Upload
kenyon-anderson
View
43
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The National Agenda for Higher Education, Accountability, Money – Missouri in the National Context. Missouri Interim Committee on Higher Education Funding Paul E. Lingenfelter, SHEEO October 20, 2005. I was hoping for an upbeat message here!. The National Agenda for Higher Education. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
The National Agenda for Higher Education,
Accountability, Money – Missouri in the National Context
Missouri Interim Committee on Higher Education Funding
Paul E. Lingenfelter, SHEEO
October 20, 2005
2
I was hoping for an upbeat message here!
3
The National Agenda for Higher Education
In the global economy the question is:
Can Americans Compete?
Geoffrey Colvin, Fortune Magazine, July 20, 2005
4
New Zealand
Norway
Slovak Republic
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
The National Agenda for Higher Education
Countries approaching, equaling, or surpassing U.S. educational attainment:
Source: OECD Educational Statistics
Australia
Canada
Czech Republic
Finland
Ireland
Japan
Korea
6
The National Agenda for Higher Education
College graduates this year:
Geoffrey Colvin, Fortune Magazine, July 20, 2005
Total College Graduates Engineering Graduates
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
U.S.
1.3 Million
70,000
India
3.1 Million
350,000
China
3.3 Million
600,000
10
The National Agenda for Higher Education
Potential U.S. service jobs outsourced:
9.6 Million
increasing our unemployment rate to 11.4%
McKinsey estimate, Geoffrey Colvin, Fortune Magazine, July 20, 2005
11
The National Agenda for Higher Education
Geoffrey Colvin, Fortune Magazine, July 20, 2005
American (and Western European) workers are more expensive.
What will it take for them to be worth what they cost?
They must be the best educated in the world.
12
What does America need?
To double the degree
production
of the 1960s with
no compromise in quality.
13
2002 High School sophomores plan:
At least a baccalaureate degree – 80%
A graduate or professional degree –
40%
Some postsecondary education – 11%
No postsecondary education – 9%
14
Higher Education vs. The State
The instruction and research of colleges and universities:
Build prosperity
Enhance the quality of life
Are essential for a successful democracy
The Case Against the State
15
Higher Education vs. The State
The Case Against the State
Enrollment demand is unrelenting
AND
Higher education is receiving a decreasing percentage of
state appropriations
YET
State funding is decreasing as a percentage of university revenues
16
Higher Education vs. The State
The States Respond:
We have funded enrollment growth and inflation
Tuition and fees increases have greatly exceeded inflation
The people have needs in addition to higher education
Where is all the money going?
17
Higher Education vs. The State
Higher Education Responds:
The CPI doesn’t come close to actual cost increases in higher education
Our market basket includes:
High priced talent
Cutting edge technology
Etc.
18
Higher Education vs. The State
Higher Education Responds:
The money is going for:
(Barely) competitive faculty salaries
Student aid and student services
Health care costs and retirement
Keeping pace with technological change
Keeping programs current
Teaching loads to attract strong faculty
O&M of aging facilities
19
Higher Education vs. The State
The State Responds – What about:
Incoherent curricula – courses on obscure topics
Lots of mediocre research
Wasteful competition for empty prestige
Wasteful uses of faculty time
Frills (athletics, amenities) for pampered students (Your children and mine!)
Unjustified reductions in teaching loads
No motivation to reduce costs in seller’s market
20
Higher Education vs. The State
Grand Jury’s Deliberations:
We need excellent higher education, and lots of it.
We only have so much money.
Can’t you folks figure this out?
21
Higher Education vs. The State
Grand Jury’s Verdict:
Plaintiff
and
Defendant
– both indicted!
22
What’s the Answer?
Better accountability!
23
The National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education
Commissioners:
Two Governors Three legislators Three state higher education executives Three institutional leaders Two business representatives
Research and Advisory Group:
Joseph C. Burke Peter T. Ewell Margaret A. Miller Nancy Shulock Jane V. Wellman
24
The National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education
Report was
released
March 10, 2005
25
What is “better accountability?”
A WAY TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE
Not the status quo – Unfocused, unread, unused reporting exercises;
Not measuring performance, rewarding performance or punishing the lack of performance;
Not centralized bureaucracies, but
26
The National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education
Fundamental Principles
Responsibility for performance – and accountability – is shared among
Teachers and learners
Policy makers and educators
Effective accountability will be based on: Pride, not fear
Aspirations, not minimum standards
Effective accountability will be: A tool for self-discipline, not
finger-pointing
27
The National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education
Pride Not Fear
28
The National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education
Components of Effective Accountability
Affirm and pursue fundamental goals
The public agenda vs. market position
Establish and honor a division of labor
Top-down centralization is a dead end
Focus on a few priorities at every level
No focus, no progress
Measure results, respond to evidence
Elementary Balridge
29
State Responsibilities
Set clear public goals for higher education
Stay focused on a policy agenda, stay out of institutional operations
Measure results, including student learning, and work collaboratively to achieve goals
Provide necessary resources
30
Federal Responsibilities
Focus on enhancing access to opportunity
Maintain, enhance research support and quality
Improve data resources
31
Institutional Responsibilities
Improve teaching and learning
Assure access to opportunity in tuition and financial aid policies
Assure research quality and value
Improve productivity
32
What’s the Answer?
Money!
33
Wrong Ideas about Money
There is a “right” amount
The only way to get better results is spend more money
We can get the results we need without spending more money
34
Right Questions about Money
What do we need from higher education?
What can we do better with the money we have?
What do we need that justifies additional funds?
35
State Funding per FTE Student 1980-2004
Enrollment Growth and Public Higher Education Appropriations per FTE, U.S., Fiscal 1980-2004(Constant 2004 dollars adjusted by SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment)
$6,874
$5,702 $5,737
$6,094
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Pu
bli
c F
TE
En
roll
me
nt
(mil
lio
ns
)
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
Ed
uc
atio
nal
Ap
pro
pri
ati
on
s p
er
FT
E
Note: State and local government support, excluding research, agricultural, and medical.Source: SHEEO SHEF
= Recession
36
Growth in Net Tuition 14 years
Net Tuition as a Percentage of Public Higher Education Total Educational Revenues, U.S., Fiscal 1991-2004
26.1%
30.8% 31.3% 31.2% 31.7% 31.2% 30.6% 30.1%29.4% 29.4%
30.3%
35.7%
33.0%
28.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
37
Educational Revenue per FTE 14 years
Total Educational Revenues per FTE by Component, U.S., Fiscal 1991-2004(Constant 2004 dollars adjusted by SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment)
6,4996,126 5,917 5,985 6,185 6,258 6,451 6,648 6,815 6,854 6,874 6,639
6,0765,737
2,480 2,639 2,7272,800 2,899
2,9222,935
2,939 2,849 2,8692,882
2,9933,187
2,300
$-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Net TuitionEducational Appropriations $8,924$8,799
$9,743
38
Right Questions about Money
What do we need from higher education?
What can we do better with the money we have?
What do we need that justifies additional funds?
39
Missouri in the National Context
Source: US Census Bureau 2000, HigherEdInfo.org
Educational Attainment and Personal Income per Capita, by State
US
WY
WI
WV
WA
VAVT
UT
TX
TN
SD
SC
RI
PA
OR
OK
OH
ND
NC
NY
NM
NJ
NH
NV
NEMT
MO
MS
MN
MI
MA
MD
ME
LA
KY
KS
IA
IN
IL
ID
HI
GA
FL
DE
CTCO
CA
AR
AZ
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
$15,000 $17,000 $19,000 $21,000 $23,000 $25,000 $27,000 $29,000
Personal Income per Capita
Ad
ult
Po
pu
lati
on
wit
h a
Bac
hel
ors
Deg
ree
or
Hig
her
(%
)
40
St. Louis
St. Charles
Shannon
Platte
Clay
Boone
Adair
MO
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
$11,000 $13,000 $15,000 $17,000 $19,000 $21,000 $23,000 $25,000 $27,000
Personal Income per Capita
Ad
ult
Po
pu
lati
on
wit
h a
Ba
ch
elo
rs D
eg
ree o
r H
igh
er
(%)
Education and Income within Missouri
Source: US Census Bureau 2000, HigherEdInfo.org
Educational Attainment and Personal Income per Capita, by Missouri County
41
Median Earnings by Degree-Level ($)
13,520
24,200 25,000
31,500
40,000
55,125
75,000
100,000
10,000
19,760 20,000
33,000
42,000
58,000
63,000
7,421
20,235
25,00028,458
35,000
44,000
54,000
$0
$100,000
Less Than HS HS orEquivalent
Some College Associate Bachelor's Masters Doctorate Professional
Top State US Missouri
Source: US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey – 1998 to 2001
42
Median Earnings Difference ($)Difference in Median Earnings from a High School Diploma
to a Bachelor’s Degree18,000
13,240
8,2237,268
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
$20,000
New
Jer
sey
Cal
iforn
iaM
aryl
and
Mic
higa
nT
exas
Ariz
ona
Del
awar
eM
inne
sota
Nev
ada
Rho
de Is
land
Sou
th C
arol
ina
Ala
ska
Illin
ois
Pen
nsyl
vani
aW
ashi
ngto
nG
eorg
iaN
ew Y
ork
Mis
siss
ippi
Ala
bam
aM
assa
chus
etts
Ohi
oO
rego
nT
enne
ssee
New
Mex
ico
U
.S.
