benchmarking in community colleges status of two national projects n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Benchmarking in Community Colleges: Status of Two National Projects PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Benchmarking in Community Colleges: Status of Two National Projects

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 49

Benchmarking in Community Colleges: Status of Two National Projects - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 134 Views
  • Uploaded on

Benchmarking in Community Colleges: Status of Two National Projects. Jeffrey A. Seybert Director, Research, Evaluation, and Instructional Development Johnson County Community College George Malo Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and Assessment Tennessee Board of Regents

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Benchmarking in Community Colleges: Status of Two National Projects' - cosima


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
benchmarking in community colleges status of two national projects

Benchmarking in Community Colleges: Status of Two National Projects

Jeffrey A. Seybert

Director, Research, Evaluation, and Instructional Development

Johnson County Community College

George Malo

Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and Assessment

Tennessee Board of Regents

John D. Porter

Associate Provost

The State University of New York

two national benchmarking projects
The Kansas Study

Community College instructional costs and productivity

Modeled on the Delaware Study

Collects, analyzes, and reports data at the discipline level

The National Community College Benchmark Project

Involves a wide array of student outcomes, access, workforce development, faculty/staff, human resources, and finance variables

Collects, analyzes, and reports data at the institutional level

Two National Benchmarking Projects
the kansas study
The Kansas Study
  • Supported by a three-year, $282,000 grant

from FIPSE (USDE).

  • Colleges will be able to analyze faculty

workload and instructional cost at the

academic discipline level of analysis.

kansas study history
Summer 2002 FIPSE project approval and grant award

Fall 2002-Fall 2003 Advisory committee identifies data elements, designs processes, and conducts two pilot studies

Fall 2004 Aggregate reports distributed; website opened for peer comparisons

2004 Year 1 project implementation – 50 institutions provided data

Year 2 - 67 institutions participated

2006 Year 3

Kansas Study History
how kansas study works
How Kansas Study Works
  • Data Collection
    • Excel Spreadsheets distributed electronically
    • Data Verification:
      • Missing data and logical errors
      • Partial Data OK (min. 10 disciplines)
      • Confidentiality assured
  • Annual Reports
    • National Norms and Institutional Data
    • Access to Kansas Study Website for Peer Comparisons
kansas study timeline
Kansas Study Timeline

February 1 Data Collection Starts

May 15 Data Verification Process Initiated

June 18 Participant Institutional Data Due

July 15 Data Verification Reports Sent

July 5 Data Analyses Begin

Early Fall Results Available; Database Opened for Peer Comparisons/ Benchmarking

web site
Web Site
  • Kansas Study Website (www.kansasstudy.org)
    • Public Information
      • General Information
      • Enrollment Form
      • Sample Data Collection Template
      • Sample Report Tables
      • Advisory Committee
      • Participating Institutions
    • Information Available to Participants Only
      • Log In & Password
      • National Norms by Discipline
      • Peer Comparisons
benchmarking instructional costs and productivity how a system and campus use the kansas cost study
Benchmarking Instructional Costs and Productivity: How a System and Campus Use the Kansas Cost Study

George Malo

Assistant Vice Chancellor for Research and Assessment

Tennessee Board of Regents

the kansas cost model

Tennessee Board of Regents

The Kansas Cost Model
  • Purpose
    • Colleges will be able to analyze faculty workload and instructional cost at the academic discipline level of analysis
    • Provides comparative data important to accountability processes and decision making at both the system and institution levels
  • Participants
    • Community Colleges
  • Context
    • Modeled in part on the Delaware cost model for universities
tbr context

Tennessee Board of Regents

TBR Context
  • Why do we participate?
    • Part of TBR and State initiatives
      • Defining Our Future
      • Strategic planning process
      • Accountability reporting
      • Performance funding
    • Cost model replaces Board’s former cost study
    • Opportunity for national comparisons as well as a management tool for campuses
    • Provides consistency across system institutions
    • Useful for system policy and management decisions
strategic planning

Tennessee Board of Regents

Strategic Planning
  • Provides benchmarks
  • Annual monitoring of key program variables
  • Documentation of activities
  • Use in Decision-Making
  • Part of presidential evaluations
performance funding

