The National Agenda for Higher Education,

1

The National Agenda for Higher Education,

Accountability, Money – Missouri in the National Context

Missouri Interim Committee on Higher Education Funding

Paul E. Lingenfelter, SHEEO

October 20, 2005

2

I was hoping for an upbeat message here!

3

The National Agenda for Higher Education

In the global economy the question is:

Can Americans Compete?

Geoffrey Colvin, Fortune Magazine, July 20, 2005

4

New Zealand

Norway

Slovak Republic

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom


Countries approaching, equaling, or surpassing U.S. educational attainment:

Source: OECD Educational Statistics

Australia

Canada

Czech Republic

Finland

Ireland

Japan

Korea

6


College graduates this year:


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

10


Potential U.S. service jobs outsourced:

9.6 Million

increasing our unemployment rate to 11.4%

McKinsey estimate, Geoffrey Colvin, Fortune Magazine, July 20, 2005

11



American (and Western European) workers are more expensive.

What will it take for them to be worth what they cost?

They must be the best educated in the world.

12

What does America need?

To double the degree

production

of the 1960s with

no compromise in quality.

13

2002 High School sophomores plan:

At least a baccalaureate degree – 80%

A graduate or professional degree –

40%

Some postsecondary education – 11%

No postsecondary education – 9%

14

Higher Education vs. The State

The instruction and research of colleges and universities:

Build prosperity

Enhance the quality of life

Are essential for a successful democracy

The Case Against the State

15


The Case Against the State

Enrollment demand is unrelenting

AND

Higher education is receiving a decreasing percentage of

state appropriations

YET

State funding is decreasing as a percentage of university revenues

16


The States Respond:

We have funded enrollment growth and inflation

Tuition and fees increases have greatly exceeded inflation

The people have needs in addition to higher education

Where is all the money going?

17


Higher Education Responds:

The CPI doesn’t come close to actual cost increases in higher education

Our market basket includes:

High priced talent

Cutting edge technology

Etc.

18


Higher Education Responds:

The money is going for:

(Barely) competitive faculty salaries

Student aid and student services

Health care costs and retirement

Keeping pace with technological change

Keeping programs current

Teaching loads to attract strong faculty

O&M of aging facilities

19


The State Responds – What about:

Incoherent curricula – courses on obscure topics

Lots of mediocre research

Wasteful competition for empty prestige

Wasteful uses of faculty time

Frills (athletics, amenities) for pampered students (Your children and mine!)

Unjustified reductions in teaching loads

No motivation to reduce costs in seller’s market

20


Grand Jury’s Deliberations:

We need excellent higher education, and lots of it.

We only have so much money.

Can’t you folks figure this out?

21


Grand Jury’s Verdict:

Plaintiff

and

Defendant

– both indicted!

22

What’s the Answer?

Better accountability!

23

The National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education

Commissioners:

Two Governors Three legislators Three state higher education executives Three institutional leaders Two business representatives

Research and Advisory Group:

Joseph C. Burke Peter T. Ewell Margaret A. Miller Nancy Shulock Jane V. Wellman

24


Report was

released

March 10, 2005

25

What is “better accountability?”

A WAY TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE

Not the status quo – Unfocused, unread, unused reporting exercises;

Not measuring performance, rewarding performance or punishing the lack of performance;

Not centralized bureaucracies, but

26


Fundamental Principles

Responsibility for performance – and accountability – is shared among

Teachers and learners

Policy makers and educators

Effective accountability will be based on: Pride, not fear

Aspirations, not minimum standards

Effective accountability will be: A tool for self-discipline, not

finger-pointing

27


Pride Not Fear

28


Components of Effective Accountability

Affirm and pursue fundamental goals

The public agenda vs. market position

Establish and honor a division of labor

Top-down centralization is a dead end

Focus on a few priorities at every level

No focus, no progress

Measure results, respond to evidence

Elementary Balridge

29

State Responsibilities

Set clear public goals for higher education

Stay focused on a policy agenda, stay out of institutional operations

Measure results, including student learning, and work collaboratively to achieve goals

Provide necessary resources

30

Federal Responsibilities

Focus on enhancing access to opportunity

Maintain, enhance research support and quality

Improve data resources

31

Institutional Responsibilities

Improve teaching and learning

Assure access to opportunity in tuition and financial aid policies

Assure research quality and value

Improve productivity

32

What’s the Answer?

