The Performance and State Policies Of Higher Education in ... · PDF fileCollege Degrees...
Transcript of The Performance and State Policies Of Higher Education in ... · PDF fileCollege Degrees...
The Performance and State Policies Of Higher Education in Washington: Insights from a Five-State Policy Review Project
Laura W. Perna Joni Finney
Patrick Callan
With Assistance from: Michael Armijo, Jamey Rorison, Awilda Rodriguez
January 2012
Measuring Up – Biennial state-by-state report card ! !"#$%&#'(')*)#(+#,-.,/*$0#(.$(1$"10*).,'(.-2(
! 3,#+*,*%.$(! 3*,%01+*%.$(! 4./+5#%.$(! 67.,"*8151)9(! :#$#&)'(
! ;.#'($.)(,#<#*52((! =#*'.$'(-.,(>1?>(.,(5.@(+#,-.,/*$0#(! =#*'.$'(-.,(0>*$?#'(1$(+#,-.,/*$0#(
What We Know about State Higher Education Performance
Conceptual Model Federal Government
Overarching Research Question: What is the relationship between state policy and
higher education performance?
AB((C>*)(1'()>#(+#,-.,/*$0#(.-(>1?>#,(#"D0*%.$E(F.@(>*'(+#,-.,/*$0#(0>*$?#"(.<#,(%/#E((
GB((C>*)(1'()>#(0.$)#H)()>*)(1$-.,/'(>1?>#,(#"D0*%.$(+#,-.,/*$0#E((F.@(*,#(*'+#0)'(.-(0.$)#H)(0>*$?1$?E((F.@(".#'()>#(')*)#(0.$)#H)(1$ID#$0#()>#(+.5109(.+%.$'(0.$'1"#,#"E(
JB((C>*)(+.5109(5#<#,'(>*<#(8##$(D'#"E((((
KB((C>*)(1'()>#(,#5*%.$'>1+(8#)@##$(+.5109(5#<#,'(*$"(>1?>#,(#"D0*%.$(+#,-.,/*$0#E(((
Research Questions
L(M)*)#'((• N#.,?1*(
• !551$.1'(• C*'>1$?).$(
• O#H*'(
• P*,95*$"(
;*)*(M.D,0#'(• QD*$%)*%<#("*)*((
• =#+.,)'(*$"(".0D/#$)'(
• !$)#,<1#@'!
;*)*(6$*59'1'(R 4*'#(')D"9(,#+.,)(-.,(#*0>(')*)#(R 4,.''S0*'#(*$*59'1'(
Methods: Case Study Research
Number of Interviewees Per State Perspective GA IL WA TX MD
State Higher Education Leadership 18 13 22 9 14
State Political Leadership 4 5 8 10 4
Institutional Leadership 6 6 8 8 4
K-12 and P-16/P-20 Education Leadership
4 1 2 1 1
Business/Research/Philanthropic Leadership
1 1 4 2 1
Other Participants 3 3 4 4 1
TOTAL 36 29 48 34 25
Increase in Degrees Required to Reach International Competitiveness Goals by 2020
State
Current % of Adults with
College Degrees Annual Percentage Increase Required
Georgia 36% 10.0%
Illinois 41% 5.4%
Maryland 44% 5.1%
Texas 33% 11.5%
Washington 42% 6.2%
Total – U.S. 38% 7.9%
Annual Increase in Degrees for 55% of 25- to 64-Year Olds to Have at Least an Associate’s Degree
Source: Analyses by National Center for Higher Education Management Systems
Roles of Different Sectors In The State’s System of Higher Education
State Public 4-year
Public 2-year
Private NFP
Private For-Profit
Georgia 44% 35% 12% 10%
Illinois 17% 52% 20% 10%
Maryland 42% 41% 15% 2%
Texas 36% 51% 8% 5%
Washington 41% 47% 9% 3%
Total – U.S. 34% 39% 17% 10%
Distribution of Total 12-Month Enrollment in Degree-Granting Institutions: Fall 2008
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2010
Higher Education Performance in Washington
! Improvement, but below top-performing states in preparation and participation
! Leading state in bachelor’s degree completion, but low bachelor’s degree production
! Gaps in performance: ! Lower outcomes for Hispanics and Blacks ! Regional differences in higher education access
High School Graduation Rates In Washington Have Declined
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100
Education Week Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
Perc
enta
ge 1998
1998
2008
2010
Sources: Education week, “Diplomas Count 2011” (Bethesda, MD: 2011), http://www.edweek.org/ew/dc/index.html Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction http://www.k12.wa.us/dataadmin/
College Participation in Washington Is Virtually Unchanged
Source:! NCHEMS, “Percent of 18 to 24 year olds enrolled in college,” 2011, http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=104, accessed November 5, 2011.
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1991 2001 2007 2009
Percent of 18 to 24 year olds enrolled in college
Nation
WICHE Median
Washington
College Affordability in Washington Has Declined
-2%
40% 42%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Median Family Income
Public 4-Year Tuition Public 2-Year Tuition
Perc
enta
ge
Change in Constant Dollars, 1999 - 2009
Source: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2011).!Affordability and transfer: Critical to increasing baccalaureate degree completion.!San Jose, CA: Author.
