----

##  Responding to Accountability Mandates. ERIC Digest.                          

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. STATE-MANDATED ACCOUNTABILITYIn             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 PRESSURESIn 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 outlined. 
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. INNOVATIVE                    RESPONSESThe 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. CONCLUSIONAs 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              colleges. REFERENCESCommunity 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) 
The ERIC Clearinghouse is administered by             the National Library of Education (NLE) and operates under OERI                 Contract No. RR93002003. The opinions expressed in this digest do               not necessarily reflect the position or policy of NLE/OERI and no               official endorsement by NLE/OERI should be inferred.                         **Title:** Responding to Accountability Mandates. ERIC Digest.                          **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** World Wide Web: http://www.gse.ucla.edu/ERIC/eric.html                       **Descriptors:**  Accountability,  College Outcomes Assessment,  Community Colleges,             Educational Innovation, Government School Relationship, Program                 Descriptions,  Self Evaluation (Groups), State Norms, Two Year                  Colleges                                                                     **Identifiers:** ERIC Digests                                                                 
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]