PURPOSE: The purpose of this rule is to set forth the criteria for evaluation and the procedures for submitting new degree and certificate programs and program changes by public and independent institutions of higher education in Missouri to the Coordinating Board for Higher Education.

1. (1) Definitions.

   1. (A) CBHE-approved mission—a description of the public institution’s programs, audiences served, level and type of degrees offered, or other distinguishing factors, which the CBHE has reviewed and approved.
   2. (B) CBHE-approved off-site location— locations other than the main campus (for universities) or taxing district (for community colleges) that the CBHE has reviewed and approved. The department maintains an official inventory of approved off-site locations.
   3. (C) Certificate program—a prescribed course of study which confers an award other than a formal academic degree.
   4. (D) Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP)—a taxonomic scheme that supports the accurate tracking and reporting of fields of study and program completions activity. The CIP is the accepted federal government statistical standard on instructional program classifications, developed by the U.S. Department of Education.
   5. (E) Collaboration—two (2) or more institutions of higher education working together to deliver an academic program or degree.
   6. (F) Combination programs—the result of a mechanical combination of two (2) previously existing programs.
   7. (G) Commissioner—the commissioner of higher education as appointed by the CBHE.
   8. (H) Content—the program specialization with its related options, if any, for which recognition is intended to be given by the conferring of a degree or certificate.
   9. (I) Coordinating board, board or CBHE— the Coordinating Board for Higher Education created by article IV, section 52 of the Missouri Constitution.
   10. (J) Degree—an award conferred by a college, university, or other postsecondary education institution as official recognition for the successful completion of a program of studies as defined by and reported to the United States Department of Education and to the coordinating board’s certificate and program inventory. In baccalaureate degrees or higher, the term program is generally the same as major.
   11. (K) Department—the Missouri Department of Higher Education created by article IV, section 52 of the Missouri Constitution.
   12. (L) Duplication—proposing to offer the same or a similar program to one that is already being offered by another institution.
   13. (M) Inactive status—the result of formal action by an institution on the status of an existing academic program, which suspends the program for a period not to exceed five

2. (5) years.

   1. (N) Independent institution—an approved private institution of higher education meeting the requirements of section 173. 1102(2), RSMo, provided it is also either accredited or a candidate for accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission.
   2. (O) Level—a degree, such as associate, baccalaureate, first professional, master’s, specialist, doctorate, and any other designation lower, higher, or intermediate to those which now exist or may be created. (Specialist programs, related to the state requirements for the certification of public school administrators and to the further education of public school teachers and supervisors, should be limited specifically to the field of education. These programs are essentially extensions of master’s level studies and should evidence a study beyond that expected of master’s programs.)
   3. (P) Minor change—modifications to existing programs such as a change of program title or CIP code; the combination of programs; request for inactive status; the establishment of one- (1-) year certificate programs under an existing parent program; new options; request for program deletion; change in the mode of delivery; or new singlesemester certificate programs.
   4. (Q) Professional Degree—is an award for completing a program that: 1) serves as a prerequisite to practicing in the profession; 2) requires at least two (2) years of college work prior to entering the program; and 3) requires a total of at least six (6) academic years of college work to complete the degree program, including prior required college work plus the length of the professional program itself.

   5. (R) Program—a prescribed course of study that leads to the formal award of a certificate or degree.

      1. 1. Certificate 0 (Undergraduate)—Post-

secondary award, certificate, or diploma (less than one (1) academic year) below the baccalaureate degree— 6 CSR 10-4

1. A. Less than nine hundred (900) con-

tact or clock hours; or

1. B. Less than thirty (30) semester or

trimester credit hours; or

1. C. Less than forty-five (45) quarter

credit hours.

1. 2. Certificate 1 (Undergraduate)—Post-

secondary award, certificate, or diploma (at least one (1), but less than two (2) academic years) below the baccalaureate degree—

1. A. At least nine hundred (900), but

less than one thousand eight hundred (1,800) contact or clock hours; or

1. B. At least thirty (30), but less than

sixty (60) semester or trimester hours; or

1. C. At least forty-five (45), but less

than ninety (90) quarter hours.

1. 3. Associate’s degree—an award that

normally requires no more than sixty (60) semester credit hours unless necessary for accreditation or licensure.

1. 4. Certificate 2 (Undergraduate)—post-

secondary award, certificate, or diploma (at least two (2), but less than four (4) academic years) below the baccalaureate degree—

1. A. At least one thousand eight hun-

dred (1,800), but less than three thousand six hundred (3,600) contact or clock hours; or

1. B. At least sixty (60), but less than

one hundred twenty (120) semester or trimester credit hours; or

1. C. At least ninety (90), but less than

one hundred eighty (180) quarter credit hours.

1. 5. Baccalaureate degree—an award that

normally requires no more than one hundred twenty (120) semester credit hours unless necessary for accreditation or licensure.

1. 6. Graduate certificate—an organized

program of study beyond the bachelor’s degree, designed for persons who have completed a baccalaureate degree but not meeting requirements of academic degrees at the master’s level.

1. 7. Master’s degree—an award that typi-

cally requires successful completion of a program of study of at least the full-time equivalent of one (1), but not more than two (2) academic years of work beyond the bachelor’s degree. Some of these degrees may require more than two (2) full-time equivalent academic years of work.

1. 8. Post-master’s certificate (First-profes-

sional certificate)—an organized program beyond the master’s degree but not meeting requirements of academic degrees at the doctor’s level. This award is designed for persons having completed the first-professional degree (refresher courses or additional units of study in a specialty or subspecialty).

1. 9. Doctoral degree—the highest award a

student can earn for graduate study (research/scholarship or professional practice).

1. (S) Program deletion—the removal of a program or an option from an institution’s program offerings.
2. (T) Program change—any revision or change in a program name or its nomenclature, including CIP number.
3. (U) Public institution—an approved public institution of higher education meeting the requirements of section 173.1102(3), RSMo.
4. (V) Program option or option—a formally designated area of specialization within an existing degree program that has a distinctive curricular pattern. A majority of required courses for the option will be taken in a core of courses common to all variations of the existing parent degree. For the purposes of program changes, option, emphasis area, and other similar terms are assumed to be equivalent.
5. (W) Substantive curricular change—significant modifications or expansion of an existing program. Examples of substantive changes include, but are not limited to, a change in the program’s overall credits or goals; deletion and replacement of a significant number of courses in the program’s curriculum; change in the program’s purpose; change in the audience(s) that the program is intended to serve.
6. (X) Program type or type of program—A designation within a degree level, such as associate of arts (AA), associate of science (AS), associate of applied science (AAS), bachelor of arts, bachelor of science, bachelor of science in engineering, master of arts, master of science, doctor of philosophy, doctor of education, etc.

1. (2) Special Procedure for New Public Institutions.

   1. (A) Since newly-established public institutions have ordinarily only begun the process of assembling the resources necessary to offer instruction, application of the usual review process would be inappropriate. As a consequence, new public institutions must develop a five- (5-) year academic plan that projects those programs the institution intends to develop during this period based upon a need analysis it has conducted. The institution must also provide satisfactory evidence that it can reasonably expect to acquire the resources necessary to support these programs. The institution must submit annual updates on the plan and its progress toward full implementation. At these times the institution may request revisions in its original plan.
   2. (B) Subject to CBHE approval of the plan, the new institution may offer these programs for a period not to exceed five (5) years. During this time the institution must submit formal proposals for new program approval; however, the submission of these programs may occur on a schedule convenient to the institution. Those programs that have not received regular approval by the end of the five- (5-) year planning period shall be terminated, or the resources associated with the program shall be withdrawn from the institution’s funding base for the purpose of developing future state appropriation requests.
   3. (C) Notice. Prompt notice of the results of all academic program approval and review actions by the board or its designee, including any pertinent comments relating thereto, will be sent to the CBHE whenever the action decision has been delegated, to all higher education institutions and to the public in a manner deemed appropriate by the commissioner.
2. (3) General Program Review for Independent Institutions. Except for subsections (4)(A), (4)(B), the right to appeal provided in section (8), and any pertinent definitions in section (1), this rule does not apply to independent institutions. Independent institutions shall submit all new degree and certificate programs for CBHE review according to the procedure in either subsection (4)(A) or (4)(B), as determined by department staff. The CBHE may offer nonbinding recommendations on such program proposals, and may use submitted information to aid the analysis of public institutions’ program proposals. Submission of new program information is a prerequisite to receiving any funds administered by the CBHE in accordance with section 173.005.2(9) and (10), RSMo, but receipt of such funds does not depend on receipt or compliance with CBHE comments or recommendations. In no event, section (4) of this rule notwithstanding, will independent institutions’ program proposals be subject to CBHE approval.

3. (4) Types of Review.

   1. (A) Staff Review.

      1. 1. Minor changes to existing academic

programs and the addition of some certificates may be addressed through a staff review. Institutions shall report all minor changes to ensure that the state program inventory is accurate and complete.

1. 2. Requests for minor changes to exist-

ing academic programs must be submitted to the department on forms provided by the department. The following guidelines apply to specific change requests:

1. A. Moving an existing program to

inactive status.

1. (I) Programs placed on inactive sta-

tus will be suspended for a specified period not to exceed five (5) years.

1. (II) Students in the program at the

time this status is adopted will be permitted to conclude their course of study if they have no more than two (2) years of coursework remaining, but no new students may be admitted to the program.

1. (III) At the conclusion of the desig-

nated inactive period, not to exceed five (5) years, the institution must review the program’s status and may either delete it or reactivate it.

1. (IV) Only programs and certifi-

cates may be placed in inactive status; options are deleted through the program deletion process;

1. B. Program deletion. At the time an

institution notifies the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) in writing about the circumstances for which HLC requires a teach-out agreement, the institution must also notify the department. Institutions must provide program name, level, CIP code, and effective date of deletion;

1. C. Location notification. This

includes change of address updates, and notifications of closed locations. Notifications of closed locations must also include the list of programs to be deleted at the location;

1. D. Change of program title or CIP

code. A title, CIP code, or nomenclature revision that includes substantive curriculum changes may be deemed tantamount to a new program and may be referred to the institution for consideration at the routine or comprehensive review level;

