Enrollments in Decline:

Why Students are Leaving Washington States Community &

Technical Colleges and Potential Policy Responses

March 2013

Bryce McKibben, Master in Public Policy Candidate, Harvard Kennedy School
Prepared for the Washington State Board for Community & Technical Colleges

1
Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank his principal advisor, Dr. Christopher Avery, Roy E. Larsen
Professor of Public Policy and Management, as well as his seminar leader, Dr. Julie Boatright
Wilson, Harry Kahn Senior Lecturer in Social Policy, of the Malcolm Weiner Center for Social
Policy at Harvard Kennedy School, for their extensive contributions and input toward this policy
analysis report.

The author would also like to thank Ms. Jan Yoshiwara, Deputy Executive Director for
Education; Ms. Denise Graham, Deputy Executive Director for Finance; and Mr. Nick Lutes,
Operating Budget Director, of the Washington State Board for Community & Technical Colleges
for their instrumental support and advice in the development of this project. Additionally, key
staff members of the SBCTC, Ms. Carmen McKenzie, Data & Research Manager, and Mr. David
Prince, Policy Research Director, provided important data sources, background, and analysis.


About the Author

Bryce McKibben is a 2013 candidate for a Master in Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School,
also known as the John F. Kennedy School of Government, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He is a
former policy associate at the Association of Community College Trustees in Washington, DC,
and past president of the Washington Student Association in Olympia, Washington.

Contact Information

Author: Bryce McKibben
Master in Public Policy Candidate 2013
Harvard Kennedy School
E-mail: Bryce_McKibben@hks13.harvard.edu





2
Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 10

Background Information

The Community and Technical College System in Washington.................................................. 15
The Need to Educate More Washingtonians to Higher Levels ................................................... 20
Current Attainment Gap is Consistent with Long-term Projections ......................................... 21
Despite Clear Need to Increase Attainment, State has Disinvested in Students ..................... 24
State Budget Balanced in Large Part through Cuts to Higher Education .................................. 25
To Maintain Per-Student Funding, Tuition Has Been Raised Significantly ............................... 26
Tuition Increases Dont Mitigate Adverse Impacts to Quality .................................................. 28
How State Funding is Determined in Washington ...................................................................... 29
Why Higher Education Was Cut Beginning in 2009 .................................................................. 29
Approaches to Influencing Higher Education Funding Begin to Reflect Shift from State-
Funded to State-Supported or State-Assisted .................................................................. 30
Washington is Outside Regional & National Averages in State Support and Tuition ............... 32
How Washington Compares Nationally in Higher Education Appropriations .......................... 32
How Washington Compares in CTC Tuition and Fees ............................................................... 33
National Comparison ............................................................................................................. 33
Regional Comparison ............................................................................................................. 35
State and Federal Financial Aid Eligibility and Availability ......................................................... 36
Changes to Federal Financial Aid Grants................................................................................... 36
Trends in State Financial Aid ..................................................................................................... 37

CTC Enrollments and the Factors That Influence Them

Recent Trends in CTC Enrollment Decline ................................................................................... 41
CTC Enrollment Decline in Washington is Recent ..................................................................... 41
Fall Enrollment 2012 Decline is Consistent with Annual Trends .............................................. 42
Alternative Analysis of Enrollments Focusing on Tuition-Bearing Courses .............................. 46
Contrary to Traditional Enrollments, e-Learning FTES Have Increased .................................... 47

3
National Enrollment Trends Show Much Smaller Decline than in Washington ....................... 47
Academic Literature Suggests Student Price Response is Documented, Negative, and
Significant for CTC Students ......................................................................................................... 49
Students Often Incorrectly Perceive Costs & Benefits of Higher Education .............................. 52
Student Concern over Costs & Financial Aid is at All-Time High and Does Factor into
Enrollment Decisions ................................................................................................................. 53
Financial Aid Has Not Mitigated Student Concern over Price .................................................... 54
Macroeconomic Conditions Also Drive, but Dont Fully Explain, CTC Enrollments ................... 57
Economic Conditions for those without Some College Has Not Improved ............................ 58
Number of High School Graduates Has Dipped, but not Significantly ....................................... 59
The New Normal CTC Experience Has Turned Students Away ................................................. 60
Interviews with Washington CTCs ............................................................................................... 61
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 67
Policy Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 68
Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 73
Works Cited .................................................................................................................................. 74


Figures

Figure 1: Fall Quarter State-Supported Headcount Enrollments at Washington State CTCs 8
Figure 2: Public and Private FTE Enrollments in Washington by Sector 17
Figure 3: Washington Support for Higher Education Totals $2.7B (NGF-S & OP) 18
Figure 4: The Top 5 States with Jobs Requiring Postsecondary Education in 2018 20
Figure 5: Annual Degree Supply and Gap to Meet Employer Demand, 2014-19 21
Figure 6: Washington employer demand for education levels over the next five years 22
Figure 7: Annual Net In-Migration by Education Level, 2005-09 23
Figure 8: High Employer Demand Occupations, 2010 Supply vs. 2014-19 Demand 23
Figure 9: Cumulative State Budget Cuts since 2009 total $10.5B 24
Figure 10: Major Budget Components by Percent Change in State NGF-S & OP Appropriations,
2007-09 through 2011-13 25
Figure 11: Percent Share of Higher Education Spending at Washington State CTCs 26
Figure 12: FY 2012 Total Educational Revenues per FTE, by State 32

4
Figure 13: NGF-S Operating Appropriations per Budgeted Student FTE for Washington Public
Higher Education Institutions, by Sector 33
Figure 14: Community College Resident Undergraduate Tuition and Required Fees, 2012-13 34
Figure 15: Percentage National Distribution of Federal Financial Aid Funds by Sector 36
Figure 16: CTC Students Eligible for State Need Grant by Award Year 38
Figure 17: Annual State-Supported Community & Technical College FTES 42
Figure 18: Fall Quarter Enrollments by Purpose for Attending and Year 44
Figure 19: Worker Retraining State-Supported Fall Quarter FTES 44
Figure 20: Fall State-Supported Headcount & FTE Enrollments, 2010 to 2012 by College 45
Figure 21: Fall Quarter eLearning FTES, All Funding Sources 47
Figure 22: Percent Change, National Fall Student Headcount Enrollment 48
Figure 23: Average Annual Earnings by Education Level in Washington at Career Mid-Point 52
Figure 24: Cumulative Growth in Tuition vs. Per Capita Personal Income FY 2000 to 2012 53
Figure 25: Average Annual Loan Amounts by Needy Resident Undergraduates 55
Figure 26: CTC FTES Enrollment, Unemployment Rate, and Tuition Increases by Year 57
Figure 27: Georgetown University Analysis of Jobs Gained in Recovery by Education Level 58
Figure 28: Total High School Graduates in Washington by Year 59

Tables

Table 1: Fall Quarter 2012 Headcount Enrollments 18
Table 2: Washingtons Public Community and Technical Colleges Fall Quarter State-
Supported Enrollments
19
Table 3: Tuition & Required Fees for Resident Undergraduates, 2007-08 to 2012-13 27
Table 4: Annual State-Funded FTES Enrollment in Washington Public Institutions, By Sector 41
Table 5: CTC Fall Quarter System Enrollment by Funding Source 43
Table 6: Fall Quarter State-Supported Enrollments by Full-time and Part-Time Status 46
Table 7: National Fall-to-Fall Headcount Enrollments at Two-Year Public Institutions 48
Table 8: Heller (2001) Update to Leslie and Brinkmans SPRC 50
Table 9: Percent of Need Met by Financial Aid, Full-Time Students Receiving Aid, 2010-11 54
Table 10: Number of Borrowers Among Undergraduate Need-Based Aid Recipients 55


5
Appendices

APPENDIX 1: Percentage of Persons 25 and Over, by Educational Attainment and State .......... 77
APPENDIX 2: Estimated 2019 Education Supply-Demand Gap .................................................... 78
APPENDIX 3: Washington Community & Technical Colleges Tuition & Fee Schedule ................. 79
APPENDIX 4: WSAC National Table of Community College Resident Tuition and Required Fees
(Estimated State Averages) ........................................................................................................... 80
APPENDIX 5: College Board 2012-13 Annual Tuition & Required Fees by State In-District Full-
Time Students at Public Two-Year Institutions ............................................................................. 78
APPENDIX 6: College Board, Five-Year Percent Change in Annual Tuition and Required Fees for
In-State Residents at Two-Year Institutions, 2007-08 to 2012-13 (2012 Dollars) ........................ 79
APPENDIX 7: WICHE Resident In-District/County Tuition and Fees at Public Two-Year Institutions
in the WICHE Region ..................................................................................................................... 80
APPENDIX 8: Alternative FTES Enrollment Analysis Focusing on Tuition-Bearing Courses and
Excluding Worker Retraining & State International Students ...................................................... 84
APPENDIX 9: Jobs in Washington in 2018 Requiring Postsecondary Education .......................... 85
APPENDIX 10: Educational Appropriations per FTE (Constant Adjusted 2012 Dollars) ............... 86
APPENDIX 11: Unemployment and Labor Force Participation by Educational Attainment ......... 88
APPENDIX 12: 2011-13 Biennium State Funding Reductions for Public Higher Education
Institutions from Maintenance Level ............................................................................................ 89
APPENDIX 13: Washington Learns documents present competitor states and rankings ............ 90
APPENDIX 14: State support for higher education, FY 2013 ........................................................ 91
APPENDIX 15: Findings of Heller Research on Enrollment Effects at Community Colleges ......... 92
APPENDIX 16: Definition of Funding Sources for Washington CTC Enrollments ......................... 93
APPENDIX 17: Voter Attitudes About Higher Education Funding ................................................ 94
APPENDIX 18: State-Funded Enrollments by Year & College ....................................................... 95
APPENDIX 19: OFM State-Funded Public Higher Education Enrollment Report .......................... 97
APPENDIX 20: Students By Purpose for Attending, State-Supported, Fall Quarter ..................... 98
APPENDIX 21: CTC College Costs, Including All Fees .................................................................... 99
APPENDIX 22: Percent Change in State Spending Per Student, FY08-FY13 (All Higher Ed) ....... 100



6
Introduction


The rapid expansion of postsecondary education in the United States in the decades following
World War II fueled unprecedented economic growth, innovation, wage increases, and the
development of a prosperous middle class. Higher levels of educational attainment also pushed
the nation to the distinguished status as the most highly educated in the world and empowered
American economic leadership for a generation. Yet today, the United States is falling quickly
behind in an increasingly competitive and interconnected world, having sunk to 14
th
among
OECD nations in adults 25-34 years old attaining higher education and becoming one of the
few nations where the current generation of young people is expected to be less highly
educated than their parents (OECD, 2012). Policymakers, economists, and employers agree:
higher education is key to our collective economic future.

The Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce predicts that 65 percent of
all U.S. jobs will require some form of postsecondary education by 2020 (Carnevale, 2010). That
figure is even higher in Washington State, where in just five years, over two-thirds of jobs are
expected to require college-level education or training, but only 45.7 percent of 25-to 64-year-
olds are expected to have such credentials based on our anemic rates of attainment growth
(Lumina Foundation, 2012). Even today, in the midst of high levels of unemployment,
Washington State continues to import more college graduates than it exports, and employers
are struggling to find qualified candidates in key industries.

Despite trouble on the horizon, Washingtons community and technical college system has,
until now, been a bright spot in an otherwise ominous trend in public postsecondary education.
This system educates a majority of students pursuing postsecondary education and training in
Washington. It has flexible and nationally-recognized workforce development and vocational
programs that are highly responsive to industry needs, such as I-BEST, Running Start, and
innovative eLearning courses. Community and technical colleges have been charged by
Washington law with an open access mission: students at these colleges are significantly
more likely to be low-income, underrepresented, nontraditional, and place-bound than their
baccalaureate peers. These students often depend on the affordability of a community and
technical college education and are especially vulnerable to the collapse of state support, rapid
price increases, and program cutbacks thrust upon them.

Deep reductions to state higher education funding, combined with dramatic increases in tuition
and fees at public institutions over the last few years, have made higher education more
difficult to navigate and less affordable for many students, but especially for low-income and
middle-class families. Compared to pre-recession levels, median household income, home
equity, and net worth are stagnant or have declined significantly. Right at the time when the
state should be educating more of its citizens at higher levels, state policies have made it
increasingly difficult for potential students of all ages to access higher education and gain the

7
skills and high-quality degrees, certificates, and credentials they need to compete and succeed
now and in the future.

The cause of strain on public higher education in Washington is clear: the states financial
commitment to higher education has been compromised by fiscal crises and competing state
priorities. Despite large increases in the demand for higher education since the start of the
recession, state general fund spending in this area has declined more than 25% since before the
recession and increasingly shifted to students. A decade ago, the state funded 78% percent of
costs at community and technical colleges; today that number has declined to just 63% (Office
of Program Research, 2013). Still, these institutions continue to over-enroll more students
than state-supported levels in an effort to maximize access.

The decline in funding for community and technical colleges has had real consequences. In
order to maintain course availability and adequate faculty, the State Board for Community and
Technical Colleges has raised tuition 50 percent in just five years just as institutions have
increased class sizes, reduced course and program offerings, and laid-off faculty and staff. One
year of full-time resident tuition and required fees at one of the 34 community and technical
colleges now $4000 costs about the same as it did for the same year of bachelors education
at the University of Washington ten years ago. Along with rent, food, books, supplies, course
and technology fees, and other costs of living, students at community and technical colleges
have found themselves increasingly squeezed.

To buffer students against tuition and fee increases, the state has increased funding for need-
based financial aid. But it hasnt been nearly enough. Even those who qualify for grants have
borrowed more to attend college and struggled with ballooning debt burdens upon graduation.
Approximately 27 percent of all community and technical college students who were eligible for
the State Need Grant in 2011-12 did not receive one, amounting to nearly 18,000 un-served
students. The state simply ran out of money. Further, the number of low-income community
and technical college students borrowing, and their average loan amounts, are up dramatically
and more than any sector of higher education (Washington Student Achievement Council,
2013). The result: unmet need for low-income community and technical college students is now
higher in both percentage and nominal terms than those enrolled at four-year institutions in
Washington State. In other words, it is now harder financially for the average low-income
student to attend a community college each year than it is for them to attend a four-year
institution. Although the total cost of an associates degree or certificate remains substantially
lower than a bachelors degree, the payoff in earnings does, too. Community and technical
college students have realized that the states commitment to affordability for low-income
students is not really much of a commitment at all.

Beyond the individual impact of funding reductions and increases in costs for students is the
overall forecast for degree attainment and its related impact on the states economic future.
There is strong evidence to suggest that significant spikes in the price of higher education may
deter students, especially those at lower income levels, from participating and graduating in
postsecondary education. Additionally, students are generally less responsive to financial aid

8
than they are lower list prices, an effect known colloquially as sticker shock. Combined with
the multitude of worries that a student must confront during enrollment, this sticker shock is
beginning to have an unfortunate effect.

Enrollment in Washingtons community and
technical colleges peaked in 2009 and 2010 as
students and unemployed workers flocked to
higher education to avoid the worst of the
recession and to seek new skills and training for
jobs in the recovery. Yet the state has been unable
to maintain these enrollments even as economic
conditions have remained strongly unfavorable to
those without at least some college-level
education. Both state-supported headcount, and
full-time equivalent, student enrollments were
down this fall approximately 10 percent compared
to the peak in fall quarter 2009. A two-year decline
in state-supported headcounts has been seen at 32
of the 34 colleges, and at several colleges this has
been more than a 20 percent loss. All told, there are now fewer state-supported students
enrolled in community and technical colleges since before the recession began. And if fall
headcount enrollment trends hold over the next several months, there will be nearly 40,000
fewer community and technical college students enrolled in the current 2012-13 academic
year than three years ago.
1
This is roughly equivalent to the states two largest community
colleges Bellevue and Clark simply shuttering their doors. The decline in enrollments
portends a precipitous decline in the total number of degrees, credentials, and certificates
completed over the next several years.

One theory suggests that enrollments are shrinking dramatically at community and technical
colleges now because the economy has started to improve, and those who would have
otherwise enrolled have begun to find good-paying jobs. But with the labor force participation
rate largely flat or declining, and unemployment rates still exceptionally high for those with
only a high school diploma, macroeconomic trends do not fully explain a decline in enrollments
to pre-recession levels. National trends and demographic shifts do not sufficiently explain the
trend, either. Other facts are impacting students decisions whether to enroll or persist.

Another theory for the decline is the rapid increase in community and technical college tuition
and fees in Washington among the fastest in the nation combined with a series of stark
headlines about the employment prospects of recent graduates has begun to negatively affect
students assessment of their return on investment in higher education even when the data

1
Total academic year 2012-13 enrollments (state-supported) are difficult to predict, but fall headcount
enrollments (state-supported) have represented an average of 60.4% of total academic year headcounts over the
last four years. Specific fall 2012 enrollment figures are available in Table 5.
175,000
185,000
195,000
205,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Source: SBCTC Data Warehouse, 2013
Figure 1: Fall Quarter State-Supported Headcount
Enrollments at Washington State CTCs

9
indicates it remains positive. By failing to keep costs more affordable, the state has participated
in driving some students away from what they may have otherwise thought possible. New
restrictions on financial aid eligibility and shrinking institutional resources only compound the
problem.

If these troubling trends of dwindling state funding, increasing costs to students, and declining
enrollments continue, there is only one certain outcome: community and technical colleges in
Washington will become less accessible and affordable, and largely incapable of meeting the
states future economic needs. Thousands of students who otherwise could and should earn
degrees, certificates, and credentials will not do so. This is exactly the opposite direction the
state should be heading, and means a society that is less capable of realizing its true potential.

To understand enrollment declines at community and technical colleges in Washington, this
report first describes reductions in state support for higher education. Then, it will assess the
response of the states community and technical college system to mitigate these cuts. Finally,
it examines trends in student enrollment and influencing factors, and concludes with a
discussion of policy recommendations for the state and the Washington State Board for
Community and Technical Colleges.








Students are paying more, while public institutions are receiving substantially less
money to educate them. These one-year decreases in funding and increases in student
costs are unprecedented over my forty-year career in higher education. Moreover, the
tapering off of enrollment growth in 2012 seems to be more related to enrollment caps
and cost increases than to decreases in student demand for higher education The
educational and economic edge the United States once enjoyed in comparison to other
nations is eroding rapidly. Sound judgments about priorities and an extra measure of
commitment and creativity are needed in order to regain our educational and
economic momentum.

Paul Lingenfelter, President, State Higher Education Executive Officers
(SHEEO), on the release of the State Higher Education Finance Report 2012

10

Executive Summary

Nearly every state in the union is actively seeking to increase their higher education attainment.
Independent advocacy groups, think tanks, foundations, and non-profits have encouraged
policies to enhance postsecondary access and move the needle on degree completion.
President Barack Obama set a goal in 2009 that, by the year 2020, the United States will once
again lead the world in college attainment.

There are two primary ways to increase college attainment: increase the number of students
entering the door, and then make sure more of them walk out of it with a degree, certificate, or
industry-recognized credential in hand. Yet the recent decline in enrollments at Washington
States community and technical colleges down more than 10% this fall compared to two
years ago presents a significant barrier to reaching the states degree attainment goals
without improbable spikes in completion rates. A two-year decline in state-supported
headcounts has been seen at 32 of the 34 colleges and there are now fewer state-supported
students enrolled in community and technical colleges since before the recession began. If fall
headcount enrollment trends hold over the next several months, there will be nearly 40,000
fewer community and technical college students enrolled in the current academic year (2012-
13) than three years ago. The decline in enrollments portends a precipitous decline in the total
number of degrees, credentials, and certificates completed over the next several years. At a
time when Washington State should be dramatically increasing the number of students
enrolling in some form of postsecondary education, it is in fact beginning to slide backwards.

Key Findings

The process of enrollment management at community and technical colleges is complex.
Policymakers often posit that the most significant factor affecting these enrollments are
changes in macroeconomic conditions. But the data paints a much more complicated picture
and one in which state policy strong influences individual enrollment decisions. This report
examines CTC enrollments in Washington over the last few years and the drivers thereof,
starting with a decline in state support to higher education. Among key findings:

Postsecondary education at CTCs represents both a personal and societal benefit, yet
state budget cuts are imperiling degree quality, institutional accessibility, and ultimately
the systems ability to adequately meet the economic needs of the state.
Students response to increasing costs of higher education before and after financial
aid is applied is well-documented, and decreases individual propensity to enroll.
Tuition increases at Washington community and technical colleges, nearly 50 percent in
five years, have been significantly above national and regional averages, ranking fourth-
highest in one year and sixth-highest over four years (England-Siegerdt, 2013).

11
State cuts to higher education funding have also been worse than the national average,
placing Washington at second-lowest revenues per postsecondary FTE. While cuts to
CTCs have not been as severe as those at four-year institutions, they have had a
deleterious effect on the student experience and a likely greater enrollment impact.
The enrollment decline at Washington community and technical colleges has been more
than twice the national average since fall 2010.
Increasing costs are playing a role in driving students away from seeking education and
training at Washington community and technical colleges.
New restrictions in federal financial aid eligibility, increasing uncertainty of state
financial aid availability, and the necessity to borrow has also decreased propensity to
enroll or stay enrolled especially for low-income students.
Macroeconomic conditions do affect enrollments, but cannot account for the majority
of state-supported enrollments. Further, the number of high school graduates is largely
insignificant to the overall decline.
Based on interviews with college administrators, institutions report a diverse set of
factors they believe impact their enrollments and the student experience, most of which
are driven by state funding. All are concerned with increasing costs to students net of
financial aid. The utilization of services and approaches such as tuition installment plans,
independent foundations, and prioritization of student services were cited as helpful to
maintaining enrollments.

Policy Recommendations for SBCTC

This report also provides a set of key policy recommendations to state policymakers and the
SBCTC to help stabilize the decline in enrollments at CTCs, divided between externally-
focused policy, meaning focused on outside audiences and beyond the immediate statutory
control of SBCTC, and internally-focused, meaning under the purview of SBCTC governance
authority. These recommendations are:

Externally-Focused Policy Recommendations:

Utilize data to inform state policymakers of enrollment trends and policy consequences
and aggressively advocate for matching state enrollment targets to actual enrollment
levels.
Update legislative advocacy strategy to reflect change from state-funded to state-
supported, including preparation of dynamic budget proposals which offer specific
tuition and fee levels in exchange for set funding levels.

12
Engage in community outreach to detail programs and services provided to the
taxpayers and the impact of funding reductions or increases with the goal of developing
greater public support for higher education.


Internally-Focused Policy Recommendations:

Restrain tuition and fee growth to the maximum extent possible irrespective of
percentages allowable by law, in order to reduce decline in enrollments which both
harms institutional revenue projections and overall educational attainment.
Increase focus on enhancing student momentum within the first year of enrollment.
In the event of further cuts, help students predict and manage tuition volatility with
advance notice to existing students and increased student services.
Encourage development of external resources for colleges to mitigate the new funding
reality, such as fundraising and foundations.
Provide new emphasis on courses that attract and retain students who might not
otherwise enroll.
Adopt research-driven best practices to attract, retain, and complete students or adults
with previous college credit.




Glossary of Terms


CTC

Community and technical college

FTES

Full-time-equivalent student

OFM

Office of Financial Management

SAI

Student Achievement Initiative
SBCTC

State Board for Community and Technical Colleges

WICHE

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education


13
This Page Intentionally Left Blank



14

SUPPORTING
INFORMATION



15
The Community and Technical College System in Washington

[Our] independent system of community and technical colleges willoffer an open door to
every citizen, regardless of his or her academic background or experience, at a cost normally
within his or her economic means.
- Community and Technical College Act of 1991



Whatcom
Skagit Valley
Everett
Edmonds
Shoreline
North Seattle
Seattle Central
South Seattle
Bellevue
Highline
Green River
Tacoma
Pierce Puyallup
South Puget
Sound
Centralia
Grays
Peninsula
Olympic
Lower Columbia
Clark
Yakima Valley
Wenatchee Valley
Big Bend
Columbia Basin
Walla Walla
Spokane
Spokane Falls
Harbor
Bellingham
Seattle Vocational Institute
Lake Washington
Renton
Bates
Clover Park
Cascadia
Pierce Fort
Steilacoom


History of the Junior College System, Now Nearly 100 Years Old

Washington's first junior college the precursor to the community college was started in
1915 in the city of Everett, Washington. By 1941, that first junior college had expanded to eight
institutions when the Legislature began to provide state funding support, but also put new
restrictions on the number and location of the colleges as a means to control their proliferation.
The formation of this fledgling higher education sector brought on rapid policy changes and
significant student demand. In 1945, the colleges were made a part of their local secondary
school districts and provided funding therein. Not until the mid-1960s did the state re-
designate the junior colleges as community colleges, separate them from their local funding
streams, and create an independent and state-funded community college system.

The Modern CTC System

Today, Washington State has a total of 34 public community and technical colleges (CTCs) that
grant certificates, associate degrees, limited applied bachelors degrees, and other industry
recognized credentials. These institutions provide multiple pathways through higher education,
including programs for workforce training, continuing education, transfer to a four-year

16
university, occupational and technical training, adult basic skills, literacy, high school dual-
enrollment credit, and GED completion. The system is also quite large; Washington CTC
students constitute majority of all statewide enrollments in higher education (see Figure 2)
and degrees and certificates awarded. The CTC system served an unduplicated 419,743
students from all funding sources in the 2011-12 academic year, but down noticeably from an
all-time high of 486,900 in 2008-09, at the beginning of the recession.

Governance

In order to adopt a statewide system of community and technical college system, the State
Legislature created the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC)
to provide leadership and coordination for all 34 institutions. SBCTC is comprised of nine
members appointed to four-year terms by the Governor and with consent of the State Senate.
The Board and its related staff have numerous governance responsibilities over each college,
including to:

Prepare system budget requests, both operating and capital, to the Legislature.
Disburse operating and capital funds that have been appropriated to the college
districts, based primarily on enrollment levels.
Make decisions regarding tuition and some required fee maximums.
Set statewide requirements for personnel qualifications, budgeting, accounting,
auditing, curriculum content, degree programs, admission policies, and the eligibility of
courses for state support.
Articulate comprehensive master plans based on state needs and system capabilities
Provide legislative relations in the state capitol of Olympia.
Provide strategic direction by sharing best practices, coordinating research, and
encouraging institutional innovation.

CTCs are also governed at the local level by community college districts and their boards of
trustees, which approve specific governance decisions for each college, including personnel,
institutional budget allocations, and program and course offerings. Trustees are appointed to
five-year terms by the Governor and with the consent of the State Senate.

Mission

Each CTC offers a variety of courses intended for different purposes and student populations.
The five main areas in which programs and courses are offered are:
Academic: Courses which provide the first two years of bachelors degree programs for
potential transfer, and those that support workforce education programs in such areas
as math, science and English.
Workforce Education: Courses which prepare students for entry-level employment in
the workforce, or provide retraining and upgrading for employed adults.

17
Developmental Education: Courses which prepare students for college-level classes.
Also known as remedial education.
Basic Skills: Courses which teach adults who are at a high school level or below (Adult
Basic Education) or complete high school (GED), or provide English proficiency to those
whose native language is not English (ESL).
Continuing Education: Includes professional development, personal enrichment, and
other job-related training.

Students

Students at CTCs pursue a wide variety of pathways
in their educational pursuits and for various
purposes. Some look to obtain an associates degree
with the intention to transfer on to a four-year
university. Others are simply enrolled for a course or
credential necessary for career development. Full
associates degrees usually require two years of full-
time coursework (90 credits) or six full-time
quarters. Still, most students pursuing an associates
degree take longer than the standard six quarters
and will spend at least a portion of their educational
experience enrolled part-time.

CTCs have also begun to award baccalaureate
degrees. Since 2006, eleven applied baccalaureate
programs at seven community colleges have been
approved by SBCTC. These bachelors degrees are
specialized and closely aligned with the industry
needs of businesses in the surrounding communities
of individual institutions. Washington also has a
comparably large number of FTE students enrolled
at CTCs versus the nation as a whole (see Figure 2).
This enrollment feeds into the states baccalaureate
institutions at rates much higher than the national average; 40% of the graduates Washington
four-year institutions start at one of the CTCs (HECB, 2012).

Economic & Budgetary Impact Reflects Importance of CTC Sector

Washington CTCs are highly valuable from a benefit-cost analysis standpoint. They add $11
billion annually in added income to the states economy in terms of taxable income and avoided
social costs, according to a 2011EMSI study; the total benefit-cost ratio of 18.7, meaning for every
$1 invested in the system, $18.70 is returned to state residents (EMSI, 2011). This benefit also
Figure 2: Public and Private FTE Enrollments in
Washington by Sector

18
includes more than $103 million in added annual tax
revenues, translating to a return for every state dollar
invested in the colleges of $1.70 in total tax revenues
generated.

Given the large percentage of overall enrollments, the
community and technical college system also claims the
largest portion of state funds spent on higher education
42% - for a total of more than $1 billion over the 2011-13
biennium. As we will explore later, this funding has been
reduced significantly since the recession began as the
state has grappled with large budget deficits. Enrollments
have also remained above levels fully-funded by the state.

Diversity

Washington CTCs have a very diverse student body. They serve a larger number of students
from underrepresented backgrounds, including but not limited to low-income, students of
color, and students with disabilities. Community and technical college students are also more
likely than their four-year college peers to be nontraditional. Many have delayed enrollment
after high school, work full time, are financially independent of their parents, have dependents
other than a spouse, are a single parent, or do not have a high school diploma. Of the state-
funded students served, 50 percent enroll on a part-time basis, 43 percent maintain jobs while
going to school, and 30 percent have children (SBCTC, 2013a). As such, many have significant
financial burdens on top of school-related expenses. The diversity of CTC students has also
increased over the last several years.

Table 1: Fall Quarter 2012 Headcount Enrollments
% Female 57%
% Students of Color 39%
% Full-Time 51%
% Working 42%
% Planning Two-Year Degree 54%
% No Prior College 59%
% With Children 29%
Median Age 25.8
Source: SBCTC Data Warehouse, 2013


Figure 3: FY 13 WA Higher Education
Appropriations Totals $2.7B

19
Table 2: Washingtons Public Community and Technical Colleges
Fall Quarter State-Supported Enrollments
(29 community colleges, 5 technical colleges, 1 vocational institute)
Institution
Fall 2010
Headcount
Fall 2012
Headcount
2-Year
Trend
Fall 2010
FTES
Fall 2012
FTES
2-Year
Trend
Bates 4,612 4,516 -2.1% 3,328 4,557 36.9%
Bellevue 13,388 11,933 -10.9% 9,153 8,066 -11.9%
Bellingham 3,158 2,545 -19.4% 2,291 1,967 -14.1%
Big Bend 2,263 2,072 -8.4% 1,814 1,613 -11.0%
Cascadia 2,724 2,515 -7.7% 2,005 1,880 -6.2%
Centralia 3,647 3,043 -16.6% 2,363 2,166 -8.3%
Clark 12,848 11,960 -6.9% 8,565 8,039 -6.1%
Clover Park 6,832 4,014 -41.2% 4,428 3,415 -22.9%
Columbia Basin 6,788 6,218 -8.4% 4,476 4,429 -1.1%
Edmonds 8,824 7,431 -15.8% 5,780 4,733 -18.1%
Everett 7,108 6,785 -4.5% 4,982 4,674 -6.2%
Grays Harbor 2,390 1,742 -27.1% 1,804 1,510 -16.3%
Green River 7,554 6,469 -14.4% 5,933 4,987 -16.0%
Highline 8,759 7,902 -9.8% 6,116 5,616 -8.2%
Lake Washington 5,130 4,061 -20.8% 3,313 2,693 -18.7%
Lower Columbia 4,194 3,328 -20.6% 3,390 2,557 -24.6%
Olympic 7,793 7,698 -1.2% 5,357 5,219 -2.6%
Peninsula 2,814 2,288 -18.7% 1,894 1,789 -5.5%
Pierce Fort Steilacoom 4,722 4,171 -11.7% 3,385 2,949 -12.9%
Pierce Puyallup 3,382 3,187 -5.8% 2,252 2,093 -7.1%
Renton 5,259 4,725 -10.2% 3,681 3,423 -7.0%
Seattle Central 7,706 6,652 -13.7% 5,387 4,742 -12.0%
Seattle North 6,855 6,060 -11.6% 3,907 3,519 -9.9%
Seattle South 6,407 5,712 -10.8% 4,139 3,763 -9.1%
Seattle Vocational Institute 491 539 9.8% 548 478 -12.7%
Shoreline 6,290 6,081 -3.3% 4,654 4,629 -0.5%
Skagit Valley 5,537 4,787 -13.5% 3,937 3,431 -12.9%
South Puget Sound 5,529 4,922 -11.0% 4,004 3,548 -11.4%
Spokane 6,720 6,721 0.0% 5,628 5,701 1.3%
Spokane Falls* 10,451 9,505 -9.1% 7,523 6,782 -9.9%
Tacoma 6,421 6,566 2.3% 4,976 5,213 4.8%
Walla Walla 3,947 3,685 -6.6% 3,153 2,966 -5.9%
Wenatchee Valley 3,672 3,555 -3.2% 2,865 2,857 -0.3%
Whatcom 4,603 3,965 -13.9% 3,101 2,710 -12.6%
Yakima Valley 5,153 4,934 -4.2% 3,983 3,847 -3.4%


System Total 202,074 180,499 -10.7% 144,114 132,560 -8.0%
Source: SBCTC Public Reports Manager, 2013
* Note: Spokane Falls Community College headcount enrollment includes Spokane Institute for Extended Learning, an
exclusively online institution


20
The Need to Educate More Washingtonians to Higher Levels

Figure 4: The Top 5 States with Jobs Requiring Postsecondary Education in 2018


Source: Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, 2010.

Washington State is precariously positioned today as one of the most highly educated states in
the nation. It ranks 3
rd
in the nation with adult residents with some form of postsecondary
education beyond high school (see Appendix 1) and 12
th
in the nation with residents having a
bachelors degree or above, many of whom started their education at a state CTC. Yet many of
these educated residents have been acquired by importing workers with degrees, certificates,
and credentials beyond state borders and countries around the world not from the states
own institutions of higher education. Washingtons status as highly educated among the 50
states will slip rapidly if current trends persist, driven by the stagnant number of residents who
have some level of higher education being rapidly outpaced by employer demand.

The need for additional graduates of higher education in Washington now and in the future
is well established. In the landmark report Help Wanted: Projections of Job and Education
Requirements Through 2018, the Georgetown University Center on Education and the
Workforce predicted that 65 percent of all U.S. jobs will require some form of postsecondary
education by 2020 (Carnevale, 2010). That figure is even higher in Washington State, where
over two-thirds of jobs (67 percent) are expected to require some postsecondary education or

21
training by 2018, but only 45.7 percent of 25- to 64-year-olds are expected to have such
degrees, certificates, or credentials (Lumina Foundation, 2012).

Figure 5: Annual Degree Supply and Gap to Meet Employer Demand, 2014-19

Current Attainment Gap is Consistent with Long-term Workforce Projections

The need for additional qualified graduates has also already begun to appear in surveys of
Washington employers. According to the most recent survey conducted by the Workforce
Training and Education Coordinating Board, of the roughly 60,000 Washington employers who
hired in the last six months, one in five (21 percent) reported trouble finding qualified
applicants (Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, 2013). This is occurring even
as unemployment remained at 7.6 percent or above during the period of the survey and
thousands of Washingtonians are without work. The skills that these Washington employers
listed most frequently as lacking in job applicants (percentage among employers who had
difficulty hiring):

1. Occupation-specific skills (85 percent)
2. Positive work habits and attitudes (63 percent)
3. Communication skills (62 percent)

Furthermore, the education levels most frequently reported by Washington employers as
difficult to find in job applicants (percentage among employers who had difficulty hiring) were:

1. Vocational Diploma or Certificate (59 percent)
2. Vocational Associates Degree (54 percent)
3. Bachelors Degree (52 percent)

To meet current employer needs, additional graduates with occupation-specific skills and
holding associates degrees, certificates, or industry-recognized credentials are needed.
34,000
26,000
11,000
9,000
10,000
9,000
Mid-Level / Associate's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Graduate / Professional Degree
Workers Entering the Labor Force in 2010 Annual Gap between Supply and Demand 2014-2019
Source: Joint report of Workforce Board, SBCTC, and WSAC, "A Skilled & Educated Workforce 2011 Update." Long-
range forecasts made by Washington Employment Security Department (May 2011).
Note: Long-range forecasts do not accurately include new and emerging industries.

22
Figure 6: How will Washingtons employer demand for the following education levels change
over the next five years?


The current shortage of qualified graduates would suggest several standard microeconomic
responses by employers, absent a state policy response, including:

a) Washington employers are recruiting workers from other states.
b) Potential employers are not filling all available positions for trained workers.
c) Workers may find alternate ways to prepare for available jobs.

Evidence suggests that (a) and (b) are potentially at play, and that new technologies for training
such as online courses may be contributing to a limited role for (c), as explained in the next
section. Given these factors, the state must dramatically improve the education levels of its
residents by expanding opportunities for postsecondary education and training for residents.

Without Sufficient Homegrown Talent, Washington State is a Net Importer of
Educated Workers

Lacking sufficiently-educated residents to hire, employers will look elsewhere to fill the jobs
they have now and will have in the future. Even today, the state continues to import more
college-level workers than it exports. Over the period of 2005 to 2009, the state imported a net
total of more than 1,400 mid-level educated people annually from other states individuals
classified as those having at least one year of college education or an Associates Degree (see
Figure 7; for detailed information consult Appendix 2). Additionally, Washington employed
17,800 H1-B visa holders in 2010 and that the majority of new visa activity (approximately 75
percent) was to meet demand for computer and mathematical occupations, many of which can
be taught at the CTC level (Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, 2011).
3%
8%
14%
23%
21%
16%
18%
14%
9%
4%
1%
2%
4%
5%
2%
2%
3%
3%
Neither a high
school diploma
or GED
A high school
diploma or
GED
Some college
course work
beyond high
school
A vocational
diploma or
certificate
A vocational
associate
degree
An academic
Associate (AA
or AS) degree
Baccalaureate
(BA or BS)
degree
A master's (MA
or MS) degree
A doctoral
(PhD) or
professional
degree
Increase Decrease
Source: 2012 Washington Employer Survey, Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board.

23
Figure 7: Annual Net In-Migration by Education Level, 2005-09


This phenomenon of importing more graduates than the state exports is known as positive net
in-migration. While it is partially indicative of the states growing economy, it is also a result of
the current population of college graduates being insufficient to meet employer needs. While
the in-migration data is slightly dated, the recent 2012 survey of employers suggests that
similar patterns of net in-migration are likely to be occurring (Workforce Training and Education
Coordinating Board, 2013). This is particularly true in high-demand fields.

Figure 8: High Employer Demand Occupations at Mid-Level, 2010 Supply vs. 2014-19 Demand


Current and projected gaps between supply of degree completers at the mid-level, including
associates degrees and one-year certificates, suggests a growing problem across all fields and
involving tens of thousands of Washington employers. Not only is Washington producing too
few graduates from state institutions to meet employer demand today, but the recent trend of
declining enrollments at CTCs is likely to make these skill gaps even worse.
4,787
4,934
1,439
3,483
Graduate or Professional Degree
Bachelors Degree
Associate Degree or 1 year but less than a Bachelors
Less than 1 year of college
Source: WSAC staff analysis of data from American Community Survey, 2005-09
Note: Average annual net in-migration of employed adults (ages 25-64) based on state-to-state mobility only.
Additional in-migration from international sources is not reflected.
3186
1164
758
759
584
369
770
1117
602
759
Health Occupations in Shortage*
Installation, Maintenance, Repair
Manufacturing, Production
Accounting & Bookkeeping
Protective Services
2010 Completers Entering Workforce Additional Supply needed each year to meet demand 2014-2019
*includes only mid-level health occupations with projected shortages
Source: Long-range forecast, Washington Employment Security Department (May 2011)

24
Despite Clear Need to Increase Higher Education Attainment,
State has Disinvested in Students

State lawmakers across the nation have been buffeted by fiscal crises and faced grave spending
choices over the last several years. State revenues have declined while the need for safety net
programs has increased. The economic downturn has been especially hard-hitting in
Washington given the states reliance on the state sales tax for a majority of its revenue; a
precipitous decline in consumer spending sharply reduced those sales tax receipts and left a
significant gap between spending and revenue. Despite the existence of a modest rainy day
fund and some federal ARRA assistance, the Governor and Legislature were forced to make
several rounds of deep budget cuts.

Figure 9: Cumulative State Budget Cuts in All Areas since 2009 total $10.5B


Source: Washington State Budget and Policy Center

The voters have also rejected several attempts to increase revenue, including an income tax on
high-income earners, a candy-soda tax, and closing tax loopholes. Additionally, voters twice-
approved a measure to institute a two-thirds vote requirement to raise taxes in the Legislature,
although this measure was recently ruled unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court. To deal
with the repeated budget shortfalls, nearly $11 billion has been cut from the state budget since
the start of the recession nearly a third of total general fund spending relative to 2007-09
with the majority of these cuts coming from human services and higher education (Justice,
2012). The Legislature faces another large deficit for the 2013-15 biennium of more than $2
billion. Efforts to generate revenue by popular vote will likely face continued headwinds.

25
State Budget Balanced in Large Part through Cuts to Higher Education

Despite comprising just nine percent of overall state general fund spending, higher education
has experienced inordinately deep cuts as legislators have sought to avoid other undesirable
service reductions for at-risk and low-income families. In fact, higher education as a whole has
been cut more than 25 percent since the start of the recession. These severe cuts have been
made possible partly because lawmakers have been able to give public institutions expanded
authority to backfill state funding cuts with significant tuition increases. More national trends in
funding and tuition are covered in the next section.

Figure 10: Major Budget Components by Percent Change in State NGF-S & OP Appropriations,
2007-09 through 2011-13

Source: Higher Education Coordinating Board (now WSAC) Legislative Report, April 2012.

The community and technical college system has experienced budget cuts of approximately 20
percent ($414 million) from maintenance levels since the start of the recession while
enrollments began to rapidly increase, causing a wide gap in per-student funding that had to be
partially backfilled with significant tuition increases and institutional budget cuts. While these
funding reductions have not been as severe in percentage terms as the cuts to four-year
research and comprehensive universities, they have been very deep when compared regionally
and nationally, and have had a deleterious effect on CTC operations, program offerings, quality,
and access. The recent decline in enrollments will only marginally increase per-student funding
levels as state funding is applied to a smaller base of students, but fewer students also means
less tuition revenue.


26
The number of FTES currently enrolled at CTCs has also, for several years running, been above
the funding provided by the state. At some institutions, this over-enrollment has been as
much as 20 percent. Despite the funding gap, many CTCs continued to provide access to the
surge of students entering at the beginning of the recession and keep the doors open by
making other budget reductions, increasing class sizes, and finding operational efficiencies.
Many of these cuts, however, are unsustainable. Even with the decline in FTES enrollments
continuing through fall 2012, it is estimated that most colleges will remain over-enrolled during
the current 2012-13 academic year, producing 148,586 state-supported FTES, or 6 percent
above the legislative enrollment target. Without a significant increase in state funding, the CTC
systems state-supported service levels
2
will drop below 2 percent for the first time in over 20
years by 2015 (SBCTC, 2013b). This will drive a serious decrease in access to CTC programs at a
time when the state should be enrolling and completing more students in this sector.

To Maintain Per-Student Funding, Tuition Has Been Raised Significantly

In response to the precipitous decline in funding for CTCs relative to the 2007-09 biennial
budget, the system was forced to increase tuition and fees to maintain basic services. As
expected, students share of instructional costs has thus increased rapidly. Tuition and required
fees are now set by the SBCTC at $4000 per year for in-state residents taking a full-time credit
load (45 credits) during the 2012-13 academic year.
3
As can be seen in Table 3, this rate is
approximately 50 percent higher than it was in 2007-08, prior to the beginning of the recession.

Figure 11: Percent Share of Higher Education Spending at Washington State Community and
Technical Colleges, FY 02-13

Source: Washington State Office of Program Research, 2013

2
Service level is defined as total funded enrollments as a ratio of the projected state population.
3
For the purposes of this report, only in-state resident required tuition and fees is considered. For a full tuition
schedule for the 2012-13 academic year, see Appendix 3. In addition to per-credit tuition and operating, building,
and services & activities fees, there are other required fees charged to students by the individual colleges. These
fees take the form of lab, technology, course, and other miscellaneous fees.

27
Table 3: Tuition & Required Fees for Resident Undergraduates,
2007-08 to 2012-13, Constant Dollars

Tuition & Required Fees (resident undergrad) % Change vs. Prior Year
Year Research Comprehensive CTC Research Comprehensive CTC
2007-08 $ 6,225 $ 4,563 $ 2,676 7% 5% 3%
2008-09 $ 6,709 $ 4,782 $ 2,730 8% 5% 2%
2009-10 $ 7,107 $ 5,416 $ 2,925 6% 13% 7%
2010-11 $ 8,594 $ 6,177 $ 3,135 21% 14% 7%
2011-12 $ 10,555 $ 6,969 $ 3,542 23% 13% 13%
2012-13 $ 11,543 $ 7,787 $ 4,000 9% 12% 13%

Published Tuition and Fees Dont Account for Full Costs to Students

The term tuition and required fees currently totaling $4000 annually for a standard 45
credits over three quarters includes three main components (as seen in Appendix 3):

Operating fee: The largest component of tuition (81 percent). Retained locally at the
college to support the general operations of the college.

Building fee: Approximately 10 percent of the tuition charge. Collected by the college
and sent to the State Treasurer. The funds are appropriated by the Legislature for
capital improvements in the college system.

Services and Activities (S&A) fee: Approximately 10 percent of the tuition charge.
Retained locally by the colleges and dedicated to support student programs and
activities such as athletics, clubs, childcare and other activities identified by students.
Colleges may set their S&A fee below the maximum authorized by law.

In addition to basic tuition, there are other fees charged to students by the colleges which they
are required to pay, but are not regulated by the SBCTC. These fees take the form of technology
fees, lab fees, and other fees. For some students, these fees can be significant: totaling $821
annually at Bates Technical College compared to just $75 at Highline Community College.

The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) estimates that the average
total of these combined tuition, required fees, and other miscellaneous fees for students across
all Washington CTCs is $4,235 for the 2012-13 academic year, while the College Board
estimates it at $4,247. In other words, total tuition and fee charges may be approximately 6%
more for students than published by SBCTC. These numbers may also more accurately reflect
comparisons across states. The role of financial aid is covered in following sections.

28
Tuition Increases Dont Prevent Adverse Impacts to Educational Quality

Even as tuition and fee rates to students have increased 50 percent over the same time period,
the CTC system is still operating with more than $100 million less in total funding (state and
student support combined) than it did prior to the recession. These impacts have been buffered
by some efficiencies but also by painful cuts that cannot be sustained. For example, there are
424 fewer full and part-time faculty, and 7% fewer staff members in all categories, in fall 2012
compared to fall 2008 (SBCTC, 2013a). Budget cuts have reduced degree quality and impacted
the student experience.

Efficiencies Adverse Cuts
Collaborating with neighboring colleges on
optimal course availability
Eliminating low enrolled programs
Using student email for all official communication
Using more online forms
Encouraging online registration and payment
Holding regional and statewide meetings using
online meeting tools
Cutting back on printing and, instead, directing
community members and potential students to
schedules and other college information online
Increasing the use of online help for students

Decreasing non-instructional staffing
Increasing class sizes
Relying more heavily on part-time faculty
Reducing purchases of instructional equipment,
resulting in students training on outdated
equipment
Reducing cleaning and maintenance schedules,
increasing concern about the cleanliness and
safety of campus facilities
Limiting the number of class sections available
each quarter,
Eliminating tutors and tutoring sessions
Implementing furloughs
Reducing professional development for faculty
Reducing outreach in high schools and the
community
Cutting child care offerings
Offering fewer individual academic advising
appointments and information sessions
Reducing student services office hours

Source: SBCTC 2011-13 Operating Budget Policy Level Request

With the cuts forced by state funding reductions, SBCTC has noted that it is much harder today
for a student to enroll in the classes they need to graduate, get a meeting with an advisor,
reach financial aid or administrative staff, and obtain the support and tutoring they need to
succeed. As the 2011-13 SBCTC operating budget request detailed, student, faculty, and staff
frustrations have grown as fewer staff members serve more students (SBCTC, 2010).

29
How State Funding is Determined in Washington

The politics of any state budget process are a mixture of official deadlines and obscure forces of
interplay between agencies, the Governor, and elected policymakers. The same is true in
Washington. State agencies like the SBCTC submit their operating and capital budget requests
in the fall of each year preceding a biennial budget cycle (i.e. 2013-15). The Office of Financial
Management and the Governor then review these requests and propose a comprehensive
budget to the Legislature. The Legislature reviews the Governor's proposed budget, proposes
and passes their own budgets in each chamber, and approves necessary revenue bills, if any. A
conference committee of the House & Senate produces a conference budget, which is voted on
and then signed or vetoed by the Governor. The Governor is also empowered in Washington
State with line-item veto authority. The legislative process is approximately as follows:



Why Higher Education Was Cut Beginning in 2009

Prior to the start of the recession, Washington was in a dramatically different and more positive
fiscal situation. In early 2007, the state revenue forecast projected a nearly $1.9 billion reserve.
Encouraged by these numbers and empowered by the Washington Learns Commission Findings
(see Appendix 13), then-Governor Chris Gregoire released a 2007-09 operating budget that
proposed an additional $500 million for higher education to finance new general and high-
demand enrollments, increased student financial aid, and faculty salary raises. For the CTC
system specifically, the Governor proposed over $50 million for 4,675 new funded enrollments
and $19.7 million to freeze tuition at the 2007 level for two years, backfilling an otherwise-
assumed 3 percent annual tuition increase. She noted:

Were going to make education more affordable. We really need to freeze tuition at
our community and technical colleges, which means we pay what they would otherwise
receive in tuition and we need a tuition policy that gets predictability to students and
their families. Governor Chris Gregoire in her 2007 State of the State Address

The Legislature ultimately chose to maintain modest tuition increases of approximately 3
percent in the 2007-09 biennial operating budget and redirected funding elsewhere, but
significant new funding was still provided to higher education, including CTCs. While welcome
news at the time, these state funding increases had the unintended effect of putting a target
on higher education for reductions when state revenues began to collapse. Higher education
was the most recent recipient of added funding in better economic times and was thought to
Agencies
submit
requests
OFM reviews,
Governor
proposes
budget
House &
Senate
propose
budgets
Budget
negotiations
Final budget
adopted,
signed

30
be capable of doing without in harder times, as funding returned to previous baselines.
Unfortunately, these cuts went much deeper.

As previously discussed, the 2009-11 and 2011-12 biennial budgets made deep cuts to all
sectors of higher education in the state. The Governor, required by law to produce a balanced
budget proposal, suggested these deep cuts and corresponding tuition increases beginning in
2009 to backfill most, but not all, of the lost revenue. Legislators in leadership positions and on
fiscal committees (i.e. House Appropriations & Senate Ways & Means Committees) quickly
followed suit, and authorizing committees (i.e. House & Senate Higher Education Committees)
provided the new tuition authority to institutions. Individual four-year boards of regents and
the SBCTC exercised this tuition authority to backfill budget cuts that had become a foregone
conclusion.

Approaches to Influencing Higher Education Funding Begin to Reflect Shift
from State-Funded to State-Supported or State-Assisted

Each year, state agencies walk a delicate line between meeting statutory requirements as part
of the budget process and engaging in official advocacy. The Office of Financial Management
describes just two roles for agencies in its Washington State Budget Process overview:
strategic planning and budget requests

State agencies are responsible for developing budget estimates and submitting
budget proposals to the Governor. Once the budget is enacted by the Legislature and
approved by the Governor, agencies implement approved policies and programs within
the budgetary limits imposed by legislation. Under Washingtons budget and accounting
statutes, individual agency directors are accountable for carrying out the legal intent of
appropriations. OFM, Washington State Budget Process, June 2012, pg. 1.

This language does not capture the unique role and opportunity for higher education
institutions which have become increasingly student-funded. In the current legislative session,
representatives of four-year universities have sought to influence the budget process by
submitting dynamic funding requests. In return for requested state funding levels, institutions
promise certain tuition and allocation decisions. Consider the following headlines:

Higher-ed tuition freeze offered for more state funding. Seattle Times, Jan. 7, 2013
University tuition freeze proposed: School presidents offer to do so if state contributes
$225M. The Columbian, Jan. 8, 2013
Universities seek deal on tuition. Spokane Spokesman-Review, Jan. 9, 2013
2-year tuition freeze would erase GET hole, report says. Seattle Times, Jan. 30, 2013



31
Each of the four-year universities and the SBCTC submit their budget requests to OFM each fall,
but are not required to articulate a specific tuition proposal. It is largely a wait-and-see
approach, with the Legislature delegating specific tuition and fee decisions to the governing
boards after they have assigned funding levels. Many experts in the field of advocacy believe
this gives the Legislature the ability to pass the buck on tuition increases to governing boards,
given that the public will not immediately be able to connect state funding reductions with
tuition and fee increases. When the state directly set tuition and fee rates, this political
dynamic did not exist.

As costs have risen dramatically, students have also become much more active in higher
education funding advocacy. Their advocacy is unconstrained by state lobbying rules that
restrict campaign-style involvement of agency officials. Students of the Washington State
Community and Technical College Student Association held a rally in the Capitol Rotunda on
February 1, 2013. These students could be an important component in future legislative
negotiations over funding.



Photo Credit: Washington Community and Technical College Student Association (WACTCSA)

32
Washington Now Far Outside Regional & National Averages in
State Support and Tuition & Fees
How Washington Compares Nationally in Higher Education Appropriations

While most states have had to make cuts to their higher education systems to balance deficits
during the recession, few have made cuts as deep as those seen in Washington. The state is 8
th

worst nationwide in cuts to state support for higher education in percentage terms over last
five years (22.4 percent decline from FY 08 to FY 13) and 6
th
worst over the last two years (13.8
percent from FY 11 to FY 13) according to the annual Grapevine rankings (Palmer, 2013).

Overall, Washington now ranks 36
th
in state support to higher education per capita and 38
th
in
state support per $1,000 in personal income, down from 21
st
in per capita funding prior to the
recession (FY 2007). Similarly, according to the SHEEO State Higher Education Finance FY 2012
Report, current state support per FTE
4
in Washington ($4,788) is now 32
nd
in the nation, and
this figure represents the seventh-worst in decline (35 percent) over the past five years.
Further, Washington now has the second-lowest educational revenues per-FTE in higher
education (including appropriations and tuition) of all 50 states when adjusted for enrollment
mix and cost of living, despite rapid increases in tuition to maintain services (SHEEO, 2013).




4
Educational appropriations measures state and local support available for public higher education operating
expenses including ARRA funds and excludes appropriations for independent institutions, financial aid for students
attending independent institutions, research, hospitals, and medical education.
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
D
e
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
l
a
s
k
a
W
y
o
m
i
n
g
R
h
o
d
e

I
s
l
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
e
V
e
r
m
o
n
t
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
c
u
t
M
a
r
y
l
a
n
d
A
l
a
b
a
m
a
N
o
r
t
h

D
a
k
o
t
a
N
e
w

J
e
r
s
e
y
M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
K
e
n
t
u
c
k
y
P
e
n
n
s
y
l
v
a
n
i
a
I
l
l
i
n
o
i
s
T
e
x
a
s
N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
O
k
l
a
h
o
m
a
N
e
w

Y
o
r
k
S
o
u
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
M
i
s
s
i
s
s
i
p
p
i
I
o
w
a
N
e
b
r
a
s
k
a
U
S
W
e
s
t

V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
S
o
u
t
h

D
a
k
o
t
a
G
e
o
r
g
i
a
H
a
w
a
i
i
N
e
v
a
d
a
I
n
d
i
a
n
a
W
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
n
T
e
n
n
e
s
s
e
e
M
a
s
s
a
c
h
u
s
e
t
t
s
N
e
w

H
a
m
p
s
h
i
r
e
O
r
e
g
o
n
M
i
s
s
o
u
r
i
O
h
i
o
N
e
w

M
e
x
i
c
o
A
r
k
a
n
s
a
s
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
K
a
n
s
a
s
U
t
a
h
L
o
u
i
s
i
a
n
a
I
d
a
h
o
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
M
o
n
t
a
n
a
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
F
l
o
r
i
d
a
Figure 12: FY 2012 Total Higher Education Revenues per FTE, by State

33
While these numbers aggregate all public sectors (CTC and four-year institutions) they show
clearly that the effects of disinvestment in higher education have put Washington at a relative
funding disadvantage compared to other states. With fewer resources per FTE (see Figure 13)
institutions have had to make painful cuts that have had a negative impact on degree quality
and experience. More information on these cuts is covered on page 28.

Figure 13: NGF-S Operating Appropriations per Budgeted Student FTE for Washington Public
Higher Education Institutions, by Sector



How Washington Compares in CTC Tuition and Fees

Largely as a result of rapid percentage increases since the start of the recession, tuition and
required fees
5
at Washington CTCs are now significantly above national and regional averages
charged by public two-year institutions during the 2013-13 academic year, whereas prior to
these increases the state was much closer to the national average.

National Comparison

Washington charges a tuition and fee sticker price, not including financial aid, for public two-
year institutions in 2012-13 that is 11.4 percent more than the national average of $3,591
(rank: 14
th
) and 10.3 percent above the Global Challenge State average, according to the
Washington Student Achievement Councils annual comparison of tuition and fees (England-
Siegerdt, 2013). See Figure 14. For full state-by-state tables see Appendix 4.

In terms of percentage change, the spike in public CTC tuition and fees has also been
particularly pronounced in Washington. In constant dollars, Washington has had the seventh

5
Tuition includes an operating fee and building fee. Required fees generally include services & activities fees.
$5,382
$4,118
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Research Comprehensive CTC
Source: Washington Student Achievement Council, staff analysis, 2012

34
highest increase in CTC tuition from the period of 2008-09 to 2012-13 at a total of 46.6 percent
(England-Siegerdt, 2013). See Appendix 4 for full state-by-state tuition and fee percentage
increase information.

Figure 14: Community College Resident Undergraduate Tuition and Required Fees, 2012-13

Source: Washington Student Achievement Council, 2013 National Tuition & Fee Report.


35
However, national comparisons and rank depend on the specific fees included in the analysis.
According to the annual College Board report Trends in College Pricing 2012, which includes
various lab fees, technology fees, and other miscellaneous fees which students must pay,
Washingtons CTC tuition and fees are approximately $4,247. In this context, Washington ranks
far worse than the Washington Student Achievement Councils analysis. Using these numbers,
The College Board data indicates that Washington ranks seventh in total published tuition and
required fees charged at two-year public institutions nationwide up from 20
th
in 2007-08 or
before the recession (College Board, 2012a). This is 35.6 percent above the national
enrollment-weighted average of $3,131 at public two-year institutions. See Appendix 5 for
more information.

Additionally, according to the same College Board report, Washington has had the eighth-
fastest increase in CTC tuition in 2012 inflation-adjusted dollars from the period of 2007-08 to
2012-13 at a grand total of more than 34 percent
6
(see Appendix 6). Including all of the tuition
and fees a student must pay to maintain enrollment shows the severity of tuition and fee
increases when compared nationally.

Regional Comparison

Another organization, the Western Interstate Commission for Higher education (WICHE) also
conducts a Western regional
7
tuition and fees analysis which varies slightly in the fees included
from the College Board Report. According to WICHE, Washington tuition is $4,235, amounting
to 79.1 percent more than the regional average of $2,364 (WICHE, 2012).

Perhaps a fairer calculation of regional averages would be to use enrollment-weighted figures
(accounting for states with smaller or larger populations) and to exclude California which has
comparatively low fees and does not officially charge tuition. Excluding California,
Washington charges a third more (33.0 percent) than the enrollment-weighted WICHE region
average of $3,184 for public two-year institutions. See Appendix 7 for the full WICHE tables.
Students in Washington are finding institutions less affordable than their regional peers in the
West.

6
Excluding California, which has seen a 104% increase over this period from a small base as seen in Appendix 5.
California does not officially charge CTC tuition by law, but instead assigns heavier course fees.
7
Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education (WICHE) Region = AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, MT, NV, NM, ND,
OR, SD, UT, WA, and WY

36
State and Federal Financial Aid Eligibility and Availability

Although an institutions sticker price of full tuition and fees does play a role in an individual
students own personal decision-making of whether postsecondary education is affordable, the
availability of need-based financial aid in the form of grants and loans helps many low-income
students enroll in education and training they would be otherwise unable to afford. Since the
beginning of the recession, a rapid set of changes to the funding of, and eligibility for, both
state and federal financial aid programs has occurred. In Washington, the expansion of financial
aid was intended to hold harmless low-income students from the impact of tuition increases,
though demand for programs like the State Need Grant have far exceeded supplied funds. At
the federal level, restrictions on the availability of the Pell Grant have been mostly intended to
reduce the dramatic growth in the programs cost and projected shortfalls. Community college
students, who are typically lower-income than their four-year peers, have been strongly
impacted by these changes. The implications of financial aid trends for students will be
addressed in the next section on factors that influence enrollments.

Changes to Federal Financial Aid Grants

The Pell Grant program has long been the cornerstone of the federal governments effort to
provide access to college. From 2010-11 through 2012-13 award years, the maximum annual
Pell Grant is $5,550 per award year. As indicated by Figure 15, the Pell Grant program is also the
federal financial aid program in which public two-year institutions receive the most support
relative to other sectors, comprising 34 percent of both total Pell recipients and dollars
distributed. The program has expanded dramatically in size, in terms of both cost and
recipients, since the beginning of the recession. There has been a 50 percent increase in the
number of Pell participants nationwide in all sectors since 2008, from 6 million students then to
9.4 million students today
8
(College Board, 2012b).

