Coordinating Board for Higher Education Meeting Minutes 04-03

April 10, 2003

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education met at 10:45 a.m. on Thursday, April 10, 2003 at Truman State University in Kirksville. Members present were:

Sandra Kauffman, Chair
Marie Carmichael, Vice-Chair
Mary Joan Wood, Secretary
John Bass
Dudley Grove
Lowell Kruse
Robert Langdon
Kathryn Swan

Members absent from the meeting were:

Diana Bourisaw

Others attending included:

Quentin Wilson, Commissioner of Higher Education
Trudy Baker, Administrative Assistant for EPPIC
Debra Cheshier, Director of the Education Policy, Planning and Improvement Center (EPPIC)
Chris Kelly, Director of Communications
Jim Matchefts, Associate Commissioner and Director of Legal Affairs for MOSTARS/General Counsel for Department of Higher Education
Susanne Medley, Director of Marketing
Brenda Miner, Administrative Assistant to the Commissioner
Robert Stein, Associate Commissioner for Academic Affairs and Planning
Laura Vedenhaupt, Administrative Assistant for Academic Affairs and Planning
Leroy Wade, Director for Proprietary School Certification
John Wittstruck, Senior Research Associate for EPPIC

Chair Kauffman called the meeting to order. A list of guests attending the meeting is included as Attachment A.

Minutes of February 6, 2003 CBHE Meeting

Mrs. Grove moved that the minutes of the February 6, 2003 board meeting be approved as printed. Mr. Bass seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Opening Comments

On behalf of the Coordinating Board and the Department of Higher Education staff, Chair Kauffman expressed appreciation, to Dr. Jack Magruder, president, Truman State University, for hosting a very successful two days of meetings and events. Dr. Magruder introduced his successor, Dr. Barbara Dixon. Dr. Dixon is currently the provost and vice-president of State University of New York at Geneseo. Dr. Magruder expressed his confidence that Dr. Dixon will be a perfect fit at Truman State.

Chair Kauffman thanked Dr. Magruder for his strong commitment to post-secondary education in the state, a visionary leader at Truman and thoughtful consensus builder for Missouri's statewide system of higher education, as well as a valuable contributor to community improvement and progress. He has served Missouri with integrity, dignity and honesty.

Chair Kauffman presented Dr. Magruder with a small token of the board's appreciation.

Chair Kauffman introduced the newest member of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education, Mrs. Kathryn F. Swan, from Cape Girardeau.

Report of the Commissioner

Commissioner Wilson congratulated Mrs. Swan on being confirmed by the Senate earlier in the day. He reported that:

• Beginning in June, the board book will be available on the department's website: www.dhe.mo.gov. The agency will begin phasing out distribution of board books. This approach will save the department approximately $3,700 yearly.
• Because of budget issues facing the department, the June board meeting will be held in Jefferson City, rather than Liberty. Future board meetings may need to be relocated depending on the outcome of the FY 2004 budget.
• This year's Governor's Conference on Higher Education will be held in Springfield on December 4. The Commissioner thanked the institutional representatives who are serving on the Governor's Conference Planning team with staff from the Department of Higher Education and Susanne Medley, the department's Marketing Director. The Commission on the Future of Higher Education is expected to present at least preliminary recommendations at the conference.

  Commissioner Wilson stated that the board meeting date change in December required action by the board. Mrs. Grove moved that the board move the December meeting to December 4, 2003. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

The charter of the Commission on the Future of Higher Education states that they will provide the important indicators to be measured by the board and the institutions. The Commission will:

• Decide what they want higher education to achieve.
• Receive assistance from the national collaborative in determining how Missouri higher education performs in identified indicators. Their conclusions will determine how well higher education in Missouri is performing, as well as benchmarking Missouri against other states.
• Examine how higher education and state policies help or hinder those outcomes.

Mr. Kruse stated that there is value in holding the board meetings at the institutions. He would like the board to review the financial impact to learn the full extent of the budget issue that prevents the board and staff from continuing to meet at the institutions.

