Coordinating Board for Higher Education Meeting Minutes 10-03

October 9, 2003

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education met at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, October 9, 2003 at the Andrew Komar, Jr. Hall at Moberly Area Community College in Moberly. Members present were:

Sandra Kauffman, Chair
Lowell Kruse, Vice Chair
Dudley Grove, Secretary
Diana Bourisaw
Robert Langdon
Kathryn Swan
Mary Joan Wood

Members absent from the meeting were:

John Bass
Marie Carmichael

Others attending included:

Trudy Baker, Administrative Assistant (EPPIC)
Becky Brennecke, Research Associate
Debra Cheshier, Director of Educational Policy, Planning, and Improvement Center (EPPIC)
Scott Giles, Director, Missouri Student Loan Group
Donna Imhoff, Budget Analyst
Joe Martin, Deputy Commissioner
Jim Matchefts, Assistant Commissioner and General Counsel
Brenda Miner, Executive Assistant to the Commissioner
Susanne Medley, Director, Communications and Customer Assistance
Dan Peterson, Director, Financial Assistance and Outreach Group
Renee Riley, Public Information Specialist
Cleo Samudzi, Senior Associate
Greg Sandbothe, Office Services Assistant
Robert Stein, Associate Commissioner, Academic Affairs
Laura Vedenhaupt, Administrative Assistant, Academic Affairs
Quentin Wilson, Commissioner of Higher Education
John Wittstruck, Senior Research Associate (EPPIC)

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

Minutes of June 5, 2003 CBHE Meeting

Mrs. Grove referenced a typographical error in the minutes and moved that the minutes of the June 5, 2003 board meeting be approved as corrected. Dr. Diana Bourisaw seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Chair Kauffman recognized Dr. John Coffman, former member of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education; Dr. Thomas George, Chancellor, University of Missouri-St. Louis; Dr. Barbara Dixon, President, Truman State University; and Dr. Marsha Drennon, President, State Fair Community College.

Commissioner's Report

Commissioner Wilson reported that new information from Linda Luebbering, State Budget Director, indicates that there is hope for the first time in two years concerning state revenues. The current FY 2004 budget was based on a projection of revenue increases of about 4.4 percent. However, through the first quarter of this fiscal year, revenues were 3.2 percent higher, enough to prevent additional withholdings. The Office of Budget and Planning will make a projection of the official revenue estimate for FY 2004 and FY 2005 in December and evaluate the situation at that time.

While there are no further withholdings expected, there is no expectation for the return of the withholdings that higher education sustained. The Commissioner and Mr. Joe Martin visited with the governor's office to request the return of those withholdings. Historically, the economy has grown at the national level, in presidential election years; however, it is uncertain what more the federal government can do due to low interest rates and the size of the federal deficit. The legislature is not expected to support any type of revenue enhancements to meet the needs of the state.

It is important for higher education to monitor the funding for tax reform, modernizing the tax system, or a flat-tax system that could impact revenue. The court case for K-12 is another consideration in the financial projections that needs to be monitored for the possible role higher education could play as it is based on equity funding. The court's decision could provide more funding for K-12, but leave less available for other needs which constitute the largest percentage of the general revenue budget.

Results and performance in higher education are receiving considerable attention, perhaps as a result of the present financial conditions. The Coordinating Board for Higher Education adopted the quality criteria and priority results in April 2003. The Commission on the Future of Higher Education, created by the governor, is focused on priority results. The Business Education Roundtable presented goals that reflected their views on priority outcomes for education. The Department of Higher Education and the Missouri Training and Employment Council are also analyzing and prioritizing results. The legislature is trying to develop this kind of approach to guarantee that higher education achieves prioritized results, while not specifying what results are required. There is much interest, but not yet a consensus on the most important priority results.

Most higher education results discussed with institutional leaders are connected to:

• Preparation - training quality teachers and/or providing the core curriculum for more students;
• Early awareness and outreach - with greater participation by underrepresented groups;
• Participation - the actual successful participation in higher education with more students completing degree programs;
• Economic impact - meeting workforce needs and stimulating individuals to obtain better jobs and spur economic growth; and
• Performance excellence - continuous improvement in terms of quality, managing for results, performance-based budgeting, and accountability.

