No description available.

In 1988, the Australian Federal Government released the document Higher Education: A Policy Statement which was intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the higher education sector. This paved the way for the application of performance indicators (Pls) across higher education, most notably the creation of a link between Pls (called the Composite Index) and the research component of the annual government funding to universities. Although PIS for teaching became popular, funding for the teaching component was not directly attached to PIS and remained largely based on student enrolments. The purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions of university academics in Australia on the effects of research and teaching as a result of the introduction of funding based on research Pls. The academic literature suggests that Pls can bring about desirable effects but it also warns that their imposition, particularly by the government on universities, may lead to unintended and undesirable effects, such as goal displacement and strategic manipulation, which may be designed to enhance apparent research performance. To guide the investigation, it was hypothesised that the government's Pls which focus on research will be integrated into the universities' internal policies; will encourage universities to place a high priority on the research activities funded by the Pls; will lead to significantly more paperwork; will contribute to a significant change in the approach to research but not to teaching; and will result in academics adopting negative attitudes towards Pls. Two basic sources of information were obtained to evaluate these hypotheses. First, the administrations of selected universities were consulted, and staff interviewed, to gauge the degree of change that had been implemented by the universities. Second, a questionnaire was constructed in order to assess academics' attitude towards Pls, and their perceptions of an association between Pls and their institutional reward system. The questionnaire also assessed changes in research, teaching and paperwork activities. The universities selected characterised the different kinds of universities found in the Unified National System of the Australian higher education system. One hundred and fifty-two academics from these universities were surveyed by the questionnaire. Thirty percent of these academics participated in a structured interview. The disciplines from which the academics were selected for participation included arts/humanities, science, and professional studies which included a natural science based profession and a social science based profession. In addition, a case study of one of these universities was carried out. The institutions were found to have reorganised their internal policies to incorporate and focus on the Pls in the government's Composite Index. The academics surveyed were generally found to have negative attitude towards their institutional Pls, although staff of higher rank had relatively more positive views. Reasons for their dissatisfaction included the inability of Pls to capture the various dimensions of academic work and privileging research over teaching. For a majority of the academics, the introduction of Pls was associated with a rise in paperwork load and a change in the approach to research in terms of focusing on publications and external research grant applications, particularly those counted in their institutional PI-based funding schemes. The time devoted to these activities, as well as the number of publications and grants for which they were expected to apply, have significantly increased. It was found that staff did use various strategies to maximise their PI scores, such as writing shorter papers in order to increase the quantity of publications. The proportion who changed their approach to teaching was also sizeable; most of them were concerned about getting students through their courses with minimum fuss by having lower ambitions for students and pandering to their superficial needs. However, the proportion who changed their teaching was significantly less than those who changed their research. One possible reason could be the lack of special incentives to increase their emphasis on teaching.

No description available.

No description available.

The focus of this dissertation is on performance indicators – specifically, retention and graduation indicators - that impact allocation of the ever-dwindling public sources of money. Decreasing revenue trends make understanding the performance indicators that are often used to fund postsecondary institutions very important. There is a significant amount of literature on funding, types of funding, and performance indicators used in funding; however, there is very little literature on quantitative differences on standard performance indicators in 2-year and 4- year postsecondary institutions. The purpose of this study is to look at retention and graduation rates for part-time and full-time students in public institutions of higher education in the United States. Retention and graduation rates for first-time full and part-time students from the Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data Systems (IPEDS), within the National Center for Educational Statistics, for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007, will be examined to determine if there are differences between two-year and four-year post secondary institutions.

In 2010 the Louisiana legislature adopted the Louisiana Granting Resources and Autonomies for Diplomas (GRAD) Act, a statewide performance-based funding policy designed to improve performance among public colleges. This study, utilizing data collected from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) on 15 two-year public colleges over eight years, applied Generalized Least Squares (GLS) regression to retention rates, graduation rates, and degree productivity. Results suggest that the introduction of the policy had little immediate effect on overall institutional performance; however, there were some modest increases in long-term certificate productivity. Additionally, there were significant improvements in data quality throughout higher education after the introduction of the policy.

No description available.

No description available.

This item contains the agenda, minutes, and attachments for the Faculty Senate meeting on this date. There may be additional materials from the meeting available at the Faculty Center.

This was a study of the development of an objective funding method for public higher education institutions in Tennessee. The review covers the history of higher education funding from the early 1800s through the beginning of the twenty-first century with emphasis on the early 1960s through the year 2000. The study describes and analyzes the efforts made in Tennessee to provide adequate and equitable funding to public higher education institutions. Minutes of meetings of the Tennessee Higher Education Commission, reports on studies commissioned by state officials, accountability reports prepared by the Tennessee Higher Education Commission, the Tennessee Board of Regents and the University of Tennessee, and official budget-related documents and annual financial reports of the colleges and universities were examined for this study. Fifteen personal interviews were conducted with individuals identified on the basis of their longevity in Tennessee higher education and/or the timeframe of their service, and because they represented a cross-section of state officials, officials of governing boards, and university and community college officials. A financial analysis of state appropriations, revenues and expenditures is included for 1993 through 2002. This study found that Tennessee’s formula contains most of the elements that have been brought forward in the literature over the years as indications of a good formula, and it addresses several of the disadvantages of formula funding. The funding formula has moved Tennessee higher education institutions closer to “equitable and fair” funding among the institutions since its application in the early 1970s. A provision for performance funding and implementation of Centers of Excellence and Centers of Emphasis programs addressed quality issues relative to funding. However, use of a formula has not solved the problem of insufficient funding. The complexity of college and university financial reporting has contributed to misunderstandings and distrust between higher education and state officials. This study combines lessons from the past with recommendations for future modifications to the funding formula used by Tennessee’s higher education institutions.