Board of Regents

Board of Regents - Education Committee Minutes - February 2010

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Madison, Wisconsin

February 4, 2010

Regent Crain convened the meeting of the Education Committee at 12:33 p.m.  Regents Crain, Davis, Evers, and Vásquez were present.

  1. Committee Consent Agenda

    Regent Vásquez moved adoption of the minutes of the December 10, 2009, meeting of the Education Committee, as well as the following resolutions as consent agenda items: 

    Resolution One.One.b.(2), authorizing the implementation of the B.S. in Environmental Health at UW-Oshkosh;

    Resolution One.One.b.(3), authorizing implementation of the B.S. in Cognitive Science at UW-Stout; and

    Resolution One.One.b.(4), approving the appointment of Katherine Marks to fill an unexpired term on the UW School of Medicine and Public Health Oversight and Advisory Committee of the Wisconsin Partnership Program, beginning February 8, 2010, through October 31, 2010.

    The motion was seconded by Regent Davis and carried on a unanimous voice vote.

  2. New Directions for Teacher Education in the UW System

    Following approval of the Committee Consent Agenda, the Education Committee heard a presentation on teacher education.  Regent Crain reminded Committee members that this was one of the priority areas they had identified last fall. 

    The Committee heard first from Deborah Mahaffey, Assistant Superintendent in the Division of Academic Excellence at the Department of Public Instruction (DPI).  Ms. Mahaffey provided the Committee with an overview of the Wisconsin Quality Educator Initiative, known as PI 34, which is the state’s licensure program for teachers.  PI 34 was adopted by DPI in 2000 to align the state with national performance-based standards for teachers.  It created a shared vision of what educators should know and be able to do in order to improve student learning, as well as performance-based assessment of educator preparation and practice.  Over the years, it has worked to address the challenges and opportunities presented by the state’s shifting demographics and increasingly diverse student populations.  Ms. Mahaffey described career-long educator training and professional development that was done collaboratively by higher education and school districts, resulting in improved performance in terms of both individual educators and district- and statewide accountability.

    In response to a question from Regent Vásquez, Ms. Mahaffey answered that there was no prescribed set of courses for the professional development of teachers.  In response to a comment from Regent Davis about the preparation of new teachers in the Milwaukee Public School System, Ms. Mahaffey agreed that new teachers were sometimes ill-prepared and could benefit from better mentoring.  Regent Evers added that he could use his limited authority to better enforce compliance of the mentoring and training for initial educators as required by PI 34.  In response to another question from Regent Davis, Ms. Mahaffey explained that the professional development plans for new educators were reviewed by teams from a variety of sectors, including DPI and higher education.

    Francine Tompkins, Director of the UW System PK-16 Initiatives, next addressed the Committee and thanked its members for keeping teacher education at the forefront of their agenda.  She briefly reviewed the broader context for how the UW System is working to strengthen the responsibility for teacher education shared between higher education and Wisconsin’s schools.  She mentioned several inter-institutional and campus-based programs designed to improve teacher education, and said that more assessment of performance-based work was taking place.  She referenced her more than 20 years working on teacher education in the UW System as providing a good perspective on the work in Wisconsin and nationally.  She acknowledged that nimbleness remained a challenge in crafting timely responses to problems but that the UW System had developed numerous programs that were both nimble and responsive, including several designed to increase access and success for under-served students, especially in high-demand areas like Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) and English as a Second Language (ESL).

    Dr. Tompkins was followed by Beth Giles, Director of the UW System Institute for Urban Education.  Ms. Giles explained the Institute’s mission to advance the preparation of urban educators, and to recruit, promote, and retain high-quality educators for urban districts.  She shared testimony from several pre-service teachers, for whom participation in the Institute had been life-changing.  She noted that, while still in its early stages, the Institute had already been effective at producing graduates who choose to begin their teaching careers in the Milwaukee Public Schools or other urban areas.  And she mentioned plans to expand the Future Teachers Program statewide, in the effort to get under-represented students, in particular, interested in college and careers in teaching.

    In response to a question from Regent Davis, Ms. Giles described the Institute’s current cohort of 14 students as comprising two African Americans, three Latinos, and six men.  Regent Davis noted that while it was important for majority students to become culturally competent, Milwaukee Public School (MPS) children also needed to see role models in their schools that looked like them and shared their experience.  Regent Evers agreed with Regent Davis that there were misconceptions both from within MPS and from those looking in from the outside.  He added that the Institute for Urban Education was the perfect vehicle to address such misconceptions.

