YUFA
External
Conference Report on OCUFA Conference – Accounting or Accountability in Higher Education
23-24 January 2009, Toronto, ON
By Julie Clark, Biology, York University
13 Feb 09 – The conference was composed of numerous keynote speakers and panelists who discussed and lent opinions to the topic of accountability in higher education. Speakers and attendees included university faculty and administrators, representatives from government and media (e.g., Maclean’s magazine, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail), and individuals from external organizations interested in higher education. Attendees were primarily Canadian but did include some international invitees (e.g., Norway, Ireland, USA).
The meeting commenced with an interesting overview of the evolution of accountability in post-secondary education and addressed influencing factors (e.g., government, economics, and globalization). The tremendous influence of economy with regards to moulding higher education institutions, drove home the name lent to the conference; accounting or accountability. It was established that accountability measures are in place to permit transparency, explain actions and justify conducts, and help ensure education quality / excellence and continuing improvement. It forces those involved to ask what we are doing, why we are doing it, and how we are doing it.
Accountability is a very complex issue and requires the clarification of many items before being addressed. For example, to whom are we accountable (e.g., public, students, government, sponsors, donors …)? What performance indicators or outcomes should be measured? Are the performance indicators presently in use really a true measure of outcome? What about outcomes that cannot be measured in a quantitative fashion, how should they be addressed? And importantly, do accountability measures affect teaching, research and autonomy? It is a concern that in trying to meet performance indicators and measured outcomes, academic integrity and autonomy may be reduced.
One panel session examined “current approaches to accountability”. From this session, it was my interpretation that accountability can roughly be equated to a desire for transparency. Forty or more internal and external institutional reports are completed each year to address various accountability components (e.g., funding distribution, teaching and research outcomes). A multi-year accountability agreement between institutions and the government was introduced to reduce the number of reports, but unfortunately a decrease has yet to be seen. Concerns regarding the emphasis put on performance indicators, and the need for qualitative assessment was again raised, as was balancing academic integrity and autonomy with accountability.
The lunchtime keynote speech examined international experiences with accountability. New Zealand, Norway, France, England, and Finland were among the countries included. The notion of trust between governments and higher institutions was addressed, in that, to some degree, governments need to trust that universities are going to do what they say they are going to do. The redundancy of excessive reporting was discussed and it was suggested that a system that integrates the many present reports is needed.
Student surveys were addressed as a panel discussion as was university ranking. These two topics somewhat overlapped as some student surveys (e.g., those conducted by external groups) are used to rank universities. The use of student survey data for the purpose of ranking was challenged, as there are many important aspects of higher education and student background not addressed by the surveys. In addition, data can be analyzed and manipulated in many different ways in order to meet specific needs (e.g., to attain a higher ranking). It was suggested that data from surveys should be used solely to aid with institutional improvement and not for comparing schools, as it is very much like comparing apples to oranges. However, since there is a public desire for institutional comparison, standardized surveys are required and those such as NSSE and CUSC are currently being used for this function. Work to improve survey standardization for the purpose of school comparison is ongoing.
Subsequent speakers examined how accountability systems can be modified so that qualitative data can be included, and the uniqueness and strengths of a school be best demonstrated. The current corporate accountability systems that have been applied do not fully address the complexity and individuality of higher education institutions. Even something like finances cannot be addressed in the same manner as a corporation, since budgets are not approached in the same way. In general, a university is very different from a corporation and needs to be treated as such.
As a very brief overview, my interpretation was that accountability is a method of self reflection that is important for ensuring quality / excellence and progress, but a system that incorporates trust, preserves autonomy, and reduces paper work is required. The system needs to be multi-dimensional and include qualitative and quantitative data, and there needs to be a tolerance for some failure. The system should not restrict creativity, original thought, or novel endeavours.
All proceedings from this meeting will be published by OCUFA in the spring or early summer of 2009.
Other Delegates from this Conference:
Sharon Murphy
Leslie Sanders
Richard Wellen