The first step in healing our educational systems will be to focus first on students and on providing opportunities and resources of their learning and also on their families and communities and on discovering how to bring all of those stakeholders into harmony…kind of like what the Kahn Academy has begun to do.
Very true. My friends and I started a website called The Free Academy, which you can check out at freeacad.com. It's purpose is to get rid of the formal lines of student and teacher. Everyone can be both within any given situation. And of course, it's about learning outside the state accreditation.
"About
The Free Academy is a group of students/teachers with the great privilege to study life and liberty outside the confines of State accreditation.
Membership is free and open to all and begins as soon as you start participating. The goal here is informal communal learning and personal growth. We strive to teach each other as we teach ourselves. Learn whatever you want and share whatever you find interesting. This site is our virtual playground. Register a username, ask questions or start discussions in the comments and when you’re ready, make your first post!"
The accreditation process reminds me a lot about the healthcare industry in the US and the limitations posed by the board to limit the number of doctors to keep the salary of those doctors already practicing artificially inflated.