Performance-Based Funding: A Misguided Approach to Student Learning

This briefing document analyzes the flaws of performance-based funding (PBF) in higher education based on the provided excerpt from "Performance Based Funding PBF.pdf".

Main Theme: PBF, despite its aim of improving higher education, fails to genuinely support student learning by focusing on superficial metrics rather than actual competency development.

Key Arguments:

• Misalignment Between Funding Metrics and Learning: PBF relies on metrics like course completion and degree attainment, which are only indirect indicators of learning. The document states, "While these indicators may suggest progress, they fail to reflect whether students are acquiring the skills and knowledge necessary for their personal and professional lives." Students might complete courses without truly grasping the subject matter, especially when institutions are pressured to boost these metrics.
• Incentivizing Quantity Over Quality: By linking funding to completion rates, PBF encourages institutions to prioritize quantity over quality. This can lead to lowering academic standards and grade inflation, ultimately devaluing the learning process and the credentials awarded. The document emphasizes, "This practice undermines the value of the credentials awarded and devalues the learning process itself."
• Neglect of Skill and Competency Development: PBF rarely directly measures the development of skills and competencies crucial for real-world success. While credit accumulation might show program progression, it doesn't guarantee students possess the necessary analytical, technical, or interpersonal skills for their chosen careers. The document argues, "Without mechanisms to evaluate and reward genuine learning, PBF remains disconnected from its stated goal of improving educational outcomes."
• Overemphasis on Institutional Metrics: PBF often prioritizes institutional performance over individual student development. Metrics like retention and graduation rates shift the focus from student learning to institutional success. This overlooks the diverse goals of students, especially non-traditional learners who might prioritize specific skills over a degree.

Conclusion:

The document concludes that PBF, while well-intentioned, falls short of its goal of fostering genuine student learning. Its focus on superficial metrics incentivizes superficial progress instead of substantive learning. To truly support students, funding models need to prioritize the development of skills and competencies relevant to real-world demands and lifelong learning. Until then, PBF will remain a flawed approach that measures institutional success without truly promoting student learning.