Public Accountability for Student Learning in Higher ...• Accountability is the public...

Issues and Options

Public Accountability for Student Learning in

Higher Education

A P O S I T I O N P A P E R F R O M T H E B U S I N E S S - H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N F O R U M , W A S H I N G T O N , D . C .

Copyright © April 2004

American Council on EducationACE and the American Council on Education are regis-tered marks of the American Council on Education.

American Council on EducationOne Dupont Circle NWWashington, DC 20036

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproducedor transmitted in any form or by any means electronic ormechanical, including photocopying, recording, or byany information storage and retrieval system, withoutpermission in writing from the publisher.

Additional copies of this publication are available bysending a check or money order for $15 per copy, plus$6.95 shipping and handling (for more than one copy,call the number below), to the following address:

ACE Fulfillment ServiceDepartment 191Washington, DC 20055-0191Phone: (301) 632-6757 Fax: (301) 843-0159

When ordering, please specify Item #309813.

A free electronic version of this report is available throughhttp://www.acenet.edu/programs/ bhef/ home.cfm.

Issues and Options

Public Accountability for Student Learning in

Higher Education

A P O S I T I O N P A P E R F R O M T H E B U S I N E S S - H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N F O R U M , W A S H I N G T O N , D . C .

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Members of the Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

One: Higher Education Under Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Two: The Assessment Jungle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Three: Making the Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Four: Toward a New Accountability Consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Table of Contents

B U S I N E S S - H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N F O R U M 1

Preface

Dear Colleague:

The Business-Higher Education Forum (BHEF) is a national membership organization of chief executivesdrawn from American business and higher education. Our mission is to encourage dialogue amongleaders of the two sectors on issues central to the role of higher education in the worldwide economy.

Our recent work has centered on the role of technology in strengthening teaching and learning, on thechanging nature of skills needed in the workforce, and on the challenges of improving higher educationdelivery to an increasingly diverse population.

As co-chairs of the BHEF Initiative on Public Accountability for Student Learning in Higher Education,we have prepared this paper to stimulate discussion about accountability for student learning inhigher education. The Forum is interested in this topic because of several critical challenges:

• Maintaining high quality in and access to postsecondary education, despite funding declines. • Meeting growing enrollment demand from increasingly diverse populations.• Responding to corporate needs for sophisticated and skilled workers. • Addressing public skepticism about quality and costs.

To tackle these challenges, we strongly encourage new approaches to public accountability for highereducation—including measures of student learning.

We begin with a discussion of the reasons for the heightened demand for evidence about performancein higher education. We then juxtapose that need with a description of the current multilayeredapproaches to learning assessments, institutional performance review, and quality review in highereducation—most of which are internally oriented and not designed for public or policy audiences. Toprovide a glimpse of the future, we describe some of the more promising innovations connectingassessment to public accountability. We conclude with recommendations for design principles thatmight form the basis for a new consensus about a public accountability structure that is appropriate toour diverse system of higher education.

The economic and social vitality of our country depends upon the future success of our postsecondaryeducational system. Accomplishing this agenda will require not just preserving past successes, but alsobuilding new models for the future. We encourage others who share our vision to join us in this work.

Edward B. Rust, Jr. Charles B. ReedChairman and Chief Executive Officer ChancellorState Farm Insurance Companies The California State University

2 B U S I N E S S - H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N F O R U M

Michael F. AdamsPresidentThe University of Georgia

Herbert M. Allison, Jr.Chairman, President, and Chief Executive OfficerTIAA-CREF

William C. Archer, IIIExecutive Vice President, External AffairsGeorgia Power

Mark AslettPresidentEnterasys Networks

Lawrence S. Bacow*PresidentTufts University

Warren J. Baker*PresidentCalifornia Polytechnic State University

Lee C. BollingerPresidentColumbia University

Molly Corbett BroadPresidentUniversity of North Carolina

Donald V. BudingerChairman and Founding DirectorThe Rodel Foundations

BHEF Members*Initiative Working

Group Members


Michael D. ChamberlainPresident and Chief Executive Officer SunGard SCT

Charles M. ChambersPresident and Chief Executive OfficerLawrence Tech University

Warren ChapmanPresidentBank One Foundation

Ralph E. Christoffersen*PartnerMorgenthaler Ventures

Winston J. ChurchillGeneral PartnerSCP Private Equity Management, L.P.

Jay M. CohenRear AdmiralChief of Naval ResearchOffice of Naval ResearchUnited States Navy

Mary Sue ColemanPresidentThe University of Michigan

Craig ConwayPresident and Chief Executive OfficerPeopleSoft, Inc.

W. Don CornwellChairman and Chief Executive OfficerGranite Broadcasting Corporation

John J. DeGioiaPresidentGeorgetown University

Robert DynesPresidentUniversity of California

Michael J. Emmi*President and Chief Executive OfficerIPR International

Gregory C. FarringtonPresidentLehigh University


Thomas J. FitzpatrickPresident and Chief Operating OfficerSallie Mae

Donald FletcherPresident Hallmark North America and InternationalHallmark Cards Incorporated

Augustine P. GallegoChancellorSan Diego Community College District

E. Gordon GeeChancellorVanderbilt University

Dennis GillingsChairmanQuintiles Transnational Corporation

S. Malcolm GillisPresidentRice University

G. Jay GogueChancellor, University of Houston System,and PresidentUniversity of Houston

Michael GoldenVice ChairmanThe New York Times CompanyPublisherThe International Herald Tribune

Bill GravesSenior Vice President for Academic StrategySunGard Collegis

Nils HasselmoPresidentAssociation of American Universities

Karen HolbrookPresidentThe Ohio State University

Stanley O. IkenberryMember Emeritus

Robert A. IngramVice Chairman, PharmaceuticalsGlaxoSmithKline


Martin C. JischkePresidentPurdue University

Kim JonesVice President, Global Education andResearch Line of BusinessSun Microsystems, Inc.

