Skip Navigation
Back 

Standards 2000 Final Spreadsheet

Standards 2000 Final Spreadsheet

Approved by CHE 7/6 with Technical Corrections (Techs, 5A&5D brief rationale and range for 5D Techs all)Revisions Made in this Document                            
               
    PROPOSED STANDARDS AND RATIONALE - YR 5 2000-2001 PROPOSED STANDARDS AND RATIONALE - YR 5 2000-2001 PROPOSED STANDARDS AND RATIONALE - YR 5 2000-2001 PROPOSED STANDARDS AND RATIONALE - YR 5 2000-2001  
Grey Shading indicates no change proposed. IMPROVEMENT FACTOR ALL SECTORS   TECHNICAL COLLEGES SECTOR REGIONAL CAMPUSES SECTOR TEACHING SECTOR RESEARCH SECTOR  
Indicator&Short Title(and information related to any measurement change being proposed) IMPROVEMENT FACTOR : Institutions are to be assessed as indicated below as to their annual improvement.Institutions scoring 1 or 2 on an indicator and improving as outlined will be awarded an additional 0.5.Relevancy of the improvement factor to the indicator and calculation methodology are noted below.   BRIEF RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDED STANDARDS RECOMMENDED STANDARDS:The Proposed Scale is to be calculated as indicated and then rounded up or down depending on expected trend to the nearest whole number.(round down if upward trend and up if downward trend.) Actual performance will be rounded to the significance level used in Year 4 and then compared to the scale for Year 5. DATA TO BE USED IN ESTABLISHING SCALE PROPOSED BRIEF RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDED STANDARDS RECOMMENDED STANDARDS:The Proposed Scale is to be calculated as indicated and then rounded up or down depending on expected trend to the nearest whole number.(round down if upward trend and up if downward trend.) Actual performance will be rounded to the significance level used in Year 4 and then compared to the scale for Year 5. DATA TO BE USED IN ESTABLISHING SCALE PROPOSED BRIEF RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDED STANDARDS RECOMMENDED STANDARDS:The Proposed Scale is to be calculated as indicated and then rounded up or down depending on expected trend to the nearest whole number.(round down if upward trend and up if downward trend.) Actual performance will be rounded to the significance level used in Year 4 and then compared to the scale for Year 5. DATA TO BE USED IN ESTABLISHING SCALE PROPOSED BRIEF RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDED STANDARDS RECOMMENDED STANDARDS:The Proposed Scale is to be calculated as indicated and then rounded up or down depending on expected trend to the nearest whole number.(round down if upward trend and up if downward trend.) Actual performance will be rounded to the significance level used in Year 4 and then compared to the scale for Year 5. DATA TO BE USED IN ESTABLISHING SCALE PROPOSED(data under review)  
1A Expenditure of Funds 1ARecommended Improvement Factor = 3%     3= At or above the 75th percentile of peers Data reference is all 'MGT' peers combined if FTE 3= At or above the 75th percentile of peers Data reference is all 'MGT' peers 3= At or above the 75th percentile of peers Data reference is all 'MGT' peers 3= At or above the 75th percentile of peers    
  Currently measured based on institutionally     The proposed change in the measure will allow a focus on 2= 40th percentile up to 75th percentile >1000 and MGT Peers <1000 FTE if FTE < 1000 (i.e., The proposed change in the measure will allow a focus on 2= 40th percentile up to 75th percentile combined and using IPEDS FY98 data. The proposed change in the measure will allow a focus on 2= 40th percentile up to 75th percentile combined and using IPEDS FY98 data. The proposed change in the measure will allow a focus on 2= 40th percentile up to 75th percentile Peer Data from IPEDS for FY 98 to be used in  
  selected category(ies) expressed as a ratio of the total E&G. Improvement based on whether or not an institution equaled   institutions' primary missions while providing an opportunity 1= Below 40th percentile CMTC, DTC, TCLC, WTC)IPEDS FY98 data. institutions' primary missions while providing an opportunity 1= Below 40th percentile Data for Instruction + Academic Support + Choice institutions' primary missions while providing an opportunity 1= Below 40th percentile Data for Instruction + Academic Support + Choice institutions' primary missions while providing an opportunity 1= Below 40th percentile determining applicable range as indicated at left.  
  Unrestricted and restricted funds are considered for the or surpassed its most recent 3-yr average performance.   for institutions to select an additional area of focus Data for Instruction + Academic Support + Choice for institutions to select an additional area of focus as a ratio of E&G Total: for institutions to select an additional area of focus as a ratio of E&G Total: for institutions to select an additional area of focus    
  research sector and unrestricted only are considered for Methodology for Calculation:   based on individual mission and characteristics. Use Instruction and Academic Support plus as a ratio of E&G Total: based on individual mission and characteristics. Use Instruction and Academic Support plus Choice is: based on individual mission and characteristics. Use Instruction and Academic Support plus Choice is: based on individual mission and characteristics. Instruction, Academic Support, Research & Data pending resolution of issues related  
  all other sectors.Staff proposes the the measure be based If Performance >= (Most Recent '3-Yr' Avg + (3%* '3-Yr' Avg))     Institution's Choice of One from categories including Choice is: Institution's Choice of One from categories including   Institution's Choice of One from categories including Instruction & Academic Support Only: Med=59.3% Institution's Choice of One from categories including to the appropriate peer set.  
  on a combination of categories that are the same for all within and the institution has scored a 1 or 2, a total of 0.5 will be   IPEDS data from peers to establish will be used Research, Public Service, Student Service, For Techs >1000 FTE: IPEDS data from peers to establish will be used Research, Public Service, Student Service, Instruction & Academic Support Only: Med=56.3% IPEDS data from peers to establish will be used Research, Public Service, Student Service, 40th=57.8% , 75th=62.5% (Range for 2:58.0% - 62.0%) IPEDS data from peers to establish will be used public service, student service, and scholarship.    
  a sector, with the option of one category chosen by the added to the indicator score.   ranges.Data for institutions identified in the MGT and Scholarships (Includes Unrestricted dollars only.) Instruction & Academic Support Only: Med=58.8% ranges.Data for institutions identified in the MGT and Scholarships (Includes Unrestricted dollars only.) 40th=55.2% , 75th=61.5% (Range for 2:55.0% - 61.0%) ranges.Data for institutions identified in the MGT and Scholarships (Includes Unrestricted dollars only.) +Research : Med=60.0%, 75th=63.2%, 40th= 58.3% ranges.Data for institutions identified in the MGT (Unrestricted and restricted dollars included.)    
  institution. Selected categories are those with an expected     study will be used.For the research sector only, Institution's may opt to choose only the base categories 40th=58.0% , 75th=63.7% (Range for 2:58.0% - 63.0%) study will be used.For the research sector only, Institution's may opt to choose only the base categories +Research : Med=56.4%, 75th=61.5%, 40th= 55.2% study will be used.For the research sector only, Institution's may opt to choose only the base categories (Range for '2' : 58.0% -63.0%) study will be used.For the research sector only, Institution's may opt to choose only the base categories    
  upward movement.The sum of the categories will be     peers will be individualized for each of the three if the selection of an additional category is not desired. +Research : Med=58.8%, 75th=63.7%, 40th= 58.0% peers will be individualized for each of the three if the selection of an additional category is not desired. (Range for '2' : 55.0% -61.0%) peers will be individualized for each of the three if the selection of an additional category is not desired. +Public Svc : Med=60.8%, 75th=63.6%, 40th= 59.4% peers will be individualized for each of the three if the selection of an additional category is not desired.    
  expressed as a ratio of total E&G.Unrestricted and     institutions.Issues related to research peers are being (Range for '2' : 58.0% -63.0%) institutions.Issues related to research peers are being +Public Svc : Med=58.0%, 75th=63.4%, 40th= 56.9% institutions.Issues related to research peers are being (measured to tenths) (Range for '2' : 59.0% -63.0%) institutions.Issues related to research peers are being (data measured to tenths)    
  restricted will continue to be considered for the research     resolved at present. +Public Svc : Med=60.3%, 75th=63.7%, 40th= 58.8% resolved at present. (Range for '2' : 56.0% -63.0%) resolved at present. +Student Svc : Med=68.2%, 75th=71.8%, 40th= 67.2% resolved at present.    
  sector and unrestricted for all others.       (Range for '2' : 58.0% -63.0%) +Student Svc : Med=68.0%, 75th=72.5%, 40th= 66.9% (Range for '2' : 67.0% -71.0%)    
          +Student Svc : Med=68.6%, 75th=72.8%, 40th= 64.9% (Range for '2' : 66.0% -72.0%) +Scholarship : Med=63.0%, 75th=66.8%, 40th= 61.8%    
          (Range for '2' : 64.0% -72.0%) +Scholarship : Med=59.2%, 75th=64.5%, 40th= 57.8% (Range for '2' : 61.0% -66.0%)    
          +Scholarship : Med=60.9%, 75th=65.8%, 40th= 58.9% (Range for '2' : 57.0% -64.0%)      
          (Range for '2' : 58.0% -65.0%)        
          For Techs <1000 FTE:        
          Instruction & Academic Support Only: Med=59.2%        
          40th=58.8% , 75th=62.5% (Range for 2:58.0% - 62.0%)        
          +Research : Med=59.2%, 75th=62.5%, 40th= 58.8%        
          (Range for '2' : 58.0% -62.0%)        
          +Public Svc : Med=59.4%, 75th=62.6%, 40th= 58.9%        
          (Range for '2' : 58.0% -62.0%)        
          +Student Svc : Med=66.8%, 75th=71.4%, 40th= 65.5%        
          (Range for '2' : 65.0% -71.0%)        
          +Scholarship : Med=60.6%, 75th=65.6%, 40th= 59.2%        
            (Range for '2' : 59.0% -65.0%)                    
1B Curricula Offered 1BRecommended Improvement Factor : None   No internal program review conducted by CHE to Change to compliance   No internal program review conducted by CHE to Change to compliance     3= 100%     3= 100%    
  Measured as % of programs meeting criteria for     verify program offering.Program review completed (Compliance achieved if institution is in compliance   verify program offering. (Compliance achieved if institution is in compliance     2= 95% - 99%(or no more than 1 not approved*)     2= 95% - 99%(or no more than 1 not approved*)    
  Research & Teaching Sectors - No change     by State Tech Board and reported for each with three criteria of indicator)   with three criteria of indicator)     1= Below 95%     1= 94% or lower    
  Measured as compliance indicator for Regional &     institution.       No change in scale     No change in scale    
  Technical Sectors - Change to Compliance             *application to be clarified in workbook     * application to be clarified in workbook    
1C Mission Statement 1C Recommended Improvement Factor : None     Compliance - No Change     Compliance - No Change     Compliance - No Change     Compliance - No Change    
    'Compliance' Indicator, improvement factor does not apply.                            
1D Strategic Plan Goals 1D Recommended Improvement Factor : None          
    'Compliance' Indicator, improvement factor does not apply.          
  Staff recommends changing this indicator to provide   Staff recommends adjustment to measure to provide more Institutionally proposed measurement standard on   Staff recommends adjustment to measure to provide more Institutionally proposed measurement standard on   Staff recommends adjustment to measure to provide more Institutionally proposed measurement standard on   Staff recommends adjustment to measure to provide more Institutionally proposed measurement standard on  
  an oppurtunity for more meaningful and individualized   meaningful and indivdualized assessment.Please refer to 2 selected goals.   meaningful and indivdualized assessment.Please refer to 2 selected goals.   meaningful and indivdualized assessment.Please refer to 2 selected goals.   meaningful and indivdualized assessment.Please refer to 2 selected goals.  
  assessment.Staff recommends that institutions   P&A Meeting, June 20, 2000, Attachment 2A, Section IBfor   P&A Meeting, June 20, 2000, Attachment 2A, Section IBfor   P&A Meeting, June 20, 2000, Attachment 2A, Section IBfor   P&A Meeting, June 20, 2000, Attachment 2A, Section IBfor  
  select two specific measures in keeping with their   related measurement details Assessment of 1D will remain a 'compliance' indicator   related measurement details Assessment of 1D will remain a 'compliance' indicator   related measurement details Assessment of 1D will remain a 'compliance' indicator   related measurement details Assessment of 1D will remain a 'compliance' indicator  
  strategic plans.One measure selected would also be     with compliance achieve by the institution's proposing   with compliance achieve by the institution's proposing   with compliance achieve by the institution's proposing   with compliance achieve by the institution's proposing  
  supportive of goals and objectives of the State's     the measures and standards and the Commission's   the measures and standards and the Commission's   the measures and standards and the Commission's   the measures and standards and the Commission's  
  Strategic Plan for Higher Education. Refer to     approval of the proposed measures and standards.   approval of the proposed measures and standards.   approval of the proposed measures and standards.   approval of the proposed measures and standards.  
  committee meeting summary materials.            
                             
