ERIC ED377763: Assessing Quality and Effectiveness of Higher Education. Work in Progress.

66 Pages·1993·1.9 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
HE 027 947
ED 377 763
Bogue, Grady; And Others
AUTHOR
Assessing Quality and Effectiveness of Higher
TITLE
Education. Work in Progress.
Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, Ga.
INSTITUTION
PUB DATE
93
66p.; For a related document, see HE 027 948.
NOTE
Southern Regional Education Board, 592 Tenth St.,
AVAILABLE FROM
N.W., Atlanta, GA 30318-5790 ($8).
Descriptive (141)
Reports
PUB TYPE
MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
*Accountability; *Educational Assessment; Educational
DESCRIPTORS
Attitudes; Educational Finance; Educational Policy;
*Educational Quality; Enrollment; Government Role;
Higher Education; Program Descriptions; *School
Effectiveness; State Aid; *State Legislation; State
Programs
*Southern Regional Education Board; *United States
IDENTIFIERS
(South)
ABSTRACT
This report examines the origins, development,
content, and implementation of state-level policies that were
designed to establish or strengtoen educational accountability and
effectiveness in the 15 states that are members of the Southern
Regional Education Board (SREB). It provides state-by-state profiles
of legislation and policies, explaining the context and content of
such initiatives in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. In the last
decade, most SREB states have passed legislation calling for
accountability in higher education. In seven states accountability
legislation requires periodic reporting on a cluster of performance
indicators. In some states, initiatives also require the development
of assessment plans and activities, and in some cases specific
assessments are mandated. Several policy options for dealing with the
projected growth in enrollments, declining state appropriations, and
increased expectations for quality and accountability are discussed.
(MDM)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
************A**********************************************************
_ a
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
. .
r
.
,
Q4itts.1.4F
.4.',541,111,L1
rii
MISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
and Improvement
Office of Edueshonal Reteareh
. MA .DRIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
EDuC
621
produced e
has b
een
nt
docume
or orpanhabon
1
received from th person
^
onginabnp it.
mach to Improve
0 Minor changes have been
reproduction Quality
"
frcr.;.!.
1
.
stated in thh
Pants s of VIIM Of amnions
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
reprellent official
mint do do not rheessarily
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."
7
I
-..
",
,;',);',7kr!
1.;
7,
-
Iv
-
. ,
,
_2
13Cerr may A111111 AQI F
Assessing Quality and Effectiveness
of Higher Education
WORK IN PROGRESS
Grady Bogue
Joseph Creech
John Folger
$8.00
592 Tenth Street, N.W. " Atlanta, Georgia 30318-5790
1993
Southern Regional Education Board
3
Foreword
This study of state-level
related to higher education accountability and
policies
effectiveness was conducted by John Folger (Emeritus Professor, Institute for Policy
Studies, Vanderbilt University), Grady Bogue (Professor, Department of Educational
Leadership, the University of Tennessee, Knoxville), and Joseph D. Creech (Associate
Director, Office of Educational Policies, SREB).
This report examines the origins,
development, content, and implementation of state-level policies that were designed to
establish or strengthen educational accountability and effectiveness in SREB states.
Policies established after March 1993 may not be included in this report.
State higher education agencies provided copies of legislation and policies related to
higher education assessment and accountability to update information compiled and
reported by Gale F. Gaines, Associate Director for State Services, SREB. The format
for Table 2 is based on a design by Ms. Gaines.
In addition to these documents,
Dr. Bogue and Dr. Folger conducted telephone interviews with higher education officials
in SREB states to obtain their perspective on the policies.
Copies of the full report,
including detailed state-by-state profiles, are available from SREB at $8.00 per cony.
We appreciate the cooperation of state higher education agencies in providing background
material and information and for reviewing drafts of state profiles.
Thanks also to
Anne Li (SREB Data Analyst) and Bobbi Johnstone (a University of Georgia graduate
intern at SREB) for their assistance in the collection and review of source material and
the production of this report.
S
I
Table of Contents
S
Page
Executive Summary
1
Overview of State-Level Policies
11
S
Profiles of State-level Policies
Alabama
20
Arkansas
22
0
Florida
24
Georgia
27
Kentucky
29
Louisiana
33
Maryland
35
Mississippi
38
North Carolina
40
Oklahoma
43
South Carolina
45
50
Thnnessee
Texas
53
Virginia
56
West Virginia
59
S
5
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BY THE YEAR 2000
The quality and effectiveness of all colleges and universities will be regularly
assessed with paracular emphasis on the performance of undergraduate
students.
