Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Council on Postsecondary Education is Kentucky’s statewide postsecondary and adult education coordinating agency charged with leading the reform efforts envisioned by state policy leaders in the Kentucky Postsecondary Education Improvement Act of 1997. The Council does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, or disability in employment or the provision of services, and provides, upon request, reasonable accommodation, including auxiliary aids and services necessary to afford individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in all programs and activities.
Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, 1024 Capital Center Drive, Suite 320, Frankfort KY 40601, Ph: (502) 573-1555, Fax: (502) 573-1535,
http://cpe.ky.gov
Twitter: https://twitter.com/cpenews Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KYCPE
Printed with state funds
MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, February 12, 2015 KY Broadcasters Association, Board Room
Members, Council on Postsecondary Education
Glenn D. Denton, Paducah
Maryanne Honeycutt Elliott, Louisville Joe E. Ellis, Benton
Dan E. Flanagan, Campbellsville (vice chair) Joe Graviss, Versailles
Dennis M. Jackson, Paducah Pam Miller, Lexington (chair)
Donna Moore, Lexington Marcia Milby Ridings, London
Carolyn Ridley, Bowling Green Robert H. Staat, (faculty member) Arnold Taylor, Edgewood Joshua Tunning, Newport (student member) Joseph B. Wise, Louisville Sherrill B. Zimmerman, Prospect Terry Holliday, Commissioner of Education (ex
officio, nonvoting)
Robert L. King, CPE President
AGENDA Council on Postsecondary Education
Thursday, February 12, 2015 9:00 AM
KY Broadcasters Association, Board Room
1. Welcome and Retreat Overview Light breakfast and coffee will be served Time: 9:00-9:30
2. 2015 Hot Topics Much is happening at CPE! We’ll discuss the latest news on the 2016-20 Strategic Agenda planning process, the 2015 legislative session, the funding model development efforts, and efforts to improve institutional diversity and close achievement gaps. Time: 9:30-11:00
3
3. Conversation with Secretary Mary Lassiter Guest speaker Mary Lassiter, Secretary of the Governor's Executive Cabinet, will discuss the 2015 legislative session, the Governor’s agenda for his last year in office, Kentucky’s budget outlook, and how these issues dovetail with Kentucky’s postsecondary agenda. Time: 11:00-12:00
4. Lunch Break Time: 12:00-12:45
5. Higher Education at a Crossroads How does the public’s perception of postsecondary education impact our strategies and goals? How is the postsecondary landscape changing, and how can our system adapt to meet the changing needs of students and Kentucky? The Council will discuss these critical issues and how board members can add value through strong advocacy. Time: 12:45-3:15
76
6. Kentucky Rising: A Conversation with Education Commissioner Terry Holliday For the economy of the Commonwealth to grow and create jobs for our citizens, the education community must respond by creating a stronger, more adaptable workforce. KDE Commissioner Terry Holliday will discuss the goals of Kentucky Rising, a proposed program to establish criteria for a high school diploma/certificate/ endorsement that ensures graduates have the skills they need to enter a globally competitive workforce. Time: 3:30-4:30
98
7. Reception/Dinner Glen Willis House, Frankfort, KY Time: 5:30-7:30
CPE BOARD RETREAT
HOT TOPICS
February 12, 2015
3
1. 2015 Legislative Session
2. Funding Model Development Process
3. 2016-2020 Strategic Agenda
4. CEO/CPE Diversity Policy
Topics
4
Legislative Session
• Key Bills
• CPE and Campus Testimony
• Budget Outlook for the Commonwealth
5
Funding Model
• Funding model development status
• Campus perspectives
• Relationship to funding request
• Next steps
6
Strategic Agenda
• Steering Committee
• NCHEMS Status Report on KY Postsecondary
Education
• Initial campus, staff and board feedback
• Process moving forward
7
Strategic Agenda:
Preliminary Feedback
The strategic agenda may need tweaks, but many themes/goals still resonate.
Campus plans appear well aligned with Strategic Agenda, particularly in area of student success.
Stronger by Degrees is not a living, breathing document on campuses—reads more like CPE’s agenda, not the system’s.
Workforce/Economic Development should a more central and fleshed out part of the Agenda
Employers are hungry for graduates with critical thinking skills, diversity & liberal arts backgrounds, not just specific vocational skills/attributes.
Consider differentiating strategies/metrics by sector.
If more online education remains a goal, consider incentives to provide more competency-based, modularized programs.
8
Strategic Agenda:
Preliminary Feedback
Integrate Diversity planning/metrics into strategic agenda/metrics.
Would appreciate more focused, less diffuse regional stewardship
priorities.
Align higher education plan with K-12’s, Economic Development and
Workforce Development
Call attention to state funding per student and the relationship
between state funding and tuition.
Better communicate how higher education meets regional and
statewide needs.
Campuses more supportive of outcome measures like licensure pass
rates, graduate school acceptance rates, and employment five years
out than salary.
9
Diversity Policy
• Revised New Degree Program Eligibility
Process
• New Diversity Policy Development
• Diversity Goal Alignment with new
Strategic Agenda
10
CPE RETREAT
HOT TOPICS
February 12, 2015
11
American Associationof State Colleges andUniversities
Delivering America’s Promise PolicyMattersA Higher Education Policy Brief n January 2015
Top 10 Higher Education State Policy Issues for 2015By the AASCU State Relations and Policy Analysis Team
The mood of public higher education entering the 2015 state legislative sessions might be described as a blend of tepid optimism and restrained anxiety. The economic turbulence of
the Great Recession has subsided, with dramatic state funding reductions giving way to the long slog toward funding restoration. Forecasts suggesting moderate national economic growth portend a period of stability in most states’ budgets, and hence, for higher education funding.
Signs of state budget stability, however, may turn to unease when considering the number of newly-elected and re-elected governors and state legislators who have promised to scale back state budgets in order to reduce state taxes, an ideological framework which could limit the amount of revenue for public colleges and universities. With single-party control in the majority of state governments and more supermajorities in legislative chambers, there will be few checks and balances to slow these agendas in many state capitols. The potential pursuit of state budget austerity agendas in 2015 poses a legitimate threat to addressing issues of college affordability, student debt and college degree production—all of which directly tie into states’ workforce and economic development capacities. The prospect of state spending retrenchment, however, also serves as an incentive for all stakeholders of public higher education to communicate the strong rate of return
and myriad other benefits of state investment in public higher education to a new class of elected officials.
States have constitutional authority over higher education, and state lawmakers, working in concert with campus governing bodies, have jurisdiction over foundational higher education policies: state funding, capital construction, enrollment policy and tuition pricing. States’ role in determining the policy framework for public colleges and universities is only expected to intensify this year, as political polarization and paralysis in Congress have left a backlog of federal education bills for congressional committees to consider in the next session. Much attention will be on Congress’ ability to govern effectively now that the U.S. House and Senate are both in the hands of Republicans. If Congress’ success in the 114th session is assessed in comparison to the outgoing session—whether related to education or not—the threshold for success is unusually low, given that the just-concluded 113th session of Congress witnessed the lowest number of bills passed in modern Congressional history.
One of the most concrete examples of federal education policy stasis is the unlikely Congressional passage this year of the overdue reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA). Among all the higher education policies and programs ripe for reform, there exists a tremendous need and opportunity for Congress to use the HEA reauthorization to align state and federal higher education financing and incentivize states to re-invest in public higher education. Recent traction in the U.S. Senate on a proposed State-Federal College Affordability Partnership—an annual federal block grant designed to spur new state investments in public higher education—will likely be slowed due to changes in Senate leadership. Public higher education leaders will be called on to work with their Congressional delegation to build awareness and
12
2
PolicyMatters
support of the State-Federal College Affordability Partnership in order to ensure that it is included in the final HEA reauthorization bill.
An in-depth discussion of potential implications for higher education policy stemming from the 2014 elections is provided in the policy brief, Higher Education and the 2014 Elections, published by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). The paper discusses the Obama administration’s higher education agenda, the Congressional outlook for its 114th session, policy challenges Congress will face, as well as state-level outcomes of the elections.
This paper provides a summary of the top 10 higher education policy issues that are likely to witness considerable activity in state legislatures across the country this year. It is the view of the AASCU state relations and policy staff that these issues will be at the forefront of both discussion and action in state capitols. This eighth annual synopsis is informed by a variety of sources, including an environmental scan of outcomes from last year’s legislative sessions, recent gubernatorial priorities, as well as trends and events that are shaping the higher education policy landscape. Some issues are perennial in nature, while others reflect more recent economic, fiscal and political dynamics. Results, no doubt, will vary by state.
1. Tuition Policy Tuition policy and state government-provided operating support will generate the most state higher education policy-related activity this year. These two policy domains are so intertwined that our Top 10 list for 2014 listed them as one issue (“agreements linking state funding and tuition policy”). Tuition policy activity in the months ahead will be marked with tension involving many competing forces: calls for holding the line on tuition, maintaining academic quality, and effectively managing stagnant or declining enrollment in many states. Despite fair revenue forecasts in most states, other policy
and spending priorities may limit the number of states that can “buy out” or “buy down” tuition increases (i.e., provide enough operating money to negate or lessen the need for an increase in in-state undergraduate tuition prices). For example, state funding support in Iowa will ensure flat in-state undergraduate tuition prices for the third consecutive year, but the governor’s budget blueprint for the upcoming fiscal year in neighboring South Dakota does not fund the regents’ request to buy out a tuition increase.
Average published tuition and fee prices increased 2.9 percent for in-state students attending public four-year institutions from 2013-14 to 2014-15, according to the College Board’s latest Trends in College Pricing report. While this was lower than the average annual increases in the past five, 10 and 30 years, it was still higher than the 2 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Higher education leaders in many states will seek tuition increases necessary to not just pay for inflationary operational costs, but to recoup a portion of the state funding reductions that took place during and after the recession—spending cutbacks that eroded institutions’ ability to keep pace with faculty and staff compensation needs, among other pressures. Despite flat per-student spending in the public higher education sector in recent years, lawmakers in some states may be hesitant to grant tuition price increases above the rate of inflation. Tuition policy in 2015 will therefore be marked by negotiations among those who set tuition prices—in most cases, state lawmakers or governing boards—and those who are accountable for advancing the missions of public colleges and universities—campus and system leaders.
2. State Appropriations for Higher EducationWhile the final figures have not yet been released, it is unlikely that the overall average increase in state higher education appropriations for the current fiscal year (FY 2015) will be as high as the 5.7 percent
13
3
PolicyMatters
average increase in the previous fiscal year—a year-over-year funding enhancement that in percentage terms was second only to states’ Medicaid spending. The upturn was only two years removed from the largest year-over-year decline in state higher education funding in more than a half century, spurred by the post-federal stimulus “fiscal cliff.” Based on the results of an informal survey conducted by AASCU in June 2014, states provided an average 3.6 percent year-over-year increase in state operating support for public four-year colleges and universities for fiscal year 2015. The final state appropriations figures for all of higher education, when released by Illinois State University’s Grapevine and the State Higher Education Executive Officers, may yield a higher number.
Three traditional factors will play leading roles in determining state higher education appropriations levels for the coming budget cycle. Of greatest significance will be prevailing economic conditions and their corresponding impact on state budgets. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the U.S. economy will expand by an average annual rate of 3.4 percent through 2016, higher that the historical growth rate of 3.2 percent.
Region-specific economic dynamics will also factor into state higher education budgets. The recent plunge in oil prices will impact revenues in states where the energy sector has an outsized presence in the state economy, such as in Alaska, Louisiana, North Dakota and Texas. Budget conditions and forecasts vary significantly throughout the states, causing some state leaders to fill current year budget gaps, while others plan for how to use surpluses. Some of the hardest hit states in the recession, such as California, Florida and Michigan are faring better than others, such as Maryland and Virginia, which face significant budget shortfalls due in part to federal budget cuts.
Cost growth in other state programs will be a second factor determining state higher education funding
levels. Medicaid, K-12 education, and corrections, which often provide lawmakers little discretion in their budgetary allocations, are expected to need more tax revenue in the coming years. The same holds true for public employee pension programs, which for a variety of reasons have proven to be a fiscal albatross around some states and have redirected funding away from other state budget items.
A third influence involves how politics will shape state policy priorities in 2015, as most states had gains in conservative power as of result of the 2014 midterm elections. The extent to which heightened fiscal conservatism is reflected in state lawmakers’ spending plans will soon be evident. But if rhetoric on the 2014 campaign trail is translated into fiscal year 2016 state spending plans, state higher education budgets could be reduced or flat-lined in order to fulfill pledges to scale back the size of state government.