Report of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee

Dr. Henry Shannon, chancellor, St. Louis Community College, reported on four items that were discussed at the Presidential Advisory Committee meeting:

• FY 2004 Budget - With a projected $1 billion shortfall in terms of state revenue and expenditures, the higher education community is facing a possible loss of $80 to $100 million to their budgets next year. Presidents and chancellors have sent impact statements to the Commissioner with respect to future reductions. The institutions have utilized many strategies to reduce their budgets but with their reserves depleted, it is imperative that the General Assembly and the Governor hear and understand the impact of the cuts on the institutions' budgets.
• Standards for Establishing Community College Districts - This is an action item for the board to approve recommended revisions to Administrative Rule 6 CSR 10-6.010, Standards for Establishing Community Junior College Districts, which was proposed in earlier meetings by Dr. John Wittstruck.
• Update on the Two- and Four-year Review of the Associate Degree Delivery Policies - The Council on Public Higher Education (COPHE) and Missouri Community Colleges Association (MCCA) taskforce developed recommendations on associate degree delivery policies. The presidents and chancellors were pleased with the work this committee has accomplished. The goal for all institutions is to provide access to more people in their respective communities throughout the state. There is a strong belief that cooperation and collaboration is the means to provide access to higher education because the institutions are out-stretched and centered around Missouri's economy. The spirit of cooperation is central as two- and four-year public and independent institutions work together for the success of all institutions, for the welfare of Missouri's citizens, and to become more efficient in operations and delivery.
• Results Improvement Initiative - Preparation, participation, affordability, completion, benefits, learning, customer satisfaction, examining underserved groups, and quality and performance excellence are issues presidents and chancellors are concerned about at their respective institutions. The feedback on the list of priority outcomes, which was prioritized by the presidents and chancellors, will provide guidance for higher education to better serve the citizens of this state.

Status of FY 2004 Budget and Proposed Legislation Relating to Higher Education

Tab A, Attachment A of the board book provides the Governor's recommendation and the House Appropriations Committee recommendations for the FY 2004 budget. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $16,215,638 less than the Governor's recommendation in general revenue, the same amount in federal funds, and $1,822,368 more in other funds. The total House Appropriations recommendation was $1,053,318,059, or 1.37 percent less than the Governor's recommendation.

Commissioner Wilson stated that the information provided by the institutions on the impact of the proposed 15 percent cut has been submitted to Senate Appropriations. Without some balance between revenues and spending cuts, the Commissioner expects higher education to be vulnerable to an additional $80 to $100 million budget reduction for FY 2004. Serious problems exist with these cuts, especially after having seen the impact statements from the presidents. The Commissioner communicated to the legislature that it is a devastating, misguided, unwise investment decision to impose further cuts on the institutions. It is necessary that others in the higher education community relay their concerns to legislators so they may better understand the seriousness of the impact of further cuts on higher education institutions, the students, and the future of higher education in Missouri.

SB18 and HB73 seek to create a second college savings plan program, similar to MO$T, and to allow Missouri tax deductions for all 529 programs. Although HB73 has crossed chambers, the Senate has yet to take action on either bill. Most of the name change bills are stalled, with the exception of SB55, Missouri Southern State College to Missouri Southern State University-Joplin and mission change, which has crossed chambers. SB248 and HB583 are early retirement bills that, if passed, may impact public higher education institutions.

With the May 16 close of the legislature drawing near, Mr. Bass reminded those present, that the higher education community and its supporters need to continue applying pressure to the legislature concerning the budget and the importance of higher education in Missouri.

Chair Kauffman stated that early in the legislative session the higher education community was successful in presenting a common message about the importance of higher education to the economic vitality of the state. Legislators need to know the severity and seriousness of this issue for the institutions and particularly, the effects of $100 million in cuts next year to institutions in their districts. She urged presidents and chancellors to contact their legislators, to reinforce the effects of further cuts on their institutions.

Mrs. Carmichael suggested that it might be helpful if the Coordinating Board for Higher Education pass a resolution, urging the members of the General Assembly not to make further cuts to higher education, providing the lead for other governing boards to do likewise.

