|
|
HIGHER EDUCATION COMMITTEE
The Higher Education Committee was assigned responsibilities in two areas.
Section 18 of 2001 Senate Bill No. 2003 directed a study of the State Board
of Higher Education's implementation of the performance and accountability
measures report required by 2001 Senate Bill No. 2041. In addition, the committee
was assigned, pursuant to Section 15 of 2001 Senate Bill No. 2003, the
responsibility to receive reports from the State Board of Higher Education
with respect to the board's progress in establishing and implementing
a long-term enrollment management plan.
Section 17 of 2001 Senate Bill No. 2003 directed a study of the responsibilities
and functions of the College Technical Education Council and the implementation
of the workforce training regions.
Committee members were Senators Dave Nething (Chairman), Linda Christenson,
Tim Flakoll, Tony Grindberg, Ray Holmberg, Ed Kringstad, Elroy N. Lindaas,
Ken Solberg, and Rich Wardner and Representatives Ole Aarsvold, Rachael Disrud,
Eliot Glassheim, Michael Grosz, Pam Gulleson, Roxanne Jensen, Nancy Johnson,
Myron Koppang, Bob Martinson, Ralph Metcalf, Bill Pietsch, Janet Wentz, and
Lonny Winrich.
The committee submitted this report to the Legislative Council at the biennial
meeting of the Council in November 2002. The Council accepted the report for
submission to the 58th Legislative Assembly.
HIGHER EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES STUDY
Section 18 of 2001 Senate Bill No. 2003 directed a study of the State Board
of Higher Education's implementation of the performance and accountability
measures report. Senate Bill No. 2041 (2001) established a North Dakota University
System and required the system to develop a strategic plan and provide an
annual performance and accountability report.
In addition, the committee was assigned, pursuant to Section 15 of
2001 Senate Bill No. 2003, the responsibility to receive reports from the
State Board of Higher Education with respect to the board's progress toward
establishing and implementing a long-term enrollment management plan.
Background
The North Dakota University System consists of 11 institutions under the
control of the State Board of Higher Education. The system served approximately
37,656 students (headcount enrollment) during the 2000-01 academic year, which
represents approximately 29,608 full-time equivalent (FTE) students. Total
spending provided by the 2001 Legislative Assembly for higher education institutions,
including the University System office, totaled $447,321,037, of which $366,953,836
was from the general fund and $80,367,201 from special funds. The legislative
appropriations for the 11 institutions, the University System office, and
the Forest Service support 3,088.39 FTE positions for the 2001-03 biennium.
1999-2000 Study
The higher education system has been studied on numerous occasions by Legislative
Council committees. The Higher Education Committee during the 1999-2000 interim
studied higher education funding, including the expectations of the University
System in meeting the state's needs in the 21st century, the funding methodology
needed to meet these expectations and needs, and the appropriate accountability
and reporting system for the University System. The committee through the
use of a Higher Education Roundtable consisting of the 21 members of the Higher
Education Committee and 40 representatives from the State Board of Higher
Education, business and industry, higher education institutions, including
tribal colleges and private colleges, and the executive branch discussed shifts,
trends, and realities that impact the state of North Dakota and the University
System and developed expectations for the University System, recommendations
concerning higher education in North Dakota, and accountability measures and
success indicators that correspond with the expectations for the University
System.
The committee recommended the following bills regarding higher education
in North Dakota:
- Senate Bill No. 2037 (2001), which, as introduced, provided a continuing
appropriation for all funds in higher education institutions' special
revenue funds, including tuition, and allowed institutions to carry over
at the end of the biennium unspent general fund appropriations.
- Senate Bill No. 2038 (2001), which, as introduced, required the budget
request for the University System to include budget estimates for block
grants for a base funding component and for an initiative funding component
for specific strategies or initiatives and a budget estimate for an asset
funding component for renewal and replacement of physical plant assets at
the institutions of higher education and required the appropriation for
the University System to include block grants to the State Board of Higher
Education for a base funding appropriation and for an initiative funding
appropriation for specific strategies or initiatives and an appropriation
for asset funding for renewal and replacement of physical plant assets.
- Senate Bill No. 2039 (2001), which, as introduced, allowed the State
Board of Higher Education to authorize campus improvements and building
maintenance projects that are financed by donations, gifts, grants, and
bequests if the cost of the improvement or maintenance is not more than
$500,000.
- Senate Bill No. 2040 (2001), which, as introduced, allowed the University
System to provide bonuses, cash incentive awards, and temporary salary adjustments
without reporting the activity to the Office of Management and Budget as
a fiscal irregularity.
- Senate Bill No. 2041 (2001), which, as introduced, recognized the institutions
under the control of the State Board of Higher Education as the North Dakota
University System and required the University System to develop a strategic
plan that defines University System goals and objectives and to provide
an annual performance and accountability report regarding performance and
progress toward the goals and objectives.
- Senate Bill No. 2042 (2001), which, as introduced, amended and repealed
statutes relating to the powers of the State Board of Higher Education and
the duties and responsibilities of institutions under the control of the
State Board of Higher Education which are no longer appropriate.
The committee also recommended financial and nonfinancial accountability
measurements to be reported annually at the University System level.