1E Attainment of Goals 1E Recommended Improvement Factor : None          
               
  Staff recommends changing this indicator to provide An improvement factor would not be applicable as institutions Staff recommends adjustment to measure to provide more Institutionally proposed measurement standard on   Staff recommends adjustment to measure to provide more Institutionally proposed measurement standard on   Staff recommends adjustment to measure to provide more Institutionally proposed measurement standard on   Staff recommends adjustment to measure to provide more Institutionally proposed measurement standard on  
  an oppurtunity for more meaningful and individualized as assessed annually based on their proposed goals and meaningful and indivdualized assessment.Please refer to 2 selected goals will be used in determining performance.   meaningful and indivdualized assessment.Please refer to 2 selected goals will be used in determining performance.   meaningful and indivdualized assessment.Please refer to 2 selected goals will be used in determining performance. meaningful and indivdualized assessment.Please refer to 2 selected goals will be used in determining performance.
  assessment.Staff recommends that institutions standards. P&A Meeting, June 20, 2000, Attachment 2A, Section 1B   P&A Meeting, June 20, 2000, Attachment 2A, Section 1B   P&A Meeting, June 20, 2000, Attachment 2A, Section 1B   P&A Meeting, June 20, 2000, Attachment 2A, Section 1B  
  select two specific measures as part of Indicator 1D   related measurement details 1E is to be scored in relation   related measurement details 1E is to be scored in relation   related measurement details 1E is to be scored in relation   related measurement details 1E is to be scored in relation  
  with assessment scored as part of indicator 1E.     to whether the institution did not achieve, achieved,   to whether the institution did not achieve, achieved,   to whether the institution did not achieve, achieved,   to whether the institution did not achieve, achieved,  
  Refer to committee meeting summary materials.     or exceeded the approved standard for the year.   or exceeded the approved standard for the year.   or exceeded the approved standard for the year.   or exceeded the approved standard for the year.  
               
                             
2A                  
2A1a Credentials of Faculty 2A1aRecommended Improvement Factor : None   Scale proposed based on state 3= 100.0%   Scale proposed based on state 3= 100.0%   Scale proposed based on state 3= 100.0%   Scale proposed based on state 3= 100.0%    
  Meeting SACs (teaching No factor recommended due to the high performance   data and expectation in regard to 2= 98.0% - 99.9% or all but one if % is < 98%.   data and expectation in regard to 2= 98.0% - 99.9% or all but one if % is < 98%.   data and expectation in regard to 2= 98.0% - 99.9% or all but one if % is < 98%.   data and expectation in regard to 2= 98.0% - 99.9% or all but one if % is < 98%.    
  undergraduate) of institutions on this subpart.   SACs for minimum requirements. 1= Below 98.0%   SACs for minimum requirements. 1= Below 98.0%   SACs for minimum requirements. 1= Below 98.0%   SACs for minimum requirements. 1= Below 98.0%    
          (measured to tenths)   (measured to tenths)   (measured to tenths)   (measured to tenths)    
                   
