Patrick M. Callan Joni E. Finney Michael Armijo Awilda RodriguezJamey Rorison

Patrick M. Callan Joni E. FinneyMichael Armijo Awilda Rodriguez

Jamey Rorison

State Policies to Improve Higher Education Performance: The Problem or the Solution?

2011 SHEEO Higher Education Policy Conference San Francisco, California

2011 SHEEO Public Policy Conference, San Francisco, California

What We Know about State Higher Education Performance

Measuring Up – Biennial state-by-state report card▫ Identifies state performance on indicators of:

• Preparation• Participation• Completion• Affordability• Benefits

▫ Does not reveal reasons for high or low performance, or improvements or declines in performance


Conceptual Model

Policy Levers

Performance

State Context: Demographic, Economic, Political

State Actors

Federal Government NGO’s/Foundations

Research Question: What is the relationship between state policy levers and higher education performance?


Research Questions

1. What is the performance of higher education in selected states? How has performance changed over time?

2. What is the demographic, economic, political, and historical context that informs higher education performance within each state? How are aspects of context changing?

3. What are the policy levers that have been used to influence the performance of higher education within each state?

4. What is the relationship between these policy levers and higher education performance within the study states?


Interviewees To Date

Perspective GA IL WA TX MDState 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


Statewide Leadership defined

• Establish clearly defined state-wide goals • Build consensus around goals/planning documents• Craft and implement appropriate policies• Hold key stakeholders accountable


Illinois & Washington

A perceived lack of leadership in Illinois arises from fundamental changes in the structure of the state’s higher education system and political corruption over the last decade.

Historically, Washington provided stable leadership, but recent actions have devolved power to the institutional level.


Illinois: Lack of perceived leadership

I think there is almost no identifiable intentional public policy toward Illinois higher education at this moment. We have had 10 years of governors who really haven’t cared …We really haven’t had anybody in the General Assembly that cares …and quite honestly, we have not had the capacity within the Illinois Board of Higher Education to lead on higher education policy.

- Institutional Leader


Illinois: The dissolution of “system of systems” hampered leadership capacity

• System of systems, 1964: created 4 governing boards of 12 public institutions

• Purpose: provide a mechanism for balancing power and resources across the state’s diverse set of universities (Richardson, 1997)

• Reorganization Act, 1995: created 2 systems and 7 public stand-alone universities

• Result: localized decision making, reduced IBHE’s authority


Illinois: A contentious higher education policy environment

• Governor: has strong appointive powers; recent gov’s perceived as disinterested

• Legislature: perceived as lacking consistent and substantive leadership for higher education

• IBHE: high turnover in leadership, perceived as weak


Illinois: Leadership & Performance

• Contentious political environment• Structure requires coalition building • Strong Master Plan exists but lacks the consensus to

implement• Lack of accountability• No policy support for financial aid


Washington: A leadership balancing act

The institutions play their own game. So the HEC board is off writing great master plans and saying great stuff, but…so what? They think they are in the pockets of the institutions, which isn’t true either…The institutions all advocate for their own issues. They operate on their own.

- State Policy Expert


Washington: A viable Master Plan

• Strategic Master Plan for Higher Education in Washington, 2008: “to increase the number of degrees, certificates, and apprenticeships earned annually by Washington residents, by at least 40 percent over the next two decades”


Washington: Historically provided stable leadership, but recently devolved to institutional level

• Governor: has given away tools to strengthen higher education

• Legislature: votes on plan, but has little ability to move it forward

• HECB: perceived as strong on financial aid policies but weak in overall policy role.

• Council of Presidents (4-yrs): historically worked well with HECB, but recent turnover.

• SBCTC (2-yrs): perceived as unified, effective and politically powerful


Washington: Leadership & Performance

• Historically perceived as strong in financial aid and weak in baccalaureate degree production

• Governor and legislature have moved responsibility from the state to institutions– Tuition deregulation– Dissolution of HECB– Efforts to combine K12 and HE agencies

• Implications for performance– Continue to have low baccalaureate degree production– Decline in financial aid


Establishing clear goals for higher education, and providing the appropriate mechanisms to implement these goals

Georgia’s governor-driven policies yield unstable mechanisms which make it difficult for long-term planning in higher education. Positive results shown in workforce and economic development. A lack of perceived leadership in Illinois arises from fundamental changes in the structure of the state’s higher education system and political corruption over the last decade.

Historically, Washington provided stable leadership, but recent actions have devolved power to the institutional level.

Texas has developed a plan that both institutional and business leaders have consensus around, but faces challenges in dealing with regional needs.

With a history of clearly articulating statewide goals and priorities for higher education, Maryland has strong institutional and state leadership consensus around higher education policy.


Alignment of Finance Policies and State Goals

• State Appropriations

• Tuition

• Financial Aid


Georgia and Maryland provide examples of different approaches to aligning finance policies and state goals.

In Georgia, policy decisions about state appropriations, tuition, and financial aid are not considered together and do not reflect state goals. Finance policy also contributes to racial stratification in higher education.

In Maryland, funding for all higher education sectors is tied to the USM institutions. A solid strategic finance plan has been drafted that links finance strategies to statewide goals.


What types of USG institutions are African American and Latino students attending?

White

Latino

African American

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

11.4%

17.1%

24.7%

14.4%

16.8%

10.4%

32.0%

27.8%

38.6%

11.8%

5.9%

9.8%

30.4%

32.5%

16.4%

Two-Year Colleges State Colleges State universities Regional Universities Research Universities


Minority and low-income students comprise a larger share of enrollment at institutions that have fewer HOPE recipients and receive less in state appropriations.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

% URM

% Pell

% HOPE

State Appropri-ation

2001

2008

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


Is HOPE the solution or does it add to the problem?

HOPE has historically been politically popular:

“The HOPE Scholarship is a positive and resulted in many of our best and brightest staying in the state.”

-Leader, USG

“HOPE appeases the middle class.”

-Policy expert

The HOPE Scholarship does not meet the needs of lowest-income students.

• Merit-based

• Changes in requirements may lead to even greater racial/income stratification

• Most students lose the HOPE Scholarship after the first year.


Unintended Consequences of the HOPE Scholarship

• Tuition stability

“There is a constant tension between what is tuition and how can we keep tuition low to keep HOPE to pay for it.”

-State legislator

• Grade inflation

“It’s almost impossible to give a kid a ‘C’ anymore. [This] sends a false positive message about the real work that kids are doing. It has incentivized colleges to get kids in who were not prepared, to get the HOPE money, then get them out [by failing them].”

-State K-12 leader


The HOPE Grant: an equalizer, but at what cost?

HOPE Grant

• For students at technical colleges

• No need requirement

• Historically no GPA requirement

• Now includes a merit component

HOPE Grant does a better job of getting students into higher education than the HOPE Scholarship does.

TCSG transfer issues lead to students not being able to pursue a baccalaureate degree.


State and institutional leaders have mixed feelings about the benefits and consequences of HOPE:

“High income students get HOPE, keep it, and then mom and dad buy them a BMW.”

-State legislator

“More people know about HOPE than know who is the governor.”

-Leader, Student Finance Commission


Maryland’s current funding formula links finance policy to state goals.

Current higher education funding formula

• connects all sectors’ appropriations to the USM institutions.

• Sellinger Formula for private not-for-profit institutions

• Cade Formula for community colleges

• Higher level of state support for HBCUs

Three institutions are not formally tied to the USM formula:

• Morgan State University

• St. Mary’s College of Maryland

• Baltimore City Community College


State leaders generally provided positive feedback for the funding formula.

“I’m a fan of the formula. I think it’s a good thing for our state. For one thing, we are all in this together. The privates are our biggest champion for getting more funding, as are the community colleges.”

-Leader, USM

“I think [the funding formula] does not force governors or legislatures to choose between segments of higher education. I also think it, in some degree, helps keep some stability. You may have from time to time governors that are pro-community college, or a very pro four-year governor, and legislators also. It discourages them from picking and choosing between segments of higher education. “

-State legislator


Maryland is looking to improve its finance policies through an improved funding model that considers long-term goals.

“Our governor has made it clear that we are not measuring ourselves against the southern states or against any other state, quite frankly. Our goal as a state is to be among the most competitive countries in the world.”

-Leader, MHEC 2008: the Commission to Develop the Maryland Model for Funding Higher Education (The “Bohanan Commission”) report was released.

• Four principles:

• high state funding of higher education institutions

• moderate tuition levels

• high state need-based financial aid

• Accountability

• Model provides for stability in funding through a corporate income tax


Maryland’s leaders generally support the current and proposed finance policies.

“We strive for excellence; we don’t always meet it, but we set the bar pretty high. And you know that then holds the legislature and the governor kind of accountable; if they fall short, it’s quickly pointed out. This is our goal.”

-State legislator

“[The Bohanan] Commission came up with some magnificent recommendations about how to close the achievement gap. For example, it identified in a separate report that historically black colleges in the state, and it said that yes, we have a problem here. It’s created as a result of the history of the state. But here’s a way to close it. And there was some extra funding that was supposed to go there.”

