120 likes | 205 Views
Accountability in Washington State Four-year Institutions. 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?.
E N D
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?
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
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
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
Accountability Indicators Used in Washington at Four-year Colleges Four common measures • The percentage of freshmen who graduate within five years • The percentage of undergraduates who return the following year (retention) • Graduation efficiency (freshmen) • Graduation efficiency (transfers) Graduation efficiency measures credits to degree Calculated as: total credits required for degree Minus transfer credits/ Total credits attempted
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
Performance on Common Measures: Graduation Efficiency (Freshmen) • 100 percent is “perfect” efficiency • Long-term goal set by legislature = .95 Institution 1996-99 Baseline 2002-03 Performance Central 88.0 85.5 Eastern 87.9 91.7 Evergreen 93.0 91.0 Univ of Wash 89.6 90.1 Wash State Univ 90.0 91.3 Western 86.6 86.8
Performance on Common Measures: Graduation Efficiency (Transfers) • 100 percent is “perfect” efficiency • Long-term goal set by legislature = .90 Institution 1996-99 Baseline 2002-03 Performance Central 83.8 81.6 Eastern 77.9 76.6 Evergreen 90.0 90.0 Univ of Wash 81.7 82.3 Wash State Univ 81.0 84.3 Western 80.5 80.0
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 1996-99 Baseline 2002-03 Performance Central 80.5 83.1 Eastern 88.5 87.1 Evergreen 76.0 81.0 Univ of Wash 87.2 89.2 Wash State Univ 84.4 86.6 Western 85.5 87.9
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 1996-99 Baseline 2002-03 Performance Central 39.4 41.5 Eastern 41.7 35.5 Evergreen 45.0 49.0 Univ of Wash 63.8 64.0 Wash State Univ 53.8 54.7 Western 54.0 56.2
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