{"id":100,"date":"2017-01-03T08:35:48","date_gmt":"2017-01-03T14:35:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/web.education.wisc.edu\/nwhillman\/?p=100"},"modified":"2019-03-18T14:44:48","modified_gmt":"2019-03-18T19:44:48","slug":"distribution-of-obf-funds-in-tennessee-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/web.education.wisc.edu\/nwhillman\/index.php\/2017\/01\/03\/distribution-of-obf-funds-in-tennessee-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Distribution of OBF funds in Tennessee"},"content":{"rendered":"

The following four charts highlight a critical and often overlooked consequence of Tennessee’s performance-based funding model. The first two are taken from the Tennessee Higher Education Commission’s recent report<\/a> on the “cumulative change in funding due to the formula.” The left chart includes four-year universities; the right includes community colleges:<\/p>\n

\"TN<\/a> \"TN<\/a><\/p>\n

All campuses started at zero in 2010-11 (when the new funding model was first adopted), and by 2016-17 we can see a handful of colleges emerge as winners and losers under the funding model. Austin Peay State University has benefited the most among four-year institutions: APSU funding has increased by 35% since the policy was adopted. In the community college sector, Chattanooga State Community College’s budget has grown by about 27%.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, several colleges are hovering right around the 0% line, meaning the formula has not rewarded them with any financial benefits. Tennessee State University, the state’s only public HBCU, stands out as having not received any new money under the formula. This is despite being one of the few campuses experiencing steady enrollment growth during this same period, rising 5% while most other campuses (including APSU) enroll fewer students.<\/p>\n

The two charts above include a solid black “total funding” line representing the state average. Four universities are above this line, but these four universities only enroll 6,165 Black undergraduates. The five universities below this line enroll 18,869. In other words, three in four Black undergraduates attend a college receiving the below-average budgetary growth under the state’s model. Exactly the same pattern holds in the chart on the right that looks at community colleges. We could look also look at Pell grant enrollments at these institutions and a similar pattern would persist.<\/p>\n

The two charts below look at this in a slightly different way. In these charts, the blue dots are community colleges (n=13), black dots are board of regents universities (n=6), and orange dots are campuses in the UT system (n=3). The horizontal line represents the cumulative budgetary change and vertical lines represent Black and Pell enrollment share.<\/p>\n

\"chart1\"<\/a> \"chart2\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Austin Peay State University is the black dot furthest to the right since it received the greatest budgetary gain. Tennessee State University and Southwest Tennessee Community College are the two left-most dots since they received the greatest budgetary loss. In both charts, we see a negative relationship between budgetary gains and enrolling traditionally under-served students. Less racially and socioeconomically inclusive colleges tend to receive more state support.<\/p>\n

These are only back-of-the-envelope calculations using the Tennessee Higher Education Commission report and the most recent IPEDS data. More research is needed to understand the causes and consequences of these trends. But given what we know about college access and student success, and the role state subsidies play to those ends, it seems that Tennessee’s funding model may be poised to reinforce rather than reverse educational inequality.<\/p>\n