Washington Is a National Leader in Bachelor’s Degree Completion Rates
61% 52%
30% 30%
63% 56%
33% 29%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Washington Nation Washington Nation
Perc
enta
ge
Change in Completion Rates, 1998 to 2009
1998 2009
Six-Year Bachelor’s Degree Completion Rates
Three-Year Associate Degree Completion Rates
Source: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, www.higheredinfo.org
But: Washington Lags Other States in Bachelor’s Degree Production
21.3 24.0
0
10
20
30
Washington Nation
Number of Bachelor’s Degrees Produced Per Capita, 2005-06
Source: Washington HECB, Key facts about higher education in Washington (Olympia, WA: 2010) http://www.hecb.wa.gov/keyfacts/index.asp.
Outcomes Are Lower for Blacks and Hispanics than Whites in Washington
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
White Black Hispanic
Percentage of Adults in Washington With at Least an Associate's Degree, 2007
2,569 more degrees needed for Blacks to reach parity with Whites in degree attainment
29,831 more degrees needed for Hispanics to reach parity with Whites in degree attainment
Source: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, www. Higheredinfo.org
Importance of Improving Performance: Workforce Demands
107,000
259,000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
No More than H.S. Some Postsecondary Education
Num
ber
New
Jobs
Projected Growth in Jobs in Washington By Level of Education Required: 2008 to 2018
Source: Carnevale, A., Smith, N., & Stroh., J. (2010). Help wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ.
Importance of Improving Performance: Demographic Characteristics &Trends
12% 15%
3%
10%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8%
10% 12% 14% 16%
Black Hispanic
Racial/Ethnic Composition of Population: 2009
U.S. Washington
Source: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Demographic and Housing Estimates, 2005-2009
Challenge to Improving Performance: Fiscal Resource Constraints
! Severe declines in state revenues = Declines in higher education appropriations
! 2011-2013 budget reduces appropriations to public 4-year institutions by 24% over 2007-09 and assumes 20% increase in tuition
! Further cuts to 2011-13 biennium budget, given lower than expected state revenues
! State budget cuts will likely continue given projected structural deficits
! State residents have little appetite for increasing taxes
Structural Budget Deficits = More Cuts -2
.1
-2.2
-2
.3
-2.3
-2
.4
-2.6
-2
.7
-2.9
-3
.0
-3.3
-3
.5
-3.5
-3
.8
-4.1
-4
.6
-4.7
-4
.8
-4.9
-5
.0
-5.1
-5
.2
-5.4
-5
.7
-5.7
-5
.8
-5.8
-6
.0
-6.2
-6
.3
-6.3
-6
.7
-6.7
-6
.8
-7.2
-7
.4
-7.8
-8
.0
-8.1
-8
.1
-8.5
-8
.5
-8.5
-8
.7
-8.9
-9
.1
-9.4
-9
.5
-9.7
-1
0.6
-10.
8 -1
0.9
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Mar
ylan
d M
aine
Ve
rmon
t N
ew J
erse
y Co
nnec
ticu
t N
ew H
amps
hire
Rh
ode
Isla
nd
Nor
th D
akot
a W
isco
nsin
M
assa
chus
etts
M
ichi
gan
Wyo
min
g Ca
lifor
nia
Ohi
o D
elaw
are
Kans
as
Ore
gon
Virg
inia
N
ew Y
ork
Min
neso
ta
Wes
t Vi
rgin
ia
Penn
sylv
ania
Ill
inoi
s Al
aska
N
ebra
ska
Mon
tana
U
nite
d St
ates
Lo
uisi
ana
Indi
ana
Haw
aii
Okl
ahom
a N
ew M
exic
o M
isso
uri
Kent
ucky
Io
wa
Sout
h D
akot
a W
ashi
ngto
n Fl
orid
a So
uth
Caro
lina
Arka
nsas
G
eorg
ia
Colo
rado
Te
nnes
see
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Idah
o U
tah
Ariz
ona
Nev
ada
Alab
ama
Texa
s M
issi
ssip
pi
Projected State and Local Budget Deficit as a Percent of Revenues, 2016
Source: Don Boyd, Rockefeller Institute of Government, 2009. Courtesy of Dennis Jones and Jane Wellman.
