Sport management college programs move into a new era of accreditation.
Case, Robert
For a number of years, sport management programs in colleges and
universities were very dissimilar in terms of their curriculums, course
offerings, content of courses, etc. Many college sport management
programs in the 1970s and 1980s were located in Departments of Physical
Education or Divisions of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and
Dance. Some sport management programs had a heavy business orientation
(e.g., courses in marketing, finance, economics, personnel management,
business law, ...) while other programs provided a heavy physical
education and/or exercise science orientation (e.g., courses in
kinesiology, biomechanics, motor learning, .) with a few business
courses added to round out the curriculum offerings. Some sport
management programs offered a fairly equal mixture of both sport
business and sport science coursework.
As college sport management programs continued to expand and grow
in numbers during the 1980s, a need to develop some consistency in terms
of curriculum content and program requirements was realized. An effort
was made to ensure some type of quality control. Some employers were
starting to complain that sport management graduates were under prepared
and did not have the necessary coursework and skills to prepare them for
a career in sport management. In a number of instances, high school
graduates could enter one college and major in sport management while
taking a series of courses that were very different from a college
across town that also offered a major in sport management.
American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and
Dance (AAHPERD), in a general way, and the National Association for
Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) in a specific way realized this
need for developing program standards and consistency. Several of the
NASPE members, at the time, were teaching in sport management programs.
When the North American Society for Sport Management was officially
organized in the mid-1980s, additional emphasis was placed on developing
sport management program review standards. Research and competency
studies on curriculum standards in selected fields of sport management
continued to be published and they often recommended that curricular
changes were needed (Case, 1986; Case, 2003; Case & Branch, 2003).
In 1989, the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM)
and NASPE formed a committee to develop curriculum content standards in
sport management. This committee eventually evolved into the Sport
Management Program Review Council (SMPRC) that established a program
review and approval process (NASSM-NASPE, 1993). College programs that
offered majors or concentration areas in sport management could apply
for program approval by completing an extensive program review process
that included examination of the sport management program's
curriculum, course content and competencies, internship requirements,
admission standards, faculty qualifications, teaching load, number of
faculty, etc.
Although the NASSM-NASPE Sport Management Program Review Process
was a step forward and forced many changes to take place in college
sport management programs, it lacked the necessary "teeth" and
legitimacy that a "formal" and "official"
accreditation process would provide. For example, although an extensive
review of materials was required for the NASSM-NASPE program review
process, a formal site visit to the campus of the institution being
reviewed was not required. Most "official" accreditation
organizations require a site visit. As a result, a number of college
administrators did not view the NASSM-NASPE review process as being an
"official" accreditation process.
The fact that the NASSM-NASPE program approval process was
considered to be simply a "program review" and not an
"official" accreditation often slowed down efforts to revise
sport management program course offerings and curriculum development,
the hiring of additional faculty, and many other administrative
decisions that had to be made. As a result, a growing number of sport
management faculty from across the country felt that there was a
definite need to move sport management to the next level and develop a
formal "accreditation" process.
The advantages of a "formal" accreditation process are
several in number. One of the more obvious advantages is that it
provides evidence that a college sport management program has undergone
external scrutiny and it has met certain characteristics or standards of
excellence as prescribed by the accrediting organization. It also
provides sport management faculty with leverage to move forward with
curriculum revisions and requests for additional faculty lines and
funding. Sometimes without the backing of accreditation these efforts
may prove to be futile. Most college officials and administrators
understand what accreditation is and do not want to lose accreditation
because they fail to financially support a program. Finally,
accreditation does provide a certain level of prestige for a program and
this may translate into successful marketing of the program. When
students have the option to attend an accredited program over a program
that is not accredited - the decision is likely to be in favor of the
accredited program if all other decision factors are the same.
In 2008, the Commission on Sport Management Accreditation (COSMA)
was officially launched. Its primary purpose was to develop a
specialized accrediting body that would promote and recognize excellence
in sport management undergraduate and graduate education. Although some
similarities existed between the NASSM-NASPE program review process and
the COSMA accreditation process, in other ways, they are quite
different. For instance, the older NASSM-NASPE review process was
focused on prescriptive input standards involving both curriculum and
content. The COMSA accreditation process, on the other hand, is rather
unique because it focuses on a mission-based and outcomes-driven process
(COSMA, 2013).
