Models for Policy Structure

Decentralized Assessment/Centralized Data Model

Centrally Managed/Guided Model

Coordinated Combination Model

Decentralized Assessment/Centralized Data

This structure is characterized by a laissez-faire approach by the state as it works with the institutions at a distance, otherwise allowing them to conduct assessment. The state sets broad parameters for performance, typically through a series of goals or targets. Institutions develop their own effectiveness plans and decide how they can best conduct assessment to demonstrate the required performance. Institutions report results to the state either on their own or as part of a formalized submission process. The state then makes decisions regarding institutional/system performance on the aggregated data from institutions.

SHEEO
Adopts a planning and goal setting role during policy development
May also set broad parameters for performance
Establishes the areas for data collection
Primary task is to collect data from institutions, analyze it, and make its implications publicly available
Coordinates and organizes the procedure for institutions to submit data

Legislature
Not directly engaged in setting policy or guiding its development
Serves as a stakeholder and makes public inquiries into performance

Institutions
Develop measures to comply with state-prescribed or established parameters for performance
Define assessment and determine how best to demonstrate outcomes
Submit data to SHEEO upon request, using standardized format and procedure
Systems/Institutions may conduct other assessment practices unrelated to SHEEO data collection

Regional Accreditation Association
Little or no direct contact with state officials regarding assessment policy matters
Works directly with institutions on effectiveness and assessment initiatives

The structure can be differentiated across sectors, with two- and four-year institutions having separate systems for collecting and reporting data and implementing an assessment policy.

Top

Centrally Managed/Guided

This design structure typically has prescribed state & institutional goals, most often mandated by the state legislature, but can also be from a SHEEO with strong authority. Specific performance targets can also be either prescribed or agreed upon through negotiations with institutions and are generally less variable. The model involves centralized data collection & analysis, usually performed by the SHEEO or one of its designated agencies. Findings based on the data collected are used to make budget decisions.

SHEEO
Carries out the legislative mandate or is the originator of its own policy
Develops a program using its own design or according to guidelines established via statute
Central repository for and distributor of information
Responsible for developing consensus and negotiating between institutions and the legislature

Legislature
Originator and monitor of policy, through either statute or budgetary authority
Grants authority to SHEEO to work on its behalf
Sets goals, targets, and criteria for satisfactory performance
Can be a partner for assessment development, if it works with SHEEO and institutions

Institutions
Work collectively, through representatives, to shape discussion on assessment
Participate in good faith to set reasonable goals and expectations

Regional Accreditation Association
Works with institution/programs directly to establish assessment practices
Accreditation process is not part of state policy

 

Top

Coordinated Combination

In this design, there is a loosely coordinated combination of approaches to assessment. This could be because the state policy prescribes several ongoing, and perhaps, overlapping actions, or because the state policy does not prescribe particular actions and leaves it to various state agencies to demand performance or assessment information. The state establishes quality expectations & performance guidelines, but there is generally institutional variability for compliance. State agencies and policymakers require information to satisfy their own concerns, and these requirements may or may not be checked for duplication among the reports generated. There may be some tension with institutions as they undertake assessment activity for internal improvement that may or may not coincide with the wishes of the state policymakers.

SHEEO
Coordinates the many reporting data collection requirements so that it can produce its own reports
Has involvement in many of the state’s policy aspects including management, research, and data collection
Central repository for and distributor of information
Responsible for developing consensus and negotiating between institutions and the legislature

Legislature
Can be originator and monitor of policy, through either statute or budgetary authority
Grants authority to SHEEO to work on its behalf
Sets goals, targets, and criteria for satisfactory performance
Can be a partner for assessment development, if it works with SHEEO and institutions

Institutions
Work collectively, through representatives, to shape discussion on assessment
Participate in good faith to set reasonable goals and expectations

Regional Accreditation Association
Works with institution/programs directly to establish assessment practices
Could be involved in program review or other quality assurance process that are not part of state expectations

Top

On this page

Decentralized Assessment/ Centralized Data Model

Centrally Managed/Guided Model

Coordinated Combination Model

Return to Parent Page