|
 |
Education Dive
State, college officials say educational
quality measures need a boost
By James Paterson
May 28, 2019
Dive Brief:
Concerns about the value and purpose of higher education could be
quieted if states adhered to better and more consistent standards for
educational quality, according to a new report from the State Higher
Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) and the National
Association of System Heads (NASH).
The pair recommend tightening up the program review and authorization
process by developing a common definition of quality; clearly defining
states' role in the process; and requiring institutions to submit plans
for meeting specific learning outcomes, among other considerations.
However, the report revealed key differences in how state officials and
institutional leaders define and measure quality.
Dive Insight:
The insight into differing views on quality comes as debate churns over
a potential reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and
institutions are tasked with sharing program-level data on measures
such as student loan debt and postgraduate earnings with prospective
students.
SHEEO and NASH surveyed and interviewed representatives of the higher
ed "triad," which encompasses state and federal government officials
and accreditors. It found quality to be a "co-equal" priority "with
other important functions and concerns" for half or more of respondents
representing each group. A much smaller share, around 12% to 14%, said
it was a "top priority" and thus "central" to their mission.
Additionally, "several" state and system respondents said their offices
"had no operating definition of quality," the report noted.
It also identified key differences in how state agencies and higher ed
system leaders identify and measure quality. For instance, states were
more likely to use in-state talent development and retention as well as
learning outcomes to define quality in higher ed, whereas institutions
tended to focus on undergraduate degree production.
Additionally, states consider a broader range of measures, including
graduation, retention and degree production rates by level of
institution; field-specific degree production; licensure exams; student
debt; and graduate employment. Systems, meanwhile, focused primarily on
graduation and retention rates.
Yet questions remain over how best to assess quality, the authors
explain. That includes what data should be collected, how and what
measures might be derived from them, as well as what assessment tools
could indicate quality.
However, a lack of consensus on standards that can "accurately and
broadly" measure student learning will continue to be a challenge as
institutions contend with new kinds of credentials and education
providers, as well as mandates to provide more program-level data.
|
|
|
|
