SCHEDULE MEETING OF THE WEST VIRGINIA HIGHER … · 2006. 7. 5. · SCHEDULE MEETING OF THE WEST VIRGINIA HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY COMMISSION August 20, 2004 Marshall University Graduate

SCHEDULE

MEETING OF THE WEST VIRGINIA HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY COMMISSION

August 20, 2004

Marshall University Graduate College

South Charleston, West Virginia

8:30 A.M. Continental Breakfast 3rd Floor Room 323 9:00 A.M. Academic Policy Committee 3rd Floor Thomas Board Room

Finance Committee 3rd Floor Room 319 *11:00 A.M. Full Commission Meeting 3rd Floor Room 319 Lunch Served Immediately Following Full Commission Meeting 1st Floor Room 135 & 137 * Time approximate, depending upon length of committee meetings Academic Policy Committee: Finance Committee: Kay Goodwin, Chair man Terry Sammons, Chairman R. Ken Hall Michael Garrison Elliot Hicks John Hoblitzell Nelson Robinson J. Thomas Jones David Stewart

Mary Clare Eros, Chairman

MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2004

Marshall University Graduate College South Charleston, West Virginia

AGENDA

I. Call to Order II. Approval of Minutes ..............................................................................................................pg 1 III. Academic Policy Committee A. Revision of Series 21, Freshman Assessment and Placement Standards at Four-Year

Colleges and Universities .............................................................................................pg 12 B. Revision of Series 23, Standards and Procedures for Undergraduate Admission at Four-

Year Colleges and Universities ....................................................................................pg 16 C. Approval of Research Challenge Allocations and New Programs................................pg 24 D. Approval of Social Justice Grants.................................................................................pg 47 E. Report on Institutional Program Review 2003-2004.....................................................pg 48 F. Update on Collegiate Learning Assessment Project ....................................................pg 55 IV. Finance Committee A. Ten-Year Master Plan for Housing at West Virginia University ....................................pg 58 B. Pierpont Lease Extension.............................................................................................pg 80 C. Life Safety Improvements to the Coliseum at WVU .....................................................pg 81 D. WVNET HERF Funding................................................................................................pg 84 V. Committee of the Whole A. Consent Agenda 1. Approval of Institutional Capital Assessments .................................................pg 91 2. Funding Allocations for Special Projects ..........................................................pg 93 3. Approval of FY 2005 Supplemental Appropriation for PROMISE ....................pg 95 4. Report on 1.5% Increase in Tuition and Fee Rates .........................................pg 96 B. Presentation by Jennifer McIntosh on Minority Faculty Recruitment Program.............pg 98 C. Update on WV Higher Education Grant Program.........................................................pg 99

D. Approval of FY 2006 Appropriations Request-Operating and Capital Budgets ..........pg 101 E. Approval of FY 2006 Appropriations Request-Improvement Packages .....................pg 106 VI. Commission/Council Items A. WVNET Computer Advisory Board ............................................................................pg 108 B. Process for Budget Recommendations and Requests for Fiscal Year 2006 ...pg 110 C. Memorandum of Agreement -- Bluefield State College/WV Council for Community

and Technical College Education ..........................................................................pg 113 D. Higher Education Resource Assessment Collected from Community and Technical Colleges for FY 2005..................................................................................................pg 118 VII. Chancellor’s Report A. 2004 ACT Preliminary Report Presentation by Eddie Pawlawski...............................pg 120 B. SHEEO Finance Report .............................................................................................pg 121 C. Science Courses in the College Preparatory Curriculum ...........................................pg 147 VIII. Additional Board Action and Comments IX. Possible Executive Session under the authority of WV Code §6-9A-4 A. Presidential Compensation Increase Requests..........................................................pg 148 B. Chancellor’s Evaluation and Contract X. Adjournment

1

1

MINUTES

HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY COMMISSION

June 18, 2004 A meeting of the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission was held on June 18, 2004 with committee meetings beginning at 9:00 a.m., at WVU Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center in Charleston, West Virginia. Present at the meeting were Policy Commission members: Mary Clare Eros, Michael Garrison, Ken Hall, Elliot Hicks, John Hoblitzell, J. Thomas Jones, Nelson Robinson, and Terry Sammons. Absent: Kay Goodwin and David Stewart. Also in attendance were Chancellor J. Michael Mullen, institutional presidents, higher education staff, members of the news media and others. Attending by teleconference were presidents and/or staff from Concord, Glenville State College, Potomac State College, West Liberty State College, West Virginia University and WVU at Parkersburg. Chair Jones called the meeting to order. 1. Approval of Minutes Mr. Garrison moved approval of the minutes of the April 22 and 23, 2004 and June 4, 2004 meetings of the Higher Education Policy Commission. Mr. Hicks seconded the motion. Motion carried. 2. Nominating Committee Report and Election of Officers On behalf of the Nominating Committee that consisted of John Hoblitzell, Tom Jones, and Kay Goodwin, Mr. Hoblitzell moved the adoption of the following resolution: RESOLVED, That the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission accepts the nomination of Mary Clare Eros for Chairman, Elliott Hicks for Vice Chairman, and Michael Garrison for Secretary for FY 2005 as proposed. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Motion carried. There being no additional nominations from the floor, Mr. Hall moved that the Commission adopts the proposed slate of officers as recommended. Mr. Sammons seconded the motion. Motion carried. Academic Policy Committee

Mr. Hicks reported on the following items taken up by the Academic Policy Committee meeting which was held beginning at 9:00 AM preceding the general meeting:

2

2

3. Proposed new rule: Standards for Subject-Area Content in Secondary-Level Teacher Preparation Programs

Mr. Hicks reported that Bruce Flack, Director of Academic Affairs, presented findings of the Task Force on Content Majors in Teacher Preparation created last year by the Commission. The task force recommends a draft procedural rule on Standards for Subject-Area Content in Secondary-Level Teacher Preparation Program. The staff will notify constituents of the intent to develop a rule and bring back comments to the Academic Policy Committee at a later date. 4. Report on Faculty Sick Leave Policy At the Commission’s February 2004 meeting, there was a discussion regarding the feasibility of developing a statewide policy on faculty sick leave. After conversations with chief academic officers and the Advisory Council of Faculty and review of policies for other state higher education commissions, Dr. Flack reported that the consensus was that each institution, through its governing board, should implement those procedures best suited to its own institution and that Commission action on faculty sick leave is not warranted at this time. 5. Report on Mathematics Education Initiatives The Academic Policy Committee received a report on continued initiatives to improve math education in West Virginia. Mr. Hicks said that impressive efforts are being made to make advanced math courses available to high school students in a web-based format and also to provide professional development in math, data analysis, and geometry for middle school and high school teachers. 6. Report on Dual Credit for College Courses Offered in the High Schools Mr. Hicks reported that Dr. Stanley Hopkins, Assistant Superintendent for Technical and Adult Education, discussed course equivalency between college courses offered in high schools and content standards for high school curriculum and possible issues that might occur when there is not a direct match. 7. Discussion of Reestablishment of Residence Halls at Bluefield State College Mr. Hicks reported that President Albert Walker discussed with the Academic Policy Committee the feasibility of re-establishing residence halls at Bluefield State College. Dr. Walker will bring back to the Policy Commission more specific details and a request for a change in the campus facilities master plan. Finance Committee Mr. Sammons reported on the following items which were taken up by the Finance Committee at the 9:00 AM meeting prior to the general meeting:

3

3

8. Approval of HEPC Operating Budget Mr. Sammons moved the adoption of the following resolution: RESOLVED, That the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission approves the operating budget for the Commission for FY 2005. Mr. Garrison seconded the motion. Motion carried. 9. WVNET Budget for FY 2005 Mr. Sammons moved the adoption of the following resolution: RESOLVED, That the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission approves the WVNET Budget for FY 2005 as presented at the meeting with the proviso that the request for HERF funding of $28,000 be reviewed by the WVNET Policy Board and brought back to the Commission for action at the August meeting. . Mr. Hoblitzell seconded the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Garrison requested a cash flow budget. 10. Assessment of Higher Education Resource Fees (HERF) for FY 2004-2005 Mr. Sammons moved the adoption of the following resolution: RESOLVED, That the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission approves the FY 2005 assessment of HERF fees to the four-year institutions as shown in Table 1 and the expenditure of the funds as shown in Table 2. (attached) Mr. Sammons seconded the motion. Motion carried. 11. Intercollegiate Athletics Chancellor Mullen reported additional information regarding intercollegiate athletics that was requested at the April meeting. Dr. Mullen indicated that it appeared a number of institutions reported waivers of tuition and fees in the “Direct State Government Support and Institutional Support” line. He revealed that only a small number of errors had been identified and adjustments made. After adjustments, it appears that the information is comparable to that reported under the previous Procedure 19. Two institutions, Glenville State College and Fairmont State University, have adopted policies on athletics. Other institutions have policies in various stages of development. Chancellor Mullen agreed to follow up with the Board of Governors of Concord University on the use of state funds for athletics significantly in excess of the limit

4

4

established in the previous State College Policy. Concern was expressed regarding the dramatic increase in state funds allocated to athletics in a time of fiscal austerity. A follow up report will be presented to the Commission later in the fall. 12. Financial Aid Scholarship Update Mr. Sammons reported that the Finance Committee received a report by Judy Kee, Financial Aid Manager, on scholarship awards for the Underwood-Smith Teacher Scholarship Program, the Engineering, Science and Technology Scholarship Program, and the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program. 13. Medical Student Loan Program Administration Procedures FY 2005 Chancellor Mullen discussed the medical education fee, allocation of fees collected and the procedure for the administration of the loan program. The Commission identified the intent to modify Procedural Rule 34, to ensure continued funding for the Health Science Medical Education Loan Program at each of the medical schools and to implement an administrative fee as a replacement for the investment earnings. The proposed revised rule will be brought back to the Policy Commission after constituents have had an opportunity for input into the revisions. 14. Approval of Capital Projects for Infrastructure Improvements and University Facilities and the Financing Plan for These Projects at Shepherd University Mr. Sammons moved the adoption of the following resolution: RESOLVED, That the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission approves Shepherd University’s Capital Projects for Infrastructure Improvements and University Facilities, the Financing Plan for these projects and the associated resolutions prepared by bond counsel. FURTHER RESOLVED, That the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission authorizes the Chancellor to sign, on the Commission’s behalf, the Financing/Bond Resolutions and other documents required by bond counsel to facilitate the Financing Plan. Mr. Hoblitzell seconded the motion. Motion carried. 15. Internal Accounting Procedures for System Debt Service Mr. Sammons moved the adoption of the following resolution: RESOLVED, That the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission approves the Internal Accounting Procedures as outlined in the agenda item. Mr. Garrison seconded the motion. Motion carried.

5

5

16. Medical Malpractice Insurance (BRIM) at West Virginia University Mr. Sammons moved the adoption of the following resolution: RESOLVED, That the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission approves the limited-risk insurance program developed for the WVU School of Medicine by BRIM. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Motion carried. Committee of the Whole 17. Classified Staff Below the Zero Step on the Salary Schedule The Commission heard comments from classified staff representatives of West Virginia University, Marshall University and the Advisory Council of Classified Staff regarding changes to the procedure for moving classified employees to at least the zero step. Mr. Garrison moved that the Chancellor be directed to discuss with the institutions and other interested parties the possibility of amending the section of Series 8 requiring all classified hires after July 1, 2005 to be paid at the zero step and report back to the Commission The two Chancellors and Chairs will coordinate the activities of the two bodies in the development of a joint policy. Mr. Hoblitzell seconded the motion. Motion carried. 18. Approval of HEPC Meeting Schedule for 2005 Mr. Hoblitzell moved the adoption of the following resolution: RESOLVED, That the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission adopts the recommended meeting schedule for calendar year 2005 as presented in the agenda item. Ms. Eros seconded the motion. Motion carried. 19. Modification of Capital Review Procedures Mr. Garrison moved the adoption of the following resolution: RESOLVED, That the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission indicates its intent to revise Series 12 with the objective of simplifying the processes and minimizing the reporting burden on colleges and universities. The Chancellor was directed to consider institutional size and fiscal stability and bring back to the Commission a specific plan in August. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Motion carried.

6

6

Chancellor’s Report 20. Legislative Post-Audit Report Mike Sizemore from the Legislative Post-Audit Division presented the findings of the audit of the Commission’s operations and compliance for the period of July 2000 to June 2002. Mr. Jones asked the Chancellor to report back to the Commission in October 2004 on the progress being made to improve on areas of concern as identified by the audit. 21. Underwood-Smith Scholarship Guidelines Chancellor Mullen discussed the teaching field priorities for awarding scholarships and requirements for repayment of scholarships when graduates do not find employment in West Virginia. He indicated that the guidelines will be studied in the next couple of months and recommendations will be brought to the Commission if changes are warranted. Executive Session Ms. Eros moved that the Commission go into executive session pursuant to WV

Code '6-9A-4 to discuss personnel matters. Mr. Hicks seconded the motion. Motion carried. At the conclusion of executive session, the Commission reconvened in open session and the following action was taken: 22. Shepherd University Presidential Compensation Mr. Hoblitzell moved the adoption of the following resolution: RESOLVED, That the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission approves the change in presidential compensation adopted by the Shepherd University Board of Governors. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Motion carried. 23. Central Office Personnel Mr. Hall moved that Dennis Taylor be selected for the position of Vice Chancellor of Administration for the Policy Commission subject to salary negotiation with Chancellors Mullen and Skidmore and their respective Chairs. It was noted by Mr. Robinson that the West Virginia Council for Community and Technical College Education concurred with the selection.

7

7

Hoblitzell second the motion. Motion carried. 24. Chancellor Mullen’s Evaluation Mr. Jones reported that the Commission completed and reviewed the annual evaluation of the Chancellor and will discuss results with him. 25. Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. _______________________________ Chairman J. Thomas Jones _______________________________ Secretary Elliot G. Hicks

8

Higher Education Policy CommissionHERF Assessments for Four-Year InstitutionsAssessments Using Standard Per Student AssessmentTable 1June 18, 2004

FY 2005Standardized Fall 2003 FY 2005 FY 04 Fall 2004 Estimated %

HERF Student FTE Calculated Allocated HERF HERF HERFInstitution Assessment (excluding waivers) Assessment Assessment Tuition Fee Revenues Assessed

Bluefield State CollegeResident:Baccalaureate 35 1,436.73 $50,286 350 1,005,711 Non-ResidentBaccalaureate 150 109.67 $16,451 825 $180,956

Subtotal: 1,546.40 $66,736 $58,382 $1,186,667 5.6%

Concord UniversityResidentBaccalaureate 35 2,315.03 $81,026 350 1,620,521 Non-ResidentBaccalaureate 150 477.68 $71,652 825 $788,172

Subtotal: 2,792.71 $152,678 $134,520 $2,408,693 6.3%

Fairmont State UniversityResident:Baccalaureate 35 3,288.68 $115,104 350 2,302,076 Non-ResidentBaccalaureate 150 268.85 $40,328 825 $443,603

Subtotal: 3,557.53 $155,431 $159,226 $2,745,679 5.7%

Glenville State College ResidentBaccalaureate 35 1,099.00 $38,465 350 769,300 Non-ResidentBaccalaureate 150 143.20 $21,480 825 $236,280

Subtotal 1,242.20 $59,945 $77,649 $1,005,580 6.0%

Marshall University *Resident:Baccalaureate 35 8,735.49 $305,742 220 3,843,616 Non-ResidentBaccalaureate 150 2,146.21 $321,932 553 $2,373,708

Subtotal 10,881.70 $627,674 $593,022 $6,217,324 10.1%

Shepherd UniversityResidentBaccalaureate 35 1,798.97 $62,964 350 1,259,279 Non-ResidentBaccalaureate 150 1,225.38 $183,807 825 $2,021,877

Subtotal 3,024.35 $246,771 $170,536 $3,281,156 7.5%

9

Higher Education Policy CommissionHERF Assessments for Four-Year InstitutionsAssessments Using Standard Per Student AssessmentTable 1June 18, 2004

FY 2005Standardized Fall 2003 FY 2005 FY 04 Fall 2004 Estimated %

HERF Student FTE Calculated Allocated HERF HERF HERFInstitution Assessment (excluding waivers) Assessment Assessment Tuition Fee Revenues Assessed

West Liberty State CollegeUndergraduateResidentBaccalaureate 35 1,845.72 $64,600 350 1,292,004 Non-ResidentBaccalaureate 150 716.40 $107,460 825 $1,182,060

Subtotal 2,562.12 $172,060 $144,883 $2,474,064 7.0%

WV State UniversityResidentBaccalaureate 35 2,284.47 $79,956 350 1,599,129 Non-Resident Baccalaureate 150 268.40 $40,260 825 $442,860

Subtotal 2,552.87 $120,216 $113,466 $2,041,989 5.9%

West Virginia University *ResidentBaccalaureate 35 12,962.87 $453,700 416 10,785,108 Non-Resident Baccalaureate 150 9,598.84 $1,439,826 1360 $26,108,845

Subtotal 22,561.71 $1,893,526 $1,977,597 $36,893,953 5.1%

WVU Institute of TechnologyResidentBaccalaureate 35 1,181.80 $41,363 350 827,260 Non-Resident Baccalaureate 150 200.15 $30,023 825 $330,248

Subtotal 1,382 $71,386 $66,733 $1,157,508 6.2%

WVU-Potomac State CollegeResidentUndergraduate 20 727.73 $14,555 396 576,362 Non-ResidentUndergraduate 55 302.27 $16,625 1471 $889,278

Subtotal 1,030.00 $31,179 $57,900 $1,465,641 2.1%

WV School of Osteopathic MedicineResident 35 213.00 $7,455 525 223,650 Non-Resident 150 124.00 $18,600 1150 $285,200

Subtotal 337.00 $26,055 $25,820 $508,850 5.1%

Total Four-Year 53,471 $3,623,658 $3,579,735 $61,387,102 5.9%Total for Community Colleges $472,084 $471,380 $7,737,689 6.1%Total for Four-Year and Community Colleges $4,095,742 $4,051,115 $69,124,791 5.9%

* Includes health sciences students.

10

Higher Education Policy CommissionHERF Budgets for Commission and CouncilSplits Projects based upon Percentage of HERF Fees CollectedTable 2June 18, 2004

89.0% 11.0%

2003-2004 HERF PROJECTS 2003-2004 2003-2004 05/13/2004 2004-2005 2004-2005 2004-2005Allocations Expenditures Balances HEPC Requests CTC Requests Total

Project Support

ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 2004 15,000.00 7,382.70 7,617.30 0 0 0

ADDITIONAL AUDIT EXPENSES 44,500 5,500 50,000

PROGRAM REVIEW OF SCIENCES 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.00 0 0

KY CTCS & WV COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMS 10,000 10,000

KENTUCKY VIRTUAL LIBRARY 5,000 5,000

VA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM INITIATIVES 5,000 5,000

College for West Virginians Training Kit - Education - Go Get It - 0.00 0.00 46,000 46,000

CONSULTING REQUIRED STUDIES 2004 25,000.00 1,255.00 23,745.00 0

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT 2004 20,000.00 11,607.45 8,392.55 15,000 5,000 20,000

HIGHER EDUCATION GRANT PROGRAM 2004 1,800,000.00 1,800,000.00 0.00 1,602,000 198,000 1,800,000

INTERNATIONAL STUDIES (FACDIS) 25,000.00 25,000.00 0.00 25,000 25,000

NCATE 2004 23,000.00 9,400.00 13,600.00 20,000 20,000

SATNET 2004 164,000.00 74,715.36 89,284.64 213,600 26,400 240,000

WEBCT VISTA IMPLEMENTATION 04 576,250.00 446,730.00 129,520.00 420,000 420,000

SOCIAL JUSTICE PROGRAM 2004 100,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 89,000 11,000 100,000

STUDENT ORGANIZATION MINI GRANTS 04 20,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 17,800 2,200 20,000

MATHEMATICS PROJECTS 04 86,750.00 86,750.00 0.00 77,074 9,526 86,600

RETENTION SYMPOSIUM 10,000.00 11,431.09 -1,431.09 10,000 10,000

Subtotal 2,868,000.00 2,594,271.60 273,728.40 2,579,974 277,626 2,857,600

Support Services & Initiatives

ATTNY GENERAL SUPPT 2004 330,000.00 330,000.00 0.00 293,700 36,300 330,000

COMM OFFICE SUPPORT 2004 500,000.00 500,000.00 0.00 445,000 55,000 500,000

WVNET 2004 228,000.00 228,000.00 0.00 178,000 22,000 200,000

BD TRAINING DEVELOPMENT 2004 25,000.00 25,000.00 0.00 22,250 2,750 25,000

Subtotal 1,083,000.00 1,083,000.00 - 938,950 116,050 1,055,000

Chancellor Discretionary Project Funding 104,736 77,704 182,440

Total Current Year Allocations 3,951,000.00 3,677,271.60 273,728.40 3,623,660 471,380 4,095,040

Supplemental Allocations From Balances

BANNER CONVERSION AND CONSULTING 36,000.00 0.00 36,000.00 44,500 5,500 50,000

BANNER INTERFACE MAINTENANCE 50,000.00 0.00 50,000.00 0

BANNER INTERFACE FOR FINANCE SYS 04 40,000.00 15,120.00 24,880.00 0

Proposed Conference - Funding of Higher Education - 0.00 0.00 20,000 20,000

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES INSTRUMENTATION CONSULTING 50,000.00 10,000.00 40,000.00 0 0

Collegiate Learning Assessment 50,001.00 10,001.00 40,000.00 75,000 75,000

CAREER LADDER PILOT PROJECTS 50,000.00 0.00 50,000.00 0

FSC MASTERS LEVEL CERTIFICATION 04 25,000.00 25,000.00 0.00 0

KY CTCS & WV COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMS 20,000.00 0.00 20,000.00 0

KENTUCKY VIRTUAL LIBRARY 5,000.00 5,000.00 0.00 0

POLICY COMPLIANCE REVIEWS-SUPP 04 20,000.00 1,570.18 18,429.82 0

PURCHASING PERFORMACE COMPLIANCE AUDITS 200,000.00 184,900.00 15,100.00 133,500 16,500 150,000

WVU-SOCIAL JUSTICE PARTNERSHIP 04 150,000.00 150,000.00 0.00 225,000 225,000

STATEWIDE CTC MARKETING 25,000.00 0.00 25,000.00 25,000 25,000

STUDENT LEADERSHIP (SUPPLEMENTAL04) 20,000.00 12,500.00 7,500.00 0

VA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM INITIATIVES 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 0

CTC Assessment - 0.00 0.00 35,000 35,000

CTC Program Innovation - 0.00 0.00 0

WEB CT VISTA ADDITIONAL START-UP EXPENDITURES 200,000.00 0.00 200,000.00 0

Subtotal 946,001.00 414,091.18 531,909.82 498,000 82,000 580,000

Additional 2004 Allocations

GSC 04 TECHNOLOGY NEEDS PYUA 25,000.00 25,000.00 0.00 Subtotal 25,000.00 25,000.00 - 0 0 0

Grand Totals 4,922,001.00 4,116,362.78 805,638.22 4,121,660 553,380 4,675,040

11

MINUTES

HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY COMMISSION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

August 5, 2004

A conference call meeting of the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Executive Committee was held on August 5, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Policy Commission members: Mary Clare Eros, Michael Garrison, Kay Goodwin, Elliot Hicks, J. Thomas Jones and Terry Sammons. Also in attendance were Chancellor J. Michael Mullen, institutional presidents and representatives, and higher education staff. Chairman Eros called the meeting to order. 1. Review of the August 20, 2004 Commission Meeting Agenda The proposed schedule and agenda for the August 20, 2004 meeting were reviewed and approved. 2. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. ____________________________ Chairman Mary Clare Eros _____________________________ Secretary Michael Garrison

WEST VIRGINIA HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY COMMISSION ACADEMIC POLICY COMMITTEE

AUGUST 20, 2004

9:00 A.M.

AGENDA A. Revision of Series 21, Freshman Assessment and Placement Standards at Four-Year

Colleges and Universities......................................................................................... pg 12 B. Revision of Series 23, Standards and Procedures for Undergraduate Admission at Four-Year Colleges and Universities........................................................................ pg 16 C. Approval of Research Challenge Allocations and New Programs............................ pg 24 D. Approval of Social Justice Grants ............................................................................ pg 47 E. Report on Institutional Program Review 2003-2004................................................. pg 48 F. Update on Collegiate Learning Assessment Project ................................................ pg 55

12

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Revision of Series 21, Freshman Assessment

and Placement Standards at Four-Year Colleges and Universities

INSTITUTIONS: All COMMITTEE: Academic Policy Committee RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Information item only STAFF MEMBER: Bruce Flack BACKGROUND: During the past year, there has been considerable discussion on the desirability of raising the freshman placement scores in English and mathematics. The interest in higher standards for entering college students is one indicator of the accountability movement in West Virginia and American higher education. With the continuing rise in the ACT scores in English and mathematics among graduating high school students in West Virginia, a move to raise the score requirements for freshman placement into the first credit courses in English and math may be in order. Setting a higher standard for freshman placement will send a message to high school students of the importance of solid academic preparation. The proposed revision to Series 21 will raise the ACT math score requirement for freshman placement from 19 to 20 and the English score requirement from 18 to 19. Additionally, commensurate increases are established for SAT I and other assessments used for freshman placement. It is anticipated that the same policy provisions will be established for the community and technical college system. Policy statements on freshman placement at the baccalaureate institutions and community and technical colleges would continue to call for a uniform standard, uniformly applied as provided in West Virginia Code. Following Commission review of the revised draft of Series 21, the revised policy will be circulated to the institutions and constituent groups for comment. The intent is to bring the proposed rule to the HEPC in October for final approval.

13

DRAFT 8/11/2004

1

TITLE 133

PROCEDURAL RULE

WEST VIRGINIA HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY COMMISSION

SERIES 21

FRESHMAN ASSESSMENT AND PLACEMENT STANDARDS

AT FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 1. GENERAL

1.1 Scope - This policy establishes freshman assessment and placement standards for institutions in assignment to initial credit-bearing courses in mathematics and English.

1.2 Authority - West Virginia Code § 18B-1B-4 1.3 Filing Date - July 2, 2002 1.4 Effective Date - August 1, 2002

2. POLICY

2.1 The policy, Freshman Assessment and Placement Standards at Four-Year Colleges

and Universities, for students in West Virginia public colleges and universities was developed to assure the integrity of associate and baccalaureate degrees, to increase the retention and graduation rates of students, and to encourage high school students to improve their academic preparation for college. The standards for freshman assessment and placement are designed to establish uniform procedures for the placement of students in credit-bearing courses in mathematics and English which can be applied toward an undergraduate academic degree.

