View in EDS

Introducing Higher Education Outcome Information into the State Planning and Budgeting Process.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Introducing Higher Education Outcome Information into the State Planning and Budgeting Process.
Authors: Micek, Sidney C., George Washington Univ., Washington, DC. Inst. for Educational Leadership.
Availability: Institute for Educational Leadership, Suite 310, 1001 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20036 ($0.50)
Peer Reviewed: N
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 1976
Document Type: Speeches/Meeting Papers
Descriptors: Accountability, Budgeting, Decision Making, Educational Administration, Educational Assessment, Educational Specifications, Evaluation Criteria, Management Systems, Performance Criteria, Performance Specifications, Postsecondary Education, Resource Allocation, Statewide Planning
Abstract: A common concern of state-level and postsecondary institutional decisionmaking is the limitations of the state planning and budgeting process as it relates to educational change and accountability: increased regulations, the cost of obtaining information, the difficulty of assessing outcomes, the inability to discourage nonproductive programs, and lack of information about benefits to the taxpayer. Interest in performance- or outcome-oriented budgeting is increasing, and a number of states now have performance audit staffs. A variety of techniques are used by these staffs: outside consultants, institutional assessments, and combined audit and program review. NCHEMS has developed an Inventory of Higher Education Outcome Variables and Measures to be used by decisionmakers in dealing with this problem. The most needed outcome measures were determined from two surveys of state-level and institutional administrators. Four major difficulties occur in collecting and using outcome information: (1) explicit measures of educational outcome have been hard to come by; (2) interpretation of information (to determine cause and effect) is difficult; (3) general goals often lack translation into specific objectives; and (4) the usual time span of a budget limits the assessment of higher education outcomes. (Author/MSE)
Entry Date: 1977
Accession Number: ED132925
Database: ERIC
Description
Abstract:A common concern of state-level and postsecondary institutional decisionmaking is the limitations of the state planning and budgeting process as it relates to educational change and accountability: increased regulations, the cost of obtaining information, the difficulty of assessing outcomes, the inability to discourage nonproductive programs, and lack of information about benefits to the taxpayer. Interest in performance- or outcome-oriented budgeting is increasing, and a number of states now have performance audit staffs. A variety of techniques are used by these staffs: outside consultants, institutional assessments, and combined audit and program review. NCHEMS has developed an Inventory of Higher Education Outcome Variables and Measures to be used by decisionmakers in dealing with this problem. The most needed outcome measures were determined from two surveys of state-level and institutional administrators. Four major difficulties occur in collecting and using outcome information: (1) explicit measures of educational outcome have been hard to come by; (2) interpretation of information (to determine cause and effect) is difficult; (3) general goals often lack translation into specific objectives; and (4) the usual time span of a budget limits the assessment of higher education outcomes. (Author/MSE)