2001 Legislation
The 2001 Legislative Assembly amended Senate Bill No. 2003 to:
- Provide that the State Board of Higher Education's annual performance
and accountability report as required by Senate Bill No. 2041 (2001) include
an executive summary and specific performance and accountability measures
regarding education excellence, economic development, student access, student
affordability, and financial operations.
- Provide a continuing appropriation for higher education institutions'
special revenue funds, including tuition income and local funds. This legislative
action, which was originally a provision in Senate Bill No. 2037 (2001),
as introduced, is effective through June 30, 2003.
- Require the budget estimates for higher education to include block grants
for a base funding component and for an initiative funding component and
a budget estimate for an asset funding component. This legislative action,
which was originally a provision in Senate Bill No. 2038 (2001), as introduced,
is effective through June 30, 2003.
- Require the appropriation for the University System to include block
grants to the State Board of Higher Education for a base funding appropriation
and for an initiative funding appropriation and an appropriation for asset
funding. This legislative action, which was originally a provision in Senate
Bill No. 2038 (2001), as introduced, is effective through June 30, 2003.
- Allow higher education institutions to carry over at the end of the biennium
unspent general fund appropriations. This legislative action, which was
originally a provision in Senate Bill No. 2037 (2001), as introduced, is
effective through June 30, 2003.
The 2001 Legislative Assembly amended Senate Bill No. 2039, which was recommended
by the 1999-2000 interim Higher Education Committee, to allow the State Board
of Higher Education to authorize campus improvements and building maintenance
projects that are financed by donations, gifts, grants, and bequests if the
cost of the improvement or maintenance is not more than $385,000.
The 2001 Legislative Assembly did not approve Senate Bill No. 2040, which
was recommended by the 1999-2000 interim Higher Education Committee, to allow
the University System to provide bonuses, cash incentive awards, and temporary
salary adjustments without reporting the activity to the Office of Management
and Budget as a fiscal irregularity.
The 2001 Legislative Assembly adopted Senate Bill No. 2041, which was recommended
by the 1999-2000 interim Higher Education Committee, to recognize the institutions
under the control of the State Board of Higher Education as the North Dakota
University System and to require the University System to develop a strategic
plan which defines University System goals and objectives and to provide an
annual performance and accountability report regarding performance and progress
toward the goals and objectives.
The 2001 Legislative Assembly also adopted Senate Bill No. 2042, which was
recommended by the 1999-2000 interim Higher Education Committee, to amend
and repeal statutes relating to the powers of the State Board of Higher Education
and the duties and responsibilities of institutions under the control of the
State Board of Higher Education which were no longer appropriate.
Higher Education Roundtable
A Higher Education Roundtable consisting of the 22 members of the Higher
Education Committee and 44 representatives from the State Board of Higher
Education, business and industry, higher education institutions, including
tribal colleges and private colleges, and the executive branch was reconvened
during the 2001-02 interim to discuss the implementation status of the 1999-2000
Higher Education Roundtable recommendations and future high-priority action
items. The University System contracted with Mr. Dennis Jones, President,
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, Boulder, Colorado,
for consulting services and to facilitate roundtable discussion and the development
of action items.
The Higher Education Roundtable with assistance from the facilitator:
- Reviewed plans for and accomplishments relating to the recommendations
of the 1999-2000 Higher Education Roundtable.
- Reviewed the state's New Economy Initiative and its linkage to the
Higher Education Roundtable cornerstones and recommendations.
- Developed high-priority action items concerning higher education in North
Dakota.
Accomplishments
The Higher Education Roundtable received information from the State Board
of Higher Education, higher education institutions, and the executive branch
regarding plans for and accomplishments relating to the recommendations of
the 1999-2000 Higher Education Roundtable.
The State Board of Higher Education has developed a University System vision
statement and changed the University System mission statement to provide that
the University System continue to provide high-quality education to students
and assume a major responsibility for enhancing the economy of North Dakota.
The board has also developed a new University System strategic plan based
on the recommendations from the 1999-2000 Higher Education Roundtable, approved
a long-term financing plan and resource allocation model, and published the
first annual performance and accountability report in January 2002.
The roundtable learned the higher education institutions have developed
alignment plans that describe the actions the institutions are performing
and intending to perform in response to the recommendations of the 1999-2000
Higher Education Roundtable. The institutions are also working collaboratively
to deliver high-demand educational programs in rural North Dakota, increase
research development efforts, and increase the number of partnerships with
the private sector.
The roundtable learned the Governor's office expects the University
System to concentrate on the transfer of research efforts to product development
and economic development and improve communications with local communities.
The roundtable learned the 2002 Community College Futures Assembly awarded
the Bellwether Award for planning, governance, and finance to the Higher Education
Roundtable process. Also, the Higher Education Roundtable process was the
winner of the 2002 Midwestern Legislative Conference Innovations Exchange
and Awards Program Award.
New Economy Initiative
The Higher Education Roundtable reviewed the New Economy Initiative and
its linkage to the Higher Education Roundtable and learned the initiative
is a statewide effort to mobilize all North Dakotans to develop new ideas,
grow the economy, and create a more prosperous state. The initiative relies
on two main tools--industry clusters and action teams. The industry clusters--flexible
food manufacturing, tourism, information technology, aerospace, energy and
environment, and advanced manufacturing--are to create strategies to increase
growth in selected industries, and the action teams are to address the challenges
that affect all industries. An important aspect of the initiative is to grow
talent to match the new knowledge-based economy.
Task Force Process
The Higher Education Roundtable reconvened the six task forces formed for
the 1999-2000 Higher Education Roundtable--Economic Development Connection,
Education Excellence, Flexible and Responsive System, Accessible System, Funding
and Rewards, and Sustaining the Vision--to develop high-priority action items
and identify the stakeholders responsible for achieving the respective high-priority
action items.
The task forces, chaired by legislative committee members, developed by
consensus the following high-priority action items:
Economic Development Connection
- Review existing state laws and procedures to determine if the laws and
procedures are sufficient to protect the privacy and confidentiality of
the information of business and industry in partnership with the North Dakota
University System, and if not, request that legislation be developed and
provided to the interim Higher Education Committee. (Responsibility: Economic
Development Connection Task Force)
- Endorse the New Economy Initiative's statewide talent pool strategy
and the following related five strategic statements:
- Attract and embrace a more diverse workforce that targets innovation
and technology and other careers identified by the needs assessment
tool.
- Utilize the assets of colleges and universities in attracting and
retaining a new economy workforce.
- Develop an aggressive marketing campaign promoting North Dakota's
"quality of place."
- Expand workforce training and lifelong learning to match North Dakota's
current workforce to new economy opportunities and move to a high-value
workforce.
- Become a national model for providing rural preschool through postsecondary
education and lifelong learning.
(Responsibility: State Board of Higher Education, higher
education institutions, Legislative Assembly, executive branch, private
sector)
Education Excellence
- Continue a strong emphasis on making and keeping faculty salaries competitive.
(Responsibility: State Board of Higher Education, higher education institutions)
- Begin to conceptualize and develop an approach to kindergarten through
postsecondary education using a roundtable approach. (Responsibility: State
Board of Higher Education, higher education institutions, kindergarten through
grade 12)
- Encourage and strongly support emphasis on experiential learning, including
the inclusion of students with faculty in applied research and other problem-solving
activities. (Responsibility: State Board of Higher Education, higher education
institutions)
- Enhance emphasis on research as a means to attract and retain faculty.
(Responsibility: State Board of Higher Education, higher education institutions)
- Consider the establishment of an enhanced state scholarship program.
Responsibility: State Board of Higher Education, higher education institutions)
Flexible and Responsive System
- Continue and expand the flexibility granted to the North Dakota University
System. (Responsibility: Legislative Assembly, State Board of Higher Education)
- Colleges and universities and the Department of Commerce must continue
to establish strategic alliances with state government, businesses and industries,
community groups, and federal entities. (Responsibility: State Board of
Higher Education, higher education institutions, executive branch)
- Examine the balance between competition and cooperation in the North
Dakota University System and provide mechanisms for guidance. (Responsibility:
State Board of Higher Education, higher education institutions)
Accessible System
- Develop partnerships to ensure students leave kindergarten through grade
12 with the knowledge and skills necessary to function effectively as college
and university students. (Responsibility: State Board of Higher Education,
higher education institutions, kindergarten through grade 12)
- Encourage higher education institutions to become more approachable and
to provide more assistance to enable older than average students to further
their education and skills development. (Responsibility: State Board of
Higher Education, higher education institutions)
- Enhance marketing efforts for recruitment purposes, including informing
the public and customers of programs available and program successes. (Responsibility:
North Dakota University System, Legislative Assembly)
Funding and Rewards
- Identify strategies for maximizing campus utilization. (Responsibility:
State Board of Higher Education, higher education institutions, private
sector)
- Continue to enhance campus entrepreneurship and partner with state and
federal government, private sector, and other entities. (Responsibility:
State Board of Higher Education, higher education institutions, private
sector)
- Ensure that focus and rewards are consistent with established North Dakota
University System and higher education institutions' goals. (Responsibility:
State Board of Higher Education, higher education institutions)
- Continue higher education special revenue funds continuing appropriation
authority, higher education budget requests, budget estimates, and appropriation
legislation, and higher education appropriation carryover legislation passed
by the 2001 Legislative Assembly. (Responsibility: Legislative Assembly,
executive branch, private sector)
Sustaining the Vision
- Continue the roundtable concept by retaining the structure of the membership
and holding annual meetings. (Responsibility: Legislative Council)
- Develop a clear and concise message of the roundtable which explains
the roundtable benefits. (Responsibility: North Dakota University System)
- "Tell the story" by broadening and intensifying the message
to the following:
- General public.
- Business community.
- Legislative Assembly.
- Media.
- North Dakota University System faculty.
- Kindergarten through grade 12.
(Responsibility: State Board of Higher Education, higher
education institutions, Legislative Assembly, executive branch, private
sector)
The Higher Education Roundtable received comments from the facilitator regarding
the high-priority action items in the following areas:
- Economic development - Barriers must be identified that make developing
partnerships with the University System difficult;
- Education excellence - The state may want to consider the expansion of
programs such as the workstudy program into the private sector instead of
implementing an enhanced scholarship program;
- Accessibility - The University System must determine how to deliver higher
education to the student instead of how to bring the student to the higher
education institution;
- Funding and rewards - Budgetary flexibility is important during times
of economic hardship;
- Sustaining the vision - It is important for the roundtable concept to
be continued and for the entire state to understand the benefits of the
Higher Education Roundtable; and
- Competition for students - Higher education institutions cannot be successful
by competing for the same pool of students. North Dakota has a large untapped
market of nontraditional students that could be attracted to institutions
or could receive education through nontraditional methods such as interactive
video.
The Higher Education Roundtable accepted the task force high-priority action
items at its June 2002 meeting and forwarded the action items to the Higher
Education Committee for its consideration.
Long-Term Financing Plan and Resource Allocation Model
The committee received testimony from representatives of the University
System office, State Board of Higher Education, and the National Center for
Higher Education Management Systems regarding the establishment of a long-term
financing plan and resource allocation model.
The committee learned that during the late 1970s and early 1980s, funding
for higher education was based on a formula-funding model developed in part
as a result of a legislative interim study. The formula was largely enrollment-
and size-driven with internal institution per student cost comparisons. During
the late 1980s and 1990s, the formula-funding model was abandoned due largely
to declining state revenues and was replaced with an incremental budgeting
and appropriation process. The 1999-2000 interim Higher Education Committee
studied higher education funding and recommended the State Board of Higher
Education and the chancellor develop and recommend to the 2003 Legislative
Assembly a financing plan to address the gap between current funding levels
and resources needed to implement the recommendations of the 1999-2000 Higher
Education Roundtable and a resource allocation model.
The committee learned the State Board of Higher Education contracted with
the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems for assistance
with the development of a long-term financing plan and resource allocation
model. The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems recommended
the State Board of Higher Education be consistent with the recommendations
of the 1999-2000 Higher Education Roundtable and develop a long-term financing
plan consisting of:
- A base operating budget for each institution that includes parity and
equity funding.
- Special initiative funding for the State Board of Higher Education to
support the recommendations of the 1999-2000 Higher Education Roundtable.
- Capital asset funding for each institution.
The State Board of Higher Education reviewed the recommendations of the
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems and adopted the following
beliefs and principles to serve as the foundation of the long-term financing
plan and resource allocation model:
- Higher education funding should be a shared responsibility of the state,
students, and higher education institutions.
- Higher education institutions should be encouraged to generate additional
revenues and to diversify revenue sources.
- Higher education institutions and faculty and staff should be rewarded
and recognized for behavior consistent with the principles of the 1999-2000
Higher Education Roundtable.
- Higher education institutions should be given the flexibility to set
tuition rates, and the State Board of Higher Education should be accountable
for maintaining affordability for North Dakota citizens.
- Higher education institutions should retain the current level of state
general fund appropriation as base operating funds, and biennial adjustments
should be made to address parity or inflationary increases.
- Equity differentials, calculated by comparisons with peer comparator
institutions, should be addressed in the biennial appropriation process.
- The State Board of Higher Education should receive a specific appropriation
to support statewide priorities and to reward collaboration between institutions.
- Higher education institutions should be held accountable for the outcomes
of the goals and objectives in strategic plans.
- The unique missions of higher education institutions should be recognized
in establishing an institution's base funding and adequate funding should
be provided to maintain an institution's capacity to deliver its mission.
- Higher education institutions should be given the flexibility to allocate
resources.
- The State Board of Higher Education should request separate funding for
the maintenance and replacement of University System facilities and infrastructure.
The committee learned the State Board of Higher Education approved a long-term
financing plan composed of base operating funding, special initiative funding,
and capital asset funding components and will recommend the long-term financing
plan to the 2003 Legislative Assembly. The State Board of Higher Education's
recommendations relating to the base operating funding component of the long-term
financing plan and resource allocation model are:
- Operating fund benchmarks should be established on a per FTE student
basis for determining budget requests and legislative appropriations for
each institution by evaluating the most recently available national integrated
postsecondary education data systems (IPEDS) data on state appropriations
and net tuition revenues for peer comparator institutions. The operating
fund benchmarks should be reestablished every six years, and in the intervening
years the benchmarks should be adjusted by a percentage amount equivalent
to the changes in the national consumer price index. The operating benchmarks
per FTE student recommended by the State Board of Higher Education are:
| North Dakota State University,
excluding agriculture extension and experiment |
$10,500 |
| University of North Dakota, including the
School of Medicine and Health Sciences |
$13,250 |
| Dickinson State University |
$7,500 |
| Mayville State University |
$9,000 |
| Minot State University |
$8,500 |
| Valley City State University |
$9,000 |
| Bismarck State College |
$7,750 |
| Minot State University - Bottineau |
$9,000 |
| State College of Science |
$8,500 |
| Lake Region State College |
$9,250 |
| Williston State College |
$7,500 |
- Higher education funding should be reflective of a shared responsibility
among stakeholders. The State Board of Higher Education's recommended
shared funding responsibilities are:
| Tiers |
State
Funding Responsibility |
Student Funding Responsibility
|
| University of North Dakota and North Dakota
State University |
60% |
40% |
| Minot State University |
65% |
35% |
| Mayville State University, Valley City State
University, and Dickinson State University |
70% |
30% |
| Bismarck State College, Minot State University
- Bottineau, State College of Science, Lake Region State College, and
Williston State College |
75% |
25% |
- Budget requests and legislative appropriations should be developed
to fund institutions at 85 percent of the benchmarks in six years and
95 percent of the benchmarks in 12 years.
- The higher education budget requests and legislative appropriations should
be based on the following:
- Base funding should continue to be provided to all 11 institutions
and include operating fund increases to address parity or inflation.
