Coordinating Board for Higher Education Meeting Minutes 02-01

February 8, 2001

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education met at 10:15 a.m. on Thursday, February 8, 2001 at Tan-Tar-a Resort, Osage Beach. Members present were:

Marie Carmichael, Vice Chair
John Bass, Secretary
Mary Findley
Dudley R. Grove
Ray Henry
Sandra Kauffman
Jim Summers, Jr.
Mary Joan Wood

Lynn M. Ewing, Jr. was absent from the meeting.

Also attending were:

Kala M. Stroup, Commissioner of Higher Education
John Wittstruck, Deputy Commissioner
Robert Stein, Associate Commissioner for Academic Affairs and Planning
Terry Barnes, Asst. Commissioner for Community Colleges & Technical Education
Joy Casada, Secretary to the Board
Shelly Lamb, Administrative Assistant
James Matchefts, General Counsel
Brenda Miner, Administrative Assistant
Blake Naughton, Research Associate
Dan Peterson, Deputy Director for MOSTARS
Cheryl Schroeder, Public Information Specialist
Leroy Wade, Director for Proprietary School Certification

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

Minutes of the December 7, 2000 CBHE Meeting

Dr. Henry moved that the minutes be approved as submitted. Mrs. Grove seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Report of the Commissioner

Commissioner Stroup reported that most of her time over the past few months has been spent with new executive office staff and with the Division of Budget and Planning. Most of the time spent with Budget and Planning was seeking solutions to FY 01 and 02 budget crisis and preventing core cuts in institutions' budgets. Hearings have been held with the House Appropriations - Education and the Senate Appropriations Committees. The supplemental request is in the House Budget Committee at this time. Marie Carmichael and Sandy Kauffman participated in the House and Senate Appropriations hearings.

Report of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee

In the absence of Dr. Manuel Pacheco, Dr. Henry Shannon conducted the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee meeting. The advisory committee met earlier in the morning and considered the following items:

Comparison of FY 2002 CBHE Appropriations Request with the Governor's Recommendations
Clarification of Policies Related to Programs and Courses Delivered at External Sites
The Coordinated Plan for Missouri Higher Education
Summary of Pending Higher Education Legislation

The following discussion is from the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee meeting and relates to specific board items.

Comparison of FY 2002 CBHE Appropriations Request with the Governor's Recommendations

Commissioner Stroup summarized the Coordinating Board's FY 2002 budget request as compared to the Governor's recommendations. She called attention to the various footnotes on each page which explain in detail what the figures do not. Commissioner Stroup noted that except for three or four items that initially were not recommended by the CBHE or the Governor, the colleges and universities did not take the 10 percent core cut for FY 2002 that the Department of Higher Education along with the other state departments/agencies received. As of January 1, 2001 all state agencies received a 10 percent cut in their FY 2001 budgets. Staff is working to restore the $3.4 million in funding for MOBIUS.

Dr. Stroup also noted that the Missouri Supreme Court will hear arguments on March 1 on the Hancock Amendment case. The Supreme Court's decision will determine the fate of $139 million in the FY 2001 capital appropriations. If the state loses its appeal, the money will be refunded to the taxpayers. If the state prevails, the capital improvements budget will be funded unless the funds are used to address the FY 2001 budget shortfall.

Dr. John Kaiser requested that CBHE staff prepare a summary highlighting the major budget reductions received by other state departments. He felt that such a summary would help institutions better understand and respond to inquires on this issue.

Clarification of Policies Related to Programs and Courses Delivered at External Sites

Dr. Wittstruck stated that this item will serve as a clarification of existing state statutes and board policies related to programs at external sites. The board's intent is to ensure that colleges and universities are responsible stewards of public funds in the delivery of academic programs and courses at external sites. The clarifications contained in the board item speak to the communities which house main campuses of colleges and universities. With increased institutional activity away from the home campus, finding an appropriate balance between competition and cooperation continues to be a challenge.

Dr. Stein suggested that as expressed earlier in the day by Dr. Peter Ewell, the challenge is to think collectively and systemically rather than individually and independently. Over the last 10 years the Coordinating Board has continually consulted with the colleges and universities regarding the delivery of programs at off-campus and out-of-district sites. The policies have been defined and have evolved as a direct result of consultations with institutions. Dr. Stein encouraged the institutions to revisit the state statutes and board policies related to this issue in an effort to reach a common understanding of their intent and purpose. He mentioned that while some policies may need to be revised, it is important for institutions and staff to work collectively in reviewing Missouri's public policy framework and to make revisions when appropriate. Staff recognizes that tensions within the system, while not pervasive, do exist. Dr. Stein encouraged institutions involved to come forward and work with the board to find solutions to existing concerns and issues.

The Coordinated Plan for Missouri Higher Education

Dr. Wittstruck provided a brief summary of the evolution of planning within the department. The Blueprint for Missouri Higher Education and the Strategic Plan for the Department of Higher Education had previously set forth the department's strategic plan and collaborative policy agenda. The new coordinated plan builds upon the vision and goals of these earlier documents. While THE COORDINATED PLAN builds upon these earlier documents it also encompasses the results of recent collaborative education policy groups such as The Knight Higher Education Collaborative Roundtable, the Missouri K-16 Coalition, the Missouri Commission on the Affordability of Higher Education, and the report, Measuring Up 2000: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education.

Mr. Blake Naughton stated that THE COORDINATED PLAN is a new vision for the direction of Missouri higher education. Hopefully, the presidents and chancellors hear their voices and the voices of their institutions in the document. Mr. Naughton emphasized that the plan is a work in progress and invited comments either at the meeting or in writing in the coming weeks.

Summary of Pending Higher Education Legislation

Commissioner Stroup encouraged the presidents and chancellors to read the weekly legislative updates submitted to them by staff. In 1999-2000 when legislation and funding established the College Guarantee Program, the authors (legislators) intended to use both riverboat gaming proceeds and general revenue to fund the scholarship for low income students. Dr. Stroup reported that $4.9 million in general revenue (formerly appropriated for the Bridge Scholarship) which had been earmarked to partially fund the Missouri College Guarantee Program for low income students in FY 2002 has been redistributed across other agencies. Currently, there is enough funding in gaming for only two additional years of the program at the current level. To address the issue of future funding, Senator Jacob is sponsoring SB 402 that would remove an individual's riverboat loss limit of $500 per excursion. Any increase in state riverboat proceeds as a result of SB 402 would be applied to the Missouri College Guarantee Program and assist in meeting the financial needs of low income students. Dr. Ken Dobbins said the cut in general revenue to the Missouri College Guarantee Program is damaging as some students experience as much as $6,000 in unmet financial aid.

Representative Yvonne Wilson is sponsoring HB 26 which creates a program to provide loan repayment assistance for teachers who teach full-time in a Missouri school district. The program would be known as the "Missouri Essential Needs School Districts Loan Repayment Assistance Program."

Representative Charles Troupe sponsored HB 166 which would expand minority teaching scholarships from 100 to 200 per year and increase the amount of the scholarship from $2,000 to $3,000 if the student majors in special education.

Other Business

Mrs. Kauffman noted that there will be changes in the school foundation formula over the next few years and stated that it will be important for the higher education community to closely follow the proposals to change the formula.

(End of the report of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee meeting.)

Comparison of FY 2002 CBHE Appropriations Request with the Governor's Recommendations

(For board discussion with the presidents/chancellors see this section of the minutes of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee meeting.)

Commissioner Stroup called the board's attention to the budget book before them. The book contains the Governor's recommendation for the higher education budget plus the detail that the department must submit. It also contains the defense of the detail that goes before the executive and legislative branches and their respective staffs. Commissioner Stroup summarized the various sections of the budget request.

Internal Budget Request

The Department of Higher Education received a core reduction in FY 2001 of 10 percent and a 10 percent core reduction for FY 2002 of 2.35 FTE and the corresponding dollars. The proprietary sector was protected from the FTE reduction as it is now fully staffed and operating very well. The Common Library Platform (MOBIUS) received general revenue funding in FY 1999, 2000, and 2001 of $3.4 million. The on-going FY 2002 request is $2.4 million and the Governor's recommendation is $1.3 million. The staff is now negotiating with the Division of Budget and Planning to retain the part of the $3.4 million that has not yet been spent. These funds were for Phase 3 of the development of MOBIUS. The request for the Missouri Learners' Network was $460,076 and the Governor recommended one-time funding of $50,000.

MOSTARS Budget Request

The department received a core cut in the administration of grants and scholarships of 1.6 FTE and the corresponding dollars. Progress had been made over the past several years in receiving recognition that the administration of grants and scholarships needed to be enhanced, but the reduction in FTE means that an already stretched staff will be stretched even more. The Governor's recommendations contained funds for enhanced capacity and service (federal dollars) but at a reduced rate for funds and FTE from the CBHE request. Reductions were also received in the grants and scholarships' request.

Two-year Public Community Colleges Budget Request

Basically, the only area in which the community colleges received any new funds for FY 2002 was an increase of $1.6 million (half of the CBHE request) for Campus Technology Infrastructure. These are one-time only funds. Core reductions were made in programs that neither the Governor nor the CBHE had recommended. There was also a reduction of $75,000 in the Postsecondary Technical Education Program in funds that go the department's internal budget for research and evaluation.

Linn State Technical College Budget Request

The Governor did not recommend any mission enhancement funds for Linn State Technical College and Linn State received a reduction of $300,000 which had been a one-time request in their total budget request. The Governor's request included one-time only funds of $34,139 for Campus Technology Infrastructure.

Four-year Colleges and Universities Budget Request

The Governor recommended $17.8 million for the final installment of mission enhancement. Those funds are for Harris-Stowe State College, Lincoln University, Truman State University, and the University of Missouri. Commissioner Stroup noted that it is very important to protect these funds. The four-year institutions received one-time funds of $2.75 million (half of the CBHE's request) for Campus Technology Infrastructure. All of the projects included by legislators or institutions and not submitted by the CBHE or the Governor were excluded form the Governor's recommendations.

Mr. Bass inquired as to the funding status of Funding for Results. Dr. Stroup responded that the program did not receive any funding recommendations for FY 2002; however, the institutions still have funds in their core budgets for the program. She commented that Governor Holden wanted her to assure the higher education community that there is no message in the lack of funding because he is very interested in performance funding and results.

University of Missouri Related Programs and MOREnet Budget Request

The Governor did not recommend any increases in funding for the University of Missouri Related Programs. The Governor did recommend one-time funding of $1.6 million for MOREnet which is about half of the CBHE request.

Commissioner Stroup stated that the message to be taken from the Governor's recommendations is that Governor Holden wants higher education to continue to develop its technology capability and he wanted to honor the mission enhancement obligations. See Attachment B for the summaries discussed by Dr. Stroup.

Commissioner Stroup called the board's attention to the FY 2001 capital projects for public four-year institutions. The request of $133.3 million is still tied up in the court case. If the state loses the court case the institutions will not receive the $133.3 million and the CBHE will have to start lobbying and making requests beginning at the top of the FY 2001 request. Jim Matchefts, staff counsel, stated that the final briefs in the case are due February 13 and the case will be argued before the Supreme Court on March 1. The decision should come within 60 to 90 days after the March 1 arguments. Dr. Henry suggested that the state may ultimately be reaching a point where the Hancock Amendment will have to be dealt with because the results of it can be seen in this year's budget. The situation will not get any better because of the demands being placed on the state. Dr. Stroup commented that the board has worked very hard for the last five or six years to increase higher education's share of general revenue and lottery proceeds. The commissioner agreed with Dr. Henry in that a greater and greater amount of state dollars are going for mandated items.

Mrs. Kauffman moved that the CBHE express its understanding of the tight budget and its appreciation that the colleges and universities took no major core cuts in the Governor's FY 2002 recommendation for the Department of Higher Education. She also moved that in the event additional revenues are identified during the appropriation process, they be applied to the original CBHE recommendations and priorities. Mr. Summers seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

In response to a question from Mrs. Grove, Commissioner Stroup stated that those priorities are inflationary adjustments to the core institutional budgets and maintenance and repair.

Institutional Eligibility to Participate in Missouri Student Financial Assistance Programs:

Hillyard Technical Center

Mr. Dan Peterson reported that the required applications materials have been submitted by Hillyard Technical Center requesting approval for institutional eligibility to participate in the Missouri financial assistance programs in which the Coordinating Board for Higher Education has the statutory authority to administer. Those state programs are the following:

Charles Gallagher Student Financial Assistance Program;
Missouri Higher Education Academic Scholarship Program (Bright Flight);
Marguerite Ross Barnett Memorial Scholarship Program;
Advantage Missouri Program; and
Missouri College Guarantee Program.

Hillyard Technical Center is approved by the U.S. Department of Education to participate in the Federal Title IV student financial aid programs. There are currently 20 other Missouri vocational and technical education institutions participating in the Missouri student financial assistance programs.

Staff has reviewed the application materials. Based on the staff review the institution meets the statutory requirements to be approved to participate in the Missouri student financial assistance programs. As a result, approval to participate in the Missouri programs will allow students enrolled in the adult education programs at the institution to submit applications and be considered for awards beginning with the 2001-2002 academic year.

Mr. Summers moved that Hillyard Technical Center be approved as an eligible institution to participate in the Missouri student financial assistance programs administered by the CBHE, beginning with the 2001-2002 academic year. Dr. Henry seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Update on the Missouri K-16 Coalition

Mrs. Carmichael recognized Dr. Paula Short for taking a leadership role in organizing and providing support services for the K-16 initiative. Mrs. Carmichael noted that the first meeting of the new K-16 Task Force on Achievement Gap Elimination was yesterday. Dr. Charles McClain, former commissioner of higher education, has agreed to chair the task force. Mrs. Carmichael said that all of the discussions and recommendations will be data driven, and will focus on closing the achievement gap, particularly as it relates to minorities, through sustaining and enhancing a quality teaching workforce. The task force will also be looking at curricular alignment and other issues as they relate to student performance. The task force's report will be issued in February 2002. It will include performance indicators for an accountability system.

Dr. Short said one of the things that they particularly want to see happen is for the task force to deliberate and explore the issues mentioned by Mrs. Carmichael. They also want the task force discussions to be based on good data and a good understanding of what the task force already knows about those issues. They believe that there are resources available, not only in Missouri, but nationally to help build a foundation of understanding in order to develop appropriate recommendations and accountability measures. The task force agreed to send out a Request for Information (RFI) to the academic community and to broaden the conversation by calling for briefing papers, syntheses of research, or original research, and/or best practices that can help in the task force's deliberations. Researchers and other will be encouraged to respond to the RFI throughout the year.

Mr. Bass requested that some of the African-American think tanks be asked to participate in the research on some of the K-16 issues. He also asked that it be made clear just what the achievement gap is, whether it is achievement, economics, or social.

Mrs. Wood commented that she understands that the task force is trying to close the achievement gap but inquired as to what is being done about the gap that exists between the 12th and 13th year of school.

Mrs. Carmichael responded that the task force will be meeting for a year and there may be some issues in their discussions that touch on the main issues of closing the achievement gap by looking at enhancing the quality of teacher preparation programs and sustaining the teaching workforce. She stated that in order to really make an impact she feels the task force will have to be a little more focused on what they do. Dr. Short noted that one of the things that the three boards involved in the K-16 effort have in common is their interest in teacher education and the quality of teaching. She observed that anytime you address teacher quality you are going to effect the gap. When you address the quality of teaching through a person's educational experience across K-12 into postsecondary education you are going to better prepare students for the secondary level. Mrs. Carmichael added that one way to measure quality in teaching is to look at the number of students who need remediation as they enter college. The whole focus of a quality-teaching workforce should have a direct effect on the juncture between K-12 and higher education.

Dr. Stein also indicated that a Mathematics Technical Advisory Group has been appointed, which will be working on curricular alignment issues especially for the transition from high school to college. The work of this group will serve as a prototype for other disciplines.

Commissioner Stroup thanked the University of Missouri system for its support of the K-16 effort. No funds were allotted in the budget for support of this effort and the University of Missouri is contributing to make sure the K-16 effort is accomplished with appropriate support.

Clarification of Policies Related to Programs and Courses Delivered at External Sites

(For board discussion of this item with the presidents/chancellors see this section of the minutes of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee meeting. - Attachment C)

Vice Chair Carmichael noted that there was a lot of discussion in the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee meeting on this item. As a result of that discussion the text of the fifth bullet under Clarifying Comments on page 2 of the Agenda Item Summary was revised to read: "Missouri's system of higher education, including a healthy independent sector, contributes significantly to the diversity and choice provided to Missouri citizens. Public and independent institutions should explore cooperative ventures that are consistent with their missions, including contracting for services, as a way of increasing educational opportunities". Dr. Wittstruck reported that, as mentioned in the Advisory Committee meeting earlier, Sikeston was approved as a 1456 site by the board in October 2000. This was inadvertently left out of the attachment to this board item.

This agenda item clarifies the board's intent to ensure, through its public policy initiatives, that colleges and universities are responsible stewards of public funds in the delivery of academic programs and courses at external sites. State statutes provide laws to ensure that Missouri has a coordinated higher education system that meets the needs of its citizens for access to quality, efficient, and cost-effective postsecondary education and training. The board's public policy initiatives and related actions are used to promote and coordinate state interests with the aspirations of each Missouri college and university. While increased institutional activity away from the home campus has advanced the state's need for expanded access to education and training beyond high school, it has also resulted in the potential for unnecessary duplication. Finding an appropriate balance between competition and cooperation among Missouri's higher education institutions remains an ongoing challenge. Staff reviewed statutes and related public policies and board actions associated with activities at external sites in preparing this document. Dr. Wittstruck stated that as staff reviewed the materials on this issue it found consistency of decisions and policies. These policies need to be continually reviewed to make sure that they truly reflect the changing conditions and demands and needs that the state's system of higher education has placed on it. Some of the major conclusions reached from the review of statutes, related public policies and board actions associated with this item are:

• Public institutions must receive CBHE approval for external sites; approval is based on demonstration of need and avoidance of duplication;
• External sites are expected to be self-supporting; funding from the state (1456 funding) is permitted in cases of demonstrated need;
• Local communities in need of expanded access to the 13th and 14th years are encouraged, through "hopover" legislation, to join a community college taxing district or to establish their own community college when criteria for doing so can be met;
• The State Plan for Postsecondary Technical Education is designed to promote expanded statewide access to high-quality technical programs at the AAS level;
• Community college service regions function as geographical boundaries for Regional Technical Education Councils (RTECs), a group in which all local providers work collaboratively in the identification of needs and delivery mechanisms for expanded access to technical education and training;
• The Southeast and Northwest Educational Consortia were established to ensure better coordination in academic planning and delivery among all higher education institutions involved in a region;
• Course and program approval policies include academic programming at external sites;
• In promoting its access goals, the board has encouraged institutions to work collaboratively in identifying and meeting the needs of underserved regions; and
• Through its coordinating role, the board works with institutions when conflicts between and among them remain unresolved.

A clear understanding of state statutes and the board's public policies will help ensure a common understanding among all institutions as they plan for the future. Clarifying statements concerning institutional responsibilities and relationships, as established by law and reinforced through the board's public policy initiatives, include the following:

• Decisions to establish, to deliver programs and courses at, and to fund external sites must be made within the parameters of state law;
• Institutions interested in delivering academic programs and related courses at a site away from the home campus are expected to work through existing regional consortia to prevent unnecessary duplication by sharing resources. Unresolved conflicts among institutions should be brought to the CBHE for coordination and resolution;
• Public funds used by colleges and universities include state appropriations, tuition revenues from individuals and from state and federal aid, and local taxes;
• Public funds, including RTEC funds, shall not be used to promote unnecessary duplication, i.e,, should not fund duplicate programs and/or related courses available at a local regionally accredited higher education institution(s) or area vocational technical schools in the community;
• Missouri's system of higher education, including a healthy independent sector, contributes significantly to the diversity and choice provided to Missouri citizens. Public and independent institutions should explore cooperative ventures that are consistent with their missions, including contracting for services, as a way of increasing educational opportunities;
• Public institutions planning to provide local service at a distance are expected to work collaboratively with existing local partners by building on currently available general education and occupation-related coursework and by utilizing the human resources and facilities of local providers, including area vocational technical schools;
• Section 173.005.2(3), RSMo requires CBHE approval for the establishment of a separate external site by a public institution away from its home campus. To be approved for a branch campus, extended campus, or other form of external-site development, public institutions must demonstrate a need for service that is not unnecessarily duplicative.

Dr. Stein commented that staff is working within Missouri's commitment to maintain its rich diversity of higher education institutions. Staff is looking for ways to provide a public policy framework that will not define every nuance but which provides general guidelines and fosters genuine cooperation among all institutions that will result in a coordinated, balanced cost-effective high quality higher education system.

Concerns expressed by board members included the following:

• Is there a mechanism for due process for the institutions?
• Concern with for-profit institutions that come into the state and have no obligation to work with the CBHE, and if that would impact the ability of public institutions to be competitive.

Mrs. Findley moved that the board affirm, through its clarifying comments as amended, the state's intent that colleges and universities will be responsible stewards of public funds in the delivery of academic programs and courses at external sites. In an effort to ensure that all institutions have a common understanding of state law and board policy, staff is directed to notify all postsecondary institutions of the board's action and to include a compendium of state laws and related board policies associated with establishing, programming, and funding external sites. Mrs. Findley further recommended that staff work with the presidents and chancellors of Missouri's colleges and universities in the identification and resolution of unresolved conflicts concerning the delivery of programs and courses at external sites. Mrs. Findley also moved that staff work with presidents and chancellors of Missouri's colleges and universities to review Missouri statutes and related board policies associated with external sites to determine if revisions, further clarifications, or new initiatives are warranted. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Update on the Committee on Transfer and Articulation

Dr. Stein noted that Dr. Peter Ewell pointed out in his speech earlier in the day several challenges that higher education will face as a result of multi-institution attendance patterns including coherence, quality assurance, integrity, and modularization of the curriculum in multi-institution attendance patterns. Dr. Ewell emphasized that the word "competency," is a movement within the country with business and industry, and within education, and the various groups must be responsive to it. Dr. Stein stated that the Committee on Transfer and Articulation is a hard-working group and has been revising policies for a number of years. Dr. Stein acknowledge Dr. Jack Magruder for his leadership as chair of COTA.

Dr. Jack Magruder thanked Dr. Stein for the assistance he provides to the committee. He introduced members of the committee and thanked them for their dedication to this effort. The committee is really trying to ensure that the transfer and articulation system is effective and student centered. They are committed to working together to make certain that there are policies and practices that are responsive to the needs of the state. COTA has met four times since its last report to the board in June 2000. A Teacher Education Articulation Advisory Committee (TEAAC) and an ad hoc General Education Implementation Committee (GEIC) have been appointed to advise COTA in responding to board directives. The TEAAC is gathering information and then will inform COTA about the problems, concerns, and challenges experienced by transfer students who are preparing to be teachers. Transfer from two- to four-year as well as transfer among four-year institutions will be studied. In addition, the committee will also look at alignment of general education, teacher education, and degree requirements. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has an ex-officio member who will participate in all the meetings. The TEAAC will submit recommendations to COTA about Missouri and whether or not new policies should be designed regarding the transfer of teacher education students. They hope to complete their review process by May 15, 2001.

The General Education Implementation Committee is a three-person committee with one representative from each sector. They will work with institutions to ensure the full implementation of the board's policies for general education. They will also design Principles of Good Practice for General Education and will work in close consultation with all the institutional representatives in doing so.

