Report of the Subcommittee on Higher Education Indiana Government Efficiency Commission Summary Conclusion
• Indiana Higher Education can be more effective and more efficient for no more state dollars
• Individually, institutions are efficient relative to their peers across the nation. Expenditures per student are comparable • Collectively, the system is expensive per student input for several reasons, which include: students at the wrong place, low graduation rates and poorly prepared entrants
• It also no longer optimally serves the needs of the state: – Research lags competitive institutions - grants, SATs, graduate students, big ticket contracts – Over emphasis on baccalaureate education forces graduate export, limits research, provides inadequate job training, affordable community education, remediation and adult education
– Consequently does not serve economic development at the high end (research) and the entry-level and training end (community education) of the system
– Lack of relationship to regional economic needs.
Undergraduate Enrollment
Indiana IU, PU BSU, ISU, SIU Public Two-Year 59% 20% 21% U.S. 31% 24% 45%
Overlap of mission causes duplication. As a result, Research Extensive, Research Intensive (baccalaureate) and twoyear colleges all under perform their potential. Suggestion: Cascade effect: Research Extensive – more graduate students; Research Intensive – High quality baccalaureate; Community – entry, remedial, 2-year BA, transferability and a quality experience.
Herman B. Wells and Frederick B. Hovde set up regional campuses to control community education. Those campuses have morphed into baccalaureate institutions with growing research university characteristics, leaving a void, just now being filled.
Unique role of IUPUI •Highest level research (medical) •Urban university •Link to Community College
Community College, Ivy Tech & Vincennes
• Insufficient transfer, quality of plant and faculty, enrollment • Insufficient co-operation with regional campuses • Insufficient co-operation between Ivy Tech and VU No future to the relationship • Momentum is improving, but still a long way to go Strength in career preparation, weakness in links to P-12, collaboration with regional agencies, core college education. Faculty and facilities under par.
Vincennes • Needs to be repositioned – Community College? 4-Year? Policy Barriers:
• • • •
Selected sectors – tuition issues Funding vs. policy objectives Capital approval process on competitive projects Poor linkage of long-term objectives of the state and long-term objectives of institutions
General Policies on Recommendations:
• No overall increase in state funding; gradual reallocation • Permit IUB, PUWL, part of IUPI to reposition to national comparables in performance, tuition and research • Recognize variability of needs in the state and different nature of institutions; • Region by region; • Enhance quality at all levels; • Student financial aid is a key – both state and private institutions.
Recommendations:
• Research Extensive – Graduate education enhanced, research, technology, external funding, fewer better-prepared undergraduates; Objective – perform at level of national peers (e.g. Georgia Tech)
• Research Intensive – Increased quality of baccalaureate experience. Limited research and graduate programs. Improve outputs – graduation rates, graduate school attendance, special programs
• Discontinue Community College Partnership – Ivy Tech transforms from single state college to a statewide governing board of regional community colleges with regional characteristics and responsiveness • Modernize, enhance faculty, invest, co-operate on support with regional campuses • Rigorous qualification of community colleges
Vincennes:
• Two-year, collaborative with four-year institutions
• Community college for its region • Middle technical college activity
• Teacher development center
• Remain independent • Learning Center
IUPIU: • Urban research university
• Strong partnership with Ivy Tech (community college of Central Indiana); provide Ivy Tech with assets and transferability • Focus on those graduate and research programs only that concentrate on strengths • Baccalaureate emphasis for Central Indiana
Regional Campuses • Develop baccalaureate and a few graduate programs • Phase out many associate degrees • Stop remedial education articulation and transfer with community colleges improved • Deliver programs for others • Share overhead and facilities with community colleges • Several special cases – Learning Center
• • •
• • • •
• •
Governance & Policies Redefine Commission on Higher Education Develop this plan re: Public Agenda CHE to develop link to and consensus to quality of life in Indiana Negotiate “COMPACTS” Devise long-term financing plan Affordability via financial aid Incentive pools to drive increase in external research funding Develop regional capacity Incentives for Community College development
COMPACTS • Worked out by CHE and institutions • Multi-year handshakes
• Relate to public agenda
• Recommend to Governor and legislature • Reform bonding statute for research universities
Laws • Compacts • Roundtable
• VU – Middle Technical College
• Community College governance