Yesterday, I wrote about proposed changes to the governance structure of community colleges in North Carolina. If adopted, the State Legislature will play a more central role in community college administration. North Carolina isn’t the only state making new plans for its community colleges. Texas is moving closer to outcome-based funding for its 50 community college districts.
Unlike North Carolina, where the state plays a significant role in the administration of its community colleges, Texas operates more like Michigan, where the state has a funding role for its community colleges, but does not exercise significant or direct governance of them. Similarly, Texas community colleges rely on local property taxes, state funding, and tuition as their primary sources of revenue.
Last fall, the Texas legislature began the process of reconsidering its current state funding model for community colleges. Earlier this week, the Texas House approved a plan to base community college funding on outcomes. The bill now moves to the Texas Senate, where it is likely to pass with broad support.
Texas community colleges will gain or lose funding based on the number of degrees and certificates they award; the number of students who transfer to a four-year university; and the number of students who complete at least 15 credit hours toward workforce development programs.
In some respects, outcome-based funding is backwards. Schools that have higher drop-out rates, lower completion rates and lower transfer rates may need more help and more investment, not less. At the same time, Texas will serve as a model for other states to demand performance from their community colleges. On the surface, there’s nothing wrong with expecting a return on investment. States invest in their community colleges, so they should get something back out of the money they’ve spent, right?
Outcome-based funding model likely to hurt community colleges
Better performance is the unlikely result of outcome-based funding. Rather, schools will learn how to game the system to ensure they don’t lose funding for outcomes that are out of their control. Schools will encourage their students to claim a certificate midway through a two-year program. Or to choose short-term, non-degree certificates rather than two-year associate degrees. (Where have we seen that?)
Students don’t need less education; they need faster education. Community colleges need to deliver the requisite instruction in a compressed timeframe. Instead, they shorten programs by cutting corners, which reduces the overall value of a degree to the student and prospective employers.
Other states will watch Texas carefully; some may choose to follow its lead. Although it seems like a way to get more funding, increasing completion and transfer rates isn’t easy. It’s not as though schools have not already tried.
Community colleges have abysmally low completion rates – especially in urban areas. For example, the Austin Community College District has a graduation rate of 11%. More than 75% of its students attend classes part-time, and 59% are racial or ethnic minorities. Dallas College – which is an amalgamation of several community colleges in the Dallas metropolitan area – has a graduation rate of 16%. Nearly 90% of its students attend part-time and 85% of them are racial or ethnic minorities. The Lone Star College System, which includes the Greater Houston area, has a graduation rate of 17%. Seventy percent of its students are minorities, which also happens to be the state average for minority enrollment at community colleges in Texas.
Outcome-based funding is likely to reduce the amount of state investment in its largest community college systems. For the students, punitive funding reductions will make graduating or transferring harder than it already is.
Photo Credit: ACC District , via Flickr
