Special eds point would be valid and concerning if they werent just wrong. I am, who I say I am, and do have the experience, that serves as the bases of my comments. Of course my experiences are congruent with published information, whats the alternative? When someones position/claims are NOT aligned with published/available information/data, thats called being "wrong".
Many of our discussions on this forum, revolve around differing opinions, Im sorry if they cant distinguish between claims that are opinions and that are facts. Ive always strongly advocated for increased discussion on this forum, and that readers explore additional outside sources aside from this forum.
The league of psyguy nemesis is just a group of naysayers who dont know what they think they know. I value my anonymity, and have no interest in "proving" who I am, to disapprove who they think I am.
@special ed
CISs process has value, thats why I included it on my original post and list of agencies. As ive written in the last few posts review, evaluation, auditing, whatever you call, while it has value it is not accreditation, just because CIS calls it that. The difference is that while a process and program may have value that doesnt elevate it to something else. Their process does not equal accreditation, just because they choose to call it that.
CIS doesnt set up a curriculum, because they dont have a curriculum. All they do is verify that the school is using the curriculum the SCHOOL says it is. CIS doesnt have a one ring solution, because CIS doesnt have a ring or solution.
I take the distribution and discussion of our field very seriously, disputing inaccurate information is not a joke to me, and I will continue to dispute incorrect, misinformed and disinformation. If your position and claims were valid, you wouldnt need to resort to ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority, youd be able to corroborate your claims with supports data and evidence.
My school is accredited both nationally and by the IBO.
@walter
Again CIS doesnt accredit schools just because they have a review process that they choose to call accreditation. The 8th edition of their process, just because its been through 8 iterations, does not magically elevate it to the level of accreditation. Just as you repeating yourself, doesnt make your claims more true. Parents want accreditation by agencies (such as those in the USA and UK) because they are recognized, AND they are recognized because their programs have value. CIS may indeed add value through school improvement (lots of things can improve a school) but CIS has no authority (either regulatory or collaborative) permit or prohibit anything. Having CIS accreditation doesnt grant a school any privilege, and not having CIS accreditation doesnt prohibit a school from doing anything.
In the case of the MSA/CIS collaboration agreement, CIS is is just following the MSA accreditation guidelines. Thats really as simple as I can put it
I can see why you and special ed are taking the personal attack approach, you cant support your position or any of your claims. I see where your confusion is you have an incorrect definition of accreditation.
Accreditation
CIS
So what is the value of CIS. First lets explore accreditation and describe some working definitions.
When we use the term accreditation, we refer to a process of comparing a schools compliance against a shared and common standard, mainly its curriculum. When we use the term authorized we are referring to an accredited school that is permitted to offer a particular program.
Different terms but they have the same functional meaning, lets look at some knowledge claims and explore word substitutions.
1) "Acme school is accredited by the Thai ministry to award diplomas based on the prescribed thai curriculum." Lets look at the same statement with the alternate term.
2) "Acme school is authorized by the Thai ministry to award diplomas based on the prescribed thai curriculum."
Observe how despite the use of different terms the functional meaning of the statements is unchanged. We can check the validity of the statement using term redundancy.
3) "Acme school is accredited by the Thai ministry and authorized to award diplomas based on the prescribed thai curriculum."
Lets look at authorized in the following example
4) "The International School of Genovia is authorized to offer the IB diploma program." Lets examine the term substitution.
5) "The International School of Genovia is accredited to offer the IB diploma program.", again the functional meaning of both statements remains the same.
Now we can explore the framework of accreditation. There are two type authority derived from accreditation: regulatory and collaborative. Regulatory is the easiest to understand, its authority thats vested in government though laws and other legislative/judicial/executive actions and delegated though its various ministry and department (Boards of education) agencies. This form of accreditation is that seen typically in public/local/municipal schools. In our above example, the thai ministry of education regulates and by its regulatory authority accredits the local school system. Many societies and countries have provisions in their law to exempt private schools from many of these regulations, but in so doing the schools can not award credit, or diplomas based on the national curriculum.
Collaborative authority is authority granted through consent and membership to an organizational philosophy (to include curriculum, assessment, etc). Member schools consent to the to the shared standards and guidelines, and as a result have an expectation and understanding that other member schools share the same standards. They agree to recognize the credential and credits of Achme school A as being equivalent to those of IS Genovia. The IB diploma program is an excellent example. Many experienced international educators would agree that quality among IB schools varries, there are very good IB schools and there are bad IB schools, but since the schools have collaborated with the IBO (to offer the IB program) an international baccalaureate from a bad school is recognised as equivalent to a international baccalaureate from a bad school. A 4 on a IB HL exam for a student at both schools is treated the same.
This is the foundation of accreditation, the privilege to granting credit and credentials based on the adherence to prescribed standards.
The use of accredited and authorization, are just preferences on common usage. Collaborative authority schools commonly use the term authorization. Regulatory authority schools commonly use the term accredited.
As described regulatory accredited schools mainly describe public/local/municipal schools. Their curriculum is very fixed and rigid and often technical and complex. Collaborative authorized schools which are typically private schools are likewise inflexible (many public/municipal schools that offer both essentially have to meet the standards of both the national curriculum, and the IB curriculum, not always an easy thing to do) and choose in the majority of cases between IB or IGCSE programs (Im going to exclude GAC for now).
The role of CIS:
So what is a school that wants to neither follow the national standards, nor buy into the international curriculum to do? This is where CIS steps in. A school, such as a "european" school wants an casual learning atmosphere that incorporates various elements of british (6th form), french (lycee), german (gymnasium) or other national systems/learning environments. A school may be looking for a british prep academy atmosphere, thats more relaxed, and they may want to focus on a more arts based curriculum. Many different and innovative vision and mission ideas could be designed and created, but they dont adhere to any national standards, and they havent bought into one of the international curriculums. How do they validate their academic goals and objectives? The solution is CIS.
CIS steps in and offers to review the schools curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, etc based on the schools mission and vision. A school (the European School of Genovia) after 2 years and becoming a CIS member, contracts with CIS and presents their documentation as far as curriculum, assessment, standards, vision, mission, etc to CIS. CIS reviews them, and then visits the school to audit/evaluate that what the school says in their accreditation documents they are actually doing, and are doing them well. If what the school says it does and what they are doing well enough, CIS validates their program and accredits them.
The dispute then is this. In CIS accreditation the standard by which a schools performance is measure is against itself, a standard the school creates. An actual accrediting agency has a common standard that member schools share. Thai school A and Thai school B both accredited by the thai ministry of education are equivalent in meeting the prescribed minimum standard set by the government. Acme school and IS Genovia, both IB authorized schools are equivalent because they meet the prescribed minimum standard as described by the IBO, and in both cases the respective agencies have been evaluated and monitored to be in compliance. A CIS "european" school and a CIS "american" school have no such shared or common standards. The critera used for the european school, and the american school maybe very different, and the standards differ across schools, since the schools are essentially measured against themselves.
Accreditation is a program described by only a few options. A school, either:
1) Accredits though a national curriculum agency (American, UK, Canadian, Australian, etc).
2) Buys international authorization (IB, IGCSE, etc)
3) Validates their own program (CIS)
When we use the term accreditation, we refer to a process of comparing a schools compliance against a shared and common standard, mainly its curriculum. When we use the term authorized we are referring to an accredited school that is permitted to offer a particular program.
Different terms but they have the same functional meaning, lets look at some knowledge claims and explore word substitutions.
1) "Acme school is accredited by the Thai ministry to award diplomas based on the prescribed thai curriculum." Lets look at the same statement with the alternate term.
2) "Acme school is authorized by the Thai ministry to award diplomas based on the prescribed thai curriculum."
Observe how despite the use of different terms the functional meaning of the statements is unchanged. We can check the validity of the statement using term redundancy.
3) "Acme school is accredited by the Thai ministry and authorized to award diplomas based on the prescribed thai curriculum."
Lets look at authorized in the following example
4) "The International School of Genovia is authorized to offer the IB diploma program." Lets examine the term substitution.
