ED 227 142

TITLE

INSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 015 980

Master Plan for Higher Education: Opportunity in aTime of Change.Ohio Board of Regents, Columbus.Sep 8248p.Ohio Board of Regents, 3600 State Office Tower, 30East Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43215.Reports - Descriptive (141)

MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.*Access to Education; College Planning; College Role;Continuing Education; Cooperative Programs;*Educational Finance; Financial Policy; GovernmentSchool Relationship; Graduate Study; *HigherEducation; *Master Plans; School BusinessRelationship; *Statewide Planning; UndergraduateStudy*Ohio

ABSTRACTThe Ohio Board of Regents' master plan for higher

education is presented. After providing an overview of Ohio's highereducation system, the following factors that should be considered instatewide planning are addressed: the economy of Ohio, theavailability of student financial aid, changing enrollment patterns,changes in federal and state policies, the changing public perceptionof the value of college and university study, and the increasingcompetition for students. A social compact is proposed forcollaboration between public and private colleges and universities,and business, industrial, and governmental leaders. Recommendationsfor enacting the social compact are offered for the areas of

instruction, public service, and research. Access to college programsis discussed with reference to college preparation, undergraduateprograms, graduate programs, and noncredit continuing educationprograms. Geographic access, access for physically impaired students,and financial access to higher education are also considered. Inaddition, attention is directed to: reform of subsidy support,capital improvements planning and budgeting, clarifying institutionalobjectives, program review, and service patterns of stateuniversities and two-year colleges. (SW)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

IDFIDBOARDOFREGENTS

MASTER PLAN FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

OPPORTUNITY IN A TIME OF CHANGE

US. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

Lioes document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating itMinor changes have been made to improve

reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in I his docu

ment do not necessarily represent official NIE

Position or policy.

"PERMISSIONTO REPRODUCE

THISMATERIAL HAS BEENANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONALRESOURCESINFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)."

OHIOBOARDOFREGENTS

'DI The Governor. the General Assembly andthe Peopl of Ohio

Central to the statutory responsibility of the OhioBoard of Regents is formulation of `a master planfor higher education of the state, considering theneeds of the people. the needs of the state, andthe role of individual public and privateinstitutions within the state in fulfilling theseneeds.° This. the fourth Master Plan for HigherEducation, unlike its predecessors. is a strategicplan an approach for planning for anticipatedchanges of this decade.

Although the higher education system in Ohio islikely to face continued financial constraints andenrollment uncertainties during the 1980's.exciting new opportunities are available for

ca

strengthening program quality and for assuminga major role in revitalizing this state's economy.The success with which the changes and thechallenges of the next decade are managedwill be dependent on sound planning at thelocal, regional and state levels and on increasedcollaboration and cooperation among ourinstitutions.

The Board of Regents is fully committed to thisplan which it believes will sustain a strongsystem of autonomous public and privateinstitutions offering a breadth and accessibility ofprogramming to be found in few if any otherstates in the nation.

Richard I. KrabachChairmanOhio Board of RegentsSeptember 10. 1962

- Atile,411

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IntrodUctioni Ohio's Higher Education System

An Environment of Opportunity

Opportunity for a New Social Compact

Opportunity for Improved Access and Quality

Stabilizing the Base

A Consolidation of Institutional Strength

The Maturing System

Conclusion

4

6

9

15

21

25

211

44

41.

004

OHIO'S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

Itzength of laseenteesIn the years since 1804 when Ohio University

was founded. the State of Ohio has built a strongsystem of higher education. The challenge of the1980's will be to sustain and develop theseeducational resources to the greatest advantageof the state and its citizens

Ohio's higher educational resources are com-prehensive, diverse, and mature, including, onmore than 60 public campuses. 12 state univer-sities. 2 free-standing medical colleges. 8 com-munity colleges, 17 technical colleges. and 23university branches. An additional 44 privateliberal arts colleges and universities and morethan 70 specialized colleges (art academies.seminaries, nursing schools, technologicalinstitutes) provide Ohio with one of the largestconcentrations of institutions of higher educationin the nation

In 1981. 384.000 students were enrolled inOhio's public institutions. and 100,000 morewere enrolled in private institutions in Ohio. Sixty-six thousand students earned degrees-53,000fzom public institutions and 13,000 from privateinstitutions The physical plant of public institu-tions alone included about 1400 buildings total-ing 60 million square feet of space, 80 percent ofwhich was devoted directly to instnactional andother academic activities

Ohio's two-year institutionsincluding com-munity and technical colleges and universitybranch campusesprovide programs ingeneral education and such technical studies asbusiness technologies, health technologies.agricultural and natural resources technologies.and public service technologies. Ohio is one ofonly a few states to have located two-yearpostsecondary educational opportunities withincommuting distance of every citizen

Ohio's four-year institutions ar mature andhighly diversified. Every college and universityin Ohio offers baccalaureate studies in liberalarts as well as pre-professional training Oppor-tunities range from several dozen majors in

1

4

Ohio's smaller colleges to nearly 200 programsat the state's largest university. Four-year Institu-lions are distributed well throughout the stateand Ohio's urban centers cae especially wellserved

Post-baccalaureate opportunities include highdemand graduate level professional andacademic programs at a number of public andprivate institutions as well as a comprehensiverange of masters and doctoral programs at thelarger public and private universities. Especiallystrong in health education. Ohio has sevenmedical schools as well as programs in phar-macy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, optometry,ang nursing. Advanced work in other proles .sio-nal fieldslaw, engineering, business,agriculture, educationis available at selectedinstitutions throughout the system.

