1. A Presentation Dr. Joseph G. Burke Fulbright Specialist, Thailand June 2013 1

2.  Describe US values & impact on quality  Outline US quality movement ◦ Rationale and history  Describe US Approach  Questions and Answers 2

3. 3

4.  Three Scales - FREEDOM v order - INDIVIDUAL v society - LIMITED v powerful government  Strong belief in market approach to societal issues  Values influenced: ◦ Constitution: Federal system and separation of powers ◦ Government policy regarding education & accreditation ◦ Others: health care, gun control 4

5.  No powerful ministry of education  Who’s in Charge? ◦ Feds provide some financial support and broad policy outlines ◦ State/local governments provide financial support and regulation ◦ Multiple non-governmental groups provide “participatory” rule making regimes: commissions, associations, agencies, boards 5

6.  US higher education system highly diverse & decentralized w/autonomous institutions  Overlapping funding/regulatory structures  Multiple organizations involved in accreditation  Yet system: ◦ “best in the world” reputation ◦ protects academic freedom ◦ Encourages innovative and critical thinking w/entrepreneurial and highly successful graduates 6

7.  (1983) “A Nation at Risk” report of Reagan era ◦ Decline in learning standards versus rising costs  (1985) “Time for Results” examination of HE  (1985-2000) – Rise of Assessment Movement ◦ Phase I – Total Quality Procedures inherited from Industry (Processes and Industrial- type Awards) ◦ Phase II – Data Compilation ◦ Phase III – Big Question, comparative, and Internationalization Stage ◦ Phase IV -Current  2000 – Growing concern US education system less competitive. ◦ Growing federal intervention 7

8.  Atmosphere of accountability  Increased competition in academic marketplace  Constrained fiscal condition requires evidence-based academic management  Technology provides increased capacity to generate, compile, present, and analyze evidence ◦ Use of “Dashboards” (analytics)  Industry provides better management techniques 8

9. 9

10.  Responsibility ◦ Independent regional commissions elected by members  Federal government periodically reviews performance  Comprehensive focus ◦ Resources, governance, faculty qualifications, instructional quality, student performance  Consequence of institutional failure  Elimination of eligibility to participate in federal student aid and financial loan programs 10

11.  Responsibility ◦ Commissions chosen by professional membership associations ◦ Some states involved in program approval  Dual Focus ◦ Faculty qualifications, curriculum, student performance ◦ Level of Institutional support  Consequences of failure dependent on professions 11

12.  Comprehensive Self Study by institution  Multiday visit by peers, w/report & recommendations  Institution comments  Commission action ◦ Accredit ◦ Accredit with warning and reporting requirement ◦ Not Accredit  Appeal Process 12

13.  How Good is our Product ◦ What a student knows and can do upon graduation? ◦ What is the “value added” by the learning process?  How good are we at producing our product? ◦ -retention and graduation rates  Are our customers satisfied?  Do we have the right mix?  Do we make the grade? (Accreditation) 13

14.  Based Upon American Value System  De-centralized w/multiple actors and approaches  Focused on Student Development and Learning  Quality approach Emphasizes formative evaluation and continuous improvement  Accreditation based upon summative evaluation of ◦ Resource availability ◦ Program qualifications and results ◦ Assessment process 14

15.  US tends to disaggregate quality and risk management functions  US less focused on comparative rankings  US has far more diversified and de- centralized approach  Each approach has strengths and weaknesses  US accreditation/educational system under review ◦ National concerns about quality, competitiveness, effectiveness of meeting changing occupational requirements 15

16.  Peter T. Ewell, Making the Grade, Second Edition, AGB Press, 2012.  “AGB Statement on Board Responsibility for the Oversight of Educational Quality, AGB Press, 2011.  “How Boards Oversee Educational Quality: A Report on a Survey on Boards and the Assessment of Student Learning,” AGB Press, 2010. 16

17. 17