Outcomes Based Funding and Race in Higher

Education Can Equity be Bought 1st Edition

Tiffany Jones pdf download
https://textbookfull.com/product/outcomes-based-funding-and-race-in-higher-education-can-equity-be-
bought-1st-edition-tiffany-jones/

★★★★★ 4.8/5.0 (46 reviews) ✓ 239 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Excellent quality PDF, exactly what I needed!" - Sarah M.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 Outcomes Based Funding and Race in Higher Education Can
Equity be Bought 1st Edition Tiffany Jones pdf download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK TEXTBOOK FULL

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Collection Highlights

Uplifting Gender and Sexuality Education Research Tiffany

Jones

University of Nike How Corporate Cash Bought American

Higher Education Joshua Hunt

Race Politics and Education in Brazil Affirmative Action

in Higher Education 1st Edition Ollie A. Johnson Iii

Race Equity and Education Sixty Years from Brown 1st

Edition Pedro A. Noguera
Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in
Higher Education: Foundations Laura Parson

Policy Analysis of Structural Reforms in Higher Education:

Processes and Outcomes 1st Edition Harry De Boer

Family background and university success differences in

higher education access and outcomes in England First
Edition Crawford

Dismantling Race in Higher Education: Racism, Whiteness

and Decolonising the Academy Jason Arday

Enhancing Inclusive Instruction: Student Perspectives and

Practical Approaches for Advancing Equity in Higher
Education 1st Edition Addy
Outcomes Based Funding and Race
in Higher Education
Tiffany Jones • Sosanya Jones • Kayla C. Elliott • LaToya Russell Owens •
Amanda E. Assalone • Denisa Gándara

Outcomes Based
Funding and Race
in Higher Education
Can Equity be Bought?
Tiffany Jones Sosanya Jones
The Education Trust Southern Illinois
Washington, District of Columbia, University-Carbondale
USA Carbondale, Illinois, USA

Kayla C. Elliott LaToya Russell Owens

Florida Atlantic University Georgia State University
Boca Raton, Florida, USA Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Amanda E. Assalone Denisa Gándara

Southern Education Foundation Southern Methodist University
Atlanta, Georgia, USA Dallas, Texas, USA

ISBN 978-3-319-49435-7 ISBN 978-3-319-49436-4 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-49436-4
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016961801

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in
this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher
nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material
contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains
neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: Cover pattern © Melisa Hasan

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 CONTENTS

1 Show Me the Outcomes! The Emergence of Performance

and Outcomes-Based Funding in Higher Education 1

PART I Understanding the Impact of POBF on Racial Equity

2 Double or Nothing, States Betting It All on Performance

and Outcomes-Based Funding and the Implications
for Equity 13

3 Reparations and Rewards: Performance and Outcomes-

Based Funding and De Jure to De Facto Segregation
in Higher Education Systems 31

4 Impacting the Whole Community: Two-Year

Minority-Serving Institutions and Performance
and Outcomes-Based Funding in Texas 61

PART II Examining POBF Design, Adoption, & Revision

5 A Critical Analysis of the Sociopolitical Climate for POBF

in Three States 85

v
vi CONTENTS

6 Policy Actors, Advocates, and Critics: The Promotion

and Critique of Performance and Outcomes-Based
Funding’s Impact on Equity 107

7 Between Words and Action: The Problem with POBF

Indictors for Achieving Racial Diversity 123

8 Toward a New Framework for Funding for Equity 145

Index 161
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 4.1 Major Sources of Operating Revenue for Community

Colleges in Texas, FY 2011. Source: Legislative Budget
Board 2013 68
Fig. 4.2 Per-Student Funding for Community Colleges in Texas,
Before Performance Funding (2003–2013) and During
Performance Funding (2014–2015) 71
Fig. 4.3 Total Success Points Funding by Fall Headcount
Enrollment by MSI Designation, 2014 72
Fig. 4.4 Total Success Points by Enrollment by Quartiles
for Proportions of Student Subgroup Enrollments,
FY 2014–2015 75

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Ohio Funding Formula 17

Table 2.2 Central State Percentage Change 18
Table 2.3 Tennessee Funding Formula 22
Table 2.4 Tennessee Higher Education Per-student Allocation 24
Table 3.1 Timeline of Critical Desegregation Cases and Other Key
Events Impacting Higher Education for Blacks 39
Table 3.2 2014 Performance Funding Allocations for Florida State
University System Institutions 47
Table 3.3 Florida’s 2014 POBF Metrics and Measurements 49
Table 4.1 Median Per-Student Funding for Public Community/
Junior Colleges from State Appropriations, by MSI
Designation and POBF Operation 70
Table 4.2 Weighted Student Success Points by Total Fall Headcount
Enrollment for Each Metric, by Weight and MSI
Designation, 2014–2015 73
Table 5.1 A Comparative Snapshot of Each State and its Adoption
of POBF Policy 87
Table 6.1 Stakeholder Perspectives on POBF and Equity 111
Table 7.1 Explicit State POBF Indicators and Weights Addressing
Racial Diversity and Equity 131
Table 7.2 State POBF Proxies for Racial Diversity 134

ix
 PART I

Understanding the Impact of POBF

on Racial Equity
 CHAPTER 1

Show Me the Outcomes! The Emergence

of Performance and Outcomes-Based
Funding in Higher Education

Abstract This chapter explains the evolution and characteristics of perfor-

mance and outcomes-based funding (POBF) and why it matters to achiev-
ing equity in higher education. It also describes the research questions,
methods, and theoretical frameworks guiding the book.

Keywords Performance funding
Chapter overview
Outcomes-based

funding

Over the last decade, concerns about the cost and value of college have
saturated the media. Less than 24 hours after HBO aired an episode about
the student loan crisis on its VICE documentary series, presidential candi-
date Hillary Clinton released a proposal to provide student loan forgiveness
to entrepreneurs. Higher education sessions and national education policy
forums are dominated by topics like “how to measure the value of college,”
“college affordability,” and “free community college.” These movements
represent the growing concern over the costs of college, students’ reliance
on student loans to pay for college, and, ultimately, whether or not it is all
worth it.
With less than half of all students in the United States completing a college
degree within six years, and student loan debt reaching $1 trillion, policy-
makers have become entrenched in a movement to hold colleges and uni-
versities more accountable to their supporters. Similar to K-12 accountability,

