PERFORMANCE In order to best meet the future postsecondary needs of Kansas the MPC holds that a continuous procedure of evaluation should be an integral part of the planning process. The degree to which priorities and objectives are achieved should be the basis for assessing outcomes. Performance measurements should be made at all levels — the state, institution, program, course and section. The accomplishment of effective methods of establishing goals and priorities and methods of measuring performance is contingent on the availability of current and uniform data. Thus it is also necessary that a systematic procedure for identifying, collecting, standardizing and disseminating data critical to the statewide planning and review process be instituted and operated on a continuing basis. FINANCE The problem of finance is a large one, for a viable postsecondary educational system cannot exist without a strong elementary and secondary school system. The state cannot abdicate its responsibilities for education from the kindergarten through the graduate school level by passing on the costs for education to parents and students by hidden tuition costs at the lower levels and by rising tuition costs and fees at the higher levels. Although sources of revenue are limited, the state needs to achieve an equitable means for distributing these sources so that all elementary and secondary school students may receive a quality education on as nearly a comparable basis as possible. Above the high school level, the same principle holds except that the burden of tuition costs or fees for individual students should never become excessive. Above the high school level, all public postsecondary educational institutions should generally be treated alike as regards financing from state sources. That is, the percentages coming from local taxes, tuition and fees, and state aid should be relatively the same. COORDINATION In order that the educational resources of the state may be most advantageously used to meet the public need for education and the needs of the state, it is important that the state have the responsibility for coordinating the use of resources and of educational programs across the state. In the past, coordination has been limited and while there is some evidence of developing cooperation during the period which the MPC has been in operation, there is no statutory provision for its continuation or for its development across all institutions. As a matter of fact, there are really no provisions for coordination of education programs, resource use or planning between the various types of institutions. The MPC is committed to the development of a system of postsecondary education in which the various parts both institutions and programs — are related one to another in such a way as to best meet the needs of the public. Thus lodging with some state authority the responsibility for coordination and fiscal management is an important objective. INSTITUTIONAL AUTONOMY The MPC holds further that while the state has a clear and definite responsibility for overall coordination and management, the state control should not extend into the individual institutions. Rather, each institution should be independent while operating within the dimensions of overall state plans, coordination and fiscal management. The MPC does not believe that state management should concern itself with matters which are related to the management of individual institutions. For example, each institution must have the freedom to select its own faculty and to determine the qualifications necessary for that faculty to most advantageously carry out the programs of the institution. State management rightly must be concerned with the ultimate success and evaluation of the product of individual institutions, but the state role does not extend to matters of how each institution is to accomplish its objectives. PLANNING The MPC holds firmly to the position that provision for continuous planning to meet the needs of the public for postsecondary education and to effectively utilize the resources of the state for that education is of great importance. In order to be more effective, the group designated to carry out the research and planning function should be independent of the group charged with overall management of postsecondary education. If such independence is not established, the planning and research function will have its priorities established by the management group and these may or may not be the priorities important in terms of the educational needs of the public across the state - nor will those priorities necessarily reflect the optimum utilization of the state's educational resources through time. The MPC believes that a planning agency, independent of a management agency, would provide a built-in provision for check and balance and for accountability. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNANCE The MPC holds the view that education is a matter of public concern and that the public must participate in both the planning and execution of education. At the same time, it recognizes that there are clearly parts of the educational process in which public participation would not serve the best interests of the public. In order to best represent the public interest, the MPC believes that public participation is vital at the state level in terms of the overall planning and evaluation for postsecondary education. At the institution level the MPC holds that public participation is best carried out through the policy-making functions for such institutions. The MPC does not believe that the public interests are served by members of the public being involved in operational activities either at the state level or at the institution level. MAGNITUDE OF GOVERNANCE The MPC believes that no recommendations for the governance of postsecondary education should result in a great bureaucracy. Rather, recommendations for governance must reflect a streamlining in terms of personnel and cost and assure a strong commitment to efficiency. In addition, there should be a built-in provision for check and balance, in order to assure the public that the governance system itself has a built-in provision for accountability. Recommendations CHAPTER 4. SYSTEM OF INSTITUTIONS PROCEDURE OF ANALYSIS In order to generate realistic plans, the long-range educational planning process must not lose sight of existing legislation, revenue sources, programs and facilities. This is particularly true in designing a state-wide system of institutions to meet the postsecondary educational needs of Kansas in the coming years. The recommended plan must take into account the considerable investment and commitment represented by 61 vocational schools, colleges and universities. Therefore, the first step in the planning process was the development of a data inventory to describe these existing institutions. Inventory of Existing Institutions The following types of data were obtained from each institution and/or the U. S. Office of Education: Enrollments by class, year, sex and county or state of Number of certificates and degrees awarded by type of • Operational expenditure budgets by year Operational revenue by source and year Projection of High School Seniors One predictor of future postsecondary space requirements is the number of students completing high school. Therefore high school senior enrollments were projected through the mid-1980s by region and for the state as a whole. The results were published as MPC Planning Report Number 1. Projection of Economic Needs The extent and type of employment opportunities available to future students leaving postsecondary education are important considerations in developing a master plan for a state-wide system of institutions. Job openings were projected through the mid-1980s by region, sex, level of preparation required and occupational category. The study is based on the total labor force and includes the full spectrum of jobs from those requiring no education or training to those requiring postdoctorate study and years of specialized training. The results were published as MPC Planning Report Number 2 and are summarized in the Preface, Charge No. 2B. Survey of Student Needs and Aspirations Students from each of the 61 postsecondary institutions and from randomly selected high schools were surveyed to obtain student opinion relative to a number of subjects pertinent to postsecondary educational planning. The scope of the surveys and the results are summarized in MPC Planning Report Number 3. Representative findings are presented in the Preface, Charge No. 2A. Development of a Planning Tool The Master Planning Commission's data bank which provides a single pool of uniform statistical information for all categories of postsecondary institutions as well as data relative to projected high school enrollments, economic needs and student needs represents a significant milestone in Kansas educational planning. However, as important as these data are, they do not by themselves provide an integrated picture of the inner-relationships that exist between and among pertinent planning variables, nor do they provide a means of assessing alternatives. In order to objectively fulfill the Legislative charge to the MPC it was essential that methodology be formulated to translate these data into a form more amenable to objective decision making. A computerized planning tool was developed to fulfill this need. The output includes enrollments by class, expenditure and revenue budgets and manpower output projected to 1980 for each institution. The planning tool, termed an educational model by planning specialists, will be described in a subsequent report. Analysis of Alternatives Briefly stated, the primary use of the planning tool is a priori evaluation of educational alternatives. In order to reduce the task of analyzing an unlimited number of combinations of institutionrelated variables to a representative but manageable size, the nine most critical variables were isolated and systematically studied. The probable scope of alternatives predicated by the influence of possible political, social and economic forces was identified. The variables, |