Rates of graduation and degree completion at community colleges remain distressingly low. This report evaluates two versions of a program designed to help probationary students at community college succeed in school. One version increased the average number of credits earned, the proportion of students who earned a grade point average of "C" or higher, and the proportion who moved off probation.

Rates of graduation and degree completion at community colleges remain distressingly low. This report evaluates two versions of a program designed to help probationary students at community college succeed in school. One version increased the average number of credits earned, the proportion of students who earned a grade point average of "C" or higher, and the proportion who moved off probation.

This story of two community colleges tells how they have dealt with the demands for data that state-mandated accountability requires. The story is based on research conducted at a large community college district in California. On the surface, the story might seem straightforward: accountability mandates led to the expansion of the Institutional Research Department, causing the schools to try to replace an outdated Student Information System in order to improve the district's overall access to data. However, the underlying story is more complicated. If it had a headline, it might be one of these: Why can't we get the data we need? A new system? What system? Is access to data really that important? This story looks at the community college district on multiple levels, weaving together anecdotes and experiences along with the underlying themes and tensions. It is an attempt to look at one component of the educational environment -- the one that links state policy-makers to the schools they oversee -- tracing the drive toward accountability through to its consequences in practice.

This story of two community colleges tells how they have dealt with the demands for data that state-mandated accountability requires. The story is based on research conducted at a large community college district in California. On the surface, the story might seem straightforward: accountability mandates led to the expansion of the Institutional Research Department, causing the schools to try to replace an outdated Student Information System in order to improve the district's overall access to data. However, the underlying story is more complicated. If it had a headline, it might be one of these: Why can't we get the data we need? A new system? What system? Is access to data really that important? This story looks at the community college district on multiple levels, weaving together anecdotes and experiences along with the underlying themes and tensions. It is an attempt to look at one component of the educational environment -- the one that links state policy-makers to the schools they oversee -- tracing the drive toward accountability through to its consequences in practice.

This story of two community colleges tells how they have dealt with the demands for data that state-mandated accountability requires. The story is based on research conducted at a large community college district in California. On the surface, the story might seem straightforward: accountability mandates led to the expansion of the Institutional Research Department, causing the schools to try to replace an outdated Student Information System in order to improve the district's overall access to data. However, the underlying story is more complicated. If it had a headline, it might be one of these: Why can't we get the data we need? A new system? What system? Is access to data really that important? This story looks at the community college district on multiple levels, weaving together anecdotes and experiences along with the underlying themes and tensions. It is an attempt to look at one component of the educational environment -- the one that links state policy-makers to the schools they oversee -- tracing the drive toward accountability through to its consequences in practice.

A comprehensive assessment of the effects of performance-based funding is not yet available. Yet according to early national survey results, the impact of performance-based funding on overall campus outcomes has been moderate at best (Burke and Minassians, 2002). These national findings may mirror experiences within California. In 1998, the State of California and the California Community Colleges inaugurated a performance-based funding program called the Partnership for Excellence (PFE). The program launch represented a commitment by the state legislature to earmark additional funding for the community colleges, in exchange for the colleges' agreement to develop, track, and achieve, by 2005, system-wide performance goals to improve student learning and success.

Through 2000-01, the state appropriation to the community colleges for the PFE program was allocated by the Chancellor's Office to local college districts based on enrollment. There were conditions in place for moving from an enrollment-based to a more performance-driven formula, but before those conditions were fully triggered, the program was not re-funded. The Legislative Analyst's Office issued an analysis that was critical of the effects of the PFE program on system performance in the community colleges. In its analysis of the 2002-03 state budget, it stated that the program was "failing to meet objectives" and that the measurement of results were "hindered by methodological disagreement and conceptual vagueness" (Legislative Analyst's Office, 2002).

During the time period when the Partnership for Excellence (PFE) program was still being funded by the Legislature, the Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education (ISKME) conducted two district-wide studies, representing eleven colleges, that examined the needs and patterns of data and information access, sharing, and use in two community college districts in California. As part of these studies, a wide range of administrators, faculty, and staff were interviewed about their use of information in decision-making on campus. Given the state's continuing interest in developing an accountability system for the California Community Colleges (Office of the Chancellor, 2005), these studies provide illuminating insights into the complex relationship between external mandates for accountability and internal practices of information and knowledge retrieval, use, and management at the district level.

A comprehensive assessment of the effects of performance-based funding is not yet available. Yet according to early national survey results, the impact of performance-based funding on overall campus outcomes has been moderate at best (Burke and Minassians, 2002). These national findings may mirror experiences within California. In 1998, the State of California and the California Community Colleges inaugurated a performance-based funding program called the Partnership for Excellence (PFE). The program launch represented a commitment by the state legislature to earmark additional funding for the community colleges, in exchange for the colleges' agreement to develop, track, and achieve, by 2005, system-wide performance goals to improve student learning and success.

Through 2000-01, the state appropriation to the community colleges for the PFE program was allocated by the Chancellor's Office to local college districts based on enrollment. There were conditions in place for moving from an enrollment-based to a more performance-driven formula, but before those conditions were fully triggered, the program was not re-funded. The Legislative Analyst's Office issued an analysis that was critical of the effects of the PFE program on system performance in the community colleges. In its analysis of the 2002-03 state budget, it stated that the program was "failing to meet objectives" and that the measurement of results were "hindered by methodological disagreement and conceptual vagueness" (Legislative Analyst's Office, 2002).

During the time period when the Partnership for Excellence (PFE) program was still being funded by the Legislature, the Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education (ISKME) conducted two district-wide studies, representing eleven colleges, that examined the needs and patterns of data and information access, sharing, and use in two community college districts in California. As part of these studies, a wide range of administrators, faculty, and staff were interviewed about their use of information in decision-making on campus. Given the state's continuing interest in developing an accountability system for the California Community Colleges (Office of the Chancellor, 2005), these studies provide illuminating insights into the complex relationship between external mandates for accountability and internal practices of information and knowledge retrieval, use, and management at the district level.