sucs normative funding formula (nff) for mooe in the 2014 gaa 29 june 2015sucs nff for gaa 20141...

SUCS NFF FOR GAA 2014 1

SUCs Normative Funding Formula (NFF) for MOOE

in the 2014 GAA

29 June 2015

PIDS Research Project Honesto G. Nuqui

Presented: 29 June 2015


The PIDS research project:

To analyze, review, document the implementation of the Normative Funding Formula for SUCS MOOE in the 2014 GAA.

29 June 2015


Legal basis of Normative Funding Formula ( NFF) in Joint DBM & CHED

Circular No. 2, Aug 2004

• To rationalize SUC course offerings in the light of national priorities.

• To reward or encourage quality teaching, research and extension services.

• To encourage SUCs to improve cost recovery measures, practice fiscal prudence and maximize resources.

29 June 2015


The 2 questions addressed by the NFF for MOOE in SUCs:

1. In terms of MOOE, how much should it cost per student in an SUC – in each major discipline (21+2) and program level (10) of education?

2. Given the reality of a limited national MOOE budget ceiling for instruction, research and extension services in SUCs, how will the national ceiling be divided among the SUCs?

29 June 2015


The Normative Funding Formula (NFF) consists of 2 sets of files:

1. The “BACK FILES” tackle the theoretical question:

Given certain assumptions, the back files compute the normative cost per student by discipline (21+2) and level (9).

2. The ‘FRONT FILES” tackle a very practical allocation problem: Given the 2014 GAA national MOOE budget ceiling for instruction, research and extension services in the SUCs, the front files allocate the national ceiling among the 112 SUCs.

29 June 2015


• The NFF is not one formula: it consists of several of linked Excel spreadsheets.

• It is not a static formula with fixed values. It is an allocation tool that is driven by parameters which may not change every year – plus a budget ceiling and empirical data which definitely change every year.

29 June 2015


NF MOOE FORMULA for 2014

29 June 2015

NORMSsalary scale, etc

GRADUATES DATA

ENROLMT DATA

“NF BACK FILES”NORMATIVE PS & MOOE COST PER STUDENT

“NF FRONT FILES”AND SO, HOW MUCH WOULD EACH SUC GET– FOR PS AND MOOE?

DBM ceiling

Other CHED guidelines

QUALITY INDICATORS

PRIORITY INDICES

RESEARCH INPUTS & OUTPUTS

FACULTY WORK LOAD


The “Enrolment Matrix”• The SUCs as a group offer thousands of

programs (12,000?) but for the NFF, the enrolment in an SUC is specified by a 23x9 matrix.

• This allows differential treatment for 9 levels of education and 23 disciplines. MSE Majors and Accountancy are the 22nd and 23rd fields.

• Basic Ed lab schools are classified under “General” discipline and each lab school is subject to maximum 500 enrolment.

29 June 2015


Levels of education (9) in SUCs:

1 PRE-SCHOOL

2 ELEM

3 SECONDARY

4 TECH VOC

5 PRE-BACC

6 BACC

7 POST-BACC

8 MASTERS

9 DOCTORAL *

29 June 2015


PRE- SCH

ELEM HS TV PRE

BACC BACC

POST BACC

MS PHD TOTAL

1 AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHERIES

167 1,092 6 1,265

2 ARCHITECTURE AND TOWN PLANNING

3BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED

1,631 44 90 51 1,816

4 EDUCATION SCIENCE AND TEACHER TRAINING **

3,289 139 352 129 3,909

5 ENGINEERING AND TECH 3,453 24 3,477

6 FINE AND APPLIED ARTS

7 GENERAL 162 527 456 203 1,348

8 HOME ECONOMICS

9 HUMANITIES

10 LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE 114 114

11 MASS COMMUNICATION AND DOCUMENTATION

12 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE

1,641 1,641

13 MEDICAL AND ALLIED 66 188 254

14 NATURAL SCIENCE 163 7 170

15 RELIGION AND THEOLOGY

16 SERVICE TRADES

17 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

373 373

18 TRADE, CRAFT AND INDUSTRIAL

86 86

19 IT-RELATED DISCIPLINES 820 76 896

20 MARITIME EDUCATION

21 OTHER DISCIPLINES 47 6 9 62

22 MATH, ENGLISH, SCIENCE MAJORS IN TEACHER ED

54 54

23 ACCOUNTANCY

24 TOTAL 162 527 456 233 13,154 189 564 180 15,465 29 June 2015


Some outputs from the old back filesstill useful for GAA 2014

• For each program level(9) and major discipline (21+2), the normative cost (in PS and MOOE) per FTE student per year.

29 June 2015


NORMATIVE COST (PS+MOOE) PER STUDENT BACC MASTERS DOCTORAL

AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHERIES 65,704 105,311 111,809

ARCHITECTURE AND TOWN PLANNING 73,496 137,900 137,900

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED 58,126 150,306 184,997

EDUCATION SCIENCE AND TEACHER TRAINING ** 58,481 104,954 116,039

ENGINEERING AND TECH 79,220 161,800 196,490 FINE AND APPLIED ARTS 78,701 144,783 155,441

GENERAL 61,353 131,716 - HOME ECONOMICS 74,236 128,722 150,492

HUMANITIES 72,890 128,722 150,492

LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE 66,146 86,634 112,627

MASS COMMUNICATION AND DOCUMENTATION 59,775 124,330 137,733

MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE 73,101 139,476 153,860

MEDICAL AND ALLIED 85,871 113,017 125,286 NATURAL SCIENCE 88,789 143,541 159,998

RELIGION AND THEOLOGY 44,491 - - SERVICE TRADES 54,704 119,542 -

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES 72,936 96,732 110,445

TRADE, CRAFT AND INDUSTRIAL 54,419 - -

IT-RELATED DISCIPLINES 78,629 116,973 141,795 MARITIME EDUCATION 56,114 69,993 -

OTHER DISCIPLINES 59,420 105,374 118,238

MATH, ENGLISH, SCIENCE MAJORS 58,481 104,954 116,039

ACCOUNTANCY 58,126 150,306 184,997 29 June 2015

SUCS NFF FOR GAA 2014 1329 June 2015

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

65,700

73,500

58,100 58,500

79,200 78,700

61,400

74,200 72,900

66,100

59,800

73,100

85,900 88,800

-

54,700

72,900

54,400

78,600

56,100 59,400 58,500 58,100

NORMATIVE COST PER BACC STUDENT


-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

105,300

137,900

117,000

105,000

161,800

144,800

131,700 128,700 128,700

86,600

124,300

139,500

113,000

143,500

-

119,500

96,700

-

117,000

70,000

105,400 105,000

128,700

NORMATIVE COST PER MASTERS STUDENT


-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

111,800

137,900 146,200

116,000

196,500

155,400

-

150,500 150,500

112,600

137,700

153,900

128,700

160,000

- -

110,400

-

141,800

-

118,200 123,500

152,100

NORMATIVE COST PER PHD STUDENT


BS EDUC MA/MS EDUC PHD/ EDD -

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

58,400

104,900

116,000

NORMATIVE RECURRENT COST FOR TEACHER EDUCAs of Feb 29 2012

29 June 2015


BS (NAT SCI) MS (NAT SCI) PHD (NAT SCI) -

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

88,700

143,500

159,900

NORMATIVE RECURRENT COST FOR NATURAL SCI FIELDEstimates as of Feb 29 2012

29 June 2015


Severe time constraints for revising the NFF for GAA 2014:

• No time to revise the back files . Thus, the same normative costs used for GAA 2013 will be used for 2014.

• No time to wait for Form E1 data, i.e. SUC faculty workload at the elementary, secondary and tech-voc levels.

• No time to verify/ analyze reported SUC faculty workloads in Form E2, i.e. duties in higher education.

29 June 2015

Other Limitations on 2014 NFF:

• Some missing or “apparently outlier” data, e.g. enrolment and graduates by field and by program level. No time to go back to the SUCs to verify or rectify the data.

• Not enough data and guidelines to implement rewards for SUCs “sticking to their mandates”.

• Data on SUC “performance indicators” were found not yet suitable for NFF.

• No time to review other measures of outputs and quality of “extension services”.

• Not enough data and time to pilot NFF on personal services.

29 June 2015 SUCS NFF FOR GAA 2014 19


Some changes implemented in 2014 NFF as mandated by the CHED CEB:

1. Cleave “Accountancy” from the generic “Business Administration and Related” – and increase its priority index from 0.60 to 1.00. BA and related remains at 0.60.

2. Cleave “Computer Science” from “IT and related”, reclassify into “Math & Comp Sci” – and increase priority index of both from 1.00 to 1.25. IT and related remains at 1.0

3. Increase priority index from 1.00 to 1.25 for English, Math, and Science majors in Teacher Education programs.

4. Reward the 3 normal SUCs (PNU, CNU, LNU) for sticking to teacher education – by assigning additional priority index 1.25.

5. Split research component into two parts to allow “level playing field”: Research-A among SUCs in levels 1,2 and Research-B among SUCs in levels 3,4.

6. Using interactive front files, review the allocation of points assigned to factors in each NFF component.29 June 2015


PRIORITY INDICES FOR

GAA 2014BACCALAUREATE

MASTERS DOCTORAL

1AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY,

FISHERIES 1.25 1.50 2.00

2ARCHITECTURE AND TOWN

PLANNING 1.00 1.25 1.50

3BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND

RELATED 0.60 1.00 1.00

4EDUCATION SCIENCE AND

TEACHER TRAINING ** 1.00 1.25 1.50

5 ENGINEERING AND TECH 1.25 1.50 2.00 6 FINE AND APPLIED ARTS 1.00 1.25 1.50 7 GENERAL 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 HOME ECONOMICS 1.00 1.25 1.50 9 HUMANITIES 1.00 1.25 1.50

10 LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE 0.60 1.00 1.00

11MASS COMMUNICATION AND

DOCUMENTATION 1.00 1.25 1.50

12MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTER

SCIENCE 1.25 1.50 2.00

13 MEDICAL AND ALLIED 0.75 1.00 1.25 14 NATURAL SCIENCE 1.25 1.50 2.00 15 RELIGION AND THEOLOGY 16 SERVICE TRADES 1.00 1.25 1.50

17SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL

SCIENCES 1.00 1.25 1.50

18 TRADE, CRAFT AND INDUSTRIAL 1.00 1.25 1.50 19 IT-RELATED DISCIPLINES 1.00 1.50 2.00 20 MARITIME EDUCATION 1.00 1.25 1.50 21 OTHER DISCIPLINES 1.00 1.25 1.50

22MATH, ENGLISH, SCIENCE

MAJORS 1.25 1.25 1.50

23 ACCOUNTANCY 1.00 1.25 1.50 29 June 2015


-

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.25

1.00

0.60

1.00

1.25

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

0.60

1.00

1.25

0.75

1.25

-

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1.25

1.00

PRIORITY RATINGS (VINTAGE 2004) OF BACCALAUREATE PROGSAs assigned by the CHED CEB:

29 June 2015


Not subjected to the 2014 MOOE formula

1. WVSU hospital

2. UP-PGH

3. PMMA

4. Cotabato Foundation State College of S&T

5. U.P. Proper

* Scholarship Fund (P2.5B), not part of the MOOE ceiling

29 June 2015


GAA 2014 MOOE CEILING GAA 2014 % SHARE 2014

WVSU HOSPITAL 32,185 0.5%

UP-PGH 820,481 12.5%

PMMA, CFCST 71,302 1.1%

U.P. PROPER 1,914,594 29.1%

INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT 1,872,602 28.4%

QUALITY INSTRUCTION 1,123,561 17.1%

RESEARCH A & B 561,781 8.5%

EXTN 187,260 2.8%

TOTAL 6,583,766 100.0%

29 June 2015


HOSPITALS; 852665.66; 13%

PMMA, COTAB, UPS; 1985895.98;

30%

INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT; 1872597.18; 28%

QUALITY INSTRUCTION; 1123558.308; 17%

RESEARCH; 561779.154; 9%

EXTN; 187259.718; 3%

HOW 2014 NFF MOOE (P6.58B) WILL BE APPORTIONED using the NF "FRONT FILES"


The relative sizes of the components of GAA allocations to an SUC. NFF applies only on MOOE.

