Tam Alumni Center Tiberti Grand Hall
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas
Friday, December 12, 2003

Members Present:

Dr. Stavros Anthony, Chair
Mr. Mark Alden
Ms. Marcia Bandera
Dr. Jill Derby
Mrs. Thalia Dondero
Mr. Douglas Roman Hill
Mrs. Linda Howard
Dr. Tom Kirkpatrick
Mr. Howard Rosenberg
Dr. Jack Lund Schofield
Mr. Steve Sisolak
Mr. Bret Whipple
Mr. Gary Waters, President
Dr. John Gwaltney, Vice President
Mrs. Barbara Myers, Clerk
Mr. Patrick Boylan
Dr. Cliff Ferry
Mrs. Theresa Malone
Ms. Dorothy Nolan
Mrs. Marcia Washington
Ms. Angela Bible, Attorney General’s Office
Members Absent: Mr. Douglas Seastrand
Dr. John Hawk
Dr. Merv Iverson
Mr. Ryan Leavitt, Student (Ex-Officio)

Others Present:

Chancellor Jane Nichols
Interim Vice Chancellor, Finance & Administration Larry Eardley
Vice Chancellor, Academic & Student Affairs Richard Curry
General Counsel Tom Ray
Interim President Thomas Brown, CCSN
President Stephen Wells, DRI
President Paul Killpatrick, GBC
President Kerry Romesburg, NSC
President Philip Ringle, TMCC
President Carol Harter, UNLV
President John Lilley, UNR
President Carol Lucey, WNCC
Chief Administrative Officer Suzanne Ernst

Also present were faculty senate chairs Ms. Mitzi Ware, CCSN; Dr. Alan Gertler, DRI; Dr. Frank Daniels, GBC; Dr. Erika Beck, NSC; Ms. Bridgett Boulton, TMCC; Dr. John Readence, UNLV; Dr. Trudy Larson, UNR; Dr. Michael Hardie, WNCC; and Mr. John Tully, System Administration. Student government leaders present included Ms. Evelyn Flores, CCSN; Mr. Steve Houk, GBC; Ms. Janell Mihelic, NSC; Mr. Teddy Noda, TMCC; Ms. Monica Moradkhan, UNLV; Ms. Jocelina Santos, UNLV-GPSA; Mr. Chul Hwan Yim, UNR; Ms. Jessica Muehlberg, UNR-GSA, and Mr. Billy Jennings, WNCC.

Chairs Stavros Anthony and Gary Waters called the meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. on December 12, 2003 with all members present except Regents Derby, Dondero, and Seastrand, and Members Hawk, Iverson, and Leavitt.

Chair Waters thanked the Board of Regents for holding another joint meeting with the State Board, adding his appreciation for providing collaborative opportunities.

Regents Derby and Dondero entered the meeting.

1. Introductions - Chairs Waters and Anthony led self introductions of members from both boards. Dr. Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent, State Department of Education, substituted for Dr. Jack McLaughlin, State Superintendent, Public Instruction.

2. Information Only-UCCSN Presidential Reports on Master Plan Goal #5 – P-16 Education - A summary of each institution's activities and plans for continuing to meet this goal in the next year was provided. (Ref. Jt. BOR-2 on file in the Board office)

Chancellor Nichols reported that this item would normally have been presented during the regular Board of Regents meeting. Due to the importance of this goal and its applicability to primary education, two college presidents were asked to summarize each institution’s efforts to enhance relationships with P-16. She introduced Presidents Kerry Romesburg and Philip Ringle.

