Skip Navigation
Back 

final

final







Critical Success Factor:    Mission Focus                              Task Force:     Academics             
(Category)

Performance Indicator:    1.B Curricula Offered to Achieve Mission          Date of Task Force 
(Number and Title)                                                 Approval:   September 18, 1996        

                                                          Date of Steering
                                                          Committee Approval:                  


Measure:            Using the institution's most recently approved mission statement, curricula offered to achieve
(Quantifiable)      that mission will be measured as the percentage of degree programs and other curricular offerings as 
                defined by CHE, which:
            
                a.  are appropriate to the degree-level authorized for the institution in Act 359 of 1996;
                b.  support the institution's goal, purpose, and objectives as defined in its approved mission
                    statement;
                c.  meet baseline CHE-approved productivity standards with respect to student enrollment,
                    degrees awarded, and student placements;
                d.  represent a reasonable investment of resources as measured against actual student 
                    enrollments, degrees awarded, and student placements;
                e.  have achieved a recognized standard of excellence as denoted through instruments such as
                    CHE Commendations of Excellence; ratings or rankings recognized by discipline-based
                    groups; other awards and honors which testify to the program's regional and national
                    reputation which can be quantified; and
                f.  are not offered, but ought to be offered in support of that mission.

Definition:
(Define Terms)      Degree program and curricular offerings: an approved diploma, certificate, associate,
                bachelors, master's, doctoral, or approved center, bureau, institute or comparable 
                administrative unit established to provide instruction or public service or conduct research.

Method of Reporting:             Evaluation by CHE of programs from Inventory of Academic Programs against (How the
Commission will know)            revised, CHE approved mission; CHEMIS data for upper division or "major" 

                            enrollment and degrees awarded by degree field; 
                            CHE program evaluations and institutional reports on achievement of regional or
                            national distinctiveness awards (e.g., a program rating in top 5 in field).  


                                                 
Critical Success Factor:  Quality of Faculty                                Task Force:    Academics
(Category)

Performance Indicator:     2.A Academic and Other Credentials of Professors           Date of Task Force 
(Number and Title)             and Instructors                              Approval: September 18, 1996       

                                                                                                                                             Date of Steering                                            Committee Approval:                  
Measure:  
(Quantifiable)
                The quality of the faculty as represented by the academic and other credentials of professors
                and instructors is to be measured as:
                
                a.  the percent of all headcount faculty who meet the criteria for faculty credentials of the
                    Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS); and

                b.  the percent of all headcount faculty who exceed the criteria for faculty credentials for
                    SACS.

                
        NOTE:   The intent of the Task Force is to include all personnel who hold faculty rank,
                including instructional, non-instructional, research, part-time, full-time, adjunct, tenured,
                tenure track, and non-tenure track.  CHE would need to resolve the extent to which faculty such
                as Clemson's extension service faculty who are funded separately from the higher education
                appropriation but who may or may not have contact with students should be included.

        NOTE:   The intent of the Task Force (part b) is to reward institutions that employ faculty who exceed
                minimal SACS degree requirements. However, in deference to the technical colleges' concerns 
                that this would be inappropriate to their faculties, the Task Force requests that this part
                apply solely to the AA/AS faculty in the technical colleges, and not to technical program
                faculties.

Definition:
(Define Terms)      Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS): the recognized accrediting body in the
                southern region of the U.S.

Method of Reporting:
(How the Commission will know)   CHEMIS Faculty Database               









Critical Success Factor:    Quality of Faculty                              Task Force:    Academics             
(Category)

Performance Indicator:     2.B Performance Review for Faculty to Include         Date of Task Force                        Student and Peer Evaluations                                   Approval:    September 18, 1996      

                                                              Date of Steering
                                                              Committee Approval:                  


Measure:  
(Quantifiable)

                    The extent to which the criteria stipulated in the "Best Practices for a Performance Review
                    System for Faculty" document (Attachment) are incorporated into the institution's own
                    performance review system and the relative ranking of each institution as compared to
                    others in its sector.


