In September 2006, the bipartisan Spellings Commission lamented low college graduation rates, rising student costs, and inadequate information about student learning.
But while the report was correct in its emphasis, it was eventually doomed by the federal government's limited role in higher education. If colleges are going to be held accountable, states will have to carry most of the load. About three-quarters of all undergraduates are educated at public two- and four-year institutions, states provide the bulk of the funding for these institutions, and governors and state legislators appoint the trustees and governing boards that run them. If our colleges and universities are to improve, it must be states that provide the leadership. And, in an economic climate where postsecondary education credentials matter more than ever, it is in the best interest of states to maximize their investments.
In 2008, Education Sector conducted a comprehensive analysis of state higher education accountability systems. We examined thousands of documents, Web sites, laws, and policies for all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the
The results were both hopeful and sobering. On the plus side, states are collectively gathering a great deal of valuable information. Some have developed innovative methods to measure student progress in learning, graduation, and success in the work force. Others are carefully tracking the way colleges are distributing financial aid to low-income students. From research output to student engagement to economic impact, states are accumulating more information about more things in higher education than ever before.
But no state is gathering all the information it could. Best practices exist in isolation, with a handful of states tracking important outcomes that most states ignore.
3 comments:
My state (Florida) has begun experimenting in tiny bits with incentives tied to specific outcomes, and if the economic crisis hadn't essentially torn a huge hole in the state budget, we might be talking about a gradual increase in those stakes and the usual negotiation you might find between institutions and state policymakers about how to balance undergraduate and graduate measures, the robustness of the measures, etc. But the practical problem with budgeting without reference to a base is an increase in uncertainty (will switching huge $$$ to post-hoc measures shrink an individual institution's budget by 40%? if so, the system is untenable). And if there's one thing that the current crisis increases at heart, it's uncertainty. I suspect such measures will have to be tied to increased funding, not putting existing (or shrinking) budgets at risk.
The report states:
"about 85 institutions in the Western World established in 1520 still exist in recognizable form"—the Catholic Church, the parliaments of Iceland and the Isle of Man, a few Swiss cantons, and 70 universities. "Everything else changes," he remarked, "but the university mostly endures."
So, with all of the dysfunctional institutions today - and I'd submit that urban middle schools may be the single most dysfunctional - why worry about accountability, of all things, in higher ed? Sure we could use some efficiencies and some cost benefit analysis, and sure I'm not around full time, but I don't see why that topic would be on anyone's radar screen. To me, the time spent worrying about accountability and higher academics should be invested in reading and re-reading the wonderful wisdom the university produces.
Of course, that could get me back to the question of what is "accountability" supposed to mean and why is it so important in ed today? Frankly, the fact that some people would be worrying about accountability and higher ed - which isn't broken - brings me back to the question of whether there is any EVIDENCE that "accountability" can help public schools. It reinforces my theory that outsiders came to education with the a priori assumption, and they haven't thought it was necessary to test their hypothesis with evidence. I've heard the word "accountability" all my life from reactionaries who hated education. I can see how accountability can be ONE FACTOR in improving education, although some cost benefit analysis would provide better accountability. I'm at a complete loss, however, in understanding why progressives would think that the hypothesis that accountability can be the driving force of reform. Its such a wierd idea, and yet we just assume it has merit. Why? Doesn't the university challenge us to submit our theories to evidence? Do accountability advocates think that real "value added" as opposed to value added regarding test scores can EVER be a possibility? I sure can't conceive of a measurable system for higher education EVER. We might as well try to measure the value added of followiing the Golden Rule or a sunset or love.
I know that when I state my true beliefs so openly, some will see that as evidence that that educators can't reform themselves. Why not consider a more modest version of an idea I've already submitted. Have an Ed Sector researcher teach in an inner city neighborhood secondary school for one semester. Then have him draft a diagnosis of some of the problems he experiences, and then draft an explanation of how accountability could lead reforms.
Just a note--In the report you state that Ohio created a series of ratios to measure the financial viability of public institutions. However, the ratios that Ohio uses in calculating the composite index are standard in the industry. Indeed the Ohio Board of Regents, my former employer, went to some length to avoid reinventing something that already existed. What is different is that Ohio, as you note, uses these ratios to compile an index score to measure the financial health of institutions. So it's more a case of taking advantage of things that already exist to measure financial health than actually creating new measures.
Post a Comment