I think the courts' response to educational malpractice is right on. Certainly, some schools do a lousy job, but I don't think a judge or jury can discern that without the "objective criteria" that would be necessarily indicative of a breach of contract. The four rationales listed under the Finstad case are all good reasons for the courts to stay out of battles regarding the overall effectiveness of institutions.
I do think these cases emphasize the importance of specific verbiage in publications. What are we promising? To claim that students will have all they need to pass a board exam or to get a job assumes they come to us with a certain level of ability that, obviously, not all of them possess. Besides, there are many bright, qualified folks out there without jobs.
While courts shouldn't determine what a crummy education entails, administrators should. If legitimate complaints from students are consistently neglected, the entire institution will, eventually, suffer. Based on the end reading about young brains, they're the ones who might expose weaknesses that, if addressed, will make us (the institution) better. Improving the place is probably well within the parameters of our job.
I agree with Jennifer that education institutions must be careful about what they promise. FMU (Everest) would tell prospective students that they were accredited, which they were, but only nationally rather than regionally. They didn't fully disclose the limitations of their accreditation; thus, resulting in a lawsuit concerning the transferability of courses.
In light of the discussion of "education malpractice" how about this possible "twist" for the for-profit sector from this Chronicle article - http://chronicle.com/article/Pending-Federal-Rules-Are-Hot/65903/
"The most-contentious issue has become a proposed rule, known as the "gainful employment" rule, that would withhold federal aid from for-profit programs whose graduates are likely to carry high debt-to-income loads.
The department has said its goal is to crack down on colleges that overcharge and underdeliver in training students for jobs right after graduation."
As with Jennifer I do not support the notion that litigation is the appropriate avenue for determining the quality of the education as a breach of contract (unless specific promises - contracts - were agreed upon) - I would, however, like to expand her notion that not only should the administration be dealing with and determining "quality" issues - but so should accreditation agencies and trustees.
Wow! It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds.
While I think accountability for astronomical tuition rates ought to be considered (Cynthia, I look forward to your take on this), I'm not sure the government is going to want to have to take this on...especially in today's market. To have a job, at all, is fortunate; to have one that pays well is nearly unheard of! And what about the folks who earn their degree, but choose to work part time, or not at all?
If we could find a way to get students to understand the debt:income potential, this whole thing would fix itself; they'd not enroll in those programs at all. I'm just not sure that's realistic...
And, Ken, regarding accreditation agencies and trustees: Agreed.
Ken - Thank you for sharing the article. I think, as the article points out, that having federal aid tied to students' "gainful employment" upon graduation is a slippery slope. If it happens in the for-profit sector, it could very likely spill over into the public...USF has a very high average graduate student debt rate, so what's to stop this from being an issue for us? It is an issue, indeed. I'm just not so sure the "gainful employment" and arbitrary calculations are the answer. But, that is the Dept. of Ed.'s style...FAFSA ring a bell?!
Jason - I worked at Keiser University (when it was still College) as an Admissions Counselor (can anyone guess why that was a brief experience?) and I do agree that it's important for these types of schools to be upfront about transferability and accreditation. Keiser was at least accredited by SACS and upfront about transferability of credits being up to the institution you transfer to. The thing is that these colleges have very confusing financial aid processes and I don't think even the most intelligent of students really understands the kind of debt they are looking at compared to their potential income. Like I said, I had a hard time enrolling students and instead moved to a position focused on retention. This is just as much an issue....most of the students I met with were either unemployed or in low-wage jobs and almost all had dependents. If they left before graduating, they had a good amount of debt but no additional earning potential.
I don't know what the answer is, but it is a problem that is worth exploring.
Jennifer - Ahhhh, yes...to make everyone financially more literate would be a worthwhile cause; however, it probably would not solve behavior. Research on financial literacy and borrowing habits has so far not really shown a decrease in borrowing behavior for those more literate. There is much research yet to be done on how to change behavior and financial literacy does not appear to be enough. I do think it is important, however.
