Welcome to the Missouri Department of Higher Education Website (MDHE)

Coordinating Board for Higher Education Meeting Minutes 04-02

April 11, 2002

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education met at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 11, 2002 in Dulany Hall at Columbia College. Members present were:

Marie Carmichael, Chair
Sandra Kauffman, Vice Chair
Jim Summers, Jr., Secretary
John Bass
Diana Bourisaw
Dudley Grove
Adam Fischer
Mary Joan Wood

Mary Findley was absent from the meeting.

Also attending were:

Kala M. Stroup, Commissioner of Higher Education
John Wittstruck, Deputy Commissioner
Robert Stein, Associate Commissioner for Academic Affairs and Planning
Debra Cheshier, Director of Strategic Planning and Policy Development for MOSTARS
Linda Danek, Administrative Assistant
James Matchefts, General Counsel and Director of Legal Affairs for MOSTARS
Brenda Miner, Administrative Assistant
Dan Peterson, Director of Student Financial Assistance for MOSTARS
Debbie Rodman, Research Associate for Fiscal Affairs
Greg Sandbothe, Office Assistant
Cheryl Schroeder, Public Information Officer
Leroy Wade, Director of Proprietary School Certification
Wei Zhou, Research Director

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

Opening Comments

Chair Carmichael thanked Dr. Gerald Brouder, president of Columbia College, for hosting the CBHE meetings.

Minutes of February 7, 2002 CBHE MeetingDr. Bourisaw moved that the minutes be approved as submitted. Mr. Bass seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Report of the Commissioner

Commissioner Stroup drew attention to the scheduled recall by the U. S. Department of Education of $32.4 million in federal student loan guaranty agency reserve funds currently maintained by the Missouri Student Loan Program (MSLP). Using funds primarily derived from the interest earned on the reserve funds in the restricted account, the MSLP provides financial and technical assistance for default prevention and debt management programs at post secondary institutions throughout Missouri. Commissioner Stroup; Mr. Jim Matchefts, general counsel; and Mr. Scott Giles, director lender, institutions and student services have been working with the Missouri Congressional delegation and their staff to brief them on the current situation. The delegates have been supportive of the board's effort to appeal the recall of these funds to balance the federal budget by the U.S. Department of Education.

Report of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee

Dr. Manuel Pacheco reported that the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee met earlier in the day and discussed the following items:

2002 Progress Report - Striving for Excellence: A Report on Missouri's System of Higher Education
Final Report of the Missouri K-16 Coalition

The Presidential Advisory Committee minutes are included as Attachment B.

Lake of the Ozarks Community College Steering Committee Overview

Dr. John Wittstruck introduced the chair of the Lake of the Ozarks Community College Steering Committee, Ms. Nickie Foster; Dr. Frank Christiansen, a steering committee member; and Dr. Don Shook, consultant to the committee. Dr. Wittstruck noted that Ms. Foster, Dr. Christiansen, and Dr. Shook were before the board in February to review the status of their efforts to establish a new community college in the Lake of the Ozarks region of the state. Ms. Foster, on behalf of the steering committee, requested additional time on the board agenda to discuss with the board provisions of the board's standard for establishing new community college taxing districts, specifically those related to enrollment regulations, that the Committee believes do not account for the broader region and the nature of the Lake population that will be served by the proposed college. Although the proposed district has more than the required property assessment to finance the local commitment, the action requested of the CBHE would provide the steering committee with two variances to the board's enrollment projection standards delineated in 6 CSR 10-6.010. The two standards involved relate to projected enrollment counts and population.

While the board recognizes the restrictive nature of its enrollment standards, it also recognizes these standards were established before community colleges began providing instructional services outside their local taxing districts. As a consequence of this, Mrs. Grove suggested that the staff begin work on developing a revised set of standards for the board's consideration regarding the establishment of new community college taxing districts.

The board also noted the significant local assessed valuation within the proposed district that will enable it to be well-financed, assuring a reasonable level of state support. After discussion among the board and with Ms. Foster, Dr. Christiansen, and Dr. Shook, Chair. Carmichael read the following statement on behalf of the board. "The Coordinating Board for Higher Education encourages the Lake of the Ozarks Community College Steering Committee to proceed with the preparation of a full proposal to establish a new community college taxing district in the Lake of the Ozarks region of the state involving the Camdenton and Osage Beach school districts. Given the Steering Committee's concern about meeting the established enrollment-related standards, the Steering Committee needs to include in its proposal the rationale and basis for how the committee arrived at the projected enrollment level included in the full proposal."

2002 Progress Report - Striving for Excellence: A Report on Missouri's System of Higher Education

Dr. Wittstruck reported that the 2002 Progress Report, Striving for Excellence: A Report on Missouri's System of Higher Education, continues the series of Progress Reports presented to and reviewed with the Coordinating Board and Presidential Advisory Committee each April.

The report is intended as a tool for board members, the higher education community, policy makers, and students and their families to use in assessing the performance of Missouri's system of higher education. Finally, the measurement information contained in the Striving for Excellence report provides important insights about where improvements have been made as well as needed on selected measures as the state continually strives for excellence in its higher education system.

It is important to note that the report is one of several reports distributed by the Coordinating Board that address higher education performance issues. Other related reports include the board's Annual Report, the Statistical Summary of Missouri Higher Education, the 2001 Report on Progress Toward the Statewide Public Policy Initiatives, and Goals for Missouri Higher Education, as well as the board's operating and capital improvement budget recommendations submitted to the governor and legislature. Further, the information in Striving for Excellence does not substitute for or replace the detailed institutional information reviewed with the Coordinating Board and the presidents and chancellors of the state's public colleges and universities.

