Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Edwin Litolff – University of Louisiana System Greg Schutz – Tennessee Board of Regents.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Edwin Litolff – University of Louisiana System Greg Schutz – Tennessee Board of Regents."— Presentation transcript:

1 Edwin Litolff – University of Louisiana System Greg Schutz – Tennessee Board of Regents

2 In Place22 In Transition7 In Planning10 Total39 PBF 2.0 – Progression – Completion – Mission – Subpopulations Source: PBF: The National Landscape. Sept-2013. Univ. of Alabama Education Policy Center

3  Louisiana Constitution, Article VII section 5.D.4-authorizes the Board of Regents to formulate and revise a master plan for post secondary education.  Included in this master plan shall be a formula for equitable distribution of funds to the institutions of postsecondary education.  Targets appropriate funding levels for institutions based upon peer data.  Encourages and rewards indentified behavior on part of institutions.  Includes a performance factor related to retention and progression of students.  2014-2015 will be the sixth year of implementation, modifications are still being made to improve results.

4  Two Primary Goals › Cost of delivery and performance  Cost Component (85%) › Core – Cost of disciplines and academic support › General Support – Institutional support and student services › Operation of Plant and Maintenance – Physical academic and support facilities  Performance (15%) › Alignment with Grad Act targeted student success metrics

5 SREB 1SREB 2SREB 3SREB 4 Average SREB Faculty Salaries & Benefits $93,160$83,509$70,098$68,300 Average Class Size 25 Full-Time Student Workloads 30 Instruction Amount $124.21$111.35$93.46$91.07 Academic Support/ Services 30% Academic Support Amount $37.26$33.41$28.04$27.32 Total Base SCH Value $161.47$144.76$121.50$118.39 Basic Factor Chart – Student Credit Hour Value

6 GroupFormula Group NameLLU FactorULU FactorMasters FactorDoctoral FactorSpec Prof Factor 01Liberal Arts 1.001.963.9412.044.05 02Science 1.533.007.1719.297.17 03Fine Arts 1.853.116.5117.476.51 04Teacher Education 1.281.963.239.953.36 05Agriculture 2.052.546.6416.376.64 06Engineering 3.013.468.2021.408.20 07Home Economics 1.582.124.3410.794.34 08Law 1.001.963.22 09Social Science 1.641.845.8011.925.80 10Library Science 1.451.524.2212.264.22 13Physical Training 1.36 3.239.953.23 14Health Science 2.873.466.4715.986.47 15Pharmacy 4.004.647.5519.1113.43 16Business Administration 1.411.594.5913.914.59 17Optometry 1.992.565.4619.127.00 19Technology 1.992.566.6115.986.61 20Vocational Training - Skilled Trades 1.281.553.439.343.43 21Vocational Training - Precision Trades 1.702.074.5512.394.55 22Vocational Training - Transportation 3.594.359.5926.099.59 96Veterinary Medicine 1.533.007.1719.2913.63 97Other 1.00 98Military Science 1.00 99Nursing 3.125.326.4916.326.49 Average 1.882.525.2413.665.85 Developmental Education = 1.45

7 $144.76 Base SCH Value x 573 SCH’s x LL Science 1.53 = $126,909 $144.76 Base SCH Value x 246 SCH’s x UL Science 3.00 = $106,833 Total $233, 742 $144.76 Base SCH Value x 15 SCH’s x UL ENG 3.01 = $6,535 $144.76 Base SCH Value x 105 SCH’s x UL ENG 3.46 = $52,591 $144.76 Base SCH Value x 3 SCH’s x UL ENG 8.20 = $3,561 Total $62,687 CourseNumDescriptionSecSCHStudentsDEVLowerUpperMastDoc BIOS1053Contemporary Biology1819273057324600 ENEE2582Digital System Design11234101510530

8  Formula Funding Spreadsheet › Total SCH Production 261,667 › Core Component $98,071,579 › Core Component EOC $90,311,809 › General Admin and Operational Costs › Total Dollars $114,084,325 › State Share 42% › Formula Request $47,915,417