The diversity and comprehensiveness of Ohio'sinstructional programs, including a variety ofnoncredit courses that promote personaldevelopment and career improvement are, theRegents believe, among the State of Ohio's mostimportant resources. Further, the researchcapacity of Ohio's colleges and universities andthe transfer of research results to the service ofgovernment business. cind industry hold greatpromise for the economic development of thestate. Public sorvice activities are also importantcomponents of higher education in the State ofOhio. notably the Agricultural CooperativeExtension Service, health services provided byuniversity hospitals. faculty consultations withcitizen group& business and industry, govern-ment agencies. and social services. and a widevariety of cultural activitieslectures, film presen-tations. musical and dramatic performances. artexhibits, and athletic events

An important quality of Ohio's educationalresources is maturity, both of faculty andfacilities Faculty members in Ohio's collegesand universities are established scholan andteacher& Collectively they represent a preciousresource developed over time and very difficultto replace. Likewise, Ohio's educational facilities

5

are generally very good both in their distribulionand in their condition. The Board anficipates noneed for major expailsion of new facilities in thecoming years but a 2es expect a need to replaceand renovate olck: facilities and to replaceobsolete equipment to meet changing needsand to sustain academic quality.

Management of the SystemGiven the vast resources of Ohio's public and

private colleges and universities, there hasevolved an effective management systemwhich encompasses both institutional autonomyand state-level coordination. The balancebetween public control and institufional inde-pendence in Ohio weighs heavily on the side ofinstitutional independence when measuredagainst the Carnegie Commission's recom-mended pattern for distribullon of authority. Nochange in this relationship is sought oranticipated.

The primary authority for governance, fiscaland business operations, admissions, andacademic policies of Ohio's colleges and univer-sities rests with the individual boards of trusteesIndividual institutions are able to respond to theneeds of their respective student bodies and thecommunities they serve. They are able todevelop personnel policies that assureacademic freedom and quality in both scholar-ship and teaching. And each board of trusteeshas the responsibility to manage its resourceseffectively and to establish its own funding andprogram priorilles The advantages of this policyare reflected in the strength and diversity ofOhio's higher education system today.

Established in 1963, the Ohio Board of Regentshas sought to define and reflect the state's inter-est in higher education and to suggest rules ofthe game for an otherwise highly autonomousand complex system of public and private col-leges and universities. By statute, the Ohio Boardof Regents is a planning and coordinating body.Among its functions are maintenance of a corn-

5

prehensive information system.' recommenda-tion of operating and capital budgets for publicinstitufions authorization-of all new degrees anddegree programs at state-assisted, independentand out-of-state institutions offering programs inOhio; administration of state student financialaid programs the conduct of special studies forthe General Assembly and institutions anddevelopment of a Master Plan for higher educa-tion. The objective of the Board's coordinatingrole can be simply stated as making the best useof available resources in meeting the highereducational needs of Ohioans.

Influencing the course of higher education inOhio, especially its funding and its rankingamong the state's priorities, is the responsibility ofmany groups. Students and their parents are onevoice; faculty and professional associationsanother. Certainly the presidents and theChancellor have important roles in carryingboth the needs and the capabilities of the state'scolleges and universifies to the general publicand the General Assembly. But the boards oftrustees and the Regents, represenfing severalhundred persons of regional and statewide pro-minence and influence, collectively can andmust over the next decade "make the case" forhigher education.

In the 1980's, institutional leaders and theRegents together must forge a strong coalition toseek out new opportunities. to develop highquality services, and to make compatible theinterests of individual institullons with each otherand with the best interests of the State of Ohioand its students. If these objectives are achieved.Ohio can emerge from this decade with astronger and more cohesive system of highereducallon, delivering an array of services welltargeted toward Ohio's economic renewal andfuture growth as well as toward the educationaland career development of its citizensallwithout jeopardizing either institutionalautonomy or academic freedom.

AN ENVIRONMENT OF OPPORTUNITY

The decade ahead offers uncertainty andchange for higher education in Ohia The growthand expansion of the last three decade& for boththe state and its institutions of higher education.have slowed The well-being of state-supportedcolleges and universitie& closely tied to theeconomy of the state and nation. is now in aperiod of substantial transformation Perhapsmore crucial, the very nature of higher educa-tionits mission, its programs. itsachievementsfaces challenges in response tosuch broad social goals as acces to continuededucation, equal opportunity for individualgrowth. and other social priorities With carefulmanagement and disciplined self-examination.the Regents believe that this environment ofuncertainty and change can be transformedinto an environment of new opportunity.

