document resume be gcs 910 planning for fluctuatirg ... · minnesota higher education ccordinatirg...

ED 153 585

TITLE

INSTITUTION

PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

BE GCS 910

Planning for Fluctuatirg Enicllicents. A Eorking Paperfor the Annual meeting cf Pcst-Seccndary EducationGoverning Boards.Minnesota Higher Education Ccordinatirg Bcard, St.Paul-Dec 77111p.Minnesota Higher Educaticn Ccordinating Bcard, Suite400, Capital Square Building, EEC Cedar street, St.Paul, Minnesota 551C1

MF-$0.83 HC-$6.01 Plus 1:cstage.College Bound Students; Ccusunity Cclleges; DecliningEnrollment; *Educaticral P.maand; EducaticnalPlanning; *Enzollment; *Eni.cllment Projections; HighSchccl Graduates; Pclicy Formation; *Post SecondaryEducation; Private Cclleges; State UtiverEities;*Statewide Planning; Statistical Data; *TrendAnalysis; Vocational SchcclE

IDENTIFIERS *Minnescta; University cf Minnescta

ABSTRACTThe nature and scope cf the entcllment prctiem in

Minnesota, plans and policies to deal kith the ptctlen, statewidepolicy implication cf the prcblem and bays tc effectively meet thechallenges posed by the problem are discussed. A suuuary and analysisof enrollment trends in Minnesota are yrcvided in Chapter 1,including specific projected enrollaert trends for the ccamunitycollege system. the University of Minnesota system, areavocational-technical institutes, private ccllegiate institutions, andprivate vocational schools. Chapter 2 presents an cvervieu cfMinnesota's four public post secondary systems, private cclleges, andthe Minnesota Association of Private Vccaticnal Schccls plans andpolicies for deal.ing with fluctuating etrcliment trends.Recommendations on planning procedures and pclicy develcpaent arediscussed in Chapter 3. The appendices ccntain projected high schoolgraduates by region, institutional enrollment projections, a summaryof responses from systems and instituticns fcr inforaatict CD theirplans and policies for dealing with fluctuating enrollments, andpapers presented at the annual Minnescta Governing Bcards Meeting.(SPG)

#####*#44***4444*******#######*########*441****4**4********44***********##Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that car be made

from the original document.

elgi,,,L"ao.xaox w.cizw...1._alma. clooict,?*4,10 zw20,...?Melly u,?.90 I ...`,, -illlz WroeizOFiC.' .......,-,m

m!4"-411.".1̂- ..12i? 40

Zallo^ 4 4aWZtI2E4.5 e,:t,f§wo....

_. z,r... .i.0,,,.2 sir014ZWiii,40 ilo?z0.+QO ao

!0;5:.1.4!!!

.... -'S

'''::;; 21

-:, a

1It ;

4 ,` 0." S'1, 0, 1 y , . , ,

7 V ttiNA7Vift)V1.415#311110f1;-At=1.4r

EMIL ERICKSO

EUNICE JOHNSDN

JACK LYNCH, deCr

CLYDE R.- INGLE,

_.1161,0

PLANNING FOR FLUCTUATING ENROLLMENTS

A WORKING PAPER FOR THE ANNUAL MEETING

OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION GOVERNING BOARDS

Prepared by the Staff

of the

Higher Education Coordinating Board

December 7, 1977

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageINTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER I: SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF ENROLLMENT TRENDS IN MINNESOTA 3A. Statement of the Problem 3B. An Analysis of Projected Enrollment Trends 4

CHAPTER II: SYSTEM AND INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES: OVERVIEW AND COMMENTARY 13A. Summary of Mission Statements 14

B. Institutional Enrollment Projections 14

C. A Description of Planning Mechanisms Underway or Proposed 15D. Plans or Adjustments to Deal With Fluctuating Enrollments 16E. Changes in 1978 and 1979 to Deal With Fluctuating Enrollments 17

F. State Policies Which Ma; Require Changes as a Result of Fluctuating Enrollments 17

G. A Summary of Major Challenges as a Result of Fluctuating Enrollments 19

CHAPTER ID: RECOMMENDATIONS ON PLANNING PROCEDURESAND POLICY DEVELOPMENT 21

A. Introduction 21

B. Recommendations for the Planning Process 22C. Recommendations for Policy Development 23D. Conclusion 25

APPENDIX A: PROJECTED HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES BY REGION A-1

APPENDIX B: INSTITUTIONAL ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS B- i

APPENDIX C: INSTITUTIONAL AND SYSTEM RESPONSES C-1

APPENDIX D: PROCEEDINGS OF ANNUAL GOVERNING BOARDS MEETING D-1

Keynote Address by John Millett D-2Remarks by Terry Montgomery, executive assistant to Governor Perpich D-9Douglas Bruce, Community College Board D-12Kennon Rothchild, president, State University Board D-13Clifford Larson, Private Vocational Schools D-14Mary Schertier, University of Minnesota D-16Henry G. Tweten, president, State Board for Vocational Education D-17James Krause, Private Colleges D-18Gerald Christenson, State Commissioner of Finance D-19Senator Nicholas Coleman, Senate Majority Leader D-20Senator Robert Dunn, Assistant Senate Minority Leader D-21Senator Roger Moe, Senate Finance Committee Chairman D-22Senator Jerome Hughes, Senate Education Committee Chairman D-23Rspresentative Ray Faricy, House Appropriations Education Division Chairman D-24Representative Peter X. Fugina, House Higher Education Committee Chairman D-25Representative Rodney Searle, Assistant House Minority Leader D-26

5

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Minnesota High School Graduates in 1977 and the Year of Largest ProjectedPercent Change From 1977 5

2. All Systems Projected Full-Time Equivalent Enrollments, 1977-2000 63. State University System, Projected Full-Time Equivalent Enrollments, 1977-2000 74. C.Immunity College System, Projected Full-Time Equivalent Enrollments, 1977-2000 95. University of Minnesota, Projected Full-Time Equivalent Enrollments, 1977-2000 106. Area Vocational-Technical Institutes, Projected Headcount Enrollments, 1977-2000 11

7. Private Collegiate Institutions, Projected Full-Time Equivalent Enrollments, 1977-2000 12

The Higher Education Coor-dinating Board, in its report to the1977 Legislature, identified thestatewide projected enrollmentdecline as the most serious policyand planning issue confronting post-secondary education in Minnesota.The Board said that responsible ac-tion to accommodate changing post-secondary education enrollmentpatterns requires that policies andplans be mitiated immediately in or-der to avoid crisis decisionmakingand institutional turmoil caused byunanticipated retrenchment.

The Board believes that all seg-ments of post-secondary education,both public and private, must workcooperatively on the enrollmentissue. The primary goal must be the

INTRODUCTION

development of sound policies thatanticipate the effects of fluctuatingenrolments on all aspects of post-secondary education.

To stimulate planning, the Boardrequested that systems and institu-tions provide the Board with infor-mation on their plans ald policiesfor addressing the issue. Bec... .se ofthe issue's importance, the boardalso proposed that fluctuatingenrollments serve as the topic for theannual meeting with post-secondaryeducation governing boards. Thesystems and institutions respondedpromptly and thoughtfully, and theBoard appreciates this cooperation.System a id institutional replies formthe basi4 for this paper on fluc-tuating enrollments.

1 -*"f

The working paper intends (1) tobrief readers on the nature andscope of the enro:iment problem, (2)to share information on plans andpolicies to deal with the problem, (3)to better understand the statewidepolicy implications of the problemand (4) to consider ways to effec-tively meet the challenges posed bythe problem.

More than 100 people includinggoverning board memiers, state of-ficials and others ;evolved in publicaffairs attended the annual meetingDecember 7, 1977 at the St. P_Arts and Science Center. John D.Mil lett, senior vice president of theAcademy for Educational Develop-ment and Chancellor Emeritus of theOhio Board of Regents delivered the

keynote address. TerryMontgomery, executive assistant toGovernor Perpich, spoke on behalfof the governor who was unable toattend due to an emargency.Representatives of the go,,erningboards and state decisionmakersparticipated in a panel discussion.Proceedings of the annual meetingare included in Appendix D.

The Coordinating Board views this

paper and the annual meeting as hefirst step in a joint planning effortdesigned to respord efrecti,eiy tochanging enrollment conditions andresulting policy issues. To adjust tochanging enrollment patterns h,leattempting to assure access for thestato's residents, preserve quality,maintain adequate support andmeet unmet needs is a formidablechallenge. The difficulties of coping

- 2 - 8

th comrlex enrollment problemsalree.ay have been demonstrated insome parts of Minnesota. But theBoard is opt,mistic that by workingtogether, poc:t-secondary educationboard members and state decision-maxers will succeed .11 developingand implementing creative,systematic policies to resolve theproblem.

CHAPTER I: SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

OF ENROLLMENT TRENDS IN MINNESOTA

A. Statement of the Problem

The most serious issue facingpost-secondary education is how toeffectively accommodate projectedstatewide enrollment declines after1981. The number of high schoolgraduates in Minnesota peaked in

1977 at 73,400 and is projected todecline steadily until 1991 whenthere will be 35 percent fewergraduates. Since high schoolgraduates form the traditional pool

of students in post-secondaryeducation, enrollment trends in

higher education will follow those of

elementary and secondary schools.Institutional enrollment projectionsprepared by the Higher EducationCoordinating Board (HECB) suggest

that th -Ise who claim new sources ofstudents can be found to offset theprojected enrollment decline in thetraditional college-bound pool areunrealistic.

Projected enrollment trends,which include an increase in the totalnumber of students enrolled in post-secondary education between 1977and 1981, reveal that the decline willaffect systems and institutions dif-ferentially according to theirgeographical location and mission.Some institutions will experiencedeclines much earlier than others.The severity of the decline will begreatest for those institutions whichexperience declines the earliest. For

-3 -.9

others, the decline will begin later

and be less severe.These projected enrollment

trends have serious implications formai)), state post-secondary educa-tion policies including tuition, in-

terstate reciprocity, student financialaid, aid to private institutions, stu-dent access to institutions andprograms, capital construction and

state funding mechanisms.If enrollment trends were projec-

ted to be uniform in all systems, in-stitutions and regions of the state,the management of post-secondaryeducation would be greatly sim-plified. This is not the case, however.While governing boards will be re-

quired to manage some institutionsIn a stable and declinino mode, theywill also be confronted with othercampuses and programs experienc-ing growth during the next five years.The governance of higher education

B. An Analysis of Projected

The most recent enrollment pro-jections prepared by the HECBreveal that in the aggregate, post-secondary education in Minnesota isprojected to experience enrollmentincreases until the early 1980sfollowed by a 12-year decline beforeenrollments increase. The projectedincrease in the 1990s will not reachcurrent enrollment levels before2000.

While the total number of highschool graduates in Minnesota isprojected to decline after 1977, thetrends within each planning regionvary significantly, as shown in Figure1. It shows for each planning regionin the state, the number of highschool graduates in 1977, the pro-jected high and/or low point duringthe next 30 years and the percentchange of that point Urn 1977.While some regions of the state havealready begun to experiencedeclines, including planninr. regions3, 4, 8, 10 and 11, some Marrs willcontinue to have greater nuirbers ofhigh school graduates until 1981_The numbers of high schoolgraduates in two planning regions,7E and 7W, are projected to increaseover the next 30 years by 50 percentand 21 percent respectively.

The projected numbers of highschool graduates have beenprepared by the staff of the HECB

A full-time equivalent student .s derived bydividing total student credit hours in a quarterby 15 except for graduate credit hour. at theUniversity of M.nnesuta, which are divided by10 These projections are for on-ca ;pus stu-dents only.

**Attendance rates for new entering freshmenare estimated by dividing the total number offirst-time freshmen enrollees by the numberof previous spring high school graduates inMinnesota. These rates can be computed on acounty, regional and statewide basis.

is further complicated by the factthat there is a large variation in thesize of institutions, ranging from out-state campuses enrolling less than400 students to a large, comprehen-sive university serving more than

Enrollment Trends

and are contained in Appendix A.The projeciions were developed inconsultation with the statedemographer and incorporate themost recent county migration pat-terns and grade-to-grade advance-ment rates.

Total public and private post-secondary education enrollmentsare portrayed in Figure 2. Full-timeequivalent enrollments* are projec-ted to reach a peak of 174,434 to185,495 students in 1981. After 1982,total full-time equivalent enrollmentsare projected to decline until 1988,increase slightly and then plunge toa low point of 131,092 to 140,154 in1994. The projected enrollmenttrends for each system vary withrespect to both the total enrollmentdecrease and the year in which thelow point will occur. For example,enrollments at the area vocational-technical institutes are projected todecline in 1992 by about 10 percentover their 1981 peak of 33,920; theUniversity of Minnesota is expectedto reach its lowest point in 1995,about 30 percent short of its peak of50,480 which is projected to occur in1981; the State University System isprojected to experience its lowestenrollment in 1994, about 26 percentbelow its 1981 high; and the Com-munity College System is expectedto drop 23 percent by 1992 from itspeak of 21,801 in 1981.

Enro!'ment projections preparedby the staff of the HECB for eachpublic institution and for the privatecollege system are contained in Ap-pendix B. The projections are forfull-time equivalent enrollments andare based on fall 1976 attendancerates for new entering freshmen ateach institution. An enrollment rangeis provided rather than a point

-4 -10

40,000 students in undergraduate,graduate and professionalprograms. Management alternativesare more limited in small institutionsthan in larger institutions.

prediction. The range is establishedby increasing and decreasing the fall19i 6 attendance rate by 5 percent.Enrollments in the private collegiatesystem are estimated as a percen-tage of public enrollments based onthe average during the last fiveyears. All comparisons in the follow-ing discussion are made from themidpoint of the range projections fora given year to actual fall 1976enrollments.

STATE tiNIVERSITY SYSTEMTotal full-time equivalent enroll-

ments for the State UniversitySystem are projected to increase byapproximately 9 percent in 1981over the 1976 total of 31,672. Thisprojection shows that the system willthen experience a gradual decline,and by 1994, it will reach its lowestfull-time equivalent enrollment of25,596 students, as shown in Figure3.

The projected decline of full-timeequivalent enrollments will affect thestate university institutions differen-tly. It is projected that Bemidji StateUniversity will increase from 4,302 in1976 to a high of 4,924 in 1981, an in-crease of 15 percent. Bemidji'senrollment is projected to declinegradually and by 1995 reach itslowest total of 3,637 students, adecline of 15 percent from 1976.Moorhead and Southwest State un-iversities are projected to show con-stant decreases from present enroll-ment levels. St. Cloud enrollmentsare projected to increase until 1983and then decline to slightly belowpresent levels. Mankato likely willexperience relative enrollmentstability for the next 5 to 7 yearsbefore enrollments declinesignificantly.

FIGURE 1

MINNESOTA HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES IN 1977 AND THEYEAR OF LARGEST PROJECTED PERCENT CHANGE FROM 1977

1977: 1,141 1977: 6.3601985: 950 1992: 3,861 -39%

-17%

1977: 2 7051991: 2,528

-32%1977: 2,4111994: 1,689

-29%

1977: 1,8472006: 2,782

+51%

111977: 1,2881991: 745

-42%

1977: 2,1851994: 1,593

-27%

1997: 33,6621991: 19,761

-41%

1977: 4,2291994: 2,699 -36%

1977: 7,7001991: 4,857 -37%

187

184

181

178

175

172

169

166

163

160

157

154

151

148

145

142

139

136

133

FIGURE 2ALL SYSTEMS

PROJECTED FULL -TIME EQUIVALENT ENROLLMENTS, 1977-2000(BASED ON FALL 1976 ENTRANCE RATE)

1976 AttendanceRate +5%

130

77 78

1976 AttendanceRate -5%

80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 2000

Fall Quarter

-6- 14

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

1977 78

FIGURE 3

STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEMPROJECTED FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT ENROLLMENTS, 1977-2000

(BASED ON FALL 1976 ENTRANCE RATE)

1976 AttendanceRate + 5%

1976 AttendanceRate 5%

80 82 84 86 88 90

Fall Quarter

-713

92 94 96 98 2000

COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEMIn the Community College

System, total full-time equivalentenrollments are projected to peak in1981 and then decline gradually,reaching their lowest point in 1992.The long-term declIne will be in-terrupted by a perlod of two years inwhich enrollments vill increaseslightly. Total full-time equivalentenrollments will Increase from20,417 in 1976 to 21,810 in 1981, anincrease of almost 7 percent. It isprojected that total full-timeequivalent enrollments will drop to16,882 in 1992, a decrease of 17 per-cent below 1976 levels, as shown inFigure 4.

Projected enrollment trends in themetropolitan and outstate com-munity colleges are similar. Becauseof the range in size of institutions, theimpact of these trends may be feltmore severely at some institutionsthan others.

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTAThe iln:vorsity of Minnesota

systen. projected to peak in 1981with 50,480 students, an increase of7 percent over the 1976 total full-time equivalent enrollment of47,299, as shown in Figure 5. Itsenrollment is projected to drop tc34,915 by 1995. About 80 percent ofthe students in the University systemwill be enrolled at the Twin Citiescampus. The Twin Cities campus isprojected to peak around 1981-82when it will enroll 40,635 students.This represents a 7 percent increaseover the 1976 enrollment of 37,933. it

Is projected that enrolment in theTwin Cities campus will decline toabout 27,828 by 1995, or 27 percentbelow fall 1976 levels. Of the coor-dinate campuses of the University,Morris is projected to decline by 33percent from fall 1976 enrollmentsby 1995, and Duluth changes fromfall 1976 are projected as an in-crease of 14 percent followed by adecline of 21 percent in 1995. Enroll-ment projections for Crookston andWaseca are less certain as these in-stitutions are new. However, it isassumed that they will be subject toenrollment decreases like otherpost-secondary institutions in thestate.

AREA VOCATIONAL- TECHNICALINSTITUTES

The area vocational-technical in-stitutes are projected to increase by22 percent in 1981, the year of peakenrollment, as shown in Figure 6. Inthis year, the 33 institutions are pro-jected to enroll some 33,920 stu-dents as opposed to 27,745 in 1976.This enrollment will decline to 30,367by 1992, but remain 9 percent above1976 levels.

Enrollment in the six metropolitanAVTis in 1976 was 10,535, whichrepresents 34 percent of the enroll-ments in the system. Of the 33AVTIs, only Minneapolis and St. Paulare projected to remain relativelystable during the next five years. Allother institutions are projected tohave enrollment increases prior to1982 or 1983 when total enrollmentsin the system will begin to decline.

-8-14

PRIVATE COLLEGIATE INSTITU-TIONS

Approximately 26 percent of thestudents enrolled in collegiate post-secondary education in MinneSotaattend private institutions. While theHECB does not project private In-stitutional enrollments, it is possibleto estimate aggregate privatecollegiate enrollments if they arerelated to public enrollments andgeneral demographic trends.

If private institutions continue toattract the same proportion of stu-dents in the future as they have dur-ing the last five years, their totalenrollment will peak in 1981 andrange between 36,250 and 39,350,as shown in Figure 7. After 1981, adecline will follow and in 1994,private collegiate enrollments will beabout 73 percent of current levels.By 2000, enrollments will have In-creased again to 85 percent of pre-sent levels and range between29,600 and 32,000.

PRIVATE VOCATIONAL SCHOOLSThe Board does not prepare

enrollment projections for privatevocational schools. In their responseto the Board's request for a sum-mary of enrollment projections, theprivate vocational schools indicatedthat their enrollments ar3 a functionof labor market demand. Not allprivate vocational schools in Min-nesota participate in the HECB fallenrollment survey. In 1: totalenrollment among those who didreport was 5,712.

I

FIGURE 4

COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEMPROJECTED FULL -TIME EQUIVALENT ENROLLMENTS, 1977-2000

24 (BASED ON FALL 1976 ENTRANCE RATE)

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16



15 Amminesommismovam Anabblutargemnip.m..197T 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 2000

Fall Quarter

53

52

51

50

49

48

471

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

FIGURE 5

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTAPROJECTED FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT ENROLLMENTS, 1977-2000



33.

1977 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92

Fall Quarter

- 10 - J. 6


94 96 98 2000

34

33

32

31

30

29

FIGURE 6

AREA VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL INSTITUTESPROJECTED HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENTS, 1977-2000




28

27

26

1977 78 80 82 84 86 88 90

Fall Quarter92 94 96 98 2000

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

FIGURE 7

PRIVATE COLLEGIATE INSTITUTIONSPROJECTED FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT ENROLLMENTS, 1977-2000




25

1977 78 io 82 84 86 88 90

Fall Quarter

- 12 -

92 94 96 98 2000

18

21

CHAPTER II: SYSTEM AND INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES:

If the state is to deal effectivelywith fluctuating enrollments, a majorshare of the responsibility fordeveloping plans and adjustingprogram and resource requirementswill be placed on the systems andinstitutions.

In order to assure that each in-stitution an( system focuses atten-tion on preparing for changingenrollments and co receiveassistance in assessing the need forstate policy action, the CoordinatingBoard requested that systems andinstitutions provide information ontheir plans and policies.

Seven points to guide thepreparation of responses were out-lined by the Board. They are (1)summary of mission statement, (2)institutional enrollment projections

OVERVIEW AND COMMENTARY

and assumptions considered, (3)description of any planningmechanisms, either underway orproposed, aimed at developingpolicies or plans, (4) a review ofplans or adjustments in programs,staffing, funding requirements andfacilities due to fluctuating enroll-ments, (5) a summary of budgetary,programmatic or staffing changes tobe implemented in Fiscal Years 1978and 1979, (6) evaluation of anycurrent state policies requiringreview or modification as a result ofenrollment declines and (7) a sum-mary of views on major challengesconfronting institutions as a result ofenrollment changes.

The Board received responsesfrom the four public post-secondarysystems, most of the private colleges

- 13 - 19

and the Minnesota Association ofPrivate Vocaticnal Schools.Although the responses vary inlength and specificity, they provide asubstantial amount of informationfrom which to assess the views andplans of systems and institutions.

A complete summary of theresponses is contained in AppendixC. Because of the large number andvariety of responses from the privatecolleges, it was not possible to in-clude detailed replies from each 'n-stitution. For some points,responses were c..msolidated; forothers, several examples were ex-tracted.

This chapter provides an overviewof the responses to the seven pointsfollowed by comments on them.

A. A Summary of Your Mission Statement (Appendix C-1)

OVERVIEW

The four public post-secondaryeducation systems and most of thepi ,ate institutions provided missionstatements. These statementsgenerally outline the purposes of the

COMMENTARY

The mission statement forms thebasis for sound planning. Unless asystem or institution knows where itis, where it is going and where itstands in relation to other institu-tions, the most carefully conceivedplanning efforts may be counter-productive.

A clear delineation of mission isessential for both systems and in-stitutions. An institution requires awell developed mission statement inorder to establish its programs andto guide its internal planning. A mis-

system or institution, the types andlevels of programs offered, and theclientele served. The mission state-ments vary in format, style, lengthand detail; some have been updated

soon statement for each system is animportant tool in planning programsand relating to other systems. Thestatement should specify thesystem's role in the total pattern ofMinnesota post-secondary educa-tion and should be widely com-municated.

Both governing officials andcitizens should share an un-derstanding of the purposes andgoals of post-secondary educationin Minnesota. State planners andpolicymakers should agree on the

recently while others have existedfor several years. Within somesystems, individual institutions havedeveloped their own missionstatements.

role and mission of each compo-nent. They must know how eachsystem fits into the total state picturein order to justify program andbudgetary decisions and to meetstate needs effectively

The institutions, systems and thestate have examined role and mis-sion at various times and developedstatements. Nevertheless, in light ofchanging conditions, particularlydeclining enrollments, all partieshave a responsibility and an oppor-tunity to reassess and perhapsrevise their missions.

B. Institutional Enrollment Projections Prepared by Your Staff. Please OutlinePertinent Assumptions or Planning Factors Taken into Consideration WhichWould Be Helpful in Understanding Your Projections (Appendix C-2)

OVERVIEW

With few exceptions, the institu-tions and systems of Minnesotapost-secondary education recognizethe need for effective enrollmentforecasting. They agree with thegeneral aemographic trends andaggregate enrollment projectionsprepared by the CoordinatingBoard. Those trends and projectionsshow (a) the shape of the futureenrollment curve, (b) the magnitudeof the decline in the traditionalcollege-age clientele, (c) the phasesand timing of the enrollment fluctua-tions.

All public systems prepare bien-

nial enrollment estimates for use inthe appropriations process. Forlong-range enrollment forecasting,the community colleges and areavocational-technical institutes useHECB projections, the State Univer-sity System prepares projectionsbased on HECB forecasts that aremodified to include off-campusenrollments. The University of Min-nesota prepares its own long-rangeenrollment projections. In the privatesector, some institutions prepare 5and 10 year projections while othersprepare none.

Those systems and institutions

14- 20

which project enrollments relyprimarily on demographic and par-ticipation rate data; some systemsattempt to incorporate assumptionsabout national, state, local and in-stitutional conditions.

Although they recognize the valueof long-range projections in identify-ing trends, some system' say theyare wary of institutional projectionsthat go beyond a few years Somesystems revise their projectionseither by using updated informationor by developing new methodswhich include additional variables.

COMMENTARY

The implications of fluctuatingenrollments for many institutions arenot clear. The failure to forecastenrollments and anticipate their ef-fects arises when institutions andsystems which endorse the need forplanning do not commit sufficientresources to accomplish the task.While some institutions engage insystematic enrollment analysis andrelate their projections to in-stitutional plans and programs,others do little or nothing at all.

As institutions and systemsprepare enrollment forecasts andanalyses, they may use differentassumptions and methodologies.Consequently, it is important to un-derstand and identify the objectiveof the projections.

Enrollment projections preparedby the Coordinating Board staff areintended to provide a long-rangetrend that reflects the most recentenrollment conditions in each publicinstitution. The projections assume

no change in major policy or gover-nance, rather, they are an extrapola-tion of current circumstancesagainst future demographic condi-tions. These enrollment projectionscan be used by individual institutionsto interpret their enrollmentforecasts. They also can be used byexecutive and lepslative decision-makers to provide a perspective onthe implications of short-range re-quests. The data used in the HECBprojections are collected in an an-nual fall enrollment survey and arecomparable over time.

Effective enrollment forecasting isequally important the institutionallevel for two purpc ..es. (1) short-term enrollment predictions for in-ternal budget planning and (2) long-range enrollment projections forassessing the probable effect of ma-jor developments, such as a declinein live births.

Short-term enrollment predic-tions, which are intended to be

precise point forecasts, should in-corporate the effects of currenttrends or conditions affecting enroll-ments, such as to ion policies andstudent financial aid programs.Long-range projections, which areintended to reveal the effects of ma-jor tends and assumptions, shouldbe based on accurate demographicstatistics and include additional rele-vant variables such as the economicfactors and state educationalpolicies.

Enrollment forecasting should beincluded as a regular part of in-stitutional planning; the long-rangeprojections and short-term predic-tions should be updated regularly;institutional assumptions about thefuture should be stated explicitly,and the results should be integratedinto the larger planning anddecisionmaking process of the in-stitution or system.

C. A Description of Any Planning Mechanisms Either Underway or ProposedWhich Have as Their Goal the Development of Policies, Procedures or Plansto Deal With Fluctuating Enrollments at the Institutional and InterinstitutionalLevel (Appendix C-4)

OVERVIEW

Systems and institutions indicatethat they now use or are developinga variety of mechanisms andprocedures to plan for fluctuatingenrollments. The planning generallyinvolves many participants includingtrustees, administrators, consul-

COMMENTARY

The t.ommitment of the institu-tions and systems to planning variessubstantially. In some cases, plann-ing is viewed as an essential in-gredient in the development of bothlong-range goals and short-termdecisionmaking. Other institutionsand systems seem content to re-endorse long-standing assumptions

tants, faculty members, students,alumni and residents of the com-munity. Usually, the planning is con-ducted through an office of planningor some type of long-range panningcommittee. However, the planninghorizon varies, some systems and

about their mission and role whichmay no longer be valid in view ofprojected enrollment trends.

Those institutions which conducteffective planning processes exhibitthe following features:

1. Planning is supported by andlinked to senior administrativepolicymakers.

- 15 -

institutions focus on the biennialbudget period while others lookahead 5 or 10 years. Products of theplanning effort include specialenrollment studies, facility studies,policy statements, contingencyplans and three or five year plans.

