This document provides guidance for states on implementing performance funding for higher education institutions. It outlines 11 principles for designing an effective performance funding system, including getting agreement on clear state goals, using metrics that are difficult to manipulate, and ensuring incentives align with goals. The principles are meant to help states avoid pitfalls of prior performance funding attempts and focus institutions on key priorities like increasing degrees and certificates awarded. The document also provides examples from states that have implemented performance funding successfully.
This document summarizes the findings of the HERE Project which studied student "doubting", or doubts about continuing in higher education, and its impact on retention. The project found that:
1) Approximately 1/3 of first year students experience doubting, and doubters are less likely to stay in HE than non-doubters.
2) Doubters report a poorer university experience and cite multiple reasons for doubting related to their program, support systems, and ability to adapt.
3) The primary times students consider leaving are either side of Christmas in their first year, though few doubters reported pre-arrival doubts.
Why e learning presentation-from 24x7 learningnileshkorde
The document discusses the benefits of eLearning for organizations. It outlines reasons for adopting eLearning such as increasing training efficiency and reducing costs. It provides examples of cost savings from converting instructor-led training to blended learning. The document then discusses implementing successful eLearning programs, including setting learning goals, content selection, support systems, and measuring success. It also presents case studies of eLearning implementations at companies like Essar Group, Wipro and Dell. In conclusion, it provides an overview of 24x7 Learning as an eLearning implementation company.
The document summarizes key points from a training on professional learning communities (PLCs). It discusses two assumptions about teachers and schools impacting student achievement. It defines PLCs and emphasizes the importance of teams analyzing student learning data to improve instruction. The document provides guidance on establishing SMART goals, developing common formative assessments, using data to inform practice, and addressing resistance to change. The overall message is that effective PLCs focus their efforts on improving student learning through collaborative analysis of evidence.
Teacher Effectiveness: Fulfilling the Promise of the Common Core State Standa...ohedconnectforsuccess
June 28
1:45 – 4:15pm
Room: Delaware C&D
Explore the Thoughtful Classroom Teacher Effectiveness Framework—a practical framework, aligned with the Common Core State Standards, for evaluating the effectiveness of classroom practice. Participants will learn how the framework helps teachers design standards-based lessons and units and select research-based strategies to ensure classroom lessons are effective and engaging. Participants will hear how one school district implemented a thoughtful evaluation process using this framework.
Main Presenter: Harvey Silver, Silver Strong and Associates
The document summarizes key aspects of professional learning communities (PLCs) discussed during administrator training. It defines PLCs and outlines the core components of effective PLC implementation, including establishing SMART goals, developing common formative assessments, analyzing student performance data, and using results to inform instructional practices. The goal is to build teacher leadership and collaboratively improve student learning outcomes.
1. Recent research found that over 80% of organizational training may be wasted, with less than 20% of the $670 billion global training spend actually being applied in the workplace. This suggests over $500 billion is having no impact on business performance or results.
2. Traditional learning models do not help organizations maximize their return on training investments due to a lack of synergy between learning activities and organizational goals, inadequate learning transfer strategies, and an over-reliance on post-training evaluations ("happy sheets") to measure impact.
3. To increase the impact of learning and development, organizations need to define goals and expected outcomes up front, conduct pre- and post-training evaluations beyond just reaction measures, and implement
Developmental Education in Kansas and the Nationjwillia8
This document provides an overview of developmental metrics in Kansas. It summarizes data on college readiness, remediation rates, completion of remediation courses, and graduation rates. Some key points are:
- Kansas scores above the national average on the ACT and in all college readiness subject areas.
- About 40% of students entering 2-year colleges and 18% entering 4-year colleges in Kansas require remediation.
- African American, Hispanic, and low-income students are more likely to require remediation.
- Less than 60% of students complete remediation courses, and only about 20% and 35% of students at 2- and 4-year colleges complete associated college courses within two
This document provides a summary and draft recommendations from Florida's Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform. It catalogs previous recommendations from other reports and outlines draft recommendations in the areas of accountability, funding, and governance. The key recommendations include:
1. Enhancing the Board of Governor's accountability framework to focus on outcome-based metrics like employment rates, degrees in strategic areas, cost per graduate, and graduate salaries.
2. Differentiating tuition rates between universities and programs, with no tuition increases for 3 years for high-skill, high-wage degrees that are important to the state economy.
3. Rewarding "Preeminent Universities" that meet specific metrics with more flexibility in
This document summarizes the findings of the HERE Project which studied student "doubting", or doubts about continuing in higher education, and its impact on retention. The project found that:
1) Approximately 1/3 of first year students experience doubting, and doubters are less likely to stay in HE than non-doubters.
2) Doubters report a poorer university experience and cite multiple reasons for doubting related to their program, support systems, and ability to adapt.
3) The primary times students consider leaving are either side of Christmas in their first year, though few doubters reported pre-arrival doubts.
Why e learning presentation-from 24x7 learningnileshkorde
The document discusses the benefits of eLearning for organizations. It outlines reasons for adopting eLearning such as increasing training efficiency and reducing costs. It provides examples of cost savings from converting instructor-led training to blended learning. The document then discusses implementing successful eLearning programs, including setting learning goals, content selection, support systems, and measuring success. It also presents case studies of eLearning implementations at companies like Essar Group, Wipro and Dell. In conclusion, it provides an overview of 24x7 Learning as an eLearning implementation company.
The document summarizes key points from a training on professional learning communities (PLCs). It discusses two assumptions about teachers and schools impacting student achievement. It defines PLCs and emphasizes the importance of teams analyzing student learning data to improve instruction. The document provides guidance on establishing SMART goals, developing common formative assessments, using data to inform practice, and addressing resistance to change. The overall message is that effective PLCs focus their efforts on improving student learning through collaborative analysis of evidence.
Teacher Effectiveness: Fulfilling the Promise of the Common Core State Standa...ohedconnectforsuccess
June 28
1:45 – 4:15pm
Room: Delaware C&D
Explore the Thoughtful Classroom Teacher Effectiveness Framework—a practical framework, aligned with the Common Core State Standards, for evaluating the effectiveness of classroom practice. Participants will learn how the framework helps teachers design standards-based lessons and units and select research-based strategies to ensure classroom lessons are effective and engaging. Participants will hear how one school district implemented a thoughtful evaluation process using this framework.
Main Presenter: Harvey Silver, Silver Strong and Associates
The document summarizes key aspects of professional learning communities (PLCs) discussed during administrator training. It defines PLCs and outlines the core components of effective PLC implementation, including establishing SMART goals, developing common formative assessments, analyzing student performance data, and using results to inform instructional practices. The goal is to build teacher leadership and collaboratively improve student learning outcomes.
1. Recent research found that over 80% of organizational training may be wasted, with less than 20% of the $670 billion global training spend actually being applied in the workplace. This suggests over $500 billion is having no impact on business performance or results.
2. Traditional learning models do not help organizations maximize their return on training investments due to a lack of synergy between learning activities and organizational goals, inadequate learning transfer strategies, and an over-reliance on post-training evaluations ("happy sheets") to measure impact.
