Proposed MO higher education budget. Does it kill the miaa?

[Predatory Primates]

The proposed MO budget plans to alot higher education funding by enrollment. Meaning Mizzou and MoState get most of the money.

UCM should be ok.

Do the smaller state schools survive, or do the bigger schools form umbrella systems?

[NWHoops]

It would increase funding for NW. Currently, NW is the lowest funded institution on a per student basis.

[BearCatAlum]

Why is NW the lowest funded? I would have guessed Truman State?

[KPKCBC]

Anyone know how funds are distributed now? I would have assumed enrollment had already been a major determining factor on how subsidies are paid out. I guess I would have been wrong.

[NWHoops]

Why is NW the lowest funded? I would have guessed Truman State?

Truman St is the highest funded on a per student basis. See page 9 of the link. NW is least funded on a per student basis and is best at ROI for degrees granted per state appropriations (page 10).

https://dhewd.mo.gov/media/pdf/highe...-factbook-2026

[NWHoops]

Anyone know how funds are distributed now? I would have assumed enrollment had already been a major determining factor on how subsidies are paid out. I guess I would have been wrong.

Some archaic formula that has nothing to do with enrollment but was decided on how connected your legislators were with other legislators in the 50s, 60s, 70s.

[Gorilla John 92]

The proposed MO budget plans to alot higher education funding by enrollment. Meaning Mizzou and MoState get most of the money.

UCM should be ok.

Do the smaller state schools survive, or do the bigger schools form umbrella systems?

UCM is not okay. They are taking head count as of fall 2025 if I am correct. NW, Mo State and MU all saw increases and thus their funding will go up. Others will go down and due to the old funding methodology, UCM would take a substantial cut. Rumors are that it would be upwards of 10% if not more. Harris Stowe was around 40%. Not good at all.

However, at the board meeting yesterday, athletics had multiple projects approved for a substantial amount of money. Fixing the bleachers in the Hughes Center (aka the Multi) along with a new basketball court; new scoreboard for Walton Stadium; turfing the remainder of Jennies softball field and turfing Jennies Soccer at South Rec. This is surprising as they put in new a Bermuda grass field, with new drainage about five years ago. Go figure.

[GrifFan]

Some archaic formula that has nothing to do with enrollment but was decided on how connected your legislators were with other legislators in the 50s, 60s, 70s.

Yeah, there’s no formula, just politics. Jay Nixon got upset at a couple of institutions a few years ago and cut their budgets, and those cuts were never restored in all the years since.

As dumb as the current system may be, distributing state funding strictly on enrollment at a single point of time is even dumber. Truman will lose more than half its appropriation, Harris-Stowe and Lincoln 40%, and basically everybody but NW, Mizzou and Missouri State would see significant reductions. Those funding losses overnight would be devastating.

[NWHoops]

Yeah, there’s no formula, just politics. Jay Nixon got upset at a couple of institutions a few years ago and cut their budgets, and those cuts were never restored in all the years since.

As dumb as the current system may be, distributing state funding strictly on enrollment at a single point of time is even dumber. Truman will lose more than half its appropriation, Harris-Stowe and Lincoln 40%, and basically everybody but NW, Mizzou and Missouri State would see significant reductions. Those funding losses overnight would be devastating.

Yeah not really a formula, just percentages for each school. I get the concern for universities losing funding and maybe it can be a multi year process but excuse us at NW for not being upset when there's been no concern for NW being severely underfunded for many years. We're not like Mizzou and MO State with large alumni bases to make up the difference.

I don't think it should be based on enrollment on a single point in time but I do believe it should update every couple years based on rolling averages. There's no reason a school with significantly less students should receive more funding than a school with more students. More students = more costs. Additionally, the link I provided shows some institutions who received more funding have turned in pitiful returns on those state funds.

[GrifFan]

Yeah not really a formula, just percentages for each school. I get the concern for universities losing funding and maybe it can be a multi year process but excuse us at NW for not being upset when there's been no concern for NW being severely underfunded for many years. We're not like Mizzou and MO State with large alumni bases to make up the difference.

I don't think it should be based on enrollment on a single point in time but I do believe it should update every couple years based on rolling averages. There's no reason a school with significantly less students should receive more funding than a school with more students. More students = more costs. Additionally, the link I provided shows some institutions who received more funding have turned in pitiful returns on those state funds.

More students may equal more costs, though there are some fixed costs that mean it’s not a one-to-one relationship. Ten to 15 years ago it was MoWest that was severely underfunded relative to its student body size. In 2011 we had a student population that was 97% of Northwest’s (6,098 to 6,278) but received 70% as much money from the state, for the most extreme example.

There was an attempt to put a formula in place about that time, which factored in student outcomes, and those outcomes were tailored to the institution (as an example, open admission schools like MW, LU and HSSC are never going to have the same graduation rates that more selective schools are going to have). I’m not sure what happened to that formula, except that it only applied to “new money,” and there hasn’t been much new money going to education in Missouri for a long time. A more comprehensive approach like that makes more sense than basing it strictly on enrollment.

I don’t think the House’s approach will pass the Senate. But long-term, I think the state’s commitment to funding higher education at the levels they are now (which is already the seventh lowest per student in the country) is very much in question.

[NWHoops]

More students may equal more costs, though there are some fixed costs that mean it’s not a one-to-one relationship. Ten to 15 years ago it was MoWest that was severely underfunded relative to its student body size. In 2011 we had a student population that was 97% of Northwest’s (6,098 to 6,278) but received 70% as much money from the state, for the most extreme example.

There was an attempt to put a formula in place about that time, which factored in student outcomes, and those outcomes were tailored to the institution (as an example, open admission schools like MW, LU and HSSC are never going to have the same graduation rates that more selective schools are going to have). I’m not sure what happened to that formula, except that it only applied to “new money,” and there hasn’t been much new money going to education in Missouri for a long time. A more comprehensive approach like that makes more sense than basing it strictly on enrollment.

I don’t think the House’s approach will pass the Senate. But long-term, I think the state’s commitment to funding higher education at the levels they are now (which is already the seventh lowest per student in the country) is very much in question.

And now Western gets approximately 72% of NW funding for less than half the students. However, I wasn't strictly comparing to just Western. There are other schools in the state who have been severely overfunded. Truman is the worst example. They have the same enrollment (roughly) as Western and have nearly double the funding. NW has 2x more students than Truman and receives 72% of the funding. Just as K-12, it should be based on enrollment. Not sure how anything else makes logical sense.

I agree, I don't know if it passes but I think there are going to be pressure points applied in the future to make some institutions close their doors. Missouri has too many institutions for a state it's size. No politician wants to be on the hook for voting to close an institution so I think they'll find a way to apply financial pressure so that it is a decision of the institution(s). It's not hard to look at the numbers and see which schools might be in trouble.

As for the open admission v. selective schools, I don't think classifications really matter that much any more for most schools. Regardless of how they are defined, most all schools are accepting students above the rates of their classification due to enrollment drops based on lower total graduating seniors. When asked about it, the MO Dept of Higher Ed has essentially given the shrug emoji.