Running Head: ARTICLE REVIEW 1

Article Review

Crystal Nicole Simpson

Georgia Southern University

EDLD 8432, Summer 2014

Dr. Daniel Calhoun

ARTICLE REVIEW  

2

Article Review Assignment

Summary

The article I chose to review was entitled Impact of Performance-funding on

Retention and Graduation Rates by Sanford and Hunter. The study looked at

performance-funding polices in Tennessee and how they have affected retention and six-

year graduation rates at public four-year institutions. The study used Tennessee because

of the state’s long history with performance-funding and looked at data ranging from

1995-2009. Since Tennessee implemented performance-funding in 1979, there have been

eight revisions to the policy.

Sanford and Hunter (2011) used a quasi-experimental design and linear-mixed

models to compare outcomes in Tennessee to peer institutions in other states. The study

looked at how adding retention and six-year graduation rates into the program in 1997

and at how doubling the incentive of the two in 2005 impacted retention and six-year

graduation rates. They found that “Tennessee showed no significant differences

compared to their peer institutions in the measures’ changes over time” (Sanford &

Hunter, 2011, p. 18). The results did not support that the performance-funding program

led to the desired outcome, but it was also not possible to say that the program is not

effective (Sanford & Hunter, 2011).

Critical Reaction

The authors did an excellent job in clarifying that the study cannot say with

certainty whether performance-funding is or is not effective. They discuss that the new

model adopted in Tennessee will tie 80% of appropriations to retention and graduation

rates. However, the model that was reviewed tied only 5% (Sanford & Hunter, 2011).

ARTICLE REVIEW  

3

During the conclusion Sanford and Hunter (2011) state that based on the results, policy

makers may want to consider increasing the incentives tied to performance funding or

consider other methods that could be used.

The authors took care in the phrasing of their findings. While tying 5% of

appropriations to performance outcomes did not yield significant differences, it is not

appropriate to speculate what the results will be in tying 80% of appropriations to

performance outcomes. It would be beneficial to revisit the study once there enough data

to see if the larger incentive affects the outcomes in retention and graduation rates.

It is important to keep in mind that there are multiple factors that play into

retention and graduation rates at individual institutions. Just having an incentive to

increase retention and graduation rates does not mean that it is possible to have the

number rise. There are factors outside of higher education which affect students and

students affect the performance outcomes.

Sanford and Hunter (2011) discussed “it would be appropriate to reframe the

discussions of its [performance-funding] effectiveness around the implementation and

quality assurance rather than performance” (p. 19). While it is not known how tying 80%

of state funding to performance will affect the number, the other eight versions of the

policy did not show significant difference in retention and graduation rates. I agree with

the second of the authors’ suggestions, which is to look at other methods for improving

outcomes.

Implications

Sanford and Hunter (2011) state that there are implications for state policy

makers, higher education governance boards, and the public. The implications are if there

ARTICLE REVIEW  

4

are not significant results with performance funding, what else can be done to improve

outcomes? It is important for institutions to look at what other systems are doing and see

what is working and how can they adapt the best practices for their institution. Years ago,

Georgia College found that the retention rate from year one to year two for undeclared

students on campus was higher than any other major and was competitive with the

national average. They explored what was done differently with these students and

determined that having a professional advisor work with these students and teach their

academic freshmen seminars was what made the difference in retention. To replicate that,

all first and second year students were advised by professional advisors. Recently the

president has decided we will improve graduation rates by 20% and to achieve that, all

students on campus will work with professional academic advisors to achieve their

graduation goals and will have faculty mentors for other assistance such as career and

post-graduation goals.

This is just one example of how an institution is working to increase their

performance outcomes. The biggest implications from the study that if performance

funding is going to work, the incentive has to be significant, however we must keep in

mind that this may or may not affect performance outcomes. The other implication is if

performance-funding is not a viable option, are we exploring other ways to increase the

performance of our higher education institutions? We need to explore the options for

increasing performance in our institutions.

ARTICLE REVIEW  

5

References

Sanford, T., & Hunter, J.M. (2011). Impact of performance-funding on retention and

graduation rates. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(33), 1-30.