Welcome to the Missouri Department of Higher Education Website (MDHE)

Coordinating Board for Higher Education Meeting Minutes 02-00

February 10, 2000

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education met at 10 a.m. on Thursday, February 10, 2000 at Tan-Tar-A, Osage Beach. Members present were:

Ray Henry, Chairman
Connie Campbell, Vice Chairman
John Bass, Secretary
Marie Carmichael
Mary Findley
Jim Summers, Jr.
Mary Joan Wood

Absent were Bryan Cook and Lynn Ewing. Dudley Grove and Sandra Kauffman, nominees to the Coordinating Board for Higher Education, were in attendance but did not vote on any board action items.

Also attending were:

Kala M. Stroup, Commissioner of Higher Education
John Wittstruck, Deputy Commissioner
Robert Stein, Associate Commissioner for Academic Affairs & Planning
Terry Barnes, Asst. Commissioner for Community Colleges & Technical Education
Joy Casada, Secretary to the Board
Todd Crites, Intern
Mindy Harris, Intern
Cheryl Kesel, Public Information Officer
Karen Misjak, Director for MOSTARS
Dan Peterson, Deputy Director for MOSTARS
Leroy Wade, Director for Proprietary School Certification
Andrew White, Research Associate
Wei Zhou, Research Director

There being a quorum present, Chairman Henry called the meeting to order. A list of guests attending the meeting is attached. (Attachment A)

Comments from Chairman Henry

Chairman Henry introduced two new nominees to the Coordinating Board for Higher Education. Mrs. Dudley Grove, St. Louis, and Mrs. Sandra Kauffman, Kansas City. Mrs. Grove replaces Dr. Bryan Cook and Mrs. Kauffman replaces Dr. Connie Campbell.

Dr. Connie Campbell was presented with a plaque and a proclamation in recognition of her six years of dedicated service and many contributions to the board. (Attachment B)

Minutes of the December 1999 CBHE Meeting

Mr. Bass moved that the minutes of the December 9, 1999 CBHE meeting be approved as submitted. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Report of the Commissioner

Commissioner Stroup reported that more than 630 educators and leaders from elementary and secondary education and higher education participated in the 2000 Conference on Transfer and Articulation. The conference theme was "Show-me Pathways." The conference emphasized that Missouri's autonomous, diverse institutions can operate as a single system to provide students with high-quality educational experiences. Participants focused on issues related to the transfer of credit between colleges and universities as well as the transition from high school to college, with particular emphasis on general education and dual credit policies. Dr. Steven Crow, executive director of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, opened the conference with a discussion on transfer practices and their impact on the quality of student learning from the perspective of an accrediting agency. Dr. Pamela Tate, president of The Council for Adult and Experiential Learning, addressed the second plenary session and shared principles of good practice for adult-friendly institutions. The conference was co-sponsored by the Independent Colleges and Universities of Missouri, the Missouri Association of Private Career Schools, the Missouri Community College Association, the Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education, the Missouri Council on Public Higher Education, the Missouri State Board of Education and the University of Missouri.

Report of the CBHE Committee on Trusteeship Development

Mrs. Mary Joan Wood, chairman of the CBHE Committee on Trusteeship Development, commented that the future of Missouri's colleges and universities depend on the capacity and preparation of their trustees for leadership challenges of the future. Decisions that impact affordability and quality of education, technological advancement and competition at the institutional level impact the region, state, and nation as well. It is imperative that trustees are provided with the development opportunities necessary to optimize accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness of their public responsibilities. In response to professional development at the state level, the CBHE Committee on Trusteeship Development was formed in 1996 under the leadership of Mary Findley and Connie Campbell. Dr. Campbell served as chairman of the committee the past two years and has laid a very strong foundation for continued implementation of this initiative. A trustee workshop is being planned for December 6, 2000 in conjunction with the Governor's Conference on Higher Education. The following governing board members have agreed to serve on the CBHE Committee on Trusteeship Development.