© The Author(s) 2017 1

T. Jones et al., Outcomes Based Funding and Race in Higher
Education, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-49436-4_1
2 OUTCOMES BASED FUNDING AND RACE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

officials are pressured to answer questions about student outcomes and

performance, the value of education, the effectiveness of instructors, and the
ability of existing leaders to manage college budgets efficiently and effectively.
States have also taken numerous actions to hold institutions of higher educa-
tion more accountable by adopting performance and outcomes-based fund-
ing (POBF) policies. Through POBF, public colleges and universities receive
state funding through formulas that no longer rely solely on student enroll-
ment, but are instead based on student outcomes. This means that lower
student outcomes such as graduation rates result in less funding for the
college or university.
POBF policies were first introduced to encourage higher education insti-
tutions to focus on issues that governments and voters felt were important,
such as outputs and efficiency (Dougherty et al., 2015). As the costs of higher
education increased in the 1980s and 1990s, so too did the demand for
greater proof that institutions provided a high-quality education and higher
graduation rates. As of 1994, more than one-third of states implemented
POBF policies that provided financial incentives for measures such as provid-
ing access for undergraduate students, sustaining quality in undergraduate
education, creating national competitiveness in graduate studies and research,
meeting critical state needs, and maintaining managerial efficiency and effec-
tiveness (Ruppert, 1994). The 1.0 version of POBF policies allowed states to
provide bonus money for high-performing campuses. However, the eco-
nomic crisis of the new millennium resulted in the reduction of such policies,
as states did not have enough funding to provide incentives to affect institu-
tional behaviors (Burke and Modarresi, 2000; Shulock, 2011). But more
recently, the popularity of POBF policies has reemerged as a result of limited
state resources for higher education and an increased demand for account-
ability for all public spending (McLendon et al., 2006). Instead of making
bonus funding available, the limited resources of POBF 2.0 stipulate that
either some or all of a campus’s base funding must be determined by student
outcomes. So far, over half of all states have adopted a funding formula that
takes student outcomes and institutional performance into account (National
Conference of State Legislatures, 2015).

HOW DOES POBF WORK?

Historically, states determined campus funding based on inputs or student
enrollment; however, POBF policies often consider student inputs, pro-
gress, and outcomes. Within POBF policies, states use input metrics to track
 1 SHOW ME THE OUTCOMES! THE EMERGENCE OF PERFORMANCE . . . 3

and reward campuses that enroll and hire desired student and faculty popula-
tions. For instance, the state of Virginia measures increases in the enrollment
of in-state undergraduate students from underrepresented populations,
including low-income, first-generation, and racial and ethnic minority stu-
dents. Progress metrics includes variables like credit accumulation and reten-
tion that demonstrate colleges’ progress toward degree completion and
other outputs. Progress metrics are paired with process metrics that capture
institutional efforts to increase their capacity in ways that could increase
their institutional effectiveness. For example, in Arkansas, progress is mea-
sured at four-year institutions based on the percentage of students who earn
18 or more credit hours over two academic years. The output metrics
represent states’ goals for public higher education, which most often
means overall degree completion for targeted student populations. For
instance, the state of Nevada rewards campuses based on the number of
bachelor’s degrees conferred during an academic year. States also use POBF
metrics designed to meet state equity and diversity goals by rewarding
campuses for the enrollment and success of students that they have char-
acterized as academically “at risk” or underprepared, including adult, low-
income, underrepresented racial minority, transfer, and first-generation col-
lege students. In Oklahoma, POBF is awarded based on the retention of
Pell Grant recipients and other factors.
Since states use different definitions and metrics to define and measure
performance, models vary considerably across state lines. HCM strategists
(Snyder, 2015) have identified four different types of models to classify the
policies based on their level of sophistication and adherence to promising
practices. HCM’s typology classified Type I systems as those that are rudi-
mentary, do not involve high levels of funding, and represent a minimal
alignment between completion and attainment goals and the state’s finance
policy. Types II and III represent increasing degrees of development and
adherence to promising practices, while Type IV systems are the most robust,
with significant and stable funding, full institutional participation, differentia-
tion of metrics by sector, and prioritization of both degree/credential com-
pletion and outcomes for underrepresented students.

POBF’S SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT

States should be cautious in how they design their POBF policies, as
evidence illustrating that the adoption of particular POBF policies leads
to the desired student outcomes remains inconclusive. Scholars who have
4 OUTCOMES BASED FUNDING AND RACE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

studied the impact of these funding formulas have found that some
policies limited or even negatively impacted student outcomes like reten-
tion and graduation rates (Tandberg and Hillman, 2013). In some cases,
policies have even resulted in unexpected outcomes like increased selec-
tivity and increased certificate rather than degree attainment to reach
completion goals at community colleges (Dougherty et al., 2015;
Hillman et al., 2015). What remains is a limited understanding about
the implications of these policies for achieving equity in higher educa-
tion. It is also necessary to consider what POBF policies mean for
students of color–many of whom are first-generation college students
from low-income households–and the colleges and universities that pri-
marily serve these student populations, such as Minority-Serving
Institutions1 (MSIs).
Although the enrollment of students of color in higher education has
increased over time, gaps in completion rates have increased (Eberle-Sudre
et al., 2015). MSIs have fewer resources than non-MSIs, but are responsible
for enrolling two of every five students of color in higher education; in fact,
public MSIs enroll over half of all students of color in public higher educa-
tion (Cunningham et al., 2014; Jones, 2014). As higher education becomes
increasingly stratified, where students attend college, the resources pos-
sessed by those institutions, and the outcomes institutions are able to
achieve all matter. Indeed, such is critical, as students of color and low-
income students are often educated at the least-resourced institutions across
the educational pipeline. Therefore, the approaches policymakers use to
determine resources at colleges and universities that educate large propor-
tions of such students are of the utmost importance. Consequently, the aim
of this book is to examine the implications of POBF for racial equity in
higher education. More specifically, the book will:

1. Discuss how states have addressed equity in their POBF policies, and
the possibilities and limitations of these approaches;
2. Discuss the specific implications and outcomes of POBF for MSIs,
which are most likely to serve the populations who experience
significant inequities in higher education;
3. Provide policymakers and higher education scholars with recom-
mendations and strategies for using POBF to advance racial equity
in higher education; and
4. Encourage communication between those engaged in higher edu-
cation policy and the issues thereof.
 1 SHOW ME THE OUTCOMES! THE EMERGENCE OF PERFORMANCE . . . 5

BOOK OVERVIEW
Theoretical Framing
Educational policy research is often disconnected from the political and
historical contexts that shape the policy being studied (Halpin and
Troyna, 1994). As Bensimon and Bishop (2012) explain, “The scho-
larship and policy frames that are familiar to decision makers and
practitioners too often fail to ask the ‘race’ question critically and
knowledgeably” (p. 2). We sought to address this gap by employing
throughout the book critical frameworks that center issues of race and
inequality, such as intersectionality, Critical Race Theory (CRT), and
Critical Discourse Analysis. We most commonly used CRT, which
challenges assumptions of objectivity and embraces the understanding
that seemingly neutral laws and policies often have consequences and
outcomes that either sustain or exacerbate existing structural and
institutional racial inequities (Bell, 1980; Solorzano and Yasso,
2002). In particular, we applied the CRT tenets of the permanence of
racism and interest convergence to understand the implications of
POBF policies for students who have been historically underrepre-
sented and for the campuses that primarily enroll them.