Other common goals are teacher quality, financial aid, increased learning, and participation in quality-based improvement efforts. Another common theme is collaboration between education agencies and economic development. Higher education needs to work with K-12, the Department of Economic Development, economic developers, the business community, and other higher education entities such as MOHELA.

The message received by Commissioner Wilson in conversation with the legislative director for Congressman McKean is that the federal government is focused on cost control and graduation rates. Commissioner Wilson, along with other higher education leaders across the country, realizes that achievement of those two issues would result in a sacrifice of quality. The legislative director considers it legitimate for the federal government to expect performance from its invested dollars, a position that differs among other state higher education executive officers.

The Department of Higher Education had about $700 million, including consolidations, in guarantees in their student loan program last year. This is about equal to the amount invested by the state in all four-year institutions, meaning more money is loaned than is provided for support. The volume of loans is increasing while the support for higher education is decreasing.

The self-assessment that the department has initiated is the result of a shift toward a more customer-based approach, more communication with employees, and more communication within the system of higher education. Improvement is evident in those areas on which the department has focused, while other areas have not changed due to undetermined priorities and anticipated input.

These are surrogate measures for some criteria included in the Baldrige Award and other processes of valuing employees and developing processes for improvement. In six months, there will be a financial self-assessment using the Baldrige process and possibly the Missouri Quality Award criteria to report to the board on the department's progress, providing a role for the board in the evaluation process. In addition, to this the board has received the 360° evaluation for the Commissioner.

A list of institutional efficiencies has been presented to the legislature, describing the improvements in performance initiated and achieved by the institutions. Increased workloads have caused an administrative burden for many of the schools.

The process in which the department is handling administrative expenses in spite of their reduced budget will be discussed with the budget agenda item. The FY 2004 improvement projects, in relation to the strategic planning efforts, have been selected and are based heavily on financial aid. They include improving the student loan program, the grant program, early awareness and outreach to inform more citizens about the aid available to them, as well as the quality initiatives, measuring learning, and encouraging more institutions to engage in quality initiatives. By the end of October, staff will be chartering these projects.

Many staff have supported administratively and assisted with meeting arrangements of the Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Reports conveying the best practices in other states in the areas of participation, preparation, and performance among the fifty states, provided the Commission with a broad range of policy options for their selection in performing their work.

A copy of that report, as well as an expanded version, will be made available to presidents and chancellors at a later date.

The department is also promoting the quality process. Two informational workshops were held in September that focused on two quality initiatives - AQIP and Missouri Quality Award, in which representatives of nearly every public institution and many independent colleges attended. With the board's directive to involve more institutions, with the inclusion of Missouri Western joining AQIP, the department has increased participation of the institutions by 33 percent.

Institutions presently involved in some form of official quality programs are: Northwest Missouri State University, University of Missouri-Rolla, Crowder College, and Missouri Western State College. It is anticipated that the institutions will share plans for their quality programs with the department. The value, in terms of results and measures, is the documentation of the achievements already made, along with improvements that will ensue.

Promoting self-assessment is a good strategy for all institutions; whether or not they participate in a total quality program. With participation by all institutions, obvious knowledge of their stance on the categories for improvement would be available. Participation provides a system whereby institutions can aggregate their information in a manner that will ensure comprehension by the legislature. It is vital for institutions to be involved in some form of quality initiative or measurement of their achievements in strategic planning against quality. The institutions are ready to initiate this as was evident in their participation at the AQIP sessions. It is not expected that all institutions pursue the Missouri Quality Award or join AQIP, but they need to evaluate their achievements because strong, robust plans are developing statewide.

Missouri is a national leader in institutions measuring learning at the exit level, but there is the issue of value-added learning and how that information is used to improve programs. The department is pursuing this and developing a project that will involve higher education officials. The performance excellence funding proposal, driven somewhat by Dr. William Massey's work, brings together all policy issues regarding quality and suggests that a small increment can have a large impact on quality.

Report of the Presidential Advisory Committee

Dr. Evelyn Jorgenson, president, Moberly Area Community College, reported on items that were discussed at the Presidential Advisory Meeting.

