Complete College Tennessee Act of 2010 An Update Association of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Complete College Tennessee Act of 2010 An Update

Association of Government Accountants 2013 Southeast Region Professional Development Conference

STATE FISCAL CONDITION & IMPACT ON HIGHER EDUCATION

2

3

Revenues and Expenditures in Tennessee, 1978 Base

$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000 $11,000 $12,000 $13,000 $14,000 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Revenues and Expenditures (millions) $0 $17,000 $34,000 $51,000 $68,000 $85,000 $102,000 $119,000 $136,000 $153,000 $170,000 $187,000 $204,000 $221,000 Personal Income (millions) Tax Financed Expenditures Adjusted Revenues Personal Income

10,621 9,075 7,010 7,178 6,090 4,852 4,373

• 563

1,441 1,669 3,350 3,917 5,175 5,104 4,970 4,696 4,864 804 917 2,536 2,844 2,999 3,559 3,860

• 2,000

4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 1986-87 1996-97 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 State Appropriations ARRA/MOE Student Fees Less Grant Aid (TSAA, TELS, Pell) Grant Aid

Total Revenue per FTE – Universities Inflation Adjusted - 2011 Dollars

4

7,573 5,734 5,029 5,196 4,486 3,372 3,031

• 298

617 745 806 1,366 1,746 1,728 1,573 704 526 974 1,001 2,148 2,355 2,652 3,577 3,958

• 1,000

2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 1986-87 1996-97 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 State Appropriations ARRA/MOE Student Fees Less Grant Aid (TSAA, TELS, Pell) Grant Aid

Total Revenue per FTE - Community Colleges Inflation Adjusted – 2011 Dollars

5

State, Local, Tuition and Fee Revenues per FTE Student Public Research, 2009-10 Percent of National Average

190% 178% 161% 149% 141% 131% 127% 125% 120% 119% 112% 112% 112% 111% 110% 106% 106% 106% 105% 103% 102% 101% 101% 101% 100% 100% 98% 97% 96% 95% 93% 93% 92% 92% 92% 91% 89% 88% 86% 86% 85% 84% 84% 82% 80% 79% 72% 72% 71% 67% 62% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200% Connecticut Alaska New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Vermont Wyoming Minnesota California Maryland Oklahoma Delaware Hawaii Kentucky Iowa Washington Nebraska Maine North Carolina South Carolina Indiana Michigan Massachusetts West Virginia United States Texas Alabama Wisconsin Illinois Arkansas Missouri Kansas Utah Arizona Georgia New Mexico Mississippi Rhode Island Virginia Ohio North Dakota New Hampshire Louisiana Idaho Tennessee Oregon Nevada Florida Montana South Dakota Colorado

Sources: NCES, IPEDS Completions and Enrollment Surveys 6

State, Local, Tuition and Fee Revenues per FTE Student Public Bachelor’s and Masters, 2009-10 Percent of National Average

156% 152% 141% 134% 134% 132% 129% 129% 126% 125% 123% 115% 113% 112% 111% 111% 110% 109% 108% 106% 105% 104% 104% 103% 103% 101% 100% 100% 96% 95% 95% 94% 93% 93% 92% 91% 91% 89% 85% 84% 80% 80% 75% 75% 75% 75% 70% 42% 41% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% Delaware Alaska Vermont Connecticut New Mexico Hawaii North Carolina Illinois Iowa New Jersey Maine Michigan Montana Alabama Massachusetts Missouri Virginia New York Maryland Kentucky California Rhode Island Texas New Hampshire North Dakota Mississippi South Carolina United States Indiana Idaho Ohio Kansas Nebraska Oregon South Dakota Wisconsin Minnesota Washington Arkansas Oklahoma Pennsylvania Tennessee West Virginia Florida Georgia Louisiana Utah Nevada Colorado

Sources: NCES, IPEDS Completions and Enrollment Surveys 7

State, Local, Tuition and Fee Revenues per FTE Student Public Two-Year, 2009-10 Percent of National Average

525% 219% 163% 160% 155% 153% 141% 135% 132% 128% 128% 121% 121% 120% 120% 114% 113% 112% 108% 107% 107% 104% 104% 103% 101% 100% 100% 100% 99% 97% 94% 93% 93% 92% 92% 91% 91% 88% 83% 82% 80% 78% 77% 76% 73% 71% 71% 70% 70% 65% 64% 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% Alaska Wisconsin Wyoming Oregon Maryland New Hampshire Delaware Connecticut North Dakota Hawaii Kansas Arizona Nebraska New York Idaho Michigan Rhode Island New Mexico Pennsylvania Vermont Minnesota Massachusetts Utah Texas Ohio Washington United States Illinois California South Dakota New Jersey Iowa Arkansas Montana North Carolina Oklahoma Maine Tennessee Alabama Virginia Mississippi South Carolina Colorado Missouri West Virginia Kentucky Nevada Georgia Florida Louisiana Indiana

Sources: NCES, IPEDS Completions and Enrollment Surveys 8

WHY WAS IT NECESSARY?