Dr. Kerry Romesburg, President-NSC, explained that he was speaking on behalf of DRI, UNR, UNLV, and NSC. He encouraged members to review the reference material, which addressed statewide P-16 initiatives. He said that partnerships between higher education and primary education were better than ever before. He indicated a great deal of promise in the future expansion of these partnerships. He related that three areas addressed the Regents’ goal: Improving the number of high school graduates continuing to college, the success of those students upon reaching college, and improving instruction throughout the state. He reported that DRI has distributed over 4,500 science boxes to classrooms across the state. Under the Nevada Collaborative Teacher Improvement Program, UNLV and NSC have been partnering with the Clark County School District, and UNR has partnered with the Washoe County School District to help train mathematics teachers. Business and industry leaders have also joined in an educational collaborative to help with engineering and education programs. DRI has a consortium of 38 WeatherNet sites throughout the state to inspire interest in science and science education. Through the EPSCoR (Experimental Program to Stimulate Cooperative Research) program, DRI has created the Nevada Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA) program. In the area of improving instruction and student success, all UCCSN institutions participate in Nevada’s GEAR UP program, dual enrollment, and early college, developmental and remedial programs. UCCSN institutions are working with public school counselors, teachers, and administrators throughout the state to keep students better informed about educational opportunities and training and career options. UNR and UNLV have extensive Upward Bound programs. UNR offers programs including the Nevada Reading Excellence program, the American History project, and High School Journalism Day. All UCCSN institutions also participate in advanced placement. NSC recently received a grant to work with the Nye County School District to help children with special needs. President Romesburg ended his report by noting that all UCCSN institutions have established partnerships and programs directed at improving the participation and success rates of students from underrepresented groups.

Chair Anthony left the meeting.

President Philip Ringle, President-TMCC, reported that he would highlight some of the community college programs. He, too, encouraged members to review the material provided, adding that it provided more detail of each of the programs. In addition to the events and activities referenced, each of the community colleges is striving to provide a seamless system of education in their communities to avoid costly duplication. Examples of programs contributing to that effort include: tech prep programs offering high school students the opportunity to move from high school vocational programs to the community colleges and dual enrollment. He related that the collaborative programs offered by the community colleges consisted of similar activities and programs providing enrollment opportunities for students. CCSN and TMCC have high schools on their campuses that permit high school students to enroll in and earn college credit for courses not available to them in their high school. Many students graduate from high school with a year or more of college work completed. This Spring, two TMCC students earned their high school diplomas and associate’s degrees simultaneously. Beginning in September, WNCC is implementing a special construction education outreach program providing occupational training for 27 high school students. The programs offered are not just for students. GBC hosts a Summer Institute for K-12 Vocational Teachers to remain current in their disciplines by taking the College’s technical courses. Most of the community colleges have tech prep agreements and programs with high schools. These programs allow faculty to come together to ensure the high school and college course work complement one another. The community colleges provide a variety of programs in the public schools ranging from testing to tutoring, on-site courses, and including targeted programs aimed at at-risk youth. The tutoring programs are most often conducted by students, thereby enriching their learning experience. On-campus programs provide opportunities for students, staff, and the community. WNCC, in collaboration with the schools and the Boys & Girls Club, hosts a mentoring program on campus. GBC offers a summer writing program to initiate dialog among teachers at all levels about ways to address student writing. CCSN hosts students in theater and music programs. CCSN’s Cheyenne Campus hosts The Jason Project, where scientists interact with students as they perform research. TMCC brings targeted groups of students to campus for orientations and hosts school counselors and theater technicians. Each college also works with the school districts to seek and obtain grant funding whenever possible. GBC has submitted a collaborative grant to the National Science Foundation to prepare secondary science, math, and social science teachers. Many colleges work with GEAR UP projects. Nevada’s federal delegation recently informed TMCC, WNCC, and GBC that they will receive funding to develop a fast-track nursing program targeting high school seniors. The community colleges also partner on a variety of outreach activities for special populations. President Ringle ended his report by stating that each community college perceives their work with the school districts as critical to the vitality of their communities.

Vice Chair Bandera asked if the State Board members had any questions. President Waters complimented the reference material provided, adding that it was a valuable tool. He felt it was a tremendous endorsement of the collaborative efforts.

