After first appearing in 1979 in Tennessee, performance fundingfor higher education went on to be adopted by another 26 states.This monograph reviews research on a multitude of states to addressthese questions:
* What impacts does performance funding have oninstitutional practices and, ultimately, student outcomes?
* What obstacles and unintended effects do performancefunding encounter?
This monograph finds considerable impacts on institutionalpractices, weak impacts on student outcomes, substantial obstacles, and sizable unintended impacts. Given this, the monograph closeswith a discussion of the implications for future research and forpublic policymaking on performance funding.
This is the 2nd issue of the 39th volume of the Jossey-Bassseries ASHE Higher Education Report. Each monograph is thedefinitive analysis of a tough higher education issue, based onthorough research of pertinent literature and institutionalexperiences. Topics are identified by a national survey. Notedpractitioners and scholars are then commissioned to write thereports, with experts providing critical reviews of each manuscriptbefore publication.
قائمة المحتويات
Executive Summary ix
Foreword xiii
Acknowledgments xv
Introduction 1
Performance Funding: Nature and Forms 5
Performance Funding versus Performance Budgeting and Reporting5
Performance Funding 1.0 and 2.0 6
Types of Performance Indicators: Ultimate and Intermediate Student Outcomes 7
Conceptual Framework and Research Methods 9
Conceptualizing the Impacts of Performance Funding 9
Data Search 13
Data Analysis 14
Limitations 15
Description of State Performance Funding Programs 17
Which States Have Had Performance Funding Programs? 17
Florida’s Two Performance Funding Programs 19
Missouri’s Funding for Results Program 23
North Carolina’s Program for Community Colleges 24
Ohio’s Old and New Performance Funding Programs 25
Pennsylvania’s PF 2.0 Program 27
South Carolina’s Early PF 2.0 Program 28
Tennessee’s Old and New Performance Funding Programs30
Washington’s Two Programs: One Abandoned, One Added Later32
Policy Instruments and Their Immediate Institutional Impacts35
Changing Funding Incentives 35
Increasing Awareness of State Priorities 37
Increasing Awareness of Institution’s Own Performance39
Increasing Status Competition among Institutions 40
Building Capacity for Organizational Learning 41
Intermediate Institutional Impacts 45
Alterations to Academic Policies, Programs, and Practices 45
Changes in Developmental Education and Tutoring 48
Alterations to Student Service Policies, Programs, and Practices49
Intended Student Outcomes 53
Graduation Numbers and Rates 53
Retention Rates 56
Remedial Education Completion Rates 56
Obstacles to the Effectiveness of Performance Funding 57
Inappropriate Performance Funding Measures 58
Instability in Performance Funding Levels, Indicators, and Measures 61
The Brief Duration of Many PF Programs 62
Inadequate State Funding of Performance Funding 63
Shortfalls in Regular State Funding 63
Uneven Knowledge about Performance Funding Within Colleges64
Inequality of Institutional Capacity 67
Institutional Resistance to and Gaming of the System 68
Unintended Impacts of Performance Funding 71
Costs of Compliance 71
Narrowing of Institutional Missions 72
Grade Inflation and Weakening of Academic Standards 73
Restrictions of Student Admissions 75
Diminished Faculty Voice in Academic Governance 76
Summary and Conclusions 79
Main Findings 79
Research Implications 80
Implications for Practice 82
Concluding Thoughts 90
Appendix 91
Table A1: Data Analysis Categories: Number of Studies Where They Appear 91
Table A2: Multivariate Analyses of Impacts of Performance Funding on Graduation and Retention Numbers and Rates 96
Notes 103
References 109
References for Individual States 121
Name Index 125
Subject Index 128
About the Authors 133
المزيد من الكتب الإلكترونية من نفس المؤلف (المؤلفين) / محرر
18٬159 كتب إلكترونية في هذه الفئة
