Coordinating Board for Higher Education

9:00 a.m. Thursday

February 2, 2017

Truman Building Jefferson City, MO

COORDINATING BOARD FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Carolyn Mahoney, Chair, District 3

Doug Kennedy, Vice-Chair, District 8

Mike Thomson, Secretary, District 6

Samuel Murphey, Member, District 1

Dalton Wright, Member, District 4

Brian Fogle, Member, District 7

John Siscel, Member, At Large

VACANT, District 2

VACANT, District 5

TIME: 9:00 a.m. Thursday, February 2, 2017 PLACE: Truman Building Room 490/492 Jefferson City, MO

Schedule of Events February 1-2, 2017

Wednesday, February 1, 2017 2:00 – 5:00 p.m. CBHE Work Session Truman Building Room 493 Jefferson City, MO Thursday, February 2, 2017 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. CBHE Meeting

Truman Building Room 490/492 Jefferson City, MO Individuals needing special accommodations relating to a disability should contact Samantha Dickey at the Missouri Department of Higher Education, 205 Jefferson Street, P. O. Box 1469, Jefferson City, MO 65109, or Samantha.Dickey@dhe.mo.gov or at (573) 751-1876, at least three working days prior to the meeting.

COORDINATING BOARD FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Representatives by Statute

Public Four-Year Universities

Dr. Dwaun Warmack, President Harris-Stowe State University Dr. Kevin Rome, President Lincoln University Dr. Alan Marble, President Missouri Southern State University Mr. Clif Smart, President Missouri State University Dr. Cheryl Schrader, Chancellor Missouri University of Science and Technology Dr. Robert Vartabedian, President Missouri Western State University Dr. John Jasinski, President Northwest Missouri State University Dr. Carlos Vargas-Aburto, President Southeast Missouri State University Dr. Sue Thomas, Interim President Truman State University Dr. Charles Ambrose, President University of Central Missouri Mr. Mike Middleton, Interim President University of Missouri System Dr. Hank Foley, Interim Chancellor University of Missouri-Columbia Mr. Leo Morton, Chancellor University of Missouri-Kansas City Dr. Thomas George, Chancellor University of Missouri-St. Louis

Presidential Advisory Committee Members February 2, 2017 Page 2

Public Two-Year Colleges

Dr. Jennifer Methvin, President Crowder College Dr. Jon Bauer, President East Central College Dr. Raymond Cummiskey, President (PAC Chair) Jefferson College Mr. Mark James, Chancellor Metropolitan Community Colleges Dr. Steven Kurtz, President Mineral Area College Dr. Jeffrey Lashley, President Moberly Area Community College Dr. Lenny Klaver, President North Central Missouri College Dr. Hal Higdon, Chancellor Ozarks Technical Community College Dr. Barbara Kavalier, President St. Charles Community College Dr. Jeff Pittman, Chancellor St. Louis Community College Dr. Joanna Anderson, President State Fair Community College Dr. Wesley Payne, President Three Rivers College

Public Two-year Technical College

Dr. Shawn Strong, President State Technical College of Missouri

Presidential Advisory Committee Members February 2, 2017 Page 3

Independent Four-year Colleges and Universities

Dr. Michael Shonrock, President Lindenwood University Dr. Roger Drake, President Central Methodist University Dr. Greg Gunderson, President Park University Rose Windmiller, Associate Vice Chancellor (PAC Vice-Chair) Washington University Four-year alternate: Dr. Ron Slepitza, President Avila University

Independent Two-year Colleges

Col. Mike Lierman, President Wentworth Military Academy and Junior College Two-year alternate: Dr. Jann Weitzel, President Cottey College

Association Chairs COPHE – Mr. Clif Smart, President, Missouri State University MCCA – Dr. Jon Bauer, President, East Central College ICUM – Dr. Roger Drake, President, Central Methodist University

COORDINATING BOARD FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

February 2, 2017 | 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Harry S. Truman State Office Building, Room 490/492

301 W High Street, Jefferson City, MO 65101

Call-in options: (573) 526-6119 / (866) 630-9354

MEETING AGENDA

COMMITTEE ITEM TAB PRESENTER GENERAL BUSINESS Action

1. Review Consent Agenda a. Minutes of the December 14, 2016 Work Session b. Minutes of the December 15, 2016 Meeting c. Minutes of the December 20, 2016 Audit Committee

Meeting d. Distribution of Community College Funds A Leroy Wade

2. 2018 Meeting Dates B Carolyn Mahoney Information

1. New Committee Chairs Carolyn Mahoney REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER ZORA MULLIGAN Information

1. Blueprint for Higher Education Quarterly Update C Zora Mulligan PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RAY CUMMISKEY, CHAIR Action

1. Presidential Advisory Committee Nomination and Election of Vice-Chair

Information

1. 2017 Legislative Session D Leroy Wade 2. Budget Update E Kerry Branch / Leroy Wade

BUDGET AND FINANCIAL AID COMMITTEE MIKE THOMSON, CHAIR Information

1. Student Loan Update F Leanne Cardwell 2. Report on Performance Funding Graduates Measure G Jeremy Kintzel

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AND WORKFORCE NEEDS COMMITTEE DOUG KENNEDY, CHAIR Action

1. Higher Education System Review Update H Zora Mulligan 2. Academic Program Actions I Rusty Monhollon 3. Academic Program Actions: Five-Year Provisional Approval J Rusty Monhollon 4. Concurrent Enrollment and Guided Pathways Pilot Programs K Rusty Monhollon 5. Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education L Rusty Monhollon

Information

1. Mission Review Update M Rusty Monhollon 2. Proprietary School Certification Actions and Reviews N Leroy Wade 3. Appointments to the Proprietary School Advisory Committee O Leroy Wade

Meeting Agenda February 2, 2017 Page 2

AUDIT COMMITTEE CAROLYN MAHONEY, CHAIR Information

1. Audit Reports P Jeremy Knee STRATEGIC PLANNING AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE DALTON WRIGHT, CHAIR Action

1. Energy Efficiency Loan Applications Q Jeremy Knee GENERAL BUSINESS

Action 1. Adjourn Public Session of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education

Information

1. Good and Welfare of the Board 2. CBHE Members by Congressional District R 3. CBHE Statutory Functions S

COORDINATING BOARD FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

MINUTES OF WORK SESSION December 14, 2016

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education (board) held a work session at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 14, 2016, at the Truman State Office Building in Jefferson City, Missouri. Board members Brian Fogle, Dalton Wright, Mike Thomson, and John Siscel were present, with Carolyn Mahoney and Doug Kennedy participating by phone. Sam Murphey was not present.

HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM REVIEW Commissioner of Higher Education Zora Mulligan presented and summarized the Higher Education System Review Task Force Interim Report, including the proposed academic program review framework. She indicated that the interim report had been unanimously endorsed by the members of the task force. Dennis Jones and Aims McGuinness, consultants with the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS), provided additional information.

PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA MDHE staff reviewed the agenda for the following day’s board meeting.

AUDIT UPDATE General Counsel Jeremy Knee gave the board an update on the department’s response to recent reports from the State Auditor’s Office. He indicated that the department has made arrangements to have the Advantage Missouri loan portfolio reviewed and acted on, and established a process for desk audits for financial aid programs. He also provided an overview of the performance funding audit that will be released in late December.

GENERAL TRANSITION INFORMATION Commissioner Mulligan updated the board on her conversations with transition staff from Governor-elect Greitens’ office. She indicated that the department anticipated mid-year expenditure restrictions.

2017 LEGISLATIVE PREVIEW Deputy Commissioner Leroy Wade provided more detailed information about the budget, and indicated that funding for financial aid programs would likely be affected. He also reported that there is some conversation about amending or repealing the Higher Education Student Funding Act.

CBHE Work Session Minutes December 14, 2016 Page 2 ACADEMIC AFFAIRS Assistant Commissioner Rusty Monhollon presented an update on the Missouri Reverse Transfer initiative and two academic program actions: those that were withdrawn and the proposal from Southeast Missouri State University that staff recommend the board approve.

NOMINATION OF OFFICERS General Counsel Knee presented the Nominating Committee’s recommendations for board leadership for the upcoming year: Dr. Carolyn Mahoney, chair; Mr. Doug Kennedy, vice-chair; and Mr. Mike Thomson, secretary.

MEETING STRUCTURE AND PROPOSED 2018 MEETING DATES Commissioner Mulligan asked about the possibility of changing the meeting structure so the work session and public meeting would take place in a single day rather than two separate days, and about the feasibility of hosting one of the regularly scheduled meetings by phone. The board indicated a preference for maintaining current practices, but they did indicate interest in hosting the June meeting on a different higher education campus each year.

ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:52 p.m.

COORDINATING BOARD FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

MINUTES OF MEETING December 15, 2016

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education (board) held a public meeting at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, December 15, 2016, at the Truman State Office Building in Jefferson City, Missouri. Board members Brian Fogle, Dalton Wright, Mike Thomson, and John Siscel were present, with Carolyn Mahoney and Doug Kennedy participating by phone. Sam Murphey was not present.

GENERAL BUSINESS Items on the consent agenda included the minutes of the September 7, 2016, Coordinating Board for Higher Education (CBHE) work session; minutes of the September 8, 2016, CBHE public meeting; minutes of the December 1, 2016, CBHE nominating committee meeting; and the Distribution of Community College Funds. Dr. Siscel made a motion to approve the consent agenda in its entirety. Mr. Thomson seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER Higher Education System Review Update

Commissioner of Higher Education Zora Mulligan presented the interim report of the Higher Education System Review Task Force, including the proposed academic program review framework. Dr. Jon Bauer, chair of the Missouri Community College Association, expressed his appreciation for the system review process and the results from the task force and indicated that he believes the proposal gives the institutions flexibility to serve the needs of the state. Ryan DeBoef, attending on behalf of Mr. Clif Smart, chair of the Council on Public Higher Education, also expressed support for the report, saying that he considers the recommendations to be a good solution for the state as a whole.

Dr. Siscel made a motion to take the Task Force’s recommendations under advisement, direct MDHE staff to develop recommendations for additional action, and continue to work with the Task Force to address the remaining issues. Mr. Thomson seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

Preparing Missourians to Succeed: A Blueprint for Higher Education Quarterly Update

Commissioner of Higher Education Zora Mulligan informed the board that legislation will be introduced to carry out the work of the Higher Education System Review Task Force.

PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Presidential Advisory Committee Nominations and Election of Officers

Commissioner of Higher Education Zora Mulligan indicated the Presidential Advisory Committee had chosen Dr. Raymond Cummiskey, President of Jefferson College, to be the chair of the committee.

CBHE Work Session Minutes December 14, 2016 Page 2 2017 Legislative Preview

Deputy Commissioner Leroy Wade reviewed the information presented in the board book. The information was noted with no further discussion.

BUDGET AND FINANCIAL AID COMMITTEE Certification of Institutional Eligibility to Participate in State Student Financial Assistance Programs

Dr. Siscel made a motion to approve Bolivar Technical College to participate in the state student financial assistance programs administered by the Coordinating Board for Higher Education until recertification of institutional eligibility occurs in September of 2019. Mr. Thomson seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AND WORKFORCE NEED COMMITTEE Academic Program Actions

Dr. Siscel made a motion to approve the program actions listed the board item. Mr. Thomson seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

Missouri Reverse Transfer Degree Update

Assistant Commissioner Rusty Monhollon informed the board that 600 degrees have been awarded as a result of the Reverse Transfer Initiative and that he believes the initiative has resulted in the state operating more cooperatively on issues of transfer and graduation. Mr. Wright asked if MDHE staff know where these graduates live so the department can promote the program through local radio stations and newspapers. Assistant Commissioner Monhollon said he does not, but he believed that to be a good idea.

Dr. Jon Bauer, president of East Central College, also commented on the benefits of the program. Dr. Alan Marble, president of Missouri Southern State University, suggested that reverse transfer be expanded to include transfer from one four-year institution to another.

Fall 2016 Enrollment: A Preliminary Report

MDHE Director of Data and Research Services Jeremy Kintzel reviewed the information presented in the board book. The information was noted with no further discussion.

Proprietary School Certification Actions and Reviews

Deputy Commissioner Leroy Wade reviewed the information presented in the board book. The information was noted with no further discussion.

CBHE Work Session Minutes December 14, 2016 Page 2 State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (SARA) Update

Deputy Commissioner Leroy Wade reviewed the information presented in the board book. The information was noted with no further discussion.

STRATEGIC PLANNING AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Residency Rule

Dr. Siscel made a motion to direct the department to execute the proposed amendments to the residency rule, as reflected in the board item. Mr. Thomson seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

GENERAL BUSINESS Nominating Committee

Mr. Wright recommended the following slate of officers for the Coordinating Board for Higher Education:

• Dr. Carolyn Mahoney, Chair • Mr. Doug Kennedy, Vice-Chair • Mr. Mike Thomson, Secretary

Mr. Fogle called for other nominations. None were put forward. Dr. Siscel made a motion to approve the nominating committee’s recommendations. Mr. Wright seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. The officers will serve from January 1 to December 31, 2017.

ADJOURNMENT Mr. Wright made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:41 a.m. Mr. Thomson seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

AUDIT COMMITTEE of the COORDINATING BOARD FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

MINUTES OF MEETING December 20, 2016

The Audit Committee of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education met by phone on December 20, 2016, at 3:00 p.m. Board members Carolyn Mahoney, Doug Kennedy, and Sam Murphey were present. Ted Williams from RubinBrown, LLC, explained the internal audit report of the MDHE Student Loan Program. In the formal opinion of the auditor, MDHE’s financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information. The auditor, moreover, reported no deficiencies in MDHE’s internal controls. With no questions of Mr. Williams, the meeting concluded at 3:25 p.m.

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM Distribution of Community College Funds Coordinating Board for Higher Education February 2, 2017 DESCRIPTION State aid payments to community colleges will be made on a monthly basis. All FY 2017 state aid appropriations are subject to a three percent statutory reserve. The Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed (TAFP) core state aid appropriations reflect an equity adjustment to the distribution formula as proposed and agreed to by the community college presidents and chancellors. State aid consists of two additional components for FY 2017. One component includes an appropriation of $5,894,838 that was awarded based on improvement on specified performance measures, commonly known as performance funding. The second component is an appropriation of $10,044,016 for the purpose of equity adjustments, which consists of a cumulative appropriation of $5,540,000 in FY 2016 and $4,504,016 in FY 2017. The total TAFP state aid appropriation for community colleges in House Bill 3 for FY 2017, including performance funding, is $157,769,796. The amount available to be distributed (TAFP appropriation less the three percent statutory reserve) is $153,036,701. The total payment of state aid distributions to community colleges for December 2016 is summarized below. State Aid (excluding M&R) – GR portion $10,261,326 State Aid – Lottery portion 847,940 Performance Funding 476,500 Equity Distribution 811,891 Maintenance and Repair _____60,952 TOTAL $12,458,609

The total distribution of state higher education funds to community colleges during the period July 2016 through December 2016 is $74,793,668.

STATUTORY REFERENCE Section 163.191, RSMo – State aid to community colleges RECOMMENDED ACTION Assigned to Consent Calendar. ATTACHMENT(S) None

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM Proposed 2018 Meeting Dates Coordinating Board for Higher Education February 2, 2017 DESCRIPTION The Coordinating Board for Higher Education is statutorily required to meet at least four times annually. Historically, meetings occur in February, April, June, August, September, and December, with the August meeting often serving as a retreat. The proposed meeting dates for 2018 are as follows:

• February 7-8 • April 4-5 • June 6-7 • August 1-2 (Board Retreat) • September 5-6 • December 12-13

STATUTORY REFERENCE Section 173.005.3 – Department of Higher Education created, Coordinating Board duties RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education approve the proposed 2018 meeting dates. ATTACHMENT(S) 2018 Calendar

s m t w t f s s m t w t f s s m t w t f s s m t w t f s1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30

s m t w t f s s m t w t f s s m t w t f s s m t w t f s1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 31

s m t w t f s s m t w t f s s m t w t f s s m t w t f s1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 30 31

september

january february

october november

2018

december

march april

may june july august

Building Missouri's future... by degrees

Missouri Department of Higher Education 205 W Jefferson, P.O. Box 1469, Jefferson City, MO 65102 phone 573-751-2361 fax 573-751-6635 email info@dhe.mo.gov

0

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM Blueprint for Higher Education Quarterly Update Coordinating Board for Higher Education February 2, 2017 DESCRIPTION This agenda item provides the Blueprint for Higher Education Quarterly Update. Background The Coordinating Board for Higher Education is required by statute to develop a coordinated plan for higher education in Missouri. In January 2016, the Coordinating Board approved the new coordinated plan, Preparing Missourians to Succeed: A Blueprint for Higher Education. The plan includes five goals and numerous strategies to support each goal.

• Goal 1: Attainment – Missouri will increase the proportion of working-age adults with high-quality, affordable postsecondary credentials to 60 percent by 2025.

• Goal 2: Affordability – Missouri will rank among the 10 most affordable states in which to obtain a postsecondary degree or certificate by 2025.

• Goal 3: Quality – Missouri will produce graduates with high-quality postsecondary degree and certificates that are valuable and relevant to individuals, employers, communities and the state.

• Goal 4: Research and Innovation – Missouri will be a top 10 state for investment in academic research by 2025.

• Goal 5: Investment, Advocacy and Partnerships – Missouri will promote greater investment in a culture of postsecondary education through increased advocacy and powerful partnerships with education, business, government and communities.

Quarterly Update To monitor the implementation of the plan, the Coordinating Board directed MDHE staff to provide a quarterly update on progress toward achieving the plan’s goals. Attached to this agenda item is the fourth Blueprint for Higher Education Quarterly Update. The update reflects MDHE’s work within the plan’s goal and strategy framework that is currently underway or anticipated in the near future. MDHE will provide a more comprehensive summary of the programs and initiatives as well as progress being made toward accomplishing the plan’s overarching goals in its Annual Report. STATUTORY REFERENCE Section 173.020(4), RSMo – Responsibilities of the Coordinating Board RECOMMENDED ACTION This is an information item only.

Blueprint for Higher Education Quarterly Update February 2, 2017 Page 2 ATTACHMENT Blueprint for Higher Education Quarterly Update

Quarterly Report – February 2017

Goal 1: Attainment

Missouri will increase the proportion of working-age adults with high-quality, affordable postsecondary credentials to 60 percent by 2025.

Strategy Action Target Dates Responsibility 1.1 Eliminate remedial

education in favor of co-requisite models and similar proven models.

• Corequisite at Scale Initiative – Missouri selected for national project. A Missouri State Co-requisite Academy will be held Oct. 13-14, 2016, in St. Louis. - More than 130

participants from 21 Missouri colleges and universities participated in the Corequisite Academy Oct. 13-14 in St. Louis.

Project completion – Fall 2017

Academic Affairs

1.1 Expand agreements to support the seamless transfer of academic credits.

• Senate Bill 997 and House Bill 2003 – develop student portal to provide one-stop access to higher education information including transfer of credit.

Phase I of portal development – July 1, 2017 (A $500,000 state appropriation to fund development of portal was restricted by the governor to balance the Fiscal Year 2017 budget. MDHE will continue to work on this initiative but will be constrained by the funding restriction.)

Agency-wide

Preparing Missourians to Succeed

A Blueprint for Higher Education

Blueprint for Higher Education Quarterly Update – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 2

- In the absence of funding for the development of a student portal, MDHE has begun work on a new student-focused website that will provide information about degree completion, including information about the transfer of credit

• Senate Bill 997 – Missouri

Higher Education Core Curriculum Transfer Act.

- A Core Curriculum

Advisory Committee has been assembled and met in December 2016 and January 2017 to begin work on developing a recommended lower division core curriculum of 42 semester credit hours and common course numbering equivalency matrix to aid in the transfer of credit.

Website to be launched in August 2017 By January 1, 2018, for implementation in 2018-2019

Academic Affairs

1.1 Expand alternative modes of delivery, including early-college, online, credit for prior learning and competency-based education programs.

• Dual Credit Policy (revised) – establishment of Early College Advisory Board (ECAB)

• Senate Bill 997 – Dual credit certification, establishes a process for the CBHE to certify dual credit providers

ECAB meetings throughout 2016 to assist in establishing reporting instruments, methods and processes; ongoing implementation

Academic Affairs Academic Affairs

Blueprint for Higher Education Quarterly Update – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 3

- A dual credit policy workgroup was established in October 2016 to create processes and reporting instruments for annual and quality reporting, updates on status, and appeals of approval status. The workgroup has met twice since October and is in the process of creating a timeline and milestones.

1.1 Organize an

information campaign to encourage students to seek full-time enrollment (defined here as 15 credit hours a semester).

• Senate Bill 997 – develop policies to promote students’ on-time completion by taking 15 credit hours a semester. A 15 to Finish Forum will be held Oct. 12, 2016, in Springfield.

- More than 150

administrators and staff from 25 colleges and universities attended the 15 to Finish Forum and Statewide kickoff Oct. 12, 2016, in Springfield.

- Missouri was selected by

Complete College America to participate in its national 15 to Finish scale initiative.

Development 2016-2017, ongoing initiative MDHE will have promotional materials for the 15 to Finish initiative completed in February 2017.

Communications and Student Access and Success

1.1 Develop clear and lower-cost pathways to degrees and certificates

• Senate Bill 997 – Guided Pathways to Success Act - Pilot project underway

will provide students with information that specifies clear curricular paths to a degree,

Blueprint for Higher Education Quarterly Update – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 4

reducing the accumulation of unnecessary credits, the time it takes to earn a degree and the overall cost of obtaining a degree. Five colleges and universities have submitted proposals to participate in the pilot project

• Senate Bill 997 – Concurrent

Enrollment - Pilot project underway

will allow students to be admitted to a two-year and a four-year institution concurrently as long as they meet the admission requirements of both institutions. This will provide students with a broader range of academic student support services while streamlining the path to degree completion. Seven colleges and universities have submitted proposals to participate in the pilot project.

1.3 Increase efforts to assist students in completing college admissions and financial aid applications.

• Journey to College Day July 26 provided training to high schools and college outreach organizations planning to host Journey to College outreach events – Apply Missouri, FAFSA Frenzy and Decision Day – for 2016-2017. Information provided to high school administrators during the Department of Elementary

2016 baseline year – promote programs and provide training, increase participation; Approximately 65 schools have registered to participate in all three outreach programs; approximately 75 additional schools and college access

Student Access and Success and Communications

Blueprint for Higher Education Quarterly Update – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 5

and Secondary Education (DESE) annual conference for school administrators in July 2016.

• 96 Missouri high schools participated in Apply Missouri during September and October.

• FAFSA Completion Project Information provided to high school administrators during DESE’s annual conference for school administrators in July 2016. Website revamped to improve functionality and make it more user friendly. 154 Missouri high schools have registered to participate in the FAFSA Completion Project.

• Approximately 130 high

schools, colleges and other organizations hosted FAFSA Frenzy events to assist students and their parents with completing the FAFSA.

organizations have registered to participate in at least one of the programs. Ongoing October 2016 through January 2017

Financial Assistance

1.4 Seek participation in flexible educational programs by adult students, including veterans; individuals seeking new job skills; and those with some college but no degree.

• Multi-State Collaborative on Military Credit – survey of Missouri institutions about military credit policies, practices and outreach.

Ongoing initiative Academic Affairs

Blueprint for Higher Education Quarterly Update – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 6

Goal 2: Affordability

Missouri will rank among the 10 most affordable states in which to obtain a postsecondary degree or certificate by 2025.

Strategy Action Target Dates Responsibility 2.2 Form a robust state-

level work-study program designed to provide real-world experience and promote skill development, including essential skills” that are highly sought after in the workplace and in life.

• Capitalize on legislative interest, including research into similar efforts in other states

Dependent upon legislative action/interest

Legislative Affairs

2.5 Implement a web-based student portal that will serve as a one-stop shop for information about higher education, including applications, FAFSA rules, state student aid eligibility, transfer polices, reverse transfer, transfer-course library, and other information to help students plan for higher education and complete a degree in less time and at less cost.

• Senate Bill 997 and House 2003 – develop student portal to provide one-stop access to higher education information including transfer.

- In the absence of funding for the development of a student portal, MDHE has begun work on a new student-focused website that will provide information about planning and paying for college and completing a degree or certificate.

Phase I of portal develop – July 1, 2017 (A $500,000 state appropriation to fund the development of portal was restricted by the governor to balance the Fiscal Year 2017 budget. MDHE will continue to work on this initiative but will be constrained by the funding restriction.) Website to be launched in August 2017

Agency-wide

Blueprint for Higher Education Quarterly Update – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 7

2.6 Support initiatives to fund public higher education sufficiently to move “per full-time-equivalent student” funding to the national average.

• FY17 state appropriations – Four percent increase through performance funding. (Performance funding was included in budget restrictions in January 2017)

• Piloting 6th performance funding measure on student outcomes (employment/education)

• FY17 state appropriations

- A+ Scholarship Program

– $2.5 million increase.

- Bright Flight Scholarship Program – $500,000 increase. The scholarship will be fully funded at $3,000 for the 2016-17 academic year for qualifying students.

- Access Missouri Grant Program – $4 million increase. Maximum grant amounts will increase for the 2016-17 academic year by more than 21 percent to $1,030 for community college students and $2,250 for four-year public, State Tech and independent schools.

FY 2017 FY 2018/FY2019 2016-2017

Legislative Affairs Legislative Affairs Financial Assistance

Blueprint for Higher Education Quarterly Update – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 8

Goal 3: Quality

Missouri will produce graduates with high-quality postsecondary degree and certificates that are valuable and relevant to individuals, employers, communities and the state.

Strategy Action Target Dates Responsibility 3.3 Review Missouri’s

postsecondary education system – including governance and regulatory structures, efficiency, missions, adequacy of funding, and selectivity policy, to assess how effectively the system is meeting the needs of stakeholders and make recommendations as appropriate.

• The 14-member Task Force – comprised of representatives from each public higher education sector – met July 14 to begin work on the review. MDHE has contracted with the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHMS) to assist with the review. (A $150,000 state appropriation to fund the review was restricted by the governor to balance the Fiscal Year 2017 budget. MDHE obtained alternate funding for the review.)

• The Higher Education System Review Task Force met in September, October and November to continue work on the review. The task force has developed recommendations for the academic program approval process. Individual institutions have received draft summaries of their mission and a comprehensive mission review will be provided to the board at a future meeting. More information at dhe.mo.gov/initiatives/systemreview.php

• Interim report was approved by the CBHE in December 2017. The task force continues to work on ongoing issues, including mission review

Interim report – December 2016 Final report – July 2017

Academic Affairs

Blueprint for Higher Education Quarterly Update – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 9

3.6 Participate in a comprehensive review of Missouri’s current system of career and technical education to affirm strengths and identify areas to improve efficiency and effectiveness.

• Participating in DESE Ad Hoc Career and Technical Education (CTE) Funding Committee

• Participating in DESE Postsecondary CTE Workgroup

Ongoing Ongoing

Academic Affairs Academic Affairs

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

AGENDA ITEM

2017 Legislative Session

Coordinating Board for Higher Education

February 2, 2017

DESCRIPTION The First Regular Session of the 99

th General Assembly is underway, and some higher

education-related issues have already emerged. A report detailing higher education-related

legislation being tracked by the department, filed as of January 20, 2017, is provided as an

attachment. Updated information will be provided in the verbal report that accompanies this item

at the February 2, 2017, CBHE meeting. The following is a summary of some of the major areas

of legislative interest.

Firearms on Campus

As has been the case for the past several sessions, it is expected that multiple bills will be

introduced in both chambers that would impact the current statutory ban on carrying a concealed

firearm on a college campus. HB 593 (Rep. McDaniel) and HB 630 (Rep. Taylor) would

remove many of the current statutory restrictions related to where concealed firearms may be

carried, including in elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education.

Student Financial Aid

Several bills have been filed that would revise existing aid programs or establish new ones.

HB 599 (Rep. Hansen) would modify the A+ Scholarship program by removing the requirement

that an eligible student attend a designated A+ high school in the three years immediately prior to

graduation. This would permit students involved in yearlong activities, such as study abroad and

internships, to maintain their eligibility for the program.

SB 106 (Sen. Romine) would establish a tax credit program to provide an incentive for

businesses to support a dual credit/dual enrollment scholarship within their local school district.

In addition, it would add several student eligibility requirements to the Access Missouri program.

Those requirements include the development of a personal plan of study beginning in the 9th

grade and 50 hours of tutoring and mentoring. The bill would also make students meeting these

eligibility requirements eligible to receive awards from the program for the cost of dual

credit/dual enrollment coursework.

SB 188 (Sen. Munzlinger) and HB 411 (Rep. Lichtenegger) establishes a new category of

institutional eligibility for the state student assistance programs for “approved virtual

institutions.”

Other Higher Education Legislation

HB 190 (Rep. Conway) and HB 208 (Rep. Wiemann) would allow community college police

officers to establish and enforce regulations to control traffic on campus thoroughfares. HB 367

(Rep. Newman), and SB 63 (Sen. Nasheed) deal with reducing the incidence of sexual assault on

2017 Legislative Session

February 2, 2017

Page 2

college campuses. SB 52 (Sen. Nasheed) would create several provisions intended to raise

suicide awareness and increase efforts for prevention. HB 266 (Rep. Brattin) would eliminate

tenure for new employees at public institutions of higher education and specifies information that

public colleges and universities must make available to the public.

Other Education-related Legislation

There is considerable interest in providing increased awareness of STEM careers and incentives

to pursue a degree in a STEM area. HB 63 (Rep. Berry) would authorize a tax credit for student

loan payments for debt incurred from majoring in a STEM field. HB 248 (Rep. T. Fitzwater)

would require the establishment of a statewide, online program for middle school students to

promote careers in STEM fields.

There continues to be interest in strengthening the state’s career and technical education

programs. HB 188 and HB 253 (Rep. Swan) and SB 44 (Romine) would create the Career and

Technical Education Certification (CTEC) Program. The bills would require the State Board of

Education to establish a procedure by which a student may receive credit toward graduation for

completing a CTEC offering. They also modify the composition of the existing Career and

Technical Education Advisory Council. SB 63 (Sen. Hegeman) provides that each school

district may rely on industry-recognized certificates and credentials when establishing career and

technical offerings.

STATUTORY REFERENCE

Chapter 173, RSMo – Department of Higher Education

RECOMMENDED ACTION

This is an information item only.

ATTACHMENT(S)

MDHE Legislative Update – January 20, 2017

MDHE Legislative Update | 1/25/17 | 1 of 6

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

January 20, 2017

Summary of Financial Aid Legislation HB 63 Berry STEM Degrees: Authorizes a tax credit for student loan payments resulting from STEM

degrees. Committee:

HB 121 Frederick Health Professional Student Loan Repayment Program: Adds psychiatrists to the list of

individuals eligible for the Health Professional Student Loan Repayment Program. Committee:

HB 168 Peters Missouri Promise Act: Creates the Missouri Promise Scholarship for students seeking an

associate’s degree, certificate, or diploma from an eligible postsecondary institution. Committee:

HB 411 Lichtenegger State Student Assistance Programs: Allows students enrolled in approved virtual

institutions to participate in state student assistance programs. Committee:

HB 599 Hansen A+ Program: Modifies the A+ Schools Program by removing the requirement that the

student's attendance of public high school occur in the three years immediately prior to graduation.

