Accountability Measures: A Comparison by Type and State.
To read the full text of this article, click here: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED460745
This paper provides a survey of accountability-related activities in states outside of California, summarizes the variables used, provides information on the advantages and disadvantages of various accountability systems, and suggests some policy recommendations that have been made in other states implementing performance-based funding. This report is based on the increasing focus on accountability within businesses and industries. Following a history of performance funding trends, the report differentiates between performance funding (or performance-based funding), which uses a formula to tie funding directly to specified indicators, and performance budgeting, which is more subjective and flexible in that it takes into account various areas of performance in determining an institution's overall appropriation. Four categories of performance funding indicators are presented: input indicators, process indicators, outputs, and outcomes. A list of the 10 most common performance measures for accountability is provided. These measures are: graduation rates, transfer rates, faculty workload/productivity, follow-up satisfaction surveys, amount of external or research funds received, remediation, pass rates on professional licensure exams, degrees awarded, placement data on graduates, total student credit hours, and number and percent of accredited programs. The report elaborates on the advantages and problems of performance-based funding. Finally, this paper provides several recommendations for implementing program budgeting. (JJL)
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Mize, Rita M.|
|Date:||Jun 30, 1999|
|Previous Article:||Reforming Environmental Education: A Forked Route.|
|Next Article:||Pathways: Service Coordination Outreach Project. Final Report.|