Serving statewide coordinating and governing boards in developing and sustaining excellent systems of higher education.
 
SHEEO Publications Results
To enquire about the availability and cost of a publication, please email Gloria (click here) or call at 303-541-1625

Issues/Categories selected:  Accountability   Assessment   


(VIEW INSTRUCTIONS ON COPYING TEXT/IMAGES IN A PDF)

Publications requested:

Network News: Focus on the Data Quality Campaign
April 2007
This issue provides an introduction to the Data Quality Campaign (DQC), a national, collaborative effort to encourage and support state policymakers interested in improving the collection, availability, and use of high-quality secondary education data. While the focus is on P-12 data and systems, the Campaign brings together secondary and postsecondary education leaders to work collaboratively in the interest of improving secondary education data. In fact, postsecondary policymakers' and analysts' interest in the DQC and in P-16 alignment is increasing as more attention is brought to this issue.
VIEW PDF FILE

Network News: Focus on Educational Accountability
April 2005
This issue provides an extract from the recent report "Accountability for Better Results: A National Imperative for Higher Education," available of this website. Developed by the National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education, the report recommends an ongoing and vigorous dialogue on meeting the educational needs of the American people and issues a series of recommendations designed to improve student preparation, public investment in educational priorities, teaching and research, cost-effectiveness, and the availability of key data.
VIEW PDF FILE

Accountability for Better Results: A National Imperative for Higher Education
The National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education, March 2005, $5.00, DocID: 27255
Citing increasing global competition, low rates of college completion, and a college access and success gap for minority students, a national commission of political, business, and higher education leaders called for a “fresh approach” to accountability designed to increase access and lift graduation rates for all students. Toward these ends, the National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education recommended an ongoing and vigorous dialogue targeted on meeting the educational needs of the American people, issuing a series of recommendations designed to improve student preparation, public investment in educational priorities, teaching and research, cost-effectiveness, and the availability of key data.
VIEW PDF FILE

Network News: Focus on Assessment of Student Learning
January 2002
How much do we know about what our college students know and are able to do? More precisely, what role, if any, does the state have in assessing student learning, and how are states attempting to carry out this activity? This issue of Network News explores the assessment of student learning from the state policy perspective. The first two articles present observations by noted authorities Peg Miller and Peter Ewell. Shifting from this broad overview, the next article profiles the efforts of three states who vary in their approaches to student assessment. Finally, we conclude with a description of some key resources on student assessment, including national data sets and organizational initiatives.
VIEW PDF FILE

Network News: Focus on Educational Accountability
November 2001
Education is now a high priority for business and political leaders around the world, according to Paul E. Lingenfelter, Executive Director of SHEEO. And, he argues, "as the stakes rise, so do the pressures for high performance." In this issue, we present a condensed version of a presentation by Dr. Lingenfelter that aims to stimulate thoughtful discussion among policymakers attempting to develop and implement policies to improve educational performance. It addresses, first, some of the dimensions of educational accountability; second, traditional and emerging accountability practices for higher education in the United States; and third, a few principles of effective practice.
VIEW PDF FILE

Deregulation of State-Level Academic Program Policies
by Rhonda Martin Epper, January 1999, $10.00, DocID: 26144
Deregulation of State-Level Academic Program Policies stems from meetings held during August 1998 in which SHEEO executives and academic officers discussed future directions for academic program approval and review. The report describes some of the creative steps states are taking to renew and streamline program approval and review so that these processes are less bureaucratic and burdensome to institutions. Among the changes described are: (1) shifting from input to outcome criteria; (2) taking a more proactive and collaborative role in program development; (3) strengthening the decision role exercised by campus boards; and (4) deregulating the distance learning approval process.

Focus on the Customer: A New Approach to State-level Accountability Reporting and Processes for Higher Education
by Sandra S. Ruppert, Educational Systems Research, July 1998, $12.00, DocID: 25821
One of two companion pieces to the survey on performance measures, Ruppert's paper reports on the current status of accountability policies in the states, and discusses state responses to higher education's new "customers": students, employers and legislators. Focus on the Customer provides recommendations on how state boards can manage in this new environment and what their new role is.

State Survey on Performance Measures 1996-97
by Melodie E. Christal, April 1998, $15.00, DocID: 25672
State-level accountability and the use of performance measures have been the touchstones of the 1990s. In state after state, legislators have directed all government entities, including public higher education, to state their goals and activities more explicitly and report results as a form of accountability. Many state higher education agencies have adopted performance measures to respond to these accountability demands.

"State Survey on Performance Measures" is the result of a 1997 SHEEO survey of state-level higher education coordinating agencies and multi-institution governing boards to find out which states are using performance measures, how they are using them, and if they are making a difference. The report discusses performance measures in the budgetary process as well as the impact of performance reporting.

The Transition from Business as Usual to Funding for Results: State Efforts to Integrate Performance Measures in the Higher Education Budgetary Process
by Brenda Norman Albright, April 1998, $12.00, DocID: 25692
Using data from the SHEEO survey on performance measures, Albright's paper focuses on strategies for using performance measures in higher education and outlines key principles that can guide states' explorations of performance-based funding. Performance-based funding represents a paradigm shift, from the state meeting the institution's needs to the college or university meeting the state's needs. Performance-based funding changes the funding equation by altering educators' expectations that programs or institutions are entitled to a certain level of resources; instead, it creates rewards for achievement and successful changes in institutional performance. These emerging result-centered strategies, with their strong emphasis on student learning needs, customer service, quality, and productivity, differ in process, focus, and structure from traditional funding approaches.

Restructuring in Virginia: A Case in Point
by Margaret A. Miller, September 1995, $10.00, DocID: 26878
In 1993, after three years of general-fund budget cuts to Virginia public higher education, the State Council of Higher Education issued its first explicit call for the restructuring of public institutions of higher education in the Commonwealth. In this report the author describes the process used to develop the institutional restructuring plans; the nature of those plans; the anticipated financial benefits; and the ways in which the plans might be made to dovetail with other processes such as program approval, productivity review, student outcomes assessment, indicators, enrollment projections, and operative and capital outlay budget review. Miller also raises the question of the role of the SHEEO agency and how it can serve as an agent of change.

Doing More With Less: Approaches to Shortening Time to Degree
by Cheryl D. Blanco, November 1994, $10.00, DocID: 16192
In response to a SHEEO RFP on the issue of "doing more with less," the author provides an overview of national data on time to degree, influencing factors, and suggests several strategies for shortening time to degree.

A Model for the Reinvented Higher Education System
by Babak Armajani, Richard B. Heydinger and Peter Hutchinson, January 1994, $10.00, DocID: 10259
The principles of a customer-driven, enterprise-based, decentralized system are at the heart of this creative new paradigm for a public higher education system. Written to stimulate thinking about both governance and accountability structures, this "break-the-mold" proposal will get your attention.

RETURN TO TOP