Coordinating Board for Higher Education Meeting Minutes 04-05

COORDINATING BOARD FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
Minutes of Meeting
April 14, 2005

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education met at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 14, 2005, at the University of Missouri-Rolla.

Members present were:

Lowell C. Kruse, Chair
Martha Boswell
Diana Bourisaw
Marie Carmichael
Jeanne Lillig-Patterson
Kathryn Swan
Gregory Upchurch
Earl Wilson, Jr.

Others attending the meeting included:

Gregory Fitch, Commissioner of Higher Education
Trudy Baker, Administrative Assistant, Educational Policy, Planning, and Improvement Center
Scott Giles, Director, Missouri Student Loan Group
Joe Martin, Deputy Commissioner
Jim Matchefts, Assistant Commissioner and General Counsel
Susanne Medley, Director, Communications and Customer Assistance
Brenda Miner, Executive Assistant to the Commissioner
Dan Peterson, Director, Financial Assistance and Outreach
Renee Riley, Public Information Specialist, Communications and Customer Assistance
Teala Sipes, Research Associate, Educational Policy, Planning, and Improvement Center
Robert Stein, Associate Commissioner, Academic Affairs
John Wittstruck, Director, Educational Policy, Planning, and Improvement Center

Chair Kruse called the Coordinating Board for Higher Education (CBHE) meeting to order. A list of guests attending the meeting is included as Attachment A.

The presence of a quorum was established with a roll call vote.

Chair Kruse
Martha Boswell
Diana Bourisaw
Marie Carmichael
Jeanne Lillig-Patterson
Kathryn Swan
Gregory Upchurch
Earl Wilson, Jr.

Mr. Upchurch moved that the minutes of the February 10, 2005 CBHE meeting be approved as printed. Mrs. Swan seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Policy Governance

Chair Kruse referred to the discussion held at the February 10, 2005 CBHE meeting regarding board development activities and the move toward policy governance as the board’s formal operating structure. Chair Kruse asked Dr. Bourisaw, who has been working to develop a formal process for board training, to comment on the continuation of board training and development.

Dr. Bourisaw referred to the presentation made Wednesday, April 13, at the board work session by Dr. Lynn Walker, Director, Walker Management Psychologists. Dr. Walker and his associates work with a variety of boards, including MOHELA's Board of Directors to help them define and differentiate between ends and means. Following Dr. Walker's presentation, the board agreed that a subcommittee of Diana Bourisaw, Kathryn Swan, and Earl Wilson, Jr. should work on formalizing board development and training options, including the identification of funds to be used for this purpose.

Dr. Bourisaw moved that the board pursue alternative funding sources, outside of department funds, for the purpose of engaging the board in development and training activities, specifically intended to move the board toward using a policy governance structure as its management model. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Resolution to Establish CBHE Committees

Dr. Matchefts drafted the agenda item behind Tab A of the board book based on discussions he had with Commissioner Fitch and with the board in February, 2005. The fundamental assumption is that the board desires to establish two standing committees - an executive committee and an audit committee. The agenda item describes the establishment of these committees along with the roles and duties of the committee members. Dr. Matchefts noted that the recommended action is the adoption of a resolution to establish these committees, adopted under Robert’s Rules of Order by a two-thirds majority (six votes in favor) by the board.

Dr. Matchefts explained that the formation of an audit committee would provide a role for the board in maintaining its responsibility for state audit oversight and its fiduciary duties. An audit committee would establish a more systematic process whereby the board would be engaged in the review of the audit reports through its audit committee.

Mrs. Patterson asked what the committee's fiduciary responsibility was and where it was articulated in the bylaws or statutes that this committee has direct fiduciary responsibility with respect to the Missouri State Loan Program.

Dr. Bourisaw stated that it would be the board's fiduciary responsibility to monitor the activities of the department including the loan program, which is a major financial institution; to review any audit reports performed and issued in regard to that program and the department’s operation in general; and to be informed when issues are raised.