-Leader, MHEC


The five states vary in their alignment of finance policy and state goals.

In Georgia, policy decisions about state appropriations, tuition, and financial aid are not considered together and do not reflect state goals. Finance policy also contributes to racial stratification in higher education.

Illinois, once a state with highly-regarded finance policy, now fails to allocate and align available resources to achieve state higher education goals.

Decisions in Washington about state funding for higher education and tuition have been more closely linked than in other states. However, granting tuition authority to institutions undermines these policies.

Texas has long-standing mechanisms designed to stabilize higher education funding even in an economic downturn. Coordination of decisions about state appropriations and tuition is developing.

In Maryland, funding for all higher education sectors is tied to the USM institutions. A solid strategic finance plan has been drafted that links finance strategies to statewide goals.


Collaboration Between Educational Sectors

•High school and college alignment

•Transfer and articulation between postsecondary institutions

•Policy landscape is beginning to emerge


Political support for cooperation between K-12 and higher education

Texas - “The P-16 collaborative began in 1998 as an informal network. It was formed by the Commissioners of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), along with the executive director of the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC).“

Illinois – “The General Assembly passed a bill I think 3 years ago to have a P-20 council appointed and begin working. Blagojevich refused to make appointments to the council the whole time he was in office. Quinn has finally made appointments and it has begun meeting.”

Georgia – “Some of the silos are broken down by the Alliance, although they are still very much silos.”

“The Alliance is rooted enough that a new governor wouldn’t take it away. .. [But] I hear, it is fragile. It works because the agency heads have made that commitment – however, they could replace them with new people who do not have that commitment.


Transfer and Articulation

Georgia – “Currently students who transfer from TCSG to USG experience a loss of credit.

Georgia – “Articulation agreements between TCSG and USG are ragged and hard to get your hands around and hard for constituents to get their hands around. I get a lot of those constituent calls.”

Washington – “This state has a pretty effective transfer and it all centers on that statewide agreement.”

Washington – “It has worked well - but almost too well because [… ] some of the larger class sizes are at the junior level than at the freshmen level. The screws up the whole economic model of a university freshmen classes to build up your revenue base and your productivity.”

Maryland – “ARTSYS is an on-line articulation system. Students can see what transfers to public or private colleges and universities. You can go on this thing and say I’m graduating from this school, here are the courses I’ve taken. What do I need? And it just spits it out. You can do that for every campus in the state—two-year/four-year, four-year/four-year.”


Alignment of high school assessments with college placement

Georgia – “It’s the cut scores not the alignment of content that is under debate. Not all people on all campuses will believe that students are achieving standards based on this exam. Right now, it is only the high school graduation exam in English/Language Arts that is being used by some institutions. Next year, hopefully they will accept the math.”

Washington - “The College Ready Math Test is a state-mandated exam with a common cut-score that says a student should be eligible to take a college-level course in math. The test was developed by the UW [but] the two-year colleges have been less receptive to using this test universally. It’s not the first test they like to give students.”

Illinois – “We don’t have end-of-course assessments. We’re a universal ACT state and it’s a component of our high school exam. We are trying to increase college readiness by aligning the ACT scores and placement tests scores for the colleges and trying to making them more uniformed across the state.”


Landscape of the States

State Gubernatorial support for cooperation between sectors Transfer and Articulation

Alignment of high school assessments with college placement

exams

Georgia Yes, but current status is uncertainVery little statewide articulation

between USG and TCSG, within USG works well

Agreement on English cutscore for TCSG and USG and to study

implications, PARCC state

Illinois Yes, but no funding allocated - In statute

Illinois articulation intitative has facilitated transfer well, but some

challenges remain

HS Graduation Exam is ACT and some institutions have set cuts cores, PARCC

state

Washington Yes, Running Start works well but challenges with funding

Associate's transfer program works well, but increasing enrollments are putting pressure on some four-year

institutions

Development, but not widespread use, of college ready math tests,

SMARTER Balanced state

TexasYes, leaders of state education

agencies created college readiness standards- In statute

Primarily rely on articulation agreements

College readiness curriculum with standards, EOC exams will align with

placement

MarylandYes, P-20 council exists but

implementation of ideas has been sparse

Many articulation agreements and a new associate's transfer policy with

guaranteed admissionIn the process of developing aligned

assessments, PARCC state

Documents

Patrick M. Callan Joni E. Finney Michael Armijo Awilda RodriguezJamey Rorison