by Lance T. Izumi, Fellow in California Studies
Pacific Research Institute
August 20, 2002

Announcer lead: Time for Perspectives. Lance Izumi says that California should consider accountability strategies for higher education.

At the end of August, California will release school-wide student scores on the state’s standardized tests. While not a perfect tool, testing has been the key component in the state’s K-through-12 accountability system and has spurred improvement efforts in many low-performing public schools. Since improving the public schools is a means to increasing access for all California students to colleges and universities, the time may be ripe to expand accountability to higher education.

Holding higher education accountable for results makes sense. In the California State University system, more than 60 percent of students have had to take remedial courses in either reading or math. The question is whether this remedial instruction guarantees that when these students graduate they will have the knowledge and skills one assumes come with receiving a bachelor’s degree.

At the University of California, a new admissions system has reduced the emphasis on grades and SAT scores and increased the importance of applicants’ life experiences. Recent articles in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have pointed out that the new system has resulted in more students with lower SAT scores being admitted into UC Berkeley and UCLA. As a consequence, will the UC inflate course grades, a problem bedeviling institutions like Harvard, or dumb down instruction?

California should therefore consider accountability options such as testing. South Dakota requires college students to pass exams before they can advance to their junior year and measures students to evaluate what they have learned over time. The New York Times reports that there is increasing support for this type of value-added assessment. For example, Richard Hersh, president of Trinity College in Connecticut, argues for a Value-Added Assessment Initiative that aims to evaluate how much students learn in the liberal arts during their college careers.

Many will argue against testing, but as Frank Newman, former president of the Education Commission of the States, notes, “The real reason we don’t test is, we would rather not know.” Intentional ignorance, however, won’t increase the credibility of higher education to employers or the public.

With a perspective, I’m Lance Izumi.

Lance Izumi is the Director of Center for School Reform at the California-based Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. He can be reached via email at lizumi@pacificresearch.org.