Skip Navigation



horizontal line image

    Steering Committee for Performance Funding
June 5, 1997

Members Present                
Ms. Dianne Chinnes
Mr. Dalton B. Floyd, Jr
Dr. W. David Maxwell
Mr. Bill H. Stern

Guests Present
Dr. Rayburn Barton
Dr. James Arrington

horizontal line image

Staff Present
Ms. Camille Brown
Mr. Michael Brown                        
Ms. Sandra Carr
Mr. Charles FitzSimons                
Mr. Alan Krech
Ms. Lynn Metcalf
Dr. Gail Morrison
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 2:30 a.m. on June 5 , 1997 in the large conference room. Mr. Dalton Floyd, presided.

I. Introductions
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 May 13, 1997 Steering Committee meeting, as written.
III. Discussion of Sector Benchmark Recommendations from the Council of Presidents and the Statewide Planning Committee
Mr. Dalton Floyd explained that the Proviso concerning the Sector Benchmarks had not received final approval by the legislature. Therefore, the May 27 Steering Committee meeting was canceled and the Statewide Planning Committee was asked to review the Sector Benchmarks recommendations based on the issues raised at the May 13 meeting. Any additional recommendations developed would be brought back to the Committee for reconsideration.
Dr. Sally Horner explained that there were 12 recommendations that involved philosophical issues that needed further discussion. The Committee and the institutional representatives agreed to address only the 12 where there is a difference in opinion (Attachment A). Each of the twelve indicators was addressed by institutional representatives and committee members. Indicators 3A1 and 3A2 were discussed extensively concerning the 'class size and the student/teacher ratio' and how the '5 point grading scale and the bonus point' would be applied to these indicators. Dr. Michael Smith explained that several issues involving these indicators require additional discussion and that revisions in the legislation may be necessary at a later date.
It was agreed by the staff and the statewide committee that the sector benchmarks data should be moved toward national and/or aspirational peer averages after the initial implementation the first year.
Dr. Horner explained concerns relating to indicator 3B1 and 3B2. Some faculty loads may not relate to credit hours such as three hour labs which are supervised and considered 1 credit hour. Also, graduate hours vary. Therefore, some institutions felt that these figures are unachieveable and the benchmarks should be lower. The Statewide Planning Committee is concerned about creating a misconception by the public because most institutions are performing well with this indicator.

For Indicator 3C Dr. Smith stated that the CHE staff will have a recommendation on June 24.
For Indicator 3D, two issues were noted: 1) 100% for technical colleges may not be appropriate, and 2) if the indicator is not applicable to a particular institution, it should not apply.
Indicator 5A is a measure that the institutions in South Carolina are doing well on and national averages should be used for this indicator.
For Indicator 5D South Carolina should compare favorably to national figures. Dr. Horner explained that the general overhead costs include physical plant; reducing overhead could increase deferred maintenance.

With Indicator 6A the national average will be rounded to the nearest 50 then data will be based on that figure. Dr. Horner made note that two-year institutions needed to be treated differently because the students are not all baccalaureate ready.
The Statewide Planning Committee suggested for Indicator 7D using a benchmark lower than 100%.
Indicator 7F was eliminated in the proviso but will be revisited next year.
The Statewide Planning Committee suggests that Indicator 8Ca use a three year rolling average. There should also be some way to put a limit on increases so that institutions would not have to show annual percentage increases indefinitely.
Dr. Horner also raised questions about the benchmark for Indicator 8Cc.
Some questions were raised about Indicator 9B. Dr. Smith explained that the expenditures are a clearer measure than awards and also minimize the 'spikes' from year to year. The Statewide Planning Committee felt that IPEDS may not be the best source for this indicator.

IV. Consideration of Time Line of Institutional Benchmarks and Performance Rating
Dr. Smith distributed a handout of the draft Time Line to of Institutional Benchmarks and Performance Rating. It was agreed that the time line would be considered at the June 24 meeting.
V. Other Business

The next meeting was scheduled for 10:30 a.m. on June 24, 1997, in the large conference room of the Commission on Higher Education.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,

Saundra E. Carr
Recording Secretary