‘Assessmania’ and ‘Bureaupathology’ in Higher Education
By Thomas R. McDaniel, PhD
This is not a rant. As a college administrator, I am fully aware of the
importance of assessment, and the bureaucratic efficiencies mandated in
higher education in our country today. However, I do think it is important
for academic leaders to be able to step back from the fray and the daily
demands of administration and think about the philosophical and educational
implications of the standards movement in higher education. Most college and
university administrators are keenly aware of the standards movement in K-12
public school education, a dominant theme of contemporary education reform
that has now moved to the college campus.
This movement has created a significant amount of controversy, with
strong proponents on both sides of the issue. Many argue that it is
essential for colleges and universities to embrace the standards movement
and to verify their educational value (which now comes at what may seem an
extraordinary cost to the public) by way of comprehensive and sophisticated
assessment systems. In the public school sector, this is often announced to
the public by so-called “report cards” for schools, required by the sweeping
federal legislation known as No Child Left Behind.
In higher education, we are now finding similar reform movements
accompanied by increasing demand for quantitative proof (or at least some
evidence) to justify the high cost of a college education. Some argue that
this has now become the primary responsibility of accrediting agencies—not
only regional accrediting bodies but also the myriad of specialty
accreditations for an extensive array of professional and disciplinary
curricula. This alphabet soup of accrediting agencies includes such
formidable bodies as NASAD (art), NASM (music), NLNAC (nursing), NCATE
(education), FIDER (interior design), and AACSB (business), to mention but a
few. These agencies have done much in recent years to base accreditation
processes and decisions on “outcomes” rather than “inputs.” The major
concept here is that a college and its programs should be measured not by
the qualifications of its faculty, the claims made in catalogs or on
syllabi, or the library and other resources in the institution, but rather
by student performance in both qualitative and quantitative measures of
achievement.
For institutions of higher learning, the consequence of this paradigm
shift has been the creation of a wide range of assessment procedures—many of
them emphasizing the quantitative side of the equation—to provide these
agencies with the outcome evidence required to show that the accreditation
standards have been met. Some argue that such measures are essential to
convince a skeptical public that there is value in the educational commodity
for which they are paying a premium. Others point out that the accrediting
agencies are serving a purpose that they are uniquely qualified to provide
and that may well stem the tide of heavy-handed governmental impositions of
accountability.
Questions
These arguments may indeed be true. Nonetheless, it seems to me
appropriate for educational leaders to reflect on a number of questions that
follow from this now reigning concept of accountability and accreditation:
- Are the premises of the accountability movement in higher education
justified? This is to say that there may be reason to question the
notion that outcomes should replace inputs, that quantitative score
keeping is the best way to determine the value of educational services,
that the public is truly skeptical of the utility of investment in a
college education, and that government is ready to leap into the breach
if accrediting agencies do not save the day. This is also to question
the premise that standards established by external agencies—which are
granted the authority to close or sanction programs or entire
institutions—should guide (or even control) the mission, policy, and
curriculum of higher education. Are these premises in fact true and
compelling?
- Are the requirements for assessment—and the vast bureaucratic
mechanisms required to generate the data—worth the cost and effort? This
question should be considered within the context of any individual
institution of higher learning, but there is reason to contend that the
scarce resources of an institution might better serve the mission of the
institution in some other activity or enterprise. To answer this
question it would be necessary to calculate the cost of personnel,
hardware, software, committee structures, report generation, etc., and
determine if the cost justifies the commitment and resources allocated.
However, as long as accrediting agencies have the power to demand such
outcome evidence, institutions may have no alternative. Are there any
possible alternatives?
- In the long run, does this kind of outcomes-based accountability
lead to improvements in educational institutions? Accrediting agencies
typically go beyond merely requiring the collection and reporting of
data to insist that institutions aggregate, disaggregate, and analyze
data and from that process determine specific improvements that should
be made to all aspects of the institution’s operation. Such processes
must be continuous and a part of assessment reports. Are these
requirements leading to the most important and desirable improvements in
the institution? For example, would more subjective and qualitative
measures result in harder-to-validate but better institutions?
Conclusion
As I mentioned, this is not a rant but rather a plea for institutions to
take opportunities for reflection on the accreditation processes that
presumably ensure institutional effectiveness. As ingrained as the standards
movement has become, with its concomitant requirement for comprehensive
assessment systems to measure outcomes, it would nonetheless be a mistake
for academic leaders to merely assume that such processes and activities
ensure a better institution. What is the most appropriate relationship
between internal and external locus of control when it comes to higher
education policy decisions? There are points at which assessment can become
a mania and bureaucratic processes become pathological. We may simply go
through the motions to produce results that bypass the best thought and
evaluation required for truly effective education. Some academic leaders are
rightly concerned that the demands of “outcomes accountability” may
undermine rather than enhance the intellectual joy and creativity of the
college classroom, establishing a “tail wagging the dog” approach to
education that may not be in the best interest of students or faculty. Let
us, then, take time to pause and reflect—and then determine platforms and
positions that make the most sense for higher education.
Thomas R. McDaniel is a professor of education, senior vice president,
and acting dean of graduate studies at Converse College in Spartanburg, S.C.
Contact him at
Tom.McDaniel@Converse.edu. |
