Running Head: ARTICLE REVIEW

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 sixyear graduation rates at public four-year institutions. The study used Tennessee because
of the states 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

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

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.