Video One - How States Can Increase Student Attainment
Question: States are focused on educating and graduating increased number of college students. What are two to three important changes states can make to current policies including funding to achieve this goal?
Answer: Look at academic policies. Our definition of collegiate level course work doesn’t have an agreement with the state much less with the nation. What does it mean to do collegiate level course work? Policies on remediation need to be analyzed. Collectively defining what students should be able to master and be able to do to get access to collegiate level course work. Accountability policies, what kinds of public information are we providing evidence that work that is being done on college campuses is demonstrating improvement in these areas. Funding policies, how much funding are we spending on remediation. As an example, in Missouri alone we have estimates of over 20 million spent in community college sector on remediation. Nationally we are spending billions, how do we know we are wisely spending that money and getting effective results for the use of that money.
Video Two - How Institutions Can Increase Student Attainment
Question: Are there any important changes institutions can make?
Answer: It is very important that institutions take collective ownership for the percent of the state’s population with college degrees. This is a difference from the past where institutions tended to have most expressive that they are responsible primarily for those students who come to their front door and do they get them in and out. We are in a new world, we clearly know that the age 25-34 year olds are the entrepreneur spirit of the world, we need more college graduates in that age group. Missouri doesn’t do well, we are below that average. The nation does not do well relative to other countries. We need the institutions to take collective ownership of this responsibility. Not just how many of their students graduating but how many of the total states students are being educated. Institutions need to be more reflective and use data more strategic.
Video Three - How state funding policy can increase success for at-risk students
Question: How can state funding policy support increased student success for at-risk students?
Answer: Performance funding is one of those arenas that we all flirt with and think holds promise to reward results and it can put a spotlight on at risk students. We are in a position to define performance funding in a way that gives extra rewards for the success of at-risk students. We might also define strategic initiatives that include seed money or incentive money focused on programs directed for at risk students. Gateway for college funded by the Gates foundation is a national program in Missouri. St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley is one of the national institutional partners in the national initiative. It is extremely rewarding to see at risk students high school who through this program that gives them access to collegiate level course work while in high school. Drop outs, we had to change the rules, we had to give them a second chance. When given a second chance with focused intervention strategies, the excitement from the families and the students and the taking collective responsibilities to do better the second time around this is a lost generation we cannot afford to lose.
Video Four - The Benefits and Liminations of "Funding Degrees"
Question: Provide your prospective about the benefits and liminations of "Funding Degrees"
Answer: The idea of funding degrees has a lot of attraction. It places a lot of focused attention that we can’t simply fund institutions and have students come in and out and not complete what they came there for in the first place. It’s crucial that we get focused attention , we need more students to complete academic programs for us to maintain global competitiveness and the life styles we are accustomed to and want for our children. However, as we fund degrees, we have to be very cognizant of a number of things. First, institutions are multi complex entities, millions of dollars are used to keep these entities alive and functioning. If we fund degrees we have to question how much money are we using to fund degrees, if we cut too much into the core of predictable funding of institutions we will find ourselves in a very difficult and challenging arena from one year to the next. Secondly, when we are funding degrees, are all degrees equal. Does this society feel that it needs any kind of college graduate or are some fields more important than others. Every field is important but we know science and math in today’s world has extra importance so as we begin to say that we are going to fund degrees, we need a lot of work at the front end, which degrees, why those degrees, do we have a dynamic system that can change as the times change so we know where the shortages are, where the weaknesses are and how we begin to get those critical degrees produced and out into the work force. It’s a good idea to fund degrees but the devil is in the details. Another issue that needs to be on the table is productivity. How do we ensure productivity and quality are linked and integrated and we are not simply producing more degrees without an attention to the quality of those degrees. We may get lots more students but unless they can perform at a quality level up against their peers, internationally and throughout the world we have missed a very important ingredient.
Video Five - Advice for States on "Funding Degrees"
Question: Based on Missouri’s experience with funding for results what advice do you have for state’s that are considering funding degrees?
Answer: In looking back at Missouri’s funding for results program, 1994-2002 what advice can we provide, not only for ourselves in Missouri when we reinstitute performance funding but for other states that are now attracted to performance funding 2.0. For funding degrees, one, it is very important that we get agreement on why we are doing performance funding and what the major objectives to performance funding are at the front end of instituting a performance funding program. Two, it is extremely important to bring technical expertise to the table at the front end. Too often, great ideas in policy are put into force and the technical people who have to implement it and then brought to the table and the questions they raise change the dynamic of what that policy could or should have been. So I encourage the technical people at the very beginning of the process. Design systems whereby institutions are able to compete against themselves. As opposed to a zero sum where one institution wins and the other institution loses, set aside funding whereby an institution can achieve and get that funding by improving against its own past performance or maintaining standards above performance relative to its peers in the nation. But set it up in a way that every institution has the opportunity to succeed and receive performance rewards. It’s important to build political support for performance funding at the front end. It’s important to build sustainability of performance funding. Performance funding involves agreement to the conceptual framework and also agreement to the model and implementation. Find a way to have a performance funding model that can stay alive in good economic times as well as bad economic times. If we do performance funding and then when money is tight we don’t do it, as years pass then we have to rebuild people’s understanding of why performance funding is an important thing to do.
Video Six - The Impetus for Missouri's New Strategic Plan
Question: What was the impotence in Missouri for building a higher education system from the 21st century?
Answer: Missouri has operated for a number of years with a major public agenda that’s about 15 years old. It really made a difference in the state of Missouri but the time has come that we tinkered at the margin in the past 5 to 7 years. The time has come to redo a major public agenda for higher education. I want to emphasis the point, this is a public agenda for higher education, not an agenda simply for higher education. It is a public agenda that involves all of the higher education providers in the state of Missouri. The impotence to establish this agenda was to create an important foundation in public policy that will serve as a catalyst and as a foundation for collaborative efforts across all providers to move this state forward in its production and in its productivity regarding higher education. By doing imperatives to change, we are establishing the important priority goals for the state of Missouri and we are saying to all of the higher education providers, how do you align with these goals. Everyone has a part to play, we are also engaging the governor, elected officials, legislature and the Missouri public in using this state wide plan to garner increased support and understanding that higher education is part of the solution for the future security of this country. So, imparities for change are a major plan for the state of Missouri that serves as a foundation for our future. We are going to be establishing goals, baseline data, time line and accountability reports using imperatives for change to be able to track and know that we are being effective with state resources. The major goals for imperatives for change are increasing education, producing a competitive work force and being wise stewards of public funds through accountability and transparency.
Video Seven - How to Establish Accountability in Higher Education
Question: What are the most important changes that must be implemented in the next five years to establish accountability in higher education?
Answer: Clearly the most important changes that must be made in the next five years is we need good, solid base line data. Missouri has always been a state that has relied on data. But the sophistication and level of data expected in today’s world requires integration with the pipeline, the p12 data systems, economic development and the work force systems. We are positioning ourselves to have a good integrated baseline data system at the unit record level so that individual students and understand and not just student path ways but student success and activities well into lifelong learning and longitude impacts on the state from students in higher education. Will restart this economy and make us competitive and bring us in a positive direction rather than the direction we’ve been going in, in terms of recession. We have to have creative assessment programs that provide evidence about real student learning gains and the value added by our higher education institutions. It’s a big menu of things that have to take place in five years.
Video Eight - Higher Education Improvements 10 Years in the Future
Question: In 10 years from now how will you know Missourians are successful?
Answer: We will know Missouri is successful 10 years from now if 1 quite frankly we are no longer averages as a state. Missouri has great ideas but when you look at performance on most variables we have tended to be an average state. Average is not good enough will know we have succeeded because we’ve moved ourselves beyond average. All those great ideas and reports that we have in Missouri will know that they’re not on the shelf will know that they are actually being used and implemented and that because of our accountability system and our tracking system we have a real evidence that would make changes in Missouri. We will know that the culture of the state has changed and that means that the attitudes of the Missouri public the language of the Missouri public, the verbiage about the importance of higher education is not just coming from the governor’s office from the presidents of institutions from the elected leaders but the common everyday citizen who may not have had higher education when they were growing up and was able to eke out a middle class livelihood, is saying to their children is putting letters to the editor and is using through their vote and voice the importance of higher education. We will know we were successful because we have more educated Missourians more businesses increased and entrepreneurial activity in the state, more patents in the state, more research solving social problems in the state, and increase support for higher education among the Missouri public.
Comments