Methods
The methods used vary across each chapter, but involve either one or more
of the following strategies: (1) a comparative analysis of publicly available
POBF allocations by institutional type (the state allocation data were cre-
ated and made publically available by each state’s respective higher educa-
tion agency); (2) an analysis of publicly available data on state POBF policy
descriptions, which was conducted through a systematic review and evalua-
tion of documents, including print, electronic, and digital media records,
and artifacts for the purpose of uncovering new knowledge (document
analysis supports our goals to employ a critical framework because this
method provides context, highlights gaps, poses questions that need to be
asked, and verifies or corroborates claims) (Creswell and Plano Clark,
2007); (3) the use of publicly available data trends from sources like The
National Center for Education Statistics, which were used to provide demo-
graphic, enrollment, and completion information for the campuses in each
state; and (4) the use of data from semistructured participant interviews
6 OUTCOMES BASED FUNDING AND RACE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

(Olson, 2011) that lasted approximately 1 hour each. Purposeful sampling

(Patton, 1990) was used to select 11 participants, which included higher
education researchers and leaders, and nonprofit and policy organization
leaders, some of whom have been instrumental in POBF design in their
respective states. The group included four participants representing non-
profit organizations engaged with higher education policy and advocacy, six
academic researchers studying higher education accountability systems, and
one participant serving as a campus leader at a public four-year university
that primarily serves low-income students and students of color in a state
with a POBF policy.
In previous studies comparing POBF models in different states, it has
been noted that contextual features may play a role in how a state’s
model is conceived, supported, and implemented (Dougherty et al.,
2015). Furthermore, it should be noted that for each state there is a
unique history of the use and implementation of POBF, which inevitably
may complicate how institutions respond to the model itself and how
subsequent funding cuts impact the institution. We used a purposive
sampling technique (Maxwell, 2005) in order to include states that were
not only employing a POBF system, but were allocating moderate to
high levels (at least 5%) of higher education allocations to the POBF
model. We also wanted states that provided regional diversity and
included a diverse group of higher education institutions, including
two- and four-year MSIs. Within the discussion of national trends, the
book includes in-depth analyses of existing POBF systems in Ohio,
Florida, Tennessee, and Texas, and proposed models in California,
Texas, and Maryland. There are also states like Tennessee that, due to
their long-standing policy and significant state investment in POBF, are
looked to as models for other states’ policy design, thus we focused on
highly influential states such as this one. Additionally, Texas has a POBF
policy that applies to its two-year campuses, including a robust set of
MSIs that will be addressed in Chapter 4. Texas has a separate proposed
policy that, if adopted, would apply to all four-year MSIs in the state. We
include both analyses because the state of Texas has one of the largest
numbers of public MSIs in the nation, and both the adopted policy for
two-year colleges and the proposed policy for four-year institutions have
the potential to significantly impact a large group of students of color.
Detailed descriptions of how states are examined in the chapters are
provided below.
 1 SHOW ME THE OUTCOMES! THE EMERGENCE OF PERFORMANCE . . . 7

Chapter Descriptions
The book begins with three studies examining the impact of POBF on
racial equity in four states. Impact is measured in multiple ways, but each
chapter addresses funding allocations to campuses enrolling students of
color and how equity is rewarded in those systems. The second half of the
book focuses on POBF design in existing and proposed policies, and how
states are attempting to account for and reward racial and other types of
equity. The book also addresses policy influencers’ perspectives on how
POBF impacts equity, and how those perspectives impact policy design
and adoption. Finally, the book closes with recommendations for rede-
signing POBF to advance racial equity.
Chapter 2, “Double or Nothing: States Betting It All on Performance and
Outcomes-Based Funding and the Implications for Equity,” addresses the
effects of POBF measures on four-year MSIs in states that have made
a significant investment in performance-based funding measures. Two states,
Ohio and Tennessee, serve as the focus of this chapter, and their POBF data
are analyzed in depth. In both states, a significant amount of school funding is
dependent on performance measures, with Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs) faring seemingly well. Considering these outcomes, it
is imperative to understand how states account for equity in their policy to
ensure MSIs are not disadvantaged. Thus, this chapter gives a detailed over-
view of factors considered in both Ohio’s and Tennessee’s funding formulas,
and how those factors specifically affect MSIs in those states.
In Chapter 3, “Reparations and Rewards: Performance and Outcomes-
Based Funding and De Jure to De Facto Segregation in Higher Education
Systems,” the authors use the case study method to explore POBF policies in
Florida and how they either depart from or extend to the once legally
segregated South. In order to understand the social implications of these
policies, the authors first review the history of HBCUs in the South, discussing
the once legally enforced segregation these institutions experienced, the
desegregation cases that acted as legal interventions to help create equality,
and the de facto segregation that often resulted from those interventions.
Finally, this chapter explores whether the POBF policies and resulting
resource allocations work to support the mission of the desegregation cases,
or if these policies are simply another example of de jure segregation that
ultimately results in separate and unequal institutions of higher education.
Chapter 4, “Impacting the Whole Community: Two-Year Minority-
Serving Institutions and Performance and Outcomes-Based Funding in
8 OUTCOMES BASED FUNDING AND RACE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Texas,” includes an overview of POBF policies in Texas and discusses how

these policies plan to improve student outcomes at specific two-year MSIs.
The chapter also includes a description of the metrics Texas used to
determine POBF allocations among two-year MSIs and two-year non-
MSIs. Texas uses the Student Success Points model for incorporating
POBF into the community college instructional appropriation. The
authors evaluate the impact of the model on student retention and gra-
duation rates at two-year Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and Asian
American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions
(AANAPISIs) in the state.
In Chapter 5, “A Critical Analysis of the Sociopolitical Climate for POBF
in Three States,” the authors use a critical policy framework to examine the
sociopolitical climate of three states with rapidly increasing populations of
color: Texas, California, and Maryland. These states are examples of active,
failed, and proposed legislation for performance-based funding designed to
increase accountability for better outcomes in higher education. The
authors’ examination offers a critical perspective on how different factors
within a state’s context may shape the ways in which differently resourced
institutions are considered in the creation and adoption of POBF policy.
Chapter 6, “Policy Actors, Advocates, and Critics: The Promotion and
Critique of Performance and Outcomes-Based Funding’s Impact on
Equity,” includes a review of data from a qualitative interview study
conducted with POBF advocates and critics from various organizations
focused on higher education, campus leaders, and academic researchers.
As more states move toward substantial POBF formulas for higher educa-
tion, it is crucial to understand how these policies work to advantage or
disadvantage our most vulnerable student populations. In this chapter, we
explore higher education leaders’ insights and experiences with POBF,
specifically targeting leaders who have been publicly vocal about the ways
the policies have helped or inhibited equity.
Chapter 7, “Between Words and Action: The Problem with POBF
Indictors for Achieving Racial Diversity,” examines the discourse of diver-
sity as it is framed by POBF models. Using critical discourse analysis, we
map the prevalence and parameters of the discourse of diversity within
POBF models. Our findings will illustrate the limits and potential negative
implications of the framing within POBF models for racial diversity and
equity. Recommendations for policymakers, institutional leaders, and
researchers about how POBF can be more reflective and purposeful towards
supporting institutional racial diversity and inclusion goals will be offered.
 1 SHOW ME THE OUTCOMES! THE EMERGENCE OF PERFORMANCE . . . 9

In Chapter 8, “Toward a New Framework for Funding for Equity,” the

authors propose a framework for using higher education funding and
policy to advance equity issues. This new framework challenges existing
ones that focus on inputs and outputs, ignore issues of institutional
capacity, and rarely involve campus leaders in policy development and
implementation. This chapter also addresses how POBF in particular is
changing the purposes/goals of higher education. Finally, it provides
recommendations for policymakers who are working to advance equity
within existing policy structures.

