Assumptions Commonly Underlying Government Quality Assessment Practices

The current interest in governmental assessment and accountability practices appears to result from:(1) an emerging view of higher education as an industry; (2) concerns about efficient resource allocation; (3) a lack of trust ade between governmend institutional officials; (4) a desire to reduce uncertainty in government/higher education relationships; (5) lack of confidence in institutional governance. Based on these concerns, governments increasingly are engaging in data-based quality assessment processes. These processes appear to assume that: (1) faculty and administrators know how to improve quality but fail to do so; (2) government officials can assure the public interest in quality; (3) measures of quality can be identified and agreed upon; (4) improving quality requires strong bureaucratic coordination and control; (5) information systems can provide the evidence government officials need to address quality concerns. An examination of literature on organisation decision processes suggest these assumptions are inaccurate.     

Quality assurance of higher education in transition countries: Accreditation ‐ accountability and assessment

Abstract

One issue facing countries in transition concerns how to ensure quality for a broader and more diverse set of institutions. Quality assurance processes (i.e. accreditation, accountability and assessment) have particular relevance today as higher education undergoes dramatic changes in countries in transition, as the world becomes more internationalised, and as private higher education institutions increase in number and enrol increasing numbers of students. Three questions emerge. Do differences among transition countries relative to central control prior to independence explain the current set of quality assurance mechanisms? Has the growth of private higher education in transition countries affected how quality assurance is conceptualised? Have quality assurance mechanisms been affected by the opening of branch campuses in transition countries?     

Why was the QAA Approach to Teaching Quality Assessment Rejected by Academics in UK HE?

This article will review and evaluate the response of academics working in higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK to the experience of teaching quality review. It will do so by gathering the viewpoints and opinions of academics from a particular source over a specific time period: the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) between January and August of 2001. Before presenting and then evaluating these viewpoints, the paper will discuss the development of teaching quality assessment methodologies in UK HE within the context of the increasing importance and embededness of quality assurance and enhancement values and processes within the practices of HEIs. It is argued that this is both a recent and contested phenomenon. The article finds that the concerns of academics with the teaching quality review exercise fall under a number of headings: (1) administrative/cost burden; (2) grade inflation/gamesmanship/ organisational learning; (3) elitist bias within the system; (4) system impact of quality review; (5) reliability of the system; and (6) philosophical objections to the system. The implications of these concerns are discussed. The article's conclusion is that if academics are not convinced of, or do not actively support, the values and methodologies associated with teaching quality review, then there is little chance that these will either produce accurate or meaningful assessments of teaching quality, or act as a spur to the quality enhancement of this aspect of individual and institutional activity. This is an important point within the context of the recent review of the Quality Assurance Agency's Subject Review methodology, and the new institutional audit methodology.     

The Search for Corporatist Structures in British Higher Technological Education: the creation of the National Advisory Council on Education in Industry and Commerce (NACEIC) in 1948

The creation of the National Advisory Council on Education in Industry and Commerce in 1948 was an example of corporatist trends in British Technical education. Inspired by officials of the Central Government's education department to regulate the orderly development of higher technical education, NACEIC marked a form of interest representation where interests were recognised, legitimated and participated in the development and exercise of enhanced slate powers. Yet officials were so sensitive to the strength of existing pluralist forms of representation that only rudimentary ‘quasi‐corporatist’ institutions emerged. Using a case study of Official Records to show officials making decisions offers evidence of the significance of both economic developments and political concerns in corporatist developments. It confirms the basic weakness of corporatist developments in Britain in the lack of lower level corporate organisation, particularly among industrial employers.     

中美民办（私立）高校筹资比较研究

经过20多年的发展,中国民办高等教育已经达到了一定的规模。但目前,资金短缺仍严重制约着民办高校的可持续发展。比较中美两国私立高校筹资的现状和制度环境可以发现,美国健全的私立高等教育立法、相对完善的政府资助体系、鼓励捐赠的税收优惠政策和民办高校规范的内部管理体制是保证其筹资多元化及高效化的制度因素。鉴于此,中国政府应主动承担起对民办高校的财政和管理的责任,民办高校也应不断提高质量,以增强筹资能力。     

