Search The Site
 
More options | Back issues
Home
News
Opinion & Forums
Careers
Multimedia
Chronicle/Gallup
Leadership Forum
Technology Forum
Resource Center
Campus Viewpoints
Services
The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle Review
A weekly special section
Brainstorm: Lives of the Mind Stan Katz

Who Is Sara Martinez Tucker?


Tucker, in a Department of Education photo


Hers is not a household name, and it is not likely to become one. Ms. Tucker was appointed in late 2006 as the Under Secretary for postsecondary education in the U.S. Department of Education. She is holding the tiller of the department’s higher education programs at a time when her ship (the Bush administration) is sinking under the waves. Not that I feel sorry for her. The message she delivered at the Chicago conference held last Friday to commemorate the second anniversary of the report of the Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education was the message that President Bush and Secretary Rice have been delivering for many years to recalcitrant foreign nations: “You know what you have to do.”

But of course Ms. Tucker was only doing what Secretary Margaret Spellings has been doing for the past couple of years, warning institutions of higher education that they need to become more transparent with respect to student educational outcomes. Spellings turned that warning into a threat on Friday, telling the university representatives in her audience that if they did not provide consumers with more and better information on student success rates, Congress will impose heavier burdens on them than they can now impose upon themselves. “I suspect that [Congress’s] solutions will likely not be as informed or sophisticated as what you would propose.” Perhaps. But Spellings has no enforcement mechanism, and these threats strike me as even weaker than those employed by her boss against the Axis of Evil.

I think we are almost certain to have a heavily Democratic Congress starting in 2009, and thus far there is no indication that the Democratic congressional leaders of relevant committees share the Republican preoccupation with truth in educational consumerism. Ironically, perhaps, the Democrats seem more prone to the traditional market solution — let the consumers decide. Caveat emptor is not my favorite legal notion, and I think it would have been good for the Bush administration to have found ways to let consumers know what they were getting into with subprime mortgages. But I think that in fact consumers of educational services have much better means of informing themselves about what they are likely to get in selecting colleges than borrowers did in the mortgage market.

What has most struck me in discussions of the Spellings Commissions over the past couple of years is the mere fact that we have a federal Department of Education. This country was always opposed to having a ministry of education, just as it continues to be opposed to having a ministry of culture. Many readers will not recall it, but in fact the department is one of the newest, founded only in 1980. There is of course no federal constitutional right to education (it is a constitutional right in each of the states), and the feds are involved only because of the huge amounts of student aid and other funds they provide. The Department has a $68.6-billion budget this year, but essentially no direct control over higher education policy. Its Web page says that its mission is “to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.” But in fact the Department has no effective way to implement those goals. And thank goodness for that.

I am a firm supporter of accountability in higher education. I do not think many higher-education institutions take accountability seriously enough but I doubt that the federal government will impose strict accountability upon us. I do think, however, that we in higher education, especially those of us in the private sector, should take the burden upon ourselves. Complaining about Spellings does not make us accountable.

Posted at 09:19:20 AM on July 22, 2008 | All postings by Stan Katz

Comments

  1. Cannot the feds influence higher ed procedures by means of the accrediting agencies? Perhaps I don’t pay close enough attention to this, but I seem to recall some movement in that direction in recent years.

    — Ned · Jul 21, 04:27 PM · #

  2. Why not start with financial transparency, mandated by the states (for state institutions), and then let educational accountability take care of itself? Software already exists to do this, and it has been implemented at Oregon State University, where anyone on campus can see every financial transaction as it takes place. (I posted a few comments on this system when I first learned about it.)

    State legislatures should require this kind of financial transparency, which can be put in place at trivial expense by government standards, for every public college and university.

