Definition of Equity Research

							Council for Education Policy,
Research and Improvement

     November 6, 2002
         Meeting
    WELCOME

New College of Florida
          AGENDA
II.    Approval of Minutes
III.   Chairman’s Report
IV.    Executive Director’s Report
V.     Centers & Institutes
VI.    University Equity Funding

VII.   Master Plan
II. Approval of Minutes
III. Chairman’s Report
IV. Executive Director’s
        Report
V. Postsecondary Centers
   and Institutes
    Staff report
    Council discussion
      C&I Common Characteristics
• C&Is contribute to tripartite mission of modern
  university: instruction, research and service.
• C&I research and development products contribute
  to regional, state and nationwide economic
  development.
• C&Is attract faculty and external research dollars
  that result in scientific discovery and technological
  development.
• The entrepreneurial nature of many C&Is places
  them in a unique position to quickly respond to
  needs of business and industry.
• C&Is provide training and educational
  opportunities for students.
         Evaluative Core Elements
Quantitative Indicators:
 Amount of external research expenditures,
  potential for grant leveraging, number of research
  publications.
Qualitative Measures:
   Development of knowledge and new discoveries;
   Development of economic growth;
   Capabilities of investigators;
   Collaboration efforts with other C&Is;
   Requests for center assistance in problem solving;
   Potential for Technology Transfer;
   Education & training opportunities for students
        State Governing Boards
• Only Texas conducts statewide expert peer
  review of separately budgeted C&Is.
• Majority of C&Is do not receive state review
• Established outcome measures include:
  Intrinsic merit, research performance;
• Potential contribution to development of
  knowledge and instruction, economic
  development, and student progress.
• New York: Legislative Agency provides
  competitive state funds to centers based on
  potential for commercialization.
              Peer Institutions
• More disparities than commonalities.

• Variations in definition, establishment,
  structure, purpose, funding, reporting,
  evaluation.

• None of the universities were required to send
  an annual performance report for all of their
  C&Is to a State governing or Legislative Body.

• Considerably more institutional oversight
  review and analysis of C&Is than Florida.
       Analysis of Peer Institutions
• Three institutions had Legislatively established
  C&Is.

• A majority had established policies governing the
  creation, evaluation, dissolution of C&Is.

• More than half conduct an institutional-wide
  review/only two do not require college/dept level
  review.

• Criteria for evaluation dependent on mission.

• Large Research Institutions expect C&Is to
  become self sufficient after initial state funding.
    Best Practices/Peer Institutions
• Clearly defined policies for C&I establishment,
  closing, evaluation.
• Regularly scheduled internal and university wide
  evaluations.
• Evaluations conducted by university wide faculty
  committee that reports to Provost or Vice
  President for Research.
• C&Is maintain updated web pages with core data
  elements and information.
• Universities maintain current C&I data that is
  easily accessible to government entities.
          Specific Best Practices:
           C&I Establishment
• Institution provides specific establishment criteria.
• C&I proposal must contain evidence of why the
  creation of center is necessary to carry out
  proposed activities.
• C&I must advance the university’s strategic goals,
  add value to institution’s research environment,
  and provide for collaborative/interdisciplinary
  ventures.
• Proposal reviewed by Research Council comprised
  of university wide Faculty members.
• Proposal approved by Department Chair/Dean and
  Provost or VP for Research.
         Specific Best Practices:
               Evaluation
• All C&Is provide annual report to university-
  wide Council on Research charged with
  review/ allocation of funds.

• Evaluation Criteria:
  – Evidence of quality of program
  – Leveraged return on university’s investment
  – Successful fostering of collaborative relations
  – Contribution to education & training of students
  – attainment of or progress toward attainment of
    C&I goals/objectives
      Specific Evaluation Criteria

• Every 3-5 years, each C&I conducts an
  examination of its activities and achievements
  geared toward programmatic self-improvement.

• This internal review is coupled with an external
  review, or a compilation of outside reviews by
  major funding sponsors.

• Review is submitted to Vice President of
  Research who may put C&I on probation or
  terminate if goals and objectives not being met.
        C&I Evaluation in Florida
• C&Is are required to submit annual reports to
  Division of Colleges and Universities (DCU).

• Reports do not provide specific evaluation
  criteria or outcomes.

• Reports are not used by universities or DCU to
  evaluate, fund, continue or dissolve C&Is.

• Annual reporting to central office is ineffective
  and does not contribute to evaluation of C&Is.
    Evaluation of C&Is in Florida
• C&Is subject to external funding agency reviews.
• C&Is may be part of university-wide accreditation
  or DCU programmatic reviews.
• In general, no systematic, coordinated process for
  internal institution-wide C&I evaluation in place.
• C&Is may receive departmental/college wide
  reviews-usually connected to faculty evaluation.
• Existing evaluations do not contain core,
  evaluative elements that can measure objectives.
• Several universities are developing new policies for
  establishing and reviewing C&Is.
  C&I Classification and Evaluation
• Currently C&Is in Florida are classified as
  Type 1,2,3 based on mission and funding.
• As numbers of C&Is have increased this taxonomy
  has become less meaningful or descriptive of C&I
  mission, activities, and funding.
• Type 1 C&Is have “statewide” missions but not all
  receive specific legislative appropriations and
  many type 2s have statewide missions and some
  receive specific allocations.
• Type 3 C&Is do not receive a specific legislative or
  university budget allocation but do use university
  infrastructure.
 Centers and
  Institutes


Council Discussion
VI. University Equity Funding
     Staff report
     Council discussion
Results of Survey of
   Universities
  “How do you define equity in
Educational and General funding?”
               Most Had
            Similar Themes
• “Equity funding is fair funding within available
  funds, not equal funding per FTE for each
  institution.”

• “Equity does not mean that institutions
  receive equal dollars, but rather that a
  consistent set of principles and funding
  factors is applied in a uniform and fair way.”
       Reasons to Provide
      Differential Funding
• High Cost of Doctoral and Prof. Programs/
  Grad Instruction and Research Mission
• High Cost of Undergraduate Institution
• High Cost Disciplines
• Faculty Salaries Relative to Peers
• Branch Campuses
• Diseconomy of Small Size
• Local Costs/Cost of Living
• Workload From Part-Time Students
   Proposed Definition
Equity in Educational and General
funding is the uniform application
of a consistent set of principles and
funding factors for all state
universities, which will allow each
university to accomplish its defined
mission.
(refer to s. 1001.02(2)(w) and (5)(a)
and 1001.74(7), F.S., for defining of
mission)
 “Do you believe there is an equity
funding problem among institutions
 within the state university system?
            If yes, why?”


   All 11 universities answered
              “yes.”
     Causes of Inequity among
        Florida Universities
Historical Inequity of    Historical Inequity of
High Funding for Older Vs Funding Cuts for
Institutions              Graduate/Rsch. Univ.
Using Historical          Not Using Historical
Differences in Funding Vs Differences in Funding
per FTE                   per FTE
Inconsistent Funding      Attempts to Incr Funding
Policies, Political    Vs Because Other Univ Were
Appropriations            Funded for Specific
                          Mission Assignments

Unfunded Mandates
 “Do you believe there is an equity
funding problem between your own
     institution and its peers?”


    Nine universities answered
              “yes.”
     Selection of Peers
• Variables frequently mentioned were:
  – Number of degrees awarded by
    discipline
  – Level of degrees
  – Enrollment
  – External research funding
  – Annual giving
  – SAT scores
  – Graduation rates
  – Location of institutions
         Use of Peers

• Monitoring how we are doing

• Developing benchmarks for strategic
  planning
    Basis for Inequity
    Compared to Peers
• Faculty salaries
• Number of faculty per student FTE
• Educational and General (E&G) dollars
  per credit hour….per graduate…..per
  student FTE
• Total resources per student FTE
           Next Steps

• Compare university funding to peers
  among state universities across the US

• Compare funding between Florida
  universities

• Prepare draft report for CEPRI’s
  December meeting
Equity Funding


Council Discussion
VII. Master Plan
   Committee Reports
      Teaching Profession
      Workforce Development
      K-20 Structure & Implementation


   Council Discussion
Committee on Workforce
   Development
 Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development


                  Activities

• Roundtable Discussion
  – Representatives from K-12, postsecondary,
    and business sectors


• Invited Speakers

• Background documents
     Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development


         Barriers to Workforce Development
• Basic Skills
   – Competency in reading, writing and mathematics (Relative
      performance to the nation (NAEP))
• Access
   – Meeting specific occupational needs
   – Financial aid issues
• Articulation between sectors
• Attracting Different Populations
   – Drop-outs
   – Middle and high school students
   – Traditional college-age students
   – Non-Traditional students
• Relevance of training to workforce needs, maintaining workforce
  skills
  Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development


                      Vision

• The creation of a knowledge-based, high skill
  economy with a citizenry educated to their
  maximum potential
  – To Maximize Human Resources and Potential
  – To Create Environment Conducive for Attracting
    and Sustaining High-Skill Business and Industry


           How do we get there?
    Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development


                         Goals
Goal 1:    K-12 students exit secondary education prepared to
           enter postsecondary education and sustainable
           employment.

Goal 2:    Adults and youth with deficiencies in basic skills
           must be provided with opportunities for attainment
           of skills necessary for sustainable employment and
           postsecondary education.

Goal 3:    Training in high-skill, high-wage occupations with
           growth potential for the State must receive priority.

Goal 4:    Business and industry involvement in postsecondary
           training must be an integral part of the workforce
           development system.
   Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development


                  Goals/Objectives
                         Goal 1
   K-12 students exit secondary education prepared
   to enter postsecondary education and sustainable
   employment.

• Objective 1.1 -- The K-12 system must ensure all
  students have a foundation of basic skills.

