EXTENDED MPH TRAINING A Perspective on Non-Traditional AcademicPrograms in the Health Sciences
Holder, M.P.H., Ph.D.* University of Tennessee Memphis, Tennessee
Lee
Non-traditional academic programs are not new in concept, but of them is a rather recent phenomenon. Wiedner describes a non-traditional program as a traditional program delivered in a non.traditional method to a non-traditional audience.5 Literature began to reflect current needs for innovative educational approaches for degree programs in the early 1970’s. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education report &dquo;Less Time, More Options,&dquo; contains two recommendations which should be of special interest and relevance to the health professions: That profession, wherever possible, create alternative routes of entry other than full time college attendance, and reduce the number
implementation
of narrow, one-level professions which do not afford opportunities for advancement. That alternative avenues by which students can earn degrees or complete a major portion of their work for a degree be expanded to increase accessibility of higher education for those to whom it is now unavailable because of work schedules, geographic location, or responsibilities in the home.4 Two major statements were made in 1973 as the result of analyses made by the Commission on Non-Traditional Study, chaired by Samuel B. Gould. The Commission report &dquo;Diversity by Design&dquo; emphasized the important observation that education must be responsive to the world it serves or suffer from the danger of becoming static and lifeless.2 In an extension of this study, Cyril O. Houle discussed the &dquo;external degree and various alternatives to the traditional internal degree programs.&dquo; 3
Such terms as &dquo;external degree,&dquo; &dquo;extension degree,&dquo; &dquo;adult degree,&dquo; &dquo;open university,&dquo; and &dquo;university without walls&dquo; are becoming commonplace in educational jargon. Several educational systems are adopting non-traditional degree program options for a wide variety of *Lee Holder is Dean, College of Community and Allied Health Professions and Professor, Community Medicine, The University of Tennessee Center for the Health Sciences, Memphis, Tennessee. He was formerly on the Health Education faculty of the University of North Carolina, School of Public Health where he participated in the development and evaluation of the first extension MPH program amongschools of public
health. 262
Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 17, 2015
students. As examples, in 1970 New York Education Commissioner Ewald Nyquist announced plans to establish an external degree program in New York State. In 1971, Pennsylvania State University
organized a &dquo;Commission on External Degree Programs&dquo; to study the appropriateness of such programs to that institution. In 1972, Syracuse University announced the beginning of a Central New York Consortium for &dquo;External Learning Service.&dquo; (References to these programs are found in a variety of unpublished announcements and reports of educational councils and associations.) By 1973, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) reported that 138 (24.6 percent) of its 560 member institutions
provided off-campus collegiate credit programs. Of the
138
schools,
26
offered full undergraduate programs and 23 offered full graduate
programs off-campus.’
.
only have academic institutions become interested in nontraditional, off-campus, externalized degree programs, but various administrative agencies have become interested as well. In 1970 the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) initiated a program which brought the university to the student in a variety of locations. The University of Northern Colorado Center for Special and Advanced Programs was a key participant in attempting to blend academic with practical experience in off-campus settings conducive to federal employees. Not
Application to Public Health Development of externalized off-campus programs in public health began in the late 1960s. One of the first programs was organized at the University of North Carolina in 1969. The Master of Public Health (MPH) degree in Health Administration was offered at Raleigh, some thirty miles from the Chapel Hill campus. Students were employees of state and local health agencies primarily the state health department. Faculty members provided courses comparable to those -
offered at the UNC campus at facilities made available at the state health department. Monday and Friday mornings were devoted to classes with students given release time from normal job
responsibilities. Other non-traditional programs were being developed elsewhere in schools of public health throughout the United States. Selected programs, describing alternative approaches taken, are contained in this monograph. The Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health off-campus program is described by Green et al. The Johns Hopkins approach was similar to the North Carolina approach i.e., exporting the bulk of the MPH program to Washington, D.C. The University of Michigan School of Public Health program, -
263
Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 17, 2015
reported by Penchansky, brought non-traditional students to the campus four days each month for intensive study sessions. The Michigan program, labeled &dquo;on-job/on-campus,&dquo; enrolled only those , persons employed in the top two levels of a health agency. Interestingly, an earned baccalaureate degree is not prerequisite to admission in this program of graduate professional studies. The third approach, reported by Parlette et al in this monograph,
explains the multi-campus California program, the four curriculum models used, and the process used to develop the program. In the California approach, classes are offered both on-campus and offcampus in a coordinated sequence. Observations 1. It becomes apparent that each of the off-campus programs was developed to meet needs in the field of public health. The fact that development of those programs generally preceded the recommendations of the Carnegie Commission (and similar reports) may be indicative of a fairly tightly knit field where professional schools relate closely with health care operating agencies that employ many of their graduates. For survival, it is imperative that the professional schools be relevant to changing community needs and
demands. As an illustration. Green et al report that only two per cent of the 300 administrative public health personnel employed in the Department of Human Resources in the District of Columbia had received formal college-level academic training in health care administration; hence, need for the program was obvious and Johns
Hopkins University responded. 2. Characteristics of the off-campus student body differ from the oncampus groups in a variety of ways. They normally differ in ethnic composition, age, and experience. Of the Johns Hopkins students about 50 percent were Black; they were older and had more work experience than on-campus colleagues. Similar differences were observed in the California program. 3. The off-campus programs provide unique opportunities for people to receive graduate professional education who otherwise probably could not enroll in an on-campus program. Financial and family obligations, along with inability to get a leave of absence from work for more than one year, are among the‘factors inhibiting many of the off-campus students from entering regular programs. 4. In evaluations done thus far, off-campus students rate the curricula relatively higher in relevance, interest, and satisfaction than do on-campus students. Both groups of students criticize having &dquo;lockstep&dquo; course sequences without opportunity for taking electives of their choice. 264
Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 17, 2015
5. not
of students, faculty, reference materials, and the like do to present the overwhelming problems that one might
Logistics seem
anticipate. and achievement appear comparable in both on- and off-campus groups of students. In an unpublished evaluation of the North Carolina program, both on- and off-campus failure rates on a final comprehensive examination approximated 15 percent. Faculty reported both groups to be of comparable caliber. 7. The off-campus program gives a school an opportunity to increase numbers of students and graduates in spite of limited facilities and resources. The Johns Hopkins report indicates a 20 percent increase in numbers of graduates due to the off-campus program. 8. Finally, the programs appear to have the potential for enhancing both public health administrative practice and academic programs. Green et al indicate improved performance of graduates and satisfaction with the program. At the same time, the interaction of university faculty with &dquo;real life&dquo; practice situations serves to increase understanding of problems being faced and enriches course content. 6. Student
performance
Special Considerations For off-campus programs, academic planners must necessarily consider a wide variety of factors. For example, there is some uncertainty regarding the pool of off-campus students, especially if agency administrative personnel constitute the pool. It may be necessary to extend the opportunities for enrollment to those in nonrelated fields or to those just entering the health field. In such cases, the advantages of job-related experience will not be present. This will dictate changes in curriculum and course offerings from those programs generally described at present. Based on off-campus student reactions, a more flexible course structure is indicated. Multiple course offerings, allowing for electives, are wanted rather than a lock-step program. This complicates resource requirements and could increase expense of the program considerably. Offering courses in concentrated blocks is preferred by most of the students surveyed. With job responsibilities, the students have difficulty meeting assignments on time and concentration on one subject at a time seems to reduce the strain somewhat. Rather than provide an off-campus program for employees of one agency, it appears preferable to select students from a variety of agencies. This provides a better mix of students, reduces hierarchical problems of employees and their supervisors in the same class, and reduces problems due to encroachment of class time on job responsibilities when too many employees of one agency are on academic release time. 265
Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 17, 2015
SUMMARY
In the 1970s, non-traditional academic programs began to gain impetus, aided by studies and recommendations by such groups as the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education and the Commission on Non-Traditional Study. Schools of public health have taken the lead in implementing nontraditional, off-campus programs which are relevant to personnel in health service agencies. Reported in this monograph are three programs representing alternative approaches to off-campus public health programs. As our data base increases and new programs are
reported, we may see rapid growth in non-traditional programs, resulting in significant changes in academic programs preparing public health practitioners. REFERENCES Accreditation in Adult and Continuing Education Programs. Atlanta, Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 1973. 2. Commission on Non-Traditional Study: Diversity by Design. San Francisco, Jossey1.
Bass, 1973. 3. Houle CO: The External Degree. San Francisco, Jossey.Bass, 1973. 4. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education: Less Time, More Options: Education Beyond the High School. New York, McGraw Hill, 1971, pp 14, 20. 5. Wiedner B: Proceedings, Association of University Evening Colleges. Norman, Okla, University of Oklahoma, 1973, p 101.
266
Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 17, 2015
Holder, M.P.H., Ph.D.* University of Tennessee Memphis, Tennessee
Lee
Non-traditional academic programs are not new in concept, but of them is a rather recent phenomenon. Wiedner describes a non-traditional program as a traditional program delivered in a non.traditional method to a non-traditional audience.5 Literature began to reflect current needs for innovative educational approaches for degree programs in the early 1970’s. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education report &dquo;Less Time, More Options,&dquo; contains two recommendations which should be of special interest and relevance to the health professions: That profession, wherever possible, create alternative routes of entry other than full time college attendance, and reduce the number
implementation
of narrow, one-level professions which do not afford opportunities for advancement. That alternative avenues by which students can earn degrees or complete a major portion of their work for a degree be expanded to increase accessibility of higher education for those to whom it is now unavailable because of work schedules, geographic location, or responsibilities in the home.4 Two major statements were made in 1973 as the result of analyses made by the Commission on Non-Traditional Study, chaired by Samuel B. Gould. The Commission report &dquo;Diversity by Design&dquo; emphasized the important observation that education must be responsive to the world it serves or suffer from the danger of becoming static and lifeless.2 In an extension of this study, Cyril O. Houle discussed the &dquo;external degree and various alternatives to the traditional internal degree programs.&dquo; 3
Such terms as &dquo;external degree,&dquo; &dquo;extension degree,&dquo; &dquo;adult degree,&dquo; &dquo;open university,&dquo; and &dquo;university without walls&dquo; are becoming commonplace in educational jargon. Several educational systems are adopting non-traditional degree program options for a wide variety of *Lee Holder is Dean, College of Community and Allied Health Professions and Professor, Community Medicine, The University of Tennessee Center for the Health Sciences, Memphis, Tennessee. He was formerly on the Health Education faculty of the University of North Carolina, School of Public Health where he participated in the development and evaluation of the first extension MPH program amongschools of public
health. 262
Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 17, 2015
students. As examples, in 1970 New York Education Commissioner Ewald Nyquist announced plans to establish an external degree program in New York State. In 1971, Pennsylvania State University
organized a &dquo;Commission on External Degree Programs&dquo; to study the appropriateness of such programs to that institution. In 1972, Syracuse University announced the beginning of a Central New York Consortium for &dquo;External Learning Service.&dquo; (References to these programs are found in a variety of unpublished announcements and reports of educational councils and associations.) By 1973, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) reported that 138 (24.6 percent) of its 560 member institutions
provided off-campus collegiate credit programs. Of the
138
schools,
26
offered full undergraduate programs and 23 offered full graduate
programs off-campus.’
.
only have academic institutions become interested in nontraditional, off-campus, externalized degree programs, but various administrative agencies have become interested as well. In 1970 the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) initiated a program which brought the university to the student in a variety of locations. The University of Northern Colorado Center for Special and Advanced Programs was a key participant in attempting to blend academic with practical experience in off-campus settings conducive to federal employees. Not
Application to Public Health Development of externalized off-campus programs in public health began in the late 1960s. One of the first programs was organized at the University of North Carolina in 1969. The Master of Public Health (MPH) degree in Health Administration was offered at Raleigh, some thirty miles from the Chapel Hill campus. Students were employees of state and local health agencies primarily the state health department. Faculty members provided courses comparable to those -
offered at the UNC campus at facilities made available at the state health department. Monday and Friday mornings were devoted to classes with students given release time from normal job
responsibilities. Other non-traditional programs were being developed elsewhere in schools of public health throughout the United States. Selected programs, describing alternative approaches taken, are contained in this monograph. The Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health off-campus program is described by Green et al. The Johns Hopkins approach was similar to the North Carolina approach i.e., exporting the bulk of the MPH program to Washington, D.C. The University of Michigan School of Public Health program, -
263
Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 17, 2015
reported by Penchansky, brought non-traditional students to the campus four days each month for intensive study sessions. The Michigan program, labeled &dquo;on-job/on-campus,&dquo; enrolled only those , persons employed in the top two levels of a health agency. Interestingly, an earned baccalaureate degree is not prerequisite to admission in this program of graduate professional studies. The third approach, reported by Parlette et al in this monograph,
explains the multi-campus California program, the four curriculum models used, and the process used to develop the program. In the California approach, classes are offered both on-campus and offcampus in a coordinated sequence. Observations 1. It becomes apparent that each of the off-campus programs was developed to meet needs in the field of public health. The fact that development of those programs generally preceded the recommendations of the Carnegie Commission (and similar reports) may be indicative of a fairly tightly knit field where professional schools relate closely with health care operating agencies that employ many of their graduates. For survival, it is imperative that the professional schools be relevant to changing community needs and
demands. As an illustration. Green et al report that only two per cent of the 300 administrative public health personnel employed in the Department of Human Resources in the District of Columbia had received formal college-level academic training in health care administration; hence, need for the program was obvious and Johns
Hopkins University responded. 2. Characteristics of the off-campus student body differ from the oncampus groups in a variety of ways. They normally differ in ethnic composition, age, and experience. Of the Johns Hopkins students about 50 percent were Black; they were older and had more work experience than on-campus colleagues. Similar differences were observed in the California program. 3. The off-campus programs provide unique opportunities for people to receive graduate professional education who otherwise probably could not enroll in an on-campus program. Financial and family obligations, along with inability to get a leave of absence from work for more than one year, are among the‘factors inhibiting many of the off-campus students from entering regular programs. 4. In evaluations done thus far, off-campus students rate the curricula relatively higher in relevance, interest, and satisfaction than do on-campus students. Both groups of students criticize having &dquo;lockstep&dquo; course sequences without opportunity for taking electives of their choice. 264
Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 17, 2015
5. not
of students, faculty, reference materials, and the like do to present the overwhelming problems that one might
Logistics seem
anticipate. and achievement appear comparable in both on- and off-campus groups of students. In an unpublished evaluation of the North Carolina program, both on- and off-campus failure rates on a final comprehensive examination approximated 15 percent. Faculty reported both groups to be of comparable caliber. 7. The off-campus program gives a school an opportunity to increase numbers of students and graduates in spite of limited facilities and resources. The Johns Hopkins report indicates a 20 percent increase in numbers of graduates due to the off-campus program. 8. Finally, the programs appear to have the potential for enhancing both public health administrative practice and academic programs. Green et al indicate improved performance of graduates and satisfaction with the program. At the same time, the interaction of university faculty with &dquo;real life&dquo; practice situations serves to increase understanding of problems being faced and enriches course content. 6. Student
performance
Special Considerations For off-campus programs, academic planners must necessarily consider a wide variety of factors. For example, there is some uncertainty regarding the pool of off-campus students, especially if agency administrative personnel constitute the pool. It may be necessary to extend the opportunities for enrollment to those in nonrelated fields or to those just entering the health field. In such cases, the advantages of job-related experience will not be present. This will dictate changes in curriculum and course offerings from those programs generally described at present. Based on off-campus student reactions, a more flexible course structure is indicated. Multiple course offerings, allowing for electives, are wanted rather than a lock-step program. This complicates resource requirements and could increase expense of the program considerably. Offering courses in concentrated blocks is preferred by most of the students surveyed. With job responsibilities, the students have difficulty meeting assignments on time and concentration on one subject at a time seems to reduce the strain somewhat. Rather than provide an off-campus program for employees of one agency, it appears preferable to select students from a variety of agencies. This provides a better mix of students, reduces hierarchical problems of employees and their supervisors in the same class, and reduces problems due to encroachment of class time on job responsibilities when too many employees of one agency are on academic release time. 265
Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 17, 2015
SUMMARY
In the 1970s, non-traditional academic programs began to gain impetus, aided by studies and recommendations by such groups as the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education and the Commission on Non-Traditional Study. Schools of public health have taken the lead in implementing nontraditional, off-campus programs which are relevant to personnel in health service agencies. Reported in this monograph are three programs representing alternative approaches to off-campus public health programs. As our data base increases and new programs are
reported, we may see rapid growth in non-traditional programs, resulting in significant changes in academic programs preparing public health practitioners. REFERENCES Accreditation in Adult and Continuing Education Programs. Atlanta, Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 1973. 2. Commission on Non-Traditional Study: Diversity by Design. San Francisco, Jossey1.
Bass, 1973. 3. Houle CO: The External Degree. San Francisco, Jossey.Bass, 1973. 4. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education: Less Time, More Options: Education Beyond the High School. New York, McGraw Hill, 1971, pp 14, 20. 5. Wiedner B: Proceedings, Association of University Evening Colleges. Norman, Okla, University of Oklahoma, 1973, p 101.
266
Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on March 17, 2015
