How Accreditation Agencies in Higher Education Are Pushing Total Quality Management: A Faculty Review of the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) 

Frank H. W. Edler
Metropolitan Community College (Omaha, NE)
Copyright © 2003, Frank H. W. Edler


         

Introduction

          In 1994, Thought and Action published an excellent article by Mike Parker and Jane Slaughter entitled “Beware! TQM Is Coming to Your Campus.”[i] Guess what? TQM (total quality management) has arrived! I might add that it has done so with ideological fervor. Furthermore, it is not just TQM that has arrived, but a whole host of other corporate quality improvement methods such as CQI (continuous quality improvement), Six Sigma (another more blatant form of Taylorism[ii]), the Malcolm Baldrige National Award, BPR (business process re-engineering), ISO quality systems, and many others. Welcome to the world of education where the corporate definition of quality determines what quality means in higher education. Business values are rapidly replacing educational values at an
unprecedented rate.

          But this is not the worst of it. Accreditation agencies like the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association are actively embracing and promoting TQM, CQI, and other corporate methods to improve the quality of higher education. Indeed, colleges may soon be forced to apply TQM and CQI across their institutions if they wish to be re-accredited because the accrediting agencies themselves will demand it of them.

          Imagine a college or university sending its faculty to a conference where they are to take indoctrination sessions such as the following: “No Child Left Behind Requirements Align with a Quality Management System Based on Standards from the Baldrige Criteria and ISO 9001,” or “Application of Lean Principles and Six Sigma in an Academic Institution” where faculty learn to “apply manufacturing process improvement strategies in the academic environment”[iii] or “Quality Management Practices in the Classroom” or “Baldrige – Classroom, School, District!.”[iv] You may smile and say to yourself that these titles sound more like an advertisement for Wal-Mart training sessions than ways to improve the quality of teaching-and-learning in higher education; however, the titles of the above sessions are not fictitious. I took them from the sessions listed for the upcoming 11^th National Quality Education Conference to be held November 6-9, 2003, in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

          How did methods to improve quality in business become acceptable as methods of improving the quality of teaching-and-learning in higher education? The idea was very simple: colleges and universities are organizations like corporations and, if business improvement methods work for corporations, then they should also work for higher education. After all, teaching-and-learning is a product and, like all other products, it is sold to consumers. Simple.

          The fundamental problem, however, is that although educational institutions are corporate-like entities, the primary activity of these educational institutions is teaching-and-learning which is not itself a business activity. The process of teaching-and-learning can be defined in numerous ways, but however one defines it, buying-and-selling is not an essential characteristic of that process. To put it more bluntly, the process of teaching-and-learning is not itself an activity of buying-and-selling.

          When corporate quality improvement measures are employed across an educational institution as a whole, the process of teaching-and-learning is forced to conform to the corporate model. Thus, teaching-and-learning is turned into the production of education for business and is “driven” by considerations of marketability, delivery, technology, availability, and efficiency. The danger, of course, is the wholesale reduction of educational values to corporate values. It is no longer an exaggeration to say that systems of education management are more important today than education itself.

          Indeed, with the systematic application of corporate assessment measures, educational institutions are reduced to a “production model” where the product is learning and everything else is a means of production. This is precisely where the “production model” (such as competencies) is most damaging. By defining learning as something done exclusively by the student and, in addition, by defining any help the student receives in learning as part of the support services provided to the student, the teaching-learning process itself is torn apart into two halves: teaching on the one hand and learning on the other. Indeed, teaching simply becomes another one of the services the institution provides in order to help students learn. By separating teaching from learning and treating it as a means of production, the production model designates the managers of education as the organizers and decision-makers of educational work. Teaching becomes one of the many myriad functions of an organization --much like any other organization -- which can be viewed, according to Herbert Simon, as an information-processing machine.[v]


                                                 Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP)

          This weakening of the teaching-learning process described above is apparently what the Higher Learning Commission endorses by approving the Academic Quality Improvement Program. The Higher Learning Commission (HLC) of the North Central Association is the private accrediting agency for the colleges and universities in the north central region of the United States. The Board of Trustees of the HLC recently approved the promotion of AQIP from the status of a project to that of a program. The Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) is based on the corporate model of continuous quality improvement, a watered-down version of TQM (total quality management).

