Another item to think about with regard to budget. The list never ends.
From today's N&O.
Masthead
Published Sun, Oct 03, 2010 03:35 AM
Modified Sun, Oct 03, 2010 03:41 AM
UNC system facilities are 'in a mess'
In N.C. State University's Gardner Hall, scientists struggle to keep their workplaces free of mold even as they study it under microscopes.
The decaying, 58-year-old, red-brick building houses several plant science departments whose faculty members routinely analyze mold and fungi. The soundtrack for these efforts is the rattly, tinny din of dozens of dust-coated air conditioner window units that run year round - a low-tech attempt to counter the mold spores that slowly but resolutely attach themselves to walls and countertops.
Faculty here will continue this battle for the foreseeable future. There isn't nearly enough money available to properly maintain Gardner Hall and hundreds of other teaching and research facilities across the UNC system.
This may sound familiar. In the past decade, the state issued bonds to raise $3.1 billion to repair university and community college buildings. Though that money was used to revamp hundreds of campus facilities, the construction program fell far short of fixing all the UNC system's infrastructure needs.
So as campus officials keep shifting money around to fix the latest busted heater or hole in a roof, Gardner Hall's scientists will continue producing 21st century science in a building unlikely to be featured in an NCSU marketing campaign anytime soon.
"We're not on any campus tours," said Margaret Daub, head of NCSU's plant biology department. "Nobody lets anyone over here."
In 2000, North Carolinians made a resounding statement about the value of public higher education, approving the bonds in an Election Day referendum. That sent the UNC system on a 10-year building campaign on a scale rarely seen in American higher education. Hundreds of buildings were gutted, renovated, or built anew - creating an influx of flashy new facilities with the latest and most expensive technology.
Total spending for the UNC system: $2.5 billion. Community colleges received $600 million . UNC spent about $1.4 billion on new construction and the balance on renovations, infrastructure, land acquisition and technology improvements.
The bond program legislation read in part, "The General Assembly finds that although the University of North Carolina is one of the state's most valuable assets, the current facilities of the university have been allowed to deteriorate due to decades of neglect and have unfortunately fallen into a state of disrepair because of inadequate attention to maintenance. It is the intent of the General Assembly to reverse this trend and to provide a mechanism to assure that the state's capital assets are adequately maintained."
But the trend wasn't reversed. Though the bond program created construction booms at public universities, it touched just a portion of the infrastructure at each campus. For those many buildings that didn't benefit from bond money, the slow, steady deterioration caused by a lack of repair money continued. In all, the $2.5 billion spent addressed less than half of the $7 billion in total needs cited in a 1999 consultant's report.
And the meter keeps running. The UNC system's backlog now tops $3 billion, according to system data.
"The problem is perpetuating itself," said Hannah Gage, chairwoman of the UNC system's Board of Governors. "As the economy has slowed, the state's ability to give us the money we need has declined. We're in a mess."
Eisenhower-era building
Poor Gardner Hall - with its chipped, stained floor tiles, poor ventilation and white cinder block walls - is NCSU's poster child for disrepair.
"It is a true Sputnik-era science building," said Kevin MacNaughton, associate vice chancellor for facilities at NCSU. "It is one we have tried mightily to keep afloat."
The higher education bond program financed 40 projects at NCSU that resulted in new or renovated facilities, but the campus still has a maintenance backlog totaling more than $439 million.
"We have the haves and have-nots on this campus," MacNaughton said. "The buildings touched by the bond program are the haves, and the ones that were not are the have-nots."
Across the state, public campuses tell similar tales. N.C. Central University in Durham received $122 million in bond funds for 23 projects; its maintenance backlog stands at $85 million. Chapel Hill, which spent more than $500 million on 50 projects, would need $645 million to adequately update its facilities, officials say.
This problem isn't unique to North Carolina. Across the nation, public universities are grappling with crumbling infrastructures and shrinking state appropriations. When budgets are tight, it has proven easy for campus leaders to put off that new roof on the science building or that new steam line for the library.
The costs swell over time until they're so daunting some campus leaders just don't want to deal with them, said Terry Ruprecht, now retired from the University of Illinois, where he spent 40 years in various facilities and energy services positions.
"Their eyes roll back in their heads when they see the total numbers," said Ruprecht, co-author of a study on the subject. "They're too big, so the easiest thing to do is just move on."
An unfulfilled pledge
It wasn't supposed to be that way in North Carolina.