Your comments and perspectives on this article have all been very interesting. “Quality of education” has long been a difficult topic to define since it means something different to each of us, depending upon our own goals. One of my job responsibilities is to approve or deny student's requests for late adds, drops, withdrawals, and refunds. On occasion, a student will ask for a refund and late drop due to what the student claims is "bad teaching". I vividly recall one student’s avowal that her anatomy and physiology professor was not teaching her appropriately. When I questioned her on this statement (her professor was noted for his excellence in teaching) she insisted that he wasn’t teaching the class what they needed to know for the upcoming test, but he said that he expected them to use critical thinking skills to apply the knowledge they were learning. She said she needed an “A” in this class in order to compete for the limited access nursing program, and if he wasn’t going to tell the class what was important and what wasn’t, she didn’t know how to study for this exam and feared that she wouldn’t get the “A” she wanted. Due to what she felt was his “poor teaching skills”, and therefore the professor’s failing to adequately prepare her to perform well on the tests, she was requesting a refund. She threatened a law suit if she failed to achieve the “A” she felt she had a right to have and if that grade prevented her from gaining entrance into the nursing program. Even after we had spent some time discussing her request, she didn’t seem to fully understand and accept the concept that critical thinking skills are vital in the medical field and that her professor was teaching the class not to simply memorize facts, but to learn to ask questions and to really understand their course work. Regarding the issue of financial aid, I think that many students fail to fully understand how federal financial aid works, and that the government is actually trying to require that we, as institutions, work harder to provide some clarity to this topic. I’ve seen financial aid “award” letters that fail to identify a loan versus grant money. As an example, I met with a student who had received an award letter from a private school (who shall remain anonymous). The student was trying to decide whether to attend that school or PHCC, and was very upset that PHCC was not offering him more financial aid. In reviewing his award letter from the private school, I noted that he was being “awarded” 2 different types of loans; I mentioned this to him and he said, “No, if it were a loan, they would have had to tell me it’s a loan, and not call it financial aid.” He then called the other school and was informed that his “award” did include 2 loans which would pay the majority of his tuition and fees, with his grant money covering very little of the total cost of attendance. The student was extremely upset with this information and was astounded that he would have been paying back such high amounts of student loans – and that he hadn’t been informed of this debt in advance. I think educational institutions overall are doing a better job of providing upfront financial counseling, and there are a number of online financial literacy programs which can assist students with understanding the full impact of borrowing and debt management; however, we still need to continue focusing on insuring that our students fully understand how their current financial aid may impact their future.
It seems that the general opinion is that the courts are handling educational malpractice claims correctly. Finstad allows them to stay out of the way for most of the issues that come through the court system because the courts usually have to further investigate into the educational institution policy and procedures to determine if the plaintiff’s claim in factual. There may have been a case to argue in the Wickstrom v. North Idaho College but since the plaintiffs complaint in Wickstrom did not explain how the course failed to comply with the contract, the Supreme Court should not have given them the option to amend their complaint. I agree with the two justices who dissented, saying the claim should have been barred by public policy because it required a judicial inquiry into the quality and adequacy of the school’s course instruction. This seems to go directly against what Finstad argues for. I think this system is set-up properly to handle most of these claims, especially the claims but the students that they were not given an education to prepare them for the “real-world” or to walk on to a job the day after graduation. It is also highlighted that higher education is a “highly collaborative process.” The student’s need to work just as hard as the faculty members do in ensuring that they are being prepared for life after college.
I agree that the courts made the right decision in leaving these “issues of adequacy” up to the institution. As it was mentioned, addressing and ruling in the favor of the plaintiffs would open the floodgates of litigation. There would be an endless influx of complaints from unsatisfied students. But, although courts should steer clear of these types of litigation cases, Ken made an excellent point in that accrediting agencies and BOT’s should hold educational institutions accountable. If an institution is going to make a claim to boast about its ability to enhance the success of its students, it should be able to deliver in some way. Otherwise its claim is simply a LIE and in my opinion, agreed to be a plausible breach of contract to be considered. However, that’s not to say that every institution can (or will) promise its students jobs upon graduation. Still, similar to the excerpt that mentioned Vatterott’s ability to get students jobs with certain companies- if this weren’t true, Vatterott should not have used this statement as a marketing ploy. I believe that that truth shall make you free (from litigation)!
Ken and Edna, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments regarding institution accountability and quality of education. I have several friends who have attended insitutions believing they were accredited and/or were oblivious to the amount of debt they would incur upon graduation. For a Psy.D. (85 hour program), my friend's institution charges over $1,000 per credit hour. This is in comparison to USF's Ph.D. in Psychology, which is significantly less. Granted, the Psy.D. program is clinical in nature while USF's program is research based. Nonetheless, the difference is astonishing and unless the individual is going into private practice, with a partner who has start-up capital, I am not sure they will be in a position to re-pay a $90k+ loan. That is very disheartening. There has to be more government regulation regarding these types of institutions.
