 |
OHIO
BOARD OF
REGENTS
|
HEI Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
October 4, 1996
Members Present
Chris Dalton, Vice President, Planning and Budgeting, Bowling Green State
University
Terry Glenn, Vice President, Administrative Services, Cincinnati State
Technical and Community College
Ralph Gutowski, Director, Budgeting, Planning and Analysis, Miami University
Rosemary Jones (Committee Vice Chair), District Director, Institutional
Planning and Evaluation,
Cuyahoga Community College
Deidre Kundtz, Vice President, College Relations and Strategic Planning,
Lakeland Community College
David Lindsley, Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs, University
of Toledo, substituting for Judy Hample
Mitchel Livingston, Vice President, Student Affairs and Human Resources,
University of Cincinnati
Rob Sheehan (Committee Chair), Director, Assessment and Program Reviews,
Cleveland State University
Patty Sturch, Director, Student Information, Jefferson Community College,
substituting for Richard Brace
Darrell Winefordner, Associate Director, Resource Planning and Institutional
Analysis, The Ohio State University, substituting for Eric Kunz
George Zurava, Director, Resource Analysis and Planning, Kent State
University
Ohio Board of Regents (Regents) Staff Present
Mary Copas, Administrative Assistant for Technical Support, HEI Project
Matt Filipic, Vice Chancellor for Administration
Karen Goodwin, HEI Project Writer
Patty James, Director, Information Systems and Research
Don Langford, Faculty-Staff Data Area HEI Project Analyst
Andy Lechler, HEI Project Senior Analyst
Andy Longbrake, HEI Project Systems Administrator
Rich Petrick, Associate Vice Chancellor for Budgets and Information
Systems
Daryl Wright, Assistant Director, Information Systems and Research/HEI
Project Manager
Guests
Cindy McQuade, Assistant Director, Inter-University Council (IUC)
Terry Thomas, Executive Director, Ohio Association of Community Colleges
(OACC)
Handouts
OHEIS Steering Committee Course Completions Sub-Committee Report
BORIS Steering Committee Meeting Notes August 23, 1996
Memo from Ralph Gutowski to Aileen Engel, August 29, 1996, OHEIS Enrollment
Data Submissions for Practice Period
Memo from Rosemary Jones to Jay Johnson, September 11, 1996, Practice
data submission
Additions to the Agenda
Rob Sheehan asked if there were any additions to the agenda. Members added
the Practice Period and the Name Change as topics to be discussed.
Course Completions
Terry Glenn, Ralph Gutowski, Judy Hample and Deidre Kundtz make up the
HEI Advisory Committee's ad hoc subcommittee drafting a statement about
the course completion issue. The subcommittee passed out a draft statement,
OHEIS Steering Committee Course Completions Sub-Committee Report, but emphasized
the "draft" status of the report because Hample had not had a chance to
get everyone's comments. It was only intended as a place to begin discussion.
A summary of the reasons the subcommittee believes that basing subsidy
funding on the criterion of course completions rather than single-day enrollment
count or aggregate enrollment count is inappropriate and undesirable follows:
-
Basing subsidy on course completions is in direct opposition to the State's
open access policy, which is designed to entice students with lower level
skills who are least likely to complete courses.
-
Institutions incur instructional costs at the beginning of the terms whether
students complete or not.
-
Course completions in urban institutions are heavily influenced by employment
shifts and job assignments.
-
Non-continuation in a course is a student's choice based upon many valid
reasons beyond the institution's control.
-
Schools on the semester system would be penalized because students may
be more likely to complete courses on the quarter system.
-
Using course completion data as a way to discourage data reporting abuses,
punishes the many for what are the abuses of the few, if such abuses exist
in the first place.
Other issues addressed in the subcommittee's draft include:
-
If by course completions, the State also means program completions, how
will the State address the issue of students who attend irregularly of
their own volition, and how would the system measure program completion
by a student who did not intend to earn a degree?
-
It makes sense for the State to provide additional funding for students
who are identified as at-risk when they enter an institution and successfully
persist.
Matt Filipic assured Committee members that Regents had no plans to tie course
completion to subsidy distribution. He reminded the Committee that the
General Assembly provided an appropriation to Regents to build a system that
could track students' progress. In order to do that, Regents must collect course
completion data. "We just need to be able to track progress, and progress
is not measured by a 14th day count," said Filipic.
Filipic did say, however, that the Higher Education Funding Commission
was discussing degree completion as a measure of success, but that degree
completion alone would not provide an adequate measure of the success of
campuses, since some students do not intend to attain degrees.
Filipic also reported that the Higher Education Funding Commission is
addressing the question of at-risk students and how they should be funded
or rather how institutions that serve at-risk students successfully should
be rewarded.
The Committee asked the Subcommittee to have a new draft written by
the next meeting, November 8, with the stipulation that subcommittee members
would take Filipic's assurances that subsidy determination will not be
tied to course completions into consideration and seek further assurances
from Regents staff.
Name Changes
Filipic reported that the name Board of Regents Information System (BORIS)
would be changed to Higher Education Information (HEI) to emphasize the
involvement of Ohio's colleges and universities in the development of the
new information system.
