Council for Education Policy, Research and Improvement November 6, 2002 Meeting
WELCOME New College of Florida
AGENDA • II. Approval of Minutes III. Chairman’s Report IV. Executive Director’s Report V. Centers & Institutes VI. University Equity Funding VII. Master Plan
Executive Director’s • Report
Postsecondary Centers and Institutes • Staff report • Council discussion
C&I Common Characteristics • C&Is contribute to tripartite mission of modern university: instruction, research and service. • C&I research and development products contribute to regional, state and nationwide economic development. • C&Is attract faculty and external research dollars that result in scientific discovery and technological development. • The entrepreneurial nature of many C&Is places them in a unique position to quickly respond to needs of business and industry. • C&Is provide training and educational opportunities for students.
Evaluative Core Elements Quantitative Indicators: • Amount of external research expenditures, potential for grant leveraging, number of research publications. Qualitative Measures: • Development of knowledge and new discoveries; • Development of economic growth; • Capabilities of investigators; • Collaboration efforts with other C&Is; • Requests for center assistance in problem solving; • Potential for Technology Transfer; • Education & training opportunities for students
State Governing Boards • Only Texas conducts statewide expert peer review of separately budgeted C&Is. • Majority of C&Is do not receive state review • Established outcome measures include: Intrinsic merit, research performance; • Potential contribution to development of knowledge and instruction, economic development, and student progress. • New York: Legislative Agency provides competitive state funds to centers based on potential for commercialization.
Peer Institutions • More disparities than commonalities. • Variations in definition, establishment, structure, purpose, funding, reporting, evaluation. • None of the universities were required to send an annual performance report for all of their C&Is to a State governing or Legislative Body. • Considerably more institutional oversight review and analysis of C&Is than Florida.
Analysis of Peer Institutions • Three institutions had Legislatively established C&Is. • A majority had established policies governing the creation, evaluation, dissolution of C&Is. • More than half conduct an institutional-wide review/only two do not require college/dept level review. • Criteria for evaluation dependent on mission. • Large Research Institutions expect C&Is to become self sufficient after initial state funding.
Best Practices/Peer Institutions • Clearly defined policies for C&I establishment, closing, evaluation. • Regularly scheduled internal and university wide evaluations. • Evaluations conducted by university wide faculty committee that reports to Provost or Vice President for Research. • C&Is maintain updated web pages with core data elements and information. • Universities maintain current C&I data that is easily accessible to government entities.
Specific Best Practices:C&I Establishment • Institution provides specific establishment criteria. • C&I proposal must contain evidence of why the creation of center is necessary to carry out proposed activities. • C&I must advance the university’s strategic goals, add value to institution’s research environment, and provide for collaborative/interdisciplinary ventures. • Proposal reviewed by Research Council comprised of university wide Faculty members. • Proposal approved by Department Chair/Dean and Provost or VP for Research.
Specific Best Practices:Evaluation • All C&Is provide annual report to university- wide Council on Research charged with review/ allocation of funds. • Evaluation Criteria: • Evidence of quality of program • Leveraged return on university’s investment • Successful fostering of collaborative relations • Contribution to education & training of students • attainment of or progress toward attainment of C&I goals/objectives
Specific Evaluation Criteria • Every 3-5 years, each C&I conducts an examination of its activities and achievements geared toward programmatic self-improvement. • This internal review is coupled with an external review, or a compilation of outside reviews by major funding sponsors. • Review is submitted to Vice President of Research who may put C&I on probation or terminate if goals and objectives not being met.
C&I Evaluation in Florida • C&Is are required to submit annual reports to Division of Colleges and Universities (DCU). • Reports do not provide specific evaluation criteria or outcomes. • Reports are not used by universities or DCU to evaluate, fund, continue or dissolve C&Is. • Annual reporting to central office is ineffective and does not contribute to evaluation of C&Is.
Evaluation of C&Is in Florida • C&Is subject to external funding agency reviews. • C&Is may be part of university-wide accreditation or DCU programmatic reviews. • In general, no systematic, coordinated process for internal institution-wide C&I evaluation in place. • C&Is may receive departmental/college wide reviews-usually connected to faculty evaluation. • Existing evaluations do not contain core, evaluative elements that can measure objectives. • Several universities are developing new policies for establishing and reviewing C&Is.
C&I Classification and Evaluation • Currently C&Is in Florida are classified as Type 1,2,3 based on mission and funding. • As numbers of C&Is have increased this taxonomy has become less meaningful or descriptive of C&I mission, activities, and funding. • Type 1 C&Is have “statewide” missions but not all receive specific legislative appropriations and many type 2s have statewide missions and some receive specific allocations. • Type 3 C&Is do not receive a specific legislative or university budget allocation but do use university infrastructure.
Centers and Institutes Council Discussion
VI. University Equity Funding • Staff report • Council discussion
Most Had Similar Themes • “Equity funding is fair funding within available funds, not equal funding per FTE for each institution.” • “Equity does not mean that institutions receive equal dollars, but rather that a consistent set of principles and funding factors is applied in a uniform and fair way.”
Reasons to Provide Differential Funding • High Cost of Doctoral and Prof. Programs/ Grad Instruction and Research Mission • High Cost of Undergraduate Institution • High Cost Disciplines • Faculty Salaries Relative to Peers • Branch Campuses • Diseconomy of Small Size • Local Costs/Cost of Living • Workload From Part-Time Students
Proposed Definition Equity in Educational and General funding is the uniform application of a consistent set of principles and funding factors for all state universities, which will allow each university to accomplish its defined mission. (refer to s. 1001.02(2)(w) and (5)(a) and 1001.74(7), F.S., for defining of mission)
“Do you believe there is an equity funding problem among institutions within the state university system? If yes, why?” All 11 universities answered “yes.”
