f the report by the U.S. Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education, A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education, is any indication, higher education is undergoing a significant transformation in terms of what it means to be accountable. Historically, community colleges demonstrated accountability by meeting government regulations and complying with data requests (Roueche, Baker, & Brownell, 1971). Today, colleges are expected to be transparent and demonstrate through results how responsive they are to taxpayer, student, and other stakeholder needs (Ewell & Jones, 2006).

Accountability rests on the notion of "answerability" to society's needs (Burke, 2005), and if there is any institution that prides itself in being "answerable," it is the community college. Contemporary notions of accountability, however, "tend to discount the importance of open access and the comprehensive mission" (Harbour, 2003, p. 300) of the public community college and fail to take into account obstacles to performance like "depressed labor markets and lack of organizational resources" (Dougherty & Hong, 2005, p. 1). From this perspective, accountability has been problematic in the community college for two reasons. First, community colleges and policy makers operate under different assumptions of learning, quality, efficiency, and productivity. Second, governments design policy and fiscal structures that conflict with the accountability measures they advocate.

Cultural Assumptions about Accountability

Schein (2004) defines culture as the "pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solve(s) its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, has worked well enough in the past to be considered valid, and (is assumed to be) the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems" (p. 17). Researchers have noted there are two cultures operating in the higher education accountability context: the academic and the political (Bogue & Hall, 2003; Burke, 2005).

Student learning is an example of how cultural assumptions drive notions about what it means to be accountable. For years, college leaders have tried to convince policy makers they are in the best position to evaluate education quality, a notion that has lost credibility in state houses operating in the political culture because policy makers are no longer willing to accept the idea that the self-regulatory and autonomous nature of higher education is effective (Alexander, 2000; Burke & Minassians, 2002). As a result, policy makers offer an array of learning and engagement evaluation tools, as shown in A Test of Leadership. While many community college leaders, operating in the academic culture, see the value of these instruments for improvement, faculty generally feel these instruments are disengaged from the teaching and learning process and, since they usually focus on the institution as a whole instead of the classroom, place little value on them.

Research suggests college leaders translate the "hard" accountability mandates designed in a political culture and handed down from external agencies into "softer" measures that function more effectively in an academic environment (Huisman & Currie, 2004). And since the departmental nature of colleges and universities tends to focus more on classroom and program goals over institutional ones, it should come as no surprise that, despite policy makers' best intentions and community colleges' hard work, accountability measures are often met with benign indifference.

Accountability and Policy Environments

Yet, culture alone does not explain why A Test of Leadership is problematic for community colleges. Despite all the promises of change, accountability initiatives have had little impact on the organizational structure, mission, and philosophy of the community college. There is also little evidence that accountability initiatives alone are the reason for better performance (Dougherty & Hong, 2006). Accountability initiatives are often built on premises that are at odds with the policy environment in which community colleges operate. It is like trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

For instance, A Test of Leadership states that "parents and students have no solid evidence, comparable across institutions, of how much students learn or whether they learn more at one college than another. Similarly, policymakers need more comprehensive data to help them decide whether the investment in higher education is paying off and how taxpayer dollars could be used more effectively" (p. 13). In response, the Commission recommended the creation of a "consumer-friendly information database on higher education, with useful, reliable information, coupled with a search engine to enable students, parents, policymakers, and others to weigh and rank comparative institutional performance" (p. 20).

This recommendation is well-intentioned, but at odds with a policy environment and governance structure that encourages and provides incentives for institutions to differentiate themselves in the market. Because the U.S. does not have a federal department of higher education with authority to directly regulate institutions, quality assurance is achieved by a patchwork of regional and departmental accreditation agencies, state coordinating boards, ranking systems, professional standards, and the marketplace. Many assert that this varied and diverse landscape is the strength of the American higher education system (Lombardi, 2006). It should come as no surprise, then, that institutions attempt to differentiate themselves not only in the market, but also in the competition for public funding.

