Performance in graduate programs seeking accreditation through the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration may be assessed through a variety of indicators. This paper focuses on the second NASPAA standard, program mission, which requires demonstrated performance, and it addresses multiple program outcomes rather than a single performance measurement tool. The performance measurement efforts at the University of Delaware are discussed as an example of one program’s approach to meeting the program mission standard.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AngeloThomasCrossPatricia K.. 1993. Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
AngeloThomas. 1999. Assessment Essentials: Planning, Implementing, and Improving Assessment in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
AristiguetaMaria P.1999. Managing for Results in State Government. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books.
4.
BavonAloysius. 1995. “Innovations in Performance Measurement Systems: A Comparative Perspective.” International Journal of Public Administration, 18:491–519.
5.
BauerK.BauerGabriele. 2002. “A General Education Institute Session.” July, University of Delaware, PowerPoint presentation. Available at www.edel.edu/cte. Accessed October 6, 2003.
6.
BlackP.WiliamD.1998. “Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment.” Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2):139–148. Available online at www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm.
7.
BoylePhilipWhitakerGordon. 2001. “Educating for the New Public Service: Implications of the Transformation of Governance.” Journal of Public Affairs Education, 7(4):267–279.
8.
BreauxDavid A.ClynchEdward J.MorrisJohn C.. 2003. “The Core Curriculum Content of NASPAA-Accredited Programs: Fundamentally Alike or Different?” Journal of Public Affairs Education, 9(4):259–273.
9.
ClearyRobert E.1990. “What do Public Administration Masters Programs Look Like? Do They Do What Is Needed?” Public Administration Review, 50 (Nov./Dec.):663–669.
10.
DenhardtRobert B.et al.1997. “Integrating Theory and Practice in MPA Education.” Journal of Public Administration Education, 3(2):153–162.
11.
DruckerPeter F.1989. “What Business Can Learn from Nonprofits.” Harvard Business Review, 67(4): 88–93.
12.
EwellPeter T.1994. “A Matter of Integrity: Accountability and the Future of Self-regulation.” Change, 26(6):25–59.
13.
HatryHarry1999. Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
14.
HubaMary E.FreedJann E.. 2000. Learner-centered Assessment on College Campuses. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
15.
JenningsEdward T.Jr.1989. “Accountability, Program Quality, Outcome Assessment, and Graduate Education for Public Affairs and Public Administration.” Public Administration Review, 42(5):438–446.
16.
La MarcaPaul M.2001. “Alignment of Standards and Assessments as an Accountability Criterion.” Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 7(21). Available at http://edresearch.org/pare/getvn.asp?v=7andn=21. Accessed Sept. 21, 2003.
17.
MillerThomas I.1994. in WholeyJoseph S.HatryHarryNewcomerKathryn, Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18.
NASPAA (National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration). 2005.
19.
RobertsGary E.2001. “Using Stakeholder Surveys in MPA Program Performance Measurement.” Journal of Public Affairs Education, 7(1):19–30.
20.
WilliamsDavid G.2002. “Seeking the Holy Grail: Assessing Outcomes of MPA Programs.” Journal of Public Affairs Education, 8(1):45–56.
