ED 321 631 HE 023 641 · 2014-03-24 · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 321 631 HE 023 641 TITLE Report to the Governor and the 1989 Minnesota. Legislature. Technical Report. INSTITUTIsiN. Minnesota

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 321 631 HE 023 641

TITLE Report to the Governor and the 1989 MinnesotaLegislature. Technical Report.

INSTITUTIsiN Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board, St.Paul.

PUB DATE Jan 89NOTE 171p.; For a comparison summary report, see HE 023

642.AVAILABLE FROM Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board, Suite

400, Capitol Square, 550 Cedar, St. Paul, MN55101.

PUB TYPE Statistical Data (110) -- Reports -Researcr/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC07 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Educational Planning; *Educational Policy;

*Educational Trends; Enrollment; *Governing Boards;Higher Education; *Postsecondary Education; Pubh.cPolicy; State Programs; Student Characteristics;Student Financial Aid

IDENTIFIERS *Minnesota; *Minnesota Hiqher Education CoordinatingBoard

ABSTRACT

This technical report provides a detailedpresentation of the status of Minnesota postsecondary education,summarizes policy issues studied by the Minnesota Higher EducationCoordinating Board, and reviews programs administered by the Board.Section 1 reviews enrollment trends and projections, studentcharacteristics, and Minnesota's investment in postsecondaryeducation. The section also compares trends in Minnesota with thosein other states. Section 2 reviews funding and financial aid issues;issues related to governance, mission differentiation, and planning;projects to improve educational quality; projects to en: \ricecoordination and cooperation; and projects to improve information andassessment. Section 3 summarizes the state financial aid programs andsuch nonfinancial aid programs as the Interstate Tuition ReciprocityProgram, the Minnesota Interlibrary Telecommunications Exchange, andEnterprise Development Partnership Centers. Over 100 tables offersupporting date.. (JDD)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

MINNESOTAH IGHERE DUCATIONCOORDINATINGB OAR D

January 1989

Technical Report

Report

To The Governor

Aid

(he 1989 Legislature

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

ALI. RE_Crow. NI

TO THE EDUCAT!CNAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." r,

r.

U DEPARTMENT OF EDIXATIONOtte' Educational Research and ImprovementED ATIONAL FIEL,OURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

his document hall been reproducod asreceived from the person o organizationoriginating it

O Minor changes have been mode to improvereproduction quality

ruts 01 view or Opinions stated in this dOCtrmen, do not nCeesarily represent ofOERI portion or policy

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Report to the Governorand 1989 Minnesota Legislature

MINNESOTA HIGHER EDUCATIONCOORDINATING BOARD

MEMBERS Alice KellerWinona, First Congressional District

Maureen Johnson StoresMarshall, Second Congressional District

Robert FergusonEagan, Third Congressional District

Thomas AuthLittle Canada, Fourth Congressional District

Mona HintzmanBrooklyn Center, Fifth Congressional District

Celeste O'DonnellSt. Paul, Sixth Congressional District

Andy HilgerSt. Cloud, Seventh Congressional District

Peter X. FuginaVirginia, Eighth Congressional District

Charles Neer landMinneapolis, At-Large Member

Duane C. ScribnerMinneapolis, At-Large Member

Andrea SchmidtRed Wing, At-Large Member

OFFICERS Maureen Johnson StoresPresident

Mena HintzmanVice President

Duane C. ScribnerSecretary

Kathleen M. KiesActing Executive Director

0 i

Preface

This report to the governor and1989 Legislature examinestrends and conditions inMinnesota post-secondaryeducation, summarizes policyissues addressed by theMinnesota Higher EducationCoordinating Board, andprovides information on thestatus of programs administeredby the Board. A separatesummary report highlights themajor trends and issues andactivities of the CoordinatingBoard. Related information alsoappears in the Board's biennialbudget request and separatepolicy and data reports.

Section 1 of this documentexamines the status ofMinnesota post-secondaryeducation. it covers trends inenrollment and post-secondaryeducation attainment, studentcharacteristics, the state'sinvestment in post-secondaryeducation, and comparisonswith other states.

Section 2 reviews policy studiesand projects completed or begunby the Coordinating Boardduring the last two years.Section 3 summarizes the statusof financial aid and non-financialaid programs administered bythe Board.

4

ii

Contents

Page ii PREFACE

iii CONTENTS

vi TABLES

1 1. STATUS OF MINNESOTA POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

2 Enrollment and Attainment Trends

21 Student Characteristics

23 Minnesota Investment in Post-Secondary Education

27 Comparisons

55 POLICY ISSUES

58 Fur Jng and Financial Aid

56 Average Cost Funding

58 PostSecondary Education Cost Study

58 Financing of Graduate and Professional Education

60 Financing Policies for High Cost University of Minnesota HealthProfessions Programs

62 Analysis of Guaranteed Student Loan Borrowers

64 State Saving Incentive and Prepaid TWtion Plane

66 Implications of Expansion of the Graduated Repayment IncomeProtection Program

68 Governance, Mission Differentiation, and Planning

68 Governance

69 Mission Differentiation/Cooperative Efforts

71 System Plane

72 Study of Statewide Higher Education Needs

73 Expansion of Services for Rochester Area

75 Fond du Lac Higher Education Center

76 Meeting Educational Needs of the DuluthSuperior Area

J

Contents

Page 76 Review and Comment on State University SystemReport Initiatives for Minnesota's Future

78 Task Force on Instructional lbchnology

79 Quality

79 Quality Assessment

82 Remedial Education Update

83 lbacher Education Update

84 Coordination and Cooperation

84 Program Review

87 Low and Declining Graduate Numbers

89 Engineering Programs

92 Common Course Numbering

95 Advanced Placement

97 Federal-State Relations

101 Data Base Development

102 Information and Assessment

102 Assistance to Adults Considering Post-Secondary Studies

104 Survey of Parents of Eighth Graders

105 3. PROGRAMS

106 Financial Aid

106 Introduction

106 Scholarship and Grant Program

110 Veterans Dependents Student Assistance Program

111 Part-Time Grant Program

112 Dislocated Rual Worker Grant Program

115 Minnesota Work-Study Program

116 State Student Loan Program and Other Federal Loan Programs

120 Student Educational Loan Fund (SELF)

Civ

Contents

Page 124 Graduated Repayment Income Protection Program (GRIP)

125 Medical and Osteopathy Loan Program

125 Summer Scholarships

128 Paul Douglas 'Ibacher Scholarship Program

130 Nonfinancial Aid Programs

130 Introduction

130 Interstate Ibition Reciprocity Program

137 Interstate Mition Reciprocity Analysis

137 Minnesota Interlibrary Iblecommunications Exchange

140 Private Institutions Registration Program

142 Minnesota Post-High School Planning Program

144 Optometry and Osteopathy Contracts

145 Enterprise Development Partnership Centers

146 Minnesota Job Skills Partnership

147 Title II. Grants for Science, Math Instruction

149 APPENDIX

150 Summery of Meetings with Governing Boards

150 Quality Assessment

150 Mission Revisited

151 Symposia

151 Financing One's Post-Secondary Education

152 Underrepresentation of Women and Minorities in Mathematics andScience

152 Review and Comment on Higher Education Facilities AuthorityAnnual Reports

164 Advisory Committees

164 Higher Education Coordinating Board Report; and Publications

157 Minnesota Planning Regions

158 Design for Shared Responsibility

1 7v

Tablas

I.1. 3 On-Campus 'All Headcount Enrollment, Public and PrivatePost-Secondary Systems, 1973-1987.

1.2. 3 Full -Time and Part-Time On Campus Headcount Enrollment, AllSystems 1973-1987.

1.3. 4 Full -Time, Part-Time, and 'Ibtal Fall Headcount Enrollment bySystem, 1976, 1983, 1985, and 1987.

1.4. 5 On-Campus Undergraduate Headcount Enrollment by Sex, AllSystems, 1977-1987.

1.5 6 Age Distribution of On-Campus Collegiate Undergraduate Students,All Systems, 1978-1987.

1.6. 7 Headcount Enrollment and Percent of Headcount Enrollment byRacial/Ethnic Group and System, Fa111983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and1987.

1.7. 9 Minnesota Resident/Nonresident/Foreign Headcount Enrollment, Fall1978-1987.

1.8. 10

11 Post-Secondary Enrollment Options Program, 1985-86-1987-88.

11 Fiat -rime Freshmen in Institutions of Higher Education,Outmigrants and Inmigrants for Each State by Type of Institutionand State: All Institutions, Fa111986.

1.9

I.10.

I.11.1978-1987.

Fall Headcount Enrollment by System and Level, 1982-1987.

13 Fall Headcount Enrollment of New Entering Students by System,

1.12. 14 Estimated Rate of Participation by Minnesota Students inPost-Secondary Education.

1.13. 15 Fall Headcount Enrollment and Full-Year Equivalents by System,1978-1986.

1.14. 16 Undergraduate transfers from System to System, Fall 'Thrm 1987.

1.15. 17 Ibtal Degrees Awarded by Level, 1977-1987.

1.16. 18 Graduates by Program Area, 1985.

1.17. 17 Alternative Projected Levels of College Education AmongMinnesota's Labor Force, Ages 25-64, 1980, 1990, and 2000.

1.18. 19 Projections of High School Graduates by Region, Spring 1987-Spring2006.

1.19. 20 Projections of Ibtal Fall Headcount Enrollments, PublicPost-Secondary Education Sy stems, 1988-89-2006-07.

vi

Tables

1.20. 20

1.21. 21

1.22. 21

1.23. 22

1.24. 22

1.25. 23

1.26. 24

1.27. 25

1.28. 26

1.29. 27

1.30. 28

1.31. 29

1.32. 30

1.33. 31

Projections of Full-Year Equivalent Enrollments, PublicPost-Secondary Education Systems, 1988-89-2006-07.

Post-High School Plans, Minnesota High School Juniors, 1979-1988.

Expected Educational Levels, Minnesota High School Juniors,1979-1988.

Minnesota High School Juniors, First Choice Post-SecondaryInstitution, 1977-1986.

Minnesota High School Juniors, Planned Field of Study, 1979-1988.

Ibtal State Appropriations and '11iition Revenue As a Percent ofInstructional Expenditures and Percent Change from 1978 forMinnesota Public Systems, Fiscal Years 1978, 1983, 1986, and 1989Estimates.

Average Instructional Expenditures Per Full Year Equivalent Studentin Current and Constant Dollars for Minnesota Public Systems, FiscalYears 1978, 1983, 1986 and Estimates for 1989.

Ibtal General Fund Expenditures, Instructional Expenditures,Full-Year Equivalent Enrollments and Percent Change from 1978 forMinnesota Public Systems, Fiscal Years 1978, 1983, 1986, and 1989Estimates.

'Mimi and Required Fees Compared to Minnesota Per Capita Incomein Current and Constant Dollars, Academic Years 1971-1989.

Thition and Fees Compared to Minnesota Per Capita Income, inCurrent and Constant Dollars, Thchnkal Institutes, Academic Years1979 Through 1989.

Ihition and Fees Compared to Minnesota Per Capita Income, inCurrent and Constant Dollars, Community College System, AcademicYears 1979 Through 1989.

Ihition, Fees, Room and Board Compared to Minnesota Per CapitaIncome, in Current and Constant Dollars, State University System,Academic Years 1979 Through 1989.

Thition, Fees, Room and Board Compared to Minnesota Per CapitaIncome, in Current and Constant Dollars, University ofMinnesota-Win Cities, College of Liberal Arts, Academic Years 1979Through 1989.

Ihition, Fees, Room and Board Compared to Minnesota Per CapitaIncome, in Current and Constant Dollars, University ofMinnesota-Win Cities, Institute of lbchnology, Academic Years 1979Through 1989.

9vii

Tables

1.34. 32

1.35. 33

1.36. 34

1.37. 34

1.38. 35

1.39. 35

1.40. 36

1.41. 36

1.42. 37

1.43. 38

1.44. 39

1.45. 40

1.46. 41

1.47. 42

viii

Illition, Fees, Room and Board Compared to Minnesota Per CapitaIncome, in Current and Constant Dollars, University ofMinnesota-IV/in Cities, College of Forestry, Academic Years 1979Through 1989.

Ittition, Fees, Room and Board Compared to Minnesota Per CapitaIncome, in Current and Constant Dollars, Minnesota Private Colleges,Academic Years 1979 Thiugh 1989.

State Appropriations for Student Assistance, Fiscal Years 1982-1989.

Recipients Under State-Funded Student Financial Aid Programs,Fiscal Years 1980-1989.

Relative State Investment in Post-Secondary Education by Function,Fiscal Year 1988.

Distribution of State Appropriations for Institutional Operation,Fiscal Year 1988.

Distribution of State Appropriations for Financial Aid Awards bySystem, Fiscal Year 1988.

Distribution of State Appropriations for Institutional Operation andFinancial Aid by System, Fiscal Year 1988.

Average Salaries and Number of Full-Time Faculty in MinnesotaPublic Collegiate Institutions by Academic Rank and InstitutionType, in Current and Constant Dollars, Academic Years 1979-80 and1987-88.

Ittition and Required Fees for Resident Undergraduates in PublicUniversities in Selected States by.Rank, 1986-87 and 1987-88.

Ihition and Required Fees for Resident Graduates at PublicUniversities in Selected States by Rank, 1986-87 and 1987-88.

Average ihition and Required Fees for Resident Undergraduates atPublic Colleges and State Universities in Selected States by Rank,1986-87 and 1987-88.

Average Ihition and Required Fees for Resident Graduates at PublicColleges and State Universities in Selected States by Rank, 1986-87and 1987-88.

Average ihition and Required Fees for Residents at PublicCommunity Colleges in Selected States by Rank, 1986-87 and 1987-88.

.1 t)

Tables

1.48. 43

1.49. 43

1.50. 44

1.51. 44

1.52. 45

1.53. 46

1.54. 47

1.55. 48

1.56. 49

1.57. 50

1.58. 51

1.59. 52

160. 53

1.61. 53

1.62. 54

1.63. 54

Ibtal Payments, Need-Based Scholarships and Grants forUndergraduates, Selected States, Fiscal Years 1987 and 1988.

Number of Awards, Need-Based Scholarships and Grants, forUndergraduates, Selected States, Fiscal Years 1987 and 1988.

Average Award, Need-Based Scholarships and Grants forUndergraduates, Selected States, Fiscal Years 1987 and 1988.

Estimated Grant Dollars to Undergraduates in 1987-88 perUndergraduate Enrollment by State.

Five-Year Percent Change in Aggregate Dollars of Awards iorComprehensive Undergraduate Need-Based Scholarship and GrantPrograms, 1982-83 -1987-88.

Student Enrollment Per 1,0n0 Residents in Selected States by Rank,1987-88 and Minnesota 1977-78-1987-88.

Mix Revenue Per Capita 1986 and Allocation to Public HigherEducation 1987-88 in Selected c'+ates by Rank and Minnesota1977-78-1987-88.

Education Appropriations Per Student 1987-88 in Selected States byRank and Minnesota 1977-78-1987-88.

Estimated Net !IWtion Revenue Per Student 1987-88 in SelectedStates by Rank, and Minnesota 1977-78-1987-88.

Education Appropriations Per Student and Estimated IllltionRevenue Per Student 1987.88 in Selected States by Rank andMinnesota 1977-78-1987-88.

Potential 'Dix Revenues Per Student 1937.88 in Selected States byRank and Minnesota 1977.78 1:487-88.

Collective Financial Actions in Selected States by Rank 1987.88 andMinnesota, 1977-78 1987-88.

Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude That Mean Scores, Minnesota HighSchool Juniors and National College-Bound Juniors, 1979-1988.

ACT Composite Scores, Minnesota and National, 1978-79-1987-88.

Mean SAT Scores, Minnesota and National, 1980-1988.

State of Minnesota General Fund Expenditures by Major Categories,1987-89 Biennium.

11ix

Tablas

II.1. 85

11.2. 86

11.3. 87

11.4. 90

11.5. 91

11.6. 96

11.7. 98

11.8. 99

III.1. 107

111.2. 108

111.3. 100

111.4. 110

111.5. 111

111.6. 112

x

Summary of Action on Proposed New Programs, Fiscal Years1979-1988.

Action on Instructional Programs, Program Requests to theCoordinating Board, Fiscal Years 1987 and 1988.

Programs Approved by Discipline, Fiscal Years 1987 and 1988.

Minnesota Engineering Programs, Capacity, Enrollment, Graduates1987-88.

Minnesota Engineering Programs, Current and Projected Budgets forInstruction and Externally Funded Research, Fiscal Year 1987-8F -

Fiscal Year 1992-93.

College Board Advanced Placement Program Examination ScoresSubmitted by New Entering Students Who Graduated FromMinnesota High Schools, January 1, 1987-December 31, 1987.

Appropriations in Current and Constant Dollars for GenerallyAvailable Federal Aid Programs for Fiscal Years 1981 to 1988.

Federal Financial Aid in Minnesota Post-Secondary Education, FiscalYears 1981-88.

Overview of State Scholarship and Grant Program, Fiscal Years1985-88 and Projections for Fiscal Years 1989-91.

Combiner State Scholarship and Grant and Pell Awards by FamilyIncome Level, Fiscal Years 1987 and 1988.

State Scholarship and Grant Awards by Family Income Level, FiscalYams 1987 and 1988.

Combined State Scholarship and Grant and Pell Awards byEducational System, Fiscal Years 1987 and 1988.

State Scholarship and Grant Awards by Educational System, FiscalYears 1987 and 1988.

Average State Award, Combined State and Pell Award, AverageFamily Income and Average Net Worth by Parental Contribution forDependent Students, Fiscal Year 1988.

12

Teb los

111.7. 113

111.8. 113

111.9. 114

III.10. 115

III.11. 115

117

111.13. 117

111.14. 118

111.15. 119

111.16. 120

111.17. 121

111.18.

111.19. 123

111.20. 125

111.21. 126

Minnesota Part -Time Grant Program, Activity by EducationalSystem, Fiscal year 1987.

Minnesota Part -Time Grant Program, Activity by EducationalSystem, Fiscal Year 1988.

Minnesota Dislocated Rural Worker Grant 'rogram, Activity bySystem, Fiscal Year 1988.

Minnesota College Work-Study Program, Activity by Educations"System, Fiscal Year 1987.

Minnesota College-Work-Study Program, Activity by EducationalSystem, Fiscal Year 1988.

Student Loan Revenue Bonds Issued by the Higher EducationCoordinating Board as of June 30, 1988.

Minnesota State Student Loan Bond (killing Projected Through June30, 1991.

Student Borrowing in Minnesota from the Higher EducationCoordinating Board and Private Lenders Under the GuaranteedStudent Loan Program, Fiscal Years 1980-1988.

Borrowing Under the Guaranteed Student Loan Program byPost-Secondary System, Fiscal Years 1980-1988.

Student Borrowing in Minnesota Under PLUS/SLS Program, FiscalYears 198z-1988.

Student Educational Loan Fund, Total Dollars Approved by FiscalYear, 1985-1988.

Student Educational Loan Fund Loans Approved by School Type,Fiscal Year 1987.

Student Educational Loan Fund Loans Approved by School Type,Fiscal Year 1988.

Graduated Repayment Income Protection Program (GRIP) LoansOutstanding As of November 14, 1988.

Status of the Minnesota Medical and Osteopathy Loan Program As ofMay 1988.

1;

xi

Tablas

111.22. 127

111.23. 128

111.24. 129

111.26. 130

111.26. 131

111.27. 132

111.28. 133

111.29. 134

111.30. 135

III.S1. 136

111.32. 138

111.33. 139

111.34. 141

111.35. 143

111.36. 145

Summer Scholarship Program Statistics, Summers 1986-1988.

Paul Douglas Thacher Scholarship Program Activity, 1986-87-1988-89.

Minnesota-Wisconsin Annual lliition, 1988-89 Resident,Non-Resident, and Reciprocity Rates.

Minnesota-Wisconsin Participation and Balance of Payment 'fronds,1977-78-1987-88.

Minnesota-North Dakota Annual Tuition, 1988-89 Resident,Non-Resident, and Reciprocity Rates.

Minnesota-North Dakota Participation and Balance of PaymentTends, 1i77 -78- 1987 -88.

Minnesota-South Dakota Annual 'Mimi, 1988-89 Resident,Non-Resident, and Reciprocity Rates.

Minnesota-South Dakota Participation and Balance of Payment'fronds, 1978-79-1987-88.

Minnesota-Iowa Participation and Balance of Payment Trends,1977-78-1987-88.

Actual and Projected Participation and Fiscal 'fronds Under lliitionReciprocity Program 1980-81 to 1990-91.

Actual and Projected MINITEX Activity Supported by StateAppropriations, Fiscal Years 1985-1991.

Actual and Projected Activity Supported by MINITEXAppropriations and Contracts, Fiscal Years 1985-1991.

Changes in the List of Registered and Approved Institutions, January1, 1987-August 31, 1988.

Minnesota Post-High School Planning Program, Fiscal Year 1989Funding Sources.

Number of Seats and Costs in Optometry and Osteopathy ContractingProgram, Fiscal Years 1983 to 1989 and Estimates for Fiscal Years1990-1.

zwiiimmilxii 14

1

Section 1Status of Minnesota Post-Secondary Education

An understanding ofenrollments and fiscalconditions and theirimplications is important indeveloping public policy.

This section reviews enrollmenttrends and projections, studentcharacteristics, and Minnesota'sinvestment in postseccadaryeducation. The section alsocompares trends in Minnesotawith those in other states.

151

Status

Enrollment andAttainment 'bends

Participation affects virtuallyall aspects of post-secondaryeducation. Enrollmentcharacteristics are relatedclosely to how much the stateinvests in post - secondaryeducation, the number rind cypesof programs it offers, thefacilities it operates, the facultyit supports, the prices it charges,and the financial aid it providesto students. This chapterreviews several dimensions ofparticipation in Minnesotapost-se tondary education.

Most of the data focuses onstate-level trends. Additionalinformation on system andinstitution level trends can befound in the Board's annual fallenrollment surveys and otherdata reports. Starting in fall1983, the Coordinating Boardreceived unit records for eachstudent enrolled in aninstitution. With this method ofdata collection, however, somedata have not been available onthe unit record level. If a tabledisplays students classified bytwo data elements, such as sexand level, a student cannot betabulated when one of the twoelements is miming. Footnotesindicate data that areunavailable. Although the unitrecord data collection methodwill improve comparabilityacross institutions, it initiallymay lead to inconsistencies inhistorical comparisons.

'Ikb le I.1 reports on-campus fallheadcount enrollment for publicand private post-secondaryeducation systems and sectorsfrom 1973 to 1987. Forcollegiate institutions, total fallheadcount enrollmentrepresents students enrolled for

2

credit as of the 10th day ofclasses in the fall term. Forvocational institutions,enrollment ov r a three-monthperiod is used. Exter onenrollments r.re not included.Private vocational students arenot includes! due to inconsistentreporting from year to year. Thetotal includes both full-time andpat t-time students.

'able 1.2 shows full-time andpart-time on-campus headcountenrollment for all systems from1973 to 1987 while le 1.3provides full-time, part-time,and total fail headcountenrollment by system. le 1.4includes undergraduateheadcount enrollment by sexfrom 1977 through 1987, andlhble 1.5 includes the agedistribution of on-campuscollegiate undergraduatestudents from 1978 to 1987.

lhble 1.6 provides minorityenrollments from 1983 through1987. It includes headcountenrollment and percent of totalheadcount enrollment by racialethnic group and system. Table1.7 includes a breakdown ofheadcount enrollment byresident, nonresident, andforeign students from 1978 to1987. 1kb le 1.8 indicates fallheadcount enrollment by systemand educational levelundergraduate and unclassified,graduate and first professional,and vocational from 1982 to1987. First professional degreesinclude dentistry, medicine,optometry, pharmacy,osteoyathic medicine, podiatry,veterinary medicine,chiropractic medicine, law,theology, and other fields.Unclassified students areenrolled for credit but do not fitinto a pal ocular class.

Enrollments for 1985-86 and1986-87 under thePost-Secondary EnrollmentOptions Program are providedin Table 1.9 with preliminaryfigures for 1987.88 presented.

'able I.10 shows outmigrantsand inmigrants among first-timefreshmen in higher education foreach state by type of institutionand state for fall 1986.

'able 1.11 presents fallheadcount enrollment of newentering students by systemfrom 1978 to 1987.

Table 1.12 provides an estimateof the participation rate in someform of post-secondary educa-tion by students within six yearsof high school graduation. Thetable provides a breakdown for1986-87 by recent high schoolgraduates entering post-secondary education for the firsttime, that is, those 19 years oldand below, and those registeringfor post-secondary educationprograms within six years ofhigh school graduation, that isthose between the ages 20 to 24.Based on currently availableinformation, slightly over 80percent of high school graduatesappear to attempt post-secondary education on afull-time or part-time basis instate or out of state during the 12months following high schoolgraduation. An additional 7.0percent are estimated to attemptpost-secondary education withinsix years of high schoolgraduation. Thus, the overallestimated participation rate is88.7 percent. Although studiesover time using several measureswould be needed to fullysubstantiate this estimate, datanow available make it possiblewith less scientific rigor to infer aparticipation rate approaching90 percent.

Status

Table 1.1On-Campus Headcount EnrollmentPublic and Private Post-Secondary Systems1973-1987'

Year

PublicFall

HeadcountAnnual

% Change

Private2Fall

HeadcountAnnual

% Change

All SystemsFall

HeadcountAnnual

% Change

1973 128,824 32,774 161,5981974 132,074 2.5 33,492 2.2 165,566 2.51975 143,588 8.7 36,076 7.7 79,664 8.51976 147,709 2.9 37,795 4.8 185,504 3.31977 149,540 1.2 40,062 6.0 189,608 2.21978 150,158 0.4 40,032 -0.1 190,190 0.31979 153,829 2.4 40,635 1.5 194,464 2.21980 165,591 7.6 41,767 2.8 207,358 6.61981 170,707 3.1 42,188 0.7 212,895 2.71982 171,791 0.6 42,543 0.8 214,334 0.71983 176,979 3.0 43,189 1.5 220,168 2.71984 176,374 -0.3 43,688 1.2 220,062 0.01985 180,875 2.6 43,261 -1.0 224,136 1.91986 180,845 0.0 44,609 3.1 225,454 0.61987 187,598 3.7 47,054 5.5 234,652 4.1

Doss not include extension students2Does not include private vocatior.vi students.

Source' Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board

Table I.2Full-Time and Part-Time On CampusHeadcount Enrollment, All Systems1973-1987'

FallFull-Time

No. PercentPart-Time

No. PercentTotalNo. Percent

1973 141,821 87.8 19,777 12.2 161,598 100.01974 142,801 86.3 22,765 13.7 165,566 100.01975 153,454 85.4 26,210 14.6 179,664 100.01976 157,787 85.1 27,717 14.9 185,504 100.01977 160,664 84.7 28,944 15.3 189,608 100.01978 156,985 82.5 33,205 17.5 190,190 100.01979 158,921 81.7 35,543 18.3 194,464 100.01980 167,143 80.6 40,215 19.4 207,358 100.01981 171,142 80.4 41,753 19.6 212,895 100.01982 170,260 79.4 44,074 20.6 214,334 100.01983 160,396 77.5 46,521 22.5 206,917 100.01984 171,478 77.9 48,584 22.1 220,062 100.01985 172,107 76.8 52,029 23.2 224,136 100.01986 170,553 75.6 54,901 24.4 225,454 100.01987 164,746 70.2 69,906 29.8 234,652 100.0

IDoes not include private vocational or extension students

Source Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board

17 3

Status

Table 1.3Full-Time, Part-Time, and Total Fall HeadcountEnrollment by System1976, 1983, 1985 and 1987'

System

1976 1983Full-time

No.Part-time

Percent No. PercentTotalNo.

Full-timeNo.

Part-timePercent No. Percent

TotalNo.

TechnicalInstitutes2 27,745 100.0% 0 0.0% 27,745 23,004 96.2% 899 3.8% 23,903CommunityCollege 16,485 60.5 10,768 39.5 27,253 19,290 50.3 19,091 49.7 38,381State University 31,296 85.6 5,277 14.4 36,573 34,571 79.2 9,080 20.8 43,651University ofMinnesota 47,679 84.9 8,459 15.1 56,138 47,734 82.6 10,058 17.4 57,792Private Two-Year 1,392 86.7 213 13.3 1,605 1,185 68.3 549 31.7 1,734Private Four-Year 30,566 91.8 2,714 8.2 33,280 32,734 85.4 5,616 14.6 38,350PrivateProfessional 2,624 90.2 286 9.8 2,910 1,877 60.5 1,228 39.5 3,105Total 157,787 85.1 27,717 14.9 185,504 160,395 77.5 46,521 22.5 206,918

1985 1987

Full-time Part-time Total Full-time Part-time TotalSystem No. Percent No. Per:ent No. No. Percent No. Percent No.

TechnicalInstitutes2 38,931 96.6 1,383 3.4 40,314 30,652 91.1 2,978 8.9 33,630CommunityCollege 17,611 44.9 21,653 55.1 39,264 19,747 43.1 26,040 56.9 45,787State University 35,150 77.8 10,039 22.2 45,189 39,416 75.4 12,841 24.6 52,257University ofMinnesota 45,184 80.5 10,924 19.5 56,108 37,218 66.6 18,706 33.4 55,924Private Two-Year 716 74.9 240 25.1 956 693 67.2 339 32.8 1,032Private Four-Year 32,624 83.4 6,510 16.6 39,134 34,254 79.8 8,678 20.2 42,932PrivateProfessional 1,891 59.6 1,230 40.4 3,171 2,766 89.5 324 10.5 3,090Total 172,107 76.8 52,029 23.2 224,136 164,746 70.2 69,906 29.8 234,652

lDoes not Include extenmon students2Until fell 1978, all AVTI students were considered full time 1983 figures do not include 13,251 students who could not be classified es full or part time

Source Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board enrollment survey

1s

4

Status

Table 1.4On-Campus Undergraduate HeadcountEnrollment by Sex, All Systems,1977-1987'

FallMaleNo. Percent

FemaleNo. Percent

TotalNo. Percent

1977 86,634 50.8 83,952 49.2 170,586 100.01978 85,659 50.2 84,832 49.8 170,491 100.01979 86,047 49.3 88,623 50.7 174,670 100.01980 92,070 49.2 95,095 50.8 187,165 100.01981 94,673 49.0 98,419 51.0 193,092 100.01982 95,877 49.5 97,653 50.5 193,530 100.01983 90,317 49.0 94,001 51.0 184,318 100.01984 97,829 49.5 99,960 50.5 197,789 100.01985 98,615 48.8 103,361 51.2 201,976 100.01986 109,448 48.6 115,523 51.4 224,971 100.01987 111,426 47.5 123,048 52.5 234,474 100.0

'Does no include private vocational or extension students Does not include students whose sex is not classifiedPotwar, I 1982 and 1983.

Sows: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board

This accounts for the decrease in total enrollments shown

'able 1.13 presents fallheadcount enrollment andfull-year equivalents by systemfor 1978 to 1986. Full-yearequivalent (FYE) enrollmentsrepresent the most accuratemeasure of educational volumeat an institution. State fundingto institutions is based on FYEenrollments. Headcountenrollment represents thenumber of students on campus,including those attendingfull-time and part-time. FYEcounts are calculated bydividing the total number ofcredit hours generated that yearby the normal full-time credithour load at an institution.Average daily memberships(ADM) are shown for publictechnical institutes. They arebased on clock hour hist: uction.One ADM receives 1,050 hoursof instruction.

rbansfer of credit data frompost-secondary education

system to system for fall 1987are shown in 'Bible 1.14.

Ikble 1.15 shows total degreesawarded by level for 1977 to1987 while table 1.16 showsgraduates by academic programarea for 1985. Thble I. 17presents a range of fourprojections of educationalattainment of Minnesota's laborforce, ages 25-64. The highprojection assumes continuationof increased rates of attainmentthat occurred between 1970 and1980. The low projectionassumes stable or decliningrates of educational attainment.Intermediate projectionsassume rates of educationalattainment between the highand the low. The data mayunderstate educationalattainment levels because thefigures don't take into accountmany persons who attendpost-secondary educationvocational schools nor do theyconsider job-related training of

19

employees that may be at acomparable level topost-secondary education.

Recent high school graduates,who account for most newfull-time students atpost-secondary educationinstitutions, have the greatestinfluence on enrollmentprojections. Table 1.18 showsprojected high school graduatesby region from spring 1987 tospring 2006.

Projected fall headcount and FYEenrollments are presented in'llibles 1.19 and 1.20 for the period1988-89 to 2006-07. They arebased on demographic data thattraditionally have shapedpost-secondary educationenrollment patterns and, modifiedby findings from an analysis ofenrollment trends by Board staffcompleted in spring 1988.'

I Minneeota Higher Education Coordinating Board,Enrollment Analysis and Profrenons,198849400607 (March 191581.

5

Status

Table I.5Age Distribution e On-Campus CollegiateUndergraduate Students, All Systems1978-1987'

Age

1978

No. Percent

17 and under 2,200 1.5%18 24,436 17.119 26,381 18.520 21,883 15.221 18,901 13.222-24 22,147 15.525-29 13,487 9.430-34 5,958 4.235 and over 7,801 5.5

Total 142,974

1983Age No. Percent

17 and under 538 0.3%18 18,878 12.119 27,462 17.820 24,443 15.821 21,958 14.222-24 28,594 18.525-29 15,186 9.830-34 8,185 5.335 and over 9,599 6.2

Total 154,803

1979 1980 1981 1982No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent

2,364 1.6% 1,707 1.1% 2,606 1.7% 1,275 0.8%25,135 17.2 24,794 16.6 25,322 16.4 23,917 15.426,687 18.2 27,177 18.1 27,523 17.8 27,265 17.622,674 15.5 23,302 15.6 23,855 15.5 23,963 15.419,034 13.0 20,207 13.5 20,407 13.2 21,578 13.922,549 15.4 23,669 15.8 24,341 15.8 25,563 16.513,451 9.2 13,635 9.1 14,269 9.2 14,478 9.36,197 4.2 6,680 4.5 7,086 4.6 7,450 4.88,272 5.7 8,630 5.8 8,889 5.8 9,777 6.3

146,363 149,801 154,301 155,266

1984 1985 1988 1987

No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent

499 0.3% 1,336 0.9% 1,670 1.0% 1,676 1.0%17,588 11.6 17,770 11.5 18,319 11.4 19,142 11.325,941 17.1 25,470 16.5 25,473 15.9 26,930 15.923,944 15.8 22,903 14.9 23,007 14.3 23,555 13.921,427 14.1 21,399 13.9 20,845 13.0 21,290 12.628,316 18.7 28,574 18.5 29,824 18.6 30,700 18.115,116 10.0 15,327 9.9 15,856 9.9 16,844 10.08,591 5.7 9,848 6.3 10,088 6.3 11,136 6.6

10,195 6.7 11,797 7.6 15,482 9.6 17,943 10.6151,817 154,224 180,564 169,216

I CMS not include those etudents classified as age unknown or extension students

Source: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board.

20

6

Status

Table I.6Headcount Enrollment and Percent of Total HeadcountEnrollment by Racial/Ethnic Group and System'Fall 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987

RaceBreakdown Total

Enrollmentby

Non-ResidentAlien

BlackNon-Hispanic

American IndianAlaskan Native

System No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent

State University System1983 43,651 100.0 888 2.0 303 0.7 277 0.61984 43,833 100.0 772 1.8 307 0.7 256 0.61985 45,189 100.0 722 1.6 335 0.7 287 0.61986 47,708 100.0 710 1.5 356 0.7 311 0.71987 52,257 100.0 652 1.2 405 0.8 328 0.6Community College System1983 38,381 100.0 232 0.6 424 1.1 241 0.61984 37,088 100.0 252 0.7 434 1.2 248 0.71985 39,264 100.0 218 0.6 639 1.6 368 0.91986 40,365 100.0 275 0.7 648 1.6 440 1.11987 45,787 100.0 338 0.7 676 1.5 511 1.1

Technical Institutes1983 37,388 100.0 4 0.0 509 1.4 909 2.41984 39,410 100.0 1 0.0 584 1.5 1,030 2.61985 40,314 100.0 3 0.0 651 1.6 1,138 2.81986 35,169 100.0 2 0.0 709 2.0 973 2.81987 34,827 100.0 74 0.2 605 1.7 852 2.4University of Minnesota1983 57,792 100.0 2,411 4.2 861 1.5 370 0.61984 56,043 100.0 2,143 3.8 838 1.5 328 0.61985 56,108 100.0 2,382 4.2 928 1.7 395 0.71986 56,426 100.0 2,505 4.4 883 1.6 349 0.61987 55,924 100.0 2,678 4.8 918 1.6 371 0.7Private Two-Year Colleges1983 1,734 100.0 6 0.3 65 3.7 21 1.21984 1,544 100.0 11 0.7 62 4.0 15 1.01985 956 100.0 3 0.3 22 2.3 9 0.91986 1,001 100.0 3 0.3 25 2.5 10 1.01987 1,032 100.0 1 0.1 42 4.1 6 0.6Pats Four-Year Colleges1983 38,350 100.0 728 1.9 473 1.2 132 0.31984 38,914 100.0 1,022 2.6 501 1.3 134 0.31985 39,134 100.0 974 2.5 465 1.2 133 0.31986 40,258 100.0 1,004 2.5 504 1.3 175 0.41987 42,932 100.0 1,097 2.6 585 1.4 197 0.5Private Professional Schools1983 3,105 100.0 19 0.6 41 1.3 16 0.51984 3,230 100.0 29 0.9 70 2.2 16 0.51985 3,171 100.0 24 0.8 62 2.0 19 0.61986 3,350 100.0 21 0.6 66 2.0 15 0.41987 3,090 100.0 20 0.6 54 1.7 19 0.6Total'1983 220,401 100.0 4,288 1.9 2,676 1.2 1,966 0.91984 220,062 100.0 4,230 1.9 2,796 1.3 2,027 0.91985 224,136 100.0 4,326 1.9 3,102 1.4 2,349 1.01986 225,454 100.0 4,520 2.0 3,191 1.4 2,273 1.01987 235,849 100.0 4,860 2.1 3,285 1.4 2,284 1.0

Total Population1980Census Data 4,108,196 100.0 NA 52,325 1.3 36,730 0.9,Does not include extension enrollment. Does not include private vocational schools

Source: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board Student Record Data Sue COMilMISCI

21 7l&-___

Status

Table 1.6 (continuedHeadcount Enrollment and Percent of Total HeadcountEnrollment by Racial/Ethnic Group and SystemFa111983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987

Race Asian &

Breakdown Pacific

by Islander HispanicWhite

Non-Hispanic

Minority andNon-Resident

Alien Minority

No. PercentSystem No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. PercentState University System1983 192 0.4 128 0.3 37,211 85.2 1,788 4.1 900 2.11984 214 0.5 141 0.3 37,829 86.3 1,690 3.9 918 2.11985 295 0.7 138 0.3 39,723 87.9 1,777 3.9 1,055 2.31986 354 0.7 151 0.3 41,680 87.4 1,882 3.9 1,172 2.51987 390 0.7 157 0.3 45,011 86.1 1,932 3.7 1,280 2.4Community College System1983 364 0.9 130 0.3 36,380 94.8 1,391 3.6 1,155 3.01984 390 1.1 132 0.4 15,055 94.5 1,456 3.9 1,204 3.21985 460 1.2 153 0.4 36,129 92.0 1,838 4.7 1,620 4.11986 534 1.3 139 0.3 38,329 92.3 2,036 4.9 1,761 4.41987 494 1.1 194 0.4 42,231 92.2 2,213 4.8 1,875 4.1Technical Institutes1983 931 2.5 464 1.2 32,189 86.1 2,817 7.5 2,813 7.51984 1,159 2.9 513 1.3 34,911 88.6 3,287 8.3 3,286 8.31985 1,169 2.9 587 1.5 35,924 89.1 3,548 8.8 3,545 8.81986 1,120 3.2 459 1.3 31,404 89.3 3,263 9.3 3,261 9.31987 752 2.2 446 1.3 30,403 87.3 2,729 7.8 2,655 7.6University of Minnesota1983 1,254 2.2 399 0.7 44,499 77.0 5,295 9.2 2,884 5.01984 1,286 2.3 398 0.7 42,223 75.3 4,993 8.3 2,850 5.11985 1,537 2.7 459 0.8 46,611 83.1 5,701 10.2 3,319 5.91986 1,629 2.9 456 0.8 47,210 83.7 5,822 10.3 3,317 5.91987 1,722 3.1 479 0.9 46,655 83.4 6,168 11.0 3,490 6.2Private Two-Year Colleges1983 18 1.0 17 1.0 1,601 92.3 127 7.3 121 7.01984 20 1.3 11 0.7 1,420 92.0 119 7.7 108 7.01985 10 1.0 11 1.2 894 93.5 55 5.8 52 5.41986 9 0.9 6 0.6 933 93.2 53 5.3 50 5.01987 11 1.1 7 0.7 858 83.1 67 6.5 66 6.4Private Four-Year Colleges1983 633 1.7 244 0.6 35,783 93.3 2,210 5.8 1,482 3.91984 436 1.1 272 0.7 34,873 89.6 2,365 6.1 1,343 3.51985 483 1.2 260 0.7 34,929 89.3 2,315 5.9 1,341 3.41986 584 1.5 263 0.7 37,140 92.3 2,530 6.3 1,526 3.81987 656 1.5 314 0.7 39,538 92.1 2,849 6.6 1,752 4.1Private Professional Schools1983 19 0.6 10 0.3 2,359 76.0 105 3.4 86 2.81984 29 0.9 17 0.5 2,299 71.2 161 5.0 132 4.11985 31 1.0 27 0.9 2,317 73.0 163 5.1 139 4.41986 36 1.1 32 1.0 2,496 74.5 170 5.1 149 4.41987 42 1.4 32 1.0 2,912 94.2 167 5.4 147 4.8Total'1983 3,411 1.5 1,392 0.6 190,022 86.2 13,733 6.2 9,445 4.31984 3,534 1.6 1,484 0.7 188,610 85.7 14,071 6.4 9,841 4.51985 3,985 1.8 1,635 0.7 196,527 87.7 15,397 6.9 11,071 4.91986 4,266 .9 1,506 0.7 199,192 88.4 15,756 7.0 11,236 5.01987 4,067 1.7 1,629 0.7 207,608 88.0 16,125 6.8 11,265 4.8Total Population1980Census Data 32,226 0.8 NA 3,942,025 96.0 NA 166,171 4.0'Does not include extension enrollment Does not include onvata vocational schools

Seim Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board Student Record Oata Base

8 22

Status

Table I.7Minnesota Resident/Nonresident/ForeignHeadcount Enrollment,Fall 1978-1987

Fall

Minn. Residents Other States Foreign

TotalNo. Percent No. Pecent No. Percent

1978 160,439 84.1% 25,840 13.5% 4,550 2.4% 190,8291979 165,943 84.8 25,277 12.9 4,499 2.3 195,7191980 174,880 84.9 26,153 12.7 5,050 2.5 206,0831981 180,369 84.7 26,680 12.5 5,920 2.8 212,8581982 181,026 84.7 26,571 12.4 6,219 2.9 213,8161983' '79,245 84.8 27,248 12.9 4,834 2.3 211,32719843 180,497 84.8 27,751 13.0 4,725 2.2 212,9731985' 184,433 84.8 28,280 13.0 4,855 2.2 217,5481986k 185,020 84.6 28,829 13.2 4,913 2.2 218,78219875 189,909 84.4 29,772 13.2 5,228 2.3 224,9(19

'Does not include 8,841 students whose piece of residence was unknownMoss not include 7,088 students whose place of residence Wes unknown.Moss not Include 0,588 students whose piece of residence was unknown.41)oes not include 7,044 students whose piece of residence wet unknownMoss not include 10,148 students whose piece of residence was unknown.

Sourer Minnesoto Higher Education Coordinating Board.

2110 9

Status

Table I.8Fall Headcount Enrollment by System and Level,1982-1987'

System

Fall 1982 Fall 1983

Voc.

Undergrad.&.

Unclass.

Grad1st

Prof. Total Voc.

Undergrad.&

Unclass.

Grad1st

Prof. Total

Technical Institute2 31,786 31,786 37,154 37,154Community College 9,412 28,033 37,445 10,175 28,197 38,372State University 40,454 2,816 43,270 41,233 2,324 43,557University of Minnesota 47,354 11,936 59,290 43,588 11,504 55,092Private Vocational3 5,710 5,710 10,258 10,258Private Two-Year 1,689 1,68/ 1,737 1,737Private Four-Year & Grad. 34,802 2,693 37,495 89 35,456 2,799 38,344Private Professional 104 3,255 3,359 57 3,048 3,105Total 46,908 152,436 20,700 220,044 57,676 150,268 19,675 227,619

System

Fall 1984 Fall 1985

Voc.

Undergrad.&.

Unclau.

Grad1st

Prof. Total Voc.

Undergrad.&

Unclau.

Gradlet

Pref. Total

Technical Institute 39,410 39,410 40,314 40,314Community College 9,611 27,473 37,084 9,485 29,573 39,058State University 40,761 2,986 43,747 42,071 3,034 45,105University of Minnesota 44,832 10,960 55,792 44,652 11,272 55,924Private Vocational 8,866 143 9,009 7,836 1,403 9,239Private Two-Year 1,537 1,537 955 955Private Four-Year & Grad. 123 34,607 4,183 38,913 103 34,555 4,476 39,134Private Professional 1 3,228 3,229 417 2,719 3,136Total 58,010 149,354 21,357 228,721 57,738 153,626 21,501 232,865

System

Fall 1988 Fall 1987

Voc.

Undergrad.&.

Unclass.

Grad &1st

Prof. Tots: Voc.

Undergrad.&

Unclass.

Grad &1st

Prof. Total

Technical Institute 35,087 35,087 33,613 33,613Community College 10,085 21,251 41,336 10,915 34,810 45,725State University 44,350 3,296 47,646 48,307 3,889 52,196University of Minnesota 43,891 12,406 56,297 43,162 12,762 55,924Private Vocational 7,285 857 8,142 9,321 9,321Private Two-Year 999 999 1,025 1,025Private Four-War & Grad. 78 35,288 4,892 40,258 62 37,069 5,799 42,930Private Professional 3,348 3,348 3,061 3,061Total 52,535 156,636 23,942 233,113 53,911 164,373 25,511 243,795

(Does not include extension students21n Fell 1983 the AVTIs began using different reporting period3Fall 1983 relsosents more complete reporting of private vocational Institutions than previous years

Source: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board

24

10

Statue

Table 1.9Post-Secondary Enrollment Options Program1985-86 1987-88

Post-Secondary institutionsFiscal Year 1985-86

Grade 11 Grade 12 TotalTechnical Institutes 102 266 368Community Colleges 481 1,329 1,810State University 182 457 639University of Minnesota 176 447 623Private Institutions 68 163 231

Total 1,009 2,662 3 :S71

Fiscal Year 1986-87Post-Secondary Institutions Grade 11 Grade 12 TotalTechnical Institutes 145 356 501Community Colleges 479 1,405 1,884State University 127 441 568University of Minnesota 198 657 855Private Institutions 44 206 250

Total 993 3,065 4,058Fiscal Year 1987-881

Post-Secondary Institutions Grade 11 Grade 12 TotalTechnical Institutes 245 512 757Community Colleges 571 1,718 2,289State U- . ersity 156 510 666University of Minnesota 332 1,232 1,564Private Institutions 63 228 291

Total 1,367 4,200 5,567'Preliminary.

Source Minnesota Department of Education

Table 1.10First-Time Freshmen in Institutions ofHigher Education, Outmigrants andInmigrants for Each State byType of Institution and State:All Institutions, Fall 1986

Area and State

MinnesotaOutmigrants Inmigrants

TotalFourYear

TwoYear Total

FourYear

TwoYear

50 States and D.C. 10,946 9,927 1,019 9,895 8,055 1,840Alabama 23 17 6 11 11 0Alaska 14 14 0 29 28 1

Arizona 506 333 173 58 47 11Arkansas 24 23 1 17 16 1

California 352 303 49 209 200 9Colorado 60 PO 0 121 112 9Connecticut 49 49 0 39 39 0Delaware 2 2 0 9 9 0District of Columbia 92 92 0 21 15 6Florida 133 97 36 97 90 7Georgia 54 43 11 27 27 0Hawaii 29 27 2 16 16 0Idaho 13 15 14 1

G Continued

11

Status

Table 1.10 (continuedFirst-Time Freshmen in Institutions ofHigher Education, Outmigrants andInmigrants for Each State byType of Institution and State:All Institutions, Fail 1986

Area and State

MinnesotaOutmigrants Inmigrants

TotalFourYear

TwoYear Total

FourYear

TwoYear

Illinois 532 522 10 754 739 15Indiana 188 188 0 74 73 1

Iowa 711 611 100 734 572 162Kansas 74 67 7 55 52 3Kentucky 14 12 2 29 28 1

Louisiana 36 36 0 17 lb 1

Maine 21 21 0 15 15 0Maryland 50 50 0 59 57 2Massachusetts 263 260 3 88 86 2Michigan 248 226 22 232 217 15Minnesota 0 0 0 0 0Mississippi 12 12 0 4 4 0Missouri 230 215 15 86 82 4Montana 57 56 1 158 148 10Nebraska 113 110 3 183 178 5Nevada 13 12 1 15 15 0New Hampshire 34 34 0 17 17 0New Jersey 36 35 1 76 75 1

New Mexico 28 21 7 27 27 0New York 277 265 12 158 150 8North Carolina 66 44 22 27 27 0North Dakota 1,604 1,585 219 1,610 1,032 578Ohio 97 95 2 136 115 21Oklahoma 21 21 0 24 23 1

Oregon 89 78 11 38 37 1

Pennsylvania 81 80 1 87 82 5Rhode Island 30 30 0 9 9 0South Carolina 22 20 2 2 1 1

South Dakota 530 485 45 910 721 189Tennessee 56 52 4 23 18 5Texas 248 186 62 92 82 10Utah 54 54 0 17 17 0Vermont 31 31 0 10 10 0Virginia 40 28 12 33 32 1

Washington 102 102 0 72 70 2West Virginia 5 5 0 4 4 0Wisconsin 3,358 3,198 160 2,443 2,036 407Wyoming 14 10 4 27 25 2State Unknown 0 0 0 881 539 342

Outlying Areas 4 4 0 32 9 23American Samoa 0 0 0 0 0 0Guam 4 4 0 4 4 0Northern Marianas 0 0 0 0 0 0Puerto Rico 0 0 0 22 1 21Trust Territory Pacific Islands 0 0 0 3 1 2Virgin Islands 0 0 0 3 3 0

Foreign Countries 0' 0 0 857 750 107IMInnesotans attending foreign institutions not known

Source: National Center for Education Statistics Survey Report, Jun 1988

12 26

Status

Table 1.11Fall Headcount Enrollment of New Entering Studentsby System,1978-1987

Fall Fall Change Fall Change Fall Change Fall ChangeSystem 1978 1979 '78-79 1980 '79-80 1981 '80-81 1982 '81.82

Technical Institute 20,294 21,872 7.8 23,981 9.6 23,254 -3.0 20,880 -10.2Community College 13,300 13,969 5.0 15,450 10.8 15,508 0.4 14,696 -6.9State University 7,561 7,787 3.0 8,158 4.8 8,267 1.3 7,418 -10.3University of Minnesota 8,082 8,391 4.1 8,568 2.1 8,348 -2.6 7,997 -4.2F. ;vats two fear 814 724 -11.1 790 9.1 644 -18.5 883 34.0Private Four-Year 8,818 8,838 0.2 8,811 -0.3 8,837 0.3 8,187 -7.4Total 58,849 81,581 4.6 65,738 6.8 64,858 -1.3 59,939 -7.8

Fall%

Chang' Fall%

Change Fall%

Change Fall Change FallS

ChangeSystem 1983 '82-83 1984 '83-84 1986 '84-85 1986 '85-86 1987 '86-87

Technical Institute 15,767 -24.5 13,358 -15.3 14,880 11.4 13,434 9.7 17,817 31.1Community College 15,860 8.7 14,859 -6.3 18,848 12.0 15,434 -7.3 18,933 9.7State University 7,744 4.4 7,402 -4.4 7,883 6.5 8 251 4.7 8,981 8.8University of Minnesota 7,841 -2.0 7,359 -6.1 7,547 2.6 7,318 -3.1 6,839 -8.5Private Two-Year' 583 -32.4 598 2.6 327 -45.3 337 3.1 317 -6.9Private I-our-Year 8,619 5.3 8,435 -2.1 8,275 -1.9 8,142 -1.6 8.470 4.0Total 58,414 -5.9 52,011 -7.8 55,560 6.8 52,914 -4.8 59,157 11.8

'The decrease of now entering atudents at private two-veer institutions In FM 19105 Is due to the closing of Goldin Valley Lutheran College.

Source: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board Enrollment Surveys

27 :13

Status

Table 1.12Estimated Rate of Participation byMinnesota Students in Post-Secondary Education'

Post- Secondary System Ago 19 or Bolo"

Public andPrivate High

SchoolGraduates

Ago 20 24 1986

Technical Institutes' 9,250 9,530Community Colleges 7,768 4,133State University System 7,842 462University of Minnesota 5,523 365Private 4-year3 5,322 208Private 2 -year' 178 31Private Vo-Tech 1,355 814Out-of-State 4 -yoar' 6,9476 2,9806Out-of-State 2 -year' 5196 5006Allocation of Age Not Identified' 1,173 479

Total 45,8776 = - 5 = 3,900 averaged annually

81.7% and 7.0% = 88.7% of 56,1497

'Fell. winter. and University of Minnesota spring terms2Includes ell programs full 1988-87 academic year.30oes not Include winter semester 1987 new entering freshmen.41,852 students who did not identify age were distributed by age according to prevailing averego.'Age distributed according to pre Wing average.'Some out-of-state Institutions and these atuving abroad not included due to non-reporting to IPEDS?High school graduations peaked in 1977-78 with 72.880 and declined annually since then until 1987 They have been relatively stable over the last four yearsend therefore mayserve as an acceptable Ws for calculadng the annual average for the column of the 20-24 age group

Sources: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Dowd Student Record Data laseIntegrated Post-Secondary Education Data System OPEDSEConsultation with poet-secondary institutions.

28

1..

Status

Table 1.13Fall Headcount Enrollment and Full Year Equivalentsby System,1978-1986'

System

1978Fall

Headcount

FYEAcad. Yr.'78-79

1979Fall

Headcount

FYEAcad. Yr.

'79-80

1980Fall

Headcount

FYEAcad. Yr.'80-8i

Technical Institute2 27,291 31,010 27,596 31,717 30,111 34,365Community College 29,324 18,440 30,346 20,109 34,894 21,630State University 37,909 32,631 39,171 33,845 41,496 36,101University of Minnesota 55,634 46,914 56,716 47,945 59,090 49,579Private Two-Year 1,629 1,505 1,686 1,473 1,638 1,544Private Four-Year 35,246 31,695 35,887 32,782 37,008 33,229Private Professional3 1,997 1,696 1,935 32,782 1,964 1,648Total 189,030 163,891 193,337 169,535 206,201 178,096

System

1981Fall

leadcount

FYEAcad. Yr.'81-82

1982Fall

Howit;-..ant

FYEAcad. Yr.'82-83

1983Fall

Headcount

FYEAcad. Yr.'83-84

Technical Institute2 31,234 34,978 31,786 35,456 37,154 35,175Community College 37,222 22,400 37,445 22,984 38,381 22,873State University 43,032 37,242 43,270 36,903 43,651 37,299University of Minnesota 59,219 49,675 59,290 48,075 57,793 51,049Private Two-Year 1,601 1,450 1,689 1,352 1,734 1,456Private Four-Year 37,576 33,584 37,495 32,953 38,350 33,185Private Professional' 1,857 1,764 2,187 1,871 1,971 1,859Total 211,741 181,093 213, i62 179,594 219,034 188,896

System

1984Fall

Headcount

FYEAcad. Yr.'84-85

1985FaN

Headcount

FYEAcad. Yr.'85-88

1988FaN

Headcount

FYEAcad. Yr.'88-87

Technical Institute2 39,410 32,896 40,314 32,883 35,169 32,262Ccmmunity College 37,088 21,447 39,264 23,096 41,542 24,359State University 43,833 37,146 45,189 38,294 47,708 40,606University of Minnesota 56,043 55,884 56,103 56,122 56,426 57,152Private Two-Year 1,544 972 956 911 1,001 886Private Four-Year 38,914 33,538 39,134 35,195 40,258 36,371Private Professional' 2,130 1,761 2,067 1,789 2,223 1,842Total 218,96? 183,644 223,032 188,290 224,327 193,478

iDoes not it dude summer sessions or extension students2TI figures represent Average Daily Membership (ADM) rather than Full Year Equivalent IFYEI3Figures for the private professional institutions do not include William Mito ell College of Law William Mitchell changed its method of calculating FYE. and consistenthistorical dataas not ',reelable

4The University of Minnesota began using new method of calculating FYE in the 1983-84 scoAtmic yew which induces summer session and extension students.


