Coordinating Board for Higher Education Meeting Minutes 04-99

April 15, 1999

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education met at 10:15 a.m. on Thursday, April 15, 1999 at Cottey College in Nevada. Members present were:

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

Absent were Bryan Cook, Lynn M. Ewing, Jr., and Mary Findley.

Also attending were:

Kala M. Stroup, Commissioner
Terry Barnes, Assistant Commissioner for Community Colleges and Technical Education
Joy Casada, Secretary to the Board
Cheryl Kesel, Public Information Officer
Shelly Lamb, Administrative Assistant to the Commissioner
Karen Misjak, Director of Missouri Student Assistance Resource Services
Dan Peterson, Deputy Director of Missouri Student Assistance Resource Services
Cleo Samudzi, Senior Associate for Academic Affairs
Vera Stanojevic, Senior Associate
Robert Stein, Assistant Commissioner for Academic Affairs
Dale Swoboda, Research Associate for Fiscal Affairs
Paul Wagner, Research Associate for Fiscal Affairs
John Wittstruck, Associate Commissioner for Policy Analysis and Data Services
Wei Zhou, Research Director

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

Opening Remarks

Chairman Henry commented that the board toured the Nevada TeleCenter Wednesday evening and they were greatly impressed by what is being accomplished at the TeleCenter through the cooperation of Cottey College, the University of Missouri, Crowder College, Southwest Missouri State University, Missouri Southern State College, the Nevada R-V School School, and the Nevada Area Economic Development Commission. Dr. Henry expressed appreciation to President Helen Washburn for hosting the meeting and for the wonderful hospitality extended both Wednesday evening and Thursday. He also thanked the Nevada Area Economic Development Commission for their part in hosting the tour and the dinner.

Chairman Henry extended the board's sympathy to Lynn M. Ewing, Jr. who was absent from the meeting due to the death of his mother.

Minutes of the February CBHE Meeting

Mr. Bass moved that the minutes be approved as submitted. Mrs. Carmichael seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Report of the Commissioner

Commissioner Stroup stated that the staff is actively involved in the appropriation process which is going quite well. There has been good cooperation among all the institutions. In addition to the mission review process, the Missouri Commission on the Affordability of Higher Education, the Missouri K-16 Coalition, and the CBHE Committee on Technology and Instruction are meeting and planning for the future. The annual joint meeting with the State Board of Education will be held on May 21 at the Capitol Plaza Hotel in Jefferson City.

Report of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee

Dr. Marianne Inman reported that the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee met prior to the CBHE meeting and engaged in a lively discussion of agenda items. Those items were the Update on Revisions of Dual Credit Guidelines and the Proposed State Plan for Community Colleges in Missouri - Review Process.

Update on Revision of Dual Credit Guidelines

Dr. Inman reported that some of the issues raised in the discussion of this item were: (1) the possible limit on the number of dual credit hours that can be accumulated by a high school student; (2) the quality and comparability of courses; (3) the practice of tuition discounting; (4) institutions competing for a particular delivery site; (5) college faculty enforcement control of dual credit courses; (6) assessment of dual credit students; (7) the qualifications of high school teachers; and (8) what the electronic delivery of higher education will mean for dual credit.

Proposed State Plan for Community Colleges in Missouri - Review Process

Dr. Inman stated that concern was expressed regarding the potential the proposed state plan for community colleges has for other institutions. Commissioner Stroup commented that the proposed state plan was developed by the community colleges and will be one component of the staff and board review of the community colleges' mission. Dr. John Park remarked that the Council on Public Higher Education (COPHE) members acknowledge that, although the report has no official status with the board, they are very concerned about its content. COPHE's concerns are: (1) the plan would make major changes in all sectors of Missouri higher education and it is being presented at a time when the Blueprint for Missouri Higher Education is being implemented; (2) the community colleges are in the first round of funding and their mission review has not been completed and some four-year institutions have not received their full first cycle of funding for mission enhancement; (3) the plan appears to be very expensive and the collateral damage to other institutions has not been evaluated; and (4) the plan could result in duplication of programs provided to groups which are currently well served while adding only marginally to assist those who are under served. Dr. Jack Magruder stated that the four-year institutions feel that the CBHE needs to coordinate all state issues and evaluate the performance of all institutions in a coordinated and balanced plan that includes the community colleges. Dr. Strong asked if there would be an opportunity at the next advisory committee meeting to further discuss comments and concerns the presidents have with the proposed community college plan. There will be institutional meetings and discussions within the next six months. This item will also be on the June CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee agenda. Dr. Stroup stated that the focus always must be on serving Missouri's students.

