Accreditation
is Necessary for Accountability
Tommy Boone, PhD,
MPH, FASEP, EPC
Professor and Chair
Department of Exercise Physiolgoy
College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN 55811
ACADEMIC PROGRAMS
THAT list “exercise physiology” as an area of study are actually advertising
they have the competencies to graduate exercise physiologists. The
question that chairs, deans, and directors (and even vice-presidents) must
ask: “Do the students have the abilities needed to achieve success in exercise
physiology?” Most authorities believe that professional preparation
programs require teacher competency. Are the teachers qualified to
teach exercise physiology courses? How do we know they are qualified?
Do exercise physiologists have data that have been analyzed and evaluated?
Do department heads have data that demonstrate excellence in faculty teaching?
Surely, the curriculum itself can’t define the accountability of the faculty.
Who, then, demands an accounting for and responsibility to the students
and their parents, and the taxpayer's money and time?
The point of this brief article
is obvious, or it should be, and it is simply that graduates from exercise
physiology programs (more frequently referred to as exercise science, although
not necessarily the same) may not have the professional competence to practice
exercise physiology. The word “practice” means any and all general
and/or specific duties performed by an exercise physiologist across a variety
of different career options. The issue here is that the institution
engaged in exercise physiology preparation is morally and legally responsible
for preparing the students to assume the duties of the profession after
graduation. The faculty is responsible for ensuring that the students
get the education and/or other requisite skills to work as exercise physiologists
in the public sector. Interestingly, it appears that the majority
of the chairs, deans, and directors have not raised the matter of competence.
That is, if the faculty members have the PhD degree in exercise physiology
(which technically may not exist, or even has academic training related
to it), teacher-competency is not questioned.
It is logical that all professors
should be held accountable for their teaching and all academic programs
should be accredited. Both accountability and accreditation are linked
and, therefore, are qualities common to professional programs of study.
Both benefit everyone involved, especially the students. Identification
with the accredited program is important for professional status, advancement
in the field, and career opportunities. Accreditation is required
for most licensure programs to practice. The department benefits
from the ongoing counsel and advice of the onsite visitors and the accreditation
process. Accredited programs also benefit from increased financial
opportunities for public and private funding. The profession, students,
and faculty benefit from the establishment of educational standards.
The public is assured that the exercise physiologist is a professional.
Accreditation and accountability
are inextricably related and, in the end, the exercise physiologist is
a direct reflection of the college or university, department, and faculty
responsible for the graduate’s education. Accreditation, therefore,
helps establish both a good institution with good faculty and a competent
product. Academic exercise physiologists are no exception to this
rule. It applies equally across the spectrum of academic majors and
all professional fields of study. There isn’t any argument, or least
none that makes any sense, against accreditation and its foundation in
the process of professional preparation. Hence, department chairs,
deans, and directors can’t avoid the issue of accreditation.
The American Society of Exercise
Physiologists (ASEP) has outlined the process of professional preparation
for exercise physiologists. The faculty of each department and/or
institution that offers what is generally referred to as exercise physiology
should be charged with the responsibility of some measure of control over
the students’ education. In so doing, the institutions gain respect
and confidence from the other academic departments and the public.
There are two ways to gain the control: the first is by regional
associations of colleges throughout the United States, called general accreditation.
The accreditation establishes the academic integrity of the college or
university. It does not accredit the individual academic programs,
however. There is no assurance that the academic major has competent
teachers or that the academic major is accredited. Accreditation
of the academic major is the second control step in the preparation of
professionals. It involves specialized accreditation. The National
Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) is the recognized
accrediting agency for specialized accreditation.
The NCATE standards and guidelines
are used to accredit many, if not most, academic programs such as physical
education or kinesiology that, as an academic major, may have exercise
science (or exercise physiology) as a concentration or emphasis.
Frequently, students with a concentration in exercise science finish college
and refer to themselves as exercise physiologists. Although the kinesiology
major is accredited by NCATE, the academic minor is not. That is,
the specialized accreditation acknowledges the academic major, but it does
not accredit the academic minor. Without accreditation of the academic
minor, there is no agreement on standards and guidelines. The end
result is that the student graduates from an institution of which the institution
itself has no national standards and guidelines. The lack of accreditation
leaves the public sector without a means to protect against incompetence.
It is the ASEP interest and
emphasis on accountability that has brought the issue of accreditation
before its members. When reduced to simplest terms, departments,
schools, and colleges can no longer offer an academic concentration as
though it constitutes an academic major in the public sector work force.
In short, the department, school, or college is accountable to the students,
their parents, and the public sector. A major part of that accountability
is the control over important educational factors that help to ensure quality
and integrity of the students’ education. If the department, school,
college, and/or faculty choose to overlook this important point, each will
still be held accountable for those factors that they have control over
but are not performing their duty in doing so.
The ASEP initiative is a
powerful step in the right direction to help the administrators and faculty
make the commitment to professional preparation and accreditation.
As Barrow (1) has pointed out in regards to physical education, “The crux
of the problem is to get the mediocre institutions up to or above the average
and the good institution to do better.”
This desire to produce better
departments, professors, and professionals who can meet their responsibility
with respect and expertise is exactly the same objective for exercise physiology.
If the department chairs, deans, directors, and professors are not interested
in establishing criteria for professional preparation and excellence, then
they should be counseled out of providing the academic minor or any academic
program that mirrors the practice of exercise physiology.
In summary, it is that simple.
The fact that no standards exist either in course offerings or equipment
requires an evaluation and rethinking. This is a facet over which
the faculty and the institution have control. The ultimate proof
of professionalism of the faculty and, therefore, the worth of the exercise
physiology program of study, is found as a professional in the public sector.
If an institution of higher learning is really interested in professionalism
and academic integrity, it must plan for and follow-through with the ASEP
accreditation.
References
1. Barrow, H.M. (1977).
Man and movement: principles of physical education. Philadelphia, PA: Lea
& Febiger, p. 375.
Copyright
©1997-2001 American Society of Exercise Physiologists. All Rights
Reserved.
ASEP
Table of Contents
Questions/comments