Dr. Matchefts noted that Sections 173.095 - 173.187, RSMo states that the board is given responsibility for overseeing the loan program. Dr. Matchefts' interpretation is that the board has the fiduciary responsibility to ensure that the loan program is operated appropriately.

Mrs. Patterson stated that since there is not a bylaw or statement giving the board direct responsibility, it should be articulated that the board is taking on this responsibility, because an audit committee can take a tremendous amount of time outside the board’s usual responsibilities.

Chair Kruse asked for clarification about telephone conversations with board members in relation to the Sunshine Law. Dr. Matchefts clarified that a discussion among three or more members of a committee comprised of five members, involving a discussion on policy, personnel, or any business related specifically to that committee, would be subject to the Sunshine Law and would require posting 24 hours in advance of the call.

Commissioner Fitch reiterated that there have been audit reports involving issues that were critical in nature. It is imperative, whether spelled out as fiduciary or not, that this board accept its stewardship responsibility.

Commissioner Fitch asked that information made available to the board, be received in a timely manner, so they can properly review it in order to make sound decisions. It is essential that the board recognize what is taking place because its actions could impact personnel, investments, applications, participation, and competition levels in business. A strong business component is essential to the successful operation of higher education activities and provides accountability. Commissioner Fitch endorsed the audit committee because a board that executes actions needs to be accountable for those actions. In regard to the executive committee, he understood that the open meetings requirement of the Sunshine Law was not applicable if there was not a quorum or if discussion was of a non-business nature.

Ms. Carmichael noted that in the past when audits were performed, the board received the audit and it became an action item. The board actually has fiduciary responsibility for what is addressed in the audit.

A motion to table the recommended action died for lack of a second.

Dr. Bourisaw clarified that, in regard to the audit committee, their duties would be defined and brought back to the board for approval before the committee and its work is launched. The executive committee would be established with five members.

Chair Kruse asked again about telephone calls between members of committees and how they might be affected by the Sunshine Law. He expressed concern that the CBHE not do anything inadvertently that would violate the spirit and intent of this law. Dr. Matchefts explained that by establishing a five-person committee, making the quorum three members, a conversation between two members would not constitute a public meeting and would not require advance posting of the telephone call.

Commissioner Fitch stated that all five members would comprise the committee and any decisions made by the executive or audit committees would be brought back to the full board for action.

Mr. Wilson moved that the Coordinating Board adopt an appropriate resolution establishing an Executive Committee and an Audit Committee as standing board committees. Dr. Bourisaw seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Measuring Value-Added Student Learning

Dr. Robert Stein reported that Missouri institutions have been actively engaged in assessment of student learning since the 1980's. The NGA publication Time for Results focused attention on assessment of student learning and what the public's dollars invested in higher education are providing to the taxpayer. In addition to state influences, external agencies (e.g., accrediting agencies) have encouraged assessment.

The only state mandated assessment, however, is in the area of teacher education (both entry and exit tests). Other assessments are encouraged and submission of information is requested, but assessment decisions are voluntary. Missouri has traditionally used a consensus-building model to support campus assessment infrastructures, and in the past a budget strategy was used to build assessment whereby institutions were rewarded for performance.

Accountability, as the driver of assessment, yields a compliance model. A commitment to the essence of good assessment revolves around the objectives that drive assessment and to what degree the information gained is used to improve programs, curriculum, and student learning. Measuring Up, a national report card on higher education, rated measuring learning in Missouri and other states as incomplete because of a lack of evidence that institutions truly add value. Accrediting agencies have begun to question the extent to which they have been a part of the problem due to their push for accountability. The Higher Learning Commission agrees that there are a variety of approaches, but the approach used should fit the culture of the institution and should not be mandated from the top. Missouri contends that assessment should be driven by learning objectives, continuous improvement should inform accountability, and a public forum should continue to motivate institutional assessment of student learning for the right reasons, including the improvement of student learning.

