1 / 25

System Office Update

System Office Update. ACCBO Fall Conference October 23, 2012. Overview. 2013 Budget Priorities Performance-Based Funding Committee Work on Statewide Policy and Procedure Changes. 2013 Budget Priorities. Funding for Year‐Round Targeted Instruction ‐ $16.4 million recurring

questa
Télécharger la présentation

System Office Update

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. System Office Update ACCBO Fall Conference October 23, 2012

  2. Overview • 2013 Budget Priorities • Performance-Based Funding • Committee Work on Statewide Policy and Procedure Changes

  3. 2013 Budget Priorities • Funding for Year‐Round Targeted Instruction ‐ $16.4 million recurring • Target Areas: Tier 1 and developmental courses. • In 2013-14, colleges would receive funds as part of formula allocation to “start-up” summer instruction. • In future years, colleges would earn budget FTE for Tier 1 and developmental instruction provided in the summer. • Curriculum FTE counting period: Summer, Fall, Spring (i.e. Summer 2013 FTE in target areas would be included in FY 2014-15 BFTE)

  4. 2013 Budget Priorities • Performance‐Based Funding by Restoring Management Flex Cut ‐ $7.5 million recurring • Plan to request $7.5 million each year for 4 years to reach total of $30 million. • For each dollar of management flex restored, one dollar allocated based on performance. • Performance-based funding model focused on both quality and impact.

  5. 2013 Budget Priorities • Restructure NC Back‐to‐Work ‐ $ 5 million recurring • Support pre-employment training projects for business and industry that have unfilled jobs in North Carolina. • Investments in Technical Education Infrastructure • Non‐recurring funds available to equip and/or renovate labs and shops for Tier 1 programs.

  6. Performance-Based Funding: Legislative Context • March 2012: Submitted report on revised performance measures, as required by Section 8.14 of S.L. 2011-145. • June 2012: General Assembly adopted revised performance measures through Section 8.5 of S.L. 2012-142 • February 2013: Due date for a report to the General Assembly that includes “a plan to incorporate these revised accountability measures and performance standards into regular formula funding.”

  7. Performance Measures

  8. Performance Measures

  9. Performance Measures • Basic Skills formula already allocates funds based on performance: the number of GEDs/AHS diplomas awarded. • Due to upcoming changes to the GED exam and the need to further refine the methodology for measuring basic skills student progress, the Committee recommends focusing the performance-based funding model on the other six measures at this time.

  10. Guiding Principles The performance-based funding system should: • Reward both student progress and completion. • Incentivize colleges in a way that: • Is not exclusive and provides opportunities for all colleges to benefit. • Does not provide a “winner take all” system. • Accommodates the fact that colleges are different. • Values progress/improvement. • Rewards both quality and impact. • Be implemented predictably, gradually, transparently, and as simplistically as possible. • Be supported with new, recurring funds.

  11. Two-Pronged Approach Over a multi-year period, goal is to have $30 million in recurring funds to allocate based on: • Rewarding Quality • Allocate funds based on percentage of students who succeed on each measure • Rewarding Impact • Allocate funds based on the number of students who succeed on each measure

  12. Rewarding Quality: In Concept • For each measure, colleges would earn PBF based on how they compared to both a floor and a goal: • If a college did not meet the floor, it would receive $0 in PBF for that measure. • If a college exceeded the floor, but did not meet the goal, it would receive a portion of its potential PBF for that measure. • If a college met the goal, it would receive 100% of potential PBF for that measure. • If a college exceeded the goal, it would receive more than 100% of potential PBF for that measure. Goal Floor

  13. Rewarding Quality: Floor and Goals Based on up to 3 years (if available) of historical data: • Floor = 2 standard deviations below system mean • Goal = 1 standard deviation above system mean Floor and goal would remain the same for three years and then reset.

  14. Rewarding QualityDistribution of Colleges: 6 Measures

  15. Rewarding QualityAn Example: Licensure Exam Passing Rates Goal • Systemwide Data: • Floor: 71% • Goal: 92% • Total # of students: 9,148 • Total PB Funding: $5 million • College Performance • (Passing Rates): • College A: 68% • College B: 83% • College C: 95% Floor

  16. Rewarding QualityAn Example: Licensure Exam Passing RatesSTEP 1: Determine Potential PBF Amount Goal • Step 1: Determine each college’s “potential” quality allocation. • Potential PBF $ = The amount of PBF earned if a college meets the goal. • Total # of students = # of students in the denominator of the measure • Assumptions: • Total PB Funding: $5 million** • Total # of students: 9,148 • PB Funding per Student: $546.57 • Potential PBF $ = College A’s # test takers * $546.57 Floor ** The Committee has discussed two options: $5 million per measure and $225 per student , both of which would cost approximately $30 million across the 6 measures. Regardless, the mechanics of the model work the same.

  17. Rewarding QualityAn Example: Licensure Exam Passing RatesSTEP 1: Determine Potential PBF Amount • Assumptions: • Total # of test takers = 9,148 students • Total PBF = $5 million • Potential PBF per student = $546.57

  18. Rewarding QualityAn Example: Licensure Exam Passing RatesStep 2: Determine PBF Percentage 125% Goal = 100% 75% 50% 25% Floor = 0% PBF Percentage = % of Potential PBF Earned

  19. Rewarding QualityAn Example: Licensure Exam Passing RatesStep 2: Determine PBF Percentage • Assumptions: • Floor: 71% • Goal: 92% • 100% PBF = (92% - 71%) = 21 percentage points

  20. Rewarding QualityAn Example: Licensure Exam Passing RatesStep 3: Determine Quality Allocation

  21. Rewarding Impact: In Concept • Funds not allocated through the Quality component would be allocated among colleges through the Impact component. • Impact = the number of students that succeed on the measure • Step 1: Determine Impact Funding = Total PBF Funding – Quality Allocation • Step 2: Determine Impact Funding per Student = Impact Funding / Total # of Successful Students • Step 3: Determine College’s Impact Allocation = Impact Funding per Student * College A’s # of successful students

  22. Rewarding ImpactAn Example: Licensure Exam Passing Rates • Systemwide Data : • Impact Funding: $5,000,000 - $3,788,280 = $1,211,720 • Total # of students passing licensure/certification exam: 7,952 • Impact Funding per student = $152.38

  23. Putting the Pieces TogetherAn Example: Licensure Exam Passing Rates

  24. Key Guiding Principles Review • Guiding Principle: The performance-based funding (PBF) system should incentivize colleges in a way that: • Is not exclusive and provides opportunities for all colleges to benefit. • Does not provide a “winner take all” system. • Accommodates the fact that colleges are different. • Values progress/improvement. • Rewards both quality and impact.

  25. Committee Work on Statewide Policy and Procedure Changes • State Board Code Revisions • Chapter E, Student Tuition and Fees • Chapter H, Fiscal Management • Chapter C, Subchapter 400, Salaries & Benefits • 1G SBCCC 100.99 Budget FTE Funding • Capital Improvement Project Processes • 3-1/3-2 Forms and Procedures • 2/16-2/17 Forms and Procedures • Accounting Procedures Act • Revise “Minor Equipment” to “Non-Capitalized Equipment”? • Revisit inventory threshold • Consolidate or revise Purposes 210, 220, 230, and 240? • Revisit Voc Codes, particularly 20-29

More Related