2. Planning is integrated into theongoing management anddecisionmaking procedures ofthe institution or system.

3. Planning is budgeted and staf-fed as a permanent officewithin the institution or system.

4. Planning results in the publica-tion of regular reports and

analyses about the objectives,programs and plans r;f the in-stitution or system.

The motivation for sound planningis concern about the future. Thegoals of the planning process shouldinclude a clear statement of the roleand objectives of the institution °I.:development of measures based onstated objectives, evaluation ofresults achieved and systems oftracking progress toward objectives;

a reliance on information as aprimary coordinating agent, and anincreased ability to predict the ef-fects of multiple variables in order tominimize undesirable consequencesor achieve their stated objectives.

The elements of a planningprocess are identical for institutions,systems and coordinating boards.However, the substance andperspective on planning issues varyamong these groups. Institutions are

concerned primarily with planningfor programs and students. Somegoverning boards are responsiblefor managing and coordinating in-dividual institutions or multi-campussystems. Coordinating boards areresponsible for broader statewideplanning, for identifying and analyz-ing the long-term educational needsof the entire state and region.

D. A Review of Plans or Adjustments in (a) Programs, (b) Staffing, (c) FundingRequirements, and (d) Facilities Due to Fluctuating Enrollments (Appendix C-7)

OVERVIEW

Both public and private institu-tions have begun to review plans andmake adjustments to cope with fluc-tuating enrollments. These actionswhich systems and institutionsreported are summarized below:

(a) Programsjoint programming and shar-

ing of resources withneighboring institutions.expansion cf mission to bet-ter serve part-time, off-campus and non-traditionalclientele

imposition of enrollmentceilingsreview of existing programsexpanded and improved useof educational technologiesto better deliver services

COMMENTARY

These preparations to deal withfluctuating enrollments represent aserious attempt by institutions andsystems to plan for and manageresources. But these efforts repre-

(b) Staffingcurtailment or reduction ofnumber of permanent em-ployeesuse of part-time or tem-porary appointments tomeet present teaching loadand projected temporaryenrollment bulgemodification of tenure policyand limitations on the num-ber or percent of tenuredfacultytenure grai4ed in a systemrather than at a campususe of "transition funds" forfaculty who desire time orspecial training to enter anew field

(c) Fundingless than 100 percent alloca-tion of spending plan

sent individual or isolated actionspredicated on current and perceivedenrollment conditio.-.3. As recogni-tion of the implications of fluctuatingenrollments grows, it will be

- 16 -22

use of unanticipated tuitionreceipts to finance tem-porary increases in instruc-tional demanddevelopment of financial ex-igency plans to cope with un-anticipated revenue orenrollment decreaseslaunching of major fund rais-ing effort, increase endow-ment

(d) Facilitiesre-evaluation of the need forfuture capital expansionuse of rented facilities

sharing of facilities withnearby institutionsemphasis on recyclingbuildings for new usesimprovement of physicalplant and energy efficiency

necessary to organize and sustair aplanning process involving all in-stitutions, systems and the Coor-dinating Board.

E. Summaty of Budgetary, Programmatic or Staffing Changes to be Implemented in FiscalYears 1978 and 1979 Which Are Intended to Delft with Fluctuating Enrollments(Appendix C-11)

OVERVIEW

Changes being implemented thisbiennium at the University of Mm-nesota and the State UniversitySystem are based on budgetarydecisions by the 1977 Legislature.The systems are allowed to meetneeds from enrollment increasesthrough the use of additional tuitionrevenues. Budget adjustments andhiring decisions are being made af-ter fall quarter enrollment data andtuition estimates are reported.

COMMENTARY

Budgetary decisions whichrecognize the reality of fluctuatingenrollments were made by the 1977

Allocations tc programs in allsystems fluctuate with enrollments.Prior to the 2 percent reduction inpersonnel mandated by GovernorPerpich, the legislature had in-creased the staffing complement inthe community colleges and stateuniversities based on enrollment in-creases during the 1975-77 bien-nium. The legislature cut 147academic positions from the Univer-sity of Minnesota's base comple-

Legislature. Additional decisionswhich account for changing enroll-

ment because it felt that the student-faculty ratio was richer than intendedby the 1975 appropriations act.Since some positions were added,the net result was 115 fewer teachingpositions than the 1977 base. Privatecolleges indicated no majorbudgetary, programmatic or staffingchanges for Fiscal Year 1978 and1979.

ment patterns will need to be madein future sessions of the legislature.

F. An Evaluation or Identification of Any Current State Policies Which Will RequireReview or Modification as a Result of Fluctuating Enrollments or SubstantialDeclines (Appendix C-13)

OVERVIEW

System and institutionalresponses identified several statepolicies which may require review ormodification due to changing enroll-ment conditions. The public systemsindicated major concern aboutfunding policies. The private sectorfocused on state policies affecting

COMMENTARY

A discussion of the issues iden-tified is provided below and isfollowed by some comments onthem.

1. Financing: AppropriationsFormulas and ProgramConsiderations.

access, choice, and facilities.Among the issues lined were

financing, statewide tuition policy,financial aid policy, non-traditionalstudents and programs, geographicaccess, considerations of size andefficiency, interstate tuitionreciprocity, Private College Contract

The general concerns ex-pressed of the public post-secondary systems aretwofold: (1) in a period ofenrollment fluctuations, whatwill be the general guidelinesfor financing poc.:.-secondary

-17-23

Program, system management andpersonnel policies, use of facilities,coordination of post-secondaryeducation and the relationship ofmanpower needs and post-secondary education.

education and (2) whatspecific mechanisms or for-mulas will he used to imple-ment these policies? All thepublic systems expressedfear about the guidelines to beused by the state in ap-

propriations decisions. Thejustification, appropriateness,and use of funding formulareflect the possibility thatdeclining enrollments may befollowed by correspondingreductions in funding withoutregard for the complexity ofsystems' missions and ser-vices.A primary concern is the per-ceived need for differentfunding mechanisms to reflectthe variety of programs andservices offered. The systemsthink that research and publicservice programs should notbe funded strictly on the basisof enrollment formulas. Theyargue that there is a need forfunding distinctions on atleast two different levels. First,a distinction between fundingfor instruction, research andpublic service programs; andsecond, within the instruc-tional component, a distinc-tion between funding fortraditional full-time studentsand for non-traditional part-time students.

2. Stalewide Tuition PolicyThe public collegiate systemsagree that the state shouldreview and/or establish astatewide tuition policy. Theprivate sector also is concer-ned about this issue. Despitepast recommendations by theCoordinating Board, no statetuition policy has been adop-ted. Tuition policy is madeduring the appropriationsprocess in determining tuitionrevenue as an offset to statefunding. This practice focuseson tuition as a source of in-stitutional revenue E nd fails toconsider the impact of tuitionon a student's choice ofwhether to attend post-secondary education andwhich institution to attend.Private institutions are con-cerned about the extent towhich the current gap bet-ween private and public tui-

tion rates will remain and howthe continuation of this dif-ferential will affect the privatecolleges.

3. State Financial Aid PolicyStudies of state financial aidpolicies are being conducted.In light of enrollment fluctua-tions, both the public systemsand private institutions ex-pressed concern about possi-ble changes in these policies.There was apprehension thatdeclining enrollments couldresult in financial aid reduc-tions and adversely affect stu-dent access and institutionalchoice. No specific sugges-tions or recommendationsemerged, but the systemsagreed that the role financialaid policies play in encourag-ing or redirecting students tospecific institutions orsystems should be exploredmore fully.

4. Non-Traditional Studentsand ProgramsWhile both public and privatesector responses indicatedplans to expand services tonon-traditional clientele, thepublic systems were es-pecially concerned about thelack of precise state policiesfor the delivery of these ser-vices. Particular concern wasexpressed about how thenon-traditional instructionalareas are to be defined, howthese programs are to befinanced, how to providegeographic access to theseprograms, and how to avoidunnecessary duplication.

5. Geographic AccessThe state has made a strongcommitment to access for stu-dents to post-secondaryeducation. But the publicsystems agreed that in a timeof constseiped resources anddeclining enrollments, thestate may need to re-examineits policies on geographicaccess. The University of Min-

- 18- 24

nesota said that whether com-munity services are sufficientto Justify keeping institutionsopen will have to be deter-mined by thoughtful analysesencompassing many con-siderations. The State Univer-sity System said that given thepolitical realities associatedwith attempts to close or con-solidate institutions, it wouldappear that a realistic ap-proach might be to addressthe issue in terms of scope ofprograms (and, consequently,unit costs) appropriate for in-stitutions of various sizes.

6. Considerations of Size andEfficiencySince enrollment fluctuationswill be felt differentially, thepublic collegiate systems areconcerned about whatpolicies will be used inreaching "cost-effectiveness"decisions at the institutionaland program level. The Com-munity College System notedthat support for small institu-tions is not only related togeographic access, but alsoinvolves policy in regard tobreadth of program, size ofstaff and unit costs.

The state must begin to es-tablish policies concerningthe maintenance of small,relatively high cost institutionsand programs.

7. interstate TuitionReciprocityThe public higher educationsystems indicated that thestate may need to reviewpolicies governing tuitionreciprocity. The state has hada long-standing interest inpromoting the greatest possi-ble range of choices for itsstudents and encouraging in-terstate cooperation andplanning in the delivery ofpost-secondary education.During a period of decliningenrollments, the state mayneed to re-examine and

perhaps recommit itself tothese policies and programs.

8. Private College ContractProgramThis program is important tomany private institutions. Theprivate institutions are con-cerned that pressures may beplaced on the state to recon-sider its commitment to thisprogram. Any such recon-sideration must take into ac-count possible cost savings,restrictions on student choiceand fiscal harm to the privatesector.

9. System Management andPersonnel PoliciesThe public systems and someprivate institutions indicatedthat they are taking steps topromote and enhancemanagement flexibility indealing with institutional per-sonnel. Management optionsare limited in some systemsand institutions due to collec-tive bargaining agreements.Because of the extreme labor

intensiveness of post-secondary education, allsystems are searching forpolicies which allow them torespond to staffing issues.The state needs to assist thesystems to develop staffingpolicies.

10. FacilitiesThe private institutions notedthat energy conservation andefficient use of existingbuildings will dictate the con-tinuation of bonding throughthe Higher EducationFacilities Authority. Carefulplanning by both the publicand private sectors will be re-quired to avoid excess inphysical plants.

11. Coordination of Post-Secondary EducationThe Community CollegeSystem questioned whetherthe coordination activity isworth the effort, or would thestate now be better served if itput the emphasis on prudentoperation of separate

systems. It asked whether thestate can afford the largenumber of people in stategovernment who are not in-volved in the actual provisionof services.The issue of coordination,governance and structure hasarisen in recent legislativesessions, and changes havebeen proposed but not ap-proved. Since the most effec-tive structure will benecessary to plan for enroll-ment related problems, thegovernance issue deservesattention.

12. The Relationship BetweenManpower Needs and Post-Secondary EducationPressure to pay more atten-tion to labor market supplyand demand will increase asfunding decisions are made,the University of Minnesotapointed out. Improved man-power information will beneeded to assist in futuredecisions about programs.

G. A Summary of Your Views Regarding the Major Challenges Confronting YourInstitution as a Result of Fluctuating Enrollments (Appendix C-18)

OVERVIEW

The systems and institutions listseveral major challenges resultingfrom fluctuating enrollments. To theUniversity of Minnesota the majorchallenge is the development of anew mechanism for :dgislativefunding. To the Community CollegeSystem, the major challenge is corvincing state policymakers that dem

COMMENTARY

The systems display a variety ofopinions about the major challengespresented by enrollment fluctua-tions. While they agree on many ofthe important issues confronting the

sions made to place institutions insparsely populated areas of the statewere good decisions and that qualityprograms of limited breadth can beprovided in those locations atreasonable costs. The State Univer-sity System emphasized the need forpolicies and processes that providethe internal flexibility to address

state, they differ in their judgmentsas to which Issues will present theirsystems w:th the greatest problem.The state's response should be toset priorities among the multiple in-

- 19 -

programmatic developments whileaccommodating the fiscal conse-quences of fluctuating enrollments.To private institutions, majorchallenges exist in maintaining highstaff morale, in developing effectiveplanning, in funding, in maintainingprogram quality and in recruitingeffectively.

terests of the systems and to providethe guidance necessary to effectivelyrespond to these challenges.

CONCLUSION

All institutions and systems will beaffected by any modifications instate policies which result fromenrollment fluctuations in any onesystem. The response to some of theissues will require state level reviewwhile the response to others will behandled by each system or institu-tion. But responsible action to effec-tively solve problems will call forstate-system-institutional coopera-tion.

The internal governance andmanagement issues include person-nel management, staffing alter-natives and collective bargaining.While some general statewide policyguidelines may be needed, the dif-ferences in system and institutionalpersonnel and collective bargainingagreements may preclude a single

state policy.Public institutions are especially

concerned about funding decisions,and this issue will require statepolicy action On funding guidelines,appropriations mechanisms andlevels of support for research, publicservice and continuing education.

While funding issues are viewedas the key isqlle by public systems,this concern should not overshadowthe need to address other issuessuch as the financial aspects of stu-den: access to post-secondaryeducation and choice of where to at-tend. The development of a state tui-tion policy and the review of currentstate financial aid policies are firststeps in examining this subject.

Issues related to geographicaccess, program quality and

26-20-

economic efficiency will need to beaddressed not only at those systemsand institutions which will ex-perience substantial enrollmentdeclines, but also in the broaderstatewide context. The final decisionas to the numbers and locations ofpublicly supported institutions willhave to be made at the state level.

Issues of program access arecomplicated by the lack of an explicitstate policy concerning the natureand distribution of educational ser-vices offered to the non-traditionalpart-time student. Policies whichmay have been appropriate whenthe predominant instructional ac-tivity of public institutions was direc-ted toward traditional, full-time stu-dents may require evaluation, giventhe growing emphasis on life-longlearning and part-time enrollment.

CHAPTER III: RECOMMENDATIONS ON PLANNING

PROCEDURES AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT

A. Introduction

To address the challenges posedby declining enrollments, the HigherEducation Coordinating Boardproposes the development of anearly-warning planning process anda reassessment and possible revi-sion of major state policies affectedby the new enrollment conditions.

Components of the proposedplanning process will include (1) thedevelopment of a 5-year plan byeach system to lengthen the plann-ing horizon and (2) the identificationof indicators to annually cneck thecondition of Minnesota post-

Minnesota Higher Education CoordinatingCommission, A Philosophy or MinnesotaHigher Education, A View of Higher Educa-tion, Some Fundamental Principles, noels forHigher Education (March 1968), pp. 15-16.

secondary education. Together, theywill provide improved informationfor planning and policy develop-ment.

The state needs to anticipate theimpact of substantially fewer stu-dents on key existing policies andconsider modifications in them. Withthe implementation of the planr ngprocess, the state and systems willbe able to plan for possible policychanges in post-secondary educa-tion.

Resolving the problems caused bydeclining enrollments while achiev-ing the Board's long-standing goalsfor post-secondary education is themajor challenge.

These goals are: to provide aneducated citizenry and trained man-power; to influence economic, social

- 21 7

and cultural progress; to ensure ex-pansion of access through diverselearning opportunities; to extendknowledge through research; tofoster excellence in teaching andresearch; to facilitate lifelong learn-ing through continuing educatior ofadults; and to serve the communitythrough teaching and research.*

In their responses, the institutionsand systems of post-secondaryeducation identified several issueswhich they think warrant review bythe state. Some of the issues applyto particular institutions, otherscross system boundaries or touchevery post-secondary institution.

In light of the projected enrollmenttrends, the state may need to re-examine the following major policyconcerns:

1. The mission and role ofsystems and institutions.

2. The number, size and locationof institutions.

3. The number, size and locationof programs.

4. The role of tuition and finan-cial aid policy and their

relationship to each other.5. The magnitude, pattern and

mechanism of state supportor post-secondary educationand its relationship to tuitionand financial aid policy.

6. The relationship of stategovernment to private post-

B. Recommendations for the Planning Process

The Board recommends that thepublic systems and private institu-tions engage in a cooperative plann-ing process to deal with fluctuatingenrollments and related problems.The intent of the proposal is to es-tablish an explicit process in whichissues affecting post-secondaryeducation and the goals of institu-tions and systems can be identified,review_ ed, modified or developed.

Though this planning process,the Board hopes to establish anearlylwarning system to alert thestate to emerging issues and toprovide a context in which systemsand institutions can plan for thefuture on a systematic basis. Part ofthis planning process should be thedevelopment of a 5-year plan byeach system which includes a reviewof mission, role and scope ofsystems and institutions and thedevelopment of a set of post-secondary education indicators tosupport policy planning.

1. Development of 5-YearSystem and InstitutionalPlans

Th, proposal that publicsystems and private institu-tions develop 5-year plansreflects the need to assess theimplications of current deci-sions in the future and torelate individual decisions tothe larger context of a system.Now, planning tends to focuson the two-year budget cycle,and decisions made eachbiennium may not take intoaccount long-range ramifica-tions.

The proposed planningprocess would result in the

publication by each publicsystem and private institutionof a 5-year plan. The planwould specify the mission,role and scope of each systemand institution and theprograms which it offers. It

would provide short-termenrollment predictions andlong-range enrollmentforecasts, by institution, forthe pu6lic post-secondarysystems!,The plan would out-line assumptions used todevelop the 5-year plan andthe enrollment projections. Amajor outcome of the planwould be an attempt to con-slder and integrate prioritiesand programs with the mis-sion of the institution andsystem and to set prioritiesamong them. In doing so, theplan would relate existingprograms, personnel,facilities and financing to theupcoming biennial requestsand the 5-year plans.

The 5-year plan would beupdated each biennium andpublished prior to the submis-sion of the biennial appropria-tions request. It is recommen-ded that the first 5-year planbe completed by December1979 to be available for thelegislative session beginningin January 1980.

With the 5-year plans, theCoordinating Board and ex-ecutive and legislativebranches of state governmentwould have a tool to evaluatethe use of resources and thebiennial appropriations re-quest. It would provide an im-

_ 22 _ 28

secondary education.7. The nature and scope of Min-

nesota's commitment to in-terstate and regional planningand reciprocity.

8. The relationship of manpowerneeds to program planning.

portant addition to the currentresource allocation pro-cedure; namely, the provisionof a longer planning horizonwhich identifies goals andpriorities and provides a con-text for evaluating currentdecisions and proposals. The5-year plan also wouldprovide the state with a com-prehensive summary of post-secondary education serviCeSand would permit it to identifyareas of mutual concern to in-stitutions and systems.Through this process, theCoordinating Boar,: wouldalso be able to identify andconsult with the systems ofpost-secondary education onmatters that require statewideplanning and coordination

2. Development of Indicatorsfor Post-SecondaryEducation

The Coordinating Boardproposes to develop a set ofindicators to monitor thehealth of Minnesota's post-secondary education. Theseindicators would he used asthe basis for annual reporton the condition of post-secondary education andwould help establish a contextfor modifying statewide goalsfor post-secondary education.Agreement about the state'sgoals will enable systems and'nstitutions to develop theirfissions and programs.There is an increasing in-

terest in the development anduse of indicators in manyareas of economic and socialactivity. This phenomenon

has extended into post-secondary education andrelates most directly to de-mands for accountability. Thelarge amount of public fundsinvested in post-secondaryeducation and the competi-tion for limited dollars alsohave contributed to this situa-tion. .

Indicators are statistics andother types of information thatdescribe where we are andwhere we are going in termsof our values and goals. Oncegoals and objectives havebeen clearly specified, in-dicators can be used toassess the extent to whichthese ends are being realized.Such descriptive indicators aschanges in enrollment, part -time- -to full-time studentratios, and expenditure perstudent can provide the statewith relevant empirical infor-mation for planning anddecisionmaking. Indicatorsshould provide a basis for an-ticipating future conditions asthe state re-examines plansand policies.

As post-secondary educa-tion moves into a period ofdeclining resources, the needfor indicators of health andperformance will becomemore imperative. These in-dicators should be directedtoward broad policy issues atthe state level and shouldfocus the debate on importantand reievant alternatives.

The information base to supportpolicy planning should be improved.Institutions, systems, state agenciesand the federal government collectvast amounts of statistical informa-tion for reporting, planning, manag-ing and evaluating post-secondaryeducation. Some data is collected onan ad hoc basis; some is collectedroutinely. Most of the information isrelated to specific issues; some in-formation is useful for long-rangeplanning. Unfortunately, most of thisdata is poorly defined and notorganized for broad use.

The planning information which isneeded includes data on the de-mand for post-secondary education,the availability of post-secondaryeducation, the resources available to

C. Recommendations for Policy Development

The state will need to review theimplications of several major statepolicies as a result of the enrollmentsituation. Some policies will have tobe examined prior to the 1979legislative session; other policies willrequire attention as soon as possi-ble.

1. Guidelines for FinancingPost-Secondary Education

As enrollments decline, it isanticipated that both unitcosts and total costs will con-tinue to increase and therewill be pressure for additionalfunds to operate post-secondary education. Asmentioned earlier, it will benecessary to finance tem-porary enrollment increasesbefore the long-term enroll-

ment decline begins. Conse-quently, the state will need todevelop a set of guidelines forfinancing which will beresponsive to both short-termand long-rar,2e enrollmentchanges. The guidelinesshould provide a rationale forspecific appropriationsdecisions.

2. Adoption of a Statewide Tui-tion Policy

Although the CoordinatingBoard recommended a tuitionpolicy in 1973, no statewidepolicy now exists. Currentpolicy can be described as at-tempting to keep tuition aslow as possible whilerecognizing that studentsmust contribute to the cost of

- 23 - 29

support post-secondary education,the financing of post- secondaryeducation, the outcomes of post-secondary education and informa-tion about Minnesota and the region.More specifically, the datacategories include such topics asnumbers of high school graduates,population, current enrollments,program inventories and descrip-tors, institutional characteristics,financial resources, personnelresources, facilities, financial aid forstudents, support for institutions,degrees granted, projected staterevenues and migration patterns ofstudents.

Efforts should be made to select,define and organize this data in aform that is useful to planners,decisionmakers and the public. TheCoordinating Bo..rd intends to con-tinue to develop an informationsystem to support planning at thestate level. While systematic datacollection can be accomplishedapart from the development of in-dicators, indicators cannot bedeveloped and effectively used inthe absence of a systematic informa-tion base.

their education and absorbpart of the annual increase ofthat cost.

Future tuition policy discus-sions should attempt to relatethese factors to (1) state finan-cial aid policies, (2) the effectsof price of tuition levels onaccess and choice of institu-tions, and (3) the pattern ofstate appropriations for post-secondary education.

Alternatives to past prac-tices need to be examinedand evaluated so that deci-sions can be reached concer-ning the adequacy of the pre-sent approach and thebenefits (if any) of adopting analternative policy. The Coor-dinating Board intends toreview its tuition policy and

make recommendations tothe 1979 Legislature.

3. Student Financial AidPolicies

Minnesota financial aid ac-tivity is entering .a new phasein which increasing demandswill be made to justify theamount of state funds com-mitted to financial aid and thetype and mixture of aidprograms. The rapid increasein state appropriations andsheer dollar volume demandthat the state stop and takestock of its presence in finan-cial aid, particula;iy in light ofchanging conditions. Severalstate agencies, including theCoordinating Board, are nowstudying state financial aidpolicies. A study of the roleand size- of financial aidprograms is timely and shouldbe related to the developmentof a tuition policy and theoverall financing of post-secondary education in thefuture. State agencies, thefinancial aid community, andthe post-secondary educationcommunity should continue towork together to evaluatefinancial aid programs andassess whether the stateefforts are achieving their ob-jectives. Based on this study,the Board will make recom-mendations to the 1979Legislature on student finan-cial aid policies.

4. Physical Plan_ t Constructionand Use

With few exceptions, needof physical plant expansionhas ended. Future effortsshould be directed at meetingnew and emerging physicalplant requirements. Some ofthese new issues have beenidentified; they include: (1)energy cor servation, (2) ac-commodating the handicap-ped, (3) remodeling existingfacilities to meet new programneeds, and (4) meeting

federal OSHA (OccupationalSafety and Health) require-ments. In order to avoid ad-ditional excess physical plantcapacity, future constructionto increase the capacity of in-stitutions should be approvedonly after thorough justifica-tion which recognizes projec-ted enrollment declines andthe availability of underusedfacilities at other institutions.

5. Implications for InstructionalPrograms

With fewer students andlimited funds, it is imperativethat instructional programs bemonitored and reviewedcarefully. Most systems andinstitutions have developedprogram review mechanisms.At the state level, the Coor-dinating Board has developedand is refining its programreview process. The Coor-dinating Board will need toimplement fully its respon-sibility to review both new andexisting programs in relationto mission, need, duplicationand costs. During the next fewmonths, the Board will con-duct a review on the status ofprogram review activity. it willpropose a process for reviewof program expansion andrecommend a program auditprocess for existingprograms.

6. Number of Institutions, Sizeand Efficiency

Minnesota has estabiished49 post- secondary institutionsoutside the metropolitan area.These institutions were built inorder to meet regional de-mands for educational ser-vices and to providegeographical proximity topost-secondary institutionsfor people living in sparselypopulated rural areas. Thereare 35 public institutionswhich enroll fewer than 1000full-time equivalent students.There are 16 public post-

- 24 - 30

secondary institutions whichenroll fewer than 500 full-timeequivalent students. Whilethese institutions are small,many are larger in 1977 thanat any time in their history.Nonetheless, some areseverely underenrolled into ms of their physical plantci. lacity. In general, small in-stitutions are less efficientthan large institutions and, bytheir very nature, offer areduced curriculum. It may benecessary for the state toassess its commitment tomaintain many small institu-tions as enrollments decline.

This issue has been iden-tified by the public post-secondary systems as onewhich will require statereview. The problem is com-.plicated by the fact that thereare areas of the state whichare projected to experiencepopulation increases. As aresult, the state is confrontedwith the conflicting pressuresto curtail and/or consolidatesome institutions andsimultaneously provide ad-ditional services in otherregions. The state should con-sider the need to consolidatesome institutions andsimultaneously provide ad-ditional services in otherregions. The state should con-sider the need to consolidatesmall institutions into largerregional institutions. In mak-ing such a review, the stateneeds to take into account ad-ditional financial burdensplaced on students who canno longer commute to a localinstitution.

7. Private College ContractProgram

While the governingauthority and structures varyamong the various post-secondary education systemsand institutions in Minnesota,it must be assumed for plann-

ing and coordinating pur-poses that all institutionsrepresent public resourcesdedicated to meeting theeducational needs of in-dividuals and contributing tosocial welfare.

Minnesota has longrecognizei that it was in thestate's long-range interest tocontribute to the continuedhealth of a strong privatepost-secondary educationsector. This view has beenmanifest in the establishmentof and support for the PrivateCollege Contract Program.These funds to privatecollegiate institutions in Min-nesota which enroll state resi-dents represent a relativelysmall percentage of the totalstate investment in post-secondary education. Theyhave, however, provided thecollegiate institutions with animportant source of revenue.

Nevertheless, as enroil-ments decline and use of statepost-secondary educationfacilities decreases, the stateshould review the objectivesof the Private College Con-tract Program.

8. Review Interstate TuitionReciprocity

Minnesota has sought to in-crease access to post-secondary education and tomaximize real choices for stu-dents. As a result, the statehas developed tuitionreciprocity agreements withWisconsin, North Dakota andhas a proposed agreement forSouth Dakota. The Board

D. Conclusion

The challenges to post-secondaryeducation in the future have beenidentified in this report and by othernational bodies. The difficultproblems now being confronted inlocal school districts may be a

believes that these programshave been effective in ex-tending to students an oppor-tunity to choose among awider variety of institutions.Moreover, these programshave seared to improve in-terstate cooperation andplanning, and in the long runresult in more economical, ef-ficient delivery of programs toresidents of participatingstates. The state shouldreview the benefits of in-terstate tuition reciprocity inrelationship to the cost of theprogram.