15

Status

Table 1.14Undergraduate Transfers From System to System,Fall Term 1987

SystemTransferred From System Transferred To

Source Systems

StateUniversitySystem

CommunityCG.IsgeSystem

Technicalkstitutes

Universityof

Minnesota

PrivateVocational

System

Private Private Private State1Wo-Year Four-Year & Professional ofSystem Gr. System System Minnesota

State UniversitySystem 398 265 177 387 85 4 114 0 1,430

Community CollegeSystem 1,863 327 189 923 155 21 468 0 3,946

Technical institutes 208 404 179 0 141 4 24 0 960University of

Minnesota 612 445 115 2 115 29 262 0 1,580Private Vocational

System 2 12 31 1 90 2 17 0 155Private Two-Year

System 84 17 3 14 6 1 14 0 139Private Four-Year

& Grad System 266 129 18 311 33 17 144 0 918Private Professional

System 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 8Other Minnesota

Institutions 381 37 11 363 24 1 138 0 955State of Minnesota

Subtotal 3,814 1,636 727 2,001 653 79 1,181 0 10,091Out of State 1 183 617 261 1,212 125 18 535 2 3,953Unavailable 153 69 149 1,178 143 6 716 0 2,414Total 5,150 2,322 1,137 4,391 921 103 2,432 2 16,458


3 0

16

Status

Table 1.15Total Degrees Awarded by Level,1977-1987

YearDegree

Associate Bachelor's Master's Doctor'sFirst

ProfessionalAll

Degrees

1977-78 6,134 18,120' 3,572 502 1,454 29,782'1978-79 5,740 18,498 3,322 471 1,652 29,6831979-80 6,229 18,653 3,201 498 1,505 30,0861980-81 6,579 19,1132 3,285 521 1,4852 30,98321981-82 6,960 19,798 3,545 479 1,756 32,5381982-83 6,703 20,639 3,502 487 1,595 32,9261983-84 6,789 20,437 4,187 593 1,083 33,0991984-85 6,474' 20,670 3,493 529 1,559 32,72531985-86 7,192 20,401 3,456 569 1,548' 33,1661986-87 6,106' 19,9486 3,705 529 1,508 31,796'

'Does not include data from Minneapolis College of Art and Design.Mose not include data from Hemline University.Moos not Include data from St. Mary's Junior C04090'Does not Include data from Ur hed Theological Seminary.Moos not Include date from Fergus F.M. Community College, Normendale Community College, Augsburg College, Minnesota Bible College, St. Paul Bible College. College of St.Scholastics and College of St Catherine, St Mary's campus


Table 1.17Alternative Projected Levels of College EducationAmong Minnesota's Labor Force, Ages 25-64,1980,1990 and 2000

Scenario1980

Estimated1990

Projected2000

Projected

High% with 2 or More Years of College 35.9 49.7 61.1% with 4 or More Years of College 23.5 32.3 39.2

Intermediate High% with 2 or More Years of College 35.9 49.7 57.4% with 4 or More Years of College 23.5 32.3 36.9

Intermediate Low% with 2 or More Years of College 35.9 45.9 51.1% with 4 or More Years of College 23.5 29.9 33.1

Low% with 2 or More Years of College 35.9 45.9 49.8% with 4 or More Years of College 23.5 29.9 32.3

Source: Higher Education Coordinating Board

3 11

Status

Table 1.16Graduates by Program Area, 1985

Program Area

Number of Graduates

Lessthan1 Yr. 2 Yr. Assc. Bac. Master Doc.

FirstProf.

Agribusiness & Agri Production 116 503 132 104 18 10Agricultural Sciences 10 99 132 53 33Renewable Natural Resources 6 1 42 98 23 12Architecture & Environmental Design 74 1 150 23Area & Ethnic Studies 75 3 4Business & Management 335 625 411 4,068 774 18Business Admin Support 2,886 1,060 270 91 1

Marketing & Distribution 735 614 74 48Communications 55 30 2 956 43 10Communications Technologies 89 75 12Computer & Information Sciences 219 8 40 726 33 5Consumer, Personal & Misc. Services 333 722 49Education 28 22 2 2,437 975 89Engineering 10 12 896 152 59Engineering & Eng Related Tech 434 1,236 109 306 24Foreign Languages 306 10 9Allied Health 2,165 568 152 299 23Health Sciences 183 753 974 398 30 515Home Economics 15 273 20 2Vocational Home Economics 662 340 33 16Industrial Arts 14 0Law 1 65 55 1 669Letters 1 0 758 48 20Liberal - General Studies 28 438 2,832 163 42Library & Archival Sciences 1 1 99Life Sciences 809 75 79Mathematics 4 1 352 39 8Multi - Interdisciplinary Studies 6 1,017 11 2Parks & Recreation 1 151 13Basic Skills 13Philosophy & Religion 186 11 1

Theology 60 351 78 6 104Physical Sciences 554 51 38Science Technologies 17 23 4Psychology 5 825 84 27Protective Services 247 229 251 1

Public Affairs 80 42 7 388 156 3Social Sciences 7 2,006 90 43Construction Trades 379 653 1

Mechanics & Repairers 618 2,094Precision Production 1,020 1,603 26 4Transportation & Material Moving 293 33 17Visual & Performing Arts 102 8 3 722 92 16

Total 10,646 11,301 5,328 20,601 3,464 524 1,288


3

18

n4

Status

Table 1.18Projections of High School Graduates by RegionSpring 1987 Spring 2006

Year Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Rogion 4 Region 5 Region 8

1986' 1,395 875 4,404 2,693 1,977 2,4291987 1,421 937 4,466 2,664 1,967 2,5021988 1,407 867 4,340 2,663 2,013 2,5091989 1,352 917 4,285 2,616 2,042 2,4881990 1,294 897 3,798 2,502 1,892 2,3781991 1,200 882 3,704 2,237 1,743 2,2161992 1,167 836 3,594 2,248 1,692 2,2151993 1,248 871 3,538 2,350 1,744 2,3721994 1,181 851 3,537 2,297 1,828 2,2051995 1,286 825 3,630 2,441 1,992 2,4051996 1,278 888 3,612 2,576 1,996 2,3661997 L332 899 3,547 2,608 2,094 2,5201998 1,351 1,017 3,817 2,755 2,107 2,5921999 L321 1,019 3,794 2,808 2,183 2,5912000 1,279 1,033 3,649 2.815 2,179 2,6052001 1,186 990 3,338 Z669 2,101 2,5072002 L132 947 3,133 2,581 2,130 2,4292003 L153 974 2,998 2,553 2,022 2,3852004 L201 951 3,262 2,748 2,060 2,4152005 1,208 954 3,355 2,836 2,119 2,4252006 1,194 927 3,270 2,818 2,130 2,410

'Actual number of public and pnvate high school graduates

Year Region 7 Region 8 Region 9 Region 10 Region 11 State

1986' 5,200 L970 2,963 5,599 26,644 56,1491987 5,282 1,918 2,938 5,932 27,723 57,7541988 5,503 1,963 2,929 5,788 28,367 58,3541989 5,322 L930 2,941 5,891 27,195 56,9841990 5,004 1,775 2,615 5,291 24,249 5L7001991 4,658 1,613 2,531 4,886 22,977 48,6501992 4,653 1,687 2,557 4,889 22,491 48,0341993 4,836 L678 2,715 4,984 23,129 49,4691994 4,808 1,650 2,613 5,126 22,815 48,9141995 5,157 L703 2,815 5,166 23,700 5L1231996 5,359 1,766 2,955 5,359 24,835 52,9941997 5,515 1,739 2,945 5,652 26,577 55,4331998 6,008 1,779 3,118 5,973 27,427 57,9491999 6,060 L776 3,090 5,941 28,554 59,1412000 6,020 L768 3,040 5,924 28,976 59,2932001 5,944 1,671 2,901 5,788 28,452 57,5512002 5,867 1,581 2,846 5,709 29,006 57,3662003 5,715 1,517 2,766 5,696 30,320 5%1022004 6,425 1,574 3,030 6,054 29,025 5%7502005 6,832 L596 3,141 6,190 27,948 58,6092006 6,886 L576 3,086 6,135 27,626 5%062

'Actual number of public and private high school graduates

Source Minnesota Higher Eduuaton Coordinating Board

33 19

Status

Table1.19Projections of Total Fall Headcount EnrollmentsPublic Post-Secondary Education Systems1988-89 - 2006-07

FiscalYear

CommunityCollegeSystem

StateUniversity

System

Universityof

Minnesota

TechnicalInstituteSystem

PublicSystems2

1986-87' 41,578 47,466 56,443 49,489 194,9761987-88' 45,711 52,257 55,924 48,833 202,72531988-89 46,739 57,291 55,365 48,177 207,5721989-90 48,480 58,686 55,069 48,049 210,2841990-91 48,440 58,946 53,629 47,268 208,2831991-92 49,354 59,071 51,898 45,997 206,3201992-93 50,542 58,186 50,322 45,097 204,1471993-94 49,355 56,517 49,379 44,908 200,1591994-95 48,550 56,282 48,786 44,834 198,4521995-96 48,750 56,605 48,862 44,866 199,0831996-97 48,670 56,567 49,357 45,234 199,8281997-98 48,900 56,695 50,119 45,659 201,373

"'Actual enrollment2Fe II headcount for collegiate systems; annual headcount for technical institutes3Includes TI estimate

Source: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board, University R 00000 ch Consortium

Table 1.20Projections of Full-Year Equivalent EnrollmentsPublic Post-Secondary Education Systems1988-89 - 2006-07'

FiscalYear

CommunityCollegeSystem

StateUniversity

System

Universityof

Minnesota

TechnicalInstituteSystem

PublicSystems

1986-872 25,495 45,892 57,152 32,262 160,8011987-882 27,592 48,416 56,033 31,1253 163,1661988-89 27,191 50,288 55,883 30,523 163,8851989-90 27,477 51,611 55,654 30,442 165,1841990-91 26,470 51,823 54,457 29,341 162,6911991-92 26,527 51,861 52,752 29,122 160,2621992-93 27,216 50,963 51,142 28,552 157,8731993-94 26,573 49,317 50,081 28,454 154,4251994-95 26,558 49,001 49,363 28,426 153,3481995-96 26,735 49,292 49,253 28,473 153,7531996-97 26,673 49,278 49,473 28,737 154,1611997-98 26,872 49,397 49,951 29,026 155,246

"'Includes summer session for all collegiate institutions and extension for the University of MinnesotaMemel enrollmentSPfeliminary figures, may be subject to change

Source Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board, University Research Consortium

3420

Status

Student Characteristics

1Vend data on Minnesota highschool juniors are obtained fromthe Minnesota Post-High SchoolPlanning Program(PSPP), astatewide career guidance,testing, information, andplanning program. Table 1.21

shows the post-high school plansof Minnesota high school juniorssurveyed between 1979 and1988. The Plans andBackground Survey (PBS) is thequestionnaire given in thespring of the junior year. Thepercentage of high schooljuniors answering thequestionnaire ranged from 74

Table 1.21Post-High School Plans,Minnesota High School Juniors,1979-1988

percent in 1983 to 63 percent in1988. Thble 1.22, also based onthe survey, shows expectededucational levels ofrespondents. Table 1.23indicates the first choicepost-secondary institution ofrespondents, and Table 1.24shows planned field of study.

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988College 43.8% 44.4% 46.7% 47.7% 49.3% 54.1% 54.4% 57.9% 60.3% 61.0%Vo-Tech 25.5 25.1 24.6 24.4 23.5 21.3 20.7 18.9 17.0 16.8Other School 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4Military 2.6 2.8 3.2 3.9 4.6 4.4 4.4 5.0 5.3 4.9Work 11.2 11.2 9.9 9.7 9.2 7.9 8.2 6.7 6.2 6.0Farm/Business 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.0 .7 .6 .6Homemaker .3 .3 .3 .3 .2 .2 .2 .1 .1 .1Other Plans 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7Don't Know 7.4 7.1 6.9 6.5 6.1 5.6 5.5 5.3 5.2 5.2No Response 2.5 2.7 2.5 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2

Source: TM Student Plans and Background Survey of the Minnesota Post-High School Planning Program, Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board

Table 1.22Expected Educational Levels,Minnesota High School Juniors,1979-1988

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988High Scnool 11.8% 11.5% 10.1% 9.6% 8.5% 7.3% 7.0% 5.8% 5.0% 4.9%Vocational Certificate 31.9 31.9 31.1 30.5 29.7 26.3 25.6 22.8 20.6 20.1Two-Year Degree 10.3 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.8 10.8 10.5 10.6 10.3 10.0Four-war Degree 29.9 31.4 33.6 34.3 35.2 38.7 39.6 41.7 43.0 42.6Master's Degree 6.7 6.3 6.6 7.3 7.7 8.5 9.1 10.6 11.8 13.0Professional Degree 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.4 6.0 6.5 5.9 6.5 7.3 7.6

Source: The Student Plans and Background Survey of the Minmsota Post-High School Planning Program, Minmsote Higher Education Coordinating Board

35

21

Status

Table I.23Minnesota High School Juniors First ChoicePost-Secondary Institution,1979-1988

System 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988University of Minnesota 15.4% 15.4% 16.4% 16.4% 16.9% 17.2% 17.6% 18.4% 14.8% 14.9%Private College 8.9 9.8 9.7 10.0 10.0 14..4 11.5 12.1 11.4 11.9State University 9.8 10.6 11.1 10.6 11.4 12.1 12.7 13.0 14.0 13.3Community College 6.9 6.6 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.4 7.0 6.5 6.2 6.8Area Vocational-TechnicalInstitute 27.0 25.8 24.4 24.6 23.5 20.8 19.8 18.3 15.1 14.6Other Minnesota School 3.8 3.6 3.1 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.3 4.3 4.2Non-Minnesota School 9.8 9.9 9.7 10.7 10.8 12.7 12.6 14.1 14.0 14.1Undecided N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10.6 10.7Not Planning to Attend or NoResponse 18.4 18.4 18.3 14.8 1 .9 12.7 12.9 11.3 9.2 9.0

Source: The Student Plena and Background Survey of the Poet-High School Planning Program Higher Education Coordinating Bowe

Table I.24Minnesota High School JuniorsPlanned Field of Study,1979-1988

Field of Study 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1988 1987 1988Agriculture 7.4% 5.7% 5.5% 5.0% 4.8% 4.1% 4.0% 3.3% 3.6% 3.1%Architecture 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.7Art 4.0 3.5 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.4 3.0 3.2Athletics 2.6 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.1Biological Science 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.3Business 15.2 14.3 15.5 15.4 16.0 17.3 18.4 18.3 16.5 16.7Communications 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5Computer Science 2.2 2.7 3.8 5.0 6.3 -.2 3.7 3.1 2.2 2.3Home Ec/Consumer Serv. 5.9 5.0 4.7 4.7 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.2 3.4 2.9Construction 4.9 3.6 3.1 2.6 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.2 1.9Education 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.0 2.9 3.4 4.0 4.6 5.1 5.1Engineering 4.4 5.0 5.7 5.8 5.8 6.2 6.4 6.6 5.7 6.0Foreign Language .3 .3 .4 .4 .4 .5 .6 .7 .3 .5Health 10.9 10.2 10.1 11.5 11.9 11.2 9.7 9.1 8.5 8.3Humanities .6 .7 .7 .7 .6 .7 .8 .8 .9 1.1Math/Science 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.1 1.4Mechanics 7.2 6.3 6.5 6.6 6.2 5.8 5.8 5.2 4.5 4.7Music 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.0Public Service 3.6 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.3Religion .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .2 .2 .4 .2Social Science 3.5 3.9 3.7 4.1 4.3 5.2 5.1 6.0 5.8 7.0Transportation 2.7 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.0 3.2 4.3 3.1Not Listed 4.8 3.2 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.7 3.0 .9 2.5 2.0No Response 6.4 14.8 14.0 11.7 10.5 9.1 9.5 8.1 5.8 6.3

SOWN: M111111110te Higher Education CoordinetIng Board. PostHigh School Planning Program.

22 36

Status

TaMe 1.25Total State Appropriations and Tuition Revenue as aPercent of Instructional Expenditures andPercent Change From 1978 forMinnesota Public Systems,Fiscal Years 1978, 1983, 1986, and 1989 Estimates

(Dollars in Thousands)SystemandFiscalYear

Total StateAppropriations

Percent ChangeFrom 1978

Total StateAppropriationsConstant $""


Tuition Rev. as aPercent of

InstructionalExpenditures*

University of Minnesota1978 $187,471.1 - 8187,471.1 - 28.51983 263,667.4 40.6 171,882.3 -8.3 34.41986 329,545.5 75.8 182,979.2 -2.4 36.21989 402,743.3 114.8 197,036.8 5.1 33.2

State University System1978 70,502.3 70,502.3 - 23.11983 95,399.8 35.3 62,190.2 -11.8 28.51986 116,217.2 64.8 64,529.3 -8.5 34.41989 147,354.1 109.0 72,091.0 2.3 36.1

Community College System1978 30,650.2 30,650.2 - 24.21983 43,959.2 43.4 28,656.6 -6.5 34.31986 57,683.7 88.2 32,028.7 4.5 34.11989 75,C 88.8 147.9 370 76.5 21.3 35.6

Technical Institute System1978 90,406.4 - 90,406.4 - 9.1198C, 122,698.9 35.7 79,986.2 -11.5 17.31986 142,890.3 58.1 79,339.4 -12.2 22.31989 159,714.2 76.7 78,138.1 -13.6 26.3

Total1978 379,030.0 379,030.0 -1983 525,725.3 38.7 342,715.3 -9.61986 646,336.7 70.5 358,876.6 -5.31989 785,800.4 107.3 384,442.5 1.4

Expenditure and tuition revenue data are estimated for fiscal year 1989*The Higher Education Price Index was used as a deflator with 1978 = 100 The inflation rate for 1989 was assumed to be 4 4%

Source Minnesota Department of Finance

Minnesota Investment inPost-Secondary Education

This chapter provides anoverview of the investment inMinnesota post-.:,econdaryeducation. It first examinesfiscal data for the four publicpost-secondary educationsystems. Second, it provides

required tuition and fee chargesin current and constant dollarsfor students attending publicand private institutions. Third,it summarizes the state'sinvestment in financial aid.Fourth, the chapter describesthe state investment by variousfunctions. Fifth, it shows facultysalaries in the public

37

post-secondary systems.

'Fiends in state appropriationsto the four public systems inboth current and constantdollars for 1978, 1983, 1986, and1989 are shown in Thble 1.25.The table also shows tuitionrevenue as a percentage of

23

Status

Table I.26Averageln4tructional Expenditures PerFull Year Equivalent Student inCurrent and Constant Dollars for Minnesota PublicSystemsFiscal Years 1978, 1983, 1986, and 1989**

Systemand

Fiscal Year

CurnaltDP:iarsPer FYE

Constant Dollars*

DollarsPer FYE


University of Minnesota1978 02,956 82,9561983 4,120 2,686 -9.11986 5,349 2,970 0.51989 6,521 3,190 7.9

State University System1978 2,149 2,1491983 2,953 1,925 -10.41986 3,859 2,143 -0.31989 3,996 1,955 -9.0

Community College System1978 1,790 1,7901983 2,335 1,522 -15.01986 3,150 1,749 -2.31989 3,381 1,654 -7.6

Technical institute System1978 2,567 2,5671983 3,745 2,442 -4.91986 4,654 2,584 0.71989 5,094 2,492 -2.9

The Higher Education Price index was used as a deflator with 1978 = 100*Expenditure and enrollment data for fiscal year 1989 are estimated

Source: Minnesota Department of Finance

instructional expenditures.Ibition revenue as a percentageof instructional expenditures isan indicator of changes inreliance on tuition as a revenuesource for instruction.

Average instructionalexpenditures per full-yearequivalent student in currentand constant dollars forMinnesota public systems areshown in Table I. 26. The tablerelates expenditures to thevolume of instructional activityoccurring in each system. Theuse of constant dollars

24

eliminates the effects ofinflation.

'Bible 1.27 shows total generalfund expenditures andinstructional expenditures forthe four systems. It alsodisplays full-year equivalentenrollments for the foursystems. General fundinstructional expenditures arethe direct expenditures and thesupport (such as physical plantand library) expendituresattributable to instruction thatare provided through thegeneral fund. The state's

38

average cost funding policy andcost-related tuition policyfinance these expenditures.

Thbles 1.28 through 1.35 showtrends in the price charged tostudents. Thble 1.28 showstuition and required feescompared to Minnesota percapita personal income incurrent and constant dollars foracademic year 1971 through1989 for the four public systemsand the private four-yearcolleges.

Thbles I. 29 through I. 35 show

Status

TableI.27Total General Fund Expenditures, InstructionalExpenditures,Full Year Equivalent Enrollments and Percent ChangeFrom 1978 for Minnesota Public SystemsFiscal Years 1978, 1983, 1986, and 1989*

Systemand

FiscalIfear

Total GeneralFund

Expenditures

PercentChange

From 1978

(Dollars In Thousands)

InstructionalExpenditures

PercentChange

From 1978

Full Year PercentEquivalent Change

Enrollment **From 1978University of Minnesota

1978 $254,273.81983 356,253.71986 452,110.01989 531,381.6

40.177.8

109.0

$171,126.3242,146.4300,280.9360,972.1

-41.575.5

110.9

57,89958,77466,14366,353

-1.6

-3.0-4.4

State University System1978 89,508.2 - 82,789.7 - 38,518 -1983 134,111.1 49.8 124,314.4 50.2 42,102 9.31986 175,640.0 96.2 166,622.6 101.3 43,179 12.11989 212,526.6 137.4 202,850.3 145.0 50,762 31.8

Community College System1978 40,391.1 - 36,273.6 - 20,267 -1983 64,686.7 60.2 57,496.6 58.5 24,624 21.51986 85,497.4 111.7 76,348.2 110.5 24,237 19.61989 113,044.0 179.9 102,088.0 181.4 30,199 49.0

Technical Institute System**1978 98,663.9 90,978.8 - 36,446 -1983 162,979.0 65.2 154,901.1 70.3 41,359 16.71986 190,088.5 92.7 182,993.6 101.1 39,317 10.91989 212,564.5 115.4 206,544.2 127.0 40,548 14.4

Total1978 482,837.0 - 381,168.4 - 152,129 -1983 718,020.5 48.7 578,858.5 51.9 166,859 9.71986 903,335.9 87.1 726,245.3 90.5 162,876 7.11989 1,069,516.7 121.5 872,454.6 128.9 176,862 16.3

EnroNment and expenditure data for fiscal yew 1989 are estimated.'Fiscal year 1978 enroNments are estknated.Actinic& institute enrollments are average deify rftrnb111h111.

Source: Minnesota Deportment of Finance

tuition and fees compared to percapita income in current andconstant dollars from 1979through 1989. Room and boardcharges also are shown for thefour-year institutions.

Thition represents the basicprice charged by an institution

to a student for enrolling inpost-secondary education. Sincevirtually every poet- secondaryinstitution requires some fees inaddition to tuition for a full-timeutudent, tuition and requiredfees more accurately representtotal charges to the student.

39

State appropriations for studentfinancial assistance from FiscalYear 1980 through 1989 aredisplayed in Thble 1.36, and thenumbers of recipients are shownin Ilible 1.37.

Thbles 1.38 through 1.41 showthe distribution 01 the state's

25

Status

Table 1.28Tuition and Required Fees* Compared toMinnesota Per Capita Income inCurrent and Constant Dollars,* **Academic Years 1971 Through 1989

Unhreralty of Alinnesota

Mate CommunityCollege of Coleys of University College

Meal Arts Formby %Von &Atom

TechnicalinstituteSystem

PrivateColleges

MinnesotaPer Cooks

Personal Incom

AcademicVow

Cur- Con-tent stunt

Dollars Dollars

Cur-rent

Milers

Con-stint

Dollars

Ctw-

rentDollars

Con-*tent

Dollars

Cur-rent

Mars

Con-scant

Dollars

Cut-rent

Dollars

Con -Cur-stint tentDoan Dollars

Con-stint

Dollars

Cut-rent

Dam

Con-stant

Dollars

1971 $ 522 $522 $ 522 $522 $ 379 $379 $ 353 $353 - - $1,671 $1,671 $4,099 $4,0991972 525 507 525 507 416 402 386 373 - 1,795 1,733 4,332 4,1821973 641 696 656 609 416 386 3e6 359 - 1,933 1,796 4,918 4,5691974 683 583 719 613 453 386 420 358 - - 2,029 1,731 5,634 4,8061975 714 548 762 585 479 367 420 322 - - 2,203 1,690 5,842 4,4821975 772 553 826 592 519 372 461 330 - - 2,382 1,706 6,363 4,5581977 815 552 DS'S 588 545 369 495 335 - 2,576 1,744 7,021 4,7531978 927 588 990 628 590 374 518 328 - - 2,882 1,827 7,771 4,9261979 994 577 1,072 622 608 353 540 313 350 203 2,999 1,739 8,691 5,0411980 1.060 543 1,150 589 675 346 574 294 373 19' 3,284 1,681 9,603 4,9161981 1,194 548 1,313 602 726 333 637 292 373 171 3,674 1,685 10,603 4,8641982 1,264 533 1,402 592 802 338 697 294 438 185 4,192 1,769 11,308 4,7721983 1,521 615 1,631 660 989 400 833 337 560 227 4,799 1,942 11,811 4,7791984 1,673 653 1,889 737 1,246 488 1,013 395 777 303 5,292 2,065 12,734 4,9681985 1,834 689 2,112 793 1,433 538 1,103 414 980 368 5,749 2,159 13,826 5,1921986 1,942 709 2,235 816 1,543 563 1,170 427 1,070 390 6,385 2,330 14,549 5,3091987 2,020 721 2,376 848 1,623 580 1,193 426 1,166 416 6,922 2,472 15,309 5,4861988 2.104 722 2,523 865 1,650 566 1,238 425 1,271 436 7,453 2,556 16,255 5,5761989 2,208 728 2,693 887 1,695 559 1,305 430 1,305 430 8,189 2,698 17,039 5,614

% Change1971-89 323.0% 39.4% 415.9% 70.0% 347.2% 47.4% 269.7% 21.8% - 390.1% 61.5% 315.7% 37.0%

% Change1981-89 84.9% 32.P% 105.1% 47.3% 133.5% 67.7% 104.9% 47.2% 249.9% 151.3% 122.9% 60.1% 60.7% 15.4%

All tuition rates are fo undergradus. is. Public system tuition rates are for Minnesota residents Briton rates for the University of Minnesota are an averageof lower and upperdivision rates for acadvnic years 1982-83 through 1988-89. The College of Liberal Arts and the College of Forestry tuition rates are the lowest and highestrates charged at thetwin Cities Campus in academic year 1988-89 The Minnesota Technical Insutoes did not charge tuition for Minnesota residents under the age of 21 prior to 1979

*Minnesota personal income per resident on a fiscal year basis Income for fiscal years 1988 and 1989 is the January 1988 Department of Finance forecast*Consumer Price Index-United States with fiscal year 1971 = 100.0. 'Mignon rates for fiscal years 1988 end 1989 were assumed to be 4 1 percent


investment in post-secondaryeducation. itible 1.38 shows forFiscal Year 1988 the distributionof state appropriations byfunction - institutionaloperation, strident financial aid,statewide programs, andinterstate tuition reciprocity.

26

The amounts do not includestate appropriations to theDepartment of Finance for debtservice on bonds sold for capitalimprovements in post-secondaryeducation facilities. 'Bible 1.39shows the distribution of stateappropriations for institutional

40

operations in Fiscal Year 1986.'Able 1.40 indicates thedistribution of financial aid:unds by system for Fiscal Year1988 based on the StateScholarship and Grant Program,the State Part-Time GrantProgram, and the State

Status

Table 1.29Tuition and Fees Compared toMinnesota Per Capita Income*in Current and Const. nt Dollars, Technical Institutes,Academic Years 1979 Through 1989

AcademicYear

Tuitionand Fees

Annual% Change

T and FCumulative% Change

Per CapitaPersonalIncome

Annual% Change

TotalCumulative% Change

Current Dollars1978-79 $ 350 $ 8,691 - -1979-80 373 6.6% 6.6% 9,603 10.5% '10.5%1980-81 373 0.0 6.6 10,603 10.4 22.01981-82 438 17.4 25.1 11,308 6.6 30.11982-83 560 27.9 60.0 11,611 4.4 35.91983-84 777 38.8 122.0 12,734 7.8 46.51984-85 930 26.1 180.0 13,826 8.6 59.11985-86 1 070 9.2 205.7 14,549 5.2 67.419864. 1,166 9.0 233.1 15,309 5.2 76.11987-88 1,271 9.0 263.1 16,255 6.2 87.01988-89 1,305 2.7 272.9 17,039 4.8 98.1

Constant Dollars*"1978-79 350 8,6911979-80 1^ Cl - 5.9 - 5.9 8,478 -2.5 -2.51980.81 -10.4 -15.7 8,388 -1.11981-82 319 8.0 -8.9 8,227 -1.9 -5.31982-83 391 22.6 11.6 8,239 0.1 -5.21983.84 523 33 8 49.3 8,566 4.0 -1.41984-85 634 21.4 81.3 8,951 4.5 3.01985-86 673 6.1 92.4 9,154 2.3 5.31986-87 718 6.6 105.1 9,425 3.0 8.41987-88 752 4.7 114.8 9,613 2.0 10.6

)88-89 741 - 1.4 111.8 9,680 0.7 11.4

*Minnesota Personal Income per resident on a fiscal year basisCOrillUMM Price Index -United States with fiscal year 1979 = 100 0

Sours Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating P

Work-Study Program. Table 1.41displays the distribution of stateappropriations for institutionaloperation and financial aid "k ysystem, category of institution,and statewide function. Stateappropriations to systems andcategories of institutions includeappropriations for institutionaloperations and appropriationsfor financial aid to studentsattending those systems andinstitutions.

'Bible 1.42 displays average

salaries for full-time faculty inMinnesota public collegiateinstitutions. Average salariesare displayed by rank and typeof institution for Fiscal Years1979-80 and 1987-88 in currentand constant dollars. Becausechanges over time in thedistribution of faculty by rankand institution affect overallaverage salaries, an additionalcomparison is provided usingthe 1987-88 distribution offaculty by rank to calculatet.he1979-80 overall average Balmy;

41

this comparison Mt, trates theoverall impact of changes insalary only.

Comparisons

Additional perspective on thestatus of Minnesotapost-secondary education isprovided in this chapter bycomparisons between Minnesotaand other states. In addition,expenditures for Minnesotapost-secondary education arecompared with expenditures forother state services.

27

Status

Table 1.30Tuition and Fees Compared toMinnesota Per Capita Income*In Current and Constant DollarsCommunity College SystemAcademic Years 1979 Through 1989

AcademicYear

Tuitionand Fess

Annual% Change

T and FCumulative% Chang*

Per CapitaPersonalIncome

Annual% Change

TotalCumulative% Change

Current Dollars1978-79 $ 540 $ 8,6911979-80 574 6.3% 6.3% 9,603 10.5% 10.5%1980-81 637 11.0 18.0 10,603 10.4 22.01981-82 697 9.4 29.1 11,308 6.6 30.11982-83 833 19.5 54.3 11,811 4.4 35.91983-84 1,013 21.6 87.6 12,734 7.8 46.51984-85 1,103 8.9 104.3 13,826 8.6 59.11985-86 1,170 6.1 116.7 14,549 5.2 67.41986-87 1,193 2.0 1".9 15,309 5.2 76.11987-88 1,238 3.8 9.3 16,255 6.2 87.01988-89 1,305 5.4 141.7 17,039 4.8 96.1

Constant Dollars"1978-79 540 8,6911979-80 507 -6.2 -6.2 8,476 -2.5 -2.51980-81 504 -0.6 - 6.7 8,386 -1.1 -3.51P91-82 507 0.7 -6.1 8,227 -1.9 - 5.31982-83 581 14.6 7.6 8,239 0.1 -5.21983-84 681 17.3 26.2 8,566 4.0 -1.41984-85 714 4.8 32.2 8,951 4.5 3.01986-86 735 3.1 36.3 9,154 2.3 5.31986-87 734 -0.2 36.0 9,425 3.0 8.41987-88 732 - 0.3 35.6 9,613 2.0 10.61988-89 741 1.3 37.3 9,030 0.7 11.4

Minneeota Personal Income per Resident on A fiscal year basisConsumer Price Inc -United States with fiscal veer 1979 . 101 0

Source Minnesota Higher Education Coorainating Bcrd

'Mks 1.43 through 1.47 showthe ranking of Minnesota publictuition and fee rates comparedto rates at similar institutions inother states for 1986 and1987-88.

'Mks 1.43 and i.44 presenttuition and required fees atpublic universities for residentundergraduates and graduates.This group consists of the majorpublic doctoral level institutions

28

in each state. The ratesdisplayed for Minnesota are forthe University of Minnesota.

'llibles 1.45 and 1.46 presentaverage tuition and requiredfees for resident undergraduateand graduate students at publiccolleges and universities. Thisgrow .onsists of 210 publiccomprehensive and generalbaccalaureate institutions in 46states. The rates displayed for

42

Minnesota are the average of theMinnesota State UniversitySystem, excluding MetropolitanState Univei sity.

Thble 1.47 shows average tuitionand required fees at publiccommunity colleges. The ratesare an average for communitycolleges in 48 states. Minnesotarates are those for theMinnesota Community CollegeSystem.

Status

Table 1.31Tuition, Fees, Room and BoardCompared to Minnesota Per Capita Income*In Current and Constant DollarsState University SystemAcademic Years 1979 Through 1989

AcademicMisr

Tuitionand

Feet

AnnualPercentChangeT & F

Roomand

Board

Annual AnnualPercent Total PercentChange 7 & F ChangeR &B + R & B Total

Cumuia-dve

PercentChange

PerCapita

Personalincome

AnnualPercentChangeTool

Cumula-dve

PercentChange

Current Dollars1978-79 S 608 S1,155 - S1,763 - - 8 8,681 - -1979 -80 675 11.0% 1,160 0.4% 1,835 4.1% 4.1% 9,603 10.6% 10.5%1980-81 726 7.6 1,180 1.7 1,906 3.9 9.1 10,603 10.4 22.01981-82 802 10.5 1,265 7.2 2,067 8.4 17.2 11,308 6.6 30.11982-83 989 23.3 1,445 14.2 2,434 17.8 38.1 11,811 4.4 35.91983-84 1,246 26.0 1,430 -1.0 2,676 9.9 51.8 12,734 7.8 46.51984-85 1,433 15.0 1,560 9.1 2,993 11.8 6S.8 13,826 8.6 59.11985-86 1,543 7.7 1,670 7.1 3,213 7.4 82.2 14,549 6.2 87.41986-87 1,623 5.2 1,722 3.1 3,345 4.1 89.7 15,309 6.2 76.11987-88 1,650 1.7 1,895 10.0 3,545 6.0 101.1 16,255 6.2 87.01988-89 1,695 2.7 2,030 7.1 3,725 5.1 111.3 17,0. 4.8 96.1

Constant Dollars1978-79 608 - 1,155 - 1,763 - - 8,691 - -1979 -80 596 -2.0 1,024 -11.4 1,620 -8.1 -8.1 8,476 -2.5 -2.51980-81 574 -3.6 933 -8.8 1,507 -6.9 -14.5 8,386 -1.1 -3.51981-82 584 1.6 920 -1.4 1,504 -0.2 -14.7 8,227 -1.9 -5.31982-83 690 18.2 1,008 9.5 1,698 12.e -3.7 8,239 0.1 -5.21983-84 838 21.6 962 -4.6 1,800 6.0 2.1 8,566 4.0 -1.41984-85 928 10.7 1,010 5.0 h,938 7.6 9.9 8,951 4.5 3.01985-86 971 4.6 1,051 4.0 1,022 4.3 14.7 9,154 2.3 5.31986-87 999 2.9 1,060 0.9 2,059 1.9 16.8 9,425 3.0 8.41987-88 976 -2.3 1,121 5.7 2,097 1.8 18.9 9,613 2.0 10.61988-89 963 -1.3 1,15.. 2.9 2,116 0.9 20.0 9,680 0.7 11.4

Minnesota Personal Income per resident on fiscal year basis.Consumer Price Index-United States with fiscal year 1979 = 100.0Milton and maximum roquired fees. Excludes Matropoliten Seats University.

Source: Minnasote Higher Education Cocnix.caing Board

Tables 1.48 through 1.52 presentrankings in five categories ofundergraduate need-basedfinancial aid for Fiscal Ybars1987 and 1988. The data forFiscal Year 1988 are based onestimated data reported to theNational Association ofState Scholarship and GrantProgrto and thus may differfrom other program data for

Minnesota in this report.

Table 1.48 presents totalpayments for need-basedfinancial aid for undergraduates.The aggregate level of paymentsis influenced by many variables,such as the size of the studentpopulation in the state and statepolicies regarding privatepost secondary education. 'Bible

4;

1.49 shows the number ofawards for need-based financialaid undergraduates. Table 1.50presents average awards forneed-based undergraduatefinancial aid. One reason forMinnesota's lower rank in thiscategory than in othercomparisons is because shemaximum grant aid a studentcan receive isbased on 'he

29

Status

Table I.32Tuition, Fees, Room and BoardCompared to Minnesota Per Capita Income*In Current and Constant DollarsUniversity of Minnesota-Twin CitiesCollege of Liberal ArtsAcademic Years 1979 Through 1989

AcademicYew

Addonand

Fees


Roomand

Board

AnnualPercentChangeR & B

TotalT & F

+ R & B

AnnualPercentChangeTotal

0 wide-dye

PercentChange

ParCapita

PersonalIncome


Cumuli-dve

ParentChange

Current Dollars1978-79 $ 994 - $1,680 - $2,674 S 8,691 -1979-80 1,060 6.6% 1,796 6.9% 2,856 6.8% 6.8% 9,603 10.5% 10.5%1980-81 1,194 12.6 1,971 9.7 3,165 10.8 18.4 10,603 10.4 22.01981-82 1,2,,4 5.9 2,245 13.9 3,509 10.9 31.2 11,308 6.6 30.11982-83 1,520 20.3 2,575 14.7 4,095 16.7 53,1 11,811 4.4 35.91983-84 1,673 10.1 2,446 -5.0 4,119 0.6 54.0 12,734 7.8 46.51984-85 1,834 9.6 2,623 7.2 4,457 8.2 ..)6.7 13,826 8.6 59.11985-86 1,942 5.9 2,610 -0.5 4,552 2.1 14,549 5.2 67.41986-87 2,020 4.0 2,595 -0.6 4,615 1.4 72.0 15,309 5.2 76.11987-88 2,104 4.2 2,648 2.0 4,752 3.0 77.7 16,255 6.2 87.01988-89 2,208 4.9 2,826 6.7 5,034 5.9 88.3 17,039 4.8 96.1

Constant Dollars1978-79 994 - 1,680 2,674 - - 8,691 - -1979 -80 936 -5.9 1,585 -5.6 2,521 -5.7 -5.7 8,476 -2.5 -2.51980-81 944 0.9 1,559 -1.7 2,503 -0.7 -6.4 8,386 -1.1 -3.51981-82 920 -2.6 1.633 4.8 2,5:1 2.0 -4.5 8,227 -1.0 -5.31982-83 1,060 15.3 1,796 10.0 2,857 11.9 5 8 8,238 0.1 -5.21983-84 1,125 6.1 1,545 -8.4 2,771 -3.0 3.6 8,566 4.0 -1.41984-85 1,187 5.5 1,698 3.2 2,886 4.1 7.9 8,951 4.5 3.01985-86 1,222 2.9 1,642 -3.3 2, i64 -0.7 7.1 9,154 2.3 5.31986-87 1,244 1.8 1,598 -2.7 2,841 -0.8 I.,.3 9,425 3.0 8.41987-88 1,244 0.1 1,560 -2.0 2,810 -1.1 5.1 9,613 2.0 10.61988-89 1,254 0.8 1,60E 2.5 2,860 1.8 7.0 9,680 0.7 11.4

*Minnesota Personal Income per resident on c fiscal year basisConsumer Price IndexUnited States with fiscal year 1979 = 10G 0Average of lower division and upper division tuition sten


combination of the state grantand federal Pell grant.

Table 1.51 presents estimatedgrant dollars per undergraduatestudent by static for 1987-88.The objective is to relate eachstate's payment to its pool ofundergraduate students. Ibtal

30

undergraduate students is thebest available measure of thepool of eligible students. Thismeasure probably overestimatesthe number of eligible studentsfor the states. Undergraduateheadcount includes nonresidentswho ar. -ot eligible in moststates and part-time students

44

who are not eligible in somestates. 'able 1.52 shows thechange over five years in totalawards for state programs, thusproviding an overview of thetrends over time.

Tables 1.53 through 1.59 presentcomparative state-level fiscal

Status

Table 1.33Tuition, Fees, Room and BoardCompared to Minnesota Per Capita Income*In Current and Constant DollarsUniversity of Minnesota-Twin CitiesInstitute of TechnologyAcademic Years 1979 Through 1989

AcademicYear

Monand

Foam


Roomand

Board

AnnualPercentChangeR & B

TotalT & F

+ R & B

AnnualPercentChimpTotal

Cumula-dve

PercentChange

PerCooks

PersonalIncome


umula-Iva

PercentChange

Current Dollars1978-79 S1,135 - S1,680 - $2,815 - - $ 8,691 - -1979 -80 1,219 7.4% 1,796 6.9% 3,015 7.1% 7.1% 9,603 10.59t 10.5%1980-81 1,374 12.7 1,971 9.7 3,345 10.9 18.1 10,603 10.4 22.01981-82 1,465 6.6 2,245 13.9 3,710 10.9 31.8 11,308 6.6 30.11982-83 1,620 10.6 2,575 14.7 4,195 13.1 49.0 11,811 4.4 35.91983-84 1,806 11.5 2,446 -5.0 4,252 1.4 51.0 12,734 7.8 46.51994-85 2,002 10.9 2,623 7.2 4,625 8.8 64.3 13,826 8.6 59.1198E-86 2,119 5.8 2,610 -0.5 4,729 2.2 68.0 14,549 5.2 67.41986-87 2,210 4.3 2,595 -0.6 4,805 1.6 70.7 15,309 5.2 76.11987-88 2,303 4.2 2,648 2.0 4,951 3.0 75.9 16,255 6.2 87.01988-89 2,429 5.5 2,826 6.7 5,255 6.1 86.7 17,039 4.8 96.1

Constant Dollars"1978-79 1,135 1,680 - 2,815 - - 8,691 - -1979 -80 1,076 -5.2 1,585 -5.6 2,6e1 -5.5 -5.5 8,476 -2.5 -2.51980-81 1,087 1.0 1,559 -1.7 2,645 -0.6 -6.0 8,386 -1.1 -3.51981-82 1,066 -1.9 1,633 4.8 2,699 2.0 -4.1 8,227 -1.9 -5.31982-83 1,130 6.0 1,796 1C 0 2,926 8.4 4.0 8,239 0.1 -5.21983-84 1,215 7.5 1,645 -8 4 2,860 -2.3 1.6 8,566 4.0 -1.41984-85 1,296 6.7 1,698 3.? 2,994 4.7 6.4 8,951 4.5 3.01985 -86 1,333 2.9 1,642 -3.3 2,975 -0.6 5.7 9,154 2.3 5.31986-87 1,361 2.0 1,598 -2.7 2,958 -0.6 5.1 9,425 3.0 8.41987-88 1,362 0.1 1,566 -2.0 2,928 -1.0 4.0 9,613 2.0 10.61988-89 1,380 1.3 1,605 2.5 2,985 2.0 6.1 L680 0.7 11.4

'Minnesota Personal income per resident on a fiscal year basis.Consumer Price Index-United States with fiscal year 1979 = 100.0'Average of lower division and upper division tuition rates


data based on State Profiles:Financing Public HigherEducation by ResearchAssociates of Washington. In1987 a group of representativesfrom the Coordinating Boardand post-secondary systems andthe Department of Financereviewed five public thous that

use state-level data andconcluded that this material isthe most appropriate forexamining state efforts infinancing post-secondaryeducation. The group alsoagreed on eight conclusionsregarding Minnesota's financialsupport for public post-

45

secondary education based onthe publication.

Although the publication isconsidered technically superioro other sources, it also has

some limitations. Compliancewith its data definitions,

31

Status

Tas.leI.34Tuition, Fees, Room and BoardCompared to Minnesota Per Capita Income*In Current and Constant DollarsUniversity of Minnesota-Twin CitiesCollege of ForestryAcademic Years 1979 Through 1989

AcademicYear

'liallonand

Fees***


Roomand

Board

Amite!PercentChangeR &B

TotalTB F

+ R &13

Ai mudPercentChangeTotal

Cumuli"-thre

PercentChange

PerCapita

PersonalIncome


Cumuli-dye

PercentChange

Current Dollars

1978-79 $1 .072 - $1,;.)80 - $2,752 - - $ 8,691 - -1979-80 1,150 7.3% 1,796 6.9% 2,946 7.0% 7.0% 9,603 10.5% 10.5%1980-81 1,313 14.2 1,971 9.7 3,284 11.5 19.3 10,603 10.4 22.01981-82 1,402 6.8 2,245 13.9 3,647 11.1 32.5 11,308 6.6 30.11982-83 1,631 16.3 2,575 14.7 4,206 15.3 52.8 11,811 4.4 35.91983-84 1,889 15.8 2,446 -5.0 4,335 3.1 57.5 12,734 7.8 46.51984-85 2,112 11.8 2,623 7.2 4,735 9.2 72.1 13,826 8.6 59.11985-86 2,235 5.8 2,610 -0.5 4,845 2.3 76.1 14,549 5.2 67.41986-87 2,376 6.3 2,595 -0.3 4,971 2.6 60.6 15,309 5.2 76.11987-88 2,523 6.2 2,648 2.0 5,171 4.0 87.9 16,255 6.2 87.01988-89 2,693 6.7 2,826 6.7 5,519 6.7 100.5 17,039 4.8 96.1

Constant Dollars*1978-79 1,072 - 1,680 - 2,752 - - 8,691 - -1979 -80 1,015 -5.3 1,885 -5.6 2,600 -5.5 -5.5 8,476 -2.5 -2.51980-81 1,038 2.3 1,559 -1.7 2,597 -0.1 -5.6 8,386 -1.1 -3.51381-82 1,020 -1.8 1,633 4.8 2,653 2.2 -3.6 8,227 -1.9 -5.31982-83 1,138 11.5 1,796 10.0 2,934 10.6 6.6 8,239 0.1 -5.21983-84 1,271 11.7 1,645 -8.4 2,916 -0.6 6.0 8,566 4.0 -1.41984-85 1,367 7.6 1,698 3.2 3,066 5.1 11.4 8,951 4.5 3.01985-86 1,406 2.8 1,642 -3.3 3,048 -0.6 10.8 9,154 2.3 5.3198e-87 1,463 4.0 1,598 -2.7 3,060 0.4 11.2 9,425 3.0 8.4198; -18 1,492 2.0 1,566 -2.0 3,058 -0.1 11.1 9,613 2.0 10.6198L-89 1,530 2.5 1,605 2.5 3,135 2.5 13.9 9,680 0.7 11.4

'Minnesota Personal Income per resident on a fiscal year basis"Consumer Pries Index-United States with fiscal year 1979 = 100 0

"'Average of lower division and upper division tuition rates.


particularly with respect withstate expenditures that do notflow through institutions, was aconcern as was the lack of dataon state support to privateinstitutions. A final concernregarding the use of the data isits applicability. It compares

32

state finaneal support for publicpost-secondary education intotal. It does not addresssupport for specific institutions,zategories of institutions, orsystems.

Table 1.53 shows studentenrollment per 1.000 residents

46

for 1987-t.... in Minnesota publicinstitutions. It shows thatenrollment in Minnesota'spublic post-secondaryinstitutions relative to itspopulation is high, and hasgrown since the late 1970s inboth absolute terms and relativeto the national average. This

Status

Table 1.35Tuition, Fees, Room and BoardCompared to Minnesota Per Capita Income*In Current and Constant DollarsMinnesota Private Colleges**Academic Years 1979 Through 1989

AcademicYear

TuitionandFees


Roomand

Board

Mimi AnnualPercent Total PercentChange T & F ChangeR & B + R & B Total

Cumule-dye

PercentChange

PerCapita

Naomihome

ArmuelPercentChangeTotal

Cumuli-dye

POIOVitCheri VO

Current Dollars

1978-79 $2,999 $1,410 - $4,409 - - $ 8,691 - -1979-80 3,284 9.5% 1,484 5.2% 4,768 8.1% 8.1% 9,603 10.5% 10.5%1980-81 3,674 11.9 1,660 11.9 5,334 11.9 21.0 , 10,603 10.4 22.01981-82 4,193 14.1 1,779 7.2 5,972 12.0 35.5 11,308 6.6 30.11982-83 4,799 14.5 1,972 10.8 6,771 13.4 53.6 11,811 4.4 35.91983-84" ' 5,295 10.3 2,188 11.0 7,483 10.5 69.7 12,734 7.8 46.51984-85 5,841 10.3 2,300 5.1 8,141 8.8 84.6 13,826 8.6 59.11985-86 6,385 9.: 2,410 4.8 8,795 8.0 99.5 14,549 5.2 6..41986-87 6,922 8.4 2,520 4.6 9,442 7.4 114.2 15,309 5.2 76.11987-88 7,453 7.7 2,637 4.6 10,090 6.9 128.9 16,255 6.2 87.01988-89 8,189 9.9 2,803 6.3 10,992 8.9 149.3 17,039 4.8 96.1

Constant Dollars*"

1978-79 2,999 1,410 4,409 - - 8,691 - -1979 -80 2,898 -3.4 1,310 -7.1 4,208 -4.6 -4.6 8,476 -2.5 -2.51980-81 2,906 0.2 1,313 0.2 4,219 0.2 -4.3 8,386 -1.1 -3.51981-82 3,051 5.0 1,294 -1.4 4,345 3.0 -1.5 8,227 -1.9 -5.31982-83 3,348 9.7 1,376 6.3 4,723 8.7 7.1 8,239 0.1 -5.21983-84 3,562 6.4 1,472 7.0 5,034 6.6 14.2 8,566 4.0 -1.41984-85 3,782 6.2 1,489 1.2 5,271 4.7 19.5 8,951 4.5 3.01985-36 4,017 6.2 1,516 1.8 5,534 5.0 25.5 9,154 2.3 5.31986-87 4,262 6.1 1,551 2.3 5,813 5.0 31.8 9,425 3.0 8.41987-88 4,408 3.4 1,560 0.5 5,967 2.7 35.3 9,613 2.0 10.61988-89 4,652 5.5 1,592 2.1 6,245 4.6 41.6 9,680 0.7 11.4

Minnesota Personal Income per resident on a fiscal year basisIncludes the 17 Institutions that are members of the Minnesota Private College CouncilRoom and Board and Total exclude data for the Minneapolis College of Art and DesignConsumer Price Index-United States with fiscal year 1979 = 100 0

Souris: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board

growth was added to a level ofenrollment that was already wehabove the national average. Thegrowth appears to be due in partto increased participation byindividuals other than recenthigh school graduates.

'able 1.54 shows tax revenue percapita and allocation to public

higher education. Minnesota'saverage tax capacity and itshigh tax effort combine to yieldtax revenue per capita that iswell above the national average.Minnesota's average taxrevenue per capita combinedwith its average allocation topublic post-secondary educationsuggests that it provides a level

4 7

of appropriations for publicpostsecondary education on aper capita basis that is above thenational average.

'able 1.55 shows appropriationsper student. Minnesota'saverage level of appropriationsper student combined with itsaverage net tuition revenue per

93

Status

Table 1.36State Appropriations for Student Assistance,Fiscal Years 1982-1989

Fiscal Year 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989Grants

Scholarships S12,193,500 S11,632,500 S11,575,000 $11,900 000 $12,655,400 $14,018,700 $16,050,000 S15,312,500Grant- in-Aid 18,141,900 17,373,700 34,724,000 35,666,000 38,300,000 42,281,300 48,150,000 45,937,500Nursing Grants 148,000 75,000 700,000 0 0 0 0 0Subtotal 30,483,400 29,081,200' 46,999,000 47,566,000 50,95 4002 56,300,0003 64,200,000 61,250,000

AVTI Subsidy 1,400,000 1,400,000 0 0 0 0 0 0Part-Time Grant 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000Vets

Dependents 1,200 1,200 0 0 0 0 0 0

Work-Study 3,891,000 4,067,000 4,209,000 4,428,600 4,428,600 4,428,600 4,503,600 4,678,600

Total 36,075,600 34,849,400 51,508,000 52,294,600 56,384,000 62,728,600 70,703,600 67,928,600

Total in ConstantDollars4 29,740,808 27,548,933 39,259,146 38,367,278 40,166,168 43,743,794 47,356,731 43,321,811

1The Fiscal War 1983 appropriation as reduced by $1 9 million under Chapter 2. Third Special Session 1981, Minn Laws 1982. Chapter 841 called for en additional reduction of11,265.000 m Fiscal *sr 1983 This wee to be done at the end of the fiscal year through refunds

2The Fiscal Year 1986 appropriation wee reduced by 1344,600 under the governor's unallotment process3The Fiscal Veer 1987 appropnation was reduced by CI 5 million under Minn Laws 1986. First Special Session, Chapter 1, Article 10, Section 1. Subd 34Undtd States Consumer Pnce Index used as a deflator. Fiscal Year 1980 = 100 Fiscal Year 1989 inflation rate was estimated to be 5 percent


Table 1.37Recipients Under State-FundedStudent Financial Aid Programs,Fiscal Years 1980-1989

Academic YearProgram

1979-80FY 80

1980-81FY 81

1981-82FY 82

1982-83FY 83

1983-84FY 84

1984-85FY 85

1985-86FY 86

1986-871987-88FY87 FY 88

1988-89FY 891

Scholarship and Grant 28,033 38,254 42,822 41,053 52,130 53,036 55,858 62,98762,237 63,667Part-Time Grant 1,448 1,583 1,358 1,245 1,011 1,143 2,274 4,579 5,627 6,300AVTI Subsidy 7,342 6,126 4,595 4,278 0 0 0 0 0 0Work-Study 5,307 6,533 6,675 7,228 7,363 7,372 7,225 7,350 6,970 7,596Total 42,130 52,496 55,450 53,804 60,504 61,551 65,357 74,91674,834 77,563

'Estimates for 1988.89

Source. Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board

48

Status

Table I.38Relative Investment in Post-Secondary Educationby FunctionFiscal Year 1988

Appropriations Percent of Total

Funds for Institutional Operation $738,165,900 90.4%Student Financial Aid 67,976,490 8.3Statewide Programs 6,921,098 0.8Interstate Tuition Reciprocity 3,908,000 0.5

Total $816,971,488 100.0%

Source: Marmots Higher Education Coordinating Board

Table 1.39Distribution of State Appropriations forInstitutional OperationFiscal Year 1988

System Appropriations Percent of Total

University of MinnesotaState University SystemCommunity College SystemTechnical Institute SystemMayo

Total

Source Minnesota Higher Education Coordmuting Board

S387,865,200130,897,60066,122,900

152,428,900851,300

$738,165,900

52.5%17.7

9.G20.6

0.1100.0%

student results in levels ofappropriations and tuitionrevenue per student that areequal to the national average.Recent declines inappropriations per student havebeen balanced by increases innet tuition revenue per studentto achieve more stable levels ofappropriations and tuition perstudent.

Table 1.56 shows estimated nettuition revenue per student.Minnesota's tuition revenue perstudent net of state financial aidrose from well below the nationalaverage in 1977-78 to 10 percentabove the national average in1984-85 and has since declinedto the national average.

Table 1.57 shows appropriations

4)

per student and estimatedtuition per student. Minnesota'sabove average per capitaappropriations for publicpost-secondary education andits very high level of enrollmentrelative to population combineto yield a level of appropriationsper student that is equal to thenational average. The state'slevel of appropriations per

35

Status

Table I.40Distribution of State Appropriations forFinancial Aid Awards by SystemFiscal Year 1988

System Total Percent of Total

University of MinnesotaState University SystemCommunity College SystemTechnical Institute SystemPrivate Four-Year InstitutionsPrivate Two-Year Institutions

Total


$10,894,05610,788,1186,242,1969,256,086

25,002,9486,846,549

69,030,853

15.8%15.69.0

13.436.29.9

100.0%

Table 1.41Distribution of State Appropria Insfor Institutional Operationand Financial Aid by SystemFiscal Year 1988

System Appropriations Percent of Total

University of MinnesotaState University SystemCommunity College SystemTechnical Institute SystemPrivate Four-YearPrivate Two-YearMayoStatewide Programs and CoordinationInterstate Reciprocity

Total


8398,499,002141,574,11372,320,501

161,574,80224,540,2316,782,441

851,3006,921,0983,908,000

8816,971,488

48.8%17.38.9

19.83.00.80.10.80.5

100.0%

student has declined relative tothe national average, apparentlyas a result of the enrollmentincreases and the decline in thepercentage of state and local taxrevenues allocated to publicrenst-secondary education.

Table 1.58 shows potential taxrevenues per student.

36

Minnesota's potential tosupport nublic post-secondaryeducation on a per student basisis low relative to the nationalaverage because of its highenrollment levels.

Table 1.59 presents rankings forcollective financial actions. Thatis, a comparison of Minnesota's

50

appropriations and net tuitionrevenue per student to itsavailable tax dollars per studentsuggests that Minnesota's effortin support of publicpost-secondary education rankswell above the national average.This high ranking must bebalanced with a recognition thatas a result of high enrollments,

Status

Table 1.42Average Salaries and Number ofFull-Time Faculty in MinnesotaPublic Collegiate Institutions byAcademic Rank and InstitutionType in Current and Constant Dollars,Academic Years 1979-80 and 1987-88

AcademicRank and

kistitudon Type

1979-80 1987-88 PercentChangeCurrentDollars1980

to1988

PercentChangeConstantDollars1980

to1988Number

AverageSalary Number

Average Salary

CUITOM

DollarsConstant

Dollars

Doctoral Institution'Professor 817 $31,395 780 $52,084 $34,885 65.9% 11.1%Associate 441 23,106 483 38,264 25,629 65.6 10.9Assis*ent 406 18,800 333 32,675 21,885 73.8 16.4Instructor 114 15,698 23 28,774 19,273 83.3 22.8

Overall 1,778 25,457 1,619 43,638 29,228 71.4 14.8Overall HoldingDistribution Constant5 26,115 43,638 29,228 67.1 11.9

Comprehensive Institutions,Professor 248 25,762 315 43,512 29,144 68.9 13.1Associate 287 21,712 277 34,782 23,297 60.2 7.3Assistant 319 17,997 307 28,058 18,793 55.9 4.4Instructor 126 14,971 93 22,427 15,021 49.8 0.3

Overall 980 20,661 992 34,315 22,984 66.1 11.2Overall HoldingDistribution Constants 21,221 34,315 22,984 61.7 8.3

General Baccalaureate,Institutions

Professor 53 24,874 80 43,381 29,056 74.4 16.8Associate 54 20,377 64 34,543 23,137 69.5 13.5Assistant 68 17,347 67 27,912 18,695 60.9 7.8Instructor 14 14,097 28 22,362 14,978 58.6 6.2

Overall 189 20,083 239 34,215 22,917 70.4 14.1Overall HoldingDistribution Constant5 20,206 34,215 22,917 69.3 13.4

Two-Year AcademicInstitutions

Overall 866 19,884 838 33,399 22,370 68.0 12.5Overall HoldingDistribution Constant5 19,911 33,399 22,370 67.7 12.4

'Consumer Price Index-United Stites with fiscal year 1980 = 100 0

'Include University of Minnesota-Twin Cities2Includes University of Minnesota-Duluth and Bernidp. Moorhead and Winona State Universities31ncludes University of Minnesota-Morns and Metropolitan and Southwest State Universities4includes University of Minnesota campuu3 at Crookston and Waseca and all Minnesota Community Colleges!Changes in average salary over time are the result of changes .n salaries and changes in the distribution of faculty by rank and institution This comps mon uses the 1987-88distribution of faculty by rank to compute the 1979-80 oversee and eliminate the impact of changes in rank

Source Mame Eymonene Anacleto'', 'IcIman, Virginia

51 37

Status

Table 1.43Tuition and Required Fees forResident Undergraduates at Public Universitiesin Selected States by Rank,1986-87 and i 987-88

1988-87Rank State Rate


1 Vermont $3,208 1 Vermont $3,4322 Pennsylvania 2,996 2 Pennsylvania 3,2923 Michigan 2,695 3 Michigan 2,8284 New Hampshire 2,529 4 New Hampshire 2,7545 New Jersey 2,278 5 New Jersey 2,5736 Virginia 2,238 6 Delaware 2,5017 Minnesota 2,205 7 Virginia 2,3668 Delaware 2,205 8 Minnesota 2,3319 Illinois 2,083 9 Illinois 2,215

10 Massachusetts 2 046 10 Connecticut 2,133National Average 1,592 21 Wisconsin 1,737

22 Wisconsin 1,570 National Average 1,70224 South Dakota 1,542 24 South Dakota 1,63130 Iowa 1,390 27 Iowa 1,56437 North Dakota 1,266 ..,..,,, New York 1,47440 Arizona 1,136 32 North Dakota 1,41250 Wyoming 778 40 Arkansas 1,230

50 Wyoming 778SOUTCO 1987-88 Rition and Fee Rams - A National Comparison, Highar Education Coordinating Board. Stew of Washington 1Fabruari 58881

the state's above average effortyields only average levels ofsupport per student.

Tab:es 1.60 through 1.62 showthe scores of Minnesotastudents oz college aptitudetests (the Preliminary ScholasticAptitude That, American Collegehating Program. and ScholasticAptitude That) during the pastdecade.

38

'MIAs 1.63 and 1.64 comparespending for post-secondaryeducation with spending forother state services. 'Bible 1.63shows total state general fundexpenditures in the 1987-89biennium by major categories.Thble 1.64 shows post-secondaryeducation expenditures as apercent of Minnesota generalfund expenditures for the past

52

14 years. Expenditures forpost-secondary educationinclude state appropriations,tuition revenue, and otherreceipts. This category includesexpenditures for the Universityof Minnesota, State UniversitySystem, Community CollegeSystem, technical institutes,and Higher EducatiuzCoordinating Board.

Status

Table I.44Average Tuition and Required Feesfor Resident Graduates at Public Universitiesin Selected States by Rank,1986-87 and 1987-88



1 Michigan $4,140 1 Michigan $4,5142 Vermont 3,208 2 Pennsylvania 3,5103 Pennsylvania 3,194 3 New Jersey 3,4384 New Jersey 2,995 4 Vermont 3,3685 Minnesota 2,683 5 Minnesota 2,8206 New Hampshire 2,529 6 New Hampshire 2,7547 Illinois 2,514 7 Illinois £,8628 Washington 2,319 8 Washington 2,5059 Wisconsin 2,255 9 Wisconsin 2,484

10 Connecticut 2,240 10 Ohio 2,481National Average 1,775 National Average 1,898

26 Iowa 1,646 23 Iowa 1,85230 Georgia 1,451 30 North Dakota 1,61031 North Dakota 1,446 Arkansas 1,61032 South Dakota 1,422 34 South Dakota 1,49440 Montana 1,227 40 Hawaii 1,27650 Texas 590 50 Texas 584

Source' 1987-88 Mason and Fat Rates A Navas.? Companion, Hoghtir Education Coordinating Board. State of Washington (February 19881

A

5039

Status

Teble 1.45Average Tuition and Required Feesfor Resident Undergraduates at Public Collegesand State Universities inSelected States by Rank,1986 -87 and 1987-88

1986-87Rank Stine Rate


1 Vermont $2,354 1 Vermont $2,4822 Virginia 2,077 2 Virginia 2,2153 New Hampshire 1,909 3 Pennsylvania 2,0394 Pennsylvania 1,882 4 New Hampshire 2,0005 Ohio 1,826 5 Ohio 1,9896 New Jersey 1,742 6 New Jersey 1,8817 Maryland 1,660 .... 7 Maryland 1,7808 Indiana 1,656 8 Indiana 1,7849 Minnesota 1,583 9 Michigan 1,675

10 Michigan 1,578 10 Minnesota 1,61715 South Dakota 1,447 13 Wisconsin 1,56417 Wisconsin 1,437 14 Iowa 1,54818 Iowa 1,324 17 South Dakota 1,499

National Average 1,289 National Average 1,38030 North Dakota 1,125 29 North Dakota 1,22640 Arkansas 909 30 Missouri 1,21846 Oklahoma 652 40 West Virginia 1,008

46 California 769

Source

40

1087-811 &Mon and Fos Rates - A National Comparison, Higher Education Coordinating board, State of Washington (February 19881

A01

Status

Tel? 101.46Average Tuition and Required Ft. JSfor Resident Graduates at Public Collegesand State Universities inSelected States by Rank,1986-87 and 1987 -83

198647Rank State Rate


1 Ohio $2,368 1 Ohio $2,5282 Vermont 2,354 2 New Jersey 2,3483 New York 2,198 3 New York 2,2374 Oregon 2,161 4 Vermont 2,2345 New Jersey 2,077 5 Oregon 2,2256 Virginia 1,945 6 Virginia 2,0747 New Hampshire 1,909 7 New Hampshire 2,0008 Wiscr sin 1,840 8 Pennsylvania 1,9939 Peni I,. ,,:vania 1,829 9 Wisconsin 1,971

10 Washington 1,710 10 Ind:ana 1,8261 I Iowa 1,476 13 Iowa 1,72021 Nortn Dakota 1,392 21 North Dakota 1,52122 Minnesota 1,385 National Average 1,478

National Average 1,378 25 Minnesota 1,41326 South Dakota 1,346 27 South Dakota 1,39630 Montana 1,146 30 Alabama 1,30540 New Mexico 839 40 New Mexico 95846 Oklahoma 516 46 Texas 591

Source. 1987-88 Moron and Fro Rates - A Nenonsl Compenson, HI Par Education Coordinatuv Board, Seats of Washington -,hruary1888)

5541

Status

Table 1.47Average Tuition and Required Feesfor Residents at Public Community Collegesin Selected States by Rank,1986-87 and I J87-88



1 Vermont $1,440 1 Wisconsin $1,3932 Wisconsin 1,;78 2 New York 1,3893 Indiana 1,270 3 Indiana 1,3434 New York 1,225 4 Vermont 1,3045 Minnesota 1,193 5 Minnesota 1,2386 North Dakota 1,108 6 North Dakota 1,2087 Pennsylvania 1,105 7 Ohio 1,1908 Ohio 1,090 8 Pennsylvania9 New Jersey 924 9 Maryland 1,020

10 Iowa 913 10 New Jersey 993National Average 736 12 Iowa 937

30 Louisiana 630 National Average 78040 Missouri 527 30 Tennessee 68148 California 100 40 Missouri 572

48 California 100

South Dakota not included South Dakota N/A

Source' 1987-88 1114ttai and Fin Rates A National Comparison. Higher Eduction Coordinating Board, State of Washington iFettruary 1988)

42 56

Status

Table I.48Total Payments, Need-Based Scholarships and Grantsfor Undergraduates, Selected StatesFiscal Years 1987 and 1988

Fiscal Year 1987 Fiscal Year 1988'

Rank State

Payments(in

thousands) Rank State

Payments(In

thousands)

1. New York $391,989 1. New York $381,0072. Illinois 131,788 2. Illinois 135,7223. California 112,770 3. California 135,0024. Penrsylvania 103,401 4. Pennsylvania 109,8235. Michigan 66,864 5. New Jersey 72,4756. Minnesota 65,473 6. Michigan 68,3807. New Jersey 63,978 7. Massachusetts 61,6548. Massachusetts 56,995 8. Minnesota 60,0009. Ohio 47,846 9. Ohio 49,400

10. Wisconsin 30,622 10. Indiana 45,40812. Iowa 22,378 11. Wisconsin 34,75446. South Dakota 563 12. Iowa 26,15747. North Dakota 503 46. South Dakota 58152. Wyoming 204 47. North Ijakota 540

52. Wyoming 204

lEstimated

Source National Association of Stat. Scholarship and Grant Programs, 19th Amore Sunfey Report, 1987-88 Acidernic lbw (January 1988)

Table 1.49Number of Awards, Need-Based Scholarshipsand Grants for Undergraduates, Selected StatesFiscal Years 1987 and 1988

Fiscal Yea- 1987 Fiscal Year 1988'

Rank StateNumber

of Awards Rank Stilt,1. New York 315,000 1. New York2 Pennsylvania 114,228 2. Pennsylvania3. III' -ois 100,810 3. Illinois4. Ohio 71,155 4. California5. California 67,877 5. Ohio6. Minnesota 63,199 6. Minnesota7. New Jersey 60,158 7. Massachusetts8. Puerto Rico 56,630 8. Puerto Rico9. Massachusetts 54,816 9. New Jersey

10. Wisconsin 48,507 10. Wisconsin18. Iowa 14,683 18. Iowa38. South Dakota 2,426 38 South Dakota45. North Dakota 1,175 44. North Dakota52. Alaska 166 52. Alaska

Inmates)

Source: National Association of State Scholarship and Grant Programs, 19th Annual Survey Ripon, 1987-88 Reedier* Year (January 1988)

57

Numberof Awards

305,400114,176101,02570,18568,00066,00059,27556,63054,46652,12516,4752,4261,200

160

43

Status

Lble 1.50Average Award, Need-Based Scholarships and Grantsfor Undergraduates, Selected StatesFiscal Years 1987 and 1988

Fiscal Year 1987 Fiscal Year 1988'

Rank StateAverageAward Rank State

AverageAward

1. South Carolina $2,097 1. South Carolina $2,' 122. California 1,661 2. California 1,9243. Iowa 1,524 3. Iowa 1,5584. Michigan 1,460 4 Alaska 1,5005. Alaska 1,380 5. Michigan 1,4926. District of Columbia 1,346 6. Indiana 1,4107. Illinois 1,307 7. District of Columbia 1,4058. New York 1,244 8. Illinois 1,3449. Texas 1,200 9. New Jersey 1,331

10. Missouri 1,1'1 10. Texas 1,26215. Minnesota 1,036 National Average 1,070

National Average 1,018 18. Minnesota 90936. Wisconsin 631 37. Wisconsin 66745. North Dakota 428 45. North Dakota 45051. South Dakota 232 5 i . South Dakota 23952. Puerto Rico 216 62. Puerto Rico 226

'Estimated

Source National Association of State Scholarship and Grant Programs, 19th Annual Survey Report, 1987-88 Acadatnte Year (January 19881

Table 1.51Estimated Grant Dollars to Undergraduatesin 1987-88 per Undergraduate Enrollment, by State'

Rank StateNeed -Based Aid

to Undergraduates

1. New York $5332. Vermont 3553. New Jersey 3264. Illinois 2825. Minnesota 2736. Pennbylvania 2657. Indiana 2218. Massachusetts 2189. Iowa 208

10. Rhode Island 18211. Wisconsin 165

National Average 15436. South Dakota 2242. North Dakota 1750. Idaho 10

'Grant dollars Sr. estimates for 1987-88. Enrollment data are U.S Department of Education "Fall Enrollmen in Colleges and Universities 1985' The Minnesota f ,e has bunadjusted to include technical institute headcount enrollment. this has not bun done for other states The federal data include only collegiate students

Source: National Association of State Scholarship and Grant programs. 19th Annul Sumo), Report 1987-88 Academic ION (January 19881

4453

Status

Table 1.52Five-Year Percent Change in Aggregate Dollarsof Awards for Comprehensive UndergraduateNeed Based Scholarship and Grant Programs(Amounts in Thousands), 1982-83 - 1987-88

Rank State 1982-83 1987-88'Flve-Year

Percent Change

1. Massachusetts 16,650 61,654 270.32. Maine 518 1,422 174.53. Tennessee 7,221 16,500 128.54. Indiana 19,880 45,408 128.45. Michigan 30,499 68,380 124.26. Washington 5,979 12,975 117.07. Arkansas 1,866 3,896 108.88. Minnesota 29,217 60,000 105.49. Kentucky 6,316 12,229 93.6

10. Connecticut 8,594 12,337 90.118. Iowa 17,259 26,157 51.619. Wisconsin 23,040 34,754 50.8

National 957,955 1,421,085 48.339. South Dakota 531 581 9.451. North Dakota 699 540 --22.7F. Idaho 462 343 -25.8

1Eilt Mated

Source National Association of Stale Scholarship and Grant Programs, 19th Annual Survey Report, 1987-88 Academic Year iJa. uary 1988)

5;)

45

Z......--

Status

Table 153Student Enrollment Per 1,000 Residentsin Selected States by Rank 1987-88 and Minnesota1977-78 1987-88

Student Enrollment Load19P7-88

Annual FTE PublicStudents Per

1,000 Population Index

System Financial Load -Public Students Load

AdjustedPer 1,000 Population

Index1 North Dakota 44.4 149 1612 Wisconsin 39.5 133 134S. Minnesota 39.0 131 1364. California 38.4 129 1175. Kansas 38.3 129 1386. North Carolina 37.3 125 1247. Wyoming 36.8 123 1218. Alabama 35.8 123 1259. Michigan 35.7 123 122

10. Colorado 35.6 113 12419. Iowa 32.9 110 12039. South Dakota 25.1 84 96

United States 29.8 100 1 CO

Minnesota 1977-78 - 1987-88

1977-78 35.3 1171979-80 37.3 1211980-81 39.5 1241981-82 39.9 1251982-83 39.1 1231983-84 38.1 1221984-85 36.9 1221985-86 37.5 1261986-87 38.5 1291987-88 39.0 '31

Student Ent tment. Annual average fullime-equivalent students in public institutions of higher education per 1.000 population Measures financial load for funding that supportsstudent-relaed functions of instruction, academic and institutional s ippon, siadent services, and operation and maintenance of the olant Makes no distinction betweenthe varied support requirements of the different types of institutions in the ttate system

Source Research AlltOCiateS of Washington, State Profiles Financing Public Higher Education 1978 to 1988

6046

-Status

Table I.54Tax Revenue Per Capita 1986 andAllocation to Public Higher Education 1987-88 inSelected States by Rank 1987-88 and Minnesota1977-78 1987-88

Tax Revenue1986 Estimated

DollarsPer

Capita Index

Allocation to PublicHigher Education

1987-88

Education(Total) Appropriation

as a Percent ofTax Revenue Index

1. Alaska $4,602 310 1. Alabama 13.1% (16.8) 1612. Wyoming 2,615 176 2. Idaho 13.0 (14.7) 1603. District Columbia 2,595 175 3. North Carolina 13.0 (16.5) 1604. New York 2,406 162 4. California 11.4 (12.6) 1405. Massachusetts 1,901 128 5. New Mexico 11.1 (14.1) 1376. Connecticut 1,889 127 6. North Dakota 10.8 (14.6) 1327. New Jersey 1,838 124 7. Utah 10.7 (12.2) 1328. Hawaii 1,762 :19 8. Tennessee 10.3 (12.7) 1279. Wisconsin 1,708 115 9. South Carolina 10.2 (14.1) 125

10. Mi:higan 1,691 114 10. Hawaii 10.1 (12.4) 12412. Minnesota 1,648 111 13. Minnesota 9.7 (11.2) 11932. North Dakota 1,244 84 18. Iowa 9.1 (10.9) 11244. South Dakota 1,099 74 22. Wisconsin 8.8 19.9) 108

42. South Dakota 6.2 (8.3) 76

United States $1,487 100 United States 8.1% 19.8) 100

Minnesota 1977-78 - 1987-88 Minnesota 1977-78 - 1987-88

1977-78 $ 824 115 1977-78 10.3% 1191979-80 958 116 1979-80 10.3 1171980-81 1,053 122 1980-81 9.5 10419%41-82 1,078 114 1981-82 10.5 11619,2.83 1,121 109 1982-83 9.9 1151983-84 1,221 110 19C3-84 9.8 1151984-85 1,418 121 1984-85 8.9 1001985-86 1,638 126 1985-86 8.4 991986-87 1,697 121 1P86-87 9.1 1101987-88 1,648 111 1987-88 9.7 119

Tax Ravanuse. State and Local tax revenue collected per capita Collected *ex revenuerepresents the wealth avail...rle to state and local governments for public use The indexessentially identifies "rich" versus "pour states according to t.le size of their currenttax income State wealth such es nontax revenues from government fees end chargesfor ',imp certain public services are not included

Allocation to Public Higher Education. State and local tix revenue appropriated or leviedfor Lurrsint operating education 114111111 of public institutions Tt is ratio suggests therelative importance end requirements of financing public student education to thefunding of other public services in tho state and local government budgets The ratio fortotal appropriations is shown in I I

Source Research Associates of Washington. State Profile^ Financing Public Higher Education 1978 to 1988

47

Status

Table 1.55Education App, priations Per Student 1987-88in Selected States by Rank and Minnesota1977-78 1987-88

Education Apprtpriationsper Student 1987-88

Dollarsper

Student Index

Relativeto SystemFinancial

LoadIndex Rank

10-YearConstant

DollarChange

Res-Ag-MedApprop. as a

Percent ofTotal Approp.

IS/Capita)1. District Columbia $9,326 230 228 (2) 11.8% 0.0% $0.02. Alaska 9,048 223 237 (1) -18.1 7.5 (19.5)3. Hawaii 6,806 168 163 (4) 9.3 18.9 141.3)4. Wyoming 6,203 153 156 (5) 6.9 9.7 (24.5)5. New York 6,115 151 1M (3) 23.1 14.1 (23.616. New Jersey 5,540 137 145 (61 28.8 21.0 (29.3)7. Massachusetts 5,482 135 138 (8) 16.5 4.9 (6.1)8. Connecticut 5,468 135 139 (71 7.7 16.2 (20.7)9. Maine 4,938 122 116 (10) 59.1 6.0 (7.2)

10. California 4,920 121 133 (9) 4 9 97 (20.3)19. Minnesota 4,080 101 97 (19) -11.4 13.9 (25.8)23. Iowa 3,903 96 88 (29) -9.3 16.3 (24.9)25. Wisconsin 3,796 93 93 (22) 13.4 11.2 19.043. North Dakota 3,016 74 69 (45) -20.2 26.0 (47.1)48. South Dakota 2,705 67 59 (49) -24.5 25.2 (22.9)

United States $4,053 100 100 2.5 17.1 (24.9)

Minnesota 1977-78 - 1987.88

1977-78 $2,349 116 112 14.3% ($14.211979-80 2,652 112 108 14.4 (16.7)1980-81 2,543 102 98 14.0 (16.4)1981-82 2,828 105 101 14.2 (18.7)1982-83 2,849 102 98 14.4 (18.7)1983-84 3,136 104 100 146 (20.4)1984-85 3,438 99 95 15.3 (23.0)1985-86 3,677 99 95 14.7 (23.8)1986-87 4,017 103 99 14.0 (25.3)1987-88 4,080 101 97 139 (25.8)

Education Appropriations per Student State and local tax revenue appropriated for current operating education expenses of public institutions per annual FTE student Indicatesaverage state support to individual students without taking into account the types of institutions rtended Education appropriations related to the state system s fundingrequirements are reported as an index Appropriations for research. agriculture, and medical schools are reported as a percent of total appropriations to suggest relative importanceand par capita as a woad mature

Source Smirch Associates of Washington, State Profiles Financing Public Higher Education 1978 to 1988

48

Status

Tablas 1.56Estimated Net Tuition Revenue Per Studentin Selected States by Rank and Minnesota1977-78 1987-88

Estknated Net Tuition1937-88

Dollarsper

Student Index


LoadIndex Rank

19-YearConstant

DollarChange

Relativeto PersonalDisposableIncome/Cap

Index (Rank)

1. Vermont $4,927 394 340 11) 42.8% 432 (1)2. De !awe'', 3,301 264 249 (2) 31.8 260 12)3. New Hampshire 3,083 247 237 13) 1.3 216 13)4. Pennsyl,tania 2,460 197 197 14) 23.8 210 14)5. Michigan 2,096 168 164 15) 51.9 166 17)6. Rhode Island 1,887 151 149 16) 42.4 148 112)7. Ohio 1,823 146 134 19) 16.9 153 111)8. Indiana 1,788 1 ',3 129 113) 18.3 158 18)9. Iowa 1,782 143 131 111) 19.6 154 110)

10. Colorado 1,750 140 135 18) 41.5 1Z5 (16)11. Wisconsin 1,750 140 139 (7) 14.3 145 113)24. North Dakota 1,322 106 98 (26) 28.0 120 123)28. Minnesota .261 1G1 97 (29) 32.6 99 130)34. South Dakota 1,133 91 79 139) 9.3 106 (27)

United States $1,250 100 100 20.8% 100

Minnesota 1977-78 1987-88

1977-78 $ 485 92 88 941979-80 600 97 93 961980-81 633 93 90 921981-82 710 94 91 941982-83 872 104 100 1031983-84 981 104 100 1041984-85 1,138 110 106 11119P -86 1,184 106 102 105191Ek, 37 1,164 99 95 991987-88 1,261 101 97 99

Net Million Permian per Student. Tutlon 111VIN10011 of oubhc institutions par annual FTE student indicates average tuition (Nos state appropriated student aid) paid by all residentand non-resident students without recognizing tM types of institutions attended. Tuition related to the state system's funding requirements is reported as on index. Tuition revenuesper student relative to disposable personal income per capita indicates tuition level relative to resident ability to pay

Source: Rmeerch Associates of Washington. State Profiles' Financing Public Higher Education 1078 to 1988

C) "t..)

49

Status

Table I.57Education Appropriations Per Studentand Estimated Tuition Per Student 1987-88in Selected States by Rank and Minnesota1977-78 - 1987-88

Education Appropriations& Est.

Tuition per Student

Dollarsper

Student


LoadIndex Index (Rank)

10-YearConstant

DollarChange

1. District Colurnbia $10,133 191 189 (2) 13.1%2. Alaska 10,129 191 203 (1) -17.33. Delaware 7.545 142 134 (7) 25.74. Hawaii 7,525 142 138 (5) 10.05. New York 7,304 138 150 (3) 18.56. Wyoming 6,979 132 134 (6) 1.37. New Jersey 6,950 131 139 (4) 28.28. Vermont 6,945 131 113 (13) 22.09. Massachusetts 6,901 130 133 (9) 16.8

10. Connecticut 6,894 130 134 (8) 10.217. Iowa 5,685 107 98 (22) -1.919. Wisconsin 5,546 105 104 (17) -6.222. Minnesota 5,340 101 97 (24) -3.945. North Dakota 4,338 82 76 (47) -9.951. South Dakota 3,838 72 63 (51) -20.6

United States $5,303 100 100 6.3

Minnesota 1977-78 - 1987-88

1977-78 2,834 111 1071979-80 3,251 109 1051980-81 3,176 100 961981-82 3,538 103 991982-83 3,721 103 991984-84 4,117 104 1001984-85 4,576 101 971985-86 4,861 100 971986-87 5,180 102 981987-88 5,340 101 97

Education Appropriations and Nat nation par Student. Appropriations and tuition revenues for Currant ow.rating education expenses for public institutiont per annual FTE studentIndicates support for individual students without taking into account the types of institutions attended Education appropriations and tuition related to the state system's financialsupport requiremants is reported as an index

Source Research Associates of Washington, State Prattles. Financing Public Higher Education 1978 to 1988

50

II -IIMIIMIIMIEMIIMI611:=MMIMEMMIIMMII

Status

Table 1.58Potential Tax Revenues Per Student 1987-88in Selected States by Rank and Minnesota1977-78 1987-88

Potential Tax RevenuesPer Student

1987-88

Dollarsper

Student Index


LoadIndex (Rank)

1. District ...31umbia $151,145 303 300 2)2. Alaska 150,986 303 322 1)3. Connecticut 98,066 197 203 3)4. New Jersey 88,574 178 189 4)5. Nevada 87,233 175 164 5)6. Massachusetts 78,730 158 161 6)7. Florida 74,180 149 155 7)8. New Hampshire 72,925 146 141 9)9. Hawaii 66,141 133 129 11)

10. New York 65,448 131 143 8)22. South Dakota 48,070 96 85 31)42. Minnesota 38,493 77 74 42)45. Iowa 37,017 74 68 46)48. Wisconsin 33,486 67 66 48)49. North Dakota 32,779 66 61 51)

United States $49,858 100 100

Minnesota 1977-78 1987-88

1977-78 $ 19,243 83 801979-80 22,341 83 801980-81 23,113 85 811981-82 24,316 82 791982-83 26,37S 81 78198? 34 28,808 81 781' 35 30,964 79 76

D-86 33,354 76 73-.3-87 37,027 78 75

1987-88 38,493 77 74

Potendsl Tax Revenue Per Student These combined input factors establish a state's basic potential to finance public institutions relative to student enrollment load. Reportsrelatively stable tax potential to finance individual student's education without taking into account the types of institutions attended. Tax potential related to the state system'sfinancial support requirement is reported as an index

Source Research Associatos of Washington, State Profiles Financing Punk Higher Educanon 1978 to 1988

G 5

51

Status

Table 1.59Collective Financial Actionsin Selected States by Rank 1987-88and Minnesota1977-78 1987-88

Collective Financial Actions1987-88 Percent Index


LoadIndex (Rank)

1. Wisconsin 16.6% 156 154 (1)2. Iowa 15.4 144 132 (5)3. Alabama 15.3 144 138 (2)4. Michigan 14.6 137 135 (4)5. Utah 14.4 136 127 (7)6. North Carolina 14.3 135 136 (3)7. D'Iaware 14.2 134 126 (8)8. Sr.uth Carolina 14.0 132 132 (6)9. Minnesota 1:4.9 130 125 (10)

10. Mississippi 13.5 127 126 (9)11. North Dakota 13.2 124 115 (14)43. South Dakota 8.0 75 66 (47)

United States 10.6 100 100

Minnesota 1977-78 - 1987-88

1977-78 14.7% 124 1291979-80 14.6 130 1251980-81 13.7 118 1131981-82 14.5 126 1211982-83 14.1 126 1211983-84 14.3 128 1241984-85 14.8 128 1231985-86 14.6 132 1271986-87 14.0 130 1251987-88 13.9 130 12.-

Collective Financial Acdons The combined factors are the financial actions that °stab: h the degree to which the potential tax dollars per student are actually utilized to achieve thesupport level provided States with high levels are making a substantial combined tax efizrt, allocation to education, and tuition charge to finance public institutions The fictionsrelated to the state system's financial support rfiquirements is reported as an index

Source. Research Associates of Washington, State Profiles Financing Public Higher Education 1978 to 1988

6652

Sti-$

Table 1.60Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test Mean Scores,Minnesota High School Juniorsand National College-Bound Juniors,1979-1988

YearEndirg

Minnesota Participation Minnesota NationalNumber Participation Verbal Math Verbal Math

1979 26,418 33.7 40.9 47.0 40.6 44.8198') 26,879 35.1 40.8 47.7 40.3 45.31981 26,869 39.1 41.2 47.4 40.6 45.21982 27,311 42.4 41.9 46.9 41.5 45.11983 26,064 40.1 41.9 46.9 41.1 44.71984 28,600 45.8 41.2 46.4 40.9 44.71985 28,689 46.5 41.0 46.0 41.0 44.21986 29,647 46.0 41.1 46.7 40.3 45.01987 30,892 48 0 41.3 46.5 40.9 45.01988 29,081 48.0 40.1 46.5 40.4 45.0

Note Includes only those students who authorized release of their scores to the Post-High School Planning Program

Source: Midwestern Regional Office, The College Board (national trend) Minnesota Post -High School Planning Program (state trend)

Table 1.61ACT Composite Scores,Minnesota and National,1978-79 - 1987-88

SchoolYear

MinnesotaNationalMinnesota

MeanTotal

StudentsEstimatedPercent' Mean Total

1978-79 20.5 20,315 25.9 18.6 NA1979-80 20.3 19,562 25.6 18.5 NA1980-81 20.3 18,938 27.5 18.5 NA1982-83 20.2 17,839 27.2 18.3 NA1983-84 20.2 18,134 29.0 18.5 NA1984-85 2').2 17,635 28.5 18.6 738,8361985-86 20.3 17,615 27.9 18 8 729,6061986-87 20.2 20,119 31,5 18.7 777,4441987-88 19.9 25,648 4 1 18.8 842,322

leased on number of high school juniors for each year

Source ACT

6753

Status

Table 1.62Mean SAT Scores,Minnesota and National,1980-1988

SchoolYear

MinnesotaNationalMinnesota

Verbal MathTotal

StudentsEstimatedPer Mit' Verbal Math

1980 491 544 4,814 6.8 424 4661981 486 539 5,074 7.4 424 4661982 435 543 4,983 7.5 426 4671983 482 538 5,631 8.9 425 4681984 4C1 539 6,623 11.1 426 471985 481 537 7,304 12.7 431 475

1986 482 540 7,764 13.8 431 4751987 472 531 10,162 17.5 430 4761988 470 531 10,722 18.4 428 476

1 Based on number of high school seniors for each year

Source. The College Board

Table I.63State of Minnesota General Fund Expendituresby Major Categories,1987-89 Biennium'

Category Amount Percent

Aid to School Districts $ 3,007,743.4 25.7Post-Secondary Education 2,205,077.7 18.9Property Tax Credits and Refunds 1,767,277.6 15.1Medical Assistance/General Assistance Medical 1,313,413.0 11.2Local Government Aid 647,806.9 5.5Debt Service and Short-Term Borrowing 268,878.9 2.3Income Maintenance 251,873.9 2.2Other Major Local Assistanc, 490,418.6 4.2State Institutions 594,495.8 5.1Legislature, Judicial, Constitutional 182,611.1 1.6State Agencies 966,812.0 8.3

Total $11,696,408.9 100.0

(Fiscal Year 1988 actual. 1989 estimated. $40 million in cancellations expected, making actual expenditure $11.858,408 9

Source Minnesote Department of Finance

C4 6S

Section 2Policy Issues

This section summarizes policyissues addressed by the HigherEducation Coordinating Boardduring the past two years,including some projectsscheduled for completion inearly 1989.

The section is divided into fiveparts. The first covers fundingand financial aid issues. Thesecond covers projects and issuesrelating to governance, missiondifferentiation, and planning. Thethird part reviews projects toimprove quality. The fourth partdescribes projects to enhancecoordination and cooperation. Thefifth part covers projects toimprove information andassessment services.

55

Policy lawn

Funding is 4 Financial Aid

This part provides an update onthe work of the average costfunding task force and previewsthe Coordinating Board'spost-secondary education coststudy scheduled for release inlate 1988. It presents theconclusions andrecommendations of the Board'sstudy of graduate andprofessional education releasedin January 1987 and a follow-upstudy on financing policies forstudents in high cost Universityof Minnesota health professionsprograms. This part presentsthe conclusions andrecommendations from theBoard's studies of GuaranteedStudent Loan borrowers, statesaving incentive and prepaidtuition plans, and theimplications cf expanding theGracivated Repayment IncomeProtection Proutua.

Average Cost Fundinglink Force

The Average Cost Funding TaskForce conducted severalactivities during the 1987-89biennium. The task force revisedits issue agenda, reviewed itsstructure and conductedanalyses of its two highest,Liority issues. The task force

also suspended work on its issueagenda for several months in1987, pending the outconr Athe 1967 legislative session.

Agenda: The task force reviewedand revised its issue agenda.Several policy and technicalissues were added. A survey oftask force members wasconducted and each issue wasassigned a priority. Following isthe priority list.

56

I. Adequat,. Funding LevelSystem representatives contendthat their systems are notadequately funded. Somemaintain that funding levelshave not been adjusted to reflectchanges in mission or type ofstudent served. Current fundinglevels are not sufficient tofinance desired staffing ratios,needed support services, orequipment and supplypurchases.

2. Counterincentives in theCurrent Policies Severalcounterincentives in the currentfinancing policies have beenidentified.

A. Incentive to maintainenrollments. Since allinstructional funding varieswith enrollments, the currentpolicy provides an incentive forsystems to maintain enrollmentlevels. Consequently, a systemchoosing to contract faces asignificant counterincentive.

B. Incentive to retain low costprograms and avoid high costprograms. The current policiesspecify that stateappropriations for instructionequal 67 or 74 percent ofinstructional expenditures.Consequently, a systemchoosing to reduce itsenrollments in low costprograms and maintain itsenrollments in high costprograms would experienceincreases in per studentexpenditures and in tuition ratesthat would exceed the rate ofinflation.

C. Incentive to serve studentswho are easy to educate.Average cost funding providesan incentive to cc ;trainspending levels by reducingfunding proportionately asenrollments decline.Consequently, it

70

provides an incentive to educatestudents who are less expensiveto serve and a counterincentiveto serve students who are moreexpensive to serve.

3. Treatment of Fixed CostsThe average cost funding policytreats all instructionalexpenditures as though theyvary proportionately withenrollments. It is argued,however, that certain categoriesof expenditures remain fixed fora range ol enrollLient levels.

4. Difficulty in Funding NewPrograms The reduction infunding proportionately withenrollments and the provision offunds on the basis ofenrollments two years earlierconstrain the funds available forthe development andimplementation of newinstructional and supportprograms.

5. Average Cost Funding andMinnesota's Objectives r rPost-secondary EducationMinnesota has certainobjectives for post-secondaryeducation. The state's fundingpolicy for public post-secondaryeducation systems should helpachieve those objectives. Someargue that average cost fundingdoes not help achieve the state'scurrent objectives.

C. The Funding of ExtensionEnrollments The average costpolicy is used to financeinstruction in the publicsystems that is creditabletoward a degree or certificate.There appear to he differencesamong the systems, however, inthe type of extension instructionthat is degree or certificatecreditable.

Policy Issues

7. Average Cost Funding andInterstate Tuition Reciprocity

Some neighboring stes withwhich Minnesota has interstatetuition reciprocity agreementsare tightening admissionstandards and/or establishingenrollment limitations at someof their public post- secondaryinstitutions. 'lb the extent thatthese actions result in increasedenrollments at Minnesota'spublic post - secondaryinstitutions, there will be costimplications for the state.

8. Consideration ofIncorporating Capital Fundi, gInto the Current Funding Poeicy

The biennial budget processprovides operating funds andfacility repair and replacementfunds. Capital funds areprovided through the ...vitalbudgeting process. It has beenargued that the curr;:nt capitalbudgeting procez:, provideslittle incentive for the systemsto constrain their requests for oruse of physical plant space. Ithas been suggested that theincorporation of capital fundinginto the biennial budget processmight strengthen the incentiveto constrain the requests for anduse of physical plant space.

9. The Treatm' nt of StudentHealth Service ad ActivityFees and Expenditures Thereare differences in the extent towhich the public systemssupport student 11.-..alth servicesand activities with state funds.

10. The Treatment of NewProgram Funding in theEnrollment Error Adjustment

An adjustment to theinstructional spending base ismade each biennium for thevariation between actualenrollment and the estimateused to fund the second y ear of

the biennium. The adjustment isbased on total instructionalspending and affects fundinglevels in subsequent biennia. -3talinstructional spending issupported by enrollment relateafunding and by funding providedfor new programs. The fundingfor new programs, however, wasnot provided on the basis ofenrollments. Consequently, theadjustment alters non-enrollmentrelated instructional fundinglevels for new programs on thebasis of enrollments.

Structure e the 'ask Force: Thetask force conducted a review of''.1. structure and consideredalternatives. Ihsk force membersexpressed concern eNout thestructure of the task force at theJanuary 1987 meeting. Theconcerns focused on the existenceof two processes for addressingpolicy issues, the task force andthe Highe: Education AdvisoryCouncil's mission differentiationprocess. Members noted a lack ofcoordination between the twoprocesses in addressing similarissues. After a review of itsstructure and consideration ofalternatives, the troll. forcedecided to retain it. ,arrantstructure.

Issues: The task force hadidentified difficulties resultingfrom the two year lag in fundingas an issue that it wanted toaddress. Large increases insystem enrollment from one yearto the next were resulting insignificant differences betweenactual and funded enrollments.After stt..Ay of the issue, the taskforce recommended a change instate funding policy to the 1988Legislature.

The task force recommended amarginal cost approach to fund

enrollments above levels fundedby average cost funding and thetwo year lag. State appropria-tions for each unfunded studentwould be equal to marginal costminus marginal revenue. Thetask force recommended thatmarginal costs be set equal to 65percent of system levellegislative intent average cost.This percentage appeared to beabout the mid-point of margins!cost estimates prepared by eachsystem. The task forcerecommended that marginalrevenue be set equal to systemlevel legislative intent averagetaition revenue. Thisrecommendation did not alterthe current average cost fundingpolicy and two year lag infunding.

The 1988 Legislature adoptedthis approach to fund the threepublic systems that hadexperienced enrollmentincreases since two years earlier.The approach provided anadditional $13 3 million in totalstate appropriations to the threesystems. The appropria-tions were provided on anon-recurring basis and are notto be included in the base budgetfor the 19E9-91 biennium.

The task foi ce identifiedadequate funding as its toppriority issue in June 1988. Thetask force began work on ananalysis of the adequacy of thesystems' funding levels in June1988. The analysis will examinepast and current spendinglevels, changes in the types ofstudents served, andcomparisons of spending inMinnesota public institutionswith that in peer institutions.The results of this analysis willbe available for consideration bythe 1989 Legislature in makingits funding decisions.

71 57

Policy Issues

Post-Secondary Cost Study

Post-secondary institutions'costs of providing instructionhave come under closer scrutiny;n recent years. Concernregarding apid increases intuition rates has cirectedattention toward the cost ofproviding instruction. Measureshave been proposed to containtl . growth in post-secondarycosts. The Higher EducationCoordinating Board placed apost-secondary cost study on its1987-90 Management Plan toaddress this issue for theMinnesota publicpost-secondary systems.

Background: Thepost-secondary cost study willdocument recent trenns intuition and costs ofpublic post-secondaryinstruction. The national andMinnesota data suggest that theprice of attending a highereducation institution and thecost of providing the instructionhave risen since the early 1980sat a rate which exceeds that ofinflation and disposable income.Minnesota's operating costtrends will be examined withsystem level data oninstructional costs; nationaloperating cost trends will beexamined using finance datacollecten through the U.S.Department of Education'sIntegrated Post-SecondaryEducation Data System(IPEDS.

Issues: The study will explorethe reasons fur the recent trendsin tuition and cost and analyzetheir implications. Mostexplanations have suggestedthat increases in faculty salariesand certain non-personnelexpezditures, increases inadministrative expenditures,and increases in institutionally

58

funded financial aid are theprimary causes of the increasesit the cost of instruction andtuition. These explanationsalong with other possiblereasons will be explored. Thistask will rely primarily on areview of existing research.

The study will assess theimplications of these trends forstudents, institutions, systems,and the state. Their influence onexisting finance policies will bedetermined and evaluated.

Finally, the study will identifyand assess state andinstitutional cost containmentstrategies. The strategies will bebased prin. on a literaturereview of pertinent articles andjournals relating to costcontainment. The identificationwill draw in part on theexpe_lencb of health careproviders in containing coats.

Status: The study wasscheduled for presentation tothe Coordinating Board inDecember 1988.

Financing of Craduate aidProfessional Education

Across Cie nation, as well as inMinnesota, graduate andprofessional education are beingreassessed for several reasons.One issue is how to maintain acapacity for providing balanced,high quality advanced studywhile meeting changing patternsof demand. Related issues arehow to prepare for anticipatedchanges in demand and how tomaintain an adequate lcrel ofaccessibility for students in theface of these circumstances. InMinnesota, the University ofMinnesota, the state's largestprovider of graduate andprofessional education, is

72

implementing Commitment toFocus. Through this plan theUniversity is placing moreemphasis on graduate andprofessional programs andimprovement in its nationalposition as a graduate institution.Commitment to Focus hrscontributed to an examination ofmission differentiation among thestate's other post-secondarysystems to reduce duplication ofeffort. A major element is arequest that state governmentchange its financing policies forpost-secondary education to helpthe University achieve its goals.

In 1987, the Coordinating Boardstaff completed a studyassessing the relationship ofvarious state policies forpest - secondary education tograduate and professionaleducation.' A staff policy paperand a technical i eport werepresented to the Board.'

Issues: The study explored statefinancing policies by posingthree questions:

What methods does stategovernment employ to supportadvanced study?

How appropriate are thesemeths of support for fulfillingthe state's interests?

Could alternative methodsbe more effective in pursuit ofthe state's interests?

The study does not indicate howmuch the state should spend orwhat specific programs or areasof advanced study shouldreceive financial support.

I Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board,The Financing of Graduate and ProfessionalEducation in Minnesota (Policy Peperl withCoordinatke Board RecommendaHone (February 19.19871

&Minnesota Higher Education Coerdinating Board,The Financing of Graduate and ProfessionalEducation in Minnesota (Staff Tedutic.al Pepsi).1.1anuary 19871.

Policy Issues

Results of the study, however,may help determine theappropriate state role andmethods of financing particulartypes of programs to meet thestate's objectives.

Three broad concepts areexplored.

General, unrestrictedfinancing of institutions thatoffer graduate or professionaleducation.

Financing of specificprograms, projects, or activitiesthat are related to advancedstudy.

Financing of students whoundertake advanced study.

These approaches are notmutually exclusive. However,the implications of each differ.Providing general support forinstitutions leaves discretionover specific programs and levelof funding for them largely toinstitutions. Financing ofspecific programs allows forgreater initiatives by thefinancing source in settinginstitutional priorities andresource allocations. Financingof students miller thaninstitutions or programs focusesresponsibility for educationalchoices on students and theirsources of support.

Conclusions: The study led tothe following conclusions:

General Financing Issues

Separate, non-enrollmentdriven funding for graduate andprofessional education could bemore stable than the genes al,systemwide approach newemployed, but it would i. crudeinto governing board autonomyand would pose academic,staffing, and budgetarydifficulties.

Reducing the state's tuitionexpectations from graduate andprofessional instruction couldreduce the financial burden onstudents, but it would encroachon governing board authority toset tuition without making agreat reduction in students'total costs of attendance.

Expanded use of restrictedprogram funding could promoteactivities desired by the state,but it would intrude intoinstitutional autonomy andwould risk misdirected orunstable support.

State-funded, merit-basedfellowships and other grantscould be an incentive to pursueadvanced education despiteunfavorable, short-term marketconditions for prospectivestudents.

2 State-funded, need-basedgrants could increase financialaccess for students, but theywould be difficult to administerand would not be targeted to themost talented students.

Creative financing methodssponsored 53, the state couldhelp students overcome risksinvolved in pursuing advancedstudies.

Specific Financing Issues

'lb be nationally competitivefor highly talented students inPh.D. programs, Minnesotainstitutions not only need tooffer outstanding programs butalso might have to offer financialincentives.

Projected surpluses ofpractitioners in some firstprofessional fields could lead todeclining enrollments, which

7 r)J

might make special supportfrom the state desirable tosustain the quality of programs.

Nonfinancing Issues

Reassessment ofinstitutional roles in providinggraduate and professionaleducation in Minnesota mightbe neces sry as circumstanceschange.

The state's role incontributing Minnesota's "fairshare" nationally to graduateand professional educationdeserves attention.

The apparent imbalancebetween Minnesota's share ofnational population andadvanced degrees conferreddeserves attention.

Recommendations: Based on thefindings and conclusions of thestudy, the Coordinating Boardadopted the followingrecommendations:

1. That the legislature supportthe general, unrestrictedfinancing of systems as thebasic means of supportinggraduate and professionaleducation in Minnesota's publicsystems of higher education.

2. That in cases wheninstitutions propose terminationof graduate and professionalprograms or seek specialfunding for them, the HigherEducation Coordinating Boardexamine need for thoseprograms and determine thesuitable response to address theneed.

3. The legislature approve theUniversity of Minnesota'srequest for funds to providegrac"uate fellowships.

59

Policy Issues

4. That the Board staffimmediately begin working withthe University of Minnesota toexplore assistance for studentsin the health professions infinancing their education, andthat such exploration focus ontargeted grant programs.

5. That the Higher EducationCoordinating Board exploremore creative ways to assistgraduate and professionalstudents in financing theireducation.

6. The post-secondarycommunity explore furtherissues emerging from this studyrelated to the quantity ofgraduate and professionaleducation in Minnesota.

7. That the Higher EducationCoordinating Board, in concertwith the post-secondaryeducation community, expkrethe establishment of guidelinesfor outcomes of graduate andprofessional educationprograms in Minnesota.

Financing Policies for High CostUniversity of Minnesota HealthProfessions Programs

In April 1967, the HigherEducation Coordinating Boarddirected staff "to immediatelybegin working with theUniversity of Minnesota toexplore more creative ways toassist students in healthprofessions in financing theireducation and that suchexploration focus on targetedgrant programs?'

Background: The state'sfundingttolicy for publiccollegiate institutions assumesthat 33 percent of a system'sinstructional cost will be

60

covered by tuition receipts. TheUniversity of Minnesota Boardof Regents' policy is to movetoward tuition rates that willcover 33 percent of instructionalcost within a program or groupof similar programs.

For many years, tuition incertain high cost healthprofessions programs has paidfor less than one third of thecosts of these programs.Students in other programs,especially undergraduates, havepaid more than one third of theircosts. The University wishes toreduce these cost shifts. Iftuition in the certain healthprofessions programs increasesto 33 percent of the cost ofinstruction, the Universitybelieves that it will not be ableto compete with otherunix ersities for the mostqualified students. Anadditional concern is that highertuition would require manystudents to accept loans thatrequire an unreasonablerepayment at typical incomesfor graduates.

The University has proposedthat a separate category of sixunique and high cost healthprofessions programs be createdfor funding purposes. Thelegislature has been asked tofund 75 percent of the cost orinstruction for these programs.This proposal is called the"tuition offset" approach. Itwould allow tuition to remain at25 percent of the cost ofinstruction, the currentproportion across the group ofsix programs.

Issues: A key issue is whetherconditions at the Universitywarraiiv special state funding.Any form of special treatment issubject to later similar requests

74

by other programs, includingprograms in other publicinstitutions.

In considering the purpose ofany special funding, thefollowing questions should boanswered:

Is special funding anappropriate and effective stateresponse to counteractdiminishing student interest inthe health professions?

If the University needs tomaintain professional schooltuition rates that arecompetitive with its peers,should all taxpayers, not justother students at the University,share in the additional cost?

Does the state have anobligation to insure that anystudent, regardless of financialcircumstances, can attendhealth professions programswithout incurring anunreasonable loan burden?

Findings: The report focuses ondentistry, pharmacy, andveterinary medicine becausethese programs were identifiedin previous work as beingparticularly harmed ifcost-related tuition wereadopted. Information onmedicine was included at theUniversity's request.' Eachpi ofession has its own profile,but there are similarities in thecondition, they face.

Findings Regarding QualityIssuesSupply and dem ind for graduatesin these fields art. relatively inbalance or in surplus. TheUniversity's expressed need forspecial funding therefore is not

3Minnwota Higher Education Coordinating Bawd.Ong Mums for Hash Cost Unisessity ofMuusepota dealth Praftsnoru PArtintt withCoorthnating Bard Racammendations(March 17.19e8).

Policy Issues

based on the desire to inducemore students to enter thesefbids. There is evidence,however, that the professionsare becoming less attractive toprospective students because ofchanging practice conditions.The number of applicationsnationally has been falling,forcing programs to cut classsize or become less selective.Competition betweenuniversities for the most highlyqualified students isintensifying.

Although the relationshipbetween measured ability andlater professional achievement isnot precise, the Universitywants the largest possible, mosthighly able, applicant pool fromwhich to admit. In dentistry, thedecline in the numbers ofapplicants nationally and inMinnesota has beenaccompanied by a drop in themeasured academic quality ofentering classes. The other fieldsare struggling to maintain thequality of entering studentswithin a smaller applicant pool.

The University of Minnesota'scurrent resident tuition rates areamo- g the highest for publicuniversities. From about onethird to one half of the admittedapplicants who turn down theUniversity's offers of admissionsay that non-competitive tuitionand fees were partiallyresponsible for their decisions.

The effects on the applicant poolif ;,uition is increased to 33percent of the cost of instructionare speculative. Students clearlyevaluate on multiple factors, andsome expensive programs cancontinue to be highly selectivebased on their quality andPrestige.

Findings Regarding AccessIssuesAt current tuition rates, mosthealth professions studentsborrow heavily, and their debtshave been increasing. Somestudents already borrow amountsthat will require repayn..sit ofmore than 10 percent of theaverage professional incomeduring the early years of practice.This situation is most pronouncedin veterinary medicine anddentistry and least evident, inpharmacy.

The Graduated RepaymentIncome Protection (GRIP)Program can contain debtrepayment within 10 percent ofaverage annual income for mostof today's students. If tuition israised to 33 percent of the cost ofinstruction, however, a majorityof veterinary medicine studentsand about a fourth of the e ntalstudents might incur loans thatcould not be repaid under GRIPwithin the standard repaymentschedule.

Alternatives: The Boardexplored eight policyalternatives. Four expect theUniversity of Minnesota toallocate funds to :Aealthprofessions programs within itsgeneral appropriation forinstruction:

Continue to modifycost-related tuition within theUniversity.

Allow tuition to increase to33 percent of the cost ofit tstruction.

Allocate or solicit moreprivate University funds toattract qualified students.

Allocate or solicit me eprivate University funds to helpfinancially needy students.

The report does not evaluate themanagement of the University's

75

high cost programs. Any ofthese approaches might beaccompanied by cost reductionsto minimize adverse effects onstudents.

Four alternatives would requirethe state to provide additionalfunding:

Provide additional programfunding in the form of a tuitionoffset or other means.

Provide additionalscholarship funds to be used bythe University to attractqualified students.

Provide grant funds to helpfinancially needy students.

Modify the GRIP programto reduce the repayment burdenon students with exceptionallyhigh loans or low income.

Preferred Approaches: Inresponse to the Board'sdirective, Coordinating Boardand University staff agreed ontwo approaches that meet theconcerns of each organization.These approaches are variationsof the scholarship and programfunding options. They areintended to help the Universityremain competitive for the mostqualified students since theUniversity's chief concern iswith the quality of its programs.

First Preferred ApproachThe Minnesota Legislatureprovide funds to the Universityof Minnesota for healthprofessions student fellowshipsunde' the following conditions:

1. The University's continuedprogress toward cost-relatedtuition result,, in tuitionincreases for studei is indentists s', pharmacy, medicine,and vetermary medicine.

61

Policy Issues

2. The University developsrigorous fellowship selectioncriteria that are designed toincrease the numbers ofextremely well qualifiedMinnesota residents who enrollin these programs.

3. The University raises privatefunds to recruit non-residentswho meet the same selectioncriteria.

4. The amount of individualawards is limited to tuition.

5. No funds are awarded tostudents who do not meet theselection criteria even if theUniversity is unable to recruitenough highly qualifiedstudents.

6. A maximum of $2 million inannual funding is phased in overfour years with $500,000 addedto the appropriation each year,beginning in Fiscal Year 1989.

Second Preferred Approach1. University of Minnesota andCoordinating Board staffexamine program expenditures indentistry, pharmacy, medicine,and veterinary medicine todetermine unique costs nowincluded in instructional cost thatshould be attributed to theresearch and public servicemissions of these programs.

2. The lasts be removed fromaverage . 3st and tuition fundingand covered by a speciallegislative appropriation.

Board Recommendation: Basedon the findings of the report andconsultation with staff of theUniversity of Minnesota, theCoordinating Board on March17, 1988 voted to recommendthe first approach (studentfellowships) to the MinnesotaLegislature.

62

This approach is consistent withprevious Board endorsement ofUniversity fellowships to attractoutstanding graduate students.The second approach, whileacceptable to solve tuitionproblems in health sciences, haspotential to be applied to allUniversity programs. TheUniversity is exploring thefeasibility of separating certainresearch and public service costsin future budget requests. Otherpublic systems also might claimdepartment 1 research andpublic service' costs that couldbe removed from instruction.

Analysis of Guaranteed SidentLoan Borrowers

lb learn more about GuaranteedStudent Loan Program borrowersin Minnesota, the HigherEducation Coordinating Board in1987 contracted for a study ofdebt levels and defaults.

Issue: Debt levels are a concernbecause of their possible impacton future life decisions ofborrowers. Defaults e aconcern because of their cost tothe federal government andtheir negative impact on thoseborrowers who default. Thestudy did not directly address athird concern: debt 1.which compares debt level withthe ability to repay.

Background: In 1987 a studyreleased by Federal FundsInformation for States, a jointservice of the NationalGovernors' Association Centerfor Policy Research and theNational Conference of StateLegislatures, raised questionsconcerning default rates ofGuaranteed Student Loanborrowers. Working with theFederal Funds Information for

7G

States, the Coordinating Boardgained access to the U.S.Department of Education's database. This source includes asummary of each borrower'srecord derived from data thatguarantee agencies mustregularly submit to theDepartment of Education. Fromthis data base the CoordinatingBoard obtained informationabout each borrower listed asattending a Minnesotapost-secondary institution or asresiding in Minnesota.

lb analyze the data, the Boardcontracted for a study with SaulSchwartz of efts University,Medford, Massachusetts, andSandra Baum of SkidmoreCollege, Saratoga Springs, NewYork. They had performedsimilar research forMassachusetts. They analyzeu500,000 records in eachborrower's data file. Loanrecords were merged to obtain asingle record for each borrower.Their report to the CoordinatingBoard, The Operation of theGuaranteed Student LoanPro3rain in Minnesota,1977-198,5, is based on 345,900borrowers who attendedMinnesota institutions duringthose years.

Although the data provide auseful snapshot of activityunder the GSL Program, thedata base did not provideinsights into the relationship ofGuaranteed Student Loans andother loans. It provides only thelast date a loan was made, notwhen the loan went intorepayment or how much of aloan was paid before defaulting.The report shows that the timeit takes for a group of borrowersto enter repayment is long.Some of Ult students who lastborrowed in 1977 still had not

Policy Issues

entered into repayment in 1986,for example. The time it takesfor a loan to be classified as "indefault" after the borrowermakes the last payment can betwo years or more. Thissuggests that default rates forthe two to three most recentyears are too incomplete to beused for analysis.

findings: Following are findingsfrom the contractors' report.

The average cumulative amountof Guaranteed Student Loans,by type of institution attended,held by borrowers in repaymentwhose last loan was approved in1984, is as follows:

Thclutical Institutes $2,700Community Colleges $2,800State Universities $4,000University of Minnesota $5,000Private Four-YearInstitutions $5,700

Private 'No-YearInstitutions $2,900

Graduate/Professional $6,700

As of 1984, almost all theborrowers who reported the lastinstitution attended as atechnical institute, communitycollege, or private two-yearinstitution, had a GuazanteedStudent Loan debt of less than$7,500.