1. E. Combination programs. Combina-

tion programs will be reviewed at the staff review level for the elimination of duplicated requirements. The development of interdisciplinary programs and area study programs that utilize the resources of several existing programs will be reviewed through the routine or comprehensive new program approval process. However, proposals that combine two (2) or more programs ordinarily involve a substantive curricular change, which must be reviewed in the comprehensive process described in subsection (5)(C);

1. F. Certificate programs. Single-

semester certificate programs, either as a stand-alone or as part of a parent-degree program, will be considered under staff review. A one- (1-) year certificate may be considered under staff review only if developed from, directly related to, and deriving courses predominantly from an approved parent degree program. Otherwise, one- (1-) year certificate proposals must be submitted as a new program at the routine or comprehensive review level, as appropriate;

1. G. Graduate certificates. Graduate

certificates greater than a single semester in length may be approved at the staff review level if they are part of an existing approved parent degree program. Graduate certificates greater than a single semester that are not part of an approved parent degree must be submitted as a new program at the routine or comprehensive review level, whichever is appropriate; and

1. H. Adding an option to an existing

program. The addition of a specialized course of study as a component of an umbrella degree program may be submitted as a program change subject to a determination by the CBHE or its designee regarding the potential for unnecessary or inappropriate duplication of existing programs, in accordance with subsection (9)(C) of this rule. Only in those instances in which duplication is necessary and appropriate may the proposed option be implemented. Options within a parent degree program will have the same CIP code as the parent degree. The institution shall provide evidence that the proposed option functions as a component of an umbrella degree program, including the curriculum common to the parent degree and all of its options.

1. (I) The following general guide-

lines distinguish a permissible option addition from a proposed new degree program:

1. (a) An option or emphasis area

generally functions as a component of an umbrella degree program. As such, an option in a specialized topic will consist of a core area of study in the major plus selected topical courses in the specialty. Typically, the core area of study will constitute a majority of the requirements in the major area of study as measured in the number of required courses or credit hours;

1. (b) A proposed option or empha-

sis area must be a logical component or extension of the umbrella degree program. One (1) measure of this compatibility—but not the only one—would be the consonance of the proposed addition with the federal CIP taxonomy. For instance, using physics as an example, optics would be an appropriate option (emphasis area) while astrophysics would ordinarily not be acceptable as it is typically viewed as a branch of astronomy rather than physics;

1. (c) The number of new courses

required to implement a new option or emphasis area is relevant. Four (4) or more new courses in a proposed new option will raise questions about resource commitments and suggest that a new program has been developed; and

1. (d) The need to develop new

courses as a condition of implementing an option is a relevant consideration.

1. 3. Review and reporting. Department

staff will review requests for minor changes to existing academic programs. Department staff may request additional information from the proposing institution.

1. 4. Timeline. For all requests submitted

by the first of the month, department staff will process, review, and report back to institutions by the end of that same month. Department staff will report routine review actions to the CBHE at the next regular board meeting following completion of review.

1. (B) Routine Review.

   1. 1. Proposals for new academic programs

that are not minor, but do not constitute a significant change in an institution’s current role, scope, or mission will be reviewed under the routine review process. For a proposed program to be considered through routine review, it must meet all of the following criteria:

1. A. The program is clearly within the

institution’s CBHE-approved mission;

1. B. The program will not unnecessari-

ly duplicate an existing program in the applicable geographic area, as described in subsection (9)(C) of this rule;

1. C. The program will be offered at the

main campus or at a CBHE-approved off-site location;

1. D. The program will build on existing

programs and faculty expertise; and

1. E. The cost to launch the program

will be minimal and within the institution’s current operating budget.

1. 2. The following proposals will be con-

sidered under the routine review process:

1. A. Substantive curricular changes to

an existing program;

1. B. Delivery of an approved program

at a CBHE-approved off-site location; and

1. C. New degree programs offered on

the main campus, at a CBHE-approved offsite location, or within its voluntary service area, or in collaboration with an institution already approved to offer such a program.

1. 3. Proposals for programs to be offered

other than on the main campus, a CBHE- approved off-site location, or within a voluntary service area may be reviewed as a routine review if it meets both the criteria listed under (B)1.A.–E. (above) and meets the conditions A.–B. listed below. After evaluating the proposal, department staff may recommend that the proposal warrants a comprehensive review.

1. A. The institution already offers the

program on its main campus, at a CBHE- approved off-site location, or within its voluntary service area. 6 CSR 10-4

1. B. The proposal includes a com-

pelling rationale justifying the need for the program and why the proposing institution is best suited to deliver the program at the proposed location.

1. C. The proposal may include evi-

dence that the proposing institution has communicated with the other public institutions about the proposing institution’s intention to offer the proposed program. The inclusion of this evidence may be a factor in reviewing the proposal as a routine review. (Nota bene: This criterion is intended as a means of keeping the review on the routine review timeline. The proposing institution could include in its application, for example, letters of support from other institutions in the vicinity of the proposed program, or those who offer similar programs. Such efforts prior to submission of the application may keep the review on the routine review timeline.)

1. 4. Process.

   1. A. Institutions shall provide informa-

tion about the proposed program to the department on forms provided by the department. This information will include certification that the proposal meets the criteria for routine review and that the program meets the criteria for all new academic programs. Department staff may request additional information from the proposing institution.

