Access & Excellence Initiative* What is it like to be a SHEEO? Can better information help? Paul...

Access & Excellence Initiative*What is it like to be a SHEEO?

Can better information help?

Paul Lingenfelter

and Charlie Lenth

July, 2006

* Funded by the Lumina Foundation for Education

• Students & parents

• Faculty & staff

• Presidents, all sectors

• Board members & business leaders

• Legislators

• The Governor

• The Public interest

Who are the SHEEO constituents?Who are the SHEEO constituents?

• Low prices, and generous aid

• Admission to high status schools

• Convenient class schedules

• Good food, housing, recreation

• Safety (parents) freedom (students)

• Small classes, contact with faculty

• Degrees and certificates

• A good job

What do students and parents want?What do students and parents want?

• Above average pay and benefits

• Job control – working conditions, hours, time, office space, etc.

• Respect and deference

• A strong role in choosing leaders

• Academic freedom and more

• Secure, generous retirement

What do faculty and staff want?What do faculty and staff want?

• More money

• Less operational regulation

• Freedom to set tuition & fees

• Zero academic regulation

• Minimal reporting

• Deference

What do presidents want?What do presidents want?

• Happy students, parents, faculty, & staff

• An ample supply of able graduates

• Efficient operations

• Low prices, low taxes

• Extra (“fair”) benefits for their business or institution

What do Board & business leaders want?What do Board & business leaders want?


• Ability to deliver for constituents

• Happy students, parents, faculty, & staff

• An ample supply of able graduates


• Low prices, low taxes

• Extra (“fair”) benefits for their business or institution

What do legislators want?What do legislators want?

• A political future

• A legacy of significant contributions

• Visible leadership in government


• Low prices and low taxes

• Ability to reward supporters


What do Governors what?What do Governors what?

To double the degree production

of the 1960s with

no compromise in quality.

What does the public need? What does the public need?

• Global competition

• Aging workforce

• More disadvantaged students

• A low-tax/high service demand vise

• Constituents in conflict

The SHEEO environmentThe SHEEO environment

Global Competition


Forces Flattening the Global Playing FieldForces Flattening the Global Playing Field

Fall of Berlin Wall

First Mainstream Web Browser

Work Flow Software

Open Sourcing

Outsourcing

Offshoring

Supply-chaining

Insourcing

In-forming

“The Steroids” Wireless Mobile Digital Communication

College graduates this year:

Source: Geoffrey Colvin, Fortune Magazine, July 20, 2005

Total College Graduates Engineering Graduates

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

U.S.

1.3 Million

70,000

India

3.1 Million

350,000

China

3.3 Million

600,000

College Grads: US, India, and ChinaCollege Grads: US, India, and China

Total College Graduates Engineering Graduates

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

U.S.

1.3 Million

137,000

India

3.1 Million

112,000

China

3.3 Million

352,000

REVISED DATA : 4 year degrees

Source: Duke Engineering Management Program

College Grads: US, India, and ChinaCollege Grads: US, India, and China


Aging Workforce

The Aging U.S. WorkforceThe Aging U.S. Workforce

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Year-to-Year Change in U.S. Population, 2002-2020

More Disadvantaged

Students


College Participation By Achievement Test and Socioeconomic

Status Quartile

SES Quartile

Lowest Highest

AchievementQuartile

Highest 78% 97%

Lowest 36% 77%

Source: Access Denied, Department of Education, February 2001

College Participation by SES StatusCollege Participation by SES Status

Source: Demography and the Future of Higher Education Policy, Richard Fry, April 2001

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2010 202018

- to

24

-Ye

ar-

Old

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

s)

Traditional College-Age PopulationTraditional College-Age Population

Non-Hispanic White18%

Asian/Pacific Islander 16%

Non-Hispanic Black16%

Native American1%

Hispanic 49%

New 18-24 Year Olds by RaceNew 18-24 Year Olds by Race

Source: Demography and the Future of Higher Education Policy, Richard Fry, April 2001

