Monday, November 9, 2015

Higher Education IS a PUBLIC GOOD

Any discussion about the role and mission of higher education for the state and nation, has to begin with restoration of public support for higher education as a public good.   Constitutionally, public education is a state responsibility. Historically we have not focused on higher education as part of that mandate. It has been treated as an optional add-on for “some people.” It is no longer an option. In the 1990s President Clinton argued that a two-year college degree was the new minimum. President Obama has called for “free” community college. (We can debate the free term elsewhere.) The noted economists Goldwin and Katz (2008) have shown that, in large part, the reason the 20th century was the “American Century” was due to policies that increased education attainment. Early in that century the United States, unlike many countries, made the decision to make high school free and mandatory. At the time many argued high school was not for everybody; a familiar refrain today as we debate college access. The U.S. then followed that policy decision with others (e.g., the GI Bill) that, according to Goldwin and Katz analysis, made education the primary driver of America’s success in the 20th century. 

As the U.S.’s primacy in education weakens in the 21st century, states and the U.S. must find the will to recommit to investing in higher education to again dramatically raise education attainment to preserve the country’s status as an influential player in a global economy.

It is, in fact, well past time states restored support for higher education to reverse the declines in college affordability for middle and low income students. Most states have not yet even returned to pre-recession levels of support (Mortenson, 2012). In Illinois, over the last five years the state became less affordable, faster, for low and middle income students than in almost any other state (Illinois Board of Higher Education, 2014). A recent comprehensive report analyzing the causes for increased college costs nationally found that almost 80 percent of recent tuition increases in public higher education can be attributed to declines in state support (Hiltonsmith, 2015). 

Most states have set audacious goals for raising college attainment for their citizens (e.g., 55%, 60%, 80%). Current college attainment levels are hovering around 40 percent as they have for years. These aggressive goals are necessary since two-thirds of all the new and replacement jobs going forward will require college credentials (Carnevale, Smith, & Strohl, 2010; 2014). However, few have bothered to cost out what it will take to achieve these goals, much less made commitments to fund those costs. Setting a goal, such as Illinois has, that 60% of its residents should have postsecondary education, with a credential or degree is a first step. 

Looking at the capacity of our higher education institutions and the regional access to educational opportunities that are necessary for jobs that are available is another important step.   Estimating how much financial assistance to students and financial support for educational services, staff, faculty and facilities is also an important step.   Illinois must make the commitment to implement these two next essential steps.

In Illinois we are working to define the investment that will be required over the next decade or more to reach the state goal of having 60% of its workforce with a quality college credential. That “cost model” must include increased state investment, improved institutional productivity, and an approach to student financial support that emphasizes degree completion and “shared responsibility” allowing for greater student contributions through smarter work study policies, earn and learn models, etc. (Davies, 2014).

Each state must cost out the strategies needed to obtain their goals and commit to partnerships with higher education and its stakeholders to fund those strategies. While the focus of this effort should be on public higher education, for most states the plan must include support for students attending both public and private colleges. 

The word partnership is a key to the success of this work. Success will require investment from outside the education sector. Employers (who are prime beneficiaries of this work), non-profit, and philanthropic partners among others must join in multi-sector collaborations with education if we are to achieve the level of impact required. If we narrowly focus on only higher education and higher education resources we will fail. Exciting new work is developing that brings multi-sector partnerships to the table to support collaboration across sectors for collective impact on education outcomes (Kania and Cramer, 2011) and sustainable partnerships with employers that bring their considerable resources to the table in efforts to expand college ROI for more students (FSG, 2015).

At its core, however, this demands a compact that requires higher education to embrace business and academic delivery models that maximize efficiency and effectiveness in return for a commitment by states to make greater investment. This “both/and” strategy (Applegate, 2015) is necessary. Higher education cannot “efficient” its way to meet these goals as much as some political leaders would hope it could. Nor is there enough new money anywhere to fund achieving these goals using a “business as usual” model for higher education as much as some in higher education would like to avoid change.

There are those with considerable financial expertise that are rightly gloomy about the prospects of any upturn in state economies that would allow for restoring any part of the public investment in higher education. However, without increased investment it is hard to imagine anything but growing gaps in college opportunity between the haves and have nots. That negative spiral will ensure a gloomy future. We must restore public confidence and support for higher education as a public good worthy of public investment.  This will require a compact characterized by transparency, mutual accountability and trust between public policy makers, higher education, and its stakeholders.  We are all in this together.  If higher education becomes once again an elitist enterprise our economy and our civic infrastructure will crumble.