Abcut 10 percent ofunde.-graduates attending astate university or theUniversity of Minnesota and 15percent attending privatefour-year institutions had aGuaranteed Student Loan debtof more thou $7,500. About 22percent of graduate andprofessional students had a GSLdebt of over $7,500.

The GSL default rate has beendeclining since 1977. The declinehas decreased by different

amounts for each system. Theoverall decline, however, hasbeen from a default rate of 28.7percent in 1977 to 19.2 percentin 1980. The dollar volume ofGSL defaults, however, isincreasing due to the growingnumber of borrowers and totalloan volume.

The default rates of the 1983group of GSL borrowers by typeof institution last attended are:

Thchnical Institutes 18.0%Community Colleges 17.8%State Universities 8.1%University of Minnesota 6.2%Private Four-YearInstitutions 5.3%

Private 'No-YearInstitutions 16.4%

Conclusions: Based on thecontractors' report and otherinformation, CoordinatingBoard staff reached thefollowing conclusions:

A review of cumulativeGSL debt levels does not showexcessive borrowing.

The distributions ofborrowers and students suggestthat relatively more -.I.tudentsattending technic& institutesand private two-yearinstitutions borrow thanstudents -ttending other typesof institutions.

Proportionally fewerstudents attending communitycolleges borrow than otherstudents. Part of this differencecan be explained by the way theborrowers are classified. Eachborrower was assigr.ed aninstitution based on the last loanapproved. Transfer studentsshow up as attending four-yearinstitutions rather than acommunity college.

Differences in the defaultrates between borrowersattending two-year institutionsand four-year institutions raisequestions about why borrowersdefault. Students from lowerincome families are assisted byfederal and state scholarshipand grant programs. Ibitionlevels at two-year institutionsare lower than at four-yearinstitutions. Yet, studentsattending two-year institutionsborrow more frequently and aremore likely to default than otherstudents.'

Recommendations: Based on thefindings and conclusions of thestudy, the Coordinating Boardon May 19. 1988 recommendedthat it:

1. Encourage all two-yearpost-aecondary institutionswithin the state and the fewfour-year institutions withcomparatively high defaultrates, to develop strategies forreducing defaults by theirstudents. TD assist in this effort,the Board should sponsortraining symposia forrepresentatives of theseinstitutions to help themidentify ways in which theirinstitutions can work effectivelyto reduce defaults withoutreducing access topost-secondary education.

2. Work actively at the federallevel to develop policies thatprovide incentives forpost-secondary institutions todevelop efforts to controldefaults by rewarding reduceddefault experience, penalizinginst itutions that prove unwillingor unprepared to address the

emirineeota Higher Education Coordinating Board.Andy, of Guaranteed Student Loan ProgramBorrowers, Consultants' Report and CoordinatingBoard Recommendations IMay 19.1948).

77 63

Policy Issues

issue, and assuring individualinstitutions greater discretion inpursuing professional remedies.

3. Continue to make the casewithin Minnesota for strongstate scholarship and grantsupport for students, includingpart-time and returningstudents, from low-incomebackgrounds in order to avoidthe need for excessive 'oorrowingby these students.

4. Work actively at the federallevel to develop policies thatreduce the borrowing need ofeconomically disadvantagedstudents by increasing theavailability of federal studentgrant assistance. including aidfor part-time and returningstudents.

5. Support the Higher EducationAssistance Fn'mdation (HEAF)in its ongoing review ofinstitutions with high levels ofborrowing and default and withproblems administering theirinstitutional responsibilitieswithin the Guaranteed StudentLoan Program. As allowed undercurrent law, HEAF is encouragedto limit, suspend, or terminateeligibility for institutions thatprove unwilling or unprepared toaddress the issue.

6. Work actively At the federallevel to: a) develop policies thatallow the state designatedguarantee agency within eachstate with the authority toeliminate eligibility for thoseinstitutions that prove unwillingand unprepared to address theissue, and b) encourage the U.S.Secretary of Education tosupport institutional eligibilitysanctions imposed by the statedesignated guarantee agenciesand prevent other guaranteeagencies from approving loans

64

for students attending ar,institution that has beendesignated as ineligible by thestate designated agency.

Status: In stir men and fall 1988both the House and Senateconsidered federal legislation tocontrol defaults, and the U.S.Department of Educationproposed rules that would allowit to cut schools with defaultrates exceeding 20 percent fromstudent aid programs. Due totime limitations and lack ofagreement, Congress did notact, and action on the proposedregulations was delayed.

The Coordinating Boardcommunicated itsrecommendations to the state'sCongressional delegation,directors and presidents ofpost-secondary institutions andtheir financial aid officers, theU.S. Department of Education,and the Higher EducationAssistance Foundation.

In fall 1988 the Board sponsored14 workshops throughout thestate on managing student loandefaults for presidents anddirectors of post-secondaryinstitutions and their financialaid officers.

State Saving Incentive andPrepaid Dillon Plans

Concern over the ability to payfor an individual'spost-secondary education lled to interest in savingincentive and prepaid tuitionplans. Saving plans are designedto encourage the accumulationof money to cover anindividual's expenses at the timeof attendance. Prepaymentplans involve the purchase ofeducation services at current ordiscounted prices before

7

attendance. Several statesrecently have enacted plans, andother states are consideringaction. Interest in state plansanu plans from the federalgovernment and privateorganizations has developedbecause of trends in educationalcosts and personal finance.

In I J87, the Minnesota HigherEducation Coordinating Boarddirected its staff to study statesaving incentive and prepaidtuition plans. The studyexamines the benefits, costs,and risks of three types of stateplans: prepaid tuition, savingsbonds, and savings accounts.'

Issue: The purpose of the studywas to determine whether any ofi t, e various plans established orproposed are appropriate for thestate to adopt or endorse. 'Nomajor policy questions wereaddressed:

What should be the natureand degree of involvement ofstate government in iucationalsaving and tuition prepaymentplans?

How might the existence ofstate-sponsored plans affectother state policies forpost-secondary education suchas institutional funding andstudent financial aid?

Conclusions: Analysis of theplans led to the foll-wingconclusions:

Prepaid tuition A prepaidtuition plan would place allparties at considerable risk.Each party involved in a plan

&Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board,State Saving Incentive a.id Prepaid ninon Planswith Coordinating Board Recommendations (March17, 19881,

Policy Issues

faces the possibility of financialloss. Other consequences mightinclude inappropriateeducational choices byparticipants, loss of enrollmentsby some post-secondaryinstitutions, and loss ofcredibility by the state for notdelivering promised benefits.

Savings bonds A statesavings bond program wouldleave participants responsiblefor purchasing enough bonds topay the cost of a post-secondaryeducation. While risks toparticipants and institutionswould be small, the state mightincur costs related to issuance ofbonds and debt management.

Savings accountsSavings accounts also wouldleave participants responsiblefor covering educational costs.Otherwise, participants andinstitutions would face little. 4k. 'Dix advantages with suchaccounts would be a cost to thestate in the form of foregone taxrevenues. The absence of similartax advantages at the federallevel, however, might deterparticipation in a stata program.

Assessment of state savingincentive and prepaid tuitionplans requires otherconsiderations. Enactment of afederal plan or devel, ipment ofplans in the private st 'tor mightmake a separate state planunnecessary. No plan, however,would replace need-basedfinancial aid becauseparticipants in each come fromdifferent pc2ulations.early saving by families forpost-seconder:, educationremains a key element in anyfi awing strategy.

Recommendations: Based on theconclusions of the study, theCoordinating Board on March

17, 1988 adopted the followingrecommendations:

1. That if the MinnesotaLegislature establishes a statesavings plan, the HigherEducation Coordinating Board,based on the knowledge gainedfrom its extensive study ofprepaid tuition and savingincentive plans, activelyparticipate in the developmentof the plan, which should:

a. be applicable to a widerange of post-secondaryinstitutions within and outsidethe state;

b. be applicable to all levels ofpost-secondary education, fromsub-baccalaureate throughgraduate and professional;

c. provide some measure ofequity by limiting the amountthat participants can save in theProgram;

d. be developed in the contextof state policies outsidepost-secondary education thatmight be affected;

e. be presented to prospectiveparticipants in terms that makeclear t..a financial risks andbenefits; and

f. complement either proposedfederal savings plans or suitableplans developed by the privatesector.

2. That the Higher EducationCoordinating Board continue toexamine the need analysis forstate financial aid programs todetermine if adjustments shouldbe made in the way parentalsavings affect qualifications forawards; further, theCoordinating Board and thepost-secondary educationcommunity in Minnesota seek tohave the federal governmentundertake similar action for itsstudent financial aid programs.

3. That the legislature andgovernor not enact a state plan

7

for prepaid tuition atMinnesota's institutions ofpost-secondary education.

4. That the Higher EducationCoordinating Board seek fundsfor a campaign to informfamilies about the cost of post-secondary education and toencourage them to plan for thatcost.

Status: The CoordinatingBoard's staff study was releasedJanuary 21,1988 in St. Paul at asymposium on "Financing One'sPost-Secondary Education:Perceptions and Realities."

The 1988 Legislature authorizeda college savings bond program,pending the results of afeasibility and market study.eThe commissioner of Finance, incooperation with theCoordinating Board, wasdirected to study and report tothe legislature by September 1,1988 on the market for andfeasibility of college savingsbonds. The bonds would be stategeneral obligation bonds sold aszero coupon bonds. Sale andmarketing efforts are to bedirected to Minnesota residentsof low and moderate incomewhose children or grandchildrenare likely to pursuepost - secondary education.

Based on the results of thefeasibility study, thecommissioner and theCoordinating Board are todevelop a plan for marketingcollege savings bonds. The planmust include appropriatedisclosures to potential buyers,including information on thetypes of savers for whom longterm, tax-exeinpt bonds may notbe appropriate investments.

slaws of Minnesota for 1988, Chapter 694

65

Policy Issues

Before implementing themarketing plan, thecommissioner and Board mustseek the advice of the chairs ofthe Senate Finance and HouseAppropriations Committees.

The amount of bonds that can beissued may not exceed theamount of authorized, butunissued bonds for facilities inthe four public post-secondarysystems.

The legislation states thatbonds are to be made availablein as small denominations as isfeasible given the costs ofmarketing ar I administeringthe bond issue, and bonds indenominations of $1,000 mustbe made available. Thecommissioner may sell bondsdirectly to the public or tofinancial institutions for promptresale to the public. Also, thecommissioner is to make bondsavailable for sale to financialinstitutions located inneighborhoods where low ormoderate income persons reside.

Prior to adjournment, Congressapproved the use of U.S.Savings Bonds as educationsavings bonds. Following thisaction, the commissioner ofFinance postpc ned a decision onwhether to recommend action toproceed with a state program.

Implications of Expansion of theGraduatea Repayment IncomeProtection Program

The 1987 Minnesota Legislaturemandated that the PigherEducation Coordinating Boardstudy and report in December1987 on the potential for theexpansion of the GraduatedRepayment Income ProtectionProgram (GRIP) to all academic

66

programs with specific attentionto osteopathic medicine andoptometry graduates.' Thesetwo programs are not availablein Minnesota.

Background: GRIP wasimplemented in 1987 following astudy mandated by the 1985Legislature. It is designed tohelp students who haveaccumulated large amounts ofstudent loan debt by the timethey mmplete their graduateand professional programs.GRIP assists these borrowers inrepaying their student loans byproviding a repayment plan thatis related to their income.Eligibility is limited toborrowers who have completedgraduate and professionalprograms in dentistry, medicine,pharmacy, public health,veterinary medicine, andchiropractic medicine inMinnesota institutions. Interesthas been expressed to expandthe program as it matures.

Issue: The 1987 Legislature didnot fund new seats forMinnesota residents under theOptometry and OsteopathyContracting Programs. Thus, itwas implicit that the Board lookat GRIP as a way of consideringthe issue of financialaccessibility for these studentssince the benefits of the contractprogram no longer would beavailable, and they could facelargar debt loads.

Conclusions: A staff reportpresented to the CoordinatingBoard in December 1987 pointedont that it was premature tomake a recommendation onexpansion of the program to allgraduates because there had notbeen enough experience with

'Maws of Minnesota for 19187, Chapter 401, Section 2,Eabdiviaion 6

S

GRIP or with commercial loanconsolidation programs. Also,more information was needed onstudent indebtedness, whichwould be provided in staff studyto be released in spring 1988.°

The December staff report did,however, conclude thatgraduates of osteopathicmedicine and optometry havecharacteristics similar to thoseof graduates now included inGRIP. Numbers of potentialapplicants, repayment potential,and funding and administrativeresources are relativelypredictable. The inclusion ofMinnesota residents graduatingfrom these two programs couldbe accommodated within GRIPin its current structure.

Recommendations: Based on thestudy, the Coordinating Boardon December 10, 1987 adoptedthe Mowing recommendations:

1. That the Board recommendto the legislature thatMinnesota residents graduatingfrom optometry and osteopathyprograms be included in GRIP.

2. That the Board include afunding request in its biennialbudget proposal to the governorand 1989 Legislature.

3. That the study to expandGRIP to graduates of otheracademic programs bepostponed until the summer of1988.

The Board pointed out that inthe past Minnesota haspromoted access to optometryand osteopathic ..iedicineprograms by funding seats ininstitutions in other states.Discontinuation of funding of

eltfinneeota Higher Education Coordinating Board,Expansion of the GRIP Program to CoverAcademic Programs, Including Optometry andOsteopathy with Coordinating BoardRecommendations IDacetobor 1987).

Policy Issues

new seats, however, will increasethe tuition and fees thesestudents will have So pay inpublic institutions. The numberof Minnesota residents enrolledin these programs, the knownaverage debt load at graduation,and the predictability of timelyrepayment fit the profiles ofgraduates now eligible for GRIP.

While GRIP is accessible tograduates regardless of state ofresidence and future practice,the most appropriate criterionfor inclusion of osteopathicmedicine and optometrygraduates in GRIP would beMinnesota residence prior tobeginning these programs ofstudy, regardless of future placeof practice. This eligibilitycriterion would put thegraduates of these twoprograms into the mostequitable position withgraduates of programs nowincluded in GRIP who are free tolocate for practice in or outsidethe state.

Status: The 1988 Legisletureaccepted the recommendation toinclude in GRIP Minnesotaresidents graduating fromoptometry and osteopathicmedicine programs.' A staffreport analyzing the furtherexpansion of GRIP waspresented to the Board inOctober 198820

The analysis pointed out thatsince GRIP was establishedseveral commercial loanconsolidation programs havebeen developed. A May 1988Board study found thatstudents are increasingly

Slaws of Minnesota for 1988, Chapter 703, Article I.Section 22.

loMbutesota Higher Education Coordinating Board,Analysts of Implications of the Expansion of theGraduated Repayment Income Protection Program(GRIP), (October 19881

relying on loans to finance theireducation but that debt levels donot appear to be excessive.During the first 14 months ofGRIP, 28 borrowers wereaccepted from the eightapproved programs.

The analysis concluded that ifan expanded GRIP program isapproved, it be limited toMinnesota residents who aregraduates of post-secondarytwo-year diploma and all degreeprograms, who have annual loanrepayment in excess of 10percent of the following incomethresholds:

$12,000 to $15,000 a yearfor two-year diploma or degreeholders.

$16,000 to $20,000 a yearfor baccalaureate degreeholders.

$20,000 to $25,000 a yearfor graduate and professionaldegree holders.

It is estimated that thesecriteria would make a maximumof 2,400 graduates eligibleannually for the next three tofour years. Based on experienceto date with GRIP, about 300graduates are projected to applyannually. Experience with GRIPindicates that theadministration of an expandedprogram would requireapproximately $32,000 for staffsupport for every 80participants, and about $1,000for the same group to providefor space and equipment needs.The current loan capitalresources of the CoordinatingBoard could support anexpanded GRIP program in theshort term for about 300participants annually.

The report concluded thatadequately reliable information

81

is not yet available to assessborrower demand and fundrequirements with sufficientaccuracy to develop acomprehensive, long-termexpansion. It also is not yetclear whether or not commercialloan consolidation programs willbe able to accommodate allstudent borrowers identified inthe report. GRIP, as a matter ofpublic policy, could providebalance to commercial loanconsolidation programs as alower cost alternative and serveas a lender of last resort.Although GRIP could be madeavailable for a two-to-three yearperiod, the Coordinating Boardwould need to assess borrowerdemand and the appropriatenessof commercial loan consolidationprograms, gather sufficientinformation on loan sizes andcapital requirements, exploreappropriate mechanisms tosecure loan capital, and seeklegislative support for potentialcosts before considering alonger-term expanded program.A trial period of two to threeyears, however, would requirecommitment to a group ofborrowers for up to 20 years.Trial programs are not easilyended. It is possible that the

timated maximum of 2,400additional stu,..ents would apply,creating an immediate need formore staff and loan capital.

Recommendation: On November17, 1988, the CoordtnatingBoard recommended to delayaction on the expansion of GRIPfor two years to allow time forfurther experience with thelimited GRIP program and withcommercial alternatives comingonto the market. Additionaltime also would permitexploration of long-termfinancing options of need for theGRIP concept under changedcircumstances.

67

Policy Issues

Governance, MissionDifferentiation, and Planning

This part summarizes recentdevelopments and proposals toalter the governance structure ofMinnesota post-secondaryeducation. It provides an updateof progress in missiondifferentiation. This partsummarizes the Board's reviewand comment of thepost-secondary systems' 1986planning reports, and presents apreview of the statewide study ofpost-secondary education accessand needs IM SPAN 2000)mandated by the 1988 MinnesotaLegislature. Next, appearsummaries of the CoordinatingBoard's review and comment onthe expansion of higher educationservices for Rochester, theprogress of the Fond du LacHigher Education Center, and theState University System's reporton "Initiatives for Minnesota'sFuture" Last is a status report onthe work of the 'Risk Force onInstructional lbchnology createdby the 1987 Legislature.

Governance

Governance of Minnesota's publictwo-year post-secondaryinstitutions has received muchattention in recent years. lb aconsiderable degree, the focus ofdiscussion has been the effectiveprovision of instructionalprograms below the baccalaureatelevel. The result has beta severalchanges in governance since 1983.The state's technical instituteshave come under strongerstate-level guidance though thecreation of the State Board ofVocational lbchnical Education.In senthwestern Minnesota, fourtechnical institutes haveadministratively merged. Beyondthis, technical institutes andcommunity colleges in the state

68

cooperate in numerousinstructional and administrativeactivities. Further changes ingovernance cont. .ue to receiveconsideration.

Recommendation: TheCoordinating Board in March1987 voted to affirm itslongstanding commitment tostrong state-level governance ofpost-secondary vocationaleducation through a singleboard for technical institutesand community colleges.

The Board urged the 1987Legislature to make a clear-cutdecision on governance. InDecember 1985 the Board hadrecommended that stategovernance of post-secondarytechnical institutes be unified andstrengthened by placing alltechnical institutes under thecomplete managerial authority ofthe State Board of VocationalTechnical Education. The Board's1985 recommendation focusedstrictly on TI governance becausethe State Board of Vocationallbchnical Education hadproposed a governance changeand legislative discussion wasanticipated for 1986. In light ofnew proposals to create a singlcgoverning board, theCoordinating Board re-examinedits 1985 recommendation. TheBoard concluded that the creationof a single board VI resolve themajor gap between the statewidegovernance responsibility of theState Board of Vocationallbchnical Education and theboard's authority to fulfill thatresponsibility. Moreover, a singlegoverning board for the twosystems would enhanceeducational opportunities for achanging student population in atime of limited resources. TheBoard would be able to ensurethat graduates of its institutions

possessed high quality generaleducation and high qualityvocational education. A singleboard is the best way to preserveand strengthen both missions.

The Coordinating Board hasrepeatedly studied and maderecommendations on governance.In 1981 the Board concludedseparate studies of the twosystems by recomwending thecreation of a new state board fortechnical institutes andcommunity colleges.

Status: The 1988 Legislaturemandated a stint 4 theCoordinating Boarti into thegovernance of two-yearinstitutions. The focus is to be"the procedures necessary, fiscalimplications, and effects ofimplementing alternativegovernance arrangements oftwo-year public post-secondaryinstitutions." The legislatureappropriated $25,000 for thestudy " 'lb conduct the study,the Board retained a consultant(McKinney & Associates of EastLansing, Michigan), who was tosubmit a report by January1989. The Board is scheduled tosubmit the report to thelegislature in March 1989.

In a paper released in June 1988,Joe Grebe, state director ofvocational-technical education,offered his views on structureand mission." He asserted thatthe University of Minnesota beencouraged to continue with itsplan to focus on its uniquemission of upper divisionbaccalaureate and post-baccalaureate education. Hefurther suggested that an

litmus of Minnesota for 198 Chapter 703. Section 2

12.100aPh P Greba. state director Minnesota Thchnicalinstitute System. "Minnesota PostSecondaryEducation in the 1990e Structure and Mission"(June 1988)

Policy Issues

analysis of the missions of thecr.tapuses at Crookston, Waseca,and M.ris be undertaken todetermine if they are consistentwith the focused mission of theUnivers:ty; if they are fourd tobel.......3sistent, the Regentsmay want to examine the optionof transferring the operation ofthese campuses to the mostappropriate governing board.Grabs, also pointed out that it isnot clear which governing ioardshould operate the Morriscampus.

The state director As' 'd thatthe growing relationshipbetween the state universitiesand community colleges, as wellas the relative compatibility ofth 4 mission of the two positions,would suggest that a merger ofthe two systems be thwoughlvexamined.

The remaining realignment ofpost-secondary Calms, hesaid, requites development of asystem that offers occt ?talons'education at less than thebaccalaureate level. Creatingsuch a system requiresexamination of the occupationalprograms offered I theUniversity's Crookston andWaseca campuses, and thecommunity colleges, he said.Consistent with the realignmer *of post-secondary missions, itwould be appropriate to considertransferring occupationprograms to the %clinicalInstitute System. He added thatrealigwnent only can beaccomplished if a state systemof technical institutes is created.

Gerry C atenson- chancellor ofthe Community College System,on October 4, 1988 outlined hisideas on reorganizawon; heproposed a state network ofcomprehensive two-year

post-secondary institutionsgeographically accessible to all,and integrating occupationaleducation with generaleducation."

Mission Differentiation/Cooperative Effo-

Background: The 1985Minnesot.' Legislature directedthe posW 'ndary system. tofocus on L. Jion differentiationas part of the planning processLid required the CoordinatingBoard to coordinate the effort.The Higher Education AdvisoryCouncil (HEAL) appointedsenior staff representstivesan advisory task force i-nown asthe Mission Differer t ittionGroup. 1 ne HE AC din acted theadvisory task force to discussand present to HE ACrecommendations on severalissues including:

Associate degrees andoccupational programs

Access to undergraduateprograms in the metropolitanarea

Doctoral degree programsResearch rolesCredit transferRecruiting and marketingConthri g education and

extension

In October 1986, the AdvisoryCouncil presented a report withrecommendations to theCoordinating Board.Recommendations on several ofthe issues were included."

Status: During 1987, themission differentiation group

130sraid W Christenson, chr.ocellor, MinnesotaCommunity College Syste ti, "The New Challengefor "ost-9sconnary Education in Minnesota"!October 1988)

14Minneeota Higher Education Coordinating Board,Report to the Governor ono the 1887 Legislature119871pp 84 87

83

continued to work on theremaining issues of recruitmentand mar'eting. In August 1987,the HEAC adopted thefollowing -nent.

RecruitingGu;ielines detailing acceptablerecruitment practices have beenestablished by the NationalAssociatio.. of CollegeAdmissions Counselors( NACAC), the nationalrofessional association for high^hool and post-secondary

counselors participating instudent recruitment. Theseguidelines include a grievanceprocedure through theMinnesota NACAC chapter. AllMinnesota post-secondaryinstitutions subscribe to theseguidelines either through directNACAC membership or byparticipating in the college nightprogram sponsored by theMinnesota NACAC chapter.

We have concluded thatNACAC's "Statement ofPrinciples of Good Practice"includes guidelines andprocedures regarding studentrecruitment which are adequate.The HEAC endorses theseguidelines and encourages allsecondary schools to complywith them as well.

The HEAC reaffirms thecontinued endorsement of heNACAC guidelines by allMinnesota post - secondaryinstitutions.

The HEAC intends to workwith the Department ofEducation, Minnesota SchoolBoards Association 1 4

.condary school asswationsand organizations to emphasizethe importance of dissemination)f post-secondary information

69

Policy Issues

as a means of maintainingaccess and choice.

The HE AC recommendsthat those groups adopt andimplement the NACACguidelines as a part of theirinvolvement in thepost-secondary decision makingprocess of Minnesota studentsand their parents.

MarketingUnlike rem luting, there appearto be no specific guidelinesstate or national whichgovern min keting practices. Thedevelopment of specificguidelines, however, isunwarranted at this time.

The HEAC affirms its beliefthat institutional marketingdoes not require extensiveregulation, and that, at this timeit does not appear that missiondifferentiation would benefitfrom specific marketinggt. 'dines. Should problems inthe &tea of institutionalmarketing arise, the currentforums of the PEAC and theIntersystem Planning Group arethe appror -late channels fordiscussion and resolution ofissues in this area.

The HEAC encourages eachsystem chief execu lye officer toadvise staffs and institutionsregarding the need for allinstitutional marketing andstudent recruiting efforts to beconsistent with the mission of thesystem. The missiondifferentiation principlesendorsed by the HEAC inOctober 1986 should serve as aguide for aligning marketing ndrecruiting with each system'smission. Systems and institutionsshould examine on a regular basiswhat they tell the public ingeneral and potential students in

70

particular .gout their educationalofferings and services as well asthe accorlplislunents of theirfaculty and alumni. What thesystems and institutionscommunicate through their ownr -int and electronic r .atelials aswell as through public mediashould promote Par, image wh' 4. isconsistent with and appropriatefor the mission of each system.Direct and invidious comparisonsshould be 9voided.

The HEAC directs theIntersystem Planning Group tocontinue to monitor issuesrelated to student recruitmentand institutional marketing andto bring to the attention ofHEAC, any emerging issueswhich indicate a need formission-related direction.

The HEAC discussed the issueof no-need scholarships andother pricing strategies asmarketing and recruitmenttools. it focused on the publicpolicy issue of the appropriateuse of state funds forundergraduate scholarships thatare not based on need.

E -ommendationsThe HEAC encourages each

system chief executive officer toadvise staffs and institutions touse particular care in the use ofpublic funds for no-needscholarships. Systems andinstitutions should examine, on aregular basis, the extent to whichpublic funds we utilized to givethe systcms and institutionscompett'cive advantages overother Minnesota post-secondaryinstitutions. Public funds shouldbe used to assist students tomake informed and realisticchoices rather than to advantageone Minnesota system orinstitution over another.

84

The HEAC directs theIntersyrtem Planning Group tocontinue a monitor issues relatedto the use of no-need scholarshipsand other pricing an i marketingstrategies in order to bring to itsattention any issues whichemerge regarding the use ofpublic funds to create comoetiadvantages in studentrecruitment.

Cooperative EffortsLate in 1987, the HEACdirected the missiondifferentiation group to continueto monitor existing missiondifferentiation agreements butto re-focus the work of the groupon areas of cooperation ratherthan upon additional missiondifferentiation issues.

For the past year, the MissionDifferentiation Group, renamedthe Intersystem PlanningGroup, has focused its work oncooperative efforts that canenhance post-secondaryeducation. Issues discussed bythe group include cooperativeefforts in providing informationabout Minnesotapost-secondary education tobusiness and industry, ways toinfo:eta, adults who may wishreturn to school, strategies to---mmunicate expected ccllege

gel skills in mathematics topost-secenu...7 schools andstudents, joint dissemination ofinformation concerning costsant ways to finance apost-secondary education, usesand cooperative development ofan instructional technologysystem, and ways to erhanceand streamline program review.

Policy Issues

System Plans

Every two years. before eachbudget session, the four publicpost-secondary educationsystems prepare reports to theMinnesota Legislature of theirshort and long-range plans. Ina.....srdance with the statuterequiring the plans, theCoordinating Board submits areview and comment toaccompany the system planningreports."

The third biennial set of planswas prepared for the 1987Legis 'etre, and in December1986 the Coordinating Boardadopted its review andcomment" The Board's reviewand comment summarizes themajor themes and provisions inthe systems' plans, analyzes theirproposed strategies, andidentilles and recommendsPusition.s on selected, imp -tentpolicy issues raised by the plans.

Comn. 'nt Issues: Five commonthemes _ anscending strategiesfor a single system werehighlighted in the 1986 plans:

Enrollment management inthe face of a declining pool of..iew high school graduates.

Student assessment,placement, and supportingservices for a diverse studentpopulaton.

Quality improvement tomeet the demands ofstudent-consumers and politicalconstituencies.

Economic develop ,- ,sat andthe growing role ofpost-secondary education.

'Mina Stat. 196 A.06119881.

'Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board.Ream', and Comment on System Pions for 1988IDecember 22.1986)

Intersyste..iplaniing andmission differentiation inresponse to resource constraintsand legislative mandates.

In its comment, the CoordinatingBoard analyzes these themes antiaccomplishments and areas ofconcern in the individual plans.

Comment: The CoordinatingBoard reported that the 1986plans reflected substantialprogress in diffe-ontiatingmissions as a result ofintersystem discussionssponsored by the Board. Muchwork remains to be done inmission differentiation.However, it is already clear thatintersystem planning andcooperation result in significant,long-term benefits to students,the post-secondary institutions,and the state.

The discussions on missiondifferentiation culminated in aprogress report by the HigherFducation Advisory Council(HEAL) in October 1986. It listsaccomplishments in clarifyingmissions and presentsrem. nendations on futurepolicy changes.

After reviewing the HEACreport and th a system plans, theCoordinating Board presentedthe following views:

A new agreement betweenthe State Board of Vocationallechnical Education and theSLte Board for CommunityColleges defines a cooperativerelationship for Associate inApplied Science degrees. It is akey component to solving apersistent and growing missiondifferentiation problem betweenthese two systems.

An intersystem agreementon associate degree standards will

85

significantly improve thedefinition of these programs andtheir articulation with other levelsof post-secondary education.

The University should followthrough m its plans to developstrong General College programsto assist students prepared toenter rigorous baccalaureateprograms in the other colleges onthe Twin Cities campus.

The Coordinating Boardagrees with a HEACrecommendation that theCommunity College System andthe State University Systembegin discussions with theMinnesota Association ofPrivate Postsecordary Schoolson associate degrt as foroccupational programs.

The Coordinatinr Boardagrees with a HEAk.recommendation tha " eUniversity of Minnesota rek!uceits undergraduate enrollmeol, onthe Win Cities ca-npus by 8,000between 1985-8F and 1994-95.State funding re actions thatwould occur under average costfunding should be moderated ifthe University adheres toscheduled reductions inurdergraduate enrollments.Legislative decisions to deviatefrom average cost funding shouldbe contingent each bienniumupon the University's progress inreaching predeterminedenrollment limits.

The Coordinating Boardagrees with a HFrecommendation hatUniversity of Minnesotaenrollment reductions should beconcentrated Lt the lowerdivision. Upper divisionreductions should be confined tospecific academic programs.

71

Policy Issues

- The Coordinating Boardagrees with a HEAC conclusionthat reductions in enrollmentsat the University of Minnesotacan probably be accommodatedby other metropolitan collegeswithout creating a newinstitution.

The Coordinating Boardsupports additions to themissic of Metropolitan StateUniversity to adjust Z:ochanging enrollment polcies ofthe University of Minnesota andother educational needs of theT-. in Cities, provided that allnew programs undergo programreview by the CoordinatingBoard and are developed withother area institutions.

The Coordinating Boardagrees with a HEACrecommendation that the stateuniversities not offer doctoraldegrees.

The Coordinating Boardagrees with a HEAC statementdefining research as central tothe mission of the University ofMinnesota. Direct support forapplied research and technicalassistance in other public post-secondary institutions, ifdesired, should be provided byspecial legislativeappropriations and notincorporated into basic systemfunding.

The Coordinating Boardsupports new agreements tofacilitate transfer of creditbetween he community collegesand state universities andbetween the University ofMinnesota and MinneapolisCommunity College. It supportsefforts to develop agreementsbetween the community collegesand the University of Mi nesotaand bet ieen collegiate systems

72

and the members of theMinnesota Association ofPrivate Postsecondary Schools.

The Board concluded bypointing out that pla ningefforts for the two-year periodhad focused on structural andintersystem questions becausethe planning legislation impliedor required attention to theseissues. Further work needs tocontinue in these areas, butprogress has been made. Whileall the current plans devotesome attention to developingquality programs, qualityassessment and improvementdeserve to be major planningthemes for the next planningcycle, the Board said.

Status: The 1e87 Legislatureamended the statute governingthe planning language, directingthe public systems, in cooperationwith the Coordinating Board, tojointly review their missions,develop strategies to achievemission differentiation, and createan overall intersystem plan. TheCoat sating Board is tomtablish an agenda, determineschedules for accomplishing thatagenda, and develop criteria forthe intersystem plan." The 1988Legislature specified that theatatewide study of highereducation needs is to serve as the1988 inters) stem plan." TheCoordinating Board receivedcopies of the systems 1988 plansby September 1988 as required.Thy. Board was expected to adoptits review and comment inDecember in time forconsideration by the 1989Legislature.

Maws of Atnnesota for 1987, Chants 401. Secti10.

teLows of Minnesota for 1988. Chapter 709. Article 1.Section 2. Subdivision

S6

Study of Statewide HigherEducation Needs

The 1988 Minnesota Legislatureappropriated $350,000 to theHigher Education CoordinatingBoard to Jegin a study of thepost-secondary education needsof the state.

Background: The first phase ofthe study is to focus on theneeds of the population corridorextending from St. Cloud toRochester, and the CoordinatingBoard is to report its findings tothe legislature by February 1,1989. The second phase is to bedone in 1989 and concentrate onthe rest of the state."

The study mandate states thatboth phases of the study are tofocus on: (1) an assessment of thecurrent and future conditions andneeds; (2) strategies to meet theseneeds; (3) costs associated withthe strategies; and (4) effects ofthe strategies on existinginstitutions, state policies, andsystem and institutionalmissions. Both phases are toinclude consideration of at leastthe following concerns: thecurrent and projecteddemographic and participationtrends; current level and type ofservic. vidlable; needs oftraditional, nontraditional, andminority students; thegeographical accessibility ofservices needed by different typesof students; uses of alternativedelivery systems, technology,cooperative efforts, andreciprocity agreements; and thephysical capacity of existingineltutions.

ielbid

Policy Issues

Issues: Based on discussions withthe post-secondary communityand external advisers,Coordinating Board stPiridentified four key issues in therequest for proposals to obtain acontractor for the study:

Are changes needed toassure that residents of the ItvinCities metropolitan area haveaccess to post-secondaryeducation, particularly four-yeardegree programs?

How are changes inattitudes values, and lifestylesaffecting the deuland forpost-secondary education?

How can post-secondaryeducation create opportunitiesand services to help all studentssucceed in achieving theireducational goals?

How will the economy of theregion affect demand and needfor post-second, ry education?

Status: The Cc L.dinating Boardon August 9,1983 smthorizedstaff to mite" into a contract withSRI International, a nonprofitconsulting organization withheadquarters in Menlo Park,California, to conduct the study.The SRI proposal was one of ninepresented to the CoordinatingBoard.

M SPAN 2000 was selected asthe name for the study. It standsfor Minnesota Study of Post-Secondary Education Accessand Needs. The project isassessing current conditions andfuture needs to the year 2000.

The Coordinating Board hasbeen collaborating with thestate's public and privatepost-secondary systems asrepresented by two groups. One

is the Higher EducationAdvisory Council. The secondgroup includes representativesof the post-secondary systemsand the State Department ofEducation, State PlanningAgency, State Department ofFinance, and legislative staff.

Findings from the study were tobe released in mid-December.Alternatives are to be releasedin early January. The finalreport is to be released in lateJanuary and presented to thelegislature in February.

Exnansion of Services forRochester Area

As a result of its long rangeplanning, the Rochestercommunity has proposedexpansion of higher educationprograms and services.

A study of higher education inRochester was part of thecommunity's strategic planningeffort (FutureScan 2000) begun in1985 by leaders in government,industry, and education.Recommendations from a 'DiskForce on Higher Educationresulted in the creation of aGreater Rochester AresUniversity Center (GRAUC)Board of Directors and a Board ofHigher Education Pr iders. TheGRAUC Board contr acted the M& H Group, Inc., of Boulder,Colorado, to conduct the study.The M & H report was released inSeptember 1987. Subsequently,the GRAUC Board of Directorsdeveloped a proposal forconsideration by the governorand 1988 Legislature.

Seek legislation andfunding to establish aUniversity Center at Rochester(UCR) which would include a

87

Graduate Research Center(GRC) and a high tech incubator.

Develop incentives forentrepreneurship support forspinoffs and startups, andstronger ties with the R & Dactiv'ties of local high techindustries.

Meet the higher educationneeds of IBM and Mayo inengineering, computer science,and the management oftechnology, so Ps to facilitatetechnological development,technology trar,sfer, andcommercialization.

Iii October 1987, after receivingthe report and recommendationsof the consultant-, and hearing apresentation from conmunityleaders, the Coordinating Boardadopted a resolution praising thecommunity for its planningefforts and directing staff toprepare a review and comment tobe ready for its January 1988meeting so that it could considerpossible policy positions beforethe 1988 legislative session. Afterdiscussions at its January andFebruary meetings, the Boardadopted the review and commentand six recomrunidations onFebruary 18,1938.2°

Issue: The issue is to enhanceaccess to post-secondaryeducation opportunities forresidents of the Rochester area.

Conclusions: The CoordinatingBoard concluded that acoordinated effort !-)y sew ralproviders ender a universitycenter is consistent with statepolicy that is based on clear

AMinnenota Higher Educe ion Cowdinating L ard,Ranee, and Comment on Proposal Expansion° ofPost-Secondary Education Serum, s for RocitesterArea with Coordinating Board Rhcommendations(February 18. 1988)

73

Policy Issues

differentiation of systemmissions. This approach wouldbe more efficient and costeffective than establishing a newinstitution. Su ssfulcoordination, however, willrequire the cooperation andcoordination of all the providers.Of particular importance wouldbe the expanded presence e theUniversity of Minnesota inproviding quality graduateprograms in engineering andmanagement.

A concern raised by thecommunity's proposals is anapparent orientation toward alocal governance structure forthe university center. It wouldrecreate the governancedilemma now facing the thestate's system of technicalinstitutes, in whkhresponsibility = vested with thestate board at authority restswith loos ,chool districts.Moreover, a new governancestructure would duplicate theresponsibilities of the existinggoverning boards, which alreadyhave the responsibility forserving the Rochester area. Anappropriately designedadministrative structure,however, could make theuniversity concept work well. Alocal advisory group would be animportant part of this structure.

Additional resources will beneeded for facilities and forincentive funds, or "academicseed capital," to encourageexisting institutions to provideprograms that meet the area'sneeds. Over time, however,existing state funding polic7should adequately coverinstruction and relatededucational costs. A questionremains about whether fundsShould be allocated directly tothe providers or to the prop:. sedUniversity Conifer at Rochester.

74

ti

Recommendations: Based on itsreview of a study commissionedby GRAUC, the GRA UCproposal, discussions with theHigher Education AdvisoryCouncil, and broad consultation,the Coordinating Board onFebruary 18, 1988 adopted thefollowing recommendations:

1. The Board endorses thegeneral concept of a UniversityCenter in Rochester, anddevelopment of a researchinstitute In conjunction with theCenter, contingent on formalcommitments by governingboards of providers of services,specifically to include acommitment by the Regents ofthe University of Minnesota.

2. The Board recommends thatthe state provide MI funding forthree years for the UniversityCenter, with a substantial portionof funds dedicated to contractingfor services. Funds should beused to:

provide academic seedcapital to develop graduateprograms in engineering,computer science and technicalmanagement.

provide support for anadministrative structure tooperate a University Center.

Funding should be contingenton development of an evaluationproposal, t include a formalreview by the Board beforeJanuary 1991 of theeffectiveness of administration,contracts and services inmeeting needs.

3. The Board recommends thrttavailable state-owned land bededicated tt this facility,provided local fund-raisingyields a match to state funds forthe proposed focally.

Sd

4. The Board reaffirms its ownbudget request andCommitment to Focus as itshighest 1988 priorities.

5. Until the recommendedevaluation and review in 1991,the Board recommends that thegovernance of the UniversityCenter at Rochester be vested ina Boeyd of Trustees comprisedof the majority of local laymembers and incluLing providerrepresen :saves, appointed byand reporting to the HigherEducation Coordinating Board.The authority of this Board ofTrustees shall not overlap ntduplicate the authors. 7 of theexisting post-secondaryeducation governing boards andshall be limited to:

development andmanagement of the UniversityCenter at Rochester facilities.

making arrangements forthe provision of needededucational programs andservices in the Rochester area.

allocation of funds for suchfacilities, programs, andservices in the Rochester area.

6. The Board shall zward itsrev Iew and comment, along withthese recommendations and theFebruary 8 staff analysis, to thegovernor, the 1988 Legislature,the Greater Rochester AreaUniversity Center Board ofDirectors, and members of theHigher Education AdvisoryCouncil.

Statue: The 1988 Legislatureauthorized $450,000 for theUniversity of Minnesota Boardof Regents to provide graduatedegree programs in theRt.z.hester area. This ides astate appropriation of $300,000

Policy &sues

and estimated tuition revenue of$150,000.

'lb the extent possible, theUniversity is to provideprograms in electricalengineering, comp ter science,and technology management.

The legislation requests theregents to prepare a report on itsplans for program development,faculty recruitment, availabilityand uses of adjunct faculty,estimates of costs for five years,and a timetable forestablishment of graduateprograms. The regents arerequired to establish apermanent local advisorycommittee of persons residing inthe Rochester area who haveknowledge of and interest ingraduate education. TheUniversity is to report itsfindings to the legislature byFebruary 1,1989 after they aresubmitted to the CoordinatingBoard for review and comment.

In addition, the CoordinatingBoard is to review the deliveryof graduate-level programs inthe Rochester area and report itsfindings to the legislature byFebruary 1,1990.21

Fond du Lac Highe, EducationCenter

The 1987 Minnesota Legislatureauth mixed the establishment, asa pilot project, of the Fond du LacHigher Education Center to bego erred by the State Board forCommunity Colleges andI.:ministered by ArrowheadCommunity College. The StateBoard for Community Collegeswas directed to submit progressreports to the legislature

It Jews of Minnesota for 19851 Chapter 703, Article 1,Salim 6. tilobd-

by January 15, l 388 and January15,1989, with a review andcomment by the CoordinatingBoard.22

Background: The 1986Minnesota Legislature directeda task force study thefeasibility of establishing acoordinate campus ofArrowhead Community Collegeon the Fond du Lac IndianReservation. In January 1987the task force recommendedthat a pilot project, called theFond du Lac Higher EducationCenter, be established with abiennial appropriation of$800,000. On February 17, 1987,the Minnesota State Board forCommunity Colleges passed aresolution supporting theestablishment of this pilotproject, subject to certainoperational and financialconditions. The CoordinatingBoard, in .ebruary 1987,recommended that the initiativeproceed as a piloi project and :tfprogrer be closely monitoredand evaluated. As part of the1987 legislation approving thepilot, $400,000 for the bienniumwas appropriated to the StateBoard for Community Colleges.The legislation also continuedthe task force until June 30,1989 to oversee establishment ofthe center.

The 1988 community collegeprogress report summarizedactiviti e undertaken to serve theFond ch. Lac area. The reportincluded information regardingcourse offerings, studentenrollment, faculty assignments,administrative activities, andbudget information for the firsttwo quarters of the Center'soperation.

Maws of Minnesota for 1987. Chapter 274, Section

1,

8 9

Review and Comment: At itsJanuary 21, 1988 meeting, theCoordinating Board adopted areview and comment on theCommunity College System'sreport, " Fond du Lac HigherEducation Center."23

The Coordinating Boardconcluded that the center is in itsearly stages of development andwill require additional time toestablish operation. While it is tooearly to evaluate conclusively thecenter's activities, steps should betaken to insure that futureevaluations respond to the issuesraised. In February 1987 theBoard had specified informationthat should be considered whenevaluating the ceno-or; the Boardalso stated that three years wouldbe an appropriate time for thecenter to operate before beingevaluated for further funding.

Recommendations: Based on thereview and comm at, neCoordinating Board reiteratedits 1987 recommendationsregarding the operation andevaluation of the center. Also,the Board recommended thatthe Community College S. stemand the task force created in lawto oversee the establishment ofthe center continue to monitorthe development of the centerand ask that the center collectitems of information specifiedby the Board in 1987 aninventory of courses advertisedand offered, including location,dates, and time; the number ofstudents enrolled at thebeginning and end of eachcourse; data regarding thestudents' age, sex, emr' 'wentstatus, and ethnic °fie_ andcourse costs. (The Board also

23Minnesota Higher Education Coardinatitg; Boa d.Review and Comment on the A.otnesota CommunityCollege Systems Report to the Legislature. "Fonddu Lac Higher Education Center A Report onEstablsehment and Progress "(January 1988)

75

Policy Issues

proposed that the evaluationinclude longitudinal enrollmentdata from the nine post-secondary educational institutionsin the Duluth-Superior area.)

The Coordinating Board notedthat the Community CollegeSystem's progress report did notinclude information onenrollment and completion bycourses. This information wouldhelp determine courses ofgreatest interest to studer ts,especially as they relate to theiremployment status and ethnicorigin. Second, 25 percent of thecenter's winter quarter courseswere scheduled for Duluth whileno courses were available at thatsite fall quarter. It would help .-A3know the effect of thisdevelopment on the enrollmentof other institutions and theproportion of studentsattending courses in Duluthcompared to Cloquet and theFond du Lac Reservation.

Status: The second requiredprogress report was scheduledfor presentation to theCoordinating Board inDecember 1988.

Meeting Educational Needs of theDuluth-Superior a

In response to a request fromthe Higher Education AdvisoryCouncil, the Higher EducationCoordinating Board staff inAugust 1986 convenedrepresentatives from thepost-secondary institutions inthe area to explore thepossibility of expandingeducational services, especiallythe possibility of a cooperativeeffort involving institutions inMinnesota and Wisconsin.

Background: CoordinatingBoard staff met twice withadminist ative staff of the six

76

post-secondary istitutions innortheastern Minnesota andNorthwestern Wisconsin;Duluth Thchnical Institute,Arrowhead Community CollegeRegion, College of St.Scholastica, University ofMinnesota-Duluth, WisconsinIndianhead Thclmicol Institute,and University of Wisconsin-Sup -lion Staff gathered information from the personnel atlheinstitutions and public agencies inVVirtonsin and Minnesota andp r e p a r e d a rt ."

Conclusions: Based on thenumber of post-secondaryins,' cautions, projected numberof school graduates, andthe current post-secondaryparticipation rate in theDuluth-Superior areo, additionalservice providers are not needed.The type and intensity of servicemay change, however, and theexpanded presence ofcommunity college programs onthe Fond' du Lac Reservation, asauthorized by the 1987Legislature, would affect theneed for any current provider toexpand services in the area.Personnel from the institutionsindicated that they are satisfiedthere is not a problem withduplication of service, and theycan coordinate needed services.

The report was presented to theCoordinating Board in April1987. No action was requestedor taken.

Status: In 1988, the NortheastMinnesota Higher EducationConsortium (University ofMinnesota-Duluth, College of St.Scholastica, Bemidji StateUniversity, and the ArrowheadCommunity College Region) begana study to assess the needs of

todinnuota h i char Education Coordinating Board,Meeting the. Juvationai Needs of theDisiutisSupenor Area (April 1987),

90

adult learners in the area. TheBlandin Foundation andNortheast Minnesota InitiativeFund awarded grants for thestudy of needs.

Review and Comment on StateUniversity System ReportInitiatives for Minnesota's Future

The 1987 Minnesota Legislatureappropriated $50,000 to the StateUniversity System for Fiscal Year1988 for Winona State Universityto develop a Composite MaterialsEngineering Program. The releaseof an additional $500,000 for theprogram in Fiscal Year 1989 wasto be con'ingent upon legislativeapproval of a systemwide reportby the State University Systemregarding the development of newprograms in science, technology,and engineering. The report was tobe submitted to tie CoordinatingBoard for review and commentprior to submission to legislativefinance committees."

HECB Action: The C' ordi-nating Board at its January 21,19548 meeting adopted a reviewand comment and fourrecommendations." Therecommendations wnre that:

1. The "..late UniversitySystem provide an int -gratedapproach to engineerik,.technology and science educa-tion, and that this be providednot litter than ha the upcomingbiennial plan in fall 1988.

2. The legislature, as apreliminary step, release fromthe $500,000 reserve(' forimplementation of the WinonaComposite Engineeringprogram during Fiscal Year1989, an :mount sufficient for

29Lairs of Minnosota for 1967 Chapter 401. Section 5,Subd 2

ratdinnuota Higher Education Coordinating Bard,Review and Comment on the Minnesota StateUniversity System Report, "Initiatives forMinnat,tes Future in Me State University$.',vstem"IJanuary 21.1988).

Policy Issues

further planning. These fundsshould be used only forcontinued planning of theprogram and not presumeimplementation of the program.

3. The legislature release theremaining funds forimplementati...n upon favorablereview of the proposed programby the Coordinating Board.

4. The legislature be preparedto provide adequate funding toensure the implementation of aquality and competitiveprogram, or seek institutionalcommitmeut for the reallocationof resources.

The Board found that the StateUniversity System reportprovides a comprehensiveinventory of existing programsand industry-institutioninteraction. The report alsosummarizes the intentions ofindividual institutions topropose programs in thesciences and engineering. Thereport provides an analysis ofexisting programs, and a listingof programs proposed byindividual institutions. It doesnot, however, provide asystemwide integrated planningapproach to programdevelopment within the short;1987-1990) and long range(1990 -1995) context for the fieldslisted in the legislative mandate.1 ne report also does net provideState University Boardguidance to the institutions ornotice to the state beyond anintent to review the proposedprograms. As the report nowstands, tr. . institutions appearto compete with rather thancomplement each other.

Because the State UniversitySystem report does not placedevelopment in an integratedsystem and state-wide planningcontext, and because the report

does not -idress all the specificissues in tar legislativemandate, the Boardrecommended that the StateUniversity System provide anintegra `,ed approach not laterthan tall 1988.

The review and commentpointed out that the StateUniversity System reportspecifically addresses issuesrelated to the proposedComposite MaterialsEngineering program at WinonaState University. Because theprogram was in preparation, theBoard was unable to commenton a specific proposal

Board staff, as a result ofpreliminary research, however,analyzed issues related to theprogram, such as theappropriateness of theundergraduate level for theprogram, and a number of risksand benefits. Based onpreliminary research, the Boardconcluded that the fundsreserved by the legislature aloneappear to be inadequate toimplement and operate a quality,stand-alone engineeringprogram of this nature, and thatadditional funds would berequired from the legislature orthrough the reallocation ofinstitutional resources.

Status: After rect'-ring theCoordinating Board's reviewand comment andrecommendations, the 1988Legislature adopted language toallow the release of the $500.000authorized in 1987 for theWinona State program upon thelegislature receiving a positiveprogram review from theCoordinating Board anddocumentation that $250,000 of

9

the appropriation has beenmatched by nonstatecontributions."

The Coordinating Boarda:nroved the program at itsOctober 1988 meeting. TheBoard noted that it wouldcontinue to monitor the programunder its review framework,following the guidelines of itsengineering task force. Also, theprogram would be expected toachieve accreditation by theAr,creditation Board forEngineering and Ibthnology.

In reviewing the program,Coordinating Board staff raisedthree major concerns. First,staff pointed out that a majorexpenditure of funds would beneeded for additional faculty,classroom and laboratory space,laboratory equipment andsupplies, and library referencematerials in support of theprogram. State UniversitySystem personnel providedassurance that the institution isprepared to make internalallocations necessary toaccommodate the program.

Second, Board staff noted thatprofessional opinion is dividedas to whether the baccalaureatedegree is the appropriate level toprepare engineers in this field ofstudy. System personnel pointedout that as a result of theirconsultations they believe thatthe baccalaureate level isappropriate.

Third, that although theinstitution surieyed potentialemployers, an estimate of thenumber of baccalaureateprepared composite materials

27Laws of Minnesota for 19e9. Chapter 703. / neje 1.Section Mb)

77

0

Policy Issues

ergineers expected to beemployed during the next fiveyears was not obtained

Ask Force on InstructionalDchnology

Introduction: The introductionof computers, audio and videotechnology, and telecom-munications is transforming theway in which education can beprovided to Minnesotans.Institutions aLd states are usingthese new technologies inseveral ways including:

enhancing instruction inclassroom or laboratorysituations,

proVan,g instruction tostudents at remote sites,

providing courses to studentsdispersed in different locationsand institutions,

sharing books and periodicalsbetween libraries,

providing professionalcourses to students at theirplace of work,

establishing local and regionalcooperatives which include alllevels of education (K-12,post-secondary, and professionalcontinuing education),

providing conferences toparticipants and allowingconsultation among people inseveral remote sites, and

transmitting data foradministrative and researchpurposes.

The use of new technologies hassignificant implications for thenature, quality, accessibility, andcost of education and for statepolicy regarding the binding andregulation of instruction providedthrough the new technologies.

Background. Electronictechnology is being used in avariety of ways to providecredit courses, non-creditcourses, continuing education,

78

job-related instruction at theplace of employment, andteleconferencing. Among thetransmission technologies beingused are:

coaxial cable,broadcast television,fiber optics,satellites,microwave,hi. isted pair wire, andradio (AM and FM).

In addition to the varioustransmission t^clmologies, thereare different levels ofinteractivity that are possibleusing instructionaltelecommunications.

In Minnesota, all types oftechnology have been used atvirtually every level ofeducation.

The 1987 Minnesota Legislaturereceived budget requests tosupport instructionaltechnology and telecom-munications systems from ailsystems of public education(elementary, secondary, andpost-secondary). Seeking a morecoordinated way to respond tothe many requests it receives,the legislature created the TaskForce on InstructionalThchnology to examine currentefforts to use instruction altechnology andtelecommunications and todevelop a statewide policy furthese new technologies." Thelegislature appropriated $60,000to the Coordinating Board tosupport this activity.

The legislature charged the taskforce with:

conducting an inventoryand evaluation of current andemerging systems ofinstructional technology andtelecommunications in

teLowsof Meinesote for 1E17. Chapter 401. Section 35

elementary, secondary, andpost-secondary education;

assessing the costs andbenefits of statewide networks oflocal and regional tplecomnitui-cations systems, includingopportunities for collaborationamong post-secondaryinstitutions, elementary andsecondary schools, publicagencies, communities and theprivate sector;

examining the potentialeffect of telecommunicationsinstruction transmitted fromoutside the state;

determining objectives forthe delivery of K-12 andpost-secondary instructionthrough technological andtelecommunications systems; and

a establishing minimum statestandards and procedures forthe support of instructionaltechnology andtelecommunications syst -ms.

The task force is to submit itsfindings and recommendationsto the Higher EducationCoordinating Board for reviewand com.nent. The report andthe Coordinating Board revieware to be submitted to thelegis'ature by January 15, 1989.

The legislation mandated that thetask force be composed of onerepresentative selected by eachpublic and private system ofpost-secondary education, sixrepresentatives selected by theDepartment of Education,including representation fromschool districts and othereducational organizationsinvolved in telecommunications,one selected by the Departmentof Administration, arepresentative from the HECBStudent Advisory Council, threerepresentatives selected by theCoordinati, g Board includingtwo from the private sector, and arepresentative froni theMinnesota Public Iblevision

Policy Issues

Association. The CoordinatingBoard has convened the taskforce and is providing staff andsupport services for its work.

Status: The task force met 11times in 1988. Cr4- m the limitedtime frame for is work, the taskforce concluded that it would notbe able to consider all types ofinstructional technology.Meetings with and communi-cations from legislators helpedthe task force to focus its effortson issues related to instructionaltelecommunication-.

E'r,,,,Itronic instruction has beensuccessfully provided withdifferent types of technology forinteraction between the teacherand students. and among thestudents themselves. Among thedifferent levels of interactivity areone way (broadcast) audio,one-way (broadcast) video,two-way audio, one-wayvideo/two-way audio, andtwo-way interactive video.Institutions and students appearto prefer two-way interactivevideo which allows the facultyand students to see and hear each°the-, on television monitors. Thistype of interactivity requiresJmparatively greater

transmission capacity. Atelecommunications medium 'lehas the capacity to transmittwo-way interactive television,also will have the capacity toprovide any of the less interactiveforms of communication and totransmit data as well.Consequently, the discussions,findings, and recommendations ofthe task force are focused ontwo-way interactive television.

lb provide data on the extent ofeducational telecommunicationsactivities, the task force, incooperation with the Depart-ment of Administration,conducted ain Liventory of

existing uses of telecom-munications. The inventory wasintended to provide data oncurrent and planned uses oftelecommunications by schoolsand post - secondary institutions.It was distributed to schooldistricts and post-secondaryinstitutions. A number of largeschool districts andpost-secondary restitutions didnot respond in a timely manner.Further efforts to collect morecomplete and representative datawere made, and the report on theinventory delayed. Consequently,a supplemental report willprovide findings from theinventory.

