Student Success and Completion Model - Oregon · 4/2/2015 · Hour and Degree Completion pools]...

Br ian Fox , Di rec tor, Pub l i c Un ivers i t y Budge t & F inance 4/2/2015

Student Success and

Completion Model HECC FUNDING & ACHIEVEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE

2

Frame HECC requirements and funding

structure

Review budget model development process

Overview of Student Success and Completion

Model components

Action Recommendation to full Commission on

OARs.

DISCUSSION GOALS

3

ORS 351.735(3)(d)

3) The Higher Education Coordinating Commission shall:

d) Adopt rules governing the distribution of

appropriations from the Legislative Assembly to

community colleges, public universities listed in ORS

352.002 and student access programs. These rules must be

based on allocation formulas developed in consultation

with the state’s community colleges and public universities,

as appropriate.

OAR 715-013-0025 – SSCM Structure

OAR 715-013-0040 – SSCM Weighting Factors

LEGISLATIVE MANDATE

4

HECC STRATEGIC PLAN

5

Reflect HECC strategic plan and OEIB Equity Lens

Focus on student access and success with an emphasis on

underrepresented populations

Encourage high demand/high reward degrees

Recognize/reward differentiation in institutional mission and

scope

Use clearly defined, currently available data

Maintain clarity and simplicity

Utilize phase-in period to ensure stability, beginning with

2015-17 biennium

WORKGROUP CHARGE

6

Focus on academic quality as threshold for any

outcome

Supporting funding model with institutional

evaluation framework which identify metrics

focusing on:

Institutional capacity

Educational process

Externally validated measures of student learning

Long-term outcomes of graduates

Include comprehensive qualitative and quantitative measures

Recognize multifaceted nature of academic quality

ACADEMIC QUALITY

7

University Presidents, HECC Commission and staff leadership discus TWG Principles (6/5/14)

OBF Technical Workgroup (TWG) formed in June, 2014 and concluded February, 2015

HECC Staff met with VPFAs as a group throughout the model development process

HECC staff met individually with campus leadership

HECC F&A briefed and provided feedback on model development process monthly since October, 2014 to March, 2015

HECC briefed on model development on: 6/12/14, 9/11/14, 2/12/15

PROCESS

8

Use existing States’ funding allocation models and literature to create an the SSCM which builds from others yet meets Oregon’s unique institutional context

Meet the principles ar ticulated in the workgroup charge: Reflect HECC strategic plan and OEIB Equity Lens

Focus on student access and success with an emphasis on underrepresented populations

Encourage high demand/high reward degrees

Recognize/reward differentiation in institutional mission and scope

Use clearly defined, currently available data

Maintain clarity and simplicity

Utilize phase-in period to ensure stability, beginning with 2015 -17 biennium

Develop functional model mechanics

“Tee-up” model and policy questions for Commission Commission endorsed weighting structure on Feb. 12, 2015

Advise on transition and implementation plan

WORKGROUP’S PROCESS & OUTCOMES

9

6/6: Review principles and previous OUS effor t; hear from consultants on national landscape and best pract ices

7/7: Review background material , academic and policy l i terature, scope conversation; review cur rent PUSF framework

9/22: Campuses submit/rank outcome measures/metrics; discuss academic quality; g roup determines model inputs Degrees

Student sub-population success

Priority degree types

11/21: Review and adjust proposed model mechanics

12/1: Discuss weighting structures recommendation

12/19: Develop proposed weighting structure range to support Commission/HECC staff recommendation

1/14: Discuss weighting structure and scenarios

1/23: Discuss transit ion principles and develop transit ion structures

2/6: Discuss feedback from F&A Committee

2/9: Discuss staff Weighting Factor Recommendation

2/27: Final ize model and conclude workgroup

TWG MEETINGS

10

SSCM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

11

Miss ion Different ia l a l locat ion

Act iv i ty -Based Al locat ion (S tudent Cred i t Hour Complet ions)

Outcomes -Based Al locat ion (Deg ree Complet ions) Degrees & degree level

Baccalaureate

Masters

Doctoral

Professional

Graduate Certificates

Transfer Student Degrees

Student Sub-populations

Underrepresented minority students

Low income students (Pell recipients)

Rural students

Veteran students

Degree type

STEM

Health

Bilingual Education

Act iv i ty -Based Al locat ion/Outcome -Based Al locat ion Sp l i t

Transi t ion Pathway

MODEL VARIABLES EMBEDDED IN RULES

12

SSCM MODEL SUMMARY – FUNCTION

Mission Differentiation Allocation: Mission Support

Research Support

Regional Support

Allocates funding based on credit hour completions: Course instructional cost weighting factors

Including subject area and level of study

Allocates funding based on degree completions: Degree duration and cost weighting factors

Priority student populations

Targeted degree programs

Provides smooth transition path: Stop-Loss – sets a funding change “floor” for all institutions

Stop-Gain – sets a funding change “ceiling” for all institutions

Graduated Increase in degree completion funding

Uses 3-year data averages

13

State’s General Fund contribution to educational activities of public universities.