Committee:

SB 106 Romine Dual Enrollment: Creates the Access Missouri Dual Enrollment Program and the Missouri

Dual Enrollment Scholarship Act. Bill History Committee: Senate Education

MDHE Legislative Update | 1/25/17 | 2 of 6

SB 188 Munzlinger State Student Assistance Programs: Allows students enrolled in approved virtual institutions to participate in state student assistance programs.

Bill History Committee: Senate Education

Summary of Legislation Impacting Institutional Responsibility HB 190 Conway Community College Vehicular Traffic: Allows community college police officers to establish

regulations to control vehicular traffic on any thoroughfare owned or maintained by the college.

Committee: House Higher Education

HB 208 Wiemann Community College Vehicular Traffic: Allows community college police officers to establish

regulations to control vehicular traffic on any thoroughfare owned or maintained by the college.

Committee: House Higher Education

HB 367 Newman Enough is Enough Act: Requires higher education institutions to adopt sexual assault

policies which contain certain enumerated requirements. Committee:

HB 453 Morgan Missouri Tuition Equity Act: Changes the way Missouri residency is established for

purposes of tuition, fees, and admission to any Missouri higher education institution. Committee:

HB 472 Smith College Credit Disclosure Act: Requires a higher education institution to disclose to

students before enrollment that it is not regionally accredited. Committee:

MDHE Legislative Update | 1/25/17 | 3 of 6

HB 564 Davis Password Privacy Protection Act: Prohibits an employer or educational institution from

requiring or requesting certain persons to disclose their user name and password for a personal social media account.

Committee:

HB 569 Frederick Show-Me Compassionate Medical Education Act: Designates August 28, 2016, and

thereafter the date designated by the show-me compassionate medical research project committee, as “Show-Me Compassionate Medical Education Day” in Missouri. In addition, no medical school in the state shall prohibit, discourage, or otherwise restrict a medical student organization or medical organization from conducting a study on the prevalence of depression, suicide, or other mental health issues among medical students. Medical schools may also collaborate with the show-me compassionate medical education research project committee to conduct a single center or multicenter study or studies in order to facilitate the collection of data and implement practices and protocols to minimize stress and reduce the risk of depression and suicide for medical students.

Committee:

HB 616 Curtis Urban Education Institute: Establishes the Urban Education Institute at Harris-Stowe State

University to address the urban education crisis. Committee:

SB 52 Nasheed Suicide Awareness and Prevention: Creates several provisions relating to suicide

awareness and prevention. Bill History Committee: Senate Education

SB 53 Nasheed Affirmative Consent: Requires higher education institutions to inform students and

employees about affirmative consent to sexual activity. Bill History Committee: Senate Education

MDHE Legislative Update | 1/25/17 | 4 of 6

Summary of Legislation Impacting Higher Education Employees HB 266 Brattin Tenure: Eliminates tenure for new employees at public institutions of higher education and

specifies information that public institutions of higher education must make available to the public.

Committee:

SB 62 Hegeman Retirement of Higher Education Employees: Changes the employer contribution for the

College and University Retirement Plan and requires employees to contribute to the plan. Bill History Committee: Senate Health and Pensions

Summary of Legislation Impacting Higher Education HB 316 Pike Psychologist Licensure: Modifies provisions relating to education and experience

requirements for the licensure of psychologists Committee:

HB 593 McDaniel Concealed carry: Modifies provisions relating to the concealed carrying of firearms,

including removing the prohibition of concealed carry on higher education campuses. Committee:

HB 620 Kendrick Student Loan Bill of Rights: Establishes the “Student Loan Bill of Rights”, which creates the

Office of the Student Loan Ombudsman in the MDHE and sets up requirements for becoming and acting as a student loan servicer.

Committee:

HB 621 Kendrick MOHELA: Grants authority to the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority to issue loans

to refinance certain public or private student loans, education grants, and certain bonds, notes, or other obligations.

Committee:

MDHE Legislative Update | 1/25/17 | 5 of 6

HB 630 Taylor Concealed carry: Modifies provisions relating to the concealed carrying of firearms,

including removing the prohibition of concealed carry on higher education campuses. Committee:

HR 11 Peters Lloyd Gaines Collection: Urges the UM board of curators to present the original Lloyd

Gaines collection to the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture for the purposes of national preservation.

Committee:

SCR 6 Walsh Meningococcal Vaccines: Urges the Department of Higher Education and Department of

Health and Senior Services to encourage the dissemination of information about meningococcal disease and its vaccines.

Committee: Senate Rules, Joint Rules, Resolutions and Ethics

Summary of Legislation Indirectly Impacting Higher Education HB 94 Lauer ACT Test: Allows students to take the ACT WorkKeys assessments instead of the ACT

Plus Writing assessment. Committee: House Workforce Development

HB 188 Swan Career and Technical Education: Creates the Career and Technical Education Certification

Program. Committee:

HB 210 Wiemann Driver’s License Renewal: Allows for an extension of time to renew driver’s licenses for

persons employed or engaged in business outside of the United States and for college students attending school outside the state of Missouri.

Committee:

MDHE Legislative Update | 1/25/17 | 6 of 6

HB 248 T. Fitzwater STEM Career Awareness: Requires the Department of Economic Development to establish

a statewide, online program for middle schools designed to promote careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Committee: House Elementary and Secondary Education

HB 253 Swan Career and Technical Education: Creates the Career and Technical Education Certification

Program. Committee:

HB 418 Peters Kappa Alpha Psi Day: Designates January 5th of each year as “Kappa Alpha Psi Day” in

Missouri. Committee:

HCR 6 Justus Gold Star Families Memorial Monument: Recognizes the Gold Star Families Memorial

Monument at the College of the Ozarks campus as the official Gold Star Families Memorial Monument of Missouri.

Committee:

SB 32 Emery Educational Scholarships: Establishes the Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts

Program. Bill History Committee: Senate Government Reform

SB 44 Romine Career and Technical Education: Enacts certain provisions relating to career and technical

education. Bill History Committee: Senate Education

SB 63 Hegeman Career and Technical Education: Provides that each school district may rely on technical

coursework and skills assessments developed for industry-recognized certificates and credentials when establishing career and technical offerings.

Bill History Committee: Senate Education

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM Budget Update Coordinating Board for Higher Education February 2, 2017 DESCRIPTION This item provides an update on the FY 2017 mid-year budget withholdings, including the potential impact on state student aid programs, and the timeline for the FY 2018 budget. Expenditure Restrictions On January 16, 2017, Governor Greitens announced $146.4 million of spending restrictions needed to balance the FY 2017 budget. $78.8 million of those withholdings came from higher education line items, including $68 million from public colleges’ and universities’ core operating budgets. In addition to the restrictions on institutions’ core operating budgets, other restrictions were placed on:

• UMKC/Missouri Southern Cooperative Pharmacy Doctorate Program ($808,3311) • Missouri S&T/Clay County Engineering Program ($230,949) • Missouri S&T - Project Lead the Way ($80,831) • Southeast Missouri State University - Cyber Security Training Program ($101,044) • Harris Stowe - Graduate and STEM Education Programs ($101,044) • MU - Medical School Expansion ($4,000,000) • UMKC/Missouri Southern Cooperative Dental ($1,212,500) • Truman State University Autism Clinic Design ($404,169) • Missouri S&T/MSU Engineering Expansion ($808,338) • UMKC Neighborhood Initiative ($215,556) • UMSL International Collaboration ($181,875) • University of Missouri Telehealth Network ($121,250)

A+ Scholarship Program. The expenditure restrictions also include a $3 million reduction in the A+ Scholarship program transfer. Based on current projections, MDHE staff predict that all eligible students will continue to receive full award amounts for the remainder of this academic year. However, if the restriction becomes a core reduction for FY 2018, it will exacerbate the ongoing funding challenges this program faces and could create a situation where some program limitation will be necessary. The $3 million reduction will not impact awards for this year because over the past 18 months, the MDHE, in consultation with community colleges, implemented two measures that both strengthen the academic rigor of the program and provide some cost savings. The cost savings realized from these measures, coupled with a $2.5 million increased appropriation for the program, would have resulted in a fund balance for the current fiscal year. This situation gives the department confidence the spending restriction will not impact the program’s operation for the remainder of this year.

Budget Update February 2, 2017 Page 2

The situation is substantially different for FY 2018. First, although the measures referenced above did provide some cost savings, the trend of program growth among public high school graduates continues. Second, FY 2018 will be the first year for graduates of A+ designated nonpublic high schools to participate in the scholarship. At present, department staff do not know how many additional high schools will be designated by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) or how many graduates of those schools will chose to attend an A+ eligible postsecondary institution to use the program benefits. The deadline established by DESE for applications for school designation is February 1, with action on those applications expected at the March State Board of Education meeting. Given both of these factors, if the $3 million restriction become a core reduction for FY 2018, additional funds will be necessary to address this growth or the department will need to implement the established process for addressing funding shortfalls in this program. Bright Flight Supplemental Request In FY 2011, legislation became effective increasing the maximum annual award for Bright Flight eligible recipients to $3,000 and expanding the program to include, at a lower award level, students in the top fourth and fifth percentile of test takers. Although funding has remained insufficient to fund the fourth and fifth percentile students, the top three percent have received the maximum $3,000 award for the past two fiscal years. Last fall, as MDHE staff reviewed the size of the eligible applicant pool of incoming students, it became clear that the appropriated funds would be insufficient to sustain the $3,000 award level. This situation is the result of a larger than expected incoming class of eligible students, partially driven by the fact that nearly all public high school juniors now take the ACT test. While approximately 70 percent of the prior graduating classes took the test in the past, now virtually 100 percent have taken the test at least once. In response, the Coordinating Board approved a request for an FY 2017 supplemental appropriation of $1.5 million during its September meeting. In November, MDHE staff notified institutions that spring awards for Bright Flight would initially be reduced to a level that existing funding can support. Based on current projections, MDHE staff have established the initial spring award for the program at $1,100, which would translate to an annual award of $2,600 if the supplemental appropriation is not approved. If the full supplemental appropriation is approved, the MDHE will authorize a second spring payment of $400, which would maintain the $3,000 annual maximum for the top three percent. Institutions were provided with a sample letter to use in communicating this two-phase approach in awards to students. FY 2018 Budget Timeline The timeline for passage of the FY 2018 budget will be different this year. In years past, the governor has made budget recommendations concurrent with the State of the State address. Instead, Governor Greitens will take the full 30 days allowed by the constitution to craft his budget and will likely release his recommendations around February 1. This schedule will shorten the timeframe that the House has to craft their budgets. As a result, House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick (R-Shell Knob) has directed the

Budget Update February 2, 2017 Page 3

appropriations subcommittees to complete all public hearings by the end of January. Public testimony about the higher education budget was heard on January 23 in the House and January 25 in the Senate. If the schedule permits, joint hearings with the appropriations subcommittees and budget committee in the House will be held with the departments after February 1. Appropriation markups will be due at the end of February and the chair’s substitute will be distributed around March 13. The House Committee Substitute will be voted out of committee the last week of March and passed out of the House chamber the first week of April. The budget must be truly agreed to and finally passed by May 5, leaving the Senate only four weeks to make changes and for the two chambers to reach consensus. Rep. Lyle Rowland (R-Cedarcreek) will chair the Education Appropriation Subcommittee, which will consider House Bills 2 & 3 (the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Department of Higher Education). Rep. Allen Andrews (R-Grant City) will be vice-chair. STATUTORY REFERENCE Section 33.280.1, RSMo – Budget submitted by legislature within thirty days Section 160.545, RSMo – A+ schools Section 173.250, RSMo – Higher Education Academic Scholarship Program (Bright Flight) Section 173.1540.1, RSMo – Institutions to submit annual budget request to department RECOMMENDED ACTION This is an information item only. ATTACHMENT(S) Attachment A: Expenditure Restrictions January 16, 2017 Attachment B: General Revenue Fund Planned Balance Sheet

FY 2017 Restrictions - January 1/16/17

1

# Dept HB ITEM

JANUARY RESTRICTED

AMOUNT1 OA 1.010 Fourth State Building Bonds - Lapse (109,000)2 OA 1.020 State Water Pollution Control Bonds - Lapse (149,000)3 OA 1.030 Stormwater Control Bonds - Lapse (48,000)4 DESE 2.015 Transportation (8,618,129)5 DESE 2.025 Training Grants (50,000)6 DESE 2.031 Scholars & Fine Arts Academies (181,875)7 DESE 2.050 Dyslexia Training - New Program (44,510)8 DESE 2.070 Performance-based Assessments (ACT for High School Juniors not

impacted)(2,000,000)

9 DESE 2.095 Teacher Development (100,000)10 DESE 2.150 Adult Education and Literacy Grants (310,000)11 DHE 3.065 A+ Schools Program - Fund Balance ( No reduction in the amount or

number of scholarships awarded)(3,000,000)

12 DHE 3.125 Univ of MO - Kansas City/MO State Univ Doctorate Pharmacy Program

(808,331)

13 DHE 3.126 Missouri S&T/Clay County Engineering Program (230,949)14 DHE 3.127 Missouri S&T - Project Lead the Way (80,831)15 DHE 3.128 Southeast Missouri State University - Cyber Security Training

Program(101,044)

16 DHE 3.131 Harris Stowe (HSSU) - Graduate and STEM Education Programs (101,044)17 DHE 3.135 Cooperative Medical School - UM Columbia (4,000,000)18 DHE 3.140 Univ of MO - Kansas City/MO Southern State Univ Cooperative

Dental(1,212,500)

19 DHE 3.145 Truman State University Clinic Design - New Program (404,169)20 DHE 3.147 Univ of MO Science & Technology/MO State Univ Engineering

Expansion(808,338)

21 DHE Various Community Colleges - Core Funding (11,858,773)22 DHE Various Four-Year Institutions - Core Funding (55,919,028)23 DHE 3.256 UMKC Neighborhood Initiative (215,556)24 DHE 3.260 Univ of MO - St. Louis International Collaboration (181,875)25 DHE 3.265 University of Missouri Telehealth Network (121,250)26 DOR 4.100 County Stock Insurance Tax Lapse (545,310)27 DOR 4.010 Taxation Division (350,000)28 DOR Various Postage (161,154)29 MoDOT 4.450 Transit Funds (121,250)30 MoDOT 4.480 Amtrak State Match (500,000)31 MoDOT 4.505 Port Capital Improvements (1,783,000)32 MoDOT 18.010 Port Capital Improvements (172,000)33 OA 5.185 State Historical Society Debt - Lapse (285,000)34 OA 5.190 Fulton State Hospital Bond Debt - Lapse (7,000,000)35 OA 5.230 CMIA - Federal Payments - Lapse (200,000)36 MDA 6.020 Biodiesel Production Incentives (3,850,640)37 MDA 6.030 Delta Regional Authority Organizational Dues (71,919)38 MDA 6.095 Animal Care Facilities Act Program (433,723)39 DED 7.025 MO Military Advocate Expense & Equipment (175,000)40 DED 7.040 Missouri Technology Investment Fund (4,452,300)

FY 2017 Restrictions - January 1/16/17

2

# Dept HB ITEM

JANUARY RESTRICTED

AMOUNT41 DED 7.130 Missouri Works Job Development Fund (1,000,000)42 Various Various Athletes & Entertainers Tax Distribution (1,050,000)43 DED 7.055 Missouri Main Street Program (57,300)44 DED 7.132 Advanced Training Facility (150,000)45 DED 7.155 Tourism (Reduction in Advertising) (3,000,000)46 DPS 8.010 Education Pilot Program (500,000)47 DPS 8.170 Fire Safety - Training (196,352)48 DPS 8.195 Veterans (Reduction in funds available for Capital Improvements) (363,750)49 DPS 8.250 Missouri National Guard Drug Forfeiture Fund Switch (120,000)50 DOC 9.010 St. Louis Reentry Program (250,000)51 DOC 9.010 Ex-Offender Rehab Resources - Kansas City (40,000)52 DOC 9.240 Local Sentencing Initiatives (972,406)53 DMH 10.205 Comprehensive Psychiatric Services Provider Tax Lapse (2,000,000)54 DMH 10.210 Missouri Eating Disorder Council EE (97,724)55 DMH 10.210 Kansas City Crisis Intervention Services - New Program (385,000)56 DMH 10.210 1115 Waiver Lapse ( New Program not yet approved by the Federal

Government)(2,000,000)

57 DMH 10.230 Mental Health Trauma Treatment (Conference and Training) (500,000)58 DMH 10.410 Autism Outreach in Northeast Missouri - New Program (50,000)59 DMH 10.410 DD Family Support Partnership (145,500)60 DMH 10.410 Targeted Case Management (TCM) Lapse (2,000,000)61 DMH 10.415 Tuberous Sclerosis Research at Washington University ($1 million

previously restricted) (125,000)

62 DHSS 10.710 Brain Injury Waiver (New program not yet approved by the Federal Government)

(70,870)

63 DHSS 10.710 Epilepsy Education (36,500)64 DHSS 10.715 Tobacco Cessation (24,250)65 DHSS 10.725 Elks Mobile Dental Clinic (Dental care is now provided through MO

Healthnet)(50,000)

66 DHSS 10.745 State Public Health Laboratory (50,000)67 DHSS 10.810 Non-Medicaid Eligible Program (85,000)68 DHSS 10.805 Naturalization Assistance (100,000)69 DHSS 10.820 Area Agencies on Aging (200,000)70 DHSS 10.825 Alzheimer's Grants to Non-Profit Agencies (266,750)71 DHSS 10.830 Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities (NORC) (145,500)72 DSS 11.055 County Detention Payments Lapse (100,000)73 DSS 11.080 Electronic Benefit Transfers (EBT) Lapse (130,000)74 DSS 11.165 Utilicare GR Transfer (Federal Funds Available) (97,000)75 DSS 11.220 Social Services Hotline (24,250)76 DSS 11.305 Purchase of Child Care - Fund Balance ( No reduction in the Purchase

of Childcare)(3,000,000)

77 DSS 11.320 Juvenile Court Diversion Lapse (180,000)78 DSS 11.435 MO Rx Program Lapse (212,035)79 DSS 11.455 Physician Cost Settlements (4,465,097)80 DSS 11.550 Women's Health Services Lapse (4,000,000)

FY 2017 Restrictions - January 1/16/17

3

# Dept HB ITEM

JANUARY RESTRICTED

AMOUNT81 DSS 11.455

11.485Delay Telehealth expansion (146,168)

82 DSS 11.45511.510

CSTAR - New Program (187,183)

83 DSS 11.455 Obesity Intervention (130,513)84 SOS 12.100 State Aid for Public Libraries Increase (500,000)85 SOS 12.070 Election Costs & Local Election Authority Grants (1,071,000)86 CI 18.060 Department of Public Safety - Veterans' Home Development Study -

Lapse(500,000)

87 CI 18.100 Office of Administration- Clarksville mobile flood wall project (100,000)88 CI 18.160 Truman State University - Greenwood Autism Clinic (1,500,000)89 Reapprop 17.145 Univ of MO Kansas City (UMKC) - Free Enterprise Center (3,300,000)

(146,430,646)Lapse - Funds expected to not be expended based on current projections.

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM Student Loan Program Update Coordinating Board for Higher Education February 2, 2017 DESCRIPTION The purpose of this agenda item is to summarize recent activities of the MDHE guaranty agency. Servicemembers Civil Relief Act The U.S. Department of Education recently issued guidance encouraging Federal Family Education Loan Program participants to retroactively adjust the loan balances of service members who were on active duty on or after August 14, 2008. Since July 1, 2016, FFELP loan holders have been required by federal regulation to apply an interest rate limitation authorized by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, with or without a request. In order to identify eligible borrowers, loan holders conduct data matches with the Defense Manpower Data Center, which is maintained by the U.S. Department of Defense. The new guidance from USDE asks loan holders to consider retroactively applying the benefits to all borrowers who entered active duty status on or after August 14, 2008. The length of time under consideration will make such an effort a complicated and expensive undertaking, but guaranty agencies are currently discussing possible ways to make a good faith effort to ease the burden of affected borrowers to the greatest degree possible. Default Prevention Grant Reviews Beginning the first week of February, MDHE staff will perform annual reviews of Missouri institutions receiving MDHE Default Prevention Grants. During the reviews, default prevention staff members will look at data relating to each school’s use of 2016-2017 grant funds. The MDHE Default Prevention Grant Program awards competitive grants to Missouri institutions in order to implement and sustain debt management programs, financial literacy workshops, student success and retention efforts, and default prevention activities. STATUTORY REFERENCE 50 U.S.C. §§ 3937 – Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 34 CFR 682.208(j) – Due diligence in servicing a loan RECOMMENDED ACTION This is an information item only. ATTACHMENT(S) None

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM Report on Performance Funding Graduates Measure Coordinating Board for Higher Education February 2, 2017 DESCRIPTION MDHE staff have worked extensively with representatives of the public four-year institutions, community colleges, Missouri State University–West Plains, and State Technical College of Missouri to develop and implement strategies for reporting of graduate outcomes data for performance funding as directed in state statute. This agenda item provides an update on the collection and reporting of these data. Background Missouri is one of a growing number of states that has adopted a higher education funding model driven by institutional progress toward identified state and institutional goals. Initially adopted by the Coordinating Board in 2012, the model was first used to allocate new funds for institutional operations in FY 2014 and the general framework was codified in statute during the 2014 legislative session. The 2014 statute codified the measures in use at the time, in which each institution reported four metrics which were categorized as measures of student success, quality of student learning, increased degree attainment and institutional efficiency, and one additional measure unique to its institutional mission. In addition, however, the legislation directed institutions, in cooperation with the Coordinating Board, to develop a measure of “student job placement in a field or position associated with the students’ degree level and pursuit of a graduate degree.” This new measure of graduate outcomes, commonly known as “the sixth measure,” has been the subject of extensive discussions as MDHE staff and the institutions have worked together to develop approaches to fairly and efficiently collect data on as many graduates as is practicable. In fall 2016, these sector-specific approaches were finalized to the extent that it was possible to collect a pilot year of graduate outcomes data. While no FY 2018 dollars will be distributed based on this data, it will assist in making decisions about success criteria and peer benchmarks in future years. Data Collection As reported previously to the Coordinating Board, the four-year institutions administered the “First-Destination Survey” developed and published by the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). The survey collects data on several outcome statuses, including employment, voluntary and military service, and continuing education. Four-year institutions administered the survey to spring 2016 graduates and will continue in subsequent semesters. The national protocol for the NACE survey allowed student follow-up through December 31 for spring graduates (which will also ensure comparability with national data), so data were unavailable in December when data for the first five measures were reported to the board.

Report on Performance Funding Graduates Measure February 2, 2017 Page 2 The community colleges proposed an approach to graduate outcomes that would use their existing federal Perkins/180-day follow-up survey, the National Student Clearinghouse, and state wage records, with the assistance of MDHE staff, to account for effectively all certificate and associate degree completers for the 2014-2015 academic year. Missouri State University–West Plains will follow the same framework, but will not have Perkins/180-day follow-up survey for 2014-2015 graduates, having joined the program more recently. State Technical College currently has a measure based on federal Perkins/180-day follow-up survey data which effectively includes all graduates. State Technical College plans to employ the same measure as its outcomes measure when the other sectors have implemented it and to replace it with a measure of assessment of general education for associate degree graduates. Conclusion MDHE staff is unable to include results of the first year of graduate outcomes data in this agenda item due to timelines for collection but expect to be able to provide a brief summary at the February 2 meeting. Moving forward, some further discussion will be required regarding success criteria, sustained excellence benchmarks, and acceptable response/knowledge rates for surveys, as well as the timing of ongoing data collection in relation to the state’s budget process. These decisions are not crucial prior to the collection of pilot data. However, a year of data should help inform some of these discussions in the coming year. As is the case with the other measures, additional documentation and definitions will also be useful, as highlighted in the recently released state audit. These lingering issues can also be discussed by a performance funding task force to be convened later this year. STATUTORY REFERENCES Section 163.191, RSMo – State aid to community colleges Section 173.1006, RSMo – Establishment of performance measures Section 173.1540, RSMo – State aid to four-year institutions Section 178.638, RSMo – Oversight of college by coordinating board and state board of

education RECOMMENDED ACTION This is an information item only. ATTACHMENT(S) None

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

AGENDA ITEM Higher Education System Review Coordinating Board for Higher Education February 2, 2017 DESCRIPTION The Coordinating Board for Higher Education established the Higher Education System Review Task Force at the request of Todd Richardson, Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives, and Stephen Cookson, Chairman of the House of Representatives’ Higher Education Committee, on June 9, 2016. As suggested by the legislators, the group included representatives of public two- and four-year institutions. An auxiliary group of stakeholders was also invited to task force meetings. The task force unanimously agreed to and issued an Interim Report on December 14, 2016. The report was subsequently endorsed in a letter issued by the presidents and chancellors of all public colleges and universities (Attachment A). The report included recommendations on updating the academic program approval process to allow institutions to meet workforce needs and pathways to expanded degree offerings at public institutions. The report also listed several items for additional discussion, including continued work on the new academic program approval framework and discussion about meeting students’ needs and increasing postsecondary attainment rates, strengthening collaboration, identifying workforce needs, evaluating the mission review process, and addressing regional institutional roles. Pathways to expanded degree offerings and strengthening collaboration. Several institutions’ statutory degree-granting authority must be revised in order to align with the task force’s recommendations. Conversations with representatives of the institutions involved in the task force indicated strong consensus that the language in any bill addressing these changes mirror the language in the task force report exactly. This consensus was based on the complexity of the agreement and the careful negotiations that led to its unanimous endorsement by the public institutions. Continued work on the new academic program approval framework. Assistant Commissioner for Academic Affairs Rusty Monhollon and the Council of Chief Academic Officers began this conversation at their January 18, 2017, meeting. Their work going forward will reflect any statutory changes enacted by the legislature. Meeting students’ needs, identifying workforce needs, increasing postsecondary attainment rates, and addressing regional institutional roles. Preliminary conversations with umbrella organizations in St. Louis and Kansas City have been scheduled. Department staff will collect information about those efforts and use that data to inform next steps. Evaluating the mission review process. MDHE staff have distributed draft summaries of each public institution’s mission to the respective institution and received feedback about the draft.

Higher Education System Review February 2, 2017 Page 2 The task force will discuss the process as it progresses and again once the process is complete, and will make recommendations based on those conversations. Conclusion The process described above continues to be a major undertaking for the Coordinating Board, MDHE staff, and the higher education community in Missouri. The actions and conversations resulting from the task force’s work have the potential to support the continued development of the dynamic and responsive higher education system needed to ensure Missouri is a national leader in providing high quality postsecondary education that will equip Missourians with the personal and professional skills to succeed in the twenty-first century. STATUTORY REFERENCE Section 173.005, RSMo – Department of Higher Education created, Coordinating Board duties Section 173.020, RSMo – Responsibilities of the Coordinating Board Section 173.030, RSMo – Additional responsibilities

RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the Coordinating Board identify as a legislative priority legislation to implement the task force’s recommendations with regard to expanded degree offerings and direct MDHE staff to continue to work with the task force and members of the auxiliary groups to address the remaining issues.

ATTACHMENT(S) Attachment A: Letter of support from public higher education institutions Attachment B: Interim Task Force Report

The Council on Public Higher Education

Joint Committee on Education 201 W. Capitol Ave. Room 235C Jefferson City, MO 65101 Dear Senators and Representatives: We are pleased to present this letter communicating our unanimous endorsement of the Interim Report of the Higher Education System Review Task Force, which was established at the suggestion of Speaker Richardson and Senator Richard, by the Coordinating Board on June 9, 2016.

We look forward to working closely with you as the recommendations are implemented, including any necessary legislative changes.

Thank you for your continued support of Missouri public higher education.

Sincerely,

Shawn Strong, President State Technical College of Missouri

Clifton Smart, President Missouri State University

Thomas F. George, Chancellor University of Missouri-St. Louis

John Jasinski, President Northwest Missouri State University

Kevin Rome, President Lincoln University

Susan L. Thomas, Interim President Truman State University

Carlos Vargas, President Southeast Missouri State University

Dwaun Warmack. President Harris-Stowe State University

Chuck M. Ambrose, President University of Central Missouri

Robert A. Vartabedian, President Missouri Western State University

Alan D. Marble, President Missouri Southern State University

Michael A. Middleton, Interim President University of Missouri System

Henry C. “Hank” Foley, Interim Chancellor University of Missouri-Columbia

Leo. E. Morton, Chancellor University of Missouri – Kansas City

Cheryl B. Schrader, Chancellor Missouri University of Science & Technology

Jennifer Methvin, President Crowder College

Jon Bauer, President East Central College

Ray Cummiskey, President Jefferson College

Steve Kurtz, President Mineral Area College

Jeff Lashley, President Moberly Area Community College

Mark James, Chancellor Metropolitan Community College

Lenny Klaver, President North Central Missouri College

Hal Higdon, Chancellor Ozarks Technical Community College

Joanna Anderson, President State Fair Community College

Barbara Kavalier, President St. Charles Community College

Jeff Pittman, Chancellor St. Louis Community College

Wes Payne, President Three Rivers College

Higher Education System Review Task Force

Interim Report

Overview

The Higher Education System Review Task Force was established at the request of Todd Richardson,

Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives, and Stephen Cookson, Chairman of the House of

Representatives’ Higher Education Committee. The Coordinating Board appointed the System Review

Task Force at its June 9, 2016, meeting.

In their charge to the task force, the board asked the group to:

1. Conduct a systematic and thorough review of the overall structure of Missouri’s system of higher

education, which will include but not be limited to institutional missions, admissions selectivity,

academic program review and approval, and geographic service regions.

2. Conduct a review of the demand for and supply of postsecondary education including

occupational, geographic, and student perspectives.

3. Assess the relevance and functionality of the Coordinating Board’s current mission approval

structure and recommend changes to or replacement of that model.

4. Recommend revisions to the Coordinating Board policies both as they relate to future mission

reviews and for program approval.

5. Recommend statutory changes as needed to enable the implementation of the revised system of

institutional missions and program approval processes.

In the first stage of its work, the task force focused on the supply of and demand for postsecondary

programs and developed a framework that will allow institutions to offer programs outside their state-

defined missions if needed to fill a gap between supply and demand. Implementation of this framework

requires a thorough revision of the Coordinating Board’s academic program review process. The

following task force recommendations focus on these revisions. Following these recommendations, the

report summarizes information provided by National Center for Higher Education Management Systems

(NCHEMS), the consultants engaged to inform the task force’s work, relevant to that discussion. The

report concludes with recommendations relevant to the same discussion and next steps needed to address

the other items the board charged the task force with addressing.

The task force endorsed this interim report at its December 13, 2016, meeting.

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS

Updating the Academic Program Approval Process to Allow Institutions to Meet Workforce Needs

The Coordinating Board must strike a balance between encouraging institutions to maintain fidelity to

their core missions and granting institutions the flexibility they need to meet workforce demands. Task

force discussions focused on the role the academic program approval process should play in striking that

balance. There was broad consensus among task force members that the current academic program

approval process should be updated to streamline the process for review of academic programs that are

within an institution’s state-defined mission and to give institutions a mechanism by which to propose

programs that are outside their state-defined mission.

Based on that consensus, the task force and a subcommittee of chief academic officers developed a

proposed new framework for academic program approval. The framework, which is included in the

Higher Education System Review Task Force Interim Report Page 2

appendix of this report and incorporated as if fully set forth herein, includes three levels of review for

action related to academic program changes and requests for approval submitted by public institutions:

Staff review, which would apply to minor program changes.

Routine review, which would apply to proposed programs that are within an institution’s state-

defined mission and service region, do not unnecessarily duplicate an existing program in the

geographically applicable area or other relevant distinction, will be offered at the institution’s

main campus, will build on existing programs and faculty expertise, and can be launched with

minimal expense and within an institution’s current operating budget. Proposals that fit within

these parameters would be approved on an expedited basis.

Comprehensive review, which would apply to proposals that constitute more significant changes

described in detail in the attached framework. Proposals that meet any one of the criteria in the

framework would be subject to a comprehensive review through which they would be required to

demonstrate that the offeror made a good-faith effort to explore the feasibility of offering the

program in collaboration with an institution the mission of which includes offering the program,

is contributing substantially to the goals in the Coordinating Board’s Blueprint for Higher

Education, and has the existing capacity to ensure the program is delivered in a high-quality

manner. The institution would also have to demonstrate that the proposed program is needed and

that it has a clear plan to meet the articulated workforce need.

Pathways to Expanded Degree Offerings at Public Institutions

1. Research and first-professional degrees. The University of Missouri System (UM) and its four

campuses (University of Missouri-Columbia, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Missouri

University of Science and Technology, and University of Missouri-St. Louis) must strengthen its

status as the state’s public research university and exclusive granter of research doctorates. No

other public college or university may offer a PhD or a first-professional degree, including

chiropractic, dentistry, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, pharmacy, podiatry,

theology, and veterinary medicine. In order to meet an identified regional or local workforce

need, collaborative programs in these fields with other Missouri institutions will continue to be an

option.

2. Exceptions to mission.

a. General principles.

i. Collaboration is strongly preferred as the means by which an institution should

meet a local or regional workforce need for a program outside the institution’s

state-defined mission.

ii. The Coordinating Board should approve an institution’s request to offer a

program outside its state-defined mission only after a comprehensive review.

iii. Approval of the program will be granted as an exception to the institution’s state-

defined mission and not as a change in mission. It will not represent a general

authorization to grant degrees outside the institution’s state-defined mission.

b. Specific applications.

i. Practice doctorates. Missouri should continue the policy of focusing

professional doctoral program capacity at a limited number of universities. The

Higher Education System Review Task Force Interim Report Page 3

Coordinating Board should emphasize collaboration as the means to ensure

access to these programs in all regions.

Harris-Stowe State University, Lincoln University, Missouri Southern State

University, Missouri State University, Missouri Western State University,

Northwest Missouri State University, Southeast Missouri State University,

Truman State University, and the University of Central Missouri should be

authorized to offer practice doctorates independently only when doing so would

not unnecessarily duplicate an existing program, collaboration is not feasible or a

viable means of meeting the needs of students and employers, and the institution

has the academic and financial capacity to offer the program in a high-quality

manner. In the case of non-research doctoral degrees in allied health professions,

an institution may be authorized to offer such degree independently if offering it

in collaboration with another institution would not increase the quality of the

program or allow it to be delivered more efficiently.

ii. Engineering. Missouri should continue the policy of focusing capacity in

undergraduate engineering programs (CIP Code 14) at a limited number of

institutions and should emphasize collaboration as the means to ensure access to

these programs in all regions.

Harris-Stowe State University, Lincoln University, Missouri Southern State

University, Missouri State University, Missouri Western State University,

Northwest Missouri State University, Southeast Missouri State University,

Truman State University, and the University of Central Missouri may offer an

engineering program only in collaboration with UM, provided that such

collaborative agreements are approved by the governing board of each institution

and that in these instances a UM campus will be the degree-granting institution.

Should UM decline to collaborate in the offering of such programs, one of these

institutions may seek approval of the program through the Coordinating Board’s

comprehensive review process when doing so would not unnecessarily duplicate

an existing program, collaboration is not feasible or a viable means of meeting

the needs of students and employers, and the institution has the academic and

financial capacity to offer the program in a high-quality manner.

iii. Bachelor’s degrees. Missouri should continue the policy of limiting the degree-

granting authority of public two-year institutions to the associate degree and

certificate levels. The Coordinating Board should emphasize collaboration as the

means to ensure access to these programs in all regions.

Public two-year institutions should be authorized to offer bachelor’s degrees only

if the level of education required in a field for accreditation or licensure increases

to that level or, in the case of applied bachelor’s degrees, the level of education

required for employment in a field increases to that level, and when doing so

would not unnecessarily duplicate an existing program, collaboration with a

university is not feasible or the approach is not a viable means of meeting the

needs of students and employers, and the institution has the academic and

financial capacity to offer the program in a high-quality manner. Quality for such

bachelor’s degrees shall be evaluated at least in part by the delivery of upper-

level coursework or competencies, and defined by accreditation or compliance

with the Higher Learning Commission standards for bachelor’s degrees.

Higher Education System Review Task Force Interim Report Page 4

3. Operational recommendations for proposals to be considered under the comprehensive

review process.

a. Proposal cycle. Proposals will be submitted to the Coordinating Board by July 1 of each

year. The Coordinating Board will determine which proposals to move forward with and

announce their decision in September. Final decisions will ordinarily be made by

February.

b. Phased implementation.

i. Year 1. The Coordinating Board will consider no more than three proposals, in

total, to offer a degree outside an institution’s state-defined mission during the

first year the new framework is operational. No more than two proposals may

come from either public universities or public two-year institutions. In the case

of a changed licensure requirement that might warrant the authorization of more

than one public two-year institution to offer a bachelor’s degree, that proposal

may be considered one proposal for purposes of this section only. Each

individual institution’s proposal will be evaluated on its own merits.

ii. Year 2. The Coordinating Board will consider no more than five proposals, in

total, to offer a degree outside an institution’s state-defined mission during the

second year the new framework is operational. No more than three proposals

may come from either public universities or public two-year institutions. In the

case of a changed licensure requirement that might warrant the authorization of

more than one public two-year institution to offer a bachelor’s degree, that

proposal may be considered one proposal for purposes of this section only. Each

individual institution’s proposal will be evaluated on its own merits.

iii. The Coordinating Board will reconvene a task force to evaluate the new

framework after two proposal cycles and recommend changes.

SUMMARY OF NCHEMS’ OBSERVATIONS

Establishing a Baseline: Mission Review

The Coordinating Board charged the task force with reviewing the overall structure of Missouri’s system

of higher education, including each public institution’s state-defined mission. Department staff engaged

NCHEMS to develop an inventory of state-defined missions that will answer the following questions:

Who does the institution serve? What kind of students, in terms of geographic area, level of

academic preparation, and at what level of study? What kind of employers and economic

development interests does the institution meet the needs of? What communities does the

institution serve?

What services does the institution offer? What levels of instruction are offered and what research

is conducted?

Does the institution have any special features or designations, such as status as a land-grant

institution, a historically black college or university (HBCU), a liberal arts institution, or an

institution with a special mission such as public affairs, applied learning, or international?1

1 NCHEMS Role and Mission for Missouri Colleges and Universities, slides 3-4.

Higher Education System Review Task Force Interim Report Page 5

NCHEMS has examined each institution’s mission as indicated by state law, CBHE policy, and

institutional documents, and has also developed statements of “behavioral” mission as reflected by

audiences actually served, programs and services offered, and special competencies or unique

capabilities. NCHEMS also compared each institution’s “on paper” and “behavioral” missions. Based on

that information, they developed a draft inventory of state-defined missions that includes some

recommendations about changes in individual institutions’ state-defined missions. Those

recommendations were distributed to institutions on November 22, 2016, with a request for feedback by

January 6, 2017. Department staff will consider the feedback and develop an inventory of state-defined

missions and present that inventory at the next task force meeting on February 1, 2017. The inventory

may be revised based on the task force’s discussion and will be presented to the Coordinating Board at

their April 6, 2017, meeting.

When the state-defined missions are approved by the Coordinating Board, they will be a device for

articulating each institution’s contribution to system capacity and ensuring differentiated contributions to

the state’s higher education goals.2 In addition, an inventory of state-defined missions will allow the

Coordinating Board to identify gaps in terms of populations and geographic areas served and program

offerings needed.

Identifying the Gaps: Supply and Demand

The Coordinating Board also asked the task force to review the demand for and supply of postsecondary

education, including occupational, geographic, and student perspectives. The student perspective will be

explored in future work, but the task force did receive information about the occupational and geographic

perspective.

Occupational Perspective

NCHEMS’ research strongly suggests that Missouri’s higher education system must evolve in order to

compete on a national and global level. Forty-two percent of young adults in Missouri have an associate

degree or higher, which is slightly lower than the national average of 45.7 percent and significantly lower

than the national averages of Korea, Canada, Luxembourg, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Norway,

Australia, Israel, Switzerland, and Sweden. Older Missourians have even lower rates of educational

attainment. Only 41.7 percent of Missouri adults 35-44 years old have associate degrees or higher. That

percent drops to 34.8 for adults 45-54 and 34.4 for adults 55-64.3

When these rates of educational attainment are compared to the percent of jobs that will require a

postsecondary education in the future, it is clear that there is a gap. In 2020, 66 percent of jobs in

Missouri will require a postsecondary education.4 Many of these jobs, however, will require a

postsecondary credential that is often not taken into account when calculating states’ educational

attainment levels: a certificate or credential that takes less than two years to complete. Jobs for which

certificates are required are projected to grow more than any other jobs requiring postsecondary

credentials by 2020. NCHEMS’ data indicate that there will be 255,000 new jobs that require a certificate

between 2010 and 2020, compared to 84,000 jobs that require associate degrees; 219,000 that require

baccalaureate degrees; and 117,000 that require graduate or professional degrees.5

As indicated in the recommendations section, it is possible to draw different conclusions about workforce

supply and demand from different data sources. NCHEMS observed that data about current and projected

demand are insufficient to make the case to support the addition of programs. They recommend a

2 NCHEMS Role and Mission for Missouri Colleges and Universities, slide 2.

3 NCHEMS Missouri Environmental Scan, slide 6.

4 NCHEMS Missouri Environmental Scan, slide 14.

5 NCHEMS Missouri Environmental Scan, slide 20.

Higher Education System Review Task Force Interim Report Page 6

different approach to determining demand, such as initiating a program on a collaborative basis to test its

sustainability.6

Geographic Perspective

NCHEMS’ data and observations suggest two primary challenges in terms of geography: Students in

some rural areas of the state participate in postsecondary education at significantly lower rates than their

peers in other areas, while public institutions in urban areas may plan to offer programs that duplicate

programs already offered by other public institutions in the area, aiming to serve the same type of

students.

Proximity to a college or university impacts college-going rates dramatically. Most public universities in

Missouri draw their enrollment from their immediate region – and from St. Louis and Kansas City.7 As a

result, some regions of the state are underserved in terms of access to public postsecondary education.

High school seniors from 15 Missouri counties are significantly less likely than their peers from other

counties to start a postsecondary program at a public institution immediately after graduation.8

Counties from Which the Lowest Percent of

High School Graduates Enroll in Public Postsecondary Education

Any Public Institution

Barry

Barton

Cedar

Clark

Douglas

Hickory

Lewis

Linn

Macon

Madison

Mercer

Ozark

Putnam

Vernon

Worth

Public Two-Year Institutions

Andrew

Atchison

Barry

Barton

Buchanan

Gentry

Holt

Lewis

Madison

Mercer

Nodaway

Putnam

Vernon

Worth

Public Universities

Butler

Carter

Clark

Douglas

Howell

Marion

Oregon

Ozark

Ripley

Shannon

Texas

Washington

Wayne

Wright

NCHEMS noted that historically, students have been expected to go to the provider. Now students in

many areas of the state must be served where they are with the content taken to them.9 For high school

graduates in St. Louis and Kansas City, on the other hand, NCHEMS observed that nearly every public

university in the state draws students from those areas.10

ITEMS FOR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION

Much of the task force’s discussion to date has focused on institutions’ ability to propose programs

outside of their state-defined mission and the development of a framework by which those proposals

could be evaluated. Several topics warrant significant additional conversation, including:

7 NCHEMS Draft Observations and Recommendations on Missouri Role and Missions, slide 7.

8 NCHEMS Missouri Environmental Scan, slides 63-65.

9 NCHMES Role and Mission for Missouri Colleges and Universities, slide 6.

10 NCHEMS Draft Observations and Recommendations on Missouri Role and Missions, slide 7.

NCHEMS Role and Mission for Missouri Colleges and Universities, slide 8.6

Higher Education System Review Task Force Interim Report Page 7

1. Continued work on the new academic program approval framework. The framework developed

by the task force and its subcommittee of chief academic officers requires significant additional

discussion to develop and operationalize its details. Additional discussion about the definition of

research versus practice doctorates, especially in interdisciplinary areas, is also necessary, as is

discussion about public universities offering associate degree and certificate programs. The task

force will appoint a subcommittee comprised of the Council of Chief Academic Officers to work

on these issues.

2. Meeting students’ needs and increasing postsecondary educational attainment rates.

NCHEMS’ data suggest several areas the department and institutions should focus on to make

substantial gains in educational attainment rates. The task force will appoint two subcommittees

to study and make recommendations on (a) increasing access to programs in geographic areas

throughout the state and (b) better meeting the needs of historically underserved populations.

3. Strengthening collaboration. Missouri’s colleges and universities have a strong history of

collaboration and have worked together in innovative ways to deliver high-quality programs

throughout the state. The task force will appoint a subcommittee to develop principles of best

practice in the collaborative delivery of programs, including articulation, and recommendations

for policy changes that will provide more effective incentives for collaboration.

4. Identifying workforce needs. Data presented and discussed throughout the task force’s meetings

point to the difficulty of conclusively identifying workforce needs. The task force will appoint a

subcommittee of higher education representatives to work with external stakeholders to develop a

reliable, definitive, and dynamic source of information about high-priority workforce needs,

including both preparation to work in specific industries and development of general skills

needed to succeed in work and life.

5. Evaluating the mission review process. The task force will appoint a subcommittee to evaluate

the mission review and approval process and make recommendations about revisions to

Coordinating Board policies that pertain to mission review and approval.

6. Addressing regional institutional roles. NCHEMS recommends that the Coordinating Board

take a proactive leadership role in facilitating coordination and collaboration among institutions

serving the same geographic area, especially the Kansas City and St. Louis metropolitan areas.

The task force encourages the Coordinating Board to appoint a work group to make

recommendations regarding an approach to addressing this issue.

Appendix

Appendix A: Task Force Roster

Appendix B: Program Approval Framework

Higher Education System Review

Task Force Roster

Chuck Ambrose (University of Central Missouri)

Joanna Anderson (State Fair Community College)

Jon Bauer (East Central College)

Barbara Bichelmeyer (University of Missouri-Kansas City)

Doug Davenport (Missouri Western State University)

Steve Graham (University of Missouri)

Mark James (Metropolitan Community College)

Jeff Jochems (Ozarks Technical Community College)

Steve Kurtz (Mineral Area College)

Jennifer Methvin (Crowder College)

Zora Mulligan (Commissioner of Higher Education)

Jeff Pittman (St. Louis Community College)

Clif Smart (Missouri State University)

Dwyane Smith (Harris-Stowe State University)

Shawn Strong (State Technical College)

Carlos Vargas (Southeast Missouri State University)

Program Approval Framework

Background

On March 17, 2016, Speaker of the House Todd Richardson and House Higher Education Committee

chair Steve Cookson directed the Missouri Department of Higher Education (MDHE) to convene

stakeholders to begin a process of reviewing the current structure of higher education in Missouri. The

letter indicated that the review should include, but not be limited to, recommendations on the overall

structure of public two- and four-year institutions, varying institutional missions, and the degree review

and approval process. The MDHE has convened a task force to address the issues identified in the letter.

The task force formed a subcommittee of chief academic officers (CAOs) to address the degree review

and approval process. Because this process to some extent also involves independent institutions, the

subcommittee includes representation from that sector and will make recommendations relating to the

process for all institutions of higher education.

The following draft is based, in part, on the structure and format of the review processes in Indiana,

Texas, and Maryland, as well as current CBHE policies and practices. The draft has been refined

substantially after discussion with the subcommittee and other CAOs. It provides a general framework

for determining which level of review is appropriate and an overview of the requirements and process

associated with each level. After the subcommittee, task force, and CBHE approve the policy framework,

MDHE staff will work with the Council of Chief Academic Officers to define additional details, which

will eventually be promulgated as regulations.

Objectives

This draft is aimed at outlining a process that achieves three objectives:

1. Ensure Missouri’s higher education institutions offer rigorous, high-quality, student-centered

programs that effectively serve the citizens of the state while supporting statewide goals, regional

workforce demands, and institutional needs.

2. Ensure Missouri’s higher education institutions make efficient use of state resources, maintain

high standards, collaborate to the maximum extent possible, and design programs that avoid

unnecessary duplication at the regional and state levels.

3. Streamline the academic program review and approval process.

General Approach

The MDHE proposes a review process that involves three levels of review: Staff review, which applies to

minor changes; routine review, which will likely apply to most new program proposals; and

comprehensive review. The following table provides a general framework for determining which level of

review is appropriate and an overview of the requirements and process associated with each level. As

indicated above, after the subcommittee, task force, and CBHE approve the policy framework, MDHE

staff will work with the Council of Chief Academic Officers to define additional details, which will

eventually be promulgated as regulations. Many terms and concepts will require further definition.

Those that have been identified in early discussions are italicized in the following text and listed at the

end of the document.

Missouri Department of Higher Education

Program Approval Framework

Page 2

Staff Review Routine Review Comprehensive Review

Applies

To

Minor program changes can be addressed through a

simple staff review. Examples of these changes

include:

Change of program title

Combination programs

Single-semester certificate programs

One-year certificate programs

Adding an option to an existing program

Moving an existing program to inactive status

Program deletion

Proposals that do not constitute a significant change in an

institution’s current role, scope, or mission will be reviewed

under the routine review process. In order to qualify for the

routine review process, the proposed program must meet all of the following criteria:

1. The program is clearly within the institution’s CBHE-

approved mission. For purposes of this process,

“mission” means the population the institution serves; the

level and array of degrees, programs, and services it offers; and any special or unique features;

2. The program will be offered within the proposing institution’s CBHE-approved service region;

3. The program will not unnecessarily duplicate an existing

program in the applicable geographic area;

4. The program will be offered at the main campus;

5. The program will build on existing programs and faculty expertise; and

6. The cost to launch the program will be minimal and within the institution’s current operating budget.

Proposals that constitute more significant changes will be

subject to a comprehensive review. Program proposals

offered by an institution other than a campus within the

University of Missouri System that meet any one of the following will be subject to a comprehensive review:

1. The program is outside an institution’s CBHE-

approved mission. For purposes of this process,

“mission” means the population the institution

serves; the level and array of degrees, programs, and services it offers; and any special or unique features;

2. The program will be offered outside the institution’s CBHE-approved service region;

3. The program will require approval from the Higher

Learning Commission;

4. The institution will incur substantial costs to launch and sustain the program;

5. The program will include the offering of an

engineering degree that falls within the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code of 14;

6. The program will include the offering of a doctoral degree;

7. The program will include the offering of a professional degree; or

8. The program will include the offering of an education specialist degree.

In addition, the following proposals will generally be considered under the routine review process:

1. Substantive curricular changes to an existing program.

2. The addition of an approved program at a CBHE-approved off-site location.

3. New degree programs that are offered in collaboration

with an institution already approved to offer such a program.

Institution

Must

Provide

A basic description of the change on forms provided

by the MDHE.

1. General information about the proposed program;

2. Certification that the proposal meets the criteria for routine review outlined above; and

3. Certification that the program meets the criteria for all new academic programs.

1. Evidence the proposing institution has explored the

feasibility of collaboration with other institutions

whose mission or service region are within the scope

of the proposed program. The proposing institution

shall provide evidence that it has made a good faith

effort to explore the feasibility of collaboration.

Evidence should include an explanation for why the

collaboration is not feasible, as well as a letter of

corroboration from any other institution involved in

the discussion of collaboration.

2. General information about the proposed program;

3. Evidence that the offering institution is contributing

substantially to the CBHE’s Blueprint for Higher

Education and committed to advancing the goals of that plan;

4. Evidence of institutional capacity to launch the program in a high-quality manner, including:

4.1. An external review conducted by a team

including faculty experts in the discipline to be

Missouri Department of Higher Education

Program Approval Framework

Page 3

Staff Review Routine Review Comprehensive Review

offered and administrators from institutions

already offering programs in the discipline and

at the degree level proposed. The review must

include an assessment of the offering

institution’s capacity to offer the new program

in terms of general, academic, and student service support;

4.2. A comprehensive cost/revenue analysis

summarizing the actual costs for the program

and information about how the institution

intends to fund and sustain the program;

4.3. Evidence indicating there is sufficient student

interest and capacity to support the program,

and, where applicable, sufficient capacity for

students to participate in clinical or other external learning requirements; and

4.4. Where applicable, a description of

accreditation requirements for the new program

and the institution’s plans for seeking accreditation; and

5. Evidence that the proposed program is needed, including:

5.1. Documentation demonstrating that the program

does not unnecessarily duplicate other

programs in the applicable geographic area;

5.2. Evidence indicating that the offering institution

has made a good faith effort to explore the

feasibility of a collaborative program, and if

the institution has chosen not to offer the

program in collaboration with another

institution, an explanation of the rationale for that choice; and

5.3. A rigorous analysis demonstrating a strong and

compelling workforce need for the program,

which might include data from a credible

source, an analysis of changing program

requirements, the current and future workforce

and other needs of the state, and/or letters of

support from local or regional businesses

indicating need for the program;

6. A clear plan to meet the articulated workforce need,

including:

6.1. Aligning curriculum with specific knowledge

and competencies needed to work in the

field(s) or occupation(s) described in the workforce need section;

6.2. Providing students with external learning

Missouri Department of Higher Education

Program Approval Framework

Page 4

Staff Review Routine Review Comprehensive Review

experiences to increase the probability that

they will remain in the applicable geographic area after graduation;

6.3. A plan for assessing the extent to which the

new program meets that need when implemented.

Process Proposals subject to the Staff Review process will

be reviewed by MDHE staff and reported at the next

CBHE meeting. Institutions must report all

program changes to ensure that the state program inventory is accurate and complete.

1. MDHE staff review the proposal to determine if the

proposed program is eligible for routine review.

2. MDHE staff post the proposal for public review and

comment, along with staff’s recommendation to approve

the program provisionally.

3. [The final draft policy framework will describe the

CBHE approval process in more detail. MDHE staff

intend to discuss process changes with the CBHE that

would reduce the total time required for approval of a

new degree proposal under the routine review process.]

4. The five-year provisional review process currently in use

applies.

1. MDHE staff and other institutions review the

proposal and provide feedback to the offering

institution.

2. The offering institution responds to feedback.

3. [New program proposals subject to the

comprehensive review process will be reviewed on

the timeline currently in place. This will be detailed

more thoroughly in the final draft.]

4. If approved, new programs approved under the

comprehensive review process must report annually

to the CBHE on the number of students completing

the program, financial performance of the program,

job placement rates of program graduates, success on

any applicable licensure exams, and the extent to

which the program is meeting the needs it was

designed to address.

Terms to be defined:

Applicable geographic area

CBHE-approved mission

CBHE-approved off-site location

CBHE-approved service region

Certification

Change of program title

Collaborative program and collaboration

Combination programs

Comprehensive cost/revenue analysis

Criteria for all new academic programs

Evidence of contribution to CBHE Blueprint

Evidence of institutional capacity

External review

General information about the proposed program

Inactive status

One-year certificate programs

Option

Program deletion

Single-semester certificate programs

Substantive curricular changes to an existing program

Unnecessary duplication/unnecessarily duplicate

Professional Degree

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM Academic Program Actions Coordinating Board for Higher Education February 2, 2017 DESCRIPTION This agenda item reports all proposals for program actions reviewed by the Missouri Department of Higher Education since the December 15, 2016, board meeting. These proposals are submitted to the Coordinating Board for Higher Education for action. The following tables provide a summary of the proposed program actions submitted to the CBHE. The complete listing of proposed program actions can be found in the attachment to this agenda item. Public Institution Update

Certificates Associate Baccalaureate Graduate Total Deleted 3 0 4 0 7 Inactivated 1 1 1 0 3 Other Program Changes* 2 6 29 3 40 New 24 3 6 1 34 Programs Withdrawn 0 0 0 0 0

*includes options inactivated/deleted, options added, titles changed, programs combined, and coursework revised

Comments for Public Institutions None received. Independent Institution Update

Certificates Associate Baccalaureate Graduate Total Deleted 0 0 0 0 0 Inactivated 0 0 0 0 0 Other Program Changes* 2 0 2 0 4 New 0 1 3 0 4 Programs Withdrawn 0 0 0 0 0

*includes options inactivated/deleted, options added, titles changed, programs combined, and coursework revised.

Comments for Independent Institutions None received.

Academic Program Actions February 2, 2017 Page 2 Off-Site Location Update The following location updates were provided to the MDHE for update to the approved Off-Site Inventory as appropriate.

New Locations for Approval (Public)

North Central Missouri College Cameron Head Start 902 West 4th Street Cameron, MO

New Locations for Update (Independent) No new locations were submitted by independent institutions.

Change of Address Please update the addresses for the following Park University locations:

Truman Education Center (remove the Columbia College designation) 4904 Constitution Avenue, Bldg. 499, Ste. 33 Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473

Park University, Independence Campus 20101 East Jackson Dr Independence, MO 64057

Whiteman Air Force Base 509 FSS/FSDE 511 Spirit Blvd., Ste. 245 Whiteman AFB, MO 65305

Metropolitan Kansas City 911 Main St., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64105

Closed Location Notification

The following closed location notices were received from Park University:

Wentworth Campus Center—Now Closed 1880 Washington Avenue Lexington, MO 64067

Academic Program Actions February 2, 2017 Page 3

Park-Ft. Leonard Wood location—Now Closed 268 Constitution Street, Suite 14 Ft. Leonard Wood, MO 65473

STATUTORY REFERENCE Sections 173.005.2(1), 173.005.2(8), 173.005.11, 173.030(1), and 173.030(2), RSMo – Statutory

requirements regarding CBHE approval of new degree programs RECOMMENDED ACTION Assign to Consent Agenda. ATTACHMENT(S) Academic Program Actions

ACADEMIC PROGRAM ACTIONS

Academic Program Changes (Public Institutions) Lincoln University

1) Current Program: AAS, Early Childhood, CIP 131210 Proposed Change: Inactivate program Program as Changed: AAS, Early Childhood, CIP 131210 (inactivate program)

2) Current Program:

BME, Music Education, CIP 131312 Proposed Change: Delete program Program as Changed: BME, Music Education, CIP 131312 (delete program)

3) Current Program:

BSSM, Sacred Music, CIP 390501 Proposed Change: Delete program Program as Changed: BSSM, Sacred Music, CIP 390501 (delete program)

4) Current Program:

BA, BS History, CIP 540101 Proposed Change: Inactivate program Program as Changed: BA, BS History, CIP 540101 (inactivate program)

Metropolitan Community College

1) Current Program: AAS, Engineering Technology, CIP 159999 Proposed Change: Addition of certificate program developed from approved existing parent degree

Academic Program Actions – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 2

Program as Changed: AAS, Engineering Technology, CIP 159999 C1, Building Information Modeling (BIM), CIP 159999 (add certificate)

2) Current Program:

AAS, CSIS-CCNP, CIP 110202 Proposed Change: Title change only Program as Changed: AAS, CSIS Advanced Networking, CIP 110202 (title change)

3) Current Program:

AAS, CSIS-Cisco, CIP 110202 Proposed Change: Title change only Program as Changed: AAS, CSIS Cisco Security, CIP 110202 (title change)

4) Current Program:

C1, Sterile Processing and Environmental Services, CIP 150699 Proposed Change: Inactivate program Program as Changed: C1, Sterile Processing and Environmental Services, CIP 150699 (inactivate program)

5) Current Program:

AAS, Engineering Technology, CIP 159999 Proposed Change: Options added to existing program Program as Changed: AAS, Engineering Technology, CIP 159999 Mechatronics (option added)

Missouri State University

1) Current Program: BSEd, Education, Middle School Education, CIP 131203 Language Arts & Social Sciences

Academic Program Actions – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 3

Language Arts & Mathematics Language Arts & Science Mathematics & Science Mathematics & Social Science Science & Social Sciences Proposed Change: Add and delete options to existing program Program as Changed: BSEd, Education, Middle School Education, CIP 131203 Language Arts & Social Sciences (delete option) Language Arts & Mathematics (delete option) Language Arts & Science (delete option) Mathematics & Science (delete option) Mathematics & Social Science (delete option) Science & Social Sciences (delete option) Language Arts (add option) Mathematics (add option) Science (add option) Social Science (add option)

2) Current Program:

N/A Proposed Change: Addition of free-standing single-semester certificate program Program as Changed: GRCT, Data Analytics, CIP 520201 (add certificate)

3) Current Program:

N/A Proposed Change: Addition of free-standing single-semester certificate program Program as Changed: GRCT, Perspectives About the American Higher Education System, CIP 130701 (add certificate)

Missouri University of Science and Technology

1) Current Program: GRCT, Quality Engineering, CIP 149999

Academic Program Actions – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 4

Proposed Change: Delete program Program as Changed: GRCT, Quality Engineering, CIP 149999 (delete program)

2) Current Program:

GRCT, Leadership in Engineering Organizations, CIP 151501 Proposed Change: Delete program Program as Changed: GRCT, Leadership in Engineering Organizations, CIP 151501 (delete program)

Missouri Western State University

1) Current Program: MAA, Written Communication, CIP 231304 Technical Communication Proposed Change: Addition of certificate program developed from approved existing parent degree Program as Changed: MAA, Written Communication, CIP 231304 Technical Communication GRCT, Technical Communication, CIP 231304 (add certificate)

2) Current Program:

BS, Physical Education, CIP 310501 Education P.E. General Health and Exercise Science Proposed Change: Options added to existing program Program as Changed: BS, Physical Education, CIP 310501 Education P.E. General Health and Exercise Science Personal and Commercial Fitness (add option)

Academic Program Actions – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 5

3) Current Program: AAS, Manufacturing Engineering Technology, CIP 150613 Proposed Change: Options added to existing program Program as Changed: AAS, Manufacturing Engineering Technology, CIP 150613 Instrumentation and Automation (add option) Precision Machining (add option)

Northwest Missouri State University

1) Current Program: BSED, Agricultural Education Comprehensive, CIP 131301 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Agricultural Education Comprehensive, CIP 131301 (coursework revised)

2) Current Program:

BSED, Art Education Comprehensive, CIP 131302 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Art Education Comprehensive, CIP 131302 (coursework revised)

3) Current Program: BSED, Biology Education Comprehensive, CIP 131322 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Biology Education Comprehensive, CIP 131322 (coursework revised)

4) Current Program: BSED, Biology Unified Science Comprehensive, CIP 131316 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE)

Academic Program Actions – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 6

Program as Changed: BSED, Biology Unified Science Comprehensive, CIP 131316 (coursework revised)

5) Current Program: BSED, Business Education, CIP 131303 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Business Education, CIP 131303 (coursework revised)