A consortium of Missouri institutions entered into a pilot project with Rand’s Council for Aid to Education (CAE) as part of a national initiative on measuring value-added student learning. The Missouri Consortium on Measuring Value-Added Student Learning contributed $50,000 for its involvement in the project. In 2005, the Kauffman Foundation awarded a $120,000 grant to subsidize the continued participation of Missouri’s 33 consortium member institutions. As a component of the grant, Missouri will hold a symposium with representatives from the Kauffman Foundation, the consortium institutions, and K-12 leaders to discuss lessons learned.

At the conclusion of the pilot project institutions will work collaboratively on determining next steps. Consortium members are positioning themselves and the Coordinating Board to design an archetypal assessment policy for the state of Missouri where ownership is built internally within institutions, and the results of assessment are used to make important institutional decisions.

Dr. Stein shared perspectives about assessment from the National Commission on Accountability and the Higher Learning Commission. In both instances there is an emphasis on avoiding superficial comparisons and rankings and ensuring that assessment is integrated into campus culture.

Mrs. Patterson moved that the CBHE commend institutional members of the Missouri Consortium for Measuring Value-Added Student Learning for their participation in the pilot project and encourage their continued collaborative work. It is further recommended that the board direct the Commissioner of Higher Education, in consultation with public, independent and proprietary institutions to identify potential components for inclusion in a public policy on the assessment of value-added student learning. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Dr. Bourisaw commended the institutions for not only volunteering, but in looking internally at their progress and using the data for program improvement.

Dr. Stein advised that CAE is evolving, receptive, open to change, and wants to help the institutions meet their respective needs. Some institutions want the unit of analysis to be the institution for benchmarking purposes and to determine how they compare with other institutions. Others want to operate at a programmatic or at a student level to ensure that they are obtaining appropriate diagnostic information to improve academic programs or to provide feedback to students.

For the consortium’s fall 2004 testing, CAE lowered the minimum number of students to be tested from 100 to 50 students. CAE’s original model called for 100 randomly selected and representative students each semester with freshmen testing in the fall and seniors testing in the spring. In the fall 2004 testing cycle, some institutions had difficulty in the area of student motivation. Analysis is being conducted to determine ways to encourage students to participate.

The board was concerned about the validity of data if a significant number of students did not take the tests. Dr. Stein explained that this was crucial. He also indicated that institutions with smaller numbers were being challenged to demonstrate how representative tested students were of the institution or some sub-group with the institution. The conclusions that can be drawn about value-added learning this year are limited to the results of the pilot project. However, the results will be used to inform improvement of the project next year and to determine whether institutions will continue with the CAE model or will use other instrumentation.

Mrs. Patterson requested that a letter be sent, on behalf of the Coordinating Board, to the Kauffman Foundation thanking them for their funding of this initiative.

Update on Selected Missouri PreK-20 Opportunities

Dr. Stein stated that Missouri has made sporadic attempts at establishing a PreK-20 agenda since 1997. The challenge is how to keep a PreK-20 agenda alive. Many states progressing with PreK-20 agendas work collaboratively on a few focused priorities while maintaining separate boards. From a state level, there needs to be more coordination and an intentional structure.

At the CBHE’s last meeting, there was extensive discussion about the CBHE taking a more active and visible role with the State Board of Education, which has the statutory authority to re-approve teacher education programs. Several states are moving toward joint responsibility of the K-12 sector and higher education for re-approval of teacher education programs.

Dr. Kent King, Commissioner of Education with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), was very receptive to a redesigned protocol that would provide more engagement of the CBHE in the re-approval process, which is known as the Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs (MoSTEP). Under this process, DESE appoints a team of examiners that completes site visits to institutions and makes recommendations for state approval according to whether the teacher education program meets the standards.

Currently, there are 170 people trained as MoSTEP examiners; all but five have certifications, which imply that the majority are practicing teachers. Staff is exploring with DESE the eligibility requirements necessary to be included in MoSTEP’s site review teams.

