Accountability in Washington State Four-year Institutions House Higher Education Committee January 23, 2004
Purpose of Presentation To describe accountability/performance reporting in Washington: • • • When did it start? What is the HECB’s role? What indicators are used? What are the most recent results? What does the HECB recommend? 2
Accountability in Washington: When Did It Start? 1997 -1999: The Budget (ESSB 6108) directed the HECB to implement an accountability system in consultation with the public four-year institutions Two percent of the non-instructional base budget was linked to accountability plans and performance 3
Accountability in Washington: Current System • “Performance reporting”: funding is not linked to performance • Legislature sets long-term goals; institutions set intermediate targets • SBCTC is responsible for two-year college accountability; HECB is responsible for four-year college accountability 4
HECB Role in Accountability • • Review and approve intermediate targets Review institution performance annually Direct preparation of institutional plans Submit a report on progress toward goals with recommendations for the ensuing biennium 5
Accountability Indicators Used in Washington at Four-year Colleges Four common measures 1. The percentage of freshmen who graduate within five years 2. The percentage of undergraduates who return the following year (retention) 3. Graduation efficiency (freshmen) 4. Graduation efficiency (transfers) Graduation efficiency measures credits to degree Calculated as: total credits required for degree Minus transfer credits/ Total credits attempted 6
Accountability Indicators Used in Washington at Four-year Colleges Two Institution-Specific Measures 1) Faculty Productivity – defined differently by each institution. For example: – Student/faculty ratio – Faculty work with students on undergraduate research, internships, senior theses, independent study 2) An institution-specific measure. For example: – Public service internships – Retention of students of color 7
Performance on Common Measures: Graduation Efficiency (Freshmen) • 100 percent is “perfect” efficiency • Long-term goal set by legislature =. 95 Institution Central Eastern Evergreen Univ of Wash State Univ Western 1996 -99 Baseline 88. 0 87. 9 93. 0 89. 6 90. 0 86. 6 2002 -03 Performance 85. 5 91. 7 91. 0 90. 1 91. 3 86. 8 8
Performance on Common Measures: Graduation Efficiency (Transfers) • 100 percent is “perfect” efficiency • Long-term goal set by legislature =. 90 Institution Central Eastern Evergreen Univ of Wash State Univ Western 1996 -99 Baseline 83. 8 77. 9 90. 0 81. 7 81. 0 80. 5 2002 -03 Performance 81. 6 76. 6 90. 0 82. 3 84. 3 80. 0 9
Performance on Common Measures: Undergraduate Retention • Percentage of students returning the next year • Long-term goal set by legislature =. 95 for research universities; . 90 for comprehensives Institution Central Eastern Evergreen Univ of Wash State Univ Western 1996 -99 Baseline 80. 5 88. 5 76. 0 87. 2 84. 4 85. 5 2002 -03 Performance 83. 1 87. 1 81. 0 89. 2 86. 6 87. 9 10
Performance on Common Measures: Five. Year Graduation Rate • Percentage of freshmen students graduating within five years • Long-term goal set by legislature =. 65 for research universities; . 55 for comprehensives Institution Central Eastern Evergreen Univ of Wash State Univ Western 1996 -99 Baseline 39. 4 41. 7 45. 0 63. 8 54. 0 2002 -03 Performance 41. 5 35. 5 49. 0 64. 0 54. 7 56. 2 11
HECB Recommendations • Continue to monitor graduation and retention rates and the graduation efficiency index • Support institution-specific measures • Tie accountability processes to the strategic master plan • Support performance contract pilot project • If current accountability reporting continues, change timeline so that report is due to legislature in December 12
Скачать презентацию Accountability in Washington State Four-year Institutions House Higher
ad09bb80b67ceee5f780694c223ff818.ppt