Nate Higgins
Assignment 1
1/31/14
College Performance-Based Funding Ohio is taking an aggressive approach to reshape the higher education funding system. The current system in place bases college funding on the amount of students attending the college. The new system Governor Kasich is trying to put in place would have funding be completely reliant on the colleges graduation rate, or “performance”. The system has been up for debate for years. This performance-based system has been attempted before inside the United States with minimal success. There is about a 350 million dollar budget that needs to be dispersed fairly throughout the state, and Governor Kasich strongly believes that funding based on performance provides enough incentives for colleges and students to strive for success. Kasich devised a committee of the higher education leaders of Ohio. The governor appointed E. Gordon Gee, former president of Ohio Sate University, to lead the charge to redesign the college funding system in Ohio. Roderick J. McDavis, the president of Ohio University, completely supports the new system in his article “Higher Education Funding: Getting the Complete Picture”. The title contradicts the article itself because McDavis gives far from “the complete picture”. The performance-based system put in place by Ohio representatives needs some adjusting before there could be any level of success. The performance-based system was designed so it would help acquire funding for all schools and McDavis explains in his article that the new performance-based funding system will benefit every single college and institution. There is a lot of evidence that could be used to argue against that point. First off, the new system will have an immediate negative impact on open access schools. By rewarding funding on student success, it will consequently have an affect on the colleges who allow marginal students to enroll in their program. Many Ohio representatives would say that the new system would have no effect on “open-access” schools because incentives are offered to such schools to ensure student success. In response to that, out of the 14 main colleges across the state of Ohio, 3 of those would receive a decrease in funding in the year of 2010 (Moltz). Those three colleges are Central State, Shawnee State, and Youngstown State. Three schools that have been notoriously open enrollment colleges. Elizabeth Blevins, a Shawnee State spokesperson, claimed that her university would have to cut costs to deal with the budget decrease. Blevins also noted that if Shawnee State ever experienced serious funding issues that the university would be open to abandoning its mission of open enrollment. Notice the impact that this new system would have on schools with open enrollment. Shawnee University has gone on record saying that if funding becomes more of a problem in the future, that they would no longer allow “marginal” or “at-risk” students to be enrolled in their university. Tom Maraffa, assistant to YSU’s president, said that although they would not change its enrollment standards, that administrators were not happy with the decrease in state dollars. Two-thirds of Youngstown State’s budget comes from tuition dollars. Maraffa also said that it would not be a big deal if the state did not order a tuition freeze. Youngstown State would normally place a small increase in tuition, but the state’s tuition freeze blocked that from happening. “I don’t think anyone disagrees with the approach of looking at funding based on course completions and graduation rates. Still, we are all underfunded and we all have budget issues. We’d like to get more money than we got last year. Having a tuition freeze and lower state money doesn’t make a lot of sense to us.” (Maraffa) Under this system, open-access and underfunded colleges would struggle to compete for funding. The schools that are getting less and less money are going to need money for resources to implement student success to acquire funding. There are even more problems facing Central State, a predominantly African-American college. Central State officials have a problem with the state’s strict definition of the term “at-risk”. The state defines “at-risk” students as people who qualify for Ohio’s Opportunity Grant. Central State caters to marginal students that sometimes do not come from a disadvantaged economic background, so Central State would not get credit for their enrollment. The evidence is clear, performance-based funding would definitely not benefit all universities and institutions, and in some cases such as Youngstown State, Central State, and Shawnee State the universities could suffer negative consequences. To identify whom the new-implemented system would help and hurt the most, it would be useful to check the graduation rates of Ohio universities. Since the funding will be completely based on “performance” or graduation time. McDavis is the one of the first one to jump to the systems defense because his school has a lot to gain. The three universities in Ohio with the highest graduation rate are Miami University, Ohio State University, and Ohio University. It’s not surprising that leaders of these colleges are the first to publically defend Kasich’s new plan because it will only increase their funding. Ohio University is graduating 45.7% of its students in 4 years and 65.3% in 6 years (College Completeion). This ranks third in the state of Ohio. The three colleges that were to lose funding in future years as mentioned previously Youngstown State, Central State, and Shawnee State of course graduated among the least amount of students of all the main state colleges. After 4 years, Youngstown State graduates 13.3%, Shawnee State graduates 10.5%, and Central State graduates 7.9% (College Completion). The three schools that cater to the “marginal” students in the state of Ohio will be punished in the future in their funding. The graduation rates of Ohio clearly point to who will benefit and whom it will harm. “It is my fervent hope that creating a culture of completion in Ohio will lead to more competitive colleges and universities and, in turn, a more competitive state.” (McDavis). McDavis’s belief that the new system will set up a more competitive state is debatable to say the least. The new system seems to benefit the big schools with a high graduation rate and hurt smaller schools with lower graduation rates. By giving more funding to schools with an already large budget, and taking away funding from smaller schools it creates an economic separation. The big budget colleges’ budget are becoming bigger and the smaller budget schools’ budget are becoming smaller, this creates a serious problem. The new changes to the system could make colleges completely change their admission policy, which is disturbing to say the least. From personal experience, I struggled with academics in high school but I made it into Youngstown State whereas I probably would not have been accepted from the likes of an Ohio State or Ohio University. If Youngstown State had changed their admission policy, I would not know what to do. I have two jobs and am committed to staying home while I go to school and if I could not get into Youngstown State, I would be forced to travel many miles away to a community college. This is the idea of Ohio education representatives want to proceed the future with, putting the unprepared students in community colleges to prepare them for real colleges. It is not some student’s fault that their high school did not properly prepare them for the college level. McDavis’s theory that the new system will create a more competitive state could not be more wrong; it will only benefit the rich schools and hurt the smaller schools. The new performance-based college funding system clearly needs some revamping before it could be deemed a success. On paper, the new policy seems like a very good idea. Rewarding colleges by success is something that most people could get on board with, but it could come with some repercussions. Governor Kasich’s plan could create an economic separation between the big and small budget colleges. The state needs to come up with a plan that will not only benefit the big schools but the smaller schools as well. It is important that there are still “open-access” schools in Ohio that still cater to marginal students to ensure a brighter future. The essay was designed to give more of a “complete picture” unlike Roderick J McDavis gave in his article “Higher Education Funding: Getting the Complete Picture”.

References
1. Smyth, Julie. "Repairs top Ohio colleges’ capital budget request - Break News - Ohio." Ohio.com, 2014. Web. 31 Jan 2014. <http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/repairs-top-ohio-colleges-capital-budget-request-1.461313>.
2. Unknown. "Graduation rates by state | College Completion." Collegecompletion.chronicle.com, 2014. Web. 31 Jan 2014. <http://collegecompletion.chronicle.com/state/#state=oh&sector=public_four>.
3. Pant, Megan. "Ohio unveils new funding plan for 4-year colleges to improve..." Daytondailynews.com, 2014. Web. 31 Jan 2014. <http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/ohio-unveils-new-funding-formula-for-4-year-colleg/nTKCf/>.
4. Moltz, David. "Adopting Performance-Based Funding | Inside Higher Ed." Insidehighered.com, 2014. Web. 31 Jan 2014. <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/30/ohio>.
5. Unknown. "Performance-Based Funding for Higher Education." Ncsl.org, 2012. Web. 31 Jan 2014. <http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/performance-funding.aspx>.