Money!

33

Wrong Ideas about Money

There is a “right” amount

The only way to get better results is spend more money

We can get the results we need without spending more money

34

Right Questions about Money

What do we need from higher education?

What can we do better with the money we have?

What do we need that justifies additional funds?

35

State Funding per FTE Student 1980-2004

Enrollment Growth and Public Higher Education Appropriations per FTE, U.S., Fiscal 1980-2004(Constant 2004 dollars adjusted by SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment)

$6,874

$5,702 $5,737

$6,094

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

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

Pu

bli

c F

TE

En

roll

me

nt

(mil

lio

ns

)

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

Ed

uc

atio

nal

Ap

pro

pri

ati

on

s p

er

FT

E

Note: State and local government support, excluding research, agricultural, and medical.Source: SHEEO SHEF

= Recession

36

Growth in Net Tuition 14 years

Net Tuition as a Percentage of Public Higher Education Total Educational Revenues, U.S., Fiscal 1991-2004

26.1%

30.8% 31.3% 31.2% 31.7% 31.2% 30.6% 30.1%29.4% 29.4%

30.3%

35.7%

33.0%

28.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

37

Educational Revenue per FTE 14 years

Total Educational Revenues per FTE by Component, U.S., Fiscal 1991-2004(Constant 2004 dollars adjusted by SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment)

6,4996,126 5,917 5,985 6,185 6,258 6,451 6,648 6,815 6,854 6,874 6,639

6,0765,737

2,480 2,639 2,7272,800 2,899

2,9222,935

2,939 2,849 2,8692,882

2,9933,187

2,300

$-

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Net TuitionEducational Appropriations $8,924$8,799

$9,743

38





39

Missouri in the National Context

Source: US Census Bureau 2000, HigherEdInfo.org

Educational Attainment and Personal Income per Capita, by State

US

WY

WI

WV

WA

VAVT

UT

TX

TN

SD

SC

RI

PA

OR

OK

OH

ND

NC

NY

NM

NJ

NH

NV

NEMT

MO

MS

MN

MI

MA

MD

ME

LA

KY

KS

IA

IN

IL

ID

HI

GA

FL

DE

CTCO

CA

AR

AZ

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

$15,000 $17,000 $19,000 $21,000 $23,000 $25,000 $27,000 $29,000

Personal Income per Capita

Ad

ult

Po

pu

lati

on

wit

h a

Bac

hel

ors

Deg

ree

or

Hig

her

(%

)

40

St. Louis

St. Charles

Shannon

Platte

Clay

Boone

Adair

MO

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

$11,000 $13,000 $15,000 $17,000 $19,000 $21,000 $23,000 $25,000 $27,000

Personal Income per Capita

Ad

ult

Po

pu

lati

on

wit

h a

Ba

ch

elo

rs D

eg

ree o

r H

igh

er

(%)

Education and Income within Missouri

Source: US Census Bureau 2000, HigherEdInfo.org

Educational Attainment and Personal Income per Capita, by Missouri County

41

Median Earnings by Degree-Level ($)

13,520

24,200 25,000

31,500

40,000

55,125

75,000

100,000

10,000

19,760 20,000

33,000

42,000

58,000

63,000

7,421

20,235

25,00028,458

35,000

44,000

54,000

$0

$100,000

Less Than HS HS orEquivalent

Some College Associate Bachelor's Masters Doctorate Professional

Top State US Missouri

Source: US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey – 1998 to 2001

42

Median Earnings Difference ($)Difference in Median Earnings from a High School Diploma

to a Bachelor’s Degree18,000

13,240

8,2237,268

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

$20,000

New

Jer

sey

Cal

iforn

iaM

aryl

and

Mic

higa

nT

exas

Ariz

ona

Del

awar

eM

inne

sota

Nev

ada

Rho

de Is

land

Sou

th C

arol

ina

Ala

ska

Illin

ois

Pen

nsyl

vani

aW

ashi

ngto

nG

eorg

iaN

ew Y

ork

Mis

siss

ippi

Ala

bam

aM

assa

chus

etts

Ohi

oO

rego

nT

enne

ssee

New

Mex

ico

U

.S.

Uta

hIn

dian

aN

orth

Car

olin

aO

klah

oma

Virg

inia

Wis

cons

inH

awai

iK

entu

cky

Ark

ansa

sK

ansa

sW

est V

irgin

iaLo

uisi

ana

Col

orad

oF

lorid

aIo

wa

Con

nect

icut

New

Ham

pshi

reW

yom

ing

Nor

th D

akot

aId

aho

Neb

rask

aM

onta

naM

aine

Sou

th D

akot

aM

isso

uri

Ver

mon

t


43

Median Earnings Difference ($)Difference in Median Earnings from a High School Diploma to an Associates Degree

10,000

5,2404,765

2,125

0

4,000

8,000

$12,000

Mic

higa

nD

elaw

are

Rho

de Is

land

Cal

iforn

iaK

entu

cky

Mar

ylan

dM

assa

chus

etts

Min

neso

taV

irgin

iaIn

dian

aU

tah

New

Jer

sey

Tex

asN

evad

aA

lask

aIll

inoi

sG

eorg

iaN

orth

Car

olin

aS

outh

Car

olin

aA

rizon

aO

hio

Flo

rida

Mis

siss

ippi

Neb

rask

aP

enns

ylva

nia

Was

hing

ton

Ten

ness

eeO

klah

oma

Wis

cons

inN

ew H

amps

hire

Haw

aii

Con

nect

icut

Loui

sian

aN

orth

Dak

ota

Kan

sas

New

Mex

ico

U

.S.

Col

orad

oM

aine

New

Yor

kV

erm

ont

Mis

sour

iO

rego

nIo

wa

Wyo

min

gM

onta

naS

outh

Dak

ota

Ala

bam

aA

rkan

sas

Wes

t Virg

inia

Idah

o


44

Missouri’s Situation

Missouri Adults (age 25 and up) by Highest Education Level

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2004

Bachelor's degree15.0%

Some college, no degree23.0%

Less than high school diploma14.0%

Graduate or professional degree9.0%

Associate degree6.0%

High school diploma or equivalency

33.0%

70% with no college degree

45

Student Pipeline – National context

84

58

28

38.8

67

38

26

18

26.7

73

39

27

18

25.0

42

0

100

Graduate from HighSchool

Enter College Enroll SophomoreYear

Graduate within150%

25 to 44 with aBachelor's

Best Performing State US Average Missouri

Of 100 9th Graders – the number who graduate from HS within four years, go directly to college, return their second year, and graduate within 150% of program time

Sources: Tom Mortenson, ACT, NCES-IPEDS Graduation Rate Survey, US Census Bureau

46

Objectives

Typical Financial Aid Program Goals:

Access

Reward Talent

Choice

Retention

Equalize Tuition

Career Choice

Source: Jerry Sheehan Davis, Lumina Foundation

47

The MOST important objective

The 21st century bottom line:

Maximize successful participation in higher education

48

Policies Aligned with Objective

Requirements to maximize success in higher education

Affordability, which is required for . . .

Aspiration and effort, leading to . . .

Adequate preparation, which requires . . .

Effective instruction, and when the system fails

Remediation

49

Policies Aligned with Objective

Affordability – does financial aid matter?

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

50


35.5%

26.3%

34.7%30.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Statewide CommunityColleges

PublicUniversities

Private 4-yearInsts

Pell =

101,670

Pell =

30,749

Pell =

27,716

Pell =

21,379

49.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Family income <$50,000

95% of dependent Pell

recipients come from

families with annual income under $50,000

Low income representation among higher education institutions in Missouri…

… and in the state population at large.