The task force gatheredinformation pertaining toattitudes abouttelecommunications. Aconsultant conducted focusgroups and telephone interviewneeds assessments. Sixty-threeparticipants representingafferent ucational functionsand systems met in 10 focusgroups around the state. Opinionleaders also were interviewed bytelephone to determine theirviews about educationaltelecommunications.

In addition to the work of thetask force, there are several otheractivities regardingtelecom ,unications occurringthrough syate agency direction.While the Usk Force onInstructi4nal Thchnology met, anumber of other groups,educational and non-educa-tional, also were studying theissue of telecommunications andinstructional technology inMinnesota. These include theState Board of Vocationalledmical Education (SBVTF),the Higher Education AdvisoryCouncil (HEAC), the HigherEducation Coordinating Board,the Department of

Administration, and the StatePlanning Agency.

The task force report waspresented to the CoordinatingBoard in December 1988.

Quality

This part provides an update onquality assessment activities inresponse to legislation in 1987,on remedial education, andteacher education.

Quality Assessmen

Introduction: Nationally, thecriticism leveled at elementaryand secondary education duringthe early 1980s now has beendirected at post-secondaryeducation. /fany persons arechargUig that graduates don'tknow and can't do all that apost-secondary degree shouldimply. Post-secondaryinstitutions have found itdifficult to respond to much ofthe criticism because, in fact,they have not alwaysestablished dear goals and waysto assess how well students aremeeting those goals. Educatorsand policymakers in nearlyevery state are addressingissues of assessment andassurance of quality inpost-secondary education.

In the past, quality has beendefined in terms of inputs, such asthe number of books in thelibrary, the number of facultywith doctorates, or the ScholasticAptitude 113st scores of enteringfreshmen. Only recently havepolicy makers and educatorsfocused on outcome measures asindicators of quality. Theseoutcomes are usually indicators ofwhat a student knows or can doas a result of a post-secondaryeducation.

79

Policy Issues

Paper and pencil tests are oneindicator, but there are others,including perfc..manceportfolios, senior capstoneexperiences, follow-up surveysof graduates and theiremployers, and many othersources of information about theknowledge, skills, and attitudesof graduates.

Issue: The issue for the state isto work with the post-secondaryeducation community todetermine what students shouldlearn as a result of theirpost-secondary educationalexperiences, to establishmeasures to assess whether ornot those standards are beingachieved, and based upon theevaluation, to improve theeffectiveness of the educationalprocess.

Background: Many states andindividual campuses haveresponded to the need to assesshow well students are meetingeducational goals. ht:sponseshave ranged from mandatingstatewide standardized tests ofbasic skills in Florida andGeorgia, to linking funding todemonstrated achievement inTennessee and Colorado, toproviding funds to individualcampuses to establisheducational goals and measurehow well students are meetingthose goals in Virginia. TheCoordinating Board's 1987Report to the Governor and the1987 Legislature describes indetail the various approaches.

The approach ti n inMinnesota is siruil.Ar to theVirginia approach. The state hasindicated that assessing thequality of Minnesota's post-secondary education system isimportant but has left much ofthe decision about the goals andways to assess those goals to thepost-secondary community.

80

In 1986 the Higher EducationCoordinating Boardrecommended establishment of atask force on quality assessment.The Board included in its biennialbudget request, a proposal for$360,000 to support the work of atask force and to fund pilotassessment projects hi each of thepost-secondary systems.

The introduction of /.agislationto establish quality assessmentactivities followed a series ofevents in March 1987 sponsoredby the Coordinating Board toinform legislators and educatorsabout the issue. The Boardbrought five consultants toMinnesota to talk to and withlegislators, legislative staff,administrators, students,governing board members, andsystem heads. Four separateevents were held to meet thediverse needs of these groups,including a joint legislativehearing of the House and Senatehigher education policycommittees, a discussion withCoordinating Board staff, aninformal discussion with a groupof campus and systemrepresentatives, and a receptionand dinner with governing boardmembers, system heads, andkey legislators. Experiences inNew Jersey, South Dakota, and'Ihnnessee were described. Asurvey of activities in the state;by the Education Commission ofthe States was summarized."

The 1987 Legislatureestablished a Task Force onPost-Secondary QualityAssessment and chargett it withthe following responsibiliti 38:

Determine the goals ofquality assessment.

Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board,Quality A most. Proceedings, LegislativeHearing and Seminar (March 9, 1987).

Study and recommendstrategies and mechanisms forthe state to use in achievingthose goals.

Consider ways to useassessment to improvepost-secondary education.

Establish pilot projectswithin each of the publicpost-secondary educationsystems."

The legislature provided theCoordinating Board $50,000 forthe quality assessmentinitiative.

Status: The 17 member TaskForce on Post-SecondaryQuality Assessment, includingfaculty and administrators fromthe public and privatepost-secondary systems/sectors,students, secondary educationeducators, and a representativeof the Higher EducationCoordinating Board, began itswork in September 1987. In itspreliminary report to U...legislature in January, 1988, thetask force stated that the twogoals of quality assessmentshould be first, improvementand second, accountability. Thepreliminary report wasdiscussed at the annual meeting

education governing boards."

The prelhninary report describesvarious approaches usedthroughout the country. It alsodescribes current and futureactivities in each of the publicand private systems inMinnesota. The task force foundthat the systems and campuses

3OLawa of 11 ;mow for 1987, Chapter 401, Section33

3IMinnesota Higher Vocation Coordinuting Board,Quality A sssss nuent, Proceedings, Annum/ Meetingof Education Governing Boards (February 17,1989).

Policy Issues

are engaged in a variety ofassessment activities and planto expand them."

lb assist policy makers andeducators interested indeveloping assessmentprograms, the task forcerecommended a set of guidingprinciples for consideration.These principles, based upon thetask force's review of theliterature, conversations withassessment experts, andexperience, are ways to useassessment to improvepost-secondary education.

Principle 1: While outcomesassessment programs shouldresult in improved studentlearning and accountability,improved student learning is themost important, and the processis not complete until the resultshave been used for institutionalimprovement.

Principle 2: Multiple and variedmeasures are more desirable thana single standardized exam.

Principle 3: Keep the number ofassessment dimensions to amanageable number.

Principle 4: Assessment policiesand practices should go beyondexamining basic skills andminimum competencies,especially if the instructionalprogram of the institution isbroader.

Principle 5: Faculty involvementin, and support of, all aspects ofthe program is essential.

31114innemota Higher Education Coordinating Board,Preliminary Report of Me Usk Force onPost,Secontlary Education Quality A aunt(January 1988).

Principle 6: Data collectedshould build upon existing dataand should reflect the campusmaster plan.

Principle 7: There are substantialcosts, both in time and money,especially in the early stages of anassessment program.

Principle 8: Outcomesassessment should yieldinformation to decision makersabout the quality of theeducational experience.

Principle 9: Assessment policiesshould include provisions foranalysis of the effects of theassessment upon students,institutions, and the teachingand learning process.

Principle 10: Students must seevalue in outcomes assessment.The most important purpose forassessment is the improvementof the educational experience ofthe students.

The task force alsorecommended a total of$300,000 for eachpost-secondary system toinitiate a pilot qualityassessment project. The taskforce did not set up educationalgoals but left the developmentof the goals of the pilot and waysto measure atta,:nment of thosegoals up to each system.

At its January 1988 meeting,the Board received thepreliminary report of the taskforce, required by legislation,and adopted fiverecommendations.

Noting the progress made by thetask force, the Board voted tocommend it for its work to date.Second, the Board voted toencourage each post-secondarysystem to clearly stateeducational goals for its students

95

based on its mission, and todevelop ways to measure how wellthe system and students aremeeting those goals.

Third, the Board voted to affirmthe dual purposes ofassessment; improvement andaccountability. Although thetask force concluded thatinstitutional improvement is themost important goal, the Board,in its recommendation, affirmedthat accountability also isimportant. Fourth, the Boardendorsed the general directionoutlined by the task force inworking with the post-secondary systems to establishpilot projects. Fifth, the Boardendorsed the task force requestand its own budget request of$60,000 for the work of the taskforce and $300,000 for pilotprojects. The governor's budgetincluded $150,000, the amountappropriated.

The 1988 Legislature provided$100,000 for the pilot projectphase, and an additional $50,000to the Coordinating Board forFiscal Year 1989 to staff thetask force."

The task force decided torecommend that the money bedivided among the sixsystems/sectors. Thus eachreceived a grant of $16,650 todevelop a plan or plans forquality assessment project(s).

In August 1988, nine pilotproposals, involving 18campuses, were funded. Each ofthe pilot project sites willdevelop a plan forimplementation of the pilot.Plans were to be submitted tothe task force in December 1988.

Mow of Minnesota for an Chapter 70:.. Article I,facUon 2 Subd 41b1

81

Policy Issues

The task force was to review theproposals and recommend thatthe most promising receiveadditional funding from the1989 Legislature.

A conference on qualityassessment for faculty andadministrators was held inOctober 1988. It was sponsoredin part by a $10,000 grant fromCray Research Inc. The purposeof the conference was to assistpilot project teams and otherinterested faculty, students, andadministrators in learning moreabout various approaches toassessment.

More than 40 campuses weresurveyed concerning assessmentactivities. The survey resulted inthe publication of a directory ofselected assessraent activitiescontaining information onassessment projects on 20campuses throughout the state.

Remedial Education Update

la May 1984, the HigherEducation r ardinating Boardadopted recnromendationsfollowing review of a staff studyon remedial and skillsdevelopment instruction inMinnesota post-secondaryeducation. In August 1988Board staff presented an updateon the status of therecommendations."

Background: The Boardrequested a study on remedialeducation at a time of intensescrutiny of elementary andsecondary education. In many

stMemorandum to :he Higher EducationCoordinating Board from 'Cathleen M. Ki tingexecutive director, "An %data on RimedEducation Policier " (August 8. 19018).

82

stutes, and to some extentMinnesota, the presence ofremedial programs in collegesand universities was commonlyused as evidence that schoolshave failed.

The study identified the extentand nature of remedial and skillsdevelopment instruction inMinnesota public and privatecollegiate institutions, and inthe technical institutes withdata from 1982-83. Remedialinstruction was defined in termsof basic skills in reading,writing, and mathematics thatcould be expected of any highschool graduate. Skillsdevelopment instruction wasdefined as high schoolmathematics, English as aSecond Language, and studyskills; subjects that are notrequired for high schoolgraduation, but are needed bymany students for success inpost-secondary education.

The study concluded that theneed for remedial and skillsdevelopment programs hadresulted from changes in themission of post-secondaryeducation as well as changes instudent achievement in theelementary and secondaryschools.

The Board's recommendationssupported the need for highquality remedial education tofulfill the state's obligation toprovide access to educationalopportunity. At the same time,the Board stated thatelementary, secondary, andpost-secondary education needto implement policies that willencourage students to becomefully prepared forpost-secondary programs beforegraduation from high school.

9 G

1988 Update: Activities since1984 are the result of generaltrends and the leadership ofmany Forces in education. Thedirection of change is clear:

Compared to four years ago,there is more attention given toinforming and guiding highschool students to take rigorouscourses in foundation academicfields.

There is an increase in theassessment of students inelementary and secondaryschools to identify learningproblems and in post-secondaryeducation institutions toidentify incoming students whocould benefit from remedialservices.

There has been extensivediscussion in Minnesota over theimplications of post-secondaryenrollments drawn from theentire ability and age spectrum,including the role of differentsystems and institutions inserving tmderprepared students.

With changes in welfarestrategies and continuedattention to economicdislocation of farmers and otherworkers, there is a newappreciation of the potentialvalue of basic skill : programs toimprove individual well-beingand reduce costs for incomesupport.

In consulting withrepresentatives of the state'spost-secondary systems,Coordinating Board staff founda consensus that enrollments inremedial programs have grownrapidly since the 1984 study.Some of this growth isattributed to policies thatsupport participation bydislocated workers and welfareclients. Special programs havebeen created, and improvements

Policy Issues

in assessment have identifiedmore students who could benefitfrom assistance in developingacademic skills. Institutionscontinue to expand access andincrease enrollments throughenrolling students whopreviously did not attendpoet-secondary education.

None of these reasons forgrowth imply deterioration inthe preparation of new highschool graduates. Changes inpreparation are not likely tohave been dramatic, however.The Board's communicationsabout high school preparationare directed at eighth gradestudents; the first studentsreceiving these publicationshaw not yet enteredpost-secondary educatii. Fewpost-secondary institutionshave changed theirrequirements in order to reducedemands on remedial programs.The University of Minnesota'spreparation requirements willnot take effect until 1091. Highschool graduation requirementsand course offerings may changeas a result of current discussion,but have not yet occurred.

Recommendations: Afterreviewing developments sinceits 1984 study of remedialeducation, the CoordinatingBoard in August 1988recommended that:

1. The Higher EducationCoordinating Board include astudy in its 1988.91 managementplan of th haracteristics ofstudents enrolled in remedialeducation classes.

2. The Coordinating Boardcontinue its informationinitiative to encourageprospective students to obtainthe academic preparation thatwill help them succeed inpost - secondary education.

3. The Higher EducationCoordinating Board renew itslegislative requests forauthority and funding toprovide up to five years offinancial aid to undergraduatestudents.

Teacher Education Update

Background: The 1986Legislature directed the HigherEducation Coordinating Boardto study the need for a loanforgiveness program for careerteachers as defined in Minn.Stat. 129B.41-129B.47.Subsequently, the NationalConference of Stat., Legislaturesagreed to provide a grant for thestudy providing it considerteacher atention issues also.Under the law, career teacherscontinue to teach but work anextended year in order toassume an additional diagnosticand instructional role. Undertheir extended contracts, careerteachers are each responsible fordeveloping and coordinatingindividual learning plans for upto 125 students. 1 -ay receiveadditional pay. A reportpresented to the CoordinatingBoard in January 1987 includedinformation on the careerteacher role; it also includedsurvey data on the attitudes ofMinnesota teachers andprincipals toward alternativeroles or careers in education forteachers."

Findings: The study found ingeneral that the concept ofcareer teachers is mostattractive as a careerenhancement to those who findteaching a satisfying career andwho appear committed to it. The

hailinneaota Higbee Education Coordinating Board.Nno Roles for litoclotro: Can They ImproveRetention in Me Ilsochlog Pro f onion? January1967)

97

concept of a career teacherappears to be a lesser incentivefor those dissatisfied withteaching as a career. The studyalso found that the concept isnot well understood byteachers and principals, andthat, as a result, they perceivea variety of personal andadministrative obstacles. Theyrange from potential burnoutto union considerations. Thestudy found that there isinterest in the concept of careerteacher. Additional educationalactivity aimed at the teachingprofession and schooladministrators could enhancethis interest.

Recommendation: Based onthe study, the CoordinatingBoard did not recommend astate loan forgiveness programfor career teachers under theMinnesota Improved LearningLaw. The Board concluded thatthe career teaching model ispromising but it had not beenwidely implemented. Further,principals report severalsignificant barriers toimplementation besides theinability to hi-e teachers whocan perform this role. Whilethere may be a need in theschools for the kinds offunctions career teacherswould perform, this need hasnot been translated into ademand for persons withspecialized graduate education.Strategies to promote the useof career teachers are morelikely to be effective than a loanforg:veness program.

83

Policy Issues

Coordination and Cooperation

This part provides an overviewof several projects. It beginswith an update of theCoordinating Board's programreview activities. This isfollowed by a summary of theBoard's review of academicprograms with low and decliningnumbers of graduates.

Ner 4., is a deschption of theframework for monitoring andreviewing engineering programsthat was developed by a Boardtask force. This part alsosummarizes the Board's reviewand comment on alegislatively-mandated task forcewhich examined the feasibility ofa common course numberingsystem. This part concludes with

report on advanced placementactivity in Minnesota, recentfederal actions, and the beginningstages of a Board project toconsolidate and further developits data bases for planning andresearch.

Program Review

Introduction: The CoordinatingBoard has the statutoryresponsibility to reviewproposed new programs ofinstruction and periodically toreview existing programs.

Background: The 1987Legislature changed the Board'sresponsibility from "review" ofprogram proposals to "Approvalor disapproval." In addition toconsidering whether a new orexisting program is needlessduplication of existingprograms, the Board is Inquiredto apply two new criteria

Was,. Stet 1311.4.041019611).

84

whether the program is withinthe capability of the system orinstitution considering itsresources, or outside the scopeof the system or institutionalmission. Statutory language"requesting" post-secondaryeducation institutions tocooperate with and supplyinformation to the CoordinatingBoard was amended to requirepublic institutions to provideinformation. Privatepost-secondary educationinstitutions are requested tocooperate and provideinformation.

Following passage of thelegislation, the Board and itsadvisory groups reviewedprocedural and policy issuesrelated to the program reviewprocess. The Board in October1987 voted to use a set ofrevised procedures and criteriafor a trial period until February1988. In March 1988 the Boardvoted to approve the revisedcriteria with the provision thatstaff clarify indicators of someof the measures in detail andcommunicate these details to allconcerned parties. Further, theBoard voted to confirm theexisting timeframe for review ofprograms with a provision forspecific exceptions approved bythe Board.

Following are the criteria now ineffect.

1. MissionThe measure is: the missionstatement which is, in mostcases, broadly framed. Aproposing institution shoulddocument a prop am'sappropriateness .. athin itsmission statement.

98

2. Institutional and ProgramCapabilityMeasures are:

(a) the existence of aninstitutional framework, relatedand supporting programs, andfacilities that are appropriate forthe proposed program;

(b) the subjection of aproposed curriculum forevaluation by peers and/orexternal accrediting bodies asappropriate;

(c) the capability andcommitment to assure programquality by providing thequalified staff, and appropriatephysical and financial resourcesnecessary following programapproval;

(d) the capability andcommitment to assure programviability by offering acurriculum that meets minimumstandards of content andquality.

3. NeedMeasures are:

(a) occupational opportunitiesas measured by labor marketabsorption of graduates intoappropriate employmentcategories, short and long-termemployment forecasts, regionaland statewide unemploymentstatistics, trend forecasts, andperceptions of advisory groupsand employers;

(b) occupational skillrequirements for training andretraining, as defined byrespective professions andemployers;

(c) societal requirements andexpectations (this measu,e is aprimary consideration for liberalarts and general scienceprograms);

(d) student demand andprofessional expectations andinterest at the Ptate andinstitutional levels.

Policy Issues

Table11.1Summary of Action on Proposed New ProgramsFiscal Years 1979-1988

Met i Years 1979 $O 1981-82 1983-84 1985 -86 1987-88Cat90rYPreliminary Proposals 110 81 75 130 102Formal Proposals 100 75 75 110 101Discontinued Programs 21 49 37 47 12

Boyd ActionApproved 87 60 71 99 92Conditional Approval 2 2 2 9 1

Disapproved 1 6 1 0 4


4. Unnecessary duplication.Measures are:

(a) adequacy andappropriateness of geographicaland finant .al accessibility;

(b) deleterious impact onexisting programs.

Program proposals shouldaddress these criteria. Whenthere is disagreement, it shall beBoard staff's burden to providesupporting evidence. Wheninstitutions are unable toproviol requested informationwithin the Board-approvedtimeframe, the institution couldrequest an extension of thetimoframe or suspension of theproposal from the agenda.

Status: The number of proposednew programs increased during1985-86 to 130, the bighept levelsince 1975-76, but decreased by21 percent during 1987-88 to102. During Fiscal Years 1987and 1988, the CoordinatingBoard received for preliminaryreview 102 proposals for new

programs, as shown in TableII.1. Of the 101 formalproposals, 97 came to the Boardfor action, because 4 werewithheld by the post-secondarysystems; and 93 were approved.During this period, theinstitutions formallydiscontinued 12 programs.

The programs reviewed duringFiscal Years 1987 and 1988 aredisplayed by system and level inTable 11.2. Three categories areshown based on whetherprogram proposals wereapproved, withdrawn, ordisapproved. Of the 94programs that e, ere approved,55 were proposed by publictechnical institutes, consistingprincipally in restructuring ofexisting programs. Of the 55, 38,or 70 percent, involved a collegeor university in a cooperative orjoint effort to award theAssociate in Applied Science(A.A.S.) degree. An additional 3stand-alone TI programs willgrant the A.A.S. Of the

99

remaining 39 programs, 15 werefrom private four-year collersand universities, 13 from stateuniversities, 7 from theUniversity of Minnesota, 3 fromcommunity colleges, and 1 froma private vocational institute.

As illustrated in Table 11.2,there were more proposals forassociate degree programs tharany other length. Of the 94programs proposed, 73 were fordegree programs, with 45, or 62percent, for associate degrees.Of the 45 proposals for associatedegree programs, 38, or 84percent, were cooperativeventures. Thchnical institutesand community collegesdeveloped 26 joint degreeprograms, and graduates willreceive their degree from bothinstitutions. Thchnical institutesdeveloped 12 program proposalswhere the general educationcoursework will b: provided by astate university or campus ofthe University of Minnesota.

85

Policy Issues

Table 1I.2Action on Instructional ProgramsProgram Requests to the Coordinating Board,Fiscal Years 1987 and 1988

System

Programs Favorably Reviewed by System and Level

Non-Degree Degree

Certificate Minor Assodate Bachelor's Master's Doctoral Total

Technical InstituteCommunity CollegeTI/CC JointState UniversityTI/SU CooperativeUniversity of MinnesotaPrivate CollegePrivate Vocational

Tcta Is

14

1

3

21

15 6

33

26

12

1

7

1

8

45 16

Programs Withdrawn. By System and LevelTechnical Institute 2Community CollegeState UniversityUniversity of MinnesotaPrivate CollegePrivate Vocational 'I

Totals 3

Technical InstituteCommunity CollegeState UniversityUniversity of MinnesotaPrivate CollegePrivate Vocational

Totals

Source: Higher Education Coordinating Ward

Programs Disapproved. By System and Level

3

23

8

.1_

22

4

2

2

.1_

.1_

173

261312

715

1

94

2

21

5

3 4

3 4

The second category isproposals that were withdrawnfrom consideration beforereaching the Board for action.Three of the five proposals inthis category would haveresulted in associate degrees,and the other two would havebeen master's degree programs.

The third category is proposedprograms that were disapprovedby the Coordinating Board. Allfour of the programsdisapproved by the Board were

86

proposed by private colleges anduniversities, and three of thefour were for master's levelprograms.

The four programs were: Masterof Arts and Licensur .Elementary Educa.lim, Collegeof St. Thomas; Bachelor ofScience, Management, CardinalStritch, Milwaukee, MinnesotaExtension; Master of Arts inClinical Psychology, IllinoisSchool of ProfessionalPsychology, MinneapolisBranch.

100

Unfavorable action by theCoordinating Board is theexcaption rather than the rulefor two reasons. First, anextensive review process at theinstitutional and system levelsprevents some programproposals from reaching theCoordinating Board. Second,review by the CoordinatingBoard's Program AdvisoryCommittee, as well as staffevaluations, exerts pressure oninstitutions to withdrawprograms not meeting criteriabefore they reach the Board foraction.

or

Policy Issues

Table11.3Programs Approved by DisciplineFiscal Years 1987 and 1988

Program Area

NumberGranted

FavorableReview U of M

StateUniv.

SystemComm.College Ti

PrivateCollege

PrivateTrade/Tech.

Coop'WTI

JointTI /CC

Agriculture/NaturalResources 2 1 1

Area/Ethnic Studies 3 3Business/Management 12 1 2 4 3 2Admin. Support 23 2 3 7 11Marketing /Cosmetology 4 1 2 1

Communications 3 1 1 1Comp. Science/Math 4 2 1 1

Education 4 1 3Engineering' :h. 4 2 2Allied Health/Health Scier.ce 15 2 5 1 2 1 4Home Economics 3 2 1Physical Technology 2 1 1

Psychology/Theology 3 3Public Affairs 2 1 1Mechanics & Repairs 5 4 1

Precision Products 3 1 2Flight Training 2 1 1

Totals 94 8 11 2 17 16 1 11 28

'Cooperative prodigal involving a technical institute and a state univweity or the University of Minnesota-Crookston

Source: Higher Education Coordinating Boats

Most of the programs approvedduring Fiscal Years 1987 and1988 were in the categories ofadministrative support, healthsciences, and business andmanagement, as shown inThble 11.3. Many of Gieadministrative support andbusiness programs involved aredesign of existing diplomaprograms available throughtechnical institutes to Associatein Applied Science degreeprograms. Eighteen of the 23administrative support, and fiveof 12 business programs wereconverted to associate degreestatus, mostly throughcooperative arrangement with acommunity college or stateuniversity.

The Higher Education AdvisoryCouncil in fall 1988 authorized agroup of representatives fromthe post-secondary systems andsectors and the HigherEducation Coordinating Boardto discuss further programreview issues and procedures.

Low and Declining GraduateNumbers

Background: Since 1970, theMinnesota Higher EducationCoordinating Board hasreviewed proposed newprograms and consideredexisting programs under itsstatutory mandate."

1.01

The Coordinating Boarddeveloped a program data baseand a systematic procedure forreviewing existing programs.The program review policyadopted June 24, 1982 outlinesthe Board's plan for reviewingselected programs in order toidentify programs that areunderused or represent anunnecessary duplication ofeffort." The Coordinating Boardfirst used its program inventoryto analyze trends in the numberof graduates from each majorprogram of study for the fiveyear period, 1977-82, andrecommended a second reviewtwo years later." In Apri11987

"Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board,Policy on Programs &Wow lJnoo 19521.

roldtanniota Higher Education Coordbuiting Board.A &Woo of 4e thg Mambo of °radiatesProm lisistingMumma Pom-SomodoryhistrectioneiPrograns with Coordinating BoardRacomaisdationo IJonurry 1984

87

Policy Issues

the Board discussed the secondreport which covered thefive-year period 1979-84.°

Findings: Following arehighlights from the report:

Out of 2.717 programs, 423,or 16 percent, reported zerograduates for 1983-84, and 76,or 3 percent, reported zerograduates all five years.

Private four-year collegesreported the most programs, 47,with zero graduates for fiveyears.

Eleven non-baccalaureateprogram clusters with four ormore programs per cluster hadan average decrease of 19.8percent in graduate numbersduring 197984. These 11clusters involved 93 programs,8.6 percent of the 1,081non-baccalaureate programsoffered.

Nine baccalaureateprogram clusters with morethan 10 programs per clusterhad a 25 percent or greaterdecrease during the past fiveyears. These nine clustersincluded 144 programs, 12.2percent of the 1,182baccalaureate programs offered.

Six master's degreeprogram clusters had a greaterthan 25 percent decrease ingraduate numbers the past fiveyears. These six clustersincluded 36 programs, 11percent of the 328 programsoffered.

Over one-third of the state'sbaccalaureate-level programshad an average of less than eightgraduates per program per year,aa did over 15 percent of themaster'sispmializt programs. Incontrast, mar 99 percent of all

40111amsota Higher Education Coordinating Board,A &vim of Iliad. GI the Member ofChvedhatee from&dean Mhemesots Post-Secohelary Iaa ham/Programa 1971)19011441.87).

non-baccalaureate programsgraduated more than 10 peopleannually.

Recommendations: The Boardsuggested that eachpost-secondary systemparticipate in an intersystemexamination of clusters that hadlow or decreasing numbers ofgraduates, and examine factorssuch as geographic access,service relationship to otherprograms or institutions, cost,and possible unnecessaryduplication.

Based on the findings of thestudy of existing instructionalprograms, the CoordinatingBoard on April 7, 1987 adoptedthe following recommendations:

1. Where there were zerograduates from a specificprogram for the five-year period,the appropriate governing bodyshould consider modification orelimination of that program.The Coordinating Boardrequests that the appropriategoverning bodies submit areport to the Minnesota HigherEducation Coordinating Boardby November 1, 1987, specifyingplans regarding these programs.The plans might involve arationale for continuing theprograms, plans to modify theprograms, negotiations withother institutions regardingconsolidatio i or cooperation, orplans for discontinuation.

Impact. There were 76 programsthat had zero graduates for thefive-year period 1979-84.

2. Where a cluster of programshad a rapidly decreasing numberof graduates during the fiveyears, or low average numbersof graduates per program,governing bodies should

102

examine the entire cluster ofsimilar programs in order toshare ideas across systems andinstitutions that will makepossible coordinated activitiesrelated to the programs. TheCoordinating Board requeststhat the appropriate governingbodies submit a report to theMinnesota Higher EducationCoordinating Board byNovember 1, 1987, specifyingplans regarding low anddeclining program clusters. Theplans might involve a rationalefor continuing the programs,plans to modify the programs,negotiations with otherinstitutions regardingconsolidation or cooperation, orplans for discontinuation.

Specifically, the followingconditions merit attention:

a. A decrease of at least 40percent in the number ofgraduates for the cluster duringthe five years.

(The focus of the study was onprogram clusters with adecrease of at least 10 percentand which included at least fourprograms. In order to keep theproject manageable, however, ahigher threshold with respect topercent decrease and minimumnumber of programs per clusteris applied in thisrecommendation).

Impact. Using a 40 percentdecrease over the five years asone checkpoint, the number ofprogram clusters affected wouldbe:

Nun- baccalaureate oneprogram cluster with fiveprograms.

Baccalaureate fourprogram clusters with at leastseven programs per cluster; this

Policy Issues

involves 43 programs.Master's/Specialist two

program clusters with at leastfive programs per cluster; thisinvolves 10 programs.

b. On average, a small numberof graduates per program withinthe cluster. Fornon-baccalaureate programclusters, the suggested criterionis fewer than 10.0 graduates; forbaccalaureate program clusters,the suggested criterion is fewerthan 2.0 graduates; formaster's/specialist programclusters, the suggested criterionis fewer than 3.0 graduates peryear.

(The focus of the study was onprogram clusters that had anannual average of 10 or fewergraduates. In order to keep theproject manageable, a moreconservative criterion withrespect to graduate numbers isapplied in this recommendationfor the baccalaureate andmaster's/specialist programclusters.)

Impact. Based on the averagenumber of graduates:

Non-baccalaureate twoprogram clusters involving 10programs had an average offewer than 10.0 graduates perprogram in 1983-84.

Baccalaureate threeprogram clusters involving 26programs had an average offewer than 2.0 graduates perprogram in 1983-84.

Master's/Specialist fourprogram clusters involving 19programs had an average offewer than 3.0 graduates perprogram in 1983-84.

3. After reviewing the reportsfrom the systems andinstitutions during itsNovember meeting, the Board

determine if a more directinvolvement in the reviewprocess is needed. If theresponses are inadequate, theBoard should

a. Refer education programsthat had zero graduates, as wellas program clusters with lowaverage numbers of graduatesper year or a severe decrease ingraduate numbers 1979-84, tothe Minnesota Board ofThachhig to consider whetherthose programs should continueto be listed.

Impact. Six baccalaureateclusters with 90 programs andfour master's/specialist clusterswith 19 programs had at least a10 percent decrease in graduatenumbers 1979-84. Thirteenbaccalaureate clusters with 166programs and sixmaster's/specialist clusters with27 programs had fewer than 10graduates per program 1979-84.Because eight clusters with 99programs are on both lists, 21clusters with 203 programswould be affected.

b. Establish a task force toreview other programs that hadzero graduates, as well asprogram clusters with lowaverage number of graduatesper year or a severe decrease ingraduate numbers 1979-84.

Impact. There wore eightprogram clusters (sixbaccalaureate and twomaster's/specialist) with at leasta 15 percent decrease ingraduate numbers during1979-84 and 1977-82. There werefive clusters (threebaccalaureate and twomaster's/specialist) that hadfewer than 3.0 graduates during1983-84 and fewer than 4.0. Thecluster that does not involveeducation programs is Classics.

103

Comment: A program with nograduates for five years may notremain viable. Programs with asharp decease in graduatenumbers would appear not torequire the resources they nowreceive. Although smallprograms may be able tomaintain high quality, there arequestions of their costeffectiveness and educationaleffectiveness. Thus, programsthat continue to experience lowor decreasing number ofgraduates deserve extraattention to assure their vitalitynd quality.

Status: The four public systemsresponded to th,reco, inendations. The Boarddiscussed the issue during 1988and decided to re-examine thesituation when an additional fiveyears of data are available, thatis, when graduate numbersthrough 1989 are available.

Engineering Programs

Because engineering programsare important to the state'seconomy and are expensive toimplement and operate, theCoordinating Board hasexpressed its interest inmaintaining an awareness of theprograms available toMinnesota residents, boththrough Minnesotapost-secondary institutions, andthose in nearby states.

Background: Between 1983 and1986, the Board favorablyreviewed six baccalaureateengineering programs atMankato State University, St.Cloud State University, and theUniversity of Minnesota-Duluth, and noted an intent toreview the programs following

89

Policy Issues

Table 11.4Minnesota Engineering Programs,Capacity, Enrollment, Graduates1987-88

ProgramCapacity'

Undergrad.Enrollment=

Graduates

Baccal. Masters Ph.D.

MankatoElectrical 110 75 27Mechanical 110 12 2

St. CloudElectrical 80 74 24

University ofMinnesota-Duluth

Computer 100 50 6Industrial 100 41 5Materials Proc. 60 11 1

University ofMinnesota-Twin Cities

Aerospace 161 285 (333) 87 a 2Chem./Materials

Scieme 165 323 (203) 112 9 19Civil/Mineral 160 216 (171) 56 29 12Electrical 337 736 (541) 237 43 13Mechanical 329 673 (477) 240 16 10

Total 1,712 2,49e 795 102 56

1Caper,ity for Univertity of Minnesota-Twin Cities programs is expressed is FYE students, not headcount.214esdcount of juniors and seniors; FYE capacity at University of Minnesota-Wren Cities In I 1.

Source Mankato Suite University, St. Cloud State University, University of Minnesota-Duluth, University of Minnsisotalwin Cities

their implementation. In 1987the Board established a taskforce to identify a data baseappropriate for that review. InJanuary 1988, the Boardexamined the task force report,and adopted fiverecommendations."

1. The Coordinating Boardaccept the data bare frameworkand criteria developed by thetask force for review andplanning of engineeringprograms.

alifissucta HIS Education Coordinating Board,Report of dor k Pore* to Identify Criteria for theRodeo of Beenwortne Programs 1Jastuary 1968).

90

2. The Coordinating Boardaccept ABET (AccreditationBoard for Engineering andlbchnology) professionalaccreditation within thetimeframe proposed by the taskforce to satisfy qualityconsiderations, and recognizingthat these reports are publicinformation under state law,request that they be included aspart of the data base.

3. The Coordinating Boardauthorize the development ofthe proposed data base tocommence immediately.

104

4. That a review ofbaccalaureate engineeringprograms not begin until at leastone year after graduation of theFirst full class. This wouldnormally occur five years afterimplementation of a program.

5. The Board thank the taskforce for the quality of the reportand the expeditious way inwhich it executed its mandate,

There are two elements involvedwith engineering programsqualitative and quantitative.The qualitative aspect is to beaddressed by the AccreditationBoard for Engineering and

Policy Issues

Table 11.5Minnesota Engineering Programs,Current and Projected Budgets forInstruction and Externally Funded Research,1987-88 1992-93

FY87/88Instr.

Budget'EFR

FY92/93Instr.

Budget'EFR

PercentIncr.Instr.

5YearsEFR

Mankato'Electrical $ .838 N.A. $1.156 N.A. 38Mechanical .593 N.A. 1.051 N.A. 77

St. Cloud4Electrical' 1.243 N.A. 2.425° N.A. 95

3.050

University ofMinnesota-Duluth'

Computer .493 N.A. .624 N.A. 27Industrial .417 N.A. .531 N.A. 27Materials Proc. .422 N.A. .446 N.A. 6

aiversity ofMinnesota-Twin Cities'

Aerospace 1.560 .580 2.565 1.757 64 203Chem/Materials Sci. 2.467 6.145 3.159 6.157 28 0Civil/Mineral 2.079 1.955 2.971 7.355 43 276Electrical 3.766 2.531 6.821 5.704 81 125Mechanical 3.291 4.273 5.762 6.848 75 60

Total $17.169 $15.484 $27.5117 $27.821 60 80lin millions of doNws.Projected.Midget figures we FY 1988 actual end FY 1993 oroillauttgudget figures are FY 1987 actual and FY 1992 projected.W ats are bawd on the addition of e second engineering program during this period

figure Includes addition of applied research special initiative.7Assuming SCSU FY 1992 Instructions' budget of *2.425.000

N A = Not ApplicableEFR = Externally Funded Research.

Source: Mankato Stn* University, St Cloud State University. University of MinnesoteDuluth, University ut MinnesoteAvin Cities

Thchnology (ABET), while thequantitative aspect wasaddressed by the task force. Thetask force designed a form tocollect information regardingMinnesota's undergraduateengineering programs andauthorized Board staff to collectthe data

Status Report: Informationregarding 11 engineeringprograms through Minnesota

universities is summarized in astatus report by the task forcepresented to the CoordinatingBoard in September 1988.42Thereport provides current andoptimal student enrollment,1987.88 graduates for eachprogram, current and futurebudgets, and descriptiveinformation.

MMbutesets Higher Education Coordinating Board.Infinewrint Programs Gat Minnesota. A StemsReport, prepared by the Engineering Tisk Forts ofthe filinotoota Higher Education CoordinatingBoyd tesptambar 11, lent

105

Junior and senior enrollment inthe 11 programs was 2,496during the 1987-88 arhool year.Over 90 percent of the studentswere residents of Minnesota orreciprocity states. Residents ofother states and other countriesmade up a small percent of eachprogram's total enrollment,ranging from zero to eightpercept of any one program.

The six new engineering

91

Policy Issues

programs have increased thecapacity for junior and seniorengineering students by 560students, an increase of almost50 percent over the statedcapacity of engineeringprograms offered by theUniversity of Minnesota -TwinCities. Compared to the 2,496juniors and seniors enrolled in11 engineering programs at fourlocations in fall quarter 1987,there were 2,317 juniors andseniors enrolled in engineeringprograms at the University ofMinnesota -Twin Cities in fallquarter 1983. Increasedenrollment at the three newlocations has been somewhatoffset by a planned decrease ofundergraduate enrollment at theUniversity of Minnesota-WinCities. Enrollment in programsat the University ofMinnesota-Win Cities exceedswhat is considered optimal forexisting resources. Enrollmentin the three programs offered bythe University ofMinnesota-Duluth is notincreasing as rapidly asenrollment in the programs atMankato and St. Cloud.

According to informationsubmitted by task forcemembers, the instructionalbudget for engineeringprograms should increase 60percent within five years, tomore than $27 million Thebudgets of new, developingprograms can be expected toincrease rapidly the first decadeof their existence because of theneed for new faculty, equipment,and other resources.

92

Common Course Numbering

A major issue that continues toface Minnesota post-secondaryeducation is how to improvetransfer of credit from onepost-secondary institution toanother.

Background: In view of expressedstudent concerns, the MinnesotaLegislature has passed severallaws to improve transfer from oneinstitution to another. Mostrecently, tha 1V87 MinnesotaLegislature established a taskforce on common coursenumbering to study and report onthe benefits to students, the cost,and the feasibility ofimplementing a common coursenumbering system inMinnesota." The 25-member taskforce consisted of system leveladministrators experienced intransfer of credit, campus-leveladministrators experienced incurriculum development, faculty,and students.

The task force was to submit itsreport to the Higher EducationCoordinating Board for reviewand comment prior tosubmitting it to the 1988Legislature.

Issues: The task force identifiedand addressed general issuesand specific ken+ s related to thelegislative charge:

How to expedite themovement of students from oneinstitution to another to achievea baccalaueate degree.

determining which coursesare comparable betweeninstitutions.

using transfer guides anddetermining their value, limits,and availability.

Wows 014in:wets tor 1987. Chapter 401, Section34.

106

communicating informationbetween students, faculty, andcounselors.

encouraging students todevelop a planning process.Providing transfer guides andother materials that illustrateopportunities for students.

How to assure high qualityeducation through Minnesotapost-secondary institutionswhile achieving the mostefficient use of public resources.

How to protect theacademic freedom of facultyresponsible for developing anddelivering high qualityeducation.

interaction of faculty indetermining course content andgraduation requirements."

Conclusions: The task forcereached the followingconclusions:

1. Minnesota should not create acommon course numberingsystem at this time for itssystems of higher educationbecause, IP, hile having somebenefits, it would not achieve ameasurably better result forstudents wishing to transferthan would expandeddevelopment and disseminationof transfer guides.

2. A statewide common coursenumbering system would likelyprove costly, cumbersome, andconfusing without the benefit ofincreased transfer opportunities,and would not be worth the costfrom the standpoint ofimproving transfer of credit. Thekey to improving transfer ofcredit is the identification andverification of comparablecourses between institutions.

"Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board,Report of MM auk Force on CORUPIOR CowieNumbering !December 19471.

Policy Issues

3. Other states have found thatcommon course numberingsystems are of limited benefit,primarily helping registrars andcounselors expedite transfer.Students have not used thesystems greatly, and are largelyunaware of them.

4. If a common course numberingsystem's greatest value would bein communicating which coursesare interchangeable betweeninstitutions, it would be necessaryto develop equivalent coursesbefore a numbering system wouldbe valid, and continuousupgrading would be required.

5. Legislative support andencouragement of efforts thatwill improve credit transfer,such as identifying equivalentcourses, are imperative.Progress is being made;accelerating the process willrequire funds, primarily forfaculty and other personnelrelease time needed to identifyand verify comparable/equivalent courses, and tocontinue to develop courseequivalency guides.

Task force recommendations:

7b Minnesota post-secondaryinstitutions:

1. Each institution receivingtransfer students should establishprocedures and implement aprocess for determining whichtransfer courses are accepted ascomparable or equivalent to itsown.

2. All institutions should requirecurrent and accurate coursesyllabi for all courses offeredand should make these syllabiavailable to students andpersonnel from otherinstitutions upon request.

3. Institutions that have notdeveloped transfer guides forMinnesota community collegesshould do so.

4. Each post-secondaryinstitution in Minnesota shouldidentify personnel as thetransfer specialist on thatcampus. A major responsibilityof these personnel would be tofacilitate transfer of creditbetween and amonginstitutions. These personnelshould meet as a group on aregular basis.

7:3 systems:

1. Transfer guides should bedeveloped between institutions inthe oe system with a highfrequency of transfer for lowerdivision liberal education courses,freshman/sophomore pre-majorcourses, and Associate in AppliedScience and Associate in Sciencedegree courses.

2. Faculty in the same disciplineshould take advantage ofopportunities to meet anddiscuss the content of coursesand their applicability towardmajor and graduationrervirements.

7b the Higher EducationCoordinating Board.

1. The Coordinating Boardshould publish the names of thetransfer specialists throughoutthe state.

2. The Coordinating Boardshould annually collectinformation on the number ofstudents who transfer into andout of Minnesotapost-secondary institutions.

3. The Coordinating Boardshould continue the standingadvisory committee on transferestablished in 1985.

107

To the Minnesota Legislature:

The Minnesota Legislature canbest promote ease of studenttransfer by encouraging andsupporting the development anddissemination of transfer guidesthrough appropriations tosupport release time for facultyand other personnel charged withdeveloping and distributing theseguides. The legislature should*,affirm its mandate to the publicinstitutions and itsencouragement to the privatecolleges to complete transferguides no later than September 1,1990 and appropriate specialfunding to help public and privateinstitutions defray some of thepersonnel, computer, andpublication costs in producingand maintaining thesedocuments.

HECB Recommendations: TheCoordinating Board, at itsJanuary 21,1988 meeting, votedto recommend to the legislaturethe adoption andimplementation of the task forcerecommendations. The Boardalso recommended that it andthe post-secondary systemsassess the cost implications ofthe task force recommendationswhen developing their 1989-91budget requests.

Status: Several developmentshave occurred during the pastfive years resulting in animproved transfer process inMinnesota. Most post-secondary institutions havedeveloped course transfer tablesfor use by students, faculty, andcounselors. These tables usuallytake the form of a one or twopage sheet that lists the coursesoffered by one institution andaccepted by another, oftenwithin a specific baccalaureate

93

Policy Issues

major. They have beendeveloped by faculty orcounselors so that transferstudents will be able to plantheir study for a baccalaureatedegree.

All the community colleges havedeveloped course transfer tablesfor students. Five of the stateuniversities have extensiveguides for students attendingMinnesota community colleges.The University of Minnesota -Twin Cities has developedmanuals that includeinformation on graduationrequirements, transfer of creditpolicies, and course transfertables between the 18community colleges and the ninelarger undergraduate admittingcolleges on that campus. Similarmanuals for the nine smalleradmitting colleges are beingdeveloped.

A major development occurredin 1986 when the chancellors ofthe State University Systemand Community College Systemsigned an agreement whichstates that community collegestudents with an Associate inArts degree have satisfied thegeneral education requirementsof the state universities. Thisaction assures students thatthey will not have to worrywhether general educationcourses will be examinedindiviaually when they transferto a state university to worktoward a baccalaureate degree.The University of Minnesota-Duluth has an Associate in Artsdegree waiver policy; but itincludes some scrutiny of liberaleducation coursework.

The Community College Systemand University of Minnesotahave signed an enablingagreement that will simplifytransfers and improve

94

educational options forstudents. Individual agreementshave been developed betweenthe Community College Systemand several University ofMinnesota colleges College ofAgriculture, College of Forestry,College of Home Economics,College of Liberal Arts, andCollege of Science andEngineering at Duluth.

Joint admission allows ,-.. studentraw meets admissionrequirements to one of theseUniversity of Minnesota collegesto enter a community college,and, pending completion ofdesignated courses andmaintenance of requisite gradepoint averages, the sameopportunity to enter upperdivision University programs asstudents who enter theUniversity of Minnesota a ,

freshmen. Joint admissionprograms are being monitored,and a decision will be made byspring 1989 as to their ongoingstatus.

Students at ArrowheadCommunity Colleges who wantto apply to one of threeUniversity of Minnesota-Duluthengineering programs (computerengineering, industrialengineering, and materialsprocessing engineering) shouldcontact the transfer specialist attheir community college andindicate they want to beconsidered for joint admission.Students accepted into thepre-engineering programs asjoint admission candidates asfreshmen are guaranteedadmission to their intendedupper division engineeringprogram pursuant to completingspecified coursework,maintaining requisite gradepoint averages, and meetingother requirements.

Concurrent enrollment in theCollege of Liberal Arts, Collegeof Agriculture, College ofForestry, and College al HomeEconomics elms a student inthe joiric admission program totake a course at the Universityof Minnesota while still enrolledat a community college.Concurrent enrollment enablesstudents in the joint enrollmentprogram to take a course helpfulfo- their other programs, but notavailable in the curriculum oftheir community college.Concurrent enrollment issubjcia to the availability ofspace and suitability of eachstudent's preparation.

Another agreement guaranteesthat University of Minnesotastudents can transfer andcomplete their Associate in Artsdegree at a community college.University students can transferfrom bachelor's programs toMinneapolis, Lakewood, andNorth Hennepin CommunityColleges I w completion of anAssociate in Arts degree.Students must be admitted toone of these community collegesand must complete at least 16credits in residence at thecollege. This program will beevaluated in spring 1989 forcontinuation or termination.

Students seeking to transfer toother community collegesshould contact the transferspecialist at that communitycollege. These students maypresent their cases individuallyas to admission, transferabilityof credits, and the number ofcredits to be taken in residenceat the community college.

Minnesota's Thchnical InstituteSystem has begun to convert allits one and two-year programsfrom a clock hour basis to a

Policy Issues

course bales. The procedure willassure that the content ofsimilarly titled courses Rithirithat system will be comparable.

Several private colleges anduniversities have developedcourse transfer tables to assiststudents comkg from otherinstitutions, although manycourse transfer decisions aremade individually.

Minnesota's public collegiateinstitutions have achieved acommon course numberingconvention that distinguishesremedial, lower division, upperdivision, and graduate :eve'coursework that assists studentsto identify courses likely totransfer Minnesota systems andinstitutions are not, however,close to having a common coursenumbering system.

The Coordinating Boardpublished 60,000 copies of thethird edition of its transferbrochure in fall 19$17 anddistributed them to 110post-secondary institutions. Thebrochure describes the transferprocess, and provides a contactfo- students at each ofiu.:-Anesota's public post-secondary and private collegiateinstitutions.

In January 1987, theCoordinating Board establisheda standing advisory committeeto replace the original specialcommittee set up in 1984 toassist students who experiencedifficulty with intersystemtransfer of credit after they haveexhausted existing appealsprocedures. The committeemembership includesrepresentatives from each of thesix poet- secondary systems andone student.

In September 1988, thecommittee agreed to proceduresfor considering studentrequests. The committee agreedthat it has an appropriatecharge, one that is valid anduseful to the post-secondarycommunity. The committeeagreed to meet at least annuallyto discuss transfer issues, and toexchange specific experiencesregarding credit transfer. It wassuggested that the CoordinatingBoard's transfer brochure placegreater emphasis on the role ofthe Credit Transfer Committeeand a greater effort be made toalert students to thecommittee's function.

In developing its biennial budgetrequest, the Coordinating Boardconcluded that it would beappropriate for thepast-secondary systems torequest funds in their biennialbudgets for measures to improvetransfer. The University ofMinnesota indicated that it wouldcost 62,138,000 to determine anddevelop course equivalenciesbetween all Minnesota public andprivate colleges and its fivocampuses. The State UniversitySystem has estimated a cost of$18,400 to collect all coursesyllabi and hold a one-dayregional conference for faculty todiscuss course content in theirdiscipline. The development oftransfer guides betweeninstitutions in the system wouldcost about $195,000, but thesystem indicated that thedevelopment of these guides doesnot appear warranted becauselees than eight percent of transferstudents are within the system.The Community College Systemestimated that it would cost$228,750 per year for 6.25full-time equivalent additionalpersonnel to facilitate transfer o;credit among institutions, and

109

$61,500 annually Lit conductfaculty discipline meetings withother systems. Private CollegeCouncil personnel estimated thatthe average cost per privatecollege to produce transfermanuals for all of the communitycolleges and distribute five copiesto each community college wouldbe approximately $150,000. TheCoordinating Board included$8,000 in its budget request forthe pert edition of the transferbrochure.

Advanced Placement

The College Board AdvancedPlacement Pre7am consists of26 nominations that highBohai( students may take toshow that they have masteredmaterial typically taught incollege freshman courses. Eachpoet - secondary institutiondetermines what credit andplacement benefits will beawarded to admitted studentsfor satisfactory scores.

Background: The 1986Legislature passed legislationrequiring that each year theUniversity of Minnesota, stateuniversities, and communitycolleges provide the HigherEducation Coordinating Boardinformation and data aboutcredit awarded for advancedplat' .rent programexaminations."

This requirement was part of arequest to develop a "clear anduniform" advanced placementpolicy in each sy ,tem. TheBoard reviewed and commentedon the system policies inJanuary, 1987.* The purpose of

40fieut Seat 135A.10

11111nalleVi Higher Education Coordinating Board,&vino M d Uontinent on Aduancod PlacuraentPolities (January 19671.

95

Policy Issues

Table11.6College Board Advanced Placement ProgramExamination Scores Submitted byNew Entering Students Who Graduated FromMinnesota High Schools,January 1, 1997-December 31,1987

AP Subject Areas

University ofMinnesota State Universities Community Colleges Total

StudentsWith APScores

Students StudentsAwarded With AP

Credit Scores

StudentsAwarded

Credit

Students StudentsWith AP AwardedScores Credit

Art, art history and musicEnglish literature and

compositionHistory and governmentForeign languagesMathematics and

computer scienceScience

Total Credits Awarded

Institutions Attended"

3 0 1

204105

14

14748

1

1441

99 54 5'56 21 1

1577

DuluthTwin Cities

128

MankatoMoorheadSt. CloudWinona

0 0 0

1441

1291

8 06 1

124

Anoka RamseyAustinBrainerdNormandaleRochester

980

00

StudentsWith APScores

StudentsAwarded

Credit

4 0

230 170118 6016 2

104' 6258' 27

1829

Cloi and Winona State Universities were unable to report the numbers of students with *core reports. State university and total data an ..dents I, ith scores reported aretherefore incomplete.

"University of Minnesota-Morris not included. Other Institut:me not listed reported no entering students with Advanced Placement scores

Source: Higher Education Coordinating bard

the reporting requirement is tolearn whether new stateincentives are needed toencourage high schools and highschool students to takeadvantage of the AdvancedPlacement Program.

Findings: Summary data for the1987 calendar year are found in'Ikb le 11.6. Following arecomments:

96

The University ofMinnesota -Twin Cities continuesto enroll the greatest majority ofMinnesota students withAdvanced Placement scores whoenter in-state publicpost-secondary institutions.

Advanced placementcredits earned by studentsentering public institutionswould have cost themapproximately $80,000 intuition and fees if they had

n0

taken equivalent courses incollege. The cost to the statewould have been approximately$137,000.

Many studeats whosubmitted Advanced Placementsco.-es did not receive credit. Inneart, all cases, the student'sscore did not meet theinstitution's minimumrequirements. College Boarddata indicate that 36 percent ofthe Minnesota examinationscores sent to in-state colleges

Polley Issues

were below the lowest levelaccepted at Minnesota publicinstitutions.

Reported data on creditsawarded do not includeparticipation by Minnesotastudents entering privateinstitutions in the state or byMinnesota students enteringout-of-state institutions. About52 percent of the studentstaking exams in Minnesotaforwarded their scores toout-of-state colleges. About 48percent of Minnesota scoressubmitted to in-stateinstitutions were sent to privatecolleges and universities.

The Advanced PlacementProgram is growing rapidly inMinnesota. According to CollegeBoard data, the number ofexams taken in the state rosefrom 2,046 in 1985, to 3,068 in1987, an inc -ease of 50 percentover two years.

federal -State Relations

Introduction: The United StatesConstitution relegates to thestates primary responsibility foreducating the citizenry.Nonetheless, federal educationpolicies and appropriationsgreatly affect education inMinnesota, particularlypost-secondary education.

The most notable federalinfluence occurs through thepoet-secondary educationprograms administered by theU.S. Education Department(ED). ED receivedapproximately $9.76 billion forpost-secondary education inFiscal Year 1989, up from $8.9billion in 1988. About 2 percentof federal funds flow toMinnesota through the state'spost-secondary educatimstudents and institutions.

Background Federal activitiesaffecting post-secondaryeducation have evolved since theadoption of the land grantcommitments in the 1860s. For amore comprehensive discussion ofthe federal government's role, thereader is referred to previousCoordinating Board biennialreports to the governor andlegislature.

Status: During the past year,Congress took several actionsthat may have significanteffects on Minnesotapost-secondary education nowand in the future.

For federal Fiscal Year 1989,Congress appropriatel almost $9billion for the generally availablestudent assistance programs, asshown in Table 11.7. Thisrepresents an increase of 10.8percent over the $8.1 billionappropriated for Fiscal Year 1988.In constant dollars, Congressappropriated $7.1 billion fcr.Fiscal Year 1989, an increase of6.4 percent over 1988.

For the Pell Grant Program, themajor federal grant program,appropriations have increasedevery year since 1982 except fora small decline in 1986. BetweenFiscal Year 1982 and 1989, PellGrant funding increased by 85percent. In constant dollars,appropriations for Pell Grantsincreased 45.2 percent duringthe period.

Between academic year 1980-81and 1987-88, federally supportedaid to post-secondary studentsincreased by 28.3 percent, fror$14.4 billion to $18.4 billion. A. dawarded under the major federalsupported gr-nt and loanprograms (such az Pell andGuaranteed Student Loan)increased by 63.7 percent, from

111

$10.4 billion to $17 billion.Meanwhile, specially directedaid (such as veterans, military,and social security) declined by64 percent, from $3.9 billion to$1.4 billion. In constant dollarsduring the period, federallysupported aid to studentsdecreased by 4.1 percent, from$16 billion to $15.4 billion.Constant dollar awards underthe major programs increasedby 22.4 percent, from $11.6billion to $14.2 billion; however,specially directed aid declinedby 75.8 percent, from $4.4billion to $1 billion, dueprimarily to the elimination ofSocial Security benefits."

Pell Grant funding for studentsattending Minnesotapost-secondary institutionsincreased 80 percent betweenFiscal Years 1981 and 1988,from $47 million to $85 million.Minnesota has received $1.4 to$1 5 million per year under thefederal State Student IncentiveGrant Program. These funds areused to match State Scholarshipand Grant funds. Minnesotastudents have received between$9 and 1' million per year underthe Supplemental EducationalOpportunity Grant program,and about $13 million underCollege Work-Study. The federalcontribution to institutions'capital fund under the PerkinsLoan Program has been about$4 million per year. Thepost-secondary institution isrequired bo match the federalcontribution and may addproceeds from prior loans. Asshown in lhble 11.8, funding for

alto Colley Board. Trod. in Student Aid, )980 to1988 (September 19(1111. Federally supportedprograma gmarally available include the Pell Grant.Supplemental Educational Opportunity G. ant.State Student incentive Grant. College WorIcStudy.Paid= Lou. income Contingent Loan.Guaranteed Student Leen. Supplemental LAMM forStudents, and Parent Lowe for UnderpedusteStudents p.ograms. Specially di-Wad aid includeslociid security veterans, military assistance. andvarious other grant and loan programs.

