The Carnegie Unit

56 Pages·2015·1.86 MB·English

THE CARNEGIE UNIT
A CENTURY‐OLD STANDARD IN A CHANGING EDUCATION LANDSCAPE
BY ELENA SILVA , TAYLOR WHITE, AND THOMAS TOCH
JANUARY 2015
Carnegie’s community college work is supported by the Foundation’s endowment
and by Carnegie Corporation of New York, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The Kresge Foundation, and Lumina
Foundation.
Carnegie Foundation is committed to developing networks of ideas, individuals,
and institutions to advance teaching and learning. We join together scholars,
practitioners, and designers in new ways to solve problems of educational
practice. Toward this end, we work to integrate the discipline of improvement
science into education with the goal of accelerating the field’s capacity to learn
to improve.
© 2015 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
51 Vista Lane This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
Stanford, California 94305 3.0 Unported License. (CC BY-NC)
650-566-5100
www.carnegiefoundation.org
THE CARNEGIE UNIT
A CENTURY-OLD STANDARD IN A CHANGING EDUCATION LANDSCAPE
BY ELENA SILVA , TAYLOR WHITE, AND THOMAS TOCH
THE CARNEGIE UNIT
22 C A R N E G I E F O U N D A T I O N F O R T H E A D V A N C E M E N T O F T E A C H I N G
THE CARNEGIE UNIT
FOREWORD
EAR Y L IN THE TEW NTIETH CENTUR, Y the industrialist Andrew Carnegie estab-
lished the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching to create a pension system for the
nation’s college professors. Te introduction of this pension system proved an ingenious educational
reform. At the time, American higher education was a largely ill-defned enterprise with the diferences
between high school and colleges often unclear. To qualify for participation in the Carnegie pension
system, higher education institutions were required to adopt a set of basic
standards around courses of instruction, facilities, stafng, and admissions
criteria. Te Carnegie Unit, also known as the credit hour, became the basic
unit of measurement both for determining students’ readiness for college
and their progress through an acceptable program of study. Over time,
the Carnegie Unit became the building block of modern American educa-
tion, serving as the foundation for everything from daily school schedules
to graduation requirements, faculty workloads, and eligibility for federal
fnancial aid.
Today, the Carnegie Unit is under intensifying critique from educators and education policymakers
who want to make student performance more transparent and the delivery of education more fexible.
Tey see the Carnegie Unit as a signifcant impediment to the changes they seek. Tey advocate for
innovations that support transparency and fexibility, including competency-based education models.
In an efort to inform these reform conversations and serve as a constructive catalyst for change, the
Carnegie Foundation launched a study to revisit the role, function, and uses of the Carnegie Unit.
We explored in detail the nature of the problems that reformers aim to address and the complexity of
the systems in which these problems are embedded. We analyzed what a shift away from the Carnegie
Unit toward a competency-based (rather than an instructional time-based) metric might entail for the
operation of our educational institutions and the students they serve. Finally, we considered the scope
of innovations necessary to replace the Carnegie Unit, the ambitiousness and uncertainties associated
with these tasks, and the vast array of practical problems that would need to be solved. We are pleased
to present our fndings and recommendations in this report.
