.3. "\. ' im‘gexmmmon OFTHEPOTENTIAL = — ROLE or REGEONAL HIGHEREDUCAHGN 1‘ , CUMPACTS m ”THE DEVELOPMENT-1g , . . ' OF GREATER INTERSTATE CGOPERATIQN .5 ‘ , j, m GRADUATEEDUCATEORC, ._ . ' Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D, MECHIGM STATE UNIVERSETY JAMES CHARLES VOTRUBA ‘ : ~l974.5 ' ' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII WWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW 3 129 93 10659 439 W L \.“\ \N ‘0 ”(SLWW/WWW'J___ _ _ H ' LIBRARYL- Micki-53:15:33 Usiverséty ABSTRACT AN EXAMINATION OF THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF REGIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION COMPACTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF GREATER INTERSTATE COOPERATION IN GRADUATE EDUCATION By James Charles Votruba A post-World War II phenomenon in American higher education has been the development of regional interstate compacts designed to improve and increase, through inter- state cooperation, the educational opportunities available to citizens of member states. Three such regional compacts are currently in existence. They include, The Southern Regional Education Compact, The Western Regional Education Compact, and The New England Higher Education Compact. The purpose of this study was to examine the poten- tial role of regional higher education compacts in the development of greater interstate cooperation related to graduate education. Specifically, the research objectives were to examine the attitudes of regional, state, and institutional representatives concerning: 1. the overall need for regional and interstate cooperation in graduate education, 2. the overall potential of the regional higher education compact agency to facilitate interstate and regional cooperation in graduate education. James Charles Votruba 3. the identification of need for certain specific regional cooperative programs and services related to graduate education, and 4. 'the likelihood that needed regional programs and services could be feasibly implemented at the regional compact level. Design A mailed questionnaire was used to collect and analyze data from four target populations, each representing either the regional, state, or institutional level of regional compact involvement. The four target populations included: regional compact board and commission members, state higher education executive officers, chief executive officers from public graduate institutions, and chief executive officers from private graduateinstitutions. In addition, extensive background data was collected through personal interviews with regional compact staff members from each of the three compact agencies. Findings The questionnaire returns indicated that approx- imately 71 percent of the respondents from each of the regional and state level populations believe that there is either a considerable or major need for graduate related interstate cooperation. This percentage is substantially higher than the corresponding figures for public institution respondents (47.8%) and private institution respondents (53.4%). James Charles Votruba In addition, over 60 percent of the reSpondents from both the regional and state level populations indicated that their regional compact possesses either considerable or major potential to facilitate graduate related interstate cooperation. Again, this percentage is considerably higher than the correSponding figures for public institution re— spondents (36.9%) and private institution reSpondents (48%). Each member of the four target populations was asked to evaluate the need for twenty-six graduate related regional programs which could potentially be introduced at the regional compact level. If a need was indicated, the respondent was then asked to evaluate the feasibility of the program for regional compact involvement. Eight of the twenty-six programs described in the survey were judged to be of either considerable or major need by over 60 percent of the respondents in each of the four populations. In addition, these same eight programs were described as having some level of feasibility by over 70 percent of the respondents in each population. The results of this inquiry are particularly useful in two different ways. First, the findings provide govern- ment officials, educational leaders, and others involved in public policy with valuable insight concerning those graduate related educational needs which might be most effectively addressed at the regional interstate level. James Charles Votruba Second, the results should be of valuable assistance to regional compact agencies as they evaluate the nature and extent of any future commitments in the area of graduate education. AN EXAMINATION OF THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF REGIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION COMPACTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF GREATER INTERSTATE COOPERATION IN GRADUATE EDUCATION BY James Charles Votruba A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1974 ii @ Copyright by JAMES CHARLES VOTRUBA 1974 DEDICATION To my wéfie, Rachel, who AWN a comm ecu/Lee 06 guendehxlp, joy, and WWn as we jowmey thhough use togethe/L. To my son, China, who emuleheb own um daily. To my 5mm, mothejt, and 61.64%, who, in them own pe/wombfl way, have cwwaya given 60 much and cashed 60 We. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge a lasting debt of gratitude to Dr. John E. Ivey, Jr. for his inspiration, support, and guidance during the course of this study. I am also deeply grateful to my doctoral committee chairman, Dr. Floyd G. Parker, and the other members of my committee-- Dr. Vandel C. Johnson and Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover--for their wisdom and counsel during the period of my doctoral study. In addition, I express my sincere appreciation to: 0 the Education Commission of the States for their generous support of this research project; 0 the staff members of the three regional compact agencies for their insight and candor; 0 Dr. Maryellen McSweeney for her advice and counsel concerning the research design and methodology; 0 Dr. Joseph G. Rossmeier, Dr. T. Harry McKinney, and Dr. Paul L. Dressel for their analysis and suggestions; 0 all of those persons too numerous to mention who contributed so generously to the successful completion of this study. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LI ST OF TABLES O C O O O O O O O O O O O O I 0 CHAPTER I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 C O O O O C O O O C C 0 Purpose of the Study . . . Need for the Study . . . . Scope of the Study . . . . Objectives of the Study . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . Regional Higher Education Compact Regional Compact Board . . . Regional Compact Agency . . . . . Graduate Education . . . . . . . Overview of the Study . . . . . . . . II. REGIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION COMPACTS: AN EXAMINATION OF HISTORY, FORM, AND FUNCTION 0 O O O O O I O O O C O O O 0 Historical Antecedents . . . . . . The DevelOpment of Regional Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . Regional Compact Organization . Regional Compact Authority . . Regional Compact Functions . . Regional Compacts and Graduate Education . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . Population and Sample . . . . . . . . Regional Level . . . . . . . . . State Level . . . . . . . . . . . InStitutional Level . . . . Multiple Membership in the Target POpulations . . . . . . . . . . Page vii (DCDQQOSO‘UIUIMH H 10 11 14 17 19 21 27 30 33 33 35 36 39 CHAPTER Methods of Data Collection . . . . . . . . Background Interviews . . . . . . . . . Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . Returns to the Questionnaire Mailings . . . Procedures for Data Analysis . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. REPORT AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . Overall Need for Interstate and Regional Cooperation in Graduate Education . . . . Potential of the Regional Higher Education Compact as a Facilitator of Interstate and Regional Cooperation in Graduate Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation of Selected Regional Programs Related to Graduate Education . . . . . . Interstate Sharing of Programs and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . Needs and Resources Studies . . . . . Interstate Planning and Coordinating Consultation and Information Sharing Research and Development . . . . . . V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research De ign and Methodology Summary of Findings . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A. MAP OF REGIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION COMPACTS . . B. REGIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION COMPACT LEGISLATION O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O C. THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE AND CORRESPONDENCE TO MEMBERS OF THE TARGET POPULATIONS . . . . D. TABLES OF RESPONSES BY COMPACT FOR EACH OF THE SURVEY ITEMS 0 O C O O C O O I O C I O O BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O C O I O O O O 0 vi 52 53 55 56 66 71 87 102 102 105 106 113 116 117 125 136 165 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Distribution of regional compact board and commission members by compact affiliation . . . 34 2. Distribution of graduate institutions by compact affiliation and institutional contrOI O C O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 38 3. Percentage and frequency distribution of responses to the survey questionnaire . . . . . 44 4. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 3: "How would you describe the extent of your familiarity with the regional higher education compact to which you or your state is associated?" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 31: "In general, how would you evaluate the current overall need for inter- state and regional cooperation in graduate education?" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 6. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 34: "In general, how would you evaluate the potential of the regional higher education compact as a facilitator of inter- state and regional cooperation in graduate education?" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 7. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 5: "To provide expanded oppor- tunities for interstate student access to graduate programs and facilities." . . . . . . . 60 8. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 27: "To develop procedures for increasing student access to graduate programs and facilities available at private institutions." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 vii Table 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 14: "To promote the formation of interinstitutional consortia at the graduate level a. II o o o o o o o ' o o o o o 0 Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 15: "To promote the develOpment of regional graduate institutions financed cooperatively by participating states." Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 11: "To promote the development of electronic communication systems to link institutions for cooperative sharing of educational resources related to graduate scholarship and researCh." . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 25: "To promote the develOpment of regional cooperative programs directed at securing additional funding for certain ' graduate programs and facilities." . . . . ‘Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 29: "To maintain a:current and comprehensive inventory of graduate programs and facilities in the region." . Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 22: "To promote research aimed at assessing manpower needs which require education at the graduate level." . . . . Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 18: "To assist in the identi- fication of unnecessary interstate duplication of graduate programs and faCilities." . . Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 21: "To assist in the identi- fication of need for new graduate programs in the region." . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 8: ”To engage in long-range planning related to the future development of graduate education in the region." . . viii Page 62 63 64 65 68 69 75 76 77 Table 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 6: "To coordinate institutional offerings at the interstate level to help prevent unnecessary proliferation and duplication of graduate programs." . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 7: "To coordinate institutional offerings at the interstate level to facili- tate joint financing of high cost graduate programs and facilities." . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 4: "To keep state legislators and governors informed concerning issues and alternatives related to graduate education." Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 10: "To assist the federal government to better understand the issues and alternatives facing graduate education in the region." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 9: "To better inform the general public about the benefits (both individual and social) of graduate education." . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 24: "To provide consultation and assistance to state higher education agencies charged with planning and coordinating graduate education." . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 12: "To provide better informa- tion to potential students regarding graduate programs and institutions." . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 17: "To make available current and reliable information about graduate student financial assistance programs." . . Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 26: "To assist institutions to identify able members of minority groups and women for recruitment as graduate faculty and students." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 78 79 80 82 83 88 89 90 91 Table 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 19: "To assist in the develop- ment of the appropriate measures of quality to be used in evaluating existing graduate programs." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 20: "To assist in the develop- ment of uniform measures of productivity and efficiency for use in evaluating existing graduate programs." . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 16: "To assist in the develop- ment of guidelines for apportioning the cost of graduate education between the student and society." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 13: "To assist in the develop— ment of c00perative programs designed to aid faculty professional development at graduate institutions." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 28: "To assist in the develop— ment of programs designed to help graduate faculty improve their skill as teachers." . Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 23: "To promote the deve10pment of pilot and experimental projects designed to test new teaching-learning techniques for use at the graduate level.” . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 3: "How would you describe the extent of your familiarity with the regional higher education compact to which you or your state is associated?" . . Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 31: "In general, how would you evaluate the current overall need for interstate and regional cooperation in graduate education?" . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 92 95 96 97 99 100 136 137 Table Page 35. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 34: "In general, how would you evaluate the potential of the regional higher education compact as a facil- itator of interstate and regional cooperation in graduate education?" . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 36. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 4: "To keep state legislators and governors informed concerning issues and alternatives related to graduate education." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 37. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 5: "To provide expanded opportunities for interstate student access to graduate programs and facilities." . . 140 38. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 6: "To coordinate institutional offerings at the interstate level to help prevent unnecessary prolifer- ation and duplication of graduate programs." . . 141 39. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 7: "To coordinate institutional offerings at the interstate level to facilitate joint financing of high-cost graduate programs and facilities." . . 142 40. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 8: "To engage in long-range planning related to the future development of graduate education in the region." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 41. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 9: "To better inform the general public about the benefits (both individual and social) of graduate education." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 42. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 10: "To assess the federal government to better understand the issues and alternatives facing graduate education in the region." . . . . . . . . . . . 145 xi Table 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 11: "To promote the develoPment of electronic communication systems to link institutions for cooperative sharing of educational resources related to graduate scholarship and research." . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 12: "To provide better information to potential students regarding graduate programs and institutions." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 13: "To assist in the development of c00perative programs designed to aid faculty professional development at graduate institutions." . . . Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 14: "To promote the formation of interinstitutional consortia at the graduate level." . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 15: "To promote the development of regional graduate institutions financed cooperatively by participating states." . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 16: "To assist in the development of guidelines for apportioning the cost of graduate education between the student and society." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 17: "To make available current and reliable information about graduate student financial assistance programs." . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 18: "To assist in the identification of unnecessary interstate duplication of graduate programs and facilities." . . . . . . . . . . xii Page 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 Table 51. 52. S3. 54. 55. 56. 57. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 19: "To assist in the development of appropriate measures of quality to be used in evaluating existing graduate programs." . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 20: "To assist in the development of uniform measures of productivity and efficiency for use in evaluating existing graduate programs." . . Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 21: "To assist in the identification of need for new graduate programs in the region." . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 22: "To promote research aimed at assessing manpower needs which require education at the graduate level." . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 23: "To promote the development of pilot and experimental projects designed to test new teaching- 1earning techniques for use at the graduate level." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 24: "To provide consultation and assistance to state higher education agencies charged with planning and coordinating graduate education." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 25: "To promote the development of regional c00perative programs directed at securing additional funding for certain graduate programs and facilities." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Page 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 Table 58. 59. 60. 61. Page Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 26: "To assist institutions to identify able members of minority groups and women for recruitment as graduate faculty and students." . . . . . . 161 Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 27: "To develop procedures for increasing student access to graduate programs and facilities available at private institutions." . . . . . . 162 Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 28: "To assist in the development of programs designed to help graduate faculty improve their skill as teachers." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 29: "To maintain a current and comprehensive inventory of graduate programs and facilities in the region." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 xiv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Study A post-World War II phenomenon in American higher education has been the creation, through formal legislative agreement, of regional interstate compacts designed to pro- mote greater cooperation among member states in the area of postsecondary education. There currently exists three such regional compacts. Identified as The Southern Regional Edu- cation Compact, The Western Regional Education Compact, and The New England Higher Education Compact, they collectively embrace 33 of the 50 states (see map in Appendix A). Each of the three regional higher education compacts was established in order to improve and increase, through interstate cooperation, the educational opportunities avail- able to citizens of member states. Following World War II, American colleges and universities were faced with consid- erable pressure to rapidly expand their academic offerings. The educational and political leaders who promoted the establishment of regional interstate cooperation reasoned that the compact arrangement would enable states to make use of the collective resources of the compact region, thus expanding educational opportunity while helping to control the unnecessary duplication of expensive programs and facil- ities available in nearby states. Today, the three regional higher education compacts represent the most comprehensive and formally organized interstate form of joing planning and resource sharing in American post-secondary education. The purpose of this study is to examine the poten- tial role of regional higher education compacts in the development of greater interstate cooperation related to graduate education. The rapid development and expansion of graduate education prior to 1970 has given way to a period often characterized by diminished public confidence, intense competition for state appropriations, a decline in federal support for academic research, increasing program costs coupled with spiraling inflation, and the prolifer— ation of academic specializations as knowledge continues to grow at an exponential rate. Faced with these conditions, many states have become less willing as well as less able to develop and sustain a total range of graduate programs and facilities. One alternative is to provide an interstate cooperative response. The development of interstate cooperation in any area of public policy is a difficult--if not at times impossible-~task. Each state has its own sense of sovereignty, its own institutions, its own politics, its own priorities, and its own way of doing things. Combine with this the belief in autonomy and self-sufficiency advocated by most academic institutions and the absence of regional compact authority over the policies and prac- tices of either states or academies, and the result is that state boundaries are often highly resistant to the develop- ment of cooperative educational activities. In spite of the difficulties associated with transcending state boundaries, the development of a regional interstate pattern of cooperation at the graduate level may offer the opportunity to increase student access to graduate education, help discourage needless duplication of expensive programs and facilities, and encourage needed improvements in graduate education at the regional, state, and institu- tional level. It is to an assessment of this opportunity that the present study is addressed. Need for the Study The need for this study has been underscored by the Education Commission of the States' Task Force on Graduate Education. Chaired by Missouri Governor Christopher Bond, this group of representatives from education, government, and commerce was convened in the summer of 1973 and charged with analyzing the problems currently facing graduate education and making recommendations for their solution. One of the results of their initial deliberations was to highlight the need for a careful and complete examination of the possibilities for more extensive graduate related regional interstate cooperation. Although an examination of the problems currently facing graduate education may suggest a general need for greater regional and interstate cooperation, to date there has been no systematic attempt to examine either the nature or the extent of this need--particular1y as it is perceived by persons representing the regional, state, and institu- tional level of postsecondary educational jurisdiction. Because of the organizational nature of regional higher education compacts, the success of regional education programs depends substantially upon the cooperation and support of these three jurisdictional levels. Accordingly, an examination of regional, state, and institutional atti- tudes concerning the potential role of regional compacts in graduate education is the logical starting point for the development and successful implementation of graduate related regional programs. Scope of the Study This study is concerned only with examining the attitudes of regional, state, and institutional represen- tatives concerning the potential role of regional higher education compacts in graduate education. This excludes any consideration of regional compact activities which do not represent program initiatives directly related to graduate education. Also excluded from inquiry are other forms of interstate and interinstitutional cooperation related to graduate education except where these other forms of cooperation may be facilitated through regional compact initiative. Finally, this study does not attempt to develop a comprehensive historical treatment of the role of regional higher education compacts in graduate education. Rather, the focus is upon the perceived potential for future program initiatives. Objectives of the Study The objectives of this study are to examine the attitudes of regional, state, and institutional representatives concerning: 1. the overall need for regional and interstate cooperation in graduate education, 2. the overall potential of the regional higher education compact agency to facilitate interstate and regional cooperation in graduate education, 3. the identification of need for certain specific regional cooperative programs and services related to graduate education, and 4. the likelihood that needed regional programs and services could be feasibly implemented at the regional compact level. Definition of Terms Four of the terms uSed in this study which might benefit from definitive explanation are "Regional Higher Education Compact," "Regional Compact Board," "Regional ' and "Graduate Education." Because all Compact Agency,‘ four terms will be treated in greater detail in later chapters, only a brief explanation is provided below. Regional Higher Education Compact The legal basis for regional education is found in the interstate compact ratified by legislatures of the participating states. Each compact spells out the general purpose of regional education as one of interstate cooper- ation to extend and improve higher educational opportunities in the member states. In addition, each of the three compacts authorize an administrative agency to develop specific programs for attainment of this purpose. In order of their founding, the three regional higher education compacts are titled, The Southern Regional Education Compact (1948), The Western Regional Education Compact (1953), and The New England Higher Education Compact (1955). Copies of each regional compact appear in Appendix B. Regional Compact Board (Commission) Each regional organization is governed by a board or commission comprised of representatives from the member states, appointed by the respective state governors. These governing groups set policy and procedures within the broad purposes stated in the compact legislation and provide policy direction for the compact agency which reports directly to them. Corresponding to the regional higher education compact which they govern, the regional compact policy bodies are legally identified as the Southern Regional Edu- cational Board (SREB), the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), and the New England Board of Higher Education (NEBHE). Regional Compact Agency Each regional higher education compact authorizes the establishment of a permanent administrative agency and charges it with developing and administering programs con- sistent with the general purposes outlined in the compact legislation. Compact agencies are responsible to the compact governing bodies and receive their policy direction from them. Graduate Education For the purpose of this study, graduate education refers only to masters and doctoral level programs in the arts and sciences and other related areas. The usual degrees included in this definition of graduate education are the Masters of Arts, Masters of Science, the Doctor of Philosophy, and other special designations. Fields which are primarily professional such as medicine, dentistry, theology, law, and health sciences should not be considered part of this definition. Overview of the Study Chapter I introduces the general purpose of the study and identifies the scope and objectives of the research. Chapter II draws from available sources to discuss the nature of regional higher education compacts in terms of their history, organizational form, and programmatic functions. Chapter III describes the research design and methodology employed in the study. Included is a descrip- tion of the three target populations, design of the study, and the procedures for data analysis. Chapter IV reports the findings of the research. Descriptive data are analyzed according to the study objectives. Chapter V presents the summary and conclusions of the study. CHAPTER II REGIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION COMPACTS: AN EXAMINATION OF HISTORY, FORM, AND FUNCTION Although the three regional higher education compacts embrace two-thirds of the states and provide a variety of c00perative programs and services, they have rarely been the subject of critical analysis and remain one of the least known and understood elements of the postsecondary educational enterprise. This condition is underscored by the small amount of literature which has been devoted to these interstate cooperative arrangements. Accordingly, this chapter draws upon available sources, including literature and personal interviews,1 to examine the history, organizational structure, and programmatic functions of the three regional higher education compacts in hOpes of providing insight into the nature of this interstate educational phenomenon. 