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) Policy.

   1. (A) In light of its responsibilities imposed and assigned by sections 173.005.2(1) and

2. (7) and 173.030(1) and (2), RSMo, the Coordinating Board for Higher Education (CBHE) has determined that it can and should discharge its obligations by requiring institutions of higher education in the state to submit to it information concerning all new degree and certificate programs. The coordinating board will review all new program proposals and, in the case of public institutions, will approve or disapprove them. In the case of independent institutions, the coordinating board will review the programs and make pertinent recommendations. Although these recommendations are not binding on independent institutions, submission of the proposals is required of independent institutions in order to address the issues of duplication and access at the postsecondary level as well as to enable the coordinating board to fulfill its statutory obligations. Furthermore, compliance with this policy is one (1) of the conditions for the eligibility of independent institutions for participation in the Missouri student grant program.

   1. (B) Sections of this rule that do not apply to independent institutions are those dealing with cooperative intercampus degree programs, staff advisory comments, use of consultants, performance reviews for new programs, joint review with CBHE and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and program finances.

3. (2) Definitions.

   1. (A) Certificate—a prescribed course of study which confers an award other than a formal degree.

   2. (B) CIP taxonomy—the six-digit code number assigned to academic program types by the Center for Educational Statistics of the United States Department of Education. CIP

      Rebecca McDowell Cook (4/30/96)*

categories are described in the United States Department of Education publication, A Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP).

1. (C) Commissioner—the commissioner of higher education as appointed by the CBHE.
2. (D) 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.
3. (E) Coordinating board, board or CBHE— the Coordinating Board for Higher Education created by the Omnibus State Reorganization Act, Law 1974, p. 530.
4. (F) Degree—any prescribed course of study in an institution of higher education which constitutes an area of specialization leading to a recognized degree. This is the same as the term discipline specialty as represented by the Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) code used in reporting to the United States Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and to the Missouri coordinating board for higher education’s certificate and program inventory. In baccalaureate degrees or higher, the term program is generally the same as major.
5. (G) Independent institution—an approved private institution of higher education meeting the requirements of section 173.205(2), RSMo, provided it is also either accredited or a candidate for accreditation by the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools and provided it offers a postsecondary course of instruction at least two (2) years in length leading to conferral of a degree.
6. (H) 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.)
7. (I) Program—a prescribed course of study that leads to the formal award of a certificate or degree.
8. (J) Public institution—an approved public institution of higher education meeting the requirements of section 173.205(3), RSMo, provided it is also either accredited or a candidate for accreditation by the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the 6 CSR 10-4

North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, and provided it offers a postsecondary course of instruction at least two (2) years in length leading to conferral of a degree.

1. (K) Program options—a formally designated area of specialization within an existing degree program that has a distinctive curricular pattern. A preponderance 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.
2. (L) Type—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. AA and AS degrees are oriented toward transfer to baccalaureate programs. AAS degrees are not oriented toward transfer to baccalaureate programs, but rather are terminal vocational programs.

1. (3) General Program Approval Procedures for Public Institutions.

   1. (A) The coordinating board or its designee shall be responsible for the review of all new program proposals and shall either approve or disapprove them. Institutions submitting new programs for CBHE review shall follow the format outlined by CBHE staff. Submissions shall be made on appropriate forms as provided by the CBHE. All actions resulting in the approval of new programs for public institutions shall be subject to a stipulation regarding the program’s ability to attain specified performance goals during a stipulated period that shall have been established by the sponsoring institution and shall have been approved by the board or its designee.
   2. (B) Performance Review. At the conclusion of the stipulated period, the program’s performance shall be reviewed on the basis of the specified goals in a manner mutually satisfactory to the sponsoring institution and the commissioner. In the event a new program fails to develop satisfactorily in the allotted period as determined by the board or its designee, the status of the new program shall be evaluated. As a result of this review, approval may be continued with or without further stipulations, or program authorization may be withdrawn. In the latter event, should the sponsoring institution choose to continue the new program rather than terminate it, 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) Special Procedure for New Public Institutions.

