What are we really measuring?

This week’s readings focus on institutional accountability, and they all bring me to question the goal of higher education based on measurement standards. Since the beginning of class we have raised questions about the role of higher education and whether or not it is worth investing in a college degree. Overall, the responses have been affirming that investing benefits students overtime, especially for those born into low-income class levels. We have also addressed the importance of acquiring skills needed to make decisions in life that impact our thinking around social and political issues, which are gained through a college education. However, the reading for this week raises concerns about the ways in which public colleges and universities are measured for success based on influences from the state.

In Institutional Autonomy and State-Level Accountability, Dee argues the importance of a campus-state relationship operating through a process of loose coupling. Loose coupling is a shared commitment of accountability amongst institutions and the state based on state policy priorities, allowing institutional autonomy in creation of this process based on their unique institutional need and populations. Dee proposes solutions such as implementing incentive-based policies (allowing schools to address state priorities and policies based on student needs), customized performance measures (allowing institutions to set indicators used to assess their performance), capacity-building audits (sharing of best practices across institutions), academic program creation (quicker proposal process but solely based on subjects within the state priority), and campus-based assessment (allowing institutions selection of assessment measures and student learning). I believe some of the solutions Dee suggests are realistic, especially with the capacity building audits because it limits the competitive aspect amongst institutions and gets at the most important aspect of implementing “best practices” to best serve their students. It also gives faculty and administrators the ability to define the issues and assist each other in implementing solutions. Yet, the campus-based assessment draws concern for me because it allows for the flexibility of institutions to select their assessment measures and measures of student learning. However, what if these selected measures are not inclusive of “all” students at the institution or does not take into consideration their ability levels? Also, since majority of the solutions are still based on the state’s priorities how are institutions really having a say-so in other issues that may be important to address for their specific institution? I think it would be fair if states heard from institutions regarding issues they are having with their own institutional priorities as opposed to only allowing them to respond to the states through policy inducements.

Another issue McKeown-Moak focuses on is the shifts to performance-based funding for institutions and the pressures they face to graduate students sooner. McKeown-Moak argues the accountability focus is limiting the importance of “educating students” based on limited measures of performance such as graduation rates, course completion credits, associate degree and certificate completion, adult and first time student enrollment, etc. (p.3). She also argues that the shift in performance-based funding has gone from a focus on the “needs of higher education” to “needs of students, the state, and its economy” (p. 4). This made me think of Labaree’s arguments about social efficiency and social mobility, two of the three goals of higher education. Social efficiency is catered toward economic well-being and preparing students for roles in the workforce. Social mobility is focused on making education a “commodity for purpose of status attainment over the acquisition of knowledge.” Larabee also argues that both operate on stratification of credentials as well as the structure of opportunities in institutions. Although prior literature we have read advocates for social mobility via educational attainment there is still the focus on the issue of stratification, which reinforces the challenge for those of lower socioeconomic status.

The Obama administration is seeking to address these issues by creating a rating system that will focus on access, affordability, and outcomes across institutions by focusing on graduation rates, Pell Grant recipients, scholarships, loan debt, changes in tuition, etc. However the fear is that the results of this process may replicate the results of the ranking system, influencing institutional behavior for “well performing institutions” and creating less chances of acceptance and accessibility for low-income, minority students (ACE).

But where is the focus on student learning? Is college just about speeding up the process to obtain a job, get a degree, and hope to make it into a higher income bracket with little student loan debt?