Report on the Association of Governing Boards National Conference on Trusteeship in Seattle

Ray Henry, Connie Campbell, Mary Joan Wood, and Commissioner Stroup attended the AGB national conference in Seattle. Mary Joan Wood reported that she learned a lot about the role of a trustee and some of the current trends in higher education. Missouri was second to the state of California in the number of trustees attending. Dr. Campbell reported that this conference was one of the best ones that she has attended and she appreciated the opportunity to learn and grow from the sessions. Chairman Henry noted that one point that came through very loud and clear was that technology enables more accelerated learning opportunities and at the same time is a real challenge to institutions.

Report of the CBHE Trusteeship Development Committee

Dr. Campbell mentioned that the 1999 CBHE Trusteeship Development Workshop will be held on June 9 at the Holiday Inn Select-St. Peters/St. Charles. The workshop will focus on key areas that the CBHE Committee on Trusteeship Development researched as being the primary issues, problems, and areas for development as identified through the institutions and the committee. The workshop will include an orientation to the overall statewide strategic directions and will also address issues around success in working as individuals and as a team of trustees. The workshop will also address the legal, ethical, and fiscal priorities that are crucial for trustees to know in order to succeed. Dr. Campbell encouraged the presidents to urge their trustees to attend the workshop and to join their trustees at the workshop. In the future this workshop will alternate every eighteen months between June and December to give all trustees an opportunity to attend, for example; June 1999, December 2000, June 2002, December 2003.

1999 Report on Progress Toward the Statewide Public Policy Initiatives and Goals for Missouri Higher Education

Dr. Wittstruck conveyed that this report provided data, analysis, and information on the progress made by the state's system of higher education in achieving the twenty-four goals adopted by the Coordinating Board in 1992 and reconfirmed in 1996 as part of the Blueprint for Missouri Higher Education. Dr. Wittstruck noted that this is only one of several different reports distributed by the Coordinating Board that address issues of institutional and system wide performance. The data and analyses presented in these reports provide evidence of the progress that is being made to implement the Blueprint for Missouri Higher Education, inform discussion related to the enhancement of, and proposed changes to, Funding for Results (FFR), and provide a context for mission review and enhancement discussions with the presidents and chancellors.

According to the report the number of Missouri high schools offering Advanced Placement (AP) courses has increased nearly 50 percent since 1992, the number of students taking AP courses has increased by 69 percent. The number of AP examinations taken also increased by 69 percent between 1992 and 1998. In 1998, nearly 75 percent of the AP examinations written by Missouri students were scored at a grade of three or above, the highest percentage for all 50 states.

The number of Missouri first-time, full-time degree-seeking freshmen enrolled in public four-year colleges and universities who took the CBHE recommended high school core curriculum in high school increased from 46 percent in 1992 to 92 percent in 1998. Across all content fields, the percent of teacher education graduates recommended for secondary certification who scored above the 50th percentile on a Major Field Achievement Test in the content field increased from 9.0 percent to 29.0 percent. The proportion of all degrees conferred to African Americans has increased from 6.3 percent to 8.2 percent and the proportion of degrees conferred to minorities has increased at every level except certificate.

Dr. Wittstruck also referred the board to the information item describing the Results of the Currently Enrolled Student Survey.

Commissioner Stroup commented that she has visited with her counterparts across the nation and no one has even begun to reach the 90th percentile of students with a core curriculum in their colleges and universities.

Discussion of Changes for Funding for Results for FY 2001 and Beyond

Dr. Robert Stein noted that Funding for Results (FFR) is a major strategic initiative of the board. In designing a results-oriented agenda that builds on planning priorities, the board uses FFR as a funding strategy to both promote and acknowledge results. Some of the purposes of FFR are a commitment to continuous quality improvement, assurance of quality teaching and learning, and accountability to the governor, legislature, and the public. Dr. Stein mentioned that evidence of the effectiveness of FFR could be found in the 1999 Progress Report under Tab A of the board book.

Between FY 1994 and FY 1999, Missouri's public four-year institutions received a total addition to their base budgets of $42,098,768 in FFR dollars. Included in this amount is approximately $2.7 million in an annual allocation for teaching/learning improvement projects. Public two-year institutions began receiving FFR money in FY 1995 and the increase in FFR dollars for these institutions through FY 1999 totaled $7,174,671. Public two-year institutions annually receive approximately $1.5 million dedicated to teaching/learning improvement projects.

The CBHE staff works with institutional representatives to identify particular FFR challenges and areas for potential refinements for the board's consideration. There appears to be general agreement that any FFR changes for FY 2001 should be minor and that inclusion of new elements or new data requirements should be targeted for FY 2002. There is also continuing interest in designing FFR so it will have a greater impact on the campus culture. The staff's recommendation for any revisions or additions will be presented to the board in June for action.

