---

State Context

---

Illinois, with nearly 12 million residents, ranks fifth among the case study states and sixth in the United States in the size of its population. It is the 14th most diverse state (15 percent African-American, 8 percent Hispanic, 3 percent Asian) in the United States, with a relatively stable African-American population and rapidly growing populations of Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders. Overall, Illinois anticipates static enrollments and static funding for higher education as the student population becomes more diverse and less prepared. Downsizing government and increasing productivity and efficiency are high priorities for the state.

Illinois residents are relatively affluent, young and well-educated. As summarized in Table 1, Illinois ranks at or near the top of the study states in terms of per capita income and the proportion of high school graduates in the population. It has a relatively low proportion of its population in poverty compared to other study states. The state is about average among study states in potential tax revenues and the level of education for the general population. It is also about average in its high school dropout rate and the percentage of families who report that English is not spoken in the home.

Table 1 Contextual Variables for Illinois Compared to Selected States (Numbers in Parentheses Represent Rank Among the Seven Study States)
Contextual Variables	High (1-2)	Average (3-5)	Low (6-7)	U.S. Average
Population (in Millions) (1995)		11.8 (5)
Per Capita Income (in Thousands) (1995)	24.8 (2)			22.8
Potential Tax Revenue (1995-96)**		108 (3)		100
New High School Graduates per 1,000 Population (1995-96)?	10.1 (1)			9.6
Role of Private Higher Education§	Major
Role of Governor?	Strong
% of Population with Associate Degree (1990)		5.8 (5)		6.2
% of Population with Baccalaureate (1990)		13.6 (3)		13.1
% of Population with Graduate or Professional Degree (1990)		7.5 (3)		7.2
% of Population 24 Years Old or Younger (1995)		35.8 (5)		35.5
% of Population that is Anglo (1990)		78.3 (3)		80.3
% of Population Who Do Not Speak English in Home (1990)		14.2 (5)		13.8
% of Population in Poverty (1994)			12.4 (7)	14.5
High School Dropout Rate (1992 to 1994 Average)		9.0 (5)		9.0
* This figure is expressed as an Index: National Average = 100. Sources: Unless otherwise noted, data are drawn from Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac 43, no. 1 (September 1996), pp. 54, 55. * From K. Halstead, State Profiles for Higher Education 1978 to 1996: Trend Data (Washington, D.C.: Research Associates of Washington, 1996), pp. 25, 28. § From Task Force on State Policy and Independent Higher Education, The Preservation of Excellence in American Higher Education: The Essential Role of Private Colleges and Universities (Denver: Education Commission of the States, 1990), p. 35. * From J. M. Burns, J. W. Peltason, and T. E. Cronin, State and Local Politics: Government by the People (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990), p. 113.

Back to top

Political Culture

Illinois has a constitutionally strong Governor who provides active leadership on key legislative measures. He also sends subtle messages to the higher education community through his other actions and his appointments. A senator told us that current Governor Jim Edgar, during his first years in office, did not increase the budget for higher education in some years and provided less than appropriated for K-12 in other years. According to this senator, this was the Governor's way of getting word to those in higher education that they should become more accountable. The Governor instituted higher education reforms by appointing a strong chair of the Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE). The chair delivered a message that both the Governor and Lieutenant Governor endorsed: "Emphasize quality, do what you do best, prioritize, and focus."

In some respects, the Lieutenant Governor is more visible to the higher education community than the Governor. He talks about decentralizing all forms of education and linking institutions more directly to accountability by getting rid of unnecessary layers. While the Lieutenant Governor meets periodically with a variety of education groups, he particularly likes to meet with faculty and may spend up to three hours in a meeting. His message to them, as reported by an assistant, is, "I'm not your biggest critic but the public out there is. I'm just telling you what they are saying." As well as improving the quality of undergraduate education and eliminating bureaucracy, he is also interested in investing more money in technology to provide a different kind of access in the future.

During the past decade, the Illinois Board of Higher Education has formally pursued a number of initiatives, including: opportunities for underrepresented groups, work-force preparation, productivity improvements, and undergraduate education. Nonetheless, a former legislative aide suggested that IBHE priorities may not be widely understood among members of the Legislature. Part of the lack of understanding can be attributed to the realities of political life; most legislators approach higher education from the perspective of individual loyalties. A former legislative aide described every decision as "project related." Priorities for higher education are most commonly addressed in the appropriations process where conflicting interests compete. A legislator told us, "The Higher Education Committee really does not do very much."

Major lobbying groups for higher education with a strong presence in Springfield include each of the four university systems, the Student Aid Commission, the community colleges (including an influential community college trustees association), the major private institutions, and the Federation of Private Colleges and Universities. Faculty members have representation through their unions, but they are not as visible as institutional lobbyists. Relationships and alliances, which have generally been "quite harmonious," are very important to Illinois higher education. Lobbying representatives for institutions meet as a legislative liaison group to review bills. Because of this strong network, higher education representatives are often better informed than members of the Legislature. While some unusual things do occasionally show up in legislative budget hearings, this has not been a regular occurrence.

