It seems every year that state funding of higher education becomes an even more critical part of the operation of our state-supported institutions and programs. This year is no different, with so many states facing critical budget issues due to decreased revenue from the recession. What does this mean for higher education and your career? This month, we addressed these questions to one of the foremost experts in this subject, Paul Lingenfelter, President of the State Higher Education Executive Officers association (SHEEO).
After reading, we invite you to continue the discussion in our LinkedIn group or follow HigherEd Careers on Twitter.
Andrew Hibel, HigherEdJobs: Dr. Lingenfelter, you currently serve as the president of the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) association.1 Would you please briefly explain what the role of the association is, along with what your primary focus and responsibilities are as president?
Paul E. Lingenfelter, SHEEO: The members of SHEEO are the chief executives of statewide governing and coordinating boards. Our role is to help them and the states they serve develop and sustain excellent systems of higher education through annual conferences, policy studies, and a variety of related professional development activities. Our primary focus is to increase educational attainment in each of the United States, and our work touches on everything related to that priority -- finance, educational standards, accountability for student learning, financial assistance, governance, and the full range of public policies related to the effectiveness of higher education.
Hibel: Governors from several states including California, Minnesota, Nevada and Rhode Island are proposing large budget cuts to higher education programs. How can the colleges and universities in these states, and other states facing similar cuts, meet the needs of students if the state support isn't available?2
Lingenfelter: The current, especially deep recession (compounded by other issues that exacerbate its impact in some states), is putting great pressure on state budgets. The effects of these conditions on higher education are serious, and should not be minimized. But these conditions are not permanent, and no state has, or is seriously contemplating, ending all support for higher education. The inescapable question facing both states and educators is: How can we generate the numbers and quality of educated people our country needs in the future? That question has an affirmative answer. I'm confident most states, and I hope all states, will find their own version of an affirmative answer. I expect success in this agenda will require changes that increase the productivity and efficiency of higher education, as well as changes in state policy and increases in state support. Eventually we'll make these changes because we have no choice.
Hibel: Senator Seth Harp of Georgia, chairman of the upper chamber's higher education committee, was quoted saying, "We have to come to grips with the reality that we don't have any money. The Constitution mandates K-12 (education). Higher education is one of those areas where every one of us knows it has value -- but we also know there is not a constitutional mandate for higher education." Knowing that this statement most likely infers that the student will be forced to pay more since the state "doesn't have any money" to give to higher education institutions, will students really see the "value" and pay higher tuition rates to attend college?3
Lingenfelter: There is no constitutional mandate for higher education, but there is an economic mandate. And that mandate affects both individuals and the communities and economies in which they live. We have long expected students in higher education to pay some of the cost of their education, and that could well increase. But if those costs lead to lower levels of education in our society and workforce, the negative effects will be widespread. They will affect everybody, not just the people who fail to obtain postsecondary education. This is the issue facing both educators and policy makers.
Hibel: Given the current political environment, has that economic mandate changed and, if so, how do you think it has affected the ability to fund higher education?
Lingenfelter: I think the mandate has become stronger in this economic climate. So it creates some cross pressures -- discretionary money is harder to find, and we need to increase investment in things essential for our future. This affects students, their families, and public policy makers. We all will have to evaluate tradeoffs and make decisions.
Hibel: Senator Harp goes on to say, "We're asking sacrifices be made by students. We're asking sacrifices be made by programs. All we're asking is that the Regents, in using the toolbox, have shared sacrifices." There have been talks of "a 77 percent increase in tuition, thousands of layoffs, closing of some satellite campuses, ending of popular programs, gutting of course sections and limits on the number of incoming freshmen." Since other states might be in similar situations, do you think this is an acceptable "sacrifice" that must be incurred?4
Lingenfelter: I've not met Senator Harp, but I imagine he believes some aspects of higher education are discretionary, disposable. "Sacrificing" such items is not really a sacrifice, but making a statement about priorities. I don't know anybody in higher education, even people who share my view of its vital importance, who believe everything in higher education is of equal value. Especially when money is scarce, people have to make more difficult decisions about priorities. Good decisions about priorities consider value -- present value, future value, and options for maximizing value. The value of public investment in higher education needs to be gauged in these terms. I think higher education will come out well in any serious consideration of these issues, but I don't think institutions of higher education can afford to be complacent about the conversation. If higher education does nothing to respond to public demands for greater affordability and productivity, we will miss an opportunity to build a stronger public commitment.
Read More: http://bit.ly/arGvPS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment