tennessee higher education commission 2015-20 quality … · 2020-06-18 · the quality assurance...

Year 2: 2016-17

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

I. Student Learning and Engagement 75 73 69

General Education Assessment 15 15 15

Major Field Assessment 15 15 15

Academic Programs: Accreditation and Evaluation 15 13 12

Institutional Satisfaction Study 10 10 10

Adult Learner Success 10 10 7

Tennessee Job Market Graduate Placement 10 10 10

II. Student Access and Success 25 20 23

Total Points 100 93 92

Quality Assurance Funding StandardsMaximum

Points

Recommended Points

Tennessee Higher Education Commission2015-20 Quality Assurance Funding

Summary of Points Recommended

The Quality Assurance Funding program seeks to incentivize meritorious performance, provide a means for assisting the process of student learning

and encourage continuous improvement at public community colleges and universities. The 2015-20 Quality Assurance Funding cycle standards

reflect current state priorities outlined in the 2015-25 Master Plan, guided by the Drive to 55, and continue to challenge institutions to promote the

highest standards and strive for excellence.

Pellissippi State Community College

Tennessee Higher Education Commission

Quality Assurance Funding

Summary of Points Recommendedd

15

15

Year 2: 2016-17

Assessment: ETS Proficiency Profile 1,455

Sampling Plan: All Graduates Tested 1,198

82%

1,170

Mean Score

Institution

National*

Difference

(Institution - Natl.)

% Institution to Natl.

Average

Mean Score

Institution

3 Yr Average

Diff (Inst - Avg)

% Inst to 3 Yr. Avg

Institutional Comments:

If the total eligible graduates and the total graduates tested are not equal, please explain.

*ETS Proficiency Profile Institutional Mean Score comprised of scores from all students at Associate Degree Colleges

from July 2011 to June 2016.

Institutional Trends Comparison (Maximum 5 points in Years 4-5)

2018-19 2019-20

0.0 0.0

8.26 8.86

102% 102%

447.2 447.2

438.9 438.3

National Norm Comparison (Maximum 15 points in Years 1-3 and 10 points in Years 4-5)

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20

Maximum Points:

Recommended Points:

Total Eligible Graduates:

Total Graduates Tested:

Percent of Eligible Graduates Tested:

Graduates in Score Report:



General Education Assessment

The General Education Assessment 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.

Tennessee Higher Education CommissionQuality Assurance Funding

General Education Assessment 1

15

15

Year 2: 2016-17

2010 CIP Academic Program Degree Test Year Test Type

No.

Grads

No.

Tested

%

Tested

No.

Passed

Inst Pass

Rate

Comp

Pass Rate

% Inst to Comp

Pass Rate*

1 31.51.3801.00 NURSING 2.3AAS 2015 NCLEX 89 74 83% 66 89.2% 84.56% 100%


No.

Grads

No.

Tested

%

Tested Inst Score

Comp

Score

% Inst to Comp

Score*

1 06.11.0101.00 COMPUTER INFORMATION TECH 2.3.AAS 2015-16 Brainbench 45 48 100% 3.573 2.57 100%

2 08.13.0101.00 TEACHING 2.3.AST 2015-16 PRAXIS 43 21 49% 164.7 162.2 100%

3 32.52.0201.01 BUSINESS 2.3.AAS 2016-17 Peregrine 68 67 99% 43.7 44.33 99%

4 14.22.0302.00 PARALEGAL STUDIES 2.3.AAS 2017-18 Local

5 27.43.0104.00 CRIMINAL JUSTICE 2.3 AAS 2018-19 Local

6 05.10.0105.00 MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES 2.3.AAS 2018-19 Local

7 32.52.0401.00

ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL

TECH 2.3.AAS 2018-19 OPAC

8 30.50.0408.00 INTERIOR DESIGN TECHNOLOGY 2.3.AAS 2019-20 Local

9 09.15.0614.00 WELDING TECHNOLOGY 2.3AAS 2019-20 AWS Sense

100%

2010 CIP Academic Program Degree

1 06.11.0801.00 WEB PAGE AUTHORING 2.3AAS

2 09.15.0000.00 ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY 2.3 AAS

3 16.24.0101.01 UNIVERSITY PARALLEL 2.3AAS

4 21.30.0000.00 GENERAL TECHNOLOGY 2.3AAS

5 30.50.0903.00 FINE ARTS 2.3AAS

2015-16 Licensure Results


No.

Grads

No.

Tested

%

Tested

No.

Passed

Inst Pass

Rate

Comp

Pass Rate

% Inst to Comp

Pass Rate

1 31.51.3801.00 NURSING 2.3AAS 2015 NCLEX 77 77 100% 71 92.2% 84.5% 100%

Performance Oriented

Program Exemptions for 2015-20 Cycle

Exemption

Low Producing

Multidisciplinary

Multidisciplinary

Recommended Points:

Licensure Programs Reported Annually

Programs Reported Once During 5 Year Cycle

Multidisciplinary

Average institution pass rate/score to comparison pass rate/score

* Maximum of 100% used of scoring


Maximum Points:


Major Field Assessment

The Major Field Assessment standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to improve the quality of major field programs as evaluated by the performance of

graduates on approved examinations.


Major Field Test 1

Year 2: 2016-17

Academic ProgramBUSINESS

Test Code Peregrine

Institutional Mean (local) or

National Mean (Standardized Test)44.33

2015-20 Cycle Average 43.7

% Inst to Comparison Score 99%

Number of Graduate Scores 67

Graduate ScoresBUSINESS

1 32.5

2 55

3 30

4 35

5 37.5

6 50

7 47.5

8 42.5

9 47.5

10 40

11 55

12 57.5

13 47.5

14 55

15 27.5

16 37.5

17 47.5

18 67.5

19 32.5

20 52.5

21 32.5

22 50

23 42.5

24 50

25 45

26 37.5

27 30

28 40

29 27.5

30 42.5

31 50

32 37.5

33 45

34 42.5

35 50

36 45

37 50

38 57.5

39 40

40 25

41 40

42 52.5

43 42.5

44 40

45 52.5

46 55

47 40

48 32.5

49 42.5

50 40

51 57.5

52 42.5

53 47.5

54 37.5


Programs Reported Once During 5 Year Cycle


Major Field Assessment


Major Field Test 1

Graduate ScoresBUSINESS

55 25

56 47.5

57 45

58 45

59 30

60 65

61 42.5

62 42.5

63 35

64 57.5

65 50

66 37.5

67 45

68

69

70


Major Field Test 2

8 Maximum Points: 5

7 Recommended Points: 5

1

100%

Year 2: 2016-17

2010 CIP Academic Program Degree LevelAccrediting

Agency

Accreditation

Cycle - Begin

Accreditation

Cycle - End

Next Site

Visit

Accreditation

Letter DateAccredited

106.11.0101.00

COMPUTER INFORMATION

TECH 2.3 AAS ACBSP 2012 2022 2022 3-May-12 Yes

2 09.15.0000.00 ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY 2.3 AAS ATMAE 2013 2017 2017 9-Dec-13 Yes