Similarities do exist between NASSM-NASPE program approval
standards or competencies and what COMAS calls common professional
competencies. Expectations in both NASSMNASPE and COSMA include student
exposure to coursework in sport marketing, sport leadership and
administrative theory, legal aspects of sport , fiscal management in
sport, sport economics, sport event management, sport governance, social
aspects of sport, sport ethics, etc. Although NASSM-NASPE looks more at
the input and content areas, COSMA focuses on the learning outcomes
associated with each of these coursework areas. In addition, the area of
internships or fieldwork experiences are both emphasized by NASSM-NASPE
and COSMA.
Again, a major difference with COSMA is that it uses
characteristics of excellence, while assessing educational outcomes, as
a primary basis for making accreditation decisions. COSMA has developed
accreditation principles based on best practices in sport management
education and professional preparation. The outcomes assessment process
ends with the development of an action plan that involves all of the
units within the organization. A benchmarking process is also used in
order to determine if a program is achieving its stated mission and
goals while interpreting results of the assessment process outcomes.
During implementation of the plan, evidence is collected to ensure that
goals are accomplished and student learning is taking place. Results of
implementing an outcomes assessment plan are reported to COSMA on an
annual basis (COSMA, 2013).
Measurement is another major feature of COSMA. Student learning
outcomes are not only identified but they are measured on a regular
basis through a variety of means. In addition, the COSMA accreditation
process emphasizes the development of direct and indirect student
learning outcomes and measures. An example of a direct measure might
include a comprehensive exam or the development of a student portfolio
and an indirect measure of student learning might include an exit
interview or an alumni survey. The COSMA accreditation process requires
that the sport management program conduct a self-study each year. Within
the self study, information is included about the outcomes assessment,
strategic planning, curricular offerings, faculty qualifications,
faculty work load, admission procedures and standards, facilities,
scholarly and professional activities of faculty, financial resources,
internal and external relationships of the program and institution, and
educational innovation are some of the many items to be included in the
self study.
The final phase of the COSMA process includes a site visit to the
college or university that is applying for accreditation. The college
sport management program must first become an institutional member of
COSMA and apply for candidacy status. Then, data collection is initiated
in order to support the self study writing efforts. Eventually, a
timeline is established for a site visit by the accreditation review
team. COSMA will send a two person accreditation review team to conduct
a two day site visit. The final accreditation status of the college
sport management program will be determined by the COSMA Board of
Commissioners.
Over the past forty years, tremendous growth in the number sport
management programs has been realized. Reports suggest that there are
now over 300 sport management college programs with associate, bachelor,
masters, and/or doctoral level degree offerings. Many of the programs
now include business and sport business related coursework requirements.
The days of sport management students taking a majority of their courses
in sport science have ended. In recent years, several sport management
programs have moved into Colleges of Business as they are no longer
housed in Departments of Physical Education.
The NASSM-NASPE program approval process was extremely helpful in
moving sport management programs forward. The process provided leverage
to make changes and it provided curriculum standards for all to follow.
It is now COSMA's turn to take sport management education and
professional preparation to the next level. The future should prove to
be exciting.
For more information about COSMA, please go to www.cosmaweb.org.
References
Case, R. (1986). Sport arena management as a possible career option
for sport management graduates, First Annual Meeting of the North
American Society for Sport Management, Kent State University, 1986.
Case, R. (2003). Sport management curriculum development: Issues
and concerns. International Journal of Sport Management, 4(3), 224-239.
Case, R., & Branch, J. (2003). A study to examine the job
competencies of sport facility managers. International Sports Journal,
7(2), 25-38.
NASSM-NASPE. (1993). Sport Management Program Standards and Review
Protocol. Reston, VA: AAHPERD Press.
COSMA. (2013). COSMA Accreditation Process Manual. Reston, VA:
AAHPERD Press.
Robert Case, PhD, Old Dominion University, Sport Management Program