A separate issue involves the relationship of FFR funding recommendations to other budget recommendations. FFR is designed so that the FFR appropriated funds earned by an institution become a part of its core budget. Thus although the total amount of money appropriated in any given year is relatively small, the long-term impact can be significant as FFR dollars are included in an institution's ensuing core base budget. FFR is not designed to proportionally increase each institution's base budget at the same rate since each institution performs differently on the agreed upon FFR elements. The board's FFR budget recommendation; however, is based on the assumption that FFR would be treated separately from inflationary increases, with the intention of funding a major portion of inflation first. Since FFR was not designed to replace infrastructure inflationary increases the board may want to explore strategies that will maximize its budget priorities. By joining FFR with low inflation increases (approximately 1 percent on education and general) as has been done by the governor and the General Assembly for the past two years, the impact of FFR on an institution's budget is further magnified.

Modifications to Programs of Instruction and Institutional Participation for the Advantage Missouri Program

Dr. Wittstruck noted that at the February 1999 CBHE meeting the board designated the initial list of academic programs and approved 74 Missouri postsecondary institutions to participate in the Advantage Missouri Program. The board also directed staff to continue discussions with institutions regarding any modifications or additions that may be necessary to the listing of programs. As a result, additions to the list of academic programs are being recommended and additional eligible Missouri postsecondary institutions have submitted the necessary materials to be considered for participation in the program. If funding is approved by the 1999 Missouri General Assembly, the program will be available to eligible students during the 1999-2000 academic year. In anticipation of funding being available, staff is proceeding with the implementation and the administrative rule making process; development of application materials, and distributing information to institutions, high schools, and Missouri citizens.

Dr. Campbell moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education designate the additional programs listed in Attachment A and approve the additional postsecondary institutions listed in Attachment B for participation in the Advantage Missouri Program during the 1999-2000 academic year if funds for the program are appropriated. As a result of this action Attachments C and D will become the final list of academic programs and approved postsecondary institutions for the first-year of the Advantage Missouri Program. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed. (See Attachments C and D.)

Administrative Rule for the Advantage Missouri Program

Mr. Dan Peterson reported that the Advantage Missouri Program was established by House Bill 1694, passed by the 1998 Missouri General Assembly and signed into law by Governor Carnahan. The program will provide student financial assistance in the form of loans to encourage eligible students attending approved Missouri postsecondary institutions to pursue training and education in designated programs of instruction to become employed in high demand occupational areas in Missouri. Upon program or degree completion in a designated program of instruction identified by the postsecondary institution and designated by the CBHE, the Advantage Missouri Program allows a student recipient the opportunity to have one year of loans forgiven for each year of employment in Missouri in a designated high demand occupation.

In order for the state of Missouri to implement and interpret law or policy for any program, an administrative rule must be drafted and filed with the Secretary of State to be published in the Missouri Register. The rule will become the basis for MOSTARS and approved Missouri institutions to administer the program in compliance with the statutory provisions.

Dr. Campbell moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education authorize the Commissioner of Higher Education, in the absence of significant comment from the Attorney General's Office, to file the proposed administrative rule 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 in House Bill 1694. Dr. Campbell further moved 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 Secretary of State for publishing in the Missouri Register on a schedule that Administrative Rule 6 CSR 10-2.130 shall become effective at the earliest possible date. Mr. Bass seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed. (See Attachment C).

Amendments to the Administrative Rule for the Public Service Officer or Employees Child Survivor Grant Program

Mr. Peterson stated that House Bill 1694 also amends certain statutory provisions of the Public Service Officer or Employee's Child Survivor Grant Program. Originally, this program provided tuition grants only to eligible Missouri residents who are dependent children of certain public safety officers and public employees killed in the line of duty. House Bill 1694 expands the existing eligibility requirements to include those who have been totally and permanently disabled in the line of duty. The amendments to HB 1694 also extend the benefits of the program to victims' spouses, rather than just to dependent children. Because of these statutory changes the current administrative rule needs to be amended.

Mr. Bass moved that the Coordinating Board authorize the Commissioner of Higher Education, in the absence of significant comment from the Attorney General's Office, to file the proposed administrative rule 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. Mr. Bass further moved that the Coordinating Board 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 Secretary of State for publishing in the Missouri Register on a schedule that Administrative Rule 6 CSR 10-2.1000 shall become effective at the earliest possible date. Mr. Summers seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed. (See Attachment D.)

