"A New Era of Accountability"
Recommended Readings
The resources in bold were written by presenters.
1. National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education. Accountability for Better Results: A National Imperative for Higher Education. (2005).
http://www.sheeo.org/account/accountability.pdf
After defining accountability as a “democratic process through which shared goals are explicitly established, progress is measured and work to improve performance is motivated and guided,” the report assigns responsibility to the various higher education partners: governors, legislators and state boards, the federal government, institutional leaders and trustees, accrediting associations, and faculty and students.
2. Accountability: To Whom and For What? American Academic. Volume 2 Number 1 March 2006
A collection of papers from a variety of perspectives.
3. An Assessment Framework for the community college. Measuring student learning and Achievement as a Means of Demonstrating Institutional effectiveness
www.league.org/publications/whitepaper/0840.html
A good glossary of terms and overall guide to the assessment of student learning.
4. Burke, J. C. & Associates. (2005). Achieving Accountability in Higher Education:Balancing Public, Academic, and Market Demands. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
This book’s organizing framework is the “accountability triangle: state priorities, academic concerns and market forces.” It provides a history and broad overview of the forces driving accountability. Particularly interesting in light of the Secretary’s Commission.
5. Dwyer, C. A., Millett, C.M., Payne, D.G. (2006). A Culture of Evidence:
Postsecondary Assessment and Learning Outcomes. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service
6. Eaton, J. S. (2006, April) Statement. Given before the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Washington D.C. http://www.chea.org/news/Testimony0406.htm
Judith Eaton is president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, a voluntary “coordinating” body of regional and professional accrediting associations.
7. Hummel-Rossi, B. and J. Ashdown (2002). “The State of Cost-Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Education”. Review of Educational Research 72 (1): 1-30.
The authors explain that the use of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses in education has been quite limited. They note that “…few studies are found in which cost-benefit and/or cost-effectiveness analyses are undertaken in relation to program decision making” (pg. 2). Meanwhile, advances in cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses have been made in other fields, such as health, human services, and the medical field. The authors report that in New York, the Board of Regents asked a panel to analyze why cost-effectiveness evaluations were not used more frequently in education. The panel found that there were “conceptual measurement issues.” In addition, they reported that there was a “need for greater understanding by education decision makers regarding the appropriate application of cost-effectiveness data” (pg.10). Furthermore, they noted that there was a lack of incentives for educational decision makers to undertake cost-effectiveness analyses.
8. Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2006). Making Accountability Work. Community Colleges and Statewide Higher Education Accountability Systems
http://www.ihep.org/organizations.php3?action=printContentItem&orgid=104&typeID=906&itemID=18476
This report examines state accountability systems in 8 states. It identifies significant problems for community colleges and recommends that states use 6 measures to improve their systems: focus, differentiation, contextualization, integrity, attention to resources, and stability and usability.
9. Levin, H. M. and P. J. McEwan (2001) Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and Applications. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications.
This is the best all-purpose introduction to cost-effectiveness analysis in education. The authors state that cost-effectiveness analysis provides a mechanism for selecting among various alternatives with the goal of accomplishing a specific result most without unnecessary spending. It “refers to the evaluation of alternatives according to both their cost and their effects with regard to producing some outcome.” (pg. 10). The authors explain the differences among cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-utility and cost-feasibility analyses.
10. Linkon, S. L. (2005). How Can Assessment Work for Us?
Academe, Volume 91, number 4.
Examines issues of faculty resistance.
11. Lumina Foundation for Higher Education. (2005). Data Don’t Drive: Building a Practitioner-Driven Culture of Inquiry to Assess Community College Performance. http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/datadontdrive2005.pdf
This work sets the stage for one of them main points of our program; more rigorous methods of assessment require an investment in professional development. It analyzes different kinds of benchmarking currently in use among community colleges.
12. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2006). Baldrige in Education: Performance Excellence Delivers World-Class Results.
http://www.quality.nist.gov/Issue_Sheet_ED_Excellence.htm
A brief outline of outcomes among Baldrige award winners.
13. The Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education: Commission Report.(Draft.) (2006).
www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports.html
Read this! There are two drafts. The second is less harsh in tone than the first, but still reflects major criticisms of higher education. Both Inside Higher Education and the Chronicle of Higher Education have provided continuous analysis of the Commission’s work which is worth following.
If the topic of accountability wasn’t a high priority before, this report should put it at the top of the list.
Additional papers that were part of the Commission’s deliberations are also on this web site:
Hidden in Plain Sight: Adult Learners Forge a New Tradition in Higher Education. Peter J. Stokes
The Need for Accreditation Reform. Robert C. Dickeson
Accountability/ Assessment. Charles Millier & Geri Malandra
Accountability/ Consumer Information. Charles Miller
Assuring Quality in Higher education: Recommendations for Improving Accreditation. Vickie Schray
Assuring Quality in Higher Educations: Key Issues and Questions for Changing Accreditation in the United States. Vickie Schray
14. RichlandCollege. (2005). 2005 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Application.
http://www.rlc.dcccd.edu/Baldrige_App.pdf
This will give you a sense of the complexity of a Baldrige application.
15. Swail, W.S. (2004). Value Added: The Costs and Benefits of College-Preparatory Programs. Washington, D.C., Educational Policy Institute, Inc.: 1-21.
The authors of this report contend that education stakeholders seldom ask about whether outreach programs are effective and an efficient use of resources. They state that “…[T]here is a growing acknowledgement of the need to look at the cost/benefit of these programs and whether the investment is worth the outcomes.” The paper is excerpted from a SUNY Press book, Preparing for College, edited by Tierney et. al. The paper explicitly describes the use of cost analysis as a way to answer questions about programs’ effectiveness in terms of the resources invested in them.
