RECONCILING POLITICAL AND ACADEMIC ACCOUNTABILITY CULTURES
This document may be too large for your printer buffer to handle. We suggest downloading this document to a disk if printing difficulties are encountered or e-mailing the author for a hard copy by clicking on his/her name.
In the latter half of the 20th century, Americans have made a
magnificent investment in higher education: 3600 campuses, 600,000
faculty, 15 million students, $170 billion in revenues. Had the
technology been available, a scanning satellite making a pass over
the nation every ten years since 1950 would furnish dramatic
evidence of the physical growth of campuses and the establishment
of new programs and services. This expansion would include a
tripling of two-year community college campuses and a doubling of
doctoral granting institutions.
Americans justifiably celebrate higher education as an
investment in the power of ideas and as an expression of their
faith in the centrality of education to a democratic society. We
herald our colleges and universties as organizational instruments
of our curiosity and wonder, as forums of discovery and dissent,
We assign to them the mission of advancing on the enemies of
ignorance and prejudice. We hold them as repositories of value,
beauty, and standard--calling student and society to excellence in
the arts, in the sciences, and in the professions.
We mark them as engines of cultural and economic development,
making it possible for individuals and society to reach the far
edge of their circle of promise. We place with them the
responsibility of putting knowledge and wisdom to work, grappling
in the dirty trenches of the nation and the world to battle those
problems that beset mind, body, and spirit.
There is, however, an arresting and contrasting civic
perception in these closing years of the 20th century, years marked
by frequent critical assault for a range of perceived and real
shortcomings. Each year of the past decade has seen at least one
book length treatment critical of higher education. Bloom's 1986
The Closing of the American Mind, Sykes 1990 Profscam, Smith's
Killing the Spirit, Anderson's 1991 Imposters in the Temple,
Roche's 1993 The Leaning Ivory Tower and Patterson's 1995 When
Learned Men Murder are just a few among those critical reviews.
As illustrated in the 1993 monograph An American Imperative,
concern with the "moral compass" and "moral vocation" role of
higher education is more frequently found in public discourse.
The disappointing display of values in American higher education
can be found in an unfortunate array of both personal and
institutional dramas of dark texture.
Here, as just one quick example, is a major state university
and its medical center admitting patients for heart transplant
surgery, with the full knowledge that the probability of these
surgeries actually taking place is virtually zero. Patients and
insurance companies are billed for large sums. Those aware of this
cruel charade included medical staff, the dean of the medical
school, and it appears upper level administrators in the
university. The depressing state of health for both patients and
university was brought to light in a legislative audit.
We are not talking here about the mismanagement of research,
the degradation of academic credentials, or the careless
stewardship of public resources. We are talking about a callous
disregard for human life and dignity in an academic and
professional field whose purposes are to revere and enhance human
life and dignity. From this and a hundred other sad stories, is it
any wonder, then, that civic and political officers may question
whether higher education has severed the precious link between mind
and heart, whether our pursuit of technical competence is
unaccompanied by cultivation of conscience.
In his 1996 work No Neutral Ground, Robert Young explores those
values that have traditionally undergirded the American college and
university. His title emphasizes that academic organizations are
no more value free than any other organization. Here is thoughtful
reminder that what we know will always be servant to what we
believe. In our policy and practice, we elect and we model values
that can have helpful or harmful valence.
Public disaffection with some of the values being modeled in
higher education add force to other pressure vectors faced by
higher education in these closing years of the 20th century:
cost containment pressures and reduced revenue regimens, political
leaders expecting sharper mission focus and less across-the-board
mentality in dealing with fiscal retrenchment, parents and students
expecting their college tuition investment to yield a good paying
and satisfying job upon graduation, civic and collegiate policy
makers relying increasingly on market mechanisms to define public
goals and priorities, civic dissatisfaction with attention to
teaching, competitive pressues from an emerging privatized sector,
impressions of organizational obsolescence and recalcitrance to
change, egalitarian discomfort with higher education as a haven for
a protected and privileged class. These factors mark a civic and
political climate less friendly, and sometimes downright hostile,
to higher education.