• Missouri Campus Compact update, delivered by John Strong, described how the Raise Your Voice Campaign has contributed successfully toward increasing the awareness that students can make a difference. Southwest Missouri State University will host a conference in June 2004. Membership of Missouri's institutions is increasing in the Campus Compact, a nationwide process involving two-year and four-year institutions.
• Commissioner Wilson, Mr. Joe Martin, and Dr. Robert Stein reported on performance excellence funding. It was noted that the legislature is committed to prioritization of results. Steps should be taken to set a common agenda, provide evidence of excellence, and determine a way to demonstrate to the legislature and other stakeholders that progress, worthy of funding, is taking place.

  Historical information revealed that Funding for Results was in existence for several years in the 1990s and present discussions on performance excellence funding evolved from the traditional processes of that type. There is a desire to learn from past experiences regarding what worked and what did not work in order to develop new performance excellence funding processes.

  There is the possibility of a return to base-level funding, with an emphasis on performance and quality. There is some disagreement on how progress will be demonstrated and what criteria will be used to measure performance excellence. The six priority measures identified for the state should be part of the process but, being open to many interpretations, require more work to identify the process and priority outcomes for the two-year and four-year institutions. Commissioner Wilson noted that initially the process should be identified and agreed upon by the institutions that should then work together to develop the language of a common message that can be delivered to legislators and citizens of the state.

• Commissioner Wilson and Mr. Martin reported on the FY 2005 higher education budget, which basically is the amount requested in FY 2004, in hopes that higher education can manage next year as well as it did last year, in spite of the reported possible shortfall of $900 million projected for FY 2005.
• Associate degree delivery mission differentiation was discussed. Chair Kauffman expressed an appreciation for all the work that has been devoted to it. The committee of two-year and four-year institutions has had long discussions and identified some important differentiations between the roles of associate degree-granting institutions and four-year institutions. The committee will abide by the board's suggestion that additional work is necessary, and with the board's direction, the committee will deliver this item to the board at the December 4, 2003 Coordinating Board for Higher Education meeting. Chair Kauffman directed the committee to work toward greater access with an emphasis on quality of principles.

Higher Education FY 2005 Budget

Dr. Stein stated that there is agreement nationwide and in Missouri specifically that funding policies should be integrated with planning, assessment for improving accountability, and state priorities linked with funding.

Over a decade ago, Funding for Results was accomplished with a consensus-building approach. The Department of Higher Education staff strongly believes that higher education should embark on a performance excellence initiative that is built on lessons learned from previous mistakes. Dr. Stein emphasized the following:

• What is initiated should be linked with state goals.
• Institutions missions and baseline data should be major drivers.
• Realistic goals and stretch targets should be utilized.
• Procedures should allow for flexibility and programs customized to specific institutions.
• Time is required in order to demonstrate results.
• Demonstrating results is dependent upon the institutions' efforts to begin the initiative and to remain serious and consistent in their endeavors.
• The messages used are extremely important in the communication that transpires between constituents within the higher education community and its external constituents.

Mr. Martin stated that, as higher education moves forward with Performance Excellence Funding, in the context of the budget and the current financial situation of the state, there is an awareness that there are finite funding resources available to meet the state's needs. The competition for those finite resources will become keener as K-12 education, mental health, social services, and the corrections system also seek to utilize those resources. To put higher education in a favorable position to compete for the return of sufficient levels of funding, higher education will need to demonstrate its worth to the General Assembly and to the public. Higher education will need to convince the public that investment in higher education is a good investment by the state and by the taxpayers. The mechanism used will need to demonstrate higher education's commitment to quality, performance results, and performance measures that will demonstrate the advantage of higher education to the public good and provide further reasons for investing in it.

Mr. Kruse expressed an interest in knowing what lies ahead if measuring results and Performance Excellence Funding progressed as higher education envisions. Dr. Stein stated that:

• The funding recommendations under this initiative would provide incentives for performance excellence.
• The reports to the board would be affected by the initiative as it relates to the six priorities of the state, providing data, verifying achievements, reporting progress, and placing higher education in a position where it can publicly communicate more effectively.

The community colleges have appointed an indicators group, chaired by Dr. John McGuire to work on the processes. Similarly, the department needs to work jointly with the four-year institutions to arrive at common indicators. Commonalities exist between both sectors that are measurable.

Mr. Martin explained that submission of a budget request to the governor would occur as soon as possible after this meeting, and if this particular agenda item is adopted, the governor's office would be notified that in December, the department may have additional information for consideration for the governor's executive budget which is presented to the General Assembly in January.

Dr. Stein stated that it is recommended that the Coordinating Board acknowledge that performance-based budgeting is a viable and desirable strategy to promote quality and performance excellence.

It is further recommended that the Board direct the Commissioner to discuss options with higher education leaders, legislators, and the executive branch to develop a new Performance Excellence Funding Initiative that would begin with the FY 2005 appropriation. A staff recommendation concerning the amount of Performance Excellence Funding to be included as an addendum to the Board's FY 2005 budget request should be presented at the CBHE's December 4, 2003 meeting. In addition, recommendations concerning a proposed set of criteria and processes for distribution of Performance Excellence Funding should be developed for review and comment.

Dr. Bourisaw moved to adopt the motion. Mrs. Grove seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Mrs. Wood stated that in the past, Funding for Results was very effective in motivating and promoting change within institutions. Mrs. Wood has confidence in the Performance Excellence Funding concept and encouraged everyone to support it.

Recommendations for Public Four-year Institution Operating Appropriations

Mr. Martin stated that the recommendation for FY 2005 is the core budget for FY 2004, and may contain a performance excellence funding component. The only change in the University of Missouri core appropriation recommendations is the combined appropriation for Ellis Fischel Cancer Center with the Hospitals and Clinics, in accordance with the University of Missouri's request.

Chair Kauffman stated that it is important to keep members of the General Assembly informed of higher education's real needs, if not presented in a budget that is greater than the previous year, by making them aware of the institutions' requests and the targets of those requests.

Mr. Martin said it is recommended the Board approve the FY 2005 four-year institution appropriation request including University of Missouri Related Programs, as presented, for submission to the governor and General Assembly.

Mrs. Wood moved to adopt the motion. Mrs. Swan seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Recommendations for Linn State Technical College Operating Appropriations

Mr. Martin stated that the FY 2005 amount is the recommended amount of the FY 2004 core appropriation, and may include a performance excellence funding component. Mr. Martin said it is recommended the Board approve the FY 2005 Linn State Technical College appropriation request, as presented, for submission to the governor and General Assembly.

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

Recommendations for Public Community College Operating Appropriations

Mr. Martin stated that the FY 2005 recommendation is the FY 2004 core budget request and may include a performance excellence funding component. Mr. Martin said it is recommended the Board approve the FY 2005 community college appropriation request, as presented, for submission to the governor and the General Assembly.

Mrs. Swan moved to adopt the motion. Mrs. Grove seconded the motion, as it passed unanimously.

Recommendations for DHE Operating Appropriations

Mr. Martin stated that most of the items are FY 2004 core requests, with the difference being the removal of a specific line-item appropriation for the Missouri Learners' Network, which higher education will continue operating without a line-item appropriation. In the Financial Assistance and Outreach Group, there has been a retirement in staff, reducing the GEAR-UP Early Awareness and Outreach Program by one FTE. In the Student Loan Program Administration, there is a reduction of 2.5 FTE and $823,154. In E-government Administration there was a reduction of 1.5 FTE and $53,592. In total, the loan and federal FTE authority was reduced by 5 FTE and approximately $3.7 million. This demonstrates efforts to reorganize, streamline, and consolidate the department to reflect a more accurate picture of the higher education agency and its present operation.

Mr. Martin stated that it is recommended the Board approve the CBHE FY 2005 internal appropriation request, as presented, for submission to the governor and General Assembly.

Mrs. Grove moved to adopt the motion. Dr. Bourisaw seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Recommendations for State Student Financial Assistance Programs

Mr. Martin stated that there are seven state grant and scholarship programs. The recommended amount is the same as the FY 2004 recommendation with the exception of the Advantage Missouri Program, which is being phased out. This will result in a reduction of about $400,000 because only renewal scholarships will be issued.

Mr. Martin said it is recommended the Board approve the CBHE FY 2005 Student Financial Assistance appropriation request, as presented, for submission to the governor and General Assembly.

