AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION TRENDS

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF EDUCATION FELLOWS, MAY 2016

Dr. Joanne Goodell, Dr. Rosalee Rush, Dr. Janelle Chiasera

AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION TRENDS

• Performance Based Funding, Dr. Joanne Goodell• Institutional Equity, Dr. Janelle Chiasera• Emergency Communications, Dr. Rosalee Rush

PERFORMANCE FUNDING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR EQUITY IN US HIGHER

EDUCATION Joanne E Goodell, PhD

ACE Fellow, 2015-2016

Home Institution: Cleveland State University

Host Institution: Kent State University

Presentation to the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education

Curtin University

May 26, 2016

TRENDS IN FUNDING SOURCES

Revenue Source Doctoral Master's Bachelor's Two-Year

Net Tuition Revenue

2002-03 26% 35% 35% 24%

2007-08 30% 40% 38% 25%

2012-13 40% 53% 49% 35%

State and Local Appropriations

2002-03 40% 52% 49% 60%

2007-08 37% 47% 47% 60%

2012-13 26% 35% 37% 51%

Federal Appropriations and Local, State and Federal Grants and Contracts

2002-03 34% 13% 16% 16%

2007-08 33% 13% 15% 15%

2012-13 34% 12% 14% 14%

Source: The College Board. Trends in College Pricing, 2015.

STATE FUNDING MODELS

• Base plus/minus • Formula• Performance-based• Old models based on inputs such as

number of students, instructional costs, plant maintenance, capital improvements

• PF metrics include course completion (ABC, no DFW), graduation, retention and employment rates

Model Tenn-essee

Ohio Indiana

*PF 1.0 1979-2000

1995 2007

*PF 2.0 2010 2009 2009

• PF 1.0 provided bonus on top of regular funding

• PF 2.0 is part of the base, Tennessee up to 85% PF

• By June 2014, 26 states have some PF, now 36 states

Source: SSI Performance Based Funding 2014 report, Ohio Higher Education.

STATED POLICY IMPLEMENTATION RATIONALE

• Engage stakeholders• Use a limited set of consistently defined metrics • Differentiation across institution sectors/missions • Focus on student completion and incentivize the success of

underserved “at-risk” student populations • Significant amount of dollars allocated based on outcomes • Phase-in of new funding policies with bridge funding available to

ease transition

OHIO’S METRICS

• 50% for degree completions • 30% for course completion • 19.7% for doctoral and medical • 0.3% Set Asides

IMPLICATIONS FOR INSTITUTIONS• Because there has been flat or declining funding from the state, if

one institution gains, another one loses• Program prioritization in vogue aiming improve performance on

state funding metrics• Programs with low enrollment, low graduation numbers and low

job placement rates eliminated• Courses not required for graduation dropped, diminishing choice• Courses considered road blocks scrutinized, diminishing quality

(maybe)

• Some have increased admission requirements to keep out less qualified students, which can have huge impact on equity groups

• Much greater emphasis on course and degree completion• Possible pressure to decrease standards, some research shows that this has

not happened. Admin has relied on faculty to maintain standards• Ohio has $4,000 graduation bonus which has led to some institutions offering

completion grants (some students don’t re-enroll for balances as low as $100 in parking or library fines)

• Big focus on improving advising. Faculty replaced by professional advisors, but quality is uneven, no licensing or PD requirements

• For-profit companies analyzing data, giving early warnings to advisors about likely drop outs

IMPLICATIONS CONTINUED

• When I started at CSU, 6-year grad rate (one of the main metrics used) was never discussed, it was a dirty little secret that we were the lowest of Ohio’s 14 state universities

• In 2009, we got a new President and transitioned to a new funding model (PF2.0) with metrics based on First-Time, Full-Time Freshman (FTFTF)

• Formed Senate Committee on Undergrad Student Success• Worked with registrar, bursar and financial aid office to remove

registration and graduation barriers, better for everyone but particularly first in family and other equity groups

• Implemented web-based degree audit• Implemented degree maps

CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY

TRANSFORMATI0NS AT CSU• Grad rates improved, but not enough• Formula changed to give less emphasis to FTFTF, more emphasis on

course and degree completion• CSU’s curriculum structure was significantly different to many other

universities. Previous presidents had tried to get faculty support to change it, with no luck

• During my tenure as Senate President, faculty supported reducing credits from 128 to 120, and realigning curriculum to 3-credit model, but not without controversy

• Some loss of tuition, but the 6-yr grad rate is now almost 40%

Questions?