9  Pell Enrollment – 5%  Research - 2%  Workforce - 3%

10  Formula Units – Colleges and Universities  Non-Formula Units – Systems, Ag, Law, LOSFA  Preliminary Board of Regents Allocation › 15% Performance › Maximum -4% loss › 2Year/4 Year Shift › 10% Performance (Pell, Research, Workforce) › Total Formula Distribution for $500 million

11  Total Cost $1.9 billion  State Share $868 million  Appropriation $500 million

12

13 63% Increase

14  Higher Education in TN  TN Funding Context  TN Outcomes-Based Funding  Current Situation  Tomorrow’s Opportunity

15 * Fall 2013 does not include session II enrollment at APSU’s Fort Campbell campus. Source: State Enrollment Collection for Census Date Enrollment

16 Source: TBR TCAT Collection for End-of-Year Enrollment

17 Public Universities Pre StimulusARRAPost Stim 1999-002004-052007-082010-112011-12 State Appro- priations 739,999,930694,121,096735,872,025499,875,300499,157,829 Non-Recur- ring (ARRA/MOE) 190,802,900 Tuition & Fees531,226,348708,690,255806,781,507964,471,0091,054,848,105 FTE97,141102,726107,394116,995118,127 Avg Student Support 13,08613,65614,36414,14713,155 Student Share41.8%50.5%52.3%58.3%67.9% All years equated to 2010-11 dollars / Source: THEC Student Support Historical Analysis ARRA =American Recovery & Reinvestment Act / MOE=State Maintenance and Operating Expenses

18 Public Two- Year Colleges Pre StimulusARRAPost Stim 1999-002004-052007-082010-112011-12 State Appro- priations 248,683,595232,877,040224,020,518185,851,200187,614,232 Non-Recur- ring (ARRA/MOE) 45,671,600 Tuition & Fees115,865,180170,249,534188,705,764269,952,100282,601,142 FTE46,34949,23849,19362,7586,086 Avg Student Support 7,865 8,1878,3907,9917,698 Student Share31.8%42.2%45.7%53.8%60.1% All years equated to 2010-11 dollars / Source: THEC Student Support Historical Analysis ARRA =American Recovery & Reinvestment Act / MOE=State Maintenance and Operating Expenses

19 Formula Systems Recom- mendation ($) Appro- priation ($) Approp Pct of Rec Approp 1Yr Chng TBR Four-Year Universities 525,519,700307,324,20058%4.7% TBR Two-Year Colleges 335,118,700 194,217,50058%5.0% TBR Applied Tech Colleges 93,566,00053,881,50058%3.1% UT Four-Year Universities 370,233,000 212,818,70058%5.8% Source: THEC Presentation – Nashville State – August 20, 2013

20 20 Developing a New Formula Model Source: THEC Presentation – Nashville State – August 20, 2013

21 Developing a New Formula Model

22 Enrollment-Based Funding Performance Funding (5.45%)

23  Enrollment-Based Funding – Tuition and State Appropriations based on current enrollment.  Performance Funding – Standard formula with extra pay for meeting state objectives.  Outcomes-Based Funding (Performance- Based) › Tuition dollars based on current enrollment. › State appropriations based on recent past performance.

24  Measurements – Items by system (Univ. & Com. Col.)  Scales – State weights and measurement equivalency  Institutional Weights - By institutional mission  State 40% Premiums - Currently adult and low-income  Translate to Dollar Amount - SREB Faculty Salary Averages  Funding › THEC Recommendation (November) › Governor’s Budget (December) › Legislative Appropriations (April) › System Tuition and Fees (June)