- General fund appropriations should not be reallocated between institutions.
- A portion of increased state general fund appropriations should be
allocated to parity and equity with no more than 80 percent of all
new funding allocated to parity or inflation and no less than 20 percent
of new funds be allocated to equity.
- Equity funds should be distributed on a weighted average of each institution's
gap differential to its peer comparator institutions.
- State general fund appropriations should not be reduced for any institution
from the previous biennium until such time that the institution exceeds
105 percent of its peer benchmark, or enrollment declines are sufficient
to cause a reevaluation of its benchmark.
- The State Board of Higher Education should continue to approve the base
tuition rate at each institution and allow institutions to establish additional
tuition rate charges and discounting policies.
The State Board of Higher Education's recommendation relating to the
special initiative component of the long-term financing plan and resource
allocation model is for an appropriation equivalent to 2 percent of the total
University System state general fund appropriation to be phased in over six
years.
The State Board of Higher Education's recommendations relating to the
capital financing component of the long-term financing plan and resource allocation
model are:
- A renewal and replacement funding model should be developed to achieve
funding equal to 2 percent of total capital asset replacement value
within 10 to 16 years.
- Institutions should be required to demonstrate funds have been spent
on renewal and renovation projects or funds placed in escrow for large renewal
and renovation projects.
- When renewal and replacement funding reaches 2 percent of total capital
asset replacement value, institutions should cease requesting additional
renewal and replacement funding, except for funds used to address the deferred
maintenance backlog.
- Additional renewal and replacement funds will not be provided to an institution
for costs associated with new capital assets if the institution is already
at the renewal and replacement benchmark level.
The committee learned the state would have to increase funding for higher
education by approximately $80 million per biennium to implement the recommended
long-term financing plan and to achieve base operating funding levels of 85
percent of the established benchmark levels or increase funding by approximately
$118 million per biennium to achieve base operating funding levels of 95 percent
of the established benchmark levels.
Performance and Accountability Report
The 2001 Legislative Assembly in Senate Bill No. 2041 required the
University System to provide an annual performance and accountability report
and provide that the report include an executive summary and identify progress
on specific performance and accountability measures in the areas of education
excellence, economic development, student access, student affordability, and
financial operations.
The committee learned the State Board of Higher Education adopted 11 performance
and accountability measures, in addition to the measures required by the 2001
Legislative Assembly, that are to provide information on major objectives
of the State Board of Higher Education.
The committee learned the reporting timeline for the performance and accountability
measures will vary due to the availability of data. The level of reporting
for the performance and accountability measures also varies depending on whether
the reporting is to the Legislative Assembly or the State Board of Higher
Education.
The committee received the University System's first annual performance
and accountability report in January 2002. The report included information
on approximately one-third of the performance and accountability measures
required by the 2001 Legislative Assembly and adopted by the State Board of
Higher Education. The committee reviewed the report and learned:
- The University System's institutions performed very well when compared
to other states and national standards;
- The number of businesses provided employee training by North Dakota's
workforce training system increased by 134 percent from fiscal year 2000
to fiscal year 2001;
- University System graduates exceeded the national first-time pass rate
on national examinations for most professions;
- The University System's fall 2001 enrollment was at an alltime high
of 37,596 students; and
- The University System generated approximately 62 percent of its total
education-related revenue in fiscal year 2001 from tuition and fees, sales
and services, grants, and gifts.
The second performance and accountability report is to be completed and
available in January 2003 and will include information on approximately three-fourths
of the required performance and accountability measures.
The third report to be published in January 2004 will include information
on all performance and accountability measures. The performance and accountability
measures are:
| |
Reporting Level (System,
Tier, Campus, Other) |
|
|
| Performance and
Accountability Measure |
Reporting Level to Legislature
|
Reporting Level to State
Board of Higher Education |
Reporting Timeline |
Data Source |
| 2001 Senate Bill No. 2003 |
|
|
|
|
| Students' performance on nationally recognized
examinations in their fields compared to the national averages |
By professional area |
By campus |
2002 |
Campus data
National examination administration |
| First-time licensure pass rates compared
to other states |
By professional area |
By campus |
2001 |
National licensing boards |
| Alumni-reported and student-reported satisfaction
with preparation in selected major, acquisition of specific skills, and
technology knowledge and abilities |
By system |
By campus |
2003 |
American College Test (ACT) or Noel Levitz
alumni survey
ACT student opinion survey or Noel Levitz student satisfaction survey
combined with Noel Levitz institutional priorities survey |
| Employer-reported satisfaction with preparation
of recently hired graduates |
By system |
By campus |
2003 |
Campus placement offices |
| Biennial report on employee satisfaction
relating to the University System and local institutions |
By campus per legislative request |
By campus |
2003 |
Noel Levitz institutional priorities survey
Other employee surveys
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) report |
| Ratio of faculty and staff to students |
By tier |
By campus |
2002 |
Annual budget - FTE faculty and staff fall
enrollment report |
| Student graduation and retention rates |
By system |
By campus |
2003 |
IPEDS
Student Progress and Achievement Reporting Cooperative (SPARC)
Graduation rate survey
Noel Levitz retention management system or ACT nonreturning student
