February 8, 2001
Present: Anthony Stanziani, Chubb Institute (Secretary)
Yerachmiel Barash, Cope Institute
Samantha Cooper, IKON
Janice Gileski, IKON
Lisa Park, GT Solutions
Denis Peterson, NYS Dept. of Labor
Tom Rose, NYS Dept. of Labor
I. Announcements
The Computer Technology Peer Group met to further define the cluster-specific measurements. Anthony Stanziani started the meeting with a brief synopsis of the purpose and history of the peer group.
II. Discussion
The peer group was assigned the task of developing 2-3 cluster-specific measures for the Computer Technology Group. The following measures will be proposed to the Advisory Council:
This statistic would demonstrate the relationship in quantity between students and available equipment for instruction.
This measure would demonstrate the typical class size available at the school. The following formula would be used to calculate the average:
Total number of available classroom seats
Total number of classrooms
Students will be able to identify if the school is accredited or not. The possible responses would be "yes" or "no".
The peer group also discussed further definition of the standard measures to be used by all schools. It was decided that due to the range of hours of instruction that the statistics for Success and Placement should be broken out by course/curriculum length. It is suggested that the breakdown would be: 1-50, 51-100, 101-300, 301-600, 601-999, and 1000+ hours.
Success Rate:
Specifically for the Success statistics, this should further be broken out to differentiate between part-time and full-time students (broken out by length of total instruction within).
To reiterate, the Success formula was defined as:
(continuing + new students) – drops
continuing + new students
The Computer Technology Peer Group is proposing the following definition:
Drop: no intention of ever returning to the school
Placement Rate:
Due to the diverse range of hours of instruction offered by the many schools, it is suggested that there should be a minimum numbers of hours for tracking this information. The peer group proposes a 300-hour minimum. Anything less could be cumbersome for the school and may be confusing when trying to determine placement for a 6-hour class. Did the person really get the job based on the short-term training that they received? It was felt that a 300+ hour program should provide the student with minimum skills necessary to obtain employment worthy for statistical tracking.
To reiterate, the Placement formula was defined as:
graduates employed using acquired skills
all graduates – unavailable students
The Computer Technology Peer Group is proposing the following definitions:
Unavailable: not seeking employment (i.e., military, disabled)
Graduate: someone who has met all financial and academic requirements
III. Closing
The peer group was also tasked with designing how this information will be obtained, maintained, and monitored. It was decided to table these items until after then next Advisory Council meeting (tentatively scheduled for April 5, 2001). The Council’s acceptance of the standards and their definitions will ultimately determine how this information will be collected and administered.
The next meeting of the Computer Technology Peer Group will be held after the next Advisory Council meeting. A definitive date has not been set.