Advertisement

News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education

Wanted: Leaders Who Produce

In the next 15 years millions more of our citizens must get into and through higher education. Why? According to the statistics and numerous reports published over the last couple of years, we need an educated work force to propel the U.S. economy forward, an economy that is capable of benefiting from and working with rapidly emerging economies around the world. But yet , as Fareed Zakaria wrote in a recent article in Newsweek, “Just as the world is opening up, we are closing down.”

The numbers are in. We know what is needed for the U.S. If our colleges and universities cannot produce the millions of additional graduates, we could confront a crisis that will lead to a preponderance of “closed for business” signs unless urgent and significant action is taken.

Today, most governors, state legislative leaders, and higher education leaders understand that the path to economic security and prosperity for our nation and our states runs through the college campus. Why, then, does the task appear to be so daunting, so overwhelming?

The force of the need to educate many more millions is on a collision course with other forces confronting today’s campuses. The federal budget and many state budgets are constrained by present economic conditions and rocketing spending for defense, public safety, health care, human services and transportation. There likely won’t be a pot of gold at the end of the government budget rainbow for most colleges and universities to garner significantly more operating funds to accomplish what they are being asked to do. Plus, now — even more than earlier this decade — policy makers appear to be more opposed to continuous and significant increases in tuition and fees as a means to redress budget shortfalls.

As a result, productivity and affordability in higher education will take center stage just as accountability took center stage this past decade. What is the answer? Of course, there is no one right answer, but answers must be found and they must be found quickly. Collective and empowered leadership will be required on the campus, in governing boards, at state capitols, and in the business sector. No one gets a pass; no one gets to point a finger at the other.

The challenge is to focus on colleges becoming more productive by growing revenues through increased enrollments at the same time they become more efficient in offering their services. After all, both the need and the potential users are there. Most private sector businesses would be delighted to have such a need for their services and would be retooling to meet that need.

Campus and/or system leadership is the key to unlocking doors to greater productivity and affordability. After all, the citizenry will receive their education from the campus, the place where the work gets done. Higher education leaders proclaim that campuses are loaded with the intellectual capital to create and innovate. So, as higher education leaders we should not and cannot wait for government or the private sector to singlehandedly meet these challenges for us. We must take the lead. That may be our greatest public service challenge to date.

The first requirement is for campus leaders to understand and accept the reality, the necessity of meeting the country’s need for millions more educated citizens, while at the same time acknowledging the government budget constraints to do so. Many already do understand this dilemma and would welcome partners in the policy-making realm and business sector to join them in seeking positive solutions. However, if campus leaders resist the challenge and choose to not accept reality, policy makers will likely force external solutions that may not be the most desirable or related to real campus solutions.

What is urgently needed now is collective leadership from the campus, business sector, and policy-making entities to engage as peers in addressing this crisis. Campus leaders should take the first step to create the environment where constructive solutions can be found. Old ways of solving public policy issues — such as testifying to legislative committees in an “us vs. them” manner — will not work: such practices foster the belief that every answer must depend on some type of funding.

Yes, initially the campus may need to address some tough questions about existing practices such as the role of tenure and using more part-time faculty, but those questions already exist. Engaging faculty and administrators with policy makers and leaders from the business sector (all in the same room at the same time) will undoubtedly lead to answers that will be more broadly understood, supported, and actually capable of being successfully implemented.

Likewise, policy makers play a key role in addressing the need for a more educated work force and should acknowledge their role in addressing the challenge to educate millions more citizens. They should accept the need for an adequate funding support base for campus operations and financial aid benefiting students at all types of institutions They should discontinue reducing the percentage of the public budget allocated to higher education in order to fund other parts of the budget. They should support innovative approaches to productivity and permit campuses to redirect productivity savings. These actions will send a clear commitment to higher education leaders about policy makers’ commitment to educating many more citizens.

