In this article, the authors examine the new voucher program used to subsidize undergraduate education at Colorado community colleges and four-year institutions. The authors explain the voucher program and discuss the fiscal and policy conditions that led to its adoption. This baseline account of the voucher program and the underlying conditions leading to its enactment provides a foundation for further community college research concerning open access, the comprehensive mission, student participation, and organizational culture.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Albert, M. (2003). Universities and the market economy: The differential impact on knowledge production in sociology and economics. Higher Education45, 147-182.
2.
Banta, T. W., Rudolph, L. B., Van Dyke, J., & Fisher, H. S. (1996). Performance funding comes of age in Tennessee. Journal of Higher Education, 67(1), 23-45.
3.
Bell Policy Center. (2003). Ten years of TABOR: A study of Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. Denver, CO: Bell Policy Center.
4.
Blue Ribbon Panel (2003, January 10). Final report of the Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel on Higher Education for the 21st Century. Denver: Colorado Commission on Higher Education.
5.
Burke, J. C. & Minassians, H. (2003). Performance reporting: “Real” accountability or accountability “lite”—Seventh annual survey 2003. Albany, NY: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
6.
Burke, J. C., & Modarresi, S. (1999). Performance funding and budgeting: Popularity and volatility—The third annual survey. Albany, NY: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
7.
Cada, C. (2004, June 13). Colorado set to try college vouchers: Public universities to lose students, money, critics say. The Boston Globe, pp. A26-A26.
8.
Colorado Constitution, Article X, Section 20, The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, (1992).
9.
Colorado Department of Higher Education. (2004). State of Colorado, Department of Higher Education Performance Contract with the State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational Education. Unpublished government document.
10.
Dill, D. D. (1997). Higher education markets and public policy. Higher Education Policy, 10(3/4), 167-185.
11.
Dill, D. D. (2003). Allowing the market to rule: The case of the United States. Higher Education Quarterly57(2), 136-157.
12.
Dill, D. D., Massy, W. F., Williams, P. R., & Cook, C. M. (1996, September/October). Accreditation and academic quality assurance: Can we get there from here?Change, 28(5), 16-25.
13.
Dill, D. D. & Soo, M. (2004). Transparency and quality in higher education markets. In P. Teixeira, B. Jongbloed, D. Dill, & A. Amaral (Eds.), Markets in higher education: Rhetoric or reality? (pp. 61-85). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
14.
Dunderstadt, J. J. & Womack, F. W. (2003). The future of the public university in America: Beyond the crossroads. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
15.
Ewell, P. T. (1994, November/December). A matter of integrity: Accountability and the future of self regulation. Change, 26(6), 24-29.
16.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Geiger, R. (2004). Market coordination of higher education: The United States. In P. Teixeira, B. Jongbloed, D. Dill, & A. Amaral (Eds.), Markets in higher education: Rhetoric or reality? (pp. 161-183). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
18.
Harbour, C. P. (2002). The legislative evolution of performance funding in the North Carolina Community College System. Community College Review, 29(4), 28-49.
19.
Henley, K. (2004, May 3). Voucher experiment expands to colleges: Colorado will become first state to give money to students instead of schools. The Christian Science Monitor, p. 3-3.
20.
House Bill 85-1187: An act concerning the reorganization of higher education. Colorado Session Laws, L. 1985, p. 750-750. (1985) (enacted).
21.
House Bill 96-1219: The Higher Education Quality Assurance Act. Colorado Session Laws, L. 1996, p. 1821-1821. (1996) (enacted).
22.
House Bill 03-1336: A bill for an act concerning financing public institutions of higher education. (2003) (unenacted).
Jongbloed, B. (2003). Marketisation in higher education, Clark's Triangle and the essential ingredients of markets. Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2), 110-135.
26.
Jongbloed, B. (2004). Regulation and competition in higher education. In P. Teixeira, B. Jongbloed, D. Dill, & A. Amaral (Eds.), Markets in higher education: Rhetoric or reality? (pp. 87-111). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
27.
