Excellent questions from Dean Blevins, US/CAN Regional Education Coordinator and professor of Christian education at NTS-Kansas City, who left on a comment to a previous post:
Did you ever speak with anyone on the anonymous district to find out why they made the decisions they made? . . .
I wish it was a single district, but it's been several over the last seven years located across the country from coast to coast and across the midwest. I have also spoken to at least 20 district superintendents, and raised these issues with them in private conversations and various meetings, and they are sometimes as perplexed as I have been. So, the issue is not geographic or acute, but a systemic issue. The variety of responses I have received, either publicly or privately, tell me that I'm not the only one that has recognized the severity of this issue.
I have dealt with students that have completed a validated course of study and still have not received recognition for their educational efforts in fulfilling the educational requirements toward ordination without being required to do more educationally on the district. I have also dealt with those that have chosen other programs that are not validated, missing maybe five or six courses, yet have been required by their districts to do nine or more courses.
Never has the question been raised if the students have exemplified competencies necessary for completion of the requirements but simply not seeing the same course title on the transcript. It's been difficult because the district boards seem to see the process as "counting courses" not completing the competencies necessary to be recognized for ordained ministry: avoiding this is the whole point of the 4Cs and the reason ICOSAC and its regional counterparts exist. Either these processes are necessary or they are not. If districts take up this responsibility, there should be some awareness of what is expected of validated programs of study.
If I remember right this ICOSAC and 4Cs were supposed to avoid the difficulties of the "good ol' boy" system or the development of much different requirements within or between regions. The process is supposed to make sure that universities are preparing students for ministry and not just further academic work. The process expects something from every stakeholder involved.
I hope universities do not take up the sole responsibility for educational preparation toward ordination. It was seem to me to be several steps backward. The flexibility of the Nazarene system is one of its strengths. It allows all who are called to be prepared adequately for what it takes to engage in an active and thoughtful ministry.
I think there might be something to be said about [warning: Nazarene lingo follows] the "field" leaders, district superintendents, the board members in the credentialing process, and ordained faculty members, work together within an educational zone, maybe even in unison with the university in consultation with NBC and NTS (at least within the US/Canada Region). I had an encouraging conversation with a district superintendent at the university trustee dinner last night about this very topic, and what the district superintendents in our neck of the woods are doing already in this direction. This person also mentioned similar collaboration work in another educational zone. Encouraging signs.
Hope this clarifies some of your questions, and the other posts might also help in answering some of your concerns.