Low tax/High Service

Demand Vise


-0.5 -1

.0

-1.0 -1

.6 -2.1

-2.3 -2

.8

-2.9

-3.0 -3

.3 -3.8

-3.9 -4

.2

-4.2

-4.3

-4.3

-4.4

-4.4 -4

.8

-4.8

-4.8 -5

.1

-5.2

-5.2

-5.3 -5

.6

-5.6

-5.7

-5.7

-5.7

-5.8

-5.8

-5.9 -6

.2

-6.3

-6.5

-6.7

-6.8

-6.9

-7.0

-7.0 -7

.4 -8.0

-8.2 -8

.9 -9.3

-9.3 -9

.8 -10

.5

-10

.7

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

UtahM

ontana

New Hampshire

DelawareNew Jersey

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

WisconsinVerm

ontO

hioNorth Dakota

ConnecticutKansas

ArkansasVirginia

NebraskaO

klahoma

MinnesotaColorado

West Virginia

KentuckyM

ichiganArizona

New YorkG

eorgiaHawaiiIllinois

PennsylvaniaAlaska

Rhode IslandU

nited States

New Mexico

CaliforniaIowa

IndianaNorth Carolina

FloridaIdaho

South CarolinaSouth Dakota

Missouri

Washington

OregonTexas

NevadaTennesseeM

ississippiLouisianaAlabam

aProjected State and Local Budget Deficits as a Percent of Revenues, 2013Projected State and Local Budget Deficits as a Percent of Revenues, 2013

Source: NCHEMS; Don Boyd (Rockefeller Institute of Government), 2005

Federal budget – Comptroller GeneralFederal budget – Comptroller General

Composition of Spending as a Share of GDPAssuming Discretionary Spending Grows with GDP after 2005

and All Expiring Tax Provisions are Extended

The “wants” of

constituents are in conflict

–

Even though they share a common

interest in the public agenda


1) What are the relevant facts about education in your state?

2) What needs to change?

3) How can you help make necessary changes?

The strategic questions for SHEEOsThe strategic questions for SHEEOs

• Constituents loyal to the SHEEO?

• Tickets to sporting events?

• Legal powers?

• Loyal alumni?

• A big budget?

• Professional expertise?

• Personal credibility?

• Access to compelling information?

What resources does a SHEEO have?What resources does a SHEEO have?

How can SHEEOs enhance:

• Professional expertise

• Personal credibility

• Access to compelling information for:

Building consensus on needs and objectives

Identifying obstacles and opportunities Developing operating strategies

The strategic issue –The strategic issue –

1. Student indicators (preparation, participation, progress, learning, and outcomes)

2. Economic/social indicators (workforce, economic development, community needs, civic values, etc.)

3. Financial indicators (costs, productivity, and investment returns)

Questions:What’s available? Missing? Needed?Appropriate context and cautions for using indicators? How can SHEEO “add value” to what’s available?

Access & Excellence working groupsAccess & Excellence working groups

• College preparation and readiness:Alignment – Rigor – High expectations

• Postsecondary participation:Enrollment – Progression – Completion

• Education outcomes:Learning – Instructional quality – Post-college employment and education

• Adult-learning needs and status

Student and Learning Indicators (Group I)Student and Learning Indicators (Group I)

Is math achievement improving?Is math achievement improving?

8th Graders Scoring At or Above Proficient in NAEP math: 1992-2005

43%

28%

35%29%

23%

20%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Top Improver(MA)

Nation

North Dakota

1992

2005

19.6%

11.1%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

New Mexico Nation

59.8

35

22.1

10.3

68.2

38.6

26.2

17.9

90.6

61.8

44.2

27.6

Graduate from HighSchool

Enter College Still Enrolled TheirSophomore Year

Graduate within 150%of Normal Time

46.2%

41.9%

37.7%

40.3%

-5% 5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55%

NM Private 4-Year Insts

NM PublicUniversities

NM Community Colleges

NM Total

Student Pipeline Results (2002): Of 100 Ninth Graders, How Many . . . .

New Mexico

US

Top Performing State

Pell Grant Recipients as a Percentage of Fall 2003 Undergraduate Enrollment

Adult Undergraduate Enrollment as a Percentage of Adult (25-64) Population with Only a HS Diploma or Equivalent

Source: HigherEdInfo.org

PA

ND

ND

NJ

Measuring Up 2004 Report Card

NEW MEXICO

Source: Postsecondary Education OPPORTUNITY Source: HigherEdInfo.org, from IPEDS and U.S. Census

US average = 35.4%

US average = 30.7%

US average = 31.0%

US average = 31.1%

Source: Measuring Up 2004, highereducation.org

Student Participation and ProgressStudent Participation and Progress

1. Education attainment and income

2. Demand and graduates in critical fields (e.g., teaching, STEM fields, high tech occupations)

3. Extent / benefits of R&D

4. Economic “transformation” (start-ups, entrepreneurism, spin-offs, etc.)

5. Civic values, community needs, and other non-economic benefits

Economic/Social Indicators (Group II)Economic/Social Indicators (Group II)

Education , Income, and Economic StrengthEducation , Income, and Economic Strength

Percent of the Adult Population Ages 25 to 64 with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

GA

IL

IN

IA

KS

KY

LA

ME

MDMA

MS

NE

NV

NJ

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

ORPA

SC

SD

UT

VT

VA

WA

ID

MI

MN

MO

NH

NM

TN TX

WV

WI

WY

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Personal Income Per Capita, 2000

MT

HI RIFL US

Low Income, High Educational AttainmentLow Income, Low Educational Attainment

High Income, High Educational AttainmentHigh Income, Low Educational Attainment

State New Economy Index (2002)

Top Tier

Middle Tier

Low Tier

Educational Attainment, Personal Income, and Economic Strength

Source: Patrick Kelly, NCHEMS

NM

Valencia

UnionTorrance

Taos

Socorro

Sierra

Santa Fe

Sandoval

San Miguel

San J uan

Roosevelt

Rio Arriba

Quay

Otero

Mora

McKinley

Luna

Lincoln

LeaHidalgo

Harding

Guadalupe

Grant

Eddy

Dona Ana

DeBaca

Curry

Colfax

Cibola

Chaves

Catron

Bernalillo

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

$9,000 $14,000 $19,000 $24,000

Personal Income per Capita

Ad

ult

s ag

e 25

-64

wit

h B

ach

elo

rs D

egre

e o

r H

igh

er (

%)

Los Alamos: (64.0%, $34,646)

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO CT

DE

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KS

KY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

MS

MO

MTNE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VT VA

WA

WV

WI

WY

US

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

$15,000 $18,000 $21,000 $24,000 $27,000 $30,000

Personal Income per Capita

Ad

ult

s a

ge

25

-64

wit

h B

ac

he

lors

De

gre

e o

r H

igh

er

(%)

By State For New Mexico Counties

Educational Attainment and Personal IncomeEducational Attainment and Personal Income

Source: US Census Bureau 2000, HigherEdInfo.org

5,060

2,714

810

501

861

1,131

11,077

0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000

1,895

689

-2,731

-162

-1,849

464

-1,694

-3,000 -2,000 -1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000

New Mexico22- to 29-Year-Olds 30- to 64-Year-Olds

Less than High School

High School

Some College

Associate

Bachelor’s

Graduate/Professional

Total

Net Migration by Degree Level and Age GroupNet Migration by Degree Level and Age Group

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census; 5% Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) Files

Federal R&D Expenditures Per Capita in Colleges and Universities, 2002Federal R&D Expenditures Per Capita in Colleges and Universities, 2002

Source: National Science Foundation; U.S. Census Bureau

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

Mary

land

Massa

chuse

ttAla

ska

Pennsy

lvania

Connecticu

tN

ew

Colo

rado

Rhode Isla

nd

New

Mexico

Uta

hVerm

ont

Haw

aii

New

York

Wash

ingto

nIo

wa

North

Ala

bam

aW

isconsin

Califo

rnia

Misso

uri

Ore

gon

Unite

d S

tate

sN

orth

Dakota

Monta

na

Mich

igan

Illinois

Texas

Dela

ware

Georg

iaM

ississippi

Min

neso

taO

hio

Virg

inia

Tennesse

eArizo

na

Nebra

ska

Kansa

sIn

dia

na

Louisia

na

South

Wyom

ing

Nevada

Kentu

cky

New

Jerse

yFlo

rida

West V

irgin

iaO

kla

hom

aId

aho

South

Dakota

Ark

ansa

sM

ain

e

Research & Development Growth per Capita over TimeResearch & Development Growth per Capita over Time

Growth in Total R&D per CapitaFY 1987 to 2000

$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

MA MD NJ U.S. PA VA NY NC GA

1987 1995 2000

56%

61%78%

68%68%

66% 56%81%

48%

pct change for the period

1. Net price of attendance (by income quartiles) – data not available

2. Public support and net tuition (per student and other outcomes)

3. Completions by credit hours, average to degree (disaggregated, including transfers and adult students)

4. Returns on public investments

Financial Indicators (Group III)Financial Indicators (Group III)

U.S. Public Postsecondary Enrollment, Educational Appropriations per FTE, and Total Educational Revenues per FTE, Fiscal 1980-2005

United States Public Postsecondary Enrollment, Educational Appropriations per FTE, and Total Educational Revenues per FTE, Fiscal 1980-2005

$6,934$7,117

$6,309$5,825

$7,976

$9,196

$10,079

$9,246

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Pu

blic

FT

E E

nro

llmen

t (i

n m

illio

ns)

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

$11,000

Do

llars

per

FT

E

FTE EdApprops/FTE TotEdRevs/FTE

National Recession

Constant 2005 dollars adjusted for inflation with SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA).

Public Higher Education Enrollment and Revenue HistoryPublic Higher Education Enrollment and Revenue History

$7,027

$7,418

$9,862

$7,620

$8,380

$9,021

$10,810

$8,768

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

65,000

70,000

75,000

80,000

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Pu

blic

FT

E E

nro

llmen

t

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

$11,000

Do

llars

per

FT

E


Dollars adjusted for inflation, state cost of living, and relative cost of the state's public postsecondary system enrollment mix.

New Mexico Public Postsecondary Enrollment, Educational Appropriations per FTE, and Total Educational Revenues per FTE, Fiscal 1980-2005

Constant 2005 HECA dollars adjusted for state cost of living and the relative cost of the state’s public postsecondary system enrollment mix.


$5,955

$5,215

$5,757

$4,413

$7,693$7,981

$8,552

$7,897

25,000

27,000

29,000

31,000

33,000

35,000

37,000

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Pu

blic

FT

E E

nro

llmen

t

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

Do

llars

per

FT

E


Constant 2005 HECA dollars adjusted for state cost of living and the relative cost of the state's public postsecondary system enrollment mix.

North Dakota Public Postsecondary Enrollment, Educational Appropriations per FTE, and Total Educational Revenues per FTE, Fiscal 1980-2005


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

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KS

KY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MIMN

MS MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY

US

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

Total Educational Revenues per FTE, Indexed to the U.S. Average in FY 2005

Per

cent

Cha

nge,

Tot

al E

duca

tiona

l Rev

enue

s pe

r F

TE

, F

Y 1

991-

2005

Notes: 1) Figures are adjusted for inflation, public system enrollment mix, and state cost of living.2) Funding and FTE data are for public non-medical students only.

% CHANGE: above avgCURRENT: below avg

% CHANGE: below avgCURRENT: below avg

% CHANGE: below avgCURRENT: above avg

% CHANGE: above avgCURRENT: above avg

States in RelationshipStates in Relationship

Source: SHEEO SHEF

Net Tuition Revenue per FTE, by State:Percent Change and Current Standing Relative to the U.S. Average

US

WY

WI

WV

WA

VA

VTUT

TX

TN

SD

SC

RI

PA

OR

OK

OH

ND

NC

NYNM

NJ

NHNV

NE

MT

MO

MS

MN

MI

MA

MD

ME

LA

KY

KS

IAIN

ILID

HI

GA

FL

DE

CT

CO

CA

AR

AZ

AK

AL

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

140%

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Indexed to the U.S. Average in FY 2005

Per

cen

t C

han

ge,

FY

199

1 -

2005

% CHANGE: above avgCURRENT: below avg

% CHANGE: below avgCURRENT: below avg

% CHANGE: below avgCURRENT: above avg

% CHANGE: above avgCURRENT: above avg

Notes: 1) Figures are adjusted for inflation, public system enrollment mix, and state cost of living.2) Funding and FTE data are for public non-medical students only.

