Transcript No Slide Title

Council for Education Policy,
Research and Improvement
November 6, 2002
Meeting
WELCOME
New College of Florida
AGENDA
II.
Approval of Minutes
III.
Chairman’s Report
IV.
Executive Director’s Report
V.
Centers & Institutes
VI.
University Equity Funding
VII.
Master Plan
II. Approval of Minutes
III. Chairman’s Report
IV. Executive Director’s
Report
V. Postsecondary Centers
and Institutes
 Staff report
 Council discussion
C&I Common Characteristics
• C&Is contribute to tripartite mission of modern
university: instruction, research and service.
• C&I research and development products contribute
to regional, state and nationwide economic
development.
• C&Is attract faculty and external research dollars
that result in scientific discovery and technological
development.
• The entrepreneurial nature of many C&Is places
them in a unique position to quickly respond to
needs of business and industry.
• C&Is provide training and educational
opportunities for students.
Evaluative Core Elements
Quantitative Indicators:
 Amount of external research expenditures,
potential for grant leveraging, number of research
publications.
Qualitative Measures:







Development of knowledge and new discoveries;
Development of economic growth;
Capabilities of investigators;
Collaboration efforts with other C&Is;
Requests for center assistance in problem solving;
Potential for Technology Transfer;
Education & training opportunities for students
State Governing Boards
• Only Texas conducts statewide expert peer
review of separately budgeted C&Is.
• Majority of C&Is do not receive state review
• Established outcome measures include:
Intrinsic merit, research performance;
• Potential contribution to development of
knowledge and instruction, economic
development, and student progress.
• New York: Legislative Agency provides
competitive state funds to centers based on
potential for commercialization.
Peer Institutions
• More disparities than commonalities.
• Variations in definition, establishment,
structure, purpose, funding, reporting,
evaluation.
• None of the universities were required to send
an annual performance report for all of their
C&Is to a State governing or Legislative Body.
• Considerably more institutional oversight
review and analysis of C&Is than Florida.
Analysis of Peer Institutions
• Three institutions had Legislatively established
C&Is.
• A majority had established policies governing the
creation, evaluation, dissolution of C&Is.
• More than half conduct an institutional-wide
review/only two do not require college/dept level
review.
• Criteria for evaluation dependent on mission.
• Large Research Institutions expect C&Is to
become self sufficient after initial state funding.
Best Practices/Peer Institutions
• Clearly defined policies for C&I establishment,
closing, evaluation.
• Regularly scheduled internal and university wide
evaluations.
• Evaluations conducted by university wide faculty
committee that reports to Provost or Vice
President for Research.
• C&Is maintain updated web pages with core data
elements and information.
• Universities maintain current C&I data that is
easily accessible to government entities.
Specific Best Practices:
C&I Establishment
• Institution provides specific establishment criteria.
• C&I proposal must contain evidence of why the
creation of center is necessary to carry out
proposed activities.
• C&I must advance the university’s strategic goals,
add value to institution’s research environment,
and provide for collaborative/interdisciplinary
ventures.
• Proposal reviewed by Research Council comprised
of university wide Faculty members.
• Proposal approved by Department Chair/Dean and
Provost or VP for Research.
Specific Best Practices:
Evaluation
• All C&Is provide annual report to universitywide Council on Research charged with
review/ allocation of funds.
• Evaluation Criteria:
– Evidence of quality of program
– Leveraged return on university’s investment
– Successful fostering of collaborative relations
– Contribution to education & training of students
– attainment of or progress toward attainment of
C&I goals/objectives
Specific Evaluation Criteria
• Every 3-5 years, each C&I conducts an
examination of its activities and achievements
geared toward programmatic self-improvement.
• This internal review is coupled with an external
review, or a compilation of outside reviews by
major funding sponsors.
• Review is submitted to Vice President of
Research who may put C&I on probation or
terminate if goals and objectives not being met.
C&I Evaluation in Florida
• C&Is are required to submit annual reports to
Division of Colleges and Universities (DCU).
• Reports do not provide specific evaluation
criteria or outcomes.
• Reports are not used by universities or DCU to
evaluate, fund, continue or dissolve C&Is.
• Annual reporting to central office is ineffective
and does not contribute to evaluation of C&Is.
Evaluation of C&Is in Florida
• C&Is subject to external funding agency reviews.
• C&Is may be part of university-wide accreditation
or DCU programmatic reviews.
• In general, no systematic, coordinated process for
internal institution-wide C&I evaluation in place.
• C&Is may receive departmental/college wide
reviews-usually connected to faculty evaluation.
• Existing evaluations do not contain core, evaluative
elements that can measure objectives.
