 |
|
|
|
A data issue is that the community-technical colleges (i.e., the two-year degree-granting units at Akron, Cincinnati, Toledo, and Youngstown) are not reported as separate organizations nor are their students separately identifiable. These campuses will not receive any of this Access Challenge money unless the students enrolled in the two-year programs are separately identified and receive the benefit of the Access Challenge money in the form of a lower fee.
Another data issue related to Higher Education Core Funding involves the idea of Success Challenge, allocating funding to all campuses at which an Ohio at-risk student earns a certificate, associate degree, or baccalaureate degree. The challenge is to find some way to clearly define at-risk students. One suggestion was to consider recipients of OIG (Ohio Instructional Grant) or Pell grants as at-risk students. Another suggestion was to consider high schools from which students graduated to determine which ones were at-risk. We intend to begin by defining at-risk students as those who are Ohio residents and recipients of OIG or Pell grants and then to develop more sensitive definitions of at-risk in consultations with campuses, said Filipic
School Challenge, the idea of campuses working with local school districts to help them achieve their educational goals, will also present a data challenge. Funding for School Challenge will be competitive with outside consultants being used to evaluate success, and because successful projects will be tied to funding, it will become a data concern.
At Filipic's request, members agreed to think about variables of relevance to a unit-based record system that are likely to be part of Performance Funding system.
In addition, Sheehan asked HEI staff to develop a report about how the Higher Education Funding Commission's recommendations will affect data issues.
Filipic agreed that the subcommittee's concerns were legitimate because having completion data does make it possible to tie such data to funding, but he doesn't believe that's how completion data will be used. He pointed out that the Funding Commission recommended that Success Challenge funds reward only the completion of a certificate or degree by at-risk students.
Filipic suggested a possible change to the first paragraph sixth sentence of the draft from "The Advisory Committee believes that to use course completion data as surrogate for 14th day enrollment counts is in direct opposition to Ohio's policy of open admission and equal opportunity of access to higher education" to "The Advisory Committee believes that the use of course completion data as a surrogate for 14th day enrollment for the purpose of an enrollment driven subsidy formula is in direct opposition to Ohio's policy of open admissions and equal opportunity of access to higher education." (Note: He made the suggestion simply to clarify the concern of the Committee and not because he agreed with the statement as amended.)
One member also expressed concern over the collection of unit record data. Rich Petrick said that the State needs such data for articulation and transfer information as well as for purposes of analysis.
Rob Sheehan asked members to accept the subcommittee's draft as amended by Filipic. A majority of members agreed to accept the draft of the HEI Advisory Committee Sub-Committee Report on Course Completions with Filipic's amendment. Chris Dalton opposed.
Regents changed the name of the data element from Student Ineligible Switch Fees not paid to Student Ineligible Switch: Accounts not cleared. The definition reads:
A student will be considered eligible for subsidy only if his/her fees from the prior term are paid in full by the first day of the present term and one of these three requirements are met by the 14th day of the present term:After discussion which included addressing the concept of direct payment by third parties, the distinction between fees and fines, and the changing of prior "term" to "terms," the committee and Regents staff rewrote the definition:The student paid all fees.
The student's financial aid is in progress.
The student signed a note agreeing to pay according to the policies of the institution.
Student Ineligible Switch: Accounts not Cleared-a student will be considered eligible for subsidy only if his/her fees from prior terms are paid in full by the 14th day of the present term and one of these three requirements are met as of the end of the present term:Filipic pointed out that Regents will audit institutions to ensure that promissory notes are being cleared.The student paid all fees (course-related instructional fees-not including parking or library fines).
The student's financial aid and/or payment from a third party is in progress.
The student signed a note agreeing to pay according to the policies of the institution.
Filipic said there would probably be no delay, since the mandate came from the Legislature. The reality of all-term counting begins winter 1998 (Fiscal Year 98), but subsidy based on all-term counting won't be calculated until Fiscal Year 1999. Filipic also assured Committee members that any change in funding would happen gradually, since the Funding Commission had recommended that the instructional subsidy be calculated only on the basis of moving average enrollments, which would incorporate the effect of all-term counting only over time.
A member asked if there was any response from Regents staff to the additional burden all-term counting and moving to HEI will cause institutions.
Filipic told members that Regents staff will recommend to the Board a line item in Regents' budget to help institutions deal with all-term counting and the transition from UIS to HEI.
Petrick suggested that Committee members draft a one- to two-page statement about the impact all-term counting and moving to the HEI system will have on institutional research staff. He also reiterated that Regents is asking for $50,000 for each institution but that the budget goes through a legislative process which doesn't always mean that the dollar amount Regents asks for is the final dollar amount approved. Filipic encouraged members to write the statement in support of Performance Funding.
Sheehan asked members for estimates about the cost of reporting all-term counts to Regents under the new HEI system, and Petrick cautioned members to give realistic estimates.
The power user-a person with authorized access who knows how to run queries and can access information without assistance.Members asked how Regents staff will interpret different institutions' data. Petrick assured them that institutions will have access to Regents' processes for getting and interpreting information.The requester of pre-canned queries-HEI project staff will have stored reports on the system for most frequently requested queries.
The requester of data access services-HEI project staff will run a query for the requester.
The requester of reports-Hard copy and Web published reports will be available.
One member asked if reporters would be considered power users. Petrick said he didn't believe the Freedom of Information Act required Regents to permit access directly to electronic databases.
Guy Thibodeau told members that the level of access to the HEI database can be tightly controlled through canned queries. And although members can see unit record data pertaining to their institutions, the power users can be restricted to particular tables.
The Advisory Committee of the Higher Education Information (HEI) system advises the staff of the HEI project and the staff of the Board of Regents on the design, construction, timeline, implementation, and utilization of the information system. The Advisory Committee attempts to reflect the needs and interests of policy makers and other stakeholders concerning Ohio's colleges and universities.
Petrick and Wright responded to the letter as follows:
Petrick distributed the Ohio Board of Regents Higher Education Information (H.E.I.) Background and Progress Report, which was prepared in part to improve communication among Regents and university presidents.Some members expressed concern about the extra costs of all-term counting, and one member stated that of the 11 UIS reports, two-year campuses only reported on eight of them, and of those eight were manual summary reports (degrees awarded and undergraduate admissions), and one was a projected listing of activities (off-campus annex). However, the HEI requires 13 reports of all campuses, each of which is a unit record file based on actual, auditable data for each term. This is "a significantly more complex data reporting system," the member said.Wright later distributed a handout, Number of Enrollment Data Input Files: UIS and HEI, to demonstrate that HEI is only requiring two more data input files than UIS requires in answer to the letter's assertion that HEI is a "significantly more complex data reporting system" than UIS.
The meeting was adjourned at 3 p.m.
Return to HEI Advisory Committee Home Page
http://regents.ohio.gov/hei/advcom/acnotes118.html
Last updated July 2, 1998