Tennessee Board of Regents

Performance Funding
  • Five points awarded as part of assessment standard
  • All 13 community colleges in TBR system must

participate

  • Report on 4 key indicators (to be discussed later in

presentation)

  • Submit a report providing evidence of the usage of

the Kansas model for institutional planning and

improvement.

campus uses of kansas study

Tennessee Board of Regents

Campus Uses of Kansas Study
  • Program Review or Academic Audit
  • Look at high risk or outlier programs
  • Look at Peer Costs
  • Staffing & tenure decisions
  • Problem–solving tool
  • SACS accreditation documentation
caveats to avoid misuse

Tennessee Board of Regents

Caveats to Avoid Misuse
  • Tool for institutional decision-making
  • Support credible case-making and informed

decision-making

  • Must be used as trend data
  • Should not be used for inferences of an institution

as a whole

  • Prerequisite for assessing the adequacy of

accountability

system level ad hoc committee

Tennessee Board of Regents

System Level Ad Hoc Committee
  • Institutional input through Academic Affairs

committee for appropriate use of data

  • Adoption of key indicators as standard for

framing instructional productivity and

effectiveness reports

  • Development of common questions that would

lead institutions to evaluate their decisions

system level key indicators

Tennessee Board of Regents

System Level Key Indicators
  • FTE students taught per FTE instructional

faculty by discipline

  • Student credit hours per FTE faculty as a

percentage of national norm by discipline

  • Percentage student credit hours taught by

full-time faculty

comparison group selection

Tennessee Board of Regents

Comparison Group Selection
  • Each institution will construct its peer groups

according to three standards, two for System

use and the third for institutional use only

    • System reporting as an aggregate
    • System reporting per discipline
    • At the institution level, each discipline may select peers
evidence of accountability productivity

Tennessee Board of Regents

Evidence of Accountability/Productivity
  • For each key indicator, the TBR System adopted questions to guide institutions in the analysis of their own data
    • What significant changes can be detected over the last three years for the indicator?
    • How does this three-year profile for the indicator compare to that of institutional peers by CIP?
    • What factors have contributed to the changes at your institution around the key indicator?
    • Are you satisfied? Why, and if not, how do you plan to make any alterations to adjust key indicator?
case making a central goal

Tennessee Board of Regents

Case Making – A Central Goal
  • Data must be used for responsible decision

making

    • Can the institution make a case, from its analysis of the allocation of faculty, that it is moving toward improvement in instructional management?
    • Can the institution make the case that it is effectively using its faculty ?
    • Can the institution make the case that it is moving toward improvement in contributions to the institution, system, state, students, or the public?
    • Do these contributions reflect a responsible use of resources ?
system wide assistance

Tennessee Board of Regents

System Wide Assistance
  • Programming for data collection
  • Programming for analysis of data
  • Templates for reporting of data
  • Revisions to/formulation of policies and

guidelines

campus uses of kansas study1

Tennessee Board of Regents

Campus Uses of Kansas Study
  • Documenting accreditation compliance
  • Planning institutional change
  • Predicting academic/financial impact
accreditation

Tennessee Board of Regents

Accreditation
  • Institutional Effectiveness
  • Adequate Faculty
  • Sound financial base and adequate

resources

the national community college benchmark project
The National Community College Benchmark Project
  • Involves a wide array of student outcomes, access, workforce development, faculty/staff, human resources, and finance variables
  • Collects, analyzes, and reports data at the institutional level
purposes
Purposes
  • To collect and report community college benchmark data on a national basis
  • To provide data for comparisons and benchmarks of instructional, workforce-development, and other community college activities
nccbp history
NCCBP History

2003 Project Designed and Piloted

2004 First year implementation; interactive project website designed and launched; 110 institutions participated

- SUNY System (30 Colleges)

- TN System (13 Colleges)

2005 Second year implementation; 113 institutions participated

- SUNY System (30 Colleges)

- TN System (13 Colleges)

- PA Colleges (13 of 14)

2006 Third year implementation; enrollment opened in Feb.

- SUNY System (30 Colleges)

- TN System (13 Colleges)

- PA Colleges (14 Colleges)

- FL System (28 Colleges)

how nccbp works
How NCCBP Works
  • Data collection
    • Excel spreadsheets distributed electronically
    • Data verification: Missing data and logical errors
    • Partial data OK; no peer comparison for missing data
    • Confidentiality assured
  • Cost: $1,000/year per institution
  • Annual reports
    • Aggregate data delivered electronically
    • Access to NCCBP Web site for peer comparisons
  • Website: www.NCCBP.org
data collection form
Data-collection Form

FORM 4: Credit Students Who Enrolled Next Term and Next Fall

Column 1Enter unduplicated total credit students (including those who withdrew from all courses) at the end of the fall 2003 term. Do not I include high school students.