Roberts T. Jones*PresidentEducation and Workforce Policy LLC

Vaughn M. KailianVice ChairmanMillennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Edmund F. KellyChairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerLiberty Mutual Group

William E. Kirwan, IIChancellorUniversity System of Maryland

Carl F. KohrtPresident and Chief Executive Officer Battelle

Diana MacArthurChair and Chief Executive OfficerDynamac Corporation

C. Peter Magrath*PresidentNational Association of State Universitiesand Land-Grant Colleges

Modesto A. MaidiquePresidentFlorida International University

Edward A. Malloy, C.S.C.PresidentUniversity of Notre Dame

David MaxwellPresidentDrake University

Harold McGraw, IIIChairman, President, and Chief Executive OfficerThe McGraw-Hill Companies


Henry A. McKinnell, Jr.Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerPfizer Inc

Barry MunitzPresident and Chief Executive OfficerThe J. Paul Getty Trust

Eugene D. O’KellyChairman and Chief Executive OfficerKPMG LLP

Constantine Papadakis*PresidentDrexel University

William J. Pesce*President and Chief Executive OfficerJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Gregory S. Prince, Jr.PresidentHampshire College

Charles B. Reed*ChancellorThe California State University

James C. RenickChancellorNorth Carolina Agricultural andTechnical State University

Sean C. RushGeneral ManagerGlobal Education IndustryIBM

Edward B. Rust, Jr.*Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerState Farm Insurance Companies

Carl J. SchrammPresident and Chief Executive OfficerEwing Marion Kauffman Foundation

Walter Scott, Jr.ChairmanLevel 3 Communications

Edward T. ShonseyChief Operating OfficerDiversa Corporation


Betty L. Siegel*PresidentKennesaw State University

L. Dennis Smith*PresidentUniversity of Nebraska

W. Randolph Smith*President, Western DivisionTenet Healthcare Corporation

James J. StukelPresidentUniversity of Illinois

Lee T. Todd, Jr.PresidentUniversity of Kentucky

Stephen Joel TrachtenbergPresidentThe George Washington University

James S. TurleyChairman and Chief Executive OfficerErnst & Young

David Ward*PresidentAmerican Council on Education

Stephen L. WeberPresidentSan Diego State University

Harvey P. WhiteChairman and Chief Executive OfficerLeap Wireless International

Mark S. WrightonChancellorWashington University in St. Louis


This paper explores issues of public account-

ability for American higher education, with

a particular focus on how assessment of

student learning is embedded into accounta-

bility measures.

Learning assessment and public accountabilityare hot topics in educational and public policyarenas these days. But despite their ubiquity,assessment and accountability typically are notdefined. To confuse matters further, the termsoften are used interchangeably, so this paperbegins with definitions:

• Assessment is an analytical tool for evalu-ating performance.

• Accountability is the public presentationand communication of evidence aboutperformance in relation to goals.

Accountability systems are built with data fromassessments—but accountability is not achievedsimply by making the results of those assess-ments available to the public. For accountabilityto occur, evidence about performance must bedefined in the context of institutional and socialgoals that reflect a public agenda. And thatevidence must be communicated in a way that isbroadly accessible, rather than in the language ofeducation insiders.

Accordingly, this discussion focuses on the inter-section of goals, performance, assessment, and apublic dialogue about results.

Our focus on student learning assessment andpublic accountability does not mean that webelieve measures of student learning should bethe only criterion for higher education accounta-bility. Several other measures of institutionalperformance also shape public accountability inhigher education: Resource use, research andservice, and contributions to economic develop-ment are chief among them. These institutionallybased measures are already common in highereducation accountability systems. But measuresof student learning are not, which is one of thereasons we are focusing on this topic.

For our purposes here, we are most concernedwith the national capacity to measure and publiclyaccount for general knowledge and skill levels thatstudents obtain from higher education. It is notabout grading individual students, nor aboutusing student learning assessments as theprimary measure for evaluating institutionalperformance (as we now are trying to do inpublic K–12 education). Also, national in thiscontext does not mean federal or governmental,nor does it imply that there should be a singleassessment instrument or test applied to all ofhigher education. National capacity can be devel-oped, and in fact is probably enriched, throughmultiple types of assessments.

IntroductionWhat we mean by accountability and assessment.


Some higher education leaders view the

public discussion of student learning as an

educational policy fad, fueled by political

rhetoric about accountability and headed

toward clumsy, governmentally imposed solu-

tions to nonexistent problems.

There’s some truth to that. Forum members areacutely aware that improving public accounta-bility for student learning will not be a panaceafor the deep and serious challenges facinghigher education.

But we believe this is not just an issue du jour. Anumber of economic, demographic, and laborforce trends are shaping this discussion, whichwill persist long after the political mood shifts.From these trends, a national agenda for highereducation is emerging, which includes an impera-tive to increase access and close achievementgaps without diminishing quality. Improvingstudent learning, both within institutions and,most importantly, across sectors, is central tothis agenda. The forces shaping this debaterange widely and are discussed below.

Tight labor markets. The current economicslump notwithstanding, the trend of the past 20years has been toward an international economy,

fueled by tight labor markets that have placed apremium on sophisticated skills.

In the United States, the demand for high-levelskills has made postsecondary education aneconomic necessity for most workers. In 1973, amale college graduate’s first job typically paid33 percent more than that of a male high schoolgraduate; today, the difference has grown to 81 percent.1

But the production of skilled workers fromhigher education is not adequate to meet theneeds of the future. By 2020 the U.S. economywill require 12 million to 14 million more skilledworkers than are being produced today,according to Carnevale and Desrochers. Closingthe degree attainment gap could add $230 billionin national wealth, and as much as $80 billion innew tax revenues per year.2

Employers increasingly are looking for some-thing beyond degree attainment in new hires.Forum surveys show that employers are lookingfor a combination of skills and knowledge,including proficiency in leadership, teamwork,problem solving, analytical, critical thinking,communication, and writing skills. They wantemployees who have the skills to succeed in aglobal, multicultural environment. They alsoplace a premium on colleagues who are profi-cient at multitasking and able to upgrade theirskills continuously.

One: Higher Education

Under PressureWhat’s driving the growingdemand for student learningaccountability?


Unfortunately, consensus about broad learningoutcomes expected for the baccalaureate degreehas become less—rather than more—sharplydefined. Nationwide, although regional accreditorsagree that the baccalaureate degree is awardedafter 120 credit hours, they leave it up to the insti-tution to clarify what these credits include interms of measurable educational goals or compe-tencies. Unless employers recruit from institutionswith clear learning standards and competencies,they have to hope for the best—and be preparedto supplement the college diploma with othermeasures, such as internally designed literacy andnumeracy assessments, or even SAT scores, as anumber of employers are reportedly doing.3

Enrollment growth and change. Nationwideenrollments in higher education will grow byabout 2.5 million students by 2015. The largemajority of new students will be minorities, withthe greatest increase among Latino students.4

Some of the expansion will come from popula-tion growth, but much of it will come fromhigher college-going rates, which already are at70 percent for recent high school graduates. Andenrollment of older, working adults is expected tocontinue to grow. Already, close to 40 percent oftoday’s college and university students are 25years of age or older.

Enrollment growth will not be evenly distributedacross the country, nor among different sectorsof higher education.5 From 2002 to 2015, growthwill be greatest in the Sunbelt, coastal states, andsome western states, with the greatestpercentage growth in Nevada, Arizona, Georgia,and North Carolina, and the greatest numericgrowth in Florida and California. Much of thecollegiate enrollment growth in these states isexpected to come from low-income students inurban, public two-year institutions. Undergrad-uate enrollments may be steady, or evendeclining, in parts of the Midwest, the plainsstates, and New England.

Higher education traditionally has been a route toeconomic mobility in this country. But unless wedo a better job of getting low-income studentsboth into and through college, today’s demographictrends could deepen social inequality and

economic decline. Extending the diversity agendafrom access to completion of an associate orbaccalaureate degree is an economic imperative.Closing achievement gaps also will be central tonational economic development, because of thecompetitive advantage enjoyed by companies withdiverse workforces. This is especially true forcompanies that engage in international commerce.6

In the last 20 years, the United States has mademodest progress toward closing the gaps amongracial sub-groups in the transition from highschool to initial enrollment in college.7 However,the disparities in baccalaureate achievement ratesremain substantial: White and Asian baccalaureateattainment rates are 20 or more percentage pointshigher than those for either Latinos or AfricanAmericans. We cannot make progress on work-force diversity without paying attention to degreecompletion and student learning. To do this,student learning assessments must be tools toimprove teaching for today’s diverse studentpopulations—not merely screening and sortingdevices, designed to sift students out of thesystem, rather than get them through it.

A national agenda for higher education is emerging, whichincludes an imperative to increaseaccess and close achievementgaps without diminishing quality.


The Leaky PipelineProportion of students who succeed and move throughdifferent educational levels, by racial sub-group8

Funding trends in higher education. Highereducation has undergone a financial sea changein the last decade, characterized by highertuitions and reduced public funding.

Changes are most dramatic in public institutions.There, tuition at the start of the 1990s accountedfor roughly 20 percent of overall revenues. Now,tuition averages almost twice that share.9 (Thisshift has been caused in part by recession-drivenstate funding cuts.) Higher spending withincolleges, particularly evident among researchinstitutions in the boom times of the late 1990s,also has contributed to the financial strains. Theproblem is exacerbated because state spendingin mandatory areas—in particular the state sharefor Medicaid—has been increasing faster thanpopulation or revenue growth. This creates arevenue squeeze that particularly hurts highereducation, which is a discretionary spendingitem at the state level.

Unfortunately for higher education, there is noreason to believe that the funding increases

enjoyed in the late 1990s will return any timesoon. Fully 44 of the 50 states are projected tohave structural funding gaps between revenuesand expenditures, which, if left unaddressed, willrequire further cutbacks in higher educationfunding.10 The hard reality is this: Even withtuition increases, total funding is not likely toincrease commensurate with enrollment growth,and funding per student will decline.

The rising cost of college has become one of themore potent galvanizing forces shaping publicdiscussion about accountability in higher educa-tion. Elected officials at both the state andfederal levels are being asked to do something tostem the tide of rising tuitions, are asking hardquestions about institutional spending priorities,and want to see evidence of value added for thecosts of college. It doesn’t matter that statebudget cuts are responsible for some of thetuition increases; the public does not have toreconcile its support for tax reductions with aconsistent position on tuition increases. As aresult, the historical deference shown to institu-tional judgments about quality is being replacedby external judgments about spending priorities.

Increasing educational productivity. Accommo-dating the new generation of students meansthere will be a much greater imperative to main-tain or improve learning outcomes whilecontaining or reducing costs. To accomplish thisrequires attention to real productivity in highereducation. Failure to act on this imperative couldresult in reduced access, increased time todegree, higher attrition, more tuition depend-ency, and a lower quality of learning.

This scenario is not likely in the small numberof institutions with diverse funding sources,strong endowments, and national or interna-tional reputations. These institutions arealready strong, and likely will remain so. Butpressure to maintain or increase enrollmentsand increase degree production despite fundingreductions will be intense. Absent interventionsto ensure attention to learning quality as thefirst priority, reduced access and loweredquality are serious threats for many Americanhigher education institutions.

0

20

40

60

80

100P E R C E N T

BA DegreeSome CollegeHigh School Graduate

White

African American

Asian American

Latino


Measuring higher education productivity hasalways been tough, in part because of the diffi-culty of measuring student learning. Instead,conventional institutional performance reportinguses input measures (resources, student admis-sions standards, faculty credentials) or activitymeasures (enrollments, time to degree, gradua-tion rates).

Unfortunately, it is possible to produce so-calledimprovements in these measures while actuallyhurting teaching and learning. Institutionswanting to “game” retention and graduationnumbers can do so by raising admissions stan-dards, avoiding part-time and adult students,and passing marginal students despite evidenceof basic skills deficits. One of the most impor-tant public policy imperatives in higher educa-tion is to enhance real institutional productivityby focusing on learning in the face of alteredfunding circumstances.

The “deinstitutionalization” of higher educa-tion. Higher education traditionally has reliedon institutional controls—for example, require-ments for student admissions and curriculumprerequisites to graduation—to assess andmaintain student learning standards. However,changes in higher education now mean thatthese controls capture ever-smaller proportionsof students who earn the bachelor’s degree.

For instance, admissions standards—tradition-ally one of the first lines of quality control—affect only about one-fifth of the students whogo to college. Stanford University researchersestimate that 80 percent of students whomatriculate into higher education go to institu-tions with low or no admissions standards.11

Because so many students take courses fromseveral institutions before graduating, institu-tional quality controls on curriculum andcourse sequencing also are breaking down. Infact, 60 percent of undergraduates attend morethan one institution, and more than 40 percentof students who transfer do so across statelines.12 Although successful graduates earn therequired 120 units, all this mobility makes ittough for educators to gauge whether theirstudents have met specific learning goals.

The most obvious manifestation of the “deinstitu-tionalization” of higher education is distancelearning. Almost all college students now experi-ence some part of their learning electronically,through Internet-enhanced classroom instructionsupplements, if not through courses taughtcompletely online. A recent survey of distance-based learning among accredited institutionsfound that online enrollments are growing inexcess of 20 percent per year. In 2002–03, areported 1.6 million learners across the UnitedStates enrolled in at least one online course. Thisincludes both traditional students who useonline instruction to supplement their residentialexperience and many older working adults. Ifcurrent growth rates continue, by 2015 “virtual”student enrollments will almost equal thenumber of conventional college and universitystudents enrolled today.13

As distance learning has grown, distance-based learning providers have been forced todemonstrate that they are meeting standardsfor learning comparable to conventionallydelivered education. As a result, they have

One of the most important public policy imperatives in highereducation is to enhance real institutional productivity by focusing on learning in the face of altered funding circumstances.


become pioneers in student learning assess-ments. This has also led to a growing aware-ness that there are no benchmarks for learningstandards in conventional education thatcould serve as a basis for comparison withnontraditional providers.