Resolution of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education to Support Positive Action by the Legislature Regarding Higher Education's Budget.Mrs. Carmichael moved that the board affirm the following resolution:

Whereas, higher education in the State of Missouri produces quality education for over 350,000 citizens; and

Whereas, higher education is a critical link to the future economic vitality of the State of Missouri; and

Whereas, the system of higher education has sustained significant reductions in state appropriations during FY 2002 and FY 2003; and

Whereas, Governor Holden's budget recommendations for FY 2004 maintain the FY 2003 funding levels as requested by the Coordinating Board; and

Whereas, revenue projections for FY 2004 suggest that there will be limited state funding available for the state's programs and services;

Now, Therefore, be it Resolved, that the Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education urges members of the Ninety-second General Assembly, First Regular Session, to make every effort, including revenue enhancements, to avoid additional budget reductions to higher education, and to appropriate the funding levels for FY 2004 as requested by the board.

Resolved in Kirksville, Missouri this 10th date of April in the year two thousand three.

______________________________
Chair Sandra D. Kauffman

Mr. Kruse seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

The board directed the Commissioner to distribute the resolution to the appropriate parties.

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

Staff are proposing that the Coordinating Board approve the revisions to its Administrative Rule, 6 CSR 10-6.010, in order to adopt new standards for establishing new community college taxing districts.

Dr. John Wittstruck stated that the recommendations to revise the Administrative Rule and Standards for Establishing Community Junior College Districts were brought to the board on February 6, 2003 as a discussion item. One letter, from Nickie Foster, Chair, Steering Committee of the Lake of the Ozarks Community College Proposal and Petitioning Committee, was received in the interim.

Mrs. Grove stated that it was very exciting to see communities valuing education and willing to tax themselves to put together a system of service to their residents. However, she expressed concern about the costs to the state as a whole. It is her hope that any new taxing district would consider brokering courses and instructors, using technology, cooperation, and collaboration among institutions, and seek alternatives to avoid creating costly buildings, facilities, etc.

Mrs. Wood described the revisions as a double-edged sword for the community colleges that promote community college education 100 percent, but receive less in return. It is difficult for them to accept that other institutions are being created where the community colleges had originally provided distance-learning and access which was costly for them.

Dr. Wittstruck stated that it is recommended that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education authorize the Commissioner of Higher Education to file an amendment to Administrative Rule 6 CSR 10-6.010, as described in Attachment A and revised as indicated in Attachment B, with the Secretary of State to be published in the Missouri Register at the earliest possible date and to submit concurrently the proposed rule to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules as required by statute.

It is further recommended that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education authorize the Commissioner of Higher Education to proceed, after the public comment period and in the absence of significant comment, to file an Order of Rulemaking with the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and the Secretary of State for publishing in the Missouri Register on a schedule that the Rule 6 CSR 10-6.010 shall become effective at the earliest possible date. Mrs. Carmichael moved to adopt the motion. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

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

Dr. Robert Stein commented on the discussion held by the board, the Presidential Advisory Committee, and members of the joint subcommittee of COPHE and MCCA. Dr. Stein stated that there is common agreement that the driver in these discussions should be addressing the needs of Missouri citizens for higher education programs, increasing access and success of Missouri's citizens, and promoting greater efficiency in the system. In that context, all institutions should become engaged in the conversation. The Department of Higher Education staff has encouraged that all issues and perspectives be heard and that the joint subcommittee move forward expeditiously.

The Progress Report and Draft Agreements of the Joint COPHE/MCCA Task Force on Mission Differentiation, is provided as Attachment B.

Furthermore, DHE staff has encouraged that any disagreements and the arguments and rationale behind those disagreements be brought forward. DHE staff strongly supports the establishment of stipulated timelines; the joint subcommittee has expressed its interest in having another six months to continue its discussions.

Mrs. Grove restated her concerns about the grandfathering exceptions in the draft document (Attachment B) and "mission creep" of institutions. Mrs. Carmichael requested clarification of the grandfathering issue. Dr. Stein answered that institutions with significant programs in place would continue to deliver those programs. However, after the board adopts recommendations from the joint subcommittee, any new programs would fall under the new guidelines for eligibility to be approved for new program delivery at the associate degree level.

