A dialog on establishing and/or improving measures of accountability in higher education is occurring with greater frequency. Successful for-profit higher education companies may be the scourge of traditional academic institutions, but their measures of faculty, staff and administrator performance might be something to envy. For some schools, particularly tuition-driven non-profit institutions, a re-engineering of how success and accountability are measured just may provide the foundation for transformation. While we probably want to avoid a standard Department of Education established universal measurement on accountability having a general outline of what to measure will be helpful. For example, many institutions do not use key performance metrics for staff while some struggle to establish this process and others do not know where to begin.

The Spellings Report, "A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of US Higher Education" addressed the lack of responsibility for student success:

"Among high school graduates who do make it on to postsecondary education, a troubling number waste time—and taxpayer dollars—mastering English and math skills that they should have learned in high school. And some never complete their degrees at all, at least in part because most colleges and universities don’t accept responsibility for making sure that those they admit actually succeed."

Graduation rates are a key indicator that a complete re-engineering on accountability in higher education is critical. According to the NCES Enrollment Report released 4/2007 based on a graduating cohort from 1999, graduation rates in higher education undergraduate institutions were as follows:

4 Years – 35%

5 Years – 52%

6 Years – 57%

We must first acknowledge that these statistics are terrible. Sadly, and as the Spellings report implies, this will be a point some argue. Second, we must consider the financial impact on students and families as follows:

1. Students who begin studies and never complete

2. Students who start and stop

There is a tremendous economic impact on society when large percentages of students begin studies, take on loans and do not receive the credential that will lead to higher earnings. For students who start and stop they will simply pay more for their education unnecessarily.

We believe retention begins in enrollment. Enrollment policies that admit students based on meeting acceptance criteria alone are just one part of a complex retention and graduation rate problem.

Establishing universal measures in education is no small task. Middle managers in institutions may lack training and skills to embark on this journey. Further lacking may be the ability to recognize and act on their professional shortcomings. Transitioning from a low or no measurement culture to an organizational culture with performance indicators and measurements for success require a collaborative approach and 100% engagement from the community in order to ensure broad adoption. This type of transformation requires leadership adopt an authentic, open and collaborative approach with staff provided with direction and empowerment to act to achieve the goals of transformation.

In her article, "A Realistic Approach to Management" Marta Perez Drake points out "As a core framework of metrics evolves, institution leaders must then explicitly state what the desired outcomes are, determine specific targets, and measure the organization based on these targets. When the target is missing, institutions collect data and know what their numbers are – but have nothing against which to measure."

Drake provides a much-needed blueprint for managing change in higher education. Until the accreditation agencies insist on greater accountability and measurement in higher education than we will continue to move along down this road at a snail’s pace and for some institutions, this pace is too risky.