97

Policy Issues

Table II.7Appropriations in Current and Constant Dollarsfor Generally Aviailable Federal Aid Programsfor Fiscal Years 1981 to 1988 (in millions)

Current Dollars

Program 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

Pell Grant 2,604 2,419 2,419 2,800 3,862 3,580 4,187 4,260 4,484SEOG 370 355 355 375 413 395 413 408 438SSIG 77 74 60 76 76 73 76 73 72

CWS 550 528 590 555 593 567 593 588 610Perkins Loan (NDSL) 201 193 193 181 217 209 210 211 205Income Contingent Lean 5 4 5

GSL, PLUS, and SLS 2,536 3,074 3,100 2,254 3,798 3,266 2,717 2,565 3,174

Total 6,337 6,643 6,718 6,241 8,959 8,089 8,200 8,110 8,988

Constant 1982 Dollars

Program 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1988 1987 1988 1989

Pell Grant 2,828 2,445 2,383 2,628 3,496 3,162 3,593 3,513 3,550SEOG 402 359 348 352 384 340 354 337 347SSIG 83 74 59 71 69 64 65 60 57

CWS 507 5 14 576 521 537 501 509 485 483Perkins Loan (NDSL) 218 195 189 170 196 184 180 174 162.3Income Contingent Loan 4 4 4GLS, PLUS, and SLS 2,754 3,107 3,028 2,116 3,438 2,885 2,322 2,115 2,513

Total 6,882 6,715 6,561 5,858 8,109 7,145 7,038 6,688 7,116

dotes:

The Pell Grant appropriation for lt 7 includes a $257 million supplemental appropriation that was used largely to offset a shortfall that had accumulated inprevious years

GSL appropriations do not ream. Wane made but only federal expenses for interest subsidies and default payments. All "generally available aid" programs %script GSL) are'forward funded" - meaning that aperopuations fora given fiscal year are intended for use by students during the following academic year. and appropriations for Perkins Loans

Include federal capital contrioubans and teacher cancellations.

Pall: Pall GrantSEOG: Supplemental Educational Opportunity GrantsCWS: College Work -StudySSIG: State Student incentive GrantsPerkins: Perkins Direct LoansGSL. PLUS. and SLS Guaranteed Student Loan, Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students. and Supplemental Loans for Students

Source: The College Board. Trends in Student Aid. 1980 to 1988 (September 19551.

students in Minnesota under themajor 2ederal grant and workprograms increased by 52percent between Fiscal Years1981 and 1988, from $75.4million to $.. 1.6 million.

Because of its concern about thehigh costs from loan defaults,both Congress and ED havedevoted extensive time todefault preventior measures.

98

ED estimates that r' idents willfail to repay about $2 billion peryear in federally backed loans by14,90.

In September 1988, EDannounced regulations to crackdown on post-secondary schoolswith default rates above 20percent. Under the proposal, theschool would have an opportunityto defend itself, but the Secretary

112

of Education could limit theschool's participation in federalstudent aid programs or eliminatethe school entirely from theprograms. Institutions couldavoid penalties by proving theirhigh default rates were caused byfactors beyond their control, suchas "a precipitous andunforeseeable increase inunemployment among graduatesof certain fields of study."

Policy Issues

Table 118Federal Financial Aidin Minnesota Post-Secondary EducationFiscal Years 1981-88

Program 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988Pail Grant 47 46 50 59 68 81 77 85SEOG 9 9.4 9.4 9.2 10 11 10.5 11SSIG 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4CWS 12 11.1 11.6 12.2 12.2 13 12.5 13.1Perkins 5.9 3.6 3.8 3.7 3.5 4.1 3.9 4.1

Total 75.4 71.6 76.2 85.2 95.2 110.6 105.4 114.6

Pee Grant represents awe cis to students attending Minnesota post-secondary education institutions CWS and SEOG represent federal allocations to Minnesota campuses Perkinsrepresents only the federal contribution to the capital fund of participating institutions.

Pell: Pell GrantSEOG: Supplemental Educational Opportunity GrantCWS: College WofilStudYSSG: State Student Incentive Grant ProgramPerkins: Perkins Direct Loans

Source: U S Department of Education, Higher Education Coordinating Board

About the same time the Wendregulations were promulgated,the Senate passed legislationthat would require schools,guarantee agencies, and lenderswith high loan default rates todevelop plans to reduce them.The Senate bill would requireschools, lenders, and guaranteeagencies with default ratesexceeding 25 percent toimplement a three-year defaultmanagement plan.

If a lender or school's defaultrate were still above 25 percentafter three years, the stateguarantee agency could requireanother plan or recommend thatparticipation in the student loanprogram be cut. The bill alsowould exempt from the studentaid need analysis the value of afamily's home.

The bill would require schools towait 30 days before issuing loanchecks to first time borrowers,require that credit agencies benotified when a student is 90days delinquent on a loan;withhold academic transcriptsfrom most defaulters; andprohibit a school that loses itsaccreditation from becomingeligible for student aid programsfor two years.

In July 1988, the HouseEducation and LaborCommittee had passed defaultlegislation that would requireschools with high default ratesto develop default managementplans and make the Pell GrantProgram an entitlement. TheHouse authors agreed to delayfloor action after ED said itwould extend the period ofpublic comment on the

113

regulations to February 28,1989. Thus, a new federaladministration can alter theregulations, and the newCongress will have additionaltime to act.

Congress in fall 1988 approvedtax legislation designed tocorrect errors in the 1986 taxreform act. The legislationincludes several provisions ofsignificance for post-secondaryeducation.

The law provides an exemptionon interest from U.S. SavingsBonds purchased by parents tofinance a college educationstarting in 1990. Only bondspurchased by people at least 24years old would be eligible forthe tax exemption. 'lb receive afull exemption, a couple filing ajoint tax return could not havean income higher than $60,000.

Policy Issues

A single person would have toearn less than $40,000 to qualifyfor the full exemption. Coupleswith incomes between $60,000and $90,000 and single parentswith incomes of between$40,000 and $55,000 wouldreceive partial exemptions.

Congress extended tax breaksallowing employers to providetax free tuition benefits to theirworkers, but approved newlimits. Until last year, employerscould provide up to $5,250 ayear in tax-free tuition benefitsto their workers. The tax billextended the provision throughthe end of the year, and limits itsuse to undergraduate students.

In another provision, Congressvoted to make permanent a taxexemption on tuition waivers forgraduate students that are notprovided as compensation inreturn for teaching or researchassistance. Several taxprovisions are likely to be ofinterest in the coming year. Oneissue is a possible proposal torestore the tax !neak forgraduate students receivingtuition payments fromemployers and a new taxdeduction for payments onstudent loan-

Potential changes in the taxcode of concern topost-secondary education arepossible. They might include:new P.mits on issuingtax-exempt bonds, new taxes onemployee benefits, and possiblechanges in laws governingbusi Jai; operation oftax-exempt organizations.

Congress approved legislationextending the authority of theInternal Revenue Service towithhold tax refunds fromstudent loan defaulters until

100

January 10,1994. ED reportsthat between 1985 and 1988, theIRS collected $530 million ofdefaulted student loans underthis program.

The 100th Congress passed amajor welfare reform bill thatmay have implications forpost-secondary education iswelfare recipients enroll ineducation and job trainingprograms in community collegesand vocational schools. The billwould provide money to statesfor education and job trainingand require many welfarerecipients to participate in theprograms to be set up by states

or risk losing their federalsupport. States would berequired by 1990 to have 7percent of their welfareparticipants enrolled ineducation and trainingprograms, and to have 20percent enrolled by 1995.Community colleges andvocational institutions could beassigned to perform anevaluation of welfare recipientsand assess their skills.

Congress passed legislation (PL100-297) reauthorizing many ofthe elementary and secondaryprograms through 1993,including Title II of theEducation for EconomicSecurity Act (see page 147).

Previously, Title II authorizedassistance to improveinstruction in math, science,computer learning, and foreignlanguages. The new law (DwightD. Eisenhower Math andScience Education Act) focusesfunds on updating skills of mathand science teachers. It channelsa greater portion of the funds tolocal school districts. The oldlaw authorized $350 miliion forFiscal Year 1988, but Congress

114

appropriated only $119.6million The Fiscal Year 1989appropriation is $137,332,000.The new law authorizes grantsto states and discretionarygrants at $258 million per year.The old law targeted 30 percentof state funds to highereducation for training teachersto specialize in high school mathand science, for retrainingteachers to teach math, science,foreign languages, or computerlearning, or for inservicetraining. The new law reducesthe authorization from 30 to 25percent for higher education.The law also renames theGuaranteed Student LoanProgram the Robert T. StaffordStudent Loan Program, afterthe senator from Vermont, theranking Republican and formerchair of the Senate Education,Arts, and HumanitiesSubcommittee, and maresseveral changes affecting theCenter for Education Statistics.

Another law would allow judgesto strip federal student grantsand loans from people convictedof using or selling illegal drugs;the effective date is September1, 1989.

Also in 1988 Congress passed acomprehensive trade bill,authorizing more than a dozennew federal educatio:_ andtraining programs at an annualcost of $1.7 billion; however, it isuncertain how much funding willbe provided for these programs.

In other legislation, Congressreauthorized programs of theNational Science Foundation forfive years and made permanentthe New GI Bill, which provideseducation benefits for veterans.Also, Congress overrode apresidential veto of legislationthat overturned a 1984 SupremeCourt decision limiting the scope

Policy Issues

of civil rights laws. The CivilRights Restoration Act reversedthe court's ruling in Grove Cityvs. Beg which curtailedenforcement of four civil rightslaws prohibiting discriminationon the basis of sex, race, age, orphysical disability.

All this activity occurred duringthe controversial term ofWilliam Bennett as secretary ofeducation. Bennett stimulateddiscussion on several issues,including cost containment,accountability and qualityassessment, and the curriculum.

Data Base Development

The Higher EducationCoordinating Board is involvedin several efforts to improve thequality, quantity, andaccessibility of the informationit gathers on various aspects ofpost-secondary education.

Financial Aid Data Base: TheCoordinating Board hasestablished a data base toevaluate the state's policies forproviding student assistance.During 1987-88, data wereobtained from three sources: aquestionnaire sent to allinstitutions participating in theState Scholarship and GrantProgram, questionnaires about arandom sample of students atthose institutions, and datafrom Board financial aidprograms. More than 98 percentof the institutions responded tothe survey. Board staff areworking with an advisorycommittee to develop a projectdesign for using the data in theevaluation of policies. Theevaluation is expected to answerfour questions: how muchfinancial aid is disbursed, whatis the institutional budget, howmuch is the student share of the

cost of attendance, and howmuch do students borrow.

Thacher Education StudentInformation: The 1985Legislature directed theCoordinating Board to "publishannual data on thecharacteristics of studentsadmitted to and graduatingfrom teacher educationprograms "4 The purpose of theactivity is to provide accurateinformation for institutionalplanning, state policydevelopment, and educationresearch. A report presented tothe Coordinating Board inDecember 1986 outlined thedevelopment of the datacollection project andprocedures.° Based on thereport, the Coordinating Boardadopted the followingrecommendations:

1. That the CoordinatingBoard request each highereducation institution offeringteacher licensure to provideannual data on thecharacteristics of students whoapply for, are admitted to, andgraduate from their teachereducation programs.

2. That the Board endorse theproposed set of data items forthe initial development of thedata base and authorizechanging them as experiencedictates.

3. That the CoordinatingBoard include in its budget andmanagement plan staff time andfinancial resources for dataentry, data base operation andmaintenance, and preparation

404inn. Stat. 136A.044 (1M.

arMinnasota Higher Eaueation Coordinating Board,Report of di Project to Publish Annual Data on theCharacteristic* of Students Admitted to andOtoduatins Prom Rocker Education Programs inMinmatem A Policy Paper 11)ommber 19M)

115 -

and distribution of reports inmagnetic and print formats.

4. That the CoordinatingBoard approve requirednondisclosure statements asincluded in the report.

5. That the CoordinatingBoard enter into agreement withthe Minnesota StateDepartment of Education totransfer data items from thisdata base to the teacherlicensure data base forindividuals who apply forlicensure.

The data base includesdemographic and academicachievement information aboutstudents who apply for, enter,and exit teacher educationprograms in Minnesota. Thedata base was developed to becompatible with the MinnesotaState Department of Educationteacher licensure files. Thisallows information from theCoordinating Board data base tobe included with the record ofthose individuals who apply forteacher licensure in Minnesota.With this capability it ispossible to determinerelationships between individualcharacteristics, completion oflicensure programs, andteaching experience.Information is initially suppliedwhen the student applies to ateacher education program.Other information is added 'Sythe student's institution. Eachsummer the first copy of theform is submitted to theCoordinating Board showingwhether the student has or hasnot been admitted. A secondupdated copy is submitted whenthe admitted student withdrawsor graduates.

With the leadership of theMinnesota Association ofColleges for Teacher Education,the Coordinating Board

101

Policy Issues

conducted a trial run of theprocess in 1986-87. The first fullyear of data collection was1987-88. In fall 1988, the Boardwas scheduled to publish astatewide summary report andsummary reports for eachinstitution's applicants andstudents.

Data Base Development: In1988 the Board began a projectto assess and improve its databases. These data bases includethe Student Record Data Base(for enrollments), the Post-HighSchool Planning Program, theState Scholarship and GrantProgram, the Part-Time GrantProgram, the State Work-StudyProgram, the Interstate IbitionReciprocity Program, and the'Bracher Education Data Base.Initial efforts are to assess theconsistency and completeness ofinformation collected in recentyears, particularly the StudentRecord Data Base; identifyinformation that should becollected routinely; identifyinformation that can beobtained by merger of datathrough linkages with variousdata bases; determine dataprocessing resources necessaryfor gathering, storing, andretrieving data as well as forlinking data bases; anddetermine resources that wouldbe necessary to conduct andprovide timely analysis of dataThe project will involve aninternal review of data bases andneeds, consultation with thepost-secondary systems, andconsultation with otheragencies. The Board's 1990-91biennial budget request includes6350,000 for the project.

102

Information and AssessmentThis part describes theCoordinating Board's proposalson providing better informationand assessment services toadults consideringpost-secondary education. Italso summarizes the results of asurvey which asked parents ofeighth grade students what theyknow, don't know, and need toknow about the costs andacademic requirements ofpost-secondary education.

Assistance to Adults ConsideringPost-Seconds,' Studies

The 1987 Minnesota Legislaturedirected the Advisory UskForce of the Poet -High SchoolPlanning Program to study andmake recommendations aboutmethods to provide assistanceto adults who are consideringbeginning or returning topost-secondary education, andto report the results to the 1988Legislature.°

The mandate for this specialstudy was consistent withaction by the 1987 Legislatureto expand the target populationof the Poet -High SchoolPlanning Program to include allMinnesota residents from eighthgrade to adulthood. As anongoing responsibility, thePSPP 'Durk Force is to study andmake recommendations about avariety of methods that could beused throughout the communityto provide assistance to adultsconsidering poet- secondaryeducation. The CoordinatingBoard is to coordinate efforts

,01,1w, of Minnesota for 1987. Chapter 401, Section37.

116

and develop additional methodsof providing information,guidance, and testing services toout-of-school youth and adults."

Issues: The study soughtresponses to four questions:

What are thecharacteristics and educationalneeds of adults and out-of-schoolyouth?

What educationdecisionmaking services, such ascareer and program information,career assessment testing, andcounseling, do these potentialstudents need?

What are the mostappropriate mechanisms toprovide these services?

What special programs andopportunities are availablewithin institutions to serve thespecial needs of these students?

Conclusions: Responses to thefour questions are as follows:

The characteristics andeducational information andcounseling needs of adults andout-of-school youth are differentthan those of traditionalstudents.

Adult students need accessto accurate and objectiveinformation about adulteducation and careeropportunities and access toaccurate self-appraisal tailoredto adult needs.

The most appropriatemechanisms to provide theseservices are educational

51Lwas of Minnesota for 1987, Chapter 401, %di24, 25, 26, and 27.

Policy Issues

brokering services that advocateclient support and responsibilityand are neutral toward specificpost-secondary institutions.

Many of Minnesota'spost-secondary institutions offerspecial opportunities for adults,but only a few types ofinstitutions have currently theresources to provideinstitution-neutral services tonon-enrolled students."

Despite the wide range ofservices, two primary problemsremain for adults who areconsidering a life change thatmay require or could benefitfrom education. One is access toinformation and counselingservices, particularly forresidents of Greater Minnesota.The second is making sure theservices are the mostappropriate for the individual.

Recommendations: TheCoordinating Board onDecember 10, 1987,recommended that thelegislature adopt the report andimplement its sevenrecommendations and anadditional Coordinating Boardproposal to develop acommunications plan to informadults about the value ofpost-secondary education andthe services and programsavailable to them.

The Board voted, however, todelay action on proposals forstate funding until it developsits 1989.91 budget request.Following are the seven taskforce proposals endorsed by theBoard.

ithilhokeeote Higher &location Coordinating Beard.&port on Adults and Ost.ofSchooi MuthConsitittimit Post-Socondsry Studios, prepared bythe Advisory Usk Force of the Post-High SchoolPlanning Program 1November 9. 19.7).

1. The compilatimi of apublication, paper, and/orcomputerized inventory ofstatewide public and privatepost-secondery educationinformation and assessmentservice providers. Theproduction and distribution ofthe resulting directory should beadministered by the HECB andreviewed by the Post-HighSchool Planning Program TaskForce. This activity must haveadditional state appropriations.

2. The availability to selectedlibraries and other neutraldemonstration sites, of anannually updated paper,microfiche, or computerizedversion of a data base forpost-secondary institutions'information and careerinformation.

3. The establishment andadvertisement of a neutral"800" telephone number tofacilitate statewide access toinformation and referralservices for adults consideringpost-secondary education orneeding access to assessmentservices. The effectiveness ofthe service would be evaluatedafter three years.

4. The promotion of "collegefairs" for adults by theMinnesota Association ofSecondary School Counselors andCollege Admissions Officers.

5. The establishment, through thePSPP, of regional task forces ofpractitioners and providers ofeducational services to adults todiscuss mechanisms for assessinginformation and assessmentneeds and advising on acoordinated delivery system, andto review the effectiveness ofdemonstration sites.

117

6. The establishment of three tofive regional demonstration sitesas easily accessible entry pointsfor people needing careerplanning, educational advisoryand assessment services. Thesesites would be chosen to provideservices to those areas leastwell -served by current providerson the basis of informationgathered from HECB and PSPPsurveys.

7. The adaptation of the StudentPlans and Background Surveyfor adults who are consideringpost-secondary education. Theopportunity to complete thesurvey should be made easilyaccessible.

In addition, the CoordinatingBoard recommended thedevelopment and implementationof a communications plan toinform adults and out-of-schoolyouth about the value ofbeginning or returning topost-secondary education, aboutthe variety of poet - secondaryprograms and services availableto them, about the financialassistance available to help thempay for post-secondary education,and about the information andassessment services available tohelp them make sound educationand career decisions.

103

Policy Issues

Survey of Parents of EighthGraders

Since 1986 the CoordinatingBoard, as required by statute,has provided information toeighth grade students about thewide variety of high qualitypost-secondary options inMinnesota, the importance ofpreparing well academically, andthe availability of financial aidto help them affordpost-secondary education.

The 1987 Legislature expandedthe Post-High School PlanningProgram, which previouslyserved only juniors in highschool. to serve Minnesotansfrom eighth grade du oughadulthood. The eighth gradeinformation campaign wasincorporated in this program,and the Board was directed toprovide information aboutpost-secondary education andfinancial aid to parents.

'lb learn more about whatparents do and don't knowabout post-secondary educationand financial aid, their attitudesand plans, and what they needand would like to know, theBoard staff in spring 1988surveyed a sample of parents ofeighth graders.

Assistance in developing thesurvey was provided by theMinnesota Center for SurveyResearch and MinnesotaDepartment of Education staff.A report of the survey findingswas presented to the Board inAugust 1988."

Findings: The survey revealedmany information gaps.

'Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board.Report on Survey ofPerna, ofEighth Graders(August IM).

104

Eighty-five percent of parentssurveyed said they had notreceived information aboutpost-secondary education orfinancial aid. Most parents couldnot estimate the cost ofattending post-secondaryeducation for one year, or theyoverestimated the cost. Mostparents also do not know theadmissions requirements forpost-secondary institutionstheir child might attend, andmany parents think their childneeds less than the generallyaccepted preparatory load.

Results indicate that parents ingeneral have an unrealisticexpectation of how they willcover the cost of a post-secondary education. Whilemore than three quarters ofparents are somewhat or veryconcerned about the cost ofpost-secondary education, twothirds of them are not savingmoney to cover the cost.Further, the majority expect torely on student loans andscholarships and grants; even atthe highest income level, over 50percent of parents expect theirchildren to receive scholarshipsor grants.

Over 50 percent of parents donot expect to use their ownincome or savings, nor do theyexpect their children to use theirincome or savings. Only amongparents at the top income levelsdid a majority of parents expectto use their own income to coverthe cost of a post-secondary education.

Parents in lower income andeducation categories appear tohave the greatest need forinformation. These parents areless likely to be able to estimatethe cost of a post-secondary

1 1 S

education, more likely to vastlyoverestimate the cost, and aremost concerned about the costbut least likely to be saving topay for their child's post-secondary education becausethey lack adequate funds.Parents with the lowest incomesand least education are lesslikely to think post-secondaryeducation is very important, areless likely to talk to theirchildren about high schoolcourses and post-secondaryeducation, and their children arelikely to have lower grades thanchildren of parents in highersocioeconomic strata.

Conclusions: The informationgaps are significant givensurvey results that show mostparents reported talking to theirchildren about high school andpcst-secondary education, andthat most parents expect theirchildren to continue educationbeyond high school.Consequently, many parents inMinnesota, particularly thosewith lower income and educationlevels, need more informationabout post-secondary education,financial 84, and planning fortheir child's education in orderto help them make sounddecisions about the future andnot limit their options.

Recommendation: Based on thesurvey report, the CoordinatingBoard in August 1988recommended that it supportfunding in its 1990-91 biennialbudget request to (1) informfamilies about the cost ofpost-secondary education and toencourage them to pay for thatcost, and (2) to inform parents ofeighth graders aboutpost-secondary educationopportunities, planning, andways to pay.

Section 3Programs

This section reviews the statefinancial aid and nonfinancialaid programs administered bythe Coordinating Board. Thefocus is on describing changes inthe programs the past two yearsand summarizing the status ofactivity in them. Additionalbackground appears in previousbiennial reports to the governorand legislature.

119

105

Programs

Financial Aid

Introduction

The Coordinating Boardadministers 12 student financialaid programs which have beencreated to help students pursuethe post-secondary educationthat can best meet their needs.Combined with aid from federal,institutional, and privatesources, the programs provide acomprehensive package ofassistance for students in publicand private institutions.

More than 86,000 studentsreceived approximately $80million ii1 state assistance fromthese grant and loan programsin Fiscal Year 1988.

This section summarizesactivity in the programs duringFiscal Years 1988 and 1989.Additional background isprovided in previous biennialreports to the governor andlegislature.

Following are summaries of thestate financial aid programs.

Scholarship andGrantin-Ald Program

Objective of the ScholarshipProgram: 'lb identify talentedstudents in the state and providefinancial assistance for thosestudents who demonstrate finan-cial need and wish to continuetheir education at Minnesotainstitutions of their choice.

Objective of the Grant4nAidProgram: 'lb provide financialassistance for students withneed and to encourage theirpoet-secondary educationaldevelopment at the Minnesotainstitutions of their choice.

106

Statutory Authority for theScholarship and Grant-inAidPrograms: Minn. Stat. Sections136A.09-136A.131 (1988).

Background: The StateScholarship Program wasauthorized in 1967, and theGrant-inAid Program wasauthorized in 1969. Theseprograms form the foundation ofMinnesota's comprehensivefinancial aid effort. Changes inthe programs together withincreased funding have made theprograms increasinglycomprehensive.

The 1987 Minnesota Legislatureadopted the federal definition ofan independent student forimplementation beginning fall1987.

The Board began using it in the1987-88 school year for both theScholarship and Grant Programand the State WorkStudyProgram. It sets age 24 as thethreshold for independentstatus, but includes severalexemptions and allows studentsunder age 24 to qualify bydemonstrating that they are salsufficient. Previously, federallaw considered studentsindependent if they had beenself-supporting and livingseparately from their familiesfor the previous year. For1985-86 and 1986-87 theCoordinating Board had underadministrative rule consideredstudents under age 22dependent on their parents andrequired them to submitfinancial information about theirfamily unless they met one ofseveral exemptions.

The new state law requires theBoard to inform students, inwriting, as part of the

120

application process for financialaid, about (1) the definition of anindependent student and ( ?' hepossibility of appeals to thefinancial aid admhastratorregarding the dependencydetermination.

Also, the 1987 omnibus highereducation appropriations lawrequired the Board to convene atask force of studentrepresentatives, financial aidadministrators, andrepresentatives of the systemsand Coordinating Board todevelop guidelines to interpretunusual circumstances thatwould qualify an applicant to bean independent student.

The task force met in thesummer of 1987 and developed aset of guidelines for unusualcircumstances. In summary, thetask force concluded that:

Any act which isundertaken voluntarily byparents or students to dissolvethe family should not beconsidered justification for"independent" status.

Any family which isdissolved because of some act orevent beyond the control of theparent or student may beconsidered justification forindependent status.

The guidelines do not supersedethe aid administrator'sprofessional judgment. The aidadministrator's decision is final.The Board distributed theguidelines to financial aiddirectors and studentorganizations.

The 1987 Legislature delayedimplementation of the statutoryprovision providing eligibilityfor four years of grants untilJuly 1, 1989. A CoordinatingBoard proposal to allow

Programs

Table 111.1Overview of State Scholarship and Grant ProgramFiscal Years 1985-88 and Projectionsfor Fiscal Years 1989-91

Actual Fiscal Wars Projected Fiscal if1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991

Appropriations:Carryover $ 1.9 $ 0 $ 7.1 $ 0 $ .2 $ 0 $ 0Federal SSIG 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 $ 1.4State 47.3 51.3 56.3 64.2 61.2 70.7 79.0Total 50.7 52.8 64.8 65.7 62.8 72.1 80.4

Awards 53.5 57.0 84.2 82.3 76.8 86.1 94.4Refunds (8.6) (11.3) (20.5) (16.8) (14.0) (14.0) (14.0)New Awards 44.9 45.7 63.7 65.5 62.8 72.1 80.4

Turnback/Carryover $ 6.8 $ 7.1 $ 1.1 $ .2 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0

ApplicationsStudent Pool 124,192 139,956 144,514 149,446 151,239 153,032 151,687Applicants 101,627 114,269 125,773 127,697 130,408 131,361 130,499% of Pool 82% 82% 87% 85.4% 86.2% 85.8% 86%

Awards Offered 60,505 67,515 6,434 65,977 65,667 62,168 64,998% of Pool 49% 48% 45% 44% 43% 41% 43%% of Applicants 60% 59% 52% 52% 50% 47% 50%

Awards Not Accepted 6,963 11,129 1,679 2,074 2,000 2,000 2,000

Awards Accepted 53,542 56,386 63,755 63,703 63,667 60,168 62,998% of Pool 43% 40% 44.1% 42.6% 42.0% 39.3% 41.5%% of Applicants 53% 49% 50.7% 49.9% 48.8% 45.8% 48.3%% of Offered 88% 83% 97% 96% 97% 97% 97%

Average Award SizeOffered 884 844 1,067 1,079 1,089 1,219 1,367Accepted 836 814 1,014 1,028 986 1,198 1,340

Source: Higher Education Coordnating Board

recipients to receive five years ofaid was apt adopted.

Program Operation: A newsystem of delivering statescholarship and grant awards tostudents was tested with sixstate universities in 1987.88.

As an alternative to thecentralized Scholarship andGrant delivery system, the sixstate universities (St. Cloud,

Bemidji, Mankato, Moorhead,Winona and Southwest) verifythe eligibility of students,calculate their awards, and makePayments.

Each term the six schoolsrequest the amount of manyneeded to fund eligible students.They report tq the Boardfinancial data, the enrollmentet,atus, end award and paymentinformation for each student viacomputer tape.

121

Students communicate directlywith their university rather thanwith the Coordinating Boardconcerning data changes andeligibility problems.

Board staff worked with StateUniversity System indeveloping the new approachafter the Board in 1985 adopteda recommendation providinginstitutions with a choicebetween a new campus-baseddelivery system or the current

107

Programs

Table 111.2Combined State Scholarship and Grant and Pell Awardsby Family Income LevelFiscal Years 1987 and 1988

IncomeDIstrIbudon

Fiscal Year 1987 Fiscal Year 1988Re*.iods

Percent Awards

Par-cent

Rocip-Average lents

Per-cent

Per-Awards cent Average

AU Students40 to $4,999 17,943 28.5% 38,877,826 32.7% 2,167 16,884 26.7% 38,488,388 31.0% 2,280$5,000 to $9,999 8,966 14.2% 18,617,105 15.7% 2,076 9,241 14.6% 19,684,39615.8% 2,130$10,000 to $14,999 8,697 13.8% 1'1,647,522 14.;96 2,029 8,422 13.3% 17,493,268 14.1% 2,077$15,000 to 419,999 7,430 11.8% 14,240,341 12.0% 1,917 7,527 11.9% 15,389,660 12.4% 2,045$20,000 to $24,999 6,475 10.3% 11,257,029 9.5% 1,739 6,368 10.1% 11,844,417 9.5% 1,860$25,000 to 429,999 5,682 9.0% 8,432,212 7.1% 1,484 5,741 9.1% 9,296,184 7.5% 1,619$30,000 to $34,999 3,906 6.2% 5,178,463 4.4% 1,326 4,234 6.7% 6,054,224 4.9% 1,430$35,000 and over 3,888 6.2% 4,495,297 3.8% 1,156 4,812 7.6% 5,974,302 4.8% 1,242Total 62,987 100.0%4118,745,795100.0% $1,885 63,229 100.0% 4124,224,839 100.0% $1,965

Dependent Students40 to $4,999 7,428 19.3% 16,092,345 23.0% 2,166 5,614 15.1% 13,327,917 18.7% 2,374$5,000 to 49,999 4,180 10.9% 9 186,397 13.1% 2,198 3,945 10.6% 9,151,53812.8% 2,320410,000 to $14,999 5,051 13.1% 10,842,259 15.5% 2,147 4,670 12.6% 10,519,041 14.8% 2,252$15,000to $19,999 F., i45 13.4% 10,134,007 14.5% 1,970 5,136 13.9% 11,036,54015.5% 2,149$20,000 to 424,99P 5,037 13.1% 8,706,691 12.4% 1,729 4,835 13.0% 9,182,88512.9% 1,899$25,000 to 429,909 4,722 12.3% 6,851,178 9.8% 1,451 4,695 12.7% 7,523,789 10.6% 1,603$30,000 to 434,699 3,432 8.9% 4,380,713 6.3% 1,276 3,720 10.0% 5,149,937 7.2% 1,384$35,000 and ovfx 3,521 9.1% 3,873,313 5.5% 1,100 4,448 12.0% 5,370,178 7.5% 1,207Total 38,516 100.0% $70,066,903 100.0% $1,819 37,063 100.0% 071,261,805 100.0% $1,923

Independent Students40 to 44,999 10,515 43.0% 22,785,481 46.8% 2,167 11,270 43.1% 25,160,470 47.5% 2,233$5,000 to $9,999 4,786 19.6% 9,430,708 19.4% 1,970 5,296 20.2% 10,532,858 19.9% 1,989$10,000 to 414,999 3,646 14.9% 6,805,263 14.0% 1,867 3,752 14.3% 6,974,22713.2% 1,859$15,000 to 19,999 2,285 9.3% 4,106,334 8.4% 1,797 2,391 9.1% 4,353,119 8.2% 1,821$20,000 to 424,999 1,438 5.9% 2,550,338 5.2% 1,774 1,533 5.9% 2,661,552 5.0% 1,736$25,000 to 429,999 960 3.9% 1,581,034 3.2% 1,647 1,046 4.0% 1,772,395 3.3% 1,894$30,000 to 434,999 474 1.9% 797,750 1.6% 1,683 514 2.0% 904,287 1.7% 1,759435,000 and over 367 1.5% 621,984 1.3% 1,695 364 1.4% 604,124 1.1% 1,660Total 24,471 100.0% 048,678,892 100.0% *1,9e9 26,166 100.0% $52,963,032 100.0% $2,024

Source: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Bard

centralized system withchanges. Boardrecommendations were based onthe conclusions of a task forceestablished in 1984 to studyalternative delivery methods.

Additional schools will be addedto the new delivery system inthe future as they adjust theirinternal data processingoperation to meet the needs ofthe new system.

108

Status: Table 111.1 presents anoverview of program activity forFiscal Years 1985 to 1988,estimates for Fiscal Year 1989,and projections for Fiscal Years1990 and 1991.

The 1987 and 1988 Legislaturesappropriated $125,450,000 forthe 1988-89 biennium, anincrease of 16.6 percent over the$107,600,000 in funding for thebiennium ending June 30, 1987.

122

Increases were provided torevise the private college capsused in the award formula, tooffset tuition increases in the,,nst-secondary educationsystems, and to slightly raisethe living allowance. The 1987Legislature provided $800,000for Fiscal Year 1988 and $1.2million for Fiscal Year 19R9 toraise the living allowance from$2,960 in Fivel Year 1987 to$2,985 in Placid Year 1988 and$2,995 in Fiscal Year 1989.Additional funding of

Programa

Table 111.3State Scholarship and Grant Awardsby Family Income LevelFiscal Years 1987 and 1988

IncomeOlsbibudon

Fiscal War 1987 Fiscal Year 1988Recip-lents

Per-cent Awards

Percent

Redp-Average lents

Per-cent Awards

Per-cent Average

All Students$0 to $4,999 17,943 28.5% 9,452,769 14.9% 527 16,884 26.7% 8.653,19713.4% 51345,000 to $9,999 8,966 14.2% 7,337,034 11.6% 818 9,241 14.6% 7,465,991 11.6% 808$10,000 to $14,999 8,697 13.8% 9,800,787 15.5% 1,127 8,422 13.3% 9,204,283 14.3% 1,093$15,000 to $19,999 7,430 11.8% 10,381,192 16.4% 1,395 7,527 11.9% 10,277,123 15.9% 1,365$20,000 to $24,999 8,475 10.3% 9,479,593 15.0% 1,464 6,368 10.1% 9,271,721 14.4% 1,456$25,000 to $29,999 5,682 9.0% 7,691,318 12.1% 1,354 5,741 9.1% 8,085,473 12.5% 1,408$30,000 to $34,999 3,906 8.2% 4,902,214 7.7% 1,255 4,234 6.7% 5,677,273 8.8% 1,341$35,000 and over 3,888 8.2% 4,309,381 6.8% 1,1.. 4,812 7.6% 5,872,618 9.1% 1,220Total 62,987 100.0% $63,334,288 100.0% $1,006 63,229 100.0% $64,507,679 100.0% $1,020

Dependent Students$0 to $4,999 7,428 19.3% 5,471,981 12.6% 737 5,814 15.1% 4,215,683 9.7% 751$5,000 to $9,999 4,180 10.9% 3,932,597 1.0% 941 3,945 10.6% 3,712,912 8.6% 941$10,000 to $14,999 5,051 13.1% 5,971,849 .3.7% 1,182 4,670 12.6% 5,353,930 12.3% 1,146$15,000 to $19,999 5,145 13.4% 6,995,564 16.1% 1,360 5,138 13.9% 6,958,128 16.0% 1,355$20,000to $24,999 5,037 13.1% 7,118,519 16.3% 1,413 4,835 110% 6,748,015 15.6% 1,396$25,000 to $29,999 4,722 12.3% 8,180,967 14.2% 1,309 4,695 12.7% 6,327,019 14.6% 1,348$30,000 to $34,999 3,432 8.9% 4,134,778 9.5% 1,205 3,720 10.0% 4,776,311 11.0% 1,284$35,000 and over 3,521 9.1% 3,732,933 8.6% 1,060 4,448 12.0% 5,271,521 19..2% 1,185Total 38,516 100.0% $43,539,188 100.0% $1,130 37,063 100.0% $43,363,519 , 00.0% $1,170

Independent Students$0 to $4,999 10,515 43.0% 3,980,788 20.1% 379 11,270 43.1% 4,437,513 21.0% 394$5,000 to $9,999 4,786 19.6% 3,404,437 17.2% 711 5,296 20.2% 3,753,079 17.7% 709$10,000 to $14,999 3,646 14.9% 3,828,938 19.3% 1,050 3,752 14.3% 3,850,353 1 ,..2% 1,026$15,000 to $19,999 2,285 9.3% 3,365,628 17.0% 1,473 2,391 9.1% 3,318,994 15.7% 1,388$20,000to $24,999 1,438 5.9% 2,381,074 11.9% 1,642 1,63 5.9% 2,521 706 11.9% 1,646$25,000 to $29,999 960 3.9% 1,510,351 7.6% 1,573 1,048 4.0% 1,758,454 8.3% 1,681$30,000 to $34,999 474 1.9% 767,436 3.9% 1,619 514 2.0% 900,932 4.3% 1,753$35,000 and over 367 1.5% 576,448 2.9% 1,571 364 1.4% 601,097 2.8% 1,651Total 24,471 100.0% $19,795,100 100.0% $809 26,166 100.0% $21,144,158 100.0% $ ROA

Source: Mimeeota Higher Education Coordinating Board

$4 million was provided to raisethe private college cap forstudents attending four-yearinstitutions from $6,271 inFiscal Year 1987 to $5,876 inFiscal Year 1988 and $6,024 inFiscal Year 1989. For privatetwo-year institutions, the capwas Increased from $4,216 inFiscal Year 1987 to $4,688 inFiscal Year 1988 and $4,684 inFiscal Year 1989.

The ,988 Legislature approveda ipplemental appropriation of$6.7 million for Fiscal Year 1988and $500,000 for 1989 to theCoordinating Board for theScholarship and Grant Program.

Although it provided slightlyless money than the Board'smost recent projection for FiscalYear 1989, the legislaturedirected the Board to make full

123

awards ;A 1988-89 rather thanration funds. The Board may

quest the necessaryappropriation in the 1989legislative session if the FiscalYear 1989 money is insufficientto make full awards.

The Board had an appropriationof $60 million ($68 5 millionstate and $1.6 million federal)available for awards in Fiscal

109

Programs

Table 111.4Combined State Scholarship andGrant and Pell Awards by SystemFiscal Years 1987 and 1988

System

Fiscal Year 1987 Fiscal Year 1988Rec 1p-lents

Pei-cent Awards

Per-cent

Roc 1p-Average le nts

Per-cent Awards

Per-cent Average

AN StudentsTech. Institute

System 15,356 24.4% 26,304,410 22.2% 1,713 14,916 23.6% 26,546,484 21.4% 1,780Comm. College

System 8,813 14.0% 13,959,314 11.8% 1,584 9,225 14.6% 14,914,980 12.0% 1,617State University

System 13,371 21.2% 23,214,592 19.5% 1,736 12,968 20.5% 22,936,753 18.5% 1,769University of

Minnesota 9,753 15.5% 18,317,222 15.4% 1,878 9,413 14.9% 18,372,958 14.8% 1,952Private Four-16er

Inst. 10,110 16.1% 25,001,524 21.1% 2,473 10,886 17.2% 28,808,899 23.2% 2,646Private Two-lber Inst. 5,584 8.9% 11,948,815 10.1% 2,140 5,821 9.2% 12,644,764 10.2% 2 172Total 62,987 100.07. $118,745,883100.0% $1,885 63,229 100.0% $124,224,838 100.0% $1,965

Dependent StudentsTech. Institute


System 4,101 10.6% 5,799,417 8.3% 1,414 4,224 11.4% 6,198,662 8.7% 1,487State University


Minnesota 6,833 17.7% 12,142,868 17.3% 1,777 6,5e4 17.7% 12,273,323 17.2% 1,870Private Four-16er

Inst. 8,391 21.8% 20,248,607 28.9% 2,413 8,856 23.9% 23,009,486 32.3% 2,598Private Two-16er Inst. 2,680 7.0% 5,322,425 7.6% 1,986 2,343 6.3% 4,694,447 6.d% 2,004Total 38,616 100.0%1170,066,991 100.0% $1,819 37,063 100.0% $71,261,806 100.0% $1,923

Independent StudentsTech. Institute


System 4,712 19.3% 8,159,897 16.8% 1,7'32 5,001 19.1% 8,716,318 16.5% 1,743State University


Minnesota 2,920 11.9% 6,174,354 12.7% 2,115 2,849 10.9% 6,099,635 11.5% 2,141Private Four-Year

Inst. 1,719 7.0% 4,752,917 9.8% 2,765 2,030 7.8% 5,799,414 10.9% 2,857Private Two-lber Inst. 2,904 11:9% 6,626,390 13.6% 2,282 3,478 13.3% 7,950,317 15.0% 2,288Total 24,471 100.0% $48,678,892 100.0% $1,989 26,166 100.0% $52,963,033 100.0% $2,024

Sara: 'Ammon, mow Education Coordinating Scud

Year 1988, but expendedapproximately $66.7 million dueto increased enrollments andincreased financial needdemonstrated by new,

t student applicants.Thillete:ardednprojects a shortfall of

XMtlaapproximately $2.1 million inar 1989, most of which

could be covered by thesupplemental appropriation andthe authorised transfer of fundsfrom other agenq accounts.

110

'Bibles 111.2 through 111.6 presentinformation about Scholarship andGrant activity and Pell awards bypoet-secondary system and byincome levels.

*terms' Dependents StudentAssistance ProgramObjective: 'lb pay the tuition andfees for Minnesota post-secondary students who ared is of veterans declared

ere of war or missing inaction after August 1,1968.el .1,

124

Statutory Authority: Minn.Stat 197.752 (1988).

Background: The Veterans'Dependents AssistanceProgram pays tuition and feesfor students enrolled in anypublic post-secondaryeducational institution inMinnesota if they aredependents of Minnesotaveterans who, while serving inthe United States Armed

Programs

Table 111.5State Scholarship and Grant Awardsby Educational SystemFiscal Years 1987 and 1988

System

Fiscal Year 1987 Fiscal Year 1988Roc 1p.kins

Per-cent Awards

Per-cent Average

Redp-lents

Percent

Per-Awards cent Average

AP StudentsTech. Institute

System 15,356 24.4% 9,054,550 14.3% 590 14,916 23.6% 8,238,39812.8% 552Comm. College

System 8,813 14.0% 5,554,140 8.8% 630 9,225 14.6% 5,266,168 8.2% 571State Univ. System 13,371 21.2% 10,806,388 17.1% 808 12,968 20.5% 9,857,82415.3% 760University of

Minnesota 9,753 15.5% 9,878,342 15.6% 1,013 9,413 14.9% 9,567,27814.8% 1,016Private Four-lbar

Inst. 10,110 16.1% 21,299,994 33.6% 2,107 10,886 17.2% 24,605,171 38.1% 2,260Private TWo-Nter Inst. 5,584 8.9% 6,740,873 10.6% 1,207 5,821 9.2% 6,972,83910.8% 1,198Total 62,987 100.0% 863,334,287 100.0% $1,006 63,229 100.0% 864,507,678 100.0% $1,020

`ependent StudentsTech. Institute

System 6,999 18.2% 4,434,137 10.2% 634 5,773 15.3% 3,319,014 7.7% 575Comm. College

System 4,101 10.6% 2,684,407 6.2% 655 4,224 11.4% 2,476,761 5.7% 586State University

System 9,512 24.7% 7 915,626 18.2% 832 9,303 25.1% 7,270,683 16.8% 782University of

Minnesota 6,833 17.7% 7,195,950 16.5% 1,053 6,564 17.7% 6,953,764 16.0% 1,059Private Four-lbw

Inst. 8,391 21.8% 17,755,854 40.8% 2,116 8,856 23.9% 20,258,982 46.7% 2,288Privte lino -Year Inst. 2,680 7.0% 3,553,213 8.2% 1,3 I6 2,343 6.3% 3,084,316 7.1% 1,316Total 38,516 100.0% 843,539,187 100.0% 81,130 37,063 100.0% 843,383,520 100.0% 81,170

Independent StudentsTech. Institute

System 8,357 34.2% 4,620,413 23.3% 553 9,143 34.9% 4,919,384 23.3% F38Comm. Cd lege

System 4,712 19.3% 2,869,733 14.5% 609 5,001 19.1% 2,789,407 13.2% 558State University

System 3,859 15.8% 2,890,762 14.6% 749 3,665 14.0% 2,587,141 12.2% 706University of

Minnesota 2,920 11.9% 2,682,392 13.6% 919 2,849 10.9% 2,613,514 12.4% 917Private Four-lfsar

Inst. 1,719 7.0% 3,544,140 17.9% 2,062 2,030 7.8% 4,346,190 20.6% 2,141Private TWo-Nbar Inst. 2,904 11.9% 3,187,660 16.1% 1,098 3,478 13.3% 3,888,52318.4% 1,118Total 24,471 100.0%1419,795,100 100.0% 8 809 26,166 100.0% $21,144,159 100.0% t 808


Forces, were declared prisonersof war or missing in action afterAugust 1,1958. A dependentwho enrolls his an undergraduatein any private Minnesotapost-secondary institution shallbe entitled to payment by thestate of tuition and fees at a ratenot to exceed $250 per year forso long the dependent is eligibleto attend the institution and isworking toward a bachelor'sdegree or certificate ofcompletion.

Part-ITme StudentGrant Program

Objectives: 'lb provideneed-based financial assistanceto students who enroll less thanhalf time in a program thatapplies to a degree, diploma, orcertificate and who demonstratefinancial need.

Statutory Authority: Minn.Stat. 136A.132 (1988).

125

Background: The Part-TnneStudent Grant Program wasenacted in 1977 to assist thegrowing number of part-timestudents in Minnesota. Theprogram serves students withneed enrolled less than half time(one to five credits, orequivalent) and new or returningstudents enrolled at least halftime but less than full time.

The part-time student must bepursuing work toward a degree,

111

WIMM.1.11..

Programa

Table 111.6Average State Award, Combined State and Pell Award,Average Family Income and Average Net Worth byParental Contribution for Dependent StudentsFiscal Year 1988

ParentalContribution

AverageFamilyIncome

AverageNet

Worth

Numberof

Recipients

AverageStateAward

AverageCombined

Award$ 0 $ 8,626.57 $22,417.97 15,441 $ 959.98 $2,433.67

100 18,595.23 30,169.90 895 1,545.15 2,408.12200 18,546.06 31,706.26 946 1,549.14 2,325.24300 19,872.08 30,882.63 936 1,493.70 2,206.93400 20,361.38 34,925.42 975 1,512.02 2,149.06500 21,412.62 34,732.33 1,037 1,591.91 2,120.55600 22,004.77 36,969.17 979 1,522.43 1,992.11700 23,423.54 37,940.23 1,011 1,594.70 1,948.23800 24,294.92 38,125.79 982 1,535.95 1,817.61900 25,036.75 36,555.83 948 1,514.27 1,757.92

1,000 25,125.32 36,220.58 942 1,491.18 1,668.731,100 26,393.38 36,378.91 921 1,421.56 1,540,261,200 26,524.60 39,900.07 901 1,456.79 1,536.651,30a 27,517.55 39,243.44 820 1,372.32 1,428.471,400 27,174.99 40,704.72 774 1,323.69 1,365.251,500 28,238.55 40,977.68 865 1,223.15 1,254.841,600 29,115.55 42,531.80 816 1,188.04 1,202.881,700 29,920.61 42,886.74 695 1,166.88 1,179.241,800 30,635.86 42,277.99 676 1,023.41 1,030.851,900 30,357.11 44,721.50 6;'7 948.46 954.042,000 31,393.22 43,224.07 635 932.59 934.912,100 32,082.81 45,796.17 4133 977.73 977.732,200 32,235.44 47,285.32 447 912.74 915.542,300 33,603.61 44,715.02 316 1,146.44 1,147.232,400 34,070.75 48,771.03 302 1,217.35 1,224.142,500 33,467.01 46,711.78 253 1,174.53 1,175.422,600 34 894.17 52,630.88 241 1,269.05 1,269.052,700 34,960.00 53,565.08 192 1,260.18 1,260.182,800 37,004.39 47,724.24 150 1,433.50 1,433.502,900 36,426.99 52,688.21 151 1,373.10 1,379.893,000 37,198.39 53,031.47 150 1,294.70 1,294.703,100 35,645.52 56,707.90 155 1,170.89 1,170.893,200 38,322.24 52,558.96 164 1,117.41 1,116.853,300 38,635.59 57,247.36 12: 1,073.72 1,073.723,400 39,987.23 51,481.47 120 965.53 965.533,500 37,785.79 48,397.47 129 878.26 878.263,600 37,719.25 65,186.60 114 780.36 780.363,700 38,751.48 53,537.9C 114 680.23 680.233,80C 41,913.13 62,428.68 114 615.61 615.613,900 41,578.42 58,619.02 111 523.32 523.324,000 40,859.46 49,725.27 96 431.71 431.714,100 43,088.21 59,513.30 94 317.28 317.284,200 42,589.19 59,169.80 100 228.82 228.824,300 42,559.54 76,549.84 83 128.89 128.89

Average$741.71 $19,352.65 $25,043.75 37,063 $1,169.99 $1,922.99

Source: Minnesota HOMY Education Coordinating Boyd

diploma, or certificate and iseligible for an award for oneteem. Students may however,apply for additional awards.

The 1987 Legislature amendedthe statute to require that if

112

increased funding is provided inthe future, the allocationformula for the program will bebased on resident enrollmentsrather than total part-time orfull-time enrollments at theschool.

126

Status: The 1987 Legislatureappropriated $2 million forFiscal Year 1988 and $2 millionfor Fiscal Year 1989. 'Bibles 111.7and 111.8 display programactivity by system for FiscalYears 1987 and 1988.

Programs

Table 111.7Minnesota Part-Time Grant ProgramActivity by Educational SystemFiscal Year 1987

SystemTotal

RecipientsTotal

Grants

TotalTerms

Attended

AverageTerms

Attended

AverageGrant Per

Term

AnnualAverageGrants

Technical Institutes 2,257 $ 355,462 2,967 1.31 $126 $157Community Colleges 1,432 440,585 1,850 1.29 240 308State Universities 306 116,970 398 1.30 296 382University of Minnesota 480 298,568 704 1.47 416 622Private Four-Year 99 63,863 121 1.22 524 645Private Two-Year 5 2,086 5 1.00 417 417

Total 4,579 $1,277,534 6,045 1.32 $212 $279


Table 111.8Minnesota Part-Time Grant ProgramActivity by Educational SystemFiscal Year 1988

System AttendedTotal

RecipientsTotal

Grants

AverageTerms

AttendedAnnualGrants

Technical Institute 2,733 $ 455,331 1.47 $167Community Colleges 1,875 593,038 1.35 320State Universities 349 123,523 1.37 354University of Minnesota 511 314,532 1.41 616Private Four-Year 109 87,920 1.12 807Private Two-Year 50 23,586 1.27 472

Total 5,627 $1,603,980 1.41 s285

Source: Wilmot. Higher Education Coordinating Board

Dislocated Rural NbrkerGrant Program

Objective: 'lb assist residents ofrural Minnesota who have lostor are about to lose their jobs inpaying for post-secondaryeducation programs that willhelp them prepare foremployment.

Statutory Authority: Minn.Stat. 136A.134. (1988)

Background: The 1987Minnesota Legislature, as partof a legislative package to assistthe economy of GreaterMinnesota, established aprogram of grants to dislocatedrural workers.

127

Applicants must be residents ofrural Minnesota and be enrolledin adult farm managementprograms or programs designedto provide preparation foravailable employment withinthe local labor market or an areato which the individual is willingto relocate.

The student must: be a U.S.

113

Programs

Table 111.9Minnesota Dislocated Rural Worker Grant ProgramActivity By System, Fiscal Year 1988

System Total Recipients Total Grant Average GrantTechnical Institutes 298 $115,608 $ 388Community Colleges 112 71,903 642State Universities 25 34,151 1,366University of Minnesota 5 2,547 509Private Vocational Schools 3 1,524 508Private Four-Year Colleges 3 1,387 462Private Two-Year Institutions 0 0 0

Totals 446 $227,120 $ 509

Source: Higher Education Coordinsting Board

citizen or permanent U.S.resident; be a Minnesotaresident; attend an eligibleMinnesota institution and bemaking satisfactory academicprogress and in good standingand demonstrate financial need.The student must have appliedfor all other federal and statescholarship and grant progrrins.

Also, the applicant mustdemonstrate that one of thefollowing criteria has been met:

the applicant or applicant'sspouse has been separated fromemployment or has received anotice of separation fromemployment as a result of jobobsolescence, plant shutdown,regional decline in theapplicant's customaryoccupation, or industryslowdown, and the applicant orapplicant's spouse is unlikely toreturn to work for that employerin the occupation within 12months following separationfrom employment;

e the applicant is a displacedhomemaker;

the applicant or applicant'sspouse is a farmer who candemonstrate severe householdfinancial need. For 1988-89 theincome must be below thatshown below.

FamilySize

MaximumIncome

2 $ 8,5803 10,6904 13,2005 15,5706 18,220

Each additional person $2,060

The Coordinating Boardallocates the funds to eligibleschools according to a formula.The formula is based on thenumber of entering Minnesotaresident students enrolled in thelast fiscal year, from the school'shome county, and contiguouscounties. For schools located inHennepin and Ramsey counties,the following counties areconsidered contiguous counties:Chisago, Isanti, Sherburne,Wright, McLeod, Sibley, LeSueur, Rice, and Goodhue.Students who resided in Anoka,Carver, Dakota, Hennepin,

Ramsey, Scott, or Washingtoncounty must not be counted inany school's share.

Campus financial aid officersdetermine if the student iseligible and awards the grant.Aid officers are to determinefinancial need according to amethod that is consistent with4111,- sawn; policies andproceZures. The combination ofawards from this program plusother -uncial aid cannot exceedthe student's cost of attendance.

Status: The 1987 Legislatureappropriated $500,000 to theCoordinating Board for the1988-89 biennium. The Boardallocated $250,000 in Fiscal Year1988 to 71 schools. Of 70 schoolsreporting back to the Board byfal11988, 33 had used all fundsdisbursed to them, 16 had usedpude .unds and refunded thebalance, and 21 schools refunded,or were refunding, all money.

'Aventy-four schools awardedgrants to six or fewer students;13 schools awarded grants toone to three students. In all, 446students received awards thefirst year.

Programs

Table111.10Minnesota College Work-Study ProgramActivity by Educational SystemFiscal Year 1987

SystemTotal

RecipientsTotal

EarningsTotalHours

AverageEarnings

AverageHours

AverageWage

Technical Institutes 1,713 $ 878,832 238,177 $ 513 139 $3.69Community Colleges 1,056 671,422 180,563 636 171 3.72State Universities 1,565 1,172,854 491,910 749 314 2.38University ofMinnesota 1,071 1,813,944 288,199 1,694 263 6.29Private Four-Year 1,703 1,327,956 338,296 780 199 3.93Private Two-Year 242 180,433 44,129 746 182 4.09

Total 7,350 $6,045,441 1,581,274 $ 823 215 $3.82

Source: Maintatota Higher Education Coordinating Board

Table111.11Minnesota College Work-Study ProgramActivity by Educational SystemFiscal Year 1988

SystemTotal

RecipientsTotal

EarningsTotalHours

AverageEarning

AverageWage Rate

Technical Institute 1,781 $ 939,321 241,293 $ 527 $3.89Community Colleges 961 657,379 171,119 684 3.84State Universities 1,607 1,240,756 353,953 772 3.51University of Minnesota 896 1,740,614 277,148 1,943 6.28Private Four-Year 1,702 1,233,632 320,475 725 3.85Private Two-Year 23 11,951 3,310 520 3.61

Total 6,970 $5,823,654 1,367,298 $ 836 $4.26

Source: MMmtsma Highs Education Coordinating Board

For Fiscal Year 1989 the Boardmade an initial allocation of$233,472 to 55 institutions.

lkble 111.9 shows activity bysystem for Fiscal Year 1988.

Minnesota Rbrk-Stsuly Program

Objective: 'lb assist students inmeeting their financial needs, toprovide students with valuablework experiences, and to provide

non-profit service agencies,handicapped persons, andpersons over 65 with studentassistance at low cost.

Statutory Authority: Minn.Stat. Sections136A.233-136A.234 (1988).

Background: The StateWork-Study Program wascreated by the 1975 Legislatureto supplement the Federal

129

Work-Study Program. Theprogram provides workopportunities to graduate andundergraduate poet - secondarystudents enrolled in public andprivate colleges and vocationalschools in Minnesota.

The 1987 Legislature amendedthe statute governing theprogram to incorporate twochanges. One change requiresthat if increased funding isprovided in the future, the

115

Programs

allocation formula will be based onresident enrollments rather thantotal full-time equivalent enroll-meats at the school. This amend-ment was adopted to ensure thatfunds were allocated to thoseinstitutions that enroll greaternumbers of eligible residentstudents. The second changeallows the Board, in allocatingfunds, to consider employmentneeds at eligible institutions inaddition to enrollment& Thischange was based on a 1985 Boardstudy which found that increasedemployment opportunities forestudunts may be needed inGreater Minnesota New programfuuding, howevec was notprovided to implement theseprovisions during the 1988-89biennium.

