Responding to Accountability Mandates. ERIC Digest.
by Outcalt, Charles - Rabin, Joel
In recent years, state governments have advocated greater accountability
on the part of community colleges, often coupling their calls with explicit
guidelines on how educational outcomes are to be measured. Community college
associations and individuals have joined this discussion by reviewing existing
assessment efforts, as well as devising new evaluation procedures. Through
this process, many community colleges across the nation have implemented
innovative accountability-driven assessment programs. This Digest briefly
reviews accountability mandates and evaluation guidelines provided by state
legislatures, leading scholars and administrators, and the American Association
of Community Colleges (AACC). This discussion is followed by three case
studies of innovative assessment programs that use evaluation as a tool
to increase institutional accountability.
In 1989, the California State Assembly passed legislation requiring
the state's community colleges to devise a system-wide accountability program
addressing educational and fiscal performance. Items to be evaluated included:
student access, transfer programs and rates, student goal satisfaction,
occupational preparation relative to state and local workforce needs, and
fiscal conditions of the college districts (MacDougall & Friedlander,
1990). Based on pilot study results, the Chancellor's Office eventually
devised a statewide accountability program featuring an annual report on
performance indicators, in-depth accountability studies, statewide surveys,
enhanced data collection and distribution, and a resource guide of outstanding
examples of accountability programs (Walter & Fetler, 1992).
Precedents for California's state mandate existed in several states
including Florida, New Jersey, and Virginia. Initially, all Florida public,
postsecondary institutions were required to respond to nineteen measures.
Among them were percent of degree-seeking students who were awarded degrees
and progress toward goals of the state plan for equal access/equal opportunity
for students (MacDougall & Friedlander, 1990). Since then, new performance
indicators have been added and institutions have been afforded some flexibility
in developing campus-specific measures (Pensacola Junior College, 1996).
This approach is similar to New Jersey's state-imposed accountability
system that provides a voice for individual institutions in determining
some standards to be measured; these are evaluated in tandem with areas
mandated by the state (MacDougall & Friedlander, 1990). Finally, Virginia
makes use of an approach in which the state establishes accountability
categories, while the institutions are left to determine the means for
measuring the outcomes (MacDougall & Friedlander, 1990).
RESPONDING TO PRESSURES
In response to these various types of legislative mandates, community
college researchers, administrators and associations have engaged in thoughtful
and practical discussions of evaluation procedures and practices. One key
issue has been the criteria by which measurements are made. For example,
Hogan (1992) asks whether assessments are designed to evaluate the characteristics
of the institution (e.g. library resources and faculty salaries) or are
they intended to measure the institution's effectiveness (e.g. graduation
rates and test scores). His commentary encourages assessors to reflect
on the purposes of evaluation and accountability, as well as the values
underlying the process.
Satterlee's (1992) discussion of key components of successful assessments
concurs. Clarity of purpose, process, and evaluative criteria as well as
communication of how results will be used after the assessment are among
the elements Satterlee cites. Furthermore, he cautions that disregard for
evaluation results makes future change, as well as future assessment, much
less likely to succeed.
Even in states where accountability measures are not mandated, community
colleges acknowledge that documenting the educational and fiscal status
of their institutions is critical to maintaining public trust as well as
public dollars. The AACC's "Community Colleges: Core Indicators of Effectiveness"
(1994) is especially useful for colleges interested in analyzing and/or
using effectiveness indicators in accountability efforts. The thirteen
indicators described here encompass categories such as student persistence
and transfer, the development of specific academic skills, employment rates,
and the institution's relationship to the community it serves. In addition
to defining each of the indicators proposed, the report suggests possible
data sources for measuring success on each indicator, as well as possible
related criteria to be used in conjunction with or in place of the indicators
Hudgins (1995) notes that numerous barriers often hinder the establishment
of accountability programs. Many faculty are not fully supportive of these
efforts; data often are not well understood or used; and there tends to
exist an unclear or non-existent relationship between assessment and budget
appropriations. Despite these challenges, Hudgins offers community colleges
several practical recommendations. They include: forming partnerships for
assessment; developing closer relationships with government; involving
faculty as partners; and beginning an assessment program based on a shared
vision of outcomes, no matter what obstacles or challenges might be foreseen.
The following three case studies illustrate institutions that have fulfilled
accountability and assessment requirements in exemplary ways.
California's Los Rios Community College District undertook institutional
assessment long before the California legislature mandated accountability
efforts for community colleges (Jones & Brazil, 1996). To achieve its
goal of creating a program that would combine research, planning and decision
making, the district developed the Student Flow Research Model (SFRM) in
1983. The SFRM brings together data from four areas: the district's service
population; enrolled students; student experiences; and student outcomes.
