Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of Higher Education
Introduction
for granted, dispute not whether the institution is capable of it but the
speed at which it takes place" (p. 4).
Merely to contend that governmental authorities have turned to the
concept of performance-based accountability for the limited purpose of
forcing higher education to change the way it conducts business is to
oversimplify and minimize the more complex economic and societal de-
velopments that have occurred since the mid-1980s. During the last fif-
teen years, two significant fundamental developments have combined to
stimulate an increased state-level interest in higher education perfor-
mance: (1) the "massification" of higher education systems and (2) lim-
itations of public expenditures for higher education.
numbers of adult learners above the age of twenty-five are now being
found in university classrooms, lecture halls, and qualifying examina-
tions (Karabell, 1998). This is reflective of the growing demand for life-
long learning in OECD nations. Such development also reaffirms the
failure of the more elitist higher education systems that excluded many
of the current adult learners from participation at a much earlier age.
been given no alternative but to seek state authority to charge users and
students for the services they receive to ensure educational quality for
expanding student populations. In return for growing fiscal reliance on
student user fees, governments are demanding more stringent and infor-
mative accountability requirements.
TABLE 1
States Using Performance Funding and Budgeting Systems to Finance Higher Education in 1998
Performance Budgeting (Indirect Link) Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi,
Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, West
Virginia
SOURCE: Calculated from survey data provided by Burke and Serban (1998) and a national survey of state f
formulas for higher education.
values (Salter & Tapper, 1994, pp. 199-202). The consequence for repre-
senting the traditional higher education establishment against new Tory
demands was the replacement of the UGC by the University Funding
Council (UFC), which, following its amalgamation with the Polytechnics
and Colleges Funding Council (PCFC) in the Further and Higher Educa-
tion Act of 1992, has been superseded by the Higher Education Funding
Councils (HEFCs).3 The creation of the HEFCs substantially changed
the nature of the higher education environment by centralizing state au-
thority over higher education. As Salter and Tapper (1994) observe,
"After decades of prod and nudge politics, of wait and see, the state has
acquired powers which mark a qualitative shift in its relationship with
the institutions of higher education. It is now in a position to orchestrate
change on a scale and in a manner which knows no precedent" (p. 1).
The mission of the Higher Education Funding Councils was to pro-
mote the quality and quantity of learning and research in higher education
institutions, cost-effectively and with regard to national needs (Davies,
1995, p. 3). Within two months after their creation, the central govern-
ment issued a series of guidelines for the HEFCs reaffirming the chang-
ing relationship between government and higher education. First, the
guidelines demanded that Funding Councils develop sectorwide funding
methods for allocating resources for teaching and research. Second,
Funding Councils were to specify clearly what institutions are expected
to provide in return for teaching and research while securing greater fis-
cal efficiencies as student enrollment expanded. Third, Funding Councils
were to increase accountability of research funding from sector institu-
tions. Finally, the guidelines declared the need for the maintenance and
enhancement of quality by relating funding to the Council's performance
assessments of teaching and research quality (Davies, 1995, pp. 6-10).
By 1993, the HEFC in England (HEFCE), Britain's largest HEFC
with 131 institutions, had established several assessments and perfor-
mance practices as funding allocation tools. The first component devised
by the HEFCE was a research assessment that directly linked funding to
the results and performance of academic units and institutions (El-
Khawas & Massey, 1996). This new funding approach removes a sizable
amount of funds from a predictable formula basis and gives it a new per-
formance formulaic foundation with external governmental and peer as-
sessors distributing a portion of the funds. This represents a major de-
parture from the competitive federal research funding practices in the
United States. Under the new English system the amount of departmen-
tal research funding became dependent on a series of performance indi-
cators, including quality publications (to measure output), number of ci-
tations (to measure quality of impact), research income, research
students, and peer review (Cave, Hanney, Henkel, & Kogan, 1997).