We are, not surprisingly, no longer perceived as places of
sanctuary, where values other than the purely financial and
selfish might prevail, where commitment to truth and unfettered
inquiry nurtures a standard of conduct marked by nobility and
integrity. If there were a halcyon moment in American higher
education, it is no more. In the words of that notable scholar
Pogo "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Thus, in the closing years of the 20th century, American
higher education faces a serious question of public trust.
Mistrust breeds suspicion. And suspicion breeds control. The
issue of trust is, as we just noted, accompanied by the challenge
of budget diets and cost containment pressures as both federal and
state governments struggle with their own questions of priority.
This is not the first moment of financial crisis for American
higher education. Those who lived and labored in American colleges
through the economic depressions of the early 1800s and the 1920s
might, if alive today, find contemporary issues and challenges a
light and simple burden. Nor is this the first moment of wide
spread criticism of higher education. Nevertheless the range,
frequency, and intensity of contemporary critiques of the academy
may portend a breakpoint moment in this transition from 20th to
21st century. Mission clarification, integrity recovery, and
performance accountability are issues high on the public and
political agenda for change.
Conserving the past, critiquing the present, constructing the
future--this is a complex mission expectation and one that
destines our colleges and universities to remain always in the
crucible of public conversation and one that guarantees a
continuing tension in civic expectation and evaluation of higher
education. For organizations that are established to honor social,
economic, political, scientific, and educational heritage even as
they criticize that heritage, for organizations that hold hands
with the past even as they reach for the future, the challenge of
change and the challenge of accountability are particularly
wrenching exercises.
THE ACCOUNTABILITY ACCENT:
CONTENDING MOTIVES AND METHODS
As we move toward the 21st century, one of the most commanding
changes in the social, political, and economic climate for higher
education is the more aggressive posture of agencies external to
the campus--boards, coordinating agencies, legislators, executive
branches of governing, accrediting agencies--insisting on a more
public engagement of quality and performance issues. Consider, for
example, these policy developments having an accountability accent
. . .
(2) The increased state regulation of both public and
private higher education to include such heretofore
unregulated policies as curriculum, assessment,
and faculty workload.
(3) The growing number of states mandating some form of
assessment and testing on campus.
(4) The growing number of states requring some form of
performance indicator reporting by campuses.
(5) The number of states adopting and experimenting with
some form of performance funding.
In 1994-95, for example, 24 states conducted studies of
faculty workload; and in 1995-96, 21 states did so. In 1994-95,
20 states had laws or policies requiring public campuses to assess
student learning; and in 1995-96, 24 states had such assessment
requirements. In 1995-96, 18 states had some form of performance
funding/budgeting in which some portion of higher education
appropriation was tied to meeting state goals. (Chronicle of Higher
Education Almanac, September, 1995, p. 10.; Chronicle of Higher
Education Almanac, September, 1996, p. 12.)
To these policy developments, we may add the more assertive
posture of governing boards. In a March/April 1997 issue of
Change, author Marvin Lazerson explores this trend in a piece
entitled "Who Owns Higher Education?" Today's trustees are less
likely to find the older two-motion theory of board operation
satisfying. According to that theory of board role, a board
meeting would be comprised of two motions. The first motion would
be to fire the president. If that motion failed, then there would
follow a motion to adjourn. Contemporary trustees, in both
corporate and collegiate sectors, are more likely to question and
probe issues of policy and performance in the financial and
educational life of an institution, contributing to the accent on
accountability.
Clearly, these developments place the locus of accountability
initiative and interest external to the campus as compared to
earlier years when faculties enjoyed almost complete autonomy on
issues of policy and performance.
In some ways, accountability is a tired term, overused and
less often understood. Perhaps, therefore, we ought to take just a
moment to probe its meaning. Writing in a 1972 monograph on
Accountability in Higher Education, Kenneth Mortimer suggested that
"Accountability accentuates results--it aims squarely at what comes
out of an educational system rather than what goes into it. It
assumes that if no learning takes place, no teaching has taken
place" (Mortimer, 1972, p. 6). This view affirms a shift in
perspective from assuming that the presence of a qualified
faculty, a carefully selected library, a well equipped physical
plant, and an adequate financial base are guarantors of quality to
the question of whether students really learned and changed in the
presence of these resources.