    — R.J. O'Hara · Jul 21, 04:39 PM · #

  3. I’m not so sure that there are no enforcement mechanisms available to the Department of Education. An easy pathway might be for the Department to propose new regulations for the student loan process, or perhaps the IPEDS questionnaire might be altered. Or for example, a requirement for certain types of information might be a pre-requisite when applying for any of the Department’s grant programs – or perhaps any Federal grant program.

    The question of accountability might not matter as much to the parent of an Ivy League student as it does to the parents of students at a community college. When Jonnie can’t read and it looks like a race or class issue, well, I wouldn’t count the Democrats out so quickly.

    — Anti-hypocrisy advocate · Jul 21, 06:24 PM · #

  4. Does President Bush have contempt for higher education? Yes.
    Does President Bush reward loyalty and a Texas background over competence in appointing people to high-level jobs? Yes.
    Are Federal education posts, therefore, treated as favors to loyal followers from Texas? Yes.
    Are Margaret Spellings and Sara Martinez Tucker Bush loyalists from Texas? Yes.
    Are both women devoid of any scholarly or occupational experience in education (e.g., teaching or being an administrator in a school or college)? Yes.
    Can we reasonably conclude from this that President Bush appointed Spellings and Tucker to their posts not because of any special competence or expertise in education, but because they’re Texas loyalists? Yes.

    — LuckyJim · Jul 22, 01:14 PM · #

  5. If educational institutions must be held accountable, should we blame Yale for President Bush? With this issue, as well as No Child Left Behind, I am always amazed that no where is the student’s accountability mentioned.

    — curious · Jul 23, 07:15 AM · #

  6. I’ve appreciated Katz’s comments in previous blogs and in this one, but I think he is wrong that this issue largely is confined to Republicans. The high cost of tuition has spurred the demand for accountability, and Democrats are just as concerned with this problem as Republicans. If the next administration provides more tax deductions for tuition or more direct assistance, that will strengthen the rationale for greater accountability.

    — molly1 · Jul 23, 07:16 AM · #

  7. @LuckyJim: You’re kidding, right? And who speaks for the students, parents, and taxpayers? You?

    — Steve · Jul 23, 07:18 AM · #

  8. Hi ho, Steverino: You prove my point. The only possible qualifications either Spellings or Tucker has is nominally reprsenting students, parents and taxpayers. But they represent, of course, only a certain segment of students, parents and taxpayer which, given public opinion about the current Administration, is probably a decidedly minority segment.

    Would you accept this same lack of expertise (there are conservatives with credentials, you know) in the FDA or the FAA or the NSF, or….?

    And by the way, Bush hasn’t confined his jobs-for-loyalists program to areas subject to his rather open contempt. You do remember a certain Attorney General from Texas, no?

    — LuckyJim · Jul 23, 07:39 AM · #

  9. @LuckyJim: And you can do better, of course. Because you have five PhDs, right?

    — Steve · Jul 23, 08:13 AM · #

  10. I’m not saying that I think Spellings and Tucker, et al. are doing a good job, but isn’t it possible that Bush wanted them for the job because he knew them and he thought they were capable? The institution I work at has the philosophy that it’s always better to hire within if there’s someone competent here because you know what you’re getting. Anyone can look good on paper or be coached to look good in an interview. It’s easy to say that Spellings and Tucker aren’t competent now. But, maybe they had a good skill set that appealed to Bush, that he believed in, right or wrong. Perhaps, it’s not an evil conspiracy. Perhaps it’s just a decision that turned out to be bad.

    — SM · Jul 23, 08:21 AM · #

  11. Steve: I’m not buckin’ for the job. My qualifications—except that you don’t have to be a chicken to know a rotten egg—are irrelevant.

    SM: Sure, it’s possible; anything’s “possible.” But the insular pig-headedness of the self-described “The Decider” and his loyalty to loyalists so well-documented (and not just by the “liberal” media, but by his own staff), and his string of similar personnel decisions (“Heckuva job, Brownie”) so consistent and long that the odds of either Spellings or Tucker being hired because they happened to be “competent” insiders are slim indeed. Perhaps that “skill set that appealed to Bush” should best be left unspecified. Finally, if “anyone can look good on paper or be coached to look good in an interview” so convincingly, everybody everywhere ought to give up outside searches, widening the executive gene pool, hope for fresh blood in an organization, etc.

