Public policies are informed by the social, fiscal and the political environment that exists in the society. Higher education institutions are encompassed by the policies designed to solve social, political and economic problems encountered in the country. in the united states, public policy that affects higher education is imperative to the economy and the social welfare of the country. With limited resources, policies are defined and influenced by various factors that reside in the interests of the stakeholders within the sectors of operation. There needs to be a justification for the funds that are spent in higher education through the services provided. Previously, funding for higher education was informed by the interests to increase the accessibility and affordability of higher education to the citizens of the United States (Liefner, 2003) . Therefore, the policy encouraged the rate of enrollments into institutions of higher learning. In essence, enrollment was the mapping point for accessibility and affordability. With the increased demand for graduate educated laborers in the market and the need for accountability, performance-based funding was internalized and implemented at various levels in the United States. This paper, therefore, will endeavor to interrogate the application of performance-based funding in the higher education. Therein, it will categorically apply the SWOT analysis as well as apply favorable recommendations to the policy.
Background of Performance-based funding policy in higher education
Development and implementation of law and order are affected by various factors which are mainly influenced by the political interests of the political leaders of the day. The policy is further backed up with social justification to implement the policy. From this perspective, performance-based funding was developed to ensure close oversite to the higher education institution. The policy is however rooted in the rationale of accountability of spending of the public funds. Before the development of the program, funding for higher education was informed by social instruments of accessibility and affordability of higher education to healthy citizens. Due to the continued constraints on public spending, the system was devised that would enable the application of public funds to projects that work in higher education institutions (Smith, 2015) . Accountability of funds forms a significant proportion of issues of discourse in the political arena as well as the public discourse. Therein, by accountability, performance-based funding was introduced. The policy was widely encouraged by the promise of accountability to the spending of the public funds on projects and systems that work in higher education. Similarly, it resonated with the political healing image of the political class due to issues of public spending.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The policy, on the other hand, was developed to respond to societal and economic problems within the country. There is a general acknowledgment within the society on the importance of higher education in the improvement of social welfare in the society. Performance-based funding was implemented with the aim to increase accessibility of not only higher education, but in the production of quality skills from the institutions. However, enrollments in institutions of higher learning do not indicate the performance level of the institutions as well as the quality of education produced. The policy therein introduced performance as the collateral to ensure some of funds the institution receives. The condition of the funding system was to instigate quality programs that ensure successful completion rates within higher education institutions. Secondly, pressure from the economic environment and other sectors demanded influenced the policy implementation. For instance, the increase in demand for higher educated labor force influenced the process of development of the policy. Therein, the policymakers had to ensure there was an investment not only in the enrollment of students to higher education but also in the completion rates. The stagnating completion rates within higher education institution indicated failing programs within the operations of the institutions. Therein, performance-based funding was implemented to ensure that the higher education institutions interrogate the quality of programs and systems that will produce results and increase the number of graduates.
Strengths performance-based funding in higher education
Several strengths can be attributed to performance-based funding policies. One is identifiable in the name of the policy itself. Through the policy is intended to increase performance in higher education institutions in the United States. Although the methods of application of the policies differ from state to state, the bottom line lies in the underlying application function of the policy (Jongbloed, and Vossensteyn, 2001) . Policymakers recognize the need for higher education and the need for quality education produced in those institutions. Through tying performance of an institution directly to the funding system of the institution ensures that administrators within the institutions have a rigorous time in the evaluation of systems, projects, and programs that work to produce results and maintain the funding.
Secondly, the policy ensures and encourages accountability of public funds spending by the states and the federal government. Due to the increasing public distrust due to misappropriation and wastage and bloated public spending that increasingly raises taxes, the policy ensures the systematic repair of that i9mage through funding of crucial programs and systems that produce results. From this perspective, the policy is in the interest of all stakeholders including, the students, higher education institutions, policymakers as well as the society. Accountability within higher education also illuminates the imperative nature of much-needed oversite to public funds (Alexander, 2000) . The safeguards within the policy that are pegged in the performance indicators act as the oversite measure in the evaluation of public fund spending. Therein, through the illumination of the amount of money spent on the main indicators the public and the policymakers can play their oversite role in evaluating the appropriation of funds.
Thirdly, performance-based education invests in the societal and economic demands of the society. One of the primary objectives of public policy is to ensure the growth and improvement of the social well-being of the citizens of the country. Provision of higher education works towards the achievement of that goal. Therein, performance-based funding ensures that quality education is available at affordable rates to the citizens of the state the policy is being implemented (Dougherty and Jones, 2014). Secondly, through adherent of economic indicators that influence higher education, performance-based funding ensures the achievement of such goals as well. For instance, the policy invests in performance indicators such as retention rates, quality of the education programs as well as graduation periods (Jongbloed, and Vossensteyn, 2001) . All these indicators lead to the production of higher educated individuals to fill the increasing demand in the labor force.
Fourth, performance-based funding in education has its roots in the instigation of a particular institutional behavior in higher education. By underpinning funding to performance, the policy influences higher education administrators in both the choice of institutional policy, strategic goals as well as institutional behavior. The policy, therefore, ensures that the state can direct the institutional behavior of higher education institutions to orient themselves to particular goals through the choice of the policy implementation metrics offered by the state.
Weaknesses of performance-based funding in higher education
The intention of the policy in higher education is clear on the intended purpose. However, the implementation produces several limitations to the policy. While the initial goal of provision of accessible and affordable higher education is sound, the policy in some cases is self-defeating to that goal. Cognizant on the performance indicators, higher education administrators still retain control of the institutional budget and the acquisition of those funds. Therefore, when the funding from the state is limited to performance when the funding is reduced in the effort to increase performance, the administrators may increase tuition fees payable by the students. The increase in such fees limits the affordability of higher education to most of the country’s residents (Alexander, 2000) . Reduced affordability translates to decreased accessibility to the quality of education needed in the labor market. The move to solicit other sources of funds by higher education institution defeats the implementation strategy of the policy.