6) Current Program: BSED, Chemistry Education Comprehensive, CIP 131323 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Chemistry Education Comprehensive, CIP 131301 (coursework revised)

7) Current Program: BSED, Chemistry Unified Science Comprehensive, CIP 131316 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Chemistry Unified Science Comprehensive, CIP 131316 (coursework revised)

8) Current Program: BSED, Early Childhood Education minor, CIP 131204 Proposed Change: Inactivate program Program as Changed: BSED, Early Childhood Education minor, CIP 131204 (inactivate program)

9) Current Program: BSED, Earth Science Unified Science Comprehensive, CIP 131316 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE)

Academic Program Actions – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 7

Program as Changed: BSED, Earth Science Unified Science Comprehensive, CIP 131316 (coursework revised)

10) Current Program: BSED, Elementary Education, CIP 131202 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Elementary Education, CIP 131202 (coursework revised)

11) Current Program: BSED, English Education Comprehensive, CIP 131305 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, English Education Comprehensive, CIP 131305 (coursework revised)

12) Current Program: BSED, Mathematics Education Comprehensive, CIP 131311 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Mathematics Education Comprehensive, CIP 131311 (coursework revised)

13) Current Program: BSED, Music Education-Instrumental and Vocal, CIP 131312 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Music Education-Instrumental and Vocal, CIP 131312 (coursework revised)

14) Current Program: BSED, Physical Education, CIP 131314 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE)

Academic Program Actions – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 8

Program as Changed: BSED, Physical Education, CIP 131314 (coursework revised)

15) Current Program: BSED, Social Science Comprehensive, CIP 131317 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Social Science Comprehensive, CIP 131317 (coursework revised)

16) Current Program: BSED, Spanish, CIP 131330 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Spanish, CIP 131330 (coursework revised)

17) Current Program: BSED, Special Education Major-Mild/Moderate: Cross Categorical, CIP 131007 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Special Education Major-Mild/Moderate: Cross Categorical, CIP 131007 (coursework revised)

18) Current Program: BSED, Speech/Theatre Education Comprehensive, CIP 131399 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Speech/Theatre Education Comprehensive, CIP 131399 (coursework revised)

19) Current Program: BSED, Middle School Education, CIP 131203 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE)

Academic Program Actions – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 9

Program as Changed: BSED, Middle School Education, CIP 131203 (coursework revised)

20) Current Program: BSED, Middle School Education: Agriculture, CIP 131301 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Middle School Education: Agriculture, CIP 131301 (coursework revised)

21) Current Program: BSED, Middle School Education: Business, CIP 131303 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Middle School Education: Business, CIP 131303 (coursework revised)

22) Current Program: BSED, Middle School Education: Language Arts, CIP 131305 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Middle School Education: Language Arts, CIP 131305 (coursework revised)

23) Current Program: BSED, Middle School Education: Mathematics, CIP 131311 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Middle School Education: Mathematics, CIP 131311 (coursework revised)

24) Current Program: BSED, Middle School Education: Science, CIP 131316 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE)

Academic Program Actions – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 10

Program as Changed: BSED, Middle School Education: Science, CIP 131316 (coursework revised)

25) Current Program: BSED, Middle School Education: Social Science, CIP 131317 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Middle School Education: Social Science, CIP 131317 (coursework revised)

26) Current Program: BSED, Middle School Education: Speech/Theatre, CIP 131331 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: BSED, Middle School Education: Speech/Theatre, CIP 131331 (coursework revised)

27) Current Program: MSED, Teaching English Language Learners, CIP 130201 Proposed Change: Coursework revision to meet the new MO Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) Program as Changed: MSED, Teaching English Language Learners, CIP 130201 (coursework revised)

Ozarks Technical Community College

1) Current Program: AA, Associate of Arts, CIP 240199 Proposed Change: Option added to existing program Program as Changed: AA, Associate of Arts, CIP 240199 Social Work (add option)

2) Current Program: AAS, C1, Industrial Maintenance Technology, CIP 470303

Academic Program Actions – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 11

Proposed Change: Title change only Program as Changed: AAS, C1, Industrial Systems Technology, CIP 470303 (title change)

St. Louis Community College

1) Current Program: C0, Computer Aided Publishing, CIP 500402 Proposed Change: Delete program Program as Changed: C0, Computer Aided Publishing, CIP 500402 (delete program)

2) Current Program:

C0, digital Media: Digital Photography, CIP 500102 Proposed Change: CIP code change Program as Changed: C0, digital Media: Digital Photography, CIP 500401 (CIP code change)

University of Central Missouri

1) Current Program: BSBA, Marketing, CIP 521401 Proposed Change: Addition of certificate program developed from approved existing parent degree Program as Changed: BSBA, Marketing, CIP 521401 C1, Professional Selling, CIP 521401 (add certificate)

University of Missouri-Columbia

1) Current Program: MS, Data Science and Analytics, CIP 119999 Proposed Change: Addition of certificate program developed from approved existing parent degree Program as Changed: MS, Data Science and Analytics, CIP 119999 GRCT, Data Science and Analytics, CIP 119999 (add certificate)

Academic Program Actions – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 12

2) Current Program: BS, Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, CIP 400401 Atmospheric Science Environmental Science Environmental Soil Science Soil Resource Management Proposed Change: Title change; Options added to existing programs Program as Changed: BS, Environmental Sciences, CIP 400401 (title change) Atmosphere (title change) Land and Soil (title change) Water (title change) Outreach and Education (add option)

3) Current Program:

PhD, Learning, Teaching, & Curriculum, CIP 130301 Art Education Early Childhood Education Elementary Education English Education Foreign Language Education

Mathematics Education Music Education General Reading Education Science Education Social Studies Education Proposed Change: Delete options Program as Changed: PhD, Learning, Teaching, & Curriculum, CIP 130301 Art Education Early Childhood Education Elementary Education English Education Foreign Language Education

Mathematics Education Music Education (delete option) General Reading Education Science Education

Academic Program Actions – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 13

Social Studies Education University of Missouri-Kansas City

1) Current Program: MS, Dental Hygiene Education (collaboration with MSSU), CIP 510602 Proposed Change: Remove collaboration Program as Changed: MS, Dental Hygiene Education (collaboration with MSSU), CIP 510602 (remove collaboration)

2) Current Program:

MSN, Nursing, CIP 513801 Proposed Change: Addition of certificate program developed from approved existing parent degree Program as Changed: MSN, Nursing, CIP 513801 GRCT, Post-MSN Adult Gerontology Nurse Practitioner, CIP 513821 (add certificate) GRCT, Post-MSN Family Nurse Practitioner, CIP 513805 (add certificate) GRCT, Post-MSN Acute Pediatric Care Nurse Practitioner, CIP 513809 (add certificate) GRCT, Post-MSN Women’s Health Nurse Practitioner, CIP 513822 (add certificate) GRCT, Post-MSN Pediatric Nurse Practitioner, CIP 513809 (add certificate) GRCT, Post-MSN Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioner, CIP 513810 (add

certificate) GRCT, Post-MSN Neonatal Nurse Practitioner, CIP 513806 (add certificate)

3) Current Program:

BS, Dental Hygiene, CIP 510602 Clinical/Classroom Teaching General Proposed Change: Delete options Program as Changed: BS, Dental Hygiene, CIP 510602 Clinical/Classroom Teaching (delete option) General

University of Missouri-St. Louis

1) Current Program:

Academic Program Actions – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 14

BS, Psychology, CIP 422804 Proposed Change: Addition of certificate program developed from approved existing parent degree Program as Changed: BS, Psychology, CIP 422804 C1, Workplace and Organizational Science, CIP 422804 (add certificate)

Received and Reviewed Changes in Programs (Independent Colleges and Universities; Includes Discontinued Programs and Programs Placed on Inactive Status) Maryville University

1) Current Program: BA, Psychology, CIP 420101 Proposed Change: Program to be offered online; no change to curriculum Program as Changed: BA, Psychology, CIP 420101 (for delivery online)

2) Current Program:

BS, Healthcare Practice Management, CIP 510701 Proposed Change: Title change Program as Changed: BS, Healthcare Management, CIP 510701 (title change)

3) Current Program:

GRCT, Healthcare Practice Management, CIP 510701 Proposed Change: Title change Program as Changed: GRCT, Healthcare Management, CIP 510701 (title change)

Park University

1) Current Program: GRCT, Homeland Security, CIP 430301 (for delivery main campus) Proposed Change: This program is offered online only. Delete program at main campus.

Academic Program Actions – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 15

Program as Changed: GRCT, Homeland Security, CIP 430301 (for delivery main campus online only)

New Programs Recommended for Provisional Approval (Public Institutions) Crowder College

1) C1, Automotive Technology: Basic Auto Mechanic, CIP 150803 (for delivery main and online)

2) C1, Automotive Technology: Basic Engines Systems, CIP 150803 (for delivery main and online)

3) C1, Advanced Construction, CIP 151001 (for delivery main and online) 4) C1, Diesel Technology: Basic Electrical/Electronics I, CIP 470605 (for delivery main and

online) 5) C1, Diesel Technology: Basic Electrical/Electronics II, CIP 470605 (for delivery main

and online) 6) C1, Diesel Technology: Engines I, CIP 470605 (for delivery main and online) 7) C1, Diesel Technology: Engines II, CIP 470605 (for delivery main and online)

Missouri University of Science and Technology

1) BS, History, CIP 540101 (for delivery main)

North Central Missouri College 1) AAS, Early Childhood Development, CIP 190708 (for delivery Cameron Head Start, 902

West 4th Street, Cameron, Missouri) 2) AAS, Behavioral Health Support, CIP 511502 (for delivery main) 3) C0, Manufacturing Skills, CIP 150503 (for delivery Northwest Technical School)

Northwest Missouri State University

1) BS, Psychology, CIP 420101 (for delivery Northwest KC, 6889 North Oak Trafficway, Gladstone, MO)

2) BA/BS, Communication, CIP 090101 (for delivery Northwest KC, 6889 North Oak Trafficway, Gladstone, MO)

Ozarks Technical Community College 1) AAS, Aviation Flight Technology, CIP 490102 (for delivery main)

Three Rivers College

1) C1, Plumbing Technician, CIP 460503 (for delivery main, Dexter, Kennett, Malden, Sikeston)

2) C1, Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning/Refrigeration Technology, CIP 470201 (for delivery main, Dexter, Kennett, Malden, Sikeston)

3) C1, Electrical Technology, CIP 460302 (for delivery main, Dexter, Kennett, Malden, Sikeston)

University of Central Missouri 1) BSBA, Events Marketing and Management, CIP 520901 (for delivery main)

Academic Program Actions – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 16 University of Missouri-Columbia

1) BHS, Public Health, CIP 512201 (for delivery main)

University of Missouri-St. Louis 1) DBA, Doctor of Business Administration (with options), CIP 520201 (for delivery main)

Accounting Finance Human Resource Management Information Systems Leadership Logistics and Supply Chain Management Marketing Operations Management Organizational Behavior Strategic Management

New Residence Sites Recommended for Provisional Approval (Public Institutions) No new residence sites submitted for approval. New Programs Received and Reviewed (Independent Colleges and Universities) Central Methodist University

1) BACC, Accountancy (completion), CIP 520301 (for delivery Three Rivers-Dexter, Kennett, Sikeston and online)

2) BA/BS, Psychology (completion), CIP 420101 (for delivery Three Rivers-Dexter, Kennett, Sikeston and online)

3) BSEd, Special Education (completion), CIP 131017 (for delivery Three Rivers-Dexter, Kennett, Sikeston and online)

Southwest Baptist University 1) AS, Teaching, CIP 131399 (for delivery at Salem Campus)

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

AGENDA ITEM Five-Year Provisional Program Review Coordinating Board for Higher Education February 2, 2017 DESCRIPTION Effective July 1, 2011, the CBHE began giving provisional approval to all new academic programs proposed by public institutions, with subsequent review in five years. This past September, the CBHE approved the specific criteria the MDHE will use to review provisionally approved programs. This item presents to the CBHE the first set of provisionally approved programs for further action. Background Between 2000 and 2010, the proliferation of new academic programs resulted in a special Statewide Review of Existing Academic Programs, which was completed in February 2011. One recommendation resulting from the review was provisional approval for new academic programs—withholding unconditional approval of an academic program until the program could demonstrate that it was performing as projected. On July 1, 2011, the CBHE began giving provisional approval to all new academic programs proposed by public institutions. In September 2016, the CBHE approved a methodology, developed by the MDHE in consultation with the chief academic officers of both the two-year and four-year sectors, for the five-year review and assessment of provisionally approved programs (see Attachment A). Upon completion of the five-year review, MDHE staff will make one of three recommendations:

• Full approval; • Disapproval and termination of the program; or • Continued provisional status with a follow-up review in two years.

The programs presented with this agenda item (see table below) were the first programs approved provisionally. All subsequent CBHE meetings will likely include recommendations for further action on provisionally approved programs. Programs Currently under Review Using the CBHE-approved methodology, MDHE staff evaluated each program’s relevant data and consulted with institutional representatives about the program’s performance. Of the programs under review, MDHE staff recommends the full approval for three programs, a two-year follow-up review for three programs, and the deletion of two programs. The remaining programs were previously deleted by the institution. The following table summarizes these recommendations.

Five-Year Provisional Program Review February 2, 2017 Page 2

Five Year Provisional Review Summary of Recommendations

Institution Program Name and Delivery Site Program

CIP Code Recommended

Action St. Louis Community College-Wildwood AFA, Associate of Fine Arts 240101 Full approval

State Fair Community College AAS, Health Information Technology 510707 Full approval

State Fair Community College C1, Medical Office Assistant 510707 Full approval

Missouri Southern State University BA, Music Industry 501003 Two-year follow-up

Moberly Area Community College AAS, C1, Marketing/Management (off-site) 521401 Two-year follow-up

Southeast Missouri State University MS, Organizational Management 521301 Two-year follow-up

Three Rivers College AAS, C1, Geographic Information Systems 450702 Deletion University of Central Missouri BFA, Musical Theatre 500509 Deletion

Crowder College C1, Accounting (main and off-site) 520301 N/A (IHE has deleted) Jefferson College AAS, Respiratory Therapy 510908 N/A (IHE has deleted) Missouri State University-West Plains AAS, Allied Health 510000 N/A (IHE has deleted)

Northwest Missouri State University GRCT, Career and Technical Education (off-site) 131299 N/A (IHE has deleted)

Conclusion Academic program review is an essential component for achieving the programmatic initiatives contained in Preparing Missourians to Succeed: A Blueprint for Higher Education. Program review provides a vehicle for ensuring that higher education programs are responsive to the knowledge and skills students need for a rapidly changing world and workplace, while ensuring efficient use of state resources. STATUTORY REFERENCES Section 173.005(1), RSMo – CBHE statutory authority to approve proposed new degree

programs to be offered by the state institutions of higher education Section 173.005(8), RSMo – CBHE statutory authority to collect the necessary information and

develop comparable data for all institutions of higher education in the state Section 173.030(1), RSMo – CBHE statutory authority to request the governing boards of all

state-supported institutions of higher education and of major private institutions to submit proposed policy changes and make pertinent recommendations relating thereto

Section 173.030(2), RSMo – CBHE statutory authority to recommend to the governing board of any institution of higher education in the state the development, consolidation or elimination of programs, degree offerings, physical facilities or policy changes where that action is deemed in the best interests of the institutions

Five-Year Provisional Program Review February 2, 2017 Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education approve the actions listed in the Five Year Provisional Review Summary of Recommendations table contained in this board item. ATTACHMENT Five-Year Provisional Review Policy

Missouri Department of Higher Education Proposal for the Five Year Review of Provisionally Approved Programs

Addendum to the CBHE Policy for Review of Academic Programs Statutory Authority Chapter 173 of the Missouri Statutes charges the Coordinating Board for Higher Education with several responsibilities, including:

• ... approval of proposed new degree programs to be offered by the state institutions of higher education . . . (Section 173.005(1), RSMo)

• ... collect the necessary information and develop comparable data for all institutions of higher education in the state . . . (Section 173.005(8), RSMo)

• ... requesting the governing boards of all state-supported institutions of higher education and of major private institutions to submit . . . proposed policy changes . . . and make pertinent recommendations relating thereto . . . (Section 173.030(1), RSMo)

• ... recommending to the governing board of any institution of higher education in the state the development, consolidation or elimination of programs, degree offerings, physical facilities or policy changes where that action is deemed . . . in the best interests of the institutions . . . (Section 173.030(2), RSMo)

Effective July 1, 2011, the CBHE began giving a five-year provisional approval to all new academic programs proposed by public institutions. After five years, the provisionally approved program will be reviewed again by the CBHE. Based on this review, the CBHE may approve the program unconditionally; require a follow-up review of the program in two years; or disapprove the program. Proposed Methodology for MDHE Review The CBHE has guidelines in place as part of the initial provisional program review process requiring institutions to provide evidence of the following:

• Alignment with institutional mission • Demonstrable need based upon projected societal, occupational, and student needs • Programs are not unnecessarily duplicative • Program structure • Efficient use of resources • Benefits of collaboration

The CBHE has also identified the following criteria for existing program review:

• Centrality to the institution’s mission • Objective evidence in meeting statewide needs or goals • Maintaining a critical mass of majors and having sufficient resources and facilities to keep

the program vibrant and viable. • Graduate annually an average, calculated over the prior three years, of at least ten graduates

for associate/bachelor’s programs; five for master’s programs; and three for doctoral programs.

Five-Year Provisional Program Review – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 2

For the five-year review, MDHE requests that the institution review and confirm enrollment and graduation data for the program, a brief summary of program performance, and other materials or information at the institution’s discretion.

Review Criteria

The following are proposed criteria for the five year review of provisionally-approved programs: Criteria 1: Actual versus projected enrollment data (5 years) Data collected: Original program proposal student enrollment projections; actual total enrollment in program since provisional approval; MDHE EMSAS or IPEDS Criteria 2: Satisfactory Academic Progress Data collected: Number and percent of full-time students making satisfactory academic progress, eg. having completed 24 credits with a 2.0 GPA; IPEDS or EMSAS Criteria 3: Student Retention Data collected: Number and percent of full-time students retained in program; IPEDS or EMSAS Criteria 4: Actual versus projected completions (3 years) Data collected: Average annual number of graduates calculated over the prior three years, of at least 10 graduates at the associate or baccalaureate degree level, five graduates at the master’s degree level, and three graduates at the doctoral degree level. Criteria 5: Assessment Results (5 years) Data collected: Submit assessment results and explain the how the results have been used to make improvements to the program. Provide information on student learning outcomes for the program and how the SLO’s were evaluated. Criteria 6: External Awards or Recognition Data collected: Describe any external awards or other recognition of the students, faculty, and/or program over the past five years. Include any awards from disciplinary associations, nonprofit organizations, governmental agencies, or any external entities that recognize the accomplishments of this program. Describe accomplishments related to student work, faculty teaching and research, and other elements of your program. Describe any specialized accreditation attained by the program. Upon completion of the review, programs will be recommended for one of three levels:

• Full Approval • Recommended Termination of Program • Continued provisional review with follow-up in two years

Five-Year Provisional Program Review – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 3

Procedure

1. MDHE will identify programs to be reviewed and send an initial letter to the institution informing of the review and the timeline for the review.

2. MDHE will develop a preliminary report with analysis and findings based on the criteria above and send to the institution. For programs recommended for termination, MDHE will ask the institutions to submit the actions they will take on low performing and duplicate programs.

3. Institutions with programs preliminarily recommended for deletion or inactivation will be provided the opportunity to confirm or submit corrected data to MDHE for review and additional comment.

a. If an institution intends to delete or inactivate the program, institutions will be asked to submit a FORM PC indicating the program to be deleted/inactivated.

b. If an institution intends to keep the program, it must justify that decision to the MDHE by submitting a narrative summary and appropriate documents and data supporting one of the following justifications:

i. Incorrect data ii. Centrality of program to institutional mission

iii. Program supports other existing programs iv. Program meets statewide needs

c. MDHE staff will review responses from institutions and submit final findings to the institution.

4. MDHE staff will submit the final findings report with recommendations to the CBHE.

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM Concurrent Enrollment and Guided Pathways Pilot Programs Coordinating Board for Higher Education February 2, 2017 DESCRIPTION Legislation passed in 2016 (SB 997) directs the Coordinating Board to develop pilot programs in Guided Pathways to Success and Concurrent Enrollment. This agenda item reports on institutions selected to participate in those pilot programs. Background The Commissioner issued a request for proposals (RFP) for participation the Guided Pathways to Success and Concurrent Enrollment pilot projects on November 7, 2016. The RFP identified the parameters and expectations for each initiative, including the department’s responsibilities. For both projects, the MDHE will facilitate meetings, share information regarding the programs’ development and progress, and disseminate information through its office of communications about the pilots. For the Guided Pathways Pilot only, the department will develop and publicly maintain materials that describe the elements of Missouri's guided pathways to success project and assist students in understanding the operation of each component. Finally, the CBHE will, by January 1, 2020, report to the governor and the general assembly on the outcomes of both pilot programs and provide a recommendation regarding their expansion statewide. Based on the outcomes of these pilots, as stipulated in the statute, the CBHE may request funding to provide competitive grants to institutions of higher education to assist in defraying the costs incurred to implement guided pathways to success and concurrent enrollment statewide. Guided Pathways to Success The primary intent of the Guided Pathways to Success Act is to provide students with information about clear curricular paths to a degree. For many students, having a clear path to completion is more helpful than having to navigate a wide range of degrees and courses. Providing students with a clear path forward will reduce “wasted” credits, time to completion, and the overall costs of obtaining a degree. Proposals for this pilot had to include at least two of the following components:

1. Majors organized into semester-by-semester sets of courses that lead to on-time completion.

2. Degree-based transfer pathways between participating institutions to assist students who enroll in multiple institutions to complete their degree;

3. Available meta-majors to minimize the loss of credit due to changes by students in their degree majors;

4. Student commitment to a structured schedule of courses and electives; and 5. Clear degree maps, proactive advising and guarantees that required courses are available

when needed by students.

Concurrent Enrollment and Guided Pathways Pilot Programs February 2, 2017 Page 2 Participating institutions were asked to identify the two or more components in the pilot program, provide a timetable and milestones for the work, and agree to engage with the department as the program is developed and implemented. Cooperating institutions also will collect appropriate data and report to the CBHE annually, beginning one year after the CBHE approves the pilot program, on the program’s progress and effectiveness. Institutions submitting proposals for Guided Pathways to Success:

• Metropolitan Community College • North Central Missouri College • Ozarks Technical Community College • Southeast Missouri State University • University of Missouri-Kansas City

MDHE staff reviewed the proposals to ensure they met the expectations and parameters of each initiative. MDHE staff recommends the acceptance of all proposals and encourages institutions to begin implementation as soon as is feasible. Concurrent Enrollment The primary intent of the Concurrent Enrollment Pilot Program is to provide students with a broader range of academic and student support services while streamlining the path to degree completion. A concurrent enrollment program allows for any person who satisfies the admissions requirements of any two-year public institution and any four-year public institution to be admitted to both institutions. Concurrent enrollment programs could include coordinated advising, a single online application, and the ability to receive financial aid from both institutions. The advantages of concurrent enrollment for students are many:

• Flexibility of taking courses at both institutions at the same time; • Having an expanded selection of courses and schedules to fit their needs; • Access to the resources of both institutions; and • Possibility of earning an associate degree while working toward a bachelor’s degree.

The Concurrent Enrollment Pilot required the participation of one or more public four-year institution and one or more public two-year institution. Institutions were asked to identify the responsibilities of participating institutions in the program, including how costs, work load, and other considerations will be addressed, as well as specifying the services the program will provided to concurrently enrolled students. Cooperating institutions agreed to provide periodic updates to MDHE staff and to remain engaged with the department as the program is developed and implemented, and will collect appropriate data and report to the CBHE annually, beginning one year after the CBHE approves the pilot program, on the program’s progress and effectiveness.

Concurrent Enrollment and Guided Pathways Pilot Programs February 2, 2017 Page 3 Institutions submitting proposals for Concurrent Enrollment:

• Missouri University of Science & Technology and East Central College • Northwest Missouri State University and Metropolitan Community College • Southeast Missouri State University, Jefferson College, and Three Rivers College

MDHE staff reviewed the proposals to ensure they met the expectations and parameters of each initiative. MDHE staff recommends the acceptance of all proposals and encourages institutions to begin implementation as soon as is feasible. Conclusion Removing barriers to student success is key to increasing educational attainment and keeping postsecondary expenses down. The Guided Pathways to Success and the Concurrent Enrollment Pilot Programs hold great promise in achieving both of those goals. STATUTORY REFERENCES Section 173.2515, RSMo – Development of a Guided Pathways to Success Pilot Program Section 173.2520, RSMo – Development of a Concurrent Enrollment Pilot Program RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the Coordinating Board establish the Guided Pathways to Success and Concurrent Enrollment pilot programs and accept the proposals submitted. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Guided Pathways to Success Pilot Program Request for Proposals Attachment B: Concurrent Enrollment Pilot Program Request for Proposals Attachment C: Proposals received for Guided Pathways to Success Pilot Program Attachment D: Proposals received for Concurrent Enrollment Pilot Program

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

GUIDED PATHWAYS TO SUCCESS PILOT PROGRAM

The Missouri Department of Higher Education, on behalf of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education, requests proposals for a Guided Pathways to Success Pilot Program, as required by RSMo 173.2515 (SB 997). Based on the outcomes of these pilot programs, as stipulated in the statute, the CBHE may request funding to provide competitive grants to institutions of higher education to assist in defraying the costs incurred to implement guided pathways to success on a statewide basis. The primary intent of the Guided Pathways to Success Act is to provide students with effective information and directions that specify clear curricular paths to a degree. For many students, having a clear path to completion is more important than having to navigate a wide range of degrees and courses. Providing students with a clear path forward will reduce “wasted” credits, time to completion, and the overall costs of obtaining a degree. The parameters for Guided Pathways to Success Pilot Program are intentionally broad to encourage innovation and creativity. The specific requirements for each pilot program are listed below. Proposals must be received no later than January 13, 2017. Proposals selected as pilot programs will be announced at the February 2017 meeting of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education. Guided Pathways to Success Pilot Program

I. Definitions (1) Degree maps: a list of all course sequences available to fulfill the requirements for

a specific degree program; (2) Meta-majors: a collection of academic programs that have common or related

courses; (3) Proactive advising: an advising model in which advisors reach out to students in

anticipation of their needs, connect students with resources and support early in their studies, and motivate students to succeed;

(4) Structured schedule: a specific sequence of required and elective courses each semester that, when taken as prescribed, represent a direct path to complete a chosen program of study.

II. Required elements of Pilot Program Each proposed pilot program shall include at least two of the following components: (1) Majors organized into semester-by-semester sets of courses that lead to on-time

completion, which shall have the same meaning as described pursuant to section 173.2510;

(2) Degree-based transfer pathways between participating institutions to assist students who enroll in multiple institutions to complete their degree;

(3) Available meta-majors to minimize the loss of credit due to changes by students

Concurrent Enrollment and Guided Pathways Pilot Programs – Attachment A February 2, 2017 Page 2

in their degree majors; (4) Student commitment to a structured schedule of courses and electives; and (5) Clear degree maps, proactive advising and guarantees that required courses are

available when needed by students. III. Responsibilities of Participating Institutions

(1) The proposal must identify the two or more components the institution will use to develop and implement its pilot program.

(2) The proposal should include a timetable for the work, including milestones. (3) Participating institutions agree to provide periodic updates to MDHE staff and to

remain engaged with the department as the program is developed and implemented.

a) This shall include at least one face-to-face meeting annually to discuss the pilot program with MDHE staff, institutions participating in similar pilot programs, and other interested parties.

(4) Cooperating institutions will collect appropriate data and report to the CBHE annually, beginning one year after the CBHE approves the pilot program, on the program’s progress and effectiveness.

IV. Role of the MDHE (1) The department shall develop and publicly maintain materials that describe the

elements of Missouri's guided pathways to success project and assist students in understanding the operation of each component.

(2) The MDHE will facilitate meetings and the sharing of information regarding the pilot program’s development and progress.

(3) The MDHE will disseminate information through its office of communications about the pilot program.

(4) By January 1, 2020, the coordinating board shall report to the governor and the general assembly on the outcomes of the pilot program created in this section.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT PILOT PROGRAM The Missouri Department of Higher Education, on behalf of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education, requests proposals for a Concurrent Enrollment Pilot Program, as required by SB 997. The pilot program is intended to determine the feasibility of extending a concurrent enrollment option to other institutions in the state. The CBHE shall report on the outcomes of the pilot program and provide a recommendation regarding its expansion statewide to the governor and the general assembly by January 1, 2020, The primary intent of the Concurrent Enrollment Pilot Program is to provide students with a broader range of academic and student support services while streamlining the path to degree completion. A concurrent enrollment program allows for any person who satisfies the admissions requirements of any two-year public institution and any four-year public institution to be admitted to both institutions. The advantages of concurrent enrollment for students are many:

• Flexibility of taking courses at both institutions at the same time • Having an expanded selection of courses and schedules to fit their needs • Access to the resources of both institutions • Possibility of earning an associate degree while working toward a bachelor’s degree.

Concurrent enrollment programs could include coordinated advising, a single online application, and the ability to receive financial aid from both institutions. Proposals must be received no later than January 13, 2017. Proposals selected as pilot programs will be announced at the February 2017 meeting of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education. Concurrent Enrollment Pilot Program

I. Definitions (1) Concurrent postsecondary enrollment: coordinated enrollment in coursework at

both a four-year and a two-year postsecondary institution at the same time and for which the coursework is officially recorded by both institutions.

II. Required elements of Pilot Program proposal (1) Participating Institutions

a) The proposal must include the participation of one or more public four-year institution and one or more public two-year institution.

(2) Responsibilities of Participating Institutions a) The agreement should identify the responsibilities of each participating

institution in launching and running the program, including how costs, work load, and other considerations will be addressed.

b) The agreement should also specify the services the program will proved to concurrently enrolled students.

c) Cooperating institutions agree to provide periodic updates to MDHE staff and to remain engaged with the department as the program is developed

Concurrent Enrollment and Guided Pathways Pilot Programs – Attachment B February 2, 2017 Page 2

and implemented. This shall include at least one face-to-face meeting annually to discuss the pilot program with MDHE staff, institutions participating in similar pilot programs, and other interested parties.

d) Cooperating institutions will collect appropriate data and report to the CBHE annually, beginning one year after the CBHE approves the pilot program, on the program’s progress and effectiveness.

III. Role of the MDHE (1) The MDHE will facilitate meetings and the sharing of information regarding the

pilot program’s development and progress. (2) The MDHE will disseminate information through its office of communications

about the pilot program. (3) By January 1, 2020, the coordinating board shall provide a report to the governor

and the general assembly on the outcomes of the pilot program and provide a recommendation regarding the expansion of the program statewide.

1

Proposal to Participate in the Guided Pathways to Success Pilot Program

Metropolitan Community College – Kansas City (MCC) is committed to increasing student completion and is poised for participation in the Guided Pathways to Success Pilot Program. The Guided Pathways to Success Program aligns with the following strategic themes from the District Strategic Plan for 2016-2021:

1. Student Success: Metropolitan Community College will maximize student success through data-informed decisions to support excellence in teaching, learning, and student-centered support services.

