Mon, May 20, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 4, Issue 1 (MARCH ISSUE 2023)
johepal 2023, 4(1): 102-118 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Hayden D, Kiracofe C R. (2023). Expansion of the Analysis of Performance Funding Outcomes to Include Critical Race Theory. johepal. 4(1), 102-118. doi:10.52547/johepal.4.1.102
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-312-en.html
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-312-en.html
Abstract: (878 Views)
Performance funding is a common strategy used among state governments to appropriate higher education funding. Performance funding traditionally allocates a portion of state appropriations based on an institution’s ability to meet performance metrics. The metrics used to determine funding signal the factors that are important to the state and strongly encourage institutions to align their practices with the state incentivized outcomes. By setting metrics, state governments seek to encourage institutions to change institutional policies to meet the stated metrics to earn funding. Although the intention behind performance funding is centered on student success and improving student outcomes, there can be unintended consequences that can have a negative influence on some student populations. In fact, available research indicates that performance funding metrics are generally ineffective in changing outcomes and have unintentional negative outcomes for historically excluded students. By introducing critical race theory to the performance funding analysis, it provides policy makers and the higher education community a different lens to consider the negative outcomes from a systemic level.
Keywords: Performance Funding, Critical Race Theory, Interest Convergence, Principal-Agent Theory, Historically Excluded Students
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2022/10/22 | Accepted: 2023/03/8 | Published: 2023/03/31
Received: 2022/10/22 | Accepted: 2023/03/8 | Published: 2023/03/31
References
1. Arnold, J., & Kowalski-Braun, M. (2011). The journey to an inaugural chief diversity officer: Preparation, implementation and beyond. Innovative Higher Education, 37(1), 27-36. [DOI]
2. Bensimon, E.M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 99-111. [DOI]
3. Bell, D. (1995). Who’s afraid of critical race theory? Illinois Law Review, 4, 893-910.
4. Birdsall, C. (2018). Performance management in public higher education: Unintended consequences and the implications of organizational diversity. Public Performance & Management Review, 41(4), 669-695. [DOI]
5. Blankenberger, B., & Phillips, B. (2016). Performance funding in Illinois higher education: The roles of politics, budget environment, and individual actors in the process. Educational Policy, 30(6), 894-915. [DOI]
6. Borstelmann, T. (1999). Jim crow's coming out: race relations and American foreign policy in the Truman years. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 29(3), 549-569. [Article]
7. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (1998). Critical race theory: past, present, and future. Current Legal Problems (51)1, 467–491. [DOI]
8. Dudziak, M. (1988). Desegregation as a cold war imperative. Stanford Law Review, 41(1), 61-120. [DOI]
9. Elliott, K., Haynes, L., & Jones, T. (2021). Re-imagining outcomes-based funding. The education trust. [Article]
10. Ga´ndara, D., & Rutherford, A. (2018). Mitigating unintended impacts? The effects of premiums for underserved populations in performance-funding policies for higher education. Research in Higher Education, 59(6), 681-703. [DOI]
11. Gillborn, D. (2006). Critical race theory and education: racism and antiracism in educational theory and praxis. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 27(1), 11-32. [DOI]
12. Illinois Board of Higher Education. (2011). Setting a context for fiscal year 2013 budget development. [Article]
13. Illinois General Assembly. (2011). Public Act 097-0320. [Article]
14. Indiana Commission for Higher Education. (2017). Indiana performance funding review. [Article]
15. Indiana Commission for Higher Education. (2018). Paying for what we value: The evolution of performance funding in Indiana 2003-2019. [Article]
16. Indiana Commission for Higher Education. (2019). 2017-2019 performance funding outputs. [Article]
17. Indiana Commission for Higher Education. (2020). Performance funding per-unit payments. [Article]
18. HigherEdJobs. (2022). Executive level administrator salaries. [Article]
19. Kelchen, R. (2018). Do performance-based funding policies affect underrepresented student enrollment? The Journal of Higher Education, 89(5), 702-727. [DOI]
20. Kelchen, R., & Stedrak, L.J. (2016). Does performance-based funding affect colleges’ financial priorities? Journal of Education Finance, 41(3), 302-321. [DOI]
21. Learn More Indiana. (2021). Planning checklist for 6–8. [Article]
22. Li, A. Y., & Ortagus, J.C. (2019). Raising the stakes: impacts of the complete college Tennessee act on underserved student enrollment and sub-baccalaureate credentials. The Review of Higher Education, 43(1), 295-333. [DOI]
23. Miller, G. (2005). The political evolution of principal-agent models. Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 203-225. [DOI]
24. National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Digest of education statistics. Institute of Education Statistics. [Article]
25. National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Characteristics of postsecondary students. Institute of Education Statistics. [Article]
26. Ortagus, J.C., Kelchen, R., Rosinger, K., &Voorhees, N. (2020). Performance-based funding in American higher education: A systematic synthesis of the intended and unintended consequences. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(4), 520-550. [DOI]
27. Schudde, L., & Bernell, K. (2019). Educational attainment and nonwage labor market returns in the United States. American Education Research Association, 5(3), 1-18. [DOI]
28. Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury. (2020). An explanation of the outcomes-based funding formula (2015-2020). Office of Research and Education Accountability. [Article]
29. Tennessee Higher Education Commission. (2015). 2010–15 outcomes-based funding formula. [Article]
30. The Civic Federation. (2021). Equity-based commission to develop new model for public university funding in Illinois. [Article]
31. Toutkoushian, R. K., & Paulsen, M. B. (2016). Economics of Higher Education: Background, Concepts, and Applications. Springer.
32. Umbricht, M. R., Fernandez, F., & Ortagus, J. C. (2017). An examination of the (un)intended consequences of performance funding in higher education. Educational Policy, 31(5), 643-673. [DOI]
33. U.S. Department of Education. (2019). Trends in Pell grant receipt and the characteristics of Pell grant recipients: Selected years, 2003–04 to 2015–16. [Article]
34. Ward, J., & Ost, B. (2021). The effect of large-scale performance-based funding in higher education. Education Finance and Policy, 16(1), 92-124. [DOI]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