Public policy pressures. Public interest in insti-tutional accountability is by no means confined tohigher education. Opinion polls show a continuederosion of public trust in institutional decisionmaking in both the public and private sectors. Inthe public sector, the “reinventing government”movement has generated a change in thelanguage of public service, away from discussionof organization and process to focus on measur-able goals, performance indicators, and customerservice. Respect for self-regulation also haseroded among the professions, from health careand accounting to K–12 education.

The progress of the K–12 standards-basedassessment and accountability reform movementhas, to many, set the stage for an extension ofthis paradigm into higher education. The K–12model explicitly links student learning assess-ments with institutional performance measures,and is accompanied by sanctions or rewards forunder-performing schools. The goal is to ensurethat all students are taught to the same set ofstandards, and that they achieve learning goalsthrough a centralized curriculum and assess-ment instruments aligned to it.

Despite many bumps in the road, momentumfrom this model has increased expectations foranalogous approaches in higher education.Public policy makers at both the state andfederal levels are calling for stronger accounta-bility systems patterned after the K–12 model.Many higher education leaders argue that theK–12 model is inappropriate and unworkable inhigher education because of postsecondaryeducation’s enormous variety and diversity, theabsence of common curricula, and the differenttypes of student learning goals.

States also have played a very different role instandards and quality assurance in public post-secondary education, in contrast to the systemof local control and finance in elementary andsecondary education. To many public policymakers, articulation of these differences betweenK–12 and postsecondary education, howevervalid, begs the question of what model highereducation leaders are for, rather than whatthey’re against, when it comes to public account-ability for learning.

The forthcoming reauthorization of the HigherEducation Act could set the stage for anexpanded federal role in accountability patternedafter the No Child Left Behind legislation andlinked to federal concern over the rising costs ofhigher education. It is possible that a bipartisanconsensus will form between Congress and theexecutive branch, leading to the imposition offederal higher education accountability stan-dards that are tied to student aid eligibility. Evenif the federal government stays out of it, stategovernments will continue their push towardgreater accountability. This is raising concerns inthe higher education community, where manyare worried about the prospects of governmentintrusion into academic policy areas. But theabsence of alternative measures of institutionalperformance may have created a vacuum thatpolicy makers will try to fill.

Public policy makers at both thestate and federal levels are calling

for stronger accountability systemspatterned after the K–12 model.

16 B U S I N E S S - H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N F O R U M16 B U S I N E S S - H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N F O R U M

Higher education does not suffer from a

lack of assessment.

To the contrary, there is a complicated system ofassessment, including program and institutionalquality review, that has evolved in a decentralizedfashion during the last 100 years. It is, by design,not an integrated framework, but one thatsupports a highly decentralized, market-orientedsystem. The diversity of colleges and universitiesand the wide range of options available tostudents are strengths of the American system.While the majority of institutions are private—59 percent—most students—76 percent—enrollin public institutions. Community colleges consti-tute the single largest sector, enrolling morestudents nationwide than either the public orprivate four-year sectors. Competition amonginstitutions for resources, including students, isoften intense.

Unlike other developed nations, our countrydoes not have a central ministry of education tocontrol or regulate quality in higher education.Student learning assessments and institutionalperformance reviews are conducted through aseries of decentralized and largely disconnectedassessments.

Student learning assessments generally do notconnect to public measures of institutionalperformance, outside of professional licensureexaminations and specialized forms of accredita-

tion. There are some exceptions. Some state systems—Florida and Kentucky, for example—mandate broad tests of learning for advancementor graduation, and these test results are reportedby institutions on state accountability reports.Institutional-level pass rates for students takingprofessional examinations are also included insome public accountability reports.

Generally speaking, the growing interest instudent learning outcomes has been focused onways to connect learning assessment with insti-tutional improvements, not with broad publicgoals for higher education. The internal focushas been motivated by the conviction thatimprovement in performance should, after all, bethe primary purpose of any system for publicaccountability, because accountability is aboutresults and performance. But the inward focusmeans that there may be weaknesses in an insti-tution’s public communication about perform-ance, as well as in the tools that root outperformance problems occurring between ratherthan inside institutions.

We summarize these different approaches inFigure 1, organized according to the audience,purpose, and unit of analysis—students, institu-tions, or other levels—for review.

Two: The Assessment Jungle

Multilayered approaches tointernally focused learningassessments, institutional per-formance, and quality reviews.


Purpose

Screening for admissions,placement

Determining credits orassigning grades for individual courses

Assessment of learningacross curriculum, can berequired for individuals tomove to upper-divisionwork or to graduate; mayalso be included in stateaccountability reports

Public information aboutproxies for performance,such as actuarial data ontime to degree, retention,graduation, finances; mayinclude institution-levelresults from exams

Public certification ofquality, for governmentfunding and institutionalimprovement

Comparisons among insti-tutions on different indica-tors of quality, includingstudent inputs (admis-sions) and retention andgraduation rates

Primarily for licenses;results also may beincluded in other account-ability reports

Primarily for institutionalimprovement, to improvestudent learning experi-ences

Assisting with state policyand planning

Identifying broad patternsof student learning

Audience

Internal to the institution

Internal to the institution,students and faculty

Internal to the institution,students and faculty

Internal and external institutional leaders,government, consumerinformation (used in third-party reviews)

Governing board members,faculty, state government,general public

Consumers, institutionalleaders

Public certification forlicensure

Institutional leaders(reports are public only ifinstitution permits)

State policy makers

National research(although some states“oversample” to use instate accountabilityreports)

Unit of analysis/scope

Student/inputs

Student/course level

Student/cross-curricularlearning or skills

Institutional/campus orsector/system/perform-ance data

Institutional (typically atthe campus level)/peerreview

Institution/campus-levelperformance and reputa-tion

Student learning/disciplineor subject area

Student/institution–assessments of learningexperiences

Aggregate state perform-ance across all institutions

National snapshots ofstudent learning or compe-tencies

Examples

Admissions tests(SAT/ACT), placementtests

Tests, essays

“Rising junior” examina-tions, Capstone examina-tions, portfolio assessments

Student Right to Know,NCES-IPEDS data, stateaccountability reports

Accreditation reviews

Third-party reviews suchas rankings

Accounting, bar, medical,teachers examinations

National Survey ofStudent Engagement,Community College Surveyof Student Engagement

State accountabilityreports, National Centerfor Public Policy andHigher Education ReportCard

National Assessment ofAdult Literacy

Figure 1: Types of Assessments in Higher Education

18 B U S I N E S S - H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N F O R U M18 B U S I N E S S - H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N F O R U M

Three: Making the Connection

Promising innovations that link accountability with learning assessment.

As we have seen, most student learning

assessments fail to make a connection to the

public accountability conversation, in spite of

layers of activity and a vast array of assess-

ment tools.

Fortunately, some educators, policy makers, andresearchers from the institutional level toregional, state, and federal venues are movingtoward a more holistic approach. They are usingassessment information in their efforts to makeprogress toward public policy goals.

