Docstoc

Expected Outcome

Document Sample
Expected Outcome Powered By Docstoc
					Governor’s 2020 Blue Ribbon Task Force Education Committee Meeting Minutes of January 6 and 7, 2003
Members in Attendance: Millie Flandro, Co-Chair, School District 25 Dr. Rich Hagood, Co-Chair, Northwest Nazarene University Steve Casey, School District 271 John Roberts, Washington Group International Nancy Larsen, Ramsey Elementary Skip Oppenheimer, Oppenheimer Development Corp. Jim Shackelford, Idaho Education Association Jim McClure, Senator, Retired Members Absent: Archie Clemins, Admiral, Retired Sam Byrd, Idaho Migrant Council Ray Smelek, Extended Systems Others in Attendance: Jeff Shinn, Division of Financial Management Gary Stivers, Executive Director, State Board of Education Tom Valasek, staff Cheryl Brush, staff Invited Guests—January 7, 2003: Dr. Charles Ruch, President, Boise State University Dr. Bob West, Deputy Superintendent, Department of Education January 6, 2003 Discussion: Dr. Hagood opened the meeting at 7:15 p.m. He reviewed the agenda and noted that Skip Oppenheimer met with the Albertson Foundation. He announced that Dr. West and Dr. Ruch would be available on Tuesday to react to the committee’s policy areas. Minutes were approved as submitted.

Page 1 of 11

Minutes of January 6/7, 2003

The committee began their review/prioritization of policy areas of interest, starting with higher education. HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING Funding Adequacy Indicators: The committee questioned whether funding adequacy should be on the agenda, noting that results will vary based on institutional mission. The committee questioned whether there were productivity standards in higher education similar to K-12 standards. There is difficulty in comparing costs/standards in universities with different missions— research, professional-technical, etc. The Board has established peer institutions for comparison purposes. The Presidents are reviewing these because they do not believe they have reached a consensus on peer institutions. There are national norms for budget allocation, salaries, and only more recently, output references. In exchange for greater accountability, there may be greater latitude among the institutions. It was suggested that those institutions with similar roles and missions come together to establish the standards. Funding Equity: The State Board and the institutions have agreed in concept on funding equity. The committee agreed not to pursue this policy area further because the committee’s recommendation endorsed the Board’s policy. Budget and Management Flexibility (Centralization vs. Decentralization): The committee expressed the need to hear more from both sides of this issue, those who have sought uniformity and those seeking more autonomy. As this decision drives many others in higher education, the committee agreed to further pursue this issue. Stabilization Funds: Everyone would like a dedicated fund, but it is unrealistic to expect that the legislature would have the resources or wherewithal to create such a fund. The committee elected not to pursue this policy area. Tuition Constitutional Amendment: Dr. Hagood distributed information on the University of Missouri lawsuit finding that they charged tuition when they were not legally entitled to do so. Idaho’s Constitution prohibits tuition charges based on the concept that higher education should be free. Fees are charged for various functions, but not for instruction. The Presidents would like to charge more for certain courses—high level, high demand, i.e., differential tuition. There is a funding and a legal issue but a tuition option would allow the student to pay for a higher proportion of costs. The committee reserved the possibility to study this issue further. HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNANCE Mandates Governing Higher Education: The committee determined this is not a high priority and will not pursue this issue.

Page 2 of 11

Minutes of January 6/7, 2003

Statewide System of Community Colleges: These institutions provide accessible, affordable education opportunities, and are able to have lower fees partly because they don’t fund research. Many jobs now and in the future will require the degrees gained in these institutions, and the state should have wide access to these educational opportunities. The committee wants to further purse the possibility of establishing a statewide system of community and professional-technical colleges with a common governance structure. HIGHER EDUCATION ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES AND EFFICIENCIES Statewide System for Distance Learning: This issue needs to also address the management of multi-institution sites. There is interest among committee members to pursue this issue further. Common Data Management System: Higher education is currently working on standardization of data elements. The committee is interested in learning more about this issue, but agreed that the centralization vs. decentralization discussion will be a primary factor in data integration. Statewide Telecommunications System: This issue will be consolidated with Distance Learning. HIGHER EDUCATION ACCESSIBILITY AND AFFORDABILITY Idaho Promise Scholarships: The committee decided not to identify this as a high priority at this time. Needs-based Scholarships: The number of needs-based scholarships in Idaho is inadequate. The committee would like to pursue this issue. Loan Forgiveness: The committee will reserve this as a tactic and not address this as an issue. Differential Tuition: This issue will be consolidated with the tuition issue. Seamless Transitions: The committee would like to issue a statement of support to encourage the progress that the SBOE is making on this issue, but will not pursue it further. HIGHER EDUCATION ROLE AND MISSION Non-Duplicative: All parts of the state are not accessible to all students so some duplication is inevitable. Rather than study this issue further, the committee will issue a declarative statement acknowledging that fact while addressing the importance of specialization. The proliferation of satellite facilities raises the question whether

Page 3 of 11

Minutes of January 6/7, 2003

infrastructures are being developed beyond what Idaho can afford, although it is recognized that these facilities are very important to economic development. SBOE is addressing the issue of operational efficiency of these satellites and the committee encourages this policy development. ALBERTSON FOUNDATION The committee is very interested in hearing from the Albertson Foundation and learning more about their ―systems approach‖ to education initiatives, including the reading initiative, teaching technology, and improvement awards for school districts. The Foundation is willing to fund a centralized data system, but after three years the state would need to finance maintenance. Professional development is another area of emphasis for the Foundation, with the ultimate goal being the improvement of student achievement. Skip was requested to arrange for a presentation by the Albertson Foundation at our next meeting. The committee concluded their meeting at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened January 7th at 8:30 a.m. The committee opened with a review of the prior night’s decisions: Higher Education  Funding adequacy – high priority  Centralization vs. decentralization – high priority  Reserve Fund – no longer consider  Tuition – consider from the potential of legal issues  Governance – no longer consider constitutional mandates  Community Colleges – remains a high priority for further study  Systems (telecommunication, etc.) – remains a high priority with further study  Accessibility and Affordability – Promise scholarships are a low priority for additional review but needs-based scholarships are a high priority for further study. (This was also clarified to ensure all disadvantaged persons would be considered.)  Differential tuition – struck from further consideration  Seamless transition – mid-range priority  Role and Mission – Integrate in the centralization/decentralization discussion K-12 POLICY AREAS Co-Chair Millie Flandro led the review/prioritization of policy areas of interest for K-12. K-12 FUNDING AND LEARNING ENHANCEMENTS Stable, Predictable Funding: The committee discussed that a reserve fund was not viable. Stable funding is extremely desirable, but not practical. Budgeting on a two-year cycle might achieve some of these ends without the problems attendant to yearly Page 4 of 11 Minutes of January 6/7, 2003

budgeting. Dr. West is unfamiliar with situations that have worked with stable funding. School districts currently are able to carry forward funding. Adequacy: While there was concern that no guarantees can be made, the situation changed with the introduction of standards. The committee discussed adequacy as separate from stable funding. The committee considered a recommendation for a rolling two-year budget as a means to get stable funding for K-12 and higher education. Adequacy indicators typically have been defined in terms of inputs. Now NCLB requires that every child move logically through the system and achieve standards. This begs the question of what it will take to get us there. Is the funding adequate to achieve standards? Some people fear schools are set up for failure if we don’t provide resources to meet the standards. There is a need to look at a reallocation of current funds; do high at risk populations need to be funded differently? National comparisons become less relevant when standards are considered. Technology was used as an example of implementing new processes. There is a precedent for looking at what it will take to achieve certain objectives. Dr. West offered his perspective noting that it is hard to identify benchmarks. He reminded the committee that 85 cents out of every dollar goes for salaries. We generally expect to improve services by hiring more people or working longer. Dr. West thinks salary and benefits may be a good benchmark because this is the basis for achievement through instruction. Class size may not necessarily be the answer. The committee suggested that this may result in how we reallocate time in the class by focusing on subject areas or students who need attention. Elective classes may be eliminated, etc. A member suggested that perhaps 40% of students would not make the cut score. Parents need to become more involved in helping students make it. Could we look at ―X‖ time to meet the standards? We need to change definitions. Can we look at how we affect the whole state in different schools? One way to look at this would be to consider the funding formula. There are 750 more teachers than the state funds for salaries. The additional funding comes from the 15% set aside for services. The solution is to re-examine the school funding formula. A member suggested that we identify what information is needed and then target funding formulas to where the money is needed. A member noted that we will never be able to fund all of the needs. Every dollar is the product of trade-offs. The committee expressed concern that we require social costs to be funded by education that are not education costs. Could other than education dollars be needed in the schools? Federal mandates, which pay for 14% of costs for special education, drive what is done. While recognizing that every student can learn something, shifting these costs locally impacts all students. This may cause us to reallocate our money for remediation away from non-mandatory, but important activities. The committee questioned whether it would be possible to build on something Albertsons is doing. We need to analyze where the money is currently being spent to determine if it

