1. Making Data Great Again
The 411 on FTE Ratios

2. The Purported Problem
In three distinct venues (the June 10th BOR meeting, the August 10th convocation, and the August 11th Faculty Senate retreat), the President repeated the same charge: that Faculty Senate is misrepresenting data by including MSU’s Early College numbers in its comparison of the ratio of full time faculty to 1,000 FTE among Kentucky Regional Institutions.

3. The Allegedly “Misrepresentative” Chart

4. The Full Context for FTE reporting
MSU does not currently include Early College numbers (i.e., the number of students in our dual-enrollment classes) in its internal computation of FTE.
This has not always been the case—witness the record enrollment of 2011—but the numbers are not now part of our internal FTE reports.
Dual-enrollment numbers, though, are a mandated part of data that must be entered into IPEDS (the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System), the “primary source for information on U.S. colleges, universities, and technical and vocational institutions” that is maintained by the Department of Education.

5. IPEDS and Dual Enrollment #s
IPEDS requires all institutions to include dual enrollment numbers in their reporting. (“All students enrolled for credit should be reported.”)
The enrollment numbers for MSU in the IPEDS database thus include Early College because the Department of Education mandates this inclusion.
This inclusion is not exclusive to MSU. All schools, including every other Kentucky regional, must enter their dual enrollment numbers.

6. IPEDS as the Acknowledged Source
The chart the President wishes to label as “misleading” is based on data the institution itself provides to the Department of Education.
When Senate turned to IPEDS, it was merely drawing on MSU’s own reporting.
Senate clearly marked the data source (IPEDS) on the chart when that chart was presented to the Board of Regents.

7. Why the Comparison is NOT Misleading
When Senate utilized IPEDS data to compare the UG FTE/instructor ratio at MSU to that of other regional comprehensives in the state, it was comparing our UG FTE, with our dual enrollment numbers, to other schools’ UG FTEs, with their dual enrollment numbers. The comparison here is thus “apples to apples.”

8. A Unique Contention
The President has not just faulted Senate’s use of IPEDS data. He has further suggested that we cannot even compare dual enrollment numbers among Kentucky regionals because our method of dual enrollment (Early College) is instructionally unique.

9. Uniquely Unsupported
As a comparison with NKU’s dual-enrollment program shows, this “instructionally unique” contention is not supportable:
Our Early College is quite similar to NKU’s School-Based Scholars, which relies on teachers and administrators in high school to deliver college level courses (see the Teach For Us link and other explanatory materials).
Like us, NKU also allows dual enrolled students to attend classes on campus and have their college instructors teach in area high schools (which our instructors have done).

10. The Real Distinction
The true distinction between our Early College and other dual enrollment programs in the state resides in fees: NKU, like other schools, charges a fee for dual enrollment classes; we do not.
The IPEDS data, which is not concerned with course fees, thus offers a meaningful comparison of what Senate wished to explore: undergraduate instructor/student ratios.

11. A Noted Difference
The issue of faculty/student ratios came to the Senate’s attention when Senate leadership learned that MSU was being spoken of in state higher education circles as having the weakest faculty to student ratio.
On May 18, 2016, Northern Kentucky University's administration presented its Board of Regents with an IPEDS analysis showing MSU has the lowest number of faculty to 1000 FTE students.

12. **A copy of the 15th slide from the May 18, 2016 NKU presentation to its BOR**

13. Why Senate did not use Internal FTE #s
The President has stated that any meaningful comparison has to use the “accurate” FTE accounting that MSU uses in its internal reports.
Senate cannot utilize the internal reports to make meaningful comparisons, though, because there is no way for us to determine the FTE, minus dual enrollment numbers, for any school other than MSU.
It should also be noted that both internal reports and external accounting of enrollment numbers (in IPEDS) are accurate, and that both are compiled by MSU.

14. How Internal FTE #s would Skew
If Senate were to use MSU’s internal enrollment reports, which do not include dual enrollment numbers, and compare these numbers to the data reported by other schools in IPEDS, we would be skewing enrollment ratios in MSU’s favor:
We would be purposefully reducing the number of students served for MSU and MSU alone.
This would make our ratio lower (and hence more favorable) than it actually is.

15. Running the Numbers Again
This time, to fully set the record straight, we started with FTEs that included graduate as well as undergraduate numbers. This inclusion narrowed the gap (because MSU has a modest graduate enrollment, compared to other regionals), but it did not shift our overall position. MSU still has the weakest ratio.

16. FTE #s here include all students, graduate as well as undergraduate.

17. Confirmation
The newest chart confirms what was in NKU presentation and the graph sent to the BOR: MSU has the lowest number of full time instructors to students.
We only increase our position if we remove our EC numbers, and this give ourselves an advantage not given to other schools

18. Does Skewing Make a Difference?
Skewing the data in MSU’s favor, using the internal enrollment figures without Early College (to determine MSU’s ratio) and IPEDS figures with dual enrollment credit (for everyone else), does ameliorate MSU’s position.
Even with this unfair advantage, though, wherein we compare apples to oranges, MSU is only “average” in its ratio of full time instructors to students.

20. Shifting to the Internal
So what happens when we shift to the internal reporting mechanisms the President wishes us to utilize in order to be accurate and find ways to compare “apples to apples” regarding instructional resources among regionals?
Let’s look at institutional budgets with which we are most often compared, internal institutional reports where the percentage and the total value of instructional spending can be found (on the expenditure summary page).

21. Comparison of Instructional Spending among Regionals

22. Comparison of Instructional Spending Changes (over time) among Regionals

23. Change in MSU Budget (and Budgeting Priorities) Over Time

24. This is a replication of the preceding graph that includes the standard inflation rate for higher education, as found in HEPI (the higher education price index)

25. Apples to Apples
Whether we compare MSU to our peers, or look at MSU over time, the result is the same:  a collapse of instructional spending relative to our peers and our own historical norm.
Like the faculty/student ratios figured from IPEDS data, these institutional budgets demonstrate that MSU has the least amount of instructional resources of all of the regional schools.

26. Accurate data and decision-making