• Create an environment focused on student success by empowering faculty and staff to adopt best practices to improve student success and engagement.

• Move from a more generalized student success approach to adopting a personalized/individualized approach to student success.

• Identify and remove institutional barriers to student completion.

2. Teaching and Learning: Metropolitan Community College will provide opportunities that enable success in academic, career, and personal pursuits by developing and delivering teaching to support learners at every stage of their lives.

• Identify and provide clear pathways for students to transfer or complete degrees and certificates.

These strategic themes will be supported by action items in the district-wide unit plans and the campus plans for each of the five MCC campuses (MCC-Blue River, MCC-Business and Technology, MCC-Longview, MCC-Maple Woods, and MCC-Penn Valley). Components required for Guided Pathways are included in the example action items for both the Student Success and the Teaching and Learning strategic themes and current planning documents.

In addition, in 2013, MCC was awarded three federal Department of Education Title III: Strengthening Institutions grants (one district-wide, and one at each of MCC-Blue River and MCC-Penn Valley campuses), to address curricular improvements in developmental education and key college-level gateway courses and to develop a comprehensive first year experience with a redesigned orientation, intrusive advising and an array of wrap around services. The funding from these five-year grants are supporting the technology tools that will be used for implementation of Guided Pathways at MCC. Most specifically, is Hobson’s Starfish Retention Solutions, which includes a degree planner for students, student and advisor dashboards to track student progress, early alert system, and connects students to the support services they may need at any point in their academic career.

2

Required Elements of Pilot Program

MCC is committed to implementing the following four of the six components by July 1, 2019, the end of the pilot program.

• At least one-half of the majors offered by the institution organized into semester-by-semester sets of courses that lead to on-time completion.

• The establishment of degree-based transfer pathways for at least the top five transfer program areas between participating institutions to assist students who enroll in multiple institutions to complete their degree.

• At least one meta-major designed to minimize the loss of credit due to changes by students in their degree majors.

• Clear degree maps and proactive advising available to all enrolled students.

Guided Pathways to Success will be integrated into a larger student retention and completion initiative, which includes transforming academic advising services from walk-in advising to a case management system. As part of the Title III grants, MCC is currently in the process of implementing the degree planning portion of the Hobson’s Starfish Retention Solutions. Through this initiative, MCC plans to improve student success with the support of technology that: 1) provides students with a degree planning tool; 2) allows advisors to provide proactive advising through academic planning and early intervention; 3) allows faculty and advisors to monitor progress and identify at-risk students to inform early intervention plans; 4) provides students with feedback on their own academic progress; and, 5) allows advisors to track student progress through completion. The degree planning technology provides a platform for organizing each degree program into the semester-by-semester courses needed to complete a degree on time.

Implementation Timetable and Milestones

MCC is in the midst of redesigning its academic advising processes in preparation for proactive case management advising in fall 2017. Therefore, the work for organizing program plans into semester-by-semester sets of courses and implementing the technology to support proactive advising is already in progress. The following implementation timetable is for the specific required elements of the Guided Pathways to Success pilot program.

Element Milestones Target Completion Date At least one-half of the majors offered by the institution organized into semester-by-semester sets of courses that lead to on-time completion.

The Associate of Arts program and the top 50 enrolled program plans are mapped prior to academic advising sessions for degree planning with first time in college students, as part of case management.

September 1, 2017

Remaining program plans are mapped prior to the start of fall 2018 enrollment.

April 1, 2018

The establishment of degree-based transfer pathways for at

The targeted program areas for establishing degree-based transfer

October 31, 2017

3

least the top five transfer program areas between participating institutions to assist students who enroll in multiple institutions to complete their degree.

pathways will be identified. Articulation agreements will be updated/completed for the targeted transfer programs, with the courses in the pathways determined.

July 1, 2018

The targeted pathways will be mapped out in the degree planning software to academic advising sessions for degree planning with first time in college students, as part of case management.

September 1, 2018

At least one meta-major designed to minimize the loss of credit due to changes by students in their degree majors.

Utilizing data from the degree planning software during the first year of use, at least one cluster of degree plans will be identified for designing the meta-major.

September 1, 2018

Faculty from programs in the identified cluster will collaborate throughout the 2018-19 academic year to map out the meta-major(s).

April 1, 2019

Clear degree maps and proactive advising available to all enrolled students.

Proactive advising and clear degree maps for the Associate of Arts and top 50 enrolled programs are available to first time in college students enrolled for the Fall 2017 semester.

September 1, 2017

Proactive advising and clear degree maps for all programs of study will be available to all degree-seeking students at MCC.

September 1, 2018

Two-year completion data on the effectiveness of clear degree maps and proactive advising will be available for the Fall 2017 first time in college cohort.

July 1, 2019

Data from the implementation of these first four elements will inform the approach to addressing the other two elements. By December 2018, MCC will have a critical mass of students with degree plans in the software with both the fall 2017 and fall 2018 cohorts of new first time in college students. This will inform the development of a guaranteed schedule of required courses that aligns with student planning for completion. We will also be able to assess student engagement with their advisors, commitment to their degree plans, effectiveness of our new advising case management system, and impacts of course scheduling. This will inform how we approach increasing student commitment to a structured schedule in the future.

4

These actions will provide students with effective information and directions that specify clear curricular paths to a degree. Providing students with a clear path forward and support services will reduce “wasted” credits, time to completion, and the overall costs of obtaining a degree.

Leadership for Guided Pathways at MCC

The Guided Pathways to Success pilot program will be a collaborative effort between academic affairs and student services, co-led by Dr. Carlos Peñaloza, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and Dr. Kathrine Swanson, Vice Chancellor of Student Success and Engagement. Faculty, staff, and administrators from all five campuses are engaged in this important work. The project implementation team includes representation from faculty, instruction, academic advisors, enrollment services, learning support services, information technology and marketing and communications.

MCC will commit to providing periodic updates to MDHE staff, collecting appropriate data to report to CBHE annually, and looks forward to an opportunity to collaborate with MDHE and other participating institutions through face-to-face meetings to discuss the pilot programs and learn from each other.

Questions about this proposal may be directed to:

Kathrine B. Swanson, Ed.D. Vice Chancellor of Student Success and Engagement Metropolitan Community College 3200 Broadway Kansas City, MO 64111 Kathrine.Swanson@mcckc.edu 816-604-1188

Carlos G. Peñaloza, Ph.D. Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Metropolitan Community College 3200 Broadway Kansas City, MO 64111 Carlos.Penaloza@mcckc.edu 816-604-1206

Guided Pathways to Success Pilot Program Proposal

Introduction North Central Missouri College is a community college offering Certificate, Associate in Applied Science, Associate in Arts in Teaching, Associate in General Studies, and Associate in Arts degree programs to its student population. Enrollment in the Fall 2016 semester was approximately 1,700 students. NCMC’s Academic Advisors provide advisement and enrollment services for all new students. Returning students are assigned either a faculty advisor or an Academic Advisor for the remainder of their enrollment at NCMC, depending on their chosen degree program. The Director of Advising & Retention oversees all intake advising for new students and works in collaboration with faculty advisors and Academic Advisors to ensure students are receiving appropriate and thorough advisement and enrollment information. Pilot Program Components The following components of the Guided Pathways to Success Pilot Program will be implemented if the proposal is chosen:

(1) At least one-half of the majors offered by the institution organized into semester-by-semester sets of courses that lead to on-time completion which shall have the same meaning as described pursuant to section 173.2510;

(2) The establishment of degree-based transfer pathways for at least the top five transfer program areas between participating institutions to assist students who enroll in multiple institutions to complete their degree;

(3) At least one meta-major designed to minimize the loss of credit due to changes by students in their degree majors;

(5) Clear degree maps and proactive advising available to all enrolled students. Timetable A timetable for each component has been established to meet the implementation deadline of July 1, 2019. The Director of Advising & Retention will be responsible for making sure the tasks are completed on time or before the stated deadline. The NCMC Academic Advisors will be involved in the entire process as contributors.

Component One: Semester-by-Semester Course Plans Task Milestone Date

Identify each degree program and its requirements; gather information for each required course in the program

Draft of courses listed in appropriate sequence, by semester, for each degree program at NCMC to guide

August 2017

such as prerequisites, in which semester the course is offered, in what format (online or on-ground) the course is offered, and how often the course is offered; map out course sequence draft utilizing the gathered information and ensuring the student would complete the degree on-time according to “15 to Finish”.

students to on-time completion.

Send draft to department chairperson and faculty member that oversees the program; use feedback and suggested edits to make changes and finalize the draft.

Finalize the draft course sequencing plan.

September 2017

Use course sequencing plan to develop degree maps for each degree program offered at NCMC.

See Component Five Timetable

Component Two: Establish Degree-Based Transfer Pathways Task Milestone Date

Identify top 5 institutions to which NCMC students transfer in each meta-major area by using Clearinghouse, data from the Registrar involving to what institutions NCMC transcripts are sent, student tracker data, surveying students in the AA transfer degree program, and collection of input from faculty and academic advisors.

Obtain the data to support the identification of the top 5 institutions to which NCMC students transfer upon completion of the AA transfer degree.

July 2017

Research course requirements at the top 5 transfer schools for each meta-major; list suggested courses, organized by transfer institution, on each meta-major advisement sheet.

Establish course suggestions for top 5 transfer institutions for all nine identified meta-majors.

November 2017

Publish meta-major advisement sheets in the student portal (or identify a more relevant area to make the information available); disseminate information to faculty, staff, and students; provide training sessions for faculty advisors and academic advisors on how to effectively use the top 5 transfer institution information when advising students.

Information is accessible and being utilized by students, staff, and faculty. Provide training sessions for advisors.

January 2018 February 2018

Continue to update yearly as new college catalogs are updated and program changes go into effect.

Yearly updates based on availability of college catalogs.

Continuous

Component Three: Meta-Major Task Milestone Date

Identify meta-majors being used by partner institutions and create a table to list majors would be categorized into each meta-major; collaborate with advisors and gather feedback from students to determine what majors are most popular among NCMC transfer students.

Identify meta-major categories. August 2017

Develop draft guide sheet for each meta-major that outlines a two-semester plan for that meta-major; use in conjunction with degree-based transfer pathways (Component Two) to guide students into coursework during their first year; adhere by 15 to Finish and Math Pathways guidelines when outlining suggested coursework; identify pertinent information to be included on the guide sheet such as milestones, advisor information, and registration/enrollment dates.

Development of meta-major advisement sheet which includes transfer pathways information on the reverse side.

December 2017

Publish meta-major advisement sheets in the student portal (or identify a more relevant area to make the information available); disseminate information to faculty, staff, and students; provide training sessions for faculty advisors and academic advisors on how to effectively use the top 5 transfer institution information when advising students.

Information is accessible and being utilized by students, staff, and faculty. Provide training sessions for advisors.

March 2018 February 2018

Identify a space on campus that can house printed copies of the course plans for easy access for students.

Establishing a space to be used for advising/degree program materials.

June 2019

Continue to update yearly as new college catalogs are updated and program changes go into effect.

Yearly updates based on availability of college catalogs.

Continuous

Component Five: Degree Maps and Proactive Advising

Task Milestone Date Utilize information from Component One to develop degree maps for each degree program at NCMC; send to faculty and department chairpersons for final approval.

Draft degree maps are approved by faculty and department chairs.

November 2017

Update the degree maps on the website; make accessible to staff, faculty, students and prospective students.

Maps are accessible electronically. March 2018

Research proactive advising; develop a training plan for advising staff to put proactive advising techniques into practice. Implement training plan among academic advisors only (pilot the training program).

Develop proactive advising tools and training plan. Implement the plan in pilot phase.

February 2018 (Development) March 2018 (Implementation)

Gather feedback from advisors and students regarding satisfaction with proactive advising plan by creating a survey and encouraging word of mouth feedback from advisees/advisors; create SWOT analysis of the proactive advising plan.

SWOT analysis of the proactive advising approach.

June 2018

Develop an advisor training and communication plan to determine when information should be distributed (just in time), use SWOT analysis and proactive advising tools and information to develop an advisor handbook that is updated each academic year, schedule trainings for advisors to cover proactive advising techniques, utilize Blackboard and other technology to create informative and useful videos and tools for use among faculty advisors and academic advisors. Training and communication plan to be used throughout each academic year with changes made as needed.

Development of Advisor Training and Communication Plan Implementation of Advisor Training and Communication Plan Development and distribution of Advisor Handbook

July 2018 (Advisor Training and Communication Plan) September 2018 (Implementation) September 2018

Disseminate information about using the degree map as an advising and planning tool for students and advisors by including the information in the Advisor Training and Communication Plan

Advisors and students are aware of the course plans and utilize the document during advising sessions.

September 2018 Continue to distribute information about course planning tool each semester.

Identify a space on campus that can house printed copies of the course plans for easy access for students.

Establishing a space to be used for advising/degree program materials.

June 2019

Proposal submitted by: Megan Pester Director of Advising & Retention North Central Missouri College mpester@mail.ncmissouri.edu 660-359-3948 ext. 1405

Ozarks Technical Community College

Guided Pathways to Success Pilot Program

Proposal

Pilot Program Elements

Ozarks Technical Community College’s pilot program would involve the following required

elements:

Clear degree maps and proactive advising available to all enrolled students

Ozarks Technical Community College will develop sequenced course pathways for degrees to

provide improved guidance to students in the registration process. These pathways will be presented

to students by implementing the Educational Advisory Board’s Navigate software. The registration

function in Navigate will use the developed course pathways to provide personalized course

recommendations to students based upon their work/personal schedule and course location

preferences. Students will also receive additional guidance on selecting the degree program that is

the best fit for their interests and career goals, as well as tailored information on campus resources

based upon student characteristics.

At least one meta-major designed to minimize the loss of credit due to changes by students

in their degree majors

Upon development of the sequenced course pathways, OTC will evaluate common courses that

occur early in the sequence for programs of study which show the greatest loss of credit due to

student program changes or non-completion. Ozarks Technical Community College will also study

non-completing students to evaluate their credit attainment, programs of study, intended outcomes

and any transfer or employment activity after leaving. These study results will be used to form

recommendations on steps, including the creation of a meta-major, to minimize the loss of student

credit.

The establishment of degree-based transfer pathways for at least the top five transfer

program areas between participating institutions to assist students who enroll in multiple

institutions to complete their degree

As the top destination for Ozarks Technical Community College’s transfer students, Missouri State

University has committed to collaborating in this pilot program to develop transfer pathways for the

top program areas. After jointly identifying the top program areas, the two institutions will work

together on the development and presentation of transfer pathway guides. This will be

supplemented by cooperative work on the development of a co-branded transfer pathway for all

OTC students interested in transferring to Missouri State. Elements considered for this co-branded

pathway include: early access to Missouri State advising resources, clear transfer pathway guides,

relevant support resources and incentives for degree completion prior to transferring.

Reporting

Ozarks Technical Community College will provide periodic reporting to the Missouri Department

of Higher Education containing progress updates on the program elements described above.

As data becomes available, the reports will also include information on student utilization of the new

guided pathways resources. The effectiveness of the pilot will also be analyzed by conducting a

comparative cohort analysis evaluating student success and retention rates prior to and after guided

pathways implementation.

Project Timeline Milestones

Fall 2017 o Develop sequenced course pathways for majority of academic degrees. o Implement Educational Advisory Board’s Navigate product to provide additional

guidance to students in selection of degree programs and present students with

personalized structured schedule recommendations for course registration. o Pilot Navigate with all new OTC students and evaluate utilization of course

pathways.

Spring 2018 o Complete study of non-completers, credit loss and sequenced course pathway

commonalities for evaluation of meta-major development.

o Identify the top five, or more, transfer program areas for OTC students transferring

to Missouri State University and develop transfer pathways.

Fall 2018

o Promote the use of Navigate’s registration function, including the sequenced course

pathways, to current students. o Develop recommendations to minimize student credit loss based on the meta-major

study results. o Develop co-branded pathway for students intending to transfer to Missouri State

University that includes additional support for course pathway guidance and

supplemental advising.

Spring 2019 o Reach utilization rate of Navigate’s structured schedule registration function by more

than 50% of degree seeking students.

o Implement recommendations to minimize student credit loss based on data analysis.

Contact Information:

Matthew Simpson

College Director of Research, Strategic Planning and Grant Development

Ozarks Technical Community College

simpsonm@otc.edu

417-447-2648

1

GUIDED DEGREE COMPLETION PATHWAY WEBSITE FOR STUDENT SUCCESS

Karl R. Kunkel, Provost Southeast Missouri State University

kkunkel@semo.edu Southeast Missouri State University proposes a Guided Pathway to Success Pilot Project providing undergraduate students with clear pathways for bachelor’s degree completion along with enhanced opportunities for success reaching graduation. This project involves creating a comprehensive website posting and integrating three and four-year suggested pathways/course scheduling for the most popular 70% of undergraduate degree programs at Southeast, two-year course rotations for each department offering these programs, and meta-majors for the three most common undergraduate degree program sectors. All of this information will be provided through a specific “Guided Degree Completion Pathway Website” hosted on the Southeast server. This resource will be linked from each relevant department page along with appropriate locations on the University site, such as the Advising Center, the Provost’s website, college home pages, and the University A-Z index. Posting Three and Four-Year Degree Completion Pathways To demonstrate organized manners and realistic perspectives for students to complete undergraduate degree programs Southeast proposes to build a website of three and four-year course schedules/degree maps leading to bachelor’s degree completion for the most popular 70% of majors. In addition to mapping a traditional four-year degree completion schedule, three-year schedules also are provided for students wanting to minimize time and cost involved with completing these degree programs. Committing to Two-Year Course Rotations A critical element facilitating successful timely undergraduate degree completion, and a realistic opportunity to follow established three or four-year degree paths, is academic departments committing to offer the courses students need to follow a pathway. This pilot project requires each involved academic department creating and publishing, on the comprehensive website, a course rotation showing students and advisors when specific courses will be offered (Fall, Spring, and Summer semesters) during a forthcoming two-year period. The course rotation will be consistent with the degree three and four-year degree paths. This posted course rotation will be updated each semester so course schedules for two years into the future always is accessible. Developing Meta-Majors Southeast Missouri State also will develop meta-majors for three academic program clusters based on the 70% most popular majors. Once determined, common general education, gateway, and entry-level courses will be identified and sequenced as pathways for students to take during the first year when pursuing majors in any of these clusters. Developed meta-

2

majors will be linked with the three and four-year pathways/degree plans and two-year course rotations discussed above. Required Elements for an MDHE Pilot Program The Request for Proposals (RFP) distributed by MDHE for the Guided Pathways to Success Pilot Program requires the proposal involve at least two components from the provided list. This program proposal actually involves FOUR of the listed elements:

(1) At least one-half of the majors offered by the institution organized into semester-by-semester sets of courses that lead to on-time completion. The proposed program aspires to have three-year degree plans for the most popular 70% of Southeast undergraduate majors and 100% of four-year degree plans illustrated.

(2) At least one meta-major designed to minimize the loss of credit due to changes by students in their degree majors. This proposal seeks to identify the three most popular undergraduate academic program sectors and develop meta-majors for each of these areas.

(3) Clear degree maps and proactive advising available to all enrolled students. The proposed project involves a prominent website with available undergraduate degree paths, two-year course rotations, and meta-majors. This online resource will be available to all students, staff advisors, and faculty advisors facilitating proactive advising as students navigate these degree programs.

(4) Guarantees that required courses included in the degree maps and meta-majors are available when needed by students. The resource described in this proposal includes involved departments creating, posting, and committing to an ongoing and continually updated two-year course rotation, including summer terms. This aspect of the pilot project involves departments working with the Office of Institutional Research to use data analytics for ensuring seat availability in courses.

Resources Needed

Project Coordinator- Oversees the project, performs and takes primary responsibility for processes, tasks, and outcomes described in the proposed timeline. Coordinates with Department Chairs, faculty, Advising Center staff, and Institutional Research for various tasks involved with the project. Regularly reports to the Provost on progress of the project, outcomes, deliverables, along with required MDHE submissions.

Web Author- University Communications and Marketing will provide a web author who will be responsible for creating the project website, posting all information regarding the project, and working with the University web services to place appropriate links on the Southeast site once the resource goes live. This individual also is responsible for ongoing and continuous updates and revisions to the project website.

3

Proposed Timeline and Milestones

July 1, 2017- Project Coordinator begins working with Institutional Research to identify the most populated majors at Southeast Missouri State. The top 70% of undergraduate programs will be identified. Templates for departments/programs to provide necessary information will be developed.

August 2017- A meeting with Deans and Department Chairs overseeing the selected programs is held explaining the initiative and asking Chairs to work with faculty to create three and four-year degree paths for the included academic programs. Chairs submit required information to the Project Coordinator by September 20, 2017.

October 2017- The Project Coordinator works with the Web Author to begin building the project website posting the degree plan/pathway information. Chairs work with Department faculty to devise an initial two-year course rotation, beginning with Summer 2018, making certain this rotation corresponds to the three and four-year degree plans. Chairs submit the initial two-year course rotation to the Project Coordinator by November 1, 2017.

November 2017- The Project Coordinator works with the Web Author to post course rotations on the project website.

December 1, 2017- The project website initially goes live.

January 2018- The Project Coordinator partners with Institutional Research and the Advising Center Staff to determine three sectors among the most populated majors as the first step in creating meta-majors. The Advising Center conducts a curriculum analysis of the undergraduate major programs in each sector to find common lower-division, gateway, and prerequisite courses.

February 2018- The Project Coordinator, working with Advising Center staff, creates and proposes meta-major with sequenced and stacked courses for each academic program sector. Meta-majors will be consistent with the degree pathways and course rotations. Proposed meta-majors are presented to each involved academic department for comment and feedback.

April 1, 2018- Feedback on proposed meta-majors due from departments.

May 2018- The Project Coordinator works with the Web Author to post meta-majors on the project website. The Project Coordinator begins creating an assessment plan, with data gathering techniques, for the pilot project.

4

June 2018- Summer and Fall 2020 semester course rotations (corresponding to the pathways and meta-majors) are submitted by Department Chairs and posted by Web Author to update the course rotation element of this project.

June 15, 2018- The Project Coordinator submits to the Provost for review a draft of the required MDHE progress report describing outcomes and deliverables.

July 1, 2018- The required progress report is submitted to MDHE by the Provost.

September 2018- The assessment data gathering process begins and continues throughout the academic year. The Project Coordinator checks with Department Chairs to determine if changes need to occur in three or four-year pathways or course rotations.

February 2019- To update the course rotations, Spring 2021 semester courses are submitted by Department Chairs and posted by the Web Author.

June 1, 2019- The required close-out report authored by Project Coordinator is submitted to the Provost for review.

July 1, 2019- The required close-out report is submitted by the Provost to MDHE.

Guided Pathways to Success Pilot Program University of Missouri – Kansas City (UMKC) Proposal – Maximizing Steps Taken

Please accept this communication as an official request to be selected as an institution to participate in the MDHE Guided Pathways to Success Pilot. We believe that we have taken significant steps toward the key elements identified, have learned much that may be beneficial to share with other institutions, and have final elements currently in development (which would be advanced by additional funding) that would allow us to fully leverage our current investments in this effort and significantly improve our students’ success. The following is a summary of our progress as it relates to the identified elements of the Success Pilot.

The University of Missouri – Kansas City has taken steps toward providing clearer, guided pathways to degree completion over the last several years. Steps taken to date relative to the MDHE Required Elements for Guided Pathways include:

(1) At least one-half of the majors offered by the institution organized into semester-by-semester sets of courses that lead to on-time completion, which shall have the same meaning as described pursuant to section 173.2510;

UMKC Status - Completed: All UMKC undergraduate degree options have determined a semester-by-semester set of courses that lead to on-time completion. UMKC’s “Major Maps” are available for review at: https://cf1.umkc.edu/majormaps/

UMKC has implemented “On Time” messaging to incoming students emphasizing the advantages of full-time enrollment. UMKC Campaign information available at: http://www.umkc.edu/15tofinish/

UMKC is currently implementing an online planning tool that will individualize each student’s semester-by-semester plan from their first semester at UMKC through degree completion. This tool is integrated with UMKC’s degree audit system to allow students and their advisors to easily see and plan the most efficient path to graduation. This tool is anticipated to be fully developed for the entering Fall 2017 cohort of both first-year and transfer students for all undergraduate academic programs

(2) The establishment of degree-based transfer pathways for at least the top five transfer program areas between participating institutions to assist students who enroll in multiple institutions to complete their degree;

UMKC Status – Completed for Metropolitan Community College-Kansas City (MCC), UMKC’s top two-year partner institution. These guides are available online at: http://www.umkc.edu/transferguides/

Transfer guides for all undergraduate degree options indicate:

1) MCC courses that satisfy specific UMKC degree requirements

2) The distribution of courses that may be transferred to UMKC to fulfill requirements in specific degrees

Potential students interested in having their coursework evaluated through the UMKC Degree Audit system prior to applying may do so through “Transferology” online. Available at: https://www.transferology.com/school/umkc

(3) At least one meta-major designed to minimize the loss of credit due to changes by students in their degree majors;

UMKC’s University College is an academic unit designed for “Exploratory” or undecided students. Students in University College select from one of four Mega-Majors designed to build critical skills, explore students’ interests and values relative to academic and career goals. UMKC’s Mega Majors include:

Arts, Culture, and Human Expression

Numbers, Functions and Technology

Individual and Group Behavior

Health, Life Science and Our World

Additional information regarding curricular components of each University College Mega Major are available at: https://catalog.umkc.edu/colleges-schools/university-college/

UMKC has identified the following elements to develop and implement that may be advanced by MDHE Pilot Funding.

(5) Clear degree maps and proactive advising available to all enrolled students;

UMKC has developed degree maps that identify “critical courses” each term in the first two years for each plan of study. These critical courses assist the student in determining interest and academic “fit”. Currently, academic progress evaluation focuses primarily on term and/or cumulative GPA progress only.

Advising loads necessitate our ability to utilize technology to alert both advisors and students when critical changes in enrollment or advising interventions are called for.

UMKC must develop tracking systems to:

1) Confirm appropriate “on-track” enrollment prior to the start of each term and alert students, and their academic advisors, when enrollment modification prior to the beginning of a term must occur. Our current system’s capability is not linked to the degree audit system and is not effective for transfer students that make up approximately 50% of our student population.

2) Identify students whose academic performance (both ongoing and final) indicates a mismatch in study strategies and/or a lack of fit with the student’s skills, interests and values. This tracking tool is critical to target proactive advising for students early in their academic careers.

UMKC has already invested in an updated degree audit system integrated with a semester-by-semester planner (u.achieve and u.direct by College Source), as well as an early alert and advising online tool (Starfish Early Alert and Connect by Hobsons).

(6) Guarantees that required courses included in degree maps and meta-majors are available when needed by students.

UMKC must develop a system to coordinate course scheduling to ensure that courses are available that block the required course sequences in coherent, connected schedules. As outlined above, UMKC is launching a semester-by-semester planning tool that will allow us to capture/predict course capacity needs. Our next step is to coordinate the class scheduling across the university to ensure that our students have the access to the combination of classes they need to graduate on time. Scheduling courses, particularly for first-time college students, involves units from across campus. For this reason, courses required by students may be offered each term, but become essentially unavailable because overlapping schedules.

Completion of the pilot outlined above will provide the tools to move toward the final MDHE element.

(4) Student commitment from at least one-half of degree seeking students to a structured schedule of courses and electives;

Funding Requested:

We have identified a tool that will significantly improve the course scheduling process and coordinate efforts across campus, CourseLeaf Section Scheduler (CLSS). The cost of this tool is: Year 1, $32,000; and Year 2, $24,000. Additional funding is needed to provide ongoing support and maintenance, to integrate tools together, develop reporting mechanisms, and, for a project manager, to coordinate the various activities including interfacing with University of Missouri System EAS, working with vendors, and ensuring appropriate training and support structures are put in place. Funding is requested to support: two programmers at $85,315.91 each (63,024.24 salary + 22,291.67 benefits), and a half time project manager at 50% of $85,147.78 (salary of $62,900.04 and benefits of $22,247.74) for the two years of the pilot.

Total funding request: $490,411.42 Year 1 - $245,205.71 Year 2 - $237,205.71

(2) The proposal should include a timetable for the work, including milestones.

February 1, 2017 Hire programmers and project management staff.

July 1, 2017 CourseLeaf Section Scheduler (CLSS) Implemented & Scheduling Officers Trained for use.

November 30, 2017 Individualized student plans of study (semester-by-semester) submitted through u.direct tool for incoming Fall 2017 Cohort approved by academic unit so that enrollment demand, specific to course scheduling, can guarantee course availability for all students meeting with unit advisors.

January 1, 2018 All UMKC Major Map Semester-by-Semester coordinated scheduling to ensure availability without overlaps through the use of CourseLeaf Section Scheduler (CLSS).

Dashboards and Alerts developed to ensure progress and identify where interventions must take place.

Identify Structured Schedules for pilot units for Fall 2018 cohort.

Again, UMKC believes that we have taken significant steps toward the key elements identified, have learned much that may be beneficial to share with other institutions. We have final elements currently in development (which would be advanced by additional funding) that would allow us to fully leverage our current investments in this effort and significantly improve our students’ success. Selection as one of the pilot institutions would provide an opportunity for us to share our success and challenges with other institutions, but more importantly give us an opportunity to learn from the experiences of other Missouri institutions with similar goals. Thank you for your consideration.

Submitted on behalf of: Barbara Bichelmeyer, Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor University of Missouri – Kansas City For questions or further information, please contact: Kim McNeley, Associate Vice Provost mcneleyk@umkc.edu (816) 235-8647

1

Proposal to the Coordinating Board for Higher Education Concurrent Enrollment Pilot Program

A Partnership between East Central College and Missouri University of Science and Technology

Proposal Team:

East Central College Shelli Allen

Nathaniel Mitchell Tia Robinson

Sarah Scroggins

Missouri S&T Debra Anderson

Jeff Cawlfield Tim Albers

Lynn Stichnote Deanne Jackson

Bridgett Betz

Purpose This proposal is a response to a request for proposals from the Coordinating Board for Higher Education for a Concurrent Enrollment Pilot Program as required by SB 997. The purpose of this program is to promote student success and degree attainment by supporting students as they combine coursework from both East Central College and Missouri S&T leading to the completion of the East Central College associate’s degree requirements and, subsequently, to the completion of the Missouri S&T bachelor’s degree. The program aspires to decrease time to graduation and total credits at graduation while increasing enrollment, retention, transfer, and graduation rates. Participating Institutions 2-yr Public Institution: East Central College, Union and Rolla, Missouri 4-year Public Institution: Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri History of ECC Partnership East Central College and Missouri University of Science and Technology have a thriving transfer partnership that was established more than 40 years ago. Originally established for the benefit of engineering students, the partnership has expanded to include students majoring in more than 40 different degree programs. Transfer guides posted online detail ECC transfer coursework satisfying Missouri S&T degree requirements. (See futurestudents.mst.edu/apply/transfer/courseguides/.) The establishment of the ECC extension campus in Rolla has opened a new path for local students, especially those using A+ funding, to earn an ECC associate’s degree, and, subsequently, an S&T bachelor’s degree. S&T transfer merit scholarships, awarded automatically to all transfer students that meet GPA requirements, further support transfer student success at S&T. (See Appendix 1.)