3. To increase the impact of learning and development, organizations need to define goals and expected outcomes up front, conduct pre- and post-training evaluations beyond just reaction measures, and implement
Developmental Education in Kansas and the Nationjwillia8
This document provides an overview of developmental metrics in Kansas. It summarizes data on college readiness, remediation rates, completion of remediation courses, and graduation rates. Some key points are:
- Kansas scores above the national average on the ACT and in all college readiness subject areas.
- About 40% of students entering 2-year colleges and 18% entering 4-year colleges in Kansas require remediation.
- African American, Hispanic, and low-income students are more likely to require remediation.
- Less than 60% of students complete remediation courses, and only about 20% and 35% of students at 2- and 4-year colleges complete associated college courses within two
This document provides a summary and draft recommendations from Florida's Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform. It catalogs previous recommendations from other reports and outlines draft recommendations in the areas of accountability, funding, and governance. The key recommendations include:
1. Enhancing the Board of Governor's accountability framework to focus on outcome-based metrics like employment rates, degrees in strategic areas, cost per graduate, and graduate salaries.
2. Differentiating tuition rates between universities and programs, with no tuition increases for 3 years for high-skill, high-wage degrees that are important to the state economy.
3. Rewarding "Preeminent Universities" that meet specific metrics with more flexibility in
This document provides a technical guide for common college completion metrics adopted by Complete College America. It outlines outcome, progress, and context metrics for measuring degree production, graduation rates, transfer rates, remedial education, credit accumulation, retention, and enrollment at the state level. The purpose is to inform the public and policymakers about college completion, identify areas for improvement, show progress over time, and ensure accountability. Data will be collected uniformly to allow for comparisons across states and institutions.
The document outlines essential steps for states to measure progress and success in college completion. It recommends that states uniformly collect and publicly report data using key metrics like graduation rates, remediation rates, credit accumulation, and time to degree. This will allow states to diagnose challenges, identify opportunities for improvement, and be accountable for students' success. The document suggests states measure interim milestones and outcomes to drive completion, and disaggregate data by student demographics to close achievement gaps.
The Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform drafted recommendations to improve accountability and transparency in the state university system. The recommendations included enhancing the Board of Governors' metrics-based accountability framework to focus on outcome-based performance metrics aligned with the governor's strategic goals. These goals include increasing degrees in strategic areas, employment rates and salaries of graduates, and lowering costs. The recommendations also suggested the Board of Governors articulate goals for each university's contributions to the overall system goals, and that universities align their plans with the Board's strategic plan and report progress annually.
The document is a draft report from the Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform. It contains recommendations on accountability, funding, and governance of the state university system. The task force analyzed strengths and weaknesses of the current system and sought to address the complexity of issues facing higher education in Florida. The recommendations are presented as an interconnected whole and are intended to close the gap in understanding between universities and those who appropriate resources by linking accountability, funding, and governance.
The document is a draft report from the Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform. It contains an introduction outlining the task force's focus on accountability, funding, and governance of the state university system. It also includes a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the current state university system governance structure centered around the Board of Governors. The task force aims to provide recommendations to improve performance and innovation within the university system.
The document is a draft report from the Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform. It includes a letter from the chair introducing the task force's work over 6 months to assess the state university system. The draft report contains sections on strengths and weaknesses of the system, and recommendations related to accountability, funding, and governance. It emphasizes the complexity of higher education issues and the need for the university system to improve its standing and contributions to the state.
The document is the final report of the Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform from November 2012. It provides recommendations on accountability, funding, and governance for the Florida State University System. The task force organized their work around these three areas and provided a strengths/weaknesses analysis of the system. They recommend a set of linked accountability, funding, and governance changes intended to improve understanding between universities and funding stakeholders and help the system better demonstrate its value and operational innovation.
The document proposes refinements to the "System Strengths and Weaknesses" section of a report. It lists three strengths: 1) an effective professional staff supports the Board of Governors, 2) local control enables excellent learning environments, and 3) comprehensive coordination allows the Board to manage higher education goals. It also lists three weaknesses: 1) limitations in data analysis inhibit decision making, 2) over-centralization may hinder innovation, and 3) insufficient data assessment of university performance.
Community college graduation rates matter because completing a certificate or degree provides significant benefits to students and society. Earning potential and employment rates increase with higher levels of education. While some students initially enroll to explore options or save on costs, they would see greater benefits from staying to earn a credential. Community colleges need to better promote the long-term value of completing a program to help more students graduate.
8 Things They Don't Teach in Superintendent and Principal School - SchoolWeal...Nate Cox
Being a superintendent and/or principal is incredibly hard. As a leader, you are tasked with many things. Unfortunately, not all are taught within advanced degree programs.
This document discusses measurement and budgeting in the context of total quality management in schools. It argues that measurement is important to identify the causes of variation and that data collection must have a clear purpose. Regarding budgeting, it states that financial management is an underrated part of TQM and budgets should be delegated to empower teams. Delegating budgets allows teams greater control over resources and curriculum design, which can aid quality improvement. The document outlines models where budgets are delegated to teaching units based on student numbers to give autonomy while ensuring accountability.
This document proposes a new approach to accountability assessments that reduces the federal role and increases the state and local roles. It involves using curriculum-embedded performance assessments (CEPAs) administered throughout the year as the primary method of assessment, supplemented by shorter statewide assessments that are more performance-based. CEPAs would be developed and approved by states and incorporated into regular classroom instruction. They would provide timely feedback to improve learning and inform accountability. This approach aims to transform teaching and learning to focus on deeper learning skills, while increasing efficiency by reducing over-testing. It would realign accountability to give states and districts more ownership over the process.
Central Government Public Sector Review 19Hamid Hashemi
1. The document discusses steps to improve student success and reduce educational disparity, highlighting the need for more personalized learning support and tuition.
2. It argues that private tutoring can play an important role in helping students achieve exam success if tutors receive further training and competency standards, and tutoring services collaborate more with schools.
3. Ensuring all students receive good academic and social support through personalized tutoring, strong teachers, and well-funded schools is seen as critical to realizing the potential of all children.
This document discusses the need to rebalance assessment in education by placing more emphasis on formative and performance assessments rather than high-stakes standardized tests. It argues that the current over-reliance on standardized tests to drive accountability narrowly focuses teaching and learning on basic skills and factual recall, diminishing student engagement and motivation. The document calls for a new approach centered around curriculum-embedded performance assessments that provide opportunities for learning, formative feedback, and summative evaluation. These assessments could better facilitate deeper learning skills and be used to measure student outcomes in a state accountability system.
Equity-Efficiency-Effectiveness through Assessment Levers - 1-23-15Peter Hofman
This document discusses how assessment practices can play an essential role in achieving deeper learning and equity for all students. It argues that four key levers related to assessment are needed: 1) ensuring accessibility of instructional materials for all students, 2) improving educators' assessment literacy, 3) using formative assessment practices, and 4) implementing curriculum-embedded performance assessments. The document claims that making fundamental changes to incorporate these four levers of assessment is essential for improving educational outcomes efficiently and effectively, especially for lower-performing students and reducing achievement gaps.