Mr. Bass asked which specific locations or programs would be affected by the grandfathering. Dr. Stein responded that the joint subcommittee will provide a complete document encompassing their recommendations, including a detailed list of those programs that fall under the grandfather exception, but that list has not yet been developed.

Mr. Langdon asked if there will be a finalized draft available for the board to vote on at the October 2003 meeting. Dr. Stein responded that the recommendations made by the joint subcommittee would be sent to the DHE staff, which would then engage in a statewide discussion of those recommendations. If the joint subcommittee does not complete their work until October 2003, DHE staff will not be able to present the finalized document to the board at the October meeting.

Chair Kauffman suggested that the joint subcommittee submit their recommendations to the board at the October meeting. Mrs. Carmichael noted that October 2003 would be one full year from the date the joint subcommittee was granted an opportunity to resolve issues. Mrs. Carmichael stated that more time may not be the answer and encouraged the board to consider an earlier deadline.

Mr. Langdon suggested that the joint subcommittee provide the Department of Higher Education staff with an updated draft document including results of discussions with independent, proprietary, and technical institutions by August 1, 2003. This would allow the board to review the recommendations prior to voting on the document at the October 2003 meeting.

Chair Kauffman urged the joint subcommittee to bring the independent, proprietary, and technical institutions into the discussion; the board wants all institutions to have time to provide meaningful input. Chair Kauffman also indicated her interest in having the joint subcommittee provide alternatives for issues that cannot be resolved in its discussions.

After discussion, Dr. Stein proposed the following: It is recommended that the COPHE/MCCA joint subcommittee finalize its recommendations concerning associate degree delivery and mission differentiation for submission to the Department of Higher Education by August 1, 2003. COPHE and MCCA are encouraged to involve the independent, proprietary, and technical institutions in their discussions. It is further recommended that upon receipt, DHE staff will immediately initiate a statewide review and discussion of the recommendations. Any policy changes should undergo the board's processes for extensive dialogue and analysis prior to presentation to the board for action.

Dr. Stein stated that this would allow for institutions to have due process and to have a fair and adequate chance for all participants to express their views. DHE will work diligently to bring this issue to closure as soon as possible.

Mrs. Grove moved to adopt the motion. Mr. Langdon seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Chair Kauffman thanked the eight participating institutions and the two co-chairs for their work on this issue.

Commission on the Future of Higher Education

On March 17, 2003, Governor Holden issued Executive Order 03-07 establishing the Commission on the Future of Higher Education. The overall goal of the Commission is to identify state goals to which Missourians should expect higher education to contribute. For maximum impact, the higher education community eventually may align strategic planning outcomes and strategies with those defined by the Commission. The first meeting of the Commission will be held on April 14, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. in Jefferson City. Commissioner Wilson invited board members, presidents and chancellors to attend.

The second meeting of the Commission will be held in June, a third meeting in October, and a final report will be delivered at the Governor's Conference on Higher Education in Springfield in December 2003.

Commissioner Wilson stated that Dr. Debra Cheshier, director of the Educational Policy, Planning, and Improvement Center (EPPIC), has been working with organizations and institutions to develop an additional communication process with the institutions and the academic resource team. The Council on Public Higher Education (COPHE), Missouri Community College Association (MCCA), and Independent Colleges and Universities of Missouri (ICUM), as well as the proprietary schools, are represented.

The Commission on the Future of Higher Education began as an idea at the board's retreat last year. Several presidents encouraged Governor Holden to form the Commission as a step toward moving beyond the immediate budgetary problems and considering a higher education system for the 21st century.

Merger Discussion - University of Missouri and Northwest Missouri State University

Dr. Elson Floyd, president, University of Missouri and Dr. Dean Hubbard, president, Northwest Missouri State University, addressed the board regarding the proposed merger between the University of Missouri System and Northwest Missouri State University. Dr. Floyd noted that these two public institutions have had ongoing discussions about coming together in a collaborative partnership. This collaboration is being undertaken without benefit of imposed legislation or public mandate.

The role and responsibility of the University of Missouri is to continue to provide the highest quality educational experience for the citizens of Missouri. Institutions of higher education in Missouri need to find ways to be as efficient as possible while maintaining that high level of quality. The University of Missouri and Northwest Missouri State University have been collaborating for many years on various programs; bringing Northwest Missouri State University into the University of Missouri System is a logical next step.

In response to the board's question, Dr. Hubbard explained that the Northwest Governing Board would transform into a Board of Trustees when the merger is complete. Northwest Missouri State University is in the process of designing a new charter for the Board of Trustees that will complement the University of Missouri Board of Curators. Dr. Floyd emphasized that other University of Missouri campuses engage Boards of Trustees in policy and planning issues and stated that it is important to maintain the benefit of their collective wisdom.

Mr. Kruse asked for clarification on the process that will be used to engage the region in discussion on the merger and the impact that such a merger may have on the affected communities. Dr. Hubbard explained that he would personally be meeting with members of the business community to discuss the process. Dr. Floyd added that there are four strategic roles of the University of Missouri: teaching, research, service, and economic development. The relationship will galvanize the work of the University of Missouri with the private sector.

Mrs. Carmichael asked about the impact on the other institutions in the system and how they will be engaged in the process, and what will be the impact on the whole of higher education in Missouri. Dr. Floyd answered that since the press release earlier in the week, many comments have been received from colleagues and the general public. Dr. Floyd has contacted the University of Missouri campuses requesting their input and feedback on the process. A web site has been created for individuals to post their comments and concerns on this issue (http://system.missouri.edu/Merger/).

The board thanked Dr. Floyd and Dr. Hubbard for their time and encouraged them to keep the board updated on the merger discussions as details become available.

Future Directions for the Progress Report - Background on the Draft 2003 Progress Report, Striving for Excellence: A Report on Missouri's System of Higher Education

The DRAFT 2003 Progress Report is presented as a transitional document, setting the stage for compiling future progress reports. Current and upcoming initiatives, which may affect the types of information important for assessing the progress of higher education, are outlined in this agenda item.

Dr. Cheshier stated that several issues became evident during the staff's work on the report this year:

• It is not clear whether the structure and content of this document is beneficial in assessing Missouri's progress toward key goals and providing comparisons with neighboring and top performing states.
• It is not clear what "progress" refers to, and what specific goals and objectives we are measuring progress on.
• Recommendations from the Commission on the Future of Higher Education will provide new directions for Missouri's higher education system and could impact the content of future reports.
• There are a number of initiatives, policy efforts, and improvement projects within the department that are stimulating new issues, new ways of thinking about higher education, and refocusing attention on important priorities of the board, the department, and the institutions.

Some information, which typically has not been included in the progress report, may be beneficial to the board and could be considered for possible inclusion, such as information on technical education issues, proprietary sector issues, and underrepresented groups. In addition, the board and other audiences may find it more helpful if the progress report is issued in late summer or early fall after the academic year end for more up-to-date information

The board offered the following comments:

• One key objective of higher education is to improve the economic vitality of the state; information about Missouri's performance compared to other states, and quality of life indicators are two examples of important data the board needs in order to have informed discussions about the economic impact of higher education.
• Issues that the board and educators are interested in include both leading indicators and lagging indicators.
• The board needs to focus and strive for agreement with the institutions on the issues to be measured in order to achieve the best results for the state of Missouri.

Commissioner Wilson stated that the department's performance improvement and performance excellence processes are very similar to the institutional process. Data collected should answer questions about the accomplishments and achievements considered valuable by the higher education community.

Commissioner Wilson stated that managing by fact, using analyses to make decisions, knowing how well the systems are working, and knowing where changes need to be made are an integral part of the Baldridge quality criteria model.. The Commissioner stated that at each meeting, the board will be given a progress report on these criteria and can then inform staff if they are providing the kind of data necessary to make decisions and set policies.

By next year, the board will receive reports on action plans that will signify if the department is achieving excellence as an organization.

Dr. Cheshier acknowledged the contributions of Dr. Wittstruck and other staff in the development of the Draft 2003 Progress Report.

