Balancing Enrollment Numbers, Performance Base Standards, and Funding

 

http://www.clker.com/cliparts/I/A/8/v/u/l/opaque-justice-md.png



The balancing act of enrollment numbers, performance base standards, and funding has never been more prevalent than right now.  With declining enrollment numbers and state funding, performance accountability becomes more challenging.  In efforts to lead higher education institutions and programs to become more effective and efficient states, colleges, and accreditation agencies have established performance standards.  Meeting these standards ensure policy makers that colleges and programs are focused on improving performance and maintaining desired outcomes.  Additionally, performance accountability is linked to state funding allocations.  As stated by Goldstein (2005), Performance Base Budgeting is centered on outcomes.  Applying this budgeting approach requires allocation of resources (inputs) based upon results (outcomes).  For example, NC allocates a portion of funds to community colleges based upon licensure/certification rates.  The linkage between enrollment, performance standards, and funding are becoming particularly prevalent among vocational faculty and community college administrators. 

Vocational programs have been balancing these factors for a long time.  However, it is becoming more challenging as state revenues decrease, enrollment numbers decline, and state funding declines.  The only factor which has not declined is the performance standard.  Typically, vocational programs have relatively low enrollments based upon industry based admission requirements which makes these programs selective.  Vocational program accreditation associations establish  retention or attrition standards to measure the effectiveness of such programs.  Additionally, many community colleges allocate equipment resources requested by these programs based upon program numbers and performance.  Therefore, the pressure to receive equipment funding and maintain accreditation standards can unintentionally influence how decisions are made.  For example, programs may be tempted to overlook certain student behaviors, inflate grades, and/or lower standards in order to maintain student enrollment, meet performance standards, and receive funding.  As a result, balancing performance accountability with funding has resonated with faculty on an ethical level.

For example, low enrollment imaging programs based upon selective admissions are required by their accrediting agencies to maintain retention rates of 60% or better.  In one particular instance a program with eight enrolled students lost three students due to personal issues.  When another student was caught cheating on an exam, the program fell below the retention rate, and was cited by their accrediting agency.  The same program has requested an expensive simulator for their lab in order to meet an accreditation request and fears it will be declined due to low enrollment numbers.  While the majority of their attrition was due to personal issues out of the program's control, the program will still be held accountable.

This type of climate could drive undesirable behaviors in administrative decision making.  For example, students who are habitually tardy or absent may not be held to the attendance policy in fear of low enrollment numbers affecting performance standards and funding allocations.  So, how can administrators address the pressures of balancing these factors?  Faculty members and administrators need to focus on establishing reasonable outcomes and developing adequate support services to ensure student success.  Utilizing success alert systems such as "Starfish", implementing program boot camps, collaborating with student success centers, and providing feedback to accreditation associations are actions that promote balancing these factors.

References:

Goldstein, L. (2005). College and university budgeting: An introduction for faculty and academic administrators. Washington, DC: NACUBO.