Provost Forum: Discussion of National and Statewide Directives Impacting Higher Education

Forum I: Education Commission's Draft on Higher Education

Panelists:
Carolyn Herrington, Dean, College of Education
Rex Campbell, Chair Elect, MU Faculty Council
Terry Barnes, Former President, Mineral Area Community College
Pat Morton, Planning Coordinator and Former Director of Institutional Research

Invitation to MU Faculty from Provost Foster

(This is a summary of the main points presented and discussed during the forum and not a verbatim transcript. Direct quotes will appear within quotation marks, but may not be attributable because of the nature of the open forum.)

Not including the Provost and panelists approximately 50 faculty members and others from the MU community attended the forum.

Welcome and Introductory Remarks - Brian Foster

We can expect both political and policy changes in Higher Education. Secretary Spellings's report is the first herald of "No Child Left Behind" for higher education. This is partly brought about because higher education has become a financial enterprise for lending institutions, testing companies, and media. Higher education is about to become an entitlement rather than a privilege. There are three areas of focus in the draft report; 1) access, 2) accountability, and 3) transparency. Accountability will most likely be driven by tests which are not accurate predictors of student success. Student success can be more accurately predicted by socio-economic status. Unintended consequences of these changes will more than likely provide financial assistance to students who are the most likely candidates for success and not to students who have the greatest need. The purpose of this discussions and future discussions of this nature is to give the MU community the opportunity to discuss likely changes in order to shape and understand the dynamics of impending change and to hopefully get in front of the politics and shape the outcome. We must find a way to provide the accountability demanded and to still "do the right thing" as educators.

Provost Foster introduced the panelists.

Carolyn Herrington, Dean, College of Education

Higher education is facing the same issues K-12 started addressing 20 years ago. This report is important. Tuition and increased pricing is a trigger for this report. Tuition is an "in your face" issue for voters. This is compounded by the fact that a four year education has become a five or six year education. This puts R1 institutions in a difficult position because parents who write the checks for their children's education do not see the value of the research being done outside of the classroom. Somehow we must hold onto the entrepreneurial spirit of higher education. This will be difficult because the solutions provided by the Commission are regulatory. We can be a model for reform by researching internal effectiveness. Refined articulation between high school and college is necessary. For many students the senior year of high school has become bankrupt. Incoming students are not prepared for the rigor and challenges of higher education. Learning environments are changing with AP, IP and exchange programs. The professoriate needs to be more curious about the learning process.

Terry Barnes, Former President, Mineral Area Community College

This report is driven by increases in tuition. The report is homogenized and mostly focused on four year undergraduate education. It does not take into account different types of institutions or graduate education. Crafters of this report seem to have forgotten their roots in higher education which allowed them to be successful. We must be cognizant of the private for profits such and the "Phoenix" universities. We must be able to attract AA's to BA's. Remediation is still necessary for incoming students in basic subjects. Need to challenge students to be prepared by talking to students and parents. There is still a large underserved first generation population. Only 50% if high school students go to college and of those 37 % do not make it through their senior year. We must create dialogue and with AA institutions and K-12 curricular designers to prepare students for higher education. MU does not serve itself well by operating in isolation from AA institutions and K-12 educators.

Rex Campbell, Chair Elect, MU Faculty Council

These changes will occur quickly. The timeline for the final draft of the report is August 10th. Federal and state issues will continue. The best defense is a good offense. We must put our internal house in order and prepare for the differences. Of all institutions education has been the slowest to change. The final report will focus on three issues; 1) cost, 2) access, 3) the quality and currency of higher education. The profound effects of these changes will be:

• Higher education will be a right rather than a privilege.
• New definition of what a college education means.

What we must do:

• Need to get out of the 124 hour/4-year mentality.
• We need to find measure of learning and get better indicators.
• The open bucket model of teaching is inaccurate and a poor model of teaching.
• We must teach students to be life-long learners.
• We will see more transfer students coming in with AA's and we are ill-prepared to handle the numbers we are likely to see.
• Complacency not politics is our worst enemy.
• Do what we must if we do not want a dictum from the top down.
• Do or be done to.

Pat Morton, Planning Coordinator and Former Director of Institutional Research

We must know what the total cost of our product is. Do we know what it costs us to produce our product? We need to decide if our product is worth what it costs. We need to be able to explain the cost differences between our product and other products. We need to articulate, defend, explain, and be proud of what we do and how much it costs. This report is the result of the test companies, lending institutions, and text book companies among others lobbying congress. The report is a one size fits all model and does not take into account the differences between higher education institutions. Research institutions were not the model used which puts us in a difficult position and makes it even more necessary for us to explain our product and the value of our product.

Audience Questions and Comments

Q: We saw something similar in health care and K-12 and it is obvious we are heading that way in higher education. What can be done to keep the bureaucrats from taking over?

A: We need to get our best practices together now. Politicians fix a problem in order to get re-elected. We must be politically active and get into the fray. We need to define our best practices.

Comments:

The document was described as a "neo liberal market reductionist document". It was suggested that not familiar with Vetter's work look at it.

Higher education is the last bastion of independent thought. We cannot accept this document on "good faith". If we do, we head down a slippery slope.

Unintended consequences are dangerous in order to provide access and accountability by the methods proscribed we could end up marginalizing already marginalized populations.

The report contains issues which are in conflict with each other. Access and accountability are in conflict. If accountability is measured by current testing methods, institutions will look to tests to determine who gets access. The standard tests marginalize students with lower socio-economic status.

Q: How will it be decided who will be working on the solutions?

A: MU needs to find a political means to shape responses but needs to do so in a manner that will not keep us from doing the right things. We must be leaders.

Comments and Summary Remarks:

It was noted that the word "faculty" only appears in the document four times, but the word institution appears plenty of times. The faculty have become institutionalized.

The diagnosis of the problems is accurate the solutions are not. We need to reframe the debate to address the quality of education.

Beware of the folly of asking for A while rewarding B. The faculty are not rewarded for what they are held accountable for.

The different sectors in higher education are responding to the report separately with separate agendas.

The cookie cutter approach of the document is bad. We need to get the message out about our value. We need to collaborate with AA institutions and high schools and address articulation issues. All sectors must work together and we can accomplish much. We also must point out and celebrate the differences in higher education institutions. We must do the right thing. We must respond.

The Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education (Reports, papers, and other information)

Council for Higher Education Accreditation Letter

American Council on Education's "President to President" Letter on the Spellings Report

"A Stinging First Draft" (Inside Higher Education article)

"Commission Report, Take 2" (Inside Higher Education article)

"A Near-Final Report?" (Inside Higher Education article)

"18 Yesses, 1 Major No" (Inside Higher Education article)

AAC&U Board of Directors' Recommendation to Secretary's Commission on Higher Education (March 2006)

AAC&U Statement on Draft Report from Secretary Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges' Response to the Spellings Commission (PDF, July 2006)

Association of American Universities' Response to Higher Education Commission’s Second Draft Report (PDF, July 2006)

For more information please contact Kirsten Olson, Executive Staff Assistant, Office of the Provost, (573) 884-1273 or by E-Mail: OlsonKi@missouri.edu.