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

Recommendations for Public Four-year Institutions and Linn State Technical College's Capital Improvements

Mr. Martin stated that the FY 2005 Capital Improvement request totals just over $207 million and includes 14 projects. The priority ranking reflects the same ranking submitted in FY 2004, with the exception of the University of Missouri-Columbia and the University of Missouri-Kansas City, who received appropriations for their previous priorities. In FY 2004 the University of Missouri-Columbia received a reappropriation of nearly $29 million for the life sciences building, and the University of Missouri-Kansas City was appropriated $30.5 million for the pharmacy and nursing (life sciences) building. The other projects are the same as those requested in FY 2004, with the amounts revised to reflect increasing construction costs.

Mr. Martin said it is recommended the Board approve the FY 2005 capital improvement recommendations for the public four-year institutions and Linn State Technical College for submission to the governor and General Assembly.

Dr. Bourisaw moved to adopt the motion. Mrs. Swan seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Mr. Kruse commended the presidents and chancellors, the institutions' staffs, and the staff at the Department of Higher Education for their impressive efforts and accomplishments given the financial issues that continue to face higher education.

Promoting Quality and Performance Excellence: An Update on DHE's Strategic Planning

Commissioner Wilson discussed the importance state government places on strategic planning. Within the department, Dr. Debra Cheshier, director of the Educational Policy, Planning, and Improvement Center (EPPIC), discussed the draft of the department's strategic plan. It involves the five areas the Coordinating Board selected as having the greatest potential impact on the future of higher education in Missouri. The areas may change somewhat from year to year, but essentially reflect long-term goals. Six improvement projects based on these strategic areas have been selected on which to focus in FY 2004.

Dr. Cheshier stated that by the end of October, teams would be selected and their missions chartered for the six improvement projects, which will form the focus of the department's strategic planning efforts. Measures to be reported on a quarterly basis are being identified and will be monitored regularly to determine the progress made in these areas.

Mrs. Grove indicated support for the five priority areas. The interest of the Coordinating Board and the department in life sciences and research is evident by the efforts being made to improve workforce and economic conditions in Missouri, signifying that it is a priority that should be added to this list in the future. Dr. Cheshier stated that the department is involved with other projects, in addition to those identified in the draft strategic plan. The Research Alliance of Missouri is an example of an interdepartmental initiative specifically aimed at promoting life sciences research.

Over the next several months, EPPIC staff will be assembling baseline data and benchmarks for each of the priority results outlined in the draft strategic plan. If data for specific baseline measures are unavailable, staff will make recommendations about alternative or proxy measures.

Lake of the Ozarks Community College Proposal

Dr. John Wittstruck reported that the Department of Higher Education staff analysis associated with the proposal to establish a new community college taxing district in the Lake of the Ozarks region of the state, has determined the proposal meets with the Board's standards as revised in the administrative rule. It is estimated that the district will have local income in excess of $850,000 to what may be necessary to finance the community college. Dr. Wittstruck introduced two members of the Lake of the Ozarks Community College Steering Committee, Chair Nickie Foster and William Culver.

On October 30, 2003, the administrative rule becomes a formal administrative rule. This agenda item is a presentation of the recommendation for the board to call an election within the public school districts of Camdenton R-III and School of the Osage R-II on the question of establishing a new community college district at the Lake of the Ozarks.

The recommendation is to be considered by the Coordinating Board during a conference call meeting of the board at 7:30 a.m. on November 4, 2003.

Dr. Wittstruck stated that it is recommended that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education order, as authorized in section 178.800, RSMo, the submission of the following question within the public school districts of Camdenton R-III and School of the Osage R-II to vote on the question and to elect trustees at the next following annual municipal election:

Shall there be organized within the area comprising the school districts of Camdenton R-III and School of the Osage R-II, state of Missouri, a junior college district for the offering of 13th and 14th year courses, to be known as the "Junior College District of Lake of the Ozarks, Missouri," having the power to impose a property tax not to exceed the annual rate of twenty cents on the one hundred dollars assessed valuation of taxable property without voter approval and such additional taxes as may be approved by vote thereon, as prayed in petition filed with the Coordinating Board for Higher Education at Jefferson City, Missouri, on the Eighth day of September 2003?

It is further recommended that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education authorize the Commissioner of Higher Education to take all necessary action for calling the election.

The board took no action on the item, rather tabling the action until the conference call on November 4, 2003.

Chair Kauffman thanked Dr. Wittstruck, and expressed the board's appreciation to Chair Nickie Foster and William Culver for attending the meeting, and for their patience with the process, wishing them well in their endeavors.

PreK-16 Initiatives-Business Education Roundtable Recommendations

Dr. Robert Stein provided background information on the Business Education Roundtable (BERT) that was established by the governor in 2002 with a 40-person panel. Five members represent higher education, with Mrs. Swan being a member before she was appointed to the Coordinating Board for Higher Education. In the span of 16 months, there have been meetings, discussions, and dialogue. The group formed three sub-committees: Teachers as Professionals, Improving School Environment, and Funding Issues. In July 2003, a report with 28 recommendations was issued in which several recommendations identified the Coordinating Board and the Department of Higher Education as the responsible entity with target dates to achieve various tasks.

Missouri became interested in the PreK-16 initiative in 1997. Since then, there has been an abundance of good recommendations and many reports. The Coordinating Board is committed to PreK-16 issues, to teacher quality issues, and to higher education's interdependence. The department staff recommends that the institutions have time to discuss PreK-16 to determine appropriate next steps

.Dr. Stein stated that it is recommended that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education formally receive the Business Education Roundtable Report and express its sincere gratitude to Governor Holden for establishing the Roundtable and to Roundtable members for their insightful recommendations.

It is further recommended that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education hold a special work session sometime prior to its meeting to review in detail the BERT recommendations, to prioritize its PreK-16 work, and to determine next steps.

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

Mr. Kruse asked why PreK-16 had not advanced and if the differences delaying it were included in this report. Dr. Stein stated that it is difficult to keep an agenda moving within the culture with so much decentralization without formal agreement on how PreK-16 should advance. There have been many good statements and ideal suggestions for ways to improve. The disagreements concern how and in what way higher education proceeds to have a greater impact. Beneath the recommendations included in this report are implications about K-12 funding: How and in what manner these issues develop will have implications for higher education funding and potential disagreements between the two sectors.

Mr. Kruse, speaking from his perspective as chairman of two local initiatives, the Success By Six Initiative and the Chamber of Commerce Workforce Development, supports the PreK-16 initiative and how it relates to workforce development, but realizes there is something preventing people from agreement.

Dr. Stein stated that some achievements are occurring in PreK-16. One key example is completion of core curriculum for a select group - students proceeding to four-year institutions - from 46 percent to above 90 percent. This tremendous progress was possible because K-12 and higher education were committed to it. With the arrival of Measuring Up, however, came the realization that the wrong denominator was used. Tracking high schools graduates, emphasis is now on all ninth graders.

During a visit with Education Commissioner Kent King, Commissioner Wilson and Dr. Stein presented many possible agendas and issues that are of common interest to both boards. Several items were identified, including: the core curriculum, advanced credit programs in high schools, and the role of community colleges, especially in teacher education.

This agenda item identifies which BERT recommendations specifically identified the Coordinating Board for Higher Education or the department staff. This agenda item does not intend to suggest the Coordinating Board focus only on these suggested recommendations, but provides a quick summary of the recommendations that pertain to higher education.

Historically, the two boards met annually. One recommendation suggests that they meet immediately to discuss the alignment of the curriculum in the junior and senior years of high school as well as college, including the assessments that occur. It is important, prior to this meeting, that the Coordinating Board had a fully intensive, in-depth discussion of the priorities forming their work in preK-16.

One issue that is under consideration is the involvement of K-12 in the Coordinating Board for Higher Education Committee on Transfer and Articulation (COTA).

Another issue that has been raised involves K-16 formal structures. In Missouri, a board does not govern PreK-16, but other states have governing models that integrate K-12 and PreK-16:

• A commissioner of higher education might participate on the K-12 board with the K-12 commissioner participating on the higher education board.
• A group may be appointed with responsibility for PreK-16 work.

Mrs. Grove stated much work has been devoted to PreK-16 and although there are many recommendations, it is an opportunity for higher education to select two top recommendations to include on their agenda this year, repeating the selection in following years.

The challenge to the Coordinating Board for Higher Education, as a partner of PreK-16 is to decide on an initiative in this area and using the quality principles to determine goals, tracking, measurements, and baseline data. Achievements that higher education can attain with partners have a much bigger impact.