Major, not minor, change will need to be considered by this collective leadership to ensure an affordable postsecondary education for millions more of our citizens. Some ideas to consider putting on the table include the following:

  • Change the cultural perception of a campus as a “place to go” to be one that provides instruction and enhances learning. Make significant changes to the instructional delivery model. Consider removing traditional time constraints such as quarters and semesters.
  • Hire campus leaders with a passion for increasing productivity and student success. Hold campus leaders and departments accountable with rewards for specific, significant results. Examples could include increases in the number of courses completed and/or degrees or certificates awarded, reducing time to degree, or reducing student costs.
  • Provide financial incentives — even in tough times — to reward campuses and departments that make significant internal changes to meet the need to educate many more citizens.
  • Revise state and campus funding allocation formulas to focus on student success rather than attendance, and also focus funding on special initiatives to achieve specific public policy objectives. Give funding priority to departments and institutions that can accommodate increased numbers of students at least cost and reward those that graduate large percentages of those that enter.
  • Establish departmental budgets that have specific goals to create specific revenue streams and then allow them to use the revenue they generate.
  • Collaborate. Collaborate. Collaborate. Find ways for campuses and departments to consolidate administrative, student service, and academic support functions required of all campuses. Provide incentives for faculty and departments to collaborate to offer what students need anywhere, anytime.
  • Focus more on “finishing degrees” for adults who earned credits earlier in their lives but did not receive a credential.
  • Consider charging tuition and fees tied to the actual costs of instruction. Charges for large general education classes should probably be significantly less than charges for small, highly specialized classes.
  • Explore having community colleges or selected four-year colleges provide all remedial instruction for the state or region, releasing resources for the other four-year colleges and universities to focus exclusively on college-level courses.
  • Make greater use of the expertise and experiences of retirees since there will be significant numbers of them who can offer this resource.
  • Balance career education and liberal arts education opportunities. An economy based on a broadly educated citizenry will be the economy most able to adapt to inevitable and constant changes.
  • Reduce government regulations and reporting requirements. Government regulations and policies tend to “count” not “produce.” Many policy makers believe that government cannot regulate business to success. The same principle applies to higher education.
  • Use accountability measures and incentives that truly focus on productivity. Don’t use accountability measures to play “gotcha” since there is no better way to drive down productivity. Accountability measures that focus on “gotchas” will “getcha” very few results.

Making college more affordable and achieving greater productivity are not only worthy goals; they are critical to the economic prosperity of the country and states. No single solution will work for all. Together we can create collaborative solutions and adapt them as needed for particular situations and needs.

This country needs to educate millions more of its citizens during the next decade. Urgent and bold leadership and action is needed to meet this challenge. Higher education leaders should take the lead to create the setting to forge the solutions to make college more affordable and achieve greater productivity. I am optimistic that such leadership exists.

Larry A. Isaak is president of the Midwestern Higher Education Compact and chancellor emeritus of the North Dakota University System.

Got something to say?


Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Advertisement

Comments

The Challenges of Innovation

Dr. Issak makes some excellent points regarding the push-pull we feel as University Adminstrators as we work with our faculty to develop an accessible, equitable, dynamic learning resource for the students we serve. An inherent challenge, however, we face as we ask faculty and academic programs to be innovative and creative, is that for many disciplines and units, activities classified as such do not fit into criteria for promotion and tenure. For example, although creating a fully-online degree program in Psychology would increase access and reach for a junior faculty member’s campus, it would likely be viewed negatively in supporting a tenure case for that individual at a research-intensive institution. Although the costs of such activities are less for tenured faculty, many folks with a passion for doing relaly innovative things around curriculum are junior faculty, for whom the cost can be great. At the same time that we work to become more nimble and accessible as institutions, we need to update our expectations of faculty for tenure to reflect that we value innovation that serves our ability to educate more students really well.

Dr. MCR, Professor and Associate Dean, at 8:05 am EDT on July 29, 2008

re

I agree there are good points, but like most articles about change and leadership in higher ed., the author does not completely address the role of governance.

