Agenda Item No. _______________

Washburn University Board of Regents





SUBJECT: Kansas Board of Regents Performance Indicators





DESCRIPTION: The Higher Education Coordination Act (SB 345) passed in 1999 by the Kansas Legislature included a performance-based funding mechanism for all of the public higher education institutions in Kansas. Beginning with FY03, an additional 2% of our base state funding may be added to our budget based on our ability to meet or exceed performance indicators. Washburn's performance indicators must be approved by the Kansas Board of Regents, but approval by that body is dependent upon approval by the Washburn University Board of Regents of the indicators. The attached document lists the indicators in four categories. These have been developed over the past year by the administration and faculty in consultation with the Board of Regents Office, and have been reviewed by the Washburn Board of Regents Budget and Finance Committee.





FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 2% of state funding, beginning with FY03



RECOMMENDATION:



President Farley recommends that the Board of Regents approve the performance indicators.







_______________ __________________________

(date) Jerry B. Farley, President



DRAFT March 22, 2001

Performance Indicators for Washburn University



Indicator 1: Teaching and Learning





Measurement (Indicator is from the original set submitted 09/00 to KBOR) Target
Proportion of FT faculty holding terminal degrees 93%
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
Measurement (Indicator is from the original set submitted 09/00 to KBOR) Target
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 (Indicator is from the original set submitted 09/00 to KBOR) 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 20%
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:





Washburn University will have met its improvement

goals if it has met its:

teaching indicator

and

at least 2 of the other 3 indicators





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


[ WU Home ] [ Directory ] [ A-Z Index ] [ Sitemap ] [ Contact WU ] [ Statements & Disclosures ] [ Accessibility ] [ Search ]
© 2014 Washburn University, 1700 SW College Ave, Topeka, Kansas 66621 (785) 670-1010
Contact webmaster@washburn.edu with questions or comments.