1. The NASULGC Agenda Elements of Accountability Competitiveness-STEM Teachers International-1,000,000 abroad Ag Act Reauthorization- Create 21

2. Elements of Accountability for Public University and Colleges By Peter McPherson, President, and David Shulenburger, Vice President NASULGC

3. An Environment of Mistrust  Request from government that universities demonstrate productivity  Especially learning outcomes Spellings Commission New York Times!

4. Diffuse mistrust is hard to manage  Results in cycle Request for evidence Evidence supplied Dissatisfaction with evidence Request for different evidence Evidence supplied Etc.  Breeds cynicism  Wastes time and resources for all

5. We need to get it right this time!  This is the motivation of this NASULGC/AASCU effort  Requests for critique and suggestions from all quarters are genuine as we really need to get it right this time!

6. What is this?  A proposed set of voluntary accountability measures for public universities  Intended to help improve student learning, improve fit between student and university and be entirely responsive to needs of policy makers, Boards of Trustees and others  Constituted of measures of sufficient rigor and thoroughness that they should be substituted for existing accountability measures  A visible expression of the university willingness to be open and accountable  Broadens the conversation from cost to the value provided by university education

7. First Principles  Our mission is education. Accountability measures must promote that end  We can legitimately take credit only for the value we add  Our measures must be transparent  Only like institutions should be compared and then only on specific measures  For the sake of economy: These measures should substitute for other accountability requirements Sampling should be used, where possible, to reduce measurement cost

8. To Whom Do We Owe Accountability ?  Students, Prospective Students and Their Parents  Faculty and Support Staff  Public Policy Makers, Governing Boards, Various Funders, Alumni and Supporters

9. Why Are Current Accountability Measures Insufficient?  Measures utilized vary so much from university to university that comparison of university performance is impossible  And they are often kept confidential  Result: A significant proportion of the public does not believe that we wish to be accountable and others are simply confused by our diverse measures

10. What Do We Need to Produce?  Comparable Measures across Comparable Universities  Publicly available  Uniform conventions

11. Components of the Accountability Set of Measurements  Consumer Information To improve the fit between student and university  Campus Learning Climate Data NESSE, CIRP, ?  Core Education Outcomes, e.g. CLA, MAP, CAAP, GRE? Adjusted to reflect value- added

12. What might be lost with outcomes testing?  Diversity of mission If the test is not mission-specific its contents probably will not match your mission Since you test over what is considered important Teaching to the test might result  Baylor University  Haskell Indian Nations University Mission changes to fit the test and homogeneity results

13. But do our schools have any commonality of mission?  Probably  Core seems to include at least Critical thinking skills Written communications skills Analytical reasoning skills  Our outcomes testing proposal is focused only on measurement of this common core of the teaching mission

14. Why Value Added?  Dysfunction of input measures ACT/SAT scores Resource measures in general  Value-added promotes efficiency in use of resources and promotes access  That said, measuring value added is far easier said than done as it is entangled with inputs.  Thus, value added measurement is a goal, an an important goal that will require some experimentation with measurement methods before we can attain it.

15. Regional Accreditation and these accountability measures  When the set of standards is complete the six regional accreditors will be asked to consider substitution of these measures for measures they currently accept in satisfaction of their standards  Governing boards and other oversight agencies will be asked to engage in the same review.

16. Time Frame  General distribution of discussion draft  Comments welcomed from all  Discussions with Provosts this Summer  Reconvening the Kirwan committee this fall to consider comments and revise draft  Consideration by Presidents at annual meeting  If agreement on elements exists then  Establish working groups to develop specific measures  2 to 3 years after agreement reached individual schools begin public reporting of Accountability Measurements

17. Remaining Dynamic  Higher Education’s Environment is not Static  Accountability Measures that are Suitable Today may not be Suitable in the Future  A major advantage of a voluntary system over a government dictated system is this ability to keep the system dynamic A Continuing Mechanism/Authority Must be Established to Ensure Continued Acceptability of the Accountability Measures Agreed Upon

18. Conclusion  This constitutes rigorous self-regulation  We believe it to be responsive to stake holders and are testing that with this discussion draft  It is voluntary by institution  How much this effort really matters will ultimately be determined by the number of NASULGC/AASCU universities that subscribe to this public university accountability agreement