While the University of Illinois dominates public higher education, a small campus such as Chicago State with its black caucus can also influence legislators. With Republicans taking control in both houses, however, the suburbs have gained influence at the expense of Chicago. A reporter noted, "The anti-city feeling in the Legislature has always been strong and seems to be growing stronger." Combined with the anti-city sentiment is an interest in smaller government. Everyone assumes that the Legislature will continue to support private institutions "because they are so influential with key legislators." The University of Illinois enjoys a similar commitment from legislators because it is seen as "the premiere state university."

In Illinois, the key to fiscal success for higher education is getting the Governor to approve a favorable executive budget. Both higher education and K-12 submit their budgets directly to the Legislature; the Governor's wishes are conveyed to the Legislature through the Bureau of the Budget, which one official characterized as the "institutional no." The major concern of the bureau is the bottom line, although tuition costs and faculty salaries become important policy issues when they place pressures on total costs. The budget is a political document, but the job of the bureau is to provide essentially nonpartisan analysis.

During our site visits, political leaders were preoccupied by issues arising from the prospect of reduced federal dollars as well as changes in the ways that available federal dollars could be used. As in other states, higher education in Illinois is competing for fewer resources with health care, public assistance and public safety. A staff member observed, "The landscape is changing. It's hand-to-hand combat." A senior senator delivered a similar message: "This year's budget was very fragile. Higher education and K-12 are getting all of the money that they asked for and there is considerable resentment on the part of other state agencies."

Higher education under Republican leadership will be a "leaner, meaner system" that will push efficiency, said a former legislative staff member. Higher education appropriations increased by 14 percent from fiscal year 1990 to 1996, an amount just below the inflation rate (14.8 percent). Over the same period, higher education went from 13.3 percent of total general fund expenditures to 11.1 percent, a 16 percent decrease in share. Key legislators believe that money pressures will remain a continuing problem.

Scarce resources fuel growing concerns about access, tuition increases and affordability. On a positive note, many political leaders believe the higher education community pitched in during tough times and has been helpful in confronting the issues.

Back to top

Issues for Higher Education

An aide to the Lieutenant Governor told us that higher education has pulled away from its core areas, has hired too many administrators and has placed too much emphasis on research. He added, "The Lieutenant Governor also worries about tuition increases, how much time faculty spend teaching, and whether students are able to graduate in four years." A senator regarded as a friend of higher education emphasized problems of faculty productivity, adding, "Faculty and presidents want research but the Governor and the people generally want education." One of his counterparts from across the aisle expressed concern about the use of new dollars invested in the system. As an example, he cited the rapid growth in funds to support graduate assistants (about $23 million by his reckoning from 1993 to 1994) and tuition waivers for people who work at colleges and universities. Mirroring the concerns of these senators, an official from the Governor's Bureau of the Budget told us that teachers should do more teaching and less research. A reporter synthesized the most prominent public concerns as affordability and time-to-degree. A faculty member said that increasing salaries should be the top priority because these salaries are, by faculty calculation, 8 to 22 percent below national peer groups.

Many state leaders think Illinois has been doing a good job of providing access. Their concerns center on affordability and opportunities for place-bound older adults. An IBHE member favored expanded access for older people and more continuing education involving the use of technology. Elected leaders, who have already invested $30 million of new state money in a telecommunications effort, told us that increasing traditional access to four-year campuses may become less and less relevant to the state's needs. Several spoke of distance learning that would allow people to complete degrees in their own communities.

In marked contrast to these views, a public university president argued that access for underrepresented groups is the key state issue that will "jump up and bite the institutions and the state Legislature if they don't address it." Another president agreed, tying access issues to the objective of preparing students for the work force of the 21st century. But one of their colleagues compared student access to discussions of the weather: "Everyone talks about it, but no one does anything." A faculty leader acknowledged political commitment to access, but added that as an issue, "It comes second to downsizing, eliminating programs, and streamlining."

Questions about access are complicated by differing perspectives on priorities for funding. An influential senator, advocating for high tuition and high aid, described public higher education as a bargain for a lot of families. The senator described high tuition as an appropriate tax on the wealthy to help support those in need. A former legislative staff member argued, "The next big fight in this state will be over tuition and fees." A faculty union representative said, "Tuition has run rampant in Illinois and is out-of-hand. Institutions have become publicly assisted colleges and universities rather than public colleges and universities." This same representative argued that the agenda for the next five years should focus on restoring funding to historic levels, fully funding pension benefits, and controlling growth in the number of administrators.

A system official summarized the complex mix of differences and commonalties by observing, "The culture of institutions is so dominated by faculty values they have lost touch with changes that are taking place in the public policy environment." From his perspective, more communication should occur between public and academic leaders to help higher education find a way to become more responsive to public needs. Interestingly, he said that governing boards in Illinois do not prioritize their role as representatives of the public interest and that this needs to change. In contrast, the Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE), through its Priorities, Quality, and Productivity (PQP) initiative, is consistently viewed within the political community as responsive to public concerns. (The PQP initiative, which has been controversial within the higher education community, has sought to close some campus programs and enhance others.)

Back to top