Page 5 of 11

Minutes of January 6/7, 2003

is being used as efficiently as possible. The committee needs to determine what proportion goes to meeting unfunded mandates and quantify some of those costs. By wrapping the funding and learning enhancements together, the committee expects to achieve more positive reactions and perhaps support from the Albertson Foundation. Dr. West noted that subject matter certification will be expanding from Title I schools to all schools by 05/06. All teachers are taking the same tests for content and methodology to ensure that all teachers will have core teacher instructional competencies. Candidates and schools are being ranked. A member noted that teachers require collaboration time to be able to make the improvements. We need to recognize that this is part of adopting new standards. Albertsons grants considered this as an opportunity to work together for developing responses to standards. This is a local issue impacted by contract negotiations. Dr. West suggested that one option may be to extend the calendar either by extending the day or the year. Skip relayed information from Albertsons training on how to collaborate, increase staff capacity, etc. Jim Shackelford offered to bring information to the committee on firms doing research on the subject of adequacy. Dr. Hagood reminded the group that the original recommendations for studies were based on consolidation, but this may be another study subject. In terms of compensation, MOST proposes three levels of certification and compensation. After Jim brings the information to the committee, they may approach Albertsons to see if they might be willing to assist in a study. Jim and Steve Casey offered to develop a proposal for the standards/funding adequacy conundrum. Jim will work with Steve and Millie to develop a draft statement in support of standards implementation and the funding issues. The proposal will include an alternative to the seat time approach to ensure teachers have flexibility to deal with student improvement. Since we’ve implemented standards, we need funding to follow. One of Albertson Foundation’s goals is to collect data to figure out what we should be doing. We need to be willing to realign the existing system to meet the new goals. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES AND EFFICIENCIES Consolidation of School Districts/Administrative Functions: Dr. West noted that in the 1930s Idaho consolidated over 1000 school districts into 300, then in the WWII era that number was reduced again to 116. In the 1990s there were two consolidations because of student loss, and subsequent to that there have been two ―deconsolidations‖ along with the addition of charter schools, which are funded more liberally and tend to create more administrative entities. This may be an opportune time to look at this issue, as the legislature may be amenable to recommendations from this group as an impetus for action. There appear to be three options to consider: 1) make a recommendation for

Page 6 of 11

Minutes of January 6/7, 2003

legislative action; 2) sponsor a study for further review; and 3) recommend an incentive approach, such as creating model ESDs with the possible support from the Albertson Foundation. It would be best if any such strategy related to, or was framed in reference to improving student achievement. Transportation: The Office of Performance Evaluation conducted a study of public school transportation which concluded that Idaho is as efficient or more so than similarly situated states. The Department of Education continues to tighten up routes/purchasing to control costs, and closely monitors to assure those costs are reimbursable. The biggest potential savings in this area is in realigning rural routes. The Department monitors this function closely, so the committee will not be pursuing this issue. K-12 Facilities: The facilities issue is being adjudicated by the court system, but there was interest in reviewing the transfer the financing of facilities from the local government to state government to create the same kind of equalization that occurs for operating expenses. Senator McClure agreed to prepare a rationale for this transfer of financing responsibility for review at our next meeting. Higher Education Presentation from Dr. Charles Ruch, President, BSU Dr. Hagood welcomed Dr. Ruch, summarized the prior recommendations, and asked Dr. Ruch to comment on the issue of centralization vs. decentralization. Dr. Ruch began by stating that form ought to follow function. What is it that’s not working that should be changed? What is it you think is needed for the system to function? He has not found a large centralized system that works well. Centralization would not consider or solve the differences in the institutions. These simple solutions tend to cause one to win while others lose. Why don’t they all have the same computer system? Answer: The needs for institutions are different. He cited the example of demands by centralized vs. decentralized institutions. Function for consistent reporting can be accomplished using multiple systems. Centralized systems with a chancellor system have a centralized staff that tends to be much larger. There tends to be redundancy. There is no way to avoid conflict among institutions in the same business. Where do you want the conflict acted out? There will be conflict because it is a dynamic business that demands change. Where are we in Idaho? Higher education works very well. All four institutions have very different missions. Small high cost programs—law, health science, architecture— should be subject to specialization in an institution. Each institution needs good education, commerce and business, liberal arts and cultural, health care and technology. The institutions can settle differences through the President’s Council.