Definition:
(Define Terms)

                    Performance review system:  A documented system which provides for an annual evaluation of
                    each faculty member's work to include teaching and research/creative activity as well as
                    the faculty's contributions to the institution and the professional field.

                    Eligible faculty:  All institutional personnel holding faculty rank are included.
                    
                        
Method of Reporting:
(How the Commission will know)               

                    Comparison by CHE of each institution's performance review system to the "Best Practices"
                    criteria.                    
Critical Success Factor:    Quality of Faculty                         Task Force:    Academics             
(Category)

Performance Indicator:     2.C Post-tenure Review for Tenured Faculty             Date of Task Force 
                                                                                      Approval:     September 18, 1996     

                                                          Date of Steering
                                                          Committee Approval:                  


Measure:  
(Quantifiable)

                    The extent to which the criteria stipulated in the "Best Practices for Post-tenure Review"
                    document (Attachment) are incorporated into the institution's own performance review system
                    and the relative ranking of each institution as compared to others in its sector.


Definition:
(Define Terms)

                    Performance review system:  A documented system which provides for an annual evaluation of
                    each faculty member's work to include teaching and research/creative activity as well as
                    the faculty's contributions to the institution and the professional field.  This evaluation
                    should involve time for reflection, discussion and feedback and should provide for the
                    professional development of the faculty member.

                    Post-tenure review:  A systematic annual internal peer evaluation of tenured faculty in
                    terms of teaching, research/creative activity and service.  A cohort shall be established
                    of which a percentage shall be evaluated annually be external peers, such that the entire
                    cohort of tenured faculty is reviewed every six years.  Such reviews are not to undermine
                    tenure but to enhance the continued professional development of faculty.

                    Eligible faculty:  Includes all faculty who have received tenure but does not include those
                    faculty who have undergone tenure review within the past year.
                    

Method of Reporting:
(How the Commission will know)               

                    Comparison by CHE of each institution's post-tenure review evaluation system to the "Best
                    Practices" criteria.
                                                                 


   BEST PRACTICES FOR A PERFORMANCE REVIEW SYSTEM FOR FACULTY

1.      The performance review system must meet the "Criteria and Procedures
   for Evaluation" (4.8.10) of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools which stipulate
   that: (1) an institution must conduct periodic evaluations of the performance of individual  faculty members; (2) the evaluation must include a statement of the criteria against which the
   performance of each faculty member will be measured; (3) the criteria must be consistent     with the purpose and goals of the institution and be made        known to all concerned; and (4) the
   institution must demonstrate that it uses the results of this evaluation for improvement of the   faculty and its educational program.

2. The performance review system should be both formative (designed to be a supportive     process that promotes self-improvement) and summative (assesses and judges performance).

3. The performance review system process and criteria should be explained to new hires.

4. All faculty, including tenured faculty at all ranks, are reviewed annually and receive a written
   performance evaluation. In this way, for those institutions with a tenure system, the        performance review system should not pose a threat to the tenure system but extends and   enlarges it.

5.      The performance review system should have been developed jointly by the faculty and     administrators of an institution.

6. The performance review system should allow for discipline-specific components.

7. The performance review system should provide opportunities for reflection, feedback, and     professional growth whose goal is to enhance instruction at the institution.
   
8. The performance review system should include written performance evaluation data from   four sources:

   a.   Annually, instruction and course evaluation forms completed anonymously by students          through a standardized institutional process and submitted for each course (not section)       taught; 

   b.   Annually, administrative evaluation which includes assessments from the department           chair and/or dean;
   
   c.   Annually for untenured faculty and at least every three years for tenured faculty,           internal peer evaluations, i.e., evaluation of faculty by their peers within the institution        of higher education;
        
     d.   At least every six years, input from peers external to the department an  d/or institution          as appropriate to   the role and function of each faculty me  mber.  External evaluators to      the institution include national peers from the s  ame field of expertise from other institutions of higher education, professional organizations and societies, federal agencies, etc. Specialized national accreditations and the CHE program reviews, which include external reviewers' assessments, could be incorporated into the external peer review component, where appropriate.   
   
9. At an institutional level, the performance review system must include the following criteria      as appropriate to   the institution's mission: 

        instruction/teaching
        advisement and mentoring of students
        graduate student supervision
        supervision of other students (teaching assistants, independent
            study students) 
        course/curriculum development        
        research/creative activities
        activities which support the economic development of the region or
            the State
        publications
        service to department
        service to institution
        service to community
        participation in professional organizations/associations
        honors, awards, and recognitions
        self-evaluation
        participation in faculty development activities/programs activities which actively           support the economic development
            of the region or the State

10.     The results of each performance review, including post-tenure review, must be used by the    institution as part of its faculty reward system and faculty development system, and the  system should include a plan for development when deficien cies are indicated in the review. Specifically:
   
   a.   when an instructor (in the Tech system) or untenured faculty member receives an         overall rating of   unsatisfactory on the annual performance review, the faculty member        may be subject to nonreappointment;

   b.    when an instructor (in the Tech system) or tenured faculty memb  er receives an overall        rating of unsatisfactory on the annual performance revi  ew, the faculty member is          immediately subject to a development process, deve  loped by the specific unit, whose goal is to restoresatisfactory performance.  The development process will include a written plan with performance goals in deficient areas, with appropriate student and peer evaluation of performance.

   c.   when an instructor (in the Tech system) or a tenured faculty member fails to make       substantial progress towards the performance goals at the time of the next annual
        review or fails to meet the performance goals specified in the development plan within       a specified period, that faculty member will be subject to dismissal (in the Tech system)
        or revocation of tenure for habitual neglect of duty under the terms of the senior           institution's faculty manual.

11.     The institution should develop an appeals procedure for those faculty who do not agree with  the results of the  performance evaluation and/or the resulting recommendations or        requirements for improvement.
   


Critical Success Factor:    Quality of Faculty                         Task Force:    Academics             
(Category)

Performance Indicator:     2.D Compensation                                           Date of Task Force                                                                                       Approval:     September 18, 1996     

                                                              Date of Steering
                                                              Committee Approval:                  


Measure:  
(Quantifiable)

                    The average deviation (expressed in standardized units) of faculty salaries by rank,
                    discipline, and type of institution from national averages.

 
Definition:
(Define Terms)

                    Average deviation:  to be defined by CHE and to be calculated from the salary averages by
                    rank, by discipline, and by type of institution.

                    Rank:  Standard system of faculty classification: professor, associate professor, assistant
                    professor, and instructor.  Lecturers are excluded from this classification structure.

                    Discipline:  The major areas of study identified in the Classification of Instructional
                    Programs 1990 (CIP), National Center for Education Statistics

                    Type of Institution:  Classification of institutional type which reflects highest degree
                    offerings of the institution e.g., two-year college, four-year college, university, law
                    school, medical school or center, or theological seminary.   

Method of Reporting:
(How the Commission will know)               

                    Annual salary survey submitted to the College and University Personnel Association (CUPA)
                    and other relevant data sources.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                      

                                                 
 

            BEST PRACTICES FOR POST-TENURE REVIEW


1. A post-tenure review system should incorporate all the indicators identified in the "Best    Practices for a Performance Review System for Faculty" document.

2. The post-tenure review should be as rigorous and comprehensive in scope as an initial tenure      review.

3. The post-tenure review should incorporate annual performance reviews accumulated since  the initial tenure review or since the last post-tenure review.

4. Whereas the focus of an initial tenure review tends to be on past performance, equal         emphasis should be given to future development and potential contributions in the post-   tenure review.
   
5. State wide, each tenured faculty member will have a post-tenure review conducted at pre- established, published intervals of no more than six years, unless the faculty member is  participating in a development/improvement process in which case the review may be conducted more frequently.
 
6. If reviews for promotion (e.g., a tenured associate professor is reviewed for promotion to   tenured fullprofessor) fall within the appropriate time interval and encompass all the         indicators in this document and in the "Best Practices fo r a Performance Review System for Faculty "document, they may constitute a post-tenure review.
   
7. The post-tenure review must include evaluations from peers external to the department   and/or institution as appropriate to the role and function of each faculty member (usually to  evaluate the quality of research), as well as internal peer evaluations, student evaluations, and
   administrative evaluations. 
   
8. The post-tenure review must provide detailed information about the outcomes of any           sabbatical leave awarded during the six-year post-tenure review period.    

9. The institution must identify the means by which the post-tenure review is linked with  faculty reward systems, including merit raises and promotion.
 
10.     The institution must display a commitment to provide funds to reward high achievers on  post-tenure reviews as   well as to provide assistance to faculty members needing         improvement.

11.     If a faculty member receives an unfavorable post-tenure review, the faculty member is   immediately subject to a development process as described in the "Best Practices for a    Performance Review System for Faculty, as outlined in 10(b) and 10(c) of that document.

12. The institution should develop an appeals procedure for those faculty who do not agree with      the results of the post-tenure review evaluation and/or the resulting recommendations or       requirements for improvement.
                                                          


Critical Success Factor:  Quality of Faculty                           Task Force:    Academics (Category)

Performance Indicator:     2.E Availability of Faculty to Students               Date of Task Force 
(Number and Title)         Outside of the Classroom                    Approval: September 18,1996                            
                                                          Date of Steering
                                                          Committee Approval:                  
Measure:  
(Quantifiable)
                a. the percent of instructional faculty who receive a mean rating of "satisfied" or above on a
                standardized question using a standardized scale administered in a prescribed manner on
                anonymous student evaluations which are submitted for all courses; and
                                 
                b. the percent of students who report satisfaction with the availability of academic advisors
                outside the classroom as shown by a mean rating of "satisfied" or above on an anonymous
                evaluation instrument completed at a minimum during the fall term by a representative sample of
                freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors.
                
                The Task Force recommended that standard questions be developed to address these indicators 
                (Attachments).
                
Definition:
(Define Terms)  
                Availability outside the classroom: includes personal contact between faculty and students
                during office hours and other scheduled appointments as well as contact through e-mail,
                Internet, telephone, correspondence and other media.

                Faculty advisors:  those faculty or staff who advise students with respect to their course
                schedules and degree requirements.


Method of Reporting:
(How the Commission will know)   

                    CHEMIS faculty data base
                    annual reporting of the results of two proposed standardized questions 



Critical Success Factor:    Quality of Faculty                         Task Force:      Academics           
(Category)

Performance Indicator:  2.F Community and Public Service Activities         Date of Task Force 
(Number and Title)  of Faculty for Which no Extra Compensation is Paid      Approval:  September 18, 1996                
                                                          Date of Steering
                                                          Committee Approval:                  

Measure:  
(Quantifiable)      Percent of full-time faculty participating in service to the community or public using                    professional skills/knowledge base with emphasis on service to the economic and community
                development of the region or the State.
                
   NOTE:        "Community or public service activities" are to be defined as actions taken or processes
                presented to audiences primarily not affiliated with the institution as students, faculty, or
                administrators.  

Definition:
(Define Terms)      Faculty:     (IPEDS) those employees of the institution who are employed full-time (as defined by the
institution)        the institution) and who hold faculty rank.  Also included in the category are: 
                Full-time faculty on sabbatical leave;
                Full-time replacements for instructional faculty on leave without pay; and
                Administrators and others who hold faculty rank.

                This definition excludes the following personnel categories for this performance indicator:
                Replacements for faculty on sabbatical leave;
                Instructional faculty on leave without pay;
                Instructional faculty for preclinical and clinical medicine; 
                Instructional faculty who are employed part-time or as adjuncts. 

Method of Reporting: CHEMIS Faculty Database
(How the Commission will know)               

                                                          

Critical Success Factor:    Instructional Quality                      Task Force:      Academics           
(Category)

Performance Indicator:     3.C Ratio of full-time Faculty as Compared  Date of Task Force 
(Number and Title)        to other full-time employees                 Approval  September 18, 1996             
                                                          Date of Steering
                                                     Committee Approval:                  

Measure:  (Quantifiable)
                The total number of all 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.  


   NOTE:        The Task Force concluded that the measure should rely on full-time faculty, not FTE faculty; and
                that "faculty" includes all persons holding the rank of faculty, including non-instructional
                faculty such as librarians. However, it notes that further research should be done to determine
                legislative intent with respect to the use of full-time as opposed to FTE faculty.  Also, the
                Task Force notes that any faculty paid from unrestricted E & G funds, whether partially or at
                100%, are to be counted in this measure.

Definition:
(Define Terms)      Faculty:     (IPEDS) those employees of the institution who are employed full-time (as defined by the
institution)        the institution) and who hold faculty rank.  Also included in the category are: 
                Full-time faculty on sabbatical leave;
                Full-time replacements for instructional faculty on leave without pay; and
                Administrators and others who hold faculty rank.

                This definition excludes the following personnel categories for this performance indicator:
                Replacements for faculty on sabbatical leave;
                Instructional faculty on leave without pay;
                Instructional faculty for preclinical and clinical medicine; 

                Instructional faculty who are employed part-time or as adjuncts. 

Method of Reporting: CHEMIS Faculty Database
(How the Commission will know)               









                                                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                          


Critical Success Factor:    Instructional Quality                           Task Force:    Academics             
(Category)

Performance Indicator:    3.D Accreditation of Degree-Granting Programs     Date of Task Force 
(Number and Title)                                            Approval:   September 18, 1996       

                                                          Date of Steering
                                                          Committee Approval:                  


Measure:  
(Quantifiable)
                Number of programs listed in the Inventory of Academic Degree Programs holding accreditation
                from a recognized accrediting agency as a percent of the total number of programs listed in the 
                Inventory of Academic Degree programs for which accreditation is available.


   NOTE:        The CHE will develop a list of recognized accrediting agencies which may include those                   endorsed by the U.S. Department of Education and/or those affiliated with the Commission on
                Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation (CORPA) or its successor replacement to the Council
                on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA).  The Task Force notes that not all programs have
                specialized accreditations available to them, so this measure is not one that adequately
                evaluates instructional quality of all programs.  
                                     

Definition:
(Define Terms)      Inventory of Academic Degree Programs:    Annual listing of programs authorized by the Commission
                
                Institutions Holding Accreditation:  Those programs/institutions which have sought and have been
                granted full accreditation status by the appropriate accreditating agency.
                
                Programs for Which Accreditation is Available:  Programs which are eligible for accreditation
                regardless of whether or not the institution chose to pursue accreditation.     

Method of Reporting:
(How the Commission will know)   Annual Collection of ACT 255 data, program evaluation  process, Inventory of
                            Academic Degree Programs              





                                             

Critical Success Factor:  Instructional Quality                        Task Force:  Academics                        
(Category)

Performance Indicator:    3.E  Institutional Emphasis on               Date of Task Force
(Number and Title)        Quality Teacher Education and Reform         Approval:      September 18, 1996       
                                                          
                                                          Date of Steering
                                                          Committee Approval:                  


Measure:  
(Quantifiable)

                The extent to which the criteria stipulated in the "Best Practices for Quality Teacher Education
                and Reform" document (Attachment) are incorporated into the institution's own teacher education
                program and the relative ranking of each institution to others in its sector.



Definition:
(Define Terms)

                Professional Development School:  a specially designed school in which school and higher
                education faculty collaborate to 1) provide student teaching and internship experiences and 2)
                support and enable the professional development of teachers in schools and of higher education
                faculty.  (Note:  CHE has established additional, specific criteria for professional development
                school designation).






Method of Reporting:
(How the Commission will know)               

                NCATE program evaluation materials; Act 255 reporting data; institutional reporting; survey
                information; CHEMIS data



        BEST PRACTICES FOR QUALITY TEACHER EDUCATION AND REFORM 

                                  Quality and Reform Principles

1.      Promotion and enhancement of rigorous learning in the academic  discipline for both pre-service   and in-service teachers as a means of  ensuring that teachers possess an in-depth knowledge of      the subject  matter content critical for successful student performance;

2.      In-depth understanding and widespread use of instructional  technologies and other                pedagogical innovations among pre-service and  in-service teachers as a means of ensuring      familiarty with the most  effective formats for disseminating critical knowledge to students;

3.      Increased exposure to observational classroom experience, clinical  experiences, and              quality student teaching as a means of ensuring a  strong experiential base in instructional   methods and classroom  management prior to full-time employment as a teacher;

4.      Demonstrated collaboration between higher education and the PK-12  sector in the training
        of pre-service teachers and in the development of  continuous improvement processes for           in-service teachers;  this  collaboration should strive to bring state-of-the-art pedagogical and 
        content knowledge to schools and to ensure that teacher education faculty  maintain a first-hand  knowledge of the needs of teachers in the classroom  environment; and

5.      Demonstrated commitment to enrollment and graduation of minority  teachers as a means             of motivating and understanding as well as role  modelling for minority students in the        classroom.

                                  Measurement Criteria
        
1.      Attainment of successful initial accreditation by the National Council  for Accreditation of      Teacher Education (NCATE) and continued success in  maintaining NCATE accreditation,           benchmarked in accord with the number  of unmet standards identified for the unit;

2.      Percentage of eligible programs approved by the specialized  professional associations through    the NCATE folio review process; 

3.      Percentage of school-based supervisors reporting satisfaction with  school personnel prepared     by the institution; with professional development  programs; and with other services offered by     the institution in the school  districts, etc. as obtained under (7) Graduates Achievements (c) 
        Employer feedback on graduates (Planning/Institutional Effectiveness Task  Force);

4 .      The deviation, expressed in standard units, from a student pass rate  of  100 % on a) the          professional knowledge exam of the National Teachers Examination (NTE) and b) the specialty    area exams of the NTE (see data  collected under (7) Graduates Achievements (D) Scores of graduates on  post-undergraduate professional, graduate, or employment-related  examinations and certification tests);

5.      The extent to which the teacher education program is responsive to  State needs as measured by    a) the increase in the number of students  who graduate from teacher education programs        designated as subject matter  "critical shortage" areas as these are defined by the State Board of 
         Education, calculat ed from a baseline year; b) the decrease in the number  of students ( excluding                                                                                                  minority students) who graduate from teacher  education programs designated as subject matter oversupply areas as  these are defined by the State Board of Education, calculated from a  baseline year; c) the percentage of minority students enrolled in the  institution's teacher education programs, benchmarked against an  appropriate percentage; d) the number of teacher education programs that  fulfill "special needs" directly linked to institutional mission and to  State needs not covered by a), b) and c) above. 



6.      The percent of institutional faculty in education-related disciplines  participat ing in structured                                                                                               activities (e.g., as withProfessional  Development Sch ools) other than regularly taught courses with PK-12 for  the primary purpose of improved quality of education and related services  at the PK-12 level;

7.      The number credit hours generated in institutionally-sponsored activities and/or courses          designed to improve quality of education and  related services at the PK-12 level.

8.      The number of teacher education students receiving the clinical  field-based components of their  program in Professional Development  Schools (PDS) as these are defined in the existing CHE-   PDS criteria.


Critical Success Factor:    User-Friendliness of Institution           Task Force:    Academics             
(Category)

Performance Indicator:      8.A Transferability of Credits to      Date of Task Force                                                                                                                                        and from the Institution            Approval:  September 18, 1996        

                                                 Date of Steering
                                                 Committee Approval:                  


Measure:  
(Quantifiable)

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


Definition:
(Define Terms)
                                     Transfer student: a full-time, degree-seeking student entering an institution for the 
                        first time but known to have previously attended a post-secondary institution at the same 
                        level (i.e. undergraduate). (Definition source IPEDS.)
                        

