Tennessee Higher Education Commission Performance Funding Summary of Points Recommended

Transcription

1 Summary of Points Recommended Maximum Points Recommended Points STANDARD ONE - QUALITY OF STUDENT LEARNING AND ENGAGEMENT Standard 1A: General Education Assessment Standard 1B: Major Field Assessment Standard 1C: Academic Programs: Accreditation and Evaluation Standard 1D: Comprehensive Report Standard 1E: Job Placement Standard 1F: Assessment Implementation 10 9 STANDARD TWO - QUALITY OF STUDENT ACCESS AND STUDENT SUCCESS Standard 2: Student Access and Student Success Total Points WSCC PF Final Recommendations.xlsx Page 1 of 1 10/28/20

2 Standard 1A: General Education Assessment The General Education standard is designed to provide incentives to institutions for improvements in the quality of their undergraduate general education program as measured by the performance of graduates on an approved standardized test of general education. Maximum Points: Recommended Points: Test Type: Graduates Tested: All or Sample? Total Eligible Graduates: No. Graduates Tested: Percent Tested: ETS Proficiency Profile All % National Norm Comparison (Maximum points in Years 1-3 and 10 points in Years 4-5) Mean Score Institution National Diff (I-Nat'l) % Institution to National Average 100% 100% 100% 100.0% 100% Institutional Trends Comparison (Maximum 5 points in Years 4-5) Mean Score Institution Yr Average Diff (I-Avg) % Institution to 3 Yr Average 100% 100% graduates were confirmed to have tested. Discrepancies in eligible graduates and tested graduates may result from reverse transfer students (who are exempt from testing) or students who tested in an academic year other than the one in which the degree was awarded.

3 Standard 1B: Major Field Assessment The Major Field standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to improve the quality of academic programs as evaluated by the performance of graduates on approved examinations. Maximum Points: Recommended Points: Licensure Programs Reported Annually (Sorted by CIP Code) 2010 CIP Academic Program Degree Test Year Test Type No. Grads No. Tested No. Passed % Tested Inst. Score Comp. Score % Inst to Comparison Score PHYSICAL THERAPIST ASSISTANT 2.3.AAS 2014 Licensure % % RESPIRATORY CARE 2.3.AAS 2014 Licensure 100% % NURSING 2.3.AAS 2014 Licensure % % Programs Reported Once During 5 Year Cycle (Sorted by Reporting Year) 2010 CIP Academic Program Degree Test Year Test Code No. Grads No. Tested % Tested Inst. Score Comp. Score % Inst to Comparison Score COMPUTER & INFORMATION SCIENCE 2.3.AAS Local % % BUSINESS 2.3.AAS Local % % PRODUCTION HORTICULTURE 2.3.AAS Local 100% % PUBLIC SAFETY 2.3.AAS Local Programs Exempt During 5 Year Cycle (Sorted by Exemption) 2010 CIP Academic Program Degree Exemption TEACHING 2.3.AST Low Producing EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 2.3.AAS Low Producing PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 2.3.AAS Low Producing HEALTH INFORMATION TECH 2.3.AAS Low Producing ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY 2.3.AAS Multidisciplinary UNIVERSITY PARALLEL 2.3.AA, AS Multidisciplinary WEB TECHNOLOGY (ROCC) 2.3.AAS New Program GENERAL TECHNOLOGY 2.3.AAS New Program INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 2.3 AAS New Program CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY 2.3AAS New program CRIMINAL JUSTICE (ROCC) 2.3AAS New program OCCUPATION THERAPY ASST 2.3AAS New program Fall SURGICAL TEHCNOLOGY 2.3AAS New program Fall % % Programs with graduates less than 10 are excluded from the analysis Licensure Results 2010 CIP Academic Program Degree Test Year Test Type No. No. Inst. Comp. No. Passed % Tested Grads Tested Score Score PHYSICAL THERAPIST ASSISTANT 2.3.AAS 2013 Licensure % % RESPIRATORY CARE 2.3.AAS 2013 Licensure % % NURSING 2.3.AAS 2013 Licensure % % % Inst to Comparison Score Student numbers <10 are redacted due to FERPA.

4 Standard 1C: Academic Programs: Accreditation and Evaluation The Academic Programs standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to achieve and maintain program excellence and accreditation. Maximum Points Recommended Points Accreditation Number of Accreditable Programs: Number of Programs Seeking Accreditation Number of Accredited Programs: Percent Accredited: Points Recommended: Undergraduate Programs Number of Non-Accreditable Programs: 10 Points Recommended: % CIP Academic Program Degree Level Accreditation Accrediting Agency Accredited? Accreditation Cycle Begin Date End Date Next Site Visit ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY 2.3.AAS ATMAE Yes HEALTH INFORMATION TECH 2.3.AAS CAHIIM Yes 2003 On-going No site visit required PHARMACY TECHNICIAN 2.1.C1 ASHP Yes PHYSICAL THERAPIST ASSISTANT 2.3.AAS CAPTE Yes Spring PARAMEDIC 2.2.C1 CAAHEP Yes EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN 2.1.C1 CAAHEP Yes RESPIRATORY CARE 2.3.AAS CoARC Yes NURSING 2.3.AAS NLNAC Yes Fall BUSINESS 2.3.AAS ACBSP Yes COMPUTER & INFO SCIENCE 2.3.AAS ACBSP Yes INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 2.3AAS ACBSP Yes EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 2.3.AAS NAEYC Yes CULINARY ARTS 2.2.C1 ACFEF Yes ADVANCED EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNIICIAN 2.1.C1 CAAHEP New program effective Summer accreditation timeline due Aug OCCUPATION THERAPY ASST 2.3AAS AOTA SURGICAL TEHCNOLOGY 2.3AAS CAAHEP Program initially approved for fall 2014 implementation and was approved for a delay until fall 2016 due to building not being completed. New collaborative program with RSCC effective Aug Site visit Spring Tennessee Higher Education Commission Page 1 of 2 10/28/20

5 Standard 1C: Academic Programs: Accreditation and Evaluation The Academic Programs standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to achieve and maintain program excellence and accreditation. Maximum Points Recommended Points Accreditation Number of Accreditable Programs: Number of Programs Seeking Accreditation Number of Accredited Programs: Percent Accredited: Points Recommended: Undergraduate Programs Number of Non-Accreditable Programs: 10 Points Recommended: % 5 Program Evaluation: Non-Accreditable Programs 2010 CIP Academic Program Degree Year Reviewed Evaluation Type * Total No. Standards WSCC - 5 Year Review Cycle "NA" Standards # Stand. Met % Met GENERAL TECHNOLOGY 2.3AAS PR % WEB TECHNOLOGY (RODP) 2.3.AAS AA % PUBLIC SAFETY 2.3.AAS AA % TEACHING 2.3.AST AA % UNIVERSITY PARALLEL 2.3.AA, AS AA % PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 2.3.AAS AA % CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY 2.3AAS AA % PRODUCTION HORTICULTURE 2.3.AAS AA % FINE ARTS 2.3AFA CRIMINAL JUSTICE (RODP) 2.3AAS New program Aug 2012 New program % *PR denotes traditional Program Review with checklist of 24 criteria. Criterions include program outcomes, curriculum, teaching/learning environment, faculty and support. AA denotes Academic Audit with checklist of 20 criteria or 23 criteria for programs undergoing the Academic Audit a second time or more. Criterions include learning objectives, curriculum/cocurriculum, teaching/learning processes, student learning assessment, quality assurance, overall assessment, and support. The Advanced Emergency Medical Technician certificate program is accredited by CAAHEP because it is under the umbrella of Emergency Services Programs and embedded in the Paramedic program. The Physical Therapist Assistant AAS program Site Visit occured Spring 20; accreditation will be determined at the Fall 20 CAPTE meeting. The ACBSP (Business, Compuer & Information Sciecne, Information Technology) site visit will occur in Fall 20. See enclosed . Timeline for AAS Surgical Technology is enclosed in documentation. Accreditation letter for Pharmacy Technical Certificate is included in documentation. Accreditation awarded through Tennessee Higher Education Commission Page 2 of 2 10/28/20

6 Standard 1D: Comprehensive Report The Satisfaction Studies standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to improve the quality of their undergraduate programs as evaluated by surveys of undergraduate students, recent graduates, and regional and/or national employers of recent graduates. Year Satisfaction Study Student Engagement Survey (NSSE and CCSSE) Alumni Satisfaction Project Employer Satisfaction Project Student Engagement Survey (NSSE and CCSSE) Comprehensive Report Maximum Points: 10 Recommended Points: 10 Scoring Rubric for Comprehensive Satisfaction Studies Report 1) Provide an overview of the design and administration of three surveys (Student, Alumni, and Employer) and a brief introduction to the satisfaction study (0-1 points) 2) Analyze the results of the surveys, identify area(s) for improvement and objectives to be accomplished by (0-3 points) 3) Describe the implementation plan to use the survey results to initiate improvements (including action items, timeline, and success indicator s. (0-2 points) 4) Describe the patterns of evidence for the extent to which the desired implementation plan outcomes or objectives have been accomplished. (0-3 points) 5) Explain how lessons learned from the Satisfaction Survey Project will be used for c ontinuous improvement (0-1 points)

7 Standard 1E: Job Placement The Job Placement standard is designed to provide incentives for community colleges to continue to improve job placement of their career program graduates. Indicate Year of Graduates Surveyed Total Number Programs: Total Placeable 510 Maximum Points: 10 Total Placed 467 Recommended Points: 10 Placement Rate 92% 2010 CIP Academic Program Degree Grads Non- Respondents Grads Adjustment EXEMPTIONS Educ Medical Family Military Volunteer HORTICULTURE 2.2C1 n/a PRODUCTION HORTICULTURE 2.3.AAS 100% LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT 2.2C1 100% COMPUTER & INFORMATION SCIENCE 2.3.AAS 92% INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 2.3AAS 100% WEB TECHNOLOGY (ROCC) 2.3.AAS 0 0 n/a WEB PAGE AUTHORING (ROCC) 2.2C1 0 0 n/a CULINARY ARTS 2.2.C1 100% CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY 2.3AAS 100% CLEAN ENERGY CORE TECH 2.1C1 67% CLEAN ENERGY TRANSPORTATION TECH 2.1C1 0 0 n/a CLEAN ENERGY BUILDING TECH 2.1C1 0 0 n/a CLEAN ENERGY ELECTRICITY TECH 2.1C1 0 0 n/a ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY 2.3.AAS 17 82% INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY 2.1C1 0 0 n/a INDUSTRIAL MECHANICS 2.1C1 100% OPERATIONS MGMT & QUALITY 2.1C1 0 0 n/a INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICITY 2.1C1 100% INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION 2.1C1 0 0 n/a EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 2.3.AAS 87% EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 2.1C1 n/a GENERAL TECHNOLOGY 2.3AAS 100% PUBLIC SAFETY 2.3.AAS % BASIC LAW ENFORCEMENT OFF EDUC 2.1.C % INDUSTRIAL MAINTENACE 2.1.C1 0 0 n/a HEALTH INFORMATION TECH 2.3.AAS % MEDICAL CODING 2.1.C % MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION 2.1.C1 0 0 n/a MEDICAL INSURANCE SPECIALIST 2.1.C1 75% PHARMACY TECHNICIAN 2.1.C % PHYSICAL THERAPIST ASSISTANT 2.3.AAS 22 95% PARAMEDIC 2.2.C % BASIC EMERG MED TECH 2.1.C % RESPIRATORY CARE 2.3.AAS 14 92% NURSING 2.3.AAS % BUSINESS 2.3.AAS 61 82% Total % Percentage of Non-Respondents 5% Total Placeable Total Placed Percent Placed 2010 CIP Academic Program Degree TEACHING 2.3.AST UNIVERSITY PARALLEL 2.3.AA, AS GENERAL EDUCATION CORE 2.2C PROFESSIONAL STUDIES 2.3.AAS PRE-ALLIED HEALTH 2.1C2 Programs Exempt from Job Placement Standard Note: Please report all non-respondents by program. Graduate data will be adjusted to reflect the removal of non-respondents. Maximum of non-respondents is limited to 5% for all programs. Please enter comments Student numbers <10 are redacted due to FERPA.

8 Standard 1F: Assessment Implementation The Assessment Implementation standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to develop and sustain a mature and sophiscated assessment process while implementing a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) or Student Learning Initiative (SLI). Maximum Points: Recommended Points: 10 9 Year QEP or SLI Stage Title and Description QEP Sustaining QEP Sustaining SLATED for Success SLI Development SLI Sustaining Learning Support Redesign SLI Sustaining Learning Support Redesign SLATED for Success (increase student learning and engagement through faculty and student recognition of diverse student learning styles and incorporation of multiple modalities of teaching methods in an effort to engage students more fully in their educational environment, thus increasing student learning. Learning Support Redesign (Project will require transforming the Developmental Studies Program with emphasis on providing the academic support needed by a student to be college ready as established by the ACT college readiness benchmarks and standards. Scoring Rubric for Assessment Implementation: Sustaining QEP/SLI 1. Present a short review of the QEP/SLI activity (Why it was undertaken including goals and objectives?) AND describe the actions for the year that were taken to accomplish goals and objectives. [0-2 points] 2. Describe the assessment taken during the year and present the results of those assessments with the addition of previous results, as they are available. [0 3 points] 3. Discuss how the institution is improving the QEP/SLI based on the assessment results. [0-3 points] 4. Evaluate the QEP/SLI itself (what is working, what is not working) AND outline steps for next year (program implementation and assessment related). [0-2 points] Institutional Comments (Optional): The narrative report and supporting documentation have been submitted on CDs as requested. The hyperlinked supporting documentation was not included in printed versions of this report.

9 Standard 2: Student Access and Student Success The Student Access and Success standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to increase the number of graduates from select subpopulations. Each institution selected five subpopulations particularly important to their mission and this standard measures the quality of its services dedicated to those subpopulations. The measure of the institution s commitment will be student subpopulation success greater number enrolled, retained, and graduated. Maximum Points: Recommended Points: No. Sub-Population Yr Avg Benchmark Percent Attained Pts Recommended 1 Adults % 5 2 Low Income 530 1,099 1, , % High Need Geographical Areas: Claiborne, Grainger, Hancock and Union Institutional Selection: Minority Students, 1st Generation College Students and Students with Disabilities % % 5 5 Males % 5 WSCC: Institutional Selection Minority (non-white) Students with Disabilities First Generation Grand Total