3. MATHEMATICS

3.1 Students may not enroll at any two-year or four-year institution in West Virginia public colleges and universities in a mathematics course which is designed to be applied toward a baccalaureate degree, an associate of arts (A.A.) degree, or an associate of science (A.S.), an associate of applied science (A.A.S.) degree at a public four-year college or university or an A.A., A.S. or A.A.S. degree at a community college unless the minimum score prescribed below is earned on one of the following tests:

3.1.1 A score of 19 (20 effective July 1, 2006) on the mathematics section of the

American College Testing Program's ACT Assessment Test.

14

DRAFT 8/11/2004

2

3.1.2 A score of 460 (480 effective July 1, 2006) on the quantitative portion of the College Board's Scholastic Assessment (SAT-1).

3.1.3 A scaled score of 40 (45 effective July 1, 2006) on the numerical test and 38

(48 effective July 1, 2006) on the elementary algebra test of the American College Testing Program's Assessment of Skills for Successful Entry and Transfer (ASSET).

3.1.4 A scaled score of 59 (64 effective July 1, 2006) on the pre-algebra test and a

scaled score of 36 (42 effective July 1, 2006) on the algebra test of the American College Testing Program=s Computerized Adaptive Placement Assessment and Support System (COMPASS).

3.1.5 A scaled score of 85 (86 effective July 1, 2006) on the arithmetic test and 84

(85 effective July 1, 2006) on the elementary algebra test of the College Board=s ACCUPLACER Testing System.

3.2 Students not meeting this standard must successfully complete a program or

programs in developmental (pre-college level) mathematics in order to be placed in mathematics courses which count toward a baccalaureate degree, an A.A. degree, or an A.S. degree, or an A.A.S. degree. Institutions that do not offer developmental courses may require students to complete such courses at another institution or design an equivalent program of remediation with approval of the Higher Education Policy Commission Chancellor, as a pre-requisite to freshman placement.

3.3 A student having met the placement standard for enrollment in a credit-bearing

course in mathematics on transfer to another West Virginia state college or university shall be deemed to have met the placement standard at the receiving institution and shall not be required to enroll in a developmental course in mathematics. The assessment measure and score by which the student met the placement standard in mathematics shall be recorded on the student=s transcript.

4. ENGLISH COMPOSITION

4.1 Students may not enroll at any two-year or four-year institution in West Virginia public colleges and universities in an English composition course which is designed to be applied toward a baccalaureate degree, an A.A. degree, or an A.S. degree, or an A.A.S. degree at a public four-year college or university or an A.A., A.S, or A.A.S. degree at a community college unless the minimum score prescribed below is earned on one of the following tests:

4.1.1 A score of 18 (19 effective July 1, 2006) on the English section of the ACT.

4.1.2 A score of 450 (470 effective July 1, 2006) on the verbal portion of the SAT-

1.

4.1.3 A scaled score of 38 (46 effective July 1, 2006) on the writing skills test of the ASSET.

15

DRAFT 8/11/2004

3

4.1.4 A scaled score of 71 (75 effective July 1, 2006) on the English Skills test of the American College Testing Program=s Computerized Adaptive Placement Assessment and Support System (COMPASS).

4.1.5 A scaled score of 88 (89 effective July 1, 2006) on the Sentence Skills test of

the College Board=s ACCUPLACER Testing System.

4.1.6 Satisfactory performance on a writing sample administered by each institution.

4.2 Students not meeting this standard must successfully complete a program or

programs in developmental (pre-college level) English composition in order to be placed in English composition courses which count toward a baccalaureate degree, an A.A. degree, or an A.S. degree, or an A.A.S. degree. Institutions that do not offer developmental courses may require students to complete such courses at another institution or design an equivalent program of remediation with approval of the Higher Education Policy Commission Chancellor as a pre-requisite to freshman placement.

4.3 A student having met the placement standard for enrollment in a credit-bearing

course in English on transfer to another West Virginia state college or university shall be deemed to have met the placement standard at the receiving institution and shall not be required to enroll in a developmental course in English. The assessment measure and score by which the student met the placement standard in English shall be recorded on the student=s transcript.

5. READING

5.1 Students scoring 17 on the reading section of the ACT, 420 or above on the verbal section of the SAT-1, 36 on the reading skills test of the ASSET, 30 percentile above on the Nelson-Denny Reading Test, 75 on the reading test of the American College Testing Program=s Computerized Adaptive Placement Assessment and Support System (COMPASS), or 79 on the Reading Comprehensive test of the College Board=s ACCUPLACER Testing System will be considered to have met minimal reading skill requirements at those institutions which have developmental programs in reading.

5.2 Institutions in the state higher education system are encouraged to provide

assistance for students who do not meet the standard and who are enrolled in a program leading to an associate or bachelor's degree.

5.3 A student having met the placement standard in reading on transfer to another West

Virginia state college or university shall be deemed to have met the placement standard at the receiving institution and shall not be required to enroll in a developmental course in reading. The assessment measure and score by which the student met the placement standard in reading shall be recorded on the student=s transcript.

16

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Revision of Series 23, Standards and

Procedures for Undergraduate Admission at Four-Year Colleges and Universities

INSTITUTIONS: All COMMITTEE: Academic Policy Committee RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Information item only STAFF MEMBER: Bruce Flack BACKGROUND: In April 2004, a revised draft of Series 23, Standards and Procedures for Undergraduate Admission, was brought before the Higher Education Policy Commission for preliminary review. The Commission action was to direct the staff to circulate the draft to the institutions and constituent groups for comment. The major modification in the draft was to change the 2008 admission standard from a requirement of a minimum ACT score of 19 and/or a 2.00 high school GPA to a minimum ACT score of 19 and a 2.00 GPA. It soon became apparent, due largely to the establishment of the community and technical college system, that the policy provisions on admission to two-year institutions should be deleted and incorporated into a new rule for that system. Since this is a substantial change from the draft considered in April, the decision was to bring a new draft to the HEPC for further review. The revision presented to the HEPC in August 2004 removes provisions relating to the community and technical colleges. It also establishes for the first time minimum standards for students who are admitted conditionally. Additionally, there are several minor operational changes. Following the August 20 review, the draft will be circulated to the institutions and constituent groups for comment. The intent is to bring the proposed rule to the HEPC in October for final approval.

17

DRAFT 8/11/2004

1

TITLE 133

PROCEDURAL RULE


SERIES 23

STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS AT FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

1. GENERAL 1.1 Scope -This rule establishes standards and procedures for undergraduate

institutional admissions policies at four-year colleges and universities.

1.2 Authority - West Virginia Code ' 18B-1-1A; 18B-1-4

1.3 Filing Date - July 11, 2002

1.4 Effective Date - August 10, 2002

1.5 Repeal of Former Rule - Repeals and replaces Title 133, Series 23 which had an effective date of August 10, 2002. 131, Series 44 which had an effective date of February 28,2000 and Title 128, Series 44 which had an effective date of February 11, 2000.

2. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

2.1 It is the intent of the Higher Education Policy Commission that West Virginia residents shall have access to higher educational opportunities commensurate with their interests and abilities. Working toward this end, the commission continues to encourage the development of academic programs and flexible time-space options which allow citizens throughout West Virginia to develop to the fullest their capabilities for work and fulfillment of life. It is further the intent of the Commission that admissions policies at the four-year state-supported institutions of higher education should foster the attainment of these broad goals of access to the highest extent possible within the limits of available educational programs and resources.

2.2 In recognition of the diverse educational programs offered by the different public

four-year higher education institutions and the varying kinds of preparation necessary for successful entry into them, the Commission considers it more appropriate to establish basic statewide guidelines and standards than to provide detailed provisions related to admissions criteria and procedures. Accordingly, the

18

DRAFT 8/11/2004

2

Commission has identified certain basic policies and provisions around which specific institutional admissions policies and practices are to be developed.

3. BASIC ADMISSIONS STANDARDS

3.1 As a means of ensuring a reasonable chance of success in the educational programs for which students seek admission and of making the most productive use of federal, state and community resources, institutional admissions policies shall incorporate the following basic standards.

3.2 This rule applies to undergraduate admissions at West Virginia public four-year

colleges and universities, regardless of program level. The standards in this rule also apply to students who enroll in baccalaureate-level programs at state higher education institutions where missions are primarily the offering of associate-level degrees. Community and Technical Colleges and Community College Divisions at Four- (4) Year Institutions. Regular admission to community and technical colleges and community college divisions at four-(4) year institutions is open to any person who has a high school diploma or meets General Educational Development (GED) requirements. Other persons may be admitted on a conditional basis but shall be evaluated at the conclusion of each semester of enrollment to determine whether college-level academic performance indicates an ability to continue their studies. Neither regular nor conditional admission shall ensure the entry of applicants into specific programs.

3.3 Bachelor's Degree Programs at Four-Year Colleges and Universities. Students who

meet General Educational Development (GED) requirements or have a high school diploma and overall grade-point average (GPA) of at least 2.0, or a composite score of at least 17 (19 and/or a 2.0 GPA effective August 2008) on the ACT may be admitted on a regular admission basis to four-year colleges and universities which offer associate and bachelor's degree programs. at four-year. Students will normally be expected to sit for the ACT. However, in instances where students have taken the SAT I examination Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), these scores may be substituted for the ACT. SAT I scores will be converted to ACT equivalents by using an appropriate conversion chart authorized by the chancellor. These students will not be required to take the ACT at a later time.

Beginning with the 2006 fall semester, students submitting ACT or SAT I scores for

purposes of undergraduate admission must complete the writing assessment part of each exam.

3.3.1 Conditional admission may be granted in instances where GPA or ACT

standards are not met and institutional officials have evidence that the student has the potential to successfully complete college-level work. Students who do not meet the GPA or ACT standards, but who demonstrate

19

DRAFT 8/11/2004

3

the potential to complete an undergraduate program may be admitted provisionally with the following stipulations:

3.3.1.1 If freshman placement standards require, developmental courses

must be completed prior to enrolling in the corresponding college-level courses.

3.3.1.2 Students must complete the provisions of their conditional

admission within the first three semesters of enrollment. 3.3.1.3 Conditionally-admitted students must achieve a minimum of a

2.00 GPA in at least twelve graded hours.

3.3.1.4 When all provisions of conditional admission have been met, conditional status will be removed and the student will become a regular admission student.

3.3.2 In addition to GPA and ACT requirements, students must successfully

complete the following minimum academic core unit requirements (effective until August 2008) prior to admission:

Required Units (Years) 4 English (including courses in grammar, composition, literature) 3 Social Studies (including U.S. History) 3 Mathematics* (Algebra I and at least one higher unit) 3 Science* (Two of the three units must be laboratory science. At least two units from Coordinated and Thematic Science 10, Biology, Chemistry, Physics and other courses with a strong laboratory science orientation) *Three units each in mathematics and science will be required for regular admissions no later than fall 2003. Strongly Recommended Units 2 Foreign Language Elective Units Remaining Units -- It is recommended that the remaining elective units be chosen from the academic core (English/language arts, mathematics, science, social studies) or subjects such as computer science, fine arts, humanities, and keyboarding.

20

DRAFT 8/11/2004

4

3.3.3 Effective August 2008, students in addition to GPA and ACT requirements, must successfully complete the following minimum academic core unit requirements prior to admission:

Required Units (Years) 2008 Standards 4 English (including courses in grammar, composition, and literature) 3 Social Studies (including U.S. History) 4 Mathematics (three units must be Algebra I and higher) 3 Science (all courses to be laboratory science; Coordinated and Thematic Science I & II combined count as one lab science unit) 1 Arts 2 Foreign Language (Two units of the same foreign language)

3.3.4 Institutions are authorized to employ the following exemptions to the above

unit requirements:

3.3.4.a All four-(4) year public higher education institutions have the discretionary authority to waive the college preparatory curricular requirements for regular admission for not more than five percent (5%) of freshmen students who graduated from high school within five (5) years of the date of enrollment (five percent (5%) based upon enrollment of first-time freshmen entering the institution in the fall term of the previous year).

3.3.4.b Applicants for admission who have been out of high school

for more than five (5) years or who meet institutionally-established GED requirements may be exempted from the specified high school curricular requirements at the discretion of the individual institution.

3.3.5 The academic performance of students admitted under one (1) of the above

exemptions or on a conditional basis must be evaluated at the conclusion of each semester. To continue, such students must be in good academic standing according to institutional standards as stated in the institutional catalog for regularly-admitted students. Neither regular nor conditional admission shall ensure the entry of applicants into specific programs.

3.4 Transfer Students. Students seeking transfer admission to a state college must be

academically eligible to return to the institution from which they wish to transfer. Students seeking transfer admission or readmission to a community college or community college division must meet the institution's basic admission standards.

21

DRAFT 8/11/2004

5

Students attending community and technical colleges or community college divisions who are seeking to transfer into a four-(4) year program must meet the regular institutional criteria for transfer admission.

3.4.1 Students under disciplinary sanction at a West Virginia public college or

university at the time of the application for transfer admission are also subject to other applicable rules of the Higher Education Policy Commission.

3.5 Non-Degree Students. An institution may admit students on a non-degree basis. By

definition, such students are not seeking and/or not eligible to pursue a certificate or degree at the institution.

3.6 It should be noted that the basic standards contained in this section are based upon

current levels of funding. Should financial resources be limited, it may be necessary to establish additional standards and/or accept only those qualified students applying by a specified date.

4. INSTITUTIONAL ADMISSIONS PROCEDURES

4.1 High school transcripts are required to be on file for each incoming freshman who is registered in an undergraduate certificate or degree program and who has graduated from high school within five years. Such transcripts shall be on file with the institution prior to the end of the first semester of the student's attendance.

4.2 Students who desire to enroll on a degree-seeking basis at the four-year state

colleges and universities who do not meet the GED requirements or have a high school diploma and an overall grade point average of at least 2.0 must submit ACT or SAT I scores prior to admission.

4.3 In accordance with Section 3.3, students who substitute SAT I scores for ACT

scores will not be required to take the ACT at a later time.

4.4 Degree-seeking state college students at four-year colleges or universities who do meet the GED or high school grade point average requirements must submit ACT or SAT I scores prior to their second semester of enrollment.

4.5 All students who have graduated from high school or completed GED requirements

more than five years prior to seeking admission to a four-year college or university may have the requirement for ACT or SAT I scores waived at the discretion of the institution.

4.6 Transfer students must supply the institution with official transcripts reflecting all

previous college work prior to admission.

4.7 In addition to the above, colleges may use, but shall not be limited to the use of, the following information in determining admission to institutions and/or institutional programs:

22

DRAFT 8/11/2004

6

4.7.1 Records of traditional academic performance relative to the specific

educational program to which the student seeks entry.

4.7.2 Record of nontraditional learning experiences.

4.7.3 Standardized examinations relative to the requirements of the program to which the student seeks entry.

4.7.4 College equivalency examinations such as the College Level Examination

Program (CLEP) and the Proficiency Examination Program (PEP); and also, special preparatory programs such as the Advanced Placement Program of the College Entrance Examination Board Program and the International Baccalaureate Diploma.

4.7.5 Recommendations and reports of interviews.

4.8 Health and immunization records may be required after admission into the

institution. Immunization records are to be submitted at the time of initial enrollment in accordance with the applicable rule of the Higher Education Policy Commission.

5. INSTITUTIONAL ADMISSIONS POLICIES

5.1 Institutional admissions policies shall be comprehensive and stated in specific terms and shall include the general admissions requirements of the institution, as well as additional requirements for entry into specific programs.

5.2 While it is not the policy of the commission to exclude nonresidents from state

institutions or their programs, preference shall be given to qualified West Virginia residents (as defined by Series 34) in cases where enrollments must be limited.

5.32 All institutional admissions policies shall be submitted to the commission for

evaluation in terms of their compatibility with stated commission policies, institutional goals and available educational programs and resources. Any amendments to admission policies shall be submitted to the commission prior to their actual implementation at the institutional level.

5.43 All institutional admissions policies shall be consistent with existing commission

policies and applicable State and Federal regulations regarding nondiscrimination.

5.54 Subject to commission approval, institutions may establish admission standards more rigorous than those established by this rule for basic admission to the institution and/or for admission into specific programs.

6. IMPLEMENTATION DATE

23

DRAFT 8/11/2004

7

6.1. The high school GPA and ACT/SAT I test score requirements in section 3.3 and the successful completion of high school unit requirements listed in section 3.3.3 and related exemptions outlined in Section 3 shall be effective no later than the fall of 2008. The requirement for inclusion of the writing assessments in the ACT and SAT I exams for students submitting ACT or SAT I scores shall be effective with the fall 2006 semester. The effective date of all other provisions of this policy will be sixty (60) days after the date of filing with the West Virginia Secretary of State's Office.

24

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Approval of Research Challenge Allocations

and New Programs INSTITUTIONS: All COMMITTEE: Academic Policy Committee RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Resolved, That the West Virginia Higher

Education Policy Commission approves (1) the recommendations of the EPSCoR state advisory council for allocation of Research Challenge grant funding for 2004-2005 for four projects at West Virginia University and two projects at Marshall University as presented in the EPSCoR report; and (2) the implementation of two new programs, Summer/Semester Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE) and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Fellows (STEM) designed to foster research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics at West Virginia University and Marshall University.

STAFF MEMBER: Bruce Flack BACKGROUND: For the last two years, the Higher Education Policy Commission has allocated funding to the state’s Research Challenge program. Competitive grant funding has been awarded to support four research projects at West Virginia University and two at Marshall University. The projects are designed to support significant research in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Earlier this year, SB 197 altered the operation of Research Challenge and charged the West Virginia EPSCoR State Advisory Council with the responsibility of recommending to the Higher Education Policy Commission allocation of appropriations to be made to research challenge projects and any new programs or procedures for competitive application and review of proposals for funding. The HEPC has responsibility for the allocation of appropriations for Research Challenge awards.

25

For 2004-2005, the EPSCoR staff has recommended continued funding for the six projects initially funded in 2002. The EPSCoR State Advisory Council is expected to approve the recommended funding levels for the six projects prior to the August 20 HEPC meeting. This agenda item presents two recommendations. The first (Part I) is the allocation of Research Challenge funding for 2004-2005 and the second (Part II) is the establishment of two new programs, Summer/Semester Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE) and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Fellows (STEM), designed to further research efforts in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields at West Virginia University and Marshall University. Also included is a copy of the SB 197 provision on the Research Challenge program. Dr. Paul Hill, state director of EPSCoR, will present the EPSCoR State Advisory Council recommendations. The recommendations are in the following reports prepared by Dr. Hill. Part I of the report begins with a summary of the funding history of the six projects which have been funded through Research Challenge. The recommended allocations for Research Challenge projects (identified by Principal Investigator) for 2004-2005, the third year of funding, are:

Principal Investigator Institution Recommended Allocation Dr. Rakesh Gupta WVU $289,017 Dr. Trevor Harris and Dr. Scott Refsland WVU 400,000 Dr. Aaron Timperman WVU 310,000 Dr. Edwin Rood WVU 450,000*Dr. Richard Niles MU 399,300 Dr. Michael Norton MU 328,000 * All funds are carry-over from first two years

26

PART I

RESEARCH CHALLENGE GRANTS PROGRAM CURRENT PROJECTS (6)

REVIEW AND FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS

Presented To: WEST VIRGINIA EPSCoR STATE ADVISORY COUNCIL


Presented By: Paul L. Hill, Ph.D., State Director Jay Cole, Deputy Secretary, Education and the Arts Robert Gillespie, Ph.D., External Advisor Jan R. Taylor, Ph.D., Sr. Research Fellow

27

Foreword: In late 2002, six research projects were funded under the auspices of WV legislative authority (SB 653) vested in the Higher Education Policy Commission (HEPC). Forty-seven proposals were received and analyzed as a result of the competition managed by the HEPC. The Research Challenge Grants (RCG) were authorized to enhance research infrastructure, stimulate original research, develop competitiveness for external funding, and initiate potential impact on the state’s economy. Of the six research project PI’s funded, four were West Virginia University researchers and two were at Marshall University. All proposals were allowed to request up to seven years funding but were required to scale down state support over the life of the grant. A review of the awards shows requests up to $600,000 in the first year declining to as little as $50,000 in the final year of support. One project proposed a five-year budget, one a six-year budget, and the remaining four proposed full seven-year budgets. This becomes a significant factor in how the projects are viewed and managed. The total initial budget (FY03) was $2.3 million followed by an additional $1.6 million (FY04). The second year of funding, since it was less than originally budgeted and anticipated, was distributed on a percentage basis to the universities. In turn, the universities negotiated internally the amounts assigned to each project based on their most critical needs and ongoing activities at the time. This too, (the amount they were awarded last year) becomes a consideration for further funding because it is directly correlated to their ability to perform.

The following pages attempt to provide a snapshot of each project. All six Principal Investigators (PIs) submitted a report to the state EPSCoR Office on May 3, 2004 that provides the basis of this analysis. The awardees were asked to provide updates on their work, significant accomplishments, personnel involved, budget justifications, projected financial needs, and a reevaluation of the original anticipated outcomes. The latter two items became important since the legislature, in separate action (SB448) reduced the performance period of all awards from seven to five years. Site visits were made at each campus during the period between May 24 and June 7, 2004. Meetings that included laboratory tours, presentations, and discussions were held with all but one of the grantees. A conference call was utilized with that participant to clear up questions originating from the previously supplied report. A budget analysis and financing scheme, with options, is presented at the end of this report. Each project review ends with a funding recommendation based on this comprehensive analysis.

***

28

Dr. Rakesh Gupta Department of Chemical Engineering West Virginia University Grant Number: RCG0301 - Gupta Title: University-Industry Center for Extrusion-Compounding of Additives for Superior

Plastics Performance Dr. Gupta and his co-PI, Dr. Carl Erwin seem to be on target to meet the goals set forth in the initial challenge grant and are on schedule. His ultimate goal is a self-sustaining Center on Extrusion Compounding of polymers. The Center would provide state-of-the-art laboratories and research expertise, and he has attempted to partner with nanotechnology and wood products initiatives consistent with the efforts of WVU and the WV economic development plan. Publication record in this area which covers the timeframe of this grant has been outstanding. He has a number of ideas to increase funding and to become self sufficient although he has had no success to date in this area. One proposal is pending and others are under development. A laboratory has been retrofitted, and new equipment has been purchased and installed. This equipment (polymer extrusion) is unique for a university campus which provides an edge for this work while building infrastructure for additional research. The Advisory Committee is composed of corporations with an interest in this area, and they have recently advised the PI to build focus onto the more generalized startup. The program visibility efforts are outstanding and reflect positively on WVU and WV. Research progress, even without the best equipment, has been positive. The requested funding of $289,017 for the coming year is in line with the original proposal and is primarily dedicated to two full time research staff, probably post docs. This seems like a logical progression and best use of funds. Although in violation of the requirement to diminish funding, the same amount is requested for FY06 and again in FY07. Recommendation: This project has received $604,915 to date. Fund at the requested level of $289,017 for the current year (FY05). In order to drive external funding, the project allocation should decrease by 10 percent annually in FY06 & FY07 to $260k and $234k respectively, with continued demonstration of annual progress. Dr. Trevor Harris and Dr. Scot Refsland Department of Geology and Geography West Virginia University Grant Number: RCG0302 - Harris Title: Using GIS and Virtual Reality to Deliver Real-time, Virtual Information Spatially

Embedded in Mission-Critical Environments Drs. Harris and Refsland have been forced to adapt to the rapidly changing research environment associated with both Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Virtual Reality (VR). They have formed a new company named VRGIS, Inc. and have won two NSF and Education SBIR awards. A phase II SBIR ($500k) is under consideration at this time and VC is being sought from private sources. Two patents are in the application phase. After carefully

29

reading the submission from the investigators, it is easy to conclude that there has been an enormous change in scope from that proposed originally. The original proposal was developed around mission critical, wearable computers, headsets and alternative input devices. It is now developing devices for the real estate market as an “interim” deliverable product. The report and discussion state that “the research [wearable headset] was not substantial enough to merit a successful award” at this time. However, the headset device (within which this technology would be interfaced) is projected to become available in the next two years. The interim devices and developments are a product of ongoing VRGIS technology investigations that have application in the real estate and utilities industries. While some might view this shift in outcomes a negative digression or consequence, it is actually a very ingenious adaptation to rapidly changing technologies. During the on-side interviews, researchers reiterated their commitment to the original wearable device with interim discoveries viewed as expanding their expertise. Laboratory demonstrations and equipment substantiated this commitment. The PIs also demonstrate aggressive fund development and prototyping; extensive management documentation; and employ several graduate students and research staff. They have requested a small amount of funding to assist with business development, prototyping and patents. They are a very ingenious research team that generates new ideas frequently while continuing to closely monitor the target research globally (particularly Japan and US). Recommendation: This project has received $772,204 to date. Fund fully on current declining scale – $400k, $300k, $250k in FY05, FY06, and FY07, respectively, with continued demonstration of annual progress. Dr. Aaron T. Timperman Chemistry Department West Virginia University Grant Number: RCG0306 - Timperman Title: Proteomics and Cancer: A Partnership Between WVU and the Biotechnology

Industry Dr. Timperman and his partnership with Protea, Inc. have made significant progress in the development of a proteomics clinical diagnostic device. Each component of the analysis system (to be used for cancer patient diagnosis) is being developed separately with the goal of integrating the parts into an operational device. Such a device would be immensely marketable but requires a prototype which is yet to be assembled. While VC is being discussed, investors await the prototype (in two years) before private funding will begin to flow. A large NIH COBRE grant ($1.4m) provides additional support but is difficult to distinguish from RCG funding. A new STTR proposal is pending. The RCG has paid for part of the salary of one Protea employee. This might be viewed as a conflict but is another example of situational opportunity. Since funds were unpredictable, Dr. Timperman was able to hire an employee to conduct part of the research. It would have been extremely unlikely that a faculty member would have taken the short-term commitment. This employee (Dr. Sutton) has developed a set of marketable “peptide standards” for protein samples. Such standards are necessary in each area of cancer research and are necessary for

30

reference when devices are finalized. Also due to the instability of funding, two prior co-PI’s Yu and Jiang have dropped out of the project, and work on ovarian cancer has evolved into proteomics. Timperman, Sutton and Steve Turner (Protea) are the principals with Turner handling business development aspects. Protea has spent “significant capital,” according to the report, on strong intellectual property protection. Five patents are listed. The project does seem to be doing original and productive research in an area that has a serious potential for commercialization. The budget request focuses on two technicians and two research scientists over the next three years. Most equipment including new microscope and laser chip development device has been secured. It seems as if the project is on track according to submitted information. Recommendation: This project has received $572,739 to date. Fund as requested, consistent with planned budgetary need. FY05- FY07 request is $310k, $300k, and $290k, respectively, with continued demonstration of annual progress. Dr. Edwin P. Rood Research Office West Virginia University Grant Number: RCG0305 - Rood Title: The Biometric Knowledge Center at West Virginia University Dr. Rood’s proposal envisioned a center with core of three biometricians –scientists who specialize and conduct research in the broader areas of biometric research. Due to the uncertainty of funding (no long term guarantee to attract candidates) and the lack of professionals who fit the description of a “biometrician,” this concept has been reconsidered. It was assumed that the federal government would be keenly interested in working with, funding and fully embracing such a comprehensive center in light of the events of 9-11-01. According to the report and interviews with Dr. Rood, the center concept (sans researchers) has been achieved through contacts, research agenda analysis, and promotion with federal agencies. He recommends maintaining the current infrastructure, focusing on a biometric nanoscale researcher and a full time director. There are many comments in the report that suggest that the expected interest by the federal government in research on automated biometric systems has not materialized and is not expected to do so. The requested change in scope for the activity seems to be one supporting only a management activity at WVU that includes several partner institutions. The report suggests that there has been much success in establishing WVU and the BKnC as the lead organization for biometric research advocacy. It should be noted that advocacy is not necessarily the desired outcome of the RCG funding. The summary statement: “In summary, the BKnC has produced all the outcomes reasonably expected, and awaits a federal opportunity before going forward with biometrics for human authentication” is denoted as a major accomplishment. The report requests additional funds to support continued biometrics symposia, conferences, and presentations. The new nanoscale scientist and new full-time center director would be supported by $450k in carryover funding plus $91k in new funds (requested). A flat $500k is requested for (each) FY06 and FY07, a violation of the declining support clause.