Update on the Missouri Commission on the Affordability of Higher Education

Commissioner Stroup reported that Dr. James Olson is doing an outstanding job as chair of the commission. There has been almost 100 percent attendance by commission members at the meetings. The commission members are committed and are seriously grappling with a list of issues and are getting ready to begin working on their recommendations. The commission is taking its charge seriously and dealing with some very tough questions. Dr. Stroup called the board's attention to the list of meeting dates and encouraged them to attend the meetings. The commission's report is due in December and the policy discussions will probably start taking place by the July 8 commission meeting.Update on Missouri K-16 Coalition Activities

Mrs. Carmichael reported that at its last meeting the coalition approved an agenda for the upcoming year. The coalition has agreed to a deadline of October 1, 1999, for completion of its report on mathematics that will be submitted to each of the sponsoring boards. A couple of recommendations resulted from the coalition's March 22 meeting. One recommendation was to involve the CBHE in the approval of teacher training programs. Mrs. Carmichael asked board members to contact her if they have suggestions concerning ways in which that process might be designed prior to the May 21 joint meeting of the CBHE and the State Board of Education. The coalition adopted a resolution of endorsement in support of The Academy for Computers, Science, and Mathematics located at Northwest Missouri State University.

Update on Review of General Education

Chancellor John Park commented that the CBHE Committee on Transfer and Articulation is looking to the General Education Steering Committee to provide them with a general education policy that has wide support from faculty, communicates the importance of quality general education for all students, and expands beyond a course-title/credit-hour approach. The General Education Steering Committee (GESC) completed Phase I of the statewide review of general education for transfer students and shared the results of its work with the academic community at the 1999 Statewide Transfer and Articulation Conference. The Phase II Charge encourages the GESC to design a process that ensures both faculty involvement in the design of revisions to statewide general education policy and extensive review and comment from the higher education community. The Phase II charge includes the following deliverables:

• A statement of general education philosophy;
• A statement of Principles of Good Practice for general education;
• A set of broad-based goals identified for lower-division general education; and
• A process and timeline for the phase-in of any policy revisions.

May 15, 1999 is the target date for receiving recommendations from the GESC in accordance with its Phase II charge. The GESC intends to continue to work throughout the summer. A fall 1999 conference is being planned to fully engage faculty in discussions about the proposed changes for a state-level general education policy. Dr. Park noted that as a result of the fall conference it is anticipated that the GESC will also work on a Phase III which will emphasize the setting of competencies associated with each general education goal.

Update on Revision of Dual Credit Guidelines

The CBHE Committee on Transfer and Articulation appointed a Dual Credit Task Force to help it undertake an extensive review of the board's dual credit policy with a commitment to identify the issues, resolve any differences of opinion, and build strong support from all educational sectors for policy revisions. As a result of extensive review, the Dual Credit Task Force has concluded that the current policy should be replaced. The task force distributed a draft on February 25, 1999 for review and comment by the academic community. Several institutions, and some high school faculty, responded with a critique of the draft document. The comments expressed disparate opinions. A group of institutions perceived the proposed guidelines as an unwarranted and unnecessary infringement on institutional autonomy. Most institutions, however, expressed support for the work of the task force, but offered substantive changes concerning particular sections of the draft policy. A second draft resulted from the March 22, 1999 COTA meeting and applies only to dual credit general education courses taught in the high schools by high school faculty. This draft will be distributed throughout the academic community for further review and comment. The Dual Credit Task Force will continue to review all issues identified and will work with COTA in designing a policy that has a broad base of support. COTA intends to present its final recommendations for revisions to the 1992 Dual Credit Policy to the CBHE for its review and adoption at the board's June 10, 1999 meeting. Chairman Henry noted that there was a rather extensive discussion of this item at the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee meeting earlier in the day. (See Report of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee) Dr. Campbell stated that she has a concern that some of the assumptions being used in making decisions regarding dual credit may be obsolete. She noted that age limitations and geographic boundaries are just not going to be relevant and enforceable with the use of telemediated delivery systems. Perhaps the institutions could develop high quality computer mediated courseware that would be used in dual credit courses.

Update on the CBHE Advisory Committee on Technology and Instruction (CTI)

Commissioner Stroup reminded the board that the purpose of the CBHE Advisory Committee on Technology and Instruction is to advise and make recommendations to the board in order to advance the higher education agenda in the use of technology in the acceleration of learning and in the use of advanced technology in providing greater access to higher education opportunities in Missouri. The committee held its first meeting on March 9 and the following items were discussed: the June 1996 Recommendations for a Telecommunications-based Delivery System; June 1997 From Here to Transformation: Phase II in the Implementation of Missouri's Telecommunications-based Delivery System for Higher Education; and the CBHE Public Policies Affecting Missouri Higher Education: Section VII: Telecommunications and Distance Education Information Technology. Through the telecommunications planning efforts the funding for MOREnet has substantially improved, a common library platform has been developed, and mission enhancement dollars have been used to improve technology. Some examples of this type of institutional activity include KMOS at Central Missouri State University and what the University of Missouri, Crowder College, Southwest Missouri State University, and Missouri Southern State College are delivering at the Nevada TeleCenter. Missouri still lacks a kind of systemic approach to both distance education and the acceleration of learning by improved computer mediated instructional materials. The CTI will examine these challenges.

