Toward a New Framework for Funding for Equity

The Financial Benefits and Burdens of Performance Funding in Higher Education

“…In addition, performance funding is associated with a decline of US$295.90 ( p < .05) at rural institutions, relative to rural institutions not subject to performance funding. It is surprising to find no treatment effects of performance funding among MSIs, given the findings from Hillman and Corral (2017) and Jones et al (2017). The lack of a positive effect may be interpreted as an indirect burden of performance funding since increases in funding are observed among other institution types.…”

“…This further suggests that performance funding policies are designed to benefit high-resource, politically connected institutions and burden low-resource, politically weak institutions. Because performance funding policies are often designed with the wealthiest institutions in mind (Gàndara, 2016; Jones et al, 2017; Ness, Deupree, & Gàndara, 2015), the policy process may result in policies that reward high-resource institutions for maintaining the status quo, but are not sensitive enough to detect improvements/successes for low-resource institutions. For example, some policies require institutions to meet certain thresholds of performance or even outperform other institutions to be rewarded.…”

“…Jones et al (2017) argued that performance funding policies perpetuate existing funding inequities between minority-serving institutions (MSIs) and their predominately White institution (PWI) counterparts. According to this research, many MSIs experienced declines in funding following performance funding implementation, whereas the institutions that received the greatest per-student funding from the state also had the greatest endowment and other nonstate resources.…”

“…Due to historic underfunding, discrimination, and performance funding policies’ lack of consideration of the particular missions of MSIs, these institutions are often disproportionally disadvantaged relative to PWIs. Jones et al (2017) noted that other structural disadvantages, for instance, lacking authorization to offer degrees in certain fields, also contributed to inequities in resources and capacity to meet performance funding goals.…”

When a Student’s “Right to Fail” Harms the University Brand: How a Lack of Guidance in Experiential Learning Affects University–Organization Relationships

“…The right-to-fail literature (Jones & Assalone, 2016; Roueche & Roueche, 1994) offers a starting point for understanding the tension involving these partnerships: While the university’s perspective is that the student is engaged in a learning opportunity (Kisfalvi & Oliver, 2015), many host organizations expect the students to be able to perform, add value, or deliver on a set of expectations very early on in the experience (Cannon & Arnold, 1998; Hall, Stiles, Kuzma, & Elliot, 1995). This relationship becomes even more fragile when the stakes are raised by engaging important alumni or development prospects as potential hosts for student learning.…”