An examination of three "typical" community college students shows how some accountability measures are not consistent with the reality of current policy and governance structures by which community colleges operate. A student enrolls in a short-term computer training course, while another enrolls for 18 months in general education courses and then transfers to an upper-level institution. Yet another first-generation adult student takes eight years to complete her degree. Each of these scenarios is a success story - the first student's employer receives a skilled employee, the second student moves ahead to receive a bachelor's degree at a discounted price, and the third student gains economic security while contributing to economic and labor market growth. Yet, within the parameters of most accountability measures, all three are failures - the first student is not retained, the second one is considered a drop-out, and the last one won't be included in traditional methods that capture graduation rates.

Add in the dangers of mission restriction, inconsistency with the open-door philosophy, high compliance costs, and the pressure to compromise academic standards and quality to accommodate accountability measures (Dougherty & Hong, 2006), and it becomes evident there is a clear mismatch between the reality of the community college environment and the accountability measures designed to ensure that educational quality.

Making Accountability Work

Government concerns and frustration about accountability are the result of two factors. First, governments and colleges are operating under different assumptions about what it means to be accountable. This is because little effort has been put into developing a consensus arising out of two cultures, political and academic, operating under different assumptions about what it means to be accountable. The result is a perceived lack of understanding on the part of accountability agencies and a perceived lack of commitment by community colleges. Second, accountability initiatives are often discussed and framed without regard to policy environments and governance structures policy makers create and support through funding.

Recent reports have outlined several methods for ensuring that accountability is effective and serves the needs of students, stakeholders, and colleges. The recommendations of these reports revolve around several themes, including creating consensus, eliminating fear and punitive measures, focusing on improvement rather than results, establishing clear goals aligned with public priorities that respect the diversity of American colleges and universities, and encouraging transparency.

First, there needs to be a consensus on what it means to be accountable. Zumeta (2007) recommends a performance compact, where colleges, elementary and secondary schools, workforce development boards, and other public agencies and stakeholders construct a compact on expectations and goals.

Second, the organizing principle of accountability should be pride, not compliance or fear (State Higher Education Executive Officers, [SHEEO], 2005). Policy makers should resist the urge to criticize and blame and rather focus on creating a supportive environment (Braskamp & Schomberg, 2006). Only in an atmosphere absent from criticism and blame can constructive conflict and consensus emerge.

Third, accountability should focus on improvement as much as, if not more than, results (SHEEO, 2005). Shavelson (2007) points out that "any large-scale assessment can, at best, signal where a problem may exist, but it will not pinpoint the problem and generate solutions. A campus needs to place any external assessment in the context of its own rich array of assessments" (p. 33). Placing more emphasis on improvement and how results will be used toward improvement removes unnecessary criticism from the discussion and provides incentives for faculty, staff, and Boards to share best practices across institutions and hold each other accountable for student learning and success (Hrabowski, 2006).

Fourth, accountability goals should be simple and clear, align with public priorities for economic development, consider variability in regional and local economies and labor markets, and demonstrate sensitivity to indicators colleges can influence (Dougherty & Hong, 2005, p. 11). While policy makers should appreciate the diversity and decentralization of higher education in the U.S., accountability systems need to acknowledge that students from a variety of different institutions must still interact in a variety of settings after college (American Council on Education, 2004).

Fifth, community colleges should be more transparent about their activities. An Association of American Colleges and Universities (2004) report notes that "in the absence of consistent and broad-based leadership on accountability from the academy, a politically popular accountability ideology has swept statehouses across the country and is capturing the allegiance of lawmakers" (p. 1). This void could easily be filled if colleges were more open and transparent about what they do. Electronic portfolios, discipline-based capstones, culminating experience documents, and milestone assessments hold significant promise in this area because they allow institutions to tailor their own learning outcomes and provide a level of transparency and openness due to their on-line availability (Adelman, 2006; AACU, 2004).