For instance, Trustees normally publicly advocate for change. But when the change initiatives are pushed forward, the recoil because the change impacted their constituents (particularly in areas where Trustees are elected). The result? The President is fired or told to retreat and maintain the status quo. Another case: a president good on paper is hired but is insensitive to the culture. Good change initiatives that are actually the best for the institution are then met with resistance and fail. A third case: faculty. Tenure is a good thing overall, but some faculty use it as a shield from accountability. And faculty are not known for being open to new ideas and ways of thinking, particularly in regard to students and learning. (Ironically, most of them claim to be liberal but are quite conservative in their work behavior).

In my opinion, it is governance, not policy or finance, that is higher ed’s biggest challenge.

PS, at 9:15 am EDT on July 29, 2008

North Dakotans should be glad...

...that Larry Isaak is emeritus. Let’s leave aside the proposals that are pure edu-cant and focus on the incentives that would be created by two that are specific enough to be meaningful.

“Establish departmental budgets that have specific goals to create specific revenue streams and then allow them to use the revenue they generate.”

“Consider charging tuition and fees tied to the actual costs of instruction. Charges for large, general education classes should probably be significantly less than charges for small highly specialized classes.”

Now what would happen to a university that implemented those policies? Under the second proposal, lab-based science classes would charge high tuition. That high tuition, combined with the high work load that lab science classes impose on their students, would cause demand for science courses to plummet. Since science departments would, as a result, generate ever-smaller revenue streams, those departments would atrophy. The route to prosperity in such a university would lie with classes that can be produced at low cost (large lecture halls with adjuncts or grad students teaching — now there’s an innovation!) and that require little work of students. Departments that take this path will thrive.

Raise your hands parents — how many of you want to send your children to that university?

Michael McIntyre, Associate Professor of International Studies at DePaul University, at 11:00 am EDT on July 29, 2008

Hollow degree programs

Chancellor Isaak’s opening premise is doubtful. “In the next 15 years millions more of our citizens must get into and through higher education.” It isn’t entirely clear, but I assume he means a net increase, above the approximately 18 million students currently enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities. (It also isn’t entirely clear why Isaak limits the growth to “our citizens.” We currently have about 300,000 documented international students and a growing cohort of undocumented aliens.) Isaak’s explanation of why millions more Americans should attend—and graduate from—college is the familiar economic pitch: “We need an educated work force to propel the U.S. economy forward.” No arguing with that, but is college for “millions more” really the most plausible path to create “an educated work force?” Isaak doesn’t even pause over this point. He just assumes that college attendance equals “educated work force.” It isn’t a good assumption. Although I have been a critic of Secretary Spellings’ Commission on the Future of Higher Education, its report two years ago, A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education, at least gave official standing to observations about the flimsiness of much of American higher education. Others have been pointing out the same weaknesses for a generation. My own organization, the National Association of Scholars, issued a series of carefully documented reports in the 1990s showing the erosion of academic standards. The Commission’s official findings, however, put the matter at the center of any question about how higher education should proceed. A Test of Leadership, for example, highlighted a “troubling number” of high school graduates who “waste time—and taxpayer dollars—mastering English and math skills that they should have learned in college.” Isaak’s answer? Spend more money bringing even more unprepared high school graduates to college, but bundle them into regional fix-it centers of remedial instruction. That’s how we are going to “propel the economy forward?” The Commission also cited “disturbing signs that many students who do earn degrees have not actually mastered the reading, writing, and thinking skills we expect of college graduates.” The report continues: “Over the past decade, literacy among college graduates has actually declined. Unacceptable numbersof college graduates enter the workforce without the skills employers say they need in an economy in which, as the truism holds correctly, knowledge matters more than ever.”

But as Isaak sees it, the main challenge is for colleges to focus on “becoming more productive by growing revenues through increased enrollments [while] at the same time [becoming] more efficient in offering their services.”

