Federal Accountability Scrutiny Moves to Higher Education
After years of attending to accountability requirements in K-12 education via No Child Left Behind, it appears that Congress and the U.S. Education Department have set their sights on higher education. Federal and state officials are scrutinizing colleges and universities more closely. Concerns have erupted from the extraordinary increase in the cost of post-secondary education combined with uncertainties over outcomes commensurate with a college degree. On top of that, a tussle between for profit and not for profit institutions over limited Title IV funding of college students has been fed by congressional representatives eager to (a) support competition in higher education through for profit companies, and/or (b) hold “traditional” education institutions accountable for the federal funds spent through student aid.
Regional accreditation is under fire, too. The Commission on the Future of Higher Education, charged by Education Secretary Spelling to develop a national strategy on higher education, initially proposed national testing and later suggested national accreditation to replace regional accreditation of colleges and universities. “Historic artifacts” is the descriptor given to the regional accrediting bodies by Clara Lovett, former president of AAHE.
Unquestionably, the regional accrediting organizations have held their member institutions to increasingly higher standards through their institutional and academic outcomes assessment processes. Criterion levels and measures of progress toward goals, though, are set by the individual institution, and no standardization exists.
We don’t think higher education institutions would tolerate any form of national assessment system such as No Child Left Behind requires. In fact, given the complaints about NCLB and about schools’ extreme focus on two subjects (reading and math)-among other issues-such a system is highly unlikely for higher education assessment. Yet, we can sympathize with the view that colleges and universities should have greater openness about the metrics they use to demonstrate effectiveness. The metrics might not hold meaning for prospective college students or their parents attempting to compare one school against another, but candor would at least demonstrate a basic academic research value: inter-subjectivity and the willingness to engage in the open discussion of institutional quality, its systematic measurement and presentation of findings.
We at Hezel Associates, as well as others in our own community of practice, are looking for dialog among reasonable, attentive people who are straightforward and passionate about their ideas, willing to listen to others.
Without doubt, the issues of accountability and measurement of quality will persist in the education public policy market square for many years to come, if not forever. As responsible leaders, we cannot ignore demands for openness in our public institutions; and government policy makers should not lightly dismiss higher education leaders’ interests in the management of quality standards and outcomes assessment that meet the developmental and strategic needs of their colleges and universities.
Join us in the continuing discussion at www.hezel.com/communities.
Richard T. Hezel, Ph.D.