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