Running head: ARTICLE REVIEW #2 1

Article Review #2

James Gilbert

Georgia Southern University

EDLD 8432, Fall 2016

Dr. Amy Ballagh

October 18, 2016

REVIEW 2

Article Review Assignment

Introduction

I selected the article, Transitioning to Performance-Based State Funding:

Concerns, Commitment, and Cautious Optimism from the journal, Educational Considerations.

The article was written in 2016 by Lindsay K. Wayt who is a recent doctoral graduate of

Educational Leadership and Higher Education at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and

Barbara Y. LaCost, who is a National Education Finance Academy Fellow and an Associate

Professor of Educational Administration at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This review

includes a summary of the article, my critical reaction to the article, and my perceived

implications on higher education.

Summary

In this article, Wayt and LaCost (2016) presented an overview of a research project which

examined the concerns and attitude of faculty and staff members concerning performance-based

state funding for higher education. They noted that the introduction of performance-based state

funding is traced to the late 1970s and the early forms were often referred to as Performance

Funding 1.0 which provide bonuses in addition to normal funding when schools met state-

defined outcomes. However, the more recent form, Performance Funding 2.0, eliminated

bonuses and regular funding, either in part or as a whole, is tied to schools meeting state goals of

student outcomes such as retention and graduation rates. This shift is due to state policymakers

believing that the latter program is more conducive to student success. It is worth highlighting

that the authors noted that recent studies have questioned whether this process produces

significant result (Wayt and Lacost, 2016).

REVIEW 3

Wayt and LaCost (2016) asserted that most of the previous studies are insufficient to fully

understand the impact of performance-based funding. According to Wayt and LaCost, (2016),

these studies focused on processes and relationships associated with policymakers, coordinating

boards, institutional leadership, and senior administration (p. 2) and although performance

funding policy development is best understood from the perspectives at the state and system

levels and senior university level, these may not provide a complete view of the relationship

between performance-based funding and student success outcomes. Therefore, they developed a

more comprehensive approach and stated, Our model depicts the hierarchical relationship

between state performance-based funding policy; decisions by institutional leadership and senior

administration, midlevel administration, and faculty and student-facing staff; and the impact on

student outcomes (Wayt and Lacost, 2016, p. 2).

They also used a qualitative multiple case study in which they used four-year public

higher education schools which had a teaching focus and located in states that used Performance

Funding 1.0 or 2.0. Five universities from different states were chosen with a student body that

ranged from 2,500 to 10,000. One was a historically black university, one a historically womens

university, two that historically served underrepresented student populations and the last served a

large population of adult learners. They used both focus group questions and interview questions

with participants and their findings were expressed in three categories: (1) fiscal and budgetary

concerns, (2) fears of disparate institutional impact, and (3) what transition means and looks like

to participants. They concluded the article with their implications and their conclusions.

Critical Reaction

I found this article to be quite insightful. I thought it offered a unique perspective into the

perceptions and attitudes of those more closely impacted by performance-based funding. It really
REVIEW 4

captured some inside perspective, specifically as this relates to current budget cuts and how those

relate to performance-based funding.

I think that one of the major concerns highlighted is equity in the process. One participant

noted how the states need to consider the missions of schools similar to those used in the study

verses schools with larger endowments who service students with less challenges. I thought this

was a valid issue and it was good that the authors noted this because performance would be

higher for schools who can choose the best students.

One thing I thought was a very balanced approach is that the authors also indicated both

positive and negative perspectives. I thought arranging the results in categories helped to give a

good perspective of specific areas of concern. However, I do believe a larger sample is needed

and the authors alluded to the need for further study and a broader scale that included research

universities as well.

Implications

There are a couple of implications that could be drawn from this article. One is that

institutions must invest extra funding in support of student retention and success. This is strange

investing funding in order to gain or retain funding. Secondly, institutions may have to seek

alternative streams of revenue, perhaps increases through their economic development

department. My school has increased expectations upon the economic development arm.

In conclusion, this article gives good insight into the challenges that performance-based

funding has upon those on the frontline of higher education. More research is definitely needed

in this area because in many cases federal funding is also trending in this direction. Furthermore,

policy makers should use information from research to streamline expectations to match unique

challenges of universities.
REVIEW 5

References

Wayt, L. K., & LaCost, B. Y. (2016). Transitioning to Performance-Based State Funding:

Concerns, Commitment, and Cautious Optimism. Educational Considerations, 43(2), 1-

6.