In 1993, the General Assembly pledged to provide state agencies with 1.5 percent of the current replacement value of their building stock as a way of combating deterioration. That target was later raised to 3 percent.
But it proved tough to hit. In 2009, for example, the state would have had to appropriate $282 million to the UNC system to meet that goal. The actual appropriation was $25 million.
From 2000 to 2010, the state spent just one-quarter of what it hoped to on repairs and renovations for the UNC system - $558 million. It would have needed $2.1 billion to hit that target.
And, of course, times are much different now than when the $3.1 billion bond issue was approved in 2000. The economy was healthier, and the university system, under the leadership of President Molly Broad, was in growth mode. Today, the university system, while far larger in terms of students, is a leaner operation and in reduction mode because of the state's lagging economy.
"For any significant construction program, the economy has to get healthy again," said state Sen. Richard Stevens, who was the trustees chairman at UNC-Chapel Hill in 2000 when the bond program began. "You'd need another bond program, and that's not going to happen anytime soon."
The UNC system is not engaged in any broad effort to solve the maintenance issue, though it has in recent years tried to slow new construction, and it is pushing for more transfer students and online courses to alleviate stress on residence halls and classrooms.
So what's a campus to do? At UNC-Chapel Hill, trustees have convened a working group after a facilities report earlier this year showed a deferred maintenance backlog of $645 million.
In a sense, the bond program exacerbated the problem by financing so many new buildings that require upkeep.
"We built a bunch of new facilities; we really upped the ante spending $2.5 billion," said Roger Perry, a UNC-CH trustee leading that working group. There was no provision for maintaining the new buildings.
What now?
At UNC-CH and elsewhere, campus leaders kick ideas around. Some insist another bond issue is the best solution. Others wonder about a private fundraising campaign aimed specifically at repairs and renovations - a tough sell to donors who like their names on things. Another idea: a trust fund of sorts for each new building, where you shave off a percentage of the project cost strictly to be used for upkeep.
Ruprecht, the retired University of Illinois official, tried to persuade his bosses to adopt a version of that plan. It never caught hold because it meant either spending far more for a building than expected or constructing a smaller facility with the money provided.
"That requires fiscal discipline that in all of my years in higher education has never existed," Ruprecht said.
Earlier this year, Ohio State University took a bold step to hold down facility costs, requiring that for a new building to go up, another of equal size would have to come down. The goal there is to add no net academic space, said Julie Anstine, Ohio State's special assistant to the senior vice president for administration and planning.
The policy is an acknowledgement that the largely underfunded long-term costs of running a building dwarf its one-time price of construction.
"It's the operating costs, the energy and utilities and everything that comes with it," Anstine said. "It's a total shift in how we think."
While UNC campus and system officials search for solutions, the gang over at NCSU's Gardner Hall will conduct business as usual - running the heaters and the air conditioners together to combat humidity, and covering expensive lab equipment with tarps, lest a burst pipe from the floor above drip through the ceiling and ruin an experiment.
And they'll keep fighting off that mold and bacteria.
"We want the kind we study," Daub said, "not the kind that comes flying in from outside."
eric.ferreri@newsobserver.com or 919-829-4563
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
The Board of Governors at the Beach
The University of North Carolina at Wilmington hosted the UNC Board of Governors on Thursday and Friday of this week. The campus was lovely and welcoming. Of course, it also helps to have a gorgeous beach close by!
Now for the updates.
You have probably seen the press on UNC Football which was clearly why most of the television cameras were there. No need to report any more on that. We also heard reporting on programs that were not meeting NCAA requirements and the problems are being reduced -- which is good.
The presentation this month was on Reach-NC, the new network being developed to help put faculty research out there to the world. The Executive Committee saw the beta version presentation which was much the same this summer at our retreat. The Board seemed quite taken with the system and with how it could present us to the business world and function as a marketing tool.
Of course, the budget discussions are everywhere. While most of the real budget work will be at the next meeting in October, you are likely aware that the governor asked all state agencies to prepare for 5%, 10% and 15% cuts. The universities, however, were only asked for 5% and 10% scenarios. It is a hopeful sign that education will be a priority even in a budget crisis. But it is, of course, way too early to know.
The campuses are all doing their work now and budget priorities will be set in the next month. At the Assembly meeting next week, we will discuss if we want to have input on these priorities. The two big pieces that will concern us look to be the state health plan and retirement.
