Parker College recently provided feedback and took an official position on the proposed revision of the CCE standards.The college found the process constructive and insightful. Parker thoroughly and carefully read the standards and found some revisions that they feel will be beneficial to the profession and some areas of concern that they felt needed further clarity.
First, Parker commends CCE for the revisions that will strengthen the institution and the profession. Those standards include faculty involvement in the admissions process, the inclusion of mandated policies and procedures governing career placement, standards relating to faculty development, and additional clarity on the necessity of a college master plan. These will provide a tremendous benefit to Parker's students and make the college a more effective and cohesive institution.
Some of the areas on which Parker would like to see additional clarity or further expansion include the following:
- Student admissions (pg. 19) - GPA admissions requirement increase to 3.0. Parker's average entrance GPA is 3.0 or higher for most of its entering cohorts; however, Parker recommends a phase in period scale that will allow CCE and its member institutions the opportunity to evaluate the impact of an increased GPA requirement on admissions. A drastic change could negatively impact admissions and institutions need the opportunity to mitigate this change through other means. Perhaps an incremental step from 2.5 to 2.75 finally reaching 3.0 over the course of three to five years would be a feasible solution.
- Faculty involvement in admissions (pg. 17) - Parker is in favor of actively engaging faculty in the admissions process; however, the standards are not specific on the amount or type of involvement the council would like to see. Are there specific requirements or is the level of involvement at the discretion of the institution?
- Licensing for jurisdictions (pg. 19) - Informing applicants of regulatory requirements for each state jurisdiction could place an undue burden on the institution. While Parker feels it is important to apprise applicants of the general regulatory requirements, it will be challenging to apprise applicants of jurisdictional requirements in all states. States makes adjustments to these regulatory requirements and the institutions are not always informed in a timely manner. A feasible alternative to this requirement would be to inform applicants where the information can be found and to assist in the search of the information whenever necessary. Applicants should also be informed of their responsibility to frequently confirm these requirements throughout their doctor of chiropractic matriculation.
- Doctor of chiropractic degree programs or equivalent as determined by CCE (pg. iii) - This statement needs stated criteria under which CCE would identify a doctor of chiropractic degree equivalent. While this would be a beneficial practice for foreign institutions, without some guidelines for equivalency the determination could be too subjective and thus compromise the integrity of the doctor of chiropractic program. It is Parker's expectation that the only terminal degree for the chiropractic profession would remain the doctor of chiropractic (DC) degree.
- Subluxation - The proposed standards have removed all use of this term. Parker feels that the inclusion of this term in the examination, treatment, and diagnosis of patients is imperative to the chiropractic profession. It is crucial that this term be included throughout the CCE standards, glossary, and policies and procedures.
Parker is appreciative for the opportunity to provide feedback and looks forward to reading continual revisions of these standards as the college strives to develop chiropractic educational standards that will serve the best interest of the chiropractic institutions, profession, and those Parker serves.
Source: Parker College of Chiropractic