Pell Grant recipients as a percentage of Missouri undergraduate enrollments, by sector

Families with annual income under $50,000 as a percentage

of Missouri’s population

51


University of. Missouri -Columbia

Other Missouri Universities

Community CollegesLiving On Campus

Community CollegesLiving Off Campus

Tuition & Fees $6,622 $5,128 $2,071 $2,071

Living expenses, transportation, books & supplies, etc.

$9,120 $7,850 $4,577 $10,243

Total Attendance Costs $15,742 $12,978 $6,648 $12,314

Pell Grant (maximum) $4,050 $4,050 $4,050 $4,050

Remaining Need (to be met from loans, other grants, and student self-help

$11,692 $8,928 $2,598 $8,264

Attendance Costs, Pell Grant, and Remaining Need(Missouri Residents with $0 Expected Family Contribution)

52

Mis

siss

ippi

133%

44%

19%

0%0

30

60

90

120

150%

Illin

ois

Pen

nsyl

vani

aM

inne

sota

New

Jer

sey

Con

nect

icut

New

Yor

kV

erm

ont

Mas

sach

uset

tsIn

dian

aW

ashi

ngto

nW

isco

nsin

Iow

aM

ichi

gan

Cal

iforn

iaV

irgin

iaU

.S.

Col

orad

oM

aryl

and

Mai

neO

hio

Ken

tuck

yS

outh

Car

olin

aA

rkan

sas

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Wes

t Virg

inia

Nev

ada

New

Mex

ico

Ore

gon

Ten

ness

eeM

isso

uri

Rho

de Is

land

Tex

asK

ansa

sO

klah

oma

Flo

rida

Neb

rask

aD

elaw

are

New

Ham

pshi

reM

onta

naN

orth

Dak

ota

Uta

hH

awai

iA

rizon

aId

aho

Ala

bam

aLo

uisi

ana

Ala

ska

Geo

rgia

Sou

th D

akot

aW

yom

ing

Missouri in context – State Grant Aid State Grant Aid Targeted to Low-Income Families as a Percent of

Federal Pell Grant Aid (%) - 2001

Source: NCPPHE, Measuring Up: 2000

53

Missouri in context: Total aid/FTE

Total Undergraduate State Grant Aid per Undergraduate FTE: 2003-04

Missouri$185

U.S.$500

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

GA

SC

NY NJ

KY

PA IL

WV IN VT

DC LA NV FL WA

MN

U.S

.N

CO

HC

A MI

VA

DE

NM WI

CT IA CO AR

ME

MA

MD TN RI

TX OK

MS

MO

OR KS

NE ID NH

MT

ND UT AL

AZ HI

WY AK

SD

54

Missouri in context: Need based aid/FTE

Need-Based State Grant aid per Undergraduate FTE: 2003-04

Missouri$112

U.S. $372

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

New

Yor

k

New

Je

rsey

Pe

nnsy

lva

nia

Illin

ois

Ve

rmon

t

Was

hin

gton

, DC

Ind

ian

a

Min

neso

ta

Was

hin

gton

Cal

iforn

ia

Ke

ntuc

ky

Nat

ion

Del

aw

are

Ohi

o

Nor

th C

aro

lina

Con

nec

ticut

Wis

con

sin

Iow

a

Wes

t Vir

gini

a

Ma

ine

Ma

ssac

hus

etts

Vir

gini

a

So

uth

Car

olin

a

Ma

ryla

nd

Col

ora

do

Mic

higa

n

Rho

de

Isla

nd

Ten

ness

ee

Tex

as

Ark

ans

as

Okl

aho

ma

Ore

gon

Flo

rida

Mis

siss

ipp

i

Nev

ada

Mis

sou

ri

Ka

nsa

s

Neb

rask

a

New

Ham

psh

ire

Mo

ntan

a

Nor

th D

ako

ta

New

Me

xico

Uta

h

Ala

bam

a

Ida

ho

Ari

zon

a

Haw

aii

Loui

sia

na

Wyo

min

g

Geo

rgia

Ala

ska

So

uth

Dak

ota

55

Implementing Financial Aid

Need-based grant assistance – Essential to offset tuition costs for low- and

moderate-income students Should be routine, entirely dependable

Merit or blended need/merit grant assistance – Useful for motivating preparation

Outreach and transparency – Improves aspiration and preparation

State Role

56

Missouri in context: Enrollment

Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment in Public Higher Education,Percent Change by State, Fiscal 1991-2004

