Skip Navigation
Back 

PLANNINGINST. EFF. TELECONFERENCES

PLANNINGINST. EFF. TELECONFERENCES

PLANNING/INST. EFF. TELECONFERENCES

Updated 11/19/96

SECTOR COMMITTEE ON PLANNING/INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

November 18,1996

Members Present
Dr. Thomas E. Barton, Jr., Greenville Technical College
Ms. Rosemary H. Byerly, CHE
Mr. Gil Johnson, PMSC
Dr. Dennis Merrell, YORK TECHnical College
Mr. Oscar E. Prioleau, Prioleau Steel Inc.
Dr. Kay Rhoads, Central Carolina Technical College
Mr. George Whitaker, Florence-Darlington Technical College
Mr. Bill Workman, Piedmont Natural Gas, Chair

Technical Advisors Present
Ms. Dorcas A. Kitchings, Midlands Technical College

Guests Present
Dr. Candace Gosnell, Orangeburg-Calhoun Technical College
Dr. Charlie Gould, Florence-Darlington Technical College
Dr. Mac Holderfield, SBTCE
Dr. James L. Hudgins, Midlands Technical College
Dr. Mike McCall, SBTCE
Mr. Robert Mellon, SBTCE
Mr. Tim O'Dell, SBTCE
Dr. Jeff Olson, Orangeburg-Calhoun Technical College
Mr. Don Peterson, SBTCE
Dr. Mary Thornley, Trident Technical College

CHE Staff Present
Ms. Sherry Hubbard, Project Administrator, Student Services
Mr. Alan S. Krech, Director of Planning, Assessment and Communications
Mr. Russell Long
Dr. Lovely Ulmer-Sottong, Coordinator of Planning and Assessment

horizontal line image


Mr. Workman called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. on November 18, 1996

After general greetings to the Committee, Mr. Workman urged the Committee to set aside any worry regarding the weighting of each indicator. There is no rationale in setting weights at this time. During the first year of performance funding 100% of the weight should go toward the formulation of a mission statement and strategic plan reflecting the institution's commitment to the 37 indicators. The second and third years will focus on the attainment of the goals of the strategic plan.

The Committee supported Mr. Workman's view that the quality of the auditing process is very important at all levels of the performance funding process. Great care must be taken in providing a reliable audit.

The following charts highlight the Sector Committee's recommendations. The benchmarks, unless otherwise noted, appear in the language approved by the Committee.
I. Mission Focus % of Funding
20%
IndicatorWeightBenchmark
A. Funds to Achieve Mission5%100% funding equals no State funds allocated for activities outside of the mission statement.
B. Curricula Offered to Achieve Mission 5%100% funding equals no State funds allocated for curricula not offered to achieve the mission statement.
C. Approval of Mission Statement0%No State funds shall be allocated for activities outside of the mission statement.
D. Adoption of Strategic Plan to Support the Mission0%No State funds shall be allocated if the strategic plan does not support the mission statement.
E. Attainment of Goals of the Strategic Plan10%Funding is based on a four-point scale: 1. Did not meet goal; 2. Did not meet goal with justification; 3. Met goal; 4. Exceeded goal. 100% funding given for levels 3 and 4 at third year evaluation of an annual review process.

II. Quality of Faculty % of Funding
15%
IndicatorWeightBenchmark
A. Academic and Other Credentials of Professors2.5%100% funding if 100% of all headcount faculty meet SACS criteria at the time of the annual fall semester reporting date.

The Committee assigns 0% funding to subcomponent b.
B. Performance Review for Faculty to Include Student and Peer Evaluations4%100% of performance against all best practices with the exception of 8.c. and 8.d. which are appropriate to senior college faculty but not technical college faculty.
C. Post-Tenure Review for Tenured Faculty0%N/A
D. Compensation of Faculty4%100% funding if, based upon appropriate level of State funding, faculty compensation is 100% of national averages reported in appropriate publications pertaining to technical/community colleges.
E. Availability of Faculty to Students Outside the Classroom2.5%85% of instructional faculty must receive a satisfactory or above on student satisfaction on the prescribed question of availability of faculty. In addition, 85% of the students will indicate being satisfied or very satisfied with academic advising on the prescribed question on academic advising. Common protocol must be developed by CHE.
F. Community and Public Service Activities of Faculty for Which No Extra Compensation is Paid2%100% funding if the public service component is a part of faculty job descriptions and a regular part of faculty evaluation and compensation.

III. Instructional Quality % of Funding
14%
IndicatorWeightBenchmark
A. Class Sizes and Student/Teacher Ratios3.5%50% = Class size: Average class size data by discipline with Academic Discipline Data for FY Formula will be used initially. One hundred percent funding of this subcomponent to be given if no more than 25% of the classes by discipline are outside of the range of the formula ratio. Ninety percent funding of this subcomponent to be given if no more than 30% of the classes by discipline are outside of the range of the formula ratio. Eighty percent funding of this subcomponent to be given if no more than 35% of the classes by discipline are outside of the range of the formula ratio. Individual institutions may make quality arguments for class size ratios that deviate from the TECH System Academic Discipline Data for FY Formula.

50% = Student/Teacher Ratios: Student/teacher ratios will be determined using the TECH system Academic Discipline Formula as a base with the TECH system class size averages as the benchmark
B. Number of Credit Hours Taught by Faculty2%100% if ninety percent of full-time teaching faculty and FTE faculty teach within the prescribed SBTCE teaching faculty load policy range for fall and spring semesters: 15-18 semester credit hours or 20-24 instructor classroom/lab contact hours or calculated credit equivalent combination of credit and contact hours. Hours reimbused with extra pay as overload hours taught by individual faculty members would be eliminated from all faculty load calculations.
C. Ratio of Full-time Faculty as Compared to Other Full-Time Employees6%100% of funding if ratio of full-time faculty to other full-time employees is .6/1 or greater.
D. Accreditation of Degree-Granting Programs2.5%To be further developed - The SBTCE and CHE should compile a list of programs holding accreditation from a recognized accrediting agency and compare the number of accredited programs, as a percentage, to the total number of programs for which acceditation is available
E. Institutional Emphasis on Quality Teacher education and Reform0%N/A


IV. Institutional Cooperation and Collaboration % of Funding - 10%
IndicatorWeightBenchmark
A. Sharing and Use of Technology, Programs, Equipment, Supplies, and Source Matter Experts Within the Institution, With Other Institutions, and the Business Community 5%100% funding of the weight if, as part of the strategic plan, there is submission of an annual report detailing the sharing and use of technology, programs, equipment, supplies, and source matter experts within the institution and with other institutions.
B. Cooperation and Collaboration With Private Industry, the Business Community, and Government5%100% funding of the weight if, as part of the strategic plan, there is submission of an annual report detailing cooperation and collaboration with private industry, the business community, and government

Mr. Workman recessed the meeting at 4:35 p.m. He reminded the Sector Committee that the remainder of the indicators will be discussed at the meeting to be held on November 25, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. in the Offices of the State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education, Conference Room A, 111 Executive Center Drive, Columbia, SC.

horizontal line image

If you have corrections or comments please contact Russell Long at (803) 737-2290 or by E-mail to rlong@che400.state.sc.us .