a critique on performance-based funding
Name: Matthew Smith
Course Department, Number & Title: U544 Introduction to Student Affairs
Semester & Year Enrolled: Summer 2017
Document: Current Status of Higher Education – Performance-Based Funding
I felt it wise to include the final paper from a higher education/student affairs course for two reasons. First, this is the space in which I spend the vast majority of my professional time. Second performance-based funding (PBF) is an oppressive policy. This means it directly impacts opportunities for emancipatory dialogue.
While I am most able to work toward facilitating emancipatory dialogue with my direct reports and those I am in contact with daily, I have an opportunity to reach many more people as I work in university settings and can impact policy changes, albeit on small scales. What this paper brought to light for me is funding inequality leads to uneven access to learning resources. This uneven access is definitively tilted toward more affluent families. Study after study demonstrated those institutions capable of raising enough independent funds through alumni and research hold an advantage over smaller schools with fewer resources. And in an effort to attract more students to compete with larger schools, these small universities will pull money from student support services and put it into making the surrounding environment more comfortable. A new athletic facility, for example, or a space on campus with an organic café and open-air seating. Unfortunately, this is often counterproductive and can leave students in need of tutors, guidance, mental wellness assistance or other services without the tools they need to realize their potential. Again, this is oppressive. As is should be, allocated monies are be based on need, not performance. For when performance is considered preeminent, already high performing schools might self-select the best students. This is particularly dangerous as the most academically qualified students typically come from those families with money, leaving low-income students largely relegated to the periphery. Future learning here may lie in examining how funding reductions for state schools impact dialogue on campus and in the classroom. Are there enough co- and extra-curricular outlets for students to engage in community-based discourse, for example? This is something to explore.
If I were to do something different, I would focus more on how PBF impacts students. To be sure, the focus of the assignment itself revolved around administrative issues related to PBF, and with student affairs representing such a large portion of university administrations, learner outcomes are certainly involved. That said, I did not force learners into the assignment, choosing to stay within the confines of the professor’s instructions. In other words, I oppressed my learning. In focusing more on learners, certain forms of oppression would have occupied a larger space in the final product, including admissions practices involving middle- to upper-income students and resources on campus being channeled into athletic facilities instead of community facilities.
In my role, I immediately applied this lesson by focusing the land-grant institutions I represent back onto their stated academic missions. As an example, one highly ranked school I manage online programs for tended to use exclusionary practices, including standardized tests and placing a premium on which school the student received their undergraduate degree from. I was able to add a 10-percent exception threshold in admissions process, meaning 10 percent of incoming students technically fall below admissions standards but have demonstrated life experiences worthy of consideration. This is a very big deal as having a program comprised of like-station students surely does everyone a disservice when it comes to recognizing bias and breaking past systems which hold us back as a society. There simply isn’t much space for emancipatory dialogue when all of the students are the same
Course Department, Number & Title: U544 Introduction to Student Affairs
Semester & Year Enrolled: Summer 2017
Document: Current Status of Higher Education – Performance-Based Funding
I felt it wise to include the final paper from a higher education/student affairs course for two reasons. First, this is the space in which I spend the vast majority of my professional time. Second performance-based funding (PBF) is an oppressive policy. This means it directly impacts opportunities for emancipatory dialogue.
While I am most able to work toward facilitating emancipatory dialogue with my direct reports and those I am in contact with daily, I have an opportunity to reach many more people as I work in university settings and can impact policy changes, albeit on small scales. What this paper brought to light for me is funding inequality leads to uneven access to learning resources. This uneven access is definitively tilted toward more affluent families. Study after study demonstrated those institutions capable of raising enough independent funds through alumni and research hold an advantage over smaller schools with fewer resources. And in an effort to attract more students to compete with larger schools, these small universities will pull money from student support services and put it into making the surrounding environment more comfortable. A new athletic facility, for example, or a space on campus with an organic café and open-air seating. Unfortunately, this is often counterproductive and can leave students in need of tutors, guidance, mental wellness assistance or other services without the tools they need to realize their potential. Again, this is oppressive. As is should be, allocated monies are be based on need, not performance. For when performance is considered preeminent, already high performing schools might self-select the best students. This is particularly dangerous as the most academically qualified students typically come from those families with money, leaving low-income students largely relegated to the periphery. Future learning here may lie in examining how funding reductions for state schools impact dialogue on campus and in the classroom. Are there enough co- and extra-curricular outlets for students to engage in community-based discourse, for example? This is something to explore.
If I were to do something different, I would focus more on how PBF impacts students. To be sure, the focus of the assignment itself revolved around administrative issues related to PBF, and with student affairs representing such a large portion of university administrations, learner outcomes are certainly involved. That said, I did not force learners into the assignment, choosing to stay within the confines of the professor’s instructions. In other words, I oppressed my learning. In focusing more on learners, certain forms of oppression would have occupied a larger space in the final product, including admissions practices involving middle- to upper-income students and resources on campus being channeled into athletic facilities instead of community facilities.
In my role, I immediately applied this lesson by focusing the land-grant institutions I represent back onto their stated academic missions. As an example, one highly ranked school I manage online programs for tended to use exclusionary practices, including standardized tests and placing a premium on which school the student received their undergraduate degree from. I was able to add a 10-percent exception threshold in admissions process, meaning 10 percent of incoming students technically fall below admissions standards but have demonstrated life experiences worthy of consideration. This is a very big deal as having a program comprised of like-station students surely does everyone a disservice when it comes to recognizing bias and breaking past systems which hold us back as a society. There simply isn’t much space for emancipatory dialogue when all of the students are the same
a_critique_of_performance-based_funding.pdf | |
File Size: | 122 kb |
File Type: |