Many external factors greatly influence highereducation planning. Among the most significanttor the years ahead appear to be the economyof the state and nation, the availability of studentfinancial aid, enrollments for the decade, thepublic's perception of a college degree. com-petition among post-high school institutions forstudents, and the changing nature and format ofprograms offered in response to evolving com-munity needs.

The economy of the State of Ohio retains itsstrong base in industry and agriculture and con-tinues to broaden this base with growingfinance and with service industrie& More than 4I/2 million persons are now employed in Ohio,and annual personal income exceeds $110billion, But at the present time, the nationaleconomy is faced wtth recession, and changingnational spending patterns have a direct effecton the funding of higher education. Moreover.Ohio because of ib prominence in heavymanufacturing, has suffered a more severedecline and may be slower to recover in a risingbusiness cycle than many other state& The statehas had to cope with high unemployment, rapidescalation of basic welfare service& and severelasses in state tax revenue& Continuing condi-tions suggest a sluggishness in the state's

6

recovery, and funding for basic service& includ-ing higher education. may be expected to re-main below need for a protracted period of time.Obviously, such conditions require caution inplanning for higher education in the yearsimmediately ahead

A factor closely related to the state of theeconomy is the availability of student finan-cial aid, especially in light of the rising portion ofthe cost of higher education that must be passedon to the students. Any changes in state andfederal policies on student financial aid pro-grams require careful analysis tor their potentialto influence student access especially withinyounger age group& In particular. cuts in aidcould severely curtail student choice betweenprivate and public or between residential andcommuter campuses, threatening major shifts inenrollment patterns and institutional stability.

Changing patterns of enrollment continue toraise fundamental questions for higher educa-tion planning. The Master Plan, 1976 suggested adecline in the number of high school graduate&the traditional source of full-time students tor col-leges and universities and described andencouraged increasing numbers of olderstudents. often women, enrolling at post-secondary institutions on a part-time basis. Morerecent data confirm these trends. The number ofhigh school graduates in Ohio has been declin-ing for tour years and will continue to declinethroughout the 1980's. Preliminary 1980 censusdata show that the decline in younger agegroups is even greater than earlier expectedand that the increase in the 20-35 age groups Lssomewhat less than expected.

But in spite of the declining school age popula-tion, college enrollments have risen A largerpercentage of Ohio's population is now going tocollege. In the past Ohio has been below thenational norms for percentage of the populationattending colleges and universitie& so thisincrease may represent some catching up. How-ever. weakened economic conditions probablyhave had the effect of encouraging higher

enrollments than in normal economic timesForecasters should be cautious, therefore, aboutinterpreting the current rise of enrollments asevidence of a long-term trend.

The Regents' Master Plane 1976 projected differ-ing growth rates for different types of public insti-

tutions, all of which have in fact tared better thanexpected The technical colleges, which havebeen highly responsive to job market require-meats by developing new programs havesholvn the strongest eruollrnent growth In spite ofvariations between projected and actual enroll-ments, the assumption that different kinds of in-stitutions would grow at different rates has beenconfirmed and should continue to guide stateplanning. Enrollments in Ohio's private collegeand universities, which should be regarded forplanning purposes as yet another kind of institu-tion. have increased only slightly since 1975 aswas anticipated.

What future enrollment levels can Ohio's inst1 .

tutions of higher education eapect? Exhibit I

divides students into three key age groups,shows enrollments of these groups in public col-leges and universities since 1971 (including theenrollment projections of the 1976 Plan), and pro-vides modified enrollment projections through1990. Two significant changes from the 1976 pro-

so

a

18-21

30+

jections should be noted Enrollments in the 18-21

age groups have been greater than earlier anti-cipated, and enrollments in the 22-9 age groupshave been lower thah anticipated Those whoassumed that increased college enrollment byolder students would compensate for the declinein the pool of traditional younger full-timestudents should take special note thatenrollments in the 22-29 age,voup have beenbelow expectations. Enrollments of stUdents over30, however, have generally borne out the 1976projections Actual enrollments of all threegroups in 1980 suggest that in 1990 the systemoverall may enroll fewer students than the 1976Master Plan projected

Looking even further ahead the US. Bureau ofthe Census anticipates that the number of youngpersons will begin to rise again toward the endof the century, following a low point in 1993. By

the year 2000 the number of the nation's18-year-olds will return to the 1980 level. Althoughno forecast of detailed enrollments is reliable for

so extended a period the message for long-termstate planning is clear. The period of decliningenrollments is likely to be a trough from whichthe state will rebound after a fifteen-year period,and the present system of colleges and univtu-sities so carefully put into place over many yearswill continue to be needed by the State of Oho.