Complete College Tennessee Act of 2010

9

10 Matthew N. Murray, UT Center for Business & Economic Research

Our human capital flow: the Tennessee student pipeline, 2008

86.0 59.6 41.7 30.2 69.5 44.0 29.8 20.5 71.1 43.8 28.9 19.3

Source: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. March 2011

Percent of 25-64 Year Olds with College Degrees – Associate and Higher, 2011

50.8 47 46.6 46.4 46.2 45.8 45.4 45.1 45 44.7 44.6 43.3 43.2 41.7 41.6 41.5 41.1 40.7 40.3 40 39.6 39.4 39.2 39 38.9 38.7 38.6 38.2 37.6 37 36.8 36.5 36.4 36.4 36.2 35.8 35.5 34.5 34.4 34.2 33.9 33.8 33 32.1 31.9 30.8 30.3 30 28.2 27.9 27.8

10 20 30 40 50 60

Massachusetts Colorado Minnesota Connecticut Vermont New Hampshire Maryland New Jersey Virginia North Dakota New York Washington Rhode Island Illinois Hawaii Nebraska Iowa Kansas Utah Maine Wisconsin South Dakota Montana Oregon California Nation Pennsylvania North Carolina Delaware Florida Michigan Idaho Georgia Missouri Wyoming Arizona Ohio Texas Alaska South Carolina New Mexico Indiana Oklahoma Tennessee Alabama Kentucky Mississippi Nevada Arkansas Louisiana West Virginia 11 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey

Comparing Tennessee with Nations and Other States in the Percentage

• f Young Adult

Degree Attainment (Ages 25-34)

U.S. States % OECD Country Korea (65.0) 60 56 Japan, Canada Massachusetts 54 North Dakota 52 Minnesota  New York 50 New Jersey 48 Ireland New Hampshire Norway Connecticut  Iowa 46 New Zealand, United Kingdom Virginia  Illinois  Maryland  South Dakota Pennsylvania  Nebraska  Colorado  Vermont 44 Australia, Luxembourg, Israel, Belgium Rhode Island  Kansas France Montana  Wisconsin 42 UNITED STATES, Sweden  Washington Netherlands, Switzerland Missouri  Hawaii 40 Wyoming Maine  Delaware  Utah Finland, Spain, Chile Ohio  California  Oregon 38 Estonia, Denmark Michigan  North Carolina Poland Indiana  Florida  South Carolina 36 Iceland Georgia Alaska  Kentucky  Tennessee 34 Arizona Mississippi Texas Alabama  Idaho 32 Louisiana Slovenia, Greece Oklahoma Arkansas  West Virginia 30 Nevada 28 New Mexico 26 Germany, Hungary Portugal 24 Slovak Rep Czech Rep 22 Mexico Austria, Italy 20 Source: 2012 OECD Education at a Glance; 2010 American Community Survey Turkey (17.4)

12

Educational Attainment of Working Aged Adults, Ages 25-64 – Tennessee, U.S., and Most Educated State, 2011

Source: US Census Bureau, ACS

12.5 33.2 22.1 6.9 16.6 8.7 12.3 27.0 22.0 8.6 19.3 10.8 8.7 23.5 17 8.3 24.8 17.6 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Less than High School High School Some College, No Degree Associates Degree Bachelor's Degree Graduate, Professional Degree Tennessee United States Massachusetts 13

AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY

NC

ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY US

20 27 34 41 48 55 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000

The Relationship Between Educational Attainment, Personal Income, and the State New Economy Index (2010)

Percent of Adults 25 to 64 with College Degrees (2009) Personal Income per Capita (2010)

High College Attainment, Low Personal Income High College Attainment, High Personal Income Low College Attainment, Low Personal Income Low College Attainment, High Personal Income

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey; Bureau of Economic Analysis; Kauffman Foundation

State New Economy Index 2010 Top Tier Middle Tier Bottom Tier 14

Fraction happy about life by years of completed schooling before and after conditioning on income

0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0–11 13–15 16+ 12

Years of schooling Fraction happy

No income controls Conditional on income

Source: Oreopoulos, P. & Salvanes, K.G., “Priceless: The Nonpecuniary Benefits of Schooling,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 25, No.1.