    In response to a question from Regent Vásquez, Ms. Giles answered that the Institute had placed some students in charter schools but not yet with any private or choice schools.  She explained that the Institute placed students with interested cooperating teachers who met certain requirements, including those from DPI.  Regent Vásquez commented that, given the growing presence of minority students in MPS, it behooved all those connected with the Institute to bring its numbers up.  The program’s fourteen students, while commendable, were not enough.  Dr. Tompkins responded that the UW System Teacher Education Initiative, funded in the 2007-09 biennial budget, was providing resources to most UW campuses to enhance diversity in teacher education programs and expand the System’s capacity to prepare more teachers in high-demand licensure areas.  She agreed that more initiatives were needed and she hoped to share with the Regents in the following year some of the inroads being made as a result of the budgetary initiative. 

    In response to another comment from Regent Vásquez, Dr. Tompkins added that work was taking place in cities other than Milwaukee, which also had growing numbers of students of color.  Senior Vice President Martin noted that all UW campuses with teacher education programs placed students in area schools and that the Institute for Urban Education gave opportunities to more rural campuses to place their students in an urban setting.  She explained that, without additional funding and staffing, the Institute would not be able to grow.  Regent Evers emphasized the importance of the Institute as a model to be expanded, notable for the way it nurtured students and invested in community.  Regent Vásquez encouraged creative thinking about working with charter and choice schools in the future, and Regent Evers agreed that one could be flexible without abandoning rigor in determining which teachers and schools could provide placements for students in the Institute.  Regent Vásquez requested additional information at a future meeting on students of color in rural districts.  Citing her experience with the Green Bay school board, Regent Crain called the connections made to schools by the Institute critical.

    Katy Heyning, Dean of the College of Education at UW-Whitewater, next reported to the Committee on the restructuring underway throughout her College to implement and realize more fully the framework of Inclusive Excellence.  Dean Heyning recounted how she had been challenged by the President’s Council on Diversity, in particular Regent Davis, to address the lack of diversity in the College’s student populations, and in the faculty’s cultural competence.  Under the title the Future Teacher Program, an infrastructure was being put in place to bring in and support more students of color, and to truly change the culture of the college to enhance the cultural competence of faculty, staff, and students.  The new program was focusing on the recruitment of high-quality students, and the development of community among students, faculty and teacher mentors.  It would begin in summer 2010 with 25 students.

    In response to questions from Regent Vásquez, Dean Heyning described the students who would be admitted to the program and efforts to offer some college education courses in regional high schools.  Regent Davis called the program strategic and expressed her appreciation for the responsiveness with which Dean Heyning had put together the program, given that she was a brand new dean last summer when she appeared before the Diversity Council.  In response to a question from Regent Davis, Dean Heyning described the positive reception and interest among her faculty to the new program.  She also mentioned that the city of Beloit had broached the idea of a “grow-your-own” program in its high schools and that discussions were underway with UW-Rock County and other two-year campuses to develop partnerships.  Regent Crain commended the promise of the program.

    Senior Vice President Martin reported on a recently realized longitudinal data system that extended across educational sectors, and thanked Regent Evers for his help in making this system operational.  Citing national calls for accountability from President Obama and others, she asked the presenters and others in the room with responsibility for teacher education how they were planning to link the performance of students in the schools with the students in their teacher education programs. She emphasized that the UW System educated 60 % of all teachers in Wisconsin and thus had a significant responsibility in leading the pipeline of students to college readiness. 

    Dr. Tompkins responded that the System work was focusing on developing more coordination, alignment, and leadership so that UW faculty would be better attuned to the K-12 sector.  Dean Heyning commented that each district had different requirements and measurements for student learning, making alignment difficult.  Ms. Giles agreed that more collaboration and coordination between the UW System and K-12 schools was needed.  Regent Crain observed that the K-12 sector had changed so much in recent years and this proved challenging for UW faculty.  Senior Vice President Martin asked that better mechanisms be developed to in order to feed information on student learning and teacher success in public schools back into the UW System’s teacher education programs.  This would enable the System to more rigorously evaluate the impact of UW-educated teachers on student learning, and to address the needs for program improvement.  She asked Dr. Tompkins to work with the UW System’s Education Deans on this agenda and to report back to the Education Committee in one year.

    Regent Davis expressed her appreciation for the presentation and her high expectations that efforts to close the achievement gap would remain central and that projects like the Institute for Urban Education and the Future Teacher Program be scaled up to reach more UW education students and, subsequently, the children they will teach when they enter the classroom.  Regent Crain thanked the presenters and Committee members for their contributions

    to a rich discussion around a topic that remained of great interest to the Regents and educators at all levels statewide.

  3. UW-Milwaukee Charter Schools
    1. Contract Approval for Veritas High School

      The Education Committee moved on to consideration of a new charter school contract between UW-Milwaukee and the Veritas High School.  Regent Crain welcomed Dr. Robert Kattman, Director of the UW-Milwaukee Office of Charter Schools, to describe the Veritas School.  Dr. Kattman introduced several people affiliated with the school, including Marcia Spector, Executive Director of Seeds of Health, David Hase, President of the Seeds of Health Board, and Sherry Tolkan, principal of Veritas.

      Dr. Kattman informed the Committee that Veritas enrolled about 200 students and was focused on college preparation.  If approved, the high school would be the thirteenth charter granted by the Office of Charter Schools, but the eleventh school in operation by the end of June.  It would be the only charter high school overseen by the Office of Charter Schools that was focused on college preparation.  Dr. Kattman explained that the Veritas School was currently authorized by the Milwaukee Public School System (MPS) and was seeking a new charter with UW-Milwaukee upon the completion of its MPS charter in June.  The change was sought by Seeds of Health, Inc., the operator of Veritas and two other schools chartered by UW-Milwaukee.  Dr. Kattman called Seeds of Health an extremely well-run organization that wanted to consolidate its charter schools under the authority of UW-Milwaukee.

      Ms. Spector elaborated on the reasons for transferring the chartering authority for Veritas from MPS to the Office of Charter Schools, citing, in particular, the high expectations and rigor of the accountability required by the Office of Charter Schools.  She emphasized how critical the closing of the achievement gap was to Seeds of Health.  Veritas High Schools was the first charter school started by Seeds of Health and it was a strong school with great outcomes.  Ms. Tolkan pointed to the relevance of the previous discussion on teacher education as context for the charter school consideration.  The students at Veritas, she continued, were generally the first in their families to attend college and all of the school’s 46 seniors had applied to college.  The school was located on Milwaukee’s south side and its student population consisted of 70% Latinos, reflective of the neighborhood.  The school took seriously its responsibility to develop relationships and strong expectations, and to help students who were not always able to get support from their families.

      In response to a question from Regent Davis, Ms. Tolkan described the qualifications, recruitment, retention, and composition of the school’s faculty.  She noted that every teacher on staff was certified by the state in the area they taught, and that the school provided lots of mentoring and support to those it hired.  Ms. Spector added that Seeds of Health was working to provide additional professional development in the areas of teacher induction and curriculum mapping, for example, and that a new program would be in place in September for all Seeds of Health schools.  In response to another question from Regent Davis, Ms. Spector said that 7% of the school’s student population comprised children with special education needs and that the school was working to reach state proportions.  Dr. Kattman added that the Office of Charter Schools had looked into the special education population and inserted some contract language that would direct the school to achieve the state’s level.

      In response to a question from Regent Crain, Ms. Spector said that Seeds of Health had been in frequent communication with MPS regarding the transfer of the contract to UW-Milwaukee, as had the Office of Charter Schools.  Mr. Hase observed that the decision to move the charter was one reached by the Seeds of Health Board for a variety of compelling reasons and that he, too, had worked with MPS representatives throughout the process.  In response to a question from Regent Vásquez, Ms. Spector answered that one of the Seeds of Health elementary schools would cover grades K-8 by September and would feed into Veritas.

      I.1.c.:  It was moved by Regent Davis, seconded by Regent Vásquez, 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 charter school contract with the Seeds of Health, Inc., to establish a charter school known as Veritas High School, effective July 1, 2010.

      The resolution PASSED unanimously.

      Regent Crain thanked the Seeds of Health guests for their contributions to the discussion.

