Financing Community Colleges by Romano Richard M.;Palmer James C.;

Author:Romano, Richard M.;Palmer, James C.;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers

Note: States represented in this table are those that, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures ([NCSL] 2015), employed PBF mechanisms to allocate at least some portion of state monies on the basis of student outcomes to community colleges. North Dakota, though listed by the NCSL as having a PBF system, is not included, because its PBF system is based on credit hour completion (NCSL, 2015). The table details only student outcomes indicators employed in PBF programs, not curricular or other measures that might be employed (e.g., monies tied to increases in the use of distance learning technology, in the development of articulation agreements, etc.).

Sources: Arkansas Department of Higher Education (2014), Illinois Community College Board (n.d.), Indiana Commission for Higher Education (n.d., 2013), Kansas Board of Regents (2014), Louisiana Board of Regents (2014), Missouri Department of Higher Education (2014), Montana University System (n.d.), NCSL (2015), Nelson and Keller (2014), Nevada System of Higher Education (n.d.), New Mexico Department of Higher Education (2013, 2014), North Carolina State Board of Community Colleges (2013), Ohio Board of Regents (2014), Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education (n.d.), Omnibus Higher Education Appropriations Bill (2013), Performance Indicators Task Force (n.d.), Tennessee Higher Education Commission (n.d.), Texas Legislature (2013), University of Hawai’i System (2014), Utah State Legislature (2013), Virginia Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2011, Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (2012), Wisconsin Technical College System (2015).

aProposed metrics for 2013–15. In addition to a measure of on-time graduation, each institution will employ one additional “productivity metric linked to their strategic plan” (Indiana Commission for Higher Education, n.d., p. 13). bKansas colleges and universities enter into performance agreements with the Kansas Board of Regents (KBR). New monies are “contingent upon achieving compliance” with those agreements (KBR, 2014, p. 3). Measures listed here include those that institutions can select from in meeting two goals in the KBR strategic plan: “increasing higher education attainment” and “meeting the needs of the Kansas economy” (KBR, 2014, p. 6). Community and technical colleges must also include three additional institution-specific indicators related to the KBR’s strategic plan, “one of which measures a non-college ready student population” (KBR, 2014, p. 6). cInstitutions enter into six-year performance agreements committing them to meet “specific performance objectives in exchange for increased tuition authority and eligibility to participate in certain autonomies” (Louisiana Board of Regents, n.d., para. 1). Performance objectives include curricular and efficiency measures (e.g., elimination of programs not aligned with state needs or that have low completion rates) in addition to the outcomes indicators listed here. dProposed performance metrics for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. eProposed metrics. fIn addition to mission-specific measures. gTechnical College System only.

Notably absent from the list in Table 5.1 is any reference to specific learning outcomes. Nor as Jones (2013) has indicated, has any “state explicitly included a quality metric in its funding model” (p. 6). This seems appropriate, given the inability of colleges and universities to this point to come up with an acceptable way of measuring these two interrelated outcomes.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.