IFS/Board Brown Bag Lunch

Thursday, July 15, 2004

Portland State University

12:00-1:15 pm

1. Call to Order/Roll Call/Welcome

Director Kirby Dyess chaired this informal meeting between members of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education and members of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate, and called it to order at 12:10 pm, Thursday, July 15, 2004. After brief remarks, she requested introductions of those attending the meeting.

Board members present included: Tim Nesbitt, Gretchen Schuette, Henry Lorenzen, Geri Richmond, Howard Sohn, Bridget Burns, Kirby Dyess (Chair).

Other Oregon University System staff present included: George Pernsteiner, Ryan J. Hagemann.

IFS Members present included: Peter Gilkey (UO and IFS President), Bob Turner (WOU), Maureen Sevigny (OIT), Solveig Holmquist (WOU), Nathan Tublitz (UO), Jim Earl (UO), Nina Carson (OSU), Steve Teich (OHSU), Scott Burns (PSU).

Meeting attendees also included other institution representatives, members of the System Office, the press, and other interested observers.

2. Discussion

After introductions, Chair Dyess reviewed the meeting’s agenda. She offered that the Board’s working groups would provide updates, the Board would outline progress on the budget, and that IFS representatives would discuss relevant issues. She turned to Director Schuette, chair of the Board’s Excellence in Delivery and Productivity Working Group (EDP), for a status report.

Director Schuette reported EDP met earlier that morning, and she noted several IFS members were present at that meeting. She offered: “…there was consensus support for each of the areas of our focus and, in fact, for resources to support the efforts and processes to agree upon as far as what are the best next steps to get from here to there.” She continued by noting the support for a timeline, matrix, and action plan to get some goals achieved by fall 2004 and fall 2005. Director Schuette noted input from community college colleagues, and the desire to continue work on the development of a common core proposal so there would be something for the community colleges and OUS institutions to review in the next couple of months. She turned to IFS members for any additions to her summary. President Gilkey stated it was a good summary, and added that he had attended the Provosts’ Council meeting and that the Council echoed Director Schuette’s progress report. He noted that IFS members would continue their work on common core proposals, and concluded that it was clear that the Joint Boards Articulation Commission (JBAC) would play a central role and that it was convenient that the EOU Provost sat on JBAC.

Chair Dyess turned next to Director Nesbitt, chair of the Board’s Access & Affordability Working Group (AAWG), for an update of its progress. He shared that AAWG met earlier that morning and has had additional stakeholder meetings. He noted a meeting with the Oregon Business Council’s Higher Education Group, which included a presentation from Pat Callan. Callan is the author of “Measuring Up,” the report that recently gave Oregon an “F” for college affordability. Director Nesbitt was encouraged by not only the reception from the business leaders, but comments Callan shared after AAWG’s presentation at the meeting. Callan offered that he thought AAWG was focused on the right issues and was headed in the right direction with its work and proposals. Director Nesbitt added that AAWG has refined its data and presentations, and is happy with the presentation it currently uses for editorial board meetings and other events. He highlighted the important elements of the presentation, including the dissection of Oregon’s affordability problem. Director Nesbitt outlined that Oregon’s higher than average tuition and lower than average personal income exacerbate the affordability problem, but it is Oregon’s substantially lower state-financed, need-based financial aid as compared to other states that contributes to the problem most. Director Nesbitt stated this is why AAWG’s focus is on bolstering the Oregon Opportunity Grant and building on a constitutionally protected fund for the future. He noted at the morning’s meeting, the Oregon Student Assistance Commission (OSAC) shared that it will be requesting a substantial increase in funding for the Oregon Opportunity Grant from the legislature this session. He clarified that this will be OSAC, and not OUS’s budget proposal, but he expected OUS would endorse it.

In addition to efforts with the Oregon Opportunity Grant and need-based aid, Director Nesbitt added the other initiative that implicated AAWG’s work with access and affordability was the proposed policy package to increase funding for expected student enrollment increases. He offered that the student enrollment policy package, in addition to proposals on tuition, would be part of the budget deliberations that keep an eye on access and affordability. He added that, as of yet, the funding source for the ASET proposal was not identified. While many have ideas, Director Nesbitt stated there would be a separate work group, with MardiLyn Saathoff, the Governor’s General Counsel, revenue contributors, and others to brainstorm about options to craft and fund the ASET proposal.

Chair Dyess applauded AAWG’s work for focusing on mechanics and process before asking for money. She asked Director Nesbitt for clarification regarding the comment about Oregon’s higher than average tuition. Director Nesbitt stated, as an average, Oregon was higher as compared to other states. Chair Dyess noted that the statistic surprised her, and that she wanted to be sure she had correct information. Director Lorenzen added the comparables data may be old, and Chair Dyess noted that she was looking at comparable schools, but the average data may be different.

Chair Dyess continued with a status report of the Academic Excellence and Economic Development (AEED) Working Group. At the outset, she noted that AEED’s focus is more long-term. She stated that AEED is looking for two to five initiatives that will reap benefits over a twenty-year horizon. She stated: “Again, just to review the criteria, we are looking for initiatives that have measurable returns, not just at twenty years, but in interim years on the way there that collectively touch every part of Oregon that build on existing and emerging momentum that is within our University System today.” Chair Dyess added that AEED wanted to make sure the initiatives stressed excellence and that they were easy to conceptualize across the state. She identified about fifteen opportunities that the group was examining and offered that it has only finishing looking at about half of the list. She stated AEED had looked at nanotechnology, wireless technology, information technology and engineering, neuroscience and biomedical research, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and wine, and sustainable and renewable energy. Chair Dyess pointed out that sustainability has turned out to be quite fertile ground for all of the OUS institutions, adding that there tends to be more success with grant proposals regarding sustainable projects.

Chair Dyess stated that AEED also looked at keeping top students in Oregon. She offered: “We looked at the existing programs for doing that at our different institutions and then looked at the opportunity for expanding those programs across those institutions and, in fact, we put together a legislative package, a relatively modest one, to increase that program slightly because we believe the payback is so significant.”

She continued by explaining AEED’s initiative to ameliorate the shortage of medical personnel. She offered that an AEED subcommittee crafted a legislative package in order to start work on reversing the shortage of particular medical personnel in the state. Chair Dyess noted the OUS needed to increase the availability of the prerequisite courses at our regional institutions and community colleges in particular in order to even get these potential medical professionals in the pipeline. As such, the legislative package is focused on prerequisites and program expansions for the allied health fields that are offered at OIT.

Chair Dyess reviewed some of the areas the working group has yet to explore. She noted K-12 education, including administrator preparation and early reading programs, culture, tourism, leisure and sports, and China.

She concluded with some general comments about the progress of the working group. She noted that AEED decided, even though its work is far from complete, to forward select legislative proposals because of the opportunistic timing. She offered that some of the AEED topics and proposals might turn to private, industry or foundation sources for support. Some initiatives, she stated, would not necessarily require funding, but the removal of barriers. Chair Dyess briefly discussed technology transfer issues, and how other organizations, OCKED in particular, were looking at some legislative concepts to address these issues in the upcoming session. Chair Dyess reiterated how impressed she has been with the faculties and all of the assistance faculty members have extended to her and the working group. She noted that she included statements regarding quality gleaned from the previous IFS-OSBHE meeting into her final report.

Chair Dyess turned to Director Lorenzen for an update on the budget. Director Lorenzen noted several factors impacting the development of the budget, including the new Board, the short timetable, the direction of the Governor, and the active role the Board itself was taking. He discussed the development of seven policy packages and the essential budget level, noting the Finance Committee had met the previous Thursday and thought it would be able to address substantially more than it was able to do. Director Lorenzen stated the Board was going to continue the effort started by the Finance Committee meeting. He stressed it would give the Board an opportunity to develop a framework within which to examine the budget and the choices the Board would have to make. He stated the Board would have a flexible workshop later in the afternoon to start its work on budget and offered: “in particular, my goal is to get through the policy packages, to be able to establish not only priorities with regard to the policy packages, but also to provide meaningful comment with regard to each of those packages that then can go on up to the Governor.”

