Board of Regents

Education Committee Minutes, August 2006

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
August 17, 2006

Regent Davis convened the meeting of the Education Committee at 1:03 p.m. Regents Davis, Crain, Cuene, Loftus, Semenas, and Spector were present.

1. Approval of the minutes of the June 6, 2006, meetings of the Education Committee

I.1.a.: It was moved by Regent Spector, seconded by Regent Semenas, that the minutes of the June 9, 2006, meeting of the Education Committee be approved.

The resolution PASSED unanimously.

Regent Davis welcomed Regents Crain, Cuene and Loftus as new members to the Education Committee. The Committee agreed that it would postpone the discussion on Education Committee planning until October, allowing for informal orientation of the new members to occur before that time, if possible.

2. Program Authorizations

a. B.S. in Microbiology, UW-Milwaukee

The Committee then considered the B.S. in Microbiology at UW-Milwaukee. UW-Milwaukee Provost Rita Cheng introduced Mary Lynne Collins, Professor of Biological Sciences, who presented the program to the Committee. She described the growing need for a trained workforce in Wisconsin’s biotechnology industry, and outlined the extent to which a major in microbiology supports UW-Milwaukee’s mission and strategic initiatives in biotechnology. She explained that microbiology had been an option in the Department of Biological Sciences and that students and faculty alike had been seeking its upgrade to a major for some time. The program offers cutting-edge research opportunities to undergraduates as well as graduate students, and has an impressive record of attracting diverse students and faculty.

In response to a question from Regent Semenas, Professor Collins described a collaborative seminar series with UW-Parkside faculty in the area of microbiology. Regent Semenas expressed his hope that more concerted efforts for collaboration might occur with UW-Parkside, given its location in the fast-growing Kenosha-Racine area. In response to questions by Regent Spector and Regent Davis, Professor Collins explained that converting the microbiology option to a formal major helped graduates of the program by making their degrees more visible to employers and graduate schools. Finally, in response to a question from Regent Semenas, Professor Collins reported on various faculty interactions with the private sector and with non-profits in the community.

I.1.c.(1): It was moved by Regent Cuene, seconded by Regent Semenas, that, upon recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Chancellor be authorized to implement the B.S. in Microbiology, UW-Milwaukee.

The resolution PASSED unanimously.

b. B.S. in Health Science, UW-Stevens Point

The Committee then moved to consider the B.S. in Health Science at UW-Stevens Point. UW-Stevens Point Provost Virginia Helm introduced Joan North, Dean of the College of Professional Studies, who described the concentration of health care facilities in the Stevens Point region. These facilities were looking for a trained workforce for a growing number of health professions. In addition, UW-Stevens Point students were asking for a major that would prepare them for health care jobs in the region and for graduate studies in other allied health fields like Occupational and Physical Therapy. The program was geared primarily towards adult students but the institution hoped to receive funding in the 2007-09 budget request that would enable the program to accommodate all interested UW-Stevens Point students. The program would be composed of currently offered courses and a handful of new courses in health sciences. The program has a record of success for attracting diverse students and engaging in partnerships with area health care providers.

Regent discussion focused on the program’s efforts to make its student body and its faculty more diverse, on the gender distribution in the program and on the campus, and on the expectation that the Regents would be seeing more articulation agreements in the health care arena between the UW System and the Wisconsin Technical College System. Senior Vice President Marrett asked Committee members to consider the kinds of factors the Board and the UW System should be addressing as new programs come before them, noting that workforce needs were one component, diversity broadly understood another.

I.1.c.(2): It was moved by Regent Crain, seconded by Regent Semenas, that, upon recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Chancellor be authorized to implement the B.S. in Health Science, UW-Stevens Point.

The resolution PASSED unanimously.

3. Revised Faculty Personnel Rules, UW-Whitewater

a. UW-Whitewater

Provost Dick Telfer clarified the faculty personnel rule revisions before the Committee, most of which were minor.

I.1.d.(1): It was moved by Regent Spector, seconded by Regent Cuene, that, upon recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents approves the amendments to the UW-Whitewater Faculty Personnel Rules.

The resolution PASSED unanimously.

Regent Spector proposed an additional component to the approval process for faculty personnel rules, one that he felt would help the Regents provide a more informed approval. Noting that Committee members were always told that the Office of the General Counsel had signed off on the proposed rule revisions as they were brought to the Regents for action, he asked that the Regents receive a brief statement from the General Counsel providing a context for the changes and attesting to that Office’s approval of the rule revisions. His fellow Committee members agreed that this would be helpful and Senior Vice President Marrett promised to follow-up on this suggestion.

b. UW-Extension

In introducing the action on the UW-Extension faculty personnel rules, Regent Davis noted that the Committee was being asked to approve revisions to both the Faculty and Academic Staff Personnel Rules. She explained that Regent action is required only on the faculty rules but that because the revisions were submitted in combined form, the action would cover both sets. UW-Colleges/Extension Chancellor David Wilson added that the requested changes were extensive in number but minor in substance.

I.1.d.(2): It was moved by Regent Crain, seconded by Regent Cuene, that, upon recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin Colleges/Extension and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents approves the amendments to the UW-Extension Faculty Personnel Rules.

The resolution PASSED unanimously.

4. UW-Milwaukee Charter School Contract Extension for Milwaukee College Preparatory School

Provost Rita Cheng introduced Dr. Bob Kattman to describe the proposed contract extension for the Milwaukee College Preparatory School, formally known as the Marva Collins Preparatory School. He noted what a pleasure it was to make a recommendation for a five-year extension (the maximum) of this exemplary charter school, observing that this is what he and others hoped that all children in Milwaukee and the nation could have for a school. Situated in one of Milwaukee’s most troubled and poorest neighborhoods, and serving a population that is 99% African American, Dr. Kattman explained that this school has some of the best test scores in the city. In fact, he continued, in the most recent test scores, released in the past week, the Milwaukee College Preparatory School exceeded all other Milwaukee public schools. The test scores, he elaborated, are the result of a great culture for learning, with a strong and active Board, an outstanding principal, and students who are disciplined and motivated to learn.

Regent Spector commended Dr. Kattman for his extensive and first-rate oversight of the UW-Milwaukee-authorized charter schools in general, and in particular his work with this school. Regent Davis reminded Committee members that last spring they had discussed a tutorial on charter schools, an idea that was proposed by former Committee Chair Regent Burmaster. She requested that such a tutorial take place sooner rather than later, and that it would help Regents understand how the charter schools under UW-Milwaukee’s oversight differ from other charter schools, both public and private, as well as the precise nature of UW-Milwaukee’s role with the schools it charters. Senior Vice President Marrett agreed that the tutorial would be scheduled as soon as possible.

In response to a question from Regent Crain, Dr. Kattman explained that the schools chartered by UW-Milwaukee operated entirely independent from other public schools in Milwaukee. Regent Spector inquired whether the Office of Charter Schools was able to track the students from the Milwaukee College Preparatory School, to see how they performed in high school. Dr. Kattman responded that because the students scattered to different public and private high schools throughout the city, it was difficult to track them but many of them did receive scholarships to private high schools. Help would be needed from the Department of Public Instruction in tracking down students but Dr. Kattman expressed his belief that such help could be forthcoming. Regent Spector urged UW-Milwaukee through its School of Education to conduct follow-up research on student performance over time. UW-Milwaukee Chancellor Santiago agreed that more research should take place and that there is, in fact, language in the charter school contracts that research collaboration between the UW-Milwaukee School of Education and the charter schools should occur. In response to questions from Regent Crain, Dr. Kattman noted that the Milwaukee College Preparatory School was populated primarily by neighborhood children, and that the school had a huge waiting list for children wanting to attend. In response to a question from Regent Semenas, he also described the per-pupil funding allocation from the state, noting that the school had raised an additional $ 5 million to provide additional access and secure its financial stability.

I.1.e.: It was moved by Regent Spector, seconded by Regent Cuene, that, upon recommendation of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents approves the extension of the charter school contract for the Milwaukee College Preparatory School.

The resolution PASSED unanimously.

Regent Davis concluded that she knew from personal experience that the Milwaukee College Preparatory School was a shining example of a K-12 school working well for Milwaukee’s underserved children and applauded the five-year extension to the school’s contract.

5. Authorization to Recruit: Provost and Vice Chancellor, UW-Eau Claire

Regent Davis observed that UW-Eau Claire was seeking a Provost/Vice Chancellor following the death of Ron Satz after a lengthy illness. She noted that Steve Tallant had been serving as Interim Provost for some time but that, as a new Chancellor, Brian Levin-Stankevich would be searching for a permanent replacement to Provost Satz and would be seeking campus-wide input in the process.

I.1.f.: It was moved by Regent Spector, seconded by Regent Cuene, that the President of the University of Wisconsin System be authorized to recruit for a Provost
and Vice Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, at a salary within the Board of Regents salary range for university senior executive salary group one.

The resolution PASSED unanimously.

Senior Vice President Marrett took the opportunity occasioned by the Committee’s action to introduce the UW System’s newest Provost, Dr. Charles Hurt, from UW-River Falls. She also asked that the System’s other Provosts stand and be recognized, followed by the Faculty and Academic Staff Representatives present at the meeting.