Recommendations from the CTI meeting include:

• The CBHE Smart Catalog Ad Hoc Committee should reconvene and finalize its work on the development of a Missouri Smart Catalog.
• The CBHE should accept the proposal by the Knight Collaborative/Pew Roundtable to facilitate discussions related to advancing the use of technology to accelerate learning and to provide greater access to the state's system of higher education. This will begin with the September 14, 15, and 16 Presidents' Conference on Technology and Instruction.
• The idea of developing the Adult Learning Network needs to be pursued.

Mission Review

Commissioner Stroup explained that the next seven agenda items all actually relate to the mission review process.

Second Cycle of Mission Review

Dr. Wittstruck reported that all public four-year institutions have been through at least one five-year mission review process with the board and are receiving an appropriation for mission enhancement. This agenda item outlines a process and suggested guidelines for the next mission review cycle and the elements of each institution's mission implementation plan. The next cycle of mission review will need to involve (1) a review of the institution's agreed upon mission statement and the extent to which that mission is being achieved; (2) a review of the results of the Cycle 1 mission implementation plan approved by the Coordinating Board and the extent to which those results are consistent with the investment the state has made in the institution, (3) a review of the institution's new strategic and mission implementation plan for the future, and (4) the extent to which that mission implementation plan may require an additional state investment as provided by Section 173.030 (7) and (8) RSMo.

The initial schedule for mission review adopted by the board in April 1996 included Southwest Missouri State University, Missouri Western State College, and Missouri Southern State College as part of the first phase of the incremental five-year process for the state's public four-year colleges and universities. Linn State Technical College and the state's public two-year community college system were also included in this first phase of mission review. Southwest, Missouri Southern, and Missouri Western are nearing the close of those mission review activities, processes, and the funding cycle associated with their first mission implementation plan approved in 1996. The state's public community colleges will need to engage in a similar review process in consultation with the CBHE, develop a mission implementation plan and develop agreed upon performance measures and results. Linn State Technical College will be rescheduled for another round of mission review once it has achieved accreditation by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. Dr. Wittstruck briefly reviewed the proposed second five-year mission review schedule (FY 2002 to FY 2006) for Southwest Missouri State University, Missouri Southern State College, Missouri Western State College, and the community colleges, related mission review components, and items that the Cycle II mission review and mission implementation plans should address.

Mrs. Carmichael moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education begin its second five-year mission review cycle as authorized by Section 173.030 (7) and (8), RSMo. She further moved that the Coordinating Board direct its staff to initiate a five-year mission review with the affected institutions according to the schedule and mission review components outlined in this agenda item. Mr. Summers seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed. (See Attachment E.)

Progress Report on the University of Missouri's Mission Enhancement Plan

Dr. Wittstruck noted that one of the board's responsibilities with regard to mission review is to have a report from the institutions regarding their implementation of the first-year mission enhancement initiatives in order to have a sense of how the institutions are implementing their plan and how they are using the funds appropriated for mission enhancement.

President Pacheco addressed the board and stated that the board approved three categories of outcome measures for the University of Missouri to use in evaluating the impact of mission enhancement funding. Those categories are increasing the number of graduate degree programs that are nationally ranked, improving the quality of teaching and learning, and increasing programmatic access and efficiency.

Mission enhancement funding has allowed the University of Missouri to attract established researchers and national leaders to targeted disciplines. The Endowed Chairs and Professorships Matching Funds Program leverages state funds at a ratio of 20 to 1. A privately funded endowment of nearly $90 million has been created to support 120 chairs and professorships. Eighty-five percent of those positions are in areas targeted as part of the mission enhancement initiative. Fifteen percent of the positions were created with one-time funds received prior to mission enhancement. Mission enhancement has enabled the university to search for 45 new faculty members across the four campuses in mission enhancement areas. These additions should allow the university to make selected programs competitive at the national level.

Some mission enhancement funds will be used to help new faculty build their laboratories. Other first-year funds will be aggregated to build joint, shared facilities. Dr. Pacheco stated that if the university is to increase program quality it is imperative that they focus on investment in critical key areas of strength. Federal support is also needed to help the university accomplish their mission enhancement goals in targeted graduate and research programs. The Columbia campus has received 344 new research awards thus far in FY 1999, 22 of which are greater than half a million dollars. UMR has also received several large grants during FY 1999 in their mission enhancement areas. UMKC expects significant increases in research expenditures for FY 1999.