Combined with student tuition and other revenues that are not included in the State budget, the PUSF provides basic institutional support.

Separate from State Programs appropriation for certain institutes, centers, and programs that address economic development, natural resources and other issues.

49% allocated in first year, 51% in second year

PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SUPPORT FUND (PUSF)

14

Tuition Offset continuation (HB 5101)

OAR provides deference to legislative intent by treating one-

off allocations outside of the SSCM until they role into CSL

OARs set aside funds associated with POP 101 which

continues HB 5101 tuition offset into the 2015-17 biennium

PUSF ADJUSTMENTS

SSCM Component Model Attribute OAR 715-013-0025 OAR 715-013-0040

HB 5101 Tuition Offset

ContinuationSection 9

15

TRU Shared Services and Operational Expenses

$12,097,683 over biennium to TRU institutions

Offsets new cost to TRUs associated with dissolution of

OUS

Current SSCM version removes from PUSF in FY16 and

allocates to institutions as scheduled in 2/23/15 VPFA letter

Included in PUSF in FY17 and subsequent years in Regional

Support funding

PUSF ADJUSTMENTS


TRU Shared Services Section 6(a)(i) Section 3

16

[Adjusted FY16 PUSF] – [Mission Differentiation] = [Credit Hour and Degree Completion pools]

OBF & ABF pools are allocated similarly: Institutional performance x weighting factors = weighted total

outcomes/activity basis

The entire credit hour and degree completion pool is allocated among institutions according to their respective ratio of performance points

Degree completions gradually become larger proportion of funding allocation

The Stop-Loss and/or Stop-Gain functions bracket variability during the transition period

Three-year rolling averages used in the SSCM balance predictability and responsiveness

SSCM MODEL SUMMARY – METHOD

17

All factors increase by Portland CPI inflation annually

Research Major portion of institutional mission at the three research universities

Serves key economic development and innovation needs of the state

Mission Provides funding for non-instructional public service mission

Includes base support for certain niche high-cost programs

Regional Support Provides resources for higher cost mission of TRU and OSU-Cascades which

serve a unique and critical educational need

Dual-Credit SCH-based funding to continue support for dual -credit course offerings

Based on 3-year average of Dual Credit completions

$50 per completed credit

SSCM – MISSION DIFFERENTIATION

18

Mission Differentiation

Largely unchanged from prior enrollment funding model

Not systematically evaluated by workgroup

Continues “base” support for public service type activities

Included in latest model version:

EOU Resident/Fundable subsidy (FY16: $1.99 Million)

OIT Terminal Degrees in health fields (FY16: $200,000)

Minor re-categorization across sub-categories

SSCM – MISSION DIFFERENTIATION

19

MISSION DIFFERENTIATION - OAR


Mission Differentiation:

Regional Support Section 6(a)(i) Section 3

Mission Support Section 6(a)(ii) Section 3

Research Support Section 6(a)(iii) Section 3

Dual Credit Funding Section 6(a)(iv) Section 4

20

Replicate cost-based weighting factor approach

in previous funding model

Supports and incentivizes enrollment, and

provides intermediate payment

Continues to support partnerships between

institutions and across sectors

Funds enrollment and courses for all resident

students

SSCM – CREDIT HOUR COMPLETIONS

21

CREDIT HOUR COST WEIGHTING


Student Credit Hour

Completions:

Section 1(c)

Section 6(b) Section 5

Section 6(b)(iii)

Cost Weighting

CIP Fr./Soph. Jr/Sr.Mast./

Prof.Ph.D.

1 1.8 2.44 2.82 3.27

2 1.8 2.44 2.82 3.27

3 1 1.29 1.45 2.73

4 1.8 2.44 1.96 2.73

5 1 1.29 1.45 2.73

9 1.26 1.61 1.96 3.27

10 1.26 1.61 1.96 2.73

11 1.26 1.81 2.82 4.13

13 1.26 1.61 1.45 3.27

14 1.8 2.44 2.82 4.13

15 1.8 2.44 2.82 3.73

Engineering

Engineering Technologies

Architecture

Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender, Group Studies

Communication, Journalism

Communication, Technologies

Computer and Information Science

Education

Table 4 SCH Cost Weighting

Description

Agriculture

Agricultural Sciences (Legacy)

Natural Resources, Conservation

Sample from Proposed OAR:

22

Re-evaluation to take place in FY16 for

implementation in FY17

Cost-weighting redesign will be a complex cost-accounting

exercise

Process to involve institution stakeholders

Current cost-weighting factors are from 1999

If updating of cost-weighting factors is significant a phased

implementation may be required

This re-evaluation is fundamental to institutional

agreement to move forward with SSCM

COST WEIGHT RE-EVALUATION

23

More tightly link state funding to state’s ambitious

40-40-20 goal

Matches “Tight-Loose” and funds institutions for

meeting students needs, particularly for those

hardest to reach and most underserved students

Complements enrollment based funding and tuition

Supports institutional investment in student services

and attracting and retaining equity lens students

Focuses institutional and state discussion and

accountability on student success and completion

SSCM – DEGREE COMPLETIONS

24

Why focus on degree completion?

Investments in degree outcomes enjoyed overwhelming

support of all TWG participants

Simple, un-“game-able” measure

Incentivizes transfer & articulation, aligning student

pathways

Focuses on high-quality offerings and investing in student

success

All levels (BA, MA, Prof., PhD) are important to Oregon and

the Oregon economy. Cannot meet goals of top-40 without

advanced degrees

SSCM – OUTCOME METRICS

25

Matches investment level with program duration

DEGREE LEVEL WEIGHTING

Table 5 Degree Level Weighting

Degree Level Weight

Baccalaureate Degrees 2.0

Masters Degrees 1.0

Doctorate Degrees 1.4

Professional Degrees 1.0

Graduate Certificates 0.2


Section 6(c)

Section 6(c)(vii)

Section 1(a)

Section 6(c)(i) Section 6

Section 1(n)


Section 1(f)


Section 1(q)


Section 1(h)


Doctoral Degree

First Professional Degree

Graduate Certificate

Master’s Degree

Degree Completions:

Bachelor’s Degree

26

Cost-weighting consistent with Student Credit Hour cost-

weighting

Based on RAM cost methodology

Example:

DEGREE COST WEIGHTING

CIP BA/BS

Masters/P

rof/Grad.

Cert

PhD

1 1.85 2.46 2.86

2 1.85 2.46 2.86

3 1 1.27 2.39

4 1.85 1.72 2.39

5 1 1.27 2.39

9 1.25 1.72 2.86

10 1.25 1.72 2.39

11 1.25 2.46 3.61

13 1.25 1.27 2.86

14 1.85 2.46 3.61

Degree Cost Weighting

Description

Agriculture

Agricultural Sciences (Legacy)

Natural Resources, Conservation

Architecture

Education

Engineering

Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Gender, Group Studies

Communication, Journalism

Communication, Technologies

Computer and Information Science

Table 6


Section 6(c)

Section 6(c)(vii)

Section 1(c)

Section 6(c)(ii) Section 7

Degree Completions:

Cost Weighting

27

Students who transfer from Community College

and complete BA/BS degrees

Cost-burden of degree production reduced for degree

granting institution

TRANSFER DEGREES

Table 9 Transfer Student Discount Factor

Bachelor’s Degree Discount Factor: 62.54%


Section 6(c)

Section 6(c)(vii)

Section 1(bb)

Section 6(c)(v)Transfer Degrees

Degree Completions:

28

Student sub-populations – key to meeting equity lens goals and meeting demographic challenges Include:

Underrepresented minority students

Low income students (Pell recipients)

Rural students

Veteran students

Methodology: “Additive”

Student completion in any one category receives additional weighting

Increased weighting with increased number of categories up to a set cap

Targeted sub-populations need additional resources/offer unique challenges and are more expensive to serve, yet are key to 40 -40-20

1 Category = approximately 1/3 additional resources on a degree bases

SSCM – OUTCOME METRICS

29

STUDENT SUB-POPULATIONS FACTOR

Table 8 Targeted Student Populations

Number of Targeted Student Population Categories Weight

1 0.8

2 1.0

3 1.1

4 1.2


Section 1(aa)

Section 6(c)(iv) Section 9

Veterans Students Section 1(ee) Section 9

Low Income Students Section 1(k) Section 9

Rural Students Section 1(u) Section 9

Underrepresented Minority

StudentsSection 1(cc) Section 9

Priority Student Sub-

Population Completions:

30

Oregon Employment Department forecasts for

high-wage/high-demand occupations:

Nearly all STEM, health or business related

Rewards institution to focus on critical areas of

the State’s economy

Bilingual Education is a key need for K-12

partners and changing demographic make up of

the state – links universities and K-12 system

This section will require periodic re-evaluation

process

RATIONALE – DEGREE TYPE

31

RATIONALE – DEGREE TYPE

32

Priority Degree Weight Factors

PRIORITY DEGREE WEIGHT FACTORS

Table 7 Priority Degrees

CIP Description Area of Study Weight Category

11 Computer and Information Sciences 1.2 STEM

14 Engineering 1.2 STEM

15 Engineering Technologies 1.2 STEM

26 Biological and Biomedical Sciences 1.2 STEM

27 Mathematics and Statistics 1.2 STEM

30.01 Biological and Physical Sciences 1.2 STEM

30.06 Systems Science and Theory 1.2 STEM

30.08 Mathematics and Computer Science 1.2 STEM

30.18 Natural Sciences 1.2 STEM

40 Physical Sciences 1.2 STEM

51 Health Professions, Related Programs 1.2 Health

BLE Bilingual Education 2.2 Bilingual Education


Targeted Degree

Program Completions:Section 6(c)(iii) Section 8

STEM Section 6(c)(iii) Section 8

Health Section 6(c)(iii) Section 8

Bilingual Education Section 6(c)(iii) Section 8

33

Degree Level Weight (BA/BS)

x Degree Area Weight (STEM)

x CIP-based Cost Weight (CIP 14)

Raw Degree Value

+ Sub-Population Bonus (1 category)

= Final Degree Value

DEGREE COMPLETIONS CALCULATION:

2.0

x 1.2

x 1.85

4.44

+ .80

5.24 Basis Points

Example: Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering (CIP 14) earned by student

representing 1 targeted student sub-population

34

TRANSITION

OBF/ABF Split Transition:

Stop Loss/Stop Gain:

If, during Fiscal Year 2016 through Fiscal Year 2020 the year-over-year change in the PUSF is less than the Stop Loss threshold for that fiscal year the designated Stop Loss is reset to the year-over-year change in the PUSF, such that the change in funding level for all public universities is pro rata.

Table 1 Activity-Based and Outcomes-Based Funding Proportions

Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Outcomes-Based Allocation

Proportion

20% 40% 60% 60% 60%

Activity-Based Allocation

Proportion

80% 60% 40% 40% 40%

(1) Table 10 Stop Loss and Stop-Gain

Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Stop Loss 4.5% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Disengaged

Stop Gain 1.5 x |ΔPUSF| 2016+10% 2017+10% 2018+10% Disengaged

35

TRANSITION - OAR


Transition:

Graduated Phase-In Section 6 Section 2

Stop Loss Section 7 Section 11

Stop Gain Section 7 Section 11

36

Updating Cost-Weighting Factors HECC asked staff to examine the possibility of updating the

cost weighting factors included within the model

Staff, in conjunction with the workgroup established that this is a complex cost-accounting task

Developed process to revisit cost-weighting factors next year, and implement changes beginning with FY 17

Model Reexamination Timeline Weight factors and priority degrees: As appropriate

Strategic evaluation: Even year of every third biennium

FUTURE ITEMS


Reexamination Timeline Section 11

37

Natural tension:

Institutional Focus Student Focus

MODEL IMPLICATIONS

38

FY16 Assumptions:

Degree and Credit Hour completions constant

PUSF at Co-Chairs ($635 Million)

Transition path:

20/80 OBF/ABF split

4.5% Stop Loss

1.5 x PUSF growth Stop Gain

FY15 RAM & PROJECTED FY16 SSCM

39

FY15 PER DEGREE

40

FY16 PER DEGREE

41

FY15 TOTAL ALLOCATION

42

FY16 TOTAL ALLOCATION

43

FY15 TO FY16 COMPARISON

44


45


46

QUESTIONS

47

MISSION DIFFERENTIATION COMPONENTS

48


49


50


51


Student Success and Completion Model - Oregon · 4/2/2015 · Hour and Degree Completion pools]...

Documents

Transcript of Student Success and Completion Model - Oregon · 4/2/2015 · Hour and Degree Completion pools]...