I want to thank everyone on their feedback on the three discuss questions. I really enjoyed reading everyone’s insights into the article. It’s clear that we all agree on the court’s handling of educational malpractice claims to be logical. I believe that the field of Higher Education is capable of handling educational malpractice issues without government involvement. It’s my belief that higher education administrators are willing to establish policies and procedures to help protect students from educational malpractice. I agree with Donna B about the need to help students to fully understand the process of financial literacy. However I also believe there’s a need to help them understand the academic process. This is especially the case with our students from under-served areas with family members who are unfamiliar with higher education academic processes. As part of institution accountability and quality, I believe it is the institution’s responsibility to set the correct expectations for students. The courts are better suited to help with clarification of the laws and examination of existing policy.
he academic responsibility of an institution is usually given in its mission statement and the responsibility of that institution is to live up to that mission statement and promise with results. The result should be that the student will earn a quality accredited degreewhich will teach them what they will need to know in the real world. As a graduate, that same student should have the basic knowledge that will lead them to a resonably gainful employment. I have read the fine print of some of these on-line law schools and I remember when a certain storefront school was under serious scrutiny for not being clear about its accreditation status and financial aid practices. Place like that deserve the full arm of the "shut-down".
In my own experience, I graduated from the FAMU/FSU College of Engineering. There were all types of things that I was not taught. One in particular was the concept of OSHA training. That lack of knowledge almost cost me my life on my first job. I suppose if I dug real hard I could have come up with a reason to sue and end up being another one of your case studies, but I thing that a little bit of personal responsibility is a whole lot better than becoming another example of a frivolous case and case study.
Yes, the courts handling of educational malpractice claims does seem logical to me. I feel that the quality of educational services received is subjective based upon each person. For example, instruction. A student may feel that I am a "quality" accounting instructor, but not another accounting instructor (or vice versa). How does the court decide what is "quality instruction?" Further, higher education institutions should retain the rights as to what programs, curriculum, required credit hours, etc. are offered and should be able to change those based upon whatever criteria they choose.
I do agree with the courts handling of breach of contract if instructors were often absent. Higher education institutions have a responsibility to ensure that if they are going to offer courses, that they have qualified instructors.
Prior to this article, I never thought of "educational malpractice." I realize that students complain and sometimes their complaints are unfounded, but never considered that a student could make a case for "educational malpractice!" I only ever thought of malpractice in terms of professions (i.e., attorneys, CPAs, doctors, etc.)
Does the courts handling of educational malpractice claims seem logical to you? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteAre there cases highlighted in this article that you believe a claim of educational malpractice was justified?
What roll do higher education administrators have in addressing torts of educational malpractice?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think the courts' response to educational malpractice is right on. Certainly, some schools do a lousy job, but I don't think a judge or jury can discern that without the "objective criteria" that would be necessarily indicative of a breach of contract. The four rationales listed under the Finstad case are all good reasons for the courts to stay out of battles regarding the overall effectiveness of institutions.
ReplyDeleteI do think these cases emphasize the importance of specific verbiage in publications. What are we promising? To claim that students will have all they need to pass a board exam or to get a job assumes they come to us with a certain level of ability that, obviously, not all of them possess. Besides, there are many bright, qualified folks out there without jobs.
While courts shouldn't determine what a crummy education entails, administrators should. If legitimate complaints from students are consistently neglected, the entire institution will, eventually, suffer. Based on the end reading about young brains, they're the ones who might expose weaknesses that, if addressed, will make us (the institution) better. Improving the place is probably well within the parameters of our job.
I agree with Jennifer that education institutions must be careful about what they promise. FMU (Everest) would tell prospective students that they were accredited, which they were, but only nationally rather than regionally. They didn't fully disclose the limitations of their accreditation; thus, resulting in a lawsuit concerning the transferability of courses.
ReplyDeleteIn light of the discussion of "education malpractice" how about this possible "twist" for the for-profit sector from this Chronicle article - http://chronicle.com/article/Pending-Federal-Rules-Are-Hot/65903/
ReplyDelete"The most-contentious issue has become a proposed rule, known as the "gainful employment" rule, that would withhold federal aid from for-profit programs whose graduates are likely to carry high debt-to-income loads.
The department has said its goal is to crack down on colleges that overcharge and underdeliver in training students for jobs right after graduation."
As with Jennifer I do not support the notion that litigation is the appropriate avenue for determining the quality of the education as a breach of contract (unless specific promises - contracts - were agreed upon) - I would, however, like to expand her notion that not only should the administration be dealing with and determining "quality" issues - but so should accreditation agencies and trustees.
Wow! It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think accountability for astronomical tuition rates ought to be considered (Cynthia, I look forward to your take on this), I'm not sure the government is going to want to have to take this on...especially in today's market. To have a job, at all, is fortunate; to have one that pays well is nearly unheard of! And what about the folks who earn their degree, but choose to work part time, or not at all?