Status: The 1987 Legislatureappropriated $4,503,600 forFiscal Year 1988 and $4,678,600for Fiscal Year 1989. Thisamount represented no changefrom the previous bienniumexcept for an additional $75,000in Fiscal Year 1988 and $250,000in Fiscal Year 1989 to coverincreases under the stateminimum wage law. 'BiblesIII.10 and III.11 show activityunder the program in FiscalYears 1987 and 1988.

State Student Loan Program andOther Federal Loan Programs

Objective: 'lb improve accessand choice of post-secondaryeducation for Minnesotastudents by providing loans toassist them in paying for thecosts of education.

Statutory Authority: Minn.Stat. Section136A.14-136A.142,136A.15-136A.179 (1988).

Background: The 1973 Minne-sota Legislature authorized

116

the Higher EducationCoordinating Board to establishand administer a State StudentLoan Program as a directlending institution under theFederal Guaranteed StudentLoan (GSL) Program (now calledStafford Loan Program).

Funding for the State StudentLoan Program is accomplishedin three ways:

1. Issuance of 'Dix-ExemptRevenue Bonds. Statutoryauthority exists for the issuanceof bonds for all student loanprograms up to $550 million. Asof June 30, 1988, the bondsoutstanding totaled $232million. Thble 111.12 presents ahistory of bonds issued by theCoordinating Board andoutstanding as of June 30, 1988.The current and projected bondceiling is presented in lhble111.13.

2. Program Earnings inExcess of Program Operatingand Debt Service Requirements.As of June 30, 1988,approximately $135 million ofprogram funding had beenderived from this source sinceJuly 1, 1974.

3. Sale of Loans to SecondaryMarkets. As of June 30, 1988,$285 million of Board originatedloans had been sold to secondarymarkets. The proceeds wereused for debt service and newloan originaticsn.

Details of the GSL Program areprovided in the Board's Reportto the Governor and 1987Legislature. Following is adescription of the federal ParentLoans for UndergraduateStudents (PLUS), theSupplemental Loans forStudents Program (SLS), andthe Perkins Loan Programs.

130

Parents of dependent,undergraduate students, andparents of dependentgraduates/professional studentsmay borrow up to $4,000 peryear, with an overall total of$20,000 for each child enrolled atleast half time. Graduatestudents and independentundergraduate students mayborrow the same yearly andtotal amounts in the SLSprogram, and these limits do notinclude amounts borrowed underthe Guaranteed Student LoanProgram or amounts borrowedby parents under the PLUSprogram. The combined annualtotal of PLUS or SLS loans andother financial aid cannot exceedthe student's cost of attendance.

PLUS and SLS loans made forperiods of enrollment beginningon or after July 1,1987 will havea variable interest rate thatchanges annually.

For loans disbursed on or afterJuly 1, 1988, the variableinterest rate will be 10.45percent. A new rate will bedetermined by the Secretary ofEducation each year, and willbecome effective July 1 of thenew fiscal year. The maximuminterest rate is 12 percent.

Loans that are made for periodsof enrollment that begin on orafter July 1,1987 will have aguarantee fee based upon thesame structure used in theGuaranteed Student LoanProgram deducted from theirloans. There is no ode ationfee.

Repayment of both principaland interest begins within 60days of receiving the PLUSloan, and extends from 5 to 10years. The minimum payment is$50 a month.

Programs

Table 111.12Student Loan Revenue Bonds Issued bythe Higher Education Coordinating Boardas of June 30,1988

RevenueBonds

IssueAmount

IssueDate

DueDate

InterestRate Status

I $ 29,400,000.00 01-74 04-84 4.8 MaturedII 8,000,000.00 10-75 10-85 6.5 MaturedIII 10,000,000.00 12-75 lo-sn 5.75 MaturedIV 37,200,000.00 04-76 04-78 5.25 MaturedV 37,000,000.00 10-77 04-80 4.2 Matured

VI 38,250,000.00 08-78 04-82 to 04-89 6.3 MaturedVII 100,000,000.00 09-79 04-82 to 04-89 6.14 Outstanding

VIII 55,000,000.00 08-80 04-83 to 04-92 6.98 OutstandingIX 50,000,000.00 03-81 04-84 7.88 MaturedX 45,000,000.00 10-81 04-85 10.75 Matured

(plus variable)XI 45,000,000.00 12-81 04-85 9.75 Matured

(plus variable)XII 37,000,000.00 02-82 04-83 to 04-90 12.6 Outstanding

XIII 150,000,000.00 12-83 04-89 variable (5.25 on 6-30-86) OutstandingTotal $641,850,000.00

Total $641,850,000.00Less: Escrowed and Matured (389,350,000)Less: Matured 4-1-88 (20,500,000)Total Outstanding $232,000,000.00

All Outstanding issues were eiscrowad on July 13, 1985.


Table 111.13Minnesota State Student Loan Bond CeilingProjected Through June 30,1991

Current6-30-88

Current Bond Ceiling $550,000,000

Less Outstanding Issues (6-30-88)Guaranteed Student Loan $232,000,000Medical and Osteopathy Loan 1,100,000Student Education Loan Fund 60,000,000

$293,100,000

Ceiling Balance $256,900,000


Projected6-30-91

$550,000,000

$ 00

60,000,000$ 60,000,000

$490,000,000

131117

Programs

Table 111.14Student Borrowing in Minnesota from the HigherEducation Coordinating Board and Private LendersUnder the Guaranteed Student Loan ProgramFiscal Years 1980-19881

FiscalYear

No. ofHECBLoans

TotalDollars

Avg.LoanSize

Pk. ofLoans byPrivateLenders

TotalDelius

Avg.LoanSize

Total MNLoans(HECB

& PrivateLenders)

TotalDollars

Avg.LoanSize

1980 33,499 $ 62,108,509 $1,854 33,708 $ 69,710,462 $2,068 67,207 $131,818,971 $1,9611981 55,648 109,522,423 1,968 51,766 113,693,881 2,196 107,414 223,216,304 2,0781982 37,458 73,474,066 1,961 47,430 104,981,002 2,213 84,888 178,455,068 2,1021983 33,268 64,388,000 1,935 58,509 125,544,340 2,146 91,777 189,932,540 2,0691984 27,885 55,113,012 1,9' j 66,297 145,053,869 2,187 93,982 200,166,881 2,1301985 16,863 35,095,001 2,081 81,659 179,649,649 2,20G 98,522 214,744,650 2,1801986 8,442 18,047,P16 2,138 91,145 203,447,416 2,232 99,587 221,495,232 2,2241987 5,490 12,987,640 2,366 78,705 181,060,210 2,300 84,195 194,047,850 2,3051988 1,975 4,622,374 2,340 87,499 211,856,011 2,421 89,474 216,478,385 2,419'Federal Fiscal *ark October 1-September 30.

Source: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Speed and Higher Education Aseletence Foundation

Repayment of both principaland interest begins within 60days of receiving the loan in theSLS program as well, unless thestudent borrower is enrolledfull-time. If enrolled full-time,the student borrower qual4fiesfor a deferment of principalpayment benefit. The studentmay also apply to the lender forsome provision for satisfyinginterest that accrues while inschool. There are some SLSlenders who will permit theborrower to have the interestcapitalized, though many willrequire the regular payment ofinterest while in school becausethat is less expensive for thestudent in the long run.

Approximately 450 lenders(including banks, savings and loanassociations, credit miens andother financial institutions)participate in the program inMinnesota. The CoordinatingBoard is not a lender under thisProgram.

118

Formerly laxown as the NationalDirect/Defense Student Loan(ND%) Program, the PerkinsLoan Program provides long-term,law interest (5 percent) loans toundergraduate and graduatestudents who are enrolled inparticipating schools. Schools maymake loans available to part-timestudents, and in some cases to leesthan half-time students. Studentsapply to the financial aid office atthe school they attend, and mustshow financial need. Each schoolhas its own application deadline.

'lbtal amounts available are upto $4,500 for students enrolledin a vocational program or thefirst two years of a programleading to a bachelor's degreewith a total of $9,000 for anundergraduate education. Nomore than 618,000 can beborrowed for graduate andundergraduate educationcombined. Loan amountsdepend on the availability offunds at the school, financial

132

need, and the amount of otheraid being received.

Students begin repaying theloan nine months after theygraduate or leave school if theyare borrowing for the first timeor have repaid previous loans. Ifstudents are new borrowers,they have six months beforethey must start repaying theloan. Borrowers may be allowedup to 10 years to repay loans.The amount of the paymentdepends upon the size of thedebt, but no student will payless than 830 a month. Part orall of the loan can be canceled ifthe student teacheshandicapped children or teachesfull time in a designatedelementary or secondary schoolthat serves low income students.

Statue The Board does notanticipate the issuance of addi-tional bonds during the 1990411biennium. No increase in borrow-ing authority will be necessary.

Programs

Table 111.15Borrowing Under the Guaranteed Student LoanProgram by Post-Seccndary SystemFiscal Years 1980-1988'

System

FY 1980 FY 1981 FY 1982 FY 1983No.

LoansDollar

AmountNo.

LoansDollar

AmountNo.

LoansDollar

AmountNo.

LoansDollar

AmountUniversity of

Minnesota 11,592 $28,069,647 21,311 $52,631,224 16,531 $41,114,159 15,593 $39,191,292State University 8,349 14,951,167 16,434 29,362,436 12,088 20,942,883 13,283 23,062,776Community

College 2,964 4,748,154 6,766 12,139,831 5,399 9,876,685 5,857 10,400,206Tech. Institute 7,937 12,282,138 13,668 23,031,722 12,295 21,544,663 14,711 26,525,300Private Two/Four

Year,

Totals

17,603 37,046,290 30,593 64,417,467 25,330 55,580,372 28,433 63,933,81748,445 97,097,396 88,772 181,582,680 71,663 149,058,772 77,877 163,113,391

System

FY 1984 FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987No.

LoansDollar

AmountNo.

LoansDollar

AmountNo.

LoansDollar

AmountNo.

LoansDollar

AmountUniversity of

Minnesota 14,888 $38,196,329 16,930 $43,677,653 19,789 $50,053,222 16,930 $44,432,338State University 14,593 26,021,282 15,130 27,285,320 16,245 29,841,011 13,347 23,203,541Community

College 6,036 10,577,997 6,412 11,436,512 5,905 11,217.178 5,050 8,986,686Tech. Institute 16,451 30,254,483 17,896 34,344,822 15,281 31,271,018 13,269 25,783,142Private Two/Four

Year,

Totals

27,759 63,856,779 27,069 64,050,086 25,033 59,830,643 25,476 64,117,57479,547 168,906.870 83,437 180,794,393 82,793 182,219,072 74,072 166,523,281

System

FY 1988

No.Loans

DollarAmount

University ofMinnesota 18,283 $52,938,842

State University 15,890 28,321,128Community

College 6,036 11,238,429Tech. Institute 13,962 28,673,734Private Two/Four

Year,

Totals

31,112 81,522,67785,283 202,694,810

lIncludin Minnesota schools only; does not include Minnesota borrowers attending en institution outside Minnesota. Includes loans from privets lenders and the state Activity is forthe federal fiscal year. October 1Septernber 30.

fklcludes private =Neptune. proprietary. and graduate institutions.

SOUK,: Higher Education. Assistance Foundation

The Coordinating Board is alender of last resort under theGuaranteed Student LoanProgram. Thus, all applicantsmust present evidence of havingbeen refused a loan by two otherlenders. All eligible applicantswho apply to the state program

receive loans. Private lendershave shown increasing interestin providing GuaranteedStudent Loans over the pastseveral years. Because of adecreasing market share, theBoard in January 1988 decidedto curtail its lending in this

133

program until it can bedemonstrated that the Board'srob as a lender of last resort isnecessary to assure theavailability of funds. Undercurrent conditions, the Board isexpected to make less than$100,000 in loans each year ofthe 1990-91 biennium.

119

Programs

Table 111.16Student Borrowing in MinnesotaUnder PLUS/SLS Program,Fiscal Years 1982-1988'

Fiscal'bar

Numberof

Lenders

Numberof

LoansDollar

Amount

AverageLoanSize

1982 NA 552 S 1,376,259 $2,4931983 434 2,147 5,383,664 2,5071984 434 3,094 7,811,897 2,5241985 473 4,242 10,851,346 2,5581986 467 4,422 10,112,101 2,2371987 487 6,207 16,549,679 2,6661988 488 13,860 39,797,698 2,871

wadersi fiscal years. October 1 -Ss9tember 30.

Source: Higher Education Assistance Foundation

In July 1988, the CoordinatingBoard escrowed the outstandingbonds in the GuaranteedStudent Loan Program andtransferred the remaining assetsof the program to the LoanCapital Fund. The purpose ofthis fund is to provide capital forthe other loan programsadministered by the Board inaddition to providing loancapital for the Minnesota StateStudent Loan Program.

Thble 111.14 shows borrowingunder the Guaranteed StudentLoan Program from bothprivate lenders and theCoordinating Board since FiscalYear 1980. Thble 111.15 showsborrowing by post-secondarysystem under the GuaranteedStudent Loan Program betweenFiscal Years 1982 and 1988.Thble 111.16 shows borrowing inMinnesota under the federalParent Loans forUndergraduate Students(PLUS) and SupplementalLoans for Students (SLS)Programs between Fiscal Years1982 and 1988. These programsprovide loans to parents ofdependent students, to graduatestudents, and to independent

120

undergraduates. Borrowers donot have to show need for theseprograms, but may have theircredit worthiness examined.Students are required to applyfor GSLs and Pell grants beforeapplying for supplemental loans.

Student Educational Loan Fund(SELF)

Objective: lb help students whoare ineligible for sub :;zedfederal student loans, studentswho need to borrow mcie than isallowed under existing loanprograms, and students whohave limited access to otherfinancial aid programs.

Statutory Authority: Minn.Stat. Section136A.14-138A.1701(1988).

Background: Based on its studyof student borrowing needs andoptions, the Coordinating Boardin May 1984 directed staff topursue the development,funding, and implementation ofa new, supplemental loanprogram with a target date offal11984. Because of separatefunding sources, there have been

134

two phases of operation. Thepilot program, Phase I, beganJune 1985, and endedSeptember 1988. Thecontinuation program, Phase II,began September 1988, and isstill in operation.

This program is part ofMinnesota's overall financial aidpolicy which provides grantassistance to students fromfamilies with limited financialresources but also expectsstudents to contribute towardtheir education through savings,work, or borrowing.

Many of the program's provisionsdiffer from those of existing loanprograms. Because this programreceives no subsidy or guaranteefrom the state or federalgovernments, the cost to thestudent for borrowing is higherthan the cost under other existingsubsidized programs. Phase I wasfunded by the sale of tax-exemptrevenue bonds, Phase II fromother agency sources. No stateappropriations are used in eitherProgram Phase.

Program Features: Eligibleinstitutions are those that have

Programs

Table 111.17Student Educational Loan FundTotal Dollars Approved byFiscal Year, 1985-19881

Recoil Year

1985198619871988

'Federal Fiecal *or. October 1September 30


No. of Loans1,0203,4726,570

10,221

Total Dollars ApprovedS 3,789,632

8,656,27918,464,77228,348,794

signed an agreement with theHigher Education CoordinatingBoard listing the duties andresponsibilities of both theinstitution and the Board inadministering the program. Theinstitution must be located inthe United States or itsterritories and must have beenapproved by the U.S.Department of Education forparticipation in federal financialaid programs. Eligible studentsmust:

be enrolled in an eligibleschool in Minnesota or be aMinnesota resident enrolled inan eligible school in anotherstate or U.S. territory,

be enrolled at least half timein a program leading to acertificate, associate,baccalaureate, graduate, orprofessional degree,

be making satisfactoryacademic progress as defined bythe school,

not be delinquent or indefault of any studenteducational loan at the currentor previous school,

not be currently delinquentin payment of interest orprincipal or an outstanding loanfrom the SELF Program,

have a credit worthyco-signer,

demonstrate financialeligibility by meeting the"maximum effort" test.

The financial aid officer at theeligible school will determine theamount a student can borrow.The loan amount cannot exceedthe cost of attendance, asdefined by the institution, minusother financial aid that thestudent has been awarded or iseligible to receive. The SELFloan, in combination withstudent aid from all knownsources, cannot exceed the costof attendance at the institution.The cost of attendance is thetotal amount it costs to attend amember school. It includesactual tuition and fees chargedfor the loan period; room andboard charged for the loanperiod (or a reasonableallowance, as determined by theschool, for off-campus living);and an allowance for books,supplies, transportation andpersonal expenses.

Cost of attendance $xxxLess available financial

aidFederal loans andgrants $xx

State grants xxInstitutional assistance xx

'Ibtal Aid -xx

SELF loan amount $ xx

135

A student need not borrow thefull amount for which he or sheis eligible, although theminimum loan amount is $1,000.

Undergraduate students canborrow a maximum of $4,000per year from SELF, not toexceed an aggregateindebtedness from all loansources of $4,000 times thenumber of years in school, or$16,000, whichever is less.

Graduate students can borrow amaximum of $6,000 per yearfrom SELF not to exceed anaggregate indebtedness of$25,000, includingundergraduate debt. Theminimum loan size is $1,000.

The borrower must pay interestand/or principal on the loan andalso must pay a guarantee fee.The interest rate on SELF loansmay change every week forloans made from Phase I, andevery calendar quarter for loansmade from Phase II. Interestwill continue to vary throughoutthe life of the loan. For loansmade from Phase I, the interestrate equals 3.50 percent inexcess of the rate on the bondssold to finance the program.Since June, 1985, the interestrate on Phase I loans has varied

121

Programs

Table 111.18Student Educational Loan FundLoans Approved by School TypeFiscal Year 1987

School SystemLoan Amount

Approved

No. ofLoans

Approved

Percent ofLoans

Approved

Percent ofDollars

ApprovedAverageLoan Size

University of Minnesota $ 1,999,577 619 9.4% 10.8% $3,230State University 5,607,421 2,030 30.9 30.4 2,782Community College 859,458 380 5.8 4.7 2,262Private Four-War 6,089,884 1,989 30.3 32.9 3,052Private Two-Year 114,950 34 0.5 0.6 3,381Technical Institute 1,173,859 512 7.8 6.4 2,293Proprietary (Term Based) 990,009 374 5.7 5.4 2,647Proprietary (Clock Hour Based) 741,318 309 4.7 4.0 2,399Out of State 908,298 323 4.9 4.9 2,812

Total $18,464,772 6,570 $2,810

lOctobar 1, 191113 %Werner 30. 1987.

Source: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating board

trom 6.876 percent to 14.50percent. From June, 1985 toJune, 1988, the average ofweekly interest rate charges was8.672 percent.

For loans made from Phase II,the interest equals 1.75 percentin excess of the average weeklysale price of the 13-week'freasury Bill sales for theprevious calendar quarter.Actual interest rate historyusing the Phase II formulasuggests that the interest ratesfor loans from the two phaseswill be similar.

Borrowers are charged aonetime guarantee fee of up to6.25 percent of the loan amount.Fee proceeds are placed in areserve fund to cover a portionof insurance claims in the eventof nonpayment of interest andprincipal amounts by borrowersand co-signers. The fee isnonrefundable and is deductedfrom each loan amount when itis disbursed.

All borrowers must obtain a

co-signer. Co-signers mayinclude someone from thestudent's inmecliate family orother interested third parties.The co-signer must havedemonstrated through pastperformance that he or she hasnot had difficulty in repayingdebts. The Board will verify thecredit-worthiness of co-signersby checking informationavailable through one of severalnationally located creditbureaus. Those not found in acredit bureau will complete apersonal financial statementwhich is used to determinecredit-worthiness.

The borrower must pay intereston a quarterly basis while inschool. This is called the"in-school period." Interestpayments will startapproximately 90 days from thedisbursement of the loan check.The borrower may, if he or shechooses, begin repaying theprincipal while in school. Duringthe first 12 months aftergraduation or termination ofstudy, the borrower will be

122 136

converted to a monthly interestrepayment schedule. This 12month period is called the"transition period."

Payment of principal andinterest will be monthly startingon the 13th month aftergraduation or termination ofstudy. This is called the"repayment period:'

For loans made from Phase Ithe maximum loan repaymentperiod is 10 years from the timethe student graduates orterminates study, 15 years fromthe date of the first lorndisbursement, or November 1,2000, whichever is least. Forloans made from Phase II, themaximum loan repaymentperiod is 10 years from the timethe student graduates orterminates study, or 15 yearsfrom the date of the first loandisbursement, whichever is less.A shorter repayment period maybe arranged. A minimum annualpayment of $600 of loanprincipal and accrued interestwill be required of all borrowers,

Programs

Table 111.19Student Educational Loan FundLoans Approved by School TypeFiscal 'ear 1988

School SystemLoan Amount

Approved

No ofLoans

Approved

Percent ofLoans

Approved

Percent ofDollars

ApprovedAmerLoan Size

University of Minnesota $ 2,869,093 941 9.2% 10.19% $3,049State University 11,225,484 4,063 39.8 39.98 2,763Community College 917,557 385 3.8 3.26 2,383Private Four-Year 8,439,210 2,805 27.4 29.98 3,009Technical Institute 1,530,846 547 5.4 5.44 2,799Proprietary (Campus Based; 846,858 331 3.2 3.01 2,558Proprietary (Clock Hours) 601,031 560 5.5 2.14 1,073Out of State 1,716,437 589 5.8 6.10 2,914

iotei

iOr .zher 1 . 1947 September 30, 199E.

$28,146,516 10,221 $2,754

Source: Minnesota Wes Education Coordinating Board

including SELF loans tospouses du .ig the repaymentperiod.

All V a borrower's SELF loanpayments in Phase I may becombined into a single bill whenhe or she enters the repaymentperiod. Ail of a borrower's SELFloan payments in Phase II maybe combined into a single billwhen he or she begins thein-school period of repayment.

Borrowers are encouraged toreps s quickly as possible.Thee , J no penalty forprepaying SELF loans.

If the borrower who has leftschool is delinquent in payment

.)yond 120 days or has failed tomeet any of the other conditionsof the loan, the repaymentresponsibility will shift to theco-signer. If a loan should be indefault, the program or itsinsurers will then take one ormore of the following actions:

Work to effect repaymentthrough the Minnesota Revenue

Recapture Act. Under this law,the borrower or the cosigner'sstate inrene "ax and property taxrefunds can be diver..*: to repayamounts owed to the state.

Mike legal action againstthe borrower for repayment.

Thke legal action againstthe co-signer for repayment.

Report the borrower'sdefaulted loan to the creditbureau.

Borrowers cannot have theirloan oblir .ions dischargedthrough bankruptcy for fiveyears after leaving school.Federal bankruptcy lawsexclude from discharge loansmade oy a state agency, exceptin hardship circum3tances.

Security for the program againstthe risks of death, default, anddisability is provided solely by theHigher Education CoordinatingBoard for Phase II of the program,and by the Higher EducationCoordinating Board in conjunctionwith a nationally rated reinsures-fat Phase I of the program.

137

Ftmding: The original source ofprogram funding, a $60 millionissue of tax exempt revenue bondsin Fiscal Year 1985, was exhaustedin September; 1988. 'lb ensure the-.vailabelity of loan capital for theprogram, the Coordinating Boardin June 1987 authorized staff torestructure its student loanprograms so that existing reservescan be used f...e the SELFprogram. A lender under thefederal Guaranteed Student LoanProgram since 1974, the Boardhad accumulated reserves in theState Student Loan Programexceeding levels necessary tosupport current levels of studentborrowing from the program;meanwhile, SELF funds werenmning out. Thus in July 1988 theBoard escrowed all outstandingbonds in the Guaranteed StudentLoan Program and transferred theremaining assets to the Board'sLoan Capital Fund. This fund isexpected to meet the loan capitalroquirements of the SELFprogram for the next four to sixyears.

128

Programs

As part of its June 1987 action,the Board recommended thatreserve lever, be reviewed everytwo years to determine ifprojected levels exceedprojected requirements for loancapital. The Board stated thatthe highest priority forprojected excess reserves be toreduce or eliminate the in-schoolinterest repaymentrequirements of Sorrowers underthe SELF program.

Status: 'Tables 111.17 through111.19 show activity under theprogram.

'lb help respond to questions andconcerns from borrowers, theHigher Education CoordinatingBoard in 1988 arranged for theinstallation of a toll-freetelephone number at " ?MAR,the agency which se. .ces SE; Floans.

Graduated Repayment IncomeProtection Program (GRIP)

Objective: 'lb help graduates ofMinn asota schools in dentistry,medicine, pharmacy, veterinarymedicine, public health andchiropractic mediciae andMinnesota residents graduatingfrom optometry and osteopathyprogram, -spay their studentloans with a repayment loanbased on their projected annualincome.

Statutory Authority: Laws ofMinnesota for 1984 FirstSpecial Session, Chapter 11,Section 3, Subdivision 6. Lawsof Minnesota for 1987, Chapter401, Section 2, Subdivision 6,and Laws of Minnesota for 1984Chapter 703. Article 1, Section22.

Background: The first

applications from graduatewere received in Februa:y 1987.The 1987 Legislature approvedcontinued funding for GRIP andadded programs in public healthand chiropractic medicine.

The 1987 Legislature mandatedthat the Minnesota HigherEducation Coordinating Boardstudy the potential forexpansion of the GraduatedRepayment Income Protection(GRIP) Program to all academicprograms with specific attentionto osteopathic medicine andoptometry graduates 9nd reportin December 1987.

In December 1987, the Boardrecommended to the legislature.-hat Minnesota residentsgraduating from optometry andosteopathy programs beincluded in GRIP, and thatconsideration to expand GRIPto graduates of other academicprograms be postponed until thefall of 1988.' This postponementwas to enable the Board to:

gather information onemerging commercial loanconsolidation programs,

work with betterinformation on student debtloads. and

gain experience with GRIP.

The 1988 Legislature acceptedthe recommendations to addMinnesota residents graduatingfrom optometry and osteopathyprograms

Program Operation: TheGraduated Repayment IncomeProtection Program (GRIP) helpsgraduates in specific profes-sions repay their student loans

'Minnesota Higher lineation Coordinatisc Board.Expansion of the GRIP Program to Cava AnstimucProgram. /Wading Optometry and Ootoopotnywith Coordinating Board RecommendationsIDseember 1917).

133124

by providing a repayment planbased on average annual incomefor the respective professions.

Applicants must be Minnesotaresidents who have graduatedfrom an accredited school ofoptometry or osteopathy, orthey must have graduated fromeither the University ofMinnesota, Mayo MedicalSchool, Mayo Graduate Schoolof Medicine, or Northwc,:ternCollege of Chiropractic, with adegree in one of the followingfields: bio-medical sciences,chiropractic, dentistry, hospitaladministration, medicine,pharmacy, public health, orveterinary medicine.

Graduates' s:.udent loanrepayments must exceed 10percent of the averap annualadjusted gross income for theirprofessions. They must work atleast 30 hours per week, havenever defaulted on a studentloan, and be a U.S. citizen orpermanent U.S. resident. Theprogram requires a credit-worthy co-signer. The program isdesigned as a final source ofassistance. Prospective borrowersare expected to investigate otheroptions to reduce their loan debtrepayment-

Interest is 8 percent.; noadditional fees are charged. Theborrower makes one payment tothe Board each monthrepresenting 10 percent of theaverage annual income for theprofession. The Board loans theborrow the remaining amountnecessary to repay the st:dentloans, combines the payments,and forwards them to the holdersof the loans. The program doesnot consolidate or pay off theborrower's loans; rather it acts asa paying agent for the borrower'sstudent bar payments.

Pr ',rams

Table111.21Status of the Minnesota Medical andOsteopathy Loan ProgramAs of May 1988

Percentage ofStudents

No. ofParticipants

No. ofLoans

CumulativeLoan Amount

Average Amountof Debt

In School 0 0% 0 8 0 $ 0In Residency 1 .50 4 24,000.00 6,000

Subtotal: 1 2.49% 4 8 24,000.00

In Repayment 80 39.80 277 1,613,000.00 20,162Repaid 76 37.81 188 1,014,372.00 13,347

Subtotal: 156 77.61% 465 $2,627,372.00

Rural PracticeCompleted 24 11.94 71 382,500.00 15,938Incomplete 18 8.96 66 388,000.00 21,556Subtotal 42 20.90% 137 $ 770,500.00

Bankruptcy 2 1.00 6 32,538.85Subtotal 2 1.00% 6 8 32,538.85

Totals 201 100.00% 612 $3,454,410.85 $17,186Average Number

Pink:inane* hove located in the following rammunities for loan forgiveness Ninon,:

Loans/Student = 3.0

Albany-lioldingford Elbow Lake Mors Rod lake FellsArlington Foley New Richland ledwood FellsSalle Plaine Foaton-Segley New Nark Mile RoseauDenson Hawley Patters Prairie 4 St. Jameslierdw Henderson Payneeville Spring GroveSig Fork Long Prairie Piquet Lakes SPringfieUSlue Earth Madison Perham Sr *drCambritigs Mahnomen Pine River lit nCoss Lake Masco PlainviewChimp City Moose Lake PrincetonDeer River

Source: Minnows Higher Education Coordinating Board

139126

Programs

Table 111.22Summer Scholarship Program StatisticsSummers 1986-1988

1988 1987 1988

3 Yr. Increase

Number PercentNo. of Schools Participating 15 31 25 10 87%No. of Programs 27 78 45 18 66No. of Students Enrolled 5,348 5,798 6,188 820 15No. of Scholarships 239 385 554 315 132Ratio (:scholarships to Enrolled) 4.5% 6.0% 8.0%Dollar Amount Scholarships 873,789 8129,509 0207,710 5133,921 181Dollar Amount Average Award 8 309 $ 338 $ 375 $ 68 20

Recipients hem:Minneapolis-St. Paul 90 119 129 39 43Other 149 286 425 276 185Totals 239 385 554 315 132%

Recipients by Grade Level:7 32 54 81 49 153%8 47 88 93 48 989 42 75 107 65 155

10 44 65 115 71 16111 - ? 119 155 89 13512 II 4 3 15) 162)Totals 239 385 554 315 132%

Recipients by Income Levels:$0-16,000 171 240 280 109 64%16-20,000 35 51 95 60 17120-24,000 20 41 77 57 28524-28,000 7 31 58 51 72828-32,000 6 16 37 31 51632-36,000 5 6 6 -36,000+ 1 1 1 -Totals 239 385 554 315 132;',

Appropriation SumI-Aiiy: 1988-89

Total AppropriationInitial AwardsRefundsAppropriation Canceled

Balance

1988

8213,700(207,710)

7,365(13,355)

-0-Note: No administration costs are taken from this budget They are charged to another budget item.


1989 Total

0213,700 8427,400

given primary responsibility forproviding students withinformation about the program.

The 1988 Legislature ti.. endedthe statute to allow a student to

be eligible if he or she has earneda B average during the semesteror quarter prior to application inthe academic subject areaapplicable to the summerprogram the student wishes to

140

attend. Previously, a studenthad to earn a B average overallduring the preceding quartet orsemester.

Status: As shown in 'able 111.22,

127

Programs

Table 111.23Paul Douglas Teacher Scholarship ProgramProgram Activity Summary, 1986-87 1988-89

Number $ Amount1988-87 Academic Year: Recipients by SystemUniversity of Minnesota System 12 $ 56,628State University System 6 29,814Community College System 3 11,637Private 2/4 Year 11 53,310Reciprocity Schools 4 18,150

Total 36 $169,539

1987-88 Academic Year: Recipients by SystemUniversity of Minnesota System 21 $100,640State University System 11 47,465Community College SystemPrivate 2/4 Year 23 112,267Reciprocity Schools 5 25,000

Total 60 $285,372

1988-89 Academic Year; Recipients by SystemUniversity of Minnesota System 22 $110,000State University System 13 61,750Private 2/4 Year 29 144,781Reciprocity Schools 4 19,700

Total 68 $336,231

NOTE: Number of 1986-87 Applications: 223Number of 1987-88 Applications: 465Number of 1988-89 Applications: 460

'First year that high school seniors ware aligibla to apply.

Source: F par Eris ation Coordinating Board

participation in the program hasincreased over the past threeyears due to growing awarenessof the program and its value tostudents, and the statutorychanges.

Paul Douglas ThacherScholarship Program

Objective: 'lb provide financialaid to encourage and enableoutstanding high schoolgraduates interested in teachingto become pre-school,elementary or secondary schoolteachers.

128

Authority: Title V, Part E of theHigher Education Act of 1965as amended by the HumanServices Reauthorization Act of1984, P.L. 98-558.

Background: The Paul Douglas'ibacher Scholarship Programwas enacted by Congress in1984, and $10 million wasappropriated for the program inFiscal Year 1986. Minnesota'sproportional share, based on

pulation, was $173,000.(3ongress appropriated$15,705,003 for Fiscal Year1987, and Minnesota's share

141.

was $281,290. Congressappropriated $17,523,651 forFiscal Year 1988, andMinnesota's share was$318,733. No funds are providedfor administration.

All scholarship recipients areobligated te f ...ach pre-school,elementary school, or secondaryschool for two years for eachyear of assistance they receive.Machin economicallydisadvP-taged students,handio. ped students, or

Programs

Tab iii11.24Minnesota-Wisconsin Annual Tuition,1988-89 Resident, Non-Resident,and Reciprocity Rates

Rates

Resident Non-Resident ReciprocityWisconsin1. Doctoral Institutions (UW- Madison and Milwaukee)

Undergraduate S1 ,679 $ 5,461 $2,016'Graduate 2,439 7,584 2,674'Law 2,439 7,584 3,416Veterinary Medicine 6,159 9,002 5,184Medicine* 7,815 11,422 6,804'

2. University Cluster (Green Bay, Parkside, Eau Claire, LaCrosse, Oshkosh,Platteville, River Falls, Stevens Point, Stout, Superior, Whitewater)

Undergraduate 1,363 4,445 1,440Graduate 1,786 5,553 1,546

3. University Center SystemUndergradt to 1,251 4,013 1,192

Minnesota1. Doctoral Institutions (UMTC and UMD)

Undergraduate 2,016 5,888 1,679Graduate 2,674 5,347 2,439Law 3,416 6,832 2,439Veterinary Medicine 5,184 7,777 6,159Medicine 6,804 13,608 7,815Dentistry* 5,605 8,407 5,605

2. University ChisterMinnesota Stale Universities

Undergraduate 1,440 2,318 1,363Graduate 1,546 2,232 1,786

UM - MorrisLower Division 1,850 4,626 1,363Upper Division 2,197 5,494 1,363

3. University CenterMinnesota Community Colleges' 1,1922 1,8452 1,251UM-Crookston 1,850 4,626 1,251UM-Waseca 1,850 4,626 1,251

Mahlon schedub for reciprocity and resident tuition may vary due to awning, different tuition plateaus, annual credits andior rounding212.50 activity fee deducted.

Applies to students initially enrolled prior to the 1987-88 academic year Professional students iMtiOy enrolled in a Doctor of Meow me. Doctor of Dental Sciences,or Doctor ofVeterinary Medicine program in the public institutions of sails, state beginning with the 198738 academic year will be ineligible for roc wooly tuition under thisagreement


students with limited Englishproficiency reduces theobligation to one year ofteaching for each year ofscholarship assistance. Studentsare not required to teach inMinnesota.

Students who fail to fulfill theirteaching obligation within 10years of graduation must ropeyall or part of their scholarships,including substantial interestplus collection fees.

Status: Since the program'sinception, 164 Paul DouglasMuller Scholarships have beenawarded to Minnesota students.

Programs

Table 111.25Minnesota-Wisconsin Participationand Balance of Payment Trends,1977-78 1987-88

Academic Year

'77-78 '78-79 '78-80 '80-81 '81-82 '82-83 '83-84 '84-85 '85-86 '86-87' '87-882

Minnesota Residents In Wisconsin'UW-Eau Claire 444 576 748 905 943 1,040 1,064 1,025 1,115 1,224 1,304UW-LaCrosse 648 706 801 827 863 866 924 835 865 826 834UW-Madison 866 1,006 1,160 1,255 1,320 1,410 1.523 1,502 1,780 1,855 1,988UW-River Falls , 1,617 1,700 1,777 1,915 1,859 1,961 1,993 1,758 1,921 2,118 2,169UW-Stout 1,328 1,466 1,513 1,740 1,859 1,899 !,823 1,802 1,950 1,996 1,964UW-Superior 511 488 458 487 503 470 430 354 548 639 688Other 362 393 435 461 522 555 5a0 1,062 479 453 482

Total 5,764 6,335 6,892 7,590 7,969 8,201 8,257 8,338 8,658 9,112 9,429

Wisconsin Residents in Minnesota'UM-Duluth 233 198 214 271 296 292 290 329 350 329 357UM-Twin Cities 1,691 1,756 1,890 1,842 1,984 2,055 2,027 1,978 2,048 2,179 2,510Mankato State 107 104 105 101 144 144 138 125 166 167 215Winona State 425 470 606 605 617 633 634 626 682 783 933Other 253 274 317 317 354 397 436 485 524 506 613

Total 2,709 2,802 3,132 3,136 3,395 3,521 3,525 3,543 3,770 3,944 4,628

Payments by Minnesota(millions)2 $6.8 $8.1 $4.1 $5.6 $3.9 $5.3 $2.8 $2.7 $3.0 $3.9 $3.02

Net Cost per Student(thousands) $2.2 $3.2 $1.1 $1.3 $ .9 $1.1 $. 6 $ .6 $ .6 $ .8 $ .6

lined on Fell Headcount.Mired on Fall Headcount that has not been verified.IFunds for yeses activity corns from the subergusnt Fiscal Yaw appropdedone. For example. the Fiscal Year 1987 appropriation is used for the 1911646 program activity.ewes (16.t million prior to one-time adjustmwr of $1.2 million.IWIsconsin wM make a $1.1 dollar payment to Minnesota because of the elimination of the professions! axiom.

sours: Minnesota Higher Education Coordhatine board.

Nonfinancial Aid Programs

Introduction

In addition to the financial aidprograms, Minnesota assists itsresidents through several otherstatewide programs. Describedbelow are the interstate tuitionreciprocity programs, theMinnesota Inter librartelecommunications Exchange,the Private InstitutionsRegistration Program, thePoet -High School PlanningProgram, the Optometry andOsteopathy Contracting

130

Program, the EnterpriseDevelopment PartnershipProgram, and the MinnesotaJob Skills Partnership Program.Also described is the federalprogram of grants for scienceand math instruction.

Interstate bitten Reciprocity

Objective: lb increase accessand choice for Minnesotapoet-secondary students, toencourage the maximum use ofeducational facilities, and tominimize duplication ofeducational efforts among

143

participating statt.... endinstitutions.

Statutory Authority: Minn.Stat. SiAtion 136A.08 (1988).

Background: Authorization toenter into reciprocityagreements with neighboringstates was one of the firstresponsibilities assigned to theHigher Education CoordinatingPout. This authorityrecognizes that opportunitie-for post-secondary educationshould extend beyond stateboundaries and that historically

Programs

Table 111.26Minnesota-North Dakota Annual Tuition,1988-89 Resident, Non-Resident,and Reciprocity Rates

RatesResident Non-Resident Reciprocity

Category IAll Minnesota and North Dakota graduates and pro. assional students andNorth Dakota undergraduate students enrolled at the U of M-Twin Cities andMinnesota Tls pay the comparable rate of the state in which the institution islocated.

N. Dakota State U, U of North Dakota and Minot StateGraduate 81,464 $ 3,660 81,546Law 1,658 4,150 1,658Medicine 5,654 14,135 5,654

Minnesota State UniversitiesGraduate 1,546 2,232 1,546

University of Minnesota Twir. CitiesUndergraduate ICLA - Lower Division) 1,850 4,626 1,850Graduate 2,674 5,347 2,674Law 3,416 6,832 3,416Veterinary Medicine 5,184 7,777 5,184Medicina 6,804 13,608 6,804Dentistry 5,605 8,407 5,605

University of Minnesota-DuluthGraduate 2,674 5,347 2,674Medicine 6,804 13,608 6,804

Minnesota TIs 1,309 2,518 1,309Category II - UndergraduatesU of North Dakota 1,254 3,138 1,536North Dakota State U.-Fargo 1,254 3,138 1,536Minnesota State Universities 1,440 2,318 1,397U of M Campuses 1,850 4,626 1,397Dickinson, Mayville, Minot, Valley City State Universities 1,122 2,802 1,240Category III - UndergraduatesNorth Dakota Colleges IWahpeton College of Science, University of NorthDakota Bottineau) 1,122 2,802 1,193Bismarck State College 1,122 2,802 1,193University of North Dakota Lake Region 1,122 2,802 1,193University of North Dakota Williston 1,122 2,802 1,193

Minnesota Community Colleges' 1,193' 1,845 1,170$2.50 activity fee deducted.


states have tended to developsystems of post-secondaryeducation facilities andprograms in contiguous states.The reciprocity agreements haveexpanded educational choice forstudents, limited unnecessaryduplication of programs and

facilities across stateboundaries, and reduced cost tothe Minnesota taxpayer.

Status: Following is a summaryof changes in the status of theagreements during the past twoyears.

144

Minnesota-WisconsinAgreement: Under a revision inthe program approved inNovember 1986, new enteringstudents in medicine, veterinarymedicine, and dentistry are nolonger eligible as of the 1987-88

131

Programs

Table 111.27Minnesota-North Dakota Participationand Balance of Payment Trends,1977-78 1987-88

Academic Year

'77-78 '78-79 '79-80 '80-81 131-82 '82-83 '83-84 '84-85 '85-U8 '86-87 '87482Minnesota Residents in North DakotaUniversity of North Dakota 1,106 1,400 1,404 1,801 1,900 2,276 2,308 2,152 2,134 2,262 2,316North Dakota State University 1,444 1,633 1,798 2,031 2,255 2,530 2,588 2,650 2,651 2,542 2,617North Dakota College ofScience 293 324 362 459 457 524 453 447 387 420 396Other 135 146 134 137 127 127 187 193 181 165 158

Total 3,039 3,506 3,698 4,428 4,739 5,457 5,536 5,442 5,353 5,389 5,487

North Dakota Residents in Minnesota'UM-Twin Cities 182 195 235 254 256 262 222 210 224 284 318Moorhead State 1,605 2,006 2,138 2,394 2,702 2,385 2,333 2,464 2,730 2,705 2,918Other 199 218 261 271 286 282 329 309 331 393 326

Total 1,986 2,419 2,624 2,919 3,244 2,929 2,884 2,983 3,285 3.382 3,562

MN Residents in ND Vocational'Bismarck State College 1 1 1 6 1 1

UND Lake Region 0 1 1 1 3 5UND-Wiliston 0 0 1 0 0 1

Total 1 2 3 7 4 7

ND Residents in MN Vocational'East Grand Forks 267 300 259 319 273 325Moorhead 355 437 449 409 414 403Other 59 102 129 118 168 171

Total 681 839 837 846 855 899

Payments by Minnesota(millions)3 8.8 8.7 8.8 8.9 $1.0 $1.1 8.06 8.1 8.0 8.0 8.0

Net Cost Per Student(thousands) 8.8 8.7 8.8 $.6 8.7 8.6 $.1 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0

'Based on Fall Headcount.Missed on Fell Headcount that has not been verified*untie fora year's activity come from the subsequent fiscal year appropriation. For example. the Fiscal liar 1987 appropriation is used for the 1985-88 program activity.

Source: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Boars'.

school year. Students whoenrolled prior to 1987-88 arecovered until completion of theirprograms. The effect of thischange is to increase Minne-sota's liability by approximately$400,000 each year for four years,or $800,000 in Fiscal Year 1990and $1.2 million in Fiscal Year

132

1991. Also in the 1987-88academic yea, Wisconsininitiated an enrollment cap on thenumber of its incoming students.Although it is too early todetermine trends, this may reducethe number of Minnesotastudents going to Wisconsin andincrease the *umber of Wisconsin

145

students attending P innesotainstitutions, thus increasingWisconsin's liability.

Minnesota-North DakotaAgreement: The agreement placesstudents into three categories fortuition rates. In 1988, amodification was made to

Programs

Table 111.28Minnesota-South Dakota Annual Tuition,1988-89 Resident, Non-Resident,and Reciprocity Rates

RatesResident Non-Resident Reciprocity

Category IGraduate /professional students pay the resident tuition rate of the state inwhich the institution is located. Undergraduate students attending the U ofM Twin Cities pay the resident tuition rate at that institution.

U of South Dakota-Vermillion, South Dakota State University, South DakotaSchool of Mines and Technology

Graduate $1,272 $ 2,496 :1,272Medical 6,050 12,500 6,050

U of M-Twin CitiesGraduate 2,674 5,347 2,674Dentistry 5,605 8,407 5,605Medicine 6,804 13,608 6,804Law 3,416 6,832 3,416Veterinary Medicine 5,184 7,777 5,184Undergraduate (CLA - Lower Division) 1,850 4,626 1,850

U of M-DuluthGraduate 2,674 5,347 2,674Medicine 6,804 13,608 6,804

Minnesota State UniversitiesGraduate 1,546 2,232 1,546

South Dakota Colleges Graduate (Northern Stem Dakota State, Black HillsState)

iticN - Undergraduatesh Dakota-Vermillion, South Dakota State University, South Dakota

1,248 2,304 1,248

School o. Aims and Technology 1,065 2,430 1,526UM- Duluth (College of Letters and Sciences)

Lower Division 1,850 4,626 1,526Upper Division 2,234 5,581 1,526

UM-MorrisLower Division 1,850 4,626 1,526Upper Division 2,197 5,494 1,526

UM-Waseca 1,850 4,626 1,526UM-Crookston 1,850 4,626 1,526Category III - UndergraduatesSouth Dakota Colleges (Northern State, Dakota State, Black Hills) 1,035 2,190 1,224Minnesota State Universities 1,440 2,318 1,224Minnesota Community Colleges' 1,193' 1,845 1,224I $2.150 activity fag deducted.


tuition rates in Categories 2 and3. The North Dakota regionalunivervfties were incluued inCategory 2. The tuition rates forMinnesota residents at theNorth Dakota regional

universities is an average of theundergraduate resident tuitioncharged at these institutionsand the undergraduate residenttuition charged at theMinnesota state universities.

146

Previously, the North Dakotaregional universities were inCategory 3 with communitycolleges. The change is a resultof a recommendation thatcomparisons made for tuition

133

Programs

Table 111.29Minnesota-South Dakota Participationand Balance of Payment Trends,1978-79 1987-88

Academic Year

'78-79 '79-80 '80-81 '81-82 '82-83 '83-84 '84-85 '85-86 '86-87 '87-88Minnesota Residents In South Dakota'South Dakota State

University 380 535 757 944 1,058 949 863 812 817 708South Dakota State

M&T 41 39 51 62 75 92 69 63 52 44University South

Dakota-Vermillion 40 66 82 94 120 114 113 99 112 114Other 26 38 51 91 101 78 70 53 57 77

Total 487 678 941 1,191 1,354 1,233 1,115 1,027 1,038 943South Dakota Residents in Minnesota'UM-Twin Cities 136 223 295 335 368 343 314 325 405 407Mankato State

University 48 74 116 135 173 172 191 261 300 325Moorhead State

University 27 70 97 120 145 143 185 254 312 357S.W. State University 38 61 91 114 117 179 236 271 315 319UM-Morris 7 47 48 82 90 99 132 141 146 136St. Cloud State

University 19 24 47 54 63 71 59 69 80 76Other 35 55 52 72 63 71 78 64 77 90

Total 310 554 746 912 1,019 1,077 1,195 1,385 1,635 1,710

Minnesota Residents in South Dakota VocationalLake Area VocationalTechnical Institute 27 31

Mitchell VocationalTechnical Institute 0 0

Southeast VocationalTechnical Institute 13 17

Western DakotaVocational TechnicalInstitute 0 0

Total 40 48

South Dakota Residents in Minnesota VocationalCanby 39 50Granite Fells 42 88Pipe no 51 81Othe 43 88

Total 175 287

Payments by Minnesota(millions)' $ .2 $ .2 $ .3 $ .4 $ .6 $ .1 $ .0 $ .0 $ .0 $ .0Payments by SouthDakota (millions) $ .0 $ .0 $ .0 $ .0 $ .0 $ .0 $.06 $ .1 $ .1 8 .0Net Cost per Student(thousands) $1.1 $1.6 $1.5 $1.4 $1.8 $ .6 $ .8 $ .2 $ .1 $ .0

leased on Fell Headcount.Missed on Fall Headcount that he not been verified.EFunds fora yew's activity come from the subsequent fiscal year appropriation. For *sample the Racal 1ber 1857 appropriation is wad for Ins 1585-86 program activity.

Source: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Bawd.

134 147

Table 111.30Minnesota -Iowa Participationand Balance of Payment Trends,1977-78 -- 1987-88

Academic Year

'77-78 '78-79 '79-80 '80-81 '81-82 112-83 '83-84 '84-85 '85-88 '88-87 '8748Mkmesota Resident:3in lows'Iowa Lakes Community College 28 43 61 71 56 62 74 68 78 50 50Northwest Iowa Tech. College 1 3 3 14 10 4 6 2 13 11 6

Total 29 46 64 85 66 66 80 70 91 61 56

Iowa Residents in Mkmesota'Jackson AVTI 15 53 51 54 46 66 73 55 66 92 69Plpestone AVTI 7 20 5 7 12 17 13 13 17 12 8Worthington Community College 34 36 96 125 50 48 43 47 54 50 35

Total 56 109 152 186 108 131 129 115 137 154 112

I Bawd on RI Enrogrnant

Sawa: Mmaaota Higher Edwation Coordinating Bowt

calculations were inappropriate.This modification is being phasedin over two academic years. Thethree categories for tuition ratesare as follows:

Category 1:A. All North Dakota graduate

and professional studentsenrolled in Minnesota institutionspay the resident tuition rate ofthe institution attended. NorthDakota undergraduate studentsenrolled at the University ofMumeeotRvin Cities .endMinnesota TIs pay the residenttuition rate of the institutionattended.

B. All Minnesota professionalstudents enrolled in NorthDakota institutions pay theresident tuition rate of theinstitution attended.

C. All Minnesota graduatestudents enrolled in NorthDakota institutions pay a

tuition irmmparable to the residentrate charged at the Minnesotastate universities.

Category 2:A. Undergraduate students

enruaed in the Minnesota StateUniversity System pay a tuitionrate reflecting the average of theresident rate at these institutionsand the resident rate at theUniversity of North Dakota andNorth Dakota State University.North Dakota residentsattending the University ofMinnesota campuses etCrookston, Morris, Waseca, andDuluth also pay this average rate.

B. Undergraduate studentsenrolled at the University ofNorth Dakota and North DakotaState University pay a tuitioncomparable to the resident ratecharged at the Minnesota stateuniversities.

148

C. Undergraduate studentsenrolled at the State Universitiesof North Dakota Dickinson,Mayville, Minot and Valley Citypay an average of the residenttuition charged at theseinstitutions and the residenttuition charged at the Minnesotastate universities.

Category 3:A. Students enrolled in the

Minnesota Community CollegeSystem pay a tuition rat ereflecting the average of theresident rate at theseinstitutions and the residentrates at North Dakota StateCollege of Science, NorthDakota State University inBottineau, Bismarck StateCollege in Bismarck, Universityof North Dakota Lake Regionin Devils Lake, and theUniversity of North DakotaWilliston Center.

B. Students enrolled at. theNorth Dakota State College of

135

Programs

Table 111.31Actual and Projected Participation and Fiscal TrendsUnder Tuition Reciprocity Program,1980-81 to 1990-91

Medan* ProjectedYaw 1980-81 196182 198243 186344 196445 198546 1080-7 198748 198949 1989-90Rood Ur 1862 1963 1904 1985 1966 1987 1968 1989 1980 1991Appropdedons $15.300.000 45.080.000 .11,860.000 $4.800.000 12,800,000 14,000,0001 13.700,000 64.300,000 $4.300.000 14.300.000

MN Payments toWise. $5.6m. $3.9m. $5.3 m. $2.8 m. $2.7 m. $3.1 m. $3.9m. $3.0m $4.3 m. $4.3 m.N.D. $900,000 $ 1 m. $1.1 m. $ 49,000 E. 0 0 0 0 0 0S.D. $300,000 $400,000 $800,000 $117,000 E. 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total $6.8 m. $ 5.3 m. $7 m. $3.0 m. $2.7 m. $3.1 m. $3.9m. $3.0m. $4 3 m. $4.3 m.

Redprocky Payments to MNSD**Payments

$ .06$2.84

$0.1$3.0

$0.1$3.8

0$3.0

0$4.3

0$4.3

MN Residents in Reciprocity StatesWino. 7,590 7,969 8,201 8,257 8,338 8,558 9,112 9,429 10,276 10,789N.D. 4,428 4,739 5,457 5,536 5,445 5,353 5,393 5,494 5,549 5,804S.D. 941 1,191 1,354 1,233 1,115 1,067 1,088 943 971 990Iowa 85 66 66 80 70 91 61 56 50 64

Total 13,044 13,965 15,078 15,106 14,968 15,169 15,652 15,022 16,856 17,447

Reciprocity State Residents in MN SchoolsWoo. 3,136 3,395 3,521 3,525 3,543 3,770 3,944 4,628 5,999 6,596N.D. 2,919 3,244 3,610 3,723 3.820 4,131 4,237 4,461 4,686 4,759S.D. 746 912 1,019 1,077 1,195 1,500 1,922 1,710 1,796 1,813Iowa 186 108 131 129 115 137 154 112 119 126

Total 6,987 7,659 8,281 8.454 8,673 9,518 10,257 10,911 12,580 13,296

NIA ShAents 6,057 6,306 6,797 8,852 6,295 5,571 5,395 4,111 4,276 4,151

MN cost pernet SWAM 1,123 840 1,030 451 429 556 723 730 1,006 1,03E

S.D. oat pernot student 750 202 119 0 0 0

liessIspeleturs roductod arnamt t 3.0:0,0:0

Swan AlInnasoto Higher Ell. Neon Coordinating !bird

Science, North Dakota StateUniversity in Bottineau,Bismarck State College inBismarck, University of NorthDakota - Lake Region in DevilsWoe, and the University of NorthDakota - - Williston Center pay atuition comparable to the residentrate charged at the Minnesota'scommunity colleges.

186

Minnesota-South DakotaAgreement: In June 1988, bothstate agencies agreed torevisions in the agreement.Beginning with the 1988-89academic year there will be noreimbursement from one stateto the other. Starting with the1989.90 academic year, allMinnesota residents attendinginstitutions in South Dakotaand all South Dakota residents

149

attending institutions inMinnesota will pay the residentrate of the institution attended.For 1988-89 all participatingstudents pay the negotiatedtuition rate. (See Report to theGovernor and 1987 Legislature.)

The application procedure forstudents participating in theMinnesotaSouth DakotaVocational 'ilechnical Reciprocity

Programs

program ivas eliminatedbeginning with the 1987-88academic year Studentsparticipating in this programapply at the institution they areattending. Eligible students paythe resident tuition rate of theinstitution. There is noreimbursement from one stateto the other.

Status: The 1987 MiLnesotsLegislature appropriated $3.7million for Fiscal Year 1988 and$4.3 million for Fiscal Year 1989to the Coordinating Board forreciprocity.

Interstate Reciprocity Analysis

The Coordinating Board in June1988 received an analysis of theeffects of interstate tuitionreciprocity. The report analyzesstate residents who applied fortuition reciprocity underagreements between Minnesotaand Wisconsin, North Dakota,and South Dakota in fall 1985and compares them toreciprocity applicants in fall1982. It also compares fields ofstudy and traces changingpatterns over the period.'

Findings: For many students,the nearby location of apoet - secondary institution inanother state is the mostimportant factor in choosing toapply for tuition reciprocity. Ofthe 10 Minnesota counties withthe most reciprocity applicants,five are in the immediate 'ReinCities area, and most residentsof the other five counties are

ithin commuting distance ofanother state's post-secondaryinstitution. Minnesota has hadreciprocity agreements withWisconsin since 1973, North

Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board,Maas Reciprocity Agreement. Between Minnesotaand Contingent Stares June HMI

Dakota since 1975, and SouthDakota since 1978.

Majors in business andmanagement were chosen moreoften than other majors byMinnesota reciprocity applicantsto Wisconsin institutions.Education was the second mostpopular choice. Nineteen percentof the Minnesota applicants forboth North Dakota and SouthDakota institutions choseengineering. The majority ofengineering majors came from theMein Cities area Business andmanagement were the secondmost popular choice. The firstchoice of applicants fromWisconsin, North Dakota, andSouth Dakota was majors inbusiness and management. Thesecond most popular choice waseducation.

Objective: 'lb establish andfacilitate a system of resourcesharing of services amonghigher education libraries, stateagency libraries, and otherlibraries that elect to contractfor services.

Statutory Authority: Laws ofMinnesota 1987, Chapter 401,Section 2, Subdivision 7.

Background: The MinnesotaInterlibraryIblecommunications Exchange(MINITEX) was established asa program of the HigherEducation Coordinating Boardto facilitate resource sharingamong higher education andstate agency libraries inMinnesota, and to aid in thereduction of unit costs in theselibraries. Prior to Fiscal Year1988, MINITEX fulfilled thisobjective through five major

activities: (1) document delivery,(2) periodical exchanges, (3)creation and maintenance of aunion list of serials holdings ofthe participating libraries, (4) acommon data base ofparticipants' books andnon-print holdings throughparticipation in a nationalprogram of online sharedcataloging, and (6) referenceservices to participatinglibraries.

