Advanced Placement Courses Makeover Part 2

Consider the effort to advertise value through advanced placement courses.  For many, reformers tried to use the system as a handle for giving under-served learners an excellent acceptance edge.  After all, in the last years of the last millennium, institutions seemed positive on learners with AP programs on their transcripts.  But most AP programs were administered at private and suburban academic institutions.  Consequently, reformers desired to improve their advanced placement course programs, knowing they could level the playing field by offering equivalent access to an elite product. Yet, the development of the AP Program did not advertise real equality between the academic haves and have-nots. Because once the AP Program achieved critical mass, it lost its performance as a sign of difference. Soon, ratings of institutions (Dartmouth being the latest) improved their guidelines around giving credit for AP training or favoring it in acceptance opinions.  And eventually, top level suburban and private academic institutions started to drop the system, saying it’s obsolete, overly-restrictive, and too focused toward multiple choice assessments.

Consider now the recent move by the College Board to recover curricular importance and rigor to the AP product.  Taking seriously the charge that advanced placement courses were no longer in line with educating methods in higher education, the College Board has redeveloped the system.  The new program will motivate more work in technology laboratories and less parroting back of treatments, more work on traditional thinking and less recall skills of traditional details. That all appears to be very good.  But it will do little to improve learning and educating, especially at academic institutions with low-levels of educational and management potential.

To be clear, these are excellent improvements and programs like advanced placement courses should continue to be enhanced and improved.  But they will not take care of the further issues that impact academic quality and opportunity in the United States.

National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission

The National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission or NLNAC is the enterprise within the National League for Nursing that is responsible for the qualification of nursing knowledge schools and programs. The NLNAC regulating body is consisting of communicative management comprising nursing education, nursing service administration, and the public. The Percentage, independent and separate of NLN, both administratively and economically, has the only power and responsibility for carrying out the obligations natural in the qualification process.

The NLN was established in 1893 as the American Society of Superintendents of Training Schools for Nurses of Exercising Educational institutions for nurses was the first company for nursing in U.S. In 1912 it was relabeled the National League for Nursing Education and launched the first Standard Curriculum for Schools of Nursing in 1917. In 1952 the NLN along with the National Organization for Public Health Nursing as the National League for Nursing and presumed liability for the qualification of nursing schools in the U.S. The National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission, a wholly-owned supplementary independently works elections for NLNAC chosen roles to be consistent with the U.S. Department of Education rules applicable for the national identification of accrediting agencies by the U.S. Secretary of Education.

You might be familiar with the term “NLN accreditation” in relation to a nursing knowledge program and considered what it means. National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission qualification provides to offer guarantee that educational institutions and nursing programs meet or surpass certain requirements and specifications. If a program is certified, the school is properly credentialed, the program will prepare you for the nursing career, and the majority of program graduate students pass their licensure examinations.