 |
|
|
|
Wright pointed out that the census date issue, the main reason the BORIS Steering Committee was convened, is the exception rather than the rule of how the project has proceeded. Most issues pertaining to the project are resolved by consensus among a large group of representatives.
Rosemary Jones asked for a timetable for the remainder of the project.
Wright pointed out that there is a need for a solid timetable because the legislature has mandated that Regents do the following:
Regents staff expects to develop a solid timetable by Summer 1996.
Robert Sheehan asked if the plan was to have simultaneous UIS and BORIS reporting for a year.
Wright explained that a practice period for Student Enrollment Data Area submissions to BORIS will open June 30. He pointed out that June 30 was not a deadline, rather it is the date to begin practicing. Campus data reporters have a full year to practice and prepare for BORIS.
Sheehan asked if BORIS would be fully operational by FY 1999, and if so, did that mean that institutions would have to have a year of all-term counts for subsidy calculation by FY 1999.
Wright answered that all of the terms of the previous fiscal year would have to be counted.
Sheehan asked if BORIS and UIS would run simultaneously once BORIS is operational.
Wright answered that there were no plans to extend the timeline for the UIS.
Filipic asked Wright to explain the time frame for the other data areas.
BORIS will follow the same design cycle with Faculty and Staffing, Financial, and Physical Plant Data Areas as Regents did with Student Enrollment, Wright explained. He also reported that a draft letter asking college presidents to select representatives for the Faculty and Staffing, Financial, and Physical Plant Data Areas is on the Chancellor's desk. Once representatives are selected, the BORIS Analysts will begin consultations in late Summer, or early Fall. Regents staff expects the design process for Faculty and Staff, Financial, and Physical Plant Data Areas to take a year from the first consultation to the writing of specifications.
Sheehan asked for the names of existing representatives for the Student Enrollment Data Area consultations.
Wright promised to send Sheehan that list of names and mentioned that such information would soon be available on the BORIS site on the World Wide Web.
Robert Hallier asked if data elements would be counted differently in BORIS than in the UIS.
Wright explained that that kind of information is determined in the consultations. He further explained that the reporting is always retrospective. It is done after the term ends.
Hallier expressed some concern about his computing department keeping up with BORIS.
Wright assured him that Regents was aware of the need for lead time after institutions receive final specifications.
Filipic noted that some changes between UIS and BORIS will mean less work for the institutions. Regents wants to get away from quarterly activity reports (how faculty spend their time). Regents is looking for other ways to answer that question. Courses taught might be used as alternative data to allocate costs, or a sample survey may be developed as an alternative to surveying every teacher.
Also, Regents would like to find some other mechanism for determining how frequently classrooms and labs are being used.
Sheehan asked if the four data areas mentioned would be relational.
Filipic said yes and explained that Regents expects BORIS to provide a new unit of analysis-the course unit. He pointed out that a course section unit of analysis within a relational database, including the four data areas mentioned earlier, would allow Regents to describe the extent to which tenured faculty are teaching undergraduates.
Filipic said Regents would be happy to staff the Steering Committee and provide the space for meetings. He also mentioned that contact could be maintained electronically. However, he thought there was value in formalizing the process by electing co-chairs. He also pointed out that the committee needed representatives to present its census date recommendation at the June 11 President's Meeting.
Terrence Glenn asked for a written charge of expectations for Steering Committee members and some idea of the length of commitment.
Filipic said Regents wasn't looking for a significant time commitment. Regents would like to be able to call upon members for advice when significant issues arise that have caught the attention of college and university presidents. Regents also wants to provide a forum for members to meet if they decide an issue needs their attention.
Sheehan thought that a structure should be created to give the committee credibility with the presidents. Jones and Chris Dalton agreed.
Filipic also noted that the committee's recommendations will carry more weight with the presidents if their recommendations are reached by consensus.
Mitchel Livingston wanted to know what are the expectations for the new information system. He asked how information would be gathered.