3. Campus Sexual AssaultCampus sexual assault prevention, reporting and adjudication emerged as a top-tier higher education policy issue in 2014 and more dialogue and policy proposals are expected this year. States and higher education system leaders have reviewed or are reviewing existing policies, practices and programs aimed at preventing sexual assault, responding appropriately to cases of sexual assault, and ensuring compliance with federal law. Statewide reviews of sexual assault policies were initiated last year in Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and Wisconsin. Sweeping changes to state sexual assault policies and protocols were approved in California, Connecticut, Maine and New York. The most visible and controversial change was the shift to affirmative consent policies (“Yes” means “Yes”) for sexual activity on college campuses. While only California, Maine and New York have instituted affirmative consent policies, legislators in Indiana, New Hampshire and New Jersey have expressed interest in adopting similar measures.
14
4
PolicyMatters
4. Veterans Education BenefitsStates have enacted policies in recent years intended to facilitate college access and success for members of the U.S. Armed Forces, especially veterans returning from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many state measures have provided in-state tuition rates for undergraduate programs to all returning veterans, regardless of their home state. In August 2014, Congress passed a measure that will compel all states to require their public colleges and universities to provide resident tuition rates to qualifying veterans and their dependents in order for these institutions to be eligible to receive payment of student-veterans’ federal education benefits. The Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014, also known as the “Choice Act,” aims to ensure that veterans are able to maximize their education benefits under the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill and the Montgomery G.I. Bill-Active Duty. The new state requirement takes effect July 1, 2015. An initial survey of states’ compliance with the in-state tuition requirement, conducted in the fall of 2014 by the Veterans Administration, suggested that no states were in full compliance with the new federal law. In the months ahead, therefore, state officials will work swiftly to ensure that their states comply with the requirements of the Choice Act.
5. Undocumented StudentsTwo states in 2014, New Jersey and Florida, passed legislation extending in-state undergraduate tuition rates to eligible undocumented students. In addition, an attorney general’s opinion in Virginia concluded that recipients of Deferred Action for Child Arrival (DACA) can be considered for the in-state tuition rate. Legislation to extend state financial aid to undocumented students was approved in Washington, but a similar measure failed in New York. Eighteen states currently offer in-state tuition to undocumented students, and five states allow undocumented students to have access to state student financial aid, according to an analysis by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).
Three states specifically prohibit in-state tuition rates for undocumented students—Arizona, Georgia and Indiana, and two states—Alabama and South Carolina—prohibit undocumented students from enrolling at any public postsecondary institution, according to the NCSL. The state policy trend in recent years has been overwhelmingly in favor of providing greater college access to undocumented students, principally through the provision of lower-priced resident tuition rates. However, a new class of socially conservative lawmakers in many states may dampen this trend. For example, lawmakers in Missouri and Texas have indicated their intentions to clamp down on undocumented students’ access to state-provided postsecondary education benefits in the 2015 session. In the meantime, the November 2014 executive actions taken by the Obama administration withholding deportation for up to 5 million undocumented individuals may provide further incentive for many to enroll in postsecondary studies.
6. Guns on Campus State legislation mandating that individuals be allowed to carry guns on campus is likely to be introduced again in many states this year. The number of states in which lawmakers have stripped institutions’ ability to ban guns on campus now stands at seven, according to an NCSL analysis. Currently, 20 states ban concealed weapons on campus, while 23 states allow individual public institutions to set their own concealed weapons policy. The higher education and law enforcement community, in unison with overwhelming public opinion, do not support the policy of arming civilians on college campuses, which are among the safest sanctuaries in American society. This year pro-gun organizations will again work to overturn campus bans on guns, including in Florida and Texas, where debate on the issue has been persistent. AASCU is united with 370 colleges and universities in 41 states in the Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus. As articulated in its Public Policy Agenda, AASCU opposes state legislation that seeks
15
5
PolicyMatters
to strip institutional and/or system authority to regulate concealed weapons on campus.
7. Secondary-Postsecondary Education Standards AlignmentThis year will mark a pivotal period in the transition to stronger K-12 education standards. The Common Core State Standards, which articulate the learning objectives in English language arts and mathematics in each K-12 grade, have been adopted by 43 states. Most states have been in the process of implementing the standards for the past few years, but the 2014-15 academic year is the first in which assessment of the higher standards will begin. Application of the Common Core aligned assessments is taking place via two multi-state consortiums, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. Adoption and implementation of the Common Core standards have not been without political and technical roadblocks. In this pivotal year, many college and university leaders will redouble their efforts to work with state officials to ensure a smooth transition to the new standards. Much of this energy will be channeled through the recently established Higher Ed for Higher Standards, a coalition of leaders advocating for strong college- and career-ready standards, including, but not limited to, the Common Core.
8. State Student Aid ProgramsThe months ahead will witness considerable activity involving ongoing adjustments to states’ student aid programs in terms of overall funding levels, the programs’ blend of financial need and academic merit components, and students’ eligibility for state grants, which represent 85 percent of all state student aid. In 2012-13, almost 4.1 million grant awards were made, representing about $9.6 billion in need-based and non-need-based grant aid, according to the latest annual survey conducted by the National Association of State Student Grant Aid Programs (NASSGAP); this reflects a 2 percent increase from the prior year. Up until the early 1980s, essentially
all state grant aid was distributed based on students’ financial circumstances. By 2012-13, only three-fourths of grant aid was dispersed on this basis, according to the latest Trends in Student Aid report, produced by the College Board. Also in 2012-13, according to the report, 23 states considered students’ financial circumstances in allocating at least 95 percent of their state grant aid. In 15 states, financial circumstances were considered for less than half of the state grant aid.
9. Performance-Based FundingSpurred by the need to improve completion rates and address longstanding gaps in degree attainment among traditionally-underserved populations, states have shifted from enrollment- to performance-based funding (PBF) for public colleges and universities over the last several years. In 2014, new PBF systems were enacted in Colorado, Iowa and Missouri. Governors in Indiana and Montana have already expressed their support for integrating PBF metrics into their higher education funding formulas this year, while Utah officials plan to triple the amount of PBF in the upcoming state budget. Texas officials also plan to advocate for a PBF plan for state universities. According to the NCSL, more than one-half of the states now have PBF in place at either two- or four-year institutions of higher education, with wide variations in performance metrics and the amount of state funding distributed based on performance. Now that PBF has been in place for several years in some states, scholars may be able to accumulate enough data to draw initial conclusions about the extent to which these PBF systems have served as a catalyst for improving campus outcomes.
10. Free Community CollegeIn 2014, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam signed the “Tennessee Promise” into law, a program that guarantees no-cost tuition for new high school graduates in the state pursuing degrees at state community or technical colleges. The program is “last dollar in” for students whose tuition costs are not covered by existing state or federal financial
16
6
PolicyMatters
aid programs. Tennessee’s free community college initiative has captured the attention of lawmakers in other states and is likely to be considered for replication in several capitols this year. Oregon lawmakers are currently weighing the cost of providing tuition-free community college, while a bill in Mississippi that resembled the Tennessee measure had some support but ultimately failed to pass in the 2014 legislative session. The Tennessee approach is not without controversy—some have argued that the plan directs funds to wealthier students who are financially ineligible for need-based financial aid programs, while ignoring non-tuition expenses for low-income students and the needs of students at the state’s public four-year universities. However, others maintain that the notion of “free college” could spark greater interest in college among traditionally underserved populations and ultimately boost degree attainment if augmented by effective student support services and streamlined transfer policies. Policymakers, scholars and others will be watching the successes and shortcomings of the Tennessee Promise and explore the feasibility of implementing similar programs in other states.
Other State Policy IssuesCommunity college bachelor’s degree: Lawmakers in Colorado and California approved bills in 2014 that allow the state’s community colleges to confer bachelor’s degrees in vocational or high-need fields; more states are expected to explore community college baccalaureate degrees in order to meet evolving local, regional and state workforce needs. Currently, 22 of the 50 states allow community colleges to confer bachelor’s degrees.1
Dual credit/concurrent enrollment: More than a dozen governors discussed dual enrollment policies during their State of the State addresses in 2014, and a continued emphasis on expanding state dual enrollment opportunities is expected again this year. State leaders have argued that such policies
help bridge the gap between K-12 education and college studies, streamline and accelerate pathways to the workforce, cut tuition costs, and help facilitate college completion.
Consumer protection involving for-profit colleges: State attorneys general remained active in investigating and prosecuting state consumer protection violations by for-profit colleges in 2014, with Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley leading the charge through new state regulatory measures governing the industry. More scrutiny toward this higher education segment is expected this year. Currently, 37 state attorneys general are collaborating in a working group to examine the industry’s practices, with 24 attorneys general investigating for-profit colleges within their respective states.2
Pay-It-Forward (PIF) college financing: Lawmakers in more than 20 states considered legislation to study or implement Pay-It-Forward (PIF) college financing in 2014, but interest in this policy waned late in the year and is expected to further diminish this year. PIF is a far-reaching policy proposal that would eliminate up-front tuition and fees in exchange for students repaying a percentage of their income for an extended period following graduation (for up to 25 years in some cases). However, questions have been raised related to the program’s startup costs, administrative burden, and the potential for instability and uncertainty in institutional finance. While an Oregon panel recommended that legislators consider a pilot program, and a few states passed measures to study this financing model, most PIF bills failed to garner a critical mass of legislative support.
Reciprocal state authorization of distance education programs: The national effort to reduce the regulatory burden placed upon states in authorizing out-of-state distance education providers continues to gather momentum. Eighteen states have entered into voluntary reciprocity agreements through the auspices of the National Council for
17
7
PolicyMatters
State Authorization of Distance Education (NC-SARA), with another seven states expected to join the agreement in the near-future. Higher education officials and lawmakers in many of the remaining states are expected to discuss participating in the initiative in 2015. Supporters of the state reciprocity agreements commend the streamlining of program authorization and the associated revenue collection, while others share concerns about the agreement’s perceived lack of consumer protections and lack of control by state agencies over out-of-state postsecondary providers.
States’ review of privacy laws: Mounting parental concern about increasingly sophisticated data collection, data-warehousing, and data-mining of students by governmental and commercial entities made 2014 a banner year for state educational privacy bills. According to the NCSL, some 105 privacy bills were introduced last year in 35 states, and 15 states enacted tougher privacy protections for student records. Concerns about excessive data collections, greater public awareness of data breaches, and parental alarm about prejudicial impact of longitudinal data systems on their children’s future will likely make 2015 an even more active year for educational privacy, with a high probability of federal and state legislation being introduced.
ConclusionAs a new class of state legislators and governors take office this month, they will be confronted with an array of new and longstanding policy issues affecting public higher education. While lawmakers in many states have in the past two years redoubled their commitment to funding public colleges and universities and worked to keep tuition increases to some of the lowest in a generation, it remains unclear whether progress made on mitigating the state-to-student cost shift will continue in 2015. New issues, such as college sexual assault prevention and privacy policies, will also challenge both campus and state officials in the year ahead. The diverse array of vexing policy issues on legislative calendars will make it incumbent upon higher education advocates to listen to the concerns of state policymakers, share higher education’s diverse array of contributions to state well-being, and build a culture of collaboration that will set the tone for a successful campus-capital relationship for 2015 and the second half of the decade.
Endnotes1Koseff, Alexei. “Jerry Brown Approves Community College Bachelor’s Degree,” The Sacramento Bee, October 8, 2014, accessed December 16, 2014 http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article2615016.html.
2Halperin, David. Law Enforcement Investigations and Actions Regarding For-Profit Colleges, The Republic Report, December 12, 2014, accessed December 16, 2014 http://www.republicreport.org/2014/law-enforcement-for-profit-colleges/.
Contributing:Daniel J. Hurley, Associate Vice President for Government Relations and State Policy
Thomas L. Harnisch, Assistant Director of State Relations and Policy AnalysisEmily A. Parker, Senior Research Associate
aascu.org/policy • Twitter @aascupolicy • 202.293.7070
18
The Strategic Agenda Steering Committee will oversee the various tasks that take
place over the planning period, analyze data and information collected
throughout the process, and facilitate the participation of a broad group of
stakeholders in planning activities.
The Committee will meet regularly to monitor and direct the process including
the drafting and review of the 2016-20 Strategic Agenda. Members of the
committee will provide leadership in engaging various constituent groups in the
planning process. The Committee will present the draft Strategic Agenda to the
Council on Postsecondary Education for approval at their board meeting in
November 2015.
