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.

No abstract

Purpose -This paper aims to provide insight into the strategies used by leaders of graduate school preparation programs for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) to recruit and retain graduate students of color within STEM fields. Design/methodology/approach -This paper is a qualitative multiple-case study using a snowball sample and semi-structured interview protocol. Twenty interviews were conducted. Findings -Graduate program leaders use particular strategies to increase diversity and inclusion within graduate STEM education, and these strategies are strongly influenced by their institutional context. The most common strategies include collaboration, mapping the political terrain, evaluation, mediation, persistence, persuasion, networking in and outside of the institution, strategic planning, bargaining and negotiation, reaching out to the greater campus, and coalition building and developing allies. Research limitations/implications -All of the institutions in this study were public research institutions. Further inquiry is needed on more diverse types of institutions. Practical implications -The results of this study can be used by institutional and STEM program leaders who wish to increase diversity and inclusion. Social implications -This research study raises awareness about an under-studied group of leaders, as well as the importance of considering context when developing strategic plans for increasing diversity and inclusion for STEM. Originality/value -This study is unique because while graduate school preparation programs have become an important strategy for addressing diversity in STEM fields, research on these programs usually focuses only on student outcomes. This study provides rare insight into what is required to implement, sustain and expand these kind of diversity programs.

This study examines policy discourse surrounding a policy process to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, the most significant federal policy concerning higher education, a decade following the previous reauthorization. Guided by the theory of social construction and policy design, we draw on data from 14 hours of deliberation in a congressional hearing and employ policy discourse analysis. The findings shed light on which populations policymakers address in their discourse, how they portray various groups as deserving or undeserving of policy benefits, how they rationalize the alloca-An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the 2018 Annual Conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. We thank Taylor Cox for her outstanding research assistance in this study.Denisa Gándara is an assistant professor of higher education at Southern Methodist University. Her research examines higher education policy, politics, and finance with a focus on the implications of policy for historically underserved populations.