Ms. Rosemary H. Byerly, CHE
Mr. Russ Emerson, Torrington Company, Clinton Bearing Plant
Mr. Gil Johnson, PMSC
Dr. Dennis Merrell, YORK TECHnical College
Mr. Oscar E. Prioleau, Prioleau Steel Inc.
Dr. Kay Rhoads, Central Carolina Technical College
Mr. George Whitaker, Florence-Darlington Technical College
Mr. Bill Workman, Chairman, Piedmont Natural Gas
Technical Advisors Present
Ms. Dorcas A. Kitchings, Midlands Technical College
Dr. Ted McClure, State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education
Dr. Charles Gould, Forence-Darlington Technical College
Dr. Mac Holderfield, State Board for Technical and Comprehensive
Dr. Michael B. McCall, State Board for Technical and Comprehensive
Mr. Bob Mellon, State Board for Technical and Comprehensive
Dr. Jeff Olson, Orangeburg-Calhoun Technical College
CHE Staff Present
Ms. Sherry Hubbard, Academic Affairs
Mr. Alan S. Krech, Director, Planning, Assessment and Communications
Mr. Russell Long, Planning, Assessment and Communications
Dr. Michael Smith, Director, Access and Equity
Dr. Lovely Ulmer-Sottong, Coordinator, Planning and Assessment
Mr. Workman called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m.
- Members of the Sector Committee, Technical Advisors, Guests and CHE Staff were asked by Mr. Workman to introduce themselves.
- Mr. Workman stated that before the Sector Committee can begin its assigned task, two important issues needed to be addressed:
|1. Where is the Tech System? The Sector Committee needs to know the existing status of the 37 indicators; and, |
|2. What is appropriate for year 1 may be inappropriate for year 2. A good job in year 1 is not a good job in year 3. The Sector Committee should not get bogged down in relative weights for years 1 and 2.|
- Dr. Michael Smith provided the Sector Committee with an explanation of the items in the Sector Committee Notebook. He noted that Act 359, regarding the definition of the Technical College's mission statements , remains consistent with what has been before. He reiterated the Steering Committee's Guidelines for the work of the Sector Committee:
|1. Determine the weight of each indicator|
|2. Set benchmarks for the level of performance|
|3. Determine the application of benchmarks by sector|
Dr. Smith made the recommendation that the Sector Committee consider the weights first. The Committee should assign a high/medium/low priority as a starting point. Only after assigning these priorities can the committee can get more specific. The Committee's work should focus on establishing a benchmark for the sector.
Mr. Workman stated that of the three tasks, the third is of the least concern to this committee. The third task should be left for later discussion by others. Ms. Byerly noted that the third task deals with exceptions to the benchmarks.
Mr. Workman reinforced that the second task is crucial. The benchmarks will provide a guiding principle from which the institutions may work.
The Chair requested that Dr. W. David Maxwell's papers raising appropriate questions regarding the process being used to enact performance funding be distributed to the Committee (see Attachment 1).
Of the 37 indicators only Indicator (6)(C) 'Postsecondary non-academic achievement of student body' has not been assigned a measure by the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee has only recently approved the language of the measure for Indicator (7)(A) 'Graduation rates' (see Attachment 2).
- Dr. McCall introduced Dr. Charles Gould who provided the Sector Committee a description of the internal Technical College work processes to address performance measures and benchmarks.
|On August 8, 1996 Lex Walters and Jim Hudgins chaired the initial meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on Performance Measures and Benchmarks.|
|Between August 10 and August 30 three subcommittees worked on assigned indicators. These assignments were broken down to correspond to the three Task Forces:|
|Administrative Management, Chair: Jeff Olson, Vice Chair: Bob Mellon|
|Academics, Chair: Dennis Merrell, Vice Chair: Mac Holderfield|
|Institutional Effectiveness and Planning, Chair: Charles Gould, Vice Chair: Don Peterson|
Twenty additional members from throughout the system served as committee members on subcommittees and the committee of the whole.
- Dr. Olson explained that the same format of the Task Force committees was carried over into the subcommittee working on suggested benchmarks and funding assignments. The Tech report will offer fewer indicators (only those that apply to the Tech System). Quantifiable benchmarks are difficult to establish for some indicators. The report will inform the Sector Committee where the Tech System stands on each indicator and what the Tech System can do to enhance performance on each indicator.
Mr. Workman stated that the Tech Committee should worry about what the system is currently doing on all indicators. That is the essence of what the Sector Committee needs. In year 1 each institution must measure all 37 of these indicators which are applicable to the Technical Colleges. Mr. Krech noted that it was his understanding that the Steering Committee had yet to decide if the overall size of an institution should be incorpoated in one indicator or should be considered outside of the indicators. The Steering Committee discussed this issue in an October 23, 1996 Conference Call. (see Attachment 3).
Mr. Workman posed hypothetical funding for an institution. In year 1 the institution would be funded 100% of the State Appropriation. In year 2 the CHE determines if the institution's strategic plan fulfills the mission of the institution. If the institution finds itself below average, funding can be reduced. In the second year 25% of State Appropriation will be performance based.
Mr. Krech pointed out that a base of funding is not available after 1999. Mr. Peterson stated that after 1999 the institutions need a base on which to plan. Will that base be set on numbers of students? In the current plan this is not defined and it needs to be. The base should be linked to the strategic plan and headcount enrollment.
- A discussion of Indicator (6)(C) 'Postsecondary non-academic achievements of student body' followed. This indicator is applicable to the Technical Colleges. Work experience should be used for college credit. Does the Tech System have a formalized program in place to gather this data? Are life experiences relevant for admission to the program? Dr. Ulmer-Sottong questioned if the Sector Committee intended for life experiences to be applied to general education and program credit. The Committee agreed that life experiences should be accepted for credit in general education and program areas.
The Sector Committee set future meetings:
|November 1, 1996 |
|November 6, 1996|
|November 18, 1996|
State Technical Board Conference Room A
|November 25, 1996|
State Technical Board Conference Room A
***Meetings scheduled on November 1 and 6 will be held via telconference. Interested parties should contact Russell Long at (803) 737-2290 or by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
Mr. Workman adjourned the meeting at 12:05 p.m.
Last Updated October 28, 1996