News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
April 21
In many quarters within American higher education, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings is viewed (unfairly, she and her supporters would argue) as an almost single-minded advocate for more, and more standardized, measurement of how well college students are educated. The position of Spellings’s Education Department on testing has made her unpopular with many college leaders and faculty members in the United States.
Which may make all the more surprising the fact that on the world stage, the U.S. Education Department is reacting with indifference, and in many cases outright skepticism, to the idea of creating an international test of higher education learning, which is being considered by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The OECD has been in discussions for more than a year about creating what some have described as a higher education version of OECD’s Program for International Student Assessment exam for 15-year-olds, aimed at providing “stakeholders like higher education institutions, governments, students and employers with better information on what undergraduate degree students know and can do,” as OECD documents say.
Higher education officials have expressed significant reservations about creating such a test. In a letter to the OECD last month, the American Council on Education said such the results of such a measurement system would most likely be used to rank institutions, even though officials of the international group have strongly asserted that that is not their intention.
This is problematic, wrote the council’s president, David Ward, because of highly variable missions and financing systems of different college systems. “Policymakers will undoubtedly be inclined to use the results in ways that will disadvantage those institutions that do not perform well against others, possibly for reasons over which they have no control,” Ward said.
U.S. government officials as well as representatives of American testing organizations have participated in the OECD discussions, which are supposed to come to a head later this week at a meeting in Paris, where its education policy committee is expected to decide whether to proceed with a feasibility study on higher education assessment. Last week, at the urging of American college leaders, the Education Department arranged a discussion between OECD officials and college representatives about the idea of an international measurement system.
Officials familiar with the discussions said that higher education leaders voiced their concerns in no uncertain terms, and that Education Department experts expressed their own reservations about the feasibility of developing a single mechanism for assessing and comparing the performance of highly varied higher education systems.
College leaders said they were heartened that department officials were not embracing the OECD push with open arms.
“I came out of the meeting with the sense that the department was pretty much on the same sheet as many of the rest of us,” said Susan Hattan, a senior consultant with the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, who was among those at last week’s meeting. While department officials made clear that they wanted colleges to continue to develop new and better ways to measure how well their students are learning, “I detected, at least, that they were not cheerleading for the idea that, internationally, work should go into creating [a single] instrument.”
In an interview, Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst, director of the Education Department’s Institute for Education Sciences and the U.S. representative on the OECD education policy committee, played down the suggestion that department officials were openly opposing the OECD’s ideas.
The international organization has not defined its vision for higher education assessment, Whitehurst said, so it is “pretty hard to decide” whether to support something without knowing exactly what that something is. He said he believed there would be much more support in the department, and among higher education officials, for “multiple measures of student learning that institutions could use for self-examination and self-improvement” than for “a single instrument, high-stakes assessment for higher education.”
Whitehurst acknowledged, though, that in typical OECD fashion, the organization would “look for funding from governments that are interested in participating” in the higher education project, and that “we do not anticipate, as a U.S. government, funding such a feasibility study.” The Education Department’s role, he said, would be limited to serving “as a broker” between institutions or organizations in the United States that are interested in participating.
Whitehurst chuckled at the suggestions from college officials that he or the Education Department have expressed strong opposition to the OECD’s vision of higher education assessment.
“What you may have been tapping into is surprise [from those] who may have thought that the department is behind this” push, he said, given the department’s campaign over the last two years to prod American colleges to use comparable measures of student learning, like the Collegiate Learning Assessment, to gauge and report their own learning outcomes.
“There are certainly people who may have thought that the department is going to push for internationalization of the use of something like the CLA,” Whitehurst said. “And they may have been struck by the contrast between that expectation and the fact that I, as the department’s surrogate, was playing an impartial role” in the conversation between the OECD and college leaders.
Perhaps, a reporter suggested, college leaders expected Whitehurst to appear at last week’s meeting with pompons and a megaphone?
“Yes,” he said with a laugh.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
David Ward and his colleagues argue against any measure that might be used to compare institutions with each other in fear that an injustice in such comparisons would occur, and, God forbid, ranking! Silence from ACE over the past 25 years about the totally capricious U S. NEWS rankings—ACE members submit their institutional data like sheep to U S. NEWS and then castigate the rankings using them as a fig leaf in defense of no comparative learning assessments.
It is possible to compare institutions with sophisticated assessment techniques such as pre-testing students and comparing similar students and institutions with each other—CLA, for example, does this with college outcomes that no one disputes are important across institutions with different missions. The real reason Ward and others are worried is that they already know their constituents would fare poorly in public if real measures of learning were utilized as we already know is true on retention measures when controlling for student differences.
Higher education’s de facto cooperation with silly guide books and U S NEWS, railing against “standardized” tests, and making claims of differentiated missions as an excuse for no comparisons is truly disingenuous. What ever happened to a shared notion of a “college education” that guarantees a reasonable floor of competence in general knowledge and skills independent of major or mission? Sounds like the PISA folks, not controlled by institutional membership, as is ACE, may do what the college lobby prevented Spellings from doing. Maybe the world really is “flat.”
Skeptical, at 7:50 am EDT on April 21, 2008
What an international exam is more likely to do than rank institutions is to rank nations. Bureaucracies are filled with people who make a full employment service out of holding others accountable but resist any kind of accountability measures for themselves. This is true of bureaucracies that exist at every scale from banana academic republics to national education departments.
Spellings’ Department of Education seemingly wants to replace the role of accrediting agencies, but certainly doesn’t welcome the role of then being held responsible should U.S institutions do poorly on such an international exam. Why am I not surprised?
Prof Ed, at 4:40 pm EDT on April 21, 2008
The Ed Feds see no way to use this form of assessment to club American academia with, so they have no interest in it. Their celebration of philistinism and brainlessness exists only because of the political triumph of ignorance, which is still the enemy of knowledge. Academia remains a threat to those who love ignorance, and it must remain their archenemy. It’s about time, too, for academia to win a few rounds.
Hnaef, at 4:55 am EDT on April 22, 2008
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
New York Institute of Technology (NYIT) offers undergraduate, graduate and professional degrees to approximately 15,000 ... see job
Director Institutional Research San Diego Community College District THE POSITION Applications are now being accepted for a ... see job
Posting Description: The Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Analysis (OIRPA) at the University ... see job
Research Assistant III (Data Manager) see job
Pima Community College is seeking applicants for Executive Director of Planning and Institutional Research see job
East Carolina University, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina, is a doctoral institution with an ... see job
The Minnesota Private College Research Foundation seeks a Research Associate to join an exciting team of higher education ... see job
Northeastern University, founded in 1898 and located in Boston, is a private research university that is a leader in ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
West Chester University of Pennsylvania’s Office of Institutional Research seeks applicants for a Research Analyst position ... see job
I’m not sure if the Dept. of Ed is being disingenuous or not. As with PISA, institutional participation is required because institutions would have to be involved in administering the tests. To my knowledge, the OECD has never suggested doing this on a scale which would provide statistically significant results at an institutional level and nor have they ever suggested that they would publish results at an institutional level. As with PISA, results would be published only at the national level.
So what’s the problem, exactly?
Alex Usher, Vice-President at Educational Policy Institute, at 6:35 am EDT on April 21, 2008