Raw data:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\nBudget change<\/td>\nBlack enroll<\/td>\nPell enroll<\/td>\nTotal undergrad enrollment<\/td>\n% Black<\/td>\n% Pell<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n2010-11<\/td>\n2011-12<\/td>\n2012-13<\/td>\n2013-14<\/td>\n2014-15<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\nAPSU<\/td>\n4yr<\/td>\n35%<\/td>\n2077<\/td>\n5008<\/td>\n11343<\/td>\n11564<\/td>\n11381<\/td>\n11432<\/td>\n10782<\/td>\n19%<\/td>\n44%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\nChatt.<\/td>\n2yr<\/td>\n27%<\/td>\n2065<\/td>\n4566<\/td>\n13549<\/td>\n13606<\/td>\n13530<\/td>\n13104<\/td>\n12661<\/td>\n16%<\/td>\n35%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\nPellissippi<\/td>\n2yr<\/td>\n24%<\/td>\n941<\/td>\n4194<\/td>\n15585<\/td>\n15625<\/td>\n15015<\/td>\n15244<\/td>\n14494<\/td>\n6%<\/td>\n28%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\nUTC<\/td>\n4yr<\/td>\n24%<\/td>\n1255<\/td>\n3520<\/td>\n10106<\/td>\n10941<\/td>\n11197<\/td>\n11265<\/td>\n11232<\/td>\n11%<\/td>\n31%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/td>\nWalters<\/td>\n2yr<\/td>\n21%<\/td>\n171<\/td>\n2550<\/td>\n9093<\/td>\n8744<\/td>\n8390<\/td>\n8010<\/td>\n7601<\/td>\n2%<\/td>\n32%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6<\/td>\nUTK<\/td>\n4yr<\/td>\n20%<\/td>\n1666<\/td>\n6366<\/td>\n23168<\/td>\n22963<\/td>\n22958<\/td>\n23202<\/td>\n23302<\/td>\n7%<\/td>\n27%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7<\/td>\nRoane<\/td>\n2yr<\/td>\n18%<\/td>\n184<\/td>\n2811<\/td>\n8900<\/td>\n8861<\/td>\n8505<\/td>\n8183<\/td>\n7765<\/td>\n2%<\/td>\n34%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8<\/td>\nDyersburg<\/td>\n2yr<\/td>\n17%<\/td>\n671<\/td>\n1583<\/td>\n4753<\/td>\n4765<\/td>\n4613<\/td>\n4143<\/td>\n3627<\/td>\n19%<\/td>\n38%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9<\/td>\nColumbia<\/td>\n2yr<\/td>\n15%<\/td>\n486<\/td>\n2201<\/td>\n7537<\/td>\n7393<\/td>\n7229<\/td>\n7070<\/td>\n6933<\/td>\n7%<\/td>\n31%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10<\/td>\nNortheast<\/td>\n2yr<\/td>\n15%<\/td>\n206<\/td>\n2697<\/td>\n8785<\/td>\n8468<\/td>\n8427<\/td>\n7676<\/td>\n7556<\/td>\n3%<\/td>\n35%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11<\/td>\nUTM<\/td>\n4yr<\/td>\n14%<\/td>\n1167<\/td>\n3368<\/td>\n9118<\/td>\n8581<\/td>\n8311<\/td>\n7942<\/td>\n7471<\/td>\n16%<\/td>\n42%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12<\/td>\nNashville<\/td>\n2yr<\/td>\n12%<\/td>\n4181<\/td>\n5021<\/td>\n14305<\/td>\n14329<\/td>\n14688<\/td>\n14573<\/td>\n14396<\/td>\n29%<\/td>\n34%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13<\/td>\nVolunteer<\/td>\n2yr<\/td>\n11%<\/td>\n970<\/td>\n3029<\/td>\n12351<\/td>\n11894<\/td>\n11503<\/td>\n11482<\/td>\n10725<\/td>\n9%<\/td>\n26%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14<\/td>\nETSU<\/td>\n4yr<\/td>\n11%<\/td>\n812<\/td>\n5119<\/td>\n13752<\/td>\n14194<\/td>\n13960<\/td>\n13455<\/td>\n13196<\/td>\n6%<\/td>\n38%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15<\/td>\nUM<\/td>\n4yr<\/td>\n9%<\/td>\n7203<\/td>\n8057<\/td>\n20299<\/td>\n20650<\/td>\n20443<\/td>\n19939<\/td>\n19850<\/td>\n36%<\/td>\n40%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16<\/td>\nMTSU<\/td>\n4yr<\/td>\n8%<\/td>\n4743<\/td>\n9465<\/td>\n27196<\/td>\n26958<\/td>\n25850<\/td>\n24521<\/td>\n23955<\/td>\n20%<\/td>\n39%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17<\/td>\nCleveland<\/td>\n2yr<\/td>\n5%<\/td>\n294<\/td>\n1681<\/td>\n4944<\/td>\n4986<\/td>\n4739<\/td>\n4830<\/td>\n4648<\/td>\n6%<\/td>\n35%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18<\/td>\nJackson<\/td>\n2yr<\/td>\n5%<\/td>\n1169<\/td>\n2026<\/td>\n7412<\/td>\n6752<\/td>\n6172<\/td>\n6180<\/td>\n6616<\/td>\n18%<\/td>\n33%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19<\/td>\nTTU<\/td>\n4yr<\/td>\n5%<\/td>\n409<\/td>\n3640<\/td>\n10352<\/td>\n10940<\/td>\n11005<\/td>\n11252<\/td>\n11331<\/td>\n4%<\/td>\n32%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20<\/td>\nMotlow<\/td>\n2yr<\/td>\n3%<\/td>\n581<\/td>\n1411<\/td>\n6878<\/td>\n6689<\/td>\n6391<\/td>\n6434<\/td>\n6299<\/td>\n9%<\/td>\n22%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21<\/td>\nTSU<\/td>\n4yr<\/td>\n0%<\/td>\n5702<\/td>\n4409<\/td>\n7816<\/td>\n8231<\/td>\n7909<\/td>\n7869<\/td>\n8168<\/td>\n70%<\/td>\n56%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22<\/td>\nSouthwest<\/td>\n2yr<\/td>\n-8%<\/td>\n9023<\/td>\n6282<\/td>\n19989<\/td>\n19592<\/td>\n17949<\/td>\n16180<\/td>\n15335<\/td>\n59%<\/td>\n39%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The following four charts highlight a critical and often overlooked consequence of Tennessee’s performance-based funding model. The first two are taken from the Tennessee Higher Education Commission’s recent report on the “cumulative change in funding due to the formula.” The left chart includes four-year universities; the right includes community colleges: All campuses started at zero […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-community-college-research"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.education.wisc.edu\/nwhillman\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.education.wisc.edu\/nwhillman\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.education.wisc.edu\/nwhillman\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.education.wisc.edu\/nwhillman\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.education.wisc.edu\/nwhillman\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=100"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/web.education.wisc.edu\/nwhillman\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.education.wisc.edu\/nwhillman\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.education.wisc.edu\/nwhillman\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.education.wisc.edu\/nwhillman\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}