| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910462370203321 |
|
|
Autore |
Dougherty Kevin James |
|
|
Titolo |
Performance funding for higher education [[electronic resource] ] : what are the mechanisms? what are the impacts? / / Kevin J. Dougherty, Vikash Reddy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
Hoboken, NJ, : Wiley, c2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
1-118-75427-1 |
1-118-75428-X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (154 p.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
ASHE higher education report ; ; vol. 39, no. 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Altri autori (Persone) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
State universities and colleges - United States - Finance |
Education, Higher - United States - Finance |
Electronic books. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
Description based upon print version of record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
Performance Funding for Higher Education: What Are the Mechanisms? What Are the Impacts?; Copyright; Contents; Executive Summary; Foreword; Acknowledgments; Introduction; Performance Funding: Nature and Forms; Performance Funding versus Performance Budgeting and Reporting; Performance Funding 1.0 and 2.0; Types of Performance Indicators: Ultimate and Intermediate Student Outcomes; Conceptual Framework and Research Methods; Conceptualizing the Impacts of Performance Funding; Data Search; Data Analysis; Limitations; Description of State Performance Funding Programs |
Which States Have Had Performance Funding Programs? Florida's Two Performance Funding Programs; Performance-Based Budgeting: 1994-2008; Workforce Development Education Fund: 1997-2002; Missouri's Funding for Results Program; North Carolina's Program for Community Colleges; Ohio's Old and New Performance Funding Programs; The Success Challenge and Performance Challenge: 1995-2009; New Funding Formula: 2009-Present; Pennsylvania's PF 2.0 Program; South Carolina's Early PF 2.0 Program; Tennessee's Old and New Performance Funding Programs; Performance Funding: 1979-Present |
Complete College Tennessee Program: 2010-Present Washington's Two Programs: One Abandoned, One Added Later; First PF Program: 1997- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1999; The Student Achievement Initiative: 2007-Present; Policy Instruments and Their Immediate Institutional Impacts; Changing Funding Incentives; Increasing Awareness of State Priorities; Increasing Awareness of Institution's Own Performance; Increasing Status Competition among Institutions; Building Capacity for Organizational Learning; Intermediate Institutional Impacts; Alterations to Academic Policies, Programs, and Practices |
Alterations to Spending on Instruction Alterations to Academic Department Structure and Staffing; Alterations to Curricula and Graduation Requirements; Alterations to Course Content and Instructional Delivery; Changes in Developmental Education and Tutoring; Alterations to Student Service Policies, Programs, and Practices; Intended Student Outcomes; Graduation Numbers and Rates; Retention Rates; Remedial Education Completion Rates; Obstacles to the Effectiveness of Performance Funding; Inappropriate Performance Funding Measures; Learning Gains; Retention and Graduation Rates |
Job Placement Rates Institutional Differences; Instability in Performance Funding Levels, Indicators, and Measures; The Brief Duration of Many PF Programs; Inadequate State Funding of Performance Funding; Shortfalls in Regular State Funding; Uneven Knowledge about Performance Funding Within Colleges; Inequality of Institutional Capacity; Institutional Resistance to and Gaming of the System; Setting Low Goals; Deceptive Compliance; Unintended Impacts of Performance Funding; Costs of Compliance; Narrowing of Institutional Missions; Grade Inflation and Weakening of Academic Standards |
Restrictions of Student Admissions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
After first appearing in 1979 in Tennessee, performance funding for higher education went on to be adopted by another 26 states. This monograph reviews research on a multitude of states to address these questions: What impacts does performance funding have on institutional practices and, ultimately, student outcomes? What obstacles and unintended effects do performance funding encounter? This monograph finds considerable impacts on institutional practices, weak impacts on student outcomes, substantial obstacles, and sizable unintended impacts. Given this, the monograph |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |