Coordinating Board for Higher Education Meeting Minutes 02-03

February 6, 2003

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education met at 10:15 a.m. on Thursday, February 6, 2003, at the Truman State Office Building in Jefferson City. Members present were:

Sandra Kauffman, Chair
Mary Joan Wood, Secretary
John Bass
Diana Bourisaw
Marie Carmichael
Dudley Grove
Lowell Kruse

Members absent from the meeting were:

Robert Langdon

Others attending included:

Quentin Wilson, Commissioner of Higher Education
Lisa Anderson, GEAR UP Regional Coordinator
Trudy Baker, Administrative Assistant for EPPIC
Becky Brennecke, Research Associate for Fiscal & Legislative Affairs
Alicia Buck, GEAR UP Regional Coordinator
Debra Cheshier, Director of the Education Policy, Planning and Improvement Center (EPPIC)
Nancy Devino, Research Associate for Academic Technology
Judy Gehrke, Research Associate for Fiscal Analysis
Scott Giles, Director of Lender, Institutions and Student Services
Lena Hoeflicker, Public Information Specialist
Janelle Jaegers, Director of Accounting and Personnel Services
Joe Martin, Associate Commissioner for Fiscal & Legislative Affairs
Jim Matchefts, Associate Commissioner and Director of Legal Affairs for MOSTARS/General Counsel for Department of Higher Education
Susanne Medley, Senior Associate for Marketing
Natalie Miles, GEAR UP Coordinator
Brenda Miner, Administrative Assistant to the Commissioner
Dan Peterson, Director of Student Financial Assistance for MOSTARS
Richard Presberry, Director of Early Awareness/Outreach
Cleo Samudzi, Senior Associate for Academic Affairs & Planning
Robert Stein, Associate Commissioner for Academic Affairs & Planning
Laura Vedenhaupt, Administrative Assistant for Academic Affairs & Planning
Leroy Wade, Director for Proprietary School Certification
Tanesha Washington, GEAR UP Regional Coordinator
John Wittstruck, Senior Research Associate for EPPIC

Chair Kauffman called the meeting to order. A list of guests attending the meeting is attached (Attachment A).

Minutes of December 4, 2003 CBHE Meeting

Mrs. Grove moved that the minutes of the December 4, 2002 board meeting be approved as printed. Mr. Bass seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Opening Comments

Chair Kauffman introduced the newest member of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education, Mr. Lowell Kruse. Mr. Kruse replaces Jim Summers, Jr., whose term expired in June. As the Chief Executive Officer of Heartland Health in St. Joseph, Mr. Kruse brings considerable experience and expertise to the board.

Report of the Interim Commissioner

Commissioner Wilson reported that the Department of Higher Education staff is working on three major items. First, staff continues to work with the higher education institutions, the legislature, and the public in efforts to preserve the FY 2003 funding levels. With state revenues continuing to decrease, the funding situation also continues to be difficult. However, staff is focusing on communications with the legislature and the public in various communities throughout the state in attempts to preserve current funding levels.

Second, staff is heavily involved in FY 2004 budget hearings and discussions. Though the decision to use the tobacco securitization has been resolved, it is not known exactly what amount will be available for higher education and any impacts on further withholdings. Higher education needs to focus on the FY 2003 budget situation, because if it is not resolved favorably, a deeper deficit is created for FY 2004.

Third, there are enormous challenges facing the higher education institutions. Higher education is focusing on quality, accountability, and long-term planning issues. It is engaging in new planning processes with the institutions for the coming year. An important part of these planning efforts will be the work of the Governor's Commission on the Future of Higher Education, now in the membership development stage. The Commission will examine higher education from the perspective of the state of Missouri, rather than from the viewpoint of any organization, the department, the Coordinating Board, or individual institutions. The Commission will examine higher education's impact on economic growth, educational opportunity and achievement, efficient and effective performance, and the quality of life in the community resulting from investments in higher education. The department will keep the board and the higher education communities informed of the ongoing implementation and communication efforts.

Mr. Bass stated that equally as important as the budget is the crisis of educational opportunities and participation for minority, low-income, and rural populations. Affirmative action, equal opportunity, and under-representation in the higher education system are critical issues that need to be addressed.

Other board members expressed concern about the under-representation of these groups in higher education, noting that the budget crisis exacerbates the problem. Dr. Bourisaw stated that information on how access has decreased for poor and minority students in institutions would be helpful. In addition, the lack of availability of education for poor and minority students in the K-12 system are also of concern.

Report of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee

Dr. Henry Shannon, chancellor, St. Louis Community College, stated that the institutions continue to address the consequences of FY 2003 budget reductions. The institutions are pleased that the General Assembly and the Governor are working to secure additional revenues through tobacco securitization. The presidents and chancellors are pleased that the Governor in his State of the State Address spoke in support of higher education and the institutions.

The institutions are strategically scrutinizing their FY 2004 budgets for cost-savings while maintaining the quality of programs provided to students. The institutions are examining long-term and short-term responses to reduced funding. The higher education community recognizes its importance for future growth in the state, and realizes that decisions made today will have long-term consequences for the institutions.

The presidents and chancellors discussed higher education legislation related to nomenclature. The institutions are pleased to see the moratorium lifted on new programs and program proposals. Dr. Robert Stein was very effective in processing comments from the presidents and chancellors, codifying those comments, and providing Draft Clarifying Comments to the institutions.

The establishment of a new Junior College District in Lake of the Ozarks was discussed and will be acted upon at the April board meeting. In addition to an important transfer function, community colleges provide workforce development and customized training.

The work of the common message work group demonstrates that higher education has come a long way in terms of expressing itself as a system. When all the institutions are synchronized, an effective message about the need for and purpose of higher education can be delivered to civic groups, business groups, and to citizens. Trustee forums were really the impetus for the development of a unified stance; this stance will be helpful in maintaining and hopefully improving our state funding level.

Mrs. Grove referred to conversations with presidents and chancellors about building future support for higher education and adequately informing legislators and the citizenry about the services and programs higher education provides. In the Life Sciences area, for example, with no new money, some institutions are expanding biology courses to include Life Sciences. Mrs. Grove asked if there is a way to accumulate these kinds of experiences at the individual institutions into a common message about what higher education is doing to support the state agenda. It is another way to show that higher education is working together to make Missouri strong. She wondered if there is a role for the board in these efforts.

Dr. Shannon stated that this message could be delivered through the Independent Colleges and Universities of Missouri (ICUM), Council on Public Higher Education (COPHE), and Missouri Community College Association (MCCA). Delivering this common message statewide can be done readily with assistance from these organizations, the department, and the Coordinating Board.

Commissioner Wilson stated there are important developments going on in the areas of commercialization and technology transfer. These developments can significantly affect the institutions. However, the Commissioner noted that in light of national assessments of higher education in Missouri, especially the state's ranking in the Measuring Up 2002 study, there may be a concern over the benefits to the state from higher education. One of the assessments indicated Missouri does not have an entrepreneurial culture; this suggests that more needs to be done with start-up businesses and high-tech businesses. The Department of Higher Education is encouraging collaboration between institutions of higher education and collaboration among the department and other departments of state government, including Agriculture, Economic Development, and the K-12 System.

The board noted that a number of entrepreneurial activities are occurring on individual campuses. If this information is accumulated, higher education would be better informed about how much entrepreneurial activity is occurring across the state.

Mr. Bass stated that higher education needs to begin marketing the Life Sciences as this area is not well understood. Communities need to be informed about how the Life Sciences can affect the quality of life.

Dr. Shannon discussed the "bio-belt" area around Washington University, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center and the work of the Kauffman Foundation in St Louis, Kansas City and Columbia. Life Sciences is a high growth area for higher education in the state and throughout the nation.

FY 2004 Budget Update

Mr. Joe Martin presented an update on the FY 2004 budget. Revisions from Department of Higher Education's recommendations for FY 2004 as contained in the Governor's recommendations include the following:

• Cost of living adjustment of $10,670 for certain employees in Coordination and $19,330 for certain employees in MOSTARS.
• An additional $500,000 of general revenue transferred into the College Guarantee Program to maintain core funding levels
• A reduction in the Advantage Missouri Program to continue phasing out the program
• A minor reallocation issue among the four-year institutions and Linn State Technical College regarding Lottery proceeds funds, but there is no change in the net appropriation to those institutions.

The FY 2004 core budget items, including level of funding for all the institutions, recommended by the department in October, have been recommended by the Governor. The reductions to the department's general revenue administration budget that have occurred since FY 2001 were discussed. Overall, those changes represent a 36 percent reduction in administrative funding as well as the 36 percent reduction in FTE authority.

Mrs. Carmichael expressed disappointment that the Advantage Missouri Program is being cut by 30 percent and is being phased out. Mr. Martin stated that the Governor recommended an amount to only fund the renewal students until they complete the program.

Summary of Planned Activities to Implement the Provisions of HCS/HR 51

Mr. Martin discussed House Committee Substitute for House Resolution 51, sponsored by Representative Boykins, which was adopted in 2002 by the General Assembly. This resolution deals with credit card use and debt on college campuses. Provisions in the resolution require the Coordinating Board to adopt certain policies and to require the institutions to adopt certain other policies. The Coordinating Board does not have the authority to require the institutions to adopt these policies.