      1. 1. Since newly-established public insti-

tutions have ordinarily only begun the process of assembling the resources necessary to offer instruction, application of the usual and customary review process would not be appropriate. 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.

1. 2. Subject to coordinating board

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.

1. (D) 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, shall be sent to the Coordinating Board for Higher Education whenever the action decision has been delegated, to all higher education institutions and to the public in a manner deemed appropriate by the commissioner.

1. (4) General Program Review Policies for Independent Institutions.

   1. (A) Independent institutions shall submit all new degree and certificate programs for coordinating board review. Institutions submitting new programs for CBHE review shall follow the general format used by public institutions. Submissions should be made on appropriate forms as provided by the CBHE.
   2. (B) The board or its designee shall review new program proposals submitted by independent institutions and may make pertinent comments and recommendations. Although these recommendations are not binding on independent institutions, submission of the proposals is required of independent institutions to address the issues of duplication and access at the postsecondary level as well as to enable the CBHE to fulfill its statutory obligations. Compliance with this policy is one (1) of the conditions for the eligibility of independent institutions for participation in the Missouri student grant program.
   3. (C) The board or its designee shall ensure that the review of new programs submitted by independent institutions is conducted in a manner to provide that all criteria and definitions that are applicable to public institutions are also applicable to independent institutions except as explicitly provided in this rule. These criteria, however, shall be applied with due regard for the differences between public and independent institutions as well as the different degree of responsibility and authority the coordinating board and state have in the operation of the respective sectors.

   4. (D) With respect to permissible differences in the review process between independent and public institutions, the following criteria, procedures and definitions shall not be applicable to independent institutions unless an individual independent institution should voluntarily elect to participate in a particular review provision:

      1. 1. All financial criteria shall not be

applicable and related data should not be submitted;

1. 2. Provisions related to cooperative

intercampus degree programs shall not be applicable;

1. 3. Provisions related to staff advisory

comments shall not be applicable;

1. 4. Provisions related to performance

reviews for new programs shall not be applicable;

1. 5. Provisions related to the use of con-

sultants shall not be applicable; and

1. 6. Provisions related to the joint review

of vocational programs by the coordinating board and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education shall not be applicable.

1. (E) Notice. Prompt notice of the results of all academic program review actions by the CBHE or its designee, including any pertinent comments relating thereto, shall be sent to the Coordinating Board for Higher Education whenever the action decision has been delegated, to all higher education institutions and to the public in a manner deemed appropriate by the commissioner.

1. (5) Submission of Proposals.

   1. (A) Program Review Schedule.

      1. 1. Except as otherwise noted in this

rule, proposals for degree and certificate programs must be submitted at least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to implementation and should be submitted to the Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education during one (1) of the following three (3) periods each year:

1. A. March 1 through March 31;
2. B. July 1 through July 31; and
3. C. November 1 through November

30.

1. 2. Every effort will be made to complete

the review of proposals received in each of these periods during the following one hundred twenty (120)-day cycles (which will begin on April 1, August 1 and December 1), unless unusual circumstances require more time for review of a particular program. The CBHE or its designee may permit departure from this schedule, if necessary, but the sponsoring institution shall be notified of the delay and the reasons for it. The sponsoring institution may request an expedited review of a proposed program in extenuating circumstances by informing the commissioner in writing of the reasons for the request. Pending degree programs shall not be implemented until coordinating board action has been completed.

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

   1. 1. In addition to submitting new certifi-

cate and degree programs for on-campus 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 shall be considered to include course requirements in the specific area of concentration only; general education requirements and free electives shall not be a factor in this determination.)

1. 2. All formal two-plus-two (2 + 2) cur-

ricular agreements must be submitted for review if either the sponsoring institution or the host institution is publicly supported.

1. (C) Instructional Site Defined. In the context of the previous subsection, instructional site shall be defined to include only those settings where instruction is delivered directly to students by a physically present teacher. Internship sites and the simple receipt of telecommunications transmissions shall ordinarily not constitute an instructional site. However, programs identified for delivery by such nontraditional means as telecommunications must be submitted for review, and the subsequent review shall focus on instructional delivery at the point of origin. All customary review criteria shall be applicable to programs delivered by nontraditional means.