Jongbloed, B., & Koelman, J. (2000). Vouchers for higher education? A survey of the literature commissioned by the Hong Kong University Grants Committee. Unpublished manuscript, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente, Netherlands.
28.
Kearns, K. P. (1998). Institutional accountability in higher education: A strategic approach. Public Productivity & Management Review, 22(2), 140-156.
29.
Leatherman, C. (1995, June 9). Failure in national accrediting: Strong opposition from colleges guts plan for more-uniform national process. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 41 (39A).
30.
Levin, H. M. (1983). Individual entitlements. In H. M. Levin & H. G. Schutze (Eds.), Financing recurrent education. (pp. 39-66). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.
31.
Mason, P. (1975). Education vouchers under test. Oxford Review of Education, 1(2), 159-167.
32.
Massy, W. F. (2004). Markets in higher education: Do they promote internal efficiency? In P. Teixeira, B. Jongbloed, D. Dill, & A. Amaral (Eds.), Markets in higher education: Rhetoric or reality? (pp. 13-35). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
33.
Middleton, C. (2000). Models of state and market in the ‘Modernisation’ of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education21(4), 537-554.
34.
Mok, K., & Tan, J. (2004). Globalization and marketization in education: A comparative analysis of Hong Kong and Singapore. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
35.
Newman, F., Couturier, L., & Scurry, J. (2004). The future of higher education: Rhetoric, reality, and the risks of the market. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
36.
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2002). Measuring Up 2002. The state-by-state report card for higher education. San Jose, CA: Author.
37.
Pfeiffer, J. J. (1998). From performance reporting to performance-based funding: Florida's experiences in workforce development performance measurement. In J. R. Sanches, & F. S. Lanaan (Eds.), Determining the economic benefits of attending community colleges (pp. 17-28). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 104. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38.
Roherty, B. M. (1997). The price of passive resistance in financing higher education. In P. M. Callan, & J. E. Finney (Eds.), Public and private financing of higher education. (pp. 3-29). Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education/Oryx Press.
39.
Romer, R. (1995). Making quality count in undergraduate education. A report for the ESC Chairman's ‘Quality Counts’ agenda in higher education. Denver: Education Commission of the States.
40.
Serban, A. M., & Burke, J. C. (1998). Meeting the performance funding challenge: A nine-state comparative analysis. Public Productivity & Management Review, 22(2), 157-176.
41.
Senate Bill 92-59: An act concerning incentives for improvement initiatives in state institutions of higher learning. Colorado Session Laws, L. 1992, p. 564-564. (1992) (enacted).
42.
Senate Bill 93-136: An act concerning policies relating to state-supported institutions of higher education and, in connection therewith, authorizing the general assembly to prescribe annually the maximum amount of cash funds that may be raised, spent, or transferred to reserves by such institutions. Colorado Session Laws, L. 1993, p. 2121-2121. (1993) (enacted).
43.
Senate Bill 04-189: An act concerning institutions of higher education, and making an appropriation in connection therewith. Colorado Session Laws, L. 2004, p. 701-701. (2004) (enacted).
44.
Senate Bill 05-132: An act concerning higher education and, in connection therewith, making modifications to the “College Opportunity Fund Act.” Colorado Session Laws, L. 2005, p. 701-701. (2005) (enacted).
45.
Stein, R. B., & Fajen, A. L. (1995). Missouri's funding for results initiative. In G. H. Gaither, (Ed.), Assessing performance in an age of accountability: Case studies (pp. 77-90). New Directions for Higher Education, no. 91. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
46.
Walsh, K. (1995). Public services and market mechanisms: Competition, contracting, and the new public management. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
47.
Wellman, J. V. (2001, March/April). Assessing state accountability systems. Change, 33(2), 46-52.
48.
Williams, G. L. (1995). The “marketization” of higher education: Reforms and potential reforms in higher education finance. In D. D. Dill & B. Sporn (Eds.), Emerging patterns of social demand and university reform: Through a glass darkly (pp. 170-193). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
49.
Zumeta, W. (Winter, 1998). Public university accountability to the state in the late twentieth century: Time for a rethinking?Policy Studies Review, 15(4), 5-22.