The document discusses different types of curriculum evaluation including formative, summative, and diagnostic evaluation. Formative evaluation takes place during curriculum implementation to improve instruction and learning, identifies issues early, and helps future planning. Summative evaluation occurs at the end to assess learning and is used for decision making. Diagnostic evaluation identifies prerequisite knowledge and interests at the beginning. All three types provide benefits like remediating weaknesses, guiding placement decisions, and enhancing teaching and learning.
This document discusses the College Choices for Adults website, which aims to assist adult learners in choosing distance higher education programs and promote transparency among institutions. The website provides institutional data like demographics and satisfaction rates, as well as program-level learning outcomes and results. A key feature is requiring programs to report learning assessment data. The website and its data are reviewed by WCET for quality. Charter Oak State College and Franklin University piloted providing their data and found benefits like improved transparency and use of data for decision-making.
The document proposes updates to Central Connecticut State University's early intervention program to improve student success and retention. It recommends implementing a new StudentPRO system to provide students with self-assessments and notifications about their academic progress. Faculty would use the system to flag at-risk students, who would then be required to meet with an advisor ("PRO") to develop a success plan connecting them with campus resources and support services. The proposal aims to increase collaboration between faculty, staff and administrators to better engage and support students through an early intervention program.
Salient's performance management technology brings together data from any source to provide a coherent view of educational performance. It produces objective information to help administrators, teachers, and others make faster, more data-driven decisions to improve student outcomes and reduce costs. The technology allows non-technical users to access and analyze performance data interactively within their daily work to closely monitor the effects of changes.
This document discusses leadership challenges in distance education and provides advice from experts in the field. In 3 sentences:
Leadership in distance education is difficult as it is disruptive to traditional higher education models and lacks clear administrative structures, but can succeed through collaborative strategic planning, distributing leadership responsibilities throughout an institution, and recognizing that distance education requires constant adaptation to changes in technology and student needs. The document offers perspectives on navigating politics, leading without direct authority, and creating buy-in for distance education across an institution.
This document discusses leadership challenges in distance education and provides advice from experts in the field. In 3 sentences:
Leadership in distance education is difficult as it is disruptive to traditional higher education models and lacks clear administrative structures, but can succeed through collaborative strategic planning, distributing leadership responsibilities throughout an institution, and recognizing that distance education requires constant adaptation to changes in technology and student needs. The document offers perspectives on navigating politics, leading without direct authority, and creating buy-in for distance education across an institution.
1) The purpose of education is to build productive community members with critical thinking skills to succeed in life. Struggles in school often lead to poverty, incarceration or dependence on welfare.
2) Effective leadership comes from influence, not position. It involves sharing expertise laterally across schools and districts.
3) Collective moral purpose, the right leaders focused on learning, building capacity through collaboration and reflection, and ongoing learning are keys to educational leadership according to Fullan's research.
This document provides a technical guide for common college completion metrics adopted by Complete College America. It outlines outcome, progress, and context metrics for measuring degree production, graduation rates, transfer rates, remedial education, credit accumulation, retention, and enrollment at the state level. The purpose is to inform the public and policymakers about college completion, identify areas for improvement, show progress over time, and ensure accountability. Data will be collected uniformly to allow for comparisons across states and institutions.
The document outlines essential steps for states to measure progress and success in college completion. It recommends that states uniformly collect and publicly report data using key metrics like graduation rates, remediation rates, credit accumulation, and time to degree. This will allow states to diagnose challenges, identify opportunities for improvement, and be accountable for students' success. The document suggests states measure interim milestones and outcomes to drive completion, and disaggregate data by student demographics to close achievement gaps.
The Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform drafted recommendations to improve accountability and transparency in the state university system. The recommendations included enhancing the Board of Governors' metrics-based accountability framework to focus on outcome-based performance metrics aligned with the governor's strategic goals. These goals include increasing degrees in strategic areas, employment rates and salaries of graduates, and lowering costs. The recommendations also suggested the Board of Governors articulate goals for each university's contributions to the overall system goals, and that universities align their plans with the Board's strategic plan and report progress annually.
The document is a draft report from the Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform. It contains recommendations on accountability, funding, and governance of the state university system. The task force analyzed strengths and weaknesses of the current system and sought to address the complexity of issues facing higher education in Florida. The recommendations are presented as an interconnected whole and are intended to close the gap in understanding between universities and those who appropriate resources by linking accountability, funding, and governance.
The document is a draft report from the Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform. It contains an introduction outlining the task force's focus on accountability, funding, and governance of the state university system. It also includes a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the current state university system governance structure centered around the Board of Governors. The task force aims to provide recommendations to improve performance and innovation within the university system.
The document is a draft report from the Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform. It includes a letter from the chair introducing the task force's work over 6 months to assess the state university system. The draft report contains sections on strengths and weaknesses of the system, and recommendations related to accountability, funding, and governance. It emphasizes the complexity of higher education issues and the need for the university system to improve its standing and contributions to the state.
The document is the final report of the Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform from November 2012. It provides recommendations on accountability, funding, and governance for the Florida State University System. The task force organized their work around these three areas and provided a strengths/weaknesses analysis of the system. They recommend a set of linked accountability, funding, and governance changes intended to improve understanding between universities and funding stakeholders and help the system better demonstrate its value and operational innovation.
The document proposes refinements to the "System Strengths and Weaknesses" section of a report. It lists three strengths: 1) an effective professional staff supports the Board of Governors, 2) local control enables excellent learning environments, and 3) comprehensive coordination allows the Board to manage higher education goals. It also lists three weaknesses: 1) limitations in data analysis inhibit decision making, 2) over-centralization may hinder innovation, and 3) insufficient data assessment of university performance.
Community college graduation rates matter because completing a certificate or degree provides significant benefits to students and society. Earning potential and employment rates increase with higher levels of education. While some students initially enroll to explore options or save on costs, they would see greater benefits from staying to earn a credential. Community colleges need to better promote the long-term value of completing a program to help more students graduate.
8 Things They Don't Teach in Superintendent and Principal School - SchoolWeal...Nate Cox
Being a superintendent and/or principal is incredibly hard. As a leader, you are tasked with many things. Unfortunately, not all are taught within advanced degree programs.
This document discusses measurement and budgeting in the context of total quality management in schools. It argues that measurement is important to identify the causes of variation and that data collection must have a clear purpose. Regarding budgeting, it states that financial management is an underrated part of TQM and budgets should be delegated to empower teams. Delegating budgets allows teams greater control over resources and curriculum design, which can aid quality improvement. The document outlines models where budgets are delegated to teaching units based on student numbers to give autonomy while ensuring accountability.