Column 2Enter total students from Column 1 who graduated or completed certificates before the next (spring 2004) term.

Column 3Enter total students from Column 1 who enrolled in the next (spring 2004) term.

Column 4Column 3 / (Column 1 - Column 2)

Column 5Enter total students from Column 1 who graduated or completed certificates before next fall (fall 2004) term. Include graduates and completers in Column 2.

Column 6Enter total students from Column 1 who enrolled in the next fall (fall 2004) term.

Column 7Column 6 / (Column 1 - Column 5)

benchmark categories
Completion & Transfer Rates

Persistence Rates

Transfer Student Performance

Student Satisfaction

Student Performance Measures

Career Preparation

Academic Success

Access & Participation

Market Penetration

Workforce Development

Section Size, SF Ratio, Faculty Load

Student Services Staff

HR Statistics

Instructional & Professional Development Costs

Benchmark Categories
2006 timeline
2006 Timeline

March Data collection begins.

May Data-collection instruments are due.

June Data confirmation reports are

distributed.

July Data updates are due.

September Aggregate reports are distributed. Web site is opened for peer comparisons.

college characteristics
Campus Environment

Institution Type

Institutional Control

Academic Calendar

Credit Enrollment

Minority Students

Percent State Revenue

Operating Budget

Faculty Unionized

Service Area Population

Unemployment Rate

Household Income

Service Area Percent Minority

College Characteristics
national community college benchmark project a system state perspective
National Community College Benchmark Project: A System/State Perspective

John D. Porter

Associate Provost

The State University of New York

nccbp a valuable resource for systems states
NCCBP: A Valuable Resource for Systems & States
  • NY’s CCs are funded based on annual full-time

student equivalents (FTE)

  • CCs need to benchmark their operations to

maintain & expand state support

  • CC’s are as complex as research universities,

which is not understood by most decision

makers

  • NCCBP fills a critical void
suny s community colleges
SUNY’s Community Colleges
  • SUNY’s community colleges enroll 208,374

students

  • 50.3% of SUNY’s overall enrollment
  • Campuses range in size from 21,000 to 1,500
  • Located throughout New York Stake, including

New York City

  • One CC awards bachelor and master degrees

(FIT)

  • These institutions have every conceivable

governance/funding arrangement

suny support of nccbp
SUNY Support of NCCBP
  • SUNY’s benchmarking has here-to-fore focused

on “intra” measures

  • NCCBP offers the potential to benchmark

against true peers and other states

  • For the past three years, SUNY has encouraged

campus participation by paying the subscription

fee

  • This year, all 30 community colleges will

participate in NCBBP

  • SUNY’s hope is that other states and systems

will see the value of this project and participate

nccbp a valuable resource for systems states1
NCCBP: A Valuable Resource for Systems & States
  • NCCBP has generally been conceived as a tool for

campuses

  • Systems/States need this type of resource, since most

community colleges are funded based on enrollment

  • SUNY requires CCs to plan enrollments 5 years into

the future; also update the institutional mission every

five years

  • NCCBP has the potential for developing reports

tailored to the needs of Systems and States

issues
Issues?
  • Participation needs to reach a critical mass –

300 institutions?

  • Gaining support for NCCBP on campus

(some don’t want to be compared)

  • Funding – shifting cost to the campus at some

point in the future

  • Accuracy/quality of data? How best to

achieve?

  • Important that NCCBP keeps the cost of

participating low

national community college benchmarking project
National Community College Benchmarking Project

George Malo

Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and Assessment

Tennessee Board of Regents

uses of nccbp

Tennessee Board of Regents

Uses of NCCBP
  • Strategic planning
  • Performance funding
  • Documenting accreditation
  • Policy development/analysis/evaluation