Tennessee Board of Regents 2005-2010 Strategic Plan

1. Tennessee Board of Regents2005-2010 Strategic Plan Strategic Planning Coordinators March 16, 2004

2. Looking back . . . What factors override planning? Agency agendas and mandates Level of revenue or source of revenue issues System environment conflicts – centralized or decentralized Uncertain power of mission distinction Enrollment variables Initiatives not linked to planning

3. “Shifting Sands” • Shifting the burden of cost to students, giving the public a legitimate and louder demand for accountability • Conflict between setting priorities based on state need rather than institutional aspirations • Institutional integrity “on the line” in a climate where failures in other institutions (corporate American and others) invite public scrutiny • Regulating higher education costs with little attention to regulating value

4. “Shifting Sands” • Competition from new entrants to the market that challenges service area concept and fee structures • Traditional accountability output measures losing credibility • Partnership and cooperation not a choice but an imperative • Emergence of high stakes assessment • Balance between traditional core processes and work place training • Technology’s claim to resources

5. The time is right to refocus planning . . . • Shift in SACS assumptions • Convergence of state planning and evaluation programs • Common cycle calendar • Opportunity for synergy • Changes in resource balance • Opportunity to minimize duplication • Opportunity for cohesiveness

6. Challenge: Refocus Planning From: Output measurement and retrospective reporting To: Documenting evidence of improvement based on assessment

7. THECMaster Plan 2005-2010 • SACS • QEP • Specialized Accreditation • Delaware/Kansas • Nat’l Benchmark Project • TBR Academic Audit • NSSE & CCSSE • Program Productivity Review • TBR Report Card • RODP Business Plan TBR Visionof Excellence TBR 2005-2010 Strategic Plan THECPerformance Funding2005-2010 TBRDefining OurFuture

8. Convergence • THEC 2005-2010 Master Plan • TBR 2020 A Vision of Excellence • THEC 2005-2010 Performance Funding • TBR Defining Our Future (continuing Action Agenda)

9. THEC 2005-2010 Master Plan • April 2005 • State goals for higher education • NCHEMS Report • Public accountability

10. TBR A Vision of Excellence • TBR June 2004 • Visioning Process • Based on fundamental assumptions • Economic Development • Educational Capital • Teaching and Learning • Environmental Scan • Informs Strategic Planning

11. Convergence • THEC 2005-2010 Master Plan • TBR 2020 A Vision of Excellence • THEC 2005-2010 Performance Funding • TBR Defining Our Future (continuing Action Agenda)

12. THEC 2005-2010 Performance Funding Standards • April 2005 • Heed survey information • Integrate assessments • Respond to state needs • Respond to institutional needs • Broaden range of stakeholders • Use assessment results

13. TBR Defining Our Future • Action agenda in response to legislation • Accomplishments to date • On-going agenda • Integration into strategic planning • Public policy responses

14. Assessment Elements • New SACS Compliance Certification • New SACS Quality Enhancement Plan • Specialized Accreditation • Delaware/Kansas Instructional Cost Models • National Benchmarking Project • National Study of Student Engagement (NSSE) and Community College Study of Student Engagement (CCSSE)

15. New SACS Compliance Certification • Assumes mature institutional effectiveness processes • Requires evidence of improvement based on results of assessment • Requires documented patterns of evidence • Requires “case-making” to show compliance • Projects on-going compliance check

16. SACS Quality Enhancement Plan • Integrated with planning • Influences resource allocation • Campus and external accountability • Engages entire campus • Encourages innovation • Encourages benchmarking • Focuses on student success

17. Specialized Accreditation • Cost of program accreditation • Index of quality • Communication to public • Benefits to students • Benefits to faculty • Benefits to institution • Standards evolution • Peer review

18. Delaware/Kansas Instructional Cost Models • National peer group comparisons • Key indicators • Trend data • Instructional cost analysis as faculty work load profile • Delaware Qualitative profile showing faculty research and scholarship productivity • Utility of data for internal use • Direct faculty engagement

19. National Benchmark Project • Comparative data for community colleges • Annual reporting • Faculty productivity profile • Standard indicators • Recognized nationally • Accessible database

20. NSSEE and CCSSE • Comparative data by Carnegie classification and size • Student engagement assessment • Feedback for internal use • Appropriate peer comparisons • Focus for improvement • Scope of participation

21. Assessment Elements • TBR Academic Audit • TBR Cyclic Academic Program Productivity Review • TBR Report Card • Regents Online Degree Program expansion

22. TBR Academic Audit • Process evaluation • Primarily unit-based • Functions as peer review • Outcomes oriented • Benefits from evaluator training • An alternate to program review • Less costly than traditional peer review • Cuts across disciplines

23. TBR Program Productivity Review • Cyclic review of programs by number of graduates • Engages faculty in program evaluation • Uses traditional productivity benchmarks • Leads to program improvement • Examines resource allocation • Examines student demand • Eliminates unnecessary duplication

24. TBR Report Card • What the public needs to know • Indicators that represent what we do • Can be more than year-to-year comparisons • Should recognize mission distinctiveness • Should incorporate qualitative measures • Should be tied to Planning

25. RODP Business Plan • Increasing number of online programs • Professional development of faculty • Competition with for-profit providers • Potential for “blended” programs • Cost/benefit balance for institutions • Redefining access, particularly in graduate education

26. Challenges for 2005-2010 • Meet state needs for public accountability • Meet institutional and system planning needs • Integrate converging assessment platforms • Use assessment elements to best advantage • Stay focused on the Key Priorities and the “vital few” goals

27. 2005-2010 TBR Strategic PlanningBuilding the Plan Tennessee Board of Regents CHANCELLOR Academic Affairs System Planning Oversight Committee Working Committee Goals for Priority 1 Working Committee Goals for Priority 2 Working Committee Goals for Priority 3

28. TBR Strategic Planning Oversight Committee Charge: 1. Recognize potential for synergy from converging planning frameworks 2. Thereby sharpen planning focus and minimize duplication 3. Clarify position on mission distinctiveness 4. Clarify position on enrollment management

29. Oversight Committee charge cont. 5. Recognize “Vision of Excellence” assumptions regarding Strategic Planning 6. Propose 3-4 Key System Priorities for the Chancellor’s consideration 7. Oversee broad campus review of Key Priorities 8. Provide oversight for working committees recommending “the vital few” goals (3-4) for each priority 9. Recommend a TBR Strategic Plan with assumptions, priorities, and goals.

30. Oversight Committee Membership • 2 Regents • Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs • Universities and community college sectors each represented by: 1 President or designee 1 Academic Officer 1 Planning Coordinator 1 Fiscal Officer • 2 at-large appointments • THEC staff • TBR staff

31. Working Committee for Each Priority • Charge: • Recommend to Oversight Committee “vital few” system goals for each priority • Recommend System common indicators for each goal • Recommend System format for reporting goal achievement for priorities • Recommend format for reporting campus achievement of campus-specific additional goals

32. Working committee composition • 4 representatives from universities • 4 representatives from community colleges • TBR staff

33. Tennessee Board of Regents CHANCELLOR TBR2005-2010Strategic Plan CAMPUSES