The Comparison of the Evaluation System between American and Chinese Higher Education

By Lu Bai

With the creation of the evaluation system’s theories and methods, and the perfection of the basic framework and the practice patterns in higher education, Chinese higher education has achieved huge progress since the reform and opening-up in 1978. However, Chinese construction of evaluation system is still in the exploratory stage in comparison with American’s advanced assessment system in higher education. Analyses the evaluation system of higher education in United States will not only help us to better understand the system of higher education in America, but also provide new ideas to the Chinese higher education’s evaluation system. The difference between the two systems can be summarized as follows:

1) The institutions of evaluation system are different
The accreditations of higher education in United State are the non-governmental associations or specialized professional institutions which is responsible for the supervision. For instance, there is an accreditation named “the Council for Higher Education Accreditation” (CHEA). “The CHEA is the largest higher education membership organization in the United States with approximately 3,000 accredited colleges and universities and more than 60 participating national, regional, and specialized accrediting organizations.” (UMT, 2011) These organizations can provide a variety of separate and distinct evaluations, so that they can lead to fair and reasonable accreditation of American universities and colleges.
From the article by Qinyong Liu, a Chinese researcher of higher education, Chinese assessment in higher education is typical of the "administrative assessment", i.e., Chinese administrative department of higher education is the only institution of accreditation, and other social institutions cannot take part in the process of assessment. (Liu, 2006) According to the requirements of the Chinese Ministry of Education, the Assessment Panel who came from the different universities and colleges evaluates the whole universities and some specialties. However, without an accurate and specific guideline, the Assessment Panel with different capacities of decision-making and the subjective feelings could affect the objective results. More importantly, with the government being the only authority of accreditation, the results can be easily interpreted as political or bureaucratic.

2) The standards of evaluation system are different.
In the United States, different accreditation institutions have different standards of evaluation for higher education. For instance, from the CHEA’s “RECOGNITION POLICY AND PROCEDURES”, there are at least six recognition standards: Advances Academic Quality, Demonstrates Accountability, Encourages, Where Appropriate, Self-Scrutiny and Planning for Change and for Needed Improvement, Employs Appropriate and Fair Procedures in Decision Making, Demonstrates Ongoing Review of Accreditation Practices and Possesses Sufficient Resources.
Chinese assessment guidelines in higher education developed by the Ministry of education, which includes the following aspects: Guiding ideology, teachers, teaching conditions and using, professional development and teaching reform, teaching management, special projects, and etc. This is a mandatory and authoritative standard which can improve the accuracy of management in higher education. However, without a flexible versatility, this fixed criterion would restrain the future development of Chinese higher education.

3) The procedure of evaluation system is different between American and Chinese higher education.
American higher education’s accreditation is chosen by universities and colleges which would like to do the self-evaluation. There are five stages for the undergraduate education’s assessment. 1. The university or college applies for accreditation. 2. The accreditation institution evaluates the report and makes recommendations after the on-the-spot inspection. 3. The university or college can argue the report. 4. The accreditation institution makes the final decision. This process generally takes 15 to 20 months. 5. The accreditation institution would like to do some follow-up reviews and announce the result to the public. (Li, 2002) This procedure of evaluation system not only provides the accurate data, but also gives a long period of time for the university or college’s to improve themselves.
There are four stages to evaluate the higher education for the Chinese Ministry of Education. 1. The Chinese Ministry of Education chooses the university or college to assess. 2. The university or college submits the self-assessment report to the Ministry of Education. 3. The evaluation experts finish the survey after the on-the-spot inspection. 4. The Chinese Ministry of Education publishes the result. (Li, 1999) The university or college could submit the new rectification program during the next year, and the period of validity is five years. In fact, the uniform management of evaluation system is more standardization than the non-governmental associations’ diverse criterions. However, cope with shifting events by sticking to a fundamental principle is not available for the developing higher education in China.

Correct and effective assessment decides directly the strength of the reform and development in the society. From the article by H. R. Kells, a professor of higher education at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, the best evaluation schemes can transform to much more advance subjects to meet the local, especially the national needs. (KELLS, 1999)

Resources:
UMT (University of Management and Technology), Accreditation. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.umtweb.edu/Accreditation.aspx, September 3, 2011
Hernon , P, & Dugan, R. (2004). Outcomes assessment in higher education : views and perspectives . Westport, Conn: Libraries Unlimited.
KELLS, H.R. (1999). National higher education evaluation systems: Methods for analysis and some propositions for the research and policy void. (Vol. 38, p. 209–232). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Li, C. (1999). 美国高等教育评估机构探析. 有色金属高教研究
Li, C. (2002). 美国高校教师管理的新变化及原因探究. 比较教育研究
Liu, Q. (2006). 高等教育呼唤中介性评估机构. 有色金属高教研究, G4, 64-67. Retrieved from http://www.scrtvu.net/thesis/files/lwk/lw0574.html
Lomas, L. and Nicholls, G. (2005) Enhancing teaching quality through peer review of teaching. Quality in Higher Education, 11:2, pp. 137-149.
Saroyan, A. and Amundsen, C. (2001) Evaluating university teaching: Time to take stock. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26:4, pp. 341-353.