For those of us who follow trend lines showing how higher education pays the bills, there is a prevailing sense of déjà vu as the years go by. The basic argument over whether state and federal governments should fund students or institutions has been the umbrella under which most discussions, debates and differences occur. And there have been encouraging moments, for example, when the federal government moved to increase the size of Pell grants.
Yet the intense battles over higher education funding can best be illustrated by following trends in higher education financing. They show that state and federal governments are slowly diminishing their support for higher education while increasing the regulatory restrictions placed on this funding. Sometimes it seems like the new policy is tantamount to political strong arming - a kind of "do what we say and no one gets hurt."
There are a number of reasons for concern.
First, consumer mindsets have changed. Many families can no longer afford the advertised sticker price to attend college - whether for public or private colleges and universities. America's problem with growing income inequality exacerbates an historic education policy perception that America should provide access and choice to its citizens as part of an educational pathway to the middle class. For those that can, there is growing evidence that they are unwilling to make the kind of sacrifices that were more common a generation ago.
It's one reason that 46 percent of first-time college-bound students begin their education in community colleges. The fact that colleges now regularly discount -using a combination of need and merit - further encourages families to seek "the best deal" and bragging rights based on the size of the discounted scholarship offer.
It's hard for the higher education community to take the high road when their intentions are unclear, poorly communicated, and misunderstood by families behaving as consumers seeking a deal. Further, it isolates and diminishes the limited universe of full-pay students upon whose families much of the bill paid to support the full pricing strategy depends.
Second, state and federal governments who provide support to students and institutions run their appropriations as part of an annual cycle governed by incrementalism and inertia. State and federal budgets are rationing tools. It's easier to support a "hold harmless" pattern of incremental support than to seek broad changes in funding patterns or levels of support. And in politics what comes easy is often what becomes policy.
Third, change agents -typically state governors - have limited tenure. If bold plans are made, the forces behind policy inertia can wait them out. If the policy plans have legs, higher education has a well-established and well-connected lobby that can block or mediate proposed changes. In truth, higher education lobbyists perform a valuable service to safeguard industry goals and standards.
There can be breakthrough moments both in fact and appearance. Some, like the Pell Grant increases go directly to the bottom line to support low-income students. Other proposals -- like free community college tuition -seem more an effort to pander for middle class votes from citizens frightened by their deteriorating sense of self in a rapidly changing global economy. If budgets are rationing tools, the money to support free tuition must come from somewhere at the expense of someone.
Absent a new, dedicated pot from which to pull funds, the debate on these proposals will likely produce internecine warfare among higher education sectors, both public and private. And yet free community college tuition is a little like ice cream. Who doesn't like free ice cream?
The point is that there comes a time in the history of American higher education policy when policymakers must take stock of what they have, what works, how programs affect citizens and support institutions, and what can be built or grown from the foundation that policymakers have established.
Here are some simple guidelines:
- The old presumptions don't resonate and no longer hold true. There is no substantive difference between the income level, gender, or minority status in private and public colleges and universities. Policy should be based on new truths supported by sustainable research.
The alternative is more of the same, governed by noble intentions rationed dollars, and the latest polling data. Is it really the best that we can do?