Resources for a Deeper Dive
Applegate, J.L. (2015). The path to progress requires a “both/and” strategy. Retrieved from

Carnevale, A., Smith, N., & Strohl, J.  (2010). Help wanted: Projections of jobs and education requirements through 2018. Georgetown University: Center on Education and the Workforce: Georgetown University. Retrieved from

Carnevale, A., Smith, N. & Strohl, J. (2014). Hard times: Job growth and education requirements through 2020. Georgetown University: Center on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved from

Davies, L. (2014). State “shared responsibility “policies for improved outcomes: Lessons learned. HCM Strategists. Retrieved from

FSG (2015). Shared value initiative. Retrieved from

Goldin, C. & Katz, L. (2008). The Race between Education and Technology. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Hiltonsmith, R. (2015). Pulling up the higher education ladder: Myth and reality in the crisis of college affordability. New York: Demos Foundation. Retrieved from

Illinois Board of Higher Education (2014). The public agenda 5 years later. Retrieved from

Kania, J. & Cramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review (Winter). Retrieved from

Mortenson, T. (2012a). State funding: A race to the bottom. American Council on Education, Budget and Appropriations (Winter). Retrieved from

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Remodel the Business Model for Higher Education

In this blog, like my last one, I focus on areas where higher education needs to be “remodeled” to meet the needs of the 21st century student. Previously I proposed changes in the academic delivery model more attuned to today’s students. In this blog I focus on changes needed in the business and financial aid models supporting students and higher education systems.

Increase higher education productivity  

Higher education is a massive business with healthcare, personnel, purchasing, construction, and other costs common to any business. Increasing higher education productivity is an important effort. There are many lessons to be learned from the changes implemented in the private sector over the last decade or more involving use of technology, shared purchasing strategies (for a higher education example see the work of the Midwest Higher Education Compact at, streamlined bureaucracies and decision making, effective customer engagement, and more. Of course higher education should be selective and not emulate the private sector strategies that have been shown to exacerbate income inequality, disconnect productivity from wages, balloon executive salaries, and threaten the middle class.

Higher education, in its own interest, also needs to be an active part of state and national discussions on issues like healthcare and pension reform which are absorbing state revenues at a rate that puts support for education completely at risk. We have the expertise, in our business and medical schools particularly, to help states smartly address these problems. The simple point is that higher education must include its business practices in a productivity discussion that focuses on innovation and cost containment for students and use its intellectual capacity to help our states avoid bankruptcy due to bad policy decisions in areas like pensions, healthcare, criminal justice, and human services.  Given its research and intellectual resources higher education should be leading these discussions.

Remodel student financial supports  

There is perhaps no more direct way to reduce costs for students and increase their return on investment than to implement smart 21st century strategies to provide financial supports aligned with the needs of 21st century students. Federal financial aid/loan policies are now a Frankenstein-like creation brought to life in the 1960s and 1970s riddled with largely ill thought-out additions. State financial aid policies are a similar patchwork. Many state aid programs have gone completely off the rails providing growing support to wealthier students under the auspices of a misguided conception of merit grounded in standardized test scores (see for example a study of Florida’s “Bright Futures,” program at ). For the most part however, we deliver financial aid to students much as we have for decades, aligned with the needs of a 20th century student population and with no incentives built in to encourage students to remain on track to graduate.

Loan rates, even for federally backed loans are high compared to current market rates. The structure of the loan system remains largely structured like our home mortgage loan system rather than modeling the income based repayment systems implemented with good effects by countries like Australia. We do too little to help students who do not have their own financial advisors to develop a financial plan for college that helps them choose the right college options, find all the available financial support, and secure loans that they can repay given their career choices.

There is some good news that is pointing to the remodeling work that needs to be done to ensure students’ costs do not swamp their benefits from college. The federal government is making an effort to enroll more students in versions of an income based repayment loan program. Research is offering models for ways to deliver aid in ways that incentivize completion (see one model at ).  New models are being developed that integrate traditional financial aid programs within a “shared responsibility” model that expands sources of support for students. One-stop programs are being developed that help low-wealth students access all of the benefits they are due across a myriad of complicated federal and state programs (see the initiative at Miami Dade College at ).  Without this help one could argue it requires a college degree in our current system to determine how to pay for college.

Of course we all know that the bulk of tuition increases in public higher education are directly attributable to reductions in state support ( However, this is not an excuse for higher education to forego work with our business, philanthropic, and non-profit partners to remodel our system to do all we can to improve our efficiency and effectiveness. On the contrary, that work is more essential now than ever to serve our students and build support for public investment in the future.

