The Boston Globe is reporting that Massachusetts is awarding money to public institutions based on academic performance rather than performance. At its simplest level, the goal is to encourage state colleges and universities to focus on building fundamental skills at the undergraduate level (or so the article would have you believe). The amount of grant money to be awarded is a fairly modest $2.5 million, roughly 1% of UMASS Amherst’s 2011 state financial package. Although it seems like this financial contribution is a drop in the bucket, so to speak, money is money.
It’s not entirely clear how “academic performance” would be measured. Some readers have suggested that improvement in graduation rates might serve as a necessary measurement. Others speculate that measurement may need to monitoring/reporting composite GPA’s. However, skeptics see this form of measurement as an opportunity for untenured faculty to engage in academic payola—I give you good grades, you give me good evaluations, while the institution gets more “academic performance” money. Of course, this particular scenario assumes that untenured faculty members have no morals whatsoever. I’m getting sidetracked.
I’m a strong proponent of classroom/departmental/institutional assessment, whether or not it’s rewarded. In my experience, assessment gives professors/administrators a target, whether it’s an institution-wide essay, a standardized exam, or some other tool that indicates evidence (not proof) of learning outcomes. In my mind, assessment is self-policing and, in most cases, aims to improve the institution as a whole.
I’m curious to see how this pans out in the Bay State.
No comments:
Post a Comment