Conclusion
For nearly two decades pressures on states to gain greater control over
higher education resources has been overwhelming and inescapable. Dri-
ven by a 'new economic dynamic,' societies throughout the world are re-
quiring an ever changing combination of highly skilled workers and
knowledge that only education can provide. As Salter and Tapper (1994)
stated, the stakes have become far too great for nations to leave their
higher education systems to their devices, and "such action would
amount to an abdication of responsibility which no present-day govern-
ment or its bureaucracy could tolerate either in terms of their internal or-
ganizational dynamic or in terms of the external demands upon them" (p.
18). During the last decade, this governmental responsibility has emerged
in policy form under the mask of performance-based accountability.
In seeking ways to measure greater productivity and performance, gov-
ernments are reflecting a more utilitarian view of higher education. From
a utilitarian perspective, economic values are supreme and the quantifica-
tion of fiscal resources is the true measure of value. Unfortunately, uni-
versity leaders who are unable to define and demonstrate educational ob-
jectives and achievements in utilitarian terms will have limited success in
meeting the new demands placed on higher education. These pressures do
Notes
'In 1997, local and state governments in the United States spent $960 billion on
higher education. This constituted 6.22% of the entire budget and a decline of 2.16%
since 1982. During the same period the percentage of local and state government budget
support received by Medical Care increased by 8.6%, while corrections received an in-
crease of 1.9%.
2European countries that have adopted student fee policies include France, Belgium,
Spain, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
31n 1992, separate funding councils were established for England, Scotland, and
Wales.
References
Alexander, F. K. (1998). Private institutions and public dollars: An analysis of the effects
of federal direct student aid on public and private institutions of higher education.
Journal of Education Finance, 23, 390-416.
Ashby, E. (1966). Universities: British, Indian, African. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Barnett, R. (1992). Improving higher education: Total quality care. London: The Society
for Research into Higher Education and The Open University.
Barnett, R., & Bjarnason, S. (1999). The reform of higher education. In D. Teather (Ed.),
Higher education in a post-binary era: National reforms and institutional responses.
London: Jessica Kingsley.
Barnetson, R. (1999). A review of Alberta's performance-based funding mechanism.
Quality in Higher Education, 5(1), 37-50.
Burke, J. C., & Serban, A. M. (1997). Performance funding and budgeting for public
higher education: Current status and future prospects. Albany, NY: The Nelson Rock-
efeller Institute of Government, State University of New York.
Burke, J. C., & Serban, A. M. (1998). Funding public higher education for results: Fad
or trend? Results from the second annual survey. Albany, NY: The Nelson Rockefeller
Institute of Government, State University of New York.
Cave, M., Hanney, S., Henkel, M., & Kogan M. (1997). The use of performance indica-
tors in higher education: The challenge of the quality movement. London: Jessica
Kingsley.
Eicher J. C. (1998). The costs and financing of higher education in Europe. European
Journal of Education, 33, 31-33.
El-Khawas, E., & Massey, W. F. (1996). Britain's "performance-based" system. In W. F.
Massey (Ed.), Resource allocation in higher education (pp. 223-240). Ann Arbor,
MI: The University of Michigan Press.
European Community Commission. (1991). Memorandum on higher education in the
European Community. Strasbourg, France: The Council of Europe.
Ewell P. T., & Jones, D. P. (1994). Pointing the way: Indicators as policy tools in higher ed-
ucation. In S. Rupert (Ed.), Charting higher education accountability: A sourcebook on
state-level performance indicators. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Gilbert, F. (1999). The response in North America to government expectations for greater
accountability in the university sector: Examples from three jurisdictions. Paper pre-
sented at the 1999 Oxford International Round Table on University Leadership.
Goedegebuure, L., Kaiser, F., Maassen, P., Meek, L., Van Vught, F., & de Weert, E.
(1996). International perspectives on trends and issues in higher education policy. In
L. Goodchild & E. Hines (Eds.), ASHE reader series on public policy. Needham
Heights, MA: Ginn Press.
