wwwagborg HOW BOARDSVERSEEDUCATIONAL QUALITY RESOURCES of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges 147Statement on Board Responsibility Institutional Governance148 Washington DC A ID: 132131
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "20th Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, D..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
20th Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036 www.agb.org HOW BOARDSVERSEEDUCATIONAL QUALITY |RESOURCES of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. “Statement on Board Responsibility Institutional Governance.” Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities Colleges, 2010. of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.Faculty, Governing Boards, and Institutional Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 2009.Bacow, Lawrence S. “How Competition Whipsaws Our Colleges and Universities.”Trusteeship 2008. Peter T. the Grade: How Boards Can Ensure Academic Quality Washington, D.C.: of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 2006. Center for Public Trusteeship and Governance of the Association of Governing Boards of and Colleges and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. the Gaps by 2015:Texas Strategies for Improving Student Participation and Success Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing of Universities and Colleges, 2008.Loughry, Andrea. “So Many Rankings, So Few Measures of Student Learning.”Trusteeship 2008.Massy, William F., Steven W. Graham, and Paula Myrick Short. “Getting a Handle on Academic Quality.”Trusteeship September-October 2007. Richard L.Strategic Leadership in Academic Affairs: Clarifying the Board’s ResponsibilitiesWashington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 2002. Richard L. Board’s Responsibilities for Academic Affairs Board Basics. Washington, D.C.: of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 2003. resources can be found at:http://agb.org/resources-boards-and-educational-quality. \n \n \f \t \f\b \f € ‚ \f \r \f \r\r \r \r\f \r \r \f\n \r \f\r \r\t \r\r \f \r \r \b \b\r \f\n \f \f \r \f \f \r \r \r\t \r\r \r \r\r \r\r \r \f \r \r \r \r\r \b \r \r \f \f \r \r \r \f \r \f \f \f \r \f \r \r \f \b \r \r \r\r \r \r\r \r \f \r \r \r \r \r \r \r \r\r \r \r \f \r \r \r\r \r \r \r \r \r \f \f \r \r \f\r \f \f \r \r\r \r \r \r\r \r \r \b\r \f\r \b \r \r \r \f \r\r \r \r \r \f \r \f \b \r \r \f \b \r \r \r \r\r \r\r \r\r \f\r \r \r \f \r \r \b \b\b \b \r\r \r \f \b\b \b \r \f\r \r \r\r \b \r \r \b \f \r \r \f \f\r \r \r \r \b \r \b \r \b\r \r \f \f\r \r \r \r\r \r \f\b \f \r \r \r\r \r \r \r\r \f\b \r \r \r \b \f \r \r \f \n \f\t \b \f \n\f \f \f \b\f \b\b \r\f \b \n \f \f\f \b\b\f \n\b \n \f\f\b\b \n €\f \r \b \f \f \f\f \n ‚ \f \r\n \f \f\nƒ \f \f€\n \f\f \f \f \b \f \t\n \b\f \f\f \f \f \f „ \b …\b\b \b \f \b \b \f \n \f\n \f\f\b\b \f\b \n \f\f \f \b \b \f \f \b €\n \f \f \f\t ƒ \f \f† \n \f \n \f \b \n \f \f \f \b \f\f \b \f \f\f \f \b \f \n\b \f \b\b€ \b \n \b\n \f \b \f \n \f\t \b\f \n \b ‰ \f\f \f \b \f \b \n \f \f\f \b\f\n \r\f \r \n\n\n\n\t\b \b \n \r \b \b \n\b \b \t\b \b \n\r\n \r\b \n\f \b \r \n\r \r \b \r\n\n\r \r \f \b \b\b \b\n \b\t\t\n\n \b \n\t€\b‚ \b \b \t„\n\n \n \t\b ƒ\n …\b \n\b‚ \b \n\n ƒ ƒ\n †\b ƒ\n \b\n \n\b\n‡ †\n„\n‚ \n\n \b\b\b \b\n \b \nˆ \b \b\n \b \t\n \b\b \t\n \n\t€ \n\b‡‰ \r\f\r\r \n\r \t \b \n \r\r \r \t \r \r \t \t \t \f \r \t \t\t\t \t\f \n\t \t \t \t \f \r \n \r \t \r \b \f \t \r\b \t \n\f \b\t \r \t € \t \t \t \t \t \r\r\t \r \b \t\r\r \f \t\r\t \t \t\r\r \f \t \t \t \t \r \t \b‚ \r\r ƒ „…\r \f \t \t \f \r \r\r\t\t \r\t \f \t \r†‡„ˆ \t ‰ Š \t \b†‹ \r\r \bŒŽ Ž\b‘’ \b \t \r \t \t ‡ ‘ˆ\r \r\b \t \n \t \t\r \t \r \t \t \f \f \t „\r † “\r \t \f \t \f \b „ \t \r\r\t \r”……\t † \r \f \n\t\t \t\b \b \r \b\b \r \r \b \r \r \b \b\b\r \r\b \b \r \b\b \b \b \r \r\f \r\f \f\n\t \n \f \n\n \n \t\f \n\n € \b \t \b \b \r \b € \n\b \t \r‚ \t\t\b \b\r\t \b \t \t \t \t \r \r ƒ „\t \r \b \t ‚\b \t\b \r\b \t\t \t\b \t \r† \r \t \r \b \b ‡ \r \r\t \t\b \t \r\r \t \rˆ ‰ \r \t\b \n \b Šˆ \b \t\t \b\b \t \b‰‹ \b \b\t \b\r \r ‹\n \r\b Š \t \t \t\b \b‚\r \t \r ŒŒ \t \r \b \t\b \b \t\b ˆ \t\t\b\r\b\b \b\b \t\b \r Ž \t \b \t\b ‰ ŠŒ \b \b \r \r \f \r \f \n \b\t €\t\b\b\t …†‡\bˆ ‰\b\b\t ‰ \b \bŠ ‹ € ‹ € \n\n‹‰ €†\b\t \bŠ ‹ € \b\b \r \f \n \f \f \f \f \t\b \r \f \f \f\f \n\n \f\r \n\f\f \r \f \f \t \r\r \f \n \f \f\f \t \n\n \f \f\f \f\f\n \n\n \f€ \f€ \f \t‚ \f \n \f \f \f \f \f \r\r\f \n\t \f\n\f\n \f \r \f \n \nƒ \f \f \r \f\n \n \f \f\r \r \f \f \f „\f \f ‚\r „ \n \r \f \n\r \f\n \n \f \f\f \n \f \f\f\n\r \f \r\t \f\t \r\t \r \b \n \r \t \t\b\t‰“\t‰‰ ”†\t ‹ € \b\b\b\t †‘Š \b\t\n \b ‹ € \n\b\t‘‰ \n‰†‰ ‰\b†€\b ‡\t‘ †\b \n‰ \t‰ \b \t\b \b \bŠ ‹ €–‰ ‡ \t\n€\t\n\b‰ \t\b‰\b \n ‘ ‹ € \n\n‹‰…\f \r \f \n \f \f \f \f \f \f \f \f\r\r \r € \f \f€\r\r\f\r\r \f \f\f \f\f\r\f \r\r \r \f\n\n\t \f\r\r\r\r\r \f \r\f „\f \r \f \f \r \f \f \f \f\f\r \f \r\f \r \f \f \r \r \f \n\t\b \r\f \b\b\r \f \r \r \t \r \r \r \f \n \n \r \r \b \f \f \f\f\r \f \f \f\f\r \f …\f \f \r \r „\b\t \f \r \r „\b \r \f \r \b \f \r \b \r \b\r \r\b\b\r \b \f \f \r €‚ƒ \t„…\f ‡\f\r€ \r ˆ\b\f‰Š \r \b \f\r \fƒ \b\r \f ‹ \nŠ \r \b \r \f\r \r \f \f Œ\b\n\n \r \f \b\f\r \b \f \f\r \f\r \b \r \r\b\b \b \r\b\f\r \f \f\b\b\r † \r\f \r\r \f \r\f \b\f \b \b\f\r \r‚ \f \f \f ˆ \f ˆ‰ \f \f \f \f\rƒ \f \f \f \f ˆ‚‚ \f ‚ \r …‚ƒ ‚‚‚ \rƒ Š\f‚ ƒ ‚‚ƒ \r\r\f ‚ \f \b‹ \r \f \t\n \b \t \t \n\t\n\t\t\n \n\t\b\t € \t\n \t \n \t\b\t ƒ \n \t ƒ \t „ \n\t \t\n„€‚ \t\b\n \n\n€ …\nƒ\n†\n\t€‚ ƒ € \tƒ \t\b \t\n ‡ˆ \r \f \r\n \b\r \r \r \f \b \r\b \r \r \b\n \r \r\r \f \n \t Š \n\t\n „€ \t \t\t \t\n\t\n „€ …\t\n \b \f \b \b\r \b \r \r \r \r \b \r \r \r \f\r \r \r \r \n \t \r \b\r \r \r \b\r \r \f \r \r \r \b \f \b \r \r \n \f \b \f \b \b\r \b \r \r\b \r \r \r \r\r \n \f \r \b€ \b \r \r \b \r ‚ \b \r\n ƒ \b \f „ \b \b\r \b \r \r \r \b \r \r\n \n\r \r \t \t\t\t\n \t\t\t\n ‘‡‹Ž \t\b AGB REPORTS November 2009, AGB sent a survey to over 1,300 member chief academic officers (vice presidents and and chairs of board committees on academic affairs from public and private institutions, askingaboutboardfamiliaritywithandunderstandingofinstitutionalassessmentofstudentlearning. goal of the survey was to develop a picture of how boards currently understand this assess-mentandtheirrelationshiptoit,thekindofinformationtheyreceiveonstudentlearning the use to which they put it, the degree to which they are engaged in meaningful discussion and decision related to undergraduate student learning, and what, if anything, limits their involvement in this topic. This and other work will lead to the development of a formal AGB advisory statement for focusing on this area of their fiduciary responsibilities.The