31

Recommendation: This project has received $780,891 to date and has a significant carryover of current funds. Do not fund beyond the carryover of $450,000 in FY05. Subsequent annual funding amounts should be determined upon evaluation of further reports. The allocation of $250k for FY06 and $225 for FY07 would cover the basic costs of a nanoscale scientist and part-time director. Dr. Richard M. Niles Professor and Chair Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine Marshall University Grant Number: RCG0303 - Niles Title: Foundation of Basic and Translational Research for the Edwards Cancer Center Dr. Niles’ initial proposal was to develop translational research at the Edwards Cancer Center focusing on reproductive tumors. Due to uncertainty of funding in years one and two, the research nurse was not hired and the tissue bank of tumors was not established. Gene expression profiles of a series of breast tumors were not pursued as a consequence. On the other hand, the specific gene tbx2 was isolated, and important thyroid cancer investigations were established. The successful COBRE application was probably enhanced by the State commitment and support of MU through the RCG. The focus on tbx2 gene (possible patent) expression in thyroid cancers is potentially a significant development for MU and WV, given a high incidence of thyroid cancer in the Kanawha Valley. RCG money was used to replace a faculty member who left, raising concerns about the correlation to the original proposal. However, the funding uncertainty led the PI to work with the Dean to secure a new faculty position focused on cancer research by allowing the RCG to sponsor the first year’s salary of an existing faulty slot. Further the second position, when filled by the university, brought another researcher into this critical area – building infrastructure and critical mass. Internal seed grants are provided to faculty to aid focus and research development in this area, and a new proteomics facility is being developed. A new mass Spectrophotomer will be purchased with partial support ($200k) from this project next year. Dr. Niles has been successful in capturing additional funding having been awarded $1.338 million as part of a $9 million NIH award to MU. An aggressive set of research goals is laid out by the report. The tbx2 gene expression seems to be a very positive area of research for MU and should be encouraged. The budget request goes up slightly in FY06, a violation of the declining spending clause then drops significantly in the final year. Recommendation: This project has received $810,196 in state funds. Fund at the current budget request pf $399k in FY05. A modest ten percent reduction in budget would provide $360k in FY06 and (requested level) $289k in FY’07.

32

Dr. Michael L. Norton Department of Chemistry Marshall University Grant Number: RCG0304 - Norton Title: DNA Sensor Infrastructure Development Dr. Norton’s original objectives were to bring together 1) student talent, 2) basic DNA research, and 3) economic development. This effort is producing the kind of results consistent with the initial goals of RCG funding and is even more viable today than when the proposal was written. From the outset his goals have included the gradual development of human resources through the selection and grooming of students who would, over time, form a biotech company. Although he has been frustrated by the inconsistent funding, several sources of support have worked in concert to move this concept forward. He has been successful in creating the spinoff company, Vandalia Biotech, with student partners. This is the kind of outcome that WV was looking to seed with the RCG. The student successes are quite remarkable, and Dr. Norton is to be commended for his dedication. The report provides an extensive list of students, high school teachers, and graduates supported in part by this effort. The goals and objectives as set forth in the original proposal have been more than accomplished to this point. A few notable highlights that can be extracted from the report are: (1) “only three or four laboratories in the world are competitive with the level of research in DNA nanostructures being performed at MU,” (2) …researchers from three other departments … make routine use of this instrument, (3) the patent for nanocircle sensors is pending,” and (4) “Our DNA nanostructure studies proposal was selected as one of the first projects to be funded by the newest National Nanotechnology Laboratory called CINT (Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, in Albuquerque, NM, a joint venture between Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories).” Proposed budgets decline only slightly from $328k, (’05), to $320k (’06), to $315k (’07). In meeting with Dr. Norton some “growing pains” were detected in efforts to complete business development aspects of his work. This is not an uncommon concern raised by the awardees at both MU and WVU. Greater attention and assistance should be supplied in this area by both the universities and the state. A separate and focused discussion should be held by the EPSCoR Council and the HEPC in this regard. Recommendation: This project has received $422,500 in state funds. Fund the amount requested, $328k for FY05. Allocate $320k (FY06) and $315k (FY07) with continued demonstration of annual progress

33

Selected Productivity and Development Criteria PI Name Ex Funding Company?/VC Patents

Support/jobs

Norton + + (+) ++ +++++

Niles ++ (+) +

Harris ++ + (+) ++ ++++

Gupta +

Rood

+ +

Timperman

+

+ (+)

+++++

++

Summary: Each project has been assessed using the selected criteria of (1) generation of external funding, (2) formation of new companies and seeking venture capital, (3) creation of intellectual property in the form of patent applications, and (4) the formation of jobs and/or support of faculty and students. The RCGs have assisted in the generation of three new companies and resulted in 10 current or pending patent applications. Numerous graduate students, faculty and technicians are employed part time by these awards. One university “center” has been formed and another is planned. One project has $900k in venture capital pledged but awaits prototyping before being released. Although difficult to define or attribute, approximately $1.7 million in new funding has been generated collectively by these projects. The following tables show a financial analysis of the budget requests and the recommended funding levels for each project. The projects were viewed in different ways to arrive at a recommendation that included the consideration of many other factors as well. Three projects are recommended to receive full funding as requested; three required adjustments since they did not properly decline over time; one in the latter category is recommended to use existing funds before further allocations are made.

34

Timperman Original Budget Rec'd/Request -10%/yr based on original rate of decline Recommendation Yr 1 363,000 293,000 293,000 293,000 293,000 Yr 2 310,000 279,739 279,739 279,739 279,739 Yr 3 270,000 310,000 310,000 310,000 310,000 Yr 4 240,000 300,000 279,000 275,900 300,000 Yr 5 210,000 290,000 251,100 240,033 290,000 Yr 6 190,000 Yr 7 150,000 1,733,000 1,472,739 1,412,839 1,398,672 1,472,739

Niles Original Budget Rec'd/Request -10%/yr original rate of decline Recommendation Yr 1 598,050 460,394 460,394 460,394 460,394 Yr 2 500,000 349,802 349,802 349,802 349,802 Yr 3 400,000 399,300 399,300 399,300 399,300 Yr 4 350,000 404,200 359,370 347,391 360,000 Yr 5 300,000 289,200 323,433 298,756 289,200 Yr 6 250,000 2,398,050 1,902,896 1,892,299 1,855,643 1,858,696

Norton Original Budget Rec'd/Request -10%/yr original rate of decline Recommendation Yr 1 331,235 255,000 255,000 255,000 255,000 Yr 2 239,932 167,500 167,500 167,500 167,500 Yr 3 229,864 328,000 328,000 328,000 328,000 Yr 4 224,294 320,000 295,200 321,440 320,000 Yr 5 217,706 315,000 265,680 311,799 315,000 Yr 6 210,103 Yr 7 201,488 1,654,622 1,385,500 1,311,380 1,383,739 1,385,500

Rood Original Budget Rec'd/Request -10%/yr original rate of decline Recommendation Yr 1 600,000 434,851 434,851 434,851 434,851 Yr 2 500,000 346,040 346,040 346,040 346,040 Yr 3 400,000 91,000 450,000 450,000 0 see note Yr 4 350,000 500,000 405,000 391,500 250,000 Yr 5 300,000 500,000 364,500 336,690 225,000 Yr 6 250,000 Yr 7 200,000 2,600,000 1,871,891 2,000,391 1,959,081 1,255,891

Harris Original Budget Rec'd/Request -10%/yr original rate of decline Recommendation Yr 1 600,000 460,394 460,394 460,394 460,394 Yr 2 500,000 311,810 311,810 311,810 311,810 Yr 3 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 Yr 4 300,000 300,000 360,000 300,000 300,000 Yr 5 200,000 250,000 324,000 201,000 250,000 Yr 6 100,000 Yr 7 50,000 2,150,000 1,722,204 1,856,204 1,673,204 1,722,204

Gupta Original Budget Rec'd/Request -10%/yr original rate of decline Recommendation Yr 1 500,000 396,455 396,455 396,455 396,455 Yr 2 400,000 208,460 208,460 208,460 208,460 Yr 3 300,000 289,017 289,017 289,017 289,017 Yr 4 200,000 289,017 260,115 193,641 260,115 Yr 5 100,000 289,017 234,104 96,820 234,104 Total 1,500,000 1,471,966 1,388,151 1,184,393 1,388,151

Note: The $450,000 used for Yr 3 calculations for Dr. Rood is his carryover from Yr 1 and Yr 2, and is recommended as his budget for Yr 3

35

Year 3 PI Requested Recommendation Timperman 310,000 310,000 Niles 399,300 399,300 Norton 328,000 328,000 Rood 91,000 0 Harris 400,000 400,000 Gupta 289,017 289,017 TOTAL 1,817,317 1,726,317

Year 4 PI Requested -10%/yr based on original

rate of decline Recommendation Timperman 300,000 279,000 275,900 300,000 Niles 404,200 359,370 347,391 360,000 Norton 320,000 295,200 321,440 320,000 Rood 500,000 405,000 391,500 250,000 Harris 300,000 360,000 300,000 300,000 Gupta 289,017 260,115 193,641 260,115 TOTAL 2,113,217 1,958,685 1,829,872 1,790,115

Yr 5 PI Requested -10%/yr based on original

rate of decline Recommendation Timperman 290,000 251,100 240,033 290,000 Niles 289,200 323,433 298,756 289,200 Norton 320,000 265,680 311,799 315,000 Rood 500,000 364,500 336,690 225,000 Harris 250,000 324,000 201,000 250,000 Gupta 289,017 234,104 98,820 234,104 TOTAL 1,938,217 1,762,817 1,487,098 1,603,304

36

Preliminary Research Fund Allocation Plan REVENUE Federal Research Infrastructure Improvement Grant 3,000,000 State Research Challenge Funding (approximate) 4,100,000 Office of the Secretary of Education and the Arts 300,000 Governor's Office of Technology 150,000 * Total 7,550,000 EXPENDITURES Research Infrastructure Improvement Activities 2,710,000 F Research Challenge Grants (approximate) 1,800,000 S State Match for RII grant 1,500,000 S Graduate Student Fellowships 500,000 S Instrumentation Grants 250,000 S Education/Outreach Projects 250,000 F Undergraduate Research Grants 200,000 S Governor's School for Math and Science 150,000 S Mini-Grant Program 40,000 *F Total 7,400,000

37

PART II

Research Challenge Fund Student Programs

Pursuant to WVC 18B-1B-10, the Research Challenge Fund (RCF) was created by the WV Legislature to fund research and development at institutions of higher education and to increase competitiveness for external funding. The statute specifically identifies research experiences for students. The two programs below have been developed to address this statutory requirement.

1. SURE Undergraduate Research Program. Summer/Semester Undergraduate Research Experiences.

Providing substantive research experiences in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields to undergraduate students is a crucial step in preparing the next generation of STEM researchers and faculty. Under-graduates attending West Virginia colleges and universities have limited opportunities to engage in STEM research, and this lack of opportunity results in fewer students pursuing graduate study and careers in STEM fields. To address this lack of opportunity, the Research Challenge Fund under the direction of WV EPSCoR will provide funding to help colleges and universities in West Virginia provide research experiences to undergraduates in STEM fields. Block grants will be awarded to selected institutions for the purpose of providing small scholarships to undergraduate students. SURE will require a strategic plan for student sponsorship. The institutional plan should be the centerpiece of an application to provide a block grant to that institution. Program budget: $200k for up to six awards.

2. STEM Fellowships. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Fellows.

Highly qualified and committed graduate and post-graduate students are essential to a university’s research capacity. West Virginia ranks among the lowest states in the nation in number of graduate students enrolled in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, number of doctorates awarded in STEM fields, and number of the post-doctoral fellows appointed in STEM fields. To address these challenges in graduate education, the Research Challenge Fund under the direction of WVEPSCoR will provide funding to help West Virginia University and Marshall University recruit and support outstanding graduate students in STEM fields. This program will also require a strategic plan from the institution describing how the fellowships will be placed, awarded and managed. Block grants will be made to the institution based on the strategic plan. Program budget: $500k for two awards.

38

Graduate Student Fellowships in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM Fellows)

Proposal Due Date: October 8, 2004 Summary of Program Requirements

• Program Title: Graduate Student Fellowships in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM fellows)

• Program Officer: Jan R. Taylor, Ph.D., Deputy Director/Senior Research Fellow, [email protected], 304-558-4128

Eligibility Limits

• Organization: Statutory limitations provide this opportunity to West Virginia University and Marshall University only. • PI Eligibility: Provost. If another individual or agent is making the application, signature of the Provost will be

required to signify official approval of the plan. • Limit on Number of Proposals: One from each institution

Award Information

• Anticipated type of award: Standard or continuing grant, up to four years dependent on funding availability • Estimated Number of Awards: 2 • Anticipated funding amount: a total of $500,000 in FY 2005

Program Description

WVEPSCoR’s mission is to increase West Virginia’s competitive research infrastructure through investments in ideas, tools, and people within the state’s institutions of higher education. Awards for “tools” help to purchase scientific instruments, equipment and laboratory enhancements while “ideas” are funded through traditional seed grants to initiate new research. “People” are sponsored faculty, technicians, and students at all levels. Pursuant to WVC 18B-1B-10, the Research Challenge Fund (RCF) was created by the WV Legislature to fund research and development at institutions of higher education and to increase competitiveness for external funding. Therefore, RCF provides common goals with the National Science Foundation (NSF) and WVEPSCoR for investments in tools, people, and ideas. With RCF resources, this Program creates a new undergraduate student sponsorship program to address those unified goals. Highly qualified and committed graduate and post-graduate students are essential to a university’s research capacity. West Virginia ranks among the lowest states in the nation in the number of graduate students enrolled in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, the number of doctorates awarded in STEM fields, and the

2004 Program Announcement and Request for Proposals STEM-F.2004.WV.02

39

number of post-doctoral fellows appointed in STEM fields. To address these challenges in graduate education, the Research Challenge Program under the direction of WVEPSCoR has reserved $500,000 in FY 2005 to help West Virginia University and Marshall University recruit and support outstanding graduate students in STEM fields. Each university is asked to submit a detailed strategic plan, endorsed by its provost, for graduate STEM education that includes at least the following elements: STEM graduate programs and student demographics

• A description of currently sponsored STEM graduate programs • Identification of key strategic areas/disciplines where an investment in graduate education is most critical to

building the university’s research capacity and an explanation of how such an investment will build this capacity • A description of the Research Experiences available or proposed for students in each discipline or investment

area • The current number of graduate students (master’s, doctorate, and post-doctorate) studying in those identified

areas/disciplines, demographics of those students, and their current means of support • The projected number of graduate students (master’s, doctorate, and post-doctorate) who will receive support

through the Research Challenge funding STEM implementation plan

• A plan for an initial start-up period followed by an ongoing, planned program (annual awards are renewable) • The manner in which Research Challenge funding will be used to support graduate students (e.g., tuition waivers,

living stipends, book stipends) and if/how Research Challenge funding will augment other funding sources • A long-term plan for identifying and recruiting outstanding graduate students in key strategic areas/disciplines • A long-term plan for increasing diversity of graduate students in STEM fields • A plan for an initial start-up period followed by an ongoing, planned program

STEM goals and management • Linkages to undergraduate research programs (e.g., SURE, BRIN, REU, etc. ) • Linkages to Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUI’s) in recruiting outstanding undergraduate students to

graduate STEM careers • The total amount of funding requested • Identification of travel or recruiting expenses anticipated in the initial stage. • Describe methods for communicating, coordinating and managing activities including identification of the

leadership team and chain of command. • Describe the evaluation process that will be used to monitor progress under the project and discuss the personnel

involved.

Given EPSCoR’s emphasis on infrastructure growth in promising cluster areas, university strategic plans should pay special attention to existing research growth strategies. Application Applications for Fellowship Block Grants must be submitted by the specified due date and should include a detailed budget inclusive of the funds, numbers of students and specific expenditures in each discipline or research area. Strategic research areas should be considered a first priority. The application should be mailed electronically in either Word or PDF format to [email protected] and must include the following: Cover Sheet: A cover sheet with endorsement signatures and contact information is to be included. NOTE: If awarded, the coversheet with original signatures must be mailed to the WVEPSCoR office. A copy of the cover sheet is appended to this document or click here for the cover sheet (Word) (PDF). Project Summary: Provide a one-page summary that includes a heading and the project abstract. The heading should include the title of the proposed endeavor and the names of the submitting institution and Principal Investigator. The abstract should briefly describe the project goals, content, and expected outcomes. Project Description: Refer to the Program Description section of this solicitation, which clearly outlines the requirements for the project description section of the proposal. Limited to 15 pages with 2.5-cm margins on all sides, the project description narrative should be single-spaced and use a legible 10-point Arial or 12-point proportional font (such as Times New Roman). Biographical Sketches: Include a biographical sketch for each key personnel member. Limited to 2 pages, each sketch should be sufficiently detailed to show that the necessary expertise is available to conduct the project. Biosketches should be submitted for all research mentors as well as project leaders. Biosketches should include academic credentials,

40

external funding received in the last 5 years, refereed publications in the last 5 years, and the students for whom the mentor or leader served as a thesis advisor or other research sponsor. Budget: Provide a budget request for each year and a cumulative budget. A budget justification, not to exceed three pages, and addressing each budgetary line-item, must be prepared. Click here for budget sheet (MS Excel). Budgetary Information Cost Sharing: No matching is required. However, the EPSCoR Council will consider the positive impact of leveraging internal and external support in the overall consideration of each proposal. Indirect Cost Limitations: Overhead costs are not allowed. Other Budgetary Limitations: Research supplies and equipment costs are not allowed. A reasonable travel and recruiting expense will be considered. Other recruiting expenses may include brochures, phone expense, website development and other expenses as long as they may be directly assigned to recruiting. Budget Preparation and Submission: Use the form provided (Excel spreadsheet) that can be downloaded by clicking here. Submission of the budget, as well as the body of the proposal, shall be by electronic mail. Due Date Full proposals must be received by 5:00pm, Friday, October 8, 2004. Review and Award Procedures The EPSCoR State Advisory Council will review the applications and plans submitted by the institutions, provide feedback on their contents, and recommend the amount of the STEM Fellows grant to be awarded to each university. Two awards are anticipated from the existing funds. Upon approval by the EPSCoR Executive Director, these awards will be approved and processed by the Higher Education Policy Commission. Initial awards are anticipated in January 2005. If successful progress is demonstrated, renewal awards will be made in line with the overall strategy. Award Administration Information Notification: Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by the WVEPSCoR office. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible. Copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator.

Award Conditions: A RCF award consists of: (1) the award letter, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which WVEPSCoR has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award letter; and (4) the applicable award conditions generally pursuant to WV regulations. Awardees may adjust budget line items by no more than 10% without receiving prior written approval from the WVEPSCoR office.

Reporting Requirements Reports must be filed on an annual basis with the Program Officer. Data must be provided in the report that includes standard demographics of the student population served and the success of students pursuing advanced degrees or programs (Masters to Doctoral status). Evidence of student engagement including publications, participation in other competitions, academic achievement, and research accomplishments should be included. The report will be filed electronically by accessing the Research Project Reporting System at http://www.wvepscor.org/Secure/login.asp. Financial reporting and invoicing should be done no more frequently than monthly and at least quarterly and shall be on a reimbursement basis. Invoices should reflect expenses by budget item and should include a brief description of program activities during the invoice period. Annual reports should also propose renewal awards. Renewal awards may be requested using forms available on the WVEPSCoR website. Annual reports are due on October 15, 2005 and each year thereafter. Contact Information If unable to submit proposal electronically or for all other questions, please use the contact information provided below. Questions should be directed to Dr. Jan R. Taylor, Deputy Director/Senior Research Fellow. West Virginia EPSCoR Attn: SURE.2004.WV.01 1018 Kanawha Boulevard East, Suite 1101 Charleston, West Virginia 25301 [email protected] • (304) 558-4128 voice • (304) 558-2321 fax

41

Research Challenge Fund Grant Program

Cover Sheet

Program Name

Program Number

Institution

Applicant Name

Position/Department

Address

Phone Number

FAX Number

Email Address

Signature of Applicant ___________________________________________________________ Date Signed ___________________________________________________________________ Signature of Senior Academic Official (see RFP) _____________________________________ Title ______________________________ Date Signed _______________________________ Signature of Senior Academic Official (see RFP) _____________________________________ Title ______________________________ Date Signed _______________________________

42

2004 Program Announcement and Request for Proposals SURE.2004.WV.01

Semester/Summer Undergraduate Research Experience (SURE)

Proposal Due Date: October 8, 2004 Summary of Program Requirements

• Program Title: Semester/Summer Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE) • Program Officer: Jan R. Taylor, Ph.D., Deputy Director/Senior Research Fellow,

[email protected], 304-558-4128 Eligibility Limits

• Organization: All regionally accredited public and private baccalaureate colleges and universities in WV • PI Eligibility: President, Provost or other senior academic official. If another individual or agent is making the application,

signature of the Provost will be required to signify official approval of the plan. • Limit on Number of Proposals: One from any eligible institution

Award Information

• Anticipated type of award: Standard or continuing grant, up to three years dependent on funding availability • Estimated Number of Awards: up to 6 • Anticipated funding amount: a total of $200,000 in FY 2005 • Limit on funding per institution: floor - $10,000 per year

ceiling - $75,000 per year Program Description

WVEPSCoR’s mission is to increase West Virginia’s competitive research infrastructure through investments in ideas, tools, and people within the state’s institutions of higher education. Awards for “tools” help to purchase scientific instruments, equipment and laboratory enhancements while “ideas” are funded through traditional seed grants to initiate new research. “People” are sponsored faculty, technicians, and students at all levels. Pursuant to WVC 18B-1B-10, the Research Challenge Fund (RCF) was created by the WV Legislature to fund research and development at institutions of higher education and to increase competitiveness for external funding. Therefore, RCF provides common goals with the National Science Foundation (NSF) and WVEPSCoR for investments in equipment, people, and ideas. With RCF resources, this Program creates a new undergraduate student sponsorship program to address those unified goals. Providing substantive research experiences in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields to undergraduate students is a crucial step in preparing the next generation of STEM researchers and faculty. Undergraduates attending West Virginia colleges and universities have limited opportunities to engage in STEM research, and this lack of opportunity results in fewer students pursuing graduate study and careers in STEM fields. To address this lack of opportunity, the Research Challenge Fund has reserved $200,000 in FY 2005 to help colleges and universities in West Virginia provide research experiences to undergraduates in STEM fields. Undergraduates should be substantially involved in on-going research programs at the home institution, other institutions of higher education, or private and federal research organizations. Block grants will be awarded to selected institutions for the purpose of providing ($500-$2000) stipends to undergraduate students. These institutions will be responsible for administering the grants to individual undergraduate students. All regionally accredited public and private baccalaureate colleges and universities in West Virginia are eligible to apply for SURE grants.

43

A strategic plan for SURE on the institution’s campus will provide the WVEPSCoR Council with insights on potentially successful programs. The institutional plan should be the centerpiece of an application to provide a block grant to that institution. Applicants may propose a single-year project or a continuing program for up to three years. Each interested institution must submit an application, endorsed by its Provost, President, or senior academic official, which addresses the following questions: Current student STEM demographics

• What current undergraduate STEM programs for undergraduates are sponsored by your institution? • In what STEM fields are the students majoring? • How many undergraduates will participate in the (new) SURE program?

SURE Implementation Plan • With what specific research projects will the students be working? • What are the duties/tasks students will be performing? • Which faculty will serve as research mentors? • What are the qualifications of the mentor faculty? • What is the duration of the SURE program (summer, single semester, full year)? • What opportunities will the students have to present the results of their research work (e.g., campus events, professional

conferences, appropriate journals, undergraduate research competitions)? • How will the institution create an on-campus network of SURE participants (e.g., weekly brown-bag lunches, monthly cross-

project meetings, mentoring sessions)? Meeting SURE program goals

• If the applicant is a baccalaureate four-year institution, how will it make SURE participants are aware of STEM graduate opportunities in West Virginia (eg. STEM Fellowships)? How will the institution encourage SURE participants to pursue graduate study in STEM fields?

• Are there direct linkages to strategic graduate programs at WVU or MU? • What efforts will the institution make to increase the number of undergraduates who apply for and receive nationally

competitive scholarships and fellowships in STEM fields (e.g., Goldwater, Howard Hughes, National Science Foundation, Udall)?