There is also considerable conversation over our licensing responsibilities for not-for-profits and how to handle this situation. That will also be a feature of next month's meeting.
Let me get you thinking on a couple of perennial issues: how to talk about tenure and what it means (not so much to faculty, but to the effective functioning of a university and thus to students), and how to talk effectively about faculty workload to people who are not insiders to the academic world and do not understand the range of faculty responsibilities and their value (again, with a focus on what our work means to students -- inside and outside of the classroom).
It is time to be creative, visionary, and problem solving.
Now for the updates.
You have probably seen the press on UNC Football which was clearly why most of the television cameras were there. No need to report any more on that. We also heard reporting on programs that were not meeting NCAA requirements and the problems are being reduced -- which is good.
The presentation this month was on Reach-NC, the new network being developed to help put faculty research out there to the world. The Executive Committee saw the beta version presentation which was much the same this summer at our retreat. The Board seemed quite taken with the system and with how it could present us to the business world and function as a marketing tool.
Of course, the budget discussions are everywhere. While most of the real budget work will be at the next meeting in October, you are likely aware that the governor asked all state agencies to prepare for 5%, 10% and 15% cuts. The universities, however, were only asked for 5% and 10% scenarios. It is a hopeful sign that education will be a priority even in a budget crisis. But it is, of course, way too early to know.
The campuses are all doing their work now and budget priorities will be set in the next month. At the Assembly meeting next week, we will discuss if we want to have input on these priorities. The two big pieces that will concern us look to be the state health plan and retirement.
There is also considerable conversation over our licensing responsibilities for not-for-profits and how to handle this situation. That will also be a feature of next month's meeting.
Let me get you thinking on a couple of perennial issues: how to talk about tenure and what it means (not so much to faculty, but to the effective functioning of a university and thus to students), and how to talk effectively about faculty workload to people who are not insiders to the academic world and do not understand the range of faculty responsibilities and their value (again, with a focus on what our work means to students -- inside and outside of the classroom).
It is time to be creative, visionary, and problem solving.
Friday, September 3, 2010
The End of Higher Ed as We Know It
This morning's Chronicle for Higher Education reports on a panel discussion this week at the American Political Science Association about what is happening in higher education today. If, indeed, we are experiencing a fundamental shift in the nature of our work and if our jobs are undergoing a permanent shift, Cary Nelson, quoted near the end, is right. Faculty need to be out working to make our case.
My experience, however, tells me that most faculty are passive. Until they feel a direct impact on their job, few people will act to say anything about their campus priorities or to take part in the work (and it is work) of shared governance. Faculty too often make excuses. As Mr. Nelson advocates, we need to be demanding our institutions account for the funding we have. But most years we leave it to administrators and claim powerlessness.
We need to take control again. We are the ones in the classrooms everyday. We are the ones who can speak directly to students about what education is, what is happening to their education, and why priorities need to change. We have the skills to get out there and write op ed pieces, talk directly to the public, and speak to our legislators. If we believe, really believe, that we have lost the way, what is holding us back?
September 2, 2010
Public Higher Education Is 'Eroding From All Sides,' Warn Political Scientists
By David Glenn
Washington
The ideal of American public higher education may have entered a death spiral, several scholars said here Thursday during a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. That crisis might ultimately harm not only universities, but also democracy itself, they warned.
"We've crossed a threshold," said Clyde W. Barrow, director of the Center for Policy Analysis at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. "Higher education is no longer viewed as a public good in this country. As tuition at public universities becomes more expensive, middle-class parents say, 'I'll bite the bullet and pay this for four years, but I don't want to pay for it a second time with taxes.' And families who are frozen out of the system see public universities as something for the affluent. They'd rather see the state spend money on health care."
The mid-20th century suddenly appears to have been a golden age for higher education, said Wendy Brown, a professor of political science at the University of California at Berkeley.
"That era offered not only literacy but liberal arts to a mass public," Ms. Brown said. "But today that idea is eroding from all sides. Cultural values don't support the liberal arts. Debt-burdened families aren't demanding it. The capitalist state isn't interested in it. Universities aren't funding it."
The danger, Ms. Brown said, is that the public will give up on the idea of educating people for democratic citizenship. Instead, all of public higher education will be essentially vocational in nature, oriented entirely around the market logic of job preparation. Instead of educating whole persons, Ms. Brown warned, universities will be expected to "build human capital," a narrower and more hollow mission.
And faculty members are unlikely to resist those changes at a time when two-thirds of them are on contingent appointments instead of the more secure tenure track, said Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors. They simply do not have enough power within the institution.
During a plenary lecture earlier Thursday, Mr. Nelson, who is also a professor of English at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said he believes that the era of "incremental state funding for public higher education is basically over." For the foreseeable future, he said, the traditional battles for higher state appropriations are bound to be losing ones.
"Complaining about the amount of external funding the university gets is a kind of amoral starting point," Mr. Nelson said. "The first question should be how your institution spends the money it already has."
His own campus, Mr. Nelson said, has recently seen several multimillion-dollar projects that were favorites of administrators but were not endorsed by the faculty.
"Without these boondoggles, they could pay contingent faculty more," he said. "They could hire more tenure-track faculty. If they weren't chasing these fantasy projects, there is a lot that could have been done to build the university's educational mission."
But Mr. Nelson did not take any of this as a reason to retreat. Instead, he said that faculty activists should open up a more basic debate about the purposes of education. They should fight, he said, for a tuition-free public higher-education system wholly subsidized by the federal government.
"Higher education needs to be reconceived as a public good and a human right," Mr. Nelson said. "The only battle worth fighting now is a battle over fundamentals, not crumbs."
My experience, however, tells me that most faculty are passive. Until they feel a direct impact on their job, few people will act to say anything about their campus priorities or to take part in the work (and it is work) of shared governance. Faculty too often make excuses. As Mr. Nelson advocates, we need to be demanding our institutions account for the funding we have. But most years we leave it to administrators and claim powerlessness.
We need to take control again. We are the ones in the classrooms everyday. We are the ones who can speak directly to students about what education is, what is happening to their education, and why priorities need to change. We have the skills to get out there and write op ed pieces, talk directly to the public, and speak to our legislators. If we believe, really believe, that we have lost the way, what is holding us back?
September 2, 2010
Public Higher Education Is 'Eroding From All Sides,' Warn Political Scientists
By David Glenn
Washington
The ideal of American public higher education may have entered a death spiral, several scholars said here Thursday during a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. That crisis might ultimately harm not only universities, but also democracy itself, they warned.
"We've crossed a threshold," said Clyde W. Barrow, director of the Center for Policy Analysis at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. "Higher education is no longer viewed as a public good in this country. As tuition at public universities becomes more expensive, middle-class parents say, 'I'll bite the bullet and pay this for four years, but I don't want to pay for it a second time with taxes.' And families who are frozen out of the system see public universities as something for the affluent. They'd rather see the state spend money on health care."
The mid-20th century suddenly appears to have been a golden age for higher education, said Wendy Brown, a professor of political science at the University of California at Berkeley.
"That era offered not only literacy but liberal arts to a mass public," Ms. Brown said. "But today that idea is eroding from all sides. Cultural values don't support the liberal arts. Debt-burdened families aren't demanding it. The capitalist state isn't interested in it. Universities aren't funding it."
The danger, Ms. Brown said, is that the public will give up on the idea of educating people for democratic citizenship. Instead, all of public higher education will be essentially vocational in nature, oriented entirely around the market logic of job preparation. Instead of educating whole persons, Ms. Brown warned, universities will be expected to "build human capital," a narrower and more hollow mission.
And faculty members are unlikely to resist those changes at a time when two-thirds of them are on contingent appointments instead of the more secure tenure track, said Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors. They simply do not have enough power within the institution.
During a plenary lecture earlier Thursday, Mr. Nelson, who is also a professor of English at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said he believes that the era of "incremental state funding for public higher education is basically over." For the foreseeable future, he said, the traditional battles for higher state appropriations are bound to be losing ones.
"Complaining about the amount of external funding the university gets is a kind of amoral starting point," Mr. Nelson said. "The first question should be how your institution spends the money it already has."
His own campus, Mr. Nelson said, has recently seen several multimillion-dollar projects that were favorites of administrators but were not endorsed by the faculty.
"Without these boondoggles, they could pay contingent faculty more," he said. "They could hire more tenure-track faculty. If they weren't chasing these fantasy projects, there is a lot that could have been done to build the university's educational mission."
But Mr. Nelson did not take any of this as a reason to retreat. Instead, he said that faculty activists should open up a more basic debate about the purposes of education. They should fight, he said, for a tuition-free public higher-education system wholly subsidized by the federal government.
