250 likes | 362 Views
System Office Update. ACCBO Fall Conference October 23, 2012. Overview. 2013 Budget Priorities Performance-Based Funding Committee Work on Statewide Policy and Procedure Changes. 2013 Budget Priorities. Funding for Year‐Round Targeted Instruction ‐ $16.4 million recurring
E N D
System Office Update ACCBO Fall Conference October 23, 2012
Overview • 2013 Budget Priorities • Performance-Based Funding • Committee Work on Statewide Policy and Procedure Changes
2013 Budget Priorities • Funding for Year‐Round Targeted Instruction ‐ $16.4 million recurring • Target Areas: Tier 1 and developmental courses. • In 2013-14, colleges would receive funds as part of formula allocation to “start-up” summer instruction. • In future years, colleges would earn budget FTE for Tier 1 and developmental instruction provided in the summer. • Curriculum FTE counting period: Summer, Fall, Spring (i.e. Summer 2013 FTE in target areas would be included in FY 2014-15 BFTE)
2013 Budget Priorities • Performance‐Based Funding by Restoring Management Flex Cut ‐ $7.5 million recurring • Plan to request $7.5 million each year for 4 years to reach total of $30 million. • For each dollar of management flex restored, one dollar allocated based on performance. • Performance-based funding model focused on both quality and impact.
2013 Budget Priorities • Restructure NC Back‐to‐Work ‐ $ 5 million recurring • Support pre-employment training projects for business and industry that have unfilled jobs in North Carolina. • Investments in Technical Education Infrastructure • Non‐recurring funds available to equip and/or renovate labs and shops for Tier 1 programs.
Performance-Based Funding: Legislative Context • March 2012: Submitted report on revised performance measures, as required by Section 8.14 of S.L. 2011-145. • June 2012: General Assembly adopted revised performance measures through Section 8.5 of S.L. 2012-142 • February 2013: Due date for a report to the General Assembly that includes “a plan to incorporate these revised accountability measures and performance standards into regular formula funding.”
Performance Measures • Basic Skills formula already allocates funds based on performance: the number of GEDs/AHS diplomas awarded. • Due to upcoming changes to the GED exam and the need to further refine the methodology for measuring basic skills student progress, the Committee recommends focusing the performance-based funding model on the other six measures at this time.
Guiding Principles The performance-based funding system should: • Reward both student progress and completion. • Incentivize colleges in a way that: • Is not exclusive and provides opportunities for all colleges to benefit. • Does not provide a “winner take all” system. • Accommodates the fact that colleges are different. • Values progress/improvement. • Rewards both quality and impact. • Be implemented predictably, gradually, transparently, and as simplistically as possible. • Be supported with new, recurring funds.
Two-Pronged Approach Over a multi-year period, goal is to have $30 million in recurring funds to allocate based on: • Rewarding Quality • Allocate funds based on percentage of students who succeed on each measure • Rewarding Impact • Allocate funds based on the number of students who succeed on each measure
Rewarding Quality: In Concept • For each measure, colleges would earn PBF based on how they compared to both a floor and a goal: • If a college did not meet the floor, it would receive $0 in PBF for that measure. • If a college exceeded the floor, but did not meet the goal, it would receive a portion of its potential PBF for that measure. • If a college met the goal, it would receive 100% of potential PBF for that measure. • If a college exceeded the goal, it would receive more than 100% of potential PBF for that measure. Goal Floor
Rewarding Quality: Floor and Goals Based on up to 3 years (if available) of historical data: • Floor = 2 standard deviations below system mean • Goal = 1 standard deviation above system mean Floor and goal would remain the same for three years and then reset.
Rewarding QualityAn Example: Licensure Exam Passing Rates Goal • Systemwide Data: • Floor: 71% • Goal: 92% • Total # of students: 9,148 • Total PB Funding: $5 million • College Performance • (Passing Rates): • College A: 68% • College B: 83% • College C: 95% Floor
Rewarding QualityAn Example: Licensure Exam Passing RatesSTEP 1: Determine Potential PBF Amount Goal • Step 1: Determine each college’s “potential” quality allocation. • Potential PBF $ = The amount of PBF earned if a college meets the goal. • Total # of students = # of students in the denominator of the measure • Assumptions: • Total PB Funding: $5 million** • Total # of students: 9,148 • PB Funding per Student: $546.57 • Potential PBF $ = College A’s # test takers * $546.57 Floor ** The Committee has discussed two options: $5 million per measure and $225 per student , both of which would cost approximately $30 million across the 6 measures. Regardless, the mechanics of the model work the same.
Rewarding QualityAn Example: Licensure Exam Passing RatesSTEP 1: Determine Potential PBF Amount • Assumptions: • Total # of test takers = 9,148 students • Total PBF = $5 million • Potential PBF per student = $546.57
Rewarding QualityAn Example: Licensure Exam Passing RatesStep 2: Determine PBF Percentage 125% Goal = 100% 75% 50% 25% Floor = 0% PBF Percentage = % of Potential PBF Earned
Rewarding QualityAn Example: Licensure Exam Passing RatesStep 2: Determine PBF Percentage • Assumptions: • Floor: 71% • Goal: 92% • 100% PBF = (92% - 71%) = 21 percentage points
Rewarding QualityAn Example: Licensure Exam Passing RatesStep 3: Determine Quality Allocation
Rewarding Impact: In Concept • Funds not allocated through the Quality component would be allocated among colleges through the Impact component. • Impact = the number of students that succeed on the measure • Step 1: Determine Impact Funding = Total PBF Funding – Quality Allocation • Step 2: Determine Impact Funding per Student = Impact Funding / Total # of Successful Students • Step 3: Determine College’s Impact Allocation = Impact Funding per Student * College A’s # of successful students
Rewarding ImpactAn Example: Licensure Exam Passing Rates • Systemwide Data : • Impact Funding: $5,000,000 - $3,788,280 = $1,211,720 • Total # of students passing licensure/certification exam: 7,952 • Impact Funding per student = $152.38
Putting the Pieces TogetherAn Example: Licensure Exam Passing Rates
Key Guiding Principles Review • Guiding Principle: The performance-based funding (PBF) system should incentivize colleges in a way that: • Is not exclusive and provides opportunities for all colleges to benefit. • Does not provide a “winner take all” system. • Accommodates the fact that colleges are different. • Values progress/improvement. • Rewards both quality and impact.
Committee Work on Statewide Policy and Procedure Changes • State Board Code Revisions • Chapter E, Student Tuition and Fees • Chapter H, Fiscal Management • Chapter C, Subchapter 400, Salaries & Benefits • 1G SBCCC 100.99 Budget FTE Funding • Capital Improvement Project Processes • 3-1/3-2 Forms and Procedures • 2/16-2/17 Forms and Procedures • Accounting Procedures Act • Revise “Minor Equipment” to “Non-Capitalized Equipment”? • Revisit inventory threshold • Consolidate or revise Purposes 210, 220, 230, and 240? • Revisit Voc Codes, particularly 20-29