Continuing Issues

The major challenge that New York's higher education system will face over the next five to ten years will be to maintain levels of quality and access in the face of limited state resources. Not only are national and state economies problematic, but the funding needs of other state services-K-12 education, welfare, health care, and corrections-will be legitimate competitors for state dollars. Major issues related to the structure of the state system were apparent during 1995, and these issues are unlikely to be quickly or easily resolved.
  1. The Political Context and Party Politics. The public and private higher education sectors operate in an intensely partisan, political environment. In virtually every interview, the implications and importance of state politics were mentioned, wholly aside from the immediate philosophical and fiscal issues of the "Pataki revolution." Higher education has benefited when the Governor and legislative leadership have agreed on a major course of action-for example, the establishment of SUNY, and the enactment of Bundy Aid for the private institutions. When they have disagreed or have simply not been interested, statewide leadership for higher education has been lacking.
  2. Statewide Planning for Higher Education. For many years, the Regents have overseen a planning process that required SUNY, CUNY and the independent institutions to prepare four-year master plans, with interim, two-year progress and amendment reports. As a context for the Regents' procedures for program approval, these plans were important for the campuses, public and private. The plans, however, had little impact on executive or legislative policy or-excepting program review-on state higher education. In 1995, the planning cycle was extended from four to eight years, but it is not apparent how this attenuation will strengthen statewide planning. Only with greatest difficulty can an agency without budgetary authority such as the Regents influence policy through planning alone.
  3. SUNY: A System in Search of a Mission. SUNY has responsibility for 64 academically diverse and geographically dispersed campuses ranging from research universities-one a member of the American Association of Universities (AAU)-to virtually self-governing community colleges. The breadth of responsibility makes precise definition of a mission difficult, particularly since ultimate planning and program review authority resides with the Regents. In the mid-1990s, the roles of the system Board of Trustees and the central administration is unclear.
    1. Decentralization. The SUNY campuses seek greater autonomy and control over areas such as tuition and collective bargaining. Similarly, under a chairman who believes that "central planning is counter productive," newly appointed board members favor a free-market approach and devolution of authority to the campuses. The outcome of these pressures for decentralization is uncertain.
    2. Campus Closure. Many SUNY campuses were designed as small, regional institutions. As such their costs per student are high, particularly at the six, two-year agricultural and technical colleges. In some program areas, these colleges duplicate offerings at the 30 community colleges. Many Republicans in the Legislature oppose campus closures because the campuses are of economic benefit to their districts; many Democrats oppose closures because they would reduce student access. In Rethinking SUNY, the Board of Trustees stated that SUNY "is encouraging strategic alliances" to link together some of these smaller campuses" and to build partnerships with the private sector. The future of several campuses remains uncertain.
    3. The Statutory Colleges: Public or Private? The five statutory colleges (four at Cornell University and one at Alfred University) have not been subject to the same budget constraints as SUNY. From 1988 to 1995, SUNY's core operating budget was reduced by almost 25 percent, while state funds "passed through" by SUNY to the statutory colleges increased by almost nine percent. In Rethinking SUNY, the board advised the Governor and Legislature that it was working toward fiscal solutions with Cornell and Alfred, but resolution remains uncertain.
    4. The Hospitals. SUNY operates three hospitals, in Brooklyn, Syracuse, and Stony Brook. In Rethinking SUNY, the Trustees recommended that the first two be reorganized as a public benefit or not-for-profit corporations to give them greater management flexibility than they have under SUNY control. The Trustees also recommended that similar flexibility be given to the hospital at Stony Brook, pending the results of an external financial review. The future of these hospitals as units of SUNY is uncertain.
    5. The Community Colleges. Community college leaders see inclusion of their institutions in SUNY as a benefit in the form of prestige, but not by way of practical help. Articulation with SUNY's four-year campuses is uneven at best, and largely local. In Rethinking SUNY, the Board of Trustees reported that a group of community college presidents were preparing a position paper on the role of the 30 community colleges in SUNY.
  4. CUNY: Work in Progress. CUNY's 19 institutions are almost as diverse as SUNY's, but their common, urban mission and geographic proximity has facilitated system planning. CUNY appears to face two major unresolved issues:
    1. Based on the ongoing academic program planning process, the system Board of Trustees declared a fiscal emergency that led to the termination of some tenured and other faculty. This declaration was upheld by an appellate court in December 1996. A second declaration of fiscal emergency in March 1996 could pave the way for additional layoffs. The ultimate status of the terminated faculty and the implications of court action for the academic program planning process are major uncertainties.
    2. CUNY has, according to a senior administrator, "the poorest students of any place in the country, but also perhaps the most talented . . . 21,000 students in CUNY [are] on welfare." Thirty years ago, the system consisted of highly selective colleges which, fully supported by the City of New York, did not charge tuition. It now has open admissions, charges substantial tuition, and has seen its four-year colleges become state supported. Even with CUNY's close relationship to the public schools, it is as yet unclear how CUNY will accomplish its difficult urban mission under these changed circumstances.
  5. The Private Sector: The Uncertainty of State Support. Fifty years ago, the private sector opposed the establishment of SUNY, and has been in competition with it ever since. The private sector's four-year, degree-granting institutions are even more diverse than SUNY's. State institutional support for the private campuses (Bundy Aid) declined substantially under former Governor Cuomo, and it appears unlikely that it will increase substantially in the near future. With "excess capacity" of some 30,000 to 40,000 spaces, the private sector could take more New York students and relieve some of the financial pressure on the state and its public institutions. The private sector also faces the possibility that less popular campuses may not be viable without increased state support.
 

[ DOWNLOAD | CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT ]

[ HOME | REPORTS | CROSSTALK | RESOURCES | ORDER ]