Higher ed accountability proposals advance
On both the state and national level, proposals are moving ahead that aim to provide policymakers and the public with measures for gauging the performance of higher education. Whether such measures can be consistently applied to the wide range of different institutions with different missions and curricula is an important question.
State discussion
In Minnesota, in response to request from Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the Legislature, work has progressed on offering a clearer view of the overall performance of the state’s higher education sector. In June the state’s Office of Higher Education released 15 proposed indicators, which were developed under contract by National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS), an educational research consulting firm. NCHEMS consulted with stakeholders statewide, including the Minnesota Private College Council.
NCHEMS’ proposed Minnesota indicators tie into five recommended goals for higher education in Minnesota:
- Improve success of all students, particularly students from groups underrepresented in higher education,
- Create a responsive system that produces graduates at all levels who meet the demand of the economy,
- Increase student learning and improve skill levels of students so they can compete effectively in the global marketplace,
- Contribute to the development of a state economy that is competitive in the global marketing through research, workforce training and other appropriate means, and
- Provide access, affordability and choice for all students.
The proposed goal of improving success of all students links to the lower level of higher education degrees awarded to some ethnic groups, at a time when the school-age population is growing more diverse. NCHEMS wrote that “the aspirations of the state will be hard to achieve unless the educational attainment gap . . . can be substantially reduced.” And the goal of producing graduates who meet the demand of the economy responds to another worrisome fact that NCHEMS noted: Minnesota is producing too few graduates at both the associate and baccalaureate levels. In particular, the state’s share of degrees produced in science and engineering fields is below the national average.
View the list of 15 proposed indicators and the full NCHEMS report (PDF)
The state discussion remains preliminary, but it shows more promise than what is occurring nationally. Significantly, the Office of Higher Education has been willing to limit the amount of and use of potentially sensitive student data that would be collected from institutions. As the work continues, this is perhaps the most essential part of the project — building necessary safeguards into whatever system is created.
National-level approach differs
Like their Minnesota counterparts, policymakers at the federal level are proposing to measure the performance of students and higher education institutions. For example, a national association of state-owned universities recently endorsed the idea of measuring and reporting on education outcomes, campus-learning climate and other consumer information. And the chair of the U.S. Department of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education has called for more transparency on higher education institutions’ effectiveness. But significant questions exist about the process to use to generate more meaningful public reporting, in particular around the confidentiality of the student data.
The National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), which includes MPCC’s members, has taken a leading public role before the Congress in raising concerns over current proposals that would mandate that colleges report students’ personal data to the federal government. Under the federal proposals, there would be no effective limits on how students’ data could be used in conjunction with other information that the federal government might collect.
The privacy concerns extend to the national discussion of developing a student unit record, which the Bush administration has proposed but neither House of Congress has endorsed. Earlier this month NAICU released a poll showing the public is not sold on the development of this kind of national tracking; 62 percent of respondents opposed requiring colleges and universities to report individual student information to the federal government. This issue will be further discussed this fall, as the Department of Education’s commission finalizes its recommendations, and Congress continues work on reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
Examples of possible accountability measures
- Increases in the number of degrees that are awarded in science and technology fields in Minnesota, compared to best-performing states and other countries. (Minnesota proposal)
- The share of students — broken down by income level — who attend Minnesota private colleges and universities, as well as state-owned options. (Minnesota proposal)
- How different schools succeed at building their students’ critical thinking skills or analytical reasoning. (national proposal)