Here we describe a range of efforts underway tostrengthen the connection between assessmentand accountability in higher education. Theseefforts include new collaborations acrosssectors, next-generation approaches to stateaccountability reporting, and federal data collec-tion. (See Figure 2, “New Connections BetweenAssessment and Accountability,” for a summary.)

P–16 collaborations. Researchers estimate thattwo-thirds of the institutional variations incollege graduation rates are caused by charac-teristics of the incoming students–in particular,the intensity of their academic preparation forcollege-level work. Improving student prepara-tion for college is essential to national strategiesto close college achievement gaps for poor and

Improving the P–16 ConnectionVoluntary P–16 collaborative structures are designed tofocus on strategies to increase college preparedness for allstudents, improve college-going rates, and enhance reten-tion and graduation from college. The agenda includesaligning high school curricula with graduation requirements,and giving more attention to the skills needed for studentsto succeed in college. The following examples, which aretwo among many, show the promise of this work.

In 2003, the Association of American Universities spon-sored work by a group called Standards for Success (S4S)to study the alignment between high school examinations andthe standards needed to succeed in college. Their study,Mixed Messages, shows state-by-state results of theiranalysis, which demonstrates a spotty match between highschool exams and college learning requirements. The resultsshouldn’t be surprising, because neither side has considereditself responsible for addressing these misalignments. But theresearch allows the work to move to the next level, which isengagement of strategies to ensure smoother transitions fromhigh school to college.14

In another effort, officials in the California State Univer-sity (CSU) partnered with K–12 officials to use the resultsof an already mandated statewide exam administered to11th graders as their placement exams for remedial work inCSU. This allows them to identify potential learning defi-ciencies for CSU-bound students while the students stillhave a year of high school to complete, thus allowing themto raise their skill levels before, rather than after, enrolling incollege. The results are expected to reduce the need forremediation among CSU students, thus increasing retentionand graduation, and shortening time to degree.15


Innovation

P–16 collaborations and alignments

Measuring student engagement

Regional accreditation focus onstudent learning outcomes

State accountability reports

Improved federal data andresearch

Public Policy Goals

Improve transitions from high schoolto college; improve high schoolgraduation rates; reduce collegeremediation; increase college gradu-ation; and lower college time-to-degree and cost to the student.

Improve conditions for studentlearning; and develop tools to allowcomparisons of learning engage-ment across institutions.

Boost accrediting agencies’ andinstitutions’ focus on studentlearning; and connect evidence ofstudent learning to institutionalquality review.

Retool information to supportdecentralization with accountability;clarify levels of data required bystate policy audiences vs. institu-tional governing boards; and assignresponsibility for student learningassessment to institutions,connected to broad state goals forpostsecondary education.

Track students across institutionsand states; improve information onstudent preparation, course work,retention, and graduation; andupdate information on adult literacyand workforce readiness.

Connections

Alignment between high schoolgraduation exams and college-entrance learning assessments.

Provide feedback to institutions (andpublic) on student survey resultsregarding college experiences.

Ensure institutions have policies/processes to gauge student learninggoals and results; and help institu-tions and accrediting agenciesdevelop a common language tocommunicate their work.

Strengthen capacity to make policydecisions based on performancedata.

Provide improved building blocks forstate accountability reports, third-party reviews, and federal and statepolicy.

Figure 2: New Connections Between Assessment and Accountability

minority students. Many institutions and somestates are working to address the quality ofstudent preparation for college through bettercollaborations between K–12 and higher educa-tion. These collaborations are commonly knownas P–16 initiatives. (See “Improving the P–16Connection.”)

Measuring student engagement. The NationalSurvey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and itscounterpart, the Community College Survey ofStudent Engagement (CCSSE), are surveys con-ducted at the individual institutional level,assessing college students’ views on differentaspects of their experience.16 Neither NSSE norCCSSE purports to measure student learning

outcomes or attribute learning results to theinstitutions; instead they measure processes andactivities, such as types of assignments, timespent with faculty members, and time spent inconversation with other students.

These measures were selected because they arewidely believed to contribute to effectiveteaching and learning, and are measures of goodteaching practices that should exist in all institu-tions, regardless of their mission. NSSE surveyresults are provided in confidence to the institu-tion (although some institutions make the resultspublic) whereas institutional results from CCSSEare public.

Regional accreditation. Accreditation is a funda-mental part of the American system of qualityassurance for higher education. It has evolvedover the last hundred years, from its roots involuntary and largely private institutional peerreviews to an increasingly public partnershipbetween institutions and government. Thispublic partnership is overseen by the federalgovernment through periodic reviews of theaccrediting agencies to ensure that they meetfederal standards.

For many years, the federal standards for accred-itation focused on processes for review of organi-zational characteristics (such as mission,finance, governance, and curriculum design, asappropriate to each institution’s mission). Since1992, the federal government has required agen-cies to develop an additional standard onstudent learning outcomes. The new require-ments have accelerated an ongoing nationalconversation about the purposes of accredita-tion and the role of student learning in institu-tional accreditation. (See “Student Learning andInstitutional Accreditation.”)

Strengthening state accountability reporting—and improving federal data and research. Most ofthe work being done nationally on public account-ability is occurring at the state level, throughvarious instruments designed to provide publicinformation about higher education performance.

Over the past decade, every state has developedsome type of accountability report for higher

education, ranging from institutional-level datacompilations, to “report cards” for each institu-tion showing common state indicators, tostatewide data collections that aggregate datafrom all institutions to produce a compositestatewide picture. Several important initiativesare helping state leaders strengthen the trans-parency of information contained in these reportson student learning, as well as better collect datafor specific policy and oversight purposes.

Federal data provide some of the building blocksfor these state accountability reports, as well asfor third-party reviews such as rankings services.Recent improvements in these data are havingwidespread impact. And a new generation offederal research on the skills of traditionalstudents and adults is boosting the capacity ofpolicy makers and higher education leaders totailor policy and programs more precisely to theneeds of today’s learners. (See “The Next Genera-tion of State Accountability Reporting andFederal Research.”)

Student Learning and InstitutionalAccreditationWithin the past six years, all regional accrediting agencieshave rewritten their standards for review to include a newstandard on learning results. To accomplish this whilerespecting the realities of organizational complexity andinstitutional autonomy, they have focused on evidence ofinstitutional assessments of learning goals and results,defined in the context of each individual institution. In otherwords, the review is of institutional policies and processes,not measures of student learning. Accrediting agencies offerguides for learning assessments, and maintain libraries ofinstitutional best practices in learning assessments.

The regional agencies also are collaborating at the nationallevel. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation isleading these cooperative efforts through its nationalproject on student learning outcomes. This project isongoing, and is funded in part by the Pew Charitable Trusts.The project goals are as follows: to help accrediting agen-cies develop a coherent way to explain their work; todevelop a common language to communicate about studentlearning within higher education; and to develop commonresources to help agencies and institutions improve theirfocus on student learning.17

Recent improvements in these data are having

widespread impact.


