counselors and parents respond to the future needs of the society and the public's willingness to pay for improved educational output. Since these factors do not readily lend themselves to prognostication, the rate at which the public avails itself of the expanded opportunities afforded by the system can be forecast only with considerable speculation. Consequently, future operating costs have been analyzed in terms of probable high and low expenditure requirements. The estimated postsecondary operational cost range of the recommended system for 1980 is presented in Table 7, and is compared with 1970 and 1980 costs for the existing system as previously reported in Chapter 1. The increased 1980 operational cost of the recommended system relative to that of the existing system is primarily attributed to: (1) enrollment increases due to the expansion of occupational offerings, particularly in institutions that serve areas exhibiting substantial technical and semi-professional labor force requirements and (2) higher cost of occupational training relative to academic education. 10 The educational changes associated with the achievement of significantly better and more realistic balances among individual, societal and economic needs are not likely to be effected without a strong, persistent and determined effort sustained over an extended period of time. Nevertheless, the recommended changes in the system. of institutions are required in order that needed significant alterations in postsecondary education be realized. 10 Occupational training at the one to two year level of preparation in Kansas currently averages about 50 percent higher than academic offerings. Major factors which contribute to the expense of occupational training are: (1) low instructor-student ratios and (2) costs associated with operation, maintenance and replacement of laboratory equipment. 94-977 O 73 16 TABLE 7 TOTAL POSTSECONDARY OPERATING BUDGET EXISTING SYSTEM RECOMMENDED SYSTEM 1970 ACTUAL $179,951,000 1980 EST.* $350,000,000 1980 LOW EST.** 1980 HIGH EST.*** $360,000,000 $390,000,000 *Projections are based on the existing system of institutions, and the assumption that current legislative, social, economic and educational trends and patterns will continue and that the rate of escalation of education costs will remain the same. **Projections are based on the assumption that expanded educational opportunities afforded by the recommended system will be achieved with considerable resistance and that the transition will be slow. It was also assumed that the current rate of escalation of educational costs will continue. ***Projections are based on the assumption that significant changes in postsecondary education will be achieved at a maximum rate of transition particularly that enrollments in occupational-oriented programs will be substantially increased. It was also assumed that the current rate of escalation of educational costs will continue. Recommendations CHAPTER 5. GOVERNANCE The provision for adequate governing authority is one of the most significant prerequisites leading to a comprehensive and efficient system of postsecondary education. Diffused and overlapping administrative responsibilities and the lack of overall planning capabilities in the current structure are serious impediments to achieving goals outlined in Chapter 3. An appropriate response to the shortcomings in the present organization of government is vital to the well-being of postsecondary education in Kansas. The Master Planning Commission has reviewed with much care the various types of governing agencies operating in other states. The oldest type is the single board for governing all public institutions of postsecondary education in a state. With the increasing emphasis on accountability, several states have been attracted to centralized responsibility and to the single board. "In practice, researchers on planning and coordination have found that the single board is no more effective in coordination, conserving resources, controlling programs, or in other operations than is the coordinating board.""1 Coordinating boards, which provide for coordination by a superboard and allow existing governing boards to continue to function, have become popular in recent years. In large measure their popularity stems from the relative ease with which they can be established because usually no existing agency is eliminated. The success of coordinating boards has varied a great deal, however, because many have found the "in-between role" i.e. between institutions, groups of institutions and the state a difficult one to mold into a successful formula for effective government. From the MPC's point of view, both types of agencies possess inherent weaknesses which cause them to be less than adequate. Both lack objective planning and effective communication relative to state priorities with the legislature and executive branch of state government. Both are weak in not providing a system of check and balance in planning and management. Both have been unable to measure educational output for a number of reasons: a "closed" system of planning and management, an absence of check and balance and a lack of a strong channel to communicate the public interest in educational output. 11 Lyman A. Glenny and George B. Weathersby, Statewide Planning for Postsecondary Education: Issues and Design. WICHE, 1971, p.23. Accordingly, the Commission has chosen not to follow either of these two general types of governing agencies in making its recommendation. Rather, its recommendation is conditioned by philosophical considerations outlined in Chapter 3: independent long-range planning, effective management of the state interest, institutional independence within the state system, built-in provisions for "check and balance" and clear and effective channels for expression of the public interest. RECOMMENDATION NO. 8: It is recommended that a permanent and independent state planning agency be created, appointed by the legislature, charged with the continuing responsibility of research and planning for a comprehensive system of postsecondary education. This agency to be known as the "State Planning Commission for Postsecondary Education", or "State Commission", also shall be designated under Section 1202 of the federal Education Amendments of 1972, as the postsecondary education commission.12 Also after June 30, 1973, the State Commission should be assigned sole responsibility for the administration of all aspects of postsecondary education including state plans required under Section 105, 603, 704 and Titles VI and VII of the Higher Education Act of 1965.13 RECOMMENDATION NO. 9: It is recommended that a State Management Agency be created, appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate, charged with the management of the state interest in a comprehensive system of postsecondary education. This agency also shall be designated under Part B, Section 1055 of the federal Education Amendments of 1972, as the state agency responsible for administration of Occupational Educational Programs. 14 RECOMMENDATION NO. 10: It is recommended that Fort Hays Kansas State College, Kansas State College of Pittsburg, Kansas State Teachers College, Kansas State University, University of Kansas and Wichita State University each be governed by a board of trustees, appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. All other public postsecondary institutions should be governed by locally elected boards. Institutional boards should 12 U.S., Congress, Senate, Education Amendments of 1972, 92d Congress, 2d Sess., 1972, Title X. Part L. Sec. 1202 (a). 13 It is the MPC's understanding that the intent of the federal Education Amendments of 1972 is to consolidate all postsecondary planning at the state level under the jurisdiction of the "1202" State Commission. It is further understood that the separate state plans and agencies previously required in federal funding as set forth in such acts as The Higher Education Act of 1965 and The Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 would therefore be eliminated. Guidelines for the implementation of the federal Education Amendments of 1972 are expected in early 1973. 14 U.S., Congress, Senate, Education Amendments of 1972, 92d Congress, 2d Sess., 1972, Title X. Part B, Sec. 1055 (a). contract with elementary and secondary boards to enable occupational facilities and staff to be utilized by elementary and secondary students who could benefit from such training and who otherwise would not have such training opportunities available to them. RECOMMENDATION NO. 11: It is recommended that all appointments to boards and commissions (i.e., those specified in Recommendations 8, 9, and 10) be for staggered terms, bipartisan and geographically representative. The respective roles of these recommended entities are described in Chapter 6. |