Các vấn đề và xu thế đảm bảo chất lượng và giáo dục đại học tiếng anh

Case: UC Master Plan for Higher Education  At the time 1960 considered utopian  Access for all who desire Higher Education  Criticized from both left produce overeducated and undere

ISSUES AND TRENDS IN

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND HIGHER EDUCATION

Planning in a Global Context

John N Hawkins Co-Director APHERP EWC-UCLA

US & UC System Vietnam Presentation

 QA can bring out both enthusiasm & cynicism

 “Internal-External” shifts

 b/w HE & host society

monitoring, QM, TQM, etc.

Conceptual Considerations

 Context: international, national,

institutional, basic units

 Methods a General Model?

 National coordinating body

Conceptual Considerations

 Impact of QA: system, institution, program, department (basic units), individual

 Values & QA: challenges existing values:

academic, managerial, pedagogic, expected outcomes

 Politics of QA: distribution of power,

decisions, transform HE, institutional

autonomy

The Rise of QA

 Rise of “evaluative State” (Neave)

 In context of “romantic view of HE” Kerr

Diverse Purposes of QA

 Accountability of public funds

 Improve quality of HE provision

 Inform funding decisions

 Inform students & employers

 Stimulate competitiveness b/w HEIs

 QC of new privates

 Assign status and rankings

 Others?

Mechanisms of QA

 Rewards: links to funding (yes or no?); formal status allocation (accreditation); income;

influence; intangible

 Changing policies & structures: everyday life

of HEI; fundamental change (PSRI at UCLA; ELP), DC, corporatization, RCM

 External affects Internal

 Changing cultures (demise of “happy

anarchy”

 Others: changing boundaries, factor favor

QA & Institutional Change

 QA is everywhere

 Massification+diversity=information

demand

 QA used for branding purposes

 State uses it for control

 Funding is increasingly conditional

 Shift on “control-autonomy” continuum toward control

QA & Institutional Change

 HEI no longer immune from QA:

professorial dilemmas

 QM is one result: make sure these

ideas permeate the organization; data collection and storage; accountability

 We now have an “evaluative culture” for better or worse

The UC Master Plan

A System Within a Non-System

Case: UC Master Plan for

Higher Education

 At the time (1960) considered utopian

 Access for all who desire Higher

Education

 Criticized from both left (produce

overeducated and underemployed); and right (HE should be elitist)

What is the Master Plan

 A statewide policy and planning

framework first implemented in 1960 to accommodate enrollment growth and meet state human resource needs by providing high-quality postsecondary institutions.

History: California in late

1950’s

 Constraints on state resources

 End of postwar surpluses

 Tax increase rejected by Legislature

 Huge enrollment growth projected

 Lack of coordination/planning

 22 competing legislative proposals to establish new state colleges

 Legislature imposed a moratorium on new campuses until plan completed

Primary Features of the MP

 Differentiation of Mission and Functions

 To ensure quality and efficient allocation of resources

 Limits the no of campuses offering cost doctoral and professional education programs

high- Greater focus on undergraduate education

at the CSU and CCS

 Cost structure enables universal access

University of California,

System

 Office of the President, UC

University of California, Ten Campuses

Differentiation of Function: UC

joint doctorates)

dentistry, and veterinary medicine

Differentiation of Function:

CSU

 Undergraduate education, graduate and professional education through MA

 Primary responsibility for 69% of teacher education

 Faculty research consistent with the primary mission of

instruction

 Doctorates jointly with UC or an independent institution

 33% of top high school students after the 12.5% is accepted to UC

California Community College System 109 Campuses

Differentiation of Function:

Community Colleges

years of undergraduate

Values of Master Plan I

 To all who can benefit

 State’s responsibility to fund access

 To ensure high standards and to encourage less competitive students to take lower division at the CCs prove themselves

 Ensures universal access to 4 year institutions

Values of Master Plan II

 Governance structure

 Statutory coordinating body (CPEC)

 Student choice among segments

 Affordability

and state funding commitment

Master Plan Challenges I

 Social and economic changes/globalizaton

 Demographic challenges

Master Plan Challenges II

coordinating agency (CPEC)

coordination across segments

New K-University Master Plan I

 Original Master Plan focused on HE

 New Master Plan seeks to coordinate all

levels of education

 Appoint new CEO for K-12, Statewide

 Differentiation lines blurring between three

segments (UC, CSU, CCC)

 Reword university research mission “primary but not exclusive” agency for research

New K-University Master Plan II

 Create new coordinating commission for K-University (curriculum, assessment, transition)

 Coordinate new admissions procedures with focus on equity and rigor (use of

non traditional criteria; declining role of SAT for example)

New K-University Master Plan III

systems balance between teaching and research

Strengths of Master Plan

education in terms of access, equity,

interdependence

Case Study: UCLA WASC Accreditation

Re- Began June 2006

 On-going through 2009

 Based on new “theme” approach

 In the context of UCLA’s Increasing

Commodification-Federalization

Total $3.182 billion

What Is It?

 WASC-regional organization that provides

umbrella re-accreditation for UCLA as whole

 UCLA must meet WASC standards and

criteria

 Benefits: right to administer federal financial aid; opportunity for self reflection and review; improvement of mission

Three Processes

1. Preparation of an Institutional

Proposal which describes UCLA’s plans for RA

2. A Capacity and Preparatory

Review-focus on UCLA’s organizational

capacity

3. Educational Effectiveness

Review-student and institutional learning

Structure and Governance

 Directed by joint effort of Academic Senate and Administration & Chancellor

 Planning and implementation conducted by committees and working groups of faculty, administrators, staff, students

 Proposal Steering Committee draft

institutional proposal

 WASC RA Steering Committee coordinates process

Three Theme

Workshops/Reports

1. Capstone Experience: senior

integrative research experience

2. Interdisciplinary education and

research: crossing disciplinary

boundaries

3. Educational technology:enhance

student academic learning experience

 WASC site visits over three year period

 WASC response to written reports

 WASC response to UCLA “culture of evidence”

 WASC final report

 Re-Accreditation usually with

suggestions for improvement