312.19.0706.00

EARLY CHILDHOOD

EDUCATION 2.3 AAS NAEYC 2015 2022 2022 18-Mar-15 Yes

4 14.22.0302.00 PARALEGAL STUDIES 2.3 AAS ABA 2009 2016 Feb-17 16-Feb-11 Yes

5 31.51.3801.00 NURSING 2.3 AAS ACEN 2013 2018 2018 1-Aug-13 Yes

6 32.52.0201.01 BUSINESS 2.3 AAS ACBSP 2012 2022 2022 3-May-12 Yes

7

32.52.0401.00

ADMINISTRATIVE

PROFESSIONAL

TECHNOLOGY 2.3 AAS ACBSP 2012 2022 2022 3-May-12 Yes

2010 CIP Academic Program Degree LevelAccrediting

Agency

109.15.0614.00 WELDING TECHNOLOGY 2.3 AAS ATMAE

2010 CIPDegree

Level2010 CIP Degree Level

106.11.0101.00 2.1 C2 06.11.0101.00 2.3 AAS

2 06.11.0103.00 2.1 C1 06.11.0101.00 2.3 AAS

3 06.11.0901.00 2.1 C1 06.11.0101.00 2.3 AAS

4 09.15.0000.00 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

5 09.15.0000.01 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

6 09.15.0000.02 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

7 09.15.0000.03 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

8 09.15.0000.04 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

9 09.15.0000.05 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

10 09.15.0000.06 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

11 09.15.0000.07 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

12 09.15.0303.01 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

13 09.15.0612.00 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

14 09.15.0613.00 ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING 2.2 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

15 09.15.0613.01 2.2 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

16 09.15.0805.00 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

17 09.15.1102.00 2.1 C1 09.15.0000.00 2.3 AAS

18 12.19.0706.01 2.1 C1 12.19.0706.00 2.3 AAS

19 07.12.0500.00 2.1 C1 32.52.0201.01 2.3 AAS

20 32.52.0101.01 2.1 C2 32.52.0201.01 2.3 AAS

21 32.52.0205.00 2.1 C1 32.52.0201.01 2.3 AAS

22 32.52.0302.00 2.1 C1 32.52.0201.01 2.3 AAS

23 32.52.0904.00 2.1 C1 32.52.0201.01 2.3 AAS

24 31.51.0707.01 2.1 C1 32.52.0401.00 2.3 AAS

2531.51.0713.00 2.1 C1 32.52.0401.00 2.3 AAS

26 31.51.0716 2.1 C1 32.52.0401.00 2.3 AAS

BUSINESS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS SPECIALIST

MEDICAL INSURANCE CODING &

REIMBURSEMENT

BUSINESS

BUSINESS

ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST

GENERAL HOSPITALITY

*Embedded Programs are technical certificates whose curriculum, content and requirements are contained within the greater requirements of a related associate degree program.

The related degree program assumes responsibility for quality control and assurance.

ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY



EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY

ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY

COMPUTER AIDED MANUFACTURING

3D PARAMETRIC MODELING

SURVEYING

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

GENERAL CULINARY ARTS

PRE-BUSINESS TRANSFER

SUPERVISION

BUSINESS

ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY


CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS PRINCIPLES ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

BUILDING INFORMATION MODELING ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

FUNDAMENTALS OF SUSTAINABILITY ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICITY ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

A+/NETWORK+CERTIFICATION COMP SCIENCE & INFO TECH

ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

ALTERNATE ENERGY AND PROCESS ENGINEERNG TECHNOLOGY

Embedded Programs*

UNIVERSITY COMPUTER SCIENCE

PREPARATION COMP SCIENCE & INFO TECH

INFORMATION SYSTEMS FUNDAMENTALS COMP SCIENCE & INFO TECH

Accredited Programs

Programs Seeking Accreditation

Accreditation Timeline

New program effective Aug 2015. Site visit occurred. Accreditation expected Dec 2017

MEDICAL SCRIBE ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY


Academic Programs: Accreditation

The Academic Programs standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to achieve and maintain program excellence and accreditation.


