Campus Access Only

All rights reserved. This publication is intended for use solely by faculty, students, and staff of University of the Pacific. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, now known or later developed, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author or the publisher.

Date of Award

1983

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Education (Ed.D.)

Department

Graduate Studies

First Advisor

Roger L. Reimer

First Committee Member

Dennis O. Flynn

Second Committee Member

Robert R. Hopkins

Third Committee Member

Fred Muskal

Fourth Committee Member

Tom Van Groningen

Abstract

Using data provided by administrators at California community colleges, campus level perceptions regarding institutional goals were analyzed with the purpose of studying the prospect of a statewide set of priorities. Two primary areas of inquiry were addressed: (1) Where do differences between administrators' ranking of present and preferred priorities suggest a need for change, and (2) are there differences in the ranking of priorities associated with particular institutional characteristics? Administrators of a representative sample of forty-seven California community colleges completed Educational Testing Service's Community College Goals Inventory. Participants ranked thirty goal areas in both the present and preferred dimension by rating the importance of ninety goal statements on a five point scale. Differences between present and preferred dimension mean scores indicated a desire for an increased emphasis in almost every goal area. Because of the fiscal and political impracticality of such action, an alternate approach to the analysis of the data was chosen. The ranking of goals in the present dimension was compared with that of those in the preferred dimension. Those goal areas with the greatest increase or decrease in rank going from the present to the preferred dimension were identified for further consideration. Reviewing the implications of each change in priority, it was determined that the additional revenues required to increase the emphasis on those goal areas with the greatest increase in rank would not be offset by the decreases in funds committed to those goal areas where a substantial decrease in rank occurred. Significant differences in the ranking of priorities were found to be associated with the institutional characteristics examined, i.e., total enrollment, district wealth, geographical location, student ethnicity, and percent of students enrolled part-time. However, only one significant difference was associated with the preferred ranking of priorities. This finding seemed to indicate that, given similar patterns of response from other constituent groups, these institutional differences would not likely interfere with the development of a statewide set of priorities.

Pages

228

Included in

Education Commons

Share

COinS