5) "The International School of Genovia is accredited to offer the IB diploma program.", again the functional meaning of both statements remains the same.
Now we can explore the framework of accreditation. There are two type authority derived from accreditation: regulatory and collaborative. Regulatory is the easiest to understand, its authority thats vested in government though laws and other legislative/judicial/executive actions and delegated though its various ministry and department (Boards of education) agencies. This form of accreditation is that seen typically in public/local/municipal schools. In our above example, the thai ministry of education regulates and by its regulatory authority accredits the local school system. Many societies and countries have provisions in their law to exempt private schools from many of these regulations, but in so doing the schools can not award credit, or diplomas based on the national curriculum.
Collaborative authority is authority granted through consent and membership to an organizational philosophy (to include curriculum, assessment, etc). Member schools consent to the to the shared standards and guidelines, and as a result have an expectation and understanding that other member schools share the same standards. They agree to recognize the credential and credits of Achme school A as being equivalent to those of IS Genovia. The IB diploma program is an excellent example. Many experienced international educators would agree that quality among IB schools varries, there are very good IB schools and there are bad IB schools, but since the schools have collaborated with the IBO (to offer the IB program) an international baccalaureate from a bad school is recognised as equivalent to a international baccalaureate from a bad school. A 4 on a IB HL exam for a student at both schools is treated the same.
This is the foundation of accreditation, the privilege to granting credit and credentials based on the adherence to prescribed standards.
The use of accredited and authorization, are just preferences on common usage. Collaborative authority schools commonly use the term authorization. Regulatory authority schools commonly use the term accredited.
As described regulatory accredited schools mainly describe public/local/municipal schools. Their curriculum is very fixed and rigid and often technical and complex. Collaborative authorized schools which are typically private schools are likewise inflexible (many public/municipal schools that offer both essentially have to meet the standards of both the national curriculum, and the IB curriculum, not always an easy thing to do) and choose in the majority of cases between IB or IGCSE programs (Im going to exclude GAC for now).
The role of CIS:
So what is a school that wants to neither follow the national standards, nor buy into the international curriculum to do? This is where CIS steps in. A school, such as a "european" school wants an casual learning atmosphere that incorporates various elements of british (6th form), french (lycee), german (gymnasium) or other national systems/learning environments. A school may be looking for a british prep academy atmosphere, thats more relaxed, and they may want to focus on a more arts based curriculum. Many different and innovative vision and mission ideas could be designed and created, but they dont adhere to any national standards, and they havent bought into one of the international curriculums. How do they validate their academic goals and objectives? The solution is CIS.
CIS steps in and offers to review the schools curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, etc based on the schools mission and vision. A school (the European School of Genovia) after 2 years and becoming a CIS member, contracts with CIS and presents their documentation as far as curriculum, assessment, standards, vision, mission, etc to CIS. CIS reviews them, and then visits the school to audit/evaluate that what the school says in their accreditation documents they are actually doing, and are doing them well. If what the school says it does and what they are doing well enough, CIS validates their program and accredits them.
The dispute then is this. In CIS accreditation the standard by which a schools performance is measure is against itself, a standard the school creates. An actual accrediting agency has a common standard that member schools share. Thai school A and Thai school B both accredited by the thai ministry of education are equivalent in meeting the prescribed minimum standard set by the government. Acme school and IS Genovia, both IB authorized schools are equivalent because they meet the prescribed minimum standard as described by the IBO, and in both cases the respective agencies have been evaluated and monitored to be in compliance. A CIS "european" school and a CIS "american" school have no such shared or common standards. The critera used for the european school, and the american school maybe very different, and the standards differ across schools, since the schools are essentially measured against themselves.
Accreditation is a program described by only a few options. A school, either:
1) Accredits though a national curriculum agency (American, UK, Canadian, Australian, etc).
