Institutional Goal Priorities As Perceived By Campus Level Administrators At California Community Colleges

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\u27 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\u27s 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