Page 7 of 11

Minutes of January 6/7, 2003

Dr. Ruch believes the Presidents understand the issues and have an orderly way to solve the issues. Where are the conflict issues now—somewhat territorial – populations and institutions aren’t always matched. He suggested we’re halfway through the shift to a new economy. Higher education is regarded as a necessity for those who are moving ahead. Roles and missions are understood but there are sometimes differences of opinion. The committee questioned the proliferation of campuses/centers. Dr. Ruch suggested that there is a difference between serving Idaho Falls and Twin Falls where no university system exists, from a University Place issue. When they start competing four blocks from the institution, that is different. He shared that the Board has a new option where the home institution has the first right of refusal for a new program. Dr. Ruch thinks that by spring, there will be guidelines developed for a host institution. A member offered that in recent years we have tended to build new campuses without thought for affordability. Dr. Ruch responded that we are halfway through a transition from where students were sent away to college as a nice thing to do. Higher education is now a necessity, particularly in urban areas where convenience and opportunity will drive some of the policy decisions. For BSU, issues were that population was moving west and they were landlocked. For cost purposes, they were able to buy property in Canyon County rather than in the city. It is a ―convenience‖ for the citizens to obtain education in the community where they live. Branch campuses are trends. Half of the state is still of the opinion that people should go away to school while others want more accessibility. Because we are stressed for funds, a member questioned whether we are losing efficiencies by branching out. Dr. Ruch responded that the agenda for an institution that is not in a metro area is trying to figure out how to serve the areas. Economic development is clearly tied to education. There are frequent questions about what is offered in support of business/workforce development. Education is now as important as bridges and roads. Dr. Ruch offered that the clear understanding and intent is free transfer among institutions. This is one solution to the problems of locality. Dr. Ruch suggested that higher education is the most highly regulated institution in the state and that citizens pay for many duplicative services. While all of higher education may not wish to be set free, it may be good to set forth some ideas. The following are issues from the perspective of the institutions:   Controller’s office – provides no service to the institutions since the institutions must make payroll, pay all checks. Purchasing – have a quality relationship but the system is not necessary. Need to double purchase everything. Large universities are like cities unto themselves.

Page 8 of 11

Minutes of January 6/7, 2003



Public Works – This is not necessary for all institutions. Universities have projects that the state pays for, some institutions pay for and some are paid for by other entities. Smaller institutions may not like to give up the services. Human Resources – They are not set up to support institutions. They also negotiated the health plan without contacting their customers and the approach is harmful to the types of hires made by the university. Dr. Ruch acknowledged that while costs would drop for BSU, the overall costs to the state could increase.



Dr. Ruch concluded that BSU wants to be under the same rules as U of I. He asked the committee, how entrepreneurial do you want higher education to be? Some of the southeastern states have moved more toward decentralization. What does the state benefit from entrepreneurial options? We could move towards funding graduates rather than enrollments. What standards might be considered? There ought to be a mechanism whereby an institution promotes learning objectives and then measures its achievement. In the specialized accreditation, there are better models (programs such as nursing, law, licensing boards, etc.). The ticklish area is general education. Decentralization has a strong favorable response from a policy perspective, but details may confound it. Standards need to be mission based. What is the mission, what are reasonable indicators that the mission is achieved? Dr. Ruch suggested that WICHE states could identify comparables on standard indicators. The Board would be a logical place to work out the differences. Dr. Hagood asked Dr. Ruch about the community college functions in the universities. Is there a case for a statewide community college system? We could argue that there is a greater state interest in K-12 than perhaps community colleges and finally upper division/graduate programs. Can the case be made for centralization of a community college system rather than a university system? Dr. Ruch was originally perplexed that the community college functions could be embedded in the university system. It’s ―untidy‖. He thinks we currently have the best structure, especially academically because we don’t make second-class citizens out of those in the community college function. Writing, communication, math and problem solving are also part of function. Functionally, there is one math and one English program that serves both academic and professional-technical education. The least expensive courses are in arts and letters. Why do some institutions create programs that aren’t transferable? Dr. Ruch would argue that different bosses may be the problem between the lack of transferability. That’s the value added to have them integrated in a university. The downside is that all tech students pay the same fees so the cost is higher than those in comparable programs in standalone community colleges. Dr. Ruch expressed concern that professional-technical programs must report to their own administration as well as

Page 9 of 11

Minutes of January 6/7, 2003

the State Division of Professional-Technical Education. This causes some difficulty in strictly tracking PTE funds. Dr. Hagood suggested that one way of looking at it would be to pull out community colleges from state universities. He would argue for the Montana system where every community college is tied to a university and retains the advantage of transferability of credits. Dr. Ruch offered that Dennis Johns and Ames McGinnis are the nation’s leading authorities on role and mission. Terry McIver, the former President of the University of Hawaii has a proclivity for reorganization during tough times. Dr. Hagood also suggested Dr. Brown, a former commissioner of education in Seattle. Differential Tuition: Dr. Ruch offered that before you can argue a policy strategy for financing, you have to come to terms with the tuition issue. As a public policy issue, I would worry about it at the undergraduate level. Should the citizens of the state have a reasonable equal opportunity to pursue the careers they choose? At the graduate level, this is not such a concern. How entrepreneurial do you want them to be? It would cause an access issue. If we had tuition, would students pay more or less? Tuition is the cost of instruction. Fees pay for everything else. The fact is there is a lot of slush. Universities have multiple revenue streams and will come up with a funding mechanism to follow. The concern is whether you have tuition or fees. The next is some understanding about how you benchmark them—what you need, what citizens can afford, what your competition is spending, and most likely a combination of all of the above. What is the good it provides the individual vs. what it provides society? As a policy matter, we’ve said society gets all the benefits. They are positional statements. Now we have a game between what can we afford and what do we need. A benchmark should be set internally against discretionary income of citizens, i.e., what did we pay last year, and what are our sister institutions paying against differential fees for undergraduates because many of them can charge whatever the market will bear—but what is the purpose of public institutions? Gary Stivers offered that professional-technical and university systems have different views. There are some differences in view of ―basics‖ for students. Dr. Rush sees that funds are shifted to basic academic services that are unnecessary. We should hear from Mike Rush about their perspective. Dr. Ruch noted that they invited both CEOs and HR people. CEOs ask for general skills—good learners, etc. HR people want more focus on specific skills. Are you training for immediate or long range? And PTE is looking at protecting funds for their purpose. There is a real question about LPNs. Are they getting the same classes and having an opportunity to advance in their career field? The original goal was to have a heavy dependence on RNs based on nursing input, but CEOs wanted more LPNs.

Page 10 of 11

Minutes of January 6/7, 2003

Gary mentioned that the President’s Council discussed the tuition area during their morning meeting. The Presidents were enthusiastic about trying to pursue the option to adopt a change to tuition. The option for tuition is statutory except for U of I. At one time, higher education was intended to be available to everyone. Now that it’s a necessity, it is no longer accessible to everyone since the state can no longer pay for it. As we opt for tuition, we will need to have needs-based scholarships. Assignments: Researchers on K-12 funding/accountability links – Jim Shakelford Facilities equity suit status – Gary Stivers Facilities financing – Senator McClure Rolling two-year budgets – Jeff Shinn will investigate Funding and learning objectives in K-12 – Jim Shakelford, Steve Casey and Millie Flandro will draft statement Invite Albertsons to meeting on the 12th – Skip Oppenheimer Perspective on impact of costs to state if universities are not part of centralized services – Jeff Shinn or other DFM representative Centralization perspective on higher education – Gary Stivers will talk with Bill Ruud, Office of the Governor Higher education standards based on individual institutional mission – Dr. Hagood and Skip Oppenheimer will study Differential tuition – no further study Next Meeting: February 12, 2003 in person, in Boise March 12, 2003 – Location to be determined. Concluded at 4:00.

Page 11 of 11

Minutes of January 6/7, 2003


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:60
posted:11/5/2009
language:English
pages:11