1. B. Department staff will verify and

post the proposal on the department’s website to allow for twenty (20) days of public review and comment. Any institution, member of the profession, occupation, or specialized academic field, and any other interested individual may express an opinion to department staff regarding any new program proposal. Comments must be received within twenty (20) days of the proposal’s posting on the department website.

1. C. The proposing public institution

will address comments and feedback received. Once all concerns are resolved, the commissioner will recommend provisional approval of the program for a period of five (5) years.

1. (I) The public institution shall

establish clearly defined performance goals for the new program to be achieved during the provisional implementation period. The public institution may revise its performance goals for the new program at any time during the designated implementation period with the concurrence of department staff.

1. (II) Provisional approval by the

CBHE or its designee is valid for two (2) years following the first fall term after CBHE approval. If an institution has not implemented the proposal by that date, the approval will lapse and the program proposal must be resubmitted with updated information.

1. D. At the end of the five- (5-) year

provisional approval period, the department will review the program’s viability to determine whether the CBHE’s provisional approval should become unconditional, remain provisional pending further review in two (2) years, or be terminated.

1. (I) Public institutions shall provide

to department staff, in a manner prescribed by department staff, enrollment, graduation, and staffing data for the program, as well as a brief summary of program performance. If the program is performing as well as or better than the projections in the original program proposal, the department will recommend that the CBHE approve the program unconditionally.

1. (II) If the CBHE terminates provi-

sional approval, the public institution shall take the necessary steps to close the program, which includes accommodating students currently enrolled in the program.

1. 5. Timeline.

   1. A. Requests submitted by the first of

the month will be reviewed and processed, and in most cases institutions will be notified, by the end of that same month. Department staff will report routine review actions to the CBHE at the next regular board meeting following completion of review.

1. (C) Comprehensive Review.

   1. 1. Proposed new academic programs

that meet any of the following criteria will be subject to a comprehensive review:

1. A. The institution will incur substan-

tial costs to launch and sustain the program;

1. B. The program will include the offer-

ing of degrees at the baccalaureate level or higher that fall within the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code of 14, Engineering;

1. C. The program is outside an institu-

tion’s CBHE-approved mission;

1. D. The program will include the

offering of a doctoral degree, as further described in paragraph (9)(C)3. of this rule (applicable only to non-University of Missouri institutions);

1. E. The program will include the

offering of a professional degree, as further described in paragraph (9)(C)3. of this rule (applicable only to non-University of Missouri institutions); or

1. F. The program will include the offer-

ing of an education specialist degree.

1. 2. Elements of a Complete Proposal for

Comprehensive Review. Institutions shall submit the proposal to the department on forms provided by the department. A complete proposal includes the following:

1. A. Evidence of good faith effort to

explore the feasibility of collaboration with other institutions whose mission or service region encompasses the proposed program. At a minimum, this will include letters from the chief academic officers of both the proposing institution and other institutions involved in exploring the feasibility of collaboration attesting to the nature of the discussions and explaining why collaboration in this instance is not feasible;

1. B. Evidence that the offering institu-

tion is contributing substantially to the CBHE’s Blueprint for Higher Education as adopted on February 4, 2016, pursuant to section 173.020(4), RSMo, and is committed to advancing the goals of that plan;

1. C. Evidence of institutional capacity

to launch the program in a high-quality manner, including:

1. (I) An external review conducted

by a team including faculty experts in the discipline to be 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, including faculty resources that are appropriate for the program being proposed (e.g. faculty credentials, use of adjunct faculty, and faculty teaching workloads);

1. (II) 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;

1. (III) 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, including library resources, physical facilities, and instruction equipment; and

1. (IV) Where applicable, a descrip-

tion of accreditation requirements for the new program and the institution’s plans for seeking accreditation; and

1. D. Evidence that the proposed pro-

gram is needed, including:

1. (I) Documentation demonstrating

that the program does not unnecessarily duplicate other programs in the applicable geographic area, as described in subsection (9)(C) of this rule;

1. (II) A rigorous analysis demonstrat-

ing 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 letters of support from local or regional businesses indicating a genuine need for the program; and

1. (III) A clear plan to meet the artic-

ulated workforce need, including:

1. (a) Aligning curriculum with

specific knowledge and competencies needed to work in the field(s) or occupation(s) described in the workforce need analysis in part (II) of this subparagraph;

1. (b) Providing students with

external learning experiences to increase the probability that they will remain in the applicable geographic area after graduation; and

1. (c) A plan for assessing the

extent to which the new program meets that need when implemented.

1. 3. Process.

   1. A. Department staff will verify and

post the proposal on the department’s website to allow for twenty (20) days of public review and comment. Any institution, member of the profession, occupation, or specialized academic field, and any other interested individual may express an opinion to department staff regarding any new program proposal. Comments must be received within twenty (20) days of the proposal’s posting on the department’s website.

1. B. Department staff, in consultation

with the external review team described in part (4)(C)2.C.(I) of this rule, will review a complete proposal and provide feedback to the proposing institution.

1. C. The proposing public institution

will address comments and feedback received. Once all concerns are resolved, the commissioner will recommend provisional approval of the program for a period of five (5) years.

1. (I) Public institutions shall estab-

lish clearly defined performance goals for the new program to be achieved during the provisional implementation period. The public institution may revise its performance goals for the new program at any time during the designated implementation period with the concurrence of department staff.

1. (II) Public institutions 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.

1. (III) Provisional approval by the

CBHE or its designee is valid for two (2) years following the first fall term after CBHE approval. If an institution has not implemented the proposal by that date, the approval will lapse and the program proposal must be resubmitted with updated information.

1. D. At the end of the five- (5-) year

provisional approval period, the department will review the program’s viability to determine whether the CBHE’s provisional approval should become unconditional, remain provisional pending further review in two (2) years, or be terminated.

1. (I) Public institutions shall provide

to department staff, in a manner prescribed by department staff, enrollment, graduation, and staffing data for the program, as well as a brief summary of program performance. If the program is performing as well as or better than the projections in the original program proposal, the department will recommend that the CBHE approve the program unconditionally.

1. (II) If the CBHE terminates provi-

sional approval, the public institution shall take the necessary steps to close the program, which includes accommodating students currently enrolled in the program.

1. 4. Timeline.

   1. A. Proposals must be submitted to the

CBHE by July 1 of each year. The CBHE, in its sole discretion, will determine which proposals to evaluate, and will announce its evaluation decision(s) in September. Final decisions to approve programs will ordinarily be made by February.

1. (5) Off-campus and Out-of-district Degrees and Courses.

   1. (A) In addition to submitting proposals for new certificate and degree programs for oncampus offerings, an institution must submit a new program proposal if more than half the major requirements for the degree can be completed at an off-campus site for four- (4-) year institutions or at an out-of-district site for two- (2-) year institutions. (For the purposes of this section, major requirements include course requirements in the specific area of concentration only; general education requirements and free electives will not be a factor in this determination.)
   2. (B) All formal two-plus-two (2 + 2) curricular agreements must be submitted for review if either the sponsoring institution or the host institution is publicly supported.

   3. (C) Types of Off-Campus Instructional Sites Requiring CBHE Approval. The following off-campus instruction sites require CBHE approval:

      1. 1. Residence centers, as defined in 6

CSR 10-6.020(1);

1. 2. Off-campus instruction as defined in

6 CSR 10-6.030(1)(C); and

1. 3. Out-of-district instruction as defined

in 6 CSR 10-6.030(1)(D).

1. (D) Special Procedure for Multiple-campus Institutions.

   1. 1. Multiple-campus four- (4-) year insti-

tutions must submit separate program proposals for individual campuses, subject to certain exceptions for cooperative degree programs that are defined in subsequent paragraphs. For the purposes of cooperative degree programs, residence centers are not separate campuses.

1. 2. New program authorization for one

1. (1) campus of a multiple-campus two- (2-) year public institution may be extended to all other campuses within a district at the discretion of the sponsoring institution, provided the sponsoring institution informs the CBHE of all academic programming available at each campus.

   1. (E) Cooperative Intercampus Degree Program for Public Institutions.

      1. 1. A cooperative intercampus degree

program extends an academic program authorized by the CBHE on one (1) of an institution’s campuses to one (1) or more of its other campuses (not including residence centers) under the following conditions:

1. A. The campus authorized to provide

the program will continue to do so;

1. B. The program is cooperative in

nature, that is, it involves the faculty and resources of each participating campus;

1. C. The program must be included in

the institution’s plan and be consistent with the mission statement for the receiving campus; and

1. D. The program must meet the

accreditation guidelines of the appropriate national accrediting body, if any exists, as well as any applicable state licensure requirements.

1. 2. Subject to the previously mentioned

definition, a cooperative intercampus program is distinct from the more typical new program model in which a program is developed as a new, free-standing entity on a campus.

1. 3. The procedures and criteria for the

review of cooperative intercampus programs are the following:

1. A. Following the endorsement by the

president and the governing board of the institution, the program shall be sent to the CBHE or its designee for review at least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the proposed implementation;

1. B. It is the institution’s responsibility

to document the economic development opportunity or the need the proposed program is designed to address, including specific workforce needs at the state or regional level;

1. C. Additional expenditures associated

with the proposed program will be defined. If 6 CSR 10-4

the resource needs cannot be satisfactorily addressed by internal reallocation or alternative delivery systems, the program will be included in the institution’s next budget request for state support; and

1. D. The CBHE or its designee will

review the cooperative intercampus program on an expedited basis involving a period not to exceed sixty (60) days. In the event the program is not approved by the board’s designee, the decision may be appealed to the CBHE following established program appeal procedures.

1. (6) Use of Consultants.

   1. (A) In addition to evaluating written proposals, the board or its designee, in some circumstances, may use the services of consultants. It is anticipated that this procedure will be used primarily for comprehensive reviews.
   2. (B) These consultants must be individuals who are mutually acceptable to the board and to the public institution whose program is under consideration. Both the commissioner and the public institution may recommend consultants, but the ultimate selection of the consultant must be agreeable to both.
   3. (C) Services of consultants will be paid for by the public institution whose program is pending.

   4. (D) Consultants may be used in the following circumstances:

      1. 1. At the request of either the commis-

sioner or the public institution pending an unfavorable recommendation by department staff;

1. 2. For some health-related professions

or high technology programs whenever clinical facilities, laboratory facilities, equipment, or other aspects of the program need professional evaluation; or

1. 3. In instances in which a judgment is

difficult to make without the evaluation of professionally qualified external consultants.