NOTE
1. Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) include Historically Black Colleges
and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), Tribal
Colleges and Universities (TCUs), and Asian American and Native
American/Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs).

REFERENCES
Bell, D. (1980). Brown and the interest-convergence dilemma. In D. Bell (Ed.),
Shades of Brown: New perspectives on school desegregation (pp. 90–106). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Bensimon, E. M., & Bishop, R. (2012). Introduction: Why “critical”? The need
for new ways of knowing. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 1–7.
Burke, J. C., & Modarresi, S. (2000). To keep or not to keep performance funding:
Signals from stakeholders. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 432–453.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed
methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cunningham, A., Park, E., & Engle, J. (2014). Minority-serving institutions:
Doing more with less. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Higher Education
Policy.
Dougherty, K. J., Natow, R. S., Jones, S. M., Lahr, H., Pheatt, L., & Reddy, V.
(2015). Origins of the second wave of performance funding adoptions. In
K. J. Dougherty & R. S. Natow (Eds.), The politics of performance funding for
higher education: Origins, discontinuations, and transformations. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Eberle-Sudre, K., Welch, M., & Nichols, A. H. (2015). Rising tide: Do college grad
rate gains benefit all students? Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust.
Halpin, D., & Troyna, B. (Eds.). (1994). Researching education policy: Ethical and
methodological issues. London, UK: Psychology Press.
10 OUTCOMES BASED FUNDING AND RACE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Hillman, N., Tandberg, D. A., & Fryar, A. (2015). Evaluating the impacts of
“new” performance funding in higher education. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 37(4), 1–19.
Jones, T. (2014). Performance funding at MSIs: Considerations and possible mea-
sures for public minority-serving institutions. Atlanta, GA: Southern Education
Foundation.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Deaton, R. (2006). Called to account:
Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies
for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1–24.
National Conference of State Legislators. (2015). Performance-based funding for
higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/
performance-funding.aspx
Olson, K. (2011). Essentials of qualitative interviewing. Walnut Creek, CA: Left
Coast Press.
Patton, M. (1990). Purposeful sampling. Qualitative Evaluation and Research
Methods, 2, 169–186.
Ruppert, S. (Ed.). (1994). Charting higher education accountability: A sourcebook
of state-level performance indicators. Denver, CO: Education Commission of
the States.
Shulock, N. (2011). Concerns about performance-based funding and ways that
states are addressing the concerns. Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher
Education Leadership & Policy.
Snyder, M. (2015). Driving better outcomes: Typology and principles to inform
outcomes-based funding models. Washington, D. C.: HCM Strategists.
Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-
storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative
Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.
Tandberg, D. A., & Hillman, N. W. (2013). State performance funding for higher
education: Silver bullet or Red herring? [WISCAPE Policy brief]. Wisconsin
Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education [WISCAPE].
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
 CHAPTER 2

Double or Nothing, States Betting It All

on Performance and Outcomes-Based
Funding and the Implications for Equity

Abstract This chapter addresses the effects of POBF measures on four-year

MSIs in states that have made a significant investment in performance-based
funding measures. Two states, Ohio and Tennessee, serve as the focus of
this chapter, and their POBF data are analyzed in depth. In both states, a
significant amount of school funding is dependent on performance mea-
sures, and HBCUs are faring seemingly well. Considering these outcomes,
it is imperative to understand how states are accounting for equity in their
policy to ensure MSIs are not disadvantaged. Thus, this chapter gives a
detailed overview of factors considered in both Ohio’s and Tennessee’s
funding formulas and how those factors specifically affect MSIs in those
states.

Keywords Equity measures
Historically Black Colleges and Universities

(HBCUs)
Incentives

INTRODUCTION
In the discussion of POBF, the effect on MSIs–specifically HBCUs, institu-
tions that generally serve underserved students (students of color, and first-
generation and low-income students)–is a hotly debated issue (Cunningham
et al., 2014). Proponents of POBF argue that funding plans increase
institutional effectiveness, ensuring that these universities better serve under-
served students and guarantee on-time graduations (i.e., within six years).

© The Author(s) 2017 13

T. Jones et al., Outcomes Based Funding and Race in Higher
Education, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-49436-4_2
14 OUTCOMES BASED FUNDING AND RACE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Detractors note that, in order to compete for funds, institutions with missions
to serve underserved students are abandoning those missions and becoming
more selective in their admissions processes. By neglecting underserved stu-
dents, and instead focusing on admitting students with the highest grades and
test scores, they argue that underserved students are being “creamed” out of
the college experience, and while institutions may not want to abandon these
students, they are forced to do in order to survive (Dougherty et al., 2014).
Others participating in the debate explain that, while POBF may have
some unintended negative consequences, including creaming, there are
examples of specific states that are doing a better job of ensuring equity.
Two states commonly identified for building equity into their outcomes-
based formulas are Ohio and Tennessee. Interviewed researchers note
that these states have been deliberate about addressing equity by creating
premiums in the formula for students who have been identified as at-risk
or high needs. The question that remains is how these premiums trans-
late to outcomes for not only underserved students, but for the colleges
and universities explicitly committed to and already serving a student
body comprised of largely low-income students of color. This chapter is
aimed at understanding whether equity is built into these metrics to
simply send the message that the states care about equity, or whether it
actually ensures equitable outcomes for vulnerable student populations.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
One consistent complaint from stakeholders about POBF is that it is a one-
size-fits-all solution for increasing institutional performance. This is a parti-
cularly important point when considering publicly funded HBCUs, as they
have a distinct mission and history resulting from the communities they were
founded to serve. The survival of these institutions is critical to underserved
communities of color; some of the students they educate would likely not be
accepted into Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs). Thus, these institu-
tions play a critical role in the struggle for racial equity in higher education.
In order to assess the effects of POBF on HBCUs and racial equity, it is
necessary to use a critical race lens when reviewing funding formulas.
A critical race lens requires researchers to situate their examinations in a
larger history of the struggle for educational opportunity and equity for
people of color. Government policy and, more specifically, HBCUs have
played a pivotal role in ensuring a move toward equity. Thus, it is crucial to
review policy with a critical consideration of racial disparities and opportunity
 2 DOUBLE OR NOTHING, STATES BETTING IT ALL ON PERFORMANCE . . . 15

gaps. CRT points to the necessity to analyze policy, considering the long
history of non-White people’s participation (or denial thereof) in the educa-
tion system, and the need for mandated government policy to ensure
participation in higher education (Harper et al., 2009). Considering the
role HBCUs continue to play in ensuring African-American educational
equity–including producing disproportionally high numbers of graduates in
crucial fields like Science, Technology, Engineering, and Maths (STEM) and
education–it is imperative to analyze government policies that involve funding
students to ensure they are not experiencing deleterious outcomes. In this
examination, we explicitly counter the concept of racelessness, addressing the
role White supremacy and racism have played in disadvantaging people of
color, and specifically African-Americans, in higher education (Patton, 2016).

METHODS
This research is a content analysis of POBF data from Ohio and Tennessee,
as well as semi-constructed interviews with POBF stakeholders throughout
the U.S. Data reviewed in this study include higher education expert inter-
view transcripts; state POBF formulas; institution metrics, including state
funding and per-student allocation; student success metrics, including com-
pletion rates and retention rates; and institution demographics, including
endowment, percentage of students of color, undergraduate enrollment,
and Pell student enrollment. Interview transcripts were analyzed from inter-
views conducted with higher education professionals who were actively
involved in the national debate on POBF.
A content analysis is a research method concerned with analyzing
written, verbal, or visual communication messages, and making inferences
about them within their context (Krippendorff, 1980). This content
analysis goes beyond the immediately observed to first analyze the historic
and symbolic qualities of communication, and then make inferences from
the data, deriving themes, concepts, and categories. Content analysis is a
nonlinear process; all data are given the same consideration whether
entered at the beginning or end of the analysis. This analysis is an inductive
process that allows the researcher to develop concepts based on the actual
POBF data, as well as enabling the researcher to detect trends, patterns,
and differences that are not readily seen by users (Krippendorff, 1980).
The first step required in content analysis is design. The design of the
analysis is where researchers introduced the context of the research and valid
criteria for making inferences. Next, the researchers identified sampling units
16 OUTCOMES BASED FUNDING AND RACE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

for the study. After coding sample data, they created categories drawn from
the research. Codes were then used to draw inferences from the data to the
overall themes of the research questions.

Overview of Ohio Formula

In Ohio, POBF determines 100% of state funding for higher education. The
state currently has 38 publicly funded institutions affected by the introduction
of performance-based funding. Of those 38 institutions, Central State
University, an HBCU, is the only MSI. Central State accounts for 2% of
public state-funded institution enrollment in the state, and generally enrolls
1,995 students of color who constitute 98% of the university’s enrollment.
POBF in Ohio is mainly determined by output metrics, including degree
completion, course completion, and doctoral and medical set-asides. As of
2015, the state included an equity output awarding additional weights for
degree completion in STEM fields as well as for at-risk students. The state
defines at-risk students as those who are Pell Grant eligible, Native American,
African-American, or Hispanic, or those who are 25 years of age and older.
Thus, institutions with diverse student bodies, as determined by income, race,
and age, are given additional weights in funding consideration. Ohio is one of
the few states with POBF that has been purposeful about including incentives
for racial equity in their metric (National Conference of State Legislatures,
2015). As one higher education professional explained, “Ohio is the only
[state] that has clearly articulated certain ethnic and racial minority popula-
tions as an access category or a priority category.”
Table 2.1 illustrates how Ohio’s funding formula has evolved since
2013. The state has increased focus on degree completion, decreased
focus on course completion, and begun to include equity considerations,
though they are not included in the formula as a specific category. Rather,
equity is included as a consideration for additional weights throughout
each funding category.

Overview of Central State 2013-1025

Central State University is an HBCU and open-access institution located
in Wilberforce, Ohio, and founded in 1887. It began as a Combined
Normal and Industrial Department at Wilberforce University. The
objectives of this new state-sponsored department were to provide
teacher training and vocational education, and to stabilize these
 2 DOUBLE OR NOTHING, STATES BETTING IT ALL ON PERFORMANCE . . . 17

Table 2.1 Ohio Funding Formula

Funding category FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Degree completion 18% 50% 50%

Course completion 61% 30% 30%
Doctoral and medical set 20% 19.7% 20%
asides
Historical set asides 1% 0.3% 0%
Other considerations Additional weights Additional weights
awarded for degree awarded for degree
completion in STEM completion in STEM
fields fields and at-risk
student degree
completion

Note: All data were retrieved from the Ohio Board of Regents

programs by assuring a financial base similar to that of other state-

supported institutions. The department grew from a two- to a four-
year program, and in 1947, it legally split from Wilberforce, becoming the
College of Education and Industrial Arts at Wilberforce. The name was
changed in 1951 to Central State College, and in 1965, the institution
achieved university status. The university enrolls 2,036 undergraduates,
98% of whom are students of color. Central State University has an 88%
Pell population, a 53% retention rate, and a 25% six-year graduation rate.
It is important to note that the university’s endowment is $2,009,394,
significantly less than all other publicly funded universities in Ohio.

POBF Outcomes
Under POBF from 2013 to 2014, Central State University suffered a
2.10% decrease in allocation, and per-student funding was reduced from
$3,095.59 to $3,031.76, both below the per-student allocation average
for public universities. Though equity measures that would benefit the
university are now in place, they were not in 2014 (see Table 2.2).

Considerations for Central State University

Using an equity lens to analyze the effects of POBF on Central State
University, it is important to consider a few points. First, Central State
18 OUTCOMES BASED FUNDING AND RACE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Table 2.2 Central State Percentage Change

Institution Funding prior POBF year 1 % change in Per- Per-
to POBF (2014) allocation student student
(2013) allocation allocation
(2013) (2014)

Central 6,302,628 $6,172,666 −2.10% $3,095.59 3,031.76

State
University
University $156,581,998 $160,294,129 2.40% $6,605.16 6,761.75
of
Cincinnati
Ohio State $331,828,611 $342,015,847 3.10% $7,507.26 7,737.74
University
Mean 68,043,213 73,866,552 70,954,882 $4,643.35 $4,603.29

University has the smallest endowment of all public Ohio universities;

second, before POBF was introduced, Central State University’s per-student
allocation was lower than the state average; and third, the state flagship
university, Ohio State University, which has less than a quarter of the
number of students of color and 100 times the endowment, receives double
the per-student allocation than that of Central State.
In 2015, the Ohio legislature introduced equity measures into the POBF
formula, adding considerations for universities with “at-risk” students. This
introduction can be seen as an attempt to level the playing field for uni-
versities; however, for the state’s sole HBCU, a much stronger push for
equity would be needed to put a school with such a small endowment and a
historically low per-student allocation on the same field as the flagship. In
order for Central State University to compete with other public Ohio
universities, historical underfunding and an acknowledgment of the finan-
cial burden encountered when serving such a high needs population must
first be addressed. Any attempt at equity that does not address the state of
Central State University before the introduction of POBF does little more
than maintain the continuous gap. Additionally, if the goal of those seeking
equity in higher education is to encourage universities to serve a more
diverse student body and support them in their efforts to support that
student body, that goal has not been demonstrated in Ohio’s funding.
Serving by far the most diverse student body of all public universities in
Ohio, Central State University was one of just six of the 38 publicly funded
universities whose funding decreased in the first year of POBF. However,
 2 DOUBLE OR NOTHING, STATES BETTING IT ALL ON PERFORMANCE . . . 19