The Next Generation of State Accountability Reporting and Federal ResearchInterest in accountability at the state level has grown, asstates have changed their governance structures by tradingin old state control mechanisms for stronger accountabilityfor results. Historical approaches to program-level control(such as program review) are being discarded in favor ofgreater institutional autonomy to respond to local markets.

The result has been that many states–and institutions–arelooking for information system changes that support decen-tralization along with accountability. States have struggledto find ways to embed information about student learninginto their statewide accountability systems.

Several projects are developing better models for statesseeking to embed student learning into public accountabilityreporting.

Historically, the federal government’s primary role in postsec-ondary education has been to ensure broad-based economicaccess to higher education through the need-based studentaid programs. But the federal government has a second andimportant role with regard to the accountability agenda,because it is the primary keeper of national data abouthigher education institutions. Among other things, thefederal methodology for calculating cohort retention, time-to-degree, and graduation rates has become the gold standardfor institutional, state, and accrediting agency reporting.

State accountability initiatives. The Pew CharitableTrusts–sponsored National Forum on College-Level Learningis working with a small group of states to generate state-based data about the intellectual qualities of their gradu-ates, by developing statewide average scores from existingtests. The effort is designed to lead to a model that willgrade states on student learning, potentially to be used inthe National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education’sMeasuring Up report card on state performance.18 Thegrades will focus on the statewide level, and will notinclude data about individual students or institutions.

Another effort is underway through the National GovernorsAssociation Center for Best Practices. The center is workingwith a number of states to discuss the effectiveness of theiraccountability reporting, and to find ways to generalizebeyond their experiences to create some best practices. Oneof the lessons that is emerging from this work is thatstatewide accountability systems should be tiered, to distin-guish between aggregate statewide data aimed at statepolicy audiences, and the more detailed institutional

performance data needed by institutional governing boards.In this model, state policy makers would require that institu-tional governing boards take responsibility for defininglearning goals and for measuring learning results, consistentwith their mission within the broader state structure.19

Federal data and research improvements. Nationallycollected data on retention and graduation currently providethe most significant basis for accountability reports aboutinstitutional performance leading to student success. Theseprograms are more important than ever, given the changingeconomics of higher education.

Unfortunately, these data tell us about student enrollment,or “seat time,” measured in credits accumulated, and aboutattrition patterns, but not much about what students havelearned or what they are able to do. Even with this limita-tion, however, these data reveal a good deal about the gapsbetween national performance and institutional-level data,gaps that are caused by the growing number of studentswho take courses from more than one institution. Thesestudents currently are counted in institutional-level reportsas drop-outs, despite the fact that the majority ultimatelyearn a degree. Improvements in student data collection arebeing made to allow individual students to be tracked acrossinstitutions and across states.

National research also has improved through the administra-tion of periodic sampling of student transcripts and skillsassessments done by the National Center for EducationalStatistics, specifically through the center’s National Educa-tional Longitudinal surveys (NELS), the Beginning Postsec-ondary Students (BPS) surveys, and the Baccalaureate andBeyond surveys. These surveys provide the best source ofnational data about student preparation and coursework,and how these factors affect student progress through theK–16 pipeline.

There is one direct assessment–or test–of some adultlearning, called the National Assessment of Adult Literacy(NAAL).20 Administered by the National Center for EducationStatistics, NAAL is an examination of English-languageprose, document, and quantitative literacy skills adminis-tered to a nationally representative sample of Americanadults aged 16 and older. NAAL provides national snapshotsof broad changes in adult literacy. NAAL or a similar instru-ment conceivably could be administered to a nationalsample of individuals who have attended or graduated fromcollege.


22 B U S I N E S S - H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N F O R U M22 B U S I N E S S - H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N F O R U M22 B U S I N E S S - H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N F O R U M

The gaps between learning assessments

and public indicators of performance in

higher education are pervasive enough that

changes are needed to meet the goals of

improved measures of learning and public

accountability. Wholesale changes creating

a single system, integrated through a com-

mon vocabulary with common metrics, are

neither practical nor appropriate, given the

diversity and decentralization of American

higher education.

But clearly, there continue to be significant gapsin the information that the public and policymakers can access about learning assessment inthe context of accountability systems.

• There is a lack of consensus within highereducation and in government about whatconstitutes an appropriate accountabilitymodel for higher education. The defaultmodel for public accountability is the K–12approach, which connects individual studentassessment with common measures of insti-

tutional performance. The diversity ofcolleges and universities, however, preventsthis from becoming a workable model forhigher education.

• Most of the attention to accountability inhigher education is institutionally defined andis designed to measure learning as a tool forinstitutional improvement. Much of the infor-mation is not translated to the public, andlacks context from comparative data aboutother institutions or from national measuresof expected outcomes. Public accountabilitycannot be achieved when the learning assess-ment system is so self-referential.

• Broad measures of student learning remaindisconnected from public policy decisionsconcerning allocation of resources at thestate and federal levels. Neither state norinstitutional decision makers can look atbroad trends to understand the conse-quences of changed resources on studentlearning. Too often, “productivity” is seen asa way to cut costs, rather than a way toprotect and improve quality.

In our judgment, these gaps cannot be solvedentirely by improving communication aboutwhat is already in place. We believe it is time forhigher education leaders to recognize this andtake a proactive, constructive stance towardpublic accountability and student learning. Thisis not a short-term political problem that will

Four:Toward a New

Accountability ConsensusPublic accountability designprinciples for a diverse highereducation system.


blow over. In fact, there are substantive andserious reasons for fresh alternatives to ourhistorical approaches to internal assessment andexternal accountability for learning.

To solve the problem of incomplete publicmeasures of student learning while preservingthe strengths of the existing system, we needcoordinated strategies, beginning with the indi-vidual institution, and extending to states,accrediting agencies, and the national level.These strategies must be grounded in a sharedvision of how they fit into a larger structure ofpublic accountability for student learning,based on some broadly shared values aboutpurpose, audience, and priority.

This paper stops short of making specific recom-mendations about how this might work. We do,however, offer some design principles that couldform the basis for a national consensus about anew, constructive framework for accountabilityin postsecondary education. These principlesinclude the following:

Purpose and need. Better tools for publicaccountability are needed to improve perform-ance in teaching and learning across all of highereducation, and to ensure public trust in highereducation institutions.

