Accountability Measures

Accountability Measures

Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications

Annual MeetingDenver, ColoradoNovember 2002

November 8, 2002 WCET – Accountability Measures

Presenters(alpha order)

Kate Carey, Ohio Learning Network

Patricia Cuocco, California State University - Office of the Chancellor

Karen Paulson, National Center for Higher Education Management Systems

Overview of Accountability

Karen Paulson

National Center for Higher Education

Management Systems (NCHEMS)


Accountability is

“Demonstrating results in order to justify funding.”

“The systematic collection of input, process, and outcome data, as well as the use of these data, to make decisions about the effectiveness of schools, districts, or states.”


In the Past, Accountability Was

Externally Imposed

Resulted in a “Compliance Mentality”

Has Evolved in the Past 10 Years


Now Accountability Is

Diagnostic for Internal Purposes

Takes Into Account Multiple Stakeholders

Shared with External Constituencies


Types of Accountability

LegalFiscalProgrammaticNegotiatedDiscretionaryAnticipatory

From “Public Accountability and Higher Education: Soul Mates or Strange Bedfellows?” by Stephen Daigle and Patricia Cuocco, Vol. 2002, Issue 9, Educause Center for Applied Research Bulletin.


Three Aspects to Consider

Is the technology capacity appropriate to the purposes?– Digital Plan

Are the users satisfied with the technology infrastructure and the associated services?

What results are there to show?– Student Learning Outcome Assessment

A New Organization; A New Assessment

Kate Carey

OLN


A New Organization A New Assessment

OLN History – 3 year old state-funded E-Learning consortium

Offers grants, training, online catalog, communities

Assessed by NCHEMS in a two-part process


OLN Mission

…significantly expands access to Ohioan’s learning opportunities by linking them to education content to meet their needs. …assists colleges and universities in their capacity and effectiveness to use technology in instruction and research by supporting leading edge activities. …helps Ohio thrive in a work market by facilitate partnerships and collaborations among higher educational institutions, schools, business and industry and local communities.


OLN GOALS

Statewide technology infrastructure – advocate for policies and funding

Leadership in philosophies, tech, programs and tools

DL opportunities for continuous learning in knowledge economy


NCHEMS Traditional Assessment

Web-Survey

Interviews– Phone– In Person

Documents review


A New Review

NCHEMS staff attended OLN annual conference

Futures Panel created– Bruce Chaloux, SREB-Electronic Campus– Darcy Hardy, Telecampus– Jack Wilson, Umass Online– Holly Zanville, OregonONE


Futures Meeting

July – Futures Panel, Assessment Committee, Gov Bd Exec, Director, Asst Director

White Paper – set context

Overview of other state’s activity

Focused conversation


Town Meeting - Who

By Invitation– Organization

• Organization constituents

– Higher Ed community– Legislators– Governor’s Office– Regents – Business and Industry


Town Meeting - How

Small, but Influential Audience

Set Context for Discussions– Other states activities by directors– Focused conversation/Small group interaction– Ohio context

• Structure, funding, culture

• Education deficit 400,000 strong


Outcomes

– Accountability• Rests with OLN Governing Board not Regents!

– Flexibility, Entrepreneurship, Speed for Action

– Shift in Goals to meet Vision– Move from Association to Leadership– Aggregator of Resources and Services

• Services to Students/Ohioans, Faculty-Institutions• Funding• Responsive to Communities

– Higher Educations– Citizens– Business/Industry/Government

Accountability – A Case Study

Patricia Cuocco

California State University – Office of the Chancellor


Accountability in the CSU

Since 1996 CSU has had a strategic plan for information technology called ITS

Focus is on Outcomes with Initiative Areas containing projects to achieve outcomes

Success of initiatives and outcomes depended on improving the infrastructure.


Infrastructure Costs

How Bad Could That Be?

23 campuses all needing to be upgraded to a minimum baseline level of telecommunications pathways, spaces, media and electronics

$250Million


If at First, etc.

State said NO!

CSU had a history of trying to get technology funded as a capital investment

State feared the implications

State told CSU to be “creative”

State found CSU’s “creativity” too politically risky.


Accountability – the Price for State Support

Good budget times – voters passed bond

State still had to approve expenditure

State still nervous about implications of technology as capital expense

Wanted assurances that money would be well spent


Negotiated Accountability

State wanted to tie learning outcomes to miles of fiber and copper installed

Where do you even begin?

Went back to strategic plan

Showed how reaching outcomes relied on initiatives which relied on infrastructure


Measures of Success

Agreed on what was to be measure – increasing success of individual ITS initiatives

Formal data collection – User Data and Institutional Data

Yearly report – first year format.

Second year – baseline data


Measures of Success

Third and subsequent years – changes to baselineThis is third year of data – can show trends.Hard to maintain validity and interest of CIOsUseful in many unforeseen wayshttp://its.calstate.edu/systemwide_it_resources/data_collection.shtml