Return to Home Page Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Rockefeller Institute of Government
Skip Navigation

The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government

 
Education: Accountability in Higher Education

Accountability in Higher Education

Closing the Accountability Gap for Public Universities: Putting Academic Departments in the Performance Loop

   [PDF]
Accountability programs become increasingly invisible on campus below the vice presidential level and academic departments are often left entirely out of the loop. That creates a disabling disconnect among societal concerns, institutional goals, and departmental aspirations. Adopting feedback loops with common departmental indicators can enhance accountability without threatening the unique nature of higher education institutionshis article puts academic departments in the performance loop through feedback performance loops that link institutional and department goals, indicators, and reports.
Joseph C. Burke, Planning in Higher Education, September/November 2006

“Real” Accountability or Accountability “Lite”: Seventh Annual Survey, 2003

   [PDF]
The Seventh Annual Survey of State Higher Education Finance Officers shows the continuing triumph of performance reporting and the continuing trials of performance budgeting and funding.
Joseph C. Burke and Henrik Minassians, 2003

Balancing All Sides of the Accountability Triangle

   [PDF]
This article suggests a specific set of policies for trustees at coordinating and governing boards to ensure accountability for higher education performance at the state and institutional level.
Copyright 2004 Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.
Joseph C. Burke, Trusteeship Magazine, November/December 2004

Achieving Accountability in Higher Education: Balancing Public, Academic, and Market Demands

   [PDF of first chapter]
Higher Education at the national, state, and institutional levels must ensure a balanced response to public, academic, and market demands. This book recommends specific policies for each of these levels.
Joseph C. Burke and Associates, Jossey-Bass, October 2004
Order from Jossey-Bass

Implications of State Performance Indicators for Community College Assessment


This article recommends a specific but limited set of indicators for assessing community college performance.
Joseph C. Burke and Henrik Minassians, in Jack Friedlander and Andreea Serban (eds), Developing and Implementing Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes: New Directions for Community Colleges No. 126, Jossey-Bass, 2004
Order from Jossey-Bass

Reporting Higher Education Results: Missing Links in the Performance Chain


The book examines in depth the origin and history of performance reporting, its coverage, contents, and audiences. Using a long list of performance reports, it analyzes the indicators, types, concerns, and effectiveness.
Joseph C. Burke and Henrik Minassians, Reporting Higher Education Results: Missing Links in the Performance Chain. New Directions in Institutional Research No. 116, Jossey-Bass, March 2003
Order from Jossey-Bass

Saving the Soul of Public Research Universities

   [PDF]
Competition among research universities for national ranking increasingly fuels a conflict between peer prestige and public purpose. Governors and legislators rail about public purpose, while professors and administrators rave about peer prestige. Can public research universities pursue both public purpose and peer prestige?
Joseph C. Burke, Inside Higher Education, July 14, 2006

The New Accountability for Public Higher Education: From Regulation to Results, Research in University Evaluation

   [PDF]
This paper tracks the move from the old accountability of conforming to regulations to the new accountability for results.
Joseph C. Burke. The Journal of University Evaluation of National Institution for Academic Degrees No. 3, Tokyo, August 2003

The Preferred “No Cost” Accountability Program: The Sixth Annual Report

   [PDF]
The Sixth Annual Survey of State Higher Education Finance Officers (SHEFOs) shows the triumph of performance reporting and the trials of performance budgeting and funding. The bad budgets for higher education that emerged after our 2001 survey spurred the rapid advance of performance reporting and stifled the steady climb of performance budgeting and funding. Nearly 90 percent of the states by now have some form of performance reporting, a leap of nearly 50 percent in just two years.
Joseph C. Burke and Henrik Minassians, 2002