I am very skeptical that American higher education can grow its way out of the problems it currently faces. “Productivity” is usually an administrative euphemism for larger classes. Are we going to be better able to transform students who read and write poorly and who lack disciplined intellectual skills into highly skilled workers by increasing the size of classes? True, Isaac begins his list of desiderata by calling for a change of “cultural perception” in which a campus becomes a place that “provides instruction and enhances learning.” This is, however, really an oblique confession of how ill-equipped most American colleges and universities are for the task Isaak has in mind. The quality of education on many campuses right now is derisory. A large part of the reason is that colleges have already admitted millions of students who lack the preparation, talent, and motivation to pursue serious college-level study. Increasing the number of such students will only make the problem of low-quality programs worse. In these circumstances, slapping on state-funding formula “to focus on student success rather than attendance” is just a recipe for grade-inflation and the automatic “pass.”

Isaak concludes his essay by linking the “more affordable” and more productive college with “economic prosperity.” That has the soothing taste of a cough drop, but the patient is actually suffering from something much worse than a cough. Well-educated individuals indeed can help a nation achieve economic prosperity, and the greater the number of well-educated individuals, the better. But let’s not confuse sending millions of students through watered-down college degree programs with “education.” What the nation needs is not more hollow college degrees but better public schools, more and better options for high school graduates who are not suited for four-year college programs, and better colleges for those students who are up to the challenge of genuine higher education. Isaak’s plan would simply distend an already bloated system.

Peter Wood, Executive Director at National Association of Scholars, at 11:40 am EDT on July 29, 2008

God this is depressing. Higher education as a third-rate manufacturing enterprise.

America is doomed, at 11:40 am EDT on July 29, 2008

Bloviating our way to diploma mills

For the second time this month, I find myself agreeing almost entirely with Peter Wood. Of course we can increase the number of Americans with college degrees: just sell the diplomas and don’t worry about the education.

Unlike Wood, I think a significantly higher proportion of Americans can benefit from higher education than do so today, but you’re not going to get there by spouting managerial platitudes from the 1980s or the dot-com boom. Notable programs such as FSU’s Center for Academic Retention and Enhancement don’t look much like Isaak’s nostrums, and we should all be relieved that we don’t need them.

Sherman Dorn, Associate Professor at University of South Florida, at 12:15 pm EDT on July 29, 2008

Education is not an industrial process

For an alternative to Mr. Isaak’s out-dated industrial vision, see my call for a Global War on Taylorism:

http://collegiateway.org/news/2008-gwot

R.J. O’Hara, at 12:35 pm EDT on July 29, 2008

Advertisement

 Jobs Related to Wanted: Leaders Who Produce

or search for jobs directly.

Clinical Administrator III
University of Kentucky

The University of Kentucky is one great place to work. UK’s agenda—simple—to accelerate the movement toward academic ... see job

Executive Director, Center for Customer Insights
Yale University

General Purpose
Direct the administrative and operational activities for the Center for Customer Insights (CCI) in ... see job

DEAN — School of Social/Behavioral Sciences & Multicultural Studies
San Diego Community College District

DEAN School of Social/Behavioral Sciences & Multicultural Studies San Diego Mesa College Job Code: CE08-45 THE POSITION ... see job

Director, Institutional Research and Assessment
Lone Star College System

Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job

Director, Workplace Learning Resource Center
Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District

Under the direction of the Cuyamaca College Dean of Instruction, this position will manage the operational and programmatic ... see job

Executive Director, System Facilities Operations
Lone Star College System

Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job

Provost
Columbus State Community College

Columbus State Community College invests in employee development by providing numerous resources, partnerships, training and ... see job

Executive Director, Construction
Lone Star College System

Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job

Vice President for Faculty and Staff Resources
Rutgers University

Founded in 1766, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey is located between New York City and Philadelphia and has three ... see job

Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Research (VP-GSR)
American University

the Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and Research (VP-GSR) bears responsibility for oversight of graduate education and ... see job