Transcript of AGB interview with Molly Broad

SUSAN JOHNSTON: This is Susan Johnston, president of the Association of Governing Boards for Universities and Colleges. I am talking today with Molly Broad, president emerita of the University of North Carolina and professor at the School of Government at Chapel Hill.

In April, Molly, you attended the meeting of AGB’s board of directors where you spoke eloquently on the issue of accountability in higher education. In your opinion, what should institutions of higher education be doing to make themselves accountable for student learning, and specifically how should presidents and boards respond to that challenge?

MOLLY BROAD: I believe that we must provide leadership on this important issue if we hope to be fully supported by our government leaders and the public at large. The challenges are enormous in developing an accountability framework that faithfully serves as a means of accountability and, most importantly, helps higher education improve the effectiveness of our teaching and learning processes. There is no doubt that this is difficult work. The resistance coming from many of our higher education leaders derives from the clear understanding of the great difficulty in measuring learning outcomes across academic disciplines as diverse as religion, physics, art, engineering and the many different areas of academic concentration. And, the risks of doing damage are great if high-stakes measures are used that do not account for the complexity of higher-level learning. 

However, this nation’s colleges and universities have successfully addressed other difficult assignments and our failure to step up to this challenge risks imposition of metrics that are not embraced by our faculty and therefore ultimately are not successful in improving the quality of higher education.

First, I think, Susan, that we must acknowledge that gone are the days in which the mastery of a measurable body of knowledge during college years would last a lifetime. The emergence of profound global forces of change and of the information economy makes the content knowledge of the past completely inadequate. But, we can draw on the outstanding work of organizations like AAC&U, the Association of American Colleges and Universities, and the CLA, the Collegiate Learning Assessment. In fact, over the past 5 years, numerous reports have been issued by both business and higher education organizations that call for focusing on a set of 21st century skills. There has been convergence and alignment about these 21st century skills that include ability to think critically, to solve problems, and to communicate effectively. Impressive work has been done in helping us center our attention on a number of highly valued educational goals that are relevant to students majoring in every discipline. This work defines diagnostic, milestone, and culminating assessments and does so in the context of students’ advanced work in whatever may be their major fields.

The Spellings Commission report is just one of the recent calls for metrics of accountability that has emphasized the significance of learning assessment for improvement purposes as well as for accountability purposes. And in that context, we are also witnessing another difficult debate between the U.S. Department of Education and the voluntary accrediting organizations.

SUSAN JOHNSTON: Molly, you’ve been working with the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges—NASULGC—and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities—AASCU—to develop a voluntary system of accountability for member institutions. Tell us about this initiative—what are its goals?

MOLLY BROAD: I would describe our work to be the development of a rigorous and reasonable set of accountability measures, so that prospective students and their families can judge the goodness of a fit between the student and the campus, assess student learning, and evaluate how the results compare with past performance and with similar institutions.

Our goal is to develop a common data set that would constitute both outcomes and cost measures, and that would provide a comprehensive—and comprehensible—of the institution. And by that I mean covering all the key areas but not overwhelming people with data. Institutional participation would be voluntary with public reporting after a trial implementation period. That is, the measures would become transparent, perhaps on the campus website, using a common template of charts, graphs, tables and other descriptors.

The primary focus would be to help institutions improve student learning and to increase educational value. This effort is about performance, not reputation; it’s about student learning, not just about satisfying the Feds. We know that to be meaningful and successful, the information must be owned by and used by the faculty. It will not be successful if the strategy is a “top down” approach.

We are entering a period of increasing global competition in higher education. America has enjoyed a well-earned reputation for having the finest universities in the world. But, that’s not our natural right. In the past, we had the highest numbers of college students in the world; that’s no longer the case. Our economic competitiveness succeeded in large measure because of the large numbers of college-educated people in our work force and because of the research and innovation coming from our universities. In the future, we will not succeed by the scale of our highly educated work force. Other nations are making huge investments in their higher education systems and have populations that are significantly larger than that of the U.S. For example, “Chindia”—the label given to the two large, fast-growing nations of China and India—has more than seven times the population of the U.S. Our success economically will require the highest-quality higher education and the most innovative, creative, and entrepreneurial graduates. But even beyond our economy, we need a democracy that will sustain our values and improve the quality of life.

