Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Aligning Assessment, Planning, and Resource Allocation –
Nasrin Fatima, PhD Assistant Provost for
Institutional Research and Effectiveness and
Michael F. McGoff, PhD Senior Vice Provost and Chief Financial Officer
Binghamton University
Can it be Done?
2
Learning Outcomes
Implement/improve systematic, ongoing outcomes assessment process
Advance integrated planning processes that connect data gathering with resource allocation
Identify and allocate resources effectively to execute strategic, priority-based initiatives
3
Overview of the Session
Brief overview of the University
An overview of the assessment processes
Planning processes and data gathering
Effective allocation of resources to execute strategic, priority-based initiatives
Binghamton University Brief Overview of
5
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
Where is Binghamton?
6
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
Binghamton University
1946: Established as a branch of Syracuse University
1950: Joined SUNY system in as Harpur College
1965: Formally designated the State University of New York at Binghamton
Today: a public, comprehensive doctoral university 17,292 students in Fall 2016 13,632 undergraduate, 3,660 graduate Highly selective
7
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
Enrollment growth 2,
551
2,92
1 4,02
8 4,
588 5,
946 7,
228
7,60
4 7,
930 8,75
6 9,
107
9,69
5 9,
523
9,91
6 10
,231
10
,636
11
,280
11
,592
11
,725
11
,846
11
,964
12
,191
12
,306
12
,538
12
,588
12
,218
12
,202
11
,883
11
,966
11
,997
12
,089
11
,978
11
,976
12
,156
12
,259
12
,564
12
,473
12
,820
13
,099
13
,385
13
,860
14
,018
14
,373
14
,435
14
,887
14
,713
14
,895
14
,746
15
,308
16
,077
16
,694
16
,913
17
,292
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
8
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
Who we are
Original mission was liberal arts with one college
Now: seven schools and colleges Arts and sciences, management, engineering,
education, nursing, public affairs, pharmacy
Growing research and scholarship programs (~$40M/year)
Region’s largest economic driver ($1.4 billion annual impact)
9
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
Accreditation History
10-year self study — 2011
Periodic review report (PRR) — 2016
10
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
PRR reviewer’s report 2016
“A culture of assessment clearly permeates Binghamton University at the unit and institutional level in both undergraduate and graduate education.”
“Driven by the Road Map adapted in April 2013 and its five strategic priorities, Binghamton thoroughly integrates the planning and budgeting process.”
“All members of the campus community are to be commended for this relentless pursuit of excellence.”
11
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
Our mission
Binghamton University is a premier public university dedicated to enriching the lives of people in the region, state, nation and world through discovery and education and to being enriched by partnerships with those communities.
Assessment Processes
Learning outcomes assessment
Operational/functional unit level assessment
Institutional LEVEL assessment
General education assessment
Overview of
13
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
MSCHE standards
Assessment of student learning and achievement demonstrates that the institution's students have accomplished educational goals consistent with their program of study, degree level, the institution's mission, and appropriate expectations for institutions of higher education. (Standard V)
The institution’s planning processes, resources, and structures are aligned with each other and are sufficient to fulfill its mission and goals, to continuously assess and improve its programs and services, and to respond effectively to opportunities and challenges. (Standard VI)
14
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
Overview of strategic planning process
No consultant
Grassroots planning fostering campus buy-in Nine teams formed around categories of excellence 400 volunteers — students, faculty, staff, alumni and community
Team assignments based on desires, experience Campus leaders serve as co-chairs and serve on steering committee
Teams met weekly throughout fall 2012; establish five- and 20-year goals
15
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
Strategic priorities (SP)
SP1 Engage in path-breaking graduate education, research, scholarship and creative activities that shape the world.
SP2 Provide a transformative learning community that prepares students for advanced education, careers and purposeful living.
SP3 Unite to foster a diverse and inclusive campus culture.
SP4 Enhance the University's economic, social and cultural impact through engagement from the local to the global level.
SP5 Optimize the acquisition and allocation of human, technological, financial and physical resources.
16
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
Planning
Assessment Resource Allocations
Our goal:
university performance”
“Quality Engines: The Strategic Principles for competitive universities in the twenty-first century” by John V. Lombardi
“Faculty performance drives
18
Faculty are our most important resource.
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
19
Because it is so difficult!
