This is a resubmittal of the E-mail message sent yesterday to all recipients of
the Ohio AIR list server.
 
Any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me.
 
 
March 15, 1996
 
 
Dr. Elaine Hairston, Chancellor
Ohio Board of Regents
3600 State Office Tower
30 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio  43266-0417
 
RE:     proposed enrollment census and capture date
 
Dear Elaine:
 
We recently received the recommendation by the BORIS staff to change the
procedure for reporting enrollment to the Ohio Board of Regents.
 
It is our understanding that the proposal is to move from the current 14th day
census to providing all enrollment transactions at the end of each term.  The
rationale for the proposed change is to provide greater ease for institutions
in their reporting while giving greater flexibility for meeting future
informational needs to support resource allocation, tracking, and the
development of subsidization models.  Additionally, we understand that
institutions are being asked to determine this date without a full
understanding of the subsidization models which will be forthcoming.
 
While on first glance this recommendation appears to be a seemingly convenient
answer to technological problems, the long-range impact on internal resources
as well as the philosophical underpinnings of this approach needs to be further
explored.
 
We believe making this decision at this juncture could have profound
consequences.
 
We need to understand what we value and what is the gain in following the
recommendation from BORIS staff on capture and census dates.
 
 
The issue really becomes what we value!
 
It is imperative that decisions are not made that would bias or jeopardize the
human capital development of our communities.
 
7 Valuing such elements as course completion or graduation rates could
negatively bias those institutions charged with serving students who are not
from an academically-enriched background.
 
7 Our communities are no longer exclusively the 18-year old  traditional
student whose sole or primary focus is their educational objectives.  Access to
education by those already juggling multiple job and family responsibilities is
key to serving the State s best interests.  It is essential that we value those
elements that will empower the State to develop its workforce potential.
 
7 How can we hope to ready Ohio s labor force to today s global realities if we
choose to value that which discriminates against underprepared students,
minority populations or the economically disadvantaged?
 
Decisions by higher education leadership about what is of value needs to be
examined closely before determining data elements and capture dates.  To make
that decision in advance of this discussion is not advantageous to either the
State nor the colleges and universities.
 
What do we expect to gain?
 
7 The entire reporting process between the institutions and OBOR has been based
upon mutually agreed upon criteria about what information to report at certain
times for specific purposes which all parties have generally understood.
 
7 The proposal to submit all enrollment transactions is far too sweeping
without a clearly defined set of objectives.  Those objectives, to date, have
not been clearly defined.
 
 
Less is More!
 
7 Asking institutions to provide all enrollment activity sends the message that
we are uncertain what we value.  We need to identify the information necessary
to support  key performance indicators.  It is imperative that we keep our
constituents focused on what is meaningful, rather than what is extraneous.
 
7 Given that this database will be widely accessible to any number of users who
lack contextual information about the data, the potential exists to create
significant interpretive problems for the higher education community, including
the Regents. It creates a situation whereby data related to the institutions
could be extracted without consultation as to the purpose for such extraction
and the use to which such data might be put.
 
 
 Significant Resource Challenges
 
7 While intended to minimize the reporting burden on the institutions, the
proposal actually imposes significant resource challenges.  Capturing
enrollments at the end of term may serve the State s needs, but in order to
fulfill internal data demands we foresee the need to capture the information
both at the end of term for your needs and at the eventual census point used
for subsidization.  This second capture will be necessary for internal decision
making and for providing meaningful validation that the correct information is
relayed to the State on end of term submissions.
 
7 At a time when enrollments are declining and resources are consequently
tight, expending additional effort for the sake of this reporting process adds
no significant value at the campus level.  Those campus resources that would be
expended for additional reporting activity would be more wisely utilized for
quality improvement and institutional transformation.
 
 
 
Recommendations
 
Therefore, we would like you to consider the following:
 
7 The philosophical and practical issues related to this issue should be
discussed at length by the Presidents.  Ramifications of the capture and census
dates need to be fully understood in unison with what the State and higher
education is to value.
 
7 Communication strategies should be addressed by the Presidents, the
Chancellor, and the Regents in a clearly articulated policy which spells out
the roles and responsibilities of all of the parties involved.  Those questions
should not be  delegated to a technical committee without the key
decision-makers understanding the ramifications inherent in the proposed new
reporting process.
 
 
7 Until there has been fuller discussions of alternatives to the current
practices used for enrollment reporting and the ramifications of those
alternatives duly considered by the key decision makers in higher education, we
see no disadvantages for the State or institutions in continuing to employ the
14th day as the population and capture point used in decision making. Departure
from this capture point will destabilize the historical trends used for
resource analysis at both the state and institutional levels.  Flexibly
scheduled classes not reported on that date should continue to be reported at
the end of the academic term.
 
Thank you for consideration of this view as you proceed with the development of
BORIS.
 
Cordially,
 
 
 
 
David H. Ponitz
President