          What AQIP offers colleges and universities in the north central region is an alternative to the traditional ten-year re-accreditation cycle. Rather than gearing up for one or two years prior to the end of the ten-year period, colleges and universities can take the alternative of a continuous accreditation review offered by AQIP. This offer is immensely attractive to administrators who welcome an alternative to the traditional ten-year review. In the next to last question listed on the Frequently Asked Questions page of the AQIP website (the question is “How does the true cost of the standard self-study process compare with the costs of maintaining accreditation with AQIP?”), the author(s) states that

                                                 The full cost (what Michael Hammer calls the
                                                 “system cost” in Re-Engineering the Corporation)
                                                of a standard self-study included the time and
                                                energies of all the people who work on it, those who
                                                make up the teams that study the institution, those
                                                they interview, and those who write the report.[vi]

The author(s) in the same question goes on to state that “Some larger universities have said that, over a decade, these costs approach $1 million for a full comprehensive self-study.”[vii]

          In the above statement, the author(s) is emphasizing the disadvantages (expense and time) of opting for the traditional ten-year study. I am somewhat shocked by these statements because AQIP is, after all, selling its services such as the Strategy Forum and the Systems Portfolio to prospective educational institutions seeking re-accreditation. In effect, AQIP and its services are in competition with the traditional ten-year re-accreditation process, and the above statements amount to a sales pitch to use AQIP instead of the traditional ten-year review. I find this highly questionable, if not unethical, that an accrediting body such as AQIP would resort to selling itself and its services, especially when both are under the governance of the very same body, namely, the Higher Learning Commission. Moreover, when the traditional ten-year review is phased out, only AQIP will remain, and colleges and universities will no longer have a choice.

          After stating the disquieting figure of $1 million, the author(s) proceeds to show how inexpensive AQIP services are: “At present, a Strategy Forum cost [sic] $6500 (registration, room, food, but not travel) for a team of six, and we estimate a Systems Appraisal will cost less than this”.[viii] Unfortunately, the author(s) does not give the names of the universities associated with the $1 million figure. It is a vague reference to what “some larger universities have said” and, therefore, cannot be verified.
          Perhaps even more disturbing is the way AQIP allows the perception that it is willing to curry favors (re-accreditation) in return for certain data:

                                             AQIP would be very interested in speaking
                                             with any institution that has actually tracked
                                             and accounted accrediting costs. No insti-
                                             tution has participated long enough in AQIP
                                             to track and account total costs. As institutions
                                             proceed through AQIP’s processes, we hope
                                             to have them track expenses in order to get a
                                             better picture of what actual costs are.[ix]

The perception easily drawn from these remarks is that AQIP needs something and that any institution willing to provide it might be looked upon more favorably in terms of accreditation. When AQIP says that it is “very interested” in something and “hopes” to get it, it sets up the expectation of a possible quid pro quo. Obviously, an educational institution willing to track such expenses would be doing AQIP a favor and could expect something in return.

          I would like to touch on one final point before turning to an examination of the AQIP process itself. It should come as no surprise that the author(s) in the above quotation about total cost refers to Michael Hammer who co-authored the book Re-Engineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution (1993) with James Champy.[x] Hammer’s and Champey’s book was a seminal work for down-sizing and promoting the lean and mean corporations in the 1990s. It was a radical approach that advocated throwing out all the old practices in order to “re-engineer” corporations from the ground up to achieve super-efficiency. The forerunner of the book was Michael Hammer’s 1990 article in the Harvard Business Review entitled “Re-engineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate.” In this article, Hammer advocated the following practice: “Instead of embedding outdated processes in silicon and software, we should obliterate them and start over. We should ‘re-engineer’ our businesses: use the power of modern information technology to radically redesign our business processes in order to achieve dramatic improvement in their performance.”[xi] Of course, if you prefer more bellicose metaphors, you can find these also: “‘In reengineering, we carry the wounded and shoot the stragglers.’ ”[xii]

          When this practice is applied to educational institutions, the consequences can be catastrophic. Corporate values and processes shift from the periphery of an educational institution to its defining center, and educational values and processes are relegated to the periphery and made expendable.

