This paper identifies and assess the current status of community college peer institution selection systems. Five questions were posited: What are the impetuses for conducting institutional comparative analysis? Who has developed community college institutional peer groups? What constitutes a peer group; are there different types? How is a peer group determined; what are the methods used and variables included? To what extent are institutional peer groups present in community college settings? This research found that a limited body of research exists in the study of community college peer institution selection systems. Additional research is suggested for identifying unique community college variables and for determining the role of classification systems to further describe community college diversity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arnold, C.L. (1997). Using national data sets to create comparable national statistics for the student characteristics and outcomes in community colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421197).
2.
Berthold, C. A. (1996). Aids to navigation: Using interinstitutional databases in the University of Maryland System. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Albuquerque, NM. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED397715)
3.
Brinkman, P. T., & Teeter, D. J. (1987). Methods for selecting comparison groups. New Directions for Institutional Research, 53, 5-23.
4.
Brinkman, P. T., & Krakower, J. (1983). Comparative data for administrators in higher education. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
5.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2000). The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education (2000 Edition). Available [on-line]: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/Classification/CIHE2000/defljotes/Definitions.htm.
6.
Colorado Commission on Higher Education. (2001). Performance fudning process and quality indicator system for FY 2001-02. [On-line]: http://www.state.co.us/ccheZ_dir/hecche.html.
7.
Connecticut Department of Education. (1998). Transforming Connecticut higher education: An agenda for excellence into the 21st century, April 2, 1998, Report of the Public Agenda Advisory Council [On-line] http://www.ctdhe.org/dheweb/toc.htm.
8.
Curry, D.J. (1972). The seven comparison states: Their selection, use and applicability for higher education. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 095768)
9.
Della Mea, C. L. (1989). A comparison of two procedures for peer group assignment of institutions of higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg, VA.
10.
Glover, R. H., & Mills, M. R. (1989). Interinstitutional comparisons for decisionmaking. New Directions for Higher Education, 68, 79-92.
11.
Illinois Community College Board. (1999). Fiscal year 1999 salary survey report for the Illinois Public Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED429638)
12.
Ingram, J. A. (1995). Using IPEDS for selecting peer institutions. Lincoln, NE: Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED387010)
13.
Katsinas, S. G. (1996). Preparing leaders for diverse institutional settings. In J.C. Palmer & S.G. Katsinas (Eds.), Graduate and Continuing Education for Community College Leaders: What it Means Today (pp. 15-25). New Directions for Community Colleges, No. 95.
14.
Katsinas, S.G. (1993). Toward a classification system for community colleges. Paper presented to the 1993 Annual Meeting of the Council of Universities and Colleges (Portland, OR.)
15.
Korb, R. (1982). Clusters of colleges and universities: An empirically determined system. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED227797)
16.
Meeker, B. (1997). Comparativefinancial statistics for public two-year colleges: FY 1995 peer groups sample. Washington, D.C.: National Association of College and University Business Officers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED409055)
17.
Nebraska Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education (2000). Comprehensive Statewide Plan for Postsecondary Education [On-line]: http://www.ccpe.state.ne.us/PublicDoc/CCPE/complantoc.asp.
18.
New Jersey Commission on Higher Education. (2000). Accountability in higher education: The fourth annual systemwide report [On-line]: http://www.state.nj.us/highereducation/arO4.htm.
19.
Ohio Board of Regents. (2000). Performance Report Consultation [On-line]: http://www.regents.state.oh.us/perfrpt/.
20.
Prather, J. E., & Carlson, C. E. (1991). Using institutional comparisons for administrative decision support. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED335794)
21.
Rawson, T. M., Hoyt, D. P., & Teeter, D. J. (1983). Identifying "comparable" institutions. Research in Higher Education, 18, 3, 299-310.
22.
Soteriou, N. E. (1994). Peer institution profile report: El Paso Community College. El Paso, TX: EPCC Office on Institutional Research and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED376874)
23.
Szelest, B. P. (1996). In search of peer institutions: Two methods of exploring and determining peer institutions. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Northeast Association for Institutional Research (Princeton, NJ). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED432186)
24.
Teeter, D. J. & Christal, M. E. (1987). Establishing peer groups: A comparison of methodologies. Planning for Higher Education, 15, 2, 8-17.
25.
Teeter, D. J. (1983). The politics of comparing data with other institutions. New Directions for Institutional Research, 10, 2, 39-48.
26.
Terenzini, P. T., Hartmark, L., Lorang, W. G. & Shirley, R. C. (1980). A conceptual and methodological approach to the identification of peer institutions. Research in Higher Education, 12, 4, 347-364.
27.
University System of Georgia. (2000). Benchmarking and management review study [On-line]: http://www.usg.edu/admin/benchmark.
28.
Weeks, S. F., Puckett, D., & Daron, R. (2000). Developing peer groups for the Oregon University System: From politics to analysis (and back). Research in Higher Education, 41, 1, 1-20.
29.
West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission. (2001). Summary of Senate Bill 703 [On-line]: http://www.hepc.wvnet.edu/.
30.
Wyoming Community College Commission. (1999). WCCC hopes to change funding formula [On-line]: http://commission.wcc.edu/WCCC/Misc/news.htm.
31.
Zhao, J., & Dean, D. C. (1997). Selecting peer institutions: A hybrid approach. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research (Orlando, FL.). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 410877)