2

Historically, ECC students that transfer to Missouri S&T experience success. Since 2006, 237 students who have transferred from ECC have earned 254 degrees at Missouri S&T. Data since 2008 indicate that ECC/S&T graduates transferred with an average 3.16 transfer GPA and graduated with an average 3.25 GPA. On average, 29 new ECC students transfer to S&T each year with an average of 65 transfer credits. Currently, 121 ECC transfer students are enrolled at S&T in 29 different degree programs. This data highlights the effectiveness of student preparation at ECC and the effectiveness of the Transfer Assistance Program and the transfer experience at Missouri S&T. (See Appendix 2.) ECC and Missouri S&T work collaboratively to recruit students and promote student access, success, and degree attainment. Each year the two institutions participate in a joint recruitment event, Math, Science, and Engineering Career Night, to promote the ECC/S&T transfer pathway to high school students interested in STEM fields. The event is typically attended by 50 to 75 high school students and their families. Another annual event is the ECC Transfer Student Alumni Dinner hosted by ECC in Rolla each fall. The Alumni Dinner brings former ECC students currently attending S&T together with current ECC students as well as faculty, staff, and administrators from both ECC and S&T. Other collaborative activities include a lab activity at the S&T nuclear reactor for ECC engineering students, a group visit to S&T for ECC students planning a future transfer, class visits to ECC by S&T transfer counselors, class presentations to ECC classes by S&T faculty, ECC student participation in the S&T student chapter of the Missouri State Teachers’ Association (SMSTA). Program Description This Concurrent Enrollment Program (CEP) provides a pathway for students to enroll concurrently in coursework at both East Central College (ECC) and Missouri University of Science and Technology (S&T), to access a wide range of services on both campuses, including advising, student financial assistance, student success programs, academic support services, student activities, library resources, and other services. The program will facilitate student success by supporting associate degree attainment while preparing students to transfer for bachelor’s degree completion. For some students, the program will provide access to a Missouri S&T bachelor’s degree for students who were not initially admissible to the program of their choice at the University by giving them a graduated, guided transition to the university as they build their academic background with a combination of ECC and S&T courses. It provides access for A+ eligible students to the University experience while minimizing their costs. It provides all students with a more cohesive advising experience and a wider range of student activities and services.

3

Services Provided to Concurrently Enrolled Students

Online Joint Application for Admission and Reverse Transfer Opt-in

Financial Aid Consortium Agreement

Transcript Exchange between ECC and S&T

Reverse Transfer Processes

New Student Orientation

Academic advisors at ECC and S&T

Coordinated associate’s-to-bachelor’s degree plan

S&T Student Success Mentor

S&T Library Services Access

S&T IT/CLC Services Access

S&T COER Services Access

Experiential Learning through S&T research opportunities, student design teams, study abroad.

S&T student activities, clubs, sporting events Responsibilities of Participating Institutions

Designate a CEP Program Facilitator

Assign a CEP Student Advisor

Attend monthly joint ECC/S&T planning and implementation meetings

Promote program to eligible students according to jointly-established guidelines.

Plan and implement a joint ECC/S&T CEP new student orientation program at start of semester.

Assist each CEP student with developing a coordinated associate’s-to-bachelor’s degree plan.

Provide a mechanism for seamless reverse transfer or development for students that elect to pursue associate’s degrees or that struggle academically

Develop website with information and resources for current and prospective CEP students.

Develop mechanism for tracking CEP student interest, enrollment, and success.

Develop and document all internal processes including those for applications, admission, enrollment, awarding and disbursal of financial aid, recruitment, outreach, advising, student engagement, mentoring.

Establish appropriate metrics for student success and program participation.

Provide verbal and written progress reports to CBHE as requested by CBHE.

Provide appropriate data to CBHE annually. Student Eligibility

Fully Admissible Students are those who satisfy college, university, and department admission criteria for both ECC and S&T.

Provisionally Admissible Students are those who satisfy admission criteria for ECC but not for S&T.

4

Resources and Costs Implementing this program will require human, fiscal, and technological resources. The associated expenses will be the responsibility of the home institution. During the pilot phase of the program, all CEP responsibilities will be handled by existing staff. No additional hiring is anticipated to support the program during this phase. Staff duties will be temporarily reassigned as necessary to allow time to be devoted to the development and implementation of the pilot program. Those staff assignments will be temporary and student numbers may be limited for the first cohort. For the program to grow in student numbers and in services offered to students, additional more permanent resource allocations will need to be examined. Human Resources CEP Program Facilitator at each institution CEP Student Advisors at each institution CEP Financial Aid Technician Fiscal Resources Required Travel expenses Marketing expenses Postage expenses Ancillary expenses related to event provisions Technological Resources Online application development Website development Tracking database Program Assessment/Measures of Success ECC will monitor the transfer intent of its students by using a number of strategies, including applications for admission, surveys such as the Community College Survey of Student Engagement and the Ruffalo Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory, and annual reports of course, certificate, and degree completion. CEP students will be tracked in the areas of:

Persistence Rate – The enrollment headcount of the entering cohort compared to the headcount on the official census date.

Progression Rate – The rate at which the cohort completes courses and rates of academic probation

Retention Rate – The rate at which students continue in the CEP program from Fall to Fall The following data will be gathered each semester and reported on an annual basis to assess student success and the effectiveness and viability of the CEP:

Total number of CEP enrolled students.

Credits enrolled at each institution.

Average GPA at each institution, average cumulative GPA.

Associate’s degree attainment

Bachelor’s degree attainment

5

Appendix 1 Merit-based Scholarships for Transfer Students Amounts per academic year Missouri S&T’s tradition of welcoming and supporting transfer students from around the country includes merit-based scholarships. Current scholarship amounts and GPA requirements are:

GPA TO QUALIFY MISSOURI RESIDENTS NON-MISSOURI RESIDENTS

GPA TO RENEW

2.75 – 2.99 $500 $1,000 NO RENEWAL

3.00 – 3.24 $1,000 $2,500 3.00

3.25 – 3.49 $1,500 $3,000 3.25

3.50 – 4.00 $2,500 $4,500 3.25

6

Ap

pen

dix

2

7

TO: Rusty Monhollon, Assistant Commissioner FROM: Timothy Mottet, Provost, Northwest Missouri State University Jamie Hooyman, Vice Provost, Northwest Missouri State University Carlos Penaloza, Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, Metropolitan Community College Fran Padow, Director of Educational Services, Metropolitan Community College DATE: 1-13-2017 RE: RFP Pilot Program SB997 Concurrent Enrollment

Due January 13 to Samantha.dickey@dhe.mo.gov PARTNERS Northwest Missouri State University (Northwest) and Metropolitan Community College (MCC) are proposing a concurrent enrollment model to begin Fall 2017 to meet our joint goal of increasing the number of students completing an associate’s and bachelor’s degree in an accelerated format reducing time to degree and cost of degree. The innovative program will be marketed in Kansas City as the Pathway Partnership Program. Both institutions have senior-level support to ensure this concurrent enrollment pilot is successful. Currently, Northwest offers three completion programs at Northwest-Kansas City, which is located at the Northland Innovation Center in Gladstone, Mo. This Fall (2017) Northwest will launch four additional programs. The majority of students who finish these completion programs are from MCC. The Pathway Partnership Program will allow MCC and Northwest to develop a more seamless transfer process removing existing challenges that tend to add time to degree completion and therefore cost of a degree. PARTNER RESPONSIBILITIES (refer to attached draft MOU) If given the opportunity to pilot the Pathway Partnership Program, senior leaders at both MCC and Northwest are committed to working to meet the following proposed 15 features:

1. The institutions will work together to provide students a seamless application process without fees.

2. Students must meet Northwest’s admissions requirements. Students who do not meet Northwest’s admissions requirements when applying for the Pathway Partnership Program will be tentatively accepted and allowed to enroll in specified courses within their pathway until after completing at least 24 hours of coursework from MCC and Northwest with a minimum 2.0 cumulative GPA. Once students have met all the requirements, they will be automatically granted full admission to Northwest.

3. Pathway Partnership Program students will be provided with laptop computers and textbooks (for Northwest courses).

4. Students will enroll in one of four degree programs including Education (Elementary, Special Education, Early Childhood), Business Management, Communication/Public Relations, or Applied Health Science.

5. Students will participate in a single orientation process that on-boards them to both institutions. 6. Students will work closely with an advisor for the duration of their program. 7. Students who enroll in this program will agree to a “specific, prescribed, and narrow pathway”

that will prepare them for a specific professional career in: education, business, communication, or applied health sciences.

8. Degree pathways will maximize dual credit to minimize cost and time to degree. 9. Students will be enrolled as full time students, taking at least one course per semester with

Northwest during the first two years. During the final semesters, they will be full time students at Northwest. The student will pay MCC tuition (fees) during the first 4 semesters and Northwest tuition (fees) during the final semesters.

10. Financial aid will be managed between the two institutions. 11. All students will have a profession-based, credit-earning learning experience (i.e., internship,

practicum) that allows students to see the recursive relationships between work and education while cultivating the desire to be a lifelong learner.

12. The goal is that all students will complete an associate’s degree from MCC and a bachelor’s degree from Northwest.

13. MCC will provide Northwest students with student support services that are currently not available at Northwest-Kansas City.

14. All students will be strongly encouraged to work with a career coach throughout their degree program.

15. Northwest and MCC, together, will brand, promote, and market the Pathway Partnership Program immediately upon receiving permission in order to enroll students for Fall 2017 semester.

STUDENT IMPACT The Pathway Partnership Program will provide students with the opportunity to complete both an Associate of Arts and a Bachelor's degree in four years or less. This approach will emphasize profession-based learning at a reduced cost and shortened timeline getting students into the workforce more quickly and with a greater level of academic and practical experiences than traditional academic programming. MEASURING STUDENT SUCCESS To assess the effectiveness of the Pathway Partnership Program, both institutions will assess the below statistical performance metrics as well as report the actual cost savings to students.

• Cost saving – goal, to reduce total degree cost • Retention rates – goal, maintain or improve upon MCC and Northwest current high standards • Completion rates – goal, maintain or improve upon MCC and Northwest current high standards • Placement – goal is to perform above current national standards provided by NSSE

EXPANDING PATHWAY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM When this pilot meets with success, the goal is that MCC and Northwest will expand this Pathway Partnership Program to include more profession-based academic majors that can be completed in an accelerated format. It is expected that MCC and Northwest will continue to build on this success and continue fostering seamless transfer and maximizing dual credit with area high schools to assist in reducing cost of degree and time to degree.

TRANSFER MENTOR PROGRAM: A CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT PILOT PROGRAM

“Will my credits transfer?” To answer this question, Southeast Missouri State University will partner with two Missouri community colleges, Jefferson College and Three Rivers College, to develop and implement a concurrent advising and enrollment program – the Transfer Mentor Program. This program is uniquely focused on the academic experience of community college students who plan to transfer to a four-year university. While many tools exist to assist transfer students in degree planning, community college students often feel uncertain about the process, for good reason. The path to graduation for a transfer student can be influenced by course substitutions, course availability, catalog years, out-of-date information on websites, conflicting advice from the two institutions, and/or a change in major.

To be assured their needs were considered, Southeast students who recently completed a college transfer were engaged in the design of this program. Focus group students expressed dismay about the number of credits they accumulated, and anticipate earning well beyond the 120 hours required for most degree programs. They also expressed a need for more support and individual guidance through their advising appointments and orientation programs. Time to degree was the greatest concern for the students.

This partnership is intended to improve degree completion rates by offering students guided pathways to success, concurrent enrollment opportunities, and facilitated reverse transfer to earn the Associate of Arts degree. Missouri Senate Bill 997 requires institutions to offer proactive advising. Proactive advising is “an advising model in which advisors reach out to students in anticipation of their needs, connect students with resources and support early in their studies, and motivate students to succeed.” To that end, the Transfer Mentor Program was developed to encourage students to plan and track their degree program at Southeast beginning in their first semester at a community college. Services Offered and Responsibilities of Participating Institutions:

1. Transfer Mentor: A Southeast Transfer Mentor will provide individual support to the student while they are enrolled at a participating community college through their first semester at Southeast:

a. A Southeast admissions counselor will serve as a transfer mentor to Jefferson College students. An additional transfer admissions coordinator has been hired at Southeast to assist with this program.

b. The Southeast academic advisor at Three Rivers College will serve as the transfer mentor to Three Rivers College students.

c. When a student declares an intent to pursue an online degree at Southeast, an Online Program Specialist will serve as the Transfer Mentor.

2. Degree Audit: Transfer Mentor Program participants will have access to the Southeast degree audit system, Degree Works. As the student earns credit at the community college, the credits will be applied to their major at Southeast and will be viewable in

Degree Works: a. A Jefferson College academic advisor will be trained and granted access to the

Southeast Degree Works system to assist students participating in this program. b. The Southeast academic advisor at Three Rivers College will fulfill this role for

TRC students.

3. Transcript Sharing: The community college agrees to send an official college transcript to Southeast at the end of every semester at no cost to the student. Likewise, Southeast will send an official college transcript free of charge to the community college (Jefferson College or Three Rivers College) every semester the student is enrolled and until the Associate of Arts Degree is earned.

4. Individualized Transfer Plan: The Registrar at Southeast will provide Individualized Transfer Plans to students upon request. Additionally, community college students and academic advisors can use the Transfer Equivalency System (TES) and the Southeast degree maps for advisement.

5. Program Articulation: Faculty and advisors are encouraged to collaborate and develop program-to-program articulation agreements.

6. Concurrent Enrollment: Advisors at the community college and the Transfer Mentor will assist with concurrent enrollment as appropriate, to reduce time to degree completion.

7. Scholarship Eligibility: A student who transfers will be considered for a community college scholarship in their first semester as a degree-seeking student at Southeast. Enrollment as a visiting student in a prior term will not negate scholarship eligibility.

8. Application Fee Waiver: Southeast will waive the application fee for active Transfer Mentor Program participants enrolling directly from a participating community college.

9. Reverse Transfer: The Transfer Mentor Program will facilitate the Reverse Transfer process on behalf of participating students.

10. Data Collection and Reporting: Student records will be maintained to identify and track the progress of Transfer Mentor Program participants at Southeast. An end of term activity report will be shared with participating community colleges. Records of Individualized Transfer Plans will be scanned and accessible to advisors at both institutions.

In January 2017, Southeast will enter into a formal partnership and begin recruiting students into the program (agreement attached). At this same time, academic advisors at Jefferson College will receive training and access to Southeast’s degree audit system, Degree Works.

A website, semo.edu/transfermentor, provides more details about this program and an information piece developed for students is attached.

Southeast Missouri State University proposes to expand this pilot program to additional regional community colleges in 2017.

Institutional Contacts:

Debbie Below Southeast Missouri State University Vice President for Enrollment Mgmt. and Student Success dbelow@semo.edu 573-986-6888

Caron Daugherty Jefferson College Vice President for Instruction cdaugherty@jeffco.edu 636-481-3300

Dr. Mary Lou Brown Vice President of Academic and Student Services Three Rivers College 573-840-9689

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education Coordinating Board for Higher Education February 2, 2017 DESCRIPTION This agenda item summarizes the findings of the first annual Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education. This report is the first of its kind following the implementation of HB 1042 and the development of the Principles of Best Practice in Remedial Education. Background HB 1042 requires all public institutions of higher education to “replicate best practices in remediation.” In 2013, the CBHE approved the Principles of Best Practice in Remedial Education to guide compliance with HB 1042’s mandate. MDHE staff used a comprehensive survey and available data on remedial education to compile this report. The department has collected data on remedial education for many years, but the quality of the data—due primarily to the absence of a clear definition of “remediation”—has been less than optimal. Additionally, MDHE staff worked with members of the Committee on College and Career Readiness (CCCR) to develop a comprehensive, mixed-method survey to obtain both qualitative and quantitative data about the delivery and quality of remedial education. The department will administer this survey (with modifications as necessary) annually to assess the effectiveness of efforts to reduce the need for remedial education and improve degree completion. The survey included questions related directly to the best practices identified in Principles of Best Practice in Remedial Education, including the types of supplemental support and intervention strategies institutions offer students, whether institutions offer alternative remedial education models, and institution placement practices. A copy of the survey template and instructions are available in the appendix of the Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education. Staff distributed an 11-question qualitative survey in October 2015 to all 27 public institutions; all institutions (100 percent) completed and returned the survey. In September, a draft of this report was sent to the chief academic officer of each institution for review and comment, and to assure accuracy of data and other information. MDHE staff revised the draft based on this feedback. Summary of Findings The data suggest that Missouri is transforming remedial education. Between 2011 and 2015, the state’s overall rate of remediation decreased from 35.5 percent to 28.2 percent. The 20 percent decrease in the overall rate is significant and encouraging, but should not be overstated. It is likely the result of several factors, including the addition of a fourth year of mathematics to the CBHE Recommended College Preparatory High School Core Curriculum, efforts by the state’s colleges and universities to adopt alternative models of delivering remedial education, and a consistent definition of “remediation.” The last point is significant. Prior to 2012, several

Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education February 2, 2017 Page 2 institutions did not report any students in remedial education, not because they didn’t offer it but because of how they defined “remediation.” Establishing a shared definition of remediation has improved data quality and has resulted in greater accuracy in the reporting of remedial enrollment. All 27 public institutions completed the survey, and all but two (Missouri University of Science & Technology and Truman State University) offer remedial education. All of the 25 institutions providing remedial education offer additional academic support to students taking remedial courses, such as tutoring, mentoring, labs, workshops, and additional advising. All institutions offer early intervention strategies to help students avoid remediation. All but one institution offer an alternative to the traditional remedial education model. On balance, Missouri public institutions of higher education are making good faith efforts to replicate best practices in remedial education as required by statute. There are, however, several exceptions. Of the best practices identified in the Principles of Best Practice in Remedial Education, two—using “multiple measures” to place students in appropriate courses and defining “college content readiness” consistently—are of particular importance for improving the condition of college readiness in Missouri. The survey revealed that all institutions use a standardized assessment to place students in remedial or credit-bearing courses. Southeast Missouri State University uses the ACT subscores in mathematics and English for placement. It follows the statewide placement score for mathematics placement but uses a score of 22 (rather than the statewide score of 18) for English placement. The University of Missouri-Columbia, the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and the University of Missouri-St. Louis all use an assessment called ALEKS, for which a statewide score has not been established.

Thirteen institutions (52 percent) use multiple measures to place students in credit-bearing or remedial coursework, and five more (20 percent) are currently implementing or planning to implement the use of multiple measures on their campus. Seven institutions (28 percent) are not using multiple measures when placing students in credit-bearing or remedial coursework.

What other tools or multiple measures does your institution utilize (possibly in conjunction with placement tests) to determine the placement of students in remedial education courses? Institution Response provided on survey

Missouri Western State University No response provided North Central Missouri College None Southeast Missouri State University No response provided Three Rivers College No response provided University of Missouri-Columbia None University of Missouri-Kansas City None University of Missouri-St. Louis None

Relying on a single, high-stakes standardized assessment—where a “cut score” determines if students are placed in credit-bearing or remedial courses—is an efficient placement tool, but wholly ineffective in assessing students’ readiness for a particular course. National and

Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education February 2, 2017 Page 2 institutional data have shown that students whose score on a standardized assessment is a few points below the cut score succeed at nearly the same rate as those at the cut score. In other words, many students placed in a remedial course could be successful in a credit-bearing course if given the opportunity. Similarly, defining “college content readiness” consistently across all institutions conveys to high school students (and their parents) a uniform message about college readiness and expectations. This is accomplished through shared, written definitions but, perhaps of greater importance, consistent practices such as the use of statewide placement scores. Conclusion Efforts to transform remedial education in Missouri appear to be bearing fruit. The rate of remediation has declined since 2011, and institutions are adopting more effective means of helping students succeed. The work of both the Missouri Math Pathways Task Force and the Corequisite at Scale Task Force hold great promise for further improvements. The framework for annual reporting on the condition of college and career readiness is in place. STATUTORY REFERENCE Section 173.005.2(6), RSMo – Statutory requirements regarding CBHE’s requirement to identify

best practices in remediation and provide oversight of the replication of these best practices by public institutions

RECOMMENDED ACTION This is an information item only. ATTACHMENT(S) Annual Report on Best Practices in Remediation (Abridged)

Annual Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education

Missouri Department of Higher Education January 2017

2016 Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 2 Background 3 Survey Methodology 3 Summary of Qualitative Survey Responses 5 Findings and Recommendations 10 Institutional Summaries (alphabetically) 17 Appendix A: Principles of Best Practice in Remedial Education 81 2015 Remedial Education Survey 81

2016 Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education Page 2

Executive Summary HB 1042 directed all public institutions of higher education to “replicate best practices in remediation.” MDHE staff and institutional representatives collaborated to identify best practices in remedial education, which were collected in the document Principles of Best Practice in Remedial Education. The following report assesses institutional efforts to replicate best practices in remedial education and the effectiveness of those efforts. Between 2011 and 2015, the state’s overall rate of remediation decreased from 35.5 percent to 28.2 percent (Table 2). Based on the data collected, MDHE staff concludes that most public institutions are replicating best practices in remedial education. However, there are two key best practices that have not been implemented by all institutions.

1. One institution does not adhere to the statewide placement scores identified in the Principles of Best Practice in Remedial Education

2. Thirteen institutions do not use multiple measures to place students in credit-bearing or remedial coursework.

These two practices are unquestionably best practices and essential to the state’s efforts to reduce the need for remedial education. The use of a common statewide placement score is essential for conveying to high school students, parents, and counselors a consistent definition of what determines college-level content readiness. The use of multiple measures for placement provides a more precise measurement of a student’s ability to succeed in college-level coursework. Relying on a single, high-stakes assessment results in many students being placed unnecessarily in remedial courses. Recommendations

1. Use common scores and multiple measures to place students in credit-bearing courses. All public institutions in Missouri must follow the statewide placement scores as this helps to strengthen a common definition of what higher education deems as college ready.

2. Encourage the State Board of Education to adopt the CBHE Recommended College Preparatory High School Core Curriculum The CBHE revised its Recommended College Preparatory High School Core Curriculum to increase the required mathematics units from three to four, and to emphasize the importance of taking a math course in grade 12. Research strongly suggests that students who follow this curriculum succeed in postsecondary education at much higher rates than those who do not.

3. Adopt accelerated remedial education models as soon as possible. All institutions should be encouraged to adopt—as soon as is feasible—accelerated remedial education models that will allow many more students to progress into college-level gateway courses as quickly as possible.

4. Develop and implement early intervention strategies. These partnerships are important as they allow institutions to communicate with students about remedial education and college readiness, as well as further provide both the high school and institutions the ability to offer the appropriate support to students in order to significantly reduce or even eliminate students’ needs for remedial education.

5. Develop and implement threshold policies and practices. While many students need only to brush-up in a single subject, there are others who may be severely underprepared and have little chance of earing a postsecondary degree in a timely manner. It is unreasonable to expect a student who has limited academic preparation to have success in college even with cutting-edge remedial coursework. It is equally unreasonable to expect an institution to close the gap in a student’s academic preparation through a one- or two-semester remediation sequence.

2016 Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education Page 3

Background HB 1042, which became law in 2012, directed all public institutions of higher education to “replicate best practices in remediation,” with the intent of improving student retention and degree completion. To implement this section of HB 1042, institutional representatives and Missouri Department of Higher Education collaborated to develop Principles of Best Practice in Remedial Education, which the Coordinating Board for Higher Education approved in September 2013. The best practices identified in the Principles are based on research conducted and published by regional educational laboratories, higher education research organizations, and similar organizations with expertise in the subject. The Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education, which will be published annually, assesses institutional efforts to replicate best practices in remedial education and the effectiveness of those efforts. This is the first Annual Report on the Condition of College and Career Readiness following the implementation of most of the best practices identified in the Principles of Best Practice in Remedial Education. One best practice is the responsibility for on-going evaluation and continuous improvement in the delivery of developmental education. For best practices to be effective, they must be assessed regularly. To that end, the MDHE will administer an annual survey to gather student success data in remedial and college-level gateway coursework and to assess remedial education policies and practices. This survey not only will allow us to assure institutional compliance with the Best Practices policy, but will enable us to evaluate innovative strategies institutions are making to their remedial education programs and share best practices.

Survey Methodology

For this report, MDHE staff worked with members of the Committee on College and Career Readiness (CCCR) to develop a comprehensive, mixed-method survey to obtain both qualitative and quantitative data on the condition of postsecondary readiness. The survey included questions related directly to the best practices identified in Principles of Best Practice in Remedial Education, including the types of supplemental support and intervention strategies institutions offer students, whether institutions offer alternative remedial education models, and institution placement practices. A copy of the survey template and instructions are available at http://dhe.mo.gov/data/datasurveys.php The data component of the survey, developed in collaboration with two- and four-year institutions, was designed to measure enrollment in, and the relative effectiveness of, of several methods of instructional support. The data included students who were:

• Enrolled in a Semester-Long Remedial Course • Enrolled in a Semester-Long Corequisite Course • Enrolled in a Short-Term Defined-Length Remedial Course • Enrolled in a Short-Term Defined-Length Corequisite Course • Enrolled in a Self-Paced Remedial Course • Enrolled in a Self-Paced Corequisite Course • Enrolled in a Boot Camp / Workshop • Other (Student Received Formal Instructional Support Other Than Described Above)

Institutions were asked to report the total number of first-time undergraduates (including transfers) enrolled in fall 2013, as well as the total number enrolled in each included method of instructional support. Reporting was requested by full- and part-time enrollment. Institutions were then asked to report the number of students enrolled in and completing each method of instructional support in math only, writing only, reading only, math and writing, and reading and writing. Institutions were also asked to report the number of students enrolled in and completing by spring 2015 a relevant college-level course in math, writing, reading, math and writing, and reading and writing.

2016 Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education Page 4

The current data survey tracks the fall 2013 cohort in order to give time (two years) to track success into college-level coursework, so a small number (if any) enrollments in corequisite coursework, boot camps, and other alternative methods of instructional support were expected. MDHE staff will continue to work with the institutions to ensure survey structure is representative of enrollment patterns across content areas. The department also will continue to monitor the relative effectiveness of other models of instructional support as they grow in 2014 and beyond in response to statewide and national emphasis. The MDHE distributed both the 11-question qualitative survey and the data survey in October 2015 to all 27 public institutions. Twenty-seven institutions (100 percent) completed and returned the survey (Table 1). The results of the qualitative survey are summarized below; full results for each institution are included in the appendix. Quantitative data have been summarized from the inaugural surveys and are available by institution and sector, and is available online: http://dhe.mo.gov/data/documents/fall_2015_remedial_survey_data_summary.xlsx A draft report was prepared by MDHE staff, reviewed and revised by the CCCR, and distributed to the chief academic officers of each public institution for public review and comment. The chief academic officer had the opportunity to review and revise his or her institutional summary for content and accuracy. MDHE staff made revisions based on this feedback and incorporated them into the final draft for CBHE review and approval.

Summary of Qualitative Survey Responses Response All twenty-seven public institutions responded to the 2015 Remedial Education survey, and 25 reported offering remedial education. Missouri University of Science & Technology and Truman State University reported that they do not offer remedial education. Percentages in the tables that follow are therefore calculated using n=25.

Table 1: 2015-16 Remedial Education Survey Respondents

Four-Year Public Institutions offering Remedial Education

Two-Year Public Institutions offering Remedial Education

Harris Stowe State University Crowder College Lincoln University East Central College Missouri Southern State University Jefferson College Missouri State University Metropolitan Community College Missouri Western State University Mineral Area College Northwest Missouri State University Missouri State University – West Plains Southeast Missouri State University Moberly Area Community College University of Central Missouri North Central Missouri College University of Missouri – Columbia Ozarks Technical Community College University of Missouri – Kansas City St. Charles Community College University of Missouri – St. Louis St. Louis Community College State Fair Community College

State Technical College of Missouri Three Rivers Community College

Four-Year Public Institutions not offering Remedial Education

Two-Year Public Institutions not offering Remedial Education

Missouri University of Science & Technology NONE

Truman State University

2016 Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education Page 5

Institutions Providing Additional Support or Supplemental Services Of the 25 institutions that offer remedial education, all reported providing additional supports for students taking remedial education courses. The kinds of supports vary, and include the following:

• Twenty-five institutions (100 percent) offer additional tutoring/mentoring, and all but one offer additional advising.

• Twenty institutions (80 percent) provide labs/workshops. • Twenty-two institutions (88 percent) offer student success courses. • Eleven institutions (44 percent) offer supports such as supplemental instruction, student success

programs (e.g., bridge programs), self-paced instruction, make-up test accommodations, early alert systems, and student programs to track attendance.

Alternative Remedial Education Models Twenty-four institutions (96 percent) offer some type of an alternative remedial education model; the University of Missouri-Columbia does not. Early Intervention Strategies All institutions offer early intervention strategies to help students avoid remediation. Assessment and Placement Practices Statewide Placement Scores The best practice for placing students into appropriate college-level courses must be based on at least two measures so as to provide a more accurate assessment of a student’s ability to succeed in college-level coursework. Institutions may use an array of assessment instruments to place students in college-level courses, including—but not limited to— SAT or ACT scores, high school grade point average, high school end-of-course examination scores, or an institutional created assessment instrument. Institutions using an assessment identified in the Principles of Best Practice in Remedial Education must also use the statewide placement score listed in the document. All institution using, for example, the ACT subscore in mathematics, must use 22 as the cut score for determining the appropriate mathematics placement for students. (see Section 9.2 in Principles of Best Practice in Remedial Education) All institutions reported using a standardized assessment to place students in remedial or credit-bearing courses. Twenty-one institutions reported they adhere to the statewide placement scores identified in Principles of Best Practice in Remedial Education. Three of the four remaining—the University of Missouri-Columbia, the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and the University of Missouri-St. Louis—use an assessment called ALEKS, for which a statewide score has not been established. Southeast Missouri State follows the statewide placement score for mathematics placement but uses a score of 22 rather than the statewide score of 18 for English placement. Multiple Measures Thirteen institutions (52 percent) use, or appear to use, multiple measures to place students in credit-bearing or remedial courses. Many use the ACT subscores in mathematics and English, but high school GPA, other standardized assessment tools (e.g., Accuplacer), and locally-developed writing samples and math examinations are also used. (Table 2) Several institutions allow students to appeal their placement, which they reported as one of the measures used for placement. It is questionable that providing students the option to appeal their placement is consistent with the intent of using multiple measures for placement. Institutions using this process still rely on a single measure; the second measure kicks in only if a student wishes to challenge the placement and

2016 Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education Page 6

thus places responsibility wholly on the student rather than the institution. An appeals process has value but should be used only after the institution has used multiple measures to assess students’ skills and abilities.

Table 2: Institutions using multiple measures for placement Institution Summary of Measures Used

Crowder College • ACT, SAT, HSE, Accuplacer, Compass, and Wonderlic • High School GPA

East Central College

• Writing sample for placement in composition coursework for students in certain ranges. • Nelson Denny as an alternative option for measuring reading skills. • Institutional end of course exams as an optional measure in mathematics placement.

Harris-Stowe State University

• Accuplacer scores • Transcript evaluation • High School GP • Paper test for mathematics prepared by the ARC Director.

Jefferson College

• Students notified when placement score’s within 5 points of next course level. Students are encouraged to remediate and retest.

