Indiana is one of 18 states that has performance-based funding for higher education in place for all of its two-year and four-year institutions.
Performance-based funding began in 2003 as one percent of the overall education budget and has since grown to six percent, totaling $67 million annually today.
Performance-based funding is allocated based on an institution’s course completion, credit completion and degree completion, as opposed to solely to enrollment.
While $67 million out of a $11.20 billion education budget for the 2016 fiscal year, or a $11.34 billion budget for 2017, can seem like chump change on the surface, it’s enough to produce significant impacts.
The funding acts as an incentive for universities – pushing schools to better their students while rewarding them in the process.
Many, however, are opposed to the incentive, arguing it weakens the curriculum by encouraging professors to make courses easier so that students pass, or by tempting them to cheat the system and just pass students to increase performance numbers.
This, however, doesn’t seem to be an issue at USI.
In the Feb. 19, issue of The Shield, it was reported that the fall 2014 D, F, W rates for MATH 111 rose from 43 to 57 percent, something that USI and consulting firm Noel-Levitz have identified as an issue that negatively impacts student retention.”
With a portion of USI’s funding not determined by retention, performance-based funding is a blessing in disguise given the university’s problems with enrollment.
But my argument falls apart here.
UNIV 101 became a requirement for all freshmen last year when Core 39 was implemented.
It’s a freshmen seminar course that is meant to help students manage the transition to college and take advantage of involvement opportunities on campus, with the underlying hope of increasing retention. But Executive Consultant for Noel-Levitz Claire Berardini recently called the course a “shit show.”
While UNIV 101 may be a “shit show,” the issue is actually much bigger than that.
Retention rates as a whole are a shit show, therefore, performance-based funding is somewhat of a saving grace.
I’m a firm believer in performance-based funding, but how can I argue in favor of funding that’s not solely based on enrollment when that silver lining is automatically undermined by the fact that the number of Ds, Fs and Ws for MATH 111 rose 14 percent last semester?
How about when only 64% of seniors graduated in 2013, according to the latest numbers in the USI Fact Book?
How can I make the argument that performance-based funding benefits USI when the probation rate of freshmen increased in 2014?
Professors at USI clearly aren’t passing students along or cheating the system.
Arguments against performance-based funding don’t hold up at our university, but you can’t argue for it, either.
While the university has made great strides in improving enrollment over the last year, its primary focus shouldn’t be on getting more students, it should be ensuring the success of the ones it currently has.
By refocusing its efforts from recruitment to academics, USI is more likely to not only reap the additional benefits from extra funding based on performance, the representation of a stricter curriculum will attract more students.