Filipic did not think the committee needed to decide how information would be gathered or used in order to make policy-level recommendations. Regents has historically gathered data for two purposes: public information and calculation of subsidy, but once Regents collects the data it will be used by other people for various purposes, he explained.
Deidre Kundtz expressed concern with how the information collected through BORIS is going to be used.
Hallier thought the committee couldn't justify a system that collected everything.
Judy Hample brought up issues regarding the name of the committee: "Our group is called a steering committee, but it is not clear what we are steering. Perhaps our role is to react to various recommendations and ideas presented to us by Regents staff; perhaps our role is to react to a set of issues evolving from the implementation of BORIS and to make policy recommendations on those issues. Our role is not yet clear."
Ralph Gutowski thought that calling the group a steering committee might be a misnomer since the BORIS Project has been in the planning stages for three years. But Sheehan pointed out that there were still major data areas to be designed, so input into those areas was valuable.
Livingston also expressed some concern over the current choice of data elements. He pointed out, for example, that measurements of learning and development were not part of the Student Enrollment Data Area and may need to be in the future.
Kundtz asked how the Higher Education Funding Commission's decisions would affect BORIS.
Filipic allowed that decisions made by the funding commission could affect the current choice of data elements.
Members came to no conclusions about how the committee would be structured.
Dalton added that he is generally in favor of collecting data; however, he cautioned members to be cognizant of the burden to collect certain types of data.
Filipic stated that the question isn't determining ahead of time how the data are going to be used, but rather what might the value of such information be relative to its cost.
Sheehan and Jones both agreed that there was no enthusiasm on their campuses for collecting all course enrollment data. However, Sheehan pointed out that as an advisory group, the Steering Committee was best suited to addressing the "middle ground."
Filipic agreed and encouraged the Steering Committee to take a broader approach.
Brace cautioned the group about choosing too narrow an approach toward data collection. If we set up the right structure, he stated, we can collect different kinds of data in the future.
Sheehan commented that he was puzzled by Brace's sentiments because he had heard the community colleges felt overburdened by a request to supply all course enrollment data.
Brace said his executive group agreed that they could supply all course enrollment data if asked to do so.
Jones expressed concern with the all course enrollment option from a philosophical perspective rather than a technical one. She argued that she needs to know what the questions are before she collects the data, so that she can provide the most appropriate information.
Filipic stated two advantages to having the answers to questions not asked currently:
Dalton asked if Regents' intention was to collect data for a record of what went on every single day or if the agency wanted to collect data for set dates.
Glenn pointed out that completion data would have to be collected at some point if Regents tracked transfer students, but that Regents shouldn't use that data to drive subsidy or cost figures.
Gutowski expressed concern with how state agencies, such as, the Legislative Budget Office, Office of Budget or Management, or Legislative Office of Educational Oversight, would use the data if taken out of context. He was concerned that these agencies would make assumptions and then come to the wrong conclusions.
Livingston pointed out that migration patterns don't always connect to transfer data. A student may choose to take courses at several different institutions because it is convenient for him to do so. He may not be interested in obtaining a degree, but rather updating his skills.
Filipic cited another advantage to the option of collecting all course enrollment data: The all course enrollment option provides the greatest possible flexibility for measuring enrollments at any time during the term. Regents simply wouldn't know what enrollments were like at any other time of the term if we collected only 14th day enrollment data, he said.
Gutowski asked what would be done with enrollments of students who fail to pay during the term, but are reinstated later in the year. A lot of transactions occur that are not reported on the transcript, he said.
Filipic answered Gutowski's question by pointing out that even granting the assumption that one ought to be funding the workload determined by the 14th day count, many college and university representatives have told him that the count is maximized on that day if subsidy is affected.
Dalton cited a favorite quote: "When has a bureaucratic procedure ever been the answer to an ethical lapse?"
Jones questioned how the recommendation to collect all course enrollment data relates to the enrollment audits.
Filipic said that audits aren't answering the same question. The purpose of audits as they are now conducted is to confirm that campus records reflect the 14th day counts sent to Regents. The option of collecting all course enrollment data could be used to confirm that the 14th day count is the right count for subsidy.