If we could find a way to get students to understand the debt:income potential, this whole thing would fix itself; they'd not enroll in those programs at all. I'm just not sure that's realistic...
And, Ken, regarding accreditation agencies and trustees: Agreed.
Ken - Thank you for sharing the article. I think, as the article points out, that having federal aid tied to students' "gainful employment" upon graduation is a slippery slope. If it happens in the for-profit sector, it could very likely spill over into the public...USF has a very high average graduate student debt rate, so what's to stop this from being an issue for us? It is an issue, indeed. I'm just not so sure the "gainful employment" and arbitrary calculations are the answer. But, that is the Dept. of Ed.'s style...FAFSA ring a bell?!
ReplyDeleteJason - I worked at Keiser University (when it was still College) as an Admissions Counselor (can anyone guess why that was a brief experience?) and I do agree that it's important for these types of schools to be upfront about transferability and accreditation. Keiser was at least accredited by SACS and upfront about transferability of credits being up to the institution you transfer to. The thing is that these colleges have very confusing financial aid processes and I don't think even the most intelligent of students really understands the kind of debt they are looking at compared to their potential income. Like I said, I had a hard time enrolling students and instead moved to a position focused on retention. This is just as much an issue....most of the students I met with were either unemployed or in low-wage jobs and almost all had dependents. If they left before graduating, they had a good amount of debt but no additional earning potential.
I don't know what the answer is, but it is a problem that is worth exploring.
Jennifer - Ahhhh, yes...to make everyone financially more literate would be a worthwhile cause; however, it probably would not solve behavior. Research on financial literacy and borrowing habits has so far not really shown a decrease in borrowing behavior for those more literate. There is much research yet to be done on how to change behavior and financial literacy does not appear to be enough. I do think it is important, however.
Your comments and perspectives on this article have all been very interesting. “Quality of education” has long been a difficult topic to define since it means something different to each of us, depending upon our own goals. One of my job responsibilities is to approve or deny student's requests for late adds, drops, withdrawals, and refunds. On occasion, a student will ask for a refund and late drop due to what the student claims is "bad teaching". I vividly recall one student’s avowal that her anatomy and physiology professor was not teaching her appropriately. When I questioned her on this statement (her professor was noted for his excellence in teaching) she insisted that he wasn’t teaching the class what they needed to know for the upcoming test, but he said that he expected them to use critical thinking skills to apply the knowledge they were learning. She said she needed an “A” in this class in order to compete for the limited access nursing program, and if he wasn’t going to tell the class what was important and what wasn’t, she didn’t know how to study for this exam and feared that she wouldn’t get the “A” she wanted. Due to what she felt was his “poor teaching skills”, and therefore the professor’s failing to adequately prepare her to perform well on the tests, she was requesting a refund. She threatened a law suit if she failed to achieve the “A” she felt she had a right to have and if that grade prevented her from gaining entrance into the nursing program. Even after we had spent some time discussing her request, she didn’t seem to fully understand and accept the concept that critical thinking skills are vital in the medical field and that her professor was teaching the class not to simply memorize facts, but to learn to ask questions and to really understand their course work.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the issue of financial aid, I think that many students fail to fully understand how federal financial aid works, and that the government is actually trying to require that we, as institutions, work harder to provide some clarity to this topic. I’ve seen financial aid “award” letters that fail to identify a loan versus grant money. As an example, I met with a student who had received an award letter from a private school (who shall remain anonymous). The student was trying to decide whether to attend that school or PHCC, and was very upset that PHCC was not offering him more financial aid. In reviewing his award letter from the private school, I noted that he was being “awarded” 2 different types of loans; I mentioned this to him and he said, “No, if it were a loan, they would have had to tell me it’s a loan, and not call it financial aid.” He then called the other school and was informed that his “award” did include 2 loans which would pay the majority of his tuition and fees, with his grant money covering very little of the total cost of attendance. The student was extremely upset with this information and was astounded that he would have been paying back such high amounts of student loans – and that he hadn’t been informed of this debt in advance. I think educational institutions overall are doing a better job of providing upfront financial counseling, and there are a number of online financial literacy programs which can assist students with understanding the full impact of borrowing and debt management; however, we still need to continue focusing on insuring that our students fully understand how their current financial aid may impact their future.
It seems that the general opinion is that the courts are handling educational malpractice claims correctly. Finstad allows them to stay out of the way for most of the issues that come through the court system because the courts usually have to further investigate into the educational institution policy and procedures to determine if the plaintiff’s claim in factual.