6. UW System Waukesha Study Progress Report

Executive Senior Vice President Don Mash reviewed for the Committee the complex context for the UW System Waukesha Study, and emphasized that the goal was to determine how the UW System could add value to Waukesha County as it grew, while cognizant of the System’s financial constraints. He presented on behalf of President Reilly the commitment to develop and have up-and-running two new four-year, high-demand programs by next fall (2007) at UW-Waukesha. Which programs, and which institution(s) will offer them, he acknowledged, have yet-to-be determined. He also mentioned the ongoing study of the Waukesha options that Chancellors Wilson and Santiago were charged to undertake. At this point, he stated, three options remain on the table: merger, a four-year institution in Waukesha County, and a university center approach in which collaboration between UW-Milwaukee and UW-Waukesha would increase. The Waukesha Study Group, as Dr. Mash called it, consisted of the two Chancellors, the chief academic and chief financial officers from UW-Milwaukee and the UW Colleges, and the Dean at UW-Waukesha. Its future composition would include two UW System Administration officers, from the financial and the programmatic arenas.

In response to a question from Regent Loftus, Dr. Mash answered that the 2007-09 budget request approved by the Regents earlier in the day did not include funding for any of the Waukesha options identified. UW Colleges Provost Margaret Cleek responded to another question by Regent Loftus regarding the size of the Waukesha campus: the largest of the UW Colleges campuses, it sits on 70 acres, has 60 full-time faculty and 2,000 students. In response to Regent questions concerning the funding issues, Dr. Mash clarified that a new building is not needed to deliver additional programs, but would be required in order to increase the research presence of UW-Milwaukee in Waukesha. Given the System’s constrained resources, and the building approval process, a new facility would take a long time to be built. In contrast, he said, adding two new programs could take place immediately.

Chancellor Wilson then informed the Committee that the Study Group had already met several times and although charged to develop a fiscal analysis of the options on the table, they quickly realized that they needed to first agree on a common set of assumptions, both financial and programmatic, before they could cost out the options for expanding baccalaureate education to Waukesha County. The Study Group had now done this and would subsequently proceed to conduct the full-scale fiscal analysis of the major options. Their analysis would take into consideration the input from the several Waukesha County Action Network (WCAN) reports that had been issued in previous months. Chancellor Wilson announced a November 15 deadline for getting the fiscal analysis to President Reilly. President Reilly would then make some kind of recommendation to the Board. The Committee expressed its strong hope that the recommendation would come as soon after November 15 as possible, preferably at the December Board meeting if possible. Regent Loftus indicated that he would be looking to Chancellor Wilson, and the higher education experience he brings from the South, in helping the Regents to consider the best future for the UW Colleges.

In response to a question from Regent Davis on whether student input had been included thus far, Chancellor Wilson responded that student input would be sought moving forward. Regent Davis then recognized four student leaders from UW-Waukesha present at the meeting, and thanked them for their patience in staying so late. Student Government President Alan Stager first expressed his concern that there have been few opportunities for student input, and certainly nothing systematic, into the deliberations on his campus’s future. Second, he noted how important UW-Waukesha’s gateway mission was to him and his fellow students. Students attend UW-Waukesha, like the other UW Colleges, because it is affordable and accessible and allows them to better develop their academic skills so that they can successfully transfer to four-year schools. He would hate to see this mission compromised by turning the institution into a four-year campus.

Regent Semenas expressed his agreement with Mr. Stager and observed that it was unfortunate that the Waukesha County Action Network’s primary concern was property tax relief. He suggested that property tax relief for the citizens of Waukesha County should not be driving change for the UW System, and that southeastern Wisconsin’s other communities also needed attention. Waukesha County, he noted, has the third highest number of baccalaureate degree-holders in the state. Regent Loftus agreed that the pressure for the Waukesha campus options seemed to come from the County and queried what the students were seeking in the way of degrees from the campus. UW-Waukesha Dean Patrick Schmidt responded that the most popular majors on his campus were business, education, and engineering. The majority of Waukesha students continued their pursuit of baccalaureate degrees at UW-Milwaukee and UW-Whitewater. He indicated, however, that a true needs analysis for the students had not yet been done but would be part of the forthcoming study. In response to other Regent questions, Dean Schmidt noted that most of the students at his campus came from Waukesha and Milwaukee Counties, and that the tuition at his campus was about $1,000 less than at one of the UW’s four-year institutions.

In response to a question from Regent Loftus, Chancellor Santiago said that for there to be a “research presence” in Waukesha, there would have to be a graduate-degree granting institution and that a two-year campus would not include a “research presence.” The Committee recognized Carla Rutley, Executive Director of the Waukesha County Action Network. Committee members then thanked the students and assured them that their voices were heard and that everyone present understood the importance of involving students in these discussions, so integral to the future of both the UW-Waukesha and -Milwaukee campuses.

