How will Student Unit Records Affect Accreditation Dr Andrew Gillen February 2018 Disclosures and Disclaimers Disclosure I currently work for Johns Hopkins University Charles Koch Foundation Disclaimer The views expressed in this presentation are my own and do not necessarily represent the vie ID: 761717
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "How will Student Unit Records Affect Acc..." 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.
How will Student Unit Records Affect Accreditation Dr. Andrew Gillen February 2018
Disclosures and Disclaimers Disclosure: I currently work for Johns Hopkins University Charles Koch Foundation Disclaimer: The views expressed in this presentation are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any of the above, nor did any of the above provide any support for my research on this topic.
Student Unit Records will change the data landscape Student Unit Records (SURs) will revolutionize the data landscape. What changes will affect accreditation the most? Data will be more complete, more relevant, and frequently updated Comparisons of colleges will be inevitable
Data will be more complete, more relevant, and frequently updated SURs will allow for more comprehensive data Less partial data (e.g., institutional graduation rates that only account for first-time full time students). Transfer students (both incoming and outgoing) will now be trackable SURs will allow for the merging of educational and outcome data (labor market outcomes, certification exams, etc.) Similar to how the College Scorecard uses earnings data based on tax records. Labor market and certification exam data can be updated frequently
Implications for Accreditation More emphasis will be placed on outcomes Why use inputs, processes, and governance as proxies of quality when outcome data is available? The current focus on inputs, process, and governance suppresses innovation, but with a focus on outcomes, innovative approaches won’t need to be suppressed. Accreditors will need to utilize data from 3 rd parties Earnings data from the IRS Exam data from discipline associations (e.g., the American Bar Association)
Implications for Accreditation Focusing more on outcomes will also make it easier to make accreditation better: Move away from the current binary system and toward a system with tiered accreditation Differentiation is easier to justify when based on outcomes Adopt risk based/informed reviews Australia’s Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA) triggers increased scrutiny based on risk indicators in four different areas The United Kingdom’s Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) “target[s] regulatory activity on those institutions that represent greater risk to the student interest”
Implications for Accreditation Congress currently requires accreditors to have standards for a number of areas. How many of these will be shown to have a relationship with outcomes? Will Congress modify the list? Student achievement Curricula Faculty Facilities, equipment, and supplies Fiscal and administrative capacity Student support services Recruiting and admissions practices Program length and objectives Student complaints Compliance with federal student aid program responsibilities
Implications for Accreditation The accreditation timeline will need to be rethought. Does reaccreditation every 10 years make sense when outcomes data is updated annually? More of an emphasis on programmatic accreditation Why accredit an entire institution when there will be enough data to examine each program individually?
Comparisons of colleges will be inevitable As outcomes become more widely used, comparisons will be made. If accreditors move away from binary decisions, they’ll be making comparisons too.
Implications for Accreditation If done well, comparisons can improve quality The Dutch newspaper Trouw started reporting school rankings in 1997. Schools responded by improving. Pierre Koning and Karen van der Wiel , School Responsiveness to Quality Rankings An Empirical Analysis of Secondary Education in the Netherlands , CPB Discussion Paper No. 149, May 2010. The Welsh government started withholding performance metrics, and researchers found “systematic, significant and robust evidence that abolishing school league tables markedly reduced school effectiveness in Wales.” Simon Burgess, Deborah Wilson, and Jack Worth, A natural experiment in school accountability: the impact of school performance information on pupil progress and sorting , The Centre for Market and Public Organization, October 2010.
Implications for Accreditation But comparisons can also make things worse If schools “select students based upon their ability…then competition leads to stratification by parental income, increased transmission of income inequality, and reduced student effort [via the anti-lemons effect]” MacLeod, W. Bentley and Urquiola , Miguel. Anti-Lemons: School Reputation and Educational Quality . NBER working paper 15112. June, 2009
Implications for Accreditation So accreditors will need to avoid rewarding selectivity/ability based sorting One way to avoid rewarding selectivity is to base decisions on value-added contributions to the measured outcomes.
A potential fork in the road for accreditation The value-added outcomes data that a SUR will enable are so superior to existing accountability efforts that it will displace them. Accreditors will either take the lead in using value-added outcomes data, or their quality assurance role will be eroded by an entity that does. Perhaps that would be a good outcome since it would allow accreditation to focus exclusively on their quality improvement role.
Thank You Questions? Contact Info: gillenandrew@gmail.com