Higher education in the United States has been transformed throughout its
history by external forces. The land-grant universities of the 19th century
were a response to the industrial needs of that time, the research agenda of
the '50s and '60s was a response to the Cold War, and the expansion of
access in the '60s and '70s was higher education's answer to the Civil
Rights movement. The 1990s have now spawned a new set of changes-in the
world economy, in public attitudes about government and financing the social
agenda, in the role of competition in American society, and, of course, in
developments in information technology and networks.
Over the past decade we have experienced significant changes in how we
finance higher education. Cutting across all of our policies has loomed the
federal deficit and a growing skepticism about the value of
government-sponsored programs. Many Republican governors (30 of the 50
states are now in Republican hands) appear to be willing to take less
federal support in return for more flexibility in handling the nearly 600
categorical federal programs which they administer. The cumulative effect of
this strategy may be reductions of federal support to the states totaling
$25-35 billion over the next five years. With higher education as the
biggest discretionary item in state budgets (and often the last item decided
in the process), it will be a likely target in the budget- cutting process.
These changing circumstances likely will mean continued upward pressure on
tuition and fees, which in turn is likely to cause public backlash. Consumer
resistance to price increases is already having its effect on private
colleges, and legislative hostility is beginning to hold down public-sector
increases. Nor are enrollment caps likely to be popular with state
politicians and the public who wonder about low faculty teaching loads and
shrinking academic calendars. This leaves little choice but to consider more
cost-effective ways to deliver higher education.
The debate over the virtues of competition as compared to regulation and its
milder version known as "coordination" will also change the landscape in
higher education. Much of state policy in higher education has been
orchestrated by statewide coordinating and governing boards, supported by
legislative mandates to control the growth and costs of higher education.
These "role and mission" policies have set the framework for the delivery
systems that dominate higher education-large public university systems,
established to avoid the costs of "unnecessary duplication" and other
destructive aspects of excessive competition in the public sector. Their
practical effect has been to establish a relatively rigid hierarchy of
flag-ship institutions with statewide, national and international missions;
a second tier of state colleges with regional responsibilities; and
community colleges with local franchises.
These policy assumptions will be severely tested in the emerging higher
education marketplace. Developments in technology and networks already serve
as a catalyst for rethinking policy assumptions of the past. Boundaries,
whether political, geographic, or discipline-based, are in the process of
being redrawn or abandoned. Historical relationships between costs and the
production process in higher education are being turned on their head. New
delivery sites no longer look like "unnecessary duplication" but a way to
pay for the significantly greater up-front costs of a distance learning
operation. Assumptions about appropriate student/faculty ratios, which are
at the basis of most funding allocation systems, are being called into
question. The lack of transferability and portability of academic credit and
credentials, always a sore point with politicians, is further aggravated as
the number of providers, stimulated by network developments, increases. The
list goes on. In fact, it is fair to say that technology development in the
delivery of instruction may call into question virtually all of the
organizational and financing policies operating in the states.
Changes Ahead for State Policy
It is this sense that we may be on the cusp of significant change in state
policy which brought me to Educom and, more specifically, to its National
Learning Infrastructure Initiative. I believe that many state policymakers
share similar goals to those outlined in the NLII-the need for greater
"learning productivity" from students; for delivery systems that extend
access at an affordable cost; and for systems that strategically take
advantage of developments in information technology, not by "bolting on" and
adding costs, but by transforming the teaching/learning process.
I have my own set of questions aimed at evaluating what are likely to be our
most effective "investment strategies" at the state level. Information
technology and network developments appear to push us in two seemingly
opposite directions: in the one case, toward a more open, unbounded (and
unregulated) enterprise; in the other toward more collaboration and
"partnering," in large part to share the significant up-front investments
needed in both hardware and software. Whatever our strategies, each should
be evaluated in terms of how it contributes to access, costs, quality and
productivity. One strategy popular in Europe is to give innovative and
nontraditional missions to separately organized and financed entities. This
approach was used in establishing the British Open University, which has
served as a model for other distance learning institutions around the world.
The proposal to establish the Education Network of Maine as a free-standing,
accredited and degree-granting institution follows that strategy. But the
recent resignation of the chancellor who supported the idea and waffling by
the Board of Trustees under pressure from faculty calls into question
whether such an approach is viable in the United States. The issue may be
quality, but it may also be competition and the impact on jobs. Put another
way, will a monopoly like the University System of Maine allow such internal
competition?
Another approach under consideration by institutions and systems might be
termed the "access/connectivity" strategy. What would be the impact of
putting a network-connected PC in the hands of every student? Would such a
strategy drive the curriculum and faculty or do we need them on board first?
Who should pay for these workstations and networks? Critics can also
legitimately ask: Access to what? We need more and higher quality learning
software, they would argue, before we provide a laptop to everyone in the
student body.
Collaboration is certainly a buzz word these days and states are likely to
look for new incentives to pull institutions together. Rather than waiting
for academic programs to emerge from single departments in isolated
institutions, system offices may set the parameters and provide the
financial incentives for many more joint programs in response to network
developments. The result could be a number of new consortia in the years
ahead.
Expect also that state policymakers will take a closer look at voucher
systems. The result could be financial systems in which the lion's share of
public support is carried by students, while institutional support is
reserved for the purchase of particular services on behalf of state and
federal governments. But, the voucher approach could also be used as a
convenient excuse to reduce public support, since voucher programs can be
means- tested.
Other problems with vouchers will need to be solved if they are to be
effective. Rather than striving to meet "unmet needs," we will have to index
our subsidies to some factor external to the institution (for example,
personal income or government assessment of "reasonable costs"). Consumers
will also need more information on institutional performance in order to
make informed choices. Policymakers will see deregulation as a means to
increase competition, which in turn will hold down costs. The parallels with
health care are hauntingly familiar!
Horizontal Universities
State policies on quality control may also change. From the perspective of
state boards or even accrediting bodies, there may be no inherent interest
in one particular academic process over another. Acceptable and maybe even
superior outcomes in student learning may emerge from these new delivery
systems. If this occurs, states will be hard-pressed to dictate through
their regulatory and funding policies a preference for a certain kind of
institution or traditional credential. Learning outcomes may become the
foundation of our quality assurance and accountability systems. As this
happens, state interest in the vertical university as an organized
bureaucracy may decline, while its interest in supporting the horizontal
university-networks of scholars and programs- could increase.
Taken together, the forces of privatization, enterprise-oriented public
systems, and an even still more competitive environment are ingredients of a
rich recipe for change. Over the next several months, I look forward to the
opportunity to explore with the Educom community these issues. Your thoughts
and suggestions as to how policymakers should proceed in this environment
are welcomed. It should be an exciting debate.
James R. Mingle is executive director of the State Higher Education
Executive Officers.
Over the next several months, Jim Mingle, executive director of the State
Higher Education Executive Officers, will be serving as a visiting fellow
with Educom, examining the public policy issues raised by information
technology. SHEEO, a national organization of statewide coordinating and
governing boards, is also a partner in Educom's National Learning
Infrastructure Initiative, working with states and systems in developing
"statewide investment strategies" for technology.
� 1995 Educom.