MUTT I

OHIO'S PUBLIC ENROLLMENT BY AGE GROUP

0

0

0 Quasi popIrspoSon Moo PPM Stancwdoipased

Lam pall:Wago owe WM Mon cmOcIpaled

....11Pd..0111 4..

..111...."dew.

Protectionband on19110 Mee

1976Malec PlanProerclion

ActualEnroliment

71 72 72 74 72 711 77 74 TO 4011111214 UNIIIII17111111110Tem

7

While some changes in the configuration ofcampuses (through selective mergers or otherconsolidation) may be justified in the 1980's. abasic strategy for sustaining the capability of theexisting system is essential The policy proposalsthat follow seek to fashion such a strategy.

Another possible influence on colleges anduniversities in the decade ahead hinges on theoutcome of discussions on reinstating thenational draft for militaxy service. U Congressdecides to reinstate the draft and does notinclude an educational deferment the enroll-ment patterns of 18- and I9-year-old students willbe radically changed On the other hand. ifthose who serve in the military receive strongeducational benefits. enrollments could rise !Cubeyond present expectations but with a lag oftwo to three years for the affected age groups

Other changes in federal and state policiesmay also radically affect institutions of highereducation. For example, historically, apart fromgrants for research and creative activity, about96% of all federal aid to higher education hasgone directly to students, while about 96% of allstate aid has gone directly to institution& Anysignificant change in these patterns could havea very considerable impact on individual institu-tions as well as on higher education viewedstatewide and nationally.

The changing public perception of thevalue of college and university study alsoaffects higher education planning. As a nile, thejob prospects of college graduates have histori-cally been better than the prospects of personswithout higher education exposure. Recentstudies show this still to be true, that the high cor-relation between higher levels of education andhigher lifetime earnings continues and that col-lege graduates generally suffer lowerunemployment during difficult economic times.Moreover, recent trends suggest that a collegedegree is a valuable asset to older personsreentering the job market and that continuingcollege education helps persons upgrade theiremployment skills in a rapidly changing tech-nological society. All of these factors reaffirm thevalue of higher education, but each generationinterprets that value in its own terms, froM its ownperspective. A continuing challenge to Ohio'seducatois is to and the most effective ways of in-forming citizens about available educational

services and to modify programs as appropriatein response to community need&

A final factor to be considered in any planningfor the future of, higher education in Ohio is theincreasingly keen competition for students, acompetition that will probably continue to.sharpen ar the available enrollment pooldecreases. Many ldnds of educational institu-tions are entering this competition The Regentshave recently noted a growing number of out-of-state institutions seeking approval to offercourses and degree programs in Ohio. WhileOhio law, by requiring Regents' approval forsuch courses and programs. assures that theywill meet established levels of quality, there is noprovision for comparable evaluation of existingprograms offered by Ohio institutions.

Competition for students is also increasing fromproprietary schools the business sector, profes-sional associations, and many other organiza-tions. Several recent laws require continuingeducation for many professionals andparaprofessionals to qualify for and maintaintheir credentials or licensure. These variouseducational units are seeking to be involved insuch new requirements Programs in newtechnologle& such as the many emergingtelecommunications technologies (television.videotape, videodisc, computer-assisted learn-ing). have flourished, especially in the non-collegiate educational sector. Ohio law nowmakes students in degree-granting proprietprycolleges eligible for Ohio Instructional Giantsand Ohio Academic Scholarships. a factor thathas encouraged the development of these pro-grams, particularly at the associate degree level

Educational planners must keep a watchfuleye on these and other factors, while maintain-ing a positive attitude toward the opportunitiesinherent in the challenges ahead for highereducation. With positive measures towardcooperative solutions. with strong and creativeleadership, with collaborative rather than com-petitive venture& the system und the State ofOhio can emerge stronger than ever. Thedevelopment Of new and supportive relation-ships with business and industry, improvement ofparticipation on the part of potential studentgroups, and enhancement of program qualityare the goals at hand

OPPORTUNITY FOR A NEW SOCIAL COMPACT

Institutions of higher education and particu-larly state universities are commonly guided bya threefold mission of instruction, research, andpublic service. In working toward achievementsin each of these areas. Ohio's colleges anduniversities have given the lie to the image ofivory tower institutions isolated from the societyaround them, tor they have contributed impor-tantly to the enrichment and economy of thestate. Through instruction, higher education hasprovided a highly skilled work force and leadersfor the nationindividuals who have discoveredand developed resources, managed andexpanded corporations, provided health care,and worked in local state, and national posi-tions of leadership and trust

