1. Tennessee Board of Regents 2005-2010 Strategic Plan
Strategic Planning Coordinators
March 16, 2004

2. Looking back . . . What factors override planning?
Agency agendas and mandates
Level of revenue or source of revenue issues
System environment conflicts – centralized or decentralized
Uncertain power of mission distinction
Enrollment variables
Initiatives not linked to planning

3. “Shifting Sands”
Shifting the burden of cost to students, giving the public a legitimate and louder demand for accountability
Conflict between setting priorities based on state need rather than institutional aspirations
Institutional integrity “on the line” in a climate where failures in other institutions (corporate American and others) invite public scrutiny
Regulating higher education costs with little attention to regulating value

4. “Shifting Sands”
Competition from new entrants to the market that challenges service area concept and fee structures
Traditional accountability output measures losing credibility
Partnership and cooperation not a choice but an imperative
Emergence of high stakes assessment
Balance between traditional core processes and work place training
Technology’s claim to resources

5. The time is right to refocus planning . . .
Shift in SACS assumptions
Convergence of state planning and evaluation programs
Common cycle calendar
Opportunity for synergy
Changes in resource balance
Opportunity to minimize duplication
Opportunity for cohesiveness

6. Challenge: Refocus Planning
From: Output measurement and retrospective reporting
To: Documenting evidence of improvement based on assessment

7. TBR 2005-2010 Strategic Plan THEC Master Plan TBR Vision of Excellence
SACS
QEP
Specialized Accreditation
Delaware/Kansas
Nat’l Benchmark Project
TBR Academic Audit
NSSE & CCSSE
Program Productivity Review
TBR Report Card
RODP Business Plan
TBR Vision of Excellence
TBR
Strategic Plan
THEC Performance Funding
TBR Defining Our Future

8. Convergence THEC 2005-2010 Master Plan TBR 2020 A Vision of Excellence
THEC Performance Funding
TBR Defining Our Future (continuing Action Agenda)

9. THEC 2005-2010 Master Plan April 2005 State goals for higher education
NCHEMS Report
Public accountability

10. TBR A Vision of Excellence
TBR June 2004
Visioning Process
Based on fundamental assumptions
Economic Development
Educational Capital
Teaching and Learning
Environmental Scan
Informs Strategic Planning

11. Convergence THEC 2005-2010 Master Plan TBR 2020 A Vision of Excellence
THEC Performance Funding
TBR Defining Our Future (continuing Action Agenda)

12. THEC 2005-2010 Performance Funding Standards
April 2005
Heed survey information
Integrate assessments
Respond to state needs
Respond to institutional needs
Broaden range of stakeholders
Use assessment results

13. TBR Defining Our Future
Action agenda in response to legislation
Accomplishments to date
On-going agenda
Integration into strategic planning
Public policy responses

14. Assessment Elements New SACS Compliance Certification
New SACS Quality Enhancement Plan
Specialized Accreditation
Delaware/Kansas Instructional Cost Models
National Benchmarking Project
National Study of Student Engagement (NSSE) and Community College Study of Student Engagement (CCSSE)

15. New SACS Compliance Certification
Assumes mature institutional effectiveness processes
Requires evidence of improvement based on results of assessment
Requires documented patterns of evidence
Requires “case-making” to show compliance
Projects on-going compliance check

16. SACS Quality Enhancement Plan
Integrated with planning
Influences resource allocation
Campus and external accountability
Engages entire campus
Encourages innovation
Encourages benchmarking
Focuses on student success

17. Specialized Accreditation
Cost of program accreditation
Index of quality
Communication to public
Benefits to students
Benefits to faculty
Benefits to institution
Standards evolution
Peer review

18. Delaware/Kansas Instructional Cost Models
National peer group comparisons
Key indicators
Trend data
Instructional cost analysis as faculty work load profile
Delaware Qualitative profile showing faculty research and scholarship productivity
Utility of data for internal use
Direct faculty engagement

19. National Benchmark Project
Comparative data for community colleges
Annual reporting
Faculty productivity profile
Standard indicators
Recognized nationally
Accessible database

20. NSSEE and CCSSE Comparative data by Carnegie classification and size
Student engagement assessment
Feedback for internal use
Appropriate peer comparisons
Focus for improvement
Scope of participation

21. Assessment Elements TBR Academic Audit
TBR Cyclic Academic Program Productivity Review
TBR Report Card
Regents Online Degree Program expansion

22. TBR Academic Audit Process evaluation Primarily unit-based
Functions as peer review
Outcomes oriented
Benefits from evaluator training
An alternate to program review
Less costly than traditional peer review
Cuts across disciplines

23. TBR Program Productivity Review
Cyclic review of programs by number of graduates
Engages faculty in program evaluation
Uses traditional productivity benchmarks
Leads to program improvement
Examines resource allocation
Examines student demand
Eliminates unnecessary duplication

24. TBR Report Card What the public needs to know
Indicators that represent what we do
Can be more than year-to-year comparisons
Should recognize mission distinctiveness
Should incorporate qualitative measures
Should be tied to Planning

25. RODP Business Plan Increasing number of online programs
Professional development of faculty
Competition with for-profit providers
Potential for “blended” programs
Cost/benefit balance for institutions
Redefining access, particularly in graduate education

26. Challenges for 2005-2010 Meet state needs for public accountability
Meet institutional and system planning needs
Integrate converging assessment platforms
Use assessment elements to best advantage
Stay focused on the Key Priorities and the “vital few” goals

27. 2005-2010 TBR Strategic Planning Building the Plan
Tennessee Board of Regents
CHANCELLOR
Academic Affairs
System Planning Oversight Committee
Working Committee
Goals for Priority 1
Working Committee
Goals for Priority 2
Working Committee
Goals for Priority 3

28. TBR Strategic Planning Oversight Committee
Charge:
1. Recognize potential for synergy from converging planning frameworks
2. Thereby sharpen planning focus and minimize duplication
3. Clarify position on mission distinctiveness
4. Clarify position on enrollment management

29. Oversight Committee charge cont.
5. Recognize “Vision of Excellence” assumptions regarding Strategic Planning
6. Propose 3-4 Key System Priorities for the Chancellor’s consideration
7. Oversee broad campus review of Key Priorities
8. Provide oversight for working committees recommending “the vital few” goals (3-4) for each priority
9. Recommend a TBR Strategic Plan with assumptions, priorities, and goals.

30. Oversight Committee Membership
2 Regents
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Universities and community college sectors each represented by:
1 President or designee
1 Academic Officer
1 Planning Coordinator
1 Fiscal Officer
2 at-large appointments
THEC staff
TBR staff

31. Working Committee for Each Priority
Charge:
Recommend to Oversight Committee
“vital few” system goals for each priority
Recommend System common indicators for each goal
Recommend System format for reporting goal achievement for priorities
Recommend format for reporting campus achievement of campus-specific additional goals

32. Working committee composition
4 representatives from universities
4 representatives from community colleges
TBR staff

33. Tennessee Board of Regents
CHANCELLOR
TBR Strategic Plan
CAMPUSES