2) Buys international authorization (IB, IGCSE, etc)
3) Validates their own program (CIS)
-
wrldtrvlr123
- Posts: 1173
- Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:59 am
- Location: Japan
[quote="tdaley26"]I have no problem disputing facts, in fact I welcome it. But stick to the facts, the personal attacks only take away from your arguement. I have no idea if you are who you say you are, if psyguy is who he says he is, just as you have no real idea if I am who I say I am. That is the very nature of this board, and that is how it should be. Argue if you must, actually, I am glad of the arguements. But when your arguement consists of attempting to destroy someones credibility ( whether or not they are credible) it makes me think your actual facts are weak ( even if they are not). If you bring up when someone was wrong on another thread to win an unrelated point, it makes it seem like your facts can't stand up by themselves
Bottom line--- your arguements are stronger if you stay away from making it personal and if you refrain from bringing up unrelated posts.[/quote]
--------------------------------------------------------------
I have no problem with anyone disputing what PsyGuy posts (or anyone else for that matter).
He does have a tendency to over reach and a seeming compulsion to post on virtually every topic. I don't have a problem with this as I love reading these types of forums and hate when I come back and there is nothing new. Readers must simply take what they read as one piece of information, regardless of who posts it (just as they must do with the school/admin reviews on the pay side).
I do believe that utilizing one's access to Search files to reveal personal information on a public forum and potentially damaging someone's future job prospects is both unethical and unwise.
If one feels that someone is being dishonest or unethical than one really should not combat that with something equally unethical (or even MORE unethical). This is an anonymous forum. Search is a professional organization and I would think they would also object to admin using their privledges to drop personal information on a board like this.
Also, and possibly more importantly, no one here can know with 100% accuracy that the indivdual whose Search file is apparently so popular is in fact the individual who is posting as PsyGuy. Without that, how can posting confidential information on a public forum be justified, even if one finds a certain poster annoying or even dishonest?
Just my humble opinion.
Bottom line--- your arguements are stronger if you stay away from making it personal and if you refrain from bringing up unrelated posts.[/quote]
--------------------------------------------------------------
I have no problem with anyone disputing what PsyGuy posts (or anyone else for that matter).
He does have a tendency to over reach and a seeming compulsion to post on virtually every topic. I don't have a problem with this as I love reading these types of forums and hate when I come back and there is nothing new. Readers must simply take what they read as one piece of information, regardless of who posts it (just as they must do with the school/admin reviews on the pay side).
I do believe that utilizing one's access to Search files to reveal personal information on a public forum and potentially damaging someone's future job prospects is both unethical and unwise.
If one feels that someone is being dishonest or unethical than one really should not combat that with something equally unethical (or even MORE unethical). This is an anonymous forum. Search is a professional organization and I would think they would also object to admin using their privledges to drop personal information on a board like this.
Also, and possibly more importantly, no one here can know with 100% accuracy that the indivdual whose Search file is apparently so popular is in fact the individual who is posting as PsyGuy. Without that, how can posting confidential information on a public forum be justified, even if one finds a certain poster annoying or even dishonest?
Just my humble opinion.
Couple of quick things. I don't belong to Search, and have no way to access what is on the Search databases (whether it is about schools, or about teachers. I do belong to ISS, but that disappointment is another story). I also do not violate Search terms of service by looking up info and sharing it with people who do not belong. Maybe we could get some clarification on that. Is it okay to use your Search account to look stuff up for someone else?
Psyguy, you missed it again. National accreditation is almost useless. In the US the most useful is accomplished by the regional agencies. You say that a school can choose 1 of 3 options. Wrong again. They can choose all 3 options (substituting regional for national). I'm also unaware of a "national curriculum" for the United States. Common Core is sort of a national curriculum, but it is not a national necessity for a school to belong to/follow it. There are no national curriculums that I am aware of for universities in the U.S.A.. Am I wrong? If so, are they all scams since they don't follow one?
You seem to equate accreditation with that agency setting forth a curriculum. None of the regional agencies does this. Does this mean that all of the US schools and universities are operating under a shady agency? Is Harvard a scam because it is regionally accredited and does not follow a pre-set curriculum set forth by the regionals? IB and AP can do this, but I'm not sure a school could just offer those programs in many countries. I know Egypt couldn't do this as it has to also follow a national curriculum to some degree. In some countries it's even stricter. I know it would never work in Turkey as the government is very strict about courses that have to be taught, as well as the nationality of the teachers of some subjects.