3. Information Only-Master Plan Goal #5 Targets - UCCSN staff presented information on System-wide progress toward reaching the targets set forth in Goal #5, P-16 Education, of the UCCSN Master Plan. (Ref. Jt. BOR-3 and Bound Report on file in the Board office)

Chancellor Nichols introduced Mr. Tyler Trevor, Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs-System Administration.

Chair Anthony entered the meeting.

Mr. Tyler Trevor, Assistant Vice Chancellor and Director of Institutional Research-System Administration, reported that the master plan was designed to guide UCCSN as it strives to meet the educational needs of Nevadans. It places an emphasis on continuous improvement and public accountability. Mr. Trevor reviewed the goal statement: Higher education will increase partnerships with the K-12 system to ensure the cooperative delivery of education from pre-kindergarten through college degrees. The underlying principle of this goal is that success in higher education is a joint endeavor that begins at the pre-kindergarten stage and continues to grade 16 and beyond, with seamless transitions and articulation throughout all levels of education. Each goal includes specific, associated targets to help create actions and measure improvement. He then reviewed the targets associated with Goal #5. Target #1: Through P-16 efforts, decrease the percent of recent Nevada high school graduates taking remedial/developmental courses. Every Fall, data is collected from each campus depicting the number of Nevada high school graduates who matriculate within UCCSN institutions, as well as the number enrolling in at least one remedial course. The percent of recent Nevada high school graduates enrolling in at least one UCCSN remedial course increased from 26.1% in Fall 1999 to 38.4% in Fall 2002. Remediation rates for the universities ranged from 24.5% in Fall 1999 to 35.1% in Fall 2002. Remediation rates for the community colleges and the state college ranged from 26.1% in Fall 1999 to 38.4% in Fall 2002. Mr. Trevor then displayed the program’s ability to categorize remediation rates by ethnicity, as well as the persistence rates of those same students. He noted that the persistence rates were equal to the general university population and far exceeded the general population at the community colleges. Data indicated that community college students receiving remediation in the first semester were more likely to return than the general population. Target #2: Increase P-16 programs that provide seamless transitions and result in student success in college. System Administration initiated an annual report collecting data from a number of initiatives. Over 70 initiatives were reported in 2002-03. More than 160 initiatives were reported in 2003-04. There are 13 statewide programs including dual credit, tech prep, and school to careers. The integration of high schools on community college campuses has played a definite role. CCSN has three such sites and TMCC has one. Enrollments have been fairly steady, increasing slightly from a headcount of 626 in 2000-01 to a headcount of 695 in 2003-04.

Regent Sisolak asked about the location of CCSN-East. Dr. Robert Palinchak, Vice President, Academic Affairs-CCSN, replied that CCSN has three campuses. He related that CCSN-West was the Charleston Campus, CCSN-South was the Henderson Campus, and CCSN-East was the Cheyenne Campus.

Dr. Gwaltney asked whether the data displaying a constant rise in the number of students taking remedial courses reflected assessment with similar testing devices. He asked whether the level of rigor was changing so that it could be predicted ahead of time. Chancellor Nichols replied that System Administration’s work with the American Diploma Project and a campus task force was analyzing that question. She said there were various methods for placing students in remedial courses. It is System Administration’s goal to determine a placement method that is equivalent across all institutions. She introduced Dr. Chris Chairsell, Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic & Student Affairs-System Administration. Dr. Chairsell expressed the need to better communicate how placements are conducted. Procedures have been scanned among the colleges and universities with the hope of identifying future recommendations and new practices for both boards.

Dr. Gwaltney observed that the data was significant and suggested a trend that should raise concern. He asked about a means for cross referencing weaknesses to a specific school. Chancellor Nichols replied that the percentage of students continuing to college is increasing. One of the boards’ joint projects is designed to review the courses those students take in high school to see if there is a predictor available in terms of course preparation. She said a strong correlation was anticipated. She related that sharing data was critical to understanding the increase.

Regent Bandera asked whether the graphs depicted on pages 5 and 6 of 14 employed the same methodology, data, or definitions as were used in the previous year’s report on accountability. Mr. Trevor replied that they did.

Regent Rosenberg asked whether Math 19 was considered a remedial course. Chancellor Nichols replied that only courses numbered below 100 were considered remedial. Regent Rosenberg asked whether consideration had been given to students returning to a remedial class because they were uncomfortable taking regular course work. He questioned the best method for determining where the problem lies. Mr. Trevor replied that individual institutional research probed the matter in greater detail than System Administration would.

Chancellor Nichols related that a critical element of remedial placement was that the System’s report was provided to every high school. She said the high schools could review their own course-taking patterns to determine whether any indicators were present and to notify students how to better prepare for avoiding remedial courses. A pilot program in concert with the P-16 Council will work with groups of students for early testing and notification when they are at risk.

Mrs. Malone felt that the increasing state population was a contributing factor to the increase in the number of people taking remedial courses. She asked whether students were charged more for the costs associated with remedial programs than the costs being absorbed by possible grants to the System to assist remedial students. She also asked whether funding had been identified to assist with paying for those remedial programs most frequently needed. She asked whether the two boards should consider the matter legislatively.

Chancellor Nichols replied that students were charged the regular fees for remedial courses, though the Board recently implemented a new policy. Beginning in Fall 2006, the universities will no longer request state funding for remedial courses. It is felt that it would be more efficient for students to attend the summer before entry and at the community colleges. The universities will self-fund those programs if they choose to continue to offer remedial courses. Before Fall 2006, it is hoped to have something in place to notify students early whether they will need those courses and what their choices are on where to take them.

Regent Whipple thanked State Board members for participating in the meeting. He asked about a means for comparing Nevada’s remediation with other states and whether it had been done. Mr. Trevor replied there were national remediation statistics available, which vary by definition within each system. National comparisons indicated that the rate of remediation for community colleges ranges from 40-60%. Reports from California universities indicate approximately 40%. The national average for remediation is approximately 30% for universities. Regent Whipple asked whether Nevada’s data compared favorably. Mr. Trevor replied that it did. Regent Whipple asked how long the average student remained in remedial courses. Mr. Trevor replied that it was usually a one-semester time period for most students, equivalent to one course. He related that math courses may have more courses than English. He said that factoring in English as a Second Language courses could result in multiple semesters.

Regent Sisolak said that the remediation problem was actually worse than depicted. Dr. Ray Alden, Provost-UNLV, replied that one of the issues was a particular math course required by many of the professional programs. Many students drop out because they are not getting the grades needed for admittance to the professional programs. He said that a recent study revealed that the average drop rate for all 100-level courses at UNLV was approximately 10-11%. Regent Sisolak asked about the drop rate for the referenced math course. Provost Alden replied that the drop rate for that course was over 20%. Regent Sisolak observed that many students also failed the course. Provost Alden said that college algebra was often a difficult course for students.

Mrs. Washington asked about statistics indicating whether students had been 1-year attendees prior to high school graduation. Mr. Trevor replied that the data collected did not provide that information.

Mr. Waters observed a high transient and migration rate among high school students who were not fully educated within Nevada’s public school system. He felt it was a structural issue. He related that the high school experience was structured to allow approximately one-third of the curriculum to be elective. He felt that allowing that much choice in the high school experience enabled students to choose whether or not to be prepared for college. He felt the public schools needed to communicate that those students intending to go to college would require certain courses to better prepare them. Chancellor Nichols related that UCCSN had distributed a brochure to K-12 last year providing that message. She agreed that everyone had a major responsibility to get that message out to parents and students.

Regent Whipple asked whether it would be helpful when encouraging high school students to point out that remedial education at the college level would cost them personally. Mr. Waters felt it would be very appropriate, adding that accepting personal responsibility was important.

Dr. Gwaltney suggested that the public school system’s SMART program was now accumulating data at the high school level. He was unsure about a link between the data gathering systems. He suggested the P-16 Council could explore whether data could be linked, improved, or better utilized. Mr. Trevor said that UCCSN had made attempts in Washoe County between TMCC, UNR, and the Washoe County School District to link college records to high school records. The significant problem is that a key variable used by UCCSN is the social security number, which is not often provided at the high school level. A common identifier across the entire K-12 system would be a significant step forward for this research.

Ms. Nolan observed a correlation between remedial and credit courses. She said there were three levels of remedial English at the community college. Students taking a new 5-credit remedial English 198 course receive credit for English 101.

Regent Rosenberg asked how many students had not planned on going college, but the Millennium Scholarship made it possible. By the time they realized they could attend, it was too late to elect some of the courses they really required. He felt the data could be skewed by that consideration as well. He suggested that earlier preparation for college could improve remediation rates.

President Lucey suggested focusing upon the positive when looking at growth and remediation. In attempting to increase the yield from graduating classes, WNCC has realized a dramatic rise in the number of students requiring remediation, as well as in students with special needs. She felt that indicated UCCSN was reaching people who never intended to go to college. President Waters agreed, adding that more refined data systems were being developed that would benefit both the public and higher education school systems.

Ms. Evelyn Flores, Student Body President-CCSN, felt that forcing high school students to take certain courses would be prudent. She acknowledged that personal responsibility was important, but observed that one-third of the high school curriculum was elective. She felt that she would have been better prepared for college had she been required to take specific courses. President Waters observed that State Board meetings were well attended when the State Board was considering adjustments to the number of high school graduation credits. He felt there was a real need to communicate the value to students for taking certain courses rather than mandating the curriculum.

Regent Dondero asked whether the proficiency test indicated how prepared students were and what subjects were required. President Waters replied that it was only one measure. He felt it was a valuable tool for high school seniors to indicate their level of preparedness for high school graduation and college, but felt it should not be used as the sole instrument for measuring preparedness. He noted that every public education high school student had to be tested, adding that some would not continue to college. He said that passing the test sometimes provided the necessary incentive.

Dr. Rheault said the high school proficiency exam was not designed to be used as a college entrance exam, but rather as an indicator of skills that every student should be able to master. He said the State Board was collaborating with UCCSN on a small project testing ninth- and tenth-graders. The State Board has also asked ACT and SAT to review Nevada’s high school proficiency exams to determine how closely they align with the standards tested.

President Lilley asked about the percent of remedial courses taken by non-traditional students. Mr. Tyler replied there was no System-wide remediation rate for non-traditional students. He said the data related to recent Nevada high school graduates.

Mrs. Malone noted that students wishing to take English 101 were required to be tested prior to taking the course. If they do not successfully pass the test, they are placed in a remedial course. She said the same held true for math courses. Mr. Tyler replied that those students would be considered remedial students/enrolled in remedial courses for data collection purposes. He said the data focused upon recent Nevada high school graduates.

Regent Kirkpatrick asked about a collaborative program between UNLV and a Las Vegas high school that was developed to reduce the dropout rate, to encourage students to think about college, to take courses that would enhance success in college, and to take courses that would help them avoid the need for remedial courses. President Harter replied that it was part of the GEAR UP program. She said that Mr. Bill Sullivan ran a federally funded program valued at approximately $32 million over a 5-7 year period. Seven largely minority junior high schools have been identified. The program begins working with 6th grade students in an attempt to familiarize them with their options and how to prepare for college. Regent Kirkpatrick requested more information for both boards. Chair Anthony said they would attempt to provide that information. President Waters observed there were two separate GEAR UP programs utilizing separate funding sources.

Regent Howard asked about the accuracy of the information retrieved thus far since there were problems linking the data with missing social security numbers. Mr. Trevor replied that a pilot study with the Washoe County School District had yielded a 95% accuracy rate in linking graduates from one high school to those students attending TMCC or UNR. He related that it had required an enormous amount of time and effort. Regent Howard did not understand the response, adding that she was trying to understand the problem. Mr. Trevor replied that many high school students do not report their social security number. System Administration attempted to link high school records with college records using students’ names and birthdates, which was less reliable. Regent Howard asked about the reliability of the information collected. Mr. Trevor replied that it was reliable. Regent Howard asked whether the process had been undertaken in southern Nevada. Mr. Trevor did not know. No response was given. Regent Howard asked who Mr. Trevor had been working with in northern Nevada. Mr. Trevor replied that it was a collaborative effort between UNR, TMCC, and the Washoe County School District to research the success of Washoe County high school students in their transition to college. Regent Howard asked why the same study was not being conducted in southern Nevada. Chancellor Nichols replied there were a number of initiatives moving forward to try to share data statewide. She related that this had been a small pilot project. She said they were anxious to develop a statewide system that would allow data to be shared. She related they had to be careful about sharing data for research purposes only, adding that the data needed to be aggregated. She said that Dr. Gwaltney promoted a budget initiative in the last legislative session, and suggested that a joint budget initiative for the next session was possible. She said that it had been a question of logistics, funding, and putting the data system in place. She said it was not an intentional slight, adding that UCCSN had always shared its data on remedial placement with each high school and with each school superintendent.

Dr. Chairsell felt this would be the next step for the P-16 Council. She said that she would recommend to the Council that such a program be created in the south, as well as in the Elko area. She said it was a wonderful effort in Washoe County. Regent Howard said that she applauded the effort but wanted to ensure that southern Nevada also followed suit.

Chair Anthony left the meeting.

Regent Howard asked how much math placement testing was being conducted. Dr. Chairsell replied that the universities and the state colleges use the ACT/SAT exams for placement. The northern community colleges use Accuplacer, which is aligned with SAT. CCSN uses COMPASS, which is aligned with ACT. The remedial task force will have a separate meeting for math representatives throughout the state in order to review best practices being implemented by the institutions. Regent Howard asked whether there was still significant testing in English and math. Dr. Chairsell replied there was. Regent Howard asked whether students could forego testing by taking prerequisite courses. Dr. Chairsell replied that students could appeal and discuss their case with the department chair. If a student shows some weakness in writing, they are provided an opportunity to write a portfolio. English faculty review the essays. Regent Howard said that she had taken a math course which helped her with higher level math courses. Dr. Chairsell related that K-12 representatives on the remedial task force brought many interesting concepts forward. Sometimes students only require a refresher course. The task force is reviewing the possibility of offering 3-week refresher courses during the summer.

Regent Hill recalled graduating from high school with less than a 3.0 GPA. He asked whether grade inflation had increased the percentage of students now graduating with at least a 3.0 GPA. He asked about the number of Millennium Scholars taking remedial courses. Mr. Trevor replied that the percent of Millennium Scholars requiring remediation was very similar to the overall percent of remediation required. Approximately 65% of all new students are Millennium Scholars. Regent Bandera asked Mr. Trevor to provide that information to board members by mail.

Regent Rosenberg observed that UCCSN institutions could not access one another’s databases to get transcripts. He questioned how anything could be linked. Mr. Trevor replied there were a few methods. Institutions are asked to report that data to System Administration, where it is compiled in a database. There is also a System-wide data warehouse where information related to course taking patterns across the System can be identified. Regent Rosenberg asked whether that included transcripts. Mr. Trevor replied it did not. Regent Rosenberg felt that student advising could be made so much easier by sharing transcript information.

