Research: Ripping Out Carnegie Unit Won't Guarantee Education Reform Success
        
        
        
			- By Dian Schaffhauser
 - 01/29/15
 
		
        The concept of the Carnegie unit as one of the defining  measurements in education will be tough to uproot, according to a new report  out by the Carnegie Foundation for  the Advancement of Teaching. And even if it were eliminated, there would be  no guarantees of improved student performance. In fact, suggested the report,  at a minimum, the Carnegie Unit at least ensures students equal time to learn.
The report covers the results of a two-year study, which  likens the credit hour to a "common currency" for multiple aspects of  education, including academic calendars, faculty workloads and compensation, transfer  and graduation requirements, athletic eligibility and distribution of federal  financial aid.
The same organization published  a report in August 2013 that examined K-12 credit policies in the United  States to better understand potential alternatives.
The report lays out the historic evolution that the Carnegie  Unit has followed since its earliest use as a way to set up a pension system  for college professors, funded by Andrew Carnegie. It also profiles  alternatives to the credit hour approach being used and tested, including the  competency model, whereby the student proves what he or she has mastered before  being allowed to progress in the course or program.
What started more than a century ago, according to "The  Carnegie Unit: A Century-Old Standard in a Changing Education Landscape,"  as a "rough gauge of student readiness" for college-level courses has  become a "crude proxy for student learning." What the unit, also  called the credit hour, does, the authors explained in the new report, is to  measure the amount of time a student spends in courses, not what's actually  learned.
"Measuring learning was left to the discretion of  individual teachers and professors," said Elena Silva, a senior associate  at the foundation and co-author of the report. "Given the great diversity  in goals and activities in the U.S. educational system and the autonomy enjoyed  by faculty, particularly in higher education, creating an alternative to the  Carnegie Unit poses formidable challenges. While the Carnegie Unit has many  limitations, it does provide a minimum guarantee of student access to  opportunities to learn."
The report noted that the elimination of the credit hour  could result in disadvantaged students — "students for whom inequitable  resources and variable quality are more the rule than the exception" — facing  greater risk. The thinking: that "learning takes time," and an  environment in which time is a variable could result in perpetuating their  disadvantages.
What American schools and colleges need, the authors said,  are "more informative measures of student performance," which will  require the development of new learning standards, learning assessments and  accountability systems.
But even if there were a shift away from the Carnegie Unit,  the authors pointed out, "there is too little evidence to claim with  confidence" that student performance would improve, at least not without  "rigorous standards and assessments" as well.
The foundation encouraged policymakers to allow for  "regulatory relief" in cases where the credit hour has become a  "barrier to innovation," such as with regulations in place for  federal financial aid and at accrediting agencies.
However, the biggest change the foundation promoted in its  report is for educators and policymakers to push for systematic testing of  "new learning standards, high-quality assessments and accountability  models that focus greater attention on student learning" in order to  understand which innovations have traction and for whom and in which  circumstances.
"Put simply, it is not enough just to have good reform  ideas," wrote foundation President Anthony Bryk in his introduction to the  report. "Educators as a community must learn their way into executing  those ideas well. This often means starting small, learning from our failures,  and constantly using data to chart progress and inform efforts at continuous  improvement."
The report can be downloaded at carnegiefoundation.org.
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
            
        
        
                
                    About the Author
                    
                
                    
                    Dian Schaffhauser is a former senior contributing editor for 1105 Media's education publications THE Journal, Campus Technology and Spaces4Learning.