survey
National clearinghouse |
| Enrollment in entrepreneurship courses and
the number of graduates of entrepreneurship programs |
By system |
By campus |
2002 |
Higher Education Computer Network (HECN)
IPEDS enrollment report and graduation rate survey |
| Percentage of University System graduates
obtaining employment appropriate to their education in the state |
By system |
By campus |
2002 |
Followup information on North Dakota education
and training (FINDET)
Placement offices
Employer surveys |
| Number of businesses and employees in the
region receiving training |
By system
(information by quadrant will be in campus year-end report) |
By campus |
2001 |
Workforce training quadrants
Campus continuing education office |
| Proportion of residents of the state who
are within a 45-minute drive of a location at which they can receive educational
programs from a provider |
By system |
By campus |
2002 |
North Dakota Data Census Center
45-minute map |
| Number and trends of enrollments in courses
offered by nontraditional methods |
By system |
By campus |
2001 |
Campus administrative information system
(AIS) information through HECN |
| Tuition and fees on a per student basis compared
to the regional average |
By tier |
By campus |
2001 |
Washington tuition and fee survey |
| Tuition and fees as a percentage of median
North Dakota household income |
By tier |
By campus |
2001 |
Washington tuition and fee survey
United States Census Bureau |
| Cost per student in terms of general fund
appropriations and total University System funding |
By system |
By campus |
2001 |
Audited financial statements
Fall enrollment report |
| Administrative, instructional, and other
costs per student |
By system |
By campus |
2001 |
Audited financial statements
Fall enrollment report |
| Per capita general fund appropriations for
higher education |
By system |
By campus |
2001 |
Audited financial statements
United States Census Bureau |
| State general fund appropriation levels for
University System institutions compared to peer institutions general fund
appropriation levels |
By campus |
By campus |
2002 |
IPEDS data |
| Percentage of total University System funding
used for instruction, research, and public service |
By system |
By campus |
2001 |
Audited financial statements |
| Percentage of total University System funding
used for institutional support, operations, and maintenance of physical
plant |
By system |
By campus |
2001 |
Audited financial statements |
| Ratio measuring the funding derived from
the operating and contributed income compared to total University System
funding |
By system |
By campus |
2001 |
Audited financial statements |
| Ratio measuring the size of the University
System's outstanding maintenance as compared to its expendable net
assets |
By system |
By campus |
2002 |
Campus master plans
Audited financial statements |
| Ratio measuring the amount of
expendable net assets as compared to the amount of long-term debt
|
By system |
By campus |
2001 |
Audited financial statements |
| Research expenditures in proportion to the
amount of revenue generated by research activity and funding received
for research activity |
By system |
By campus |
2002 |
Audited financial statements
Other sources not yet identified |
| Report on new construction and major renovation
capital projects for which specific appropriations are made, including
budget to actual comparison, use of third-party funding, and related debt
|
By campus |
By campus |
2001 |
HECN general ledger |
| State Board of Higher Education |
|
|
|
|
| A status report on higher education financing
as compared to the long-term financing plan |
By campus |
By campus |
2002 |
Long-term financing plan (IPEDS data) |
| Incentive funding, including the allocation
and use of incentive funding |
By system |
By campus |
2002 |
HECN general ledger
Campus records |
| State general fund appropriation levels and
trends as compared to changes in the state's economy and total state
general fund appropriations |
By system |
By campus |
2002 |
Office of Management and Budget state appropriation
reports |
| Percentage of total University System funding
used for academic support, student services, and scholarships and fellowships
|
By system |
By campus |
2001 |
Audited financial statements |
| Workforce training information, including
levels of satisfaction with training events as reflected in information
systematically gathered from employers and employees receiving training
|
By system
(information by quadrant will be in campus year-end reports) |
By campus |
2001 |
Workforce training quadrants |
| Levels and trends in partnerships and joint
ventures between University System institutions |
By system
(with campuses identified in the data) |
By campus |
2002 |
Campus articulation agreements
North Dakota University System distance education log
Number of collaboratively flagged students |
| Levels and trends in the number of students
achieving goals - Institution meeting the defined needs/goals as expressed
by students |
By system |
By campus |
2003 |
ACT entering student survey
ACT college outcome survey |
Student enrollment information, including:
- Total number and trends in full-time, part-time, degree-seeking,
and non-degree-seeking students being served
- The number and trends of individuals, organization, and agencies
served through noncredit activities
|
By system |
By campus |
1. 2001
2. 2002 |
Campus AIS information through HECN
Workforce training quadrants and campus continuing education offices
|
Levels of satisfaction with responsiveness
as reflected through responses to evaluations and surveys of clients:
- Graduates and individuals completing programs
- Employers
- Companies and employees receiving training
|
By system |
By campus |
1. 2001
2. 2003
3. 2001 |
ACT or Noel Levitz surveys
Workforce training quadrants and campus continuing education offices
|
| Levels of satisfaction and reasons for noncompletion
as reflected in a survey of individuals who have not completed their programs
or degrees |
By system |
By campus |
2003 |
ACT college outcome survey or Noel Levitz
retention management system
Campus exit interviews |
Levels and trends in rates of participation
of:
- Recent high school graduates and nontraditional students
- Individuals pursuing graduate degrees
|
By system |
By campus |
2002 |
HECN
Campus AIS information through HECN |
Long-Term Enrollment Management Plan
The committee learned the State Board of Higher Education formed a task
force consisting of board members and higher education institution presidents
to direct the development of a long-term enrollment management and service
plan and anticipates completing the enrollment management and service plan
by December 2002 and presenting the plan to the 2003 Legislative Assembly.