"Higher education needs to be reconceived as a public good and a human right," Mr. Nelson said. "The only battle worth fighting now is a battle over fundamentals, not crumbs."
Friday, August 27, 2010
A Weakening of Tenure
As the financial situation of most states declines with the loss of stimulus funds and fewer jobs returning, universities will have to make difficult decisions. The story pasted below shows one option being considered in Louisiana and reminds us why vigilance is important in our process of shared governance.
August 26, 2010
U. of Louisiana to Consider Weakening Tenure
By Paige ChapmanThe University of Louisiana system's Board of Supervisors plans to vote Friday on a proposal that would make it easier to dismiss tenured professors—a move that has upset faculty members throughout the system's eight campuses, as well as national faculty organizations.
"This could impact the quality of education offered in the classroom and the ability to recruit qualified people, including at both faculty and administration levels," said Jordan E. Kurland, associate general secretary for the American Association of University Professors.
System officials say the contemplated changes are driven by a tight budget. The proposals "are solely precipitated by a set of decreasing resources," said Randy Moffett, the system's president. "There are no other intentions." State financing for has been reduced by 17 percent since the 2008 fiscal year, and Mr. Moffett is anticipating another drop of approximately $95.3-million in the middle of 2011 when federal stimulus funds expire.
Still, some professors fear that three parts of the proposal could drastically reshape academic employment.
Under one of those, a "reduction" of a program could become a legitimate cause for terminating tenured faculty members. Currently, tenured positions can be cut only because of financial exigency or the complete discontinuance of a program.
Mr. Moffett said the proposed new language was added to include special circumstances left out in the currrent policy, such as the restructuring or scaling back of specific academic programs.
Lisa Abney, provost at one of the system's campuses, Northwestern State University, said such a change would provide more flexibility so the university wouldn't have to eliminate entire programs in response to budget cuts. Her institution has undergone an extensive restructuring to deal with financial constraints—including the merging of three departments and the elimination of seven different majors. Six tenured faculty members were laid off as a result.
But the language worries professors. A tenured professor at a system campus, who did not want to be named for fear of being targeted for a job cut, said the main concern is that the word "reduction" is vague. The professor said that it could be interpreted arbitrarily, especially in universities with tense faculty-administrative relations.
The professor said the proposal has already created a "poisonous atmosphere" at his institution because many colleagues are afraid to speak in opposition, fearing they could be fired if the measure is passed.
Mr. Kurland, of the AAUP, echoed faculty members' concerns about the possibility of arbitrary dismissals under the proposal. "It can be used as a device for the university to remove a person they don't want by simply removing what that person is teaching," he said. "They no longer have to show someone is no longer competent to do the work in that position."
Another proposed change that alarms professors is that tenured faculty members could be given much-shorter notice of job terminations—a minimum of only three months in the cases of program discontinuance or reduction.
Mr. Moffett said the change was proposed because the board is often unaware of what the state has determined for its budget until late June or early July. Some administrators said the change would allow them to delay personnel decisions and would prevent them from unnecessarily terminating positions that they may later discover they are able to finance.
Bette H. Maroney, president of Northwestern State's Faculty Senate, found out her position had been eliminated this year. Because she has a year to finish her term and look for a new position, she calls herself "one of the lucky ones." If the measure is passed, she said, professors who are laid off in the future, with little warning, may be adversely affected by the limited time of the hiring cycle in higher education.
The third area of concern is that appeals about tenure and employment decisions would no longer be considered by the system board, but would instead be handled internally by the individual university. Professors said removal of the additional layer could put them at the mercy of a hostile local administration.
The board will need nine votes to approve the measure. It is possible that it may not vote yes or no at its meeting in Baton Rouge on Friday, but instead vote to postpone a decision on the measure. If so, the next time the matter would be up for discussion is at its October 22 meeting.
August 26, 2010
U. of Louisiana to Consider Weakening Tenure
By Paige ChapmanThe University of Louisiana system's Board of Supervisors plans to vote Friday on a proposal that would make it easier to dismiss tenured professors—a move that has upset faculty members throughout the system's eight campuses, as well as national faculty organizations.
"This could impact the quality of education offered in the classroom and the ability to recruit qualified people, including at both faculty and administration levels," said Jordan E. Kurland, associate general secretary for the American Association of University Professors.