• Objective 1.2 -- The K-12 system must expose all
  students to applied learning in real world, career-based
  context.
    Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development


                Objectives/Strategies

•   Strategy 1.2.1 Requirement for the development of
    education and training plan related to career interests for
    late middle school and high school students.

•   Strategy 1.2.2 Curriculum Requirements at all levels
    of education related to career introduction, exploration
    and planning.

•   Strategy 1.2.3 State support for Career
    Academies/School within School/Collegiate High Schools
    and other opportunities to integrate academic and career
    education learning into high school.
  Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development


               Objectives/Strategies

• Strategy 1.2.4 Provide better awareness of careers to
  parents and students through Career Prep Ad Campaign.

• Strategy 1.2.5 K-12: Workforce Outcomes Follow-up
  Report by School that will provide feedback to school
  districts on proportion of students who do not immediately
  enter postsecondary training and an assessment of the
  wages earned locally by those students who do not
  receive a credential

• Strategy 1.2.6 Utilize mentoring programs that rely
  on peers and young adults to provide support for
  secondary students planning their education and careers
  Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development


               Objectives/Strategies

• Strategy 1.2.7 -- Better articulation of high school
  programs with vocational centers, community colleges and
  universities

• Strategy 1.2.8 -- Dropout Prevention efforts

• Strategy 1.2.9 -- Aptitude test to determine student skills
  Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development


                 Goals/Objectives

                     Goal 2
  Adults and youth with deficiencies in basic skills
  must be provided with opportunities for
  attainment of skills necessary for sustainable
  employment and postsecondary education.

• Objective 2.1 -- Address deficiencies in literacy and basic
  education
  Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development


              Objectives/Strategies


• Strategy 2.1.1 -- Adult basic education programs
  maintained

• Strategy 2.1.2 -- Family literacy programs
  Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development


                 Goals/Objectives
                         Goal 3
  Training in high-skill, high-wage occupations with
  growth potential for the State must receive
  priority.

• Objective 3.1 -- State must continue to identify targeted
  occupations.

• Objective 3.2 -- Increase production of graduates in
  high demand/high wage fields

• Objective 3.3 -- Lifelong learning opportunities must be
  available for upward mobility.
   Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development


                Objectives/Strategies
• Strategy 3.1.1 -- Requires a more dynamic system, not
  rely on state/local historical trend information – see Tampa
  Bay Partnerships efforts

• Strategy 3.2.1 -- Incentive funding for high-skill/high wage
  training

• Strategy 3.2.2 -- Financial aid for vocational programs,
  part-time students

• Strategy 3.3.1 -- Flexible scheduling, weekend and night
  classes, short-term programs

• Strategy 3.3.2 -- Comprehensive distance learning efforts
  Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development


                Goals/Objectives
                       Goal 4
  Business and industry involvement in
  postsecondary training must be an integral part of
  the workforce development system.

• Objective 4.1 -- Local education providers and local
  business leaders must work cooperatively to develop
  programs that meet industry standards and the local
  supply of workers.

• Objective 4.2 - State coordination of workforce
  development policy must be improved.
   Master Plan Committee on Workforce Development


                Objectives/Strategies

• Strategy 4.1.1 -- Corporate college model

• Strategy 4.1.2 -- Local strategic plans for workforce
  development

• Strategy 4.1.3 -- Cooperative arrangement for programs
  like those utilized in apprenticeship programs
Working Lunch
VIII. Other Items of Interest
   Upcoming Meetings:

December 11, 2002   Jacksonville
January 8, 2002     Tallahassee
IX. Adjournment
         Proposed
 Peer Identification System
 Category                          Definitions

Four-Year 1 Institutions awarding at least 100 doctoral degrees
            that are distributed among at least 10 disciplines with
            no more than 50 percent in any one category.
Four-Year 2
             Institutions awarding at least 30 doctoral degrees that
            are distributed among at least disciplines.

Four-Year 3 Institutions awarding at least 100 master's, education
            specialist, post-master's, or doctoral degrees with
            master's, education specialist, and post-master's
            degrees distributed among at least 10 disciplines.
        Proposed
Peer Identification System
Four-Year   Institutions awarding at least 30 master's,
4           education specialist, post-master's, or doctoral
            degrees with master's, education specialist, and
            post-master's degrees distributed among at least 5
            CIP categories (2-digit classification).
Four-Year   Institutions awarding at least 30 master's,
5           education specialist, post-master's or doctoral
            degrees.
Four-Year   Institutions awarding less than 30 master's,
6           education specialist, post-master's or doctoral
            degrees.
     Classification
of Florida Universities
CATEGORY      INSTITUTION
Four-Year 1   Florida State University
              University of Florida
              University of South Florida
Four-Year 2   Florida Atlantic University
              Florida International University
              University of Central Florida
Four-Year 3   Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
              University of North Florida
              University of West Florida
Four-Year 5   Florida Gulf Coast University
                                                               Return