This document proposes a new approach to accountability assessments that reduces the federal role and increases the state and local roles. It involves using curriculum-embedded performance assessments (CEPAs) administered throughout the year as the primary method of assessment, supplemented by shorter statewide assessments that are more performance-based. CEPAs would be developed and approved by states and incorporated into regular classroom instruction. They would provide timely feedback to improve learning and inform accountability. This approach aims to transform teaching and learning to focus on deeper learning skills, while increasing efficiency by reducing over-testing. It would realign accountability to give states and districts more ownership over the process.
Central Government Public Sector Review 19Hamid Hashemi
1. The document discusses steps to improve student success and reduce educational disparity, highlighting the need for more personalized learning support and tuition.
2. It argues that private tutoring can play an important role in helping students achieve exam success if tutors receive further training and competency standards, and tutoring services collaborate more with schools.
3. Ensuring all students receive good academic and social support through personalized tutoring, strong teachers, and well-funded schools is seen as critical to realizing the potential of all children.
This document discusses the need to rebalance assessment in education by placing more emphasis on formative and performance assessments rather than high-stakes standardized tests. It argues that the current over-reliance on standardized tests to drive accountability narrowly focuses teaching and learning on basic skills and factual recall, diminishing student engagement and motivation. The document calls for a new approach centered around curriculum-embedded performance assessments that provide opportunities for learning, formative feedback, and summative evaluation. These assessments could better facilitate deeper learning skills and be used to measure student outcomes in a state accountability system.
Equity-Efficiency-Effectiveness through Assessment Levers - 1-23-15Peter Hofman
This document discusses how assessment practices can play an essential role in achieving deeper learning and equity for all students. It argues that four key levers related to assessment are needed: 1) ensuring accessibility of instructional materials for all students, 2) improving educators' assessment literacy, 3) using formative assessment practices, and 4) implementing curriculum-embedded performance assessments. The document claims that making fundamental changes to incorporate these four levers of assessment is essential for improving educational outcomes efficiently and effectively, especially for lower-performing students and reducing achievement gaps.
The document discusses different types of curriculum evaluation including formative, summative, and diagnostic evaluation. Formative evaluation takes place during curriculum implementation to improve instruction and learning, identifies issues early, and helps future planning. Summative evaluation occurs at the end to assess learning and is used for decision making. Diagnostic evaluation identifies prerequisite knowledge and interests at the beginning. All three types provide benefits like remediating weaknesses, guiding placement decisions, and enhancing teaching and learning.
This document discusses the College Choices for Adults website, which aims to assist adult learners in choosing distance higher education programs and promote transparency among institutions. The website provides institutional data like demographics and satisfaction rates, as well as program-level learning outcomes and results. A key feature is requiring programs to report learning assessment data. The website and its data are reviewed by WCET for quality. Charter Oak State College and Franklin University piloted providing their data and found benefits like improved transparency and use of data for decision-making.
The document proposes updates to Central Connecticut State University's early intervention program to improve student success and retention. It recommends implementing a new StudentPRO system to provide students with self-assessments and notifications about their academic progress. Faculty would use the system to flag at-risk students, who would then be required to meet with an advisor ("PRO") to develop a success plan connecting them with campus resources and support services. The proposal aims to increase collaboration between faculty, staff and administrators to better engage and support students through an early intervention program.
Salient's performance management technology brings together data from any source to provide a coherent view of educational performance. It produces objective information to help administrators, teachers, and others make faster, more data-driven decisions to improve student outcomes and reduce costs. The technology allows non-technical users to access and analyze performance data interactively within their daily work to closely monitor the effects of changes.
This document discusses leadership challenges in distance education and provides advice from experts in the field. In 3 sentences:
Leadership in distance education is difficult as it is disruptive to traditional higher education models and lacks clear administrative structures, but can succeed through collaborative strategic planning, distributing leadership responsibilities throughout an institution, and recognizing that distance education requires constant adaptation to changes in technology and student needs. The document offers perspectives on navigating politics, leading without direct authority, and creating buy-in for distance education across an institution.
This document discusses leadership challenges in distance education and provides advice from experts in the field. In 3 sentences:
Leadership in distance education is difficult as it is disruptive to traditional higher education models and lacks clear administrative structures, but can succeed through collaborative strategic planning, distributing leadership responsibilities throughout an institution, and recognizing that distance education requires constant adaptation to changes in technology and student needs. The document offers perspectives on navigating politics, leading without direct authority, and creating buy-in for distance education across an institution.
1) The purpose of education is to build productive community members with critical thinking skills to succeed in life. Struggles in school often lead to poverty, incarceration or dependence on welfare.
2) Effective leadership comes from influence, not position. It involves sharing expertise laterally across schools and districts.
3) Collective moral purpose, the right leaders focused on learning, building capacity through collaboration and reflection, and ongoing learning are keys to educational leadership according to Fullan's research.
4 Culture Creating Conditions for Success AN OPENI.docxtamicawaysmith
4
Culture
Creating Conditions for Success
AN OPENING STORY
Iri our first year of implementation of data-driven instruction, we knew that
one teacher in particular was going to be very resistant. As one of the most
veteran teachers on the staff and well respected by her peers, she also wielded
great influence on others. Although we had invited her to join a leadership team
to launch the initiative, she was still unprepared for the poor results her students
received on their first interim assessment. As we followed the protocols established
in Chapter Two and Chapter Three, her students' performance notably improved,
but she remained very unhappy and completely unconvinced that data-driven
practices had anything to do with these improvements.· She regularly sent us
signals of her displeasure with this initiative and felt it was stifling her teaching.
At the end of the year, students gained thirty points in proficiency from the
previous year's cohort, despite the fact that this cohort had been even lower
skilled when they started the year! Despite all the signs of her accomplishments,
the teacher was still un:willing to acknowledge any impact of data-driven practices
and continued to advocate for removing these systems.
Two years later, however, we had a faculty meeting and were discussing
whether we should shorten our analysis protocol and action plan to make it
easier for teachers to complete. In the middle of the meeting, this same teacher
raised her hand and said, "This is a critical reason why o}r students learn so
effectively; we shouldn't shorten it at all."
.
It took two full years' for the teacher to buy in to data-driven instruction,
but in the meantime, her students still made dramatic gains in achievement.
When implemented well, data-driven instruction drives achievement from the
beginning-a critical factor that distinguishes it from many other initiatives that
require teacher buy-in before they have any chance of success.
DEVELOPING CULTURE
If you feed "culture of high expectations" to an Internet search engine, you will
find hundreds of articles devoted to the topic. More concretely, .studies of high
achieving schools often talk about the influence of "culture" or "shared vision"
in their success.1 The question to ask, however, is not whether high-achieving
schools h~ve a strong culture of high expectations-they universally do-but
what were the drivers that created such a culture in each school?
In traveling around the country, I have yet to meet any teachers or school
leaders who did .not believe they had high expectations for student learning.
The difference, then, is not in what is said but what is practiced. How can a
school demystify the process of improving expectations and. operationalize it
with concrete actions that have proven to yield results? Just as standards are
meaningless until you define how to assess them, working to build a data-driven ...