A second major outcome of mission enhancement for the university is to improve the quality of teaching and learning. At the graduate level, more research fellowships are being provided that enable graduate students to focus on research early in their tenure so that they will no longer need to begin their graduate careers teaching lower division graduate courses. New faculty will be hired on the Columbia campus in order to reduce a heavy reliance on graduate teaching assistants in certain fields. More opportunities are being created for undergraduates to do research.

The university's third major outcome from mission enhancement is to increase programmatic access and efficiency. First-year mission enhancement funds will support collaborative programs that will provide better access to the graduate programs offered by the University of Missouri. UMSL is extending access to its undergraduate and graduate programs to several community colleges.

President Pacheco informed the board that the university provided the commissioner and staff with a fully detailed document that covers the FY 1999 mission enhancement expenditures and outcomes and encouraged the board to review this document for details of the expenditures and associated outcomes for each initiative on each campus and in outreach and extension.

Dr. Pacheco told the board that the University of Missouri looks forward to reporting on its second year of mission enhancement activities when enough time will have passed for the university to demonstrate more directly the impact of mission enhancement and the measurement of progress in meeting the board's specified outcomes.

Progress Report on Lincoln University's Mission Enhancement Plan

President Henson commented that when he arrived at Lincoln one of the challenges was that the institution needed to complete its strategic plan. Dr. Mary Wyatt was selected as the Assistant to the President for Strategic Planning, Assessment, and Total Quality Management to direct the planning process. Dr. Henson said the university is grateful for the more than $688,000 received in mission enhancement funds.

One area in which the funds were used was to enrich the business administration, elementary education, criminal justice/law enforcement, and nursing science programs. The institution is in the process of searching for a dean of the School of Business who will select the new faculty members that were funded with mission enhancement funds.

The institution has used mission enhancement funds to employ a director of retention who has initiated some exciting activities in the area of recruitment and retention. They have developed an aggressive intervention model for the students who are most at risk whereby the students and their parents must sign a contract with the retention office.

In an effort to meet the professional and continuing education needs of state government employees, Lincoln has established an evening and weekend division within its new College of General Studies. They have increased the number of evening courses they are offering by 10 percent. They have made faculty and staff parking spaces available to students after 5:30 p.m. Lincoln has extended the business office, financial aid office, and admissions and records offices hours to 7 p.m. The institution has conducted recruitment seminars to explain to alumni what the profile is of students who can succeed at Lincoln given its open admissions policy. Lincoln held a luncheon for principals, band directors, and athletic directors from 34 mid-Missouri high schools saying that they are interested in receiving some of their best students and some of those who might have take advantage of an open admissions institution.

Dr. Henson reported that Lincoln is currently engaged in discussions regarding collaboration and partnering with other institutions and it has become clearer to all institutions involved that the board's role in coordination is even more important than originally thought. These agreements with other institutions must maintain the mission and financial integrity of each institution.

Last year Lincoln offered college preparatory courses on campus to 35 at-risk high school students from Jefferson City, the Bootheel, St. Louis, and Kansas City. This year mission enhancement funds will allow Lincoln to increase that number to 45 students.

Proposed State Plan for Community Colleges in Missouri-Review Process

Dr. Barnes noted that Tab K, Second Cycle of Mission Review, indicates that between May and December of 1999 the state's public community colleges will be engaged with the CBHE in the same mission review process as the board has established for the public four-year institutions. The process will lead to the role, scope, and mission statement as well as to a mission implementation plan for the community colleges that the CBHE will review. The document, A State Plan for Community Colleges in Missouri, will be reviewed and considered as one of the components in the mission review process for the community colleges. Other components of the mission review of the state's public community colleges will be the board's goals and priorities contained in its Blueprint for Missouri Higher Education and the State Plan for Postsecondary Technical Education.