The State Board of Higher Education's primary goal of the long-term
enrollment management and service plan is to enhance the economy of North
Dakota and increase the working age population of the state by maximizing
the utilization of the higher education institutions in the University System.
The board's expectations for the long-term enrollment management and service
plan are to:
- Recognize the realities of population trends, high school graduation
levels, and other demographic and economic trends occurring in the state
and in surrounding states.
- Enhance, support, and empower higher education institutions to achieve
their enrollment and retention goals.
- Combine and coordinate the efforts of all the higher education institutions
in the University System to serve the needs of North Dakota in a coherent,
efficient, and effective manner.
- Address the need to increase the working age population of North Dakota
through high-value jobs and an attractive living and working environment.
- Increase the diversity of students enrolled in the University System's
higher education institutions.
- Respond to the needs and expectations of students and other clients to
be served.
University System Admission Requirements
Related to the committee's assigned study, the committee received information
regarding the University System's admission requirements. The committee
learned an individual who wants to attend any of the 11 higher education institutions
in the University System must have a high school diploma or general educational
development (GED) certificate and must have completed the American College
Test (ACT) or the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), unless the student is age
25 or older on the first day of class, is from a foreign country other than
Canada, is transferring 24 or more semester credits acceptable at the receiving
campus, or is exempted through an established campus policy.
The committee learned an individual who plans to attend one of the University
System's four-year institutions and who graduated from high school in
1993 or later must have completed a core curriculum, including four units
of English, three units of mathematics, three units of laboratory science,
and three units of social studies. The University System's four-year institutions
may provide a student an exemption to the high school core curriculum requirements
and may admit such a student through a review procedure established by the
institution.
Committee Recommendations
The committee accepted the Higher Education Roundtable high-priority action
items discussed earlier in the report and recommends:
- House Bill No.
1039 to provide for the continuation of the continuing appropriation
authority for higher education institutions' special revenue funds,
including tuition.
- House Bill No.
1040 to provide for the continuation of the University System's
authority to carry over at the end of the biennium unspent general fund
appropriations.
- House Bill No.
1041 to continue the requirement that the budget request for the University
System include budget estimates for block grants for a base funding component
and for an initiative funding component and a budget estimate for an asset
funding component, and the requirement that the appropriation for the University
System include block grants for a base funding appropriation and for an
initiative funding appropriation and an appropriation for asset funding.
- House Bill No.
1042 to require the University System performance and accountability
report to include an executive summary and specific information regarding
education excellence, economic development, student access, student affordability,
and financial operations.
COLLEGE TECHNICAL EDUCATION COUNCIL AND WORKFORCE TRAINING REGIONS STUDY
Section 17 of 2001 Senate Bill No. 2003 directed a study of the responsibilities
and functions of the College Technical Education Council and the implementation
of the workforce training regions.
College Technical Education Council
The College Technical Education Council was formed in 1993 to improve the
coordination and collaboration among the State Board for Vocational and Technical
Education and the secondary and postsecondary institutions involved in vocational
and technical education and workforce training in North Dakota. The council,
which has an executive director, consists of the presidents of the state higher
education two-year institutions, the state director of the State Board for
Vocational and Technical Education, and the chancellor of the University System.
Funding and Staffing
The committee learned the University System office's legislative appropriation
for the 2001-03 biennium includes funding of $194,788 from the general fund
for the College Technical Education Council, a decrease in funding of $2,839
from the 1999-2001 legislative appropriation of $197,627.
The College Technical Education Council is authorized a .70 FTE position
for the 2001-03 biennium, a decrease of a .30 FTE position from the authorized
level for the 1999-2001 biennium of one FTE position. During the 1999-2001
biennium, as allowed by Section 6 of 1999 House Bill No. 1003, the University
System adjusted the staffing for the College Technical Education Council from
one FTE position to a .70 FTE position to properly account for the executive
director of the council also assuming the duties of the vice chancellor of
strategic planning for the University System.
Responsibilities and Functions
The committee learned the College Technical Education Council is responsible
for developing and recommending appropriate policies and procedures relating
to vocational and technical education, serving as a vehicle for transforming
the University System's two-year institutions from junior colleges into
community colleges, and serving in a coordination and support role to the
University System's two-year institutions providing workforce training
functions.
Accomplishments and Initiatives
The committee learned the College Technical Education Council's accomplishments
include the development of a program matrix to identify and determine where
programs are currently being offered, where programs could potentially be
offered, needs for new programs, and opportunities for collaboration among
campuses; development of a core of general education courses that satisfy
the general education requirements at any of the University System institutions;
provision of leadership in the development of a common course-numbering system;
collaboration with the statewide task force on workforce development and training
on designing a more effective and responsive workforce training system for
the state; completion of a statewide needs analysis identifying potential
new education and training programs for consideration by higher education
institutions; development of a new academic program approval process; and
implementation of the delivery of practical nursing training across the state.
