Popular but unstable: Explaining why state performance funding systems in the united states often do not persist

Teachers College Record

Volumn 114, Issue 3, 2012, Pages

  Dougherty, Kevin J ^a   Natow, Rebecca S ^a   Vega, Blanca E ^a  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866996972     PISSN: 01614681     EISSN: 14679620     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability. Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 411-431.
2. Ammons, D. (1998, November 22). Washington will do quick construction on its split house. The Sunday Oregonian, p. C06. Retrieved from Lexis-Nexis Academic database.
3. Associated Press. (2003, February 6). Former state lawmaker George Kirkpatrick dies.
4. Banta, T. W. (Ed.). (1986). Performance funding in higher education: A critical analysis of Tennessee's experience. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED310655). Retrieved from ERIC Database.
5. Bardach, E. (1976). Policy termination as a political process. Policy Sciences, 7, 123-151.
6. Bell, D. (2005). Changing organizational stories: The effects of performance-based funding on three community colleges in Florida (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley).
7. Bogue, E. G. (2002). Twenty years of performance funding in Tennessee: A case study of policy intent and effectiveness. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Funding public colleges and universities: Popularity, problems, and prospects (pp. 85-105). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
8. Bogue, E. G., Dandridge-Johnson, B. (2009, November). Performance incentives and public college accountability: A quarter century policy audit Presentation at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Vancouver, Canada.
9. Burke, J. C. (2002a). Performance funding: Easier to start than sustain. In J. C. Burke (F.d.), Funding public colleges and universities: Popularity, problems, and prospects (pp. 219-242). Albany: SUNY Press.
10. Burke, J. C. (2002b). Performance funding: Assessing program stability. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Funding public colleges and universities: Popularity, problems, and prospects (pp. 243-264). Albany: SUNY Press.
11. Burke, J. C. (Ed.). (2002c). Funding public colleges and universities: Popularity, problems, and prospects. Albany: SUNY Press.
12. Burke, J. C. (2005). Reinventing accountability: From bureaucratic rules to performance results. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands (pp. 217-245). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
13. Burkc, J. C., Minassians, H. (2003). Pofrm&m reporting: Heal' tumtntability or account- ability tiu' - seventh annual survey. Albany: Sute University of New York. Rockefeller Institute of Government. Higher Education Program.
14. Burke, J. C, Modarresi, S. (2000). To keep or not to keep performance funding. Journal of High Education, 71(July/Ang.). 132-453.
15. Camay, M., Elmore, R., Siskin, L. S. (2003). The neu accountaMly: High tchooh and high states testing. New York. NY: Routlcdge Falmer.
16. DeLeon, P. (1978). Public polk? termination: An end and a beginning. Policy Analysis, 4(3). 369-392.
17. DID, D. (2007). Will market competition assure academic quality? An analysis of the UK and L'S experiences. In D. F. Weuerheijden. B. Stensaker, tc M.J. Rosa (Eds.). Quality assurance in higher education (pp. 47-92) . Dordrecht, the Netherlands; Springer.
18. Dougherty, K. J., Hare, R., Natow, R. (2009). Perforvutnte a/CMinUihtily systems/or community college; Lessons for the Voluntary Fiameuork cf Accountahhty for Community CeAUges. A report to the College Board. New York. NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publicationjsp?UID-728.
19. Dougherty, K.J. & Hong, E. (2006). Performance accountability as imperfect panacea: The community college experience. In T. Bailey & V. S. Morest (Eds.), Defending the community college equity agendo (pp. 51-86). Baltimore. MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
20. Dougherty, K.J., Natow, R. S. (2009). The demise of higher education performance fun Amg systerns in three states. New York. NY: Columbia University, Teachers College. Community College Research Center. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.cohiinbia.edu/Publication.aipr'UID1-693.
21. Dougherty. K.J., Natow. R. S. (2010). Continuity and thange in long Jasting mte performance funding systems for higher education: The easel of Tennessee and Florida. CCRC Working Paper No. 18. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College. Community College Research Center. Retrieved from http://ccrt.tc.columUa.edu/Publication-jup?UID7-t3.
22. Dougherty, K.J., Natow, R. S-, Hare, R., Vega, B. E. (2010). The political origins eftlalt-M performance funding: The cases of FV-rida, Illinois, Milttwi, South Carolina. Tennessee, and Washington State Working paper #22. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publicaiion.aspf UID=819.
23. Dougherty, K. J., Reddv, V. (2011). The impacts of slate performance funding systems on higher education tnuUutiom; Hevuw of research literature and policy recommendations. Aliasing the research literalurt on the imfatU of performance funding on higher education institutions. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College. Community College Research Center. Retrieved from http://ccrc.lc.columbia.edu/Publication.xspfUlD-1004.
24. Dougherty, K. J., Reid, M. (2007). Fifty states of ArXxntng the Dream: State policies to enhance acaii to and success in community collegei acrou the United Stales. New Yoik, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. Retrieved from htip://ccrc.tc.columbixcdu/Publication. aip?uid504.