2A2a Credentials of Faculty, 2A2a & 2A2bRecommended Improvement Factor =3%   Defer consideration for technical Defer 2A2   Scales for 2A parts 2a and 2b 3= Above 59%   Scales for 2A parts 2a and 2b 3= Above 69%   Scales for 2A parts 2a and 2b 3= Above 74%    
  terminal degree, headcount     colleges on parts 2A2a and 2A2b   reflect consideration of state performance 2= 40% - 59%   reflect consideration of state performance 2= 60% - 69%   reflect consideration of state performance 2= 65% - 74%    
  (teaching undergraduate) Improvement based on whether or not an institution equaled   while data issues being explored.   funding data.The percentages reflect 1= Below 40%   funding data.The percentages reflect 1= Below 60%   funding data.The percentages reflect 1= Below 65%    
    or surpassed its most recent 3-yr average performance.       approximately the upper quartile   approximately the upper quartile   approximately the upper quartile    
2A2b Credentials of Faculty, Methodology for Calculation:       for a 3 and the 2nd quartile for a 2 3= Above 74%   for a 3 and the 2nd quartile for a 2 3= Above 84%   for a 3 and the 2nd quartile for a 2 3= Above 84%    
  terminal degree, full-time If Performance >= (Most Recent '3-Yr' Avg + (3%* '3-Yr' Avg))       using increments of 5 percentage 2= 70% - 74%   using increments of 5 percentage 2= 80% - 84%   using increments of 5 percentage 2= 80% - 84%    
  (teaching undergraduate) and the institution has scored a 1 or 2, a total of 0.5 will be       points. 1= Below 70%   points. 1= Below 80%   points. 1= Below 80%    
    added to this indicator subpart score.              
                (2A2a and 2A2b are measured to whole %)     (2A2a and 2A2b are measured to whole %)     (2A2a and 2A2b are measured to whole %)    
2B Performance Review 2BRecommended Improvement Factor : None   Expectation is compliance with policy Change to Compliance (Compliance   Expectation is compliance with policy Change to Compliance (Compliance   Expectation is compliance with policy Change to Compliance (Compliance   Expectation is compliance with policy Change to Compliance (Compliance    
  (measured on cycle, next rating is pf yr 2001-02) 'Compliance' Indicator, improvement factor does not apply.   best practices and therefore measurement as achieved if institution is in compliance with all   best practices and therefore measurement as achieved if institution is in compliance with all   best practices and therefore measurement as achieved if institution is in compliance with all   best practices and therefore measurement as achieved if institution is in compliance with all    
  Recommend changing to compliance indicator.     compliance indicator is more appropriate. indicated best practices principles)   compliance indicator is more appropriate. indicated best practices principles)   compliance indicator is more appropriate. indicated best practices principles)   compliance indicator is more appropriate. indicated best practices principles)    
                                 
2C Post Tenure Review 2CRecommended Improvement Factor : None     N/A   Expectation is compliance with policy Change to Compliance (Compliance   Expectation is compliance with policy Change to Compliance (Compliance   Expectation is compliance with policy Change to Compliance (Compliance    
  (measured on cycle, next rating is pf yr 2001-02) 'Compliance' Indicator, improvement factor does not apply.         best practices and therefore measurement as achieved if institution is in compliance with all   best practices and therefore measurement as achieved if institution is in compliance with all   best practices and therefore measurement as achieved if institution is in compliance with all    
  Recommend changing to compliance indicator.           compliance indicator is more appropriate. indicated best practices principles)   compliance indicator is more appropriate. indicated best practices principles)   compliance indicator is more appropriate. indicated best practices principles)    
                                 
2D Average Faculty Salary by Rank 2D All Parts:Recommended Improvement Factor :   Assess performance in relation to If the Average Faculty Salary* : 1999-00 Salaries reported by AAUP Assess performance in relation to Measure Average Faculty Salary * : 1999-00 Salaries reported by AAUP Assess performance in relation to For all parts, if 1999-00 Salaries reported in April, 2000, by AAUP Assess performance in relation to For all parts, if    
2D1a Instructor Legislated % increase for unclassified employees + 1%   national performance.Scale 3= At or above 95% of the national average salary in April, 2000, for 2 yr Public without academic rank: national performance.Scale 3= At or above 95% of the national average salary in April, 2000, for 2yr Public Inst with academic rank: national performance.Scale 3= At or above 95% of the national average salary for Comprehensive 4 yr Institutions: national performance.Scale 3= At or above 95% of the peer average salary Average Salary of Peers to be identified.  
2D1b Assistant Professor and improvement relative to improvement shown over the   is based on being within a percentage 2= 75% - 94.9% of national average salary Avg Salary = $43,389 is based on being within a percentage 2= 75% - 94.9% of national average salary Avg Salary = $46,947 is based on being within a percentage 2= 80% - 94.9% of national average salary Professor = $66,657 is based on being within a percentage 2= 80% - 94.9% of peer average salary    
2D1c Associate Professor past year alone.   of national average salary data. 1= Below 75% of national average salary   of national average salary data. 1= Below 75% of national average salary   of national average salary data. 1= At or below 80% national average salary Associate=$53,143 of national average salary data. 1= Below 80% of peer average salary Reference for National Average to be determined.  
2D1d Professor     Since national faculty *For technical colleges, rank is not applicable.   Since national faculty * Due to the low # of faculty at different ranks, faculty ranks   Since national faculty Assistant = $43,361 Since national faculty Reference if not for the timeframe assessed will be  
    Methodology for Calculation:   salary levels are generally higher   salary levels are generally higher will be combined for a single # for these institutions   salary levels are generally higher 1999-00 average faculty salaries as compiled Instructor = $33,178 salary levels are generally higher For each institution, the average salary will be inflated up to the current year.  
  For the regional campuses, the measure is change If Performance >= (Most Recent Past Yr + (X% * Most Recent   than the state averages, the goal 1999-00 average faculty salary as compiled by AAUP for 2-yr   than the state averages, the goal 1999-00 avg.faculty salary as compiled by AAUP for 2-yr public   than the state averages, the goal by AAUP for 4-yr Public Comprehensives (IIA) by   than the state averages, the goal based on appropriate peer salary average    
  to average salary of faculty all ranks due to low Past Year))-- where X = Legislated Increase +1 --and the   to be within range of the national publics without rank is to be used as the reference. See Proposed Scale for Final Determination of to be within range of the national inst. with rank is to be used as the reference.The reference will See Proposed Scale for Final Determination of to be within range of the national rank is to be used as reference.The reference will be to be within range of the national at each rank.    
  numbers of faculty within individual ranks. institution has scored a 1 or 2, a total of 0.5 will be   average is an appropriate target. The reference will be inflated to 2000-01 by the legislated the year 5 targeted national average salary. average is an appropriate target. be inflated to 2000-01 by the legislated state salary increase. the year 5 targeted national average salary. average is an appropriate target. inflated to 2000-01 by the legislated state salary See Proposed Scale for Final Determination of average is an appropriate target.    
    added to this indicator subpart score.     state salary increase.The inflated value will serve as   The inflated value will serve as the target for yr 5.   increase.The inflated value will serve as the target for the year 5 targeted national average salary.    
          the target for year 5.The target will be inflated accordingly   The target will be updated accordingly each year   year 5.The target will be updated accordingly each year.      
          each year.                      
2E   2E1 & 2E2Recommended Improvement Factor =5%     same scale both parts     same scale both parts     same scale both parts     same scale both parts    
2E1 Availability of Faculty       3= Above 89%     3= Above 89%     3= Above 89%     3= Above 89%    
2E2 Availability of Advisors Improvement based on whether or not an institution equaled     2= 80% - 89%     2= 80% - 89%     2= 80% - 89%     2= 80% - 89%    
  (Measured on cycle every 2 years, next rating or surpassed its most recent 3-yr average performance.     1= Below 80%     1= Below 80%     1= Below 80%     1= Below 80%    
  is pf yr 2000-01) Methodology for Calculation:     No change to current scale     No change to current scale     No change to current scale     No change to current scale    
    If Performance >= (Most Recent '3-Yr' Avg + (5%* '3-Yr' Avg))                      
    and the institution has scored a 1 or 2, a total of 0.5 will be                      
    added to this indicator subpart score.                            
3A Class Size & Student/Faculty Ratios 3ARecommended Improvement Factor : None   Staff proposes to recommend Change to Compliance based on all three parts   Staff proposes to recommend Change to Compliance based on all three parts   Staff proposes to recommend Change to Compliance based on all three parts   Staff proposes to recommend Change to Compliance based on all three parts    
3A1a Lower Division 'Compliance' Indicator, improvement factor does not apply.   adjusting the ranges for lower and 3A1a: Change range from15-25to12-27   adjusting the ranges for lower and 3A1a: Change range from15-25to12-27   adjusting the ranges for lower and 3A1a: Change range from20-30to20-35   adjusting the ranges for lower and 3A1a: Change range from25-35to25-40    
3A1b Upper Division     upper division classes and 3A1b: N/A   upper division classes and 3A1b: To be applicable in yr 5 - Range is 7-22 *   upper division classes and 3A1b: Change range from15-25to12-27   upper division classes and 3A1b: Change range from20-30to20-35    
3A2a % undergrad lecture sections 50 and up     student/faculty ratio to align 3A2a: No change.(Range of 0% - 20%)   student/faculty ratio to align 3A2a: No change.(Range of 0% - 20%)   student/faculty ratio to align 3A2a: No change.(Range of 0% - 20%)   student/faculty ratio to align 3A2a: No change.(Range of 0% to 20%)    
3A2b % lower division lecture sections 100 and up     better with current state averages 3A2b: No change.(Range of 0% - 5%)   better with current state averages 3A2b: No change.(Range of 0% - 5%)   better with current state averages 3A2b: No change.(Range of 0% - 5%)   better with current state averages 3A2b: No change.(Range of 0% to 5%)    
3A3 FTE students per FTE Faculty     and to make this a compliance indicator 3A3: Change range from14-19to10-20   and to make this a compliance indicator 3A3: Change range from14-19to10-20   and to make this a compliance indicator 3A3: Change range from14-19to10-20   and to make this a compliance indicator 3A3: Change range from14-19to10-20    
        based on compliance with the three parts   based on compliance with the three parts   based on compliance with the three parts   based on compliance with the three parts    
  Scoring scale based on being in compliance         * this part was not applicable in year 4.        
  with the three parts of the measure.Compliance       Institutions in full compliance with all applicable parts     Institutions in full compliance with all applicable parts   Institutions in full compliance with all applicable parts    
  is being within the range on all three parts.       will be in compliance.Institutions not meeting any   Institutions in full compliance with all applicable parts   will be in compliance.Institutions not meeting any   will be in compliance.Institutions not meeting any    
  (Part 1= 3A1a, 3A1b, Part 2= 3A2a, 3A2b and       of the parts will be out of compliance   will be in compliance.Institutions not meeting any   of the parts will be out of compliance   of the parts will be out of compliance    
  Part 3 = 3A3)         of the parts will be out of compliance        
                            (3A1a, 3A2b are N/A for MUSC)    
3B Credit Hours Taught 3B: Measure deferred, improvement factor N/A at this time              
  After due consideration of data for this indicator in regard                
  to setting an appropriate standard, staff recommends that     Defer for this year only while data issues being resolved. Defer for this year only while data issues being resolved. Defer for this year only while data issues being resolved. Defer for this year only while data issues being resolved.  
  this measure be deferred for the current year only.Staff                
  wishes to explore concerns of institutions and staff related                
  to the appropriate faculty exclusion and/or method of                
  instruction exclusion in order to set appropriate                
  standards that take into account various program                
  mixes across institutions while encouraging                
  institutions to strive toward intended purpose of this measure                              
3C Ratio of Faculty to Employees 3C Recommended Improvement Factor =3%   Use IPEDS data to establish ranges.Data for 3= At or above the 75th percentile of peers Peer data from IPEDS Fall Staff 97 Use IPEDS data to establish 3= At or above the 75th percentile of peers Peer data from IPEDS Fall Staff 97: Use IPEDS data to establish ranges.Data for 3= At or above the 75th percentile of peers Peer data from IPEDS Fall Staff 97: Use IPEDS data to establish 3= At or above the 75th percentile of peers Peer data from IPEDS Fall Staff 97 to be used  
        institutions identified in the MGT study of MRR 2= 40th percentile up to 75th percentile Peers for small technical colleges (<1000 FTE) to be ranges.Data for institutions 2= 40th percentile up to 75th percentile   institutions identified in the MGT study of MRR 2= 40th percentile up to 75th percentile   ranges.Data for institutions 2= 40th percentile up to 75th percentile in establishing ranges as indicated  
    Improvement based on whether or not an institution equaled   to be used.For technical sector, all peers 1= At or below 40th percentile based on MGT peers <1000 FTE.All other technical identified in the MGT study of 1= Below 40th percentile For the Regional Campuses, MGT Peers : to be used.For teaching sector, all peers selected 1= Below 40th percentile For the Teaching Sector, 4-Yr MGT Peers: identified in the MGT study of 1= Below 40th percentile    
    or surpassed its most recent 3-yr average performance.   selected by technical institutions will be combined colleges will have reference as all MGT peers MRR to be used.For regional sector, Median:39.6% by teaching institutions will be combined to Median:37.0% MRR to be used.For research sector, Data pending resolution of issues related to the  
    Methodology for Calculation:   to identify the reference.Additionally, a reference 'Small' applies to CMTC, DTC, TCLC, WTC. all peers selected by regional institutions 40th Percentile :37.9% identify the reference for the ranges. 40th Percentile :35.7% peers individualized for each. appropriate peer set.  
    If Performance >= (Most Recent '3-Yr' Avg + (3%* '3-Yr' Avg))   for peers with FTE < 1000 will be identified for SC (measured to tenths) 'All' applies to all other technical colleges. will be combined to identify the (measured to tenths) 75th Percentile:43.7% (measured to tenths) 75th Percentile:41.3% (measured to tenths)    
    and the institution has scored a 1 or 2, a total of 0.5 will be   techs with FTE < 1000. Median:ALL=38.6%SMALL = 35.9% reference for the ranges. Range for 2 : 37.0% to 43.0% Range for 2 : 35.0% to 41.0%    
    added to this indicator score.     40th Percentile:ALL= 36.6%SMALL = 33.9%        
          75th Percentile:ALL= 42.9%SMALL = 41.7%        
            Range for 2: ALL=36.0%-42.0% SMALL= 33.0%-41.0%                    
3D Accreditation of Degree-Granting Programs 3D Recommended Improvement Factor : None     3= 100%     3= 100%     3= 100%     3= 100%    
  No change to scale Measurement at present provides allowances for     2= 90 - 99% (or all but one program *)     2= 90 - 99% (or all but one program *)     2= 90 - 99% (or all but one program *)     2= 90 - 99% (or all but one program *)    
  improvement in regard to achieving program accreditation.     1= 89% or less     1= 89% or less     1= 89% or less     1= 89% or less    
              Applies only to USC - Lancaster            
        * application to be clarified in workbook     * application to be clarified in workbook     * application to be clarified in workbook     * application to be clarified in workbook    
3E Teacher Education                
3E1 NCATE Accreditation 3E1Recommended Improvement Factor : None     N/A     N/A     Compliance-No Change     Compliance - No Change    
    'Compliance' Indicator, improvement factor does not apply.                      
                           
