Assessing System Performance

The Illinois system represents a unique blend of strengths and weaknesses that has developed over time in response to the state context and political culture, the resources devoted to higher education in comparison with other priorities, and the structure and processes through which those resources have been applied.

Our interview data suggest incumbent Republican political leaders have high levels of satisfaction with the system in terms of efficiency and choice. Most also believe the system is providing as much access to traditional students as desirable. Democratic political leaders are somewhat more likely to fault the system on access. Political leaders from both parties are concerned about the quality of undergraduate education and the amount of emphasis four-year institutions place on research and graduate education. Part of the reason that community colleges are more favorably viewed than universities involves their single-minded concentration on teaching undergraduates. At the same time, everyone seems proud of the overall quality of the system, particularly as evidenced by the elite private universities and the University of Illinois.

According to system participants, the Illinois system of higher education gets high marks for efficiency improvements, largely because of the PQP initiative. Perhaps the most compelling indicator of satisfaction with this aspect of performance is full funding of IBHE's budget requests for the past two years. The Governor is said to have changed his attitude toward higher education based on PQP. Among other political leaders, the perceptions are increasingly that the system has been responsive to gubernatorial and legislative concerns. A comprehensive university president told us PQP has had an impact and that institutions are now forced to do more with less. A faculty member noted the 108 programs eliminated from public colleges and universities and suggested that the PQP initiative is stimulating the same kind of productivity and accountability improvements in the community college sector and among private colleges and universities. IBHE publishes data on administrative expenses and is given credit for trying to create a level playing field among universities on these costs.

According to institutional representatives, the greatest discrepancy between actual and desired performance is in the area of access, particularly for underserved citizens. IBHE's efforts in this arena were commonly and consistently criticized as "less than adequate," especially by the presidents of urban, comprehensive universities. We were told by one president that serving lower-income people was not the priority of many people in public institutions, and that while "the body politic is satisfied with the level of access, Illinois colleges and universities are doing a lousy job with regard to minority access and achievement." A community college president pointed out the state's "dismal performance on minority access" and argued there was little attention to work-force needs.

While access remains a public priority for IBHE, a former legislative aide told us that access was difficult to think about from a state perspective because policy-makers in power, including the Governor and Legislature, are satisfied with the system's performance, despite the fact that recent figures show that the access and retention of underrepresented groups leaves much to be desired. The attitudes of public officials appear to be shared by the general public, at least to the extent that this view can be inferred from our interviews with representatives of public media.

Evidence on the achievement of quality initiatives is mixed. Illinois is widely regarded as a positive model for using private institutions to foster choice, quality, and efficiency-despite the concerns of comprehensive universities and community colleges about competition for scarce resources. While IBHE is given credit for stimulating the statewide discussion about priorities and for sharpening mission statements, there is the sense that rhetoric often outpaces achievements even for successful initiatives such as PQP.

An IBHE member complained about administrative roadblocks to timely completion of degrees, adding, "There is a need to minimize loss of student time and credit in higher education. Not enough effort has been made to see that students take programs in sequence. As a result, degree programs take too long. There is a need to crack down on this and get tough." At an IBHE public meeting, a staff member talked about the disappointing results of institutional work on assessment of baccalaureate-level skills. Colleges and universities were scheduled to report on objectives and progress toward measuring the extent to which skills were being attained. "After eight years," said the staff member, "little progress has been made." A comprehensive university president who followed the staff member to the podium talked about the difficulties of assessing baccalaureate-level skills. The IBHE chair labeled his response as an "unwillingness to be measured."

System participants associate both strengths and weaknesses with IBHE processes. For a long time, IBHE and the institutions it coordinates have had a good working relationship. The consensus-building process, however glacial, has reduced the need for legislative intervention. At the same time that many respondents described articulation efforts as "too little and too late," IBHE is well regarded for excellent staff work and high-quality analysis. Yet one knowledgeable observer, while agreeing that IBHE was the source of much information, described the overall effort as a "floating collection of abstract information" that has not been linked to policy. And while IBHE receives good marks for listening to faculty through the advisory committee structure, there is also the sense that the board is not able to take leadership in the discussion of faculty roles and responsibilities because it represents too many different kinds of institutions with too many different types of faculty.

On balance, higher education in Illinois seems to be fulfilling the expectations of its constituents. Certainly, Illinois policy makers are pleased with their institutions and the arrangements they have developed for governing and coordinating them. A K-12 respondent marveled at how immune higher education has been to calls for reform. An aide to a policy official said, "School reform stopped at the college steps because of public satisfaction with higher education." On the horizon, however, are actors like the Lieutenant Governor who are skeptical of some higher education practices. Many of our respondents conclude that political and legislative involvement in higher education will increase in the future.

 

[ DOWNLOAD | CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT ]


[ HOME | REPORTS | CROSSTALK | RESOURCES | ORDER ]