Information about the provisions of HCS HR 51 will be made to the institutions. They will be encouraged to adopt policies regarding use of credit cards and consumer protection. In addition, the department will request that the public two- and four-year institutions provide information to the department about whether they have such a policy in place. All of this information will be included in a report and submitted to the Speaker of the House and Representative Boykins in May 2003.

Summary of Proposed Legislation Related to Higher Education

Mr. Martin updated the board about the provisions of several bills. Senate Bill 363, introduced by Senator Jacob, would transfer $4.5 million from the Gaming Commission Fund to the College Guarantee Fund. The current statute regarding distribution of these funds is structured such that the second transfer occurs late in the fiscal year, creating difficulties in providing student aid payments for the spring semester. This bill would transfer the funds to the department at the beginning of the fiscal year.

Senate Bill 390, also introduced by Senator Jacob, incorporates Southwest Missouri State University into the University of Missouri System.

House Bill 299, introduced by Representative Wildberger establishes a per FTE funding formula for higher education.

MOSTARS Update

Dr. Jim Matchefts presented a MOSTARS Update on the following areas:

• Implementation of the American Student Systems contract, which involves the federal student loan program;
• The Integration Project, which integrates databases currently used to administer various state student financial assistance programs; and
• Information about the GEAR UP Missouri Program

Dr. Matchefts introduced Dr. Richard Presberry, director of the GEAR UP Missouri Program, who introduced the GEAR UP Missouri Team: Ms. Natalie Miles, GEAR UP State Coordinator; Ms. Lisa Anderson, GEAR UP Missouri Regional Coordinator, serving part of St. Louis and southeast Missouri; Ms. Alicia Buck, GEAR UP Regional Coordinator, serving the remainder of St. Louis area; Ms. Tanesha Washington, GEAR UP Regional Coordinator, serving the Kansas City area; and Ms. Vicky Buschjost, administrative assistant. Dr. Presberry presented information on the history and current status of the GEAR UP Missouri Program.

GEAR UP is a college access program for low-income, first-generation college students. It is funded through a five-year grant from the United States Department of Education. While college enrollment rates nationwide are at an all time high, this is not the case for low-income students.

The goal of GEAR UP is to significantly increase the number of low-income students graduating from high school who are admitted to, enroll in, and graduate from college. The program promotes systemic change in the school districts, including teacher quality in low-income schools, through professional development. It strives to create a seamless educational progression from pre-K-16 through postsecondary education. Other important goals include decreasing dropout rates, increasing college enrollment rates, increasing national and state assessment scores, and encouraging collaboration between parents and community organizations to support student academic achievement.

GEAR UP Programs begin at the middle school level, and the Missouri program currently serves 19 middle schools, 1 high school, in 5 school districts in the St. Louis, Kansas City, and southeast areas of the state. Currently, 3,341 students receive services, of whom 67 percent are African-Americans, 52 percent are female, and 43 percent are first-generation college students.

With the majority of the GEAR UP participants transitioning to high school this fall, the staff is currently meeting with 15 high schools, to determine how best to implement the program at each school, and complete the planning for summer activities. GEAR UP Missouri held three ACT forums with teachers, counselors, and principals to assist schools in preparing students for the ACT Assessment.

Mrs. Carmichael noted that the state has had two K-16 Initiatives and higher education promoted alignment of the curricula in those initiatives. She asked if the GEAR UP Program is being aligned with MAP tests or with ACT. Dr. Presberry stated that the proposal for GEAR UP was based on information used in the K-16 proposal - the first report on mathematics. It is mathematics focused, because of the fact that mathematics is a primary gate-keeping course for success in higher education. Regarding curriculum, a gap analysis was performed between the Show-Me Standards and the requirement of ACT, and the curriculum was found to be in alignment. Staff is now working with schools to ensure they are using the Show-Me Standards to teach the aligned curriculum. This is beneficial to GEAR UP participants and all students.

Mrs. Carmichael inquired about the development of vertical teaming conducted with teachers. Dr. Presberry noted that schools, not practicing vertical teaming, are made aware of its values and encouraged to participate. The Advanced Placement Institutes that are supported by the board and public, encourage vertical teaming. Mrs. Carmichael suggested staff may connect with advanced placement training institutes, located in southeast Missouri and Truman State University, to assist schools in vertical training and that it could be expanded statewide beyond GEAR UP participating schools.

