Dianne Wright, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Higher Education Leadership

1. U.S. – China Higher Education Leadership Programs: Quality Standards and the Implications for Student Learning, Policy & Practice Dianne Wright, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Higher Education Leadership Florida Atlantic University-Davie Campus Department of Educational Leadership College of Education Davie, Florida

2. Introduction • Today we live in a global world. • As such, our education systems and student learning must also be global.

3. Purpose • To focus on higher education leadership preparation programs in the U.S. and China. • To describe mechanisms these two countries use to assess student learning and program quality in the preparation of leaders of higher education institutions.

4. Purpose (Cont’d.) • To make recommendations regarding the development and validation of “global” Quality Assurance (QA) models for Higher Education Leadership Preparation Programs. And, • Future collaboration research that builds on opportunity structures currently that can be used to test QA models.

5. Higher Education Leadership Preparation Programs in the U.S. • In terms of Higher Education Preparation programs in the U.S., some 200 graduate programs exist at the Master’s and Doctoral levels. • These programs are a mixture of both practitioner and research-oriented degree programs. • For the most part, in the U.S., higher education preparation programs are a sub-specialty under the field of Education.

6. Higher Education Leadership Preparation Programs in the China Higher Education Leadership Preparation Programs in China • Doctoral programs have increased from the original two programs in the early 1990s to seventeen; • Master’s from four to eighty-eight. (Wang, 2010)

7. Assessing Student Learning & Program Quality in the Preparation of HE Leaders in the U.S. Rationale– waning confidence; general lack of information about the internal workings of C&Us (Reisbert, 2011; p. 129). Assessing Student Learning and Program Quality: U.S. System initially emphasized primarily “inputs” (e.g., size of the library, # of professors with advanced degrees, etc.) -Measurement criteria expanded to include “outcomes” over “inputs” in an attempt to measure “impact.”

8. Assessing Student Learning & Program Quality in the Preparation of Higher Education Leaders in the U.S. (Cont’d.) Regional Accreditation • Higher Education Regional Accreditation in the US is a type of quality assurancewhere postsecondary institutions are evaluated by an external body to determine if applicable standards are met. If standards are met, accredited status is granted by the agency. • However, unlike In most countries in the world where the function of educational accreditation for higher education is conducted by a government organization, such as a ministry of education,thequality assurance process is independent of government and performed by private membership associations (Lenn, 1992).

9. Assessing Student Learning & Program Quality in the Preparation of Higher Education Leaders in the U.S. (Cont’d.) In Addition to the Five U.S. Regional Accreditation Boards: • CAS Standards • CACREP • ASK and • CAHEP Guidelines

10. Assessing Student Learning & Program Quality in the Preparation of Higher Education Leaders in the China • Since the 1980s (not that long ago), Chinese higher education has undergone a series of reforms that have slowly effected improvements with the goals of both improving quality and strengthening global ties = better qualified faculty.

11. Assessing Student Learning & Program Quality in the Preparation of Higher Education Leaders in the China (Cont’d.) • Relatedly, according the American Council on Education’s (ACE) Center for Lifelong Learning, “China exhibits a great need for better regulation as well as more academic qualifications; …. to this end many of China’s major universities now function as centers of excellence that drive the entire higher education system to a higher level” (ACE home page, p.2). • An example are “Twinning” projects where leading Chinese universities “twin” with other ones to provide equipment, curricular and faculty development.

12. Assessing Student Learning & Program Quality in the Preparation of Higher Education Leaders in the China (Cont’d.) • It is also noted on China’s Education website that “quality assurance is high” on the country’s agenda. • It should also be noted that in China curriculum is basically a national curriculum.

13. Assessing Student Learning & Program Quality in the Preparation of Higher Education Leaders In China (Cont’d) Also Interesting>>> • 2010 training program for university leaders at and above V.P. level were initiated by China. • Themes were managing research and enhancing quality. • One of the other commonly identified issues in Chinese C&Us includes the issue of where do staff members go for management training and leadership development.

14. Proponents & Opponents re: QA • In the U.S. - - Some agree; some disagree • China - - Government Mandated .

15. Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations (Cont’d.) What we do know, however, is that: - there are a number of research studies that support the contention that there is a set of skills and knowledge competencies that should be incorporated in graduate higher education leadership preparation….. (Wang, 2004)

16. Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations (Cont’d.) • Along these lines, it is recommended that >>> the U.S. and Chinese C&Us play a more significant role in partnering with one another >>> … in the establishment and validation of QA models for Higher Education Leadership Programs.

17. Conclusions, Implications and Recommendations (Cont’d.) “These fast changing and complex times require movement away from amateur leadership and toward a trained higher education leadership possessing measurable knowledge and skills that set them apart from those who cannot be put to such a test” (Wright & Miller, 2007,p.38).

18. References Adelman, C. (July 2008). Learning accountability from Bologna: A higher education policy primer. American Council on Education http://www.acenet.edu/Am?Template.cfm?Section=Insights&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDi Altbach , P. & Knight, J. (2011). Higher education’s landscape of internationalization. In Philip G. Altbach (2011) (Ed.). New York: Routledge. Leadership for world-class universities: Challenges for developing countries. Brown, R. (2004). Quality assurance in higher education: The UK experience since 1992. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Reisberg, L. (2011). Where the quality discussion stands: Strategies and ambiguities. In Philip G. Altbach (2001) (Ed). Leadership for world-class universities. Challenges for developing countries. New York: Routledge. Rhoades, G. (2004, September). Technology enhanced instruction and a mode III organization of academic work. Paper presented at the European Meeting of the Association of Institutional Research (AIR). Barcelona. Schneider, C.J. & Gaston, P. (2009). The challenge of Bologna: What United States Higher Education has to learn from Europe, and why it matters that we learn it. Tight, M. (2007). The development of higher education in the United Kingdom since 1945. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Vlasceanu, L., Grunbert, L. & Parlea, D. (2007). Quality-assurance and accreditation: A glossary of basic terms and definitions. Bacharest, Romania: UNESCO Wright, D. & Miller, M. (2007). Training higher education policy makers and leaders: A graduate program perspective. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Press/Greenwood Press.