The Strategic Agenda Steering Committee is comprised of representatives from
the Council on Postsecondary Education, a faculty and student representative,
each public university and KCTCS, a representative from the independent colleges
and universities, a member of the Committee on Equal Opportunities, and a
representative from the Governor’s office.
19
Proposed Topics
Feb 3 Tues 1:00 PM NCHEMS Status Report; Discuss planning process & timeline
Mar 3 Tues 1:00 PM Update on initial round of discussions with campuses, board members, and CPE staff; Review Department of Education, Economic Development Cabinet, and Workforce Cabinet strategic planning; Discuss mission, vision and values
April 16 Thurs 10:00 AM Review policy focus group discussions; Review draft policy focus areas and strategic plan framework; Discuss new performance funding model
May 12 Tues 1:00 PM Continue review of policy focus group discussions; Identify/prioritize key objectives; discuss potential performance metrics
June 11 Thurs 10:00 AM Discuss potential strategies; continue metrics discussion
Aug 11 Tues 1:00 PM Continue strategies discussion; Finalize metrics and review accountability/monitoring system; discuss public forums.
Sept 15 Tues 1:00 PM Review preliminary draft of 2016-20 Strategic Agenda; review input from public forums
Oct 6 Tues 1:00 PM Review second draft; finalize accountability/monitoring system; discuss state and institutional performance target setting
Nov 13 Fri 9:00 AM Council adopts 2016-20 Strategic Agenda
November 2015-March 2016 Finalize state and institutional performance targets
2015 Tentative Steering Committee Meeting Dates
Council on Postsecondary Education DRAFT - January 30, 2015
No meeting in July
2016-20 Strategic Agenda Planning Process
20
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems 3035 Center Green Drive, Suite 150
Boulder, Colorado 80301
A Status Report on Kentucky’s Postsecondary Education System
Patrick Kelly
February 3, 2015
21
2011
22
What has
Happened Since
2011?
23
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Decennial Census, American Community Survey (ACS). slide 4
Percent of 25 to 64 Year Olds with Associate Degrees and Higher
24.5
30.5
32.933.8
38.140.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
2000 2009 2013
Kentucky Nation
KY Rank 47th
KY Rank 45th
KY Rank 44th
KY Highest % Change
KY 3rd Highest % Change
24
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Decennial Census, American Community Survey (ACS). slide 5
Percent of 25 to 44 Year Olds with Associate Degrees and Higher
27.3
33.7
36.535.0
39.0
41.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
2000 2009 2013
Kentucky Nation
KY Rank 44th
KY Rank 36th
KY Rank 40th
KY 2nd Highest % Change
KY 24th Highest % Change
25
Source: NCES, IPEDS Graduation Rate Survey. slide 6
Six-Year Graduation Rates at Four-Year Institutions
39.3
47.8 47.6
53.055.5 55.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2000 2009 2013
Kentucky United States
KY Rank 44th
KY Rank 35th
KY Rank 40th
KY Highest % Change
KY 41st % Change
26
Source: NCES, IPEDS Graduation Rate Survey. slide 7
Three-Year Graduation Rates at Two-Year Institutions
21.4
30.5
25.4
30.029.2 29.4
0
10
20
30
40
2000 2009 2013
Kentucky United States
KY Rank 38th
KY Rank 16th
KY Rank 26th
KY 3rd Highest % Change
KY 44th % Change
27
Source: NCES, IPEDS Graduation Rate Survey. slide 8
Undergraduate Credentials Awarded per 1,000 18-44 Year Olds with No College Degree
18.4
29.9
35.8
24.5
33.9
41.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
2000 2009 2013
Kentucky United States
KY Rank 45th
KY Rank 36th
KY Rank 38th
KY Highest % Change
KY 32nd Highest % Change
28
While Kentucky’s postsecondary system
has improved on many measures since
2009, it has lost ground to other states.
Over the past 10 years, many states
have developed similar college
attainment goals and public agendas.
29
Educational
Attainment
30
slide 11
Comparing Kentucky with U.S. States and OECD Nations in the Percentage of Young
Adult Degree Attainment (Ages 25-34)
U.S. States % OECD Country Korea (65.7)
60 Japan
58 Canada
56 Massachusetts
North Dakota 54
Minnesota 52 New York
50 Luxembourg New Jersey Ireland Connecticut 48 United Kingdom
Nebraska, Illinois, Virginia New Zealand, Australia Pennsylvania, Colorado, Maryland, Rhode Island, Iowa 46
Vermont, South Dakota, Wisconsin Norway Kansas, New Hampshire 44 Israel, UNITED STATES
Hawaii, Montana Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, France Washington, Missouri, Utah 42
Wyoming, Ohio Poland, Switzerland Delaware, Michigan, Maine, California, North Carolina, Oregon 40 Denmark, Estonia, Finland
Florida Spain 38 Iceland
Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana Slovenia, Greece Kentucky 36
Texas, Idaho, Arizona West Virginia 34
Alabama, Oklahoma, Alaska, New Mexico Louisiana 32
Arkansas, Mississippi Nevada 30 Hungary
Germany 28 Portugal, Czech Republic
Slovakia 26
24 Mexico Austria
22 Chile, Italy Turkey
20
Source: 2014 OECD Education at a Glance (for year 2012); U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Public Use Microdata Sample.
31
Percent of Adults with an Associate Degree or Higher by Age Group Kentucky, U.S. & Leading OECD Countries
12
Source: OECD, Education at a Glance 2014 (for 2012); 2013 U.S. Census Bureau
65.7
58.6
57.3
49.9
49.2
47.9
47.2
46.9
45.0
44.5
44.0
36.1
52.2
51.5
59.0
45.0
46.0
45.1
45.0
42.5
43.5
49.8
45.5
36.6
29.1
46.0
49.6
31.9
32.4
37.2
37.5
37.8
34.7
44.9
41.0
31.2
13.5
32.0
44.5
26.4
24.9
32.6
33.0
34.6
29.9
46.5
41.8
28.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Korea Japan Canada Luxembourg Ireland UnitedKingdom
Australia NewZealand
Norway Israel UnitedStates
Kentucky
25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64
32
Percent of 25-64 Year Olds with College Degrees – Associate and Higher, 2013
slide 13
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Public Use Microdata Sample.
51.3
48.0
47.8
47.6
47.0
46.6
46.2
45.9
45.8
45.8
44.6
44.0
43.8
43.7
43.6
43.1
41.8
41.8
41.4
41.0
40.9
40.6
40.6
40.2
40.2
39.9
39.8
39.7
39.7
39.5
38.6
38.5
37.6
37.6
37.4
37.3
37.0
37.0
36.5
35.4
34.5
34.5
33.8
33.8
33.0
33.0
31.1
30.8
29.6
28.6
28.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Mass
ach
use
tts
Min
neso
taConnect
icut
Colo
rado
New
Ham
psh
ire
Nort
h D
ako
taN
ew
Jer
sey
Virgin
iaM
ary
land
New
York
Haw
aii
Nebra
ska
Wash
ingto
nRhode I
sland
Verm
ont
Illin
ois
Uta
hKansa
sW
isco
nsi
nSouth
Dako
taIo
wa
Pennsy
lvan
iaO
regon
Main
eD
ela
ware
Nation
Wyo
min
gCal
iforn
iaM
onta
na
Nort
h C
aro
lina
Flo
rida
Mic
hig
an
Mis
souri
Georg
iaAla
ska
Ohio
Arizo
na
Idaho
South
Caro
lina
Texa
sIn
dia
na
New
Mexi
coTenness
ee
Ala
bam
aKentu
cky
Okl
ahom
aN
eva
da
Mis
siss
ippi
Louis
iana
Ark
ansa
sW
est
Virgin
ia
KY Ranked 44th
33
Educational Attainment of Working Aged Adults, Ages 25-64 – Kentucky, U.S., and SREB Average, 2013
slide 14
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey One-Year Public Use Microdata Sample.
13.0
32.07
21.9
8.8
14.4
9.8
12.6
30.1
21.9
8.2
17.2
10.0
11.9
26.4
21.7
8.9
19.8
11.3
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Less than HighSchool
High School Some College, NoDegree
Associates Degree Bachelor's Degree Graduate,Professional Degree
Kentucky SREB United States
34
BrackenPendleton
Kenton
Trimble
Owsley
Breathitt
Perry
Jackson
EstillMadison
Johnson
MorganLawrence
Martin
FayetteJessamine
Jefferson
Bullitt
Bourbon
Fleming
Woodford
Lewis Greenup
CampbellBoone
Anderson
Washington
Nelson
MarionLarue
Taylor
Green
Lincoln
Letcher
Harlan
Bell
Knox
WhitleyMcCreary
Wayne
ClintonCumberland
Meade
BreckinridgeHancock
Daviess
McLean
Henderson
Webster
EdmonsonButler
AllenSimpson
LoganTodd
Christian
Crittenden
Ballard
Carlisle
Hickman
Fulton
Adair
Barren
Bath
Boyd
Boyle
Caldwell
Calloway
Carroll
Carter
Casey
Clark
Clay
Elliott
Floyd
Franklin
Gallatin
Garrard
Grant
Graves
Grayson
Hardin
Harrison
Hart
Henry
Hopkins Knott
Laurel
Lee
LeslieLivingston
LyonMcCracken
Magoffin
Marshall
Mason
Menifee
Mercer
Metcalfe
Monroe
Montgomery
Muhlenberg
Nicholas
Ohio
Oldham
Owen
Pike
Powell
Pulaski
Robertson
Rockcastle
Rowan
Russell
Scott
Shelby
Spencer
Trigg
Union
Warren
Wolfe
26.6% to 50.7%22.3% to 26.6%18.2% to 22.3%10.7% to 18.2%
KY = 31.4
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-10 American Community Survey.
Percent of Population Age 25-64 with at Least an Associates Degree, 2009-13
35
BrackenPendleton
Kenton
Trimble
Owsley
Breathitt
Perry
Jackson
EstillMadison
Johnson
MorganLawrence
Martin
FayetteJessamine
Jefferson
Bullitt
Bourbon
Fleming
Woodford
Lewis Greenup
CampbellBoone
Anderson
Washington
Nelson
MarionLarue
Taylor
Green
Lincoln
Letcher
Harlan
Bell
Knox
WhitleyMcCreary
Wayne
ClintonCumberland
Meade
BreckinridgeHancock
Daviess
McLean
Henderson
Webster
EdmonsonButler
AllenSimpson
LoganTodd
Christian
Crittenden
Ballard
Carlisle
Hickman
Fulton
Adair
Barren
Bath
Boyd
Boyle
Caldwell
Calloway
Carroll
Carter
Casey
Clark
Clay
Elliott
Floyd
Franklin
Gallatin
Garrard
Grant
Graves
Grayson
Hardin
Harrison
Hart
Henry
Hopkins Knott
Laurel
Lee
LeslieLivingston
LyonMcCracken
Magoffin
Marshall
Mason
Menifee
Mercer
Metcalfe
Monroe
Montgomery
Muhlenberg
Nicholas
Ohio
Oldham
Owen
Pike
Powell
Pulaski
Robertson
Rockcastle
Rowan
Russell
Scott
Shelby
Spencer
Trigg
Union
Warren
Wolfe
17.5% to 42.4%13.6% to 17.5%11.2% to 13.6%
5.0% to 11.2%
KY = 23.3
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-10 American Community Survey.
Percent of Population Age 25-64 with at Least a Bachelor’s Degree, 2009-13
36
Public Two-Year - Undergraduate Awards per 100 FTE Undergraduates by State, 2011-12 (excludes <1 Year Certificates)
Source: NCES, IPEDS 2011-12 Completions File; c2012_a Provisional Release Data File Downloaded 08-09-13.
