|
Issue
How FTSE Drives Structure
Convener
Elizabeth Skinner
Participants
Loman Clark
Linda Rosenthal
Marie Fenske
Andy Bernal
Roy Cohen
Geri Rasmussen
|
Discussion and Recommendations:
Not necessarily quality -- outcomes for students-tangible and safe
Insufficient State-funding; too much reliance on increasing tuition rate => compromise concept of community college; some states have performance based Ñ but who and what determines? => If legislature, they may not be knowledgable.
Does not promote quality
# affect existence of program
Have lost additional occupational funding
Funding sources are not necessarily knowledgeable of academic needs
Sometimes the population needs to be highly skilled, although small numbers
45 day funded whether learning takes place or not
45 day count Ñ nothing to do with learning
Before we correct it we need to see how it would work
Did change OE/OE => may change with increasingly flexible scheduling; also process could be streamlined if done electronically
If done electronically, could save time; need to tie to learning before we are told to make it performance based. We can generate credit hours, but what does it lead to? More money.
Assess program competence.
Competition should promote quality of learning.
May lead to too much speeding up.
See state funds as added on
Too much growth, may be slow down
How best serve community => scheduling RFP limitations for growing population; facilities => better use possible (though already better than other institutions)
Tremendous turf battles, generates creativity if battle is quality, but not if it is money.
Reservations on (for example) ability to retain with intercession classes. They bring FTSE, not learning.
Look for money to add on to state money, so state money does not have to fund and thus limit creativity
Maybe focus on quality, not numbers
Facilities, scheduling issue in a growing community
We do not need more facilities, just better use of them
RFP issue but not true at all colleges, some work around the clock
Education per dollars spent, we are extremely effective
Other part of funding is how much tuition can we charge before it impacts on enrollment
Financial aid may increaseÑone-way or another, taxpayer pays
Legislators need to visit schools, and we inherit product of public schools. We spend a lot of resources on things that should have been done prior to college
Concentrate on partnerships with business. Financially and providing services for them.
We fund on credit, can we fund on a different unit? We do so many other services. Maybe fund on numbers of students. Funding on competencies documented. But a danger of teaching to the test. Might generate more paperwork
Ratio of FTSE and headcount
We canÕt change how we get funding from outside but we can change how we allocate it
Change funding UNIT from credit hour => more on headcount / reflect time and activities needed; competency documented Ñ could promote simple competencies; generates increased paperwork; combination of headcount/FTSE
Can change all allocation internally
Some students can learn independently (e.g., distance learning); different faculty role
Tuition incentives
Incentives for creativity => individualized faculty plan, contribution to college
Headcount relates more to student services
Programs (small #) may be contributing more => program completes transfers; job placement
Combination of headcount/FTSE, and program outcomes (various); other outcomes measured; accreditation
External/Internal => looked at many possibilities, may be other, need for more study
Not every student needs the structure of the classroom.
Flexible start time
How FTSE restricts creativity
Incentives for innovation and creativity
Individualized Faculty Plan based on contribution to college with approval of dean, chair and review by committee
Based on success, not on numbers going through
Headcount, FTSE, program, program completers, transfer to university, program outcomes of various types (including those not generating FTSE)
Outcomes are already measured in some other way, except accreditation
But we need to know what we get from the money spent
Conclusion:
Both external and internal considerations. We looked at some possibilities. There are others. Those looked at need to be further studied.
What Next?
Learn more about funding alternatives that may have been tried across the country.
We can figure out creative ways to tackle the funding structure that seems to create barriers to many of the change agendas.
Work in concert with others on FTSE Reform.
Look at and change funding structure to allow more innovation. Encouraging innovation.
|
