A comparison of administrator, faculty, and student perceptions of the effectiveness of a Texas community college

Societal changes have altered the demographics, role(s), and evaluation of community colleges. States have eroded the autonomy of community colleges in an effort to ensure accountability. Public mistrust of state evaluations has evolved due to their weaknesses in measuring the effectiveness of community colleges: periodic; rule-, not mission-directed; single instrument for all institutions; facts without meaning; limited participation; goal displacement; irrelevant.; The literature called for a model of effectiveness which demonstrates flexibility by focusing on the context- and time-specific goals of a community college. To bridge the gap between generic and purposive paradigms, the researcher employed five factors deemed by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to ascertain the effectiveness of a community college: mission, access, achievement, quality, use of resources. This study was guided by four components in measuring the factors, analysis, and forming a theory of community college effectiveness: multiple-constituent participation, open environment, naturalistic inquiry, systems approach.; Instrumentation consisted of questionnaire items constructed on a 5-point Likert scale to elicit perceptions from independent samples of Montgomery College's internal constituent groups. Two administrators, 10 faculty members, and 27 students were selected for the pretest. The remaining 19 administrators, 123 faculty members, and 300 students were selected for the study.; For the pretest, analysis of each factor determined number of dimensions, retention of items, and dimensional classification of remaining items. Cronbach's ∝ determined consistency (reliability) of item responses within each dimension. Measures of validity (content, criterion-related, construct) determined whether response differences matched dimensional differences. Pretest findings verified a model containing 36 items divided between eight dimensions.; For the study, ANOVA determined congruence or incongruence of constituent-group perceptions. The concept of real limits justified response intervals determining positivity of congruence (effectiveness). Student-Newman-Keuls determined constituent-pair differences within dimensions showing incongruence.; The conclusions were: (1) Effectiveness was indicated by four dimensions measuring access and achievement. (2) Ineffectiveness was not indicated. (3) Constituent-pair differences were indicated by four dimensions measuring mission, quality, and use of resources. (4) Relative to administrator-faculty or faculty-student differences, there were a higher rate and level of administrator-student differences. (5) Differences had a moderate-to-strong influence on Montgomery College's (net) effectiveness.