英国学前教育立法保障政府职责的背景与特点研究

近年来英国政府对学前教育事业发展日益高度重视,特别是通过立法强化政府职责,促进部门协作。本文对英国学前教育立法保障政府职责的背景与特点进行了较深入的研究与分析,指出其具有以下主要特点:1.明确并不断强化各级政府特别是中央政府的职责;2.明确各相关部门职责,保障并促进跨部门协作;3.明确并强化相关重要部门负责人的职责与权力;4.增加学前教育财政投入并预算单列;5.完善学前教育国家督导制度,保证学前教育质量。     

强化人大预算监督能提升地方政府教育支出吗？——基于省级预算审查监督条例立法的准自然实验

在“中国式”分权背景下，地方政府对本地教育财政投入激励不足。如何发挥地方人大的预决算审查监督职能、构建有效约束机制来提高地方政府教育支出水平，对我国教育事业长远发展具有重大意义。本文以我国各地区推动预算监督法制化为制度背景，以1999—2017年间各省份预算审查监督条例立法作为准自然实验，使用双重差分法研究通过立法加强地方人大预算监督如何影响地方政府教育支出。研究发现：（1）省级预算监督条例立法能够显著增加地方政府的教育财政支出，使教育支出在财政预算支出中的比重平均上升约一个百分点，使地方教育支出占GDP的比重显著提高；（2）异质性分析显示预算监督条例立法对地方政府教育投入的促进作用主要体现在基础教育和中等教育层面，并且在财政分权程度更高或地方主政官员缺乏中央工作经历的地区更加显著。本文的研究表明，推动财政监督法制化是构建现代教育财政治理体系的重要制度基础，强化地方人大预算监督是确保地方教育支出持续稳定增长的有效制度保障。     

形成性评价策略在高职英语教学中的实践与探索

为解决分级教学模式下高职普通班学生英语学习兴趣缺乏、信心不足的问题,尝试通过优化形成性评价策略,以提高学生课堂参与的积极性,培养学生的自主学习能力。实践结果表明,经过优化的形成性评价策略,更加注重学习的过程和态度,能有效增强学生学习英语的兴趣和信心,进而提高英语教学的质量。     

构建我国高等教育评估中介组织之探析

经济体制的转型促使政府职能的转变,由此带来社会中介组织的繁荣。随着高等教育的飞速发展,高等教育评估中介组织日益受到关注。高等教育评估中介组织,以其独有的中介性和社会性在高等教育质量监控体系中担负着接受委托、质量鉴定、信息反馈、社会沟通等社会服务职能,保证高等教育能够在一个基本的相当的质量标准下运作。保持高等教育评估中介组织的独立性是评估中介组织能够公正客观地进行评估的前提,不能使其成为二级行政机构,在职能发挥上决不依附于政府、代替政府行使某些行政职能。要加强中介评估组织专业化建设,便于政府的监督管理。     

中国官员治理的困境及其应对

中国官员治理的困境可以归纳为:一方面,官员群体行为正在失控;一方面,政府主导下的现代化进程必须依赖官员群体的推进。导致官员治理困境的原因在于集体行动逻辑导致的政府缺乏自律意愿和能力,而社会监督能力不足。因此,官员治理困境的应对之道在于通过增强社会公众的知情权和表达权,建立以表达权为基础制度化的利益协商和利益均衡机制,充分发挥公众行使知情权和表达权的主要载体和重要保障——舆论监督的作用。     

中国特殊儿童义务教育发展中的问题调查报告

本文采用问卷调查与访谈的方法,对135名特殊学校校长的感受、看法进行调查分析,揭示出我国特殊儿童义务教育发展问题在于:(1)特殊学校的经费、资源匮乏;(2)特殊学校的管理缺乏科学性、规范性;(3)地方对特殊教育缺乏重视、对特殊学校的管理方式较为专制;(4)特殊学校的课程改革缺乏科学引领;(5)特殊教育师资数量不足、专业化程度不高;(6)大部分特殊学校生源不足、特殊学校缺乏专业师资、校际间缺乏沟通交流。结论:产生这些问题的根本原因在于法律的不完善、政策落实的不到位、地方政府管理者的观念落后。     

论依法治国与依法行政的“民本”理念

依法治国是党领导人民治理国家的基本方略，依法行政是人民民主国家本质的内在要求，其根本立足点是实现和保障人民当家作主的地位和权利。因此，应该树立以人民利益为根本的治国宗旨与执法理念，依法行政，严以律党、严以律政、严以律吏；树立科学的发展观，提高思想理论品质，以道德规范强化法律责任和义务，推进民主政治、政体改革。     

试论我国的政府信用及其建构

政府信用是社会信用体系的核心,加入WTO我国政府的信用面临着前所未有的机遇和挑战.当前政府信用出现了危机,其原因是多方面的,因此必须研究政府信用的有关问题,加强政府及其公务人员的诚信教育,切实贯彻依法行政,提高政府的执政能力和执政水平,建构现代信用政府.     