INSTRUCTION RES EXTN

PS

MOOE


MOOE as % of SUCS BUDGETS

2012 GAA 2013 GAA 2014 GAA 2015 GAA 2016 GAA

PS

18.9 23.0

22.9 22.7

25.0

MOOE

3.0

6.4

6.6 6.8 7.4

PS+MOOE

21.9 25.3

29.6 31.8

32.4

MOOE AS % OF PS 16% 28% 29% 30% 30%

MOOE AS % OF PS+MOOE 14% 25% 22% 21% 23%

29 June 2015

SUCS NFF FOR GAA 2014 282012 GAA 2013 GAA 2014 GAA 2015 GAA 2016 GAA

-

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

18.9

23.0 22.9 22.7

25.0

3.0

6.4 6.6 6.8 7.4

21.9

25.3

29.6

31.8 32.4

PSMOOEPS+MOOE

29 June 2015

New for GAA 2014

Split the original research category into:• RESEARCH-A ( for SUCs in Levels 1-2)• RESEARCH-B (for SUCs in Levels 3-4)



COMPONENTS & AMOUNTS

subject to the NFF for 2014 GAA

CATEGORY

INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT 50% 1,872,602

QUALITY INSTRUCTION 30% 1,123,561

RESEARCH-A (SUCs level 1-2)

5% 187,260

RESEARCH-B (SUCS level 3-4)

10% 374,520

EXTENSION SERVICES 5% 187,260

3,745,20429 June 2015


BASES FOR COMPUTING INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT for GAA 2014

ENROLMENT & GRADUATES: • Classified by level and by field of study. Not by

program. • Options in how to treat missing or outlier data:

» Replace missing data with the lowest value in past 3 years.

» Take the sum over 3 years and divide by 3.» Use the Excel average.» Final decision: just use the most recent year and

impute past if there is current data.

29 June 2015


BASES FOR COMPUTING INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT….

Four sets of WEIGHTS used on enrolment:

1. Full-time equivalence (FTE) of enrolment, esp for graduate levels.

2. Normative cost index per student.

3. Priority indices (revised slightly for 2014) on discipline-program level pairs (e.g. accountancy, computer science, Math/English/Sci majors in Teacher Education.)

4. Additional points for Teacher Education programs in PNU, CNU, LNU.

29 June 2015


BASES FOR COMPUTING INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT….

Three sets of WEIGHTS used on no. of graduates:

1. Normative cost index per student.

2. Priority indices (revised slightly for 2014) on discipline-program level pairs (e.g. accountancy, computer science, Math/English/Sci majors in Teacher Education.)

3. Additional points for Teacher Education programs in PNU, CNU, LNU.

29 June 2015

REMINDER ON WEIGHTS FOR INSTITUTIONAL

SUPPORT:

• Each full-time student (as measure of input) is deemed to have the same weight or value as a graduate (as measure of output).

• Indices are combined by multiplication, not addition, e.g. 1.875 = 1.50x1.25.



“Heavy-weight” enrolment in 2012-13

RANK SUC 2012-13

ENROLMENT TOTAL WFTES

2012-13 EFFECT OF WEIGHTING

SYSTEM

1DR. EMILIO B. ESPINOSA, SR. MEM ST COLL OF AGRIC AND TECH 3,236 4,534 1.40

2 SORSOGON ST COLL 8,982 12,397 1.38

3 SAMAR ST UNIV 4,869 6,604 1.36

4 MARINDUQUE ST COLL 5,343 6,987 1.31

5 UNIV OF THE PHIL SYSTEM 57,082 73,732 1.29

6 MINDANAO POLY ST COLL 9,048 11,674 1.29

7 CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIV 9,867 12,559 1.27

8NORTHERN MINDANAO ST INST OF SCI AND TECH 6,036 7,673 1.27

9 UNIV OF SOUTHEASTERN PHIL 14,549 18,443 1.27

29 June 2015


“Low-weight” enrolment in 2012-13RANK SUC

2012-13 ENROLMENT

NORMALIZED

TOTAL WFTES 2012-13

EFFECT OF WEIGHTING SYSTEM

106 MINDANAO ST UNIV - MAIN 48,607 43,091 0.89

107 OCC MINDORO NATL COLL 8,897 7,797 0.88

108NORTHERN NEGROS ST COLL OF SCI AND TECH 3,680 3,190 0.87

109 ADIONG MEM POLY ST COLL 2,103 1,755 0.83

110 QURINO ST COLEGE 2,174 1,806 0.83

111MINDORO ST COLL OF AGRIC AND TECH 5,567 4,606 0.83

112 ILOCOS SUR POLY ST COLL 5,681 4,691 0.83

113 MINDANAO ST UNIV - TCTO 7,992 4,223 0.53 29 June 2015


Effective weight per capita

29 June 2015

PRE-SCH ELEM HS TECH-VOC PRE-BACC BACC POST-BACC MASTERS PH D TOTAL -

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

0.02

0.31 0.31

0.67 0.72

1.17

0.51

1.22

1.08 1.06


50% COMPONENT 1: INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT

50% ENROLMENT WEIGHTED FOR FULLTIME EQUIVALENCE

WEIGHTED FOR COST

WEIGHTED FOR PRIORITY

TEACHER EDUC ENROLMENT IN PNU. CNU, LNU

50% GRADUATES WEIGHTED FOR COST

WEIGHTED FOR PRIORITY

TEACHER EDUC ENROLMENT IN PNU. CNU, LNU

29 June 2015


30% COMPONENT 2: QUALITY INSTRUCTION

11.7% WEIGHTED FTE FACULTY WITH MASTERS DEGREES

13.4% WEIGHTED FTE FACULTY WITH DOCTORAL DEGREES

7.7% CHED CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE

4.6% CHED CENTERS OF DEVT

45.8% ALL-PRC PASSING % (AVERAGE OVER 3 YEARS) BUT COUNTED ONLY IF ABOVE NATIONAL PASSING RATE

WEIGHTED FOR HEADCOUNT OF PRC PASSERS (REGARDLESS OF NO. OF TAKES)

16.7% AGGREGATE BORDA SCORE FOR ACCREDITED PROGRAMS

100.0% TOTAL FOR QUALITY INSTRUCTION29 June 2015


Example: PRC pass rates as used in NFF

44.0% 100,000

TOTAL TAKERS

TOTAL PASSERS

SUC PASS RATE

ONLY IF ABOVE

BENCHMARK

PASS RATE WTD BY

PASSERS

PESOS SHARE OF MOOE

SUC A 2,700 1,600 59.3% 59.3% 948.1 59,328

SUC B 1,500 600 40.0% 0.0% - -

SUC C 2,000 1,000 50.0% 50.0% 500.0 31,286

SUC D 600 300 50.0% 50.0% 150.0 9,386

TOTAL 6,800 3,500 51.5% 1,598.1 100,000

29 June 2015


5% COMPONENT 3-A: RESEARCH FOR SUCS LEVEL 1-2

0.0% HEADCOUNT OF SENIOR RESEARCH STAFF



24.6% WEIGHTED FTE FACULTY ASSIGNED TO RESEARCH (AS DERIVED FROM FORM E2)

0.2% NO. OF ACCREDITED PHD PROGRAMS

22.4% LOCAL OR NATIONAL PUBLICATIONS OR PRESENTATIONS

9.0% INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS OR PRESENTATIONS

100.0% TOTAL FOR RESEARCH A

29 June 2015


Example: “Assisted” assignment of points

POINTS PER ITEM

5 10 20 10 45 100,000

1,150 800 260 0.239 2,210.2

IMPLIED WEIGHT 52% 36% 12% 0.01% 100%

NO. OF FACULTY

NATIONAL PRESENTN

S

NATIONAL PUBLICNS

INT'L PUBLICNS

INTL PUBN PER

FACULTY

TOTAL POINTS ASSIGNED

IMPLIED % SHARE

PESOS SHARE

SUC A 600 100 10 5 0.008 700.1 32% 31,675

SUC B 1,000 50 40 2 0.002 690.0 31% 31,219

SUC C 400 70 20 5 0.013 650.1 29% 29,414

SUC D 900 10 10 1 0.001 170.0 8% 7,692

TOTAL

2,900

230

80

13 0.004 2,210.2 100% 100,000

29 June 2015


10% COMPONENT 3-B: RESEARCH FOR SUCS LEVEL 3-4



6.2% WEIGHTED FTE FACULTY ASSIGNED TO RESEARCH (AS DERIVED FROM FORM E2)

1.7% NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTERS

9.1% CHED CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE

5.9% CHED CENTERS OF DEVT

2.0% NO. OF ACCREDITED LEVEL 3-4 PHD PROGRAMS

22.2% SCOPUS CITATIONS4.7% NATIONAL PRESENTATIONS

8.3% NATIONAL PUBLICATIONS12.2% INTERNATIONAL PRESENTATIONS

19.7% INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS

0.0% PATENTS100.0% TOTAL FOR RESEARCH B

29 June 2015


5% COMPONENT 4: EXTENSION SERVICES

5.9% HEADCOUNT OF SENIOR EXTENSION STAFF

29.4% WEIGHTED FTE FACULTY ASSIGNED TO EXTENSION (FORM E2)

64.7% PERSON-DAYS TRAINED

SOCIAL WORK100.0% TOTAL FOR EXTENSION

SERVICES

29 June 2015


Other factors which affect the NFF

• The national budget ceiling (esp. MOOE) as set by DBM.

• The authority of SUC boards and administrators to open new programs and satellite campuses, to cross-subsidize between programs and education levels.

• Actions of CHED commissioners as Chairs of SUC Boards.

• Data gaps due to late-submitting or non-submitting SUCs.

• Unanalyzed and unused information from the existing CHED database.29 June 2015


Other factors which affect the NFF….

• National policies such as “No tuition fee increases in SUCs”.

• SSL.• Civil Service Rules, e.g. on the implications of

downloading of one year’s worth of GE from higher education to basic education.

• Power of Congress and Senate: creation of new SUCs, congressional insertions, PDAF, allocation of grants-in-aid or scholarship funds.

• IGPs as a possible modality (intended or non-intended) for “converting” GAA allotments into SUC income.

29 June 2015


Some pending matters for 2015 and beyond:

1. Implications of HEI typology

2. How to deal with no data, late data and outlier data.

3. Reviewing priority indices.

4. How the NFF can reward SUCs sticking to their “mandates” or regional priorities.

5. How the NFF could provide incentives for SUC “amalgamations”.

6. Refining the assessment of outputs from research and extension services.

7. Completing, analyzing and utilizing info from reported workloads in Forms E1 and E2.

8. Reviewing the back files.

9. Obtaining enough data to simulate putting PS (or some aspects of it) under NFF.

10. Implications of upcoming SHS and downloaded GE on SUC costs.

29 June 2015


Suggested next steps for CHED:1. Analyze, update, refine and expand the SUCs

database in CHED and use it to continuously improve the NFF:• Continue to validate submitted data & fill the data gaps: esp.

enrolment, graduates, PRC performance, personnel counts. • Harvest information from existing-but-unprocessed data, esp. on

actual faculty workloads (Forms E1 & E2), research & training outputs (as reported for SUC levelling).

• Transparency: make SUC data available on the website.• Provide feedback to SUCs and use the resulting goodwill to collect

more data.

2. Triangulate SUC cost-per-student estimates:• Conduct cost accounting study of some model HEIs to

benchmark cost norms in selected fields.• Implement econometric analysis to derive production function,

thereby estimate fixed costs and variable costs.• Continue refining the normative approach.29 June 2015


Suggested next steps (continued)….3. Conduct tracer study to get ultimate NFF outcomes data: how

many graduates obtain employment.

4. Analyze further the initial PS simulation results and formulate more detailed plans for implementing NFF on PS in the 2015 GAA and beyond. Note 3 dimensions of PS: no. of plantilla positions, personnel headcounts, cost.

5. Analyze SUC income, esp. student fees and capacity of students to pay. Vigilance against the use of IGP as (intended or unintended) “conversion” from GAA to SUC income.

6. Align the use of HEDF with that of NFF objectives in allocating funds for student financial assistance, faculty development, research programs, COE/CODs.

7. Continue cooperation between DBM and CHED, between PRC and CHED.

8. Connect HEI typology work and NFF for SUCs. 29 June 2015


Thank you.

29 June 2015


A page from “back files” with implications on MOOE. What % of the curriculum is lecture mode – as opposed to lab mode, etc?

EDUCATION LEVEL (6)

NORM COMBINATION OF EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY/DELIVERY MODE

TOTALLECTURE CLASS-BASED LABORATORY-BASED OTHER MODESON THE

JOB TRAINING

TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3 TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3FIELD WORK

INDEP STUDY

BREAKOUT

C. TECH.VOC 60% 20% 10 % 10% 100%

D. BACCALAUREATE 30% 30% 15% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 100%

E. MASTERS 30% 20% 30% 10% 10% 100%

F. DOCTORAL 20% 30% 30% 10% 20% 100%

JUNE 21 2015

sucs normative funding formula (nff) for mooe in the 2014 gaa 29 june 2015sucs nff for gaa 20141...

Documents

sucs nff

sucs mooe

nf mooe formula

terms of mooe

national ceiling

normative cost

filesnormative ps mooe

static formula