Uta
hIn
dian
aN
orth
Car
olin
aO
klah
oma
Virg
inia
Wis
cons
inH
awai
iK
entu
cky
Ark
ansa
sK
ansa
sW
est V
irgin
iaLo
uisi
ana
Col
orad
oF
lorid
aIo
wa
Con
nect
icut
New
Ham
pshi
reW
yom
ing
Nor
th D
akot
aId
aho
Neb
rask
aM
onta
naM
aine
Sou
th D
akot
aM
isso
uri
Ver
mon
t
Source: US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey – 1998 to 2001
43
Median Earnings Difference ($)Difference in Median Earnings from a High School Diploma to an Associates Degree
10,000
5,2404,765
2,125
0
4,000
8,000
$12,000
Mic
higa
nD
elaw
are
Rho
de Is
land
Cal
iforn
iaK
entu
cky
Mar
ylan
dM
assa
chus
etts
Min
neso
taV
irgin
iaIn
dian
aU
tah
New
Jer
sey
Tex
asN
evad
aA
lask
aIll
inoi
sG
eorg
iaN
orth
Car
olin
aS
outh
Car
olin
aA
rizon
aO
hio
Flo
rida
Mis
siss
ippi
Neb
rask
aP
enns
ylva
nia
Was
hing
ton
Ten
ness
eeO
klah
oma
Wis
cons
inN
ew H
amps
hire
Haw
aii
Con
nect
icut
Loui
sian
aN
orth
Dak
ota
Kan
sas
New
Mex
ico
U
.S.
Col
orad
oM
aine
New
Yor
kV
erm
ont
Mis
sour
iO
rego
nIo
wa
Wyo
min
gM
onta
naS
outh
Dak
ota
Ala
bam
aA
rkan
sas
Wes
t Virg
inia
Idah
o
Source: US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey – 1998 to 2001
44
Missouri’s Situation
Missouri Adults (age 25 and up) by Highest Education Level
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2004
Bachelor's degree15.0%
Some college, no degree23.0%
Less than high school diploma14.0%
Graduate or professional degree9.0%
Associate degree6.0%
High school diploma or equivalency
33.0%
70% with no college degree
45
Student Pipeline – National context
84
58
28
38.8
67
38
26
18
26.7
73
39
27
18
25.0
42
0
100
Graduate from HighSchool
Enter College Enroll SophomoreYear
Graduate within150%
25 to 44 with aBachelor's
Best Performing State US Average Missouri
Of 100 9th Graders – the number who graduate from HS within four years, go directly to college, return their second year, and graduate within 150% of program time
Sources: Tom Mortenson, ACT, NCES-IPEDS Graduation Rate Survey, US Census Bureau
46
Objectives
Typical Financial Aid Program Goals:
Access
Reward Talent
Choice
Retention
Equalize Tuition
Career Choice
Source: Jerry Sheehan Davis, Lumina Foundation
47
The MOST important objective
The 21st century bottom line:
Maximize successful participation in higher education
48
Policies Aligned with Objective
Requirements to maximize success in higher education
Affordability, which is required for . . .
Aspiration and effort, leading to . . .
Adequate preparation, which requires . . .
Effective instruction, and when the system fails
Remediation
49
Policies Aligned with Objective
Affordability – does financial aid matter?
College Participation By Achievement Test and Socioeconomic Status
Quartile
SES Quartile
Lowest Highest
AchievementQuartile
Highest 78% 97%
Lowest 36% 77%
Source: Access Denied, Department of Education, February 2001
50
Missouri’s Situation
35.5%
26.3%
34.7%30.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Statewide CommunityColleges
PublicUniversities
Private 4-yearInsts
Pell =
101,670
Pell =
30,749
Pell =
27,716
Pell =
21,379
49.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Family income <$50,000
95% of dependent Pell
recipients come from
families with annual income under $50,000
Low income representation among higher education institutions in Missouri…
… and in the state population at large.