1In order to gain greater insight into regional compact structure and function, the investigator conducted extensive interviews with staff members from each of the three regional compact agencies. These interviews were tape-recorded at the agency offices and used as background data for this study. Details of the interview process can be found in Chapter III. 10 11 Historical Antecedents Although the development of regional higher education compacts is a relatively recent occurrence, they are the result of an evolutionary trend dating back to the eighteenth century. The interstate compact is provided for in the United States Constitution and the states have made use of it throughout American history.2 Barton (1965) notes that between 1783 and 1920 the states entered into thirty- six compact agreements. Between 1920 and 1955, sixty—five compacts were initiated and, since 1955, more than a score of additional compacts were established. Prior to 1920 interstate compacts were primarily bi—state arrangements for the purpose of settling boundary disputes. Since that time an increasing number of compacts have been written for region-wide and even nation-wide adherence. The interstate compact approach received a major boost in 1925 when there appeared what many scholars con- sider the most important single argument ever offered for the expanded use of the compact clause. Analyzing the compact clause and its implications, Justices Felix 2Article I, Section 10: "No state shall, without the permission of Congress . . . enter into any agreement or compact with another state or with a foreign power. . . ." 12 Frankfurter and James M. Landis expounded upon the potential of the compact device.3 The declared: The combined legislative powers of Congress and the several states (that is, as combined in compacts), permit a wide range of permuta- tions and combinations for governmental action. Until very recently these potentialities have been left largely unexplored. . . . Creative- ness is called for to devise a great variety of legal alternatives to c0pe with the diverse forms of interstate interests. Landis and Frankfurter further argued: The imaginative adaptation of the compact idea should add considerably to reserves available to statesmen in the solution of problems presented by the growing inter- dependence, social and economic, of groups of states forming a distinct region. The argument of Frankfurter and Landis provided a substantial impetus for the expanded use of interstate compacts as a means of c0ping with a variety of social, political, and economic concerns. The result was that many interstate compacts also established Operating agencies with continuing authority to plan, to make recommendations, to develop and administer programs, and to construct and operate physical facilities. Referring to this increasing tendency to establish multi-state compact agencies, Leach and Sugg (1959) write: aFelis Frankfurter and James M. Landis, "The Compact Clause of the Constitution--A Study in Interstate Adjust- ments," Yale Law Journal, XXIV (May 1925), 706-729. 13 The interstate compact agencies have provided a new dimension for state power. They permit the states to take continuing c00perative action in fields where they cannot act effectively or do not wish to act alone, fields which might fall by default to the federal power if not occupied through the initiative of the states.“ The economic depression of the 1930's and its aftermath provided further support for the concept of interstate cooperation. As the nation strained to over- come the consequences of economic collapse, social planning became the popular form of response. The near inability of traditional social and political institutions to confront the national economic emergency prompted substantial evaluation of the existing political and social order. Men such as W. B. Munro, William Y. Elliott, and John M. Gaus gave support to the concept of political regionalism and urged the creation of regional governmental machinery. In 1935, Elliott went so far as to urge the creation of a regional government system to replace the traditional state system.5 Like the concept of political regionalism, social regionalism also received considerable attention during the 1930's and 1940's. Howard W. Odum, Rupert Vance, “Richard H. Leach and Redding S. Suggl Jr., The Administration of Interstate Compacts (Baton Rouge: LouiSiana State University Press, 1959). P. 214. 5William Y. Elliott, The Need for Constitutional Reform (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1935), 14 Lewis Mumford, and others argued that a social region involves a significant degree of homogeneity of many characteristics which may be ascribed to an area. Reflecting the sentiment of the others, Odum wrote that a region is a "fine equilibrium of geographic, "5 It is at the regional cultural, and historical factors. level, argued Odum, where social planning and develOpment can be most effectively and efficiently accomplished. The concepts of political and social regionalism contributed substantially to the early development of regional higher education. Combined with the historical trend towards broader use of the compact clause, they pro- vided stimulus for the develOpment of regional interstate cooperation in higher education. The Deve10pment of Regional Higher Education In the period following World War II, it became quickly apparent that the southern, western, and eastern regions of the United States were confronted with substan- tial education problems. Many of the states in these regions had small pOpulations and limited resources to devote to higher education. The war's end brought a dra- matic increase in both the demand for expanded educational 6Howard W. Odum and Harry E. Moore, American Regionalism (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1938). 15 opportunities and the need for better educated manpower. As pressure mounted to rapidly expand their post-secondary educational offerings, states began to look for c00perative means of providing an effective as well as an efficient response. The develOpment of regional higher education com- pacts was viewed by political and educational leaders as a means to maximize the available funds, to avoid needless duplication where feasible, and to help provide the region with skilled manpower in critical short supply. Describing the circumstances which prompted the formation of the three regional education compacts, Godwin (1973) writes: They (regional higher education compacts) began in the South where there was an especially acute shortage of facilities, programs, and scholars, as thousands of returning war veterans sought college educations. At the same time, promising signs of economic growth in the Southern states indicated need for more and better educated peOple, especially those with graduate and pro- fessional training. . . . Regional education in the South was the model for later regional agencies in the 13 Western states and the 6 New England states. The Southern development appealed especially to the West as a promising way to relieve extreme shortages of personnel and training programs in the health sciences. A few years later, to help expand public higher education for New England residents, a regional program was adOpted in the New England states, where nationally prestigious private colleges and universities had long dominated.7 7Winfred L. Godwin, "The Southern Regional Education Board--A Public Regional System," Higher Education: From Autonomy to Systems, Voice of America Series (Washington, D.C.: Department of Interior, 1973), p. 71. 16 In each of the three regions, the actual compact charter grew out of the regional conferences of governors with substantial involvement of state educational leaders. Once the compact document was drafted, debated, and amended, it was presented to each state legislature and, when adOpted by the required number of states and signed by the governors, it became effective. It is possible to identify numerous earlier examples of c00peration between individual colleges and universities across state lines. The significance of the establishment of the Southern Regional Education Board (1948), the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (1951), and the New England Board of Higher Education (1955) was that it marked the first effort by groups of states to plan and work together for the advancement of higher education. The sig- nificance of this point should not be mistaken. Admittedly, any form of educational c00peration requires the support of the academic institutions but the creation of the three regional higher education compacts represented an acknowl- edged public commitment on the part of the participating state governments to support and assist c00perative educa- tional development in the region. It is from this formal state commitment that the regional compacts draw much of their influence. 17 Regional Compact Organization The organizational design of each of the three regional compacts is essentially the same. Each compact provides for a governing board or commission comprised of representatives from the member states, appointed by the respective governors. These governing groups set policy within the broad purposes stated in the compact legislation and have the authority to appoint an executive director who, in turn, is responsible for developing programs as well as selecting other members of the compact staff. State government, higher education, and the general public are represented on the compact governing bodies. The Southern Regional Education Board has five representatives from each state including, by law, the governor of each state and at least one state legislator. The western Commission includes three representatives from each state including, by law, at least one representative from higher education. The New England Board has eight representatives from each state and requires that at least two represen- tatives from each state be from the state legislature. Each compact authorizes the establishment of an administrative agency to develop and administer programs consistent with the general purposes outlined in the compact legislation. The chief administrative officer, appointed by the compact governing board, selects an 18 administrative staff with whom he shares the responsibilities for developing and Operating programs in the region. Agency staff members generally have professional backgrounds in college or university teaching and administration. Because of the highly technical nature of many of the regional pro- grams, staff members are often specialists in such fields as agriculture, medicine, nursing, and computer science. Each compacting state is obligated to contribute to the operational support of the compact board and admin- istrative agency. In addition, each compact receives sub- stantial support for specific programmatic activities from individual states as well as private and federal sources. Godwin (1973) points out that the appr0priation of state funds to support regional education provides a periodic opportunity for state review of the regional agency per- formance.° Barton (1965) suggests a similar consequence of the compact funding process. He writes: While service compacts often have jurisdiction over somewhat natural groupings of states (e.g., the South, West, New England), the fact that the compact agencies have no power to tax and thus are dependent upon the states for annual appropriations renders them responsive to the states rather than to any regional constituency.’ 'Ibid., pp. 73. ’Weldon V. Barton, Interstate Compacts in the Political_Process (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1967), p. 148. 19 Eggional Compact Authority The authority of the regional compact agency is found in the compact legislation ratified by the state legislatures and signed by the governors. The compacts, like the United States Constitution, may be interpreted narrowly or liberally. When interpreted liberally, there is probably no functional area of c00peration in postsecondary education that is denied these agencies by their charters. Their authority is nevertheless limited by the nature of their association with both participating states and institutions. Kroepsch and Kaplan explain these limitations: Legally, politically, and financially, the interstate agencies are creatures of the compacting states. They were authorized by the legislatures of the member states; they receive their basic financial support from the states; and they must depend upon the states for their continued existence. More- over, none of the agencies has any authority or control over the educational policy of individual states or institutions. No legal coercions or sanctions are available to enforce their views. As regional agency officials have often stated, their only compulsion is the compulsion of facts. Lacking coercive power, they must work by building concensus among affected groups, using persuasion to secure agreement among states and institutions on mutually advantageous projects.1° 1“Robert H. Korepsch and M. Stephen Kaplan, "Inter- state Cooperation and Coordination in Higher Education," Emerging Patterns in American Higher Education, ed. by Logan Wilson (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965). P9 175. 20 In the absence of coercive power, the ability of the compact agency to influence the course of regional postsecondary education rests heavily upon the development of cooperation and concensus among its various constituent groups. Herein exists one of the most substantial obstacles to the development of interstate educational cooperation as well as one of the greatest challenges to compact agency leadership. Within each state, the priorities for post- secondary education may be much different when viewed from the perspective of the executive, the legislature, the state higher education board, and the various institutional presidents. Add to this the differing priorities which exist between states and the result is a complex set of motivations and priorities which often make concensus quite difficult. The importance as well as the difficulty of establishing concensus is understood by Kroepsch and Kaplan: With such variety of interacting interests, concensus is slow and sometimes painful to achieve. The regional agencies, unlike local, state, and Federal governments, would be doomed if they were to formulate policy based on slim majority votes. Instead, a firm commitment of most of the important power factors is necessary for the successful implementation of any project of major significance.11 The development of concensus regarding a particular regional education program or activity rests heavily upon 11Ibid., p. 189. 21 the existence of a balance of interest between participating states and institutions. Historically, those cooperative thrusts which have been most successful at the regional compact level have been those which have offered clear and tangible benefits to each participating party. Lacking the power to command compliance with cooperative educational programs, the identification and articulation of these benefits is a major responsibility of the regional compact agency. Referring to the importance of this task, one regional compact staff member emphasized: If you are talking about state or institutional cooperation, the first place to go for the ground rules is Machiavilli's The Prince. Nobody coop- erates except in their own self-interests. A plan that does not recognize this element of self-interest will simply not work. Self- interest must be identified and concensus established before regional programs can succeed. Regional Compact Functions There is general agreement among those concerned with regional higher education that, although the programs of the three compact agencies vary according to the needs of their respective regions, their general functions are essentially the same. They include: (1) development and administration of interstate coOperative programs, (2) research related to the needs of postsecondary education, (3) consultation and information sharing with state govern- mental and educational representatives, (4) collection of 22 data in relation to the postsecondary educational enterprise, and (5) planning activities related to the future of higher education in the region. Each of the three compact agencies have major on- going involvement in the development and administration of interstate cooperative programs. Through the development of such devices as the contract-for-services programs, regional agencies have been able to accomplish broad inter- state sharing of academic programs and facilities. For example, arrangements have been made for a state without a medical school to send residents to medical schools in other states and pay those states for educating these stu- dents. The sending state would be helping their citizens study medicine while the receiving institution would be able to operate at capacity and receive substantial financial support for doing so. In addition to the contract-for-services approach to interstate sharing of programs and facilities, the New England agency has successfully Operated an academic common market under which institutions have Opened highly special- ized programs to regional students on a preferential basis with reduced tuition rates. Under these arrangements, approximately 350 curricula are being shared by the six- state New England region. The Southern agency is currently in the final stages of implementing a similar common market program in their fourteen-state region. 23 Cooperative program development and administration has not been limited to expanding access to curricula across state lines. The development of sophisticated electronic delivery systems has caused compact agencies to focus their attention on the establishment of regional electronic delivery and retrieval systems. For example, the New England agency, with the support of the National Science Foundation, is developing an academic science network to more effectively utilize computer technology in the interests of scientific research. The Objective is to create a regional mechanism that will provide rapid access to major science information sources which are machine readable and needed by science research personnel. There are numerous examples of compact agency research related to the needs of higher education in their region. Major research efforts have focused upon enrollment forecasting, year-round Operation of campuses, reform of graduate and professional education, and the improvement of college teaching. Manpower studies have also played an important part in compact research activities. Godwin (1973) points out that, in addition to research conducted by compact staff, the regional agencies have encouraged many universities to create institutional research Offices to study university organization and 24 Operation.12 To support the establishment of institutional research activities, the compact agencies have conducted regional programs to train research personnel for such positions. Consultation and information sharing with state governmental and educational leaders has historically been an important compact agency function. In the South, the association between government and the compact agency has been particularly close. Higher education is on the agenda of the annual regional conference of governors. Governors of member states serve on the Southern Regional Education Board during their term of office. A governor serves as board chairman while a number serve on the executive committee. At least one legislator from each state is a member of the Southern compact board and a council of state legislators advises on how regional programs can best serve the states. Each year a legislative conference is held in which legislative leaders study and discuss current issues in higher education. Although the South has been most ambitious in developing a close asso- ciation with state governmental leaders, both the New England and Western compacts have placed a high priority upon developing these relationships. 12Godwin, Op. cit., p. 77. 25 It is reported by compact agency representatives that, in recent years, governors, legislatures, and state planning agencies have increased their requests to the regional agencies for both information and advice. In many instances, the regional compact agency has been called upon to provide an appraisal of educational issues both within and between states. Compact spokesmen argue that their status Of being related but not tied too closely to any state or institution makes them well suited to perform this task. In addition to responding to requests for specific information or advice, regional agencies carry on substantial programs of public information designed to keep decision makers and the general public informed of higher education's needs. A wide variety of pamphlets, leaflets, newsletters, and books are produced and distributed each year by the three compact agencies. Each compact agency serves as a clearing house of information on selected matters relating to higher education and the educational needs of the region. For example, the New England agency publishes FAQT a book of information concerning each college, university, and institute in the six-state New England area. Broken down by state, §A§T_ provides information including institutional location, accreditation, level and type of offering, tuition, financial aid application deadlines, enrollment charac- teristics, and much more. In addition the publication 26 provides composite and comparative data for both states and institutional categories. The regional compact planning function is difficult to describe. This is caused by a lack of any agreement regarding what should be included within the planning function. Each compact agency stresses the importance of being able to anticipate the future state Of affairs in higher education. In fact, each of the functions pre- viously discussed is a part of what might be called the planning function. Research, consultation, information collection, and program development, all assume a knowledge of the future concerning higher education and the needs of the region. Each compact agency devotes substantial time to the encouragement of state and institutional planning efforts related to higher education. The Southern agency is currently sponsoring regional disciplinary conferences at which representatives from throughout the region gather to discuss the future needs Of their particular discipline area. An example of comprehensive planning is provided by the Southern Regional Education Board. In 1960, SREB created a Commission on Goals for Higher Education in the South and directed it to formulate major goals for Southern higher education and the steps necessary for their achieve- ment. What resulted was a forty-eight page report entitled 27 Within Our Reach. Winfred Godwin of SREB described the report as "the most comprehensive framework we have ever had for planning higher education." He pledged that the Board would "lend every assistance to states and institu- tions in their consideration of action on the Commission's u 13 recommendations. Within Our Reach was an effort directed at developing a comprehensive set of goals and strategies for the future development of higher education in the region. Regional Compacts and Graduate EducatiOn An examination of regional program activity in the area Of graduate education suggests that, generally, this component of higher education has not had a high priority for regional compact program involvement. Regional agencies have understandably set their priorities to fit the most immediate and pressing needs of their regions. Historically, this has meant a very extensive commitment to developing regional programs and activities in fields of professional education such as medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, and public health related areas. A regional compact executive director sums up this sentiment: We are frankly more concerned today with some professional education areas than we are about traditional graduate education programs. 13Proceedings of the 1962 Annual Meeting, Southern Regional Education Board, October 1, 1962, p. 29. 28 To suggest that regional program activity in graduate education has not received a high priority is not to suggest that no program initiatives have taken place in this area. The New England Regional Student Program includes a substantial number of graduate programs available to students in the region at reduced tuition rates. The Western agency, in union with the Western Association of Graduate Schools, has provided information to graduate schools concerning the disciplinary interests and geographic preferences of undergraduate minority students in the West who wish to pursue graduate education. The Southern agency has published a Catalog of Uncommon Facilities which aims at making expensive and scarce educational facilities available for use by scholars throughout the region. In addition, the Southern Board is in the process of initiating a regional academic common market which will initially focus upon making more graduate programs available on a regional basis through the waiving of outstate tuition. In addition, it can be argued that the three regional compacts have had substantial impact upon graduate education through their impact upon the general growth and development of higher education in the region. One agency director was quick to emphasize this point. Referring to the role of his agency in graduate education, he said: Although little has been done in program areas related to graduate education, it is important to understand the indirect impact which the 29 agency has had in this area. By generating support for higher education and by helping to initiate state planning and formal educational structures, we have had a substantial impact upon the strength and vitality of higher education generally, including graduate education. Information collected during interviews with regional compact staff members suggests that there is general agreement concerning the need for greater interstate cooperation in the area of graduate education. Circum- stances most Often cited in relation to this need included: (1) the changing patterns of federal funding for graduate education, (2) the increasing costs of graduate education to the states, (3) the growing surplus of highly trained manpower in certain areas, (4) the continued expansion and development of new graduate programs in what appears in many cases to be duplicative patterns, (5) decreasing graduate student support with increasing costs to the student, and (6) the danger of the kind of crisis reaction which might impair state and national potential for developing needed research and highly educated manpower for the future. Although compact agency staff members indicated general agreement concerning the need for greater interstate cooperation related to graduate education, there appears to be far less agreement concerning the agencies proper role in addressing this need. Those who believe that compact agencies should mount ambitious new initiatives related to graduate education assume that current political and economic 30 conditions are favorable for an increase in graduate related activity. Those who are less Optimistic about the potential for developing new program initiatives in this area emphasize that states and institutions are most protective of their prerogatives related to graduate edu- cation and that graduate education is generally the most conservative and traditional component Of the higher edu- cation enterprise. Both perspectives are limited by the lack of available information concerning compact board and constituent group support for the various potential programs and activities which might conceivably be developed in the area of graduate education. Summary The development of regional higher education compacts is consistent with the historical trend towards broader and more extensive use of the interstate compact clause. Their development was precipitated by the dramatic increase in demand for educational programs and services which followed in the aftermath of World War II. Advocates of the regional compact approach argued that it provided the most effective as well as the most efficient means for meet- ing new levels of educational need. Today the decrease in student enrollments, the leveling off of state and federal support, the dramatic increase in program costs, and the 31 general decrease in public confidence in higher education, suggest new but no less compelling reasons for interstate educational cooperation. Regional higher education compacts are formal agreements between states. Each was ratified by the legislatures of the participating states and signed by the respective governors. Each regional compact is governed by a compact policy board or commission and each is admin- istered by a permanent Operating agency. Regional compacts have no authority or control over the policies or practices of either states or institutions. Their influence is measured in terms of their ability to persuade rather than their power to command. They rely heavily upon their own ability to identify and develop support for their regional programs and services. The develOpment Of con- census among those whom they serve is described by compact agency staff members as one of their most important as well as most difficult tasks. Each regional higher education compact performs essentially the same general programmatic functions. These include: (1) development and administration of interstate cooperative programs, (2) research related to the needs of postsecondary education, (3) consultation and information sharing with state governmental and educational leaders, (4) collection of data in relation to the postsecondary 32 educational enterprise, and (5) planning activities related to the future of higher education in the region. Regional compacts have not historically had a strong programmatic commitment to the area of graduate education as defined in this study. Emphasis has instead been in areas of professional education such as medicine, dentistry, and health related sciences. While regional compact staff members generally acknowledge a need for greater interstate cooperation related to graduate education, there is substan- tial disagreement concerning the potential of the regional compact to meet this need. To date, there has been no systematic effort on the part of any regional compact agency to identify the nature and extent of constituent support for graduate related program initiatives. Each agency acknowledges that this information is essential to any new or expanded compact commitment in the area of graduate education. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study is to examine the attitudes of regional, state, and institutional represen- tatives concerning the potential role of regional higher education compacts in the development Of greater interstate COOperation related to graduate education. In order to accomplish this purpose, the survey research approach was used to collect and analyze data from respondents repre- senting these three levels of regional compact involvement.1 Population and Sample Four target populations were selected for use in this study, each representing either the regional, state, 1Des Raj describes the legitimacy of the survey research approach for this type of inquiry. He writes, "Sample survey . . . has now come to be recognized as an organized instrument of fact finding. Its importance to modern civilization lies in the fact that it can be used to summarize, for the guidance of administration, facts which would otherwise be inaccessible owing to the remoteness or obscurity of the units involved or their numerousness. As a fact finding agency, a sample survey is concerned with the accurate ascertainment Of facts recorded and with their com- pilation and summarization." Des Raj, The Design of Sample Surveys (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972). , 33 34 or institutional level of postsecondary educational jurisdiction. Regional Level Regional higher education compact board and commission members were selected as the target pOpulation representing the regional perspective. This choice was appropriate in view of the fact that the three regional compact governing bodies set regional compact policy and review all major program initiatives as pr0posed by the compact agency. Any major new commitments in the area of graduate education would require their approval and support. It was decided to include all 150 regional compact board and commission members in the research design. Thus, the sample and the target population are the same. Table 1 gives a breakdown of the board and commission members by regional compact affiliation. Table 1. Distribution Of regional compact board and commission members by compact affiliation Regional Compact Number Percent SREB 69 0.46 WICHE 39 0.26 NEBHE 42 0.28 Total 150 1.00 35 Current membership lists, including names and addresses were available for all three regional compact (governing bodies. Therefore, no major sampling frame problems were encountered. In the few cases where the addresses of board members had changed, the new location was identified and the questionnaire forwarded. State Level The identification of a target population repre- sentative of the statewide perspective presented no major problems. All of the thirty-three states embraced by regional higher education compacts have established state- wide boards with governing or coordinating responsibilities for all public institutions of higher education. Although the formal authority of these boards vary from state to state, each is constituted to reflect a statewide perspec- tive in the area of postsecondary education. The chief executive Officer of each of the thirty-three boards was identified as a member of the target population and each was included in the study. A current list of all members of the target pOpula- tion was available from the Association of State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO). This list contained the name and current address Of each member and therefore no sampling frame problems were encountered. 36 Institutional Level The chief executive officers of both public and private colleges and universities offering graduate degrees and located in a compact region were chosen as the two target populations representative of the institutional perspective. It was evident that a complete list of all such institutions was of primary importance in obtaining the names of the individuals included in these populations. The United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare publishes a semiannual Higher Education Directogy which lists all institutions of higher education in the United States. In addition to the name and address of each institution, the following information is provided: 1. Type of control (public or private, with religious affiliation, where appropriate); 2. Type of institution (university, liberal arts college, teachers college, technological institute, military academy, junior college, seminary, professional school); 3. Highest level Of degree offering; 4. Type of accreditation; and 5. Name of the chief executive Officer. The complete listing of all institutions located in compact member states was reviewed in the 1972-73 Directory 37 Of Higher Education and all schools offering graduate degrees were identified. Keeping in mind that this study is concerned with graduate education in the arts and sciences and other related areas, the following three categories were excluded at the outset: l. Institutions not accredited by a major accrediting association; 2. Private seminaries existing for the sole purpose of training persons for a particular religious order or denomination; and 3. Private and public specialized professional schools (art institutes, music academies, technological institutes, and graduate schools for the professions such as foreign service or medical specialties). Each campus in a multi-campus system was included if it had a separate chief executive officer and met the criteria mentioned above. Some problems were encountered regarding the use Of the sampling frame. First, there were likely to be changes in both chief executive officers and institutional classifi- cation between the 1973 publication date of the frame and the date of this study. A check with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare provided no solution for this problem other than contacting each institution. The cost involved in this alternative was prohibitive and so no 38 update of the frame was accomplished. Second, a problem of duplication existed when the same chief executive officer presided over more than one campus. This was solved by using only the main campus when confronted with a multi- campus situation of this nature. The resulting target populations consisted of 214 chief executive officers from public graduate institutions and 156 chief executive Officers from private graduate institutions. Because analysis of the data involves various population breakdowns, the decision was made to include all members of both pOpulations in the sample. A breakdown of the two institutional level populations is provided below. Table 2. Distribution of graduate institutions by compact affiliation and institutional control Control SREB WICHE NEBHE Total Public 127 65 22 214 Private 56 51 49 156 Total 183 116 71 370 39 Multiple Membership in the Target Populationg Approximately 40 individuals in the study were identified as members of more than one of the four target populations. For example, a person might be both a compact board member and a state higher education executive officer. Because each of the four target populations will be analyzed Separately, data from individuals with multiple membership was duplicated and included in each membership category. For example, the person who is both a regional compact board member and state higher education executive officer will have the data from his single questionnaire duplicated and included in each category. Methods of Data Collection Written questionnaires were used to collect data from regional, state, and institutional representatives concerning the potential role of regional higher education compacts in graduate education. In addition, background information was collected through personal interviews conducted with staff members from the three regional compact agencies. Background Interviews A considerable amount of background information was collected from interviews with each of the three regional 40 compact agency chief administrative Officers and selected members of their agency staffs. It was assumed by the researcher that the success of the study depended in large part upon his familiarity with the structure and process of the three regional compact agencies. In order to develop this familiarity, each compact agency was visited in hopes of accomplishing the following objectives: 1. To examine the informal as well as the formal process of develOping interstate COOperation related to higher education. 2. To examine the current status of regional compact agency involvement in programs and services related to graduate education. 3. To examine the attitudes of compact staff members regarding the expansion of their program initiatives related to graduate education. 4. To collect suggestions concerning the form and substance of the survey questionnaire. These compact agency visits took place during the initial stages of the questionnaire development. The result was over 200 pages of dialogue transcribed from 21 tape recorded interviews. Although this information is not systematically reported in the study, it nevertheless provides essential background insight into regional compacts and was vital to the construction of the survey instrument. 41 Much of the collected interview data was used for the development of Chapter II. Surveygggstionnaire Development of the 36 item survey questionnaire was accomplished over a six-month period. During this time, the instrument was frequently altered and revised as the result of critical evaluation by a number of scholars, regional compact administrators, and public policy experts who possessed a familiarity with the three regional higher education compacts and an understanding of the study Objec- tives. These evaluations focused primarily upon the choice of items and response Options, the elimination of words and phrases which might be misinterpreted by respondents located at the three different levels of regional compact involve- ment, and the overall applicability of the instrument to all three regional compact settings. The questionnaire in its final form, along with the accompanying cover letter, can be found in Appendix C. A major problem confronted by the investigator was how to construct the questionnaire in a way that would prompt recipients to respond. This was particularly important in view of the fact that the members of the four target populations are frequent recipients of survey ques- tionnaires. It was decided to include only a minimum number of open ended items and to have all other items of the 42 forced-choice variety. In addition, the number of items was kept to a minimum so that the instrument could be completed in the shortest possible time. All correspondence, including the questionnaires, was printed on paper embossed with the emblem of the Education Commission of the States. Besides being the sponsoring organization for the research, ECS is a national education compact which is generally well known among the members of the four target populations. Finally, the cover letter included with each questionnaire was written by the Director of Higher Education Services at ECS. The following steps were included in the collection of the questionnaire data: First, an introductory letter was sent to each member of the four target populations one week prior to the questionnaire mailing. This letter was intended to introduce the study and its Objectives, indicate the impor- tance of the study, and emphasize the need for the individ- ual's participation. A copy Of this introductory letter can be found in Appendix C. Second, the survey questionnaire, accompanied by the cover letter, was mailed to all members of the four target populations. Questionnaires were printed so as to form a return-addressed, stamped envelope when folded and secured. Although responses were not anonymous, 43 confidentiality was emphasized and a summary of the research findings was promised to each respondent. Third, the first follow-up letter was sent to all members of the target populations three weeks after the first questionnaire was mailed. This letter thanked all those who had responded to the questionnaire and encouraged those who had not responded to please do so as soon as possible. This letter is included in Appendix C. Fourth, a second copy of the survey instrument was sent to all nonrespondents four weeks after the first follow-up. This second COpy of the instrument was accom- panied by a cover letter which again appealed to the importance of the study and the need for the individual's participation. This cover letter is presented in Appendix C. Fifth, because the response rate for regional compact board and commission members did not meet the researcher's expectations, a final follow-up letter was sent only to the nonrespondents in this category. A copy Of the letter is provided in Appendix C. Returns to the Questionnaire Mailings Questionnaires were mailed to 150 regional compact board and commission members, 33 state higher education chief executive Officers, 214 chief executive Officers from 44 public institutions, and 156 chief executive officers from private institutions. Four months elapsed from the time of the first questionnaire mailing to the final cut-Off date for response returns. Table 3 indicates the frequency and percentage distribution of responses for the four populations. Eight questionnaires, including two compact board members, two public institution chief executive officers, and four private institution chief executive Officers, were returned blank and classified as nonusable questionnaires. In each of these eight cases, the individual indicated either a lack of knowledge concerning regional compact programs or a lack of institutional programs which corresponded with the definition of graduate education. Table 3. Percentage and frequency distribution of responses to the survey questionnaire SREB WICHE NEBHE Total Population No. % NO. %. NO. % No. % Compact board 46 66.7 33 84.6 28 66.7 107 71.3 State execs. 14 100.0 11 84.6 6 100.0 31 93.9 Public inst. 92 72.4 54 83.1 18 81.8 164 76.6 Private inst. 25 44.6 27 52.9 21 42.9 73 46.7 45 Procedures for Data Analysis All forced choice items presented in the survey questionnaire were pre-coded when the questionnaire was drafted. All data resulting from open-ended items were coded by numerical categories for transfer from the ques- tionnaire pages to machine punched data cards. This clas- sification of Open-ended responses into numerical categories was performed by the investigator after all responses were received. All coded data were punched on IBM computer cards and all cards were verified for keypunch accuracy. In order to accomplish the research Objectives outlined in Chapter I, statistical analysis includes frequency tabulations for each questionnaire item along with an analysis of these frequencies based upon target population membership and compact affiliation. In addition, chi-square tests for homogeneity were used where apprOpriate. Results of the data analysis are presented in Chapter IV. Summary In Chapter III, a systematic review of the research design and methodology used in the research has been pre- sented. Four target populations, each representing either a regional, state, or institutional level of regional com- pact involvement, were selected for study. They include: 46 regional compact board and commission members, state higher education executive Officers, chief executive Officers of {nrblic graduate institutions, and chief executive officers of pmivate graduate institutions. The sample selected for theeresearch was the same as the population and question- naires were mailed to 150 regional compact board members, 33 state higher education executive officers, 214 public chief executive officers, and 156 private institution chief executive officers. The principal means of data collection was provided by a thirty-six item mailed questionnaire. In addition, background information was gathered through personal interviews conducted with selected members of regional compact agencies. The total questionnaire returns for the research were represented as 71.3 percent for regional compact board members, 93.9 percent for state higher education executive Officers, 76.6 percent for public institution chief execu- tive Officers, and 46.7 percent for private institution chief executive officers. Each questionnaire item was analyzed in relation to the four target pOpulations included in the study. In addi- tion, data were broken down and analyzed by regional compact affiliation. 47 It is now apprOpriate to turn to the actual findings of the study. Chapter IV presents an analysis of the attitudes of individuals representing the regional, state, and institutional perspective concerning the potential role of regional higher education compacts in the development of greater interstate cooperation related to graduate education. CHAPTER IV REPORT AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS This report and analysis of the research findings is organized to correspond with the four survey objectives presented in Chapter I. Accordingly, the first section of this chapter focuses upon the reSponses of regional, state, and institutional representatives1 concerning the overall need for regional and interstate cooperation related to graduate education. Section two examines the perceived overall potential of the regional compact agency to facilitate interstate and regional cooperation related to graduate education. Section three focuses upon the level of perceived need for certain selected graduate related regional educatiOn programs and the likelihood that needed regional programs could be feasibly implemented at the regional compact level. The data presented in this chapter is reported and analyzed by population and not by compact. This was judged appropriate after chi-square tests for homogeneity indicated 1For a detailed description of the four target popu- lations representing the regional, state, and institutional level of regional compact involvement, see Chapter III, pp. 33-39, the section entitled "POpulation and Sample.” 48 49 that, with few exceptions, there were no significant differences in the individual item response patterns of single populations when broken down and compared by compact.2 Significance for the chi-square tests was set at the .05 level. Where significant differences are indicated based upon compact affiliation, they are described in the data analysis. Statistical tables which report all data broken down by compact are provided in Appendix D. Chi-square tests were also used to indicate signif- icant differences between the response patterns of the four target populations for each survey item. Use of chi-square tests in this descriptive manner is widespread. It is justified by assuming that the current population being analyzed is a sample of a larger population over time. Because each of the four target populations in this study experience frequent changes in membership, this assumption seems justified. When differences between populations are described as "significant," this should be understood to mean that the .05 level of significance has been fulfilled. The investigator has chosen to discuss the results of each survey item by combining the percentage distribu- tions for similar response categories. For example, it is 2For a description of the robustness of the chi- square test, see R. C. Lewonstin and J. Feldenstein, "The Robustness of Homogeneity Tests," Biometrics, March 1965, pp. 19-33. 50 noted that 22 percent of the private institution respondents indicated either a considerable or very great familiarity with the higher education compact in their region (see Table 4). In this way, the author hopes to enhance the clarity and conciseness of the data analysis while highlighting those findings which are most important for consideration under each of the research Objectives. The combining of percentage distributions is done only in the textual discussion and not in the tabular presentation of the data. Before proceeding to the major sections of this analysis it is appropriate to comment upon the level of respondent familiarity with regional higher education com- pacts. Members of the state and institutional level target populations were asked to indicate the extent of their familiarity with the regional compact in their region. Compact board and commission members were not asked to respond because it was assumed that they possess substantial compact familiarity. Table 4 presents the results. Over 85 percent of the state level respondents indicated that they had either a considerable or very great familiarity with the higher education compact in their region. In sharp contrast, 35.4 percent Of the public institution respondents and only 22 percent of the private institution respondents indicated either considerable or very great familiarity. 51 .3. v o IRES u «x v.v 0.5H m.oo m.hH Ammv GOHuSuwumcfl mum>flum m.h m.hm v.mv N.© AHQHV :Oflufiuflumcfl OHHndm b.mm 0.0m m.¢a 0.0 Ammv Hm>mH mumum mvfinmwaaamm aufiumwaflfimm wufiumwaflfimm auwHMAHHEmm amouw >Mm> manmuopwmsou oumuoooz 02 HO mapped gmpoumwuommm ma mumum use» no so» nuanz on pommfioo sowumosoo “mama: HmsOHmou can nuw3 mufiHMAHHEMM Mao» mo “souxm on» mnfiuomop sow pasoz 30m: "m Eouw >o>Hsm Op noncommou mo cowusnwnumwp mmmusmunom .v magma 52 Overall Need for Interstate and Regional Cogperation in Graduate Education Respondent attitudes concerning the overall need for interstate and regional OOOperation in graduate education appear to differ significantly according to population membership (see Table 5). Approximately 71 percent of the respondents in both the regional and state level categories indicated that either a considerable or major need exists for graduate related interstate and regional cooperation. In contrast, only 47.8 percent of the respondents in the public institution category indicated the existence of either a considerable or major need. This corresponds with 53.4 percent for their private institution counterparts. As might be expected, officials at the regional and state level perceive a greater overall need for graduate related regional and interstate cooperation than do Offi- cials at the institutional level. What might not be expected is that the overwhelming majority of the respondents at all three levels indicated that at least a moderate need exists. 53 Table 5. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 31: "In general, how would you evaluate the current overall need for interstate and regional cooperation in graduate education?" Little or Moderate Considerable Major NO Need Need Need Need Regional level (105) 4.8 23.8 38.1 33.3 State level (31) 9.7 19.4 48.4 22.6 Public inst. (163) 6.1 46.0 37.4 10.4 Private inst. (73) 2.7 43.8 35.6 17.8 X2 =32.835; P < .05. Potential of the Regional Higher Education Compgct as a Facilitator of Interstate and Regional Cooperation in Graduate Education When members of the four target populations were asked to indicate their attitude concerning the overall potential of the regional compact to facilitate graduate related interstate and regional cooperation, responses were again significantly related to population membership (see Table 6). Approximately two-thirds (67%) of the regional respondents indicated that their compacts possess either considerable or major potential to facilitate graduate related regional and interstate cooperation. Likewise, over 60 percent of the state level respondents described the compacts as having either considerable or major potential for facilitating graduate related cooperation. 54 .8. v o N118.3" «x w.m ¢.mm m.mv N.m Anhv coaufiuflfimcfi mum>flum o.m m.Hm N.Hm m.HH AOQHV Gofluduflwmnw Oflandm h.m m.Hm m.Nm m.m AHMV H0>OH mumum m.Hm m.mm N.mN m.v AMOHV H0>OH chowmmm Hafiusouom Hafiusouoo Heapsouom amaucouom oz Homo: manmuopflmcou oumuoooz HO mauqu =msowumospo opmspmum cw coaumummooo HMGOHmOH can oumumnopsfi mo Houmuflaflomw n no pommsoo coflumosoo “mamas Hmcofimou may no Hafiusouom Ono oumaam>o so» OHOO3 30: .Hmuosom OH: “vm Emufl >o>nsm on noncommon mo soapanaupmwn ommusoonom .m manna 55 In contrast to respondents at the regional and state level, institutional respondents were much less affirmative in evaluating the overall potential of compacts to facil- itate cooperation in graduate education. Respondents in the public institution category had only 36.9 percent of their number indicate that either a considerable or major potential exists. Nearly one-half (48%) of the private institution respondents indicated either considerable or major potential. Evaluation of Selected Regional Programs Related to Graduate Education Each member of the four target pOpulations was asked to evaluate a selected number of possible regional compact programs related to graduate education. The evaluation was in two parts. First, they were asked to indicate the need for such a program in their region. Second, if a need was indicated, they were then asked to rate the feasibility of the program for regional compact involvement. Feasibility was defined as the likelihood that the program could be successfully implemented at the regional compact level. It is important for the reader to keep in mind that ggly_ those persons who first indicated a need (moderate, con- siderable, major) responded to feasibility. The items included in this section of the survey were selected on the basis of input provided by regional 56 compact staff members, public policy experts, and others who are both familiar with the nature of regional compacts and interested in their role in graduate education. In order to facilitate data reporting and analysis, the twenty-six graduate related programs described in the survey instrument have been grouped in five categories. In order of their presentation, these categories include: Interstate Sharing of Programs and Facilities, . Needs and Resources Studies, Planning and Coordinating, Consultation and Information Sharing, and Research and Deve10pment. Interstate Sharingyof Programs and Facilities Members of the regional, state, and institutional level target pOpulations were requested to evaluate the need to provide expanded Opportunities for interstate student access to graduate programs and facilities. Data analysis shows that 72.9 percent of the regional level respondents and 77.4 percent of the state level respondents indicated that either a considerable or major need exists for expand- ing graduate related interstate access (see Table 7). In sharp contrast, only 56.7 percent of the public institution respondents and 54.8 percent of their private institution counterparts indicated either a considerable or major need. 57 Regarding the feasibility of expanding interstate access to graduate programs and facilities, over 80 percent of the respondents in each of the four populations indicated at least some level of feasibility (either somewhat or highly feasible) for regional compact involvement. An examination of the perceived need for increasing interstate student access to graduate programs and facil- ities available at private institutions also uncovers significant differences based upon pOpulation membership (see Table 8). Private institution respondents had 73.3 percent of their number indicate either a considerable or major need for this increased access. This is substantially higher than the correSponding percentages registered by public institution respondents (34.6%), state level re- spondents (40%), and regional level respondents (50%). In addition, the perceived feasibility for increasing access to private institutions was also significantly related to pOpulation membership. One way of stimulating interstate sharing Of academic programs and facilities is through the formation of interinstitutional consortia. When regional, state, and institutional representatives were asked to evaluate the need for promoting the formation of interinstitutional con- sortia at the graduate level, there was little difference in the distribution Of their responses (see Table 9). Between 58 55 and 60 percent of the regional, state, and private institution respondents indicated that either a considerable or major need exists for the promotion of graduate related consortia. This compares with 47.3 percent for the public institution respondents.’ In addition, over 70 percent Of the regional, state, and public institution respondents“ indicated some level of feasibility for the formation of graduate related consortia. Private institution respondents had 59.4 percent of their number indicate some level of feasibility. Still another method for sharing graduate programs and facilities on an interstate basis is through the devel- Opment of regional graduate institutions financed coopera- tively by participating states. The survey data shows that, although the level of perceived need varies significantly between populations, less than one-half of the respondents in each of the four populations believe that there is either a considerable or major need for regional graduate institu- tions (see Table 10). When asked to assess the feasibility 3Public institution respondents showed significant differences when broken down by compact. Approximately 78 percent of the New England group indicated either a consid- erable or major need for graduate related consortia. This compares with 41.5 percent for public institution respond- ents in the West and 44.6 percent for the same group in the South (see Tables in Appendix D). “Again, public institution respondents showed significant differences when broken down by compact (see Tables in Appendix D). 59 of developing regional graduate institutions, the majority of the respondents in each of the four pOpulations indicated that it is either somewhat or highly unfeasible.5 A third method for facilitating the sharing of grad- uate related academic resources is through the development of electronic communication systems to link institutions for the cooperative sharing of educational resources related to graduate scholarship and research. Approximately 58 percent Of the state level respondents and 59 percent of the regional level respondents indicated that either a considerable or major need exists for the develOpment of this type of com- munication facility (see Table 11). Less than one-half of both public and private institution respondents indicated that either a considerable or major need exists. When asked to evaluate the feasibility of develOping interinstitutional electronic communication systems, nearly 70 percent Of both the regional and private institution respondents indicated some level of feasibility. This compares to 53.3 percent for state level respondents and 57.4 percent for respondents at the public institution level. sBoth state level and private institution level re- spondents showed significant differences when broken down by compact (see Tables in Appendix D). In both cases, respond- ents from New England indicated a higher degree of feasibil- ity than did respondents from either the South or the West. This may be due to the fact that the New England Board is currently developing plans for a regional veterinary college which has received wide publicity throughout the region. Table 7. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 5: II To provide expanded opportunities for interstate student access to graduate programs and facilities." NO Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (107) 3.7 23.4 35.5 37.4 State level (31) 0.0 22.6 35.5 41.9 Public inst. (164) 4.3 39.0 28.7 28.0 Private inst. (73) 15.1 30.1 30.1 24.7 X2 =25.07l; p < .05 Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (103) . 17.5 38.8 41.7 State level (31) 16.1 35.5 48.4 Public inst. (157) . 18.5 54.8 25.5 Private inst. (62) 1.6 17.7 59.7 21.0 X2 =16.821; P > .05. 61 Table 8. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 27: "To develop procedures for increasing student access to graduate programs and facilities available at private institutions." NO Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (104) 23.1 26.9 29.8 20.2 State level (30) 10.0 50.0 23.3 16.7 Public inst. (162) 26.5 38.9 25.3 9.3 Private inst. (71) 7.0 19.7 29.6 43.7 x2 =51.225; P < .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (80) 5.0 25.0 51.2 18.8 State level (27) 51.9 29.6 14.8 Public inst. (117) 3.4 25.6 59.0 12.0 Private inst. (65) 3.1 18.5 46.2 32.3 X2 =22.386; P < .05. 62 Table 9. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 14: "To promote the formation of interinstitutional consortia at the graduate level." NO Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (103) 4.9 36.9 38.8 19.4 State level (30) . 36.7 36.7 23.3 Public inst. (163) 8.6 44.2 31.3 16.0 Private inst. (72) .2 40.3 31.9 23.6 x2=6.748; P>.05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (98) 23.5 56.1 18.4 State level (29) . 20.7 65.5 13.8 Public inst. (148) . 26.4 55.4 15.5 Private inst. (69) 7.2 33.3 46.4 13.0 X2=9.286; P>.05. 63 Table 10. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 15: "To promote the develOpment of regional graduate institutions financed cooperatively by participating states." NO Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (107) 36.4 22.4 18.7 22.4 State level (31) 22.6 41.9 25.8 9.7 Public inst. (164) 45.7 30.5 15.9 7.9 Private inst. (71) 42.3 29.6 16.9 11.3 X2 = 20.228; P < .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (68) 22.1 33.8 29.4 14.7 State level (24) 33.3 37.5 20.8 8.3 Public inst. (87) 21.8 40.2 34.5 3.4 Private inst. (39) 23.1 35.9 28.2 12.8 x2=8.847; P>.05. 64 Table 11. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 11: "To promote the development of electronic communication systems to link institutions for cooperative sharing of educational resources related to graduate scholarship and research." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (105) 4.8 36.2 39.0 20.0 State level (31) 3.2 38.7 48.4 9.7 Public inst. (164) 12.8 39.6 26.8 20.7 Private inst. (72) 16.7 34.7 27.8 20.8 X2 =16.383; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (100) . 28.0 55.0 14.0 State level (30) . 40.0 40.0 13.3 Public inst. (143) . 35.7 39.9 17.5 Private inst. (61) . 34.4 42.6 19.7 x2=8.240; P>.os. 65 Table 12. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 25: "To promote the development of regional cooperative programs directed at securing additional funding for certain graduate programs and facilities." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (105) 6.7 34.3 33.3 25.7 State level (31) 32.3 48.4 16.1 Public inst. (163) . 27.0 35.6 29.4 Private inst. (73) . 23.3 39.7 28.8 X2 =6.699; P >.05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (98) 3.1 31.6 51.0 14.3 State level (30) 6.7 33.3 46.7 13.3 Public inst. (150) 4.7 22.0 59.3 14.0 Private inst. (67) 7.5 34.3 34.3 23.9 x2=14~5113 P >.os. 66 It has been suggested that one method of approaching the increasingly difficult problem of funding related to graduate education is to develop regional cooperative pro- grams directed at securing additional funding for certain graduate programs and facilities. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents in the state and institutional categories indicated either a considerable or major need for such cooperative funding programs (see Table 12). Regional level respondents had 59 percent of their number indicate the existence of either a considerable or major need. In addition, 65.3 percent of the regional level respondents and 60 percent of the state level respondents indicated that the development of regional cooperative programs directed at securing additional graduate related funding has some degree of feasibility. It is interesting to note that 73.3 percent of the public institution respondents believe that the development of such programs has some degree Of feasibility. This compares to 58.2 percent for their private institution counterparts. Needs and Resources Studies A necessary component in the assessment of regional educational needs and resources is an accurate inventory of the programs and facilities currently in existence. Over two-thirds of the respondents in each of the regional, state, and institutional populations indicated that either 67 a considerable or major need exists for a current and comprehensive inventory of graduate programs and facilities in the region6 (see Table 13). In addition, over 90 percent of the respondents in each of the four populations indicated at least some degree of feasibility for maintaining a grad- uate related program and facility inventory at the regional compact level. When members of the four target populations were requested to evaluate the need for research aimed at assess- ing manpower needs which require education at the graduate level, again over two-thirds of the respondents in each of the four populations indicated that either a considerable or major need exists (see Table 14). When evaluating the feasibility of conducting graduate related manpower studies at the regional compact level, 80 percent of the public institution respondents indicated some level of feasibility. This figure compares with 71.3 percent for regional level respondents, 62.1 percent for state level reSpondents, and 70.3 percent for respondents in the private institution category. 6Public institution respondents showed significant differences when broken down by compact. These differences are most pronounced among those indicating that there is a major need for a graduate related regional inventory of programs and facilities. Approximately 61 percent of the New England respondents indicated a major need. This com- pares with 38 percent for Southern respondents and only 27 percent for respondents from the West (see Tables in Appendix D). 68 Table 13. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 29: "To maintain a current and comprehensive inventory of graduate programs and facilities in the region." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (107) 3.7 24.3 26.2 45.8 State level (31) . 25.8 22.6 48.4 Public inst. (164) . 25.6 29.3 37.2 Private inst. (73) 8.2 21.9 24.7 45.2 x2=5.406; P>.05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (103) 0.0 . 32.0 60.2 State level (30 0.0 . 30.0 63.3 Public inst. (148) 0.0 4.7 39.2 56.1 Private inst. (64) 1.5 0.0 31.3 67.2 x2=ll.902; P>.os. 69 Table 14. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 22: "To promote research aimed at assessing manpower needs which require education at the graduate level." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (106) 4.7 25.5 31.1 38.7 State level (30) 3.3 20.0 40.0 36.7 Public inst. (164) 7.3 23.2 31.7 37.8 Private inst. (72) 11.1 19.4 36.1 33.3 x2 =5.150; - P > .05. Regional level (101) 4.0 24.8 51.5 19.8 State level (29) 3.4 34.5 48.3 13.8 Public inst. (150) 4.7 15.3 52.7 27.3 Private inst. (64) 4.7 25.0 40.6 29.7 x2 =10.800; P > .05. 70 An analysis of the perceived need for regional studies focusing upon the identification of unnecessary interstate duplication of graduate programs and facilities indicates significant differences based upon population membership (see Table 15). State level respondents had 80 percent of their number indicate that either a consid- erable or major need exists for compact involvement in the identification of unnecessary interstate duplication of graduate programs and facilities. This figure compares with 67.3 percent for regional level respondents and 69.9 percent for respondents in,the private institution category. All of these figures compare sharply with the 48.4 percent figure which was registered by respondents in the public institution category. The feasibility of regional compact involvement in the identification of unnecessary interstate duplication of graduate programs and facilities was rated comparatively high by all four population groups. Over 80 percent of the state level respondents and over 70 percent of the regional level respondents indicated some level of feasibility. Over 60 percent of both the public and private institution respondents expressed some level of feasibility. When asked to assess the need for regional studies focusing upon the identification of need for new graduate programs in the region, over 70 percent of the state level 71 respondents and over 65 percent of the regional and institutional level respondents indicated the existence of either a considerable or major need (see Table 16). The feasibility of compact involvement in the identification of need for new programs was also rated comparatively high by all four populations. Over 80 percent of the regional, state, and public institution respondents indicated some level of feasibility. This compares with 73.1 percent for respondents in the private institution category. Interstate Planning and Coordinating Each member of the regional, state, and institu- tional target populations was asked to evaluate the need for long-range planning related to the future development of graduate education in the region. The results indicate that a comparatively high percentage of the respondents from each of the four populations believe that there is either a considerable or major need for graduate related regional planning (see Table 17). Approximately 86 percent of the regional level respondents, 87 percent of the state level respondents, 76 percent of the public institutions respondents,’ and 79 percent of the private institution 7Public institution respondents showed significant differences when broken down by compact. Approximately 67 percent of the New England respondents in this category indicated a major need. This compares to 43.5 percent for the Southern respondents and only 22.6 percent for Western respondents (see Tables in Appendix D). 72 respondents indicated the existence of either a considerable or major need. In addition, 80.5 percent of the regional respondents, 87.1 percent of the state respondents, 74.7 percent of the public institution respondents, and 79.7 percent of the private institution respondents indicated some level of feasibility for compact agency involvement in graduate related regional planning. When respondents were requested to evaluate the need to coordinate institutional offerings at the inter- state level to help prevent unnecessary proliferation and duplication of graduate programs, significant differences occurred based upon population membership (see Table 18). At the regional level, 76.2 percent of the respondents acknowledged that there is either a considerable or major need for this type of interstate coordination. At the state level, the comparative figure was even higher as over 80 percent indicated either a considerable or major need. In sharp contrast, only 51.2 percent of the public insti- tution respondents indicated the existence of either a considerable or major need. This corresponds with 65.3 percent for their private institution counterparts.° A comparison of only those who indicated a major need for aPrivate institution respondents showed significant differences when broken down by compact. For example, over 71 percent of the New England respondents indicated a major need. This compares with 37 percent in the West and 20 percent in the South (see Tables in Appendix D). 73 graduate level interstate coordination, uncovers even greater differences between the four populations. Over 40 percent of the regional, state, and private institution respondents acknowledged a major need. This contrasts with only 18.9 percent for public institution respondents. In addition, over 60 percent Of the regional, state, and public institution respondents acknowledged some level of feasi- bility for graduate program coordination at the regional compact level. This compares sharply with only 46.7 percent for the private institution respondents. Another form of potential regional coordination involves the coordination of institutional offerings at the interstate level to facilitate joint financing of high cost graduate programs and facilities. When regional, state, and institutional representatives were asked to evaluate the need for this type of interstate coordination, their responses again differed based upon population membership (see Table 19). At the regional level, 74.3 percent of the respondents acknowledged the existence of either a consider— able Or major need for this form of interstate coordination. State level respondents had 80.7 percent of their number indicate the existence of either a considerable or major need. In contrast, 57.7 percent of the public institution respondents and 61.1 percent Of the private institution 74 respondents’ indicated either a considerable or major need. The perceived feasibility of this form of interstate coordination was acknowledged to be comparatively low by respondents from each of the four target populations." Consultation and Information Sharing Each member of the regional, state, and insti- tutional populations was asked to assess the need to keep state legislators and governors informed concerning issues and alternatives related to graduate education. Over 76 percent of the respondents in each of the regional and institutional categories indicated that either a conside- erable or major need exists. The corresponding figure for state level respondents was 66.6 percent (see Table 20). When asked to assess the feasibility of this information activity for regional compact involvement, 86 percent of the regional respondents, 74.1 percent of the state respondents, 79.6 percent of the public institution respondents, and 88.2 percent of the private institution respondents acknowledged some level of feasibility. ’Private institution respondents indicated significant differences when broken down by compact. Respondents from the Southern region indicated substantially less need than did respondents from either the West or New England (see Tables in Appendix D). 1"Public institution respondents differ significantly when broken down by compact. For example, 44.4 percent of the New England respondents indicate a major need. This compares to only 27.8 percent for the West and only 22 percent for the South (see Tables in Appendix D). Table 15. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 18: "To assist in the identification of unnecessary interstate duplication of graduate programs and facilities." j 1 NO Moderate Considerable .Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (107) 11.2 21.5 27.1 40.2 State level (30) 6.7 13.3 36.7 43.3 Public inst. (163) 19.6 31.9 28.8 19.6 Private inst. (73) 12.3 17.8 31.5 38.4 x2=25.280; P< .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (95) 4.2 20.0 46.3 29.5 State level (28) 0.0 17.9 46.4 35.7 Public inst. (127) 7.9 29.9 44.1 18.1 Private inst. (64) 10.9 23.4 35.9 29.7 X2 =13.560; P >.05. 76 Table 16. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 21: "To assist in the identification of need for new graduate programs in the region." NO Moderate Considerable .Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (106) 6.6 24.5 34.9 34.0 State level (31) 6.5 22.6 41.9 29.0 Public inst. (163) 4.3 30.1 33.1 32.5 Private inst. (73) 8.2 26.0 35.6 30.1 X2 =3.433; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (99) 0.0 19.2 53.5 27.3 State level (29) 0.0 17.2 55.2 27.6 Public inst. (154) 1.3 16.9 59.1 22.7 Private inst. (67) 4.5 22.4 38.8 34.3 x2 =13.022; P > .05. Table 17. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 8: "To engage in long-range planning related to the future develop- ment of graduate education in the region." T —‘_—* J ’— —— ’ No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (106) 2. 11.3 38.7 47.2 State level (31) 0. 12.9 45.2 41.9 Public inst. (163) 5.5 18.4 36.8 39.3 Private inst. (73) 5.5 15.1 38.4 41.1 x2 =6.375; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (103) 1.9 17.5 55.3 25.2 State level (31) 3.2 9.7 58.1 29.0 Public inst. (154) 0.6 24.7 50.0 24.7 Private inst. (69) 7.2 13.0 52.2 27.5 x2=l4.695; P>.05. 78 Table 18. Percentage distribution Of responses to survey item 6: "TO coordinate institutional Offerings at the interstate level to help prevent unnecessary proliferation and duplication Of graduate programs." No Moderate Considerable Maj or Need Need Need Need Regional level (105) 4.8 19.0 30.5 45.7 State level (30) 3.3 16.7 33.3 46.7 Public inst. (164) 15.9 32.9 32.3 18.9 Private inst. (72) 13.9 20.8 23.6 41.7 X2 =35.560; P < .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (101) 7.9 28.7 38.6 24.8 State level (29) 6.9 31.0 48.3 13.8 Public inst. (139) 5.8 32.4 50.4 11.5 Private inst. (62) 12.9 40.3 30.6 16.1 x2 =15.404; P > .05. 79 Table 19. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 7: "To coordinate institutional offerings at the interstate level to facilitate joint financing of high cost graduate programs and facilities." No Moderate Cons iderable Maj or Need Need Need Need Ragional level (105) 5.7 20.0 29.5 44.8 State level (31) 0.0 19.4 48.4 32.3 Public inst. (163) 7.4 35.0 32.5 25.2 Private inst. (72) 12.5 26.4 25.0 36.1 x2=22.969; P<.05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (99) 10.1 29.3 47.5 13.1 State level (30) 13.3 36.7 46.7 3.3 Public inst. (152) 9.9 37.5 41.4 11.2 Private inst. _ (63) 15.9 36.5 39.7 7.9 x2=6.310; p>.os. Table 20. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 4: "To keep state legislators and governors informed concerning issues and alternatives related to graduate education." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (104) 3.8 20.2 33.7 42.3 State level (30) 10.0 23.3 53.3, 13.3 Public inst. (162) 3.1 18.5 36.4 42.0 Private inst. (72) 5.6 18.1 40.3 36.1 x2=12.020; P>.05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (100) 13.0 50.0 36.0 State level (27) . 25.9 51.9 22.2 Public inst. (157) 18.5 51.6 28.0 Private inst. (68) 1. 10.3 63.2 .25.0 x2=9.o74; P >.05. 81 When members of the four target populations were requested to evaluate the need to assist the federal govern- ment to better understand the issues and alternatives facing graduate education in the region, interesting differences resulted between populations (see Table 21). Approximately 71 percent of the regional respondents and 61 percent of the state respondents indicated that there exists either a con- siderable or major need for this form of assistance to the federal government. Although both figures are relatively high, the figures at the institutional level are even higher. Approximately 80 percent of the public institution respond- ents and 79 percent of the respondents from the private institutions acknowledged either a considerable or major need. In addition, over 70 percent of the respondents in each of the four pOpulations indicated some level of feasibility for regional compact involvement. Each member of the four target populations was asked to evaluate the need to better inform the general public about the benefits (both individual and social) of graduate education. Again, interesting differences resulted between populations (see Table 22). Approximately 55 percent of the regional respondents and 50 percent of the state respondents indicated either a considerable or major need. In rather sharp contrast, 74.4 percent of the public institution respondents and 65.7 percent of the private institution respondents acknowledged either a considerable or major need. 82 Table 21. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 10: "To assist the federal government to better understand the issues and alternatives facing graduate education in the region." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (106) 6.6 22.6 37.7 33.0 State level (31) 6. 32.3 35.5 25.8 Public inst. (163) 16.0 32.5 47.9 Private inst. (73) 4. 16.4 30.1 49.3 x2=13.o49; P>.05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (98) 4. 25.5 55.1 15.3 State level (29) 24.1 44.8 27.6 Public inst. (156) 5.8 16.7 50.0 27.6 Private inst. (70) 2.9 18.6 45.7 32.9 x2=10.498; P> .05. 83 Table 22. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 9: ”To better inform the general public about the benefits (both individual and social) of graduate education." No Moderate Considerable Maj or Need Need Need Need Regional level (107) 11.2 33.6 28.0 27.1 State level (30) 13.3 36.7 30.0 20.0 Public inst. (164) 6.7 18.9 36.0 38.4 Private inst. (73) 12.3 21.9 34.2 31.5 x2=15.783; P>.05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (95) 5.3 25.3 50.5 18.9 State level (26) . 19.2 53.8 19.2 Public inst. (151) 2. 21.2 49.0 27.8 Private inst. (64) 0.0 29.7 37.5 32.8 x2 =13.153; P > .05. 84 In addition, over 70 percent of the respondents in each of the state and institutional categories indicated some level of feasibility for this public information activity at the regional compact level. This corresponds to 69.4 percent for respondents at the regional level. Each member of the four target populations was asked to evaluate the need to provide consultation and assistance to state higher education agencies charged with planning and coordinating graduate education. The results indicate that a substantial percentage of the respondents in each of the four groups believe this to be either a considerable or major need (see Table 23). State level respondents had 74.2 percent of their number indicate either a considerable or major need. They were followed by private institution respondents (72.3%), regional level respondents (68.8%), and respondents from public institutions (61.4%).11 In addition, a comparatively high percentage of the respondents in each of the four populations indicated at least some level of feasibility for regional compact involvement in this area of consultation and assistance. Over 93 percent 11Public institution respondents differ significantly when broken down by compact. For example, 44.4 percent of the New England respondents indicate a major need. This compares to only 27.8 percent for the West and only 22 percent for the South (see Tables in Appendix D). 85 of the respondents at the state level indicated some level of feasibility. They were followed in order by public institution respondents12 (81.5%), regional respondents (80.5%), and respondents from private institutions (78.8%). Regarding assistance to students, each member of the four populations was asked to assess the need to provide better information to potential students regarding graduate programs and institutions. Approximately 67 percent of both the regional and state level respondents acknowledged the existence of either a considerable or major need for this type of student information program (see Table 24). This compares with 57.9 percent for public institution respond- ents and 60.3 percent for their private institution count- erparts. When asked to assess the feasibility of such a program for regional compact involvement, over 84 percent of the regional, state, and public institution respondents indicated some level of feasibility. Respondents from pri- vate institutions had 79.3 percent of their number indicate some level of feasibility. When asked to evaluate the need to make available current and reliable information about graduate student financial assistance programs, respondents from each of 12Public institution respondents again differ significantly according to pOpulation membership. Respondents from New England appear to rank feasibility significantly lower than the respondents from either the South or the West (see Tables in Appendix D). 86 the four target populations indicated a comparatively high level of need (see Table 25). Over 64 percent of both the regional and state respondents, and over 72 percent of both the public and priVate institutional respondents, acknowl- edged either a considerable or major need for this type of student information program. In addition, nearly 90 percent of the respondents in each of the four populations indicated some level of feasibility for regional compact involvement. Each population member was also asked to evaluate the need for assisting institutions to identify able members of minority groups and women for recruitment as graduate faculty and students. Approximately 55 percent of the regional respondents and 53 percent of the state level respondents thought that either a considerable or major need exists for such a program (see Table 26). The corre- sponding percentages for both institutional categories are considerably higher. Approximately 66 percent of the public institution respondents and 71 percent of the private insti- tution respondents indicated either a considerable or major need. The feasibility of such a program for regional com- pact involvement was also ranked highest by the institu- tional level respondents. Those from public institutions had 84.6 percent of their number indicate some level of feasibility and this compares with 81.3 percent for their private institution counterparts. Approximately 74 percent 87 of the state respondents and 69 percent of the regional respondents indicated some level of feasibility Research and Development Each member of the regional, state, and insti- tutional target populations was requested to evaluate the need for research efforts designed to develOp appropriate measures of quality to be used in evaluating existing graduate programs. Analysis of the data suggests that perceived need is comparatively high for all four pOpu- lations (see Table 27). Approximately 72 percent of the regional respondents and 83 percent of the state level respondents acknowledged that either a considerable or major need exists for such qualitative measures. At the institutional level, 69.3 percent of the public respondents and 57.6 percent of the private respondents13 indicated either a considerable or major need. When judging the feasibility of develOping such measures at the regional compact level, over 60 percent of the regional, state, and public institution respondents indicated the existence of some level of feasibility. This compares to 50 percent of the private institution respondents. 