Dr. Presberry noted that two key programs provide professional development:

• The PEAK Program, known as Promoting Empowerment and Affirmation via Knowledge, was developed by Dr. Carolyn Tucker, University of Florida. This program instructs teachers in how to teach low-income students.
• The Connected Mathematics Curriculum, offered through the University of Missouri-Columbia's College of Education, which provides specific professional development training to math teachers.

Mr. Bass asked if a performance evaluation instrument exists to indicate program success or areas in need of improvement. Dr. Presberry noted that the GEAR UP Program funding is based on progress indicated through an annual performance report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. A study, examining the outcomes during the program's first two years also will provide an assessment of the impact of the program.

Mrs. Wood asked about plans to continue GEAR UP after the five-year grant period. Dr. Matchefts stated that Congress will reauthorize the Higher Education Act of 1965 in 2003 or 2004, and that continued funding for GEAR UP will be part of the reauthorization discussion.

Mrs. Grove asked if there are measurable goals for each year, for each cohort as well as 5-year goals and objectives. Dr. Presberry assured the board that there are annual and long-term measurable goals. Mrs. Grove requested that the board be provided with this information.

Mrs. Grove also asked about the biggest challenges of the program. Dr. Presberry noted that student mobility, especially in Kansas City and St. Louis, represents a big challenge in tracking and monitoring these students' progress and keeping them engaged in the program. Chair Kauffman noted that the board would be interested in seeing additional material on the GEAR UP program, including information about issues only briefly discussed today.

CBHE Public Policy on Academic Program Proposals

At its October 2002 meeting, the board placed a moratorium on all future program actions and indicated the moratorium would be lifted after the adoption of a set of Clarifying Comments. A draft set of Clarifying Comments was shared with the board during its October 2002 meeting. Institutions were asked to comment. Concerns were raised about the initial draft being too limiting on program development, oversimplification of issues, and potential adverse affects on access and affordability.

Revised Clarifying Comments were sent to all institutional presidents/chancellors and chief academic officers on January 10, 2003 for review and comment. As of January 21, 2003, staff received nine responses. Most institutions indicated that past concerns were addressed and offered suggestions for further clarifications or expressed general support for the revised draft. One president of an independent institution expressed objections to the January 10 draft and indicated that evaluative questions were not appropriate or relevant for independent institutions. Since the mailing of the board book however, four additional independent institutions submitted letters of support for the Clarifying Comments.

The Clarifying Comments are intended to ensure that costly, unnecessary duplication is avoided. The complexity of Missouri's higher education system is illustrated by regional/local differences that should be taken into consideration when reviewing academic program proposals. It is essential that the justification for new program proposals be clear, concise, and compelling. New academic program proposals should advance an institution's mission with evidence of demonstrable need.

Should the board determine to adopt the staff recommendation, new program requests would be posted monthly on the DHE web site beginning February 15, 2003. It is assumed that institutions will develop proposals addressing the issues identified in the Clarifying Comments. The academic community will continue to have an opportunity to comment on each new program proposal after it is posted on the DHE web site.

Dr. Walter Nolte, president, North Central Missouri College, speaking on behalf of the Missouri community college presidents and chancellors, expressed appreciation for the opportunity to comment and the responsiveness of the DHE staff in revising the Clarifying Comments.

It is recommended that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education adopt the Clarifying Comments, which are attached. It is further recommended that the Department of Higher Education inform all two- and four-year public and independent institutions that the moratorium on the review of academic program proposals has been lifted. Institutions should be sent a copy of the Clarifying Comments to be used when preparing new academic program proposals. Mrs. Grove moved to adopt the motion. Dr. Bourisaw seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously with the following vote:

Mr. Bass - yes
Mrs. Grove - yes
Dr. Bourisaw - yes
Mrs. Kauffman - yes
Mrs. Carmichael - yes
Mr. Kruse - yes
Mrs. Wood - yes

Results Improvement Initiative

The Department of Higher Education is working with institutional presidents/chancellors in re-evaluating Missouri's approach to performance reporting, accountability, and improvement. The intent of this board item is to provide an update on a Results Improvement Initiative (RII) that will demonstrate each institution's commitment to enhance the quality of academic programs, to increase educational opportunity for Missouri citizens, and to positively impact Missouri's economy.

RII has been identified as one of the Department of Higher Education's major strategic initiatives. Dr. Stein reported that Governor Holden, in his state of the state address, acknowledged the link between Missouri's future economic prosperity and investment in higher education. The General Assembly has indicated its intent to make future funding decisions based on performance and results. RII holds the key to the future funding of higher education through accurate performance reporting, accountability, and measured improvement in higher education. Higher education will build on the solid work that has already taken place in the areas of accountability, mission implementation, and mission enhancement. Dr. Stein commended the institutions for their spirit of collaboration as this process moves forward.

A chartering session was held on February 3, 2003 to engage the Department of Higher Education's staff and representatives from external constituencies in defining the current situation, in identifying desired and undesired outcomes, and in determining the scope of the initiative. Data used to guide the initiative should be current, reliable, and should serve as a basis for evaluating higher education's contribution to Missouri's economic future.

Key issues that arose during the chartering session included:

• Continuous quality improvement despite shrinking resources;
• Changing demographics require attention in order to meet student needs;
• Necessity of alignment between the claims of the value of higher education and the evidence of what is actually being accomplished;
• Institutional ownership;
• Data reporting requirements that are less burdensome to institutions;
• Sharing of best practices across the system

Issues that the initiative would like to avoid included:

• Unrealistic goals that cannot be achieved;
• Goals that cannot be measured;
• Discouragement of risk taking;
• Inappropriate comparisons among institutions

RII will emphasize systems and processes integral within campus culture in addition to specific learning outcomes. Through the results improvement process, institutions will focus on two to three major areas for improvement. Institutions will be expected to engage in self-assessment and prioritization of action projects.

Dr. Bourisaw asked about the timeline for implementation of the RII process and when the board could expect to receive a progress report on the initiative. Dr. Stein responded that the timeline for work by the internal RII team is expected to be four to six months, and a progress report would be given at each meeting. Dr. Bourisaw encouraged the RII team to define leading indicators, to focus on predictors of success, and to develop sound accountability measures for the institutions.

Mrs. Carmichael encouraged the Department of Higher Education staff to maintain an open dialogue with the institutions and other stakeholders when considering changes to the statewide goals for higher education. All constituencies should be given the opportunity to comment on the standards of measurement for which they will be held accountable.

Mr. Kruse stated that he is familiar with the quality improvement process. It is a tremendous framework higher education is building and the movement forward is encouraging. He commended the department for its foresight and commitment to quality improvement.

The Coordinating Board is also interested in participating in this improvement process because statewide goals should be reflected in the strategic plan. An information item on the Results Improvement Initiative may be considered for the Presidential Advisory Agenda in April 2003.

Proposed Revisions to 6 CSR 10-6.010: Standards for Establishing Community Junior College Districts

Dr. John Wittstruck stated that this agenda item provides background information about the board's existing Administrative Rule, 6 CSR 10-6.010, related to standards for establishing new community college districts in Missouri, and recommended revisions to the existing standard. The existing rule does not reflect the current policy environment. Modifying the existing rule will help align the standards for establishing community junior college districts with the efforts to provide quality, economical access to postsecondary education.

Nationally, higher education experienced significant expansion during the 1950's through the 1970's. Accessibility to quality higher education through expanded capacity was the focus of higher education policy during that time.

Missouri experienced similar expansion during these decades. The Coordinating Board continued its focus on increasing geographic, programmatic, and financial for the state's citizenry into the 1990's. Since 1987, the board has increased access to the state's system of higher education through its actions related to 1456 sites, Regional Technical Education sites, Residence Centers, and the Missouri Learners' Network.

Evidence from the 1990 and 2000 decennial census suggest that some progress has been made in raising the educational attainment level of Missouri citizens as a result of expanded access to higher education. As higher education moves into the new millennium, further investment in and support of the state's knowledge-based economy will be critical to the future economic success of Missouri. Community and technical colleges play a critical role in providing postsecondary educational and workforce development opportunities that are both affordable and accessible to areas of the state that would otherwise be under-served.

The recommended revisions to Administrative Rule 6 CSR 10-6.010, Standards for Establishing Community Junior College Districts are included as Attachment B and Attachment C.

Mrs. Grove noted that the board should consider encouraging the delivery of courses and programs via the Internet, rather than investing in physical buildings. Utilizing technology infrastructure currently available is more fiscally responsible, given the current budget difficulties. She added that collaborative endeavors with other institutions, rather than creating another institution, may be more financially beneficial to everyone.

Mrs. Carmichael said that the Lake of the Ozarks' proposal to create a new community college has garnered a lot of support among various sectors. Existing community colleges seem to support the proposal. While the state will likely provide some funding, the citizens of the proposed taxing districts will be asked to tax themselves in support of a community college. It appears that the proposal has the support of the citizens. Community colleges are a primary access point for postsecondary education. Their existence becomes even more critical during times of economic downturn. Community colleges provide job training, basic adult education and workforce development to citizens affected by layoffs, plant closings, etc. While there are serious budgetary hurdles the steering committee will have to overcome, their proposal to create a new community college in the Lake of the Ozarks region of the state is sound.

Chair Kauffman reminded board members that the current discussion should focus on the proposed revisions to the administrative rule governing the establishment of new community junior college districts. Chair Kauffman asked Dr. Wittstruck when the board could expect to act on the proposed revisions. Dr. Wittstruck confirmed that the rule change will be an action item at the April 10 meeting. The higher education community has been invited to provide written comments on the proposed rule change between now and the April meeting. Any comments received between now and then will be shared with the board in April. The action in April will be to submit the recommended revisions to the rule to the Secretary of State's office as required by statute to begin the administrative rule revision process. Once that process has been completed and if no substantive comments are received, the board can take up the petition to establish a community college taxing district in the Lake of the Ozarks area of the state and evaluate the petition based on the newly revised rule. It is expected that action will be during the board's October 2003 meeting. Chair Kauffman thanked Dr. Wittstruck and Mr. Wade for their hard work on the proposed rule change.

Report of the CBHE Nominating Committee and Election of Vice Chair

Mr. Bass commented that in this difficult fiscal environment and the challenges facing higher education, it is comforting to have the strong leadership that exists among the Coordinating Board's executive committee. Commissioner Wilson has given renewed confidence and vitality to the board. Despite the demands facing the board, Mr. Bass is optimistic about the future of higher education and its governance. Mr. Bass submitted the name of Marie Carmichael as the nominating committee's choice for the Vice-Chair of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education. Chair Kauffman asked for nominations from the floor. There were none.

Mrs. Grove moved that the nomination be closed. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. Mrs. Carmichael was named Vice-Chair by acclamation. Chair Kauffman congratulated Mrs. Carmichael and thanked the nominating committee.

Information Items:

Update on the Commission on the Future of Higher Education

Chair Kauffman and Commissioner Wilson provided the board with an update on the creation of the Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Since Governor Holden announced the creation of a commission to address the challenges facing higher education, Governor's staff and Department of Higher Education staff have been working diligently to identify community and business leaders to serve on the Commission. Chair Kauffman noted that the Commission will seek input from a variety of sources on the connection between higher education and economic growth. Much of the work of the Commission will focus on Missouri's results contained in Measuring Up 2002: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education. Based on the Commission's findings, they will make recommendations and issue a report that will help guide higher education during the next decade. It is important to note that the Commission is not assuming the role and work of the Coordinating Board, rather offering advice for the board to consider.

Chair Kauffman referred to the past work of the Business and Education Partnership Commission established in 1989. Their recommendations formed the basis for the goals contained in Missouri's Blueprint for Higher Education, which guided the state's higher education system during the 1990's. Chair Kauffman is optimistic that the work of the Commission on the Future of Higher Education will produce important findings that will guide and shape the future direction higher education in Missouri.

Commissioner Wilson noted that Missouri has been chosen to participate in a national collaborative effort to help states improve higher education policies. This effort is cosponsored by the Education Commission of the States (ECS), the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (NCHEMS), and the National Center for Higher Education for Public Policy and Higher Education (NCPPHE). Dr. Gordon Davies, director of the new collaborative, along with Dr. Terese Rainwater, policy analyst, ECS, and Mr. Patrick Kelly, NCHEMS, visited Missouri in January. The purpose of their visit was to meet with state officials and key decision makers who shape policy decisions in Missouri to get a better understanding of the current challenges facing the state system of higher education.

The presidents of ECS, NCHEMS, and NCPPHE, along with Dr. Davies are scheduled to visit with the newly formed commission at its first meeting, which is expected to be held sometime in April. Following the first meeting, Dr. Davies and his staff, will begin data collection and analysis of Missouri's grades on Measuring Up 2002 to determine how policies can be reshaped and improved.

Mrs. Carmichael expressed concern that the Commission is only expected to meet three times during the course of their work. Reshaping higher education policy is a very broad, complicated discussion. Commissioner Wilson responded that the Commission members will work closely with staff from the National Collaborative, as well as an academic resource team that is expected to be named to help the Commission with data collection and research.

Chair Kauffman echoed Commissioner Wilson's commitment to present the Governor and General Assembly with the policy recommendations from the Commission by December. Working within this timeline will allow the General Assembly to use the Commission's recommendations in shaping priorities for higher education during the next legislative session.

The board agreed, with such a lofty timeline, the charge to the Commission needs to be measurable, specific, understandable, and focused. Chair Kauffman requested that Commissioner Wilson provide the board with regular progress reports on the Commission's work. She encouraged the board to attend the Commission meetings as observers, with perhaps part of one meeting set aside for discussion between the two groups.