Mr. Summers moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education review the proposed A State Plan for Community Colleges of Missouri and consider it among the other components for the five-year mission review of Missouri public two-year community colleges described in Agenda Item K and authorized by Section 173.030 (7), RSMo. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Progress Report on the Implementation of Linn State Technical College's Five-year Master Plan

Dr. Barnes noted that this item is an update on the progress that Linn State Technical College has made since the December CBHE meeting toward the implementation of its five-year plan

Linn Tech has:

• Learned that the North Central Accreditation Association has scheduled its formal accreditation visit and review for April 17-19, 2000.
• Adopted a refined version of LSTC's mission statement in order to clarify Linn State's role and mission as a postsecondary (higher education) institution conferring associate degrees within the Missouri higher education system.
• Continued to monitor faculty progress toward earning bachelor degrees.
• Monitored the systematic development of the college's formal assessment plan according to NCA guidelines.
• Continued efforts to fully develop the new civil and construction engineering technology AAS degree program scheduled for implementation in the 1999 fall semester.
• Selected Pellham, Phillips and Hagerman for architectural services, and the J. E. Dunn Company to coordinate and supervise the construction of the new Information Technology Center building on campus.
• Continued to monitor the construction of the Mexico Advanced Technology Center, scheduled for completion this spring.
• Refined the admissions policy to encourage all students to take the ACT test before enrollment, rather than taking the ASSET or COMPASS placement tests after arriving on campus to start classes.
• Assessed the placement of LSTC graduates.

Baseline Indicators Measuring the Successes of the State's Investment in Postsecondary Technical Education

Dr. Barnes reported that this item is a progress report on the results to date since the implementation of the State Plan for Postsecondary Technical Education. In April 1998 baseline indicators from which the CBHE staff would measure future accomplishments from the state's investments in postsecondary technical education were established. Today's report continues the data collection and analysis process, and observes evolving and important trends associated with postsecondary technical education. Without this process there is no way to assess the extent to which the needs of the state are being met or the system of postsecondary technical education and training is becoming more accessible to Missouri residents.

The performance measures and desired outcome statements set the context for the question: "To what extent is the investment of state aid in new and expanded postsecondary technical programs making a significant difference in the workforce development system of Missouri with regard to: increased quality and effectiveness of Regional Technical Education Councils (RTECs), increased geographic access; increased programmatic access; increased programmatic productivity; increased programmatic quality; increased student access to education and training; increased student success and satisfaction; increased employer satisfaction with the quality and quantity of trained employee applicants; and increased economic return on the state's investment." Dr. Barnes presented a list of key results and accomplishments from the state's investment in postsecondary technical education. Some of these results are:

• The 12 Regional Technical Education Councils have a total membership of nearly 400 persons, including 127 employers.
• Approximately 75 percent of Missouri's counties, 82 percent of Missouri's square miles, and about 82 percent of Missouri's population now have access to postsecondary technical education.
• By the end of FY 2001, all 17 community college campuses expect to be able to delivery live interactive two-way technical education instruction between and among nearly 57 area vocational technical schools and comprehensive high schools.
• Since July 1, 1997, the state's two- and four-year public institutions have collaborated to add 22 technical certificate and 29 AAS degree programs to postsecondary technical education instructional capacity.
• Since July 1, 1997 the state's four-year institutions have added a selected number of bachelor, masters and Ph.D. degree programs in technical fields.
• Increasing numbers of students are enrolling in and completing courses in priority technical fields.
• The four-year baccalaureate institutions are making significant progress in accepting technical AAS degree program credits toward technology bachelor degree programs.
• Students graduating with a technical certificate or AAS degree earn between $22,000 and $31,000 per year within the first 13 months of employment.
• Students graduating from math and science based technical programs at the associate degree level or less earn between $18,000 and $32,000 within the first 13 months of employment.

Dr. Barnes indicated that there are some issues that need further attention and discussion. They are:

• Associate and baccalaureate degree providers should prioritize investments in new technical programs that are at the advanced "cutting-edge" of technology.
• Commitments by some educational providers to seek national accreditation, licensure, or certification (when available) for all technical programs has been slow.
• Collaborative educational ventures between the two-year providers and the proprietary/private career school sector (where available) have not fully matured.
• Special attention should be given to instructional television (ITV) intra state connectivity, compatibility, capacity, and multi-point conferencing technology among delivers of technical education via electronic means.

Performance Measures for Missouri's Community Colleges and Linn State Technical College Related to their Role in Postsecondary Technical EducationDr. Barnes explained that this agenda item establishes a limited number of performance measures that will consistently demonstrate how each community college and Linn State Technical College is accomplishing the board's goals and priorities contained in the Blueprint for Missouri Higher Education, and objectives listed in the State Plan for Postsecondary Technical Education. Individual institutions prepare a fiscal year annual report in August summarizing the results and accomplishments from the previous year's investment in postsecondary technical education. The community college reports are consolidated into aggregated summary reports and presented to the CBHE during April meetings. Linn State Technical College normally presents quarterly reports to the CBHE describing progress toward accomplishing their Postsecondary Technical Education Five-year Master Plan.

