Board Activities 4/5 March 2004

Dear fellow members of the IFS:

The State Board of Higher Education met Thursday and Friday March 4/5 2004 at OSU. Bob Turner and I were present as your IFS representatives at that meeting. It is clear that we probably need 3 representatives at future meetings to be able to cover all the working groups.

On Thursday 4 March, Mina Carson (who chairs the ORP committee), I, and Bob Turner met with Denise Yunker about ORP. My notes from that meeting are posted. Lisa M. Zavala (Senior associate director governmental relations) from OUS was also present at that meeting.

Access and Affordability working group

At 1400, Bob and I sat in on the Access and Affordability working group. I have scanned and posted on the web 2 of the many documents I got from that working group. The Governor's objectives, working group charge, and caveats and resident undergraduate enrollment.

Now some quotations from my notes of this meeting. This committee is dealing with the Governor's ACCESS plan. State Board President Goldschmidt stated: "the governor gave us 4 things to do. This is at the top of the list. We need a new source of revenue. This can't come from the budgets of either the community colleges or the OUS budgets. We need to get agreement on this package very fast and then we will take the packages to the people. The governor sent us to pick a fight. We have to reach agreement on a very complex package. You tend to lose an audience after 30 seconds. We have to turn this into a conversation with the average people in the state. We have to show them that supporting this package is in their own self interest. Ted picked this as a battle for the hearts and mind of the state. You can get an education and be indebted for life or bankrupted. We have to deliver the budget package in June. The governor would like to have this locked into the constitution. This package (Financial Aid) is a proxy to a conversation about post secondary education. We will get a source of money and revenue into the fund. There is a whole set of other issues. This is our chance to be on the ballot for a conversation about it all. The faculty have to get off their butts and go door to door. We have to agree on the package first and then subsequently have a conversation about funding."

At 1500 I had to leave this working group and go to the Excellence in Delivery and Productivity working group chaired by Gretchen Schuette. Fortunately Bob was able to remain with the Access and Afordability working group. Here are Bob Turner's notes from the meeting:

PowerPoint presentations by Kate Peterson, OSUís Student Financial Aid Director, David Mcdonald, OUSís Director of Enrollment Services, Julie Suchanek, Oregon Community College Associationís Director of Communications on Student Issues and John Wycoff, the Executive director of the Oregon Student Association to the OUS Boardís Access working group hammered home the point that financial assistance for students at OUS institutions (and Oregon community colleges) is totally inadequate and a disproportional heavy burden on those in greatest need of financial aid. For example, it is now that case that AFTER receiving all available financial aid, the lowest income students (bottom 20%) paid the equivalent of 69% of annual family income to attend an OUS institution.  In response to this evidence, the working group ìAs a first step, intends to develop a proposal for increasing need based financial aid for studentsî and to ìseek adoption ... by the legislature a proposal for a constitutional amendment to be submitted to the voters to establish an endowment to support need based financial aidî.  In addition to ruling out merit based financial aid in their proposal to the legislature, the working group also informally agreed that the levels of aid to be provided would be ìpeggedî to the cost of the studentís attendance at a community college or at an OUS institution.  The sentiment was that it would be the studentís option to attend either an OUS institution or one of the privates, but that the dollar amount of the aid package would be the same in either case, and not adjusted to cover the same % of expenses at either an OUS or a private institution.

Excellence in Delivery and Productivity working group

Previous reports of mine are posted on the web the Academic Council meeting 5 February 2004, the State Board Meeting 20 Feb 2004, and the charge to this group. I urge you to consult those documents. This is a very important working group. Again, let me quote from my notes. State Board President Goldschmidt: "This is the single most important product. On April 9, Gretchen goes to Ways and Means to discuss how much post secondary education Oregon needs. The public doesn't have a clue. The rest of the world needs post secondary education. This number (i.e. how much post secondary education Oregon needs) drives the model. We recommend 25% more person years. The question is how to do it without more money. 'More, Better, Faster' starts in 11/12 of high school - we need to deliver more college credits there. And the question runs all the way to graduate school. We need to identify some no cost changes that we can make and some low cost changes. The drop out rate and loss rates from Freshman to Sophomore are unacceptable. It takes too long from start to finish. Everything is fair game. This is not optional. We have to get this report to the governor. The capacity issues are the gate -- we must lower the indebtedness of students by reducing the time to degree. This is not about governance. We need single transcript programs. The OUS and CC budgets are not going to get through this screen unscathed. The Universities and CC must do things together. The CC have a statewide project. Turning us loose is a better economic development package than the bridges construction projects. We need reinforcing strategies. We want capitol construction projects that connect the Universities and the CC. Go to a bonding issue and get resources to actually do this. We are committed to track output - we want to go after the low cost and the no cost items. Include the legislators now - pre sell the conversation - meet in 2 weeks. Don't want K-12 and CC to think OUS owns it. Legislature could create public corp. Don't want to get into governance issues. Need to deliver package to executive department in june. Don't want to overreach. This is not optional. All OUS Presidents will be asked to do this. This is the gate. Go with the common cause. Not optional - going to get done. Go to legislature. Students are our customers.... Something of real value."

Other comments I drew from remarks made at the committee. We need a common data transcript - seamless transfer of critical data across the system - 2 year early warning student in high school to accelerate toward degree - software platform there at OUS more problematical at CC - sustain rigor and quality of college work - how to prepare students? Build data network and highway. Allow students to accelerate. Where is the best place for students to learn. More college credit. Collect info and transfer across system. Move kids through system faster. Data driven will do good job on MBF. Get kids into right class faster. Do high schools know what happened? Feedback to schools on how students did could have an enormous impact. Look at performance in mathematics program - build in feedback loop. Study grade inflation. Better student access portals - can't have OUS change gen ed requirements without letting CC know what is to happen. Take lower division curricular changes to both partners. Can do it now. More changes now. What does it mean for students to know right path to go. Common core - repeat courses and gaps occur if don't have right preparation. Writing 121 -- know the proper content to take second course. Oregon should develop a fully transferable common core

Moseley: What do you mean by a common core? The devil is in the details. Hard to give a rigid definition - to list courses to get gen ed out of the way. Focus on student learning rather than a list of courses. Have AAOT in place - if an agreement of equivalence of educ ation is to succeed at the upper level.

Look at pattern of what other states have done. Concept of AAOT. Outcomes approach - extension of AAOT concept - don't want to reduce innovation. Dual enrollment - extended to high schools - focussed on proficiency - motivate students. Must convince legislators that encouraging more students to get an education is important to the state and not just the students - that we need more state contribution. We must convince citizens that higher education is crucial to their interests. Half the schools offer AP but most only offer 1 AP class. Rigorous courses with good learning outcomes.

At this stage the working group broke up. Neither Bob nor I was able to attend the working group that is reviewing the Chancellor's office as at the end there were 3 working groups meeting simultaneously. We are going to need help at the PSU meeting in April!

After the working groups broke up, Bob and I went to the reception with the board. We spent a pleasant hour talking with various folks including, for about 5 minutes, State President Goldschmidt. We invited him to attend the IFS meeting at SOU that is being held in conjunction with the State Board Meeting and he agreed to consider it.

Friday 5 March 2004.

Bob and I attended the regular meeting of the Board. The matters dealing with ORP are reported separately.

We learned that in building the 2005-7 budget that we must prepare for 10% reductions and also prepare a package for an additional 10% reduction (totaling 20% in all). The state faces a $600,000,000 or larger shortfall from what was previously called continuing service level. Can't expect a salary freeze for another 2 years. Policy packages could drive the reduction options bigger - i.e. money transferred from one agency to another. In September 04, the agency budget request is due. In December 04 the Governor's budget is due. Agencies are going to be asked to prepare for a lower level to give the governor a chance at policy options.

Disinvestment in higher education assumes the previous budget was appropriate. How to take into account the amount the Board desires? Policy packages.

State President Goldschmidt: "Urge all OUS Presidents to familiarize themselves with relations with CC - this is a 2-fer in which the power of a given project is enhanced in Salem. Connect with MBF and excellence of delivery. Hit the touchstones the governor wants to connect. Review the integration level. What can be done on our campuses that we could do with them."

We heard a presentation concerning opinion research. Some crucial points - ranked in inverse order -:

Neil Bryant: Most Oregonians think 39% of tax dollars are misspent. 18-34 year olds don't vote. Not registered. Question of public versus private good. Hard to get support for increased government spending. Too many people think government has enough money - just needs to spend it wisely. We don't trust you with reform - too much inefficiency and waste.

Frohnmayer. UO research showed

Bryant. Doubt if 2 is still true. There is more willingness to have good but not best. People are rebelling about regulation issues - that is the other driving force. Crazy regulations.

Goldschmidt: Where do we go. The proposal is to get the access/affordability to agreement fast. Take to voters to have conversation. We get to sue it as a proxy to talk about our values. If get in it they will get to other subjects. Link it with GI bill. Need to revisit polling. The governor gave us permission to produce a capitol list. There is a risk - if we are starving, why can we afford new buildings. Send it to voters and have a conversation with the voters. not going to get there without students or without a partnership with the faculty on campus Need efforts to register students. What are you doing to get ready for a vote. Emphasize. Oregonians greatly value higher education. Perceive it differently than other services. Certainly better than legislators or politicians. Start with some plusses but have a hard road ahead.

Bryant. The message in 2003 was not well received or u understood. Has to be a different presentation so the audience understands this time. No one is defensive. Will be similar to 1993. Opening deficit of $600,000,000. If don't look at measure 30 as permanent deficit is order of $1,000,000,000. Want higher Ed at equal rank with K-12. Gretchen is scheduled for 9 April with legislature.

Real focus will be on policy packages. Reduction proposals are also crucial. Look at 20% total to have options for governor.

Goldschmidt Campuses will have to carry the water on capitol projects. People from campuses should show - Chancellor can't do it. It is not going to be a case of everyone gets a little. Legislature thinks we are hiding revenue. Bad environment.

Chancellor office review: Review the functions and make recommendations -- cuts of about $3,500,000. Hurry to get it done. Some chancellor's office staff contracts will not be renewed after 1 July 04. No terminations before 30 June 04. First step is considerably reduced in size. Identify essential functions to be performed centrally. Transition structure between what is needed now and what is needed long term.

Two representatives from EOU made a "public" presentation. The main stumbling block is the salary freeze. At EOU had a 24% increase in tuition and enrollment decrease of 3.8%. Salaries are 88% of SOU and EOU. Impact crisis both internal and external. Ask for industry standard contract. Enrollment and faculty are in crisis.

Whew. I took a lot of notes. This is a board in a hurry. Respectfully submitted

Peter B Gilkey (President 2004 IFS)