This is the second part of a multi-part diary about the state of higher education, focused primarily on the state of Ohio. In my previous diary on this general topic, I discussed problems with Ohio’s new plan to provide for "accountability" in higher ed, and its links to the rise of learning centers and the extension of TQM systems to higher ed. That plan covers assessment goals for major programs.
In this diary, I will focus on the actual and potential impact of Ohio’s Transfer Articulation Guideline (TAG) process. The TAG process is theoretically Ohio’s way of making it easy for students to transfer credits from one school to the next. I don’t object to this concept. But it seems to me that the TAG process is in danger of becoming much more.
As a way of illustrating some of the potential problems, I will specifically discuss what the TAG process might do to the teaching of economics and other areas in the social sciences. I will draw primarily on my own personal experience with the TAG process. I will add the disclaimer that I participate in the Economics TAG process. The process has already become predictably tangled up with confusing bureaucratic mandates.
My PhD is in economics, and obviously, that is my primary area of teaching. However, since my research interests lie in economic development, economic history, economic anthropology and the philosophy of the social sciences, I also teach other subjects such as International Political Economy and Cultural Anthropology. Thus, in addition to being a member of the Economics TAG team, I am also an alternate of some sort for anthropology.
Let’s start at the beginning. How do you get to be on a TAG team. First, your University administrator has to nominate you. A couple of years ago, myself and multiple other members of my department (sociologists, political scientists, etc.) traveled to a meeting in Columbus to discuss the TAGs. For reasons that are unclear to me, I was the only one chosen to actually be on a TAG team. I have no idea of the who, what, when, where or why. Apparently, my colleagues and I entered into a process that had already begun. At the economic TAG meeting I attended, most of the TAGs had already been drawn up, though we did modify them slightly.
In theory, the initial process for course approval involves having your school submit your syllabus for approval. If a course is turned down, there is not any one person or entity to which to appeal, or to get additional, specific information. There is also a process of approval and development beyond the faculty involvement, though no one seems to know what that is. Instead, like the Wizard pulling levers behind the curtain, the faceless, nameless bureaucrats at the OBR prefer to pull levers and perpetuate an air of mystery.
Creating guidelines for courses statewide, at least at the introductory level is in principle, fairly straightforward-at least if the focus is on defining some minimal agreement on basic concepts and content that need to be covered in an introductory course. With few exceptions, courses like Introduction to Sociology, Cultural Anthropology and Principles of Micro and Macroeconomics do not vary significantly in terms of what is covered from University to University.
What gets emphasized may be different. Students may be tested at different levels of depth and rigor or asked to engage in assignments of varying complexity and difficulty. And that, in actuality, has always been one of the strengths of the U.S. higher ed system. There is probably a school for anyone who is seriously interested in pursuing a college degree.
But instead of simply defining minimal content, the TAG committees were charged with specifying common learning outcomes. In principle, a student who has Principles of Economics at the selective admissions Universities in Ohio will exhibit the same level of skills, knowledge and ability as those students completing the course at an opens admissions University. But the only way to guarantee this is to teach in lockstep, for a common, standardized assessment test. This seems to be the way that higher ed is going (since it has worked so well in the K-12 system-snark).
That said, if the goal of the TAG process is to create clear, measurable, common learning outcomes, then the TAGS as they stand, are poorly written and articulated. They are a hodge podge of content, concepts, and vaguely defined objectives mixed up with extremely subjective goals. In principle, Professors are only obligated to cover 70% of the "outcomes".
Here are some typical TAGS for the Social Sciences You have to scroll down on each subject to find the TAGS.
The rather confused state of the TAGs however does serve one useful purpose: it blunts the ability of people to use them to create more mischief-though some people seem intent on trying. Given the direction the state is going, it seems simply a matter of time before someone actually decides to start taking the TAGs seriously and trying to use them for assessment purposes. As matters stand currently, the TAG process has simply been a minor headache. But more serious problems may lie down the road.
Threats to Academic Freedom
First, by adding a comprehensive set of bullet points to the syllabus I have already given students the idea that learning depends on checking off a list of bullet point objectives.
Second, it raises a problem. I can rewrite these bullet points in clear, objective fashion and then teach the class accordingly. But then that gives students the idea that learning amounts to checking off a set of bullet points. Or, I can cut and paste information from the OBR’s web page and then add more pages to the syllabus about what I am really going to do in the class.
Fourth, since I have to submit my syllabus periodically for state approval, this opens the door to someone down the line enforcing economic orthodoxy. The current TAGs are vague enough to allow the introduction of heterodox content-but one wonders how long they still stay that way.
Fifth, there are already signs that people are beginning to use the TAG process to tinker with areas that have nothing to do with the purpose of the TAGs. My own department has had multiple courses refused-all without explanation. In other cases, the committee has apparently looked only to see if the exact TAG wording was present on the syllabus and then 100%. Others had their syllabus turned down due to the choice of textbook.
The process of McDonaldizing the curriculum in higher ed in Ohio has begun.