Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EDLD 8432 Research Paper
EDLD 8432 Research Paper
PERFORMANCE FUNDING
PERFORMANCE FUNDING
PERFORMANCE FUNDING
funding affected institutional performance and found that there were no changes. Part of
these findings could be attributed to the fact that the amount of funding tied to
institutional performance was very small, on average less than 6% (Shin, 2009). In order
to directly impact performance outcomes, significant funding needs to be committed
(Friedel, et al., 2013). It was stated, federal efforts to create performance metrics will
likely build upon what is already happening in the states (Friedel, et al., 2013, p. 1).
State
Sanford and Hunter (2011) researched the affect of performance funding on
retention and graduation in the state of Tennessee due to the states fifteen-year history of
using performance based funding. They found that the institutions in Tennessee showed
no significant change in performance (Sanford & Hunter, 2011). Dougherty and Reddy
(2011) researched literature on performance funding in Florida, Tennessee, Ohio, and
Washington. They did find changes in institutions in regards to awareness of priorities
and performance and state competition (Dougherty & Reddy, 2011). However, they did
not find evidence that performance funding increases performance in the areas of
retention and graduation (Dougherty & Reddy, 2011).
Obstacles of Performance Funding
Dougherty and Reddy (2011) noted the need for more performance funding due to
the lack of significant changes to outcomes. Several of the studies reviewed noted that the
amount of funding tied to performance outcomes was relatively small (Jongbloed &
Vossessteyn, 2001; Sanford & Hunter, 2011; Shin, 2009). Sanford and Hunter (2011)
PERFORMANCE FUNDING
discussed how doubling the incentive in Tennessee in 2005 also did not increase
graduation rates.
Hermes (2012) also noted some factors for consideration if performance funding
is going to be successful. These points include the need to identify proper metrics,
consider the institutional mission, incentivize completion by dis-advantaged students,
recognize interim measure, proved stable funding, and obtain buy in from key
constituencies (Hermes, 2012). The item about providing stable funding is interesting in
that Hermes (2012) states that models should ensure that funding does not drastically
change year to year. This provides stability for institutions so that students are not
dramatically impacted by decreases of performance based funding year to year.
Implications
Performance funding is spreading across higher education institutions in the
nation. Hermes (2012) wrote that states are not just returning to the idea of using
performance funding but that they are also increasing their efforts.
The largest implication found in the review of literature is that performance
funding has no significant impact on performance outcome. Shin (2009) noted policy
makers garner more success by changing the factors that are known to be highly
correlated with institutional performance (p. 65). Sanford and Hunter (2011) commented
that policy makers might need to consider alternate solutions to achieve goals.
Another implication is the unintended effects of performance funding. Dougherty
and Reddy (2011) noted there impacts of performance funding that are unintentional
including costs of compliance, narrowing of institutional missions, grade inflation and
PERFORMANCE FUNDING
PERFORMANCE FUNDING
questions that stakeholders and policy makers need to consider when moving towards
implementing and evaluating performance funding.
While the research shows that there has be limited impact on performance funding
on performance goals, there are suggestions in research for how performance funding can
be modified to successfully impact outcomes. An important factor that should be kept in
mind is assessment. Any state implementing performance based funding should assess
the impact, both positive and negative, on institutions. This will allow states to determine
how successful performance based funding initiatives are in each state, and what changes
may need to occur.
PERFORMANCE FUNDING
8
References
PERFORMANCE FUNDING
Jongbloed, B., & Vossensteyn, H. (2001). Keeping up Performances: an international
survey of performance-based funding in higher education. Journal Of Higher
Education Policy & Management, 23(2), 127-145.
doi:10.1080/13600800120088625
Sanford, T., & Hunter, J.M. (2011). Impact of performance-funding on retention and
graduation rates. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(33), 1-30.
Shin, J. (2010). Impacts of performance-based accountability on institutional
performance in the U.S. Higher Education, (1). 47.