Presentation on theme: "IBHE Board Meeting December 6, 2011 Performance Funding Principles."— Presentation transcript:
IBHE Board Meeting December 6, 2011 Performance Funding Principles
Performance Funding Principles General Principles A clear vision and common goals for what we wish to achieve. Process that will strive to eliminate the achievement gap and reward performance of institutions by promoting access, success, quality, and affordability. Include first generation students, low income students, and students who have been traditionally underrepresented or underserved.
Performance Funding Principles General Principles Focus on fundamental goal of increasing completion of college courses, certificates, and degrees. Measure higher education institutions against themselves as opposed to each other.
Performance Funding Principles Concerning Process Significant changes to the process will be made in an orderly fashion to minimize confusion and disengagement. An orderly review process will be developed to ensure that performance funding goals, metrics, funding, impact, and program success are reviewed and evaluated on a regular basis.
Performance Funding Principles Concerning Process The review process will include sufficient lead time for key leaders to engage their constituents. If additional money is not available to fund the performance funding effort, the initial funds to be set aside will be kept at a minimum.
Performance Funding Principles Regarding Performance Measures Performance measures will be developed in consultation with public institutions of higher education, state educational agencies, other higher education organizations, associations, interests, and stakeholders. Performance measures will clearly support state goal attainment. Performance measures must be acceptable to educators as well as to the Governor, legislators, and others, balancing institutional autonomy with state-level review and control.
Performance Funding Principles Regarding Performance Measures Performance measures and funding formulas will be simple and restricted to the most essential elements. Performance measures will be selected and funding formulas will be designed to the extent possible to make it difficult for institutions to “game” the system. Performance measures will use historical data that is currently available or readily available.
Performance Funding Principles Regarding Performance Measures Performance measures will be tailored to recognize and account for the differentiated missions of institutions and sectors of higher education. Performance measures will recognize the unique and broad mission of public community colleges through consideration of additional factors, to include enrollment, progress through key academic milestones, transfer to a baccalaureate institution, and degree completion. Performance measures will focus on both quality and quantity indicators.
Performance Funding Unresolved Issues Subcommittee At the September 28, 2011 Performance Funding Steering Committee, a group of seven individuals were charged with addressing eight (8) complex issues that were unresolved at the full committee level. Subcommittee Members – Tim Harrington, Elaine Johnson, Anne Ladky, Ed Maloney, Santos Rivera, Wayne Watson, and Rita Cheng
Performance Funding Unresolved Issues Subcommittee Subcommittee held several teleconferences and exchanged email draft responses Input from all steering committee members was considered Subcommittee presented draft report for full committee consideration and feedback on October 24, 2011 and submitted a final report on November 30, 2011 Addressed all eight (8) complex issues
Performance Funding Principles Eight (8) Complex Issues How do you finance the Performance Funding Effort? A strong recommendation is that we seek increased funding for this effort and use performance funding as a focal point for discussions on the importance of higher education to the future of the State of Illinois. Performance funding should be structured to provide positive incentives to all institutions to graduate more students. Universities and colleges would receive additional funds for meeting their performance goals.
Performance Funding Principles Eight (8) Complex Issues To what extent do you hold institutions harmless as performance funding is phased in, if at all? Performance funding should be implemented in two phases, addressing short-term challenges and then focusing on the longer term. In the short term, universities will focus on changes in campus policies and procedures and begin data collection. During this time, not all measures will see improvement. After several years, the hold harmless provisions can be dropped since data will be in place and institutional changes will have been implemented.
Performance Funding Principles Eight (8) Complex Issues What should be the extent of a stop loss provision, if implemented? The importance of a stop loss provision will depend on the amount of funding dedicated to performance funding. The focus of performance funding is on improvement, therefore, each institution should be able to work toward established goal. Over the short term, organizational structures and programs may not be in place so a stop loss provision is recommended. After several years, no stop loss should exist.
Performance Funding Principles Eight (8) Complex Issues How do you differentiate between the different types of four year institutions (i.e., Comprehensive vs. Research)? Institutional should be differentiated by: Mission Carnegie Classification of Institution of Higher Education Demographic Profile (lower quartile, Pell recipients, MAP recipients, race/ethnicity, 1 st generation, Veterans)
Performance Funding Principles Eight (8) Complex Issues What qualifies as an Underserved or Underrepresented Student? For the purposes of Performance Funding, underrepresented and underserved students will be defined as: Race/ethnicity for students traditionally underserved in higher education (e.g., African American, Hispanic) Students who are receiving needs-based financial aid – lower quartile, Pell, MAP, and Veterans Students requiring developmental courses
Performance Funding Principles Eight (8) Complex Issues How do we address affordability? Affordability is a very critical issue and concern for student completion in higher education Colleges and Universities must develop degree pathways and advising to reduce the time to degree, engage in financial advising, and other support programs Issue critical for legislature to address and continued funding for Pell and MAP is critical to support performance funding
Performance Funding Principles Eight (8) Complex Issues How do we ensure that quality is not compromised? Performance funding can and should support quality improvement. To address quality, colleges and universities must approach institutional changes through shared governance processes, including contributions by faculty senates and curriculum committees. Implementing metrics that incentivize completion must be done without reducing standards for learning outcomes and must be complemented by intervention and support programs for struggling students. Measures of employment data, licensure and certification, and matriculation to graduate school can be used to monitor quality.
Performance Funding Principles Eight (8) Complex Issues How do we incorporate contributions to economic development (Public Agenda Goal 4)? Higher education is a significant contributor to the creation of a vibrant economy in Illinois. Performance funding models should allow each institution to justify its role in the creation of both the programs and the human resources necessary for economic recovery and productivity. In addition to the number and quality of college graduates and employer-recognized certificate holders, it is important to also recognize the significant contributions from research and resulting patents, licenses, and business start-up generated by colleges and universities.