Agenda Item No. VI. B. 6.
Washburn University Board of Regents
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.
Performance indicators were approved by the Board in April 2001 and forwarded to the KBOR. Attached is a report represent University efforts to meet the performance expectations.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 2% of state funding, beginning with FY03 is provided for by statute, however, given the State's bleak revenue picture, it is not expected that the funding for performance will exist. Nevertheless, achievement of the performance goals remain important for continuous improvement of the University.
President Farley recommends that the Board of Regents receive the performance indicators report as attached and forward the report to the KBOR.
(date) Jerry B. Farley, President
Summary of Washburn University Performance Indicators, AY 2001-2002
July 24, 2002
Washburn University met its institutional improvement goals, as measured by its performance indicators, for AY 2001-2002. The University's performance indicators, outlined below, are part of the three-year institutional improvement plan approved by the Washburn University Board of Regents last year, and submitted to the Kansas Board of Regents.
Performance indicators are measures, both quantitative and qualitative, of institutional performance. Washburn's measures span four general areas (indicators), with a set of specific measures for each of the four. Each measure has an associated target (goal), and a specified number of goals must be reached before the indicator is considered achieved.
For example, under the indicator "teaching and learning, a measure is "proportion of full-time faculty (excluding law) teaching lower division courses." The target for this measure is "75%." There are 13 measures and associated targets for the "teaching and learning" indicator. In year one of the University's institutional improvement plan, at least 7 of these 13 targets must be reached to achieve the "teaching and learning" indicator.
Finally, for the University to have reached its overall institutional improvement goal, it must meet the "teaching and learning" indicator and at least two of the other three indicators.
In AY 2001-2002, Washburn University met all four of its indicators, thus meeting its institutional improvement goals.
In brief, the four areas (indicators) and the related measures are as follows:
Indicator 1: Teaching and Learning
Proportion of FT faculty (excluding law) teaching lower division courses
Proportion of FT faculty (excluding law) teaching undergraduate courses
Percent of on-campus lecture sections enrolling over 50 undergraduates
Undergraduate student/faculty ratio
Proportion of FT faculty holding terminal degrees
Median Class size for on-campus UG courses (by LD and UD)
Success on professional examinations
Methods to assess student learning in place in each academic program
Curricular or programmatic changes made as a result of assessments of student learning
Average faculty salary compared to comprehensive IIA Public institutions
Participation in and quality of faculty development program
Percent of faculty using computer technology to improve student learning
User Satisfaction with library support for on-campus and distance instruction and learning
Twelve of the thirteen targets were met. The year 1 goal for this indicator was to meet at least 7 of the 13 targets.
Indicator 2: Scholarly and Creative Activity
Participation in and quality of faculty development program
Number of Undergraduate students working on a one-to-one basis with a faculty member in scholarly or creative activity
Percent of faculty involved in scholarly or creative activity each year, as measured by annual
User Satisfaction with library support for scholarly and creative activities
All four targets were met. The year 1 goal for this indicator was to meet at least two of the four targets.
Indicator 3: Professional and Community Service
Number of courses for which community service is a component
Degree and certificate programs delivered on-line to niche markets and place-bound students
Number of students/faculty/staff participating in community service projects
Convert KTWU Channel 11 to digital broadcasting
Number of faculty/staff involved in leadership roles in professional or community organizations
Numbers served in non-credit continuing education
Number of library continuing education and in-service training programs offered
Six of the 8 targets were met. The year 1 goal for this indicator was to meet at least 4 of the 8 targets.
Indicator 4: Institutional Management and Other Overall Measures
Proportion of First-Time Full-Time freshmen with unconditional admission
Racial/ethnic/geographic diversity of student body
Proportion of operating expenditures directly relating to students
Proportion of Alumni making gifts
Size of University Endowment
Continued Development of Technology Infrastructure
On-going process of program review
Results of program reviews tied to budget decisions
Results of assessments of student academic achievement tied to budget decisions
Nine of the 10 targets were met. The year 1 goal for this indicator was to meet at least 4 of the 8 targets.
Detailed analysis of the performance measures is available from the Washburn University Academic Affairs Office.