Conclusion

Contemporary accountability efforts like those articulated in A Test of Leadership are driven by the notion that, now more than ever, governments are looking to colleges and universities as vital components of economic development and growth. As Margaret Spellings, the Commission chair, stated: "it is time to examine how we can get the most out of our national investment" (Lederman, 2005). This is a legitimate concern and several recommendations from A Test of Leadership are welcome and should be taken seriously. As policy makers increasingly view higher education as something too important to be left alone, the historical independence of colleges will likely evolve into an engaged interdependence with other sectors of the economy (Burke & Minassians, 2002; Kearns, 1998).

This trend is not something community colleges should fear, but embrace and view as an opportunity to engage communities and stakeholders, based on the notion that stakeholders will be more willing to support them if trust has been established. It is also an opportunity for community colleges to design an accountability system with measures that focus on what Dowd (2003) calls the "democratizing role" of community colleges.

The role of quality institutional leadership is essential in this process. The nature of higher education institutions is to avoid change at all costs (Diamond, 2006) and if leaders do not have the support to initiate and follow through on change initiatives, community colleges will perpetuate a culture marked by complacency and could find their role in society eclipsed by new providers. Policy makers should gather the political courage to restructure governance structures and policy environments to ensure consistency with accountability requirements and suspend cultural assumptions about colleges and universities. By working together, they might be pleasantly surprised.

Ryan Smith is Vice President for Institutional Advancement & Research at Joliet Junior College. He received his Ph.D. in Higher Education from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Readers who wish to contact Dr. Smith may do so at rsmith@jjc.edu.

Jeff Julian is Public Information Specialist in the Community Relations Office at Joliet Junior College. He is working on a master's degree in English studies from Elmhurst College in Elmhurst, Illinois, which he will complete in May 2008. He may be reached at jefjulia@jjc.edu.

References
Adelman, C. (2006, November 8). Border blind side: What the higher education commission did not see. Education Week, pp. 30, 39.

Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 411-431.

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2004). Our students' best work: A framework for accountability worthy of our mission. Washington, DC: Author.

American Council on Education. (2004). Public accountability for student learning in higher education. Washington, DC: Author.

Bogue, E. G., & Hall, K. B. (2003). Quality and accountability in higher education. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Braskamp, L., & Schomberg, S. (2006, July 26). Caring or uncaring assessment. Inside HigherEd. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from: http://insidehighered.com.

Burke, J. C. (2005). The many faces of accountability. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education. (pp. 1-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burke, J. C., & Minassians, H. P. (2002). The new accountability. In J. C. Burke & H. P. Minassians (Eds.), Reporting higher education results. (pp. 5-19). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Diamond, R. M. (2006, September 8). Why colleges are so hard to change. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from: http://insidehighered.com.

Dougherty, K. J., & Hong, E. (2005). State systems of performance accountability in community colleges. Boston: Jobs for the Future.

Dougherty, K. J., & Hong, E. (2006). Performance accountability as the imperfect panacea. In T. Bailey & V. S. Morest (Eds.), Defending the community college equity agenda (pp. 51-86). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Dowd, A. C. (2003). From access to outcome equity: Revitalizing the democratic mission of the community college. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 586, 92-119.

Ewell, P. T., & Jones, D. P. (2006). State-level accountability for higher education. In N. B. Shulock (Ed.), Practitioners on making accountability work for the public (pp. 9-16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Harbour, C. P. (2003). An institutional accountability model for community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 299-316.

Hrabowski, F. A. (2006, June 23). Getting the faculty on board. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from: http://insidehighered.com.

Huisman, J., & Currie, J. (2004). Accountability in higher education. Higher Education, 48, 529-551.

Lederman, D. (2005, September 20). The future of higher ed. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from: http://insidehighered.com.

Lombardi, J. (2006). The value of commission reports. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from: http://insidehighered.com.

Kearns , K. P. (1998). Institutional accountability in higher education. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22, 140-156.

Roueche, J. E., Baker, G. A., & Brownell, R. L. (1971). Accountability and the community college. Washington, DC : American Association of Junior Colleges.

Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Assessing student learning responsibly: From history to an audacious proposal. Change, 39(1), 26-33.

State Higher Education Executive Officers. (2005). Accountability for better results. Denver, CO: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. Washington, DC: Commission on the Future of Higher Education.