Goals for Education
CHALLENGE 2000
Higher education has entered the 1990s with
Promoting centers of excellence;
intense pressures
control
to
costs,
improve
quality, and serve more students. More students
Increasing the number of outstanding faculty
are seeking college, but there has not been a
via endowed chairs;
comparable increase in state dollars to invest in
their education. Colleges and universities in the
Stimulating research initiatives and business
SREB states accounted for almost 40 percent of
partnerships to strengthen economic develop-
the nation's collegiate enrollment growth over
ment;
the last decade. However, economic conditions
and increased competition for state revenues
Developing more effective
plans
strategir
produced a decline in the percent of the region's
with specific goals and measures of progress.
state and local government revenue dedicated to
Some of these goals were supported by
higher educationfrom 9.2 percent in 1984-85
special funding, but most of the special funds
to 8.4 percent in 1989-90.
were reduced or eliminated as state revenues de-
clined in the 1990s.
Shifts in State Policy
In the 1990s, state policy interests moved
In the 1960s and 1970s, state higher educa-
toward:
tion policy centered on the planned expansion of
higher education and the promotion of equity in
The assessment of educational performance
In the 1980s, the focus shifted to im-
access.
and outcomes;
'roving quality. Goals included:
The development of new higher education
Improving the pre-college preparation and
accountability measures;
readiness of college students;
The improvement of management and educa-
Assessing the cost and effectiveness of reme-
tional productivity;
dial programs;
The refocus and revision of campus missions
Increasing minority participation and success;
and the reallocation of resources from lower
to higher priority programs.
al Improving teacher preparation;
6
2
TABLE 1
HIGHER EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY
AND ASSESSMENT REPORTING
Report on
Assessment of Student
Budget
Goal Progress
Annual Comprehensive
as Part of State Plan
Accountability Report
Connection
Learning Required
Recommended by state
None
No
None
Alabama
agency; being developed
Being incorporated
Proposed
Legislative requirement
Arkansas
Yes
Indirect
Legislative requirement
Yes
Yes
Florida
Incorporated in planning process
No
No
Georgia Yes
Proposed
Legislative requirement
Yes
Kentucky
Yes
Entry level placement tests
Legislative requirement
Yes
Louisiana
Incorporated in master plan
Yes
Yes
Maryland
Yes
Under consideration
Under consideration
None
Mississippi
Legislative requirement
No
Yes
North Carolina
Yes
Incorporated in mu+nr plan
Yes
Yes
Oklahoma Yes
I
Indirect
Legislative requirement
South Carolina
Yes
Yes
I
Legislative requirement
Yes
Yes
Yes
Tennessee
Legislative requirement; incorpo
Proposed
Yes
Texas
Yes
rated in plan and budget
Indirect
Incorporated in master plan
Yes
Virginia
Yes
Indirect
Legislative requirement
West Virginia
Yes
Yes
countability also is connected to a the public's
This shift in policy focus comes in part from
higher educationstate
state revenues from
trust
greater competition for
diminishing
in
leaders feel that higher education's priorities do
health care, corrections, and elementary/secon-
not correspond to public priorities. The public
dary education. The increased interest in ac
7
3
A few states, Tennessee, for example, have
has expressed more interest in improving under-
graduate education, but higher education ad-
linked assessments and plans to budgets, so that
specific funds are provided to encourage and
ministrators and faculty, especially at "flagship"
institutions, appear to be emphasizing research
reward improvement. Performance funding can
have a built-in accountability
and graduate programs.
Legislative Initiatives for
Current and Future Policy Options
Higher Education Accountability
options
dealing with
policy
Several
for
In the last decade, most SREB states have
(1) growth in enrollments, (2) level or declining
passed legislation calling for accountability in
state appropriations, and (3) increased expecta-
As a result of interests ex-
tions for quality and accountability are being
higher education.
considered and/or adopted in most states. They
pressed by governing boards and/or legislators,
state higher education agencies in other states
include:
have taken the lead in developing accountability
In seven SREB states
Increasing tuition Ind fees to make up for
(Arkansas,
policies.
decreased revenues from state government,
Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina,
but these actions may reduce educational
Tennessee, and West Virginia), accountability
periodic reporting on a
opportunity unless accompanied by increases
legislation
reqL.,ires
cluster of performance indicators. In Maryland,
in student aid;
S
North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia,
state higher education
legislation called
W Eliminating duplicative programs and closing
for
agencies (or a task force established in the
institutions have been proposed in some
states, but the politics are difficult;
legislation) to develop and report on measures of
In Georgia,
higher education's effectiveness.
legislation was proposed but did not pass. The
Reorganizing or major restructuring of higher
achieve a more
education governance to
University System of Georgia has established a
strategic planning process for assessing and
efficient system; and,
reporting on the effectiveness of higher educa-
Redesigning educational delivery systems to
In some states, initiatives also require the
tion.
development of assessment plans and activities
make them more effective and economical.
and, in some cases, specific assessments are
mandated (for example, assessment of general
Serious discussion of these major alternatives
for dealing with the altered political and eco-
Because of
education knowledge and skill).
nomic environment has taken place in a few
executive and legislative interests in increased
states, but there is little agreement within and
productivity, special studies have been conducted
to determine faculty workload and/or the time it
among states about which choice is best. Clear-
takes students to earn a bachelor's degree.
ly, higher education is at a moment in its history
where incremental changes may not sufficea
moment that requires re-invention and innova-
In most states, these accountability measures
were preceded by new accreditation require-
tion to meet the challenge of the future.
ments from both regional and specialized accre-
Requirements for accreditation
diting agencies.
shifted to institutional effectiveness and institu-
tions are directed to identify improvement goals,
assess progress toward the goals,
and take
S
specific actions to achieve them.
