COMMITTEE ON PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Steering Committee for Performance Funding
May 13, 1997
S.C. COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION
LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM
Mr. Dalton B. Floyd, Jr
Mr. R. Austin Gilbert, Jr.
Dr. W. David Maxwell
Mr. Bill H. Stern
Ms. Camille Brown
Mr. Michael Brown
Ms. Sandra Carr
Mr. Charles FitzSimons
Mr. Alan Krech
Ms. Lynn Metcalf
Dr. Gail Morrison
Mr. Fred Sheheen
Mr. John Smalls
Dr. Mike Smith
Dr. Lovely Ulmer-Sottong
Dr. Karen Woodfaulk
The Committee on Planning and Assessment, acting as the Steering Committee for Performance
Funding, met at 10:30 a.m. on May 13, 1997 in the large conference room. Mr. Dalton Floyd,
Mr. Floyd welcomed committee members and guests. All persons present introduced themselves
and stated which institution or agency they represented .
II. Approval of Minutes
It was moved (Maxwell) and seconded (Stern) and unanimously voted to approve the minutes of
April 20, 1997 Steering Committee meeting, as written.
III. Consideration of Process for Approving Institutional Benchmarks and Determining Institutional Performances
Mr. Dalton Floyd reviewed three principles relating to sector benchmarks: 1) Sector Benchmarks do
not affect the performance rating except in the case of an institution substantially exceeding both
sector and institutional benchmarks. Therefore, it is anticipated that a rating of six (6) will be rare.
2) Sector benchmarks should be rigorous and demanding. Therefore, aspirational peer benchmarks
can only be used if they meet or exceed sector benchmarks. 3) The sector benchmarks should set
the desired direction for the indicator. Dr. Michael Smith reviewed the proposed guidelines for
determining institutional benchmarks. He reiterated that institutions would not be disadvantaged
in the rating process if they chose not to set institutional benchmarks for this year. Ratings would
be determined by sector averages, previous years performance and other relevant data as provided
by the institution.
There being no further discussion, it was moved (Stern) and seconded (Maxwell) and voted to accept
the proposed guidelines for determining institutional benchmarks.
IV. Consideration of Proposed Sector Benchmarks for the First 14 Indicators
Mr. Dalton Floyd explained that the sector benchmarks should indicate a desired direction and that
each benchmark would be discussed and voted on one by one. Dr. Sally Horner expressed a concern
around the fact that only four (4) items of recommendations from the Statewide Planning Committee
were agreed upon by the CHE staff and a lot of time was given by the institutions to assist with the
recommendation process. Institutions expressed reservations about the CHE staff recommendations
being generally at a level which was too much of a 'reach' for the institutions in the early years of
performance funding. The technical colleges expressed concerns about the CHE staff
recommendations for accreditation (3D), administrative costs (5A) and accessibility (8C). Mr. Floyd
noted these concerns. Discussion occurred around the Proviso to Act 359. Mr. Floyd reiterated that
the indicators may be changed to reflect the Proviso, but Committee action could not be really taken
until the passage of the Proviso. Discussion ensued about the Proviso's changes in specific
indicators. After a lengthy discussion regarding the sector benchmarks, it was moved (Stern) and
seconded (Maxwell) that all indicators be approved as written by the CHE staff and that after one
year, the benchmarks will be revisited and adjusted if necessary.
V. Discussion of Tentative Performance Funding Time Line 1997-98
Dr. Smith distributed a handout of the Proposed Time Line to Determine Institutional Benchmarks.
After a brief discussion by Committee members and institutional representatives, it was agreed that
the time line would be refined and considered at a later date. Institutions were asked to share
suggestions relative to the time line.
VI. Other Business
The next meeting was scheduled for 10:30 a.m. on May 27, 1997, in the large conference room at
the Commission on Higher Education.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 p.m.
Saundra E. Carr