An expanded role for the higher education community in the re-approval process is desired. More formal involvement at the higher education system level would add value to the conversation and would provide useful information for sound decision-making. Major changes that would exemplify a more collaborative effort between DESE and the MDHE include:

• Assigning the Commissioner of Higher Education to appoint one or more voting site team members;
• Making the existing ex-officio MDHE-appointed site-team member a voting member;
• Copying the Commissioner of Higher Education on the initial recommendation report for review and comment; and
• Sharing copies of the initial recommendation report with the CBHE prior to action by the State Board of Education.

Another item of mutual interest to DESE and the CBHE is the high school reform efforts occurring across the country. Missouri’s High School Reform Task Force has discussed raising the requirements in core subjects for high school graduation, end-of-course examinations, exit examinations, and differentiated diplomas. The task force has also discussed expansion of web-based delivery formats.

Obviously, these decisions will have an impact on students entering higher education institutions in the state and, therefore, a joint meeting between the State Board of Education and the CBHE is warranted.

Mrs. Swan moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education direct the Commissioner to explore with Education Commissioner Kent King a mutually-agreeable date for a joint meeting between the State Board of Education and the Coordinating Board for Higher Education. In addition to bringing closure for a more involved role for CBHE in the re-approval of teacher education programs, the agenda for the meeting should include a discussion of ways to ensure that Missouri has coordinated, prioritized, and sustainable agenda for its PreK-20 projects. Mrs. Carmichael seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Dr. Bourisaw commended Dr. Stein for progress and movement in the right direction regarding collaboration with the State Board of Education and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Consent Calendar

The issues on the consent calendar are traditional or routine in the nature of the CBHE’s and the department’s operations. Any or all items can be withdrawn from the consent calendar by any member of the board, if further discussion is necessary.

Mr. Wilson moved that the consent calendar be approved as indicated. Dr. Bourisaw seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Mrs. Carmichael referred to the Missouri High School Graduates Performance Report, Academic Preparation: “The percentage of first-time freshmen taking remedial courses has noticeably increased over the past two years. Among the Missouri public high school graduates entering the state’s public colleges and universities, the proportion enrolled in remedial mathematics increased from 23 percent in the fall of 2002 to 31 percent.” She suggested these issues be on the agenda in conversations with the State Board of Education. Remediation is a result of a disconnect between what is occurring in K-12 and what is expected in higher education. The purpose of PreK-20 is to provide a seamless education with coursework aligned so high school graduates are adequately prepared for college level work.

For the benefit of new board members, it was explained that MDHE’s Annual Report provides, per high school, those students attending two- or four-year institutions who receive remedial mathematics, reading, and English. Superintendents receive the report and it is available to board members who are interested in reviewing information regarding their regional areas.

Dr. John Wittstruck commented that the Annual Report is produced not only because it is right to do so, but items reported in the document are determined in response to the statute. It is sent electronically to DESE staff and it is made available to schools upon request. Increasingly, superintendents and principals inquire about information for their high schools that can be included in their own report cards.

Meetings with Jim King, executive director, School Principals Association, and a group of approximately 16 high school principals are attempting to develop a template that will make the report available to a particular school by inserting the school code. The report will be produced upon request. As the database ages, or becomes increasingly longitudinal, it will describe more about what happens to high school graduates as they proceed through the system of postsecondary education.

The Annual Report shows that, of the high school graduates in 1998, 51 percent have graduated at the baccalaureate or associate degree level. Three percent have an associate and a baccalaureate degree, resulting in a graduation rate of 51 percent at this time. Four-teen percent of these 1998 high school graduates are still enrolled in a public college or university and have not received a degree. Assuming they complete a degree at some time, they would represent a 65 percent graduation rate for the class of 1998.

Dr. Wittstruck reiterated that remediation is a serious concern. ACT and other national research point out that it is no longer the core curriculum that determines student success and persistence in the collegiate institutions, but it is the rigor of the core and the relevance of that core that ensures student success. The conversation between the Coordinating Board and the State Board of Education needs to include the subject of rigor.