1. (7) Programs Reviewed Jointly by the Coordinating Board for Higher Education and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

   1. (A) A public institution requesting financial reimbursement for a new program from vocational/technical funds administered by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education must submit at the same time a copy of the proposal in the CBHE’s format to the Division of Career and Adult Education of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in accordance with the instructions of that office.

   2. (B) The coordinating board and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education concur on the following procedures and understandings for effecting cooperation between the two (2) agencies in the exercise of their respective responsibilities regarding the development of vocational/technical programs in Missouri colleges and universities:

      1. 1. The responsibilities of the Depart-

ment of Elementary and Secondary Education to approve courses of instruction for vocational/technical financial reimbursement and of the CBHE to approve new degree and certificate programs are independent responsibilities and are not contingent one upon the other. However, as a general policy the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education will not approve financial reimbursement requests which are components of degree or certificate programs not approved by the coordinating board;

1. 2. CBHE staff will notify Department of

Elementary and Secondary Education staff of the development of any vocational/technical program, and members of both staffs will confer on all vocational/technical degree and certificate programs submitted to the coordinating board; and

1. 3. The Division of Career and Adult

Education of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education will receive notification of the commissioner’s actions on all vocational/technical program proposals.

1. (8) Appeal Procedure. In the event of an appeal of a program review action for a public institution, the following procedures apply:

   1. (A) Any of the following parties may initiate an appeal of a program action decision:

      1. 1. The public institution submitting the

original proposal;

1. 2. Any Missouri higher education insti-

tution that believes its interests are adversely affected by the program decision; or

1. 3. Any member of the CBHE, in the

event the original decision was made by the board’s designee;

1. (B) An appeal originating with a higher education institution must be signed by the chief executive officer of the institution;
2. (C) A letter of intent to appeal must be received by the commissioner within thirty

1. (30) days of receipt of the official notice of the program decision. If the appeal is initiated by a party other than the public institution that proposed the program, a copy of the intent to appeal letter and all other subsequent documentation must be sent to the sponsoring institution;

   1. (D) The new program may not be implemented while an appeal is pending;
   2. (E) Within fourteen (14) days after a letter of intent to appeal has been submitted, the appealing party must submit its full rationale in support of the appeal to the commissioner and to any affected institutions. This rationale should summarize the appellant’s justification for a review of the program decision and should include any relevant supporting evidence;
   3. (F) This rationale and the responses of the commissioner and any affected institutions will be placed on the agenda of the next meeting of the CBHE, provided that the next meeting is scheduled at least fourteen (14) days after receipt of the rationale. If the rationale is received less than fourteen (14) days before the next meeting, the request for an appeal will be heard by the CBHE at its next regularly scheduled meeting;
   4. (G) The CBHE chair will refer the matter to a relevant committee of the CBHE. A public meeting of the committee will be scheduled at which time testimony will be presented by all interested parties, and the committee will make its determination;
   5. (H) In those instances when a member of the CBHE has initiated a review of a decision by the board’s designee, the chair of the board will receive copies of all relevant documents. Provided that a majority of the board agrees that an appeal should be heard, the board may decide either to refer the matter to a relevant committee of the CBHE. If the matter is heard by the committee, the same procedures will apply as if the appeal were initiated by an institution. If the matter is heard directly by the board, the chair of the board will establish the appropriate procedural guidelines; and
   6. (I) All decisions of the body hearing the appeal, whether the full CBHE or its committee, will be final.

2. (9) General Review Criteria for New Degree and Certificate Programs.

   1. (A) Mission and Planning Priorities.

      1. 1. The proposed new program must be

consistent with the institutional mission, as well as the principal planning priorities of the public institution, as set forth in the public institution’s approved plan or plan update.

1. 2. The CBHE will determine if pro-

posed programs are consistent with a public institution’s plan or plan update as approved by the CBHE. Except in unusual circumstances, only those proposed new programs submitted by a public institution that are consistent with the institution’s mission statement and, when appropriate, anticipated in its approved institutional plan, will be eligible for approval and implementation.

1. (B) Need for the Proposed Program.

   1. 1. Public institutions shall clearly

demonstrate and document demand and/or need for the program in terms of meeting present and future needs of the locale and the state, although it is recognized that for program approval purposes state needs are a part of broader national needs. Three (3) kinds of needs may be identified—

1. A. Societal needs;
2. B. Occupational needs relative to

upgrading vocational/technical skills or meeting labor market requirements; and

1. C. Student needs for a program.
2. 2. Some programs may be desirable on

the basis of their cultural contribution or social value or potential to serve student interests independent of labor market or demand considerations. However, in these instances the societal and student need for the program must be clearly demonstrated by the public institution submitting the proposal.

1. 3. Public institutions proposing new

programs at the routine level must certify that employment and student demands exist, are backed by compelling data, and will be served by the new program. The kinds of information and data used will vary somewhat with the type of program proposed but may include the following: personnel and employment projections prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Missouri Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (MOICC) as well as professional and trade associations; surveys of potential employers, including numbers of anticipated vacancies and training requirements; and surveys of potential student interest.