Results Improvement Initiative

Commissioner Wilson addressed the board regarding the Results Improvement Process. The presidents and chancellors who attended the PAC meeting were given the opportunity to provide input into the results improvement survey that was administered to Coordinating Board on April 9, 2003. The input from the institutions was somewhat surprising; many institutions placed emphasis on measuring results and systems for trying to improve those measurements. The survey results from board members and institutions will be made available to the board at the June 2003 meeting. The department will review the results and integrate it with the department performance improvement process.

Mrs. Grove stated that she was whole-heartedly committed to supporting the department in its pursuit of results improvement. Mrs. Grove moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education and the Department of Higher Education formally adopt the Missouri Quality Award Criteria, which are based on the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, for use as the management model both by the board and the agency. Mr. Kruse seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Mr. Bass posed a question regarding additional costs that the criteria may impose. Commissioner Wilson and Mr. Kruse explained that there should be no additional costs due to the talent and resources of current Missouri higher education personnel.

MOSTARS UpdateDr. Jim Matchefts explained why a guaranteed student loan program is needed in Missouri, as follows:

• Having a guaranteed student loan program as the Missouri state-designated program ensures that all students will have access to guaranteed student loans. The mission of MOSTARS is to serve all of Missouri's institutions.
• The Guaranteed Student Loan Program is accountable to the Governor, the General Assembly, the Coordinating Board for Higher Education, and to the citizens of Missouri.
• Any and all concerns or complaints are taken seriously and addressed appropriately.
• The program receives no general revenue funding, but does receive appropriations, which are necessary to spend federal dollars. It is a self-sustaining program with earnings kept in its operating fund. The program operates an extremely aggressive default prevention program. Grants of up to $25,000 are made to institutions with historically high default rates.
• The loan program provides the majority of the funding for the database integration project and for the seven student aid programs. Upon completion of the project, delivery of student aid funds at the institutions will be streamlined.
• The loan disbursement system operated by the loan program, Automated Transfer of Money (ATOM), lessens the student loan processing time by distributing each check to the institution along with a roster of students covered by that check.
• The department provides a one-stop shop for students to obtain state-based aid, grants, scholarships, and loans.
• There are benefits in conjunction with MOHELA, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, which is the state's designated secondary market for student loans.
  1. Anyone having a loan with MOHELA that is guaranteed by MOSTARS, receives a 2 percent rate reduction on their loan.
  2. Students working in areas of social work, nursing, teaching, or law enforcement may have their loan interest rate lowered to as low as 1.25 percent.
  3. When a student goes into repayment, the benefits from the MOHELA program begin immediately, unlike other programs that require a certain number of payments.
• In the loan program, Missouri's higher education institutions, lenders, and students served are considered customers. Those in the loan program are very interested in the Quality Improvement Project.
• The market share of the loan program is 42 percent in the most recent federal fiscal year, which is 2 percent higher than the year before. It is expected to continue growing.
• The University of Missouri at St Louis, Columbia, and Rolla have moved all or portions of their volume out of the Direct Lending Program. Institutions prefer the state-designated guarantor because the DHE loan program provides quality technology, staff, and service.
• The guarantee agency is an efficiently managed financial institution, operated for the benefit of Missouri's students and higher education institutions.

Commissioner Wilson stated that a meeting would take place on April 11 with Mr. David W. Kemper, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the holding company Commerce Bankshares, Inc. Commerce Bank is the largest single customer of MOSTARS with over 21 percent of its volume.

Concerning MOHELA, staff are developing new incentives, such as providing an additional discount on interest rates and providing added benefits to teachers who teach in an underserved district or in a shortage specialty.

Mrs. Carmichael encouraged higher education institutions in Missouri to use MOHELA because of its benefits to student financial aid. This is an important vehicle to make education more affordable. A 2 to 2.5 percent reduction at the back end of a 25-year loan payment is of greater benefit than at the beginning of that loan.