Troughout its history, the Carnegie Foundation has played a progressive role in advancing educa-
tional opportunities in our society. We are committed to the goals of creating more efective and
efcient educational systems that aford more engaging learning opportunities for all students. And
we believe that increased fexibility in the delivery of education and greater transparency surround-
ing results are potentially important means to those ends. But we also know that a great deal of
design, development, and continuous improvement eforts will be needed in order to transform these
compelling ideas into actual operating systems that reliably produce quality outcomes at scale for
all students. Put simply, it is not enough just to have good reform ideas. Educators as a community
must learn their way into executing those ideas well. Tis often means starting small, learning from
CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING 3
THE CARNEGIE UNIT
ruo ,se ruliaf dna yltnatsnoc gnisu atad ot rahc t se rgo rp dna mrofni ro�e st ta suounitnoc -e v o rpmi
.tnem e� C eigenra noitadnuo F sah neb gnirenoip en w syaw ot reteb elkcat hcus gninrael“ ot
” e v o rpmi smelbo rp yb gnignirb snoitutitsni rehtegot ni dek rowten tneme v o rpmi .seitinumoc ese�
seitinumoc era ylac�iceps dengised ot gnirb citylana dna laciripme rogir ot raeb sa srotacude -e rc
eta dna tset snoitulos ot gnise rp .smelbo rp e W eveileb eseht en w sdohtem dna smron rof lacitcarp
melbo rp gnivlos evah tae rg ytilibacilpa ot eht mrofe r ro�e st debircsed ni siht rope ,tr dna ew dnats
ydae r ot krow htiw eht sredael fo esoht ro�e st draw ot gnicna vda eht deula v sdne yeht won .kes

e W hsiw ot egdelw onkca eht suo reneg ropus t fo eht maili W dna arol F He telw ,noitadnuo F hcihw
de w ola su ot tcudnoc siht . yduts e W det�eneb ylsuodneme rt mo rf eht sthgisni dna -adnemoce r
snoit fo eht srebmem fo a lanoitan rosivda y ,d raob detsil ni na xidnepa ot eht rope .tr I n ,noitida
C s ’ eigenra d raoB fo Tr setsu deeive w r lare ves stfard fo eht rope tr dna rieht lufthguoht snoitubirtnoc
yltae rg de v o rpmi eht lan� .tcudo rp elihW ew era re v y lufetarg rof eseht ,snoitubirtnoc ew rese r ev rof
se vlesruo ytilibisnopse r rof sro re ro .snoisimo
Anthony Bryk, President
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
rauna y J 5102
4 CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING
THE CARNEGIE UNIT
EXECUTIVE SUM MARY
MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE to promote deeper learning among a wider range of students,
educators and education policymakers have sought substantial changes in American education. Tey
have sought to make student performance more transparent in order to strengthen the quality of in-
struction, and to increase schools’ and colleges’ accountability for students’ learning. And they have
pursued more fexible educational designs to respond to the varying learning needs of increasingly
diverse student populations and to make education more accessible and afordable for all students.
Reformers have argued that reliance on the Carnegie Unit as a measure of student progress toward
diplomas and degrees has in fact slowed progress toward those goals. By stressing the amount of time
students spend in the classroom rather than their mastery of subjects, the Carnegie Unit discourages
educators from examining more closely students’ strengths and weaknesses. It masks the quality of
student learning. And by promoting standardized instructional systems based on consistent amounts
of student-teacher contact, it discourages more fexible educational designs.
Te Carnegie Foundation is committed to making American education more efective, more equitable,
and more efcient at this critical junction in the nation’s history. We share change advocates’ goals of
bringing greater transparency and fexibility to the design and delivery of K-12 and higher education in
pursuit of deeper learning for more students. After studying the Carnegie Unit’s relationship to today’s
reforms, we have concluded that American education’s reliance on the Carnegie Unit is an impediment
to some of the solutions sought by reformers. Most notably, the federal government’s fnancial aid rules
requiring colleges and universities to measure student progress using Carnegie Units are a barrier to the
spread of fexible delivery models in higher education.
We also recognize, however, that the Carnegie Unit plays a vital administrative function in education,
organizing the work of students and faculty in a vast array of schools and colleges. It provides a com-
mon currency that makes possible innumerable exchanges and interconnections among institutions.
And it continues to provide a valuable opportunity-to-learn standard for students in both higher edu-
cation and K-12 education, where inequitable resources and variable quality are more the rule than
the exception.
Te Carnegie Foundation established the Carnegie Unit over a century ago as a rough gauge of student
readiness for college-level academics. It sought to standardize students’ exposure to subject material by
ensuring they received consistent amounts of instructional time. It was never intended to function as a
measure of what students learned. Teachers and professors were left to gauge students’ actual learning
through grades and tests, papers, and other performance measures. Many current indictments of the
Carnegie Unit as a poor proxy for the quality of student learning ignore this important distinction.
CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING 5
THE CARNEGIE UNIT
T s ’ yado tiusrup fo retae rg ycne rapsnart dna erom elbixe� lanoitacude sngised stnese rpe r a laitnatsbus
egnelahc ot ruo lanoitacude snoitutitsni dna esoht ohw krow ni .meht gnika M A nacirem noitacude
yltnac�ingis erom tne rapsnart dna elbixe� dluow etatisecen ylediw de rahs sd radnats dna nomoc
se rusaem fo tneduts rep htob—ecnamrof gnitnuad ,sksat ylaicepse ni rehgih noitacude e rehw na yara
fo snoitutitsni res ev stneduts htiw ylediw ra v gniy .stse retni I t dluow osla tnese rp eht elbadimrof -lahc
egnel fo gniruces desab-dao rb lacitilop dna lanoisefo rp tnemesrodne fo htob eht sd radnats dna en w
.stnemsesa
, re v oe ro M ruo hc raese r stsegus taht eht C eigenra U tin si sel fo na elcatsbo ot egnahc naht ti thgim
.mes elihW eht C eigenra U s ’ tin desab-emit d radnats rec ylniat dah a laitnatsbus tcapmi no eht ngised
dna re viled y fo A nacirem ,noitacude lanoitacude ylaicepse—snoitutitsni ni rehgih —noitacude
ydae rla evah elbaredisnoc ytilibixe� ni eht tamrof dna re viled y fo rtsni .noitcu
yna M gnisimo rp tneme v o rpmi se vitaitini e ra ydae rla . rednu yaw e� noitadnuof ylgno rts sesrodne siht
. ytivitca tu B eht krow tsum eb deinapmoca yb suo rogir ro�e st ot rehtag ecnedive dna nrael mo rf eseht
stnemirepxe sa yeht .e vlo ve A nacirem noitacude sah a gnol rotsih y fo gnisimo rp mrofe r saedi taht evah
deliaf ot eveihca rieht dednetni .semoctuo I t si eno gniht ot evah dog saedi rof ;egnahc ti si rehtona
ot etuce xe yle vitce�e dna yltneic�e ni ruo ,egral xelpmoc lanoitacude .smetsys
o S sa ew ecarbme ,noita v oni ew tsum osla eb lacitirc egnahc—stsilae r netfo sliaf ot dleiy tneme v o rpmi
dna semitemos nac ne ve gnirb .mrah A gniveihc mrofe r se riuqe r ton tsuj , ycaco vda tub ,deniatsus -sys
citamet ro�e st ot yduts snoita v oni dna nrael mo rf meht ni a tirips fo suounitnoc ,tneme v o rpmi htob
sa yeht nigeb dna sa yeht . w o rg e W den ot etalumuca ecnedive taht en w lanoitacude sledom gnimia
rof retae rg ytilibixe� dna ycne rapsnart ylautca ecnahne lanoitacude ropo seitinut dna etaredom ,stsoc
rednu tahw ,snoitidnoc dna rof hcihw gnirusne—stneduts taht ew d raugefas stneduts gnola eht . yaw
si� si eht deniatsus krow de riuqe r ot mrofsnart s ’ yadot gnisimo rp saedi otni s ’ w o romot re w luf op
.semoctuo

6 CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING
THE CARNEGIE UNIT
IN ,5091 RETIRE D TS EE L AM GNATE ANRD E W CARNEGIE, then
the world’s richest man, wrote a letter to college presidents declaring
his intention to establish a pension system for “one of the poorest paid
1
but highest professions in our nation”—college professors. He created
the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching to run the
system and sent a ten million dollar check to the Foundation’s trustees,
2
led by Harvard President Charles Eliot, to fnance it.
But the task wasn’t simple. American higher edu- Adding to the challenge was the reality that
cation in the early twentieth century was a still Carnegie’s ten million dollar grant, while sub-
nascent and largely ill-defned enterprise serving stantial for the day, wasn’t enough to cover the
3
less than 1 percent of the nation’s students. Te faculty at every institution calling itself a college
6
system was so new that diferences between high or university. So Eliot and his colleagues had to
school and colleges weren’t always clear. “Te term narrow the number of qualifying campuses. “To
college is used to designate . . . institutions vary- be ranked as a college,” and thus be eligible to
ing so widely in entrance requirements, standards participate in the Carnegie pension plan, an in-
of instruction, and facilities for work, that for the stitution “must have at least six professors giving
purposes of this foundation, it is necessary to use, their entire time to college and university work, a
at least for the present, some arbitrary defnition course of four full years in liberal arts and scienc-
of that term,” Carnegie ofcials wrote in Science es, and should require for admission, not less than
4
in 1906. Many colleges demanded little more the usual four years of academic or high school
7
than elementary levels of geography, arithmetic, preparation, or its equivalent.”