    2. Charter Schools:  Providing Blueprints for Successful Urban Education

      The Education Committee continued its deliberation of charter schools with a discussion of “replication.”  Dr. Kattman defined replication as the practice of a school management organization opening an additional school using the model of an existing school managed by the organization.  The result was not a new or separate charter school contract, but, rather, the replicated school was offered through an amendment to the original charter.  Cities like New York and Chicago were engaged in the replication of their most successful charter schools.  Besides providing more Milwaukee students the opportunity to enroll at successful schools, Dr. Kattman said that replication would result in documentation—“blueprints” or “cookbooks”—of those ingredients necessary to replicate high-performing schools, for example, components like leadership, finances, school culture, and necessary staffing.  These blueprints would be available to other schools and districts, including MPS.  Dr. Kattman cited Tenor High School, known for its partnership with Milwaukee Area Technical College, as an example of a successful charter school that could be replicated.  Thousands of Milwaukee children deserved the opportunity to attend a school like Tenor, he stated, not just the 70 or so whom the school was able to serve currently.  He asked the Committee to consider at a future meeting approval for proceeding with replication, according to the principles and criteria spelled out in proposed guidelines that had been shared with the Regents as a part of their Board materials.

      In response to a question from Regent Evers, Dr. Kattman replied that the Office of Charter Schools would have the infrastructure to implement replication.  Regent Evers commented that policy-makers and educators needed to find ways to replicate excellence in MPS, as well as to support ways to transfer UW-Milwaukee charter school excellence to MPS more broadly.  Dr. Kattman agreed and noted that he had met with a representative from MPS and planned to meet again in order to discuss replication further, adding that there were a number of excellent schools in MPS that would be prime candidates for replication.

      In response to a question from Regent Vásquez, Dr. Kattman answered that replication was not a “fast track,” allowing charter schools to jump through fewer hoops in their affiliation with the Office of Charter Schools.  Office of Charter School contracts, he explained, were very specific in regard to school sites and that would determine, in part, a school’s capacity for replication.  Schools that were chosen for replication would need to meet many criteria.  Once they met those, their replication would require an addendum to their existing contracts.  And once replicated, they would need to continue meeting the expectations for excellence required by the Office of Charter Schools.

      Regent Crain reflected that the critical pieces for her, in terms of charter schools, were the impact they made on the education sector as a whole, and her belief that what worked should be disseminated more broadly in the public sector.  In response to a question from Regent Crain, Dr. Kattman affirmed that the Board could expect to see a couple of replication requests soon, contingent upon the Board’s support for replication, including from Tenor High School and the Milwaukee College Preparatory School. 

      Regent Davis asked for clarification on whether the proposed guidelines distributed to the Regents would later be presented as a policy brought before the Board for its approval.  Senior Vice President Martin responded that the guidelines would guide the process but that the exact documentation to come before the Board had yet to be determined.  The current discussion, she explained, and the Committee’s support for replication or lack thereof, would determine next steps.

      Regent Davis expressed her support for replication but noted that she felt the criteria in the proposed guidelines could be strengthened to focus more explicitly on academics and school culture.  Dr. Kattman responded that the academic expectations were implied because no school would be brought forward for replication without that having been documented.  He agreed, however, that it would be easy to make the academic requirements explicit in the guidelines. 

      Regent Vásquez also indicated his support for replication under the right circumstances.  He expressed his hope that the Board would approach replication from a statewide, and not just a Milwaukee perspective.  Rita Cheng, Provost from UW-Milwaukee, emphasized that the Office of Charter Schools was focused on outcomes and that replication, in principle, was highly structured and research-based.  UW-Milwaukee was not looking for unlimited growth of its charter schools.

      Regent Evers stated that replication, in broad terms, was a good idea and that the Department of Public Instruction practiced it all the time by recognizing high standards and excellence.  He cautioned the Committee to message carefully whatever policy or principles it acted on in the future so as not to send the message that the Board wanted to “clone” UW-Milwaukee charter schools.  In response to a question from Senior Vice President Martin, Regent Evers proposed messaging that focused on replication as a means to better all of southeastern Wisconsin and to expand quality to all students and schools, MPS in particular.

      Regent Crain commended her fellow Regents for the quality and breadth of the discussion, which she called vital preparation for any action they might be asked to take in the future.  She observed that she felt cautious about saying what was needed in Milwaukee but that Green Bay, a city about which she was much more knowledgeable, had a lot in common with Milwaukee.  She reiterated Regent Vásquez’s point that the Board needed to do its work in a manner that helped all students, throughout the entire state.  She, too, expressed her support for replication.

      Senior Vice President Martin said that her office and the Office of General Counsel would work on an appropriate policy document in collaboration with UW-Milwaukee, mindful of the points made by Committee members, and seeking further input, as appropriate.  The Committee could expect to see replication on its agenda at a future meeting.

