Reports persist from around the state that the current emphasis on accountability in higher education comes at a cost. Generally educators never object when policy makers declare that decisions should be "data-driven" instead of based on hunches or anecdotes. However, the issue of "who pays?" arises inevitably and increasingly.
Although accountability can certainly be distinct from mere cost-cutting, the two goals are often related. And it is difficult to ignore the irony in spending more money to achieve more efficiency. (Not that it's unprecedented. Reportedly, back in the 70s, during the Carter Administration, a government commission that had been established to streamline paperwork published a widely-distributed 300 page report.)
HB 2504, the controversial new statute mandating online publication of course and faculty information, included, at the time of passage, a Fiscal Note of zero—meaning an official estimate that no significant state revenue would be required for implementation. But colleges can hardly collect and assemble data using phantom campus personnel and resources. Real employees must do it. Capitol insiders and commentators routinely label this unfortunate phenomenon an "unfunded mandate." In fact there is often a certain fatalistic resignation about it.
A recent example of the added cost of tabulating and reporting new information is found in an article in the Texas Tribune by Reeve Hamilton. Most of the information in the piece will be old news to educators who are well-informed, but the article also contains the following passage:
Drew Scheberle, senior vice president of education and talent development at the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, says essential higher education data, aside from athletics, has never been readily available. Scheberle is one of the driving forces behind a unique annual progress report on Austin Community College — one pushed by the business community, with the school signing on reluctantly.
He contrasts the coordinating board’s model — simply making information available — with the way the Austin Community College Progress Report is handled, saying, “We actually push this out to the community. We’re actively trying to push a vision in concert with ACC.”
Even with the school on board to co-author the report, the partnership between ACC and the chamber has at times been tense. While the most recent progress report was wrapping up, ACC President Stephen Kinslow, noting his staff had spent 200 hours on the project, fired off a note to the leaders of the project task force arguing that the school “cannot justify the excessive amount of staff time and diversion of resources from other priorities.” He made a point of noting that the school was “not averse to being evaluated.”
Much of the impetus for new data collection and reporting comes not only from the Texas Legislature and Congress, but also private organizations. Assuming there is little relief from public agencies in the foreseeable future, could private groups help fund the reports that they have deemed worthy?
As noted in a previous post, TCCTA members are urged to send brief accounts of added costs that their schools have incurred to comply with new requirements. Send the information to snelson@tccta.org, or to the TCCTA state office. Your name and school will not be used without permission.
Comments