Nicki Foster, Central Missouri State University Board of Governors
Dan Williams. Lincoln University Board of Curators
Allison Smith, Southwest Missouri State University Board of Governors
Wilma Maddox, Truman State University Board of Governors
Mary James, University of Missouri Board of Curators
Duane Broderson, State Fair Community College Board of Trustees
Doug Dible, North Central Missouri College Board of Trustees
Sandra Moore, Washington University Board of Trustees

Mrs. Grove and Commissioner Stroup will also serve as members of the Committee. Mrs. Wood noted that she is still waiting to hear from Fontbonne College regarding one of their trustees serving on the committee. She asked the presidents to encourage their trustees to attend the December workshop.

Report of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee

Dr. Marianne Inman reported that the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee met earlier in the morning and had the following four items on their agenda: Follow-up to the Missouri Commission on the Affordability of Higher Education; Follow-up to the Report of the Missouri K-16 Coalition; Update on Midwest Student Exchange Program; and Progress Report on Funding for Results.

The discussion from the CBHE President Advisory Committee meeting follows.

Follow-up to the Report of the Missouri Commission on the Affordability of Higher EducationDr. John Wittstruck noted that the commission prepared recommendations in five areas related to the cost, price, and affordability of higher education. Those five areas included cost containment, state budget policies, pricing, financial access, and consumer information.

Initiatives Related to Cost Containment
A review of institutional efforts to contain costs and how the savings from those initiatives are used will become a part of the mission review discussions with the institutions. In addition, CBHE staff will begin discussions with institutions participating in the federal direct lending program to explain the cost containment benefits to student borrowers if the institution were to participate in the MOSTARS and MOHELA student loan programs.
Initiatives Related to State Budget Policies
Committees have been organized through the Committee of Missouri State Higher Education Business Officers (COMSHEBO) to begin addressing how the CBHE budget policies can best be revised. The CBHE Advisory Committee on Technology and Instruction (CTI) is exploring avenues to utilize low-cost technology-based delivery systems. The academic affairs staff is directing efforts to promote transfer and articulation and leading discussions on the development of a state-level general education policy for transfer students.
Initiatives Related to Pricing
A new survey is being developed to capture tuition and fee data and other institutional costs that can be used for monitoring changes in institutional charges and reporting on the cost and price of higher education. A financial analysis of the fiscal condition of the institution and an assessment of the condition of the institution's physical plant will become a part of the second cycle of institutional mission reviews.
Initiatives Related to Financial Access
The board will be asked today to establish a MOSTARS Advisory Committee to follow-up and advise the board on implementing the commission's financial access and consumer information recommendations.
Initiatives Related to Consumer Information
Staff is working on the development and submission of a GEAR-UP grant proposal to assist disadvantaged middle-school students to prepare for and ultimately go to college. Staff is also working on developing and implementing an enhanced CBHE web site.

Follow-up to the Report of the Missouri K-16 Coalition

Dr. Robert Stein reported that the CBHE staff was directed to work, in collaboration with the staffs of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the University of Missouri, in developing an implementation plan and a public information campaign as a follow-up to the Report of the Missouri K-16 Coalition. Initial meetings have occurred, and the staff is working on a coordinated approach to each of the recommendations. A total of twenty-seven recommendations are contained in the report. Major themes can be grouped into six major areas in addition to a public information campaign. The six areas are: (1) earlier integration of algebraic thinking into the curriculum; (2) appointment of a standing mathematics advisory committee; (3) developing common research agendas; (4) review of teacher training programs; (5) enhancing teacher education and the role of the regional professional development centers; and (6) future directions. Dr. Stein reported that Senate Bill 584 was introduced by Senator Roseann Bentley. This bill supports teaching algebraic and pre-algebraic concepts into middle schools. Senate Bill 584 has been voted out of committee.

Mrs. Carmichael emphasized that some of the results of the Knight Higher Education Collaborative run parallel with the recommendations of the K-16 Coalition. Furthermore, she shared her ideas about possible directions for future K-16 work. In particular she identified the following as areas that would benefit from collaborative K-16 work:

the quality of new and returning teachers;
a restructuring of colleges of education with more total institutional involvement;
the effectiveness of professional development programs;
the alignment of curriculum between high school and college; and
raising performance standards for all students with involvement from discipline-based faculty and advisory committees.

