A New Compact for Higher Education
October 27-28, 2004
University of Texas at Austin
The following are remarks from Jon Whitmore given during a symposium in Austin. His topic is accountability in higher education.
Can all the accountability measures being discussed at this conference really bring about institutional improvement? My first response to that question is no. You wanted a dramatic ending for this conference...
Actually, while the answer could be no, the chance exists for a yes. The answer is no if all of this counting and accounting and these matrixes get produced, and then nothing comes of them. But the answer is yes if we analyze the right numbers and really think about the consequences of what those numbers may mean to the state or institution.
I wanted to talk about aligning accountability measures because as a single institution we have a certain set of specific issues that we have to deal with. Individual public universities are beholden to multiple constituents: students and parents, public policy makers, elected officials, regents, system leadership, accrediting agencies, taxpayers, employers, employees, and society at large. So how do we get our arms around being accountable to all of those entities as a single university that is in a system in a state?
At Texas Tech, we have decided to align ourselves behind three accountability groups: the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and the Governor's office, our Board of Regents, and ourselves. Our goal is to have three sets of accountability measures that meet the needs of those three different audiences. We have other audiences—I mentioned a long list of 10 or 12—but we think the three we have selected are the key ones. So, first of all, our governor and our coordinating board are putting together a series of accountability measures—they are in draft form now. Our goal is to set up and track these numbers and to be accountable for them. Second, we have our system and our regents, who have a plan for the future called the Tech Star Plan. This plan asks Tech to measure a series of things that are not in the measurement scheme of the coordinating board or the governor's office. Third, Texas Tech University has its own strategic plan that has a series of goals that we are interested in tracking. So, we have these indicators at the state level, at the regents' level, and then Texas Tech has its own progress measures because there are some things that we want to do and measure that are not on the radar screen of the other two groups. Aligning these three accountability groups is very important so that we do not waste valuable time and end our efforts with no measurable outcomes.
Let me give you some examples. All three of our “accountability audiences” want to track full enrollment, sponsored research growth, and several diversity issues. In addition our regents want us to look at issues like staff turnover rates, our endowment's growth, and the number of partnerships we have with community colleges, just as some examples. And then at Texas Tech we want to measure the impact by hiring 100 additional faculty members and we want to monitor student test scores, ACT, SAT, GMAT, LSAT, for quality improvement. We also believe it is important to track the ranking of our library. So we're looking at and aligning all of those issues at different levels and therefore trying to make progress towards multiple goals we have set for ourselves.
I do agree with Joseph Burke, that if the coordinating board sets a series of goals that are not connected with those of our deans and our colleges and our departments, the likelihood of success in tracking them is limited. We have a goal of increasing research expenditure, as does the coordinating board and the regents, but we have to be working with the colleges and the department chairs in order for that goal to be realized. So I agree completely with you, Joe, that that is an important alignment.
So the alignment is between the different accountability audiences and then the alignment within our institution, all the way down to the people who are doing the research and writing the grants. The final point is that we need to be providing resources to these departments and colleges if we are realistically expecting them to take on more students or do more research.
I'd like to close today by saying that it is possible to have both an optimistic and a skeptical point of view about this whole discussion on accountability. The optimist's view is that we are going to use these accountability procedures to measure improvements and that there will be state resources to reward achievements, either through reallocation or additional state funds. The skeptic's view is we're going to report a myriad of numbers and nothing is going to come of it; it's just going to be another set of reports that state institutions have been doing in various formats for decades.
I want to leave you with one example: One accountability measure from the state takes into account that Texas is growing in population and so one of the expectations is that Texas Tech and the other Texas institutions are expected to grow enrollment over the coming years. We're willing to do that. Second in the state's list of accountability measures - they want universities to reduce our student/faculty ratios, because they're too high across the state of Texas . So you've got a desire for an increased number of students coming to the institutions and the desire for a lower faculty/student ratio, but the gap between needs to be filled with money or it won't work. You can't do both without additional resources. At Texas Tech alone it's a $20 million issue.
Accountability measures are fine, and I think the things that Texas is asking us to measure are reasonable and appropriate. However, to be successful on every single measurement will cost additional dollars. There's no other way around it. I am an optimist and I think Texas is a wonderful state. I believe many people in Texas care about higher education. We're going into the beginning of a legislative session in January, and I'll use my optimism to work with my colleagues around Texas and see if we can't make these measures mean something and meet the proposed goals. But we must also get the legislature to see that they've got to do their part and invest in our being successful in order for this accountability approach to really work.