Achieving Accountability in Higher Education: Balancing Public, Academic and Market Demands (review)

Among the many forces influencing American higher education for the past decade, none has been more persistent or relentless than the need for accountability. From accrediting agencies to state governments to private institution boards to the federal government, all are demanding that institutions provide evidence that the public good is being served effectively and efficiently. As educators seek to assure wary constituencies, the dialogue regarding accountability is sure to intensify. Thus, this book is a welcome and interesting analysis of the issue from a variety of respected sources.

In chapter 1, "The Many Faces of Accountability," the editor frames the book's context by providing an historical review of the ways in which accountability expectations have changed along with society's demands of higher education. Reviewing questions, concepts, and models, Joseph C. Burke gives an integrated analysis which sets the tone for vigorous discussion in subsequent chapters. Burke introduces the Accountability Triangle with the nodes of academic concerns, market forces and public demands, and the need for balance in each. His perception that accountability will inevitably be required in the future signals the necessity for thoughtful dialogue on the topic.

William M. Zumeta, author of chapter 2, "Accountability and the Private Sector: State and Federal Perspectives," observes that while federal and state governments have not historically demanded the same accountability for private institutions as for public, there are increasing expectations that privates may face mandates for measurable outcomes. He highlights the rich diversity, market responsiveness and independence that private institutions have provided as important assets to the higher education spectrum.

In chapter 3, "Accountability and Governance," Richard C. Richardson Jr. and Thomas R. Smalling propose a governance model that links state policy to higher education system performance. They advocate an evolution from the traditional model of internal shared governance into one that allows appropriate input from external agencies.

Chapters 4 and 5, "Accountability and Accreditation: Can Reforms Match Increasing Demands?" (Ralph A. Wolff) and "Can Assessment Serve Accountability? It Depends on the Question" (Peter T. Ewell), highlight the reforms that have taken place in accreditation practices and expectations. The linkages between accreditation and the assessment of student learning are recognized as important indicators of institutional effectiveness.

Chapters 6 through 8, "Standardized Testing and Accountability: Finding the Will and the Way" (T. Dary Erwin), "Imagine Asking the Client: Using Student and Alumni Surveys for Accountability in Higher Education" (George D. Kuh), and "Academic Audit for Accountability and Improvement" (William F. Massy), describe how various tests, surveys, audits and other assessment measures can be used to help meet accountability expectations. The authors assert that quality assurance may be enhanced through careful utilization of these instruments followed by subsequent thorough articulation of the results.

In chapters 9 and 10, "State-by-State Report Cards: Public Purposes and Accountability for a New Century," and "Reinventing Accountability: From Bureaucratic Rules to Performance Results," authors Patrick M. Callan, Joni E. Finney and Joseph C. Burke chronicle the history of evaluation on a state-wide basis and how recent measurements are impacting education policy. The case is made for measuring performance as the key component to state funding support.

Authors J. Fredericks Volkwein and Stephen D. Grunig contribute chapter 11, "Resources and Reputation in Higher Education: Double, Double, Toil and Trouble," examining the numerous and often-maligned national reputational ratings of institutions of higher education. They suggest that rating systems may provide data linked to accountability, but are often misused and place too much emphasis on very small differences between institutions.

In "The Dog that Doesn't Bark: Why Markets Neither Limit Prices nor Promote Educational Quality," (chapter 12), Robert M. Zemsky asserts that there is no market advantage accorded to institutions that provide extra-quality education. He believes that it is possible to achieve a managed market that promotes quality with a strong commitment from those within higher education.

Chapter 13, "The Three Corners of the Accountability Triangle: Serving All...