INTRODUCTION Leaders in accounting education and practice (e.g., Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC), 1990); American Accounting Association (AAA), 1986; Arthur Andersen et al. (White Paper), 1989) have joined together in voicing a strong desire for changing the present quality of accounting education in the United States. Examples of programs that have made substantial reforms are those institutions receiving grants from the AECC. In addition to receiving an average cash award of $194,327 from the AECC (Mintz, 1993), each of the grant recipients received national recognition and publicity (e.g., articles in Issues in Accounting Education, Accounting Education News, Innovation in Accounting Education Awards from the AAA). After making grants to 11 four-year universities, the AECC issued two additional awards to two-year colleges: $50,000 to Maricopa Community College and $42,000 to Mesa Community College (Williams, 1992). Other universities have also made major revisions to their accounting programs without financial support from the AECC. However, for most of these universities, external financial support was obtained from other sources. For example, the University of Southern California's reform effort was financed by a large grant from a Big Six accounting firm and a three-year grant from the U.S. Department of Education's Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE). A second example of a university making substantial revisions is CSU, Chico, which also received a three-year grant from FIPSE. CSU, Chico's reform efforts can be distinguished from those of the AECC schools and USC's in three important respects. First, CSU, Chico focused solely on its two introduction to accounting courses. This allowed CSU, Chico to concentrate its attention on students considering a major in accounting, rather than those who had already selected accounting as a major. Research has shown that a student's experience in the first two courses is a strong determinant in the decision to major in accounting (Adams et al., 1994). Second, the first grant from FIPSE, which started Fall 1992 and ended Spring 1995, totaled $198,919. The grant is noteworthy in that it was larger than the average amount the AECC-grant schools received to reform several courses, not just two courses; also, it was only one of 70 proposals funded out of over 1,600 submitted. The third reason why CSU, Chico's program is noteworthy is because its new program is a "proven" success. Because of its emphasis on outcomes assessment, additional funding was secured from FIPSE. Starting October 1995, FIPSE began funding a program called "Disseminating Proven Reforms." To be eligible for a two-year grant under this program, previous FIPSE grants had to show that their projects were successful based on outcome assessment results. Further, these potential disseminator institutions were required to recruit at least three, but no more than six, adapter colleges or universities. Each adapter had to have enough faith in the CSU, Chico model to implement at their own institutions. The second FIPSE grant, from October 1995 to September 1997, totaled $180,000. Each adapting school received $20,000, while CSU, Chico received $60,000. Again, this FIPSE program was extremely competitive, as only 13 proposals were funded out of 43 submitted. The six adapting universities are Castleton State College, Fort Lewis College, Nassau Community College, St. Mary's University, Sonoma State University, and Weber State University. The CSU, Chico model has now been used at CSU, Chico for seven semesters, and has been "beta tested" at the six adapter institutions for two semesters. The faculty team that developed the materials-known as the "project team"--is now in a position to offer its experiences to other institutions that may be considering changes in their accounting programs. Stout and Rebele (1996) indicated that descriptive accounts of those accounting programs that have made significant curricular revisions would be a significant contribution to an accounting education knowledge base. Specifically, accounts of the process used by these programs to make curricular changes would be very useful. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to describe CSU, Chico's process of program change in its foundation business courses: Introduction to Accounting I and Introduction to Accounting II. It is organized according to the seven questions posed by Stout and Rebele: What motivated curricular and program change? What is the structure of the new courses and how does the resulting product relate to the institutional mission and objectives? What obstacles did faculty members face as they attempted such change? What resources had to be obtained and put in place to support the planned-for changes? What programmatic assessment tools (outcomes measures) have been put into place? What is the reaction of interested parties, such as students and recruiters, to the changes that have been effected? What recommendations or advice can be offered to other institutions and faculty who are considering program and curriculum revision? Home | Overview | Introduction | Motivation for Change Structure of the New Courses | Obstacles | Resources | Outcome Measures Reaction of Interested Parties | Recommendations for Interested Parties | Links | Index