Download Free Washington State Student Achievement Initiative Policy Study Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Washington State Student Achievement Initiative Policy Study and write the review.

In 2007, the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges launched a performance funding policy called the Student Achievement Initiative (SAI) both to improve public accountability by more accurately describing what students achieve from enrolling in community colleges and to provide incentives to colleges through financial rewards for increasing student success. Based on a three-year evaluation that included both a quantitative analysis of "achievement point" accumulation by colleges and qualitative fieldwork, this report assesses how and to what extent the SAI model of performance funding has encouraged two-year public colleges in the state to take steps to improve student achievement. We find that the SAI's intermediate milestone framework is viewed as helpful in focusing collective efforts on student progression and in publicly accounting for college performance. The funding mechanism has proved problematic and unpopular, as SAI funding has come from reallocated base funds rather than as additional funds as originally intended. (Contains 4 figures, 1 table, 9 boxes, and 5 footnotes.).
The Student Achievement Initiative (SAI), adopted by the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges in 2007, is one of a growing number of performance funding programs that have been dubbed "performance funding 2.0." Unlike previous performance funding models, the SAI rewards colleges for students' intermediate achievements along the pathway toward college completion as well as for completion itself. In addition to motivating colleges through funding, the SAI gives colleges data to help them understand where, along their pathways through college, students are struggling and what changes might improve their forward momentum. Washington State's experience with the SAI offers clear lessons about the process of developing, implementing, and monitoring a performance funding system. This brief uses findings from a three-year evaluation of the SAI to draw lessons for leaders in other states seeking to design effective performance funding systems. On the basis of this work, the authors offer the following suggested design principles: (1) Measure what matters most (and validate that you have done so); (2) One-size metrics do not fit all stakeholders; (3) Everyone can't win--but guard against unexpected consequences; (4) Measure improvements in performance rather than relative performance; (5) Performance is a baseline expectation; (6) It's about mission, not rewards; and (7) Performance is everyone's business. (Contains 12 endnotes.).
In 2007, the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges launched the Student Achievement Initiative (SAI), a system-wide policy to reward colleges for improvements in student achievement. Under the SAI, since 2009, the state has awarded some funds based on how much colleges have increased student achievement relative to their own prior performance. Achievement is measured in points, using six metrics: improvement in performance on assessment of basic skills; advancement across levels of developmental education; accumulation of 15 college credits; accumulation of 30 college credits; completion of quantitative reasoning courses; and completion of a degree, certificate, or apprenticeship. Using data from 2007 to 2011, this study examines the performance of Washington State's 34 two-year colleges under the SAI, with an empirical analysis of how many points colleges accumulated and which college-level and student characteristics were associated with points accumulation. It also considers whether alternative measures of institutional performance would yield different funding allocations. Finally, the study examines whether there is evidence that rates of student progression or "momentum" toward completion have increased since the SAI policy was implemented. (Contains 7 figures, 10 tables and 23 footnotes.).
