Winter Symposium Presentation
•
1 like•347 views
2011 Winter Symposium. Presented with Provost Koch and Kevin Reynolds. Objective: Clarify the need for proactive actions in response to financial realities. Create understanding of enrollment management and curricular effectiveness & efficiency as viable strategies. Provide overview of the strategies.
![Why are we here today? ,[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (8)
Similar to Winter Symposium Presentation
Similar to Winter Symposium Presentation (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Winter Symposium Presentation
- 1. Winter Symposium January 20, 2011
- 3. A sense that we can control our future
- 4. Some strategies by which that can occur
- 5. Specific activities that can lead to better control (and a better University)
- 7. Current and expected future conditions
- 8. Strategies and activities to change that situation
- 9. Discussion of the implications of those actions
- 10. Discussion of specific actions and what is required to undertake those actions
- 12. We have the 5 guiding themes
- 13. Initiatives underway supporting those themes
- 14. This is a discussion about how to accomplish our goals
- 15. Builds on the work of LTIFS
- 17. Expanded research and scholarship
- 18. Enhanced engagement with the community
- 21. Improve faculty and staff compensation
- 23. Strategically increase student financial support
- 26. Funding for higher education in Oregon has decreased significantly, is at a low level nationally and is not expected to increase
- 27. Funding per student at Portland State is low, nationally and in comparison to OSU and UO
- 29. PSU Revenue ($9,591 in 2008) is more the $2,000 less per student FTE than UO Data taken from deltacostproject.org 1987-2008 database
- 30. Portland State University Funding Sources 2009-2010 (In Millions)
- 31. Summarizing our current situation
- 33. Curricular Efficiency and Effectiveness
- 34. Research and Strategic Partnerships
- 36. Curricular Efficiency and Effectiveness
- 37. Research and Strategic Partnerships
- 40. Tuition is the largest single source of revenue to support core activities - and it is growing
- 43. an organizational structure or a financial drain on the institution
- 44. an enhanced admissions and marketing operation
- 46. Begun an analysis of fiscal impact of enrollment scenarios over a 5 year period using a tool generated in OIRP.
- 47. Overall Growth
- 48. Student Mix
- 50. Model shows revenue only
- 52. Total increase in dollars per year associated with growth.
- 54. Retention Target is a 3% increase for resident students/5% for non-residents
- 59. Increase in % of non resident students. SOBERING perspective – increase < $1,000 Need to maximize benefit of overall gain in yearly revenue (examine costs and efficiencies)
Editor's Notes
- We here today to address the future of Portland StateIn particular, we will discuss ways that we can take control our future and make the outcome we desire much more likelyI truly believe that today we will talk about the most important challenge we face in the near term – how to bring our resources in line with our expectations. I also believe that addressing that challenge will require all of us working togetherAND,If we are successful we can create the institution that we all we all want
- Here’s what I hope we accomplish today:Develop a common understanding of our situation, especially the external forces at work and changes that have occurred in recent yearsCreate a sense that we can control our futureIdentify some broad strategies by which that can occur and discuss some of the consequencesExplore specific activities necessary to carry out those strategies and And finallyDiscuss what environment we would have to create (an agreement?)so the each of us could commit to the strategies and be confident of the outcomes
- Here’s the agenda for the day – you each have a copy in your packetFirst we will have a couple of brief presentationsCurrent and expected future conditionsStrategies to change our financial situationAs a group we will discuss some of the broader implications of those strategies and activities – and there are severalWe will then break into small groups to discuss:specific actions that each of us can take, how those actions may require changes in the way we work and what is required to undertake those actionsFinally (and this is probably the most important part)Discuss how we can articulate a collective understanding and accountability – an agreement, if you will – that will create a level of trust and allow us to collectively move forward
- Before providing some background for today’s discussion, I have a few additional commentsThis is a conversation about how we ACHIEVE the future vision we all shareWe have the 5 guiding themesInitiatives underway supporting those themes And we all have our personal goals as wellThis is a discussion about creating the conditions so we can better accomplish all of those goalsBuilds on the work of LTIFSThe basis for much of the discussion today was a set of preliminary meetings with faculty to discuss these very issuesI want to acknowledge and thank those of you who participated in the pre-symposium discussions (would you identify yourselves?)Those discussions were very useful in both framing today’s event and in the specifics we will discuss
- Lets start with what we want to achieve as an institution – that’s what all this is aboutHere are some specific indicators of our institutional success that we have agreed on over the past few years Improved student success Expanded research and scholarship Enhanced engagement with the community Improved academic reputation Greater faculty and staff satisfactionIn addition to supporting the institution, we also want to achieve individual success – which hopefully is related to our institutional success.We want to create an environment where both can occur
- What investments do we need to make to achieve these institutional goals?Enhance the effectiveness of academic programs Increase full time and tenure line faculty Improve faculty and staff compensation Strategically invest in selected programsEnhance academic, student and administrative support Improve student advising Strategically increase student financial support Improve research infrastructure Improve academic and administrative supportAll of these things require an increment of funding beyond what we now have (per student)
- Before talking about ways to acquire the resources we need, I’d like to provide some context - in particular recent trends and expected future conditions for public higher education – nationally, in Oregon and at Portland State.I make the following assertions: State funding for public higher education is decreasing nationally (recession, more demands on state budget, e.g.CA and UC) State funding for higher education in Oregon has decreased significantly, it is at a low level nationally and is not expected to increase (similar arguments) Funding per student at Portland State is low nationally and in comparison to OSU and UO Tuition is the largest (and growing) portion of funding for the institutionLet me illustrate the last few points with some data
- Those of you who attended the symposium last Fall have already seen this graphicI know this is difficult to read but it illustrates: How the funding per student in the OUS compares to other states The proportion of that funding coming from tuition and state supportA few conclusions: Oregon has very low funding per student when compared with other states The state contribution is among the lowest of all of the states – 26% The tuition is a very large component of funding – 74% Our tuition is not among the highest – so it doesn’t compensate for lack of state fundingWe are truly overachieving!
- Looking closer to home – here is a comparison of the per student funding at Portland State and the University of OregonHere, three years are presented – PSU on the left and UO on the right, state funding in darker green and tuition in lighter greenNote: UO funding per student is significantly greater than PSU We both have essentially the same state funding per student (in fact PSU > than UO) UO has substantially more tuition revenue that PSU BUT the tuition rates are essentially the same The difference is the “student mix” – UO has many more nonresident studentsUO has created its success (and become much more immune to fluctuations in state funding)
- Now lets turn to the issue of how we generate the funding we need.LTIFS made recommendations for both increasing the funding base of the institution and for identifying operational changes that could result is savings that could be redirected internally.We have categorized them into the following clusters: Enrollment Management – generates new resources Curricular Efficiency and Effectiveness – operational changes resulting in either new funds or reallocation Research and Strategic Partnerships – Essential for supporting the mission but (mostly) not a source of core funding Administrative Organization and Operation – operational changes resulting in cost reductions and reallocation
- Today we will deal with the three clusters that relate to the core funding (faculty, staff, space, other operations) and either Produce additional revenue or Reduce costs thus allowing for reallocation Strategic enrollment management Curricular efficiency and effectiveness Administrative efficienciesThese are the topics for today’s discussionAgain, this not a signal about the importance of either Sponsored Research or Philanthropy. They are both essential and require our attention as well. However, those funds do not provide (much) core funding
- This graphic summarizes much of what I have just said. You have a copy in your packet. It also includes some specific activities under these major strategies that can serve to jump start the discussion in the subsequent sessions.
- I want to leave you with these three take away messages: We need additional financial resources to accomplish our goals of improved student and faculty success and expand our institutional impact and reputation Tuition is the largest single source of revenue to support core activities - and it is growing We have substantial control over how much tuition we generate and how we use that revenue. That is, we do the work that generates the tuition – either directly via instruction or indirectly through retention activities.Introduce Kevin Reynolds, Vice Provost for Academic Fiscal Strategies and PlanningSukhwantJhaj, Special Assistant to the Provost for Student SuccessKevin will present………. Sukhwant will present……….During their presentations……..What we choose to do impacts:How we execute our missionThe way we do our work
- Overall Growth plans for an Institution – encompasses both academic growth AND facilities needs.It is strategic.Focuses on Student SuccessIncreasing Enrollment (strategic)Stabilizing Institutional revenues
- Not a quick fix. Looking at 5 year scenarios. It takes years for the full impact of decisions we make now. Activity ongoing within our current organization.Admission and marketing are only part of a SEM plan Planning tool to enable us to accomplish our mission
- Student Success. Admissions criteriaAssessment Advising initiative OIRP Office of Institutional Research and PlanningGrowth Student Mix(Graduate & Undergraduate) (Resident/Non-resident) (Freshman/Transfer Students) Student Retention Both Resident and Out of State (two metrics we are taking steps to improve)
- Presented in 2010 dollars simplify comparisons (recognize that there will be inflationary costs, and many other changes) Revenue only Simplify comparison. Additional analyses are required to determine costs associated with different scenariosAssumption of flat level of state appropriation We know that it will be decreased for the next biennium at least… Possible that we are back to 2010 levels by 2015. Scenarios will improve if this increases
- $/Student FTE. An increase in this metric could improve student experience and support, faculty and staff salaries and support, quality of space, reputation and recruitment. No doubt be a very spirited debate about priorities for how these funds should be used.Total increase in dollars per year associated with growth. Usually accompanied by cost increases (which may exceed revenue). Growth can also lead to changes in faculty mix. BUT- there is a beneficial gain if the enrollment management involves strategic growth, coupled with curricular efficiency and effectiveness.
- Current Trends- last 5 years. Unlikely but informative. Student Headcount (not FTE) exceeds 35,000. Revenue increases, but there is a sizeable decrease in the $/student FTE. A significant contributing factor to decrease is the assumption of flat state appropriations.Tuition increase- above that needed to meet inflation and decreases in state appropriations Probably will lead to decreased enrollmentRetention rate increase AND more non resident students Combined effect- Achieve comparable revenue increase without tuition raise. Surprising decrease in $ student FTE- increase in # of resident students. We have looked at impact of these separately.
- Slower growth scenario. Less students AND less increase in overall revenue. In this case there is not a large decrease in the $ /student FTE (flat state appropriation).Same two modifications as with the previous higher enrollment model Increase in total revenue, and in both cases have an increase in the $ student/FTE.
- Final scenario to share - many more but we just picked a few to help frame our thinking and choices.Coined the term 2:1 slow growth scenario. What would happen if we added 2 non resident students for every resident student. Increase of 3,300 students (HCT) over 5 years. Observe a comparable growth in total revenue o the first scenario but an increase not a decrease in $ student FTE. In order to increase this metric further (aspirational goal of $1000) and increase in total revenue we would still need to increase tuition.
- Should not underestimate the costs associated with achieving this goal (and these differ depending upon which scenario you choose). In all scenarios we have additional students to serve- costs. There are also other draws on this revenue (further reductions in state support, higher benefit costs, space costs, University priorities and reinvestments). Some actions which increase Total $/year, but not $ per student FTE.
- Good News-we can increase this even with flat State Appropriations(this metric increase also increases Total $/Year) How can we increase this State Appropriations- looks unlikely over next 5 years. But we will continue to vigorously make the case. Tuition increases. How much and where…. Non residents student %. Challenging task Recruitment and retention (requires participation of various stakeholders across the University).Sobering newsWith 30,000 student HCT tricky. Would need a sizeable increase in state appropriations or a very large tuition increase Conclusion I am led to -Maximizing gain in yearly revenue- Examine costs and efficiencies
- Space costs are growing at PSU and growth increases our demand for space. At Universities, office space is the surprising driver of space demands. Space efficiency is a task that the University Space committee is turning its attention to this year. How are we structured and organized – ongoing conversation and review Curricular Efficiencies- hand you over to Sukhwant Jhaj, Special Assistant to the Provost for Student Success,Director, University StudiesBefore I do- take home message -realistic scenarios and choice which increase not only revenue but the metric of $/ student FTE. We can refine these choices, we can select and pursue a scenario, and we can take actions to maximize the benefits of this course of action.