The-Ave.US

Rep. Reuven Carlyle

(edited from his blog) ….. Recently I find myself looking at the large scale structural issue in higher education with a recognition and acknowledgement that despite my private protests governance does matter. But I don’t mean governance in the Olympia sense of whether to merge the Workforce Development Board into the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, or whether to make the Office of Financial Management the primary data collector and manager of higher education data rather than the Higher Education Coordinating Board.

I mean the real issues that matters outside of Olympia.

Rightly or wrongly, the Governor’s task force on higher education finance didn’t even bother to touch the subject of governance.

…….

Should we radically reform our state’s higher educational governance structure and, if so, how?

One option that I have been studying and beginning to discuss openly is the idea of merging our state’s three regional universities–Western, Central and Eastern Washington universities–and our one unaffiliated institution in Evergreen State College, into the two primary research institutions.

Similar in some respects to California, we could create a system by which the University of Washington and Washington State University are the two major four year institutional infrastructures with extensive branch campus presence in vital areas.

Just a handful of obvious questions are whether such a move would increase and improve student access, affordability and quality? Would it help our state achieve our master plan goals of dramatically higher levels of educational attainment? Would it responsibly save money and redirect those savings to student success?

Let’s look at some pros and cons.

On the pro front: The addiction in our state to decentralization that I’ve discussed before is, if nothing else, an assurance that every institution follows a ‘go it alone’ strategy. In terms of administration, this means each institution has its own back end utility infrastructure such as HR, finance, admissions, technology, transportation, janitorial services, construction contracts. In terms of teaching and learning, it means that it is nearly impossible to coordinate academic programs across extension programs, regions and categories such as ‘high demand’ fields. In terms of student services, it means there is rarely a focus on student success metrics in such a manner that we as legislators can link money to outcomes. In terms of Olympia, we could also finally end the tired battles of trying to agree upon a role for the Higher Education Coordinating Board that today has ill-defined authority to perform ill-defined tasks.

More than anything, we could aggressively coordinate back end systems, academic programs, statewide policy goals and money in a structured fashion with both accountability and oversight for how the money flows and what we get for it.

That’s the theory anyway. I’m also not unappreciative of the prospect that the grass is always greener.

On the con side, the list is equally as long. In terms of student success, what indications do we have that performance problems–like the distressingly low graduation rate and high student debt load at Eastern Washington University–could be better managed by new management from Washington State University of University of Washington administrators? What indications do we have that the cost savings of consolidating ‘back end’ utility infrastructures would be redistributed to teaching and learning? Would we stamp out creativity, innovation and entrepreneurialism from top to bottom? Would we have the courage to also change direction for entities such as University of Washington–Bothell that may need to be closed, moved or otherwise reformed?

All of the above require ‘differential regulation,’ meaning we can’t have a one size fits all model for tuition rates and other key issues. We need a creative model that allows institutions to customize to their local needs.

All of these questions and many more are not easy. But they pale in comparison to the political battles of what institutions would be merged and how.

For example, the synergies between Washington State University and Eastern and Central are generally apparent, in my view. For example, all three have fully embraced the idea of extension programs in partnership with our state’s community and technical college system, and they’ve shown an understanding of that method of delivering access.

The synergies between the University of Washington and Western also seem to be generally aligned. Outside of the two branch campuses that we all know where forced upon the University of Washington rightly or wrongly, the UW and Western have not embraced an extension model of program delivery. And yet a very different issue surfaces in consideration of this merger.

Given the current popularity of the UW and Western with students, it’s dangerous to potentially create a two class system by which one network has the highest demand from wealthier students–in the populated part of the state–and the other is comprised of students from lower economic backgrounds in the less populated part of the state.

So, under that scenario, perhaps WSU would merge with Eastern and Western while the UW merges with Central and Evergreen? I don’t have an answer and I promise that I’m not trying to force one down the throat of the institutional infrastructure of higher education in Washington. But I do know that it’s a legitimate conversation.

At the same time–even before our current economic collapse–we have to acknowledge that we were near the very bottom in our nation in the production of bachelor’s and advanced degrees. So why has our performance overall been subpar? The linkages with our two year system are not trivial since transfer students make up an increasingly higher proportion of four year attendees. This also has implications for the traction that Bellevue College and other leading two year institutions are experiencing with respect to offering four year bachelor’s degrees in certain fields. Would they be included down the road or not? How many ‘outliers’ should be allowed to ‘go it alone’ before we are, once again, failing to share even common sense resources, programs, systems and infrastructure?

The community college federation is sometimes a model of shared resources and a coordinated strategy and sometimes the internal politics leads to a ‘go it alone’ approach that just doesn’t make an ounce of sense.

Underlying it all is the fact that we cannot continue to eviscerate higher education funding in the State of Washington. Our economic future is tied to the idea that we are the center of innovation in so many areas from aerospace to wireless to software to biotech to global health to e-commerce and more. But our economy is propped up by the fact that we are totally and completely dependent upon the importation of highly educated workers and citizens. And, as I note over and over again, we need poets and artists and historians as well as scientists and nurses. And most of all we need an educated citizenry.

Simply, our economic engine of the innovation economy is relatively strong compared to other states because energetic people usually with college degrees move to Seattle, King County and Washington. But we are weak when it comes to unleashing access, affordability and quality of higher education for our own children. We are failing our own children’s future.

Radical governance reform may not, of course, be the answer. It could easily be a major distraction. But until I see a more aggressive, bold and courageously honest willingness on the part of our institutions of higher education to meaningfully share resources, coordinate academic programs and fight together to improve everyone’s overall performance, it’s hard to ignore the 800 pound elephant in the room.

Total and complete decentralization has it’s place in government and society and the Internet. Here at home, in today’s economic world, in the realm of higher education, I’m just no longer so sure whether it’s an asset or a liability.

We are so much more than what we’ve become.

Your partner in service,

Reuven.