Performance Funding for Higher Education

Erscheinungsjahr 2016
ISBN: 978-1-4214-2082-0
Verlag: Johns Hopkins University Press

Buch, Englisch, 276 Seiten, Format (B × H): 150 mm x 226 mm, Gewicht: 408 g

A rigorous analysis of the impact—and implications—of performance funding for higher education.

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.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Dougherty, Kevin J

Jones, Sosanya

Lahr, Hana

Natow, Rebecca S

Pheatt, Lara

Reddy, Vikash

Fachgebiete

• Sozialwissenschaften Pädagogik Schulen, Schulleitung Universitäten, Hochschulen
• Sozialwissenschaften Pädagogik Pädagogik Bildungssystem Bildungsökonomie
• Sozialwissenschaften Pädagogik Pädagogik Bildungssystem Bildungspolitik, Bildungsreform
• Sozialwissenschaften Politikwissenschaft Politische Systeme Verwaltungswissenschaft, Öffentliche Verwaltung

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Acknowledgements 1. Introduction Widespread Adoption of Performance Funding The Different Forms of Performance Funding Conceptualizing How Performance Funding Works Chapter Contents and Preview of Findings 2. Research Perspectives, Questions, and Methods Existing Scholarship on the Impacts of Performance Funding and Its Limitations

Policy Instruments

Organizational Changes

Student Outcomes

Obstacles to Effective Functioning

Unintended Impacts

Overall Limitations Enlisting Insights from Other Bodies of Literature

Performance Management in Public Agencies

Policy Design: Policy Instruments and their Strengths and Weaknesses

Data-Driven Decision Making and Organizational Learning in Higher Education

Policy Implementation

Principal-Agent Theory Conceptual Framework Research Questions Research Methods 3. Policy Instruments and their Immediate Impacts Financial Incentives

Little Initial Impact on Institutional Finances

Explaining the Low Initial Impact on Institutional Finances

Perceived Impact of Financial Incentives on Institutional Behavior Communication of State Program Goals and Methods

State Communication

College Communication

Variations in Awareness of State Goals and Methods

Perceived Impact of Awareness of State Goals and Methods on College Efforts Communication of Institutional Performance on the State Metrics

State Communication of Institutional Performance

College Communication of Institutional Performance

Variations in Awareness of Institutional Performance

Perceived Impact of Awareness of Institutional Performance Building Up Institutional Capacity to Respond to Performance Funding

What State Officials Were Doing

Institutional Officials' Assessment of the State Effort to Build Capacity Disaggregating Our Main Patterns

Differences by State

Differences by Type of Institution: Community Colleges and Universities

Differences by Estimated Organizational Capacity of Institutions Summary and Conclusions 4. Organizational Learning in Response to Performance Funding Deliberative Processes Used to Respond to Performance Funding

General Administrative Deliberative Processes

Special Purpose Deliberative Structures

Informal Deliberative Structures Variations in Deliberative Processes

Variations by State

Variation by Type of Institution

Variations by Expected Institutional Capacity Aids and Hindrances to Deliberation

Organizational Commitment and Leadership

Communication and Collaboration

Time and the Opportunity to Deliberate on New Policies and Practices

Timely and Relevant Data Variations in Aids and Hindrances

Differences by State

Differences by Type of Institution

Differences by Institutional Capacity Summary and Conclusions 5. Changes to Institutional Policies, Programs, and Practices Perceptions about the Impact of Performance Funding

Ratings of the Impact of Performance Funding on Institutional Changes

Reasons Given for Not Rating the Impact of Performance Funding "High"

The Joint Influence of Several Different Factors Changes in Academic Policies, Practices, and Programs

Developmental Education Changes

STEM-Field Academic Changes

General Curricular Changes

Changes to Instructional Techniques: Technology/Online Education Student Services Changes

