An example of the application of the
Learning Leverage Model to
Enterprise Resource Planning
Question: To what extent does the college have the
“resources” it needs in order to achieve “healthy”
standards of performance?
Evidence: What “measures” should the college
routinely monitor in order to inform this assessment?
Valencia Community College
Institutional Research
February 2010
1
July 2009 Strategic Indicators “Storyboard”
As a premier learning institution,
our college has demonstrated a track record
of sustained continuous improvement.
Performance Indicators
Alluded to in Strategic Plan Objectives
Targets are hypothetical, but our overall strategy is
to “move the needle” in the direction of continuous improvement
3
Learning Leverage Model
Student
College
Community
Investments
(Time, Effort, Money)
Grades,
credit hours,
completions,
placement
Student
Success
Acquired
knowledge
and skills
Learning
Outcomes
Conditions of Learning
1) Environment (internal and external)
2) Educational support services, and program quality
3) Individual student resources, ability, goals,
sources of encouragement, and personal barriers to success
Learning Leverage Model
Annual Strategic Indicators “Storyboard”
Student
College
Community
Operating Budget per FTE
$5,600
$5,403
$5,400
$5,190
$5,098
$5,200
$4,998
$4,924
$5,000
Investments
(Time, Effort, Money)
$4,810
Grades,
credit hours,
completions,
placement
$4,800
$4,600
$4,200
$4,000
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Strategic Balance Sheet: Key Indicators from the Strategic Plan
Current to Target Formatting
Evaluation Scale
Current >= Target
Current >= Half Target
Current < Half Target
Current < Base
Data not yet available
$4,555
$4,400
Student
Success
Acquired
knowledge
and skills
1= Minimal or No Capability
2= Relatively Weak;
3= Average Competitiveness
4= Relatively Strong
5= World Class Capability
Financial & Staff Resource
Investments Base Current
Internal & External
Environment Base
Program and Service
Quality
Base
Current
Learning
Outcomes
Target
Target
Learning & Success
Performance Base
Current
Target
HS to College
Persistence F-S
Retention F-F
Class Withdraw
58.2%
80.3%
62.4%
20.9%
62.5%
81.5%
63.4%
16.9%
60.3%
90.7%
73.2%
16.7%
HS-C Mkt Share
LL Mkt Share
Prog Alignment
Gtwy Gap AA-C
Gtwy Gap H-C
-12.5%
-2.1%
-3.6%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Learn OC Prgrm
College Writing
Math Seq / 2 Yrs
Dev 15 C / 3 Yrs
3
3
Career Dev Plan
Prof Dev Enroll
Wellness
Fac Svc Learn
Com Awareness
Graduate Satis
SUS GPA>2.5
VE Companies
VE Individuals
Current
Target
59.3%
44.6%
36.8%
18.9%
58.1%
45.3%
37.1%
21.3%
50.5%
51.0%
43.1%
24.3%
47.5%
53.6%
46.4%
55.0%
42.8%
57.1%
71.4%
70.3%
70.8%
Goal One: Build Pathways
Campuses
6
6
8
55.0%
55.0%
57.9%
3
3
4
Applicant Yield
30 Credits/3 Yrs
45 Credits/4 Yrs
Goals in 4 Yrs
Articulation
Goal Two: Learning Assured
Goal Three: Invest in Each Other
Prof Dev Opp
Collaboration
4
Goal Four: Partner with the Community
Indiv Donors
Major Donors
Endowment
Contribution
Alumni Engaged
Alumni Donors
Community Svc
Student Vol Hrs
Operating Budget
Valencia Funded FTE
% of Fall Section Capacity Filled
$160,000,000
35,000
$140,000,000
30,000
% Fall sections taught by FT but not as overload
100%
$120,000,000
90%
91.5%
80%
25,000
86.6%
90.2%
92.1%
44.5%
42.5%
93.9%
70%
$100,000,000
20,000
60%
$80,000,000
47.2%
50%
15,000
$60,000,000
45.9%
44.1%
36.0%
40%
10,000
$40,000,000
5,000
$20,000,000
$-
-
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
30%
Conditions of Learning
20%
10%
0%
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
1) Environment (internal and external)
2) Educational support services, and program quality
3) Individual student resources, ability, goals,
sources of encouragement, and personal barriers to success
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Operating Budget
$ 98,000,000 $ 102,900,000 $ 108,328,975 $ 116,790,628 $ 121,404,285 $ 132,136,302 $ 141,335,305
Valencia Funded FTE
21,512.50
20,896.40
20,872.40
21,615.90
23,815.80
26,436.80
29,385.00 estimate
Operating Budget per FTE
$
4,555 $
4,924 $
5,190 $
5,403 $
5,098 $
4,998 $
4,810
% of Fall Section Capacity Filled
91.5%
86.6%
90.2%
92.1%
93.9%
% Fall sections taught by FT but not as overload
47.2%
45.9%
44.1%
44.5%
42.5%
36.0%
Hisp-Cauc Gateway Success Gap
-1.8%
-2.3%
-1.5%
-0.7%
4.0%
1.6%
0.6%
AA-Cauc Gateway Success Gap
-13.4%
-12.0%
-9.5%
-9.7%
-3.6%
-6.6%
-9.7%
Average of 6 Gateway Courses
Gaps in Success Rate by Ethnicity
Operating Budget per FTE
$5,600
$5,403
Hisp-Cauc Gateway Success Gap
$5,400
5%
$5,190
$5,098
$5,200
0.6%
1%
$4,810
$4,800
-1%
-3%
$4,555
$4,600
1.6%
3%
$4,998
$4,924
$5,000
AA-Cauc Gateway Success Gap
4.0%
-1.8%
-5%
-2.3%
-7%
$4,400
-11%
-9.7%
-9.7%
-12.0%
Preliminary Results
Do not publish!!!
-13.4%
-13%
$4,000
-3.6%
-0.7%
-6.6%
-9.5%
-9%
$4,200
-1.5%
-15%
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
2003-04
Operating Budget
Valencia Funded FTE
35,000
$140,000,000
30,000
25,000
$100,000,000
20,000
$80,000,000
15,000
$60,000,000
10,000
$40,000,000
5,000
$20,000,000
$-
-
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
% of Fall Section Capacity Filled
$160,000,000
$120,000,000
2004-05
% Fall sections taught by FT but not as overload
100%
90%
91.5%
80%
86.6%
90.2%
92.1%
44.5%
42.5%
93.9%
70%
60%
47.2%
50%
45.9%
44.1%
36.0%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Operating Budget per Funded FTE
(Dollars are not adjusted for inflation)
$6,000
$5,403
$5,190
$4,924
$5,000
$4,591
$4,182
$4,000
$4,502 $4,537 $4,603 $4,555
$5,098 $4,998
$4,810
$4,187
$3,875
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
7
Reporting Year
Strategic Issue
Question: Giving the depth of recent budget cuts, why don’t we
see declines in our college’s performance indicators?
How can the Board lobby for more funding from the State when
our college does not appear to be a “squeaky wheel”?
One Hypothesis: It may be too soon to see these declines.
Evidence: If you look at the performance indicators presented to
the Board each June, most are the results from studies over a
period of several years. See following slide.
Recommendation: Closely monitor leading indicators of
performance as possible predictors of longer term measures.
8
Annual Strategic Indicators “Storyboard”
4-Year Measure
2-Year Measure
+ Delayed Report
2-Year Measure
+ Delayed Report
4-Year Measure
4-Year Measure
2-Year Measure
+ Delayed Report
4-Year Measure
Leading Indicator?
Delayed Report
Strategic Issue
Question: To what extent does the college have the “resources” it
needs in order to achieve “healthy” standards of performance?
One Hypothesis: We may be entering an epoch spanning several
years during which performance indicators can be expected to
decline as a natural result of several years of heavy budget cutting?
Gateway Course Success Rate Gaps may be a leading indicator of
other lagging measures (such as graduation rates) that could start
to decline in coming years.
Recommendation: Continue to seek low cost ways to improve the
learning environment so as to better leverage the limited
investments the community is able to make in Valencia.
10
Recommendations
1. Closely monitor leading indicators of performance as
possible predictors of longer term measures.
2. Continue to seek low cost ways to improve the learning
environment so as to better leverage the limited
investments the community is able to make in Valencia.
3. Recognize that the strategic initiatives we need to take to
“move the needle” of performance improvement is against
a backdrop of potential performance declines due to budget
and environmental circumstances beyond our control.
11