June 2, 2005 Summary Overview Performance Funding Ratings 2004-05 impacting 2005-06.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Writing an NCATE/IRA Program Report
Advertisements

Overview of Institutional Accreditation AASCU Conference, Beijing, China 20 October, 2007 Jean Avnet Morse President Middle States Commission on Higher.
Jennifer Strickland, PhD,
Accreditation Process Overview Presented By: The Saint John Vianney Accreditation Team Chris Gordon Pam Pyzyk Courtney Albright Dan Demeter Gloria Goss.
Perkins IV National Definitions and State Reporting: The Impact on Data Collection in Texas Gabriela Borcoman Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
A Community of Scholars The University of South Carolina system encompasses a community of more than 46,000 students studying at eight campuses around.
Leading the Way : Access. Success. Impact. Board of Governors Summit August 9, 2013.
Texas State Accountability 2013 and Beyond Current T.E.A. Framework as of March 22, 2013 Austin Independent School District Bill Caritj, Chief Performance.
University Budget Basics December First - The Basics  Fiscal year  Fund Types - Unrestricted vs. Restricted  Object Codes  Responsibility 
The University of South Carolina 2 Leveraging Higher Education for a Stronger South Carolina Goal 1: Making South Carolina One of the Most Educated States.
AQIP: “Academic Quality Improvement Program” Same Great Quality, Less Filling.
Merit Pay A bad idea for Education! 13. Merit ( In 2001 the West Virginia State University Board of Governors adopted a salary policy, effective 10/01/01,
Professional Development and Appraisal System
1 General Education Senate discussion scheduled for April 11 and 25 1.Proposal to base General Education on outcomes that can be assessed 2.Proposal for.
A Community of Scholars The University of South Carolina system encompasses a community of more than 44,500 students studying at eight campuses around.
Creation of Regional “Technical to 4-year College” Teacher Certification Pathways in South Carolina: A Collaborative Approach for Two- and Four-Year Colleges.
Budget Office Division of Business and Finance DEVELOPING A UNIVERSITY-WIDE BUDGET An Overview of the External Budget Development Process.
College Strategic Plan by Strategic Planning and Quality Assurance Committee.
Orientation to the Accreditation Internal Evaluation (Self-Study) Flex Activity March 1, 2012 Lassen Community College.
The SACS Re-accreditation Process: Opportunities to Enhance Quality at Carolina Presentation to the Faculty Council September 3, 2004.
1 NCATE Standards. 2  Candidate Performance  Candidate Knowledge, Skills, & Dispositions  Assessment System and Unit Evaluation  Unit Capacity Field.
Assessing Students Ability to Communicate Effectively— Findings from the College of Technology & Computer Science College of Technology and Computer Science.
2009 NWCCU Annual Meeting Overview of the Revised Accreditation Standards and New Oversight Process Ronald L. Baker Executive Vice President and Director,
How Does Performance Funding Work in South Carolina ? Performance Funding & Accountability A Brief History and Tutorial Revised July 2005.
The Future of Higher Education in Texas
Recommendations Overview Student Success Task Force.
Middle States Accreditation at UB Jason N. Adsit Director, Teaching and Learning Center Michael E. Ryan Director, University Accreditation and Assessment.
The Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA SM ).
Year Seven Self-Evaluation Workshop OR Getting from Here to There Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.
Streamlined NCATE Visits Donna M. Gollnick Senior Vice President, NCATE 2008 AACTE Annual Meeting.
Accreditation and Self Study Process A presentation by: Joseph Saimon Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO) (Director for Development and Community Relations)
2009 NWCCU Annual Meeting Overview of the Revised Accreditation Standards and New Oversight Process Ronald L. Baker Executive Vice President and Director,
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Special Education Advisory Committee Virginia Department of Education.
Comprehensive Educator Effectiveness: New Guidance and Models Presentation for the Virginia Association of School Superintendents Annual Conference Patty.
Building Individual Professionalism in Construction Since A Valid, Reliable & Fair Direct or Indirect Measure for ACCE Construction Program Student.
Release of PARCC Student Results. By the end of this presentation, parents will be able to: Identify components of the PARCC English.
Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science Review and Planning Process Fall 1998.
Presented to: [District] Staff DATE RECOGNIZING EDUCATOR EXCELLENCE [insert district logo]
Updates to Program Approval Process and Graduate Faculty Nominations Dr. George Hodge Assistant Dean for Program Development.
On Site Review Process Office of Field Services Last Revised 8/15/2011.
NCATE for Dummies AKA: Everything You Wanted to Know About NCATE, But Didn’t Want to Ask.
TEAM Coordinating Committee Training (TCC).  Introductions  Mission of the TEAM Program  Design of the TEAM Program  Overview of the Module Process.
VALUE/Multi-State Collaborative (MSC) to Advance Learning Outcomes Assessment Pilot Year Study Findings and Summary These slides summarize results from.
Presented by: Jan Stanley, State Title I Director Office of Assessment and Accountability June 10, 2008 Monitoring For Results.
The Conceptual Framework: What It Is and How It Works Linda Bradley, James Madison University Monica Minor, NCATE April 2008.
SACS Leadership Retreat 9/23/ Western Carolina University SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation Frank Prochaska Executive Director, UNC Teaching.
COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON FACULTY COMPENSATION COMMITTEE Report to Faculty Senate November 5, 2013.
Assessing Student Learning Workshop for Department Chairs & Program Directors Workshop for Department Chairs & Program Directors January 9, 2007.
Onsite Quarterly Meeting SIPP PIPs June 13, 2012 Presenter: Christy Hormann, LMSW, CPHQ Project Leader-PIP Team.
Assessment of Student Learning: Phase III OSU-Okmulgee’s Evidence of Student Learning.
Tri-County Technical College Faculty/Staff Meeting February 25, 2009.
SIF II Briefing Session 21 st September Briefing Session Content SIF Cycle I – overview Funding and arising issues SIF Cycle II – Process for evaluation.
What is Regional Accreditation? Regional Accreditation is a time-tested model of professional peer review that supports education excellence. Accreditation.
THE KEY TO CAREER EXPLORATION By: Ms. Williams, M.Ed, LBSW, GCDF Career Development Facilitator Busbee Creative Arts Academy.
35% Non-FCAT Teachers – Teacher Level Student Growth Component – 40% Bay District has adopted teacher-level student growth measures for those teachers.
Office of Program Administration and Accountability Virginia Department of Education Title II, Part A, University May 2, 2016.
C OLLEGIATE L EARNING A SSESSMENT Dr. Pedro Reyes, Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs January 2014.
1 Institutional Quality and Accreditation: A Workshop on the Basics.
AQIP Categories Category One: Helping Students Learn focuses on the design, deployment, and effectiveness of teaching-learning processes (and on the processes.
Dutchess Community College Middle States Self-Study 2015
Teacher SLTs
RECOGNIZING educator EXCELLENCE
Targeted District Review Report
Derek Herrmann & Ryan Smith University Assessment Services
Teacher SLTs
Orientation to the Accreditation Internal Evaluation (Self-Study)
Assessing Academic Programs at IPFW
Schoolwide Programs.
CUNY Graduate School and University Center
Accreditation: Working towards the self-study
Presentation transcript:

June 2, 2005 Summary Overview Performance Funding Ratings impacting

1 Performance Funding Ratings,  Process for Developing Recommendations  Scoring Mechanism for Indicators and Overall Performance  Report Card Format  Overview of This Year’s Performance  Indicator Performance Highlights  Overall Performance Scores

Schedule Fall ‘03 – Spring ‘04: Review of Indicators and Standards for the Performance Year Fall ’04 – Spring ’05: Performance data collection & staff rating assessment April 1: Preliminary ratings released to institutions April 15: Written appeals for special consideration May 11: Staff recommendations distributed for Finance & Facilities Meeting May 18: Finance & Facilities Committee Consideration June 2: CHE considers Committee Recommendations

3 Performance Indicators

4 Standards  “Performance standards” are identified for institutions or groups of institutions and are expressed in ranges of an “Achieves” level performance  Determined using consistent methodology across sectors but resulting in varied institutional or sector specific standards  Referenced to best available data (national, regional, or state) when possible. Comparable peer data are used if available  Provide for a broad range of performance at the “Achieves” level  Include an improvement component to recognize individual institutional progress over time (select indicators)  Approved to remain in effect for 3 years to provide consistency  “Performance standards” originally identified in 2000 and were re-considered in total during this past year

5 Scoring Performance Individual Indicators  Compliance  Deferred  Numerically Scored Overall Performance Category

6 Compliance Indicators Compliance is expected and is designated by “Complies.” A numeric score is not assigned for compliance. Noncompliance results in a score of “1” contributing to the determination of the overall performance. FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, COMPLIANCE RECOMMENDED FOR EACH INSTITUTION ON EACH COMPLIANCE INDICATOR AS APPLICABLE Compliance Indicators Include: 1B, Curricula Offered to Achieve Mission, as applied to 2-year Institutions 1C, Approval of Mission Statement, as applied to all Institutions Subpart 3E1 that is related to NCATE Accreditation, for Indicator 3E, Institutional Emphasis on Quality Teacher Education and Reform, as applied for Teaching Institutions 7B, Employment Rate for Graduates, and 7C, Employer Feedback on Graduates Who Were Employed or Were Not Employed, as applied for Technical Colleges

7 “Deferred” Indicators Indicators that have been scored in the past, but due to issues with the measure or data are not evaluated Indicators Currently Deferred Include Subpart 3E 2a, related to performance on Professional Knowledge examinations, as applied for Teaching Institutions 5A, Percentage of Administrative Costs to Academic Costs, as applied to All Institutions 9B, Amount of Public and Private Sector Grants, as applied to Research Institutions For USC Beaufort, as it transitions to 4-year status, several indicators that apply to teaching sector institutions are deferred. These include 3D related to Accreditation, 3E related to teacher education programs, 7D related to performance on licensure exams, 8C3 related to minority graduate students, and 9A related to support for teacher education reform