Figure 15: Percentage National Distribution of Federal Financial Aid Funds by Sector, 2011-12


8
As measured by the 2011-12 school year, the most recent year for which financial aid data is available.
34%
20%
16%
1%
11%
9%
32%
30%
36%
43%
40%
38%
13%
33%
41%
51%
28%
30%
21%
18%
7%
6%
21%
23%
Pell Grants ($34,542 M)
FSEOG ($736 M)
Federal Work Study ($862 M)
Perkins Loans ($763 M)
Subsidized Stafford Loans ($28,706 M)
Unsubsidized Stafford Loans ($30,186 M)
Public Two-Year Public Four-Year Private Not-for-Profit Institutions For-Profit
Source: The College Board, Trends in Student Aid 2012

37
However, despite the rapid increase in the number over overall Pell recipients, more recent
changes to federal financial aid eligibility have been made that has restricted student eligibility
for the program. The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011
(P.L. 112-10) repealed the provision that an otherwise-eligible student could receive more than
one Pell Grant (up to 200 percent) in a single award year, known as double or year-round
Pell, effective with the 2011-12 award year. Double Pell was originally authorized by the
Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) and was first available in the 2009-10 award year as a
means to encourage students to enroll in courses year-around, including summer quarters. As a
result of the restriction on double Pell, the U.S. Department of Education estimated that
approximately $5 billion in grant aid to almost two million students annually would need to be
made up through other sources (GAO, 2012).

More Pell Grant restrictions were put into place with the passage of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L.112-74) in June 2012, in which Congress enacted:

Lifetime limits students lose their Pell eligibility after 12 total semesters of full-time
enrollment (or hourly equivalent) instead of the previous 18 semesters. This includes all
previous Pell disbursements back to the 1973-74 award year.
A reduction in the income threshold that qualifies a student automatically for the
maximum Pell Grant, known as zero-Expected Family Contribution (EFC) threshold,
from $32,000 per year to $23,000 meaning that students between those income levels
will now find it more difficult to qualify for the full aid they need.
Elimination of Ability to Benefit provision that previously allowed students without a
high school diploma or GED to receive a Pell Grant if a campus official determined that
they could benefit from higher education. Many of these students also worked to
obtain a diploma or GED concurrently while enrolled at CTCs.

Unfortunately, these new restrictions in P.L. 112-74 were not phased in, but instead mandated
to begin immediately with the 2012-13 school year. Many students who were previously
enrolled in spring 2012 and registered for fall 2012 classes, suddenly found themselves without
critical financial aid and with few alternative funding sources to afford further education.
Tightening eligibility for federal financial aid has been compounded by the unstable availability
of state aid programs.

Trends in State Financial Aid

The State Need Grant (SNG) is Washingtons largest financial assistance program for low-
income resident undergraduate students. Students with an income under 70 percent of the
states median family income (currently $57,500 for a family of four) and who are otherwise
qualified can receive a grant award for attending a CTC of up to $3,696 during the current
academic year (2012-13).


38
Unlike the Federal Pell Grant, which is a quasi-entitlement program, the number of eligible
students for SNG does not match the number of recipients due to the structure of state funding
for the program. Once available funds for qualified students in an award year are used up,
qualified students for SNG will go unserved. This is a significant program for students starting
later in the year 84 percent of students starting in fall quarter are served by SNG, while only
26 percent of those starting in spring quarter are (Prince & Kaikkonen, 2013).

CTC students make up the majority of students who are eligible for, and served by, the State
Need Grant. As indicated by Figure 16, prior to the start of the recession nearly all students
enrolled in CTCs who were eligible for the Need Grant were served by it. As enrollments
increases, so did the number of overall recipients. However, the number of unserved students
has risen dramatically, peaking in 2010-11 and numbering nearly 18,000 students in the
previous award year (more than 23 percent of all those CTC students who are eligible).

Figure 16: CTC Students Eligible for State Need Grant by Award Year


The Role of Loans in CTC Student Financing

Given the lower overall cost of attendance, CTC students are less likely to borrow, and borrow
at lower amounts, than their peers at four-year institutions. However, where financial need is
unmet by available grants, many students do turn to loans and are doing so at dramatically
increasing rates. According to Washington Student Achievement Council analysis. There has
been an 84 percent increase in the total number of CTC students borrowing and a 42 percent
increase in their annual average loan amount since 2005-06 the fastest of any sector in
Washington (Washington Student Achievement Council, 2013). More student borrowing
trends are covered beginning on page 52.
65,533
47,626
17,927
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Total Eligible Students Served Not Served
Source: SBCTC. A Descriptive Study of Washington State Need Grant Eligible Students Enrolled in
Community and Technical Colleges in 2011-12. February 2013.

39
This Page Intentionally Left Blank






40

CTC ENROLLMENTS
AND THE FACTORS THAT
INFLUENCE THEM



41
Recent Trends in Washingtons CTC Enrollment Decline

After a number of years of enrollment growth at CTCs in Washington and nationally, total
headcount and full-time-equivalent enrollments have leveled off and begun to decline rapidly
since the 2010-11 academic year. The previous enrollment spike was predicted by a large body
of academic research which has shown that college enrollments boom during economic
downturns. Many students sought safe harbor at community colleges in 2008 as the looming
recession began to unfold. Unfortunately for public institutions, this countercyclical enrollment
growth also tends to occur during times of difficult state budget cuts, thereby placing significant
strain on institutions to manage demand for services in areas like instruction, student support,
and financial aid with fewer resources at their disposal.

Still, many states, institutions, and the federal government saw the increasing number of CTC
enrollments as a promising opportunity to increase overall attainment. Along with increasing
completion rates, the higher number of students enrolled in CTC had the potential to boost
total numbers of degrees, certificates, and credentials attained. Absent intervening state policy,
that may no longer be possible. The following sections will survey the myriad factors that
affect a students decision to enroll and potential implications for state policy. This
enrollment analysis will not take into account private baccalaureate and career school
enrollments, which constitute just 10 percent and 2 percent of statewide headcounts in
Washington, respectively (Office of Program Research, 2013).
CTC Enrollment Decline in Washington is Recent

Enrollment has declined at CTCs while largely plateauing at four-year universities. As seen in
Table 4, the decline in annual CTC enrollments began with the 2011-12 academic year, when
state-funded FTES enrollments declined by 8,935, driven in part by a 2,494 FTES decline in
worker-retraining, or 28 percent of the total decline.

Table 4: Annual State-Funded FTES Enrollment in Washington Public Institutions, By Sector
Year Research Regional TOTAL Four-Year TOTAL CTC
2002-03 57,274 32,237 89,511 139,753
2003-04 56,858 33,217 90,075 138,242
2004-05 57,514 33,844 91,358 131,365
2005-06 57,347 34,224 91,571 130,933
2006-07 57,924 34,291 92,215 132,346
2007-08 59,859 34,451 94,310 136,723
2008-09 63,045 35,247 98,292 147,998
2009-10 64,935 36,230 101,165 160,778
2010-11 66,536 36,679 103,214 162,328
2011-12 68,002 36,700 104,702 153,393
2012-13* 68,655 36,458 105,158 *148,584
Source: Office of Financial Management, Budget Driver Reports, Winter 2013
*Note: Full 2012-13 academic year FTES are OFM projections only, based on fall and winter thus far.
See: Appendix 19 for detailed OFM budget-driver historical information.

42
The trends in annual FTES enrollments at CTCs over the last decade is represented graphically
by Figure 17. These enrollments include all actual enrollments classified as state-supported,
even those above state-funded enrollment targets. Based on actual fall and winter quarter
enrollments, the total projected annual 2012-13 FTES enrollments of 148,584 are close to 2008-
09 levels, and 13,744 FTES (8.5 percent) below the 2010-11 peak. This loss is roughly
equivalent to the entire FTES enrollment in the Seattle Community College District.

Figure 17: Annual State-Supported Community & Technical College FTES Enrollments


Fall Enrollment 2012 Decline is Consistent with Annual Trends

Another method of evaluating enrollment trends is to look at fall quarter enrollments.
Although many CTC students begin their education mid-year and occasionally drop-back on
course loads (i.e. take a quarter off and then re-enroll) these trends are largely endemic to the
student body and consistent across time. Examining fall-to-fall enrollment also gives a more up-
to-date look at student enrollment trends, and given that fall quarter is usually the most
enrolled of all quarters, also gives a picture of institutional capacity. As see in Table 5, the
overall decline in annual enrollments has continued this past fall quarter 2012, with state-
supported headcount enrollments down 10.7 percent and FTES down 8.0 percent when
compared to fall 2010. Both state-counted headcount AND FTES enrollments in fall quarter
2012 are now below the pre-recession levels as seen in fall 2008.
9




9
Fall Quarter 2008 aligns best with the beginning of the Great Recession in the United States; the
unemployment rate in Washington spiked from a seasonally-adjusted 5.4% in July 2008 to 7.7% in January 2009
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009). Enrollments are generally calculated the 10
th
full day of the quarter.
147,998
162,328
148,584
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Projected
Source: OFM Budget Driver Reports, Winter 2013

43
Table 5: CTC Fall Quarter System Enrollment by Funding Source
HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT


2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

2-Year
Trend
4-Year
Trend


All Funds

264,112

266,659

268,005

247,117

238,276


% Change 4.1% 1.0% 0.5% -7.8% -3.6%

-11.1% -9.8%


State
Supported

196,788

202,201

202,074

189,522

180,499


% Change 4.2% 2.8% -0.1% -6.2% -4.8%

-10.7% -8.3%


Contract
Funded

40,955

42,095

45,399

38,762

38,526


% Change 10.1% 2.8% 7.8% -14.6% -0.6%

-15.1% -5.9%


Student
Funded

26,369

22,363

20,532

18,833

19,251


% Change 4.8% -15.2% -8.2% -8.3% 2.2%

-6.2% -27.0%



FTES ENROLLMENT


2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

2-Year
Trend
4-Year
Trend


All Funds

168,240

178,294

181,145

171,436

169,020


% Change 4.1% 6.0% 1.6% -5.4% -1.4%

-6.7% 0.5%


State
Supported

133,919

142,935

144,114

137,201

132,560


% Change 4.2% 6.7% 0.8% -4.8% -3.4%

-8.0% -1.0%


Contract
Funded

30,510

31,305

33,003

29,735

31,586


% Change 10.1% 2.6% 5.4% -9.9% 6.2%

-4.3% 3.5%


Student
Funded

3,811

4,054

4,028

4,500

4,874


% Change 4.8% 6.4% -0.6% 11.7% 8.3%

21.0% 27.9%

Source: SBCTC Data Warehouse, Public Reports Manager
* Headcount is based upon an unduplicated system count. Each student is counted one time whenever they are
enrolled in the system.


44
Statewide fall quarter headcounts also declined in all CTC mission areas (see Figure 18). As
previously noted, workforce training has seen significant enrollment declines due to worker
retraining funding reductions by the Legislature (see Figure 19). According to the preliminary
SBCTC fall 2012 enrollment report:

Students enrolled in professional/technical workforce programs, the largest mission
area, declined from fall 2011 to 81,599 students. As noted this decrease is due in large
part to Worker Retraining reductions, but also included fewer professional/technical
students as a whole. Students enrolled for academic/transfer purposes also declined by
4 percent to 69,914 students. This decline may be due in part to fewer high school
graduates; however the decline in transfer students outpaces the decline in high
school graduates indicating it is being more broadly influenced than just this. (SBCTC,
2013a).

Figure 18: Fall Quarter Headcounts by Purpose for Attending and by Year


Figure 19: Worker Retraining State-Supported Fall Quarter FTES


68,589
89,804
22,644
17,437
69,914
81,599
19,141
11,633
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
Transfer Workforce Basic Skills All Other
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: SBCTC Fall 2012 Enrollment Report, 2013
6,284
10,656
11,191
9,381
7,904
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Source: SBCTC Fall 2012 Enrollment Report, 2013

45
The statewide trends in fall-to-fall enrollment decline have also occurred at almost every
institution; a decline in state-supported FTES fall enrollment from 2010 has occurred at 32 of
35 institutions, as seen below in Figure 20.
Figure 20: Fall State-Supported Headcount & FTE Enrollments, 2010 to 2012 by College

-50.0% -40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
Lower Columbia
Clover Park
Lake Washington
Edmonds
Grays Harbor
Green River
Bellingham
Pierce Fort Steilacoom
Skagit Valley
Seattle Vocational Institute**
Whatcom
Seattle Central
Bellevue
South Puget Sound
Big Bend
Seattle North
Spokane Falls*
Seattle South
Centralia
Highline
Pierce Puyallup
Renton
Cascadia
Everett
Clark
Walla Walla
Peninsula
Yakima Valley
Olympic
Columbia Basin
Shoreline
Wenatchee Valley
Spokane
Tacoma
Bates***
Two-Year Headcount Trend Two-Year FTE Trend
Source: SBCTC Reports Manager
* Note: Spokane Falls enrollment incorporates Spokane Institute for Extend Learning
** Note: Seattle Vocational Institute is a small institution with fewer than 500 FTEs
*** Note: Bates College data is explained by a significant shift of existing students to full-time enrollment,
dramatically increasing its FTES while experiencing largely static headcount enrollments.

46
Enrollment Decline Consistent Across Enrollment Intensity

Consistent with the overall decline in enrollments, both full and part-time students have
declined. Part-time students have declined somewhat faster in percentage change terms.

Table 6: Fall Quarter State-Supported Headcounts by Full-time and Part-Time Status
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Full-Time Students
Headcount 82,602 88,930 98,456 100,067 95,530 92,422
% Change -0.20% 7.7% 10.7% 1.6% -4.5% -3.3%

Part-Time Students
Headcount 106,323 107,858 103,745 102,007 93,992 89,865
% Change 3.30% 1.4% -3.8% -1.7% -7.9% -4.4%

It is important to note that tuition at Washington CTCs is charged per credit, rather than by
part-time or full-time status. Therefore, if cost is a factor in a students decision whether to
enroll in a certain level of credit hours, the cost changes in tuition and fees have been felt
evenly in percentage terms, regardless of enrollment intensity.

Alternative Analysis of Enrollments Focusing on Tuition-Bearing Courses

Given the complexity of funding streams for CTC students, there are other important methods
of calculating enrollments. If enrollments are filtered to show only tuition-bearing course FTES
for pre-college, academic and vocational courses and excluding basic skills, worker-retraining,
and state-funded international student FTES:

Academic Year 2010-11 to 2011-12:
o 30 of 35 institutions showed a decline in enrollments
o The number of FTES declined system-wide by 4,581 (-3.6 percent)

And then from Fall 2011 to Fall 2012 (continuing trend):
o 28 of 35 institutions showed a decline in enrollments
o The number of FTES declined system-wide by 3,164 (-2.5 percent)

Taken together, the full academic year declines from 2010-11 to 2011-12, followed by a fall
2011 to fall 2012 decline, occurred at 23 of 35 institutions. For more information, consult
Appendix 8. The result is clear: enrollment declines cross all funding sources, impact the
overwhelming majority of institutions, have probably been occurring since some point after
the beginning of the 2010-11 school year, and have driven enrollments below pre-recession
levels.


47
Contrary to Traditional Enrollments, e-Learning FTES Have Increased

Courses in eLearning format appear increasingly popular with students and buck the trend in
declining enrollment. From all funding sources, Washington CTCs enrolled 33,126 FTES in
eLearning courses in fall 2012, an increase of 5 percent over the previous fall (SBCTC, 2013a).
Hybrid eLearning courses, which combine online and face-to-face instruction, have been
particularly popular, increasing by 22 percent since fall 2010 as seen in Figure 21. This trend
could suggest that traditional students have been shifting into eLearning courses, the new
technology is causing new and different types of students to enroll, or that such courses have
remained more available to students as other academic offerings have become less accessible
due to restricted funding.

Figure 21: Fall Quarter eLearning FTES, All Funding Sources




National Fall Enrollment Trends Show Less than Half the Decline Observed in
Washington

Washington State has seen far more fall-to-fall enrollment decline at two-year public
institutions than the national average over the last two years. As seen in Figure 22 and Table 7,
the national headcount enrollment decline has also occurred in two consecutive fall quarters,
totaling a 4.6 percent drop from fall 2010 to 2012.
10
But this is compared to a 10.7 percent
decline in state-supported headcounts in Washington over the same period. Thus, the
enrollment decline in Washington has been more than twice the national average.

10
There is also some reason to believe these numbers are heavily influenced by unique enrollment caps in
California, making the shift in Washington even greater compared to trends in the other 48 states.
16,845
19,179 19,351
20,025 20,150
4,965
9,113
10,203
10,901
12,376
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Online Hybrid
Source: SBCTC Fall Enrollment Summary, 2013

48
Figure 22: Percent Change, National Fall Student Headcount Enrollment


Table 7: National Fall-to-Fall Headcount Enrollments at Public Two-Year Institutions

Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012
Enrollment % Change Enrollment % Change Enrollment % Change
Full-Time 3,025,912 1.2% 2,865,581 -5.3% 2,702,974 -5.7%
Part-Time 4,004,605 -0.4% 4,053,334 1.2% 4,003,939 -1.2%
Total 7,030,517 0.3% 6,918,915 -1.6% 6,706,913 -3.1%


Washington CTC enrollments are moving in the same direction as other colleges nationally,
though at a much faster rate. Enrollments may still be a function of policy-related factors that
are occurring in or common across other states, such as:

Reductions to state funding of higher education
Tuition increases at public institutions
Federal financial aid eligibility restrictions

Therefore, a state policy response is still warranted to help stem the enrollment decline. Non-
policy related factors such as national macroeconomic trends which can affect students
perception of return on investment can also be a factor. The following sections will explore
these factors individually.
All Sectors 4-Year Public
4-Year Private
Nonprofit
4-Year For-profit 2-Year Public
2010 2.3% 1.6% 2.7% 14.8% 0.3%
2011 0.2% 1.4% 3.3% -3.8% -1.6%
2012 -1.8% -0.6% 0.5% -7.2% -3.1%
-10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
Source: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, Fall Term Estimates 2012

49
Academic Literature Suggests Student Price Response is
Documented, Negative, and Significant for CTC Students

A large body of academic research has sought to examine the influence and relationship
between published college tuition and fees and the availability of financial aid in the decisions
that students make regarding their enrollment. This research has been known as student price
elasticity, student price responsiveness, or student demand, but all refer to the same
effect. The studies differ widely in their methodologies, samples of students, geographic
location, and times series. However, most have confirmed the finding that when tuition and
fees increase, enrollment decreases or grows more slowly that it would have otherwise.

Unfortunately, the available academic literature in the area of student price response is
somewhat dated, stemming mostly from the late 1980s and 1990s. There are two primarily
authors of meta-analysis that have compiled the results of SPRC: Donald E. Heller (1997, 1999,
& 2001) and the seminal work of Larry T. Leslie & Paul. T Brinkman (1987). In 2001, Heller listed
several key conclusions based on his meta-analysis of student demand studies over the years:

(1) Tuition functions much like a consumer good. An increase in price leads to a decrease in
consumption. Thus, increases in tuition lead to declines in enrollment.
(2) As personal incomes rise, students are more likely to enroll. Thus, higher education is
what economists refer to as a normal good.
(3) Low-income students are generally more sensitive to changes in tuition and aid than
middle-or-high income students.
(4) African American and Hispanic students tend to be more price responsive (i.e., are less
likely to enroll in college, or change the type of institution in which they enroll, in the
face of tuition increases) than are white students.
(5) Grants tend to more strongly influence enrollment than do loans or work-study.
(6) Students in community colleges were more sensitive to tuition and aid changes than
students in four-year colleges and universities, though much of this effect can be
attributed to the larger share of low-income students enrolled at CTCs.

Heller and other researches have in large part been informed by the benchmark study
conducted by Leslie and Brinkman (1987). This meta-analysis reviewed 25 studies of the
relationship between price and college enrollment that were published between 1967 and
1982, including both cross-sectional and time-series analyses across different sectors, including
public and private, and 2-year and 4-year, institutions. The data was transformed and
standardized and their results were expressed in terms of a student price response coefficient
(SPRC), taken as a measure of the change in post-secondary participation of 1824 year olds for
every $100 (1983 dollars) increase in tuition fees. They note:


50
For the nation as a whole, a change in the 18- to 24- year-old college enrollment rate
per $100 price increase probably would be in the range of from .6 to .8 percentage
points downward. Because the enrollment rate is .33, total enrollments would probably
decline from 1.8 percent to 2.4 percent for every $100 price increase (p. 132).

Leslie and Brinkman go on to note that:

The studies also tell us that we probably should expect greater enrollment effects in
community colleges and lesser effects in private colleges. As one goes up the cost,
selectivity, and student/family income scales within these institution classifications,
SPRCs should decline (p. 132).

Obviously, the immense changes in participation rates, overall tuition levels, and monetary
inflation since that 1988 means these figures need updating. Further, in the 2001 report by
Heller mentioned above, the findings of Leslie and Brinkman are updated to reflect these
changes. Using a mean 18- to 24-year old public college participation in 1998 rate of 36.5
percent, including 17.6 percent at four-year colleges and 15.4 percent at community colleges,
Heller found enrollment decreases summarized in Table X. A $120 price increase at community
colleges would decrease enrollment of this age group by a mean of 1.34 percent

Table 8: Heller (2001) Update to Leslie and Brinkmans SPRC
Public Sector
1999 Tuition
Increase
1999 Participation
Rate
1999 Adjusted
SPRC
1999 Enrollment
Effect
Four-Year $217 17.6% - 0.09 - 0.52%
Community
College
$120 15.4% - 0.21 - 1.34%

The fact that these updated SPRC numbers are lower than the older results of Leslie and
Brinkman (1.8 to 2.4 percent enrollment effect) is not surprising. Additionally, many more
individuals beyond the 18- to 24-year old range now attend CTCs. As Heller (1999) writes:

During the two decades covered by this study, the wage premium earned by those who
attended college, compared to those who did not, grew substantially. Clearly, even if
nothing else had changed in the ensuing time period, students likely understood the
increased importance of a college education in the labor markets. Thus, they are more
likely to suffer tuition increases than their predecessors a generation or more earlier.
(p. 82).

Tuition increases have been felt heavily nationwide since 2001 but the wage premium for CTC
graduates has also increased. In Washington, CTC published tuition and fees in 2000-01 was
$1,641 for resident undergraduates, or $2,161 in inflation-adjusted dollars. Today it is $4,000,
representing an 85 percent increase in inflation-adjusted dollars during that time span. As a

51
result, there is reason to believe that the SPRC in Washington would be below 1.34% for every
$120 increase as found in 2001. Otherwise, this would suggest a decline of 15.6% from
potential enrollments if tuition had been kept at 2000-01 inflation-adjusted levels.
11
The effect
has likely been shaped in many cross-cutting ways, such as the explosion of student debt and
the increase in employer demand, that both overstate and understate the impact of this study
in the current environment.

Still, the student price response results provide important findings. For high-income
students, increases to the net price of postsecondary attendance may confront a relatively
inelastic demand, both because the percent increase represents a proportionally small
expenditure for them, but also because the quantity of higher education demanded for these
students is usually higher to begin with.

For low-income students, who have fewer resources to pay for college, tuition and fee
increases more negatively impact probability of enrollment. Even considering the increase in
resources provided by financial aid, the sticker-shock of higher costs often pushes away a
population of low-income students who are adverse to risk and to cost, or who or do not
believe the financial aid process is likely to cover their total unmet need (Advisory Committee
on Student Financial Assistance, 2001). And unfortunately, this total unmet need is only getting
higher for low-income students.


11
Tuition in 2012-13 is $4,000, or what would have been $3,028 in year 2000 (inflation adjusted) when Heller
updated his analysis. Using the 1.34% SPRC, a tuition increase from the actual rate of $1,641 in 2000-01 to current
levels of $3,028 (a $1,387 increase) divided by $120 = 11.56 * 1.35% = 15.6% enrollment decline.

52
Students Often Incorrectly Perceive Costs & Benefits of Higher
Education

Although the college wage premium
continues to rise, the more rapid increase in
tuition and fees could be changing students
calculation of their return on investment.
Recent polling data suggests that students
and their families are worried more about
higher education costs now and their
ability to afford it than ever before. This
may be having effects on students economic
calculations that are not yet fully
understood, and especially for the unique
population of CTC students who are
disproportionately low-income, have
dependents, or work part-time.

As see in Figure 23, associates degree
graduates earn, on average, $12,900 more
per year than someone with a high school
diploma in Washington (EMSI, 2011). If
students are rational, utility-maximizing
investors who recognize the returns to higher education, they should enroll even without
incentives like grants, loan subsidies, or tax credits that may aid them in doing so. In actuality,
students are much more risk-averse.

The academic research suggests that not all students correctly perceive these returns to higher
education, can manage the up-front costs required to enroll, or appropriately value future
expected earnings from degree completion. In behavioral economics, the theories of myopia
or loss aversion stipulate that some students do not function as efficient utility maximizers
and often exhibit a strong bias against out-of-pocket expenses and debt. In particular, this
exhibition of myopic loss aversion disproportionately manifests itself in working students who
must forgo current income (Gandhi, 2008). Higher education research has documented the
consistent trend for low-income students to be strongly influenced by tuition prices and their
perceived ability to pay (IHEP, 2012). This is due in large part because these low-income,
underserved students overestimate the cost of college while underestimating their eligibility for
adequate financial aid.

Low-income, working students, and those without parents to support them with financial
resources, are particularly concentrated at CTCs. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the
dramatic increase in tuition and fees can compound the underlying behavior of myopic loss
aversion for CTC students.
$23,500
$36,500
$49,500
$70,900
$85,500
Less than
high school
High
school or
equivalent
Associate's
degree
Bachelor's
degree
Master's
degree
Source: EMSI industry analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data, 2011.
Figure 23: Average Annual Earnings by Education
Level in Washington State at Career Mid-Point

53
Student Concern over Costs & Financial Aid is at All-Time High and Does
Factor into Enrollment Decisions

Various polls conducted of students and families have identified a strong concern with rising
college costs. A national poll conducted by Gallup and the Lumina Foundation of 1,009 adults
18 and older in December 2012 found that nearly all Americans (97 percent) say having a
degree or certificate beyond high school is very or somewhat important, yet 74 percent
don't believe higher education is affordable for everyone who needs it (Lumina Foundation &
Gallup, 2013). Further, over 1 in 4 (28 percent) said that cost was the biggest barrier to adults
re-enrolling in higher education for a post high school credential or degree second to family
responsibilities at 36 percent. A similar national survey conducted by Pew Research Center in
March 2011 of 2,142 adults ages 18 and older also yielded results indicative of an angry public
(Taylor, Parker, & Fry, 2011). A majority of Americans (57 percent) said the higher education
system in the United States fails to provide students with good value for the money they and
their families spend. A full 75 percent say that college costs are too expensive for most
Americans to afford, while just 22 say that the costs in general are affordable.

These polls indicate that the public is
very concerned about rising college
costs. It is reasonable to believe that
some of these data points about
public concern are reflected in
enrollment decisions, consistent with
the academic literature on student
demand. Unfortunately, more recent
data on the precise decision-making of
students enrolling in postsecondary
education during the recession and
thereafter is not yet available.

A 2008 study by the Institute for
Higher Education Policy (IHEP) sought
to determine why students who were otherwise college-qualified chose ultimately not to
attend college. The survey found that financial concerns were among the most significant
barriers, as 63 percent of these non-college goers reported the price of college was either
extremely or very important in their decision (Hahn & Price, 2008). More than 80 percent
of non-college goers reported that the lack of availability of sufficient financial aid was either
extremely or very important in their decision not to enroll. College counselors also report
the same concerns, as 70 percent indicated that lack of financial aid or high tuition was almost
always or frequently among the reasons they heard for students not enrolling. Concerns
with rising costs would ultimately be highest where the cost increases are among the most
dramatic, and as previously discussed, Washington is among the top states in the nation for
rising costs at CTCs.
Figure 24: Cumulative Growth in Washington Tuition vs.
Per Capita Personal Income, FY 00 to 12 (Source: OPR)

54
Financial Aid Has Not Mitigated Student Concern over Price

Although the state has increased the total amount of financial aid, a number of trends in
available state and financial aid have been observed:

Levels of available financial aid have not kept pace with tuition increases and overall
cost of attendance for all students, including need-based aid recipients.
Increasing numbers of CTC students are not receiving financial aid for which they are
otherwise qualified, including the State Need Grant or the Federal Pell Grant.
Low-income students tend to underestimate their eligibility for financial aid and exhibit
low information about the types of, and process for applying for, available financial aid.

These trends present significant disincentives to enrollment even before students make it to
the point where they receive a financial aid offer. And even at that point, the situation does not
improve significantly for students receiving aid. As seen in Table 9, low-income CTC students
have lower average need before financial aid is applied (due to lower costs of attendance) but
much more left over after it is applied. Approximately 31% of low-income CTC students need
is unmet by available aid, the highest of any sector (Burley, 2013). Given that low-income
students are generally more averse to borrowing than their four-year pears, this unmet need is
likely to serve as a strong disincentive to enrollment and persistence.

Table 9: Percent of Need Met by Financial Aid, All Full-Time Students Receiving Aid, 2010-11
Aid Category Research Regional
Private
Four-Year
CTCs Total
State Need Grant 28% 25% 18% 15% 20%
Federal Grants Pell 23% 25% 14% 33% 28%
Federal Loans 18% 26% 21% 15% 18%
Work Study 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Institutional & Other 16% 8% 29% 3% 9%
% Need Unmet 14% 14% 16% 31% 23%

Need Unmet Average $3,349 $2,914 $6,384 $4,921 $4,676
Average Need per Student $22,852 $19,982 $38,910 $15,655 $19,877
Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy 2013
Note: Academic Year 2010-11 was the most recent year available for this study. Unmet need may be higher for
subsequent years when tuition costs have risen and federal aid eligibility has tightened.

This data does suggest that it is in many ways harder financially for a CTC student receiving
federal aid to afford the costs of education where unmet need is an average of $4,921 than
for a comparable student at a public research or regional university in Washington.

55
Consistent with the overall increase in the number of students at CTCs over the period of 2005-
07 to 2011-12, the total number of students borrowing is up 84%, and the amount they borrow
is up 42%, compared to 2005-06. This is the fastest and largest increase of student borrowing
in Washington of any sector in per-dollar, percentage, and frequency terms over this period.

It could be that existing students are exhibiting some additional willingness to borrow and non-
enrollees chose not to attend for other reasons than cost. However, because these loans
became necessary for many low-income students to maintain enrollment in the face of rising
costs, the necessity of borrowing is more likely to have been a factor in debt-adverse students
choosing to dis-enroll. Research supports the idea that the need to assume loans or debt to
afford a CTC education will decrease propensity to enroll, especially for low-income students.

Figure 25: Average Annual Loan Amounts by Needy Resident Undergraduates by Sector 2005-
06 to 2011-12



Table 10: Number of Borrowers Among Undergraduate Need-Based Aid Recipients by
Sector, 2005-06 to 2011-12

2005-06 2008-09 2011-12
% Increase
2005-06 to
2011-12
Private 4-Year 9,904 9,058 11,169 12.8%
Public 4-Year 28,792 28,736 38,261 32.9%
Public 2-Year 19,557 22,294 35,900 83.6%

$9,749
$10,754
$11,387 (+17%)
$7,016
$7,726
$8,567 (+22%)
$3,969
$4,883
$5,635 (+42%)
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
2005-06 2008-09 2011-12
Private 4-Year Public 4-Year Public 2-Year
Note: Resident undergrad need-based aid recipients. Includes Federal Perkins, Stafford, Parent PLUS, and private loans.
Source: Washington Student Achievement Council (WSAC), January 2013

56




The conventional approach to college affordability has been to subsidize the price of
attending college by providing those in need with financial assistance. In the
conventional model, student price (tuition) is held as a constant and financial aid is
directed toward that expense. This model works well when:

(1) public college tuition increases at a fairly predictable rateparalleling
overall inflation and increases in personal and family incomes;
(2) the number and proportion of students needing financial aid is relatively
constant; and
(3) the state has sufficient resources to mitigate increases in cost for those in
need.

None of these three conditions now exist. Specifically:

(1) tuition, as discussed above, has increased dramatically, much more than
the rate of inflation and growth in personal and family incomes;
(2) the number and proportion of students needing financial aid has grown
dramatically; and
(3) the lack of the same state resources that led to the steep rise in tuition also
limits the ability of the state to adequately mitigate the price of attending
college.

Clearly, a new paradigm to complement the traditional model is needed.

Washington Student Achievement Council. Critical Crossroads: A Call for
Action. The 2012 Strategic Action Plan for Educational Attainment.

57
Macroeconomic Conditions also Contribute to, but Dont Fully
Explain, CTC Enrollment Levels

Another significant factor in student enrollment decisions is the overall economic situation.
CTCs serve as a safe harbor during economic downturns as out-of-work individuals seek job
retraining or additional skills to position them to weather the economic storm. Some
policymakers predict changes to higher education enrollments solely or primarily as a condition
of prevailing unemployment rates. But the reality is much more complicated. Although
increases to unemployment or worsening economic conditions more generally may drive
enrollment growth, it is not accurate that enrollments should decline immediately as economic
conditions begin to improve. Many, though certainly not all, students that enrolled during the
recession should desire to finish their degrees, credentials, or certificates.

Figure 26: CTC FTES Enrollment, Unemployment Rate, and Tuition Increases by Calendar Year


As seen in Figure 26, a noticeable decline in enrollments (such as in 2005 and 2012) traditionally
occurs after prevailing unemployment rates decline by approximately 2%. However, these
periods of enrollment decline also occur about a year after significant tuition and fee
increases often driven by the same state budget cuts associated with the recessionary period
that initially drove these new enrollments. It is therefore inaccurate to conclude that
macroeconomic conditions have a fully causal relationship with enrollments, as other factors
that influence enrollments are endogenous to these conditions.

-6.0%
-4.0%
-2.0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
FTES Enrollment Growth Annual Unemployment Rate Average CTC Tuition Increases
Source: OFM Budget Driver Reports, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and SBCTC Data Warehouse.

58
Economic Conditions for those without Some College Has Not Improved

Recent evidence suggests that the overall improvement in the unemployment picture is being
driven largely by individuals who already have a college degree, not by the degreeless who
would have otherwise enrolled in CTCs instead finding jobs. The improvement in the national
unemployment rate for students with some college or Associates degree was 2.4 percentage
points from September 2010 to 2012 twice the rate of improvement for those who were only
high school graduates (1.2 percentage points), and as seen in Appendix 11. Additionally, both of
these categories of individuals have seen an overall decline in labor force participation, casting
doubt regarding an improving economic picture for either group.

Further, a study by the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce suggests that
workers with a high school diploma or less bore the brunt of the recessions job losses and that
job gains in the recovery have been exclusively confined to those with education beyond high
school
12
(Carnevale, Jayasundera, & Cheah, 2012). They found that, since the recovery began,
those with a high school degree or less actually lost an additional 230,000 jobs by February
2012. National numbers suggest that having some postsecondary education over the last few
years has remained key to improving personal employment prospects, and thus, improving
macroeconomic conditions should not necessarily be the cause of declining enrollments.

Figure 27: Georgetown University Analysis of Jobs Gained in Recovery by Education Level


12
Students who enrolled without the intention to complete, and have since dropped out, may comprise a portion
of these some college individuals experiencing better job gains, but their totals are exceedingly small.

59
Number of High School Graduates Has Dipped, but not
Significantly

The number of expected high school graduates is usually a factor in enrollment projection and
management. Although only a portion of Washington CTC enrollments are made up of recent
high school graduates (the median CTC student age is 25.8) it is possible that a recent slow-
down in graduates could begin to reflect in first-time student enrollment.

The evidence suggests, however, that the statewide decline in high school graduates (public
and private) has been quite small, or about 4% since the 2009-10 peak. As seen in Figure 28, the
number of high school graduates in 2010 numbered approximately 71,000 students, and in
2012 numbered approximately 68,000 a decline of approximately 3,000 graduates annually
over this two-year time period. Only a about a third of Washington high school graduates are
enrolled in a CTC one year after graduation (HECB, 2012), so the statewide decline in CTC in
enrollments as a result of the recent drop in high school graduates can only be about 1,000
student headcounts, compared to approximately 40,000 fewer students likely to enroll over
the current academic year compared to 2010.

Further declines of high school graduates in the future, to an expected low in 2014, may
continue to exacerbate CTC enrollment decline, but are not yet driving the recent trends
described in this report.


Figure 28: Total High School Graduates in Washington by Year


Source: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE, 2012).

60
The New Normal CTC Experience Has Turned Students Away

Beyond tuition and fee reductions, state budget cuts to higher education have had other
impacts on CTC operations and services, and on non-higher education related funding that
could make it more difficult for students to access, or persist in, higher education in
Washington. These miscellaneous areas of difficulty include:

A reduction in local transportation options, such as bus routes or ride share.
Longer lines for student services, such as advisors or financial aid officers.
Difficulty finding affordable student housing.
Reduced support from family or friends also affected by the recession.
Lack of funding for, and referrals from, state WorkFirst programs.
Exhaustion of state and federal unemployment benefits.

In terms of academics, specific impacts are discussed on page 27. For example, colleges have
made a conscious decision to increase student-to-faculty ratios in order to allow increased
enrollments of students at the peak, and for them to take heavier class loads if involved in
workforce retraining. Average class size (state and contract) has increased from 20:1 to 23:1.
This increase has allowed colleges to over enroll and to serve 27,000 more students since 2008
than would otherwise have been enrolled. Still, the demand for many required courses remains
high and it would be difficult to increase student-to-faculty ratios higher without harming the
classroom environment. There were 424 fewer full and part-time faculty, and 7% fewer staff
members in all categories, in fall 2012 compared to fall 2008 (SBCTC, 2013a).
Given that many existing students have dropped out, it could be that some were frustrated by
their inability to get into interesting courses needed for graduation (SBCTC, 2011).

A number of colleges have chosen to cut specific programs that were high cost or were
experiencing low enrollment. Although individual cases probably produced marginal effects on
enrollment at each institution, taken together there may have been significant statewide
impacts from course and program availability.

As the overall process of getting access to the resources needed to succeed becomes harder
and the frustrations of students and their families mount, CTC students are less likely to enroll
or remain enrolled until completion. Many of these frustrations are caused by unavoidable
state policy choices to cut back on programs and services, while others may be helped by a
renewed focus on student services to help degree-seekers navigate the complexities of higher
education.




61
Interviews with Washington CTCs

In seeking to better understand the drivers of, and impacts from, changing CTC enrollment
levels in Washington, a series of interviews and data collections were conducted with college
officials at eight CTCs. Colleges were first identified by their level of enrollment loss
13
, with a
particular focus on those institutions that have experienced significant decline since the
recession peak, and one institution that did not (Tacoma Community College). A full list of FTES
and headcount enrollments can be viewed by institution in Appendix 8.

Next, appropriate staff were identified and contacted. These interviews were conducted by
phone or e-mail and included individuals such as vice presidents for instruction, enrollment
management, administrative services, and student services.


The following colleges were interviewed by phone:


Whatcom Community College



State-Funded FTES Enrollment:

Fall 2010: 3,101.5 Fall 2012: 2709.6 (-12.6%)


Staff Whatcom Community College indicated that enrollments had indeed declined by more
than they would have liked. Some of this surprise was attributed to the colleges lack of
enrollment management and projections until quite recently. Officials did believe that cost was
a significant factor in the decline for students. Although specific quantitative indicators of this
factor were not available, trends in payment were provided. Students over the last two years
have been waiting significantly longer to register, triggering their student bill. Previously stable
from a week or two before the start of the quarter, student registration now surges about three
to four days before the start of the quarter. Additionally, a significant drop in enrollments in
summer 2011 occurred after the Congressional elimination of double Pell. Total student loan
volume has also been increasingly rapidly and many students have expressed concerns about
this debt burden.


13
It isolate enrollments related to the main effects addressed in this report from more significant fluctuations in
other contract or non-credit courses, enrollments for the purposes of CTC identification were limited to state and
student and student-funded FTES in credit-bearing courses, excluding both Worker Retraining and State
International FTES. These figures can be found in Appendix 8.

62
Edmonds Community College


State-Funded FTES Enrollment:

Fall 2010: 4,733.0 Fall 2012: 5,780.3 (-18.1%)

Some administrators at Edmonds were unconcerned with the recent decline in enrollments
given the significant spike at the beginning of the recession, which they characterized as right
sizing (though state-funded FTES enrollments remain even 5% below 2008 levels). This view
can be attributed to a concern with the levels of stress on staff and students associated with
being approximately 118% above state-funded enrollment targets. To quote, enrollment
services used to have a line out the door every day 300 yards to another building and a two-
hour wait. We physically did not have enough staff. It was also noted that student advisors
were having to make appointments months out, and that financial aid staff were working late
nights and weekends. The automatic 3% across-the-board cuts to staff salaries imposed by the
Legislature was cited as having a permanent negative effect on staff productivity and morale.

There was concern about student costs, but primarily as it related to low-income student aid
eligibility. New lifetime caps on Pell Grant receipt was cited as the single biggest complaint
heard by students. Another factor mentioned was reductions in student transportation options.
Four Community Transit bus lines into campus were recently cut, reducing weekly trips into
campus by more than 60% and making it more difficult for students to access campus.

Clover Park Technical College



State-Funded FTES Enrollment:

Fall 2010: 4,427.5 Fall 2012: 3,415.1 (-22.9%)

Administrators at Clover Park Technical College identified a number of potential factors
influencing their sharp decline in enrollments. They agreed that costs for students were likely to
be playing some role, in addition to other related factors such as:

A sharp drop in workforce training students.
The elimination of 10 programs and substantial numbers of sections in other programs
as result of budget cuts.
New federal financial aid restrictions, such as removal of ability to benefit and lifetime
caps on Pell Grants.