• Multiple Measures (See full description in Item # 3, above) • ETS Success Navigator. (See full description in Item #3) above.) • If students complete RDG 030 or RDG090 without grade of C or higher, they can re-take

the placement test to demonstrate they’re reading ready

Missouri Southern State University

• Students who do not place in college composition have the option to take a Writing Placement Exam. Based on the essay, students are placed into remedial course or college-level course.

• In mathematics, use a placement system developed by the department where students can remediate at their own pace.

• Students that pass the proctored exam at the end of the system are not required to take remedial courses. We do use placement tests in conjunction with remediation models.

Moberly Area Community College

• In-house appeal options for math and English as a secondary method of placement if students don't place into college-level courses with the ACT/Compass

• Placement into College Algebra through a combination of ACT/Compass math score, high school GPA, and date of graduation.

Northwest Missouri State University

• High School GPA and additional placement through locally developed Math Placement Assessment.

• Students with an ACT English subscore below 18 have opportunity to take a locally-developed writing assessment to test out of the requirement for a developmental writing course.

Ozarks Technical Community College

• COMPASS scores taken prior to registration • In Mathematics, a formative computer based assessment (ALEKS) during the first week

to double check placement. • In English, a placement essay is used to double check placement. • In the process of developing a guidance instrument is in the process of development as

we move toward directed self-placement.

St. Charles Community College

• Use only COMPASS Placement • Appeals process whereby a student may retest using COMPASS. • If still not satisfied with their placement a student may bring their high school transcript

and any other test scores for an individualized review and placement. • We are in the process as a college of choosing effective multiple measures to use for

placement of our students.

2016 Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education Page 7

State Fair Community College

• ACT • High school GPA • Writing assessments

State Technical College of Missouri

• Internal placement exams for math and writing • Learning Express for reading

Three Rivers Community College

• Students placing into developmental math are given the opportunity to take pretests over different competencies. Results of these pretests then help determine the actual starting placement of students in the courseware. Students placing into developmental English are required to complete a writing prompt that is then evaluated by the full time faculty to determine accurate placement. Based on the results of the evaluation, students can be placed into either a composition course with a co-requisite or directly into a college ready composition course.

University of Central Missouri

• ACT • Evaluation of high school GPA • Diagnostic tests administered on the first day of class.

Five institutions are currently piloting, planning to pilot, or implementing the use of multiple measures on their campus.

Table 3: Institutions piloting, planning to pilot, or implementing multiple measures Institution Summary of Response

Mineral Area College

• Our Taskforce on Remedial Education conducted extensive research and hopes to make a recommendation to the Assessment Committee to be implemented by fall 2017.

• At present, the most likely additional measure will include some consideration of the high school GPA.

Metropolitan Community College

• None. • We piloted placement of a limited number of student using HS GPA and ACT. • Due to limited IR staff and problems with the college’s information system, this has not

been adopted across the institution. • English faculty at three campuses are currently piloting a writing assessment as an

additional placement measure. Missouri State University-West Plains

• We are currently revising our placement methods. We will have something in place by the Fall of 2016

North Central Missouri College

• We are implementing a new multiple measures for placement process for students admitted for fall 2017.

• The ACT/Accuplacer and High School grade point average will be utilized. St. Louis Community College

• On an individual basis, students can complete "challenge" assignments that have the potential to allow them to bypass developmental reading and English courses.

• We have a district-wide committee formed to look at adding multiple measures. Nine institutions (36 percent) do not use multiple measures to place students in credit-bearing or remedial coursework. One institution did not provide a response to the question

Table 4: Institutions that do not use multiple measures for placement Institution Summary of explanation for not using multiple measures

Lincoln University • Lincoln has used the ACT math sub score to place students in math courses since 2014. • Previously, math placement was based on the departmental placement exam. • This has been Lincoln’s practice for a long time.

2016 Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education Page 8

Missouri State University

• For writing, ACT English sub-score. o Previously required an essay during new student orientation; labor intensive and

expensive. o Analyses indicated that the ACT sub-score was an equally effective approach.

• For math, ACT Math sub-score. o Previously required locally produced placement test during new student

orientation. o ACT sub-scores proved to be just as effective.

• Students have the option, if they are unhappy with their ACT based placement, to take the locally produced placement exam.

• Math department is currently looking into McGraw Hill’s ALEKS placement scheme. Missouri Western State University

• No response provided

Southeast Missouri State University

• For math placement either the ACT Math Sub-Score or the COMPASS exam. • Beginning in January 2017, will use a locally developed Department Math Placement

Exam. • For English, ACT English Sub-Score of 22 or an English Department Placement Exam score.

University of Missouri-Columbia

• Only ALEKS scores or prior course credit impact math course placement and registration. • Academic advisors use ALEKS scores as well as high school coursework, ACT/SAT scores to

corroborate math placement scores. • MU is using ALEKS for the final time this year. By Fall, 2017, a new placement instrument,

MyMath Test, will be used to determine the appropriate level of math course. • In turn, the new placement test is being aligned with the redesign of “College Algebra.” • Both the multiple scores from the MyMath Test, as well as ACT score and high school

course and grade information will also be available to advisers when they work with the student.

• By 2019 (or perhaps Fall, 2018), the new College Algebra, a new Quantitative Reasoning course, and a more advanced pre-STEM math class (with a co-requisite) will all be available. At that point, MU will cease having any remedial courses.

University of Missouri-Kansas City

• No other

University of Missouri-St. Louis

• Currently there are no remedial courses into which students are placed based on placement tests.

• Advisors have access to ACT and high school GPA information along with Math Placement scores when assisting students with placement into gateway courses and are encouraged to utilize multiple measures to identify the most appropriate placement.

Minimal Academic Competence Eight institutions (32 percent) assess students’ minimal level of academic competence. Three institutions (12 percent) are currently looking into establishing a threshold or will implement a threshold score within the next year. Eleven institutions (44 percent) have Adult Education Literacy programs on their campuses.

Findings

Overall Remediation Rate Between 2011 and 2015, the state’s overall rate of remediation decreased from 35.5 percent to 28.2 percent (Table 5). The 20 percent decrease in the overall rate is significant, and likely the result of several factors:

1. The Fall 2015 student cohort was the second for which the CBHE Recommended College Preparatory High School Core Curriculum included a fourth year of mathematics, although it is not clear at this time how many school districts have actually adopted the recommendation.

2016 Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education Page 9

2. The MDHE and the state’s colleges and universities have worked on multiple fronts to reduce enrollment in remediation for students at the higher end of the placement spectrum by moving them into the corequisite and other alternative models of delivery. The state is now working to implement the corequisite model statewide, which should further reduce the remediation rate.

3. The MDHE and the institutions have agreed in recent years on a consistent definition for remedial coursework. Prior to 2012 several institutions did not report any students in remedial education, based on an institution-specific definition. Using a statewide definition has improved data quality and has resulted in greater accuracy in the reporting of remedial enrollment.

Table 5: Remedial Participation of Recent Missouri Public High School Graduates in Public Postsecondary Institutions Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Total 35.5% 35.6% 35.6% 30.8% 28.2% Math 29.9% 30.8% 30.1% 26.2% 23.8% English 15.4% 14.3% 15.5% 12.3% 10.0% Reading 10.1% 9.1% 9.7% 7.6% 6.1%

Gateway Course Completion While decreasing the number of students taking remedial courses is a goal of this work, the real objective is to get more students to complete credit-bearing gateway courses and ultimately earn a certificate or degree. Studies have shown that taking even one remedial education course greatly reduces the likelihood a student will earn a certificate or degree. Although some data exists for these students prior to 2012, it is sketchy at best. The data presented below establishes a baseline for assessing the effectiveness of new approaches to remediation and student success in gateway courses. As shown in Table 6, a low percentage of students enrolled in semester-length remedial courses completed a related college-level course within two years (Table 6). At two-year institutions, 34.4 percent of first time students enrolled in a remedial math course completed a college-level math course within two years (fall 2013 to spring 2015). Rates for remedial writing (38.6 percent), reading (37.4 percent), math and writing (20.7 percent), and reading and writing (33.1 percent) also were low. Institutions defined relevant college-level coursework for remedial reading; American government, political science, and composition were suggested in the instructions. Table 6: Percentage of All Students Enrolled in Semester-Length Remedial Courses that Completed a Gateway College-Level Course Within Two Years.

Students Completing a College-Level Course in the Same Subject by Spring 2015 (of Students

Enrolling in Instructional Support)

Total First-Time Undergraduates (incl. Transfers),

Fall 2013

Total Enrolled in

Instructional Support

Pct. Enrolled in

Instructional Support

Math Writing Reading Math

and Writing

Reading and

Writing

Two-Year IHEs 26,133 11,249 43.0% 34.4% 38.6% 37.4% 20.7% 33.1%

Four-Year IHEs 30,167 4,246 14.1% 34.8% 50.0% 18.3% 17.2% 1.5%

Completion rates at four-year institutions were also low – remedial math (34.8 percent), writing (50.0 percent), reading (18.3 percent), math and writing (17.2 percent), and reading and writing (1.5 percent).

2016 Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education Page 10

Short-term, defined-length, and self-paced remedial courses at two-year institutions were generally less effective than semester-long remedial courses. Only about 23 percent of remedial math-enrolled students (STDL or self-paced) completed a college-level math course within two years. This baseline data provides evidence that traditional approaches to remedial education have not been effective enough and that alternative models, such as corequisite, should be considered. We have very limited data on the effectiveness of corequisite remedial education. The baseline cohort (fall 2013) predated a major statewide push to corequisite coursework, when a few students (<100) were enrolled in corequisite programs at two-year institutions. These students were markedly more successful (compared to students in traditional programs) in completing relevant college-level coursework within two years (Table 7). Sixty percent of students who enrolled in a semester-length corequisite writing course completed a college-level writing course by spring 2015. Rates for corequisite reading (70.6 percent), math and writing (60.5 percent), and reading and writing (60.5 percent) similarly were higher than for comparable semester-length remedial courses.

Table 7: Percentage of All Students Enrolled in Corequisite Courses that Completed a Gateway College-Level Course Within Two Years.

Students Completing a College-Level Course in the Same Subject by Spring 2015 (of Students

Enrolling in Instructional Support)

Total First-Time Undergraduates (incl. Transfers),

Fall 2013

Total Enrolled in

Instructional Support

Pct. Enrolled in

Instructional Support

Math Writing Reading Math

and Writing

Reading and

Writing

Two-Year IHEs 26,133 91 0.3% n/a 60.0% 70.6% 60.5% 60.5%

A meaningful number of students at two- and four-year institutions were also reported as “placed but not enrolled” in any instructional support, meaning they had tested into or been advised to take a remedial course or other instructional support as listed above, but had instead enrolled directly in college-level coursework (Table 8). These students were less successful than their peers who had enrolled in semester-length remedial courses at two-year institutions in eventually completing relevant college-level coursework. At four-year institutions, they slightly outperformed their remedial peers in completing college-level math, but were more successful in eventually completing relevant college-level writing and reading courses.

Table 8: Percentage of Full-Time Students Placed in Remedial Courses but Who Enrolled Directly in and Completed Gateway College-Level Course Within Two Years.

Percent of Full-Time Students Placed But Not Enrolled who Completed a College-Level Course in the Same

Subject by Spring 2015 (of Students Enrolling in Instructional Support)

Total First-Time Undergraduates (incl. Transfers),

Fall 2013

Total Placed by

Not Enrolled

Percent Placed by

Not Enrolled

Math Writing Reading

Two-Year Institutions 18,434 6,660 36.1% Placed but not Enrolled

in Remedial Mathematics

18,434 3,040 16.5% 31.5%

2016 Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education Page 11

Placed but not Enrolled in Remedial Writing 18,434 2,217 12.0% 41.9%

Placed but not Enrolled in Remedial Reading 18,434 1,403 7.6% 33.3%

Four-Year Institutions 27,432 6,330 23.1% Placed but not Enrolled

in Remedial Mathematics

27,432 3,170 11.6% 36.9%

Placed but not Enrolled in Remedial Writing 27,432 1,504 5.5% 57.4%

Placed but not Enrolled in Remedial Reading 27,432 1,656 6.0% 72.0%

A small number of students (n<50) were enrolled in “boot camps” or other short-term non-credit workshops at two-year institutions. It would be premature to draw definite conclusions on their effectiveness based on such a small cohort, but it would appear they are less successful than their remedial peers in eventually completing a college-level math class (28.6 percent vs. 34.4 percent), but more successful in writing (50.0 vs. 38.6 percent) and reading and writing (40 vs. 33.1 percent). Institutional Adoption of Best Practices in Remedial Education Based on the data collected, MDHE has concluded that most public institutions are replicating best practices in remedial education, as directed by HB 1042 and identified in the Principles of Best Practice in Remedial Education. There are, however, some key areas of non-compliance. With one exception, all institutions reporting that they offer remedial education do not follow the statewide placement scores identified in the Principles of Best Practice in Remedial Education, and 13 institutions do not use multiple measures when placing students in credit-bearing or remedial coursework. These two practices are unquestionably best practices and essential to the state’s efforts to reduce the need for remedial education. The use of a common statewide placement score is essential for conveying to high school students, parents, and counselors a consistent definition of what determines college-level content readiness. Higher education must speak with one voice on this issue, which the common placement scores are intended to do. Of greater importance is the use of multiple measures for placement purposes, which provides a more precise measurement of a student’s ability to succeed in college-level coursework. Relying on a single, high-stakes assessment results in many students—especially those who score just under the cut score—being placed unnecessarily in remedial courses. This holds true no matter which assessment an institution uses. The University of Missouri-Columbia, the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and the University of Missouri-St. Louis use—in various ways—an assessment known as ALEKS (Assessment and Learning in Knowledge Spaces). UMKC reported it uses ALEKS only for placement into College Algebra; presumably, students who don’t place into College Algebra must take a remedial course. UMSL reported using ALEKS only to place students in gateway courses, and that “there are no remedial courses into which students are placed based on placement tests.” Nonetheless, some UMSL students make their way into remedial coursework. The same holds true for the University of Missouri-Columbia. Only ALEKS scores affect placement, although the university uses ACT scores and high school coursework to corroborate those scores. Recommendations The following recommendations and conclusions reflect findings from this survey.

1. Use common scores and multiple measures to place students in credit-bearing courses. All public institutions in Missouri must follow the statewide placement scores as this helps to

2016 Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education Page 12

strengthen a common definition of what higher education deems as college ready. It is also recommended that the MDHE and institutions continually work together to review and revise the scores provided in the Principles of Best Practice in Remedial Education and based on current and relevant state and national data. Experts in the field of remedial education overwhelmingly agree that using multiple measures to place students into the appropriate courses is a best practice. The MDHE included a strong recommendation for the use of multiple measures in the Principles of Best Practice, and has continued to endorse this practice. The survey data indicate that most institutions are currently using multiple measures in order to place students, or will be fully implementing the use of multiple measures starting fall 2016. It is strongly recommended that institutions continue to employ the use of multiple measures when placing students, and that they work closely with the MDHE in further identifying combinations of measures that may prove most successful in placing students where they will be most academically successful.

2. Encourage the State Board of Education to adopt the CBHE Recommended College Preparatory High School Core Curriculum The CBHE revised its Recommended College Preparatory High School Core Curriculum to increase the required mathematics units from three to four, and to emphasize the importance of taking a math course in grade 12. Research strongly suggests that students who follow this curriculum succeed in postsecondary education at much higher rates than those who do not. The CBHE strongly encourages the State Board of Education to adopt the CBHE Recommended College Preparatory High School Core Curriculum.

3. Adopt accelerated remedial education models as soon as possible. Since 2012, many institutions reported having implemented some type of alternative remedial education model, such as corequisite courses and self-paced, mastery-based modules. Some institutions have not yet implemented accelerated models, and others are currently exploring appropriate models. These institutions should be encouraged to adopt—as soon as is feasible—accelerated remedial education models that will allow many more students to progress into college-level gateway courses as quickly as possible. As noted above in Table 4, preliminary data strongly suggests that corequisite remediation is highly effective. Though the cohort is small, those enrolled in corequisite courses are markedly more successful at completing relevant college-level coursework within two years than students taking a traditional, semester-long remedial course. Missouri is working with 22 public institutions and Complete College America on the Corequisite at Scale initiative. This project will allow participating institutions to scale up corequisite academic support for students who would have otherwise been placed in traditional remedial education sequences. The goal is for all participating institutions to have their corequisite model in place by the academic year 2017-2018.

4. Develop early intervention strategies. The survey data indicate that many institutions are using early intervention strategies in an effort to prevent students from having to take remedial education courses during their first semester. These strategies include summer intensive workshops, bootcamps, or bridge programs, as well as outreach to local high schools. Examples of outreach to high schools include offering the Compass exam to sophomores, or explaining the institution’s remedial education process to students. Only four

2016 Report on Best Practices in Remedial Education Page 13

institutions, however, reported engaging in any outreach to local high schools. SB 638 (167.905.1) requires all school districts to develop and implement a “measurable system for identifying students in their ninth grade year, or students who transfer into the school subsequent to their ninth grade year, who are at risk of not being ready for college-level work or for entry-level career positions.” This is an opportunity for colleges and universities to reach out to local districts and help them in developing and implementing early intervention strategies. We recommend that institutions continue to offer intensive summer programs, and either begin or continue to engage in partnerships with local high schools. These partnerships are important as they allow institutions to communicate with students about remedial education and college readiness, as well as further provide both the high school and institutions the ability to offer the appropriate support to students in order to significantly reduce or even eliminate students’ needs for remedial education.

5. Develop and implement threshold policies and practices.

While many students need only to brush-up in a single subject, there are others who may be severely underprepared and have little chance of earing a postsecondary degree in a timely manner. The Principles of Best Practice in Remedial Education requires students to demonstrate a minimal level of literacy and academic competence before they can enroll at a public institution of higher education in Missouri as a degree-seeking student. While the MDHE and the CCCR have not yet fully implemented this section of the policy, this survey sought to identify those institutions that have already begun to implement threshold or floor scores. The data indicate that one institution has recently implemented a threshold score for both English and mathematics, while three other institutions are either in the process of implementing a threshold score or are strongly advising students that are severely deficient in English and mathematics to partake in programs through their Adult Education and Literacy (AEL) programs. MDHE should continue to work with the CCCR and institutions in order to identify threshold scores that will work for all students and institutions, especially for those open-enrollment institutions. It is also recommended that institutions explore options for bringing AEL to their campus or community.

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

AGENDA ITEM Mission Review Update Coordinating Board for Higher Education February 2, 2017 DESCRIPTION The Missouri Higher Education System Review Task Force presented its interim report to the Coordinating Board in December 2016. That report identified several topics warranting further discussion, including institutional missions and the mission review process. This agenda item reports on MDHE efforts to address these issues. In November 2016, representatives from the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) met with the System Review Task Force and presented their Observations and Recommendations on Missouri Role and Missions. NCHEMS examined each institution’s mission as indicated by state law, CBHE policy, and institutional documents, and developed statements of “behavioral” mission as reflected by audiences actually served, programs and services offered, and special competencies or unique capabilities. NCHEMS compared each institution’s “on paper” and “behavioral” missions and, based on that analysis, recommended state-defined missions for each of the state’s colleges and universities. Those recommendations were distributed to institutions on November 22, 2016, with a request for feedback by January 6, 2017. Department staff reviewed the revised mission documents to create an inventory of state-defined missions that were presented at the task force meeting on February 1, 2017. The inventory may be revised based on the task force’s discussion and will be presented to the Coordinating Board at their April 6, 2017, meeting. When the state-defined missions are approved by the Coordinating Board, they will be a device for articulating each institution’s contribution to system capacity and ensuring differentiated contributions to the state’s higher education goals. The need to have well-defined missions is central to the work currently being done to revise the program approval process. The Council of Chief Academic Officers (CCAO) has been tasked with developing a program approval process based on the framework approved by the System Review Task Force. Given the symbiotic relationship between mission and program approval, the CCAO should also take responsibility for reviewing the mission review process. STATUTORY REFERENCES Section 173.030, RSMo – Conduct mission review every five years

RECOMMENDED ACTION This is an information item only. ATTACHMENT None

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM Proprietary School Certification Actions and Reviews Coordinating Board for Higher Education February 2, 2017 DESCRIPTION The Missouri Department of Higher Education’s Proprietary School Certification Program provides oversight of certain types of Missouri-based and out-of-state private, postsecondary education providers. This board item provides an update on current issues regarding the Proprietary School Certification Program as well as a summary of recent program actions. Recent Program Actions All program actions that have occurred since the December 15, 2016, Coordinating Board meeting are reported in the attachment to this item. The report includes information concerning anticipated actions on applications to establish new postsecondary education institutions, exemptions from the department’s certification requirements, and school closures. STATUTORY REFERENCE Sections 173.600 through 173.619, RSMo – Regulation of Proprietary Schools RECOMMENDED ACTION This is an information item only. ATTACHMENT(S) Proprietary School Certification Program Actions and Reviews

Coordinating Board for Higher Education Proprietary School Certification Program Actions and Reviews

Certificates of Approval Issued (Authorization for Instructional Delivery) Aspire Healthcare Solutions Florissant, Missouri

This for-profit institution offers non-degree programs in certified nurse assisting. The school is not accredited.

Certificates of Approval Issued (Authorization Only to Recruit Students in Missouri) None Exemptions Granted Institute of the Holy Doctors Wentzville, Missouri

This not-for-profit institution was granted exemption as “a non-profit school owned, controlled, and operated by a bona fide religious or denominational organization that offers no programs or degrees and grants no degrees or certificates other than those specifically designated as religious degrees or programs.” The school offers an associate and baccalaureate degree in Catholic Doctrine. The school is not accredited.

Kanakuk Ministries Branson, Missouri

This not-for-profit institution was granted exemption as “a non-profit school owned, controlled, and operated by a bona fide religious or denominational organization that offers no programs or degrees and grants no degrees or certificates other than those specifically designated as religious degrees or programs.” The school offers a certificate in Foundational Biblical Experience. The school is not accredited.

Yoga Six St. Louis, Missouri

This institution was granted exemption as “a yoga teacher training course, program, or school.” The school will offer non-academic certificates related to the practice of yoga. This school is not accredited.

Proprietary School Certification Actions and Reviews – Attachment February 2, 2017 Page 2 Applications Pending Approval (Authorization for Instructional Delivery) Florida Institute of Technology Whiteman AFB, Missouri

This not-for-profit institution seeks to offer a baccalaureate degree completion in Logistics Management and graduate degrees in Business, Computer Information Systems, Human Resources Management, and Project Management. The mission of the school is to provide high quality education to prepare students for entering the global workforce. The school is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges.

Tallgrass School Kansas City, Missouri

This for-profit institution seeks to offer a non-degree program in web development. The mission of the school is to teach technology career seekers the skills required to secure a job in their field of interest. The school is not accredited.

Applications Pending Approval (Authorization Only to Recruit Students) None Schools Closed None Certifications Denied None

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM Appointments to the CBHE Proprietary School Advisory Committee Coordinating Board for Higher Education February 2, 2017 DESCRIPTION At the end of 2016, there were four vacancies on the Proprietary School Advisory Committee. The two retiring members were Mr. Lute Atieh, American Business and Technology University, and Ms. Juliet Crowder, Healthcare Education. Two additional vacancies have been created by resignations from the committee of Mr. Tyree Smith, National American University, and Mr. Karl Petersen, Missouri College. The Commissioner has reappointed Mr. Atieh and Ms. Crowder to fill the two regular vacancies. These appointments are for a term of three years beginning on January 1, 2017, and expiring on December 31, 2019. Consistent with past practice, these two individuals were eligible for reappointment as their previous appointments were not for full terms as committee members. Due to the recent closure of several certified schools and the pending closure of several more coupled with the current turmoil within this education sector, appointments to fill the two remaining vacancies are still under review. These individuals were selected through processes and criteria consistent with the board’s June 7, 2001, policy to ensure diverse representation in appointments to committees. Additionally, the appointments maintain compliance with the statutory requirements regarding representation on the committee by institutional type. STATUTORY REFERENCE Section 173.614, RSMo – Regulation of Proprietary Schools RECOMMENDED ACTION This is an information item only. ATTACHMENT(S) Attachment A: Background Information – Appointments to the Proprietary School Advisory

Committee Attachment B: January 1, 2017, Membership Roster – CBHE Proprietary School Advisory

Committee

Background Information Appointments to the Proprietary School Advisory Committee

The Proprietary School Advisory Committee is a statutorily established committee consisting of seven members serving three-year terms (Section 173.614, RSMo). The statute defines the general eligibility requirements as individual proprietors, general partners of a partnership, or managerial employees of proprietary schools. In addition, the statute requires that at least three members of the committee represent degree-granting schools, at least one of which must grant a baccalaureate or higher-level degree. The statute charges the committee with the following responsibilities:

• Advise the board in the administration of the proprietary school certification program • Make recommendations with respect to the rules and regulations establishing minimum

standards of operation • Advise the board with respect to grievances and complaints

At the end of 2016, there were four vacancies on the Proprietary School Advisory Committee. The two retiring members were Mr. Lute Atieh, American Business and Technology University, and Ms. Juliet Crowder, Healthcare Education. Two additional vacancies have been created by resignations from the committee of Mr. Tyree Smith, National American University, and Mr. Karl Petersen, Missouri College. The Commissioner has reappointed Mr. Atieh and Ms. Crowder to fill the two regular vacancies. These appointments are for a term of three years beginning on January 1 2017 and expiring on December 31, 2019. Consistent with past practice, these two individuals were eligible for reappointment as their previous appointments were not for full terms as committee members. Due to the recent closure of several certified schools and the pending closure of several more coupled with the current turmoil within this education sector, appointments to fill the two remaining vacancies are still under review. Ms. Crowder is the founder and owner of Healthcare Education, LLC, located in St. Louis, Missouri. Healthcare Education offers non-degree programs in allied health, including nurse assisting, coding and billing, and medical assisting. The school is unaccredited. Ms. Crowder has operated the school for more than four years; she also has more than a decade in education at the secondary and postsecondary levels. Ms. Crowder earned an electrical mechanics diploma from Vatterott College, a Bachelor of Science in Business Management from Fontbonne University, and a Master of Business Administration from Ashford University. Mr. Atieh is the Chief Operating Officer of the American Business and Technology University, located in St. Joseph, Missouri. The American Business and Technology University offers programs from the certificate through the master’s levels in the business and computer technology fields. The school is accredited by the Distance Education Accrediting Commission, a U.S. Department of Education and Council on Higher Education Accreditation recognized commission. Mr. Atieh has been active in private career education, including serving on the board of the Missouri Association of Private Career Colleges and Schools, for more than 15 years. He has also served on several committees and as an on-site evaluator for the DEAC. Mr. Atieh earned a Bachelor of Arts in Software Engineering from the American Business and Technology University.

PROPRIETARY SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Membership Roster January 2017

Mr. Lute Atieh Chief Operations Manager

American Business & Technology University 1018 West St. Maartens Dr.

St. Joseph, MO 64056 (816) 279-7000 (Term expires 12/31/2019)

Ms. Juliet Crowder

Owner Healthcare Education LLC

PO Box 674 Florissant, MO 63032

(Term expires 12/31/2019)

Ms. Linda Lynch School Director

WTI – Joplin 1715 North Rangeline Road

Joplin, MO 64801 (417) 206-9115 (Term expires 12/31/2018)

Ms. Jodi Madden

Administrator Specialized Metal Work

3002 East Division, Ste B Springfield, MO 65802

(Term expires 12/31/2017)

Dr. Suzanne Marshall-Caby Campus President Kaplan University

1807 Park 270 Drive St. Louis, MO 63146

(Term Expires 12/31/2018)

VACANT (Term expires 12/31/2017)

VACANT

(Term expires 12/31/2017)

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM Audit Committee Report Coordinating Board for Higher Education February 2, 2017 DESCRIPTION Since the Board’s last meeting, two audit reports relating to department functions were released. These audits are briefly described below. Independent Audit of Student Loan Program Financial Statements – Rubin Brown LLP As required by 34 CFR § 682.410(b)(1), Missouri Department of Higher Education arranged for an independent financial and compliance audit of its Federal Family Education Loan Program. Rubin Brown LLP conducted this annual financial statement audit. Ted Williamson from Rubin Brown LLP described the audit report, which featured (1) no significant deficiency or material weakness in internal controls over financial reporting; (2) no instances of noncompliance with laws, regulations, contracts, or grant agreements; and (3) the firm’s official opinion that MDHE’s Student Loan Program financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the government activities, the major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information for the year ending June 30, 2016. Performance Funding Audit – Missouri State Auditor’s Office On January 5, 2017, the State Auditor’s Office (SAO) released its audit of Missouri’s higher education performance funding model. The SAO recommended that the department establish comprehensive minimum standards and guidelines for institutions related to (1) data gathering, reporting, and retention; (2) peer group selections; (3) establishing benchmarks; and (4) selecting and changing performance measures. The SAO also recommends that the department apply greater scrutiny to verify institutional compliance with such guidelines. Finally, the SAO recommends the immediate development of criteria and methodology to evaluate the effectiveness of the model and consider changes needed to improve the model. Toward our corrective action plan, the department has made substantial progress toward an improved technical manual, which would provide more detailed and uniform standards bearing on the items listed in the audit report. The department agrees, for example, that greater data verification is necessary and the manual would require certain student-level data to corroborate institutions’ summary performance data. We expect the revised technical manual to guide the next reporting year (2018). Moreover, the department plans to convene a performance funding task force later this year to develop further improvements to the process. The department has taken additional steps to simplify and ensure consistency in its formulas to prevent the occurrence of calculation errors. Finally, state law calls for formal evaluations of performance funding effectiveness beginning in 2019 (Section 173.1006.2, RSMo). The department intends to adhere to the statutory deadline rather than the accelerated evaluation suggested by the SAO, as better data will be available at that time. The report is included herein as an attachment.

Audit Committee Report February 2, 2017 Page 2 STATUTORY REFERENCE 34 CFR § 682.410(b)(1) – Administrative requirements: Independent audits Section 173.1006, RSMo – Performance funding RECOMMENDED ACTION This is an information item only. ATTACHMENT(S) Department of Higher Education Performance Funding Audit

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

AGENDA ITEM Energy Efficiency Loan Applications Coordinating Board for Higher Education February 2, 2017 DESCRIPTION The Missouri Department of Economic Development’s Division of Energy issues low-interest loans through its Energy Loan Program to public and private institutions of higher education to finance energy efficiency improvements. Borrowing institutions repay the loans from energy savings, so project repayment does not divert existing revenue streams. Loans have a maximum repayment term of ten years. Energy Loan Program financing may be used for various energy-saving investments such as upgrading insulation, lighting systems, heating and cooling systems, renewable energy systems, windows and other upgrades that affect energy use. In the past five years, the Energy Loan Program has issued more than $9 million for successful energy efficiency projects at a variety of 2- and 4-year public and private institutions. So far in 2017, two institutions of higher education have applied for these energy loans: 1. Southeast Missouri State University

Total project cost: $123,216 Estimated energy cost savings: $11,255/Year Scope of work: 471 lighting fixtures consisting of fluorescent, incandescent, and halogen lights at Crisp Hall will be replaced with more efficient LED fixtures.