   (4/30/96)* Rebecca McDowell Cook

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

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

tions 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 shall not be regarded as 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 subject to the stipulation that the coordinating board shall be informed 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 shall be included in

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

1. D. The program shall 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 these programs shall be the following:

1. A. Following the endorsement by the

president and the governing board of the institution, the program shall be sent to the board or its designee for review;

1. B. Each cooperative, intercampus

program shall be shared with the CBHE staff for its review and consideration at least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the proposed implementation;

1. C. It shall be the institution’s respon-

sibility to document the economic development opportunity or the need the proposed program is designed to address, including

Rebecca McDowell Cook (4/30/96)*

specific manpower needs at the state or regional level;

1. D. Additional expenditures associated

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

1. E. The board or its designee shall

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 coordinating board following established program appeal procedures.

1. 4. This subsection is not applicable to

independent institutions.

1. (F) Staff Advisory Comment for Public Institutions.

   1. 1. The first step in the approval process

for free-standing new degree programs is known as the staff advisory comment (SAC) and applies to public institutions only. The SAC report enables the coordinating board staff to make preliminary judgments regarding a program proposed by a public institution prior to the preparation of an entire program proposal document and initiation of the internal approval process at the institutional level. The process also enables the sponsoring institution to anticipate and address issues that might be relevant during the full review. A favorable staff advisory comment does not guarantee final approval of the program when staff reviews the full proposal. Conversely, an unfavorable staff advisory comment does not necessarily mean that the final proposal for a program will not be approved. It will be expected, however, that staff concerns expressed in the staff advisory comment will be addressed in the final proposal.

1. 2. The SAC report will emphasize those

program approval criteria listed in this rule which are relatively stable in the shortto mid-term and which cannot be readily adjusted to different circumstances or perceived needs.

1. A. Mission and planning priorities of

sponsoring institution. Each proposal shall include a statement regarding the compatibility of the proposed program with an institution’s mission and approved institutional plan or plan update.

1. B. Need for the proposed program.

Each proposal shall address the issues of what are the societal, occupational, research and public service needs the program is intended to address as well as the anticipated student demand for the program, preliminary evidence related to market demand for pro- 6 CSR 10-4

gram graduates and the relationship of the program to the economic development of the state, as may be appropriate.

1. C. Duplication of the proposed pro-

gram. Each proposal shall comment on the issue of the extent to which any existing programs in the proposed service area already address the needs and purposes this program is designed to fulfill. Factors salient to the duplication issue include the relevance of existing programming, the availability of alternative educational delivery systems, extent of student demand, state or regional manpower requirements and access considerations.

1. 3. To provide a frame of reference so the

responses to these questions can be properly understood, it will also be necessary to submit a brief description of each program including an outline of the proposed curriculum. The structure of the proposed curriculum will not be subject to comment in this phase of the review process, and the CBHE staff will assume that the details of these descriptive materials may be subject to modification as the program development process proceeds. However, if additional planning suggests that a major shift in program emphasis would be appropriate, a new document must be submitted for a staff advisory comment.

1. 4. All documents related to this process

should be submitted in duplicate. Materials related to a staff advisory comment may be submitted at any time during the year. Every effort will be made to complete a staff advisory comment within forty-five (45) days of submission.

1. (G) Proposal for a New Academic Degree Program.

   1. 1. A proposal for a new academic

degree program shall be submitted during one (1) of three (3) specified submission periods: March, July or November. All documents related to this process should be presented in triplicate in the form prescribed by CBHE staff. The board staff may request information in addition to that contained in the proposal.

1. 2. Approval by the CBHE or its

designee of new degree and certificate program proposals submitted by public institutions as well as the formal receipt of new programs from independent institutions are valid for two (2) years following the first fall term after the action. If an institution has not implemented the program by that date, the approval or receiving shall be considered to have lapsed and the program proposal must be resubmitted with updated information.

1. 3. Any institution or interested party,

that is, a representative from another institution, of the profession, occupation or specialized academic field, or any individual who, as a potential student or employer, believes him/herself to be affected by the proposed program, may express an opinion to the coordinating board or its designee regarding the evaluation or recommendation of any new degree program proposal. This may also occur when an institution or individual wishes to comment on a degree program submitted by another institution. In addition, a formal appeal of a program action may be initiated as provided elsewhere in this rule.

1. 4. Proposal for a new AS transfer

degree program.

1. A. The AS degree is a specialized

degree which is intended for transfer into a preprofessional program and is substantively different from the AAS degree. The AAS degree is not intended as a transfer degree into a four (4)-year program and contains courses that are not primarily designed for transfer. Students seeking to transfer this degree will have their transcripts evaluated on a course by course basis.

1. B. The AS degree should result from

careful planning and should constitute an articulation agreement between specific institutions.

1. C. The primary intent of the AS

degree is to provide an alternative to the AA degree in those limited instances when the model general education program included in the AA degree cannot accommodate the demands of a preprofessional program. The AS degree shall be used only in exceptional circumstances when no other remedy is available.

1. D. The AS degree is to be developed

through consultation between sending and receiving institutions on a program-by-program basis. Proposed AS degree programs may be submitted at any time of the year and will be reviewed using a modified program review process. The emphasis of this review will be on the justification for establishing an exception to the prescribed thirty-nine (39)- hour general education core requirement and the resource implications of the proposed agreement for the sending institution. Submission of a staff advisory comment request is not required for proposed programs of this type.

1. (6) Program Changes. Changes in programs must be submitted to the coordinating board for both informational and review purposes. After considering these changes, the board or its designee may determine that the change in program should be submitted instead as a new program proposal. Program changes should be reported using appropriate forms provided by the CBHE. Program changes that should be submitted include the following:

   1. (A) Program Title Change. All revisions or changes in a program name or its nomenclature shall be reported to the CBHE. A title or nomenclature revision that includes substantive curriculum changes may be deemed tantamount to a new program and be referred back to the institution for resubmission as a new program;

   2. (B) Combination Programs.

      1. 1. This category is narrowly defined to

include only those programs that result from a mechanical combination of two (2) previously existing programs. Substantive curricular changes shall ordinarily be limited to the elimination of duplicated requirements.

1. 2. The development of interdisciplinary

programs and area study programs that utilize the resources of several existing programs shall be handled through the new program approval process.

1. (C) Single Semester Certificates. A single semester certificate may be added or deleted simply by using a Notice of Changes in Programs form provided by the CBHE. The establishment of a longer program, however, shall be pursued through the procedures established in this rule;

2. (D) One (1)-year Certificate Programs.

   1. 1. A one (1)-year certificate program

developed from an approved associate degree program shall be reported as a program change provided that the program is directly related to the approved associate degree program and consists predominantly of courses included in the associate degree program.

1. 2. A one (1)-year certificate not associ-

ated with an approved parent degree program must be submitted as a new program;

1. (E) Option Addition.

   1. 1. The addition of a specialized course

of study as a component of an umbrella degree program may be submitted as an option addition program change subject to the limitation that the CBHE or its designee shall make a determination regarding the potential for unnecessary or inappropriate duplication of existing programs. Only in those instances in which duplication is not a problem may the proposed option be implemented.

1. 2. The following general guidelines are

used to distinguish a permissible option addition from a proposed new degree program:

1. A. At the conceptual level an option

or emphasis area functions as a component of an umbrella degree program. As such, an option in a specialized topic shall consist of a core area of study in the major plus selected topical courses in the specialty. Typically, the core area of study shall constitute a preponderance of the requirements in the major area of study as measured in the number of required courses or credit hours, but no specific percentage distribution requirement has been established;

1. B. A proposed option or emphasis

area shall be a logical component or extension of the umbrella degree program. One (1) measure of this compatibility—but certainly 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; and

1. C. The number of new courses

required to implement a new option or emphasis area can also be a relevant consideration. Four (4), five (5) or more new courses in a proposed new option would tend to raise questions about resource commitments and suggest that a new program has been developed;

1. (F) Inactive Status for Existing Programs.