Nearly 71 percent of the students taking at least one remedial course are attending community colleges. It is unfortunate that many of those students have graduated from an A+ designated high school after completing the rigorous experience of becoming A+ eligible. While not all receive an A+ scholarship from a community college, they supposedly have been exposed to those experiences made available by monies invested in the Outstanding Schools Act. Dr. Wittstruck expressed concern that there are a number of students who are not taking the kinds of gateway courses in high school that will help them succeed either in a community college or a baccalaureate institution.

Dr. Wittstruck stated that data collected becomes more valuable, meaningful, and useful to the degree it informs policy decisions that drive improvement of higher education in this state. In reviewing this data with the State Board of Education, it needs to be included as an agenda item for focus, discussion, and recommendation toward improvement.

Mrs. Swan requested that copies of the Annual Report and the Report Card be included in the joint meeting and that the commissioner select applicable, pertinent information to be presented.

Report of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee

Dr. James Scanlon, chair, Presidential Advisory Committee, reported that conversation
focused on 1) transfer and articulation; and 2) the need for continuing conversation about lingering issues on other aspects of transfer and articulation, including best practices in that area, and the relationship of the proprietary sector to effective transfer and articulation with institutions outside the proprietary sector. Conversation on these issues provided some direction for the Committee on Transfer and Articulation to complete the process of developing their action plans for each of the issues identified by the CBHE.

The conversation also provided general authorization to proceed with dealing with substantive issues and procedural questions related to the partnership between out-of-state institutions delivering educational services in Missouri. The results of that authorization would be presented in draft form to the Coordinating Board and the Presidential Advisory Committee before policy recommendations were presented to the Coordinating Board. Other discussions included the budget and its implications, the direction of higher education in Missouri, and the role of all institutions in the future of public higher education in the state.

FY 2005/FY 2006 Budget Update

Mr. Martin summarized current FY 2006 recommendations. Both the governor and the House recommend that institutional funding remain constant, including the one-time money previously identified as one-time funding in FY 2005 and included in core budgets for FY 2006 for those institutions. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a 5 percent reduction for institutions.

The administration appropriations for the department are constant in that they are recommended for reductions. Tab J provides the dollar amount and the percentage of reductions for general revenue administration appropriations with the exception of the proposal currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee that certain functions be moved to either DESE or to the Department of Economic Development.

The range of the State’s student aid programs is being held harmless in the House and the governor’s recommendations, but was reduced approximately $3.5 million in Senate recommendations. The University of Missouri programs vary among the proposals, including the MOBIUS program ($650,000) being eliminated from state funding in the governor’s and Senate’s recommendations, while being funded in the House recommendations. Other University of Missouri programs received up to 30 percent reductions.

Also in the House budget, the institutions were held constant at the FY 2005 levels, but additional funding of $758,000 would be provided to Lincoln University and $1.95 million to the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Dentistry. The funds for Lincoln University are intended to provide state matching funds for federal appropriations that is available to the institution through the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of their 1890 Land Grant mission. These funds, appropriated by the federal government, are for use in family farm activities and co-op extension activities, representing 20 percent of the 80 percent match that Lincoln University needs to obtain to receive the federal funds of approximately $4 million.

Mrs. Carmichael was concerned about the proposal within the Senate Appropriations Committee to move the coordination functions of the Department of Higher Education to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and to move the proprietary school certification to the Department of Economic Development. If this were to happen, all policy decisions about higher education would come from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The Department of Higher Education and the Coordinating Board have a unique and important perspective on higher education issues. Mrs. Carmichael recommended for the record that the Coordinating Board oppose these proposals. Dr. Bourisaw concurred. Chair Kruse agreed and asked for a motion.

Mrs. Carmichael moved that the CBHE acknowledge the importance of streamlining state government, and believes that the Department of Higher Education has a crucial role to play in the development of higher education policy. The CBHE, therefore urges the Senate Appropriations Committee to retain the coordination functions of the Department of Higher Education under the umbrella of the CBHE. Additionally, the CBHE urges the committee to retain proprietary school accreditation within the Department of Higher Education.