grammar, reading, and spelling of their appli- “High school preparation” meant many dif-
cants. Iowa State College, for example, required ferent things in an era when secondary education
only that students be fourteen years old, able to was mostly limited to the elite. (Te national
8
read and write English, and able to pass an arith- graduation rate hadn’t reached 10 percent.) Te
5
metic test. Carnegie trustees, as a result, wanted to provide
To determine which institutions were eligible guidance to schools and colleges. Tey turned
to take part in the Carnegie pension system, the to the New York State Board of Regents, which
Foundation had to defne what a college was. had established high school graduation standards
CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING 7
THE CARNEGIE UNIT
desab no skcolb fo rtsni noitcu delac —” stnuoc “ ,margo rp dna ni 4191 eht noitadnuo F nups ti
net ske w fo , yduts ev� syad a .ke w C s ’ eigenra �o otni na tnednepedni t�o rp-non ,noitazinagro
sredael osla detlusnoc eht en ylw demrof C egelo nw onk yadot sa TIAAC- RE. F
E ecnartn E noitanimax ,d raoB hcihw dah nugeb tu B eht C eigenra U ,tin sa ti emac ot eb ,delac
gnicudo rp esruoc seniltuo dna egeloc noisimda emaceb ylped deto r ni eht A nacirem -noitacude
stset ni stcejbus gnignar morf nitaL ot .scisyhp la .epacsdnal
A dn yeht depat otni eht krow fo eht N lanoita C segelo dna seitisre vinu ylkciuq detfarc en w
E noitacud A s ’ noitaicos C etimo fo T ,ne a noisimda stneme riuqe r ot mrofnoc ot eht -ed
lenap fo tnenimo rp srotacude del yb C selrah E toil sdnam fo eht C eigenra noisnep ,margo rp gnisuac
taht dah delac rof a de zid radnats hgih lohcs -ruc eht s ’ noitan yldipar gnidnapxe hgih lohcs metsys
mulucir desirpmoc fo ruof srae y fo E hsilgn dna ot ecudo rtni en w amolpid stneme riuqe r ot -ne
a ngie rof ,egaugnal dna e rht srae y fo , rotsih y erus taht stneduts desama eht de riuqe r ruof net
,ecneics dna scitamehtam taht dluow eb thguat esruoc stide rc no rieht yaw ot hcae—noitaudarg
9
yle vitucesnoc “ dna ” ylhguo roht ot la .stneduts tide rc gnitnese rpe r emos 021 sruoh fo rtsni noitcu
e� C eigenra rt setsu dedulcnoc taht egeloc re v o a lohcs . rae y
ecnartne stneme riuqe r dluohs eb detangised “ ni s ’ tahW ,e rom ynam ni ,noitacude gnidulcni
smret fo ,stinu a tinu gnieb a esruoc fo ev� -irep C s ’ eigenra ,sredael t ’ ndid es eht C eigenra U tin
sdo ylke w tuohguo rht na cimedaca rae y fo eht yle rem sa a yawhtap ot ,snoisnep tub sa a redao rb
rotarape rp y ” .lohcs ruo net F hcus stinu -itsnoc msinahcem ot ev o rpmi eht evitartsinimda -�e
detut eht “ muminim tnuoma fo ” noitarape rp rof ycneic fo slohcs dna segeloc ni eht tirips fo eht
01
stneduts gnidaeh rof .egeloc A dn segeloc taht c�itneics “ ” tnemeganam tneme v om fo eht . yad
de riuqe r ruof net stinu rof noisimda ,dluow fi seidut S fo seitisre vinu dethgilhgih a tsoh fo
yeht tem eht s ’ noitadnuo F rehto ,stneme riuqe r lanoitarepo seicneic�eni dna a lareneg kcal fo
yfilauq rof eht noisnep .dnuf .noitazid radnats e� C eigenra noitadnuo F flesti
U , yletamitl Ae wrdn C s ’ eigenra esegral rednu eto rw a yduts yb lairtsudni renigne siro M
t ’ ndluow eb hguone ot niatsus eht noisnep C eko deltitA“ cimedac dna I lairtsudn E ” . ycneic�
The Carnegie Unit and the Credit Hour
The standard Carnegie Unit is defned as 120 hours of contact time with an instructor, which translates into
one hour of instruction on a particular subject per day, fve days a week, for twenty-four weeks annually. Most
public high schools award credit based on this 120-hour standard (one credit for a course that lasts all year; or
half a credit for a semester course). And, while state and district coursework requirements for graduation vary,
most states require a minimum number of units, typically expressed as “Carnegie Units.” A typical high school
student earns six to seven credits per year over a four-year program of high school.
In higher education, students receive “credit hours,” a metric derived from the Carnegie Unit and based
on the number of “contact hours” students spend in class per week in a given semester. A typical three-credit
course, for example, meets for three hours per week over a ffteen-week semester. A student, then, might
earn ffteen credit hours per semester (ffteen is standard full-time registration for a semester, thirty for an
academic year) en route to a four-year bachelor’s degree requiring a total of 120 credits.
8 CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING