Transcript Indicators, Benchmarking - Lorain County Community College
Institutional Indicators & Benchmarking
Presentation to AQIP Quality Check-up Team March 2008
Where have we been?
The Impetus
Ohio Partnership for Excellence First done in 2001- 02 Provides external review Served as point of entrance to AQIP Impetus for 3 AQIP Action Projects, including Institutional Indicators of Effectiveness Subsequent OPE, Baldrige, AQIP processes provided the impetus for the refinement and the benchmarking phase of this process
Purpose of Indicators Process
To develop an institutional effectiveness model including mission priorities, indicators, benchmarks/targets, and data sources To identify and organize key data and information to measure institutional progress against the mission
Framework
Broad Components—Mission Areas/ Emphasis, Critical Success Factors , Key Success Factors Indicators—Indicators, Key Performance Indicators, Core Indicators Measures—Measure, Performance Standards Targets—Targets, Goals, Benchmarks
Initial Changes/Refinements
Indicator Process Initially—4 Groups: District Board of Trustees (DBT) Administrative Leadership Team (ALT) Faculty Students What we learned— Four frameworks created alignment challenges Collapsed into one document DBT selects indicators and IEP works with the appropriate committees and/or organizational units to develop and implement actions—and report back to the President and DBT
Indicator Timeline
July Report on progress Identify key indicators to monitor Develop action plans for continuous improvement Update data and select/remove indicators August/ December Review and discuss indicators of effectiveness Monitor progress of key indicators Report on progress January/ June Monitor progress of key indicators
Linkages with High Schools
EXTREMELY HIGH PERFORMANCE
LCCC excels; can’t do much better; Little room for improvement
STABLE PERFORMANCE
LCCC Making good progress; Continue at same pace
KEEP IT UP!!
1.
SLOWER PERFORMANCE
LCCC making slower progress; Improve rate of performance
Recent Lorain County high school graduates attending [NEED TO ESTABLISH TARGETS FOR EACH]
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AGENDA
1. 1 2. Employability of LCCC graduates Attainment of student learning goals
KEEP IT UP!! LOW PERFORMANCE
LCCC making little to no progress; Emphasize for continuous improvement
Remediation rates of recent high school graduates [NEED TO ESTABLISH TARGETS FOR EACH]
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AGENDA
200 160 120 80 40 0 480 440 400 360 320 280 240
Number To College
High School Graduates, Number Attending LCCC or Another Ohio School by High School
LCCC Other Not Attending College The graph on the left shows the total number of graduates as well as the proportion of all who attend LCCC and other Ohio colleges, and those who did not enroll in post secondary education subsequent to graduation.
5 of the 6 high schools with the largest graduating classes send a higher proportion of their college bound students to LCCC than to other Ohio colleges Half of these are also among the schools with the lowest proportion of first year college students. In fact, Admiral King, Southview, and Elyria rank 3rd, 4th, and 5th from the bottom, respectively, in proportion of graduates who attend college after graduation North Ridgeville, Firelands, Keystone, and Clearview also send more students to LCCC than to other Ohio institutions
Recent High School Graduates
Action Highlights/Examples Develop a committee that would meet regularly to coordinate and align recruitment efforts Target 4-6 high schools to increase the number of recent high school graduates who enroll directly to LCCC KnowHow2Go—Campaign focuses on preparing and education 7 th through 10 th graders (aligned with Lorain P-16 Council)
Remediation Rates
Action Highlights/Examples
DBT Community Connection Session with Superintendents and School Board Members
Focus on incoming students Implementing the Ohio Core Initiative (February 22, 2007)
Planning Sessions with the Academic Foundations Division (Fall 2006)
Focus on currently enrolled students The development of rubrics for grading all courses in all areas (MTHM, ESLG, ENGL, RDST) of the Academic Foundation Division Determine the viability of distance education for Academic Foundation course offerings
Graduate Tracking Survey
Action Highlights/Examples Convened a group of Ohio AQIP institutions to begin discussions around the development of a common graduate tracking survey to collect comparative data and information To submit a plan to the OBOR and seek funding to support endeavor—advocacy
Indicators of Effectiveness
The Next Evolution
What did we learn?
External Feedback—AQIP, Baldrige, and OPE reports recommended alignment with Vision 2015 and better cohort comparison groups (benchmarking) Internal feedback—suggested the reduction and revision of indicators from 36 to about 12
Measuring Institutional Effectiveness
Indicators of Effectiveness
There were 36 indicators for the following three areas: Promote Education, Stimulate Community Development, and Enhance Institutional Effectiveness
Charge
Revise framework around the four cornerstones of the new mission: Education, Economy, Community, Culture Reduce the number of indicators to 12.
Goals
To develop one document with about 18 indicators that reflect the indicators of effectiveness and Vision.
Vision 2015 Score Card
Consists of 6 Priorities with 32 Initiatives. Create a “scorecard” to measure and monitor the short/long-term progress of the strategic vision.
Feedback
The College would select 12 indicators of success for Vision 2015. The suggestion would be to select 2 indicators (major outcomes) for each of the six strategic priorities
Education
Indicator Three year success rates Vision 2015 Priority Priority 1: Raise the community’s participation and attainment in higher education One year success rates for remedial students Priority 1 Credit enrollment—LCCC and UP Priority 1 County educational attainment Priority 1 Student academic performance Priority 1 Affordability Priority 1
AQIP Benchmarking Action Project
Purpose
To enhance and sustain an institutional culture that uses a defined benchmarking process to systematically compare LCCC against other colleges, universities, and organizations To address feedback from various feedback reports To enhance the comparison groups for various projects such as the indicators of effectiveness
Selecting a Cohort Group to Benchmark Against Do You Want to Select a Cohort Group by Institutional Type?
Institutional Type Is there a Specified Default Group?
Curriculum-Based Cohorts Are There Curriculum-Based Characteristics to Identify Cohort Groups?
Default Group Institutional Characteristics Curriculum Characteristics Reference: McCormick & Cox, 2003 Review the Key Questions for Each Group and Characteristic Area
Review Data Questions
Institutional Characteristics
Application and Usage
Key Institutional Processes Institutional Indicators Academic program and cluster review Operation systems review Institutional Effectiveness and Planning A guiding protocol for related work
Next Steps
February - March—Make any revisions or adjustments to the proposed institutional indicators March—Present revised framework to the District Board of Trustees July—Present framework with the data publication along with updates on current projects and recommendations for any new indicators that might need attention or monitoring