The board wanted to know how the governor’s State Government Review Commission would affect higher education. Mr. Martin clarified that there are two separate, independent actions related to reorganization:

• The chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee made a proposal to his committee, which has currently been adopted. The details of this proposal will be discussed in a meeting involving Commissioner Fitch, Mr. Martin, and Commissioner King.
• Simultaneously, the Commissioner of Higher Education testified before the State Government Review Commission, appointed by the governor, regarding structure and the potential for reorganization.

The commission must submit their recommendations within one year.

Chair Kruse commented that, in addition to the possibility of transfer of responsibilities to other state agencies, there is major concern to all about the rapidly disintegrating budget of the Department of Higher Education. Chair Kruse requested the commissioner and staff prepare, for the board members, a report consisting of items in the department’s budget that are necessary to continue functioning as a contributing entity to the state.

Summary of Proposed Legislation Related to Higher Education

Mr. Martin noted that a more recent version of the summary of legislation is available on the MDHE website. He drew attention to several critical bills:

• SB 286 requires the CBHE to hold out-of-state public higher education institutions to criteria similar to that for public in-state higher education institutions.
• The name change bills that have been passed and signed by the governor will become effective on August 28, 2005.
• HB 348, for the purpose of student resident status, requires that military personnel stationed in Missouri, their spouses, and certain children will receive Missouri resident status.
• HB 742 establishes the Higher Education Student Funding Act. The commissioner testified before the House Higher Education Committee regarding this bill which makes several major revisions to the current system of higher education in Missouri. A House Committee Substitute contains still more revisions.
  
  This bill stipulates that public funds would be distributed to the institutions on an FTE basis after the institutions reach a return to FY 2002 funding levels, and includes provisions such as performance measures, performance contracts, and delivery of certain educational services by the Coordinating Board and the department. This bill creates a Joint Committee on Higher Education, comprised of members of the House and the Senate, which would provide an oversight function of the higher education system. This bill would have a large impact on the higher education system in the state.

FY 2005 Annual Report

Dr. John Wittstruck provided historical background about this agenda item, relaying that the goals and measures included in this report were initially established in 1992 and reaffirmed in 1996. Some of the measures have been refined over time, resulting in a report card equally as comprehensive as those of other states. Looking at the data from a global viewpoint, Missouri higher education has lost momentum and lost progress. Some interesting characteristics of Missouri’s public higher education are probably evident in other states as well.

The institutional missions of Missouri’s institutions are reflected in first-year success rates, retention rates, and graduation rates. The types of students enrolled in the institutions are different, affecting student performance, student needs, and what students seek from an institution that is best prepared to meet their educational requirements beyond high school. Students who would not be successful in a highly selective institution may succeed in an open enrollment institution, receive a baccalaureate or an associate degree, and become a contributing member of the state’s workforce.

Community colleges are similar in governance and structure, but serve regional and local communities that are very different. Consequently, there is a movement toward the development of an institutional classification system for community colleges. As discussions proceed regarding a new blueprint for higher education, it might warrant taking into account these differences because one goal, common to all institutions, may not be the ideal way for each and every institution to perform and progress as it does presently.

Dr. Wittstruck noted that the report is organized on the issues of preparation, participation, affordability, workforce development, and outcomes. These data have been collected, assembled, and maintained over time to provide longitudinal perspectives occurring in Missouri public higher education, and for some elements, the independent sector. On a positive note, the efforts that the institutions have made over time in increasing the enrollment of African American and minority students are reflected in their graduation rates. States are concerned more about who is exiting the system than about who is entering the system.

Dr. Wittstruck commended Teala Sipes, research associate, Educational Policy, Planning, and Improvement Center, for her work and contributions in preparing the annual report. Missouri is increasingly in sync with other states in accepting that time-to-degree completion is more a measure of institutional efficiency and program delivery than is the graduation rate.

Dr. Wittstruck expressed hope that the format, the information supplementing the data, and the comments will prove useful as the CBHE begins to envision what might become the new blueprint for Missouri higher education. That blueprint will then become an agenda around which data collections, research, and analysis are continued.

