This review explores the context in which performance indicators and performance-based funding in community colleges have emerged as a means of measuring institutional effectiveness in community colleges. The article presents the history and context for performance indicators in community colleges and discusses the benefits and drawbacks of the use of performance indicators and performance-based funding. The review then details a recent study that tracked community college indicators and performance-based funding by state. Finally, the implications of using performance indicators in community colleges are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alfred, R., McClenney, K., Hudgins, J., & Ewell, P. (1999). Core indicators of effectiveness for community colleges. Washington, DC: Community College Press.
2.
Callan, P. M., Doyle, W., & Finney, J. E. (2001). Evaluating state higher education performance: Measuring Up 2000. Change, 33 (2), 10-19.
3.
Carnevale, A. P., Johnson, N. C., & Edwards, A. R. (1998, April 10). Performance-based appropriations: Fad or wave of the future?The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. 1-5. Retrieved February 10, 2004 from http://www.chronicle.com/prm/che-data/articles.dir/art-44.dir/issue-31.dir/31bO0601.htm
4.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American community college. (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Cohen, A. M. (1998). The shaping of American higher education: Emergence and growth of the contemporary system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Education Commission of the States. (2000). State funding for community colleges: A 50 state survey. Denver, CO: ECS, Center for Community College Policy.
7.
Ewell, P. T. (1999). A delicate balance: The role of evaluation in management. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
8.
Office of Policy, Planning, & Research. (2002). Quality Indicator System. Retrieved April 7, 2003, from Colorado Community College System Web site: http://www.cccs.edu/POPLAR/QIS.html
9.
Outcalt, C. L., & Rabin, J. (1998). Responding to accountabilitv mandates. ERIC digest. Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421181)
10.
Potter, W. (2003, August 8). State lawmakers again cut higher-education spending. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A22-A22.
11.
Schmidt, P. (1996, May 24). More states tie spending on colleges to meeting specific goals. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. 1-5. Retrieved February 10, 2004 from http://www.chronicle.com/prm/che-data/articles.dir/art-42.dir/issue-37.dir/37aO2301.htm
12.
Schmidt, P. (1998, July 24). States increasingly link budgets to performance. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. 1-3. Retrieved February 10, 2004 from http://www.chronicle.com/prm/che-data/articles.dir/art-44.dir/issue-46.dir/46aO2601.htm
13.
Schmidt, P. (2002, February 22). Most states tie aid to performance, despite little proof that it works. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A20-A20.
14.
Strauss, L. (2001). Trends in community college financing: Challenges of the past, present, and future. ERIC digest. Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED467983)
15.
Zarkesh, M., & Beas, A. M. (2003). Indicators and community college trends 2000-2003. Unpublished manuscript. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. in process)
