Recreation Education at the Close of the 20th Century.

Accreditation is the key for compassionate professionals

What were your plans for dealing with Y2K? That question is now truly past tense, but only a few months ago, its future implications left many people with great uncertainty. Y2K and all its accompanying concerns had become part of the lives of most Americans during the past couple of years. Certainly, news organizations reported daily on various levels of preparedness in all sectors of life. If the news stories happened to bypass the issue, the marketing of specific products or services reminded us of the uncertainty of lives dependent upon date-reliant computers.

Clearly other questions were relevant to the end-of-the-century culture. Other centuries had come and gone with serious questions asked at the close of one and answered early in the next. Near the close of the 19th century, orator and publisher Horace Greeley asked, "Have we no professors of play? Who will teach us incessant workers how to achieve leisure and enjoy it?"

Given the academic community of the late 19th century, the apparent answers were "no" and "no one."

Answering the Call

Within the first quarter of the 20th century, social movements had influenced the academic community to the point that educational programs were preparing to teach "incessant workers how to achieve leisure and enjoy it." Pioneers in leisure and recreation in American culture saw social and environmental needs and responded. Frederick Law Olmsted, Jane Addams, John Muir, Joseph Lee, Luther Gulick, Henry Curtis--all saw the turn from the 19th century to the 20th century. They all saw opportunities to help people around them to enjoy leisure and thus to enjoy life.

Their words document their understanding of society, environment and human opportunity. Olmsted stated, "The primary purpose of the Park is to provide the best practicable means to healthful recreation for the inhabitants of all classes." Muir wished to baptize all his fellow sinners in the beauties of nature. Henry Curtis asserted, "The greatest need of American life is some common meeting ground for the people where business might be forgotten, friendships formed, and cooperations established.

The playground seems to have great possibilities in this direction. It is already the social center for the children, and it is coming to be [the same] more and more for adults."

Johan Huizinga was even more certain of the connection between leisure, recreation space and people as he wrote, "For many years the conviction has grown upon me that civilization arises and unfolds in and as play."

But that understanding may be best demonstrated in the words of Harry Overstreet, "We have, to an extent, grown work-wise. In the future we shall grow leisure-wise."

Early in the 20th century, colleges and universities developed academic programs intended to prepare personnel to respond to those social needs. Doug Sessoms commented on those formative years as, "One of the major characteristics of a profession is its social mandate, its commitment to the amelioration of some social ill ... Universities were asked to include courses or portions of courses that focused on play and play operations." (Hawkins, 1998)

The quality of those academic programs and the need for them continued to be serious questions at many academic institutions nationwide. Some academic personnel denied the rigor or scholarly values in recreation, let alone leisure studies. Others believed the area of study was already encompassed within existing programs. Pat Farrell wrote of the struggle to provide answers to those questions: "We have struggled for respect in the human services field, the colleges and universities, the resource fund allocation processes, etc., and find ourselves always having to defend the idea of leisure, or argue that professionals are needed to bring sophistication and a value added essence to park and recreation services in both the public and private venues." (Farrell 1993a)

According to Sessoms, "there were certain forces taking place in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s that were moving recreation and parks to a level of distinction that clearly differentiated the profession from physical education teacher preparation." (Hawkins, 1998)

Whether those forces were social or academic could be debated, although history indicates both combined to advance recreation, parks and leisure services as a distinct field of study.

Farrell recalled the history of the movement in the academic community to improve the quality of education for recreation professionals: "In the 1950s, a small group of professionals decided the time was right to make a major commitment to upgrading the recreation professional preparation in colleges and universities across the United States. The increasing number of college curricula was diverse, yet scattered in focus and delivered by an unusual variety of talented faculty. Physical educators, foresters, sociologists, psychologists, landscape architects, social welfare professionals and many others saw the need to incorporate into their curricula these ideas of professional preparation of recreation managers or were instrumental in creating new programs of study on campuses across the country." (Farrell, 1993b)

By the 1960s, there were more than 300 academic programs in colleges and universities across the nation offering baccalaureate degrees related to parks and recreation. "Have we no professors of play?"

That question was easily answered. By the middle of the 20th century, we had many professors of play.

"Who will teach us incessant workers how to achieve leisure and enjoy it?" That question remained unanswered.

Achievement of "leisure" was studied. Enjoyment of "leisure" was incorporated into most professional definitions of the word. But the social application to the "incessant workers" proved to be a greater problem.

Who's Calling Now?

At least a portion of that greater problem resulted from the differences between the academic community and professional practice in parks and recreation. Terminology accepted in the academic community was often rejected in professional practice. Even the term "leisure" received varying levels of acceptance. Academic preparation in parks and recreation was discounted to the entry level in employment. Numerous other degrees were, and still are, deemed to be as valuable or more valuable in particular phases of professional practice. Too frequently, academic preparation was viewed as unnecessary--maybe even undesirable --in professional practice.

That perspective may still exist among park and recreation professionals, and it certainly exists in the larger society.

In a recent President's message to the Society of Park and Recreation Educators, Deb Bialeschki asked "What's so bad about basket-weaving?" At a reunion of former high school friends, she had experienced a social circumstance common to many people in parks and recreation. "When I was asked about what I was doing now, I replied that I was on the faculty in a department of recreation and leisure studies. There was that usual quiet moment as you could see people trying to figure out what that meant. Then one of my friends ... piped up and said, `Yeah, you know, right next door to basket-weaving.' ... So I went into my explanation that sounded very similar to the second day of my Introduction to Recreation course." (Bialeschki, 1999)

She concluded that "we have a lot of education to do--about our profession, about the values we bring to the individual and society, about the contributions we make to the quality of life."