SUSAN JOHNSTON: What is the current status of these efforts that you are involved in with NASULGC and AASCU?

MOLLY BROAD: Well, significant progress is occurring thanks to the good work of many talented individuals who comprise the technical, working groups of the NASULGC/AASCU initiative. The accountability framework is being divided into three different categories of key information.

The first category is student and family information. And it will include the very kind of information essential to making the best choice of campus to meet the needs of the prospective student, including things like the size of campus, academic preparation of new freshmen (including SAT and ACT profile scores), diversity of student body, (in geography, race, ethnicity, and so forth), graduation and success rates either at the entering institution or at another institution, information about the classroom environment, about faculty, campus life, about student activities and then about the plans that graduates have for what they’re going to do after commencement. Will they go to work? Will they go on to graduate school? Also included will be analytical tools like the cost of attendance calculator, reflecting all costs and financial aid projections that will make it feasible to estimate actual cost for an individual student within a reasonable range.

The second category relates to the intellectual environment. And this category of information will address the qualities of the campus learning environment for students. Several instruments, such as the National Survey of Student Engagement to the Cooperative Institutional Research Program or others are likely to be recommended for use by the participating campuses. The focus of this kind of information will center around the extent to which student read, write, participate in class discussions, and so forth, as much as or more than peer institutions. The categories of most interest include student engagement in active learning, in collaborative learning activities like teamwork, and academic experiences with diverse groups. The information will also address institutional support for learners, the extent of student interaction with faculty and staff, and student satisfaction with their learning experience. Such information, well understood, can provide useful insights to assist faculty in strengthening the curricula.

And the third and final category relates to core educational outcomes. This category of information would address higher order skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, analysis of complex materials, analytical reasoning, clear, and cogent writing. The CLA—Collegiate Learning Assessment as well as the MAPP—Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress– are among the tools and instruments that could be used effectively for freshmen and seniors. The goal of these instruments is to assess a student’s ability, regardless of academic major, to analyze synthesize, draw conclusions, understand alternative explanations, to acknowledge different viewpoints, and then to communicate them effectively. While there remain a number of issues to address in order to assure both statistical validity and comparability, especially in assessing value-added over a collegiate career, nonetheless, impressive progress has already been made. I fully expect that we will see a significant number of institutions voluntarily begin to apply this accountability framework during the 2007-2008 academic year.

SUSAN JOHNSTON: Molly, I have one final question. You mentioned the difficult debates over the federal rules relating to accrediting organizations. What are the implications of that current debate?

MOLLY BROAD: Well I think they are concerning, because among the most prized aspects of the character of American higher education are the voluntary mechanisms that provide governance, quality oversight, diversity and merit-based competition as means for carrying out our public trust. AGB of course fosters and supports the voluntary body that provides governance for higher education. The separation of these voluntary mechanisms on the one hand from the national government on the other, stands as an historic principle that has served both higher education and the country very well. And yet, the spectacle of disparagement among parties in the negotiated rulemaking proves over accrediting organizations reveals a fundamental tear in the fabric of our collegial processes and evidence of professional mistrust. It does not speak well, in my opinion, for the health of our higher education enterprise.

While we ought not to acquiesce to the federalization of American higher education, in my view, we must find open and collegial ways of working not only within the academy but with our government leaders, who provide major financial support for our students and for our research mission. Senator Lamar Alexander’s statement of recent weeks seems a useful step in deescalating the tension. His call for Congress to provide guidance before the rules are made by the Department of Education, and his call for leadership from higher education on improving the methods of accountability are welcome messages from a compelling and—I believe—trustworthy voice. His knowledge and experience in education and as a university president as well as his distinguished career in the Senate give him great credibility. My hope is that we can use the collegial processes that are fundamental to our long-term success to reach a clear, strong and appropriate response to a legitimate and important issue of accountability.

SUSAN JOHNSTON: Well, I join you in that hope. Molly, thank you. As always, AGB appreciates your thoughtfulness on important issues of higher education. Thanks so much.

AGB | 1133 20th St. N.W., Suite 300 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.296.8400; 800.356.6317