Update on State Audit Recommendations

Mr. Martin noted one change to the implementation process of the Auditor's recommendations. The loan tracking system being developed for the Advantage Missouri Program is currently being tested and is expected to be operational by March 31, 2003.

Distribution of Community College Funds

Mr. Martin stated that $22.5 million dollars has been distributed to community colleges since 2002.

Update on Two- and Four- Year Review of Associate Degree Delivery Policies

In October 2002, the board considered a recommendation for an external taskforce to be appointed with representation from the legislature and the Governor's office to resolve differences between two- and four-year institutions concerning associate degree delivery. The motion was revised to allow six months for the presidents and chancellors to offer solutions.

A joint committee of the Missouri Community College Association (MCCA) and the Council on Public Higher Education (COPHE) has been meeting on this issue. The joint committee indicated an interest in working on a solution prior to involving either the Department of Higher Education staff or the institutional representatives from other sectors. The joint committee met on January 24, 2003 to share perspectives on this institutional concern.

Rather than pigeonholing this issue as Associate Degree Delivery only, the joint committee has redefined the issue as Mission Differentiation. The joint committee is exploring distance learning issues as well. All indications point towards good will between institutions as they seek a viable compromise. Dr. Stein has encouraged the joint committee to engage the independent sector and Linn State Technical College in their conversations. The joint committee has indicated its intent to engage those institutions once they develop recommendations for the board.

Chair Kauffman stated that it was important that the independent sector and Linn State Technical College be included, and she commended Dr. Stein for reminding the taskforce of the necessity to include all institutions.

The board expressed concern that the COPHE/MCCA joint committee may not be moving forward quickly enough. Dr. Stein stated that the joint committee wanted to meet separately in order to build a coalition of support that could achieve the proposed solutions prior to making their recommendations public. The COPHE/MCCA joint committee was scheduled to meet immediately following the CBHE board meeting.

Recommendations received from the joint committee will be discussed at the next Presidential Advisory Committee.

Missouri PreK-16 Coalition Update

Dr. Stein emphasized the extent of collaboration from all education sectors in supporting PreK-16 initiatives. There is increased interest in forging initiatives resulting in greater understanding of Missouri's investment in elementary, secondary, and higher education. The current budgetary constraints have resulted in a more collaborative approach between the K-12 and higher education sectors and are bringing to light the interdependence between these sectors.

There is interest in exploring the relationship between area vocational-technical high schools and community colleges for students in tech-prep programs. Common interests serve as a foundation for developing competency-based curricula that will result in greater articulation between area vocational-technical high schools and community colleges for students in these programs.

Commissioner Wilson is on record as wanting the Department of Higher Education to better integrate Early Outreach and Awareness initiatives and related programs with similar initiatives involving the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the State Board of Education.

The Business and Education Roundtable will make specific PreK-16 recommendations, including ways to recruit and retain the highest quality teachers in hard-to-staff schools. Mrs. Carmichael indicated that the Teachers as Professionals Subcommittee (TAPS) of the Business and Education Roundtable met regarding teacher quality recruitment and retention. A key issue focused on teacher certification. Committee members are interested in ensuring a rigorous exam that is aligned with statewide standards. Mrs. Carmichael is committed to integrating previous PreK-16 proposals into the Business and Education Roundtable discussions and recommendations. Mrs. Carmichael is particularly interested in promoting the involvement of arts and sciences faculty in evaluating the content of the teacher education curriculum.

Mrs. Carmichael requested that, at a future meeting, the board receive a status report of actions that have resulted from recommendations of the first two K-16 reports.

Committee on Transfer and Articulation Update

The Committee on Transfer and Articulation (COTA) is composed of institutional presidents, chancellors, and their designees. COTA moved forward in their evaluation and monitoring of transfer and articulation policies. COTA distributed a survey in April 2002 requesting information about dual credit practices during FY 2001.

COTA reviewed the compliance results from institutions at its February 5, 2003 meeting and set minimum policy thresholds. Institutions reporting less than the minimums will have the opportunity to submit information to COTA justifying a lower percentage threshold. Institutions failing to submit justifications satisfactory to COTA will not be placed on a public list of institutions whose policies and practices are in compliance with CBHE guidelines. COTA will develop a process through which an institution may appeal the committee's decision.

COTA members are considering ways to re-institute a statewide transfer/articulation conference that would be held every other year.

The next COTA meeting will be March 28, 2003. COTA will meet with transfer and articulation officers and will enter into breakout sessions with attendees to take note of any concerns that are raised.