This document summarizes a journal article about improving assessment and creating a culture of assessment in higher education. It discusses how accrediting agencies have required assessment for over 20 years but a culture of assessment has not fully developed on most campuses. The article describes how one business school used a change management approach based on Kotter's 8 steps to create buy-in for assessment among faculty. This included establishing urgency, forming an assessment committee, developing a shared vision of ideal graduate outcomes, and communicating the vision to gain faculty support for the process.
Learning Delta White Paper Greg Luther 2003Greg Luther
1) The document discusses using student learning progress, as measured by Learning Delta, to manage K-12 education reform programs and improve teaching effectiveness.
2) Learning Delta is defined as the change in a student's mastery of a subject over time. It can be used to measure the progress of individual students, classrooms, schools, and districts.
3) An example thought experiment illustrates how measuring teachers' Learning Delta yields could identify highly effective teachers and inform decisions about education programs and innovations. Teachers with the highest Learning Deltas significantly outperform other teachers.
This is a brief presentation on Outcome Based Education. Through this presentation we look at:
1. What is Outcome Based Education?
2. Goal of Outcome Based Education
3. The problems with the Traditional Education System
4. Why Outcome Based Education?
5. Differences between Traditional Education System & OBE
6. History of Outcome Based Education
7. Principles of Outcome Based Education
8. Challenges with Outcome Based Education
9. Solution for Challenges with Outcome Based Education
The document discusses ethical issues related to student grading practices. It notes that grading is a unique challenge in education and that unethical practices can range from obviously changing grades to more subjective inconsistencies in grading policies. The purpose of grading should be to accurately reflect student learning, though determining fair grading practices is an ongoing debate between standards-based and more subjective approaches.
This document discusses building career pathways for adult education students. It outlines the need for more opportunities for adults to gain credentials to improve their skills and access postsecondary education. It discusses key elements of successful career pathways programs, including clear program structures, integrated basic skills and career technical education, and enhanced student supports. It also provides examples of promising early outcomes from career pathways bridge programs in several states.
Similar to CCA performance funding think this (20)
This document provides a draft summary of recommendations from various efforts addressing reform of Florida's higher education system. It catalogs recommendations in the areas of accountability, funding, and governance. For accountability, it recommends enhancing metrics around outcomes like employment and enhancing alignment between university and state strategic plans. For funding, it discusses balancing access with excellence and tying funding to performance metrics. For governance, it recommends tying decreased regulation and flexibility to achieving strategic plan outcomes.
The document provides notes from a Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force conference call discussing strategies to address tensions between increasing and decreasing university tuition in Florida. It recommends increasing state funding toward the national average per student and allowing differentiated tuition rates between degree programs. Specific degree programs in strategic state emphasis areas could qualify for lower tuition rates if universities meet metrics agreed upon by the state Legislature and Board of Governors. Universities meeting additional metrics could be designated "Preeminent" with more tuition flexibility and reduced regulation.
This document provides draft talking points to guide a teleconference discussion about implementing a differentiated tuition model. It outlines a three-step plan where universities could gradually increase tuition rates for degrees up to 6 times the Consumer Price Index annual increase. Degrees classified as "eminent," such as those leading to high employment, could have lower tuition increases. The program would be reevaluated after 4 years based on economic factors. If a university's student quality or graduation rates dropped for two years in a row, tuition increases would be capped at the CPI increase until improvements are made.
This document summarizes a journal article about the relationship between public university research and state economic development. It describes potential virtuous and vicious cycles in this relationship. The virtuous cycle involves increased federal research funding leading to more university discoveries, job growth, and increased state tax revenues that fund universities. However, a vicious cycle can also occur if states do not adequately fund universities. This can weaken universities' research competitiveness and the state's long-term economy. It can also exacerbate disparities between states with strong vs. weak university systems.
The Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform held a webinar to discuss recommendations on funding, accountability, and governance for state universities. They aimed to refine, improve, accept, table or reject proposed recommendations and identify areas needing further work. Next meeting dates were established to continue discussions and finalize recommendations by October 30th.
The document contains recommendations from working groups on university funding, accountability, and governance. It recommends giving universities more autonomy over tuition rates while tying funding to performance metrics. It also suggests establishing flagship research universities and rewarding programs with high employment outcomes. Additional meetings are scheduled to further refine recommendations for submission to the governor.
This document provides a draft recommendation from a task force on tuition rates at public universities in Florida. It summarizes research showing that state funding for public higher education has declined significantly in recent decades while tuition rates have risen sharply. For Florida universities in particular, state funding has dropped by 25% in four years while tuition rates have remained capped below rates charged by peer institutions in other states. The recommendation suggests removing Florida's system-wide tuition cap and allowing individual universities to set tuition appropriate to their missions and programs.
This document contains draft recommendations from a task force regarding tuition and governance at public universities in Florida. It provides background information on declining state support for higher education and restrictions on tuition increases in Florida. The task force recommends abandoning the tuition policy that locks universities into a narrow tuition range. It also recommends giving university boards of trustees more authority over tuition rates and allowing differentiated rates by program. The recommendations aim to provide universities more flexibility to deal with state funding cuts while maintaining affordability.
The document discusses reforms needed for Florida higher education. It argues that (1) Florida already has an effective structure in place and does not need reorganization, (2) restoring state funds cut in recent years is essential to improve student/faculty ratios and access to courses, and (3) additional new funding is needed to address salary compression and retain faculty talent, in order to build a strong knowledge-based economy.
This document discusses occupational projections in Florida from 2011 to 2019. It includes two tables showing employment counts by education level for 2003, 2011, and 2019. The tables assign educational codes to occupations based on Florida codes and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics codes. The document also compares projected bachelor's degree production in Florida to projected job openings requiring a bachelor's degree over that period.
The chair of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform provides guidance to task force members on next steps. Members are to meet in subcommittees between now and September 17 to develop initial reform options, which will be discussed at a September 21 webinar. The chair outlines a timeline of subsequent meetings and deliverables, culminating in a final set of recommendations voted on at an October 12 webinar. Task force members are instructed to provide data and logic to build a business case for each reform option.
The group discussed strengths within the current system, and worked to define what successful state higher education would look like in 3-5 years. They focused on issues of governance, accountability, funding and the system as a whole, with the goal of developing recommendations to advance the governor's vision.
The three sentence summary is:
The document provides final attachments and a website link for participants of a July 26 workshop to aid in their preparation, noting they should resist arguing for or against the ideas presented and instead focus on innovative solutions; it also looks forward to hearing the participants' own analysis and contributions; and includes three attached files and the name and title of the sender.
This document outlines 10 principles for reforming higher education in the United States. The first principle is to reduce third-party payments and end government subsidies and tax breaks that subsidize higher education costs. This would better align costs with the direct benefits received by students and encourage colleges to reduce costs. Currently, third-party payments have led to soaring costs without improving access or outcomes.