31.5
27.9
23.9
23.4
23.2
22.9
22.4
22.1
22.0
21.2
21.0
21.0
20.9
20.5
19.7
19.3
19.1
19.0
18.8
18.8
18.8
18.5
18.4
18.2
18.1
17.7
17.4
17.3
17.2
17.1
17.0
17.0
16.9
16.7
16.4
15.9
15.8
15.8
15.5
15.5
15.3
15.1
15.1
14.9
14.7
14.7
13.5
13.2
12.8
12.6
9.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35South
Dako
taN
ort
h D
ako
taFlo
rida
Ark
ansa
sLo
uis
iana
Min
neso
taIo
wa
Main
eW
isco
nsi
nM
issi
ssip
pi
New
Ham
psh
ire
Wash
ingto
nM
onta
na
Arizo
na
Virgin
iaN
ew
Mexi
coKansa
sW
est
Virgin
iaKentu
cky
Haw
aii
Uta
hW
yom
ing
Mic
hig
an
New
York
Tenness
ee
Okl
ahom
aM
ary
land
Mass
ach
use
tts
Georg
iaN
ation
Ore
gon
Ala
bam
aVerm
ont
Nebra
ska
India
na
Mis
souri
New
Jer
sey
Pennsy
lvan
iaRhode I
sland
Idaho
Connect
icut
Texa
sD
ela
ware
Illin
ois
Ohio
Nort
h C
aro
lina
South
Caro
lina
Colo
rado
Cal
iforn
iaN
eva
da
Ala
ska
KY Ranked 19th
37
Public Bachelors & Masters - Undergraduate Awards per 100 FTE Undergraduates by State, 2011-12
Source: NCES, IPEDS 2011-12 Completions File; c2012_a Provisional Release Data File Downloaded 08-09-13.
27.1
25.3
25.3
25.1
24.9
24.5
24.2
24.0
23.5
23.4
23.4
22.7
22.4
22.3
22.1
22.1
21.9
21.1
21.1
21.0
20.8
20.7
20.6
20.1
20.1
20.1
20.1
19.9
19.7
19.6
19.6
19.5
19.1
19.0
18.7
18.3
18.2
18.2
18.0
17.9
17.9
17.5
17.3
16.9
16.8
16.3
16.1
15.2
14.9
10.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30Verm
ont
New
Jer
sey
Kansa
sH
aw
aii
Wash
ingto
nFlo
rida
Mary
land
Illin
ois
Cal
iforn
iaN
ew
Ham
psh
ire
Iow
aConnect
icut
Min
neso
taU
tah
New
York
Main
eTexa
sN
ation
Mic
hig
an
Nort
h C
aro
lina
Virgin
iaO
regon
Ark
ansa
sM
ass
ach
use
tts
Mis
souri
Nort
h D
ako
taRhode I
sland
Wis
consi
nKentu
cky
Pennsy
lvan
iaId
aho
Monta
na
Mis
siss
ippi
Okl
ahom
aSouth
Caro
lina
West
Virgin
iaAla
bam
aN
ew
Mexi
coLo
uis
iana
Tenness
ee
Colo
rado
India
na
Neva
da
Ala
ska
Nebra
ska
Georg
iaSouth
Dako
taD
ela
ware
Ohio
Arizo
na
KY Ranked 29th
38
Public Research Institutions - Undergraduate Awards per 100 FTE Undergraduates by State, 2011-12
Source: NCES, IPEDS 2011-12 Completions File; c2012_a Provisional Release Data File Downloaded 08-09-13.
26.2
26.2
26.0
24.9
24.9
24.8
24.0
23.9
23.7
23.7
23.4
23.1
23.1
22.7
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.5
22.5
22.4
22.3
22.3
22.3
22.3
22.1
21.6
21.6
21.4
21.4
21.2
21.1
21.0
20.9
20.6
20.5
20.0
19.9
19.9
19.7
19.7
19.6
19.4
18.9
18.9
18.7
18.7
18.5
18.3
18.1
17.9
17.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30W
ash
ingto
nCal
iforn
iaM
inneso
taIllin
ois
Flo
rida
Pennsy
lvan
iaN
ew
York
Arizo
na
Mary
land
Connect
icut
Main
eVirgin
iaTexa
sVerm
ont
India
na
Mis
souri
Mass
ach
use
tts
Haw
aii
United S
tate
sU
tah
Ore
gon
Wyo
min
gO
klahom
aO
hio
Nebra
ska
Mic
hig
an
Georg
iaW
isco
nsi
nN
ort
h C
aro
lina
Dela
ware
Kansa
sColo
rado
New
Ham
psh
ire
New
Jer
sey
South
Caro
lina
Neva
da
Tenness
ee
Iow
aRhode I
sland
Kentu
cky
South
Dako
taAla
bam
aM
issi
ssip
pi
Louis
iana
Idaho
Ark
ansa
sN
ew
Mexi
coW
est
Virgin
iaM
onta
na
Nort
h D
ako
taAla
ska
KY Ranked 39th
39
Educational Attainment of Whites and Minorities (African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans) Aged 25-44, 2011-13
Kentucky
slide 20
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-13 American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) File.
10.74
30.10
23.98
9.45
16.58
9.15
18.63
31.65
25.82
7.87
10.40
5.62
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
Less Than HighSchool
High SchoolGraduate or GED
Some College, NoDegree
Associate'sDegree
Bachelor's Degree Graduate orProfessional
Degree
Whites Minorities
40
Kentucky High School Graduates 1996-97 to 2027-28 (projected)
slide 21
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
1996-9
7
1997-9
8
1998-9
9
1999-0
0
2000-0
1
2001-0
2
2002-0
3
2003-0
4
2004-0
5
2005-0
6
2006-0
7
2007-0
8
2008-0
9
2009-1
0
2010-1
1
2011-1
2
2012-1
3
2013-1
4
2014-1
5
2015-1
6
2016-1
7
2017-1
8
2018-1
9
2019-2
0
2020-2
1
2021-2
2
2022-2
3
2023-2
4
2024-2
5
2025-2
6
2026-2
7
2027-2
8
Total
White
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black
Source: Knocking at the College Door
Actual Projected
41
Kentucky still lags many other states
(and countries) in the percentage of
adults with college degrees.
There are sizable gaps between whites
and underrepresented minorities.
42
Migration
43
Average Annual Net Migration of 22 to 44 Year Olds by Education Level, Kentucky, 2011-13
slide 24
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-12 American Community Survey (ACS) Three-Year Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) File.
2,821
4,835
-137
1,120
1,605
-276
-1,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Less Than High
School
High School
Graduate
Some College,
No Degree
Associate's
Degree
Bachelor's
Degree
Graduate or
ProfessionalDegree
44
Percent of Residents Aged 25-64 with an Associates Degree or Higher Born In-State
slide 25
69.1
67.3
66.2
64.6
64.1
64.1
63.5
62.2
61.3
59.2
57.5
57.4
57.3
57.2
56.3
56.3
54.3
54.1
52.3
51.0
50.9
49.2
49.1
48.5
47.7
45.4
45.3
43.7
43.2
43.2
42.9
42.8
41.7
40.2
39.2
34.6
33.4
33.3
32.5
32.3
32.1
30.9
28.4
26.9
26.8
26.8
24.9
20.5
18.8
16.5
9.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80M
ichig
an
Louis
iana
Ohio
Wis
consi
nIo
wa
Pennsy
lvan
iaM
issi
ssip
pi
West
Virgin
iaN
ort
h D
ako
taN
ebra
ska
India
na
Kentu
cky
Ala
bam
aM
inneso
taN
ew
York
Illin
ois
Mis
souri
South
Dako
taArk
ansa
sM
ass
ach
use
tts
Okl
ahom
aU
tah
Rhode I
sland
Main
eKansa
sTexa
sN
ation
Monta
na
Connect
icut
Tenness
ee
South
Caro
lina
Haw
aii
Nort
h C
aro
lina
Cal
iforn
iaN
ew
Jer
sey
Idaho
New
Mexi
coW
ash
ingto
nG
eorg
iaW
yom
ing
Ore
gon
Verm
ont
Dela
ware
Mary
land
Virgin
iaN
ew
Ham
psh
ire
Colo
rado
Flo
rida
Arizo
na
Ala
ska
Neva
da
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) File.
KY Ranked 10th
45
Percent of Residents Aged 25-64 with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher Born In-State, 2010
66.3
66.1
63.3
62.3
61.0
61.0
61.0
60.7
60.0
57.0
54.7
54.4
54.0
53.6
53.5
53.3
52.9
52.9
50.9
50.1
47.7
47.1
46.4
45.7
43.7
43.0
42.8
42.5
41.9
40.7
40.4
40.0
37.9
37.7
37.7
32.6
30.8
30.4
29.7
29.5
29.2
26.9
25.1
24.8
24.3
24.0
23.0
19.2
16.6
15.6
9.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70Lo
uis
iana
Mic
hig
an
Ohio
Mis
siss
ippi
Pennsy
lvan
iaW
est
Virgin
iaW
isco
nsi
nIo
wa
Nort
h D
ako
taN
ebra
ska
India
na
Ala
bam
aKentu
cky
New
York
Illin
ois
Min
neso
taM
isso
uri
South
Dako
taArk
ansa
sO
klahom
aM
ass
ach
use
tts
Uta
hRhode I
sland
Kansa
sTexa
sM
onta
na
Nation
Main
eTenness
ee
Connect
icut
Haw
aii
South
Caro
lina
New
Jer
sey
Cal
iforn
iaN
ort
h C
aro
lina
Idaho
Georg
iaW
ash
ingto
nO
regon
New
Mexi
coW
yom
ing
Dela
ware
Verm
ont
Mary
land
Virgin
iaN
ew
Ham
psh
ire
Colo
rado
Flo
rida
Arizo
na
Ala
ska
Neva
da
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) File.
slide 26
KY Ranked 10th
46
Kentucky is a slight net-importer of
college educated residents, but has a
history of educating its own residents –
relative to many other states.
47
Economic
Conditions
48
The Relationship Between Educational Attainment, Personal Income, and the State New Economy Index (2012)
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
30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000
High College Attainment, Low Personal Income High College Attainment, High Personal Income
Low College Attainment, Low Personal Income Low College Attainment, High Personal Income
Perc
ent
of
Adults
25 to 6
4 w
ith C
olle
ge D
egre
es
(2012)
Personal Income per Capita (2013)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey; Bureau of Economic Analysis; ITIF 2012 New Economy Index
State New Economy Index 2012
Top Tier
Middle Tier
Bottom Tier
49
State New Economy Index – Overall Index Scores (2014)
Source: Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; The 2014 State New Economy Index
94.7
85.1
83.7
82.5
81.5
81.4
80.9
77.6
77.0
75.4
74.6
73.0
71.7
69.5
69.3
67.1
67.1
67.0
66.8
65.2
64.3
63.2
63.1
62.6
62.3
61.6
58.7
58.7
58.3
58.3
57.8
57.3
56.8
56.8
56.6
56.0
55.8
54.8
54.6
54.4
51.3
50.4
49.0
48.4
48.4
48.1
47.0
44.2
44.1
39.8
38.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0M
ass
ach
use
tts
Dela
ware
Cal
iforn
iaW
ash
ingto
nM
ary
land
Colo
rado
Virgin
iaConnect
icut
Uta
hN
ew
Jer
sey
New
Ham
psh
ire
New
York
Min
neso
taVerm
ont
Ore
gon
Illin
ois
Arizo
na
Mic
hig
an
Rhode I
sland
Texa
sG
eorg
iaPennsy
lvan
iaN
ort
h C
aro
lina
Avera
ge
Idaho
Flo
rida
New
Mexi
coN
eva
da
Main
eO
hio
Wis
consi
nKansa
sAla
ska
Mis
souri
South
Caro
lina
Nebra
ska
Nort
h D
ako
taIo
wa
India
na
Monta
na
Tenness
ee
Ala
bam
aSouth
Dako
taH
aw
aii
Kentu
cky
Wyo
min
gLo
uis
iana
Ark
ansa
sO
klahom
aW
est
Virgin
iaM
issi
ssip
pi
KY Ranked 44th
50
State New Economy Index – KY Rankings (2014)
Source: Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; The 2014 State New Economy Index
49
47
46
45
44
44
44
44
43
43
42
41
41
41
38
36
36
36
36
36
30
28
20
13
9
9
0 10 20 30 40 50
Migration of U.S. Knowledge Workers
Inventor Patents
Workforce Education
Scientists and Engineers
Health IT
Broadband Telecommunications
Online Agriculture
Overall Index Score
Non-Industry Investment in R&D
Patents
Manufacturing Value Added
Fast-Growing Firms
Managerial, Professional, and Technical Jobs
Information Technology Jobs
High-Tech Jobs
Venture Capital
Movement Toward a Clean Economy
Industry Investment in R&D
Initial Public Offerings
High-Wage Traded Services
Immigration of Knowledge Workers
Job Churning
Export Focus of Manufacturing and Services
Entrepreneurial Activity
E-government
Foreign Direct Investment
51
Personal Income Per Capita, 2013
slide 32
60,6
58
57,2
48
55,3
86
54,4
62
53,8
26
53,1
82
52,8
26
51,0
13
50,1
50
48,8
38
48,4
34
47,7
17
47,5
00
47,1
57
46,9
89
46,9
80
46,8
97
46,2
02
46,0
39
45,4
83
45,2
04
44,8
15
44,7
65
44,7
63
44,4
17
43,8
62
43,2
44
41,8
61
41,4
97
41,2
04
41,0
49
40,9
24
40,6
63
39,8
48
39,5
58
39,3
66
39,2
35
39,0
55
38,6
83
38,6
22
37,8
45
36,9
83
36,6
98
36,6
40
36,4
81
36,2
14
36,1
46
35,9
65
35,8
31
35,5
33
33,9
13
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000Connect
icut
Mass
ach
use
tts
New
Jer
sey
New
York
Mary
land
Nort
h D
ako
taW
yom
ing
New
Ham
psh
ire
Ala
ska
Virgin
iaCal
iforn
iaW
ash
ingto
nM
inneso
taN
ebra
ska
Rhode I
sland
Illin
ois
Colo
rado
Pennsy
lvan
iaSouth
Dako
taVerm
ont
Haw
aii
Dela
ware
United S
tate
sIo
wa
Kansa
sTexa
sW
isco
nsi
nO
klahom
aFlo
rida
Louis
iana
Ohio
Main
eM
isso
uri
Ore
gon
Tenness
ee
Monta
na
Neva
da
Mic
hig
an
Nort
h C
aro
lina
India
na
Georg
iaArizo
na
Ark
ansa
sU
tah
Ala
bam
aKentu
cky
Idaho
New
Mexi
coSouth
Caro
lina
West
Virgin
iaM
issi
ssip
pi
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
KY Ranked 45th
52
Kentucky Personal Income per Capita as a Percent of the U.S. Average, (1980-2013)
80.0 78.5 79.4
81.6 81.5 81.4 82.0 80.9
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
53
BrackenPendleton
Kenton
Trimble
Owsley
Breathitt
Perry
Jackson
EstillMadison
Johnson
MorganLawrence
Martin
FayetteJessamine
Jefferson
Bullitt
Bourbon
Fleming
Woodford
Lewis Greenup
CampbellBoone
Anderson
Washington
Nelson
MarionLarue
Taylor
Green
Lincoln
Letcher
Harlan
Bell
Knox
WhitleyMcCreary
Wayne
ClintonCumberland
Meade
BreckinridgeHancock
Daviess
McLean
Henderson
Webster
EdmonsonButler
AllenSimpson
LoganTodd
Christian
Crittenden
Ballard
Carlisle
Hickman
Fulton
Adair
Barren
Bath
Boyd
Boyle
Caldwell
Calloway
Carroll
Carter
Casey
Clark
Clay
Elliott
Floyd
Franklin
Gallatin
Garrard
Grant
Graves
Grayson
Hardin
Harrison
Hart
Henry
Hopkins Knott
Laurel
Lee
LeslieLivingston
LyonMcCracken
Magoffin
Marshall
Mason
Menifee
Mercer
Metcalfe
Monroe
Montgomery
Muhlenberg
Nicholas
Ohio
Oldham
Owen
Pike
Powell
Pulaski
Robertson
Rockcastle
Rowan
Russell
Scott
Shelby
Spencer
Trigg
Union
Warren
Wolfe
$34,959 to $49,428$31,150 to $34,959$27,700 to $31,150$20,904 to $27,700
Per Capita Income by County 2013
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
54
Median Annual Wages by Level of Education, Kentucky 2013
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey One-Year Public Use Microdata Sample.
$14,1
06 $
23,1
74
$22,1
66 $30,2
26
$40,3
02
$53,4
00
$15,1
13 $
24,1
81
$24,6
85 $
34,2
57
$46,3
47
$65,4
91
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
Less than HighSchool
High SchoolGraduate or GED
Some College, NoDegree
Associate Degree Bachelor'sDegree
Graduate orProfessional
Degree
Kentucky Nation
55
Percent of Workers with College Degrees Earning Low Wages, 2010
40.9
39.0
36.9
36.9
35.6
34.6
33.1
32.8
32.3
31.8
31.5
31.0
30.3
29.7
29.1
28.8
28.6
28.3
28.1
27.8
27.6
27.3
27.1
27.0
26.2
25.5
25.1
24.6
24.6
24.5
24.5
24.2
24.1
23.6
23.5
23.3
22.3
22.0
21.4
21.1
21.1
20.6
20.2
19.3
19.2
19.0
17.6
16.1
16.0
15.6
15.0
14.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45N
ort
h D
ako
taM
issi
ssip
pi
West
Virgin
iaM
onta
na
South
Dako
taId
aho
Flo
rida
Ark
ansa
sO
klahom
aW
yom
ing
South
Caro
lina
New
Mexi
coN
ebra
ska
Kentu
cky
Main
eN
eva
da
Ore
gon
Iow
aLo
uis
iana
Mis
souri
Nort
h C
aro
lina
India
na
Kansa
sTenness
ee
Verm
ont
Colo
rado
Ala
bam
aG
eorg
iaH
aw
aii
Pennsy
lvan
iaU
tah
Wis
consi
nArizo
na
Ohio
Mic
hig
an
Nation
Texa
sIllin
ois
New
Ham
psh
ire
Ala
ska
Wash
ingto
nD
ela
ware
New
York
Cal
iforn
iaRhode I
sland
Min
neso
taVirgin
iaM
ass
ach
use
tts
New
Jer
sey
DC
Connect
icut
Mary
land
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey One-Year Public Use Microdata Sample File. Note: Low Wages Indexed to U.S. Median Wage of Workers with Just a High School Diploma ($29,221)
KY Ranked 14th
56
Percentage of Jobs in 2020 that Will Require a Postsecondary Education, by State
Source: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements through 2020; 2013
74%
74%
72%
72%
71%
71%
71%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
69%
69%
69%
68%
68%
68%
68%
68%
67%
67%
67%
66%
66%
66%
65%
65%
65%
65%
65%
64%
64%
64%
63%
63%
63%
62%
62%
62%
62%
62%
62%
62%
61%
59%
58%
56%
55%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
Min
neso
taColo
rado
Mass
ach
use
tts
Nort
h D
ako
taRhode I
sland
Kansa
sN
ebra
ska
Ore
gon
Illin
ois
Wash
ingto
nM
ichig
an
Connect
icut
Haw
aii
Monta
na
Mary
land
New
York
Arizo
na
Iow
aN
ew
Jer
sey
New
Ham
psh
ire
Idaho
Cal
iforn
iaN
ort
h C
aro
lina
Virgin
iaM
isso
uri
Main
eAla
ska
Verm
ont
Georg
iaSouth
Dako
taFlo
rida
Wyo
min
gO
hio
Okl
ahom
aU
tah
Dela
ware
New
Mexi
coPennsy
lvan
iaAla
bam
aTexa
sIn
dia
na
Wis
consi
nN
eva
da
Kentu
cky
South
Caro
lina
Mis
siss
ippi
Ark
ansa
sTenness
ee
Louis
iana
West
Virgin
ia
National Average = 65%
KY Ranked 44th
57
Gap Between Percent of Jobs in 2020 That Will Require a College Education and the Percent of Adults, Aged 25-64 with Associates and
Higher in 2012 32.5
%
32.3
%
31.5
%
31.5
%
31.1
%
30.7
%
30.7
%
30.0
%
30.0
%
30.0
%
29.9
%
29.2
%
28.8
%
28.7
%
28.3
%
27.7
%
27.7
%
27.6
%
27.6
%
27.6
%
27.5
%
27.4
%
27.3
%
27.2
%
27.2
%
27.1
%
27.0
%
26.9
%
26.7
%
26.6
%
26.6
%
26.6
%
26.1
%
25.9
%
25.7
%
25.2
%
25.1
%
24.9
%
24.6
%
23.7
%
23.3
%
22.8
%
22.5
%
22.3
%
22.1
%
21.5
%
21.5
%
21.2
%
21.0
%
18.7
%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%M
ichig
an
Idaho
Neva
da
Okl
ahom
aArizo
na
Monta
na
Kentu
cky
Kansa
sM
issi
ssip
pi
Ore
gon
Mis
souri
Ark
ansa
sN
ort
h C
aro
lina
Ala
bam
aRhode I
sland
India
na
Haw
aii
West
Virgin
iaIllin
ois
Georg
iaO
hio
Texa
sN
ew
Mexi
coCal
iforn
iaW
yom
ing
Ala
ska
Nebra
ska
Flo
rida
Min
neso
taW
ash
ingto
nM
ain
eLo
uis
iana
Colo
rado
South
Caro
lina
Nort
h D
ako
taIo
wa
South
Dako
taD
ela
ware
Tenness
ee
New
York
Mary
land
Pennsy
lvan
iaConnect
icut
Uta
hN
ew
Jer
sey
Mass
ach
use
tts
Virgin
iaN
ew
Ham
psh
ire
Wis
consi
nVerm
ont
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey One-Year Public Use Microdata Sample; Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Recovery Job Growth and Education Requirements through 2020.
KY Ranked 7th
58
Projected Job Growth From 2010 to 2020 by Education Level, Kentucky
(in thousands)
53
229
162
63
135
71
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Georgetown Center for Education and the Workforce, Recovery: Job Growth And Education Requirements Through 2020
Less than High School High School Graduate Postsecondary
Graduate/Professional
Baccalaureate
Associate
Certificate or Credential of < 2 Years
59
Kentucky still lags the nation and most
states in realizing the economic returns
to a more educated citizenry.
However, like many other states, most
of the projected job growth will require
at least some postsecondary education.
