DOCSLIB.ORG

Higher Education Funding in the 50 States: 1-Year, 2-Year, and 10-Year Trends

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Higher Education Funding in the 50 States: 1-Year, 2-Year, and 10-Year Trends Higher Education Funding in the 50 States: 1-Year, 2-Year, and 10-Year Trends Peter Zetterberg, Institutional Research and Reporting, December 22, 2004 Introduction Funding for higher education in the 50 states is carefully tracked by the College of Education at Illinois State University in a project and database known as Grapevine. This is the standard data source that everyone uses to follow higher education funding trends. In the December 17, 2004 issue, the Chronicle of Higher Education did its annual story on higher education funding using Grapevine data. The Chronicle described the Grapevine data as follows. “Note: These figures, reported by James C. Palmer for the National Database of State Tax Support for Higher Education, reflect state tax funds appropriated for operating expenses for colleges and universities, for student aid, and for state higher-education agencies. The figures do not include appropriations for capital outlays and debt service. State "tax efforts" supporting higher education should not be confused with "state spending" for higher education. The figures exclude state allocations to higher education that derive from lotteries, tobacco settlements, tuition payments, interest income, and other nontax sources. The figures do not include appropriations from local governments. The amount of appropriations may be changed in some states because of increases or decreases in revenue. Percentages shown are rounded to one decimal. Rankings are based on unrounded figures. Different budgeting practices among the states make it impossible to eliminate all inconsistencies and ensure absolute comparability among states and institutions. For more information, see the project's Web site (http://coe.ilstu.edu/grapevine).” Among other things, the Chronicle story included a graphic figure showing that Minnesota’s one-year funding increase (FY04 to FY05) of -1.1 percent ranked 47th among the 50 states. It also reported that Minnesota’s two-year funding increase (FY03 to FY05) of -3.8 percent ranked 42nd among the 50 states. Although these figures are correct, they are also misleading in that they greatly understate what happened in Minnesota and many other states over the period FY03 to FY05. This is because FY 2003 was a very unusual year. There were significant budget reductions during the year that should also be considered. This is a point that Vice President Pfutzenreuter has emphasized in his presentations to the Board of the University’s annual budgets for FY 2004 and FY 2005 using Figure 1 below. As indicated, the University’s original higher education appropriation for FY 2003 was reduced twice, from $664.8 million to $641.2 million in April, 2002 and then again from $641.2 million to $616.2 million in January, 2003. Funding for MnSCU and overall funding for higher education in Minnesota was also reduced by comparable amounts. 1 Since the Grapevine data incorporates revisions to state appropriations in its reports (i.e., reductions or additions), the figure used for Minnesota for FY 2003 in the Chronicle story is the lower amount, which minimizes the change from FY03 to FY05. The FY 2003 figure shown is the final year-end appropriation, while the FY 2005 figure shown is the initial appropriation. It is only possible to see what actually happened in Minnesota and other states by comparing the initial appropriation for FY 2005 with the initial appropriation for FY 2003. Fig. 1 Actual State General Fund Appropriations 1995 to 2003 and Appropriated FY2004 and FY2005 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 GF Actual Appropriations 540.8 574.1 582.5 604.3 628.1 664.8 GF After Cut 1 - April 02 641.2 GF After Cut 2- Jan 03 616.2 Final Appropriation 547.3 550.1 The Story The story is shown in the three figures at the end of this report. Figure 2 shows the one-year change from FY04 to FY05. This is the same figure used in the Chronicle story. Figure 3 shows the two-year change from FY03 to FY05 using the initial appropriations for these years. Note that for Minnesota the number used is the appropriation following the April 2002 reduction, which is fair, since this was before the start of the fiscal year. This is also the number that the Department of Finance and Governor Pawlenty have used. Figure 4 shows the 10-year change from FY95 to FY05. Note that data for Louisiana and Georgia is not available because of changes in how higher education is funded in these states. 2 Analysis As shown in Figure 3, funding for higher education in Minnesota was actually reduced by 10.3 percent from FY03 to FY05, and the situation was worse in only six other states: Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, West Virginia, South Carolina, and Colorado, which will probably be the first state to privatize higher education because of the state’s Tax Payer Bill of Rights constitutional amendment. As shown in Figure 4, Minnesota also ranks poorly in funding for higher education over the past 10 years. The increase in Minnesota over this period of 23.5 percent ranked Minnesota 41st. Note that during this period enrollment in Minnesota’s public institutions increased by more than 10 percent. One other problem with the way Grapevine trend data is most commonly used (i.e., in the Chronicle story) is that it includes only state funding for higher education and ignores local tax support. The Grapevine does attempt to gather local tax data, but it is very difficult to collect and has not been updated since tax year 2002. Twenty five states use local taxes to support technical and community colleges, and when these amounts are included the rankings of states changes significantly. Wisconsin, for example, where most support for technical colleges comes from property taxes (more than $500 million), climbs about 10 spots up the ranking pole when local taxes are included. More than 25 percent of tax payer support for higher education in Wisconsin comes from property taxes. Conclusion How does funding for higher education in Minnesota compare with funding in other states? Specifically, how should the University use this data in discussions with state policy makers? • In FY 2005, Minnesota ranks 15th in funding for higher education. In FY 1995 it ranked 12th. • In FY 2005, Minnesota ranks 25th in tax effort for higher education (i.e., appropriations per $1,000 in personal Income). • In FY 2005, Minnesota ranks 16th in appropriations for higher education per capita. • Over the two-year period FY03 to FY05 (initial appropriations), funding for higher education in Minnesota was reduced by 10.3 percent. Reductions were only greater in six other states, including Wisconsin, although Wisconsin’s situation would improve if local taxes were considered. • Over the ten-year period FY95 to FY05 Minnesota ranked 41st in increasing funding for higher education, even though enrollment in public institutions increased by more than 10 percent. 3 Fig. 2 1-Yr Change in Appropriations: FY03 Final - FY05 Initial Florida 11.1% Virginia 10.6% New Jersey 8.8% New York 7.9% California 7.6% Alas ka 7.4% Wyoming 7.0% Delaware 6.9% Massachusetts 6.3% North Carolina 6.2% South Dakota 5.9% Arizona 5.8% New Mexico 5.1% Nevada 5.0% Washington 4.9% Louisiana 4.8% Kansas 4.4% Indiana 4.2% Alabama 4.1% Utah 3.7% Pennsylvania 3.4% Oklahoma 3.0% Idaho 2.8% Connecticut 2.8% Missouri 2.7% Hawaii 2.7% Maine 2.6% Arkansas 2.6% New Hampshire 2.5% Vermont 2.4% Maryland 2.1% South Carolina 1.9% Ohio 1.6% Nebraska 1.4% Georgia 1.4% Rhode Island 1.3% Montana 1.3% Kentucky 1.3% Iowa 0.7% Tennessee 0.0% North Dakota 0.0% Colorado 0.0% Michigan -0.4% Oregon -0.7% Mississippi -0.9% Wisconsin -1.0% Minnesota -1.1% Texas -1.7% Illinois -1.7% West Virginia -3.9% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 4 Fig. 3 2-Yr Change in Initial Appropriations: FY03 Initial - FY05 Initial Nevada 36.7% Louisiana 20.0% Wyoming 11.7% Hawaii 10.8% Georgia 9.7% Alas ka 9.7% Arkansas 9.3% South Dakota 9.2% New Mexico 8.9% Florida 8.9% North Carolina 7.3% Indiana 6.8% New York 5.9% New Jersey 5.8% Alabama 5.5% Delaware 5.5% Vermont 4.7% Montana 4.5% Idaho 4.3% Washington 3.8% New Hampshire 3.7% Utah 3.5% Rhode Island 2.8% Kentucky 2.3% Mississippi 1.9% Connecticut 0.8% Arizona 0.7% Kansas 0.5% Pennsylvania 0.0% Ohio -0.4% North Dakota -0.5% Maine -1.0% Missouri -1.6% Nebraska -2.9% Oregon -2.9% Iowa -3.5% Virginia -3.7% Illinois -4.8% California -5.2% Tennessee -5.7% Oklahoma -6.1% Texas -6.3% Wisconsin -8.9% Minnesota -10.3% Maryland -10.6% Massachusetts -11.0% Michigan -12.6% West Virginia -13.8% South Carolina -19.6% Colorado -27.6% -40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 5 Fig. 4 10-Yr Change in Appropriations: FY03 Final - FY05 Initial Louisiana** 0.0% Georgia* 