Agenda Item No. V. B. 5.
Washburn University Board of Regents
SUBJECT:
Revision of Performance IndicatorsDESCRIPTION: On April 11, 2001, the Washburn University Board of Regents approved the document "Performance Indicators for Washburn University for the Period 7/1/01-6/30/04. In July, 2002, Washburn reported to the Kansas Board of Regents on the first year of these indicators. Administrative review indicates that two of the 35 indicator targets should be slightly revised. First, the proportion of full-time faculty holding terminal degrees, originally targeted at 93%, should be set to 90%. This reflects the realities of the marketplace, is consistent with similar institutions, and recognizes that, especially during a period of enrollment growth, a number of "Lecturer" (non-tenure track) positions will be necessary to meet course demand. Frequently, these Lecturers do not have the terminal degree in the field.
Second, the alumni giving rate target was reduced to 15% from 20%. This still represents an improvement over the current level of about 13%, but the original target of 20% was based on incomplete database information.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend approval of these minor revisions.
________________ _______________________
(date) Jerry B. Farley, President
Performance Indicators for Washburn University for the Period 7/1/01 - 6/30/04
Approved 4/11/01 by the Washburn University Board of Regents
Modified 12/20/02 (subject to approval by the Washburn University Board of Regents)*
Indicator 1: Teaching and Learning
| Measurement | Target |
| Proportion of FT faculty holding terminal degrees | 90% |
| Proportion of FT faculty (excluding law) teaching lower division courses | 75% |
| Proportion of FT faculty (excluding law) teaching undergraduate courses | 95% |
| Percent of on-campus lecture sections enrolling over 50 undergraduates | 2% or less |
| Undergraduate student/faculty ratio | Maintain between 15:1 and 20:1, with target of 17:1 |
| Median class size for on-campus undergraduate courses (by lower division and upper division) | Lower division range 19-23; upper division range 15-19 |
| Success on professional examinations | Pass rate at or above regional norms |
| Methods to assess student learning in place in each academic program | (Qualitative) Assessment methods developed by each program and approved by dean and by assessment committee |
| Curricular or programmatic changes made as a result of assessments of student learning | (Qualitative) Describe specific changes that have been made in response to assessment |
| Average faculty salary compared to Comprehensive IIA Public Institutions | (Qualitative) Devote a substantial amount of the University's new resources each year toward narrowing the difference between Washburn average and Comp IIA Public Inst. average |
| Participation in and quality of faculty development program | (Qualitative) Demonstrate an active, faculty-driven faculty development program |
| Percent of faculty using computer technology to improve student learning | Increase over current level |
| User satisfaction with library support for on-campus and distance instruction and learning | (Qualitative, then quantitative) Establish user satisfaction benchmarks using LibQUAL+ system. In years 2&3, these benchmarks will be the basis for improvement. |
Institutional Improvement Plan/Goal for this indicator:
At least 7 of 13 goals met by end of year 1, 9 of 13 goals by end of year 2, 11 of 13 goals met by end of year 3
Indicator 2: Scholarly and Creative Activity
| Measurement | Target |
| Participation in and quality of faculty development program (note: This measure is also used in the "teaching" indicator) | (Qualitative) Demonstrate an active, faculty-driven faculty development program |
| Number of undergraduate students working on a one-to-one basis with a faculty member in scholarly or creative activity | Increase number of participants over previous year |
| Percent of faculty involved in scholarly or creative activity each year, as measured by annual performance reports | Maintain overall percentage at current levels; target specific areas for increased activity (for example: School of Business, which is seeking AACSB accreditation) |
| User satisfaction with library support for scholarly and creative activity | (Qualitative, then quantitative) Establish user satisfaction benchmarks using LibQUAL+ system. In years 2&3, these benchmarks will be the basis for improvement. |
Institutional Improvement Plan/Goal for this indicator:
At least 2 of 4 goals met by end of year 1, 3 of 4 by end of year 2 and all 4 goals met in year 3
Indicator 3: Professional and Community Service
| Measurement | Target |
| Number of cultural events hosted on campus | Maintain at current level or increase |
| Number of courses offered for which community service is a course component | Increase number over preceding year |
| Degree and certificate programs delivered on-line to niche markets and place-bound students | (Qualitative) Describe programs in place and processes used to identify new opportunities |
| Number of students/faculty/staff participating in community service projects | Increase number over preceding year |
| Convert KTWU Channel 11 (PBS affiliate) to digital broadcasting | (Qualitative) Describe University resources and efforts to fund this important and expensive public service improvement |
| Number of faculty/staff involved in leadership roles in professional or community organizations | Increase number over preceding year |
| Numbers served in non-credit continuing education | Increase number over preceding year |
| Number of library continuing education and in-service training programs offered | Increase number over preceding year |
Institutional Improvement Plan/Goal for this indicator:
At least 4 of 8 goals met by end of year 1, 6 of 8 goals by end of year 2, 7 of 8 goals met by end of year 3
Indicator 4: Institutional Management and Other Overall Measures
| Measurement | Target |
| Proportion of First-Time Full-Time Freshmen (FTFTF) with unconditional admission | 80% |
| Racial/ethnic/geographic diversity of student body | Reflects community measures |
| Proportion of operating expenditures directly relating to students | 75% |
| Alumni membership | 2,700 dues paying or lifetime members |
| Proportion of Alumni making gifts | 15% |
| Size of University endowment | Increase at rate 2% greater than increase in market value |
| Continued development of technology infrastructure | (Qualitative) Demonstrate that improvement to technology infrastructure is made each year |
| On-going process of program review | (Qualitative) Programs will be reviewed every 5 years |
| Results of program reviews tied to budget decisions | (Qualitative) Be able to describe how specific budget decisions relate to the program reviews |
| Results of assessments of student academic achievement tied to budget decisions | (Qualitative) Be able to describe how specific budget decisions relate to the assessments |
Institutional Improvement Plan/Goal for this indicator:
At least 5 of 10 goals met by end of year 1, 7 of 10 goals by end of year 2, 9 of 10 goals met by end of year 3
Overall Institutional Improvement Measurement:
Recap of Institutional Improvement Plan:
Indicator 1: Teaching and Learning
At least 7 of 13 goals met by end of year 1, 9 of 13 goals by end of year 2, 11 of 13 goals met by end of year 3
Indicator 2: Scholarly and Creative Activity
At least 2 of 4 goals met by end of year 1, 3 of 4 by end of year 2 and all 4 goals met in year 3
Indicator 3: Professional and Community Service
At least 4 of 8 goals met by end of year 1, 6 of 8 goals by end of year 2, 7 of 8 goals met by end of year 3
Indicator 4: Institutional Management and Other Overall Measures
At least 5 of 10 goals met by end of year 1, 7 of 10 goals by end of year 2, 9 of 10 goals met by end of year 3
*The modification on 12/20/02 changed the target for the percent of faculty holding terminal degrees from 93% to 90%, to reflect the realities of the market and the fluctuations caused by the need to employ faculty in "Lecturer" positions. It also changed the target for the proportion of alumni making gifts to the University to 15%. The original 20% figure was based on incomplete database information. No other changes were made.