SUMMARY
REPORT REGARDING THE COURSE
ACCREDITATION
WORKSHOP HELD ON JANUARY 13, 2006
1:00
pm – 4:00 pm
Where: Florida
State University Conference Center
555
W. Pensacola St.
Tallahassee,
Florida 32301
Attendees: Training
Course Providers
Training
Course Accreditors
DBPR
Licensing Board representatives
DCA
staff
Reason For Workshop: This workshop was held to
discuss the possibility of amending the current language of Rule 9B-70, F. A.
C., to require training course providers to submit specific minimum course
materials to accreditors, which should make possible a more efficient and standardized
evaluation process for the accreditation of FBC educational program courses.
The current rule language requires accreditors to only review submitted course
materials for current code compliance, rather than to also evaluate for the
quality of the course instructional design, content, and method(s) of delivery.
Actual Attendees:
George Ayrish Vivian
Taylor
Jon Hamrick Juanita
Chastain
Larry M. Schneider Alexandra
Auguste-Toussaint
Med Kopczynski Robert
Koning
Sharon Mignardi Rhonda
Koning
Bob Tanenbaum Michael
Ashworth
Susann Rudasill Michael
Clark
Ila Jones
It was stated at the outset of the discussion that the major
reason everyone was gathered was to review the language of Rule 9B-70 and to
attempt to identify minimum submission standards for course materials by
training providers. By establishing minimum standards, any accreditor’s review
of course materials would be more efficient and effective because the
accreditor would compare “apples to apples”.
Also, with minimum standards being followed by both accreditors and
providers, the approval action by DBPR would be more valid. Everyone agreed
that this endeavor was overdue.
The conversation was lively with everyone participating. It
was apparent that after some discussion regarding the issue that brought
everyone together for this workshop, that other issues need to be similarly
addressed at some future time. For instance, procedural issues were raised that
are part of the accreditation process. Listed below are most of the issues that
were identified during the discussion, with a few recommended solutions. Also
listed are some recommendations that were made that some thought might be
helpful in general.
Identified Issues (With some recommended solutions)
1.)
1.)
Course materials were not being scrutinized hardly at all by some
accreditors.
2.)
2.)
The actual quality of the course is not being evaluated, only code
compliance.
3.)
3.)
Accreditors need a guide and/or definition of what a syllabus is, and/or
what elements compose a syllabus.
4.)
4.)
Accreditors need to know exactly what they are supposed to review. Do
they just review the submitted outline? Do they review a sample of the actual
course materials? Do they review all of the course materials? (Solution
– All agreed that accreditors should review all course materials)
5.)
5.)
Using a PDF format for the course materials causes problems for some
accreditors when reviewing materials. (Solution – Use Word docs and the
Internet)
6.)
6.)
The language in Rule 9B-70 doesn’t state that the provider must submit
all course materials for review. (Solution – Rule language needs to be
more specific)
7.)
7.)
There does not exist a specific definition of what constitutes an
advanced course.
8.)
8.)
Accreditors need to know the extent of their responsibility when
evaluating course materials. For instance, how do they evaluate updated
supplements that are just added to the materials, and not actually worked into
the instruction?
9.)
9.)
Define or specifically identify what are course materials.
10.)
10.)
Different boards review and approve courses differently, which sometimes
causes problems.
11.)
11.)
The boards in general do not want the FBC to tell them what to do.
12.)
12.)
The concept that a market driven process will weed out potentially “bad
courses” just doesn’t happen. These questionable courses continue to exist.
13.)
13.)
Some providers don’t update their courses. (Solution –
Specifically state that all courses must be updated in a timely fashion. If a
provider does not update his/her course and is identified, then that
person/company loses its ability from that point forward to be a training
provider.)
Other Recommendations
1.)
1.) It
was suggested that more effort should occur to involve the Educational Council
with issues, such as those being discussed today.
2.)
2.) It
was suggested that not only all course materials should be submitted, but also
all materials should be submitted as the student would see/use the materials.
3.)
3.) It
was suggested that course materials should be reviewed and evaluated by a panel
of accreditors (at least three), not just one.
4.)
4.) It
was suggested that a ranking system be created, and courses be assigned a rank
after their review, such as and “A” course, a “B” course, etc.
5.)
5.) It
was suggested that significant changes not occur at this time, but that to more
clearly define what is in the existing rule, working towards (at a later date)
evaluating the actual quality of the course.
6.)
6.) It
was suggested that all advanced courses reflect updated code changes.
The “Brainstorming Discussion”
The group started brainstorming ideas regarding the issue at
hand, which was---“what do accreditors need to complete a valid review of
training course materials”. Below is a list of the ideas they identified, some
of which were mentioned in the general discussion.
It was also reiterated that all materials should be
submitted as the student would see/use them. After more discussion, the group
decided that: