Skip Navigation

Explanation of Ratings - 2004-2005 (Year 9)

Explanation of Ratings - 2004-2005 (Year 9)

Explanation of Ratings - 2004-2005 (Performance Year 9)

2004-05 (Yr 9) impacting FY06
Approved June 2, 2005

Ratings for the public institutions were approved by CHE on June 2, 2005.  Institutions are rated first on their performance on individual indicators, and from those ratings, an overall score representing an average of scores on indicators is computed.  The overall score places institutions in one of five performance categories based on their overall performance.  Categories include “Substantially Exceeds,” Exceeds,” “Achieves,” Does Not Achieve,” and “Substantially Does Not Achieve.” Funding is allocated based on the performance category applied to the calculated need.  See the Performance Funding Homepage for additional system guidance.As was the case for the past three years, institutions were again scored on no more than 14 indicators.  The indicators that are scored were used for the first time in scoring 2001-02 performance.  They represent those indicators of the 37 that have been used in the past that were viewed as best reflective of sector missions.  A collaborative process between CHE and the institutions was instrumental in identifying the 14 indicators that now contribute to institutional scores.   Indicators in effect vary across and within sectors and definitions for a particular indicator may also vary.  Differences are noted in the ratings reports. The 2004-05, Year 9, reports reflect an average score for all institutions of 88% (2.63 of 3).  Again this year, institutional performance fell into one of the top three of the five performance categories.  Across the 33 institutions, 5 scored “Substantially Exceeds” (1 research, 1 teaching, 3 technical college); 14 scored “Exceeds” (2 research, 1 teaching, 2 regional and 9 technical); and 14 “Achieves” (8 teaching, 2 regional, and 4 technical).  In comparison with last year, the average score for all institutions was 87% or 2.60 with 3 scoring “Substantially Exceeds” (1 research, 1 teaching, 1 technical college); 15 “Exceeds” (2 research, 2 teaching, 2 regional and 9 technical); and 15 “Achieves” (7 teaching, 2 regional, and 6 technical).  The scale for each overall performance range is presented in the summary chart and on the first page of each institution’s report.  For a more detailed explanation regarding Year 9 and the ratings, please access the following materials:

Additional information on the system and indicators and data may be accessed by selectingPerformance Funding Homepage .Note on Report Format:  The ratings are posted as Adobe Acrobat files and will print in landscape format. There are four pages for each institution.  The first page provides a summary of overall performance and details about the institution itself including president’s name and contact information as well as “quick facts” including enrollment, type degrees offered, faculty and financial data.   The pages that follow provide indicator-by-indicator performance details including current and three years of historical data for each indicator. 

Institutional Performance Ratings

Links to Annual Ratings by Sector, Introduction to Ratings and Other Guidance    (This link provides access to the links for institutional performance ratings for each year since 1998-99.  In addition, ratings explanations and system guidance for this and other years are also available from the links provided before and after links to the “Institutional Ratings.”)