California Perspective on Using Accountability in Higher Education as a Tool for Innovation and Planning

CSHE > News > California Perspective on Using Accountability in Higher Education as a Tool for Innovation and Planning

“Accountability - the current lingua franca of higher education - and the question of the public trust as a reflection of the respect and confidence of the people that are served by the nation's colleges and universities” is the focus of a new report by David E. Leveille, a visiting scholar at the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley. The report is part of a national study, “Four States and FIPSE: Defining Best Practices for Responsible Accountability Models in Higher Education.” Funding support for the study was provided by the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE).

Designed to assist policymakers and educational leaders, the report identifies the components of a state-level higher education accountability system: an action-oriented Public Agenda, having the Public Trust of the people that higher education serves, instituting well-conceived and meaningful Performance Indicators, and having a sound Data-Driven Decision-Making capability are considered essential for engaging all Stakeholders in a state’s higher education accountability system.

Attention is drawn to the role that elected officials, members of the higher education system, and stakeholders must have in partnership with one another to carry out their respective roles.

Leveille offers a national perspective on the growing number of accountability measures being developed in various states to then offer a series of recommendations related to California’s burgeoning higher education system. He offers three major recommendations. First, to advance higher education in California in the public’s interest and to sustain and increase public trust, there is a need to create a generally agreed upon Public Agenda for California higher education. “There is no consensus about statewide needs and priorities and no Public Agenda that is widely accepted and that guides policy choices,” explains Leveille. A Public Agenda would create links for higher education to focus on developing a plan for the future contributing to the highest quality of life for students, society, and the economy of California.

Second, to address the State’s vision and its priority goals for the State’s higher education system, the Legislature and Governor should move quickly to clearly communicate its highest priorities. Only then can these issues be addressed.

Three, to create a framework and mechanism for coordination and cooperation between the State of California and its higher education system that will facilitate the conduct of collaborative activities in areas of mutual interest pertaining to the role and responsibilities associated with higher education in the State of California, a new California Coordinating Board for Higher Education should be established.

“The dispersion of policymaking, coupled with a lack of trust among the state entities and segments, creates circumstances in which considerable effort is spent in `coordinating the coordinators,’” observes Leveille. “However, in most instances there is no ‘synapse’ between and among the entities that should be working together. Such a dysfunctional culture, allowed to continue unabated through inaction or benign neglect, will have a deleterious effect in the twenty-first century that in the end will impact the educational opportunity available for future generations. The people of California deserve an environment in which the component parts of its higher education system, including the State entities and mechanisms, are mutually reinforcing and aligned in pursuit of common goals and objectives.”

Eliminating unnecessary State oversight and encouraging creativity and innovation at the colleges and universities within a coordinated state system of higher education would be integral to the future of California’s system of higher education states the report. “The marriage of institutional autonomy with statewide coordination provides an appropriate framework for the development of a dynamic higher education system that includes various types of institutions with clearly differentiated missions,” concludes Leveille.

For a copy of this report, see http://cshe.berkeley.edu/ publications/publications.php?id=242
If you interested in receiving a hard copy of this report, please contact the Center for Studies in Higher Education at cshe@berkeley.edu or (510) 642-5040.

CONTACT: David E. Leveille, Visiting Scholar - Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley del44@adelphia.net

More information