In 2006; the U.S. Department of Education sponsored what is termed the Spellings Commission Report; named after the serving Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. In a speech given in September 2005; Secretary Spellings stated that the purpose of this Commission is to launch a national dialogue about higher education in the USA and to provide leadership in shaping this dialogue because âas taxpayers; we all have a stake in the higher education system.â The desired effect; however; is to crate an agenda whose basis it is to change the definition of quality in American higher education. According to the American Association of University Professors (2006):
âWhat emerges from the report is a vision of higher education as a marketplace that should increasingly rely on uniform standards to measure outcomes and technological means to provide training in skills necessary for global economic competition. The process and quality of the educational experience; so central to the formation of a love of learning; civic virtues and social capital; are marginalized to the point of irrelevance.â
This purpose of this paper is to continue to argue the importance of adding policy as a fifth element in Demingâs SPK by studying the dynamics surrounding the Spellings Commission Report and the attempts at reframing notions of quality and quality assurance at institutions of higher education in the USA. The first part of this paper continues the discussions as to the merits of including public policy as part of SPK while the second part of this paper uses the hoped for impact of the Spellings Commission Report to illustrate how public policy does shape institutional definitions of quality at a strategic as well as compliance levels of institutional actions.
Keywords: Accreditation; quality assurance; policy; Demingâs System of Profound Knowledge (SPK)
10th QMOD Conference. Quality Management and Organiqatinal Development. Our Dreams of Excellence; 18-20 June; 2007 in Helsingborg; Sweden
Aman; A.C.; & Mayton; W.T.; (1993); Administrative Law; West Publishing Co.; St. Paul; MN.
American Association of University Professors; (2006); Statement of the Committee on Government Relations regarding the report A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U. S. Higher Education. Retrieved 01-12-07 from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/GR/federal/FutureofHigherEd/spellrep.htm?PF=1.
Andersen; S.C.; (2005); âHow to improve the outcome of state welfare services.
Governance in a systems-theoretical perspectiveâ; Public Administration; volume 83; number 4; 891-907.
Anderson; J. C.; Rungtusanatham; M. & Schroeder; R. G; (1994); âA theory of quality management underlying the Deming management methodâ; Academy of Management Review; volume 19; number 3; 472â509.
Argyris; C.; & SchĂ¶n; D.A.; (1974); Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Jossey-Bass; San Francisco.
Brooks; R.L.; (2005); âMeasuring university qualityâ; The Review of Higher Education; volume 29; number 1; 1-21.
Deming; W. E.; (1986); Out of the Crisis; Massachusetts Institute for Technology; Center for Advanced Engineering Study; Cambridge; MA.
Deming; W.E. 1994; The New Economics: For industry; government; and education; ; Massachusetts Institute for Technology; Center for Advanced Engineering Study; Cambridge; MA; Cambridge; MA.
Dickeson; R.C.; (2006); âThe need for accreditation reformâ; U.S. Department of Education; A NATIONAL DIALOGUE: The Secretary of Educationâs Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Issue Paper No. 5. Retrieved 10-25-06 from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/dickeson.pdf
Dooley; K.J.; (2000); âThe Paradigms of Quality: Evolution and Revolution in the History of the Disciplineâ; Advances in the Management of Organizational Quality; volume 5; 1-28.
Howie; G.; (2002); âEducation: A reflection of quality: Instrumental reason; quality audits and the knowledge economyâ; Critical Quarterly; volume 44; number 4; 140-148.
Judd; D.K. 1994; âThe Psychology of Qualityâ; paper presented to the 48th Annual Quality Congress Proceedings.
Lemaitre; M.J.; (2002); âQuality as politicsâ; Quality in Higher Education; volume 8; number 1; 29-37.
Lewis; R.G.; & Smith; D.H.; (1994); Total quality in higher education; St. Lucie Press; Delray Beach; FL.
Linderman; K.; Schroeder; R.G.; Zaheer; S.; Liedke; C.; & Choo; A.S.; (2004); âIntegrating quality management practices with knowledge creation processesâ; Journal of Operations Management; volume 22; number (6); 589-607.
Luhmann; N.; (1997); âLimits of steeringâ; Theory Culture; & Society; volume 14; number 1; 41-57.
Machlup; F.; (1962); The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States; Princeton University Press; Princeton; NJ.
McLendon; M.K.; Hearn; J.C.; & Deaton; R.; (2006); âCalled to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher educationâ; Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis; volume 28; number 1; 1-24.
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education; (2004); Measuring Up 2004: The national report card on higher education; Author; San JosĂ©; CA. Retrieved 01-15- 2006 from http://measuringup.highereducation.org/docs/nationalreport_2004.pdf.
National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education; (2005); Accountability for better results: A national imperative for higher education; SHEEO; Washington; DC.
Retrieved from author website 03-11-2005; http://www.sheeo.org/account/accountability.pdf.
Nonaka; I.; 1994; âA dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creationâ; Organization Science; volume 5; number 1; 14â37.
PadrĂł; F.F.; & Hawke; M.F.; 2003; âA perceptual model of organization behaviorâ; National Social Sciences Journal; volume 19; number 2; 102-112.
PadrĂł; F.F. (2006). Public policy as a dimension of institutional quality development in higher education. In Selected Papers of the 9th International QMOD Conference; 9 August â11 August 2006 in Liverpool; UK. Liverpool: John Moore University.
Peters; B.G.; & Pierre; J.; (2001); âDevelopments in intergovernmental relations: Towards Multi-level governanceâ; Policy and Politics; volume 29; number 2; 131-135.
Scholtes; P. R.; (1999); âThe new competencies of leadershipâ; Total Quality Management; volume 10; 704â710.
Schray; V.; (2006); âAssuring Quality in Higher Education: Key Issues and Questions for changing Accreditation in the United Statesâ; U.S. Department of Education; A NATIONAL DIALOGUE: The Secretary of Educationâs Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Issue Paper No. 4. Retrieved 10-25-06 from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/schray.pdf.
Scott; P.; (2003); âChallenges to academic values and the organization of academic work in a time of globalizationâ; Higher Education in Europe; volume 28; number 3; 295- 306.
Spellings; M.S.; (2005); Prepared Remarks for Secretary Spellings at the Meeting of the Commission on the Future of Higher Education in Charlotte; North Carolina. Retrieved 12-27-07 from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2005/09/09192005.html.
Stepanovich; P.L.; (2004); âUsing System Dynamics to Illustrate Demingâs System of Profound Knowledgeâ; Total Quality Management; volume 15; number 3; 379â389.
The Secretary of Educationâs Commission on the Future of Higher Education; (September 2006); A test of leadershipâCharting the future of U.S. Higher Education: A report of the Commission appointed by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings; Education Publishing Center; Jessup; MD. Retrieved 09-25-2006 from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/final-report.pdf.
Trow; M.; (1998); âOn the accountability of higher education in the United Statesâ; Bowen; W.G.; & Shapiro; H.T.; Universities and their leadership; Princeton University Press; Princeton; NJ.
Wellman; J.V.; (March/April 2001); âAssessing state accountability systemsâ; Change; volume 33; number 2; 46-52.
Wildavsky; A.; (1972); âThe self-evaluating organizationâ; Public Administration Review; September/October; 509-520.