          It is ironic that in 1996, three years after the publication of Re-Engineering the Corporation, Hammer himself in an interview in the Wall Street Journal recognized he had been wrong in certain areas: “I was reflecting my engineering background and was insufficiently appreciative of the human dimension. I've learned that's critical." [xiii] In his latest book with some cute alliteration in the title, The Agenda: What Every Business Must Do to Dominate the Decade (2001), Hammer admits that if you want to succeed in business, you have to pay  “ ‘more attention than you think you need to people issues’ ”[xiv] If this is true – and we’ve known it all along to be true – why is the Higher Learning Commission applying corporate assessment models to institutions of higher learning? I shall return to this question after the next section which looks at AQIP criteria and procedures.


                                                           A Closer Look at AQIP


          Let us assume for a moment that a college or university decides to choose AQIP as the alternative to the traditional ten-year re-accreditation process. What is the college or university expected to do? The institution must be willing to “partner” with AQIP “as a means of maintaining its NCA accreditation.”[xv] After an initial period of “Interest Exploration” during which AQIP “expects you [the institution] to learn about quality principles followed by an institution-wide Self-Assessment using these principles, the institution fills out a “Participation Request.” If the request is approved, “the Commission [the HLC] and your institution will sign a formal agreement affirming their respective expectations and obligations for participation.”[xvi] 

          The “obligations for participation” of this formal agreement include a “Strategy Forum” which sets the institution’s “stretch targets” (more reengineering jargon) and a “Portfolio Appraisal” which assesses the progress the institution has made toward these targets. In other words, the institution enters into a kind of contract with AQIP. The institution sets its own goals, and progress toward these goals is measured and assessed. This is the cycle of continuous improvement the HLC wishes to establish in participating colleges and universities. It is important to note that colleges and universities cannot modify the nine quality criteria used by AQIP -- so if you think an institution can set its own goals and avoid the corporate methodology, you’re wrong. The methodology is built into the criteria.

          Although it is based on the business model of total quality management for continuous improvement, AQIP, nevertheless, touts itself as distinct from the process used in the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award given to businesses. The following is a long but important quotation because it presents how AQIP differentiates itself from the Baldrige Award. This quote can be found at the AQIP website’s “Frequently Asked Questions” page under the question “How do the AQIP Criteria compare with the Baldrige categories?” and runs as follows:

                                           AQIP has 9 criteria (versus 7 for Baldrige),
                                           AQIP includes results in every criterion (while
                                           Baldrige Criterion 7 aggregates all results), AQIP
                                           has separate criteria for different work processes
                                           like teaching, partnering, administration, or research
                                           and other major goals (while Baldrige Criterion 6
                                           covers all work processes), and, most importantly,
                                           AQIP is focused exclusively on higher education.
                                           Baldrige (and the state programs modeled on it) are
                                           Award programs, not accreditation processes. As 
                                           such they have different goals, and consequently
                                           use techniques not appropriate for accreditation.
                                           AQIP strives to both stimulate continuous improvement
                                           and assure the public and funding agents of the quality
                                           of higher education providers, something no award
                                           program even attempts.[xvii]
                                     
          Before reviewing AQIP’s own comparison of itself with the Baldrige Award, it is necessary to identify AQIP’s nine quality criteria:

1.     Helping students learn.
2.     Accomplishing other distinctive objectives.
3.     Understanding students’ and other stakeholders’ needs.
4.     Valuing people.
5.     Leading and communicating.
6.     Supporting institutional operations.
7.     Measuring effectiveness.
8.     Planning continuous improvement.
9.     Building collaborative relationships.[xviii]