You seem to have a lot of fans here on this site, which is actually awesome. But seriously you seem to think that direct knowledge/experience=looking something up on the internet. Also, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by slamming accreditation.
Psyguy, you missed it again. National accreditation is almost useless. In the US the most useful is accomplished by the regional agencies. You say that a school can choose 1 of 3 options. Wrong again. They can choose all 3 options (substituting regional for national). I'm also unaware of a "national curriculum" for the United States. Common Core is sort of a national curriculum, but it is not a national necessity for a school to belong to/follow it. There are no national curriculums that I am aware of for universities in the U.S.A.. Am I wrong? If so, are they all scams since they don't follow one?
You seem to equate accreditation with that agency setting forth a curriculum. None of the regional agencies does this. Does this mean that all of the US schools and universities are operating under a shady agency? Is Harvard a scam because it is regionally accredited and does not follow a pre-set curriculum set forth by the regionals? IB and AP can do this, but I'm not sure a school could just offer those programs in many countries. I know Egypt couldn't do this as it has to also follow a national curriculum to some degree. In some countries it's even stricter. I know it would never work in Turkey as the government is very strict about courses that have to be taught, as well as the nationality of the teachers of some subjects.
You seem to have a lot of fans here on this site, which is actually awesome. But seriously you seem to think that direct knowledge/experience=looking something up on the internet. Also, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by slamming accreditation.
Sigh
@specialed
*Sigh*, national curriculum, refers to the agency delegated by that countries/nations education authority to regulate education. Some countries regulate at the national level, such as the UK and Singapore (most of europe and asia does). Some at the regional level (such as the USA, Canada, Australia), In the USA its the regional accreditation agencies. In Canada/australia its the provincial/territorial ministries. It has nothing to do with the american common core curriculum. "National curriculum", just describes a pedagogical and methodological approach to education commonly associated with a particular culture/nation (IE; british school, german school, canadian school, american school).
Your confusing tertiary (post secondary) education with primary/secondary education (K-12), the standards and guidelines are different. Harvard is a university (and college).
*Sigh*, national curriculum, refers to the agency delegated by that countries/nations education authority to regulate education. Some countries regulate at the national level, such as the UK and Singapore (most of europe and asia does). Some at the regional level (such as the USA, Canada, Australia), In the USA its the regional accreditation agencies. In Canada/australia its the provincial/territorial ministries. It has nothing to do with the american common core curriculum. "National curriculum", just describes a pedagogical and methodological approach to education commonly associated with a particular culture/nation (IE; british school, german school, canadian school, american school).
Your confusing tertiary (post secondary) education with primary/secondary education (K-12), the standards and guidelines are different. Harvard is a university (and college).
Ok, really not looking to extend a debate topic or create a new one..
I'm an American with a provisional teaching license that will need renewed in a year. My wife and I have two kids that will be starting school in the next couple years. I'm looking to go back into international teaching, and after looking through a bunch of schools, the topic of accreditation has just now become a point of consideration for me. Right now, we're looking at two schools. Are there any negative implications for us with either of these accreditation, licensing, or counted experience-wise?
School 1: Accredited by CIS and NEASC
School 2: Accredited by Alberta Education, Canada (which to my knowledge is a curriculum, but the organization offers accreditation). It's accreditation is only for grade 10-12. Is that normal?
I'm an American with a provisional teaching license that will need renewed in a year. My wife and I have two kids that will be starting school in the next couple years. I'm looking to go back into international teaching, and after looking through a bunch of schools, the topic of accreditation has just now become a point of consideration for me. Right now, we're looking at two schools. Are there any negative implications for us with either of these accreditation, licensing, or counted experience-wise?
School 1: Accredited by CIS and NEASC
School 2: Accredited by Alberta Education, Canada (which to my knowledge is a curriculum, but the organization offers accreditation). It's accreditation is only for grade 10-12. Is that normal?
[quote="Bellarex"]Ok, really not looking to extend a debate topic or create a new one..