(Continued on page 9)
O
S
4
Table 2
Legislatively Required Accountability Reporting
Arkansas
Florida
Legislation in 1987, 1989, and 1991 required test-
Background
State Board of Education began a performance indica-
ing of general education outcomes, established
tor project in early 1980s; 1991 legislation required an
annual report on effectiveness of the delivery of
annual report that monitored performance in instruc-
higher education, beginning 1992.
tion, research, and public service at the system level.
Developed by Department of Higher Education in
Standards
Legislation specified nine goals:
consultation with institutional representatives.
and Goals
Total student credit hours produced, by institution
Broad areas specified in legislation.
and discipline;
a
Total number degrees awarded, by institution and
discipline;
Total number of contact hours of instruction
produced, by faculty rank, course level, and
institution;
Pass rates on professional licensure uams, by
institution;
Institutional quality as assessed by surveys of
alumni, parents, and employers;
length of time required to complete credits for an
academic degree, by institution;
Enrollment, progression, retention, and graduation
rates, by race, gender, and disability;
Analysis of student demand for courses;
Classroom utilization.
Reporting
Legislative requirements:
Legislative requirements:
Assess institutions in student achievement and
Requirements
Credit hours produced, by institution and disci-
research accomplishment.
pline.
Administer a "rising junior" test.
Total degrees awarded, by institution and disci-
Job placement, job retention, and wage rates.
pline.
Comparisons with peers (in other states) on:
Total contact hours of instruction, by faculty
GRE, LSAT, GMAT, NTE, MCAT, etc.
rank, institution, and course level.
Programs that could be internationally competi-
Pass rates in professional licensure exams.
tive.
Follow-up surveys of alumni, parents, and em-
Annual report to governor and legislature.
ployees.
Time to earn degree and number of credits, by
institution and degree.
Enrollment, progression, retention and graduation,
by race and gender.
Analysis of student demand for courses;
Classroom utilization.
Goals and measures are associated with most of the
required measures.
First Report
1992
1992
5
Table 2
Legislatively Required Accountability Reporting
Lvisiana
Kentucky
A 1991 state strategic plan called for "reports on
1986 Legislation required institutions to test English
Background
In 1991, the
and math skills of entering students.
the results of higher education."
1992 legislation
Board of Regents established poliess for a uniform
mandated systematic annual evaluation of quality
Reports required on 14 indica- reporting system, master planning process, and pro-
and effectiveness.
1993 legislation
gram review and evaluation process.
tors specified in legislation.
mandated development of a plan for institutional ac-
countability.
The 1993 legislation established the Public Higher
Established by Kentucky Commission on Higher
Standards
Education in consultation with the institutions.
Education Advisory Committee (comprised of represen-
and Goals
tatives of the Board of Regents, the three systems,
and individual institutions) to design a plan for an
accountability process and report recommendations to
governor and legislature by March 30, 1994.
Legislative requirements:
Legislative requirements:
Reporting
Total student credit hours produced, by institution
Total student credit hours, by institution and
Requirements
and discipline.
discipline.
Total number of degrees awarded, by institution
Degrees awarded, by institution and discipline.
Instructional contact hours, by institution,
and discipline.
Total number of contact hours of instruction
faculty rank, and course level.
produced, by faculty, institution, rank, and course
Pass rates on professional licensure examina-
tions.
level.
Institutional quality as measured by follow-up
Faculty workload.
Pass rates of professional licensure exams, by
surveys.
institution.
Time and credits required to complete academic
Institutional quality as assessed by follow-up
degrees, by institution and degrees.
surveys of alumni, parents, and employers.
Enrollment, persistence, retention, and gradua-
tion rates, by race, gender, and disability. Length of time and number of academic credits
required to complete academic degree, by institu-
Analysis of student demand for courses.
tion and degree.
Classroom utilization.
Enrollment, progression, retention, and graduation
Faculty workload.
Research and public service activities.
rates.
Analysis of student demand for courses.
Number and percentage of accredited programs
and programs eligible for accreditation. Evaluation of remedial and developmental pro-
grams; total number of students in remedial
Students in remedial courses; students exiting
courses, and those students exiting remedial
remedial courses and successfully completing
courses and successfully completing entry-level
entry-level courses.
Two-year transfer students completing four-
courses.
Student transfers between two-year and four-year
-year degree.
institutions.
1994
1993
First Report
10