Skip Navigation
Back 

4yr1120

4yr1120

                                Teaching Universities Sector Committee
                                Minutes of the Meeting of
                                 November 20, 1996

MEMBERS PRESENT                 	GUESTS PRESENT

Mr. Stephen Avery, Chairman           	Mr. Charles Brooks, Francis Marion
Mr. Warren A. Darby                   	Mr. David Fleming, Clemson
Mr. Stan Davis                        	Ms. Susan Guinn, Lander
Mr. Frank Gilbert                     	Mr. Austin Gilbert, CHE
Dr. Tom Hallman                    	Dr. Wanda Hayes, USC-Aiken
Dr. William C. Moran               	Dr. Reid Johnson, Francis Marion
Dr. Jack Parson                    	Ms. Amanda Maghsoud, Winthrop
Mr. Jim Shelley                   	Dr. Deidre Martin, USC-Aiken
                                	Mr. Gary McCombs, Coll. of Charleston
RESOURCE STAFF PRESENT          	Mr. J.P. McKee, Winthrop
                                	Mr. Robert Mellon, SBTCE
Ms. Lindy Smith, Coastal Carolina       Col. Spike Metts, The Citadel
Dr. Jim Vincent, Winthrop             	Mr. Robert Mignone, Coll. of Charleston
                                	Dr. Sharon Fross Pothering, Coll. of Charleston
STAFF PRESENT                      	Dr. Earline Simms, S.C. State
                                	Dr. Jane Stephens, USC-Spartanburg
Ms. Camille Brown                  	Ms. Janet Trawick, Winthrop
Mr. Michael Brown                  
Mr. Charles D. FitzSimons
Ms. Maggie Hicks
Mr. Nelson Lindsay
Ms. Lynn W. Metcalf
Mr. Fred R. Sheheen
Dr. C. Michael Smith

     The fifth meeting of the Teaching Universities Sector Committee was called to order by
Mr. Avery at approximately 9:45 a.m. on November 20, 1996.  The meeting was held in
accordance with the Freedom of Information Act.

     It was moved (Moran), seconded (Gilbert), and voted that the minutes of the November
12 meeting be approved.

     Mr. Avery discussed a process for the Committee to use in assigning points and
developing benchmarks.  He stated that the Committee would start with a review of the tally
sheets for the number of points assigned to each indicator, then agree generally on
methodologies for addressing certain patterns of indicators, and finally begin to assign
benchmarks for the indicators. 

     Mr. Avery asked Committee members to state the number of points they had assigned
each indicator based on a scale of 0.0 to 1.5 points for low weights, 2.0 to 3.5 for medium
weights, and 4.0 to 5.0 for high weights.  The points assigned to each indicator were then
averaged, by indictor, toarrive at a total number of points to be assigned for each indicator. 
When all of the points for the 37 indicators were added they totaled 95.5.  Since the total
number of points must add to 100, the Committee added .1 to each of the five indicators with
the largest number of points.  

     Mr. Avery then discussed with the Committee ways in which the Committee could
consistently determine benchmarks based on the types of indicators.  The indicators can be
divided into three basic types: (1) threshold indicators (yes/no); (2) ranked/forced ranked
indicators; and (3) indicators which require the recognition of progress toward a goal.  A
number of methodologies were discussed but the Committee agreed that, to a great extent, the
methodology used for setting benchmarks should be based on the requirements of each
indicator.

     Following the lunch break, the Committee agreed to set benchmarks for the indicators
with the highest weights first.  The following benchmarks were set by the Committee:

1A   Expenditure of Funds to Achieve Institutional Mission - 5.0 points
Measure: Percent of instruction, research, public service, academic support, student
services, institutional support, operation and maintenance (O&M) of plant, scholarships
and fellowships expenditures compared to total educational and general (E&G)
expenditures, (excluding funds transfers).

     The Committee agreed that given the overall mission of the four-year teaching
universities, those parts of the indicator which directly affect students (instruction, academic
support, and student services) should receive more weight with 4.5 of the total available
points; research and public service should receive less weight with .5 of the total available
points; and institutional support, O&M of physical plant, scholarships and fellowships
receiving no weight in this indicator.  The benchmark is as follows:

BENCHMARK FOR 1A:

                                instruction + academic support + student services
                                total educational & general

Based on the sector average, an institution would receive points for this part of the indicator as
follows:

     1.  if an institution's percentage is equal to or greater than the sector average - 4.5
         points;

     2.  if an institution's percentage is between the sector average and one standard
         deviation below the mean  - 4.0 points;

     3.  If an institution's percentage is below one standard deviation below the mean - 3.5
         points. 

                                research & public service
                                total educational & general

Based on the sector average, an institution would receive points for this part of the indicator as
follows:

     1.  Institutions with a percentage equal to or greater than the sector average - .5
         points;

     2.  Institutions with a percentage between the sector average and one standard
         deviation below the mean  - .4 points;

     3.  Institutions with a percentage below one standard deviation below the mean - .3
         points.

     The Committee also asked that a recommendation be made to the Steering Committee
that this indicator be implemented as soon as standardization of reporting can be
accomplished.

