EDITORIAL: Funding based on graduation rates will hurt Hoosier students

Indiana’s new Republican majority in the General Assembly will be looking at performance-based funding for state colleges and universities. That means the state will be more interested in how many people graduate than the number of freshmen entering each year.

Many of those freshmen don’t make it to their sophomore year. They drop out and, the state says, waste $268 million of taxpayer money. The money is in the form of grants and state appropriations for higher education. State concern over grants are understandable. Money is showered on an incoming freshman and, if that student doesn’t return the next fall, those dollars are lost.

Appropriations are different. Is the state really going to cut appropriations over graduation rates? If so, it will allow fewer students to attend college because the resources won’t be there. Much of college appropriations go to research, which will also suffer.

So Republican lawmakers, like Carmel’s Mike Delph, say that the way to make sure the state gets its money’s worth is to get everyone graduating. This is flawed and dangerous thinking. It assumes that universities are factories and doesn’t take into consideration that students enter schools with wildly different backgrounds, philosophies and expectations. With a close eye on the bottom line and nothing else, Indiana lawmakers will cheat Hoosiers out of a higher education, turning colleges into a low-rent degree mill for fewer students.

Colleges and universities are different from K-12 public education. Going to college is voluntary and, most importantly since legislators are determined to reduce education to fiscal analysis, most students pay for their education. On top of state appropriations, colleges receive tuition money. When appropriations dry up, colleges will raise tuition, though Delph said that would be frowned upon. Without the state mandating tuition control, however, raising tuition is exactly what colleges will do. It’s disingenuous to think otherwise. And these tuition increases would add even more crushing debt to those who do graduate. That’s a disincentive to continue or even begin.

Also, the performance-based funding doesn’t take into consideration the enormous number of distractions facing young adults. Some might find college work too hard, others might join the military service or enter the job market. Still others might take a year off or longer sabbatical.

The reasons are so varied that lawmakers can’t assume that the university is at fault if the graduation rate is not 100 percent.

Another byproduct of turning universities into degree mills would be an unavoidable lowering of academic standards so everyone can safely get through. It’s difficult to see any legislator advocating this since the other side of their mouth is screaming for higher standards in K-12.

One solution would be to give grants with strings attached, such as paying it back if a student drops out. Of course, fewer students would take that risk, being wary of whether they could finish.

No, the traditional funding system — call it front-loaded funding — works because students are given a chance, an opportunity to prove their mettle at the university level. That should be the goal of the state: to maximize student exposure to higher education and provide the funds necessary to keep colleges operational and tuition low enough to attract students.

A college education is becoming almost mandatory for career success. This new funding system will ensure that fewer students get an opportunity for that success.

In summary:

• The traditional funding system -- call it front-loaded funding -- works because students are given a chance, an opportunity to prove their mettle at the university level.