    Sigh.

    — LuckyJim · Jul 23, 09:12 AM · #

  12. Stan Katz is absolutely right on. Margaret Spellings’ educational qualifications consist of an undergraduate degree in political science from the University of Houston. Sara Martinez Tucker’s educational qualifications consist of an undergraduate degree in journalism and an M.A. in business administration (both from the University of Texas at Austin). Neither of these women have impressive academic credentials. More to the point, neither of them has experience in teaching or administration in higher education. Their jobs in the Bush Administration—and the world of outcomes assessment—can be easily explained by the fact that they are strong Bush loyalists. What’s not so easily explained is the utter spinelessness of academics in facing down the idiocy and destructiveness of the “outcomes assessment” movement, as it’s now practiced, that both these women advocate.

    — Laurie Fendrich · Jul 23, 09:14 AM · #

  13. @LuckyJim: So what exactly are you doing with your life?

    @Laurie Fendrich: And what, pray tell, are your credentials?

    — Steve · Jul 23, 09:24 AM · #

  14. Transparency and accountability are good practices for public (and private) institutions. Unfortunately, the Department of Education, the Bush administration, and Congress haven’t seen fit to observe what for many years they’ve attempted to impose on academic institutions.

    I’m sure I don’t need to cite all of the Bushy outrages, but here are a few DOE and Congressional examples: giving noncompetitive grants to unaccredited conservative Christian colleges; earmarking the entire FIPSE budget for pet projects in legislators’ districts that have little or nothing to do with FIPSE’s mandate to support educational innovation and that in effect defunded its competitive grants program; stacking peer review panels with conservatives who shoot down projects receiving high marks from other reviewers because they don’t comport with conservative ideology; and shifting huge amounts of money from basic science research that benefits the public into military and security research that supports the administration’s pro-war agenda.

    Not that they told us they were doing these things! Pitching transparency and accountability in academe, our government is acting like the pot calling the kettle black.

    — Ellen Messer-Davidow · Jul 23, 09:28 AM · #

  15. Okay, Steve, and what are YOUR credentials?

    There are people who are educated, experienced, and competent who could have been appointed to these positions—and, in fact, many of them are even from Texas, if that is an essential requirement. But no, it is abundantly clear that in the current administration loyalty is valued above all other qualifications, including competence.

    Ellen has outlined a few of the accomplishments of this administration, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. There has been a pervasive effort to support and expand ignorance, and it is astonishing that anyone in the public education sector is willing to stand by and watch it happen.

    — Joe Erwin · Jul 23, 09:52 AM · #

  16. “Living well is the best revenge.” George Herbert (1593 – 1633)

    And I’ve got a couple of decades, and counting, on ol’ Georgie.

    — LuckyJim · Jul 23, 10:22 AM · #

  17. Hey! I learned something here…I always thought the living well quote was something Dorothy Parker cooked up. Whaddya know?

    Also, anyone who doesn’t see the pattern of cronyism in the Bush II administration ought perhaps to take a few higher education courses in which critical thinking is taught as a life skill.

    — barbara · Jul 23, 11:29 AM · #

  18. The lack of accountability of precisely the reason academic standards have dropped.

    Graduates today are more likely to be more conversant in a political ideology than they are in their ‘education.’

