Accountability_Alexander_2015

Running head: PERFORMANCE-BASED ACCOUNTABILITY & STUDENT SERVICES

Conflict and Tension:

The Impact of Performance-Based Accountability Policies on Student Affairs and Services

Phil Alexander

Department of Graduate and Undergraduate

Studies in Education

Submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for course EDUC 5Q97

Faculty of Education, Brock University

St. Catharines, Ontario

© Phil Alexander, 2015

PERFORMANCE-BASED ACCOUNTABILITY & STUDENT SERVICES

ii

Abstract

The age of accountability has arrived. The higher education system in Ontario is in the midst of

a “new accountability” movement as evidenced through the implementation of multiple

performance-based accountability policies. What does this mean for the practice of Student

Affairs & Services (SAS) divisions? Through a historical and theoretical review of both

performance-based accountability policies and Student Affairs & Services, I argue that the

underlying foundational principles of both are in conflict with each other and therefore create

tension in practice. Furthermore, as a Student Affairs and Services practitioner myself, I provide

recommendations on how we can organize ourselves to positively influence performance

indicators without sacrificing the holistic, transformative ideals we have come to embrace.


iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the professors whom I have had the pleasure of learning from

throughout my journey; their experience, knowledge, and direction have been invaluable. In

alpha order: Dr. Denise Armstrong, Dr. Jill Grose, Dr. Catherine Hands, Dr. Xiaobin Li, Dr.

Coral Mitchell, Dr. Dolana Mogadime, Dr. Lissa Paul, Dr. Jennifer Rowsell, and Dr. Nicola

Simmons.

Finally, to my family, S, E, and O; thank you for three and a half years of support. This is for

you!


iv

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………ii

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………iii

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1

Accountability and the Ontario Context……………………………………………………….….3

Defining Accountability…………………………………………………………………….….3

The “New Accountability” Movement………………………………………………………...4

Types of Performance-Based Accountability Policies……………………………………6

Performance-Based Accountability in Ontario………………………………………………...7

Key Performance Indicators………………………………………………………………8

Multi-Year Accountability Agreements………………………………………….……….8

Differentiation Policy Framework………………………………………………………...9

Maclean’s Rankings……………………………………………………………………...11

National Survey of Student Engagement………………………………………………...11

Accountability and Student Affairs & Services………………………………………………….12

Defining Student Affairs and Services………………………………………………………..13

The Student Development Movement...…………………………………………….…….......13

The Student Learning Movement……………………………………………………………..15

Conflict & Tension……………………………………………………………………………17

Accountability and Organization of Student Affairs & Services……………………….……..…23

Inclusion of Students……………………………………………………………………….…23

Assessment……………………………………………………………………………………25

Leadership…………………………………………………………………………………….26

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….29

References......................................................................................................................................31

PERFORMANCE-BASED ACCOUNTABILITY & STUDENT SERVICES 1

Beneath and behind the growing public interest in measures and devices of all kinds,

there was a dream. … It was the dream of education and society as machines, efficient

devices for the attainment of high social objectives on one hand, and inculcation of

measurable knowledge and marketable skills on the other. It was the idea that a machine-

like solution could be found to the ancient problem of assigning the young to their proper

places and professions. It was the hope that a truly scarce good—advanced education—

could mechanically and fairly be distributed, through exact testing and accountancy, to

every deserving person. (Bruneau & Savage, 2002, p. 26)

Over the past fifty years access to Ontario’s higher education system has transitioned

from an elite system to a near universal system (Clark, Moran, Skolnik, & Trick, 2009). With

greater access came an increased interest from stakeholders in the performance of institutions

(Clark et al., 2009) leading to what has been termed the “new accountability” movement in

higher education (Hillman, Tandberg, & Gross, 2014). Within the “new accountability”

movement governments place greater emphasis on the performance of institutions through

accountability policies that include performance indicators such as graduation rate, retention rate,

course completion, credits earned, etc. How does the “new accountability” movement impact

Student Affairs and Services (SAS) divisions operating within universities?

Much has been written regarding the mechanistic (Taylor, 2007/1912) principles

underlying performance indicators and performance-based accountability policies in higher

education (Alexander, 2000; Bruneau & Savage, 2002; Shannon, 2009). This begs the question,

what is the purpose of universities? Are they primarily breeding grounds for job-ready

graduates? Are universities accountable to the demands of local, national, or international market

economies? Or are universities a place for personal growth and maturation through

transformative learning experiences with societal ideals such as democracy and responsible

citizenship at its core? Are they accountable to the students they serve? I have worked for ten

years at two universities in Ontario in several jobs situated under the SAS umbrella. I believe the


role of university is to foster learning through holistic transformation. I believe in the university

as a place for personal growth and maturation where students learn to be contributing members

of a democratic society. I approach my work as a Student Affairs and Services practitioner this

way. However, with the growing use and influence of performance-based accountability policies

in Ontario I believe SAS divisions and the practitioners within them have been forced to “work

to the performance indicator”. Indeed, according to Reason and Broido (2011), the “new

accountability” movement “change[s] what we do and how we see ourselves professionally.

Student affairs professionals now focus on learning outcomes and creating curricula to guide the

achievement of those outcomes” (p. 92). I believe this brings the mechanistic principles of

performance-based accountability policies in direct conflict with the holistic, transformative

approach of SAS. Therefore, through a historical and theoretical review of performance-based

accountability policies and Student Affairs & Services I argue that the underlying principles of

both are in conflict with each other and therefore create tension in practice.

I am also a realist and understand that the age of accountability has not only arrived but is

here to stay. So in addition to arguing that the tension and conflict exist, I also provide

recommendations on how SAS divisions can organize themselves to positively influence

performance indicators without sacrificing the holistic, transformative ideals we have come to

embrace. I present my argument in three parts. In part one I examine what we mean by

accountability, describe the “new accountability” movement in higher education, and situate the

Ontario context within it. In part two I provide an overview of the theoretical foundations for

and evolution of SAS practice followed by an examination of several dynamics of why tension

and conflict exist between performance-based accountability policies and SAS. In part three, I

provide recommendations on organizational characteristics that I believe will position SAS


divisions to influence performance indicators while still allowing for a holistic, transformative

approach.

ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE ONTARIO CONTEXT

When using the term accountability in higher education there are a multitude of possible

meanings. Burke (2005) states “accountability is the most advocated and least analyzed word in

higher education” (p. 1). The journey through which the meaning of accountability has traversed

is examined below.

Defining Accountability

On a basic level accountability is defined as “an obligation or willingness to accept

responsibility or to account for one’s actions” (“Accountability”, 2015). Conceptually,

accountability can be framed through several questions, “who is accountable to whom, for what

purposes, for whose benefit, by which means, and with what consequences?” (Burke, 2005, p. 2).

Within higher education the answers to these questions changed in the late 1980s to early 1990s.

Prior to the early 1990s the Ontario higher education system was considered elitist, meaning the

number of people who attended postsecondary institutions was below 15% of the population

(Trow, 1973). Institutional accountability and quality were defined primarily in terms of the

resources available by “referring to such indicators as the faculty-student ratio, operating

expenditures per student, the value of library acquisitions, and the amount of capital

expenditures” (Clark et al., 2009, p. 114). However, the convergence of several factors in the

early 1990s transformed how accountability was conceptualized (Hillman et al., 2014;

McLendon, Hearn, & Deaton, 2006; Rutherford & Rabovsky, 2014). Beginning with an

ideological shift towards neo-liberalist social policy, the Ontario government placed greater

emphasis on the belief “in the virtue and infallibility of global markets” (Shanahan, 2009, p. 4).


With the rising popularity of the idea that investment in higher education produced a competitive

advantage in the national and international economy, the government of Ontario increased access

to postsecondary institutions resulting in massification and expansion of the system (Clark et al.,

2009). Of course, with a larger post-secondary system came increased costs to fund it. Pressures

arose, as a consequence of increased cost, for both a “broader conceptualization of accountability

and for the provision of information on university performance to the government and external

stakeholders” (Clark et al., 2009, p. 115).

The “New Accountability” Movement

As economic priorities took centre stage at universities the meaning of accountability

increasingly became defined in market terms. Shanahan (2009) illustrates examples of market

terms used:

Business and private sector criteria are employed to make education decisions. Job

training and meeting labour market needs have become key education priorities.

Economic principles of productivity, efficiency and competitiveness have become

imperatives. And we have seen our accountability frameworks become infused with

market discourse, market principles and market mechanisms. (pp. 4-5)

As a consequence of the reconceptualization, governments and policy-makers turned to

performance-based accountability policies “as the model of choice for resource allocation to

public colleges and universities” (Alexander, 2000, p. 419). The national and international rise

in popularity of performance-based accountability policies has been termed the “new

accountability” movement in higher education (Hillman et al., 2014). These new approaches to

accountability, according to Bruneau and Savage (2002), were billed as a “new wave that would

render old-fashioned statistics obsolete…. A university might boast fine buildings, a celebrated


staff, and an excellent library, but these did not guarantee students would actually learn” (p. 2).

They could not guarantee students were actually learning because they were not measuring if

students had learned. The lack of comparable indicators to measure learning influenced the need

to reform how quality was determined. Rutherford and Rabovsky (2014) summarize the basic

logic of performance-based accountability policies below:

Rather than allocating resources primarily on the basis of inputs such as enrollments,

these reformers seek to shift the funding mechanisms to student outcomes such as

graduation rates and degree production. They argue that, under traditional budget

arrangements, universities have little incentive to care much about student outcomes, and

have thus tended to focus on other priorities including graduate education, research

productivity, and capital investments in new buildings…. By reformulating the

incentives that universities face, so that institutions are rewarded or punished primarily

based on actual performance (outcomes) rather than simple input measures, performance

funding seeks to stimulate shifts in institutional behaviour that will result in greater

efficiency and productivity. (p. 187)

The theoretical principles that performance-based accountability policies embody draw from

“theories of action” (Argyris & Schön, 1996). The first and most prominent theory of action

reflects a resource-dependency perspective wherein “public funding is manipulated to stimulate

market profit incentives that, according to the theory, motivate institutions to improve

performance” (Ziskin, Hossler, Rabourn, Cekic, & Hwang, 2014, p. 14). In addition to resource-

dependency theory, there are three other theories of action that help clarify the behaviour of

institutions:


The second theory of action described supposes that policies persuade institutions to

agree with public policy makers on the importance of improved student outcomes. It

follows then, in the theory, that these institutions change their behaviors to improve

student outcomes. The third theory of action involves raising institutions’ awareness of

their performance, leading naturally to comparisons across institutions that stimulate

institutions’ pride and status-striving and that motivate changes in institutional behaviors

– resulting, theoretically, in improved outcomes. The fourth theory of action…entails

providing institutions with resources to support greater capacity on key performance

indicators and improved practice as learning organizations. (Ziskin et al., 2014, p. 14)

It is important to note the theoretical principles of performance-based accountability policies

because they help to understand why institutions react the way they do. They also aid in

determining how and why the conflict and tension causes shifts in behavior of SAS divisions.

Types of Performance-Based Accountability Policies

The “new accountability” movement has generated three types of performance-based

accountability policies (Burke & Minassians, 2002; COU, 2013; McLendon et al., 2006). The

first type, performance funding, is an approach that links government funding directly to the

performance of institutions on individual indicators. Under these types of policies, “the

relationship between performance and funding is predetermined and prescribed: if an institution

meets a specified performance target, it receives a designated amount or percentage of funding”

(McLendon et al., 2006, p. 2). The best example of this type of policy in practice is in the state

of Tennessee. Tennessee is the only state to have 100% of its institutions’ public funding based

on performance indicators allocated through the state funding formula (Dougherty & Reddy,

2011; Natow, Pheatt, Dougherty, Jones, Lahr, & Reddy, 2014; Ziskin et al., 2014).


Performance budgeting, in contrast, considers institutional performance as only one

factor in determining funding allocations. In this model, “the possibility of additional funding

due to good or improved performance depends solely on the judgment and discretion of state

[provincial], coordinating, or system officials” (Burke & Minassians, 2003, p. 3). Performance

budgeting policies are much more prevalent in practice due to their ‘safer’ characteristics over

performance funding policies (Lang, 2013, p.25). Consequently, there are numerous examples in

use including in twenty one US states (Burke & Minassians, 2003, p. 8), in Australia (Lang,

2013, p. 22), and in Ontario (Ziskin et al., 2014, p. 12).

Lastly, performance reporting policies provide stakeholders with reports and/or indicators

of institutional performance but with no formal links to funding. Therefore, this model “relies on

information and publicity rather than funding or budgeting to encourage colleges and universities

to improve their performance” (Burke & Minassians, 2003, p. 3). This policy option is the most

popular in jurisdictions that implement performance-based accountability policies of some sort.

Burke and Minassians (2003) report that forty six US states (92%) have incorporated some form

of performance reporting (p. 12). Within Canada, all provinces except Nova Scotia, Manitoba,

and Newfoundland have some form of performance reporting (Ziskin et al., 2014, p. 11).

With an understanding of the three types of accountability-based policies currently in use

– performance funding, budgeting, and reporting – let us review the Ontario higher education

performance-based accountability policies.

Performance-Based Accountability in Ontario

Three distinct policies are related to accountability and institutional performance in the

Ontario higher education system – Key Performance Indicators (KPI), Multi-Year

Accountability Agreements (MYAA), and the Differentiation Policy Framework for Higher


Education. Furthermore, two non-policy instruments influence institutions’ behaviour through

accountability-based mechanisms – the Maclean’s annual ranking of universities and the

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE).

Key Performance Indicators

Beginning in 1995 and coinciding with the rise in popularity of “new accountability”

policies, the Ontario government introduced its first performance-based accountability policy,

key performance indicators (KPI). The first iteration of KPIs were a form of performance

reporting because the basic idea was to provide institutional information to students so that they

could make a more informed decision (Lang, 2013). The specific indicators used were

graduation rate, employment rate six months and twenty-four months after graduation, and

default rates on Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) loans. However, soon after

implementation of the KPIs as informational guides, the government decided to link KPIs to a

portion of the annual operating funding of institutions (2%), thus evolving the KPIs from a

performance reporting policy to a performance budgeting policy. The shift in usage for the KPIs

signaled the beginning of the government’s venture into the performance-based accountability

arena for the explicit purpose of aligning institutional behaviour to government priorities (Lang,

2013, p. 7).

Multi-Year Accountability Agreements

In 2005, as a part of the Reaching Higher plan for Ontario higher education (Ontario,

2005), the government launched the Multi-Year Accountability Agreement (MYAA) process.

The policy had three basic features, “to outline the government’s commitment to stable funding,

[to] articulate each institution’s commitment to accessibility, quality improvements and

measurements of results, and [to] tie the commitment to results” (HEQCO, 2009, p. 1). The


MYAAs are a performance budgeting accountability policy because they represent only one

factor in overall institutional funding. In these agreements, the individual institutions indicate

strategies, programs, and performance targets in regard to goals set by the government. After

goals are set, the institutions subsequently report back on the progress of performance in relation

to those goals over a multi-year span. Therefore, “through the goal setting and review process,

the government [was] able to exercise a degree of control over post-secondary institutions that

did not exist before the MYAA process” (Clark et al., 2009, p. 128). By 2009-10 the Reaching

Higher plan was scheduled to end and the MYAAs offered a basis for a revised accountability

framework. However, the government decided to pursue a much larger systemic transformation

in the form of the Differentiation Policy Framework.

Differentiation Policy Framework

In 2013 the government announced its most comprehensive policy yet aimed at system-

wide transformation. The Differentiation Policy Framework has overall goals of increasing

quality, access, productivity, sustainability, and accountability of the higher education sector

(HEQCO, 2013; MTCU, 2013; Weingarten, Hicks, Jonker, & Liu, 2013). Although those

aspects of the system interact and intersect, the specific interest here is the revamped

accountability framework.

Hillman, Tandberg, & Fryar (2014) have observed that “many of the more recent

performance-based policies in higher education have sought to move away from a one-size-fits-

all approach to include a range of performance indicators that value many different types of

student success” (p. 6). In the performance-based policy literature, these types of policies are

known as Performance Funding 2.0:


Performance funding 2.0 programs, while not sacrificing indicators of ultimate outcomes,

also put considerable emphasis on indicators of intermediate achievement: for example,

course completions; successful completion of developmental education courses or

programs; passage of key gateway courses such as college mathematics or college

English. (Dougherty & Reddy, 2011, p. 6)

Including specific performance indicators that measure intermediate outcomes allows for a

greater effect on measuring the difference between individual institutions, as opposed to general,

system-wide indicators. Intermediate performance indicators are important for the Ontario

context because of the wide range of institutions (size, type, location) operating within the

province. The Ontario government understood this discrepancy while designing the

Differentiation Policy Framework. The first step outlined in the policy was to formally negotiate

Strategic Mandate Agreements (SMAs) with the institutions. Institutions outlined their strengths

and areas they planned to focus on as well as indicated specific performance indicators by which

to measure these strengths. Both sides then agreed on a complete, final set of performance

indicators that measures institutions with system-wide metrics and institution specific metrics.

Currently, the Ontario government has signed SMAs with all publically funded postsecondary

institutions. The SMAs are in effect until 2017.

The Differentiation Policy Framework is a type of hybrid accountability framework in

that it is a performance budgeting policy because the performance indicators negotiated provide

only one aspect of overall institutional funding (the base operating grant is still calculated per

full-time enrolments). However, through the SMA exercise, funding formula reform is an

ultimate goal of the government (COU, 2013; HEQCO, 2013; OCUFA, 2013; Ziskin et al.,

2014). Performance-accountability policies that specifically link funding directly to the funding


formula and include performance indicators that attempt to measure intermediate outcomes (as

opposed to just ultimate outcomes like graduation rate) have been termed “performance funding

2.0” (Dougherty & Reddy, 2011). Reforming the Ontario funding formula to fund institutions, in

part, based on outcomes (or performance) would indicate a performance-based funding 2.0

model. Although the government’s intentions are to reform the funding formula, at this point in

time the government is effectively steering the system with mandates through the SMA exercise.

In April 2015 the government of Ontario plans to sit down with all forty-four postsecondary

institutions, as well as representative of employers in Ontario, to begin discussions on funding

formula reform (Chiose, 2015).

Maclean’s University Rankings and the National Survey of Student Engagement

There are two more accountability instruments that are not formal policy initiatives

introduced by the government but nonetheless are important because they exert a certain level of

influence over institutional behaviour. The first instrument is the Maclean’s university rankings.

Maclean’s first published university rankings in 1991 (interestingly this also coincided with the

rise of the “new accountability” movement). Due to the tremendous effect the rankings have on

prospective students they have become quite influential. Universities and colleges are aware that

as soon as anything is measured on a common scale, “there will be a temptation on the part of

some not just to compare one institution against another, but also to place all institutions in an

ordinal fashion depending on the results” (Educational Policy Institute, 2008, p. 1). In other

words, when something is measured, “the results can be ranked, and this creates a certain amount

of trepidation among institutions” (Educational Policy Institute, 2008, p. 1). Over time, this

trepidation from the institutions has evolved from first boycotting the rankings in the early years

to modification of behaviour for the purpose of improving rank (Scott, 2013, p. 117).


The second accountability instrument is the National Survey on Student Engagement

(NSSE). The NSSE is a questionnaire on student engagement and satisfaction that is given to

first-year and fourth-year students every two years. The influence over institutional behaviour

that the NSSE generates is derived from its data organization structure: “NSSE is organized via

consortia, which allows institutions to compare their performance against selected peer

institutions (it is this aspect which makes it popular among administrators, as it fulfills an

important internal benchmarking role without being a ranking instrument)” (Educational Policy

Institute, 2008, p. 1). Both the Maclean’s rankings and the NSSE encompass the third theory of

action through raising institutions’ awareness of their own performance (Argyris & Schön,

1996). This leads to “comparisons across institutions that stimulate institutions’ pride and status-

striving and that motivate changes in institutional behaviours – resulting, theoretically, in

improved outcomes” (Ziskin et al., 2014, p. 14).

This concludes the review of performance-based accountability policies in Ontario, their

underlying theory, and the reconceptualization of accountability as viewed through a “new

accountability” movement lens. What happens when the mechanistic, market-based performance

accountability frameworks of the “new accountability” movement infringe on SAS divisions? I

tackle the answer in the next section.

ACCOUNTABILITY AND STUDENT AFFAIRS AND SERVICES

In part two, I present the theoretical foundations of SAS practice for the purpose of

understanding how the profession has developed to what it is now. Through an understanding of

the theoretical foundation it becomes evident that a tension exists between the principles of

performance-based accountability policies and the principles of SAS. I breakdown the evolution

of SAS practice into two movements – the student development movement and the student


learning movement (Dungy & Gordon, 2011, pp. 91-92). I begin first with a brief definition and

description of Student Affairs & Services.

Defining Student Affairs & Services (SAS)

In regards to SAS this term refers to the administrative areas that “provide support

services that facilitate students’ entry, matriculation, engagement, and ultimately post-secondary

education success” (Seifert et al., 2011, p. 7). Examples of these administrative offices include

enrolment management, admissions, registrar services, financial assistance, scholarship services,

orientation and first-year services, housing and residence life, student judicial affairs, counseling

services, student disability services, health and wellness services, career and employment

services, and student leadership, involvement, and service-learning (Hardy Cox & Strange,

2010).