response rate for the survey was 38 percent, with 28 percent of responses from trustees, 58 percentfrom chief academic officers, and 10 percent from others. More than three-quarters (77 percent) of respondentswere from independent institutions, and 23 percent were from public institutions, similar to the distribution ofAGB member institutions. Unless otherwise noted, responses from board members and administrators weresimilar.RST, THE GOOD NEWS. majority of respondents (77 percent) said that their institutions have a statement of expectations for undergraduate students should learn. Such a statement is the baseline requirement for meaningful assess- of learning, providing standards against which performance can be assessed. Three-quarters said they about this responsibility through their service on the board’s committee on academic affairs. half of the respondents pointed out the link between accreditation and assessment, indicating that members most commonly learn about their fiduciary responsibility for monitoring student learning their institutions prepare for re-accreditation. Half of the respondents reported that the board receives about student learning at least once a year. In terms of data received, over two-thirds of respondents percent) reported that the board receives results of standardized exams, such as the Collegiate Learning (CLA), the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), or graduate school entrance exams.THE SURVEY HOW BOARDS VERSEE DUCATIONAL QUALITY | AGB’s 2007 “Statement on Board Accountability” affirms that “Boards should determine that systematic and rigorous assessments of the quality of all educational programs are conducted periodically, and board members should receive the results of such assessments” (p. 7). Peter Ewell, assessment expert and trustee, states in Making the Grade: How Boards Can Ensure Academic Quality (AGB, 2006) that oversight of educational quality “Is as much a part of our role as board members as ensuring that the institution has sufficient resources and is spending them wisely” (p. vii). When boards approve candidates for graduation, they are in essence certifying that the students have met the institution’s educational standards. But without conversations about those standards, an understanding of how they are met, and evidence about performance, that certification lacks authenticity and credibility. Additionally, when boards fail to ensure educational quality, they fail to fulfill their larger fiduciary responsibilities of ensuring that the institutional mission is met, the institution’s reputation is protected and enhanced, and its resources are wisely spent. By engaging in discussions of assessment of student learning outcomes and focusing on understanding the lessons of this assessment and their implications, boards deliver on their fiduciary “duty of care” while also ensuring that the important process of assessment is ongoing, accountable, and meaningful to the institution. Let us be clear. This is not a call for boards to direct academic programming or to interfere in any way with the prerogatives of academic administrations or the responsibilities of faculty for the design and delivery of the curriculum. Nor is it a call for boards to lead the assessment of student learning. In well-functioning institutions and systems, boards delegate such