[The Montana Professor 2.3, Fall 1992 <http://mtprof.msun.edu>]
William Thackeray
Humanities
Northern Montana College
"Outcomes Assessment" is an innocent enough sounding concept, but it has sinister ramifications for faculty professionalism and academic freedom. Guided by the consequences we have experienced relating to other recent buzz-words coming from the Board of Regents such as "commitment to quality," we need to be wary of the hidden agenda that may underlie campus programs of outcomes assessment.
Just as "commitment to quality" in practice has come to mean reduced access of students to higher education, increased class sizes, and restricted enrollments, "outcomes assessment" in practice may involve procedures and processes that undermine faculty evaluations and academic freedom. Furthermore, the cost of a program of outcomes assessment makes its adoption prohibitively expensive at a time when more credible and essential programs are in jeopardy across the University System.
According to the "Report on Outcomes Assessment in the Montana University System and Community Colleges" (Sonia Cowen, February 1992, 9), the cost for "development and implementation of a comprehensive assessment program" for one campus in Montana would be "the equivalent of $100 or more per enrolled student." Without a calculator we can see this would result in an appalling $2,700,000 for the Montana University System, none of which will contribute to any productive purpose. With this price tag we might expect a program with demonstrated benefits; however, as the Commissioner's Report itself acknowledges, "None [of the studies of assessment] has provided significant evidence that...such data...promotes measurable improvement in student, faculty, and institutional performances" (3).
Before we evaluate other features of outcomes assessment, we need to consider how it differs from the traditional means of assessment we are all acquainted with. Grades assigned by instructors received for coursework taken in a structured curriculum which leads ultimately to a degree are the basis of traditional assessment. The student is then judged in the marketplace by interviewing for employment or proceeding to graduate school, where she/he is evaluated by performance on the job or in additional coursework, oral exams, and so on.
To quote the Commissioner's Report, outcomes assessment
...is a measure of performance. Changes in performance are measured over time; in most cases, the frequency of measuring is initiated (i.e., input conditions) before the object (e.g., student) being assessed is exposed to selected variables or conditions (i.e., environment/treatment) which are believed to cause change (e.g., education), and again after the object has been exposed to the same (i.e., output conditions).
Cutting through this incredible jargon (which includes five parentheticals in one sentence), we learn that outcomes assessment (1) measures teacher as well as student, (2) evaluates knowledge and assignments inside as well as outside the classroom, and (3) determines the relevancy of the instructional experience (see 2-3).
"Measuring" the teacher involves an administrative determination of course goals, which are then measured and given a statistical value for each student before the class begins. Then, the "object (e.g., student)" is "exposed" to the "environment" of the course and is measured again. The student's progress is then statistically compared to the measured progress of other students in other courses, and the instructor is given an improvement facilitator score or productivity quotient. If her/his productivity quotient measures up, she/he receives raises, merit pay, and promotions. If not, not.
Besides the speciousness of this method of teacher evaluation, we can also see the potentially insidious effect this procedure could have on the teacher's control of her/his courses. There will be a strong incentive to teach to the tests. The tests themselves are calculated to measure only what has an objectively statistical value. (What happens to literature, philosophy, art, composition, the humanities in general?)
A final question of some concern: Who will determine and how will they test "the value of the knowledge" (2) that is to be assessed? And what administrator will decide and how will they measure "the relevancy of the instruction experience" (3) provided by each course or curriculum?
Until these and other questions are answered satisfactorily, I can only urge your consideration of the following resolution passed by the MFT Convention this spring:
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Montana Federation of Teachers/Montana Federation of State Employees goes on record in opposition to any "Outcomes Assessment" procedures and processes that undermine collective bargaining or academic freedom....
Finally, I urge you to be wary of all outcomes assessment proposals, particularly those presented for contractual negotiations--unless they include details of the procedures and testing instruments to be used and of the uses to be made of the resulting data.
[The Montana Professor 2.3, Fall 1992 <http://mtprof.msun.edu>]