60
Regional
Disparities
61
Kentucky's Area Development Districts (ADDs)
Prepared by: Research and Statistics Branch, Office of Employment and Training, Kentucky Education and Workforce Development Cabinet
62
PURCHASE 63.4%
PENNYRILE 49.7%
GREEN RIVER 56.6%
BARREN RIVER 52.1%
LINCOLN TRAIL 56.4%
KIPDA 52.7%
NORTHERN KENTUCKY 54.2% BUFFALO
TRACE 57.6%
FIVCO 56.0%
BIG SANDY 61.1%
BLUEGRASS 57.4%
KENTUCKY RIVER 61.5%
GATEWAY 58.0%
LAKE CUMBERLAND 53.6%
CUMBERLAND VALLEY 54.2%
College-Going Rates Directly Out of High School (2011-2012)
49.7% - 53.6%
54.2% - 56.4%
56.6% - 58.0%
61.1% - 63.4%
Source: KY Center for Education and Workforce Statistics
Kentucky 55.4%
63
PURCHASE 7.6%
PENNYRILE 7.5%
GREEN RIVER 8.0%
BARREN RIVER 6.4%
LINCOLN TRAIL 8.2%
KIPDA 7.0%
NORTHERN KENTUCKY 7.6% BUFFALO
TRACE 7.9%
FIVCO 7.4%
BIG SANDY 5.3%
BLUEGRASS 6.6%
KENTUCKY RIVER 6.4%
GATEWAY 4.8%
LAKE CUMBERLAND 6.5%
CUMBERLAND VALLEY 5.2%
Percent of Adults 25 to 64 with Associate Degrees (2008-12)
4.8% - 6.4%
6.4% - 7.0%
7.4% - 7.6%
7.9% - 8.2%
Source: KY Center for Education and Workforce Statistics
Kentucky 6.9%
United States 7.7%
64
PURCHASE 19.3%
PENNYRILE 13.5%
GREEN RIVER 15.4%
BARREN RIVER 17.4%
LINCOLN TRAIL 14.9%
KIPDA 28.1%
NORTHERN KENTUCKY 25.7% BUFFALO
TRACE 12.9%
FIVCO 13.4%
BIG SANDY 11.3%
BLUEGRASS 28.7%
KENTUCKY RIVER 11.2%
GATEWAY 16.0%
LAKE CUMBERLAND 11.8%
CUMBERLAND VALLEY 10.7%
Percent of Adults 25 to 64 with Bachelor’s Degrees (2008-12)
10.7% - 11.8%
12.9% - 14.9%
15.4% - 19.3%
25.7% - 28.7%
Source: KY Center for Education and Workforce Statistics
Kentucky 21.0%
United States 28.5%
65
PURCHASE $22,983
PENNYRILE $20,466
GREEN RIVER $21,683
BARREN RIVER $20,695
LINCOLN TRAIL $21,534
KIPDA $27,407
NORTHERN KENTUCKY $26,287 BUFFALO
TRACE $18,983
FIVCO $20,745
BIG SANDY $18,061
BLUEGRASS $25,743
KENTUCKY RIVER $16,965
GATEWAY $17,586
LAKE CUMBERLAND $17,488
CUMBERLAND VALLEY $16,357
Per Capita Personal Income
$16,357 - $17,586
$18,061 - $20.695
$20,745 - $22,983
$25,743 – $27,407
Source: KY Center for Education and Workforce Statistics
Kentucky $23,210
United States $28,051
66
The Way Forward Preliminary Considerations at the Policy Level
1. Re-establish (revise) a widely understood and accepted set of goals
2. More effectively linking the college attainment agenda to workforce and economic development (regionally as well as statewide)
3. More effectively focus on achievement gaps and regional disparities
4. Review existing policies, regulations and procedures with an eye to eliminating those that serve as barriers to progress on goal achievement
5. Develop finance mechanisms that link allocation of funds to goals
6. Create a mechanism for sustaining the agenda
– Accountability/annual report card
– Focused analyses
– Regular meetings focused on progress and strategies
7. Harness the state’s data and analytic capacity in ways that help to focus the agenda
8. Ensure public and stakeholder input into the agenda
67
Back-Pocket Slides
68
$7,8
18
$7,3
76
$6,8
22
$6,8
95
$6,0
23
$5,8
59
$5,9
65
$6,2
43
$6,0
60
$7,6
74
$8,2
45
$9,4
64
$9,5
53
$9,5
43
$9,2
19
$8,0
99
$7,9
62
$7,1
71
$7,8
51
$7,8
78
$8,2
06
$7,6
56
$7,1
47
$6,7
64
$6
,37
9
$6,2
56
$2,7
34
$2,7
56
$2,5
07
$2
,38
9
$2,5
50
$2,8
09
$2,7
99
$2,9
04
$3,5
02 $3,5
30
$3,5
55
$3,7
95
$4,1
17
$4,0
50
$3,8
00
$3,6
98
$3,2
19
$3,8
91
$4,0
30
$4,4
74
$4,7
85
$5,0
36
$5,0
61
$5,2
17
$5,4
34
$5
,62
1
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1801
98
8
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
Do
lla
rs p
er
FT
E
Pu
bli
c F
TE
En
roll
me
nt
(Th
ou
sa
nd
s)
Public FTE Enrollment, Educational Appropriations and Total Educational Revenue per FTE, Kentucky -- Fiscal 1988-2013
Net Tuition Revenue per FTE (constant $) Educational Appropriations per FTE (constant $) Public FTE Enrollment
Note: Constant 2013 dollars adjusted by SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA). Educational Appropriations include ARRA funds. Source: SHEEO
69
Awards per $100,000 of State & Local Appropriations and Tuition & Fees Revenues, 2010, Public Two-Year
4.3
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.2
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Mis
souri
South
Dako
ta
Louis
iana
Flo
rida
Nort
h D
ako
ta
West
Virgin
ia
Monta
na
Mis
siss
ippi
Main
e
Kentu
cky
India
na
Ark
ansa
s
Iow
a
Okl
ahom
a
Min
neso
ta
Verm
ont
Wash
ingto
n
Georg
ia
Colo
rado
Neva
da
Ala
bam
a
Uta
h
Virgin
ia
Mass
ach
use
tts
Tenness
ee
South
Caro
lina
New
Jer
sey
Haw
aii
Arizo
na
Nation
Idaho
New
Ham
psh
ire
Mic
hig
an
Nort
h C
aro
lina
Kansa
s
New
Mexi
co
New
York
Pennsy
lvan
ia
Dela
ware
Ohio
Wyo
min
g
Nebra
ska
Texa
s
Illin
ois
Rhode I
sland
Mary
land
Cal
iforn
ia
Wis
consi
n
Ore
gon
Connect
icut
Ala
ska
Sources: NCES, IPEDS 2010 Completions File; c2005_a, c2009_a, and c2010_a Final Release Data Files. NCES, IPEDS 2009-10 Finance Files; f0405_f1a, f0405_f2, f0809_f1a, f0809_f2 F
Final Release Data Files; f0910_f1a, f0910_f2 Early Release Data Files Downloaded 10-11-11. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) Files. slide 50
70
Awards per $100,000 of State & Local Appropriations and Tuition & Fees Revenues, 2010, Public Bachelors and Masters
4.7
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.2
1.1
0.9
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Colo
rado
Wash
ingto
n
Kansa
s
Flo
rida
Uta
h
Cal
iforn
ia
Pennsy
lvan
ia
Mary
land
West
Virgin
ia
Louis
iana
Tenness
ee
Okl
ahom
a
Ore
gon
Georg
ia
Nebra
ska
Ark
ansa
s
Texa
s
Wis
consi
n
Min
neso
ta
Neva
da
Nation
Ala
bam
a
Illin
ois
Mis
souri
Nort
h D
ako
ta
Mic
hig
an
New
York
New
Jer
sey
Kentu
cky
New
Ham
psh
ire
Mis
siss
ippi
Idaho
South
Caro
lina
Virgin
ia
Mass
ach
use
tts
Iow
a
Verm
ont
Rhode I
sland
South
Dako
ta
India
na
Nort
h C
aro
lina
Monta
na
Main
e
Connect
icut
New
Mexi
co
Ohio
Haw
aii
Dela
ware
Ala
ska
D.C
Sources: NCES, IPEDS 2010 Completions File; c2005_a, c2009_a, and c2010_a Final Release Data Files. NCES, IPEDS 2009-10 Finance Files; f0405_f1a, f0405_f2, f0809_f1a, f0809_f2 F
Final Release Data Files; f0910_f1a, f0910_f2 Early Release Data Files Downloaded 10-11-11. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) Files. slide 51
71
Awards per $100,000 of State & Local Appropriations and Tuition & Fees Revenues, 2010, Public Research
2.8
2.8
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.6
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Colo
rado
Flo
rida
Monta
na
Neva
da
South
Dako
ta
Uta
h
Virgin
ia
Ore
gon
New
Ham
psh
ire
Mis
souri
Illin
ois
Arizo
na
Kansa
s
Wash
ingto
n
Ohio
Texa
s
Mis
siss
ippi
Tenness
ee
Georg
ia
Wis
consi
n
Louis
iana
Mic
hig
an
Nation
Idaho
South
Caro
lina
New
Mexi
co
Ark
ansa
s
Mary
land
Okl
ahom
a
Rhode I
sland
Ala
bam
a
West
Virgin
ia
Mass
ach
use
tts
Cal
iforn
ia
India
na
Nort
h D
ako
ta
Nort
h C
aro
lina
Iow
a
Haw
aii
Min
neso
ta
Kentu
cky
Nebra
ska
Main
e
Pennsy
lvan
ia
Verm
ont
Dela
ware
New
York
Wyo
min
g
New
Jer
sey
Connect
icut
Ala
ska
Sources: NCES, IPEDS 2010 Completions File; c2005_a, c2009_a, and c2010_a Final Release Data Files. NCES, IPEDS 2009-10 Finance Files; f0405_f1a, f0405_f2, f0809_f1a, f0809_f2 F
Final Release Data Files; f0910_f1a, f0910_f2 Early Release Data Files Downloaded 10-11-11. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) Files. slide 52
72
**DRAFT**
Strategic Agenda Policy Focus Group Conversations
What: Focused discussions with key stakeholders around 10 specific postsecondary/adult education policy areas or issues. Why: To get broad stakeholder input into the challenges and opportunities in each policy area. The groups should also provide some input on appropriate metrics in each area. These conversations would in lieu of the policy area workgroups formed during the last planning process, and are designed to make more effective use of stakeholders’ time. When: Mid-March through April Format: Professionally facilitated, ½ day discussion using a common format/structure. The first part of the meeting will be on setting the context (key challenges, progress, national context, etc). The rest of the meeting would focus on getting input from the group. Lunch will be provided. Role of CPE Staff: Each policy conversation would be assisted by a CPE staff member who would identify the meeting participants, present the context material, work with the professional facilitator on planning, and report on the meeting to the Steering Committee. Participants: Approximately 30 participants representing a broad group of people inside and outside the higher education system. Each should have a specific stake in or knowledge of the policy issue. Existing committees or workgroups might serve in this role for some policy issues. Deliverables: A brief written report and presentation to the Strategic Agenda Steering Committee. Tentative topics:
College Access Academic Readiness
Non-Traditional Populations Persistence and Completion Academic Quality and Instruction
Diversity on Campus Financial Barriers to College
Postsecondary Education and the Workforce Institutions’ Research Mission
Regional and Community Development
73
Degree Program Eligibility and Equal Opportunity Goals
Draft Revised Framework for Quantitative Assessment of Institutional Diversity Plans Institutions would continue to develop their diversity plans based on the Statewide Diversity Policy set forth by the Council and the Committee on Equal Opportunities (CEO). These plans would be 5 years in duration in conjunction with the Council’s Strategic Agenda. The revised Diversity Policy would require both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the institutional diversity plans, which would continue to include a campus climate component. The process outlined below only addresses the quantitative aspect of the analysis.
Enrollment o Enrollment numbers for various student populations would be identified but not used
for new degree program eligibility. The statewide diversity policy would specifically identify that Kentucky has an interest in achieving the educational benefits of a diverse student body. As such, institutions would attempt to achieve this goal while adhering to the doctrine set forth in Fisher, which would include exploring race neutral alternatives in admissions designed to achieve diversity. In addition, efforts would be made to create student bodies that exhibit the very broad definition of diversity outlined in the Council’s Diversity Policy.
Student Success Measures o The new degree program eligibility evaluation would consist of the same student
populations on each campus. The evaluation would be limited to certain historically disadvantaged and academic underprepared populations, which would include African American/Black and Hispanic/Latino, but could also include:
2 or more races Low income (Pell eligible) Not college ready Graduates of low-performing high schools 1st generation college attendees
o Achievement Gap Closing – Progress would be evaluated on the closing of achievement gaps in certain student success measures for the agreed upon student populations. A baseline would be captured at the beginning of year one for each of the identified populations at each institution. Progress would be measured as a function of closing those gaps through rolling averages. For example, the student success measures used for evaluation could include:
1st to 2nd year undergraduate retention Undergraduate Completion Rates – 2 and 3 year; 4 and 6 year. Average credit hour accumulations by year
o Degrees Conferred – Progress would be measured toward meeting a goal set by each campus, based on a rolling average.
o Cultural Competency – Institutions would be required to assess the cultural competency of its students and report progress annually.
To meet this goal, institutions only must verify that assessment occurred.
Workforce Diversity o Each institution would be responsible for implementing its own affirmative action plan
per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
74
2
o Executive/leadership staff and full-time faculty employment goals would be set by each campus and progress would be measured on a rolling average.
o Evaluations would be performed using the same populations on each campus, which would include African American/Black and Hispanic/Latino, and could also include other racial and ethnic categories.
o Cultural competency – institutions would be required to assess the cultural competency of its workforce and report progress annually.
To meet this goal, institutions would only be required to verify that the assessment occurred.
Evaluation Schedule o Year 1 – Qualitative Progress Report – Focus on strategy implementation progress and
identify problem areas for discussion. Numerical progress would be noted in the narrative assessment.
o Year 2 – Qualitative Progress and Preliminary Quantitative Report – Strategy implementation discussed and preliminary report of quantitative progress. If quantitative progress in any area and for any student or workforce population is not made, institution is put on warning status. An improvement plan would be developed in the deficient areas and then submitted to CEO for approval. A site visit could also be scheduled.
o Year 3 – Qualitative Progress and Full Quantitative Report – Strategy implementation discussed and full initial quantitative report is submitted. If quantitative progress is not made in each area of analysis, an institution would be unable to offer new academic programs unless a waiver is granted. An improvement plan would be developed in the deficient areas and then submitted to CEO, and then the Council, for approval. A site visit could also be scheduled.
o Years 4 and 5 – Same as year 3. o If deficiencies in all areas are remedied in the subsequent year, then an institution
would regain its eligibility.
Waivers o Waivers may be granted on an individual program basis. Institution must have an
approved improvement plan and provide assurance that the new program would divert resources away from improvement efforts.
o Both the CEO and the Council must approve before the program can be submitted in the Council’s program approval system, KPPS.
75
By Sue Patrick Director, Communications & Marketing Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education February 12, 2015
Public Perceptions of Higher Education
1
76
94% of General Public Says Degree Beyond High School Is Important
Not at all important, 1%
Not very important, 4%
Somewhat important,
24%
Very important,
70%
“How important is having a certificate or degree beyond high school?”
2
Source: What America Needs to Know About Higher Education Redesign. 2014. Gallup-Lumina.