Dr. Wittstruck suggested that many of the issues being addressed by the High School Taskforce in the state were also addressed in the Missouri Training and Employment Council’s (MTEC’s) State of the Workforce Report. That report advocates: 1) strengthening the education and training delivery system in the state to be more competitive; 2) have a more rigorous core curriculum in high school; and 3) provide a workforce-readiness certificate after completion of a student’s high school coursework.

More knowledge is needed of students’ capabilities upon graduation from high school and from institutions of higher learning. Dr. Wittstruck was impressed by the questions and comments raised at the Presidential Advisory Committee meeting earlier today regarding the role of higher education in economic development and in workforce development. MTEC, the business industry, and organized labor leaders are realizing the importance of quality education and training. Their concern is having access to a pool of quality applicants and quality employees, and higher education needs to make sure that an applicant pool is available for Missouri’s employers.

Mrs. Swan questioned if the board should consider conducting a dialog with MTEC, as well as the Department of Economic Development, and the Missouri State Board of Education. She also asked if other states had a vehicle for creating a two-way dialog between economic development and education and if there was a model available to pursue.

Dr. Wittstruck stated there is a recommendation in the Commission on the Future of Higher Education report for a three-way conversation with the State Board of Education, the Coordinating Board for Higher Education, and MTEC. Leading employers could discuss their challenges in locating quality employees who possess the proficiencies and competencies of the individuals they hire.

Other states are attempting to bring the employer community and the educational provider community together for meaningful conversations. Many models are being established. One being looked at extensively, but not yet adopted, is in Michigan where one board has responsibility for elementary, secondary, higher education, and workforce development.

The department is data-rich, but there are limitations in terms of time required to perform research and analysis. Through various funding sources, a longstanding contract with faculty at the University of Missouri-Columbia, Department of Economics, enables them to perform data maintenance and analytical work for the Educational Policy, Planning, and Improvement Center (EPPIC). The faculty at the Department of Economics has a sincere interest in the studies conducted by EPPIC.

Mrs. Carmichael noted that higher education’s connection with business and industry is important because it is the needs of business and industry that should drive the programs developed at the institutions. Dr. Wittstruck agreed that a connection needs to be made if higher education is going to make a significant contribution to the quality of the workforce in Missouri.

The EPPIC staff is working in collaboration with DESE to develop a Longitudinal Dataset to study students going through the K-12 educational delivery system, and to determine what happens to those students as they move into the higher education system and eventually participate in the workforce.

In collaboration with the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center (MERIC), staff is informed about areas where business and industry are expanding, becoming increasingly competitive, and the types of occupations existing within those industries. This will help determine if the right kinds of programs are available in specific regions to support the expansion of industry, and if they provide ongoing training and education for existing employees. Others realize there is a significant disconnect between what Missouri’s institutions are offering and the types of industry and business existing within areas of the state.

Mrs. Patterson asked the following questions: 1) What is the percentage of people in the state with college degrees and what is their average salary? 2) Are the emerging occupations in Missouri being compared to national trends in terms of the top five occupations? and 3) Are there actually employers hiring those people in the emerging occupations?

Dr. Bourisaw referred to pages 24 and 25 of the 2005 Report Card referencing emerging occupations and compensation for those occupations in answer to some of Mrs. Patterson’s questions.

Dr. Bourisaw commended staff for their efforts in producing a well-documented report.

Mrs. Patterson requested an executive summary and Dr. Wittstruck’s input on the following, which will be sent to all members of the CBHE.

• How does Missouri fit in terms of national trends, in terms of potential occupations of Missouri’s graduates, and also from the employment standpoint of competition?
• Are there employers demanding these occupations at a national level?
• If the CBHE needs to make a recommendation, how can Missouri move from 31 percent to the 36 percent national average?
• If the CBHE wants to made recommendations that actually add value to the governor’s vision in this state, what should they be?
• How does Missouri attract employers to employ these graduates inside the emerging occupations?
  

Update on Transfer and Articulation Issues

Dr. Stein referenced the presentation and discussion at the Presidential Advisory Committee (PAC) on this item and indicated that he was available to answer any questions. There were no further comments or questions.