Performance indicators selected by the policy for implantation is navigable and therefore eliminating the quality maintenance. For instance, in the interest to maintain state funding, the institutions will often opt-in concentration and offer courses and programs to students that are less competitive to ensure higher retention rates, completion rates and shorter graduation periods. The move does not adequately mitigate the demand for the educated labor force as it offsets the balance with the bloated number of graduates from certain areas and limited graduates in others. Secondly, in the interest to maintain the funding, institutions will often bloat the grades and performances to maintain the level of state funding (Nisar, 2015) . Therein, the quality intended to be achieved by the policy is otherwise unachievable.
The objective of the policy is to ensure accessibility of higher education to all people, however, performance goals that the institution must adhere to work against the objective of the policy. Cognizant of the performance parameters, the policy exerts pressure on the admission goals of the institutions that lead to limitation of access to the students academically at risk. A limitation is a form of discrimination that limits the effectiveness of the policy in the attempt to influence social welfare.
Opportunities for performance-based funding in higher education
Performance-based funding in higher education provides several opportunities from two perspectives, the political perspective, and the educational perspective. From the political point of view, the opportunities that exist are in the interests of policymakers and future policy making decisions. Policies enacted by politicians have two sides to their rational, one is in the self-interest of the political class, and the social scapegoat informs the other to their self-interest. Cognizant of the bad reputation of bloated government expenditure and misappropriation of funds, enacting a policy that seems to curb and trim public funds spending is imperative to repair their image and reputation (Dougherty and Jones, 2014). Development and implementation of a policy that offers both accountability mechanisms and reduced spending work to rebuild the image, popularity, and reputation of the political class.
Similarly, power play in the political class is a hidden opportunity in the policy. Through the implication of the oversite role within the funding process of higher education institutions, the political class maintains a percentage of control and power that directs education and the strategic goals of an institution. The policy provides an opportunity to influence institutional behavior and control several aspects within admission as well as administration. From the educator’s perspective, the policy provides an opportunity to increase funding for the state. Cognizant of the intended change of institutional behavior aimed at the policy goals, to implement that change would require more incentives from the state in the form of more funding (Dougherty and Natow 2013) . Therefore, the educator would have to request more money from the state for the success of the programs implemented on behave of the policy requirement. From a societal perspective, the policy provides an opportunity for quality education for the future generation and growth in the welfare of the society (Stone, n.d).
Threats to performance-based funding in higher education
Performance-based funding in higher education is not without threats that portend its implementation, and success in the system. Among them include the changing political climate as well as the previous success of similar policies. Changing political environment is dependent on the interests of the political class that frequently changes over time. Therefore, the interests of the policymakers would vary and therefore affect the policies. From this perspective, the justification of social welfare, accountability of public funds and accessibility and affordability of higher education is only valid as long as the perspective of the political class does not change. If perspective changes, the justification of the policy would be its downfall and dismissal of the policy (Rutherford, and Rabovsky, 2014) . Therein, the justification for change would become, unmeasurable social welfare objective, increased public funding, limited and unaffordable higher education.
The success and failure of previous related policies are a threat to the full implementation of the policy. The success of a policy is measured by the achievement of its objectives as well as in the comparison of similar policies within the public sphere. Presence of little success in similar policies and program threaten the success and further implementation of the policy in higher education institutions.
Conclusions and recommendations
Policy development and implementation require the consideration of a wide range of environmental factors within the intended sector to illuminate intended solutions. The discourse above indicates various perspectives that need to be interrogated and therein produce possible solutions. From a policy perspective, the political inflation of public issues to the interest of the political class needs to be critically interrogated in the implementation phase to ensure categorical implications devoid of external influences. The policy and the resulting funding formula ought to be flexible enough to ensure that the performance indicators used are not discriminatory to types of higher education institutions and the demographics of the student population. Policy flexibility would allow for customized policy application withby the capacity, type and other demographic characteristics of the institution to ensure little fallout from policy implementation while maintaining higher success rates. The policy needs to regulate minimum operational funding to prevent situations of continued loss of funding. The provision is categorical in ensuring maintenance of affordability as reduced funding may spike tuition fees to students.
References
Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education , 71 (4), 411-431.
Dougherty, K. J., Jones, S. M., Lahr, H., Natow, R. S., Pheatt, L., & Reddy, V. (2014). Performance funding for higher education: Forms, origins, impacts, and futures. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 655 (1), 163-184.
Dougherty, K. J., Natow, R. S., Bork, R. H., Jones, S. M., & Vega, B. E. (2013). Accounting for higher education accountability: Political origins of state performance funding for higher education. Teachers College Record , 115 (1), 1-50.
Jongbloed, B., & Vossensteyn, H. (2001). Keeping up performances: An international survey of performance-based funding in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management , 23 (2), 127-145.
Liefner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher education , 46 (4), 469-489.
Nisar, M. A. (2015). Higher education governance and performance-based funding as an ecology of games. Higher Education , 69 (2), 289-302.
Rutherford, A., & Rabovsky, T. (2014). Evaluating impacts of performance funding policies on student outcomes in higher education. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 655 (1), 185-208.
Smith, M. F. (2015). Performance-Based Funding in Higher Education. Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy , (10), 15.
Stone, D. (n.d). Policy paradox