11.4%

86.9%

-0.7%

21.8%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Mar

ylan

d

Rho

de Is

land

Illin

ois

Wyo

min

gKa

nsas

Min

neso

taM

ichi

gan

Alab

ama

Neb

rask

aAl

aska

Con

nect

icut

New

Yor

kM

isso

uri

Penn

sylv

ania

Mas

sach

uset

tsD

elaw

are

Ohi

o

Wes

t Virg

inia

Verm

ont

Wis

cons

in

New

Ham

pshi

reM

aine

Iow

aTe

nnes

see

Haw

aii

Geo

rgia

Virg

inia

Ore

gon

US

Col

orad

o

New

Jer

sey

Kent

ucky

Okl

ahom

a

New

Mex

ico

Cal

iforn

ia

Nor

th D

akot

aM

onta

naIn

dian

a

Sout

h C

arol

ina

Texa

sFl

orid

aAr

izon

a

Sout

h D

akot

a

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Was

hing

ton

Idah

oLo

uisi

ana

Arka

nsas

Mis

siss

ippi

Uta

hN

evad

a

57

Missouri in context: EnrollmentFull-Time Equivalent Enrollment in Public Higher Education,

Percent Change by State, Fiscal 2001-2004

-5.5%

27.5%

9.6%

11.8%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Mar

ylan

dD

elaw

are

Sout

h C

arol

ina

Tenn

esse

eM

onta

naM

ichi

gan

Rho

de Is

land

Was

hing

ton

New

Yor

kN

ebra

ska

Loui

sian

aVi

rgin

iaC

alifo

rnia

Mis

sour

iKa

nsas

Wyo

min

gO

klah

oma

Wes

t Virg

inia

Alab

ama

Arka

nsas

Illin

ois

Haw

aii

Iow

aVe

rmon

t

Penn

sylv

ania US

Ore

gon

Ohi

oW

isco

nsin

New

Jer

sey

Indi

ana

Min

neso

taAr

izon

aC

olor

ado

Idah

o

Con

nect

icut

Mas

sach

uset

ts

New

Ham

pshi

reM

issi

ssip

pi

Nor

th D

akot

aAl

aska

Mai

neU

tah

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Flor

ida

Geo

rgia

Nev

ada

New

Mex

ico

Texa

sKe

ntuc

ky

Sout

h D

akot

a

58

Missouri in context: Appropriations

Educational Appropriations per FTE, Percent Change by State, Fiscal 1991-2004(Constant 2004 dollars adjusted by SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment)

4.5%

-11.7%

26.7%

-42.2%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Verm

ont

Col

orad

oO

rego

nM

onta

na

Was

hing

ton

Iow

a

Sout

h C

arol

ina

Okl

ahom

aU

tah

Mai

ne

Nor

th D

akot

aVi

rgin

iaIn

dian

aId

aho

Flor

ida

Penn

sylv

ania

Min

neso

taO

hio

Haw

aii

Alas

kaW

isco

nsin

New

Ham

pshi

re

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Tenn

esse

eN

ew Y

ork

US

Mis

siss

ippi

Mar

ylan

d

Sout

h D

akot

a

Con

nect

icut

Cal

iforn

iaM

ichi

gan

Neb

rask

aN

ew J

erse

yTe

xas

Alab

ama

Ariz

ona

Arka

nsas

Mas

sach

uset

ts

New

Mex

ico

Wes

t Virg

inia

Kans

asD

elaw

are

Mis

sour

iIll

inoi

s

Rho

de Is

land

Loui

sian

aKe

ntuc

kyN

evad

aG

eorg

iaW

yom

ing

59

Missouri in context: Appropriations

Educational Appropriations per FTE,Percent Change by State, Fiscal 2001-2004

-23.7%

-16.5%

18.1%

-35.4%-40%

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Col

orad

oVi

rgin

iaIo

wa

Flor

ida

Mas

sach

uset

tsM

inne

sota

Ohi

oO

klah

oma

Mis

sour

i

New

Ham

pshi

reM

issi

ssip

pi

Penn

sylv

ania

Geo

rgia

Mai

neM

ichi

gan

Wes

t Virg

inia

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Wis

cons

inIll

inoi

sKe

ntuc

kyId

aho

US

Kans

as

Nor

th D

akot

aIn

dian

a

Con

nect

icut

New

Jer

sey

Uta

hO

rego

nC

alifo

rnia

Mar

ylan

d

Was

hing

ton

Texa

sAl

abam

aAl

aska

Rho

de Is

land

Tenn

esse

eAr

izon

aN

ew Y

ork

Sout

h D

akot

aVe

rmon

tM

onta

naD

elaw

are

Arka

nsas

Neb

rask

aLo

uisi

ana

Sout

h C

arol

ina

Haw

aii

Wyo

min

g

New

Mex

ico

Nev

ada

60

Missouri in context: Tuition growth

Net Tuition Revenue per FTE, Percent Change by State, Fiscal 1991-2004(Constant 2004 dollars adjusted by SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment)

29.2%

38.6%

132.5%

-30.4%-35%

-25%

-15%

-5%

5%

15%

25%

35%

45%

55%

65%

75%

85%

95%

105%

115%

125%

135%

Loui

sian

a

Sout

h C

arol

ina

Geo

rgia

Was

hing

ton

Mis

siss

ippi

Nor

th D

akot

a

New

Ham

pshi

reAr

izon

aAr

kans

asN

evad

aW

isco

nsin

Verm

ont

Uta

h

Penn

sylv

ania

Ohi

oFl

orid

aM

isso

uri

Okl

ahom

aC

olor

ado

Mas

sach

uset

tsVi

rgin

ia US

Wes

t Virg

inia

Mic

higa

nKe

ntuc

kyId

aho

Del

awar

eAl

aska

Indi

ana

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Iow

a

New

Jer

sey

Sout

h D

akot

aKa

nsas

Illin

ois

Min

neso

ta

Rho

de Is

land

Mai

ne

New

Mex

ico

Alab

ama

Wyo

min

gN

ebra

ska

Texa

sTe

nnes

see

New

Yor

k

Con

nect

icut

Cal

iforn

iaO

rego

nM

aryl

and

Haw

aii

Mon

tana

61

Missouri in context: Tuition Growth Net Tuition Revenue per FTE,

Percent Change by State, Fiscal 2001-2004

-34.9%

89.2%

25.9%

11.1%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

New

Ham

pshi

reG

eorg

iaW

yom

ing

Flor

ida

Kent

ucky

Sout

h C

arol

ina

Texa

sVe

rmon

tId

aho

Penn

sylv

ania

Mas

sach

uset

tsAr

izon

aAl

aska

Haw

aii

Del

awar

eN

evad

a

New

Jer

sey

Loui

sian

aO

hio

Wis

cons

in

Sout

h D

akot

aM

aine US

Alab

ama

Nor

th D

akot

a

Wes

t Virg

inia

Mis

siss

ippi

Was

hing

ton

Col

orad

oN

ew Y

ork

Kans

as

Con

nect

icut

Rho

de Is

land

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Arka

nsas

Indi

ana

Mon

tana

Iow

aU

tah

Neb

rask

aM

ichi

gan

Ore

gon

Tenn

esse

eIll

inoi

sM

aryl

and

Okl

ahom

aVi

rgin

ia

New

Mex

ico

Mis

sour

iM

inne

sota

Cal

iforn

ia

62

Missouri in context: Revenue Growth

Total Educational Revenues per FTE, Percent Change by State, Fiscal 1991-2004(Constant 2004 dollars adjusted by SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment)

