|
BY NIGEL JAQUISS |
|
|
There's a new pursuit on Oregon college campuses--social engineering. Last month the Oregon University System proposed a radical overhaul of the way higher education dollars are spent. The new plan represents nothing less than the deregulation of an inefficient system that has been slowly suffocating under a convoluted funding formula and the ravages of Measure 5. Instead of treating all campuses and students the same, as the old formula did, the reforms essentially create a piñata of state money and give the longest sticks to the folks who educate engineers, scientists and teachers. Rather than letting students decide what they want to study, campuses will now actively promote certain majors. And that promotion will be driven by a force previously ignored in educational policy--Oregon's employers. Make no mistake. The funding reforms are badly needed. Currently, all tuition and state aid is distributed through an impenetrable formula involving more than 240 variables. Critics, who range from Gov. John Kitzhaber to student activists, say the current formula is both unfair and unresponsive. The proposed reforms would make a number of significant changes. First, beginning in July 1999, each campus would keep all the tuition it generates. Although that seems logical, it actually represents a bold change. Currently, tuition for the seven-campus system is pooled in Salem and doled out based on overhead, which means campuses get money for their costs, not their results. Schools such as the University of Oregon and Portland State University, for example, get back less tuition money than they contribute. There is no incentive to increase enrollment; in fact, at present almost the opposite is true. "The key to the new model is that funding will follow students," says PSU president Daniel Bernstine. The second major change is in the way in which the taxpayer funds get spread around. After tuition, the next largest pot of higher ed money comes from the state, which supplies 25 percent of OUS's billion-dollar annual budget. Under the new proposal, that money will now reimburse the actual costs of academic programs, a change akin to switching from socialism to capitalism. The current setup makes little distinction between the cost of educating a philosophy major and the greater cost of educating a mechanical engineer. "In the old formula, you were penalized for teaching more expensive students," says Bill Anslow, OUS vice-chancellor for finance and administration. As a result, Anslow says, "our tendency has been to push students toward liberal arts and social sciences." Those days are over. Under the new proposal, a campus will get $3,800 a year in state funds to educate a third-year undergraduate English major, for example. That same campus will get $7,400 to educate a third-year engineering student. Each discipline has been slotted into a three-tier payment schedule, depending on whether it is low-, medium- or high-cost. Campuses will also get more money for teaching juniors and seniors--because they are more likely than freshman and sophomores to finish school--and even more money for graduate students. Among the "expensive" disciplines the current formula penalizes is engineering--and that penalty shows up statistically. "We've found that compared to other state systems our percentage of engineering and science graduates is much lower," Anslow says. Even with recent layoffs, there are an estimated 5,000 unfilled high-tech jobs in the state. In the future, the state board of higher education, relying on the advice of campuses, industry and other experts, will decide which other disciplines are to be promoted. By targeting certain majors, the reforms explicitly recognize the educational requirements of employers. "The system will be driven by perceived need," Anslow says. While the notion of shaping campus life around the needs of industry may jolt some who believe ivory towers should remain insulated from politics and economics, PSU's Bernstine says the reforms reflect the changing role of higher education. "I think we have an obligation to be responsive to industry and they to us," he says. "Universities have to serve a multiplicity of audiences; we must become more flexible." But it's not just industry leaders that reformers are watching. Proponents of the new plan know they're walking a tightrope between the popular, if vague, desire to reinvest in education and the skepticism of state lawmakers. "Public representatives expect results," Anslow says. "We've got to become much more aggressive and responsive." Since the adoption of Measure 5 in 1990, the percentage of the state budget allocated to higher education has been cut almost in half, from 12.2 percent to 6.25 percent. In order to convince the Legislature to ante up, the universities know they'll have to be more accountable. To that end, the new formula includes specific measurements such as graduation rates, results on standardized tests and employer satisfaction. Success will be rewarded. Initially, one-half of one percent of the state's contribution--or about $3 million--will be set aside for bonus payments, with incentives eventually growing to five percent. "The system is attempting to be responsive to questions about whether it's producing graduates who can compete," Bernstine says. As the campuses strive seek efficiencies, the group that may come under pressure is professors, all of whom will be held to higher standards and some of whom will see their specialities given lower priority. PSU faculty president Ulrich Hardt applauds the recognition that certain disciplines are more expensive than others. As for the system directing students toward certain majors, he says the faculty senate will discuss such issues in the fall. Bernstine believes the reforms will be well received. "I think the faculty is excited about the model," he says. To Mark Nelson, director of the Association of Oregon Faculties, the key is whether the Legislature is willing to provide additional funds when it considers the proposal next year. If it doesn't, he asks, "are we just moving around already depleted resources?"
originally published August 19, 1998 |
|