1B   Curricula Offered to Achieve Institutional Mission - 4.7 points
Measure: Using the institution's most recently approved mission statement, curricula
offered to achieve that mission will be measured as the percentage and number of degree
programs and other curricula offerings as defined by CHE which:
     a. are appropriate to the degree-level authorized for the institution in Act 359 of
     1996;
     b. support the institution's goal, purpose, and objectives as defined in its approved
     mission statement;
     c. meet baseline CHE-approved productivity standards with respect to student
     enrollment, degrees awarded, and student placements;
     d. represent a reasonable investment of resources as measured against actual
     student enrollments, degrees awarded, and student placements;
     e. have achieved a recognized standard of excellence as denoted through
     instruments such as CHE Commendations of Excellence; ratings or rankings
     recognized by discipline-based groups; other awards and honors which testify to
     the program's regional and national reputation which can be quantified; and
     f. are not offered, but ought to be offered in support of that mission.
 
BENCHMARK FOR 1B:
 
     Using a matrix for each institution which includes a "check-off" for each of the "CHE
approved" degree programs for parts a. through f. of the indicator, institutions would receive
credit on a percentage basis for the actual number of "checks" received for each part of the
indicator.  Parts a. through d. are assigned a maximum value of 1.1 points each. For part e. an
institution will earn .1 if 10% of the programs meet the criteria; .2 if 20% of the programs
meet the criteria; and .3 if 30% of the programs meet the criteria. No points are assigned to
part f.

1D   Adoption of Strategic Plan to Support the Mission - 4.4 points
Measure: Strategic plan with defined characteristics will be approved by CHE based on
1) whether or not it addressed the required elements and 2) whether or not it supports
the mission statement.

BENCHMARK FOR 1D:

     Institutions meeting the criteria for 1D receive 4.4 points;
     Institutions not meeting the criteria for 1D receive 0 points.

1E   Attainment of Goals of the Strategic Plan - 4.4 points
Measure: Annual progress report on strategic plan analyzed and assessed by CHE and
rated on a scale based on progress of meeting the goals and the resources required to do
so.

BENCHMARK FOR 1E:

     Institutions achieving 90 percent or more of goals - 4.4 points;
     Institutions achieving 80 to 89 percent of goals - 3.5 points;
     Institutions achieving 70 to 79 percent of goals - 2.0 points;
     Institutions achieving less than 70 percent of goals - 1.0 points.

2A   Academic and Other Credentials of Professors1 and Instructors - 4.5 points
Measure: The quality of the faculty as represented by the academic and other credentials
of professors and instructors is to be measured as: 
     a. the percent of all headcount faculty who meet the criteria for faculty credentials
     of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS); and
     b. the percent of all headcount faculty who exceed the criteria for faculty
     credentials for SACS.

BENCHMARK FOR 2A:

     Part a. has been assigned a value of 2.5 points.  The number of points an institution can
receive for part a. is based upon the percent of faculty meeting the criteria in part a.  For
example, if 100 percent of the faculty meet the criteria, an institution would receive 2.5 points;
if 90 percent of the faculty meet the criteria, an institution would receive 2.25 points; and so
on.

     Part b. has been assigned values based on a graduated scale using the sector average as
follows:

     Institutions with percentages at or above the sector mean - 2.0 points;
     Institutions within one standard deviation below the mean - 1.0 points:
     Institutions below one standard deviation below the mean - 0 points.

2B   Performance Review for Faculty to Include Student and Peer Evaluations - 4.8
points
Measure: The extent to which the criteria stipulated in the "Best Practices for a
Performance Review System for Faculty" document are incorporated into the
institution's own performance review system and the relative ranking of each institution
as compared to others in its sector.


BENCHMARK FOR 2B:

     The Committee assigned an equal portion of the total 4.8 points to each of the eleven
factors contained in the "Best Practices" document.  Institutions would receive the total points
generated by the factors met.

2C   Post-Tenure Review for Tenured Faculty - 4.4 points
Measure: The extent to which the criteria stipulated in the "Best Practices for Post-Tenure Review" document are incorporated into the institution's own performance
review system and the relative ranking of each institution as compared to others in its
sector.

BENCHMARK FOR 2C:

     The Committee assigned an equal portion of the total 4.4 points to each of the twelve
factors contained in the "Best Practices" document.  Institutions would receive the total points
generated by the factors met.

2D   Compensation of Faculty - 4.4 points

     The Committee discussed Indicator 2D, Compensation of Faculty, at length but did not
agree on a benchmark.  Ms. Lindy Smith agreed to provide to the Committee at its November
25 meeting, a matrix of average faculty salaries by institution, faculty rank, and discipline for
South Carolina as compared with teaching universities nationally using College and University
Personnel Association (CUPA) data.  The Committee also requested that it be provided with a
copy of the CUPA publication so that the format of available national data could be reviewed. 
                                             
     Because of the amount of work remaining to be done by the Committee, an additional
meeting has been scheduled for 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 3, 1996, in the
Commission's second floor conference room.

     The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

                                Respectfully Submitted.



                                Lynn W. Metcalf