Inside Higher Ed today offers an opinion piece about “assessment” which is the current buzzword in academia. It correctly identifies a split in academic attitudes toward internal (“for us”– assessment of classes and programs within the academy) and external assessments (“for them”– assessments to be used in comparing institutions, as called for by the Spellings commission), and speculates a bit about the reasons, including:
We know the “us” — faculty members, students, department chairs, deans — and we know how to talk about what goes on at our institution with each other. Even amid the great diversity of institutions we often find a common core of experience and discover that we speak each other’s language.
But the “them” is largely a mystery. We may have some guesses about the groups that make up “them” — parents, boards of regents, taxpayers, legislatures — but we cannot be sure because accountability is usually described generically, not specifying any particular group, and because our interaction with any of these groups is limited or nonexistent.
While I agree with some of the other points, I think this one is exactly backwards. People in academia are uncomfortable with the Spellings commission and its call for “Assessment” not because we’re not sure who we’re dealing with, but because we’re all too familiar with the people behind this.
This is, after all, a product of the same administration that brought us “No Child Left Behind,” which looks to most academics like a disastrously bad idea. These are people who either are or are beholden to right-wing ideologues who are fairly open about wanting to dismantle the existing system of public education. These are people who are either members of or beholden to religious groups that are distressingly prone to just throwing out huge swatches of modern science that they don’t agree with (evolutionary biology, modern cosmology, climate science).
I think it’s perfectly reasonable for academics to be a little uneasy with any recommendations coming out of this Department of Education. There are good reasons to doubt whether anything put forward by the Bush administration is being put forward in good faith, out of a genuine concern for the good of the nation, or in service to some ideological agenda or another.
Now, I’m not saying that academics would be ecstatically happy with similar recommendations from a Clinton administration (either one), or even a Nader administration. College and university faculty are a cranky lot, and will find something to complain about in even the best imaginable proposal. But you don’t have to look long at the Bush record of cronyism, bad-faith dealing, and politicization of pretty much everything before you start questioning the Spellings recommendations.
In this context, the final paragraph of the Inside Higher Ed piece seems hopelessly naive:
[…] Members of Secretary Spellings’ Commission on the Future of Higher Education are correct in expecting “results.” If discussions for demonstrating these “results” continue to emphasize narrow and prescriptive assessment for “them” institutions will face large amounts of work, risk and agony for little benefit. However, if assessment for “them” can be about demonstrating a commitment to student learning and being accountable for a process, then institutions will be able to place their time an energy where it belongs: with the students.
And if wishes were horses, we’d all be eating steak.