9. Funding Formulas for Post-Secondary Education

The state provides ap-propriations to post-secondary education differen-tly for each system.-The publicsystems of post-secondaryeducation have expressedsome concern over thecurrent appropriationsmethods and have suggestedthat changes be made in thelinear, enrollment-drivenfunding formulas. The currentapproach can be described inthe following way: (a) the useof differentiated staffing ratiosfor the State UniversitySystem, (b) the use of onestaffing ratio for the Com-munity College System, (c)the use of a per student ap-propriation for the AVTIs, (d)modified undifferentiatedfunding formulas for the Un-iversity of Minnesota, (e) theuse of state appropriations tosupplement the maintenanceand expenditure budget for

preview of what will happen in post-secondary education. In addition tothe problems caused by decliningenrollment, during the next 10 to 20years post ,icondary education andother sectors of the public economy

-25 -31

each system, and (f) the use ofseparately determined in-crease guidelines for sup-plies, expenses, utilities andrelated support expenditures.A primary problem is that thisprocess is based on enroll-ments, does not recognizefixed costs associated withprograms, and that somefunctions, such as research,are not enrollment related.Current funding formulasshould be evaluated for theirimplications during a periodof fluctuating enrollments.

10. Continuing Education andExtension

With systems and institu-tions placing greateremphasis upon non-traditional students, policyissues- - relating -to -adult andcontinuing education take onadded importance. Theseissues include access to adultpost-secondary education,purposes and objectives ofcontinuing education, un-necessary duplication, financ-ing, role of academic credit,quality, competition amongthose providing programsand coordination. The needand demand for adult or con-tinuing education should berelated to post-secondary andsecondary resources andstatewide financing policies inboth sectors. The HECB willbe conducting a comprehen-sive study of adult and con-tinuing education to assessfully these activities and toform the basis for relevantpolicy proposals.

will be forced to operate under newand aJ,erse conditions. Vitalresources like energy may be inshort supply. It has been predictedthat there will be a decline in the rateof economic growth, that the cost of

goods and services will increase atrates greater than personal Income,that there will be increased competi-tion for limited public dollars fromother high priority programs likehousing and health care, and thatthe public will continue to expect toreceive effective and efficient publicservices. All these developments

confirm the need for sound planningand a willingness to make new anddifficult decisions about the use ofresources in post-secondary educa-tion.

This document is a tentativeagenda for beginning to addressthese problems through (1)systematic and coordinated in-

- 26 -

32

stitutional, system and state-levelplanning, (2) the development of in-dicators to assess the changing con-ditions of Minnesota post-secondaryeducation, and (3) specific policystudies providing the detailedanalysis necessary to support dif-ficult policy decisions.

APPENDIX APROJECTED HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES BY REGION

Year

State Total

Number of % ChangeGraduates From 1977

Region 1


Region 2


Region 3


Region 4


1977 73,402 1.955 1,141 6,360 3,705

1978 73.366 -.05 2,022 3.43 1,160 1.67 6,228 -2.08 3,737 .86

1979 73.199 -.28 2,073 6.04 1,226 7.45 6,105 -4.01 3,655 -1.35

1980 72,373 -1.40 1,890 -3.32 1,214 6.40 6,067 -4.61 3,671 -.92

1961 69.904 -4.77 1,924 -1.59 1,221 7.01 5,835 -8.25 3,546 -4.29

1982 66,6v4 -8.87 1,770 -9.46 1.122 -1.67 5,541 -12.88 3,467 -6.42

1983 62,535 -14.80 1.723 -11.87 1.106 -3.07 5.035 -20.83 3,039 -17.98

1984 59.116 -19.46 1,650 -15.60 1,024 -10.25 4,771 -24.98 2,977 -19.65

1985 57.530 -21.62 1,551 -20.66 932 -18.32 4.479 -29.56 2,872 -22.48

1986 56,665 -22.80 1,514 -22.56 950 -16.74 4,435 -20.27 2,866 -22.65

1987 57,805 -21.25 1,639 -16.16 950 -16.74 4,676 -25.48 2,964 -20.00

1988 60,895 -17.04 1,696 -13.25 988 -13.41 4,768 -25.03 2,979 -19.60

1989 55,600 -24.25 1,620 -17.14 1,089 -4.56 4,450 -30.03 2,939 -20.67

1990 50.170 -31.65 1.611 -17.60 993 -12.97 4.020 -36.79 2,619 -29.31

1991 47,845 -34.82 1,485 -24.04 986 -13.58 3,891 -38.82 2,528 -31.77

1992 49,599 -32.43 1,554 -20.51 995 -12.80 3,861 -39.29 2,598 -29.88

1993 50.230 -31.57 1.507 -22.92 1.060 -7.10 4,185 -34.20 2,732 -26.26

1994 51,927 -29.26 1,262 -35.45 945 -17.18 3,884 -38.93 2,756 -25.61

1995 53,535 -27.07 1,345 -31.20 1,006 -11.83 4.099 -35.55 2,930 -20.92

1996 55,152 -24.86 1,370 -29.92 1,024 -10.25 4,139 -34.92 2,979 -19.60

1997 56,770 -22.66 1.424 -27.16 1,065 -6.66 4,265 -32.94 3.089 -16.63

1998 58,38 -20.45 1.479 -24.35 1,105 -3.16 4,394 -30.91 3,202 -13.58

1999 59,424 -19.04 1,522 -22.15 1,126 -1.31 4,450 -30.03 3,255 -12.15

2000 60,457 -17.64 1,557 20.36 1,149 ,70 4,506 -29.15 3,318 -10.45

2001 61,494 -16.22 1,597 -18.31 1.170 2.54 4,563 -28.25 3.:,77 -8.85

2002 62,527 -14.82 1,637 -16.27 1.191 4.38 4,619 -27.37 3,435 -7.29

2003 63,561 -13.41 1.678 -14.17 1,215 6.49 4,681 -26.40 3,497 -5.61

2004 63.491 -13.50 1,670 -14.58 1,208 5.87 4,621 -27.34 3,468 -S.40

2025 63,421 -13.60 1,660 -15,09 1.200 5.17 4,562 -28.27 3,440 -7.15

2006 63,354 -13.69 1,651 -15.55 1,193 4.56 4,503 -29.20 3.411 -7.94

A-1

PROJECTED HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES BY REGION

Year

Region 5

Number of %ChangeGraduates From 1977

Region 6E


Region 6W


Region 7E


Region 7W


1977 2,411 2,185 1,288 1,847 3,991

1978 2,549 5.72 2,122 -2.88 1,358 5.43 1,840 -.38 4,035 1.10

1979 2,578 6.93 2.280 4.35 1,335 3.65 1,992 7.85 4,089 2.46

1980 2,530 4.94 2,190 .23 1,339 3.96 1,973 6.82 4,022 .78

1981 2,571 6.64 2,136 -2.24 1,147 -10.95 1,971 6.71 4,116 3.13

1982 2,359 -2.16 2,063 -5.58 1,142 -11.34 1,922 4.06 4,060 1.73

1983 2,270 -5.85 1.950 -10.76 1,041 -19.18 1,798 -2.65 3,887 -2.61

1984 2,209 -8.38 1,857 -15.01 1.040 -19.25 1,756 -4.93 3,767 -5.61

1985 2,092 -13.23 1,774 -18.81 962 -25.31 1.732 -6.23 3,678 -7.84

1986 2,141 -11.20 1.707 -21.88 939 -27.10 1,833 -.76 3,514 -11.95

1987 2,121 -12.03 1,769 -19.04 915 -28.96 1,810 -2.00 3.603 -9.72

1988 2,271 -5.81 1,874 -14.23 896 -30.43 2,111 14.29 3,824 -4.18

1989 2,207 -8.46 1.781 -18.49 890 -30.90 2,125 15.05 3,793 -4.96

1990 2,093 -13.19 1,802 -17.53 827 -35.79 2,035 10.18 3,438 -13.86

1991 1,803 -21.48 1,650 -24.49 745 -42.16 1,880 1.79 3.530 -11.55

1992 2,049 -15.01 1,823 -16.57 878 -31.83 2,042 10.56 3,591 -10.02

1993 2,182 -9.50 1,868 -14.51 918 -28.73 2,102 13.81 3,816 -4.38

1994 1,689 -29.95 1.593 -27.09 749 -41.85 1,826 -1.14 3,436 -13.91

1995 1,809 -24.97 1,699 -22.24 801 -37.81 1,955 5.85 3,489 -12.35

1996 1,852 -23.19 1.731 -20.78 820 -36.34 1,998 8.18 3,750 -6.04

1997 1,933 -19.83 1,800 -17.62 854 -33.70 2,083 12.78 3,924 -1.68

1998 2,015 -16.42 1,871 -14.37 890 -30.90 2,169 17.43 4,089 2.46

1999 2,076 -13.89 1,922 -12.04 917 -28.80 2.263 22.52 4,210 5.49

000 --Z-137-- -41.36 1,973 -9.70 943 -26.79 8.52

2001 2,1972,3572,451

27.6132.70

-4,3314,452 11.55-8.88 2,023 -7.41 970 -24.69

2002 2,258 -6.35 2,074 -5.08 995 -22.75 2,545 37.79 4,573 14.58

2003 2,322 -3.69 2,127 -2.65 1,022 -20.65 2,641 42.99 4,700 17.76

2%4 2,319 -3.82 2.127 -2.65 1,015 -21.20 2,689 45.59 4,745 18.89

2005 2,318 -3.86 2,127 -2.65 1,007 -21.82 2,735 48.08 4,790 20.02

2006 2,315 -3.98 2,127 -2.65 999 -22.44 2,782 50.62 4,835 21.15

PROJECTED HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES BY REGION

Year

Region 8


Region 9


Region 10

Number of % ChanceGraduates From 1977

Region 11


1977 2,928 4,229 7,700 33,662

1978 2,875 -1.81 4,262 .78 7.674 -.34 33,504 -.47

1979 2.845 -2.83 4.156 -1.73 7,682 -.23 33,183 -1.42

1950 2,737 -6.52 4,156 -1.73 7.494 -2.68 33,090 -1.70

1981 2,514 -14.14 4,006 -5.27 7,256 -5.77 31,661 -5.94

1982 2,417 -17.45 3,771 -10.83 7,066 -8.23 30,194 -10.30

1983 2,320 -20.77 3,542 -16.24 6,547 -14.97 28,277 -16.00

1984 2,130 -28.18 3,426 -18.99 6,119 -20.53 26,417 -21.52

1985 2,095 -28.45 3,195 -24.45 5,886 -23.56 26,282 -21.92

1986 2,057 -29.75 3.139 -24.59 5,519 -28.32 26,002 -22.76

1987 1,999 -31.73 3,128 -26.03 5,840 -2416 26,391 -21.60

1988 2,022 -30.94 3,121 -26.20 6,202 -19.3 28,143 -16.40

1989 1,849 -36.85 3,061 -27.62 5,648 -26.65 24,148 -28.26

1990 1,700 -41.94 2,873 -32.06 4.975 -35.39 21,184 -37.07

1991 1,937 -33.85 2,703 -36.08 4,857 -.92 19,761 -41.30

1992 1,924 -34.29 2,951 -30.22 4,987 -35.23 20,346 -39.56

1993 1,621 -44.64 2,926 -30.81 5,139 -33.26 20,175 -40.07

1994 1,753 -40.13 2.699 -36.18 -.),256 -31.74 24,079 -28.47

1995 1,869 -36.17 2,821 -33.29 5,535 -28.12 25,177 -25.21

1996 1,906 -34.90 2,821 -33.29 5,574 -27.61 25,188 -25.17

1997 1,981 -32.34 2,882 31.85 5,733 -25.55 25,737 -23.54

1998 2,031 -30.64 2,943 30.41 5.895 -23.44 26,306 -21.85

1999 2,077 -29.06 2,975 -29.65 6,000 -22.08 26,631 -20.89

2000 2,124 -27.46 3,005 -28.94 6,104 -20.73 26,963 -19.93

2001 2,170 -25.89 3,036 -28.21 6,209 -19.36 27,279 -18.96

2002 2,218 -24.25 3,066 -27.50 6,313 -18.01 27,603 -18.00

2003 2.199 -24.90 3,099 -26.72 6,424 -16 57 27,956 -16.95

2004 2,180 -25.55 3,065 -27.52 6,411 -16.74 27,973 -16.90

2005 2,161 -26.20 3,032 -28.30 6,398 -16.91 27,991 -16.85

2006 2,144 -26.78 2,999 -29.08 6,386 -17.06 28,009 -16.79

A-2

--

APPENDIX BINSTITUTIONAL ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEMFULL -TIME EQUIVALENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS, 1977-2000

(BASED ON FALL 1976 ENTRANCE RATES)

Year High

Bemidji

Low

Moorhead

High Low High

St. Cloud

Low

Southwest

High Low

1977 4,592 4,444 5,024 4,887 9,777 9,427 1,489 1,443

1978 4,804 4,559 5,044 4,834 10,169 9,620 1,500 1,426

1979 5,013 4,687 4,999 4,652 10,488 9,585 1,518 1,423

1980 5,130 4,710 5,019 4,650 10.534 9,629 1,529 1,417

1981 5,137 4,711 5,023 4,668 10,587 9,653 1,519 1,409

1982 5,114 4,691 4,986 1,623 10,513 9.615 1,481 1,374

1983 5.002 4,589 4,870 4,530 10,355 9,448 1,441 1,339

1984 4,830 4,432 4,686 4,348 9,986 9.141 1,392 1.294

1385 4,622 4,242 4,487 4,179 9,620 8,786 1,330 1,238

1986 4,398 4,038 4,275 3,971 9,223 8,453 1,289 1,201

1987 4,252 3,905 4,165 3.883 9,032 8,255 1,258 1,173

1988 4,186 3,844 4 153 3,861 8,958 8,218 1,240 1,157

1989 4,230 3,885 4,213 3,929 9,217 8,429 1,247 1,164

1990 4.227 3,882 4,241 3,943 9,171 8,415 1,223 1,143

1991 4,112 3,777 4,128 3,850 9,018 8,250 1,173 1,096

1992 3.98 i 3,657 3,950 3,674 8,521 7,825 1,156 1,080

1993 3,876 3,561 3,819 3,564 8,323 7,620 1,145 1,069

1994 3,830 3,519 3.799 2.533 8.293 7,619 1,111 1,038

1995 3,791 3,483 3,801 3.546 8,437 7,724 1,107 1,034

1996 3,873 3,557 3,887 3,612 8.557 7,857 1,113 1,039

1997 3,937 3,616 3,892 3,628 8,708 7,968 1,116 1,040

1998 4,002 3.675 4,014 3,728 8,932 8,197 1,138 1.060

1999 4,124 3,786 4,106 3,824 9,214 8,426 1,159 1.079

2000 4,216 3,870 4,916 3,893 9,415 8,634 1,174 1,092

B-1

STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEMFULL -TIME EQUIVALENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS, 1977-2000

(BASED ON FALL 1976 ENTRANCE RATES)(Continued)

Year

Mankato

High Low High

Winona

Low High

Total

Low

1977 8,669 8,430 4,192 4,071 33,743 32,7021978 8,907 8,511 4,345 4,161 34,769 33,1111979 9,203 8,675 4,277 4,021 35,498 33,0431980 9,377 8,658 4,284 3,975 35,873 33,0391981 9,385 8,636 4,263 3,954 35,914 33,0311982 9,270 8,534 4,196 3,893 35,560 32,7301983 9,069 8,352 4,102 3,807 34,839 32,0651984 8,780 8,091 3,937 3,655 33,611 30,9611985 8,432 7,775 3,751 3,483 32,242 29,7031986 8,084 7,459 3,593 3,337 30,862 28,4591987 7,800 7,201 3,440 3,197 29,947 27,6141988 7,633 7,050 3,402 3,162 29,572 27,2921989 7,612 7,032 3,456 3,212 29,975 27,6511990 7,488 6,921 3,370 3,133 29,720 27,4371991 7,246 6,698 3,229 3,003 28,906 26,6741992 7,024 6,494 3,069 2,855 27,701 25,5851993 6,860 6,343 2,943 7,738- 26,966 24;8951994 6,692 6,188 2,885 2,685 26,610 24,5821995 6,643 6,143 2,956 2,750 26,735 24,6801996 6,773 6,260 3,062 2,848 27,265 25,1731997 6,824 6.304 3,137 2,916 27,F14 25,4721998 6,911 6,382 3,228 3,000 28,225 26,0421999 7,054 6,510 3,298 3,064 28,955 26,6892000 7,147 6,594 3,350 3,112 29,498 27,195

COMMUNITY COLLEGESFULL-TIME EQUIVALENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS, 1977-2000


Year

Anoka Ramsey

High Low

Austin

High Low High

Brainerd

Low

Fergus Falls

High Low

Hibbing

High Low

1977 1,407 1,356 872 819 520 488 540 508 597 560

1978 1,325 1,256 901 827 534 490 554 507 608 559

1979 1,342 1,273 904 830 553 508 561 514 605 557

1980 1,357 1,288 907 833 567 521 559 512 600 552

1981 1,370 1,301 898 825 566 520 559 513 599 552

1982 1,364 1,297 879 808 571 525 552 507 588 543

1983 1,349 1,285 861 793 549 506 541 497 570 526

1984 1,326 1,265 822 757 528 487 502 462 537 497

1985 1,302 1,245 779 719 517 477 482 444 515 478

1986 1,298 1,242 752 695 501 463 470 433 494 459

1987 1,303 1,248 722 668 503 466 467 431 488 453

1988 1,318 1,263 737 681 508 470 477 440 504 468

1989 1,361 1,303 775 717 531 491 486 448 517 480

1990 1,325 1,271 749 693 532 493 ,'85 447 502 467

1991 1,254 1,207 683 633 510 472 453 413 467 435

1992 1,214 1,170 653 605 477 442 429 396 447 417

1993 1,216 1,172 658 610 486 450 431 398 441 411

1994 1,218 1,173 672 622 510 472 446 411 458 426

1995 1,266 1,217 683 633 456 423 447 412 443 412

1996 1,289 1,236 703 651 445 413 460 424 446 414

1997 1,284 1,231 711 657 454 420 470 433 448 416

1998 1,282 1,227 720 665 464 429 480 442 453 420

1999 1,283 1,227 733 677 476 440 494 454 459 425

2000 1,280 1,223 743 685 485 448 502 461 461 426

B-2

36

COMMUNITY COLLEGESFULL -TIME EQUIVALENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS, 1977-2000


Year

Inver Hills

High Low

Itasca

High Low

Lakewood

High Low High

Mesabi

Low

Metropolitan

High Low

1977 1,610 1,526 492 461 2,383 2,247 659 617 1,361 1,298

1978 1,703 1,589 503 459 2,501 2,321 671 617 1,426 1,348

1979 1,714 1,600 500 457 2,513 2,334 665 612 1,434 1,356

1980 1,719 1,606 495 453 2,517 2,339 657 604 1,437 1,360

1981 1,726 1,614 492 450 2,523 2,346 655 603 1,443 1,366

1982 1,699 1,590 483 442 2,477 2,306 641 591 1,417 1,343

1983 1,659 1,555 464 426 2,410 2,247 619 571 1,382 1,311

1984 1,605 1,508 436 400 2,322 2,168 580 536 1,335 1,269

1985 1,550 1,459 414 380 2,231 2,087 554 512 1,287 1,225

1986 1,536 1,447 395 363 2,208 2,067 529 490 1,279 1,218

1987 1,535 1,446 388 357 2,204 2,065 521 483 1,279 1,218

1988 1,551 1,463 399 367 2,228 2,087 539 500 1,294 1,233

1989 1,611 1,518 411 378 2,321 2,173 553 513 1,347 1,283

1990 1,531 1,445 400 368 2,188 2,053 535 496 1,265 1,207

1991 1,411 1,337 370 341 2,003 1,884 495 459 1,165 1,114

1992 1,344 1,276 352 324 1,899 1,790 474 440 1,110 1,063

1993 1,346 1,277 348 "'1 1,904 1,795 466 433 1,115 1,068

1994 1,346 1,278 362 334 1,906 1,796 487 452 1,113 1,067

1995 1,446 1,367 351 323 2,-063 1,939- 470 436 -1209 -1,1581996 1,500 1,416 352 324 2,150 2,016 475 440 1,252 1,194

1997 1,500 1,414 358 329 2,154 2,018 478 443 1,249 1,191

1998 1,504 1,417 364 334 2,166 2,028 484 448 1,254 1,195

1999 1,514 1,425 372 341 2,187 2,046 492 455 1,263 1,203

2000 1,517 1,427 376 345 2,197 2,054 495 457 1,266 1,204

COMMUNITY COLLEGESFULL -TIME EQUIVALENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS, 1977-2000


Year

Normandale

High Low

North Hennepin

High Low

Northland

High Low

Rainy River

High Low

Rochester

High Low

1977 3,645 3,442 2,742 2,600 389 369 362 342 2,475 2,347

1978 3,734 3,466 2,815 2,613 400 370 369 340 2,558 2,373

1979 3,753 3,486 2,830 2,629 411 380 366 338 2,572 2,388

1980 3,759 3,494 2,838 2,638 424 392 363 335 2,588 2,404

1981 3,769 3,505 2,847 2,648 411 381 362 334 2,573 2,392

1982 3,700 3,445 2,802 2,610 409 379 355 328 2,529 2,354

1983 3,601 3,357 2,731 2,547 396 368 343 317 2,487 2,316

1984 3,471 3,242 2,637 2,463 391 363 322 299 2,390 2,230

1985 3,337 3,123 2,538 2,376 380 354 307 285 2,287 2,137

1986 3,304 3,094 2,510 2,351 364 339 293 272 2,221 2,078

1987 3,298 3,091 2,507 2,350 357 333 288 268 2,152 2,017

1988 3,334 3,124 2,532 2,374 370 346 296 275 2,193 2,054

1989 3,471 3,250 2,632 2,466 386 361 304 283 2,296 2,150

1990 3,272 3,071 2,506 2,353 386 360 297 276 2,237 2,097

1991 2,999 2,824 2,301 2,166 378 353 276 257 2,063 1,938

1992 2,845 2,684 2,18 2,058 362 338 263 245 1,979 1,861

1993 2,854 2,692 2,182 2,058 361 338 260 242 1,991 1 872

1994 2,855 2,692 2,187 2,063 360 336 269 251 2,024 1,901

1995 3,089 2,904 2,345 2,206 329 308 262 244 2,050 1,925

1996 3,216 3,017 2,445 2,255 320 300 263 244 2,096 1,966

1997 3,219 3,018 2,452 2,:99 325 304 266 247 2,112 1,978

1998 3,235 3,031 2,463 2,308 329 307 269 250 2,130 1,994

1999 3,264 3,055 2,485 2,327 335 312 274 254 2,159 2,019

2000 3,277 3,065 2,496 2,335 340 316 276 256 2,177 2,034

B-3

7

COMMUNITY COLLEGESFULL-TIME EQUIVALENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS, 1977-2000


Year

Vermilion

High Low

Willmar

High Low

Worthington

High Low

System Total

High Low

1977 351 330 828 777 575 546 21,808 20,633

1978 359 327 849 775 589 545 22,399 20,7821979 357 325 853 779 589 546 22,522 20,9121980 353 322 872 797 589 546 22,601 20,996

1981 351 320 870 795 582 541 22,596 21,006

1982 343 313 834 763 559 521 22,202 20,665

1983 330 301 809 740 542 505 21,643 20,1681984 309 282 772 707 531 496 20,816 19,431

1985 292 267 744 682 509 476 20,025 18,726

1986 278 255 717 657 499 467 19,648 18,3901987 273 250 697 640 498 467 19,480 18,251

1988 279 256 700 642 494 464 19,753 18,507

1989 289 264 7:9 660 498 468 20,508 . 19,206

1990 279 256 712 654 486 457 19,687 18,464

1991 256 235 690 634 457 430 18,231 17,137

1992 242 222 655 602 467 439 17,393 16,372

-1993- 240- 220 682 627 476 447 17,457_ 16,431_1994 249 228 708 650 443 417 17,613 16,569

1995 247 226 653 600 435 409 18,243 17,141

1996 250 229 649 596 447 420 18,758 17,595

1997 255 233 665 611 451 423 18,851 17,665

1998 260 237 682 626 454 425 18,993 17,783

1999 266 243 703 645 458 428 19,217 17,976

2000 270 247 719 659 459 428 19,336 18,070

-------

B-4 38

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTAFULL-TIME EQUIVALENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS, 1977-2000


Year

Twin Cities

High Low High

Duluth Morris

Low High Low

Crookston

High Low

1977 40,930 40,340 6,432 6,250 1,552 1,500 911 8681978 40,965 38,728 6,891 6,559 1,522 1,432 935 8591979 40,988 39,169 7,064 6,621 1,505 1,390 945 868

1980 41,785 38,903 7,158 6,574 1,525 1,391 960 8821981 42,122 38,793 7,147 6,548 1,520 1,387 946 8691982 41,803 38,510 7,054 6,465 1,493 1.363 926 8501983 41,159 37,930 6,897 6,324 1,455 1,329 896 8231984 40,168 37,032 6,646 6,098 1,392 1,271 856 7871985 38,659 35,662 6,345 5,825 1,326 1,211 818 7531986 37,138 34,278 6,053 5,561 1,272 1,162 780 7181987 35,773 33,036 5,819 5,349 1,232 1,126 760 6991988 34,824 32,174 5,747 5,285 1,220 1,115 774 7121989 34,858 32,211 5,80 5,335 1,236 1,130 805 741

1990 34,485 31,876 5,743 5,284 1,222 1,118 802 7381991 33,547 31,018 5,546 5,103 1,175 1,075 765 7061992 32,607 30,158 5,322 4,899 1,128 1,032 726 6681993 30,827 28,532 5,080 4,676 1,110 1,015 724 6671994 29,091 26,945 4,972 4,577 1,105 1,010 739 6801995 28,893 26,763 4,960 4,565 1,104 1,010 705 6491996 29,741 27,531 5,052 4,647 1,130 1.033 695 6401997 30,619 28,327 5,151 4,735 1,151 1,052 717 6601998 32,013 29,593 5,231 4,806 1,180 1,078 734 6751999 33,097 30,576 5,348 4,911 1,216 1,111 757 6962000 33,557 30.990 5,426 4,979 1,246 1,138 776 713

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTAFULL -TIME EQUIVALENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS, 1977-2000


Year High

Waseca Total

Low High Low

1977 819 781 50,644 49,7391978 851 779 51,164 49,3571979 854 781 51,356 48,8291980 855 783 52,283 48,5331981 850 778 52,585 48,3751982 829 760 52,105 47,9481983 801 734 51,208 47,1401984 764 701 49,826 45,8891985 726 666 47,874 44,1171986 697 640 45,940 42,359,987 677 622 44,261 40,8321988 676 621 43,241 39,9071989 694 638 43,394 40,0551990 684 629 42,936 39,6451991 636 585 41,669 38,4861992 601 553 40,384 37,3101993 606 557 38,347 35,4471994 619 569 36,526 33,7811995 613 564 36,275 33,5511996 622 572 37,240 34,4231997 637 585 38,275 35,3591998 646 594 39,804 36,7461999 661 607 41,079 37,9012000 673 618 11,678 38,438

8-5

39

AREA VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL INSTITUTESFALL HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS, 1977-2000


Year

Albert Lea

High Low

Alexandria

High Low High

Anoka

Low High

Austin

Low High

Bemidji

Low

1977 482 462 1,599 1,475 2,182 2,080 671 641 452 4321978 495 468 1,627 1,514 2,304 2,167 721 680 496 4691979 504 475 1,673 1,548 2,362 2,212 745 700 523 4931980 512 482 1,699 1,571 2,398 2,244 760 714 548 5171981 515 485 1,712 1,584 2,419 2,264 765 719 562 5301982 514 485 1,705 1,579 2,408 2,256 763 719 575 5431983 513 485 1,682 1,559 2,376 2,228 761 718 571 541

1984 504 477 1,615 1,500 2,318 2,177 747 706 572 5431985 495 469 1,579 1,468 2,258 2,125 732 693 568 540

1986 490- 466 1,548 1,442 2,240 2,111 724 687 560 5341987 483 460 1,541 1,437 2,233 2,106 713 678 564 5381988 492 469 1,559 1,455 2,253 2,125 726 691 570 545

1989 508 484 1,597 1,490 2,331 2,197 749 713 584 5581990 503 480 1,599 1,493 2,273 2,146 742 707 602 5751991 488 467 1,546 1,447 2,172 2,056 718 686 597 571

1992 478 458 1,495 1,399 2,098 1,989 704 673 588 5621993 477 457 1,501 1,405 2,095 1,987 703 672 585 560

1994 479 459 1,524 1,425 2,102 1,993 705 674 591 565

1995 481 460 1,481 1,385 2,161 2,046 707 676 569 545

1996 487 466 1,499 1,401 2,215 2,095 718 685 569 544

1997 486 465 1,513 1,412 2,236 2,112 717 684 567 542

1998 486 454 1,536 1,432 2,257 2,130 717 683 568 542

1999 486 463 1,562 1,454 2,277 2,147 718 683 570 543

2000 484 461 1,580 1,469 2,290 2,157 716 681 570 542



Year

Brainerd

High Low

Canby

High Low

Dakota County

High Low

Detroit Lakes

High Low High

Duluth

Low

1977 903 857 402 382 1,340 1,280 823 788 1.156 1,110

1978 992 929 408 381 1,388 1,306 905 856 1,219 1,156

1979 1,051 981 411 381 1,412 1,323 954 900 1,246 1,178

1980 1,088 1,015 417 386 1.424 1,333 986 931 1,261 1,192

1981 1,105 1,032 416 386 1,435 1.343 1,009 954 1,277 1,209

1982 1,124 1,051 403 374 1,420 1,331 1,023 969 1,281 1,214

1983 1,111 1,041 395 367 1.396 1,310 1,027 974 1,276 1,212

1984 1,097 1,030 384 357 1,358 1,277 1,012 963 1,251 1,191

1985 1,090 1,025 372 347 1,318 1,242 1,009 962 1,237 1,181

1986 1,080 1,018 365 341 1,307 1,233 1,007 962 1,227 1,174

1967 1,092 1,031 360 337 1,302 1,229 1,016 972 1,228 1,176

1988 1,108 1,047 360 337 1,314 1,241 1,036 991 1,254 1,262

1989 1,150 1,087 366 343 1,357 1,281 1,059 1,014 1,281 1,227

1990 1,163 1,100 360 338 1,305 1.235 76 1,031 1.273 1,222

1991 1,152 1,092 352 331 1,237 1,174 1,063 1,020 1,245 1,198

1992 1,117 1,060 347 326 1,187 1,128 1,041 1,000 1,216 1,170

1993 1,124 1,066 354 332 1,180 1,122 1,035 993 1,194 1,149

1994 1,144 1,084 348 327 1,176 1,118 1,039 997 1.201 1,154

1995 1,080 1,026 335 315 1,238 1,175 1,019 977 1,171 1,126

1996 1,076 1,022 339 318 1,281 1,213 1.023 980 1,168 1,122

1997 1,071 1,016 339 318 1,290 1,221 1,018 974 1,153 1,106

1998 1,074 1,017 343 321 1,297 1,226 1 017 972 1,140 1,092

1999 1,078 1,019 346 323 1.303 1,231 1,018 971 1,128 1,079

2000 1 079 1,019 348 325 1,306 1,232 1,013 965 1,111 1,061

B-6

40

AREA VOCATIONAL- TECHNICAL INSTITUTESFALL HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS, 1977-2000


Year

East Grand Forks

High Low

Eveleth

High Low

Farlbault

High Low

Granite Fails

High Low

Hibbing

High Low

1977 374 364 344 325 489 468 457 430 381 362

1978 394 381 ,08 342 530 502 486 450 403 377

1979 411 ' 396 374 346 550 519 496 458 410 382

1980 427 411 374 346 562 530 506 466 412 384

1981 428 413 375 347 568 536 504 464 415 387

1982 436 422 371 343 568 537 486 448 412 385

1983 437 422 362 336 568 538 475 423 405 379

1984 442 428 346 321 559 531 459 424 391 366

1985 442 429 334 311 550 524 442 409 381 358

1986 443 430 323 301 547 521 431 400 372 350

1987 446 434 318 297 541 517 424 394 369 348

1988 460 447 326 304 551 527 423 393 377 356

1989 474 462 333 311 469 543 429 399 386 364

1990 480 467 326 305 564 539 422 392 380 359

1991 483 471 312 292 548 526 411 383 366 347

1992 474 462 301 282 537 516 405 377 355 337

1993 472 460 295 277 537 516 414 385 349 331

1994 467 455 302 283 538 516 407 379 354 335

1995 448 437 293 275 540 518 391 364 34" 326

1996 444 434 295 276 548 525 396 369 346 327

1997 437 426 295 276 546 523 399 371 344 325

1998 432 421 297 277 545 521 405 376 344 324

1999 428 416 299 279 544 520 411 381 344 324

2000 422 410 299 279 542 517 416 385 342 322



Year

Hutchinson

High Lori High

.lackson

Low High

Mankato

Low

Minneapolis

High Low

Moorhead

High Low

1977 611 583 649 618 1,165 1,109 1,169 1,126 979 936

1978 650 e12 665 624 1,181 1, J5 1,167 1,108 1,013 956

1979 673 632 674 630 1,198 1,115 1,174 1,111 1,041 979

1980 694 651 678 633 1,201 1.117 1,183 1,119 1,057 993

1981 705 662 677 633 1,208 1,123 1,195 1,130 1,665 1,J01

19.32 705 664 664 621 1,196 1,114 1,189 1,126 1,065 1,001

198? 705 664 651 611 1,170 1,091 1,177 1,116 1,055 994

1984 697 658 639 631 1,137 1,062 1.155 1,098 1,016 959

1985 693 657 622 586 1,114 1,043 1,132 1,078 997 943

1986 690 655 616 581 1,086 1,018 1,130 1,078 981 929

1987 692 658 614 580 1.077 1,011 1,132 1,080 979 928

1983 702 668 614 580 1,073 1,008 1,144 1,092 999 948

1989 712 688 621 587 1,080 1,015 1,177 1,123 1,019 966

1990 .26 692 613 581 1,072 1,009 1,143 1,093 1,025 973

1991 722 689 597 567 1,045 985 1,097 1.052 997 947

1992 704 673 599 569 1,012 954 1,062 1,021 966 919

1993 712 680 603 572 1,027 968 1,057 1,016 963 916

1994 717 684 580 551 1,C25 666 1,053 1,012 972 923

1995 693 662 570 541 995 938 1,099 1,054 956 908

1996 693 662 576 546 999 941 1,130 1,082 970 921

1997 690 658 574 544 995 937 1,133 1,084 975 924

1998 .188 655 5/4 543 997 938 1,134 1,084 985 933

1999 688 653 574 541 1.001 940 1,135 1,083 997 943

2000 685 650 571 538 1,001 940 1,132 1,080 1,002 947

B-7

41



Year High

Pine City

Low

Pipestone

High Low

Ramsey- Washi "gton

High Low

Red Wing

High Low

Rochester

High Low

1977 282 270 523 498 1,865 1,762 464 448 1,104 1,046

1978 302 286 559 526 1,974 :,834 505 484 1,201 1,123

1979 315 297 574 538 2,015 1,863 525 502 1,242 1,156

980 328 309 583 546 2,027 1,872 538 515 1,264 1,176

1981 335 317 583 546 2,035 1,878 545 522 1,266 1,179

1982 344 325 571 536 1,998 1,845 547 524 1,256 1,170

1983 349 331 563 529 1,944 1,797 548 526 1,244 1,160

1984 349 331 551 519 1,867 1,728 542 521 1,207 1,129

1985 350 333 536 506 1,786 1,655 536 516 1,169 1,096

1986 353 336 531 502 1,757 1,630 534 515 1,146 1,076

1987 356 340 529 501 1,741 1,616 531 513 1,117 1,051

1988 364 347 531 503 1,753 1,628 541 523 1,137 1,069

1989 381 363 540 512 1,820 1,689 559 540 1,177 1,107

1990 390 372 532 505 1,722 1,600 555 537 1,155 1,088

1991 388 371 518 492 1,595 1,485 542 526 1,103 1,041

1992 386 369 518 493 1,504 1,403 517 1,072 1,014

1993 390 373 520 495 1,492 1,393 - 515 1,071 1,013

1994 398 380 503 478 1,485 1,386 5- 516 1,078 1,019

1995 388 371 496 472 1,597 1,488 534 518 1,086 1,026

1996 389 373 502 477 1,672 1,556 541 524 1,109 1,046

1997 394 377 503 476 1,696 1,577 539 522 1,113 1,049

1998 399 381 504 477 1,719 1,597 537 519 1,119 1,054

1999 405 386 505 477 1,742 1,617 535 517 1,127 1,060

2000 410 390 505 476 1,756 1,630 532 513 1,131 1,063



Year High

St. Cloud

Low High

St. Paul Staples

Low High Low

Suburban Hennepin

High Low

1977 1,748 1,665 1,946 1,867 586 561 3,216 3,028

1978 1.872 1.759 1,912 1,805 602 568 3,454 3 200

1979 1,950 1,826 1,908 1,792 620 582 3,550 3,540

1980 2,025 1,895 1,912 1,793 635 596 3,566 3.283

1981 2,062 1,931 1,922 1,803 644 604 3,578 3,294

1982 2.104 1,972 1,901 1,784 653 613 3,511 3,234

1083 2,118 1.9,-,e 1,866 1,754 648 610 3,411 3,144

1984 2,101 1,970 1,815 1,709 641 605 3,272 3,019

1985 2,093 1,973 1,760 1,661 636 602 3,124 2,887

198G 2,092 1,975 1,747 1,650 631 599 3,071 2,840

1987 2,106 1,991 1,742 1,647 638 606 3,041 2,814

1988 2,141 2,025 1,758 1,663 651 619 3,061 2,833

1999 2,240 2,119 1,815 1,716 674 641 3,179 2,941

1990 2,286 2,163 1,742 1,651 680 648 3,001 2,780

1991 2,263 2,145 1,648 1,566 673 6'43 2,771 1,573

1992 2,236 2,123 1,579 1,508 657 627 2,607 2,425

1993 2,265 2,150 1,568 1,494 657 627 2,586 2,406

1994 2,316 2,196 1,561 1.487 665 634 2,572 2,393

1995 2,238 2,126 1,652 1,569 641 612 2,776 2,578

1996 2,245 2,123 1,711 1,623 642 613 2,912 2,701

1997 2,275 2,158 1,724 1,634 638 608 2,956 2,740

1998 2,312 2,192 1,733 1,641 636 606 2,997 2,776

1999 2,352 2,227 1,743 1,648 636 604 3,040 2,813

2000 2,387 2,257 1,746 1,650 633 601 3,067 2,837

B-8

42



Year

Thief River Falls

High Low

Wadena

High Low

Willmar

High Low

Winona

High Low

System Total

High Low

1977 427 410 519 494 1,599 1,508 796 763 31,663 30,1481978 430 407 562 528 1,674 1,552 864 820 33,323 31,2751979 441 415 593 555 1,711 1,577 895 846 34,211 31,9721980 454 427 613 573 1,752 1,612 914 864 34,798 32,4961981 451 425 622 582 1,755 1,615 919 870 35,072 32,7681982 457 431 633 593 1,711 1,577 917 868 34,911 32,6541983 452 427 626 588 1,679 1,549 914 867 34,475 32,2941984 453 430 617 581 1,622 1,498 895 850 33,631 31,5651985 449 426 612 578 1,578 1,460 875 833 32,869 30,9161986 444 423 606 573 1,538 1,426 864 824 32,481 36,6001987 445 424 611 579 1,514 1,405 849 811 32,341 30,509198E 457 436 620 587 1,518 1,410 865 827 32,738 30,8961983 471 450 640 606 1,552 1,441 895 855 33,735 31,8321990 476 454 649 615 1,540 1,432 884 846 33,259 31,4281991 476 455 641 609 1,510 1,405 853 818 32,129 30,4301992 466 446 621 591 1,460 1,360 834 801 31,158 29,5471993 465 445 623 592 1,495 1,391 832 799 31,171 29,5571994 460 440 632 600 1,508 1,402 836 803 31,270 29,6341995 439 420 598 569 1,430 1,330 841 807 31,288 29,6401996 436 418 596 567 1,438 1,337 855 819 31,820 30,1161997 431 412 592 561 1,445 1,343 855 819 31,939 30,1951998 429 410 592 561 1,465 1,359 856 819 32,134 30,3431999 428 407 594 562 1,489 1,379 858 820 32,361 30,5102000 425 404 593 560 1,507 1,394 857 818 32,453 30,573

43B- 9

PRIVATE COLLEGIATE INSTITUTIONSFULL-TIME EQUIVALENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS

1977-2000(BASED ON CURRENT ATTENDANCE PATTERNS IN MINNESOTA COLLEGIATE INSTITUTIONS)

Year Hign Low1977 37,593 36,4881978 38,350 36,551

1979 38,71'-3 36,3861980 39,208 36,309

1981 39,328 36,2541982 38,893 35,8751983 38,122 35,1781984 36,906 34,083

1985 35,450 32,761

1986 34,143 31,580

1987 33,166 30,691

1988 32,768 30,340

1989 33,232 30,7671990 32,689 30,283

1991 31,437 29,133

1992 30,259 28,061

1993 29,301 27,178

1394 28,585 26,526

1995 28,764 26,682

1996 29,475 27,326

1997 29,998 27,788

1998 30,806 28,522

1999 31,595 29,228

2000 32,041 29,631

44B-10

APPENDIX C

INSTITUTIONAL AND SYSTEM RESPONSES

I. A SUMMARY OF YOUR MISSION STATEMENT

UNIVERSITY OFMINNESOTA

STATE UNIVERSITYSYSTEM

COMMUNITY COLLEGESYSTEM

AVTIs PRIVATE COLLEGESPRIVATE VOCATIONAL

SCHOOLS

The mission of the Un-iversity is to serve the peo-ple of the state, whereverthey may be, throughteaching, reslarch andpublic service. Beyond thisis the commitment to con-tribute as fully as resourcespermit to needs bothnational and international.

See "A Mission andPolicy Statement for theUniversity of Minnesota"adopted by the Board ofRegents, July 11, 1975.

45

Primary mission toprovide accessible,moderate cost educationalprograms: full range of bac-calaureate level programsin the liberal arts andsciences, teacher educa-tion, business andtechnology, fine arts andselected occupationalareas; selected graduateprograms to serve specificregions and to meet unmetneeds of advanced stu-dents.

In addition, each stateuniversity provides certainregional serviceseducational, cultural andcommunity services to theparticular region.

Comprehensive institu-tions with community-oriented approach; offer-ings include short courses,institutes, conferences,clinics, forums, concerts,exhibits, studies, basiccollege work, and continu-ing education, all related tocommunity needs.

Provide comprehensivecommuting opportunitiesand to offer two years ofwork applicable to the bac-calaureate degree,technical programs leadingto the associate degree,vocational certificate, con-tinuing education for adultsand community serviceprograms. Provide withincommuting area of eachcollege. approximatelyeqtr.li distribution betweenterminal occupationalprograms (including boththose id ding to a cer-tificate) and programswhich provide the first twoyears of study which maybe applied to meeting re-quirements for a bac-calaureate degree in a four-year institution.

Provide post-secondaryinstructional programs foroccupations not requiringbaccalaureate degree.Programs are geared tomeet the needs of currentand future manpower re-quirements of business andindustry within Minnesotaand the nation. Each of the33 Pals has its own mis-sion statement,

Virtually every private in-stitution has a statement ofits mission, Identity, roleand scope. These state-ments may be obtainedfrom the institutions or fromthe HECB.

Private post-secondaryinstitutions in Minnesota,which are members of theMinnesota Association ofPrivate Vocational Schools,are operated as proprietaryenterprises, with the excep-tion of one non-profitschool. In every case, theschools are established andhave institutional missionswhich reflect an interestand/or expertise of thefounders or foundingorganizations.

4e

11. INSTITUTIONAL ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS PREPARED BY YOUR STAFF. PLEASE OUTLINEPERTINENT ASSUMPTIONS OR PLANNING FACTORS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATIONWHICH WOULD BE HELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING YOUR PROJECTIONS.



COMMUNITY COLLEGESYSTEM AVTIs PRIVATE COLLEGES PRIVATE VOCATIONAL

SCHOOLS

___ I/TO

47

University is developingnew projection methods.

Current estimates aretentative set of pointforecasts for registrationheadcount for second weekof fall quarter. They arebased on current (summer1977) demographic infor-mation and enrollment andtransition rates. They con-tain little or no provision forgrowth In numbers of "non-traditional" students. Theyalso assume:

no new institutionsopened, noneclosed.same numbersenrolling from urbanand rural areas.constant abilityprofiles.constant ratios of tui-tion among institu-tions.financial aidsavailable in samepattern as before.

HECB and Universityprojections may vary forvariety of reasons someof which have to do with dif-fering assumptions andmethods of projecting. Un-iversity estimates take intoaccount collegiate enroll-ment patterns, some ofwhich are state controlled

System projections areused for budget allocationsand HECB projections forlong term considerations.

System finds that in-stitutional projections thattry to forecast develop-ments beyond a 2-3 yearperiod are of little value forlong-range policy develop-ment purposes. They haveproven to be notoriouslyunreliable. Aggregatestatewide projections havebeen reasonably accurateand clearly indicate theneed to examine the conse-quences of the generaldecline for the 1980s.

Comments on systemability to cope with fluc-tuating enrollments arepredicated on new HECBprojections. The projec-tions have been adjusted to"budgetary full-timeequivalent students" by thefollowing measures:

on-campus FTE foreach campus havebeen computed asthe mean of theHECB high and lowfigures.off-campus un-dergraduate FTEshave been added asa constant number.

Use HECB projectionsfor system as whole. Forbiennial budget purposes,also use projections ofHECB for individualcolleges.

For allocations tocolleges, achieved figuresof previous year are used.In spring precedingacademic year, systemmakes allocations tocolleges which use 95% ofdollars and 95% of posi-tions appropriated for thatyear. These allocationsbecome the "floor for eachinstitution, so an institutioncould handle a 5% drop Inenrollment. After 10th dayof fall quarter, supplemen-tary allocations using full-year equivalent projectionsare made. These alloca-tions are monitored duringwinter and spring quartersand a final adjustment ismade after the 10th day ofspring quarter.

Total allocations for thesystem don't use the entirelegislative authorizationunless the total enrollmentfor the system Is equal tothat used as a base in theappropriation. If totalenrollment for the systemexceeds the legislativebase, then colleges which

Includes headcount andaverage daily membershipthrough Fiscal Year 1979prepared by State Depart-ment of Education staff.Projections beyond FY1979 are not prepared inview of fact that HECB hasmade long-range projec-tions that we feel are a vastimprovement over previousprojections. With minor ex-ceptions, we are willing touse these.

HECB projections overnext decade show a studentincrease well beyond ourability to house students,and over the next twodecades a continued enroll-ment well beyond the singleshift capacity of ourinstitutions.

Considerable variety inprojections submitted.Some institutions seesignificant decreases In the1980s. Others, due to"smallness by design" orspecial purpose of mission,project steady enrollments.And some institutions pro-ject increases.

Reports show con-siderable variation in natureof projections. Someschools project up to 5, 10or 15 years. Others appearto do Ian in way of pro-jecting. Several institutionspresented extensive list ofassumptions includingnational, state and local andinstitutional assumptions.These include such factorsas inflation, tuition gap,federal and state aid,private gifts anticipated,number of students by age,role of continuing educa-tion, faculty salaries, stategovernance and coordina-tion, articulation, role ofwomen, tax reform. familyfactors, state population,tuition and fees, economy,state growth, relationship tocommunity, ne.ure of com-petition with public andprivate institutions andother assumptions.

One institution, for exam-

Enrollment projectionsare dictated by market de-,nand. This demand ismeasured not only In termsof student interest, butmore by the demand of em-ployers for personnel.

48

II. INSTITUTIONAL. ENROLLMENT PRP `SCTIONS PREPARED BY YOUR STAFF (CONTINUED)


,




SCHOOLS

and some of which fluctuatefor unpredictable reasons.HECB estimates are ap-plied to the total Twin Citiescampus while University es-timates attempt toaggregate a variety of In-dividual collegiateconstraints.

In sheer numbers, eitherestimates can be usedprovided the assumptionsare borne in mind. For uni-versity budgeting pur-poses, the variationsamong the collegiate enroll-ments are far more impor-tant than the aggregatedestimate.

The University is re-estimating enrollment withnew method which allowsconsideration of variablessuch as economic factorsand tuition policies. It willencourage range ratherthan point forecasts.

The University believesthat it will Illustrate that theerror probabilities are suchthat enrollment predictionsfor periods as long as 10-20years in the future are toouncertain to havereasonable policy uses.First forecasts with thismethod should be ready byend of fall quarter.

49

(not percent of on-campus) based onactual 1976-77 ex-perience.off-campus graduateFTEs have been ad-ded as a constantnurhber based onanticipated 1977-78levels.

System emphasizes thatlong-range institutionalprojections are subject tosubstantial errors. Keyvariables such as economicconditions are held cons-tant but experience showsvariables often undergomajor changes.

By November 15. 1977state universities will haveprepared long-range in-stitutional projections whichreflect fall quarter 1977enrollment data and itsprobable impact "n short-term enrollments and in-dicate the various assump-tions used, how they differfrom those used in theHECB projections and con-sequence of each differingassumption on the endresults.

exceed the previous year'senrollment are allowed tohire additional staff with ad-ditional receipts from stu-dents. When it becomes ob-vious to college officialsthat they are going to ex-ceed the 95% or 100%figures, they plan accor-dingly. They assume thatthey will get their fair shareof the 5% held back andthat receipts from ad-ditional students will takecare of staff needs abovethat.

pie, does 10 year projec-tions with a model whichtakes into account birthrate,participation rate and pat-terns in key market areas,impact of changing clien-tele, Job market, financialaid policies, and participa-tion of children of alumni.Emphasis is on birthrateand participation patterns.

Another institutionmakes three projections.Onu based on constantassumptions. A secondbased on a 5% decrease inattendance and assumingsuch adverse factors asgeneral populationdecrese, increased tuitioncost and competition fromother colleges. A third pro-jection used is based on a5% increase in attendancebased on testing of variousmarkets In admissionseffort.

50

HI. DESCRIPTION OF ANY PLANNING MECHANISMS, EITHER UNDERWAY OR PROPOSED, WHICH HAVEAS THEIR GOAL THE DEVELOPMENT OF POLICIES, PROCEDURES OR PLANS TO DEAL WITH FLUC-TUATING ENROLLMENTS AT THE INSTITUTIONAL AND INTERINSTITUTIONAL LEVEL.



COMMUNITY COLLEGESYSTEM AVT1s PRIVATE COLLEGES PRIVATE VOCATIONAL

SCHOOLS

University's PlanningCouncil (composed of ad-ministrators, facultyrepresenting key commit-tees of the UniversitySenate, and students) is in-volved In development ofseveral policy statementsaimed at dealing withproblem of fluctuatingenrollments:

A. _Management of enroll-ment decline policydeals with followingpossible changes:

use of limited non-tenure appoint-ments.Intensification of useof existing space.increased use of ren-tal space.implications of rankand tenure patterns.marginal costanalyses justify lessthan proportionalresources release asenrollment declines.faculty retraining andreassignment.increased non-traditional enroll-ments.increased internalreallocation ofresources.

51

Chancellor and staff incooperation with chief ad-ministrative officers of in-stitutions are developingpolicies and procedures toaccomplish following goalsfor FY 79. Most may relateto enrollment shifts fromprogram to program someof which relate to significantincreases or decreases inenrollments.

integrate program-matic goals and ob-jectives with budgetprocess.de"elop comprehen-sive plan for increas-ing value and use oflibraries despite ris-ing costs, decliningenrollments.improve teachingskills and assign-ment flexibility oftenured faculty.reallocate orreassign resourcesappropriately tomeet particularneeds of varioussystem clientele.

Procedure under II ismain tool.

Allocation documents in-clude number of approvalsand limitations. Oc-cupational programs,academic disciplines andactivity programs approvedfor colleges are listed.

Limits are Imposed onfull-time equivalence ofstaff that can be hired andas to number of full-timeunlimited staff than can behired. Number of full-timeunlimited staff allowed isconsiderably lower thanlegislative base. Fact thatrest of staff are on tem-porary appointmentsprovides flexibility in deal-ing with staff needs.

Contract with FacultyAssociation provides thatfull-time unlimited staff canbe placed on lay-off statuswith a year's notice.Procedures are in effectregarding supplementalallocation to collegetransfers, leaves and otheropportunities for facultygiven notice.

System developingprocedure for long-rangeplanning by institutions toprovide for five-year planswith annual updating.

Intend to continuallymonitor system in light ofchanging population pat-terns with major concernbeing that fluctuatingenrollment phenomenonmay only mean that fewerstudents are unable to at-tend the vocationalprogram of their choice.

Private colleges havevariety of planningmechanisms underway.Following are samples.

Establish office ofplanning, appointdirector and staff, ex-pand institutionalresearch programand management in-formation system.Publish annual_plan-ning document.Use college long-range planning com-mittee; begin con-tingency budgetplanning process toidentify strategiesand areas of expen-diture reduction thatmay be required byfluctuating enroll-ments.Conduct com-prehensive enroll-ment planning study;refine current projec-tions and analyzemarketing strategies.Prepare comprehen-sive statement ofpolicies regardingfinancial exigencyand guidelines to befollowed in achievingfinancial recovery.Include definition offinancial and enroll-

Market demand ismeasured or anticipatedseveral ways. The suc-cessful placement of recentgraduates is the mostnotable; projections of Jobmarket demands by sur-veys of industry and/or U.S.Department of Labor/ Min-nesota Department of Em-ployment Services arsanother. The recruitment ofstudents to privatevocational schools is ac-complished through paidadvertisements andthrough visits to schoolsand participation In highschool career days.

52

III. DESCRIPTION OF ANY PLANNING MECHANISMS, EITHER UNDERWAY OR PROPOSED (CONTINUED)




AVTIs PRIVATE COLLEGES PRIVATE VOCATIONALSCHOOLS

early retirement. better use of System working on un- ment exigency, ad-

- implications of man- educational iform format so they can be ministrative

datory retirement technologies to serve reviewed easily by staff and guidelines, dismissal

age to age 70. more students with Board members. procedures for

B. Effect of the stabilizing fewer resources. faculty, dismissal

of student numbers cooperate where procedures for

within Health Sciences feasible with other in- administrators.

program. stitutions or programsto enhance academic

Develop institutionalguidelines to foster

C. Development of programs available thoughtful and shortmore effective oc-cupatlonal counsel-

to students,monitor effects of

and long-rangeallocation of

ing and placement rank, tenure and resources. State ob-activities in academic promotion decisions jectives and assump-

units, as well as pro- as wolf as retirement tions of guidelines.

jections of man- policies and laws. Long-range planningpower needs; en- develop comprehensive committee to re-couragement of legislative tuition plan examine college's"cooperative" (infor state university reason for existingternship) educationalprogram with exter-nat agencies,

students. and long-range ob-jectives, possiblydevelop master plan.Long-range planninginvolving regents,

____faculty.-staff, stu-dents, ad-ministrators; setpriorities, goals,policies, andprocedures to dealwith issue.

Cfl

Third year of struc-tured planningprocess to includelong-term con-tingency plan. Objec-tive is to developplanned response tofluctuatingeanrnIlmantq_

54

III. DESCRIPTION OF ANY PLANNING MECHANISMS, EITHER UNDERWAY OR PROPOSED (CONTINUED)




AVTIs I PRIVATE COLLEGES PRIVATE VOCATIONALSCHOOLS

Use cyclical long-range planningprocess and plann-ing committee tocomplete initial five-year plan and updateeach year.Use corporatestrategy conceptdeveloped for privatesector organizationin designing andtesting strategic planfor both college andappropriate planningunits.Conduct space usestudy.

IV. A REVIEW OF PLANS OR ADJUSTMENTS IN (A) PROGRAMS, (B) STAFFING, (C) FUNDING REQUIRE-

MENTS, AND (D) FACILITIES, DUE TO FLUCTUATING ENROLLMENTS.





Various administrativeunits are developingpolicies or mechanisms fordealing with these matters.included are:

A. Development andpublication of spacemanagementprocedures Includingmechanisms for deter-mining priorities forcapital improvementrequests, main-tenance, remodelingand design projects.

B. Development ofrealistic long-rangeplan for developmentof physical facilitiesc'lsely coupled toprogram develop-ments, includingrealistic assessment ofspace needs, plans formore effective use.Possibility ofrenovating orremodeling existingfacilities. Such re-examination ofpriorities is reflected incurrent capital budgetrequest.

C. Planning for possibleextension of videotransmission facilitiesbetween various unitsof University.

57

toA.

B.

C.

Several efforts underwayaddress issues.

Programscomprehensive reviewof many existingprograms (programreview is ongoingprocess).Staffing 3 policieshave evolved.

positions required tomeet temporaryenrollment needs arefilled with faculty onfixed-term/non-probationary con-tracts with no expec-tation of employmentbeyond end ofacademic year.to extent possible,filling of positions isdelayed until fallquarter enrollmentdata is available.to extent possible, in-structional needs arestaffed with part -timeemployees, teachingassistants and con-tract employees.

Funding Require-ments 1977-79budget request struc-tured on incrementalcost model andproposed newprograms throughreallocations of

Review of programs, dis-ciplines, activities, staffingis made annually. Ifprogram, discipline or ac-tivity is to be dropped, thatfact is noted in Boarprovel one year befr 1-mination date. Tha' stime for students to --am-plete program and fornotice to affected faculty.

Funding requirementsare keyed to enrollments insome areas c ldget, andare lowered or raiseddepending on enrollments.Other areas are not relatedto enrollments.

Most facilities highlyused. Some enroll-ment at several out-state campuses havenot reached projec-tions made whenfacilities were plan-ned. Lease of spacearranged to otheragencies in somecases. Several oflarger campuses areextremely crowdedand need morespace.Studying possibilityrm combiningcclieges into singleadministrative unitsto save on staff andequipment. Most of

Legislature did not fundAVTIs at a level eonblingthem to provide newprograms. Anticipatedgrowth will be confined tolarger sasses and efficien-cies in delivery of servicessuch as Individualized in-struction and open entry-open exit enrollment.

As net result, we cannotaddress remainder of re-quests because they don'timpact the system or the in-stitutions sIgneicantly atthis time.

Private colleges list avariety of planned adjust-ments which relate to mis-sion of institution andwhether enrollments areprojected to rise, decline orremain stable. Followingare some examples:

A. Programs expandcurricular offerings tomeet anticipated in-creases in enrollment.

-- Develop liberalstudies program andstrengthen academicmajors:Increase coordina-tion of programs withthose of neighboringcolleges.Increase role of life-long learning inprograms.Clarify andstrengthenrelationship oftheological studies touniversity program.Design liberal artsprogram to attraf.3more prospectivestudents.Deve loo progran: oflife enrich.nent op.portunities fo.mature adults.

Private vocationalschools adapt to enrollmentchanges as would a generalbusiness to market fluctua-tions. Since tuition oitargesto students represent thetotal cost of educationprovided, including profit toowners, the incr.ase ordecrease in enrollments isautomatically proportionateto total operational cost.

Teacher personnel areemployed without tenurerather with the same em-ployee benefits andliabilities normally found inprivate enterprises; facultyis enlarged or laid off direc-tly in ratio to student enroll-ments. Most privatevocational schools operatewell within the maximumpotential capacity of theirphysical plants; a survey in1976 indicated members ofthe Association of PrivateVocational Schools have apotential for a 20-25 per-cent program expansionwithin existing facilities.

58

IV. A REVIEW OF PLANS OR ADJUSTMENTS (CONTINUED)





9co

59

D. Interim report on Un-iversity outreach;liaison with HECB oninter-institutionalissues.

E Planning and im-plementation of or-derly and reasonabledevelopment ofstatewide deliverysystem for Universityof Mid Americamaterials.

previously ap-propriated resources.

Future budgets willsimilarly addressenrollment/program needs.D. Facilities No new

facilities expected tobe required. Anyproposals for physicalplant additions will bejustified on basis ofspecialized programneeds which cannot beaddressed throughremodeling of existingfacilities.

small colleges aregreat distances apartand do not lendthemselves to this.

Continue service tometropolitan areathrough shortcourses.

Staffing Make ap-propriate plans interms of faculty ap-pointments and tenuredecisions to meetdecline.

Restructure tenureand appointmentpolicies.Implement hiringguidelines.Increase support forfaculty development.Establish endow-ment fund forresearch.Maintain currentaterage of ftwtenured faculty onannual or sabbaticalleave.Use present staffmore effectively.Combine some ad-ministrative officeswith teaching assign-ments in some fieldswithout causingharm to either one.Use teachers fromneighboring scht, ;for some courses.Meet minor staffneeds by part -timecontracting of ser- co

0Ici






SCHOOLS

vices with non-tenured personnel.Achieve faculty-student ratio of 14/1by 1980-81; makeadjustments bynatural attrition andretirement.Avoid increasing

.number of faculty ontenure.Use "transitionfunds" to faculty whodesire time or specialtraining to enter anew field.

C. Funding Require-ments

Reduce unrestrictedoperating expen-ditures to addressenrollment decline.Complete fund drive.Establish debt ser-vice reserve by 1984that will fully fundoutstanding debt.Establish endow-ment.Increase effort to ob-tain grants, gifts.Raise tuition.Increase room andboard charges.Increase incomefrom other sources.Attempt to continue

6itrend of increasing

r

i

0

63






D.

funds from alumniand friends.Possible launching ofmajor fund-raisingcampaign.Retrench to coun-teract decline.

Facilities-- Expand college

facilities to meet an-ticipated enrollmentincreases.Renovate plant andimprove grounds.Improve physicalplant energy ef-ficiency and reduceenergy demands.Maintain currentphysical plant ser-vices but limit .:ost.Design futurefacilities for multi-use, without insidewalls, to provide flex-ibility in planning.Make schedulingchanges so that full-day, evenings orSaturdays may beused more fully;remodeling forreassignment ofspace for energysavings.

-

/**4 A

, t

V. A SUMMARY OF BUDGETARY, PROGRAMMATIC OR STAFFING CHANGES TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN

FISCAL YEARS 1978 AND 1979 WHICH ARE INTENtED TO DEAL WITH FLUCTUATING ENROLLMENTS.





SCHOOLS

1977 Legislature reacted toenrollment pressures:

147 academic posi-tions were cut frombase complement forFY 1977. This reflec-ted legislature's viewthat student-facultyratio was richer thanintended by 1975 ap-propriations act.Net result is in-tended academicdollar base forteaching units inFY 79 which is$1.6 million and115 positions fewerthan 77 base.University allowed toretain and use all tui-tion associated withenrollments inexcess of 76-77 ac-tual experience.

Staff hiring decisions inresponse to enrollmentpressures are nowpostponed until fall termenrollment andcorresponding tuition es-timates are known. Before,hiring was done previousspring to respond to an-ticipated pressures andbased on enrollments andtuition estimates for the

Budget approved by1977 Legislature providedfull staffing and other sup-port for the enrollment in-creases realized during1975-77 biennium. Boardauthorized to meet needsfrom enrollment Increasesthrough use of additionaltuition revenues.

Budget adjustmentsresulting from enrollmentfluctuations were to bemade after fall quarterenrollment data wereavailable in late October.New faculty positions wereto be temporary (fixed-term/non-probationary) orpart-time so that no con-tinuing obligations will becreated beyond June 30,1978. A similar process willbe followed for the 1979Fiscal Year

System has long-standing internal policy ofadjusting staffing and otherenrollment related budgetcategories on the basis ofactual enrollment realized.

1977 Legislatureauthorized followingenrollment- relatedmeasures:

Southwest Stategranted firmminimum staffingplan and budget to

Procedure described inprevious questions is majortool in dealing with fluc-tuating enrollments.

Allocations to collegesfluctuate with enrollments.A 3% increase in full-timeequivalent enrollment is be-ing experienced in FY 78,so there have been fewcnanges.

15 occupationalprograms have beenadded and threehave been deleted.two sports activitieshave been addedand four have beendeleed at colleges.

In many cases the num-ber of sections has beenreduced but the disciplinehas not been eliminated.

Private colleges indicateno serious or majorchanges for fiscal years1978 and 1979.

Generally, colleges notethat enrollment fluctuationswill have little effect before1980. Colleges say that nexttwo years will be a timewhen additional adjustmentstrategies will be identifiedand refined.

66

V. A SUMMARY OF BUDGETARY, PROGRAMMATIC OR STAFFING CHANGES (CONTINUED)





accommodate anenrollment range of900-1500 FTE stu-dents.Metropolitan StateUniversity granted"firm" budget for astable enrollment of865 FTE students,with the un-derstanding thatcontingent fundmonies may be re-quested for up to 200additional studentsper year.

-,..-

Graduate off-campus in-struction was converted to aself-sustaining (tuition)financed program by in-creasing tuition from $12 to$23 per credit hour.

67 68

VI AN EVAU ATION OR IDENTIFICATION OF ANY CURRENT STATE POLICIES WHICH WILL REQUIREREVIEW UR MODIFICATION AS A RESULT OF FLUCTUATING ENROLLMENTS OR SUBSTANTIAL

DECLINES





SCHOOLS

A. Apprcnriations Based A. State Funding Basis A. Geographical Access A. Private College Con- Private vocational

on St, dent-Faculty Continued am- State must review tract Program will schools have been aware of

Ratio Believes the bivalence about its commitment. have added impor- problems facing public area

single, syztem-wide program B. Support for Small In- tance in 1980s as vocational-technical in-

ratio is less responsive :ludgeting/formula stitutlons is related source of insuring stitutes regarding flue-

to multiple changes ratio budgeting has net to geographical access and in- tuating enrollments, par-

than other alternatives. effect of obfuscating access but abo institutional stability. ticuiarly in specific course

Is developing more rather than clarifying volves policy in regard State funding per resi- areas where student over-

detailed proposal torelate instructional

issues. One of two ap-proaches possible: es-

to breadth of program,size of staff, and unit

dent will continue to benecessary even

applications oftennecessitate waits as much

volumes to costs of tablish credibility of costs. though total number as one year, or more. The

instruction. program activity basis C. Uses of Academic will decline. private vocational schools

B. Asst 1ptions About of budgeting; refine Credit as a Measuring B. Student Aid have extended an offer to

Program Equivalence formula and ratios DevIc. must be Programs State school boards and/or ad-

- If assumptions of tr.cit:onally useu to some uniformity bet- policies which provide ministrative heads of AVTis

equivalence result in reflect col e ween systems and in- aid to students to at- to serve overenrollment at

formal policies or ap- program service re- stitutions in terms of tend an institution of these public institutions. (It

propriations quirements and in- what a credit means. their choice should be should be noted that both

guidelines without due cremental needs D. Tuition Policy What continued in periods of federal and state law

consideration of mis- beyond those core should be an ap- declining enrollments provides authority for con-

sions and other fac- levels. propriate share for the even though publicly- treating by public institu-

tors, serious mistakes B. Staffing Flexibility student? What affect supporteu institutions Hens where appropriate

could be made in effort and Collective does tuition policy will have increasing quality educational offer-

to manage changing Bargaining To in- have on where stu- capacity to educate ings are available). Nothing

enrollments. Is need toimprr re ways in which

sure flexibility,management must E.

dents enroll?Fl...-Acial Aid Policies

students, who, throughaid programs, choose

has developed from the of-fers. Responses to offers

appropriations deal- retain certain substan- Should availability to attend private have been negative.

sio,is take into a:1count tive and procedural of financial aid be a institutions. While tne private post-

research mission. rights in personnel a0- tool in manipulating Student need will secondary vocational

C. Tuition and Financial ministration. They enrollment? rise. schools, by their very

Aid Policies These have been preserved F. Commit.nent to Non- Educational choice nature, are designed to and

policies can provide but nature of bargain- Credit Activities will be enhanced by do react to fluctuating

some of most powerful ing process suggests )uld state share in increasing the max- enrollments, it is a general

tools for expanding,limiting or

some erosion of flex-ibility is highly G.

-.ts?tt.sioltIons of Staff

imum awards underthe state scholarship

claim of the public institu-Hans *hat they are unable to

redistributing enroll-ment. Full explorationof issues needed.

orobable in long tarrn. should be uniformitybetween systems.Should a full-timefaculty member who

and grant programs.C. Higher Education

Facilities AuthorityEnergy conservationand CIffiriont "en of ay-

respond as quickly, par-Ocularly when the demandfor enrollments exceedteaching stations. A close

'1.167,7

69 70

VI. AN EVALUATION OR IDENTIFICATION OF ANY CURRENT STATE POLICIES (CONTINUED)





SCHOOLS

t

71

D. Role of Work Force C. State Tuition Polley teaches school be 1.0S pply and Demand Student's Share of or 1.3?

Is bound to be Costs is no H Reciprocity In apressure to pay more generally accepted tui- period of decliningattention to supply and tion policy based on enrollment should wedemand In making full range of fa 'tors drive up unit costs indecisions on public which ought to be Minnesota institutionssubsidy. All systems reflected in such a because we are losingwill have to be more policy. Continuation of large numbers of stu-sensitive to these HECB 1969 policy will dents to other statespressures and provide accelerate difficulties through reciprocity?better information on of systems with most I Executive Branch In-programs that should significant initial tervention Is it fairor should not be ad- enrollment decreases. to impose arbitraryjusted according to D. Non-Instructional cuts upon segments cfemployment markets. Role of Post- college operation? We

E. Reciprocity Agree- Secondary Education believe that systemsments No Issue in absence of and institutions shouldmodification is called clear state policy as to be allowed to managefor now, but any real- what importance and their budgets withinfirmation of policies resources should be the appropriationsshould consider their attached to non- made to them.implications on Min- instructional role of in- Flexibility of Staffnesota enrollments stitutions. As enroll- Labor contracts mayand recognize that ments decline failure need modification soothe educational to re...ognize corn- that there is not unduereasons warrant con- munity service role of pressure to hire full-iinuation of the agree- portions funded time staff.ments. primarily to instruct K Coordination is the

F. Geographic Access students leads to an activity worth the ef--Whether community inevitable decrease in fort, or would we nowservices are sufficient such services. oe better served if weto justify keeping in- E. State Financial Aid put the emphasis uponstitutions open will Policies Needs to prudent operation ofhave to be determined be recognized that the separate systems?with aid of thoughtful modification of pre- Can we afford the

sent aid policies could large number of peo-be a tool in addressing pie in state govern-problem of fluctuating ment who are not in-enrollments.

fisting buildings willdictate continuation ofbonding.

D. Program ReviewCurrent policy ofacademic programreview must bemonitcred to ensureinstitutions are allowedto develop newprograms.

study of the relativecapabilities of public andprivate vocational institu-tions should be undertakento provide a common ser-vice capability to fluctuatingenrollments.A second considerationshould be given to thequestion of "appropriatecurricuil" offered by allvocational institutions,public and private. Sinceboth public and privatevocational schools servicethe same economic marketplace, which absorbgraduate personnel, de-mand should be analyzedagainst the combinedcapacities of the twosystems with a goal towardsconsidering the appropriaterecognition of the ability ofprivate education to deliverservices.






SCHOOLS

analyses encompass- F Geographic Ac-ing wide variety of con- cess/Programsiderations. Scope/Unit Costs

G. Staff MobilityGiven Consequences ofdifferent sets of per- 1960s policy will re-sonnel policies in quire review. Givenpublic systems, need political realitiesto match supply and associated with at-demand and the "peo- tempts to close or con -

pie factor," solidate institutions, itease of transfer among would appear that asystems will not be ac- realistic approachcomplished through might be to addresslegislation. issue in terms of scope

H. Tenure, Seniority and of programs (and, con-Retirement Tenure sequently, unit costs)and seniority will limit appropriate for institu-each system's ability to tions of various sizes.make quick program G. Other issues (1)

adjustments and will development of cost-affect each system's effective early retire-ability to bring in new ment plan for seniorfaculty members. Will faculty in declining dis-need careful analyses ciplines; (2) develop-of retirement ment of statewideschedules for systems, policy on availability.updated to take into funding and cost toaccount any federal students of extensionlegislation on man- and continuing educa-datory retirement. tion programs; (3)

I. Policies and review of projected im-Procedures on Non- pact of reciprocityTraditional Students agreements on ef-and Programs ficient use of existingThere is not clear un- resources duringderstanding of state enrollment declinepolicy ,)ri non-regular anticipated.Instruction. Teachingpersonnel and

73

volved in the actualprovision of service?






J.

K.

facilities may becomemore available forthese programs whenenrollments decline,but extent to which theprograms should beintegrated with regularInstruction and condi-tions under which sup-port might be providedremain to be settled.Governance Struc-ture Legislativeassumption inreorganizationproposals was thatsystem and HECB asnow constituted couldnot be expected todeal effectively withthese problems. Itseems fair to suggestthat this effort to studythe enrollment fluctua-tions issues will beviewed as a test of thatassumption.Relationship of Sizeto Effective andEconomical Perfor-mance Most com-mon sense analysescome up with con-flicting conclusionsabout e:ze and quality.

75 76

a

1 --

Vi. AN EVALUATION OR IDENTIFICATION OF ANY CURRENT STATE POLICIES (CONTINUED)



COMMZMITY COLLEGESYSTEMIAVTIs PRIVATE COLLEGES

PRIVATE VOCATIONALSCHOOLS

Fiscal realities will forceJudgments abouteliminating or relocatingprograms when costs of in-struction get too far out ofline with costs of similar orcomparable programselsewhere. No dataprocessing system willproduce automatic answer.But Improved comparativedata can inform the politicaland educational judgmentsthat will have to be made.L. University as Service

Resource to Com-munity and StateService activities arenot functions of enroll-ment. While it may beunavoidable, reduc-tions in staffing thatare based on enroll-ments alone willproduce reductions inservice activities,unless special con-sideration is given inappropriationsprocess.

'7 "I

,..

VII. A SUMMARY OF YOUR VIEWS REGARDING THE MAJOR CHALLENGES CONFRONTING YOUR INSTITU-TION ON POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION AS A RESULT OF FLUCTUATING ENROLLMENTS.



COMMUNITY COLLEGESYSTEM AVTIs PRIVATE COLLEGES


Development of defensiverationale and methods forlegislative funding other thanappropriations based on astudent/faculty ratio.

University is working ondevelopment of fundingmechanism proposal torelate numbers of studentsto costs of instruction ratherthan numbers of students tofaculty positions.

Mechanism would heaveat least 3 dimensionsieaching unit, level of in-struction and object ofexpenditure.

, 79

Insure that we enterperiod of fluctuating enroll-ments with policies andprocesses designed to domore than merely cope withimmediate consequences01 fluctuations; suchpolicies and processesmust provide the Internalflexibility to address theprogrammatic develop.ments required at the sametime as we accommodatethe fiscal consequences offluctuating enrollments.

System has initiated in-ternal process which seeksto insure that fiscal/staffingpolicies for future yearsevolve through carefuldefinition of the thjectivesof the programs and ac-tivities of the state univer-sities and explicit identifica-tion of the staffing andresources required torealize each objective.

1. Convince state policymakers that the deci-sions made in the mid-dle 60's which placed in-stitutions in sparselysettled areas of the statewere good decisions,and that qualityprograms of limitedbreadth can be providedin those locations atreasonable unit costs.

2. To convince state policymakers that our largeand growing institutionshave faculty, eouipmentand staff neeJs thathave not yet been met.

Human Problema. Staff anxieties about

security in context ofpersonnel policieswith regard topromotion, tenure,etc.

b. Keep faculty moralehigh while facingneed to hold num-bers at present levelsor reduce them.

c. Avoid retrenchmentattitude; think andplan creatively.

Effective Planninga. Plan thoroughly.

Identify contingen-cies that makemanagement ofdecline possible andtolerable.

b. Maintain planning ason-going part ofprogram rather thancrisis tactic.

c. Have consciousnessof Institution's iden-tity which has grownout of mission andgoals. Needed forsense of directionard accountability.

d. Clearly articulate andfocus goals in orderto maintain soundprograms and fiscalresponsibility.

Financiala. Inflation and in-

4

VII. A SUMMARY OF YOUR VIEWS REGARDING THE MAJOR CHALLENGES (CONTINUED)



COMMUNITY COLLEGESYSTEM AVTIs PRIVATE COLLEGES


4.

creased costs ofeducation.

b. Increasing depen-dency of students onaid to meet risingcosts.

c. Escalation of energycosts and their dis-proportionately in-creasing claim onbudget.

d. Develop endowmentfund, cultivateregular giving.

e. Manage financeswell.

f. Develop efficientmeans forreallocating institu-tion's resources In-ternally so it canadapt as readily aspossible.

g. State and federal taxpolicies.

h. Public-private tuitiondifferential.

I. Use current spacewithout succumbingto urge to build.

Programs-Qualitya. Explore ways to

adapt or changeprogram to servestudent clientelewhatever numbersmay be.

b. Don't undo .-ninequality of institution'smission.

81 82

0

VII. A SUMMARY OF YOUR VIEWS REGARDING THE MAJOR CHALLENGES (CONTINUED)



83

COMMUNITY COLLEGESYSTEM AVTIs PRIVATE COLLEGES PRIVATE VOCATIONAL

SCHOOLS

c. a4ove to teacher/stu-dent ratio of 14/1 byearly 1980s.

d. Emphasize continu-ing educationprogram both duringschool years andsummer month^ tomake maximum useof facilities.

5. Admissions-Recruiting

a. Recruit well incarefully chosentarget population.

b. Keep admissionsprogram vigorousand aggressive.

c. Continually studygeographic distribu-tion to see if changesare called for.

d. Maintain churchrelationship in face ofneed to broadencollegeconstituencies.

I4P. sw ,

The annual meeting of postsecondary education governingboard members was held December7, 197: at the St. Paul Arts andScienct. Center. The theme for themeeting was fluctuating enrollments.Participants included members ofthe Higher Education CoordinatingBoard, members of governingboards, state decisionmakers andother people involved in public af-fairs.

The keynote address wasdelivered by Dr. John D.senior vice president, Academy forEducational Development, andChancellor Emeritus of the 0:iioBoard of Regents. He spoke on"State-Level Issues and PlanningProblems Resulting from EnrollmentFluctuations."

PPrticipating in a two-part panel

APPENDIX D

PROCEEDINGS OF ANNUAL

GOVERNING BOARDS MEETING

discussion were representatives ofpost-secondary governing boardsand state decisionmakers. Thegoverning board representativesresponded to the question of "Whichof the Policy Issues Affected by Fluc-tuating Enrollments Most CriticallyAffects Your System or Institution?"The panel members includedDouglas Bruce, Community CollegeSystem, Kennon Rothchild, presi-dent, State University Board; CliffordLarson, Private Vocational Schools;Mary Schertler, University of Min-nesota Board of Regents, Henry G.Tweten, president, State Board forVocational Education and JamesKrause, Private Colleges.

State dec:sionmakers commentedon "Major Emerging ProblemsCaused by Fluctuating EnrollmentsWhich Require Study and Action."

81

Panel members included GeraldChristenson, state commissioner offinance, Senator Nicholas Coleman,Senate Majority Leader; SenatorRobert Dunn, Assistant SenateMinority Leader; Senator RogerMoe, Senate Finance CommitteeChairman; Senator Jerome Hughes,Senate Education Committee Chair-man; Representative Ray Fancy,House Appropriations CommitteeEducation Division Chairman;Representative Peter X. Fugina,House Higher Education CommitteeChairman and Representative Rod-ney Searle, Assistant House MinorityLeader. Governor Perpich's ex-ecutive assistant, Te ryMontgomery, spoke on behalf of .hegovernor who was unable to attenddue to an emergency.

STATE LEVEL POLICY ISSUES AND PLANNING PROBLEMS

RESULTING FROM FLUCTUATING ENROLLMENTS

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

by

John D. Mil lett, Senior Vice President

Academy for Educational Development,

Chancellor Emeritus, Ohio Board of Regents

Mr. Erickson, Dr. Ingle, Distinguished ConferenceParticipants:

In opening this very important annual meeting inthe history of the !viinnesota Higher Eaucation Coor-dinating Board, the problem confronting me is oneof selecting the particular policy issues and the par-tied- r planning problems to be addressed in anopen, g statement. I have had an opportunity tostudy the preliminary draft of the documentprepared by the Coordinating Board for considera-tion at t is time. It seems to me that this documenthad admirably identified the policy issues and plann-ing problems confronting higher education in Min-r,isota, and indeed the issues and problems con-frrnting all state governments, as we prepare tomeet the changing enrollment circumstances of the1980s.

Let me remind you that the locus of the planning

D-286

authority and responsibility fo "ight-r education inthe United States rists with or .state governments.and with the governing boards of institutions tand in-stitution : systems. We cannot and we should notlook to the federal government to undertake owplanning chores on our behalf. Two propositionsseem clearly evident to me at this time. First, forvarious reasons, higher education is currently a lowpriority item on the agenda of national concerns oc-cupying the attention of the Presidency, thebureaucracy, and the federal Congress inWashington. Secondly, the thrust of federal initiativeand programming in higher education has alreadybeen determined and is unlikely to t., dergo changein the next few years. That thrust emphasizes sup-port of research projects to be undertaken by ourleading research universities, and the support of stu-dent access to higher education institutions bymeans of student firancial aid. There will be some

additional modest programs in the arts, thehumanities, and institutional development. Andthere wili be considerable attention to federal regula-tion rather than financial support of our public andprivate institutions to achieve social objectives con-cerned with access by women, minorities, and thettandicapped, and to achieve social objectives con-cerned with occupational safety, retirement prac-tices, and environmental protection.

If we are going to plan to meet the changing cir-cumstances of higher education in the United Statestoday, that planning will have to be done by institu-tions and by state governments. I think this expecta-tion is entirely proper. From thl time of the foundingof our Republic, higher education has been allocatedin our federal system to state government authority.It is our states that have chartered private institutionsand established public Institutions to meet the highereducation needs of our society and of our nation.Moreover, these needs have been notably well ser-ved, a circumstance we are apt to overlook as weface the difficulties of the present and of the future. Ihave not lost confidence in the competence or theability of institutions and of states to continue to bemasters of their destiny in the field of higher educa-tion.

Before I embark upon a discussion of the threemajor policy issues I have chosen for emphasis here,there are two preliminary observations I wish tomake. The problems you confront in Minnesota arethe same problems every institution of higher educa-tion and every state government confront today. Of-tentimes we in higher education are apt to believethat our particular circumstances are unique, thatcur troubles are especially burdensome. The fact isof course that while individual situations do vary, thescope of our general problems are nation-wide; in-deed from my participation in a current internationalstudy I can say that our general problems are world-wide. if misery is in fact made bearable by company,our current misery should almost be enjoyable.

The other preliminary observation I would makeinvolves my admiration for the way in which the Min-nesota Higher Education Coordinating Board is ap-proaching the problem of state government plani.ingfor higher education. It is indispensable in my judg-ment that there should be a state board of highereducation to exercise state leadership in highereducation planning. There are several state govern-ments currently which are attempting to exercise thisleadership through the executive office of the Gover-nor, or even through legislative committees andstaffs. To be sure, Governors and General Assem-blios must eventually make the planning decisionsabout what staia governments will undertake toprovide and to support as higher education servicesto their states. I think this decision-making processwill be better served by a state board of higher

education and a professional staff interested in andexperienced in higher education than by otherarrangements.

In addition, I am pleased to observe the approachto planning undertaken by the Higher EducationCoordinating Board. This approach represents, I

believe, the proper procedure. The Board hasprovided some planning parameters insofar asenrollment of the traditional college-age group isconcerned. The Board has identified majorproblems and major policy issues; it has establisheda planning agenda. The Board has outlined a plann-ing process, a plat. to plan if you please, whichplaces the first task of planning upon individual in-stitutions and system governing boards. The Coor-dinating Board proposes to exercise a review role,not an initiating role.

The Coordinating Board concept of planning canwork only if institutions and systems respond on aneffective and timely basis to the planning initiativethus expected of them. I notice in some states todaya sense of disillusionment on the part of chief ex-ecutives and of legislators with state boards, withsystem governing boards, and with institutions interms of their response to changing circumstances.Chief executives and legislators assert that institu-tions seem to expect to continue their programs asin the past, but always at greater cost. They observethat institutions ignore or short-circuit state boards,and that chief executives and legislators are thenplaced in the position of having to arbitrate conflictor disagreement between institutions and stateboards. What use is a state board under these cir-cumstances?