Few universities formally collect and analyze indicators
of faculty output to inform and advance their mission…
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
20
“Much of the policy debate about the nature of faculty work is shrouded in myth, opinion, and conjecture.”
“The Mythologies of Faculty Productivity,” James S. Fairweather, Journal of Higher Education, Vol 73, No. 1 pp 26-27
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
21
“…There is a demand for accountability in higher
education and in order to gain accountability, particularly at a
time when faculty roles are changing, better performance
measures are needed.”
Michael Middaugh
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
22
Finding ways to describe and quantify faculty
performance is important.
But a focus on using data to assess progress
and to advance the strategic plan is critical.
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
23
For the last 15 years…
Binghamton University has made it a priority to collect and to understand our
faculty’s accomplishments. They are critical to our mission:
Road Map to Premier
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
24
This approach to integrating faculty activities
into University planning evolved from a required
annual faculty report.
25
To simplify and standardize data
collection, we created a web-
based instrument — with faculty participation.
Faculty members use it annually to report their
activities.
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
26
The “Contributions to Mission” report created
from the database is used with two other reports to
describe activity at the unit (department) level.
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
27
In periodic discussions with each unit we explore how the department as a whole — and
the individual faculty in particular — are contributing
to the advancement of the university’s mission and
strategic aspirations.
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
28
“Viewing faculty productivity as an aggregate across faculty members permits department
chairs and departmental committees to combine the
efforts of their individual members to achieve acceptable
levels of productivity.” “The Mythologies of Faculty Productivity,” James S. Fairweather
29
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
Two important outcomes:
1. Data on faculty productivity can be used to measure progress toward the University’s strategic objectives
2. Productivity tools can be used to inform discussions about resource allocation (and redeployment)
start at the unit level
Using productivity tools to affect change should
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
31
Binghamton uses three faculty performance tools to advance its mission, to chart progress, and to deploy resources at the unit level, at the school level,
and at the university level.
32
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
Visits to Academic Departments
The First Tool: Delaware Study – Department Dashboard
The Second Tool: Faculty “Contributions to Mission”
The Third Tool: Academic Analytics National Comparisons
1 2 3
33
The First Tool
Unit Performance
A dashboard enhanced by inclusion of benchmarks provided by Middaugh’s
“Delaware Study”
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
34
The National Study of Instructional Costs & Productivity (The Delaware
Study) is the “tool of choice” for comparative analysis of faculty
teaching loads, direct instructional cost, and separately budgeted
scholarly activity, all at the level of the academic discipline.
35
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
36
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
37
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
38
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
39
The Second Tool
Faculty “Contributions
to Mission” Individual achievements
in context
40
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
The Web-based report is…
Pre-populated with information from student records, sponsored funds and human resources databases
We do not require faculty to input things we already know
41
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
The design is important
It has to meet the specific needs of each discipline
It has to be easy to use
The faculty have to think of it as theirs
42