13Private institution respondents differed significantly when broken down by compact. Southern respondents were far less affirmative in their assessment of need than were the respondents from the West or East. Southern respondents had 32 percent of their number indicate that there is no need while only 12 percent indicated a major need (see Tables in Appendix D). 88 Table 23. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 24: "To provide consultation and assistance to state higher education agencies charged with planning and coordinating graduate education." No Moderate Considerable .Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (106) 8.5 22.6 35.8 33.0 State level (31) 6.5 19.4 35.5 38.7 Public inst. (163) 9.8 28.8 35.0 26.4 Private inst. (72) 8.3 19.4 41.7 30.6 X2 = 5.366; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (97) 2.1 17.5 48.5 32.0 State level (29) 0.0 6.9 51.7 41.4 Public inst. (146) 3.4 15.1 56.2 25.3 Private inst. (66) 4.5 16.7 40.9 37.9 X2 =9.276; P > .05. Table 24. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 12: "To provide better information to potential students regarding graduate programs and institutions." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (107) 5.6 27.1 38.3 29.0 State level (31) 6.5 25.8 41.9 25.8 Public inst. (164) 11.0 31.1 31.1 26.8 Private inst. (73) 15.1 24.7 35.6 24.7 X2 =7.266; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (101) 0.0 15.8 48.5 35.6 State level (29) 0.0 10.3 58.6 31.0 Public inst. (143) 0.0 12.6 45.5 42.0 Private inst. (63) 1.6 19.0 47.6 31.7 X2 =8.67l; P > .05. 90 Table 25. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 17: "To make available current and reliable information about graduate student financial assistance programs." No Moderate Considerable .Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (106) 8.5 27.4 30.2 34.0 State level (29) 13.8 20.7 37.9 27.6 Public inst. (164) 5.5 20.1 41.5 32.9 Private inst. (73) 8.2 19.2 24.7 47.9 X2 =13.559; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level “(97) 2.1 6.2 55.7 36.1 State level (25) 0.0 12.0 48.0 40.0 Public inst. (155) 1.3 6.5 49.7 42.6 Private inst. (67) 1.5 9.0 32.8 56.7 X2 = 10.496; P > .05. 91 Table 26. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 26: "To assist institutions to identify able members of minority groups and women for recruitment as graduate faculty and students." No Moderate Considerable Maj or Need Need Need Need Regional level (106) 18.9 26.4 27.4 ‘ 27.4 State level (30) 20.0 26.7 30.0 23.3 Public inst. (164) 12.2 21.3 26.2 40.2 Private inst. (72) 9.7 19.4 31.9 38.9 X2 = 10.301; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (84) 3.6 27.4 48.8 20.2 State level (23) 0.0 26.1 56.5 17.4 Public inst. (143) 2.8 12.6 55.9 28.7 Private inst. (64) 0.0 18.8 46.9 34.4 X2 =14.37s; P > .05. Table 27. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 19: "To assist in the development of appropriate measures of quality to be used in evaluating existing graduate programs." No Moderate Cons iderable Maj or Need Need Need Need Regional level (107) 11.2 16.8 37.4 34.6 State level (30) 13.3 3.3 36.7 46.7 Public inst. (163) 11.7 19.0 33.7 35.6 Private inst. (73) 20.5 21.9 32.9 24.7 x2=11.753; P>.05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (94) 11.7 27.7 51.1 9.6 State level (26) 11.5 23.1 50.0 15.4 Public inst. (142) 9.2 26.1 47.9 16.9 Private inst. (58) 19.0 31.0 34.5 15.5 — x2 =8.452; P > .05. 93 When population members were asked to assess the need for research efforts designed to develop measures of productivity and efficiency for use in evaluating existing graduate programs, the results differed significantly based upon population membership (see Table 28). State level respondents had 83.3 percent of their number indicate that either a considerable or major need exists for such uniform measures. The corresponding figure at the regional level was only 61.9 percent. At the institutional level, 58.4 percent of the public institution respondents and 43 percent of the private institution respondents acknowledged either a considerable or major need. Regarding the feasibility of developing graduate related productivity and efficiency measures at the regional level, 55.3 percent of the regional respondents and 57.1 percent of the state respondents indi- cated some level of feasibility. At the institutional level, the corresponding figures were 57.2 percent for public institution respondents and only 33.3 percent for their private institution counterparts. Members of the four target pOpulations were also asked to evaluate the need for research studies designed to develop guidelines for apportioning the cost of graduate education between the student and society. Data analysis shows that close to 60 percent of the respondents from each of the regional, state, and private institutional categories 94 indicated either a considerable or major need for this type of research effort (see Table 29). Approximately 54 percent of the public institution respondents indicated either a considerable or major need. In addition, 58.5 percent of the regional respondents and 66.6 percent of the state respondents indicated some level of feasibility for regional compact involvement in this type of research program. Public institution respondents had 72.4 percent of their number indicate some level of feasibility while the figure for private institutions was 55.2 percent. When members of the four target populations were asked to evaluate the need for developing cooperative pro— grams designed to aid faculty professional development at graduate institutions, approximately 55 percent of the respondents from each of the four groups indicated the existence of either a considerable or major needl“ (see Table 30). Further, over 70 percent of the respondents in each of the regional, state, and institutional categories acknowledged some level of feasibility for regional compact involvement in this type of faculty develOpment program. The comparative figure for private institutions is 60 percent. 1"Private institution respondents evidenced some significant differences when compared by compact. Respond- ents from the New England region acknowledged less need for such programs than respondents from either the South or West (see Tables in Appendix D). 95 Table 28. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 20: "To assist in the development of uniform measures of productivity and efficiency for use in evaluating existing graduate programs." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (105) 19.0 19.0 38.1 23.8 State level (30) 6.7 10.0 50.0 33.3 Public inst. (163) 17.2 24.5 34.4 23.9 Private inst. (72) 30.6 26.4 23.6 19.4 x2=17.647; P<.05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (85) 9.4 35.3 41.2 14.1 State level (28) 17.9 25.0 50.0 7.1 Public inst. (133) 12.8 30.1. 44.4 12.8 Private inst. (51) 33.3 33.3 23.5 9.8 X2=19~724z P<.05. 96 Table 29. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 16: "To assist in the development of guidelines for apportioning the cost of graduate education between the student and society." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (106) 11.3 26.4 34.0 28.3 State level (30) 10.0 30.0 40.0 20.0 Public inst. (164) 14.0 32.3 25.6 28.0 Private inst. (72) 6.9 30.6 27.8 34.7 x2=7.478; P>.05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (94) 6.4 35.1 46.8 11.7 State level (27) 0.0 33.3 44.4 22.2 Public inst. (138) 5.1 22.5 53.6 18.8 Private inst. (67) 14.9 29.9 34.3 20.9 2 18.436; P < .05. X ll Table 30. 97 Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 13: I! TO assist in the development of cooperative programs designed to aid faculty professional development at graduate institutions." No Moderate Considerable Mbjor Need Need Need Need Regional level (102) 7.8 38.2 38.2 15.7 State level (30) 10.0 33.3 43.3 13.3 Public inst. (164) 9.1 35.4 38.4 17.1 Private inst. (73) 9.6 35.6 37.0 17.8 x2=0-997: P>.05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (93) 1.1 28.0 62.4 8.6 State level (27) 0.0 29.6 63.0 7.4 Public inst. (148) 23.6 56.1 18.2 Private inst. (65) 6.2 33.8 46.2 13.8 x2=13.771; P>.05. 98 Again relating to faculty development, each population member was asked to assess the need to develop programs designed to help graduate faculty improve their skill as teachers. Approximately 54 percent of the regional respondents and 60 percent of the state respondents indi- cated either a considerable or major need (see Table 31). At the institutional level, the corresponding figures were 56.1 percent for public institution respondents and 69 per- cent for respondents from private institutions. Feasibility was rated comparatively low for this particular program. Regional respondents had 53.4 percent of their number indicate some level of feasibility for regional compact involvement in this form of faculty develOpment activity.15 This compares to 38.4 percent for state level respondents, 58.5 percent for public institution respondents, and 51.6 percent for respondents from private institutions. Each member of the regional, state, and institu- tional pOpulations was also asked to evaluate the need to develop pilot and experimental projects designed to test new teaching-learning techniques for use at the graduate level. Data analysis indicates that 52.9 percent of the regional respondents and only 46.6 percent of the state lsRegional compact respondents showed some signif- icant differences when broken down by compact. Respondents from the Western region gave a generally higher feasibility rating than did respondents from either the South or New England (see Tables in Appendix D). Table 31. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 28: "To assist in the development of programs designed to help graduate faculty improve their skill as teachers." No Moderate Considerable Maj or Need Need Need Need Regional need (104) 14.4 31.7 31.7 22.1 State level (30) 13.3 26.7 43.3 16.7 Public inst. (164) 9.1 34.8 31.1 25.0 Private inst. (71) 9.9 21.1 46.5 22.5 x2=10.145; P>.05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (88) 6.8 39.8 43.2 10.2 State level (26) 11.5 50.0 34.6 3.8 Public inst. (147) 8.8 32.7 44.2 14.3 Private inst. (64) 20.3 28.1 39.1 12.5 x2 =13.531; P > .05. 100 Table 32. Percentage distribution of responses to survey item 23: "To promote the development of pilot and experimental projects designed to test new teaching-learning techniques for use at the graduate level." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level (104) 15.4 31.7 34.6 18.3 State level (30) 13.3 40.0 33.3 13.3 Public inst. (164) 12.2 29.3 34.1 24.4 Private inst. (72) 13.9 37.5 27.8 20.8 X2=4-953; P>.05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level (87) 5.7 33.3 48.3 12.6 State level (26) 7.7 38.5 42.3 11.5 Public inst. (142) 5.6 26.1 53.5 14.8 Private inst. (62) 12.9 30.6 38.7 17.7 x2 =8.207; P > .05. 101 respondents indicated either a considerable or major need (see Table 32). The comparable figures for public and private institution respondents were 58.5 percent and 48.6 percent, respectively. Regarding feasibility, 60.9 percent of the regional respondents and 53.8 percent of the state respondents indicated some level of feasibility for regional compact involvement in the developing of these pilot and experimental projects. This compares to 68.3 percent for public institution respondents and 56.4 percent for respondents in the private institution category. This concludes the report and analysis of the major research findings. In Chapter V, the author summarizes the research study and offers a set of conclusions based upon the research results. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary A relatively recent development in American higher education has been the establishment of regional interstate compacts designed to improve and increase, through inter- state cooperation, the educational Opportunities available to citizens of member states. Three such regional compacts are currently in existence. Identified as The Southern Regional Education Compact, The Western Regional Education Compact, and The New England Higher Education Compact, they represent the most comprehensive and formally organized interstate form of joint planning and resource sharing in American postsecondary education. It has been the purpose of this inquiry to examine the potential role of regional higher education compacts in the development of greater interstate cooperation related to graduate education in the arts and sciences and other related areas. A survey of literature and information collected from regional compact staff members indicate that little has been done to evaluate the possibilities 102 103 for regional compact involvement in this particular sector of postsecondary education. The rapid develOpment and expansion of graduate education prior to 1970 has given way to a period often characterized by increased competition for state funds, a decline in federal support for academic research, increasing program costs coupled with spiraling inflation, and the pro- liferation of academic specializations as knowledge con- tinues to grow at an exponential rate. Faced with these conditions, it has become increasingly more difficult for many states to develop and sustain a complete range of graduate programs and facilities. One approach for address- ing this problem is through interstate educational planning and resource sharing. Regional compact agencies have not traditionally placed a high priority upon program development in the area of graduate education. They have understandably set their priorities to fit the most immediate and urgent needs of their regions. Historically, this has meant a very exten- sive commitment to developing regional education programs in fields of professional education such as medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, and public health related areas. Never- theless, interviews conducted with regional compact staff members indicate substantial concern over the future role of compact agencies in addressing the complex issues currently facing graduate education. 104 The nature and extent of compact agency involvement in graduate education is limited by a variety of organiza- tional factors. First, regional agencies are legally, politically, and financially dependent upon the compacting states. The board or commission to which they report is comprised of representatives from each member state. Second, none of the three compact agencies has any authority or control over the educational policies or practices of individual states or institutions. No legal coercions or sanctions are available to help enforce compliance with their programs and recommendations. Faced with these conditions, the regional compact agencies must seek con- census among affected groups and secure the support and cooperation of persons located at the regional, state, and institutional levels of postsecondary educational jurisdiction. Accordingly, the objectives of this study were to examine the attitudes of regional, state, and institutional representatives concerning: 1. the overall need for regional and interstate co0peration in graduate education. 2. the overall potential of the regional higher education compact agency to facilitate interstate and regional cooperation in graduate education. 105 3. the identification of need for certain specific regional cooperative programs and services related to graduate education, and 4. the likelihood that needed regional programs and services could be feasibly implemented at the regional compact level. Research Design and Methodology In order to accomplish the study objectives, the survey research approach was used to collect and analyze data from four target populations, each representing either the regional, state, or institutional level of regional compact involvement. The four populations included: 150 regional compact board and commission members; 33 state higher education executive officers; 214 chief executive officers from public graduate institutions; and 156 chief executive officers from private graduate institutions. The sample selected was the same as the population and questionnaires were sent to each member of the four target populations. The principal means of data collection was a thirty- six item questionnaire. Development of the instrument included periodic evaluations by a number of scholars, regional compact administrators, and public policy experts who possessed a familiarity with the three regional higher education compacts and an understanding of the study 106 objectives. Five mailings took place over a four month period. They included: an introductory letter explaining the nature of the study and requesting the individual's participation; the survey questionnaire with cover letter from the Education Commission of the States; a first follow- up letter to all members of the four target populations thanking those who had responded and reminding those who had not, to please do so promptly; a second follow-up letter and another c0py of the survey to all nonrespondents; and a final letter sent only to regional compact board and commission members who had not yet responded. The questionnaire response rate for the four target populations was: 71.3 percent for regional compact board (and commission members; 93.9 percent for state higher edu- cation executive officers; 76.6 percent for public institu- tion chief executive officers; and 46.7 percent for chief executive officers from private institutions. Summary of Findings Survey data was reported and analyzed by population and not by compact. This was judged appropriate after chi- square tests indicated that, with few exceptions, there were no significant differences in the response patterns of population members when broken down and compared by compact. Where significant differences were indicated based upon compact affiliation, they were described in the analysis. 107 Significance for the chi-square test was set at the .05 level. Chi-square tests were also used to indicate significant differences between the responses of the four target populations to individual survey items. Again, significance for the chi-square test was set at the .05 level. Overall need for interstate cooperation in graduate education.--Members of the four target populations were asked to indicate their attitude concerning the overall need for interstate and regional cooperation in graduate education. The responses differed significantly according to population membership. Approximately 71 percent of the respondents in both the regional and state level populations indicated that either a considerable or major need exists for graduate related interstate and regional cooperation. In sharp contrast, only 47.8 percent of the public institu- tion respondents and 53.4 percent of the private institution respondents indicated either a considerable or major need. Potential of the regional compact as a facilitator of interstate cooperation in_graduate education.--When members of the four target populations were asked to indi- cate their attitude concerning the overall potential of the regional compact to facilitate graduate related interstate and regional cooperation, responses were again significantly 108 related to population membership. Approximately two-thirds (67%) of the regional respondents indicated that their compacts possess either considerable or major potential to facilitate graduate related regional and interstate cooperation. Similarly, over 60 percent of the state level respondents described the compacts as having either consid- erable or major potential for facilitating graduate related cooperation. In contrast, respondents in the public insti- tution category had only 36.9 percent of their number indicate either a considerable or major potential. This compares with 48 percent for the private institution respondents. Evaluation of specific regional programs related to graduate education.--Each member of the four target populations was asked to evaluate twenty-six graduate related regional prOgrams which could be introduced at the regional compact level. Evaluation was in two parts. First, respondents were asked to indicate the need for such a program in their region. Second, if a need was indicated, they were then asked to rate the feasibility of the program for regional compact involvement. Feasibility was defined as the likelihood that such a program could be successfully implemented at the regional compact level. In order to emphasize those programs for which there is a high level of concensus, the twenty-six graduate 109 related regional programs have beengrouped into four categories based upon the level of need indicated by respondents from each of the four target populations. Group I: One graduate-related regional program described in the survey instrument was acknowledged to be of either considerable or major need by over 70 percent of the respondents in each of the four target populations. In addition, this program was acknowledged to have some degree of feasibility by over 70 percent of the respondents in each of the four populations. The program is listed below. To engage in long-range planning related to the future development of graduate education in the region (survey item 8). Group II: Seven of the graduate related regional programs described in the survey instrument were rated as either a considerable or major need by over 60 percent of the respondents in each of the four target populations. In addition, each of these seven programs was judged to have some level of feasibility by over 70 percent of the respondents from each population category. The seven programs, listed in the order which they appear in the survey, are described below. To keep state legislators and governors informed concerning issues and alternatives related to graduate education (survey item 4). programs were indicated to be target populations. feasibility. 110 To assist the federal government to better understand the issues and alternatives facing graduate education in the region (survey item 10). To make available current and reliable infor- mation about graduate student financial assistance programs (survey item 17). To assist in the identification of need for new graduate programs in the region (survey item 21). To promote research aimed at assessing manpower needs which require education at the graduate level (survey item 22). To provide consultation and assistance to state higher education agencies charged with planning and coordinating graduate education (survey item 24). To maintain a current and comprehensive inventory of graduate programs and facilities in the region (survey item 29). Group III: Eleven of the graduate related regional by over 50 percent of the respondents in each of the four is much greater variability between populations regarding both the level of perceived need and the level of perceived the survey, are described below. To provide expanded Opportunities for inter- state student access to graduate programs and facilities (survey item 5). To coordinate institutional offerings at the interstate level to help prevent unnecessary of considerable or major need Within this group of programs, there The eleven programs, listed as they appear in 111 proliferation and duplication of graduate programs (survey item 6). To coordinate institutional offerings at the interstate level to facilitate joint financing of high cost graduate programs and facilities (survey item 7). To better inform the general public about the benefits (both individual and social) of graduate education (survey item 9). To provide better information to potential students regarding graduate programs and institutions (survey item 12)” To assist in the development of cooperative programs designed to aid faculty professional development at graduate institutions (survey item 13). To assist in the develOpment of guidelines for apportioning the cost of graduate edu- cation between the student and society (survey item 16). To assist in the development of appropriate measures of quality to be used in evaluating existing graduate programs (survey item 19). To promote the development of regional cooperative programs directed at securing additional funding for certain graduate programs and facilities (survey item 25). To assist institutions to identify able members of minority groups and women for recruitment as graduate faculty and students (survey item 26). To assist in the development of programs designed to help graduate faculty improve their skill as teachers (survey item 28). 112 Group IV: Seven of the graduate related regional programs presented in the survey were described as either a considerable or major need by less than 50 percent of the respondents in one or more of the four populations. In this group there is the greatest variability between populations regarding both the level of perceived need and the level of perceived feasibility. The seven programs are listed below in order of their appearance in the survey questionnaire. To promote the development of electronic communication systems to link institutions for cooperative sharing of educational re- sources related to graduate scholarship (survey item 11). To promote the formation of interinstitu— tional consortia at the graduate level (survey item 14). To promote the development of regional graduate institutions financed cooperatively by participating states (survey item 15). To assist in the identification of unnecessary interstate duplication of graduate programs and facilities (survey item 18). To assist in the development of uniform measures of productivity and efficiency for use in evaluating existing graduate programs (survey item 20). To promote the development of pilot and experimental projects designed to test new teaching-learning techniques for use at the graduate level (survey item 23). To develop procedures for increasing student access to graduate programs and facilities available at private institutions (survey item 27). 113 Conclusions Based upon findings of this research, the following conclusions seem appropriate. 1. Interviews with regional compact staff members indicate that interstate cooperation related to graduate education in the arts and sciences and other related areas has not been a major priority for any of the three regional compact agencies. 2. Based upon both the questionnaire response rate and information collected in the background interviews, there is interest at the regional, state, and institutional levels concerning the future role of regional higher educa- tion compacts in graduate education. 3. There is substantial disagreement between regional, state, and institutional level respondents con- cerning the overall need for regional interstate cooperation in graduate education. Respondents at both the regional and state levels generally indicate a much higher need for grad- uate related cooperation than do respondents from either of the two institutional level populations. 4. There is also substantial disagreement between regional, state, and institutional level respondents con- cerning the overall potential of the regional compact to facilitate regional interstate cooperation in graduate education. Respondents from both the regional and state I {11.1,}- A 114 level populations generally indicate a higher level of potential than do the respondents from either of the institutional level pOpulations. 5. There is considerable agreement between regional, state, and institutional level respondents concerning both the need for certain specific graduate related interstate cooperative programs and the feasibility of those programs for regional compact involvement. Eight of the twenty-six programs described in the survey questionnaire were judged to be of either considerable or major need by over 60 per- cent of the respondents in each of the four populations. In addition, these same eight programs were described as having some level of feasibility by over 70 percent of the respondents in each population. An assumption basic to this inquiry is that the successful implementation of regional education programs requires a broad base of agreement among members of the regional, state, and institutional levels of postsecondary educational jurisdiction. The ease with which this broad base of agreement is established is, of course, relative to the degree of controversy involved in the subject matter. This is particularly true when the controversy has economic or political aspects. 115 This study has identified a variety of graduate related regional education programs which are described as both needed and feasible by a substantial majority of the respondents from each of the three levels of post- secondary educational jurisdiction. The results of this inquiry are particularly useful in two different ways. First, the findings provide governmental officials, edu- cational leaders, and others involved in educational policy with valuable insight concerning those graduate related educational needs which might be most effectively addressed at the regional interstate level. Second, the results should be particularly useful in assisting compact agencies to evaluate the nature and extent of any future regional compact involvement in the area of graduate education. APPENDICES APPENDIX A MAP OF REGIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION COMPACTS 0:363. 5253 mussnv. mmmm l...:<3_zmccma near sol outta: lunar crqcoum_: 4mm; 5:“ 3:5 wflh<~fl O mzmmz .a 37.3 n. mTfiZ>> ( 81.2 J.