Amid growing signs of America's weakening position in the global economy, federal and state policymakers and major foundations have set ambitious goals for increasing postsecondary attainment in the United States. Given changing U.S. demographics, it has become clear that these national goals are attainable only with vastly improved outcomes among traditionally less-successful populations, which include academically underprepared students who come from poor primary and secondary schools, adults who are working in low-wage jobs or are unemployed, and immigrants with limited English proficiency. These populations enroll predominantly in the nation's community colleges. Given declining public resources for public higher education and skyrocketing enrollments, better outcomes from community colleges will require gains in productivity. Colleges will need to learn how to increase student progression and success with the same or fewer resources. Doing so will require community colleges to make systemic changes in their policies and practices. It is within this context that the Washington State Student Achievement Initiative (SAI) has attracted national attention. As states strive to increase community college student success, many are looking at two policy levers--data and performance funding--to motivate and guide colleges to implement changes in practice that lead to improved student outcomes. Washington's State Board for Community and Technical Colleges is at the forefront of efforts to develop better measures of student success and to use those enhanced measures as the basis for rewarding colleges for increasing student achievement. In adopting and implementing the SAI, the State Board is seeking to use data and fiscal incentives to drive systemic institutional improvement and thus increase productivity across its 34-college system. This brief examines key policy issues raised by Washington State's experience to date with its vanguard performance incentive policy. It draws on the authors' observations from the first year of a three-year, Gates Foundation-funded evaluation of the SAI as well as from their experience with these issues in a national context. Because the evaluation of the SAI and the SAI policy itself are still in their early stages, it is too early to assess the long-term effectiveness of this effort. However, insights from Washington State's early experience with the policy can help inform the conversation currently occurring in many states on how to use state policy levers to meet ambitious state and national goals for increased college completion. To that end, the brief examines policy challenges and choices that the Washington community and technical college system has grappled with as it designed and is now implementing the SAI, and that policymakers and college leaders in other states will have to address in their efforts to improve community college outcomes. (Contains 15 endnotes.
In January 2012, a system-wide task force came together for a nearly year-long process of revising the community and technical college system's performance-based funding (PBF) system, the Student Achievement Initiative. This review was consistent with national experts' recommendations for continuous evaluation of PBF systems to ensure overall goals and principles are being met. Recommendations for adjustments to the achievement metrics and funding model were made to the president's commission (WACTC) in November 2012 and approved by the State Board in December 2012. Recommendations for change reflected a shift in both student success policy and fiscal policy to recognize both the growing national emphasis on the completion agenda, as well as the constrained resource environment caused by the Great Recession. The goal of this paper is to evaluate whether there appears to be positive movement in student achievement toward the policy goals which were the basis of the 2012 revision of the metrics and funding model. The following sections begin with a brief overview of the theory behind PBF and a background on the revision, followed by a system-level analysis of each of the key milestone areas addressed within the revision. The connection between increased performance and increased funding for colleges is also discussed. The paper concludes with a discussion and implications of an incentive-based allocation system with thoughts on future study. Appended are data tables showing: (1) Basic Skills Transition Rates by College; (2) Precollege English Progression and College Completion by College; (3) Precollege Math Progression and College Completion by College; (4) Completions by College; and (5) Funding Distributions 2009-10 to 2014-15.
In September 2007, the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) officially launched the Student Achievement Initiative, a system-wide policy to reward colleges for improvements in student achievement. Developed by a task force comprised of State Board members, college trustees, presidents, and faculty representatives, the policy emphasizes three overarching principles: (1) improved educational attainments for students, particularly those shown by research to be correlated with the earning of higher future wages by students; (2) sufficient flexibility for colleges to improve student achievement according to their local needs; and (3) identification and implementation of successful practices to improve student achievement system-wide. Researchers from the Community College Research Center (CCRC) at Teachers College, Columbia University, conducted an independent qualitative review of the Student Achievement Initiative during the 2007-08 learning year. The purpose of this formative evaluation was to assess the extent of awareness and understanding of the initiative among college personnel, examine the initial responses to it by the colleges, and identify opportunities for and potential barriers to the further development of the initiative. In-person and telephone interviews were conducted with college personnel, stakeholders and policymakers. Reported findings include: (1) Colleges strongly supported the initiative's goals and the principles of the achievement point framework; (2) Awareness of the initiative was limited among the colleges' rank and file; (3) Colleges grappled with their performance data throughout the learning year; (4) Most colleges had not yet used an analysis of their performance data to plan new strategies to improve student achievement; (5) At many colleges, student services staff led efforts in response to the initiative; (6) Several colleges focused their initial efforts on basic skills and developmental education; Some colleges were planning to implement measures with a likely one-time effect; (8) Several colleges were beginning to link the initiative to strategic planning and accreditation activities; (9) Colleges were concerned that use of the achievement point framework and the incentive funding model may produce unintended effects and place some colleges at a disadvantage; (10) College presidents emphasized that, in order to be effective in improving college performance, the initiative must bring new funding to colleges, over and above base budget funding; and (11) While state policymakers indicated strong support for the initiative's model of performance accountability and improvement, there is limited awareness of the initiative and no strong champions for it among state legislators; the looming fiscal crisis further threatens the SBCTC's legislative request for new funding to support the initiative. Because colleges are just beginning to analyze their data and consider changes in practices that would improve student achievement, the authors recommend that extending the learning period would give the Board and the colleges a chance to deepen awareness and support of the initiative among faculty and staff, use the data to identify areas of weakness, and implement and evaluate strategies for improving student achievement. This would also increase the opportunity to examine to what extent and in what ways colleges change their practices in response to the initiative. Given the interest in the initiative by other states and funders nationally, the authors suggest that the State Board well be able to raise private foundation funds to supplement state funding of the initiative during such a period of further experimentation and evaluation. (Contains 11 footnotes.) [Additional funding provided by College Spark Washington.].