ReplyDeleteThere may have been a case to argue in the Wickstrom v. North Idaho College but since the plaintiffs complaint in Wickstrom did not explain how the course failed to comply with the contract, the Supreme Court should not have given them the option to amend their complaint. I agree with the two justices who dissented, saying the claim should have been barred by public policy because it required a judicial inquiry into the quality and adequacy of the school’s course instruction. This seems to go directly against what Finstad argues for.
I think this system is set-up properly to handle most of these claims, especially the claims but the students that they were not given an education to prepare them for the “real-world” or to walk on to a job the day after graduation. It is also highlighted that higher education is a “highly collaborative process.” The student’s need to work just as hard as the faculty members do in ensuring that they are being prepared for life after college.
I agree that the courts made the right decision in leaving these “issues of adequacy” up to the institution. As it was mentioned, addressing and ruling in the favor of the plaintiffs would open the floodgates of litigation. There would be an endless influx of complaints from unsatisfied students. But, although courts should steer clear of these types of litigation cases, Ken made an excellent point in that accrediting agencies and BOT’s should hold educational institutions accountable. If an institution is going to make a claim to boast about its ability to enhance the success of its students, it should be able to deliver in some way. Otherwise its claim is simply a LIE and in my opinion, agreed to be a plausible breach of contract to be considered. However, that’s not to say that every institution can (or will) promise its students jobs upon graduation. Still, similar to the excerpt that mentioned Vatterott’s ability to get students jobs with certain companies- if this weren’t true, Vatterott should not have used this statement as a marketing ploy. I believe that that truth shall make you free (from litigation)!
ReplyDeleteKen and Edna, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments regarding institution accountability and quality of education. I have several friends who have attended insitutions believing they were accredited and/or were oblivious to the amount of debt they would incur upon graduation. For a Psy.D. (85 hour program), my friend's institution charges over $1,000 per credit hour. This is in comparison to USF's Ph.D. in Psychology, which is significantly less. Granted, the Psy.D. program is clinical in nature while USF's program is research based. Nonetheless, the difference is astonishing and unless the individual is going into private practice, with a partner who has start-up capital, I am not sure they will be in a position to re-pay a $90k+ loan. That is very disheartening. There has to be more government regulation regarding these types of institutions.
ReplyDeleteI want to thank everyone on their feedback on the three discuss questions. I really enjoyed reading everyone’s insights into the article. It’s clear that we all agree on the court’s handling of educational malpractice claims to be logical. I believe that the field of Higher Education is capable of handling educational malpractice issues without government involvement. It’s my belief that higher education administrators are willing to establish policies and procedures to help protect students from educational malpractice. I agree with Donna B about the need to help students to fully understand the process of financial literacy. However I also believe there’s a need to help them understand the academic process. This is especially the case with our students from under-served areas with family members who are unfamiliar with higher education academic processes. As part of institution accountability and quality, I believe it is the institution’s responsibility to set the correct expectations for students. The courts are better suited to help with clarification of the laws and examination of existing policy.
ReplyDeletehe academic responsibility of an institution is usually given in its mission statement and the responsibility of that institution is to live up to that mission statement and promise with results. The result should be that the student will earn a quality accredited degreewhich will teach them what they will need to know in the real world. As a graduate, that same student should have the basic knowledge that will lead them to a resonably gainful employment. I have read the fine print of some of these on-line law schools and I remember when a certain storefront school was under serious scrutiny for not being clear about its accreditation status and financial aid practices. Place like that deserve the full arm of the "shut-down".
ReplyDeleteIn my own experience, I graduated from the FAMU/FSU College of Engineering. There were all types of things that I was not taught. One in particular was the concept of OSHA training. That lack of knowledge almost cost me my life on my first job. I suppose if I dug real hard I could have come up with a reason to sue and end up being another one of your case studies, but I thing that a little bit of personal responsibility is a whole lot better than becoming another example of a frivolous case and case study.
In response to your questions Reggie -
ReplyDeleteYes, the courts handling of educational malpractice claims does seem logical to me. I feel that the quality of educational services received is subjective based upon each person. For example, instruction. A student may feel that I am a "quality" accounting instructor, but not another accounting instructor (or vice versa). How does the court decide what is "quality instruction?" Further, higher education institutions should retain the rights as to what programs, curriculum, required credit hours, etc. are offered and should be able to change those based upon whatever criteria they choose.
I do agree with the courts handling of breach of contract if instructors were often absent. Higher education institutions have a responsibility to ensure that if they are going to offer courses, that they have qualified instructors.
Prior to this article, I never thought of "educational malpractice." I realize that students complain and sometimes their complaints are unfounded, but never considered that a student could make a case for "educational malpractice!" I only ever thought of malpractice in terms of professions (i.e., attorneys, CPAs, doctors, etc.)