Tag Archives: Matt Bevin

Kentucky: Preparing for Performance-Based Funding in Higher Education

Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin (R) has said that the budget he will present to the legislature in January 2016 will include “outcomes-based funding”; or funding that is at least in part based on the performance of public agencies or publicly supported institutions. While Governor Bevin has not talked specifically about outcomes-based funding for higher education institutions, variants of performance-based funding in higher education have been adopted in all of Kentucky’s neighboring states, with the exception of West Virginia.

In a nutshell, performance-based funding of higher education differs from the more traditional funding approach in that state funding of institutions or systems is either in-whole or in-part dependent on an institution’s progress toward achieving certain goals or its progress on certain predetermined state-defined indicators or metrics. Common indicators for higher education performance-based funding include institutions’ retention rates, graduation rates, and successful course completion rates. Critics of traditional higher education funding approaches and advocates for performance-based funding argue that traditional funding models provide little incentive for institutions to improve retention and graduation rates, graduate students in a more timely manner, or graduate students with a more industry-ready skill set. Opponents of performance-based funding argue that such approaches disadvantage institutions that don’t perform well on performance indicators, but desperately need state funding to improve their performance.

The policy details of performance-based funding vary significantly from state to state. Among Kentucky’s border states alone, performance-based funding approaches differ substantially. For example, in Tennessee, institutions (two-year and four-year institutions) receive a base allocation for operations, but beyond that, all state funding is allocated based on institutions’ progress on specified outcomes. Ohio has taken a different approach. For four-year institutions in Ohio, 50% of state funding for institutions is based on degree completion, and 30% of funding is based on course completion. For two-year institutions in Ohio, 50% of funding is based on course completion, 25% is based on state-defined completion milestones, and 25% is based on state-defined success points. Different still, in Indiana, 6% of funding for two-year and four-year institutions is based on state-defined specific institutional performance metrics, including: degree completion, at-risk degree completion, high impact degree completion, persistence, remediation, remediation success, on-time graduation, and an institution selected measure.

While Kentucky has not yet adopted performance-based funding for higher education, the policy conversation is not at all new in Kentucky. State policy makers as well as leaders at the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE) and at high education institutions across the commonwealth have engaged in relatively substantive policy conversations for the last few years about what performance based funding in Kentucky could look like. CPE President Bob King has encouraged the shift since 2011.

Most recently, in the 2015 Regular Session of the Kentucky General Assembly, the Republican-led Senate passed a resolution to move higher education funding in the state in the direction of performance-based funding. The resolution directed the CPE to:

“develop a performance-based funding model for the public postsecondary education institutions; identify guiding principles and constraints; establish metrics that recognize difference of missions among research, comprehensive regional, and community and technical college institutions; require findings and recommendations to be reported by December 11, 2015.”

Voting on the resolution was for the most part along party lines, with most Republicans voting for the resolution and most Democrats voting against it. The resolution moved to the Democrat-led House and was assigned to the House Education Committee, which took no further action on it.

It should be noted that the presidents of both the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville have not been supportive of a shift to a performance-based funding model, making the argument that such a shift should not be considered without the General Assembly directing additional funding to higher education. State funding for higher education in Kentucky and across the U.S. has declined substantially in recent years. According to a 2014 report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, most states continue to fund higher education “below pre-recession levels.” Specifically, they reported that every state with the exception of North Dakota and Alaska are spending less per student on higher education than they were spending prior to the recession.

Whether Kentucky adopts performance-based funding in 2016 remains to be seen, but CPE, community college, and four-year institution leaders would be well-advised to prepare for its eventual coming to the commonwealth.

Kentucky: Any Charter School Law Just Won’t Do

With Kentucky’s election of conservative Republican Governor Matt Bevin, who included school choice as a part of his campaign platform, and Democrats coming closer by the day to losing control of the state House of Representatives, discussion of the passage of a charter school law in Kentucky has picked up significantly. In fact, I have never heard more discussion of what many education policy movers, shakers, and watchers are saying is the inevitable emergence of public charter schools in Kentucky. As a longtime advocate for the passage of strong public charter school legislation in Kentucky, I greet that conversation with cautious optimism.