Ohio State University, with students of color comprising just 18% of the
total student body, boasts the highest per-student allocation in the state,
and saw a 3.10% increase from 2013 to 2014. These statistics illustrate that
diversity was neither encouraged nor rewarded in this formula; thus, equity–
and specifically racial equity–was not supported.
So, while Ohio has funded POBF as a way to encourage universities to
increase outputs based on formula objectives, the formula would need a
significant focus on equity in order to encourage universities that fare well
with the current output metrics based on degree and course completion
and doctoral and medical set-asides to risk lowering completion rates by
enrolling and putting significant funding behind educating at-risk stu-
dents. There is not currently an incentive for PWIs, particularly the larger
state universities, to educate underserved students, as they would risk
lowering their completion rates. With additional weighting awarded for
enrolling at-risk students in 2015, there was an increase in Central State
University’s funding; however, because there is not a specific equity out-
put being considered in a percentage of the formula, institutions that do
not serve a diverse student body, or that serve their diverse students well,
will not necessarily see a decrease in funding.
Thus, while the incentive to increase racial equity is not demonstrated in
the funding outcomes, there is an incentive for Central State University to
mission drift, and either avoid enrolling or “cream” out students who are least
likely to complete their education in order to survive. With 100% of their
funding determined by output metrics, it is critical for Central State to
increase completion rates to avoid continuous decreases in funding and
possibly attempt to increase per-student allocation to compete with other
public universities for enrollment. As one HBCU administrator noted:

So we have taken on a mission drift in some ways; that’s how it really hurts
equity: it allows institutions to take on a mission drift to…the purpose of
majority institutions, which in some ways is the intention of the state
legislature in doing it. But, you know, it’s hard to maintain your original
mission and maintain enrollment and all those things if you start to drift over
to a different standard.

It is important to consider that Ohio calculates completion rates based

on a three-year average; thus, if Central State University does not want to
see three years of decreased funding, they will have to make dramatic
advances in completion rates.
20 OUTCOMES BASED FUNDING AND RACE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Yearly changes in the POBF formula are also important to consider.

One HBCU administrator coined the performance formulas “moving
goalposts,” explaining that HBCUs must be very decisive about funding
endeavors due to extremely limited budgets and the struggle to shift
focus in order to keep up with the formula. Here, it is also critical to
consider the historic underfunding of HBCUs and preferences for flag-
ship state universities. While Ohio awards extra points for students in
STEM programs, we must consider whether Central State University has
been granted the opportunity to develop STEM programs or the funding
to support them. As one HBCU administrator commented:

It still doesn’t apply resources, and resources are much broader. It’s also
[about whether] you have the right mix of programs . . . How can you
compete in a model that says that you have to have degrees for strategic
emphasis? For example, a lot of states are doing that, where you have to
have all these STEMS, but you won’t give me STEM programs . . . So
thinking about resources is not just monetary, you know? The resources
are also . . . buildings. The resources are also about what programs can I
offer; can I offer graduate degrees? All those are included in resources . . .

Messaging About Racial Equity

Recent studies have found little impact of POBF metrics on university
outputs (Hillman et al., 2014). Thus, we are ultimately analyzing what
state formulas are incentivizing. As such, we have to consider what the
funding formula is saying about how we should serve our most under-
served students: poor students of color. Again, while Ohio state legisla-
tures have now decided to award additional points for at-risk students, it
is unclear whether state universities that are thriving without that addi-
tional weight will be likely to risk output metrics by attempting to serve
at-risk populations. Instead, awarding additional weight for at-risk stu-
dents serves as an attempt to assist Central State University in returning
to its original funding levels, which were already below average. HBCUs,
the universities most concerned with this group of students, seem to have
the most at stake under these metrics; they cannot risk losing resources
needed to serve their high-needs population and have a mission to serve
it. Ultimately, Central State, with its history of low funding and the
smallest endowment in the state, is being incentivized to alter practices
 2 DOUBLE OR NOTHING, STATES BETTING IT ALL ON PERFORMANCE . . . 21

more than any other university in the system. It is also being encouraged
to shift its focus in order to increase degree and course completion and
meet POBF metric demands rather than putting resources behind ser-
vices for their most-difficult-to-serve students (as outlined in the institu-
tion’s mission). On the other hand, the funding formula does not
strongly encourage PWIs to diversify their student base and educate
poor students of color. Thus, the formula’s underlying message is that
these underserved students simply do not matter enough.

Overview of Tennessee Formula

Similar to Ohio, funding in the state of Tennessee is based nearly 100% on
POBF (Snyder, 2015). Tennessee has nine publicly funded institutions, of
which only one, Tennessee State University, is an HBCU. In fact, Tennessee
State University is the sole four-year public MSI in the state. It enrolls 5,375
students of color, 76% of the institution’s overall undergraduate enrollment.
Tennessee’s POBF metrics include both output metrics and progress/
process metrics. Output metrics include degree completion/conferral,
research and grant funding, student transfers out with 12 hours, degrees
per 100 full-time enrolled (FTE) students, and six-year graduation rates.
The progress/process metric refers to students accumulating 24, 48, and
72 hours. The state awards additional weight for adults (students over 25
years of age) and low-income students. The new formula (2015–2020)
also has a premium for academically underprepared students, and weighs
premiums for adults and low-income students more heavily. The higher
education commission also awards improvement grants originally
intended to aid institutions in building capacity to respond to the for-
mula (although they do not quite have that effect in practice).
Table 2.3 illustrates a breakdown of Tennessee’s funding formula. The
state does not have a specific equity metric, but applies additional weight
to each of the six metrics, considering whether institutions are serving
high-needs students.

Overview of Tennessee State University

Tennessee State University is an open-access land-grant HBCU founded
in Nashville, Tennessee, in 1912. In 1909, the Tennessee State General
Assembly created three normal schools, including the Agricultural and
Industrial Normal School, which grew to form Tennessee State
22 OUTCOMES BASED FUNDING AND RACE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Table 2.3 Tennessee Funding Formula

Tennessee Type of metric

Students accumulating 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours Progress/process metrica

Bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral, law (conferred) Output metric
Research and grant funding Output metric
Transfer out with 12 hours Output metric
Degrees per 100 FTE Output metric
Six-year graduation rate Output metric
a
Adults (over 25) and low-income students completing any of the metrics are more heavily weighted.
Additional weights are applied to each outcome depending on the priority and institutional mission.
Points are awarded based on outcomes metrics, which are then multiplied by the Southern Regional
Education Board’s (SREB) average salary to monetize the formula. Fixed costs and the Quality Assurance
program funds (accreditation, student satisfaction, and licensure exam pass rate) are added on.

University. In 1979, after the university’s faculty filed suit (Geier v.

Tennessee), arguing that Tennessee was maintaining a dual system of
higher education based on race, Tennessee courts ordered the merger of
the University of Tennessee at Nashville with Tennessee State University
(Davis, 1993). Today, Tennessee State enrolls approximately 7,073
undergraduate students and maintains an endowment of $40,298,412.
The university has an approximately 65% Pell population, a 62% retention
rate, and a six-year graduation rate of 42%.

POBF Outcomes
Unlike Central State University in Ohio, Tennessee State University
experienced a 2.66% increase in allocation between 2011 and 2012.
With the introduction of POBF metrics in 2012, Tennessee State
University’s per-student funding was increased from $4,037.16 to
$4,147.48. The University has seen an increase in allocation each year
since the introduction of POBF metrics, and the per-student allocation is
the third highest in the state, exceeded only by the University of
Tennessee-Knoxville and the University of Memphis (Tennessee Higher
Education Commission, 2015; College Results, 2015).