2. University of Missouri–St. Louis

Total project cost: $561,504 Estimated energy cost savings: $56,790/Year Scope of work: Metal Halide fixtures rated at 175W in 4 parking garages on campus will be replaced with more efficient LED fixtures. Gas heating water boilers in Lucas Hall with 81.8% efficiency will be replaced with condensing boilers. The new condensing boiler with outdoor air heating water supply reset will yield 93% efficiency. Variable speed drive will be installed at the existing constant pump in Lucas Hall to gain savings from reduction of the hot water flow during warm weather.

In order for the loans to proceed, the CBHE must certify that projects selected for loans or financial assistance “are consistent with related state programs for education facilities.” The MDHE has reviewed the project applications and found no inconsistency with related programs. STATUTORY REFERENCE Section 640.653.6, RSMo – CBHE certification of energy loans

Energy Efficiency Loan Applications February 2, 2017 Page 2 RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education certify the projects described in energy loan applications submitted by SEMO and UMSL as consistent with related state programs for education facilities. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: SEMO Energy Loan Application Attachment B: UMSL Energy Loan Application

$123,216

$11,255

------------

--------------

1�11111� MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF ENERGY - ENERGY LOAN PROGRAM D•partment of Etonom1c DtYelopment

I ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURE (ECM) SUMMARY

Applicant Organization Name

Southeast Missouri State University

Annual Annual Project Cost Fuel Savings Fuel Cost Savings

ECM Description (a) (b) Type (c)

52,942 kWh $ 300,000 $ 4,459

1 Lighting MM Btu

kWh

2 MM Btu

kWh $ $

3 MM Btu

kWh $ $

4 MM Btu

kWh $ $

5 MM Btu

kWh $ $

6 MM Btu

kWh $ $

7 MM Btu

kWh $ $

8 MM Btu

kWh $ $

9 MM Btu

kWh $ $

10 MM Btu

52,942 kWh Summary $ 300,000 $ 4,459

MM Btu

Simple Pay Back (a)+ (c)

67.3

67.3

------------$123,216 $11,255

---------- --------10.9

SEMO Crisp Hall Lighting Calculations

Existing Light Fixture Wattage New Light Fixture Wattage Brand & Model Quantity Material Cost Labor Cost Total Replacement Cost2'x2' Fluorescent 34 2'x2' LED 29 Lithonia 2TL2-33L-FW-AR-EZ1-LP835 106 $115 $60 $18,5502'x4' Fluorescent 96 2'x4' LED 40 Lithonia 2TL4-48L-FW-AR-EZ1-LP835 318 $175 $60 $74,730Incandescent Downlight 120 Retrofit LED Downlight 22 Lithonia 2TL4-48L-FW-AR-EZ1-LP835 47 $140 $60 $9,400Total: 471 $102,680Average Watts/Fixture: 84 36

Contingency 10% $10,268Design 10% $10,268Project Cost: $123,216

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Parking Garage Lighting

The study performed an analysis on replacing the existing 175W Metal Halide ceiling lights in 4 parking

garages on campus: MSC North Garage, MSC South Garage, South Campus Garage, and West Drive

Garage. With the assumption that these fixtures operate 24/7 /365, the current electric use is shown in

Table 1. The recommended replacement light used for this analysis is the Eaton Top Tier LED with the

CS lumen package. An overview of the analysis follows:

West Drive South Campus MSC North MSC South

Garage Garage Garage Garage

Fixture Quantity 174 82 357 230

Total Current 266,742kWh 125,706kWh 547,281kWh 352,590kWh

Electric Usage

Total Current $14,937.55 $7,039.54 $30,647.74 $19,745.04

Utility Cost

Table 1: Cost of Existing Metal Halide Fixtures

The recommended replacement light used for this analysis is the Eaton Top Tier LED with the CS lumen

package. Table 2 outlines the new electric use.

West Drive South Campus MSC North MSC South

Garage Garage Garage Garage

Fixture quantity 174 82 357 230

Total New Electric 117,366kWh 55,311kWh 240,804kWh 155,140kWh

Usage

Total New Utility $6,572.52 $3,097.40 $13,485.00 $8,687.82

Cost

Table 2: Cost of New LED Fixtures

Overall, this represents a yearly reduction in utility costs of $40,527.12, or 56%.

On top of the reduction in utility costs, a rebate is available through the Ameren BizSavers program.

Replacement of parking garage fixtures is considered a prescriptive measure through the program which

means that a flat amount per fixture is rebated through the utility. Based on the fixture count, the total

one-time rebate would be $50,580.00. Because of the high amount of the rebate, program pre-approval

is needed. Contact with a program representative has indicted that this would not be an issue and is

simply a formality for a project of this nature. As with all BizSavers rebates, a pre-installation and post­

installation inspection of the areas of work is required. Experience has shown that this requirement is

also straightforward and not anticipated to be an issue for a potential project.

Installation costs for the new fixtures is estimated at $360,084.00. This includes the cost of the fixtures,

labor to install the fixtures, contractor fees, and design fees. The rebate would offset this cost bringing

the estimated final cost to $309,504.00. Applying the reduced utility costs, the cost of installation would

be recouped in 7.64yrs. Please note that these values represent only the utility savings and do not

factor in the reduced cost of maintenance associated with LED fixtures and bulbs.

Lucas Hall Boilers

The study analyzed replacing both existing non-condensing heating water boilers in Lucas Hall as well as

implementing an outdoor air heating water supply reset. Existing gas readings for the last year

(December 2015 to December 2017) were procured and used as a base line. Existing boiler efficiencies

were compared with new condensing boiler efficiencies. New boiler efficiencies were based on a 180

degree design day condition and a 1.0 reset ratio (Outside Air Temperature: Heating Water Supply

Temperature) which yields a 93% boiler efficiency in contrast to the existing boilers at 81.8% efficiency.

This yields $14,802 in energy savings each year, a 16.7 year payback.

Lucas Hall Reheat Pump Variable Frequency Drive

An additional analysis of the existing reheat pump was conducted. The system consists of variable air

boxes with two position valves and is powered by a constant speed pump. Analysis found that replacing

the existing starter with a Variable Frequency Drive saves $1,461 a 3.4 year payback.

Pump HP Pump Run Hours

-8760

Pump Existing Energy Usage

(KWH/Year)

65262

Table 3: Reheat Pump Energy Savings

General Use Occupancy Sensors

VFD Energy Annual Cost

Savings (KWH) Savings

--26104.8 1461.8688

The study performed an analysis on replacing standard on/off wall switches with wall mounted

occupancy sensors in areas such as conference rooms, janitor closets, and other part-time use spaces.

The analysis showed a minimal reduction in energy usage, typically under $5.00 per room per year. As

the cost of the sensor can range up to and over $125.00, installing these would not be recommended

under the Missouri Division of Energy Loan Program.

It should be noted however that a rebate is available through the Ameren BizSavers program to help

offset the cost of these sensors. Installing wall mounted occupancy sensors is considered a prescriptive

measure through the program which means that a flat amount per sensor is rebated through the utility.

In this case, the one-time rebate would be $15.00 per sensor. As with all BizSavers rebates, a pre­

installation and post-installation inspection of the areas of work is required.

Overview:

Below is a summary of cost and payback for the Lucas Hall boiler replacement, reheat VFD retrofit, and

garage lighting.

Project Initial Cost Yearly Energy Pre Ameren/Laclede Post Savings Incentive Incentives Ameren/Laclede

Payback Incentive Payback

Lucas Hall Heating $ 267,000.00 $ 14,801.96 18.0 $ 20,000.00 16.7 Water Boiler Replacement

Lucas Hall Heating $ 5,000.00 $ 1,461.00 3.4 $ - 3.4 WaterVFD

Lighting Retrofit $ 360,084.00 $ 40,527.00 8.9 $ 50,580.00 7.6

Above Projects $ 632,084.00 $ 56,789.96 11.1 $ 70,580.00 $ 9.89 Combined

Table 4: UMSL DOE Payback Overview

DOE LOAN APPLICATION

l,i\l�llllff.l f.,,,, ...... .. , ..... 11 ... . , ••••

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF ENERGY· ENERGY LOAN PROGRAM

APPLICATION AUTHORIZATION FORM

I $ECTOR

0 Sdlool �-IZ C LO<al Governm<nl (;: H1gt,er Educolloo oou .... pi.-sv«,rv

2 HOW DID YOU FINO US' (CHECK ALL THAT APPL Yl

n Webilta @M.i�/Evt.ont n Oi1uct M/111 D Colleogu• n Otfl«, pltase jpecrfy:

3 ORGANIZATION NAME

University of Missouri-St. Louis 5 NUMBER OF PEOPLE (slud&ntS, Slaff pa1ien1s. CUSlomo,s. generol J)<JDlic) THAT 6 MAILING ADDRESS WOULD BENEFIT FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ENERGY PROJECT

4 Federal Tox ID (EIN) Number

1450 U of Missouri St.Louis C/0 Larry Eisenberg 1 University BLVD 7. COUNTY 8. CITV 9. ZIP+ 4

St. Louis County St. Louis 63121 10. CONTACT NAME 11 TITLE

112. PHONE NUMBER 13 FAX NUMBER

Larry Eisenberg Auoc. V1ce Chancell()( 314-569-6469 314-516-7010 14 E-MAIL ADDRESS 15 TOTAL PROPOSED PROJECT COST 16 TOTAL LOAN AMOUNT REQUESTED

, ..... $632,084 $561,504 17 PROJECT TVPE 16. ESTIMATED START DATE 19 ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE

@ Building n System, spcdfy: 4/1/2017 11/1/2017 20. PROJECT LOCATION (ATTACH LIST OR MAP FOR MULTIPLE LOCATIONS) 21 ESTIMATED ANNUAL ENERGV COST SAVINGS

Lucas Hall, West Garage, South Campus Garage, MSC North & South Garage $56,790

BUILDING SPECIFIC INFORMATION· FOR MULTIPLE BUILDINGS. USE ADDITIONAL PAGES - INCWDE INFORMATION FOR ITEMS 12 • 36

22 TOTAL BUILDING AREA IN SQUARE FEET 23 TOTAL AFFECTED BUILDING AREA IN SQUARE FEET 24 APPROXIMATE NO OF BUILDING OCCUPANTS

See Appendix 25 YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION 26. HEATED AREA IN SQUARE FEET 27 COOLED AREA IN SQUARE FEET

FOR ORIGINALBUILOING 94,477

28. YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION 29. HEATED AREA IN SQUARE FEET 30 COOLED AREA IN SQUARE FEET FOR ADDITION #1

31. YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION 32. HEATED AREA IN SQUARE FEET 33. COOLED AREA IN SQUARE FEET FOR ADDITION #2

34. YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION 35. HEAlED AREA IN SQUARE FEET 36. COOLED AREA IN SQUARE FEET FOR ADDITION #3

37 NAME. TITLE, COMPANY, AND PHONE NUMBER OF ENERGY ANALYST OR OTHERS WHO PREPARED ENERGY SAVINGS CA LCULATIONS

Eric Poettker McClure Engineering 314-645-6232 36 BUSINESS TVPE NAMED IN 37 ABOVE

C """1ic:an 0 Engtn .. nt19 0 ESCO C: 0th«. p ..... sp•dfv:

APPROPRIATE DISTRICT NUMBERS BASED 39. U.S. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 40. MO SENATORIAL DISTRICT 41. MO LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT ON THE APPLICANT'S LOCATION 1st District 14th District 85th District

The goveming board or body has reviewed the ECM Summary and agrees thel the building or system Information is correct and the proiecl and associated energy conservation measures have been correctly descnbed Any scanned or photocopied version of the signed original Apphcation Authonzation Form shell be considered original. and the governing board or body hereby waives any applk:ablo objection on this basis. The governing board or body aulhor\zes the con1oct person, named above. to provide any addibooal information relevant to the review and/or approval ol lh1s application.

The bUJld1ng. racllty or sys1em Is owned and operaled by the appllcanl f.il Yes D No

Is the completion of lhis prOJecl con�ngenl on DEDIDE Energy Loan Program financing? f.il Yt!i nNo

By signing lhis lorm. you have agreed 10 and understand lhe "Requ�n1s· specified on ihe mslruclion page.

PRINT NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL I Sl(37� �--fATE

La,ry E>seroerg Assooato VJCo Chancollo</Faciilos Management 1/12/2d17

u u

.

-

I

lilll!llt!.-,.._

.

I

-I

AUTHORIZATION FORM INSTRUCTIONS

We recommend that loan applicants contact a Divislon of Energy loan manager before completing an application. A loan manager can be reached at 1-855-522-2796.

Below are instructions for selected Application Authorization Form fields.

6-9. Enter the information for the organization's administrative office location.

10-14. Enter the contact person's information. The contact person is the individual who can answer the majority of the questions related to this application.

15. Enter the total project cost for all energy conservation measures. This can include reasonable fees for design and commissioning.

17. Select the project type. If selecting "System," give a short description, such as motors or traffic signals.

18-19. Enter the planned start and completion dates of construction activities.

20. Some projects may include several building and/or system locations. Enter the total number of buildings or locations that will be directly affected by the proposed project. If a list or map is needed. enter "see attached."

21. Enter the estimated annual energy cost savings calculated on the Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) Summary.

22. Enter the total area of the building that is served by the utility meters on the Fuel Use Summary.

23. Enter the area of the building that will be affected by energy conservation measures.

37. Enter the contact information for those who provided the technical documentation.

38. Select the business type of the energy analyst identified in 37. If selecting "Other," please describe.

39-41. Enter the appropriate district numbers based on the applicant's location.

An authorized official must sign and date the application. An authorized official is an individual with authority to obligate an eligible entity by signature to a loan agreement and promissory note to repay the loan. Please understand that this is an application only, and it does not obligate your organization to accept a loan, if approved by the Division of Energy.

U.S. Mall Submission: Print Application Authorization Form, Fuel Usage Summary form, ECM worksheets, ECM summary page, and previous i2 months of utility bills. Sign the Application Authorization Form and mail the original application and all supporting documents to the address below. Electronic Submission: Print, sign, and scan the Application Authorization Form. Email the scanned Application Authorization Form with the electronic application to the address below.

Missouri Department of Economic Development Division of Energy Attn: Loan Program Clerk P.O. Box 1766 301 W. High, Ste. 720 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Email: energy@ded.mo.gov

Applicant Organization Nama

111�11111 Univerolt of Missouri-SL Louis Drs:,rt,r,,pnl o' itl"llm t DP•l'loi>mtnl Specific Building or System Name

Luea, Hall MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Total Area Cooled in square Feet Total Area HeatM in Square F 881

DIVISION OF ENERGY - ENERGY LOAN F'ROGRAM FUEL USE SUMMARY

SERVICE DATES

FROM TO

MMIDO/YYYY MMIDONYYY

ANNUAL TOTAL

AVERAGE UNIT COST

USAGE kWh)

Uti�ty Provider

ladede

ELECTRICITY

DEMAND kW)

COST ($)

$/kWh

SlMMBh.J

ACCOUNT NUMBER C$m· $. Owned Bvidtn Submeter

METER NUMBER 1·3952M

SERVICE DATES

FROM TO

MMIOD/YYYY MM/DO/YYYY

12'123120!.$ 12/�3/W16.

s

Utility Provider

Laclede FUEL

9�,477

Natural Gas/ Fuel Oil/ LPG/ Other

USAGE ·ccF

$0.1313

COST $)

$'105,661

B0.613 $ 105.661.00

1.31 $ per CCF

13.11 $/MMBh.l

MIS

SOU

RI COORDINATING BO

AR

D

FO

R

HIG H E R E D U CAT

ION

Coordinating Board for Higher EducationMembers by Congressional District

2nd Congressional DistrictVACANT

1st Congressional DistrictMr. Samuel Murphey (D)

5th Congressional

DistrictVACANT

At Large MemberDr. John Siscel, III (R)

7th Congressional DistrictMr. Brian Fogle (D)

8th Congressional DistrictMr. Doug Kennedy (D)

4th Congressional DistrictMr. Dalton Wright (R)

3rd Congressional DistrictDr. Carolyn Mahoney (D)

6th Congressional DistrictMr. Michael Thomson (R)

District Description of boundary Population

1 St. Louis County (part of), St. Louis City 736,055

2 Counties of Jefferson (part of), St. Charles (part of), St. Louis County (part of) 767,531

3 Counties of Jefferson (part of), Franklin, Gasconade, Maries, Osage, Cole, Callaway, Montgomery, Warren, Lincoln (part of), St. Charles (part of), Miller, Camden (part of) 774,899

4 Counties of Audrain (part of), Randolph, Boone, Howard, Moniteau, Cooper, Morgan, Camden (part of), Hickory, Benton, Pettis, Johnson, Henry, St. Clair, Cedar, Dade, Barton, Vernon, Bates, Cass, Dallas, Laclede, Pulaski, Webster (part of)

762,763

5 Counties of Jackson (part of), Ray, Lafayette, Saline, Clay (part of) 757,920

6

Counties of Lincoln (part of), Audrain (part of), Ralls, Marion, Shelby, Lewis, Monroe, Knox, Clark, Scotland, Schuyler, Adair, Macon, Chariton, Linn, Sullivan, Putnam, Mercer, Grundy, Livingston, Carroll, Caldwell, Daviess, Harrison, Worth, Gentry, DeKalb, Clinton, Clay (part of), Jackson (part of), Platte, Buchanan, Andrew, Nodaway, Holt, Atchison

765,667

7 Counties of Jasper, Newton, McDonald, Lawrence, Barry, Stone, Taney, Christian, Greene, Polk, Webster (part of) 770,073

8

Counties of Ozark, Douglas, Wright, Texas, Howell, Oregon, Shannon, Dent, Phelps, Crawford, Washington, Jefferson (part of), Iron, Reynolds, Carter, Ripley, Butler, Wayne, Madison, St. Francois, Ste. Genevieve, Perry, Bollinger, Cape Girardeau, Scott, Stoddard, Mississippi, New Madrid, Pemiscot, Dunklin

748,764

12/28/2016

MIS

SOU

RI COORDINATING BO

AR

D

FO

R

HIG H E R E D U CAT

ION

STATUTORILY REQUIRED FUNCTIONS OF THE COORDINATING BOARD FOR HIGHER EDUCATION /MDHE

(as of May 13, 2016) Fiscal • Establish guidelines for appropriation requests by public four-year institutions

(§173.005.2(3)) • Approve a community college funding model developed in cooperation with the community

colleges (§ 163.191.1) • Submit an aggregated community college budget request (§ 163.191.1) • Oversee implementation of the Higher Education Student Funding Act (“Tuition

Stabilization”), including the adjudication of waiver requests submitted by institutions proposing to raise tuition at a rate that exceeds the statutory guideline (§ 173.1003.5)

• Recommend to governing boards of state-supported institutions, including public community colleges, formulas to be employed in specifying plans for general operations, development and expansion and requests for appropriations from the general assembly (§ 173.030(3))

• Promulgate rules to include selected off-campus instruction in public colleges and university appropriation recommendations where prior need has been established in areas designated by the Coordinating Board for Higher Education (§ 173.030(4))

• Request appropriations to match U.S. Agency for International Development funds for purposes of facilitating international student exchanges (§ 173.730)

Planning • Conduct studies of population and enrollment trends affecting institutions of higher

education in the state (§ 173.020(1)) • Identify higher education needs in the state in terms of requirements and potential of young

people and in terms of labor force requirements (§ 173.020(2)) • Develop arrangements for more effective and more economical specialization among

institutions in types of education programs offered and students served and for more effective coordination and mutual support among institutions in the utilization of facilities, faculty and other resources (§ 173.020(3))

• Design a coordinated plan for higher education for the state and its subregions (§ 173.020(4)) • Develop in cooperation with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education a

comprehensive assessment of postsecondary vocational technical education in the state (§ 178.637.2)1

• Collect information and develop comparable data for all institutions of higher education in the state and use it to delineate areas of competence of each of these institutions and for any other purposes the CBHE deems appropriate (§ 173.005.2(9))

• Establish state and institution-specific performance measures by July 1, 2008 (§ 173.1006.1) • Conduct institutional mission reviews every five years (§ 173.030(7)) • Review and approve applications from institutions for statewide missions (§ 173.030(8)) • Issue annual report to the governor and general assembly (§ 173.040) • Report to Joint Committee on Education (§ 173.1006.2)

1 This was a one-time requirement to be completed by August 1996 in connection with the establishment of Linn State Technical College. There is no statutory requirement to keep the assessment updated.

Academic Programs • Approve proposed new degree programs to be offered by the state institutions of higher

education (§ 173.005.2(1)) • Approve degree programs offered by out-of-state institutions, in a manner similar to Missouri

public higher education institutions. Department may charge fees to cover costs of reviewing and assuring the quality of programs. (§ 173.005.2 (12) (b) b)

• Recommend to governing boards the development, consolidation or elimination of programs, degree offerings, physical facilities or policy changes deemed in the best interests of the institutions or the state (§ 173.030(2))

• Approve out-of-district courses offered by community colleges (§ 163.191.4) • Establish competencies for entry-level courses associated with an institution’s general

education core curriculum (§ 173.005.2(7)) • Determine to what extent courses of instruction in the Constitution of the U.S., and of the

state of Missouri, and in American History should be required by colleges and universities. (§ 170.011.1)

• Establish guidelines to facilitate student transfers (§ 173.005.2(7)) • Administer the Studies in Energy Conservation Fund in collaboration with the Department of

Natural Resources and, subject to appropriations, establish full professorships of energy efficiency and conservation (§ 640.219.1)

• Promulgate rules to ensure faculty credentials and student evaluations are posted on institutional websites (§ 173.1004)

• Cooperate with the Department of Corrections to develop a plan of instruction for the education of offenders (§ 217.355)

• Establish guidelines to promote and facilitate the transfer of students between institutions of higher education within the state (§ 173.005.2(8))

• Require all public two-year and four-year higher education institutions to create by July 1, 2014, a statewide core transfer library of at least twenty-five lower division courses across all institutions that are transferable among all public higher education institutions (§ 173.005.2(8))

• Develop a policy to foster reverse transfer for any student who has accumulated enough hours by meeting specific statutory requirements to be awarded an associate degree (§ 173.005.2(8))

• Require all public two-year and four-year higher education institutions to replicate best practices in remediation (§ 173.005.2(6))

Institutional Relationships • Promote and encourage the development of cooperative agreements between Missouri public

four-year institutions of higher education which do not offer graduate degrees and Missouri public four-year institutions of higher education which do offer graduate degrees for the purpose of offering graduate degree programs on campuses of those public four-year institutions of higher education which do not otherwise offer graduate degrees. (§ 173.005(2))

• Coordinate reciprocal agreements between or among institutions at the request of one or more of the parties. (§ 173.030(5))

• Enter and administer interstate reciprocal agreements for delivery of postsecondary distance education, including approval of applications to participate and development of consumer protection and complaint policies (§ 173.030(6))

• Approve new state-supported senior colleges or residence centers (§ 173.005.2(4))

• Establish admission guidelines consistent with institutional missions (§ 173.005.2(5)) • Establish guidelines to help institutions with decisions relating to residence status of students

(§ 173.005.2(7)) • Conduct binding dispute resolution for disputes between public institutions that involve

jurisdictional boundaries, or the use or expenditure or any state resources (§ 173.125) • Receive biennial reports from all public institutions on the number and language background

of all teaching assistants, including a copy of the institution’s current policy for selection of graduate teaching assistants (§ 170.012.4)

• Promulgate model conflict of interest policy that is used to govern all public institutions of higher education that did not have a similar measure in place after January 1, 1992 (§ 173.735)

• Enforce provisions of the Missouri Returning Heroes Education Act, which limits the amount of tuition public institutions can charge combat veterans (§ 173.900.4)

• Promulgate rules for the refund of all tuition and incidental fees or the awarding of a grade of “incomplete” for students called into active military service, voluntarily or involuntarily, prior to the completion of the semester (§ 41.948.5)

• Provide an annual report to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education on the performance of graduates of public high schools in the state during the student’s initial year in the public colleges and universities of the state (§ 173.750.1)

• Promulgate instructions and recommendations for implementing eye safety in college and university laboratories (§ 173.009)

• Exercise oversight of State Technical College (§ 178.638) • Establish standards for the organization of community colleges (§ 178.770) • Approve establishment of community college subdistricts and redistricting (§ 178.820) • Supervise the two-year community colleges (§ 178.780) to include:

o Establishing their role in the state o Setting up surveys to be used for local jurisdictions when determining need and

potential for a community college o Administering the state financial support program o Formulating and putting into effect uniform policies as to budgeting, record

keeping and student accounting o Establishing uniform minimum entrance requirements and uniform curricular

offerings o Make a continuing study of community college education in the state o Being responsible for their accreditation, annually or as often as deemed

advisable, and in accordance with established rules Note: Section 173.005.7 transfers to the Coordinating Board for Higher Education the duties

of the State Board of Education relating to community college state aid, supervision and formation specified in Chapters 163 and 178, RSMo.

Financial Aid2 • Administer the Access Missouri Financial Assistance Program (§ 173.1103.1) • Administer Higher Education Academic Scholarship Program (“Bright Flight”) (§ 173.250.3) • Administer the A+ Scholarship Program (Executive Order 10-16, January 29, 2010) • Administer the Advanced Placement Incentive Grant (§ 173.1350)

2 Entries in italics historically have not had funds appropriated to them by the General Assembly and so require no ongoing activity by the department.

• Administer the Kids’ Chance Scholarship Program for children of workers who were seriously injured or killed as result of a workmen’s compensation-related event (need based) (§ 173.256.1)

• Administer the Public Safety Officer or Employee Grant Program for certain public employees and their families if the employee is killed or permanently and totally disabled in the line of duty (§ 173.260.2 & .4)

• Administer the Marguerite Ross Barnett Competitiveness Scholarship Program for students who are employed 20 hours or more per week while attending school part time (need based) (§ 173.262.3)

• Administer the Missouri Teaching Fellows Program for educational loan repayments, to include maintaining a program coordinator position to identify, recruit, and select potential applicants for the program (§ 168.700)

• Administer the Minority Teaching Scholarship Program (§ 161.415) • Administer the Minority and Underrepresented Environmental Literacy Program (§ 173.240) • Administer the Advantage Missouri Trust Fund, which provides loans and a loan forgiveness

program for students in approved educational programs who become employed in occupational areas of high demand in the state; responsibilities include annually designating occupational areas of high demand and the degree programs or certifications that lead to employment in those areas (§§ 173.775.2 & 173.781)

• Make provisions for institutions to award tuition and fee waivers to certain students who have been in foster care or other residential care under the Department of Social Services (§ 173.270.1)

• May request information from public or private institutions to determine compliance with the requirement that no student receiving state need-based financial assistance receive financial assistance that exceeds the student’s cost of attendance (§ 173.093)

• Administer the Veteran’s Survivor Grant (§ 173.234.1) • Administer the Vietnam Veteran’s Survivor Grant (§ 173.236.1) • Receive annual certification from all postsecondary institutions that they have not knowingly

awarded financial aid to a student who is unlawfully present in the U.S. (§ 173.1110.3) • Promulgate rules to ensure individuals in the process of separating from the U.S. military

may readily obtain in-state residency status for purposes of tuition and admission. (§ 173.1150)

State Guaranty Agency under the Federal Family Education Loan Program3 • Administer Missouri Student Loan Program (§§ 173.100 to .120 & .130 & .150 to .187; also

Title IV, Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. §§ 1071 to 1087-2), and its implementing regulations in 34 C.F.R. §§ 433A, 485D & 682). Responsibilities include:

o Establishing standards for determining eligible institutions, eligible lenders and eligible borrowers

o Processing applications o Loan disbursement o Enrollment and repayment status management o Default awareness activities o Collecting on defaulted borrowers

3 As a result of provisions in the recently enacted Healthcare and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, no new FFELP loans will be issued after June 30, 2010. However, the Guaranty Agency’s statutory and regulatory obligations will continue as to loans still outstanding and guaranteed before that date.

o School and lender training o Financial literacy activities o Providing information to students and families on college planning, career

preparation, and paying for college o Administering claims o Compliance

• Provide information on types of financial assistance available to pursue a postsecondary education (§ 167.278)

• Act as a lender of last resort for students or schools that cannot otherwise secure loans (§ 173.110.3) • Enter into agreements with and receive grants from U.S. government in connection with

federal programs of assistance (§173.141)

Proprietary Schools • License and oversee all for-profit Missouri certificate or degree granting schools

(§ 173.604.1) • License and oversee some not-for-profit Missouri certificate or degree granting schools

(§§ 173.604.1 & 173.616.1) • License and oversee out-of-state higher education institutions offering instruction in Missouri

(public out-of-state are exempt but go through program approval similar to in-state publics) (§§ 173.602 & 173.005.2(11)(b))

• License and oversee certain types of student recruitment by non-Missouri institutions (§ 173.602)

• Require annual recertification, or recertification every two years if certain conditions are met (§ 173.606.1 & 173.606.2)

• Establish appropriate administrative fees to operate the certification program. (§ 173.608.2) Assignments in Statute to Serve on other State Boards • Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (both the commissioner and a Coordinating

Board for Higher Education member. (§ 173.360) • Missouri Higher Education Savings Program (MOST) (§ 166.415.1) • Missouri Workforce Investment Board (§ 620.511.3) • Holocaust Commission (§ 161.700.3(1)) • Commission on Autism Spectrum Disorders (§ 633.200.3(6)) • Interagency Advisory Committee on Energy Cost Reduction & Savings (§ 8.843) • Minority Environmental Literacy Advisory Committee (§ 173.240.7) • Missouri Area Health Education Centers Council (§ 191.980)

Grants for Institutions/Faculty • Administer the Nurse Education Incentive Program (§ 335.203) • Apply for, receive and utilize funds which may be available from private nonprofit

foundations and from federal sources for research on higher education needs and problems in the state. (§ 173.050(2))

• Serve as the official state agency to plan for, define, and recommend policies concerning the allocation of federal funds where such funds, according to provisions of federal legislation, are to be received and allocated through an official state agency. (§ 173.050(1))

Enforcement

• Compliance with requests from the coordinating board for institutional information and the other powers, duties and responsibilities, herein assigned to the coordinating board, shall be a prerequisite to the receipt of any funds which the coordinating board is responsible for administering. (§ 173.005.2(10))

• If any institution of higher education in this state, public or private, willfully fails or refuses to follow any lawful guideline, policy or procedure established or prescribed by the coordinating board, or knowingly deviates from any such guideline, or knowingly acts without coordinating board approval where such approval is required, or willfully fails to comply with any other lawful order of the coordinating board, the coordinating board may, after a public hearing, withhold or direct to be withheld from that institution any funds the disbursement of which is subject to the control of the coordinating board, or may remove the approval of the institution as an approved institution within the meaning of section 173.1102.

• If any such public institution willfully disregards board policy, the commissioner of higher education may order such institution to remit a fine in an amount not to exceed one percent of the institution's current fiscal year state operating appropriation to the board. The board shall hold such funds until such time that the institution, as determined by the commissioner of higher education, corrects the violation, at which time the board shall refund such amount to the institution. If the commissioner determines that the institution has not redressed the violation within one year, the fine amount shall be deposited into the general revenue fund, unless the institution appeals such decision to the full coordinating board, which shall have the authority to make a binding and final decision, by means of a majority vote, regarding the matter. However, nothing in this section shall prevent any institution of higher education in this state from presenting additional budget requests or from explaining or further clarifying its budget requests to the governor or the general assembly. (§ 173.005.2(11))