Through research, a direct connection hasbeen forged between higher education and thesuccessful solution of contemporari problemsin agricultural development, national defense .health sciences, industrial technologies, and thesophisticated technologies associated with thenation's space program, to name only a few.Research within Ohio institutions has providedmany noteworthy contributions to the state. Forexample. tor many years the research con-ducted by the Ohio Agricultural Research andDevelopment Center has greatly improved farmproductivity. Higher education researchers havealso responded to Ohio's energy needs throughfunds made available by the Ohio GeneralAssembly, the Ohio Board of Regents and thestate universities established the Ohio Inter-University Energy ReSearch Council to coordi-nate energy research activities of the majorpublic and private universities in the state.Similarly. the Ohio Coal Research LaboratoriesAssociation (OCRLA) was created to addressOhio's problem in the use of high-sulphur coalExtensive investigations into both basicmechanisms of human function and diseasealong with sophisticated clinical studies inpatients characterize the past and presentresearch outputs from Ohio's health-relatedschools. These projects provide employment fortechnically skilled individuals and cutting-edgecare tor Ohio citizens. These examples arecooperative attempts by Ohio's institutions to

9

marshall their resources to help strengthen thestate's economic viability. And having graduateand professional students assist in these effortsproduces professionals who will themselves bethereby better prepared to serve business andindustiy as tuture researchers and leaders

Higher education's work in instruction andresearch is widely understood and appreciated.The efforts of Ohio's colleges and universities tocarry out their mission of public. service are alsowidely evident- but the Regents believe theseefforts can and should be dramaticallyexpanded and inteniiiied Through public ser-vice, higher education reaches out to the societyat large, extending its instructional and researchresources to individuals and groups not nor-mally viewed as within the academic dommuni-ty. The facul. members of Ohio's colleges anduniversities lave served as consultants- andhave offered noncredit workshops seminarsand training programs. They have also supported programs to share information andtechnologies widely through the OhioTechnology Transfer Organization.. the AreaHealth Education Centers, the Labor Educationand Research Service, the Cooperative Exten-sion Service, and the Urban University Grantsprogram.

Additionally, the health education programsof the state have provided massive patient careservices to Ohio. Each medical schoolthroughits programs in family medicine and primarycare, internal medicine, mid pediatricsreachesout within its community to provide health seVvice. Sophisticated tertiary care referral pro-grams exist at several medical schools to helppatients with complex medical problems Andthe statewide Area Health Education Centersprograms provide training to nursing alliedhealth. dental, medical and pharmacy studentsas well as extensive continuing educational pro-grams for practitioners in those same disciplines

The fortunes of higher education in Ohioitsvitality, its quality, and the strength of its richfaculty reepurcesare inextricably linked to the

fortunes ot the state as a whole. Ohio's collegesand universities should therefore be willing anddetermined to help the state meet its currentchallenges Higher education's fidelity to this trustis essential to both its own interests and those ofOhio. Financial support tor higher education inthe years ahead will depend both upon publicperceptions of its usefulnes and upon the state'sability to solve the economic problems it nowfaces Ohio's economic problems are not solelyof its own making, the solutions, however, inlarge part will have to be. On Ohio's college anduniversity campuses, both public and private, isknowledge which can contribute importantly tothe solution of these problems Higher educationmust organize itself so as to be a part of the solu-tion to Ohio's economic problems rather thansimply to allow its needs to be a part of thoseproblems

A Plow Social CompactThe Board of Regents urges that an unpre-

cedented cooperative effort be made to identifyareas in which the needs of the state and thestrengths of higher education intersect. Thehigher education community and the State ofOhio should join in making possible a new era ofcollaboration between public and private col-leges and universities, and business. industrial.and governmental leaders, pursuing the areasof greatest opportunity. To this end. the Board pro-poses a new social compact between highereducation and the society at large, a compactequally important and rewarding for both par-ties, to promote advancement of the quality oflife in Ohio.

Subsequent study and discussion by all partiesto this compact will be necessary to forge detailsof this program. However. the Board proposesthat greatly expanded efforts be undertakenwithin the general categories of instruction,research, and service, and that three generalprinciples govern these efforts

1) All parties to the compactleaders fromeducation, business industry, heallkpareprofessions. labor, government and thecommunityshould be involved trom theoutset

2) All efforts of educational institutions toJoin inplanning must be collaborative, with dueregard in subsequent operational phases

10

1 ,

tor appropriate competition among institu-tions able to render services.

3) Already existing strength§ within Ohio's col-leges and universities, not duplication ofstrengths and resources, should form thebase tor efforts to focus educationalresources upon new opportunities

In making this recommendation, the Board ofRegents fully recognizes the financial constraintson available resourcesIti the present economy.Each institution will have to determine the extentof its commitment to the new social compactsharing the cost of public service and researchwith society, business, and industry. Thisapproach is not unlike the long-accepted con-cept of student and state sharing the cost of in-struction in which both benefit The Boardbelieves society likewise will fund college anduniversity service activities (as it presently is inmany instances) when the payoff becomesclearer. This recommendation tor a new socialcompact simply urges institutions and theirfaculties to make the -front-end" investmentnecessary to expand the public's appreciationof higher education in instruction, research, andpublic service. Sustained funding during thecoming period may well depend on how effec-tively institutions respond to this new opportunity.