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

It’s Time to Remodel Higher Education: Creating a Home for 21st Century Students

As I write this Illinois is one of a handful of states still trying to work out its budget for this fiscal year. While the debate drags out the costs mount. In higher education, low income students dependent on the state’s need based MAP grant program are seeing college opportunity put at risk, talented new faculty are taking offers to work elsewhere, successful faculty with millions of dollars in grants who produce our nation–leading number of patents and actually run small businesses themselves are looking elsewhere, and layoffs are mounting. Hopefully we will restore some certainly to our budget situation soon. I have written previously about the need for Illinois to turn around its billion dollar slide in higher education funding over the last decade.

However, it is also necessary to talk about what higher education can do to most productively use its resources to maximize its service to students and the state. The remodeling is even more urgent in the face of continued revenue concerns for this year and the foreseeable future.  In most states pensions and healthcare costs are gobbling up resources like a giant Pac Man ravaging the landscape. Our case for new revenues and support can only be enhanced if we can show we are doing everything we can to ensure the dollars we do have or may be given are being used well. In Illinois we will soon launch a “higher education efficiency and effectiveness initiative” in partnership with the National Governors Association and the Governor’s office to support such work.

I use the term “remodel” here very intentionally. Most of us have been involved in a remodeling project. The first thing we know is that it always takes longer and costs more than expected. It is also targeted. Some rooms in our higher education house are in fairly good shape. For example, research in our best institutions continues to provide massive returns to the economy around patents, products, and innovations. Other rooms are reminiscent of kitchens with lime green appliances or poorly plumbed bathrooms whose appearance discourages use. In speaking around the country I have found partnerships for change with higher education colleagues harder to build using terms like “disruptive innovation” or with what one magazine recently termed “creative destruction” in higher education. Remodeling on the other hand allows a conversation targeting areas of higher education most badly in need of change to meet the needs of 21st century students while preserving those parts that continue to offer value.

The return on investment for a college credential in the current economy is clear. However, much must be done to remodel higher education to maximize that return for the individual and society. This is especially true if we are to meet the needs of low income, adult, and students of color that are most in need of the credential and yet currently are least likely to succeed in obtaining one even when admitted to college.  Here are some out of date rooms in our higher education house that definitely need a remodel.

Remodel Academic Delivery Models

Twenty-one percent of the adult population falls into the category of “some college no degree” (Lumina Foundation, 2014). That figure is 22 percent for the Illinois workforce. We have a college stop-out problem that rivals our high school drop-out problem. The college stop-out problem is particularly severe for low income and students of color. There is little or no return on investment for students who attend but do not complete. Their salaries are barely more than a high school graduate and many are burdened with college debt. The solutions to this problem are becoming increasingly clear as leader colleges around the country implement remodels showing positive results. Implementing those solutions to remodel our system, it turns out, is largely a matter of political and institutional will.  (For examples across the nation where colleges are exhibiting the will to implement the solutions outlined here go to ).  Included among our remodeling targets should be the following.  

Implement Guided Pathway Systems (GPS) 

The maze of options and courses that currently fill college course catalogs must be restructured to create transparent pathways to career aligned degrees that can be obtained without the excess credits that raise costs and invite failure. Once these pathways are created institutions must commit to offering the right courses at the right times. They must be offered with adequate capacity to ensure all students on a pathway can take the course they need when they need it so they can graduate in four years for a four-year degree and in two years for a two-year degree (or in one year for a one-year workforce valuable credential).  While this seems logical to most, it requires a major institutional culture shift focused on offering courses when students need them rather than when it is convenient for the institution or faculty to teach them.

Once these pathways are in place student data capacity must be ramped up to allow just in time tracking of student progress and the implementation of “intrusive advising” strategies to ensure that (a) students are properly advised so that they can choose a pathway aligned with their passions and abilities as early as possible (being an “undecided major” in your second year is a recipe for failure) and (b) students stay on their path through graduation or at least make judicious decisions about changing paths that minimize costs and delays in graduation. Changing majors to follow your passion is fine unless it means you run out of money and are forced to drop out in your junior and senior year (as almost half of students at four-year institutions do).

 Remodel Developmental Education

Despite strong efforts to improve college preparation for students (e.g., the implementation of the Common Core Standards and Assessments across states), significant numbers of students enter college in need of developmental or remedial education. We can expect more demand if we begin to enroll more adult students. Higher education addresses this challenge traditionally through offering zero credit developmental (or remedial) education courses that are supposed to move students into credit bearing work and on to degrees. That system is completely broken: students spend limited resources for courses that offer no academic credit toward a degree. Most never complete the developmental courses much less the credit bearing course in math or English for which they are being prepared. This system must be remodeled to minimize time in zero credit courses and accelerate progress to degree. One strategy showing great promise is “co-requisite” remediation. In this remodeling effort students are enrolled in the entry credit bearing course and provided just-in-time supplemental support targeting specific areas of weakness. Other remodeling efforts focus on summer preparatory courses, boot camps, and catch-up programs offered in high schools. Research is needed showing which approaches are best for students at different levels of college preparation. However, any effort to repair this broken system should be welcomed and assessed.

