| Summary: | "One of the striking ways in which state governments have pursued better performance in public higher education is through the use of performance funding. Performance funding involves tying state support directly to institutional performance on specific outcomes such as rates of graduation and job placement. The principal rationale for performance funding has been that the introduction of market-like forces will prod institutions to become more efficient, delivering "more bang for the buck." Kevin Dougherty, an expert on state performance funding, finds its development puzzling. First, despite the great interest in it, only half the states have ever adopted performance funding for higher education. Moreover, of the states that did adopt performance funding, over half later dropped it. Finally, in the states that have retained performance funding over a long period of time, their programs have undergone considerable changes in the amount of state funding they devote to performance funding and in the content of the indicators they use to allocate that funding. In spite of this, performance funding continues to attract interest as a way of improving educational outcomes. This book, based on an extensive ten-state study, aims to shed light on the social and political factors affecting the origins, evolution, and demise of these programs"--
"Performance funding ties state support of colleges and universities directly to institutional performance on specific outcomes, including retention, number of credits accrued, graduation, and job placement. The theory is that introducing market-like forces will prod institutions to become more efficient and effective. In The Politics of Performance Funding for Higher Education, Kevin J. Dougherty and Rebecca S. Natow explore the sometimes puzzling evolution of this mode of funding higher education. Drawing on an eight-state study of performance funding in Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington, Dougherty and Natow shed light on the social and political factors affecting the origins, evolution, and demise of these programs. Their findings uncover patterns of frequent adoption, discontinuation, and re-adoption. Of the thirty-six states that have ever adopted performance funding, two-thirds discontinued it, although many of those later re-adopted it. Even when performance funding programs persist over time, they can undergo considerable changes in both the amount of state funding and in the indicators used to allocate funding. Yet performance funding continues to attract interest from federal and state officials, state policy associations, and major foundations as a way of improving educational outcomes. The authors explore the various forces, actors, and motives behind the adoption, discontinuation, and transformation of performance funding programs. They compare U.S. programs to international models, and they gauge the likely future of performance funding, given the volatility of the political forces driving it. Aimed at educators, sociologists, political scientists, and policy makers, this book will be hailed as the definitive assessment of the origins and evolution of performance funding"--
|
|---|