Pell Grant recipients as a percentage of Missouri undergraduate enrollments, by sector
Families with annual income under $50,000 as a percentage
of Missouri’s population
51
Missouri’s Situation
University of. Missouri -Columbia
Other Missouri Universities
Community CollegesLiving On Campus
Community CollegesLiving Off Campus
Tuition & Fees $6,622 $5,128 $2,071 $2,071
Living expenses, transportation, books & supplies, etc.
$9,120 $7,850 $4,577 $10,243
Total Attendance Costs $15,742 $12,978 $6,648 $12,314
Pell Grant (maximum) $4,050 $4,050 $4,050 $4,050
Remaining Need (to be met from loans, other grants, and student self-help
$11,692 $8,928 $2,598 $8,264
Attendance Costs, Pell Grant, and Remaining Need(Missouri Residents with $0 Expected Family Contribution)
52
Mis
siss
ippi
133%
44%
19%
0%0
30
60
90
120
150%
Illin
ois
Pen
nsyl
vani
aM
inne
sota
New
Jer
sey
Con
nect
icut
New
Yor
kV
erm
ont
Mas
sach
uset
tsIn
dian
aW
ashi
ngto
nW
isco
nsin
Iow
aM
ichi
gan
Cal
iforn
iaV
irgin
iaU
.S.
Col
orad
oM
aryl
and
Mai
neO
hio
Ken
tuck
yS
outh
Car
olin
aA
rkan
sas
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Wes
t Virg
inia
Nev
ada
New
Mex
ico
Ore
gon
Ten
ness
eeM
isso
uri
Rho
de Is
land
Tex
asK
ansa
sO
klah
oma
Flo
rida
Neb
rask
aD
elaw
are
New
Ham
pshi
reM
onta
naN
orth
Dak
ota
Uta
hH
awai
iA
rizon
aId
aho
Ala
bam
aLo
uisi
ana
Ala
ska
Geo
rgia
Sou
th D
akot
aW
yom
ing
Missouri in context – State Grant Aid State Grant Aid Targeted to Low-Income Families as a Percent of
Federal Pell Grant Aid (%) - 2001
Source: NCPPHE, Measuring Up: 2000
53
Missouri in context: Total aid/FTE
Total Undergraduate State Grant Aid per Undergraduate FTE: 2003-04
Missouri$185
U.S.$500
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
GA
SC
NY NJ
KY
PA IL
WV IN VT
DC LA NV FL WA
MN
U.S
.N
CO
HC
A MI
VA
DE
NM WI
CT IA CO AR
ME
MA
MD TN RI
TX OK
MS
MO
OR KS
NE ID NH
MT
ND UT AL
AZ HI
WY AK
SD
54
Missouri in context: Need based aid/FTE
Need-Based State Grant aid per Undergraduate FTE: 2003-04
Missouri$112
U.S. $372
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
New
Yor
k
New
Je
rsey
Pe
nnsy
lva
nia
Illin
ois
Ve
rmon
t
Was
hin
gton
, DC
Ind
ian
a
Min
neso
ta
Was
hin
gton
Cal
iforn
ia
Ke
ntuc
ky
Nat
ion
Del
aw
are
Ohi
o
Nor
th C
aro
lina
Con
nec
ticut
Wis
con
sin
Iow
a
Wes
t Vir
gini
a
Ma
ine
Ma
ssac
hus
etts
Vir
gini
a
So
uth
Car
olin
a
Ma
ryla
nd
Col
ora
do
Mic
higa
n
Rho
de
Isla
nd
Ten
ness
ee
Tex
as
Ark
ans
as
Okl
aho
ma
Ore
gon
Flo
rida
Mis
siss
ipp
i
Nev
ada
Mis
sou
ri
Ka
nsa
s
Neb
rask
a
New
Ham
psh
ire
Mo
ntan
a
Nor
th D
ako
ta
New
Me
xico
Uta
h
Ala
bam
a
Ida
ho
Ari
zon
a
Haw
aii
Loui
sia
na
Wyo
min
g
Geo
rgia
Ala
ska
So
uth
Dak
ota
55
Implementing Financial Aid
Need-based grant assistance – Essential to offset tuition costs for low- and
moderate-income students Should be routine, entirely dependable
Merit or blended need/merit grant assistance – Useful for motivating preparation
Outreach and transparency – Improves aspiration and preparation
State Role
56
Missouri in context: Enrollment
Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment in Public Higher Education,Percent Change by State, Fiscal 1991-2004
11.4%
86.9%
-0.7%
21.8%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Mar
ylan
d
Rho
de Is
land
Illin
ois
Wyo
min
gKa
nsas
Min
neso
taM
ichi
gan
Alab
ama
Neb
rask
aAl
aska
Con
nect
icut
New
Yor
kM
isso
uri
Penn
sylv
ania
Mas
sach
uset
tsD
elaw
are
Ohi
o
Wes
t Virg
inia
Verm
ont
Wis
cons
in
New
Ham
pshi
reM
aine
Iow
aTe
nnes
see
Haw
aii
Geo
rgia
Virg
inia
Ore
gon
US
Col
orad
o
New
Jer
sey
Kent
ucky
Okl
ahom
a
New
Mex
ico
Cal
iforn
ia
Nor
th D
akot
aM
onta
naIn
dian
a
Sout
h C
arol
ina
Texa
sFl
orid
aAr
izon
a
Sout
h D
akot
a
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Was
hing
ton
Idah
oLo
uisi
ana
Arka
nsas
Mis
siss
ippi
Uta
hN
evad
a
57
Missouri in context: EnrollmentFull-Time Equivalent Enrollment in Public Higher Education,
Percent Change by State, Fiscal 2001-2004
-5.5%
27.5%
9.6%
11.8%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Mar
ylan
dD
elaw
are
Sout
h C
arol
ina
Tenn
esse
eM
onta
naM
ichi
gan
Rho
de Is
land
Was
hing
ton
New
Yor
kN
ebra
ska
Loui
sian
aVi
rgin
iaC
alifo
rnia
Mis
sour
iKa
nsas
Wyo
min
gO
klah
oma
Wes
t Virg
inia
Alab
ama
Arka
nsas
Illin
ois
Haw
aii
Iow
aVe
rmon
t
Penn
sylv
ania US
Ore
gon
Ohi
oW
isco
nsin
New
Jer
sey
Indi
ana
Min
neso
taAr
izon
aC
olor
ado
Idah
o
Con
nect
icut
Mas
sach
uset
ts
New
Ham
pshi
reM
issi
ssip
pi
Nor
th D
akot
aAl
aska
Mai
neU
tah
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Flor
ida
Geo
rgia
Nev
ada
New
Mex
ico
Texa
sKe
ntuc
ky
Sout
h D
akot
a
58
Missouri in context: Appropriations
Educational Appropriations per FTE, Percent Change by State, Fiscal 1991-2004(Constant 2004 dollars adjusted by SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment)
4.5%
-11.7%
26.7%
-42.2%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
Verm
ont
Col
orad
oO
rego
nM
onta
na
Was
hing
ton
Iow
a
Sout
h C
arol
ina
Okl
ahom
aU
tah
Mai
ne
Nor
th D
akot
aVi
rgin
iaIn
dian
aId
aho
Flor
ida
Penn
sylv
ania
Min
neso
taO
hio
Haw
aii
Alas
kaW
isco
nsin
New
Ham
pshi
re
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Tenn
esse
eN
ew Y
ork
US
Mis
siss
ippi
Mar
ylan
d
Sout
h D
akot
a
Con
nect
icut
Cal
iforn
iaM
ichi
gan
Neb
rask
aN
ew J
erse
yTe
xas
Alab
ama
Ariz
ona
Arka
nsas
Mas
sach
uset
ts
New
Mex
ico
Wes
t Virg
inia
Kans
asD
elaw
are
Mis
sour
iIll
inoi
s
Rho
de Is
land
Loui
sian
aKe
ntuc
kyN
evad
aG
eorg
iaW
yom
ing
59
Missouri in context: Appropriations
Educational Appropriations per FTE,Percent Change by State, Fiscal 2001-2004
-23.7%
-16.5%
18.1%
-35.4%-40%
-35%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Col
orad
oVi
rgin
iaIo
wa
Flor
ida
Mas
sach
uset
tsM
inne
sota
Ohi
oO
klah
oma
Mis
sour
i
New
Ham
pshi
reM
issi
ssip
pi
Penn
sylv
ania
Geo
rgia
Mai
neM
ichi
gan
Wes
t Virg
inia
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Wis
cons
inIll
inoi
sKe
ntuc
kyId
aho
US
Kans
as
Nor
th D
akot
aIn
dian