System officials say the contemplated changes are driven by a tight budget. The proposals "are solely precipitated by a set of decreasing resources," said Randy Moffett, the system's president. "There are no other intentions." State financing for has been reduced by 17 percent since the 2008 fiscal year, and Mr. Moffett is anticipating another drop of approximately $95.3-million in the middle of 2011 when federal stimulus funds expire.
Still, some professors fear that three parts of the proposal could drastically reshape academic employment.
Under one of those, a "reduction" of a program could become a legitimate cause for terminating tenured faculty members. Currently, tenured positions can be cut only because of financial exigency or the complete discontinuance of a program.
Mr. Moffett said the proposed new language was added to include special circumstances left out in the currrent policy, such as the restructuring or scaling back of specific academic programs.
Lisa Abney, provost at one of the system's campuses, Northwestern State University, said such a change would provide more flexibility so the university wouldn't have to eliminate entire programs in response to budget cuts. Her institution has undergone an extensive restructuring to deal with financial constraints—including the merging of three departments and the elimination of seven different majors. Six tenured faculty members were laid off as a result.
But the language worries professors. A tenured professor at a system campus, who did not want to be named for fear of being targeted for a job cut, said the main concern is that the word "reduction" is vague. The professor said that it could be interpreted arbitrarily, especially in universities with tense faculty-administrative relations.
The professor said the proposal has already created a "poisonous atmosphere" at his institution because many colleagues are afraid to speak in opposition, fearing they could be fired if the measure is passed.
Mr. Kurland, of the AAUP, echoed faculty members' concerns about the possibility of arbitrary dismissals under the proposal. "It can be used as a device for the university to remove a person they don't want by simply removing what that person is teaching," he said. "They no longer have to show someone is no longer competent to do the work in that position."
Another proposed change that alarms professors is that tenured faculty members could be given much-shorter notice of job terminations—a minimum of only three months in the cases of program discontinuance or reduction.
Mr. Moffett said the change was proposed because the board is often unaware of what the state has determined for its budget until late June or early July. Some administrators said the change would allow them to delay personnel decisions and would prevent them from unnecessarily terminating positions that they may later discover they are able to finance.
Bette H. Maroney, president of Northwestern State's Faculty Senate, found out her position had been eliminated this year. Because she has a year to finish her term and look for a new position, she calls herself "one of the lucky ones." If the measure is passed, she said, professors who are laid off in the future, with little warning, may be adversely affected by the limited time of the hiring cycle in higher education.
The third area of concern is that appeals about tenure and employment decisions would no longer be considered by the system board, but would instead be handled internally by the individual university. Professors said removal of the additional layer could put them at the mercy of a hostile local administration.
The board will need nine votes to approve the measure. It is possible that it may not vote yes or no at its meeting in Baton Rouge on Friday, but instead vote to postpone a decision on the measure. If so, the next time the matter would be up for discussion is at its October 22 meeting.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Welcome to Our New President
Thomas Ross, President of Davidson College, will become the new President of the UNC system on January 1, 2011. He was elected today without opposition by the Board of Governors.
He spoke eloquently of the life of the mind and its value to individuals and to our culture. He believes in the transformative power of eduction. And he understands that education is the future of North Carolina.
I was also excited to hear that he stands ready to work with the Faculty Assembly cooperatively. We stand ready to engage with him.
He spoke eloquently of the life of the mind and its value to individuals and to our culture. He believes in the transformative power of eduction. And he understands that education is the future of North Carolina.
I was also excited to hear that he stands ready to work with the Faculty Assembly cooperatively. We stand ready to engage with him.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
This Week in The Chronicle
This week's piece on higher education and time for a reset from the Chronicle for Higher Education is timely. So much of what Finney advocates, the UNC system does already. Our tuition policy is but one example. But we are revisiting it now and thinking about how to meet the budgetary challenges ahead.
The Faculty Assembly is gearing up for an active year. Updates here will be regular and I urge all faculty in the system to stay up to date and active on their campuses. We will all have to be working at answers.
A Reset for Higher Education
By Joni E. Finney
Many of us have seen trouble coming for a long, long, time. Did we really believe that endowment growth, state support, and tuition dollars could or would provide an unchecked revenue stream, tempered only by short downturns in the economy, followed by fairly quick recoveries? Did we really believe that we could expand administrative structures and shortchange instruction, but still maintain quality institutions? Did we think that poor completion rates and the achievement gaps between whites and minority groups could be solved only with more money? Did we honestly believe that expensive amenities and increased financial aid for upper-middle-class and wealthy students could be sustained? Of course not.
