Accountability Report
Next
Public higher education in the United States is entering a new stage. While demand for access to a college education is about to grow dramatically, especially in the State of Washington, financial support from states for colleges and universities is not keeping up with costs. As state legislators across the country trim budgets, they are requiring university administrators and faculty to justify expenditures and to be held accountable for those expenditures. They want to know, in essence, what it is that professors do, and how they know when they have done it well. The Provost's Committee on Accountability has addressed these two questions. The Provost, in his charge letter to the committee (Appendix A), asked us to go beyond the initial stimulus of the legislative and Higher Education Coordinating Board (HEC Board) interest in better measures of accountability, to embrace the project as a positive exercise in self-reflection within the University. We have done so.
Accountability raises issues that bear directly on the fundamental system of incentives and priorities of a modern American research university. These issues deserve to be raised at all levels of the University as part of a healthy process of self-examination every institution ought to undergo periodically. Such an introspective evaluation may, and probably should, take time. The University of Washington is a big ship. It does not turn on a dime. At the same time, the University is part of a larger world that is changing rapidly. If it does not respond to those changes effectively, it risks abdicating the role of intellectual leadership that it has played historically.
For higher education in the state of Washington to flourish in the future as it has in the past, we must build a new public consensus about the value and purpose of the University'’s mission. That discussion, at its core, revolves around the central issue of what it means to be an educated person in the modern world. When the committee began to meet in the fall of 1996, the magnitude of the task before it quickly became apparent. The constituencies interested in the outcome of our deliberations--legislators, government officials, business and community leaders, students, and faculty, to name a few--are diverse. Because each group is interested in different aspects, the definition of the term "accountability" was difficult to pin down. Moreover, the University is a complex, heterogeneous institution. Over and over again we were impressed by the wealth of its intellectual resources, the range and accomplishments of its faculty, the intelligence of its students, and the dedication of its staff. It soon became clear that any generalizations made about an enterprise so complex were likely to be, simultaneously, partly true and partly false. Similarly, anyone who ventured to make such generalizations was likely to be, simultaneously, partly right, partly wrong, and wholly foolish.
What follows below is thus offered in acknowledgment of the remarkable past and current achievements of the University of Washington, and in the confident expectation that the University can sustain this record and become even better in the future.
The UW is already required by statute to make an annual report to the Legislature (via the Higher Education Coordinating Board - HEC Board) on specific measures of accountability (Appendix B). All institutions of higher education in the state are so required. In general, this is consistent with national trends for public universities and colleges.
The accountability measures reported to the HEC Board and Legislature focus on teaching and on undergraduate student progress to graduation. The UW highly values these two areas. The Committee sought to make improvements in some of the present measures, to broaden the scope of the measures so they more accurately reflect the multiple missions of the University, and to incorporate non-quantifiable activities where appropriate. Thus, we expanded that platform of measures to incorporate many other educational activities in which faculty and students are involved -- research, scholarship, creative contributions, public service and outreach. Our recommendations seek to capture and present a balanced view of these interrelated missions.
As the Committee was completing its charge, a new issue arose: performance measures (Appendix C). If "measures of accountability" are defined as ways of counting inputs, processes, and outputs, e.g. number of state-supported, full-time faculty, identification of bottleneck courses with serious entry problems, and number of degrees awarded; then "performance measures" are goals set for outputs, e.g. percentage of undergraduate students retained. The 1997-1999 State Budget withholds a certain amount of money from each institution which is only released upon demonstration of performance in five areas: graduation rates, Graduation Efficiency Index (GEI) (Appendix D), undergraduate retention rates, an unspecified measure of faculty productivity and an institution-specific measure. This is new for the State of Washington, but is not unique to it. It is critical that "performance measures" reflect targets emerging from a continuing dialogue between legislators, the HEC Board and appropriate representatives from our state's institution of Higher Education. For the good of the citizens of this state, and the students we seek to educate, all concerned parties should focus on "performance goals" that enhance our efforts to achieve our educational mission, while avoiding goals with "hidden" negative effects. For example, insisting on full-time study as a means to improve time to degree, would increase the graduation rate, but it would put public higher education beyond the reach of economically disadvantaged students who need the part-time option.
In preparing its recommendations, the Committee proceeded in the following way. Fall Quarter was devoted to learning about accountability: the theory, the literature, trends across the nation at other universities, and UW and statewide initiatives in accountability. Although there is considerable experience with accountability at universities throughout the U.S. we found few accepted national standards or applicable models to adopt that would significantly advance the UW's accountability initiative. During winter and early spring, the Committee solicited comments from UW visiting committees; sent a questionnaire to all UW faculty; spoke with student leaders; and held four open meetings for all UW employees on the three campuses. We were pleased to get the participation of the departmental, college and school Visiting Committee members, whose feedback was very positive. We received over 150 responses to the faculty e-mail questionnaire, far more than expected, with helpful comments. The participation from Bothell and Tacoma campus communities was exciting and stimulating, and responses from students represented another important constituency. Discussions on accountability are taking place throughout the University system. We are encouraged by the positive and constructive nature of all the feedback we have received. (A summary of student and faculty comments can be found in Appendix E. A list of contributors can be found in Appendix F.)
By winter term, the Committee divided into three subcommittees, representing the three interrelated missions of the UW: Teaching/Education, Research/Scholarship/Creative Contribution, and Public Service/Outreach. Despite this division of labor, each subcommittee was firmly committed to discovering measures that represented the links among missions. Each of these subcommittees was charged with reviewing present measures, looking for opportunities for improvements, and considering the broader questions of accountability. Each subcommittee in turn presented its recommendations to the Committee for full discussion. As noted above, one result of the establishment of this Committee was intensifying the discussion of accountability across all three UW campuses, for faculty, students, administrators and staff.
