Advantages and Problems Performance funding is a reform effort that appears unlikely to recede because it has become a crucial part of the management revolution sweeping American's manufacturing and service sectors, the health-care industry, government, and education. When performance systems are designed and used effectively, faculty members and administrators can use them to strengthen and prove the value of their programs, as well as sharpen their competitive edge. As this occurs, the proponents focus on the ends and goals to be met, while higher education officials focus on the difficulties of measurement and implementation. Variables often need to be complex to be accurate and appropriate, but this can result in documents that are largely unread. Thus, information in summary reports should be limited, with greater detail available as needed.
Real effectiveness occurs only when positive changes occur in teaching and learning.
Program priorities should remain in place for a minimum of four to five years, followed by evaluation and any necessary revision. Collaboration at all levels is crucial to the success of performance funding. States should consider using regional accreditation reports as an indicator for performance funding programs. The chosen indicators should stress quality, quantity and costs of services to students, states, and society. The costs of data collection and analysis can be cut by confining the reporting requirements to a limited number of critical indicators.