77
Opinions Have Changed Over Time “How important is higher education?”
36%
58% 64%
70%
46%
31% 27%
23%
16%
8% 7% 6%
1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
3
Very Important
Fairly Important
Not too important
Source: “Americans Still See College Education as Very Important.” 2013. Gallup/Phi Delta Kappa survey of attitudes toward public schools.
78
Rating Importance of Education Levels to Jobs
Disagree, 13%
Disagree, 21%
Neutral, 19%
Neutral, 33%
Neutral, 23%
Agree, 39%
Agree, 31%
Agree, 11%
Strongly Agree, 36%
Strongly Agree, 19%
Strongly Agree, 27%
4
“I am confident that having a high school diploma can lead to a good job.”
“I am confident that having an associate degree can lead to a good job.”
“I am confident that having a bachelor’s degree can lead to a good job.”
Source: What America Needs to Know About Higher Education Redesign. 2014. Gallup-Lumina.
79
General Public Doesn’t See a Credential as the Most Important Quality for Success
61%
57%
43%
42%
Good work ethic
Knowing how to get along with people
Work skills learned on the job
A college education
Percentage saying each is extremely important to success
5
Source: Is College Worth It? 2011. Pew Research Center.
80
The General Public Believes Affordability Is a Key Issue
Yes, 23% No, 77%
“Do you think higher education is affordable for everyone who needs it?”
6
Source: What America Needs to Know About Higher Education Redesign. 2014. Gallup-Lumina.
81
The General Public Thinks Others Should Step Up to Make Higher Education More Affordable
Neutral, 13%
Neutral, 20%
Neutral, 19%
Neutral, 20%
Agree, 18%
Agree, 21%
Agree, 15%
Agree, 22%
Strongly agree, 59%
Strongly agree, 38%
Strongly agree, 40%
Strongly agree, 46%
7
“Higher education institutions should reduce tuition and fees.”
“State governments should provide more assistance.”
“Federal government should provide more assistance.”
“Companies should provide more assistance to employees.”
Source: America’s Call for Higher Education Redesign. 2012. Lumina and Gallup.
82
Impact of Student Debt on Life After College
8
48%
25% 24%
7%
Harder to paybills/make ends meet
Harder to buy a home Impacted careerchoices
Delayedmarriage/family
Percentage of student borrowers who say having to pay back student loans had this impact on them
Source: Is College Worth It? 2011. Pew Research Center.
83
Impact of Student Debt on General Well-Being Linked to Worse Health and Less Wealth
Graduates with debt ($50,000 or more) face long-term challenges and are less likely to be thriving in four of five elements of well-being:
– Purpose (liking what you do, being motivated)
– Financial (increasing economic security)
– Community (liking where you live)
– Physical (having good health and being energetic)
(Fifth element of well-being is “social” – having supportive relationships.)
9
Source: Student Debt Linked to Worse Health and Less Wealth. 2014. Gallup.
84
General Public vs. Business Leaders on the Quality of U.S. Higher Education
General Public
Better,
46%
Same,
30%
Worse,
16%
Don't Know,
8%
“Is the quality of higher education in the U.S. better, the same or worse than other
countries?”
Business Leaders
Strongly Disagree,
14%
Disagree, 18%
Neutral, 32%
Agree, 18%
Strongly Agree,
19%
“This country has the highest quality higher education system in the world.”
10
Source: America’s Call for Higher Education Redesign. 2012. Lumina and Gallup. What America Needs to Know About Higher Education Redesign. 2014. Gallup-Lumina.
85
Public Inflates College Major and College Attended for Hiring Decisions
General Public
10%
20%
90%
80%
Business Leaders
30%
54%
70%
46%
11
The candidate’s college major The candidate’s college major
Where the candidate received his college degree
Where the candidate received his college degree
Not Important Important
Source: What America Needs to Know About Higher Education Redesign. 2014. Gallup-Lumina.
86
Business Leaders Think Knowledge and Skills Are King
Amount of Knowledge in Field
Important,
98%
Applied Skills in Field
Important,
95%
12
Source: What America Needs to Know About Higher Education Redesign. 2014. Gallup-Lumina.
87
General Public Not Certain Higher Education Is Preparing Students Well for the Workforce
Strongly Disagree,
7%
Disagree,
11%
Neutral,
40%
Agree,
29%
Strongly Agree,
14%
College graduates are well-prepared for success in the workforce
13
Source: What America Needs to Know About Higher Education Redesign. 2014. Gallup-Lumina.
88
Business Leaders Rate Higher Ed by Graduates with Skills & Competencies
That Fulfill “My” Business Needs
Strongly Disagree,
17% Disagree,
17% Neutral,
34% Agree,
22% Strongly Agree,
11%
14
“Higher education institutions in this country are graduating students with the skills and competencies that MY business needs.”
Source: What America Needs to Know About Higher Education Redesign. 2014. Gallup-Lumina.
89
Business Leaders See Room for Improvement with Colleges’ Preparation of Graduates
Excellent, 9%
Good, 47%
Fair,
40%
Poor, 4%
How well 2- and 4-year colleges prepare graduates to succeed
15
Source: It Takes More Than a Major: Employer Priorities for College Learning and Student Success. 2013. AAC&U.
90
Predicting the Future Importance of Degree Attainment
More important,
82% Less important,
16%
As important as it is now,
1%
“Will it be more or less important to have a postsecondary degree, certificate or credential
to get a good job?”
16
Source: What America Needs to Know About Higher Education Redesign. 2014. Gallup-Lumina.
91
Business Leaders Forecast that Degree Attainment Will Be Important to Employees
None,
12%
Less than 10%,
8%
10 - 25%,
10% 25 - 50%,
13% 50% - 75%,
20% 75% - 100%,
19% 100% (All),
16%
Don't Know, 2%
“What percentage of jobs at your business will require some kind of credential in about 10 years?”
17
Source: What America Needs to Know About Higher Education Redesign. 2014. Gallup-Lumina.
55% of business leaders expect more than half of future jobs will require a credential.
92
When It Comes to Return on Investment, Even an Optimistic General Public Isn’t Sold
“Rate the job the education system is doing providing value for the money spent”
College Graduates
Fair/Poor
53% Excellent/Good
44%
Non-College Graduates
Fair/Poor
57% Excellent/Good
38%
Don’t Know 3%
18
Don’t Know 3%
Source: Is College Worth It? 2011. Pew Research Center.
93
****
94
Key Takeaways
• Americans are convinced that having a certificate or degree beyond high school is important (94%), that it will lead to good jobs, but have major concerns with affordability (77%).
• Americans think others should pay to help affordability.
• Too much student debt = long-term consequences. Need better financial aid advising. Promote the most affordable option.
• More than a major! Business leaders say knowledge/skills are king.
• Business leaders see room for improvement in how well colleges prepare graduates to succeed. Excellent-9%, good-47%, fair-40%, poor-4%.
20
95
Key Takeaways • Business leader responses are call to action for increasing
collaboration.
• Higher ed should ensure programs align to what businesses need.
• Americans say higher education will be more important in future to get a good job. Business leaders expect more than half of jobs will require a credential beyond high school in the next 10 years.
• We need to increase the value of higher ed. College grads (53%) and non-college grads (57%) rate the job higher education is doing to provide value for the money spent as either fair or poor.
• Great opportunities exist for effective messaging, outreach to key constituents in most all areas.
21
96
By Sue Patrick Director, Communications & Marketing Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education February 12, 2015
Public Perceptions of Higher Education
22
97
KENTUCKY RISING “Kentucky's first settlers brought with them a dedication to democracy and a sense of limitless hope about the future. They were determined to participate in world progress in science, education, and manufacturing. The early years of statehood were an era of great optimism and progress and the eyes of the nation often focused on Kentucky. … Globally oriented Kentuckians were determined to transform the frontier into a network of communities exporting to the world market. …”*
Kentucky as a world leader in high value-added international trade of goods and services with broadly shared prosperity for its citizens
Kentucky’s workforce among the world’s most highly skilled, globally aware and globally competent
New Bluegrass Diploma• Builds on the Common Core• Set to global academic standards• Globally literate and aware• Performance-based – Awarded when the student meets these high standards• Gateway to many pathways to good jobs, further education
THE GOAL THE METHOD THE STANDARD
AP DiplomaIB Diploma
Cambridge A Level Diploma
Internationally Recognized Vocational Qualifications
FURTHER HIGH SCHOOL4 YEAR COLLEGE
COMMUNITY COLLEGE
2-yearTransfer Programs
2-year Career and Technical Education
Programs
Pathways after Kentucky Bluegrass Diploma
Mission of our schools: Make sure every student meets the standard for a Kentucky Bluegrass Diploma
* James Ramage and Andrea Watkins, Kentucky Rising, Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2001.
98
KENTUCKY RISING... and a long way to go
A FRAMEWORK
9 Building Blocks the Top Performers have used to create the world’s most successful education systems
#1. In 2000, US #15 in reading, #17 in math, #14 in science In 2012, US # 24 in reading, #36 in math, #27 in science
Develop world-class,
highly coherent instructional
systems
Build a qualification
system with multiple no-dead-end
pathways to achieve those qualifications
Assure an abundant
supply of highlyqualified teachers
Redesign schools to
treat teachers as professionals,
with incentives and support to continuously improve their practice
and the performance of their students
Provide strong supports to children
and their families before students arrive at school
Provide more resources for at-risk
students than for students who arrive at school
better prepared to learn
Create a leadership development
system that develops leaders at all levels to
manage such systems effectively
Institute a governance system that has the authority and legitimacy
to develop coherent, powerful policies and is capable of
implementingthem at scale
Create an effectivesystem of careerand vocational
education and training
QUESTION: How can we figure out how to match the performance of the top-performing countries?ANSWER: By studying the strategies they used to get there.
#6. Many top performers pay beginning teachers what they pay beginning engineers
#5. Top performers recruit their teachers from the top quarter of college bound students, but
KY students come from the bottom half
#4. The typical 1st year US community college student has a poor understanding of elementary and middle
school math
#3. The typical 1st year US community college student cannot read a textbook written at the 12th grade level
#2. KY performance is about average for US states in math and writing on NAEP.
We have much to be proud of...
#1. KY has a global economy, exporting over $25 billion of products to 198 countries.
#4. In KY the percent of two- and four- year graduates with STEM degrees has risen more than 15 percent and exceeded state targets for 2012-2013.
#3. On NAEP, KY 4th and 8th graders outperform their peers nationally in reading and perform significantly above the national average in science.
#2. In 2013-14, overall student performance in KY improved with the percentage of proficient and distinguished students increasing in nearly every subject at every grade level on state assessments
January 28, 2015
99
By Marc Tucker and the Staff of the Center for International Education Benchmarking
BUILDING A WORLD-CLASS STATE EDUCATION SYSTEM
WITH NINE BUILDING BLOCKS
By Marc Tucker and the Staff of the Center for International Education Benchmarking
100
© National Center on Education and the Economy 2014
1. Provide strong supports for children and their families before
students arrive at school. Some countries have extensive government supports for pre-natal care, mother and child nutrition, universal health care, high quality child care for working mothers, high quality pre-schools and family allowances for families with young children. Some others have little or no
government programs of this sort, but do have cultures that work to provide many of the same kinds of supports. Either way, countries in which young children who come to school healthy, eager to learn and ready to profit from the instruction tend to be countries in which those children do well in school. In countries that have neither strong, universal government-provided programs to provide these kinds of support nor strong traditional cultures to provide much the same thing, especially those that are experiencing large and growing disparities in income, many children come to school with disadvantages that are very difficult to overcome, even in the best of circumstances.
2. Provide more resources for at-risk students than for others. Countries whose students, on average, lead the world’s league tables are countries that have made explicit decisions to create systems in which all students are educated to standards formerly reserved only for their elites. Formerly, it was their elites who got the best teachers and the best facilities. Policy makers in these countries know that, if less advantaged students are going to achieve at league-leading levels, they will have to have access to more resources than students who come to school with greater advantages. Most of these top-performing countries are providing more teachers to harder-to-educate students. Some are even providing strong incentives to their best teachers to work in classes and schools serving
students from low-income and minority families.
3. Develop world-class, highly coherent instructional systems. Top-performing systems typically have well-developed, highly coherent and very demanding instructional systems for all students. By “instructional systems” we mean systems that incorporate student performance standards, curriculum and assessments, as well as the use of instructional methods appropriate to the goals and standards of instruction. Top-performing countries are constantly benchmarking their standards, curricula and assessments to other leading countries. The standards might be expressed as stand-alone statements
about what students should know and be able to do or might be incorporated in syllabi for courses, which would include all the courses in the core curriculum, including the native language, (almost always) English, sometimes other foreign languages, mathematics, the sciences, technology, their own history, world history, often geography, music and the arts, and physical education. In top- performing countries, the standards for these courses typically emphasize the acquisition of a wide range of complex knowledge, deep conceptual understanding of the subjects studied, the ability to write well, the ability to synthesize material from many disciplines to address real-world problems, strong analytical capacity and
creative and innovative capacity. Ministry officials develop strong curriculum frameworks designed to specify in some detail what topics are to be taught at which grade levels, subject-by-subject and grade-by-grade. Though schools are expected to create their own lesson plans,
101
© National Center on Education and the Economy 2014
the state provides extensive guidance and curriculum support for teachers. Textbooks follow that guidance closely. Top-performing systems typically develop one to three summative assessments, designed to be taken by all students, in the core subjects in the curriculum listed above, during the course of their time in school. The assessments generally require students
to respond with essays, or, in the case of mathematics, by showing how they went about solving multi-step problems. No top-performing country relies primarily on computer- scored, multiple-choice tests, because they do not believe such tests can adequately test for acquisition of the high-level cognitive skills they are aiming for. The summative assessments just described are typically used to hold students, not teachers, accountable for their performance. The options available to students as they proceed with their education or enter the workplace are significantly affected by their performance on these exams. Scores by school are widely published. The content of the entire examination is typically made public
after the exam is given. Also, examples of high scoring student work are made public, in order to provide guidance to teachers and students in the future as to what kind of student work will win high scores. In some countries, low scores for schools on these tests can result in visits to those schools from inspection committees made up mainly of expert teachers and principals, for the purpose of determining whether there is a problem at a school and making recommendations as to what needs to be done to improve the performance of the school.
4. Create clear gateways for students through the system, set to global
standards, with no dead ends. The high school diploma—essentially a certificate of attendance—is virtually unknown in high performing countries. Instead, they issue qualifications: documents, often in the form of a laminated plastic card, that show what high school courses the holder has taken and the grades earned in those courses. Because the state has specified the content of the courses and because the exams are developed and administered by the state, not the school, everyone knows just what the student has accomplished. The students, teachers and parents know just which combination of courses and grades is required to go on to the next stage of one’s education or to embark on a particular career. Students are highly motivated to take the
necessary courses and do well in them, whether they want to be a brain surgeon or an auto mechanic. Countries with well-developed qualifications systems have arranged them into pathways such that an individual can always go back later and pick up a qualification that he or she missed earlier.
They have also created systems in which there are no dead ends, that is, a student who chooses one path can take a few extra courses and proceed down another path, and all paths can be linked up to others so that one can always go further in their education without having to go back to the beginning and start again. In systems of this sort, there are no fly-
by-night operators, no courses offered where the content bears no relationship to the name of the course, and no disappointment suffered by the student who completes all the published requirements for going on only to discover that he or she does not have the requisite knowledge to do so. The qualification one receives at the end of a course of study is the ticket of admission to the next stage of one’s education. They are one and the same.
102
© National Center on Education and the Economy 2014
5. Assure an abundant supply of highly qualified teachers The top-performing countries believe it will be impossible to deliver to all their students the kind and quality of education formerly reserved for their elites unless they are able to put a very highly qualified teacher in front of all their students. This is not a slogan, but rather a system design goal. Some are recruiting their teachers from the upper third of high school
graduates, many from the top quarter, some from the top 15 percent or, in the case of Finland, the top 10 percent. South Korea recruits from the top five percent. Ratios of applicants to acceptances in these countries range from 6 to 1, to 8 to 1, to 10 to 1. Many of these countries have created much more rigorous admissions screens. A typical pattern involves screening first for academic qualifications (high rank in class, high grades, high scores on standardized college admissions exams), then for ability to relate well to school-age students (sometimes by watching them do so in a controlled environment) and finally for their passion for teaching (determined by an interview by highly experienced teachers,
principals and others). The countries have worked hard to develop very rigorous requirements for mastery of the subjects the prospective teacher will teach. In many of these countries, elementary school teachers are required to specialize in either mathematics and science or their native language and social studies and to at least minor in those subjects in college. Where specialization is not required at the elementary level, mastery of these subjects is still required. At least a year is given over to mastery of the craft of teaching, either as part of initial teacher preparation or as the objective of the first year of employment, which is typically designed as a year of apprenticeship of the new teacher to a Master
Teacher. These countries do not allow, much less encourage, “alternative routes” into teaching that bypass these requirements. The top-performing countries are increasingly including instruction in research methods for prospective teachers so that they will be able to use those methods to determine the effectiveness of their work as teachers in developing and implementing improved curriculum, instruction and assessment in their schools. And they are also emphasizing instruction for these prospective teachers in both diagnosis and prescription as a key part of the teacher preparation curriculum, so that these new teachers will be able to quickly figure out why their students are not learning what they expect them
to learn and quickly and accurately identify the most appropriate “treatment” for addressing the problems they identify. Some of the top countries are moving the function of teacher education out of their third tier institutions and into their research universities. The result of these policies and practices is that these countries typically have a surplus of first-rate teachers. It would, of course, have been impossible to greatly raise the standards for becoming a teacher in these countries unless they had made teaching a highly desirable career choice for young people whose academic record was strong enough to give them a good chance of being admitted to higher education programs leading to employment in a
high status profession. That is why these countries have typically set beginning teacher compensation at about the same level as compensation for beginning engineers. Some offer a free college education to high-quality high school graduates who meet very high admissions standards for teacher preparation programs. But that has not been enough. They know they must also offer a real career in teaching. Many of the countries with the strongest teaching forces have very aggressive career ladders designed so that, as one moves up the career ladder, one gets higher compensation, greater responsibility, more authority and autonomy and higher status among one’s colleagues and in the larger community.
103
© National Center on Education and the Economy 2014
6. Redesign schools to be places in which teachers will be treated as
professionals, and will have incentives and support to continuously
improve their professional practice and the performance of their
students A country that relies exclusively on a supply of new teachers to improve the quality of teachers and teaching in their schools would have to wait a long time before there were
enough new teachers who had served long enough to have a big effect on student performance. So countries wishing to improve student performance at scale need to have strategies for improving the competence of their currently serving teachers. Here, too, the experience of other countries is instructive. Many observers of the top performing countries believe that the approach used in Shanghai, China, many elements of which are used by other Asian countries, is the most effective not only for developing the skills of the current teacher work force, but for establishing a culture and organization favoring and providing the support for a process of continuous improvement of the effectiveness of the school as a
whole. There is a four-level career ladder, each level of which is broken down into four or more steps. Teachers at the upper levels of the teacher career ladder are expected to serve as mentors to new teachers and others lower on the ladder, identify areas in which the curriculum and instruction methods need to be improved, lead teams in the process of researching and then developing new lessons, materials and formative assessment techniques, demonstrating new lessons, revising them and implementing them. Teachers meet once a week by grade and by subject to participate in all these processes. The research, development, trial, revision and evaluation process is very disciplined and highly collegial. All except those
at the top of the career ladders have teacher mentors. The message is that no matter how good you are, you can always get better. There is wide access to workshops for professional teachers, but this is not a workshop model of professional development. Professional development is an integral part, indeed a result, of how the work of the school gets done. The integrity of the whole system depends on the creation of powerful career ladders, which in effect define what it means to have a career in teaching and create an environment in which teachers come to be treated as leaders and as professionals. In most of the countries that have systems of the sort just described, the teacher/pupil ratio is about the same as in
the United States. The time needed for teachers to work with one another is not produced by hiring more teachers, but by increasing the size of their classes. Teachers in these countries typically do not understand why American teachers want smaller class sizes because they need large classes in order to make their teaching methods effective. Those methods involve seeing how students use a variety of strategies to solve problems, and bringing those students to the front of the class to lead a discussion of their strategies. The aim is to understand why some strategies work and others don’t, thus helping all students to understand the conceptual basis of the topics being discussed. This deep understanding is a
primary goal of the curriculum in these countries and is a primary cause of their superior performance. Large classes are essential to this instructional strategy. Although the teacher/pupil ratio is about the same overall in these countries as in the United States, that ratio is a little higher in schools serving students from disadvantaged backgrounds and a little lower in schools serving others.
104
© National Center on Education and the Economy 2014
7. Create an effective system of career and technical education and
training In countries that have healthy economies, what you find is high levels of income across the board, high employment levels, low levels of unemployment, superior health care, strong competitiveness for business and a good balance between imports and exports. These are
countries that have healthy, productive, effective systems of vocational education and training. Indeed, in our experience, countries in which enrollment in career and technical education and training falls below about 40 percent of total enrollment generally experience a collapse of their vocational education and training system, because that is the point below which vocational education and training is seen as a last resort for students who have no other option. For career and technical education and training systems to be attractive to a larger segment of their student populations, they must appear to offer a viable route not only to well-paying occupations requiring less than a four-year college degree, but they must also
offer a way for students enrolled in career and technical education and training programs to acquire further education and training that will enable them, if they wish, to qualify for work in the professions and in senior management. That is, such systems must be no-dead-end systems. They must also offer high quality training that includes the opportunity to acquire strong modern technical skills on state-of-the-art equipment at the hands of teachers and mentors who are themselves deeply versed in the most up-to-date equipment and techniques in use in the industries for which the student is being trained. This can be accomplished by creating in schools settings that have all the attributes of real industrial settings, or by
offering students an opportunity to study in real industrial settings, or both. In some cases, the real or simulated industrial sites actually sell the products and services made by the students. Much depends in such systems on having skill standards that reflect the state of the art in the industries being trained for, a high level of investment in the education and training of the students, a good match between the demand of industry for skilled workers in any and all industries served by the system and the supply being produced, the willingness of industry to involve itself in the provision of the up-to-date equipment and training staff needed to make the system work and sufficient demand for the newly trained students to ensure a
smooth transition from schooling and training to employment.
8. Create a leadership development system that develops leaders at all
levels to manage such systems effectively Items number five and six in this list spoke of the quality of teachers in the schools. But great teachers will not accomplish much without effective leadership. And, indeed, the whole system, of which the schools are only a part, requires very capable leaders, especially in an era in which the whole system is being changed in fundamental ways. What is required are not leaders who are good at keeping school and making sure that the needs of all of the school’s constituencies as they see them are being met, but rather leaders who can: get broad
agreement on much more demanding goals for both the students and the staff; build the career ladders; recruit a highly capable staff; and finally, create a culture in the school founded on the belief that it is effort, not natural ability, that determines student achievement, and therefore that it is the obligation of the school not to sort students out into bins of the capable and the not-so-capable, but instead to get all students to high levels of performance, no matter what. That will take leaders who are far more than school administrators, but real leaders, people who can galvanize staff and students to achieve at
105
© National Center on Education and the Economy 2014
levels far above what we formerly expected. It will take a combination of strategic skills, self-knowledge, patience, drive, management skill, ethical roots, moral qualities and knowledge based on what is known world-wide about the management of professionals. This last is critical, because, in many countries, teachers are still managed and treated as blue-collar
workers.
9. Institute a governance system that has the authority and legitimacy
to develop coherent, powerful policies and is capable of implementing
them at scale Our research shows that the ability of a state or nation to develop a modern, high performance education system with high and internationally competitive levels of student performance and high levels of equity at reasonable cost depends on whether it has an institution comparable to a typical ministry of education in a high-performing country. Among the top performers, there are some with federal structures in which the national government has no authority in the field of education, and others with moderate authority at
the federal level. In some countries, all the authority is at the national level and there are no subordinate state levels of authority. In one country, there is no intermediate level of authority between the national and school levels. The common feature among all these types of arrangements is that, either at the state or national level, there is a place where the buck stops that has effectively got responsibility for all the policymaking and management functions directly related to education and can therefore be reasonably held accountable for the design and functioning of the system as a whole. This turns out to be essential, because the central task of government in the field of education is to create new, modern systems that are
highly coherent and effective. In countries in which the central authority at the state or national level is weak and responsibilities are widely dispersed, it is virtually impossible to construct and manage systems that can effectively manage the transition from the old system to the new one.
In all such systems, whether the center of gravity of authority for the education system is at the state or national level, elected officials decide on the policies that will govern the direction taken by the education system. But, in effective systems, education professionals in the ministry are responsible for planning and proposing policies that can then be debated by
the responsible elected officials, and are then responsible for carrying out the decisions their legislatures make.
106