• How will the institution increase the diversity of undergraduate students in STEM fields? Management of SURE

• How will SURE be initiated and how will the plan differ in future years? • How is the institution equipped to ensure a successful, meaningful SURE program? • How much total funding is requested? Will the SURE grant be augmented with institutional or other external funds? If so,

how? • Describe methods for communicating, coordinating and managing activities including identification of the

leadership team and chain of command. • Describe the evaluation process that will be used to monitor progress under the project and discuss the personnel

involved Given EPSCoR’s emphasis on infrastructure growth in promising cluster areas, strategic plans should pay special attention to existing research growth strategies in the state research infrastructure improvement program. Proposals that link with the thematic research areas at state research universities are encouraged

Application Applications for SURE Block Grants must be submitted by the specified due date and should include a detailed budget for each year (and a cumulative budget) inclusive of the funds, numbers of students and specific expenditures in each discipline or research area. The application should be mailed electronically in either Word or PDF format to [email protected] and must include the following: Cover Sheet: A cover sheet with endorsement signatures and contact information is to be included. NOTE: If awarded, the coversheet with original signatures must be mailed to the WVEPSCoR office. A copy of the cover sheet is appended to this document or click here for the cover sheet (Word) (PDF). Project Summary: Provide a one-page summary that includes a heading and the project abstract. The heading should include the title of the proposed endeavor and the names of the submitting institution and Principal Investigator. The abstract should briefly describe the project goals, content, and expected outcomes. Project Description: Refer to the Program Description section of this solicitation, which clearly outlines the requirements for the project description section of the proposal. Limited to 15 pages with 2.5-cm margins on all sides, the project description narrative should be single-spaced and use a legible 10-point Arial or 12-point proportional font (such as Times New Roman). Biographical Sketches: Include a biographical sketch for each key personnel member of no more than 2 pages. Each sketch should be sufficiently detailed to show that necessary expertise is available to conduct the project. Biosketches should be submitted for all research mentors as well as project leaders. Biosketches should include academic credentials, external funding received in the last 5 years, refereed publications in the last 5 years, and the students for whom the mentor or leader served as a thesis advisor or other research sponsor. Budget: Provide a budget request for each year and a cumulative budget for multiple year projects. Prepare a budget justification (limited to three pages) that clearly explains how each line-item was determined. Student research stipends may be used for supplies and other materials, and travel to scientific meetings. Institutional funds may be requested to sponsor networking opportunities for

44

participants, travel to scientific meetings with students, and limited program coordination and administration. Click here for budget sheet (MS Excel). Budgetary Information Cost Sharing: No matching is required. However, the EPSCoR Council will consider the positive impact of leveraging internal and external support in the overall consideration of each proposal. Indirect Cost Limitations: Overhead costs are not allowed. Other Budgetary Limitations: Supplies and equipment costs are not allowed except that the student may elect to purchase supplies with his or her stipend. A reasonable travel budget for student and mentor participation in research-related events may be considered. Budget Preparation and Submission: Use the form provided (Excel spreadsheet) that can be downloaded by clicking here. Submission of the budget, as well as the body of the proposal shall be by electronic mail. Due Date Full proposals must be received by 5:00pm, Friday, October 8, 2004. Review and Award Procedures The EPSCoR State Advisory Council will review the applications and plans submitted by the institutions, provide feedback on their contents, and recommend the amount of the SURE block grant to be awarded to each applicant. Upon approval by the WVEPSCoR Executive Director, these awards will be approved and processed by the Higher Education Policy Commission. The time from submission to award is generally less than 3 months. Award Administration Information Notification: Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by the WVEPSCoR office. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible. Copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator.

Award Conditions: A RCF award consists of: (1) the award letter, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which WVEPSCoR has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award letter; and (4) the applicable award conditions generally pursuant to WV regulations. Awardees may adjust budget line items by no more than 10% without receiving prior written approval from the WVEPSCoR office.

Reporting Requirements Reports must be filed on an annual basis with the WVEPSCoR Executive Director. Data must be provided in the report that includes standard demographics of the student population served and the success of students pursuing STEM degrees and graduate programs. Evidence of student engagement including publications, participation in other competitions, academic achievement, and research accomplishments should be included. Financial reporting and invoicing should be done no more frequently than monthly and at least quarterly and shall be on a reimbursement basis. Invoices should reflect expenses by budget item and should include a brief description of program activities during the invoice period. Annual reports should also propose renewal awards for multi-year projects. Renewal awards may be requested using forms available on the WVEPSCoR website. Annual reports are due on October 15, 2005 and each year thereafter. Contact Information If unable to submit proposal electronically or for all other questions, please use the contact information provided below. Questions should be directed to Dr. Jan R. Taylor, Deputy Director/Senior Research Fellow. West Virginia EPSCoR Attn: SURE.2004.WV.01 1018 Kanawha Boulevard East, Suite 1101 Charleston, West Virginia 25301 [email protected] • (304) 558-4128 voice • (304) 558-2321 fax

45

Research Challenge Fund

Grant Program

Cover Sheet

Program Name

Program Number

Institution

Applicant Name

Position/Department

Address

Phone Number

FAX Number

Email Address

Signature of Applicant ___________________________________________________________ Date Signed ___________________________________________________________________ Signature of Senior Academic Official (see RFP) _____________________________________ Title ______________________________ Date Signed _______________________________ Signature of Senior Academic Official (see RFP) _____________________________________ Title ______________________________ Date Signed _______________________________

46

Senate Bill 197 CHAPTER 18B. HIGHER EDUCATION.

ARTICLE 1B. HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY COMMISSION. §18B-1B-10. Research challenge.

(a) There is established in the state treasury a special revenue fund known as the "research challenge fund". Moneys deposited in this fund shall be administered by the higher education policy commission.

The moneys deposited in this fund shall be used to fund coal research and development projects at institutions of higher education located in this state. Research includes, but is not limited to, carbon sequestration and carbon technology research and development projects. The moneys deposited in this fund shall also be used to fund other research and development projects at institutions of higher education in this state.

(b) The policy commission shall use the recommendations of the EPSCoR state advisory council in its allocation of appropriations made to the research challenge fund and in its development of procedures for competitive application and review of proposals for funding. The research challenge is a critical component in the state's strategic plan for economic development and the contribution of higher education in the economic health of the state and the EPSCoR state advisory council is well qualified, by virtue of its research-oriented mission and membership, to advise the policy commission in the allocation of research challenge funding.

The objectives of the research challenge are to: (1) Increase the research capacity of institutions of higher education and the competitiveness of these

institutions to apply for external funding; (2) Stimulate the development of research and research products that are directly applicable in improving

the economic competitiveness of existing West Virginia industries and the development of new business and jobs in the state;

(3) Leverage limited state resources with private and federal funds to support projects and activities directly related to economic development by requiring matching funds and cooperative agreements with external partners;

(4) Increase the production of undergraduate and graduate students of programs in the sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics, with special attention to emerging disciplines such as biometrics; and

(5) Hold institutions more accountable for the success of research projects funded under this program with the expectation that state support will be phased out and the project or activity will be terminated if it is unable to generate ongoing external support.

(c) The priorities for the research challenge shall be: (1) Research on energy generation, distribution and utilization that builds on the state's existing energy

research strengths, related research products and technology transfer programs; (2) Research, education and outreach conducted by the EPSCoR program. This federal program is

recognized by the national science foundation as the state's primary entity for developing the research capacity that is so important to the state's economic and educational development;

(3) Research projects that are related to the economic development of the state and that have significant potential to attract participation and funding from industrial, federal or foundation partners;

(4) Collaborative projects between higher education and public education to improve science and mathematics education; (5) Graduate education in science (including medical education), technology, engineering and mathematics. The allocation shall be used for the increase in doctoral students and programs at West Virginia university and Marshall university in these fields; and (6) Recruitment of eminent scholars to strengthen research capacity and competitiveness for external funding.

(d) The policy commission shall report to the legislative oversight committee on educational accountability annually on the results of the projects and activities funded by the research challenge appropriation.

(e) The priorities established in subsection (c) of this section shall be reviewed biannually by the policy commission and the EPSCoR state advisory council beginning in two thousand six. The policy commission shall include any recommended adjustments in its budget request for the two thousand seven budget.

47

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Approval of Social Justice Grants INSTITUTIONS: All COMMITTEE: Academic Policy Committee RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: For Information Only STAFF MEMBER: Daniel Crockett BACKGROUND: At the time of publication of this agenda book, this agenda item was incomplete. A final agenda item will be provided to all Commissioners by Friday, August 13, 2004, or the item will not be considered by the Commission at its meeting on August 20, 2004.

48

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Report on Institutional Program Review 2003-

2004 INSTITUTIONS: All COMMITTEE: Academic Policy Committee RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Resolved, That the West Virginia Higher

Education Policy Commission receives the report on the summary of academic program review actions taken by the West Virginia public colleges and universities for 2003-2004.

STAFF MEMBER: Bruce Flack BACKGROUND: In accordance with West Virginia Code (SB 653) and Higher Education Policy Commission Series 10, Policy Regarding Program Review, the institutions through their respective governing boards conducted academic program reviews for 2003-2004 and submitted reports which indicate actions taken. A summary of institutional actions follows. The report is presented as information to the HEPC. SB 653, on its passage in 2000, reordered the process for academic program review. Responsibility for the ongoing review of degree programs through the established five-year cycles was given to the individual institutional governing boards. The HEPC was given general authority for academic program review, particularly for special reviews or other purposes the Commission deemed appropriate. In 2004-2005, the institutions will be supplementing the regular program review process with reports on programs targeted for discontinuance under the special review of low productivity academic degree programs begun two years ago. The 2002 review, which was initiated by the HEPC, recommended that a number of low-productivity programs be discontinued effective fall 2005 unless a) the number of graduates for the past three years (2003, 2004 and 2005) exceeded established thresholds or b) the institutional governing board affirmed its intent to continue the program(s).

49

SUMMARY OF INSTITUTIONAL ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEWS 2003-2004

Policy Implementation Higher Education Policy Commission Series 10, Policy Regarding Program Review, delineates the responsibilities of the institutional governing boards and the Commission in the review of existing academic degree programs. Each institutional governing board has the responsibility to review at least every five years all programs offered at the institutions of higher education under its jurisdiction. The results of these reviews are to be reported to the Chancellor each year. The Commission, through its staff or other appropriate entities, following review of these actions annually may modify any institutional action consistent with its authority for review of academic programs. Each of the institutional Boards of Governors has developed a policy and/or procedures for conducting the reviews. The review procedures followed at each of the institutions are essentially the same as those formerly used by the State College and University Systems. The process on the campus begins with preparation of departmental self-studies for programs under review. The self-studies are then evaluated by an institutional program review committee which recommends appropriate actions to either the president or institutional governing board. In some cases, the institution has utilized external reviewers. Institutional Actions 2003-2004 The HEPC staff has reviewed the reports of institutional program review actions for 2003-2004 and recommends receipt of the reports as submitted. The institutional actions in the review of academic degree programs were in one of the following categories:

• Designation as a program of excellence

• Continuation of the program at the current level of activity

• Continuation of the program with corrective action or follow-up

• Identification of the program for further development

A summary of the institutional actions for 2003-04 is as follows:

Marshall University

Programs of Excellence BS - Integrated Science and Technology BS - Park Resources and Leisure Services

BSW - Social Work MS - Exercise Science MS - Forensic Science

50

Continued at the current level of activity AS - Medical Laboratory Technology BS - Cytotechnology BA - Sociology BA - Humanities MA - Humanities MS - Technology Management MA - Sociology Identified for further development BA - Criminal Justice BFA - Fine Arts BS - Medical Technology BS - Integrated Science and Technology MA - Art MA – Music MS – Criminal Justice Institutional Comment: These programs have demonstrated significant growth in student enrolment or the potential for such growth and are being singled out for additional development. Each of the programs has been recommended to receive additional faculty positions.

West Virginia University

Designation as a Program of Excellence BM – Music MFA – Visual Art MPH – Public Health MPA – Public Administration Continued at the current level of activity BA – Regents Bachelor of Arts BA – Interdepartmental Studies BA – Visual and Performing Arts BFA – Theatre BFA – Visual Art BS – Exercise Physiology BSFI – Forensic Identification BSPEd – Physical Education/Sport Studies BSW – Social Work MALS – Liberal Studies MM – Music MA – Art MS – Recreation, Parks and Tourism Management MS – Biology MS – Community Health Promotion MS – Exercise Physiology MD/EdP – Physical Education MFA – Theatre

MOT – Occupational Therapy

51

MPT – Physical Therapy MSW – Social Work PhD – Biology PhD – Applied Exercise Science DMA/PhD – Music Continued at the current level of activity, with corrective action or follow-up BS – Medical Technology Comments: A one-year follow-up report is requested in the appropriate format. BSR – Recreation, Parks and Tourism Comments: A one-year follow-up report is requested that addresses a plan for students learning outcomes assessment and strategies to increase enrolment.

Bluefield State College Continued at the current level of activity AA – Humanities BS – Business Administration BS – Accountancy BS – Architectural Engineering Technology BS – Civil Engineering Technology BS – Electrical Engineering Technology BS – Mining Engineering Technology BS – Computer Science BS – Criminal Justice BA – Regents Bachelor of Arts AS – Radiologic Technology AS – Architectural Engineering Technology AS – Civil Engineering Technology AS – Electrical Engineering Technology AS – Mechanical Engineering Technology

Concord University Designated as a Program of Excellence BA - Geography Continued at the current level of activity BA – Political Science Identified for further development BA – History BA – Psychology.

BA – Sociology

52

Comments: For each of these programs, the number of majors or graduates has grown over the past five years and further growth is possible. When additional resources are available, the programs will be considered for additional faculty positions.

Fairmont State University Continued at the current level of activity BS – Mathematics BS – Business Administration Continued at the current level of activity, with corrective action or follow-up BS – Political Science BS – Sociology BS/BA – History

Institutional Comments: For each of these programs a one-year follow-up is required after the development and implementation of a comprehensive assessment program to ensure student learning.

Glenville State College Note: At the time the agenda was being prepared, the institutional recommendations for the programs under review had not been approved by the Board of Governors. It is anticipated that the Board will take action prior to the Commission meeting. Continued at the current level of activity AA – General Studies AA – Criminal Justice BA - History BS – Behavioral Science BS/BA – Interdisciplinary Studies BA – Regents of Bachelor Arts Continued at the current level of activity, with corrective action or follow-up BA – Business Administration

Institutional Comments: Faculty credentials within program areas of emphases need improved and recruitment initiatives need to be developed within specific strands to maintain viability.

Shepherd University Continued at the current level of activity BS – Political Science BSA – Nursing BS – Family and Consumer Sciences BS – Social Work

53

West Liberty State College Continued at the current level of activity

BA/BS – Interdisciplinary Studies BS – Clinical Laboratory Science BS – Criminal Justice BA – Regents Bachelor of Art

Continued at the current level of activity, with corrective action or follow-up BS – Exercise Physiology

Institutional Comments: A one-year follow up report is requested describing enhanced assessment activities.

West Virginia University Institute of Technology Designation as a Program of Excellence BS – Printing Management Continued at the current level of activity BS – Public Services Administration BS - Biology Continued at the current level of activity, with corrective action or follow-up BA/BS – Interdisciplinary Studies

Institutional Comments: A one-year follow-up report is requested in the appropriate format that focuses on the need for the program and the utilization of assessment information in making improvements.

BS – Health Services Administration

Institutional Comments: A one-year follow-up report is requested that focuses on the need for the program and the use of assessment in making program improvements.

West Virginia State University Continued at the current level of activity BA – Art BS – Criminal Justice BS – Health Sciences BS – Recreation Services Note: The above four programs were requested to submit progress reports on assessment in 2005-2006. BA – Regents Bachelor of Arts BSW – Social Work

54

Potomac State College Continued at the current level of activity AAS – Criminal Justice Continued at the current level of activity, with corrective action or follow-up AA – Criminal Justice

Institutional Comments: A one-year follow-up report is requested that addresses a) assessment, b) a recruitment plan to increase enrollment and the number of graduates, and c) the development of a seamless transfer plan to WVU’s program in criminology. CP – Criminal Justice

Institutional Comments: A one-year follow-up report on assessment is requested.

55

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Update on Collegiate Learning Assessment

Project INSTITUTIONS: Bluefield State College, Concord University,

Marshall University, Shepherd University, and West Liberty State College

COMMITTEE: Academic Policy Committee RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Information item only STAFF MEMBER: Bruce Flack BACKGROUND: At the April meeting of the Policy Commission, the possibility of implementing the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) program at West Virginia public colleges and universities was presented. Since that time, five of the state colleges and universities have agreed to take part in a pilot project which provides for participation in the CLA for 2004-2005. A summary of major features of the CLA and West Virginia participation in the pilot project follows.

56

Status Report on Implementation of a Pilot Program of the

COLLEGIATE LEARNING ASSESSMENT a project of the Council for Aid to Education

Participating Institutions

Bluefield State College

Concord University

Marshall University

Shepherd University

West Liberty State College What is the CLA?

Assessment that measures improvements in student learning

Assessment focuses on students’ actual demonstrated ability

Assessment consists of two instruments

# Students complete a “real life” task by reviewing and evaluating a series of documents (measure of critical thinking and analytic reasoning)

# Analytical writing measures: evaluate ability to articulate complex ideas

and use of standard written English

Assessment is completed on computer in two 75 minute blocks and can be course-embedded

Institution Focused

CLA focuses on how the institution as a whole contributes to student development

Not a high-stakes test for individual students

Value Added

Emphasis is on value added provided by colleges and universities

57

Assessment administered to:

# Entering freshmen

# Rising juniors

# Graduating seniors

Provides comparison of what students know when they start college with what they know when they finish

Utilization

Approach allows for inter-institutional comparisons

Measures value added over four years CLA Administration of the Pilot Program

For 2004-2005, administration would be to a group of 100 entering freshmen in the fall and to 100 graduating seniors in spring 2005 at each participating institution

Administration would be to the five four-year colleges and universities

which have agreed to participate

Council for Aid to Education works directly with institutional personnel on administration of the assessment

Funds for the pilot program have been committed by the HEPC.

Participation fees will be $35,000

WEST VIRGINIA HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY COMMISSION FINANCE COMMITTEE

AUGUST 20, 2004

9:00 A.M.

AGENDA A. Ten-Year Master Plan for Housing at West Virginia University ................................ pg 58 B. Pierpont Lease Extension ........................................................................................pg 80 C. Life Safety Improvements to the Coliseum at WVU ................................................. pg 81 D. WVNET HERF Funding ........................................................................................... pg 84

58

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Ten-Year Master Plan for Housing INSTITUTION: West Virginia University COMMITTEE: Finance Committee RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Resolved, That the West Virginia Higher

Education Policy Commission approves the Ten- Year Housing Master Plan for West Virginia University and incorporates it as a component of the overall WVU Campus Development Plan.

STAFF MEMBER: Richard Donovan BACKGROUND: West Virginia University has been working to develop a new long range plan for student housing at WVU to address growing enrollments, aging facilities, and changing housing requirements. The result of this multi-year effort is a new ten-year housing master plan approved by the West Virginia University Board of Governors on June 11, 2004. The West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission is now asked to review this plan and approve its addition as a component of the overall WVU Campus Development Plan.

59

West Virginia Higher Education Policy CommissionAugust 20, 2004

West Virginia University

Master Plan Update -

Student Housing

Master Plan (Main Campus)

60

2

10 – Year Master Plan For Student Housing

Contents

– Housing Facilities – Master Plan Summary– Planning Process– Housing Policy, Strategy and Principles– Housing Inventory– Housing Demand– Housing Master Plan

• Current Housing Capacity• Housing Facilities – Master Plan• Proposed Housing Plan Capacity

61

3

Estimated Costs – 10 Year Plan - $70M•Revenue Bonds $55M•Operating Revenues $15M

Renovate and Upgrade - (Towers Complexes)2007 – 2010Eliminate Short-term Leased Facility2007

Construct New Facilities:•400 beds – Evansdale Campus – (Adjacent to Towers Complex)•400 beds – Downtown Campus – (Adjacent to Summit Hall)

2006 – 2007

Demolish Facilities (Out Dated – Beyond Useful Life) – (College Park Apartments)

2005

Implement the Deferred Maintenance Plan – (All Facilities)2005

Convert a Short-term facility Lease into a Long-term Lease and Increase the Number of Beds – (Pierpont Apartments)

2005Acquire Current Leased Facility – (Summit Hall)2004

StrategyTimeline

Housing Facilities – Master Plan Summary

62

4

Housing Master Plan Process

Two Year Planning Effort

Objectives:•Deferred Maintenance•Opportunities to “Refresh” Student Space•Student Demand and Expectations•Enrollment Growth•Target – 23% of Full-Time Students

Participants – Students, Faculty, Management Team, and Consultants

Plan adopted by WVU Board of Governors at its June 11, 2004 Meeting

63

5

Student housing policyProvides campus housing for:• Freshman Class – (Campus housing is 82% first-time freshmen)

• A modest number of returning students• Limited upperclass/grad student housing, especially for

international students

And, allows for• The private sector to handle additional increases in demand

from upperclass (driven by enrollment growth and increased retention goals)

64

6

Housing Strategy and Principles

• The first-year experience is a critical determinant in retention, and we remain committed to the benefit of on-campus housing and concomitant programming for freshmen students.

• Resident Faculty Leaders are important assets for each residence hall.

• There are benefits to upperclassmen and/or graduate students integrating in with the first-year students.

• Our plans should not unduly infringe on the private sector.

• We need to do all we can to ensure safe and quality housing is provided for all of our students.

• All plans must be financially sound.

65

7

Current Housing Inventory

4795Total12Quad162Triple

2165Double24Quad Suite138Triple Suite

1658Double Suite354Single Suite282Single

Number of Usable BedsType

66

8$24,895,975 $3,219,053 $13,159,000 $4,315,300 $4,202,622 Totals

$991,400$371,000$340,000$150,000$130,400College Park

$951,900$73,000$469,000$239,900$170,000Faculty A & B

$5,569,493$1,466,993$2,630,000$473,400$999,100J & K Building

$1,554,140$60,890$1,418,250$0$75,000Lyon

$2,477,904$47,390$1,418,250$1,000,000$12,264Braxton

$1,540,640$47,390$1,418,250$0$75,000Bennett

$1,904,640$467,390$1,406,250$0$31,000

Towers

Brooke

$230,000$30,000$200,000$0$0Stalnaker

$2,805,196$73,600$1,075,000$505,000$1,151,596Dadisman

$3,621,380$8,400$2,510,000$362,000$740,980Boreman South

$1,287,286$140,000$178,000$535,000$434,286Boreman North

$1,391,996$433,000$50,000$550,000$358,996Arnold Hall

$570,000$0$46,000$500,000$24,000Arnold Apartments

Project CostEnhancementPreventative MaintenanceEnergySafety Related

Housing InventoryAge and Conditions 10 Year Maintenance Plan

67

9

HOUSING DEMANDOccupancy 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

130% 134%125% 126%120%

115%

110% 110%105% 109%100% 104%95% 98% 99%90%85%

80%

Percentage at the beginning of Fall Semester

University-Owned Housing Occupied by Year

68

10

STUDENT DEMAND

• Hired consultant, Anderson-Strickler, L.L.C., to conduct an extensive market survey.

Findings

• Off-campus housing market tight – occupancy 92% - 100%• Off-campus and on-campus have similar costs• On-campus housing of first-time freshmen is high priority• Students like living on-campus

– Social aspect – positive sense of community– Convenience – proximity to facilities and services

• Students like living off-campus– Relative lack of rules and regulations– More space and privacy

69

11

STUDENT DEMANDAdditional Findings

• Negative factors in regard to existing facilities– Community bathroom– Lack of Air conditioning– Lack of privacy

• Potential demand– 1,500 beds – on-campus (above existing capacity including leasing)– Popular units

• Four single bedroom – kitchenette• Four single bedroom apartments

• Student Demand – New Private Development– New development– Loop– Sunnyside– Sterling Ridge– Route 705

70

12

STUDENT DEMANDNATIONAL DATA

During the past forty years there have been consistent themes in student satisfaction with the physical environment for the resident hall. Beginning in the early 60s and continuing in recent surveys, the following are the most frequently voiced student concerns:

• Crowded – Lack of space in room and building too large

• Inability to control heating, air conditioning and ventilation

• Lack of privacy in bathrooms and lavatories

• Too many high-rises

• Poor elevators

• Need for study spaces, activity spaces, and kitchen amenities

• Lack of privacy – not enough singles

• Long and narrow corridors

• Too much noise

• Not enough freedom or options for personalization

• Security issues

• Limited technology access (from phones to full technology hook-ups)

Jim Banning, Professor in the School of Education, Colorado State University

71

13

STUDENT DEMANDNATIONAL DATA

Trends Shaping Housing Design

Steps to Make Student Housing More Appealing

1. Amenities2. Computer Capacity3. Dining Options4. Electrical Capacity5. Fire Safety6. Flexible Furniture7. Living – Learning Environments8. Security 9. Sustainable Design10. Variety

Mike Kennedy – “Trends Shaping Housing Design,” American Schools and University – January 1, 2002

72

14

10 Year Housing Master Plan

– Current Housing Capacity– Plan Time Line and Strategy– New Locations– Planned Housing Capacity

73

150

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Beds Heads

Univ. Housing3,748

1,047

4,795

First-time Freshmen

Other Freshmen

Sophomores

Upper CL./Grad

3,682

381

585

147

4,795

Short Term Leases

Current Housing Capacity

74

16

Estimated Costs – 10 Year Plan - $70M•Revenue Bonds $55M•Operating Revenues $15M

Renovate and Upgrade - (Towers Complexes)2007 – 2010Eliminate Short-term Leased Facility2007

Construct New Facilities:•400 beds – Evansdale Campus – (Adjacent to Towers Complex)•400 beds – Downtown Campus – (Adjacent to Summit Hall)

2006 – 2007

Demolish Facilities (Out Dated – Beyond Useful Life) – (College Park Apartments)

2005

Implement the Deferred Maintenance Plan – (All Facilities)2005

Convert a Short-term facility Lease into a Long-term Lease and Increase the Number of Beds – (Pierpont Apartments)

2005Acquire Current Leased Facility – (Summit Hall)2004

StrategyTimeline

Housing Facilities – Master Plan

75

17

Downtown Map 2004

76

18

77

19

Evansdale Map 2004

78

20

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Beds Heads Heads Beds

Univ. Housing

3,748

1,047

4,795

First-time Freshmen

Other Freshmen

Sophomores

Upper CL./Grad

3,682

348

553

147

First-time Freshmen

Other Freshmen

Sophomores

Increase/Upper Class Demand

Univ. Housing

Long Term Leases

Other Private Sector

4,941

514

1,703

3,733

501

624

2,300

4,730

7,158 7,158

Short Term Leases

Current Housing Capacity Proposed Master Plan Capacity

348

79

21

Implemented Housing Plan Inventory

479512162

216524138

1658354282

Current Capacity Usable Beds

545512162

211324138

2564160282

Proposed Capacity Usable Beds

TotalQuadTriple

DoubleQuad SuiteTriple Suite

Double SuiteSingle Suite

Single

Type

80

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Pierpont Lease Extension INSTITUTION: West Virginia University COMMITTEE: Finance Committee RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Resolved, That the West Virginia Higher

Education Policy Commission approves an 11-year lease for Pierpont Apartments as part of the Housing Master Plan at West Virginia University.