3E2a % passing Prof Knowledge 3E2a Recommended Improvement Factor : 3%     N/A     N/A   Reference is SC performance funding data for all 3= Above 94.0%   Reference is SC performance funding data for all 3= Above 94%    
    See 3E2b for a description of the methodology.             four-year institutions with teaching programs. 2= 90.0% - 94.0%   four-year institutions with teaching programs. 2= 90.0% - 94.0%    
                  1= Below 90.0%   1= Below 90.0%    
                  (measured to tenths)   (measured to tenths)(N/A for MUSC)    
    3E2b Recommended Improvement Factor =3%                  
3E2b % passing Spec. Area       N/A     N/A   Reference is SC performance funding data for all 3= Above 89.0%   Reference is SC performance funding data for all 3= Above 89%    
    Improvement based on whether or not an institution equaled             four-year institutions with teaching programs. 2= 80.0% - 89.0%   four-year institutions with teaching programs. 2= 80.0% - 89.0%    
    or surpassed its most recent 3-yr average performance.             1= Below 80%   1= Below 80%    
    Methodology for Calculation:             (measured to tenths)   (measured to tenths)    
    If Performance >= (Most Recent '3-Yr' Avg + (3%* '3-Yr' Avg))               (N/A for MUSC)    
    and the institution has scored a 1 or 2, a total of 0.5 will be                  
    added to this indicator subpart score.                  
                       
3E3a % in shortage areas 3E3a Recommended Improvement Factor = 5%     N/A     N/A   Reference is SC performance fundingdata for applicable 3= Above 34%   Reference is SC performance fundingdata for applicable 3= Above 34%    
  Subject areas should be on critical               institutions with expectation for a three, 2= 20% - 34%   institutions with expectation for a three, 2= 20% - 34%    
  shortage list for three years to provide Improvement based on whether or not an institution equaled             exceeding the upper quartile and slightly 1= Below 20%   exceeding the upper quartile and slightly 1= Below 20%    
  stability and to allow time once new areas or surpassed its most recent 3-yr average performance.             below the median for the minimum 2. (measured to whole percent)   below the median for the minimum 2. (measured to whole percent)    
  added. Application will be clarified in the Methodology for Calculation:               (N/A for MUSC)    
  revised workbook. If Performance >= (Most Recent '3-Yr' Avg + (5%* '3-Yr' Avg))                  
    and the institution has scored a 1 or 2, a total of 0.5 will be                  
    added to this indicator subpart score.                  
                       