0.0% Nevada 160.0% California 87.9% Florida 83.5% Kentucky 70.3% Wyoming 63.9% Arkansas 59.5% Texas 58.2% Utah 56.3% New Mexico 55.0% Connecticut 54.0% Virginia 53.8% Indiana 53.3% North Carolina 52.5% Washington 51.4% Vermont 48.5% New Jersey 48.5% Delaware 48.1% Maryland 47.6% South Dakota 43.8% Idaho 41.7% Oklahoma 40.8% Kansas 40.6% Illinois 39.6% North Dakota 38.3% Arizona 37.6% Maine 37.3% Rhode Island 37.1% Missouri 36.9% Nebraska 36.8% Ohio 36.4% Alas ka 36.0% New Hampshire 35.1% Oregon 34.7% Mississippi 28.1% Pennsylvania 27.4% New York 26.5% Montana 23.8% Tennessee 23.7% Minnesota 23.5% Michigan 23.0% Massachusetts 18.2% Alabama 18.1% Iowa 15.6% Wisconsin 12.7% West Virginia 11.7% Colorado 8.7% Hawaii 7.1% South Carolina 2.4% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% 140.0% 160.0% 180.0% 6.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Education Clauses in State Constitutions Across the United States∗
    Education Clauses in State Constitutions Across the United States∗ Scott Dallman Anusha Nath January 8, 2020 Executive Summary This article documents the variation in strength of education clauses in state constitu- tions across the United States. The U.S. Constitution is silent on the subject of education, but every state constitution includes language that mandates the establishment of a public education system. Some state constitutions include clauses that only stipulate that the state provide public education, while other states have taken more significant measures to ensure the provision of a high-quality public education system. Florida’s constitutional education clause is currently the strongest in the country – it recognizes education as a fundamen- tal value, requires the state to provide high-quality education, and makes the provision of education a paramount duty of the state. Minnesota can learn from the experience of other states. Most states have amended the education clause of their state constitutions over time to reflect the changing preferences of their citizens. Between 1990 and 2018, there were 312 proposed amendments on ballots across the country, and 193 passed. These amendments spanned various issues. Policymakers and voters in each state adopted the changes they deemed necessary for their education system. Minnesota has not amended its constitutional education clause since it was first established in 1857. Constitutional language matters. We use Florida and Louisiana as case studies to illus- trate that constitutional amendments can be drivers of change. Institutional changes to the education system that citizens of Florida and Louisiana helped create ultimately led to im- proved outcomes for their children.
    [Show full text]
  • Questioning Conventional Wisdom About Minnesota's Public Schools
    Questioning Conventional Wisdom About Minnesota’s Public Schools Joe Nathan & Laura Accomando This article goes “against the grain” of much that has been written about improving public education in the last five years. Is there something wrong with the emphasis on the “achievement gap” in studies about Minnesota education priorities? Might rural communities like Canby, Clinton, Graceville, Pierz, Lamberton, Lewiston and Lyle have things to teach affluent Minnesota suburbs, as well as inner cities? Can highly successful inner city public schools, district and charter, teach Minnesota important lessons? Are some of us misunderstanding certain lessons about the impact of high-quality early childhood education programs? For Minnesota to make significant progress, should we go beyond the constant demand for more educational funding? This article argues that the answer to each of these questions is “yes.” Moreover, Minnesota’s leadership and success with many students may, as has happened in the past, make big changes more difficult. Yet, as Abraham Lincoln once noted, “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Lincoln). We need more ambitious goals, and significant institutional changes to reach those goals. Where should we be heading? This article will suggest that a new model of public education should have as its central goals within the next five years: 1. Completion of some form of post-secondary education, two or four years, by at least 95% of Minnesota students within six years of the time they graduate from high school. 2. 95% of students who enter Minnesota public colleges and universities fully prepared in reading, writing and math for this work.