The Student Development Movement

The student development movement began in the 1970s and steadily evolved toward a

universal acceptance of student development theory as the foundation of the profession (Jones &

Abes, 2011, p. 153). The purpose of student development theory is to guide the work of SAS

professionals through describing how students “change and grow during college and what

activities or experiences best influence that growth” (Reason & Broido, 2011, p. 91). It

encompasses a wide range of more specific theories aimed at understanding three basic

developments: “(a) how students’ psychosocial identity formation evolves across the lifespan, (b)

how students make meaning of their experiences through advancement of cognitive-structural

development, and, (c) how students acquire a consistency of approach through development of

personal preferences, styles, and types” (Strange, 2009, p. 20).


As the movement evolved further, it became clear to SAS professionals that student

success is only partially a function of individual development. Therefore, operating under the

assumption that student behaviour and development are functions of both the person and the

environment (Evans & Reason, 2001), a second set of theories emerged from student

development theories but with a particular focus on the campus environment and how it

contributes to student success (Renn & Patton, 2011; Strange, 2009). Campus environment

theory encompasses four essential elements: “its physical components and design; its dominant

human characteristics; the organizational structures that serve its purposes; and participants’

construction of its presses, social climate, and culture” (Strange, 2009, p. 28). It is within these

theoretical constructs that SAS organizational and structural approaches to student success exist.

According to Renn and Patton (2011), campus environment models “offer valuable theoretical

insight into current challenges facing student affairs administrators in an era of increasing

accountability and emphasis on institutional ‘productivity’” (p. 253). Furthermore, “abundant

evidence links campus climate to student retention and graduation rates, a key component of

productivity” (p. 253), as well as chief indicators used in performance accountability policies.

Campus environment theory played a central role in the design of SAS divisions in the

1970s but slowed by the 1980s. In the mid-1990s it was reinvigorated due to several converging

factors which included a reconceptualization of SAS practice, the rising popularity and use of

performance indicators, and the emergence of the “new accountability” era. In the next section I

expand on this point but first it is important to understand that, although the movements I am

discussing proceed through time in a linear fashion, SAS theory itself is additive. Therefore,

each movement is superimposed on the one previous.


The Student Learning Movement

According to Reason and Broido (2011), “the student development movement has pushed

us as student affairs professionals to see ourselves as educators concerned about holistic student

growth and development” (p. 92). This reconceptualization triggered a shift in how SAS

professionals view themselves and their work and, as a result, effectively launched the student

learning movement. In Canada the main organization for SAS professionals, the Canadian

Association of College and University Student Services (CACUSS) published the Mission of

Student Services (1989) just as both the learning movement and the “new accountability”

movement were gaining steam. Listed in the document is an essential premise that coincides

with the reconceptualization of SAS:

Student Services professionals are educators. They have knowledge and expertise

about students that makes them an invaluable resource in the students’ educational

experience. The expertise of Student Services professionals is important in creating the

climate to help students develop the necessary skills to optimize their learning

opportunities. (CACUSS, 1989)

One might argue Canadian SAS professionals were one step ahead of their US counterparts in

the reconceptualization of the profession. It wasn’t until 1994 when the American College

Personnel Association (ACPA) (1994) published the seminal work The Student Learning

Imperative that, for the first time in the US, clearly situated learning (and not service) at the

forefront of SAS practice.

The concept of linking student development and learning together to form the

foundations of SAS practice gained momentum throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s (AAHE,

1998; UNESCO, 2002). In 2004 the publication of Learning Reconsidered (Keeling, 2004)


marked a further advancement of SAS practice through the addition and application of

transformative learning theory (Mezirow, 2000).

Through the use of transformative learning theory, Keeling (2004) contends that

“transformative education places the student’s reflective processes at the core of the learning

experience and asks the student to evaluate both new information and the frames of reference

through which the information acquires meaning” (p. 9). Furthermore, through transformative

learning theory, the purpose of the educational involvement of SAS is the evolution and

development of student identity including but not limited to their cognitive, affective, behavioral,

and spiritual identities (Keeling, 2004, p. 9). Therefore, in addition to academic learning (in

class), the critical element that transformative learning theory brings to SAS practice is the

conceptual uniting of learning, development, and identity formation. Transformative learning

theory recognizes the “essential integration of personal development with learning; it reflects the

diverse ways through which students may engage, as whole people with multiple dimensions and

unique personal histories, with the tasks and content of learning” (Keeling, 2004, p. 3). SAS

practice then parallels the academic mission and becomes a type of experiential pedagogy (Fried,

2012). Learning is now a holistic endeavour through which SAS professionals are nicely

situated to aid in the acquiring and refining of life skills, the same life skills that can positively

affect learning outcomes and student engagement survey results that are used in performance

indicators.

Currently, SAS practice operates within a holistic, transformative framework rooted in

the belief that a university’s purpose is to educate and guide students’ growth and maturity so

they may be active contributors in a democratic society. However, as I discuss in the next


section, performance-based accountability policies operate under a mechanistic (Taylor,

2007/1911) framework. At a fundamental level there appears to be conflict between the two.

Conflict and Tension

Performance-based accountability policies and SAS originate from divergent, even

contradictory philosophies. This creates conflict and tension in practice. According to the

Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA, 2006),

critics of performance indicators [PI] have expressed a wide range of concerns about how

PIs are used to measure performance in universities today. PIs and the accountability

movement in general have been characterized as a means of implementing public funding

cuts while asserting greater government control over previously autonomous

institutions…. They express concern about an over reliance on quantitative indicators

that serve as a poor proxy for quality and neglect those elements of academia that cannot

be reduced to a simple indicator. (p.8)

What values, beliefs, assumptions, and philosophies are at play in SAS and performance

accountability policies that create conflict and tension? To answer this question I provide an in-

depth examination of the issue through four dynamics – fundamental designs, differing

paradigms, separate conceptions of process, and organizational theory.

To begin with, tension arises from the fact that SAS practice, as conceptualized through

transformative learning theory (Mezirow, 2000), has an organic, fluid, holistic approach that is

quite often very difficult to measure in quantitative terms. The SAS practitioner approaches

education as an instrument for democracy, for citizenship, for personal discovery. Performance

accountability policies, in contrast, are mechanistic (Taylor, 2007/1912). They measure

performance through standardization of ranking, ratios, and percentages and are concerned with


routinization, efficiency, productivity, and performativity. They approach education as an

instrument for economic competitiveness with emphasis on the technical aspect of learning.

Performance-based accountability policies include performance indicators that are “imbued with

a consumer ideology that encourages the view of education as a commodity” (Shanahan, 2009, p.

9). An inherent assumption within performance indicators (and performance-based

accountability policies) is that as “larger and larger numbers of students enrol in universities, and

as substantial tuition becomes a fact of life for more and more of these students, higher education

is viewed as a consumer good, with a degree or credential or a job as essential outcomes for all

students” (Eaton, 2013, p.131). Under this assumption the purpose of university shifts from

operating within the social (development) and educational (learning) domains to a mechanistic

domain. In other words, “the idea is to make graduates as employable as soon as possible….