STAFF MEMBER: Richard Donovan BACKGROUND: West Virginia University currently has a lease for four and one half floors (217 beds) of Pierpont Apartments through July 31, 2006. WVU proposes to enter into a new 11-year lease for all nine floors of the building, which includes 536 beds and one office. The proposed lease will cancel the final year (2005-2006) of the existing lease and cost WVU $13,033,086, which will be paid from revenue generated by Housing and Residence Life. WVU seeks to enter into the lease because increasing enrollment requires that WVU be able to increase quickly the number of beds for freshmen and other students that desire University housing. The building owner provides cable and internet access and is installing sprinklers throughout the building. The owner also will provide maintenance. WVU will provide food service plans through dining services in the nearby Evansdale Residential Complex and manage parking. The West Virginia University Board of Governors approved this lease extension at its June 11, 2004 meeting, and the Higher Education Policy Commission’s approval is now sought.

81

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Life Safety Improvements to the Coliseum INSTITUTION: West Virginia University COMMITTEE: Finance Committee RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Resolved, That the West Virginia Higher

Education Policy Commission approves life safety improvements to the Coliseum at West Virginia University.

STAFF MEMBER: Richard Donovan

BACKGROUND:

The State Fire Marshal is requiring WVU to address the life safety issues of the entire Coliseum as part of the Athletics Master Plan renovations approved by the WVU Board of Governors and Higher Education Policy Commission. A performance based design report addressing all life safety issues has been completed and approved by the State Fire Marshal. This project will address these issues, and WVU has committed to completing the project by August 2005. The scope of work for this project includes fire alarm, emergency lighting, automatic fire sprinkler, emergency power, and smoke evacuation systems. The cost of the project will be shared between the Athletic Department and the general university as appropriate.

• 28% to be funded from Athletic Department bonds ($868,000) • 72% to be funded by general University funds ($2,232,000)

The West Virginia University Board of Governors approved this project on June 11, 2004, and the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission’s approval is now sought.

82

West Virginia University Life Safety Improvements to the Coliseum

STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES: The scope of work for this project includes:

• Fire Alarm Systems, • Emergency Lighting Systems, • Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems, • Emergency Power Systems, and • Smoke Evacuation System.

Completion of life safety improvements will be done simultaneously with ongoing renovations to the Coliseum. The life safety improvements are being completed in three phases as listed below. Portions of Phase I have been incorporated into the “Coliseum Renovation Project,” a previously approved Athletics project, which focuses on renovation of locker rooms and creation of club space: this is currently under construction. The remaining work in Phase I, as well as Phases II and II, will be bid this summer. All work will be completed while the building is occupied and utilized.

• Phase I (December 2003 to December 2004): Lower level locker rooms, storage rooms, restrooms, and associated spaces around the arena floor and four exit stairs. (Part of Coliseum Renovation Project).

• Phase II (Aug 2004 to December 2004): Concourse level spaces, press box spaces and the Smoke Evacuation System.

• Phase III (December 2004 to August 2005): Upper level space around arena floor and upper mechanical ring around arena floor.

Budget:

Design Fees (Including Performance Based Design): $400,000 Construction Estimate $2,500,000 Contingency $200,000 Total: $3,100,000

Funding Source: Athletic Department Bonds with repayment based on funding split below:

• 28% to be funded by Athletic Department ($868,000) • 72% to be funded by general University funds ($2,232,000)

Scheduled for Completion: August 2005

83

IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES: Completion of the life safety improvements to the Coliseum has been mandated by the WV State Fire Marshal’s Office.

RELATIONSHIP TO AND/OR IMPACT ON THE MASTER PLAN: Coliseum life safety improvements are part of the Athletic Department’s Master Plan through June 2008. IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON THE INSTITUTION’S OPERATION BUDGET AND ADDITIONAL STAFFING REQUIREMENTS: It is not anticipated that the life safety improvements to this facility will result in increased utility or personnel costs. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT PROGRAM AND HOW IT FITS WITHIN THE APPROVED MISSION STATEMENT OF THE INSTITIUTION: The Department of Inter-Collegiate Athletics and West Virginia University must adhere to fire safety requirements as advised by the WV State Fire Marshal’s Office.

84

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: WVNET HERF Funding COMMITTEE: Finance Committee INSTITUTIONS: All RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Resolved, That the West Virginia Higher

Education Policy Commission approves WVNET’s expenditures budget as approved by the WVNET Policy Board, but defers a decision about providing WVNET with an additional $28,000 in HERF funding until a more complete evaluation of WVNET’s financial status can be made.

STAFF MEMBER: Dennis Taylor BACKGROUND: At the June 18, 2004 meeting, members of the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission postponed a final decision on WVNET’s FY 2005 budget because the WVNET Policy Board approved a budget that contained $28,000 more in HERF funding than did the budget being presented to the Commission. In deferring its decision, the Commission made two requests: (1) that reports showing budgeted-to-actual numbers, instead of budgeted-to-budgeted numbers, be prepared; and (2) that the WVNET Policy Board reconsider WVNET’s proposed FY 2005 budget. The WVNET Policy Board met on August 2, 2004. At that meeting, the Board expressed concern about making a $28,000 reduction in WVNET’s expenditures budget. The consensus of the Board was that the proposed WVNET expenditures budget is extremely tight. Several concerns discussed:

• Unbudgeted liabilities for building maintenance because West Virginia University soon will no longer provide these services.

• Unbudgeted and/or tightly budgeted deferred maintenance and upgrade costs. • Budgeted reductions in items like travel and training that jeopardize the

development of WVNET’s human capital. • Budgeted reductions in staff and the unavailability of funds for wage increases.

85

While recommending that WVNET’s expenditures budget not be reduced, the WVNET Policy Board did not feel qualified to evaluate whether WVNET has sufficient cash reserves to absorb the $28,000 HERF reduction in light of cash flow swings. Over the past two years, WVNET has maintained cash balances of between $800,000 and $2.6 million in its network operating fund. At the end of FY 2003, WVNET estimates that $1,718,155 of its $2,296,299 balance represented current liabilities. At the end of FY 2004, WVNET estimates that $1,969,819 of its $2,560,637 balance represented current liabilities. At this time, WVNET has no audited financial statement for FY 2003, and FY 2004 estimates are incomplete. Accordingly, Commission staff members recommend approving WVNET’s expenditures budget, but delaying consideration of the HERF issue until an audited financial statement for FY 2003 is issued and FY 2004 estimates can be finalized. The following documents are attached to assist the Commission in beginning to evaluate WVNET’s financial situation: (1) Table 1 – WVNET FY 2005 Expenditures Budget; (2) Table 2 – WVNET FY 2004 Budgeted vs. Actual Revenue and Expenditures; (3) Table 3 – WVNET FY 2003 Budgeted vs. Actual Revenue and Expenditures; (4) Table 4 – WVNET Cash Flow Analysis for FY 2004 (Fund 4780); and (5) Table 5 – WVNET Cash Flow Analysis for FY 2003 (Fund 4780).

86

Table 1

WVNET FY 2005 Expenditures Budget

FY04 Budget FY04 Actual FY05 Budget

EXPENDITURES: Personal Services 2,487,726 2,437,630 2,302,267 Fringe Benefits 620,951 533,645 575,567 Office Expense 254,692 25,175 202,222 Printing and Binding 7,675 0 7,722 Rent (Storage space) 1,200 1,200 1,200 Utilities 110,000 86,762 111,754 Telecommunications 1,703,648 1,900,547 2,156,196Contractual & Professional 755,067 1,135,889 310,054Travel 70,000 29,620 80,000 WVNET -> I S & C 5,000 4,043 5,000 Equipment Rental (Incl. Software) 36,985 27,706 24,346 Association Dues 16,828 11,865 14,931 Insurance 11,247 8,435 13,985 Advertising 7,000 323 7,000 Vehicle Maintenance Expense 7,500 5,787 7,500 Maintenance Contracts 1,933,804 2,014,027 1,855,364Manufacturing Supplies 0 1,660 0Hospitality Expense 5,500 277 10,815 Miscellaneous Expense 3,500 0 3,500 Training and Development 20,000 30,038 25,000Postage and Freight 13,311 6,359 13,311 Computer Expenses < $500 12,000 5,065 12,000 Office Equipment Repairs 4,200 0 4,200 Research/ Ed. Equip. Repairs 1,000 895 1,000 Building Repairs and Alterations 12,000 0 12,000 Office and Communications Equip. 13,500 0 13,500 Research and Educational Equip. 1,000 0 1,000 Office Furniture 5,000 334 5,000 Books 2,500 4,173 2,500Debt Service 0 185,889 29,093Computer Hardware 277,013 100,376 282,580 Computer Software 154,669 628,208 177,919 8,554,516 9,185,927 8,268,526

87

Table 2

WVNET FY 2004 Budgeted v. Actual Revenue and Expenditures

FY04 Budgeted FY04 Actual Balance FY04 Beginning Cash Balance: 2,296,299

REVENUE: State 2,100,425 2,071,019 (29,406)Operations 6,458,011 7,379,247 921,236Total Revenues: 8,558,436 9,450,266 891,830

EXPENDITURES: Personal Services 2,487,726 2,437,630 50,096 Fringe Benefits 620,951 533,645 87,306 Office Expense 254,692 25,175 229,517 Printing and Binding 7,675 0 7,675 Rent (Storage space) 1,200 1,200 0 Utilities 110,000 86,762 23,238 Telecommunications 1,703,648 1,900,547 (196,899)Contractual & Professional 755,067 1,135,889 (380,822)Travel 70,000 29,620 40,380 WVNET -> I S & C 5,000 4,043 957 Equipment Rental (Incl. Software) 36,985 27,706 9,279 Association Dues 16,828 11,865 4,963 Insurance 11,247 8,435 2,812 Advertising 7,000 323 6,677 Vehicle Maintenance Expense 7,500 5,787 1,714 Maintenance Contracts 1,933,804 2,014,027 (80,223)Manufacturing Supplies 0 1,660 (1,660)Hospitality Expense 5,500 277 5,223 Miscellaneous Expense 3,500 0 3,500 Training and Development 20,000 30,038 (10,038)Postage and Freight 13,311 6,359 6,952 Computer Expenses < $500 12,000 5,065 6,935 Office Equipment Repairs 4,200 0 4,200 Research/ Ed. Equip. Repairs 1,000 895 105 Building Repairs and Alterations 12,000 0 12,000 Office and Communications Equip. 13,500 0 13,500 Research and Educational Equip. 1,000 0 1,000 Office Furniture 5,000 334 4,666 Books 2,500 4,173 (1,673)Debt Service 0 185,889 (185,889)Computer Hardware 277,013 100,376 176,637 Computer Software 154,669 628,208 (473,539) 8,554,516 9,185,927 (631,411) FY04 Ending Cash Balance: 2,560,638 260,419

88

Table 3

WVNET FY 2003 Budgeted v. Actual Revenue and Expenditures

FY03 BudgetedFY03 Actual

YTD Balance FY03 Beginning Cash Balance: 2,107,784

REVENUES: State Appropriation 2,697,851 2,606,051 (91,800)Operations 6,371,475 7,875,702 1,504,227Total Revenues: 9,069,326 10,481,753 1,412,427

EXPENDITURES: Personal Services 2,906,481 2,658,030 248,451 Fringe Benefits 697,555 576,817 120,738 Office Expense 181,768 33,355 148,413 Printing and Binding 22,675 964 21,711 Rent (Storage space) 1,260 1,208 52 Utilities 130,000 102,134 27,866 Telecommunications 1,948,390 2,358,135 (409,745)Contractual & Professional 564,169 1,336,692 (772,523)Travel 115,000 16,798 98,202 WVNET -> I S & C 5,000 4,511 489 Equipment Rental (Incl. Software) 144,382 80,707 63,675 Association Dues 16,023 13,281 2,742 Insurance 8,018 9,169 (1,151)Advertising 7,000 2,055 4,945 Vehicle Maintenance Expense 6,900 3,938 2,962 Maintenance Contracts 1,947,838 1,959,934 (12,096)Manufacturing Supplies 0 791 (791)Hospitality Expense 42,500 23,187 19,313 Miscellaneous Expense 3,500 0 3,500 Training and Development 40,000 10,098 29,902 Postage and Freight 12,648 11,349 1,299 Computer Expenses < $500 12,000 16,136 (4,136)Office Equipment Repairs 4,200 95 4,105 Research/ Ed. Equip. Repairs 1,000 13 987 Building Repairs and Alterations 12,000 2,137 9,863 Office and Communications Equip. 13,500 1,525 11,975 Research and Educational Equip. 1,000 0 1,000 Office Furniture 5,000 0 5,000 Books 2,500 446 2,055 Debt Service 0 158,364 (158,364)Computer Hardware 217,019 48,612 168,407 Computer Software 0 862,755 (862,755) 0 9,069,326 10,293,238 (1,223,912) FY03 Ending Cash Balance: 2,296,299 188,515

89

Table 4 WVNET Cash Flow Analysis for FY 2004 (Fund 4780)

Month Beginning Cash

Balance Revenues Disbursements Ending Cash Balance Cash Flow Est.Current Liabilities Cash minus Current Liabilities**

Jul 2,296,299.13 484,354.06 222,750.92 2,557,902.27 261,603.14 588,083 Aug 2,557,902.27 184,097.05 583,179.20 2,158,820.12 399,082.15 189,001 Sept 2,158,820.12 514,620.76 776,101.59 1,897,339.29 261,480.83 (72,480) Oct 1,897,339.29 838,828.80 641,431.27 2,094,736.82 197,397.53 124,918 Nov 2,094,736.82 366,237.50 871,129.97 1,589,844.35 504,892.47 (379,975) Dec 1,589,844.35 364,060.42 414,594.71 1,539,310.06 50,534.29 (430,509) Jan 1,539,310.06 691,419.96 207,628.33 2,023,101.69 483,791.63 53,283 Feb 2,023,101.69 379,091.15 633,543.27 1,768,649.57 254,452.12 (201,170) Mar 1,768,649.57 717,283.36 755,073.27 1,730,859.66 37,789.91 (238,959) Apr 1,730,859.66 610,215.05 423,070.60 1,918,004.11 187,144.45 (51,815) May 1,918,004.11 759,358.29 655,120.31 2,022,242.09 104,237.98 52,423 Jun 2,022,242.09 1,469,679.21 931,284.27 2,560,637.03 538,394.94 1,969,819*** 590,818 7,379,245.61 7,114,907.71 Net Cash Flow 264,337.90

Modem Reimbursements for

FY04 3rd and 4th Quarters* (250,000) Actual Cash Flow: 14,337.90 *This will appear as a payable on FY04 Financial Statements. Estimated AR Bal. for FY04 926,332 ***Current Liabilities are estimated for FY04. Estimated Bad Debt Expense 9,263 (1%) Revenue Spread 1,285,582.16 Average Revenue / Month: 614,937 Disbursement Spread 723,655.94 Ave. Disbursements / Month: 592,909 ***Current Liabilities include: Accounts payable; Accrued Severance Benefits; Compensated Absences; Deferred Revenue; and Capital lease obligation.

90

Table 5 WVNET Cash Flow Analysis for FY 2003 (Fund 4780)

Month Beginning Cash

Balance Revenues Disbursements Ending Cash

Balance Cash Flow Current

Liabilities* Cash minus Current Liabilities

Jul 2,107,784.34 719,071.76 234,045.75 2,592,810.35 485,026.01 874,655 Aug 2,592,810.35 188,388.45 893,425.47 1,887,773.33 705,037.02 169,618 Sept 1,887,773.33 284,473.64 786,181.49 1,386,065.48 501,707.85 (332,090) Oct 1,386,065.48 632,500.94 689,537.09 1,329,029.33 57,036.15 (389,126) Nov 1,329,029.33 299,388.31 375,302.12 1,253,115.52 75,913.81 (465,039) Dec 1,253,115.52 247,514.17 668,332.00 832,297.69 420,817.83 (885,857) Jan 832,297.69 793,756.24 333,260.81 1,292,793.12 460,495.43 (425,362) Feb 1,292,793.12 1,044,762.98 291,248.33 2,046,307.77 753,514.65 328,153 Mar 2,046,307.77 508,768.31 1,489,335.35 1,065,740.73 980,567.04 (652,414) Apr 1,065,740.73 1,007,152.83 177,390.82 1,895,502.74 829,762.01 177,348 May 1,895,502.74 1,010,338.90 851,669.31 2,054,172.33 158,669.59 336,017 Jun 2,054,172.33 1,139,585.44 897,458.64 2,296,299.13 242,126.80 1,718,155 578,144 7,875,701.97 7,687,187.18 Net Cash Flow: 188,514.79 Revenue Spread: 951,196.99 Average Revenue / Month: 656,308 Disbursement Spread: 1,311,944.53 Ave. Disbursements / Month: 640,599

Ratio of Current Assets to Current Liabilities for FY03: 2.00 FY03 Ratio of Ending Year Cash Balance to Current Liabilities: 1.30

Ratio of Current Assets to Current Liabilities for FY02: 1.24 *Current Liabilities include: Accounts payable; Accrued Severance Benefits; Compensated Absences; Deferred Revenue; and Capital lease obligation.

WEST VIRGINIA HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY COMMISSION COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

AUGUST 20, 2004

AGENDA

A. Consent Agenda 1. Approval of Institutional Capital Assessments ................................................. pg 91 2. Funding Allocations for Special Projects.......................................................... pg 93 3. Approval of FY 2005 Supplemental Appropriation for PROMISE .................... pg 95 4. Report on 1.5% Increase in Tuition and Fee Rates ......................................... pg 96 B. Presentation by Jennifer McIntosh on Minority Faculty Recruitment Program ......... pg 98 C. Update on WV Higher Education Grant Program..................................................... pg 99 D. Approval of FY 2006 Appropriations Request-Operating and Capital Budgets ...... pg 101 E. Approval of FY 2006 Appropriations Request-Improvement Packages ................. pg 106

91

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Approval of Institutional Capital Assessments INSTITUTIONS: All COMMITTEE: Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Resolved, That the West Virginia Higher

Education Policy Commission approves institutional capital assessments for FY 2005 as shown in Table 1.

STAFF MEMBER: Dennis Taylor BACKGROUND: In FY 2004, the 1992 system debt for the college and university systems was refinanced. Table 1 shows capital assessments for that debt service (totaling $18,596,820), facilities support (totaling $387,975) and subsidies (totaling $339,300) for FY 2005. Savings generated from the refinancing are reflected in the debt service assessments. Subsidies go to Southern West Virginia Community and Technical College ($31,200) and the West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine ($308,100). In calculating institutional assessments, Commission staff applied the same methodology used in past years. Commission staff also made adjustments in the calculations for Glenville State College, Bluefield State College, and Fairmont State University because of restructuring and the resulting shift in students. In addition, Commission staff included West Virginia University Institute of Technology in savings generated by the refinancing after legal counsel advised that West Virginia Code § 18B-2-9, which provided for $373,089 in annual debt payments by WVUIT for the old debt, did not apply to the refinanced debt. Finally, Commission staff did not allocate capital assessments between administratively-linked two- and four-year institutions. Commission staff will transfer the funds from institutions’ accounts on September 1, 2004 and March 1, 2005 in order to make the debt service payments. Institutions will be restricted from using capital and registration fee collections until adequate funds have been collected for debt service.

92

Semi-AnnualInstitution Debt Facilities Subsidies Total Assessment

Bluefield 48,405 3,080 495 51,980 25,990Concord 330,301 21,018 3,380 354,699 177,350Fairmont 1,021,886 45,149 7,262 1,074,297 537,149Glenville 262,036 10,322 1,660 274,018 137,009Shepherd 668,724 42,552 6,844 718,120 359,060West Liberty 685,722 28,175 4,532 718,429 359,215WVU Tech 256,956 16,350 2,630 275,936 137,968WVSC 396,996 25,261 4,063 426,320 213,160SWVCTC 0 0 0 0 0WVNCC 32,686 2,080 334 35,100 17,550EWVCTC 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal $3,703,712 $193,987 $31,200 $3,928,899 $1,964,450

WVU 9,855,833 141,611 224,913 10,222,357 5,111,179Potomac State 82,730 1,940 3,080 87,750 43,875WVU Parkersburg 124,094 2,910 4,622 131,626 65,813WVSOM 0 0 0 0 0Marshall 4,830,451 47,527 75,485 4,953,463 2,476,732 Subtotal $14,893,108 $193,988 $308,100 $15,395,196 $7,697,598

Totals $18,596,820 $387,975 $339,300 $19,324,095 $9,662,048

Table 1

West Virginia Higher Education Policy CommissionFY 2005 Institutional Capital Assessments

August 20, 2004

93

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Funding Allocations for Special Projects INSTITUTIONS: All COMMITTEE: Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Resolved, That the West Virginia Higher

Education Policy Commission approves the allocation of funding for $968,808 in Special Projects as set forth in the FY 2005 budget digest.

STAFF MEMBER: Dennis Taylor BACKGROUND: The Legislature appropriated $1,051,808 for Special Projects for FY 2005. The budget digest recommends that the Higher Education Policy Commission allocate funding for $968,808 in projects. Eighty-five thousand dollars ($85,000) remains unallocated, but will be allocated at a later date based upon legislative guidance. When this allocation is known, it will be brought back to the Commission for approval.

Grantee Project Amount Fairmont State University E-Learning Clusters $501,808

These funds will be used to expand the use of distributed education via web-delivered services and instruction. The goal is for a student to take classes and complete programs and degrees without having to travel to any of the facilities at Fairmont State University. Marshall University IDEA $250,000

These funds will be used to support the operational costs of the Institute for Development of Entrepreneurial Advances (IDEA), which seeks to establish Marshall University as an engine to foster economic development. Washington Center Internship Program $100,000

These funds will be used to provide internships at various government institutions for students at West Virginia public and private colleges. Shepherd University Piano $20,000

These funds will be used to offset the cost for a concert piano purchased for the University.

94

Grantee Project Amount Shepherd University Bleachers $70,000

These funds will be used to upgrade bleachers in the Butcher Center to provide seatbacks. WVNCC Weirton Library $25,000

These funds will be used to update the service area, including a new circulation desk, shelving and replacement of the security system TOTAL $968,808

95

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Approval of FY 2005 Supplemental

Appropriation for PROMISE INSTITUTIONS: All COMMITTEE: Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Resolved, That the West Virginia Higher

Education Policy Commission approves the incorporation of a $3 million supplemental appropriation for the PROMISE Scholarship Program into the Higher Education Policy Commission’s FY 2005 operating budget.

STAFF MEMBER: Dennis Taylor BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 2011, passed on June 15, 2004, appropriated an additional $3 million for the PROMISE Scholarship Program for FY 2005. This increases the current funding level for the PROMISE Scholarship Program from $27 million to $30 million. Commission staff project that this additional $3 million will ensure that the program is able to provide approximately 8,500 students with $30 million in PROMISE Scholarships during the 2004-2005 academic year.

96

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Report on 1.5% Increase in Tuition and Fee

Rates COMMITTEE: Committee of the Whole INSTITUTIONS: All RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Information Only STAFF MEMBER: Dennis Taylor BACKGROUND: House Bill No. 101 (2004) contains a provision that permits “a governing board of any institution under the jurisdiction of the commission [for fiscal year 2005 only to] increase tuition and fees for undergraduate resident students by one and one-half percent greater than the amount authorized by the commission . . . .” W. Va. Code § 18B-10-1(l)(1)(G)(4). The governing boards of all institutions except West Liberty State College, West Virginia State University, and Potomac State College of WVU authorized the one-time 1.5% increase in undergraduate tuition and fees. This increase will generate approximately $2.7 million in additional revenue, and most of that revenue will be used for capital improvements and repairs. Table 1 summarizes the impact of the 1.5% increase on 2004-05 tuition and fee rates. Table 2 summarizes each institution’s expected revenue and planned expenditures. Table 1:

Prelim Tuition Total Tuition Institution and Fees 1.5% and Fees

2004-05 Increase 2004-05 Bluefield State College $3,072 $42 $3,114Concord University 3,540 48 3,588Fairmont State University 3,426 46 3,472Glenville State College 3,232 44 3,276Marshall University 3,770 48 3,818Shepherd University 3,604 50 3,654West Virginia University 3,884 54 3,938WVU Institute of Technology 3,736 50 3,786

97

Table 2:

Bluefield State College $35,000Basic Science Elevators

Concord University $103,807Schirmer Recommendations/Fire Code Compliance

Fairmont State University $180,000Hardway Hall Deferred Maintenance (Façade Repair)

Glenville State College $53,900Reserved for Future Budget Reductions

Marshall University $450,000Equipment

Shepherd University $98,367McMurran Hall Exterior Renovations - $39,367 Reserved for Future Budget Reductions - $59,000

West Virginia University $1,699,000 Library Roof Replacement - $200,000 Electrical Feeder 1 Replacement - $200,000 Electrical Feeder 2 Replacement - $200,000 Cooling Towers - CAC - $200,000 Engineering Sciences Lower Roof Section Replacement - $600,000 Electrical Sub-station - $150,000 Percival Hall Bridge Replacement - $100,000 All Other - $49,000

West Virginia University Institute of Technology $65,000Installation of Safety Barrier - $10,000 Purchase of One-Ton Dump Truck - $27,000 Purchase of Backhoe/Loader - $16,000 Purchase of Shop Equipment and Tools - $12,000

98

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Minority Faculty Recruitment Program

Presentation INSTITUTIONS: All COMMITTEE: Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Information item only STAFF MEMBER: J. Michael Mullen BACKGROUND: With considerable support from the Higher Education Resource Fee (HERF), West Virginia University’s Office of Social Justice has sponsored an Academic Partnership Program for Minority Teaching Fellows for the past three years. The Minority Teaching Fellows Program, designed to expand the available pool of minority faculty, was established to create a partnership between West Virginia University, other colleges and universities in the state, and the Higher Education Policy Commission. Select minority students serve as visiting faculty for at least one semester on respective campuses in the state. The program assists other campuses with the recruitment of excellent teachers, while bringing greater diversity to their campuses and affording teaching fellows the opportunity to gain valuable college level teaching experience. Jennifer A. McIntosh, West Virginia University’s Executive Officer for Social Justice, will provide an update of this initiative.