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
At Binghamton
Over 90% of faculty complete their Annual Report each year
These reports are used regularly to inform decisions at the department level, the dean’s level, and the provost’s level
43
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
Year
Nam
e
Title
Rep
ort
Com
men
t
FTE
Sem
este
rs
Ava
ilabl
e
Sect
ions
Tau
ght
Sect
ion
SCH
MS
& P
hD T
hesi
s SC
H
Ind
Stud
y, In
tern
ship
an
d Pr
actic
um S
CH
Lab/
Act
ivity
SC
H
Boo
k, e
Boo
k
Boo
k C
hapt
er
Boo
k R
evie
w
Jour
nal A
rtic
le
Con
fere
nce
Pub,
En
cycl
oped
ia E
ntry
, C
reat
ive
Com
posi
tion,
Tr
ansl
atio
n
Edito
r of a
Boo
k or
B
ook
Cha
pter
Con
fere
nce/
Post
er
Pres
enta
tion
or
Tech
nica
l Rep
ort
Indi
vidu
al L
ectu
re,
Rea
ding
Key
note
, Exh
ibiti
on,
Perf
orm
ance
, Cur
ator
Rel
ease
Tim
e[s
alar
y +
frin
ge]
Res
earc
h Ex
pend
iture
s
Tota
l Cre
dit H
ours
2015-2016 Faculty Member 1 P Yes 2.00 2.00 980 7 68 4 13 3 $133,088 1,0552015-2016 Faculty Member 2 aP Yes 2.00 2.00 96 8 33 102 8 1 $40,929 2392015-2016 Faculty Member 3 P Yes 2.00 2.00 34 5 27 18 3 $31,304 662015-2016 Faculty Member 4 P Yes 2.00 2.50 138 4 18 170 2 3302015-2016 Faculty Member 5 P Yes 2.00 2.00 992 14 18 7 10 $756,706 1,0242015-2016 Faculty Member 6 aP Yes 2.00 2.00 172 4 1 3 1762015-2016 Faculty Member 7 P Yes 2.00 2.50 597 7 45 2 5 $603,175 6492015-2016 Faculty Member 8 P Yes 2.00 3.00 356 24 2 3802015-2016 Faculty Member 9 AP No 2.00 5.00 1,404 1,4042015-2016 Faculty Member 10 P Yes Chair 1.00 1.00 24 11 44 2 1 4 $14,691 792015-2016 Faculty Member 11 P Yes 2.00 1.00 48 14 46 1 9 21 2 $12,004 $1,079,088 1082015-2016 Faculty Member 12 AP Yes 2.00 3.00 118 1 14 166 2 2 $4,683 2992015-2016 Faculty Member 13 P Yes 2.00 1.00 100 12 27 199 1 2 3382015-2016 Faculty Member 14 P Yes 2.00 2.00 912 26 53 1 2 1 2 $32,214 9912015-2016 Faculty Member 15 AP Yes 2.00 1.00 56 10 15 1 2 812015-2016 Faculty Member 16 AP Yes 2.00 2.00 594 11 67 4 1 1 $12,003 $230,164 6722015-2016 Faculty Member 17 aP Yes 2.00 2.00 880 9 60 202 1 10 11 1 $102,574 1,1512015-2016 Faculty Member 18 DP Yes 2.00 3.00 1,072 11 14 1 5 2 2 1,0972015-2016 Faculty Member 19 P No 2.00 0.00 3 106 1092015-2016 Faculty Member 20 DP Yes 2.00 4.00 641 55 56 8 9 7 2 3 1 7522015-2016 Faculty Member 21 AP Yes 2.00 2.00 66 1 47 1 2 2 1142015-2016 Faculty Member 22 DP Yes 2.00 3.00 590 2 18 4 8 1 6102015-2016 Faculty Member 23 aP Yes 2.00 2.00 500 1 44 5 4 5452015-2016 Faculty Member 24 I Yes 2.00 3.00 3,876 101 3,9772015-2016 Faculty Member 25 DSP Yes 2.00 4.00 202 3 8 166 1 4 2 1 $4,683 $3,008,375 3792015-2016 Faculty Member 26 P Yes 2.00 3.50 43 2 50 1 1 2 $11,995 $783,321 952015-2016 Faculty Member 27 DP Yes 2.00 0.00 19 39 14 8 3 $23,972 $801,601 582015-2016 Faculty Member 28 aP Yes 2.00 1.00 548 19 56 20 1 1 $92,088 $172,924 6232015-2016 Faculty Member 29 P Yes 2.00 3.00 548 4 1 5482015-2016 Faculty Member 30 aP Yes 2.00 3.00 776 26 14 2 4 8162015-2016 Faculty Member 31 AP Yes 2.00 2.00 912 2 36 2 1 950
61.00 69.50 17,275 283 1,152 1,005 0 13 0 105 19 2 142 23 3 $161,429 $7,790,152 19,715
44
The Third Tool Within the context of the discipline
45
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
Academic Analytics™ Measures of Faculty Productivity
Journal publications per capita
Book publications per capita
A combined book and journal publication index
Journal citations
46
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
Academic Analytics™ Measures of Faculty Productivity
• Grant dollars per faculty member
• Percentage of faculty members in a department receiving grants
• A “faculty funding Index” based on various grant measures
• Awards and honors per faculty member
47
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
48
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
49
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
50
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
Success! These tools have:
Enabled chairs, deans and the provost to allocate and to redeploy funds to more effective advantage
Encouraged more scholarship
Caused changes in teaching assignments
Enabled the University to measure progress toward strategic objectives and report that progress to constituents – both internal and external
progress is measured Progress is made where
52
M I D D L E S T A T E S C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N
QUESTION?