‘ 116 APPENDIX B REGIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION COMPACT LEGISLATION APPENDIX B THE SOUTHERN REGIONAL EDUCATION , HEREAS, the Stateswhoarepartieshereto 3‘ " have during the past several years can ‘ 1 ‘ ‘ ducted careful investigation looking to ward the establishment and maintenance of jointly owned and operated regional educational institutions in the Southern States in the professional, technological, scientific, literary and other fields, so as to provide greater educational advantages and facilities for the citizens of the several States who reside within such region; and WHEREAS, Meharry Medical College of Nashville, Tennessee, has proposed that its lands, buildings, equipment, and the net income from its endowment be turned over to the Southern States, or to an agency acting in their behalf, to be operated as a regional institution for medical, dental and nursing education upon terms and conditions to be hereafter agreed upon between the Southern States and Meharry Medical College, which proposal, because of the present financial condition of the institution, has been approved by the said States who are parties hereto; and WHEREAS, the said States desire to enter into a compact with each other providing for the planning and establishment of regional educational facilites; 117 118 | , 11 OW, THEREFORE, in consideration of j j a; the mutual agreements, covenants and «I’VE-‘3‘" obligations assumed by the respective States who are parties hereto (hereinafter referred to as “States"), the said several States do hereby form a geographical district or region consisting of the areas lying within the boundaries of the contracting States which, for the purpose of this Compact, shall constitute an area for regional education supported by public funds derived from taxation by the constituent States and derived from other sources for the establishment, acquisition, operation and maintenance of regional educational schools and institutions for the benefit of citizens of the respective States residing within the region so established as may be determined from time to time in accordance with the terms and provisions of this compact. The States do further hereby establish and create a joint agency which shall be known as the Board of Control for Southern Regional Education (hereinafter referred to as the “Board") , the members of which Board shall consist of the Governor of each State, ex oflicio, and four additional citizens of each State to be appointed by the Governor thereof, at least one of whom shall be selected from the field of education, and at least one of whom shall be a member of the legislature of that State. The Governor shall continue as a member of the Board during his tenure of office as Governor of the State, but the members of the Board appointed by the Governor shall hold office for a period of four years except that in the original appointments one Board member so appointed by the Governor shall be designated at the time of his appoint: ment to serve an initial term of two years, one Board member to serve an initial term of three years, and the remaining Board members to serve the full term of four years, but thereafter the successor of each appointed Board member shall serve the full term of four years. Vacancies on the Board caused by death, resignation, refusal or inability to serve, shall be filled by appoint: ment by the Governor for the unexpired portion of the term. The officers of the Board shall be a Chairman, a Vice Chairman, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and such additional officers as may be created by the Board from time to time. The Board shall meet annually and officers shall be elected to hold office until the next annual meeting. The Board shall have the right to formulate and establish byvlaws not inconsistent with the provisions of this Compact to govern its own actions in the performance of the duties delegated to it including the right to create and appoint an Executive Committee and a Finance Committee with such powers and authority as the Board may delegate to them from time to time. The Board may, within its discretion, elect as its Chairman a person who is not a member of the Board, provided such person resides within a signatory State, and upon such election such person shall become a member of the Board with all the rights and privfleges of such membership. It shall be the duty of the Board to submit plans and recommendations to the States from time to time for their approval and adoption by appropriate legislative action for the development, establishment, acquisition, operation and maintenance of educational schools and institutions within the geographical limits of the regional area of the States, of such character and type and for such educational purposes, professional, technological, scientific, literary, or otherwise, as they may deem and determine to be prOper, necessary or advisable. Title to all such educational institutions when so established by appropriate legislative actions of the States and to all properties and facilities used in connection therewith shall be vested in said Board as the agency of and for the use and benefit of the said States and the citizens thereof, and all such educational institutions shall be operated, maintained and financed in the manner herein set out, subject 119 to any provisions or limitations which may be contained in the legislative acts of the States authorizing the creation, establishment and operation of such educational institutions. In addition to the power and authority heretofore granted, the Board shall have the power to enter into such agreements or arrangements with any of the States and with educational institutions or agencies, as may be required in the judgment of the Board, to provide adequate services and facilities for the graduate, professional, and technical education for the benefit of the citizens of the respective State residing within the region, and such additional and general power and authority as may be vested in the Board from time to time by legislative enactment of the said States. Any two or more States who are parties of this Compact shall have the right to enter into supplemental agreements providing for the establishment, financing and operation of regional educational institutions for the benefit of citizens residing within an area which constitutes a portion of the general region herein created, such institutions to be financed exclusively by such States and to be controlled exclusively by the members of the Board representing such States provided such agreement is submitted to and approved by the Board prior to the establishment of such institutions. Each State agrees that, when authorized by the legislature, it will from time to time make available and pay over to said Board such funds as may be required for the establishment, acquisition, operation and maintenance of such regional educational institutions as may be authorized by the States under the terms of this Compact, the contribution of each State at all times to be in the proportion that its population bears to the total combined population of the States who are parties hereto as shown from time to time by the most recent official published report of the Bureau of the Census of the United States of America; or upon such other basis as may be agreed upon. This Compact shall not take effect or be binding upon any State unless and until it shall be approved by proper legislative action of as many as six or more of the States whose Governors have subscribed hereto within a period of eighteen months from the date hereof. When and if six or more States shall have given legislative approval of this Compact within said eighteen months period, it shall be and become binding upon such six or more States 60 days after the date of legislative approval by the sixth State and the Governors of such six or more States shall forthwith name the members of the Board from their States as hereinabove set out, and the Board shall then meet on call of the Governor of any State approving this Compact, at which time the Board shall elect officers, adopt by'laws, appoint committees and otherwise fully organize. Other States whose names are subscribed hereto shall thereafter become parties hereto upon approval of this Compact by legislative action within two years from the date hereof, upon such conditions as may be agreed upon at the time. Provided, however, that with respect to any State whose constitution may require amendment in order to permit legislative approval of the Compact, such State or States shall become parties hereto upon approval of this Compact by legislative action within seven years from the date hereof, upon such conditions as may be agreed upon at the time. After becoming effective this Compact shall thereafter continue without limitation of time; provided, however, that it may be terminated at any time by unanimous action of the States and provided further that any State may withdraw from this Compact if such withdrawal is approved by its legislature, such withdrawal to become effective two years after written notice thereof to the Board accompanied by a certified copy of the requisite legislative action, 120 but such withdrawal shall not relieve the withdrawing State from its obligations hereunder accruing up to the effective date of such withdrawal. Any State so withdrawing shall ipso facto cease to have any claim to or ownership of any of the property held or vested in the Board or to any of the funds of the Board held under the terms of this Compact. If any State shall at any time become in default in the performance of any of its obligations assumed herein or with respect to any obligation imposed upon said State as authorized by and in compliance with the terms and provisions of this Compact, all rights, privileges and benefits of such defaulting State, its members on the Board and its citizens shall ipso facto be and become suspended from and after the date of such default. Unless such default shall be remedied and made good within a period of one year immediately following the date of such default this Compact may be terminated with respect to such defaulting State by an afirmative vote of three’fourths of the members of the Board (exclusive of the members representing the State in default), from and after which time such State shall cease to be a party to this Compact and shall have no further claim to or ownership of any of the property held by or vested in the Board or to any of the funds of the Board held under the terms of this Compact, but such termination shall in no manner release such defaulting State from any accrued obligation or otherwise affect this Compact or the rights, duties, privileges or obligations of the remaining States thereunder. FF; IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Compact ’ has been approved and signed by Cover: J i ' nors of the several States, subject to the approval of their respective legislatures in the manner hereinabove set out, as of the 8th day of February, 1948. STATE OF ALABAMA STATE OF LOUISIANA STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA By James E. 1301,3014, Governor By J. H. DAVIS, Governor By J. $111011 THURMOND, Governor STATE OF ARKANSAS STATE OF MARYLAND STATE OF TENNESSEE By BEN LANBY, Governor By WM. PRESTON LANE, J9... Governor By JIM MCCORD, Governor STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI STATE OF TEXAS By MILL/um F. CALDWELL, Governor By P. L. WRIGHT, Governor By BEAUFORD H. JESTBR, Governor STATE OF GEORGIA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA By M. E. THOMPSON, Governor By R. Gaaoo Caesar, Governor By WM. M. Tucx, Governor STATE OF KENTUCKY STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA By Ems D. Canasta, Governor By Roy J. Tonnes, Governor By Gunmen W. Mswows, Governor 121 @112 Western Regional iEhuratinn @OWACT Entered into by and between the States and Territories signatory hereto, to provide acceptable and efficient educational facilities to meet the seeds of the Western Region of the United Stat- of America. WHEREAS, the future of this Nation and of the Western States is dependent upon the quality of the education of its youth; and WHEREAS, many of the Western States in- dividually do not have suEicent numbers of po— tential students to warrant the establishment and maintenance within their borders of adequate facili- ties in all of the essential fields of technical pro- fessional, and graduate training, nor do all the states have the financial ability to furnish within their borders institutions capable of providing ac- ceptable standards of training in all of the fields mentioned above; and WHEREAS, it is believed that the Western States, or groups of such states within the Region, cooperatively can provide acceptable and efficient educational facilities to meet the needs of the Re- gion and of the students therof: Now, therefore, the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii do hereby Covenant and agree as follows: II Each of the compacting states and terri- tories pledges to each of the other compact- ing states and territories faithful cooperation in carrying out all the purposes of this Compact. III The compacting states and territories hereby create the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, hereinafter called the Commission. Said Commission shall be a body corporate of each compacting state an territory and an agency thereof. The Commission shall have all the powers and duties set forth here- in,includingthepowertosueandbesued,and such additional powers as may be conferred won it by subsequent action of the respective legisla- tures of the compacting states and territories. The Commission shall consist of three resident members from each compacting state or territory. At all times one Commissioner from each compacting state or territory shall be an educator engaged in the field of higher educa- tion in the state or territory from which he is ap- pointed. The Commissioners from each state and terri- tory shall be appointed by the Governor thereof as provided by law in such state or territory. Any Commissioner may be removed or suspended from oEice as provided by the law of the state or territory from which he shall have been appointed. The terms of each Commissioner shall be four years: Provided, however, that the first three Como missioners shall be appointed as follows; one for two years, one for three years, and one for four years. Each Commissioner shall hold office until his successor shall be appointed and qualified. If any office becomes vacant for any reason, the Gov- ernor shall appoint a Commissioner to fill the oKice for the remainder of the unexpired term. V Anybusinesstransactedatanymeetingof the Commission must be by afiirmative vote of a majority of the whole number of compacting states and territories. One or more Commissioners from a majority of the compacting states and territories shall con- stitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Each compacting state and territory represented at any meeting of the Commission is entitled to one vote. VI The Commission shall elect from its number a chairman and a vice chairman and may appoint, and at its pleasure dismiss or re- move, such officers, agents, and employees as may be required to carry out the purpose of this Com- pact; and shall fix and determine their duties, quali- fications and compensation, having due regard for the importance of the responsibilities involved. The Commissioners shall serve without compen- sation, but shall be reimbursed for their actual and necessary expenses from the funds of the Commis- ston. VII The Commission shall adopt a seal and by-laws and shall adopt and promulgate rules and regulations for its management and con- trol. The Commission may elect such committees as it deems necessary for the carrying out of its func- tions. The Commission shall establish and maintain an ofiiee within one of the compacting states for the transaction of its business and may meet at any time, but in any event must meet at least once a year. The Chairman may call such additional meetings and upon the request of a majority of the Commissioners of three or more compacting states or territories . shall call additional meetings. The Commission shall submit a budget to the Governor of each compacting state and territory at such time and for such period as may be re- quired. The Commission shall, after negotiations with interested institutions, determine the cost of pro- viding the facilities for graduate and professional education for use in its contractual agreements throughout the Region. On or before the fifteenth day of January of each year, the Commission shall submit to the Gov- ernors and Legislatures of the compacting states and territories a report of its activities for the pre- ceding calendar year. The Commission shall keep accurate books of account, showing in full its receipts and disburse. ments, and said books of account shall be open at any reasonable time for inspection by the Gov- ernor of any compacting state or territory or his designated representative. The Commission shall not be subject to audit and accounting procedure of any of the compacting states or territories. The Commission shall provide for an independent an- nual audit. VIII ItshallbethedutyoftheCommis- sion to enter into mi; c; f agreementswithanyinstitutionsin egiono- fering graduate or professional education and with any of the compacting states or territories as may be required in the judgment of the Commission to provide adequate services and facilities of graduate and professional education for the citizens of the respective compacting states or territories. The Commission shall first endeavor to provide adequate services and facilities in the fields of dentistry, medi- cine, public health, and veterinary medicine, and may undertake similar activities in other profeso sional and graduate fields. For this purpose the Commission may enter into contractual agreements— (a) with the governing authority of any educa- tional institution in the Region, or with any com- pacting state or territory, to provide such graduate or professional educational services upon terms and conditions to be agreed upon between contracting parties, and (b) with the governing authority of any educa- tional institution in the Region or with any compact- ing state or territory to assist in the placement of graduate or professional students in educational institutions in the Region providing the desired services and facilities, upon such terms and condi- tions as the Commission may prescribe. It shall be the duty of the Commission to under- take studies of needs for professional and graduate educational facilities in the Region, the resources for meeting such needs, and the long-range eEects of the Compact on higher education; and from time to time to prepare comprehensive reports on such research for presentation to the Western Gov- ernor’s Conference and to the legislatures of the compacting states and territories. In conducting such studies, the Commission may confer with any national or regional planning body which may be established. The Commission shall draft and rec. ommend to the Governors of the various com- pacting states and territories, uniform ' dealing with problems of higher education in the Region. Forthe ofthisCompecttheword"Re- ' "shallpb‘emniedtomeanthegeogrsphical goof the several compactingstateeand terri- TheoperstingcoetsoftheCommission shallbeapportionedequallyamongthe campactingetatesandterritones. 122 X This Compact shall become operative and binding immediately as to those states and territories adopting it whenever five or more of the states or territories of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, Alaska and Hawaii have duly adopted it prior to July 1, 1953. This Compact shall become effective as to any ' ' states or territories adopting thereafter at the time of such adoption. XI This Compact may be terminated at any time by consent of a majority of the com- pacting states and territories. Consent shall be mani- fested by passage and signature in the usual manner of legislation expressing such consent by the legisp lature and Governor of such terminating state. Any state or territory may at any time withdraw from this Compact by means of appropriate legislation to that end. Such withdrawal shall nor become eEective until two years after written notice thereof by the Governor of the withdrawingstateor territory accompanied by a certified copy of requisite legis- lative action is received by the Commission. Such withdrawal shall not relieve the withdrawing state or territory from its obligations hereunder accruing prior to the efi'ective date of withdrawal. The with- drawing state or territory may rescind its action of withdrawal at any time within the two-year period. Thereafter, the withdrawing state or territory may be reinstated by applicatoin to and the approval by a majority vote of the Commission. XII If any compacting state or territory shall at any time default in the performance of any of its obligations assumed or imposed in ac- cordance with the provisions of this Compact, all rights, privileges and benefits conferred by this Compact or agreements hereunder shall be susp pended from the effective date of such default as fixed by the Commission. Unlesssuchdefaultshallberemediedwithina period of two years following the eEective date of such default, this Compact may be terminated with respecttosuchdefaultingstateorterritorybyaf- firmative vote of three-fourths of the other member sates or territories. Any such defaulting state may be reinstated by: (a) performing all acts and obligations upon which it has heretofore defaulted, and (b) lieation to and'the approval by a majority vote 0 the Com- Tbis contest: is new in fall force and effect, having been approved by the Governors and Leyisletares of more (ban lies of the eligible states and heroin been approved by the Congress of the United States, as required by Article I. Section 10. of rte Commotion, and rinsed into lotto by tbe President of tbs United States is MEMBER STATES August, 1953. State of Alesba State of Idaho By B. Frank Hointalornan. Governor May I9. I95! May l3. I953 State of Arisone By Howard Pyle. Governor January 6. |9S3 State of Celiiornis By Goodwin J. Knight. Governor December IE. I955 Shh of Colorado By Dan Thornton. Governor , l M20 rs: State of Hawaii By William Quinn, Governor Jane 23. I," Juno 2. I959 By Len Jordan. Governor State of Montana By John W. Bonner. Governor December 24. I952 State of Nevada By Grant Sawyer. Governor State of New Mexico By Edwin L. Mechern. Governor December 29. I952 State of Oregon By 'eul L. Patterson. Governor January 3|. I953 State of Utah By J. Bracken Lee. Governor January l4. I953 State of Washington By Arthur B. Lsnglio. Governor Juno 9, I9“ State of Wyomin By C. J. "Doc" April as. m3 Boosts. Governor lflhe Erin 7 uglzmh 351th gfihutaiinn 123 COMPACT EateeadiuobyaadbetweentheStatessieI-etory hereto,toprovideacceptableend elicieat sheetioasl facilities to meet the ma- ol the New England Region of the United States of America. WHEREAS, the several New England States co- operatively deem it feasible to provide needed, accept- able, efficient, educational facilities to meet the needs of New England in the fields of medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, and other fields of technical, pro- fessional and graduate training; and WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States, by virtue of Public Law 719, 83rd Congress, Chapter 1089, 2nd Session, has given its consent to any two or more of the States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachuo setts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont to enter the following compact and agreement relative to higher education: NOW, THEREFORE, such of the foregoing States as execute this compact, acting in accordance With the laws of such State, do hereby covenant and agree as follows: I The purposes of the New England Higher Education Compact shall be to provide greater educational opportunities and services through the establishment and maintenance of a co-ordinated edu- cational program for the persons residing in the sev- eral states of New England parties to this compact, with the aim of furthering higher education in the fields of medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pub- lic health and in professional, technical, scientific, literary and other fields. There is hereby created and established a New England board of higher education here- inafter known as the board, which shall be an agency of each state party to the compact. The board shall be a body corporate and politic, having the powers, duties and jurisdiction herein enumerated and such other and additional powers as shall be conferred upon it by the concurrent act or acts of the compacting states. The board shall consist of three resident mem- bers from each compacting state, chosen in the manner and for the terms provided by law of the several states parties to this compact. III This compact shall become operative im- mediately as to those states executing it whenever any two or more of the States of Maine, Ver- mont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut have executed it in the form which is in accordance with the laws of the respective compact- ing states. IV The board shall annually elect from its members a chairman and vice-chairman and shall appoint and at its pleasure remove or dis- charge said officers. It may appoint and employ an executive secretary and may employ such stenographic, clerical, technical or legal personnel as shall be neces- sary, and at its pleasure remove or discharge such personnel. It shall adopt a seal and suitable by-laws and shall promulgate any and all rules and regulations which may be necessary for the conduct of its business. It may maintain an office or offices within the territory of the compacting states and may meet at any time or place. Meetings shall be held at least twice each year. A majority of the members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, but no action of the board imposing any obligation on any compacting state shall be binding unless a majority of the members from such compacting state shall have voted in favor thereof. Where meetings are planned to discuss mat- ters relevant to problems of education affecting only certain of the compacting states, the board may vote to authorize special meetings of the board members of such states. The board shall keep accurate accounts of all receipts and disbursements and shall make an annual report to the governor and the legislature of each compacting state, setting forth in detail the oper- ations and transacrions conducted by it, pursuant to this compact, and shall make recommendations for any legislative action deemed by it advisable, includ~ ing amendments to the statutes of the compacting states which may be necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this compact. The board shall not pledge the credit of any compacting state without the consent of the legislature thereof given pursuant to the constitutional processes of said state. The board may meet any of its obligations in whole or in part with funds available to it under Article VII Of this compact; provided, that the board takes specific ac- tion setting aside such funds prior to the incurring of any obligation to be met in whole or in part in this manner. Except where the board makes use of funds available to it under Article VII hereof, the board shall not incur any obligations for salaries, office, adminis- trative, traveling or other expenses prior to the allot- ment of funds by the compacting states adequate to meet the same. Each compacting stale reserves the right to provide hereafter by law for the examination and audit of the accounts of the board. The board shall appoint a treasu'rer who may be a member of the board, and disbursements by the board shall be valid only when authorised by the board and when vouchers therefor have been signed by the executive secretary and countersigned by the treasurer. The executive secretary shall be custodian of the records of the board with authority to attest to and certify such records or copies thereof. V The board shall have the power to: (I) collect, correlate, and evaluate data in the fields of its interest under this compact; to publish reports, bulle- tins and other documents making available the results of its research; and, in its discretion, to charge fees for said reports, bulletins and documents; (2) enter into such contractual agreements or arrangements with any of the compacting states or agencies thereof and with educational institutions and agencies as may be re- quired in the judgment of the board to provide ade- quate services and facilities in educational fields cov- ered by this compact; provided, that it shall be the policy of the board in the negotiation of its agreements to serve increased numbers of students from the com- pacting states through arrangements with then existing institutions, whenever in the judgment of the board adequate service can be so secured in the New England region. Each of the compacting states shall contribute funds to carry out the contracts of the board on the basis of the number of students from such state for whom the board may contract. Contributions shall be at the rate determined by the board in each educa- tional field. Except in those instances where the board by specific action allocates funds available to it under Article VII hereof, the board’s authority to enter into such contracts shall be only upon appropriation of funds by the compacting states. Any contract entered into shall be in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by the board and in accordance with the laws of the compacting states. VI Each state agrees that, when authorized by the legislature pursuant to the constitu- tional processes, it will from time to time make avail- able to the board such funds as may be required for the expenses of the board as authorized under the terms of this compact. The contribution of each state for this purpose shall be in the proportion that its population bears to the total combined population of the states who are parties hereto as shown from time to time by the most recent official published report of the Bureau of the Census of the United States of America unless the board shall adopt another basis in making its recommendation for appropriation to the compacting states. VII The board for the purposes of this compact is hereby empowered to receive grants, de- vises, gifts and bequests which the board may agree to accept and administer. T he board shall administer property held in accordance with special trusts, grants and bequests, and shall also administer grants and de- vises of land and gifts or bequests of personal property made to the board for special uses, and shall execute said trusts, investing the proceeds thereof in notes or bonds secured by sufficient mortgages or other secu- rities. mamasefli : STATE or CONNECTICUT 3Q! | M “4% August 11, 1955 STATE or: 1 August 20, 1955 Couuouwsauru or Massacn usms f’ilL'usAm june 7, 1954 124 VIII The provisions of this compact shall be severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence or provision of this compact is declared to be contrary to the Constitution of any compacting state or of the United States the validity of the remainder of this compact and the applicability thereof to any government, agency, person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby; provided, that if this compact is held to be contrary to the mnstitution of any com- pacting state the compact shall remain in full force and effect as to all other compacting states. IX This compact shall continue in force and re- main binding upon a compacting state until the legislature or the governor of such state, as the laws of such state shall provide, takes action to withdraw therefrom. Such action shall not be effective until two years after notice thereof has been sent by the gov- ernor of the state desiring to withdraw to the gover— nors of all other states then parties to the compact. Such withdrawal shall not relieve the withdrawing state from its obligations accruing hereunder prior to the eflective date of withdrawal. Any state so withdraw- ing unless reinstated, shall cease to have any claim to or ownership of any of the property held by or vested in the board or to any of the funds of the board held under the terms of the compact. Thereafter, the with- drawing state may be reinstated by application after appropriate legislation is enacted by such state, upon approval by a majority vote of the board. X If any compacting state shall at any time dc. fault in the performance of any of its obliga- tions assumed or imposed in accordance with the pro visions of this compact, all rights and privileges and benefits conferred by this compact or agreement here- under shall be suspended from the effective date of such default as fixed by the board. Unless such de- fault shall be remedied within a period of two years following the effective date of such default, this com- pact may be terminated with respect to such default- ing state by affirmative vote of three fourths of the other member states. Any such defaulting state may be reinstated by (a) performing all acts and obligations upon which it has heretofore defaulted, and (b) appli- cation to and approval by a majority vote of the board. STATE or N Hanna: By/ June 30, I955 Rnone Isunn Mays 1957 (Date) STATE ByoVI-‘gauorwr lfl E: 2 June 2,1955 APPENDIX C THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE AND CORRESPONDENCE TO MEMBERS OF THE TARGET POPULATIONS APPENDIX C l Education Commission of the States 300 LINCOLN TOWER 0 1860 LINCOLN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 0 (303) 893-5200 . 