These performance measures are not the only indicators that could be associated with observing results from the state's investment in postsecondary technical education, however, they are considered to be of highest priority for institutional change when considering the implementation of a fully accessible postsecondary technical education delivery system. It is incumbent that the board understand the extent that these and future expenditure decisions are yielding desired results, prior to October 1999 when the board makes its FY 2001 budget request for postsecondary technical education. These performance measures will be effective July 1, 1999 and will be used for submitting the FY 1999 and FY 2000 Technical Education (RTEC) Annual Reports, and for developing the FY 2001 Technical Education (RTEC) Plan and Budget Request.

Dr. Campbell moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education approve the Performance Measures for Missouri's Community Colleges and Linn State Technical College related to their role in postsecondary technical education. Mr. Bass seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed. (See Attachment F).

Summary and Status of Selected Higher Education Legislation and the FY 2000 CBHE Appropriation Request

Commissioner Stroup reported that the Senate voted out House Bill 3 (higher education appropriations) with no amendments and it has gone to the conference committee. Senate Bill 208 has been debated on the Senate floor without a vote being taken. Senate Bill 208 is Senator House's bill which deals with approval of teacher education programs, the removal of independent institutions from the CBHE authorizing legislation with respect to following the board's guidelines, policies, etc., and contains a statement specifying that the CBHE may not restrict independent institutions from creating or modifying academic programs, or from receiving state or federal student assistance. The language for the legislative recognition of the Automated Transfer of Money (ATOM) escrow account was included in the Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bills 490 and 360 which was defeated in committee on March 10.

Senate Bill 443, legislative adjustment to the College Guarantee Program, was passed by the Senate Education Committee as a consent bill on March 10 and is currently 24th on the Senate calendar for consent bills. The House Committee Substitute for House Bills 321 and 493 which include changes to the composition of certain institutional governing boards has been passed by the House and referred to the Senate Education Committee.

Review of the CBHE Public Policies Book

Chairman Henry informed the board that the sections of the policy book being reviewed at this meeting are:

Section I: Coordinating Board for Higher Education
Section II: Statewide Planning for Higher Education

There were no suggested revisions to the sections under consideration at this time.

Appointment of a Nominating Committee for Selection of CBHE Officers

Chairman Henry appointed former board chairs, Marie Carmichael and Mary Findley, to serve as a nominating committee for selection of CBHE officers. Officers will be selected at the June meeting.

Information Items

The board received the following items:

Academic Program Actions
Calendar for Planning and Budgeting, FY 2001
Third State Aid/Technical Education Payment for Community Colleges, FY 1999
Distribution of Eisenhower Professional Development Program Funds
Report on the Midwest Student Exchange Program
Missouri Student Achievement Study-Results of the Survey of Currently Enrolled Students
Institutional Fees for Out-of-state Students

Commissioner Stroup stated that the Calendar for Planning and Budgeting, FY 2001 is very important as it establishes absolute deadlines for institutional submission of reports and budget material in order for the staff to present the higher education budget to the board in October of each year. (See attachment G)

Dr. Stroup called the board's attention to the Distribution of Eisenhower Professional Development Program Funds and commented on the high quality of the projects. The commissioner stated that the Missouri Student Achievement Study Results of the Survey of Currently Enrolled Students yielded a number of important findings regarding college students' enrollment decisions, high school preparation, and collegiate experience. The survey indicated that students are becoming increasingly cost-minded in choosing to attend public two-year institutions; more students on four-year campuses consider the academic programs and the overall reputation of the institutions as the main reasons for deciding which college to attend while students at two-year institutions pay less regard to these academic factors; more than half of the surveyed students are currently enrolled at their first choice of institutions; and more than half of the students at Missouri public colleges and universities have transferred credits from another institution. The survey also indicated that at the same time that colleges report more students taking the CBHE recommended high school core curriculum, students themselves increasingly report being adequately prepared for college across all academic disciplines. However, one-fourth of the surveyed students reported that their high school math classes had not prepared them well. This becomes even more important considering that 78 percent of the respondents see math as an indispensable component of college education. Overall, the responses suggest that students at Missouri public two- and four-year institutions are more satisfied with their college experience today than in 1993, noting major improvements in access to computer facilities, career planning and job placement services, response to the needs of nontraditional students, the transfer of course credits between institutions and the variety of courses offered. The revisions to the comprehensive fee schedule are the result of questions asked of the board during legislative hearings regarding the CBHE policy on tuition/fees for out-of-state students. The questions focused on whether institutions or the board have policies that allow reductions in out-of-state fees for individuals meeting certain qualifications including residence in specific designated geographic areas adjoining Missouri.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the board, Mrs. Carmichael moved that the meeting adjourn. Mr. Bass seconded the motion, and the meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m.

______________________________
Ray Henry, Chairman

______________________________
John Bass, Secretary