Performance funding for higher education / Kevin J. Dougherty, Sosanya M. Jones, Hana Lahr, Rebecca S. Natow, Lara Pheatt, and Vikash Reddy.

Includes bibliographical references (pages 237-256) and index.

Introduction. Widespread adoption of performance funding ; The different forms of performance funding ; Conceptualizing how performance funding works ; Chapter contents and preview of findings -- Research perspectives, questions, and methods. Existing scholarship on the impacts of performance funding and its limitations ; Enlisting insights from other bodies of literature ; Conceptual framework ; Research questions ; Research methods -- Policy instruments and their immediate impacts. Financial incentives ; Communication of state program goals and methods ; Communication of institutional performance on the state metrics ; Building up institutional capacity to respond to performance funding ; Disaggregating our main patterns ; Summary and conclusions -- Organizational learning in response to performance funding. Deliberative processes used to respond to performance funding ; Variations in deliberative processes ; Aids and hindrances to deliberation ; Variations in aids and hindrances ; Summary and conclusions -- Changes to institutional policies, programs, and practices. Perceptions about the impact of performance funding ; Changes in academic policies, practices, and programs ; Student services changes ; Isomorphism and the institutionalization of campus changes ; Disaggregating our main patterns ; Summary and conclusions -- Student outcomes. Descriptive data ; Multivariate study findings ; Summary and conclusions -- Obstacles to effective response. Student-body composition ; inappropriate performance funding measures ; Insufficient institutional capacity ; Insufficient state funding of higher education ; Institutional resistance to performance funding ; Insufficient knowledge of performance funding ; Variations within our main findings ; Summary and conclusions -- Unintended impacts of performance funding. Restrictions of student admission ; Weakening of academic standards ; Compliance costs ; Reduced institutional cooperation ; Lower faculty and staff morale ; Less faculty voice in academic governance ; Narrowing of institutional mission ; Variations within our main findings ; Summary and conclusions -- Summary and conclusions. Key findings ; Implications for policy ; Implications for research ; Concluding thoughts -- Appendixes. A. The nature and history of performance funding in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee ; B. Interview protocol for state officials ; C. Interview protocol for university administrators and faculty.

Seeking greater accountability in higher education, many states have adopted performance funding, tying state financial support of colleges and universities directly to institutional performance based on specific outcomes such as student retention, progression, and graduation. Now in place in over thirty states, performance funding for higher education has been endorsed by the US Department of Education and major funders like the Gates and Lumina foundations. Focusing on three states that are regarded as leaders in the movement--Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee--Performance Funding for Higher Education presents the findings of a three-year research study on its implementation and impacts. Written by leading authorities and drawing on extensive interviews with government officials and college and university staff members, this book describes the policy instruments states use to implement performance funding; explores the organizational processes colleges rely on to determine how to respond to performance funding; analyzes the influence of performance funding on institutional policies and programs; reviews the impacts of performance funding on student outcomes; examines the obstacles institutions encounter in responding to performance funding demands; investigates the unintended impacts of performance funding. The authors conclude that, while performance funding clearly grabs the attention of colleges and leads them to change their policies and practices, it also encounters major obstacles and has unintended impacts. Colleges subject to performance funding are hindered in posting good results by inappropriate performance measures, insufficient organizational infrastructure, and the commitment to enroll many students who are poorly prepared or not interested in degrees. These obstacles help explain why multivariate statistical studies have failed to date to find a significant impact of performance funding on student outcomes, and why colleges are tempted to resort to weakening academic quality and restricting the admission of less-prepared and less-advantaged students in order to improve their apparent performance. These findings have wide-ranging implications for policy and research. Ultimately, the authors recommend that states create new ways of helping colleges with many at-risk students, define performance indicators and measures better tailored to institutional missions, and improve the capacity of colleges to engage in organizational learning.

Print version record.

eBooks on EBSCOhost EBSCO eBook Subscription Academic Collection - Worldwide