1. 4. Adequate data should support projec-

tions for the number of students who are expected to enter the program. Program enrollment should be sufficient to ensure a quality educational experience and make efficient use of resources.

1. 5. As an additional indicator of need,

the public institution shall explain how program success will be defined and measured, particularly if that definition includes measures in addition to the conferral of a degree or certificate.

1. 6. Determination of need for a new pro-

gram will be based in part upon an assessment of the function to be served by the program and the availability of alternative sources of education in a given service area. Availability of spaces in the same or similar programs in all institutions in the state offering postsecondary programs will be taken into account, as will possibilities for interinstitutional arrangements, including contracting as provided by statute.

1. (C) Duplication of the Proposed Program.

   1. 1. A public institution’s proposed pro-

gram shall not be unnecessarily duplicative of other Missouri institutions’ programs. Ordinarily, proposed programs in basic liberal arts and sciences at the baccalaureate level would not be considered unnecessarily duplicative, provided sufficient student demand can be demonstrated. Unnecessary duplication is a more specific concern in graduate, technical, and professional programs which meet special labor market needs.

1. 2. Unnecessary or inappropriate dupli-

cation will be determined by assessing the following factors in descending order of priority: the relevance of existing programming; the availability of alternative educational delivery systems; the extent of student demand; state or regional work force demand; and access considerations such as geographic availability, student population served, and cost of instruction.

1. 3. No public institution other than the

University of Missouri and its campuses may offer a Ph.D. or professional practice doctorate (a.k.a. “first-professional degree”) without CBHE approval pursuant to subsection (4)(C) of this rule.

1. A. All first-professional degree pro-

grams are closely regulated by recognized professional and specialized accrediting agencies. Some first-professional degrees require a prior degree, but this is not true of all. First-professional degrees include the following:

1. (I) Chiropractic (D.C. or D.C.M.)
2. (II) Dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.)
3. (III) Law (L.L.B., J.D.)
4. (IV) Medicine (M.D.)
5. (V) Optometry (O.D.)
6. (VI) Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.)
7. (VII) Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) (VIII) Podiatry (D.P.M., D.P., or

Pod.D.)

1. (IX) Theology (M.Div., M.H.L.,

B.D., or Ordination)

1. (X) Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.)
2. B. The Ph.D. in any discipline is gen-

erally recognized as a research degree, typically requiring completion of original research or evidence of artistic accomplishment. Ph.D. programs require unique faculty, student/faculty ratios, assigned teaching loads, and infrastructure and financial support.

1. (D) Program Structure.

   1. 1. Existing programs can be strength-

ened and enriched when appropriate new courses and certificate or degree programs are added to the curriculum. A proposed program should be based on existing strengths of the public institution rather than be composed entirely of new courses. Off-campus degree programs must be based on existing on-campus degree programs.

1. A. Normally, graduate programs

should be built upon strong baccalaureate programs which can support advanced study through basic library holdings, faculty resources, and appropriate research facilities and funds. It is, however, recognized that some graduate programs in universities and medical schools do not require supporting undergraduate baccalaureate majors in that field.

1. B. New public institutions in the pro-

cess of being established may also be considered exceptions to this general expectation, but special procedures have been established in this rule to accommodate the developing institution.

1. 2. There will be a carefully planned and

systematic program of study for the proposed program which is clear and comprehensive. The structure of a new program must take into account, and be demonstrably consistent with, program objectives and intended student learning outcomes.

1. A. The linkage between program

requirements and anticipated learning outcomes shall be delineated. Required courses in the major must not be excessive and should be consistent with customary expectations for the type of degree proposed.

1. B. The curriculum of the proposed

program must reflect the requirements of any accrediting or certifying body if the public institution elects to apply for accreditation or certification. (This statement is not intended to imply that specialized accreditation should be an institutional goal.)

1. C. Unless necessary for accreditation

or licensure, new baccalaureate degrees should consist of no more than one hundred twenty (120) semester credit hours and new associate degrees should consist of no more than sixty (60) semester credit hours.

1. 3. Innovative programs of study shall

also contain an orderly and identifiable sequence of education experiences that lead to a recognizable goal.

1. A. The awarding of credit for any

experiential learning, credit by examination, off-campus courses, etc., shall be consistent with both established institutional and CBHE policies. The requirements for off-campus programs must be fully comparable to those for similar on-campus programs. If these requirements are not the case for the proposed program, the rationale for the difference must be clearly explained.

1. B. The policies and procedures for

granting experiential credit and/or credit by examination (including the maximum number of such credit hours which are applicable to a specific degree program and the minimum scores which are acceptable) must be clearly specified in written guidelines available to the student. The maximum number of experien- 6 CSR 10-4

tial credit hours applicable to a specific degree program must be the same for students enrolled at off-campus locations as for students enrolled on-campus.

1. 4. In general, courses offered for credit

off-campus must be part of the regular catalogue offerings of the public institution and must be applicable to programs in the same manner as courses taken on-campus. Special courses developed solely for off-campus teaching must be limited and consistent with the mission of the public institution. The standards for awarding credit to students enrolled at off-campus locations must be the same as the standards applied to students enrolled on campus.

1. 5. Each public institution’s policy con-

cerning residency for academic study purposes (as distinct from fee level) must be stated clearly regarding the number of credit hours applicable to a degree program which must be earned in-residence on its campus and must explicitly define in-residence.