I'm an American with a provisional teaching license that will need renewed in a year. My wife and I have two kids that will be starting school in the next couple years. I'm looking to go back into international teaching, and after looking through a bunch of schools, the topic of accreditation has just now become a point of consideration for me. Right now, we're looking at two schools. Are there any negative implications for us with either of these accreditation, licensing, or counted experience-wise?
School 1: Accredited by CIS and NEASC
School 2: Accredited by Alberta Education, Canada (which to my knowledge is a curriculum, but the organization offers accreditation). It's accreditation is only for grade 10-12. Is that normal?[/quote]
I am assuming that the Alberta Education curriculum would provide high school graduates with a diploma recognized within the province of Alberta.
I'm an American with a provisional teaching license that will need renewed in a year. My wife and I have two kids that will be starting school in the next couple years. I'm looking to go back into international teaching, and after looking through a bunch of schools, the topic of accreditation has just now become a point of consideration for me. Right now, we're looking at two schools. Are there any negative implications for us with either of these accreditation, licensing, or counted experience-wise?
School 1: Accredited by CIS and NEASC
School 2: Accredited by Alberta Education, Canada (which to my knowledge is a curriculum, but the organization offers accreditation). It's accreditation is only for grade 10-12. Is that normal?[/quote]
I am assuming that the Alberta Education curriculum would provide high school graduates with a diploma recognized within the province of Alberta.
-
shadowjack
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:49 am
Bellarex,
the Alberta Diploma Program is a grade 10 to 12 program, consisting of courses at the 10/20/30 level for university entry, the 13/23/33 level for general graduation and then some special courses for differentiation.
The Alberta Diploma Program, prior to that, Alberta students take Alberta Achievement tests at grade 3, 6, and 9, and then enter the diploma program in grade 10, followed by the diploma exams in grade 12, are high standard testing. Alberta has poured billions into ensuring the validity of its exams, field testing, and aligning its curriculum.
If the international school is following them, they will have a solid program. I taught in the Alberta system for 8 years, so I am speaking from experience.
NEASC (New England Association) is ok, as is CIS. In the end, go with your gut feeling. Ask yourself where your kids will be going to university. If the US, go with the NEASC/CIS. If internationally, go with either. If Canada, go with Alberta - its program is highly portable.
the Alberta Diploma Program is a grade 10 to 12 program, consisting of courses at the 10/20/30 level for university entry, the 13/23/33 level for general graduation and then some special courses for differentiation.
The Alberta Diploma Program, prior to that, Alberta students take Alberta Achievement tests at grade 3, 6, and 9, and then enter the diploma program in grade 10, followed by the diploma exams in grade 12, are high standard testing. Alberta has poured billions into ensuring the validity of its exams, field testing, and aligning its curriculum.
If the international school is following them, they will have a solid program. I taught in the Alberta system for 8 years, so I am speaking from experience.
NEASC (New England Association) is ok, as is CIS. In the end, go with your gut feeling. Ask yourself where your kids will be going to university. If the US, go with the NEASC/CIS. If internationally, go with either. If Canada, go with Alberta - its program is highly portable.
Thanks for the explanation. As my kids are only 3 and 2 at the moment, I'm less concerned with their education at this time since it's not all that likely that we'll be in one spot for 15 years (or even through their elementary years). I'm more thinking about mine and my wife's teaching licenses. Currently, we're both have just a provisional license in which we need a certain number of professional development points to move to the big boy license. Both of us still need a little in the way of Professional development in order to get there, so I just wasn't sure if the PD offered would count toward our state license. I realize this is something I need to inquire with my state's department of education about.
I was also thinking about the experience that I will be able to count toward "steps" on salary scales, etc. if/when we ever move back to the states. I had read somewhere else on the forum something along the lines that if a school doesn't have a WASC accreditation or something similar, our years might not be counted toward experience. Is that true?
I was also thinking about the experience that I will be able to count toward "steps" on salary scales, etc. if/when we ever move back to the states. I had read somewhere else on the forum something along the lines that if a school doesn't have a WASC accreditation or something similar, our years might not be counted toward experience. Is that true?