A Faculty Perspective on Accountability

1. A Faculty Perspective on Accountability Presentation to the Pennsylvania State Conferenceof the American Association of University ProfessorsCollege Misericordia, May 5, 2007 John W. Curtis, Director of Research and Public PolicyAmerican Association of University ProfessorsWashington, DC

2. Why “Accountability”? • Higher education is increasingly viewed as important for everyone • More groups making demands on higher education, broader expectations • The danger is that our unique “system” of higher education will be damaged in the process

3. Accountability – to whom? • Internal • Students • Faculty Peers • Administration and governing board • External • Institutional publics: alumni, donors, community, prospective students • State government, Federal government • General public

4. Accountability – for what? • Quality • Shift from resources→process→outcomes • “Diversity” and “balance” • Economic preparation/readiness • Productivity (Efficiency) • Access (including affordability) • Tensions among these goals

5. Mechanisms for Accountability: Internal • Peer review • Shared governance(faculty, administration, governing board)

6. Mechanisms for Accountability: External • Accreditation (Institutional, disciplinary) • Rankings, guides (US News) • AAUP and higher education associations • “Watchdog” organizations

7. Accountability and Support • State and federal governments are calling for more accountability at the same time that funding for higher education is decreasing

8. External Accountability: Federal • US Dept. of Education strategic plan 2002-07 • reducing disparities in college participation and completion between different groups • strengthening institutional accountability • primarily based on graduation rates • GAO report (2003): “…the measure used by Education may not fully reflect an institution’s performance because institutional goals and missions are not captured in the measure.”

9. External Accountability: Federal • Current re-authorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) • penalizing excessive tuition cost increases • mandating transfer of credit • separating institutional eligibility for financial aid from accreditation • Student Right-to-Know Act (1997?): campus crime, graduation rates

10. External Accountability: Accreditation • Regional accreditation is moving toward an exclusive focus on outcomes • Weakening of standards • Changing the process (not comprehensive, less on-site, more continuous reporting) • Disciplinary accreditors may be upholding higher standards • AAUP national committee reviewing standards and communicating with accreditors

11. External Accountability: State • GAO Report (2003) on College Completion • 18 states publicize performance measures for higher education (usually public only) • 9 states tie funding to performance measures (contingent funding, incentives) • Frequently linked to broader state government initiatives

12. Accountability: A Faculty Perspective • To faculty colleagues: • “Trust us, we know what we’re doing” is not sufficient. • We must acknowledge the need to communicate more effectively our contributions to the larger community.

13. Accountability: A Faculty Perspective • To institutional leaders: • Defend your institutional mission; • Do not allow your “products” to be reduced to easily measurable standardized units; • Involve your faculty meaningfully in planning to meet accountability challenges.

14. Accountability: A Faculty Perspective • To policymakers: • Remember the broader purposes of higher education, and the many populations that the institutions serve; • Support the investment in higher education as a public good, and not just in terms of narrow cost/benefit calculations. • Recognize that conflicting goals for higher education create a bad policy environment.

15. Implementing Accountability Measures • Assessing student learning • Most assessments are designed as a diagnostic to indicate areas for improvement. They do not indicate how to bring about the improvement—that is the role of faculty.

16. Implementing Accountability Measures • Assessing student learning • Assessment should not be punitive for students, individual faculty, programs, or institutions. This will lead to standardization, a lack of innovation, and a lowering of standards. • A standardized test should not be the sole (or primary) basis for determining attainment of a general qualification (i.e., a degree). This contrasts with professional licensure, which refers to a specific narrowly-defined skill.

17. Implementing Accountability Measures • Faculty should have primary responsibility for establishing criteria related to teaching and learning • Measures imposed from above and evaluated on the basis of centrally-gathered data will not lead to real improvement • Measures must reflect diverse institutional missions • Leave room for qualitative descriptions of outcomes and process • Evaluation process should be formative (encouraging ongoing improvement) and not punitive (seeking to blame)

18. Trends in higher education • There is a general trend toward… • “Bottom-line” measures of output • Corporate management • A view of education as a commodity, an investment purchased in expectation of a private benefit

19. Trends in higher education • …and away from: • General education for informed citizenship • Shared governance of educational institutions • Colleges and universities existing to enhance the common good • To the extent that accountability measures have the effect of accelerating these trends, they are undermining the role of higher education in our democratic society.

20. Thank you John W. Curtis Director of Research and Public Policy American Association of University ProfessorsWashington, DC (202) 737-5900jcurtis@aaup.org