Current institutional performance Clause Samples

Current institutional performance. The University has an outstanding and sustained track record in achieving an inclusive profile of student participation. Along with this the University has maintained student retention and success performance which compares well with many institutions with significantly less inclusive patterns of student participation. The University has performed consistently well against the HEFCE/HESA Performance Indicator (PI) measures over the period of the current Widening Participation Strategic Assessment (WPSA), achieving or exceeding most of its targets or enhancing its position against the 2004/05 baseline identified for previous Access Agreements and the WPSA. It also performs well above HEFCE benchmarks in many instances, though there is an exception, in line with the sector more generally, in respect of participation from social classes 4-7. This record is summarised in the Table 1 below. State school entrants* 95% 92% 97% 94% = +3% Low participation area* 18% 18% 18% 16% +2% SEC class 4 - 7* 31% 35% 34% 37% = -3% Retention (not in HE) 8% 9% 6% 8% +2% The * HEFCE benchmark figures used here are 'location adjusted.' The University's performance for mature students from low participation areas with no previous HE qualification is 4% above benchmark. Similarly, the retention performance for mature students is also 4% above benchmark. This strong and sustained track record of delivering and maintaining significant levels of participation from those groups traditionally under-represented in higher education is further reinforced by the level of widening participation premium provided to the University. Further detailed analysis of current performance is provided in sections 3.1 and 3.2 below.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Current institutional performance. The satisfaction and success of our students is central to our approach and we measure this through a range of key performance indicators. We have seen significant progress in terms of the percentage of students expressing satisfaction with both their overall satisfaction and with the quality of teaching on their course as measured by the National Student Survey, which has risen from 78% in 2010 to 85% in 2012. Equally the percentage of our students graduating with Good Honours improves year on year and we have exceeded our 2015 strategic plan KPI target. As our performance has improved, so has our HESA benchmark target and we continue to aim to exceed this. The percentage of our graduates in graduate level jobs, at 63.1% is below the sector average of 69.3%. This is part reflects the nature of our portfolio, which contains relatively low levels of teacher and healthcare professional education, for example, and relatively high levels in courses in creative and related areas. We have developed and implemented a systematic approach to enhance graduate employability. Our more focused and effective outreach programme will impact positively on our participation rates of those under-represented in higher education over the next couple of years and we aim to fulfil our strategic plan KPI for 2015 to match or exceed each of our HESA widening participation performance indicators. Participation of under-represented groups in HE – young full time UG From State School/College From NS-SEC classes 4, 5, 6 & 7 From Low Participation Neighbourhoods (POLAR2) Percentage Location Adjusted Benchmark Percentage Location Adjusted Benchmark Percentage Location Adjusted Benchmark 2006/07 92.6 93.4 32.5 36.6 14.6 15.8 2011/12 93.1 95.0 32.4 37.8 13.3 17.0 We continue to outperform our location adjusted benchmark across all categories in relation to non-continuation as set out in the table below. Non-continuation following year of entry – full time first degree Young entrants Mature entrants All entrants % not in HE Benchmark % not in HE Benchmark % not in HE Benchmark 2005/06 7.8 8.8 11.2 16.2 8.7 10.7
View Source

Related to Current institutional performance

  • Distribution and Pool Performance Information Item 1121(a) - Distribution and Pool Performance Information

  • Historical Performance Information To the extent agreed upon by the parties, the Sub-Advisor will provide the Trust with historical performance information on similarly managed investment companies or for other accounts to be included in the Prospectus or for any other uses permitted by applicable law.

  • Monitoring of Contract Performance The Contractor shall comply with the monitoring arrangements set out in the Monitoring Requirements Schedule including, but not limited to, providing such data and information as the Contractor may be required to produce under the Contract.

  • School Performance The School shall achieve an accountability designation of Good Standing or Honor on each of the three sections of the Performance Framework. In the event the School is a party to a third party management contract which includes a deficit protection clause, the School shall be exempt from some or all measures within the financial portion of the Performance Framework. In accordance with Charter School Law, the Authorizer shall renew any charter in which the public charter school met all of the terms of its performance certificate at the time of renewal.

  • Excuse for Nonperformance or Delayed Performance Except with respect to defaults of subcontractors, Contractor/Vendor shall not be in default by reason of any failure in performance of this contract in accordance with its terms (including any failure by Contractor/Vendor to make progress in the prosecution of the work hereunder which endangers such performance) if Contractor/Vendor has notified the Commission or designee within 15 days after the cause of the delay and the failure arises out of causes such as: acts of God; acts of the public enemy; acts of the State and any other governmental entity in its sovereign or contractual capacity; fires; floods; epidemics; quarantine restrictions; strikes or other labor disputes; freight embargoes; or unusually severe weather. If the failure to perform is caused by the failure of a subcontractor to perform or to make progress, and if such failure arises out of causes similar to those set forth above, Contractor/Vendor shall not be deemed to be in default, unless the services to be furnished by the subcontractor were reasonably obtainable from other sources in sufficient time to permit Contractor to meet the contract requirements. Upon request of Contractor, the Commission or designee shall ascertain the facts and extent of such failure, and, if such officer determines that any failure to perform was occasioned by any one or more of the excusable causes, and that, but for the excusable cause, Contractor’s progress and performance would have met the terms of the contract, the delivery schedule shall be revised accordingly, subject to the rights of the State under the clause entitled (in fixed-price contracts, “Termination for Convenience,” in cost-reimbursement contracts, “Termination”). (As used in this Paragraph of this clause, the term “subcontractor” means subcontractor at any tier).