insbuctionThe instructional linkages with business. Indus-

try, health care. social servicts and governmentseem most clearly to be areas tor local orregional development Direct targeted col-laboration is needed between Ohio employersand all types of educational institutions. Bothemployers and educational institutions areextremely widespread and diverse, yet nearlyall educational institutions in Ohio have the inter-est and capacity to serve these entities in variousways. Moreover, many local linkages alreadyexistsome relatively new, others of long-standing. For exampla

Individual bUsinesses and industries haveprovided training for their employees orcontracted tor such training with others.Associations for this purpose. 11ke thekmerican Society for, Trainino- andDeveloptent already exist.

Various Chainbers of Commerce haveestablished local, councils that addreu

training needs as part of a strategy fordeveloping local businesses and industries.There are also local committees implement-ing the federal Comprehensive Employ-ment Training Act

Many labor groups have identified theirmembers' training needs and have soughtways to satisfy them.

Health delivery systems, which are fre-

quently major employers in the state'smetropolitan centers, have provided exten-sive training and clinical experience forhealth care professionals.

Working alone ana in concert colleges anduniversities have organized advisory com-mittees linking themselves to business.industrial: and governmental groups thatneed in-service education Some regionalconsortia eXist to coordinate their efforts.

The Division of Vocational Education of theOhio Department of Education has donesubstantial work to establish consortia ofvocational schools, community andtechnical colleges to provide job trainingfor businesses and industries.

In most communities, several or all of theseefforts have suggested to the Regents that noeffective purpose would be served by trying todevise a uniform approach to this issue. Ohiocommunities quite naturally differ widely in theirbusiness and industrial resources and in theirways of dealing with local interests. However, aseries of conferences recently sponsored by theBoard of Regents uncovered a number of com-mon regional ,concerns throughout the statenamely,

Many community organizations, agencies,and institutions haire overlapping purposesand objectives.

Redundant sutveys have been made toevaluate local needs.

Some group efforts have unintentionallycrossed purposes.

Without a single forum considering thelegitimate interests of all area parties, gaps inService and communication have occurred

These conferences concluded that a collabora-tive forum would help leaders working tostrengthen existing linkages to understand betterand evaluate the total linkage effort.

After limited testing, the Board of Regents hasfound that forming regional work and learningcouncils may enhance linkage efforts <many ofwhich are relatively new) by providing a fonimfor itiscussing mutual interests and sharing infor-mation Generally, no new structure is needed.only coordination of efforts. These councilswould not themselves deliver any services ar.dso would not compete with their componentorganizations.

The Board of Regents proposes and seeks toencourage the creation of work and learrungcouncils at the local and regional level on an adhoc basis. Members will be representatives otmajor linkage organizations already in place aswell as , key community representritives ofeducationaL employer, employee, at-A.2 govern-mental groups. Council purposes be deter-mined locally but will in all cases include con-sideration of educational opportunities ap-propriate to adults and the manpower needs ofthe area. Since the health care system is a viableservice and employment sector, the Board ofRegents encourages greater involvement by thehealth care delivery system and the healtheducational programs of the state in jointly seek-ing innovations as well as cost containment TheRegents recommend using such computerizedinformation aids as the Ohio Career intormationSystem when appropriate, and further recom-mend that Educational Intormation Centers.where they have already been established berepresented in these collaborative efforts.

ResearchThe research interests of Ohio institutions and of

individual faculty members often reflect agreater concern for extending knowledge thanfor producing new technologies or productsuseful to business and industry Yet these interests.where harmonies of purpose exist, likely canand must be linked with the needs, both immedi-ate and long-term. ot industrial developmentThe central challenge will be to seek linkageswhich distort neither the legitimate academicinterests of university research nor the legitimateinterests in commercial development develop-

mer# on which the economic strength of thestate and nation is based.

Clearly, resources for research are, not evenlydie ibuted among Ohio universities and equallyclearly, efforts to redistribute those resourceswould be ribither cost effective nor usefulStrategies to develop research linkages mustdeal sensitively with the diverse and legitimateinterests of all parties to this new social compactThey will have to reflect an understanding ofhow basic research flows over time towardtechnological and product development Suchstrategies will have to identity, evaluate, andsupport research that has potential value forOhio's business and industrial development

The Board of Regents proposes the establish-ment of an appropriate structure to develop andimplement a collaborative use of the state'sresearch resources Representatives should bedrawn from Ohio's major public and privateresearch universities from university healthcenters from universities pursuing research oncomplex urban problems from research areas ofprivate research institutions as well as businessand industry. and from government leaders con-cemed with industrial development includingthe Ohio Board of Regents The principal objec-tives of this structwe should be, (1) to identitystrategies for expanding university researchfocused on promoting increased business andindustrial activity in, Ohio, (2) to supportincreased productivity and renewal within exist-ing businesses and industries and (3) to supportgovernmental policies of long-range businessand industrial development Very simply. theBoard of Regents seeks to m91ce knowledgewidely accesible kg solving theproblems of theeconomy and is uniquely placed to serve as amarriage broker between research resourcesand users in business industry, and governmentproviding important coordination and adminis-trative support

Several steps need to be taken at an earlydate.

