Accountability, Reporting, and Performance: Why Haven't They Made More Difference?
Saved in:
| Title: | Accountability, Reporting, and Performance: Why Haven't They Made More Difference? |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Burke, Joseph C. |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 23 |
| Publication Date: | 2001 |
| Sponsoring Agency: | Ford Foundation, New York, NY. Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia, PA. |
| Document Type: | Opinion Papers Reports - Research Speeches/Meeting Papers |
| Descriptors: | Accountability, Community Colleges, Educational Assessment, Efficiency, Organizational Effectiveness, Organizational Objectives, Outcome Based Education, Outcomes of Education, Performance, Program Effectiveness, School Effectiveness, Two Year Colleges |
| Geographic Terms: | U.S.; New York |
| Abstract: | The 1990s brought a new notion of accountability for public colleges and universities. The goal shifted from accounting for expenditures to accounting for results. Academics, who were now expected to set goals and evaluate results while cutting costs, opposed the application of this model to academia. Public higher education had adopted Austin's Resource and Reputation Model, which states that quality comes from the quantity of campus resources, the quality of admitted students, and the reputation of faculty research. The resistance to focusing on institutional results led to criticisms by business and government, and the states stepped in. The six regional accrediting agencies made assessing student outcomes a requirement for accreditation. Performance reporting added meeting state needs to the earlier assessment practices. Reporting these results also had the tacit goal of increasing state funding, at least for campus leaders. By 2000, 30 states had performance reports; yet 49% of State Higher Education Finance Officers say that accountability reporting has had little or no effect on institutional performance. Nearly 90% of senior officers say they are familiar with performance funding programs, while over 60% of chairs report little or no familiarity, which is a possible explanation for the lack of impact of the programs. (Contains 17 tables and 16 references.) (NB) |
| Notes: | Keynote address presented at the Annual Conference of the Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges (39th, Lake Arrowhead, CA, May 2-4, 2001). |
| Journal Code: | RIEJUL2003 |
| Entry Date: | 2003 |
| Accession Number: | ED470462 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 CustomLinks: – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED470462 Name: ERIC Full Text Category: fullText Text: Full Text from ERIC |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: ED470462 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Editorial & Opinion PubTypeId: editorialOpinion PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Accountability, Reporting, and Performance: Why Haven't They Made More Difference? – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burke%2C+Joseph+C%2E%22">Burke, Joseph C.</searchLink> – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: N – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 23 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2001 – Name: SourceSuprt Label: Sponsoring Agency Group: SrcSuprt Data: Ford Foundation, New York, NY.<br />Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia, PA. – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Opinion Papers<br />Reports - Research<br />Speeches/Meeting Papers – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accountability%22">Accountability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Community+Colleges%22">Community Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Assessment%22">Educational Assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Efficiency%22">Efficiency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Organizational+Effectiveness%22">Organizational Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Organizational+Objectives%22">Organizational Objectives</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Outcome+Based+Education%22">Outcome Based Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Outcomes+of+Education%22">Outcomes of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance%22">Performance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Effectiveness%22">School Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Two+Year+Colleges%22">Two Year Colleges</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22U%2ES%2E%3B+New+York%22">U.S.; New York</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: The 1990s brought a new notion of accountability for public colleges and universities. The goal shifted from accounting for expenditures to accounting for results. Academics, who were now expected to set goals and evaluate results while cutting costs, opposed the application of this model to academia. Public higher education had adopted Austin's Resource and Reputation Model, which states that quality comes from the quantity of campus resources, the quality of admitted students, and the reputation of faculty research. The resistance to focusing on institutional results led to criticisms by business and government, and the states stepped in. The six regional accrediting agencies made assessing student outcomes a requirement for accreditation. Performance reporting added meeting state needs to the earlier assessment practices. Reporting these results also had the tacit goal of increasing state funding, at least for campus leaders. By 2000, 30 states had performance reports; yet 49% of State Higher Education Finance Officers say that accountability reporting has had little or no effect on institutional performance. Nearly 90% of senior officers say they are familiar with performance funding programs, while over 60% of chairs report little or no familiarity, which is a possible explanation for the lack of impact of the programs. (Contains 17 tables and 16 references.) (NB) – Name: Note Label: Notes Group: Note Data: Keynote address presented at the Annual Conference of the Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges (39th, Lake Arrowhead, CA, May 2-4, 2001). – Name: CodeSource Label: Journal Code Group: SrcInfo Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JC" term="%22RIEJUL2003%22">RIEJUL2003</searchLink> – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2003 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: ED470462 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED470462 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 23 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Accountability Type: general – SubjectFull: Community Colleges Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Assessment Type: general – SubjectFull: Efficiency Type: general – SubjectFull: Organizational Effectiveness Type: general – SubjectFull: Organizational Objectives Type: general – SubjectFull: Outcome Based Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Outcomes of Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Performance Type: general – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness Type: general – SubjectFull: School Effectiveness Type: general – SubjectFull: Two Year Colleges Type: general – SubjectFull: U.S.; New York Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Accountability, Reporting, and Performance: Why Haven't They Made More Difference? Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Burke, Joseph C. IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 03 M: 05 Type: published Y: 2001 |
| ResultId | 1 |