Universities thus become cheap training centres for industry…. This has little or nothing to

do with education, but everything to do with markets and management” (Bruneau & Savage,

2002, p. 57). Through standardized and routinized performance indicators and performance-

based accountability policies, universities are stripped of their humanistic and cultural aspects,

and ultimately their autonomy.

Second, at the very basic level the conflict and tension between performance-based

accountability policies and SAS divisions can be understood through differences in philosophical

worldviews. A worldview is defined as a paradigm, or lens, through which experiences are

viewed to interpret, construct, and determine meaning and understanding. Performance-based

accountability policies are derived from the positivist worldview where institutions (and

departments and divisions within them) are assumed to be linear, objectivist, hierarchical, and

measureable (Fried, 2012, p. 49); in a word mechanistic. On the other hand, SAS practice is


derived from the constructivist worldview where the focus is on relationships and perspectives.

Constructivism tends to be nonlinear, interactive, and unpredictable, and described in terms of

probabilities. It operates in a web-like fashion and looks for interactive patterns and trends rather

than unidirectional cause and effect; in a word human. According to Fried (2012), the dominant

paradigm in SAS incorporates constructivism by focusing on inquiry into such areas as identity

formation through “increasingly complex forms, intra- and interpersonal competence, practical

competence, persistence and academic achievement, humanitarianism, and civic engagement” (p.

62). The positivist paradigm is scientific in nature and therefore sees truth as unchanging; it

views basic reality as a physical entity so it can be “measured, counted and seen, touched, or

apprehended in some other physical modality” (Fried, 2012, p. 49). By applying positivist

assumptions to performance indicators that measure student success an inconsistency develops.

One of the major discrepancies between performance-based accountability policies and

the practice of SAS is in how each conceptualizes student success. Performance-based

accountability policies focus on “numerical measurements that are supposed to show ‘quality’.

They are increasingly focused on outputs in order to facilitate comparisons” (Shanahan, 2009,

p.10). Performance indicators, therefore, lack an explanation of the process involved in

achieving student success. They are unable to ask how and why a student is learning. As a

result of this oversight performance indicators are referred to as “over-simplistic” (Lang, 2005, p.

18), “reductionist” (Shanahan, 2009, p. 11), and “narrow” (Bruneau & Savage, 2002, p. 4).

Performance indicators over-simplify the total amount of effort and work students, SAS

practitioners, and faculty put forth to achieve student success.

Conversely, SAS practitioners view student success in a more incremental process

through the continued achievement of multiple goals throughout the students’ career. Through


this conception success is more than a solitary outcome of completing a credential (degree,

diploma, or certificate). Instead, success is defined in terms of “setting and achieving academic

AND personal goals, developing life skills, becoming career ready, and igniting a passion for

lifelong learning” (Seifert, 2015, para. 3). Success is not seen as an end itself but as the

accumulation of learning throughout the journey. Seifert (2015) suggests that policy makers “re-

orient their notion of success from that of a discrete outcome (credential completion) to one that

recognizes success in the decisions students make and the opportunities they seek that place them

in good stead towards a long term goal” (para. 4). This is a difficult task as performance

indicators would need to somehow measure success as a journey through the decisions and

opportunities students face. The Differentiation Policy Framework, and its performance funding

2.0 orientation, is attempting to reconcile this issue through the Strategic Mandate Agreement

(SMA) exercise with the use of negotiated performance indicators between institutions and the

government that focus on incremental measures of student success in areas of engagement and

satisfaction (MTCU, 2013, p. 14).

Finally, the last dynamic I explore involves insights from organization theory. Through

the organization theory lens, the tension and conflict occur because SAS and performance-based

accountability policies operate on what Strange (2009) describes as two opposite ends of the

organizational continuum, “at one end are dynamically organized environments: flexible in

design, less centralized, and informal; at the other end are static environments: rigid, centralized,

and formal” (p. 27). Bolman and Deal (1997) developed the four-frame model which provides

an understanding of how organizations operate through interpretive lenses – structural, human

resource, political, and symbolic.


Performance-based accountability policies operate within and are interpreted through the

structural frame. The structural frame can best be illustrated through the use of the machine

metaphor (Morgan, 1997) and assumes there is a rational system in place where approaches to

organization are standardized and routinized. Performance indicators operate under the

assumption that individual institutional measurements are equally weighted (however the weight

may be defined). This is not always the case. For example Tam (2001) illustrates the difficulty

of measuring institutional quality with performance indicators:

It examines the quality of education provision against the expressed aspirations of the

individual institution. If the institution has high aspirations, quality is to be measured

against this yardstick. That might make it more difficult for a university to succeed than

another which set itself lower aspirations. Taken to absurdity, a university which aspired

to produce rubbish, and succeeded, would be of higher quality than a university which

claimed intellectual excellence, but narrowly failed. (p. 50)

If I were to apply this logic to the Ontario system it would be like measuring and then ranking

the quality of the educational experience at a large central urban university compared to a small

rural northern university. I am not saying that any university strives to produce rubbish, just that

there are several other factors at play (including the culture of a university) that distinguish the

quality of an educational experience for which performance indicators are not able to

numerically measure. As a consequence of the difficulties in measuring institutional intangibles

such as culture, the structural frame “tends to dominate, down playing the role of emotions and

completely ignoring unconscious processes that may be shaping organizational behavior and

functioning” (Kezar, 2011, p. 239).


In contrast to the structural frame, SAS divisions exist within and are interpreted through

the human resources frame (Bolman & Deal, 1997). The commonly used metaphor illustrating

this frame is of a family (Morgan, 1997). SAS leaders and practitioners who use the human

resource frame “see themselves as serving and supporting others in the organization” (Komvies,

2011, p. 363). They seem to “possess an egalitarian ethic among different groups on campus”

(Kezar, 2011, p. 233). Additionally, they concentrate on growth and engagement of students

through focusing on their motivation, needs, commitment, and learning (Kezar, 2011, p. 228).

Tull and Freeman (2011) conducted a study of 478 SAS administrators and found that the human

resource frame is their frame of choice (p. 39). Their findings are not surprising given the

collaborative and humanistic nature of SAS work.

The multiple dynamics presented above paint a clear picture of conflict and tension

between performance-based accountability policies and SAS. As a consequence, SAS

practitioners are forced to justify their work in terms of its relevance to the economy. They must

show how their departments, offices, programs, services, workshops, and activities provide

students with the skills needed by industry. Therefore, performance-based accountability

policies redefine SAS priorities. To the extent that these accountability policies accomplish the

reordering of SAS priorities, they undermine the holistic, transformative approach. However,

SAS practitioners are resilient! In responding to the call for greater accountability, “student

affairs professionals have continued their focus on learning outcomes and assessment in order to

demonstrate student affairs programs and services’ valuable contributions to the development of

the whole student” (Dungy & Gordon, 2011, p. 74). Performance indicators and performance-

based accountability are a major component of the Differentiation Policy Framework in Ontario

(MTCU, 2013): the age of accountability is firmly entrenched. Furthermore, the government of


Ontario plans to expand performance-based funding policies with the intent of attaching greater

financial incentives to performance indicators (COU, 2013; HEQCO, 2013; OCUFA, 2013;

Ziskin et al., 2014). It becomes beneficial for SAS divisions to accept performance-based

accountability policies as the norm and to develop their divisions to best succeed in an

accountability era. In part three of the paper I outline several organizational recommendations

towards this end.

