Benchmarking Instructional Costs and Productivity: The Kansas Study

1
Benchmarking Instructional Costs and
Productivity The Kansas Study

• Jeffrey A. Seybert
• Director, Research, Evaluation, and
  Instructional Development
• Johnson County Community College
• Harriott Calhoun
• Director, Institutional Research and Information
  Services
• Jefferson State Community College
• Ellen Weed
• Vice President for Academic Affairs
• Nashville State Technical Community College

2
The Kansas Study

• Community College instructional
• costs and productivity
• Modeled on the Delaware Study
• Collects, analyzes, and reports data at
• the discipline level

3
The Kansas Study

• Supported by a three-year, 282,000
• grant from FIPSE (USDE).
• Colleges are able to analyze faculty
• workload and instructional cost at the
• academic discipline level of analysis.

4
Kansas Study History

• Summer 2002 FIPSE project approval and grant
  award
• Fall 2002-Fall 2003 Advisory committee
  identifies data elements, designs processes, and
  conducts two pilot studies

• Winter 2004 Year 1 project implementation 50
  institutions provided data
• Fall 2004 Aggregate reports distributed web site
  opened for peer comparisons
• Winter 2005 Second-year implementation
• 90 colleges enrolled

5
How Kansas Study Works

• Data Collection
• Web data entry
• Data verification
• Missing data and logical errors
• Partial data OK (min. 10 disciplines)
• Confidentiality assured
• Annual Reports
• National norms and institutional data
• Access to Kansas Study website for peer
  comparisons

6
Web Site

• Kansas Study Website (www.kansasstudy.org)
• Public information
• General information
• Enrollment form
• Sample data collection template
• Sample report tables
• Advisory committee
• Participating institutions
• Information available to participants only
• Log in password
• National norms by discipline
• Peer comparisons

7
2004 Reporting Institutions

• Location
• Urban 38
• Suburban 36
• Rural 26

8
2004 Reporting Institutions

• Size
• Less than 5,000 students 36
• 5,000 to 9,999 students 36
• 10,000 or more students 28

9
2004 Reporting Institutions

• Institution Type
• Single campus 42
• Multi-campus 54
• Multi-college district 4

10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
2005 Kansas Study Timeline

• February 1 Data Collection Starts
• May 15 Data Verification Process Initiated
• July 15 Participant Institutional Data Due
• August 1 Data Verification Reports Sent
• August Data Analyses Begin
• Early Fall Results Available Database Opened
  for Peer Comparisons/Benchmarking

18
Institutional Perspective Benefits to the
Institution

• Meaningful data for internal comparisons
• Credibility of a national model
• Methodology specifically adapted for the
  community college context.
• National data for making external comparisons
• Particularly advantageous when the college has no
  peers (by size, geographical location, program
  mix, etc.) within the state.

19
Institutional PerspectiveData Collection Issues

• Various costs may be budgeted at the
  institutional, area, or divisional level rather
  than by specific program/discipline.
• Personnel may wear multiple hats
• Teach in more than one discipline
• Have administrative assignments
• Receive released-time or/and extra pay for
  institutional duties not related to a specific
  program/discipline.

20
Institutional Perspective RECOMMENDATION

• Prorate expenditures so that true
  program/discipline costs are calculated.
• salaries
• benefits
• overload pay
• costs of released-time,
• support costs
• equipment, etc.

21
Campus UsesofKansas StudyforSACS Regional
Accreditation
22
SACS Core Requirement 2.5

• The institution engages in ongoing, integrated,
  and institution-wide research-based planning and
  evaluation processes that incorporate a
  systematic review of programs and services that
  (a) results in continuing improvement, and (b)
  demonstrates that the institution is effectively
  accomplishing its mission. (Institutional
  Effectiveness)
• USE ALL KANSAS STUDY TABLES

23
Annual Monitoring Data
24
Peer Comparisons
25
SACS Core Requirement 2.8

• The number of full-time faculty members is
  adequate to support the mission of the
  institution. The institution has adequate faculty
  resources to ensure the quality and integrity of
  its academic programs. In addition, upon
  application for candidacy, an applicant
  institution demonstrates that it meets
  Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1 for faculty
  qualifications. (Faculty)
• USE KANSAS STUDY TABLES 1-2 2-2

26
Faculty Staffing Analysis For

• All Programs
• Arts Sciences vs. Career
• Department or Division
• Peer Groups

27
Faculty Staffing Analysis - All Programs
28
Faculty Staffing Analysisfor Urban Peers

• English as a Second Language
• Developmental English
• College English

29
Faculty Staffing Analysis Urban Institutions
30
SACS Core Requirement 2.11

• The institution has a sound financial base,
  demonstrated financial stability, and adequate
  physical resources to support the mission of the
  institution and the scope of its programs and
  services.
• USE KANSAS STUDY TABLE 3-2

31
Cost Information by Program
32
Uses of Kansas Studyfor QEP Components

• Establishment of New Programs or Courses
• Tables 1-2, 2-2, 3-2 for planning
• Identify peer institutions for benchmarking.
• Improving Student Success in Selected Programs
• Look at national data to identify differences
• Locate selected peers at similar institutions

33
System Uses of Kansas Study
34
TBR Context

• Why Does TBR System Participate?
• Part of TBR and State initiatives
• Defining our future mandated cost study
• 2005-10 strategic plan mandated benchmarking
• TBR report card national comparisons
• 2005-10 performance funding pilot requirement
• Why Does TBR Provide Programming?
• Consistency across community colleges
• Useful for system policy and management decisions
• Makes participation possible for institutions

35
Strategic Planning

• Provides National Benchmarks
• By discipline areas
• For selected peers
• Annual Monitoring of Key Indicators
• Adjunct rates
• Student-faculty ratio

36
Performance Funding

• Points for Pilot Use of Kansas Study
• All 13 TBR Community Colleges
• Must Participate
• Submit Report of Usage of the
• Kansas Study for Improvement

37
System Level Ad Hoc Committee

• Institutional Input Through Academic
• Affairs for Use of Data
• Adoption of Key Indicators for Instructional
• Productivity and Effectiveness Reports
• Development of Common Questions for
  Institutions
• to Address
• Planning Based on Analysis of Common Questions

38
System Level Key Indicators

• FTE Students per FTE Faculty by Discipline
• Student Credit Hours per FTE Faculty as a
• Percentage of National Norm by Discipline
• Total Organized Class Sections per FTE Faculty
• Percentage SCH Taught by Full-time Faculty

39
Comparison Group Selection

• Peer Groups Based on Three Standards
• System reporting within Carnegie classification
  (includes Delaware model reporting also)
• System reporting per discipline by highest degree
  offered
• Institutional disciplines Select own peers

40
TBR Common Questions

• What significant changes can be detected over
• the last three years in (insert key
  indicator
• area)?
• How does three-year profile compare to that of
• institutional peers?
• What factors have contributed to the changes
• at your institution?
• Are you satisfied? Any alterations?

41
Case Making A Central Goal

• Can the Institution Make the Case that
• Based on allocation of faculty, it is improving
  instructional quality?
• It is effectively using faculty?
• Using resources responsibly?

42
Questions