Director Lorenzen added that he was hopeful the Board would be able to refer the deferred maintenance portion of the budget as well, perhaps delaying the capital construction elements of the budget to August. He stressed that “an important principle as we look through the policy packages…will be the priority, the appropriateness, and the importance of the objectives sought to be achieved by the packages as opposed to the specifics on how those will be accomplished.” He stated Director Blair, with the help of Secretary Hagemann, developed a principles/priority package that outlined how the Finance Committee approached constructing its analysis of the budget.

Chair Dyess asked for questions, and an IFS member asked the Board to identify the seven policy packages. Director Lorenzen reviewed the policy packages as funding projected growth in student enrollment, removing transfer barriers between community colleges and universities, strategic investments for student access, healthcare workforce, faculty recruitment and retention, honors programs, a student data system, and ETIC. Director Lorenzen commented on the scope of the student data system, noting one of its more important elements was its ability to support the transfer of students between community colleges, between universities, and between community colleges and universities.

An IFS member inquired as to how the budget would be presented to the Legislature, particularly considering the level of confusion that has surrounded OUS budgets in past legislative sessions. Director Lorenzen replied Neil Bryant was assisting OUS in this endeavor. He also added that George Pernsteiner, the new interim Chancellor, had a positive relationship with the Legislature.

With no further questions about budget, Chair Dyess turned the floor over to IFS President Peter Gilkey. Before President Gilkey started, Director Lorenzen added that he hoped, as the Board developed budgets in the future, that the universities could be engaged more in the development of the policy packages.

President Gilkey offered an update on the IFS schedule for the next few months. He mentioned IFS work on developing a common core proposal, and that Maureen Sevigny would be chairing that process. He noted Bob Turner would be chairing a process dealing with retention, time to degree, and advising. President Gilkey echoed his support for the faculty recruitment and retention policy package. He turned the floor to IFS Vice President Bob Turner to outline some issues on IFS’s agenda.

Professor Turner reiterated the IFS appreciation for the conversations with the Board. He noted IFS met before the brown bag lunch, and that certain themes emerged from that meeting. First, he stressed quality was a concept that kept coming up. He offered that IFS was concerned that quality be maintained in any proposal the Board or its working groups considered. Second, he noted that IFS is concerned about what is best for the student, and that a faculty perspective on this issue may be slightly different than that of a Board member. Finally, he stated it is important to IFS that any advice it offers to the Board is based on measurable data and concrete evidence. He asked if individual IFS senators had additional comments to make.

In context of the common core proposals, Professor Holmquist discussed an articulation model, in place in Arizona and Michigan, which she argued would be more effective from the faculty and student standpoint. It is a computer system that assists students with choosing majors and organizing pathways based on courses already taken. Professor Holmquist noted the system embraced three powerful elements. First, it created access. Second, it placed some responsibility on the student. Third, amid the possible discrepancies in advising, it introduced a consistent source of information students could use and rely upon. Chair Dyess commented that she thought some of the campuses had something similar, and Professor Holmquist added these models were statewide models. Director Schuette offered that she appreciated Professor Holmquist’s comments because they resonated with the efforts of the EDP working group. Someone asked if there was data on the extent to which deficiencies in advising increased time to graduation. Director Schuette commented that she was not sure if that was available, and it might be difficult because there is no information from the students that are no longer in the system. Chair Dyess concurred, noting it would be very difficult to track. Someone added that it might be possible to cull records for students who graduate with extra credits, and survey those students to see if any had the extra credits due to poor advising.

Director Schuette shared discussions about having a common research agenda between the community colleges and universities so necessary data and questions could be tracked and used to create a more seamless transition between sectors. Director Richmond added that in her conversations with John Minahan, they discussed how retention rates were satisfactory, but retention rates for transfer students were not. She posited that using transfer retention rates might serve as a benchmark to analyze advising issues. Professor Earl commented that transfer, as a concept, may not be educationally desirable, and there may be unintended consequences of making transferring easier and basing substantial reform on encouraging and facilitating transfer. Chair Dyess cautioned there they were many reasons students transferred, and cost was an important factor. Professor Holmquist added that she thought Professor Earl might be referring to the frustration many transfer students face when the transition is not as seamless as made out to be, and that anything that could be done to retain the student would be good. Director Schuette echoed that in many cases it was a money issue. Director Burns agreed that attention must be paid to advising. She noted that poor advising impacts students who transfer from state institution to state institution, but is particularly bad for students who transfer from institutions out of the state. Director Schuette concluded: “It really comes back to, Solveig, what you were saying. Having greater clarity about what are the pathways, what are the avenues, and perhaps working to strengthen the options within those pathways and then having accessible to you would be a step in the right direction.”

Professor Turner noted that the articulation model surfaced in the IFS meeting when the faculty members were discussing barriers to students and the perception that the common core proposals were a major part of the problem. Professor Earl continued the discussion of the common core, adding that faculty interact with students and can serve as an effective sounding board for many of these proposals. He noted that a common core may sound rational and desirable from an administrative vantage, but may provoke a different response from those at the delivery level in the classroom. Professor Earl predicted the idea of a common core is going to be contentious among the faculties of the OUS institutions. He offered: “…any proposal in which the faculty can detect a danger to the quality of the educational delivery is going to be met with questioning.”

Director Lorenzen encouraged the faculty, in the context of the clear charge to the Board from the Governor, to assist the Board in devising proposals that would work. He noted the general move to provide greater autonomy and flexibility to the individual campuses and hoped all constituencies, including the faculty, could work in common partnership on the ultimate goals and challenges facing Oregon’s higher education system. Chair Dyess offered her support for Director Lorenzen’s comments, encouraging support for objectives and collaboration on how to best achieve execution of the objectives. Professor Earl added that he was encouraged by the involvement of the provosts in the process. Director Sohn shared that the common core, in his estimation, was not an administrative concept, but a curriculum concept. As such, he viewed the development of the common core as a faculty enterprise, focused on the substance of the core and what subject matter the core would cover. Professor Tublitz offered that the faculty welcomes the challenge to be included in the development of a common core proposal. He reiterated the previous concerns about how a common core could diminish quality. Professor Tublitz observed that quality has diminished on OUS campuses, and that the Board must be cognizant of that value in any of the initiatives it endorses. Chair Dyess concluded that whatever form the proposal takes, it must make it easier to navigate the postsecondary system and increase quality. Professor Tublitz echoed that concepts, such as the common core, can sound good at first pass, but may have unintended consequences, and the faculty were in a prime position to assist in the conceptualization and construction of the project.

Director Schuette noted that students, as a key stakeholder, should be involved in the process. She wanted to ensure focus on the barriers facing students, and how to deal with the barriers without diminishing quality.

Chair Dyess noted time was running out and turned to Professor Turner to make sure all topics IFS wanted to cover were discussed. Professor Turner mentioned quality and the common core proposals again, and added he was encouraged that two sets of individuals working from two different perspectives were working on a common goal.

Professor Burns added that he was happy to see some focus on graduate programs by the AEED working group. He wanted to be sure the Board’s work did not forget graduate programs. He noted faculties on the individual campuses would be discussing the common core, and that a good pipeline to get to those discussions would be the IFS.

Professor Gilkey commented about the increasing cost of journals and monographs. He noted that there was nothing the Board could do about it, but he wanted to mention it as a central problem facing higher education. Chair Dyess added that there might be creative ways to deal with the problem. Director Richmond reiterated that it was a problem facing higher education. Chair Dyess noted that it could be topic of discussion in the future.

Professor Teich added that he wanted to draw the group’s attention to a recent article in The Oregonian regarding OHSU’s award rankings. He offered it dovetailed with the comments he made at the previous IFS-OSBHE meeting regarding setting clear, measurable goals for the institutions regarding quality. He noted that anything that can be done to measure quality would help marshal support from the public and the legislature with regard to goals set by the Board. Chair Dyess concurred, noting AAWG and EDP have measurable goals, and that her working group would, as well. Professor Teich noted that the important thing about the newspaper story was not necessarily the content, but the fact that it was published.

Before adjournment, Professor Sevigny offered that in the delicate balance between short-term and long-term needs, neither could be sacrificed.

Chair Dyess recognized George Pernsteiner, and he shared his enthusiasm about the engagement between IFS and the Board.

3. Adjournment

Chair Dyess adjourned the meeting at 1:10 pm.