LEADER 05400nam 2200625Ia 450 001 9910462370203321 005 20171116030408.0 010 $a1-118-75427-1 010 $a1-118-75428-X 035 $a(CKB)2670000000388237 035 $a(EBL)1221577 035 $a(OCoLC)852757435 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000971997 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11603745 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000971997 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10946439 035 $a(PQKB)10713535 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1221577 035 $a(EXLCZ)992670000000388237 100 $a20130710d2013 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcn||||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aPerformance funding for higher education$b[electronic resource] $ewhat are the mechanisms? what are the impacts? /$fKevin J. Dougherty, Vikash Reddy 210 $aHoboken, NJ $cWiley$dc2013 215 $a1 online resource (154 p.) 225 0 $aASHE higher education report ;$vvol. 39, no. 2 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a1-118-75438-7 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $aPerformance 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 327 $aWhich 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 327 $aComplete 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 327 $aAlterations 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 327 $aJob 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 327 $aRestrictions of Student Admissions 330 $aAfter first appearing in 1979 in Tennessee, performance funding for higher education went on to be adopted by another 26 states. This monograph reviews research on a multitude of states to address these questions: What impacts does performance funding have on institutional practices and, ultimately, student outcomes? What obstacles and unintended effects do performance funding encounter? This monograph finds considerable impacts on institutional practices, weak impacts on student outcomes, substantial obstacles, and sizable unintended impacts. Given this, the monograph 410 0$aJ-B ASHE Higher Education Report Series (AEHE) 606 $aState universities and colleges$zUnited States$xFinance 606 $aEducation, Higher$zUnited States$xFinance 608 $aElectronic books. 615 0$aState universities and colleges$xFinance. 615 0$aEducation, Higher$xFinance. 676 $a300 700 $aDougherty$b Kevin James$0877224 701 $aReddy$b Vikash$0889355 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910462370203321 996 $aPerformance funding for higher education$91986845 997 $aUNINA