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