    [Show full text]
  • Building an Equitable School System for All Students and Educators
    Building an Equitable School System for All Students and Educators Table of contents EPIC Advisory Teams 1 The Educator Compensation and Work Environments Team 1 The Teacher Induction and Mentoring Team 1 The Infrastructure Team 2 The Pre-K Team 2 The Trauma-Informed, Restorative Schools Team 3 The Teacher Preparation Team 3 The Support Services Team 4 The Full-Service Community Schools Team 4 The Public Higher Education Team 5 The Special Education Team 5 Introduction: Building an Equitable School System for All Students and Educators 6 Education Funding Shortfalls in Minnesota 9 Equity and Minnesota’s Public Schools: Achievement Gaps, Discipline Gaps, and Legacies of White Supremacy 12 Minnesota’s Teacher Exodus 15 What We Must Do, Together 18 1. Educator compensation and work environments 18 2. Teacher mentoring and induction 18 3. School infrastructure 19 4. Preschool 19 5. Trauma-informed, restorative schools 19 6. Teacher preparation 20 7. Support professionals 20 8. Full-service community schools 20 9. Public higher education 21 10. Special education 21 References: Introduction 22 Educator Compensation and Work Environments 24 Cost of Living for Minnesota Educators 31 Oppositional Voices: Market-Based Positions on Educator Compensation 33 The Educator Wage Gap: National and Minnesota Specific Trends 36 The Professional Wage Gap Disproportionately Harms Female Educators 40 Education Support Professionals Do Not Earn a Living Wage 43 Inadequate Educator Benefits Further Contribute to the Professional Wage Gap 44 Student Loan Debt
    [Show full text]
  • Cost of Educatiqn in Minnesota
    Determining the ·cost of EducatiQn in Minnesota Continuing the Work of the Governor's Education Funding Reform Task Force EXECUTIVE SUMMARY December 2, 2005 Prepared by John Myers, Vice President of Augenblick, Palaich and Associates for the Association ofMetropolitan School Districts, Minnesota Rural Education Association and Schools for Equity in Education BACKGROUND The Education Finance Reform Task Force believes that Minnesota has much about which to be proud when it comes to our public schools. Thus begins "Investing In Our Future: Seeking a Fair, Understandable and Accountable Twenty­ First Century Education Finance System for Minnesota," an historic report commissioned in 2003 by Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlentywho appointed a 19-member Task-Force to examine issues of education reform critical to the success of Minnesota students. "Investing In Our Future," widely examined and often referenced by both lawmakers and educators, proved to be an excellent vehicle by which this important policy discussion has moved forward. Yet, by the Task Force's own admission, the group "was not charged with developing or determining what the final funding levels should be in Minnesota." Instead, the creation of a formula which must be "logically linked to ... student learning" and "sufficient to cover full dollar costs of ensuring Minnesota public school students have an opportunity to achieve state specified academic standards" was left incomplete. The Task Force, with expert support from .Management Analysis & Planning, Inc. (MAP), suggested that a "rationally determined process could be developed," but Task Force members and observers alike have noted that the work itself has yet to be done. While a new funding system was not created, the Governor's Task Force did recommend several next steps in the implementation of a new education funding system.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Arts Education Research Project BUILDING a LEGACY Perpich Goals and Results the Minnesota Arts Education Research Project
    Front Cover Inside Front Cover Key Findings While access to arts programs is nearly universal (99% of schools) less than half of all middle and high schools and only 28% of elementary schools provide the required number of arts areas. 87% of schools have aligned their curriculum with the state arts standards. Assessment of student skills and knowledge is mostly driven by teacher-developed assessments with fewer than 3 in 10 schools reporting district developed assessments in the arts. Nearly ½ of all high schools include the arts in School Improvement Plans. 92% of elementary, 77% of middle and 49% of high school students participate in at least one arts area in one year, with music and visual arts having the highest enrollments. Nearly all schools (92%) use licensed arts teachers (full time or part-time) as the primary provider of music and visual arts instruction. 75% of schools report having no arts coordinator in their school or district. Nearly 2/3 of schools spend less than $10 per pupil per year for arts instructional materials. At the elementary level, the per-pupil arts spending is only 2 cents per day. To support direct arts instruction, 23% of all schools reported using outside funding to offset budget decreases and nearly half of all schools charge fees for extracurricular arts activities. While 46% of all schools report using arts integration as a teaching strategy, only 15% reported using this strategy on a regular basis. 67% of schools indicate a desire to introduce or increase arts integration. 93% of all schools reported providing students field trips to museums, theaters, musical performances and exhibitions to engage in artistic experiences.
    [Show full text]
  • Education Reform in Minnesota: Profile of Learning and the Instructional Role of the School Library Media Specialist
    Volume 9, 2006 Approved March 2006 ISSN: 1523-4320 www.ala.org/aasl/slr Education Reform in Minnesota: Profile of Learning and the Instructional Role of the School Library Media Specialist Marie E. Kelsey, Professor, College of St. Scholastica, Duluth, Minnesota Between 1998 and 2003, a Minnesota educational reform movement named the Profile of Learning (POL) generated high levels of school library media center use in high schools and contributed to the fulfillment of the instructional role of the school library media specialist (SLMS) as described in Information Power . POL consisted of graduation standards with accompanying projects assigned to students to meet those standards. Projects were process- oriented, requiring research, reading, reflection, and synthesis of ideas. School library media center resources and services were increasingly in demand during this era. To learn more about how school library media centers and SLMSs were affected during this reform movement, the researcher sent a survey to 174 high school SLMSs. After the survey results were tallied, twelve interviews were held with selected SLMSs. Although teachers had a negative opinion of the POL era, SLMSs felt energized, important, and effective in their increasing roles of collaboration and instruction in student education during this time. The researcher also contrasted survey and interview findings with past research on the SLMS role. POL was rescinded by the Minnesota legislature before the affects of increased collaboration and resource-based learning could be assessed. The following study examines the roles and attitudes of SLMSs during the POL era, with an emphasis on the increased instructional role. In Information Power: Building Partnerships for Learning (AASL and AECT 1998), there is a logo visually representing the components of a learning-centered school library media center.
    [Show full text]
  • Members of the Minnesota Legislature, We Are an Assemblage
    Members of the Minnesota legislature, We are an assemblage of legal scholars and experts who specialize in civil rights and education. We write to express our concern over potential changes to the education clause of the Minnesota Constitution, recently proposed by the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. Although we share your concern over ongoing disparities in Minnesota schools, and would welcome efforts to strengthen education rights in the state, the proposed amendment is unlikely to achieve this aim. The Federal Reserve proposal eliminates, in its entirety, the existing education clause in the Minnesota Constitution – a provision which dates to the document’s adoption in 1857. In doing so, it removes critically important language that has already been held by the Minnesota Supreme Court to protect students’ civil rights. The proposed new language would not necessarily safeguard these rights. The proposed incorporation of several undefined adjectives like “quality” or “paramount” into the education clause would not, on its own, create new legal protections or requirements that do not already exist in Minnesota law. In addition, the proposed amendment also contains qualifying language that might further narrow the scope of students’ rights below the standard that exists in current law. The existing Education Clause of the Minnesota Constitution reads as follows: The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools. The legislature shall make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state.1 This language has been held to give rise to several major constitutional rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Indian Education Laws and Policies
    Overview of Indian Education Laws and Policies IHSL Statewide Training Rutger’s Resort Deerwood, MN December 4, 2015 Dennis W. Olson, Director Office of Indian Education “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.” 11 Reservations and Communities in Minnesota • Ojibwe Reservations – Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe – Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa – White Earth Nation – Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe – Red Lake Nation – Bois Forte Band of Chippewa – Grand Portage Band of Ojibwe • Dakota Communities – Prairie Island Indian Community – Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community – Upper Sioux Community – Lower Sioux Indian Community education.state.mn.us 2 Where are Minnesota’s Tribal Communities Located? www.mnhum.org www.treatiesmatter.org education.state.mn.us 3 Where are American Indian Students Concentrated? www.mnrea.org education.state.mn.us 4 Where do American Indian Students Attend School? • Large majority of students attend public schools – 19,768 K-12 in 2014-2015 – 2.3% of Total Student Population – 1/3 in 7-county metro – 2/3 in Greater MN • 4 Tribal Schools (BIE Grant Funded) – 837 students statewide (4.2% of all Indian Students) . Fond du Lac Ojibwe School (Fond du Lac) . Nay Ah Shing Schools (Mille Lacs) . Circle of Life Academy (White Earth) . Bug O Nay Ge Shig School (Leech Lake) education.state.mn.us 5 Where do American Indian Students Attend School? education.state.mn.us 6 Minnesota AMI Graduation Rate AMI Graduation Rate 2011-2014 52 50 48 46 AMI Gradution Rate 44 42 40 38 2011 2012 2013 2014 3-year increase of 8.19% education.state.mn.us 7 Federal Indian Education: History, Policy, Programs Indian Education: A National Tragedy – A National Challenge (1969) Sen.