12.6%

-24.0%

32.2%

1.4%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Sout

h C

arol

ina

Was

hing

ton

Nor

th D

akot

aU

tah

Okl

ahom

aId

aho

Flor

ida

Mis

siss

ippi

Alas

ka

New

Ham

pshi

reW

isco

nsin

Loui

sian

aH

awai

iC

olor

ado

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Iow

aVe

rmon

tVi

rgin

ia

Penn

sylv

ania

Ohi

oAr

izon

aU

SIn

dian

aC

alifo

rnia

Mai

neAr

kans

asM

inne

sota

New

Mex

ico

New

Yor

kG

eorg

iaO

rego

n

New

Jer

sey

Mon

tana

Mas

sach

uset

tsTe

nnes

see

Mic

higa

n

Sout

h D

akot

aTe

xas

Mis

sour

iN

evad

aN

ebra

ska

Con

nect

icut

Wes

t Virg

inia

Illin

ois

Kans

asKe

ntuc

kyAl

abam

aD

elaw

are

Mar

ylan

d

Rho

de Is

land

Wyo

min

g

63

Missouri in context: Revenue Decline

Total Educational Revenues per FTE,Percent Change by State, Fiscal 2001-2004

-10.4%-8.5%

14.7%

-31.0%-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

New

Ham

pshi

reFl

orid

aG

eorg

ia

Mas

sach

uset

tsKe

ntuc

kyId

aho

Okl

ahom

a

Penn

sylv

ania

Col

orad

oVi

rgin

iaM

issi

ssip

piIo

wa

Ohi

oTe

xas

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Mis

sour

iIll

inoi

sW

isco

nsin

Mai

neAl

aska

Min

neso

ta

New

Jer

sey

US

Was

hing

ton

Verm

ont

Kans

as

Nor

th D

akot

a

Wes

t Virg

inia

Ariz

ona

Sout

h C

arol

ina

Uta

h

Con

nect

icut

Wyo

min

gM

ichi

gan

Cal

iforn

iaIn

dian

aN

ew Y

ork

Alab

ama

Del

awar

eAr

kans

as

Sout

h D

akot

aLo

uisi

ana

Haw

aii

Rho

de Is

land

Ore

gon

Tenn

esse

eM

aryl

and

Neb

rask

aM

onta

na

New

Mex

ico

Nev

ada

64

Cost of Living and Enrollment MixState Cost of Living and Public Higher Education System Enrollment Mix Index Values, 2004

US

WY

WI

WV

WA

VA

VT

UT

TX

TN

SD

SC

RI

PA

OROK

OH

NDNC

NY

NM

NJ

NH

NV

NEMT

MO

MS

MN

MI

MA

MDME

LAKY

KSIA

IN

IL

IDHI

GA

FL

DE

CT

CO

CA

AR

AZ

AK

AL

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20

State Cost of Living Index (US Avg = 1.0)

En

rollm

ent

Mix

In

dex

(U

S A

vg =

1.0

)

STATE COST OF LIVING: below avgPUBLIC H.E. SYSTEM ENROLLMENT MIX: above avg

COST OF LIVING: above avgPUBLIC H.E. SYSTEM ENROLLMENT MIX: above avg

STATE COST OF LIVING: below avgPUBLIC H.E. SYSTEM ENROLLMENT MIX: below avg

COST OF LIVING: above avgPUBLIC H.E. SYSTEM ENROLLMENT MIX: below avg

65

Missouri in context: Revenue/FTETotal Educational Revenues per FTE by State:

Percent Change and Current Standing Relative to U.S. Average

AL

AK

AZ

ARCA

CO

CT

DE

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KSKY

LA

ME

MD

MAMI

MN

MS

MOMT

NE NV

NH

NJNM NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD TNTX

UT

VTVA

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

Indexed to the U.S. Average in FY 2004

Per

cen

t C

han

ge,

FY

199

1 -

2004

% 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.