63
A new five-week deadline before the start of the quarter for financial aid applications as
a result of increased staff workload. Some students may be unable to meet the
deadline.
Slow-down of referrals, and suspensions in funding of WorkFirst. Clover Park has the
third largest such program in the state.
Lack of an available tuition installment payment plan.
Re-categorization of two larger academic programs from state-supported to student-
supported status.
An increase in financial need as evidenced by increasing numbers of FAFSA (financial
aid) applications:

Financial Aid
Year
Number of
Applicants
2010-2011 9,048
2011-2012 9,534
2012-2013* 10,288


Tacoma Community College


State-Funded FTES Enrollment:

Fall 2010: 4,975.6 Fall 2012: 5,212.9 (+4.8%)

Tacoma was selected for interviews because their enrollments have continued to steadily
increase while those at other CTCs have declined. Administrators placed a strong emphasis on
their desire to increase student achievement, retention, and completion (a component of
Achieving the Dream) even in the face of restricted resources. They directly connect these
efforts to their retention of student enrollments post recession peak. Staff pointed to their
rank as #1 in 2010-11 under the Student Achievement Initiative, and highlighted effort such as:

Prioritization of student support services funding, such as enrollment services and
financial aid processing.
Staff have sought to assemble financial aid award packages earlier prior to the quarter.
An effort to identify gatekeeper courses required for certain programs and provide
course redesign or supplemental instruction.
Reforming the advising model to ramp up student support through the first 15 credits,
which has been shown to improve completion.
Asking for faculty to take on more course sections with incentive funding where
student demand exceeded available supply.

64
Finding alternative ways to place students appropriately in developmental education
courses like math and English.
Dramatically increasing e-Learning offerings demanded by students.

TCC pointed to the existence of an independent foundation as once source of revenue to help
mitigate state budget cuts that might have made these efforts otherwise difficult to achieve.
Staff did indicate that student costs may have been a concern at other institutions and at
Tacoma, but that their efforts had worked to mitigate these concerns. Overall applications for
enrollment have remained steady, but financial aid applicants constitute an increasing
percentage of those enrolled 21.7% in fall 2011 compared to 27.7% in fall 2012.


The following colleges provided information by e-mail only:


Pierce College District (Pierce Fort Steilacoom & Pierce Puyallup)



State-Funded FTES Enrollment:

Fall 2010: 5,637.0 Fall 2012: 5,041.7 (-10.6%)

Pierce College District noted an increase in the number of financial aid requests and utilization
of tuition installment plan (TIPS) payment.


Number of FAFSAs received as of November 7
th
of each fall quarter:
Fall 2011: 10,772 Fall 2012: 14,938
Number of students on Tuition Installment Plans (TIPs):
Fall 2011: 728 Fall 2012: 785

However, PCD has not seen an increase in the number of students dropped for non-payment.
Other data was not available.



65
South Puget Sound Community College


State-Funded FTES Enrollment:

Fall 2010: 4,004.4 Fall 2012: 3,547.9 (-11.4%)

Analysis from South Puget Sound Community College staff is qualitative. A number of concerns
over rising costs of education for students were articulated as driving an enrollment decline:

Students working more, and choosing to attend-part time, which leads to lower
persistence and completion rates.
Concern over the value of the education without good paying jobs upon completion.
Financial aid levels have not kept pace with tuition increases.
Students have felt strained to afford books, materials, rent, food, and other essentials
and often choose to go without some of these things.
Consistently increasing applications for financial aid, and utilization of tuition
installment payment plans.
Increasing numbers of students dropped for non-payment.

Green River Community College


State-Funded FTES Enrollment:

Fall 2010: 5,933.4 Fall 2012: 4,987.1 (-16.0%)

Green River Community College staff also expressed concerns about the cost burden on
students net of financial aid:

Increasingly shifting the cost burden to students in the form of higher tuition rates and
decreased levels of aid inevitably leads to increased reliance on student loans, grants,
or scholarships.
The increase in these costs will obviously be felt by the least prepared and least
equipped students as many of them were likely barely making it as it was.
Many new students aren't aware of how to navigate the financial aid application
process, such as deadlines and documentation, and some fail to obtain the appropriate
funding in time choosing either to drop out or defer.

66
As more students utilize financial aid at CTCs, the increasing focus of advising time on
the financial aid process and corresponding loss of focus on academic and professional
goal planning has let some students fall through the cracks.

Lake Washington Institute of Technology



State-Funded FTES Enrollment:

Fall 2010: 3,312.9 Fall 2012: 2,692.9 (-18.7%)

Lake Washington Institute of Technology provided data that suggests the rate of students
dropped for non-payment is increasing. This may be due to the fact that a decreasing
percentage of applications for financial aid are being met even as overall number of awards has
increased by 150% since award year 2007-08.

Term
Students
Dropped
Total Headcount Ratio Dropped
Fall 2010 239 6090 3.9%
Winter 2011 225 5830 3.9%
Spring 2011 209 5696 3.7%
Summer 2011 192 2512 7.6%
Fall 2011 299 5182 5.8%
Winter 2012 257 5193 5.0%
Spring 2012 214 4868 4.4%
Summer 2012 209 2221 9.4%
Fall 2012 316 4848 6.5%


Award
Year
Total
Applications
Received
Total Students
Awarded
(unduplicated)
Percentage of
Applications Met
with award
Total Amount
Awarded

2007-08 1970 1120 56.9% $,5,549,614

2008-09 2455 1330 54.1% $7,175,572

2009-10 4030 1894 47.0% $11,811,272

2010-11 4684 2188 46.7% $15,298,875

2011-12 4924 2147 43.6% $15,769,268


67
Conclusion

The factors that students must consider when deciding whether to enroll in postsecondary
education or training are numerous, complex, and often burdensome. They are academic,
psychological, sociological, and economic in nature and some are solidly outside the realm of
state policy control. Other factors, however, remain very much influenced by the decisions of
elected and appointed policymakers. Access, quality, and affordability are factors in dire need
of responsive postsecondary policy at the federal and state levels.

Washington States need to compete is clear. Too few graduates are being produced by all
sectors of higher education, including community and technical colleges, to meet specific
employer needs now and in the future. And in the 21
st
century, students and employers are
highly mobile across state boundaries. As a result, Washington employers have been importing
workers from other states and nations that are currently producing more of the qualified
graduates they need to fill available spots. Yet, even this importation of workers has not been
enough to meet total demand, and the problem is only projected to become worse over the
next few years. The risk that Washington residents will be left out and left behind from the
economy of the future is rapidly increasing.

A decline in fall CTC enrollments below 2008 levels at the start of the recession, and more than
10% below the peak recession levels in 2009, has ominous implications for meeting attainment
goals for associates degrees, certificates, and other credentials. Even as completion rates
improve, it is nearly impossible to reach state postsecondary attainment goals if enrollments
stagnate at current levels or continue to decline.

The collective evidence suggests that the decline in enrollments has been driven partly by
state policy choices made in regards to tuition and fees, financial aid, and overall funding of
the CTC system. Decreases in the three key areas of access, quality, and affordability have
closed the doors of higher education for many students, including some of those who were
previously enrolled and have since dropped out.

The SBCTC should strongly consider policy options intended to stem the decline in CTC
enrollments. A review of these policy options is considered in the next section.


68
Policy Recommendations

Funding levels per-FTE at community and technical colleges are unlikely to return to those of
the 2007-09 biennium anytime soon. Still, SBCTCs current approach toward formulating and
implementing statewide policy directives and funding levels is insufficient to meet economically
preferred outcomes. A number of both external and internal policy changes should be
considered by the Board.

I. Externally-Focused Recommendations
Advocacy: The State Legislature and Governor should understand current enrollment
trends (statewide and by district) and root causes. SBCTC should aggressively advocate
for additional funding for the CTC system.

The first step in stemming the enrollment decline is ensuring all parties have the
necessary information, which was missing from key testimony in early 2013.
Policymakers should be provided information that directly details the impact of funding
reductions on the student experience and enrollment, including the lack of adequate
financial aid. Additionally, they must be provided information about enrollment declines
and impacts at institutions within their legislative districts. Updating key Global
Challenge State comparisons may also be helpful (see Appendix 13). Allowing
consistent over enrollment at public colleges and universities will set a dangerous
precedent of decoupling state policy from the reality of funding obligations. SBCTC
should work to increase current state-funded enrollment targets to better match
current enrollments at CTCs, thereby increasing per-student funding. In order to do so,
an aggressive advocacy campaign will be necessary.

Leverage and Negotiations: SBCTC should prepare a dynamic budget proposal, offering
specific tuition and fee levels in exchange for set funding levels.

Four-year universities have long-since acknowledged their status as state-assisted,
rather than state-supported or state-funded, institutions. Although CTCs remain publicly
supported, the sharp reduction in state funds has the silver linking of unshackling these
colleges from the traditional static budget proposal process. For example, in exchange
for levels of state funds deemed appropriate, a freeze on tuition and fees, or
inflationary-only increases, could be offered. SBCTC should consider seeking similar
leverage in legislative negotiations. Partnering more closely with student advocacy
groups to advocate for state resources in this manner may also prove effective. As an
advantage, the public strongly desires lower costs for students.



69
Community Outreach: SBCTC should detail programs and services provided to the
taxpayers and the impact of funding reductions or increases.

The state policymaking process is complex and inaccessible for many citizens, and in
particular for students and families preoccupied with school and work. This is especially
true for the nontraditional population of students enrolled at CTCs. Individual colleges
should provide regular and easy-to-understand updates to students on the impact of
state funding changes on issues such as: program offerings, student services, financial
aid eligibility, and tuition and fees. Without a reservoir of community knowledge, CTCs
are unlike to build the level of support necessary to impact funding levels. As seen in
Appendix 17, a majority of voters (53 percent) want funding increased for higher
education after being informed of recent cuts to the sector, while just 7 percent believe
it should be reduced.

II. Internally-Focused Recommendations

Restrain tuition and fee growth to the maximum extent possible.

Given the high levels of student concern with the sticker price of tuition and required
fees, SBCTC should avoid exercising the highest level of increases to tuition and fees
authorized by current law. This is especially true if current financial aid availability and
eligibility is not increased to meet total need for low-income students. It is impossible to
provide an exact range of recommended percentage increases to correspond to specific
levels of desired enrollment, but after two years of 13% increases, a cooling off period
is in order. The SBCTC should focus in the range of inflationary (3%) increases. This is
especially true if revenues begin to increase after a devastating series of cuts.

Insure transparency of full costs to students, policymakers, and public.

Although published tuition and fees at Washington CTCs amount to $4,000 per
academic year (2012-13), or $1,333 per quarter with a standard 15 credits, this does not
accurately reflect the full costs to students at each college. The sticker price including
additional technology and other required fees ranges from $4,565 at Bates Technical
College to $3,806 at Bellingham Technical College. In order for policymakers and
students to accurately plan for and manage costs, they should be made publicly
available on the SBCTC website and better described in legislative communications.

Further, given low-income students tendency to overestimate college costs and
underestimate available financial aid, CTCs should make better use of college net price
calculators. For students who may browse CTC websites, understanding actual costs
may increase their likelihood of identifying methods of payment and support early
enough to maintain enrollment.

70
Increase focus on enhancing student momentum after initial enrollment and within
the first year.

Enrollment decline stems from a loss of existing students (drop outs) as well as fewer
first-time students. Data from the Student Achievement Initiative indicates that student
progress towards the first 15 credits has declined (2010-11 to 2011-12) and a review
of SAI suggested that there has been little institutional focus on this area relative to
other aspects of improving completion. Further, SBCTC has not facilitated the sharing
of effective practices across the colleges (Jenkins & Moore, 2012). Evidence suggests
that increasing student retention will help to maintain enrollments from existing
students who might otherwise become concerned with escalating costs.

In the event of further cuts, help students predict & manage tuition volatility.

In the event that advocacy efforts to increase per-student funding are unsuccessful and
state policymakers simply maintain, or further decrease, funding for CTCs, existing
students must be better-prepared for the cost increases made through a tuition backfill.
Volatility in costs can create high levels of anxiety for low-income students that will
endanger their likelihood of persistence, especially if receipt of financial aid is uncertain.
Tuition installment plans are being increasingly utilized by students who struggle to
afford payments. Most colleges with these plans report rapidly increasing utilization
rates. SBCTC should examine the technical and financial resources necessary to ensure
each campus can offer such a tuition installment plan.

Encourage development of external resources for colleges to mitigate difficult cuts,
such as foundations or fundraising operations.

A number of CTCs have created independent foundations to supplement college
activities and services that would otherwise have been harmed by state budget cuts.
Through such foundations, targeted funding can be provided for activities such as:
o Scholarships for tuition, fees, books, and supplies especially for students who
may have had other financial aid options cut back due to eligibility changes.
o Funding for equipment and facilities in service of high-demand fields.
o Innovative student success initiatives in eLearning and workforce partnerships.
The Board should investigate the resources, both technical and financial, for starting
such foundations and encourage their development. Additionally, SBCTC could
disseminate best practices in for CTC foundations to enhance student support services
that are effective at maintaining enrollments and promoting retention.


71
Provide new emphasis on courses that attract and retain students, such as eLearning.

The rapid growth in eLearning enrollments just as other state-funded enrollments
have declined is evidence that student demand for this educational delivery format
continues to increase. Although most CTC instructional faculty are aware of their
popularity, eLearning courses are ripe for statewide marketing. Western Governors
University (WGU) provides a model for such eLearning marketing. Recent reports of
lower completion in eLearning courses should consider that rapidly increasing numbers
of students are experimenting with these courses that might not otherwise enroll at
all due to schedule conflicts or personal learning preferences. As officials work to
enhance student support and completion for eLearning participants, they should
continue to promote increased access and availability.

Additionally, hybrid eLearning courses that combine face-to-face with online
instruction are often cost-saving. An analysis of which courses are more cost effective to
teach in this manner may be useful for colleges that have not conducted such an
analysis. This may help reduce the impact of funding reductions in other programs.

Finally, a comprehensive effort in course redesign may improve student momentum
through high-enrollment, entry-level, lower-division courses which have proven difficult
for large numbers of students to advance through otherwise known as bottleneck or
gatekeeper courses. Although the Student Completion Initiative grant identified 81
such courses, their redesign is largely limited to the use of open-source educational
materials, such as free or low-cost online textbooks. Although these materials are
affordable for students, course redesign should not be limited to only those courses
which have available high-quality open-source software. This effort should be
comprehensive. SBCTC should accelerate and expand course redesign efforts as they
produce net-cost savings and improve completion.
Adopt research-driven best practices to encourage students and adults with previous
college credit, but no degree, to re-enroll and complete.

Over 1 in 4 Washingtonians (25.3 percent) claim some college but no degree (EMSI,
2013). This represents over 1.1 million people. They are a significant potential pool of
potential re-enrollees if given the right guidance and support. Initiatives focused on
outreach to, recruitment of, and completion for these ready adults have yielded
important research findings. One multi-state project by the Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) known as Non-traditional No More identified
these key strategies for success in re-enrolling and completing adults who have prior
college education:

o Direct communication with students who have stopped out or dropped out,
including the use of private-sector data aggregators to obtain more up-to-date
contact information.

72
o Identifying a single point of contact, or reentry concierges, for returning adult
students to identify the quickest ways toward degree completion. Advisors
should be specialized in the needs of returning students.
o Flexible policies and practices such as flexible course scheduling, late-night or
online advising hours for working students, and grade waivers for courses
abandoned mid-quarter during previous enrollment.

The Board should consider a targeted statewide initiative focused on bringing back
those individuals who may have attempted CTC credits or programs during the recession
to campus to complete a degree, credential, or certificate.




73
Limitations


Pinpointing the specific statistical effects on enrollment for each of the factors that influence an
individual students decision to enroll is quite difficult, if nearly impossible. These factors may
change in number and intensity and with great frequency. Even the dependent variables are
inconsistent in existing research, and include measurements such as binary enrollment status,
number of credit hours attempted, persistence through the first year, or degree completion. Is
it more important to examine first-time, full-time student behavior, or whether existing
students persist? This question and others are quite difficult to answer, and it is one of the
many reasons that the available research on student price response in higher education is
more than 10 years old. When seeking to identify factors influencing enrollment, the most
obvious method would be to survey these non-attendees directly but given that these
individuals never enrolled in the first place, or dropped out, it may be exceedingly difficult to
identify and contact them.

It is therefore difficult to separate out what may be a combination of effects, both personal and
policy-driven, that are shaping enrollment levels statewide. For some of these data points, up-
to-date information is not yet available. And the trend in enrollment decline nationally and in
Washington is quite recent. As a result, a set of inferences are made. Due to inextricably linked
effects, this report is unable to specify a precise quantitative impact of recommended policy
changes on CTC enrollment levels.

National trends in CTC enrollment decline have been observed, yet specific state-by-state
numbers reliant on federal databases such as IPEDS are not yet available beyond 2010-11.
Some states have likely implemented some of the policy recommendations contained in this
report and are observing various results. Once the state-by-state enrollment numbers are
available, better connections to specific state policy choices over the recession can be made.

Finally, some of the data in this report represents 2012-13 projections for the current academic
year, including those made by SBCTC staff. It is possible, though indeed improbable, that recent
trends in enrollment decline will appear insignificant if a large turnaround in enrollments for
the winter and spring quarters does occur. This report is somewhat limited by its publication in
the middle of an academic year.


74
Works Cited
Burley, M. H. (2013, January 29). Washingtons State Need Grant Legislative Study: Initial
Findings and Study Direction. Testimony to the House Higher Education Committee.
Olympia, WA, USA.
Carnevale, A. (2010). Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements Through 2018.
Washington, DC: The Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
Carnevale, A., Jayasundera, T., & Cheah, B. (2012). The College Advantage: Weathering the
Economic Storm. Georgetown University, Center on Education & the Workforce.
Retrieved from
http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/CollegeAdvantage.FullReport.0
81512.pdf
College Board. (2012a). Trends in College Pricing 2012. Washington, DC.
College Board. (2012b). Trends in Student Aid 2012. The College Board. Retrieved from
http://trends.collegeboard.org/student-aid/figures-tables/number-federal-aid-
recipients-program-2011-12
EMSI. (2011). Economic Contribution of Washington Community and Technical Colleges.
Moscow, ID: Economic Modeling Specialists, Inc. (EMSI).
EMSI. (2013, February 21). Some College, No Degree: U.S. Cities that Lag (and Excel) in Degree
Attainment. Retrieved from Economic Modeling Specialists, Inc.:
http://www.economicmodeling.com/2013/02/21/some-college-no-degree-u-s-cities-
that-lag-and-excel-in-degree-attainment/
England-Siegerdt, C. (2013). 2013 National Tuition and Fee Report. Olympia, WA: Washington
Student Achievement Council.
Gandhi, S. J. (2008). Viewing Education Loans Through a Myopic Lens. The Hamilton Project. The
Brookings Institution.
GAO. (2012). GAO-12-960R Department of Education: Federal Pell Grant Program Compliance
Review. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Retrieved from
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-960R
Hahn, R. D., & Price, D. (2008). Promise Lost: College-Qualified Students Who Don't Enroll in
College. Institute for Higher Education Policy, Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/publications/m-r/promiselostcollegequalrpt.pdf
HECB. (2012). Key Facts About Higher Education in Washington 2012. Olympia, WA:
Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board (now the Washington Student
Achievement Council).
Heller, D. E. (1997). Student Price Response in Higher Education: An Update to Leslie and
Brinkman. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 624-659.
Heller, D. E. (1999). The Effects of Tuition and State Financial Aid on on Public College
Enrollment. The Review of Higher Education, 23(1), 65-89.

