Faculty Forum: The Spellings Commission
By James E. Perley
The U.S. Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, also known as the Spellings Commission, released its final report in September 2006, drawing responses from many higher education organizations, including the AAUP.
The Association’s Committee on Accreditation commends the Spellings Commission’s emphasis on the importance of educational quality and its call to make colleges and universities more affordable and accessible. But we regret a lack of sophistication in the report’s analysis and an absence of constructive recommendations that might have resulted had more faculty members been included in the deliberations leading to the report. (Although AAUP leaders and members testified at open meetings of the commission and submitted written materials, no faculty groups were invited to participate in the commission’s work.)
The report advocates “new and improved outcomes measures—such as interoperable outcomes-focused accountability systems.” It fails, however, to recognize the extensive steps in the area of assessment that many faculty members and institutions have already taken. Acknowledging these steps would have strengthened the report’s credibility. Similarly, the report encourages greater reliance on distance education and technology but neglects the extent to which faculty already incorporate technology into their teaching. Faculty members are innovative, creative, and eager to use the very best approaches to instruction available to them.
In addition, the report focuses on the costs and benefits of higher education in terms of its ability to produce graduates who can contribute to the economic health of the country. But it ignores benefits that arise from the diversity of missions among the educational institutions thatmake up U.S. higher education. And it pays scant attention to important educational goals, such as increasing students’ capacity to understand different perspectives and to engage in critical and ethical reasoning. Nor does it discuss the need to encourage community service, increase tolerance, or foster curiosity, creativity, and leadership skills.
One of the most serious deficiencies in the report lies in its failure to acknowledge the cost of and huge increase in bureaucracy that would be required to accomplish one of its goals: that of developing a tracking system to follow students through all their experiences at all their educational institutions. Implementing such a proposal without adequate funding could divert much-needed support from the core educational mission of higher education.
Faculty believe in accreditation and the assurance of quality that it makes possible. The Spellings Commission, however, falls far short of recommending independence in accreditation. The AAUP’s accreditation committee will work to resist the development of any federal system of oversight and control that overlooks the importance to U.S. higher education of faculty participation in accreditation and of the availability of a range of institutions serving different student populations.
In fact, there is significant room for improvement in the role that faculty members now play in accreditation. The Role of the Faculty in the Accrediting of Colleges and Universities, adopted by the Association in 1968, recommends standards for faculty involvement and responsibility in the accrediting process.
Historically, the accreditation committee has functioned as a watchdog ensuring that accreditation agencies and their policies serve as guarantors of quality in higher education. We have criticized developments affecting accreditation, offered advice to accrediting agencies, and urged our members to serve on accrediting teams and participate in accreditation preparation on their campuses. Our comments on the Spellings Commission report are thus one example among many of the committee’s dedication to ensuring quality in accreditation.
Recent developments suggest that Secretary Spellings is moving rapidly to implement the report’s recommendations, notwithstanding a September letter to the secretary from a bipartisan group of U.S. senators cautioning against making regulatory changes without legislative approval. After meeting with members of the accreditation community in November, department officials announced that “negotiated rule making” sessions will take place regarding student-loan and financial-aid programs. Possible changes to the accreditation system are also being considered. The committee will continue to monitor and comment on any proposed measures to institute the commission’s recommendations on accreditation.
James Perley is chair of the AAUP’s Committee on Accreditation.
|