One hundred thirty Minnesotapost-secondary and state agencylibraries currently participate inthe MINITEX programs,supported by stateappropriations to theCoordinating Board. Inaddition, public libraries inMinnesota participate throughthe Office of LibraryDevelopment and Services, andlibraries in North and SouthDakota participate undercontracts that also providefunding. Within Minnesota, 59percent of MINITEX documentdelivery requests come fromGreater Minnesota.

MINITEX services are designedto provide students, faculty, andother residents of Minnesotawith maximum access to libraryresources around the state andregion. Maintenance of theprogram is essential inMinnesota due to a highconcentration of total statelibrary resources in the TwinCities area. Over 60 percent ofdocument delivery requests arefilled from the University ofMinnesota/T.vin Cities librarycollections, the MinneapolisPublic Library and InformationCenter, the Minnesota HistoricalSociety, and the MinnesotaDepartment of Health Library.These items are retrieved byMINITEX staff going to the

150 137

Programs

Table 111.32Actual and Preected MINITEX ActivitySupported by State Appropriations,Fiscal Years :a85-1991

Racal YearActualFY 85

ActualFY 88

ActualFY 87

ActualFY 88

EstknatedFY 89

EstknatedFY 90

EstimatedFY 91

Academic Year (1984-85) 119850 (1986 -87) (1987-88) (1988 -89) 11989-W) (1990-91)No. of libraries served 125 125 120 130 130 130 130tkin. of documents delivered 111,8::$ 116,870 134,750 140,724 149,438 157,809 167,332No. of periodical exchanges 26,107 18,222 6,041 0 0 9,466 10,886`lo. of reference requests 1,368 1,187 700 0 0 900 1,200

u. of OCLC libraries 92 93 93 94 95 95 97(4o. of online P. 4dings records (in millions) 4.5 5.0 5.8 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.9No. of work sessions 30 50 60 70 80 95 110

cv...00: MOM fEX Offios

key INvin Cities librayThe remainiug requests arereferred and filled from otherMINITEX participatinglibraries which absorb the costof 'retrieving the materials.

MIN ITEX provides its coreservice t low cost one of thelowest ';out per unit sharedamong libraries in the country.It has been nationallyrecognized as a modelinterlibrary resource sharingProgram.

The increased volume of activitythat has resulted fromout-of-state contractualarrangements contributes to thelow unit cost that MINITEXhas maintained. In addition,participationl the Office of...orary Development andServices, North Dakota, andSouth Dakota has broadened thebane of library collections, andconsequently, enl limed resourcesharing among all participants,including Minnesota highereducation and state agencylibraries.

138

The Coordinating Boardcontracts with the University ofMinnesota for MINITEXservices. The Universitymanages day-to-day perat;onsof the program and services atthe MINITEX office in WilsonLibrary. Coordinating Boardstaff determine the policydirec ion of the program, set thegoals and objectives, define theservices, velop budgetrequests, contract for majorservices, and representMINITEX to the legislatureand public. An advisorycommittee assists the Board.

Tkble 111.32 identifies actualand projected activitysupported by direct stateappropriations in all majorprogram areas from 1984-85 to1990-91 while Thble 111.33shows total program activity forthe same period.

The 1987 Legislatureappropriated $759,300 for FiscalYear 1988 anL $759,300 for1989.

The apprwriation for the

151

1987-89 biennium included anincrease to cover f he cost of payequity adjustments forMINJTEX employees at theUniversity. However, theappropriation did not includefunds for an inflationadjustment or for improvementsin service, despite all-timedemands for document deliveryservice.

Status: In response to limitedstate appropriations for the1987.89 biennium, theCoordinating Board identifiedcor a and secondary services.Dcw.ument delivery, the unionlie. of serials, and online catalogwere identified as the coreMINITEX services, and theycontinue to be provided at nocost to participating libraries.Periodical exchange and thereference service were identifiedas secondary services and arebeing provided to participatinglibraries on a fee basis. Onlythose libraries willing and ableto pay have access to referenceand periodical exchangeservices. Because of the decreasein the numh'r of libraries using

Proars Ins

Table 111.33Actual and Projected ActivitySupported by MINITEX Appropriations and ContractsFiscal Years 1985-1991'

Read Yew FY 85 FY 91 FY 87 FY 88 FY 89 FY 90 FY 91Academic Yew (1984-85) (1985-c 3) (1986 -87) (1987 -88) (13913-09) i1999-901 (1990 -91)

No. of libraries served 190 190 216 216 216 216 216No. of documents delivered 166,658 175,914 191,737 200,885 210,703 227,242 242,176No. of periodical exchange 26,107 18,222 6,041 6,586 8,232 10,412 11,358No. of reference requests 4,120 3,656 2,466 1,489 1,650 2,300 2,600No. of OCLC libraries 159 161 161 160 162 162 17;4l'io. of onlir - holding records (in millions) 7.5 8.5 9.0 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5No. of work sessions 30 50 60 70 80 95 110

'Includes contracts with Office of Library Development and Stemma. North Dakota and South Dakota. and fees tor Secondary Semmes.

St urce MINITEX Office

these services (andconsequently, decreases in thenumber of reference questionsand periodical exchanges), theunit costs and fees for theseservices have increasedsignificantly.

Document de'ivery requestshave increased at ahigher-than-expected rate sothat the 1987.89 appropriationhas 'Lot adequately covered thecost of providing this serviceand the other core services.Since Fiscal Year 1985, thehigher education li' stateagency demand fa. documentdelivery has increased 25percent, while the MINITEXappropriation has increased only10 percent. Figured in constantdollars (based on 1985 dollar 3),the MINITEX app:opriationactually dropped more than twopercent between 1985 and 1988.Additional funds to cover coreservices have been foundthrough unanticipated andone-time sources such as

temporarily unfilled positions andfrom fees. Nevertheless, duringFiscal Year 1988, there was anoticeable decline in the quality ofdocument delivery se-vice as theMINITEX staff had to reducequality control mechanisms t"meet the ever increasing demandfor materials.

Minnesota's libraries aremoving toward greater use ofcomputer services andprocesses. placing rev/ demandson MIKITEX staff to providemore suphisticated informationand support services to librariesSc "^v may better servestuotuts, faculty, and otherMinnesota residents. TheMINITEX office must workclosely with the online system ofthe University ofMinnesota/Win Cities campus(LUMINA) and the StateUniversity System onlinesystem (MSUS/PALS) toenhance resource sharing. Inparticular, there is a demand formore efficient delivery of

152

materials, more timely responseto document delivery requests,and more geographicallyaccessible instruction in the useof new technologies related toresource sharing.

The 1987-89 biennialappropriation did not includefunds to cover the cost forinfiaidu... Moreover, duringFiscal Year 1989, theappropriation is not expected tocover the cost of providingMINITEX core services. If thecurrent appropriation level iscontinued, a further decrease inthe level of service provided tolibraries would be required. Themost probable loss would be inthe number of requests filled,and in the timeliness ofresponding to requests. Onepossible response would be tolimit the number of requeststhat each library may send.

In Fiscal Year 1989, the level ofservice is budgeted to exceedlevels for which there is funding.Moreover, the current

139

Pr% .ams

quality of service is alreadydeteriorating and the futuredemand for service is expectedto increase.

If this program were notavailable, libraries would facethe prospect of either payingmuch higher costs to purchasethe materials or be unable toprovide information to students,faculty, researchers, and otherresidents of Minnesota. In 1987,the average cost to purchase andprocess a book for an academicinstitution was $68. Periodicalreprints are available to librariesthrough University Microfilmsat $8.75 per item, a bigiler feethan it costs MINITEX toprovide the same material. Theunit cost proposed for allMINITEX services for FiscalYear 1990 is $7.88 (this includesboth primary and secondaryservices; the unit costs fordocument deli' .Ary servicesalone would be somewhat lower),allowing savings of from $2.25to $61.50 per item. In FiscalYear 1988, MINITEX made140,724 transactions.

Private Institutions RegistrationProgram

Objective: 'Ib assure theauthenticity and legitimacy ofprivate institutions that providepost-secondary education toMinnesota residents.

Statutory Authority: Minn.Stat. Sections 136A.61-136A.71(1988).

Background: The PrivateInstitutic as RegistrationProgram was established by the1975 Minnesota Legislature inresponse to an increasingnumber of inquiries and

140

complaints by students whichpointed to possible abuses in theadvertisement and delivery ofpost-secondary education inMinnesota. Implementation ofthe program began in 1977.Several amendments to the actwere adopted by the 1978Minnesota Legislature; theyclarified the intent of the lawand expanded its effect toinclude public schools locatedoutside Minnesota which offerprograms or courses within thestate.

The program ensures protectionof student records, disclosure ofcertain information to studentsand prospective students,financial stability of educationalinstitutions, appropriatecurriculum, faculty, and physicalfacilities for educationprofit ..ans, and adequategovernance of educationalinstitutions. The proceduresalso assist institutions byproviding guidelines t 3 privateschools offering programs andcourses in Minnesota, helping toprotect legitimate and authenticinstitutions from unfaircompetition, and offeringguidelines and assistance todeveloping institutions andexperimantal programs.

Schools under the purview ofthis program must registerannually with the CoordinatingBoard. Once an institution hasregistered, the CoordinatingBoard staff reviews materialthat has been submitted andrecommends Board actionconcerning institutional namesand the granting of degrees.

The Board maintains a list ofregistered schools, schoolsapproved to offer specifieddegrees, and schools Approved

153

to use the name "academy,""college," "institute" or"university."

Status: By August, 1988, 70institutions were registered withthe Coordinating Board, 51 wereapproved to grant degrees, and10 were approved only to usecertain terms in their names.Nine were simply registered.Several institutions have beendiscouraged from operating inMinnesota or have been deniedapproval.

In 1987 and the first eightmonths of 1988, theCoordinating Board approvedone Minnesota institution andthree out-of-state schools tooffer degrees in Minnesota;another non-Minnesotainstitution also was approved touse the term "institute" in itsname while operating inMinnesota. In addition, oneMinnesota institution wasapproved by the Board to offer anew degree. Five schoolsdiscontinued operating aspost-secondary institutions inMinnesota, one discontinuedoffering a degree. In addition,one school's approval waschanged to conditional approvaland was to be reviewed byNovember 30, 1988. Table 111.34lists the changes in the list ofregistered and approvedinstitutions from January 1987through August 31, 1988.

Programs

Table 111.34Changes in the List of Registeredand Approved InstitutionsJanuary 1, 1987-August 31,1988

New Name ApprovalsInstitute for Cortext Research andDevelopment

New Degree ApprovalsCardinal Snitch College

College of St. Thomas

Illinois School of Professional Psychology

Pillsbury Baptist Bible Colt ie

Vermont College of Norwich University

Apprm al Changed to Conditional Appro.T.:National College

Institutions No Langer OfferingPost-Secondary Education in MinnesotaCentral Michigan UniversityFairview Deaconess HospitalMontana State UniversityNorthwood InstituteStephens College

Degrees No Longer Offered in MinnesotaAugsburg College

Institutions No Longer Registered andOperating Under Different Names orCorporate Identities Than That for WhIchThey Were ApprovedHastings Beauty School

Cosmetology Training Centers

1Conditional approval until Ji.ne 30, 19892Conditionel approval until January 26, 19893Conditional approval until November 30, 1988


Bachelor of ScienceMaster of Science

Doctor of Education

Master of ArtsDoctor of Psychology

Associate of Applied ScienceBachelor of Arts'Bachelor of Science'

Master of Arts2

Associate of Applied Science3Bachelor of Science3

Associate of ArtsBachelor of ArtsBachelor of Science

Associate of Arts

Hastings (formerly the Hastings College of Hair Design and now nolonger under the purview of the Private Institutions Registrationprogram)

Richfield, Columbia Heights (formerly called the Glamour BeautyAcademy and the Glamour Central Bdauty Academy; both no longerfall under the purview of the Private Institutions Registration Programbut are licensed by the Department of Commerce)

154141

Prwrums

Minnesota Post- -High SchoolPlanning Program

The Minnesota Post-HighSchool Planning Program is aqtatewide education and careergualsnce, testing andinformation and planningprogram for all secondarystudents in grades 8 through 12and adults who wish toparticipate.

Objective: 'lb provide secondarystudents and adults withinformation useful in makingpost-secondary education andwork plans and to providepost-secondary institutions withinformation useful in theadmission, advising, andplacement of prospectivestudents.

Statutory Authority: Minn.Stat, Sections136.A.85-136.A.8C ;1988).

Background: The 1978Legislature directed theMinnesota Higher EducationCoordinating Board toadminister the Post-High SchoolPlanning Program (PSPP) for all11th grade students who wish toparticipate.

In fall 1986 the Hoard endorsedq proposal of the program'sadvisory task force to establishan integrated system ofassessment and information tohelp residents in eighth gradethrough adulthood to makebetter education and careerdecisions. The Boardrecommended a biennial fundingincrease of $1.2 million to covernew and expanded program..,ervices.

Legislation was approved in1987 expanding the program to

142

serve secondary students ingrades A through 12, and adults.

The legislature continued thebase level of $118,000 per yearand provided an additional*62,000 in Fiscal Year 1989 tosupport the improvement ofcurrent, basic services.

The advisory task force, whichhas included representationfrom secondary andpost-secondary education, nowis required to haverepresentatives who haveknowledge and interest inpoet - secondary education foradults. A new task forceresponsibility is to study andmake recommendations about avariety of methods to provideassistance to adults consideringpost-secondary education.Under the program, as amendedin 1987, the Board is required tocoordinate efforts and developadditional methods of providinginL-mation, guidan,, andtesting services to out-of-schcolyouth and adults.

The Board's initiative to provideinformation to eighth gradestudents about post-secondaryopportodties, academicstandards, and financial aid wasincorporated into the Post-HighSchool Planning Program.

The Board had requestedadditional fundmg to targetinformation to parents of eighthgrade students, high schoolstudents, and out-of-schoolyouth and adults. No newappropriations were approved,but base funding for the eighthgrade project, started in 1985,was maintained.

Under the Post-High SchoolPlanning Program, the Board is

155

required to make available to allresidents from eighth gradethrough adulthood informationabout planning and preparingfor post-secondary education.Information is to be provided toall eighth grade students andtheir parents by January 1 ofeach year about the need to planfor their post -econdaryeducation. The Board also mayprovide information to highschool students and theirparents, to adults, and toout-of-school youth.

Status: Approximately 38,6Z1Minnesota high school juniors,or 62 percent, participated in theprogram in the 1987.88 schoolyear, dov.n from a high of nearly57,000 in 1979-80. The declineparallels the trerds ofdecreasing high school classsizes that can be expected tocontinue for the next four years.

The Coordinating Board in 1988estaulished a five year contractwith the American Collegelbsting Company (ACT) toprovide (1) an assessment forcollege admission, (2) a plansand background survey, and (3)an interest inventory. ACT alsowill provide data basemanagement services.

The previous contract had beenwith the College Board andincluded the PreliminaryScholastic AptitudeThat/National Merit ScholarshipQualifying That(PSAT /NMSQT), the School andCollege Ability Thet (SCAT), aplans and background survey,and an interest inventory. Thedata base administration hadbeen serviced by the Universityof Minnesota's Office ofMeasurement Services.

Programs

Table 111.35Minnesota Post-High School Planning ProgramFiscal Year 1989 Funding Sources

Task

EstimatedNumber ofStudentsServed

StudentCost

TotalStudents

Cost

StateContribution

perStudent

StateFunds

TotalProgram

Costs

PSPP/APP(college admission test,plans and backgroundsurvey, and interestinventory)

or

Plans and ElsickgroundSurvey(for students not taking theACT Assessment)

Interest Inventory(for students not taking theACT Assessment)

Data Base Administration(standard report. .ostudents, high schools, andpost secondary institutions,follow-up studies, searchservice)

Program Materials

Minnesota CollegeAdmission Form (250,000copies)

Brochures and Posters(75,000/500 copies)

Reports and ServicesBrochure and order forms(500 copies)

Total Operating Costs

35,000

16,000

16,000

51,000

$9.50

$ .75

$332,500

$ 12,000

$2.00

$1.50

$ 70,000

$ 24,000

$ 85,000

$ 5,450

$ 3,650

$ 853

$402,500

$ 24,000

$ 12,000

$ 85,000

$ 5,450

$ 3,650

$ 850$344,500 $188,950 $533,450

Source: Minnesota Higher Educ-ction Coordinating Board

A consensus had emerged toseek improvements both in thetest and data baseadministration. After extensiveconsultation, the CoordinatingBoard staff developed a requestfor proposal seeking new andcreative approaches.

After evaluating proposals, the

Coordinating Board preferredACT because it appeared to besuperior in meeting the needs ofstudents, high schools, andpost-secondary educationinstitutions.

This three-part ACT programmodified for Minwsota will becalled the PSPP/AAP. The

156

assessment for collegeadmission is 4 curriculum-basedtest that measures educationaldevelopment and predictsacademic performance duringthe first year of college. Allcolleges in Minnesota will acceptthe ACT assessment for collegeadmission. The plans andbackground survey is a

143

Programs

questionnaire that asksstudenta for information abouttheir backgrounds, plans afterhigh school, interests, needs andachievements. The interestinventory collects informationabout students' likes, dislikes orindifference to work relatedactivities. All high schools inMinnesota will be eligible toserve as test centers. In thewinter of each year, high schooljuniors will have an opportunityto take all or parts of the ACTAssessment Program. Theschool day and testing week willbe determined annually by theCoordinating Board. TheCoordinating Board willcontribute $2.00 per studentparticipating in the entire ACTAsbassment Program so thatthe fee paid by Minnesotastudents will be $2.00 less thanthe prevailing national fee forthe year and subsequent years.Students electing not to take thecollege admission test areencouraged to take the plansand background survey, free ofcharge, and the intereb tinventory for $.75, which isretained by ACT.

lb make th plans andbackground survey available forstudents who uo not take thePSPP/AAP, the CoordinatingBoard -ill contribute a fee of$1.60 per student up to amaximum of $25,000 per yearregardless of the number ofstudents involved. If all fundsare not spent, the CoordinatingBoard may redirect the balanceto underwrite the cost of theinterest inventory

'lb provide data baseadministration and relatedservices, the CoordinatingBoard will pay $85,000 annuallyto ACT.

144

For the past four years theCoordinating Board hasprovided copies of a booklet(Future Choices) and planningchart to all eighth gradestudents attending public andprivate junior high and middleschools in Minnesota. Schoolsalso am obtain a videotape. TheFuture choices mate leis arealso available in Spanish andHmong as part of a projectfunded in 1986 by The SaintPaul Foundation. Responses toevaluations of the booklet andvideotape have been positive.

lb learn more about whatparents do and don't knowabout post-secondary educationand financial aid, their attitudesand plans, and what they needand would like to know, theBoard staff in Spring 1988surveyed a sample of parents ofeighth graders. (See page 104.)

In December 1987, the Boardadopted a set ofrecommendations on methods toprovide information and assess-ment services for adults. (Seepage 102.) It was based on thereport and proposals of theprogram's advisory task force.

Osteopathy and OptometryContracts

Objective: lb provideoppc4unities for MinnAotaresidents to pursue professionalstudies in optometry andosteopathy and to ensurestable supply of qualifiedprofessionals in optometry andosteopathy for the state bycontracting for student spacesin institutions located in otherstates.

Statutory Authority: Minn.Stat. Section 136A.225 (1988).

157

Background: The Optometryand Osteopathy ContractingProgram was established in1977 to respond to projectionsof a diminishing supply ofprofessionals in both healthareas in Minnesota. Since thereare no professional programs ineither optometry or osteopathyin Minnesota, the method ofcontracting for a specifiednumber of seats in each enteringclass is designed to assure astable pool of professionalscommitted to practicing in thestate.

The Board it authorized bystatute to contract forplacement of up to 10 seats incolleges of osteopathy and up to13 seats in schools of optometry.

Status: The 1987 Legislatureappropriated $283,000 for FiscalYear 1988 and $187,500 for 1989to the Coordinating Board forthe program. These amountswere based on continual fundingfor 10 existing optometry seatsin Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989,14 existing osteopathy seats inFiscal Year 1988 and 9 in 1989,and no new seats. With theprogram being phased out, finalcontract payments will occur inFisc al Year 1990.

In a related action, the 1987Legislature directed theCoordinating Board to study thepotential expansion of theGraduated Repayment IncomeProtection Program (GRIP) toinclude graduates of optometryand osteopathic medicineprograms.

In response to a CoordinatingBoard recommendation, the1988 Legislature adoptedlanguage to include in GRIP

Programs

.11=11=1/101".

Table .IJ.36Number of Seats and Costs in Optometry andOsteopathy Contracting ProgramFiscal Years 1983 to 1989 andEstimates for Fiscal Years 1990-91

FY 1993Actual

FY 1994Actual

FY 1985Actual

FY 1998Actual

FY 1987Actual

FY 1988Actual

FY 1989Actual

FY 1990Estimated

FY 1991Estimated

°Plantar/No. of Continting

SeatsNo. of New Seats

310

180

50

05

55

100

100

50

00

Cost par Seat 4,500-5,500 4,900-5,500 4,900-5.500 5,400 5,400 5,400-6,500 5,400-6,500 5,400-6,500 0No. of Optometry

Scholarships 13 10 5 0 0 0Toed Optometry

Cost $158,700 $ 91,800 $ 28,900 $ 52,000 $ 79,000 $ 74,000 $ 59,000 $ 31,000 0

MNo. of Condnuhp

Seats 21 13 8 18 15 14 9 4 0No. of New Sots 0 5 11 5 5 0 0 0 0Cost par Seat 14,500 18,00011,25018,00311,25018,000 12,00016,000 12,000-18,000 12,0CC-16,000 18,000 0Total Osteopethy

Coat $304,500 $288,000 $283,000 $315,000 $304,000 $208,000 $1281)00 $64,000Source: Minnesota Higher Educahon Coordinating Board

Minnesota residents graduatingfrom optometry and osteopathyprograms.

Ihble 111.36 shows actual andprojected participation and costfigures.

As of August 1988 there were 44osteopathy graduates eligible tobegin practice in Minnesota. Ofthese, 17 had requested andbeen granted a delay of servicein order to specialize, 13 hadestablished a practice inMinnesota, and 5 were repayingthe state for the contract. Ninewere in residency and had notstated their future plans. Fourof the 13 Lad completed thepracticf, obligation.

There were 50 optometrygraduates eligible to beginpractioo in Minnesota. Of these,1 had requested and beengranted a delay of service, 40had established a practice, and4 were repaying the state for the

contracted amount. Five were inresidency and had not statedtheir future plans. Twenty-fourof the. 40 had completed theirpractice obligations.

Enterprise DevelopmentPartnership Centers

Objective: 'Ib increase thesuccess rate of new andexpanding businesses throughthe cooperative efforts of allavailable community resourcesfrom the business, government,education, and financial sectors.

Statutory Authority: Laws ofMinnesota for 1987, Chapter401, Section 2, Subd. 8. Laws ofMinnesota for 1984 Chapter703, Article 1, Subd. 4(d).

Background: The 1985Minnesota Legislature directedthe Higher Educat' nCoordinating Hoar 1 toadminister a pilot program of

158

enterprise developmentpartnership centers. Fourcommunities were selected inJanuary 1986 to receive grants

Bemidji, Crookston, OtterCounty, and the Iron Range.

The 1987 Legislature providedonly partial funding, $200,000, forFiscal Year 1988 and no fundingfor Fiscal Year 1989. TheCoordinating Board hadrequested $349,700 in 1988 and$336,500 in 1989 to pre vide thestate share for the four existingcenters; the governor proposedfunding for three new centers.The 1988 Legislature provided$200,000 for Fiscal Year i989 tosupport existing and new modelenterprise development andinnovation centers. The programwas directed to seek futurefunding from the GreaterMinnesota Corporation.

Status: In June 1988 theCoordinating Board approvedfunding of up to $38,000 for the

145

Programs

Bemidji Cooperation Office,$50,000 for the JrookstonEnterprise Development Center,and $20,000 for the Otter'County Business DevelopmentCenter.

Funding for two new centerswas approved up to $50,000for the Minnesota CooperationOffice, and up to $50,000 for theWomen's EconomicDevelopment Corporation. InJuly 1988, the Iron RangeCenter closed.

After 21/2 years of operation anda state expenditure of $721,000,the original four centers have:

served 614 businesses.started 84 businesses.helped 51 businesses

expand.helped 3C) businesses to stay

in business.created 423.5 new jobs.saved 236 existing jobs.leveraged more than $7

million in financing forbusinesses.

This translates into a stateinvestment of $1,000 per jobcreated or maintained, or about$1,700 per new job. Currently, 40percent of operating costs forthe centers are raised locally.'

Based on the successful threeyears of operation of the pilotprogram, the CoordinatingBoard has recommended thatthe pilot program end afterFiscal Year 1989 and a morepermanent, statewide programbe developed and funded in thefuture. The Boi d recommendsthe program be connected to an

Woe a premise report on the first 71/2 meths or theprogram. me hUnneeota Highw EducationCoordiastios Baird. Evehtetiox Report. Entorprior&millpond Program with Clkwdleating BeardReccemasedatione (January 16.10071.

146

economic development agencyrather than the CoordinatingBoard and be part of acoordinated businessdevelopment program thatsupports community-levelbusiness development centersfunded through the GreaterMinnesota Corporation, thestate, and urban and ruraldevelopment funds.

Minnesota Job Skills Partnership

Objective: 'lb extend theeducation and training resourcesof the state to provideMinnesota employers with awell trained workforce.

Statutory Authority: Minn.Stat. 116L.02 116L.05 (1988).

Background: T a Minnesota JobSkills Partnerr as createdin 1983 to serve as a catalyst forcooperation between businessand education. It bringsemployers with specific trainingneeds together with education orother nonprofit institutions thatdesign programs to fill thoseneeds. The program assists withthe economic development of thestate by assisting businesses inobtaining the trained workforcenecessary to remain competitiveand prosperous; it provideseconomic opportunity toindividuals through educationand training that will result intheir ob twining gainfulemployment.

From its inception throughFiscal Year 19'47, thePartnership was an independentagency governed by a21-member board. The 19'Minnesota Legislature reducedthe size or the board to 11directors. The board now

159

consists of eight membersappointed by the governor, thecommissioner of trade andeconomic development, thecommissioner of jobs andtraining, and the state direr:of vocational technicaleducation.' The legislature gavethe Higher EducationCoordinating Boardresponsibility for providing staffInd administrative support. TheBoard received $150,000 forFiscal Year 1988! Also, the 1987Legislature appropriated$500,000 for each ) ear of the1988-89 biennium to the Board.Language also was adoptedrepealing the program June 30,1989.

The Partnership funds grantsserving a wide variety ofMinnesota businesses andindustry. These include hightech electronics, machine toolmanufacturing, health care,transportation, garment, forestproducts, andagriculture-related businesses.The business can be existing,expanding, or new. Businessinvolvement covers five areas:recruitment or selection oftrainees; curriculumdevelopment; programoperations; placement; andcontribution of financialresources. Participatingbusinesses must match thegrant on a 50/50 basis. Themaximum grant is $200,000.

Eligible education institutionsincLude colleges, universities,and technical institutes, bothpublic and private. Theinstitutions may offer severaltypes of training, including:entry level, retraining, oradvanced training.

earn of Minnuota for MI, Chapter $02. Artiele 10.Sections 14. 7. and 11.

Mews of Minnuoto for 1817, Chapter 401. See** 1.finhd. 2.. Snake SI sad Beetles 110.

Programs

Development of new methods,curriculum and materialspertinent to business employeeweds by the institutions areencouraged. Moat instructionresults in credit, certification,diplomas, or, in some cases,degrees.

Although it provided no newfunding for the Minnesota JobSkills Partnership program, the1988 Legislature authorized thePartnership to use foradministrative expenses up to$76,000 of the program's FiscalYear 1989 appropriation,$500,000, for grants. Thelegislature also stated that thePartnership is to seek futurefunding from the GreaterMinnesota Corporation.'

Status: Since it was established,the Partnership has awarded,through a competitive grantprocess, more than 50 grantstotaling over $2.4 million. Thishas generated matchingcontributions of cash or in-kindfrom businesses totaling over$4.7 million. Other participatingorganizations, includingeducational institutionsreceiving grants, havecontributed an additional $1.2million. lbtal program effort infour years of operation totalsover $8.3 million.

According to , Partnership's1987 Progress Report, by theend of 1987, 31 projects hadbeen funded involving 36education and traininginstitutions and nearly 100companies. More than 2,100people had completed trainingand 900 more were receivingtraining.'

aturs elMinaluota for 1984 Chapter 703. Article 1.Section 3. SO the

731boseeta Job Skills Partnership, Progress &port(1967).

Of those trained, 49 percentwere displaced or potentiallydisplaced workers, 50 percentwere unemployed individualsincluding displacedhomemakers, and 37 percentwere women. Three fourths ofthe projects served ruralMinnesota. Of the 31 grants, 9,have concentrated solely ontraining entry-level employees.Another 13 have benefited thoseneeding entry -level and/orretraining or advanced training.Seventeen of the 31 grantsinvolve businesses employingfewer than 500 persons.

Since 1987 the Partnership hasbeen participating in ProjectMORE more education formore people for Minnesota'seconomic vitality. lbgether withthe Department of Thule andEconomic Development, theMinnesota State UniversitySystem, the MinnesotaCommunity College System, theMinnesota lbchnical InstituteSystem, and the Department ofJobs and 'fraining, thePartnership pledged to increaseinteragency networking at alllevels. The project's goalsinclude better awareness byMinnesota businesses of theservices available to help withemployee retraining needs,small business development,and the transfer of technologyas well as development of stateuniversity, community college,and technical institute partnerships to meet economic develop-ment needs in their respectivecommunities and regions.

The Partnership has submitteda budget request to theexecutive branch for the 199041biennium. It includesadministrative funds of$155,000 in Fiscal Year 1990 and$160,000 in Fiscal Year 1991.

160

The Partnership is requesting$1.5 million per year to fund anestimated 30 educationalcooperative ventures annually.Also, the Partnership is seeking$1 5 million each year to targeteducation-business trainingprojects in the metropolitan areato serve at-risk adult workingand nonworking populations.The budget request is beingtransmitted through theCoordinating Board's budgetrequest although theCoordinating Board has notapproved or disapproved it.

77tk II Grants for Science,Math Instruction

Objective: lb help statesimprove the quality of scienceand mathematics instruction.

Authority: Title II of theEducation for EconomicSecurity Act (PL. 98-377).

Background: Title I I allocatesfinancial assistance by formulato the states to improve theskills of teachers and the qualityof instruction in mathematics,science, foreign language, andcomputer learning.

1987 Program: Minnesotareceived $1,228,277 for 1987-88.The State Department ofEducation administered 70percent of the state's allocationfor training and retraining ofelementary and secondaryteachers, and the CoordinatingBoard about 30 percent, whichwas available to post - secondaryinstitutions on a competitivebasis.

The Coordinating Board inAugust 1987 approved theawarding of 18 grants totaling

147

Programs

$350,742 to 12 higher educationinstitutions and 2 education-related organizations.

The 12 institutions were: Collegeof St. Catherine, Mankato StateUniversity, St. Cloud StateUniversity, University ofMinnesota-Win Cities,University of Minnesota-Rochester Center, College of St.Thomas, Moorhead StateUniversity, St. Olaf College,Northland Community f.lollege,Concordia College-Moorhead,Augsburg College, :YtdUniversity of Minnesota-Morris.Also selected were the ScienceM116311111 of Minnesota and theMinnesota Council of Thachersof Math.

St. Cloud State was awardedthree grants totaling $87,000,and the University ofMinnesota -Twin Cities threetotaling $52,000.

1988 Program: Minnesota was toreceive $1,804,109 for 1988-89. InAugust 1988 the CoordinatingBoard approved the awarding of22 grants totaling $514,171 to 14higher education institutions and2 museums.

The 14 post-secondaryinstitutions are: University ofMinnesota-Twin Cities,University of Minnesota-Duluth, University ofMinnesota-Morris, AugsburgCollege, College of St. Catherine,College of St. Thomas, St. OlafCollege, Bethel College, Collegeof St. Scholastics, Inver HillsCommunity College, MankatoState University, Winona StateUniversity, Moorhead StateUniversity, and St. Cloud StateUniversity. Also selected werethe Science Museum ofMinnesota (St. Paul) and theChildren's Museum (St. Paul).

148

The University of Minnesotawas awarded three grantstotaling $63,328; a fourth grantto the University will beimplemented cooperati 31y bythe Bell Museum of theUniversity and the MinnesotaEnvironmental ScienceFoundation, Inc.

Prior to 1988-89, under the firstthree years of the program, theBoard approved 39 projects inmathematics and scienceeducation using $988,429 ofTitle II funds. Approximately3,500 teachers and 350 studentshave been served by theseprojects.

161

Appendix

Tl appendix containssummaries of the annualmeetings of governing boardsand symposia sponsored by theCoordinating Board. It alsoincludes the Board's commentson annual reports of the HigherEducation Facilitias Authorityand contains a listing of Boardadvisory committees during thebiennium. Last is a list ofCoordinating Board reports andpublications completed duringthe past two years.

162

149

Appendix

Summary of Meetings WithGoverning Boards

Governing board meetings wereheld December 10, 1986 andFebruary 17, 1988. They aresummarized below.

Quality Assessment

The opportunity to putassessment programs in place atthe institutional level is notlikely to last more than two orthree years, and the opportunitymay disappear without aresponse by institutions andmight be replaced withcentralized planning efforts.

That was the view of Patrick M.Callan, vice president of theT',Itication Commission of theStates, who was keynotespeaker at the Annual Meetingof Minnesota EducationGoverning Boards February 17in St. Paul.'

States should see that the issue ofassessment is confronted but notdictate how to do it, Callan said.He emphasized the importance ofviewing assessment as part of alarger vision; assessment willwork only in the context of thelarger educational vision and witha disciplined determination aboutquality.

The assessment movement mustbe assessed, Callan said. Will ittouch the lives of students andfaculty in a constructive way?Will it signify a qualitativeimprovement? At worst, it willbe merely a conversation amokbureaucrats, and a great deal ofenergy will be expended without

IMInn000ta Higher Education Coordinating Board.Quality Asonsment, Proceedings, Annual Mintingof Education Clowraing Beads IFebruary 17.1988).

150

making a difference, Callan said.The ultimate criterion of successfor the movement will be: "Didwe improve education?"

William T. Coulter, chancellor ofthe Ohio Board of Regents,urged state boards to bevisionary, to assess educationagainst our visions of what itshould be, and not againsthurried prejudgments of whereweaknesses may lie. Hedescribed the Ohio regents"selective excellence" programwhich in four years haschanneled $134 million toinstitutions through a variety ofchallenge grants. The programchallenges institutional leadersto make strategic choices aboutmission priorities and to matchtheir institutions' strengthswith the broader needs ofsociety. It encourages faculty,and administrators to setlearning objectives, measuretheir results, and report them,he said.

Michael Nettles, senior rear ascientist, Educational %et.Service, described the Tennesseeapproach in which allocations areincreased to institutions thatdemorstra e excellence throughoutcomes assessment. Currently,'Ilinn9ssee is looking for theinstruments that will help thestate develop different forma ofteaching to complement differentstyles of learning.

Governor Rudy Perpich stressedthe importance of assessing andassuring quality in education.He issued challenges forimprovement in education to thestate's business leaders and totrustees and administrators ofpost-secondary educationinstitutions. Perpich said tin tassessment begins with selfassessment. A state's economic

.1 C 3

success is related to its supportfor education, he said.

The Preliminary Report of theWish Force on Post-SecondaryQuality Assessment wassummarized during separatepanels for two and four-yearinstitutions. The program alsoincluded a seres of discussiongroups for participants.

Mission Revisited

"Mission Revisited" was thetheme of the annual meetingDecember 10, 1986 inMinneapolis. The meeting wasplanned as a further step in the"dialogue on mission" than theBoard initiated in spring 1984.

The meeting focused on theprogress report on missiondifferentiation issued by theHigher Education AdvisoryCouncil in October 1986. Themeeting provided anopportunity to revisit andreview the mission issue, toassess progress, to see whatremains to be done.'

The keynote speaker was FrankNewman, president of theEducation Commission of theStates. He commented on"political intrusion in highereducation," highlightingmaterial from his study ofrelationships between states andtheir universities. He said hefound two important elementsabont mission. First, it is thesingle largest cause of frictionbetween states and theiruniversities. Second, statesmust create multiple pyramidsof prestige corresponding toappropriate missions. If theresearch university can be seen

thfinn000ta Higher Education Coordinatuut Board.Mission Revisited, Proeswilais. Annual haring ofEducation Gowning Boards (C000mbor 10,

Appendix

as prestigious, every institutionwill want to be a researchuniversity.

Members of the HigherEducation Advisory Councilparticipated in a panel to discusstheir report on missiondifferentiation. Members of apanel responding to theAdvisory Council's report wereDavid Longenecker, executivedirector, Higher EducationCoordins ting Board; DavidGraven, the Citizens League ofthe Rain Cities; State SenatorEugene Waldorf; and StateRepresentative Ben Boo.

Observations on the issue weremade by a panel ofrepresentatives from each ofMinnesota's post-secondarysystems. Panelists were DuaneC. Scribner, president, HigherEducation Coordinating Board;Charles McGuiggan, preedent,University of Minnesota Boardof Regents; Clarence Harris,president, State Board forCommunity Colleges; RodSearle, president, StateUniversity Board; DouglasKnowlton, president, Board ofVocational 'Thchnical Education,and W.C. Nemitz, president,Minnesota Ass xiation ofPrivate Postsecondary Schools.

Symposia

Financing One's Post-SecondaryEducation: Perceptions andRealities

The financial need analysis muststop looki- g at a snapshot offamily liquidity when the familyapplies for financial aid, andinstead look at the family'sfinances in the decades beforeapplication, according toHaskell Rhett, vice president for

Student Assistance Services atthe College Board.

The need analysis processshould provide incentives forfamilies to save and prepare forthe cost of post-secondaryeducation, said Rhett who waskeynote speaker at a January21, 1988 symposium in St. Paulon "Financing One'sPost-Secondary Educatioh:Perceptions and Realities:"

The symposium, held at theBrady Education Center,College of St. Thomas, waspresented to by theCoordinating Board andco-sponsored by the HEAF andHEMAR groups.Approximately 90 peopleattended, including members ofthe Coordinating Board andstaff, students, representativesof Minnesota post-secondaryinstitutions, legislators andtheir staff, the news media,representatives of Ovatefinancial organizations andfoundations, and officials fromout of state.

Rhett said that people stillbelieve in post-secondaryeducation and in working hardfor it, but rising costs willchange how they go about it.The College Board is worriedabout these shifts in behavior,which are not well documented,he said.

Coordinating Board ExecutiveDirector David A. Longeneckersaid that college costs are notout of control nor are they likelyto be beyond the reach ofmiddle-class families in thefuture. Minnesota's well

Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board,Financing One's Post-Secondary Education.Fetveptvsns and Reolitus, Symposium Proceedings)January 21,1988)

164

established public policy assuresthat college will remainaffordable, with responsibilityfor paying the costs sharedreasonably by students, theirfamilies, and government.

"People need to know thatreceut trends suggest a need forconcern but not panic," he said."And they need to know that thefacts simply don't support someof the common perceptionsabout student debt and financialaid funding."

')avid J. Berg, assistant to thepresident of the University ofMinnesota, said that while thereare problems in financing apost-secondary education, thedimensions of those problemshave been exaggerated. Costshave gone up mostly due to statepolicy requiring more of users. Itis a situation worth studying, butit is not a crisis, he said.

Berg said that the University ofMinnesota is concerned thatmany students attend part timeand take more than four years tograduate. The Universitydoesn't completely understandthis, but studentsoverwhelmingly cite economicfactors for their decisions, hesaid. Recent evidence suggeststhat fear of debt causes studentsto extend or discontinue theirstudies, he said.

Prepaid tuition and savingincentive plans were discussed.Mitchell Rubinstein, seniorresearch associate for theCoordinating Board,summarized findings of the staffstudy on the issue; he was theprincipal staff analyst.Longenecker pre seated the staffrecommendations.

151

Appendix

Also commenting were RickSmith, vice president of theMinnesota Private CollegeCouncil, whose task forcestudied prepaid tuition plans;Ross Levin, president of theWin Cities Association forFinancial Planners and memberof the advisory group for theHECB study, and SusanEyestone, legislativechairperson for the PTA -PISA.

Smith said thatrecommendations in the Councilreport and HECB staff studyare generally similar, with anemphasis on savings overprepayment plans.

Levin said that he thinks tat....is a "tremendous crisis ineducation financing" and thatoptions are increasinglyrestricted. While consideringricks involved in various tuitionfinancing plans, we also shouldconsider the risks involved innot implementing some plan, hesaid. The primary risk is thatpeople will make poorinvestment decisions. Manytax-motivated people are usingtheir home equity to financecollege educations because it istax deductible and are riskingtheir greatest asset, Levin said.

Eyestone said that it often isoverlooked that grandparentspay fr children's education, andthere should be more taxincentives and other programstargeted to grandparents.

Underre,resentanon of %menand Minorities in Mathematicsand &knee

Exploring ways to increase theenrollment of females andminorities in mathematics andscience and to correctdiscrepancies in enrollment and

152

achievement by these studentsin college preparatory classeswas the subject of a conferenceSeptember 23, 1988 inBloomington. More than 300people attended the conferencesponsored by the CoordinatingBoard, the MinnesotaDepartment of Education, andthe American Association forthe Advancement of Science.Financial support was providedby the Bush Foundation of St.Paul and the CarnegieCorporation of New York.

Attending from Minnesota wererepresentatives of stateagencies, post-secondaryeducation system officials,elementary and secondary andpost-secondary system scienceand math educators, business,industry, and foundations. Alsoattending were several peoplefrom out-of-state agencies andinstitutions.

The conference began with abreakfast briefing for Minnesotalegisl: "ors. The morning sessionfocused on awareness of theissi'es. Speakers included BerylDorsett, assistant secretary ofelementary/secondary educationfrom the U.S. Department ofEducation; Betty Vetter,executive director of theCommission on Professionals inScience and lbchnology,Washington D.C.; JacquelynneEccles, professor in theDepartment of Psychology atthe University of Colorado,Boulder; Shirley M. Malcom,Cffice of Opportunities inScience, American Associationfor the Advancement of Science,Washington D.C.; and Robert C.Johnson, director of theMinority Studies Program at St.Cloud State University.

The afternoon sessions weredevoted to 1.3grams that work

with speakers emphasizing howto stun effective pi .grams forwomen and minority students.Speakers includedrepresentatives of the NationalUrban Coalition, SouthernCoelition for EducationalEquity, Girls Club of America,Ohio Center for Science andIndustry, Lawrence Hall ofScience at the University ofCalifornia-Berkeley, CarnegieCorporation of New York,American Indian Science andEngineering Society of Boulder,Colorado, and c ,city programsin Minnesota. Asa result of theconference, several follow-upactivities were being planning inMinnesota and other states.

Review kind Comment on HigherEducation Facilities AuthorityAnnual Report

The Higher EducationCoordinating Board is requiredto review and comment upon theannual report of the MinnesotaHigher Education FacilitiesAuthority and to makerecommendations that it deemsnecessary to the governor andlegislature.'

In April 1984 the Boardapproved for transmittal to thegovernor and legislature a papercommenting on the Fiscal Year1986 Annual Report of theHigher Education FacilitiesAuthority.' In April 1988 theBoard approved a papercommenting on the Fiscal Year1987 Annual Report of theMinnesota Hier EducationFacilities Authority.° The

Winn. star )1.1..4211911111.

" lir Ala Higher Education Coordinating Board.arum'', and Coalmen: ea Fiscal Year 1986 Annual

ittprre of the Mituutrats ;hiker ascationAuthority Muth 19871.

aMinnadata Higher Education Coordinating BoardReukte and Comment on Nicol liar 1987 AnnualReport Odle Minnesota Higher SducationAuthority (March 1989I

Appendix

Board's papers providebackgrvtuid on the Authorityand :eview and comment on theAuthority's reports and issuesin the use of tax-exemptfinancing for educationalfacilities.

1986 Report: Four projectstotaling $12,470,000 werefinanced in Fiscal Year 1986. TheCollege of St. Scholasticareceived Unarming for therenovation and expansion of thecollege's library ($1,065, 000).The College of St. Thomas usedproceeds from an issue to add toand furnish additionalon-campus student residences,am to construct additimalcampus parking facilities($5,500,000). Macalester Collegereceived financing to remodelthe student union, renovate thegymnasium and construct andequip a natatorium ($5,075,000).And the Minneapolis College ofArt and Design used proceedsfrom an issue to acquire,construct, and furnish abookstore, student gallery, andartist work space. The projectalso included remodeling themain college building andpurchasing equipment for thecomputer lab ($830,000).

An analysis of the Authority'sfinancial report shows that it isfiscally sound. The accumulatedunrestricted funds in theGeneral Operating Fundincreased to $614,220 at the endof Fir 'al Year 1986, an increaseof 23 arcent. This balance nowequals approximately 400percent of the antal operatingexpenses of the Authority. As aresult of a study in 1984 whichanalyzed the administrativefiscal requirements, theAuthority changed its methodof charging fees. It alsoestablished a formula which willrebate a pro-rata share of the

excess funds that it hasaccumulated in the GeneralOperating Fund to all collegeswith outstanding bond issues ofthe Authority.

The Authority also appears tohave resinnded appropriately tothe default by Golden ValleyLutheran College. TheAuthority is working with theBond 'frustee and LutheranBible Institute on a speedyresolution to this situation.Currently, interest sad principalpayments on the outstandingbond issue ($1,525,000) arebeing made from the GeneralBond Reserve. Because of theasset value of the Golden ValleyLutheran campus. theAuthority believes that nolosses will occur because of thedefault, and that the GeneralBond Reserve will bereimbursed in full when thecampus is sold. The 1986 federalMx Reform Act containedprovisions that allow theAuthority to continue to issuetax-exempt financing. Thiseliminated the uncertainty thatprevailed last year.

1987 Report: As of June 30,1987, the Authority hadfinanced 53 projects with 44bond issues totaling$142,960,000, of which$101,360,000 was outstandingas of June 30, 1987. The fundsreceived from 37 If the 44 issueswere user r constructionprojects, funds from three issueswere used to refinance prior debtfor facilities, funds from oneissue were used partially forconstruction and partially forrefinancing prior debt, fundsfrom two issues were used torefinance earlier Authorityprojects, and the fine! issue wasa pool project in which 10institutions funded projectsincluded in one bond issue.

166

During 1987, the Authorityfinanced $2.5 million for avariety of projects at St. Mary'sCollege in Winona, reviewed andapproved the final application ofGustavus Adolphus College for$2.5 million, and worked on aproject to finance theconstruction of a residence hallat Vermilion Community Collegein Ely the first issue ever for apublic institution under theprogram.

An analysis of the financialreport shows that the Authorityis fiscally sound. Theaccumulated unrestricted fundsin the General Operating Fundincreased to $711,118 at the endof Fiscal Year 1987, an increaseof l 6 percent. This balance nowequals approximately 425percent of the annual operatingexpenses of the Authority. As aresult of the study in 1984 whichanalyzed the administrativefiscal reauirements, theAuthority changed its methodof barging fees. It alsoestablished a formula that willrebate a pro-rata share of anyexcess funds that it hasaccumulated in the GeneralOperating Fu-' to all collegeswith outstanding bond issues ofthe Authority. Based on theestablished formula, no rebate ofthe $711,118 balance will occurfor Fiscal Year 14187.

With regard to the GoldenValley Lutheran default, interestand principal payments on theoutstanding bond issue($1,435,000) are being madefrom the General Bc,nd Reserve.Because of the asset value of theGolden Valley Lutheran Collegecampus, the Authority believesthat no losses will occur Lecauseof the default, and that thk,General Bond Reserve will 'oereimbursed in full when thecampus is sold.

153

Appendix

Advisory Committees

Advisory committees are animportant source of informati^nand advice on issues consideredby the Coordinating Board.Under a policy adopted inJanuary 1979 and amended inSeptember 1987, the Board usesthe following kinds of advisorycommittees:

1. Standing Committees - Theyadvise the Board and its staff onmatters that relate to their areasof special competence andconcern on an ongoing basis.

9-.)ecial Advisory Committeesor task forces. They areestablished from time to time asrequired to advise the Board andits staff on matters of specialbut temporary concert. Suchspecial advisory committees ortask forces shall have specificcharges and scheduled dates forcompleting their work. They aredisbanded at the scheduledcompletion of requested work carby asp cified date, whicheveroccurs first, within theprovisions of current lawgoverning advisory task forces.

Each year the Board receives astaff report on advisorycommittees.' It includes areview of the policy governingadvisory committees, a list ofthe Board's committees,statements of their purpose,membership, and membershipexpiration dates.'

Standing Committees1. Finn sal Aid Advisory

Committee2. MINITEX Advisory

Committee

7Mhoesota Higher Education Coordinating Board.Advisory Groups. St its Report (September lee

ehlinneeota Higher Education Coordinating Board.Advisory Groups, Status Report (September 198$).

154

3. Program AdvisoryCommittee

4. Minnesota Post-HighSchool Planning ProgramAdvisory Committee

5. Higher Education AdvisoryCouncil

6. Intersystem PlanningGroup

7. Student Advisory Council8. Summer Scholarship for

Academic Enrichment ProgramAdvisory Committee

Special Advisory Committees1. Design for Shared

Responsibility AdvisoryCommittee

2. Credit Transfer AdvisoryCommittee

Usk Forces1. Average Cost Funding Thsk

Force2. Instructional Thchnology

Usk Force3. Quality Assessment Thsk

Force

Advisory Committees ThatHave Completed Their WorkThe following committees havecompleted their work in the pasttwo years and have beendisbanded:

1. Thsk Force on ThacherEducation for Minnesota'sFuture

2. Advisory Committee for theGraduate Education Study

3. Financial Aid ResearchAdvisory Committee

4. 'Disk Force on ProfessionalJudgment

5. Guaranteed Student LoanAdvisory Task Force

6. Common CourseNumbering System Usk Force

7. Engineering ProgiamReview Usk Force

8. Savings Incentive/Prepaidlitition Study AdvisoryCommittee

9. Discussion Group onState-Level Comparative Data

167

Higher Education CoordinatingBoard Reports and Publications

Publications

Report to the Governor and 1987Legislature (January 1987).

Focus on Financial Aid (1987and 1988), annual tabloid onfinancial aid programs.

Mhecb report, agencynewsletter.

Minnesota Post-SecondaryEducation Directors (1987 and1988).

Minnesota Higher EducationCoordinating Board, brochuredescribing agency (June 1987).

Future Choices (1987 and 1988),booklet fo 8th grade students.(Also in Spanish and Hmong.)

Student Guic:', to Your FutureEducation (1987).

Get Smart, Summer Scholarshipfor Acad mic En: ichmentProgram, brochure and poster',1987 and 1988).

Post High Sc;wol PlanningProgram brochure and poster(1987 and 1988).

Minnesota Post-SecondaryEducation Profile (1988).

Guide to MinnesotaPost-Secondary EducationAdmissions Criteria (October1987).

Student Educational Loan Fundbrochure (1988).

The CASE for *porting theHECB (1987).

Thmsfer (1987.

Your SELF Loan (1987).

Appendix

Ayuda Econdmica paraestudiantes en Minnesota (1987).

Policy Papers

State Saving Incentive andPrepaid 7Wtion Plans withCoordinating BoardRecommendations (March1988).

Information Thchnology inInstruction in MinnesotaPost-Secondary EducationInstitutions with CoordinatingBoard Recommendations(November 1986).

Minnesc 2 'd Vision for ThacherEducation: Stronger Standards,New Partnerships, Thsk I ^eon Thacher Education forIrnnesota's Future (October1986).

Analysis of Guaranteed StudentLoan Program Borrowers,Consultants' Report andCoordinating BoardRecommendations (May 1988).

Expansion of the GraduatedRepayment Income ProtectionProgram to Cover AcademicPrograms, Including Optometryand Osteopaths withCoordinating BoardRecommendations ( December1987).

Analysis of the Implications ofthe Status of the GraduatedRepayment Income ProtectionProgram (October 1988).

The Financing of Graduate andProfessional Education inMinnesota, Thchnical Report(January 1987).

The Financing of Graduate andPmfessional Education withCoordinating BoardRecommendations (February1987).

Financing Policies for High CostUniversity of Minnesota HealthProfessions Programs withCoordinating BoardRecommendations (March1988).

Technical Papers and DataReports

Headcount Enrollment byRacial/Ethnic Group, Fall 1986(September 1987).

Headcount Enrollment byRacial/Ethnic Group, Fall 1987(September 1988).

Enrollment Analysis andProjections 1988-89 2000-07(March 1988).

Basic Data Series ReportNumber 16, Fa111987post-secondary educationenrollment survey (June 1988).

Basic Data series ReportNumber 15, Fa111986post - secondary educationenrollment survey (Jum. 1987).

Summary of Responses to thePlc ns and Background Surveyand Aptitude Thst Score Thendsfor Minnesota High SchoolJuniors, 1978,87 (Septeir er1987).

Summary of Responses to thePlans and Background Surveyand Aptitude Thst Score Thendsfor Minnesota High SchoolJuniors, 1979-1988 (September1988).

Preliminary Fall 1987Headcount Enrollment Report(November 1987).

Preliminary Fall 1988Headcount Enrollment Report(November 1988).

I R S

Report of A Project to PublishAnnual Data on theCharacteristics of StudentsAdmitted to and GraduatingFrom Thacher EducationPrograms in Minnesota(December 1986).

Other Reports

HECB Advisory Groups: StatusReport 1988 (September 1988).

HECB Advisory Groups: StatusReport 1987 (September 1987).

Financing One's Post-SecondaryEducation: Perceptions andRealities, SymposiumProceedings (January 21, 1988).

Management Plan 1988-91(September 1988).

Management Plan 1987-90(September 1987).

MINITEX Status Report(March 1988).

MINITEX Status Report(March 1987!.

Teacher Education Conferencesfor Minnesota's Future Phase Iand Phase II Proceedings (April8-9, 1987, June 2.5, 1987).

Evaluation Report, EnterpriseDevelopment Centers withCoordinating BoardRecommendations (January1987).

Report on Adults andOuof-School Youth ConsideringPostecondary Studies by theAdvisory Thsk Force of thePost-High School PlanningProgram (November 1987).

Review and Comment oneroposed Expansion ofPost-Secondary EducationServices for Rochester Arch

155

Appendix

with Coordinating BoardRecommendations (February1988.

Review and Comment on theMinnesota State UniversitySystem's Report "Initiatives forMinnesota's Future in the StateUniversity System" (Feb, iary1188).

Quality Assessment,Proceedings, Annual Meeting ofEducation Governing Boards(February 1988).

Engineering Programs inMinnesota: A Status Report, byEngineering Task Force of theHigher Education CoordinatingBoard (September 1988).

Report of the Task Force onCommon Course Numbering(December 1987).

Report of the Task Force wIdentify Criteria for the Reviewof Engineering Programs(January 1988).

Report on Survey of Parents ofEighth Gr. lers (August 1988).

Status Report of the AverageCost Funding Task Force(December 1986).

A Review of ?heads in theNumber of Graduates fromExisting Post-SecondaryEducation InstructionalPrograms, 1979-84 (May 1987).

A Review and Comment onCredit Thins fer Activity byMinnesota Post-SecondaryEducation Institutions(February 1987).

Mission Re visite4 Proceedings,Annual Meeting of EducationGoverning Boards (December10, 1986).

156

Quality Assessment, LegislativeHearing and Seminar,Proceedings (March 4, 198i).

Review and Comment onSystem Plans for 1986(December 1986).

New Roles for Thachers: CanThey Improve Retention in theThaching Profession? (January1987).

Meeting the Educational Needsof the Duluth-Superior Area(April 1987).

Information Initiative, StatusReport (January 1987).

Review and Comment onAdvanced Placement Policies(January 1987).

Preliminary Report of the TaskForce on Quality Assessment(January 1988).

Review and Commem, on 1986Annual Report of the MinnesotaHigher Education FacilitiesAuthority (March 5, 1987).

Review and Comment on FiscalYear 1987 Annual Report of theMinnesota Higher EducationFacilities Authority (March1988).

Commitment to Focus: ItsImpact on Students,Prospective Students, and OtherEducational Systems inMinnesota 'May 1987).

Mition Reciprocity Agreementlietween Minnesota andContingent States (June 1988).

1 0

Minnesota Planning Regions

170157

The Design for Shared Responsibility

PUBLIC

STATE'S SHARE(SCHOLARSHIP OR GRANT'

FEDERAL PELL GRANT

PARENTS' SHARE

PRIVATE

UNRECOGNIZED PORTION

STATE'S SHARE(SCHOLARSHIP OR GRANT)

FEDERAL PELL GRANT

PARENTS' SHARE

STUDENT'S SHARE STUDENT'S SHARE

50% 50%

171

158

Documents

ED 321 631 HE 023 641 · 2014-03-24 · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 321 631 HE 023 641 TITLE Report to the Governor and the 1989 Minnesota. Legislature. Technical Report. INSTITUTIsiN. Minnesota