0 February. 1974 Dear Colleague: In approximately one week you will receive a survey questionnaire designed to gather information regarding the role of regional higher education compacts (SREB, WICHE. NEBHE) in graduate education. This questionnaire is part of a research project which is being conducted in conjunction with the Education Commission of the States’ Task Force on Graduate Education. Chaired by Missouri Governor Christopher Bond, the ECS task force is charged with reviewing and recommending alternatives to the problems of planning and financing graduate education. One approach to the problem of providing high cost graduate programs and services to a limited number of persons may well exist through sharing resources on a regional interstate basis. Recognizing that your time is valuable, the survey instrument has been designed to require only a short amount of time to complete. Your willingness to participate in this project will be very greatly appreciated. Sincerely. (2%.) James C. Votruba Project Director 4465 Kenneth Drive Okemos. Michigan 48864 125 126 .l Education Commission of the States LINCOLN TOWER I 18w LINCOLN STREET 30°.DENVER COLORADO 80203 I (”3) 893- 5200 February, 1974 Dear Colleague: I write in order to call your attention to the attached survey which we are sponsoring in part and which supports the staff effort of the Education Commission of the States' (ECS) Task Force on Graduate Education. This task force is charged with reviewing and recommending alternatives and solutions to the problems of planning and financing graduate education. One approach to the problems of pro- viding high-cost graduate education programs for a limited number of persons may well exist through sharing resources on a regional interstate basis. Accordingly, we would greatly appreciate your willingness to consider the attached survey and the questions developed by Mr. James C. Votruba, an administrative intern and graduate student at Michigan State University, with the hope we may collect information which would help in the deliberations of the task force. Cordially, Wished—sis, Richard M. Millard, Director Higher Education Services RMMzcjp Enclosure 127 A SURVEY OF OPINIONS CONCERNING THE ROLE OF REGIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION COMPACTS IN GRADUATE EDUCATION The following survey questionnaire is designed to gather opinions about the role of regional higher education compacts in graduate education. This research project is being conducted in conjunc- tion with the Education Commission of the States' Task Force on Graduate Education. Two terms which are used in this study need some clarification: l. The term "graduate education" refers to masters and doctoral level programs in the arts and sciences and other related areas. Degrees which are primarily pro. fessional, such as medical and legal education, should not be considered part of this definition. 2. The term "regional higher education compact'I refers to either the Southern Reg- ional Education Board (SREB), the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), or the New England Board of Higher Education (NEBHE). Your response should refer only to the compact to which you or your state is associated. Each questionnaire is coded, but your response will remain strictly confidential. The question- naire is printed so as to form a return envelope when folded. After you have completed your answers, please fold the questionnaire booklet, staple, and return in the US. mail. Each respondent will receive a summary of the survey results upon completion of this project. Your participation in this study is very sincerely appreciated. James C. Votruba Project Director **§§§*§*i* 1. Please identify your position by marking the appropriate alternative(s). (Mark more than one if appropriate.) Regional Compact Board Member (1) State Higher Education Executive Officer Public College or University Chief Executive Officer Private College or University Chief Executive Officer 2. Please identify the regional higher education compact to which you or your state is associated. Southern Regional Education Board (2) — Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education New England Board of Higher Education 3. How would you describe the extent of your familiarity with the regional higher education compact to which you or your state is associated? (Compact board members should not respond to this item.) Little or No Familiarity (3) Moderate Familiarity Considerable Familiarity Very Great Familiarity E); )1. r?- 128 Listed below are a series of statements describing possible regional compact programs and activi- ties related to graduate education. Each statement has been included as the result of input pro- vided by state officials, regional compact staff members, institutional representatives, and other selected individuals who have evidenced an interest in the role of regional compacts in graduate education. We would like you to react to each statement in two different ways. First, indicate the need for such a program or activity in your region. Second, if you have indicated that a (moderate, considerable, or major) need exists, indicate the feasibility of the program or activity for region- al compact involvement. Feasibility refers to the likelihood that such a program or activity could be successfully implemented at the regional compact level. Please note: feasibility should be evaluated only for those statements where a need has first been indicated. If you wish to briefly comment on either the item or your response, please do so in the space below the item. If more space is needed, please attach an additional page for your comments. (4.5) (6.7) (8.9) 7. (10.11) 8. (12.13) 9. (14.15) 10. (16.17) 11. (18,19) NEED SCALE FEASIBILITY SCALE 1 NO NEED I HIGHLY UNFEASIBLE 2 MODERATE NEED 2 SDMEWHAT UNFEASIBLE 3 CONSIDERABLE NEED 3 SDMEWHAT FEASIBLE 4 MAJOR NEED 4 HIGHLY FEASIBLE NEED FEASIBILITY To keep state legislators and governors informed con- cerning issues and alternatives related to graduate education ................................ l 2 3 4 I 2 3 4 To provide expanded opportunities for interstate student access to graduate programs and facilities .......... 1 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 To coordinate institutional offerings at the interstate level to help prevent unnecessary proliferation and duplication of graduate programs ........................ l 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 To coordinate institutional offerings at the interstate level to facilitate joint financing of high-cost graduate programs and facilities ........................ 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 To engage in long-range planning related to the future development of graduate education in the region ...... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 To better inform the general public about the benefits (both individual and social) of graduate education . . . . l 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 To assist the federal government to better understand the issues and alternatives facing graduate education in theregion ................................ 1234 1234 To promote the development of electronic communica- tion systems to link institutions for cooperative sharing of educational resources related to graduate scholarship and research .............................. l 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 Page 2 12. (20,21) 13. (22.23) 14. (24.25) 15. (26.27) 16. (28.29) 17. (30.31) 18. (32.33) 19. (34.35) 20. (36.37) 21. (38.39) 22. (40.41) 23. (42.43) 24. (44.45) Page 3 129 NEED SCALE FEASIBILITY SCALE I NO NEED I HIGHLY UNFEASIBLE 2 MODERATE NEED 2 SOMEWHAT UNFEASIBLE 3 CONSIDERABLE NEED 3 SOMEWHAT FEASIBLE 4 MAJOR NEED 4 HIGHLY FEASIBLE To provide better information to potential students re- garding graduate programs and institutions .......... To assist in the development of cooperative programs de- signed to aid faculty professional development at graduate institutions .............................. To promote the formation of interinstitutional consortia at the graduate level .......................... To promote the development of regional graduate institu- tions financed cooperatively by participating states To assist in the development of guidelines for apportion- ing the cost of graduate education between the student and society .............................. To make available current and reliable information about graduate student financial assistance programs ........ To assist in the identification of unnecessary interstate duplication of graduate programs and facilities ...... To assist in the development of appropriate measures of quality to be used in evaluating existing graduate programs ................................ To assist in the development of uniform measures of productivity and efficiency for use in evaluating exist- ing graduate programs ........................ To assist in the identification of need for new graduate programs in the region ........................ To promote research aimed at assessing manpower needs which require education at the graduate level ........ To promote the development of pilot and experimental projects designed to test new teaching-learning techniques for use at the graduate level .................... To provide consultation and assistance to state higher education agencies charged with planning and coordina- ting graduate education ...................... I NEED 23 FEASIBILITY I234 25. (46.47) 26. (48.49) 27. (50.51) 28. (52.53) 29. (54.55) 30. (56.57) 130 NEED SCALE FEASIBILITY SCALE 1 NO NEED I HIGHLY UNFEASIBLE 2 MODERATE NEED 2 SDMEWHAT UNFEASIBLE 3 CONSIDERABLE NEED 3 SOMEWHAT FEASIBLE 4 MAJOR NEED 4 HIGHLY FEASIBLE NEED FEASIBILITY To promote the development of regional cooperative pro- grams directed at securing additional funding for certain graduate programs and facilities ................ 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 To assist institutions to identify able members of minority groups and women for recruitment as graduate faculty and students ................................ 1 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 To develop procedures for increasing student access to grad- uate programs and facilities available at private institutions 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 To assist in the development of programs designed to help graduate faculty improve their skill as teachers ...... l 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 To maintain a Current and comprehensive inventory of graduate programs and facilities in the region ........ I 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Please use the space below to describe any additional inter- state programs or activities which, in your opinion, would facilitate the development and/or enrichment of graduate education in your region. How feasible is the program or activity for regional compact involvement? Page 4 131 31. In general, how would you evaluate the current overall need for interstate and regional cooperation in graduate education? Little or No Need Moderate Need (58) Considerable Need Major Need 32. What would you list as the major advantagelsl of a regional interstate approach to addressing the needs of graduate education? (a) (bl (59.66) (c) (d) 33. What would you list as the major limitationisl of a regional interstate approach to addressing the needs of graduate education? (a) (b) (67,74) (cl (d) 34. In general, how would you evaluate the potential of the regional higher education com- pact as a facilitator of interstate and regional cooperation in graduate education? Little or No Potential Moderate Potential (75) Considerable Potential Major Potential Page 5 132 35. Recognizing that regional higher education compacts cannot adequately address all of the needs currently facing graduate education, please review the needs which you identified in items 4 — 30 and indicate those areas which, in your opinion, deserve the highest priority for regional compact involvement. (You may use the item number to indicate your response.) (a) (b) (1.3) (C) (d) 36. Would you please use the space below to make any additional comments regarding the role of the regional higher education compact in graduate education. (9,10) THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROJECT. P 6 age i 133 » l Education Commission of the States 300 LINCOLN TOWER o 1860 LINCOLN STREET DENVER. COLORADO 80203 0 (303} 893-5200 March, 1974 Dear Colleague: soon as it is completed. Sincerely, James C. Votruba Project Director 4465 Kenneth Drive Okemos, Michigan 48864 Approximately two weeks ago you received a survey questionnaire concerning the role of regional higher education compacts (SREB, WICHE, NEBHE) in graduate education. If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire i would like to convey our sincere appreciation and remind you that you will receive a summary of the project as If you have not as yet responded to the survey, I would like to encourage you to do so as soon as possible. Your participation is very important for the success of the project. 134 Education Commission of the States 300 IINCOLN TOWER 0 1860 LINCOLN STREET DENVER. COLORADO 80203 0 (303) 8936200 Dear Colleague: To date your response to the ECS sponsored survey concerning the role of regional compacts in graduate education has not been received. As mentioned initially, your response will be kept confidential and is most important to our investigation. The collected data is intended to beneo fit both the work of the ECS Task Force on Graduate Education and the regional compact agen- cies but, in order for this benefit to be realized, a high response rate is required from represen- tatives at the regional, state, and institutional level. Possibly your response is in the mail and we will soon receive it. If you have not yet completed the questionnaire it is our hope that you will do so as soon as possible. Another copy of the survey instrument is enclosed for your convenience. On behalf of the ECS Task Force on Graduate Education and the three regional compact agen- cies, please accept our thanks for your participation in this project. You will receive a summary of results as soon as the study is completed. Sincerely, yam James C. Votruba Project Director 135 .p—l Education Commission of the States 300 LINCOLN TOWER 0 1860 LINCOLN STREET DENVER. COLORADO 80203 0 (”3) 893-5200 Q (NAME) I am writing in order to make one final appeal for your participation in the enclosed survey project. The results of this study are intended to provide guidance for your regional higher education compact agency as they consider their future role in graduate education. Because of your membership on the regional compact governing board. your input is vital to the success of this effort. Please fill out the enclosed copy of the survey questionnaire and return it by June 10. I will look forward to receiving your response. Sincerely. James C. Votruba Project Director #465 Kenneth Drive Okemcs. Michigan #886“ Brian-Ia i- APPENDIX D TABLES OF RESPONSES BY COMPACT FOR EACH OF THE SURVEY ITEMS APPENDIX D Table 33. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 3: "How would you describe the extent of your familiar- ity with the regional higher education compact to which you or your state is associated?" Little or No Moderate Considerable very Great Familiarity Familiarity' Familiarity Familiarity State levela SREB (14) 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 WICHE (10) 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 NEBHE (4) 0.0 50.0 50.0 ' 0.0 Public inst. SREB (90) 10.0 42.2 37.8 10.0 WICHE (54) 1.9 59.3 33.3 5.6 NEBHE (17) 0.0 47.1 52.9 0.0 Private inst. SREB (24) 16.7 58.3 20.8 4.2 WICHE (26) 19.2 53.8 19.2 7.7 NEBHE (18) 16.7 72.2 11.1 0.0 a . . . Regional compact board and comm1351on members were asked not to respond to this survey item. 136 137 Table 34. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 31: "In general, how would you evaluate the current overall need for interstate and regional cooperation in graduate education?" Little or Moderate Considerable Major No Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (45) 4.4 24.4 35.6 35.6 WICHE (33) 3.0 21.2 42.4 33.3 NEBHE (27) 7.4 25.9 37.0 29.6 State level SREB (14) 7.1 21.4 35.7 35.7 WICHE (11) 9.1 18.2 63.6 9 l NEBHE (6) 16.7 16.7 50.0 16.7 Public inst. SREB (91) 5.5 45.1 36.3 13.2 WICHE (54) 7.4 53.7 37.0 1.9 NEBHE (18) 5.6 27.8 44.4 14.3 Private inst. SREB (25) 8.0 44.0 24.0 24.0 WICHE (27) 0.0 44.4 40.7 14.8 NEBHE (21) 0.0 42.9 42.9 14.3 SREB x2=14.068; p> .05. WICHE x2=26.275; P<.05. NEBHE X2 = 5.945; 12> .05."=1 aChi-square tests for each regional compact indicate the existence of significant differences between the response patterns of the four target populations for that compact. 138 Table 35. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 34: "In general, how would you evaluate the potential of the regional higher education compact as a facilitator of interstate and regional cooperation in graduate education?" Little or No Moderate Considerable Major Potential Potential Potential Potential Regional level SREB (45) 2.2 28.9 35.6 33.3 WICHE (31) 3.2 22.6 48.4 25.8 NEBHE (27) 11.1 33.3 22.2 33.3 State level SREB (14) 0.0 42.9 42.9 14.3 SICHE (11) ‘ 9.1 27.3 63.6 0.0 NEBHE (6) 16.7 16.7 50.0 16.7 Public inst. SREB (89) 10.1 49.4 37.1 3.4 SICHE (53) 15.1 52.8 28.3 3.8 NEBHE (18) 11.1 55.6 16.7 16.7 Private inst. SREB (25) 8.0 52.0 28.0 12.0 SICHE (27) 3.7 37.0 48.1 11.1 NEBHE (21) 14.3 42.9 38.1 4.8 SREB X2=27-94l: p<.05. WICHE x2=23.699; p<.os. NEBHE x2=1o.511; P> .05. 139 Table 36. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 4: "To keep state legislators and governors informed concerning issues and alternatives related to graduate education." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (44) 4.5 15.9 29.5 50.0 WICHE (33) 6.1 24.2 36.4 33.3 NEBHE (27) 0.0 22.2 37.0 40.7 State level SREB (14) 14.3 14.3 50.0 21.4 WICHE (11) 9.1 27.3 63.6 0.0 NEBHE (5) 0.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 Public inst. SREB (90) 2.2 18.9 41.1 37.8 WICHE (54) 5.6 18.5 35.2 40.7 NEBHE (18) 0.0 16.7 16.7 66.7 Private inst. SREB (25) 8.0 12.0 48.0 32.0 WICHE (26) 3.8 19.2 30.8 46.2 NEBHE (21) 4.8 23.8 42.9 28.6 SREB x2=1o.o41; p>.os. WICHE x2=8.451; p>.05. NEBHE X2 =9.632; p > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (42) 2.4 11.9 47.6 38.1 WICHE (31) 0.0 12.9 54.8 32.3 NEBHE (27) 0.0 14.8 48.1 37.0 State level SREB (12) 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 WICHE (10) 0.0 40.0 50.0 10.0 NEBHE (5) 0.0 60.0 40.0 0.0 Public inst. SREB (88) 0.0 14.8 53.4 31.8 WICHE (51) 3.9 25.5 49.0 21.6 NEBHE (18) 5.6 16.7 50.0 27.8 Private inst. SREB (23) 4.3 4.3 65.2 26.1 WICHE (25) 0.0 4.0 60.0 36.0 NEBHE (20) 0.0 25.0 65.0 10.0 SREB x2=8.635; p>.os. WICHE x2=12.833; p>.05. NEBHE x2 =12.869; P > .05. 140 Table 37. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 5: "To provide expanded opportunities for interstate student access to graduate programs and facilities." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (46) 2.2 26.1 41.3 30.4 WICHE (33) 6.1 27.3 24.2 42.4 NEBHE (28) 3.6 14.3 39.3 42.9 State level SREB (14) 0.0 21.4 42.9 35.7 WICHE (11) 0.0 27.3 27.3 45.5 NEBHE (6) 0 0 16.7 33.3 50.0 Public inst. SREB (92) 5.4 40.2 29.3 25.0 WICHE (54) 3.7 40.7 25.9 29.6 NEBHE (18) 0.0 27.8 33.3 38.9 Private inst. SREB (25) 20.0 32.0 24.0 24.0 WICHE (27) 14.8 22.2 33.3 29.6 NEBHE (21) 9.5 38.1 33.3 19.0 SREB x2=15.576; p>.os. WICHE x2=e.77o; p>.os. NEBHE X2 =8.095; P > .05. ¥ Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (45) 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 WICHE (31) 6.5 16.1 32.3 45.2 NEBHE (27) 0.0 14.8 44.4 40.7 State level SREB (14) 0.0 7.1 35.7 57.1 WICHE (11) 0.0 27.3 36.4 36.4 NEBHE (6) 0.0 16 7 33.3 50.0 Public inst. SREB (87) 0 0 14.9 56.3 28.7 WICHE (52) 3 8 19.2 57.7 19.2 NEBHE (18) 0 0 33.3 38.9 27.8 Private inst. SREB ,(20) 5.0 25.0 40.0 30.0 WICHE (23) 0.0 8 7 73.9 17.4 NEBHE (19) 0.0 21.1 63.2 15.8 SREB x2 =15.318; p > .05. WICHE X2 =15.oso; p > .05. NEBHE X2 =6.343; p > .05. 141 Table 38. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 6: "To coordinate institutional offerings at the interstate level to help prevent unnecessary proliferation and duplication of graduate programs." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (45) 8.9 15.6 28.9 46.7 WICHE (33) 3.0 30.0 36.4 30.3 NEBHE (27) 0 0 11.8 25.9 63.0 State level SREB (14) 7.1 7.1 42.9 42.9 WICHE (11) 0.0 27.3 36.4 36.4 NEBHE (5) 0.0 20.0 0.0 80 0 Public inst. SREB (92) 16.3 33.7 31.5 18.5 WICHE (54) 18.5 35.2 29.6 16.7 NEBHE (18) 5.6 22.2 44.4 27.8 Private inst. SREB (24) 16.7 37.5 25.0 20.8 WICHE (27) 18.5 14.8 29.6 37.0 NEBHE (21) 4.8 9.5 14.3 71.4 SREB x2 =19.538; p < .05. WICHE X2 =12.674; p > .05. NEBHE x2 =12.023; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (41) 12.2 22.0 41.5 24.4 WICHE (32) 9.4 34.4 31.3 25.0 NEBHE (28) 0.0 32.1 42.9 25 0 State level SREB (13) 0.0 38.5 53.8 7.7 WICHE (11) 18.2 18.2 45.5 18.2 NEBHE (5) 0 0 40.0 40.0 20 0 Public inst. SREB (77) 5.2 32.5 49.4 13.0 WICHE (45) 8.9 28.9 53.3 8 9 NEBHE (17) 0.0 41.2 47.1 11.8 Private inst. SREB (20) 20.0 50.0 20.0 10.0 WICHE (22) 13.6 22.7 40.9 22.7 NEBHE (20) 5.0 50.0 30.0 15.0 SREB x2=l6.067; p>.os. WICHE x2=7.449; P>.05. NEBHE x2 = 5.397; P > .05. 142 Table 39. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 7: "To coordinate institutional offerings at the interstate level to facilitate joint financing of high-cost graduate programs and facilities." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional SREB (44) 4.5 27.3 31.8 36.4 WICHE (33) 9.1 18.2 33.3 39.4 NEBHE (28) 3.6 10.7 21.4 64.3 State level SREB (14) 0.0 21.4 57.1 21.4 WICHE (11) 0.0 27.3 45.5 27.3 NEBHE (6) 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 Public inst. SREB (91) 7.7 35.2 31.9 25.3 WICHE (54) 7.4 44.4 25.9 22.2 NEBHE (18) 5.6 5.6 55.6 33.3 Private inst. SREB (24) 20.8 54.2 8.3 16.7 WICHE (27) 11.1 14.8 33.3 40.7 NEBHE (21) 4.8 9.5 33.3 52.4 SREB x2 =2o.53o; P< .05. WICHE x2 =13.ooo; P > .05. NEBHE x2=7.200; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (42) 7.1 31.0 50.0 11.9 WICHE (30) 16.7 23.3 46.7 13.3 NEBHE (27) 7.4 33.3 44.4 14.8 State level SREB (14) 21.4 42.9 35.7 0.0 WICHE (10) 10.0 30.0 60.0 0.0 NEBHE (6) 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 Public inst. SREB (84) 6.0 38.1 41.7 14.3 WICHE (51) 17.6 27.5 47.1 7.8 NEBHE (17) 5.9 54.7 23.5 5.9 Private inst. SREB (19) 26.3 31.6 42.1 0.0 WICHE (24) 12.5 29.2 45.8 12.5 NEBHE (20) 10.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 SREB X2 =14.517; P > .05. WICHE x2 =2.855; P > .05. NEBHE x2=s.943; P>.05. Table 40. item 8: 143 Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey "To engage in long-range planning related to the ‘future development of graduate education in the region." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (45) 2.2 11.1 40.0 46.7 WICHE (33) 6.1 15.2 39.4 39.4 NEBHE (28) 0.0 7.1 35.7 57.1 State level SREB (14) 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 WICHE (11) 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 NEBHE (6) 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 Public inst. SREB (92) 4.3 16.3 35.9 43.5 WICHE (53) 9.4 26.4 41.5 22.6 NEBHE (18) 0.0 5.6 27.8 66.7 Private inst. SREB (25) 4.0 16.0 52.0 28.0 WICHE (27) 11.1 14.8 29.6 44.4 NEBHE (21) 0.0 14 33.3 52.4 sass x2=4.284; P>.05. WICHE x2=8.632; P>.05. NEBHE x2 =1.9o7; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (44) 2.3 20.5 52.3 25.0 WICHE (31) 3.2 19.4 64.5 12.9 NEBHE (28) 0.0 10.7 50.0 39.3 State level SREB (14) 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 WICHE (11) 9.1 9.1 63.6 18.2 NEBHE (6) 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 Public inst. SREB (88) 0.0 25.0 44.3 30.7 WICHE (48) 2.1 27.1 56.3 14.6 NEBHE (18) 0.0 16.7 61.1 22.2 Private inst. SREB (24) 8.3 16.7 54.2 20.8 WICHE (24) 12.5 12.5 50.0 25.0 NEBHE (21) 0.0 9.5 52.4 38.1 y SREB x2 =10.461: P > .05. WICHE x2 =8.359; P > .05. NEBHE x2 =2.999; P > .05. 144 Table 41. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 9: "To better inform the general public about the benefits (both individual and social) of graduate education." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (46) 6.5 32.6 21.7 39.1 WICHE (33) 4.1 24.2 42.4 21.2 NEBHE (28) 17.9 46.4 21.4 14.3 State level SREB (14) 7.1 42.9 35.7 14.3 WICHE (11) 9.1 45.5 18.2 27.3 NEBHE (5) 40.0 0.0 40.0 20.0 Public inst. SREB (92) 7.6 18.5 31.5 42.4 WICHE (54) 5.6 20.4 42.6 31.5 NEBHE (18) 5.6 16.7 38.9 38.9 Private inst. SREB (25) 8.0 24.0 36.0 32.0 WICHE (27) 7.4 14.8 40.7 37.0 NEBHE (21) 23.8 28.6 23.8 23.8 SREB x2 =e.e9o; P > .05. WICHE x2 =7.411; P > .05. NEBHE x2 =12.710; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (43) 4.7 20.9 53.5 20.9 WICHE (29) 3.4 37.9 44.8 13.8 NEBHE (23) 8.7 17.4 52.2 21.7 State level SREB (13) 7.7 15.4 69.2 7.7 WICHE (10) 10.0 20.0 40.0 30.0 NEBHE (3) 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 Public inst. SREB (83) 0.0 19.3 49.4 31.3 WICHE (51) 3.9 25.5 47.1 23.5 NEBHE (17) 5.9 17.6 52.9 23.5 Private inst. SREB (23) 0.0 30.4 34.8 34.8 WICHE (25) 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 NEBHE (16) 0.0 43.8 37.5 18.8 SREB x2 =13.053; P > .05. WICHE x2 =8.137; P > .05. NEBHE x2 = 5.699; P > .05. I‘T 145 Table 42. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 10: "To assist the federal government to better understand the issues and alternatives facing graduate education in the region." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (46) 4.3 15.2 39.1 41.3 WICHE (32) 12.5 18.8 40.6 28.1 NEBHE (28) 3.6 39.3 32.1 25.0 State level SREB (14) 7.1 35.7 35.7 21.4 WICHE (11) 9.1 18.2 36.4 36.4 NEBHE (6) 0.0 50.0 33.3 16.7 Public inst. SREB (91) 3.3 15.4 33.0 48.4 WICHE (54) 5.6 13.0 29.6 51.9 NEBHE (18) 0.0 27.8 38.9 33.3 Private inst. SREB (25) 8.0 20.0 32.0 40.0 WICHE (27) 3.7 3.7 29.6 63.0 NEBHE (21) 0.0 28.6 28.6 42.9 SREB X2 =6.862; P > .05. WICHE x2 =1o.129; P > .05. NEBHE x2 =4.662; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (43) 9.3 25.6 46.5 18.6 WICHE (28) 0.0 35.7 60.7 3.6 NEBHE (27) 0.0 14.8 63.0 22.2 State level SREB (13) 0.0 23.1 61.5 15.4 WICHE (10) 10.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 NEBHE (6) 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 Public inst. SREB (87) 4.6 19.5 49.4 26.4 WICHE (52) 5.8 11.5 48.1 34.5 NEBHE (17) 11.8 17.6 58.8 11.8 Private inst. SREB (23) 4.3 17.4 39.1 39.1 WICHE (26) 3.8 15.4 46.2 34.6 NEBHE (21) 0.0 23.8 53.4 23.8 SREB X2 =6.7l6; P > .05. WICHE x2 =17.417; P < .05. NEBHE X2 =10.644; P > .05. 