   1. 1. Programs placed on inactive status

will essentially be suspended for a specified period not to exceed five (5) years. Students in the program at the time this status is adopted shall be permitted to conclude their course of study if they have no more than two (2) years of course work remaining, but no new students may be admitted to the program. Programs designated as inactive will be so noted on institutional program inventories.

1. 2. At the conclusion of the designated

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. 3. In the event the institution chooses to

reactivate the program, the institution shall provide the coordinating board satisfactory evidence that the resources necessary for the program are available and must establish performance goals for the program that are also acceptable to the coordinating board; and

1. (G) Deletion and Consolidation of Programs. Institutions must submit standard program change information whenever a program or option is deleted. This same provision applies whenever two (2) or more programs or options are to be consolidated into one (1) or more new offerings.

1. (7) Use of Consultants.

   1. (A) In addition to evaluating written pro-

posals, the board or its designee, in some circumstances, may use the services of consultants. It is anticipated that this procedure will be used infrequently.

(4/30/96)* Rebecca McDowell Cook

1. (B) These consultants shall be individuals who are mutually acceptable to the board and to the institution whose program is under consideration. Both the commissioner and the institution may recommend consultants, but the ultimate selection of the consultant shall be agreeable to both.
2. (C) Services of consultants will be paid for by the institution whose program is pending.

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

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

sioner or the institution pending an unfavorable recommendation by the coordinating board 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. (8) Programs Reviewed Jointly by the Coordinating Board for Higher Education and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

   1. (A) An 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 two

2. (2) copies 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. Because independent institutions are not eligible for reimbursement under this program, this section does not apply to independent institutions.

   1. (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 coordinating board 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 com-

Rebecca McDowell Cook (4/30/96)*

ponents of degree or certificate programs not approved by the coordinating board;

1. 2. In order to avoid duplication of effort

by institutions, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education will employ the coordinating board’s proposal format for submission of new program proposals as its instrument for fiscal reimbursement requests;

1. 3. Coordinating Board for Higher

Education 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. 4. 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. (9) Appeal Procedure. In the event of an appeal of a program review action for either a public or independent institution, the following procedures shall be followed:

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

      1. 1. The 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 Coordinating

Board for Higher Education, 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 of higher education within thirty (30) days of receipt of the official notice of the program decision. If the appeal is initiated by a party other than the 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;
3. (D) The new program may not be implemented while an appeal is pending;
4. (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;
5. (F) This rationale and the responses of the commissioner and any affected institutions 6 CSR 10-4

will be placed on the agenda of the next meeting of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education, provided that the next meeting is scheduled at least fourteen (14) days after receipt of the rationale. If this criterion is not satisfied, the request for an appeal will be heard by the board at its next regularly scheduled meeting;

1. (G) If a majority of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education agrees that an appeal initiated by an institution should be heard, the matter will be referred to the CBHE committee on academic and library affairs. A public meeting of the committee will be scheduled at which time testimony will be presented by all interested parties, and the committee shall make its determination;
2. (H) In those instances when a member of the coordinating board has initiated a review of a decision by the board’s designee, the chairman of the board shall 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 the committee on academic and library affairs or to hear the appeal itself. If the matter is heard by the committee, the same procedures shall apply as if the appeal were initiated by an institution. If the matter is heard directly by the board, the chairman of the board shall establish the appropriate procedural guidelines;
3. (I) All decisions of the body hearing the appeal, whether the full coordinating board or its committee on academic and library affairs, shall be final; and
4. (J) This section on appeal procedures is intended to be applicable to both public and independent institutions, but no provision of this section shall supersede the general principle that decisions or recommendations by the Coordinating Board for Higher Education or the commissioner of higher education regarding programs submitted by independent institutions shall be recommendatory only.

1. (10) 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 institution, as set forth in the institution’s approved plan or plan update in the case of public institutions or the institutional mission statement in the case of independent institutions.

1. 2. The coordinating board shall deter-

mine if proposed programs are consistent with a public institution’s plan or plan update as approved by the coordinating board. 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, shall be eligible for approval and implementation.

1. (B) Need for the Proposed Program.

   1. 1. There shall be a clearly demonstrated

and well-documented 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 institution submitting the proposal.