That education must include those inside and outside the parks and recreation profession.

In response to Horace Greeley, a century later we now have `professors of play.' Despite the intervening century, those professors are still attempting to achieve the education of society regarding the values of leisure and how to enjoy it. A century after their existence was in question, those professors of play are now responding with questions. At the end of the 19th century, Greeley calls, What is our message and how do we deliver it?" "Is tourism part of our profession?" "Should therapeutic recreation separate from the broader field of leisure services?" A multitude of voices still asked these questions at the end of the twentieth century.

NRPA/AALR Accreditation as Quality Control

Has disparity in perspective within the profession and in the larger society resulted from variation in quality of the available academic programs? How much of that perspective resulted from lack of information on competencies expected in graduates of programs in parks and recreation? It is difficult to determine the causes of variation in professional perspective, but it is easy to recognize the presence of those differences. Titling of Certified Leisure Professional (CLP) or Certified Leisure Associate (CLP) could stir debate at any gathering of professionals in recreation, parks and leisure services. Yet the profession has moved through adolescence into some semblance of maturity.

As one of the "movers and shakers" in the accreditation saga, Tony Mobley commented on the coming of age for the parks and recreation profession in academic settings: "Accreditation is the most important thing that has happened to parks and recreation education since professional preparation in this field began early in this century." (Mobley, 1993)

Has accreditation made a difference in recreation education? Comments gained during the past two decades document individual programmatic benefits received. Prior to recognition of NRPA/AALR accreditation by the Council on Post-secondary Accreditation (COPA), authors in parks and recreation touted the purposes and benefits of academic accreditation. Dattilo and Murphy concisely stated these values in Parks and Recreation in 1985: (Dattilo and Murphy, 1985)

* Nurture excellence by providing standards and evaluative criteria

* Protect academic disciplines against encroachment from various sources

* Assure agreement concerning appropriate educational objectives

* Encourage the improvement of programs that prepare professionals

* Provide advice and assistance to the programs that seek accreditation.

Beyond these purposes, accreditation was stated as having specific benefits to those involved in the accreditation process. At that time, these authors asserted that participating in the process of accreditation would:

* Improve the program

* Enhance the program's credibility

* Provide the foundation for future development

* Increase student satisfaction.

Solid evidence assessing the achievement of these benefits is lacking. The profession has "professors of play," but it has failed to adequately evaluate the benefits of quality control in academic preparation. Now, approximately 100 academic programs in the United States and Canada are accredited, while an estimated 300 other programs remain outside the rank of accreditation. Is there significant difference between graduates from these disparate programs? Are the programs truly disparate?

In Conclusion -- Looking to the Next Century

The NRPA/AALR accreditation process reflects the quality of the personnel in the process. That process functions because of the linkage between academic representatives and professional practitioners serving together. Visitation teams require individuals from both segments of the profession. And individuals are encouraged to apply to serve as visitors. Service as a visitor on accreditation teams bridges the gap between the academic community and the broader society, between theory and practice, between the present and the future.

Betty van der Smissen identified a gremlin in the process against which there must be constant vigilance. She asserted that this gremlin is "special interests infiltrating and losing sight of the larger profession." (Hawkins) From her perspective as a long-time participant in the accreditation process, van der Smissen believes that the future of recreation education relies on the service of insightful futurists demonstrating visionary leadership.

Greeley's question at the end of the 19th century has been answered during the 20th century. The technological Y2K question has been answered. What about the broader recreation, park and leisure services' Y2K questions? What questions require answers in the 21st century?

Have we become leisure-wise? Does our education system prepare people to deal with their leisure? Do recreation professionals have the passion and compassion to identify a social ill and the resolve to solve it? Can leisure services provide the common meeting ground for people where business might be forgotten, friendships formed, and cooperations established? Do our professors of play prepare students for the realities of the profession--in skills, in knowledge, in understanding, in ethics, in compassion?

Can we properly assess recreation education? Does accreditation matter? Does individual certification matter? Should professional certification have a greater connection to accreditation? Are the special interests within the profession actually gremlins? Do we have leaders with insight?

References

Bialeschki, Deb. (1999)"What's so bad about basket-weaving?" SPRE Newsletter. National Recreation and Park Association. Volume 24, Number 3.

Dattilo, John, and William Murphy. (1985) "The ABC's of accreditation." Parks and Recreation. National Recreation and Park Association. September 1985.

Farrell, Pat. (1993a) "Accreditation: Bean counting or substantive analysis." TRENDS. Volume 30, Number 3.

Farrell, Pat. (1993b) "Introduction: certification and accreditation." TRENDS. Volume 30, Number 3.

Hawkins, Barbara A. (1998) Historical perspectives on the development of the NRPA/AALR council on accreditation. National Recreation and Park Association.

Mobley, Tony. (1993) "Accreditation becomes of age." TRENDS. Volume 30, Number 3.

Near the close of the nineteenth century, orator and publisher Horace Greeley asked, "Have we no professors of play? Who will teach us incessant workers how to achieve leisure and enjoy it?" The nation's park and recreation departments have made serious strides in answering this call for help. "Pioneers in leisure and recreation in American culture saw social and environmental needs and responded," according to this issue's contribution by Lowell Caneday, Ph.D., professor of Leisure Studies at Oklahoma State University. Now with the formation of Certified Leisure Professionals and gaining support from all areas of academia, Canaday explains that this profession is making headway to legitimacy. Caneday stresses the importance of accreditation in the leisure profession: "Titling of Certified Leisure Professional (CLP) or Certified Leisure Associate (CLP) could stir debate at any gathering of professionals in recreation, parks and leisure services."