Certificate Program Associate Program

Total Accreditable Programs:

Accredited Programs:

Programs Seeking Accreditation:

Percent Accredited:

Accreditation


Accreditation 1

10

7

Year 2: 2016-17

2010 CIP Academic ProgramDegree

Level

2010-15

Evaluation

2015-20 Cycle

Schedule

2015-20

Evaluation

Total

Standards

"NA"

Standards

Rating

of 0

Rating

of 1

Rating

of 2

Rating

of 3Average*

130.50.0408.00

INTERIOR DESIGN

TECHNOLOGY 2.3 AAS PR 2015-16 PR 25 0 0 1 10 14 2.5

2 08.13.0101.00 TEACHING 2.3 AST AA 2016-17 AA 22 0 0 1 20 1 2.0

3 05.10.0105.00 MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES 2.3 AAS AA 2017-18 AA

4 30.50.0903.00 FINE ARTS 2.3 AFA -- 2017-18 AA

5 21.30.0000.00 GENERAL TECHNOLOGY 2.3 AAS AA 2018-19 AA

6 16.24.0101.01 UNIVERSITY PARALLEL 2.3 AA, AS PR 2019-20 PR

7 27.43.0104.00 CRIMINAL JUSTICE 2.3 AAS -- 2019-20 AA

Undergraduate Programs Total 47 0 0 2 30 15 2.3

2010 CIPDegree

Level2010 CIP

1 05.10.0105.00 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

2 05.10.0201.00 2.2 C1 05.10.0105.00

3 05.10.0203.00 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

4 06.11.0801.00 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

5 06.11.0801.01 2.2 C1 06.11.0801.00

6 06.11.0801.01 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

7 06.11.0801.02 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

8 06.11.0801.03 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

9 06.11.0801.04 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

10 06.11.0801.05 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

11 30.50.0409.00 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

12 30.50.0504.00 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

13 30.50.0602.00 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

14 30.50.0605.00 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

15 30.50.0605.01 2.1 C1 05.10.0105.00

Not Evident 0 Points Level Initial Subsequent

Emerging 1 Point Undergraduate 20 22

Established 2 Points

Highly Developed 3 Points

Poor 0 Points Level Standards

Fair 1 Point Certificate and Associate 25

Good 2 Points

Excellent 3 Points

2.3 AASWEB TECHNOLOGYWEB PAGE AUTHORING

SCRIPTWRITING

VIDEO EDITING

E-COMMERCE WEB DESIGN MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES 2.3 AAS

*Average calculated by multiplying the count of standards with a Rating of 0, 1, 2 and 3 by the number of points attributed to each rating divided by the total number of applicable standards.

**Embedded Programs are technical certificates whose curriculum, content and requirements are contained within the greater requirements of a related associate degree program. The related

MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

Program Review (PR) Rubric Program Review Standards

2.3 AAS

2.3 AAS

2.3 AAS

2.3 AAS

Academic Audit (AA) Rubric Academic Audit Standards

MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

2.3 AAS

2.3 AAS

2.3 AAS

2.3 AAS

MOBILE WEB DESIGN

ACCESSIBLE WEB DESIGN AND

WEB DESIGN TOOLS

INTERACTIVE WEB DESIGN

VISUAL COMMUNICATION FOR GRAPHIC

BASIC PHOTOGRAPHY

STUDIO PHOTOGRAPHY 2.3 AAS

SOUND PRODUCTION MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES 2.3 AAS

WEB PAGE AUTHORING MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES 2.3 AAS

VIDEO AND MEDIA ARTS MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES 2.3 AAS

VIDEOGRAPHY MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES 2.3 AAS

Program Evaluation

Undergraduate Programs

Embedded Programs**

Certificate Program Associate Program Degree Level


Academic Programs: Program Evaluation

The Academic Programs standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to achieve and maintain program excellence and accreditation.


Maximum Points:

Recommended Points:


Program Evaluation 1

10

10

Year 1: 2015-16 Survey of Entering Student Engagement (SENSE)

Year 2: 2016-17 Community College Survey of Student Engagement

Year 3: 2017-18 SENSE & Qualitative Report

Year 4: 2018-19 Community College Survey of Student Engagement

Year 5: 2019-20 Comprehensive Satisfaction Report

Institution Peer Group* Effect Size** Points

2.95 2.93 1

2.09 2.20 1

2.54 2.59 1

2.06 1.96 1

1.42 1.37 1

2.10 1.36 1

2.56 2.52 1

2.48 2.52 1

2.89 2.88 1

1.99 1.88 1

0.96 0.99 1

2.03 1.97 1

1.01 0.73 0.26 1

0.75 0.85 1

1.70 1.50 1

2.60 2.60 1

2.90 2.92 1

2.82 2.87 1

2.61 2.65 1

2.72 2.75 1

2.78 2.84 1


Institutional Satisfaction

The Institutional Satisfaction standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to improve the quality of their undergraduate

programs as evaluated by surveys of students at different points in their academic career.

4g. Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class

assignments


Maximum Points:

Schedule Recommended Points:

Year 2: 2016-17

Community College Survey of Student Engagement

2016-17 CCSSE Engagement Themes

ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

4a. Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions

4b. Made a class presentation

4f. Worked with other students in projects during class

12.1h. Frequency: Computer lab

4h. Tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary)

4i. Participated in a community-based project as a part of a

regular course

4q. Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others

outside of class (students, family members, co-workers, etc.)

STUDENT EFFORT4c. Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment before

turning it in4d. Worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas

or information from various sources

4e. Came to class without completing readings or

assignments***

6b. Number of books read on your own (not assigned) for

personal enjoyment or academic enrichment

10a. Preparing for class (studying, reading, writing, rehearsing,

doing homework, or other activities related to your program)

12.1d. Frequency: Peer or other tutoring

12.1e. Frequency: Skill labs (writing, math, etc.)

ACADEMIC CHALLENGE

4o. Worked harder than you thought you could to meet an

instructor's standards or expectations5b. Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or

theory5c. Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of

information.

5d. Making judgments about the value or soundness of

information, arguments, or methods5e. Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new

situations

5f. Using information you have read or heard to perform a new

skill


Institutional Satisfaction 1

Institution Peer Group* Effect Size** Points

Community College Survey of Student Engagement

2016-17 CCSSE Engagement Themes

2.07 2.03 1

1.92 1.84 1

5.01 4.86 1

3.00 3.02 1

2.95 2.93 1

2.64 2.61 1

2.10 2.14 1

1.86 1.79 1

2.86 2.78 1

1.49 1.47 1

3.04 3.03 1

2.58 2.65 1

1.96 2.01 1

2.18 2.20 1

2.55 2.51 1

1.58 1.51 1

0.41 0.54 1

38

Small Colleges (fewer than 4,499 students) 10,395

Medium Colleges (4,500-7,999 students)

Large Colleges (8,000-14,999 students)

Extra-Large Colleges (15,000 or more students)

STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTION

6a. Number of assigned textbooks, manuals, books, or book-

length packs of course readings

6c. Number of written papers or reports of any length

7. Mark the box that best represents the extent to which your

examinations during the current school year have challenged you

to do your best work at this college

9a. Encouraging you to spend significant amount of time studying

9f. Providing the financial support you need to afford your

education

4j. Used email to communicate with an instructor

4k. Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor

4l. Talked about career plans with an instructor or advisor

4m. Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with

instructors outside of class4n. Received prompt feedback (written or oral) from instructors

on your performance

4p. Worked with instructors on activities other than coursework

ACADEMIC AND SOCIAL SUPPORT NETWORK

9b. Providing the support you need to help you succeed at this

college

9c. Encouraging contact among students from different

economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds

9d. Helping you cope with your non-academic responsibilities

(work, family, etc.)

9e. Providing the support you need to thrive socially

Institution Peer Group Classification

Fall 2016 Enrollment:

12.1a. Frequency: Academic advising/planning

12.1b. Frequency: Career Counseling

Total

*Peer group determined by the Center for Community College Student Engagement based on institutional enrollment size during the

administration term.

**Effect Size: Center for Community College Student Engagement considers a difference in mean to be significant when there is an

effect size of -.20 or greater.

***Question 4e is deemed successful if the 2017 institutional score was less than the peer average or previous comparison score.

