Act II Resurfacing

Response to Christian *** request for refundThank you for the opportunity to respond as to why Christian ***’s request for a refund is not warrantedThe Learning Resources Network (LERN) is a nonprofit education association founded in and serving at least colleges and universities
every yearWe provide professional development for educational administrators in the areas of continuing education, online course teaching, and faculty development. Over 10,faculty and administrators have taken our online courses. Christian *** of *** *** *** ** *** **, registered for and participated partially in our Certified Faculty Developer (CFD) eight week professional development program, with an optional designation of CFD for those who pass the final exam. His request for a refund is unwarranted for these reasons: 1.The CFD program is in no way “substandard” as he alleges, and is instead the most highly respected program and designation in faculty development in higher education The program has run successfully for five years, and features some of the foremost authorities in faculty development, such as DrMary *** of *** *** ***, author of the leading work on “*** *** *** *** ***; Dan ***, who designs online programs for companies and has represented Canada at international conferences; and Julie ***, author of the classic book “*** *** ***.” Each and every presenter is a noted expert in her or his field LERN’s CFD program is the most popular and widely regarded program in faculty development in higher educationHere’s what CFDers say: -“Richly rewarding.” DrLoretta *** *** *** *** *** *** ** -“LERN has done an outstanding job.” Paula *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** -“I was amazed at how much I learned in such a short amount of time.” Cindy *** *** *** *** *** *** 2.Oklahoma Wesleyan University, and indeed every other college or university in higher education, would not and does not issue a refund from a dissatisfied student in a similar circumstance We fail to understand the demand for a practice and policy that Mr***’s own university does not follow, nor is the accepted standard in higher educationNowhere in our promotion did we guarantee a refund for the CFD program3.The allegation of “substandard” with relation to quality in education has the most validity from those who are proficient, not drop outs Criticism of quality in education has the most validity coming from those who found a given program too easy, and the instructors not accomplished enough Mr***, on the contrary, failed in his first attempt to pass the first two Unit quizzes, and did not distinguish himself in the online discussion before he dropped out. Mr*** is the only one to request a refund while the vast majority of others completed the program and passed the exam4.Our completion rate of 80%, plus testimonials from other faculty in the course provide substantial evidence of the quality of the program In fact, our completion and retention rate is higher than that of colleges and universities in the United States such as Oklahoma Wesleyan University, which is just 55%. The vast majority of faculty completed and passed the exam, and a number gave us positive testimonials and comments Kirtsen *** ***, WV, with the *** *** *** *** called our current offering of CFD “phenomenal.” Our instructors get high marksFor example, Andrew *** ** *** *** *** in ***, NC, said, “Great presentation by Mr ***I discovered three new eTools that I am interested in learning more about.” The Learning Resources Network (LERN) Board of Directors supports senior management’s decision not to provide a refund. Our Board is currently composed of educators from the University of Richmond, Harper College, Langara College, ASQ, Hawkeye Community College, North Idaho College, Missoula Public School District, City of Temple, Texas, Insurance Brokers of Canada, Kirkwood Community College and Pasadena City CollegeThank you for the opportunity to respond as to why Christian ***’s request for a refund is not warranted

A colleague and I, in good faith, paid for various training from the Learning Resource Network, but after quickly discovering the LERN training products and services were substandard and not helpful, I asked for a refundInitially, they agreed in writing that they would grant a full refundShortly after my thanking them for their offer, they decided to not fulfill their written agreement to a refundDespite further appeal to honor their previous offer and our understanding to that effect, they still refuse to honor their promiseTheir subsequent counter-offer was to instead offer credit for other of their products, the quality of which is the foundational reason for the refund request in the first placeSo, if they have their way, they will make off with $1,of university money despite violating their agreement about offering a refund.To clarify, the quality if their program may be arguedBut, the fact is that they promised a full refund and then defaulted on that promise