Historical Inequity of High Funding for Older Institutions Historical Inequity of Funding Cuts for Graduate/Rsch. Univ. Causes of Inequity among Florida Universities Using Historical Differences in Funding per FTE Not Using Historical Differences in Funding per FTE Inconsistent Funding Policies, Political Appropriations Attempts to Incr Funding Because Other Univ Were Funded for Specific Mission Assignments Unfunded Mandates Vs Vs Vs
“Do you believe there is an equity funding problem between your own institution and its peers?” Nine universities answered “yes.”
Selection of Peers • Variables frequently mentioned were: • Number of degrees awarded by discipline • Level of degrees • Enrollment • External research funding • Annual giving • SAT scores • Graduation rates • Location of institutions
Use of Peers • Monitoring how we are doing • Developing benchmarks for strategic planning
Basis for Inequity Compared to Peers • Faculty salaries • Number of faculty per student FTE • Educational and General (E&G) dollars per credit hour….per graduate…..per student FTE • Total resources per student FTE
Next Steps • Compare university funding to peers among state universities across the US • Compare funding between Florida universities • Prepare draft report for CEPRI’s December meeting
Equity Funding Council Discussion
VII. Master Plan • Committee Reports • Teaching Profession • Workforce Development • K-20 Structure & Implementation • Council Discussion
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development Activities • Roundtable Discussion • Representatives from K-12, postsecondary, and business sectors • Invited Speakers • Background documents
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development Barriers to Workforce Development • Basic Skills • Competency in reading, writing and mathematics (Relative performance to the nation (NAEP)) • Access • Meeting specific occupational needs • Financial aid issues • Articulation between sectors • Attracting Different Populations • Drop-outs • Middle and high school students • Traditional college-age students • Non-Traditional students • Relevance of training to workforce needs, maintaining workforce skills
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development Vision • The creation of a knowledge-based, high skill economy with a citizenry educated to their maximum potential • To Maximize Human Resources and Potential • To Create Environment Conducive for Attracting and Sustaining High-Skill Business and Industry How do we get there?
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development Goals Goal 1: K-12 students exit secondary education prepared to enter postsecondary education and sustainable employment. Goal 2: Adults and youth with deficiencies in basic skills must be provided with opportunities for attainment of skills necessary for sustainable employment and postsecondary education. Goal 3: Training in high-skill, high-wage occupations with growth potential for the State must receive priority. Goal 4: Business and industry involvement in postsecondary training must be an integral part of the workforce development system.
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development Goals/Objectives Goal 1 K-12 students exit secondary education prepared to enter postsecondary education and sustainable employment. • Objective 1.1 -- The K-12 system must ensure all students have a foundation of basic skills. • Objective 1.2 -- The K-12 system must expose all students to applied learning in real world, career-based context.
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development Objectives/Strategies • Strategy 1.2.1 Requirement for the development of education and training plan related to career interests for late middle school and high school students. • Strategy 1.2.2 Curriculum Requirements at all levels of education related to career introduction, exploration and planning. • Strategy 1.2.3 State support for Career Academies/School within School/Collegiate High Schools and other opportunities to integrate academic and career education learning into high school.
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development Objectives/Strategies • Strategy 1.2.4 Provide better awareness of careers to parents and students through Career Prep Ad Campaign. • Strategy 1.2.5 K-12: Workforce Outcomes Follow-up Report by School that will provide feedback to school districts on proportion of students who do not immediately enter postsecondary training and an assessment of the wages earned locally by those students who do not receive a credential • Strategy 1.2.6 Utilize mentoring programs that rely on peers and young adults to provide support for secondary students planning their education and careers
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development Objectives/Strategies • Strategy 1.2.7 -- Better articulation of high school programs with vocational centers, community colleges and universities • Strategy 1.2.8 -- Dropout Prevention efforts • Strategy 1.2.9 -- Aptitude test to determine student skills
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development Goals/Objectives Goal 2 Adults and youth with deficiencies in basic skills must be provided with opportunities for attainment of skills necessary for sustainable employment and postsecondary education. • Objective 2.1 -- Address deficiencies in literacy and basic education
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development Objectives/Strategies • Strategy 2.1.1 -- Adult basic education programs maintained • Strategy 2.1.2 -- Family literacy programs
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development Goals/Objectives Goal 3 Training in high-skill, high-wage occupations with growth potential for the State must receive priority. • Objective 3.1 -- State must continue to identify targeted occupations. • Objective 3.2 -- Increase production of graduates in high demand/high wage fields • Objective 3.3 -- Lifelong learning opportunities must be available for upward mobility.
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development Objectives/Strategies • Strategy 3.1.1 -- Requires a more dynamic system, not rely on state/local historical trend information – see Tampa Bay Partnerships efforts • Strategy 3.2.1 -- Incentive funding for high-skill/high wage training • Strategy 3.2.2 -- Financial aid for vocational programs, part-time students • Strategy 3.3.1 -- Flexible scheduling, weekend and night classes, short-term programs • Strategy 3.3.2 -- Comprehensive distance learning efforts
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development Goals/Objectives Goal 4 Business and industry involvement in postsecondary training must be an integral part of the workforce development system. • Objective 4.1 -- Local education providers and local business leaders must work cooperatively to develop programs that meet industry standards and the local supply of workers. • Objective 4.2 - State coordination of workforce development policy must be improved.
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development Objectives/Strategies • Strategy 4.1.1 -- Corporate college model • Strategy 4.1.2 -- Local strategic plans for workforce development • Strategy 4.1.3 -- Cooperative arrangement for programs like those utilized in apprenticeship programs