Mrs. Carmichael asked the Advisory Committee what they thought the coalition should do next. Comments from the board and audience included the following:

enhance teacher salaries in order to attract talented and brighter teachers;
ensure that new teachers are as bright as their students;
involve presidents and chancellors so that teacher education programs are more integrated throughout the institution;
establish more on-going dialogue between higher education presidents and chancellors and Commissioner Robert Bartman and DESE staff;
collect data about the number of teachers certified in math and how many math courses those teachers had in higher education;
incorporate new sequences and teaching methods into math education; and
foster a more seamless approach to professional development.

Mrs. Carmichael noted that it is possible that teachers taking the teacher certification test can miss every math question and still pass the test to become certified.

Dr. Campbell observed that 30 percent of teachers hold a BA or some other degree. Forty percent of those who get degrees never teach. Dr. Stein reported that eight percent of those who are new teachers in Missouri leave after the first three years. He said that there are 240,000 certified teachers in the state but that only 60,000 actually are in the teaching profession.

Commissioner Stroup commented that expectations are not clear nor high enough and that too little is being done at the regional professional development centers in math content areas. Less than one-half of math teachers have an experience in professional development.

Update on Midwest Student Exchange Program

Dan Peterson reported that the Midwestern Higher Education Commission (MHEC) was established to facilitate information exchange and to promote resource sharing among member states. As a consequence the Midwest Student Exchange Program (MSEP) was created in 1993. The exchange program provides opportunities for out-of-state students to enroll in designated academic degree programs at participating institutions at reduced tuition rates. Not all the Midwestern states within MHEC participate in the MSEP. Only the following states participate in the exchange program: Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska. Currently there are thirty-eight Missouri colleges and universities participating in the program. In fall 1999, 2,047 students from the five states were enrolled in the MSEP as compared to 366 students enrolled in fall 1994. MSEP students have benefited from tuition cost savings of approximately $17.4 million during the first six years of the program. Each fall a bulletin is mailed to all participating institutions, that includes a list of the designated programs in which students must enroll to qualify for the reduced tuition rates.

Progress Report on Funding for Results

Dr. Robert Stein informed the board that FFR is no longer in an infancy stage. The program is in its 7th year at four-year institutions, 5th year at community colleges and 2nd year at the state's public technical college. In the first years there were only 3 FFR elements. For FY 2000, there are seven FFR elements for community colleges, six for the state's technical college, and nine elements for public four-year colleges and universities. Also, selected institutions across all sectors have regularly received increases to their campus teaching/learning core in support of the statewide goal of dedicating one percent of planned expenditures on instruction to teaching and learning improvement projects.

The FFR Advisory Council is scheduled to meet on February 25 to extensively review FFR. The council will engage in an extensive evaluation of FFR including assumptions of the state's initiative, the board's 9 FFR principles, and a thorough review of each FFR element. Council members will consider minor revisions for FY 2002 as well as major changes for FY 2003. Council members will also be asked to consider the relation of FFR to the design of a new blueprint for higher education.

Chancellor Wayne Giles stated that in recent years Funding for Results has been a part of inflation and questioned whether we should continue this source of funding if it is going to be a substitute for inflationary funding. Dr. Stein responded that all aspect of FFR, including its continuation as a state initiative, would be open for discussion by the advisory council.

Other Items

Commissioner Stroup led a discussion of proposed legislation relating to charter schools. She suggested that higher education should speak with one voice on the charter school issue as that will be to everyone's benefit.

(End of discussion from the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee meeting.)

Comparison of FY 2001 CBHE Appropriations Request with Governor's Recommendations

Commissioner Stroup reported that she and Dr. Henry appeared before the House Appropriations, Education and Public Safety and the Senate Appropriations Committee. Dr. Stroup reviewed the following budget areas describing the Governor's recommendations.

Internal Budget
Grants and Scholarships
Two-year Public Community Colleges
Linn State Technical College
Four-year Public Colleges and Universities
University of Missouri Related Programs
Four-year and Linn State Capital Projects
Two-year Capital Improvements

Charts describing each of these areas are attached. (Attachment C) Dr. Stroup pointed out that the Missouri Business and Education Partnership Commission had identified in 1991 that higher education was at least $300 million behind in maintenance and repair and capital improvements. Since that time about $565 million has gone into capital and these latest recommendations will increase that amount to approximately $700 million. Commissioner Stroup stated that funding for education has been a priority of Governor Carnahan and that other departments have been taking reductions in their core budgets in order to allow this increased funding for education. This budget is not what the board had recommended but given that the source of funding is really from other agencies and other programs higher education has done relatively well.

Chairman Henry pointed out that this is not a great year for funding and that with the reality of the situation being what it is higher education was treated relatively well compared to other agencies of state government.

Mrs. Findley moved that the CBHE express its support and appreciation of the Governor's FY 2001 operating and capital improvements recommendation for the Department of Higher Education. She further moved that in the event additional revenues are identified during the appropriation process, they be applied to the original CBHE recommendations. Mrs. Carmichael seconded the motions, and they were unanimously passed.

Annual Report of MOSTARS

Dr. Wittstruck stated that the work of MOSTARS is key to the recommendations of the Missouri K-16 Coalition, the Commission on the Affordability of Higher Education, and the Knight Higher Education Collaborative as they have an integral role in addressing a number of their recommendations, particularly in the areas of financial access and consumer information. He mentioned that the Report of the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA) is contained in the board book under Information Items and stated that the partnership that the board has with MOHELA is integral to providing financial access to the state's system of higher education.

Ms. Karen Misjak commented that MOSTARS is the financial assistance division of the Department of Higher Education. It has become increasingly clear that student financial assistance is vital to financing higher education and financial access. During FFY 1999 over one billion dollars of student financial aid was awarded to students through the CBHE in partnership with institutions. This consisted of state student assistance programs, institutional aid, federal aid programs, and federal and private student loans. Ms. Misjak said that while the state's commitment to the student financial assistance programs has continued to increase, the amount of student loans has increased at a greater rate. During FY 99, over 118,000 students in Missouri were served through the Missouri Student Loan Program and the grants and scholarships programs. At the same time the Federal Direct Loan Program served approximately 107,000 students.

While student loan borrowing continues to increase, MOSTARS has managed to keep the cohort default rates from increasing at the same rate. However, MOSTARS is very concerned that the rate increased from FFY 96 to FFY 97. The exact cause of the increase in the cohort default rate is not known but it may be a result of the increased loan volume and greater total debt for student loan borrowers. A work plan has been developed to work with institutions with cohort default rates in excess of 10 percent. If an institution's annual default rate is greater than 25 percent for three consecutive years, the institution's eligibility to continue participating in the Federal Family Education Loan and other federal Title IV student aid programs are at risk. Currently two Missouri institutions are in this category.

Ms. Misjak commented that the delivery process is very important to the success of the financial assistance programs. MOSTARS has begun to electronically transfer funds for the state assistance programs to the schools which allows the institutions to process the aid for more efficient and timely delivery to students. MOSTARS also offers electronic funds transfer for student loan funds through the Automated Transfer of Money (ATOM) Program. ATOM streamlines the delivery of federal student loan funds to postsecondary institutions by acting as a disbursement clearinghouse. On ATOM's benchmark day, January 10, 2000, $13.6 million was disbursed.

As a result of a recommendation of the affordability commission MOSTARS is developing a web page that will allow students and parents to go to one web site for college cost information. They also plan to move ATOM and administration of the student financial assistance programs to a web-based environment to improve efficiency in program processing. Another recommendation of the affordability commission pertained to consumer education and information. MOSTARS will be providing information on how to prepare for college, both academically and financially and on the responsibilities of student loan borrowing and debt management. In the consumer information area, MOSTARS provides free publications, operates an information call center, attends high school nights, exhibits at conferences and workshops, and works with the one-stop shops to assist the shops in providing career planning information.

MOSTARS has developed an outreach and early awareness plan. As part of that plan they are working with several partners to provide college planning and student financial assistance information to students and parents. Reauthorization of the higher education act implemented a new outreach and early awareness program (GEAR-UP) and partnerships grants were awarded to the Columbia, Kansas City, and St. Louis campuses of the University of Missouri. MOSTARS is a partner in each program and provides expertise pertaining to student financial aid. MOSTARS plans to submit a proposal for a GEAR-UP grant to provide outreach and early awareness services beginning with middle school students.

MOSTARS' partnership with MOHELA provides cost containment through low cost loans, a one-stop approach to student aid, default prevention and debt management, and both are Missouri agencies serving Missouri institutions and students. Another very important initiative to MOSTARS is research. They are working on determining characteristics of student aid recipients and identifying underrepresented and new clientele for higher education.

Ms. Misjak stated that some of the challenges that MOSTARS will continue to face are: coordination between institutional, state and federal aid; reaching targeted students; multiple enrollments; distance education; effective consumer education and information; access to financial assistance programs for low-income students; access to low-cost students loans; and lowering default rates.

In response to a question from Mr. Summers regarding the two schools that have default rates that could cause them to lose eligibility in the federal programs, Ms. Misjak responded that those two schools are Kemper Military School and Columbia Beauty Academy. Mr. Summers also inquired if information is being provided to students and parents regarding the fact that it takes most students five years or longer to graduate today, instead of four years. Dr. Wittstruck responded that data on program length is not available but that the extra time may be due to both increased program requirements and students taking fewer hours.

Audit of the Department of Higher Education State Guaranty Student Loan Program, Year Ended June 30, 1999

Ms. Misjak reported that the audit fieldwork for the State Guaranty Student Loan Funds administered by the Department of Higher Education for state fiscal year 1999 has been completed; however, the final audit report has not been issued. During the exit interview the auditors indicated the report would contain one finding and there would not be any questioned costs. When the final report is issued it will be distributed to the board for review.

Appointment of a MOSTARS Advisory Board

Dr. Wittstruck commented that the Missouri Commission on the Affordability of Higher Education made several recommendations to improve financial access and consumer information about the state's system of higher education. In order to implement the commission's recommendations, Commissioner Stroup has recommended the establishment of a MOSTARS Advisory Board to help guide the Coordinating Board's efforts to develop and implement: an integrated policy framework for student financial aid programs; an improved consumer information reporting system; successful early awareness and outreach programs; and student loan default prevention and debt management strategies. The advisory board would be composed of the following membership.

Number of Members	Representative
1	Coordinating Board for Higher Education member
2	Missouri citizens
4	President, chancellors, and directors of private career schools representing all sectors of Missouri postsecondary education
2	State legislators (1 senator and 1 representative)
1	Vice president for student affairs
1	Vice president for finance or fiscal affairs
1	Governor's staff
1	Chairman of MOHELA's Board of Directors
1	Department of Elementary and Secondary Education staff
4	Students representing all Missouri postsecondary education sectors

The membership of the board would be recommended by the commissioner of higher education and approved annually by the CBHE at its December meeting. The terms of the individual board member will be staggered based on one-, two-, and three-year terms. The advisory board would meet three times a year; February, June, and December.

Mr. Summers moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education approve the structure for the new MOSTARS Advisory Board. He further moved that the commissioner of higher education recommend individuals for appointment to the board at the April 2000 board meeting. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Designation of Academic Programs for the Advantage Missouri Program

Mr. Peterson reported that in October 1998, the CBHE designated three occupational clusters for the first-year of the Advantage Missouri Program. Those occupational areas were computer technology, advanced manufacturing, and biomedical/biotechnology. In April 1999, the board designated a list of more than 800 eligible academic programs that were identified by the 80 approved Missouri postsecondary institutions. At the October 1999 meeting, the board designated those same three high demand areas for the 2000-2001 academic year. Also the board directed the staff to request from all approved Missouri postsecondary institutions an updated listing of academic programs at the certificate, associate, and baccalaureate degree level that are related to designated high demand areas. Staff is in the process of reviewing and discussing with the institutions the new program listings submitted for the 2000-2001 academic year.

Because the staff is continuing to discuss the new programs identified by the institutions for the 2000-2001 academic year, any revisions to the listing of academic programs will be included in the board's April 2000 meeting agenda. The annual designation of the high demand occupational areas for the 2001-2002 academic year will be presented to the board at its June 2000 meeting and the initial list of academic programs identified by participating institutions will be submitted to the board at its October 2000 meeting. The final list of designated academic programs will be presented to the board at the December 2000 meeting so that the application process for the 2001-2002 academic year can begin in January 2001.

The staff received applications for over 2,000 students during the 1999-2000 academic year. To date approximately 1,100 students attending 35 approved Missouri institutions have been approved for first-year awards.

Mr. Summers asked if there is any consideration to adding the teaching profession to the designated areas and expressed his opinion that there are some areas in elementary and secondary education, especially the hearing impaired areas where there is a need that might be considered. Mr. Peterson said that the designated high demand occupational areas are the result of consultation with representatives of the Departments of Economic Development, Labor and Industrial Relations and other private sector business and labor groups in Missouri. There are other options for teachers. For example, the federal loan programs contain loan forgiveness provisions, however these have not been funded. Furthermore, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has a state program whereby students can teach in certain designated geographic areas of the state and have their loans forgiven. It is uncertain if funding for this program has been requested. Mrs. Carmichael commented that it is her understanding that when the Advantage Program was originally developed that it was really targeted for technological type occupations and professions rather than for teachers. Mr. Peterson responded that is correct.

Mrs. Carmichael moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education designate the academic programs listed in the board book for the Advantage Missouri Program for the 2000-2001 academic year. She further recommended that the staff continue discussions with the institutions regarding any proposed additions, deletions, or other changes submitted by the institutions to finalize the 2000-2001 listing of designated academic programs. Any revisions to the listing of designated programs will be included in the board's April 2000 meeting agenda. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Institutional Eligibility to Participate in Missouri Student Financial Assistance Programs

Mr. Peterson reported that the required application materials requesting approval for institutional eligibility to participate in the Missouri student financial assistance programs that the Coordinating Board for Higher has the statutory responsibility to administer have been submitted by: Franklin Technology Center - Joplin; Sikeston Career & Technology Center - Sikeston; and, Tri County Technical School - Eldon.

The requirements for public institutions to participate are the same for all the state student financial assistance programs that are administered by the CBHE. Staff has reviewed the application materials and determined that the three institutions meet the statutory requirements to be approved to participate.

Mrs. Wood moved that Franklin Technology Center, Sikeston Career & Technology Center, and Tri-County Technical School be approved as eligible institutions to participate in all the state student financial assistance programs administered by the CBHE beginning with the 2000-2001 academic year. Mr. Bass seconded the motion, and it was passed with Mrs. Findley abstaining.

Follow-up to the Report of the Missouri Commission on the Affordability of Higher Education

Commissioner Stroup stated that this report was presented in the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee meeting. (See this item contained in the Report of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee.) Dr. Stroup asked the board if they had any other follow-up to the report that they would like to see the staff examine, such as time-to degree that Mr. Summers mentioned earlier in the meeting. The board was asked to notify the commissioner by the April meeting if there are other suggestions.

Follow-up to the Report of the Missouri K-16 Coalition

Mrs. Carmichael recapped the areas that she felt need to be looked at in terms of restructuring the Missouri K-16 Coalition. They are:

the restructuring of the colleges of education;
looking at the certification requirements for teachers;
looking at alternative ways of certifying teachers;
more effective use of regional professional development schools;
emphasis on content specific professional development courses;
strengthening the relationship with the Department of Elementary and Secondary education;
appointing groups discipline by discipline so that they can work on the process of determining what students ought to know and be able to do at every level; and
alignment of the curriculum so that students can get to where they need to be by the time they are in college.

Mrs. Carmichael said that it will be a challenge to structure a charge that will encompass all these items. Chairman Henry commented that earlier in the Presidential Advisory Committee meeting someone suggested that the whole curriculum be examined and he suggested that it would be a good idea to just tackle one item at a time.