Quality Assurance Issues in European Distance Education

Four major issues concerning quality in European distance education are addressed. (1) The lack of flexibility in educational institutions is a threat to the quality of the present education system. (2) New technologies offer new potential, but also confront us with a need for quality assessment and assurance. (3) New markets in industry and in new regions of Europe highlight the need for quality standards and guidelines. (4) Finally, public assessment and control of quality are under continuous discussion. In general, quality assurance should be approached in various ways and with different measures at institutional, national and international levels.     

Assumptions underlying performance‐based budgeting

Abstract

Interest in ‘performance budgeting’ is growing despite a lack of research on its effectiveness. U.S. states have largely used ‘incremental’ and ‘formula’ budgeting processes to fund higher education. However, more than half of them are experimenting with some form of ‘performance budgeting’. There have been similar attempts to reform budget practices in the U.S. in the past, but most of these processes have been largely abandoned. Governmental ‘performance budgeting’ for higher education assumes policy objectives are stable, complex decisions on budget trade‐offs can be made at governmental levels on the basis of data, institutions operate as bureaucracies, resources can be linked to outcomes, outcomes are identifiable and can be agreed upon, accountability can be achieved through budget policies, and current practices create incentives to enrol unqualified students. These assumptions are not realistic. Consequently, ‘performance budgeting’ will not meet proponents expectations and will suffer the fate of past budget fads.     

Outcomes Assessment in Higher Education: Challenges and Future Research in the Context of Voluntary System of Accountability

Higher education institutions are becoming increasingly accountable to stakeholders at many levels as the federal government, accrediting organizations, and the public place a stronger emphasis on student learning outcomes. Evidence of student learning that is comparable across institutions is of urgent demand. Various accountability initiatives such as the Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA) mark a milestone in the evaluation of instructional effectiveness of higher education using standardized outcomes assessment. Although the current accountability initiatives hold great potential in evaluating institutional effectiveness, some design and methodological issues need to be addressed before outcomes assessment can be best utilized. In this paper, I (a) review the need for outcomes assessment in higher education, (b) discuss the VSA initiative, (c) summarize the most prominent challenges facing outcomes assessment for accountability purposes, and (d) discuss future directions of research in advancing accountability assessment in higher education.     

美国高等教育的质量保障及其启示

美国高等教育在质量保障方面形成了认证机构认证、院校内部保障、社会评价、政府监督“四位一体”的比较健全、运行良好的体制机制。借鉴美国高等教育质量保障的经验,我国应高度重视高等教育质量保障体系建设,支持独立的评估机构的建立和发展,建立分层次、分类别的评估标准开展分类评估,建立健全院校自我评估的机制,建立开放的高等教育数据和信息服务平台,加强评估的国际交流与合作,促进高等教育质量的提升。     

Coming to terms with the accountability versus improvement debate in assessment

Concerns about quality and accountability in higher education have led the majority of states to mandate student outcomes assessment. While many institutions have begun to address these requirements as matters of accountability, discussion in most state capitals seems to be more about program improvement than about summative evaluation. These dichotomous perspectives frame a fundamental debate over the nature and direction of the assessment movement in the United States. Accountability and improvement are twin concerns of effective assessment, but their coexistence depends upon the resolution of suspicions and different interpretations of the mission of higher education between state and institutional authorities.     

Quality management in Hungarian higher education: organisational responses to governmental policy

This article focuses on responses of higher education institutions to governmental policy. We investigate the influence of organisational characteristics on the implementation of quality management in Hungarian higher education institutions. Our theoretical framework is based on organisational theories (resource dependency and neo-institutionalism), Allison’s models on organisational decision-making processes, and also addresses some of the more specific characteristics of higher education institutions. Our empirical investigation shows that organisational characteristics matter in policy implementation of quality management in Hungarian higher education. Certain organisational variables, viz. leaders’ commitment to the implementation process, the involvement of external consultants, institutional reputation, and bureaucratic and political decision-making processes have strong effects on the implementation of quality management. Characteristics particular to higher education institutions were much less influential.