The committee learned the current and ongoing initiatives of the council
include offering a baccalaureate degree for instructors in trade, technology,
and health areas through Valley City State University; improving faculty development
through a grant from the Bush Foundation; assisting with the implementation
of workforce development and training; collaborating with University System
institutions and business and industry representatives to more effectively
connect the education, research, and service capabilities of the University
System with the economic development needs and opportunities of the state;
and identifying information technology education required to meet the current
and growing demand for information technology workers.
Relationship With Other Entities
The committee learned the College Technical Education Council has a cooperative
relationship with the two-year higher education institutions, the Department
of Commerce Division of Workforce Development, and the State Board for Vocational
and Technical Education. The council has been a critical structure in assisting
two-year higher education institutions in developing an understanding of the
unique mission and role of community colleges within the University System.
The council, the director, and division leaders of the Department of Commerce
hold quarterly meetings to discuss issues relating to workforce development
and workforce training, and the council and the State Board for Vocational
and Technical Education review issues relating to vocational and technical
programs at high schools and the two-year higher education institutions.
Workforce Training Regions
House Bill No. 1443 (1999) established a new workforce training system for
North Dakota based on the recommendations of a 31-member workforce training
task force representing business, education, and government which examined
the state's workforce training system during the 1998-99 interim. Under
the new workforce training system the state is divided into four delivery
regions, and select higher education institutions are designated as having
primary responsibility for workforce training programs. At each of the select
higher education institutions, a special division or unit is created to contact
business and industry, develop working relationships, determine training needs,
and collaborate with other higher education institutions and private and public
training providers to arrange for training. The four workforce training regions
and the corresponding higher education institutions with workforce training
primary responsibilities are:
| Northwest workforce training
region |
Williston State College |
| Southwest workforce training region |
Bismarck State College |
| Northeast workforce training region |
Lake Region State College |
| Southeast workforce training region |
State College of Science |
Financial Support
The committee learned the workforce training system receives financial support
from the state general fund, training fees, and funds from local business
and industry, community organizations, and higher education institutions.
House Bill No. 1443, as passed by the 1999 Legislative Assembly, provided
an $875,000 general fund appropriation to the State Board for Vocational and
Technical Education for contracting with select higher education institutions
providing workforce training programs. The bill would have established a workforce
training investment fee to be assessed against employers in the state. The
fee would have been .03 percent of taxable wages and collected by Job
Service North Dakota; however, this provision and provisions relating to the
training investment fee were vetoed by the Governor.
The 2001 Legislative Assembly provided a $1,350,000 general fund appropriation
to the State Board for Vocational and Technical Education for the 2001-03
biennium for continued support of the workforce training initiative, an increase
of $475,000 from the 1999-2001 biennium.
The committee learned the workforce training regions submitted a hold-even
budget request of $1,350,000 from the general fund for the 2003-05 biennium.
Workforce Training Activity
The committee learned workforce training is oriented toward serving the
training needs of business and industry, and workforce development is the
education and training of individuals provided by kindergarten through grade
12, higher education, and state and federal government. The types of workforce
training offered include computer skills, employee skills enhancement, management
skills, technical training, and apprenticeships. The workforce training regions
deliver workforce training activities at higher education institutions, local
schools, community centers, business locations, and through on-line classes.
The workforce training regions provided workforce training services to 1,326
businesses and 10,299 employees in fiscal year 2002. This represents an increase
of 112 businesses and a decrease of 370 employees from the number receiving
training in fiscal year 2001. The decrease in the number of employees receiving
training was due to workforce training regions providing training to more
but smaller businesses. In addition, the workforce training regions received
direct training revenue of $1,880,864 for fiscal year 2002. The following
table shows workforce training activity for fiscal years 2000 through 2002:
| |
Fiscal Year 2000
|
Fiscal Year 2001
|
Fiscal Year 2002
|
| Number of businesses receiving training |
518 |
1,214 |
1,326 |
| Number of employees receiving training |
7,463 |
10,669 |
10,299 |
| Direct training revenue |
$965,992 |
$1,462,042 |
$1,880,864 |
Business and Industry
The committee heard from representatives of business and industry regarding
the implementation of the workforce training system. The committee learned
the workforce training regions are an important source of training for small
employers in the state and are essential to marketing and recruiting businesses
to the state.
Future Plans
The committee learned the workforce training regions plan to create a more
visible public relations effort; develop strategic partnerships with businesses,
industries, and agencies; and promote workforce training at regional and state
events.
Conclusion
The committee makes no recommendation regarding its study of the College
Technical Education Council and the workforce training regions.
BUDGET TOURS
During the interim the Higher Education Committee functioned as a budget
tour group of the Budget Section and visited Bismarck State College, Dickinson
State University, Lake Region State College, Mayville State University, Minot
State University, Minot State University - Bottineau, North Dakota State
University, State College of Science, University of North Dakota, Valley City
State University, Williston State College, Forest Service, Main Research Center,
North Central Research Center, and Williston Research Center. The committee
learned about institutional programs, the status of capital improvements for
the 2001-03 biennium, future capital improvement needs, plans for and accomplishments
regarding the recommendations of the 1999-2000 interim Higher Education Committee,
and reactions to the University System's recommended long-term financing
plan and resource allocation model. Institutional representatives expressed
the need for continued legislative support by continuing the increased financial
flexibility provided by the 2001 Legislative Assembly. The tour group minutes
are available in the Legislative Council office and will be submitted in report
form to the Appropriations Committees during the 2003 Legislative Assembly.
|
|
|
