美国公立高等教育绩效拨款的发展及趋势被引量：3

Development and Trend Analysis of Performance Funding of American Public Higher Education

下载PDF

导出

摘要美国公立高等教育绩效拨款源于对教育质量的问责。绩效拨款1.0主要由立法机关授权并规定绩效拨款指标,侧重产出与结果;绩效拨款被作为额外的奖励,比例小。绩效拨款2.0是多方共同协商的结果,侧重大学教育完成与学习进展;简化的核心绩效指标被纳入基础预算中,并考虑了不同的院校特征。绩效拨款将成为美国公立高等教育财政的必然趋势,未来会进一步关注公平与平等的绩效标准。我国高等教育财政拨款改革可借鉴其经验,如形成高等教育的内外部问责机制,考虑政策价值取向的地域性,构建社会参与机制等。 Performance funding for American higher education was rooted in the ac-countability for educational quality. Performance funding 1.0 was mainly mandated and pre-scribed by the Legislature;it focused on output and results;performance funding was dis-tributed as an added bonus to colleges and universities with small proportion. Performancefunding 2.0 is the result of multi-party joint consultation;it focuses on college educationcompletion and learning progress;key and simplified performance indicators were includedin the base budget by taking into account different campus characteristics. Performancefunding will become an inevitable trend in American public higher education finance,fur-ther focusing on fair and equal performance standards. Higher education funding reform ofChina can learn from it such as internal and external accountability mechanisms,regionalpolicy value orientation and social participation mechanisms.

作者徐赟

机构地区华中科技大学教育科学研究院

出处《外国教育研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2016年第3期58-68,共11页 Studies in Foreign Education

关键词美国公立高等教育绩效拨款 America public higher education performance funding

分类号 G649.1 [文化科学—高等教育学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献23

1Dougherty, K. J. and Reddy, V.. The Impacts of State Performance Funding Systems on Higher Education Institutions: Research Literature Review and Policy Recommendations [R]. New York: CCRC Working Paper No. 37. Community College Research Center, Columbia University, 2011 : 1.
2Albright, B.. Tip sheet: Higher education performance funding 2.0 (Making Opportunity Afford- able Initiative) [R]. Indianapolis: Lumina Foundation,2009: 1-4.
3Longanecker, D.. Performance funding 2.0: From ideas to action [EB/OL]. [2012-09-11]. http ://www.wiche. edu/info/lac/2012/longanecker, pdf.
4Dougherty, K. J., et al. The Political Origins of Performance Funding 2.0 in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee: Theoretical Perspectives and Comparisons With Performance Funding 1.0 [R]. New York: CCRC Working Paper No. 68. Community College Research Center, Columbia University, 2014:11-17.
5蔡国春.美国院校研究的质量旨趣——基于高等教育问责制背景的历史考察[J].教育研究,2013,34(12):129-135. 被引量：11
6Mortimer, K. P.. Accountability in higher education [R]. Washington, D.C : the American Associ- ation for Higher Education, 1972:10-12.
7Burke, J. C., Jeff, R., Minassians, H., Lessard, T.. Performance Funding and Budgeting: An Emerging Merger, the 4th Annual Survey [R]. Albany, New York: Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York, 2000: 5-9.
8Burke, J. C., Minassians, H.. Performance Reporting: The Preferred "no Cost" Accountability Program: the Sixth Annual Report [R]. Albany, New York: Rockefeller Institute of Government, State Uni- versity of New York, 2002:1-5.
9Burke, J. C., Minassians, H.. Real accountability of accountability lite: the Seventh annual sur- vey [R]. Albany, New York: Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York, 2003 : 3- 7.
10Rabovsky, T. M.. Accountability in Higher Education: Exploring Impacts on State Budgets and Institutional Spending Patterns [J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2012,22 (4) : 675-700.