Skip Navigation
Back 

minutes2.htm_434

minutes2.htm_434

PLANNING/INST. EFF. TELECONFERENCES

Updated 11/19/96

SECTOR COMMITTEE ON PLANNING/INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS
November 1 and November 6,1996

Members Present
November 1 Meeting November 6 Meeting
Dr. Thomas E. Barton, Jr., Greenville Technical College
Ms. Rosemary H. Byerly, CHE Ms. Rosemary H. Byerly, CHE
Mr. Ron Chatham, Roche Carolina Inc.
Mr. Russ Emerson, Torrington Company, Clinton Bearing Plant Mr. Russ Emerson, Torrington Company, Clinton Bearing Plant
Mr. Gil Johnson, PMSC Mr. Gil Johnson, PMSC
Dr. Dennis Merrell, YORK TECHnical College Dr. Dennis Merrell, YORK TECHnical College
Mr. Oscar E. Prioleau, Prioleau Steel Inc.
Dr. Kay Rhoads, Central Carolina Technical College Dr. Kay Rhoads, Central Carolina Technical College
Mr. George Whitaker, Florence-Darlington Technical College Mr. George Whitaker, Florence-Darlington Technical College
Mr. Bill Workman, Piedmont Natural Gas, chair Mr. Bill Workman, Piedmont Natural Gas, chair

Technical Advisors Present
November 1 Meeting November 6 Meeting
Ms. Dorcas A. Kitchings, Midlands Technical College Ms. Dorcas A. Kitchings, Midlands Technical College
Dr. Ted McClure, State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education Dr. Ted McClure, State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education

Guests Present
November 1 Meeting November 6 Meeting
Dr. Margaret Amick, SBTCE
Ms. Nancy Bishop, Central Carolina Technical College
Ms. Betty Boatwright, Central Carolina Technical College Ms. Betty Boatwright, Central Carolina Technical College
Mr. Terry Booth, Central Carolina Technical College
Mrs. Jo Ann Burt, YORK TECHnical College Mrs. Jo Ann Burt, YORK TECHnical College
Ms. Deborah Calhoun, Central Carolina Technical CollegeMs. Deborah Calhoun, Central Carolina Technical College
Mr. Lyle Clark, Central Carolina Technical College
Dr. Larry Cline, Central Carolina Technical College
Dr. Edie Dobbins, YORK TECHnical College

November 1 Meeting November 6 Meeting
Dr. Ronald Drayton, Midlands Technical College
Mr. Luke Dukes, Central Carolina Technical College
Dr. Candace Gosnell, Orangeburg-Calhoun Technical College
Dr. Charles W. Gould, Florence-Darlington Technical College Dr. Charles W. Gould, Florence-Darlington Technical College
Dr. Mac Holderfield, SBTCE Dr. Mac Holderfield, SBTCE
Dr. James L. Hudgins, Midlands Technical College Dr. James L. Hudgins, Midlands Technical College
Ms. Gail Junkins, Central Carolina Technical College
Ms. Virginia Kolb, Central Carolina Technical College
Dr. Jean Mahaffey, Midlands Technical College
Dr. Michael McCall, SBTCE Dr. Michael McCall, SBTCE
Ms. Barbara McCant, Central Carolina Technical College
Ms. Mary Beth McJunkin, YORK TECHnical College Ms. Mary Beth McJunkin, YORK TECHnical College
Dr. Thomas Mecca, Piedmont Technical College
Mr. Bob Mellon, SBTCE Mr. Bob Mellon, SBTCE
Ms. Lisa Mills, Central Carolina Technical College
Dr. Kathy Noble, Aiken Technical College
Ms. Sandi Oliver, Midlands Technical College
Dr. Jeff Olson, Orangeburg-Calhoun Technical College
Mr. Don Peterson, SBTCE Mr. Don Peterson, SBTCE
Mr. David Reuwer, Central Carolina Technical College
Dr. Herbert C. Robbins, Central Carolina Technical College Dr. Herbert C. Robbins, Central Carolina Technical College
Mr. Lawrence Rouse, Central Carolina Technical College
Ms. Anna Strange, Central Carolina Technical College Ms. Anna Strange, Central Carolina Technical College
Ms. Betty Todt, Central Carolina Technical College
Dr. Lex Walters, Piedmont Technical College Dr. Lex Walters, Piedmont Technical College
Mr. John Watson, Central Carolina Technical College
Ms. Barbara Wells, Central Carolina Technical College Ms. Barbara Wells, Central Carolina Technical College