25. Dyvkman, M. (2001, February 25). Link spared by Bush's propox-d budget cuts. St. Petersburg Times, .
26. Ewell, P.T. (1994). Tennessee. In S. S. Ruppert (Ed.). Charting higher education accountability (pp. 85-93). Denver, CO: Education Communion of the Suites (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED375789). Retrieved from F.RIC Daubase.
27. Ewell, P. T., Jones, D. P. (2006). State-level accountability for higher education: On the edge of a transformation. New Directions for ffigher Education, 135(Fall), 9-16.
28. Florida State Board for Community College* (1998). The Florida community college accountably plan at yrar four A report for South Florida Community College. Tallahassee. FL; Author.
29. Florida Slate Board for Community Colleges. (2000). Aumnlahhtj in ihe year 2000. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
30. Florida Community College Syitem. (2002). The fact bo/A: Report for the Honda college ly item. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved from www.fldoehub.org/CCTCMIS/c/Documents/Fact%20Book/webversion.pdf.
31. Florida State Department of Education. (2009). The fact bonk. FOport ft* the Florida college sytletn. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fUloe.Org/arm/ccu:mii/pubs/faclbook/fb2009/fb2009.pdf.
32. Florida State Department of Education. (2011). The fact bo/A: Report foe the Florida collegt system. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fVtoe.org/arm/cctcmis/pubs/factbook/fb20ll/fb201l.pdf.
33. Florida State University Syetem. (2008). 2007-2003 fact book. Tallahassee, FL: Autlior. Retrieved from http://ww-w.flbog.org/resources/ factbooks/2007-2008/xli/t40-00-070fl-FxU.
34. Gailher, C., Nedwek, B P., Neal, J. E. (1994). Measuring upe The promises and pitfalls of per-formance indicators in higher education (ASHE/ERIC Higher Education Research Report, No. 5). San Francisco. CA-Jossey Bass.
35. Indiana Commission for Higher Education. (2008). Reaching higher for accountability: Embracing accountability far resulU. Indianapolis. IN: Author. Retrieved from http://www.in.gov/che/fiIes/l-Accountabtlity-7-7.pdf.
36. Kirkpatrick, S. E., Lester, J. P., Peterson, M. R. (1999). The policy termination process: A conceptual framework and application to revenue sharing Policy Studies Review 16(1). 209-236.
37. Laws of Florida. (1997). Ch. 97-507. SB 1688.
38. Layzell, D. (1999). Linking perfoimance to funding outcomes at the state level for public institutions of higher education: Past, present, and future. Research m Higher Education, 40(2), 233-246.
39. McCuinne, A (2003). Models of poslucondary education coordination and governance in the ilatrs. Denver, GO: Education Commission of the Stales.
40. McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., Deaton, R (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analyui, 28 (1), 1-24.
41. Missouri Department of Higher Education. (2008). Higher Education Funding 7th Forte final report. Jefferson City. MO: Author. Retrieved from http://www.dhe.mo.gov/files/heftaskforcereport.pdf.
42. Missouri Department of Higher Education. (2009). Miiiovrt puMx higher education institu- hons' appropriation. Jefferson City, MO: Author.
43. Moden, C. O., Widiford, A. M. (2002). Ohio's challenge: A clash of performance funding and base budgeting. In J. C. Buike (Ed.). Funding putec colleges and unioersities: Popularity, problem, and prospetu (pp. 169-193). Albany: SUNY Press.
44. National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Digest of education itatutics, 2004. Washington, DC: Author.
45. National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). DigrU of education statistics, 2005. Washington, DC: Author.
46. National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Digest of education statistics, 2006. Washington. DC: Author.
47. Naughton, B. A. (2004). The efficacy of state higher education accountability programs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University). Digital Dissertations AAT 3145567.
48. Nbuon, B. D. (2003). Performance measures funding The journey of on Washington community college (Doctoral diiseriaiion. Oregon State University) (UMI No. 3080155).
49. Oregon University System. (2003). History of OUS performance tndualon. Salem, OR: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ous.edu/factreport/mp/fiks/ IIistory-or-PI-in-Oregon.pdf.
50. Pendleton, R, & Saunders, J. (2001, January 17). Ruth to unveil tighter budget: Soaring COM3 eat revenue. Fkmda TmeyUrucm 'Jacksonville), p. Bl.
51. Pfeiffer, J. (1998). From performance reporting to performance baied funding: Florida' experience in workforce development performance measurement. Ma Directions for Community Colleges. 7tW(Winter), 17-28.
52. Racine, D. P. (2006). Reliable effectiveness: A theory of sustaining and replicating worthwhile innovation. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Menial Health Sennets Research. 33, 356-387.
53. Rhoadei, C., Sporn, B. (2002). Quality assurance in Europe and the U.S.: Professional and political economic framing of higher education policy. Higher Education, 43(3), 355-390.