15

Job satisfaction and years of completed schooling before and after conditioning on income

Source: Oreopoulos, P. & Salvanes, K.G., “Priceless: The Nonpecuniary Benefits

• f Schooling,” Journal of

Economic Perspectives,

• Vol. 25, No.1.

0.88 0.86 0.84 0.80 0–11 13–15 16+ 12

Years of schooling

Fraction of respondents Before conditioning on income After conditioning on income

0.82

Are you satisfied with your job?

16

Self-assessed health status and years of completed schooling before and after conditioning on income

Source: Oreopoulos, P. & Salvanes, K.G., “Priceless: The Nonpecuniary Benefits of Schooling,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 25, No.1.

0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0–11 13–15 16+ 12

Years of schooling

Fraction of respondents Before conditioning on income After conditioning on income

Fraction reporting Very Good Health

17

Do you believe people can be trusted?

Source: Oreopoulos, P. & Salvanes, K.G., “Priceless: The Nonpecuniary Benefits of Schooling,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 25, No.1.

0.60 0.50 0.30 0–11 13–15 16+ 12

Years of schooling

Fraction of respondents Before conditioning on income After conditioning on income

0.40

18

Likelihood of divorce or separation

Source: Oreopoulos, P. & Salvanes, K.G., “Priceless: The Nonpecuniary Benefits of Schooling,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 25, No.1.

0.15 0.10 0–11 13–15 16+ 12

Years of schooling

Fraction of respondents Before conditioning on income After conditioning on income

0.05

19

Time preferences for today or the future: Do you live for today?

Source: Oreopoulos, P. & Salvanes, K.G., “Priceless: The Nonpecuniary Benefits of Schooling,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 25, No.1.

0.55 0.50 0.45 0.30 0–11 13–15 16+ 12

Years of schooling

Fraction of respondents Before conditioning on income After conditioning on income

0.35 0.40

20

HOW THE COMPLETE COLLEGE TENNESSEE ACT COME ABOUT

An Insider’s Story

21

Discussion Points

• Why Interested?

– Governor Bredesen: Higher Ed represented “unfinished business” – Legislature: What do we get for our investment in higher ed?

• What was the Environment?

– Great Recession’s impact on higher education funding – Race to Top competition – Status of TBR & UT System Heads – All members of TBR/UT/THEC boards were appointed by Governor Bredesen

• External Expertise & Resources Made Available
• Process
• Direction

– Initial Thoughts: “It about organizational structure” – Final thoughts: “Its about aligning higher educations goals and funding structure to those of the State”

• Result: Complete College Tennessee Act

22

WHAT DID IT DO?

Complete College Tennessee Act of 2010

23

Master Plan With a Purpose

• Establishes Master Planning with a Purpose

– Address the state's economic development, workforce development and research needs; – Ensure increased degree production within the state's capacity to support higher education; and – Use institutional mission differentiation to realize statewide efficiencies through institutional collaboration and minimized redundancy in degree

• fferings, instructional locations and competitive

research

24

Common Core & Transfer Pathways

• Requires 60 Hour University Track Program

– 41 Hours of General Education – 19 Hours of Pre-Major

• Requires creations of Transfer Pathways

– Guarantees Transfer of A.A. or A.S. degrees to Public Universities as a Junior – Guarantees Transfer of Completed Blocks of University Track – Non-transfer Courses Will be Clearly Identified

25

Establishes a Comprehensive Community College System

• System Elements

– Coordinated Programs Statewide – Consolidate Services and Standardize Processes – Utilize Cohort Programs and Block Scheduling – Develop More Cooperative Programs Between Technology Centers and Community Colleges – Single Budget Line Item

26

Outcome Based Funding Formula

• Directs New Funding Formula be Implemented

– Must be consistent with and further the goals of the statewide master plan – Funding recommendations shall reflect the priorities of the approved master plan

• New Funding Formula:

– shall emphasize outcomes across a range of variables; – be weighted to reinforce each institution's mission; – provide incentives for productivity improvements.

• Outcomes shall include:

– end of term enrollment, – student retention, – timely progress toward degree completion, and – degree production

• Outcomes may include:

– student transfer activity, – research; – student success, and – compliance with transfer and articulation principles.

27

Other Provisions

• Prohibits Remedial or Developmental Courses

at Universities

• Mandates Dual Admission Policies
• Research Initiatives
• Various Reporting and Implementation

Provisions

28

Summary

When Taken Together…

– Complete College Act of 2010 – First to the Top Act of 2010 – Tennessee Diploma Project and Achieve

…Will be Transformative for Tennessee

29

RESULTS SO FAR

Complete College Tennessee Act of 2010

30

Common Core & Tennessee Transfer Pathways

• Common Core Requirement – Completed
• Transfer Pathways – Completed
• Pathway example

http://www.tntransferpathway.org/

31

Community College System

• System Approach

– Creation of Vice Chancellor’s Office – Marketing Plan – Single Line Item Appropriation – Program Coordination Among and Between Colleges and TTC’s

• Consolidate Services and Standardized Processes

– ERP Hosting Initiative – a consolidation activity – Business Process Modeling – a standardization activity

32

Dual Admission

• THEC – established policy governing dual

admission agreements

– Every university & community college has agreements in place with institutions within their geographic proximity

• Cohort / Block Scheduling Programs

33

Outcome Formula

• Developed by THEC with involvement of

Systems and state leadership

• First used to make funding recommendation

for FY 2011-12

• Transition Provisions

– Formula phased in over 3 years (FY 2013-14) – Hold Harmless provision phased out over 3 years (FY 2013-14)

34

Higher Education Funding Formula Outcomes Rewarded

35

University Outcomes Community College Outcomes Students Accumulating 24 hours Students Accumulating 12 hours Students Accumulating 48 hour Students Accumulating 24 hours Students Accumulating 72 hours Students Accumulating 36 hours Bachelors and Associates Degrees Dual Enrollment Masters/Ed Specialist Degrees Associates Degrees Doctoral/Law Degrees Certificates Research and Service Expenditures Job Placements Transfers Out with 12 hours Remedial & Development Success Degrees per 100 FTE Transfers Out with 12 hours Six-Year Graduation Rate Workforce Training (contact hours) Awards per 100 FTE

“Premium” Outcomes

For Each

Low Income Student (Pell eligible); or Adult Student (age 24+)

Earning One of the Following Outcomes

University Outcomes Community College Outcomes Students Accumulating 24 hours Students Accumulating 12 hours Students Accumulating 48 hour Students Accumulating 24 hours Students Accumulating 72 hours Students Accumulating 36 hours Bachelors and Associates Degrees Associates Degrees Certificates

The Institution Earns a Premium of 40%

(each outcome counts as 1.4 outcomes)

36

How the Outcome Formula Works – A Community College Example

37

Outcome Raw Data Scaled Data Raw Data Scaled @ Premium Total Scaled Outcomes Students Accumulating 12 hrs (Scale=2) 1,885 943 1,926 385.2 1,328 Students Accumulating 24 hrs (Scale=2) 1,557 779 1,685 337.0 1,116 Students Accumulating 36 hrs (Scale=2) 1,293 647 1,439 287.8 934 Dual Enrollment (Scale=2) 546 273 273 Associates (Scale=1.5) 716 477 847 225.9 703 Certificates (Scale=1.5) 159 106 198 52.8 159 Job Placements (Scale=.5) 224 448 448 Remedial & Developmental Success (Scale=5) 1,561 312 312 Transfers Out with 12 hrs (Scale=2) 370 185 185 Workforce Training (Contact Hours)(Scale=50) 5,610 112 112 Awards per 100 FTE (Scale=.05) 18.50 370 370 5,940

Outcomes Subpopulations

How the Outcome Formula Works – A Community College Example

38

Outcome Data Weight Weighted Outcomes Students Accumulating 12 hrs (Scale=2) 1,328 4% 53 Students Accumulating 24 hrs (Scale=2) 1,116 5% 56 Students Accumulating 36 hrs (Scale=2) 934 6% 56 Dual Enrollment (Scale=2) 273 5% 14 Associates (Scale=1.5) 703 20% 141 Certificates (Scale=1.5) 159 20% 26 Job Placements (Scale=.5) 448 10% 45 Remedial & Developmental Success (Scale=5) 312 5% 16 Transfers Out with 12 hrs (Scale=2) 185 10% 19 Workforce Training (Contact Hours)(Scale=50) 112 5% 6 Awards per 100 FTE (Scale=.05) 370 10% 37 5,940 100% Total 467 Total Weighted Outcomes Avg SREB Salary Subtotal 467 x 54,782 $ = 25,572,899 $ M&O, Utilities + 4,719,866 $ Equipment + 778,721 $ Performance Funding + 1,659,607 $ Deduct Out of State Tuition