I think all of us in state government ought torecognize that if the. e isn't conflict between a stateboard of higher education and institutions of highereducation, then obviously the state board is not do-ing i's job. And if institutions short-circuit the stateboard, then chief executives and legislators mustbare part of the fault since they can stop the practiceif they wish to do so.

Now please do not misunderstand me. In makingthis last comment I am not talking about Minnesota,but about other states. And I am not suggesting thatstate boards must aiwave: be right and institutionsmust always be wrong. I do not believe that stateboards are infallible. I do believe that state boardsmust necessarily have a perspective different fromthat of institutions and system governing boards,and I believe this different perspective should be in-valuable to chief executives and to legislators in ex-ercising their authority and responsibility fordecisionmakirg about the policies and programs ofhigher education.

Now let me turn to the three particular policyissues I wish to discuss with you The Higher Educa-tion Coordinating Board has identified a major

D-3 87

problem for higher education institutions in Min-nesota: the decline in the number of high schoolgraduates from 1977 to some future year between1985 to 1994 in 1', of 13 planning areas of the state.This decline will vary from 18 percent in one plann-ing area to around 33 percent in six planning areasto over 40 percent in three planning areas. But in twoplanning areas there will be an increase in highschool graduates between now and the beginning ofthe next century: in one instance an increase of 21percent and in the other instance an increase of 50percent. These changing numbers of high schoolgraduates constitute the basic data for anticipatingthe enrollment fluctuations that lie ahead for highereducation institutions in Minnesota.

Along with this fundamental problem of thechanging number of young people of the traditionalcollege age group, the Higher Education Coor-dinating Board has identified ten major areas ofstate government policy that will he affected byenrollment fluctuations. In effect, these ten policyissues embrace the major decisions about stategovernment actions taken in the 1960s when ourconcern was to ensure access to higher educationinstitutions and to varied higher education programson the part of every individual who might seek thebenefits of higher education. Let me add that stategovernments in general, and Minnesota in par-ticular, responded with vision and effectiveness tothe needs of the 1960s and early 1970s. Now we livein a new era and must respond to new expectations.

I wish to present my own comments about thesepolicy issues under three general headings: issuesof program, issues of relationship between thepublic and private sectors of higher education, andissues of financing. I believe that ir, connection withthese three general subjects I shall encompass mostof t!le issues identified by the Higher EducationCoordinating Board as constituting the planningagenda of Minnesota state government.

The Coordinating Board has placed Lppropriateemphasis upon the review of mission by each institu-tion and by each system-wide governing board. I

wuuld go a step farther and emphasize the impo7-tance of program review by each institution and byeach governing board. Mission is a set of goals aninstitution desires to fulfill. Programs are the set ofwork objectives ar i work :clads to be performed byan institution. A mission becomes specific only interms of programs, a mission may chang_ primarilybecause of program ':hanges. And a n...sion is sim-ply a generalized aspiration until it is translated intofeasible programs. Moreover, programs are theunits of activity that must be financed, that must hereinput resources of personnel and services if desiredoutputs are to be accomplished.

The National Center fur Educational Statistics hasprovided us with a taxonomy of instructional

programs, the National Center for Higher EducationManagement Systems has provided us with aprogram classification structure, and the NationalAssociation of College and University Business Of-ficers has provided us with a chart of accounts forrecording and reporting the income and expense ofprogram performance.

The broad categories of program structure 1r-elude instruction, research, public service, studentfinancial assistance, and support services Publ cservice necessarily separates out two specializedcategories for financial accounting and reporting:the operations of a teaching hospital of a medical orhealth science center and the independent opera-tions of some specially funded agency such as astate mental health facility. And the researchcategory breaks out the independent operation of aspecialized and specially funded research facility.The support services should and do break out aux-iliary enterprises because of their special identity asprograms self-supporting on the basis of charges tothe clientele served.

I wish to comment primarily about instructionalprograms. I am well aware of the faculty interest inundertaking research, and I knew that faculty mem-bers generally are dissatisfied with the current levelsof specialized funding of research projects. But Imust express my opinion that faculty workloadbudgeted for research will depend in the future uponfederal government project grants, plus specificstate government appropriations for research. Thepublic service workload of faculty members in thefuture will depend upon the income generated bythese activities. I have a grave doubt that we shall beable to finance faculty research and faculty publicservice in the generalized fashion so common in thepast.

The instructional programs of 1igher educationare divided into specialized fields of study and par-ticular levels of study. At the two-year or associatedegree level, there are instructional programs intechnical education and in general or collegetransfer education. At the four-year or baccalaureatelevel there are instructional programs in the arts andsciences and in professional fields such as businessmanagement, teacher education, nursing, engineer-ing, agriculture, music, and art. At the master'sdegree level there are instructional programs in thearts and sciences and in professional fields. At thegraduate, professional or first professional degreelevel here are instructional progre is in medici le,dentistry, law, optometry, veterinary medicine, phar-macy, osteopathic medicine, and theology. At thedoctor's degree level there are instructionalprograms in the arts and sciences and it.professional fields.

D-4 88

At the same time when a particular institution isexperiencing enrollment declines in the arts andsciences and in teacher ee.ication, that institutionmay be experiencing enrollment increases in the ad-ministrative sciences, the health sciences, theengineering sciences, and the computer or informa-tion sciences. It is not enough for an institution to bealert to general enrollment decline, it is far more im-portant for an institution to be alert to enrollmentfluctuations in particular fields of study and at par-ticular levels of study.

I knuw situations where a college or university hassaid that it was experiencing growth in severalprograms and that it had to have more income in or-der to meet these enrollment demands. "et at thesame ti ne this college or university was experienc-ing enrollment declines in other programs. Stateboards of higher education, the staff of a chief ex-ecutive, and the staff of the legislature would thenrightly ask why all or part of the need for more in-come shouldn't be met by a reallocation of resourcesinternally. The customary answer was that condi-tions of faculty tenure or the provisions of a facultycollective bargaining agreement prevented suchflexibility. I suspect increasingly this kind of ananswer will be regarded as inadequate.

There -re certain other comments that must bemade about instructional programs. Should instruc-tional programs be tailored in enrollment to es-timated manpower needs for educated talent in thelabor market? My answer is generally no. Collegesand unh!ersities have an obligation fully to informstudents about prospective employment in everyfield of study, including employment in the arts andscien ;es, and to inform students about the likelihoodof admission to a law school, to a school of medicineor to any other professional field of study. Studentsshould know what the job market in everyspecialized field is likely to be, and E could be warnedabout the magnitude of the competitioli for availableprofessional employment. But it is better, I believe,for studeras to prepare themselves for competitionthan for colleges and universities to limit enrollment.There are exceptions to this position. of course; butin genera! I prefer to see fluctJations in programenrollment occur as the result of student choicerather than as a result of state government or in-stitutional planning. I lack the confidence in ourcapacity to foresee futu; e employment to want tohave manpower forecasts serve as enrollmentlimitations.

I cannot refrain from a few comments aboutgeneral education. On every possible occasion fornearly 30 years I have broken a lance on behalf ofgeneral education as an instructional program, andalong with some others I cannot perceive any impactof any kind resulting from this tilting with windmills. I

089

would like to see a shift of our resources for instruc-tion in the arts and sciences from specialized educa-tion to general education. I would like to see a rebirthof the idea that education in the arts and sciencesseeks to produce an educated person rather than anentrant to graduate study. To be sure, we shall con-tinue to need entrants to graduate study, butprobably we shall have employment for only aboutone-half of all the prospective number of Ph.D.recipients in each year of the 1980s.

I have listened ail of the thirty-two years since myown return to academic pursuits at the end of WorldWar II to faculty members who have talked gliblyabout education for a humane life rather than educa-tion to make a living. I have heard the talk, and afterthirty-two years I am still waiting for the action. Thegreatest instructional program opportunity for everycollege and university in the land is general educa-tion, and I can't find a faculty of arts and sciencesanyplace in the land taking this program opportunityseriously. Perhaps you can provide me with informa-tion about exceptions to this generalization.

There is one other instructional program factorwhich needs special mention. All of us talk a greatdeal these days about the non-traditional student,and indeed I believe there is a non-traditional stu-dent market for our colleges and universities toserve. But very few persons have explored theenrollment dimensions of this market, or the instruc-tional program objectives to be sought in saving thismarket. I happen to believe that in every sizeable ur-ban area there are older employed persons whowant or need further higher education in order tomaintain or advance their employability. We will findthis market only when we devise instructionalprograms useful and advantageous to the older em-ployed person. It seems to me that our programplanning at the college or university level has thus fartended to be deficient in exploring the instructionalneeds of older employed persons in the various ,labor mat..ets where our institutions are located. Ob-viously the institutions that ought to be doing thiskind of planning are those located !n sizeable labormarket areas.

There is much more that can be said and shouldbe said about instructional program planning. I hopeI have said enough to suggest that no aspect ofeducational planning is more important or morecritical in the years ahead than instructional programplanning. We ..ad better make sure that we give in-structional program planning the attention and theemphasis it deserves.

My secor.d genera! policy issue for discussionhere is that of the relationship of sate government toprivate or independent higher educational institu-tions. Here in Minnesota you have a student financialaid program advantageous to private higher educe-

Lion, and you have the private collegb contractprogram that offers financial assistance to private 1-

stitutions. In a time when all financial commitmentsof state government to higher education are underreview, it is inevitable that these particular programsshould come under careful scrutiny. When there areinsufficient state government resources to meet allthe financial needs as perceived by pubic institu-tions, these particular forms of slate assistance tostudents and institutions in tha private sector cannotbe expected to escape appropriate re-examination.

Beyond this circumstance, there is scarcely anyaspect of planning by public colleges and univer-sities and scarcely any decisions of state govern-ment in the foreseeable future which will not havesome Impact upon the survival power of privatecolleges. Decisions about tuition policy, about thesize and location of public istitutions, about the in-structional program offerings of public institutions,and about inte:state tuition reciprocityall of thesedecisions must necessarily have their influence uponthe enrollment and financial well-being privatehigher education.

Many years ago, in 1949, when in undertaking astudy for the Association of American Universities Ifirst became aware of conflict between the publicand private sectors of higher education, there weresome persons who had a formula to offer. It wassuggested to me and to others that state govern-ments should provide all the necessary financialsupport to state colleges and universities, and thatthese institutions should then refrain from anysolicitation of private philanthropy. In turn, privateinstitutions would refrain from any appeal for stalegovernment financial assistance. At that time, I andmy colleagues_ from the AAU, all but one of whomserved private colleges and universities, rejectedthat formula. I myself as a state university presidentand as a state government chancellor never had anyoccasion to regret, or to change, that decision. Onthe one hand, public institutions of higher educationin the past 30 years have increasingly benefited fromprivate philanthropy, and private institutions ofhigher education have increasingly benefiteo fromstate government financial assistance. I for onewould not have it otherwise.

I have listened over the years to score unfortunateclaims and counter claims on behalf of both ni,alicand private higher education. Both kinds of mstliu-tons serve a public purpose, both kinds of institu-tions have benefited numerous individuals, bothhave assisted private business enterprise as w asmany other sectors of society, and both have auvan-ced the quality of instruction and research anopublic service in our nation.

The essential differences between the public andthe or:vate sectors of higher educt..cion are dif-ferences of governance and differences in the finan-

cing of i lstructional programs. The public sector ofhigher r.ducation is governed Increasingly by boardswith authority and responsibility for systems ratherthan for individual campuses, and these governingboards are appointed by public agencies or electedby the people. The private sector of higher educationis governed by boards of trustees that are often self-perpetuating or are selected by private groups. Theinstructional programs of public colleges and un-iversities are financed essentially from two sourcesof income: state government appropriations and stu-dent tuition. The instructional programs of privatecolleges and universities are financed essentiallyfrom two sources of income: student tuition anaphilanthropy. It is sometimes said that private highereducation is more expensive than public highereducation because of smaller size and lowerstudent-faculty ratios. But on a program by programbasis of comparison, one can find high cost instruc-tional programs per student in public institutions andlow cost instructional programs per student inprivate institutions.

The primipal causes of conflict between thecublic and private sectors of higher education overthe past decade or more have been the tuition dif-ferential between the two sectors and the expansionof public higher education into major urban areas.Charges to students and geographical location havebeen the two major issues, and now that we seeahead a period of enrollment fluctuation theseissues can become even more troublesome thanthey have been in the past ten years.

I am a strong b' liever in private higher educatilon,and in state government planning and decisionsconcerned to preserve a viable private sector. Nine-teen years as a state university president and as astate government official have reinforced my belief.It may be said that as a state government official inthe 1960s I gave too little concern to the welfare ofprivate higher education, but my preoccupation wasone of making certain that public higher educationdid accommodate every student who presented him-self or herself for enrollment. And that objective wasaccomplished.

I am a strong believer ;n private higher educationbecause I am a strong believer in public highereducation. In a pluralistic society and in a liberaldemocracy there must be, I think, an alternative top.olic higher education. And it is this alternative thathelps substantially to maintain the integrity and thequality of public higher education. Without privatehigher education in this country I fear that publichigher education might well deteriorate in perfor-mance, and all of cur society will be the worse if thatunfortunate event should occur.

I knc v no simple solution to the future of privatehigher education. Some private colleges are toosmall for viable operation under changing cir-

D-6 90

cumstances and must federate or die. All privatehigher education must participato in state govern-ment planning, and must accept some constraintsupon their autonomy in return for state governmentfinancial assistance. i prefer that a state shouldassist private higher education through financialassistance to students, and through financialassistance to students that recognizes the tuitiongap between public and private colleges and univer-sitin.

It is time then to turn our attention to financialissues. The issues identified by the CoordinatingBoard are a bundle of interrelated problems. It is es-sential to understand that the issues of financingpolicy, tuition policy, student financial aid policy, in-terstate tuition reciprocity, and funding formulascannot be separated one from the other. All theseissues are important and deserve careful considera-tion, but they can be resolved in a coherent andrational way only if they gre approached and decidedas a package rather than piecemeal.

I would begin consideration of these issue% withthat of the funding formula. I have argued for manyyears as an administrator and as a consultant thatthe comprenensive annual operative budget of acollege or university is in fact a series of componentbudgets, and that eacn of Mese component budgetsmust be formulated and analyzed in terms of both in-come and expenditure. These component budgetsinclude the instruction budget, the separately fundedresearch budget, the separately funded public ser-vice budget, the student financial aid budget, andthe auxiliary enterprises budget. To these budgetsmust in a few instances be added the budgets forteaching hospitals and for independent operationsSince so much of the income of colleges and Jriiver-sales is restricted income, restricted by law and giftor restricted by common understanding, every in-stitution needs to know for each component budgetthe extent to which earmarked income meetsprogrammed expenditures.

It is in connection with these component budgetsthat the first major issue of financial policy arises. theextent to which expenditures shall be restricted toearmarked income. It is prevailing practice in theUnited States, for example, that auxiliary enterpriseexpenditure- shall be matched by auxiliary enter-prise cht,r,,,as. I would apply this policy standard toresidence halls, food service, bookstores, a studenthealth service, and income producing intercollegiateathletics. I recognize that both public and privatecolleges and universities speno more for studentfinancial assistance than they receive in earmarkedincome for student aid. In the most recent year forwhich we have detailed institutional data, the fiscalyear 1975, public institutions reported that theyreceived some 470 million dollars in restricted in-

come for student aid, but they spent 740 milliondollars, a gap of 270 million dollars. Private collegesand universities reported that they received 370million dollars in earmarked income for student .id,but they spent 735 million collars for student aid, agap of 365 million dollars.

I do not question the need for both public andprivate colleges and universities to spend moneyfrom general income for student financialassistance. But I think this gap should be preciselybudgeted and should be clearly known throughoutthe academic community and to alt agencies andparties who provide support for r.ur academic enter-prises.

From this point or I shall be referring specificallyto our instructional budgets, to the income and ex-penditures related to instructional outputs and theircon dative rese ah and public service outputs. Thefirst requireme in instructional budgeting consistsof twc parts: tie output budget and the supportbudget. The support budget is our institutionaloverhead: our costs of academic suppo. ., studentservices, plant operation, mandated transfer pay-ments, and institutional services and management. Iam appalled to observe how overhead costs havemounted in recent years. Thanks to the inflation inenergy charges, and to social costs mandated by thefederal government in such fields as affirmative ac-tion, occupational safety, access for the handicap-ped, and retirement benefits, our plant costs and ourservice costs are mounting rapidly. It is imperativefor us to find some way to bring our support programcosts under some kind of control.

In this connection let me remind you that thesmaller the enrollment size of a particular campusthe larger will be he support costs per studentenrolled. I know of campuses today where supportcosts are approaching 50 pei ce.it of the totaleducational and general budget. The whole questionof desirable size of a campus must be consideredfirst in terms of what it costs to support and maintaina campus, and then in terms of what it costs toprovide a minimum effective inst. (rational program.

I have long been an adherent of budgeting for i -

struction or a program basis, on the basis of costsby general fields of study and by levels of study. Thebudget formula appropriate for ste .e governments inthe 1960s, however, will not, in my tudgment, be eaa-quate for the circumstances of the 1980s. For onthing, enrollment declines must be budgeted interms of marginal costs, not average costs perprogram. Moreover, just as there is a minimum sup-port cost for every institution regardless of enroll-ment size, there is also a minimum instructional costfor every instructional program regardless of enroll-ment size. Our instructional program budgetingmust be much more sophisticated in the years aheadthan in the years past.

D-7 91

Our budget formulas in the 1960s tended torecognize higher cost for upper division studentsthan for lower division students, higher costs for stu-dents at graduate level li than at graduate level I.These expenditure differentials were realistic at thetime, but they also encouraged public institutions toexpand their graduate programs but also to seekways to reduce the economic incentive to undertakeand maintain graduate programs.

I take it that financial policy issues include a con-sideration of the desirable instructional income bet-ween charges to students and support from society.In the public institution the choice is between tuitionand state tax dollars. In the private institution thechoice is between tuition and poilanthropic dollars.inflation and governmental student aid dollars haveencouraged increases in charges to students. If acollege or university, public or private, wants to ob-tain any institutional income from the federal govern-ment's educational appropriations for 1978, thatcollege or university w;11 have to obtain that incomety charges to students. Of some 3.9 billion dollarsappropriated for higher education by the federalCongress in the HEW budget, over 3.5 billion dollarsor almost 90 percent is for student financialassistance.

The argument today in favor of 13w tuition is notthat low tuition is necessary for students from low in-come families but that low tuition is essential for mid-dle income families, for families who find themselvesin the second quartile of income distribution, thefamily income bracket from $15,000 to $24,000 ayear. I think we have in recent years given too littleattention to the impact of constantly rising tuitioncharges upon students from this family incomebracket.

Some states have attempted to adopt a policysetting forth the appropriate distribution betweentuition charges and state tax support of instructionalprograms in public institutions. 1 he policy on tuitioncharges may vary from 20 percent of average expen-ditures for baccalaureate programs to 50 percent,and from 30 percent of average expenditures forgraduate and first professional programs to be 50percent. I do not know what the appropriate distribu-tion ought to be. In the fiscal year 1975 public univer-sities on the average in the United States obtained22 percent of their instructional and overhead costsfrom tuition, while public four-year colleges obtained19 percent of their instructional ant: overhead costsfrom tuition. Private universities in the United Statesas a whole obtained 54 percent of thei' instructionaland overhead expenditures from tuition, whileprivate four-year colleges obtained 66 percent oftheir instructional and overhead expenditures fromtuition. Obviously these national aggregates en-compass a wide variety of particular situations andcircumstances.

In the last resort I suspect tuition charges areme. e apt to reflect a pragmatic concern for neededincome than any policy position on charges to stu-dents for instructional services. The practice of tui-tion charges should rerly begin with a concern forinstructional expenditures and for support costs. We.seed to ask how can we control costs before webegin to talk about how to price these costs to stu-dents

There is of course another possibility we need toconsider. Traditionally we have said that highereducation derives its incorr,a from three principalsources: charges to students, governmental subven-tions, and philanthropy. There has always been aourth source of income. In the jargon of our stan-dard accounting practic° we refer to this fourth kindof income as the "sales and services of educationalactivities." Not including hospital income, thesesales and services produced over 550 million dollarsof current income in 1975 out of a total income ofnearly 36 billion dollars, or just 1.5 percent of all in-come. But I wonder if we in higher education oughtnot to cultivate our entrepreneurial talents and askourselves how we might increase our income Treatsales and services.

More and more in the brochures that come acrossmy desk today I am finding reference to "continuingeducation units." I find professional consultants andprofessional associations already busy at workcultivating this market for continuing professionaleducation and the award of those precious continu-ing education units needed for the renewal ofprofessional licensure. I cannot understand how anycollege or university can afford to ignore this market,or can fail to plan how to expand the sales and ser-vices of educational activities.

There is so much mor' 'han can and should besaid about the problems and policy issues of fluc-tuating enrollments. In a short period of time one cando no more .han call attention to some of the moreimportant problems and issues, and then to expressa aeep, abiding faith that the planning process canand w:11 offer us rational, considered lines of actionto meet our changing social circumstances.

There was a national advertisement by one of thegreat American business enterprises last winter thatcarried this arresting statement. The advertisemerv.said. 'There are no simple solutions. There are onlyintelligent choices." The search for simple solutionsto the c.nrent and prospective problems of highereducation is doomed to failure. The search for in-telligent choices is Jur only hope.

I congratulate as warmly as I know how the HigherEducation Coordinating Board of Minnesota forlaunching this concerted, calculated effort to find in-telligent choices for the future of higher education inthis grer.t state.

D-8 92

TERRY MONTGOMERY

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO GOVERNOR PERPICH

The governor hau looked forward to being herewith you tonight. He tas a deep interest not only ineducation in general, but particular interest in thework that many of you have been doing within yoursystems and within the boards that represent thosesystems. He was, because of an emergency, unableto be here now. He asked me to convey some of thethoughts which he had in mind and would have beenspeaking to had he been here this evening,

The Governor recognizes that your presence heretonight is testimony to your foresight and yourwillingness to work together in resolving one of themost difficult problems facing higher education to-day,

This spirit of cooperationamong educators,among administrators and elected officialsis ab-solutely necessary in continuing our commitment toquality education, despite the pressures of tightbudgets and enrollment swings.

The Governor is confident that a state whichachieved educational excellence in a time of boom-

ing enrollments can indeed respond positively andcan indeed respond creatively to the new enrollmenttrends. I believe, and he certainly concurs with this,that we can maintain Minnesota's positior as anational leader in the field of education.

The problems posed by fluctuating enrollmentsare particularly difficult and sensitive becausehuman lives and opportunities are affected codramatically.

Whether one is rich or poor, whether you live inHibbing or Minneapolis or Grove City, a personshould be able to get the skills and training oneneeds to make a decent hying and lead a satisfyinglife. It's the promise, a promise we all recognize, ofthe American system.

And I'm proud to say that in Minnesota, we havecome very close to fulfi'ling that essential promise.

And might I digress and sa, that. believe strongly,and I know the Governor concurs, that the reasonthis state is where it is, is because in a great degreebecause the leadership provided bi the legislators

D-993

some of whom are here this evening. They are in factnot only pioneers in many respects in the field ofeducation, but they are most importantly the solidfollow through which is necessary to sustain thesystem we have.

The Governor has said many times and I knowmany of you have heard him F it, that a goodeducation was the passport out of poverty for himpersonally, his wife, for his brothers -Ind for so manyothers in his family. We owe a tremendous debt toour parents and our grandparents, he says, whorecognized the importance of education and suppor-ted Minnesota's educational system so generously.

As a result, Minnesota has made incrediblestrides toward making quality education available toeveryone.

Almost 94 percent of our young people graduatefrom high school, which is rather astounding whenone realizes that other states, on the average, haveless than a 75 percent graduation rate. The TwinCities, traditionally, have had the lowest high schooldropout rate in the entire nation.

Minnesota ranks fifth among the clates in theamount it spends per capita on postsecondaryeducation, and it is also fifth in the amount of finan-cial aid given to postsecondary students.

Only three states in the nation have more heads ofhouseholds with some degree of college education.

Because education is so vital, we must not allowthis proud record to be eroded. As we make plansfor coping with enrollment trends, we must evaluatethe impact upon human lives in a very serious and avery careful manner.

We must aim for improved efficiency and servicein educational institutions while guaranteeing that noregion and no individual is deprived of adequateeducational opportunities.

And we must continue our progress in )pening upthe educational system to women, minorities and thehandicapped.

We need to realize, also, that our plans will affectthe careers of many educators. We must allowthe skills of highly trained teachers ,...it, ad-ministrators to be wasted; these people may havenew roles to play, but in all cases, their livelihoodneeds to be assured.

The Governor will do everything he can as an elec-ted official to help you cope with these difficult tasks.But, I must remind you, that the immediate burden ofresponding to fluctuating enrollments lies primarilywith you and the educational institutions you repre-sent.

After all the years of playing catch-up with enroll-ments which expanded faster than schools could bebuilt, faster than teachers could be trained...m..1y ofyou now find yourselves with empty classrooms, andchangii 2 staff needs.

And developing an effective response is very dif-ficult becauseas the working paper for this con-ference revealsthe changes affect different institu-tions very differently.

Meanwhile, the cost of education has gr'ne up andup and up. Although enrollments in g. eral aredeclining, the costs of maintaining the existingphysica' plants and paying salaries continue atrecord levels.

At the same time, education has faced increasedcompetition for resources. Inflation and higherenergy costs have affected other public services aswell, stretching tax dollars thinner and thinner. Weall know this simply can't go on.

In Minnesota we already spend more than one-half the state budget for education. It will be hard tojustify any increase in this share at a time of declin-ing enrollments.

And it will be hardmaybe next to impossibletomaintain this share unless educators themselves areable to improve the efficiency and the service of theirinstitutions.

Today's conference demonstrates that yourecognize this challenge and that you are ready toplan for the future in an atmosphere of coordinationand c operation.

By sharing ideas, by sharing resources, you canaccomplish so much more than you could by tryingto go it alone.

Several programs already underway offer somegood examples of the benefits of a cooperative ap-proach.

The Minitex program, for example, has given stu-dents and faculty at almost all postsecondary cam-puses access to an incredibly broad array ofresearch at remarkably low cost.

the Minnesota Union List of Serials, developed aspart of Minitex, has enabled many libraries to savemoney previously spent on developing their own un-ion lists. In fact, the M-U-L-S system has been so ef-fective that it serves as a national model.

Minitex also provides valuable service to studentsand nonstudents alike through regional publiclibraries.

Another important example of cooperation is theregional center idea. We now have three such cen-tersin Wadena, Rochester and on the IronRange--all working to reduce duplication in instruc-tional services and increase students' access toprograms they need.

The Iron Range Center, in particular, has Pennable to generate many new educational services,reiging from a videotape selfstudy program forengineers to improved inservice training for NativeAmerican teacher aides. Also, the Governor ispleased that `he new southwest Minnesota consor-tium is getting started.

D-1094

Every time he goes to Hibbing he is encouragedby the high degree of cooperation between the Corn-munity College and the AVTI. Sharing facilities andinstructors makes much sense when it means wecan save money and improve education at the sametime.

The Governor, by the way, and I think you'veheard him mention this many times, believesstrongly that the cooperative approach offers one ofour best solutions to meeting this new efficiency ineducation.

Cooperation between the public and private sec-tors of higher education is also an important part ofMinnesota's education policy. The Private CollegeContract Program, in particular, embodies the com-mitment of this ,state to a continuing diverseeducational environment.

We recognize that private colleges and univer-sities are hit even harder by inflation, and must havesome help if they are to keep their doors open to stu-dents from all economic levels.

As we develop a master strategy fo dealing withfluctuating enrollments, these cooperative venturesneed to be continued and perhaps expanded.

The Higher Education Coordinating Board canwork with you as you make some of these toughdecisions. It can provide some of the expertise youneed in developing enrollment projections, budgetplans and instructional goals.

Additionally, the board can keep you advisedabout how your enrollment trends compare to thoseof other institutions and how it can recommend otherpossible areas of cooperation.

I hope the board will take a leadership role indeveloping state policies that will provide reliableguidance for our postsecondary institutions as theyrespond to enrollment changes. The board alsocould provide valuable assistance by developing ef-fective program auditing indicators to help institu-tions determine whether their resources are beingallocated most effectively.

