Week 5 Evaluating Costs And Benefits Discussion: The Reality ✓ Solved

Week 5 Evaluating Costs and Benefits discussion: The Reality

In Chapter 4 of the course text (McClellan & Stringer, 2016), Schuh suggests there are a number of factors influencing the financial health of institutions that may lead to extensive risks for both students and institutions. Zachry and Coghlan (2010) describe how institutions seek out and allocate resources in support of student success. The institutions described in their study all employed some external funding, including their Lumina-funded Achieving the Dream grant, to achieve their goals. Assignment: Post a response to the following: As a higher education leader at an institution without the benefit of external funding, what types of investments would be your highest priority and why? What types of investments would be lower priority and why? What would you do differently from the Achieving the Dream institutions described in the Zachry and Coghlan (2010) study?

Answer must be 3 to 4 paragraphs and include in text citation of the below learning resources.

Required Readings: McClellan, G. S., & Stringer, J. (Eds.). (2016). The handbook of student affairs administration (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Chapter 4, "Fiscal Pressures on Higher Education and Student Affairs"; Jenkins, D. (2011). Redesigning community colleges for completion: Lessons from research on high-performance organizations (Working Paper No. 24, assessment of evidence series). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. Retrieved from: Jenkins, D. (2011). Redesigning Community Colleges for Completion: Lessons from Research on High-Performance Organizations from CCRC Working Paper No. 24, Assessment of Evidence Series. Reprinted by permission. Zachry, E. M., & Coghlan, E. (2010). Investing in change: How much do Achieving the Dream colleges spend—and from what resources—to become data-driven institutions? New York, NY: MDRC. Retrieved from: Optional Resources Burdman, P. (2009). Sustaining changes that support student success in community college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 31–41. Note: Retrieved from the Walden Library using the Education Research Complete database.

Paper For Above Instructions

Institutions without external funding must be relentlessly strategic about where to invest scarce resources, balancing the imperative to improve student outcomes with the realities of budget constraints. The literature on fiscal pressures emphasizes that higher education institutions operate under competing demands—maintenance of existing operations, investment in student supports, and gradual modernization of data and teaching capacity (McClellan & Stringer, 2016). In contexts like the Achieving the Dream reform framework, external funding often acts as a catalyst for developing data systems and piloting student-success initiatives; without such funds, leaders should prioritize investments that yield durable benefits and scalable impact (Zachry & Coghlan, 2010). A practical starting point is to build robust data governance and analytics capabilities that can illuminate where resources are most needed and how changes affect outcomes. Well-implemented data systems enable evidence-based reallocations, reduce waste, and support continuous improvement in teaching and student services (Jenkins, 2011; McClellan & Stringer, 2016).

First, the highest-priority investment should be in data-informed decision-making and the underlying information infrastructure. A core analytics platform that tracks course completion rates, time-to-degree, advising interactions, tutoring utilization, and resource allocation allows the institution to identify bottlenecks and to measure the impact of adjustments over time. This aligns with the emphasis in high-performance organization research that data-driven practice is essential to sustained reform (Jenkins, 2011). Moreover, a strong data backbone supports transparency with stakeholders and enables targeted improvements rather than broad, unfocused spending. As Zachry and Coghlan (2010) show, data-driven initiatives often require upfront investments in data systems and training; without external funding, institutions can implement phased upgrades, prioritize enterprise-wide data standards, and reuse existing software where possible to minimize costs while maintaining usefulness. In addition, a disciplined data approach helps justify reallocations toward higher-impact activities, such as student support services, which have demonstrated associations with persistence and completion in numerous studies (McClellan & Stringer, 2016; Kuh et al., 2005).

