1 / 26

Increased Differentiation: “Panacea, Pandora’s Box, or Red Herring?”

This presentation explores the concept of differentiation in higher education and its potential implications. It examines the real problems, costs, and cost drivers associated with differentiation, as well as the need for accountability and innovation. The presentation also discusses the unintended consequences and challenges of implementing differentiation policies.

leedavid
Télécharger la présentation

Increased Differentiation: “Panacea, Pandora’s Box, or Red Herring?”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Increased Differentiation: “Panacea, Pandora’s Box, or Red Herring?” CUPA Conference, Hamilton June, 2011 Ken Snowdon This presentation has ‘notes’ attached. Please view in “Print Preview” - “Notes Pages”

  2. Panacea, Pandora’s Box, or Red Herring? • Panacea • cure-all, magic potion • Pandora’s Box • “opening Pandora's box means to create evil that cannot be undone” (Wikipedia) • “Red Herring” • deflects attention from the real issue

  3. Overview • Differentiation – just the facts • Panacea, Pandora’s Box, or Red Herring? • What’s the real problem(s) • Costs and cost drivers • Concluding Comments

  4. Differentiation – Just the Facts

  5. California – PSE ‘snapshot’ SystemNumber of Institutions University of California 10 California State University 23 California Community Colleges 112 Other Public Colleges and Universities 2 WASC-Accredited Non-public 4-Year Institutions 109 WASC-Accredited Non-public 2-Year Institutions 11 State-Approved Institutions 180 Institutions Exempt from State Approval 27 Data Generated on Friday, May 27, 2011 at 7:33:37 AM

  6. California – Enrolment

  7. California – Enrolment FTE

  8. California Master Plan • California's Master Plan for Higher Education is a compact between the State of California and its public higher education institutions. The Master Plan provides that all California residents in the top one-eighth (12.5%) or top one-third (33%) of the statewide high school graduating class who apply on time be offered admission to some campus within the UC or CSU system, respectively, although not necessarily at the campus or in the major of first choice. http://www.cpec.ca.gov/SecondPages/FAQ.asp#middle_column (June 1, 2011)

  9. “California dreaming”…?

  10. California indicator Student to Faculty Ratio • Full-time-equivalent students per full-time-equivalent faculty at public, 4-year, degree-granting institutions, Fall 2009. 16.7:1 • Things that make you go hmm…

  11. Pandora’s Box • Mandated differentiation is not the same as competitive differentiation (what is the role of government?) • Into the ‘weeds’… • Setting criteria and adjudication for differentiation • Micromanaging incentives/disincentives … a recipe for gamesmanship and unintended consequences • Politics has trumped some differentiation initiatives in the past… • “There is a high probability that the general public and prospective students will view teaching-only institutions as less prestigious and desirable than current institutions with established reputations.” (OUSA) • Would it result in more differentiation than at present?

  12. Red Herring(s)? • Credit transfer • On-line / Distance Education • Differentiation • (more) Accountability • Internationalization • Faculty compensation • …”perks control” & get rid of consultants!

  13. "A problem clearly stated is a problem half solved." – Chinese fortune cookie (California Postsecondary Education Commission) • Expanded mandates • Increased access • Increased research • Innovation agenda • Regional catalyst for economic development • Expectations – international economic development • Limited resources • $ to recognize research costs / faculty time • $ to recognize cost increase pressures • Government $ focused on growth/access

  14. Students are connecting the dots… “Though the rapid expansion in graduate education and research infrastructure has been positive from an innovation and productivity perspective, the research and graduate education funding incentives available to all Ontario universities have had the unintended negative consequence of straining resources for undergraduate teaching across the province.” Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA), The Differentiation Debate: Submission to the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, August 2010, p.15

  15. Cost studies – findings • Differences in methodologies • total costs, instruction costs, faculty time • Units of student activity • Similarities in relative costs at the discipline level • Acknowledgement that cost studies provide ‘gross estimates’…. • the funding mechanism is (usually) block grant.

  16. Ontario’s – program costs It cannot be over-emphasized that the formula is designed to produce a reasonably equitable over-all distribution of basic university income. It is not intended as apattern for spending (emphasis added). The Formula Weights do not reflect the very important differences in costs among the various subjects within a given program or among course years. These differences are averaged out in the weighting process and not significant for the relatively simple income producing formula proposed. Committee on University Affairs, A Formula for Operating Grants to Provincially Assisted Universities in Ontario, Report to the Ministry of University Affairs, November, 1966.

  17. Cost studies – findings • Middaugh’s Delaware project • “80% of “instructional” cost differences among institutions is due to discipline ‘mix’” • “…it is possible to examine a research university and a baccalaureate college, each focused on the social sciences and humanities, and find no difference in overall unit instructional costs ….”

  18. Middaugh’s – findings • Service departments (e.g., English and mathematics) are among those with the lowest instructional costs, and • their costs are comparable with those in the social sciences. • Instructional costs in the physical sciences are in the next highest level and are comparable to those in education, business, and art. • Costs are highest in engineering and nursing. Middaugh, et.al., p.18

  19. Costs and cost drivers • Faculty time • Salary differentials by discipline • Program norms • Student to faculty ratio

  20. Allocation of Faculty Time Changing Academic Profession Survey, 2007, Canada n=~1000

  21. Allocation of Faculty Time Changing Academic Profession Survey, 2007, Canada n=~1000

  22. Cost Studies - Key Cost Driver- Faculty Compensation by Discipline Source: Statistics Canada, as reported in the CAUT Almanac 2010-2011, Table 2.7

  23. Further Research • Determining to what extent the discipline salary differential explains differences in institutional cost comparisons by region, and/or by type of institution; • Exploring the concept of discipline teaching norms and, using appropriate data, determine if there are differences in teaching norms in Canada; and • Determining an estimate of how much faculty time, and resource, is devoted to sponsored research where faculty time is not reimbursed by the sponsor.

  24. Concluding Comments • The “system” would benefit from better data, analysis, and “evidence” • Differentiation is neither a panacea nor Pandora’s Box • The real problem is funding expanded mandates properly… • Understanding costs and cost drivers helps frame funding discussions • Keep it simple… focus on quality

  25. Questions Discussion

  26. Source Information 1. Graduation Rates University of California and California State, California Postsecondary Education Commission Graduation Rates for Students Starting College in 2001 The data presented below are from a longitudinal report collected by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) in 2007. Only colleges and universities that reported this data in this year are included. Some schools, such as University of California Merced and California State University Channel Islands, are too new. The report follows a group of full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students that started college in 2001, labeled below as the Cohort. The Completions columns indicate how many of the original cohort received their bachelor's degree in 4 years, 5 years, and 6 years. California Community Colleges, California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, Focus on Results, Accountability Reporting for the Community Colleges, March 2010 2. State Cost estimates http://www.cpec.ca.gov/SecondPages/FAQ.asp#middle_column, (retrieved June 1, 2011) 3. Fees by sector California Postsecondary Education Commission, Affordability of Higher Education: California and Other States, Report 11-01, February 2011 4. Cost studies & formulas – specific reference Middaugh, M.F., Graham, R., Shahid, A., A Study of Higher Education Instructional Expenditures: The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity, Research and Development Report, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2003-161, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences 5. Allocation of Faculty Time Source: Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE), The Changing Academic Profession over 1992-2007: International, Comparative and Quantitative Perspectives, Report of the International Conference on the Changing Academic Profession Project, 2009, RIHE International Seminar Reports, Number 13, September 2009, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.

More Related