• Several universities are developing new policies for
establishing and reviewing C&Is.
C&I Classification and Evaluation
• Currently C&Is in Florida are classified as
Type 1,2,3 based on mission and funding.
• As numbers of C&Is have increased this taxonomy
has become less meaningful or descriptive of C&I
mission, activities, and funding.
• Type 1 C&Is have “statewide” missions but not all
receive specific legislative appropriations and
many type 2s have statewide missions and some
receive specific allocations.
• Type 3 C&Is do not receive a specific legislative or
university budget allocation but do use university
infrastructure.
Centers and
Institutes
Council Discussion
VI. University Equity Funding
 Staff report
 Council discussion
Results of Survey of
Universities
“How do you define equity in
Educational and General funding?”
Most Had
Similar Themes
• “Equity funding is fair funding within available
funds, not equal funding per FTE for each
institution.”
• “Equity does not mean that institutions
receive equal dollars, but rather that a
consistent set of principles and funding
factors is applied in a uniform and fair way.”
Reasons to Provide
Differential Funding
• High Cost of Doctoral and Prof. Programs/
Grad Instruction and Research Mission
• High Cost of Undergraduate Institution
• High Cost Disciplines
• Faculty Salaries Relative to Peers
• Branch Campuses
• Diseconomy of Small Size
• Local Costs/Cost of Living
• Workload From Part-Time Students
Proposed Definition
Equity in Educational and General
funding is the uniform application
of a consistent set of principles and
funding factors for all state
universities, which will allow each
university to accomplish its defined
mission.
(refer to s. 1001.02(2)(w) and (5)(a)
and 1001.74(7), F.S., for defining of
mission)
“Do you believe there is an equity
funding problem among institutions
within the state university system?
If yes, why?”
All 11 universities answered
“yes.”
Causes of Inequity among
Florida Universities
Historical Inequity of
Historical Inequity of
High Funding for Older Vs Funding Cuts for
Institutions
Graduate/Rsch. Univ.
Using Historical
Not Using Historical
Differences in Funding Vs Differences in Funding
per FTE
per FTE
Inconsistent Funding
Policies, Political
Appropriations
Unfunded Mandates
Attempts to Incr Funding
Vs Because Other Univ Were
Funded for Specific
Mission Assignments
“Do you believe there is an equity
funding problem between your own
institution and its peers?”
Nine universities answered
“yes.”
Selection of Peers
• Variables frequently mentioned were:
– Number of degrees awarded by
discipline
– Level of degrees
– Enrollment
– External research funding
– Annual giving
– SAT scores
– Graduation rates
– Location of institutions
Use of Peers
• Monitoring how we are doing
• Developing benchmarks for strategic
planning
Basis for Inequity
Compared to Peers
• Faculty salaries
• Number of faculty per student FTE
• Educational and General (E&G) dollars
per credit hour….per graduate…..per
student FTE
• Total resources per student FTE
Next Steps
• Compare university funding to peers
among state universities across the US
• Compare funding between Florida
universities
• Prepare draft report for CEPRI’s
December meeting
Equity Funding
Council Discussion
VII. Master Plan

Committee Reports

Council Discussion
 Teaching Profession
 Workforce Development
 K-20 Structure & Implementation
Committee on Workforce
Development
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development
Activities
• Roundtable Discussion
– Representatives from K-12, postsecondary,
and business sectors
• Invited Speakers
• Background documents
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development
Barriers to Workforce Development
• Basic Skills
– Competency in reading, writing and mathematics (Relative
performance to the nation (NAEP))
• Access
– Meeting specific occupational needs
– Financial aid issues
• Articulation between sectors
• Attracting Different Populations
– Drop-outs
– Middle and high school students
– Traditional college-age students
– Non-Traditional students
• Relevance of training to workforce needs, maintaining workforce
skills
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development
Vision
• The creation of a knowledge-based, high skill
economy with a citizenry educated to their
maximum potential
– To Maximize Human Resources and Potential
– To Create Environment Conducive for Attracting
and Sustaining High-Skill Business and Industry
How do we get there?
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development
Goals
Goal 1:
K-12 students exit secondary education prepared to
enter postsecondary education and sustainable
employment.
Goal 2:
Adults and youth with deficiencies in basic skills
must be provided with opportunities for attainment
of skills necessary for sustainable employment and
postsecondary education.
Goal 3:
Training in high-skill, high-wage occupations with
growth potential for the State must receive priority.
Goal 4:
Business and industry involvement in postsecondary
training must be an integral part of the workforce
development system.
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development
Goals/Objectives
Goal 1
K-12 students exit secondary education prepared
to enter postsecondary education and sustainable
employment.