25 25 TN Outcomes-Based Formula University Weighting Structure – 40% Premium in Yellow Universities APSUUMUTK Students Accumulating 24 hrs 3%2% Students Accumulating 48 hrs 5%3% Students Accumulating 72 hrs 7%5% Total Progression 15%10% Bachelors and Associates 25% 15% Masters / Ed Specialist Degrees 20%15% Doctoral / Law Degrees 0%10% Research and Service 10%12.5%15% Transfers Out with 12 hrs 10%5% Degrees per 100 FTE 10%7.5%10% Six-Year Graduation Rate 10%15%20% 100% Source: Funding Formula Model Simulation -THEC Website

26 26 TN Outcomes-Based Formula Two-Year College Weighting Structure –40% Premium in Yellow Community CollegesNESCCPSCCVSCC Students Accumulating 12 hrs4%6%2% Students Accumulating 24 hrs5%7%3% Students Accumulating 36 hrs6%7%5% Total Progression 15%20%10% Dual Enrollment5%10% Associates20% Certificates 1-2 Years17%0%4% Certificates Less Than 1 Year3%5%16% Total Certificates 20%5%20% Job Placements10% 5% Remedial & Developmental Success5% 10% Transfers Out with 12 hrs10%15% Workforce Training (Contact Hours)5%10%5% Awards per 100 FTE10%5% 100% Source: Funding Formula Model Simulation -THEC Website

27 27 Formula Share of Available State Funding Source: THEC Presentation – Nashville State – August 20, 2013 Institution2011-122012-132013-14 Austin Peay 3.6%3.9%4.0% East Tennessee 5.9%5.8%5.9% Middle Tennessee 9.8%10.0%9.8% Tennessee State 4.0% 3.9% Tennessee Tech 4.8%4.9%4.8% University of Memphis 11.4%11.1%10.8% Community Colleges 25.2%25.3%25.4% UT Chattanooga 4.5%4.4% UT Knoxville 19.9%20.4%20.9% UT Martin 3.1% 3.0% Technology Centers 7.7%7.1%7.0% Total 100%

28 Source: THEC Presentation – Nashville State – August 20, 2013

29  Beginning fourth year of outcomes-based funding.  Phase out complete for past enrollment-based funding policy to use the funding formula to only distribute new dollars (hold harmless).  Initial evaluations and comments on use becoming available.  Used by both TBR and UT systems for presidential evaluation.  Changes in institutional practices.  Discussions for changes in the formula.  New strategic planning cycle begins in fall 2015.

30  When can I change my weights?  What measures should we add?  What measures should we take away?  How can we capture workforce and research dollars more efficiently?  Would a five-year average be better than a three-year?  How will the model perform in a time of decreased funding?

31  Presidential Evaluations on Outcomes Components  Predictive Analysis on Outcomes Components  Increased scrutiny on application and acceptance policy  Increased importance on measuring the cost and effectiveness of system and campus initiatives

32  Changes made › Less than one-year certificates included in formula › Graduation Rates computed with trailing summer  Possible items to remove › Graduation Rates › Degrees per FTE  Possible items to add › Prior Learning Assessment › Reverse Transfer › Benchmark Certificates  Possible Formula Changes › Increase average from three-year to five-year › Include National Clearinghouse data in Graduation Rates

33  Performance-Based Funding is not a fix for higher education funding needs.  PBF does communicate state priorities and institutional mission.  The concept of outcomes funding on face value is appealing to the legislature and the public.  PBF 2.0 in a beginning look does appear to have the capability of changing institutional practices.  Many varieties of PBF 2.0 are becoming available to study.

34  Maintain a data driven approach  Understand your Institution  Understand the politics  Move toward decision support and predictive analysis (big data analytics)  Maintain focus on bread and butter IR activities  Distinguish measures best for funding and for strategic action (Includes concepts from Terrenzini 2013, “On the Nature of Institutional Research”)

35 Edwin Litolff – elitolff@uls.state.la.uselitolff@uls.state.la.us Greg Schutz – greg.schutz@tbr.edugreg.schutz@tbr.edu


Download ppt "Edwin Litolff – University of Louisiana System Greg Schutz – Tennessee Board of Regents."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google