Language. Assessment and accountability arenot synonymous. Assessment is analysis of datafor the purpose of institutional improvement. Ac-countability is the public communication aboutdifferent dimensions of performance, geared togeneral audiences, and framed in the context ofgoals and standards. Public accountabilitysystems are built upon and support effectiveinstitutional-level assessment and accountabilitystructures, but they are not substitutes for them.This is a key distinction from the accountabilitymodel applied to K–12 education, which usesassessment as the basis for accountability.Without debating the merits of this approach inK–12, we have concluded that this model is notuseful to higher education.

Distinction among roles. There are multipleactors involved in accountability for quality in

higher education. Each entity should do what itdoes best and with the greatest legitimacy. Dupli-cation of effort should be avoided. (See Figure 3,“Toward a New Accountability Consensus: Levelsof Responsibility,” next page.)

The institutional role. Each college and univer-sity should be able to define its expectations forstudent learning and provide evidence of itssuccess in meeting these goals in broadly under-standable terms. Institutions must find ways toclearly communicate their goals—and evidenceof their effectiveness—to students, parents,employers, and others. Institutions already arerequired to factor learning assessments into theaccreditation review. It is time to build upon thisplatform by extending what has been an inter-nally directed agenda to include public audi-ences. Individual institutional governing boards,working with faculty, students, and other stake-holders, need to be part of this discussion.

This is not a short-term politicalproblem that will blow over. In fact,there are substantive and seriousreasons for fresh alternatives to our historical approaches to internal assessment and externalaccountability for learning.


Figure 3: Toward a New Accountability Consensus: Levels of ResponsibilityAssessment is an analytical tool for evaluating performance, and accountability is the public presentation and communication of evidence about performance in relation to goals. What are thevarious roles and responsibilities for developing the tools and systems to translate data into informa-tion from the institutional level to the levels of regional accreditation, as well as to state and federalpolicy?


The states’ role. State governments should buildaccountability structures that distinguishbetween aggregate statewide and institutionalperformance. The primary audiences forstatewide data are state public policy makers,who need to be able to assess broad progresstoward well-defined state goals. They should payparticular attention to student flow across insti-tutions, including transitions from high school tocollege, student transfer, and patterns forreturning adult student enrollment and gradua-tion. States should structure accountabilitysystems such that institutions bear the primaryresponsibility for institutional accountability,including setting goals and documentingoutcomes for student learning.

Regional accrediting bodies’ role. Regionalaccreditation plays a key role as the bridgebetween individual institutional assessment andpublic accountability for quality. The Americansystem of self-regulation through accreditationhas much that is worthwhile, and it should bestrengthened and preserved. Accreditationalready is regulated by the federal government,and is a likely target for even more governmentintervention as part of the reauthorization of theHigher Education Act. In this process, the poten-tial exists for the government to move beyondrequiring public disclosure to dictating the termsunder which disclosure must take place. Unlessdone carefully, this process could become avehicle for federal intrusion into academic policy,including admissions, curriculum, and gradua-tion standards. To maintain appropriate inde-pendence from government, accreditors need toimprove public communication about their stan-dards and expectations for learning, includingbroad learning outcomes expected at thebaccalaureate and associate degree levels.

The federal government’s role. The federalgovernment has two roles to play in this agenda.The first and most important is to maintain itshistorical focus on educational equity andeconomic opportunity in higher education. Thenation’s commitment to higher education accessfor all students, regardless of their economiccircumstances, has never been more important.States and institutions need the federal govern-

ment to maintain need-based aid for college. Butthe federal role in research and data collection isalso key to this agenda. Improvements in federaldata collection and research have helped shedlight on broad patterns of student flow acrossinstitutions and states. The federal governmentneeds to continue to lead data collection effortsto track student flow across institutions.

The role of national research. Better data aboutstudent learning is needed, and a nationalresearch agenda needs to be engaged towardthat end. We need the equivalent of clinical trialresearch on student learning in higher educa-tion—independent from inappropriate intrusionby governmental, institutional, or other interests.That will require a much more sustained,focused, and disciplined investment than is nowbeing made in comprehensive longitudinalresearch, using a variety of measures of learning.

There are multiple actors involvedin accountability for quality inhigher education. Each entityshould do what it does best andwith the greatest legitimacy.


This paper has explored some of the issues

of assessment and accountability for student

learning in American higher education.

The Forum is convinced that improved perform-ance on student learning—including closinggaps among ethnic groups in different dimen-sions of learning—is central to the nationalimperative to maintain economic growth,improve worker skills, enhance the diversity ofthe workforce, and increase educational produc-tivity within higher education. Greater trans-parency about learning is also needed tomaintain public credibility about quality andperformance in America’s higher educationinstitutions.

Moving forward on this agenda will requirechanges in both national and institutionalassessments of student learning.

Unless we develop better instruments that willallow us to be seriously engaged in this issue,efforts to improve teaching and learning will beaddressed only rhetorically and politically. Astrong potential exists for one-size-fits-all solu-tions, imposed from outside higher education.The results could be a waste of time at best, anddamaging at worst.

A better path is one that will respect the diver-sity and decentralization of American higher

education. This path also will require consensusabout models for connecting learning assess-ment with public accountability that respect ahigher education system that is the envy of theworld.

A strong potential exists for one-size-fits-all solutions, imposed fromoutside higher education.Theresults could be a waste of time atbest, and damaging at worst.

Summary andConclusions

Assessment, accountability,and America’s future.

28 B U S I N E S S - H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N F O R U M28 B U S I N E S S - H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N F O R U M28 B U S I N E S S - H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N F O R U M28 B U S I N E S S - H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N F O R U M

Adelman, C. S. (1999). Answers in the tool box:Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Allen, I. E., and Seaman, J. (2003, September). Seizing the opportunity: The quality and extent ofon-line education in the U.S., 2002 and 2003. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.

Astin, A. W., and Oseguera, L. (2002, November). Degree attainment rates at American collegesand universities. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California,Los Angeles.

Boyd, D. (2002, September). State spending for higher education in the next decade. Boulder, CO:National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.

Carnevale, A. P., and Desrochers, D. M. (2003). Standards for what? The economic roots of K–16reform. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Carnevale, A. P., and Fry, R. (2000). Crossing the great divide: Can we achieve equity when gener-ation Y goes to college? Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Chun, M. (2002, Winter/Spring). Looking where the light is better: A review of the literature onassessing higher education quality. Peer Review, 4(2/3).

Community College Survey of Student Engagement. (2003). The community college studentreport. Austin, TX: University of Texas. See http://www.ccsse.org/aboutsurvey/aboutsurvey.html.

Conley, D. (2003). Mixed messages: What state high school tests communicate about studentreadiness for college. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy Research, University of Oregon.

Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2002, September). The fundamentals of accredita-tion: What do you need to know? Washington, DC: Author.

Dunham, K. J. (2003, October 28). More employers are asking job seekers for SAT scores. WallStreet Journal, B1.

The Education Trust. (2001). Achievement in America 2001. Washington, DC: Author.

