PROPOSTION B LINKS MONEY TO REFORMS

(Third in a series)

Proposition B doesn't provide a blank check for Missouri's public colleges and universities, but ties the funding to specific reforms and activities, proponents say.

The measure is on the Nov. 5 election ballot.

It would establish a higher-education trust account, with the funds being divided among eight categories according to specified percentages.

Initially, Proposition B would provide an estimated $190 million for higher education in the state.

The money would be allocated as follows:

55.4 percent for mission enhancement (more than $105 million in the first fiscal year).

11.5 percent for community colleges (nearly $22 million).

11.1 percent for the Missouri Student Grant Program ($21 million).

6.9 percent for building and equipment maintenance and equipment purchases (over $13 million).

6.1 percent for incentive grants for improving undergraduate education ($11.6 million).

5.9 percent for research grants to public and private institutions ($11.2 million).

2.6 percent for recruitment and retention of disadvantaged students (nearly $5 million).

0.5 percent for University of Missouri Extension Division services ($950,000).

State budget officials estimate that the additional revenue would increase by nearly 5 percent a year so the income for higher education would grow to about $226 million by 1996.

The percentages allocated to each category changes annually until fiscal year 1996. In 1993, mission enhancement and community college accounts would receive 66.9 percent of the higher-education funds, while 25.7 percent would go to various accounts for grants and scholarships. Building and maintenance would receive 6.9 percent and Missouri Extension Division services would receive 0.5 percent.

By 1996, the share for mission enhancement and community colleges would be 61.9 percent, while the share for grants and scholarships would increase to 28.6 percent. Building and maintenance would increase to 9 percent and extension services would continue to receive 0.5 percent of the funds.

Proposition B would be funded partially by an increase in corporate taxes, a three-eights-cent increase in the state sales tax, a five-cent-per-pack tax increase on cigarettes, and a new, 10 percent tax on other tobacco products.

The measure would strengthen the Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education, providing it with authority to eliminate duplicate, inefficient or unnecessary academic programs in the state, Proposition B supporters point out.

"We have handed an immense amount of power from the legislature to the coordinating board to control programs in the state of Missouri," said state Sen. Roger Wilson, D-Columbia, head of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a backer of the tax-and-reform package.

Schools such as Southeast Missouri State University would have to submit plans to the Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education for use of Proposition B money in regards to "mission enhancement."

Kala Stroup, Southeast Missouri State president, said: "I think what is the important part of that reform package is that the dollars will not go directly to the university. They will be held in the trust fund and will be used as incentive money."

"It's really an incentive for excellence and an incentive to address the higher-education needs of the state," said Stroup. "Universities can compete for the dollars based on the strength of their projects.

"I call it incentive money because it is an incentive to meet certain priorities and goals of the state," she said.

Such goals, she explained, include an emphasis on math, science and foreign languages; and an effort to recruit and retain minority students.

"There is money in there for minority scholarships and programs that emphasize retention of minority students," said Stroup.

Certain steps would have to be taken before "mission enhancement" funds would be released.

First, the state's coordinating board must prepare a plan for the state's higher-education system, including community colleges, with recommendations for a statutory mission for each institution. The institutions would be involved in shaping their missions.

The legislature would ultimately approve the statutory missions.

Next, each institution must submit to the coordinating board a detailed plan for implementing its mission. By December 1992, the coordinating board must submit to the legislature a coordinated plan that includes a mission implementation plan for each institution.

By April 1, 1993, the legislature must ratify these plans, after which funds for mission enhancement would be appropriated, the measure states.

Mission implementation plans, among other things, must include: the focus of the service area; functional emphasis of the institution, such as teaching, public service, basic research and others; centers of excellence, where appropriate; and admission standards and information on student population.

The public would be involved in mission implementation planning, with each institution having to hold at least one public hearing on each of its campuses.

Any unspent balance in any of the higher-education categories at the end of a fiscal year must be reappropriated for building and equipment maintenance the following year.

Institutions must set aside 1 percent of the replacement costs of total physical assets, including equipment, to be used for building repair and replacement. Total replacement costs for higher education are estimated to be about $1.8 billion, so this set-aside would amount to about $18 million, educators say.

If an institution is able to cut costs by eliminating programs, it may reallocate the money within the institution.

Under the proposal, the coordinating board must adopt accountability measures that would be applied to all public colleges and universities in the state, including community colleges.

The focus would be on assessing student performance. Assessment results would be published annually by the coordinating board The board also could use the results in deciding on allocation of mission enhancement funds.

More than one-fourth of the higher-education revenue would pay for grants and scholarships, serving students in public and private colleges and universities, proponents point out.

As for recruitment and retention of minority and other educationally and economically disadvantaged students, each public college and university would receive grant money based on the number of such students above the previous three-year average population of such students for each institution.

Schools would receive $1,000 for each disadvantaged student who successfully completes 60 credit hours and $2,000 for each disadvantaged student who graduates.

Funds from that account would also be allocated to four existing scholarship programs: "Bright Flight," aimed at retaining Missouri students in Missouri colleges; higher-education graduate study scholarship; higher-education artistic talent scholarship; and the minority teaching scholarship, aimed at encouraging Missouri's minority students to enter the teaching profession.

A new Missouri mathematics and sciences scholars and fellows program would be established under Proposition B. The program would aim at graduating new teachers of math and science. After graduation, recipients would have to teach in Missouri public schools for at least four years.

(Wednesday: Opponents of Proposition B question the method of taxation, in particular the use of a sales tax. Job training is a minor part of the ballot measure, but there is disagreement over the issue of business tax credits.)