Dr. Wittstruck stated that the following points are indicators of high school preparation for college success. They include:

ACT scores can be an important predictor of how well-prepared students are for college since there is a significant, positive relationship between high school ACT scores and success in college. Average ACT scores for college-bound high school graduates in Missouri in 1996 and 2000 were 21.5 and 21.4, respectively. In both years, these scores were slightly above the national average of 21.
Success in college is also related to courses taken in high school. In 1992, the Coordinating Board established a 16-unit high school core curriculum as a standard for admission to public four-year institutions. Between 1996 and 2001, the proportion of first-time, full-time degree seeking freshmen completing the CBHE core increased from 73 percent to 94 percent, up from 36 percent in 1992.
Advanced Placement (AP) programs allow high-achieving students to take college-level courses while still in high school. The state is making improvements in meeting the Coordinating Board's policy that all Missouri high schools offer nationally recognized AP courses. While only 25 percent of Missouri high schools had students who took AP exams in the 1996-1997 academic year, this proportion increased to 34 percent by 2000-2001. Even with this improvement, however, the state lags behind the national average of 57 percent of high schools with students taking AP exams.

Resources and affordability for college include public funding and financial access. Dr. Wittstruck commented that reports indicate that Missouri is less affordable for higher education than in other states across the nation. There are several reasons for this:

The proportion of the state budget earmarked for higher education increased steadily through the late 1990s, reaching 13.9 percent in FY 2001. During FY 2002, however, higher education received nearly level appropriations, resulting in a decline to 12.8 percent, which was reduced even further after the required FY 2002 withholdings. Higher education's share of the state budget is expected to continue to decline in FY 2003.
During the 1999-2000 academic year, the average amount of in-state undergraduate tuition and fees at public four-year institutions was $3,701, requiring the equivalent of 16.5 percent of a Missourian's per capita disposable personal income. This sum was $350 higher than the national average for public four-year institutions.
During the 1999-2000 academic year, average in-state tuition at the state's public two-year community colleges was about $110 higher than the national average.

The performance indicators of college enrollment and degree completion show the following:

In 1998, 36 percent of Missouri high school freshmen enrolled in college in any state within four years compared to 54 percent for top performing states. In addition, the proportion of Missouri's 18- to 24-year olds enrolling in college was 30 percent, compared to 42 percent for the top performing states.
The board's goal for college participation by minority groups is for college enrollment and graduation rates to be comparable to or exceed minority groups' representation in the population. College enrollment rates among African-Americans, Missouri's largest minority group has increased from 9.1 percent in 1996 to 10.3 percent in 2000. As an indicator of graduation rates, the number of degrees conferred to African-Americans in Missouri has also increased, from 7.8 percent of all degrees conferred in 1996-1997 to 9.3 percent in 2000-2001. Notwithstanding these increases, the board's goal that African-Americans comprise 11.2 percent of total enrollment and completions has not been achieved.
The proportion of baccalaureate degree recipients at the state's public four-year colleges and universities who transferred from one of the state's public community colleges increased between 1996 and 2000.
Between 1996 and 2001, targeted access to postsecondary technical education expanded significantly, increasing from availability in only 17 communities in 1996 to 67 communities in 2001.

Dr. Wittstruck noted that enhancing the learning experience is also a key to success in post-secondary education. For example:

Missouri's system of higher education has increased its competitiveness nationally in obtaining funds for basic and applied research. In 2000, funding for research and development at Missouri higher education institutions totaled more than $614 million, slightly above the national average of $606.7 million. Missouri ranks 15th among all states in research and development.
Between 2000 and 2001, the state appropriated just over $10 million to build the Missouri Bibliographic Information User System (MOBIUS), a consortium of Missouri's academic libraries. MOBIUS allows for the sharing of print, electronic, and multimedia resources at member institutions across the state. Through MOBIUS, students have access to more than 16 million volumes housed in the participating libraries across the state. One measure of the efficiency and quality enhancing of this resource sharing initiative for Missouri students and faculty is that only 38 percent of these volumes are held by more than one library.
The increase in the number of institutions participating in MOBIUS and volumes available between 2000 and 2002 has been significant. The number of volumes checked out also has increased greatly, from just under 40,000 volumes during 2000, to nearly 98,000 volumes checked out during 2001.

Dr. Wittstruck also noted that the following performance indicators show the quality and success of Missouri's higher education system:

Between 1996 and 2001, the graduation rates of full-time freshman cohorts graduating from public four-year institutions within six years increased from 46 percent to 56 percent, slightly above the national average of 54 percent. Similarly, the graduation rates within three years of freshmen entering public two-year schools increased from 21 percent to 25 percent during this same period, below the national average of 32 percent.
Following the Coordinating Board's recommendation, Missouri's public four-year institutions have implemented differentiated admissions guidelines that match the different levels of preparation students bring to their postsecondary educational experience. The board articulated the related expectation that as admissions selectivity increases, so too should the institutions' graduation rates. Graduation rates from public four-year institutions do increase with the increasing levels of admissions selectivity. These rates have improved for all public four-year institutions over the 1996 to 2001 time period, with rates in 2001 ranging from 34 percent at public, open enrollment, four-year institutions to 72 percent at Missouri's public, highly selective four-year institution.
Performance on nationally normed tests of general education provides another indicator of the quality of higher education in Missouri. Between 1996 and 2000, the percentage of baccalaureate degree recipients from Missouri public institutions scoring at or above the 50th percentile on general education tests increased from 58.9 percent to 62.4 percent.
The Coordinating Board, in stressing the importance of producing high quality K-12 teachers, recommends that students admitted to teacher education programs score at least a 265 on each part of the C-BASE examination and/or at the 66th percentile on the ACT. The proportion of prospective teachers meeting this guideline increased from 65 percent in 1996-97 to 75 percent in 2000-01. In addition, the board recommends that 80 percent of all teacher education graduates score at or above the 50th percentile on state-mandated national exit exams. Between 1996 and 2000, the percent of teacher education graduates from the state's public institutions meeting this goal increased from 55 percent to 60 percent.

Results of State Investments in Mission Review and Enhancements

Harris-Stowe State College

Dr. Robert Stein reported that Harris-Stowe State College began another five-year mission cycle during calendar year 1997. Between FY 1999 and FY 2002, the state appropriated $2,483,348 in mission enhancement funds to support the institution's mission implementation plan. The following mission statement was reaffirmed by the CBHE in October 1997 for Harris-Stowe State College:

Harris Stowe State College is a baccalaureate-level, moderately selective institution with selected applied professional programs serving the city of St. Louis. Additional mission enhancement goals are to:

Add degree programs in selected applied professional fields to meet the needs in the city of St. Louis
Enhance and refine existing programs in business administration, teacher education, and criminal justice
Increase and enhance two-plus-two programs with St. Louis Community College
Expand campus facilities through capital priorities to construct five new buildings that are part of Harris-Stowe's campus master plan.

Dr. Henry Givens, Jr. thanked the board for the opportunity to provide a summary of mission-related accomplishments that have occurred over the past five years and referred the board to the formal report prepared by the college and included in the board book as Attachment B under TAB C. In referencing the college's historical background, Dr. Givens emphasized the merger of Harris Teachers' College and Stowe Teachers' College into one institution, serving students interested in becoming teachers, and Harris-Stowe's recognition by the U.S. Department of Education as a historically Black college.

Mission expansion was approved by the CBHE in 1992 and then placed into law in 1993 by the passage of Senate Bill 153 (Section 174.310, RSMo). Prior to its expanded mission, Harris-Stowe State College offered only two degree programs, Elementary Education and Urban Education. As a result of mission expansion, the college has been able to add 10 new degree programs, with multiple options, as well as several certifications for education students. The majority of these were added as a result of the most recent mission enhancement funds. Other noteworthy accomplishments include national and international accreditation of the college's business administration degree, re-accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission (NCA), and new initiatives in teacher education, including increased entrance standards, increased rigor in the curriculum, and an exit standard requiring all teacher education graduates to pass the Praxis II examination.

Dr. Givens noted that as part of the college's physical plant expansion, Harris-Stowe is raising external funding and other support from foundations, individuals, businesses, and the corporate community.

Mr. Bass asked if Harris-Stowe has had problems in moving from an open-enrollment to a moderately selective institution. Dr. Givens indicated that many of the college's students are first-generation college students who come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and are forced to attend part-time. Others begin full-time, but drop some courses prior to completing the semester. Dr. Bourisaw indicated that the institution may want to benchmark itself against institutions serving students with similar demographic characteristics. Mrs. Grove questioned what the school was focusing on and suggested that Harris-Stowe should focus on the success of its students and do it well. She also noted that she would like data from Harris-Stowe on the first-generation students attending the institution.

Some board members questioned the extent of the progress the college is making in becoming a moderately selective institution. Dr. Stein noted that 50 percent of Harris-Stowe's students have an ACT score of 21 or higher and that 44 percent of the students meet the admissions guidelines. Board members pointed out that the college's admissions standards, freshmen completion rates, and six-year graduation rates still fall far short of the target goals and that in some cases, the trend has gone down instead of up. Mrs. Carmichael suggested that the college may want to reconsider its mission-related admissions category and may want to redefine its admissions category as open-enrollment. Dr. Givens explained there is substantial support in the community for Harris-Stowe to be moderately selective. He acknowledged that the college is committed to working harder at ensuring progress toward meeting the board's goals for moderately selective institutions. Board members reinforced the importance of ensuring that the goals are met.

Dr. Givens reported that Harris-Stowe faces the following challenges:

The construction of the college's state-funded Early Childhood Development and Parenting Education Center (part of the FY 2001 and FY 2002 shortfall withholding).
Recovering the withheld funds to hire additional staff and faculty for the program and initiatives to which the college is committed in its mission enhancement plan.
Withholdings and core cuts in the college's appropriation level will not allow for the maintenance and operation of the college's newest facility, the Physical Education and Visual/Performing Arts Center that will be opened this fall.

Dr. Givens stated that in spite of these challenges, Harris-Stowe is unwaveringly committed to doing all within its power to meet its goals and become an excellent example of a moderately selective institution of higher learning.

Dr. Stein reported that CBHE staff will analyze the institution's mission-related accomplishments as well as the targeted mission-related initiatives and goals for the next five years.

Chair Carmichael indicated that the board is supportive of Harris-Stowe State College and encouraged the institution to continue working toward achieving its mission.

Harris-Stowe State College's Accountability Report to the board is attached to these minutes. (Attachment C)

Lincoln University

Dr. Stein reported that Lincoln University began another five-year mission cycle during calendar year 1997. Between FY 1999 and FY 2002, the state appropriated $3,535,020 in mission enhancement funds to support the institution's mission implementation plan. The following mission statement for Lincoln University was approved by the CBHE in October 1997.

Lincoln University is an 1890s land-grant master's-level institution with open-enrollment admissions, focusing on access to learning success, serving mid-Missouri. Lincoln's mission enhancement goals are to:

Enhance and increase collaborative partnerships
Enhance programs in business administration, elementary education, criminal justice/law enforcement, and nursing science
Develop new courses and programs to be offered at night and on weekends for residents of mid-Missouri and employees of state government
Increase statewide access to the University's African American and ethnic studies library collections
Enhance and strengthen the University's 1890s land-grant cooperative extension and cooperative research mission.

Dr. David Henson expressed appreciation to the board for the opportunity to provide a summary of mission-related accomplishments that have occurred over the past five years and referred the board to the formal report prepared by the University and included in the board book as Attachment B under TAB D.

Dr. Henson began his presentation by referring to Lincoln University's unique mission as an 1890s land-grant institution. While remaining committed to meeting the educational and social needs of African-Americans, the University has expanded its historic mission to meet the needs of a broader, more diverse student population. The University provides student-centered learning in a nurturing environment, integrating teaching, research, and service. Lincoln offers relevant, high-quality undergraduate and select graduate programs that prepare students for careers and lifelong learning. These programs are grounded in the liberal arts and sciences and focus on public service professions that meet the academic and professional needs of its historical and statewide student clientele. Lincoln University actively recruits minority students and their enrollment has increased. Dr. Henson also indicated that Lincoln has been successful in changing the overall culture of the institution.

Several programs have been enhanced during the past five years. Business administration has aggressively pursued accreditation. Additional faculty have been hired, curricula have been revised, and professional development activities have been initiated. A site visit was held in March 2002, and the institution expects to hear in June whether its business administration program will be accredited. Elementary education has been enhanced through staffing, faculty development, and support for students. Urban education has also been enhanced through curriculum development and by providing students with teaching experience in urban settings. Other programs that have been enhanced include criminal justice/law enforcement, nursing science, and agriculture.

Dr. Henson shared information about increased collaborative partnerships with State Fair Community College and Linn State Technical College. As part of its effort to strengthen the University's 1890s land-grant cooperative extension and research mission, an advisory committee was established, with representatives from many federal and state agencies. Several programs targeting at-risk youth have been implemented through Lincoln University's Cooperative Research and Extension programs.

As part of its outreach commitment, Dr. Henson reported that between FY 1997 and FY 2001, Lincoln University increased the number of evening and weekend courses by 17 percent. In addition, Lincoln University has also increased its library hours and access to its African- American and ethnic studies library collections.

Dr. Henson described, for the board, various aspects of Lincoln University's commitment to engage in intrusive intervention with under-prepared students. As a result, freshmen success rates are improving.

Dr. Stein reported that CBHE staff will analyze the institution's mission-related accomplishments as well as the targeted mission-related initiatives and goals for the next five years.

Chair Carmichael commended Lincoln for its progress and encouraged the institution to continue working toward achievement of mission-specific goals.

Lincoln University's Accountability Report to the board is attached to these minutes. (Attachment D)

Truman State University

Dr. Stein reported that Truman State University began another five-year mission cycle during calendar year 1997. Between FY 1999 and FY 2002, the state appropriated $5,570,000 in mission enhancement funds to support the institution's mission implementation plan. The following mission statement for Truman State University was reaffirmed by the CBHE in October 1997.

Truman State University is a highly selective, master's-level liberal arts and sciences university, focusing on the quality of the teaching and learning environment. Truman State University's goals are to:

Become nationally recognized as a public liberal arts and sciences university through an enhanced liberal studies program and culture
Attract and retain quality faculty
Enhance support to the teaching/learning process
Increase the number and proportion of graduates going on to graduate and professional schools
Implement a Visiting Distinguished Scholars program
Renovation and expansion of Science Hall to strengthen delivery of courses and programs in the natural sciences and enhancement of library collections.

Dr. Jack Magruder expressed his gratitude to the board for the opportunity to provide a summary of Truman State's mission-related accomplishments over the past five years and referred the board to the formal report prepared by the University and included in the board book as Attachment B under TAB E.

Dr. Magruder acknowledged previous decisions made by the Coordinating Board for Higher Education to establish Truman State University (formerly Northeast Missouri State University) as the state's highly selective public liberal arts and sciences institution. The Missouri legislature approved this mission change for Truman State University with the passage of House Bill 196 (Sections 174.600 to 174.630, RSMo) in 1985. Between 1985 and 1997, Truman made significant progress in establishing its niche as Missouri's public liberal arts and sciences institution.

Dr. Magruder reported that Truman State University focused its mission by restructuring its academic programs, deleting programs not central to its mission, and emphasizing academic enhancing experiences, e.g., study abroad and undergraduate student/faculty research.

Mrs. Grove asked about the institution's ability to attract students of color. Dr. Magruder explained that while it has been difficult to attract students of color to Kirksville, the institution is making significant progress. In addition to increasing enrollments by students of color, the shift in mission at Truman State University to that of a liberal arts institution is also evidenced by significant changes in foreign language enrollments, student/faculty ratios, enrollment from outside the institution's historic service region, and the percent of undergraduate majors in the core liberal arts.

When Truman State University chose to become highly selective, it made a commitment to meet all standards for this mission category. The institution has succeeded in ensuring that freshmen preparation and success have met the target goals set by the Coordinating Board. Dr. Magruder acknowledged that while the institution has made progress on its six-year graduation rate, it still needs to improve in this area.

As part of its commitment to becoming a nationally recognized public liberal arts and sciences university, Truman State University has recruited and supported outstanding faculty. In addition, the University has been successful in implementing a Distinguished Visiting Scholars Program, which has brought 12 nationally recognized scholars to campus. Dr. Magruder also referenced enhancements to its library collections and its computer instructional technology. These enhancements are described in detail in the report submitted.

As part of its mission enhancement, Truman State University received a capital appropriation in FY 2000 for the renovation of, and additions to, the institution's main science facility. The revised structure represents a much-needed improvement in support of the University's science programs.

Dr. Magruder shared with the board the University's accomplishment in becoming the fourth Missouri University to meet the rigorous requirements and become a Phi Beta Kappa (PBK) institution. The other three institutions are all research universities. He also noted the U.S. News article that named Truman the number one public institution in the Midwest, as well as being distinguished by the New York Times as an institution "to be watched." While Truman is proud of its accomplishments and the recognition it has received nationally, Dr. Magruder assured the board that Truman State University strongly supports the state's commitment to foster institutional diversity in terms of both programmatic focus and clientele served. Dr. Magruder commended his colleagues from other institutions for the vital work they do and acknowledged that for Truman to succeed, the state needs to continue its support for all institutions.

Dr. Stein reported that the CBHE staff will analyze the institution's mission-related accomplishments as well as the targeted mission-related initiatives and goals for the next five years.

Chair Carmichael complimented Truman University on how they have streamlined their programs and on their excellent accomplishments.

Truman State University's Accountability Report is attached to these minutes. (Attachment E)

University of Missouri

Dr. Stein reported that the University of Missouri began another five-year mission cycle during calendar year 1997. Between FY 1999 and FY 2002, the state appropriated $60 million in mission enhancement funds to support the institution's mission implementation plan. The following mission statement for the University of Missouri, including specific focused goals for each of its campuses and for University Extension and Outreach, was approved by the CBHE in October 1997.

The University of Missouri is a selective, statewide, land-grant university with four campuses and extension/outreach. Enhancement activities focus 1) on qualitative improvement in graduate, doctoral, and professional programs and research through endowed chairs, distinguished professorships, and enriched funding for selected programs and integrated activities and 2) on increasing the national stature and recognition of selected graduate programs and areas of research. The University of Missouri's mission enhancement goals for each campus and for its University Extension and Outreach include the following:

University of Missouri-Columbia (UMC)

Focus on graduate and professional education and research
Improve health and increase agricultural productivity by emphasizing programs in the life sciences
Apply research to social, economic, educational, and governmental issues
Increase the number and proportion of full-time faculty teaching undergraduate students.

University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC)

Enhance graduate and professional education and research
Emphasize and strengthen programs and research in the biological and health sciences
Enhance national recognition of visual and performing arts programs.

University of Missouri-Rolla (UMR)

Enhance research and educational programs in manufacturing, materials, environmental and geo-technical engineering and science; infrastructure engineering; and instructional technology
Expand technology transfer and applied research through enhanced outreach programs to Missouri businesses
Increase program articulation with pre-engineering programs offered by the state's community colleges.

University of Missouri-St. Louis (UMSL)

Strengthen programs for academically superior students and increase the involvement of undergraduates in research
Enhance graduate programs in health, science and technology, and education, with the focus on urban issues
Increase access to baccalaureate completion programs for students at area community colleges and to master's- and doctoral-degree programs for students at area baccalaureate degree-granting colleges and universities.

The University of Missouri Outreach and Extension (UMOE)

Increase access to the resources of the University of Missouri and in partnership with the state's public and independent colleges and universities
Provide financial, geographic, and programmatic access to the state's system of higher education through Telecommunications Community Resource Centers (TCRCs).

Dr. Manuel Pacheco, president, University of Missouri System, thanked the board for the opportunity to provide a summary of mission-related accomplishments that have occurred over the past five years and distributed an updated report as a replacement for Attachment B under TAB F. Dr. Pacheco stated that UM has made significant progress in research programs. He attributed this mainly to the University's focus on investing in the Life Sciences and the ability of the University to attract top researchers. He stated that the University's progress in achieving real improvement in the quality and support for promising research programs builds on the momentum achieved by the University's five-year plan. Although all initiatives represent long-term investments, they are beginning to see some early favorable results. A few examples are:

UM has been able to leverage the state's investment to raise more than $80 million to support 121 chairs and professorships across the four campuses.
Investments in endowed chairs and professorships have positioned the University to increase its success in securing additional dollars in grants and contracts.
The University of Missouri has significantly increased its market share of federal funds, compared to public AAU institutions.

Chair Carmichael congratulated UM on the rankings and research dollars. The University of Missouri ranked 28th among the top 50 AAU institutions in federal research expenditures.

Dr. Manuel Pacheco commented that the budget cuts for next year will take them back to 1997 funding levels and wipe out the financial gains that have been made under mission enhancement. Board members asked for clarification about the impact on the institution's ability to continue supporting mission enhancement goals. Dr. Pacheco explained that the investments made by the University of Missouri as a result of mission enhancement were made with an assumption that the University's funding would not decrease. Enhancement funding began with the FY 1999 budget. Withholdings were experienced both in 2001 and 2002. Based on these withholdings and the projected core cuts for FY 2003, the University is now required to make difficult decisions about what things it will not be able to accomplish while still maintaining commitments associated with mission enhancement investments already made. Mrs. Grove asked Dr. Pacheco if he felt the University was going backward because of the budget cuts. Dr. Pacheco stated that the University is committed to moving forward, but that the financial situation makes it difficult. Mrs. Grove asked the University to provide her with a list indicating how the $60 million in mission enhancement funds was spent. Dr. Pacheco explained that most of the $60 million has been withheld.

Dr. Pacheco asked Dr. Stephen Lehmkuhle, vice president for academic affairs, University of Missouri System, to review the changes included in the updated accountability report distributed to the board. Dr. Lehmkuhle distributed rankings for the University of Missouri's academic programs and indicated that the rankings were derived from a variety of sources and that the University is pleased to have a significant number of programs that have been recognized nationally.

Dr. Lehmkuhle reported that Table 4 originally used a narrow definition for life science degrees. The new table includes additional CIP codes for agriculture and health education. The same favorable comparison between the University of Missouri and the AAU average remains evident when the new data are included.

Mrs. Kauffman asked about the University's commitment to endowed chairs. Dr. Lehmkuhle explained that while it becomes increasingly difficult to attract and retain high-quality faculty because of counter offers from other institutions, the University is assertively seeking to fill the endowed chairs and professorships identified in Table 5. This table has been updated to include the names of persons now filling some of the vacant positions.

Concerning time-to-degree data, Dr. Lehmkuhle explained that the original Table 9 indicated that doctoral students on average took 10.3 years to complete their degrees. These data, however, included all students based on the year of the baccalaureate degree, and therefore, the average was affected by students who drop out. The table was revised to reflect those students with continuous enrollment only. The new table, 9B, shows that the average time to degree for continuously enrolled Ph.D. students is only 4.9 years.

Dr. Lehmkuhle also pointed out that the data about six-year graduation rates in Table 12 use a restrictive definition, counting only those students who graduate from the institution they enter. Data in the CBHE's reports are somewhat higher for each institution since students who graduate from any public institution in Missouri are counted. The respective six-year graduation rates for each campus is increased to 70 percent for UMC, 44 percent for UMKC, 63 percent for UMR, and 43 percent for UMSL using the CBHE's definition.

Board members asked for clarification about the data on collaborative programs. Dr. Lehmkuhle indicated that collaboration was indeed a complex activity and that the University would need to examine more clearly the indicators it uses to determine that a given activity is actually collaborative. In response to a question from Mrs. Kauffman about the way the engineering program in Kansas City now operates, Dr. Lehmkuhle explained that it is a coordinated engineering program similar to the former program. The administrative authority has been transferred from the Columbia campus to the Kansas City campus. In addition, the collaborative effort now includes participation by the Rolla campus. The degree is transcripted as a coordinated engineering program. The diploma is signed by chancellors from all three University of Missouri campuses. Dr. Stein reported that CBHE staff will analyze the institution's mission-related accomplishments as well as the targeted mission-related initiatives and goals for the next five years.

Chair Carmichael complimented The University of Missouri on its graduate rankings and on the progress the institution is making toward achievement of its mission enhancement goals, especially in attracting research dollars and scholars through publicly and privately funded endowments.

The University of Missouri's Accountability Report is attached to these minutes. (Attachment F)

Status of Mission Review

Dr. Stein stated that as the state's planning agency for higher education, the Coordinating Board has, since its inception, worked with institutions to develop agreed-upon missions. Legislation passed in 1995 assigned, to the Coordinating Board, the responsibility to conduct a regular five-year mission review for each of the state's public colleges and universities. Statutory expectations for five-year reviews are that the higher education system will be:

responsive to the state's needs
focused, balanced and cost effective
characterized by programs of high quality, with demonstrable student performance and program outcomes.

As a result of mission review, the CBHE may recommend additional state investments based on an approved mission implementation plan. The board established a staggered mission review schedule so that only some institutions would be reviewed each year. Dr. Stein reported that reviews for public institutions began in 1995, 1996, and 1997, resulting in mission enhancement recommendations for all institutions. He further noted that institutions report to the board on their mission enhancement accountability measures during the final year of their respective five-year mission review cycle. The board heard four of these reports today.

When designing mission implementation plans, institutions are encouraged to emphasize results. In addition, any new initiatives are expected to be aligned with established statewide initiatives and priorities. Discussions concerning the next cycle of mission review will occur during June for Harris-Stowe State College, Lincoln University, Truman State University, and the University of Missouri.

Chair Carmichael inquired when the board would receive data about each institution's performance. Dr. Stein reported that at the board's June 6, 2002 meeting, the CBHE staff will provide institutional profile reports for all of Missouri's public colleges and universities. In addition, specific mission-related accountability measures associated with each institution's five-year mission implementation plan will be identified.

Discussion of Funding for Results for FY 2004 and Beyond

Dr. Stein stated that the board has statutory responsibility for preparing a unified budget for public higher education to be submitted to the Governor and the Missouri General Assembly. For the FY 2003 budget request, the board simplified its overall funding formula for higher education by emphasizing three major categories: institutional strength, performance funding, and statewide priorities.

He also noted that between FY 1994 and FY 2001, institutions received over $66 million in state appropriations for the board's FFR program. Although FFR appropriations were not funded in FY 2002 as a result of financial stress, the state remains committed to an emphasis on results. In April 2001, the board adopted objectives for its FFR program that emphasize the importance of FTE-sensitive formulas, measuring institutional performance against agreed-upon goals, and the use of valid and reliable data to generate the FFR budget recommendation.

Dr. Stein stated that in preparing the FY 2004 budget request, CBHE staff will continue to work with institutional presidents/chancellors and their designees to establish an agreed-upon approach to FFR. Institutional-level data from the board's 2002 Progress Report, Striving for Excellence: A Report of Missouri's System of Higher Education, will be used as the staff works with institutional representatives to refine and simplify the board's performance funding component (FFR).

Mr. Summers asked for clarification about the intent of the staff's recommendation. He inquired whether passage of the motion would preclude the board from determining that institutional strength should become its major funding priority for FY 2004. Commissioner Stroup explained that passage of the recommendation would not preclude the board from determining its funding priorities at future board meetings. The intent of the motion is to ensure that the staff and presidents and chancellors continue to work on refinements to the board's performance funding initiative. Whether the board will choose to include performance funding as a budget recommendation and the exact priority it would be given will be determined at a future meeting.

Mrs. Wood moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education continue its commitment to performance funding as a strategy to encourage continuous improvement and to demonstrate accountability in Missouri's system of public higher education. It is further recommended that staff work with presidents/chancellors and their designees to continue to evolve an agreed-upon approach in refining the board's FFR budget recommendation for FY 2004. Mrs. Grove seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Final Report of the Missouri K-16 Coalition

Dr. Stein reported that in October 2000, the Coordinating Board for Higher Education, the State Board of Education, and the University of Missouri Board of Curators reaffirmed their commitment to be sponsors of Missouri's K-16 Coalition. A major focus of the Coalition is to promote high-quality standards and smooth transitions for all students. In February 2001, a 15-person task force of prominent Missourians was charged with reviewing issues, studying best practices, and making public its recommendations for ways to improve student academic achievement at all levels.

During its deliberations, the K-16 Task Force on Achievement Gap Elimination (K-16-TAGE) noted several gaps in the achievement levels among students across schools, including:

Lower performance on Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) tests
Lower rates of college admission test-taking
Lower scores on the ACT
Less preparation for collegiate-level work
Lower high school graduation rates
Lower college attendance rates
Greater need for remediation in college.

The Task Force found that many of Missouri's low-performing school districts have a disproportionate share of teachers with below-average ACT scores. The K-16-TAGE identified teacher quality as the single most important factor in eliminating achievement gaps among Missouri students.

A draft of the K-16-TAGE report was presented at the Coordinating Board's February 2002 meeting and discussed by the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee. During its February 28, 2002 meeting, the Task Force reviewed comments received and made some changes to the draft report. Task Force members approved the report with minor modifications.

As a result of the work of the K-16-TAGE, a spotlight has been placed on achievement gaps in Missouri. The sponsoring boards have the responsibility to determine which recommendations should be translated into public policy initiatives. When the final report is reformatted and printed it, along with copies of all formal comments received and a sample accountability grid, will be transmitted to each sponsoring board.

Mr. Bass moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education receive the K-16 Task Force on Achievement Gap Elimination report. Further, the board commends members of the K-16 Task Force on Achievement Gap Elimination for their service and commitment to improving student academic achievement at all levels throughout Missouri's educational system. Mrs. Grove seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Chair. Carmichael reported that the board had signed a proclamation of appreciation that will be sent to Dr. Charles McClain for his outstanding service as chair of the K-16 Task Force on Achievement Gap Elimination. A copy of the proclamation is attached to these minutes. (Attachment G)

Midwestern Higher Education Commission's Graduate Exchange of Midwest Minority Scholars

Dr. Michael Middleton, assistant provost, University of Missouri-Columbia, stated that the Midwestern Higher Education Commission (MHEC) has had a longstanding interest in promoting minority faculty development in higher education.

Support for promoting the Graduate Exchange of Midwest Minority Scholars (GEMMS) program among MHEC states was approved by MHEC at its November 2001 meeting in Kansas City. GEMMS is a proposed collaborative initiative involving the state higher education leadership offices of participating MHEC member states, public graduate degree-granting institutions from those states, and MHEC.

He further stated that in its initial years, a major focus of the GEMMS program will be to promote networking among member states and to establish tuition reciprocity for minority graduate students interested in pursuing careers in higher education. Once four states have agreed to become sponsors, a GEMMS Council will be formed. Each state sponsor will appoint one member to the GEMMS Council, and other at-large members will be appointed by MHEC. The GEMMS Council will be supported by MHEC, which will appoint the Council's chair.

Participating institutions in the GEMMS program agree that GEMMS students who are accepted for graduate study will be charged no more than 100 percent of the regular in-state tuition that is charged to the respective members' resident students. Any loss of tuition income would be covered by each participating institution. In addition, institutional members will be expected to assign a campus contact person to work with the GEMMS Council in coordinating the on-campus program.

The MHEC proposal to establish GEMMS was discussed by the Council on Public Higher Education for Missouri (COPHE) at its February 6, 2002 meeting. COPHE members unanimously approved a recommendation that Missouri should become a GEMMS sponsor and have encouraged the CBHE to become the third MHEC state to sponsor GEMMS. The decision to become a participating member of GEMMS is made at the institutional level.

Mrs. Kauffman moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education agree to become a sponsor of the MHEC Graduate Exchange of Midwest Minority Scholars (GEMMS) program. The CBHE encourages Missouri public four-year institutions with graduate programs to sign on as participating institutions. Mr. Summers seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Commissioner Stroup recommended that Dr. Middleton be invited to continue to serve as Missouri's official GEMMS liaison officer. The board unanimously agreed.

MOSTARS

Results of State and Federal Audits of the Missouri Student Loan Program

Dr. Wittstruck stated that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education and its administrative agency, the Department of Higher Education, is designated in Section 173.110, RSMo, as Missouri's guaranty agency for the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). Section 173.110.1, RSMo, specifies that "the department is authorized to issue certificates of guarantee covering student loans by eligible lenders which meet the requirements of sections 173.095 to 173.180 and the regulations of the board adopted hereunder to eligible borrowers, and to pay from the fund to an eligible lender the amount established by federal law in the event the student defaults."

At the close of the 2001 state fiscal year, MOSTARS was responsible for nearly $2 billion in outstanding student loans held by some 550,000 current and former students participating in the federal guaranteed student loan program administered by the Department of Higher Education. MOSTARS guaranteed nearly $421 million in gross loan volume during the 2001 state fiscal year. Gross volume in state fiscal year 2002 is expected to exceed $500 million.

He also noted that the State Auditor has completed an audit of the financial statements of the Missouri Student Loan Program for the period ending June 30, 2001. Comments on financial management are also included in the audit report. Dr. Wittstruck noted that the State Auditor reported no substantive issues identified or included in the report.

Dr. Wittstruck also referred to a report from the U.S. Department of Education containing a letter dated January 23, 2002 from Dr. Mark Taylor, Guarantor and Lender Review Specialist, that all findings related to the review of the operation of the Missouri Student Loan program during the week of April 9, 2002 had been resolved.

Mr. Summers moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education acknowledge receipt of the Audit Report of the Department of Higher Education's State Guaranty Student Loan Program for the period ended June 30, 2001 conducted by the State Auditor as well as the review of the Missouri Student Loan Program's compliance with federal rules and regulations completed for the week of April 9, 2001 by representatives of the United States Office of Education. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed.

February 6, 2002 MOSTARS Advisory Board Meeting and Meeting Notes

Dr. Wittstruck stated that during its February 10, 2000 meeting, the Coordinating Board established the MOSTARS Advisory Board to help guide the board's efforts to develop and implement:

An integrated policy framework for student financial aid programs;
An improved consumer information reporting system;
Successful early awareness and outreach programs; and
Student loan default prevention and debt management strategies.

A MOSTARS Advisory Board meeting was held in Jefferson City, Missouri on February 6, 2002. While an oral report of their meeting was made by Dr. Wittstruck during the board's February 7, 2002 meeting, he brought to the board's attention the meeting notes from that meeting that were included with the agenda items. He pointed out that these meeting notes were being provided to the board as part of the Advisory Board's effort to report to and advise the Coordinating Board on matters related to student financial assistance and services.

In making his report to the board, Dr. Wittstruck mentioned the follow-up summary items that MOSTARS staff will be working on prior to the next Advisory Board meeting. He also mentioned that one item not included in the summary was a recommendation by Mr. John Dillingham that MOSTARS should encourage retired bankers and businessmen to help address and find answers to the many issues related to providing sufficient student financial aid for Missouri students, particularly those students from low-income families.

Status of FY 2003 Budget and Proposed Legislation Related to Higher Education

Ms. Debbie Rodman reported that the higher education budget for FY 2003 has been passed by the full House, and is still under consideration by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The legislative process resulted in several changes to the Governor's recommendations as presented at the February board meeting. Changes made by the House included additional cuts to several CBHE divisions - specifically, coordination administration, proprietary school regulation, and grant and scholarship administration - and some small changes to the educational institutions. Changes made by the Senate Appropriations committee included a cut to the Missouri College Guarantee Program, and acceptance of House cuts to proprietary school regulation, and grant and scholarship administration. Items still under consideration by the Senate Appropriations Committee include coordination administration, the Bright Flight scholarship program, the Advantage Missouri loan forgiveness program, all the educational institutions, and several UM-related programs. (Attachment H )

Appointment of a Nominating Committee for Selection of CBHE Officers

Chair Carmichael appointed the following board members to serve on the Nominating Committee for the slots of board officers for the next year and to report its recommendation to the board during its June meeting:

Mr. Jim Summers, Jr., Chair
Mrs. Mary Findley
Mr. John Bass

The board received the following information items:

Update on State Fair Community College Technical Programs in Jefferson City
Missouri High School Graduates Performance Report: Outstanding Schools Act - Senate Bill 380
Academic Program Actions
Proprietary School Certification Actions and Reviews
Calendar for Planning and Budgeting, FY 2004
Distribution of Community College Funds
Annual Report of the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority
Life Sciences Update

Chair Carmichael asked for an update on the relationship between State Fair Community College (SFCC) and Lincoln (LU) concerning SFCC programs in Jefferson City. Dr. Stein reported the following actions that have occurred since the February board meeting.

A memorandum was sent to all presidents and chancellors emphasizing the importance of collaboration.
A letter was sent to the presidents of SFCC and LU outlining board expectations.
SFCC has revised its advertising and advising system to ensure that prospective students have accurate information that SFCC classes at the Jefferson City site are in support of AAS approved programs.
Students interested in general education only are encouraged to go elsewhere.
Students are required to sign forms indicating the AAS major they are pursuing.
RTEC meetings involving Jefferson City partners have been held.
A course schedule for fall 2002 has been devised.
Disagreements about the list of courses to be submitted for CBHE approval were identified and resolved.
Approval for the fall 2002 term was granted for 47 general education sections covering 12 separate courses, 28 sections of developmental education courses and 63 sections of technical courses.
Responses have been sent to two complaint letters.
SFCC is exploring potential collaboration with LU and Linn State concerning future program development in Jefferson City.

Dr. Stein indicated that both institutions have made good-faith efforts to ensure a working partnership. SFCC and LU are beginning negotiations about faculty assignments and financial reimbursement that will become part of a formal agreement to be signed by both institutions.

In concluding the board meeting, Mr. Fischer moved that the Coordinating Board proceed into executive session to discuss issues as they may pertain to Section RSMo 610.021(1) relating to "legal actions, causes of action or litigation involving a public governmental body and any confidential or privileged communications between a public governmental body or its representatives and its attorneys "and Section RSMo 610.021(3) relating to "hiring, firing, disciplining or promotion of particular employees by a public governmental body when personal information about the employee is discussed or recorded."

Mrs. Carmichael asked for a roll call vote on the motion.

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

The motion passed unanimously.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the board, Mr. Fischer moved that the meeting adjourn. Mrs. Grove seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.

___________________________
Marie Carmichael, Chair

___________________________
Jim Summers, Jr., Secretary