75
Heller, D. E. (2001). The Effects of Tuition Prices and Financial Aid on Higher Education
Enrollment. Rancho Cordova, CA: EdFund. Retrieved from
http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/resources/education/ed2020_docs/Heller-
effects_of_tuition_and_financial_aid_-_pdf.pdf
IHEP. (2012). Maximizing the College Choice Process to Increase Fit & Match for Underserved
Students. Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), Pathways to College Network,
Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://knowledgecenter.completionbydesign.org/sites/default/files/321%20Pathways%
20to%20College%20Network%202012.pdf
Jenkins, D., & Moore, C. (2012). Washington Student Achievement Initiative Policy Study: Final
Report. Community College Research Center (CCRC) & Institute for Higher Education
Leadership and Policy (IHELP). Retrieved from
http://www.csus.edu/ihelp/PDFs/R_SAI_Final.pdf
Justice, K. (2012, April 11). Supplemental Budget: Worst of Cuts Avoided, Challenges Remain.
Retrieved from Washington State Budget and Policy Center:
http://budgetandpolicy.org/schmudget/supplemental-budget-worst-of-cuts-avoided-
challenges-remain-1
Leslie, L. L., & Brinkman, P. T. (1987). Student Price Response in Higher Education: The Student
Demand Studies. Journal of Higher Education, 58(2), 181-204.
Lumina Foundation & Gallup. (2013). America's Call for Higher Education Redesign: The 2012
Lumina Foundation Study of the American Public's Opinion of Higher Education.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/Americas_Call_for_Higher_Education_R
edesign.pdf
Lumina Foundation. (2012, March). A Stronger Nation through Higher Education: State Data
Profiles. Retrieved from http://www.luminafoundation.org/state/washington
NSCRC. (2012). Term Enrollment Estimates: Fall 2012. National Student Clearinghouse Research
Center.
OECD. (2012). Education at a Glance 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/edu/highlights.pdf
Office of Program Research. (2013, January 17). Higher Education System and Funding
Overview: Presentation to the House Higher Education Committee. Olympia.
Palmer, J. (2013, January 22). Grapevine FY 2012-13. Retrieved from Center for the Study of
Education Policy, Illinois Center for the Study of Education Policy:
http://grapevine.illinoisstate.edu/tables/index.htm
Prince, D., & Kaikkonen, D. (2013). A Descriptive Study of Washington State Need Grant Eligible
Students Enrolled in Community and Technical Colleges in 2011-12. Washington State
Board for Community and Technical Colleges, Olympia. Retrieved from

76
http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/college/education/resh_rpt_13_1_need_grant_eligible_stude
nts_000.pdf
SBCTC. (2010). Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges: 2011-13
Operating Budget Policy Level Request. Olympia, WA.
SBCTC. (2011). 2010-11 Academic Year Enrollment Report. Washington, DC: State Board for
Community and Technical Colleges.
SBCTC. (2013a). Fall 2012 Enrollment Summary (Unpublished). Olympia, WA: State Board for
Community and Technical Colleges.
SBCTC. (2013b). Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges: 2013-15
Operating Budget Policy Level Request. Olympia, WA. Retrieved from
http://www.sbctc.edu/college/finance/2013-15PolicyLevelRequest-
RecommendationSummary_000.pdf
SHEEO. (2013). State Higher Education Finance FY 2012. Washington, DC: State Higher
Education Executive Officers (SHEEO). Retrieved from
http://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/publications/SHEF-FY12.pdf
Taylor, P., Parker, K., & Fry, R. (2011). Is College Worth It? College Presidents, Public Assess
Value, Quality and Mission of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2011/05/higher-ed-report.pdf
Washington Student Achievement Council. (2013, January 29). Affordability, Financial Aid, &
Student Debt: Presentation to the House Higher Education Committee. Olympia, WA.
WICHE. (2012). Knocking at the College Door: Projections of High School Graduates. Boulder,
CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
WICHE. (2012). Tuition and Fees in Public Higher Education in the West 2012-2013. Retrieved
from http://www.wiche.edu/pub/16527
Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board. (2011). H-1B Workers in Washington:
Helping Fill an IT Skills Gap. Olympia, WA. Retrieved from
http://www.wtb.wa.gov/Documents/H1B_2011_Report.pdf
Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board. (2013). Washington Employer Survey
2012. Olympia, WA. Retrieved from
http://www.wtb.wa.gov/Documents/Employersurvey2012-Summary.pdf
WSESD. (2011). Unemployment Benefits Exhaustee Survey Report. Washington State
Employment Security Department. Retrieved from
https://fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/docs/special-reports/Unemployment-
benefits-exhaustee-report-2011.pdf


77
APPENDIX 1: Percentage of Persons 25 and Over, by
Educational Attainment and State

High school completion or higher High school only Some level of postsecondary education Bachelors degree or higher
State % Rank % Rank % Rank % Rank
Alabama 81.5 46 31.6 19 49.9 44 21.9 45
Alaska 91.4 1 28.7 32 62.7 7 26.6 24
Arizona 83.8 36 25.3 47 58.5 21 25.5 32
Arkansas 81.9 45 35.0 6 46.9 48 19.0 50
California 80.6 49 21.5 50 59.0 20 29.9 15
Colorado 89.1 17 23.2 49 65.8 2 35.7 3
Connecticut 88.5 20 28.4 33 60.1 16 35.4 5
Delaware 87.2 27 32.0 16 55.1 33 26.9 23
District of Columbia 86.5 28 20.5 51 66.0 1 48.4 1
Florida 85.2 34 30.5 23 54.7 34 25.7 29
Georgia 83.5 40 29.6 27 53.9 37 27.3 20
Hawaii 90.2 9 29.1 29 61.1 11 29.3 17
Idaho 88.1 21 29.0 30 59.2 18 24.2 38
Illinois 86.1 31 27.9 37 58.2 23 30.2 13
Indiana 86.2 30 36.0 3 50.2 43 22.5 43
Iowa 90.2 8 34.2 9 56.1 27 24.5 37
Kansas 89.4 15 28.8 31 60.6 12 29.5 16
Kentucky 81.1 48 34.7 8 46.4 49 20.3 48
Louisiana 81.2 47 34.9 7 46.3 50 20.8 47
Maine 89.8 11 35.4 5 54.3 35 26.0 28
Maryland 87.9 22 26.7 41 61.1 10 35.4 4
Massachusetts 88.7 18 26.7 42 62.0 8 38.2 2
Michigan 87.8 23 31.7 18 56.1 26 24.7 36
Minnesota 91.3 3 27.8 39 63.5 5 31.6 11
Mississippi 80.0 50 30.8 22 49.2 47 19.6 49
Missouri 86.3 29 32.4 13 53.9 38 25.2 33
Montana 90.9 4 31.9 17 59.0 19 27.0 22
Nebraska 89.8 10 30.1 25 59.7 17 27.0 21
Nevada 83.7 37 29.4 28 54.3 36 21.8 46
New Hampshire 90.7 5 30.2 24 60.5 13 32.5 9
New Jersey 87.4 25 29.9 26 57.5 24 34.4 6
New Mexico 82.5 43 27.3 40 55.3 32 24.8 34
New York 84.3 35 28.1 36 56.2 25 32.2 10
North Carolina 83.7 39 28.1 35 55.5 29 26.3 25
North Dakota 89.5 14 27.9 38 61.6 9 26.1 27
Ohio 87.3 26 35.8 4 51.5 42 24.1 39
Oklahoma 85.3 33 32.4 14 52.9 40 22.5 44
Oregon 88.7 19 25.7 45 63.0 6 28.7 19
Pennsylvania 87.4 24 37.9 2 49.5 45 26.2 26
Rhode Island 83.7 38 28.4 34 55.3 31 30.1 14
South Carolina 82.9 41 31.0 20 51.9 41 24.0 40
South Dakota 89.4 16 33.5 11 55.9 28 24.8 35
Tennessee 82.6 42 33.2 12 49.4 46 22.5 42
Texas 79.6 51 25.9 44 53.8 39 25.6 31
Utah 90.5 6 25.5 46 65.0 4 28.7 18
Vermont 90.4 7 32.0 15 58.4 22 33.3 8
Virginia 86.1 32 25.9 43 60.2 15 33.7 7
Washington 89.7 12 24.4 48 65.2 3 30.7 12
West Virginia 81.9 44 40.8 1 41.1 51 17.1 51
Wisconsin 89.5 13 34.1 10 55.4 30 25.6 30
Wyoming 91.3 2 31.0 21 60.3 14 23.6 41

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics 2011 and 2007-2009
American Community Survey (ACS) 3-Year Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data.


78
APPENDIX 2: Estimated 2019 Education Supply-Demand Gap




Source: Joint report by the Higher Education Coordinating Board (now the Washington Student
Achievement Council), State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, and Workforce
Training and Education Coordinating Board. A Skilled and Educated Workforce 2011 Update:
An assessment of the number and type of higher education and training credentials required to
meet employer demand. Issued January 2012.


79
APPENDIX 3: Washington Community & Technical Colleges FY
2013-13 Tuition & Fee Schedule




80
APPENDIX 4: WSAC National Table of Community College
Resident Tuition and Required Fees (Estimated State Averages)


Source: 2013 National Tuition and Fee Report, Washington Student Achievement Council

81
APPENDIX 5: College Board 2012-13 Annual Tuition & Required
Fees by State In-District Full-Time Students at Public Two-Year
Institutions


Source: The College Board, Trends in Student Pricing 2012.
$3,131
$4,247
$- $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000
California
New Mexico
Texas
North Carolina
Arizona
Mississippi
Wyoming
Kansas
Nebraska
Nevada
Arkansas
Idaho
Missouri
West Virginia
Louisiana
Michigan
Montana
Hawaii
Florida
Delaware
National Average
Utah
Oklahoma
Georgia
Illinois
Maine
Connecticut
Colorado
Indiana
Tennessee
Ohio
South Carolina
Maryland
Rhode Island
Alaska
North Dakota
Wisconsin
Alabama
Virginia
Kentucky
Pennsylvania
Oregon
New Jersey
Iowa
Washington
New York
Massachusetts
South Dakota
Minnesota
New Hampshire
Vermont

82
APPENDIX 6: College Board, Five-Year Percent Change in
Annual Tuition and Required Fees for In-State Residents at
Two-Year Institutions, 2007-08 to 2012-13 (2012 Dollars)

Source: The College Board, Trends in Student Pricing 2012.
Note: Excludes California (104%)
34%
-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Virginia
North Carolina
Hawaii
Louisiana
Nevada
Florida
Georgia
Washington
Colorado
Alabama
South Dakota
Tennessee
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
Alaska
Idaho
New Mexico
Illinois
Mississippi
Arkansas
Arizona
Michigan
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Kansas
Delaware
Oklahoma
Connecticut
Iowa
Wyoming
New York
New Jersey
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Vermont
Kentucky
Indiana
Nebraska
Minnesota
New Hampshire
Ohio
Maryland
South Carolina
Missouri
North Dakota
Montana
Maine

83
APPENDIX 7: WICHE Resident In-District/County Tuition and
Fees at Public Two-Year Institutions in the WICHE Region

Resident Undergraduate, Two-Year Public

2011-12 to 2007-08 to 2002-03 to
Institution
2012-13 2011-12 2007-08 2002-03 2012-13 2012-13 2012-13



ALASKA $4,570 $4,300 $3,550 $2,208 6.3% 28.7% 107.0%
ARIZONA 2,226 2,182 1,707 1,183 2.0% 30.4% 88.2%
CALIFORNIA 1,104 1,080 600 330 2.2% 84.0% 234.5%
COLORADO 3,538 3,342 2,454 1,626 5.9% 44.2% 117.6%
HAWAII 3,101 2,981 1,944 1,323 4.0% 59.5% 134.4%
IDAHO 2,711 2,519 1,989 1,497 7.6% 36.3% 81.1%
MONTANA 3,372 3,344 3,144 2,433 0.8% 7.2% 38.6%
NEVADA 2,700 2,513 1,763 1,485 7.5% 53.2% 81.8%
NEW MEXICO 1,506 1,459 1,155 841 3.2% 30.4% 79.1%
NORTH DAKOTA 3,977 3,901 3,617 2,263 2.0% 10.0% 75.8%
OREGON 4,381 4,122 3,128 2,210

6.3% 40.1% 98.2%
SOUTH DAKOTA 5,555 5,206 3,787 --- 6.7% 46.7% ---
UTAH 3,109 2,961 2,320 1,681 5.0% 34.0% 85.0%
WASHINGTON 4,235 3,814 2,879 2,007 11.0% 47.1% 111.0%
WYOMING 2,391 2,275 1,923 1,568 5.1% 24.3% 52.5%
AVERAGE $2,364 $2,239 $1,636 $1,096 5.5% 44.5% 115.6%
AVERAGE WITHOUT
CALIFORNIA $3,319 $3,119 $2,414 $1,696 6.4% 37.5% 95.7%


WEIGHTED Resident Undergraduate, Two-Year Public

2011-12 to 2007-08 to 2002-03 to
Institution
2012-13 2011-12 2007-08 2002-03 2012-13 2012-13 2012-13



ALASKA $4,570 $4,300 $3,550 $2,208 6.3% 28.7% 107.0%
ARIZONA 2,211 2,162 1,665 1,204 2.3% 32.8% 83.7%
CALIFORNIA 1,104 1,080 600 330 2.2% 84.0% 234.5%
COLORADO 3,577 3,383 2,472 1,579 5.7% 44.7% 126.6%
HAWAII 3,101 2,981 1,942 1,327 4.0% 59.7% 133.7%
IDAHO 2,740 2,675 2,086 1,448 2.4% 31.3% 89.2%
MONTANA 3,334 3,302 3,044 2,260 1.0% 9.6% 47.5%
NEVADA 2,700 2,513 1,763 1,485 7.5% 53.2% 81.8%
NEW MEXICO 1,392 1,359 1,088 776 2.4% 28.0% 79.4%
NORTH DAKOTA 3,978 3,945 3,691 2,208 0.8% 7.8% 80.2%
OREGON 4,282 4,013 3,181 2,195

6.7% 34.6% 95.1%
SOUTH DAKOTA 5,568 5,187 3,770 --- 7.4% 47.7% ---
UTAH 3,149 3,020 2,472 1,721 4.3% 27.4% 83.1%
WASHINGTON 4,236 3,801 2,868 1,832 11.5% 47.7% 131.2%
WYOMING 2,395 2,289 1,913 1,543 4.6% 25.2% 55.3%
AVERAGE $1,868 $1,783 $1,273 $784 4.8% 46.7% 138.2%
AVERAGE WITHOUT
CALIFORNIA $3,184 $2,994 $2,342 $1,575 6.3% 35.9% 102.1%
Source: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). Tuition and Fees in Public Higher Education
in the West, 2012-2013. Table 7a.

84
APPENDIX 8: Alternative FTES Enrollment Analysis Focusing on
Tuition-Bearing Courses and Excluding Worker Retraining &
State International Students



Source: SBCTC Data Warehouse, 2013.
Fall 2011 to Fall 2012
TITLE
Total State
FTES
Tuition
Bearing
Courses
Tuition Bearing
Courses-
excludes Worker
Retraining
Students
Tuition Bearing Courses
Excludes Worker
Retraining,State
International
Fall 2012 Compared To
Fall 2011- TuitionBearing
Excludes WRT
BATES 14% 13% 11% 11% 24%
BELLEVUE -6% -6% -5% -5% -6%
BELLINGHAM -7% -6% -3% -3% -7%
BIG BEND -6% -5% -3% -3% -5%
CASCADIA -7% -6% -5% -5% -5%
CENTRALIA -11% -8% -5% -6% 6%
CLARK -2% 0% 3% 3% -6%
CLOVER PARK -11% -11% -11% -11% -12%
COLUMBIA BASIN -1% -2% -3% -3% -2%
EDMONDS -11% -11% -10% -10% -8%
EVERETT -6% -5% -4% -5% -2%
GRAYS HARBOR -8% -7% -5% -5% -11%
GREEN RIVER -6% -6% -3% -3% -8%
HIGHLINE -8% -5% -2% -2% 0%
LAKE WASHINGTON -13% -14% -12% -12% -2%
LOWER COLUMBIA -13% -13% -10% -10% -10%
OLYMPIC -1% 1% 1% 1% -2%
PENINSULA -6% -9% -8% -9% 3%
PIERCE FORT STEILACOOM -5% -7% -6% -6% -6%
PIERCE PUYALLUP -8% -6% -7% -7% 0%
RENTON -10% -10% -7% -6% 9%
SEATTLE CENTRAL -8% -7% -6% -6% -5%
SEATTLE NORTH -6% -5% -4% -4% -4%
SEATTLE SOUTH -3% -3% -1% -1% -5%
SEATTLE VOC INSTITUTE -14% -7% -8% 15% 11%
SHORELINE -1% -1% 0% 0% 1%
SKAGIT VALLEY -8% -8% -7% -7% -5%
SOUTH PUGET SOUND -8% -8% -6% -6% -5%
SPOKANE COMMUNITY -3% -3% -1% -1% 3%
SPOKANE FALLS -6% -9% -9% -10% -2%
TACOMA -1% 0% 1% 1% 5%
WALLA WALLA -5% -4% -1% -2% -2%
WENATCHEE VALLEY -3% -2% -1% -1% -2%
WHATCOM -9% -9% -8% -8% -8%
YAKIMA VALLEY -2% 2% 2% -4% -1%
30 of 35 28 of 35
One Year % Change Annual State FTES 2010-11 to 2011-12

85
APPENDIX 9: Washington: Percentage of jobs in 2018 that will
require a postsecondary education



Rank: 6
th
of 50 states
Source: Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs
and Education Requirements Through 2018


86
APPENDIX 10: Educational Appropriations per FTE (Constant
Adjusted 2012 Dollars)

Educational Appropriations per FTE (Constant Adjusted 2012 Dollars)
FY 2007 FY 2011 FY 2012
1 Year
%
Change
5 Year
%
Change
Rank
FY 12
Rank
% 5-
Year
Alabama $ 8,267 $ 6,129 $ 5,855 -4.5% -29.2% 22 16
Alaska $ 12,254 $ 11,982 $ 11,909 -0.6% -2.8% 2 48
Arizona $ 7,028 $ 5,569 $ 4,567 -18.0% -35.0% 37 6
Arkansas $ 8,196 $ 7,214 $ 6,873 -4.7% -16.1% 14 37
California $ 8,929 $ 7,678 $ 6,577 -14.3% -26.3% 18 23
Colorado $ 3,636 $ 3,057 $ 2,551 -16.6% -29.9% 48 14
Connecticut $ 9,079 $ 8,323 $ 7,354 -11.6% -19.0% 8 35
Delaware $ 6,290 $ 4,688 $ 4,663 -0.5% -25.9% 34 24
Florida $ 8,649 $ 6,031 $ 5,130 -15.0% -40.7% 29 2
Georgia $ 9,445 $ 7,271 $ 6,644 -8.6% -29.7% 17 15
Hawaii $ 8,973 $ 7,035 $ 6,898 -2.0% -23.1% 13 25
Idaho $ 9,232 $ 6,663 $ 5,661 -15.0% -38.7% 23 3
Illinois $ 7,835 $ 7,753 $ 8,554 10.3% 9.2% 4 49
Indiana $ 5,180 $ 4,262 $ 4,258 -0.1% -17.8% 41 36
Iowa $ 6,089 $ 4,561 $ 4,390 -3.8% -27.9% 39 18
Kansas $ 5,891 $ 5,048 $ 4,647 -7.9% -21.1% 35 29
Kentucky $ 8,608 $ 7,379 $ 6,959 -5.7% -19.2% 10 33
Louisiana $ 7,766 $ 7,440 $ 5,551 -25.4% -28.5% 27 17
Maine $ 6,762 $ 6,266 $ 6,071 -3.1% -10.2% 19 43
Maryland $ 8,310 $ 7,040 $ 6,668 -5.3% -19.8% 16 31
Massachusetts $ 7,518 $ 5,700 $ 4,712 -17.3% -37.3% 33 5
Michigan $ 6,033 $ 4,652 $ 4,185 -10.0% -30.6% 43 13
Minnesota $ 6,324 $ 5,082 $ 4,607 -9.4% -27.2% 36 19
Mississippi $ 7,750 $ 6,943 $ 6,033 -13.1% -22.2% 21 28
Missouri $ 6,803 $ 5,314 $ 4,984 -6.2% -26.7% 30 20
Montana $ 4,258 $ 4,254 $ 4,007 -5.8% -5.9% 44 46
Nebraska $ 7,628 $ 7,018 $ 6,933 -1.2% -9.1% 12 44
Nevada $ 9,860 $ 7,489 $ 6,676 -10.9% -32.3% 15 9
New Hampshire $ 3,213 $ 2,726 $ 1,583 -41.9% -50.7% 50 1
New Jersey $ 7,814 $ 6,487 $ 6,051 -6.7% -22.6% 20 27
New Mexico $ 9,618 $ 7,750 $ 7,430 -4.1% -22.8% 7 26
New York $ 8,802 $ 8,227 $ 7,542 -8.3% -14.3% 6 40
North Carolina $ 9,982 $ 8,892 $ 8,735 -1.8% -12.5% 3 41
North Dakota $ 5,307 $ 6,375 $ 6,938 8.8% 30.7% 11 50

87
Ohio $ 4,997 $ 4,213 $ 3,663 -13.0% -26.7% 47 21
Oklahoma $ 8,880 $ 7,750 $ 7,008 -9.6% -21.1% 9 30
Oregon $ 5,663 $ 4,415 $ 3,851 -12.8% -32.0% 46 10
Pennsylvania $ 5,674 $ 4,675 $ 3,875 -17.1% -31.7% 45 11
Rhode Island $ 6,496 $ 4,756 $ 5,226 9.9% -19.6% 28 32
South Carolina $ 7,339 $ 4,886 $ 4,515 -7.6% -38.5% 38 4
South Dakota $ 5,188 $ 4,733 $ 4,195 -11.4% -19.2% 42 34
Tennessee $ 8,145 $ 6,951 $ 5,582 -19.7% -31.5% 25 12
Texas $ 8,457 $ 8,046 $ 7,938 -1.3% -6.1% 5 45
Utah $ 6,583 $ 5,129 $ 4,830 -5.8% -26.6% 31 22
Vermont $ 2,969 $ 2,645 $ 2,512 -5.0% -15.4% 49 38
Virginia $ 6,505 $ 5,323 $ 4,272 -19.7% -34.3% 40 8
Washington $ 7,345 $ 5,576 $ 4,788 -14.1% -34.8% 32 7
West Virginia $ 5,778 $ 5,596 $ 5,575 -0.4% -3.5% 26 47
Wisconsin $ 6,606 $ 6,303 $ 5,639 -10.5% -14.6% 24 39
Wyoming $ 16,042 $ 16,230 $ 14,105 -13.1% -12.1% 1 42
US $ 7,667 $ 6,483 $ 5,896 -9.1% -23.1%


Source: State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) State Higher Education Finance Report FY 2012.
Published March 2013.