8 Compare Performance to Approved Standard for “Achieves” Assign score of 1, 2, or 3. Determine if an additional 0.5 should be added for improvement. Scoring Key  1 “Does Not Achieve Standard” indicates fell below targeted performance level or in non- compliance  2 “Achieves Standard” indicates within acceptable range of targeted level  3 “Exceeds Standard” indicates exceeded targeted level  +0.5 “With Improvement” indicates improvement expectations over past performance were met or exceeded as defined on select indicators. Institutions scoring 1 or 2 are eligible. Assigning the Indicator Score: Numerically Scored Indicators 3-point system in effect since Improvement Factor added in

9 Example: Assigning scores to performance on 2D, Compensation of Faculty

10 Consideration of Scoring Appeals Since , a formal process has been in place for the consideration of special cases that affect scoring: Preliminary Scoring Information is Distributed Institutions desiring Commission consideration submit written appeals outlining the circumstance and affect on performance Staff reviews any appeals and develops recommendations based on the requests Institutions submitting appeals are afforded the opportunity to discuss their case with the Commission The Committee considers Staff’s recommendation and the Institution’s position THIS YEAR, THERE IS ONLY 1 APPEALED CASE FOR CONSIDERATION (Florence-Darlington, 3D)

11 1B = 2 1C = complies 1D/E = 2 2A = 2.5 2D1 = 2 2D2 = 3 2D3 = 2 3D = 3 3E1 = complies 3E2a = deferred 3E2b = 3 3E3a = 1 3E3b = 2 4A/B = 2 5A = deferred 6A/B = 3 7A = 1 Determine a “Single Indicator Score” f or indicators with multiple parts (2D, 3E, 8C), by averaging the scores earned on the parts Determining the Overall Performance Category Average the “Single Indicator Scores” for all indicators to calculate the Performance or Overall Score for Each Institution D = 2 8C1 = 2 8C2 = 2 8C3 = 3 8C4 = 1 9A = 2 OVERALL SCORE (Average of Underlined Scores at Left) 26.08/12 = Example based on Teaching Sector Institution

12 OVERALL INSTITUTIONAL SCORE places an institution in one of five levels of performance reflecting the degree of achievement of standards. FUNDING for the institution is based on category of overall performance. If Score is: (95% - 100%) (87% - 94%) (67% - 86%) (48% - 66%) (33% - 47%) Assigned Category is: Substantially Exceeds Exceeds Achieves Does Not Achieve Substantially Does Not Achieve Institutions within the same performance category are considered to be performing similarly given current precision of measurement.

13

14 Ratings Displayed by Institution in a 4-page format Page 1 provides an Overall Performance Summary and Descriptive Institutional Information Pages 2-4 provide Indicator-by-Indicator and summary overall rating data. Detail Include: Historical and Current Year Data, Performance Standards, and Scoring Information Reporting of Performance

15 SAMPLE REPORT

16 […. continued for each critical success factor & indicator] SAMPLE REPORT

17 Performance on Indicators

18 I. Mission Focus

19

20

21 II. Quality of Faculty

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30 III. Classroom Quality

31 Collectively, the performance represents specialized program accreditation for 249 of 259 (96%) programs

32 3E, Institutional Emphasis on Quality Teacher Education & Reform

33

34 IV. Institutional Cooperation and Collaboration

35

36 V. Administrative Efficiency (Deferred in Current Year)

37 VI. Entrance Requirements

38

39

40 VII. Graduates’ Achievements

41

42

43

44

45 VIII. User-Friendliness of the Institution

46

47 8C1, Percent In-State Undergraduates who are Minority 47

48

49 8C2, Fall to Fall Retention of in-state, degree-seeking minority undergraduates

50

51

52 8C4, Percent Minority Teaching Faculty

53 IX. Research Funding (Deferred in Current Year)

54

55 Overall Performance Ratings

Overall Ratings Summary Achieves (2.00 to 2.59) The Citadel Coastal Carolina Francis Marion Lander SC State USC Aiken USC Beaufort USC Upstate USC Lancaster USC Union Northeastern Tech Spartanburg Tech Tri-County Tech Williamsburg Tech Exceeds (2.60 to 2.84) Clemson MUSC College of Charleston USC Salkehatchie USC Sumter Aiken Tech Central Carolina Tech Denmark Tech Florence-Darlington Tech Greenville Tech Piedmont Tech Tech Coll of Lowcountry Trident Tech York Tech Ratings as recommended to the Finance & Facilities Committee Substantially Exceeds (2.85 to 3.00) USC Columbia Winthrop Horry-Georgetown Tech Midlands Tech Orangeburg-Calhoun Tech

Overall Performance Ratings

Overall Performance Ratings