The speaker discusses three "tug-of-wars" in higher education: [1] Funding versus Accountability, noting that increased accountability is needed to obtain more funding; [2] Tuition versus Financial Aid, which are interrelated; and [3] Institutional Independence versus Need for Systemic Governance. Regarding funding versus accountability, the speaker states accountability must be improved for universities to receive more funding from the state government. The speaker also recommends the New Florida Initiative to increase graduates and research with $2 billion in new state funding.
The Higher Education Coordinating Council report provides recommendations to the Florida Legislature, State Board of Education, and Board of Governors on issues related to higher education in Florida. The report is organized into four sections addressing the core mission of institutions, data and performance measures, articulation policies, and workforce education. It includes 85 recommendations organized under seven thematic areas: strategic degree program coordination, capital expansion, student financial aid, funding/performance funding, articulation, data/accountability, and workforce education. Some of the key recommendations include developing a statewide degree program inventory, improving coordination of new programs between sectors, exploring alternative funding for facilities, and aligning financial aid to encourage on-time graduation.
The document outlines a strategic plan for the State University System of Florida from 2012-2025. It was approved on November 10, 2011. The plan discusses the context and challenges facing the university system, including declining state funding. It establishes a mission and vision for the system to better serve Florida's economic and workforce needs through 2025. Goals are outlined to improve access, affordability, graduation rates, research funding, and facilities funding over the next 13 years.
The email is inviting confirmed participants to a July 26 meeting of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform. It provides the agenda and reading materials to prepare participants for collaborative discussions. The meeting will bring together over 70 participants with different views to generate consensus recommendations in three categories - accountability, governance, and funding - to position state universities for success. Participants are advised to approach the discussions with an open mind, seeking first to understand others and find win-win solutions while keeping the ultimate goal of state university success in mind.
The agenda outlines the schedule and activities for the Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform meeting on July 26, 2012 at St. Petersburg College. The day includes registration and breakfast from 8:15-8:45am, opening remarks from 8:45-9:45am, the first activity on Florida's university system from 9:45-11:30am, a networking lunch from 11:30am-12:15pm, and the second brainstorming activity on recommendations from 12:15-3:30pm, before adjourning.
More from Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force on State Higher Education Reform (20)
1. Essential Steps for States
THINK THIS. act now. at scale.
Performance
Funding:
From Idea to Action
Prepared for Complete College America by
Dennis Jones, President
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems
2. Established in 2009, Complete College America is a
national nonprofit with a single mission: to work with
states to significantly increase the number of Americans
with quality career certificates or college degrees and to
close attainment gaps for traditionally underrepresented
populations.
Dennis Jones is President of the National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems (NCHEMS), a nonprofit
research and development center founded to improve
strategic decisionmaking in institutions and agencies of
higher education.
DO THIS! Essential Steps for States
ACT NOW. AT SCALE.
Now What? Value-Added Funding
A Simple, Easy-to-Understand Model to Reward Performance
The mere mention of so-called “performance funding” “black box” at state budget agencies and produce nearly
makes college presidents and the higher education unpredictable outcomes. Higher education leaders need
community nervous. It’s an understandable reaction certainty. And elected officials want accountability for
to a concept that too often results in an overly complex results and a funding approach that benefits students.
This think this. brief makes the outcome. Still, the basic principle of “investing the
limited resources states have in the results they want” is
fundamentally sound — and an essential step for states to
take in combination with other key policy reforms in order
Complete College America believes all of these outcomes
are within reach, by using a funding model built on a
straightforward structure that values the most important
to significantly increase student success and boost college goals — access, progress, and success — and is simple to
completion. customize, and, most important, easy to understand. We
case for why colleges and universities It’s time for a better, cleaner, simpler approach. Let’s
replace complex funding schemes that are fed into a
call it Value-Added Funding. Here’s how it works:
The Basic Plan
should shift to a system of performance Begin by assigning each freshman student a value of 1. A
sophomore receives a value of 1.2, a junior or a student
with an associate degree is valued at 1.4, a senior at
support each time it adds a freshman or a transfer student
and whenever it advances a student toward graduation.
More student access and success leads to more base
1.6, and a bachelor’s degree earner at 1.8. This system funding. Students who do not make timely progress or
clearly rewards access, retention, and progression — and who drop out become missed opportunities.
funding, one of our six essential steps
students who transfer into an institution with credits
already earned become more valuable than ever. And by Funding changes from year to year will not swing
definition, a student is valued by the number of courses he wildly or unpredictably. And each year will produce a
or she actually has completed, not simply attempted or was compounding effect that will become more significant over
enrolled in on the day students are “counted” for funding time — as the pool of “1.4 students” become “1.6 students”
purposes. who become “1.8 students.” The use of a three-year
for states. The accompanying
rolling average will not diminish the compounding, but
A college then computes an index for its base year. It it would create a “smoothing” effect that could enhance
can “improve” its performance and increase its financial predictability.
DO THIS! brief provides specific advice
for implementing such a system. OUR GOAL: By 2020, six out of 10 young adults in our country will have a college degree or credential of value.
U.S. students don’t just need to go to college; they need to complete college. Access has improved — we are sending more students to higher education —
but success has declined. In just 10 years, six of 10 new jobs will require a college education, but fewer than half of students who enter college today finish
with a degree or credential. Those who do complete college are taking longer, paying more, and graduating with more debt.
February 2012
3. Essential Steps for States • think this.
PERFORMANCE FUNDING
From Idea to Action
Performance funding — the linking of allocation of resources to accomplishment
of certain desired outcomes — is an idea that is once again finding favor with
policymakers. It has intuitive appeal; what’s not to like about paying for results?
While it is a notion that makes common sense to most decisionmakers, it is an
idea with a very checkered past — it has been tried, found wanting, and with
few exceptions abandoned. A review of past experiments suggests that it’s
not the idea that failed, but the design and implementation of the strategies
that derived from the idea. This brief paper presents a set of first principles
for putting in place an approach to performance funding that will help
policymakers avoid many of the pitfalls that plagued prior efforts in this arena.
The principles presented fall into two categories — those dealing with design of
the system, and a separate set dealing with implementation.
PERFORMANCE FUNDING: From Idea to Action 1
4. Essential Steps for States • think this.
Design a Smart System
1. Recognize that all funding models are performance based; this is not a new
idea. Institutions have consistently received appropriations from the state for achieving
certain objectives. Most often the objective has been providing greater access and growing
enrollments. In other cases, the incentives have been for maintaining the status quo. In the
current incarnation, it’s not the idea that’s new — it’s the objectives for which incentives are
being provided that are new. Access is no longer the dominant goal. It has been replaced
by an emphasis on completion of academic programs. Numbers of students enrolled are
becoming less the coin of the realm; production of degrees and high value certificates is
becoming the new currency. Over the years, decisionmakers and analysts have become very
good at devising ways to appropriately reward improvements in student access. The task
now is to become equally adept at rewarding a different set of goals.