1. 3. Institutions proposing new programs

must present data projecting employment and student demands and availability of openings in the labor market to be served by the new program. The kinds of information and data submitted 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 shall be provided to

support projections for the number of students who are expected to enter the program. Program enrollment shall be sufficient to ensure a quality educational experience as well as an efficient utilization of resources.

1. 5. As an additional indicator of need,

the institution shall clearly detail 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. (C) Duplication of the Proposed Program.

   1. 1. A proposed program shall not be

unnecessarily duplicative of those of other Missouri institutions. 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. The questions of how a proposed pro-

gram meets an institution’s local and state service area needs and how it articulates with appropriate baccalaureate or graduate programs shall also be addressed. (In this context it is understood that some programs, for example, the AAS, are designed to be terminal in character and are not ordinarily expected to articulate with more advanced programs.)

1. 3. Factors salient to the duplication issue

include, 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. 4. 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. (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 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 institutions in the process 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 shall be a carefully planned

and systematic program of study for the proposed program which is clear and comprehensive. The structure of a new program shall take into account, and shall 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 shall not be excessive and should be consistent with customary expectations for the type of degree proposed.

1. B. The curriculum of the proposed

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

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 coordinating board policies. The requirements for off-campus programs shall 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) shall be clearly specified in written guidelines available to the student. The maximum number of experiential credit hours applicable to a specific degree program shall 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 shall be part of the regular catalogue offerings of the institution and shall be applicable to programs in the same manner as courses taken on-campus. Special courses developed solely for off-campus teaching shall be limited and shall be consistent with the mission of the institution. The standards for awarding credit to students enrolled at offcampus locations shall be the same as the standards applied to students enrolled oncampus.

(4/30/96)* Rebecca McDowell Cook 5. Each institution’s policy concerning

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

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

   1. 1. The minimum educational attainment

of the faculty shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall be documented and approved by the coordinating board or its designee.

1. 3. Adjunct faculty, when utilized, shall

possess the same or equivalent qualifications as the regular faculty of the institution and shall be approved by the academic unit through which the credit is offered. The responsibilities of adjunct faculty shall 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 shall 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 shall be appropriate for the proposed program, given the sponsoring

Rebecca McDowell Cook (4/30/96)*

institution’s mission and the character of the program to be developed. Books, periodicals, microfilms, microfiche, monographs and other collections shall 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 shall 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 shall be available at the institution which proposes the program. If the program is to be taught off-campus, access to adequate library resources shall be provided.

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

2. (H) Administration and Evaluation.

   1. 1. Administration of the proposed pro-

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

1. 2. Proposals for jointly sponsored pro-

grams shall include provisions for adequate plans for cooperative administration.

1. 3. Each institution shall set forth not

only the administrative organization but also the instructional supervision and evaluation procedures for the program. These procedures shall include evaluation of courses and faculty by students, administrators and departmental personnel. Curriculum review procedures established by each institution for its program offerings shall include standards and guidelines for the assessment of student outcomes as defined for the program and consistent with the institutional mission. 6 CSR 10-4

1. 4. The institution shall establish clearly

defined performance goals for the new program to be achieved during a stipulated implementation period. The institution may revise its performance goals for the new program at any time during the designated implementation period with the concurrence of the CBHE staff.

1. 5. The institution shall define a review

process with the concurrence of coordinating board staff to assess the program’s development. In the event a new program fails to develop satisfactorily in the allotted period as determined by the commissioner, the status of the new program shall be evaluated. As a result of this review, approval may be continued with or without further stipulations, or program authorization may be withdrawn.

1. 6. In the event that program authoriza-

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

1. 7. Paragraphs (10)(H)4.—6. of this rule

are not applicable to independent institutions.

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 institutional strengths and consistent with the approved institutional plan or plan update.

1. 4. Ordinarily, approval will be extended

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

1. 5. This subsection on finances is not

applicable to independent institutions.

AUTHORITY: sections 173.005(2), RSMo (1986) and 173.030, RSMo (Supp. 1988). Original rule filed Feb. 13, 1979, effective June 18, 1979. Rescinded and readopted: Filed July 18, 1989, effective Oct. 15, 1989.