Performance Funding : A Descriptive Study

State legislators slashed more than $121 million from college financial aid programs alone. TEXAS grants, the state’s financial aid program for needy students, now serves 29,000 fewer students than it did previously. College administrators have reported losing highly qualified students to private or out-of-state

State legislators slashed more than $121 million from college financial aid programs alone, leaving 29,000 students without the possibility of receiving aid from TEXAS grants, the state’s financial aid program for needy students. Since Texas colleges and universities were also cut 9 percent by the legislator, they were forced to raise prices for students. Due to the uncertainty of the Texas financial aid, many college administrators reported losing numerous highly qualified students to out-of-state universities and colleges and many families have lost the ability to pay for tuition because of the lack of resources.

The topic of this paper is the states’ decreasing financial support of higher education, the reaction and response from institutions who have lost funding, and the creative ways public institutions are locating additional streams of revenue. States have been the primary backer of public institutions, but since the recession states have shown less commitment financially while still heavily regulating higher education. As a result some institutions have had to change their practices while others have challenged their state’s regulations all together. Many have speculated that state funding may never return to its former highs. Rather than make an enemy of the state, some schools have discovered new and unconvential ways of raising funds for their institution.

The state of California has long been reliant on the University of California system to provide its resident companies with skilled and educated business, technology, and science leaders. Highly regarded as one of the top educational systems in the world, the University of California boasts a high number of distinguished and respected faculty members in almost every field of study. However, while most private colleges and universities have learned how to streamline their processes in order to better respond to stakeholder needs, public educational institutions, such as the University of California, have not been willing to control their bureaucratic growth resulting in a rise of tuition rates and a decline in the level of student satisfaction. In her article for the TIME magazine, Kate Pickert writes that as recently as November of this year the University of California has approved a plan that could raise tuition rates by up to 28% (Pickert). Pickert also points out that the tuition rates at the University of California have more than tripled since 2001. The University of California has blamed the increased tuition on the state of California budget cuts caused by the economic downturn of recent years. However, a closer examination of the University of California faculty and administration data makes it obvious that the higher rates of tuition are cause by the inability and

Abstract: This paper will discuss the Federal Pell Grant and the legislation behind it as well as the Higher Education Act of 1965 and it’s reforms since then. This appears purpose is to show the faults within these programs and to then show possible ways people have tried to reform it. The final part of this paper will be my opinion on how the legislation can be fixed along with using data and information from recent research done on the subject. It is the hopes that these recommendations will then be used to further stabilize this piece of legislation in the future.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, the Title I funding program is depicted as a policy that “provides financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards” (“Title I, Part A Program”). The program was intended to close the gap between low income students and others with sufficient income. The policy was introduced January 12, 1965 and passed on April 9, 1965. Throughout time, Title I funding has been thought to be efficient ad successful, however, there is new evidence and data contradicting this statement. Title I funding negatively affected students because it

Although 2010 was not by definition, a recession year, it certainly felt like one. The growth of the economy was stifled, unemployment was stagnated at a little less than ten percent and interest rates and inflation were at near depression levels by year’s end. The state of the economy unequivocally influences tax collections and budgets, which in turn determines the financial prosperity of higher education, especially in the public sector. The two main sources of revenue for public colleges and universities are state appropriations and tuition. Generally, as cuts to higher education appropriations occur, campuses respond by boosting tuitions even higher. Yet, regardless of the size of the budget cuts, college and university tuitions

John R. Thelin called the period from 1970 to 1980 “turbulent waters” for all institutions (Thelin, 2011, p. 317). After the golden age, the industry of Higher Education in the U.S. faced the not-so-bright future with a lot of colleges and universities being shut down. Thelin (2011, p. 337) points out that the institutions could have been prepared to handle the steadily declining enrollment, decreased revenues, decline in funding, stagflation, and rising campus maintenance costs if only they picked on the first signs of upcoming financial crisis when in 1970, the share price of the NSMC fell from $140 to $7 over the short period of time (Thelin, 2011, p. 317). However, the universities and colleges of that time were so confident and relied on “the public image of higher education as a “growth industry” (Thelin, 2011, p. 318) so much, that they were not monitoring the changing situation and thus, were not fast enough in adopting to new conditions. It does not mean that there were many college closings; vice a versa, some colleges grew, opened new programs and applied for research grants. These colleges adopted the enterprise thinking (Thelin, 2011, p. 337).

In 1965, the United States legislature passed a historical legislation called the Higher Education Act of 1965. This was an important legislation intended to strengthen the resources of our colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance to students in postsecondary and higher education. Today, this act remains the foundation for most postsecondary education subsidies, including the Federal Pell Grant program. Since its inception, the federal government has continued to provide varying amounts of funding for higher education in hopes of encouraging college enrollment by reducing college costs. Yet, according to the Department of Education, the United States, once ranked a global leader in postsecondary education, has

Every year, higher education institutions (HEI’s) receive billions of dollars from the Department of Education in the form of loans, grants and subsidies. These funds are authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, and are the primary source of Federal student aid for all HEI’s in the United States. The main Title IV programs include Loans, Grants and Federal Work Study (U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2009).

The heightened focus on education equity and adequacy has garnered substantial attention from both policy makers and media outlets. As a result of the spotlight, school finance litigation has forced states to not only change the way they fund schools but to improve and update their states’ assessment and accountability systems. (Griffith, 2005).

A surging $1.2 trillion in student debt and rising rapidly in tuition is the critical issue America public universities face today. These student debts and rising tuitions are caused mainly by administrative hiring and pay or expensive building projects on campuses. When public universities are spending money toward expensive building projects, this does not help with making tuition cheap to attend a certain university, instead it’s high.

A performance-funded plan is an effective way to make sure that monies will be available to recognize employee achievement. This kind of funding mechanism can serve as an operational self-fulfilling prophecy

2010- President Barrack Obama’s “Race to the Top” program ushered in a wave of educational reforms as states competed for federal grants in the midst of a

Results taken from the executive summary of the Education Law Center in New Jersey show that a small percentage of states who have funding systems put in place and provide greater funding to high poverty districts remain the most progressive states yearly. Whereas a larger percentage of states have funding systems where districts with higher poverty rates receive less funding, these states remain the most regressive. (School funding disparities persist, analysis shows).