Ensure Quality

A major determinate of college ROI for students is the quality of the credential they earn. Quality should be defined in two ways. First is the identification and assessment of clear learning outcomes for the degree to ensure every degree carries an institutional warranty that the graduate possesses expected skills and abilities.

What should a student know and be able to do who obtains the degree? That definitional process should be led by faculty but informed by the input of employers who receive graduates with those degrees, alumni, and students themselves.

Clear learning outcome definitions are a part of the growing attention to competency-based degrees and efforts by higher education partners to advance the conversation on quality and learning outcomes in college (e.g., the LEAP work of the Association of American Colleges and Universities and the Degree Qualifications Profile initiative supported by the Lumina Foundation). However, we have a long way to go before the system abandons classroom seat time as a proxy for learning. This is despite the fact that most would agree that if you are focused on class room seat time as a proxy for learning, you are focused on the wrong end of the student.

The second dimension of quality is defined by the post-graduation economic and civic outcomes of the degree. Many states are putting considerable resources into longitudinal data systems that tie college data to workforce data.  It should be common practice to issue regular reports showing employment outcomes by institution and program. Longitudinal systems also could allow us to look at civic outcomes for graduates as well (e.g., voting behavior). Surely the quality of a degree should be questioned if the majority of graduates cannot find employment in their career after a reasonable time and evidence no positive civic outcomes attributable to their education.

Serve the Adult Learner

No group would benefit more immediately from a college credential, enrich the quality of education for all students, and help solve revenue problems for institutions than the tens of millions of adults already in the workforce who lack any college credential, especially the college stop-outs who have some college but no degree. The adult learner “market” for higher education dwarfs the high school graduate market in most states. Twenty-two percent of the Illinois workforce falls into this category. To maximize access, completion and improved quality of life for these learners the system must rethink its academic models and implement strategies including but not limited to:
·        expanded prior learning assessment at scale to give adults credit for knowledge they bring from prior education and work/life experience, accelerate progress to degree, and reduce costs;
·        strong partnerships with those who currently employ these undereducated adults to strategically manage costs, time, travel, and child care demands that are the primary barriers to adult college completion; and
·        delivery of learning through on-line, blended, project based and other strategies that increase relevance and accessibility for adult learners.

In general colleges must remodel systems to bring college to adults rather than making them come to college. How to do this is not a mystery. For a detailed analysis of what is required to promote adult college completion see the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning’s analysis (  

The framework for the strategic remodeling of academic delivery systems has been defined in the literature and  is being implemented by a minority of early adopters  (see examples at and ). We must find the will to make these changes pervasive.

These  four remodeling projects,  implementing GPS, developing co-requisite developmental education courses, ensuring quality of the degree, both academically and vocationally, and developing academic programs that serve adults best are strategies that will increase the affordability and return on investment for college degrees.  Next month’s Blog will discuss administrative and financial aid remodeling projects that are needed to update our system so that it is a proper home for 21st century students.

Monday, June 8, 2015

Let Us Have a Smart Budget Debate about a 21st Century Illinois

It is time to put the current budget debates focused only on HOW MUCH to slash college opportunity for Illinois’ students in perspective.  Somehow in the current rhetorical fog covering the capital we continue to debate different ways to slice a shrinking pie among “starving” programs.  What cuts will result in the most suffering?  What can the state least afford to cut:  human services, education, or healthcare?   We ignore clear data that show that investing wisely in colleges to create a more educated workforce and commercialize research is a way to enlarge the pie by improving regional economies (where colleges are among major employers), raising per capita income, increasing tax revenues, and providing increased resources for other state needs.  

At a time when a quality college credential is more essential and more valuable than at any time in our history, Illinois continues to engage in the same policy debates from the last 35 years.  This has resulted in a policy and practice environment nationally that supports providing postsecondary credentials primarily to those who already occupy a privileged position in society.  (Policies prior to that period were supporting movement in the opposite direction.  Gaps were closing and access expanding through most of the 1960’s and 70’s.) Rather than engage in distracting debates about whether college is for everybody or whether somewhere we can find examples of waste that ultimately constitute an insignificant part of the budget, we must debate changes that make college a reality for millions more of those who need it most.  As our economy continues to grow and reward “non-routine” jobs and offers promising careers increasingly only to those who possess the critical, analytical, and communication skills a college credential develops, the individual consequences for the massive and growing inequality in college opportunity in Illinois are becoming, literally, life threatening.

Unfortunately, calls for change grounded in the needs of individuals in underserved groups in the name of social justice or humane values are falling on deaf ears.  As our society becomes increasingly stratified based on income and segregated by race it has become easier to objectify those being left out of the opportunity society.  Few privileged people really know any people not like them.  The “others” are easily blamed for their failure.  “Those people” can be easily cast as lacking the grit to succeed. It is a macabre 21st century revival of the Horatio Alger myth used to justify the oppression of large immigrant populations more than a century ago.

A different strategic focus is needed to mobilize broadly around the significant policy, budget, and practice changes needed inside and outside of higher education to make college available to the tens of millions of people being left on the sidelines of this economy who most need it.  This is a positive return on investment (ROI) strategy.  The message must clearly demonstrate the consequences of a permanent undereducated underclass even for those who had, and whose children have, a relatively sure path to college and career.  There is probably no better case study for making this “all boats rise” argument than Illinois in 2015.

Illinois is “leading” the nation with a multi-billion dollar deficit crisis.  Draconian cuts in education, social services, and almost every area of state government have been proposed.  The unemployment rate, while improving, remains stubbornly above the national average.  Difficult “revenue enhancement” strategies are being discussed.  At the same time, a recent workforce analysis showed 150,000 jobs standing open in Illinois because employers cannot find people with the appropriate credentials and knowledge to fill them (Bishop-Josef, S., Noble, S., & Watson, S., 2015). Workforce projections clearly show that two-thirds of all the new and replacement jobs in Illinois for the foreseeable future will require a college credential.  Many believe the only way out of this crisis is to grow our way out with a thriving economy.  They are probably right, but believing we can create that economy given the current education level of our workforce is, at best, magical thinking.

In the midst of all this, Illinois continues to strive to reach an education goal set in 2009:  60 percent of its workforce with a quality college credential by 2025.  The current percentage of the Illinois workforce with a two- or four-year degree stands at 43 percent.  That reflects a three percent gain since 2009 that, sadly for the country, places Illinois among the best performing states in the nation. It is, of course, nowhere near the pace of improvement needed.  The Illinois Board of Higher Education recently analyzed the impact of reaching the 60 percent goal for Illinois. The analysis shows that were Illinois at the 60 percent level in 2015 the increase in per capita income would produce more than $900 million in additional tax revenue for the state annually.  In a separate economic analysis (McMahon, 2015) showed that investments in Illinois higher education produce dramatically higher returns than taxpayers could earn on taxed funds in any other area.  

If Illinois is going to grow its way out of its budgetary quagmire, it must invest now in creating the college-educated workforce its recovery requires:  a workforce that also will place far fewer demands on it prison, public assistance, unemployment, and Medicaid systems.  It also must recognize that the number of patents its universities are producing lead the nation and are a pathway to commercialization, business start-ups and jobs.

Given Illinois’ demographics, almost all of the growth in educated people the state needs must come from low income and people of color, including adult learners. That is true for almost all states. These are the very groups we have failed most over the years, helping produce a level of income inequality in Illinois that is among the ten worst in the nation (McNichol, E., Hall, D., Cooper, D. & Palacios, V., 2012).

Illinois cannot afford a debate over whether these people are “college material” or whether “college is for everyone.”  It cannot continue to debate whether to cut off one or both arms of its colleges.  The state and its higher education system must mobilize, invest, and redesign policies and practices to provide a quality college credential to millions more of its citizens.  These actions will solve the deficit crisis and increase Illinois’ economic vitality. 

Illinois is a large state with particularly large challenges, but it is not alone.  Recent data show many states facing similar challenges.  The investment required to dramatically raise education attainment levels is admittedly large.  Some states are rising to that challenge.  The return on that investment to create a college-educated citizenry is far greater and, most importantly, it benefits everyone.  It is equally true that the costs of a growing permanent undereducated underclass threaten us all.

So, at this crucial time, let us forego the distracting sideshow debates, avoid whining about the impact of cuts, and keep our eye on the prize.   We must focus on how to most wisely invest in higher education, ensure accountability for return on that investment, and create the workforce and economy that will truly turn around Illinois.

Bishop-Josef, S., Noble, S., & Watson, S. (2015). Ensuring Illinois’ global success. Retrieved from
McMahon, W.W. (2015). Benefits and costs of state budget changes to higher education. University of Illinois: Institute of Government and Public Affairs. Retrieved from

McNichol, E., Hall, D., Cooper, D. & Palacios, V. (2012). Pulling apart: A state by state analysis of income trends. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Is Fairness Still an Illinois Value?

Illinois has set an audacious goal to have 60 percent of its workforce with a high quality college credential by 2025. Meeting this goal is essential to the quality of life for Illinois citizens.  Those left out of the college mix will be relegated to the life of the working poor since two thirds of all new and replacement jobs going forward (and almost all of the middle class jobs) will require a college credential.

Meeting the goal also is essential if the State is to grow its way out of the current financial crisis. Without a 21st century, college-educated workforce Illinois will not only fail to attract good jobs; it will have trouble keeping those already in the State.  If 60 percent of our workforce had a two or four year degree today it would likely mean more than $900 million in additional tax revenue for the State annually. This is the return on investment (ROI) of educating Illinois without even including the reductions in expenditures for public assistance, unemployment, health care, and crime which have occurred in other states as education levels rise. Educating Illinois is the most certain way to grow our way out of the budget crisis.

The leadership in Illinois faces difficult choices in the current budget climate. The State can choose to focus only on trying to cut its way out of its budget problems producing draconian reductions in state services, including support for public higher education. Illinois is already solidly in the bottom half of states in its support for higher education per full time student. Further proposed cuts to higher education would result in Illinois being sixth from the bottom in state support, grouped with a state like Michigan (not an economy we would want to emulate). After experiencing modest growth in our education attainment levels over the last five years (a tribute to our colleges in these difficult times) 43 percent of the State’s workforce has a two or four year college degree.  The Illinois Public Agenda for College and Career Success details the goals and strategies so that more Illinois residents have affordable access to high-quality postsecondary education opportunities to prepare them for the workforce. However, tuition increases, declines in state need based aid, and other factors are producing declining enrollments across the higher education system. Sixteen thousand more students leave Illinois to attend college than enter the State to do so: a talent drain that threatens our economy.  We cannot afford to accelerate these trends.

Another solution to budget woes would be a balanced approach to the crisis. This balanced approach would include new revenues, reductions, and greater efficiencies. This is the approach advocated by thoughtful analysts of Illinois’ budget woes in independent think tanks across the State. Ideas for the best way to generate revenues are varied but the need to explore the possibilities is clear. Many of the revenue strategies have been voiced by state leaders on both sides of the political aisle: reinstate, at least partially, the lapsed state income tax with a plan for gradual reduction over time, put 21st century tax policies in place including progressive taxation and increase revenues from the fastest growing service sector of the economy. Paired with less draconian reductions and greater efficiencies this approach would allow the State to move forward without so severely damaging education opportunity and the services needed by the most vulnerable of our fellow citizens.

The Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE) has proposed a budget for higher education that is basically flat for next year with the exception of an increase in MAP funding to address our college affordability challenges. IBHE believes, based on months of meetings with colleges, that this is a responsible budget. The balanced approach would allow for the IBHE budget to be enacted. Given such a budget the Board is committed to launching, in cooperation with state leadership an “efficiency and effectiveness” initiative in Illinois to ensure every dollar we have is used to the maximum benefit of students.

IBHE also is committed to working with state leadership to streamline the State regulatory environment that adds significant costs to colleges that students must bear, providing “regulatory relief” to our system. Streamlining strategies include: (a) cutting through the complex maze of procurement regulations that demand large staffs to address and threaten colleges’ ability to participate in multi-state purchasing agreements for insurance, technology, etc. that already save tens of millions of dollars and could save more (b) eliminating policies that add costs but not value to capital construction efforts, and (c) reducing the burden of unfunded mandates that have grown like stalactites in a cave over time.

All of this can and should be part of a balanced approach to preserving fairness in education opportunity in Illinois. The alternative, massive cuts to university  budgets, will (a) further reduce affordability for middle and low income families (b) increase the talent drain out of state (c) threaten the programs and services needed to provide a safety net  supporting college completion for first generation, adult, and underrepresented students at a time when college gaps for these groups are growing (d) undercut our ability to grow a workforce to support economic development, and (e) threaten research that has to date made Illinois one of the leading states in generating patents that support business and job creation (almost all of Illinois patents are generated by higher education institutions). IBHE will do all it can to support decisions in Illinois that embrace fairness and target smart investment in strategies that have demonstrated ROI. Educating a 21st century workforce is one such strategy and a very important one. We can keep moving forward, even in these difficult times, with a balanced approach to our challenges. 

Friday, January 9, 2015

The Path to Progress Requires a “Both/And” Strategy

A very smart friend of mine recently said, “The path to education hell is paved with false dichotomies.” I could not agree more.  “Liberal arts education versus a college to careers approach”, “career and technical education versus college track curricula”, “increased college completion versus quality degrees,” all represent false dichotomies that divert us from creating student-centered pathways providing high quality learning that prepares all students for life and work. 

As states have grappled with difficult budgets another false dichotomy often derails productive discussion about the path forward to enable higher education to best serve the public good. Some would talk about nothing but the need for increased state investment in higher education, while others focus only on the need to increase higher education productivity so that it can better serve more students with less resources. External stakeholders of all sorts tend to focus on the latter while the higher education community embraces the former. Even a cursory look at the current landscape and the audacious goals that need to be met if our people, states, and country are to succeed clearly show that we need both increased public investment and increased institutional productivity to succeed. Higher education institutions cannot “efficient” their way to success even with the best innovations. Nor is there enough new money anywhere to fund success if business as usual in higher education continues to be embraced.  Here I will focus on what states (including Illinois) can do to smartly support progress on the path to an educated citizenry. In my next blog, I will focus on institutional responsibilities to increase efficiency and effectiveness.  

What must state governments do? First, they must make difficult policy decisions that allow for re-investment in higher education as an economic development strategy to increase revenue and reduce public assistance, health care, and criminal justice costs. To date, states have been doing just the opposite: slashing public higher education budgets and in essence eating their seed corn.  (See the recent report by the Center for American Progress: In Illinois, public higher education funding for operations and capital improvements has declined by more than one-third over the last decade ($1 billion when adjusted for inflation). Early in this century, Illinois paid seven of every ten dollars of the cost to educate a student at its public universities. Today the state covers only four of every ten dollars in costs. IBHE analyses suggest that had Illinois INVESTED in higher education over the last 10-15 years and achieved the goal we have set for 2025 by 2014 (60% of its workforce with a college degree), the state would be benefitting from additional annual tax revenues ranging from more than $600 million most conservatively to, in a more likely scenario, more than $900 million in annual revenue.

However, reinvestment does not and should not mean pouring dollars back into the same old buckets from more than a decade ago. Reinvestment should support what is needed from a 21st century higher education system. The same is true for efforts to change other higher education policies. It is not all about the money. So again, what are some specific investment/policy strategies states should consider?

1.      Support improved performance. Create a compact with higher education tying support to performance. If higher education improves performance (e.g., producing more degrees leading to careers, closing success gaps for underrepresented students, lowering costs per degree) the state commits to increase support, reinvesting the returns on a more educated workforce into the system. The reverse, of course, also applies. Such a compact should provide consistent and predictable supports: a key to increased productivity. Wildly fluctuating funding patterns hinder strategic planning and drive up costs.

2.      Target student financial support correctly. Ensure that every dollar of financial aid (state and institutional) is need-based.  Too many states and institutions are allocating too much money to students who can attend college without aid based on a skewed conception of “merit.”  Second, include all forms of financial supports (e.g., SNAP, WIA, and TANF) in an aligned program that includes adult learners. Also, structure aid to incentivize student college success.  See:;  

3.       Provide public colleges and universities regulatory relief.  If colleges are to be more nimble and productive, holding down costs and adapting to changing student needs, they must have the flexibility to innovate. Some states have conducted “policy audits” to identify and eliminate state and institutional policies that hinder innovation and add costs that students ultimately must bear.  In Illinois, for example, we are working with our partners to ensure state procurement policies do not threaten institutions’ ability to engage in multi-state purchasing agreements that save millions of dollars. Transparency and accountability are values we all share, but often, over the years, procurement, personnel, and other policies accumulate like stalagmites and many, once viewed through the productivity lens, are clear candidates for removal.
4.      Eliminate unfunded mandates. Often with the best of intentions, states and the federal government impose requirements on colleges that appear reasonable in isolation. Like regulations though they accumulate over time and greatly add to college’s cost structure. Due to the state disinvestment in higher education these costs typically fall on students. Illinois is no exception. In 2010, a Blue Ribbon Committee on higher education mandates in Illinois presented its findings to the legislature finding over 100 such mandates costing tens of millions of dollars (  Unfortunately, in 2015 little has changed.  In this budget climate it would seem appropriate to update and act on the findings of that report.  

5.      Tear down silos.  One of the clearest example of silos hampering efficiency and effectiveness is the data disconnects that prevent longitudinal analyses of P-12, higher education, and workforce/economic development data. In Illinois we are working to create a longitudinal data system that connects this data at the state and regional levels. Without integrated data the system is far less able to identify what is working, what is not, and focus resources on high impact practices. States also suffer from siloed funding streams in areas like human services, workforce training, education, and public assistance. If aligned these programs could better enable low income families to easily access all the resources available to them to support attaining the education they need to improve their economic condition. As currently structured these programs require someone with a college degree to find a way to fund college.  Integrative models that Illinois can use are available (;   Creating incentives for public/private partnerships is another way to remove silos. One effective example of this type of integration was Michigan’s “No Worker Left Behind Program” ( Only through strong state leadership can these silos be removed and programs be remodeled to better serve adult and traditional students who require a college credential to live a decent life and support a 21st century economy in Illinois.

Illinois’ progress requires both state support and increases in institutional productivity. (See More on institutional productivity strategies will be provided in my next blog. We will also be discussing these strategies at our February 3, 2015 IBHE Board meeting with a focus on improving college affordability in Illinois. For now though, as Illinois enters a very difficult 2016 budget discussion with a new governor and a legislature that convenes this month, here is hoping that we can work together to develop smart funding and streamlined policy solutions that allow Illinois’ higher education system to provide the ROI Illinois requires to succeed as a state. 

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

It's All About the ROI

States across the country, including Illinois, are struggling to meet prison, public assistance, pension, and Medicaid expenses. That is understandable. These state expenditures present immediate challenges. However, if states continue to divert money to these government assistance programs, what we have is the classic strategy of those in a hole who grabs the shovel and dig. Illinois needs to focus on strategies that create true return on investment (ROI) that will lift the state to prosperity: accelerating programs that raise per capita income and tax revenues while reducing demands for programs that only deepen dependency on limited state tax dollars.

So what might such an investment strategy look like? Well, Illinois has set a goal to ensure that 60% of  the adult workforce will have a quality college credential by 2025. What if 60% of Illinois’ adult citizens had a college degree today? What would be the ROI? At the IBHE we have done that analysis. Based on current data documenting increases in salary levels if 60% of Illinois adults were to hold a college credential, a conservative estimate would be that there could be more than $600 million annually in additional tax revenue for the state to invest. A second scenario assuming that  degrees were distributed across graduate, bachelor’s and associate’s degree levels at our current ratio shows an almost $1 billion increase in tax revenues, annually.  An investment strategy that produces $1 billion annually in additional dollars to establish economic incentives to accelerate the economy, further drive educational attainment, and meet the needs of low-income undereducated Illinoisans.

If Illinois had invested in higher education over the last decade to reach this goal today a virtuous cycle would have resulted in an upward spiral to prosperity. Instead, Illinois’ education system has been financially eviscerated. In 1997, Illinois provided seven out of every ten dollars of the cost to educate a student at a public university and, because community colleges are also supported by local property taxes, three out of every ten dollars in cost for a community college degree. Then the state budget displayed an understanding  that public support was appropriate for a public good that drove our economy and civic health. In 2012, Illinois provided only four dollars of every ten required to provide a university degree. State support for community colleges was cut almost in half.  These state funding decreases basically privatized higher education in Illinois with tuition and fees now accounting for more than half of the source of operating funds for public colleges and universities.  For those concerned about student debt, understand that the primary reason for student debt is state disinvestment in public higher education.

It is, in fact, about ROI. I am sympathetic to legislators who call higher education a “black hole” where money is invested and produces no direct account of outcomes. But that narrative must be changed in Illinois.  Higher education needs to draw a brighter line between investment and outcomes. Illinois institutions of higher education need to do a better job demonstrating clearly how they are doing everything they can internally to increase productivity and contain costs for students. However, colleges and universities cannot rely solely on efficiency measures to help the state reach the 60% goal.  It will take state investment tied to clear expectations for ROI.

Based on statewide planning, the higher education blueprint, the Illinois Public Agenda for College and Career Success, supports goals to reduce college completion gaps for first generation, low income, and students of color (our gaps have widened over the last five years);  to increasing affordability for middle and low income students, families and taxpayers (Illinois, over the last five years has been among the worst states  in declines in affordability), and create better pathways to increase the number of  undereducated adults  returning to college to complete a postsecondary credential or degree (without them, the 60% goal cannot be reached). Higher education leaders, in strong cooperation with elected officials, and policy makers must work to match reinvestment in higher education with specific improvements in these areas that are crucial to Illinois’ future. If, with investment, more Illinoisans do not succeed educationally, then the higher education system will be held accountable.  However, if the completions rates progress in an upward trend, then investments should increase significantly. It is that simple. And the ROI for that investment will be significant. There is a strong and positive correlation across the country with lower Medicaid, criminal justice, unemployment, and public assistance costs and higher percentages of the population with a college credential. A more educated population is healthier, less engaged with the criminal justice system, more productive, and has higher wages. It is a no brainer.

The finish line has changed. A high school degree by itself is no more than a ticket to working poor status in this economy. It is a college credential that is the new finish line, the new producer of ROI for a state. Illinois must find a way to balance immediate demands on its resources with investments in the future.  It is our choice. Many states, post-recession, are reinvesting in higher education knowing the payoff. California, for example, just created a $50 million “innovation fund” to reward implementation of initiatives to meet state goals of increasing degree production. What will Illinois do? Keep digging or invest?