{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0249798549556809, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007252215954875101, 'mean_word_length': 6.305882352941176, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Assessing a State-Mandated Institutional Accountability Program: The Perceptions of Selected Community College Leaders

ABSTRACT In the spring of 2002 we conducted a structure-focused case study at 4 North Carolina community colleges to understand how selected senior campus leaders assessed a new legislatively-mandated institutional-accountability program. Using confidential interviews and document analysis we collected, analyzed, and interpreted data that revealed clear differences in how leaders regarded the accountability program. These distinct, campus-specific perspectives are characterized as “bureaucratic meddling,” “benign intrusion,” “an opportunity to demonstrate accountability,” and “the divided leaders.” Despite these distinct perspectives, however, we also found 2 overarching themes that illuminated common reactions to the accountability program. First, leaders at 3 of the 4 institutions reported that performance ratings under the accountability program were instrumental in prompting changes in instructional programs or staffing. Second, faculty leaders at 3 institutions exhibited an apathy or unawareness of state indicators, even though some state funding was linked to measures regarding student performance.