Report of the Commissioner

Commissioner Fitch noted that quarterly budget reports are submitted to the governor's office. The commissioner's bi-weekly reports, sent to the governor's office through Mr. Monsee' office, are incorporated in this report under miscellaneous items. There are five components in this report: 1) quarterly goals, based on projection, which were taken from the strategic plan; 2) progress results; 3) unmet goals; 4) the goals of activities the department is involved in that are reflected in the bi-weekly report; and 5) items of waste, fraud, or abuse.

Commissioner Fitch invited Dr. John Cooper, president, Three Rivers Community College, to introduce his board members who were attending the meeting. Dr. Cooper introduced Mr. John Stanard, immediate past chair, and Mr. Steve Cooksen, member of the Three Rivers Board of Trustees. Commissioner Fitch welcomed them to the meeting.

Commissioner Fitch stated that he and staff have been working with Southeast Missouri State University and Three Rivers Community College in regard to agreements and services of lower division courses in that region. At a recent meeting with the Missouri Community College Association (MCCA), presidents dealt with the issue because the community college effort, although a regional activity, has enormous statewide impact. Dr. Ken Dobbins, president, Southeast Missouri State University, graciously allowed the commissioner to make a brief presentation at the Council on Public Higher Education meeting last night. They advised the commissioner to do what he could to bring closure to the situation.

The commissioner would prefer to see the institutions working directly for the students they serve, for their service is important to that area of the state. The Three Rivers Board of Trustees, their attorneys, many of their staff, and the commissioner met to clarify some of the issues and concerns about the draft proposal submitted by the commissioner. The commissioner encouraged them to report back to the department with their response to the activities, their needs, and interests in that area in order to continue meeting the students' needs. Commissioner Fitch thanked Dr. Cooper, Dr. Dobbins, and the Boards of Trustees of Three Rivers Community College and Southeast Missouri State University for their efforts in moving forward and communicating to clear the air. He commended them for their genuine interest in meeting students' needs and their willingness to meet with him.

Ms. Swan commended all parties involved for their efforts in trying to resolve the situation. There is a real need for postsecondary education in the Bootheel area, which provides opportunities for all players to be involved in serving those students.

Mr. Upchurch expressed appreciation for the arbitration efforts made by Three Rivers Community College and Southeast Missouri State University. As representatives of higher education, working toward the primary mission of educating students should be the goal.

Chair Kruse welcomed suggestions for improving the interaction between the board and presidents and chancellors to ensure that communication among them is productive, feels good, and involves the right issues.

There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.

Attachment A

Roster of Guests
Coordinating Board for Higher Education
April 14, 2005

Name- Affiliation

Terry Barnes - Mineral Area Community College
Constance Bowman - Harris-Stowe State College
Carla Chance - St. Louis Community College
Donald Claycomb - Linn State Technical College
John Cooper - Three Rivers Community College

Jeanie Crain - Missouri Western State College
Barbara Dixon - Truman State University
Ken Dobbins - Southeast Missouri State University
Patrick Henry - Lincoln University
Karen Herzog - East Central College

Evelyn Jorgenson - Moberly Area Community College
James Kellerman - Missouri Community College Association
Larry Kimbraw - Three Rivers Community College
Kavita Kumar - St. Louis Post Dispatch
Steve Kurtz - Mineral Area Community College

Jeff Lashley - Moberly Area Community College
Randell Lee - Three Rivers Community College
Stephen Lehmkuhle - University of Missouri System
Brian Long - COPHE
Gretchen Lockett - Harris-Stowe State College

Michael McManis - Truman State University
Marty Oetting - University of Missouri System
bobby Patton - Central Missouri State University
Ann Pearce - Central Missouri State University
James Scanlon - Missouri Western State College

Henry Shannon - St. Louis Community College
John Stanard - Three Rivers Community College
Gary Thomas - University of Missouri-Rolla
Rochelle Tilghman - Harris-Stowe State College
Kichoon Yang - Northwest Missouri State University