ACCOUNTABILITY AND ORGANIZATION OF SAS

My final aim is to provide recommendations on the organization of SAS divisions.

Within the “new accountability” era the assumption that SAS divisions aid in the transformative

development and learning of students is not good enough. We need to prove it. But simply

providing proof is not good enough either. We need to go one step further. We are now required

to show how this proof improves overall institutional performance as measured through

performance indicators incorporated within performance-based accountability policies. How can

SAS practitioners reduce the conflict and tension apparent between their own mandate and the

mandates of performance accountability to aid in institution and student success? To answer this

question I provide recommendations on three distinct, yet interrelated, aspects of SAS

organizational characteristics – the inclusion of students in governance, assessment, and

leadership.

The Inclusion of Students

In the beginning of the paper I provided a conception of accountability through a series of

questions. One of those questions was: to whom should universities be held accountable? The

answer to that question is often assumed to be the government and the tax paying public. Does it


not, however, make sense to also include students? A recent report from the Ontario University

Students Association (2014) asked the same question:

If all those who fund post-secondary institutions are those to whom institutions must be

held accountable…then there is no reason that institutions should not also be held

accountable to their students…. And yet there has been no serious discussion about how

universities can be held accountable to both the public at large and to their students. (pp.

5-6)

The Ontario University Students Association report points to a general lack of meaningful

student participation in the governance of universities in Ontario. Narrowing the focus to SAS

governance, the same general lack of student participation exists as well. To me this seems

contradictory to the transformative, holistic approach to learning from which we as SAS

practitioners have conceptualized our field.

In terms of the type of SAS governance I am referring to, I am not suggesting that student

representatives be placed next to the Senior Student Affairs and Services Officer (SSASO) and

participate in daily decision-making. I am suggesting that students and SAS practitioners work

together to decide on and develop learning outcomes that should be achieved through the

participation and engagement of students in SAS programs, workshops, activities, etc. Through

collaboration on the development of learning outcomes, both SAS practitioners and students

accept responsibility for setting priorities and ensuring their achievement. This collaborative

dynamic is particularly important in the “new accountability” era because successful completion

of learning outcomes directly impacts performance indicators such as engagement and

satisfaction metrics, which are in turn used in measuring institutional performance at the system


level. The Differentiation Policy Framework specifically mentions satisfaction and engagement

within the teaching and learning component of proposed metrics (MTCU, 2013, p. 14).

Furthermore, collaboration between students and SAS practitioners in developing

learning outcomes emphasizes transformative, holistic learning through incorporating “reflective

practices that include provocative questions and stimulate students’ assessments of their own

meaning making” (King & Baxter Magolda, 2011, p. 215). SAS divisions become truly student-

centred divisions and, as Strange and Hardy Cox (2009) point out, “if ever there were a first

principle that frames both what we do and why we do what we do as student services

professionals, this would be it” (p. 238).

Assessment

In an era of increased institutional accountability it only makes sense that SAS divisions hold

themselves accountable as well. For SAS divisions this means asking two questions: 1. What

are we doing to facilitate student success; 2. How are we doing in meeting this goal? According

to the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario’s (HEQCO) Second Annual Report (2009)

the second most common category cited by institutions for addressing and tracking quality was

based on social aspects of student success. The report goes on to define social aspects:

“surveying students for satisfaction in their first and last years; the development of new social

services programs and activities; tracking participation in student services including academic,

personal and career training; tracking participation in orientation/transition programs; and

participation in social events” (HEQCO, 2009, p. 121). This is encouraging because it proves

that institutions are interested in the contributions that SAS divisions make to the overall

educational experience. It also, however, requires SAS divisions to have their own assessment

procedures in place.


Keeling, Wall, Underhile, and Dungy (2008) acknowledge that “assessment is integral to,

perhaps even synonymous with, learning” (p. 6). This is an excellent observation because it re-

conceptualizes assessment, a naturally mechanistic procedure, to fit nicely into the

transformative, holistic approach of SAS:

When one realizes that to learn is to make meaning of events (notice: learning is not just

acquiring and applying new knowledge; it encompasses the transformative process of

making meaning of that knowledge), then, the full breadth of what it means “to learn”

can be understood and conceptualized. Based on that premise, to assess (which is to

observe) then is the foundation of learning. Just as we ask students to make meaning – to

learn – from their experiences, so too must we make meaning of their learning. (Keeling

et al., 2008, p. 6)

Assessment practice can, therefore, be viewed as a form of critical reflection of the learning that

has taken place by both students and SAS divisions. Re-conceptualizing assessment practice in

this way, therefore, alleviates the tension and conflict between SAS divisions and performance-

based accountability policies. The use of performance-based accountability policies makes it

important to embrace assessment practice now more than ever. After all, “making meaning of

how, what, when, and where students learn is a vital, exciting, and inspiring component of higher

education” (Keeling et al., 2008, p. 6).

Leadership

The Student Affairs and Services Senior Officer (SASSO) is situated in the best position

to effect change. At the same time, the SASSO is also in the best (or worst?) position to observe

the conflict and tension between performance-based accountability policies and the divisions

they run. Kezar (2004), through a leadership lens, posits: what is more effective to improving


overall governance of higher education institutions? Organizational structures and processes, or

relationships and trust? Answering this question is beyond the scope of this paper, but the

question itself portrays the tension and conflict between performance-based accountability

policies and SAS divisions nicely. On one end, there are the rigid, mechanistic, tangible,

structures and processes. On the other end, the fluid, organic, intangible aspects of relationships

and trust. To allow SAS practitioners to practice a transformative, holistic approach as well as

“work to the performance indicator” the SSASO needs to incorporate aspects of both sides.

Therefore, there are two dynamics to leadership that I provide recommendations for. The first

dynamic consists of the relationship and trust aspect. The second consists of the organizational

structures and processes aspect.

Leading SAS divisions through relationships and trust fundamentally involves the

philosophical approach that the SSASOs apply to their practice. The type of leadership practice

that I believe would best allow the SSASO to lead with transformative, holistic principles at the

centre is called transformative leadership (Shields, 2011). Transformative leadership emphasizes

“the need for education to focus both on academic excellence and on social transformation”

(Shields, 2011, p. 3). Shields defines transformative leadership as beginning with “questions of

justice and democracy; it critiques inequitable practices and offers the promise not only of

greater individual achievement but of a better life lived in common with others” (p. 559). The

historical foundations of the theory evolved from Burns’ (1978) conception of leadership as a

transformative force and takes seriously Freire’s (1998) belief “that education is not the ultimate

lever for social transformation, but without it transformation cannot occur” (p. 37).

Transformative leaders are people oriented; they build relationships and develop goals

and identify strategies for their accomplishment. Therefore, the essential work of the


transformative leader is to “create learning contexts or communities in which social, political,

and cultural capital is enhanced in such a way as to provide equity of opportunity for students as

they take their place as contributing members of society” (Shields, 2010, p. 572).