2. Get agreement on goals before putting performance funding in place. Resource
allocation models are the means to an end, not ends unto themselves. If there is not a clear Texas provides a good
statement of goals that has broad bipartisan acceptance, then there is almost no chance of illustration. Its goal
creating a performance funding model that can last. It is well worth the time and effort to of “Closing the Gaps”
get broad consensus around a “public agenda” for the state before embarking on design preceded by several
years its initiation of a
of a performance-based funding model. The public agenda should state a limited set of
performance funding
goals that:
component to its
■■ Are tailored to the needs of the state, not borrowed from elsewhere allocation model that
rewards institutions for
■■ Focus on the needs of the state and its citizens, not the institutions of higher education increasing the numbers
of degrees awarded.
The absence of such a public agenda undercuts the efficacy of many prior efforts to build
Indiana and Ohio also
performance funding systems. Goals need to be the driving force for performance funding,
illustrate this principle.
not a rhetorical afterthought.
3. Construct performance metrics more broadly. The current focus nationally is on
education attainment of the population and the associated encouragement for institutions
to increase the numbers of degrees and employer-recognized certificates produced. In most Illinois is a good
states, this is a necessary and important goal but is likely not the only one of importance to example of a state
whose public agenda is
the state. Others frequently found include:
both well-focused on the
■■ Innovations that expand and broaden the state’s economy needs of the state while
simultaneously calling on
■■ Production of graduate and professional degrees in selected fields such as STEM or the different capacities
health care of different kinds of
institutions to achieve
■■ Development of a workforce for high-need occupations
that agenda.
It is important that all institutions have an opportunity (not a guarantee) to benefit by (See http://www.
ibhe.state.il.us/
excelling at their different missions. It is important to reinforce the point that institutions
masterPlanning/
should be able to “win” by contributing to state goals, not doing well at their own. Failure
materials/070109_
to abide by this principle can easily lead to:
PublicAgenda.pdf)
PERFORMANCE FUNDING: From Idea to Action 2
5. Essential Steps for States • think this.
■■ Encouragement of unwanted behavior by institutions — mission creep by some
institutions, and research institutions enrolling more students than deemed desirable by
policymakers and increasing competition for students even more in the process.
■■ Legislative opposition from supporters of institutions that can’t benefit from staying
within their mission and doing that mission well.
4. Design the funding model to promote mission differentiation, not mission creep.
This can be accomplished in at least two distinct ways:
■■ Use different metrics/drivers for different kinds of institutions. Tennessee’s model is
particularly good on this dimension, rewarding
›› The research universities for producing doctoral and professional degrees and
successfully competing for more research funding
›› The comprehensive institutions for producing master’s and baccalaureate degrees
›› The community college for producing associate degrees and certificates, transferring
students and reaching specified “momentum points” (remedial success, dual
enrollment, and job placement, for example.)
■■ Create different pools of resources for different kinds of institutions — and make sure
that each institution can compete for resources in only one pool. Ohio uses this strategy
and makes distinctions among
›› Main campuses
›› Regional campuses
›› Community colleges
The fundamental principle is to reward institutions for fulfilling their missions and not
encourage/allow them to benefit by altering their mission. The largest bone of contention
almost always arises when teaching institutions are discouraged from benefitting from
engaging in research. Examples include:
• Low income — usually
5. Include provisions that reward success with underserved populations. One of
measured as Pell or
the major concerns voiced about performance-based funding, especially when the goal
state grant eligible
is to produce more graduates, is that institutions will seek to enroll only those students (Tennessee, Ohio,
most likely to succeed and ignore students who are at risk academically, economically, or Texas)
otherwise. To counter this possibility, most states that have instituted performance funding
• Adult (Tennessee,
give extra weight for graduating students from at-risk populations. The weights vary
West Virginia,
from 40 percent (in Tennessee) to 100 percent (in Texas). The definitions of “at-risk” differ
Texas)
considerably from state to state.
• Academically at-risk —
The beauty of the formulation that gives added weight to graduates with specified below national average
characteristics is its flexibility; flexible in the weights attached and in the characteristics of on ACT/SAT and those
students identified as priorities for extra attention. with GED (Texas)
PERFORMANCE FUNDING: From Idea to Action 3
6. Essential Steps for States • think this.
6. Include provisions that reward progress as well as ultimate success (degree States that have
completion). This is especially important in the early implementation stages of implemented
performance funding. Degree production is difficult to increase in a single year; a performance funding
mechanism that rewards improvement in the shorter term is a useful and appropriate tool. have pointed the way
to different approaches
It helps institutions, but more importantly, it helps students succeed by rewarding
to accomplishing this
institutions who help students make step-by-step progress.
objective. They include:
It is possible to make this an inclusive provision, but it is also possible to confine this • Providing rewards to
provision to at-risk students. institutions on the
basis of the number
7. Limit the categories of outcomes to be rewarded. A frequent urge is to create an
of students who
ever-expanding list of variables that can serve as drivers of the performance funding complete 24 credits,
model; all institutions will press for inclusion of a factor that will benefit them. It must be 48 credits, 72 credits
remembered that performance funding should reward contributions to attainment of state, (Tennessee).
not institutional, goals, and state policymakers are counseled to keep the variables attached
• Valuing completed
to each type of institution to no more than four or five. One of the primary purposes of credits at the upper-
outcomes-based funding is to focus institutional attention on key state priorities. If state division level at a
policymakers can’t limit the number of priorities, then they are providing insufficient higher rate than at
leadership and the message sent to institutions will be garbled at best. Success will be the lower-division level
achieved only if the message is clear. (Ohio).
• Rewarding institutions
8. Use metrics that are unambiguous and difficult to game. Numbers of graduates is
for students achieving
an unambiguous measure; students either graduated or they didn’t. Graduation rates, on
certain momentum
the other hand, are fraught with ambiguities. There are all kinds of definitional problems
points — completing
associated with determining rates. Furthermore, institutions can “game” improvements in
developmental
graduation rates; rates can be improved by graduating fewer, better-prepared students. This
education and
doesn’t serve the overall goal — raising education attainment by graduating more students. succeeding in the
first college-level
Regardless of the goal being pursued, it is always useful to test the metrics that will serve as
courses, completing
drivers of the calculation by asking two questions:
15 credits, 30 credits,
■■ If an institution sought to maximize its benefit on each metric what would it do? etc. (Washington
What is the easiest way to “win”? community colleges).
■■ Is the behavior elicited the intended behavior?
If the answer to the second question is “no,” go back to the drawing board; the chosen
metrics are constructed incorrectly.
9. Reward continuous improvement, not attainment of a fixed goal. Creating conditions
under which institutions can be rewarded only if they reach a predetermined level of
performance is generally a bad idea. Either the goal will be set too low in an effort to
ensure success by at least a few institutions, or the goal will be viewed as unattainable
and institutions will give up before they make a concerted effort to succeed. Better each
institution’s current performance be established as the baseline and funds allocated on the
basis of year-over-year improvements from that baseline.