Second, student success supports represent a central, high-value area for investment. Advising, early-alert systems, tutoring, and targeted academic coaching can produce outsized returns in retention and completion when implemented with clear processes and accountability. While such investments can require upfront staffing and software, their ongoing costs are often offset by reduced course failures, fewer withdrawals, and improved progression rates. The Burdman (2009) emphasis on sustaining changes that support student success highlights that the ongoing viability of reforms rests on built-in routines and faculty and staff buy-in; when institutions rely on external funding, the risk is that programs wane once funds dry up. By contrast, internally funded student-support reforms that are integrated into regular operating budgets—with measurable milestones and review cycles—are more likely to endure (Burdman, 2009; Jenkins, 2011). Integrating supports with the core curriculum and making them a routine part of student services can produce lasting gains even in financially constrained environments. The potential payoff justifies prioritizing these investments early (McClellan & Stringer, 2016).

Third, investments in instructional quality and faculty development should follow data-informed priorities. High-impact teaching practices, professional development focused on evidence-based strategies, and supportive work environments for faculty can improve learning outcomes without requiring sweeping capital programs. The literature on completion and student success emphasizes the importance of aligning instruction with student needs and providing faculty with the tools to support diverse learners (Kuh et al., 2005). Although these efforts may require time and some financial resources, they often yield durable improvements in student engagement and success, especially when combined with data-informed improvements in advising and supports. In sum, prioritizing instructional effectiveness alongside data infrastructure creates a complementary cycle of improvement that fosters student success while maintaining fiscal restraint (McClellan & Stringer, 2016; Jenkins, 2011).

Finally, I would deliberately avoid or deprioritize investments that are expensive, less certain in their impact, or not tightly linked to student outcomes. Large capital expansions, marketing campaigns with uncertain returns, and discretionary programs without clear alignment to completion or student success should be put on hold or carefully staged. External funding often subsidizes ambitious but risky initiatives; without it, institutions should favor incremental pilots with strong evaluation components and a clear path to sustainability (Zachry & Coghlan, 2010; Burdman, 2009). The focus should be on building internal capacity—data systems, supports, and instructional quality—so that reform efforts can be scaled and sustained without ongoing external subsidies (OECD, 2019; College Board, 2020). In addition, attention to student basic needs, such as housing and food security, remains essential for access and persistence; neglecting these factors can undermine even well-designed programmatic reforms (Goldrick-Rab, Richardson, Hernandez, & Carter, 2018).

Compared with Achieving the Dream institutions described by Zachry and Coghlan (2010), my approach would emphasize strengthening internal capabilities before expanding externally funded initiatives. I would prioritize internal data infrastructure and student-support integration, embed evaluation into regular operations, and pursue targeted partnerships that align with our core mission and fiscal realities. By focusing on sustainability and scalability, the institution can replicate the benefits of external-funded reforms in a self-sustaining way, reducing the risk of program discontinuation when external funds are uncertain or unavailable. This approach complements the broader literature on fiscal pressures and strategic resource allocation in higher education and aligns with best practices for sustaining meaningful improvements (McClellan & Stringer, 2016; Jenkins, 2011; Burdman, 2009; Kuh et al., 2005; Tinto, 2012).

References

• McClellan, G. S., & Stringer, J. (Eds.). (2016). The handbook of student affairs administration (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
• Jenkins, D. (2011). Redesigning community colleges for completion: Lessons from research on high-performance organizations (Working Paper No. 24, assessment of evidence series). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.
• Zachry, E. M., & Coghlan, E. (2010). Investing in change: How much do Achieving the Dream colleges spend—and from what resources—to become data-driven institutions? New York, NY: MDRC.
• Burdman, P. (2009). Sustaining changes that support student success in community college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 31–41.
• College Board. (2020). Trends in College Pricing 2020. New York, NY: College Board.
• Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2013). Recovery: Job Growth and Education Requirements Through 2020. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
• Tinto, V. (2012). Completing College: Rethinking Institutional Action. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Bucknell, E. F., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Student Success in College: Creating Conditions That Matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). Education at a Glance 2019. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Goldrick-Rab, S., Richardson, J., Hernandez, A., & Carter, P. (2018). Still Hungry and Homeless? Food insecurity among college students. Wisconsin Hope Lab.