To understand what needs to be done now—a “reset” in higher education—we need to first understand the changes pressuring our enterprise: deficits, demographics, and demand. States' structural deficits, or the gap that occurs when states fail to tax new types of economic activity, have been documented for years. A previously good economy permitted states to postpone those problems, but now, state leaders must revise their tax structures to generate more revenue. The most optimistic economic projections say the recession may end in 2013. Even then, states will be hard-pressed to return to the status quo in terms of appropriations.
IN THE RIGHT COLUMN: Charts and Graphics on Finance
BROWSE THE ALMANAC: More Statistics and State-by-State Profiles
Many in higher education lament states’ “disinvestment.” The problem is much more complex. States have been reliable partners in financing higher education. While enrollments grew, state support also grew, by 24 percent from 2005 to 2008, followed by a decline of 1.7 percent from 2008 to 2010. At the same time, the federal government spent $6.6-billion in 2009-10 under the stimulus bill for states, an amount that increases to $23-billion once federal student financial assistance (Pell grants and Work-Study) is included.
The second “D” is demographics. Southern and Southwestern states are experiencing explosive growth. Nine states will account for 70 percent of the country’s population growth by 2025. Thirty-two states face declines in their young populations, leaving them vulnerable economically at a time when many well-educated baby boomers will retire. Educating working adults and young adults—many of whom are underserved by the current educational system—requires rethinking programs and services.
The “D” for demand acknowledges that postsecondary education is necessary for membership in the middle class. Current enrollment patterns show that demand for higher education is strong, even if students must secure private loans or work full time. But research also shows that many college-qualified young people and adults are not enrolling in college, because of tuition increases and lack of available courses.
So how does higher education reset in a way that deals constructively with the three D’s? First, we must acknowledge that public-revenue limitations are likely for the foreseeable future. Second, the discussion of higher-education finance focuses disproportionately on price rather than costs. The focus on price has led many to believe that financial aid is the primary solution to college affordability. But financial-aid increases over the last two decades have not come close to solving the problem. A discussion of college costs that recognizes revenue limitations while enhancing learning productivity is necessary if we are to reset higher-education finance.
Third, a higher-education reset should provide institutional incentives for student success and rethink state investment in research based on public priorities. Redirecting public subsidies to undergraduate instruction could contain costly “mission creep” and be an important step in resetting finance policy. The federal reset might limit the number of universities receiving research money and provide incentives for improved access to college and better completion rates.
States must also take more responsibility for tuition policy. A policy that simply fills the gap between what institutions want and what they receive from the states is counterproductive to public purposes. Tuition increases can and should be moderate, gradual, and predictable. But over the last 10 years, they have been excessively steep and have disproportionately hurt poor and middle-income families, even with financial aid.
An economic reset is an opportunity to reinforce valued democratic ideals. I hope that public policy and higher education’s leaders will reset to honor valued public purposes. The country’s future depends upon it.
Joni E. Finney is director of the Institute for Research in Higher Education at the University of Pennsylvania and a professor of practice in its Graduate School of Education.
The Faculty Assembly is gearing up for an active year. Updates here will be regular and I urge all faculty in the system to stay up to date and active on their campuses. We will all have to be working at answers.
A Reset for Higher Education
By Joni E. Finney
Many of us have seen trouble coming for a long, long, time. Did we really believe that endowment growth, state support, and tuition dollars could or would provide an unchecked revenue stream, tempered only by short downturns in the economy, followed by fairly quick recoveries? Did we really believe that we could expand administrative structures and shortchange instruction, but still maintain quality institutions? Did we think that poor completion rates and the achievement gaps between whites and minority groups could be solved only with more money? Did we honestly believe that expensive amenities and increased financial aid for upper-middle-class and wealthy students could be sustained? Of course not.
To understand what needs to be done now—a “reset” in higher education—we need to first understand the changes pressuring our enterprise: deficits, demographics, and demand. States' structural deficits, or the gap that occurs when states fail to tax new types of economic activity, have been documented for years. A previously good economy permitted states to postpone those problems, but now, state leaders must revise their tax structures to generate more revenue. The most optimistic economic projections say the recession may end in 2013. Even then, states will be hard-pressed to return to the status quo in terms of appropriations.