While civic friends and colleagues call us to the results
model, we continue to hold tightly in some cases to the resource
and reputational model of quality and performance. Here, for
example, is a university grappling with serious budget reductions
and that has crafted procedures to evaluate the priority of both
academic programs and administrative services--a courageous and
complex work. The criteria first published for the assessment of
academic program quality included no criterion related to evidence
of student learning nor any evidence related to satisfaction or
perception of students or graduates! Such behavior lends credence
to the notion that faculty may be the only professionals who can
advance in standing and status without concern for their primary
clients.
From my perspective, accountability involves a formally
expressed expectation--a campus or board policy, a state or federal
law or policy, or formal standard of another agency such as an
accreditation agency--that may embrace any or all of these
conditions:
* asks for public evidence of program and service
performance and results
* encourages independent/external evaluation of such
evidence
* requests information on the relationship between
resources expended and results achieved.
* asks for information on how evaluation results were
utilized to improve decision on policy, program, and
personnel (administrators, faculty, students)
A tensioned dialogue on higher education governance, quality,
and performance has accompanied the emergence of accountability
expectations. . . and for understandable reasons. The motives and
methods of civic and collegiate accountability interests are
sometimes contentious and adversarial. In their 1995 monograph
Accountability in Colleges and Universities, Graham, Lyman and Trow
suggest that ". . .these hemispheres contradict rather than
complement one another" (Graham, Lyman, Trow, 1995, p. iv.). The
differences in motive and method tend to create two cultures.
Are collegiate and civic accountability cultures destined to
remain contentious and adversarial, or is there promise for
partnership and for reconciliation. In closing, we explore an
architecture for partnership and seek a system that accents
academic and political decision utility.
RECONCILING POLITICAL AND
ACADEMIC ACCOUNTABILITY CULTURES
Reconciling political and academic accountability requires an
examination of both attitude and method. First to matters of
attitude.
Sobering Realities. On the matter of attitude, there are
sobering realities to be entertained before we venture ideas on how
to bring academic and political accountability cultures closer
together. The first question is whether any accountability system
will negate the unhappy fruits of poor economic and revenue
conditions in a state, region, or nation. Second, is there any
accountability system that will negate the attitudes of political
officers who do not value higher education. Third, is there any
accountability system that will compensate for dark motives,
shallow standards, courage deficits, and insensitive conscience in
some academic administrators and faculty members. Fourth and
finally, is there any accountability system that will negate the
positions and perceptions of those who do not want to be bothered
by the facts.
It has been said that under carefully controlled conditions
human beings will behave as they #*%@ well please. A variant of
this law is that in the face of incontrovertible scientific
evidence, human beings will believe what they wish. Here is what
Sir Francis Bacon observed:
Indeed, an important question that has been raised about
current accountability policy and systems is whether they have had
constructive decision impact at either the campus or the state
level. In a 1993 SREB report, Bogue, Creech, and Folger suggested
that some campus responses to state policy had been more cosmetic
and adaptive than substantive and constructive. Now that we have
explored and acknowledged the limits of rationality in both
political and academic settings, let us move to a more encouraging
note of attitude.
The Mind of the Scholar. In an organization that prospects for
truth in adversarial forum, in an organization holding that we
have not understood a truth until we have contended with its
challenge, would we feel comfortable if our policies and our
practices, our assumptions and ways of doing business went
unchallenged. The mind of the scholar is hospitable to dissent and
disputation--and should remain so when the dissent and disputation
targets the heart of the collegiate enterprise.
Moreover, we should not be surprised that an organization like
a college or university, whose principal work is to assault common
sense, may itself come under assault. Today's truth was
yesterday's heresy; and the bringers of new truth, the wreckers of
paradigm, the critics of common sense are not always greeted with
warm and friendly embrace.
Might the mind of the scholar also accept the range and
intensity of public criticism as an indicator of higher
education's success, a pleasure measure of constructive moment? If
there has been any distinctive feature of American higher education
in the latter half of the century more important and visible than
the emergence of accountabilaity interests, it would surely be
enhanced access. The increased access to college and university
education produces more minds equipped for and inclined to
criticism. Have we not said in our catalogs and promotional
brochures that we want our graduates to think critically? Did we
not believe that they might also think critically about their
intellectual homes? Gibran says that "I have learned silence from
the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from
the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers"
(Gibran, 1926, p. 58). It is easy to be ungrateful to our critics,
but we should resist that impulse.