Notes:
1) Educational appropriations measure state and local support available for public higher education operating
expenses including ARRA funds and excludes appropriations for independent institutions, financial aid for
students attending independent institutions, research, hospitals, and medical education.
2) Adjustment factors, to arrive at constant dollar figures, include Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), Enrollment
Mix Index (EMI), and Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA).The Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) is not a
measure of inflation over time.


88
APPENDIX 11: Unemployment and Labor Force Participation
Rates by Educational Attainment

High School Graduates, No College, 25 yrs. &
over
Some College or Associates Degree, 25 yrs. &
over (less than Bachelors)
Labor Force Participation Rate Labor Force Participation Rate
September 2010 September 2012 September 2010 September 2012
61.8% 59.6% 70.0% 68.6%

Unemployment Rate Unemployment Rate
September 2010 September 2012 September 2010 September 2012
9.8% 8.6% 8.9% 6.5%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey


89
APPENDIX 12: 2011-13 Biennium State Funding Reductions for
Public Higher Education Institutions from Maintenance Level




90
APPENDIX 13: Washington Learns documents present
competitor states and rankings



Source: Washington Learns Commission, Global Challenge States, November 2006
Note: The Global Challenge States, generated from Washington Learns, comprise the top
eight states on the Progressive Policy Institutes New Economy Index [NEI, 2002]. They were
identified for the purpose of creating a meaningful comparison group that more closely
approximates our states socio-economic situation.


91
APPENDIX 14: State support for higher education, FY 2013


Source: Grapevine Tables 2013
Rank
Alabama 1,405,063,916 8.19 291.38 11
Alaska 365,195,297 10.77 499.28 2
Arizona 840,320,500 3.57 128.23 48
Arkansas 906,500,781 8.88 307.38 9
Calif ornia 8,843,276,000 5.21 232.46 27
Colorado 640,628,978 2.74 123.49 49
Connecticut 957,256,412 4.54 266.62 16
Delaware 216,492,700 5.60 236.06 26
Florida 3,341,628,971 4.32 172.98 39
Georgia 2,757,055,556 7.59 277.93 12
Hawaii 513,516,613 8.39 368.82 6
Idaho 360,070,800 6.73 225.65 29
Illinois 3,566,692,200 6.18 277.02 13
Indiana 1,555,282,625 6.44 237.91 25
Iowa 787,419,692 6.06 256.14 20
Kansas 759,215,686 6.37 263.08 17
Kentucky 1,178,977,000 7.68 269.15 15
Louisiana 1,175,660,258 6.48 255.47 21
Maine 264,064,554 5.03 198.67 37
Maryland 1,612,475,870 5.31 274.02 14
Massachusetts 1,049,106,956 2.91 157.85 42
Michigan 1,596,324,500 4.33 161.52 41
Minnesota 1,285,247,000 5.22 238.93 24
Mississippi 924,952,654 9.41 309.87 8
Missouri 931,239,665 3.99 154.64 44
Montana 202,187,817 5.40 201.15 34
Nebraska 659,571,367 8.20 355.46 7
Nevada 472,368,017 4.60 171.21 40
New Hampshire 85,622,352 1.38 64.83 50
New Jersey 1,888,439,000 3.99 213.03 31
New Mexico 799,405,505 10.93 383.31 5
New York 4,989,658,488 4.93 254.96 22
North Carolina 4,092,304,288 11.44 419.63 4
North Dakota 343,805,783 9.87 491.41 3
Ohio 2,039,964,448 4.50 176.71 38
Oklahoma 981,069,415 6.64 257.17 19
Oregon 582,208,397 3.86 149.31 45
Pennsylvania 1,792,655,000 3.24 140.45 47
Rhode Island 164,147,170 3.49 156.29 43
South Carolina 942,770,165 5.86 199.58 35
South Dakota 190,251,431 5.12 228.30 28
Tennessee 1,455,168,883 6.00 225.39 30
Texas 6,425,707,479 6.01 246.58 23
Utah 748,759,000 7.62 262.24 18
Vermont 87,996,319 3.26 140.57 46
Virginia 1,703,083,307 4.45 208.05 32
Washington 1,372,858,000 4.40 199.05 36
West Virginia 545,760,686 8.51 294.15 10
Wisconsin 1,182,780,084 5.09 206.55 33
Wyoming 384,199,290 13.68 666.54 1
Totals 71,966,406,875 5.42 229.72
a
Based on personal income data f or the 3nd quarter of 2012, retrieved f rom the Bureau of Economic
Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, http://www.bea.gov/itable/index_regional.cf m.
b
Based on July
2012 population estimates retrieved f rom the U.S. Census Bureau,
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2012/index.html.
c
Includes both tax and nontax monies.
State Support for Higher Education in Fiscal Year 2013, by State, Per $1,000 in Personal
Income
a
and Per Capita
b
State Monies Only
c
($)
STATES FY13 Total
per $1,000 in Personal
Income per Capita

92
APPENDIX 15: Findings of Heller Research on Enrollment
Effects at Community Colleges


Heller (1999) Enrollment Effects at Community College Adjusted for a $160
Tuition Change, 1994 Dollars

Group Mean
Enrollment
Rate
Coefficient
for $1,000
Increase
Coefficient for
$160 Increase
(SPRC)
Enrollment
Effect for $160
Increase

Response to Community College Tuition


All Races 14.67 -2.08** -0.33 -2.3%
Asian
Americans
17.16 -14.22** -2.28 -13.3%
Blacks 12.28 -2.00** -0.32 -2.6%
Hispanics 8.13 -5.72** -0.91 -11.2%
Whites 15.76 -2.04** -0.33 -2.1%

~ = p < .10, * = p < 05, ** = p < .01


Source: (Heller, The Effects of Tuition and State Financial Aid on on Public College Enrollment,
1999)

93
APPENDIX 16: Definition of Funding Sources for Washington
CTC Enrollments

Source: Verbatim. SBCTC 2011-12 Academic Year Report, Sec. I (Enrollments), Pg. 1:

Funding Sources
State-supported enrollments: Courses funded through a combination of state appropriation
and tuition are designated as state-supported. The state portion covers nearly one-third (62
percent) of the cost of instruction, down from 73 percent six years ago. When students,
employers, or social service agencies pay tuition in state-supported courses, they are paying 38
percent of the cost of providing those courses.

Contract-funded enrollments: Courses in which no state funds are used to cover costs of
instruction are either contract- or student-funded. The costs for contract-funded courses are
paid by an enterprise such as an employer or social service agency for the benefit of its
employees or clients. There are several types of contracts (more information on the following
programs can be found in the Selected Programs chapter of this report):

Dual enrollment programs include Running Start, College in the High School and
Alternative High School programs.
Eight college districts offered contracted instruction for the Washington Department of
Corrections at twelve correctional facilities in 2011-12. Students enroll in courses to
increase literacy and gain occupational skills.
Two-thirds of the community and technical colleges offer Contract International
enrollment programs. Organizations contract with colleges to provide instruction for
international students. These organizations pay fees equal to full non-resident tuition.
Colleges also contract with local businesses under the Job Skills Program (JSP) and the
Customized Training Program (CTP). Employee training is provided by the college and
the costs are covered by a state grant in JSP. The costs for CTP are first covered up front
by state funds and then repaid in full by the business.

Student-funded enrollments: Courses in which costs are paid entirely by the individuals who
enroll increased by 20 percent in 2011-12 while colleges continue to attempt to manage
enrollments through funding sources in addition to state resources. Student-funded courses
include a wide variety of offerings and include:

Workforce training/upgrading courses such as microcomputer applications, information
technology certification, web design, flagger and traffic control, and business
management.
Continuing education courses required for license renewal (e.g., real estate and health
care).
Leisure courses such as foreign language for travelers, photography, and dance.


94
APPENDIX 17: Voter Attitudes About Higher Education Funding



Source: Key Findings from Recent Survey on Washington Voter Attitudes toward Higher
Education. Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3). From February 2-6, 2013, FM3
completed 600 telephone interviews on landlines and on cell phones with registered voters
in Washington State. The margin of sampling error for the statewide results is +/- 4.0%; margins
of error for subgroups within the sample will be higher. Due to rounding, some percentages do
not sum to 100%.


95
APPENDIX 18: State-Funded Enrollments by Year & College

STATE FUNDED ENROLLMENTS

College
Fall '08
Headcount
Fall '08
FTEs
Fall '09
Headcount
Fall '09
FTEs
Fall '10
Headcount
Fall '10
FTEs
Lower Columbia 4,290 2,808.4 4,344 3,344.2 4,194 3,389.7
Clover Park 6,489 3,883.9 6,906 4,345.6 6,832 4,427.5
Lake Washington 4,787 2,843.3 5,073 3,202.6 5,130 3,312.9
Edmonds 8,093 4,992.0 8,857 5,692.9 8,824 5,780.3
Grays Harbor 2,493 1,621.5 2,413 1,828.0 2,390 1,804.4
Green River 6,577 4,938.9 7,183 5,489.7 7,554 5,933.4
Bellingham 3,099 1,935.0 3,083 2,190.6 3,158 2,291.0
Pierce Fort Steilacoom 4,515 3,298.8 4,784 3,462.0 4,722 3,385.0
Skagit Valley 5,936 3,709.4 5,690 3,915.1 5,537 3,936.8
Seattle Vocational
Institute** 475 578.6 513 600.0 491 548.0
Whatcom 4,003 2,682.8 4,420 2,926.2 4,603 3,101.5
Seattle Central 7,539 5,090.4 7,924 5,536.2 7,706 5,386.6
Bellevue 11,717 7,794.3 12,605 8,610.5 13,388 9,152.6
South Puget Sound 5,486 3,692.1 5,557 3,932.8 5,529 4,004.4
Big Bend 2,290 1,599.0 2,379 1,768.2 2,263 1,813.6
Seattle North 6,563 3,643.5 6,809 3,893.1 6,855 3,906.8
Spokane Falls* 10,878 7703.3 10,486 7298.8 10,451 7523.2
Seattle South 7,303 4,206.8 6,686 4,248.9 6,407 4,139.1
Centralia 3,540 2,132.4 3,612 2,252.5 3,647 2,362.6
Highline 8,003 5,636.8 8,893 6,377.9 8,759 6,116.5
Pierce Puyallup 3,210 2,084.1 3,279 2,141.4 3,382 2,252.0
Renton 6,544 3,762.7 5,593 3,551.9 5,259 3,680.7
Cascadia 2,292 1,611.9 2,621 1,872.6 2,724 2,004.7
Everett 6,895 4,622.9 7,026 4,788.2 7,108 4,981.6
Clark 10,690 6,916.5 12,643 8,521.0 12,848 8,564.8
Walla Walla 3,978 2,940.0 4,131 3,264.4 3,947 3,153.5
Peninsula 2,708 1,673.2 2,662 1,797.1 2,814 1,893.9
Yakima Valley 5,359 3,762.5 5,266 3,933.3 5,153 3,982.5
Olympic 7,117 4,703.8 7,477 5,157.0 7,793 5,357.1
Columbia Basin 7,033 4,858.5 6,931 4,667.0 6,788 4,475.6
Shoreline 6,453 4,701.9 6,446 4,938.1 6,290 4,654.2
Wenatchee Valley 3,780 2,704.4 3,283 2,468.5 3,672 2,865.3
Spokane 6,742 5,683.8 7,139 6,087.2 6,720 5,628.5
Tacoma 5,752 4,505.7 6,101 4,713.0 6,421 4,975.6
Bates*** 5,845 4,596.4 5,268 4,118.7 4,612 3,328.2
Total 198,474

133,919 204,083

142,935 203,971

144,114



System Total 196,788

133,919 202,201

142,935 202,074

144,114


96

(continued from previous page)



College
Fall '11
Headcount Fall '11 FTEs
Fall '12
Headcount Fall '12 FTEs
Two-Year
Headcount
Trend
Two-Year
FTE Trend
Lower Columbia 3,640 2,866.5 3,328 2,556.6 -20.6% -24.6%
Clover Park 5,088 4,114.7 4,014 3,415.1 -41.2% -22.9%
Lake Washington 4,358 2,837.7 4,061 2,692.9 -20.8% -18.7%
Edmonds 8,111 5,191.1 7,431 4,733.0 -15.8% -18.1%
Grays Harbor 1,959 1,670.7 1,742 1,509.5 -27.1% -16.3%
Green River 7,022 5,505.3 6,469 4,987.1 -14.4% -16.0%
Bellingham 2,753 2,113.4 2,545 1,967.4 -19.4% -14.1%
Pierce Fort
Steilacoom 4,525 3,196.9 4,171 2,948.9 -11.7% -12.9%
Skagit Valley 5,015 3,657.2 4,787 3,430.6 -13.5% -12.9%
Seattle Vocational
Institute** 559 430.9 539 478.4 9.8% -12.7%
Whatcom 4,264 2,958.9 3,965 2,709.6 -13.9% -12.6%
Seattle Central 6,971 5,031.5 6,652 4,741.9 -13.7% -12.0%
Bellevue 12,691 8,573.8 11,933 8,065.8 -10.9% -11.9%
South Puget
Sound 5,293 3,778.2 4,922 3,547.9 -11.0% -11.4%
Big Bend 2,181 1,688.8 2,072 1,613.4 -8.4% -11.0%
Seattle North 6,303 3,655.0 6,060 3,519.1 -11.6% -9.9%
Spokane Falls* 9,741 6,892.3 9,505 6,782.1 -9.1% -9.9%
Seattle South 6,181 4,033.1 5,712 3,762.9 -10.8% -9.1%
Centralia 3,209 2,083.8 3,043 2,166.4 -16.6% -8.3%
Highline 8,262 5,706.3 7,902 5,616.2 -9.8% -8.2%
Pierce Puyallup 3,208 2,107.6 3,187 2,092.8 -5.8% -7.1%
Renton 4,557 3,232.8 4,725 3,422.7 -10.2% -7.0%
Cascadia 2,702 1,988.8 2,515 1,880.5 -7.7% -6.2%
Everett 7,154 4,817.8 6,785 4,674.2 -4.5% -6.2%
Clark 12,656 8,533.0 11,960 8,038.8 -6.9% -6.1%
Walla Walla 3,779 3,048.4 3,685 2,966.4 -6.6% -5.9%
Peninsula 2,440 1,780.7 2,288 1,788.9 -18.7% -5.5%
Yakima Valley 5,095 3,950.3 4,934 3,846.5 -4.2% -3.4%
Olympic 7,856 5,348.5 7,698 5,218.9 -1.2% -2.6%
Columbia Basin 6,514 4,503.7 6,218 4,428.6 -8.4% -1.1%
Shoreline 6,162 4,623.6 6,081 4,629.1 -3.3% -0.5%
Wenatchee Valley 3,721 2,945.6 3,555 2,856.6 -3.2% -0.3%
Spokane 6,501 5,580.5 6,721 5,700.6 0.0% 1.3%
Tacoma 6,397 5,004.7 6,566 5,212.9 2.3% 4.8%
Bates*** 4,442 3,748.3 4,516 4,557.3 -2.1% 36.9%
Total 191,310 137,201 182,287 132,560




System Total 189,522 137,201 180,499 132,560 -10.7% -8.0%

97
APPENDIX 19: OFM State-Funded Public Higher Education
Enrollment Report Winter 2012-13


Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management

98
APPENDIX 20: Students by Purpose for Attending, State-
Supported, Fall Quarter

Students by Purpose for Attending

State Supported

Fall Quarter



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Transfer Students

Headcount

67,988

70,771

72,815

71,785

69,154
FTE taken by transfer students 53,412 55,833 56,949 55,897 53,906
% of FTE 39.9% 39.1% 39.5% 40.7% 40.7%
Workforce Education Students (all upgrading
and job preparation)

Headcount

88,968

94,588

93,147

85,129

80,788
FTE taken by workforce students 61,021 68,472 68,590 64,310 62,122
% of FTE 45.6% 47.9% 47.6% 46.9% 46.9%
Basic Skills as an Immediate Goal Students

Headcount

22,546

22,146

21,486

19,420

19,032
FTE taken by basic skills as final goal students 14,776 14,360 14,094 12,853 13,071
% of FTE 11.0% 10.0% 9.8% 9.4% 9.9%
Home and Family Life/ Other/Not Specified

Headcount

17,286

14,696

14,626

13,188

11,525
FTE taken by home & family life/other/not specified 4,707 4,270 4,482 4,141 3,459
% of FTE 3.5% 3.0% 3.1% 3.0% 2.6%
TOTAL

System Headcount 196,788 202,201 202,074 189,522 180,499
FTE 133,917 142,935 144,114 137,201 132,560

Source: SBCTC Data Warehouse, 2013


99
APPENDIX 21: CTC College Costs Including All Fees

2012-2013 Resident Student - 15 Credits
Per Quarter
Annual
Fees
Annual
Tuition
Annual
Total B&O
Service
&
Activities
Technology
Fees
Other
Fees Total
Bates $ 1,196.80 51 41.25 232.5 $ 1,521.55 821 3743 $ 4,564.65
Bellevue $ 1,196.80 136.55 35 45 $ 1,413.35 240 4000 $ 4,240.05
Bellingham $ 1,146.35 67.05 27.45 27.9 $ 1,268.75 166 3640 $ 3,806.25
Big Bend $ 1,196.80 136.55 50 0 $ 1,383.35 150 4000 $ 4,150.05
Cascadia $ 1,196.80 136.55 40 0 $ 1,373.35 120 4000 $ 4,120.05
Centralia $ 1,196.80 136.55 40 71.65 $ 1,445.00 335 4000 $ 4,335.00
Clark $ 1,196.80 86.5 45 56.25 $ 1,384.55 304 3850 $ 4,153.65
Clover Park $ 1,196.80 66 0 60 $ 1,322.80 180 3788 $ 3,968.40
Columbia Basin $ 1,196.80 90.75 45 132.25 $ 1,464.80 532 3863 $ 4,394.40
Edmonds $ 1,196.80 120.9 36 115.8 $ 1,469.50 455 3953 $ 4,408.50
Everett $ 1,196.80 127.8 35 50 $ 1,409.60 255 3974 $ 4,228.80
Grays Harbor $ 1,196.80 124.7 35 103.5 $ 1,460.00 416 3965 $ 4,380.00
Green River $ 1,196.80 136.55 60 87.5 $ 1,480.85 443 4000 $ 4,442.55
Highline $ 1,196.80 136.55 25 $ 1,358.35 75 4000 $ 4,075.05
Lake Washington $ 1,196.80 136.55 0 144.9 $ 1,478.25 435 4000 $ 4,434.75
Lower Columbia $ 1,196.80 136.55 45 91.5 $ 1,469.85 410 4000 $ 4,409.55
North Seattle $ 1,196.80 136.55 30 27.5 $ 1,390.85 173 4000 $ 4,172.55
Olympic $ 1,196.80 136.55 35 30 $ 1,398.35 195 4000 $ 4,195.05
Peninsula $ 1,196.80 136.55 52.5 64 $ 1,449.85 350 4000 $ 4,349.55
Pierce Ft. Steilacoom $ 1,196.80 136.55 35 50 $ 1,418.35 255 4000 $ 4,255.05
Pierce Puyallup $ 1,196.80 136.55 35 78.75 $ 1,447.10 341 4000 $ 4,341.30
Renton $ 1,196.80 60 0 90 $ 1,346.80 270 3770 $ 4,040.40
Seattle Central $ 1,196.80 136.55 45 38 $ 1,416.35 249 4000 $ 4,249.05
Shoreline $ 1,196.80 91.85 94.5 86.8 $ 1,469.95 544 3866 $ 4,409.85
Skagit Valley $ 1,196.80 120.9 40 45 $ 1,402.70 255 3953 $ 4,208.10
South Puget Sound $ 1,196.80 101.3 0 51.1 $ 1,349.20 153 3894 $ 4,047.60
South Seattle $ 1,196.80 136.55 45 10 $ 1,388.35 165 4000 $ 4,165.05
Spokane $ 1,196.80 110.05 40 50 $ 1,396.85 270 3921 $ 4,190.55
Spokane Falls $ 1,196.80 110.05 40 10 $ 1,356.85 150 3921 $ 4,070.55
Tacoma $ 1,196.80 136.55 17.5 50 $ 1,400.85 203 4000 $ 4,202.55
Walla Walla $ 1,196.80 136.55 30 92 $ 1,455.35 366 4000 $ 4,366.05
Wenatchee $ 1,196.80 136.55 30 5 $ 1,368.35 105 4000 $ 4,105.05
Whatcom $ 1,196.80 136.55 35 25 $ 1,393.35 180 4000 $ 4,180.05
Yakima Valley $ 1,196.80 136.55 67.5 45 $ 1,445.85 338 4000 $ 4,337.55

Source: Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, Staff Analysis.


100
APPENDIX 22: Percent Change in State Spending Per Student,
Inflation Adjusted, FY 08 - FY 13 (All Higher Education)

Source: CBPP calculations using data from Illinois State Universitys annual Grapevine
Report: Recent Deep State Higher Education Cuts May Harm Students and the Economy for
Years to Come. March 19, 2013.

101