Advising and Counseling

Tutoring and Supplemental Instruction

Orientation and First-Year Programs

Tuition and Financial Aid Policies

Registration and Graduation Procedures

Restructuring Student Services Departments and Staffing

Other Student Services Changes Isomorphism and the Institutionalization of Campus Changes Disaggregating Our Main Patterns

Differences by State

Differences by Institutional Type

Differences by Institutional Capacity Summary and Conclusions Chapter 6: Student Outcomes Descriptive Data

Indiana

Ohio

Tennessee Multivariate Study Findings

Studies Specific to Our Three States

Studies of Performance Funding outside Our Three States

U. S. Performance Funding Outcomes Outside of Higher Education Summary and Conclusions Chapter 7: Obstacles to Effective Response Student-Body Composition

Inadequate Preparation for College

Non-Degree Seekers

Lower Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Its Financial Burdens 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

Differences by State

Differences by Institutional Type

Differences by Institutional Capacity Summary and Conclusions Chapter 8: Unintended Impacts of Performance Funding Restrictions of Student Admission

General Restrictions

Raising Admission Requirements

Selective Student Recruitment

Directing Institutional Aid to Better Prepared Students Weakening of Academic Standards

Lowering Academic Demands in Class (Grade Inflation)

Reducing Degree Requirements Compliance Costs

Cost of Improving Institutional Research Capacity

Increased Workload Reduced Institutional Cooperation Lower Faculty and Staff Morale Less Faculty Voice in Academic Governance Narrowing of Institutional Mission Variations Within Our Main Findings

Differences by State

Differences by Institutional Type

Differences by Institutional Capacity Summary and Conclusions Chapter 9: Summary and Conclusions Key Findings

Policy Instruments

Organizational Learning

Institutional Changes

Student Outcomes

Obstacles to Responding to Performance Funding

Unintended Impacts

Differences within These Main Patterns Implications for Policy

Reducing Unintended Negative Impacts

Reducing Obstacles to Effectively Responding to Performance Funding

The Importance of Extensive Institutional Consultation and Periodic Review Implications for Research Concluding Thoughts Appendixes Appendix A: The Nature and History of Performance Funding in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee Appendix B: Interview Protocol for State Officials Appendix C: Interview Protocol for Community College Administrators and Faculty Appendix D: Interview Protocol for University Administrators and Faculty Notes References Index

Über Autor(innen)

Natow, Rebecca S
Rebecca S. Natow is a senior research associate at the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University. She is a coauthor of The Politics of Performance Funding for Higher Education: Origins, Discontinuations, and Transformations.

Pheatt, Lara
Lara Pheatt is a doctoral candidate in politics and education and a research associate at the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University.

Jones, Sosanya
Sosanya Jones (WASHINGTON, DC) is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Howard University. She is the coauthor of Performance Funding for Higher Education.

Reddy, Vikash
Vikash Reddy is a doctoral candidate in education policy and a research associate at the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University.

Lahr, Hana
Hana Lahr is a doctoral candidate in education policy and a research associate at the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University.

Dougherty, Kevin J
Kevin J. Dougherty is an associate professor at Teachers College, Columbia University, and a senior research associate at the Community College Research Center at Teachers College. He is a coauthor of The Politics of Performance Funding for Higher Education: Origins, Discontinuations, and Transformations.

Kevin J. Dougherty is an associate professor at Teachers College, Columbia University, and a senior research associate at the Community College Research Center (CCRC) at Teachers College. With Rebecca S. Natow, he is the coauthor of The Politics of Performance Funding for Higher Education: Origins, Discontinuations, and Transformations. Sosanya M. Jones is an assistant professor of qualitative research methods and higher education at Southern Illinois University–Carbondale. Hana Lahr is a doctoral candidate in education policy and a research associate at the CCRC. Rebecca S. Natow is a senior research associate at the CCRC. Lara Pheatt is a doctoral candidate in politics and education and a research associate at the CCRC. Vikash Reddy is a doctoral candidate in education policy and a research associate at the CCRC.