Filipic also expressed concern over a possible practice on some campuses that discourages people from dropping until after the 14th day of the term.
Gutowski suggested that Regents survey randomly selected institutions about their enrollment data after the 14th day, rather than requiring all institutions to supply all course enrollment data.
Hallier pointed out that technical colleges are going to have higher drop rates than institutions like Miami University, and he questioned the validity of confirming the differences between institutions.
Filipic argued that the 14th day or 20 percent option will not confirm that the right enrollment measure is the basis for subsidy.
Jones suggested that Regents staff go to campuses during registration and see firsthand what drives students' decisions during that period before the 14th day.
Dalton suggested that the subsidy formula be developed in such a way that factors in institutions' different missions.
Hample argued that the all course enrollment collection option does not accurately reflect the various reasons students drop classes. Sheehan agreed that the reasons students drop classes would not be recognized within the system. Jones pointed out that each institution has different policies that impact the question of why students drop and that these very specific reasons will not be reflected within a comprehensive database.
Jones and Kundtz also argued with the allegation that institutions "spike" their enrollment numbers as of the 14th day. However, Kunz allowed that human behavior is naturally influenced when money is an issue, but that those behaviors are not necessarily perverse.
Filipic explained Regents' positions: The collection of completion data-required for transfer tracking purposes-will increase the likelihood that state government oversight entities would seek to have us use completion data rather than enrollment data to drive the instructional subsidy formula. We can expect to be asked to defend the use of the 14th day for subsidy purposes, and we cannot do so given our current data. If we want to continue to use the 14th day count, we need to have a way of showing those who are skeptical that the 14th day census date is reasonable.
Jones suggested an ad hoc committee to deal with this question.
Brace suggested avoiding the 14th day census date validity question completely by submitting all course enrollment data.
Kundtz asked for another reason to justify the submission of all course enrollment data.
Filipic answered that the issue was the integrity of a system that distributes $1.4 billion a year.
Hample pointed out that even with the submission of all course enrollment data, if a particular date is tied to subsidy, then it is likely that colleges will try to maximize enrollment as they now do for the 14th day. She added that simply changing the 14th day to the 7th day, for example, would not stop the abuses Filipic described.
Filipic agreed that when enrollment information is tied to the allocation of funding, the enrollment reports are affected by their connection to funding.
Sheehan suggested the idea of looking at several days over the length of a term, not just the 14th day.
In response to concerns about teaching fees paid as of alternative census dates, Filipic asked if there was any reason not to base subsidy on fees paid by the end of the term given a retrospective reporting system.
Sheehan questioned how non-traditional courses would be counted.
Filipic asked the members what they thought were the issues with the 20 percent option.
Sheehan questioned how students in non-traditional courses, such as distance learning classes and Internet classes, would be subsidized.
Filipic answered that the school where the student taking non-traditional courses is enrolled gets the funding.
Brace once again asked what the major opposition is to the collection of all enrollment data.
Hallier cited information gleaned from a report issued by the American Association of Community Colleges: That report mentioned concerns about providing information that other agencies might use inappropriately.
Wright reiterated to the Steering Committee the BORIS Project's purpose: Regents seeks to build one database that works reasonably well for state-supported colleges and universities, the legislature, the students, other government agencies, and the public.
Filipic, after much discussion, asked for a recommendation from the Steering Committee regarding the census date issue with the stipulation that completion reporting would be required in any case.
Following discussion, the committee made the following recommendation:
Kundtz and Dalton agreed to represent the committee at the June 11 President's Meeting and offer the committee's recommendation for resolving the census date issue.
Filipic agreed that Regents would send out meeting minutes as well as a menu of possible dates for the next Steering Committee meeting.
Filipic also agreed to inform committee members of the census date issue resolution arrived at during the President's Meeting by June 12.
The meeting was adjourned at 4 p.m.
Notes submitted by Karen Goodwin.
Return to HEI Advisory Committee Home Page
http://regents.ohio.gov/hei/advcom/acnotes529.html
Last updated July 2, 1998