The TREC Commentary is dead...long live the Commentary!

[Michael R. Boyett]

OK, I admit to taking a little literary license with the subject line of this thread. My hyperbole is overstated somewhat (can that be done?) but not by much I don’t think. Attached below, you will find my notes from today’s Inspector Advisory Committee meeting and, as usual, my personal notes are in bold, blue italic font for easy identification.

The proposed SOP Commentary really took a hit today with a strong disagreement surfacing between the Inspectors Advisory Committee and TREC as to the logistics and politics of incorporating the proposed Commentary. Essentially, further Commentary work was tabled until such time as TREC and the IAC can get on the same page regarding this issue. Maybe the Commentary will be brought from the back burner in the next few weeks, maybe it’s done for now. Time will tell.

TREC IAC 050709 Notes.pdf

[Mark Roach]

GREAT News! Thanks for sharing your notes.
I wonder what they are talking about with the correspondence courses?

Thanks'
Mark

[Michael R. Boyett]

Oh...if you want to decipher what the bill says about correspondence you can read it here.

[Richard Fitzwater]

Thanks Michael!

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by mroach

I wonder what they are talking about with the correspondence courses?

The Bill regulates "correspondence" which could be different than on line. It is a grab by TREC to force educators to pony up cash for course approval. It also eliminates private educators who do not have a university affiliation. For example, I do not think AHIT or ASHI correspondence is University affiliated . . . but Dearborn is. It's all about eliminating competition and making money.