It is true that the support of Governor Bevin, the support of newly appointed Education and Workforce Cabinet Secretary Hal Heiner, and shaky control of the state House by Democrats, all contribute to a political environment in Kentucky that could be ripe for the passage of a strong charter school law. But even with a more favorable political environment, advocates for high quality charter schools should be more insistent than ever that Kentucky’s lawmakers get charter school legislation right. We have learned from other states successes and challeng

es that the details of charter school legislation matter tremendously.It is the provisions of the statute that set the framework what charter schools in a state will eventually become. Unfortunately, I believe the inclination of some educational leaders and lawmakers in Kentucky is to try to pass a charter school law that is most palatable to the traditional public education establishment, rather than passing a law that gives charter schools in Kentucky the greatest opportunity to be successful. Rather than putting first the academic well-being of children who will be served by Kentucky’s charter schools, I fear that some lawmakers find it preferable to please district and state-level education leaders and the organizations they represent. Make no mistake about it, the interests of children and the interests of education organizations are not always one in the same.

I have gone on record previously and I do so again in saying that I will not advocate for the passage of a weak charter school law. A charter school law in Kentucky that leads to the creation of no high quality public charter schools, or worse, leads to persistently low achieving public charter schools, would do more harm to children than good. As such, Kentucky would be better served by forgoing the passage of a weak charter school law, and having no charter school law at all.

There are many elements of a strong charter school law to be decided on, but there are a few essential elements that must be a part of Kentucky’s charter school law if it is to lead to successful public charter schools. Based on research, the successes and failures of other states, and good old fashion common sense, here are a few of those essential elements:

  • Multiple Paths to Authorization. Kentucky’s charter school law must include more than one path to authorization for schools. Local school districts may serve as one of the charter authorizers, but groups applying for a charter must have at least one additional path to apply for charter authorization. Others states have experienced success with additional routes to charter authorization through independent charter school commissions, state boards of education, state commissioners or superintendents of education, city governments, and state-supported universities. All of these options should be considered in Kentucky. Providing charter schools with only one route to authorization through local school districts would leave the establishment and success of charters schools in Kentucky solely in the hands of organizations that have opposed the passage of charter school legislation.
  • Academic Accountability. Kentucky’s charter school law must hold charter schools to the highest standards of academic performance accountability. Authorizers must be held accountable for granting charters only to groups that have a comprehensive plan for the success of the school. Authorizers must be held accountable for monitoring the academic performance of charter schools in their charge, intervening when needed, and not renewing or revoking schools’ charters when necessary. Public charter schools in Kentucky cannot be allowed to fail children and families year after year, generation after generation, as some of our traditional public schools have.
  • Collective Bargaining. Kentucky’s charter schools must not be bound by collective bargaining agreements between teachers unions and local school districts. The provisions of such agreements limit the human resources autonomy of administrators in some of Kentucky’s traditional public schools. Specifically, provisions of such collective bargaining greatly limit school administrators’ ability to recruit, hire, supervise, evaluate, and if need be, terminate school personnel. As the charter school concept is based on providing schools with greater autonomy in exchange for higher levels of academic accountability, binding public charter schools with those restrictions would be counterproductive. A charter school law would not and could not, however, prevent teachers at Kentucky charter schools from forming their own unions if they so chose and collectively bargaining with their schools.
  • Funding Equity. Kentucky’s public charter schools must receive funding that is equitable to traditional public schools. Public charter schools in some states have been crippled by receiving as little as half the per pupil dollar amount that would be allocated for a child attending a traditional public school. Such funding inequity would be unacceptable in a charter school law in Kentucky. Funding for public charter schools should be allocated in the same manner that funding for traditional public schools is allocated, on a per pupil basis. For every child whose parent chooses to enroll her in a public charter school, the same state, local, and federal dollars that would follow her to a district school should follow her to a public charter school.