Gumport, P. J., lannozzi, M., Shaman, S., & Zemsky, R. (1997). Trends in higher educa-
tion from massification to post-massification. Academic reforms in the world: Situa-
tion and perspective in the massification stage of higher education. RIHE Interna-
tional Seminar Reports. Hiroshima, Japan: Research Institute for Higher Education.
Hamalainen, K., & Moitus, S. (1999). High-quality education as the criteria for univer-
sity funding in Finland. Quality in Higher Education, 5(1), 51-60.
Hauke, R. (1994). An update on faculty workload activities among state higher educa-
tion systems. Unpublished manuscript.
Jongbloed, B., & Koelman, J. (1996). Funding mechanisms for higher education: A five-
country based survey with special reference to performance-based funding ap-
proaches. CHEPS working paper for Higher Education Council, National Board of
Employment, Education and Training (NBEET), Canberra, Australia. Enschede, The
Netherlands: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente.
Layzell, D. T. (1996). Faculty workload and productivity: Recurrent issues with new im-
peratives. Review of Higher Education, 19, 267-281.
Marshall, R. (1995). The global jobs crisis. Foreign policy: The U.N. in crisis. Washing-
ton, DC: The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Marcus, L. (1997). Restructuring state higher education governance patterns. Review of
Higher Education, 20, 399-418.
McGuinness, A. C. (1994). The States and Higher Education. In P. G. Altbach, R. 0.
Berdahl, & P. G. Gumport (Eds.), Higher education in American society (3rd ed., pp.
155-180). Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books.
McKeown, M. P. (1996). State funding formulas for public four-year institutions. Den-
ver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers.
Mora, J.,& Nugent, M. (1998). Seeking new resources for European universities: The
example of fund-raising in the U.S. European Journal of Education, 33(1), 113-130.
Mortenson, T. (1998). College continuation rates for 1997 high school graduates. Post-
secondary Education Opportunity, 71, 1-6.
National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, The. (1997). Higher education in
the learning society. Norwich, England: HMSO.
Neave, G. (1995). On perspectives and vision: The role of the CC-PU in the higher edu-
cation policies of Europe, 1986-1994. Strasbourg, France: The Council of Europe,
Higher Education Section Directorate of Education, Culture, and Sport.
Partington, P. (1994). Human resources management and development. CRE-action: A
university policy for Europe. Journal of the Standing Conference of Rectors, Presi-
dents, and Vice Chancellors, 104, 146-147.
Peters, M. (1992). Performance and accountability in 'post-industrial society': The
crises of British universities. Studies in Higher Education, 17, 123-139.
Piper, D. W., & Issacs, G. (1992). Approaches to performance related fundingfor higher
education in Europe and North America. A Report for the Commonwealth Depart-
ment of Employment, Education and Training. The Tertiary Education Institute, The
University of Queensland, October, 1992.
Presley, J. B., & Englebride, E. (1998). Accounting for faculty productivity in the re-
search university. Review of Higher Education, 22(1) 17-37.
Salter, B., & Tapper, T. (1994). The state and higher education. Essex, England: The
Woburn Press.
Shattock, M. (1994b). The UGC and the management of British universities. London:
Society for the Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Slaugther, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the en-
trepreneurial university. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (1996). The emergence of a competitiveness research and
development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and
technology. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 21, 302-340.
Trow, M. (1974). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. Policies for
higher education. The General Report of the Conference on Future Structures of Post-
secondary Education. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Van Vught, F. (1994). Towards a quality management approach for higher education.
CRE-action: A university policy for Europe. Journal of the Standing Conference of
Rectors, Presidents, and Vice Chancellors, 104, 40-41.
Williams, G. L. (1998). Current debates on the funding of mass higher education in the
United Kingdom. European Journal of Education, 33(1).
World Bank, The. (1996). Higher education: Lessons of experience. Washington DC:
Education and Social Policy Department.