Explanations for Performance in Washington
Lack of political commitment to implementing a statewide plan for higher education
Insufficient Strategies to Support Student Readiness for and Participation in Bachelor’s Degree Programs
Decline in the strategic use of available fiscal resources to achieve statewide goals and priorities
Theme 1: Lack of Political Commitment to Implementing a Statewide Plan for Higher Education
State Planning has Produced Little Change in State Policies
Attempts to Create Structural Changes in Governance Lack Clear Goals
State Planning has Produced Little Change in State Policies
Washington Learns: Recommendations issued 2006 ! Legislature acted on 6 of 7 recommendations;
! Did not act on recommendation to “provide high school students the opportunity to assess college readiness during the 10th or 11th grade”
! Minimal impact on higher education
2008 Strategic Master Plan for Higher Education ! Criticized for lacking rigor, innovation, and solutions, and
including unrealistic goals ! Limited implementation
Policy efforts reflect institutional and sector-based agenda rather than shared statewide perspective
Attempts to Create Structural Changes in Governance Lack Clear Goals
P-20 Council ! Created by Governor (2007) by executive order ! Short lived; no meaningful change in state policy
Department of Education ! Would combine early learning, K-12- and higher education
agencies in one cabinet level department ! Proposed by Governor (2011); rejected by Legislature
Elimination of Higher Education Coordinating Board, effective July 2012 To be replaced by: Office of Student Financial Assistance and Council on Higher Education
Implying perceived ineffectiveness of HECB, the law states,
The Legislature further intends to eliminate many of the policy and planning functions of the higher education coordinating board and rededicate those resources to the higher education institutions that provide the core, front-line services associated with instruction and research. Given the unprecedented budget crises the state is facing, the state must take the opportunity to build on the recommendations of the board and use the dollars where they can make the most direct impact.
Source: State of Washington, “Engrossed second substitute Senate bill 5182,” Chapter 11, Laws of 2011, Aug. 24, 2011, pp. 2-3, http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Law%202011/5182-S2.SL.pdf
Theme 2: Insufficient Strategies to Support Student Readiness for and Participation in Bachelor’s Degree Programs
Insufficient Academic Preparation to Enroll in Four-year Institutions
Mismatch Between Population Distribution and Location of Public 4-Year Institutions
Disincentives for Four-Year Institutions to Enroll Transfer Students
Erosion of Community College Missions to Award Bachelor’s Degrees in Applied Science
Insufficient Academic Preparation to Enroll in Four-year Institutions
Well-Regarded, Long-Standing Programs ! Running Start
! Praised, but few low-income and minority students
! I-BEST program ! Creates educational pathways for adult learners
BUT: Lack of alignment of high school graduation requirements and college entrance requirements ! New high school graduation requirements to take effect for
class of 2016 ! New requirements do not ensure that students prepared to
meet academic expectations of college
Mismatch Between Population Distribution & Location of Public 4-Year Institutions
Community colleges ! Geographically dispersed; primary point of access
Branch campuses of research universities ! High cost ! Lower than expected enrollments
University centers ! Small numbers participating
Most bachelor’s degrees still produced by research universities (50%) and comprehensive institutions (39%)*
*Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2011b). Key facts about higher education in Washington 2011. Retrieved from http://www.hecb.wa.gov/keyfacts/documents/RevisedBinder1-18-11.pdf
Growth of transfer students puts pressure on the capacity and funding of four-year institutions
We are trying to figure out how we work with the universities to expand capacity at the upper-division level. That is the pinch point in our state: upper division capacity, not freshman capacity [State Leader]
Erosion of Community College Missions to Award Bachelor’s Degrees in Applied Science ! Small numbers awarded to date ! May distort community college mission
Disincentives for Four-Year Institutions to Enroll Transfer Students
Theme 3: Decline in the Strategic Use of Available Fiscal Resources to Achieve Statewide Goals and Priorities
Devolution of Tuition Setting Authority
Historic Commitment to Need-Based Student Financial Aid
State Funding to Incentivize Improved Performance
Devolution of Tuition Setting Authority
Legislature historically controlled tuition increases for resident undergraduates • 2007 Legislature limited increases to 7% • For 2009-10 and 2010-11, tuition increases capped
at14%
2011 Legislature gave tuition-setting authority to public four-year institutions through 2014-15
Historic Commitment to Need-Based Student Financial Aid Need-based aid: • National leader in availability
• 95% of all state financial aid to UGs need-based* • Available for students at private institutions • Need-based State Work Study Program
• Availability recently challenged by budget shortfalls
State mandate for institutional allocation of aid: • Public four-year institutions must allocate share of
tuition and fee revenues to need-based aid
Alternative state aid program proposed
*Source: Keeping college affordable: Annual report on state financial aid programs. Retrieved from http://www.hecb.wa.gov/news/newsreports/documents/09-10FAUpdate-FinalforBoardMtg.pdf.
State Funding to Incentivize Improved Institutional Performance
Student Achievement Initiative • Developed by community and technical colleges • Designed to promote accountability, provide financial
incentives to improve performance • Perceived to increase credibility and political
leverage of community college sector
Performance funding for public four-year institutions • Considered; not implemented • “Performance reporting” system authorized by
Legislature May 2011
Conclusions For Washington ! Well-coordinated, well-respected community college system
! High bachelor’s degree completion rates, but too few awarded
! Too few high school students academically prepared for and enroll in four-year institutions
! Plans to improve higher education performance, but not implemented
! Erosion of historical efforts to link appropriations, tuition, and financial aid and devolution of tuition-setting and policy-making to public four-year institutions
! Elimination of Higher Education Coordinating Board may limit policy leadership capacity to pursue a public agenda that is greater than institutional interests