By Joni Finney
This issue and the previous issue of CrossTalk have described higher education reforms underway in the states of Virginia and Illinois. Prompted by tight state budgets for higher education and, in some cases, projected enrollment growth, state and campus leaders have put into place ambitious efforts to preserve educational opportunity and excellence in their public institutions, while reducing costs in the long-term.
What can be learned from these initiatives? While every state must devise solutions tailored to its unique circumstances, the Illinois and Virginia experiences may offer some lessons.
Leaders in both Virginia and Illinois recognized the permanence of the fiscal constraints facing higher education for the foreseeable future, rejecting the idea that their financial difficulties were cyclical or self-correcting. They also believed that the best strategy for improving state support was to demonstrate that colleges and universities were addressing issues of quality and productivity.
Illinois and Virginia adopted innovative planning initiatives. Virginia's "restructuring" initiative, required by the state legislature and implemented by the state's higher education coordinating body, required campuses to develop plans for reducing costs and focusing their efforts on the highest public priorities, among them accommodating some 65,000 new students expected to enroll over the next ten years.
Through its "PQP" (Priorities, Quality and Productivity) initiative, Illinois higher education cut some 245 low-priority and duplicative academic programs--many at the doctoral level--and reinvested more than $100 million in undergraduate education and other priority areas.
Neither state focused only on budget-cutting measures. Agendas for long-term change and improvement provided the substance behind the cost-cutting and reinvestment strategies. To encourage institutional commitment to change, both states allowed campuses to retain the savings from cost-cutting measures for reinvestment, assuming that the campuses continued to meet their public obligations. Some Illinois campuses eliminated marginal doctoral programs and initiated a new emphasis on undergraduate education. At the University of Illinois, in Champaign-Urbana, some of the money was used to provide small classes, with tenure-track faculty, for one-third of the freshman class. At Northern Illinois University, extra introductory English and math classes were added so students could graduate faster. Some presidents privately indicated changes like these would not have been possible without outside pressure.
Many of the senior institutions in Virginia have reduced administrative costs by cutting positions, introducing technology and reorganizing the way things are done. State officials estimate savings at about $50 million annually after all the changes have been implemented. One campus has saved the state money by offering 80 upper division courses at 13 community colleges, which make it possible for a student to earn a bachelor's degree while still attending a community college. Another state university has saved more than $2 million a year by reducing the number of administrative positions. And 47 duplicative academic programs have been eliminated.
The final ingredient in both states was leadership and support from the executive and legislative branches of government, and strong statewide coordinating commissions and councils. In Virginia, where six campuses submitted unacceptable "restructuring" plans, the legislature considered assessing financial penalties. Through the intervention of the State Council for Higher Education, the campuses were permitted to resubmit improved plans and avoid the penalty. Campus leadership that took advantage of the challenges to reallocate in priority areas was also critical to the early success of these strategies.
None of the changes came without a price. Tensions often increased between the campuses and the state. Some institutions tested the state resolve for change. One president, moving in a direction without faculty support, eventually lost his job. Some faculty jobs were also lost through the elimination of programs, although more often faculty were reassigned or took early retirement incentives offered by the institution. And some faculty were asked to teach more.
While it is too early to draw definitive conclusions, the early results suggest that political and public support for higher education is stronger now than before these change strategies were implemented.