Fifty-eight Missouri institutions offering academic programs have institutional dual credit acceptance policies on file with the Coordinating Board. One independent and three technical and professional institutions accept no dual credit. One public two-year campus, one independent institution, and one technical institution are in the process of revising their acceptance policies. The remaining 51 institutions are in compliance with the board's dual credit acceptance guidelines. The dual credit policies of 32 institutions are on file with the Coordinating Board, and all have been deemed to be in compliance with the board's guidelines.

Vice Chair Carmichael commented that COTA is an important committee to the board and stated that it is probably the most important work that the board does. She stated that the board really appreciates the leadership of Dr. Magruder. Mrs. Carmichael suggested that it would be good if the Teacher Education Articulation Advisory Committee would collaborate with the K-16 task force when they have recommendations ready.

The Coordinated Plan for Missouri Higher Education

(For board discussion of this item with the presidents/chancellors see this section of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee minutes - Attachment C.)

Mr. Naughton reported that the First Coordinated Plan for Missouri Higher Education was developed by the CBHE's predecessor, the Commission on Higher Education in 1966. In subsequent years the higher education plan became known as the Master Plan. Several master plans for higher education were developed in the 1970's. In the 1980's the board shifted from master planning from a central perspective to institutional strategic planning. In the 1990's a coordinated central performance-based approach was begun. With Commissioner Stroup's arrival at the department the planning document has been the Blueprint for Missouri Higher Education. A separate planning effort that developed under Governor Carnahan's tenure was the Integrated Strategic Planning for all state government. That is a coordinated effort where all state departments fit their planning under one model which ties into the budget process. The department's budget book contains strategies and measures and objectives that reflect the board's strategic planning and the Blueprint.

THE COORDINATED PLAN is to serve a dual purpose: it proposes the collaborative policy agenda for Missouri higher education and it sets forth the strategic plan for the Department of Higher Education. Previously these efforts were respectively fulfilled by the CBHE's Blueprint for Missouri Higher Education and the Strategic Plan for the Department of Higher Education. Recognizing the common purpose, structure, and effects of these documents, the new plan combines and refreshes their shared vision and goals into a coordinated approach for meeting the higher education policy demands for the next several years. THE COORDINATED PLAN bases its structure on the integrated strategic planning guidelines for state government and bases its substance on the recommendations of recent collaborative education policy groups and related reports. These include:

• Actions Plans for Collaboration and Targets of Opportunity by The Knight Higher Education Collaborative Roundtables for Missouri College and University Presidents;
• Mathematics in Missouri by the Missouri K-16 Coalition;
• Toward an Affordable Future by the Commission on the Affordability of Higher Education; and
• Measuring Up 2000: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education by The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

The plan states the mission of the Missouri Department of Higher is to foster a thriving system of quality higher education. The foundation for THE COORDINATED PLAN is the board's vision, mission, and value statements that describe the pulse and verve of the plan and of Missouri higher education. The three clear strategic issues THE COORDINATED PLAN addresses are student success, institutional strength, and public service. Identified under each issue are three important goals that describe the purpose of the programs of the department. Core principles for higher education to be achieved by these goals are that every high school graduate must be academically and financially able to enter postsecondary education; every classroom teacher must be successfully prepared and professionally supported in subject content and pedagogy; every adult has access to on-line education and training opportunities and businesses have access to higher education's research and development capabilities; and every citizen has access to current and accurate information about education and training opportunities available through the state's system of higher education.

The plan includes outcomes which are meant to be the broad measures. Objectives and strategies to provide ongoing targets of success to which all department programs aim will be included in the next version. These are performance-based measures that hold the department and the colleges/universities accountable to Missouri citizens. In addition to annual progress reporting, these elements will be used in the budget recommendation process with comparative data on outcome and objective measures. Although THE COORDINATED PLAN FOR MISSOURI HIGHER EDUCATION will serve as the basis for statewide higher education policy and planning for the next several years, it is in no way a static document. As opportunities and needs emerge, the plan should be annually updated to address new issues. As with the previous strategic plans, this process will take place annually before submission of the October budget request to the Governor. And as with previous practice, the department will annually report to the CBHE and the higher education community our collaborative progress toward achieving the goals defined in THE COORDINATED PLAN FOR MISSOURI HIGHER EDUCATION.

Mrs. Grove described several areas of the plan that are of concern to her and suggested revisions in those areas. She stated she really appreciated the amount of work that has gone into the preparation of the plan and she is only trying to clarify some areas so it is clear to anyone what is actually being said and that we actually measure what we say we are doing.

Mrs. Carmichael urged everyone to read the plan as carefully as Mrs. Grove has to make sure they agree with the contents. Dr. Wittstruck stated that staff appreciates Mrs. Grove's careful reading because there could be areas that they might not have addressed directly or clearly. He commented that as Mrs. Carmichael stated the staff hopes that everyone will read the plan carefully and if there are comments, to provide them in writing because this will be the plan for the state's system of higher education and everyone needs to take ownership in it by being a partner in developing it.

Vice Chair Carmichael mentioned that developing this new plan does not mean that the Blueprint has been abandoned. Even though a lot of the work in the Blueprint has been completed the board still holds itself to those standards that were set and continues to measure where they are meeting the goals of the Blueprint. Commissioner Stroup noted that the colleges and universities are also examining the plan over the next two months. It will also be reviewed with the Governor. Dr. Stroup said it is very important to be able to have areas in the plan that can be accomplished in four-year periods. The staff is trying to make the plan compatible with state planning as well as addressing some areas of concern mentioned in Measuring Up 2000: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education.

Mr. Bass stated that the threads of the plan that address the needs of the African-American population and the underepresented should be highlighted more. Mrs. Grove asked if this plan had been measured against the concerns for Missouri expressed in Measuring Up 2000. Mr. Naughton replied that an entire day had been set aside for the senior staff to do just that. In theory, progress on the new plan should also spell progress in the state-by-state report card. Also the plan's key objectives will further address those measures.

Summary of Pending Higher Education Legislation

(For board discussion of this item with the presidents/chancellors see this section of the minutes of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee meeting.)

Information Items

The board received the following information items:

• Academic Program Actions
• Proprietary School Certification Actions and Reviews
• Community College Subdistricting
• Distribution of Eisenhower Professional Development Program Funds
• Update on Midwest Student Exchange Program
• Annual Report on Campus-based Reviews of Existing Programs - Public Four-year Institutions

Commissioner Stroup asked if the board had any questions on community college subdistricting as some members did not realize that the board had a role in this process. Dr. Wittstruck explained that when a new community college is established,the district is established as one district and the six trustees are elected at large. Those six trustees can then vote to divide the taxing district into subdistricts for the election of trustees. Statutes provide that within 90 days following the publication of the decennial census figures, the board of trustees of all junior (community) college districts containing over 450,000 residents shall adopt a resolution calling for the creation of a subdistricting committee. The subdistricting committee is to adopt a plan dividing the junior (community) college district into no fewer than two and no more than six subdistricts for the election of trustees in which population is to be apportioned so as to be substantially equal for each trustee elected. No modification of the community college district boundaries is involved. The plan adopted by the subdistrict committee must be approved by the Coordinating Board for Higher Education, and until such approval is granted, election of trustees shall be at large. The Coordinating Board for Higher can expect that during the 2001 calendar year, respective community college boards of trustees will adopt a resolution calling for the formation of a subdistricting committee. The community college board of trustees appoints three members of the subdistricting committee and the Coordinating Board appoints a different set of three members to the subdistricting committee. In most cases, the community colleges must have completed these CBHE approved processes by October or December 2001, for the community colleges to hold board of trustees elections in April 2002 based on the revised or new subdistricting plan approved by the CBHE.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the board, Mrs. Grove moved that the meeting adjourn. Mr. Bass seconded the motion, and the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m.

___________________________
Marie Carmichael, Vice Chair

___________________________
John Bass, Secretary