As a quick indicator of the previously mentioned tension in
public discourse about higher education mission and performance,
let us note that not even on enhanced access do we have consent.
In Defenese of Elitism is a provoking but stimulative treatise in
which author William Henry observes that " . . .no social evolution
has been more willfully egalitarian than opening the academy.
Despite the seeming elitism of fostering self-improvement and
learning, the true effects have been to help break down the
distinctions between the accomplished and the workaday, and to
promote pseudo-scholarship based on gender anxiety and ethnic
tribalism" (Henry, 1994, p. 150-151). Henry's prescription for
this perceived unhappy drift in standard is to close down most
community colleges and return many universities to their normal
school status.
We have said that the mind of the scholar is hospitable to
dissent and disputation. Such dissent and disputation are
inevitable and welcome outcomes of our inclination to curiosity,
which is perhaps the most fundamental value of the educated mind.
Accompanying that curiosity should be the values of courage and
persistence that enable a good mind to stay the course. Such a
mind does not run and hide at the first sign of contention and
criticism.
In that spirit, it may well be that some motives and methods
will remain contentious. Here, however, are reflections on how we
might realize additional complementarity and partnership between
political and academic accountability systems.
Continuing Use of Peer Review. The practice of laying
performance before the judgment and experience of those external to
an organization is in the best spirit of the concept of
accountability. And this is precisely what colleges and
universities have been doing for years in accreditation and
academic program reviews. While the limitations and liabilities of
these practices are by now obvious to both academics and civic
friends, in my mind, they represent evaluative practices worthy of
continuance.
Here are four changes I would commend. First, I would urge a
stronger governance involvement of lay and civic voices in the
management boards of accrediting associations. Second, I like the
suggestion by Graham, Lyman, and Trow that accreditation utilize
the concept of audit. If an institution is meeting the conditions
of accreditation, it could be argued that it should be meeting
those conditions all the time. Rather than ten year visits, it may
be that accrediting groups would form their visting committees from
both peer reviewers and professional evaluators, similar to
hospital accrediting groups, and make unannounced visits to
campuses for purposes of auditing their conformance to accrediting
criteria and standards. Third, I would urge the adoption of an
evaluation scheme that yields more public information and
distinction than a simple pass/fail. The insertion of a
"commendation" status might be a beginning. And finally, I might
commend the merit of involving board members/trustees in selected
accreditation and program reviews. In the early history of
American higher education, board members often sat on baccalaureate
examinations. Why not call board members to a more active
participation in the quality assurance activities of a campus.
Performance Indicator Profiles. All but two states served by
the Southern Regional Education Board require annual reporting on
a series of performance indicators in 1993 (Bogue, Creech, and
Folger, 1993). Having performance intelligence on our programs and
evidence of progress toward public goals is not an unreasonable
expectation at either the campus or state level. While public
performance profiles can be manipulated and camouflaged in various
ways--and there is no public report that cannot be distorted--asking campuses to offer public evidence on performance indicators
expressing their mission and distinctiveness accents does not seem
an unreasonable expectation in my mind.
What might help to improve the decision utility and
acceptability of these profiles would be to involve teams of
academics, board members, and political officers/staff in their
design and use. Instead of academic and political officers
standing off in grand detachment and adversarial posture, let them
join in ventures of design and evaluation. Understanding and
appreciation are more likely to emerge from more intimate
association than from polite political distance.
Performance Audits. Most public colleges and universities are
already subject to financial and administrative audits from state
auditors working from either executive or legislative base.
What might be the benefits of expanding state audits to examine
campus performance indicator reports and other quality assurance
activities to ascertain what policy and practice decisions have
been influenced by campus quality assurance efforts? Might there
be professional development and renewal advantages in inviting
selected faculty and staff to take paid leave from their campus to
serve occasionally on audit teams with state professional auditors?