Commissioner Wilson has discussed with marketing staff the possibility of holding a conference on higher education that would include the Coordinating Board, COTA, and higher education institutions. Dr. Stein suggested that planning should begin now for a public conference and exchange of ideas in 2004. Department staff will present a proposal on this issue at a future board meeting.

Proprietary School Certification Actions and Reviews

Mr. Bass asked if Vatterott College, a proprietary institution, was issuing Bachelor's Degrees in some areas. Mr. Wade responded that Vatterott does offer technically related Bachelor's Degree programs. Mr. Wade assured Senator Bass that Vatterott College underwent the normal process for approval through the Proprietary School Certification Program. Dr. Stein reiterated that the Proprietary Division utilizes an extensive process prior to issuing certificates to proprietary schools. Each school undergoes an extensive process to become certified. All schools also undergo a re-certification process. In addition, schools provide the Proprietary Division with information on any additional programs that they intend to implement.

Mr. Bass wanted to know if a Bachelor of Science Degree that Vatterott College issues and a Bachelor of Science Degree issued by another higher education institution goes through the same scrutiny and has the same perceived value. Dr. Stein stated that the department has a set of program approval policies for public and independent institutions. The department's Proprietary Division has a set of program policies that address issues and characteristics similar to those in the public and independent institutional sectors.

Mr. Bass stated that he understands that the nature of proprietary education continues to change. He wants to know how to appropriately answer the public about this sector. Dr. Stein suggested that staff would provide a summary for the Senator about the process used in the Proprietary Division on initial certification and the relationship to those institutions as they change the nature of their programs.

Vatterott College was involved in a stock sale; there will be no change to the Chief Executive Officer or the institutional leaders at the various campuses. Mrs. Grove asked if the sale of Vatterott College would require that it go through the approval process or if the certification is included with the purchase of the school. Mr. Wade stated that the Certificate of Approval, by statute, is not transferable. Vatterott College must go through a re-approval process under the new ownership.

Distribution of the Department of Higher Education (DHE) Improving Teacher Quality Funds for Professional Development

Missouri received approximately $48 million in federal funds under the new Title II act. The department was allotted 2.5 percent of these funds, of which $63,000 was allocated for administrative purposes. The remainder of higher education's portion of these funds must be distributed on a competitive basis to higher education K-12 partnerships.

Title II created a new program for teacher quality grants. The department issued an RFP in June 2002 inviting proposals. Twenty-two proposals were received. An external evaluation team reviewed and made recommendations on the proposals. Attached is a list of the nine projects that were funded.

A small portion of the federal money is supporting an additional RFP. The RFP is for an evaluation team to evaluate all projects and assist the department's work fulfilling its obligations to the federal government.

An issue on the use of federal money concerns professional development. Mrs. Carmichael noted that this issue was a struggle in the first K-16 program. Higher education needs targeted professional development.

Dr. Stein reported that often K-12 schools defend the current use of professional development monies. He shared the importance of using data to determine the most pressing needs for professional development. Dr. Bourisaw noted that professional development is one of the issues she evaluates in the school districts in which she works. Most of the money is unfocused, results are not measured, and the evidence of improved student learning is not available. Dr. Bourisaw is interested in the evaluation process because it is difficult to measure the implementation of staff development in the classroom.

Chair Kauffman noted that Professional Development was made a priority in SB 380.

Annual Report on Campus-based Reviews of Existing Programs-Public Four-year Institutions

The public four-year institutions, following the board's policy, review all academic programs once every five years and report executive summaries to department staff. This board item provides a list of all programs reviewed during the past year. Executive summaries are available at the Department of Higher Education offices.

Some reports offer only aggregated data, which can mask problem areas. This is a perfect opportunity to establish a process of gathering disaggregated data by degree or discipline area. While the department does have some disaggregated data, the institutions offer a richer source of such data.

Staff anticipates integrating this process with the Results Improvement Initiative.

English Language Proficiency of Graduate Teaching Assistants

According to Section 170.012, RSMo, all graduate students who did not receive both their primary and secondary education in a nation or territory in which English is the primary language shall be tested for their ability to communicate orally in English in a classroom setting prior to receiving a teaching appointment.

This item provides a summary of the report, which includes expectations that:

• Graduate teaching assistants, whose native language is not English, shall take a set of assessments before they are assigned a Graduate Teaching Assistant Degree (GTA); and
• Graduate students who have not previously lived in the United States and who are assigned to teaching positions are expected to receive a cultural orientation prior to assuming their teaching responsibilities.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the board, Mrs. Grove moved that the meeting adjourn. Mrs. Carmichael seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.