A review must be made of how newknowledge moves from the research labor-atory to the molketplace of goods and ser-vices. The proper roles of business govern-ment and universities in stimulating and

12

supporting various stages ot LI..At flow ofknowledge must be understood.

The areas of researcK that promise thegreatest pertinence to economic develop-ment must be identified and strategies ofsupport must be devised for them. (Theextensive health and agricultural researchefforts in Ohio would be included here.)

A highlr sophisticated inventory musetmade of where such research is now goi gon or should be encouraged.

Means must be iought for evaluatingresearch which has potential for newlinkages with the users of research.

Researchers and users must be broughttogether to plan ventures of mutual interest

Ohio's overall strategy for economic.development must be studied in light of theneeds to develop new and to strengthenexisting products through researchlinkages.

Colleges and universities must make provi-sions for accepting and encouraging refer-rals and local inquilies for researchassistance (recognizing, on the one hand.the need simply to provide advice and onthe other, the need for help in developingproducts and reiearch).

Throughout this process, thought should begiven to how innovation and creativity can beenhanced The intellectual resources on Ohio'scollege and university campuses are great andshould be directed toward these importantapplications. However, the emphasis on applica-tions cannot be at the expense of basic researchor balanced education.

Public SoniaThrough public service activities public and

private colleges and universities share outsidethe academic cnmmunity the information andspecial resources developed through theirresearch and instructional program& In additionto the specific instructional and researchresources dealt with in previous section& threetypes of service activities require careful

development in the new social compact pro-posed in this chapter, direct services, consultativeservices, and technology transfer service&

By direct services is meant a broad range ofservices offered usually by highly specializedunits of a college or university. Examples include,a highly sophisticated veterinary clinic capableof treating unusual animal diseases or injuries, aspecialized materials-testing laboratory whichopens access to its more esoteric equipment tononacademic researchers; a specializedresearch library which opens its holdings to allworking in the field or a computer graphicslaboratory developed for university instructionand research but available to a wide range ofgroups. Consultative services should beavailable through individual faculty memberswhose experiences an external group may tapto help solve its problem& Consultative serviceswould also be available in a university-associated center or institute.

Technology transfer services systematicallyprovide access for interested parties to informa-tion growing out of a university's past researchefforts Technology transfer services, which maybe provided by universities and colleges indivi-dually or in concert require regular contactswith the groups to be served, detailedknowledge as to where to find pertinent exper-tise, and procedures for arranging access to thatexpertise by nonacademic individuals ororganizations. In sum, a technology transfer ser-vice places a well-devised information systemand a well-informed professional personbetween the sources of information and theirpotential users. It may also involve thedissemination of information and researchresults through such instructional routes asworkshops, noncredit courses, and consultingSeveral existing examples of technology transferservices are

The Ohio Cooperative Extension Service,which through its system of county andregional agents and supportive activate&has been the outstanding successful modelof technology transfer. In collaboration withthe Ohio Agricultural Research andDevelopment Center, it has made acomprehensive contribution to Ohio's farmindustries and agricultural businesses.

160::

13

The Ohio Technology Transfer Organization(OTTO), a pilot network project linkingresources of the state's universities with theneeds of Ohio businesses and industries.OTTO uses a number of two-year collegefield agents working with the universities, tofocus on problems of small and medium-sized firms.

The Urban Universities Program which istied through a statewide consortium to themajor state-supported urban-based univer-sities. This program employs services fromeight state universities to study the complexneeds of large urban centers

Although the businesses, industries, andgovernmental and social service agencies thatcould benefit from these kinds of public serviceactivities are spread throughout the state, thebasic university resources associated with suchactivities are not evenly distributed Specializedresources rendering direct services tend to beconcentrated within the comprehensivegraduate universities, although each of theuniversities in the state makes contributions inparticular fields. Taking careful account ofwhere resources for direct services are located isimperative to expanding the availability of suchservices. Faculty consultative resources aresimilarly configured, but faculty resources areavailable on every university campus in Ohio. Acomprehensive inventory of these resources isessential for efficient effective accessing of theseresources. Resources for technology transfer ser-vices are not evenly distributed across the state'scolleges and universities. Such services drawmost heavily upon existing research activitieswhich. in Ohio, are found on all university cam-puses to some extent but are concentrated at thecomprehensive institutions

In all three kinds of potential services, newlinkage systems must draw directly upon exist-

ing. resources rather than attempt to duplicatethem The research centers developed overscores of years at great expense to the state neednow to be shared with Ohio's larger society. At

the same time, the groups needing assistancewill be widely scattered throughout the state.Outreach mechanisms therefore must bedeveloped to provide users with access to thebest source of information.