Placing the college within a dynamic public environment as both a consumer
and producer, the model enables the community colleges to maintain an emphasis
on accountability and effectiveness in meeting the needs of the its surrounding
community. Since its inception, the SFRM has been modified to become the
Collegiate Yearly Accountability (CYA) model. Using the CYA, colleges are
able to cross reference census and enrollment data with student demographic
information, course enrollments, grading information, and survey responses
of graduates to produce more accurate enrollment projections for the future.
Because of information management practices embodied in the CYA, the Los
Rios Community College District has greatly increased its ability to meet
accountability and effectiveness standards.
A recent assessment conducted by New Jersey's Hudson County Community
College (HCCC) is noteworthy for its comprehensiveness and close articulation
with HCCC's institutional mission. Oromaner (1995) discusses how HCCC used
this assessment to determine how well the college was meeting its reformulated
mission to meet the educational needs of a linguistically and ethnically/racially
diverse community. Incorporating survey responses from a broad cross-section
of the campus and its surrounding community, the assessment investigated
HCCC's effectiveness across a wide range of indicators. These included
student satisfaction and goal attainment; faculty professional development,
workload, and service; college finances; the college's success in achieving
regional and state educational needs; HCCC's program and degree offerings;
and community perceptions of the college. To relate these findings to statewide
educational policy as well as to institutional accountability issues, the
report concludes by discussing ways in which HCCC is contributing to the
fulfillment of New Jersey's Master Plan for education.
A 1996 evaluation conducted by Pensacola Junior College (PJC) in Florida,
the fourth phase of an evaluation program begun in 1990, demonstrates the
value of a long-term, evolving assessment and accountability process (PJC,
1996). Over the course of PJC's assessment program, evaluation procedures
have been changed to meet the institution's needs, and have incorporated
changes suggested during prior phases. The current effort emphasizes comprehensiveness
while it offers flexibility for respondents, who determine the indicators
on which they are to be assessed. Focusing on outcome indicators, the assessment
provided a thorough examination of institutional mission fulfillment and
effectiveness in meeting 51 institutional goals in 16 functional areas.
In keeping with the institution's goal of maintaining a responsive, flexible
evaluation process, the next phase of PJC's assessment programs will incorporate
refinements suggested during the fourth phase. These elements include a
stronger focus on outcomes rather than on processes.
As community colleges come under increasing pressure to demonstrate
institutional effectiveness, several innovative responses and guidelines
have been developed. The examples outlined above contribute significantly
to the continuing development of assessment, each providing a unique perspective
and set of issues for those interested in the improvement of community
Community College Roundtable. (1994). Community Colleges: Core Indicators
of Effectiveness. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
(ED 367 411)
Hogan, T. P. (1992). "Methods for Outcomes Assessment Related to Institutional
Accreditation." In Accreditation, Assessment, and Institutional Effectiveness:
Resource Papers for the COPA Task Force on Institutional Effectiveness.
Washington, DC: Council on Institutional Effectiveness. (ED 343 513)
Hudgins, J. L. (October, 1995). "Using Indicators of Effectiveness to
Demonstrate Accountability of Community Colleges." Paper presented at a
meeting of the Texas Association of Community College Trustees and Administrators,
Austin, TX. (ED 394 602)
Jones, J. C., and Brazil, B. (1996). From Accountability to Effectiveness:
The Student Flow Model Ten Years Later. Sacramento, CA: Cosumnes River
College, Office of Research. (ED 411 021)
MacDougall, P.R. and Friedlander, J. (1990). A Proposed Accountability
Model for California's Community Colleges: A Paper for Discussion. Santa
Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara City College. (ED 314 123)
Oromaner, M. (1995). Excellence and Accountability Report, September
1, 1995. Jersey City, NJ: Hudson County Community College. (ED 402 993)
Pensacola Junior College. (1996). Pensacola Junior College Institutional
Effectiveness Progress Report, 1996. Year 4, 1995-1996. Academic Year Progress-to-Date.
Pensacola, FL: Pensacola Junior College, Office of Institutional Research
and Effectiveness. (ED 409 035)
Satterlee, B. (Dec 1992). Program Review and Evaluation: A Survey of
Contemporary Literature. (ED 356 261)
Walters, J.E., and Fetler, M.E. (1992). Accountability: Commitment to
Quality. A Report. Sacramento: California Community Colleges Board of Governors.
(ED 351 073)
Please note that this site is privately owned and is in no way related
to any Federal agency or ERIC unit. Further, this site is using a
privately owned and located server. This is NOT a government sponsored
or government sanctioned site. ERIC is a Service Mark of the U.S. Government.
This site exists to provide the text of the public domain ERIC Documents
previously produced by ERIC. No new content will ever appear here
that would in any way challenge the ERIC Service Mark of the U.S. Government.