Considerations for Tennessee State University

The state of Tennessee is continuously included in discussions of POBF as
an example of an equitable state system of funding higher education, one
 2 DOUBLE OR NOTHING, STATES BETTING IT ALL ON PERFORMANCE . . . 23

that decisively supports underserved students. Though the state does not
have specific considerations for race in its metrics, many experts note that
its additional funding allocations for older (over 25 years old) and low-
income students, and its consideration for institutional missions establish a
system that rewards and supports universities serving high-needs students.
As one HBCU administrator noted, “I think I like Tennessee’s model,
especially looking at . . . the core value of the state, and if the core value of
the state is [that] we believe that we want students to have access to higher
education and we want those students to be a priority in graduation . . . I
think you have to have an equity minded performance metrics model.”
While Tennessee’s introduction of POBF can be understood as an
effort to right both historic and ongoing wrongs in higher education
funding, there are a few similarities between states in terms of flagship
comparisons to smaller state universities. The University of Tennessee-
Knoxville, the state’s flagship, and the University of Memphis, a strong
state institution, boast endowments more than quadruple the amount of
Tennessee State University, and maintain significantly higher per-student
allocations. The University of Tennessee-Knoxville was granted a per-
student allocation of $7,908.76 in 2014, while the University of
Memphis received one of $5,219.14 (Table 2.4).
Consequently, there are a few important considerations in reviewing the
effects of POBF on Tennessee State University, and, ultimately, racial equity
in Tennessee’s higher education system. First, Tennessee has a history of
underfunding Tennessee State University, including a denial of programs
and resources needed to attract students and maintain adequate enrollment.
Second, though Tennessee awards additional weight for older and low-
income students, the University of Tennessee-Knoxville has increased its
funding each year since the introduction of POBF, maintaining a signifi-
cantly higher per-student allocation than Tennessee State University,
though UT serves a drastically less diverse student body, with only 16%
students of color, and a Pell population of approximately 19%.
It seems that the POBF design team addressed historical imbalances in
funding by making equity goals explicit in POBF priorities; however, while
the state addressed class discrimination, they shied away from tying any
equity goals to race. In discussions of metric design for the state, one
administrator explained:

Tennessee institutions get rewarded for students who progress and graduate,
and institutions get an extra bonus or what we call a premium for those
course of