1. (E) Faculty Resources. Faculty resources must be appropriate for the program, given the sponsoring public institution’s mission and the character of the program to be developed.

   1. 1. The minimum educational attainment

of the faculty must be the appropriate degree and/or occupational or other equivalent experiences commensurate with the degree level of the proposed program. While the doctorate, in most instances, is the appropriate terminal degree for baccalaureate and graduate programs, the Master of Fine Arts (MFA) or a similar degree is often considered a terminal degree. If accreditation is a desired goal of the program, the number of terminal degree holders must meet the minimum requirements of the appropriate accrediting association.

1. 2. Adjunct faculty are an important and

necessary component of some programs, particularly those programs that require a high degree of vocational/technical competence. However, programs must involve credentialed full-time faculty in teaching, program development, and student services. If a program will involve more than fifty percent (50%) adjunct faculty, the rationale for the use of adjunct faculty must be documented and approved by the coordinating board or its designee.

1. 3. Adjunct faculty, when utilized, must

possess the same or equivalent qualifications as the regular faculty of the public institution and be approved by the academic unit through which the credit is offered. The responsibilities of adjunct faculty will be specified in such a manner that their involvement in program development and academic advising is assured, or that these activities are provided by other appropriate means.

1. 4. Expected faculty workloads must be

appropriate and consistent with good educational practice and expressed in student credit hours per full-time equivalent faculty member in the administrative unit that will support the proposed program. This information, of course, must be evaluated in the context of the sponsoring institution’s mission, the mission of the proposed program, and the character of the discipline from which the proposed program is an outgrowth.

1. (F) Library Resources.

   1. 1. Qualitative and quantitative factors of

library resources must be appropriate for the proposed program, given the sponsoring public institution’s mission and the character of the program to be developed. Books, periodicals, microfilms, microfiche, monographs, and other collections must be sufficient in number, quality, and currency to serve the program. Adequacy of the library personnel and of facilities to service the proposed program in terms of students and faculty will be considered. While some technical programs may not demand the same type or extent of holdings and services conventional arts and science programs do, these factors must be adequate.

1. 2. Access to interlibrary loans and to

libraries at other institutions or in other cities will be indicated. Interlibrary loans and reciprocal loan privileges at local libraries may constitute valuable resources for the program. However, within this framework, adequate library material must be available at the public institution which proposes the program. If the program is to be taught off-campus, access to adequate library resources must be provided.

1. (G) Physical Facilities and Instructional Equipment. The public institution shall provide physical facilities and instructional equipment adequate to support the program and space for classrooms and for staff and faculty offices. Laboratories for studies in the technologies and sciences must be designed to provide maximum utilization of facilities, materials, and equipment, which may include specialized equipment such as computer terminals and audiovisual aids, or other special resources. The public institution offering these courses off-campus must assure that appropriate support requirements are met.

2. (H) Administration and Evaluation.

   1. 1. Administration of the proposed pro-

grams should not be unduly cumbersome or costly and ideally, fit into the public institution’s current administrative structure. If administrative changes are required, they should be consistent with the organization of the public institution as a whole and necessitate a minimum of additional expense in terms of personnel and office space.

1. 2. Proposals for jointly sponsored pro-

grams should include adequate plans for cooperative administration.

1. 3. Each public institution shall set forth

not only the administrative organization but also the instructional supervision and evaluation procedures for the program. These procedures must include evaluation of courses and faculty by students, administrators, and departmental personnel. Curriculum review procedures established by each public institution for its program offerings must include standards and guidelines for the assessment of student outcomes as defined for the program and consistent with the institutional mission.

1. 4. In the event that program authoriza-

tion is withdrawn or approval is denied, if the sponsoring public institution chooses to continue the new program rather than terminate it, the resources associated with the program will be withdrawn from the public institution’s funding base for the purpose of developing future state appropriation requests.

1. (I) Finances.

   1. 1. Suitable financing for initiating pro-

posed programs must be available. Programs should be financed with fees from students new to the institution, funds that have been reallocated from institutional sources or grants, contracts, or sources other than normal state appropriations for higher education.

1. 2. In those circumstances for which one-

(1-) time or limited duration funds are an integral component of the financing arrangements for a new program, the institution must also define a transition plan for the period when the one- (1-) time or limited duration funds cease to be available.

1. 3. The proposed program may require

phasing-out of some existing program(s) to reallocate institutional resources for new programs that are a logical outgrowth of existing public institutional strengths and consistent with the approved public institutional plan or plan update.

1. 4. Ordinarily, approval will be extended

only for those programs that meet these requirements unless the sponsoring public institution specifically requests additional state funds for program implementation. In this event, approval will be conditional on actual receipt of these funds through the legislative process.

AUTHORITY: section 173.030, RSMo 2016, and section 173.005(2), RSMo Supp. 2018.* Original rule filed Feb. 13, 1979, effective June 18, 1979. Rescinded and readopted: Filed July 18, 1989, effective Oct. 15, 1989. Amended: Filed Oct. 22, 2018, effective May 30, 2019. *Original authority: 173.030, RSMo 1963, amended 1988, 1990, 1995, 2014 and 173.005, RSMo 1973, amended 1983, 1985, 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2016, 2018.