Accountability of Accountability Policy and Systems. Since we
have noted that there is no public policy without flaw, no public
policy that cannot be met with adaptive and cosmetic responsee,
perhaps we would want to commend periodic external evaluations of
accountability policy by evaluator panels external to a state--an
accountability of accountability if you will. Here evaluator
panels would examine data, interview principal campus and political
officials to garner candid and open perception about the value and
impact of accountability systems in a state. In closing here are
principles that might anchor and guide such evaluation.
DECISION, DISCOVERY, DISCLOSURE, DISTINCTION:
A SUMMARY
Among the important principles that accountability practices
and policy should serve are these:
* Discovery - they should offer opportunity for both
campus and government to learn about
themselves
* Disclosure - they should require both campus and state to
place performance data in public forum
* Distinction - they should offer opportunity for campus
and state to accent distinction in mission
and goal.
Would these principles should prove offensive to academic or
political conscience. Now this closing note. Widely respected by
corporate America, management scholar Peter Drucker wrote of higher
education in Innovation and Entrepreneurship that "No better text
for a History of Entrpreneurship could be found than the creation
and development of the modern university , and especially the
modern American university" (Drucker, 1985, p. 23). Thus, the
contemporary American college and university is a product of both
civic and collegiate imagination and invention. I see no reason
why these pleasant attributes of mind cannot continue to infect our
thinking as we search for ways to nurture and demonstrate quality,
as we search for ways to reconcile academic and political
accountabilaity cultures.
References
An American Imperative: Higher Expectations for Higher Education.
A Report of the Wingspread Group on Higher Education. The
Johnson Foundation, 1993.
Anderson, M. Imposters in the Temple. New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1992.
Bacon, F. "Of Great Place," in Essays, Civil and Moral, The
Harvard Classics, C. W. Elliot (ed.). New York: P. F.
Collier and Son, 1937, p. 29.
Bloom, A. The Closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1987.
Bogue, E., Creech, J., and Folger, J., Assessing Quality in
Higher Education: Policy Actions in SREB States. Atlanta:
Southern Regional Education Board, 1993.
Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac, September, 1995.
Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac, September, 1996.
Drucker, P. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper
Collins, 1985.
Gibran, K. Sand and Foam. New York: Albred A. Knopf, 1926.
Graham, P., Lyman, R., and Trow, M. Accountability of Colleges
and Universities. New York: Columbia University, October,
1985.
Henry, W. III, In Defense of Elitism. New York: Doubleday,
1994.
Lazerson, M. "Who Owns Higher Education?" Change. (29)2,
March/April, 1997, pp. 10 - 15.
Mortimer, K. Accountability in Higher Education. Washington,
D. C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1972.
Patterson, D. When Learned Men Murder. Bloomington: Phi Delta
Kappa Foundation, 1996.
Roche, G. The Fall of the Ivory Tower. New York: Regnery, 1993.
Sykes, C. Profscam. Washington, D. C.: Regnery, 1988.
Young, R., No Neutral Ground. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1997.
(1) The movement of accreditation standards from a "process"
foundation to an "outcomes" and institutional
effectiveness standard.
* requires evaluation of both administrative and
educational services
* Improvement versus stewardship
* Peer review versus regulation
* Process versus results
* Enhancement versus compliance
* Consultation versus evaluation
* Trust versus evidence
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion
. . . draws all things else to support and agree with it.
And though there be a greater number and weight of instances
to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects
or despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and
rejects; in order that by this great and pernicious
predetermination the authority of its former conclusion may
remain inviolate (Bacon, 1937, p. 29).
Thus, we would be wise to understand in advance that favorable
trend lines, statistical portraits, and performance indicator
profiles may not alter cherished positions and beliefs of those who
who do not wish to be disturbed by the facts--whether academic or
political officers. While these notes may shake our faith in the
power of rationality, they also keep us alert to the decision
frailty of accountability systems.
* Decision - they should enhance and improve both
academic and political decision
Talk to the Conference Participants |
---|
Questions and comments may be directed to the Conference Convenor, Alvin G. Burstein or individual authors by clicking on his/her name.
This page has been accessed times.
Last updated: July 22, 1997