99

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Update on West Virginia Higher Education

Grant Program INSTITUTIONS: All COMMITTEE: Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Information item only STAFF MEMBER: Daniel Crockett BACKGROUND: The West Virginia Higher Education Grant Program was created by the West Virginia Legislature in 1968 to assist needy and promising students with financial assistance to pay tuition charges at approved postsecondary institutions in West Virginia. Awards to students are based first on financial need as determined by the results of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and secondly, academic performance (test scores and grade point average). Policy Commission staff recently completed the second award cycle for the 2004-05 academic year and extended 9,410 grants to eligible students with awards ranging from $350 to $2,720. Current awarding criteria was the same as the previous year: Expected Family Contribution (EFC) cap of $6,000 ($4,000 EFC for PROMISE Scholarship recipients); 45 points as a minimal academic requirement for high school applicants based on the following formula---high school grade point average x 12.5 + ACT composite score. All awarded students are required to have a minimum 2.0 grade point average. Renewal students are required to show adequate academic progress. A detailed listing of awards by institution is provided on the following page. Awards for 2004-05 were funded by using the following sources of revenue: $18,000,000 Lottery; $1,800,000 HERF; $600,000 federal LEAP/SLEAP grant; and $1,900,000 carry forward funds. After the award cycle, there are 2,829 eligible on-time applicants on the waiting list.

100

West Virginia Higher Education Grant Program

INSTITUTIONAL AWARDS 2004-05 as of June 23, 2004

Public Institutions # of awards total dollarsBluefield State College 564 $1,221,698 New River Community College of BSC tba*Concord University 487 1,167,518Fairmont State University 1,097 2,622,534 Fairmont State CTC tbaGlenville State College 294 664,091Marshall University 1,179 3,145,486 Marshall University CTC tbaPotomac State of WVU 137 208,004Shepherd University 290 717,981 CTC of Shepherd tbaSouthern WV CTC 293 335,192West Liberty State College 222 509,669West Virginia State University 612 1,372,262 West Virginia State University CTC tbaWest Virginia University 1,791 4,775,706WV Northern CC 163 200,164WVU at Parkersburg 292 340,472WVU Institute of Technology 229 587,231 WVU Institute of Technology CTC tbaTOTAL PUBLIC 7,650 $17,868,008

Private Institutions Alderson Broaddus College 168 $436,800Appalachian Bible College 39 101,400Bethany College 40 104,000Davis & Elkins College 118 306,800Mountain State University 535 1,388,400Ohio Valley College 18 46,800Salem International University 19 49,400University of Charleston 108 279,500WV Wesleyan College 161 417,300Wheeling Jesuit University 53 137,800TOTAL PRIVATE 1,259 $3,268,200

Pennsylvania Institutions (30) 25 $14,700

Proprietary Institutions in WV (10) 290 $754,000

TOTAL 9,410 $21,904,908

Award Profile:total # of applicants ---- 30,998awards to renewals ---- 4,130awards to high school apps ---- 2,042awards to new college ---- 3,052students on waiting list ---- 2,829

tba* campuses will confirm CTC enrollment

August 2004

101

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Approval of FY 2006 Appropriation Request –

Operating and Capital Budgets INSTITUTIONS: All COMMITTEE: Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Resolved, That the West Virginia Higher

Education Policy Commission approves the FY 2006 appropriation request outlined in Table 1.

STAFF MEMBER: Dennis Taylor BACKGROUND: Governor Wise, through the State Budget Office, has published instructions for submitting the FY 2006 appropriation request. The instructions require the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission to submit two types of information: (1) a proposed operating budget that reflects a 5.5% reduction in general revenue and lottery revenue; and (2) information concerning capital projects. The deadline for submitting these documents is September 1, 2004, although amendments can be made after that date. Operating Budget. The Higher Education Policy Commission and Council for Community and Technical College Education must submit a FY 2006 appropriation request that reduces the total amount of state revenue requested by $17,861,793. Commission staff members propose to satisfy this mandate by submitting the FY 2006 appropriation request shown in Table 1. In FY 2005, West Virginia higher education will receive approximately $384 million in revenue from the following sources of State funding:

General Revenue 284,280,289 Lottery Revenue 40,479,586 Excess (Video) Lottery Revenue 43,600,000 Other Special Revenue 15,359,466 Total State Revenue $383,719,341

Of that amount, $50,213,151 is appropriated to the West Virginia Council for Community and Technical College Education, and the remainder is appropriated to the Commission. Importantly, this total amount of state revenue does not include

102

$39,767,362 originally appropriated to the Commission for West Virginia University’s and Marshall University’s medical schools, but ultimately redirected to the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources. Subsequent adjustments between the related hospitals and the medical schools should offset this funding switch. Federal funds are involved, and this transaction may need to be revisited if anticipated funding is not realized. West Virginia higher education must take a 5.5% reduction only on the first two categories of revenue (general revenue and lottery revenue). Commission and Council staff members recommend a single approach to allocating the $17,861,793 in reductions across various line items in the Commission and Council budgets. Staff members propose to exempt the following financial aid programs in the HEPC budget from these reductions:

1. Higher Education Grant Program $18,000,000 2. HEAPS Grant Program $ 4,000,000 3. Minority Doctoral Fellowship Program $ 150,000 4. Health sciences scholarship program $ 148,575 TOTAL: $22,298,575

Staff members propose to spread the reductions evenly over all remaining line items. This means that all remaining line items will absorb 5.91% in reductions. Table 1 illustrates the proposed Commission and Council FY 2006 operating budget appropriation request. Additionally, Commission and Council staff members plan to ask the Legislature to incorporate: (1) ongoing special projects funding for e-clusters into Fairmont State University’s base operating budget and (2) the lottery revenue unclassified budget into various institutions’ base operating budgets. Capital Budget. The Budget Office also requires the Commission and Council to submit information concerning capital projects as part of its FY 2006 appropriation request. Commission and Council staff members have asked institutions to provide this information, and it will be included in the Commission’s ultimate submission. At a later meeting, the Commission will review and prioritize Commission and Council capital budget needs, and this information ultimately will be communicated to the Legislature.

103

FY05Appropriation

FY06Request

Difference(FY05

Appropriation)

GENERAL REVENUE

AdministrationUnclassified 2,000,000 1,881,890 118,110WVNET 1,952,662 1,837,348 115,314BRIM Premium 66,509 62,581 3,928Subtotal - General Revenue (0589) $4,019,171 $3,781,820 $237,351

SystemBluefield State College 3,205,566 3,016,262 189,304Concord University 8,294,215 7,804,402 489,813Fairmont State University 11,214,165 10,551,915 662,250Glenville State College 5,493,196 5,168,796 324,400Marshall University 39,426,465 37,098,143 2,328,322Marshall Medical School 8,824,821 8,303,673 521,148Marshall Medical School - BRIM Subsidy 728,167 685,165 43,002Primary Health Education Program Support 2,165,141 2,037,279 127,862Shepherd University 8,522,724 8,019,416 503,308West Liberty State College 8,570,738 8,064,595 506,143West Virginia State University 9,513,158 8,951,360 561,798WVU 101,234,963 95,256,552 5,978,411WVU - Potomac State 4,018,430 3,781,122 237,308WVU Institute of Technology 6,145,888 5,782,944 362,944WVU School of Health Sciences 7,540,770 7,095,451 445,319WVU School of Health Sciences - Chas. 2,111,180 1,986,505 124,675WVU School of Health Sciences - Eastern 1,600,000 1,505,512 94,488WVU School of Medicine - BRIM Subsidy 1,438,380 1,353,437 84,943Subtotal - General Revenue (0586) $230,047,967 $216,462,529 $13,585,438

Council for Commun. & Tech CollegesWV Council for CTC Education 650,000 611,614 38,386Eastern WV C&T College 1,967,728 1,851,524 116,204Fairmont State C&T College 7,394,285 6,957,617 436,668Marshall C&T College 5,220,038 4,911,770 308,268New River C&T College 5,315,219 5,001,330 313,889C&T College of Shepherd 2,307,838 2,171,549 136,289Southern WV C&T College 7,658,467 7,206,198 452,269WV Northern Community College 5,729,485 5,391,131 338,354WV State C&T College 2,734,186 2,572,719 161,467WVU - Parkersburg 8,035,367 7,560,840 474,527C&T College of WVU-Tech 3,200,538 3,011,531 189,007Subtotal - General Revenue (0596) $50,213,151 $47,247,823 $2,965,328

Total - General Revenue $284,280,289 $267,492,172 $16,788,117

Proposed FY 2006 Appropriation Request

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commisionand

West Virginia Council for Community and Technical College Education

TABLE 1

104

FY05Appropriation

FY06Request

Difference(FY05

Appropriation)




LOTTERY REVENUE

Financial Aid ProgramsHigher Education Grant Program 18,000,000 18,000,000 0HEAPS Grant Program 4,000,000 4,000,000 0Minority Doctoral Fellowship 150,000 150,000 0Health Sciences Scholarship 148,575 148,575 0Tuition Contract Program 749,576 705,310 44,266Underwood-Smith Scholarship Program 150,000 141,142 8,858WV ES&T Scholarship Program 500,000 470,473 29,527Subtotal - Financial Aid Programs $23,698,151 $23,615,499 $82,652

Health Sciences ProgramsSchool of Osteopathic Medicine 6,330,742 5,956,881 373,861School of Osteopathic Med - BRIM Subsidy 116,369 109,497 6,872RHI - MU Medical School 467,995 440,358 27,637RHI - WVU Health Sciences 1,263,890 1,189,251 74,639RHI - District Consortia 2,561,437 2,410,172 151,265RHI - RHEP Program Administration 193,484 182,058 11,426RHI - Grad Med Ed 105,090 98,884 6,206RHI - Med School Support 486,056 457,352 28,704Vice Chancellor - Rural Health Residency 278,408 261,967 16,441MA Public Health Program 60,781 57,192 3,589Health Sciences Career Opportunities 61,296 57,676 3,620HSTA Program 1,017,341 957,262 60,079Subtotal - Health Sciences Programs $12,942,889 $12,178,549 $764,340

Other ProgramsUnclassified (For Distribution to Institutions) 2,786,738 2,622,168 164,570Higher Education - Special Projects 1,051,808 989,694 62,114Subtotal - Other Programs $3,838,546 $3,611,861 $226,685

Total - Lottery Revenue (4925) $40,479,586 $39,405,910 $1,073,676

EXCESS (VIDEO) LOTTERY REVENUE

Ed Improvement Fund (PROMISE)Unclassified 30,000,000 30,000,000 0Subtotal - Ed Improvement Fund (4295) $30,000,000 $30,000,000 $0

Higher Ed Improvement FundUnclassified 10,000,000 10,000,000 0Subtotal - Higher Ed Improvement Fund (4297) $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $0

105

FY05Appropriation

FY06Request

Difference(FY05

Appropriation)




Research Challenge FundUnclassified 3,600,000 3,600,000 0Subtotal - Research Challenge Fund (4931) $3,600,000 $3,600,000 $0

Total - Excess (Video) Lottery Revenue $43,600,000 $43,600,000 $0

OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE

WVU Health Sci. Ctr - Soft Drink TaxUnclassified 15,359,466 15,359,466 0Subtotal - Special Revenue (4179) $15,359,466 $15,359,466 $0

Total - Other Special Revenue $15,359,466 $15,359,466 $0

STATE REVENUEGeneral Revenue 284,280,289 267,492,172 16,788,117Lottery Revenue 40,479,586 39,405,910 1,073,676Excess (Video) Lottery Revenue 43,600,000 43,600,000 0Other Special Revenue 15,359,466 15,359,466 0Total - State Revenue $383,719,341 $365,857,548 $17,861,793

BUDGET REDUCTIONFY 2005 Amount Subject to Reduction $324,759,875 $324,759,875 N/AFY 2006 Appropriation Request $306,898,082 $306,898,082 N/AFY 2006 Budget Reduction $17,861,793 $17,861,793 N/AFY 2006 Percentage Reduction 5.50% 5.50% N/A

106

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Approval of FY 2006 Appropriation Request -

Improvement Packages INSTITUTIONS: All COMMITTEE: Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Resolved, That the West Virginia Higher

Education Policy Commission approves FY 2006 appropriation request improvement packages.

STAFF MEMBER: Dennis Taylor BACKGROUND: Governor Wise, through the State Budget Office, permits the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission to submit requests for additional appropriated revenue, often called improvement packages. The deadline for submitting these documents is September 1, 2004, although amendments can be made after that date. Commission staff members recommend the following improvement requests:

• Restoration of Budget Reductions – $14,896,465. Higher education has experienced three successive years of dramatic budget reductions. In an effort to offset these budget reductions, higher education institutions have repeatedly raised tuition rates, but tuition rates cannot continue to rise at current rates. Without budgetary relief, higher education will be unable to offer quality education and maintain existing services. The Higher Education Policy Commission’s portion of the budget reduction is $14,896,465. The Council for Community and Technical College Education’s portion of the budget reduction is $2,965,328; Council staff members have proposed that the Council approve an improvement package to restore those community college reductions.

• Financial Aid – Amount Undecided Three major programs could benefit from

additional funding:

o Higher Education Grant Program. To fully fund almost 10,000 higher education grants for needy West Virginians, the Higher Education Grant Program will need approximately $40 million in FY 2006, approximately $20 million more than its current appropriation.

o PROMISE Scholarship Program. To fully fund almost 10,000 PROMISE scholarships in FY 2005 at current GPA (3.00)/ACT (21/20) requirements, the PROMISE Scholarship Program will need approximately $40 million in

107

FY 2006, $10 million more than its current appropriation. o Higher Education Adult Part-time Student Program. Funds would be

requested so that institutions can serve more part-time students. In FY 2004 HEAPS provided an estimated 3,800 awards from a $4,000,000 appropriation.

The Council for Community and Technical College Education will also consider a proposal to support this improvement package.

• Legislative Funding Priorities – Amount Undecided. Commission staff members

propose to submit a lump-sum request for funds to support legislative funding priorities as set forth in S.B. 653. Those funding priorities include: (1) peer equity; (2) research challenge; (3) incentives for institutional contributions to state priorities; and (4) sustained quality support. The Council for Community and Technical College Education is considering a proposal to submit an improvement package for the final legislative funding priority: independently accredited community and technical college development.

Commission staff members plan to begin the process of soliciting institution-specific projects to be incorporated within the larger legislative funding priorities request. Commission staff members ultimately plan to bring the Commission a list of recommended projects for incorporation within the larger request. Such projects may include system-wide initiatives (e.g., funding for salary adjustments) or institutional initiatives (e.g., funding for the start-up of a new academic program).

At the time this agenda item was completed, discussions concerning FY 2006 improvement packages were ongoing. Commission staff will provide more detailed information about recommended FY 2006 improvement packages and improvement packages that the Council for Community and Technical College Education is considering.

WEST VIRGINIA HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY COMMISSION COMMISSION/COUNCIL ITEMS

AUGUST 20, 2004

AGENDA

A. WVNET Computer Advisory Board ........................................................................ pg 108 B. Process for Budget Recommendations and Requests for Fiscal Year 2006.......... pg 110 C. Memorandum of Agreement -- Bluefield State College/WV Council for Community and

Technical College Education.................................................................................. pg 113 D. Higher Education Resource Assessment Collected from Community and Technical Colleges for FY 2005 ............................................................................................ pg 118

108

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: WVNET Computer Advisory Board INSTITUTIONS: All COMMITTEE: Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Resolved, That the West Virginia Higher

Education Policy Commission approves the selection of WVNET Computer Advisory Board members as recommended by the WVNET Policy Board.

STAFF MEMBER: Dennis Taylor BACKGROUND: Senate Bill No. 448 (2004) provides: “The vice chancellor for administration shall establish a computer advisory board, which shall be representative of higher education and other users of the West Virginia network for educational telecomputing as the commission and council determine appropriate.” W. Va. Code § 18B-4-2(k). The WVNET Policy Board met on August 2, 2004 and recommended that the Computer Advisory Board include the following representatives:

1) A representative from a community and technical college designated by the Chancellor for Community and Technical College Education;

2) A representative from a large four-year higher education institution designated by the Chancellor for Higher Education;

3) A representative from a small four-year higher education institution designated by the Chancellor for Higher Education;

4) A representative from the Department of Education designated by the State Superintendent of Schools;

5) A representative from the Department of Education and the Arts designated by the Cabinet Secretary;

6) A representative of state government designated by the Vice Chancellor for Administration;

7) The State’s Chief Technology Officer or his/her designee; 8) The Chairman of the State Interagency Technology Council or his/her

designee; 9) The Chairman of the Instructional Technology Advisory Forum or his/her

designee; 10) The Chairman of the Computer Center Directors’ Advisory Forum or

109

his/her designee; 11) The Chairman of the Network Advisory Forum or his/her designee; 12) The Chancellor for Community and Technical College Education or his/her

designee, ex officio (non-voting); 13) The Chancellor for Higher Education or his/her designee, ex officio (non-

voting); and 14) The Vice Chancellor for Administration, who shall serve as Chair.

110

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Process for Budget Recommendations and

Requests for Fiscal Year 2006 INSTITUTIONS: All COMMITTEE: Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Resolved, That the West Virginia Higher

Education Policy Commission authorizes the chair to appoint a budget subcommittee to work with the West Virginia Community and Technical College Council and staff to develop the process and recommendations for coordination of the budget request. The recommendations of the joint subcommittee will be presented to the Commission for action in September. Further, the Commission authorizes the staff to submit the preliminary budget request and to indicate that additional items will be transmitted in September.

STAFF MEMBER: J. Michael Mullen BACKGROUND: W.Va. Code § 18B-1A-5 requires the Policy Commission and Council for Community and Technical College Education to each develop a budget for the state system of higher education under its respective jurisdiction. The Policy Commission is then to submit a budget request to the Governor that incorporates the budget request developed by the Council. The budget request is to be submitted to the Governor by September 1. The Council for Community and Technical College Education will meet on August 26th and consider the base budget and improvement packages related to the two-year colleges. Their actions will be incorporated into the budget submission authorized by the Commission at this meeting and at a subsequent meeting, probably in mid-September. There are two budget submissions: the operating budget request and the capital outlay request. The operating budget request has several components:

1. Base Budget using the guidance provided by the Governor and the Budget Office. In a separate agenda item, the Commission is being asked to approve the

111

submission of a base budget request at 94.5 percent of the current appropriation. Special lottery funds (PROMISE, Research Challenge, and Infrastructure Fund/debt service) have been exempted from the reduction.

2. Improvement Packages that relate to system issues, SB 653 categories, and

recommendations from the Council. The SB 653 categories and system issues that have been discussed include:

a. Peer Equity. Funds appropriated for this purpose increase the level of the institutional operating budget for state institutions of higher education comparable to their peer institutions.

b. Independently Accredited Community and Technical Colleges Development. Funds appropriated for this purpose will ensure a smooth transition, where required, from “component” community and technical colleges to independently accredited community and technical colleges.

c. Research Challenge. Funds appropriated for this purpose shall assist public colleges and universities in West Virginia to compete on a national and international basis by providing incentive to increase their capacity to compete successfully for research funding.

d. Incentives for institutional contributions to state priorities. Funds appropriated for this purpose provide incentives to institutions which demonstrate success toward advancing the goals of the public policy agenda.

e. Sustained Quality Support. f. Salary and Fringe Benefit Costs. Issues include the funding for the

classified salary schedule, adequate salaries for faculty, adjustments for non-classified employees, and attainment of the zero-step on the Mercer Schedule for classified employees.

g. Enrollment growth. h. Life, Safety, and ADA requirements. i. Technology acquisition, replacement, and operations. j. Non-personal service objects of expenditure k. Physical plant O&M budgets and deferred maintenance problems l. Funding for West Virginia State University to match federal appropriations

for land grant program.

3. Institution Specific Items requested from all campuses and placed in categories and priorities for consideration by the Commission and possibly, the Council. This component was not considered last year but was in previous years. After several years of budget reductions, even with increases in tuition and fee revenues, there are significant issues on many of the campuses that may or may not be consistent with system issues or priorities. The responsibility for identification of these items rests with the governing boards of each campus and with the Commission and Council to determine the system priority for the requests.

The capital budget request will be considered later in the fall. The Commission’s policy

112

on capital outlay planning and budgeting is under review and will be presented at the same meeting as the capital budget requests and recommendations. The coordination of the recommendations from the Council in the consolidated budget request submitted by the Commission is a new requirement. It may be appropriate for the Council and Commission to express a common position on issues such as:

1. Expectations of increases in tuition and fees 2. Links between anticipated increases in tuition and fees and funding for student

financial assistance, both merit and need-based. 3. Priorities for Improvement Packages 4. Salary increases and level of institutional autonomy in implementation of salary

policies and schedules. 5. Other issues of mutual interest.

The staff recommends that the Council and Commission consider the creation of a joint subcommittee on budgets to develop the coordination procedures and recommendations to be incorporated into the budget request to be transmitted to the Governor in September. Because of the deadlines related to the budget submission, authorization is needed for the staff to submit the request reflecting the adjustments to the base budget and to indicate that improvement packages will follow after the boards have approved the requests in September. This implies either a special meeting or a joint meeting of the Council and Commission at the time of the Council’s planned meeting in September.

113

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Memorandum of Agreement -- Bluefield State

College/WV Council for Community and Technical College Education

INSTITUTIONS: Bluefield State College and New River

Community and Technical College COMMITTEE: Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Information Only STAFF MEMBER: Jim Skidmore and Presidents Albert Walker

and David Perkins BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 448 included several provisions related to Bluefield State College and New River Community and Technical College of BSC. The appropriation for FY 2005 provided for the initial reallocation of funding between the two components of BSC. Discussions began during the legislative session on the location of specific degree programs and organizational alignment of associate degree programs. Those discussions continued with the encouragement of the Governor. Several weeks ago, a formal agreement between BSC, NRCTC, and the West Virginia Council on Community and Technical Colleges was signed. The agreement will be considered by the Council at its meeting later this month. Additionally, the agreement may result in a realignment of full-time student enrollment and budget during FY 2006 and subsequent fiscal years. Since any adjustment will be based on actual enrollment, there is no action to be taken now or in the budget submission in September. It will be identified as a possible adjustment to the base budget with an indication that a recommendation will be made prior to the legislative session. Information on the internal agreement will be presented by Presidents Walker and Perkins at the Commission meeting. A copy of the agreement with the Council is enclosed.

114

Memorandum of Agreement

FOR THE DELIVERY OF

ASSOCIATE DEGREE PROGRAMS

West Virginia Council for

Community & Technical College Education and

Bluefield State College Board of Governors

August 2, 2004

115

LEGISLATION Senate Bill 448 § 18B-3C-8 Section C (1)(B-C) states the following:

(B) Bluefield state college may continue associate degree programs in areas of particular institutional strength which are closely articulated to their baccalaureate programs and missions or which are of a high-cost nature and can best be provided through direct coordination with a baccalaureate institution. Any such program shall be delivered under the authority of the council and through contract with the community and technical college. The terms of the contract shall be negotiated between the council and the governing board of the sponsoring institution. The final contract is approved by the council. Such a program shall be evaluated according to the benchmarks and indicators for community and technical college education developed by the council. If the council determines that the program is making insufficient progress toward accomplishing the benchmarks, the program shall thereafter be delivered by the community and technical college.

(C) Bluefield state college may continue the associate of science degree in nursing which is

an existing nationally accredited associate degree program in an area of particular institutional strength and which is closely articulated to the baccalaureate program and mission. The program is of a high-cost nature and can best be provided through direct administration by a baccalaureate institution. This program may not be transferred to New River community and technical college or any other community and technical college as long as the program maintains national accreditation and is seamlessly coordinated into the baccalaureate program at the institution.

PURPOSE The West Virginia Council for Community and Technical College Education (hereinafter “Council”) and Bluefield State College Board of Governors hereby enters into this agreement with Bluefield State College to deliver the associate degree level programs listed below:

Architectural Engineering Technology

Civil Engineering Technology

Electrical Engineering Technology

Mechanical Engineering Technology

Radiologic Technology

116

TERMS & CONDITIONS Bluefield State College will:

Provide programmatic data as required by the Council;

Conduct programmatic evaluations and student assessments as required by the Council for associate degree level programs under its jurisdiction;

Participate in the Southeastern Community & Technical College Consortia District with the facilitating institution, New River Community & Technical College, to assist in the planning process for the delivery of the associate degree level programs identified in this agreement;

Involve the President of New River Community & Technical College or his designee in discussions pertaining to curricula changes, delivery of programs into other areas of the Southeastern Community & Technical College Consortia District other than the main campus of Bluefield State College;

Follow guidelines, policies and procedural rules established by the Council for the delivery of associate degree level programs; and

Be responsible for the appointment and compensation of program directors or school dean and faculty.

And Futhermore, Bluefield State College may:

Charge baccalaureate-level tuition and fees for programs identified in this agreement; and

Include the full-time equivalency (FTE) enrollment as baccalaureate-level enrollment for the purpose of determining funding allocations between New River Community & Technical College and Bluefield State College.

The WV Council for Community & Technical College Education:

Has final approval authority of this contact;

Will facilitate the collection of data and other required information pertaining to the selected programs identified in this agreement through the President of New River Community & Technical College; and

May assign the selected programs identified in this agreement to the community and technical college if the programs are making insufficient progress toward accomplishing the benchmarks established by the Council, state or Federal legislation or accrediting agencies for three consecutive years.

117

SIGNATURES

By signature below of all parties, this Memorandum of Agreement effective August 2, 2004, is made between the WV Council for Community & Technical College Education and Bluefield State College Board of Governors.

____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Nelson Robinson, Jr., Chairman Date WV Council for Community and Technical College Education __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ John Barnes, Chairman Date Bluefield State College Board of Governors __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Albert Walker, President Date Bluefield State College __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ David Perkins, President Date New River Community & Technical College Approved by the WV Council for Community & Technical College Education __________________________________ Date Approved by the Bluefield State College Board of Governors _________________________________ Date

118

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Higher Education Resource Assessment

(HERA) Collected from Community and Technical Colleges for FY 2005

INSTITUTIONS: Community and Technical Colleges COMMITTEE: Committee of the Whole RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Resolved, That the West Virginia Higher

Education Policy Commission accepts the Higher Education Resource Assessment (HERA) approved by the WV Council for Community and Technical College Education at a rate of 1.5050% of the total tuition collected by community and technical colleges for FY 2005.