3E3b % minority 3E3b Recommended Improvement Factor = 5%             Assessment reference is minorities 3= Above 20%   Assessment reference is minorities 3= Above 20%    
    (See 3E3a for Methodology)     N/A     N/A   earning initial certification in SC 2= 10% - 20%   earning initial certification in SC 2= 10% - 20%    
                (18.4%, FY 99) and the percent of 1= Below 10%   (18.4%, FY 99) and the percent of 1= Below 10%    
                minority teachers in SC (16%, Fall 98) (measured to whole percent)   minority teachers in SC (16%, Fall 98) (measured to whole percent)    
                            (N/A for MUSC)    
4A Sharing, use of technology 4ARecommended Improvement Factor : None     Compliance - No Change     Compliance - No Change     Compliance - No Change     Compliance - No Change    
  (measured on cycle, next rating is pf yr 2001-02) 'Compliance' Indicator, improvement factor does not apply.                            
4B Cooperation & Collaboration 4B Recommended Improvement Factor : None     Compliance - No Change     Compliance - No Change     Compliance - No Change     Compliance - No Change    
  (measured on cycle, next rating ispf yr 2001-02) 'Compliance' Indicator, improvement factor does not apply.                            
5A Administrative to 5ARecommended Improvement Factor = 3%   Use IPEDS data to establish 3= At or Below the 25th percentile of peers Peer data from IPEDS FY 98: Use IPEDS data to establish 3= At or Below the 25th percentile of peers Peer data from IPEDS FY 98 Use IPEDS data to establish 3= At or Below the 25th percentile of peers Peer data from IPEDS FY98: Use IPEDS data to establish 3= At or Below the 25th percentile of peers Peer Data from IPEDS for FY 98 to be used in  
  Academic Expenditures     ranges.Data for institutions 2= 60th percentile down to 25th percentile Peers for small technical colleges (<1000 FTE) to be ranges.Data for institutions 2= 60th percentile down to 25th percentile Median of all 2 yr institutions identified ranges.Data for institutions 2= 60th percentile down to 25th percentile   ranges.Data for institutions 2= 60th percentile down to 25th percentile determining applicable range as indicated at left.  
  Expected trend is down. Improvement based on whether or not an institution equaled   identified in the MGT study of 1= Above 60th percentile based on MGT peers <1000 FTE.All other technical identified in the MGT study of 1= Above 60th percentile for use in MGT's study for regionals identified in the MGT study of 1= Above 60th percentile For the Teaching Sector, 4-Yr MGT Peers: identified in the MGT study of 1= Above 60th percentile    
    or surpassed its most recent 3-yr average performance.   MRR to be used.For technical sector, colleges will have reference as all MGT peers MRR to be used.For regional sector, Median: 26.1% MRR to be used.For teaching sector, Median: 22.4% MRR to be used.For research sector, Data pending resolution of issues related  
    Methodology for Calculation:   all peers selected by technical institutions Note:expected trend is downward. 'Small' applies to CMTC, DTC, TCLC, WTC. all peers selected by regional institutions Note:expected trend is downward. 60th Percentile : 29.4% all peers selected by teaching institutions Note:expected trend is downward. 60th Percentile :24.7% peers individualized for each. Note:expected trend is downward. to the appropriate peer set.  
    If Performance <= (Most Recent '3-Yr' Avg - (3%* '3-Yr' Avg))   will be combined to identify the reference. 'All' applies to all other technical colleges. will be combined to identify the 25th Percentile:19.6% will be combined to identify the 25th Percentile:17.8%    
    and the institution has scored a 1 or 2, a total of 0.5 will be   Additionally, a reference for peers w/ FTE <1000 (measured in tenths) Median:ALL=28.0%SMALL = 32.8% reference for the ranges. (measured in tenths) Range for 2 : 30.0% to 20.0% reference for the ranges. (measured in tenths) Range for 2 : 25.0% to 18.0% (measured in tenths)    
    added to the indicator score.   will be identified for SC techs w/ FTE < 1000. 60th Percentile:ALL= 29.4%SMALL = 33.7%        
          25th Percentile:ALL= 22.8%SMALL = 25.0%        
            Range for 2: ALL=30.0%-23.0% SMALL=34.0%-25.0%                    
5B   5B Recommended Improvement Factor : None     Achieved if institution is in compliance with all   Best practices and therefore measurement as Achieved if institution is in compliance with all   Best practices and therefore measurement as Achieved if institution is in compliance with all   Best practices and therefore measurement as Achieved if institution is in compliance with all    
  (measured on cycle, next rating is pf yr 2000-01) 'Compliance' Indicator, improvement factor does not apply.   Best practices and therefore measurement as indicated best practices principles   compliance indicator is more appropriate. indicated best practices principles   compliance indicator is more appropriate. indicated best practices principles   compliance indicator is more appropriate. indicated best practices principles    
        compliance indicator is more appropriate.              
5C Elimination of Duplication 5C Recommended Improvement Factor : None     Compliance - No Change     Compliance - No Change     Compliance - No Change     Compliance - No Change    
  (measured on cycle, next rating is pf yr 2002-03) 'Compliance' Indicator, improvement factor does not apply.                            
5D General Overhead per FTE Students 5DRecommended Improvement Factor = 3%   Use IPEDS data to establish 3= At or Below the 25th percentile of peers Peer data from IPEDS FY 98: Use IPEDS data to establish 3= At or Below the 25th percentile of peers Peer data from IPEDS FY 98 Use IPEDS data to establish 3= At or Below the 25th percentile of peers Peer data from IPEDS FY98: Use IPEDS data to establish 3= At or Below the 25th percentile of peers Peer Data from IPEDS for FY 98 to be used in  
  (FY $ to Fall FTE Students)     ranges.Data for institutions 2= 60th percentile down to 25th percentile Peers for small technical colleges (<1000 FTE) to be ranges.Data for institutions 2= 60th percentile down to 25th percentile Median of all 2 yr institutions identified ranges.Data for institutions 2= 60th percentile down to 25th percentile   ranges.Data for institutions 2= 60th percentile down to 25th percentile determining applicable range as indicated at left.  
  Expected trend is down. Improvement based on whether or not an institution equaled   identified in the MGT study of 1= Above 60th percentile based on MGT peers <1000 FTE.All other technical identified in the MGT study of 1= Above 60th percentile for use in MGT's study for regionals identified in the MGT study of 1= Above 60th percentile For the Teaching Sector, 4-Yr MGT Peers: identified in the MGT study of 1= Above 60th percentile    
    or surpassed its most recent 3-yr average performance.   MRR to be used.For technical sector, colleges will have reference as all MGT peers MRR to be used.For regional sector, Median: $1,211 MRR to be used.For teaching sector, Median: $1,338 MRR to be used.For research sector, Data pending resolution of issues related  
    Methodology for Calculation:   all peers selected by technical institutions Note:expected trend is downward. 'Small' applies to CMTC, DTC, TCLC, WTC. all peers selected by regional institutions Note:expected trend is downward. 60th Percentile :$1,349 all peers selected by teaching institutions Note:expected trend is downward. 60th Percentile :$1,444 peers individualized for each. Note:expected trend is downward. to the appropriate peer set.  
    If Performance <= (Most Recent '3-Yr' Avg - (3%* '3-Yr' Avg))   will be combined to identify the reference. 'All' applies to all other technical colleges. will be combined to identify the 25th Percentile:$850 will be combined to identify the 25th Percentile:$1,008    
    and the institution has scored a 1 or 2, a total of 0.5 will be   Additionally, a reference for peers w/ FTE <1000 (measured to nearest whole $) Median:ALL=$1,356SMALL = $1,639 reference for the ranges. (measured to nearest whole $) Range for 2 : $1,349 - $851 reference for the ranges. (measured to nearest whole $) Range for 2 : $1,444 - $1,009 (measured to nearest whole $)    
    added to the indicator score.     60th Percentile:ALL=$1,477SMALL= $1,824        
          25th Percentile:ALL= $1,045SMALL= $1,538        
            '2' Range: ALL= $1,477-$1,046 SMALL=$1,824-$1,539                    
6A SAT/ACT scores (% >= 1000 SAT or 21 ACT) 6A Recommended Improvement Factor = 5%     N/A   State performance funding data and past sector 3= Above 29.0%   State performance funding data and past sector 3= Above 59.0%   State performance funding data and past sector 3= Above 74.0%    
            benchmarks used as reference.In assessing the 2= 15.0% - 29.0%   benchmarks used as reference.In assessing the 2=30.0% - 59.0%   benchmarks used as reference.In assessing the 2= 60.0% - 74.0%    
  A technical adjustment to the ACT reguirement : Improvement based on whether or not an institution equaled         reasonableness of the scale proposed in light of issues 1=Below 15.0%   reasonableness of the scale proposed in light of issues 1=Below 30.0%   reasonableness of the scale proposed in light of issues 1= Below 60.0%    
  ACT adjusted from 20 as applied in the past to 21 or surpassed its most recent 3-yr average performance.         raised, staff has analyzed relevant SAT data and available   raised, staff has analyzed relevant SAT data and available   raised, staff has analyzed relevant SAT data and available    
  (the approximate national average) as stated in Methodology for Calculation:         data on SC high school graduates.The standards proposed   data on SC high school graduates.The standards proposed   data on SC high school graduates.The standards proposed    
  the measure. If Performance >= (Most Recent 3-Yr Avg + (5%*3-Yr Avg))         allow for the recognition of high performance while   allow for the recognition of high performance while   allow for the recognition of high performance while    
  and the institution has scored a 1 or 2, a total of 0.5 will be         providing a broad range for the score of 2 to allow for   providing a broad range for the score of 2 to allow for   providing a broad range for the score of 2 to allow for    
    added to the indicator score.         differences in missions and admission policies across   differences in missions and admission policies across   differences in missions and admission policies across N/A for MUSC    
              institutions.In the past, the sector benchmark has served   institutions.In the past, the sector benchmark has served   institutions.In the past, the sector benchmark has served    
            as the standard for beyond which the institution was not   as the standard for beyond which the institution was not   as the standard for beyond which the institution was not    
            expected to show increasing performance. The proposed   expected to show increasing performance. The proposed   expected to show increasing performance. The proposed    
            scale is consistent with this past expectation.   scale is consistent with this past expectation.     scale is consistent with this past expectation.      
6B % entering freshmen with rank in top 30% 6B Recommended Improvement Factor = 5%     N/A   State performance funding data is used as a reference 3= Above 49.0%   State performance funding data is used as a reference 3= Above 64.0%   State performance funding data is used as a reference 3= Above 89.0%    
  or GPA of 3.0/4 and higher           in determining the reasonableness of the proposed scale. 2= 35.0% - 49.0%   in determining the reasonableness of the proposed scale. 2= 50.0% - 64.0%   in determining the reasonableness of the proposed scale. 2= 75.0% - 89.0%    
  Improvement based on whether or not an institution equaled         In addition, available data from SC SDE, SC CHE, NCES, 1= Below 35.0%   In addition, available data from SC SDE, SC CHE, NCES, 1= Below 50.0%   In addition, available data from SC SDE, SC CHE, NCES, 1= Below 75.0%    
    or surpassed its most recent 3-yr average performance.         ETS have been reviewed in light of the state performance   ETS have been reviewed in light of the state performance   and ETS have been reviewed in light of state performance    
    Methodology for Calculation:         funding data.   funding data.   funding data. N/A for MUSC    
    If Performance >= (Most Recent 3-Yr Avg + (5%*3-Yr Avg))                
    and the institution has scored a 1 or 2, a total of 0.5 will be                
    added to the indicator score.                
                     
                             
6C Policy for considering post-secondary 6C Recommended Improvement Factor : None     Compliance - No Change     Compliance - No Change     Compliance - No Change     Compliance - No Change    
  achievements 'Compliance' Indicator, improvement factor does not apply.                       n/a for MUSC    
6D Priority on enrolling in-state students 6D Recommended Improvement Factor = 5%     N/A     N/A   3= Above 79.0%   3= Above 79.0%    
  The measure is currently defined as 'in-state               The indicator should assess institutions' 2= 65.0% - 79.0%   The indicator should assess institutions' 2= 65.0% - 79.0%    
  for fee purposes' including all allowable state waivers of Improvement based on whether or not an institution equaled             priority on enrolling those individuals who are SC residents or 1= Below 65.0%   priority on enrolling those individuals who are SC residents or 1= Below 65.0%    
  out-of-state tuition.In keeping with the intention of the or surpassed its most recent 3-yr average performance.             live within the borders of SC and therefore, staff proposes   live within the borders of SC and therefore, staff proposes    
  measure as identified originally, staff proposes changing the Methodology for Calculation:             changing from 'in-state for fees' to 'citizens' as defined by   changing from 'in-state for fees' to 'citizens' as defined by    
  measure to assess SC residency.SC residency is to be defined If Performance >= (Most Recent 3-Yr Avg + (5%*3-Yr Avg))             Res_Class=1CHEMIS variable and the   Res_Class=1CHEMIS variable and the    
  consistently with the definition used to determine and the institution has scored a 1 or 2, a total of 0.5 will be             Res_Class exceptions codes of A, B, C, and D.   Res_Class exceptions codes of A, B, C, and D.    
  eligibility for LIFE scholarships.Therefore, SC Resident added to the indicator score.             This definition is consistent with that currently used   This definition is consistent with that currently used    
  will include the residency categories of (1) Resident and               in determining student eligibility for SC LIFE scholarships   in determining student eligibility for SC LIFE scholarships    
  Resident Exception Categories of (A) Military & Dependents;               which are intended to assist those from SC in attending   which are intended to assist those from SC in attending    
  (B) Faculty and administration employeess and their               post-secondary schools provided designated   post-secondary schools provided designated    
  dependents; (C) Full-time employee and their dependents and               scholarship and residency requirements are met.   scholarship and residency requirements are met.    
  (D) retired persons and their dependents as defined in                    
  SC Code of Laws 59-112-10 and promulgated regulations               Performance of SC institutionshas been reviewed   Performance of SC institutionshas been reviewed    
  governing tuition and fees. (see R62-530(L) for LIFE regs)                 in proposing the recommended scale.     in proposing the recommended scale.      
7A Graduation Rate     Use available IPEDS data and SC data as a reference   Use available IPEDS data 3= At or above 75th percentile of peers IPEDS data from 1997 GRS survey Use available IPEDS data 3= At or above 75th percentile of peers IPEDS data from 1997 GRS survey Use available IPEDS data 3= At or above 75th percentile of peers IPEDS data from 1997 GRS survey to be used  
        to establish expectation of being in the upper quartile 3= Above 24.0%   to establish expectation of being in the upper quartile 2= 40th percentile to 75th percentile Indicates values for all MGT of : to establish expectation of being in the upper quartile 2= 40th percentile to 75th percentile   to establish expectation of being in the upper quartile 2= 40th percentile up to 75th percentile in determining range indicated.  
7A1a w/in 150% of program time 7A1aRecommended Improvement Factor =3%   for exceeding expectations and slightly below average up to 2= 10.0% - 24.0%   for exceeding expectations and slightly below average up to 1= At or below 40th percentile For the Regional Campuses, MGT Peers : for exceeding expectations and slightly below average up to 1= Below 40th percentile For the Teaching Sector, 4-Yr MGT Peers: for exceeding expectations and slightly below average up to 1= Below 40th percentile    
      the upper quartile for meeting expectations.A broad range 1= Below 10.0%   the upper quartile for meeting expectations.A broad range Median:22.2% the upper quartile for meeting expectations.A broad range Median:40.4% the upper quartile for meeting expectations.A broad range Data pending resolution of issues related  
  Improvement based on whether or not an institution equaled   for meeting expectations is provided to allow for differences   for meeting expectations is provided to allow for differences 40th Percentile : 15.8% for meeting expectations is provided to allow for differences 40th Percentile :36.4% for meeting expectations is provided to allow for differences N/A for MUSC to the appropriate peer set.  
    or surpassed its most recent 3-yr average performance.   within sectors across institutions.   within sectors across institutions. 75th Percentile:31.6% within sectors across institutions. 75th Percentile:49.6% within sectors across institutions.    
    Methodology for Calculation:     (meausred in tenths)   (meausred in tenths) Range for 2 : 15.0% to 31.0% (meausred in tenths) Range for 2 : 36.0% to 49.0% (meausred in tenths)    
    If Performance >= (Most Recent '3-Yr' Avg + (3%* '3-Yr' Avg))              
    and the institution has scored a 1 or 2, a total of 0.5 will be              
    added to this indicator subpart score.                            
7A2 rate excluding developmental students Measure deferred, improvement factor N/A at this time   Defer this subpart for year 5.Future consideration Defer 7A2a     N/A     N/A        
        of supplementing 7A1a with course completion             N/A    
        rates, transfer, or other suitable measure                
        is recommended.                        
7B Employment / Continuing Educ. at a higher level Improvement factor N/A at this time     Needs Refinement, Not Measured in Yr 5     Needs Refinement, Not Measured in Yr 5     Needs Refinement, Not Measured in Yr 5     Needs Refinement, Not Measured in Yr 5    
  (measured on cycle, next rating is pf yr 2001-02)                            
7C Employer Feedback Improvement factor N/A at this time     Needs Refinement, Not Measured in Yr 5         Needs Refinement, Not Measured in Yr 5     Needs Refinement, Not Measured in Yr 5    
  (measured on cycle, next rating is pf yr 2001-02)           N/A            
7D % Passing professional exams Recommended Improvement Factor =3%   Standards are based on performance 3= Above 89.0%   Standards are based on performance 3= Above 89.0%   Standards are based on performance 3= Above 89.0%   Standards are based on performance 3= Above 89.0%    
      of SC institutions.Program and exam 2= 80.0% - 89.0%   of SC institutions.Program and exam 2= 80.0% - 89.0%   of SC institutions.Program and exam 2= 80.0% - 89.0%   of SC institutions.Program and exam 2= 80.0% - 89.0%    
  Improvement based on whether or not an institution equaled   mix varies from institution and the 1= Below 80.0%   mix varies from institution and the 1= Below 80.0%   mix varies from institution and the 1= Below 80.0%   mix varies from institution and the 1= Below 80.0%    
    or surpassed its most recent 3-yr average performance.   ranges here should reward institutions   ranges here should reward institutions (Only applicable currently for USC-Lancaster)   ranges here should reward institutions   ranges here should reward institutions    
    Methodology for Calculation:   for high performance while allowing for   for high performance while allowing for   for high performance while allowing for   for high performance while allowing for    
    If Performance >= (Most Recent '3-Yr' Avg + (3%* '3-Yr' Avg))   differences in program and exam mix.   differences in program and exam mix.   differences in program and exam mix.   differences in program and exam mix.    
    and the institution has scored a 1 or 2, a total of 0.5 will be   Staff will continue   Staff will continue   Staff will continue   Staff will continue    
    added to this indicator subpart score.   to explore availability of national data for future use in   to explore availability of national data for future use in   to explore availability of national data for future use in   to explore availability of national data for future use in    
        determining standards.As of this time, national data is not   determining standards.As of this time, national data is not   determining standards.As of this time, national data is not   determining standards.As of this time, national data is not    
        available for all exams measured across institutions.     available for all exams measured across institutions.     available for all exams measured across institutions.     available for all exams measured across institutions.      
7F Avg credit hours earned of graduates 7FRecommended Improvement Factor = 3%     N/A   N/A   Reference used is state data.All 1= Above 110%   Reference used is state data.All 1= Above 110%    
  Expected trend is down.           institutions have scored at or below 2= 106% - 110%   institutions have scored at or below 2= 106% - 110%    
    Improvement based on whether or not an institution equaled         the current sector benchmark of 110%. 3= Below 106%   the current sector benchmark of 110%. 3= Below 106%    
    or surpassed its most recent 3-yr average performance.         The average is 106% for all institutions for which   The average is 106% for all institutions for which    
    Methodology for Calculation:         the measure is applicable   the measure is applicable N/A for MUSC    
    If Performance <= (Most Recent '3-Yr' Avg - (3%* '3-Yr' Avg))              
    and the institution has scored a 1 or 2, a total of 0.5 will be              
    added to the indicator score.              
                                 
8A transferability of credits to and from institution 8ARecommended Improvement Factor : None     3= compliance on all applicable parts     3= compliance on all applicable parts     3= compliance on all applicable parts     3= compliance on all applicable parts    
  No change to scale used       2= compliance on all but 1 applicable parts     2= compliance on all but 1 applicable parts     2= compliance on all but 1 applicable parts     2= compliance on all but 1 applicable parts    
          1= non-compliance on more than 1 applicable part     1= non-compliance on more than 1 applicable part     1= non-compliance on more than 1 applicable part     1= non-compliance on more than 1 applicable part    
                No change to scale used     No change to scale used     No change to scale used    
8B Continuing Education Units 8BRecommended Improvement Factor : None   Reference performance to 3= Above 110% of 3-yr average.   Defer for all in this sector   Defer for all in this sector.   Defer for all in this sector    
    Indicator is assessed relative to institution's past performance.   each institution's three year average production 2= 90% to 110% of 3-yr average.          
  This measure is change to be nonapplicable     based on looking at the most recent completed 1= Below 90% of 3-yr average. Assessperformance relative to each institution's (this indicator was applicable in yr 4 of performance   (this indicator was only applicable for Coastal Carolina   (This indicator was applicable for all 3 in yr 4    
  for all sectors except the technical colleges.In     5 years, subtracting the high and low values and past performance as indicated at left. funding for only Beaufort & Salkehatchie)   in Yr 4 of performance funding)   of performance funding)    
  past years the measure was applicable for institutions     averaging the remaining three.Standard allows for          
  with at least 1,000 CEU's produced annually.     institutional differences and fluctuations in data '3-yr average' refers to the average made up of data          
        while recognizing the goal of forward movement. available from the most recent ended 5 years minus          
          the high and low values.          
                   
                               
8C Access to citizens     Staff proposes that SC resident be considered those classified 3= Population Met or Exceeded Current sector benchmarks which Staff proposes that SC resident be considered those classified 3= Population Met or Exceeded Current sector benchmarks which Staff proposes that SC resident be considered those classified 3= At or above state minority population Current sector benchmark of 28.7% Staff proposes that SC resident be considered those classified 3= At or above state minority population Current sector benchmark of 28.7%  
8C1 % SC undergrads minority 8C1Recommended Improvement Factor = 5%   per CHEMIS as RES_CLASS =1 and exceptions A, B, C, and D. 2= 75% of minority pop 18+ up to minority pop 18+. represent SC minority population 18+. per CHEMIS as RES_CLASS =1 and exceptions A, B, C, and D. 2= 75% of minority pop 18+ up to minority pop 18+. represent SC minority population 18+. per CHEMIS as RES_CLASS =1 and exceptions A, B, C, and D. 2= 75% of SC minority 18+up toSC minority 18+ represents SC minority population 18+. per CHEMIS as RES_CLASS =1 and exceptions A, B, C, and D. 2= 75% of SC minority 18+ up to SC minority 18+ represents SC minority population 18+.  
  (headcount)     Refer to indicator 6D for additional details. 1= Below 75% of minority population would be proposed for use here. Refer to indicator 6D for additional details. 1= Below 75% of minority population would be proposed for use here. Refer to indicator 6D for additional details. 1= Below 75% of SC minority 18+ (% is based on 1990 census population Refer to indicator 6D for additional details. 1= At or below 75% of SC minority 18+ (% is based on 1990 census population  
  Staff proposes that 'SC Resident' for this indicator Improvement based on whether or not an institution equaled     ('Population' is % minority 18+ in the service area) The sector benchmarks across campuses The sector benchmarks across campuses estimates.This level would be proposed estimates.This level would be proposed  
  be consistent with that used for Indicator 6D, which or surpassed its most recent 3-yr average performance.   State population data to be used as the reference.This are based on identified county service State population data to be used as the reference.This ('Population' is % minority 18+ in the service area) are based on identified county service State population data to be used as the reference.This (measured in tenths) as the state minority population reference. The State population data is used as the reference.This (measured in tenths) as the state minority population reference. The  
  is an assessment of enrolling SC Resident students. Methodology for Calculation:   has been used in the past for this indicator as the (measured in tenths) areas and as derived from 1990 census has been used in the past for this indicator as the (measured in tenths) areas and as derived from 1990 census has been used in the past for this indicator as the indicated range for a 2 is 21.0% - 28.0%) has been used in the past for this indicator as the indicated range for a 2 is 21.0% - 28.0%)  
  Refer to indicator 6D for the definition to be applied If Performance >= (Most Recent 3-Yr Avg + (5%*3-Yr Avg))   sector benchmark.In determining its reasonableness, staff estimates. sector benchmark.In determining its reasonableness, staff estimates. sector benchmark.In determining its reasonableness, staff   sector benchmark.In determining its reasonableness, staff    
  here for 'SC Resident.' and the institution has scored a 1 or 2, a total of 0.5 will be   have reviewed data relevant to SAT takers and high school   have reviewed data relevant to SAT takers and high school   have reviewed data relevant to SAT takers and high school   have reviewed data relevant to SAT takers and high school    
    added to the indicator score.   seniors and find similar percentages for the state overall.   seniors and find similar percentages for the state overall.   seniors and find similar percentages for the state overall.   seniors and find similar percentages for the state overall .    
                   