Method of Reporting:
(How the Commission will know)               

                        CHEMIS student data base (e.g., credit hours, etc.)
                        SPEEDE/EXPRESS
                        CHE Annual Reports on Transfer, AP
                        IPEDS Residence and Migration Report
                        Reports to CHE on other criteria or other one-time verification to CHE that required 
                        processes have been implemented
                        



POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR TRANSFERABILITY OF CREDITS CRITERIA



The user-friendliness of an institution, as represented by transferability of academic credits, will
be measured as follows:

Two-year campuses of the University of South Carolina and technical colleges will:

        a.  increase or maintain an acceptable percentage of transfers from
            AA/AS degree programs.

        b.  increase or maintain an acceptable percentage of students
            completing statewide transfer blocks on an annual basis.

        c.  offer all coursework contained on all statewide transfer blocks at
            least once per academic year.

        d.  increase or maintain an acceptable percentage of transfer students
            admitted to senior institutions on an annual basis.

        e.  eliminate all challenges of coursework regarding effective
            preparation of students by accepting institutions.
              
Four-year institutions will:

        f.  accept all coursework on statewide transfer blocks toward
            baccalaureate degrees.

        g.  increase or maintain an acceptable percentage of transfer students
            who graduate with a baccalaureate degree in six years on an
            annual basis.

        h.  increase or maintain an acceptable percentage of AA/AS
            graduates admitted to senior institutions who are granted
            junior-level status upon transfer and who have 100% of all credits
            that 1)are taken from the Statewide Articulation Agreement and 2)
            fit the curriculum at the receiving institution accepted for
            degree credit on an annual basis.

        i.  report to the technical colleges and the two-year branch
            campuses of USC using established mechanisms data on the
            academic performance of transfer students on an
            annual basis.

        j.  eliminate all additional fees or encumbrances such as validation
            examinations," "placement examinations/instruments," or policies,
            procedures, or regulations that have artificially retarded
            transfer of coursework.

All two-year and four-year institutions will:                           
        k.  comply with the statewide articulation agreement.

        l.  fully implement a statewide course numbering, title, and description system for courses
            included on the statewide articulation agreement.     (To be implemented)

        m.  develop and maintain the computerized interactive transfer course
            database for all majors.           (To be implemented)






        n.  update transfer guides (both hard copy and website) by
            September 1 each year.

        o.  provide to CHE each year the number and scope of all
            articulation agreements in place with regionally accredited South
            Carolina institutions.

        p.  use SPEEDE/ExPRESS electronic transcript standard in all
            admission and registration activities.   (To be implemented)

        q.  accept Advanced Placement (AP), College Level Examination
            Program (CLEP), Program on Non-Collegiate Sponsored Instruction
            (PONSI), and Technical Advanced Placement (TAP) credits in
            appropriate programs.

Definition:

        a transfer student is a full-time, degree-seeking student entering an
        institution for the first time but known to have previously attended a
        postsecondary institution at the same level (i.e., undergraduate).

                                                 


Critical Success Factor:    Research Funding                                                                                                                                                             Task Force:    Academics             
(Category)

Performance Indicator:     9.A Financial Support for Reform in                                            Date of Task Force (Number and Title)                                                                                                                       Teacher Education  Approval:     September 18, 1996        

                                                          Date of Steering
                                                          Committee Approval:                  


Measure:  
(Quantifiable)

                        The percentage of an institution's private and public research grants and Educational and
                        General costs dedicated to teacher education programs as measured against the total
                        Educational and General costs and public and private grants allocated to research for the
                        institutions, weighted by total FTE enrollment in teacher education programs (graduate and
                        undergraduate) as related to the enrollment in all other degree programs (graduate and
                        undergraduate).
                                 
Definition:
(Define Terms)
                    Grant:  Includes grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements specifically designed for
                    research.

                    Research Grant:  An award of funds from the United State Government or other entity for the
                    principal purpose of systematic study and investigation undertaken to discover or establish
                    facts or principles.  The principle purpose of a research grant is not to provide services to
                    the public or the employees or clients thereof.  (Definition taken from ACT 651.)

Method of Reporting:
(How the Commission will know)               

                        Reported by the institution to the Commission annually, subject to Commission audit.
                        