STAFF MEMBER: James Skidmore BACKGROUND: W.Va. Code §18B-10-2 states that the Policy Commission and Council “jointly shall establish a higher education resource assessment per student for each state institution under their respective jurisdictions.”

The WV Council for Community and Technical College Education approved the Higher Education Resource Assessment (HERA) for FY 2005 at its June 17, 2004 meeting at a rate of 1.5050% of the total tuition collected by community and technical colleges. This generates $471,520, which is equivalent to the HERF amount collected from community and technical colleges in FY 2004.

The Higher Education Policy Commission is requested to accept the HERA schedule for community and technical colleges as approved by the Council.

119

Higher Education Policy CommissionHERF Assessments For Community CollegesStandard Assessement as a Percentage of TuitionTable 1June 17, 2004

Total Non-Res Resident Non-Res Estimated PercentageFall 2003 Fall 2003 In-State Fall 2003 Fall 2003 Gross Tuition Basis FY04 Alloc Assessment

Enrollment Enrollment Reciprocity Enrollment Tuition Tuition Revenues Assessment Assessment Net Change

New River CTC 1,378.54 23.47 1,355.07 2,506 6,894 3,557,608 $53,542 48,573 $4,969

Eastern WV Comm. & Tech. College 153.20 0.33 152.87 1,560 6,192 240,521 $3,620 1,526 $2,094

Fairmont State CTC 2,179.60 150.80 2,028.80 2,712 6,560 6,491,354 $97,695 96,787 $908

Marshall University CTC 1,353.60 58.87 80.67 1,214.06 2,732 7,904 4,002,511 $60,238 67,578 -$7,340

WV Northern Community College 1,725.30 21.13 269.69 1,434.48 1,680 5,592 2,981,165 $44,867 52,424 -$7,557

CTC at Shepherd 503.46 27.53 475.93 2,858 7,428 1,564,701 $23,549 19,676 $3,873

Southern WV Comm. & Tech. College 1,778.53 1.26 146.07 1,631.20 1,560 6,192 2,780,343 $41,844 42,921 -$1,077

WV State CTC 1,151.14 109.87 1,041.27 2,590 6,644 3,426,866 $51,574 50,575 $999

CTC of WVU Tech 604.87 29.53 3.27 572.07 2,934 8,392 1,935,863 $29,135 26,207 $2,928

WVU-Parkersburg 2,540.46 58.67 12.13 2,469.66 1,620 5,604 4,349,286 $65,457 65,114 $343

Total CTC HERF Assessments $471,520 $471,380 $140

*Assessments are based upon a constant percentage of estimated gross tuition revenues of: 1.5050% **The assessment was broken down between components for FY 04.

FINAL VERSION July 7, 2004


CHANCELLOR’S REPORT

AUGUST 20, 2004 A. 2004 ACT Preliminary Report Presentation by Eddie Pawlawski........................... pg 120 B. SHEEO Finance Report ......................................................................................... pg 121 C. Science Courses in the College Preparatory Curriculum ....................................... pg 147

120

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: 2004 ACT Preliminary Report and Presentation

by Eddie Pawlawski INSTITUTIONS: All COMMITTEE: Chancellor’s Report RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Information Only STAFF MEMBER: J. Michael Mullen BACKGROUND: This will be the third presentation of the results of the ACT examinations taken by recent high school graduates. This is not an action item but the information and trends tie directly to many of the policies and goals established in your statewide strategic plan, It All Adds Up, that will be reviewed later this year and the consideration of institutional progress in meeting their goals in their “Compacts.” The qualification of applicants is a critical factor in enrollment potential, retention rates, graduation rates, and the production of graduates in math, science, engineering, and health disciplines. The information presented is directly related to several of the agenda items for this meeting. The new standards for remediation placement and admissions have been developed assuming that recent progress in secondary student performance and enrollment in academic courses will continue. The new ACT data supports this assumption but does raise some concerns about whether the improvement, especially in math and science, will be sufficient for adoption in 2008. Mr. Eddie Pawlawski, Assistant Vice President and Regional Manager, Midwest Region, ACT, will present the preliminary report on results of 2004 ACT tests. The national release date for the new ACT report is Wednesday, August 18th. There will be considerable press and media interest in the report. The report is very positive but does expose some areas of concern. Mr. Pawlawski will be discussing the linkage between curriculum and scores on the ACT. You should pay special attention to the skills needed to exceed the minimal level for remediation and for admission to the four-year programs and institutions.

121

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: State Higher Education Finance Report

(SHEEO) INSTITUTIONS: All COMMITTEE: Chancellor’s Report RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Information Only STAFF MEMBER: J. Michael Mullen BACKGROUND:

The financing of higher education has gone through major adjustments over the last thirty or forty years and many of the assumptions or indicators of support or adequacy of funding must be reconsidered to reflect this evolution. It is necessary to take a longer perspective on financing trends to fully understand some of the political, economic, and policy shifts that have taken place. There have been a number of long-established reports that focused on specific aspects of higher education finance (state support, state student financial assistance, or share of state tax revenues) but few sources presented a comprehensive profile or comparative data over time until recently.

The US Department of Education published a State Profile report for many years, along with other comparative analyzes of higher education. Kent Halstead was the author and continued the reports when he became associated with Research Associates of Washington. Publication ceased with Kent’s retirement and created a void in the information available to states and institutions. Several projects were initiated to fill the vacuum but none succeeded or persisted.

In Fall 2001, the State Higher Education Executive Officers association, SHEEO, acquired the rights to the publications, State Profiles: Financing Higher Education Rankings and State Profiles: Financing Higher Education Trend Data. The intention in obtaining this study, and the right to continue it, was to continue the presentation of these valuable data and to expand the availability and analysis of data on state financing of higher education.

The resulting publication, the State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report, is a tool to help policy makers and educators address broad public policy questions such as:

• What level of state funding to colleges and universities is necessary to achieve the educational goals required for the economic and social well-being of the American people?

122

• What tuition levels are appropriate given the costs of higher education, its benefits to individuals, and the desirability of encouraging participation?

• What amounts and forms of student financial assistance are required to provide meaningful educational opportunities to students from low and moderate-income families?

• To what extent might colleges and universities increase productivity or reduce expenditures without impairing the quality of services to students?

An overview of the report will be presented at the meeting, along with a discussion of how it might be used in the review of West Virginia institutions’ condition, budget needs, and the appropriate balance between state funding and tuition revenues. This is an information item that is intended to evoke discussion that should continue through the fall and legislative session.

An extraction from the report is included with the agenda materials. The entire report may be found at http://www.sheeo.org/finance/shef.pdf

123

HigherHigher

EducationEducation

FinanceFinance

FY 2003FY 2003

StateState

124

7

State Higher Education Finance FY2003

Overview and Summary of NationalTrends and Interstate Comparisons

Overview

The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report is a tool to help policy makers and educators address broadpublic policy questions such as:

• What level of state funding to colleges and universities is necessary to achieve the educational goalsrequired for the economic and social well-being of the American people?

• What tuition levels are appropriate given the costs of higher education, its benefits to individuals, and thedesirability of encouraging participation?

• What amounts and forms of student financial assistance are required to provide meaningful educationalopportunities to students from low and moderate-income families?

• To what extent might colleges and universities increase productivity or reduce expenditures without impair-ing the quality of services to students?

While no report can answer such difficult questions, SHEF seeks to inform policy deliberations with informationand perspective on financial issues and national trends. The report includes the following chapters:

• "Making Sense of Interstate Higher Education Finance Data," a discussion of technical limitations and appro-priate uses of interstate financial comparisons;

• "Funding Sources and Uses," an overview of all state revenue sources supporting higher education (stateand local taxes, lotteries, royalties, and state-funded endowments) and the uses for which they areemployed;

• "National Trends and Interstate Comparisons," an analysis of state funding and net tuition revenues per full-time-equivalent (FTE) student; and

• "Perspectives on State Tax Capacity, Tax Revenue, and State Support of Higher Education," an analysis ofstate wealth and tax revenues per capita, and the states' allocation of revenues to higher education.

The report also provides three technical essays that discuss: a) the Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA)used by SHEF to estimate the effects of inflation on higher education; b) SHEF's analytical adjustments for inter-state differences in the cost of living and the proportion of enrollments among types of institution; and c) the differ-ences between various sources of information on state higher education finance. Appendices to the study providedata on individual states and other supporting information.

Summary of National Trends and Interstate Comparisons

Recent declines in state support for higher education have received substantial public attention. Some suggest thatstates are abandoning their historical commitment to public higher education, and are expecting parents and stu-dents to pay a larger share of the cost. A national view stretching back to 1970 and a more detailed look within

125

8


Overview and Summary of National Trends and Interstate Comparisons

states over the past dozen years, however, indicates that such a conclusion is superficial and premature. Asdemonstrated in the following list of findings, states have substantially increased support of higher education, eventhough they struggle to keep pace with enrollment growth and inflation, especially in times of recession.

1. Higher education enrollments nearly doubled–a ninety-eight percent increase–from 1970 to 2003. Duringthis period, state funding kept pace both with enrollment growth and the Consumer Price Index (CPI).Constant dollar state funding per student varied from year to year, at times dramatically, but grew modestlywhen inflation is measured by the CPI. Constant dollar state support per student nearly kept pace with moreappropriate measures of inflation for higher education, such as the Higher Education Cost Adjustment(HECA) developed by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) for the SHEF report. 1

2. In the short term, national economic downturns tend to depress state funding per FTE student because statebudgets are constrained while enrollment grows rapidly. This pattern can be observed several times from1970 through 2003. Following previous downturns, state support per FTE student rebounded when state rev-enues increased and enrollment growth moderated. Conceivably, this pattern of rebounding state supportafter a downturn may not be repeated in coming years. Yet, both history and the growing demand for high-er education suggest that the states' commitment to higher education will continue.

3. From 1991 to 2003, enrollments in public institutions increased by 18.7 percent. Half of this increaseoccurred since fiscal year 2001, the beginning of the current downturn. The percentage increase in FTEenrollment for public postsecondary institutions since fiscal 2001 has already outstripped that of the previ-ous two decades.

4. In constant 2003 dollars adjusted by the HECA, educational appropriations per FTE in public institutionsdipped during the early 1990s recession and recovered by 2000. However, recent constant dollar decreas-es in educational appropriations per FTE student result in a net decrease of 7.3 percent from $6,283 in 1991to $5,823 in 2003. In inflation-adjusted terms, the average appropriation per student in 2003 is roughly equivalent to the 1994 amount. Both state budget shortfalls and substantial enrollment growth contributed tothese results.

5. In public institutions, net tuition tends to grow as a percentage of total educational spending when the stateappropriation per student decreases in economic downturns. Nationally, net tuition accounted for 26.2 per-cent of total educational funding in 1991; it grew to thirty-one percent by 1993, remaining at that level until2003, when it increased again to thirty-three percent.

6. Total educational funding per FTE in public institutions remained virtually constant from 1991 to 2003, out-pacing inflation (HECA adjusted) by 2.1 percent. This was achieved because net tuition revenues per FTEincreased by 28.6 percent while educational appropriations per FTE decreased by 7.3 percent.

7. The national trends mask substantial variation among states. Between 1991 and 2003, public institutionenrollment growth ranged from 76.5 percent in Nevada to a decline of 3.5 percent in Rhode Island.Educational appropriations per FTE (in constant dollars) grew 22.3 percent in Georgia and declined 42.6 per-cent in South Carolina. In fiscal 2003, net tuition revenues per FTE ranged from $9,154 in Vermont to $959in California.

While these data defy sweeping generalizations, a general pattern does emerge–Americans are increasingly inter-ested in enrolling in higher education. The states have recognized and responded to this demand in varying ways

1 The CPI is an inadequate measure of the cost increases colleges and universities must pay. As an alternative, the SHEF report employs theHigher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA), which is based on two federal indices of inflation - the Employment Cost Index for white-collaroccupations excluding sales, and the Gross National Product Implicit Price Deflator. The difference between the CPI and HECA varies fromyear to year to year, but HECA generally is half to one percent higher.

126

9


Overview and Summary of National Trends and Interstate Comparisons

and amounts. When state resources fail to keep pace with enrollment demand and inflation (e.g., during a reces-sion), tuition has grown and students have had to shoulder a greater portion of the financial burden.

Over the past half-century, state and national policy makers and educators have sought to use public policies tofoster educational and economic opportunity by establishing a working balance among institutional appropriations,tuition, and financial aid. The "right" balance has always been and will continue to be a matter of debate. This edi-tion of the SHEF report is provided to inform these important public policy deliberations. SHEEO intends to con-tinue monitoring and reporting on these trends annually.

127

11


Making Sense of Interstate HigherEducation Finance Data

Valid Comparisons – More or Less

While financial analysis is inevitable and necessary, it can be deceptive. This essay and the accompanying tech-nical papers are intended to help readers understand the uses and limits of comparative financial data.

Comparing institutions and states in expenditures per FTE student is a difficult task. States are different from eachother. They have different climates, energy costs, housing costs, population densities, growth rates, and degreesof economic diversification. Some have a relatively homogenous, well-educated population, while others havelarge numbers of disadvantaged minorities and recent immigrants. Most states have pockets of poverty; these varyin their extent and concentration.

State higher education systems also differ; some have many small institutions, some a few large institutions, somehave more privately controlled ("independent") institutions, and some have more research universities, communi-ty colleges, or four-year universities. Interstate tuition varies, as do the amounts and types of financial aid. Someinstitutions offer high-cost medical education and/or engineering programs, while others provide substantially morefunding for research.

In addition to these differences, technical factors can make interstate comparisons misleading. For example, statesdiffer in how they finance employee benefits, including retirement. Some pay all retirement costs to employeeaccounts when the benefits are earned, while others defer part of the costs until the benefits are paid. Some paybenefit costs from a state agency, while others pay from institutional budgets. Many studies of state finance try toaccount for such factors, but no study, including this one, can assure a flawless comparison.

Still, the SHEF report provides data on the most significant analytical issues: all state and local revenues used forinstitutional operating expenses, state higher education agencies, and student financial assistance including rev-enues from taxes, lottery receipts, royalty revenues, and state-funded endowments. The SHEF funding analysisreflects enrollment growth and provides a means of examining the effects of inflation over time, differences in theenrollment mix among the major institutional sectors, and interstate differences in the cost of living, research fund-ing, medical education, and agriculture extension services.

The SHEF report can help educators and policy makers:

• Understand the extent to which state resources for colleges and universities have kept pace with enrollmentgrowth and inflationary cost increases;

• Examine and compare how state spending for higher education is allocated for different purposes;

• Assess trends in how much students are paying for higher education;

• Gain a perspective on the funding of their state’s higher education system in the context of other states; and

• Assess the capacity of their state economy to generate revenues to support public priorities.

These comparisons claim only to be "valid, more or less." Analysts with knowledge of particular states might knowof other factors that could mislead a comparative analysis. SHEEO continues to welcome any efforts to improvethe quality of its data and analytical tools.

128

12


Making Sense of Interstate Higher Education Finance Data

What is the Point?

While a financial analysis that specifies "appropriate" or "sufficient" funding would be helpful, the words are meaningful only in the context of states' objectives and circumstances. This study does not aim to define "appro-priate" or "sufficient," but to provide decision-makers with additional tools for making decisions regarding highereducation finance.

A state satisfied with its postsecondary education system must consider what is required to sustain its scale andquality. Other states (and countries) are working to catch up with and surpass the leading states. Similarly, a statethat seeks to improve its postsecondary system must define its priorities and targets for improvement. Whether theobjective is to sustain competitive advantage or to improve the postsecondary education system, however, moneyis always an issue.

With additional resources, educators can serve more students at higher levels of quality. More spending does not,however, necessarily yield a proportional increase in quantity or quality. Of critical importance are what resourcesare provided, the purposes to which they are applied, and the effectiveness with which they are employed. Statesand educators must work together to set goals, develop a strategy to achieve those goals, and determine theamount and allocations of funds required for success.

Efficiency is a thorny issue in educational budgeting; educators always can find good uses for more funding, andresources are always limited. Despite this conundrum, most thoughtful educators recognize that it is highly desir-able, and necessary, to achieve widespread educational attainment more cost-effectively. Increasing educationalproductivity without compromising quality would benefit both individuals and society. Achieving authentic produc-tivity increases, however, is a complex task requiring sustained effort. Productivity gains require both incentivesand innovation, and real progress is likely to come gradually.

So the question, "How much funding is enough?" has no easy answer. This study offers policy makers and edu-cational leaders a number of ways to look at higher education finance, but does not eliminate the need for judg-ment and budget negotiations. Good policymaking requires an analysis of the past, an understanding of the pres-ent, and a vision for the future.

In making funding decisions, a state must answer the following key questions:

• What kind of higher education system do we want?

• What will it take, given our circumstances, to obtain and sustain such a system?

• Are we making effective use of our current investments?

• What can we afford to invest in order to meet our goals?

Fiscal analysis cannot answer such questions, but it can help. The SHEF report is intended to help educators andpolicy makers work together to answer those questions.

129

15


Funding Sources and Uses

This section provides information on all sources of state and local government support for higher education oper-ations and grants, including non-tax revenue and lease income. It also reports major uses of that support, includ-ing state support of independent and public institutions. Source and use data are available only for fiscal years2000 through 2003. For detailed information on states' sources and uses of higher education funding for fiscal year2003, see Tables A1-A6 in Appendix A.

Sources of State and Local Government Funding

State and local governments provided $67.9 billion to higher education in 2003. Of this total:

• State tax appropriations accounted for 85.4 percent.

• Local appropriations accounted for 9.3 percent. Twenty-nine states had some local tax support for higher education.

• State appropriations from non-tax sources such as lotteries accounted for 1.5 percent. Georgia reported thegreatest reliance on such support, at 18.8 percent of state and local revenue. Endowment earnings accountedfor another 0.3 percent.

• Oil and mineral extraction fees or other lease income (generally not appropriated) accounted for 0.2 percent.Wyoming reported the greatest reliance on such support, at 21.6 percent of state and local revenue.

Tuition Revenue

Gross tuition and mandatory fee assessments in public postsecondary institutions totaled $33.3 billion in fiscal year2003. After subtracting state-funded public financial aid and tuition discounts and waivers, the net tuition revenueavailable for general operations was $27.7 billion, or eighty-three percent of gross assessments.

• Net tuition revenue brought the combined funds from state (64.4 percent), local (6.6 percent), and studentsources (29.0 percent) to $95.5 billion (see Figure 1). Tuition revenue accounted for the greatest share ofcombined funding (72.8 percent) in Vermont, and the smallest share (11.9 percent) in California.

Figure 1

Distribution of State, Local, and Net Tuition Revenue, U.S., Fiscal 2003

Net TuitionRevenue

Local Taxes

All StateSources

Source:SHEEO State Higher Education Finance (SHEF)

29.0%

6.6%64.4%

130

16



Uses of State and Local Government Funding

In fiscal 2003, $53.5 billion (78.8 percent) of state and local dollars were used for the general operation of publicpostsecondary institutions nationwide. Another 14.2 percent was dedicated to the operation of research, agricul-tural, and medical programs and services, ranging from 33.9 percent in New Jersey to zero in Rhode Island. Thenational total of $9.7 billion in research/agricultural/medical funding was divided as follows:

• 36.2 percent for medical schools, and 21.7 percent for teaching hospitals and public patient care.

• 22.5 percent for research centers, laboratories, and institutes.

• 19.6 percent for agricultural experiment stations and cooperative extension services.

The remaining seven percent was earmarked for other uses, including:

• Four percent of state and local funds went towards state-funded financial aid for public institution tuition andfees.

• Three percent of state and local funds went towards in-state independent institutions and their students(financial aid and institutional operations). The percentage of the state budget dedicated to independentinstitutions ranged from zero in many states to 10.7 percent in Pennsylvania.

National Trends in Sources and Uses of State and Local GovernmentFunds

SHEEO has collected data on the various sources and uses of state and local government support since fiscalyear 2000 (see Table 1). Funding from all sources grew from $62.0 billion in 2000 to $69.0 billion in 2002, and thendropped to $67.9 billion in 2003. While these data are insufficient to draw conclusions about enduring trends, theyshould prove useful in determining any changes in the sources of state funding for higher education, and in theallocation of funds to different purposes.

Sources of Funds

Local government support accounted for a slightly greater share of resources in 2003 than in 2000. The state sharedecreased from 91.8 percent to 90.7 percent of total state and local funds over this same period. Non-tax appro-priations, mostly from state lotteries, made up a small but rapidly growing portion of state funds, increasing from$764 million in fiscal 2000 to $988 million in fiscal 2003.

Uses of Funds

The most rapidly growing use of state and local funds between 2000 and 2003 was student financial aid. Publicstudent assistance grew from 2.2 to 3.9 percent of total usage, and student aid at independent institutions grewfrom 2.2 to 2.6 percent

All Sources of Revenue for Public Institutions

The SHEF data include $95.5 billion in fiscal 2003 revenues for the operation of state higher education systems,drawn from state appropriations (64.4 percent), local taxes (6.6 percent), and net tuition (29.0 percent) (see Table2). These comprise the principal revenue sources for instructional programs at public institutions; a portion alsosupport research and service activities. Other non-state and non-tuition revenue sources are the principal meansof funding for auxiliary enterprises, research, hospital operations, and other non-instructional programs.

131

17



Table 1

Major Sources and Uses of State and Local Government Support,Fiscal 2000-2003 (current dollars, in thousands)

Sources 2000 2001 2002 2003State

Tax Appropriations 55,716,209 59,442,365 61,745,169 57,981,171Non-Tax Appropriations 764,029 775,808 832,093 987,776Non-Appropriated 90,251 136,149 108,431 106,470Endowment Earnings 159,128 190,059 195,196 223,394Other 1 194,137 223,411 257,412 2,265,501

State Total 56,923,756 60,767,792 63,138,301 61,564,312Local Tax Appropriations 5,059,118 5,373,615 5,892,815 6,303,767Total $61,982,873 $66,141,407 $69,031,115 $67,868,080

Uses 2000 2001 2002 2003Research-Agric-Medical 9,406,548 9,727,084 10,070,342 9,658,792Public Student Aid 2 1,384,030 1,510,138 1,582,584 2,667,844Out-of-State Student Aid 10,759 13,769 13,968 25,490Independent Student Aid 3 1,367,065 1,521,779 1,617,850 1,760,322Independent Institutions 4 213,559 237,492 866,908 261,774General Public Operations 49,600,911 53,131,145 54,879,464 53,493,857Total $61,982,873 $66,141,407 $69,031,115 $67,868,080

Sources 2000 2001 2002 2003State

Tax Appropriations 89.9% 89.9% 89.4% 85.4%Non-Tax Appropriations 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.5%Non-Appropriated 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%Endowment Earnings 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%Other 1 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 3.3%

State Total 91.8% 91.9% 91.5% 90.7%Local Tax Appropriations 8.2% 8.1% 8.5% 9.3%Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Uses 2000 2001 2002 2003Research-Agric-Medical 15.2% 14.7% 14.6% 14.2%Public Student Aid 2 2.2% 2.3% 2.3% 3.9%Out-of-State Student Aid 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.04%Independent Student Aid 3 2.2% 2.3% 2.3% 2.6%Independent Institutions 4 0.3% 0.4% 1.3% 0.4%General Public Operations 80.0% 80.3% 79.5% 78.8%Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(Percentages)

Notes: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.1. Administered funds and portions of prior multi-year appropriations used in the current year.2. State appropriated student financial aid for public institution tuition and fees. Some respondents could not separate aid for tuition from aid

for living expenses.3. Includes student aid grants intended solely for use at in-state independent institutions and the independent sector’s portion of the state finan-

cial aid programs.4. State support of independent institutions for capital outlay (new construction and debt retirement) and operating expenses.

Source: SHEEO SHEF

132

18



In fiscal 2000, fifty-eight percent of total funding from all sources at public degree-granting institutions came fromstate and local governments, tuition, and fees (see Table 3). The proportion of revenues from state/local sourcesand net tuition varied by institution type–forty-nine percent for doctoral-extensive research universities, seventy-sixpercent for other public four-year institutions, and eighty-four percent for public two-year institutions. Even in researchuniversities, state/local support and tuition were the predominant revenue sources for instructional programs. Othersources were associated with sponsored research and contracts, auxiliary enterprises, and hospitals–activities thatcomplement and enhance instruction, but are typically expected to be mostly, or entirely, self-supporting.

Table 2

SHEF Revenues by Fund Source, Fiscal 2003,(in thousands)

Source Amount Percent of TotalGovernment Support 67,868,080 71.0%

State 61,564,312 64.4%Local 6,303,767 6.6%

Net Tuition Revenue 27,673,876 29.0%Total $95,541,956 100.0%

Source: SHEEO SHEF

Table 3

Current Fund Revenue Distribution for Selected Types of Public Degree Granting Institutions,by Sector and Fund Source, Fiscal 2000 (percentages)

Fund Source All All Public Doctoral Other Public Public Public Four-Year Extensive Four-Year Two-Year3

Tuition & Fees1 18.5% 18.1% 17.0% 32.1% 20.4%State Governments 35.8% 33.8% 31.4% 42.3% 45.0%Local Governments 3.8% 0.6% 0.3% 1.7% 18.2%Federal Government2 10.8% 12.0% 13.5% 4.6% 5.3%Private Gifts, Grants & Contracts 4.8% 5.6% 6.3% 2.3% 1.1%Endowment Earnings 0.7% 0.9% 1.2% 0.3% 0.1%Educational Activities 3.1% 3.6% 3.9% 1.4% 0.8%Auxiliary Enterprises 9.6% 10.5% 11.1% 13.1% 5.7%Hospitals 8.9% 10.9% 11.2% 0.0% 0.0%Other Current Income 3.9% 4.0% 4.1% 2.1% 3.5%Total Current Fund Revenue 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Notes:1. Includes federally supported aid received through students.2. Includes appropriations, grants, contracts, and revenues associated with major federally funded research and development centers.

Excludes Pell Grants.3. Excludes tribal colleges.

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, “Digest of Education Statistics,” 2002, Table 334

133

21


National Trends and InterstateComparisons

National Trends

Trends since 1970

While the data fluctuate widely over short time periods, state appropriations per FTE student have graduallyincreased in constant dollars over the last thirty-five years. Adjusted by the Consumer Price Index for UrbanConsumers (CPI-U), the average annual rate of increase in constant dollar state tax appropriations per FTE was0.2 percent from fiscal 1970 to 2003 (see Figure 2). During this period, enrollments virtually doubled from 4.5 tonine million students.