a
Con
nect
icut
New
Jer
sey
Uta
hO
rego
nC
alifo
rnia
Mar
ylan
d
Was
hing
ton
Texa
sAl
abam
aAl
aska
Rho
de Is
land
Tenn
esse
eAr
izon
aN
ew Y
ork
Sout
h D
akot
aVe
rmon
tM
onta
naD
elaw
are
Arka
nsas
Neb
rask
aLo
uisi
ana
Sout
h C
arol
ina
Haw
aii
Wyo
min
g
New
Mex
ico
Nev
ada
60
Missouri in context: Tuition growth
Net Tuition Revenue per FTE, Percent Change by State, Fiscal 1991-2004(Constant 2004 dollars adjusted by SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment)
29.2%
38.6%
132.5%
-30.4%-35%
-25%
-15%
-5%
5%
15%
25%
35%
45%
55%
65%
75%
85%
95%
105%
115%
125%
135%
Loui
sian
a
Sout
h C
arol
ina
Geo
rgia
Was
hing
ton
Mis
siss
ippi
Nor
th D
akot
a
New
Ham
pshi
reAr
izon
aAr
kans
asN
evad
aW
isco
nsin
Verm
ont
Uta
h
Penn
sylv
ania
Ohi
oFl
orid
aM
isso
uri
Okl
ahom
aC
olor
ado
Mas
sach
uset
tsVi
rgin
ia US
Wes
t Virg
inia
Mic
higa
nKe
ntuc
kyId
aho
Del
awar
eAl
aska
Indi
ana
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Iow
a
New
Jer
sey
Sout
h D
akot
aKa
nsas
Illin
ois
Min
neso
ta
Rho
de Is
land
Mai
ne
New
Mex
ico
Alab
ama
Wyo
min
gN
ebra
ska
Texa
sTe
nnes
see
New
Yor
k
Con
nect
icut
Cal
iforn
iaO
rego
nM
aryl
and
Haw
aii
Mon
tana
61
Missouri in context: Tuition Growth Net Tuition Revenue per FTE,
Percent Change by State, Fiscal 2001-2004
-34.9%
89.2%
25.9%
11.1%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
New
Ham
pshi
reG
eorg
iaW
yom
ing
Flor
ida
Kent
ucky
Sout
h C
arol
ina
Texa
sVe
rmon
tId
aho
Penn
sylv
ania
Mas
sach
uset
tsAr
izon
aAl
aska
Haw
aii
Del
awar
eN
evad
a
New
Jer
sey
Loui
sian
aO
hio
Wis
cons
in
Sout
h D
akot
aM
aine US
Alab
ama
Nor
th D
akot
a
Wes
t Virg
inia
Mis
siss
ippi
Was
hing
ton
Col
orad
oN
ew Y
ork
Kans
as
Con
nect
icut
Rho
de Is
land
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Arka
nsas
Indi
ana
Mon
tana
Iow
aU
tah
Neb
rask
aM
ichi
gan
Ore
gon
Tenn
esse
eIll
inoi
sM
aryl
and
Okl
ahom
aVi
rgin
ia
New
Mex
ico
Mis
sour
iM
inne
sota
Cal
iforn
ia
62
Missouri in context: Revenue Growth
Total Educational Revenues per FTE, Percent Change by State, Fiscal 1991-2004(Constant 2004 dollars adjusted by SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment)
12.6%
-24.0%
32.2%
1.4%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Sout
h C
arol
ina
Was
hing
ton
Nor
th D
akot
aU
tah
Okl
ahom
aId
aho
Flor
ida
Mis
siss
ippi
Alas
ka
New
Ham
pshi
reW
isco
nsin
Loui
sian
aH
awai
iC
olor
ado
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Iow
aVe
rmon
tVi
rgin
ia
Penn
sylv
ania
Ohi
oAr
izon
aU
SIn
dian
aC
alifo
rnia
Mai
neAr
kans
asM
inne
sota
New
Mex
ico
New
Yor
kG
eorg
iaO
rego
n
New
Jer
sey
Mon
tana
Mas
sach
uset
tsTe
nnes
see
Mic
higa
n
Sout
h D
akot
aTe
xas
Mis
sour
iN
evad
aN
ebra
ska
Con
nect
icut
Wes
t Virg
inia
Illin
ois
Kans
asKe
ntuc
kyAl
abam
aD
elaw
are
Mar
ylan
d
Rho
de Is
land
Wyo
min
g
63
Missouri in context: Revenue Decline
Total Educational Revenues per FTE,Percent Change by State, Fiscal 2001-2004
-10.4%-8.5%
14.7%
-31.0%-35%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
New
Ham
pshi
reFl
orid
aG
eorg
ia
Mas
sach
uset
tsKe
ntuc
kyId
aho
Okl
ahom
a
Penn
sylv
ania
Col
orad
oVi
rgin
iaM
issi
ssip
piIo
wa
Ohi
oTe
xas
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Mis
sour
iIll
inoi
sW
isco
nsin
Mai
neAl
aska
Min
neso
ta
New
Jer
sey
US
Was
hing
ton
Verm
ont
Kans
as
Nor
th D
akot
a
Wes
t Virg
inia
Ariz
ona
Sout
h C
arol
ina
Uta
h
Con
nect
icut
Wyo
min
gM
ichi
gan
Cal
iforn
iaIn
dian
aN
ew Y
ork
Alab
ama
Del
awar
eAr
kans
as
Sout
h D
akot
aLo
uisi
ana
Haw
aii
Rho
de Is
land
Ore
gon
Tenn
esse
eM
aryl
and
Neb
rask
aM
onta
na
New
Mex
ico
Nev
ada
64
Cost of Living and Enrollment MixState Cost of Living and Public Higher Education System Enrollment Mix Index Values, 2004
US
WY
WI
WV
WA
VA
VT
UT
TX
TN
SD
SC
RI
PA
OROK
OH
NDNC
NY
NM
NJ
NH
NV
NEMT
MO
MS
MN
MI
MA
MDME
LAKY
KSIA
IN
IL
IDHI
GA
FL
DE
CT
CO
CA
AR
AZ
AK
AL
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20
State Cost of Living Index (US Avg = 1.0)
En
rollm
ent
Mix
In
dex
(U
S A
vg =
1.0
)
STATE COST OF LIVING: below avgPUBLIC H.E. SYSTEM ENROLLMENT MIX: above avg
COST OF LIVING: above avgPUBLIC H.E. SYSTEM ENROLLMENT MIX: above avg
STATE COST OF LIVING: below avgPUBLIC H.E. SYSTEM ENROLLMENT MIX: below avg
COST OF LIVING: above avgPUBLIC H.E. SYSTEM ENROLLMENT MIX: below avg
65
Missouri in context: Revenue/FTETotal Educational Revenues per FTE by State:
Percent Change and Current Standing Relative to U.S. Average
AL
AK
AZ
ARCA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KSKY
LA
ME
MD
MAMI
MN
MS
MOMT
NE NV
NH
NJNM NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD TNTX
UT
VTVA
WA
WV
WI
WY
US
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Indexed to the U.S. Average in FY 2004
Per
cen
t C
han
ge,
FY
199
1 -
2004
% CHANGE: above avgCURRENT: below avg
% CHANGE: below avgCURRENT: below avg
% CHANGE: below avgCURRENT: above avg
% CHANGE: above avgCURRENT: above avg
Notes: 1) Figures are adjusted for inflation, public system enrollment mix, and state cost of living.2) Funding and FTE data are for public non-medical students only.
66
Missouri in context: Appro. & TuitionPercent Change by State in Educational Appropriations and Net Tuition Revenue per FTE,
Fiscal 1991 - 2004
US
WY
WI
WV
WA
VA
VT UT
TXTN
SD
SC
RI
PA
OR
OK
OH
ND
NC
NY
NM
NJ
NH
NV
NE
MO
MS
MN
MI
MA
MD
ME
KY
KS
IA IN
IL
ID
HI
GA
FL
DE
CT
CO
CA
ARAZ
AK
AL
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
-45% -40% -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Percent Change in Educational Appropriations per FTE
Per
cen
t C
han
ge
in N
et T
uit
ion
Rev
enu
e p
er F
TE
APPROPS % CHANGE: below avgNET TUIT % CHANGE: above avg
APPROPS % CHANGE: above avgNET TUIT % CHANGE: above avg
APPROPS % CHANGE: below avgNET TUIT % CHANGE: below avg
APPROPS % CHANGE: above avgNET TUIT % CHANGE: below avg
Notes: 1) Figures are adjusted for inflation, public system enrollment mix, and state cost of living.2) Funding and FTE data are for public non-medical students only.