After first appearing in 1979 in Tennessee, performance funding for higher education went on to be adopted by another 26 states. This monograph reviews research on a multitude of states to address these questions: • What impacts does performance funding have on institutional practices and, ultimately, student outcomes? • What obstacles and unintended effects do performance funding encounter? This monograph finds considerable impacts on institutional practices, weak impacts on student outcomes, substantial obstacles, and sizable unintended impacts. Given this, the monograph closes with a discussion of the implications for future research and for public policymaking on performance funding. This is the 2nd issue of the 39th volume of the Jossey-Bass series ASHE Higher Education Report. Each monograph is the definitive analysis of a tough higher education issue, based on thorough research of pertinent literature and institutional experiences. Topics are identified by a national survey. Noted practitioners and scholars are then commissioned to write the reports, with experts providing critical reviews of each manuscript before publication.
This publication¿the latest report from AAC&U¿s Liberal Education and America¿s Promise (LEAP) initiative¿defines a set of educational practices that research has demonstrated have a significant impact on student success. Author George Kuh presents data from the National Survey of Student Engagement about these practices and explains why they benefit all students, but also seem to benefit underserved students even more than their more advantaged peers. The report also presents data that show definitively that underserved students are the least likely students, on average, to have access to these practices.
Ultimately, the authors recommend that states create new ways of helping colleges with many at-risk students, define performance indicators and measures better tailored to institutional missions, and improve the capacity of colleges to engage in organizational learning.
The first nation-wide analysis of the politics of performance funding in higher education. Performance funding ties state support of colleges and universities directly to institutional performance on specific outcomes, including retention, number of credits accrued, graduation, and job placement. The theory is that introducing market-like forces will prod institutions to become more efficient and effective. In The Politics of Performance Funding for Higher Education, Kevin J. Dougherty and Rebecca S. Natow explore the sometimes puzzling evolution of this mode of funding higher education. Drawing on an eight-state study of performance funding in Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington, Dougherty and Natow shed light on the social and political factors affecting the origins, evolution, and demise of these programs. Their findings uncover patterns of frequent adoption, discontinuation, and re-adoption. Of the thirty-six states that have ever adopted performance funding, two-thirds discontinued it, although many of those later re-adopted it. Even when performance funding programs persist over time, they can undergo considerable changes in both the amount of state funding and in the indicators used to allocate funding. Yet performance funding continues to attract interest from federal and state officials, state policy associations, and major foundations as a way of improving educational outcomes. The authors explore the various forces, actors, and motives behind the adoption, discontinuation, and transformation of performance funding programs. They compare U.S. programs to international models, and they gauge the likely future of performance funding, given the volatility of the political forces driving it. Aimed at educators, sociologists, political scientists, and policy makers, this book will be hailed as the definitive assessment of the origins and evolution of performance funding.