The SFSU Academic Senate was very influential in this process. Dinielli added that we at SFSU are very well served in the Statewide Academic Senate by Jan Gregory, Eunice Aaron, and Bob Cherny, and that the SFSU response to Cornerstones was one of the top two submitted by any campus in the system. Duke asked Goldwhite to elaborate on the distinction between assessment and accountability. I negotiations with Governor Wilson where the guaranteed increase in general support was linked to an increase in enrollment and to productivity savings. But we have to be prepared to come up with some measures with which we are willing to be judged as a system.
Assessment is primarily for the improvement of academic programs.
Another aspect is how to judge whether students are making progress against a defined set of outcomes that we the faculty define. Assessment must be separate from accountability in budgetary matters. There is accountability of the system to the state, our largest donor, and accountability of campuses to the system. There is a committee with significant faculty representation working on this, and there is a strong indication that there will be no Compact II without acceptable accountability measures. The 1987 CSU Senate position stated that assessment can only be used for the improvement of teaching and learning.