  4. Academic Program Planning and Array
    1. Annual Report on Academic Program Planning and Review

       The Committee next heard two reports from Stephen Kolison, Associate Vice President for Academic and Faculty Programs.  Dr. Kolison reviewed the highlights of the Report on Academic Program Planning and Review, presented annually to the Regents.  In addition to providing an overview of the roles and responsibilities of the institutions, System Administration, and the Regents in determining the System’s program array, the report included a summary of major activity taking place systemwide in terms of program entitlements, authorizations, implementations, and joint reviews.  Dr. Kolison also mentioned a few milestones in program planning from the last year, including a well-received program planning workshop organized by his office in June 2009, the Board-endorsed opportunity for UW comprehensives to establish professional doctorates, and a new framework for UW institutions to formally offer three-year baccalaureate tracks.

      In response to a question from Regent Davis, Dr. Kolison replied that the time from entitlement to authorization of new programs varied, depending on the Regents’ schedule and on the program’s institutional readiness, among other factors.  Senior Vice President Martin elaborated on the process for sharing all institutional requests for entitlements with the System’s Provosts.  This vetting process also impacted the timeline depending on what kind of feedback there was from other campuses.  She mentioned another recent policy change made a year ago to make the program approval process more efficient, which allowed for the conversion of minors into majors without going through the entitlement process.

      Regent Davis asked whether the process generated discomfort for the institutions.  Senior Vice President Martin responded that sometimes there was, in fact, discomfort, and that the process did sometimes take a long time.  For all the efforts her office has made to streamline the process, collaboration takes time, as does the seeking of input from other institutions.  Dr. Kolison added that he has assigned individual academic planners from among his staff to each institution, a practice designed to ease bottlenecks that might occur.

    2. UW System 2009 Program Realignment Initiative

      Dr. Kolison’s then reviewed with the Committee the report on the UW System 2009 Program Realignment Initiative.  He described the genesis of the report, which was the result of a working group charged by Senior Vice President Martin to review the System’s undergraduate program array in a broader context, precipitated by the state’s fiscal environment.  The group sought to offer an assessment of the viability and productivity of degree programs in terms of enrollment and completion, and to provide institutions with information to assist in decision-making on their program array.  Dr. Kolison described the fine-grained analysis done of the data collected on undergraduate enrollments and degrees conferred from 1998-2008.  The process produced a clear picture of the System’s undergraduate array and each UW institution received information on each major’s share of total undergraduate degree production, on a per institution basis, over the last ten years. 

      The initiative also identified those majors that have produced few or fewer degrees over the past ten years.  Dr. Kolison called this a sensitive topic and emphasized that the working group was not seeking to determine some optimum number of degrees that any given major should produce.  Rather, the information was meant to be used by the campuses as they think through their overall program array and potential realignment in what is anticipated to be more lean years to come.  The working group also developed guidelines for program closures or discontinuations, as well as guidelines for program suspensions.  Both sets of guidelines were designed to encourage coordination among institutions and to ensure that the System maintains capacity to offer programs needed by Wisconsin citizens.  Dr. Kolison concluded by emphasizing that any inferences regarding fewer-degree-producing majors needed to take into account several factors, including campus mission and context, distinctiveness of majors, and the capacity of the System as a whole to offer any given major.

      In response to a question from Regent Vásquez, Senior Vice President Martin answered that liberal arts and science degrees are among the most frequently offered degree programs throughout the UW System.  They are foundational degrees that offer the broad preparation, knowledge and skills—that is, the liberal education—needed for many careers and future areas of study.  Dr. Kolison reiterated that while the report provides both opportunities and temptations to make judgments about optimum numbers of majors at a campus or systemwide, the critical information lies in the fine-grained analysis provided to each institution.  In response to a comment from Regent Crain, several Provosts affirmed that the information was already encouraging discussions on their campuses about appropriate program array.

      In response to a question from UW Colleges and UW-Extension Chancellor David Wilson, Dr. Kolison replied that he did not have on hand the number of degrees awarded in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math or STEM fields but that he could make it available.  In response to questions from Regent Vásquez, Senior Vice President Martin described how, despite some commonality, each institution had its own distinct process for determining program array, and changes to that array, based on shared governance and campus culture.

      In response to a question from Regent Crain, Dr. Kolison informed the Committee that he planned to provide an update on the initiative in one year, including more information on program suspensions.  Provost Cheng pointed out to the Regents that UW-Milwaukee and other UW institutions have a large number of non-structured, individualized majors that are designed by students.  These might be branded as majors and appear to have tiny enrollments but they should be separated out from the information in the report. 