Mr. Bass asked if the conditions surrounding the return of $32 million by MOSTARS to the federal government last year have been met and what the status of that account is at present. Dr. Matchefts explained that the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 established a recall of reserve funds held by the 36 guarantee agencies nationwide. These federal funds were used to pay claims and defaulted loans from private lenders. The formula used to return the $1 billion from the guarantee agencies demanded more from agencies with higher reserve ratios than from those having lower ratios. MOSTARS, having the second highest reserve ratio at 2.82 percent, had to return 69 percent of their reserve funds, or $32 million. Another recall resulted from the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, which required MOSTARS to pay back a smaller amount in three equal installments of approximately $1.1 million each. There remains $2.2 million dollars yet to be repaid. At present, MOSTARS reserve fund is about $18 million.

The board requested that MOSTARS agenda items, including examples and status reports, be scheduled earlier in future board meetings, enabling presidents and chancellors to know how beneficial this program is to students and institutions.

Appointment of a Nominating Committee

Chair Kauffman appointed the following board members to serve as the nominating committee to recommend a slate of board officers for the next year and to report its recommendation to the board during its June meeting:

Mr. John Bass, Chair
Mrs. Mary Joan Wood
Mr. Bob Langdon

Collaborative Academic Degree Programs

This board item acknowledges the importance of collaboration in and among the academic community. Collaboration and cooperation require hard work, commitment, and persistence. The staff is working with institutions to develop an accurate list of all collaborative degree programs.

The board was presented with a draft list of the collaborative efforts of Missouri higher education institutions. This draft is an update of the consortia and collaborative partnerships as presented in the 1999 Progress Report. Sixteen institutions have provided additional information that has been included in the update. The draft will be revised and redistributed to the board in early summer.

As part of this board item, a new collaborative online degree program is being highlighted. This effort charts new territory by fostering collaboration of an online degree at the Master's level.

Northwest Missouri State University, Lincoln University, and Southeast Missouri State University have been working on this collaboration for four years. Originally, there were nine institutions at the table; three institutions remain that have agreed to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for this new program. Dr. Dean Hubbard from Northwest, Dr. Kenneth Dobbins from Southeast, and Dr. Joe Simmons from Lincoln were called forward for a public signing of the MOU.

The MOU deals with oversight issues, admissions, program structure, exit requirements, resources to support the collaborative, distribution of funds generated by the collaborative, how to discontinue the collaborative, and how to add new member institutions to the collaborative. This level of collaboration for an on-line program represents a tremendous move forward in the state of Missouri. Chair Kauffman commended the representatives and their institutions on reaching this agreement that will increase access to master's level education.

The institutional representatives assured the board that national standards had been adhered to when developing the on-line courses, and that art and science faculty members were engaged in the development of the program.

Commissioner Wilson stated that it may be useful to provide this information to the legislature in order to show that Missouri institutions are working together to provide quality education while managing resources more efficiently.

Mrs. Wood moved that the board direct the Commissioner to commend all institutions for their involvement in collaborative degree program delivery and to encourage increased activity in this area. Mrs. Carmichael seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

The board received the following Information Items:

Distribution of Community College Funds

Annual Report of the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority

This information item will be discussed at the board's June meeting.

Proprietary School Certification Process

Proprietary School Certification Actions and Reviews

Dr. Stein provided a brief report in order to re-familiarize board members and to assist new board members about the process involved in proprietary school certification.

Academic Program Actions

Dr. Stein briefed the board on the academic program changes that have occurred since the February 6, 2003 meeting. Dr. Stein focused the board's attention on two new Associate of Applied Science (AAS) Degree Programs from State Fair Community College: Dental Hygiene and Radiation Technology. The Dental Hygiene program has been approved subject to conditions associated with funding and accreditation, and the Radiation Technology program has been approved subject to conditions associated with funding, accreditation, and articulation. Dr. Stein stated that board members would be notified by the 15th of each month of any program changes posted to the department web site. Chair Kauffman expressed appreciation to department staff for providing board members with advance notice of academic program changes.

Teacher Quality Grant Evaluation Award

Dr. Stein summarized the process used in awarding the DHE Improving Teacher Quality Grant, formerly the Eisenhower Professional Development Program. Nine professional development grants were awarded this year, and one additional award was granted to a team headed by Dr. Sandra Abell to evaluate the nine professional development programs.

Dr. Stein stated that Department of Higher Education staff is engaged in discussions about how to redesign the way we use the yearly grant. The Department of Higher Education will remain within federal guidelines but will look for ways to make a larger impact with this funding.

