Measuring University Performance Series (MUPS)
Issue I:1
State Support
August 1, 1995
|
Table of Contents: |
|||||||||
|
The University of Florida series, Measuring University Performance, will continue with the issue of September 1, 1995, focused on Faculty Productivity in Teaching. Other issues will take up additional topics reflecting the university's commitment to measuring university performance in quality and productivity of research, teaching, extension, and service. All of us at the University of Florida welcome comments and suggestions prompted by this series. Please write to the Office of Institutional Planning and Research, PO Box 113115, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-3115 (ufdata@aa.ufl.edu).
|
|
|||||||||
|
Over the past few years, the University of Florida, as well as the other public universities in the state, has adjusted remarkably to the dramatic decline in state support for higher education. As the state shifted its priorities, the dollars available to provide quality higher education to its citizens declined. In response, each public university fine tuned its programs and activities. To meet its obligation to educate Florida's citizens, each university launched a major effort to improve productivity to continue to meet these needs in the face of reduced support from the state. To succeed in this effort, we require good data that reflect the dimensions of our financial dilemma and at the same time measure the results of our programs to improve productivity. This is the first in a series of reports to the Board of Regents that governs the University of Florida and each of the other public universities in the state. This series, Measuring University Performance, offers us the opportunity to explain the complex set of resources that supports quality at the University of Florida that, in turn, contributes to the economic prosperity of this state and its citizens. Each installment in this series will focus on one dimension of the university's performance, identifying key elements in our changing resource base and illustrating our response to these changes. This installment, Measuring University Performance: State Support, speaks to the adjustments now occurring as a result of the dramatic decline in state funding and the increasing state focus on instruction. For the University of Florida, these are difficult issues, because our commitment to undergraduate education is very strong but our mission also requires us to support graduate and professional instruction and to focus intensively on research. Our faculty, staff, and students have responded to the challenges of these issues with considerable imagination. They developed a Teaching Improvement Program, which placed clear incentives on teaching quality and productivity. They invented a University Center for Excellence in Teaching, secured outside funding from IBM and established a writing laboratory for undergraduates. They created a nationally recognized undergraduate student advising system and devised an accurate means of measuring student programmatic efficiency. They also began a series of changes and reviews of the structure of the undergraduate curriculum. Many of these responses have won the support of the Board of Regents and others have found constituencies in the legislature. Most importantly, however, together these responses form a consistent and coherent design for the improvement of quality and productivity in undergraduate instruction. The changes begun with these programs have had only a few years to produce benefits. The next issue of this series will show indicators of the resulting improvements. The charts in this issue highlight some of the modifications of the underlying resources. Data for public universities, while valid and detailed, are often cumbersome to analyze. Consequently, the task of translating these data for analytical purposes has been an adventure in and of itself. The Florida Quality Evaluation Project provides the basic structure for this process, although some of the data included in this series go well beyond that project. The University of Florida suffered a dramatic decline in state expenditures during fiscal years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994. The decline in constant dollars represents the loss of purchasing power for the university during these five years, with the lowest point in fiscal year 1993. Over these five years the University of Florida lost more than $65 million in purchasing power from its state support. For these calculations we used the Higher Education Price Index, a national index prepared by the National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of Education, to reflect the impact on the costs associated with operating institutions of higher education. State Expenditures in Actual and Constant Dollars 
The decline in total state expenditure accompanies an increase in number of students. Clearly the state spends less per full-time-equivalent student. This comparison includes all students (undergraduate, professional, and graduate/ Ph.D.) and all state general revenue and lottery funds. As the state's support for all university functions declined, the university's support and administrative base also declined, since more and more of the funds went to direct instructional expenses. Total State Expenditures per FTE Student in Constant Dollars, 1990-1994 
As total state dollars invested per student declined, state dollars invested in teaching per student increased (we include direct instructional expenditures and support expenditures). This responds in part to a legislative shift of state funds. Retreating from the support of the university's threefold mission of teaching, research, and service, the state transferred dollars from these areas to support instructional costs. The university also shifted resources internally from research and administration to teaching. State Instructional Expenditures per FTE Student in Constant Dollars, All Levels 1992-1994 
Cost by Level of Instruction The relative expenditures at each level of instruction have remained stable. Clearly, the cost of the undergraduate lower level comes from the efficiencies of larger introductory classes, and the higher cost of upper-level instruction reflects both smaller classes and the higher cost of operating laboratories and other specialized teaching environments. Graduate classroom and thesis/dissertation instruction tends to be expensive with small class sizes and many specialized teaching requirements. Professional courses are the most expensive. Many professional programs have restrictions on class size and other requirements placed on them by accreditation criteria that raise the cost of instruction. State Instructional Expenses per FTE Student by Level in 1993-94 Dollars 
| ||||||||||