responsibilities to the administration and faculty. But delegation does not absolve the board of its responsibility to be well informed about matters related to educational quality and to ensure that assessment takes place. It is clear that board fiduciary responsibility for an institution’s mission is fundamentally linked to educational quality and success. \r\f \f \n \n \t \f \t \b \r \n \f \b \r \t \f \n \r \t \r \t \f \n \t \f \n €\r \t \f \n ‚ \t \f \r \n \n \f \t \t \f \t \f \f \b \t \f \f \f \n \f\f\n \t \f \f \t \r \t \b \b \t\t \f ƒ \f \t\t „ \f ƒ \t\t \t \f \r \n \t \f \t \f \n \f \b \f \n \r … † \b \b \f ‡ ˆ \b \b \b\r \b \f \f \n‡ ‰ \f \f \f \n \t \t \n\r \n \n † \n \r \f \t \b \t \n\f \t \n \r \f \f \f \t \n \t Š \f \f \f \n \n \t \r \b \t \t \n\f \t \f \t Š \t \t \n \n \t \r \t \t \f ‹ \f \n\f ‹ Š \f \t\t \f \f \n\f \t \f \n \n\f \t \r \f\t \t \t \t \f \r\f \r\f\n\t\b \b \t \f \b \f \n \t\b \b\n \t\b \n\t\b\t\n \n \t\b \r \f\t \r\t \b \f \f \t \f \t\n \f\b\t\b \t \b \t\t \b\n€ HOW BOARDSVERSEEDUCATIONAL QUALITY |INTRODUCTONow do we know that students are achieving the academic goals that institutions claim? Or, toput it more baldly: How do we know that students receive the quality education they pay for?Aspublic concern about the cost of a college education has grown, so too have the demands for greateraccountability for quality. For the last 10 or so years, this focus on assessment of student learninghas extended beyond the academic community and into the larger public, with policy makers, par-ents, corporate leaders, and others raising questions about educational quality. Data from the Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD), showing a decline in educational attainment, and from theNational Assessment of Adult Literacy, showing a decline in the ability of college graduates to read newspapersand other prose, have sparked demands for greater transparency in institutional reporting of student learningoutcomes, as well as demonstrable improvements. of student learning has long been a major activity of the academic community. For the past years, conferences, workshops, scholarly research and publications, and institutional projects have exam- the how’s and why’s of assessing what undergraduates have learned, the connections between student and institutional goals, and the use of assessment to improve teaching and learning. Changes in the for regional accreditation have served to make this work universal among American colleges universities. 2006, the U.S. Department of Education produced “A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of Higher Education,” the report of the commission appointed by then-Secretary of Education Margaret and commonly called “The Spellings Report.” The report, controversial in its making and bold its recommendations, probed a range of topics, including educational quality and accountability. Among recommendations, the report urged institutions to measure student achievement, “which is inextricably to institutional success” (p. 4), not only to improve teaching and learning but also to inform and accountability to the public. HOW BOARDS VERSEE DUCATIONAL QUALITY | useful information on student-learning outcomes, as well as actions taken to address any findings that should be improved. Board members should ask questions and expect candid responses about