• Objective 1.1 -- The K-12 system must ensure all
students have a foundation of basic skills.
• Objective 1.2 -- The K-12 system must expose all
students to applied learning in real world, career-based
context.
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development
Objectives/Strategies
•
Strategy 1.2.1 Requirement for the development of
education and training plan related to career interests for
late middle school and high school students.
•
Strategy 1.2.2 Curriculum Requirements at all levels
of education related to career introduction, exploration
and planning.
•
Strategy 1.2.3 State support for Career
Academies/School within School/Collegiate High Schools
and other opportunities to integrate academic and career
education learning into high school.
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development
Objectives/Strategies
• Strategy 1.2.4 Provide better awareness of careers to
parents and students through Career Prep Ad Campaign.
• Strategy 1.2.5 K-12: Workforce Outcomes Follow-up
Report by School that will provide feedback to school
districts on proportion of students who do not immediately
enter postsecondary training and an assessment of the
wages earned locally by those students who do not
receive a credential
• Strategy 1.2.6 Utilize mentoring programs that rely on
peers and young adults to provide support for secondary
students planning their education and careers
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development
Objectives/Strategies
• Strategy 1.2.7 -- Better articulation of high school
programs with vocational centers, community colleges and
universities
• Strategy 1.2.8 -- Dropout Prevention efforts
• Strategy 1.2.9 -- Aptitude test to determine student skills
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development
Goals/Objectives
Goal 2
Adults and youth with deficiencies in basic skills
must be provided with opportunities for
attainment of skills necessary for sustainable
employment and postsecondary education.
• Objective 2.1 -- Address deficiencies in literacy and basic
education
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development
Objectives/Strategies
• Strategy 2.1.1 -- Adult basic education programs
maintained
• Strategy 2.1.2 -- Family literacy programs
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development
Goals/Objectives
Goal 3
Training in high-skill, high-wage occupations with
growth potential for the State must receive
priority.
• Objective 3.1 -- State must continue to identify targeted
occupations.
• Objective 3.2 -- Increase production of graduates in high
demand/high wage fields
• Objective 3.3 -- Lifelong learning opportunities must be
available for upward mobility.
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development
Objectives/Strategies
• Strategy 3.1.1 -- Requires a more dynamic system, not
rely on state/local historical trend information – see Tampa
Bay Partnerships efforts
• Strategy 3.2.1 -- Incentive funding for high-skill/high wage
training
• Strategy 3.2.2 -- Financial aid for vocational programs,
part-time students
• Strategy 3.3.1 -- Flexible scheduling, weekend and night
classes, short-term programs
• Strategy 3.3.2 -- Comprehensive distance learning efforts
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development
Goals/Objectives
Goal 4
Business and industry involvement in
postsecondary training must be an integral part of
the workforce development system.
• Objective 4.1 -- Local education providers and local
business leaders must work cooperatively to develop
programs that meet industry standards and the local
supply of workers.
• Objective 4.2 - State coordination of workforce
development policy must be improved.
Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development
Objectives/Strategies
• Strategy 4.1.1 -- Corporate college model
• Strategy 4.1.2 -- Local strategic plans for workforce
development
• Strategy 4.1.3 -- Cooperative arrangement for programs
like those utilized in apprenticeship programs
Working Lunch
VIII. Other Items of Interest
Upcoming Meetings:
December 11, 2002
January 8, 2002
Jacksonville
Tallahassee
IX. Adjournment
Proposed
Peer Identification System
Category
Definitions
Four-Year 1 Institutions awarding at least 100 doctoral degrees
that are distributed among at least 10 disciplines with
no more than 50 percent in any one category.
Four-Year 2
Institutions awarding at least 30 doctoral degrees that
are distributed among at least disciplines.
Four-Year 3 Institutions awarding at least 100 master's, education
specialist, post-master's, or doctoral degrees with
master's, education specialist, and post-master's
degrees distributed among at least 10 disciplines.
Proposed
Peer Identification System
Four-Year
4
Institutions awarding at least 30 master's,
education specialist, post-master's, or doctoral
degrees with master's, education specialist, and
post-master's degrees distributed among at least 5
CIP categories (2-digit classification).
Four-Year
5
Institutions awarding at least 30 master's,
education specialist, post-master's or doctoral
degrees.
Four-Year
6
Institutions awarding less than 30 master's,
education specialist, post-master's or doctoral
degrees.
Classification
of Florida Universities
CATEGORY
INSTITUTION
Four-Year 1
Florida State University
University of Florida
University of South Florida
Four-Year 2
Florida Atlantic University
Florida International University
University of Central Florida
Four-Year 3
Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
University of North Florida
University of West Florida
Four-Year 5
Florida Gulf Coast University
Return