66

Missouri in context: Appro. & TuitionPercent Change by State in Educational Appropriations and Net Tuition Revenue per FTE,

Fiscal 1991 - 2004

US

WY

WI

WV

WA

VA

VT UT

TXTN

SD

SC

RI

PA

OR

OK

OH

ND

NC

NY

NM

NJ

NH

NV

NE

MO

MS

MN

MI

MA

MD

ME

KY

KS

IA IN

IL

ID

HI

GA

FL

DE

CT

CO

CA

ARAZ

AK

AL

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

-45% -40% -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Percent Change in Educational Appropriations per FTE

Per

cen

t C

han

ge

in N

et T

uit

ion

Rev

enu

e p

er F

TE

APPROPS % CHANGE: below avgNET TUIT % CHANGE: above avg

APPROPS % CHANGE: above avgNET TUIT % CHANGE: above avg

APPROPS % CHANGE: below avgNET TUIT % CHANGE: below avg

APPROPS % CHANGE: above avgNET TUIT % CHANGE: below avg


67

Missouri in context: Appro. & FTEPercent Change by State in Enrollment and in Educational Appropriations per FTE,

Fiscal 1991-2004

US

WY

WIWV

WA

VAVT

UT

TX

TN

SD

SC

RI

PA

OR

OK

OH

ND

NC

NY

NMNJ

NH

NV

NE

MT

MO

MS

MN MI

MA

MD

ME

LA

KY

KS

IA

IN

IL

ID

HI GA

FL

DECT

CO

CA

AR

AZ

AKAL

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

-45% -40% -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Percent Change in Educational Appropriations per FTE

Per

cen

t C

han

ge

in P

ub

lic H

igh

er E

du

cati

on

En

rollm

ent APPROPS CHANGE: below avg

FTE CHANGE: above avgAPPROPS CHANGE: above avg

FTE CHANGE: above avg

APPROPS CHANGE: below avgFTE CHANGE: below avg

APPROPS CHANGE: above avgFTE CHANGE: below avg

Note: The states in green lettering exceed the national average Educational Appropriations per FTE by 10% or more.

68

Missouri in context: Tuition 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

TXTN

SD

SC

RI

PA

OR

OK

OH

ND

NC

NY

NM

NJ

NH

NV

NE

MO

MS

MN

MI

MA

MD

ME

KY

KS

IAIN

IL

ID

HI

GA

FL

DE

CT

CO

CA

ARAZ

AK

AL

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

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 2.5

Indexed to the U.S. Average in FY 2004

Per

cen

t C

han

ge,

FY

199

1 -

2004

% CHANGE: above avgCURRENT: below avg

% CHANGE: below avgCURRENT: below avg

% CHANGE: below avgCURRENT: above avg

% CHANGE: above avgCURRENT: above avg


69

Missouri in context: Tuition & AidNet Tuition Revenue per FTE and State-Funded Tuition Aid per FTE by State,

Fiscal 2004

AL

AKAZ AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IAKS

KY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

MS

MO

MTNENV NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OHOK

OR

PA

RISC SD

TN

TXUT

VT

VA

WA WV

WI

WY

US

$-

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

$1,100

$1,200

$1,300

$1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000

Fiscal 2004 Net Tuition Revenue per FTE

Fis

cal 2

004

Tu

itio

n A

id p

er F

TE

TUITION AID: above avgNET TUITION: below avg

TUITION AID: below avgNET TUITION: below avg

TUITION AID: below avgNET TUITION: above avg

TUITION AID: above avgNET TUITION: above avg


70

Taxable Resources and Effective Tax Rate Indexed to the U.S. Average, by State, 2002

US WY

WIWV

WA

VA

VT

UT

TX

TNSD

SC

RI

PA

OR

OKOH

ND

NC

NM

NJ

NH

NV

NEMT

MO

MSMN

MI

MA

MD

LA

KY

KSIAIN

ILID

HI

GAFL

DE

CT

CO

CAAR

AZ

AK

AL

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

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

Notes: Shaded states were within +/- 10% of the national average actual tax revenues (ATR) per capita. States above and to the right exceeded the national average ATR per capita by 10% or more. States below and to the left lagged the average ATR per capita by 10% or more.

MO

Missouri in context: Wealth and Tax

71





72

Contact Info:

Paul E. LingenfelterPresident

SHEEO

Email:

[email protected]

Documents

The National Agenda for Higher Education,