Since the 1970s, federal and state policy-makers have become increasingly concerned with improving higher education performance. In this quest, state performance funding for higher education has become widely used. As of June 2014, twenty-six states were operating performance funding programs and four more have programs awaiting implementation. This article reviews the forms, extent, origins, implementation, impacts (intended and unintended), and policy prospects of performance funding. Performance funding has become quite widespread with formidable political support, yet it has also experienced considerable implementation vicissitudes, with many programs being discontinued and even those that have survived encountering substantial obstacles and unintended impacts. Although evidence suggests that performance funding does stimulate colleges and universities to substantially change their policies and practices, it is yet unclear whether performance funding improves student outcomes. The article concludes by advancing policy recommendations for addressing the implementation obstacles and unintended side effects associated with performance funding.

For several decades, policymakers have been concerned about increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of postsecondary institutions. In recent years, performance funding-which directly connects state funding to an institution's performance on indicators such as student persistence, credit accrual, and college completion-has become a particularly attractive way of pursuing better college outcomes. But even as states have made an enormous investment in performance funding, troubling questions have been raised about whether performance funding has the effects intended and whether it also produces substantial negative side effects in the form of restrictions in access for underrepresented students and weakening of academic standards. This paper addresses these troubling questions by drawing on data richer than heretofore available. In addition to drawing on the existing body of research on performance funding, it reports data from a study of the implementation of performance funding in three leading states (Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee) and its impacts on three universities and three community colleges in each state.

In this article, researchers from the Community College Research Center reflect on what they have learned from their study of Guided Pathways reforms at over 100 colleges nationally since the publication in 2015 of Redesigning America's Community Colleges. They examine five areas of practice: (1) program design, (2) new student onboarding, (3) remediation and academic support, (4) ongoing student advising, and (5) teaching and learning. For each area, they describe how their thinking about Guided Pathways has evolved from the model presented in Redesigning and discuss the implications for practice. In the conclusion, they provide guidance to college and state system leaders about how to advocate for adequate state fiscal support for evidence‐based reforms needed for achieving more equitable student outcomes and ensuring college survival in a very challenging environment for community colleges and their students.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract