DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · 2013-11-15 · DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 065 038. HE 003 167. AUTHOR. Kroepsch,...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 065 038 HE 003 167

AUTHOR Kroepsch, Robert H., Ed.TITLE Legislative Decision Making in Higher Education: How

to Get the Facts.INSTITUTION Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education,

Boulder, Colo.PUB DATE Mar 72NOTE 67p.

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS Decision Making; *Educational Finance; *Educational

Planning; *Governance; *Higher Education; *ManagementInformation Systems; Policy Formation; SystemsAnalysis

ABSTRACTThis conference report on legislative decisionmaking

in higher education is primarily concerned with the financing ofcolleges and universities. Management systems information isprovided, and sessions were held on ',How can a state tell whether ornot it is getting its money's worth? and l'How to allocate funds forvarious segments of higher education. However, all of the sessionsdid not deal with dollar questions. Other topics that captured theinterest of the more than 200 legislators, educators, and governmentofficials included: (1) relevance in higher education; (2) academicfreedom and alternatives to faculty tenures; (3) the primaryfunctions of a state board of higher education; (4) who determines aninstitution's role and objectives; and (5) facts about WICHE withparticular emrhasis on its Student Exchange Programs. (HS)

I if ifF

g?.

1 I a

U S. DEPARTMEN OF HEALTH.EDUCATION IS WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR OliGANIZATION ORIG-INATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN-IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFII.:IAL OFFICE OF EDU-CATION POSITIOI I OR POLICY

I. 1 I ' I I

IN N INTERSTATE COMNII FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

WICHE is a , public agencythrough which the people of theWest work together across statelines to expand and improve edu-cation beyond the high school.

HISTORY:was created to administer the Western Regional Educa-tion Compact, which has been adopted by the legisla-tures of all the 13 western states;was formally established in 1951, after ratification of thecompact by five state legislatures; program activitiesbegan in 1953.

ORGANIZATION:is composed of 39 commissioners, three from each state,appointed by their governors; they serve without pay;is served by a small professional staff, supplemented byconsultants, councils, and committees.

PURPOSE:

seeks to increase educational opportunities for westernyouth;assists colleges and universities to improve bow theiracademic programs and their institutional management;aids in expanding the supply of specialized manpowerin the West;helps colleges and universities appraise and respond tochanging educational and social needs of the region;informs the public about the needs of higher education.

PROGRAM AND PHILOSOPHY:serves as a fact-finding agency and a clearinghouse ofinformation about higher education and makes basicstudies of educational needs and resources in the West;acts as a catalyst in helping the member states work outprograms of mutual advantage by gathering information,analyzing problems, and suggesting solutions;serves the states andAnstitutions as an administrative andfiscal agent for carrying out interstate arrangements foreducational services;has no authority or control over the member states orindividual educational institutions; it works by buildingconsensus based on joint deliberation and the recogni-tion of relevant facts and arguments.

FINANCES:is financed In part by appropriations from the memberstates of $15,000 annually; the states also contribute$7,500 each to participate in a regional program inmental, health, mental retardation, special education,corrections, rehabilitation, and the helping services;receives grants and contracts for special projects fromprivate foundations and public agencies; for each dollarprovided by the states during Fiscal Year 1972, WICHEwill expend more than $17 from non-state sources; inthe past 16 years, grant and contract commitmentshave exceeded $25 million.

LegislativeDecision MakingInHigher Education:

HOW TO GET THE FACTS

Proceedings of the

Legislative Work Conferenceon Higher Education

Edited by

Robert H. Kroepsch

Western Interstate Commissionfor Higher Education

P. 0. Drawer PBoulder, Colorado 80302

March 1972

-NEMO,

Commissioners

ii

(as of February 1972)

ALASKA

*Mrs. Delia Pruhs, FairbanksJohn S. Hellenthal, Attorney, AnchorageDr. William R. Wood, President,

University of Alaska

ARIZONA

"Dr. Richard A. Harvill, President Emeritus andProfessor of Economics, University of Arizona

W. 0. (Fred) Craft, Jr., Assistant U.S.Attorney, Phoenix

Dermont W. Me lick, M.D., Coordinator, ArizonaRegional Medical Program, College ofMedicine, University of Arizona

CALIFORNIA

*Dr. Rita R. Campbell, Senior Fellow,Hoover Institution, Stanford University

Dr. Glenn S. Dumke, Chancellor, CaliforniaState College System, Los Angeles

Dr. W. Ballentine Henley, President of theBoard of Trustees, United Church ofReligious Science, Los Angeles

COLORADO

Dr. Kathryn M. Smith, Dean, School of Nursing,University of Colorado Medical Center

Dr. William E. Morgan, President Emeritus,Colorado State University

C. Gale Sellens, President, Lakeside NationalBank, Wheatridge

HAWAII

*Dr. Frederick P. Hoehn len, Jr, Professor ofEducational Psychology, University of Hawaii

John B. Connell, Life Underwriter, InsuranceCompany; Communications Coordinator,Model Cities Program, Kailua

George Goto, M.D., Honolulu

IDAHO

*Martha D. Jones, M.D., BoisuDr. John B. Barnes, President,

Boise State CollegeDr. William E. Davis, President,

Idaho State University

MONTANA

*Warren D. Bowman, M.D., BillingsEdward W. Nelson, Executive Secretary, The

Montana University System, HelenaHerman C. Ross, D.V.M., Kalispell

NEVADA

*Dr. Juanita Greer White, State Assemblyman,Boulder City

Fred M. Anderson, M.D., Regent,University of Nevada

Dr. Thomas T. Tucker, Chairman, Departmentof School Administration and Supervision,College of Education, University of Nevada

NEW MEXICO

*Carter Kirk, Land Developer, DemingDr. Ferrel Heady, President,

University of New MexicoClory B. Tafoya, Principal, Valencia Elementary

School, Los Lunas

OREGON

*Mrs. Edna Scales, PortlandDr. Roy E. Lieuallen, Chancellor, Oregon State

System of Higher Education, EugeneLynn W. Newbry, State Senator, Ashland

UTAH

"Richard J. Maughan, Member, State Board ofHigher Education; Attorney, Salt Lake City

Dr. G. Homer Durham, Commissioner, StateBoard of Higher Education, Salt Lake City

Mrs. Dorothy K. Watkiss, Member, Universityof Utah Institutional Council, Salt Lake City

WASHINGTON

*Gordon Sandison, State Senator; InsuranceBroker, Port Angeles

James Furman, Executive Coordinator,Council on Higher Education, Olympia

Dr. Glenn Terrell, President,Washington State University

WYOMING

*Richard R. Jones, State Senator, CodyFrancis A. Barrett, M.D., CheyenneDr. William D. Carlson, President,

University of Wyoming

*Members, Executive Committee

4

ContentsFOREWORD IV

DECISIONS ABOUT STUDENT EXCHANGE

Legislative Decision Making: About WICHE's Student Exchange ProgramsSenator Richard R. Jones, Edward W. Nelson, James Furman, Senator Lynn Newbry, Dr. Maurke J. Hickey,Dr. Hope Lowry, and Dr. A. Ray Chamberlain

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

The Managerial Revolution, Legislators, and Higher Education 13

John Keller

HOW TO GET SOME OF THE FACTS

Decision Making: How to Get Some of the Facts 21

Dr. Ben Lawrence

Staff Discusses NCHEMS Thrust and Activities. 25

Dr. Joanne Arnold

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS FROM MY POINT OF VIEW

Planning Systems Must Above All Be Useful 29

Alan Post

Better Communication Is Primary Purpose of Systems 30

Senator David Kret

Greatest Benefit of Systems Approach Is Continuous Planning 31

Dr. Stuart Brown

ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Getting/Your Money's Worth in Higher Education. 35

James Farmer

Encouraging Change and Significance in Higher Education 39

Dr. Harold L. Hodgkinson

Academic Freedom and Tenure in Higher Education 43

Arvo Van Alstyne

Trends in State Planning and Coordination of Higher Education 48

Dr. Lyman Glenny

Allocating State Funds for Support of Higher Education 52

Dr. E. T. Dunlap

Determining Institutional Objectives 55

Dr. Donald F. Kline

CONFERENCE WIND-UP 59

PARTICIPANTS

Foreword

iv

The theme for WICHE's 7th Legislative WorkConference was "Legislative Decision Making inHigher Education: How to Get the Facts."

In this conference, the facts-to-be-gotten weremostly financial. And getting them meant using mod-em management techniques, in addition to askingsuch questions as: What's really happening to thepublic's dollar for higher education? And, how canyou really tell?

The heart of the keynote address by John Kellerwas a pro-and-con examination of Computer Agemodern management and its impoitance to highereducation. Keller, consultant, Hawaii Department ofBudget and Finance, spoke on "The ManagerialRevolution, Legislators, and Higher Education."

A detailed example of the Keller-described man-agerial revolution followed during a full day of ses-sions on the activities of the National Center forHigher Education Management Systems at WICHE.

In addition, there were sessions on "How can astate tell whether or not it is getting its money'sworth?" and "How to allocate funds for varioussegments of higher education."

But all of the sessions did not deal with dollarquestions. Other topics also captured the interest ofthe more than 200 legislators, educators, and govern-ment officials.

These topics included:

Relevance in higher education

Academic freedom and alternatives to facultytenure

The primary functions of a state board ofhigher education

Who determines an institution's role andobjectives?

plus, Facts about WICHE, and particularly itsStudent Exchange Programs

Clearly, there were a variety of topics. In somecases, lawmakers and educators found new areas ofagreement. In some cases, they didn't. However, thepurpose of this conference was not agreement among

all participants on all topics. We would not wantthis even if we could achieve it.

The purposes of the biennial WICHE Legis-lative Work Conference are (1) to provide a forumfor topics of mutual concern, and (21 to strengthencommunications and understanding among westernlegislators, government officials, and educators.

For three days, 200 of the West's leading deci-sion makers in government and higher educationprobed, discussed, and traded ideas on budgets forcolleges and universities, as well as other matters.The legislator spoke and listened from his specialperspective; the educator from his. We feel that bothleft the conference understanding just a little bit more

about the topics and about each other.

We would like to extend our special thanks toall those who took time from their busy lives toparticipate and to all who prepared papers andexhibits. In the preparation of this report, we alsowish to acknowledge especially the contributions ofthe following WICHE staff members: Lee Gladish,publications specialist; Grant Duncan, graphic artist;Sue Young, photographer; Gerry Volgenau, publicinformation officer; Virginia Patterson and JoArnold, editors; Bob L. Brown, personnel director;Jean Davis, administrative assistant; and CarolFrancis, secretary.

This publication has been distributed to all legis-lators and college and university presidents in theWest. We hope it will help to stimulate furtherdiscussions and increase understanding.

Robert H. KroepschExecutive Director

Francis A. BarrettWICHE Chairman

SEVENTH LEGISLATIVE WORK CONFERENCE

Legislative Decision Makingin Higher Education:

HOW TO GET THE FACTS

Getting the FactsAbout WICHE

.t.

fr

It was a time for questions. And a time for answers.Legislators wanted to know about WICHE, in both con-cept and detail. WICHE staff members were on hand toanswer those questions.

The occasion was the opening session of WICHE's7th biennial Legislative Work Conference held on a warmand clear December afternoon. Western legislators, gov-ernment officials, and educators attended the session andposed their queries. Many stayed for almost two hoursto talk, sip coffee, and learn about the 20-year-oldWICHE organization.

Pictured here are some of the people who came toget the facts about WICHE, and some of the WICHEstaff members and Commissioners who tried to supplythose facts.

TOP: Mrs. Virginia Patterson, director, StudentExchange Programs, and Benjamin Johns, statebudget director, Montana. LEFT, Above: WICHECommissioner Dr. William E. Davis, President,Idaho State University; and Below: WICHE Com-missioner C. Gale Sellens, of Wheatridge, Colo-rado, and Mrs. Patricia Locke, director, Ethnic

1.rograms in Higher Education.

BELOW, Left: Dr. Peter Hiatt, director, Con-tinuing Education Program for Library Personnel,and Francis Bain (with glasses), of Colorado; andRight: Dr. Weldon P. Shofstall, superintendent ofPublic Instruction, Arizona, who brought greetingsfrom Governor Jack Williams.

8

ABOVE, Left: WICHE Commissioner Lynn W.Newbry, senator, Oregon; and Right: Stanley W.Boucher, director, Mental Health Continuing Edu-cation, and Raymond Reed, D.V.M., University ofArizona.

RIGHT, Above: Richard Martinez (left), direc-tor, Community College Mental Health WorkerProgram, and Dr. Ronald Holler, of Arizona StateHospital; and Below: Mrs. Marie Branch, director,Nurse Faculty Development to Meet MinorityGroup Needs.

BELOW, Left: Dr. Joanne Arnold, staff ooci-ate, National Center for Higher Education Man-agement Systems at WICHE; Center: RobertStewart (with glasses), administrative assistant toNevada Governor Michael O'Callaghan, and PaulH. Ries, consultant, WICHE Correctioris Pogrom;and Right: W1CHE Commissioner Dr. William E.Morgan (left), president emeritus, Colorado StateUniversity, and Bruce J. Martin, project director,Regional Institute for Corrections, AdministrativeStudy, WICHE Corrections Program.

-4111.11111=6CMI =figriging=

p.

ihr^

1

GETTING THE FACTS ABOUT WICHE

c.ft°

This year we are educating 790 of our young people inprofessional schools.

A state-supported institution naturally accepts qualifiedresident students first. Then they look at our WICHE-certified

students and accept them competitively on the basis oftheir qualifications.

$5,000 is a fair price for a medical student and $4,000 is afair price in dentistry and veterinary medicine.

10

Senator Richard R. Jones,

WyomingWICHE Commissioner

DECISIONS ABOUT THE STUDENT EXCHANGE

Legislative Decision Making:

About WICHE'sStudent Exchange Programs

Moderator: Senator Richard R. Jones,Wyoming, WICHE Commissioner

Participants:Edward W. Nelson, Executive Secretary, The Montana University System,

WICHE CommissionerJames Furman, Executive Coordinator, Council on Higher Education,

Washington, WICHE CommissionerSenator Lynn Newbry, Oregon, WICHE CommissionerMaurice J. Hickey, D.M.D., M.D., Dean, Univeisity of Washington

School of DentistryHope Lowry, M.D., Associate Dean for Admissions,

University of Colorado School of MedicineDr. A. Ray Chamberlain, President, Colorado State University

Senator Jones: We are glad to share some of ourideas about the Student Exchange Programs,WICHE's oldest programs. This year western statesare educating 790 of our young people in professionalschools in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine,physical and occupational therapy, dental hygiene,and optometry. We're spending $1.8 million to payfor that education.

I guess we should not have been surprised a littleover a year ago when our medical, dental, and veteri-nary schools began to tell us that they couldn't goon taking students for what we were paying for theirprofessional education. Everything else has increasedin cost, and education is no exception. You legis-lators know how much of an increase funding ofeducation has had in your states. The WICHECommission is given the responsibility by the compactunder which we operate to determine and fix sup-port fees. And so members of our Commission tookthe responsibility of visiting a number of the profes-sional schools where our young people are enrolledand talking with officials of the schools. Whenever

we made a visit, we sent a Commissioner from asending state and a receiving state along with thestaff. We wanted to know whether our kids weregetting the break on admissions that we thought theywere. We wanted to talk about a fair price for theeducational service they were receiving. We wantedto know whether this program was really working,whether the reservoir of good will that we associatedwith the program was also present in the schools.

We were really impressed by our visits to theschoois. We found that the Student Exchange is wellregarded in every school we visited. The program ismaking education possible for young people whenthe opportunity is not available at home. It is pro-viding an educational mix of geographic backgroundsin the professional schools which seems healthy allaround. We think the program is working so wellfor us that we want to broaden it in order to makeevery state both a sending and receiving state. Wewant to make it possible for any young person whocan't get the education he wants in his state to crossinto another state offering that program and to enroll.


One thing I need to make clear to you thatwasn't clear to me before we started visiting theseschools. In the professional schools, not every studentwho wants to get in is going to make it. A state-supported institution naturally accepts qualified resi-dent students first. Then they look at our WICHE-certified students and accept them on the basis oftheir qualifications.

We certainly found a regional commitment tothe principle of the Student Exchange and a recog-nition of the importance of western states workingtogether for the mutual benefit of this region. Ourhistory of cooperation, of course, applies in manyother areas of regional significance in addition toeducation water, for instance.

We want you to have some idea of our thinkingas we arrived at our recommendation that the sup-port fees in our three major fields be increased in1973. We have agreed that $5,000 is a fair pricefor a medical student and $4,000 a fair price indentistry and veterinary medicine.

Actually, we think we're getting a bargain for tit;service provided. We've concluded that it is molteconomical to "send" students at the new prices thanto try to build separate professional schools in everywestern state. That is, as long as the education ouryoung people want is available to them in reasonabledegree.

I'm going to introduce representatives of thethree fields which concern us most. We have learneda lot from them, and I think you will be interested,too.

Hope Lowry, M.D.,Associate Dean for Admissions,University of ColoradoSchool of Medicine el°

lh

MEDICAL EDUCATION

Dr. Lowry: I can speak only to the topic of medi-cal education and to the specific situation at theUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine. I believe,however, that the admissions procedures which Idescribe are typical of most medical schools.

First, let me give you a picture of medical schooladmissions. For the class entering the medical schoolsof this country in 1971, there were in the nationabout 29,000 applicants for 12,361 places. It hasrecently been estimated by the Association of Amer-ican Medical Colleges that for the class entering in197.:1 :here may be as many as 40,000 applicants.Present planning (which may very well be revisedupward because of federal pressure) calls for fewerthan 14,000 places for that year. Because of theincreasing competition with regard to both qualityand quantity, because of the great concern of theAmerican people with health care, and because ofthe present widely advertised physician positionshortage, the public is becoming increasingly inter-ested in medical school admissions. Admissionscommittees are not only deluged with applicationsbut with inquiries from the applicants themselves,from their families, friends, university regents, andlegislators. There is increasing pressure from thepublic upon legislators and regents to limit admissionin state tax-supported institutions to state residents.For the class entering in 1970 in the case of bothpublicly and privately owned schools there was aslight increase of freshmen who were residents ofthe state in which the school was located as opposedto the preceding year.

WICHE Students Given Preference

Let me use the admission policy of the Univer-sity of Colorado School of Medicine as an exampleof the manner in which WICHE students are givenpreference. All applicants for medical school presentas credentials transcripts of college courses andgradepoint averages, scores on the Medical CollegeAdmission Test, and recommendations from collegeinstructors. Based upon this information, decisionsare made by admissions committees as to whichapplicants are to be invited for personal interviewswith members of the admissions committee. Theapplicanes college record and scores on the MedicalCollege Admission Test give evidence of demon-strated intellectual ability of the applicant to com-plete the medical school curriculum successfully.Recommendations from college instructors and im-pressions gained from the personal interview givefurther evidence of motivation and, in addition, serveas a means of determining the suitability of the appli-cant's personality and character for the practice ofmedicine.

TABLE 1

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SCHOOLOF MEDICINE, 1971 FRESHMAN CLASS

APPLICANTSSTU DENTSENROLLED

GeographicCategory Number

Invited forInterview

OfferedPlaces

% ofNumber Class

Colorado 250 205 (81%) 110 (44%) 99 79%*NROS 2370 100 (4%) 17 (0.72%) 11 9%WICHE 237 116 (49%) 17 (7%) 15 12%

Alaska 8 4 (50%) 1 1

A:izona 104 38 (37%) 4 4Idaho 37 19 (51%) 3 2

Montana 44 31 (70%) 5 5

Nevada 16 9 (56%) 0 0

Wyoming 28 15 (54%) 4 31

If WICHE applications had been placed in the NROS pool andsubjected to the screening used for that group, only 49 of the237 applicants would have been invited tu complete theirapplications.

*Nonregional out-of-state

Table 1 demonstrates the number of applicants,the percent invited for personal interviews, the per-cent offered places, and the percentage of the finalcomposition of the 1971 entering class for the threegeographic categories of students admitted to theUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine. It isapparent that the manner in which WICHE appli-cants are handled approximates more nearly themanner in which Colorado applicants are handledas opposed to nonregional applicants. The percentageof students offered places and the percentage in theclass give clear evidence that Colorado gives pref-erence to WICHE students as opposed to othernon residents.

Competent Professionals the GoalWe are pleased to have WICHE students in our

student body. Once enrolled, they perform well. Wethink they will make fine practitioners, fine doctors.And after all, as professional medical educators,helping to identify and to educate thoroughly com-petent doctors is a goal which we have set ourselvesand which society demands.

DENTISTRYDr. Hickey: The University of Washington School

of Dentistry takes WICHE students as a matter ofpolicy approved by the university. I have never seenthe text of the agreement, but the commitment is nowof many years' standing. We interpret the univer-sity's commitment to mean that we are to admit anunspecified number of qualified students from theWICHE states. By unwritten agreement of our ad-missions committee, 80 percent of the space in theentering class is given to Washington residents. Theremaining 20 percent of the entering class is givento certified WICHE students.


Maurice J. Hickey, D.M.D., M.D.,Dean,

University of Washington Schoolof Dentistry

In order to meet the commitment I describe, theUniversity of Washington School of Dentistry doesnot accept applications from students coming fromstates other than WICHE. An occasional admissionfrom California or Oregon may be noted, but suchadmissions are very rare, indeed. Basically we acceptWashington residents and students from W1CHEstates which do not have a dental school.

No Quotas AssignedYou should be aware that we (10 Aot assign a

quota of places to any WICHE state. The studentswe accept for our entering class represent the verybest qualified students from all the WICHE states.The WICHE-certified applicant is given priority foracceptance if he is in competition with an equallyqualified noncertified applicant.

We are very concerned about the quality ofeducation we provide and the top performance of thedentist we have produced. L. we make a rare excep-tion to our usual practices, it is because we areconcerned with excellence. For that reason we aregoing to accept the people who have the very bestqualifications to enter our school. Therefore, we doreserve the right to offer a place in our class to thevery best qualified western students whether theyare WICHE-certified or not. This means that superiorqualifications of a student are more important to usthan the dollar he brings. We recognize that accept-ing such a student places an extra burden on thetaxpayer of the state of Washington. There are twogood reasons why we think the policy is important:(1) We want the quality of the dentist we educateto remain high. (2) Some nonresident students al-ways remain in Washington after graduation to prac-tice dentistry.

What is the future of the Student ExchangeProgram in our institution? I am going to be com-


pletely frank and say that I don't know. There areseveral factors to consider. As long as the Universityof Washington maintains its agreement we will con-tinue our present admissions policy. I want you tounderstand that neither the present support fee of$2400 per student per year nor the projected fee of$4000 per student per year covers the actual costof educating a dental student. Cost studies are nowin progress at the university to identify annual costper student in all the health sciences. For purposesof this discussion, let's take a look at the ADA fig-ures. The mean cost per year at all U.S. dentalschools is $9,506. At private schools the figure is$7,968, and at the public schools the figure is$11,107.

Granted the federal government makes a con-tribution to the cost of providing professional educa-tion, the attitude of the legislators in our state isextremely important. They expect a nonresident stu-dent to subsidize his own education. They do notexpect Washington taxpayers to pick up the subsidy.Then, tor, the demand for admission of qualifiedWashington residents may force reevaluation of ourpresent method of allocating places to ncnresidents,WICHE students included.

At the present time our university is closelyscrutinizing all sources of income. The extent towhich the university considered the support fee paidfor dental students at the time the program wasinitiated is unknown to me. Now, however, theamount of payment as a fair recompense to the stateof Washington for the educational service providedis surely a matter of great concern. The current, studyof costs may influence the attitude of the financepeople at the university about the suitability of ourparticipation in the program.

,

8Dr. A. Ray Chamberlain,President,Colorado State University

VETERINARY MEDICINE

Dr. Chamberlain: I am speaking as the presidentof a state-supported university which offers a degreein veterinary medicine and which has enrolledWICHE students in numbers nearly equal to thenumber of Colorado residents enrolled.

We like having WICHE students and we likethe Student Exchange Programs. Nevertheless, theJoint Budget Committee of the Colorado legislaturehas presented us with a tuition formula which wemust apply to all students. Colorado residents are topay tuition representing one-fourth of the averagecost of education. Nonresidents are expected to pay100 percent of the average cost. Hence, the thrustof my remarks to you.

New Fee Minimum Acceptable

It costs between $9,000 and $10,000 to educatea veterinary student each year. Of that total, federalfunds supply about $4,000. The new support fee inveterinary medicine is the minimum amount accept-able if the Student Exchange Program in veterinarymedicine is to continue at CSU. A periodic reviewof the adequacy of the support fee is also importantto continuation of the program.

There were 272 applications from WICHE stu-dents for admission to the veterinary program atCSU for fall 1971. Thirty-eight WICHE studentswere accepted, 2 Nebraska students, and 46 Coloradoresidents.

CSU has a contract with Nebraska which pays$4,000 per student plus an annual adjustment. Aneastern state is offering CSU $7,000 per year forplaces in the entering class.

We feel a moral obligation to honor the regionalcommitment made long ago when the WesternRegional Education Compact first made it possiblefor us to exchange students and dollars in the West.Colorado State University has participated in theExchange by receiving students since the beginningback in 1953.

Sending States Must Assume Realistic Share

The directive from our legislature makes it abso-lutely essential to look at the cost to the Coloradotaxpayer of providing education in veterinary medi-cine to nonresident students. Keeping our doors opento WICHE students depends on the willingness of thesending states to assume a more realistic share ofthe cost of providing the education their studentsreceive.

.1,*t.r

14

James Furman,

Executive Coordinator,Council on Higher Education,WashingtonWICHE Commissioner

RECEIVING STATE VIEW

Mr. Furman: I am speaking as a Commissionerfrom a receiving state. I believe that the state ofWashington and her institutions of higher educationhave proven by their record of admissions that webelieve in the principle of a student exchange. Notonly have we demonstrated our belief in the conceptthrough participation in the WICHE exchanges, butalso through our development of the WAMI pro-gram of medical education.

Mounting Costs Stark RealityAs a representative of a state deeply concerned

and involved in financing the mounting costs ofhigher education, we face the reality that professionaleducation in the health sciences is a costly service toprovide. It is essential education, but it is costlyeducation. I believe that the responsible officials inmy state who grapple with funding of higher educa-tion must be convinced that the sending states aremaking as serious, as sincere, and as substantial aneffort as we are in providing for education in thehealth professions.

From the point of view of the supplier of services,the support fee represents a price which the receivingstate is willing to accept for the service provided,recognizing the benefit to our state of the presenceof able young people from divergent backgrounds.It also represents a price for the preference whichis given to WICHE students. The willingness of thesending state to pay the support fee, representing anequitable estimate of the receiving state contributionto the subsidy required to supply the service, is agesture of goodwill and public relations which is notlikely to be overlooked by legislators in Washington.

Since Washington has to date always been areceiver of students, let me say that I look forward to


a great broadening of the fields covered under theStudent Exchange Programs. It is critically importantthat the program be expanded greatly. I believe thata broad-based student ezchange program must in-clude thousands of students ard dozens of fields.In this way, Washington can truly be involved inreciprocal efforts which allow students from this stateto at' .c; ir titutions elsewhere.

*Ji )uncil on Higher Education, in cooperationwith the various public institutions of higher educa-tion in Washington, is deeply involved in degree-program accountability studies which emphasizeelimination of programs which are unnecessarilyduplicative. This commitment to reducing unneces-sary programs within our state is no less importantwhen applied to the 13 western states of the WICHEregion.

eMIPX..rfr

Edward W. Nelson,The MontanaUniversity System

WICHE Commissioner

SENDING STATE VIEW

Mr. Nelson: I am a Commissioner from a sendingstate, Montana, and over the years we have probablyused the exchange as a means of educating our youngpeople as much or more than any other state.

I see the pooling of educational services throughthe SEP as a great cooperative venture for the Westfor the purpose of improving health services as wellas educational opportunities. The West is a regionof tremendous land area. Even though there are someconcentrations of population, generally the land issparsely populated. Because of large areas and fewpeople, we suffer from a distribution of services asthey relate to the needs of society and our ability todeliver needed services.

15

9


We need more, not fewer, cooperative frame-works for the sharing of service resources. The Stu-dent Exchange Program is one area of cooperationthat we must defend and expand. We must continueto look for ways of transporting resources and sc-v-ices across those artificial boundaries to humanfulfillment known to us as state lines.

I look on the SEP as one evidence of the coop-erative framework existing in this region to improvethe delivery of various services to society. It is truethat the students involved receive an economic bene-fit through the transcer of funds related to studentenrollments. A far greater significance of the programis the benefit to society provided by having a poolof trained professionals. I want to stress my beliefthat the money we spend in the Student Exchangeis in support of the health enterprise in the West.

To end my comments on a lighter note, I wantto share with you a poem which has something tosay about the West and our nostalgic reminiscences.

'Twas good to live when all the sodwithout no fence nor fuss

Belonged in partnership with God,the government, and us.

With skyline bounds from East to Westand room to go and come.

I loved my fellow man the bestwhen he was scattered some.

Senator Lynn Newbry,OregonWICHE Commissioner

1

OVERVIEW

Senator Newbry: Oregon is both a sending anda receiving state. We admit WICHE students to ourmedical and dental schools and we send Oregonstudents to the cooperating WICHE schools of veteri-nary medicine. We need places for veterinary stu-dents, and so we need the Student Exchange.

Best Educationni Bargain

I am a state legislator and I want to point outthat the Student Exchange Program probably pro-vides the best educational bargain that a state legis-lature could buy anywhere.

Suppose Oregon were to build a veterinaryschool. The capital investment would run some-where in the neighborhood of $20 million. Investedat 4 percent, this money would produce $800,000 ayear. Currently, Oregon has 39 students enrolled inveterinary medicine under the Student Exchange.Suppose we use the new support fee figure of $4,000per student and apply it to those 39 students. Wewould be spending $156,000 in support of theirstudies. And our Oregon taxpayers would net a sav-ing of $644,000. Now, remember that I am dis-cussing the capital investment only. An operatingbudget would add substantially to the taxpayers'obligation.

I see a benefit to the receiving schools from thepresence of WICHE students. It is essential thatprofessional schools be operated at full enrollment inorder to minimize costs per student. The StudentExchange guarantees full enrollment of fully qualifiedstudents. The receiving school also receives moreincome from the presence of the exchange studentthan from a resident student, reducing the obligationof the receiving state taxpayer.

In Oregon we subsidize education. We expect tosubsidize education. In point of fact we are subsi-dizing the education of doctors and dentists for someof you who do not have medical and dental schools.And some of you are subsidizing the education ofour veterinary students. We are helping each other,and we need each other. Recognizing that mutualinterest, I still say that we have to look at the bestuse of the tax monies entrusted to us.

Better Investment Than Building

I believe that it is a better investment to supportstudents in their chosen fields where the programexists than to build more buildings all over the West,duplicating services that we could be sharing.

Every state is faced with the prospect of reducingexisting programs within state institutions of highereducation. By further expansion of the Student Ex-change, we may find other ways of offering these

16

opportunities at less expense through expandedcooperative ventures. We hope to make every statethat is now sending students a receiving state some-time in the not-too-distant future.

WAY TO GOSenator Jones: You legislators in the audience

are going to hear more about the support fees inmedicine, dentistry, and vet& 'ary medicine. Weexpect the new fee schedule to go into effect in thefall of 1973.

When you hear a request for higher appropri-ations to support your young people in programs of


education outside your state, we hope you willapprove the increase. Those of us who have lookedat this problem from every side are convinced thatthe Student Exchange is the way to go in offeringeducational opportunities that young people wantand society needs.

It would cost far more to provide the buildingsand operating budgets for these necessary programsin every state.

11

. . when blind choices are made it turns out that ultimateresource demands are greater than anyone expected . . .

Making comparisons and decisions about higher educationon the basis of cost per student credit hour is a little like

trying to decide whether to buy a Cadillac or a Pinto solely onthe basis of knowing the cost per hour of operating anoverhead milling machine in the Cadillac division of

General Motors and the comparable number at the Ford plant.

In a way, I don't blame the doubters.

Would it be possible . . . to develop a flexible, universal,state government PPB system?

Data on programs, not objects of expenditure, are required.

A.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

The Managerial Revolution,Legislators, and

Higher EducationJohn E. Keller,

Consultant to the Director,Department of Budget and Finance,Hawaii

The theme and purpose of this conference linkslegislators, decision making, and higher education;and since these linkages are generally well under-stood I will not belabor the obvious with a lengthycommentary on them. However, there are two newaspects of this nexus whose connections to eachother and to legislators, decision making, and highereducation are not so obvious. I refer here to the topicof the "managerial revolution" and to the conferencetheme of "How To Get The Facts." Simply stated,my thesis is that there has, indeed, been a revolutionin recent years in the concepts and techniques usedto manage large organizations especially publicones; and that this revolution is having a profoundeffect on the kinds o'i facts which are deemed rele-vant for decision making and on the way they aregathered and used.

Questions Outline Issue

Perhaps the best way to frame this issue is topose a series of three questions: (a) What do legis-lators want to know? (b) What do legislators needto know? (c) How can legislators get the informa-tion they need in order to make good decisions?

With respect to the first of these questions,"What do legislators want to know?" the answerunquestionably is "a very great deal." However, Iwould like to make it clear that the managerialrevolution to which I have referred has to do only

with the resource allocation process. While thatprocess is a very large and important part of thetotal decision making responsibility of an executiveor legislative branch, it is only a part. Beyond itthere is another whole class of questions such as:"What is the community's reaction to student dis-orders?" "Does the president have too many vice-presidents reporting to him?" "Is Professor Smitha member of the John Birch Society (or the SDS)?""Shall the university accept classified research con-tracts?" "What are the grounds for revocation oftenure?" All of these are important questions aboutwhich legislators have strong interests and desires forinformation. How to "get the facts" in response toquestions of this kind, however, is a problem beyondthe scope of this discussion and about which the"managerial revolution" has little to offer in the wayof assistance.

But with respect to "getting the facts" andanswering the questions relating to resource alloca-tion decisions, the more sophisticated insights andimproved techniques accompanying the managerialrevolution have made a great deal of difference,

There are a number of ways of categorizing thekinds of facts legislators need to know concerningresource allocation decision making but one veryimportant distinction needs to be made now. Certainquestions are clearly and fully related to resource 1

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

14

allocation decision making. Examples of this kind ofquestion are: "Should the university attempt todevelop academic strength in astro-physics (ormicro-biology, or high-energy physics, or Far Easternlanguage and culture)?" "Should the university adoptyear-round operations to conserve on capital re-quirements?" "Shall we add a Ph.D. program inengineering?" "What are optimal mixes of facultyby type, and their costs, for a given level of teachingeffectiveness?" "What are are respective marginaleffects on the output of undergraduates of givenincrements of budget devoted to direct teaching, tocounseling, and to student aid?" and, "For variouslevels of expenditure what are the risks, uncertain-ties, constraints, spillovers, and effects on learningof live classroom lectures vs. videotaped presenta-tions and for tutorials vs. programmed learning?"or perhaps ultimately and more pertinently, "Whatmix of all four of these teaching techniques hasthe greatest teaching effectiveness for given invest-ments?"

Maximize Benefits

What makes these classic resource allocationquestions is that they all are asking for programspecifications which will maximize some set of publicand private benefits (or outputs or measures ofeffectiveness) for given resource inputs or equiva-lently, to minimize resources consumed for givenlevels of desired output or effectiveness.

There is, however, a related class of questionswhich are very much "value laden" and whichinvolve large questions of basic public policy or socialequity. Too often questions of this kind are addressedpurely on their philosophical merits and legislatorsdo not ask for, nor are they offered, the facts on theresoucce implications of those policies. I am thinkinghere of such questions as, "Shall the universityattempt to alter the proportions of minority groupsamong its student population?" "Should the publichigher education system within a state be organizedon a regional basis or by level of institution?" "Shallthe components of a statewide system be distin-guished by function or by level of student academicachievement at entrance?" "Should some proportionof disadvantaged students be admitted who are belowthe usual qualification standards?" "Should studentcharges be imposed, and, if so, how much forwhonir

No doubt the answers to these questions tutn ina major degree on the public's beliefs and attitudesand on considerations of social equity. But it wouldbe tragic now, and unfortunately it has been tragicin the past, to have decisions made on these questions

without a knowledge of their resource consequences.Whether it is a matter of developing overall aca-demic plans, making specific program choices, oradopting major policies of the kind noted above, todo so without some notion of their aggregate aridlong-term cost implications is simply to court dis-aster. Almost inevitably when "blind" choices aremade it turns out that the ultimate resource demandsare much greater than anyone expected, and in manycases they are literally insupportable. Under thesecircumatances all kinds of program cutbacks, stretch-outs, and policy modifications have to be undertaken,which result in great waste as well as seriouslydisappointed expectations.

No Guarantee

Now, I would be the last to claim that an im-proved resource allocation process (which is the endresult of the managerial revolution) is some kindof guarantee that legislators will get all the factsthey need and hence will make uniformly prudentdecisions. The system simply isn't that good. Butan approach to "getting the facts" which emphasizesclarity of objectives, which scrutinizes all of thealternative ways of achieving them, and which insistson knowing both their real effectiveness and totalcosts is sure to raise the batting average of good (notoptimal!) decisions even if only very modestly atfirst.

Let me return now to the second question, whichis: "What kinds of facts do legislators need to knowin order to make better resource allocation decisionsregarding higher education?" Some of the kinds offacts needed I have alluded to already: for example,the resource implications of program and policychoices. But there are dangers in both directions in"getting the facts" on costs. When an ardently desiredpolicy is being advocated or when a favorite programis being "sold," there is remarkably little discussionof their cost implications; only the alleged benefitsof the policy or program manage to get a hearing.On the other hand, during an old-fashioned budgetreview, nothing but costs get talked about. Considera-tion of the increment of benefits lost as a result ofbudget cuts is seldom addressed in any serious ana-lytic fashion. The name of the game is to makeeverything cost less and whether the lost benefitsgreatly exceed the saved costs, or whether some otherreduction could save more dollars and with a smallerreduction in effectiveness is a question seldom asked,or satisfactorily answered. Th3 usual answer to atough question of this kind is to apply an across-the-board percentage cut. And while this may save someanalysis and agony, it also implies that all programsare of equal marginal productivity the only con-clusion in this situation which is almost certainlywrong.

Costs, Benefits, Alternatives Needed

Sensible resource allocation decisions can onlybe made when both the costs and benefits (or effec-tiveness) of alternative courses of action are known.For example, if I tell you that there is a manufac-turing establishment in the state of Michigan whichturns out 4-wheeled vehicles which cost $2,000apiece; and that there is another manufacturingestablishment in the state of Michigan which turnsout 4-wheeled vehicles which cost $3,000 apiece,are you in any position to tell me (assuming thatyou have as much as $3,000 to spend on personaltransportation) which of those two vehicles youwould prefer to buy? Or could you say which of thetwo plants was the more efficient one? No, it is

impossible to make judgments on these points be-cause all of the "facts" you have gotten concerncosts only and that simply is an inadequate basisfor a decision on how to allocate your personalresources. However, if I told you the $2,000 vehicleis a Pinto and the $3,000 vehicle is a Cadillac, thenyou would be in a good position to make a choiceas to which vehicle you would buy and to decidewhich was the more efficient plant. Interestinglyenough, you would undoubtedly analyze this problemof choice from the standpoint of an economist: youwould assess the incremental difference in quality andperformance between a Cadillac and a Pinto andcompare it with the increment in costs of a Cadillacover a Pinto and quite intuitively, but correctly,judge that the margin of benefits exceeded the mar-ginal costs and hence the Cadillac was the preferredinvestment. (Incidentally, one of the componentsof the managerial revolution of which I have spokensimply attempts to apply that style of marginaleconomic reasoning regularly and routinely to theproblems of program choice in higher educationas well as all of the other activities of state govern-ments.)

Some Comparisons Ludicrous

But think of how much wasted effort could besaved and how many misleading conclusions avoidedif the multitude of ill-conceived higher education coststudies could be channeled into this sounder frame-work. Cost per student credit hour tells a little bitabout one phase of the "production" process; it saysnothing about the number, quality, and cost of finaloutputs. Making comparisons mid decisions abouthigher education on the basis of cost per studentcredit hour is a little like trying to decide whetherto buy a Cadillac or a Pinto solely on the basis ofknowing the cost per hour of operating an overheadmilling machine in the Cadillac division of GeneralMotors and the comparable number at the Fordplant.

Another distinction concerning "the facts" whichlegislators need for their higher educa:ion resource

OSt

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

allocation decision making is that between objectsof expenditure and programs. Programs are aggre-gations of physical resources (people, facilities,equipment, and supplies), policies, and technologieswhich by their integrated operation produce a goodor a service or a capability of interest to the organi-zation as a whole because it tends to achieve oneor more of the organization's objectives. Clearly,therefore, programs are the focus of decision making:How much good are they doing (i.e., to what degreeare they helping to achieve the objectives)? What,in the aggregate, are they costing? And because theyare the focus of decision-making attention, theyshould be the stuff out of which budgets are builtnot objects of expenditure. I am continually surprisedby the old-fashioned budgeteer's approach to resourceallocation decision making. He is apparently indif-ferent to whether the activity or organization isproducing useful outputs related to some objective,he appears unconcerned about capital costs (that issome other office's concern), he shields his eyesfrom the long-term total operating cost implicationsof the activity, but he is a bear on the fact that twotypewriters were requested and one could be deferred,or on the fact that administrative costs are nowone-half of a percentage point above some eternallyordained maximum. The operative principle behindthis approach seems to be that, "I don't know (orcare) whether the organization is doing a vast amountof good or no good at all, I'm just going to guaranteethat in the upcoming year they do whatever it is

that they are doing in the cheapest possible way."That, of course, is better than giving program man-agers and agency heads a blank check and believingall of their stories about how much good they willdo (cost unspecified) but not much!

Issues Analyzed or rlood of Facts?A final distinction I would like to make con-

cerning the facts that legislators need is the differencebetween getting detailed individual facts and analysesof issues. Certainly even now and much more soin the near future when the "computer nuts" havelived down their earlier exaggerated promises agovernment or academic manager or a legislator cancall for and be virtually swamped by "facts." In facttheir very volume and availability may make itharder to use them. It will be so much more difficultto see the grains of wheat among all of the chaff.But, be that as it may, better decisions depend onbetter analysis and not simply on accumulating anever-larger inventory of undigested and uninterpreteddata. Right now a legislative committee in moststates can get "facts" on enrollment, student credithours, courses offered, faculty salaries, and the formalbudgeted cost of operating certain organizational 15

1

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

entities. In some more "advanced" states it is pos-sible to get things like faculty workloads and costsper student credit hour. But with all of these "facts"in hand, is anyone really any better equipped tomake decisions about how to maximize outputs orbenefits for given budgetary increments? Can any-one say with any confidence how the costs andquality of the instructional and research outputs ofInstitution A compare with those of Institution B?Or why they differ?

Now, those are very tough questions to answerin a wholly satisfactory way but they are theright questions to ask and unlike many operationsanalysts (or traditional institutional researchers andcost accountants) I would much rather have crudelycorrect answers to good questions than preciselywrong answers to dumb questions. But this impliesthat the "facts" that legislators and others need arenot the simple statistical data now offered them.What is needed is a variety of facts some of whichare not even collected presently integrated andinterpreted in a valid, insightful piece of analysis.

A case in point: data on the courses taken bylcvel and discipline for student majors of variouskinds need to be combined with the unit costs ofthose various instructional activities to get the nomi-nal cost of producing a degree winner in a particularfield. This information in turn needs to be combinedwith data on graduation rates, persistence, attrition(gross and net), and transfers to get some idea ofthe total system's cost per degree actually awarded,by field. Then we need some data on the noninstruc-tional resources invested in the students plus infor-mation about their native ability, levels of academicachievement at the start of their collegiate careers,and indications of the intellectual, vocational, social,and personal increments of "value added" measuredat the point of graduation and at several later pointsin the graduate's subsequent career. All of these dataneed then to be analyzed very carefully and inter-preted and compared with the costs and quality ofsimilar graduates from other institutions in similarsituations with similar objectives or with the re-sults of earlier efforts in the same institution. If thesecomparisons were to reveal large and otherwiseunexplained discrepancies, then it would signal theneed to inquire further into the resource mix, poli-cies, and technologies currently in use to see whatchanges could be effected so as to maximize theimprovement realized for whatever additional in-vestment of resources could be spared.

Clearly, getting this kind of information is anorder of magnitude more difficult than getting the

traditional kinds of "facts"; but if legislators aregoing to do their part in improving the quality ofdecision making in higher education they are goingto have to be persistent in their demand for answersto the right questions, patient in their support ofthose who are genuinely trying, and willing to givethe moral and monetary backing that this newapproach requires.

There is also an important quid pro quo involvedin this new way of looking at institutions of highereducation. To the extent that the institutions arewilling to face up to the kind of trauma-inducingquestions outlined above, to figuratively stretch them-selves out on the rack of the hard qt3estions and tohave their feet held to the fires of critical and in-formed legislative inquiry then to that extent theymust be lelieved from the burdensome chore ofexplaining why they replaced cars at the end of100,000 miles this year instead of 150,000 miles aswas done last year; why overhead costs have jumped(the institution had to develop an information systemand organize an analytical studies unit to answer thenew questions!); or why Professor Jones (who isthe country's leading producer of video tapes in hisfield) is only putting in six classroom hours perweek.

Free Academic Managers to Manage

Legislators have to allow academic managers tobe, indeed, managers. If they are producing qualityoutputs for below average costs or superior productsfor average costs, how they managed that istheir business and they shouldn't be required tojustify how they spent every nickel. If ProfessorSmith holds all of his tutorials in the local beerparlor but gets a disproportionately large share ofhis students into good graduate schools, then that ishis secret. Similarly, if the chairman of the historydepartment cajoles all of his faculty into each teach-ing an extra tutorial or course and then uses thesaved resources to provide extra, high-class secre-tarial support for the faculty members, that is hisprerogative as a manager; and if his outputs stayup and he doesn't exceed his original budget, whyshould he have to defend his innovation to an object-of-expenditure-oriented review group?

Of course, the converse is true, too. Academicmanagers who consistently overrun their overallbudgets and fail to make good on their promisedperformance ought, as they said in the French Revo-lution, to be "shortened"!

Given that we are in rough agreement as to the"facts" that legislators need, I would like to turnnow to the question of where and how legislatorscan get these facts (or really, insightful pieces ofanalysis).

22

One possible source of help would be to aug-ment the groups which directly support the legis-lature: the office of the legislative analyst or auditorand the key committee staffs. Or a legislature mightwish to consider creating a 1-ind of private RAND-type organization to help answer their more complex,long-range questions. All of these options have meritin that they would assist legislators in dischargingvarious of their responsibilities in an improvedfashion. I personally believe that legislators in gen-eral should have more support of all three kinds.

But, for a variety of reasons I am persuadedthat none of these options is an appropriate orefficient way to get the kind of resource allocationinformation which I have been discussing. The prin-cipal reasons for my belief are that these difficultquestions must be faced full time and by some groupwhich has to live with the answers they give; theneeded data can only be gotten by someone inti-mately familiar with the informational resources,systems, and idiosyncrasies of the institution; andthese data and analyses are needed even more des-perately by the persons charged with the managementof the institution. All of these considerations argue,I believe, for placing the primary responsibility for"getting the facts" for legislators, as well as foritself, on the institution.

A most important desideratum here, though, is toassure that gathering the facts is not an ad hoc,gut-busting, sporadic stunt. To be truly useful theneeded data and analyses must be regularly (albeitnot painlessly!) produced. The question, therefore,is whether aa integrated and comprehensive resourceallocation system be devised which routinely gen-erates relevant data and insures its use in executivedecision making and, in addition, makes pertinentparts-of it available for legislative review and action.

The answer to this latter question is, I believe, aqualified "yes." The managerial revolution to whichI have several times referred has created a series ofconcepts and techniques that have been formalizedinto a system considerably more effective in makingresource allocation decisions than any of the moretraditional ways of budgeting.

Theory Emerged from Defense Operations

This new approach grew out of the operationsresearch work of World War II, the experiencegained in managing large and complex systems suchas the ballistic missile and Polaris programs and thenational space effort, the application of micro-economics to problems of choice in the public sector,the emergence of a theory of program rather thanfunctional or line item budgeting, and the crystalli-zation of all of these contributions into a workable

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

administrative system in the U.S. Department ofDefense under Secretary McNamara.

A civilianized version of this approach was im-posed on the rest of the federal government byPresident Johnson in 1965 under the title of aPlanning, Programming, and Budgeting (PPB) Sys-tem. Since then, of course, PPB in government hashad a checkered career and to some the techniquesalleged to be PPB have become anathema. In a way,I don't blame the doubters. Out of a generous fundof ignorance and enthusiasm its innocent supporterspromised far too much and with no idea of the costsin time, money, and training which would be re-quired to implement it. At the same time substantialnumbers of "experts," whose theoretical under-standing and practical experience were at best mini-mal, were exploiting the market in a most distressingfashion. Inevitably, a marked disillusionment set inand PPB has had a somewhat tarnished reputationin some quarters ever since.

Capable of Improving Resource Allocation

I think, however, that a substantial consensusexists on the point that the concepts and techniquesof PPB are sound and potentially capable of mark-edly improving the quality of the resource allocationprocess, particularly in the public sector. The majordifficulties have had to do with the implementationproblem: unrealistically short implementation sched-ules; inadequate understanding of the theory andpractice of PPB; a lack of the highly skilled peopleneeded for analysis; an insufficient commitment ofresources; and a lack of experienced practitionersto guide the effort. Where these difficulties havebeen more or less overcome, it has been possible invarying degree to achieve the payoffs (in terms ofbetter and more relevant "facts," analyses, and deci-sions) that PPB's knowledgeable and, hence,more conservative proponents have suggested.

Two of the "success stories" of which I havesome recent first-hand knowledge have to do withimplementing PPB in the state government of Hawaii(including the University of Hawaii) and theNCHEMS at WICHE project for developing a PPBsystem for use by all higher education institutions.I would hasten to add that they are very partialsuccess stories since the respective efforts are at bestin mid-course and ultimate success is by no meansassured. But they have been well and truly launched,they have done a substantial number of "right"things so far, and they seem generally to be headedin the right direction. Perhaps I am only indulgingin the kind of optimism exhibited by the fellow whofell off the top of the Empire State building and as

143

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

he flashed by each floor he called out, "All rightso far!" But, for whatever it is worth, Hawaii andNCHEMS at WICHE's PPB efforts are "all rightso far."

I suppose at this point some of the WICHE-NCHEMS staff are about to protest that while thereis sometimes a diversity of views as to what theyreally are doing, or are supposed to be doing, devel-oping a PPB system is not one of them. However,having had the opportunity to be present at Genesis,so to speak, I happen to know that the originalproposal to the USOE stated that one of the purposesof the project was ". .. to design a flexible, universal,university-style PPB system." The NCHEMS atWICHE project in general, and the contemplatedPPB system in particular, were intended to improvecampus level management, to facilitate the exchangeof comparab e data, and to assist states and thefederal goverment in their higher education plan-ning by creating a body of compatible data relevantto the institution's, the state's, and the federal gov-ernment's resource allocation planning and manage-ment needs. It seems to me, therefore, that a shortanswer to the conference theme question, "LegislativeDecision Making in Higher Education: How To GetThe Facts" is to support your local institutions intheir attempt to adapt and adopt the work ofNCHEMS at WICHE.

Unfortunately, like most short answers, that oneneeds some qualification. Besides, I don't want toappear to be nothing more than a pitch man forNCHEMS at WICHE. My caveat concerns the factthat, at the present time, WICHE-NCHEMS is notdeveloping a full-blown PPB system for higher edu-cation; and even if it were, it lacks the resources todirectly assist institutions attempting actually toimplement a university-style PPB system.

Use Demanded

This cautionary note is prompted by the fact thatmy experience both in Hawaii and in California hasconvinced me that an effective PPB system dependson the creation of a practical and long-term viableadministrative-bureaucratic system which not onlycan use the techniques, models, and other tools beingcreated by NCHEMS at WICHE, but in fact demandstheir use. This, I now believe, is an absolutely essen-tial condition for routinely getting the data andanalyses required and for having them actually affectthe budgetary process. NCHEMS at WICHE isdeveloping many of the components of a PPB sys-tem, but it has not as yet addressed this problemof designing a resource-allocation decision-makingsystem; and without it, all of the information systems

404, 24

and fancy models will remain technical tour deforces monuments in the desert to be gazed onin awe by the wandering tribes of administrators,but having no effect on their lives. I cannot empha-size this point too strongly. Someone must sit downand prescribe: what kinds of information on whatkinds of forms will be generated by what groups; towhom will they be sent and on what schedule; whatkinds of actions will be taken by those receiving theinformation; and how in the end will the analysesdone result in program decisions which are, in turn,faithfully reflected in actual budget allocations.

This is a large and complicated subject, and itwould be inappropriate to attempt to explore it here.Suffice it to say that unless NCHEMS at WICHEaddresses this problem, much of its other potentiallyquite useful work will remain largely r,terile.

Is Statewide PPB a Possibility?

A final point: all that I have said about legis-lators, decision making, getting the facts, and adopt-ing the managerial revolution in the form of PPBrelates not oiily to higher education but applies withequal or greater cogency to all of the functions ofa state government. Hence, a thought has been in mymind for some time now: Would it be possible, onthe same collaborative basis that NCHEMS atWICHE has used so successfully, to develop a flex-ible, universal, state government PPB system? Theeconomies of joint development are substantial, theneed is great, the clients no more diverse thanthe several hundred individualistic colleges and uni-versities in NCHEMS at WICHE, and the state-of-the-art with respect to PPB in state government iswell ahead of where it was with respect to highereducation in 1966 when NCHEMS at WICHE gotstarted. It is, I believe, a possibility worth seriousconsideration.

In conclusion, let me summarize very briefly theprincipal points I have tried to make in this presen-tation:

(a) Legislators desire and need a wide range ofinformation, a large and important fraction of whichhas to do with their resource-allocation decision-making responsibilities.

(b) The "facts" that legislators need for resourceallocation decision making his.higher education arenot the simple traditional ones. Data on programs,not objects of expenditures, are required; costs needto be handled on a much more sophisticated basisand only in relation to benefits or outputs; data onstudents before and after their college careers areneeded; and the focus should be on the larger analyticissues involving the "educational production func-tion" rather than on the details of how low-levelmanagers spend their funds.

(c) These data and analyses must be routinelyand regularly available ii9t only for legislative pur-poses but for the direct management of the institu-tions themselves. For these and other reasons, theappropriate place to turn for the relevant facts andanalyses is to the institutions.

(d) In order to cope with this new and moresophisticated style of management the institutionshave to take advantage of the managerial revolutionwhich has occurred over the recent past. This man-agerial revolution has been institutionalized for publicsector agencies in what are called PPB systems.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

(e) NCHEMS at WICHE is in the process ofdeveloping components of higher education PPBsystems. It needs to integrate these components withgreater attention to the systemic and implemen-tation aspects of the problem.

(f) The model of the successful NCHEMS atWICHE project for improving the management ofhigher education might well be considered for appli-cation to state government as a whole.

frIs

Today, accountability is being interpreted as having anadditional meaning. Not only must stewardship obligations be

met; the provider of funds is demanding an assurance thatdesirable benefits are deriving from resources invested . . .

Today over 70 institutions and agencies are NCHEMS atWICHE participants.

The management process in higher education is complexand interrelated.

The various elements in the higher education managementprocess . . . are goal setting, program planning and resource

allocation, execution, and evaluation.

The cooperative approach . . .


Decision MakingHow to Get Some ofthe FactsDr. Ben Lawrence,

Director,National Center for Higher Education Management Systemsat WICHE

Higher education, in the broadest sense of post-secondary education, is today the target of growingpressure for improved management capability. Thispersistent pressure is primarily the result of twoforces. First, institutions of higher education arebeing faced with a "revenue crunch"; they are beingforced to make more effective use of the resourcesthey have at their disposal. Second, more strings arenow attached to the revenues that are made availableto institutions.

The first force represents a change in degree, notin kind. Institutions have seldom, if ever, receivedall the funds they considered necessary, but the cur-rent situation is one of greater stringency than everbefore. The second force represents a change inkind. Until very recently, accountability has requiredonly that an institution be able to indicate that allappropriated funds were expended in the mannerstipulated by the funding individual or agency. Thus,the emphasis was on the stewardship function, andthe need was to insure that higher education wasoperating in a way to accomplish its purposes at areasonable cost.

New Dimension in Definition of Accountability

Today, accountability is being interpreted ashaving an additional meaning. Not only must stew-ardship obligations be met; the provider of funds isdemanding an assurance that desirable benefits arederiving from the resources invested in the educa-tional enterprise. Funding agents have abandoned thefocus on only one element of the cost-benefit equa-

tion and are now interested in both elements. Thistwo-pronged perspective provides a much moresound basis for those essentially political choicesthat must be made between alternative higher educa-tion programs and between higher education pro-grams and other burgeoning social services that aresupported by public funds. The demands for thisnew kind of accountability have prompted a growingand urgent need at all levels for a management anddecision-making capability that is responsive to thesechanged conditions.

Responding to this need and recognizing thatsuch a capability could not be developed without fullparticipation of representatives of all levels of highereducation decision making, a large number of insti-tutions and agencies of higher education have formedthe National Center for Higher Education Manage-ment Systems.

The founding organization behind NCHEMS isthe Western Interstate Commission for Higher Edu-cation, a public agency made up of the thirteenwestern states, which has worked since 1953 toexpand and improve education beyond high school.

Grass roots cooperation is, and has always been,the underlying philosophy of NCHEMS at WICHE.From its earliest inception in 1965, when Dr. MerleAllen, then WICHE commissioner from Utah, sug-gested that interstate cooperation in the applicationof computer science to higher education managementproblems should be investigated, institutions andagencies of higher education have been involved.

'1r 27


Colleges, universities, governing boards, coordi-nating councils, and other higher education associ-ations have participated from the first consultationswith institutions and agencies in 1966; throughrefinements of direction in 1967, the preparation ofa proposal for the development of managementinformation systems, and a review of that proposalin 1968; to its implementation on a national basisin 1969. Today over 700 institutions and agenciesare NCHEMS at WICHE participants.

Experienced administrators recognized that thestate of the art in management systems offeredpositive promise if applied sympathetically to highereducation institutions. The cooperative approach,implemented through an agency trusted by bothinstitutions and state agencies, offered a way toreduce the possibility of reinventing wheels, to poolinstitutional talent, and to increase the probabilityof productive applications of the information pro-vided.

Three Goals Identified

The goals of the NCHEMS cooperative ventureare threefold: (1) the improvement of institutionalmanagement and institutional ability to respondeffectively to those to whom they are accountable,(2) the improvement of statewide coordination,and (3) the improvement of decision-making pro-cesses at the highest national levels.

Clearly, these goals are both too broad and tooambitious to provide any concrete direction to theCenter's programs. To be effective, an organizationmust focus on more limited and more specific objec-tives. In order to clarify its focus, the Center hasdeveloped a general conceptualization of the com-

Moderator:Dr. Rita R. Campbell,

Senior Fellow,Hoover Institution,

StanfordWICHE Commissioner

plete higher education planning and managementprocess and selected those areas in which an expen-diture of effort will yield the largest returns.

The management process in higher education iscomplex and interrelated. It occurs at many levelsdepartment, campus, institution, system, state, andnational. While the nature of the decisions to bemade varies greatly between these levels, the decision-:making process is essentially the same.

The various elements in the higher educationmanagement process can be grouped into four areas.These four areas are somewhat arbitrary; neverthe-less, they represent concentrations of the significantlydifferent elements of the process. These areas aregoal setting, program planning and resource alloca-tion, execution, and evaluation. Let me make moreexplicit the distinctions between these areas and theirinterrelationships.

Goal setting refers to that activity in which thebroad value-oriented purposes are to be achieved oridentiiied. For example, at the state level the goalsfor higher education are establisher ultimately bythe people of the state through their elected repre-sentatives. Goal setting determines what tO do andwhy in the broadest sense. A goal, for example,might read, "The education of every citizen as asocially mature individual, able to use his socialinstincts and leisure time well." While such goalsare the foundation of the planning process, under-standing of the goal formulation process and thenecessity of explicit statements of such goals is

'almost totally lacking.

Activities Are Interrelated

Program planning and resource allocation is acomposite of four elements. First, decision makersmust determine and select operational objectives,chosen from among many feasible alternative objec-tives, necessary to accomplish the goals determinedunder the goal setting function. Second, feasiblealternative programs available to accomplish theobjectives selected must be identified, and a set ofoutputs for each feasible program must be specified.Third, calculation of resources in terms of space,people, equipment, and dollars necessary to supportthe respective alternative programs must be made.Finally, decision makers must evaluate alternativeprograms. This evaluation includes comparison ofthe planned outputs with the expected costs andproceeds through an iterative process of evaluationsand trade-offs until a feasible plan at a reasonablecost is determined. Part of the evaluation processalso includes the identification of the source of fundsand the political as well as the economic feasibilityof carrying on the program.

Execution is that step in the process that insuresthat chosen activities are done well and efficiently.In this step, the resources allocated are used toimplement the planned program with the intentionof producing the outputs as planned.

Finally, evaluation is that step in which theactual outputs are compared with the planned out-puts to determine the extent to which the organiza-tion accomplished that which it set out to do.

Application Is Multidimensional

The concepts in this simplified four-part modelpertain across all management levels. The problemsat each level are viewed from a different perspective,and specific decisions involved may be unique ateach level. Similarly, the individuals or the organiza-tions or agencies involved at each step vary widely.At one level evaluation is done by the U. S. Officeof Education and the Congress; at another levelevaluation is done by the department faculty.

While the goals and objectives may be differentat each level, and while the cast of characters in-volved may be totally different, great interdependenceenters the system because execution takes placebasically in one place the institution. For example,recognize that the institutional program that producesa civics major and thereby achieves an institutionalgoal may also serve tlict national goal of pawidingopportunity to economically disadvantaged individ-uals for full participation in American society. Thus,national, state, and institutional objectives and pro-grams are inexorably linked.

The whole planning and management process,then, is obviously heavily dependent on an ability totransmit information from step to step, both withinany level of the management process and betweenlevels. As a result, the existence of a common, well-defined data base that can respond to the informationneeds of all of the levels is a necessity. Without theability to transmit information throughout this highlycomplex and interrelated system, there can be nosystem. Since the operational phase of this systemresides within the institutions of higher education,the data base must reside there also. But since thisdata base must serve the information needs at alllevels, it should eventually include the data elementscritical at all levels. Thus, as in the previous example,for institutional purposes data concerning an indi-vidual's academic major at the student level may bequite sufficient; however, for national purposes dataon the individual's family income may be required.Clearly, then, a comprehensive communications base,blanketing extensions of each level and at the sametime flowing up and down through each level to allothers, is essential.


It is apparent that the National Center for HigherEducation Management Systems cannot devote itselfto the entire management problem. The resourcesavailable to NCHEMS at WICHE for research,development, and training efforts would be ineffec-tively spent if they were spread across the full spec-trum of the management process and across all levels.Its mission had to be limited and areas of concen-tration selected. In cooperation with the participatinginstitutions and agencies, the Center identified thoseareas considered to be most crucial to the improve-ment of management in higher education at thistime. As a result, the initial efforts of the programare the communications base and program planningand resource allocation.

To carry out the activities in these two majorareas, NCHEMS at W1CHE must also devote a greatdeal of attention to the articulation of the manage-ment planning processes at the various levels ofhigher education decision making. The developmentof an effective communications base is possible onlywith a solidly conceptualized model of the entiremanagement planning process, and we must be con-cerned not only with the conceptual structure, wemust be concerned also with the specifics of researchand development efforts carried on with respect tothe other areas of the process. For example, whilethe Center is not specifically engaged in research anddevelopment with regard to goal setting at variouslevels in higher education, the nature of those goalsserves to identify many of the data elements thatmust be included in the communications basr. As aresult, NCHEMS at WICHE serves as a repositoryor collector of much that is currently happening inthe realm of higher education management systems.

Recognizing, then, that the Center must concen-trate its efforts within manageable dimensions, weare addressing ourselves to the development of acommunications base to the development of systemsin program planning and resource allocation throughour efforts in research, development and applica-tions, and training and implementation.

Replenish Intellectual Capital

The primary role of the Center's research unit isto address the need to replenish the store of "intel-lectual capital" through research and to provideresearch support for projects under way in the devel-opment and applications unit. In addition to under-taking projects that break new ground in providingadditional planning and management capabilities, theresearch unit expands the existing store of usableknowledge by drawing on research already reported.


Some current and future Center activities inresearch include the investigation of future planningand management systems for higher education, themeasurement and utilization of the outputs of highereducation in planning and decision making, the inves-tigation of indicators reflecting trends in highereducation, the development of resource allocationand planning models, the analysis of financhig plansfor higher education, research directed toward toolsand techniques for statewide higher education plan-ning and management, the study of student flow andfaculty flow, and the analysis of techniques for moreeffectively utilizing resources available to highereducation.

Many of the activities undertaken involve theformulation and analysis of analytical models, draw-ing heavily upon the methodologies of operationsresearch and quantitative economics. In certain areasthe research unit develops the bases and conceptuali-zation within a problem area, resulting in the designspecification for its own projects or those within thedevelopment and applications unit.

Work for National Communication Base

The NCHEMS at WICHE development andapplications unit seeks to develop and test the appli-cation of modern economic and management prin-ciples in institutions of higher education in a waythat will aid decision makers in managing resources.Working within the Center's areas of concentration,the development and applications unit is workingtoward the development of a national communica-tions base consisting of standard data definitions andprocedures for arraying data and the developmentand testing of analytical tools designed for facilitatingresource planning and allocation in higher education.

Among current projects in the development andapplications unit that aim toward the developmentof a communications base are the finalizing of a dataelements dictionary and information excharle pro-cedures. In addition, the unit is developing severalsystems for the reporting and analyzing of the utili-zation of resources in terms of people, money, andfacilities.

In the area of resource planning and allocation,the Center's D & A unit is currently completing aresource requirements prediction model and a studentflow model. Preliminary work has begun on the

development of a statewide planning system and amanual on the design of information systems.

The acceptability of standard definitions andprocedures the communications base to insti-tutions and agencies is enhanced because of theparallel development of resource planning and allo-cation tools that facilitate the use of these procedures.The analytical tools themselves have a high degreeof acceptability because of their link to the commu-nications base procedures. Thus, the interweavingof resource planning and allocation tools with thecommunications base procedures results in an overalleffectiveness for both.

Training Aids Implementation Process

The third thrust of the NCHEMS at WICHEeffort to improve higher education management anddecision making is its training and implementationprogram. As its name implies, this unit works towardthe implementation of the Center's products at insti-tutions and agencies of higher education by providingdecision makers with the competencies, understand-ings, and skills necessary for their use. The payoff ofthe total NCHEMS at WICHE expenditure of dollarsand effort will be realized only when such imple-mentation takes place. To accomplish its mission, thetraining unit develops training materials and strategiesthat will communicate the concepts, tasks, and otheressential elements related to each new managementtool to the various audiences in the higher educationcommunity. It conducts product seminars and tech-nical workshops related to NCHEMS products aswell as general training sessions dealing with theconcepts, interrelationships, and utility of NCHEMSproducts.

See Some Light

Thus, we trace the NCHEMS at WICHE effortin developing a communications base and in pro-viding tools for program planning and resource allo-cation from the conceptualization and analysis of theproblem to the development of appropriate tools forits solution to the training of institutional and agencypersonnel to use those tools.

At the National Center for Higher EducationManagement Systems at WICHE we are beginningto see some light through the chinks we've made inthe walls of our limited areas of inquiry. Other areasof crucial importance to improved higher educationmanagement have yet to be explored. We invite youto join us in this exciting venture.

Staff Discusses NCHEMS

Thrust and Activities

The staff of the National Center for HigherEducation Management Systems at WICHE went toPhoenix to teach; they left Phoenix clearly awarethat they had been taught.

"It was a crash course in The Legislator's Worldfor us," one staff member has said. "We work soclosely with higher education personnel, and weknow that corner of the world well. We discoveredthat there's another corner of the world we needto learn more about."

So, while Center personnel conducted four smallgroup sessions covering various facets of NCHEMSat WICHE activities, they believe the overridingimpact of the Phoenix conference on the Center wasnot in what they taught, but in what they learned.

Conferees who attended the sessions on "Outputsof Higher Education" heard Dr. Robert Wallhaus,director of the NCHEMS at WICHE research pro-gram, and Sidney Micek, of the research staff, laya conceptual base for outcome planning in highereducation.

What higher education has done in the past andcontinues to do in the present is to center its atten-tion on the historical costs of higher education asthe primary basis for making decisions. While costsare relatively easy to calculate, the notion that "cost"is a good indicator of benefits is fraught with pitfalls.

What is needed is a reorientation in thinkingtoward an emphasis on outcomes. Outcome-orientedplanning in higher education simply means utilizingoutcomes, results, and benefits as a primary basisfor determining the directions for higher education.

The task is overwhelmingly difficult. But evenin the face of the gigantic problems associated withdefining, measuring, and analyzing the outcomes of

1.1.,1.,

sk`c

Dr. Robert Wal lhaus,Program Director,Ford Research Unit,NCHEMS at WICHE


"MO

.;t

4LA

Sid Micek,Research Associate,

Ford Research Unit

NCHEMS at WICHE

higher education and with the recognition that theCenter has only begun to scratch the surface,NCHEMS at WICHE believes that higher educationis in a position to proceed with outcome-orientedplanning.

"I am convinced," Wallhaus said, "that sounddirections for higher education are possible only tothe extent that planners and decision makers gaina better understanding of the possible outcomes ofthe various courses of action available to them."

Basic to the NCHEMS at WICHE outcomeplanning project is Micek's development of an inven-tory of the outcomes of higher education. Recogniz-ing that a direct measurement of educationaloutcomes is difficult and often impossible, Micekwill identify measurable indicators, or proxies, ofoutcomes. For example, some indicators for an out-come described as "vocational preparation" mightbe starting salary, earning power, job mobility, num-ber of job offers, etc. The NCHEMS inventory willbe distributed for review soon.

Dr. Robert Huff, director of the Center's train-ing and implementation program, discussed "Nego-tia ting and Decision Making with ProgramBudgets."

"Envision the typical college president of the'70s," Huff said. "He is under more pressures, or atleast different pressures, than his counterpart of the

Dr. Robert Huff,Program Director,Training andImplementation Program,NCHEMS at WICHE 5

2


1960's. He is being encouraged on many sides toimplement planning and management systems inorder to gain an improved understanding of how hisinstitution actually operates and produces outputs.He is told that thz new kinds of inforivation derivedfrom such a system can help him optimize his lim-ited resources as well as satisfy the increasing de-mands for program cost accounting and budgetinginformation. He is inclined to believe that planningand management systems will help, but he wondershow he should proceed and how he 'can determinehis institution's PMS capability."

Those who are considering planning and manage-ment system (PMS) implementation must firstdecide if such systems are really needed. If an insti-tution has unlimited resources and there are suffi-cient funds available for all desirable activities,planning and management systems are not required,Huff pointed out. Today, few educators enjoy suchluxury, and most are facing difficult decisions con-cerning which programs among a large number ofworthy activities will be funded.

Implementation Requires Specific Prerequisites

Having decided that planning and managementsystems are desirable, an institution cannot proceedwith PMS implementation unless specific prerequi-site elements are present. The institution must haveoperational data systems from which the requireddata base can be derived. Personnel are requiredwho have the analytic capability to learn about andmaintain planning and management systems. Theinstitution's organizational health must be such thatit can smoothly incorporate the necessary changesfor implementation. This will require a great dealof cooperation from many areas of the campus.Computer availability is necessary to manipulatedata rapidly. Good PMS tools and techniques mustbe readily available. These tools must be complexenough to accommodate the institution's needs andstill be relatively easy to install and use.

Finally, Huff said, successful implementation willnever occur without fortitude and willingness towork. PMS implementation requires a good deal ofeffort as well as commitment of resources to theimplementation tasks.

Programmatic decision making can occur onlyif appropriate kinds of information are made avail-able. If an institution knows its objectives, it candefine a course of action for tie years ahead.Through use of a cost simulation model, it can fore-cast the resource implications of that plan. Studentflow information will indicate which programs are

most relevant to the needs and interests of the stu-dent population. Output measures can provide infor-mation related to the benefits or the value added tostudents and can be useful in identifying needed mid-course corrections in program design.

Planning and management systems can improvethe management of resources allocated to highereducation. PMS will not make decision making easyor eliminate the political considerations that willnever cease to exist. Political pressures may be tem-pered in the future by the creation of more objectiveinformation, however.

"Higher education institutions will be difficult tomanage even with the availability of the best plan-ning and management systems information," Huffsaid. "Without such information, good managementat a complex institution may be virtually impossible."

Dr. Warren Gulko, director of the Center's de-velopment and applications program, presented"Information Requirements for State Decision MakTing: New Approaches," in which he described theCenter's recently released analytical tool, the Re-source Requirements Prediction Model.

Gulko described the model as valuable inanswering "what if?" kinds of questions. 'What if,decision makers are asked, a specific new programis added? What decisions need to be made on thebasis of the resource implications of that addition?What if changes are made in the mix of the studentbody? What resource implications will such changeshave on, say, library resources?

The resource implications of such questions asthese and others can be examined through the useof RRPM. The RRPM is an institution-oriented,computer-based model that simulates the cost ofoperating a college campus over a ten-year timeframe. It is designed to aid higher level managementin rapidly determining the resource implications ofalternative policy and planning decisions.

For any single institution the development ofanalytical models, particularly large-scale simulation

7,

Dr. Warren Gulko,Jgram Director,

Development andApplications Program,NCHEMS at WICHE

models, is an overwhelming and often prohibitivetask in terms of difficulty and cost. With that inmind, NCHEMS has attempted to design the RRPMto meet the needs of a wide range of institutionswithout being overly simplified.

Operating with scarce resources, decision makersmust evaluate the projected outputs of each programin terms of resource requirements and resourceavailability. Such evaluation and decision makingrequire trade-offs between both the number of pro-grams and their scale of operations. From a planningstandpoint, this process is repeated until a set ofprograms is designed which provides maximum bene-fits in terms of the institution's goals and objectivesin relation to its available resources. The RRPMsystem thus provides a mathematical conversion ofprogram activity to resource requirements. It isdesigned to aid decision making by providing quan-tified estimates of the total set of resource require-ments for the institution.

Gulko warned that RRPM is not a panacea forplanning problems. Institutions can't simply plug itin and automatically solve their problems. It canlead to improved problem solving, however. Theresource impact of current decisions can be pre-dicted, and alternatives can be evaluated in termsof long-range implications.

A fourth small group presentation, "Tools toAid in Higher Education Planning," was conductedby Michael Young of the training and implementa-tion staff and Richard Johnson of the developmentand applications staff.

Cost Finding Considered

Among the analytical aids discussed was theNCHEMS at WICHE Cost Finding Principles andProcedures. This tool will allow decision makers tocollect various cost information that will providesome of the information needed for pricing, internalresource allocations, cost comparison, cost benefitanalysis, an understanding of the true cost of theeducation process, and planning. A cost finding

Michael Young,Staff Associate,Training andImplementation Program,NCHEMS at WICHE

140


Richard Johnson,

Staff Associate,Development and

Applications Program,NCHEMS at WICHE

"how to" manual is currently under development atNCHEMS.

The Center's Program Classification Structurewill serve as the framework for comparable dataexchange and reporting, provide the basis for pro-gram budgeting, and serve as the format for thedevelopment of generalized analytical models. Thefirst edition of the Program Classification Structurewill be available in the spring.

The NCHEMS at WICHE Student Flow projectwill develop analytical models that aid in predictingstudent enrollments and in describing, throughsimulation, student progression through postsecond-ary education. Research in the area of statewidestudent flow wtil attempt to define the key elementsof student flow at the statewide level and will involvean analysis of the predictive capabilities of variousmodel definitions within the context of state-levelplanning for higher education.

Using hypothetical data, Young and Johnsondisplayed output responses from RRPM to a setof experimental questions that made such inquir-ies as, "What would be the effect of increasingfaculty workload by ten percent?" and "What wouldbe the effects of a change in the mix of facultyrank?"

Move to Practicality Seen

The Center's personnel returned from Phoenixboth encouraged and discouraged. Discussions con-firmed for most that NCHEMS at WICHE projectsare headed in right directions; feedback also indi-cated that at the interface between NCHEMS andlegislators, NCHEMS at WICHE must move morequickly and clearly from what legislators view astheoretical to what they cOnsider practical.

Grateful for what they learned at Phoenix, manyCenter staff members are back at the drawingboard.

a3

In legislative consideration of accountability we are speakingof performance accountability goal achievement

as well as cost effectiveness.

I am not in sympathy with educators who feel they have to testand retest and re-retest, because they will never get the job

done if that is the case.

The real problem of legislatures and governors is going to bethe allocation of scarce resources. Higher education and other

budget items will continue to suffer from shortagesof state revenues.

What higher education must do, therefore, is increase theeducation return from each dollar of tax revenues.

One of the reasons that universities find thcinselves inthe position that they are today is that they have not been

held accountable for the behavior in which they used money.

John Keller closed with a suggestion that I find ratherhorrifying . . .

It is the finest data base that I have ever seen.

Planning andManagement SystemsFrom My Point of View

Moderator:Dr. Roy E. Lieuallen,

Chancellor,Oregon State System

of Higher EducationWICHE Commissioner

and Vice-Chairman

Planning Systems MustAbove All Be Useful

By Alan Post

Planning systems today, in my view, should servethe needs of the legislatures by providing them withboth planning for "survival" (reality) and againstgoals, the latter of perhaps greater interest to theacademicians.

A system is only as good as it is useful; you canflood an area with so much data that the effective-ness of the system in assisting policy makers tomake choices is destroyed. After all, there are limitsas to how much information can be utilized in thelegislative process,.and it should be carefully devel-oped to be applicable to decision points.

The real problem of legislatures and governorsis going to be the allocation of scarce resources.Higher education and other budget items will con-tinue to suffer from shortages of state revenues. Thisis a hard economic fact. The cost of government isgoing up faster than state revenues. This increase

Alan Post,Legislative Analyst,California

MY POINT OF VIEW

kg

is largely due to the fact that what governments buyis primarily personal services, paid for at salary ratesessentially competitive with those paid by the goods-producing industries in the private sector. The salar-ies in these industries have risen rapidly, and it hasbeen possible to do this and still make profitsbecause of the increasingly effective application-ofinstruments of capital. Yet governments do not makeequal use of such instruments and do not increaseproductivity correspondingly. The result is that wetake a greater share of total personal income of thecitizens and need tax increases to finance it. Thelegislatures and governors, however, are not able topersuade the public that these tax increases areneeded. They must, therefore, cut budgets.

What higher education, therefore, must do isincrease the educational return from each dollar oftax revenues. It must try alternative methods ofincreasing such productivity TV, challenge exams,increased classroom utilization, outside degree pro-grams, for example. Alternatives must be suggested,tried, and evaluated. It ic not enough to simply adddollars multiplied by increasing enrollments. Yet wedesire to add to our enrollments by democratizingthe admissions to our institutions.

The development of outputs for our systemsmust be paralleled by exploration of effective meansfor getting lower costs. We cannot spend severalyears developing sophisticated output measures andneglect the means for specific improvements in out-put. The two must proceed together. Legislatureshave to make decisions on budgets now, and thescarcity of funds will not, in my opinion, get anybetter for years to come.

Unless higher education people tell their statelegislatures how they will cut costs, the legislatureswill tell them how. It would be better if the institu-tions provided appropriate information to assist inmaking the most intelligent accommodation to thesebudget restrictions.

MY POINT OF VIEW

Better Communication IsPrimary Purpose of Systems

By Senator David Kret

Legislative decisions are made in an extremelydifficult situation, in a limited length of time, andwith limited funding available, and many peoplein higher education fail to appreciate this problem.

I believe that the main function of the manage-ment programs in NCHEMS at WICHE should beto develop better communication among and betweenthe universities, higher education, and the state legis-latures. Recognizing the fact that information sys-tems can provide the tools for breaking of barriersand bridging of gaps, we also recognize the factthat these management information systems are toolsand are not ends in and of themselves. Anyone whosuggests that we should develop management infor-mation systems to make decisions in establishingpolicy is making a grand mistake.

As Dr. Lawrence has indicated, these systemsare tools, and, as with any tool, they are only asgood as the craftsman who is using them. A Stradi-varius in the hands of a third-grade learner is goingto make squeaks as god-awful as squeaks from acheap $25 violin. That is the problem. The computeris useful. It can be a great tool. If used properly, itcan be invaluable. In our space program, for in-stance, we have found that we were able to dothings that could otherwise not have been accom-plished because of the proper use of computers.

On the other hand, a computerized managementinformation system is inordinately expensive if usedimproperly, if it is not used at all, or if its develop-ment duplicates other systems' developments. Par-ticularly, I want to mention duplication. Right now,virtually all the universities in the country aredeveloping management information systems. Thereis an attitude that you are not a first-class universityif you do not have a third generation computersystem, and each one wants to have the best andbiggest installation and the latest hardware. Effortsto implement coordination and cooperation generallydo not exist, and I think that, if NCHEMS doesnothing else, it should bridge this area, bring thevarious universities together, and urge cooperationto eliminate a lot of duplication.

From the perspective of getting the job done, itdoesn't make sense to reinvent the wheel. When Isay I see a need to eliminate duplication, I meanthat aach new effort need not start from scratch,but can build upon the present state of the art,undertaking unique developments through coopera-

fion and coordination of projects. Individual devel-opments at the different universities would bewelcomed, but their efforts must be coordinated.They must be coordinated within the state and amongthe states.

This past summer, many of us in Arizona saton a committee on community college planning.We needed select data. Invariably, the informationwas not available, and while the staff went scurry-ing to develop the data for us, we waited. Now, Iam not speaking about sophisticated data but thekind of information essential to any thoughtfulplanning: the total number of students and full-timeequivalents we found in individual schools werecounted differently. We were trying to make com-parisons between states and found many differences.We wanted to find out how many students in ourcommunity colleges were working in the areas ofvocational education as opposed to academic courses.We waited and waited and finally we got some data.However, most of us doubted the reliability of thedata we finally got.

I think that in the areas of establishing standardsand interchangeable data for information systems,NCHEMS can and should do a good job. Unfortu-nately, then, the communications gap rears its uglyhead. An indication of what NCHEMS has beendoing and of what progress has been made hasnot been fully communicated to legislators. Further-more, legislators have not been involved in thedecision making.

When Dr. Lawrence was speaking this morning,he said that there was a legislator who said, "Weneed help in the decision making process and weneed it now. We are making decisions now." ComeJanuary in Arizona, we will have another legislativesession, and we will be called upon to make deci-sions about allocations of limited resources. Anyhelp that we can gpt to make better decisions is going

Senator David Kret,Arizona

to improve the result. Toward that end, this projectcan be most useful to all of us. I am not in sympathywith the educators who feel that they have to testand retest and re-retest, because they will never getthe job done if that is the case.

We legislators look upon ourselves as the policymakers. We deliberate very much like the board ofdirectors of a corporation. It is our ba::iic responsi-bility to determine policy; then to provide necessaryauthority to carry out that policy; third, to appropri-ate necessary funding to fulfill legislative mandatesand, finally, to -equ ire accountability. In our con-sideration of countability we are speaking ofperformance accountability goal achievement aswell as cost effectiveness. After all, both legislatorsand educators should be able to work together toachieve the desirable benefits of higher educationat the lowest cost to the public.

I, therefore, present the challenge to each of us,legislator, educator, budgeteer: evaluate and reviewthe goals of NCHEMS, the possibility and desir-ability of those programs and assist in their perfec-tion, help to present the necessary orientation toachieve their goals and, thus, we can make thismanagement system truly a tool for the achievementof our mutual objectives. I am convinced that eachof us has material contributions to make towardthose achievements. Working at cross purposes, wehave no chances of success. On the other hand,working together, dedicated to our common pur-poses, we cannot fail.

Greatest Benefit of SystemsApproach Is Continuous Planning

By Dr. Stuart Brown

Several years ago, the state legislature in Hawaiipassed a piece of legislation containing a mandateto all of the state agencies to use PPBS and fixingthe responsibility for introducing it upon the depart-ment of budget and finance. What I think thatmeans is that the state anticipated a number ofproblems reiated to input and output measure-ments that we have been discussing here. The prob-lem would not have solved itself nor would we haveapproached a solution to the problem without com-prehensive legislation requiring that we get started.Consequently, we are deeply into PPBS at theuniversity. We think we understand it, and we areriot frightened by it. For example, some peoplebelieve that if a university undertakes to do the kindof planning that all universities must now undertake,the university will end up with something that willonly differ from an adequate PPBS in name. Thedifficulty in university planning is that it has tradi-

MY POINT OF VIEW

Dr. Stuart Brown,Vice-Chairmanfor Academic Affairs,University of Hawaii System

tionally been discontinuous. It has been done alittle bit now and a little bit then in response tocrisis. Many of those crash plans have not beenutilized, because they were not really thoroughlyunderstood. That is what happens when universityplanning is done on an emergency basis. Planninghas also been unrealistic. Faculties have wishfullydecided the programs that they thought they wantedwithout taking account of the economic constraintsand constraints in place and setting. The facultiesdid most of the academic planning, but they left itup to the legislatures ;-) raise the money.

Now all of this can be remedied by an adequatePPBS. If the planning becomes continuous, some-thing that is done daily and done in a rationalprogression by informed people, it may also berealistic in recognizing the constraints in time andplace and money. Then the system will have mean-ing for the executive because decision making is anecessary part of it. Since this is the kind of PPBSintroduced in Hawaii we are intimately familiarwith it. I speak from first-hand acquaintance.

The effect of our PPBS efforts in Hawaii hasbeen to make the legislature and the universitymore open with each other. PPBS is giving ourlegislators the kind of information that they needto be able to see the kind of planning that the uni-versity is doing.

But there are some things that John Keller saidlast night that I do disagree with and I would likejust to say what those things are. You rememberthat his statements were organized about the follow-ing questions: What kinds of data do legislatorswant? What kinds of data do legislators need? Howdo legislators get the data they need?

He suggests in a number of places that the legis-lators want data that they don't need, data that theyshould not be interested in having. One of the sets

MY POINT OF VIEW

of data he called unnecessary was what he called"objects of expenditures," things like the amount ofmoney spent on typewriters at the school of business.

John Keller said, "Don't be interested in thattype of expenditure, be interested in the program,the success of the program, and the benefit costs ofthe program." Now, if what John Keller meant todo was to remind us that we can be fooled and askfor the wrong kind of object of expenditures, it isa good reminder.

But we cannot so easily give up thinking aboutsome of the cos-ts with objects of expenditures. Forexample, a major cost of operating in any universityis a payroll, the amount of money that the facultyis paid. Now salaries, as an object of expenditure,have to be considered in and of themselves, con-sidered collectively and individually assigned toprograms. You can't pay one group of people in onedepartment substantially more or substantially lessthan you pay others in other departments. You can-not pay professors in a state university at a ratethat differs radically from those of other institutionsin the state. You have to be interested in the effec-tiveness of the faculties, how much they are teach-ing, how much public service they are doing, howmuch research they are doing. One has to beinterested, therefore, in the objects of expenditures,and one cannot simply dismiss them. That's my firstpoint of disagreement with John Keller.

Accountability View Missing

My second point has to do with what he saidabout how we get the data. You remember that hesaid one way we might get f..e data wou1.1 be tohave somebody like a legislative auditor go out andget it. Another might be to esta blish a kind of stateRand Corporation. He dismisse d both plans as un-wise and suggested that the best procedure forlegislators is to develop a PPB system in coopera-tion with the institutions they work with. Thereason, he said, is that the institution in its manage-ment has to have exactly the same kinds of datathat the legislature wants.

But that, I think, takes the problem solely fromthe point of view of management. It does not takethe problem from the point of view of accountability.One of the reasons that 'universities find themselvesin the position that they are today is that they havenot been held accountable for the behavior in whichthey have used money. It seems to me thr.t the onlyway in which universities can be accountable, andcan be kept accountable, is to hand the information

.g

38

to some agency representing the public and chargedwith responsibility of looking at the data, see howfar they've gone, and look into the benefits. Andthis means that there must be some agency in thecommunity capable of viewing the university to seeif this public agency is doing a good job or notdoing a good job.

Suggestion Horrifying

Finally, John Keller closed with a suggestionthat I find rather horrifying, and I will read hiscomments. At the very end of his statement, he saidthat "Someone must sit down and prescribe whatkinds of information on what kinds of forms willbe generated by whom, to whom will they be sentand on what schedule, what kinds of actions will betaken by those receiving the information, and howin the end will the analyses done result in programdecisions which are, in turn, faithfully reflected inactual budget allocations." He suggested that thismight be a task that NCHEMS at WICHE might dc;He further suggested that perhaps it might be agood idea for all state governments to have a singlePPB system with this same kind of uniformitywithin the agencies. Now it seems to me that thatkind of suggestion cannot be handled seriously.In the spirit of what universities are, a state univer-sity wants, to some marked degree, to express thespectrum of educational interests of the state. Eachuniversity must, therefore, in some sense be differentfrom the other.

The state of Hawaii must differ on the educa-tional check list because it is the state of Hawaii,an island state, where students cannot associate anautomobile with a college education. It has specialproblems on which to do research, and it has specialsites on which research can be done. It's got thebest site for an astronomical telescope in the UnitedStates, and there are very few sites that compare.Educational objectives at different universities mustbe different, and that means that the academicarrangement must be different in some measure. Theprograms must be different and the program struc-ture must be different.

What we should all have and share alike is acommon data base that has been talked about; thedata base that has been developed by NCHEMS atWICHE. And in connection with its use at theUniversity of Hawaii, it is the finest data base thatI have ever seen. I can get information that I couldnever get at Cornell where I worked before I movedto Hawaii. And that kind of base may, in the end,become common for measuring outputs. But what wedon't want is .,1te kind of unified system and kind ofregimented system that John Keller recommendedat the last of his speech.

SEVENTH LEGISLATIVE WORK CONFERENCE

Issues in Higher Education

I

33

The value of education is, in part, worth what someone paysfor it. This is the axiom of the free-market economy.

Many states would like to find out if there is an educationalproduct which is almost as good, but less expensive.

The question of relating technical and professional skills to theeconomy's need for skilled manpower is a particularly sensitive

topic now with professional unemployment reaching new highs.

Getting Your Money's WorthIn Higher Education

Value of the Product

The value of education is, in part, worth whatsomeone pays for it. This is the axiom of the free-market economy. But there are several questionswhich are being asked. Is the price too high? Manystates would like to find out if there is an educa-tional product which is almost as good, but les'sexpensive. Many students would like to have alower cost education particularly those from lowincome families.

Value, then, is a judgment: On the part of astate, it is the judgment of the legislature and execu-tive. The institutions can do two things to make thejudgment somewhat less difficult:

Identify the "products" of higher education

Identify the costs of these "products"

Outputs of Higher Education

Some of the outputs of higher education wereidentified by the participants in a recent seminar.*Typical of the outputs identified were:

SOCIAL BENEFITSPreserve the culturePerpetuate a technology-based economySatisfy the social demand for education

INDIVIDUAL BENEFITSSocial and intellectual growthVocational or professional skillsPersonal satisfaction

*Ben Lawrence, George Weathersby, and Virginia M. Pat-tersen, The Outputs of Higher Education: Their Indentifi-cation, Measurement, and Evaluation, Western InterstateCommission for Higher Education, Boulder, Colorado, July1970.


James Farmer,

Director,Division of Information Systems,The California State College System

Note that it is not possible, at this time, to iden-tify measurable outputs for most of these benefits.Only a few have any identifiable market value, andthe traditional proxies degrees and certificatesmeasure only one of the benefits. Perhaps one ofhigher education's more serious credibility problemshas been the inability to articulate its benefits andtheir value both to society and to the individual.Some of the output proxies which can be used forthe three outputs just identified are:

Perpetuate a technology-based economyValue of manpowerMarket value of research

Vocational or professional skillsDegrees and certificates

Personal satisfactionPurchases af consumer education

Some of the outputs of higher education are theso-called joint outputs. For example, a researchproject will produce both research results and gradu-ate students as an output. In some cases, the researchresults were the primary intended output as inthe case of sponsored research where the sponsorhas a specific problem. In some cases, as in depart-mental research projects or student research proj-ects, the student's ability to conduct research wasthe intended result and the research results them-selves are secondary, though they may be important.This is a sort of "research" apprenticeship.

The question of relating technical and profes-sional skills to the economy's need for skilled man-power is a particularly sensitive topic now withprofessional unemployment reaching new highs.

41.

35

3


Fortunately the economists' tools can be used inprojecting the need for skilled manpower, and moreflexible and more responsive institutions of highereducation can perhaps make the professional workforce more adaptive.

Yet, perhaps the most difficult outputs to mea-sure, to plan, and to "produce" result from theintuitive judgment that education is good for indi-viduals in our society regardless of their intendeduse of that education or their preparation for highereducation. This goal will require different instruc-tional methodology and perhaps different institu-.:tions, and the social benefits cannot now bemeasured.

Costs of Instruction, Research, andCommunity Service

While it may not be possible to measure whatyou buy when you pay for higher education, it isusually possible to estimate what you pay for it.Although it is both conceptually and practically dif-ficult to cost research and community service, sig-nificant progress has been made on developing thecosts for instruction.

It is useful to note the cause of the currentfiscal crisis in education and the interest in costs.

FIGURE 1

I I I I

57 60 65 69

HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENDITURES

Consider the increases in expenditures for highereducation (see figure 1). From some $4 billion in1957 to over $17 billion in 1969, a constant in-crease at a rate greater than the increase in staterevenues. With competing social programs, it iscertainly understandable why state governmentslooked for ways to reduce the rate of increase ofhigher education expenditures.

FIGURE 2

LI 3,000

CL.

M2

000

:; 1,000

NATIONAL AVERAGES

STATE COLLEGES

I I I

1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1969 1970 1971

INSTITUTIONAL EXPENDITURES PER STUDENTIN CONSTANT 1969-70 DOLLARS

On the other hand (see figure 2), the situationhas a markedly different perspective for educators.Because of the increased number of students andinflation, the cost per student has decreased in someinstitutions. For example, there was a decrease inavailable resources for the California State Collegesin constant dollars. Since 1969 the cost per studenthas decreased 15 to 20 percent. This represents botha decreac- in output quality and increased efficiency.Thus, while the legislator has noted education asconstantly and rapidly increasing, to the educator,the unit price has been forced down. This comes,in large part, from the increased enrollments as theparticipation rate in higher education has increasedand the precent of population in higher educationhas doubled in the last ten years to more than 3.5percent.

FIGURE 3

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

MISCELLANEOUS

ROOMANDBOARD

BOOKS

IPSTRUCTIONAND OTHERCOLLEGESERVICES

STUDENTEXPENSES

STUDENT FEES

STATE FUNDS

IIMMINW

TYPICAL ANNUAL DIRECT COSTOF EDUCATION FOR A

RESIDENT SINGLE STUDENT

.h 42

In discussing costs, it is :,mportant to identifycost "for whom" (see figure 3). We see, as anexample, the costs of °higher education for a singleresident student at San Fernando Valley State Col-lege. This 1968 study indicated that the cost wasapproximately $3,300 for an academic year. About$1400 was paid by the state, and the remainderin student fees and student expenses was borne bythe student or his parents. This does not include,of course, the opportunity costs of not being em-ployed for this time.

FIGURE 4

1,500

- 1581- 1525

1487

EQUIPMENT 1581BUILDINGS 1,487

AMORTIZATION OFCAPITAL EXPENDITURES

--'STUDENT FEES

INSTITUTION', 1,371

1200, SUPPORT

1,045STUDENT SERVICES

900 942ACADEMIC SUPPORT

846

GENERAL FUND

INSTRUCTION

300

COST OF INSTRUCTION ANDOTHER COLLEGE SERVICES

Figure 4 shows the cost of instruction takenfrom the same study. The total cost of instructionwas $1,581 including a six-year depreciation ofequipment and 50-year depreciation of buildings.The right hand column shows that the state generalfund provided $1,371 for each student in currentexpenses and $94 from amortization of capital ex-penditures. Typically, $116 per student was pro-vided by student fees.

FIGURE 5

I nstruction $ 809 53.2%Academic Support

Library 127 8.3

Audio Visual 4 0.3

Computing Support 10 0.7

141 9.3Student Service

Counseling 17 1.1

Financial Aid 5 0.4Foreign Students 1 0.1

Other 64 4.2

87 5.8Institutional Support 483 31.7

1,520 100.0%

Financial Aid 81

$1,601

ANNUAL COST PER FTE


Figure 5 provides data from a similar study andshows the expenditures, or costs, per full-time equiv-alent student. This kind of costing average full-cost per student can be accomplished in ateaching environment with no identified research.Note that instructional expenditures make up morethan 50 percent of the total. The instructional costsare frequently higher at smaller institutions with arich program offering because of the small classsizes, and at some larger institutions when adminis-trative expenses become high Illinois reportedseveral institutions now have administrative costs of50 percent or more.

This kind of costing by program componentsis feasible and can be inexpensive for community

colleges and four- and six-year colleges. Universitieshave the additional conceptual problem of allocatingexpenditures to research and instruction. The costsshown in this report were developed using theNCHEMS at WICHE Program Classification Struc-ture in one of the cost studies piloting cost findingprinciples.

FIGURE 6

3,000

2,5E0

- (2,933)

(2,223)

2,010 (1,882)

INIr

(1M7)1,5E0 11111,

(1,343)

1,000 ^

5E0

ENGINEERING PHYSICAL ELEMENTARY BUSINESS SOCIOLOGYEDUCATION EDUCATION

COST BY FIT STUDENT MAJOR

The use of an Induced Course Load Matrixa description of the demand for courses by eachstudent major provides a method of transformingunit costs of instruction by department into cost bystudent major. Figure 6 shows cost by major takinginto account the Luurses required by the averagestudent for that major. 37


38

FIGURE 7

8,000

7,000

47i

6,000

a5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

AVERAGE CREDITSTAKEN BY ATTR1TED

STUDENTS - 20

AVERAGE CREDITSTAKEN BY ATFR1TED

STUDENTS - 10

ENVELOPE OF COST

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

ATTRITION

COST OF DEGREE OR CREDENTIALVs. ATTRITION

UPPER DIVISION/GRADUATE SPLITOF CREDITS TAKEN BY

ATTRITED STUDENTS IS 75/25

C,f.'

The cost of a degree is somewhat more difficultto identify, particularly if the attrition rate is un-known. Figure 7 shows how attrition rate and thenumber of credit hours taken by a student leavingwithout a degree affects costs. After two years, thecost for a master's degree or credential for studentsat this state college will be between $1,800 and$2,000 depending on the final attrition rate, whichmay include transfers and those who just wanteda few courses, and the number of credits thosestudents take. Based on the underlying data, thiswill be not less than 10 credits and may be as highas 15 credits.

Summary of CapabilityClearly, it is difficult to identify the outputs of

higher education; it is important that the effort todo so be continued for this is necessary to makerational decisions about resources. The NCHEMSat WICHE research effort should be continued, andinstitutions of higher education should be encouragedto try to identify these outputs. Out of this struggleshould come improved understanding of institutionalgoals and missions. There are some proxies whichshould be measured and reported, and institutionsshould be encouraged to identify others. Costmethodology is emerging and costing studies, asindicated here, can be fruitful. While many short-rundecisions must be made on marginal costs, averagecosts are useful at the state level. Estimates ofdegree costs can be made, and should be encouragedso that institutions will be conscious of the factorsaffecting degree productivity.

44

ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATIOM

Encouraging Change

and Significance

in Higher Education

Dr. Harold L. Hodgkinson,Research Educator,Center for Research and Development in Higher Education,

Berkeley

How can institutes be encouraged to change andbecome more relevant? There are several key notionsI would like to point out in response to that ques-tion. First is the use of the word encourage. I thinkthat it is absolutely essential that every effort bemade to set up structures that rcward institutionsof higher education that do a good job rather thansetting up punitive systems. Higher education is runabout as well as most other bureaucracies in thewestern world; generally, you get improvement inperformance if you appeal to the self-interest of theparticipants. My second point about the topic isabout the old warhorse word, relevance. Let mesuggest that we substitute the word significant forrelevant. Being able to find my toothbrush in themorning is a relevant activity, but not of any greatsignificance. Similarly, the Ph.D. program in mobilehome management at Michigan State may be arelevant program, but is it significant? Why shouldthe university be doing it? Teaching driver trainingin the secondary schools is a relevant activity, butis there any reason at all why General Motors andHenry Ford should be denied the responsibility ofeducating people to use their products? What didthe schools give up in their curriculum to put indriver training?

If higher education is to become more significantin the lives of students, some big changes will haveto be made. They will cost money. Your constitu-ents may not like it if, as a consequence of thisgreater significance, students become aware of thewide range of ways of life, of governmental .and

economic structures, and more aware and criticalof how our society is using its human and naturalresources. Is it a benefit to society if the young areexposed to material that will make some of themmore critical of that society? I doubt if the NCHEMSat WICHE system can handle that one just yet.The use of machine technology, which was thoughta few years ago to be the breakthrough on costs,has not proven to be much cheaper than conven-tional instruction. In addition, many students getbored with teaching machines, searching for somemore significant component in their education; forexample, someone to help them integrate their out-of-class experiences with what they are learning inclassrooms, some way to tie it all together, to makesome sense out of it all. At the moment, we haveno one on most campuses capable of doing this.

Is the act of simply teaching people a significantact? Not uuiess they remember the material and cantransfer it to new situations. For example, most ofthe material learned in a required natural sciencecourse was learned in the last two weeks of thecourse, under pressure of failing the final exam (seefigure 1). Following the students for sixteen moreweeks, we note that they forget the material aboutas quickly as they learned it, and that they end up(see figure 2) remarkably close to where they began.The faculty insist that this course is absolutely essen-tial for any American citizen who is to make intelli-gent policy decisions on scientific matters. (Perhapsall American elections should take place in the weekbetween semesters, as that is the only time the

45

39


40

FIGURE 1

LEARNING CURVE, REQUIRED NATURALSCIENCE COURSE FOR NONMAJORS

MEAN OF PERCENTMATERIAL LEARNED

-100-90-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10

WEEKS0 8 16

FIGURE 2

students have control over the material.) Figure 3shows the learning curve of an elective course inphilosophy of religion. Notice that even after thecourse is over, the student's knowledge in philosophyof religion keeps on increasing! Such differences incourse impact on students are simply not measuredby the current planning and management outputsystems, and thus the significance of education can-not be dealt with. (In fact, in terms of cost perstudent credit hour, the science course is "better.")

Now for some specifics about change:

1. Change seldom comes about by getting every-body's views on everything and looking for con-sensus. Leadeiship is necessary, although it mayemerge from any group on campus on any specificissue.

2. Smaller institutions are much easier to changethat large ones; institutions are easier to change thanstatewide systems of institutions.

LEARNING AND FORGETTING CURVES, REQUIRED NATURAL SCI2NCE COURSE FOR NONMAJORS

PERCENT OFMATERIALLEARNED

0 8

PERCENT OFMATERIALRETAINED

100 100 100%

-90 -9°-80 -80-70 -70-60 -60-50 -50

16 17 32

FIGURE 3

LEARNING AND FORGETTING CURVES, ELECTIVE COURSE IN PHILOSOPHY ?F RELIGION

WEE:100000

0

PERCENT OF PERCENT OFMATERIAL MATERIALLEARNED LEARNED

100

8 16

- 90 -90-80 -80-70 -70-60 -60-50 -50-40 -40-30 -30-20 -20-10 -10

PERCENT OFMATERIALRETAINED

100

-90-80-70- 60- 50-40-30- 20- 10

17 32

3. It is harder to change an institution in whicha high percentage of the faculty is on tenure. (Thisis a major problem on many campuses the yearsof shortages of college teachers in the fifties andsixties produced a rash of young men getting tenureat about the same time; this "age lump" now meansthat many younger people will not have any chancefor tenure. If 70 percent of the faculty is bothtenured and below the age of fifty (a not unusualoccurrence) then nothing much can be done for 15years or so, when this "age lump" retires. In theinterim, many excellent young faculty will be re-jected for tenure by some less able who have tenure,an unproe:uctive situation.

4. There is an il3creasing lack of diversity inhigher education which was recently documentedfor the Carnegie Commission.* This "cookie-cutter"tendency is highly destructive of change, particularlyfor an institution that would like to do somethingvery different, for the pressure to be just like allother institutions is getting much stronger. Realdiversity of structure, program, and mission shouldbe rewarded.

5. State colleges and community colleges canbe kept as teaching institutions by providing areward structure for those institutions that do asuperior job of teaching. This can be done, not bymeasuring student competence at the end of fouryears (the brighter your admitted freshmen, the"better" the job you do), but by comparing studentcompetence at entrance with student competence atgraduation, both in the major area and in the areasof general education. Thus, the institution in whichthe most gain is shown is doing the best job andcould be funded on a plus percentage basis (seefigure 4).

To try to encourage good teaching by settingminimum hours of teaching, such as 15 for com-munity colleges, 12 for state colleges, and 9 foruniversities, will not help; for the result will be adrastic cutback in faculty advising time, and facultytime spent with students outside of class may be justas important as time spent in class.

6. The most effective way of eliminating out-dated offerings would be to eliminate outdatedfaculty. However, that would cause more problemsthan it would cure. A better approach would be toestablish programs that would bring the faculty upto date, both in their subject area and in the teach-ing of it. There is currently almost no attempt toupdate faculty skills systematically. How many fac-ulty have ever been helped to learn how to askreally penetrating questions of students? In my ex-perience, very few know how. How many have ever

*Harold L. Hodgkinson, Institutions in Transition (NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1971).


FIGURE 4

Quality I: Measured at output

StudentsIn

Measure(A)

StudentsOut

(A) = "Quality"In I, quality of input determines "quality" of program.

Quality II: Growth ratio of output over input

Measure(A)

1

StudentsIn

Measure(B)

StudentsOut

1 "Quality" (Value added)A

In II, quality of input does not determine qualityjudgment of provam.

*for each major (GRE subject tests)

x. for general education (all students or by majors)(GRE area tests)

watched themselves teach via video tape in order toimprove their presentation? Again, riot very many,although the technology is around. Departmentsthat show evidence of trying to upgrade the teachingeffectiveness of the department should be rewardedfor it, even though their grant gathering may be offa bit. It is a major delusion to assume that all uni-versity teachers are engaged constantly in researchand publication; something like 10 percent of thefaculty do 90 percent of the publishing.

7. In addition to outdated offerings there isthe problem of outdated programs. These are evenmore difficult to get rid of than courses, particu-larly if the senior people are on tenure. In somecampuses, pruning departments of classics down tomeaningful size took a decade. One general solutionis to hire as many multicompetent people as pos-sible. Another is to move to a system in which adivision structure (usually humanities, social sci-ences, natural sciences, performing arts, and educa-tion) assumes political and economic stature overdepartments. Thus the political science budget is notdecided by the department of political science, butby a committee of representatives of all the socialsciences, to put the departmental request in a largerperspective. Another approach (now in use at SantaCruz) is the appointment of vice-chancellors in these

47

41


42

divisional roles, with dl economic decision-makingprerogatives, as a counter to departments, whichoften will not prune books in the library nor coursesin the major.

8. Many institutions judge their 'status by theirgraduate programs. Today, there are few graduateprograms that are cutting back on admissions, eventhough they know that there will be few jobs fortheir graduates. But graduate programs are usuallydominated by departments, not by the dean of thegraduate school. Some system of checking unrealisticgraduate program growth is essential, perhaps onelike the divisional vice-chancellors already men-tioned.

9. Consensus politics is a tough game to playwith a faculty, as they are trained to see dichoto-mies, paradoxes, and contradictions where otherssee only a simple truth.

There is on most campuses an overabundanceof committees, many of whose function is highlyquestionable, except that they manage to generateenough work to justify their own continuation. Insome . institutiors where faculty are given releasedtime for committee service, you could add 100courses to the undergraduate curriculum simply bycutting the committee structure back. (Committeesare often used to share the blame with administratorsand to diffuse accountability.) Some schools are nowassuming that committees will function for one yearonly, and the whole structure is reviewed eachSeptember. Others have moved to increased use ofad hoc task forces and committees that meet towork on one problem and then disband. There isdiscussion from George Wcathersby and others of"trial balloon" management, in which administrators

ii x 1'1.4

once again make decisions, but do so on a trialbasis the decision stands if no one objects beforea certain date.

10. One way to encourage faculty growth is theso-called growth contract, in which each member ofthe faculty (including those on tenure) is asked tosit down once every five years and state what hewould like to do in the next five year period. Theinstitutional representative indicates what resourcesthe institution will provide so that the faculty mem-ber can achieve his goals, and they agree as to whatwill be a fair evaluation of whether or not thefaculty member has achieved those goals. Then theyboth sign the contract. In this way, the institutionindicates to the faculty member that it expectsgrowth and change and will try to plan for it in asystematic way, building around faculty aspirations.This plan could be put into effect tomorrow, evenin institutions with tenure systems.

Here are just a few of the many specifics in-volved in trying it, change institutions of highereducation. In closing, let me say that your desireto make sure that the public is getting the most outof its huge investment in higher education is com-mendable. But do not confuse cost per studentcredit hour with education. We need to developsome better measures of the significance of educa-tion in colleges and universities. The techniquesare already here, we have only to merge them withthe economic and logistic criteria now integral toplanning and management systems. But this maybe more of a job than we bargained for, as someof the management information systems have shownthemselves to be as resistant to change as the aca-demic departments they were designed to change.To people who have never taught or administered in,a college or university, a cost per credit hour figuremay look just fine. It is a nice figure. But it hasnothing to do with education.

48...,1+/,..*1,twraAe.t..41,,,Mez.n.

Academic Freedomand Tenurein Higher Education

A review of recent literature relating to theproblems of tenure in higher education disclosestwo major trends: (1) The system of academictenure is presently under sustained criticism to adegree probably exceeding that experienced duringany prior period in the half century or so duringwhich institutionalized tenure systems have existedin American higher education. (2) Academic free-dom on American university campuses is underattack in every part of the nation. Many profes-sional educators regard the coincidence of thesetwo challenges as far from coincidental. Be that asit may, the dual nature of these pressures under-scores the intimate interdependence between tenureand academic freedom.

Much of the discussion of tenure in the media,in legislative chambers, and on college campuses aswell seems to be characterized by a degree of emo-tionalism which is ordinarily in direct proportion tothe speaker's misunderstanding of the subject. Ifreely assume that those of us gathered here todayare sincerely interested in seeking understandingrather than more heat. I willingly recognize thatnone of us is like the judge who ordered counsel tostop arguing his case, declaring, "My mind is alreadymade up. Stop confusing me with the facts."

An objective search for understanding in thisarea, I would like to suggest, should concentrateupon five basic questions:

1. What is the purpose of academic tenure?.The predominant concern of the tenure system,without the slightest doubt, is to safeguard the publicwelfare by protecting academic freedom while assur-ing academic accountability. A secondary but purelyincidental function of the tenure system importantat certain periods of time in the past but, currently,in light of the over-abundance of job seekers in the

ISSUES iN HIGHER EDUCATION

Professor Arvo Van Alstyne,

School of Law, -

University of Utah

academic market, probably of little practical con-cern is the enhancement of the attractiveness ofthe teaching profession in order that it may bringto its ranks the best qualified and brightest mindsavailable. For present purposes, therefore, it seemsappropriate to confine our discussion to the primarypurpose of tenure the protection of academicfreedom.

2. What is academic freedom, and why shouldit be protected? Like most other freedoms cherishedby Americans, it is difficult to formulate a non-ambiguous and completely satisfactory definition ofacademic freedom. It seems reasonably clear, how-ever, that its central concern is the promotion ofthe common good by providing protection againsteaternal and institutional influences that may inhibitstudents and scholars in seeking, expounding, anddiseminating ideas in every realm of human thought.As Sterling McMurrin has eloquently said, "Aca-demic freedom is the encouragement to adventurous,creative, and innovative thought, the condition andinspiration for genuine intellectual and artisticachievement."

Implicit in this concept of academic freedom, ofcourse, is the notion that the authentic functionof institutions of higher education is to advancetruth, strengthen cultural integrity, cultivate criticalintelligence, and assist in the improvement of thequality of personal and social life. Fulfillment of thisresponsibility, however, necessarily implies a con-tinued examination and objective appraisal of thevalidity of accepted values, established theories, andtraditional practices. Such an examination may attimes create tensions between the academic commu-nity and elements within the larger community whichit serves. Academic freedom is thus seen as a pro-tective principle designed to sateguard society's long-range interest in free critical inquiry and intellectual

, 49


44

progress from the chilling effects of short-rangeefforts at censorship and reprisal.

The university simply could not discharge itsappointed role if its faculty were constrained to seekeither the safety of silence or the ambiguity of inde-cision in matters of intellectual concern. The prin-ciple of academic freedom thus seeks to insulatethe academic community from intimidation andrepression of ideas which are bold, challenging, andunpopular. It embodies society's rejection of coercedconformity and its acceptance of intellectual diver-sity as a primary instrument of higher educationalpolicy. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly clear

and recent court decisions, including some fromthe United States Supreme Court, have recognized

that academic freedom is closely related to theconstitutional system of freedom of expression rootedin the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Manythoughtful observers would, I am confident, agreethat academic freedom is worth preserving. Many,I am equally convinced, would agree that if academicfreedom were to disappear, the university would beeffectively destroyed, to the tragic detriment ofsociety as a whole.

3. What is the tenure system and how is itrelated to academic freedom? While there are manyforms of academic tenure, all of them are basedupon a relatively simple concept: Once a facultymember has demonstrated responsible professionalcompetency over an extended probationary period,he cannot thereafter be dismissed from his profes-sorship except upon proof by the administration thatadequate cause for such dismissal exists. Adequatecause, .in this context, includes academic incompe-tence or irresponsibility, medical disability, discon-tinuance of a program or department of instruction,or bona fide financial exigency.

Most tenure systems include a hearing procedureat which the institution must adduce evidence sup-porting dismissal on one or more of the indicatedgrounds. Protection of academic freedom arisesfrom the fact that the burden of proving adequatecause is on the institution. In the absence of evidencethat appropriate academic grounds do exist, a naturalinference arises that the real reasons for dismissalare reasons which violate academic freedom or re-lated constitutional interests. It is precisely to p:e-vent such arbitrary dismissals, formally dressed upin unsubstantiated charges of incompetency, thatstate and federal courts alike, in recent years, haveinsisted that the procedures employed in facultydismissals at state institutions of higher educationmust conform to minimal standards of due processof law.

4. What are the chief defects of the tenuresystem? Criticism of the tenure system should not beconfused with actual defects in the system; an indict-ment is still not an automatic conviction. In fact,submit that much of the popular criticism rests uponcertain unstated assumptions that reflect misconcep-tions or myths about tenure and its implications.Among the most important popular misconceptionsare these:

Tenure Not Unique to Education

First, tenure is erroneously believed to be aspecial privilege uniqueIy enjoyed by college anduniversity faculty members. In fact, however, tenurerepresents a rule of fair play and justice which isfar from being either unique or special. Some formof tenure is characteristic of most employment rela-tionships in our society, including the civil serviceor merit system for governmental employees, senior-ity or job security plans incorporated into collectivebargaining contracts, and profit-sharing or stockoption programs for business executives. Even theindependent learned professions, such as medicineand law, enjoy professional tenure in the form of alicense to practice that can only be revoked orsuspended for good cause.

A second misconception is that a professor mayacquire tenured status by mere passage of time inhis position without regard for professional compe-tence or academic responsibility. In fact, it is farfrom easy for a new faculty member to acquiretenure. He can do so only by demonstrating to thesatisfaction of his colleagues and the universityadministration over an extended probationary period(ordinarily from five to seven years in length) thathe is fully qualified on the basis of teaching effec-tiveness, scholarly achievement, and university serv-ice. The burden of proving eligibility for tenureduring this probationary period is upon the indi-vidual faculty member, and a significant number ofprobationary faculty do not succeed in doing so.In addition, some probationary faculty membersregularly leave university teaching when they per-ceive the unlikelihood that they will obtain therequired favorable recommendation of their col-leagues at the conclusion of the probationary period.It should not be forgotten that at the conclusion ofthe probationary period, a professor who fails toachieve tenure must be dismissed. Tenure is a classi-cal example of the old Navy slogan, "Shape up orship out."

A third misconception is that nearly all univer-sity faculty members enjoy tenure. In fact, in highereducation, the number- of tenured faculty membersis usually a minority. For example, the study madein 1970-71 at the University of Utah disclosed (tothe surprise of the Tenure Study Commission) that

50

only 19 percent of all instructional personnel actu-ally held tenure at that institution as of February1971. While the percentage of tenured faculty willvary from institution to institution, most of the fig-ures which have come to my attention suggest thatthe percentage rarely rises above 50 percent. Inpublicly-supported institutions in the western states,in particular, a relatively low percentage of tenuredfaculty seems likely to be typical. because of theextensive use of nontenured teaching assistants asa means of instructing large numbers of undergradu-ate students.

A fourth misconception about tenure assumesthat a faculty member who has achieved tenurecannot be dismissed from his position. In fact, thetenure system does not preclude the dismissal oftenured faculty for appropriate academically-relatedcauses, including professional incompetence or irre-sponsibility, or for other reasons not in violation ofprinciples of academic freedom. While most studieshave indicated that the full panoply of tenure dis-missal procedures seldom is used, this should notbe construed to mean that tenured faculty membersare seldom removed from their employtient. Sub-stantial evidence was presented to the Tenure Com-mission at the University of Utah indicating thattenured faculty members had been removed fromthe university's employ through informal methodsleading to their voluntary resignation in lieu offormal dismissal. The important point, which de-serves to be emphasized, is that nothing in the tenuresystem necessarily protects incompetence, irrespon-sibility, or redundancy.

Dead-wood Not Attributable to Tenure

The persistence of academic "dead-wood"and I would be less than candid if I did not freelyconcede that some academic indolence and incom-petence exists on practically every faculty, althoughin relatively small percentage must be attributedto factors other than the tenure system itself. Suchfactors are not difficult to identify. They includeadministrative inertia, humanitarian instincts, andan understandable, although indefensible, feeling onthe part of some faculty members that they wouldrather not get involved in the somewhat unpleasantprocedures necessary to the discharge of an incom-petent or irresponsible colleague.

5. Can a better system be devised for elimi-nating incompetence and irresponsibility amongfaculty members without impairing academic free-dom? The most radical suggestion which has beenadvanced for dealing with the problem of academic"dead-wood" is the total elimination of the tenuresystem. This approach, I think, would be legislativeoverkill, something like throwing out the baby with


the bathwater. If elimination of tenure means thatfaculty members will hold their positions at thepleasure of the university administration, the systemwill in all likelihood be both unconstitutional, underprevailing court decisions, and highly destructive tothe effectiveness of higher education. It is clear thatthe national academic community would regard sucha move with utmost disfavor as a blatant attack uponacademic freedom and that both faculty recruitmentand research grantsmanship would be seriouslyimpaired,

Academic Freedom Assaulted

I should remind you again that the academiccommunity is currently quite sensitive to the increas-ing frequency with which assaults upon academicfreedom have been mounted in recent years, oftenfrom unexpected quarters. Efforts from variouspressure groups to silence faculty members whoexpress unpopular views have continued unabated,and vigorous efforts have been made to curtail opencampus-speaker policies and impose conformity ofideas upon the academic community. Even moredeplorable and shocking, however, has been the useof violent and destructive tactics by dissident groupson college campuses, ultimately aimed at destroyingthe academic freedom of students and faculty andresulting in much loss of property, many injuries,and some actual loss of life. The President's Com-mission on Campus Unrest, headed by formerGovernor Scranton of Pennsylvania, pointed out inits report that ". . . both external and internalthreats to academic freedom have increased as thenation has become more sharply divided." Accord-ingly, the commission report urged the academiccommunity to devote increased ". . . resistance topressures toward conformity" and to demonstrate a`.

. . steadfast commitment to combat dogmatism,intolerance, and condescension, as well as attemptsto suppress divergent opinions among its members."

A second alternative, sometimes advanced, takesthe position that the judicial system can and willeffectively protect academic freedom, thereby makingthe tenure system no longer necessary for that pur-pose. This proposition, I submit, is of dubiousvalidity. To be sure, in recent years, the U. S.Supreme Court has commenced an examination ofthe constitutional implications of academic freedom,but the law in this regard is still in its formativestages. It is now reasonably clear that both facultymembers and students are legally entitled to at leasta minimal degree of constitutional protection againstinterferences with their freedom of speech by publicofficials, including the administrators and governingboards of public institutions of higher education

Si

45


46

which employ them. But it will probably requiremany years for the courts to develop a reasonablycomprehensive and reliable jurisprudence of aca-demic freedom. In the meanwhile, the judicial systemcan only be expected to provide peripheral supportfor a system of academic freedom fully adequate toeducational needs. Moreover, litigation can be bothcostly and time-consuming; and court procedures arean inherently inefficient process for resolving thekinds of disputes likely to arise within the educa-tional community.

A third alternative to tenure involves substi-tuting fixed-term renewable contracts instead ofpermanent tenure for faculty members. Some insti-tutions (such as Hampshire College) are currentlyexperimenting with a system of this sort, but pre-liminary indications suggest that serious difficultiesof implementation remain to be resolved. It is be-coming clear, for example, that if the decision torenew a short-term teaching contract is entirely inthe discretion of the university qdministration, thesystem is not functionally different from an outrightabolition of tenure. After all, a decision not to renewa contract for reasons that are violative of academicfreedom is not functionally different from a decisionto terminate employment for similar reasons. On theother hand, if the renewal of a term contract isdependent upon evaluation of teaching effectiveness,and renewals are normally granted unless the admin-istration demonstrates lack of academic competenceor responsibility, the system is not significantly dif-ferent from the current tenure system.

Collective Bargaining Introduced

A fourth alternative, which seems to be growingdaily in its practical importance, is the organizationof faculty unions and institution of collective bar-gaining over conditions of employment. In parts ofthe United States, the movement toward facultyunionization is rapidly moving ahead. Collectivebargaining systems are already in, effect in some ofthe major universities along the east coast, includingRutgers, St. Johns University, and the State Univer-sity of New York; in addition, concerted efforts arereportedly under way to achieve similar systems inMichigan, Illinois, California, and elsewhere.

Unions and collective bargaining, however, arenot universally popular in the academic community:Many experienced university teachers entertain seri-ous doubts whether the collective bargaining processcan adequately protect the community's interest inhigher education, and, particularly, whether it iscapable of implementing academic freedom in an

effective fashion. In addition, a collective bargainingprocess can seriously reduce the flexibility withwhich a university administration can reward excel-lence and provide incentives to improved academicperformance. At the same time, collective bargain-ing procedures may tend to polarize viewpoints,rigidify bargaining positions, delay resolution of dis-putes, and induce resort to pressure tactics suchas strikes, picketing, slow-downs and boycottsin an effort to influence negotiations. Confrontationsof this sort are likely to impair the intecest of stu-dents, taxpayers, faculty, and university alike. Byway of contrast, the existing tenure system providesa time-honored institutional mechanism for dealingwith problems of faculty incompetence or irrespon-sibility in a professional and individualized mannerthat is conducive to avoidance of the politics of directconfrontation.

A practical solution to the tenure dilemma, asproposed by the Tenure Study Commission at theUniversity of Utah, involves three approaches:

(1) The legitimate expectations of the universityas to acceptable standards of faculty performanceand responsibility (which are often imperfectlyunderstood by faculty members as well as by privatecitizens) should be clearly articulated in a code offaculty conduct and responsibilities. A code of thistype, it is submitted, would not only assist materiallyin promoting more effective faculty performance,but also should serve to dispzi the kind of adminis-trative inertia, often claimed to be based ,on ambi-guity and uncertainty as to the applicable standards,that resists the taking of disciplinary proceedingsagainst unsatisfactory faculty members.

(2) The university should undertake to developa comprehensive career development program for allfaculty personnel, including both tenured and non-tenured positions. The purpose of the programwould be to prevent decline and blight in academicperformance by identifying personal career prob-lems, providing professional assistance in maintain-ing capabilities, and stimulating personal self-renewalwhere necessary. The program would also seek todevise a reward system which induces life-long effortin the quest for excellence of academic effectiveness.

The theory underlying this recommendation isthat the relationship between professor and institu-tion is one that involves mutual commitments.Accordingly, if a professor begins to fail in his.cobli-gations to the academic community, often throughno intentional default on his part, the universityshould undertake to provide rehabilitative and cor-rectional assistance for the mutual benefit of bothparties. The public interest, it is believed, wouldbe substantially advanced by a program of this sort,properly structured to promote life-long improve-

ment in professional competence, employment of themost effective teaching methods, stimulation of pro-fessional aspirations, enrichment of the opportunitiesof academic life, and renewal of individual creativecommitments to the purposes of the university. Sucha program, moreover, by affording a more humani-tarian way of dealing with suspected incompetence,short of dismissal, would also serve effectively toeliminate administrative reluctance to deal with suchproblems in ways leading to ultimate dismissal ofnon-responsive faculty members.

(3) Each campus should develop a well-structured system for receiving and processing com-plaints of ineffective faculty performance in thcclassroom, or of other forms of faculty irresponsi-bility. Such a system, which, for example, mightentail the establishment of a university ombudsman(modeled after the Scandinavian public complaintofficer), should emphasize highly visible and reli-


able procedures for the informal processing ofgrievances, reconciliation of misunderstandings, andrectification of inequities at a preliminary level ofadministration, so as to avoid wherever possible thenecessity for more elaborate consideration. Meri-torious complaints identified as being more seriousshould, by appropriate procedures, be introducedinto the formal process leading to imposition ofsanctions, including possible dismissal.

Improvements in the administration of the tenuresystem, such as those just outlined, should go a longway toward meeting the valid aspects of currentcriticisms of the tenure system. A program of thiskind, moreover, is a more responsible and construc-tive way to deal with the problem, and one far lessdestructive of basic educational values.

47


48

Trends in State Planningand Coordinationof Higher Education

What are the current social, political, and eco-nomic trends? What import do they have for thosewho plan for higher education? What are the conse-quences of pursuing certain courses of action asagainst others into an uncertain future? What atti-tudes and stances should we adopt?

Once the facts are known, few will question thevalidity of the first of the xveral major trends Ishall mention. Tllis one relates to the size of thecollege-age population. We know that the youngpeople who may attend college from now until about1990 are already living creatures. We also knowthat the birthrate is now at the lowest point in thenation's history.1 Enrollments as a whole are notlikely to increase after 1977-78, and that for tenor more years thereafter they will inevitably dimin-ish. Allan Cartter stated in a recent paper, "Fewpeople realize that the under age five population in1969 was 12 percent below its 1965 level; when thatage group arrives in college about 1980 it ... will beable to pick and choose among hundreds of insti-tutions suffering from an acute excess capacity."2

Exceptions to the general enrollment trends willoccur within each category of institution, but theexceptions will be much larger than most facultymembers or administrators are willing to believeor face up to. Make no mistake, enrollments willsoon level off. For example, the South Dakotasystem reported enrollment in the state was downtwo percent despite an increase in the number ofcollege-age youth. In Illinois the total enrollment inthe state's colleges and universities dropped onepercent this fall and in the largest institutions, overfive percent. Total enrollment at the University ofCalifornia's nine campuses did not change, although

Dr. Lyman Glenny,Associate Director,

Center for Research and Development in Higher Education,Berkeley

an increase of 4,000 had been predicted.3 Thus,adjusting to slow growth or no growth is and willbe the order of the day.

The second trend may seem less clear to some,but I am quite sure that with the exception of a fewstates, the proportion of the state budget going tohigher education will be no greater in 1980 than itwill be in the next year or so, whether we haveboom times or bad, or Republicans or Democratsin office. Some states are already at this fundingplateau. Others will quickly reach it. If funds in-crease, it will be as a consequence of a generallylarger state income, not because higher educationwas allotted a larger percentage of the state revenue.However "bullish" the economy, there will be insuf-ficient funds to expand the budgets of higher educa-tion at previous rates. Thus, slow growth in stategeneral revenue funding over the long haul is anoptimistic prediction.

This disturbing assumption, that higher educationwill not get a larger proportion of state income, issupported by two other trends. One is the currentdisillusionment of the public and the politicians withhigher education, especially the universities. Al-though my research this past sun.mer in eight keystates tells me that the disaffection which permeatesattitudes and appropriations is likely to be short-lived,' by the time grace and confidence is regained,the politicians will be well aware of the leveling offof enrollments. Given this awareness, support bythe state is not likely to increase greatly, and thenonly in specifically planned areas of expansion.

The other trend which forces less fundinggrowth for higher education is the establishment of

54

a new set of social priorities among which highereducation has dropped from the top of the "top ten"to a much lower position.5 Health care, the commonschools, the environment, and recreation, amongothers, are surfacing as high priority concerns inthe legislature of nearly every state. Unless somenational catastrophe befalls us for which highereducation is believed to be the principal salvation,the colleges and universities will not regain theirfavored position of the 1960s at least not duringthe next 20 years.

The condition of private education will increas-ingly affect the funding levels of the public systems.In more than half the states it does already. Thepleadings of the private segment for state financialaid is gaining ground° not nearly enough to savesome of them financially but enough to reducethe direct level of funding for the public institutions.State scholarship, grant, and loan programs, as wellas direct grants to private institutions, are all fundedin the state budget from that same single totalamount for higher education. If new activities andadditional institutions are to be funded it will beout of the slice of the pie already being cut. Theproportion of the state budget for higher education,no matter who or what it is to cover, will remainabout the same.

Another major trend, almost inevitable over timebecause of financial conditions, is the one towardforcing the student to pay more and more of thetotal costs of his education. With the state revenueshare leveling off, even the public colleges anduniversities have reluctantly raised tuition Thetrend will continue. The many plans being put for-ward for obtaining full cost from the student aregaining support. Although most of these plans seemdead for the moment, the idea of a student eitherpaying full cost as he attends college or paying backthe full cost of his education out of future incomewill take hold. However unfortunate this appears tosome of us, it may be the principal means by whichboth public and private institutions can raise theirlevel of support. In many states even this devicewill not increase the support level of the publicinstitutions because legislators will use income fromstudents as an offset against the state contribution.Most states already appropriate such income, butin the future it may become the means for reducingthe size of the state slice rather than maintainingit, as has been done in the recent past.

Many of us quickly read this trend as denyingequal access and equal opportunity to the lowincome family, of whatever ethnic or racial back-ground. And although financial barriers to collegeentry are known to be less a constraint than moti-vation or pro:timity to an institution, that knowledge


is based on the evidence of the past, when tuitionswere low or even nonexistent. If, as seems destined,the trend continues toward the student paying ahigher proportion of the costs, in the short run themeans for aiding the low income student to attenddo not appear likely to keep pace. To provide suchaid, extraordinary effort on the part of institutionsand the state will be required, including a realloca-tion of existing resources.

The promise of federal aid in substantial amountsto promote higher education (rather than research)has been made for some 15 to 20 years. Suchmoney in anything like the sums desired or antici-pated will probably not materialize certainly notin time to save all the private colleges nor in anamount sufficient to continue the "add-on" methodof conducting public college business. The federalgovernment may not be under the same revenue-generating constraints as the states, but the newsocial problems are also turning the federal prioritiesaway from higher education. At the moment, federalinstitutional aid in large amounts seems a remotepossibility. The White House opposes it, and so doesthe Senate.' To rely on federal aid, therefore, exceptfor what could come through the low income stu-dent, is to lean on a weak reed.

Rise of Proprietary Schools Seen

Still another major trend has been largelyignored by the higher education community. This isthe increasing tendency for those who want trainingin a great variety of skills to attend proprietary andindustrial schools, rather than traditional collegesand universities. The rate of increase in enrollmentin these so-called "peripheral" institutions has beendramatically marked, even though the tuition costsare very high; during the 1960s the enrollments inthese institutions more than tripled, while those inthe traditional institutions merely doubled. The Edu-cational Policy Research Center at Syracuse reportsthat the number of people involved in peripheraleducation exceeds that in all colleges and univer-sities.8 Thus we see a trend for the older studentto pay, and pay rather dearly, for exactly the typeand kind of training he wants, and almost withoutregard to whether or not the more traditional col-leges and universities offer what he may want.

It is apparent from some of this fall's enrollmentfigures that students are assessing some collegeeducation in relation to its high costs in tuition andlost income, and also the job market and thatmany are turning away from the college and theuniversity toward another type of institution, ordropping out to resume their education at a later

55

49


time or by nontraditional means. These new meansthe external degree, the university without walls,

the work-study program, the new emphasis on part-time, enrollment, the video tape cassette and closedcircuit TV, along with a host of other nontraditionalmeans of offering a college education, will have pro-found influence on what is done within the walls ofhigher institutions.

Increasingly, too, we will consider the collegedegree less and less as certification for particularcompetencies; we already do. External agencies maydo much more certifying than in the past, and inaddition to degrees, or even without them, the post-secondary institutions may be certifying particularskills or knowledge packages. The degree itself may-come to mean little as a series of lesser certificatesare awarded to indicate specific capabilities to con-duct certain kinds of occupational tasks. (The Cen-ter for Research and Development in HigherEducation at Berkeley is about to engage in a largeprogram of research to look at the trends andsuccesses in nontraditional higher education.)

All of the trends I have mentioned point directlyto increasing reliance on greater centralization ofplanning, with the major chore resting squarely onstate level policy planners and on the regional organ-izations which may aid in making the most use ofstate resources. For planning purposes the states areincreasingly reliant on a state coordinating boardand, to a lesser degree, on a single state governingboard for the public colleges and universities.

Initially established to review budgets and pre-vent duplication of expensive or esoteric programs,the state coordinating board soon began to be lookedupon as the principal means by which some ordercould be applied to institutional development. Theneed for coordination in the 1960s was clear.Teachers colleges became state colleges and thenuniversities, trying to compete in program offeringsand degree levels with the leading state university.The university in turn became more and moreresearch- and graduate school-oriented, bringing theattendant high costs of these kinds of pursuits.Branch campuses and community colleges prolifer-ated, and competition among institutions for statedollars forced legislators and governors to seek somemeans of settling disputes about resource allocations.

The newest laws usually give the boards powerto review and make recommendations on budgetsboth capital and operating to approve or dis-approve every new degree program, major, depart-ment or center in all public institutions, and to

provide master planning for the further developmentand control of higher education. They may set tuitionlevels, construction standards, admissions standards,enrollment ceilings, and engage in other activities.As the states see additional problems or issuesarising, virtually all boards are given new powersin each legislative session. Those powers will con-tinue to increase as the consequences of the trendspreviously delineated become apparent to the policymakers. Some of us who have researched andstudied state coordination over the years have con-cluded that if the boards are to be effective overtime, they must take a stand between the stategovernment and the institutions, being a captive orfront for neither." This has been an extremely diffi-cult position for most boards and their staffs tomaintain. Some years ago the institutions were likelyto control the boards, but in the last few years, asdollars have become scarcer, the directors and theirboards have moved closer to the governor's office

with unpredictable consequences as political for-tunes fluctuate between parties.

Overall, the constraints applied by coordinatingboards to the institutions can be considerable, andthey will be even more severe in the future as theboards deal more and more with all of postsecondaryeducation, including the proprietary institutions, uni-versities without walls, and the private colleges anduniversities. All educational resources will increas-ingly come under the state boards' surveillance.With level funding, level and then diminishing enroll-ments, and state aid to private colleges, state plan-ning boards will determine the future size andprogram of most institutions. Having said this, letme also read in one very important caveat aboutwhich state agency will be doing the planning.If the state board fails to achieve all of the objec-tives which the state government thinks desirable,then the state budget office of the governor will dothe principal coordinating. Experience also indicatesthat as the governor's office becomet; far morepowerful than the legislature, the legislawre sets upits own budget review agency and review procedures.Thus, in some states today a college may have asmany as three full bl:dget reviews before the legis-lative committees hold their first hearings andthere may be as many as four hearings. Greaterstate intervention and less institutional autonomy isa trend which will accelerate, despite recommenda-tions for decentralization in the recent Newmanreport and also by the Carnegie Commission."

What will be needed, as it is in any time offinancial constraint, is far more planning than hasbeen done in the recent past, to utilize availableresources with greater effectiveness. This responsi-bility will continue to fall primarily on state govern-ments and on the institutions.

.,

NOTES

1. San Francisco Chronicle, October 19, 1971, reportingBen J. Wattenberg on data from the National Centerfor Health Statistics, Washington, D.C.

2. Allan Cartter, "Graduate Education in a Decade ofRadical Change," The Research Reporter, Center forResearch and Development in Higher Education, Uni-versity of California, Berkeley, 1971, VI (1), 5-6.

3. University of California, University Bulletin, Novem-ber 1, 1971, 20 (8).

4. Research on state relationships to universities and col-leges, sponsored by the Center for Research and Devel-opment in Higher Education, University of California,Berkeley.

S. Jerome Evans, "View from a State Capitol," Change,September 1971, 3 (5), 40 ff.

6. Joseph Boyd, "1971-72 Undergraduate ComprehensiveState Scholarship/Grant Programs," Illinbis State Schol-arship Commission, 1971, mimeographed.

7. Chronicle of Higher Education, November 15, 1971,VI (8), 3.

8. Stanley Moses, "Notes on the Learning Force," in Noteson ihe Future of Education, February 1970, 1 (2), 7,Syracuse University.

9. See Robert Berdahl, State Coordination of Higher Edu-cation, American Council on Education, 1970, andLyman A. Glenny, et al., Coordinating Higher Educa-tion for the '70s, Center for Research and Developmentin Higher Education, Berkeley, 1971.

10. Frank Newman et al., Report on Higher Education,Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S.Government Printing Office, 1971 and alsb The Carne-gie Commission on Higher Education, New Studentsand New Places, McGraw-Hill Book Company, NewYork, 1971.


51


Allocating State Funds forSupport of Higher Education

Dr. E. T. Dunlap,

Chancellor,Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education

It is a pleasure to participate in this SeventhLegislative Work Conference. Although Oklahomais not a member of the Western Interstate Commis-sion for Higher Education, higher education in ourstate has benefited greatly from the excellent workof this regional compact agency.

Since public education is a responsibility of thestate and since the problems which exist in thedevelopment of higher education are rather com-mon, it is good business that decision makers gettogether and share their problems, experiences, andideas on how we may best proceed in the attemptto find solutions.

One of the greatest problems and perhaps themost practical one is that of providing adequatebudgetary resources for the development of highereducation. A second major consideration is theachievement of equity in the allocation of funds byinstitutional type and among institutions of like type.A third is to provide needed flexibility in the budget-ing of resources, a fourth is to promote efficiencyin the use of those resources, and a fifth is to assurethe public of our accountability through properaccounting and reporting procedures. This list isnot intended to be exhaustive, but rather is sugges-tive of the kinds of considerations which shouldun,derlie a proper conceptual framework for theallocation of resources.

Offhand, I do not know of any state which hasa perfect system for allocating higher educationfunds, nor one which is satisfied with the systembeing used. I suspect that you will find as manysolutions to this problem as you have states wrestlingwith the problems and as you have institutions andother agencies of higher education within statesentitled to share in the funds available. There are,as you know, various approaches in use, rangingfrom simple line-item procedures to formula ap-proaches using complicated mathematical techniques.

However, I am not here to review the literature orenumerate the approaches used in the variousstates, but to describe the manner in which weattempt to do this job in Oklahoma.

Oklahoma has a State System of Higher Educa-tion composed of all colleges and universities andother constituent agencies of higher education sup-ported wholly or in part with state legislative appro-priations. This includes two state universities, sixstate colleges operating programs through the mas-ter's level; four senior colleges operating programsthrough the baccalaureate level, eight two-ye..ir statecolleges, six community junior colleges, and sevenother constituent agencies (Medical Center, Geologi-cal Survey, College of Veterinary Medicine, Agri-cultural Experiment Station, Agricultural ExtensionDivision, OSU-Okmulgee Tech, and OSU-OklahomaCity Tech), making for a total of 33 fiscal units ofthe state system.

The state system was created by amendment tothe Constitution adopted in 1941. This constitutionalchange also provided for a coordinating board com-posed of nine lay citizens appointed by the governorand confirmed by the state senate who serve nine-year overlapping terms, and when appointed andconfirmed cannot be removed from office except forcause. This board has constitutional responsibilitiesto coordinate public higher education in the statewith respect to planning and development, particu-larly in the areas of functions and educationalprograms of institutions, standards of education,granting of degrees, and allocation of budgetaryresources, both for educational and general oper-ating budgets and for capital improvements.

1 The state regents make studies of the budgetneeds of institutions and submit recommendationsdirectly to the state legislature accordingly. Thelegislature appropriates in consolidated form to thestate regents for the state system without reference

to any particular institution, and the regents subse-quently allocate to each institution ". . . accordingto its needs and functions." The allocation is madein lump sum to each institution, and the administra-tive leadership and governing board of the institu-tion program the sum of money for expenditureusing a uniform budget format design consistentwith principles of the national manual, College andUniversity Busines7 Administration, published inrevised form by the American Council on Educationin 1968. The budget as proposed for expenditure isthen reviewed by the state regents for consistencywith the state system budget recommendation sub-mitted previously to the state legislature document-ing the money needs for the fiscal year of the varioussegments of Oklahoma higher education.

Now, I should like to briefly describe for youthe manner in which the state regents go about thepreparation of a recommendation to the state legis-lature on the funds needed by the Oklahoma StateSystem of Higher Education for a given fiscal year.My remarks shall be limited to the educationaland general operating budget needs and, conse-quently, will not include recommendations for fundsfor capital improvements. A "formula" approach isused; and the principles, criteria, and proceduresare briefly described as follows:

Basic Factors of ConsiderationBudget needs are determined for each institution

and other constituent agency of the state systemindividually. The composite of these budgets makesup the total budget proposal of the state regentssubmitted to the state legislature. The first factorfor consideration is the function and educationalprograms of institutions, and the second basic factor

'for consideration is the number of students who areexpected to participate in the educational programs.A third factor for consideration is the number ofacademic personnel needed to teach, advise, counsel,and supervise students while on the campus. Regularinstitutions are categorized into fou groups: univer-sities, master's degree level institutions, bachelor'sdegree level institutions, and associate degree levelinstitutions. Six community junior colleges comprisea special category. Also included are specializedconstituent agencies of the system the MedicalCenter, Geological Survey, College of VeterinaryMedicine, Agrieu:tural Experiment Station, Agri-cultural Extension Division, OSU-Okmulgee Tech-nical Institute, and OSU-Oklahoma City TechnicalInstitute each performing a unique function assuggested in its title and requiring a separate formulaapproach in arriving at their budget needs.

Student Enrollment (Full-Time Equivalent)The full-time equivalent student enrollment for

each institution is projected for the fiscal year forwhich the operating budget needs are being defined.


The number of semester credit hours in which allundergraduate students are expected to enroll is

divided by 30 to derive the FTE undergraduateenrollment projected for the fiscal year (summerterm, fall semester, spring semester); the totalsemester hours in which graduate students are ex-pected to enroll is divided by 24 to get the FTEcount for the fiscal year. The sum of the two figuresconstitutes the FTE enrollment projected for theinstitution for the year for which the budget needsare being defined.

Number of Faculty NeededThe number of full-time equivalent faculty posi-

tions needed for lower-division instruction at allinstitutions is computed by dividing the FTE enroll-ment projected by a factor of 28; the number forthe upper-division instruction is determined by divid-ing the FTE enrollment by a factor of 20; and thenumber needed for graduate level instruction at theuniversities (through doctoral level programs) iscomputed by dividing the FTE by a factor of 8and for graduate education at the state colleges(through the master's degree level) by dividing bya factor of 12. The sum of the three levels of FTEfaculty positions constitutes the total number offaculty positions required for the institution.

Faculty SalariesOn the assumption that Oklahoma desires quality

in college teaching, at least on a par with neighbor-ing states, and quality that would approach at leastthe average in all American higher education, itfollows that to obtain the services of teachers whosecompetency measures up to this standard of expectedperformance, our colleges and universities mustcompensate for teaching services with salaries whichwill equal those paid in the region and will approachthe average paid in the nation in like-type institu-tions. Through continuing studies at the regionaland national levels, information is obtained forestablishing these standards.

Budget Division According to Eight FunctionsThe budget is organized into eight basic func-

tions: (1) resident instruction, (2) organized activi-ties related to instruction, (3) general administration,(4) general expense, (5) organized research, (6)extension and public service, (7) library, and(8) operation and maintenance of physical plant.The amount determined as needed for resident in-struction is computed by multiplying the total num-ber of full-time equivalent faculty teaching positionsby the average annual salary (9-10 months) whichhas been established as the standard for the ensuingyear, and to the sum is added 33 percent for otherinstructional expense. The total represents the 53


0

54

amount required for resident instruction and thisbecomes the budget base. Certain percentage factorsare then applied to the budget base to determinethe amount required for the other seven functionsof the budget. (These factors are determined on thebasis of experience of institutions in the expenditureof budget funds as classified by the eight functions.)The sum of the amounts determined for the eightbasic budget functions then becomes the total edu-cational and general budget statement for theinstitution.

Income for the BudgetAn estimate is made of the amount of educa-

tional and general budget income expected to becollected at each institution and agency from studentfees, sales and services of educational departments,and from other miscellaneous sources (commonlycalled the revolving fund). The total amount esti-mated is subtracted from the amount of the totalinstitutional budget requirement. The differencebecomes the amount required in state-appropriatedfunds to fund fully the budget as proposed. The totalof the amount of budget funds required at eachinstitution and other constituent budget agencies ofthe state system equals the educational and generalbudget needs as proposed by the state regents forconsideration by the state legislature.

Institutional Budget HearingsAn important element in the state regents' pro-

cedure to identify budget needs of the various insti-tutions is the series of meetings with institutionaladministrators to obtain their views and recommen-dations regarding the budget needs of their respectiveinstitutions. These budget hearings are held on ascheduled basis by the state regents in late summerand early fall of the year preceding the conveningof the legislature in January.

Communication of NeedsThe state regents as the coordinating board of

the Oklahoma State System of Higher EducationHas the responsibility of communicating the budgetneeds to the Oklahoma State Legislature and isresponsible to follow up and furnish additionalinformation as may be required by legislative com-mittees in the process of consideration of the budgetas proposed. Institutional administrators may beinvolved by providing further supporting informationand back-up for the chancellor and state regents atlegislative budget hearings. After the legislativeconsiderations are completed and a decision hasbeen made as to the amount of funds to be availableto the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education,the legislature must make its appropriation pursuantto the state constitution, to the state regents in lump

sum for the state system. Subsequently, the stateregents allocate the funds to each institution "accord-ing to its needs and functions." Its needs andfunctions will have been reflected in the budgetproposal previously submitted to the legislature.

In the event the legislature is unable to appro-priate all of the funds requested, which is usuallythe case, the state regents then allocate in propor-tionate manner to all institutions and other budgetagencies of the state system, the funds which weremade available. Also, as previously mentioned, thestate regents allocate to each institution a lumpsum of funds from the consolidated appropriationmade by the legislature and an allocation is madeagainst the estimated amount of revolving fundrevenue to be collected at the campus level. Thesum of these two funds then constitutes the amountof budget funds available to the institution for theyear. The institution then structures the proposedexpenditure of the lump sum allocation using abudget format provided by the state regents andsubmits the proposed program of budget expendi-tures to the state regents for approval. Subsequently,a copy of the approved budget is filed with the statebudget director who acts as the master bookkeeperat the state level for the institution's administrationof the budget.

At the end of the fiscal year, each institutionmakes a financial report to the state regents onexpenditure of the budget. Also, monthly reports aremade by the state budget director reporting expendi-tures both to the state regents and the institution.This serves as follow-up check as to the expenditureof budget funds in accordance with the variousfunctions of the budget for which funds wereallocated.

Research and study regarding budget needs ofinstitutions is a continuous matter. This includesinformation from institutions in the state as well ascomparable information from institutions of liketype in the region. Also, national data are used, tothe extent to which valid information is available.Standards with respect to average faculty salaries,student-faculty ratios, student fees and tuition, state-appropriated funds, methods for computing full-time equivalent enrollments, comparisons of perFTE student amounts, and the like are determinedfrom results of annual studies made of institutionsin a 19-state region. This information is gathereddirectly from each institution with about 165 par-ticipating. The region includes, in addition to Okla-homa, the states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Mis-souri, Arkansas, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, andArizona. We have maintained wholesome rapportwith these institutions over a period of about nineyears. Results of regional studies relating to budget-ary matters are shared with all participatinginstitutions.

60

...c0J11442i1.23=CIZI.V..4.....*NMTH......... V. 4.k.

'

Dr. Donald F. Kline,Executive Director of Higher Education,State Board of Higher Education, Idaho


Determining

Institutional Objectives

In any discussion of the establishment of insti-tutional objectives, how those objectives are to beaccomplished, and by whom they are assigned,several factors must be taken into consideration.

First, let's take a look at the historical basis forthe existing role and mission of higher education.Second, let us consider how the several constitu-encies currently involved in decision making cameinto being. And then I want to talk about a fewguidelines and venture a glimpse into the future.

As you already know, higher education in thiscountry claims three broad functions. These areteaching, research, and service. However, thesebroad purposes of higher education did not springfull blown into existence with the opening of Har-vard in 1636. The historical fact is that all educationin this country existed for many years for the solepurpose of transmitting knowledge or what we havecome to simply refer to ac "teaching." The recordsavailable on the founding of Harvard College, theinformation related to the founding of the freeschools of Dedham and Roxburie, the Massachusettslaws of 1634 and 1638 clearly show that the majorpurpose of education was primarily to transmitknowledge.

A most vivid example of that viewpoint is foundin the famous act often spoken of as "the olddeluder, Satan, Act," enacted on November 11, 1647,wherein the only reason stated was to keep theknowledge of the scriptures from being buried in thegraves of our ancestors. It seems logical to conclude,therefore, that the chief purpose of education at anylevel was that of teaching.

Winged Seeds of Darwinism

It was the middle of the nineteenth centurybefore institutions of higher education began toengage systematically in seeking new knowledge.It was not until the winged seeds of Darwinismbegan to blow across the fertile soil of higher educa-tion that scholars in theology and biology began toquestion the Biblical account of the origins of manand the geologists began to question that of theorigin of the earth itself.

By the time the Civil War was underway thesecond function of the university was beginning tobe established; namely, to engage in seeking newknowledge, i.e., research.

The research role of higher education was givensanction by the federal Congress with the passageof the Morrill Act of 1862. Moreover, the Congressestablished the third basic mission of higher educa-tion by expressing the desire that the intellectually-based expertise in higher education be used to solveproblems being brought about by a rapidly expand-ing agricultural and industrial society. Thus, the ideathat a college or university should engage in serviceor the application of knowledge to the solution ofsocietal problems was established.

Having looked most briefly at the origins of thebroad general mission of higher education in Amer-ica, let us now look at who was involved in estab-lishing these functions.

From the very beginning of American highereducation until the Civil War two identifiable groupswere clearly the major decision makers. Roughly,

61

55

5


these groups mir;ht be identified as (1) the legis-lative bodies and (2) the governing boards (trans-lators of the deAres of the general public) andfaculties. (It must be understood that the facultyalso included what we now consider the adminis-tration since the president was and, in many cases,still is the chairman of the faculty in colleges anduniversities.)

Two New Voices

Students as an identifiable group were not in-volved except as they were a part of the generalpublic. Certainly, the group we now identify asthe coordinating or governing statewide council orboard was not involved. The involvement of thesetwo groups did not come until sometime later. And,their appearance on the scene resulted from severalphenomena occurring since the beginning of thetwentieth century.

By the early 1900s the immediate governanceof the college and university by the faculty wasbecorning well established and being well nourishedin the fertile soil of academic freedom.

While the immediate governance of higher edu-cation was left to the faculty, the general governancestill remained in the hands of the regents or trustees

and, of course, the legislature. This pattern con-tinued in the earliest part of the 1900s, but severalphenomena occurring somewhat simultaneouslyprompted significant changes during the first halfof this century.

Within the first 30 years of the century, enroll-ments in higher education quadrupled as the Amer-ican people recognized the social, economic, andcultural advantages of a college education. Duringthe second three decades enrollments tripled; andin the last decade alone (1960-1970) enrollmentsin American colleges and universities doubled.

Original Function Enlarged Upon

Simultaneously, as a result of applying newknowledge to the solution of technical problems,the industrial base of the nation was expanding.The ability to communicate with one another moreeffectively over longer and longer distances broughtthe nation closer together in a physical sense result-ing in greater federal concern for all of society.The demands placed on the land grant college oruniversity as a result of the expanding agriculturalenterprise also caused competition for institutionalresources. World Wars I and II and our concern fornational security and scientific supremacy immedi-ately following World War II brought about even

greater competition for institutional resources. Bothpure research (seeking of new knowledge) andapplied research (the application of new knowledgeto the solution of societal problems) forced theoriginal function of higher education more and moreinto the background. And this competition came atthe same time that significant numbers of studentswere seeking the benefits which a college educationcan afford.

This combination of circumstances promptedthe states to increase expenditures for higher edu.n-don one hundred fold between 1910 and 1964.Public expenditures for higher education went from$21 million to $2.1 billion during this 50-yearperiod. As we used the limited manpower to pressforward into the space age, we found ourselvestrying to accommodate a tidal wave of students.Moreover, students remained longer and longer inthe institutions seeking advanced degrees. Studentsbecame more mature both chronologically and intel-lectually and to some extent were, and are, seekingsituations more like those in French and Germaninstitutions, where a student can "drop in" and"read" with a specific professor or even studyindependently.

In the view of many, and in my view, a combi-nation of this competition for resources within theinstitution and of the attitudes of students reflectingmore mature desires accounts in large measure forstudents' demands that they be given a greater voicein the management of the institutions. And as regret-table as it is that these demands took the form ofdemonstration and riot during their early days, Ibelieve we are safe in predicting that the very rapidmaturity of students today foretells a time whentheir demands will be listened to within the mecha-nisms of representative government. There is somereason to believe that we have already reached thattime.

Recognizing this competition for resources andin an attempt to help solve identified national goals,the federal government began to inject itself moreand more into the higher education environment.On the one hand the federal government increasedthe burden of the institutions by providing financialassistance to the G.I., to the educationally andeconomically disadvantaged, and to students in edu-cation, health, and the physical sciences. Theyincreased the burdens and, to some extent, involvedthemselves in curricular matters by providing cate-gorical aid for mathematics, science, modern foreignlanguages, guidance and counseling, health andallied health fields, and certain of the social sciences.These categorical aids tO higher education promptedmost institutions to compete for lunds and developcapabilities which they might not otherwise havecontemplated. Thus, competition and undesirable

I.

duplication developed to the great discomfort oflegislators involved in the allocation of the state'savailable revenue to all functions of state govern-ment. Worse, legislators were caught up in thepolitical abrasions that resulted from trying to allo-cate the education dollars available between andamong highly competitive institutions with politicallystrong constituencies.

Because of this competition and because thefederal legislation directed the establishment of stateagencs to allocate federal dollars in some pro-grams, the state coordinating councils and stategoverning boards have come into the picture.

By the time we entered the 1970s the groupsinvolved in determining the role and objectives ofinstitutions of higher education had been identified.The more immediate, if not the most important,question is, "What is the most appropriate role ofthe faculty and the administration, the students, thetrustees and/or regents, the statewide coordinatingcouncil or governing board, and the legislature?"

Appropriate Role Noted

At least some suggestions have already beenprovided in The Carnegie Commission Report ofApril 1971 to which I have already alluded. Forpurposes of this discussion I have abstracted themand submit them as appropriate roles for coordi-nating and/or government agencies regardless ofthe form they may take in the several states.

The state coordinating and/or governing agencyshould work toward:

Avoiding wasteful duplication in programs andharmful competition for resources

Effective allocation and use of new resourcesIncreasing and providing measures of educa-

tional qualityInsuring adequate access to postsecondary

education for all citizensProviding greater articulation between and

among the various elements within postsecondaryeducation both traditional academic programsand programs identified as vocational-technical

Fostering understanding of common goalsamong the several elements of postsecondary edu-cation

Protecting the institutions, when necessary,from undue legislative, executive, or public inter-ference in clearly educational enterprise or function.

Input from Legislative and Executive Branches

The legislative and executive branches of govern-ment also play important roles in determining the


goals and objectives of higher education. More andmore states are beginning to think in terms of astate system of higher education rather than in termsof individual institutions. In my opinion this is notonly good, it is an absolute requirement if we areto accommodate zteady increases in enrollments,apply the resources of the institutions to the solutionof new societal problems, and continue to seek newknowledge. The most appropriate role of the legis-lative and executive branches of government, there-fore, appears to be to:

Review the funding levels of their coordinatingand/or governing agencies to insure adequate andhighly qualified staff capable of carrying out notonly their legal requirements but also capable ofdealing effectively with the sensitive and complextasks of personal relations

Determine the extent to which the state canafford quality education for its citizens and appro-priate, with minimum restrictions, such funds ascan be made available. (The Carnegie Commissionrecommends that a state appropriating less than 0.6percent of per capita personal income take immedi-ate steps to increase their financial support forhigher education.)

Appropriate sufficient funds to insure univer-sal access to postsecondary education related to theneeds and qualifications of each citizen

Insist on equality of educational opportunityEncourage diversity and foster a broad range

of academic, technical, professional, and vocationaloptions

Provide, through its central coordinating and/or governing agency, incentives for desirable inno-vation

Examine the balance between tuition and feesfor instruction and the amount of support to comefrom public sources

Insist that the state continue to exercise majorresponsibility as opposed to federal responsibility

for maintaining, improving, and expanding sys-tems of postsecondary education. (It is assumed thatlocal government, i.e., community colleges and pri-vate institutions located within a state are a partof the state's system.)

Perhaps the most significant deterent to changesin existing systems or even within individual insti-tutions is the reluctance of the faculty to adaptrapidly to changing needs. The need for easy entryand re-entry into higher education, the need toextend the boundaries of the campus to a broadergeographic area, the need to recognize the differencebetween "scholarship" and "education and/or train- 57


ing" (especially as education and training can becarried out in an off-campus or "extension" setting),and the urgent need to strike a balance betweenteaching, research, and service constitute ways inwhich the faculty can play its most appropriate role.

Both Academic Freedom and Responsibility Required

Additionally, universities and colleges must beassured the essential elements of academic freedom,and they must accept the responsibility that accom-panies these freedoms. All groups involved in decid-ing on which role, mission, or objective seemsappropriate for an individual institution within astate's system must recognize that the autonomyand integrity of any educational institution is deeplyrooted in the following:

Freedom of speech, assembly, and other basicfreedoms essential to the educational prOcess

Determination of courses of instruction andcontent of courses

Selection of and complete autonomy in theconduct of individual research and freedom to pub-lish and otherwise disseminate findings, i.e., freedomof inquiry

Selection, when a state's constitutional pro-scription does not prohibit selection, or at leastselective retention of students

Awarding of individual degrees or other recog-nition of work accomplished

Furthering Student Participation

Student participation in determining the role andobjectives of an institution, as I see it, can be carriedforward by:

Recognizing that changes can best be madewhile working within established patterns of gov-ernance

By continuing to work and serve with thefaculty committees and councils to secure change

Stressing felt needs for access to programs thatnot only meet the state, regional, and national man-

power needs but also meet the individual emotionaland intellectual needs of more mature individualswhich students are increasingly becoming

Insisting that mechanisms be found to insure(without resorting to violence) that the voice of thestudent shall be heard

Understanding that decisions may not be iden-tical to positions advocated by any single segmentof the enterprise

These guidelines abstracted, in part, from theCarnegie Report are not intended to be all inclusive.They aie intended solely to provoke discussion.

Finally, permit me to glance quickly into thefuture. Any review of the past shows that highereducation in this country has accommodated thetidal wave of students without significant loss ofquality, even though there were many who said itcould not be done. The search for new knowledgehas permitted this nation to gain world leadershipin almost every sphere of human endeavor. Theapplication of that knowledge has brought about arelatively high standard of living for most al-though not all of us.

To assume that we can now retrench, cut back,limit, or defer our continued support of highereducation is to assume that we are willing to sinkto low levels of accomplishment and thence to asecond-class status among the nations of the world.

And it is most important mat we do not sub-scribe to the idea that our greatest task is theproduction of technologists who can "fit" a job slot.We must continue to educate our citizens so theyrecognize the significance of what they do. Eachcitizen must be truly educated in addition to beingwell trained, whether he is a scientist, diplomat,prize fighter, or plumber. To do less is to foretellthe ultimate collapse of representative government.To do less is to subscribe to that school of determin-ism that holds that every human action is fore-ordained by actions which Lave already taken place.Hopefully, for those of us who still cling to thebelief that man's will is essentially free, highereducation will continue to receive high levels ofsupport so that we may move forward rather thanregress.

Conference Wind-up

In the final session of WICHE's 7th biennialLegislative Work Conference, six speakers reportedto the entire group on the contents of papers pre.-sented during the conference segment on "Issues inHigher Education." Those six speakers are picturedbelow.

The HonorableStafford Hansel!

State RepresentativeOregon

The HonorableHarold Giss

State SenatorArizona

Dr. William McConnell The HonorableDirector Jerry Apodaca

New Mexico Board of Slate Senator ,

Educational Finance New MexicoA

The HonorableGenie Chance

State RepresentativeAlaska

The HonorablePatricia Saiki

State RepresentativeHawaii

65

Participants

60

WESTERN INTERSTATE COMMISSION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

LEGISLATIVE WORK CONFERENCE ONHIGHER EDUCATiON IN THE WEST

December 12-14, 1971 Phoenix, Arizona

ALASKABRADNER, Mike Representative, FairbanksCHANCE, Genie Representative, Anchorage.ELLIOTT, John Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency,

JuneauFERGUSON, Dr. Charles 0. Dean, Statewide Services,

University of AlaskaGUTHRIE, Richard Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Affairs Agency,

JuneauMERDES, Edward Senator, FairbanksPRUHS, Delia WICHE Commissioner, FairbanksWOOD, Dr. William R.President, University of Alaska;

WICHE Commissioner

ARIZONABETZ, Dr. Matthew J.Associate Dean of Graduate College,

Arizona State UniversityFLAKE, Sam Representative, ScottsdaleGABLE, Dr. William R. Executive Coordinating Officer,

Arizona Board of Regents, PhoenixGISS, Harold C. Senator, Y., naHARVILL, Dr. Richard A. President Emeritus, University of Arizona,

Professor of Economics, University of Arizona;WICHE Commissioner

HOLLER, Dr. Ronald = Arizona State Hospital, PhoenixKRET, David B.Senator, ScottsdaleLAWLESS, Robert Staff Director, Joint Budget Committee, PhoenixLITT, B. K., D.D.S.TucsonMETCALF, Alonzo Vice-President of Administration,

Arizona State UniversityMURPHY, Dr. Juanita Dean, College of Nursing,

Arizona State UniversityREED, Raymond, D.V.M. Department of Animal Pathology,

Unitersity of ArizonaROSENBAUM, Polly Representative, GlobeSHOFSTALL, Dr. Weldon P. (Representing Governor Williams),

Superintendent of Public Instruction

CALIFORNIABEACH, Edwin W.Chief, Division of Budgets, SacramentoBEE, CarlosAssemblyman, HaywardCAIN, Dr. Leo President, California State College at DominguezCAMPBELL, Dr. Rita R. (Representing Governor Reagan),

Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University;WICHE Commissioner

DUMKE, Dr. Glenn S.Chancellor, California State College System;WICHE Commissioner, Los Angeles

FARMER, James Director, Division of Information Systems,The California State College System, Los Angeles

GLENNY, Dr. Lyman A.Associate Director, Center for Researchand Development in Higher Education, Berkeley

HENLEY, Dr. W. Ballentine President of the Board of Trustees,United Church of Religious Science; WICHE Commissioner,Los Angeles

HODGKINSON, Dr. Harold L. Research Educator, Center forResearch and Development in Higher Education, Berkeley

McGUI1E, Dr. Joseph W. Vice-PresidentPlanning,University of CaSfornia

NELSON, Dr. Fred A.Assistant Director, College EntranceExamination Board, Palo Alto

POST, Alan Legislative Analyst, Sacramento

COLORADO

BAIN, Jean K.Representative, DenverCHAMBERLAIN, Dr. A. RayPresident, Colorado State UniversityCHARNES, Alan Staff Director, Joint Budget Committee, DenverFRIEDMAN, Don Representative, DenverHENSLEY, Dr. Gene Coordinator, Handicapped Children's Education

Program, Education Commission of the States, DenverKYLE, Lyle Director, Legislative Council, DenverLOWRY, Hope, M.D.Associate Dean for Admissions,

University of Colorado School of MedicineMILLER, Laura Representative, LittletonMORGAN, Dr. William E. President Emeritus, Colorado State

University; WICHE CommissionerSELLENS, C. GalePresident, Lakeside National Bank;

WICHE Commissioner, Wheat RidgeTHOMAS, Charles R. Executive Director, College and University

System; Exchange, Boulder

HAWAIIBROWN, Dr. Stuart W. Vice-President for Academic Affairs,

University of Hawaii SystemCONNELL, John B. WICHE Commissioner, KailuaGOTO, George, M.D.WICHE Commissioner, Honole.inHAEHNLEN, Dr. Frederick P., Jr.Professor of Edut.otional

Psychology, University of Hawaii; WICHE CommissionerKELLER, John E. Consultant to the Director, Department of

Budget and Finance, HonoluluKISHINAMI, Tatsuaki Representatife, Pearl CityMILLS, George, M.D.Senator, HonoluluSAIKI, Patricia Representative, HonoluluTANIMURA, Clbton Legislative Auditor, HonoluluUEKI, Nik K.Chief, Budget Planning and Management Division,

HonoluluWONG, Francis A.Senator, Honolulu

IDAHOBARNES, Dr. John B. Presidvt, Boise State College;

WICHE CommissionerCARTER, Sherman Financial Vice-President, University of IdahoDAVIS, Dr. William E.President, Idaho State University;

WICHE CommissionerHEDLUND, Emery E. Representative, St. MarksHIGH, Richard S.Senator, Twin FallsJONES, Martha D., M.D. WICHE Commissioner, BoiseKLINE, Dr. Donald F. Executive Director of Higher Education,

State Board of Education, Boise

66

McDEVITT, Herman Senator, PocatelloPALMER, Jenkin Representative, Ma ladSWARTLEY, John, M.D. Stara Board of Education, BoiseWALTERS, Alice Representing Governor Andrus

MONTANABERTSCHE, William Senator, Great FallsBOWMAN, Warren D., M.D. WICHE Commissioner, BillingsHIMSL, Matt Representative, KalispellJOHNS, Benjamin Budget Director, HelenaMcINTOSH, Dr. Carl W. President, Montana State UniversityNELSON, Edward W. Executive Secretary, The Montana University

System; WICHE Commissioner, HelenaROSEL, AntoinetteSenator, BillingsROSS, Herman C., D.V.M. WICHE Commissionei, KalispellSAXBY, Doyle B. Controller, Department of Administration, HelenaSCHWINDEN, Ted (Representing Governor Anderson),

Commissioner, Department of State Lands

NEVADADODGE, Carl F. Senator, FallonGIBSON, JamesSenator, HendersonSTEWART, Bob (Representing Governor O'Callaghan),

Administrative Assistant to the Governor, Press SecretaryTUCKER, Dr. Thomas T.Chairman, Department of School

Administration and Supervision, College of Education,University of Nevada; WICHE Commissioner

WHITE, Dr. Juanita Assemb:yman; WICHE Commissioner,Boulder City

NEW MEXICOAPODACA, Jerry --Senator, Las CrucesKIRK, Carter WICHE Commissioner, DemingLUNA, Fred Representative, Los LunasMALRY, Lenton Representative, AlbuquerqueMcCONNELL, Dr. William R. Executive Secretary, New Mexico

Boaru of Educational Finance, Santa FeO'DONNELL, William Representative, Las CrucesTAFOYA, Clory B. Principal, Valencia Elementary School;

WICHE Commissioner, Las LunosTRAVELSTEAD, ChesterAcademic Vice-President,

University of New MexicoWAID, Elwood Assistant to the Academic Vice-President,

New Mexico State University

OREGONBROWNE, Llizabeth Senator, OakridgeBURKE, Richard Legislative Analyst, SalemBURNS, John Senator, PortlandCARSON, Wallace, Jr. Senator, SalemDAVIS, Bob (Representing Governor McCall), Assistant

to the GovernorGOULD, Floyd Legislative Fiscal Officer, SalemMANSELL, Stafford Representative, HermistonLANG, Philip D.Representative, PortlandLIEUALLEN, Dr. Roy E.Chancellor, Oregon State System of

Higher Education; WICHE Commissioner, EugeneNEWBRY, Lynn W.Senator; WICHE Commissioner, AshlandSCALES, Edna WICHE Commissioner, PortlandSEXSON, James Budget Analyst, Executive Department, SalemSMITH, Robert Administrator, Budget Division, SalemSTEARNS, Dr. Floyd Executive Director, Educational

Coordinating Council, Salem

UTAHANDERSEN, Dr. Jerry Academic Vice-President, University of UtahBROCKBANK, HughesSenator, Salt Lake CityBULLEN, Reed Senator, Logan

CUMMINS, John Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lal.e CityDEAN, Ernest H. Senator, American ForkDIXON, Dr. John A. Executive Vice-President, University of UtahDURHAM, Dr. G. Homer,Commissioner, State Board of Higher

Education; WICHE Commissioner, Salt Lake CityGRUNDFOSSEN, Peter Representative, Salt Lake CityHALVERSON, Ronald Representative, OgdenHUNT, Heber T. Senior Legislative Analyst, Salt Lake CityJENKINS, Meleill Senator, OgdenLEAVITT, Dime Senator, Cedar CityMAUGHAN, Richard J. Member, State Board of Higher Education;

WICHE Commissioner, Salt Lake CityROBERTSON, Leon Budget Director, University of UtahSWENSON, Dr. Richard Vice-Provost, Utah State UniversityVAN ALSTYNE, Arvo Professor, School of Law, University of Utah

WASHINGTONBRICKER, J. Arnold Executive Secretary, Joint Committee

on Higher Education, OlympiaCHARNLEY, Donn Representative, SeattleFOLEY, Frank W. Senator, VancouverFURMAN, James Executive Coordinator, Council on Higher

Education; WICHE Commissioner, OlympiaGLADDER, Carlton Representative, SpokaneGOLDSWORTHY, Robert Representative, RosaliaHICKEY, Maurice J., D.M.D., M.D. Dean, School of Dentistry,

University of WashingtonHOWE, Walter C., Jr. Director, Office of Program Planning

and Fisccl Management, OlympiaHUNTLEY, Elmer,Senator, ThorntonKOPET, Jerry C. Representative, SpokanePHILLIPS, John D. Acting Associate Regional Commissioner

for Higher Education, SeattleRABEL, John Representative, SeattleTERRELL, Dr. Glenn President, Washington State University;

WICHE Commissioner

WYOMINGBARRETT, Francis A., M.D. WICHE Commissioner, CheyenneBUCK, Arthur L.Representative, CheyenneGALEOTOS, Lee Director, Department of Administration

and Fiscal Control, CheyenneGROUTAGE, Jack W. Executive Secretary, Wyoming Higher

Education Council, CheyenneHELLBAUM, Harold Representative, ChugwaterHORN, Vincent J., Jr. (Representing Governor Hathaway),

Administrative Assistant to the GovernorJONES, Richard R.Senator; WICHE Commissioner, CodyMULVANEY, Peter J. Representative, CheyenneMYERS, Ward G.Representative, LovellNORTHRUP, Donald Senator, PowellSPICER, Eldon Chairman, Coordinating Council, Deportment

of Education, CheyenneSTAFFORD, L. V.Senator, BuffaloTOBIN, Dick Senator, Casper

OTHER STATESCROSS, Christopher Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislation-

Education, Office of the Secretary, Washington, D.C.DUNLAP, Dr. E. T.Chancellor, Oklahoma State Regents for

Higher Education, Oklahoma CityVADALA, Julia Special Assistant for External Affairs, Office of

the Secretary, HEW, Washington, D.C.WILKINS, John A.Assistant Director, University of Michigan

Extension Service, Ann Arbor

0113600000045000:8M:372:GD:Hirsch:1D11

DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · 2013-11-15 · DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 065 038. HE 003 167. AUTHOR. Kroepsch,...

Documents

Transcript of DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · 2013-11-15 · DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 065 038. HE 003 167. AUTHOR. Kroepsch,...