Mrs. Swan, having served on the Improving School Environment Committee, has heard about multiple programs, listened to many presentations, held many meetings, and heard presentations regarding early childhood programs and after school programs. Early childhood was the number one priority of the BERT Subcommittee.

Associate Degree Delivery Mission Differentiation

This agenda item was discussed during the Presidential Advisory Committee meeting and comments indicated it needed to be tabled for further discussion at the Coordinating Board for Higher Education meeting on December 4, 2003.

Chair Kauffman expressed the board's appreciation for the efforts and accomplishments of the COPHE/MCCA sub-committee and that they bear with the board as it requests additional time.

2003 Governor's Conference on Higher Education

Mrs. Susanne Medley stated the Governor's Conference on Higher Education is scheduled for December 4, 2003 in Springfield at the University Plaza Hotel. The theme of this year's conference is "Missouri Higher Education - Building Quality, Opportunity, and Prosperity Together." The Commission on the Future of Higher Education is tentatively scheduled to deliver their preliminary recommendations. The Governor's Award for Excellence in Teaching luncheon will follow the morning sessions.

Department of Higher Education Reorganization

Commissioner Wilson drew attention to the department's organizational chart (included behind Information Item 2), which is the department's response to the lack of funding and the necessity of achieving results. A number of positions have been combined, saving $228,000 in the department's administrative budget. There are now eight groups responsible for support functions, internal performance, and operations, enabling a more progressive definition of performance measures and internal responsibilities. The staff has worked hard and helped make a necessary reorganization successful.

Mrs. Grove commended Commissioner Wilson on his responsible leadership in improving the quality of service the department performs.

Distribution of Community College Funds

Mr. Martin stated that about $30 million was distributed in community college payments in the first quarter of the fiscal year. The appropriations were subject to the three percent governor's reserves and about $3.5 million of state aid withholding from the general revenue and lottery funds, with $600,000 distributed to St. Louis Community College.

In addition to the impact of budget cuts on the department, cuts to the Office of Administration's Division of Accounting resulted in loss of some staff, resulting in a shift of additional duties, such as the processing of financial transactions, performed by the Department of Higher Education. Mr. Martin acknowledged the additional work of Department of Higher Education staff, especially the contributions of Mrs. Janelle Jaegers, director of administration and Mrs. Donna Imhoff of the fiscal staff. Both worked with the institutions during the transition process, enabling institutions to receive their money in a faster, more direct method.

Academic Program Actions

Dr. Stein pointed out that included in the standard academic program actions is an approval for Moberly Area Community College to deliver an associate degree program in Hannibal.

Cycle 2 Improving Teacher Quality Grants

Dr. Stein stated that the federal government has provided on an annual basis approximately $1.2 million to the department for professional development of K-12 teachers. Higher education institutions, in partnership with K-12 schools, propose professional development projects in response to a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the Department of Higher Education. Dr. Cleo Samudzi and Dr. Nancy Devino of Academic Affairs, as well as Dr. John Wittstruck and Dr. Debra Cheshier of EPPIC, and others in the department have worked diligently to revise the Department of Higher Education's RFP for this program. This RFP is less restrictive and allows more creativity and innovative than previous RFPs. The evaluation process has been refocused with a separate RFP for an external evaluator of the program. The RFP will be on the department's website. A technical meeting will be held on October 17, 2003 for all interested parties.

Proprietary School Certification Actions and Reviews

Dr. Stein stated this item contains the standard program actions for the proprietary division.

Update on the Committee on Transfer and Articulation

Dr. Stein stated this item is an update on the Committee on Transfer and Articulation (COTA), describing results of their recent work on dual credit institutions operating in alignment with state guidelines; and a generic job description for transfer and articulation officers, and frequently asked questions on credit transfer.

The COTA committee is committed to producing an annual report to communicate more directly with presidents and chancellors on the effectiveness of transfer and articulation in the state of Missouri. They are committed to working on the transferability of proprietary credit, identifying non-traditional credits; and deciding whether credits are acceptable or not. They are trying to discover ways to reinstitute and regenerate public discussion about transfer and articulation issues.

Mrs. Grove moved that the meeting adjourn. Mr. Langdon seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.