                                                                                  

Critical Success Factor:    Research Funding                                                                                                                                                                       Task Force:    Academics             
(Category)

                      Performance Indicator:     9.B Amount of Public and Private Sector                                                                                                                                            Date of Task Force                                   Grants                  Approval:     September 18, 1996     

                                                                  Date of Steering
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Committee Approval: _________________
Measure:  
(Quantifiable)

                        The current year's grants (i.e., the total dollars received from public and private sector
                        grants expended in State fiscal year for research, including federal and state grants,
                        private gifts and grants, and local support, and excluding monies for financial aid,
                        student scholarships and loans) divided by the weighted average of grant funding from the
                        prior three years (weighted at 60%, 30% and 10% from most recent year to least recent year
                        respectively).

                        
            Note:       The Task Force recommends that this indicator be weighted on an ascending/escalating scale
                        so that institutions are rewarded for increasing the level of funds generated, thereby
                        preserving the philosophy of the $.25 match for every dollar generated under the old
                        formula as a true performance indicator (e.g., the better the performance, the greater the
                        reward).  The Task Force also recommends that the relative weight assigned to this
                        indicator as compared with the other 36 performance indicators be significant for the
                        research universities.       
Definition:
(Define Terms)

                        State Grant:  Those grants awarded from State funds, including funds from other state
                        agencies, but by excluding those funds that come from the higher education appropriation
                        and other related line items from higher education (e.g., Public Service Activities, SCAMP,
                        etc.).

                        Research Grant:  An award of funds from the United States Government or other entity for
                        the principal purpose of systematic study and investigation undertaken to discover or
                        establish facts or principles.  The principle purpose of a research grant is not to provide
                        services to the public or the employees or clients thereof.  (Definition taken from ACT
                        651.)

Method of Reporting:
(How the Commission will know)               

                        Reported by the institution to the Commission annually, subject to Commission audit.




                                                              Attachment 1




2E.  Availability of faculty to students outside the classroom 

        With regard to satisfaction of students with the availability of course instructors, the following
question is suggested for inclusion in a course evaluation.


        Please indicate your satisfaction with the availability of the instructor outside the             classroom by choosing one response from the scale below.  (In selecting your rating,           consider the instructor's availability via established office hours, appointments, and 
        other opportunities for face-to-face interaction as well as via telephone, e-mail, fax 
        and other means.)

            1           2            3           4
                 Very               Dissatisfied     Satisfied                                                    Very
               Dissatisfied                                                                              Satisfied                                                                                            


RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE EVALUATION 

1.      All faculty are required to administer the evaluation instrument in all courses except those      in which the faculty-student ratio is one-to-one.
2.      In team-taught courses the evaluation shall be administered for each faculty member.
3.      Guidelines for administration are as follows:
            Administer during classtime
            Read standardized written instructions to the students.  Instructions should include a
            statement as to how the results of the evaluation will be used.
            The professor leaves the room while the students complete the evaluation.
            A designated student hands out forms, collects forms, and delivers the completed forms
            to the appropriate designated location (not the instructor). 
            Evaluations are completed anonymously.
            Professors will not receive the feedback until grades have been turned in to the Registrar.
            Student should have a mechanism to confidentially inform administrators of instructors
            who fail to follow procedures.
            The administration should take steps to address and deal with the problem of some
            professors not administering the evaluation instrument.                                                                                                                                           



                                             Attachment 2                                                                                                                                                                    




With regard to the availability of academic advisors, the following question is suggested:

        
         Please indicate your satisfaction with the availability of your academic advisor
         by choosing one response from the scale below.  (In selecting your rating,
         consider the advisor's availability via office hours, appointments, and other                                                                                                                   opportunities for face-to-face interaction as well as  via telephone, e-mail, and other means.)  

        1           2            3           4
        Very                Dissatisfied     Satisfied                Very
       Dissatisfied                                                                              Satisfied     
        


RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE EVALUATION

1.         Surveys should be conducted on an annual basis.
2.      Surveys should be conducted during the Spring semester, in order to allow freshmen 
        students to have enough experience with their advisors to be able to reliably evaluate the 
        item.
3.      Surveys should allow the student to remain anonymous.
4.      Surveys should be conducted in one of the two following manners, as deemed appropriate            by the institution:                                                                            
            Survey of all students 
            Survey of a statistically valid, representative sample which samples freshmen,
            sophomores, juniors and seniors. 
5.      Results of the item should be reported by total group and by class-level.