Source: SHEEO SHEF

States in RelationshipStates in Relationship

Source: National Association of State Student Grant & Aid Programs

Six Largest States

$0

$500

$1,506

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

Georg

ia

So

uth

Ca

rolin

a

New

York

New

Je

rsey

Ke

ntu

cky

Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia

Illin

ois

We

st V

irg

inia

India

na

Ve

rmo

nt

Lo

uis

ian

a

Nevad

a

Flo

rida

Wa

shin

gto

n

Min

neso

ta

U.S

.

Nort

h C

aro

lina

Ohio

Calif

orn

ia

Mic

hig

an

Vir

gin

ia

Dela

ware

New

Me

xic

o

Wis

consi

n

Conn

ect

icut

Iow

a

Colo

rado

Ark

ansas

Main

e

Mass

achuse

tts

Mary

land

Te

nne

ssee

Rhod

e I

sla

nd

Te

xas

Okl

ahom

a

Mis

sis

sip

pi

Mis

souri

Ore

go

n

Ka

nsa

s

Nebra

ska

Idah

o

New

Ham

pshire

Mon

tan

a

Nort

h D

ako

ta

Uta

h

Ala

bam

a

Ari

zona

Haw

aii

Wyo

min

g

Ala

ska

So

uth

Da

kota

Non-need Grant

Need Grant

State Undergraduate Grant Aid per Undergraduate Student by State, 2003-04

State Student Aid per FTEState Student Aid per FTE

Taxable Resources and Effective Tax Rate Indexed to the U.S. Average, by State, 2003

ALAK

AZ

ARCA

CO

CT

DE

FLGA

HI

IDILIN

IAKS

KYLA

ME

MDMA

MIMNMS

MO

MT

NE

NVNH

NJNM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TNTX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV WI

WYUS

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7

Total Taxable Resources Index (US Avg = 1.0)

Eff

ecti

ve T

ax R

ate

Ind

ex (

US

Avg

= 1

.0)

STATE WEALTH: below avgEFFECTIVE TAX RATE: above avg

STATE WEALTH: above avgEFFECTIVE TAX RATE: above avg

STATE WEALTH: below avgEFFECTIVE TAX RATE: below avg

STATE WEALTH: above avgEFFECTIVE TAX RATE: below avg

Red states w ere w ithin +/- 5% of the national average actual tax revenues (ATR) per capita in 2003. States above and to the right exceeded the average ATR per capita by 5% or more; states below and to the left trailed the average ATR per capita by 5% or more.

Taxable Resources and Effective Tax RateTaxable Resources and Effective Tax Rate

Source: SHEEO SHEF

Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded per 100 FTE Undergraduates, and Total Funding per FTE1, Public Research Institutions, 2002-03

Source: Patrick Kelly and Dennis Jones. (2006.) A New Look at the Institutional Component of Higher Education Finance: A Guide for Evaluating Performance Relative to Financial Resources. Boulder, CO: NCHEMS.

Notes: 1. Total Funding per FTE = (state and local appropriations + net tuition and fees) per full-time equivalent (FTE) student.

Performance Relative to Resources: Degree-to-Enrollment RatioPerformance Relative to Resources: Degree-to-Enrollment Ratio

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DEFL

GAHI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KS

KY

LAME

MD

MAMI

MN

MS

MO

MTNE

NV

NHNJ

NM

NYNC

ND

OH OK

ORPA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY

US

5

10

15

20

25

30

9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 23000

Contact informationContact information

Paul Lingenfelter

paul@ sheeo.org

Charlie Lenth

[email protected]

Contact InformationContact Information

Access & Excellence Initiative* What is it like to be a SHEEO? Can better information help? Paul...

Documents

Transcript of Access & Excellence Initiative* What is it like to be a SHEEO? Can better information help? Paul...