IN THE RIGHT COLUMN: Charts and Graphics on Finance
BROWSE THE ALMANAC: More Statistics and State-by-State Profiles
Many in higher education lament states’ “disinvestment.” The problem is much more complex. States have been reliable partners in financing higher education. While enrollments grew, state support also grew, by 24 percent from 2005 to 2008, followed by a decline of 1.7 percent from 2008 to 2010. At the same time, the federal government spent $6.6-billion in 2009-10 under the stimulus bill for states, an amount that increases to $23-billion once federal student financial assistance (Pell grants and Work-Study) is included.
The second “D” is demographics. Southern and Southwestern states are experiencing explosive growth. Nine states will account for 70 percent of the country’s population growth by 2025. Thirty-two states face declines in their young populations, leaving them vulnerable economically at a time when many well-educated baby boomers will retire. Educating working adults and young adults—many of whom are underserved by the current educational system—requires rethinking programs and services.
The “D” for demand acknowledges that postsecondary education is necessary for membership in the middle class. Current enrollment patterns show that demand for higher education is strong, even if students must secure private loans or work full time. But research also shows that many college-qualified young people and adults are not enrolling in college, because of tuition increases and lack of available courses.
So how does higher education reset in a way that deals constructively with the three D’s? First, we must acknowledge that public-revenue limitations are likely for the foreseeable future. Second, the discussion of higher-education finance focuses disproportionately on price rather than costs. The focus on price has led many to believe that financial aid is the primary solution to college affordability. But financial-aid increases over the last two decades have not come close to solving the problem. A discussion of college costs that recognizes revenue limitations while enhancing learning productivity is necessary if we are to reset higher-education finance.
Third, a higher-education reset should provide institutional incentives for student success and rethink state investment in research based on public priorities. Redirecting public subsidies to undergraduate instruction could contain costly “mission creep” and be an important step in resetting finance policy. The federal reset might limit the number of universities receiving research money and provide incentives for improved access to college and better completion rates.
States must also take more responsibility for tuition policy. A policy that simply fills the gap between what institutions want and what they receive from the states is counterproductive to public purposes. Tuition increases can and should be moderate, gradual, and predictable. But over the last 10 years, they have been excessively steep and have disproportionately hurt poor and middle-income families, even with financial aid.
An economic reset is an opportunity to reinforce valued democratic ideals. I hope that public policy and higher education’s leaders will reset to honor valued public purposes. The country’s future depends upon it.
Joni E. Finney is director of the Institute for Research in Higher Education at the University of Pennsylvania and a professor of practice in its Graduate School of Education.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
The Work Ahead
July is drawing to a close and already the challenges of fall loom large. With the new legislative session convening in January, planning for the year ahead already is well underway.
Now, more than ever, faculty creativity must come to the forefront.
States like North Carolina face extraordinary budget short falls. Jobs are not coming back to the economy. Housing is not recovering as hoped. And businesses are still quite limited in their ability to start or expand.
This year, the universities with the help of the General Assembly shifted some additional burden to families in the form of tuition increases. But what now?
Those of us in the university system cannot simply think about how to protect our own. We must look comprehensively at the needs of the state and help our representatitves find solutions to the myriad of issues. And we have the expertise to engage in this process on our campuses in our faculties.
That thinking should be happening now.
But we also must remember our rights as citizens as November elections are upon us. Asking all of our candidates about their positions and their priorities, about their plans and solutions is imperative. We have to elect people who can put forward practical programs to meet our needs and make sure the leadership listens.
The time will not come again and our options will be limited if we drag our feet or refuse to assume some responsibility.
Now, more than ever, faculty creativity must come to the forefront.
States like North Carolina face extraordinary budget short falls. Jobs are not coming back to the economy. Housing is not recovering as hoped. And businesses are still quite limited in their ability to start or expand.
This year, the universities with the help of the General Assembly shifted some additional burden to families in the form of tuition increases. But what now?
Those of us in the university system cannot simply think about how to protect our own. We must look comprehensively at the needs of the state and help our representatitves find solutions to the myriad of issues. And we have the expertise to engage in this process on our campuses in our faculties.
That thinking should be happening now.
But we also must remember our rights as citizens as November elections are upon us. Asking all of our candidates about their positions and their priorities, about their plans and solutions is imperative. We have to elect people who can put forward practical programs to meet our needs and make sure the leadership listens.
The time will not come again and our options will be limited if we drag our feet or refuse to assume some responsibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)