(See this section of the Report of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee for additional detail on discussion of K-16 issues.)

Report of the Committee on Transfer and Articulation

Proposed Revisions of General Education for Transfer Students

Dr. Stein noted that the board's Credit Transfer Policy was revised in June 1998. At that time, Section A1 of the policy, the section that references general education, was referred to the CBHE Committee on Transfer and Articulation (COTA) for review. The review was to include an emphasis on proficiencies. COTA appointed the General Education Steering Committee (GESC) to review section A1. The GESC consists of faculty and administrative members from the public and independent sectors who have worked hard the past year and a half on this review. The GESC's initial findings and ideas for change were shared with the academic community at last year's transfer and articulation conference. A fall faculty working conference was held this past October where Draft I of their revisions was issued. Over 500 faculty, administrators, registrars, and staff from across Missouri institutions attended that conference. Dr. Stein stated that Draft II was recently issued and is being discussed at the current transfer and articulation conference. Highlights of that draft including the following:

the inclusion of a rationale for general education
defines both institutional and student responsibilities
prescribes a 42 semester hour general education block of credit
allows for the inclusion of both upper and lower division general education so that four-year and two-year institutions can work together
prescribes state goals in four knowledge and four skills areas
illustrates competencies that align with each general education goal
respects institutional autonomy
prescribes faculty responsibility for alignment of institutional general education programs with state policy
allows multiple approaches
permits additional hours beyond 42 if the native student and the transfer student are treated the same
requires institutions to treat all 42 hour blocks as equivalent
establishes a review and notification process that seeks collegiality and professionalism
maintains the appeals process of the credit transfer agreement
establishes a realistic timeline
defines how to treat students who transfer with less than completion of general education course.

The GESC will present its draft to the Committee on Transfer and Articulation in March. COTA will then notify all presidents and chancellors of the recommendations from the GESC and will encourage the presidents and chancellors to discuss the proposed changes with their colleagues on the Council on Public Higher Education, the Presidents and Chancellors' Council of the Missouri Community College Association, the Independent Colleges and Universities of Missouri, and the Missouri Association of Private Career Schools. Proposed changes to the state-level general education policy for transfer students will be discussed at the April CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee and CBHE meetings. COTA's proposed revisions for state-level policy will be presented to the board in June for action.

Implementation of Dual Credit Policy

Dr. Stein noted that the board's Dual Credit Policy with Clarifying Comments and its Principles of Good Practice for Dual Credit Courses have been placed on the CBHE web site. All colleges and universities, the State Board of Education, the Missouri Association of Secondary School Principals, and the Missouri Association of School Administrators have been notified of the revised dual credit policy. Following the board's adoption of the revised policy many inquiries and comments were received. Responses have been sent to all letters received. COTA has met with groups to discuss the revised policy. As a result of these meetings there is greater understanding of the rationale for the revised policy, the responsibility assigned to chief academic officers for determining if extenuating circumstances in individual cases suggest that exceptions should be made, and the requirement that institutions provide evidence that quality standards will be maintained.

Data on dual credit activity during FY 1998 has been verified and will be used as baseline data for each institution. The staff has requested that each institution submit its institutional-level dual credit policy, whether they provide dual credit or not, for the staff to summarize. Preliminary analysis from the 20 institutions that have responded thus far suggests that three approaches are being implemented about the number of dual credit courses a student can expect to transfer. These include the following:

Students can expect to transfer up to an equivalence of five courses. Courses sought to be transferred in excess of the five-course equivalence will be evaluated on a course-by-course basis.
A limit is placed on the number of dual credit hours accepted in transfer beyond the equivalence of five courses. Exceptions are permitted on a case-by-case basis.
No limit is placed on the number of dual credit courses students are permitted to transfer.

Dr. Stein reported that all institutions that deliver dual credit have been asked to post their policies on their web sites.

Audit of Department of Higher Education Distributions to Community Colleges, Year Ended June 30, 1999

Commissioner Stroup stated that this is the first time that the department has been audited in relationship to its oversight of community college funds. The purpose of the audit was to determine the total amount of moneys distributed to community colleges from all state funds and to review and evaluate internal control procedures, legal compliance issues, and management practices. After reviewing the state agencies involved, the audit team did some spot reviewing of community colleges. East Central College and St. Charles County Community College were the two institutions that they visited to review and evaluate internal control procedures, legal compliance issues, and management practices. The exit interview was held on January 5, and it was hoped that the final audit report would be received prior to this meeting but it has not yet been received.

Discussions have been held with the audit team who made several recommendations for improvement in the department's processes. Dr. Stroup advised the board that the auditor's office expected far more on-site monitoring of funds and expenditures and that the department does not have the staff or the time to perform this level of review. The department does make some on-site visits, receives reports from the institutions, and does receive each institution's audit report. The audit team expected the department to have more centralized governance responsibility. The department agreed to be more specific in its documentation and review.

Mrs. Findley suggested that in view of the fact that over the years staff responsibilities have greatly increased that maybe the board should give more thought, determination, and direction toward some increased financial support for additional staff and to getting the staff limitation of 25 increased. Chairman Henry commented that the process the staff is using for reviewing community colleges has been in existence since 1963 and has never been examined before. There may be some changes that need to be made. However, the board is not a governing board and does not have the staff or resources to act as one.

Report of the Advisory Committee on Technology and Instruction (CTI)

Dr. Andrew White informed the board that the CBHE Advisory Committee on Technology and Instruction continues to advance Missouri higher education by encouraging more meaningful learning experiences and greater access to higher education through the use of technology. As distance learning and web-based courses become more common, the need to assure a high level of quality in them becomes increasingly important. Many other states and regional and national organizations have adopted principles of good practice statements which guide institutions of higher education in ensuring consistent quality in the delivery of distance learning courses and programs. Staff has worked with CTI members and other constituent groups to develop a draft Principles of Good Practice for Distance Learning and Web-based Courses. The CTI will continue to work with the academic community in the development of the policy prior to sending its recommendation forward for review by the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee and later action by the board.

Dr. White reported that The Missouri Learners' Network was envisioned to provide information on, and access to, Missouri's growing number of distance education and web-based courses and programs in one comprehensive on-line database. The staff is working with institutions to negotiate participation agreements which outline the responsibilities of participating institutions. The magnitude and next steps involved for continued operation of the network are dependent on additional funding. Alternative long-term funding strategies are being explored in the event that state funding is not realized this year.

As Missouri institutions of higher education continue to respond to the growing role that technology plays in the delivery of courses and programs, an important agenda for the CTI is to consider different approaches to funding technology infrastructure at the institutions. The CTI members and staff have been working to promote the Distributed Learning Workshop Initiative, an initiative sponsored by the Midwest Higher Education Commission. The objective of the workshop is to develop technology-based, college-level course materials in the form of computer-mediated, multimedia rich instructional modules. The CTI also has a commitment to monitor and stay apprised of the effectiveness of statewide collaborative activities related to technology such as MOBIUS and MOREnet.

Summary of Pending Higher Education Legislation

The board book contained a summary of pending higher legislation. No specific discussion was held on the legislation.

Election of CBHE Vice ChairmanChairman Henry stated that because of Dr. Connie Campbell's departure from the board it was necessary to elect a new vice chairman. Mrs. Carmichael nominated Lynn Ewing to serve as vice chairman, and Mr. Summers seconded the nomination. Mrs. Findley moved that nominations cease and that Mr. Ewing be elected by acclamation. Mr. Summers seconded the motion, and Mr. Ewing was elected by acclamation.

Information Items

The board received the following informational items:

Academic Program Actions
Distribution of Eisenhower Professional Development Program Funds
Annual Report on Campus-based Reviews of Existing Programs - Public Four-year Institutions
Summary of Findings from the 1999 Counseling for High Skills Survey
Update on Midwest Student Exchange Program
Report of the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority
Progress Report on Funding for Results

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.

_________________________
Ray Henry, Chairman

_________________________
John Bass, Secretary