146 Table 43. item 11: Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey "To promote the development of electronic communi- cation systems to link institutions for cooperative sharing of educational resources related to graduate scholarship and research." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (45) 6.7 37.8 37.8 17.8 WICHE (33) 6.1 27.3 45.5 21.2 NEBHE (27) 0.0 44.4 33.3 22.2 State level SREB (14) 7.1 42.9 42.9 7.1 WICHE (11) 0.0 36.4 54.5 9.1 NEBHE (6) 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 Public inst. SREB (92) 8.7 47.8 23.9 19.6 WICHE (54) 18.5 31.5 31.5 18.5 NEBHE (18) 16.7 22.2 27.8 33.3 Private inst. SREB (24) 20.8 41.7 25.0 12.5 WICHE (27) 11.1 33.3 33.3 22.2 NEBHE (21) 19.0 28.6 23.8 28.6 sass X2 =e.91e; P > .05. WICHE X2 =7.364; P > .05. NEBHE x2 =9.717; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (42) 4.8 31.0 54.8 9.5 WICHE (31) 3.2 35.5 51.6 9.7 NEBHE (27) 0.0 14.8 59.3 25.9 State level SREB (13) 7.7 38.5 53.8 0.0 WICHE (11) 9.1 45.5 27.3 18.2 NEBHE (6) 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 Public inst. SREB (83) 8.4 34.9 38.6 18.1 WICHE (45) 6.7 35.6 44.4 13.3 NEBHE (15) 0.0 40.0 33.3 26.7 Private inst. SREB (19) 0.0 42.1 52.6 5.3 WICHE (24) 4.2 33.3 41.7 20.8 NEBHE (18) 5.6 27.8 33.3 33.3 SREB X2 =9.233; P > .05. WHICH x2 =3.523; P > .05. NEBHE x2 =7.978; P > .05. 147 Table 44. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 12: "To provide better information to potential students regarding graduate programs and institutions." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (46) 8.7 19.6 39.1 32.6 WICHE (33) 3.0 33.3 45.5 18.2 NEBHE (28) 3.6 32.1 28.6 35.7 State level SREB (14) 14.3 28.6 28.6 28.6 WICHE (11) 0.0 9.1 72.7 18.2 NEBHE (6) 0.0 50.0 16.7 33.3 Public inst. SREB (92) 9.8 30.4 33.7 26.1 WICHE (54) 14.8 35.2 25.9 24.1 NEBHE (18) 5.6 22.2 33.3 38.9 Private inst. SREB (25) 24.0 20.0 28.0 28.0 WICHE (27) 7.4 18.5 44.4 29.6 NEBHE (21) 14.3 38.1 33.3 14.3 SREB x2 =6.918; P > .05. WICHE x2 =15.057; P > .05. NEBHE x2=6.959; P>.05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (42) 0.0 19.0 50.0 31.0 WICHE (32) 0.0 21.9 43.8 34.4 NEBHE (27) 0.0 3.7 51.9 44.4 State level SREB (12) 0.0 16.7 41.7 41.7 WICHE (11) 0.0 0.0 81.8 18.2 NEBHE (6) 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 Public inst. SREB (82) 0.0 12.2 43.9 43.9 WICHE (45) 0.0 15.6 44.4 40.0 NEBHE (16) 0.0 6.3 56.3 37.5 Private inst. SREB (19) 0.0 21.1 42.1 36.8 WICHE (25) 0.0 24.0 44.0 32.0 NEBHE (19) 5.3 10.5 57.9 26.3 SREB x2 =2.858; P > .05. WICHE x2 =7.183; P> .05. NEBHE x2 =5.188; P > .05. 148 Table 45. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 13: "To assist in the development of cooperative programs designed to aid faculty professional development at graduate institutions." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (44) 9.1 29.5 43.2 18.2 WICHE (33) 3.0 42.4 39.4 15.2 NEBHE (25) 12.0 48.0 28.0 12.0 State level SREB (14) 14.3 35.7 42.9 7.1 WICHE (11) 0.0 36.4 45.5 18.2 NEBHE (5) 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 Public inst. SREB (92) 9.8 29.3 43.5 17.4 WICHE (54) 9.3 46.3 31.5 13.0 NEBHE (18) 5.6 33.3 33.3 27.8 Private inst. SREB (25) 16.0 24.0 44.0 16.0 WICHE (27) 0.0 29.6 48.1 22.2 NEBHE (21) 14.3 57.1 14.3 14.3 sass x2 =2.289; P > .05. WICHE x2 =8.081; P > .05. NEBHE x2 =6.546; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (40) 0.0 25.0 65.0 10.0 WICHE (32) 3.1 28.1 59.4 9.4 NEBHE (21) 0.0 33.3 61.9 4.8 State level SREB (12) 0.0 25.0 66.7 8.3 WICHE (11) 0.0 27.3 63.6 9.1 NEBHE (4) 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 Public inst. SREB (83) 2.4 18.1 59.0 20.5 WICHE (49) 0.0 30.6 55.1 14.3 NEBHE (16) 6.3 31.3 43.8 18 Private inst. SREB (21) 4.8 28.6 52.4 14.3 WICHE (27) 7.4 33.3 40.7 18.5 NEBHE (17) 5.9 41.2 47.1 5.9 SREB x2 =6.083; P > .05. WICHE x2=6.630; P>.05. NEBHE x2 =5.452; P> .os. 149 Table 46. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 14: "To promote the formation of interinstitutional consortia at the graduate level." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (43) 7.0 41.9 27.9 23.3 WICHE (33) 3.0 27.3 57.6 12.1 NEBHE (27) 3.7 40.7 33.3 22.2 State level SREB (14) 7.1 35.7 28.6 28.6 WICHE (11) 0.0 36.4 63.6 0.0 NEBHE (5) 0.0 40 0 0.0 60.0 Public inst. SREB (92) 9 8 45.7 26.1 18.5 WICHE (53) 7.5 50.9 35.8 5. NEBHE (18) 5.6 16 7 44.4 33.3 Private inst. SREB (25) 4.0 44.4 36.0 16.0 WICHE (26) 7.7 38.5 23.1 30.8 NEBHE (21) 0.0 38.1 38.1 23.8 SREB x2=2.977; P>.05. WICHE x2=2o.901; P<.05. NEBHE X2 =e.129; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (40) 2.5 22.5 65.0 10.0 WICHE (32) 0.0 25.0 53.1 21.9 NEBHE (26) 3.8 23.1 46.2 26.9 State level SREB (13) 0.0 7.7 76.9 15.4 WICHE (11) 0.0 36.4 63.6 0.0 NEBHE (5) 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 Public inst. SREB (83) 2.4 20.5 57.8 19.3 WICHE (49) 0.0 32.7 61.2 6.1 NEBHE (16) 12.5 37.5 25.0 25.0 Private inst. SREB (24) 8.3 41.7 50.0 0.0 WICHE (24) 8.3 20.8 58.3 12.5 NEBHE (21) 4.8 38.1 28.6 28.6 SREB x2=l4.671; P>.05. WICHE x2=14.754; P>.05. NEBHE x2 =4.971; P > .05. 150 Table 47. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 15: "To promote the development of regional graduate institutions financed cooperatively by participating states." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (46) 39.1 21. 21.7 17.4 WICHE (33) 27.3 30.3 18.2 24.2 NEBHE (28) 42.9 14.3 14.3 28.6 State level SREB (14) 14.3 57.1 21.4 7.1 WICHE (11) 27.3 45.5 27.3 0.0 NEBHE (6) 33.3 0.0 33.3 33.3 Public inst. SREB (92) 48.9 31.5 15.2 4.3 WICHE (54) 44.4 29.6 18.5 7. NEBHE (18) 33.3 27.8 11.1 27.8 Private inst. SREB (24) 58.3 20.8 8.3 12.5 WICHE (26) 38.5 42.3 11.5 7.7 NEBHE (21) 28.6 23.8 33.3 14.3 SREB x2 =18.019; P < .05. WICHE )(2 -ll.6503 P > .05. NEBHE x2 -= 7.976; P > .05. Highly Semewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (28) 28.6 32.1 35.7 3.6 WICHE (24) 16.7 45.8 16.7 20.8 NEBHE (16) 18.8 18.8 37.5 25.0 State level SREB (12) 41.7 33.3 25.0 0.0 “WICHE (8) 25.0 62.5 12.5 0.0 NEBHE (4) 25.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 Public inst. SREB (45) 24. 40.0 33.3 2.2 WICHE (30) 20.0 46.7 30.0 3.3 NEBHE (12) 16.7 25.0 15.0 8.3 Private inst. SREB (10) 50.0 20.0 0.0 30.0 WICHE (15) 20.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 NEBHE (14) 7.1 42.9 35.7 14.3 sass x2 -2o.183; P < .05. NEBHE x2 -7.615; wxcna x2 -11.233; P > .05. P > .05. 151 Table 48. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 16: "To assist in the development of guidelines for apportioning the cost of graduate education between the student and society." v—v‘ No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (46) 6.5 28.3 32.6 32.6 WICHE (33) 18.2 24.2 30.3 27.3 NEBHE (27) 11.1 25.9 40.7 22.2 State level SREB (14) 14.3 35.7 28.6 21.4 WICHE (11) 9.1 27.3 54.5 9.1 NEBHE (5) 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 Public inst. SREB (92) 14.1 34.8 28.3 22.8 WICHE (54) 13.0 29.6 16.7 40.7 NEBHE (18) 16.7 27.8 38.9 16 Private inst. SREB (24) 12.5 37.5 29.2 20.8 WICHE (27) 0.0 33.3 25.9 40.7 NEBHE (21) 9.5 19.0 28.6 42.9 SREB x2=12.759; P>.05. WICHE x2=4.396; P>.05. NEBHE X2 =15.934; P >.05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (43) 4.7 37.2 51.2 7.0 WICHE (27) 7.4 29.6 44.4 18.5 NEBHE (24) 8.3 37.5 41.7 12.5 State level SREB (12) 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 WICHE (10) 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 NEBHE (S) 0.0 80.0 0.0 20.0 Public inst. SREB (76) 5.3 21.1 59.2 14.5 WICHE (47) 4.3 21.3 42.6 31.9 NEBHE (15) 6.7 33.3 60 0.0 Private inst. SREB (21) 19.0 33.3 33.3 14.3 WICHE (27) 7.4 22.2 48.1 22.2 NEBHE (19) 21.1 36.8 15.8 26.3 SREB X2 =12.759; P > .05. WICHE X2 =4.396; P > .05. NEBHE x2 =15.934; P > .05. 152 Table 49. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 17: "To make available current and reliable information about graduate student financial assistance programs." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (45) 11.1 15. 33.3 40.0 WICHE (33) 6.1 36.4 33.3 24.2 NEBHE (28) 7.1 35.7 21.4 35.7 State level SREB (13) 23.1 30.8 23.1 23.1 WICHE (11) 9.1 9.1 63.6 18.2 NEBHE (5) 0.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 Public inst. SREB (92) 6.5 15.2 42.4 35.9 WICHE (54) 5.6 27.8 40.7 25.9 NEBHE (18) 0.0 22.2 38.9 38.9 Private inst. SREB (25) 12.0 32.0 16.0 40.0 WICHE (27) 7.4 18 5 22.2 51.9 NEBHE (21) 4.8 4 8 38.1 52 4 SREB X2 =13.235; P > .055 WICHE x2 =12.839; P > .05. NEBHE X =9.638; P>.05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (40) 2.5 5.0 62.5 30.0 WICHE (31) 3.2 6.5 61.3 29.0 NEBHE (26) 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 State level SREB (10) 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 WICHE (10) 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 NEBHE (5) 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 Public inst. SREB (86) 1.2 3.5 50.0 45.3 WICHE (51) 0.0 9.8 52.9 37.3 NEBHE (18) 5.6 11.1 38.9 44.4 Private inst. SREB (22) 4.5 13.6 40.9 40.9 WICHE (25) 0.0 12.0 24.0 64.0 NEBHE (20) 0.0 0.0 35.0 65.0 SREB X2 =1o.549; p > .05. WICHE x2=13.206; P>.05. NEBHE x2 =6.778; P > .05. 153 Table 50. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 18: "To assist in the identification of unnecessary interstate duplication of graduate programs and facilities." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (46) 13.0 15.2 23.9 47.8 WICHE (33) 12.1 30.3 33.3 24.2 NEBHE (28) 7.1 21.4 25.0 46.4 State level SREB (14) 7.1 14.3 35.7 42.9 WICHE (11) 0.0 18.2 54.5 27.3 NEBHE (5) 20.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 Public inst. SREB (92) 18.5 30.4 30.4 20.7 WICHE (53) 24.5 39.6 24.5 11.3 NEBHE (18) 11.1 16.7 33.3 38.9 Private Inst. ' SREB (25) 20.0 28.0 16.0 36.0 WICHE (27) 14.8 11.1 44.4 29.6 NEBHE (21) 0.0 14.3 33.3 52.4 SREB x2 =15.184; P > .05. WICHE x2 =17.141; P< .05. NEBHE x2 =7.775; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (40) 2.5 20.0 50.0 27.5 WICHE (29) 6.9 20.7 48.3 24.1, NEBHE (26) 3.8 19.2 38.5 38.5 State level SREB (13) 0.0 15.4 46.2 38.5 WICHE (11) 0.0 18.2 63.6 18 2 NEBHE (4) 0.0 25.0 0.0 75 0 Public inst. SREB (73) 8.2 26.0 46.6 19.2 WICHE (39) 7.7 35.9 41.0 15.4 NEBHE (15) 6.7 33.3 40.0 20.0 Private inst. SREB (20) 20.0 25.0 35.0 20.0 WICHE (23) 4.3 17.4 47.8 30.4 NEBHE (21) 9.5 28.6 23.8 38.1 SREB X2 =1o.174; P > .05. WICHE x2 =6.382; P > .05. NEBHE x2 = 6.875; P > .05. 154 Table 51. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 19: "To assist in the development of appropriate measures of quality to be used in evaluating existing graduate programs." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level . SREB (46) 8.7 15.2 37.0 39.1 WICHE (33) 12.1 18.2 39.4 30.3 NEBHE (28) 14.3 17.9 35.7 32.1 State level SREB (14) 21.4 0.0 35.7 42.9 WICHE (11) 0.0 9.1 45 5 45.5 NEBHE (5) 20.0 0.0 20.0 60.0 Public inst. SREB (91) 14.3 19.8 36.3 29.7 WICHE (54) 9.3 22.2 29.6 38.9 NEBHE (18) 5.6 5.6 33.3 55.6 Private inst. SREB (25) 32.0 8.0 48.0 12.0 WICHE (27) 18.5 14.8 29.6 37.0 NEBHE (21) 9.5 47.6 19.0 23.8 SREB x2=15.569; P>.05. WICHE x2=5.703; P>.05. NEBHE x2 =15.757; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (42) 9.5 23.8 54.8 11.9 WICHE (29) 13.8 34.5 51.7 0.0 NEBHE (23) 13.0 26.1 43.5 17.4 State level SREB (11) 9.1 18.2 54.5 18.2 WICHE (11) 9.1 27.3 54.5 9.1 NEBHE (4) 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Public inst. SREB (78) 11.5 24.4 43.6 20.5 WICHE (48) 4.2 27.1 52.1 11.7 NEBHE (16) 12.5 31.3 56.3 0.0 Private inst. SREB (17) 11.8 23.5 41.2 23.5 WICHE (22) 13.6 40.9 31.8 13.6 NEBHE (19) 31.6 26.3 31.6 10.5 SREB x2 =2.687;‘ P > .05. WICHE x2 =9.879; P > .05. NEBHE x2 =7.3o7; P > .05. 155 Table 52. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 20: "To assist in the development of uniform measures of productivity and efficiency for use in evaluating existing graduate programs." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (45) 8. 22.2 33.3 35.6 WICHE (33) 27.3 12.1 48.5 12.1 NEBHE (27) 25.9 22.2 33.3 18.5 State level SREB (14) 7.1 14.3 42.9 35.7 WICHE (11) 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 NEBHE (5) 20.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 Public inst. SREB (91) 17.6 25.3 30.8 26.4 WICHE (54) 13.0 27.8 40.7 18.5 NEBHE (18) 27.8 11.1 33.3 27.8 Private inst. SREB (24) 29.2 29.2 29.2 12.5 WICHE (27) 29.6 18.5 22.2 29.6 NEBHE (21) 33.3 33.3 19.0 14.3 SREB x2 =9.793; P > .05. WICHE x2 =15.992; P > .05. NEBHE x2 =6.731; P > .05. Regional level SREB (41) 7.3 43.9 39.0 9.8 WICHE (24) 12.5 25.0 50.0 12.5 NEBHE (20) 10.0 30.0 35.0 25.0 State level ' SREB (13) 15.4 23.1 61.5 0.0 WICHE (11) 18.2 18.2 54.5 9.1 NEBHE (4) 25.0 50.0 0.0 25.0 Public inst. SREB (74) 9.5 31.1 44.6 14.9 WICHE (47) 12.8 31.9 42.6 12.8 NEBHE (12) 33.3 16.7 50.0 0.0 Private inst. SREB (18) 27.8 44.4 16.7 11.1 WICHE (19) 26.3 31.6 36.8 5.3 NEBHE (14) 50.0 21.4 14.3 14.3 SREB X2 =13.830; P > .05. WICHE x2 =4.062; P > .05. NEBHE x2 =13.673; P > .05. 156 Table 53. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 21: "To assist in the identification of need for new graduate programs in the region." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (46) 6.5 19.6 32.6 41.3 WICHE (33) 9.1 33.3 42.4 15.2 NEBHE (27) 3.7 22.2 29.6 44.4 State level SREB (14) 7.1 21.4 28.6 42.9 WICHE (11) 9.1 18.2 63.6 9.1 NEBHE (6) 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 Public inst. SREB (91) 3.3 28.6 34.1 34.1 WICHE (54) 7.4 38.9 29.6 24.1 NEBHE (18) 0.0 11.1 38.9 50.0 Private inst. SREB (25) 8.0 40.0 24.0 28.0 WICHE (27) 11.1 22.2 33.3 33.3 NEBHE (21) 4.8 14.3 52.4 28.6 SREB x2=5.77o; P>.05. WICHE x2=9.001; P>.05. NEBHE x2 =5.eeo; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (43) 0.0 18.6 55.8 25.6 WICHE (30) 0.0 20.0 56.7 23.3 NEBHE (26) 0.0 19.2 46.2 34.6 State level SREB (13) 0.0 15.4 53.8 30.8 WICHE (10) 0.0 10.0 70.0 20.0 NEBHE (6) 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 Public inst. SREB (88) 2.3 14.8 61.4 21.6 WICHE (49) 0.0 22 4 53.1 24.5 NEBHE (17) 0.0 11.8 64.7 23.5 Private inst. SREB (23) 8.7 26.1 34.8 30.4 WICHE (24) 4.2 25.0 41.7 29 2 NEBHE (20) 0.0 15.0 40.0 45 0 SREB x2=9.758; P>.05. WICHE x2=6.025; P>.05. NEBHE x2 =4.o73; P > .05. Table 54. item 22: 157 Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey "To promote research aimed at assessing manpower needs which require education at the graduate level." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (46) 4.3 19. 30.4 45.7 WICHE (33) 9.1 24.2 42.4 24.2 NEBHE (27) 0.0 37.0 18.5 44.4 State level SREB (14) 7.1 28.6 35.7 28.6 WICHE (11) 0.0 9.1 45.5 45.5 NEBHE (5) 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 Public inst. SREB (92) 6.5 23.9 33.7 35.9 WICHE (54) 11.1 24.1 33.3 31.5 NEBHE (18) 0.0 16. 16.7 66.7 Private inst. SREB (25) 20.0 16.0 44.0 20.0 WICHE (26) 7.7 11.5 38.5 42.3 NEBHE (21) 4.8 33.3 23.8 38.1 SREB x2=10.662; P>.05. WICHE x2=6.277; P>.05. NEBHE x2 =7.207; P > .05. Regional level SREB (44) 0.0 22.7 54.5 22.7 WICHE (30) 3.3 30.0 60.0 6.7 NEBHE (27) 11.1 22.2 37.0 29.6 State level SREB (13) 7.7 46.2 30.8 15.4 WICHE (11) 0.0 18.2 63.6 18.2 NEBHE (5) O 0 40.0 60.0 0.0 Public inst. SREB (85) 4.7 16.5 50.6 28.2 WICHE (47) 4.3 12.8 48.9 34.0 NEBHE (18) 5.6 16.7 72.2 5.6 Private inst. SREB (20) 0.0 30.0 55.0 15.0 WICHE (24) 4.2 20.8 37.5 37.5 NEBHE (20) 10.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 sass x2 =11.715; P > .05. WICHE x2 =11.993; P > .05 NEBHE x2 =11.7o7; P > .05. 158 Table 55. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 23: "To promote the development of pilot and experimental projects designed to test new teaching-learning techniques for use at the graduate level." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (45) 8.9 35.6 33.3 22.2 WICHE (32) 18.8 18.8 40.6 21.9 NEBHE (27) 22.2 40.7 29.6 7.4 State level SREB (14) 14.3 57.1 21.4 7.1 WICHE (11) 9.1 18.2 45.5 27.3 NEBHE (5) 20.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 Public inst. SREB (92) 12.0 29.3 34.8 23.9 WICHE (54) 13.0 37.0 33.3 16.7 NEBHE (18) 11.1 5.6 33.3 50.0 Private inst. SREB (24) 16.7 41.7 25.0 16.7 WICHE (27) 11.1 25.9 29.6 33.3 NEBHE (21) 14.3 47.6 28.6 9.5 SREB x2=6.969; P>.05. WICHE x2=7.o77; P>.05. NEBHE x2 =2o.444; P < .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (41) 4.9 36.6 48.8 9.8 WICHE (26) 11.5 38.5 34.6 15.4 NEBHE (20) 0.0 20.0 65.0 15.0 State level SREB (12) 8.3 50.0 41.7 0.0 WICHE (10) 10.0 10.0 50.0 30.0 NEBHE (4) 0.0 75.0 25.0 0.0 Public inst. SREB (79) 5.1 21.5 55.7 17.1 WICHE (47) 4.3 36.2 48.9 10.6 NEBHE (16) 12.5 18.8 56.3 12.5 Private inst. SREB (20) 10.0 35.0 40.0 15.0 WICHE (24) 16.7 29.2 33.3 20.8 NEBHE (18) 11.1 27.8 44.4 16.7 SREB x2 =9.259; P > .05. WICHE X2 =8.819; P > .05. NEBHE x2 =9.2s7; P > .05. 159 Table 56. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 24: "To provide consultation and assistance to state higher education agencies charged with planning and coordinating graduate education." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (46) 6.5 17.4 39.1 37.0 WICHE (33) 6.1 30.3 36.4 27.3 NEBHE (27) 14.8 22.2 29.6 33.3 State level SREB (14) 7.1 21.4 42.9 28.6 WICHE (11) 0.0 18.2 45.5 36.4 NEBHE (6) 16.7 16 7 0.0 66 7 Public inst. SREB (91) 4.4 33.0 40.7 22.0 WICHE (54) 16.7 27.8 27.8 27.8 NEBHE (18) 16.7 11.1 27.8 44.4 Private inst. SREB (24) 12.5 20.8 33.3 33.3 WICHE (27) 11.1 18.5 40.7 29.6 NEBHE (21) 0.0 19.0 52.4 28.6 SREB x2=8.385; P>.05. WICHE x2=6.305; P>.05. NEBHE x2 =io.819; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (43) 0.0 14.0 51.2 34.9 WICHE (31) 0.0 19.4 54.8 25.8 NEBHE (23) 8.7 21 7 34.8 34 8 State level SREB (13) 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 WICHE (11) 0.0 0.0 81 8 18.2 NEBHE (5) 0.0 20.0 20 0 60.0 Public inst. SREB (87) 1.1 14.9 58.6 25.3 WICHE (44) 2.3 15.9 52.3 29.5 NEBHE (15) 20.0 13.3 53.3 13.3 Private inst. SREB (21) 4.8 19.0 42.9 33.3 WICHE (24) 0.0 20.8 41.7 37.5 NEBHE (21) 9.5 9.5 38.1 42.9 sass x2=8.385; P>.05. WICHE x2=7.213; P>.05. NEBHE x2 =7.667; P > .05. 160 Table 57. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 25: "To promote the development of regional cooperative programs directed at securing additional funding for certain graduate programs and facilities." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (46) 2.2 26.1 43.5 28.3 WICHE (32) 9.4 43.8 25.0 21.9 NEBHE (27) 11.1 37.0 25.9 25.9 State level SREB (14) 7.1 42.9 35.7 14.3 WICHE (11) 0.0 18.2 63.6 18.2 NEBHE (6) 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 Public inst. SREB (91) 7.7 25.3 37.4 29.7 WICHE (54) 11.1 31 5 37.0 20 4 NEBHE (18) 0.0 22 2 22.2 55.6 Private inst. SREB (25) 16.0 28.0 36.0 20.0 WICHE (27) 7.4 22 2 33.3 37 0 NEBHE (21) 0.0 19.0 52.4 28.6 SREB x2 =7.see; P > .05. WICHE x2 =10.l64; P > .05. NEBHE x2 =14.131; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (45) 2.2 31.1 51.1 15.6 WICHE (29) 3.4 41.4 44.8 10.3 NEBHE (24) 4 2 20 8 58.3 16 7 State level SREB (13) 7.7 46.2 38.5 7.7 WICHE (11) 0.0 36.4 45.5 18.2 NEBHE (6) 16.7 0.0 66.7 16.7 Public inst. SREB (84) 4.8 20.2 54.8 20.2 WICHE (48) 2.1 29.2 62.5 6.3 NEBHE (18) 11.1 11.1 72.2 5.6 Private inst. SREB (21) 9.5 33.3 42.9 14.3 WICHE (25) 8.0 32.0 24.0 36.0 NEBHE (21) 4.8 38.1 38.1 19.0 SREB x2 =7.784; P > .05. WICHE x2 =18.392; P< .05. NEBHE x2 =9.992; P > .05. Table 58. 161 Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 26: "To assist institutions to identify able members of minority groups and women for recruitment as graduate faculty and students." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (46) 15.2 17.4 34.8 32.6 WICHE (33) 24.2 27.3 27.3 21.2 NEBHE (27) 18.5 40.7 14.8 25.9 State level SREB (14) 21.4 28.6 21.4 28.6 WICHE (11) 18.2 27.3 45.5 9.1 NEBHE (S) 20.0 20.0 20.0 40.0 Public inst. SREB (92) 14.1 15.2 26.1 44.6 WICHE (54) 9.3 29.6 27.8 33.3 NEBHE (18) 11.1 27.8 22.2 38.9 Private inst. SREB (24) 16.7 20.8 29.2 33.3 WICHE (27) 3.7 25.9 29.6 40.7 NEBHE (21) 9.5 9.5 38.1 42.9 SREB )8 =4.740; P > .05. WICHE x2 =10.789; P > .05. NEBHE x2 =9.182; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (38) 0.0 28.9 44.7 26.3 WICHE (24) 8.3 29.2 50.0 12.5 NEBHE (22) 4.5 22.7 54.5 18.2 State level SREB (11) 0.0 27.3 45.5 27.3 WICHE (8) 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 NEBHE (4) 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 Public inst. SREB (79) 1.3 13.9 57.0 27.8 WICHE (48) 6.3 8.3 50.0 35.4 NEBHE (16) 0.0 18.8 68.8 12.5 Private inst. SREB (20) 0.0 25.0 35.0 40.0 WICHE (25) 0.0 12.0 52.0 36.0 NEBHE (19) 0.0 21.1 52.6 26.3 SREB X2 =7.23s; P > .05. WICHE X2 =14.4l6; P> .05. NEBHE X2 =3.3oo; P > .05. 162 Table 59. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 27: "To develop procedures for increasing student access to graduate programs and facilities available at private institutions." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (46) 19.6 26.1 30.4 23.9 WICHE (32) 31.3 31.3 25.0 12.5 NEBHE (26) 19.2 23.1 34.6 23.1 State level SREB (14) 7.1 50.0 21.4 21.4 WICHE (11) 18.2 45.5 18.2 18.2 NEBHE (5) 0.0 60.0 40.0 0.0 Public inst. SREB (92) 26.1 37.0 26.1 10.9 WICHE (52) 28.8 44.2 21.2 5.8 NEBHE (18) 22.2 33.3 33.3 11.1 Private inst. SREB (25) 12.0 32.0 28.0 28.0 WICHE (25) 4.0 12.0 32.0 52.0 NEBHE (21) 4.8 14.3 28.6 52.4 SREB X2 =11.049; P > .05. WICHE x2 =32.823; P < .05. NEBHE x2 =1s.4e4; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (37) 2.7 29.7 54.1 13.5 WICHE (22) 4.5 22.7 59.1 13.6 NEBHE (21) 9 5 19.0 38.1 33.3 State level SREB (13) 0.0 61.5 30.8 7.7 WICHE (9) 0.0 44.4 33.3 22.2 NEBHE (5) 20.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 Public inst. SREB (66) 30.0 18.2 66.7 12.1 WICHE (37) 0.0 37.8 48.6 13.5 NEBHE (14) 14.3 28.6 50.0 7.1 Private inst. SREB (22) 4.5 18.2 63.6 13.6 WICHE (24) 0.0 20.8 29.2 50.0 NEBHE (19) 5.3 15.8 47.4 31.6 SREB X2 =12.293; P > .05. WICHE x2 =17.782; P< .05. NEBHE x2 =6.275; P> .05. 163 Table 60. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 28: "To assist in the development of programs designed to help graduate faculty improve their skill as teachers." No Moderate Considerable Major Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (46) 10.9 28.3 39.1 21.7 WICHE (33) 15.2 24.2 33.3 27.3 NEBHE (25) 20.0 48.0 16.0 16.0 State level SREB (14) 14.3 28.6 42.9 14.3 WICHE (11) 18.2 18.2 45.5 18.2 NEBHE (5) 0.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 Public inst. SREB (92) 8.7 37.0 28.3 26.1 WICHE (54) 13.0 31.5 35.2 20.4 NEBHE (18) 0 0 33.3 33.3 33.3 Private inst. SREB (25) 8.0 24.0 52.0 16.0 WICHE (26) 7.7 11.5 50.0 30.8 NEBHE (20) 15.0 30.0 35.0 20.0 SREB x2=7.059; P>.05. WICHE x2=6.475; P>.05. NEBHE X2 =9.002; P> .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level SREB (41) 2.4 58.5 31.7 7.3 WICHE (28) ' 7.1 17.9 57.1 17.9 NEBHE (19) 15.8 31.6 47.4 5.3 State level SREB (12) 8.3 58.3 33.3 0.0 WICHE (9) 0.0 44.4 44.4 11.1 NEBHE (5) 40.0 40.0 20 0 0.0 Public inst. SREB (82) 4.9 37.8 40.2 17.1 WICHE (47) 12.8 29.8 48.9 8.5 NEBHE (18) 16.7 16.7 50.0 16.7 Private inst. SREB (23) 17.4 34.8 34.8 13.0 WICHE (24) 20.8 16.7 45.8 16.7 NEBHE (17) 23.5 35.3 35.3 5.9 sass x2=l3.764; P>.05. WICHE x2=8.183; P>.05. NEBHE x2 =6.151; P > .05. 164 Table 61. Percentage distribution of responses by compact to survey item 29: "To maintain a current and comprehensive inventory of graduate programs and facilities in the region." No Moderate Considerable Maj or Need Need Need Need Regional level SREB (46) 2.2 17.4 30.4 50.0 WICHE (33) 6.1 27.3 24.2 42.4 NEBHE (28) 3.6 32.1 21.4 42.9 State level SREB (14) 0.0 35.7 7.1 57.1 WICHE (11) 9.1 9.1 45.5 36 4 NEBHE (6) 0.0 33.3 16.7 50 0 Public inst. SREB (92) 3.3 25.0 33.7 38.0 WICHE (54) 16.7 29.6 25.9 27.8 NEBHE (18) 5.6 16.7 16.7 61.1 Private inst. SREB (25) 8.0 24.0 32.0 36.0 WICHE (27) 14.8 18.5 22.2 44.4 NEBHE (21) 0.0 23.8 19.0 57.1 SREB x2=8.766; P>.05. WICHE x2=7.801; P>.05. NEBHE X2 =3.503; P > .05. Highly Somewhat Somewhat Highly Unfeasible Unfeasible Feasible Feasible Regional level :SREB (45) 0.0 4.4 31.1 64.4 WICHE (31) 0.0 16.1 35.5 48.4 NEBHE (27) 0.0 3.7 29.6 66.7 State level SREB (14) 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 WICHE (10) 0.0 10.0 30.0 60.0 NEBHE (6) 0.0 16.7 16.7 66.7 Public inst. SREB (23) 0.0 3.5 36.0 66.5 WICHE (45) 0.0 6.7 44.4 48.9 NEBHE (17) 0.0 5.9 41.2 52.9 Private inst. SREB (23) 4.3 0.0 34.8 60.9 WICHE (23) 0.0 0.0 39.1 60.9 NEBHE (21) 0.0 0.0 19.0 81.0 SREB x2=8.115; P>.05. WICHE x2=5.663; P>.05. NEBHE X2 =6.255; P > .05. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Barton, Weldon V. Interstate Compacts in the Political Process. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North CaroIina Press, 1965. Council of State Governments. Interstate Compacts, 1783- 1970. Lexington, Kentucky:“mhec6uncil, 1971. Dimock, Marshall, and Benson, George S. Can Interstate Compacts Succeed? Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937. Elliott, William Y. The Need for Constitutional Reform. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1935. Eulau, Heinz, and Quinley, Harold. State Officials and Hi her Education. New York: Mc—Graw-Hill Book Co., I930. Leach, Richard H., and Sugg, Redding 8., Jr. The Adminis- tration and Interstate Compacts. Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1959. Mayhew, Lewis B. Graduate and Professional Education, 1980. New York: McGraw:Hill Book Co.,‘l972. ' . Reform in Graduate Education. SREB Research Monograph No. 18. Atlanta, Ga.: Southern Regional Education Board, 1972. Muys, Jerome C. Interstate Water Compacts. Washington, D.C.: National TeEhnical Information Service, 0.8. Department of Commerce, July 1971. Odum, Howard W., and Moore, Harry E. American Regionalism New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1938: Ridgeway, Marian E. Interstate Compacts, Agnestion of Federalism. Carbondale, 111.: TSOuthern Illinois Press, 1971. 165 166 Southern Regional Education Board. The Future South and Higher Education. Atlanta, Ga.: Southern Regional Education Board, 1968. Sugg, Redding 5., Jr., and Jones, George Hilton. The Southern Regional Education Board, Ten Years of-Regional Cooperation in Higher Education. Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University Press, 1960. Thursby, Vincent V. Interstate Cooperation: A Studygof the Interstate Compact. Wa§hington, D.C.: PubliE’Affairs Press, 1953. Zimmerman, Frederick L., and Wendell, Mitchell. The Law and Use of Interstate Compacts. Chicago: Council of State Governments, 1961. and . The Interstate Compact Since 1925. Lexington, Ky.: Council of State Governments, 1949. Publications Anderson, Robert C. "The Southern Regional Education Board." In Emerging Patterns in American Higher Education. Edited by Logan Wilson. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965, pp. 191-195. Bunnell, Kevin, and Johnson, Eldon. "Interinstitutional Cooperation." In Higher Education: Some Newer Developments. Edited by Samuel Baskins. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965, pp. 247-272. Fey, John T. "The New England Board of Higher Education." In Emerging_Patterns in American HighgguEducation. Editediby Logan Wilson. Wa§hington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965, pp. 196-198. Frankfurter, Felix, and Landis, James. "The Compact Clause of the Constitution--A Study in Interstate Adjustments." Yale Law Journal, XXXIV (May 1925). Glenny, Lyman. "Doctoral Planning for the 19705." The Research Reporter, VI, No. l (1971). . "The Sixties in Reverse." The Research Reporter, VIII, No. 3 (1973). 167 Godwin, Winfred L. "The Southern Regional Education Board-~A Public Regional System." In Higher Education: From Autonomy to Systems. Edited by James A. Perkins. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Information Agency, Voice of America Forum Series, 1973, pp. 71-78. Kroepsch, Robert H. "Regional Cooperation in Higher Education." Compact, April 1970. and Kaplan, M. Stephen. "Interstate Coordination in Higher Education." In Emerging_Patterns in American Higher Education. Edited by Logan Wilson. Washington, .— D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965, pp. 174-190. - Miller, James L. "The Southern Regional Education Board: Continuity and Change." School and Sociepy, March 18, I3: 1967. Perkins, James A. "The Drive for Coordination." In Higher Education: From Autonomy to Systems. Edited by James A. Perkins. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Information Agency, Voice of America Forum, 1973, pp. 3-12. Pifer, Alan. "The Quasi-Governmental Organization." 1967 Annual Report of the Carnegie Corporation. New York: Carnegie Corporation,71967. Zimmerman, Frederick, and Wendell, Mitchell. "Interstate Compacts." 1971-72 Book of the States. Lexington, Ky.: Council of State Governments, 1972. Other Sources Ferguson, Alan D. "Interstate Students Exchange Programs: Reality and Possibility." Remarks presented at the Annual Meeting, New England Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, Bedford, New Hampshire, November 8, 1972. "Regional Developments in Higher Education." Remarks given at Workshop of the New England Junior College Council, June 15, 1973. Glenny, Lyman. "Trends Are Impelling Higher Education Towards State and Regional Planning." Address delivered to New England Board of Higher Education, Boston, 1971. 168 Kroepsch, Robert H. "Regional Cooperation in Higher Education in the United States." Presented to the XIII Seminar on Higher Education in the Americas, University of New Mexico, April 1973. Robb, Felix. "Regionalism in Higher Education in the South." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1952. Ross, Douglas N. "Interface Management: The Intersect Between Firm and Federal Organization." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder, 1972. Woodard, Prince B. "Proposals for New Forms of Regional Cooperation." Remarks given at the Southern Regional Education Board's 22nd Annual Legislative Work Confer- ence, Memphis, Tennessee, August 1973. Personal interviews conducted with Southern Regional Education Board agency staff members. Atlanta, Georgia, October 28-30, 1973. Personal interviews conducted with Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education agency staff members. Boulder, Colorado, October 22-25, 1973. Personal interviews conducted with New England Board of Higher Education agency staff members. Wellesley, Massachusetts, November 1-4, 1973. "‘lililllllllllr