PERFORMANCE FUNDING: From Idea to Action 4
7. Essential Steps for States • think this.
10. Make the performance funding pool large enough to command attention. Legislation in both
Controversy almost always surrounds the determination of the proportion of the state Colorado and
appropriation to be allocated on the basis of performance. Institutions typically argue for Louisiana sets the
a small percentage; there is comfort in business as usual. Policymakers take the opposite amount at 25 percent.
position; more is better. There is no proven right answer and different states have reached Indiana now has one
different conclusions in this regard. Tennessee for years allocated 5.4 percent of the state of the lower amounts at
6.5 percent. A minimum
appropriation on the basis of performance. Under the new model, nearly all of the allocation
of 10 percent is probably
is outcome based.
a reasonable target.
11. Ensure that the incentives in all parts of the funding model align with state goals.
In most states, the performance funding component of the allocation model is constructed
on top of a base funding component that can be characterized as either enrollment driven
or base-plus. The former rewards access rather than success. The second is a recipe for
maintaining the status quo. The orientation-to-enrollment increases as the primary driver
is reinforced by the growing importance of tuition as a revenue source. Regardless of state
goals, institutions have an ever-growing incentive to increase enrollments. Both approaches
to base funding work at cross-purposes to the intentions of performance funding.
Faced with these realities, it is important that steps be taken to ensure that the performance
funding component doesn’t get negated by the (often countervailing) incentives inherent in
the base allocation. Some suggestions:
■■ In enrollment-driven base models, base the calculations on completed credits, not
enrolled credits. This is based on the fact that programs won’t be completed if courses
that constitute those programs aren’t completed.
■■ In base-plus arrangements, freeze the base at current levels and devote all new funds to
the performance pool.
■■ Make the performance pool an increasingly large part of the state allocation. In states
where tuition makes up half of institutional revenues, allocation of half the state
appropriation to performance equates to 25 percent of institutional revenues — a level
still overshadowed by enrollment-driven considerations.
The process by which the model is designed is critically important to long-term success.
It’s not just adherence to sound principles, but it is also the environment in which they’re
deployed that matters. Institutions are understandably interested in the means by which
state funds are distributed. For both technical and political reasons, it is important to have
institutional representatives at the table at every step. Most have knowledge and experience
that will improve the final product. Equally important, their involvement improves the
chances of achieving a model that has broad support.
PERFORMANCE FUNDING: From Idea to Action 5
8. Essential Steps for States • think this.
Implement Wisely
Even a well-designed performance funding scheme will likely come up short if not thoughtfully
implemented. Some basic implementation principles are:
■■ Don’t wait for new money. Given the economic outlook for most states, funding the
performance component of the allocation model only with new resources is a recipe for
indefinite postponement. Because pursuit of state goals is such an imperative, delay in
attaching performance requirements to some part of the allocation sends entirely the
wrong message.
■■ Include a phase-in provision. Don’t try to do it all at once. If the ultimate size of the
performance fund is intended to be 25 percent, consider phasing it in at the rate of
5 percent over five years — 5 percent in year one, 10 percent at year two, etc. The
objective should be to get to the target level as fast as possible without making the
changes so large that institutions can’t adjust.
■■ Employ stop-loss, not hold-harmless, provisions. Institutions should not be held
harmless from cuts to their allocations if they are not contributing to state goals. At the
same time, cuts should not be so large as to jeopardize the stability of the institution.
One way to accomplish this objective is through a “stop-loss” provision that establishes
a maximum cut that can be imposed in any one year — e.g., 2 percent the first year,
another 2 percent the second, etc. At some point — four or five years from the point of
implementation — the stop-loss provision should be sunsetted and the performance
funding model should function without artificial constraint.
■■ Continue performance funding in both good times and bad. If pay for performance
is intended to reward institutions for addressing the most critical issues facing the state,
then it is hard to see how postponing its implementation could be a good idea. Funds
that address the issues identified as being most important should be the last dollars cut,
not the first. If the overall state appropriation is reduced, then the strategy should be to
allocate performance dollars first and then make cuts. The net effect will be to cut the
high performers less than those making a lesser contribution to state goals.
PERFORMANCE FUNDING: From Idea to Action 6
9. Essential Steps for States • think this.
Overcome Potential Roadblocks
Those not fully sold on performance funding will raise predictable counter arguments. Among
them:
■■ Performance funding has been tried before with limited, if any, success. Why
should this incarnation of an old idea be any more successful than previous
cycles? There are several critical differences this time around. First, if done right, it is
now being driven by a public agenda; it is seen as a tool to achieve key goals, not as a
device for talking the legislature into providing marginal new dollars. Second, it derives
its power from a consensus about priorities, not from promotion by a single persuasive
leader or a group of self-interested proponents. Third, data systems are now much
improved; it is possible to calculate metrics for important outcomes directly without
relying on proxy measures. Finally, legislatures are raising the stakes; it’s no longer
2–5 percent, but 25 percent. It is much harder to ignore such programs than it was in
times past.
■■ Quality will suffer — institutions can easily graduate more students if their
standards are lowered. There are several potential responses to this concern.
›› Faculty are the guardians of institutional quality; we have every faith that they will
continue to be diligent in fulfilling this responsibility.
›› We will put in place a rigorous (outcomes-based) approach to assessing quality and
will monitor results on an ongoing basis to ensure that quality is not slipping.
■■ What is the evidence that it has made a difference? It’s too early to judge in
several cases, but there are some states in which implementation has resulted in higher
performance.
›› In Texas, institutions increased degree production by 9.3 percent over baseline levels.
The number of “at-risk” students graduated increased by 17.6 percent.
›› Similarly, Washington Community Colleges increased the number of momentum
points achieved by 12 percent after initiation of a modest performance funding
program.
■■ You have to restore the base before setting aside funds for performance. This is
perhaps the most common argument put forward by opponents of performance funding.
The reality is that institutions are producing their current (baseline) level of outcomes
with whatever resources they currently have at their disposal. It should be expected
that any new resources lead to higher levels of performance, not the same level of
performance at a higher cost.
PERFORMANCE FUNDING: From Idea to Action 7
10. Essential Steps for States • think this.
Conclusion
Performance funding is moving into the mainstream of state-level higher
education financing policy. Several states have thoughtfully fashioned
approaches to allocation of resources in ways that link funding to achievement
of state goals. As a result, there is a growing body of information about good
practices regarding design and implementation of such financing models. This
brief paper is an attempt to succinctly describe those practices. The field has
advanced to the point that the knowledge base regarding how to develop such
systems is now in place. The issue now is one of political will, not technical
know-how.
PERFORMANCE FUNDING: From Idea to Action 8
11. Related publications
know this.
Time Is The Enemy (September 2011)
New Thinking for a New Majority (Fall 2011)
think this.
Three Policies to Reduce Time to Degree; with Resource Kit (February 2011)
Certificates Count: An Analysis of Sub-Baccalaureate Certificates (December 2010)
Complete College America at the White House Summit on Community College (August 2010)
A Working Model for Student Success: The Tennessee Technology Centers (June 2010)
Do this!
Value-Added Funding (February 2012)
12. 1250 H Street, NW, Suite 850
Washington, DC 20005
completecollege.org