Accountability Measures Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications Annual Meeting Denver, Colorado November 2002

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures Presenters (alpha order) Kate Carey, Ohio Learning Network Patricia Cuocco, California State University - Office of the Chancellor Karen Paulson, National Center for Higher Education Management Systems

Overview of Accountability Karen Paulson National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS)

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures Accountability is “Demonstrating results in order to justify funding.” “The systematic collection of input, process, and outcome data, as well as the use of these data, to make decisions about the effectiveness of schools, districts, or states.”

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures In the Past, Accountability Was Externally Imposed Resulted in a “Compliance Mentality” Has Evolved in the Past 10 Years

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures Now Accountability Is Diagnostic for Internal Purposes Takes Into Account Multiple Stakeholders Shared with External Constituencies

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures Types of Accountability Legal Fiscal Programmatic Negotiated Discretionary Anticipatory From “Public Accountability and Higher Education: Soul Mates or Strange Bedfellows?” by Stephen Daigle and Patricia Cuocco, Vol. 2002, Issue 9, Educause Center for Applied Research Bulletin.

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures Three Aspects to Consider Is the technology capacity appropriate to the purposes? –Digital Plan Are the users satisfied with the technology infrastructure and the associated services? What results are there to show? –Student Learning Outcome Assessment

A New Organization; A New Assessment Kate Carey OLN

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures A New Organization A New Assessment OLN History – 3 year old state-funded E- Learning consortium Offers grants, training, online catalog, communities Assessed by NCHEMS in a two-part process

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures OLN Mission …significantly expands access to Ohioan’s learning opportunities by linking them to education content to meet their needs. …assists colleges and universities in their capacity and effectiveness to use technology in instruction and research by supporting leading edge activities. …helps Ohio thrive in a work market by facilitate partnerships and collaborations among higher educational institutions, schools, business and industry and local communities.

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures OLN GOALS Statewide technology infrastructure – advocate for policies and funding Leadership in philosophies, tech, programs and tools DL opportunities for continuous learning in knowledge economy

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures NCHEMS Traditional Assessment Web-Survey Interviews –Phone –In Person Documents review

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures A New Review NCHEMS staff attended OLN annual conference Futures Panel created –Bruce Chaloux, SREB-Electronic Campus –Darcy Hardy, Telecampus –Jack Wilson, Umass Online –Holly Zanville, OregonONE

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures Futures Meeting July – Futures Panel, Assessment Committee, Gov Bd Exec, Director, Asst Director White Paper – set context Overview of other state’s activity Focused conversation

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures Town Meeting - Who By Invitation –Organization Organization constituents –Higher Ed community –Legislators –Governor’s Office –Regents –Business and Industry

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures Town Meeting - How Small, but Influential Audience Set Context for Discussions –Other states activities by directors –Focused conversation/Small group interaction –Ohio context Structure, funding, culture Education deficit 400,000 strong

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures Outcomes –Accountability Rests with OLN Governing Board not Regents! –Flexibility, Entrepreneurship, Speed for Action –Shift in Goals to meet Vision –Move from Association to Leadership –Aggregator of Resources and Services Services to Students/Ohioans, Faculty-Institutions Funding Responsive to Communities –Higher Educations –Citizens –Business/Industry/Government

Accountability – A Case Study Patricia Cuocco California State University – Office of the Chancellor

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures Accountability in the CSU Since 1996 CSU has had a strategic plan for information technology called ITS Focus is on Outcomes with Initiative Areas containing projects to achieve outcomes Success of initiatives and outcomes depended on improving the infrastructure.

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures Infrastructure Costs How Bad Could That Be? 23 campuses all needing to be upgraded to a minimum baseline level of telecommunications pathways, spaces, media and electronics $250Million

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures If at First, etc. State said NO! CSU had a history of trying to get technology funded as a capital investment State feared the implications State told CSU to be “creative” State found CSU’s “creativity” too politically risky.

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures Accountability – the Price for State Support Good budget times – voters passed bond State still had to approve expenditure State still nervous about implications of technology as capital expense Wanted assurances that money would be well spent

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures Negotiated Accountability State wanted to tie learning outcomes to miles of fiber and copper installed Where do you even begin? Went back to strategic plan Showed how reaching outcomes relied on initiatives which relied on infrastructure

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures Measures of Success Agreed on what was to be measure – increasing success of individual ITS initiatives Formal data collection – User Data and Institutional Data Yearly report – first year format. Second year – baseline data

November 8, 2002WCET – Accountability Measures Measures of Success Third and subsequent years – changes to baseline This is third year of data – can show trends. Hard to maintain validity and interest of CIOs Useful in many unforeseen ways es/data_collection.shtml