Ewell, P. T. (2001, September). Accreditation and student learning outcomes: A proposed point ofdeparture. Occasional paper. Washington, DC: Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

References


Ewell, P. T., Schild, P. R., and Paulson, K. (2003). Following the mobile student. Indianapolis, IN:Lumina Foundation for Education.

Kirst, M. W. (2003). Using K–12 assessments for college placement. Draft, in Doubling the num-bers: Postsecondary attainment and underrepresented youth. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.

Miller, M. n.d. National Forum on College-Level Learning project summary. See http://collegelevellearning.org.

Mishel, L., Bernstein, J., and Schmidt, J. (2001). The state of working America 2000–2001. Ithaca,NY: ILR Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. n.d. National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Seehttp://nces.ed.gov/naal.

. (1996). National Education Longitudinal Study: 1988–1994. Descriptive summary report.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

. (2002). Digest of education statistics, 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2003, June). Assessment, accountabil-ity, and productivity. Draft. Washington, DC: Author.

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2000). The NSSE 2000 report: National benchmarks ofeffective educational practice. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. See http://www.iub.edu/~nsse.

Venezia, A., Kirst, M. W., and Antonio, A. (2003). Betraying the college dream. Final report ofStanford University’s Bridge Project. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education. (2003, December). Knocking at the collegedoor: Projections of high school graduates by state, income, and race/ethnicity. Boulder, CO:Author.


1 Mishel, L., Bernstein, J. and Schmidt, J. (2001).The state of working America 2000-2001. Ithaca: NY: ILR Press.

2 Carnevale, A. P., and Desrochers, D. M. (2003). Standards for what? The economic roots of K–16reform. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

3 See Dunham, K. J. (2003, October 28). More employers are asking job seekers for SAT scores.Wall Street Journal, B1.

4 Carnevale, A. and Fry, R. (2000). Crossing the great divide: Can we achieve equity when gener-ation Y goes to college? Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

5 Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. (2003, December). Knocking at the collegedoor, Projections of high school graduates by state, income, and race/ethnicity. Boulder, CO:Author.

6 Carnevale and Fry, op. cit., 42–43.

7 Adelman, C. S. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, andbachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office ofEducation Research and Improvement.

8 The Education Trust. (2001). Achievement in America 2001. Washington, DC: Author.

9 National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Digest of education statistics, 2002. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Education.

10 Boyd, D. (2002, September). State spending for higher education in the next decade. Boulder,CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.

11 Venezia, A., Kirst, M. W., and Antonio, A. (2003). Betraying the college dream. Final report ofStanford University’s Bridge Project. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

12 Adelman, C., op. cit.

13 Allen, I. E., and Seaman, J. (2003, September). Seizing the opportunity: The quality and extentof on-line education in the U.S., 2002 and 2003. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.

14 Conley, D. (2003). Mixed messages: What state high school tests communicate about studentreadiness for college. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy Research, University of Oregon.

Endnotes


15 Kirst, M. W. (2003). Using K–12 assessments for college placement. Draft, in Doubling the num-bers: Postsecondary attainment and underrepresented youth. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.

16 National Survey of Student Engagement. (2000). The NSSE 2000 report: National benchmarksof effective educational practice. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. Seehttp://www.iub.edu/~nsse. Community College Survey of Student Engagement. (2003). Thecommunity college student report. Austin, TX: University of Texas. Seehttp://www.ccsse.org/aboutsurvey/aboutsurvey.html.

17 Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2002, September). The fundamentals of accredita-tion: What do you need to know? Washington, DC: Author.

18 Miller, M. n.d. National Forum on College-Level Learning project summary. See http://www.col-legelevellearning.org.

19 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2003, June). Assessment, accounta-bility, and productivity. Draft. Washington, DC: Author.

20 National Center for Education Statistics. n.d. National assessment of adult literacy. Seehttp://nces.ed.gov/naal.


Public Accountability for Student Learning in Higher Education: Issues and Options was madepossible by the involvement of many people and institutions. The draft report was circulated to70 individuals, whose comments helped shape the final product. We thank all of them for theirparticipation.

A working group of Business–Higher Education Forum members drove this effort: Larry Bacow(President, Tufts University), Warren Baker (President, California Polytechnic State University),Chris Christoffersen (Venture Partner, Morgenthaler Ventures), Mike Emmi (President and ChiefExecutive Officer, IPR International), Bob Jones (President, Education and Workforce Policy LLC),C. Peter Magrath (President, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges),Constantine Papadakis (President, Drexel University), Will Pesce (President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), Betty Siegel (President, Kennesaw State University), Art Smith(President, University of Houston), L. Dennis Smith (President, University of Nebraska), RandySmith (President, Western Division, Tenet Healthcare Corporation) and David Ward (President,American Council on Education). They worked with co-chairs Charles B. Reed (Chancellor,California State University) and Edward B. Rust, Jr. (Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, StateFarm Insurance Companies). Their continuous input, review, chairing of conference calls, atten-tion to the issues, and—importantly—availability helped this report cross the finish line.

Charlie and Ed also played a key role in securing funding for the report. They spearheaded thiseffort, identifying and securing the funds required to initiate, continue, and complete the work.Again, we thank them.

We also would like to thank Jane V. Wellman, Senior Associate at the Institute for HigherEducation Policy. Jane served as consultant to the working group and the Forum on this project.She worked tirelessly, frequently going above and beyond the call of duty to keep us on task,focused, and relevant. Her efforts are much appreciated.

The Forum is also grateful to the following people, who provided invaluable advice: DonaldLangenberg (University of Maryland), David Warren (National Association of IndependentColleges and Universities), Patrick Callan and Joni Finney (The National Center for Public Policyand Higher Education), Dennis Jones and Peter Ewell (National Center for Higher EducationManagement Systems), Margaret Miller (University of Virginia), Kristin Conklin (NationalGovernors Association), Nancy Shulock (Sacramento State University), George Kuh (IndianaUniversity), Trudy Banta (Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis), Judith Eaton(Council for Higher Education Accreditation), Mike Baer (American Council on Education) andDennis Smith (University of Nebraska) for hosting a discussion session on student learning out-comes at the University of Nebraska.

Finally, we thank the staff of the Forum, led by Jerry Murphy, Director, and Jack Riehl, DeputyDirector. Staff members Jenifer Ehrlich, Communications Manager, and Tonya Guess, ProgramCoordinator, also provided valuable support.

Acknowledgments

B U S I N E S S - H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N F O R U M

In Affiliation with the American Council on Education

One Dupont Circle NW

Washington, DC 20036-1193

202.939.9345

fax: 202.833.4723

E-mail: [email protected]

Web: www.bhef.com

Public Accountability for Student Learning in Higher ...• Accountability is the public...

Documents

Transcript of Public Accountability for Student Learning in Higher ...• Accountability is the public...