          The first problem in relation to the criteria has to do with shared governance: there is no separate criterion for shared governance. Like TQM, AQIP focuses on the performance, efficiency, and alignment of the sub-systems in terms of whether the sub-system goals are met and whether subsystem goals are aligned with the purpose of the system as a whole. This leads toward standardization and the reduction of variation. As Parker and Slaughter point out, “The no-variation concept is biased against those who believe that creating a learning atmosphere requires a climate where variation thrives and, in particular, where seemingly unproductive, unpopular ideas are protected.”[xix] The question is: who makes the decisions about standardization or re-alignment or greater efficiency? Are these joint decisions made between or among faculty, administration, and staff or are they decisions imposed from the top down? In the longer, detailed version of the AQIP criteria, the following question is asked of the participating institution (in relation to Criterion 4, “Valuing People”): “How do your work processes and activities contribute to communication, cooperation, high performance, innovation, empowerment, organizational learning, and skill sharing? How do you ensure the ethical practices of all employees?”[xx] The corresponding question for leaders is not asked in the section for Criterion 5 (“Leading and Communicating”): How do you ensure the ethical practices of your leaders? Of course, questions of how decisions are made are included, but there is no question about whether an institution practices shared governance.

          In many cases, TQM creates the perception that the methodology actually empowers workers through suggestion systems which give the illusion of offering a voice for workers’ self-determination. As Boje and Winsor note, however,

                                   By eliminating the perceived power of management to
                                   impose control from above and by deluding workers into
                                   thinking that this power now emanates from their own actions,                                   
                                   TQM programmes have succeeded in eliminating the resistance
                                   that has long characterized management/labour relations. As
                                   one worker in a plant which adopted the TQM approach
                                   proudly observed, “the average worker is definitely busier…
                                   But it’s not like we’re getting squeezed to work harder, because
                                   it’s the workers who are making the whole thing work. – we’re
                                   the ones who make the standardized work and the Kaizen
                                   [continuous improvement] suggestions.”[xxi]

Management can then simply choose the suggestion that best meets their system goals while preserving the illusion that workers had a voice in shaping the goal. This is not shared governance. Shared governance occurs when faculty, administration, and staff jointly decide on the system itself and how that system is to be used in the college or university. Only through shared governance does real “buy-in” occur. Another name for it is democratic procedure.

          The second problem that meets the critical eye is the claim that AQIP is superior to the Baldrige Award in relation to higher education because it “has separate criteria for different work processes like teaching, partnering, administration, or research and other major goals.” This is true – to some extent: there is a criterion for partnering, namely, criterion 9 (building collaborative relationships). There is a criterion primarily for administration, namely, criterion 5 (leading and communicating). In addition, there is a criterion for research, namely, criterion 2 (accomplishing other distinctive objectives). There is no separate criterion, however, for teaching.

          This omission is and should be shocking. The first criterion (helping students learn) is not followed by any criterion such as “helping teachers teach.” AQIP readily recognizes the central importance of the teaching-learning process for institutions of higher education: “the teaching-learning process within a formal instructional context” is the “shared purpose of all higher education organizations.”[xxii] The first criterion (helping students learn) certainly accounts for the learning half of the teaching-learning process, but no separate criterion is listed for the other half – teaching. Thus, when the author(s) states that the AQIP criteria are superior to Baldrige because “AQIP has separate criteria for different work processes like teaching,” the claim is simply false in relation to teaching.

          This omission of a separate criterion for teaching becomes even more blatant when one realizes that there is a separate criterion for support services (criterion 6, supporting institutional operations). In effect, support services are recognized with a criterion; student learning is recognized with a criterion; administration is recognized with a criterion; but teaching itself is not recognized with a criterion. Think about it: this is an accreditation agency for institutions of higher education that prides itself on being superior to Baldrige because “AQIP is focused exclusively on higher education,” and yet AQIP lists no separate criterion for teaching!

