A Presentation Dr. Joseph G. Burke Fulbright Specialist, Thailand June 2013 1.
-
Upload
andrew-rogers -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of A Presentation Dr. Joseph G. Burke Fulbright Specialist, Thailand June 2013 1.
1
US Perspectives on Educational Quality,
Assessment, and Accreditation
A Presentation Dr. Joseph G. Burke
Fulbright Specialist, ThailandJune 2013
2
Describe US values & impact on quality
Outline US quality movement◦Rationale and history
Describe US Approach
Questions and Answers
Outline
3
US Higher Education: Values & Context
4
Three Scales- FREEDOM v order- INDIVIDUAL v society- LIMITED v powerful government
Strong belief in market approach to societal issues
Values influenced:◦ Constitution: Federal system and separation of powers ◦ Government policy regarding education & accreditation◦ Others: health care, gun control
Fundamental American Values
No powerful ministry of education
Who’s in Charge?◦ Feds provide some financial support and broad
policy outlines◦ State/local governments provide financial support
and regulation◦ Multiple non-governmental groups provide
“participatory” rule making regimes: commissions, associations, agencies, boards
5
US Higher Education Context
6
US higher education system highly diverse & decentralized w/autonomous institutions
Overlapping funding/regulatory structures
Multiple organizations involved in accreditation
Yet system:◦ “best in the world” reputation ◦ protects academic freedom◦ Encourages innovative and critical thinking
w/entrepreneurial and highly successful graduates
Implications
7
(1983) “A Nation at Risk” report of Reagan era◦ Decline in learning standards versus rising costs
(1985) “Time for Results” examination of HE
(1985-2000) – Rise of Assessment Movement◦ Phase I – Total Quality Procedures inherited from Industry (Processes and Industrial- type Awards)◦ Phase II – Data Compilation ◦ Phase III – Big Question, comparative, and Internationalization Stage◦ Phase IV -Current
2000 – Growing concern US education system less competitive.◦ Growing federal intervention
Quality Assessment US History
8
Atmosphere of accountability Increased competition in academic
marketplace Constrained fiscal condition requires
evidence-based academic management Technology provides increased capacity to
generate, compile, present, and analyze evidence◦ Use of “Dashboards” (analytics)
Industry provides better management techniques
Why Assessment Movement?
9
The US APPROACH
10
Responsibility◦ Independent regional commissions elected by
members Federal government periodically reviews
performance Comprehensive focus
◦ Resources, governance, faculty qualifications, instructional quality, student performance
Consequence of institutional failure Elimination of eligibility to participate in federal
student aid and financial loan programs
Institutional Accreditation
11
Responsibility◦ Commissions chosen by professional membership
associations◦ Some states involved in program approval
Dual Focus◦ Faculty qualifications, curriculum, student
performance◦ Level of Institutional support
Consequences of failure dependent on professions
Programmatic Accreditation
12
Comprehensive Self Study by institution
Multiday visit by peers, w/report & recommendations
Institution comments
Commission action◦ Accredit◦ Accredit with warning and reporting requirement◦ Not Accredit
Appeal Process
Accreditation Process
13
How Good is our Product◦ What a student knows and can do upon graduation?◦ What is the “value added” by the learning process?
How good are we at producing our product?◦ -retention and graduation rates
Are our customers satisfied?
Do we have the right mix?
Do we make the grade? (Accreditation)
Questions for University Council and Administrative Leadership
14
Based Upon American Value System De-centralized w/multiple actors and
approaches Focused on Student Development and Learning Quality approach Emphasizes formative
evaluation and continuous improvement Accreditation based upon summative
evaluation of ◦ Resource availability◦ Program qualifications and results◦ Assessment process
Summary
15
US tends to disaggregate quality and risk management functions
US less focused on comparative rankings US has far more diversified and de-
centralized approach Each approach has strengths and weaknesses US accreditation/educational system under
review◦ National concerns about quality, competitiveness,
effectiveness of meeting changing occupational requirements
Comparison of US and Other Approaches to Quality
16
Peter T. Ewell, Making the Grade, Second Edition, AGB Press, 2012.
“AGB Statement on Board Responsibility for the Oversight of Educational Quality, AGB Press, 2011.
“How Boards Oversee Educational Quality: A Report on a Survey on Boards and the Assessment of Student Learning,” AGB Press, 2010.
AGB Resources
17
Question and Answers