2012 Higher Education Performance Plans
Chapter 10, Laws of 2011 (E2SHB 1795(5)) requires OFM to negotiate Performance Plans with each of the six baccalaureate public institutions. These plans are intended to show current results, highlight strengths and weaknesses in college/university performance, and forecast each institution’s progress over the ensuing biennia in a variety of performance measures. The plans include:
- Twelve common metrics in three areas: time to degree or degree efficiency, retention and graduation rates, and degree awards. Each measure is reported for the general student population and low-income students (using Pell Grant financial aid recipients as a proxy for low-income).
- Up to three measures chosen by each institution. The baseline and target data are based on data submitted by the institutions to the Office of Financial Management’s Public Centralized Higher Education Enrollment System (PCHEES). Measures are largely based on Complete to Compete metrics, a nationwide effort to reform and improve higher education performance measures.
- Statewide Summary and introduction to the Performance Plans
- Central Washington University
- Eastern Washington University
- Evergreen State College, The
- University of Washington
- Washington State University
- Western Washington University
- The baseline is the agency’s performance in the metric during the 2010 Academic Year.
- The “expected result” reflects what the institution expects its performance to be in the 2015 academic year, assuming no change in total operating funding.
- Each institution submitted a “goal” for their performance if total funding (from tuition and state appropriations, combined) increased to fiscal year 2009 levels – this would mean an additional $100 million per year in funding for the public baccalaureate sector as a whole.
- To add context to this data, we have included information on institutional performance from the Higher Education Coordinating Board’s Accountability Framework, which measured the baccalaureate sector from 2003 through 2010. While this data can add important information on trends and historical performance, it is NOT strictly comparable to the new measures. This is because the data sources define a cohort (a freshman class for retention or graduation rate metrics) slightly differently.
- While the historical data doesn’t perfectly align with the metrics, it does allow us to compare each institution’s performance to national averages. This is because the Accountability Framework was based on IPEDS (Integrated Post-secondary Education Data System) data, which every institution reports.