CHE Staff Present
Mr. Alan S. Krech, Director of Planning, Assessment and Communications Mr. Alan S. Krech, Director of Planning, Assessment and Communications
Mr. Russell Long Mr. Russell Long
Dr. Gail Morrison, Director of Academic Affairs and Student Affairs
Mr. Fred R. Sheheen, Executive Director Mr. Fred R. Sheheen, Executive Director
Dr. Lovely Ulmer-Sottong, Coordinator of Planning and Assessment Dr. Lovely Ulmer-Sottong, Coordinator of Planning and Assessment


Mr. Workman called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. on November 1, 1996 After general greetings to the Committee, Mr. Workman explained that this was an informational meeting. He called upon Dr. McCall to present the Technical College Ad Hoc Committee on Performance Indicators and Measures' report titled Recommended Technical College Benchmarks and Funding Weights . Dr. McCall, Dr. Gould, Dr. Merrell, Mr. Mellon, Mr. Peterson, and Dr. Holderfield guided the Committee through the indicators. The following charts highlight the Technical College Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations.
I. Mission Focus % of Funding - 20%
IndicatorWeightBenchmarkSBTCE Data DateCHE Data Date
A. Funds to Achieve Mission5%100%1999-2000IPEDS
Finance Reports 1998-99
B. Curricula Offered to Achieve Mission 5%100% (25% each for a,b,c,d ) (e,f - Not Fundable) 1999-2000Inventory of Academic Programs,
CHEMIS,
CHE Program Evaluations
1998-99
Issue to be Resolved: The Sector Committee needs better clarification on how to benchmark and weigh subcomponents e and f.
C. Approval of Mission Statement0%100%1997-981997-98
D. Adoption of Strategic Plan to Support the Mission0%100%1998-991998-99
E. Attainment of Goals of the Strategic Plan10%100% - The Technical Education Committee recommends that a 4-point scale be utilized for attainment of goals measurement: 1. Did not meet goal, 2. Did not meet goal with justification, 3. Met goal, 4. Exceeded goal. Levels 3 and 4 would achieve 100% funding. 1999-20001999-2000

II. Quality of Faculty % of Funding - 15%
IndicatorWeightBenchmarkSBTCE Data DateCHE Data Date
A. Academic and Other Credentials of Professors2.5%50% = 100% of all headcount faculty will meet SACS criteria at the time of the annual fall semester reporting date;

50% = If 1% to 20% faculty have credentials beyond SACS requirements, then the institution gains 20% of the value of this subcomponent. If 21% to 40% of faculty have credentials beyond SACS requirements, then the institution gains 40% of the value of this subcomponent. If 41% or greater of faculty have credentials beyond SACS requirements, then the institution gains 100% value of this subcomponent.
1998-99SACS
1999-2000
B. Performance Review for faculty to Include Student and Peer evaluations4%100% of performance against all best practices with the exception of 8.c. and 8.d. which are appropriate to senior college faculty but not technical college faculty.1998-991998-99
C. Post-Tenure Review for Tenured Faculty0%N/AN/AN/A
D. Compensation of Faculty4%100% of national averages reported in appropriate publications pertaining to technical/community colleges.1997-98Annual salary survey of the College and University Personnel Association (CUPA) 1997-98
E. Availability of Faculty to Students Outside the Classroom2.5%85% of instructional faculty must receive a mean of 2.5 or above on student satisfaction on the prescribed question of availability of faculty. In addition, 85% of the students will indicate being satisfied or very satisfied with academic advising on the prescribed question on academic advising.1998-99CHEMIS 1998-99
F. Community and Public Service Activities of Faculty for Which No Extra Compensation is Paid2%Up to 5% earned in increments of 1% of the total faculty involved in the activity.1999-2000CHEMIS 1999-2000