academic quality. For their part, administrators should include an introduction to the oversight of educational quality in board orientation and provide regular education and ongoing reports to the board on findings of assessment.We believe that these and the other specific recommendations made in the report will stimulate the appropriate conversations between the board and administration on this primary purpose of our colleges and universities. As the report states, “For colleges and universities to respond fully to the demands of the public and the needs of students, they must continue to address the question of what difference a college education makes, and boards must be their partners in this.”I’d like to take this opportunity to thank AGB staff members, including Executive Vice President Susan Whealler Johnston and Project and Research Coordinator Kyle Long, who wrote the report; Merrill Schwartz, director of research, and Philip Bakerman, research assistant, who conducted the research; and Julie Bourbon, who edited the report. I also extend my gratitude to Lumina Foundation for Education for its support of this important work. We look forward to your comments. For more information, please contact me at rickl@agb.org or 202/296-8400Richard D. Legon President, Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges \r \f \f \r \n \t \n\f \b \n \f \n \f \n\f \t \b \r \f \f \t \t \r \n \b \t \n \t \n \f \n \f \r \r \r \t \f \r \r \r \f \n \r\n \r \b \r \n\n € \t‚ \n ƒ „ \n… \r \r \f \t \r \f \t \n \n\r † \b \r \r \n \r \r \r \f \b \r \f \f \r \r \n \n \n \f \r \t \f \r \t \t \b ‡ \r \b ƒ \f \f ‚ \r \t \n \n \b ˆ \f \r \f \f \r ‚ \r \b ˆ \f \f \t \n\f \b‰ \f \r\r \f \r \n \t \n\f \n \b ƒ \f \r\t \t\b \t \r\r \t \n \f \t \r \b \n \f \r \f \t \r \n \r\b ‡ \f \r \n \r \f\f \f\f \r \f \r \n\n \t\n \b\t \t\r \r\t \t \n \t\n \t \r \r \r \t\r \t \n\n € \t \r \r ‚\n \b ƒ \r \r „ \n\n … \r \r † \n ‡ \n \r \r \n \r \t \b\t \t\r \r\t ˆ\r\n‰ \r \t\r \n \n \n €\r \r \t \r\t \r \n \t \t \r \n\t \n\n \n \r\t \r \n \r \r \n \b\t \t\r \r\r \t \r \r\t\n \n\n \t\r \n\n \t\r \r \t\r \t \t \t\r \n‰ \n ‰ \n\n ‰ \r ‡ \r\t\n \t\r \n \r \r\t \n \r\r\t\n ‡ \n \r ‡ \n \r \f\r \n \t \b \t Š \r \f \r \n\n ‹ \t Œ ‹ \t\n \r\t \r \r \n \n \n\t\r \r \t \r \n \t † \r \r \t\r \f \r †Œ \n\n \n Ž \r\r\n \tƒ \n\n HOW BOARDSVERSEEDUCATIONALQUALITY:EPORT ON AURVEYON BOARDS AND TSSESSMENT OFTUDENTEARNING With generous support from About AGB years, the Association of Governing Boards of Universitiesand Colleges (AGB) has had one mission: to strengthen andprotect this country’s unique form of institutional governancethrough its research, services, and advocacy. Serving more than member boards and individuals, AGB is the onlynational organization providing university and college presidents,board chairs, trustees, and board professionals of both public andprivate institutions with resources that enhance their effectiveness.In accordance with its mission, AGB has designed programs andservices to strengthen the partnership between the presidentand governing board; provide guidance to regents and trustees;identify issues that affect tomorrow’s decision making; and fostercooperation among all constituencies in higher education. For more information, visit www.agb.org HOW BOARDS VERSEE DUCATIONAL QUALITY: EPORT ON A URVEY ON BOARDS AND SSESSMENT OF TUDENT EARNING