    [Show full text]
  • The Roots of Higher Education in Minnesota
    THE St. Cloud Normal School's building in 1874 The ROOTS of Higher Education in Minnesota OLIVER C. CARMICHAEL I AM SENSIBLE OF the high honor you than I —I am nevertheless grateful to you have done me in inviting me to deliver this for giving me the opportunity and the occa­ address at the one-hundred-and-fifth an­ sion for exploring what seems to me to be nual meeting of the Minnesota Historical one of the richest backgrounds of higher Society, though at the moment I confess education provided by any of the forty- to great trepidation as I undertake the task eight states. The fascinating material which assigned me. While I do not know by what reached me from the several institutions right I should speak to you on the "Roots has engaged my attention far into the nights of Higher Education in Minnesota" — for of many days that were filled with heavy many of you know so much more about it administrative duties. But it has provided relaxation and a degree of excitement, since DR. CARMICHAEL scrvcd for sevcu years as it has given me a new sense of the variety president of the Carnegie Foundation for the and richness of the sources of motivation Advancement of Teaching before assuming the and inspiration which gave rise to the presidency of the University of Alabama in American system of higher education and 1953. This address was presented on May 11, 1954, before the luncheon session of the which still undergird it. society's annual meeting at the Curtis Hotel, Obviously, I cannot do justice to the sub­ Minneapolis.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota School Finance: a Guide for Legislators About This Publication This Guidebook Explains How Public Elementary and Secondary Schools Are Funded in Minnesota
    Minnesota School Finance: A Guide for Legislators About this Publication This guidebook explains how public elementary and secondary schools are funded in Minnesota. By Tim Strom, Legislative Analyst November 2019 Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 2 School Finance Terminology ................................................................................. 11 Property Tax System Terminology ........................................................................ 18 Counting Students ................................................................................................. 20 General Education Revenue.................................................................................. 22 School Transportation ........................................................................................... 43 Capital Finance ...................................................................................................... 44 Special Education .................................................................................................. 57 American Indian Programs.................................................................................... 61 Community, Early Childhood, and Adult Education ............................................. 64 Cooperative Programs .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Facts About English Learners and the NCLB/ESSA Transition in Minnesota
    Fact Sheet March 2017 Facts about English Learners and the NCLB/ESSA Transition in Minnesota By Julie Sugarman and Kevin Lee This fact sheet provides a sketch of key characteristics of the foreign-born and English Learner (EL) populations in Minnesota. It is intended to equip community organizations with an understanding of the state demographic context and some of the basics of EL policies under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, in effect from 2002 through December 2015) and its successor, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), enacted in December 2015. The first section looks at the demographics of Minnesota, including the entire state popula- tion using U.S. Census Bureau 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) data, and EL stu- dents as reported by the Minnesota Department of Education. A discussion of EL student outcomes as measured by standardized tests follows, and the fact sheet concludes with a brief overview of Minnesota accountability mechanisms that affected ELs under NCLB and relevant provisions of ESSA. ACTS I. Demographic Overview of Foreign-Born and EL Populations F in Minnesota In 2014, approximately 428,057 foreign-born individuals resided in Minnesota, account- TION ing for 8 percent of the state population—about two-thirds the share of immigrants in the A United States (13 percent), as seen in Table 1. The growth rate of the foreign-born popula- L tion in Minnesota slowed considerably from 130 percent in the period between 1990 and 2000 to 64 percent between 2000 and 2014. U P Table 1. Foreign- and U.S.-Born Populations of Minnesota and United States, 2014 O Minnesota United States Foreign Born U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Postsecondary Planning
    POSTSECONDARY PLANNING: A JOINT REPORT TO THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE February 2019 Minnesota State University of Minnesota For further information or additional copies, contact: Office of Government Relations University of Minnesota 612-626-9234 government-relations.umn.edu or Minnesota State 651-201-1800 1-888-MINNESOTA STATE4U www.MinnState.edu/media/publications/ Contents Executive Summary 1 I. Introduction 2 II. Collaborative Programs and Services 4 Academic Program Partnerships Minnesota Cooperative Admissions Program (MnCAP) Rochester Partnership Center for Allied Health Programs and HealthForce Minnesota University of Minnesota Extension Library and Information Technology eLearning Other Collaborative Initiatives III. Program Duplication 14 IV. Credit Transfer 16 Policies and Practices Cooperative Transfer Programs V. College Readiness and Under-Prepared Students 19 P-20 Education Partnership Postsecondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) College Preparation College Readiness Research VI. Conclusion 24 Appendix: Collaborative Academic Programs 25 Minnesota Session Laws 2003, Regular Session, Chapter 133, Article 1, Section 7. POSTSECONDARY SYSTEMS As part of the boards' biennial budget requests, the board of trustees of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities and the board of regents of the University of Minnesota shall report to the legislature on progress under the master academic plan for the metropolitan area. The report must include a discussion of coordination and duplication of program offerings, developmental and remedial education, credit transfers within and between the postsecondary systems, and planning and delivery of coordinated programs. In order to better achieve the goal of a more integrated, effective, and seamless postsecondary education system in Minnesota, the report must also identify statewide efforts at integration and cooperation between the postsecondary systems.
    [Show full text]