COMMITTEE ON PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
ACTING AS THE
STEERING COMMITTEE FOR PERFORMANCE FUNDING
NOVEMBER 14, 1996
S.C. COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION
LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM
Members Present Guests Staff
Mr. Dalton B. Floyd, Jr. Mr. Larry Wilson Mr. Fred Sheheen
Mr. R. Austin Gilbert, Jr Dr. Mike McCall Dr. Michael Smith
Dr. W. David Maxwell Mr. John Smalls
Mr. Bill H. Stern Mr. Nelson Lindsay
Mr. Roger B. Whaley Mr. Mike Brown
Ms. Maggie Hicks
Mr. Charlie FitzSimons
Ms. Camille Brown
Ms. Lynn Metcalf
The Committee on Planning and Assessment, acting as the Steering Committee for Performance
Funding, met at 2:00 p.m. on November 14, 1996 in the large conference room. Mr. Roger
I. Approval of Minutes
It was moved (Floyd) and seconded (Stern) and unanimously voted to approve the minutes of
the October 17, October 23, and October 30 Steering Committee meetings, as written.
II. Presentation - Larry Wilson
Chairman, Research Sector Committee
Mr. Wilson gave the Committee an update on the progress of the Research Sector Committee.
He expressed concern over the number of indicators that are difficult to measure or hard
to determine what is good (i.e. class size). He also explained that about half of the
indicators are good things for universities to do, but do not necessarily increase
quality (i.e. approval of mission statement). Mr. Wilson stressed the fact that only
three indicators measure excellence and could change the behavior of the universities:
research funding, SAT scores, and faculty compensation. In addition, he emphasized
comparing the research universities against an aspirational peer group. Finally,
Mr. Wilson asked that the measure for Indicator VI.A be changed from the percent of
freshmen who meet or exceed the benchmark SAT to the university's average SAT
score as a percentile of the aspirational peer group average.
III. Consideration of Indicator VI. C., Post-secondary Non-academic Achievement of
Student Body (Attachment A)
Dr. Smith gave a brief description of the staff recommendation for this indicator which
would be a yes/no question.
It was moved (Stern) and seconded (Floyd) and unanimously voted to approve the staff
recommendation for Indicator VI.C.
IV. Progress of Sector Committees
Dr. Smith updated the Committee on the progress of the sector committees in their
deliberations on benchmarks and weights for the performance indicators. He indicated
the progress was slow because of the nature of the task, but the committees are working
hard and are committed to completing the job. Several issues are being raised at the
sector committee level and will be forwarded to the Steering Committee with
V. Consideration of responses to RFP for consultants on performance funding
It was moved (Floyd) and seconded (Stern) and voted unanimously for the Committee to
go into executive session to discuss the contractual matters of the RFP. No action
was taken during the executive session.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.