The Committee expressed its appreciation to Executive Senior Vice President Mash for his contributions, as well as those of Chancellors Wilson and Santiago and their Study Group. Regent Davis noted how pleased she was to hear President Reilly’s commitment to two new, high-demand programs in place by fall 2007, calling this a significant step towards meeting the program needs of Waukesha County citizens. Regent Davis added that, as the process moves forward and the Regents await the fiscal analysis and the recommendation from President Reilly, it was important to remember that the Waukesha Study affects not only the UW Colleges and UW-Milwaukee: it also impacts the well-being of the UW System as a whole, and the students and citizens served throughout Wisconsin.

7. Report of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs

a. Annual Program Planning and Review Report

Senior Vice President Marrett introduced Associate Vice President Ron Singer to deliver the Annual Program Planning and Review Report. Associate Vice President Ron Singer gave a brief overview of the program planning and review process, as presented in the UW System Annual Program Planning and Review Report. He explained that the program planning and review process is carefully designed to ensure quality and academic integrity, and that there are statutorily designated roles for the Regents, UW System Administration, and the institutions. He elaborated on the various steps in the approval process: entitlement to plan; authorization to implement; implementation; and joint review. He reminded Committee members of several recent changes to the program review process, including the fact that the mandatory second reading for new programs had been eliminated (unless there were questions or concerns raised by the Regents). Noting that not every program proposed to System makes it all the way to the Regents for their approval, he emphasized that continuous institutional review and accreditation ensure continuous improvement. He further reported that new programs are almost always supported through reallocation of resources and that the size of the UW System’s program array has been constant over time, although the content of that array has changed. Contrary to popular perception, the level of program duplication was surprisingly low, as evidenced in a graph he shared with the Committee, with the vast majority of programs offered only at one campus. Only one program, Dr. Singer admitted, was offered at every UW campus: psychology.

Regent Spector asked whether students were involved in the program planning process. Joined by several of the Provosts, Dr. Singer explained the ways in which students had input into the process, including student-expressed demand for certain programs, and student participation on the university committees that reviewed new program proposals and in joint reviews. The Committee discussed further System’s role in program development, in particular its role in promoting collaboration and its efforts to offer leadership in which programs move forward and which do not. Regent Crain expressed her belief that UW System Administration’s leadership was especially needed in determining what the System’s entire program array should look like. Chancellor Wells observed that Wisconsin has the least unnecessary duplication of any state he’s ever worked in, and that, because of limited resources, the state is not able to offer enough, particularly baccalaureate programs.

b. 2006 UW System Research and Public Service Report

Senior Vice President Marrett introduced the 2006 UW System Research and Public Service Report as one of several statutorily mandated reports prepared by her office (this one biennially), approved by the Board, and submitted to the Joint Committee on Finance. Noting that this report was filled with interesting but overabundant information on how the UW System serves the public interest in its research and public service spending, she acknowledged that she had no information, once it was submitted, on whether or not it was carefully reviewed by the Joint Committee on Finance.

I.1.h.(2): It was moved by Regent Crain, seconded by Regent Cuene, that, that, upon recommendation of the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents accepts the 2006 Research and Public Service Report for submission to the Joint Committee on Finance.

The resolution PASSED unanimously.

c. Report on 2005 Undergraduate Drop Rates

The Committee’s last item of business concerned the 2005 Undergraduate Drop Rate Report, which is annually required both by statute and by Board policy. As in past years, the goal that each institution not exceed a drop rate of five percent was met by every UW institution except the UW Colleges (whose mission of open access makes the five-percent drop ceiling unrealistic). Senior Vice President Marrett reminded Committee members that the UW System Administration has asked on two occasions to have the legislative requirement for this report dropped, since the goal and purpose of the original request have been met and the resources required to put the report together each year could be better directed elsewhere. The requests were denied on both occasions. The UW System will continue, therefore, to annually prepare and submit the report to the Joint Committee on Finance and report undergraduate drop rates to the Board.

I.1.h.(3): It was moved by Regent Semenas, seconded by Regent Cuene, that, upon Recommendation of the President of the University of Wisconsin System, the Board of Regents accepts the Annual Report on 2005 Undergraduate Drop Rates for submission to the Joint Committee on Finance.

The resolution PASSED unanimously.

Resolutions I.1.c.(1), I.1.c.(2), I.1.d.(1), I.1.d.(2), I.1.e., I.1.f., I.1.h.(2), and I.1.h.(3) were referred as consent agenda items to the full session of the Board of Regents at its Friday, August 18, 2006, meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.