54. Richardson, R C., Martinez, M. (2009). WIly and performance in American higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
55. Ruppen, S. (Ed.). (1994). Charting higher education accountability. Denver. CO. Education Commission of the States.
56. Sanchez, R. (1998, November 28). Colleges to lose $1 million over Mate report card. The Seattle Ttmei, p. Al.
57. Saunders, J. (2001. June 7). As expected. Bush puts Horne lit education post; Orange Park senator to leave legislature. Florida Times Union (Jacksonville), p. Al.
58. Scheiter, M. A (2005). Is sustainabdity possible? A review and commentary on empirical studies of program attainability. American Journal of Evaluation, 28((3), 320-347.
59. Schmidt, P. (2002a). Missouri's financing system is praised, but more for longevity than for results. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(24), A2l.
60. Schmidt, P. (2002b). Daihed hopes in Missouri. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 49(14). A18.
61. Shediac-Rizkallah, M. C., Bone, L. (1998). Planning for the sustainabllity of community based health programs: Conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice, and policy. Health Education Research. 13(1), 87-106.
62. Shulock, N., Moore, C (2002). An accmntaUUtj framewori for California higher tducatwn. Sacramento. CA: California Sute University at Sacramento. Center for California Studies.
63. Shulock, N., Moore, C (2005). A framewrk for incorporating pubbc trust issues in states'higher education accountability plant. Sacramento: California State University at Sacramento, Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy.
64. Sloea, P. (2002. May 10). Colleges, universities take hit in budget cuts. Associated Press Stale end bxal Wto.
65. Southern Regional Education Board. (2008). Legislate report. 2008 final report Atlanta, CA: Author.
66. Stein, R. (2002). Integrating budget, assessment and accountability policies: Missouri's experiment with performance funding. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Funding public ccllegrt and uniivmtus for performance: Popularity, problems, and pmsprcti (pp. 107-132). Albany: Sute University of New york Press.
67. Stein, R B, Fajen, A. L. (1995). Missouri's Funding for Results initiative. New Direction for Higher Education. 91. 77-90.
68. Thorn, G S., Hrebenar, R.J, (2004). Interest group in (he sute. In V. Cray Sc R. I. Hanson (Eds.), PoUtits in the Amman tiatet (8th cd pp. 100-128). Wathington, DC- CQ Press.
69. Toman, J. (2008). Partners or adversaries: A comparative case study of the aounta bxlit) relationship betuern higher education and stale governments in three stales (Doctoral dissertation. University of South Dakou), .
70. United State Census Bureau. (2002). Statistical abstract of the United States. 2002. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
71. United Sute Census Bureau. (2006). Statistical abstract of the Untied StaUy 2006. Washington. DC- Government Printing Office.
72. Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges. (1999a). Performine funding for improvement in VfosAingfon community colUges. Olympia. WA Author.
73. Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges. (1999b). Washington com-munity and technical college I99S-99 performance funding allocation f2 05 million assigned to demonstrated performance. Olympia. WA: Author.
74. Washington Sute Board for Community and Technical College. (2007). Student achiei-ement initiative. Olympia. WA: Author. Retrieved from http://wo-w.tbctc.ctc.edu/college/ediKation/tudent-achie\Jiriefing-siystcm- announcement-iepl07-000.pdf.
75. Washington Sute General Awembly. (1997). Wa. ALS 454. section* 601-611. 1997 Wa. Ch. 454; 1997 Wa. MB 2259.
76. Washington Sute General Assembly. (1999). Wa. MS 309. actions 601-611. 1999 Wa. Ch. 309; 1999 Wa. SB 5180.
77. Washington Sute Higher Education Coordinating Board. (1998). Performance funding and accountability: Progress report and recommendations for the future. Olympia, WA Author. Retrieved from http://www, hecb.wa.go-/Docs/reporu/ Aoeotintl2-1998.pdf.
78. Washington State Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2010). Performance accountability: IW9-2000 academic year retteu and recommendations far 2001-03. Olympia. WA Author.
79. Washington Sute Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2001). Higher education statistics. Olympia, WA: Author.
80. Washington Sute Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2006). Accountability/or student success in H'aihingion higher education. Olympia, WA: Author. Retrieved from www.hecb.wagov/new*/newsreporu/documenu/ AccounubilitvFullReport.pdf.
81. Wright, D., Dallet, P. H., & Copa, J. C. (2002). Ready, fire, aim: Performance funding poli-cies for post iecondary education in Florida. In J. C Burke (Ed.), Funding public colleges and uniMmifw.' Popularity, problem, and prospects (pp. 137-168). Albany: SUNY Press.
82. Yancey, G. (2002). Fiscal equity change in the Honda community college system during the first five years after the implementation of performance funding (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida).
83. Zumeta, W. (2001). Puhlic policy and accounubility in higher education: Lesson from the pa*t and present for the new millennium. In D. E. Heller (Ed.), The states and public higher education pokey: AffordaUhty, access, and accountability (pp. 155-197). Baltimore. MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.