III. Instructional Quality % of Funding - 14%
IndicatorWeightBenchmarkSBTCE Data DateCHE Data Date
A. Class Sizes and Student/Teacher Ratios3.5%50% = Class size: Average class size data by discipline with Academic Discipline Data for FY Formula will be used initially. One hundred percent funding [of this subcomponent] to be given if no more than nor no less than 25% of the classes by discipline exceed the formula ratios. Ninety percent funding [of this subcomponent] if 30% of the classes by discipline exceed the formula. Eighty percent funding [of this subcomponent] if more than 35% of the classes by discipline exceed the formula. Individual institutions may make quality arguments for class size ratios that deviate from the TECH System Academic Discipline Data for FY Formula.
50% = Student/Teacher Ratios: Student/teacher ratios will be determined using the TECH system Academic Discipline Formula as a base with the TECH system class size averages as the benchmark
1999-2000CHEMIS 1997-98
B. Number of Credit Hours Taught by Faculty2%100% if ninety percent of full-time teaching faculty and FTE faculty teach within the prescribed SBTCE teaching faculty load policy range for fall and spring semesters: 15-18 semester credit hours or 20-24 instructor classroom/lab contact hours or calculated credit equivalent combination of credit and contact hours. Hours calculated as overload hours taught by individual faculty members would be eliminated from all faculty load calculations.1999-2000CHEMIS 1997-1998
C. Ratio of Full-time Faculty as Compared to Other Full-Time Employees6%100% if ratio is .6/1 or greater.1997-1998CHEMIS 1997-98
D. Accreditation of Degree-Granting Programs2.5%To be developed1999-2000Act 255, Inventory of Academic Degree Programs 1997-1998
E. Institutional Emphasis on Quality Teacher education and Reform0%N/AN/AN/A

Mr. Workman recessed the meeting at 5:20 p.m. on November 1, 1996. The Meeting was called back to order at 2:00 p.m. on November 6, 1996. Dr. McCall, Dr. Gould, Dr. Merrell, Mr. Mellon, Mr. Peterson, Dr. Holderfield, and Dr. Olson continued their explanation of the Recommended Technical College Benchmarks and Funding Weights .
IV. Institutional Cooperation and Collaboration % of Funding - 10%
IndicatorWeightBenchmarkSBTCE Data DateCHE Data Date
A. Sharing and Use of Technology, Programs, Equipment, Supplies, and Source Matter Experts Within the Institution and With Other Institutions, 5%To Be Developed1999-2000Survey 1999-2000
Issue to be resolved: Which agency will collect this information by survey - CHE or SBTCE?
B. Cooperation and Collaboration With Private Industry, the Business Community, and Government5%To Be Developed1999-2000Survey 1999-2000
Issue to be resolved: Which agency will collect this information by survey - CHE or SBTCE?

V. Administrative Efficiency % of Funding - 8%
IndicatorWeightBenchmarkSBTCE Data DateCHE Data Date
A. Percentage of Administrative Costs as Compared to Academic Costs1%The percentage of administrative costs should not exceed 15.2%. The percentage of academic costs should not be less than than 59.8%. An equal weight (50%) is assigned to each percentage (academic and administrative). Compliance with neither of the factors equals 0% compliance with only one factor equals 50%, and compliance with both categories would equal 100% funding on this indicator.1997-98IPEDS
Finance Report 1997-98
B. Use of Best Management Practices3%75% of CHE approved criteria1999-20001998-1999
C. Elimination of Unjustifiable Duplication and Waste in Administrative and Academic Programs3%100% savings1999-20001997-98
D. Amount of General Overhead Costs1%The annual general overhead costs shall not exceed $1,472 per aggregate student FTE, indexed annually to the HEPI (Higher Education Price Index). Compliance with this indicator would be achieved by the calculation of the system annual general overhead cost per aggregate student FTE of $1,472 (base) or less, indexed to the HEPI in succeeding years.1997-98IPEDS
Finance Report 1997-98

VI. Entrance Requirements % of Funding - 5%
IndicatorWeightBenchmarkSBTCE Data DateCHE Data Date
A. SAT and ACT Scores of Student Body0%N/AN/AN/A
B. High School Standing, Grade Point Averages, and Activities of the Student Body0%N/AN/AN/A
C. Postsecondary Non-Academic Achievement of Student Body2.5%To Be Determined Based on Approval of Measure by Commission on Higher Education1999-2000To Be Determined
D. Priority on Enrolling In-State Students2.5%90% students will be in-state undergraduate students1997-98CHEMIS 1997-98

VII. Graduates' Achievements % of Funding - 17%
IndicatorWeightBenchmarkSBTCE Data DateCHE Data Date
A. Graduation Rates1%100% funding if graduation rate is 20% or higher.1999-2000CHEMIS 1997-98
Issue to be resolved: SBTCE should look at graduation rates by program. All programs should have a seperate benchmark.
B. Employment rate for Graduates7.5%90% for reaching minimum standard; 100% for exceeding standard. Standard needs to be determined and could be either
S. C. average employment rate of graduates by sector or National average employment rate of graduates by sector. An acceptable range could be developed for minimum standard.
1999-2000ESC 1999-2000
C. Employer Feedback on Graduates Who Were Employed and Not Employed5%100% funding if 80% of the Employers rate graduates' performance satisfactory and above. 1999-2000Third party survey (Chamber of Commerce) 1999-2000
D. Scores of Graduates on Post-Undergraduate Professional, Graduate, or Employment-Related Examinations and Certification Tests 1.5%The pass rate must be within 80% of the national pass rate for 2 out of the last 3 years reported on both the first-time pass rate and the subsequent pass rate for each graduating class.1998-99Act 255 1999-2000
E. Number of Graduates That Continue Their Education1%To Be Developed1999-20001999-2000
F. Credit Hours Earned by Graduates1%Quantification of semester hours earned will include non-remedial, non-transfer, applicable credits hours earned by graduates that will not exceed 125% of credit hours required for the credential plus any specialty coursework related to the credential. If more than one credential is earned, the total number of credit hours earned for all credentials will be divided by the total number of non-duplicative hours earned.1999-2000CHEMIS 1997-98

VIII. User-Friendliness of Institution % of Funding - 11%
IndicatorWeightBenchmarkSBTCE Data DateCHE Data Date
A. Transferability of Credits To and From an Institution1%To Be Determined - 27% is a possibility1999-2000CHEMIS, SPEEDE/EXPRESS, CHE Annual Reports on Transfers, IPEDS Residence and Migration Report 1998-99
B. Continuing Education Programs for Graduates and Others5%The system's average contact hours for three previous years will be sustained.1999-20001999-2000
C. Accessibility to the Institution of All Citizens of the State5%a. 27%; b. To Be Developed; c. To Be Developed; d. 10%a. 1997-98; b. 1999-2000; c. 1999-2000; d. 1997-98CHEMIS, South Carolina Statistical Abstract 1997-98
Issue to be resolved: 1. Based on the approved measure, this indicator should be benchmarked as a single ratio. 2. Are institutions rewarded in this indicator for providing accessibility to the physically and mentally handicapped?

IX. Research Funding % of Funding - 0%
IndicatorWeightBenchmarkSBTCE Data DateCHE Data Date
A. Financial Support for Reform in Teacher Education0%N/AN/AN/A
B. Amount of Public and Private Sector Grants0%N/AN/AN/A

Mr. Workman thanked the SBTCE for their presentation. He reminded the Sector Committee of the next meeting to be held on November 18, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. in the Offices of the State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education, Conference Room A, 111 Executive Center Drive, Columbia, SC.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m. on November 6, 1996.


horizontal line image


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