• 28,300

$ Grand Total Calculation 32,702,800 $ State Portion (66.7% of total) 21,812,800 $

OUTCOME PERFORMANCE

Outcome Funding Formula

39

Weighted Outcomes History

1,155 1,788 2,794 1,289 1,478 2,799 1,201 1,817 2,895 1,275 1,502 2,874 1,231 1,844 2,884 1,261 1,447 2,896 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 APSU ETSU MTSU TSU TTU UoM 2012 2013 2014

40

75.5 56.3 89.2 (28.3) (30.9) 97.3 (60.0) (40.0) (20.0)

• 20.0

40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 APSU ETSU MTSU TSU TTU UoM

Cumulative Change in Weighted Outcomes FY 2012 to FY 2014

41

Enrollment Trend – Universities

(FTE)

60,000 62,000 64,000 66,000 68,000 70,000 72,000 74,000 76,000 78,000 80,000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

42

University Outcome Performance FY 2010 – 2012 (enrollment adjusted)

(6) (5) (3) (3) (2) (3) (2) (1) 1 3 3 3 3 4 5 2 6 6 (7) (5) (3) (1) 1 3 5 7 24 CH 48 CH Grad Rate 72 CH Doc & Law Research & Serv. Degrees Per FTE Ed Spec & Masters Assoc Transfers Out Bach Number of Institutions POSITIVE GROWTH RATE NEGATIVE GROWTH RATE

43

University Outcome Summary

(Enrollment Adjusted)

Outcomes with Performance Increases at all Institutions

Average Low High Bachelor and Associates 6.5% 0.9% 12.7% Transfers Out with 12 hours 19.0% 8.2% 33.4% Annual Change

Outcomes with Performance Decreases at all Institutions

Average Low High Students Accumulating 24 hrs.

• 6.9%
• 13.4%
• 3.1%

Annual Change

Outcomes with Mixed Performance Across Institutions

Average Low High Students Accumulating 48 hrs.

• 1.7%
• 3.1%

0.9% Students Accumulating 72 hrs. 0.3%

• 4.5%

6.9% Masters / Ed Specialist Degrees 4.1%

• 17.2%

11.9% Doctoral / Law Degrees 6.5%

• 3.8%

27.0% Research and Service

• 0.9%
• 7.8%

9.4% Degrees per 100 FTE 1.3%

• 1.4%

3.9% Six-Year Graduation Rate 0.9%

• 2.0%

4.3% Annual Change

+

• +/-

44

Weighted Outcomes History

100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1,000.0 2012 2013 2014

45

172.6 104.0 90.0 59.7 14.3 9.7 2.2 0.6 (3.7) (8.3) (15.8) (50.4) (87.9) (100.0) (50.0)

• 50.0

100.0 150.0 200.0

Cumulative Change in Weighted Outcomes 2012 to 2014

46

Enrollment Trend – Community Colleges (FTE)

45,000 47,000 49,000 51,000 53,000 55,000 57,000 59,000 61,000 63,000 65,000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

47

Community College Outcome Performance FY 2010 – 2012 (enrollment adjusted)

(13) (13) (11) (5) (2) (1) 2 8 11 12 13 13 13 (15) (10) (5)

• 5

10 15 12 CH 24 CH 36 CH Contact Hrs Certificates Awards Per FTE Assoc Job Place Transfers Out Number of Institutions POSITIVE GROWTH RATE NEGATIVE GROWTH RATE

48

Community College Outcome Summary (Enrollment Adjusted)

Outcomes with Performance Increases at all Institutions Outcomes with Performance Decreases at all Institutions: Outcomes with Mixed Performance Across the Institutions

Average Low High Dual Enrollment 15.0% 3.3% 34.9% Remedial and Developmental Success 20.8% 14.2% 34.3% Associate Degrees 14.6% 9.0% 21.6% Job Placement 17.6% 6.5% 62.7% Transfers Out 15.4% 3.4% 23.6% Annual Change Average Low High 12 Credit Hours

• 16.9%
• 22.1%
• 10.5%

24 Credit Hours

• 10.1%
• 13.3%
• 5.2%

Annual Change Average Low High 36 Credit Hours

• 2.9%
• 6.7%

3.9% Certificates 25.7%

• 23.5%

345.8% Awards per FTE 8.9%

• 3.6%

20.3% Contact Hours (1,000) 20.5%

• 23.5%

57.7% Annual Change

+

• +/-

49

How Are We Responding?

• Completion Academies
• Redesign of “Gateway” Courses
• Dashboards for Staff
• Staff connection of their work to outcome

generation

50

Q & A