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
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED132925
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: ED132925
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Conference
PubTypeId: conference
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Introducing Higher Education Outcome Information into the State Planning and Budgeting Process.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Micek%2C+Sidney+C%2E%22">Micek, Sidney C.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22George+Washington+Univ%2E%2C+Washington%2C+DC%2E+Inst%2E+for+Educational+Leadership%2E%22">George Washington Univ., Washington, DC. Inst. for Educational Leadership.</searchLink>
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Institute for Educational Leadership, Suite 310, 1001 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20036 ($0.50)
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: N
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1976
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Speeches/Meeting Papers
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accountability%22">Accountability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Budgeting%22">Budgeting</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Administration%22">Educational Administration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Assessment%22">Educational Assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Specifications%22">Educational Specifications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Criteria%22">Evaluation Criteria</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Management+Systems%22">Management Systems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance+Criteria%22">Performance Criteria</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance+Specifications%22">Performance Specifications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Resource+Allocation%22">Resource Allocation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statewide+Planning%22">Statewide Planning</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: 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)
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1977
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: ED132925
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED132925
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Accountability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Budgeting
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Administration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Specifications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Criteria
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Management Systems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Performance Criteria
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Performance Specifications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Postsecondary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Resource Allocation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statewide Planning
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Introducing Higher Education Outcome Information into the State Planning and Budgeting Process.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: George Washington Univ., Washington, DC. Inst. for Educational Leadership.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Micek, Sidney C.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 1976
ResultId 1