|
Articles Conference Reviews |
2008FHartThe Shape of Things to Come: Higher Education in the Aftermath of the Spellings’ Commission Report Paul Bodmer kicked off the session by proclaiming that while the broad title might imply that the panel could answer all the audience’s questions about the Spellings’ Commission Report, the members of the panel weren’t actually that bold. He then suggested that while the report has served to bring higher education into the public spotlight, the problems haven’t gone away. Bodmer then outlined what he considered a three-tiered evolution of higher education in the 20th century: first, the student cohort became broader and more mobile; then, the static, content-based curriculum of an industrial society began to change in order to accommodate a more knowledge-based society; and, finally, the faculty cohort became less place-bound, less connected, and more mobile. Yet, he opined, despite these changes, the bulk of higher education still fits the traditional mode in which content knowledge is still the touchstone of student achievement. The Spellings’ Commission was formed because of wide-spread frustration that students were not receiving the most effective education and that colleges and universities were not adequately addressing trends in undergraduate education. In particular, the Spellings’ Commission Report addresses problems of access, learning (accountability), and cost escalations (affordability). The NCTE, said Bodmer (who is the Senior Program Officer for Higher Education in NCTE’s D.C. office), is actively addressing the issues of accountability in teaching writing. The next speaker was Vickie Schray, Deputy Director of the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education. She began by stating that she is not a political appointee, but a civil servant and a former professor and associate dean. She explained that she is primarily in charge of accountability and accreditation and therefore she had, in an effort to open a dialogue between the Department of Education (DOE) and educators, held five summits around the country, during which she listened to the comments and concerns of NCTE representatives. The NCTE and WPA are in the process of articulating their official positions on assessments of writing and a joint white paper is forthcoming. Schray thanked Bodmer for his offer to help the government reach out and engage faculty and expressed her desire to keep this important conversation going. Part of the dilemma, she suggested, is that in individual institutions, faculty members see direct benefits to students, but nationally there are serious problems, which is why the conversation has increased in volume and has become more urgent in tone recently. She explained that while she generally finds this increased attention and urgency to be encouraging, she also wants those engaged in the conversation to understand that these issues are not new. Currently the federal government is committed to provide $80 billion to $100 billion annually to loans, grants, and federal aid. Yet while the United States ranks first among OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) nations for total educational expenditures, it ranks 16th in college graduation rates, 1st in drop-out rates, and 10th for citizens aged 25-34 with college degrees. In fact, Schray stated, this generation of 25-34 year old Americans is actually less educated than the preceding generation, which is a serious negative trend. In reference to the diversity of the student bodies at American colleges and universities, Schray stated that by age 24 only 9% of low income students have attained college degrees and that only 10% of Hispanic students earn bachelor’s degrees by age 29. Schray went onto mention that questions of affordability are a concern for 76% of parents; this is, in part, because while family incomes have increased 55%, the cost of college has increased by 110% over the same period of time. While it’s good news, Schray continued, that 17 of the top 20 spots for institutions of higher education worldwide are still held by the United States, our other 6000 colleges and universities aren’t looking so good, and the quality of learning is a big concern. For instance, businesses and employers are expressing dissatisfaction with college graduates because while they generally find them to be suitable for entry-level positions, they are less able to advance, so the businesses and employers have to spend their own money to retrain them. In addition, only 44% of parents think that they will get their money’s worth out of sending their children to college. It was in response to these rather dismal findings and reports, explained Schray, that the Spellings’ Commission Report made its high-level recommendations as a call to action. The report was intentionally crafted to be an “in-your-face wake-up call—a 2X4 over the head,” she stated. The action plan, which the DOE has been working on for the past year-and-a-half, focuses on estimating aid for families with children in their junior year of high school, on adult education, on a consumer information pilot project, and on different ways to assess student outcomes. The amount of coverage and attention that the Report has received is a good thing, she reiterated, as it has succeeded in launching a national dialogue. But, she proclaimed, it is now time to move from conversation to action. One of the first steps in acting on the Report, she suggested, is to get past all of the misinformation—including the rumors that the government is trying to create a “Ministry of Higher Education” or is trying to create a “one-size-fits-all” standardized test. What the Report has done, she clarified, is to inject more transparency into the system in an effort to help students and families to see the value of higher education. Another way in which educators and other concerned citizens can act is to pay more attention to what Congress is doing with the Higher Education Act. She expressed her opinion that the congressional representatives are focusing almost exclusively on costs when they need to be paying more attention to value and quality. Her goal, she stated, is to try to answer the common question of who should be accountable and at what level. By meeting with associations of key academic discipline groups [including NCTE], she hopes to identify some common ground and to establish a common language for describing standards. She concluded by reminding the audience that the conversation will not end in January 2009 with a new head of the Executive Branch, but that the DOE will continue to work on the issues and to continue to share responsibilities with educators. Linda Adler-Kassner and Howard Tinberg, the co-chairs of the NCTE/WPA Task Force on Assessment spoke next. In their view, the discussions about post-secondary education ought to revolve around issues of accountability, transparency, and consistency. Some of the questions the Task Force asked were:
The Task Force used these questions and others to engage in broader national discussions. They attended hearings and presented a consistent message based upon rhetoric and composition research: in order for assessment to be valid, reliable, and equitable it must be grounded in the principles of the discipline, it should be locally determined by context, and it should be used to improve teaching and learning. While the NCTE statements of best practices and the WPA writing outcomes statements are positive steps in the right direction, Adler-Kassner and Tinberg identified several areas that the profession needs to build upon and improve:
After collecting data on college writing programs assessments, the Task Force looked for commonalities and identified model assessments within a wide range of institutions. What they hope to show in the white paper is that while methods differed, principles were consistent. They plan to outline strategies to reframe the assessment discussion, to provide resources for writing programs to act locally, and to develop alliances. Asao Inoue then spoke in more detail about the forthcoming white paper. He stated that it is meant to inform programs of commonly held principles for appropriate, fair, and valid assessment. The heart of the paper, he said, is the principles section—what we learn about student writing and what students know. While much of the information is highly contextual, there is general agreement about the principles. The white paper is focused on improving teaching and learning. It provides research-based evidence that student learning is ongoing and that writing is complex. It shows that multiple, site-specific measures should be used. And it urges program directors to engage in continuous conversations with various stakeholders, to articulate clearly the program values and expectations, and to base assessment on effective learning outcomes. The NCTE/WPA white paper, Asao explained, can be used by WPAs as a set of principles that have come from agreements among experts and practitioners. The white paper, when complete, will be available on both the NCTE and WPA websites. Jeffrey Andelora then spoke about his role in gathering information for the Task Force in order to create an online “best practices” resource. He has identified institutions representing a variety of writing programs (FYC, WID, WAC, Writing Centers) in an effort to draw upon the experiences of these established programs and experienced WPAs in order to provide assessment models for other WPAs and writing programs. He asked the 15 WPAs to respond to the following questions:
Once the data is collected and processed, the goal is to create a resource manual accessible from the NCTE and WPA websites. Vickie Schray ended the formal panel presentation with a response. She stated that she would love to see the white paper and the results of the best practices surveys, as the questions being addressed by these documents are critical ones. She claimed that she was encouraged by the leadership and the level of work that was underway, and she acknowledged that the federal government has “no business getting into assessment” and that assessing simply to assess is “ridiculous.” She expressed her admiration of the goals of the NCTE/WPA Task Force because they focus on improving teaching and learning and on adding value to the educational experience. She concluded by offering “kudos” to the Task Force and thanking them for their drive toward action. Questions and Answer Session Q: “Assessment” has become such a dirty word these days, especially when associated with No Child Left Behind, so how do you suggest we approach this task? Schray: Back in the 90’s during the Clinton administration, there was also a focus on student achievement that met similar resistance. What we need to do is break through the status quo and alleviate the concern in higher education that the federal government is trying to create a NCLB for colleges and universities. That’s not the case; it’s transference of fear. I’m not sure how to break through the rhetoric on the federal side of higher education. The federal grant and loan money goes to the students, so we need more information for and from the students on what they are getting for their money. Linda Adler-Kassner: On a local level, I’ve found it helpful to reframe discussions about assessment as an opportunity to look at what students are learning and how we are doing—talking about how we can improve teaching and learning and talking about what we want to know about what students are learning in our programs. The Higher Learning Commission also hosts a number of workshops and provides suggestions for opening conversations. Q: What do we do when the demand to assess is not necessarily put into the hands of those who are knowledgeable about the field being assessed? Howard Tinberg: The perception of pressure from on high is sometimes created by a vacuum of leadership. Faculty can step up and have a role to play. Don’t assume that you don’t have a role or can’t provide your expertise. Asao Inoue: It can be helpful to change the conversation a little bit. Resist using the work “accountability.” Try using “responsibility” instead. For example, what is your responsibility to students? What is your ethical obligation to them? Jeffrey Andelora: The burden is on us. Ed White has been telling us that for decades. We still have the ability to do assessment ourselves. Q: How do we get students involved? Get students to help define the expected outcomes. For example, BYU is using a wiki to develop core competencies and to establish how they get assessed. Let students contribute to and be responsible for their learning outcomes. Q: I’m hearing gaps in the conversation. Is there a disconnect between the national and local perspectives? What’s the role of writing in the university as a whole, or should we only value writing as an investment based upon business and consumer expectations? You might want to look at the Outcomes of Higher Education and the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) statements. The DOE is talking to students and families about their concerns. They want to know, at a local level, how does your institution serve a student like me and at what cost? Q: Can you say the DOE actively discourages using a standardized test? This has been a huge frustration. The private sector is tired of being told that higher education needs to be studied more. They want to be driving the agenda, but higher education needs to drive it. A decentralized government is both a strength and a weakness. Educators need to take control as professionals and communicate with the public. “Comparability” was a conversation that led to misinformation about rankings. The federal government doesn’t do national rankings. We talk more about transparency now, not comparability, because assessment is so localized. |