Figure 2

State Tax Appropriations per FTE, U.S.,Fiscal 1970-2003, Constant 2003 Dollars Adjusted by CPI-U

4,500,000

5,500,000

6,500,000

7,500,000

8,500,000

9,500,000

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

$5,500

$6,500

$7,500

$8,500

Public FTE Enrollment

State Tax Appropriations per FTE (Constant $)

Publ

ic F

TE E

nrol

lmen

t

Stat

e Ta

x A

ppro

pria

tions

per

FTE

Sources: Enrollment data from NCES “Digest of Education Statistics.” Funding data from “Grapevine” database of state tax support for highereducation, Center for the Study of Education Policy, Illinois State University.

134

22


National Trends and Interstate Comparisons

This long-term analysis uses Grapevine state tax appropriation figures for the numerator, fall term FTE enrollmentdata from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for the denominator, and the CPI-U toadjust for inflation. SHEF data and a more appropriate index of inflation for higher education expenses wereunavailable for such an extended time series.

During economic recessions, a decrease in funding per FTE tends to occur alongside enrollment increases, appar-ently because a tight employment market increases the attractiveness (and decreases the opportunity cost) of further education. As Figure 2 demonstrates, the nation entered such a period in fiscal 2000.

Recent Trends, 1991-2003

SHEF data from fiscal 1991 to 2003 are available for a more detailed analysis of recent trends in annual FTEenrollment data as well as all sources of state and local support for public institutions.

Table 4 presents data on public higher education FTE enrollments and state and local support in current dollarsfor selected years 1991-2003. During this period FTE enrollments grew from 8.1 million to 9.6 million, and totalstate and local support grew from $42.1 billion to $65.8 billion. Net tuition revenues grew from $12.4 billion to$27.7 billion, and total funding from these sources (tuition plus state and local appropriations) grew from $54.6 bil-lion to $93.4 billion.

Appropriations for research, agricultural extension, teaching hospitals, and medical schools grew from $7.2 billionin 1991 to $9.7 billion 2003 but have diminished as a percentage of total funding. The remaining funds allocatedto "Other Educational Programs" in Table 4 are labeled "Total Educational Funding" in subsequent tables and figures in these section of the SHEF report. Support for research, agriculture extension, teaching hospitals, andmedical schools (as well as related FTE enrollments) are excluded from "Total Educational Funding" because inthese expenditures vary widely among the states.

Table 4

Public Higher Education Support in Current Dollars, U.S.,Selected Years Fiscal 1991-2003

(Dollars in Billions) 1991 1996 2001 2003State Support 39.1 43.6 58.6 59.5Local Appropriations 3.0 4.1 5.4 6.3

State and Local Total1 $ 42.1 $ 47.7 $ 64.0 $ 65.8Net Tuition Revenue 12.4 18.5 23.5 27.7

State & Local plus Net Tuition1 $ 54.6 $ 66.2 $ 87.5 $ 93.4Allocated to Research-Agricultural- 7.2 8.1 9.7 9.7

MedicalAllocated to Other Educational $ 47.4 $ 58.1 $ 77.8 $ 83.8

Programs2

FTE Enrollment 8,118,384 8,246,005 8,835,631 9,636,680

Net Tuition Revenue per FTE $ 1,531 $ 2,242 $ 2,660 $ 2,872Total Educational Funding per FTE $ 5,838 $ 7,050 $ 8,802 $ 8,694

Notes:1. Totals may not add due to rounding.2. Hereafter referred to as Total Educational Funding.

Source: SHEEO SHEF

135

23



These current dollar figures are adjusted for inflation using the Higher Education Cost Adjustment in subsequenttables and figures. (See Technical Paper A for a more detailed description of the rationale and method for devel-oping the HECA).

Fiscal year 1991 is used as the analysis baseline because it was near the long-term slope of state support per student (see Figure 2). Obviously, choosing a "peak" or "valley" as the baseline year could lead to dramatically dif-ferent observations about enrollment growth and state support levels.

The following are the most significant trends during the period:

1. Enrollment grew by 18.7 percent. At the turn of the century, the nation entered another period of rapid enroll-ment growth. Based on SHEF data, FTE enrollment from fiscal 2001-03 has already outstripped that of eachof the previous two decades, increasing by 9.1 percent compared to 6.2 percent in the 1990s and 8.5 per-cent in the 1980s.

2. Educational appropriations 1 per FTE fell by 7.3 percent. In constant 2003 dollars, educational appropriationsper FTE dipped during the recession of the early 1990s, but recovered by 2000. The recent growth in enroll-ments, unmatched by increased appropriations, produced a 7.3 percent decrease in educational appropria-tions per student (from $6,283 to $5,823)–an example of the classic convergence of state revenue shortfallsand enrollment growth because of a recession.

3. Net tuition revenue 2 per FTE grew by 28.6 percent. In contrast to educational appropriations, net revenuesper student increased 28.6 percent (from $2,233 to $2,872). The most rapid tuition revenue increasesoccurred during the recession of the early 1990s–net tuition revenue per FTE increased 18.4 percent (from$2,233 to $2,644) between fiscal 1991-94, but increased less than one percent (from $2,850 to $2,872)between 1998 and 2003. 3

4. Total educational funding 4 per FTE grew by 2.1 percent. The net result of the overall downward trend inappropriations and upward trend in tuition revenue was that total educational funding per FTE remained rel-atively unchanged from fiscal year 1991 to 2003. In constant 2003 dollars, total educational funding per FTEincreased 2.1 percent (from $8,516 to $8,694).

1 Educational appropriations are defined as state plus local appropriations minus appropriations for research centers and institutes, agricul-tural experiment stations and cooperative extensions, teaching hospitals, and medical schools.

2 Net tuition revenue is defined as gross tuition and mandatory fee assessments by public institutions minus discounts and waivers, medicalschool tuition revenues, and state-appropriated student financial aid.

3 While tuition charges have generally increased faster than inflation since 1998, net tuition revenues per student on a constant dollar basishave not. One reason for this is that the majority of recent enrollment growth has occurred in lower-tuition institutions. Another is increasedfunding for student financial aid programs by states and increased tuition discounting by institutions, both of which are subtracted from grosstuition assessments to arrive at net revenues.

4 Total educational funding is defined as educational appropriations plus net tuition revenue.

136

24



Figure 3

Total Educational Funding per FTE, by Component, U.S., Fiscal 1991-2003

$2,233 $2,408 $2,561 $2,644 $2,717 $2,812 $2,835 $2,850 $2,842 $2,809 $2,835 $2,853 $2,872

$6,283 $5,922 $5,710$5,775

$5,972$6,030 $6,207 $6,370 $6,419 $6,531 $6,546 $6,317

$5,823

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

$8,516

$8,694

Educational Appropriations

Net Tuition Revenue

Note: Constant 2003 dollars adjusted by SHEEO HECA.

Source: SHEEO SHEF

Figure 3 shows the combined effects of trends in state appropriations and net tuition on total educational funding.

137

25



5 While net tuition revenues per FTE decreased on a constant dollar basis between 2002-2003, educational appropriations decreased evenmore, causing net tuition as a percentage of total educational funding to increase.

Figure 4

Net Tuition Revenue as a Percentage of Total Educational Funding, U.S., Fiscal 1991-2003

26.2%

31.0% 31.4% 31.3%31.8% 31.4% 30.9% 30.7%

30.1% 30.2%31.1%

33.0%

28.9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Source: SHEEO SHEF

By examining the two components of total educational funding–educational appropriations and net tuition rev-enue–it is possible to compare state and local government contributions with those of students. Nationally, theshare of total educational funding represented by net tuition revenue increased from twenty-six percent in 1991 tothirty-one percent in 1993, hovered at this level from 1993 to 2002, then increased again to thirty-three percent in2003 (see Figure 4). 5

138

26



Interstate Comparisons

Trends From 1991-2003

The factors that yielded relatively stable national total educational funding–rapid enrollment growth, decreases inper student appropriations, and increases in net tuition revenues–are atypical of every state. Figures 5, 6, 7 and 8show enormous variation among states.

1. Enrollment. All but three states experienced increases in FTE enrollment, contributing to the national increaseof 18.7 percent. Changes in enrollment levels ranged from a 76.5 percent increase in Nevada to a 3.5 percentdecrease in Rhode Island. Thirty-five states experienced enrollment growth of ten percent or more, and twentystates realized growth of twenty percent or more.

Figure 5

Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment, Percent Change by State, Fiscal 1991-2003

76.5%

-3.5%

18.7%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Rho

de Is

land

Mis

sour

iIll

inoi

sAla

ska

Mar

ylan

dKan

sas

Min

neso

ta

Mas

sach

uset

tsN

ebra

ska

Mic

higa

nAla

bam

a

New

Ham

pshi

re

New

Jer

sey

Con

nect

icut

Pen

nsyl

vani

aW

isco

nsin

New

Yor

kM

aine

Wes

t Virg

inia

Ver

mon

tO

hio

Iow

aW

yom

ing

Haw

aii

Ten

ness

eeG

eorg

iaTex

asVirg

inia

U.S

.C

olor

ado

Del

awar

e

New

Mex

ico

Okl

ahom

a

Nor

th D

akot

aKen

tuck

yO

rego

nM

onta

naIn

dian

aId

aho

Cal

iforn

ia

Sou

th C

arol

ina

Ariz

ona

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Flo

rida

Sou

th D

akot

aLo

uisi

ana

Mis

siss

ippi

Ark

ansa

s

Was

hing

ton

Uta

hN

evad

a

Source: SHEEO SHEF

139

27



Figure 6

Educational Appropriations per FTE, Percent Change by State, Fiscal 1991-2003

-7.3%

22.3%

-42.6%-45%

-40%

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Sou

th C

arol

ina

Ver

mon

tId

aho

Ore

gon

New

Jer

sey

Mon

tana

Haw

aii

Flor

ida

Was

hing

ton

Col

orad

oIn

dian

aM

aine

Iow

aU

tah

New

Ham

pshi

re

Nor

th D

akot

aVirg

inia

Ala

ska

Ohi

oN

evad

aM

inne

sota

Sou

th D

akot

a

Pen

nsyl

vani

aO

klah

oma

Con

nect

icut

Nor

th C

arol

ina

New

Yor

kAriz

ona

U.S

.D

elaw

are

Cal

iforn

ia

Tenn

esse

eM

aryl

and

Mis

siss

ippi

Ark

ansa

sW

isco

nsin

Loui

sian

aAla

bam

aKan

sas

Texa

sN

ebra

ska

Mic

higa

n

Rho

de Is

land

New

Mex

ico

Wes

t Virg

inia

Mas

sach

uset

tsIll

inoi

sW

yom

ing

Ken

tuck

yM

isso

uri

Geo

rgia

Notes: Educational appropriations is the sum of state plus local minus research-agricultural-medical. Constant 2003 dollars adjusted bySHEEO HECA.

Source: SHEEO SHEF

2. Educational Appropriations. Constant dollar educational appropriations per FTE decreased 7.3 percent on aver-age for the period, ranging from a 42.6 percent decrease in South Carolina to a 22.3 percent increase in Georgia(see Figure 6). Educational appropriations per student increased in thirteen states, and decreased in thirty-seven(although the decrease in Alabama was less than one percent). Enrollment trends influence the amount of supportper student. Eleven of the thirteen states with growth in appropriations per student had less than the national aver-age enrollment growth (18.7 percent), and six of the thirteen grew less than five percent. Only Kentucky and NewMexico had increases in educational appropriations per student and above average enrollment growth.

140

28



3. Net Tuition Revenue. Constant dollar net tuition per student increased in forty-five states (28.6 percent on aver-age). The most substantial increases for the most part occurred in states with relatively lower tuition.

The average share of educational funding represented by net tuition in fiscal year 2003 was 31.8 percent. Relianceon tuition as a revenue stream varied widely by state, ranging from a high of 72.8 percent in Vermont to a low of14.2 percent in Georgia (see Figure 7). Midwestern states and New England tended to exceed the national aver-age, Western states lagged beneath it, and Southern states were near it.

Figure 7

State Reliance on Net Tuition as a Source of Public Higher Education Revenue, by State, Fiscal 2003

14.2%

72.8%

31.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Ver

mon

t

New

Ham

pshi

reD

elaw

are

Col

orad

oO

rego

n

Pen

nsyl

vani

aM

ichi

gan

Rho

de Is

land

Mon

tana

Ohi

o

Sou

th C

arol

ina

Indi

ana

Sou

th D

akot

aIo

wa

Virg

inia

Ariz

ona

Mar

ylan

dM

aine

Ala

bam

a

New

Jer

sey

Mis

sour

i

Wis

cons

in

Ten

ness

ee

Mas

sach

uset

tsM

inne

sota

Wes

t Virg

inia

Kan

sas

U.S

.

Con

nect

icut

New

Yor

k

Mis

siss

ippi

Loui

sian

aTex

as

Nor

th D

akot

aU

tah

Ark

ansa

sKen

tuck

yN

ebra

ska

Idah

oFlo

rida

Illin

ois

Nev

ada

Okl

ahom

a

Was

hing

ton

Nor

th C

arol

ina

New

Mex

ico

Wyo

min

gH

awai

iAla

ska

Cal

iforn

iaG

eorg

ia

Notes: Reliance is Net Tuition Revenue divided by the sum of Net Tuition Revenue and State Appropriations. State Appropriations includeresearch-agricultural-medical dollars.

Source: SHEEO SHEF

141

29



States differ in their vulnerability to state appropriation decreases. State funding reductions naturally have a greaterimpact on institutional revenues in states with lower tuition rates. Based on 2003 SHEF data, a one percentdecrease in state appropriations in Vermont could have been replaced by a net tuition revenue increase of only0.4 percent. In Georgia and California, on the other hand, tuition revenue would have had to increase six percentto compensate for a one percent appropriations cut. Nationwide, net tuition revenue would have had to increase2.1 percent to offset a one percent decrease in state appropriations.

4. Total Educational Funding. State data on total educational funding per FTE from fiscal 1991 to 2003 vary sub-stantially, ranging from a 25.3 percent increase in Kentucky to a 23.5 percent decrease in South Carolina (seeFigure 8). When aggregated nationally, the data show that increases in net tuition revenue offset decreases in stateappropriations per FTE to yield an average 2.1 percent increase in total educational funding per FTE.

Figure 8

Total Educational Funding per FTE, Percent Change by State, Fiscal 1991-2003

-23.5%

25.3%

2.1%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Sou

th C

arol

ina

Was

hing

ton

Idah

oH

awai

iFlo

rida

Nor

th D

akot

aAla

ska

Uta

h

New

Jer

sey

Nev

ada

Ver

mon

t

Okl

ahom

aC

alifo

rnia

Loui

sian

aC

olor

ado

Mis

siss

ippi

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Ariz

ona

Ark

ansa

s

Pen

nsyl

vani

aVirg

inia

Mai

neO

rego

n

New

Ham

pshi

reO

hio

Wis

cons

inIn

dian

aU

.S.

Iow

a

Sou

th D

akot

aN

ew Y

ork

Min

neso

ta

Con

nect

icut

Mon

tana

Geo

rgia

Mar

ylan

dD

elaw

are

New

Mex

ico

Ten

ness

eeKan

sas

Neb

rask

aAla

bam

aM

ichi

gan

Wes

t Virg

inia

Illin

ois

Wyo

min

gTex

as

Mas

sach

uset

ts

Rho

de Is

land

Mis

sour

iKen

tuck

y

Notes: Total Educational Funding is the sum of Educational Appropriations plus Net Tuition Revenue. Constant 2003 dollars adjusted bySHEEO HECA.

Source: SHEEO SHEF

142

30



Interstate Comparisons, Fiscal 2003

The cost of living varies between states, most dramatically in housing costs. Because colleges and universitiesmust consider the local cost of living in determining faculty and staff compensation, it is important to take this variable into account in any interstate comparisons. Further, each state is unique in its mix of postsecondary insti-tutions (with varying instructional expenses per student), and the distribution of enrollments. The SHEF projectuses separate analytical adjustments for each state's relative cost of living and public postsecondary system enroll-ment mix (see Technical Paper B).

Table A-7 in Appendix A shows the impact of these adjustments on fiscal 2003 interstate comparisons of total edu-cational funding per FTE. While these adjustments tend to draw states toward the national mean, the size anddirection vary among states.

• In states where the cost of living exceeds the national average, dollars per FTE are adjusted downward (e.g.,Massachusetts). In states where the cost of living is below the national average, dollars per FTE are adjust-ed upward (e.g., Mississippi).

• If the proportion of enrollments in higher cost institutions exceeds the national average, the dollars per FTEare adjusted downward (e.g., Delaware). In states with a relatively inexpensive enrollment mix, the dollarsper FTE are adjusted upward (e.g., California).

• Dollars per FTE are adjusted upward the most in states with an inexpensive enrollment mix and low cost ofliving (e.g., Arkansas). The reverse is true for states with a more expensive enrollment mix and high cost ofliving (e.g., Colorado). In some states, the two factors cancel each other (e.g., Oregon).

Putting the Pieces Together

In this section, SHEF data are plotted along two dimensions to bring recent state fiscal policy findings and trendsinto sharper relief.

Educational Funding 1991 - 2003

The first such analysis displays changes in each state's public institution educational funding per FTE since 1991(see Figure 9). State data points along the horizontal axis compare each state's total educational funding per FTEin fiscal 2003 (adjusted for the cost of living and enrollment mix) to the national average. Data points on the verti-cal axis indicate the extent to which constant dollar public institution educational funding per FTE has grown ordeclined in each state over the last thirteen years.

• States in the upper right quadrant: Total funding per FTE exceeded the national average in 2003, andincreased faster than the national average between 1991 and 2003.

• States in the lower right quadrant: Total funding per FTE exceeded the national average in 2003, andincreased slower than the national average between 1991 and 2003.

• States in the lower left quadrant: Total funding per FTE lagged the national average in 2003, and increasedslower than the national average between 1991 and 2003.

• States in the upper left quadrant: Total funding per FTE lagged the national average in 2003, and increasedfaster than the national average between 1991 and 2003.

143

31



Figure 9

Total Educational Funding per FTE by State: Percent Change and Current Standing Relative to U.S. Average

NM

MI

RI

WY

AK

DE

CT

PAME

VT

NC

MNIN

MA

U S WIIANY

GATNMD

AL

MOKY

WV

NE

KS

IL

MT

SD

OHORVA

ARAZ

CA

OK

NV

HI

SC

LA

MS

CO

ND

UT NJ

WAID

NH

TX

FL

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Notes:1. Fiscal 2003 adjusted for public system enrollment mix and state cost of living.2. Funding and FTE data are for public non-medical students only.3. Constant 2003 dollars adjusted by SHEEO HECA.

Source: SHEEO SHEF

% CHANGE: above averageCURRENT: above average

% CHANGE: above averageCURRENT: below average

% CHANGE: below averageCURRENT: above average

% CHANGE: below averageCURRENT: below average

Perc

ent C

hang

e, T

otal

Ed

Fund

ing

per F

TE, 1

991-

2003

(Con

stan

t 200

3 H

ECA

Dol

lars

)

Total Ed Funding per FTE, Percent Over/Under the U.S.Average in Fiscal 2003

When these data are aggregated according to states' affiliations with regional higher education associations, thefollowing patterns emerge:

• Total educational funding in New England and the Midwest has consistently outpaced the national average(to a greater extent in 2003 than in 1991). Both regions rely on students paying a higher share of education-al costs.

• While educational funding in the South lags the national average, Southern states have gained ground.

• Western states spent more than the national average in 1991, but decreased to the level of the national average by 2003. Several states' enrollment growth outstripped revenue increases from both legislativeappropriations and student tuition.

144

32



Educational Appropriations and Net Tuition 1991-2003

Figure 10 displays the rate of change in the two components of educational funding–educational appropriationsand net tuition per FTE. Data on the horizontal axis indicate the percentage change in educational appropriationsper FTE in each state from 1991 to 2003. Data on the vertical axis indicate the extent to which constant dollar nettuition revenues per FTE grew or declined in each state over the period.

• States in the upper right quadrant: Exceeded the national average in both educational appropriations andnet tuition revenue changes.

• States in the lower right quadrant: Exceeded the national average in educational appropriation changes, andlagged the national average in net tuition revenue changes.

• States in the lower left quadrant: Lagged the national average in both educational appropriation and tuitionrevenue changes.

• States in the upper left quadrant: Lagged the national average in educational appropriation changes, andexceeded the national average in net tuition changes.

Figure 10

Percent Change by State in Educational Appropriationsand Net Tuition Revenues per FTE, Fiscal 1991-2003

IN

KSRI

MI

SCVT

ID

NJ

NE

TNCT

MN

MD

AZ

ME

HI

MT

CO

WA

AL

TX

WV

MA

WY

IL

GA

MO

KY

NM

UT

SD

AK

VA

IA

DE

CA

NY

NC

U S

PAOKNV

NH

OH

ND

FL

WI

ARMS

LA

OR

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

-45% -40% -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Notes: The national average constant dollar percent change in net tuition per FTE was +28.6% for the period. The average change in educa-tional appropriations per student was -7.3%. Constant 2003 dollars adjusted by SHEEO HECA.

Source: SHEEO SHEF

APPROPS % CHANGE: above avg.NET TUIT % CHANGE: above avg.

APPROPS % CHANGE: below avg.NET TUIT % CHANGE: above avg.

APPROPS % CHANGE: above avg.NET TUIT % CHANGE: below avg.

APPROPS % CHANGE: below avg.NET TUIT % CHANGE: below avg.

Perc

ent C

hang

e in

Net

Tui

tion

per F

TE(C

onst

ant 2

003

HEC

AD

olla

rs)

Percent Change in Educational Appropriations per FTE(Constant 2003 HECA Dollars)

145

33



Net Tuition and State Student Financial Aid, 2003

Many states fund student financial aid programs both to supplement federal grants, loans, and work-study pro-grams, and to offset tuition increases. A state that relies largely on net tuition revenues to fund public colleges anduniversities might also try to fund a balanced state financial aid program. In Figure 11, the data on the horizontalaxis represent fiscal 2003 net tuition revenues per FTE for each state. The data on the vertical axis represent fiscal 2003 state-funded grant aid per FTE, from the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs(NASSGAP).

• States in the upper right quadrant: Exceeded the national average in both net tuition revenue and state grant aid.

• States in the lower right quadrant: Exceeded the national average in net tuition revenue, and lagged thenational average in grant aid.

• States in the lower left quadrant: Lagged the national average in both net tuition revenues and grant aid.

• States in the upper left quadrant: Lagged the national average net tuition, and exceeded the national aver-age in grant aid.

Figure 11

Net Tuition Revenue per FTE and Total State Student Grant Aid per FTE, Fiscal 2003

AK

IL

OH

CT

IN

CA

WA

GA

HI

ME

TN

WI

AZ

MA

WV

NC

ID

OK

WY

OR

MT AL NH RI

MI

VT

DE

PA

IA

UT

U S

KS

LA

NM

MO

CO

MN

TX VA

AR

KY

NY

NDNE

MS

NV

SC

NJ

SD

MD

FL

$(100)

$-

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

$1,100

$1,200

$1,300

$-

$50

0

$1,0

00

$1,5

00

$2,0

00

$2,5

00

$3,0

00

$3,5

00

$4,0

00

$4,5

00

$5,0

00

$5,5

00

$6,0

00

$6,5

00

$7,0

00

$7,5

00

$8,0

00

Notes: X Axis: Net tuition revenue per FTE from SHEEO State Higher Education Finance. Data for public institutions only. Y Axis: Total statestudent grant aid from NASSGAP 2002-03 Annual Survey Report. FTE are Fall 2002 from IPEDS. Data for public and independent Title IV-eligible institutions.

Source: SHEEO SHEF

NET TUITION REVENUE: above avg.STATE GRANT AID: above avg.

NET TUITION REVENUE: below avg.STATE GRANT AID: above avg.

NET TUITION REVENUE: above avg.STATE GRANT AID: below avg.

NET TUITION REVENUE:below avg.STATE GRANT AID: below avg.

Tota

l Sta

te S

tude

nt G

rant

Aid

per

FTE

Net Tuition Revenue per FTE

146

34



While these data show the relative position of the states on tuition rates and state-funded financial assistance, itis important to keep several caveats in mind:

1. Net tuition data include only public institutions;

2. Student financial aid data include state assistance to students attending both public and independent institutions;

3. Institutional aid (in some states a significant source of student grant assistance) is excluded;

4. Both need-based and non-need based awards are included.

Table A-8 (see Appendix A) from the 2002-03 NASSGAP Annual Survey Report provides the amounts of need-based, non-need, and total state grant aid per FTE in 2002-03.

147

West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission Meeting of August 20, 2004 ITEM: Science Courses in the College Preparatory

Curriculum INSTITUTIONS: All COMMITTEE: Chancellor’s Report RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Information item only STAFF MEMBER: J. Michael Mullen BACKGROUND: The West Virginia Board of Education is in the process of making significant changes to the high school science curriculum. Where in past years Coordinated and Thematic Science 9 and 10 (CATS 9 and 10) have been the mainstays in the state science curriculum in grades 9 and 10, the plan is to retain CATS 10 as an elective laboratory science course which would typically be taken in grades 10-12. It would be offered similarly to advanced science courses in chemistry, biology, physics, and anatomy and physiology. CATS 9 would remain as a general science course and would be offered as a non-laboratory science course to ninth graders. Several significant issues emerge as such change is contemplated. The first of these is the implication for high school students in the professional pathways (college preparatory) track. With the new 2008 baccalaureate admission standards, students will need to complete three lab science courses. Since CATS 9 is currently a non-laboratory course, students in West Virginia high schools would need to complete four science units if CATS 9 is one of the units completed. A second issue is the design of CATS 9. Possible options might be to offer CATS 9 in the eighth grade or to restructure the course as a lab science offering. Another significant issue is teacher preparation for in-service and pre-service teachers. Some teachers of CATS 9, a ninth grade course, have an endorsement in science (5-9), but hold primary certification in other fields. If CATS 9 were to be upgraded to a lab science level, there would be a corresponding need for professional development for in-service teachers of CATS 9. Also at issue is the adequacy of the teacher preparation programs in science for pre-service teachers, particularly for those in 5-9 certification programs. The HEPC and WVDE staffs are currently holding conversations on how best to address these issues.

Documents

SCHEDULE MEETING OF THE WEST VIRGINIA HIGHER … · 2006. 7. 5. · SCHEDULE MEETING OF THE WEST VIRGINIA HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY COMMISSION August 20, 2004 Marshall University Graduate