Skip Navigation
Back 

branch3

branch3

 
Minutes of Meeting

University of South Carolina Branches Sector Committee

November 11, 1996

Present: Dr. Edwin Seim, Chairman, Dr. Chris Plyler, Dr. Arnie Applebaum,
Ms. Lily Roland Hall, Dr. Deborah Cureton, Dr. Carl Clayton, M.G. Thomas
Olsen, Dr. Carolyn West

Staff to the Committee Present: Ms. Kay Coleman, Mr. David Hunter, Mr.
Fred Sheheen, Dr. Michael Smith, Dr. Lynn Kelley, Dr. David Loope

Dr. Seim convened the meeting at 9:35 a.m.  Since a few members of the
Committee had not received the minutes for the November 4 meeting prior to
the meeting, Dr. Seim suggested that the group approve the November 4
minutes along with the November 11 minutes at the November 18 meeting..

The Committee began discussion where it had left off at the November 4
meeting, with Indicator III.A.2.

Indicator 3.A Class Size and Student Teacher Ratios

Measure 2: Ratio of FTE students to FTE teaching faculty compared to the
average in South Carolina's public institutions

The group held a lengthy discussion of how to define FTE teaching faculty. 
Dr. Seim pointed out that indicator 3.B notes that the Commission has yet
to define FTE teaching faculty and that each sector should endeavor to do
so. 

Some members of the group felt that contact hours should be used for
purposes of calculating the number of FTE teaching faculty because faculty
who teach labs would teach several more contact hours than their colleagues
who do not if credit hours were used.  Mr. Sheheen noted that other sectors
would not likely use this definition and that for data collection purposes
the definition needs to be as consistent as possible across sectors.  Dr.
West moved to accept as the definition either the total number of contact
hours or credit hours divided by 12 contact or credit hours as the
definition.  Dr. Clayton seconded.  The Committee voted 8-0 in favor of the 
motion.

After some discussion regarding existing student to faculty ratios at the
two-year branches, the group decided that the benchmark should act as an
incentive to institutions to keep the ratio low.  Dr. West moved to accept
a benchmark for the measure whereby institutions that maintain a student to
faculty ratio of 130% of the sector average or below receive 100% of the
funding for this ratio.  Institutions that exceed the 130% mark would
receive 75% funding.  Gen. Olsen seconded the motion.  The group voted 8-0
in favor of the motion.

Next, the group decided to assign equal weighting to each of the two
measures for this indicator (i.e., 50% for each measure).

Indicator 3.B Number of Credit Hours Taught By Faculty

Measure 1: Average number of credit hours taught by full-time teaching
faculty

Mr. Sheheen explained that because of the perception that faculty were not
teaching enough the legislative intent here was to increase the number of
credit hours taught by each faculty member.  Dr. Plyler noted that either
too high a benchmark or too low a benchmark would prove inadequate.  Dr.
West moved that the benchmark be set in such a manner so as to award full
funding for the measure if an institution meets 90% and above of the sector 
average for the number of credit hours taught by each faculty and 75%
funding for any institutional average below 90%.  Dr. Plyler seconded this
motion.  The group voted 8-0 in favor of the motion.

Measure 2: FTE teaching faculty, by level and sector, compared to the
average in South Carolina public institutions

The group voted 8-0 to use the same formula (i.e., 100% funding for 90% and
above of the sector average).  The Committee then voted 8-0 to assign equal
weighting to each measure of the indicator (i.e., 50% for each measure).

Indicator 3.C Ratio of Full-time Faculty as Compared to Other Full-time
Employees

Measure: The total number of full-time faculty members paid from
unrestricted Educational and General Funds as a percent of the total number 
of all full-time employees paid from unrestricted Educational and General
Funds

Mr. Sheheen told the group that the legislative intent for this indicator
is to have a large faculty member component in this ratio.  However, he
also noted that this indicator does not account for those institutions that 
must use large numbers of adjunct faculty.  Gen. Olsen moved that the
benchmark for the measure be set against the average ratio for the sector
in such a manner that an institution would receive 100% of the funding
linked to the indicator for meeting 90% or above of the sector full-time
faculty to other full-time employees average.  Institutions with an average 
below 90% of the sector average will receive 75% of the funding for 
the indicator.  Ms. Hall seconded his motion.  The Committee voted 8-0 in
favor of the motion.

Indicator 3.D Accreditation of Degree-Granting Programs

The Committee decided that this indicator does not apply to the two-year
branch sector and decided to award it no weight in the overall benchmarking
process.  

Indicator 3.E Institutional Emphasis on Quality Teacher Education and
Reform

The Committee decided that this indicator does not apply to the two-year
branch sector and decided to award it no weight in the overall benchmarking
process.

Indicator 8.A Transferability of Credits to and from the Institution

Measure:  The extent to which the criteria stipulated in the "Policy and
Procedures for Transferability of Credits" document are achieved by the
institution and the relative ranking of each institution to others in its
sector.

Dr. Seim asked who would rank the institutions for purposes of this
measure.  Mr. Sheheen explained that CHE would rank the institutions
dependent on the data collected for the indicator.  The Committee discussed 
whether to award funding for the indicator based on achievement of all
twelve components of the "Policy and Procedures" document that apply to the 
sector or to award funding dependent on the rank the institution achieves.
Gen. Olsen moved first in the sector in achieving the twelve components of
the "Policy and Procedures" document and to award 5% less for each
descending rank (e.g., 95% for rank 2, 90% for rank 3, etc,).  Dr. West
seconded the motion.  The Committee voted 8-0 to approve the motion.