Filipic also reported that the Chancellor requested that the BORIS Steering
Committee's name be changed to the HEI Advisory Committee.
Sheehan asked if anyone on the Committee objected to the name Higher
Education Information. No one did.
Sheehan deferred the writing of the Committee mission statement until
the next meeting. He promised to have a draft prepared for that meeting,
November 8.
Fees Paid
The Committee focused on the issue of defining fees paid. The issue for
us, Committee members said, becomes how institutions define fees paid,
and what does the Board of Regents need from institutions to help them
understand how institutions define it.
Rich Petrick told members that the basis of data collection had not
changed. Accounts must be cleared by the 14th day; however, the institutions
determine if accounts are paid. If a payment plan has been arranged between
the student and the institution, then for Regents' purposes that constitutes
fees paid. "What we're concerned about," said Petrick, "is campuses who
have no records of students paying or not paying."
During audits, Regents will verify that documentation is available to show
students either paid in full or made arrangements to pay. In addition,
they will check college policies as to whether students are permitted to
continue to register if in default on payments.
Members expressed concern over how to show fees paid for flexibly scheduled
courses. Petrick said flexibly scheduled courses are reported in a different
way.
Practice Period
Wright reported on the Practice Period for the Enrollment Data Area. The
University of Cincinnati transmitted and edited a course inventory file
in two and a half minutes. The current system takes two and half weeks.
Sheehan asked if any Committee members would like to report on their
findings to his request that institutions estimate how much time and money
it will take for them to participate in HEI Practice Period. Ralph Gutowski
reported that Miami University estimated that it would take 610 hours of
re-programming to participate in HEI. (NOTE: Gutowski will circulate a
copy of his report among members and Regents staff.)
As for participation in the HEI Project Enrollment Data Area Practice
Period, Cleveland State will try to participate in mid-spring; Cuyahoga
Community College will try to participate in January; Kent State plans
to participate in mid-spring; and Jefferson Community College reported
that they will submit files next week.
The Committee discussed the problems of going from three to four enrollment
files in UIS to 11 in HEI. (Note: There are actually 11 files in UIS and
13 in HEI.) The more files you have the more checking institutions have
to do to ensure that those files are consistent with the primary control
file. Files discussed included Flexibly Scheduled, Tech Prep and Incarcerated
Students. Wright reported that Regents thought separating those files would
be a convenience to institutions. "If it's not," he said, "we'll reconsider
that decision." He asked Committee members if there were a perfect solution
to fit every institution.
The Committee asked that Regents go back to the institutions most affected
by the number of files and ask them for their recommendations.
The HEI Time Frame
Committee members asked Regents staff to give them some idea of the project's
time frame. Wright reported that the first academic term for which Regents
reporting of student enrollment data will be in the HEI format is winter
1998, and after that, there will be no reporting of student enrollment
data in UIS. It is the winter 1998 term being reported, Wright clarified,
and institutions will send those reports spring 1998.
Committee members asked how subsidy calculation would be done if there
were no UIS/HEI parallel processing. Petrick assured members that it could
be done because the POM (Plant Operations and Maintenance) component is
collected separately. He asked that members report back to their campuses
that there will be no double reporting in the winter of 1998 when HEI will
replace UIS. There will be sufficient information to perform subsidy calculations,
he said.
Petrick asked Committee members to think about how Regents should structure
a planning document for the HEI Project, keeping in mind that that document
would be subject to change.
Funding for HEI
Wright reported to the Committee that Regents distributed $14,000 for each
year of the current biennium, plus an additional $10,000--money saved by
Regents from internal operations--that went to each institution. Committee
members pointed out that Regents is planning to fund institutions to participate
in HEI for a limited time, but that the cost of participating in HEI is
ongoing. Many members reported that their institutional research personnel
will do nothing but reporting for federal and state governments once all-term
reporting goes into place.
Wright suggested that once the reporting becomes routine the work can
be turned over to clerical staff.
Petrick also reported that Regents is considering many efforts to reduce
the burden of HEI reporting for campuses. Two ideas, a data service and
an outreach program, are being discussed.
Communication Among Regents Staff
Committee members suggested that Regents staff concentrate efforts on communicating
among themselves in order to reduce duplication of effort and confusion
among campuses. Some members thought HEI could be the place to bring together
separate programs within Regents.
HEI Project Staff Updates
Wright mentioned the two upcoming statewide consultations: The Financial
Data Area Consultation, October 22, 1996, and the Facilities Data Area
Consultation, October 29, 1996.
Don Langford, the HEI Data Area Analyst for Faculty-Staff, reported
that 16 institutions had agreed to participate in the Faculty-Staff Data
Area Pilot Project.
Committee members asked that HEI Project Staff attend future meetings.
Sheehan reported that the next meeting will be held November 8 at the
Board of Regents' Offices, 30 E. Broad St., 36th Floor, Columbus. He asked
that Committee members make attending the meetings a priority.
The notes from the August 23 meeting were accepted, and the meeting
was adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
Notes submitted by Karen Goodwin.
Return
to HEI Advisory Committee Home Page
Return to
HEI Front Door
http://regents.ohio.gov/hei/advcom/acnotes104.html
Last updated July 2, 1998