One way of reducing maintorance and energycosts, at least in underused facilities, is to inviteother institutions and groups to share space andshare equipment for a reasonable fee.

'he state energy agency will be glad to help youdevelop ways to cut fuel and utility costs at yourinstitutions.

Another way that we can respond creatively tofluctuating enrollments is to seize this opportunity toincrease our emphasis on continuing education and

lifelong learning.Many of our postsecondary schools already are

doing a fine job of keeping various professionalgroups, such as teachers, nurses and lawyers, up-to-date in their particular fields. New licensing re-quirements for groups such as real estate agents areproducing a demand for additional programs.

Continuing education should be expanded andextended to as many professional fields as needed.These programs pay for themselves as well as im-prove the skills of practicing professionals. Ul-timately, clients and customers also benefit from im-provements as a result of these professional ser-vices.

The lifelong learning concept also makes a lot ofsense to many people and particularly the governor.All of us know that ow need to learn doesn't stopwhen we finish high school or college.

This means 18 to 21-year-olds are not the onlyones who need attention in postsecondary planning.A senior citizen who wants to put his or her retire-ment years to good use...a woman who wants to goback to work after 10 to 15 years of raising a family, amechanic who loses his job because of newtechnology...these people also have a legitimateneed for additional educational opportunities.

The plan that you are beginning to develop now,for dealing with fluctuating enrollments, will be aguide for postsecondary education in the statethrough the end of the century. I am confident, theGovernor is confident, that plan will demonstrate ourcommitment to quality education in Minnesota, acommitment that is stronger than it ever has beenbefore.

Your work will also be helpful to elementary andsecondary educators who are trying to cope withsimilar enrollment changes.

The Governor is calling the first Minnesota Gover-nor's Conference on declining enrollments this spr-ing to orov,de a special forum for sharing ideas andresou ;es an- ong elected officials, educators, andadministrators at all levels.

We'd like t: invite Clyde Ingle to serve as yourpresentative at that conference and report on the

conclusions of today's meeting.Again the Governor wishes he could have been

here. He certainly believes in what you're doing isparamount to the future of education in this state. Hevery much appreciates the invitation and he plans tosee you frequently and at subsequent meetings.Thank you very much.

Which of the Policy issues Affected by Fluctuating Enrollments

Most Critically Affects Your System or Institution?

DOUGLAS BRUCE

COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD

After Dr. Mil lett's presentation itseems to me that we're moving fromthe macro down to the micro. Withthe community college system in thisstate even though we have some 18collegt:s and some 30,000 odd stu-dent enrollment, some of yourcolleges in Ohio and other locationshave in themselves 30,000 students.

I get the impression from the very,very good report of the HigherEducation Coordinating Board thatthis is a sort of a doomsday ap-proach, a doomsday situation. Itseems to me that as Dr. Mi ilett in-dicated, this day that shah live in in-famy, we have made so manychanges, we have adopted ourselves

to so many changes that certainly weare going to be able to adapt to thepopulation curve, the enrollmentdecline. Who, for example, wouldeven five years agowhatprofessional five years agowouldhave said that in 1977 we would have16 students from Saudi Arabia in thelittle prairie commul.!ty college atWillmar, Minnesota. Wei:, we haveand there's no way that a p.anner, behe a professional in edu.:ation or inplanning, could anticipate that.

We do, of course, agree that plan-ning is essential and we agree thatthe recommendations of the Boardare in excellent order. We must keepfrom making crisis decisions. Our

experience last winter, for example,taught us what happens with crisisdecisions, how inadequate they werewhen we had suddenly to close in-stitutions and created problems,that, had overtones that were less ef-ficient than we anticipated. As a mat-ter of fact, the energy problem in thisstate of Minnesota and in the wholerow of states throughout the:^orthern border might well be moreimportant in the next ten years thanwill be the population curve

Looking back over the annualreports of the Coordinating Board,WP see the emphasi... on planning,planning, planring, at least duringthe past five, slx years that I have

D-12i

seen these reports. It's essential thatthere be planning in order to makerecommendations to these gen-tlemen who have to make the deci-sions that fall between disagreeableand utterly intolerable. The Com-munity College issues are numerousar.d perhaps quite different fromsome of the other institutions. I wantto though express our thanks to theparents of some 10-15 years agowho gave us this bulge in the curvewhich will make it possible to have alittle time to approach the problem.

Our issues ;elate essentially to thenature of the Community CollegeSystem. And that is our geographicalspread with 18 colleges throughoutthe state. Now for 50 years or morwe have been proud of the collegeson the Range, the Junior colleges onthe Range. We have been proud ofthe graduates of those schools.We've been proud of the fact thatthere are more people and studentsin the Range colleges who go on tofour-year activity than at any otherlocation, geographic location in thestate of Minnesota. These have beensmall schools, and it seems to usthat one of our most difficultproblems is to rationalize thisproblem of geogi-aphic access in lowpopulation centers or areas, and insome way find some way to federateor to bring technology support tothese small colleges.

One of the problems we have is

the development of some uniformitybetween systems and students.What is a proper or appropriateacademic credit? Again, o; course,the appropriate share for this stu-dent in tuition is one of ourproblems. As Dr. Millett indicated,the CEU (Continuing EducationUnit), the unit for non credit ac-tivities, to wnat extent should thestate share in costs with theindividual?

Reciprocity as we mentioned it,encouraged declining enrollments.Should we drag up our unit costs bycontinuing the reciprocity agree-ment with the state on our border?

One other issue that we feel inparticular is the. oroblem of the flex-ibility and staffs in view of our laborcontract with the faculty association.Are we going to dilute our faculty,our full-time professional faculty, toa great extent by the use of part-timetemporary help?

Another serious question relatesto the degree of coordination. Thetime that is involved in the coordina-tion or attempt at coordination of ot.irsystem with the other systems.

I would like to bring up from a per-sonal point of view two other obser-vations, two other issues. Everybodyis in favor of planning, but there is alot of dispute over the process ofplanning. It seems to me that weneed both the professional, skilledplans that Dr. Millett has referred to

KENNON ROTHCHILD

as existing in the coordinationboard. But we still have the questionas to how much time is going to beinvolvedR5rtl% system involvementin the upper level planning Planningtakes time. It has been a shock to meas a layman to Fee the amount oftime that has been involved in ourstate system staff in particular thathas been involved in planning Oneother thing is, I think, we shouldrecognize that the primary and mostcreative unit for planning is going tobe the community-based institution.

The executive and the Coor-dinating Board Should make incen-tives to develop that creative plann-ing and should give recognition andcred t to these local groups in theiraccomplishments for planning andin following up the plans theydevelop. Therefore I think--one,there are limits to centralized plann-ing. And they should be considered_Arid that we must rely on the Coor-dinating Board and the legislature tomaintain the vital signs of theeducational institution throughoutthe state of Minnesota. But the onlyplace that the process can alsobecome the product is at the college'evel, the community level. It's thelocal administration, the faculty andthe advisory committee that developthe character and the color and thelongevity of the institution and of thesystem. Thank you.

PRESIDENT, STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD

We in the State University Systembelieve that we have been dealingwith the issue of fluctuating enroll-ment for some time, Our enrollmentsoareo in the late 1960s out begangoing down in the 1970's. For exam-ple, in 1970 we had an enrollment of36,000, which was down to 31,000 in

.1975. Enrollments are back up fromthat figure. And then within thesystem each of our universities hasexperienced variations in the level ofenrollments. So we have had a gooddeal of experience, we believe, indealing with fluctuating enrollments.

Out of our experience comes

D-1497

some reflections on the use of pro-lections. Our own university-by-university projections have, we find,been vei-y pod on a two or threeyear basis. But we are suspicious ofapplying such projections beyondtwo or three years We also knowthat our systemwide projections

have been very, very accurate fortwo or three years, but going beyondthe two or three year period is hazar-dous. We recognize that thestatewide projections of graduatescoming out of the high schools arevery likely to be extremely accurate,but we are not so sure that there is acertain extrapolation of those num-bers to what will happen within oursystem or within our institutions. Infact, we are bothered by the notionthat those figures are seen as ab-solute ends rather than a base uponwhich to build institution-by-institution estimates, a base uponwhich to apply the variablesthevariables of economic conditionsnationally, of regional economics, ofprograms with:n the institutions, ofstuaents' changing interests, of loca-tion, of differing tuition ani board,and a host of other things.

But what are we doing about fluc-tuating enrollments now? We havefor some time been trying to developthe internal flexibility needed to beable to respond to programchanges, that is, changes arising outof changing student interests. Weare planning that flexibilitydeveloped for program changes willalso work for enrollment changes,up or down, institution by institution.Specifically, were working on the in-tegration of program goals and ob-jectives with our budget process,we're working on the improvementof teaching skills, and flexibilitywithin tenured faculty. Where feasi-ble, we're trying to cooperate withother institutions in programs inten-ded to enrich ,cur students'academic experiencethat is, con-sortiums, internships, exchanges ofstudents, exchanges of faculties, in-

I have been asked to respond topolicy issue: affected by fluctuatingenrollmentsmore realistically, letus speak to declining enrollments.

ternational programs, nationalprograms, etc. And we are trying tomonitor decisions on rank, tenureand promotion and the effect ofthose decisions and the effect ofr..itirement policies and laws on ourresources and available faculty.

Such analysis has led us to con-sider making specific adjustments,specific program changes, inresponse to both the changing in-terests of the students and the fluc-tuations in enrollment. To begin with,we are reviewing all academicprograms, degrees, majors, andminors for both quality and need. Webegan two years ago by analyzingeve.y master's program in thesystem and eliminating a number.We are in the process of looking atall of our undergraduate programsand degrees with the same criticaleye. We are analyzing different per-sonnel policies and are, for instance,moving as much as possible to fixedterm or non-probationary contracts.7iiat makes particular sense for us inthe face of our bulge in enrollment,in the fact of the decline in enroll-ment that we feel i^ sure to come.We are also looking at changes inthe form of ow requests for ap-propriations. In fact last year wewen, to the legislature with a budgetrequest that moved away, in part,from the traditional funding ratiosbetween faculty and FTE's. A id astar as facilities are concerned, weare emphasizing primarily main-tenance rather than the productionof new space.

All this, then, is our introduction towhat is our system's view of the mostcha"enging issue in a period of fluc-tuating enrollment. We believe thereis only one issue and that is the

CLIFFORD LARSON

PRIVATE VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS

Which of the policy issues afft ctsprivate non-profit and proprietaryvocational schools most critically?

I am speaking as a representative

D-14

quality of education for the student,that is, under all circumstances, themost challc..ging issue before us.Our overriding concern in facing thatissue is maintaining flexibility suf-ficient to the challenge of fluctuation.

We see our flexibility inhibited byformula funding rather than programfunding, by our personnel manage-ment requirements such as collec-tive bargaining, by tuition formulas,by certain views of our regional andcommunity iesponsibility, by thefinancial aid structure, by geographyand by buildings. We see these fac-tors as a partnot alwaysspecifically mentioned but of courseimpliedof all that's been saidabout flexibility. So we see enroll-ment fluctJations on the demandside of our system but rigidity on thesupply side. I view that rigidity as be-ing so severe that it threatens thecollapse of public higher education.Rigidity's effect on faculty and stu-dents can be very damaging,whereas flexibility probably sows theseeds of accommodation to chang-ing numbers and needs in oursystem.

Just before coming to thismeeting I left a meeting in which wewere dealing with an SEC problem.One of our companies had an ac-counting problem with the SEC andwe proposed a solution. And theSEC said, "Yes, it is reasonable; yes,it is logical, yes, it is in the best in-terest of the public, yes. it's in thebest interest of the issuerit is justnot according to law." That's the waywe feel about the problems of fluc-tuating enrollments, the solutions wesee, and the laws that govern ouractions.

of thz.., Minnesota Association ofPrivate Vocational Schools whosemembers are private post-secondary educational institutions,

domiciled in Minnesota. Theseschools are operated as proprietaryenterprises with the exception of onenon-profit school.

There are a number of otherprivate schools in Minnesota whoare not members of our organizationbut whose concerns must be similarto ours. In every case the schools areestablished and have institutionalmissions which reflect an interestand expertise of the founders orfounding organization.

The chief educational objective isto train and prepare suitable per-sons for entry-level jobs or advance-ment in one or more occupations re-ouiring manual, mental,manipuiatni, technical competenceand skills.

Accordingly, the enrollment pro-jections for private vocationalschools are dictated by market de-mand. This market is measuredprimarily by the demand of em-ployers and also by the interest cfstudents who have been alerted tothe opportunities existing in achosen field.

By their very nature, the privatevocational schools can justify tneirexistence solely by preparing stu-dents in a very practical way for jobentry or upgrading continuingeducation.

The climate of the job market isthe determining factor for the controlof institutional expansion or cutbackof curricula offerings.

The recruitment of students toprivate vocational schools is accom-plished through use of advertising inthe media, referrals from graduatesand students, agency contracts andvisits to high schools and careerprogram participation.

Fluctuations in enrollment presenta major conce.-n to our system muchthe same as the uncertainties impactthe public institutions.

However, I believe private

vocational schools more readilyazapt to changes in enrollment aswould any general business enter-prise be prepared for fluctuations inthe market place.

Our prime, direct source ofrevenue is tuition income fromenrolled students.

Since tuition charges to studentsrepresent the total cost of theeducational services to these stu-dents, the total operational expensesmust reconcile with an increase ordecrease of enrollments whilehopefully providing a profit to theowners or at least a break-evenstatus.

Teacher personnel are employedwithout tenure, however with thesame employee benefits andresponsibilities normally found inprivate enterprises.

Faculty is expanded or cut backdirectly in ratio to student enroll-ments. For us, this is a fact of life.

Retention of all staff is highlydesirable but in the face ofdecreased enrollment the money willnot be coming in to support a lowstudent-teacher ratio. The alter-native would be to retain staff andraise tuition charges to the student.This action could invoke financialdisaster for the school as tuitioncharges increased beyond the com-petitive framework would result instill fewer students.

I am reminded of a statementmade by Senator John Olson in atalk he gave at Mankato State a fewyears ago.

He told us, and we were talkingabout declining enrollment at thattime, about this bakery inWorthington that had to lay off clerkswhen the sale of cookies droppedsignificantly. This is the way weoperate in private vocationalschools. If the income decreases, wethen have to cut expenses.

Enrollment projections and

99D-15

budgetary planning are essential in-gredieitts for successful manage-ment and survival practices for ourschools.

Most private vocational schoolsoperate well within the maximumpotential capacity of their plants.

A survey of MAPVS schools takenin 1976 reported a potential of 20-25% expansion within existingfacilities.

Maybe, these availablecapabilities of the private schoolssho. be recognized and coor-dinated into the overall institutionalsurvey which MHECB mightprocess.

Both federal and state lawauthorize the use of privolevocational schools to maximize theavailability of educational services tothe citizens of Minnesota. A closestudy of the relative capabilities ofboth public and private vocationalinstitutions should be undertaken toprovide a common service capabilityto fluctuating enrollments.

Another vital concern relates topolicy issues on student financial aidprograms. As the phrase describes,these programs are for students.The preservation of their rights ofaccess and choice should be en-sured.

We are preparing for criticaltimes. Much more car. be said andwill be said about the policies andprocedures that will be es-tablishedbut I have used enoughtime for now.

In closing, let me assure you thatthe issues and concerns as presen-ted in the Working Paper preparedby the HECB staff are mutual con-cerns.

We must work together, the publicand private systems, to maintain thepractical delivery of qualityeducational services to theSTUDENT.

MARY SCHERTLER

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BOARD OF REGENTS

When I was given the topic."Which of the Polley Issues Affectedby Fluctuating Enrollments MostCritically Affects Your System?" onepolicy issue was implied. However,as Dr. Mil lett expressed in his open-ing remarks, all of the policy issuesmentioned in the materials provideddo have an interrelated connection.It is very difficult :o separate onefrom the other in terms of fluctuatingenrournents.

In ..oking at the University of Mm-nesota, I tried to separate all thepolicy issues and decided to ad-dress two of them. one whim directlyand specifically affects the Universityof Minnesota (namely the presentfunding formula) and Cie secondwhich applies generally to the Un-iversity and to the other public in-stitutions of higher education in thestate (namely, tuition policy). Beforeaddressing those two particularpolicy issuespresent funding for-mula and tuition policyI would 'iketo take a moment or two zo mentionsome background in'crmation.

As we discuss the subject of fluc-tuating enrollments, I am pleasedwith that particular title because itdoes suggest, and very aptly so, thatwe are talking about bulges in par-ticular parts of the educationalsystem with decline in other parts.However, we have to look at the en-tire system, also.

The University of Minnesota, likethe other systems of post-secondaryeducation in Minnesota, has multi-campuses. Fluctuating, rather thandeclining, enrollments very ade-quately describe the picture ofhigher education in Minnesota at thistime. We are witnessing some enroll-ment increases until 1982 and thensome decline after that.

I am almost reluctant to mentionthat in looking at preliminary figures

for the University of Minnesota forthe fall of 1977, the University of Min-nesota was the only public highereducational system in Minnesotathat experienced, in the aggregate, asmall decline in enrollment, and veryquickly I want to add that I think thisenrollment decline is temporary andnot the beginning of the long rangedecline that we will be seeingbeyond 1982. In the aggregate, theUniversity of Minnesota system hada 1.2 percent decline, with enroll-ment decreases on the Twin Cities'campuses, offset by increases atCrookston, Waseca and Duluth andstabilization at Morris.

In regard to the first policyissuethe present funding for-mularevisions and re-emphaseswill have to take place as the Univer-sity's enrollment declines. Should astate policy be formulated, there arefunding distinctions at three levelsthat would have to be taken into con-sideration: 1) the distinction betweenfunding for instruction, research andpublic service programs; 2) withinthe instructional component, furtherdistinction between funding oftraditional, full-time students (whichat the Un.versity is 55,000 plus) andof non-traditional, part-time stu-'dents (which my "guesstimate" issomeplace between 15,000 and20,000), and 3) some distinction bet-ween undergraduate, graduate andorofessional programs at the Univer-sity of Minnesota. We all know thatgraduate and professional programsare more expensive than un-dergraduate programs, and thestudent-teacher ratio is quite dif-ferent in the various-leveledprograms.

In Minnesota, as well as in the en-tire country, everyone is asking formore accountability and better coor-dination. We all know that we are

D-16100

talking about one limited pie inhigher education. The question is."How do you divide the pieequitably?" All of us who serve onthe various higher education boardsin Minnesota want cooperationamong the systems, we want thebest for students in eacn of therespective systems, we want to makesure that our tax dellars are beingused well and that we are trying todiminish any duplication inprograms and services for studentsin this state.

A funding policy which wasdeveloped at a time of enrollment in-crease will have to be looked at dif-ferently in a time of enrollmentstabilization and decrease. It is, andwas, workable to use increases inFTEs (Full Time Enrollments) orFYEs (Full Year Equivalents) to in-crease program funding, that is, afive percent increase in enrollmentmeant a five percent increase In ap-propriations.

Applying that policy to enrollmentdecreases is not as workablebecause, besides full-time enroll-ments, we are also talking aboutsupport services, we are also talkingabout research needs of the Univer-sity and its mission, I do not believethat the same percentage ratios (ofnumbers to monies) work as wellwith decreased enrollments as theyhave with increased enrollments.

In regard to the second policyissuetuitionI do not think thatone can discuss a tuition policyseparate from financial aid to stu-dents. At the University cf Min-nesota, tuition Is about 24 1/2 per-cent of instructional costs. Over thepast five years, this percentage hasranged between 24 and 26 percent.We would love to see "tuition free"higher education, but that is notpossible.

However, students have a right toan education at all levels - elemen-tary, seconaary and post-secondary,I feel though, that we are ap-proaching a point in Minnesotawhere we are beginning to makepublic higher education inaccessibleto lower and middle income stu-dents. When we do that we will havedone a disservice to everyone.

We have to look more closely atthe tuition "pich-e" coupled w-thavailable financicn aids to students.

In Minnesota in the last biennium,the Legislature doubled the financialaid to students, aid that now totalsapproximately $52 million. We haveto look at both tuition and financialaid jointly, and not separately as wehave been do-ig, then, perhaps, wewill keep higher education within therealm of middle and lower incomestudents.

It concerns me that 25 percent ofthe private higher education studenttoday in Minnasota receives more

than 50 percent of the financial aidsand that 75 percent o' the publichigher education student body hasto share and distribute the remaining50 percent of available financial aids.We have 'to look at financial aidsmore completely and place lessemphasis on discussing increases intuition in the public sector.

In conclusion, I would like to quotefrom Dr. Millett's earlier remarks.-There are no simple solutions, butwe can make intelligent choices."

HENRY TWETEN

PRESIDENT, STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Members of the legislature,department heads, members of theboards, friends of education. I'mprobably in a verj unique positionbecause I have to represent theState Board of Vocational Educationwhich is very, very fortunate becausewe don't think that we are going tosuffer a great decline in enrollmentin the future years. We feel that wehave moderate or a very slowaecline but we feel that something isvery workable. There is a reason forthat, and it is because we have had abig backlog of students attemptingto enroll in our various courses. Withfew exceptions, practically everyeducational institution under ourjurisdiction has a backlog of stu-dents who couldn't get into class thisyear but have to wait until next year

Our mission is a little different.Our students don't stay in thepipeli^a of education as longtheyare in the oipeline anywhere from sixweeks to two years. We also have400 courses that we are offering. Wedo monitor our educational systemclosely. We monitor the students, wemonitor the programs, we monitoremployability. Well have analyzed,we'll know what is going to happenbecause we monitor the students. Ifthey don'ta certain percentage

doesn't get employmenttheprogram is abolished. But we findthat there is a greater need for thetype of student that is coming out ofAVTIs. And when we think that weare only offering 400 courses andthere are over 25,000 job skills,we've just barely scratched themarket.

One of the greatest concerns thatwe have is that we will have sufficientfunding. We've got 42 percent of allof our students that are receivingsome kind of financial aid. Thechoice is ver;, very clear. We arenever going to solve the great socialproblems if we don't solve theeducational problems. But by havingthis financial aid we're making goodproductive citizens, we're puttingpeople back into the job market.And the system of education we'vehad in this state, including thevocational system, has come a longway.

I'm confident that any system ofeducation and any government thathas developed this state frcm a fron-tier to a highly technical society isn'tgoing to nave too much trouble tak-ing and dealing with fluctuatingenrollments. The thing is we've got toconstantly monitor, we've got to con-stantly analyze, we've got to know

what our enrollments are in varioussubjects, we've got to krow how ourpeople are getting employed. We'vegot to make projections, but we'vealso got to take and use the projec-tions as only one source of our an-ticipation of enrollments. We'vefound that our projections have beenoff many, many times. One of thethings we can't discount is the factthat what might happen, to oureconomy. The economy has a greatdeal to say what happens to ourenrollment. The past ten years haveindicated that. With the higheconomy and the good job marketyou will see that enrollments in all ofour institutions of educaVcn will behigh because students will be able tobe employed, the parents will beable to send them to school.

I feel that in our particular case Idon't see a very serious decline. As amatter of fact, we would like to havethe legislature take another look thisyear at the programs that we didn'tget. There were 20 programs thatweren't funded and we feel that theyare very, very important as far as thestate is concerned. I would like tosay that any system thai's been ableto go through the years and acceptthe responsibility that we have, won'thave too much trouble with fluc-

tuating enrollments. I'd like to closeby making one statement, and I don'tClink that most people really unders-tand the fact that you might have a10 percent or 5 percent decline inany year in educational institutionsdoesn't necessarily mean that you'regoing to have a 5 percent less ex-penditure because you don't take

and cut off the class because youlose three students. So I don't an-ticipate regardless of what happensas far as enrollment is concernedthat educational funding can declinesubstantially because you're goingto have certain fixed costsof ad-ministration, of insurance, main-tenance, administrative personnel;

and we had better anticipate that.I think we've got the responsbility

to tell the public that they can't an-ticipate great declines in budgetsbecause there are going :o be smalldeviations or fluctuations it enroll-ments. Thank you very much.

JAMES KRAUSE

PRIVATE COLLEGES

CONCORDIA COLLEGE (MOORHEAD)

Members of the legislature,educators, members of boards,fellc Iv citizens. I've been asked torepresent the private colleges andI'm not formally connected with theMinnesota Association of PrivateColleges. T:ius, my observations aremore intuitive than they arerepresenting a centralized viewpoint.

From the viewpoint of the privatecolleges, it's somewhat like the old,good news bad news stories. Whenyou have fluctuating enrollments, asenrollments go up, the privatecolleges can close the door. You canturn students away, raise your stan-dards or whatever other steps youwant to take. In contrast, the publicinstitutions have the responsibility toserve the public regionally andprovide access for all students tostate institutions. So in that sensethe private institutions have moreflexibility. The bad news side is thatthe private schools look to tuitionand private grants for a majorsource of funding. They do not haveas appropriate or as easy access totaxation for financing.

The speaker and other panelmembers have made commentsabout planning and how to proceedwith joint planning between publicand private ihstitutions. I have a littledifficulty in going aheadI'm all forplanning. But I think we all shouldplan for a common goal and keep inmind that we're service institutions.

Our real purpose is to contribute tothe long term growth of the country,its national product, production,quality of life, and values. That iswhere the common goal has to be.And, of course, as in any other struc-ture, limited resources determinewhat is available to us. If theresources aren't there to draw on inthe form of taxes, gifts or tuition, wecannot meet all our goals. On theother hand, the planning process ofbringing together all these differentinstitutions does it become a plan-ning process or a political processmade up of compromises andnegotiationsand with compromiseand negotiations do we tend to leveloff and give up some good thingsand really come up with moremediocre standards? I think that isthe real challenge in the planningprocess between all the public andprivate institutions.

On the other hand, I don't ad-vocate a dictatorship or a monarchy.I'm reminded of the story of compar-ing a monarchy to a democracy. Amonarchy is like a sleek clipper shipgoing along under the expertguidance of the skipper.Everything's going fine unless it is offcourse or hits an iceberg. And thenyou have chaos. A democracy is likemany people on a raft, it probablydoesn't go in any one direction, withmuch purpose, but it never tips aver.

It was reassuring to hear the

D-18

102MIM

speaker talk about the need for aoalance between the public andprivate. Minnesota is fortunate. If mynumbers are correct, we have oneout of four students in the privateschools. I think the national averageis much lower than this. The privateinstitutions represented 40 to 50 per-cent of the students betore thesecond World War. So the influeliu.of the private institutions has drop-ped dramatically and in some in-stances, its infLience will disappearentirely.

What issue really is of concern tothe private schools? We alreadyhave the relationship where there istuition assistance, loans and grantsfrom ta:-supported funds to theprivate institutions. I think this deci-sion was a good policy. At the pointof crisis when there are pressuresfor funds, the obvious concern of theprivate institutions will be the deci-sion under political planning andfinancial pressures to carry out anever, handed policy of giving outfunds.

That again would point to the longterm goal for all of us, the purpose ineducation, and that is having a goodsociety, whatever definition you wantto usevalues, activities, standardof living or quality of life. This is thebalance you have to maintain andthe concern I would reflect is how thelimited resources are allocated.

Views on Major Emerging Problems

Caused by Fluctuating Enrollments

Which Require Study and Action

GERALD CHRISTENSON

STATE COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE

I suppose that first we ought topro -'de a 30 second commercial onbehalf of the legislature in regard towhat a good job they've done of sup-porting post-secondary education inMinnesota.

For example, the increase in thebudget for post-secondary educa-tion in Minnesota in this past bien-nium is greater than the total supportfor post-secondary educationprovided by the state in the 1963-65biennium. Minnesota is fifth in thecountry in per capita support forhigher education as reported in yourMHECB publication. I won't go onwith other examples, but I think itsimportant to keep that perspective.

The theme fog this conference isfluctuating enrollments and I thinkwe can learn something from the ex-perience we've had, and are having,in elementary ai.d se- indary educa-tion. One thing we've learned is thepowerful cost of seniority in paidstaff. We've also learned that thereare going to be demands for moneyto ease the pain, not necessarily tosolve the problem. Also, that therewill be a reduced constituency asthere are fewer young people at-Unding the schools. And we've lear-ied that sometimas the interest ofthe students becomes secondary toother forces at work out there.

So, I think we can predict some

D_19103

things as we look at post-secondaryeducation in the years ahead. Forexample, the cost per student willrise considerably. That's been theexperience of elementary-secondaryschools and it's probably going to beas likely with post-secondary. It islikely that post-secondary educationwill face criticism because of the dif-ficulties encountered by graduatesin obtaining appropriate jobs.There's going to be a fig,,`,. for ascarce commodity, and the scarcecommodity is going to be students.And if we are not careful, and if wedon't plan, and if we don't cooperate,we are apt to be in some competitivehassles between the various :nstitu-

tions. There Is going to be a continu-ing emphasis on continuing educa-tion. Many are going to start to lookat that as an easy solution. There willbe struggles over the closing of in-stitutions and people pointing atother institutions that could be betterclosed. It's going to be tough to startnew programs. There will be aholding action tendency. We'llprobably have some tension bet-ween younger and older instructorsin the institutions. Who's going to go,who costs the most and so on. Therewill probably be, unless we'recareful, some unfair and un-

I suppose I should be the first ofthe legislators to say hello to theanalysts from the boards of higherinstitutions in areas of this and thatand other legislators and citizens outin the audience because I know lessabout the subject than anybody else.Although I do know I've heard a lot ofmoving words and...we love you.That's what my dad used to tell mewhen he said I couldn't go out atnight or I couldn't havesomething--you'll understand later,I love you."

It might be interesting very brieflyto talk about how the word fluc-tuating got in this conversation. I

can't be 100% sure but years ago Iintroduced a bill to study decliningenrollment. And I got one ruralauthor and another city author and Igot a subcommittee and the bill wentabsolutely no place. Until someplacein the subcommittee, I don't know itit was staff or another senator said,"why don't you change the name tofluctuating enrollment and maybeyou can pass the bill." So wechanged the name from a declining

necessary competition between thepublic and private institutions. And Ithink a major development will be agreater movement for student rights,student access, student decision-making.

As we look to future state budgets,there is going to be a greater com-petition in some areas for tax dollars.We are starting to see it developingwith highways, bridges, housing,jobs, recreation, and artsand thatis going to continue.

!n preparing for the future of post-secondary education I think that theworst thing you can do is to take a

SENATOR NICHOLAS COLEMAN

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER

enrollment bill to a fluctuating enroll-ment bill, and we passed the bill andgot a commission which has neverreported.

But we are talking about fluc-tuating enrollment and It probably.sn t a fluctuating enrollment, it'sdeclining enrollment with smallamounts some place along the linewhich some have spcken of as giv-ing us a !MIL ..xtra time perhaps. Butit is not going to change the factsituation very much. And the factsituation is that there are going to befewer people there and more intensecompetition for the total amcunt ofdollars.

I've been using a figure lately, andit seems that people have forgottenand it is somewhat impressive. I waselected for the 1963-64 bienniumd nd the total state budget at thattime was $850 million. That was forelementary and secondary educa-tion, ;or higher education, forcorrections, for legislative salariesand you name it. For everything butthe highway department that cameout of that and about, I think, 400 or

D -201.( 4

kind of "circle the wagons" ap-proach, to say that your sole concernis to protect the rights and theprivileges of those inside the circle ofwagons, that you are not going to ex-pand programs, that you are not go-ing to draw new people in, but simplyto retain the status quo.

We've had good support foreducation in Minnesota. I think thatsupport will continue. There aresome trouble spots ahead. But if weengage in serious cooperative plan-ning, the future can be brighter.

500 million dollars in federal money.At the current biennium, elementaryand secondary education is $1.7billion; welfare has a one billiondollar appropriation, half of whichgoes to those of greatest needthedruggist, the doctors, the dentists.But even with that we sent homemany disappointed people after thelast session of the legislature, andthey are going to come hackagainthey warned us that they aregoing to come back. And you're do-ing the same kind of thing in the areaof educationyour sincere, genuineinterest, which I accept as such, thatit dictates for you that you mustcome back to the legislature and sayyou overlooked our need in this par-ticular area. Well maybe we didoverlook that and maybe we didn't.But we cannot satisfy the demandsof the, even the just and most justdemands in some cases of people inour society. And the legislature hasto make hard choices. Were not justchoosing between education as youperceive it and as we perceive it butbetween the other needsnutrition,

housing, jobs (the job problem is sobig in Minnesota that we basicallyignore it and say that only the federalgovernment uan resolve it and ourcities lie for what a national commis-sion has said is for a life of like hellliving in an inner city, we re not thereyet but Fm not sure how much im-provement we re making on a year toyear basis). So you are competingfor a lot of very basic needs and evenwithin your cwn system you are.

Fo1 some reason or another thishas been educate Coleman in someof the educational needs of the statemonth, an,' I've been out to a smallcommunity in southwestern Min-nesota where I had an opportunity(Roger Senator Moesays it'sdangerous when I travel, he wants tokeep me in the metro area) becauseI came back with exciting news of anew program which the legislaturepassed six years ago. But it was theprogram to pay transportation aidsfor vocational schools which is work-ing very successfully in this par-ticular community and the sur-rounding six towns. What is notworking in that community is theprogram to transport students foracademic needs. So the long hand inthis community who could teachhigher math only had six studentsenrolled. So he's teaching a Juniorsocial studies program in the juniorhigh sc000l. And they're going to beback asking for more money for thatprogram, and they'll have a sym-

pathetic legislature.I spent the night at the extension

school and they an " e legislatureto recognize some very practicalneedsthe need for more care ofthe child of the parent that is at-tending claps. Wives on campus,who, it never occurred to me that thisis a serious problem, but tney say .t spart of the problem when the univer-sity does not recognize that educa-tion doesn't end when the sun goesdown, and that there is anothergroup of people coming to improvetheir life and they want to come tothe legislature and ask or additionalsums of money.

A committee has been formed inMinnesota Friends of the Instituteof Technologywho have alreadybeen approaching some pi us on thegrounds that as the Institute ofTechnologyin their mindsstartsto slide downhill a little bit, and we renot turning out the kinds of scienttsthat we need to keep the ecorhealthy in Minnesota, the state of oureconomy is going to decline unlesswe pay attention to needs there.We're going to have to compete withthe needs of the Institute ofTechnology and the School ofVeterinary Medicine and see whatOur obligations are there.

So within the total society if wehad not S6.3 billion but we had $10billion we could not satisfy the needsof the people that are coming to us.So the legislature has to make some

SENATOR ROBERT DUNN

assessments. And they are a lot likehow you make a lot of yoi - own deci-sions. Oh, that's a good idea" orthat doesn't make any sense," or'we will take a look at it," or "we

can't." And I think more and more weare starting to ask that the programsthat come to us make sense. My ownparticular point of view is that it isgoing to require more coordination,and that you can't be competingamong yourselves. You're going toget a very increasing negative recep-tion from the legislature unless youcoordinate your activities.

It is a bias of mine. I've introduceda bill, and I passed it through theSenate with the a i of a lot of goodpeople a couple of times. I hopesomeday it will pass, and I know itwill, through the House of Represen-tatives, in which all these systems ofhigher education are going to haveto coordinate their needs. So d I

have a plea from this, it is that as apolitician I would like to giveeverybody who came to useverything they ask for, and I can't.So then I have to ask all kinds ofpeople to cut back or give me moreinformation or better information.And the way that you and I can servethe needs of the people of our statein the vital area of education is tocome to us, it seems to me, with acoordinated program that we canfund with some enthusiasm. Thankyou.

ASSISTANT SENATE MINORITY LEADER

I just want to focus on one aspectof the problem of fluctuating enroll-ments. As Senator Coleman said,when we say "fluctuating" enroll-ments we are thinking "declining". Icome from an area where this isn'ttrue at all as far as the populationand the high school, or any other,

enrollment goes. So I think that whenwe look at fluctuating enrollments,let s really look at the geographicdisparity that exists. Geography isimportant because the service areasof our institutions are closely relatedto where they're located. When it is abroad based institutional system

D-1105

such as the University or the StateUniversity System, there is a ten-dency to draw more from the sur-rounding geographic area, but whenyou get to the community collegesand the AVTIs, this becomes evenmore pronounced.

Dr. Millett talked about the plann-

ing regions of which only two in thelong run show increases, wh. e thestatemost of the regionsshow, inhigh school graduates, declinesfrom 29 up to 48 percent. There arejust two regions with increasingenrollments-7E and 7W. Seven-Wshows an increase of 21 percent inhigh school graduates and 7E has a51 percent increase projected. Thisis at the same time that almosteverybody else in the legislature isworrying about how to meet thedeclining enrollment problem. I justthink it is important for us, if we aregoing to be in fact truly statewide inany one of our syst3ms, to thinkabout that problem. There are areaswhich are growing dramatically. Thelocations of institutions are based ondemographics that are 10C years oldor projections that are decades outof date.

We're running into the problem of

what do we do when we underutilizethe facilities that now exist, the brickad mortar facilities that werelocated around where they wereneeded many years ago. By concen-trating too heavily on that, weoverlook the providing of equaleducational opportunities where tnepeople are now and where the highschool graduates currently or igii,ate.

Look at the use of staff. I think weshuuld be more imaginative, morecre it.ve in the way we move stafffrom one institution or from onesystem to another and how we reachout geographically. There are a lot ofthings we could be doing wherewe ve barely scratched the surface.At the same time we Know that this isa simpler thing to do and staff .5really where the cost is. When wetalk about what the capital costs arein institutions, as compared to theongoing costs, we get a lot less

SENATOR ROGER MOE

money involved.I guess what I'd say is to look at

Region 7E with one AVTI and noother institution of higher learning atall. Look at four of the five countieswhich ring the northern metropolitanarea ar... there isn't a single highereducal s.in institution in any of thosefour , curt es Isanti, Chisago,Wright or Sherburne. They don'thave even an AVTInothing. Yetthose are the counties which aregrowing fastest of all Minnesotacounties. Sherburne County milhave grown 100 percent in the nextcouple of years since the 1970census. It's up by 60 percent now.This is an important aspect of thewhole fluctuating enrollment picture.This may be a parochial point of viewI'm ex, ressing today and I'm doing itonly because I think it's a point ofv;ew that really hasn't been dis-cussed too thoroughly.

SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

Thank you for the invitation to bewith you today. It . ery appropriatethat we meet. An ...1Jitional speakertalked about whert. were you onDecember 7. It's very important totake a look at that date because hadit not been for what happened thatday, we probably would not have en-tered that war. But let's say wewouldn't have. People wouldn't havegone off in those various battles, andwe wouldn't have had the war endingand you wouldn't h... e had the babyboom and that big enrollment bulge,and we wouldn't be here today won-dering what happened. But reallywhat did happen, :-. nd since I'm aproduct of that post war boom, I canspeak from practical experience.When I went through college therewas a lot of pressure to get in, a lot ofpressure to build. And this statewent through it as all of you know.

And we built, :et's face it, we built aninstitution that we probably wouldnot have built had it not been for abulge in the enrollment. And so thelegislature is now suffering fromwhat I would call the "SouthwestState syndrome," and that is, wedon t want to go through that par-ticular thing again although I seesome of my colleagues in thelegislature in the audience whomight take issue with whether weshould have built that institution ornot. But the facts remain, had wenad a demographer and a stateplanning agency that was assophisticated ther as it is now, weprobably would not have built that.So the legislature hasat least in mytime in the legislature reacted tothat particular problem in highereducation.

Its obvious in building requests,

D-22

and that's something we are going totry to come to grips with this session.Obviously, all the requests that wewill have presented to us, when theyget to the point where they are ap-pearing before the finance and ap-propriations committees, obviouslythey are all of some merit otherwisethey wouldn't be there. And yet, I

suspect the requests probably totalat least a couple of hundred milliondollars and there is no way that wecan possibly fund all those requests.And at the same time, SenatorDunn's remarks are very ap-propriate, what do you do with anarea of the state that will experiencepopulation growth and has a void inhigher education facilities in thatparticular area? So il's all somewhatdifficult to come to grips with.

I do want to respond to Mr.Rothchild's remark, I believe, who in-

dicated that sometimes the difficultyfor the boards is that the boards dovarious things because the way thelaws are written, and I laughed Just aminute and looked up. And I thoughtthat I was chairing the Finance Com-mittee because the back of the roomlooks exactly the same now as itdoes when I chair that Finance Com-mittee. And it looks exactly the samenow as it did when I was sitting onSenator Hughes' Education Commit-tee. Anybody who thinks thatlegislators write educational policydoesn't attend meetings. Becausewe all know that you write it, and youknow. Let's take a look at who reallysets a lot of the direction for educa-tion in Minnesota.

I'm supposed to give just a littlereaction to the HECB, to the role.And that I hope that in the years tocome, and since it was set up initiallyto represent special interests, youcart expect otherwise. But hopefullyonce we move away from special in-terest representation on the Board,

and what I mean by that is pure andsimple. You have representativesfrom vocational education, you haverepresentatives from the Universityof Minnesota, State Un.versities, soon. I question whether you can reallyhave the sort of coordination andplanning that you would ..rte to havebecause L.erybody's going to lookout for their own interests. At leastthat's my impression. So I guess I'mlooking forward to a HECB that in ef-fect will get tough and do the sort ofcoordinating that ive would like tosee done, that would be tough onprogram expansion. I'm hoping thatmaybe someday somebody sitting inthis room will come up with afoolproof method of programevaluation so that we can get back totalking about excellence in educa-tion, and not have to talk ',bout for-mulas, and heacount and per pupilweighing, and aid per pupil and all ofthis. Because I think it will be ob-viously much better for all of educa-tion. And when that genius appears,

SENATOR JEROME HUGHES

I hope that he or she will come out ofthis room.

Let me close ay saying what hasbeen said befo. a. We have an awfullot of demands. Some people killwant tax cuts, some will want in-creases in spending. We try toweigh them accordingly and makethe proper decisions. We can't do itwithout your input. It is very impor-tant. But even though we might thinkthe sky is falling in on education inMinnesota, I would simply just askyou to look around you at otherstates. We have not closed anyschools, we do not have massivelayoffs and strkes and problemswith funding, we have a pretty goodsystem that is recognizednationwide. There's rarely a con-ference that I attend with peoplefrom other states where they don'tpoint to Minnesota as the example ofhow things can be dcoe. You peopleought to be very proud of that. I'mvery proud of being a part of that.Thank you.

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

I was at a conference out of thestate last week and somebody askedme a question 'you know whensomeone is elected uu they repre-sent tneir particular area, really, ordo they have a broader perspectiveof legislation as far as the state isconcerned? I was thinking ofSenator Dunn, when Senator Dunnwas speaking as a senator from aparticular area of the state and hisconcern about that particular areawith respect to post-secondaryeducation. And he's really doingwhat he should do as a senatorheis parochial in a sense. And I

remember when we put the cutoff onthose community colleges. And he

didn't talk about Cambridge but weare sitting in a city here. I don'trepresent St. Paul although peopleidentify 1116 clearly with St. Paul. Wedon't have a community college inthis city and we don't have one inCambridge. Those were two of thethree that were up for considerationwhen we put a moratorium on thedevelopment of community colleges, Minnesota. But Senator Dunn isappropriate when he is concernedabout his particular area in the state.Senator Dunn also as a senator doesrepresent the total state of Min-nesota. And he does take a look atthe broad picture.

And I'd hl,e to just say first of all,

D-21 0 7

I'd like to start out where SenatorMoe ended. When we take a look ateducation in Minnesota as wefinance it, from the beginning whenpeople start to learnwe're juststarting thatwere really slow ingetting started in where peoplebegin to learn and develop ashuman beings. But as we go all theway up through the spectrum, we areranked very high in funding educa-tion. And that quality of life that wetalked about in Minnesota is signifi-cant. We do produce talent in thisstate. We in this state do producequality employees for employers.And I think the last count that I hadwas 4.5 percent unemployment in

this state. So within the ite andoutside of the state, we do a very ef-fective job.

Would you look at the issue ofreciprocity, Dr_ Mil lett We certainlyhave led the country in our develop-ment of reciprocity with other states.And this session of the legislature wewill be looking at legislation for acompact. So we're going to have tonot only look at our own parochial in-terests if we are senators orrepresentatives; certainly. we mustlook at this state and we must lookbeyond this state. We know that thegovernor of Wisconsin is undercriticism at the present _ime becausehe is refusing to have a veterinaryschool; we know how costly aveterinary school :s. We needcooperation between states. And ifwe are going to be effective in sittingon boards of education, those of youthat are members. you must be con-cerned about the mission of yourparticular institution or syst -I; butyou also must realize the mission ofthe others.

And this means that we reed tocontinue to have cooperation. Wepassed the legislation last time thatmade some people feel uncomfor-table a little bit. It passed in theSenate, and I think it is appropriatelegis ?bon. I would ask the boardsand he executive heads of thehigher education institutions of thestate and the House to look again at

that bill, and any bill can bemodified. But I think there is going tobe a greater need in the future tostrengthen this .Inole issue of thehigher eaucation coo; dinating role.That is something that has to bedone if we are going to look at thebroad picture.

l'rn pleased that this meeting istaking place. I think probably that weought to have more meetings likethis. and we probably ought to eventhink in terms of some foundationgrant--the research and develop-ment that would take place throughsome monies that would be madeavailable. And working together bet-ween the systems. It's going to beextremely important, I think,because any kind of research anddevelopment that we do in theprivate and public sector pays off inthe long run.

Just a word about the fluctuatingenrollment issue which is what weare really supposed to be talkingabout. The data already prepared oythe HECB and by the informationthat we have from our demographergives us a plan. We kind of knowwhere we are going to be. That'squite wonderful, I think. It's a bettersituation than those people whohave governance and responsibilityup to the post-secondary level. Theydidn't have much time to deal withthat and they are still struggling withit. But we can anticipate what's going

REPRESENTATIVE RAY FARICY

to be true, five, ten, fifteen yearshence. And we can look at each ofthese systems. But we must worktogether and talk together and plantogether. And I would enco Jrage allof us to keep an open mind. Remem-ber that your system is importantand your institution is important ifyou are part of the private sector.

And I'm .very glad, and I want toreemphasize two points that Dr.Millett made. Number one, he saidthere has to be a higher educationboard. He made that point. He didn'tsay coordinating board -1'm in sup-port of a coordinating boardbut hedid emphasize the idea of a board.And Fm not so sure we looked uponthis board as having the significanceit should. And secondly, he talkedabout the private sector, and theviability of that private sector withinthe public system and within thispluralistic society. And I think weredone that very well in this state, andwe need to continue to take a look atit with respect to financing andwhatever. But I would urge, and letme just finish with one word, that wecan all do together better than any ofus can do separately. And so thiswhole idea of being synergistic,putting together the minds andidea will strengthen not only eachof the systems and the missions ofeach of those systems but certainlywill strengthen all of the educationprograms in the state of Minnesota.Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN, HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS EDUCATION DIVISION

Good afternoon, I really don t un-derstand why I in here, quitehonestly, because we all know thatthe policy decisions are made inPeter Fugina s committee, and weand our committee simply providemoney as a result of all of that.

Actually, I came here and I'm notreally enthused about what's hap-pening this afternoon. I guess I ve

been accused of telling it like it is toomany occasions, I guess. I camehere for the purpose of having an in-terchange, I ouess. Not with thosepeople over there which wasn't aninterchange because I've heardthem, and now I'm supposedly say-ing something in a few minutes andwe are all through.

I don't think we've accomplished

D-24 10 8

an awful lot other than perhaps whateveryone in this room already knowsas to our positions I would like tofollow up with what Senator Hugheshas said saying that, "OK, let us gettogether and not this format, butsome other format where we sitaround with a c.up of coffee or thenumber of us are appreciatingthere are quite a few but we start

talking about this problem and pickthat brain and that one and a coupleover there to find out where we aregoing with this whole tning."

I've learned a lot this afternoon. Ihave to say that for it. First of all I

didn't understand, Mr. Tweten, thatwe had out you out of 20 programsand never even heard about it. As Irecall, we funded every nickel anddime that they sked for, butsomehow we cut tnem out of 20programs. I was enthusiastic when Iheard Mr. Rothchila tell us about thefact that we are not going to bebuilding in the State UniversitySystem anymore, just maintenance;because tomorrow morning we areallocating concerning that system,and I think it is going to save us allsorts of problems and lot of time forus. I was particularly interested inlistening to Regen, Schertler talkingabout how we went after liberal artspeople with our cuts. And then goingback to Mr. Rothchild's commentsabout how we should be havingprogram budgeting. As I remem-bered seeing the appropriation, wedidn't say anything about where thecuts should be made at the Univer-sity of Minnesota, and the decisionsas to which programs would be cutwere in fact done internally.

I think there is an awful lot ofthings going on here an misun-derstandings of where we are andwhere you are. I like that comment,chancellor (Millett), about thisbusiness about educating the per-son. I guess I have been trying to so.,that for so long that I'm gettinghoarse, and I obviously am lookingat youyou've got a few years onme. I'm glad that I wasn't justsomebody that thought I was all bymyself I'm happy to have found youin this respect. If I go on and starttalking to people about liberal artsand talking about educating the per-son for whatever system it is (thecommunity college, the state univer-sity, including the AVID, somehowwe become extremely job orientatedand I think that's a proper goal. But Ithink we are losing perspective as toreally where this whole educationsystem is going. Whether that'sfeeding on itself and causing adecline in enrollment which is forc-ing the young man or woman to golooking for a job, if we're self-fulfilling by having our systembecome job orientated already,maybe we are doing this to our-selves. Granted the bodies all aren'tthere. We don't have those kids, butthe population of our country and

PETER X. FUGINA

our state seems to be increasing.There are a lot of people that I thinkwe still can work ',rah, and I ap-preciate the many efforts many ofyou are doing in that respect.Another group you mentioned, thestudents, aren't on here and they arereally some of the decisonmakers ofwhat's going to happen.

I just would hope that somehow asa result of having this first ex-perience with each other thatproblems such as declining enroll-ments can be discussedand wearen't all lookin'j for our own littleturf. We a ried about thisor that a. .,:cause it affectsus immealatu.y. I know it's prettyhard, you are all getting paid by yourown system, but somewhere wehave got to reach. Maybe HECB isthe answer, maybe they can do it. I

think there has been distrust overthe years. There was a number ofconcerns that have existed amonglegislators and among you. You haveheard that this afternoon. Maybe thisis the time to start letting our hairdown, and just say let's talk abouteducationeducation of the per-sonand see if we can find ananswer. Thank you for having mathis afternoon.

CHAIRMAN, HOUSE HIGHER EDUCATION COMMITTEE

I don't know who the chairmanaround here is so 1'11 just start off.First of all, let me say that this is kindof an unusual situation. The Senatekeeps telling us about quality andquantity. And they say it only takes67 senators to do what the 134House members do. I wonder how ithappens that today we are outnum-bered by the senators four to three.Ray, I think you really stole myspeech. I, too, think that using the

terminology fluctuating enrollmentas a singular important, all importantvoblem is not the case at all. I thinkthe important thing is, as Ray said afew minutes ago, the education ofthe individual in other words, fun-damentally the important thing is nothow many people we have enrolled,but how we!I we have them enrolled,how sound are our educationalprograms, how do we educate thatperson so that he develops for him-

D-251 0 9

self a place in this society either as aleader or as a worker who's certainski: or as a world leader becausewe are part of the community of na-tions of the world. And, therefore, wehave to look at how well can you dothe job, how do the institutions seethemselves, how do they see them-selves, say 20 years from today. Andhow do they measure that the train-ing of today is going to satisfy that in-dividual for him to be able to make

AarMMEr=MMEINVINIELAIIIIIY:4111111111EMII

the proper decisions 20 years fromtoday or 40 years from today.

The dollarswe'll let JerryChristenson worry about them, he'sthe finance personhe's got thedollars and Ray Fancy passes themout like he said he does. But howwell do our institutions function') Arethey functioning up to their capacityand are they functioning in the realleadership position so they unders-tand those problems, and say, "OK,you come here you are going to ex-perience, we a ;e going to give you achance to develop as an individualso that you are going to see yourselfin the future and your training of to-day is going to stand you in goodsted."

My committee has started on themetamorphosis of the educationprocess. The higher education com-mittee of the House is going to in-vestigate, not investigate, but tostudy the ramifications of educationand the whole process. Starting nextweek there will be a first meeting offive '"r six members of my committee

leeting with some of the professorsof the University of Minnesota. I'vealready discussed this with thepresident, Peter Magrath. And hethought it was an excellent idea. Andwe're going to do it a., Raysuggested todayon an informalbasis. We are going to have the firstmeeting just to sit down and havelunch with six professors of theCollege of Education becausethey're at the crossroad. The need

for teachers of tomorrow has beenclouded somewhat because of thefact that today we are at the sur-facethere are other problems in-volved. Retraining and so on isanother problem. So we're going tosit down and see if what thelegislature, what we in the way ofdetermining the policy of educationin Minnesota and support a programthat is going to bring this about. Andthis will be a format that will bestudied. It will not be the regularsystem of entirety that legislaturesso often use and find to advantage touse. In this case this is not going tohappen.

And I hope then that with this kindof study, this kind of intensive study,and comprehensive study, we aregoing to find out how we trust workat the University. We are not going tobe interested only there, but after aformat is developed, then the overallcommittee is going to be divided intoseveral subcommittees and thisprocess will then be repeated withevery possible institution or groupsof institutions so we can come backto Ray Faricy's appropriations com-mitteeand Rod Searle incidentlywho has been there longer thananyone else. I've spent 14 years onthe appropriations committee so Ican well appreciate what kind ofproblems they have when the Un-iversity comes and says we need$136 million for these purposes.

We as an education committeeshould be the evaluator saying these

RODNEY SEARLE

are the kinds of programs that areneeded and we think, that, in a studywith the appropriations committee,that this process is going to cost acertain number of dollars. Then withgreater knowledge, the legislature,both houses, when they debate theproblems on the floor in makingthese decisions more finalin pass-ing the bills they will have an oppor-tunity then to listen to a

metamorphosis of education in Min-nesota; how well does it supply theneeds of the state, how well does itproject itself as a leader in the r-and in the world? And if we all putour back to this particular problemand put our shoulders to the wheeland we gain additional kinds of dis-cussions of this kind, and at thesame time passing the ball to thehigher education board and saying,"OK we think we need, and as Dr.Millett said, we need a board."

The Higher Education Coor-dinating Board is going to be able tofunction cooperatively with thelegislative base and in this way comeup with some decisions that we hopewill be beneficial to the entire state inthe process of post-high schooleducation regardless-regardless ofthe needs that we have for techni-cians or doctors or lawyers or politi-cians or anythirg else that areneeded in society to make this a realgreat state, the best that we knowhow and also to contribute to the wellbeing of democratic 'ieties in theworld.

ASSISTANT HOUSE MINORITY LEADER

There's always a nice feeling, be-ing the low man on the totem poleand in the minority, being the last tospeak.

I have a very vital statistic that I

want to share with you this after-noon. I've done this before and get abig kick out of it. The panel over

there took 47 minutes for a half hourprogram. Now, we have two extrapeople and we still have you beat bytwo minutes so that's all I am goingto takejust two minutes.

I share with you my leader, Mr.Faricy, that I think what we havebeen through here this afternoon

D-21.1 o

really is an excercise in defense. Wehad to defend the decisions that wehave made over the last many yearsin education, and it's been welldefended. I think the panel overthere by and large is not talking tothe audience. They were pleadingwith us legislators.

I'm reminded tnat fluctuatingenrollments is nothing new. Peterand I were freshmen back in the late50s. Only that was before the HECB,State Planning Agency and coor-dination. Then, instead of being fluc-tuating enrollments they were calledoverestimating, for the studentsdidn't show up.

I kind o; look at this wholeprogram this afternoon pretty much

from the vantage point of old age Iguess. An analogy of what we havein higher education is likegrandmother's kettle sitting on theback of the stove and each littlewhile we're adding ingredientsdepending on the flavor thatsomeone in the family wants. Theonly difference today is it's not thesame stove. Instead of wood wehave electricity; but we've the

111

D-27

crockpot nowplug it in. But still thesame ingredients. Still pretty muchthe same problem. Depends onemphasis priority.

I'll end by one of my favoritequotations from the scriptures. And Ithink that it all boils down to thisfrom Ecclesiastics: "A feast wasmade for pleasure, wine makethmerry, but money serveth all things."

document resume be gcs 910 planning for fluctuatirg ... · minnesota higher education ccordinatirg...

Documents