      Regent Davis encouraged close examination of the 30 fewer-degree-producing majors that were offered by at least 50% of UW institutions and asked if there would be follow-up.  Dr. Kolison and Senior Vice President Martin responded that they were developing guidelines for a reporting process for low-enrollment majors that were offered widely at UW institutions so that these programs could be tracked and justified, as appropriate.

      Regent Crain thanked Dr. Kolison and commended the utility of this report, especially in this budget climate.

  5. Report of the Senior Vice President

    Senior Vice President Martin’s Report included follow-up on the December discussion of the “Tuition Discount” initiative announced by President Reilly; and an update on the UW Colleges Proposed Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Degree.

    1. “Tuition Discount” or Four-Year Degree Completion Initiative

      Senior Vice President Martin reminded Committee members of the December discussion led by President Reilly on ways to hold college costs down for students and their families.  One of the primary ways mentioned was to encourage and motivate students to complete their baccalaureate degree programs in four years.  Senior Vice President Martin informed Committee members that since December she had been working with the Provosts to identify those degrees at UW institutions which were already designed for four-year completion by students.  She noted that this was “low-hanging fruit,” because many—if not most—degree programs offered in the UW System were designed to be completed in four years.  At most campuses, the exceptions were degree programs that required more than 120 credits for graduation, like certain art and music majors, or education and engineering programs.  She added that the UW Colleges were also reviewing their work with students to identify clear pathways to the two-year associate degree and to transfer.  Senior Vice President Martin and the Provosts were in agreement that better messaging and advising could be done at the institutional level to help more students finish in four years.

      Senior Vice President Martin continued that, in the next few months, her office would work with the institutions to assemble materials and information already in existence that provided students with clear direction regarding pathways to four-year degrees.  A reasonable timeline would also be established for moving more degree programs into the four-year time-frame.  She reiterated that the longer-term goal, announced by President Reilly in December, was to mount a campaign through the UW HELP Program—under the title the “Discount Initiative”—that would provide students with an online, user-friendly matrix or template listing those degree programs that were able to be completed in four years.  Dr. Martin emphasized that the institutions, System Administration, and Regents could all be more intentional about helping additional students complete their degrees in a more timely fashion.  While she recognized that there would always be students who elected or needed to take more time, it was also clear that the UW System could do a better job at making the pathway to a four-year degree more evident and accessible to students and parents.

    2. The UW Colleges Proposed Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Degree

      Senior Vice President Martin reminded the Committee that the UW Colleges had been

      working on a proposal for a Bachelor’s of Applied Arts and Sciences for more than a year.  She announced that, the previous day, she had granted an entitlement for the UW Colleges to plan a pilot degree program on six campuses, and in collaboration with partnering comprehensive campuses.  The entitlement was granted following extensive input from the System’s Provosts and Chancellors, and that input resulted in a significantly revised proposal from what was originally proposed.  Additional work remained to be done by the Colleges as they developed the request for authorization, with specific issues to be addressed as outlined in the entitlement letter.  She concluded that consideration of the proposed degree would also require a mission change for the Colleges, and that the Regents could expect to see the request come forward sometime in the near future.

      At the request of Regent Davis, the Committee heard from both UW Colleges Chancellor David Wilson and Provost Greg Lampe who described the excitement of their faculty, as well as that of the potential adult and place-bound students and employers who would be served by the degree.  The faculty was already working on responding to the issues raised by Senior Vice President Martin in her entitlement.  Provost Lampe expressed his appreciation to Senior Vice President Martin and her office for their support, and to the comprehensives for the concreteness of their feedback.  Chancellor Wilson observed that, while the proposal came from the UW Colleges, their Extension colleagues were also excited for the potential pathways opened to families in Wisconsin, particularly those in rural areas.  He called the degree proposal a true partnership of these united institutions.  Senior Vice President Martin added that the proposal allowed for multiple partnerships among the Colleges and the comprehensives and she expressed her appreciation to those comprehensives that had stepped up to participate.

      Committee members expressed their appreciation for both of the updates provided by Senior Vice President Martin.

  6. Full Board Consent Agenda

    Resolutions I.1.a.(2), I.1.a.(3), I. 1.a.(4), and I.1.c.(1) were referred to the consent agenda of the full Board of Regents at its Friday, February 5, 2010, meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 3:52 p.m.