4. Approved-Legislative Issues-Senate Bill 309 and Assembly Joint Resolution No. 5 – Dr. Keith Rheault discussed the provisions of Senate Bill 309 and Assembly Joint Resolution No. 5 that were passed during the 2003 Legislative Session. Specifically, Section 12 of SB 309 requires that the State Board of Education and the Board of Regents consider and make recommendations to the 73rd Legislature concerning how principles of participatory democracy can be better taught and practiced in schools, colleges, and universities of the state. AJR 5 has been of particular interest to the State Board of Education in securing additional funding for public education in Nevada. (Ref. Jt. BOR-4 on file in the Board office)

Dr. Rheault reported that the bills set forth requirements for both boards. SB 309, Section 12 requires that each school district conduct a review of the social studies curriculum in cooperation with the Board of Regents, the State Board of Education, the Nevada P-16 Council, and other entities this school year. He related that it did not define what “cooperation” means. The state superintendents meet every month. A representative of the bill sponsor will accompany Dr. Rheault to the next meeting to offer some assistance. He said they would ensure that UCCSN is involved when the school districts meet. Dr. Rheault reported that both boards were also required to submit a report to the legislature concerning how principles of participatory democracy can be better taught and practiced in the schools, colleges, and universities of the state. Dr. Rheault recommended that both boards work closely together to prepare one report.

Chair Anthony entered the meeting.

Dr. Rheault reported that AJR 5 had been of particular interest to the state board, adding that he did not know the Regents’ position. He related that the state board was drafting a letter on behalf of both boards in strong support of the measures to have the federal government pay their fair share for the land in Nevada. This resolution specifically addresses public education.

Mrs. Malone suggested that both boards might want to consider a joint committee hearing to address SB 309. She also suggested the boards may need to meet sooner than next December. Regarding AJR 5, Mrs. Malone suggested the boards jointly ask the congressional delegation in Nevada to move forward to help reclaim some of the money expended as a result of federal lands in Nevada that have been sold.

Regent Kirkpatrick suggested adopting a joint resolution. Ms. Nolan said the state board was planning to write a letter including everyone’s signature it. She suggested the Board of Regents could sign the letter as well and that it would be quicker than waiting for a joint resolution.

Regent Dondero said that she participated on the regional BLM board and was called to find out how she felt about this resolution. She said she wanted to know how the 5% given to Nevada was spent. She indicated her approval for using more of these funds for education.

Dr. Rheault explained that 5% of land sales is earmarked for education. The money is deposited to the general fund account and generates interest, which alleviates some of the state funding that is required. He noted that another aspect of the bill involved getting the federal government to pay taxes on the 70%.

Chair Anthony observed there was consensus on the joint letter and suggested that he and President Waters work on it together.

Regent Bandera requested that the Board follow-up on Member Malone’s suggestion regarding participatory democracy and social studies.

Regent Bandera moved approval of crafting some linkage so both boards can march together on this effort. Regent Howard seconded. Motion carried. Regent Seastrand was absent.

Member Ferry moved approval of the two boards working together on this issue. Member Nolan seconded. Motion carried. Members Hawk, Iverson, and Leavitt were absent.

Chancellor Nichols said that System Administration would ask the institutions to review the matter of participatory democracy. She observed that UCCSN taught such courses and offered internships with government and public policy involvement. A lot of that could be incorporated into a report on efforts to increase participatory democracy. She related that part of the crisis in Nevada is how very few people vote. She suggested higher education and public education put emphasis on the importance of registering and voting that could be a part of the report to the legislature.

Mrs. Malone noted that CCSN prominently displays voter registration applications in highly visible places on campus. She suggested more publicity in student newspapers and in sporting arenas.

Regent Sisolak left the meeting.

5. Information Only-Report on Nevada P-16 Council – Dr. Keith Rheault and Chancellor Jane Nichols updated both boards on the activities of the P-16 Council over the past year. (Ref. Jt. BOR-5 on file in the Board office)

Chancellor Nichols reported that the Nevada P-16 Council met four times since the last joint meeting of the two boards in December 2002 (the Council meets approximately quarterly). It has continued to track its goals and objectives, and has developed immediate priorities, including data sharing and the American Diploma Project. Nevada sent a team of representatives to the Education Trust meeting this year. A number of initiatives from that meeting will come back to the Council. Nevada also sent a team to the SHEEO P-16 Forum for World States. A number of projects resulted from that conference, including the Humboldt County School District projects that will incorporate other rural districts to look at high school graduates enrolled in remedial courses and to look at college preparation courses. The Council is also reviewing the quality of teachers and efforts for improvement, particularly in light of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Dr. Rheault reported the P-16 Council had issued an RFP for student information data mining and had also identified a revised advisory committee for student data. Their first effort will address the SB 1 requirement to derive a common student identifier statewide. State regulations require the collection of student social security numbers unless the parent does not want it used. A common identifier must be used that will remain with the student. Additional consideration must be given to translating that identifier from primary education to college application.