In the past, the program has allowed a number of individual separate types of projects. It is difficult to evaluate and compare these projects if they are driven by local, autonomous decisions. The Department of Higher Education has certain challenges. The federal guidelines require that the funding be used in a relationship between higher education and local K-12 schools in the design of the projects. The Department of Higher Education feels that there is some room in the guidelines to be more proscriptive of the types of projects that are funded.

Missouri is one of thirteen states that belong to the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) Collaborative on teacher quality. SHEEO is interested in Missouri defining a project in which they will provide additional technical assistance. The Department of Higher Education is going to redesign this particular project to allow more effective program evaluation. The Department of Higher Education will offer feedback to the institutions so that they may redesign their curriculum as necessary.

Chair Kauffman asked if the program would allow the board to request project proposals that would assist the board in achieving its statewide goals. Dr. Stein responded that the regulations require that the funding be used for teacher professional development that is driven by a cooperative relationship between local school districts and higher education institutions, and the awards must be geographically distributed throughout the state. The Department of Higher Education staff is currently analyzing the federal regulations regarding the grant. The goal of this analysis is to provide latitude to redesign the project proposals so that they are also driven by departmental needs to create systematic evidence of what is and what is not effective in professional development. The Department of Higher Education is seeking targeted, data-driven professional development projects rather than individual initiatives that failed to adequately compare and evaluate the various projects.

Missouri High School Graduates' Performance Report: Outstanding Schools Act - Senate Bill 380

Dr. Wittstruck stated that the High School Graduates' Report is one of the board's statutory reports. This report is prepared for the State Board of Education. It is used by the State Board of Education and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) staff for high school re-accreditation, as well as linking high school performance to college success. The report provides colleges and universities with data to identify high school graduates who meet the institution's admission requirements and provides high schools with guidance and counseling tools to assess graduates' preparation for college. Using this information, high schools and institutions can strengthen their current academic programs. Schools request that the report include the data made available to the public in the School Report Cards.

Comparisons between the report prepared for the 2002 Public High School Graduates with those graduating in 1996 show the following:

1. By ethnic category, the distribution of the freshman class has not changed over time; and
2. The percentage of freshmen taking remedial mathematics has not been reduced.
3. Thirty-seven percent of the 1996 class received baccalaureate degrees, 10 percent received associate degrees, and 3 percent received both associate and baccalaureate degrees.
4. This longitudinal data will be increasingly important to high school board members and decision-makers.

Staff are using these data to rank schools that have 40, 50, 60 or even 100 percent of their high school graduates enrolled in remedial mathematics to begin focusing early awareness and outreach activities in targeted schools.

Dr. Wittstruck stated that part of the GEAR UP grant research is examining the success in college of high school graduates graduating from the high schools where the GEAR UP middle school students enroll. All the data presented to the board in the K-16 "Achievement Gap Elimination" Report continues to show that taking the core curriculum, college-going rates, achievement levels of new and current teachers, PRAXIS scores, C-Base scores for these GEAR UP transition high schools and other issues are significantly below high schools across the state. This information will provide impetus for the direction of professional development and teacher quality awards. Staff are beginning to geo code these data so problem areas will be visible on a map.

Mrs. Grove commended Dr. Wittstruck and Dr. Wei Zhou for the data and the report.

Mrs. Grove inquired if it was appropriate to meet with DESE to review the remediation problems and determine a solution. Dr. Wittstruck stated that the Missouri High School Graduates' Performance Report is periodically on the agenda of the joint board meeting. Dr. Cheshier and the Educational Policy, Planning, and Improvement Center staff are meeting with the research staff of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to assist them in interpreting the report and providing them with help in making the information useful in the area of school improvement.

Mrs. Carmichael stated that the report would help the board and staff identify the colleges of education that are producing teachers who teach in schools that rate high in student performance. Those institutions could be rewarded. In schools where student performance is low, the board and staff have an obligation to make changes. She suggested using the report at a future study session.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the board, Mrs. Carmichael moved that the meeting adjourn. Mrs. Grove seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.