67
Missouri in context: Appro. & FTEPercent Change by State in Enrollment and in Educational Appropriations per FTE,
Fiscal 1991-2004
US
WY
WIWV
WA
VAVT
UT
TX
TN
SD
SC
RI
PA
OR
OK
OH
ND
NC
NY
NMNJ
NH
NV
NE
MT
MO
MS
MN MI
MA
MD
ME
LA
KY
KS
IA
IN
IL
ID
HI GA
FL
DECT
CO
CA
AR
AZ
AKAL
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
-45% -40% -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Percent Change in Educational Appropriations per FTE
Per
cen
t C
han
ge
in P
ub
lic H
igh
er E
du
cati
on
En
rollm
ent APPROPS CHANGE: below avg
FTE CHANGE: above avgAPPROPS CHANGE: above avg
FTE CHANGE: above avg
APPROPS CHANGE: below avgFTE CHANGE: below avg
APPROPS CHANGE: above avgFTE CHANGE: below avg
Note: The states in green lettering exceed the national average Educational Appropriations per FTE by 10% or more.
68
Missouri in context: Tuition Net Tuition Revenue per FTE, by State:
Percent Change and Current Standing Relative to the U.S. Average
US
WY
WI
WV
WA
VA
VTUT
TXTN
SD
SC
RI
PA
OR
OK
OH
ND
NC
NY
NM
NJ
NH
NV
NE
MO
MS
MN
MI
MA
MD
ME
KY
KS
IAIN
IL
ID
HI
GA
FL
DE
CT
CO
CA
ARAZ
AK
AL
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5
Indexed to the U.S. Average in FY 2004
Per
cen
t C
han
ge,
FY
199
1 -
2004
% CHANGE: above avgCURRENT: below avg
% CHANGE: below avgCURRENT: below avg
% CHANGE: below avgCURRENT: above avg
% CHANGE: above avgCURRENT: above avg
Notes: 1) Figures are adjusted for inflation, public system enrollment mix, and state cost of living.2) Funding and FTE data are for public non-medical students only.
69
Missouri in context: Tuition & AidNet Tuition Revenue per FTE and State-Funded Tuition Aid per FTE by State,
Fiscal 2004
AL
AKAZ AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IAKS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MTNENV NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OHOK
OR
PA
RISC SD
TN
TXUT
VT
VA
WA WV
WI
WY
US
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
$1,100
$1,200
$1,300
$1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000
Fiscal 2004 Net Tuition Revenue per FTE
Fis
cal 2
004
Tu
itio
n A
id p
er F
TE
TUITION AID: above avgNET TUITION: below avg
TUITION AID: below avgNET TUITION: below avg
TUITION AID: below avgNET TUITION: above avg
TUITION AID: above avgNET TUITION: above avg
Notes: 1) Figures are adjusted for inflation, public system enrollment mix, and state cost of living.2) Funding and FTE data are for public non-medical students only.
70
Taxable Resources and Effective Tax Rate Indexed to the U.S. Average, by State, 2002
US WY
WIWV
WA
VA
VT
UT
TX
TNSD
SC
RI
PA
OR
OKOH
ND
NC
NM
NJ
NH
NV
NEMT
MO
MSMN
MI
MA
MD
LA
KY
KSIAIN
ILID
HI
GAFL
DE
CT
CO
CAAR
AZ
AK
AL
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
Total Taxable Resources Index (US Avg = 1.0)
Eff
ecti
ve T
ax R
ate
Ind
ex (
US
Avg
= 1
.0)
STATE WEALTH: below avgEFFECTIVE TAX RATE: above avg
STATE WEALTH: above avgEFFECTIVE TAX RATE: above avg
STATE WEALTH: below avgEFFECTIVE TAX RATE: below avg
STATE WEALTH: above avgEFFECTIVE TAX RATE: below avg
Notes: Shaded states were within +/- 10% of the national average actual tax revenues (ATR) per capita. States above and to the right exceeded the national average ATR per capita by 10% or more. States below and to the left lagged the average ATR per capita by 10% or more.
MO
Missouri in context: Wealth and Tax
71
Right Questions about Money
What do we need from higher education?
What can we do better with the money we have?
What do we need that justifies additional funds?