editorially /peaking Here Come the Governors It's been a busy time for education recently. Everyone seems to be issuing reports, white papers, etc., concerning the state of education-precollege and college-andlor suggesting remedies for perceived as well as documented ills. Now the state governors are a t i t too! The National Governors' Association has called on all colleges and universities, public and private, to start comprehensive programs to measure what undergraduates learn. Moreover, the governors believe that state governments should financially reward institutions that start such assessment efforts. These and other recommendations appear in the report, "Time for Results: The Governors' 1991Report on Education" which was prepared by seven special committees the entirety of which involved every governor in the nation. The 1991 date is in the title because the report looks ahead for five years. Apparently, the attention of the governors has been piqued by pragmatic politics. Better schools mean better iohs. Unless states face the current oroblems in education, kmericans won't keep their high standard of living. T o meet stiff comoetition from the rest of the world, Americans must educate themselves and their children as never before. So goes the logic. Having gotten their attention, we find the governors potentially can be a formidable force. As one governor was moved to observe. "No one else can set the agenda in a state the way the governor can. The governor's agenda becomes the state's agenda, and the state's agenda is the nation's agenda, especially on education, which is the responsibility of the states." The recommendations in the report did not have the endorsement of every governor. Rather, they represent the consensus of the committees that orevared them. The rec. . ommendations present state leaders with proposals on a wide ranee of educational issues. One of the more interesting parts of the report is the governor's call on colleges to develop programs to measure student learning. Although there is no attempt to provide a uniform code of action, the report addresses questions the governor's believe should he answered. The way in which answers are to be obtained are left to the states' option. In the next five years the governor's want to answer the following broad questions I h e a each higher-education institution in the state haw a rlenr srnrement uf insti1ut:unnl mission? At each inztit~,tron~~fhight.reduration in thertate withafunrtion 01' undergraduate instruction, whnr assessment practires are in plnw t o evaluate 6tudrnt. prqvnm, and institutional perfur-
What rtateincentivererist tornrourng~theasae*sment of undergradnare students, undrryraduate pn,gmms, and indtitutions? Whnt information is reported regularly to t h r puhlic concerning undrrgraduate student learning, mdrrgraduaw program quality. and undergraduate institutional quality?
A cynic could give answers tn these questions directly as no, none, none, and none, respectively, and suggest that the governor's agenda has been met. Perhaps after study, the governors will indeed come to some set of answers to these questions that are all more-or-less in the negative. However, one has the feeline" on readine the r e ~ o r that t somethingmore will come of the attempts to answer these questions. Althoueh the details tn answerine such auestions are left in the hands of the individual states, it is apparent that we are on the verge of a wave of what some might consider "meddling" in h e educational process. ~ost-seiondaryeducation will h ~ c t ~ mmme r politicized than it has been in the past, because the governors are attempting to respond to "what society needs", whirh has been interpreted in termsof econmlics-jobs fur a hetter life. This issue has hecn raised recently in the repurl of the Kducation Cmnmission of the Statw. discussed on this .oaee " in Octuher. That cummission was concerned with the widening gap between the knowledge, skills, and attributes necessary to succeed in college and the expectations about what people should know. Apnarentlv the lines are clearlv drawn in the minds of the govern&, who are in a posit& to induce action. There is a real chance that the eoveruors' actions will lead to widening the gap between (a) programs designed to encourage specialization in undergraduate education, a process which appears to have an irrefutable relationship to economic development, and (h) those designed to provide a broader base of knowledge that emphasizes the development of critical thinking and interpersonal skills in the context of technical knowledee. The former nroeram . " t "w e s seem to reinforce the response to short-range goals that is so prevalent in many asoects of our societv. The eovernors' interest in establishing mksions, defining the bases of success in achieving these missions. and rewardine success, on the surface seems a rational and systematic approach to the solution of problems that apvear t o have gotten out of hand. The process, however, poGntially can iead t o mischief-perhaps well-intentinned, but the result could be mischief nevertheless. Governors are, after all politicians, and i t takes a very unusual politician to dedicate him or herself to a long-term goal, especially one that may he controversial, such as the educational process that does not have an obvious relationship to the "well-being" of individuals. That governors are susceptible to short-term arguments is emphasized by the recent nationalelections, where the results indicate that 21 (42%) of the governors who were involved in the draft of the Governors' Report will not be around to see the results expected in 1991. One can only hope that the potentially good ideas transcend the people who generate them.
-
-
JJL
Volume 63
Number 12
December 1986
1017
