Access

1
Access Excellence InitiativeWhat 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
2
Who are the SHEEO constituents?

• Students parents
• Faculty staff
• Presidents, all sectors
• Board members business leaders
• Legislators
• The Governor
• The Public interest

3
What do students and parents want?

• 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

4
What do faculty and staff 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

5
What do presidents want?

• More money
• Less operational regulation
• Freedom to set tuition fees
• Zero academic regulation
• Minimal reporting
• Deference

6
What do Board business leaders 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

7
What do legislators want?

• Respect and deference
• Ability to deliver for constituents
• 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

8
What do Governors what?

• A political future
• A legacy of significant contributions
• Visible leadership in government
• Efficient operations
• Low prices and low taxes
• Ability to reward supporters
• Respect and deference

9
What does the public need?
To double the degree production of the 1960s
with no compromise in quality.
10
The SHEEO environment

• Global competition
• Aging workforce
• More disadvantaged students
• A low-tax/high service demand vise
• Constituents in conflict

11
The SHEEO environment
Global Competition
12
Forces 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

13
College Grads US, India, and China
College graduates this year
Source Geoffrey Colvin, Fortune Magazine, July
20, 2005
14
College Grads US, India, and China
REVISED DATA 4 year degrees
Source Duke Engineering Management Program
15
The SHEEO environment
Aging Workforce
16
The Aging U.S. Workforce
Year-to-Year Change in U.S. Population, 2002-2020
Source U.S. Census Bureau
17
The SHEEO environment
More Disadvantaged Students
18
College Participation by SES Status
Source Access Denied, Department of Education,
February 2001
19
Traditional College-Age Population
Source Demography and the Future of Higher
Education Policy, Richard Fry, April 2001
20
New 18-24 Year Olds by Race
Source Demography and the Future of Higher
Education Policy, Richard Fry, April 2001
21
The SHEEO environment
Low tax/High Service Demand Vise
22
Projected State and Local Budget Deficits as a
Percent of Revenues, 2013
Source NCHEMS Don Boyd (Rockefeller Institute
of Government), 2005
23
Federal budget Comptroller General
Composition of Spending as a Share of
GDP Assuming Discretionary Spending Grows with
GDP after 2005 and All Expiring Tax Provisions
are Extended
24
The SHEEO environment
The wants of constituents are in conflict
Even though they share a common interest in
the public agenda
25
The strategic questions for SHEEOs

• What are the relevant facts about education in
  your state?
• What needs to change?
• How can you help make necessary changes?

26
What resources does a SHEEO have?

• Constituents loyal to the SHEEO?
• Tickets to sporting events?
• Legal powers?
• Loyal alumni?
• A big budget?
• Professional expertise?
• Personal credibility?
• Access to compelling information?

27
The strategic issue

• 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

28
Access Excellence working groups

• Student indicators (preparation, participation,
  progress, learning, and outcomes)
• Economic/social indicators (workforce, economic
  development, community needs, civic values, etc.)
• Financial indicators (costs, productivity, and
  investment returns)
• Questions
• Whats available? Missing? Needed?
• Appropriate context and cautions for using
  indicators?
• How can SHEEO add value to whats available?

29
Student and Learning Indicators (Group I)

• College preparation and readinessAlignment
  Rigor High expectations
• Postsecondary participationEnrollment
  Progression Completion
• Education outcomesLearning Instructional
  quality Post-college employment and education
• Adult-learning needs and status

30
Is math achievement improving?
31
Student Participation and Progress
Measuring Up 2004 Report Card NEW MEXICO
Student Pipeline Results (2002) Of 100 Ninth
Graders, How Many . . . .
NJ
Source HigherEdInfo.org
ND
ND
PA
Source Measuring Up 2004, highereducation.org
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
US average 35.4
US average 30.7
US average 31.0
US average 31.1
Source Postsecondary Education OPPORTUNITY
Source HigherEdInfo.org, from IPEDS and U.S.
Census
32
Economic/Social Indicators (Group II)

• Education attainment and income
• Demand and graduates in critical fields (e.g.,
  teaching, STEM fields, high tech occupations)
• Extent / benefits of RD
• Economic transformation (start-ups,
  entrepreneurism, spin-offs, etc.)
• Civic values, community needs, and other
  non-economic benefits

33
Education , Income, and Economic Strength
Educational Attainment, Personal Income, and
Economic Strength
Source Patrick Kelly, NCHEMS
34
Educational Attainment and Personal Income
By State
For New Mexico Counties
Source US Census Bureau 2000, HigherEdInfo.org
35
Net Migration by Degree Level and Age Group
22- to 29-Year-Olds
30- to 64-Year-Olds
Less than High School High School Some
College Associate Bachelors Graduate/Professional
Total
Source U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census 5
Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) Files
36
Federal RD Expenditures Per Capita in Colleges
and Universities, 2002
Source National Science Foundation U.S. Census
Bureau
37
Research Development Growth per Capita over Time
38
Financial Indicators (Group III)

• Net price of attendance (by income quartiles)
  data not available
• Public support and net tuition (per student and
  other outcomes)
• Completions by credit hours, average to degree
  (disaggregated, including transfers and adult
  students)
• Returns on public investments

39
Public Higher Education Enrollment and Revenue
History
U.S. Public Postsecondary Enrollment, Educational
Appropriations per FTE, and Total Educational
Revenues per FTE, Fiscal 1980-2005
40
Public Higher Education Enrollment and Revenue
History
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
states public postsecondary system enrollment
mix.
41
Public Higher Education Enrollment and Revenue
History
North Dakota Public Postsecondary Enrollment,
Educational Appropriations per FTE, and Total
Educational Revenues per FTE, Fiscal 1980-2005
42
States in Relationship
Source SHEEO SHEF
43
States in Relationship
Source SHEEO SHEF
44
State Student Aid per FTE
State Undergraduate Grant Aid per Undergraduate
Student by State, 2003-04
Source National Association of State Student
Grant Aid Programs
45
Taxable Resources and Effective Tax Rate
Source SHEEO SHEF
46
Performance Relative to Resources
Degree-to-Enrollment Ratio
Bachelors 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.
47
Contact Information
Contact information
Paul Lingenfelterpaul_at_ sheeo.org Charlie
Lenthclenth_at_sheeo.org