          Although AQIP has criteria for other work processes that differentiate it from the Baldrige Award, the effect of AQIP is ultimately the same in that teaching is separated from learning and treated as a support process (a means of production). Actually, teaching is treated as something less than a support service since support operations at least get their own criterion. Thus, from a faculty perspective, AQIP and Baldrige have the same problem in that teaching is treated simply as another means in the production of learning and, more importantly, this divests faculty of their unique role in the teaching-learning process. Although support services personnel, administration, and maintenance staff are all important for any college or university to function, they are not the ones directly involved in the teaching-learning process – teachers are.

          The third problem is related to the “double-speak” the author(s) uses in relation to the Baldrige Award. By “double-speak,” I mean that the author(s) both criticizes and patronizes the Baldrige Award. In the long quotation above, the author(s) criticizes the Baldrige criteria  as “offering different goals [than those of accreditation], and consequently use techniques not appropriate for accreditation [my emphasis].”[xxiii] In this instance, the criticism is right on the mark. In the fourth question listed on the AQIP FAQ page, however, (the question is “What does AQIP expect our Self-Assessment to include?”), the author(s) states that “the criteria used in the Baldrige program will work well.”[xxiv] How can the Baldrige criteria work well for self-assessment when the techniques used by Baldrige are not appropriate for accreditation?  If the techniques are inappropriate, why is it that the Baldrige criteria suddenly “work well” for self-assessment? This is the “double-speak” I mentioned above. Moreover, links are provided at the AQIP website for translating AQIP criteria into Baldrige criteria and vice-versa. If each set of criteria can be translated into the other, are they really that different? I think AQIP tries to present itself as a business model (total quality management) that has been sufficiently modified so that it can be applied to higher education institutions, but I don’t buy it.


                                                                         Conclusion


          In conclusion, I’d like to return to the question I mentioned earlier: why is the Higher Learning Commission applying corporate assessment and improvement models – even modified ones – to institutions of higher education? Surely there are assessment and improvement models more appropriate to higher education in the context of higher education itself. The answer in a broad context has to do with the global ascendance of corporate capitalism as an unchallenged worldview. What drives the authoritarian tendency of this global corporate worldview is the desire to reshape the whole of reality in its image. The hubris of this worldview is the belief that reality is the corporate world and that whatever is not part of that world must be made to conform to it -- hence, the desire to re-define higher education in corporate terms. Unfortunately, this assumption that the corporate world is the only reality seeps into places where it has no business, at least not as the primary concern.

          One of these places is higher education. I call higher education a place because it is ontologically distinct from the corporate world. Colleges and universities are, of course, organizations and as such have a resemblance to corporations; however, what happens in places of higher education is of a different order than what happens in corporations. The central value that governs the mission of higher education is the value of striving for truth freely through shared dialogue. This value is not for sale; it is not subordinate to business. In the teaching-learning process, I don’t strive for the truth with my students a little bit more because I get paid a little bit more. If there is no money for texts, then I will create one with my students; if we have no blackboard, then we will draw in the sand. As I said above, buying-and-selling is not an essential, and thus not a defining, characteristic of teaching-learning. When corporate values and processes become the main concern of higher education, the value of improved performance for the sake of profit becomes more important than the value of striving for truth.  James Hillman puts it aptly in his book Kinds of Power: when “efficiency for the sake of the bottom line rules,” then “predatory commerce differs from Treblinka only in degree, not in principle.”[xxv]

          Let me end with a short anecdote. At my community college, I share my office with fifteen other faculty members from a wide variety of disciplines. Since I teach philosophy, I get a fair amount of good-natured ribbing about the abstractness and impracticality of my field. One of my colleagues in business with whom I butt heads and for whom I have a great deal of respect bought me a humorous gift: a little plaque that stands on my desk which says the following: “OK, who stopped payment on my reality check?” I haven’t responded to my colleague other than getting a good chuckle out of it; however, this may be a good time to respond: “A reality check is not a draft, and therefore needs no payment.”

          By the way, be sure to buy the AQIP Team Promotional items available on the AQIP home page. Mugs, T-shirts, folders, and binders are available – even the “Royal Blue AQIP Shirts (just like the Facilitators wear!)” for $24.95 – at the following web address: http://www.aqip.org/aqiped.html .