Indicator 8.B Continuing Education Programs for Graduates and Others

Measure:  Number of non-credit continuing education student contact hours

Dr. Seim expressed some concern regarding the definition of continuing
education for this indicator as relating solely to professional and
occupational needs.  He noted that the citizenry of some branch campus
service areas may require different coursework.  Mr. Sheheen noted that
currently only the technical colleges receive any funding for continuing
education coursework and that in that case only for professional and
occupational courses.  Dr. Smith told the group that they should look at
this indicator as an opportunity to secure funding in an area for which
they currently receive no funding.  Without data on the number of
continuing education courses offered in these fields at the branch
campuses, Dr. Seim suggested that the Committee collect more information
and revisit this indicator at the next meeting.  

Indicator 8.C Accessibility to the Institution of All Citizens of the State

Measure: The ratio of an institution's accumulated points for accessibility 
to maximum points allowed for measure

Dr. West moved that the Committee allocate points for the four components
of this measure in the following fashion:

a.  The percent of other-race undergraduate students enrolled at an
institution = 5 points
b.  The total number of credit hours generated off-campus in counties where
no comparable program is offered by a public institution = 1 point
c.  The total number of credit hours generated in-state through distance
education = 0 points (the branch campuses offer no such coursework)
d.  In-state, undergraduate tuition and required fees are not more than xx% 
of S.C. personal per capita income = 4 points. Dr. Cureton seconded the 
motion.  The Committee voted 8-0 in favor of the motion.

{Part a of the measure}: The Committee discussed at length the appropriate
benchmark to encourage increases in the percent of other-race students at
the branch campuses.  The Committee was in general agreement that any
increase above 1% would be difficult to meet.  Dr. Clayton expressed
concern aboutthe ability of some branches who are already well-above the
state average for other-race students to improve on their numbers.  Gen
Olsen suggested that the Committee use a rolling average over three years
for a benchmark so as to account for the current levels of other-race
students enrolled at the branch campuses.  Dr. Applebaum moved that the
benchmark be set at a 1% increase of other-race students above a three-year 
verage for each institution (the three years prior to July 1, 1997);
institutions would receive one point toward the total five points for part
a of the measure for each .2% increase in the number of other-race
students.  Gen. Olsen seconded the motion.  The Committee voted 7-1 in
favor of this motion.

{Part b of the measure}: The Committee agreed to collect more information
for this component for the next meeting.  Gen. Olsen moved to use the same
benchmark for this part as for part a of the measure. Dr. Applebaum
seconded the motion, and the Committee approved the motion 8-0.

{Part d of the measure}: The Committee agreed that it first needed to
collect data on the SC personal per capita income prior to determining the
percentage for this component of the measure.  Members agreed to set the
benchmark at the next meeting.

After completing Critical Success Factor Eight, the Committee then began
discussion of Critical Success factor One, Mission Focus.

Indicator 1.A Expenditure of Funds to Achieve Institutional Mission

Measure: Percent of instructional, research, public service, academic
support, student services, institutional support, operation and maintenance 
of plant, scholarships and fellowships expenditures compared to total
educational and general (E&G) expenditures (excluding funds transfers)

Mr. Sheheen noted that the data for this indicator does not exist at
present and would need to be collected.  Dr. Smith added that in reality
this measure is eight different measures.  Dr. Seim suggested that the
Committee take up this indicator at the next meeting where it will have
more time for discussion.  Dr. Seim reiterated that for the next meeting
CHE staff will send out data on per capita income in South Carolina, the
definition used by the Commission for funding continuing education at the
technical colleges, site-specific information on course offerings
off-campus, and definitions of full-time faculty used by IPEDS (the U.S.
Department of Education).  For the next meeting, USC staff will provide
data on the exact number of full-time faculty at each of the two-year
branch campuses.
  
The Committee adjourned at 1:35 p.m.
      

APPENDIX 1

University of South Carolina Branch Campuses Sector 
Benchmarks for Indicators 3A.2 - E and 8A - C

Indicator 3.A.2: Institutions that meet a student to faculty ratio of 130%
of the sector average or below will receive 100% funding for this
indicator; institutions that exceed the 130% mark will receive 75% funding.

Indicator 3.B.1: Institutions that meet 90% or above of the sector average
for the average number of credit hours taught by full-time teaching faculty 
will receive 100% funding for this indicator: institutions that fall below
the 90% mark will receive 75% funding.   (50% of the total weight for this
indicator).

Indicator 3.B.2: Institutions that meet 90% or above of the sector average
by level for the number of FTE teaching faculty will receive 100% of the
funding for this indicator; institutions that fall below the 90% mark will
receive 75% funding.  (50% of the total weight for this indicator).

Indicator 3.C: Institutions that meet 90% or above of the full-time faculty
to other full-time employee average for the sector will receive 100% of the
funding for this indicator; institutions that fall below the 90% mark will
receive 75% funding.

Indicator 3.D: Not applicable to this sector; 0 weighting.

Indicator 3.E: Not applicable to this sector; 0 weighting.

Indicator 8.A: Award 100% of funding for this indicator to institution(s)
that ranks first among institutions in the sector in achieving all 12
components applicable to the sector in the "Policy and Procedures"
document; award 5% less for each descending rank (e.g., 95% for rank 2, 90% 
for rank 3, etc.).

Indicator 8.B: Benchmark at November 18 meeting pending data collection.

Indicator 8.C.a:  (Worth 5 of 10 total points for indicator).  A 1%
increase in other-race students above a three-year average for each
institution; institutions will receive 1 point for each .2% increase.

Indicator 8.C.b: (Worth 1 of 10 total points for indicator).  Institutions
will receive 1 point for a 1% increase in the number of credit hours
generated by an institution above a three-year average for each institution 
(requires clarification at November 18 meeting).

Indicator 8.C.c: (Worth 0 of 10 points for indicator).  Not applicable for
this sector

Indicator 8.C.d: Benchmark at November 18 meeting pending data collection.