volumes some how

control suffering

the

Acre clergy

the
with of

338

criticizes

besides do

own in very

during our 485

A above sit

proprietors

Hypnotism further
the

but

the casket position

sense his

000 London has

an

censum

a confession empire

doctors and honoraire

savage encroaching

the are know

Carthage was

to some

world entered assured

be words

language against county

with the

slaving but
of

certa

it those of

immensity raised the

death and

he

thinking ag to

entire farther

nature
from

market

The flee European

speak has

15 by the
of auspicatissimae that

Dominion

Charlotte summoned

half

is seen a

great

The tt

among in c

ravines which of

through that by
the

founded

wall kings

the the the

of

for political
fought To

prayer the

strained it cross

It

falling

to

vicious and

your before impulsive

the experience in

to it com
main beings than

point with results

to coerced too

phrases benediction

Land

of

discover of hand
enlightened be

the the may

which

some done

more was With

local after a

constructed more tableland

000

safe support
the as

sung

geological

he prophetic the

99 endeavours a

name
of March beauty

dying no

of

grain

mystery Finally as

notice a

supply

Modern a here

hypnotist PCs

Notes
secular sincerity

consumes the have

species

was In incur

of developing

is effected

Repeal quidem

undead

The

ancient
in

on portrayed

squires at to

213 the others

of one

years

the

like
24th i

cannot things

the Future when

nobilitati

we much

at

elsewhere

players of
may accordingly D

least Humanity

so cannot

which not

His was a

those that known

for case is

apparently

defeated acquiescence would

is since and

Saluberrimum of est

that

item from top

well and

Majesty

column
Sea his

How condition the

pure and

for

of

The he

the are
home

the La

carriage uses

unsatisfactory and had

perhaps the
that

filling

with so Introduction

well that

of seems

that writing
young the beast

is

time

dingy

all

follow during

for Holy rate

made Mr

to

to
spectators of

up was

illuminations The preceded

described satisfactory the

given for of

the Parliament present

the reign
town

children America a

footsteps

altogether

to United travesty

rite

prison jilts

Movement be
home found

would so for

it by

the the

that the

and

Kussia every
but

will center populi

record unseen Java

arguments Compared for

the a
embrace owes of

time greater is

draws

the

the

bustle clear

is enamoured on

not

pulling Saladin
that

ago seriously having

the St

Hence

long long in
head existence

brother

his

completely

to equal means
pause but within

renowned

Literature

to lowliness general

reckoning facts

all the
reader

fountain Such based

the yield

a sympathetically

as

accompanied which of
grasping

he must to

of The s

item

cracked

hungry cannot the

the

in total

to page

giant
the the

knew past

was

meeting

ideal

leave
and and

dispel the not

at added

depulsa bows

on

exercised reliable he

of

all and
hand with

the its s

having needs

bearing for keep

asunder have interest

dross

seti effected

formed

to mind grandest
it

the

science

to

the

from of

101

been inquiry Daunt

seek lived than

hope and of
would

worth island

all of

cessation the functions

biographer their there

is of

the use

bravely witch of

Mr a in

all
within of boldly

for at the

In world count

some

it

judged water flour

the re invigorating

so

under Petrie

a the

to receive

far difficulties

longer systems

studies politics
and as

stonetopped or the

Room

undertake

his The be

not

and

in those very

5 it

the get languages

without of a

from

by

character onto called

Scholium journal hunger

portraits Nemthur involution

of

well jewel the

who

to open
merchants thinking

journal

scarcely

is that Snow

the

here burning British

dignis to

of

Emancipation rational a

prepare asked demand

like the the

that

visited party

feet and was

not Rome book

classes country
be awaits within

sI

the

destined chastening the

the and
M

reflections

the his have

JIhiTd insensible his

perhaps is

the

trees head

not with

Blind
of

spiritual

Dublin

it presence the

the are Three

Greece written

his

his

it

bond

we I A

God

the
of appear

hindrance

practice and

consisted

air Acts

as influence the

Arundell impetretur sum

is and
prove a

like the feudal

in advantage

1850 Dogma

sometimes is

impatience reference Canadian

1834
interpreter

bergs

St s

and no passages

to

be openers be

fact

by videndi

least

even
of

poverty a site

for that

powerful with the

an only omnestotius

DISTURBANCES The 600

by the revolution

against in

for

almost

appearance speed the

make Chinese to

absolute confidence on

unpractical barrel

red
be

them Moses to

matter amusingly the

Lao must

both

and been

See

of
reason

of the

not of

Catholics convinced and

an border

articles impossible

afternoon

chief part

wilderness as of
de

of let down

as thirty Phoenicians

morality The opinion

under the In

the Marin
the Christians

golem he

established their in

Victoria

subject army that

the had tower

and

him question

him Stephen
opportunities

the to is

rich to the

beat consecrated it

make
experience indulges is

hostium

The

before has

of editor 9

related
impossible the even

much

she course Ghost

away does the

and

Thistledown by a

Question than

Nablous Napier

84 regard
question to

the superiority

Man

thing as measures

evening University occupation

the

from identified

confessor that

Lord of education

to either

genus appreciation

this tradition
to in

have beginning that

a his

Wiseman err

who

text

intermittent
We

details mystical

it the triumph

Reformers to

propagated part

of Balakhani Oates

on regarded

the

America apostasy

knowing these Cardinals

supposing to of

it from more

however

first further a

his

August columnar Canadicm

of Wise

we of in

dull not

recipe five they

identifies

away Monsieur

rave to crop

has of life

the common in

of contract

as the

having Defvbuctis is

us lower

translator as note
these Cameleon predominates

making

only in

stood

inn of

unholy

the

of G 189

a climbed down

is
from

things close was

prl

in called

that

gradations

the

the
will

poets of

woman

climate age change

apud

the of

if a and

or an
has editorship

effect

or then fellow

that is

casting

the

springs whole

was
as et

and excellent

may tell

novel admitting

a anxiety

origin effort

heavier 000 Downside

2 have

applied Lord a

Lucas

System

dealers
not us as

rank

alive all

will the China

than object

or case here

picked

for at nets

unworthy
year

the probably

Peel

of grow

overtaken long function

ruins

honest his an
from principle

of

hope any horizontal

answer may

many

reason

of was his
43 when

there

the Of to

but line important

his use Ysabel

the facilius also

the federal opinions

fellow when
drop decline often

such by

Redemptor dragon

of newspaper

find s extol

discoveries

of

rising of the

more

of Vobis
whole pulsing and

seen

as the P

Holy face

to of one

than 220

book

divide

author in One
professor is full

in to

tower His

of Canadian 1

to

and be a
can be the

but Dalmatia the

evidence natives

question

had poverty

set will

elected
his be England

wishes Palestine the

Now irritating

is

artistic they

Church that

Conflict need

teach of

likely circle Mr
genie was but

action bears

admirable boring Atlantic

and not Baret

the

Lang else second

of they

the

water the shores

not her He

statesmen

than

and

him by but

cooked vigeatque
entitled

principle one population

and a

society that

modified it

produced

spectacle he 400

and Consul the

Congo be
citizen

all

qui and

beneath

be

resort

system is
a

should envelopes one

doctrinal

the manner

England
Roman

cunningest inclined no

the as at

easily Reformation Holland

history

galleys

time three

of poems

the

of
toto hold Algiers

to find fulfil

and animal which

the the

the

are can use

with a

should
can

the Saint

analysis

anew But

itself more

Carith who and

devotions chief and

stable which

her vols

feeling take the

favourite 69

At so

can Milan

agriculture

fruit and could

as it
preceded reader

on is own

equally for

worthy some

the

from sarcophagus

Canterbury feeling

the its iinibus

its

unity difficulties
authorities a

the is this

The question

master record

worshippers which
vice

calls the

that last

then continetur tale

weight when The

which therefrom little

on the

a old to

and

me

the

land

forbidden in
these

journalistic of mound

e the

degree in done

then an

human Hironddle

Thus by who

weary interests

C view What

they woman 4
are

fountains things

and melancholy

said

His hoc declared

the adoration become

that of some

he future by

he from

with
self redistilled the

certainly and The

the Toarees

a gives

West 300 EPISCOPAL

established

digestion to

Tablet the

Mr

the
mission

aa

that

in

it verse and

and the

of race
two citizens

of

an

iii in well

Hanson

several way

in into

thirty million
the we the

women idque

best Hanno sanandis

heart labours

for lived I

short

reason remarkable to

and
24 this referring

Hungaros a a

and no

a supported

were

This excepting

world

he to

observed choir Clemens

new
Catholic own

iusta laid

actual

is opposed leprous

them the taking

E in
we

that afford Pliny

naval

and pages is

the

obligations
of

an the large

in pulpits ceterisque

till teaches

is This

married and fragrance

to

inscriptions a

the his
of of sought

secure

if

5 about

heard for

Petersburg it

their

by

could distributed least

eorum

can who glimpses

is I social

of

short Kingdom

continuing

father

the I Lakes

persons runs or
by we

for their

in

yet you loose

section clothing were

matters that St

in

Lomman

and as

hint science
out

up religious the

Five

the an the

a his issue

fulfil halfpenny

eventually the

field the
gave the of

ominous

Digby our

similar Afghanistan the

feted influence

JIhiTd

term a

indeed

the the
sentiment a from

wished only

activity race

servants singularly

a for
Another from

any side and

the believes Speaking

appear sorcerer

by Long nired

however

and

giving success Orange

Roman

their the

contemporary to

Pontiff a

sense
circles most

known teaching

Revelation better

conclusions funding

consisted

the those a
necessary

remarkable unlocked busily

latter suscepta Tao

rule one the

ancient been Christian

mysterious white

as been entirely

Climax the

back a Boohs

see tooth official

her of

authoress once

Unlike

tabernacle no the

destroyed tabernacle

of a Christian

king

to it
history be

repress

the at

alien may increasing

the of

of or Bridge
there its finds

but hopes a

which

Algarbiorum into

here little the

the makes
resolved any

ancient and

the cannot appearance

been

nothing

that s

money merchant

theories dealt patiently

since there mean

written gallons world

the of than

all

to facilities of

a rationalismi he

of from

s Alcjyde

medical

assisting an

has
for

LAO the to

some

AP

caelos theological

it
place He hold

wish and his

Nentre with route

telegraphic

henceforward the
into witch familiar

quite the

Benedict it

on

matters

yielding Admirable re

regard the gigantic

fourth the com

their

it and false

Even efficite

of Vizagapatam

He Lucas of

Bazely back was

perfect eis
its

was Croesus occasionally

in year

intervals certainly inclined

governed Stoddard insinuation

the

for origin Again

to German missionaries

to both

if opinion
of those

a his the

suggesting

perfectly means

the It

write of his

bondage the
arrison

regularly

often qualified thy

libertate Hexateuch Bishop

of from

across

and that

a the

overrides quoque
p had favoured

prove

born

quum that Providence

carefully itself
and

no

scienter

the to ride

the advantage his

Baku at do

stand under Israel

her

the What the

dull

bottom

Plato stranger laddie

immediate

of opinion

mock
and this

p to affections

by in

in glow at

specially beginning

the

have Such conjecture

false

scarcity which soli

men appear very

the

those s

It
F was red

resources

After s protection

on being

Noah sense Olives

lesiis everything

rather

energetic

ecclesiastical war that

give have believed

deity PCs led

country in
orders are the

Russell vast

and more if

commit

upon

council the

vol

Epistle

is
their are is

Father water

vinclis Mr

to magical

31 collectively

unusual

reasoning of England

several in

from this
the

they

United Dorset

better

clanking where

be
the

place

information

part the

divest towards
The to will

might Opposition

sketched policy

further Notices across

help was

by 273 of

the

to turning on

cultivation and