Executive Summary |
|
ix | |
Foreword |
|
xiii | |
Acknowledgments |
|
xv | |
Introduction |
|
1 | (4) |
|
Performance Funding: Nature and Forms |
|
|
5 | (4) |
|
Performance Funding versus Performance Budgeting and Reporting |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
Performance Funding 1.0 and 2.0 |
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
Types of Performance Indicators: Ultimate and Intermediate Student Outcomes |
|
|
7 | (2) |
|
Conceptual Framework and Research Methods |
|
|
9 | (8) |
|
Conceptualizing the Impacts of Performance Funding |
|
|
9 | (4) |
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
|
15 | (2) |
|
Description of State Performance Funding Programs |
|
|
17 | (18) |
|
Which States Have Had Performance Funding Programs? |
|
|
17 | (2) |
|
Florida's Two Performance Funding Programs |
|
|
19 | (4) |
|
Missouri's Funding for Results Program |
|
|
23 | (1) |
|
North Carolina's Program for Community Colleges |
|
|
24 | (1) |
|
Ohio's Old and New Performance Funding Programs |
|
|
25 | (2) |
|
Pennsylvania's PF 2.0 Program |
|
|
27 | (1) |
|
South Carolina's Early PF 2.0 Program |
|
|
28 | (2) |
|
Tennessee's Old and New Performance Funding Programs |
|
|
30 | (2) |
|
Washington's Two Programs: One Abandoned, One Added Later |
|
|
32 | (3) |
|
Policy Instruments and Their Immediate Institutional Impacts |
|
|
35 | (10) |
|
Changing Funding Incentives |
|
|
35 | (2) |
|
Increasing Awareness of State Priorities |
|
|
37 | (2) |
|
Increasing Awareness of Institution's Own Performance |
|
|
39 | (1) |
|
Increasing Status Competition among Institutions |
|
|
40 | (1) |
|
Building Capacity for Organizational Learning |
|
|
41 | (4) |
|
Intermediate Institutional Impacts |
|
|
45 | (8) |
|
Alterations to Academic Policies, Programs, and Practices |
|
|
45 | (3) |
|
Changes in Developmental Education and Tutoring |
|
|
48 | (1) |
|
Alterations to Student Service Policies, Programs, and Practices |
|
|
49 | (4) |
|
Intended Student Outcomes |
|
|
53 | (4) |
|
Graduation Numbers and Rates |
|
|
53 | (3) |
|
|
56 | (1) |
|
Remedial Education Completion Rates |
|
|
56 | (1) |
|
Obstacles to the Effectiveness of Performance Funding |
|
|
57 | (14) |
|
Inappropriate Performance Funding Measures |
|
|
58 | (3) |
|
Instability in Performance Funding Levels, Indicators, and Measures |
|
|
61 | (1) |
|
The Brief Duration of Many PF Programs |
|
|
62 | (1) |
|
Inadequate State Funding of Performance Funding |
|
|
63 | (1) |
|
Shortfalls in Regular State Funding |
|
|
63 | (1) |
|
Uneven Knowledge about Performance Funding Within Colleges |
|
|
64 | (3) |
|
Inequality of Institutional Capacity |
|
|
67 | (1) |
|
Institutional Resistance to and Gaming of the System |
|
|
68 | (3) |
|
Unintended Impacts of Performance Funding |
|
|
71 | (8) |
|
|
71 | (1) |
|
Narrowing of Institutional Missions |
|
|
72 | (1) |
|
Grade Inflation and Weakening of Academic Standards |
|
|
73 | (2) |
|
Restrictions of Student Admissions |
|
|
75 | (1) |
|
Diminished Faculty Voice in Academic Governance |
|
|
76 | (3) |
|
|
79 | (12) |
|
|
79 | (1) |
|
|
80 | (2) |
|
Implications for Practice |
|
|
82 | (8) |
|
|
90 | (1) |
|
|
91 | (12) |
|
Table A1 Data Analysis Categories: Number of Studies Where They Appear |
|
|
91 | (5) |
|
Table A2 Multivariate Analyses of Impacts of Performance Funding on Graduation and Retention Numbers and Rates |
|
|
96 | (7) |
Notes |
|
103 | (6) |
References |
|
109 | (12) |
References for Individual States |
|
121 | (4) |
Name Index |
|
125 | (3) |
Subject Index |
|
128 | (5) |
About the Authors |
|
133 | |