Since the question is reversely worded (“came to class without completing readings or assignments), an average score closer to 1

(never) is the preferred outcome on the Likert score scale (1=never, 2=sometimes, 3=often and 4=very often).


Institutional Satisfaction 2

10

7

Year 2: 2016-17

Points

Possible Points

1 0

1 0

o

o

o

o

o

4 1

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

3 Yr. Avg

Benchmark 2015-16

Percent

Attained* Points

1 Adult Learner Graduates 1,082 969 1,283 1,111 1,090 98% 6

*Maximum of 100% attained used for scoring.

Data Source: THEC Student Information System

Total

Quantitative

Quantitate Metric

Objectives developed with specific details and informed by the self-assessment and adult learner survey

from Year 1

Clearly defined success indicators and descriptions of what evidence demonstrates progress/success.

Detailed strategy for:

2 1

Recruiting, engaging, and graduating adult learners informed by evidenced-based best practices and

research

Including prior learning into adult learner degree plans

Incorporating adult learner survey feedback into current institutional policies and practices

Improving the quality of adult student services and experiences

Increasing the quantity of adult learner graduates

Institutions will submit a strategic Action Plan that seeks to improve the quality of adult learner

services and experiences and increase the quantity of adult graduates.


Adult Learner Success

The Adult Learner Success standard is designed to incentive institutions to qualitatively and quantitatively improve services for adult

learners. The standard directs institutions to enhance the quality of adult student services in an effort to increase the enrollment, retention

and completion of adult learners.


Maximum Points:

Recommended Points:

Qualitative: Action Plan


Adult Learner Success 1

10

10

Year 2: 2016-17

2013-14 2014-15 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

1004 1476

Graduates Enrolled in Community Colleges 512 774

77 220

42 59

8 12

309 338

317 350

Tennessee Job Market Graduate Placement Rate** 98% 97%

**Tennessee Job Market Graduate Placement Rate is calculated by dividing the Graduates Employed Fulltime by the Graduates Engaged in the

Tennessee Job Market.

Graduates Employed Part-time

Graduates Engaged in Tennessee Job Market

Graduates with Unemployment Claim

Graduates Employed Fulltime

Total Graduates Engaged in the Tennessee Job Market

* Total Graduates equals the graduates for academic year, excluding University Parallel (16.24.0101) and Professional Studies (16.24.0102) degrees

and certificates.

Graduates Enrolled in Universities


Tennessee Job Market Graduate Placement

The Tennessee Job Market Graduate Placement standard is designed to provide incentives for community colleges to continue to

improve job placement of graduates.


Maximum Points:

Recommended Points:

Academic Year

Total Graduates*


Tennessee Job Market 1

25

23

Year 2: 2016-17

2012-13 2013-14 2014-153 Yr. Avg

Benchmark2015-16

Percent

Attained*

Points

Recommended

1 337 361 371 356 448 126% 5

2 1,287 1,220 1,645 1,384 1,344 97% 4

3 1,080 924 1,174 1,059 1,140 108% 5

4 343 396 404 381 360 95% 4

5 70 63 103 79 117 149% 5

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 3 Yr. Avg 2015-16

173 256 195 208 158

170 140 209 173 202

343 396 404 381 360

*Maximum of 100% attained used for scoring.

** Self reported data

Data Source: THEC Student Information System

15. Engineering Technology

Total

Males

STEM Programs

Veterans**

STEM Programs

11. Computer & Information Sciences

Low Income


Student Access and Success

The Student Access and Success standard is designed to provide incentives for institutions to increase the number of graduates from select focus

populations. Institutions select those focus populations particularly important to the institution’s mission and measure the quality of services

dedicated to those students. The measure of institutional success is an increase in the focus population graduation rate.


Maximum Points:

Recommended Points:

Focus Population

Assoc. transfer to 4 Year Institution

Tennessee Higher Education Commission Quality Assurance Funding

Student Access and Success 1

tennessee higher education commission 2015-20 quality … · 2020-06-18 · the quality assurance...

Documents