8C2 retention of SC minority undergrads 8C2 Recommended Improvement Factor = 5%   Staff recommends that overall retention of SC technical coll. 3= Above 10% of SC technical sector median retention Overall retention reference is the retention (as defined Staff recommends that overall retention of SC regionals 3= Above 10% of SC regional sector median retention Overall retention reference is the retention (as defined Staff recommends that overall retention of SC teaching inst. 3= Above 5% of SC teaching sector median retention Overall retention reference is the retention (as defined Staff recommends that overall retention of SC 4 yr institutions 3= Above 5% of SC 4-yr median overall student retention Overall retention reference is the retention (as defined  
  (degree seeking students considered in 8C1) (see 8C1 for Methodology)   be used in determining the reference point for this indicator. 2=at or within +/- 10% of SC technical sector median retention for measurement) of all students regardless of race. be used in determining the reference point for this indicator. 2=at or within +/- 10% of SC regional sector median retention for measurement) of all students regardless of race. be used in determining the reference point for this indicator. 2=at or within +/- 5% of SC teach. sector median retention for measurement) of all students regardless of race. be used in determining the reference point for this indicator. 2=at or within +/- 5% of the SC 4 yr median retention for measurement) of all students regardless of race.  
  Additionally, consistent with Indicator 8C1, staff     It would be expected that the retention of students should 1= Below 10% of SC technical sector median student retention For technical colleges the reference used to It would be expected that the retention of students should 1= Below 10% of SC regional sector median student retention For regional campuses the reference used to It would be expected that the retention of students should 1= Below 5% of SC teach sector median student retention The reference for establishing the range is the It would be expected that the retention of students should 1= Below 5% of SC 4-yr median overall student retention For the research sector, the median of all 4 year  
  proposes a change to the definition used for SC     not depend on minority status and therefore the reference is establish the range is the technical college median not depend on minority status and therefore the reference is establish the range is the regional campus median not depend on minority status and therefore the reference is Teaching Sector Median retention fo all students. not depend on minority status and therefore the reference is institutions is to be considered in determining the  
  resident. See Indicator 6D for the definition     the ability of institutions in the state to retain students from (measured in tenths) for fall 1999, =55.4% (range for '2' is 49.0 - 60.0) the ability of institutions in the state to retain students from (measured in tenths) for fall 1999, =52.7% (range for '2' is 47.0 - 57.0) the ability of institutions in the state to retain students from (measured in tenths) Fall 1999, =78.8% (range for '2' 74.0 - 82.0) the ability of institutions in the state to retain students from (measured in tenths) indicated range.The median is 83.0% and the range  
  recommended.     one year to the next.The definition of SC Resident will be   one year to the next.The definition of SC Resident will be   one year to the next.The definition of SC Resident will be   one year to the next.The definition of SC Resident will be for a 2 is 78% to 87%.  
        consistent with that recommended for 8C1 and 6D. (based on revised 8C2 per def'n change, Fall 1999) consistent with that recommended for 8C1 and 6D. (based on revised 8C2 per def'n change, Fall 1999) consistent with that recommended for 8C1 and 6D. (based on revised 8C2 per def'n change, Fall 1999) consistent with that recommended for 8C1 and 6D. (based on revised 8C2 per def'n change, Fall 1999)  
8C Access to citizens (continued)                
8C3 % minority grad students 8C3 Recommended Improvement Factor = 5%     N.A     NA   Use as reference points state and us 3= Above 10% of US minority pop w/ bacc. degrees. 1990 Census, educational attainment of Use as reference points state and us 3= Above 10% of US minority pop w/ bacc. degrees. 1990 Census, educational attainment of  
  (headcount) (see 8C1 for Methodology)             population for those with baccalaureate 2= at or within +/- 10% of US minority pop w/ bacc. degrees persons 25+ indicates 12.0% of those population for those with baccalaureate 2= at or within +/- 10% of US minority pop w/ bacc. degrees persons 25+ indicates 12.0% of those  
                  degrees. 1= Below 10% of US minority pop w/ bacc. degrees. with baccalaureate degrees and higher are minority. degrees. 1= Below 10% of US minority pop w/ bacc. degrees. with baccalaureate degrees and higher are minority.  
                  This figure would be used as the population This figure would be used as the population  
                  reference.(SC % is 13.4%) Range for 2 = 10.0%-13.0%. (measured in tenths) reference.(SC % is 13.4%) Range for 2 = 10.0%-13.0%  
                       
                   
8C4 % minority faculty 8C4Recommended Improvement Factor =3%   Use as reference points the state and us census data 3= Above 10% of US minority pop w/ bacc. degrees. 1990 Census, educational attainment of Use as reference points the state and us census data 3= Above 10% of US minority pop w/ graduate degrees. 1990 Census, educational attainment of Use as reference points the state and us census data 3= Above 10% of US minority pop w/ graduate degrees. 1990 Census, educational attainment of Use as reference points the state and us census data 3= Above 10% of US minority pop w/ graduate degrees. 1990 Census, educational attainment of  
  (headcount faculty teaching in fall)     for minority population with Master's or higher.This measure 2= at or within +/- 10% of US minority pop w/ bacc. degrees persons 25+ indicates 12.0% of those for minority population with Master's or higher.This measure 2= at or within +/- 10% of US minority pop w/ grad. degrees persons 25+ indicates 11.9% of those for minority population with Master's or higher.This measure 2= at or within +/- 10% of US minority pop w/ grad. degrees persons 25+ indicates 11.9% of those for minority population with Master's or higher.This measure 2= at or within +/- 10% of US minority pop w/ grad. degrees persons 25+ indicates 11.9% of those  
    Improvement based on whether or not an institution equaled   considers both full and part-time faculty 1= Below 10% of US minority pop w/ bacc. degrees. with BA degrees and higher are minority. considers both full and part-time faculty 1= Below 10% of US minority pop w/ graduate degrees. with graduate degrees and higher are minority. considers both full and part-time faculty 1= Below 10% of US minority pop w/ graduate degrees. with graduate degrees and higher are minority. considers both full and part-time faculty 1= Below 10% of US minority pop w/ graduate degrees. with graduate degrees and higher are minority.  
    or surpassed its most recent 3-yr average performance.   and therefore, staff has included in the reference those with This figure would be used as the population and therefore, staff has included in the reference those with This figure would be used as the population and therefore, staff has included in the reference those with This figure would be used as the population and therefore, staff has included in the reference those with This figure would be used as the population  
    Methodology for Calculation:   master's degrees. reference.(SC % is 13.4%)Range for 2=10.0% - 13.0% master's degrees. reference.(SC % is 13.2%) Range for 2=10.0% - 13.0% master's degrees. reference.(SC % is 13.2%) Range for 2= 10.0% - 13.0%. master's degrees. (measured in tenths) reference.(SC % is 13.2%)  
    If Performance >= (Most Recent '3-Yr' Avg + (3%* '3-Yr' Avg))   Additionally, in determining the reasonableness of using the US (measured in tenths)   Additionally, in determining the reasonableness of using the US (measured in tenths)   Additionally, in determining the reasonableness of using the US (measured in tenths)   Additionally, in determining the reasonableness of using the US (range for 2 indicated is 10.0%-13.0%)  
    and the institution has scored a 1 or 2, a total of 0.5 will be   census data as a reference, staff has reviewed peer data,   census data as a reference, staff has reviewed peer data,   census data as a reference, staff has reviewed peer data,   census data as a reference, staff has reviewed peer data,    
    added to this indicator subpart score.   data presented in the Chronicle regarding percent of minority   data presented in the Chronicle regarding percent of minority   data presented in the Chronicle regarding percent of minority   data presented in the Chronicle regarding percent of minority    
        faculty and an annual study by NSF of earned research doctorates   faculty and an annual study by NSF of earned research doctorates   faculty and an annual study by NSF of earned research doctorates   faculty and an annual study by NSF of earned research doctorates    
        (that study showed of the 28,218 doctorates earned by US Citizens,   (that study showed of the 28,218 doctorates earned by US Citizens,   (that study showed of the 28,218 doctorates earned by US Citizens,   (that study showed of the 28,218 doctorates earned by US Citizens,    
        14% were earned by minorities.     14% were earned by minorities.     14% were earned by minorities.     14% were earned by minorities.      
9A research expenditures for 9ARecommended Improvement Factor : None     N/A     NA     3=120% and above     3=120% and above    
  teacher education reform Indicator is assessed relative to institution's past performance.               2= 80% - 119%     2= 80% - 119%    
  No change to scale used                 1= below 80%     1= below 80%    
                      (Measured to tenths)     (Measured to tenths)    
9B public and private grant expenditures 9BRecommended Improvement Factor : None     N/A     NA   Defer consideration of this measure   Use IPEDS data to establish 3= At or above the 75th percentile of peers IPEDS Finance Surveys (FY98 / Avg. of FYs 95,96,97)  
    Indicator is assessed relative to institution's past performance.             for the teaching sector while   ranges.Data for institutions 2= 40th percentile up to 75thpercentile to be used in establishing the ranges.  
  (restricted research expenditures compared               pursuing study of applicability of   identified in the MGT study of 1= Below 40th percentile    
  to most recent 3-year average expenditures)               this measure for the teaching sector.   MRR to be used.For research sector, Data pending resolution of issues related  
                          peers individualized for each. (Measured to tenths) to the appropriate peers.