    From this website, Gone, and Being Forgotten By Russel Jacoby:

    http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=cjtGhcnt3vYPDhDdjtvfySgdzkqpzShC

    — Alex Harris · Jul 24, 11:37 AM · #

  19. LuckyJim, I can’t believe how closed minded you are. What did Sara Martinez Tucker do to get the job? Raised over $250 Million for scholarships for hispanic youth in 5 years, championed the cause of doubling the rate of hispanics to get a college education, served on many councils at Notre Dame and UT to study and refine educational policy and built a website to assist kids and families in building a plan to get college degrees. If you have raised more money than this and given it all out, then you have earned the right to criticize her. Until then, you should just say thanks for making a difference an pitch in yourself.

    — california guy · Jul 24, 08:01 PM · #

  20. Sorry, “california guy,” but fundraising and “sitting on many councils” are not qualifications for a high Federal post in education. She gets a testimonial dinner, but not this job.

    Otherwise, John Mellenkamp for Secretary of Agriculture.

    — LuckyJim · Jul 24, 08:10 PM · #

  21. Actually, ED does have enforcement mechanisms by way of IPEDS, which is not simply a “questionnaire.” It is one of the most lengthy and time-consuming documents, in terms of the hours require to gather and supply the information requested, that can be imagined. Strike that, imagine preparing for a SACS or WASC accreditation visit every year, and you have an understanding of the enormity of IPEDS’ impact. Failure to complete any of the sections of IPEDS over the six or so months of collection — indeed, completing a section late — will jeopardize an institution’s federal financial aid assistance. NCES, which is responsible for overseeing IPEDS, is fond of reminding IPEDS keyholders and institution presidents of this fact. When taken into consideration, too, that it is the rare institution that can provide information directly to NCES via IPEDS without first having that information vetted by state boards of (higher) education, one can see how this process is made even more complicated. I find it interesting, though, that ED would chastise college and university administrators for not providing greater transparency in terms of “student success rates”: IPEDS addresses this information in the Completions section.

    — WEO · Jul 25, 01:11 PM · #

  22. From Hair (from memory):

    LBJ took the IRT
    Down to 4th Street, USA.
    And when he got there,
    What did he see?
    The youth of America on LSD.
    LBJ, IRT, LSD, USA.

    New chorus:
    ED, IPEDS, SACS, NCES, WASC,
    I need some LSD.

    — Mr. Wiki · Jul 25, 02:59 PM · #

  23. Most of my fellow academics above, commenting on this article, in one way or another make fun of or blame the messenger. I am no admirer of vile pieces of dog pooh like baby bush, though he gives me shivers of stupidity when he does his personal fascimile of “speaking”. However, vile as he and his appointees are, Higher Ed people, like my fellows above, are deluded idiots—the accountability issue may eventually destroy them because they hide behind one political party when they need to hide behind BOTH.

    It is finally not Baby Bush, not his stupid appointees, and not his even stupider political party, with its religious bigot backers and its greedy CEO backers that is the problem. None of them give a damn about education of any sort, whether it be no child left with a behind or make the colleges squirm.

    Our real threat and problem is middle class voters, of any party afiliation, who cannot afford us and read about all sorts of taxpayer grants funding us. BOTH parties are going to feel the heat from such voters over long periods of time. YOu lose the middle class in a vulgar corporation-bought democracy like ours, and you lose EVERYTHING eventually, Bok replaced by Hitler, etc.

    My fellows above ARE the problem too—their declarations of “high interest in accountability” ring not only hollow but arrogant and incompetent.

    Woe be he who underestimates his enemies.

    — Richard Tabor Greene · Jul 28, 09:34 PM · #

  24. Let’s see: Bush is a “vile piece of dog pooh,” but RTG’s fellow academics are “deluded idiots” whose declarations about accountability “ring not only hollow but arrogant and incompetent.”

    This is the insider’s view from where, again?

    — Just Passing Through · Jul 30, 09:12 PM · #

Commenting is closed for this article.
Copyright © 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education | Contact us
User agreement | Privacy policy | About The Chronicle | Site map | Help
Subscribe | Advertise with us | Press inquiries | RSS | Today's most e-mailed
Home | Chronicle Careers | The Chronicle Review