From the issue dated May 2, 2003
|
|
Colleges Bring Better Lives ... but Who Will Pay?By GORDON DAVIESThe bad news is that the news is good. A survey conducted for The Chronicle has found that most Americans have confidence in higher education and think that it is an important preparation for careers and social responsibility (see articles in Section 1). They favor universal access to college and want their children to attend. More than half of those polled said that a four-year degree is essential for success -- and that proportion is higher among younger adults 24 to 33 years old. Almost four in five respondents said that the quality of higher education is good or excellent. However, only slightly fewer of the survey participants -- 63 percent -- said that colleges could reduce their costs without damaging quality. Once again, younger respondents were more apt to say so than older people. And more than 80 percent said that middle-class families find it difficult to afford higher education. Such results are not surprising. Other surveys have shown that Americans value higher education and think our colleges are good to excellent, yet they worry about being able to pay the costs and are skeptical about the efficiency of the institutions. What is different today is the economic environment, which probably is as challenging as any in the last 30 to 40 years. Governors and state legislators face damaged economies, drop-dead resistance from voters to tax increases, and huge demands for additional spending for Medicaid, homeland security, and elementary and secondary schools. They will have to contend with collective revenue shortfalls as high as $85-billion in the fiscal year that begins July 1. In fact, they will have to deal with enormous economic problems for the rest of the decade. Dennis Jones, president of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, recently said that "even if states experience normal economic growth over the next eight years, all but a handful ... will find it impossible, given their existing tax policies, to continue funding their current level of public services." Washington will not help because of massive federal deficits, impending tax cuts, and pressing obligations including the costs of war, security, health care, and the No Child Left Behind legislation. Thus, the recovery from this recession may not include higher education as it did in the early 1970s, '80s, and '90s. State and federal budget problems threaten all of higher education, not just public institutions. All private colleges are subject to state regulation, and most also depend significantly upon federal and state financial-aid programs. Yet despite deep budget cuts at all types of institutions over the past year, American higher education is perceived to be both better and wealthier than it probably is. In this recovery-resistant economy, such public perceptions signal a tough road ahead. The news is worse. The younger generations, as represented among the survey respondents, see most clearly that higher education can lead to a healthy and productive life. But they also tend to identify themselves as politically conservative and think that colleges and universities, although important and of good quality, can cut costs. Members of the younger generations will be a strong force for a long time -- with no sense of urgency about the need for additional financial support. So state leaders don't want to deal with a higher-education crisis, and the public doesn't think there is one. Government officials don't want to seek more revenue to support higher education, and taxpayers don't think higher education needs more. Have a nice day. The situation is certainly not encouraging, but it does offer opportunities. Significant reform in any enterprise, including higher education, rarely occurs in good economic times. Then elected and appointed officials appropriate money without much regard for consequences. Most substantive change and improvement has come when money is scarce. What can institutions and state systems do? Don't whine. It doesn't help -- and actually can hurt -- in times of severe financial difficulties. Everyone is in trouble, and colleges are perceived correctly as having much more flexibility and access to other sources of money than, for example, a state's Department of Aging. Protect the students. They are the primary reason that colleges exist. Rather than threatening that hundreds of them won't graduate on time because of budget cuts -- as the presidents of one state's flagship institution and land-grant universities did recently -- promise them that they will. Then do what has to be done to keep the promise. That may mean eliminating some specialized courses in order to teach those required for graduation. It may mean adjusting the teaching obligations of faculty members. It may mean agreeing with other institutions to share courses and to waive arcane transfer requirements so students can get the courses they need from neighboring universities, if necessary. It may mean using multistate compacts like the Southern Regional Education Board to deliver courses electronically throughout many states, with a guarantee that the courses will count toward graduation. When students who serve in the National Guard or reserves were called to duty this year, colleges surely made it possible for them to finish courses early, returned tuition payments, or helped in other ways. It was a national emergency. So is a cumulative state budget gap of up to $85-billion. Treat it as such. Use this difficult time to begin assessing student learning. An unusually rich set of projects is under way to determine what students learn and can do as a result of higher education. The Council for Aid to Education, a subsidiary of the RAND Corporation, is testing an examination to measure student learning. The ACT has developed "Work Keys," a set of skills-based tests that community colleges and businesses can use to screen potential employees. The National Survey of Student Engagement assesses learning by asking students how often they had certain kinds of academic experiences in college, like small seminars, intensive writing projects, and one-on-one faculty contact. And the Collegiate Results survey asks alumni to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their undergraduate education. Using all of this powerful package of surveys and tests to assess a state's system, and appropriate parts to evaluate each institution within a state, would provide new information to argue for the importance of higher education. Or, if the results are not as good as some colleges would like, at least they could be used to begin making a case for more government support to fix obvious deficiencies. This is realistic, not crass. Year after year, public-school leaders come before legislative budget and finance committees saying, "We're working hard, but we're still in trouble. Here are the test results that show how far we have to go." College officials often follow them to the lectern and say, "We're very good but still need more money." The higher-education argument is far less compelling. Take more seriously the challenge to cut costs. Most colleges do not have enough money to do everything they ought to do, not to mention everything they would like to do. But many also do not spend what they have wisely. In Kentucky, for example, the six regional institutions (not the University of Kentucky or the University of Louisville) use general-fund appropriations to support their intercollegiate-athletics programs. Read the Chronicle poll. Two-thirds of the respondents said that athletics are overemphasized in higher education. Only one-third said that the colleges should provide athletics programs for the entertainment of the communities in which they are located. The survey found that Americans want education that is useful, effectively and efficiently delivered, and timely. The rest is secondary. Meanwhile, cost-cutting initiatives -- cooperative purchasing agreements, shared library acquisitions, joint faculty appointments and degree programs, outsourcing of maintenance and administrative functions, cutbacks in unnecessary programs -- all have been tried but rarely in a concerted way. If they were, it would make a difference in the cost of college and in the public's perception of higher education's efficiency. Form coalitions with other entities dependent on government support that are being ignored or badly hurt. City and county governments, for example, are being required to provide more services as state budgets are slashed. Local school boards are saddled with the unfunded mandates of federal legislation. Agencies that provide child and family services have little or no political clout and have taken big budget cuts. Form the coalitions not to wrest money away from Medicaid, homeland security, or corrections but to argue for tough-minded and rational tax reform. The tax codes of many states are badly outdated and no longer produce the revenue needed to provide essential services. City and county governments have political strength, as do local school boards. Coalitions of the needy, both politically strong and weak, might be able to break through the "no tax" ideology that grips the nation. Finally, change the terms of the discussion. This is not about building or maintaining strong universities. It is about the health and happiness of all the women, men, and children in every state. It is about providing them with the services they need to become economically self-sufficient, productive members of society. Colleges are just one essential means to this end: better lives. The respondents to the Chronicle poll made one thing abundantly clear. They want their children to enjoy the benefits of higher education so they can have better jobs and careers, develop good values, be responsible citizens, and prepare to lead our nation in a rapidly changing world. The current difficult environment gives higher education an opportunity to live up to the expectations of Americans by focusing on the well-being of our society and the people within it. Gordon Davies is a senior adviser to the Education Commission of the States. He has been president of the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education and executive director of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia. http://chronicle.com Section: The Chronicle Review Volume 49, Issue 34, Page B20
|
Copyright © 2003 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