Chancellor Nichols reported on three additional projects. System Administration is releasing the second annual Step-by-Step Guide to College Preparation in Nevada, which will include more information on vocational and trade programs. A planning grant has been received from the Lumina Foundation to create an annual College Bowl Sunday in Nevada. One Sunday will be set aside across the state for all students and their families to work with financial aid staff in completing financial aid forms. Under SB 503, UCCSN has the opportunity to create the core curriculum required for Millennium Scholars. UCCSN is working with the school districts to identify a core curriculum that will be required for eligibility for the Millennium Scholarship.

Mrs. Malone questioned why the event had to occur on a Sunday. Dr. Chairsell replied that it was traditionally held the first Sunday after Super Bowl Sunday.

6. Information Only-Summary of Current Joint Projects – Dr. Keith Rheault and Vice Chancellor Richard Curry summarized a number of K-12/higher education joint projects currently underway in Nevada, including those related to the Nevada Collaborative Agreement. (Ref. Jt. BOR-6 on file in the Board office)

Dr. Chairsell reported that all projects had been discussed during the meeting.

President Waters expressed his excitement about developing the core curriculum for future Millennium Scholars. He complimented Dr. Chairsell’s efforts in helping him understand the importance of this to the postsecondary community. He suggested aligning the core curriculum with the established requirements for the advanced diploma. He encouraged both boards and their respective staff to consider more joint projects. He felt such joint efforts provided valuable information and time for joint planning and activities. He suggested utilizing more of each other’s personnel resources rather than hiring 3rd party vendors.

Dr. Chairsell said that the core curriculum prepares good citizens, adding that a rigorous high school curriculum needed to be emphasized. She reported that the school districts were beginning to realize that it was time to stop self selection in high school. Efforts are underway to require seniors to take math in their senior year, as well as offering a third year of science.

7. Approved-Potential Future Joint Projects - Chairs Waters and Anthony led both boards in a discussion of priorities for joint projects, either in coordination with the P-16 Council or within the Nevada Collaborative Agreement.

Mrs. Malone suggested the two boards collaborate in preparation for the 2005 legislative session. She felt that since the two boards shared many goals and plans that it would make sense for them to work jointly.

Regent Kirkpatrick agreed. He felt the two boards should also jointly explore public relations opportunities that would call attention to the importance of funding education.

Mrs. Malone asked whether Regent Howard would be interested in meeting with Mrs. Malone to discuss their districts and possible joint projects. Regent Howard agreed to do so.

Mrs. Washington suggested holding a summit meeting with the local school districts, the Board of Regents, and the State Board of Education to determine collaborative efforts that would benefit Nevada’s students.

President Waters stated that the State Board had previously discussed conducting an education summit. He said the State Board would be in contact with the Board of Regents as they prepared for the legislative session to address an organized effort.

Regent Schofield agreed with Mrs. Washington that a joint effort would be much more effective. He also agreed with Regent Kirkpatrick’s suggestion for enlisting more public relations to let the people know the importance of funding education.

8. Public Comment – Ms. Jocelina Santos, GPSA Student Body President-UNLV, reported that she had been working with high school students who were having trouble passing the high school proficiency exam. She related that most students were having difficulty with problem-solving and critical thinking skills. She felt there should be more emphasis in those areas.

9. New Business – None.

President Waters again thanked the Board of Regents for the opportunity to meet jointly.

The joint meeting adjourned at 2:54 p.m.

Suzanne Ernst
Chief Administrative Officer to the Board