The second aspect of leadership deals with organizational structures and processes. The

recommendations I make for organizational structures and processes draw from campus

ecology/environment theory (Renn & Patton, 2011; Strange, 2009) and are situated within a

student-centred model for SAS divisions. My first recommendation for the SSASO is that the

connections and contributions to the university mission must be clearly communicated not only

in an upwards fashion to senior administrators, but also in a downwards fashion to practitioners

within the division. SAS practitioners who can connect their day-to-day work to the overall

mission of the university are better situated to understand the purpose and importance of what

they are doing.

A second recommendation for the SASSO concerns the physical organization of the SAS

division. SAS divisions are horizontal in nature because they address the needs of all students in

all schools. The identification of desired learning outcomes within SAS divisions, then, creates

“a new horizontal force – accountability for producing a group of outcomes for all students”

(Keeling, Underhile, & Wall, 2007, p. 25). Furthermore, this horizontal force “challenges

student affairs leadership to adopt a curricular approach to the assessment, conceptualization,

planning, implementation, and evaluation of programmatic and student learning outcomes” (p.

25). According to a study of 278 SAS practitioners and 14 SASSOs by Seifert et al. (2011):

A student-focused approach to the organizational structure was often characterized by

departments that serve similar or complimentary functions or address common student

issues and concerns being grouped together in a unit such that students were more likely


to have a seamless experience. To the extent that it was practical, a student-focused

approach to the structure physically located these departments in close proximity. (p. 24)

This physical placement of SAS offices and departments is popularly called a “one stop shop” at

universities in Canada and the US and is an organizational strategy that I strongly recommend.

I realize the above recommendations may be outside the purview of the SSASO due to

financial restrictions, space constraints, or institutional limitations. Nonetheless, research has

illustrated these designs increase student success (Keeling, Underhile, & Wall, 2007; Seifert et

al., 2011), and therefore, I believe should be implemented if possible.

Conclusion rising

Beginning in the early 1990s a “new accountability” movement in higher education arose

out of increased pressure for a broader conceptualization of accountability and greater

transparency on university performance. As a result, the meaning of accountability was re-

conceptualized towards market mechanisms focused on productivity, efficiency, and

competitiveness. The framework of choice for governments in a “new accountability” era

became performance-based accountability policies. Within Ontario, Key Performance

Indicators, Multi-Year Accountability Agreements, and the Differentiation Policy Framework

represented differing forms and degrees of performance-based accountability policies. The

fundamental principles underlying these policies denote mechanistic characteristics and

approaches to higher education. Contrasting the view of marketization and mechanization of

higher education, SAS divisions fundamentally operate on a transformative, holistic level under

the assumption that a university’s purpose is to develop successful democratic citizens through

the combination of learning and development, in addition to developing skilled graduates who

are prepared to enter the workforce. This has caused conflict and tension between SAS divisions


and the application of performance-based accountability policies on institutions of which they

are a part of. Through performance-based accountability policies, the SAS practitioner works

“toward the performance indicator”. But how does the mechanistic, quantifiable performance

indicator measure the intangibles of education—critical thinking, creativity, maturation, and

emotional growth?

The age of accountability is here. Fortunately, the student affairs profession has been

“nimble and has adapted to institutional missions and the needs of students” in the past (Dungy

& Gordon, 2011, p. 75). SAS practitioners must now adapt once more to the demands of the

“new accountability” movement. Fried (2012) metaphorically describes the educational mission

of the SAS profession as “border crossing” (p. 108). The idea is that SAS practitioners help

students cross borders between living (their development) and learning (their education). In

doing so, SAS practitioners cross borders themselves, from service providers to joining faculty

as educators. Performance-based accountability policies represent another border that needs to

be crossed to reduce the conflict and tension. Accomplishing this will allow SAS practitioners to

not only continue providing holistic, transformative learning opportunities to students, but will

provide a holistic, transformative learning experience for themselves as well.


References

Accountability. (2015). In Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. Retrieved from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/inter?dest=/dictionary/accountability

Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing

institutional performance in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 411-431.

American Association of Higher Education (AAHE). (1998). Powerful partnerships: A shared

responsibility for learning. Washington, DC: Authors.

American College Personnel Association (ACPA). (1994). The student learning imperative:

Implications for student affairs. Retrieved from

http://www.myacpa.org/sites/default/files/ACPA%27s%20Student%20Learning%20Impe

rative.pdf

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, methods, and practice.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bruneau, W. A., & Savage, D. C. (2002). Counting out the scholars: How performance

indicators undermine universities and colleges. Toronto, ON: James Lorimer & Co. Ltd.

Retrieved from

https://www.academia.edu/2562310/Counting_out_the_scholars_How_performance_indi

cators_undermine_universities_and_colleges

Burke, J. C., & Minassians, H. (2003). Real accountability or accountability ‘lite’: Seventh

annual survey, 2003. Rockefeller Institute of Government. Albany, NY. Retrieved from

https://www.soe.vt.edu/highered/files/Perspectives_PolicyNews/07-03/7thSurvey.pdf


Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Canadian Association of College and University Student Services (CACUSS). (1989). The

mission of student services. Retrieved from

http://www.cacuss.ca/publications_mission_student.htm

Choise, S. (2015, March 12). New funding formula for Ontario universities to include input

from employers. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/new-funding-formula-for-ontario-

universities-to-include-input-from-

employers/article23442771/?ts=150313092306&ord=1

Clark, I. D., Moran, G., Skolnik, M. L., & Trick, D. (2009). Academic transformation: The

forces reshaping higher education in Ontario. Montreal and Kingston: Queen’s Policy

Studies Series, McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Council of Ontario Universities (COU). (2013). Performance-based funding. Retrieved from

http://www.cou.on.ca/publications/reports/pdfs/cou-background-paper---performance-

based-funding--

Dougherty, K. J., & Reddy, V. (2011). The impacts of state performance funding systems on

higher education institutions: Research literature review and policy recommendations.

CCRC Working Paper No. 37. Community College Research Center, Columbia

University. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/impacts-

state-funding-higher-education.pdf

Dungy, G., & Gordon, S. A. (2011). The development of student affairs. In In J. H. Schuh, S. R.

Jones, & S.R. Harper (Eds.), Student Services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 61-79).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


Educational Policy Institute. (2008). Producing indicators of institutional quality in Ontario

universities and colleges: Options for producing, managing and displaying comparative

data. Toronto, ON: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Retrieved from

http://higheredstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Quality_Indicators.pdf

Eaton, J. (2013). Rankings, new accountability tools, and quality assurance. In P.T.M.

Marope, P.J. Wells & E. Hazelkorn (Eds.), Rankings and accountability in higher

education: Uses and misuses (pp. 113-127). Paris, France: United Nations Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Retrieved from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002207/220789e.pdf

Evans, N. J., & Reason, R. D. (2001). Guiding principles: A review and analysis of student

affairs philosophical statements. Journal of College Student Development, 42(4), 359-

377.

Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham,

MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Fried, J. (2012). Transformative learning through engagement: Student affairs practice

as experiential pedagogy. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Hardy Cox, D., & Strange, C. C. (2010). Achieving student success: Effective student

services in Canadian higher education. Montreal, QB: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO). (2013). Quality: Shifting the focus. A

report from the expert panel to assess the strategic mandate agreement submissions.

Toronto, ON: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO). (2012). The productivity of the Ontario

public postsecondary system preliminary report. Toronto, ON: Higher Education Quality


Council of Ontario.

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO). (2009). Second annual review and

research plan. Toronto, ON: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Retrieved

from http://www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/Second%20Annual%20Review%

20and%20Research%20Plan.pdf

Hillman, N. W., Tandberg, D. A., & Gross, J. P. K. (2014). Performance funding in higher

education: Do financial incentives impact college completions?. The Journal of Higher

Education, (85)6, 826-857.

Jones, S.R., & Abes, E.S. (2011). The nature and uses of theory. In J. H. Schuh, S. R. Jones, &

S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student Services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 149-167). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Keeling, R. P., Wall, A. F., Underhile, R., & Dungy, G. J. (2008). Assessment reconsidered:

Institutional effectiveness for student success. USA: International Center for Student

Success & Institutional Accountability.

Keeling, R. P., Underhile, R., & Wall, A. F. (2007). Horizontal and vertical structures: The

dynamics in higher education. Liberal Education, 93(4), 22-31.

Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2004). Learning reconsidered. Washington, DC: American College

Personnel Association and National Association of Student Affairs Professionals.

Retrieved from

http://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/Learning_Reconsidered_Report.pdf

Kezar, A. (2011). Organization theory. In J.H. Schuh, S.R. Jones, &

S.R. Harper (Eds.), Student Services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 226-241). San



Kezar, A. (2004). What is more important to effective governance: Relationships, trust, and

leadership, or structures and formal processes?. New directions for higher education,

(127), 35-46. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/he.154/abstract

King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2011). Student learning. In J. H. Schuh, S. R. Jones, &

S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student Services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 207-225). San


Komvies, S. R. (2011). Leadership. In J. H. Schuh, S. R. Jones, & S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student

Services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 353-371). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lang, D . W. (2013). Performance funding: Past, present and future. CUPA/ MTCU/ HEQCO

day. January 9, 2013. Retrieved from

http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/lhae/Programs/Higher_Education/Past_Seminar_Presentatio

ns.html

McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Deaton, R. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins

and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1-24.

Mezirow, J., & Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on

a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass

Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities (MTCU). (November, 2013). Ontario’s

differentiation policy framework for postsecondary education. Retrieved from

http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/pepg/publications/PolicyFramework_PostSec.pdf

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Natow, R. S., Pheatt, L., Dougherty, K. J., Jones, S. M., Lahr, H., & Reddy, V. (2014).

Institutional changes to organizational policies, practices, and programs following the

adoption of state-level performance funding policies. CCRC Working Paper Number 76.

Community College Research Center. Columbia University, NY. Retrieved from

http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/institutional-changes-following-

performance-funding-policies.pdf

Ontario. Ministry of Finance. (2005). 2005 Ontario budget: Investing in people, strengthening

our economy. Toronto: Author. Retrieved from

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2005/pdf/bke1.pdf

Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA). (May, 2006). The

measured academic quality controls in Ontario universities. OCUFA Research Paper.

Retrieved from http://ocufa.on.ca/assets/Measured_Academic_May_2006.pdf

Ontario University Student Alliance (OUSA). (2014). Policy paper: Accountability. Retrieved

from http://www.ousa.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Accountability-Fall-

2014.pdf

Reason, R.D., & Broido, E.M. (2011). Philosophies and values. In J.H. Schuh, S.R. Jones, &

S.R. Harper (Eds.), Student Services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 80-95). San


Renn, K. A., & Patton, L. D. (2011). Campus ecology and environments. In J.H. Schuh, S.R.

Jones, & S.R. Harper (Eds.), Student Services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 242-

256). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Scott, P. (2013). Ranking higher education institutions: A critical perspective. In P.T.M.


Marope, P.J. Wells & E. Hazelkorn (Eds.), Rankings and accountability in higher

education: Uses and misuses (pp. 113-127). Paris, France: United Nations Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Retrieved from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002207/220789e.pdf

Seifert, T. A. (2015, January 26). Thoughts from space; wisdom on Earth [Web log post].

Retrieved from https://supportingstudentsuccess.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/thoughts-

from-space-wisdom-on-earth/

Seifert, T.A., & Burrow, J. (2013). Perceptions of student affairs and services practitioners in

Ontario’s post-secondary institutions: An examination of colleges and universities.

Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43(2), 132-148.

Seifert, T. A., Arnold, C., Burrow, J., & Brown, A. (2011). Supporting student success:

The role of student services within Ontario’s postsecondary institutions. Toronto, ON:

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Retrieved from

http://www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/Supporting%20Student%20SuccessENG.

pdf

Shanahan, T. (2009). Accountability initiatives in higher education: An overview of the impetus

to accountability, its expressions and implications. In Accounting or accountability in

higher education: Proceedings from the January 8, 2009 OCUFA conference (pp. 3–15).

Retrieved from http://edu.apps01.yorku.ca/news/wp-content/uploads/shanahan-ocufa-

articlesmarch10094.pdf

Shields, C. M. (2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 558-589. doi:10.1177/0013161X10375609

Shields, C. M. (2011). Transformative leadership: A reader. New York, NY: Peter Lang.


Strange, C. C. (2009). Theoretical foundation of student services. In D. Hardy Cox & C. C.

Strange (Eds.), Achieving Student Success: Effective Student Services in Canadian

Higher Education. (pp. 18-32). Montreal, QB: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Sullivan, B. (2009). Organizing, leading, and managing student services. In D. Hardy Cox & C.

C. Strange (Eds.), Achieving Student Success: Effective Student Services in Canadian

Higher Education. (pp. 165-191). Montreal, QB: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Tam, M. (2001). Measuring quality and performance in education. Quality in Higher Education,

43(1), 47-54. doi:10.1080/13538320120045076

Taylor, F. W. (2007/1912). Scientific Management. In D. S. Pugh (Ed.),

Organization theory: Selected classic readings (5th

ed.) (pp. 275-295). London, UK:

Penguin. (Original work published 1912).

Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. Carnegie

Commission on Higher Education Reprint.

Tull, A., & Freeman, J. P. (2011). Reframing student affairs leadership: An analysis of

organizational frames of reference and locust of control. Research in the Schools, 18(1),

33-43.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2002). The role

of student affairs and services in higher education: A practical manual for developing,

implementing and assessing student affairs programmes and services. Paris, France:

UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001281/128118e.pdf

Weingarten, H. P., Hicks, M., Jonker, L., & Liu, S. (2013). The diversity of Ontario’s

universities:A data set to inform the differentiation discussion. Toronto, ON: Higher

Education Quality Council of Ontario.


Ziskin, M.B., Hossler, D., Rabourn, K., Cekic, O., & Hwang, Y. (2014). Outcomes-Based

Funding: Current Status, Promising Practices and Emerging Trends. Toronto, ON:

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.

Date post:	19-Feb-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phil-alexander
View:	93 times
Download:	0 times