The 114th Ohio General Assembly has man-dated that the Board of Regents study and makerecommendations regarding an Ohio businessand industry extension service, including socialservices Although the study is in its initial stagesdiscussions with leaders of government highereducation, and business suggest the followingpossible objectives tor such an organization,

To disperse throughout Ohio informationand technical knowledge based uponuniversity research to the benefit ofbusiness industry, and government in orderto enhance their productivity and effec-tiveness and to assist in forming newbusinesses and industries

To provide a referral network throughwhich businesses industries and govern-ments in Ohio may receive consultative ser-vices to expand and strengthen thebusiness and industrial base of Ohio'seconomy

To provide a referral network which willincrease access to specialized librarieslaboratories cald other resources for leaderscd Ohio businesses industries and govern-ments,

To coordinate instruction required fordissemination throughout Ohio of informa-tion centered at colleges, universities andmedical centers regarding technologies ofvalue to Ohio's businesses industries andgovernments and

To provide a referral service for statebusinesses industries, and governmentsseeking assistance and information aboutthe research capabilities of Ohio's collegesuniversities and medical centers as theyrelate to problems those leaders confront

The structure or organization of this proposedextension service will need to be defined and

14

will be the subject of considerable deliberationHowever, several components of such organiza-tion appear likely

Those represented should include the stateuniversities, two-year colleges, privatehigher educational institutions whichchoose to participate and other agencieson whose resources the service draws, thepotential business and industrial users of theservices, and state and local governments.

The Board of Regents should have anactive role, consistent with its legislatedauthority, in coordinating these services.

Clear roles should be designated forregional colleges and universities as a localfirst line of technology transfer and con-sultative service, with resources of all univer-sities serving as a statewide back-up andlinkage to state research capabilities.

Clear roles should be designated for thetwo-year college campuses as geographi-cally dispersed points of contact with localbusinesses industries, and governmentalagencies

An evaluative study should be made of theOhio Technology Transfer Organization. aswell as a feasibility study to determinenecessary modifications to make it an effec-tive base for a statewide outreach network.

The Ohio Board of Regents urges the highereducation community, the leaders of Ohio'sbusinesses industries and health care systemsand the governmental offices concerned withOhio's economic and social development to joinin the new social compact described here. Thepotential for a mutually beneficial endeavor isgreat and the Regents seek support of theseveral newly proposed ventures.

OPPORTUNITY FOR IMPROVED ACCESS AND QUALITY

Every Ohio citizen who is qualified for anddesires a college-level education should find it

possible to secure that education in Ohio. Thisprinciple is important to the State of Ohio forseveral reasons, including the personal developrnent of its residents and the social values, directand indirect that arise out of an educatedcitizenry and a well-educated work force.

Higher education benefits both the individualand the society in which individuals live andwork. In considering access to higher education.previous Master Plans have sought to assureopen access by citizens to the personal benefitsof enrolling in postsecondary studies, realizingthat the effort to strengthen citizen access alsobenefits society. The issue of society's access toOhio's institutions of higher education and thegreat -promise such access holds for the socialand economic development of Ohio have beendiscussed earlier under "Opportunities For ANew Social Compact" The focus of this chapter isthe issue of individual accessibilitY.

Students turn to institutions of higher educationfor many reasons, including personal intellec-tual development, career advancement andeconomic and social mobility. Indeed, the samestudent may turn to advanced study for differentreasons at different times Judgments of theaccessibility and quality of any experience inhigher education are individual and hinge oneach student's motives and needs in seekingeducation after high school. Given the widevariety ol legitimate reasons why any studentmay seek the services of higher education andthe wide range of individual student perceptionsof the effectiveness and quality of such service&it is reasonable to ask, what do Ohio's citizensexpect when they gain access to higher educa-tion? Two answers immediately come forwardOhioans seek access to a comprehensive andresponsive educational system, and they seekaccess to a high quality of service.

A Compnhenshro, Ilespendm Educational&Won

Broadly speaking, contemporary higher educ-ation provides for at least the following

15

categories of students students of "traditionarage, older adults (those beyond the traditionalcollege age), and groups of students who mayneed special consideration

Educating "traditional" aged under-graduate students requires the early com-munication of academie expectations tocollege-bound high school students abroad undergraduate curriculum that offersboth general education and career educa-tion component& and adequate prepara-tion for later graduate or professional study.

These students should also have access, II

they earn it to graduate education oppor-tunities by which they can becometeachers, scholar& researchers in either theacademic or nonacademic worlds, orprofessionals in the growing number orcareers that require advanced education

Educating the older adults also requiresundergraduate programs that foster per-sonal development and that provide pre-paration for careers and graduate study.But older students require programs thatcan accommodate their later entrance intohigher education. or their returning to finishdegrees after .a period away from formalstudies, or their desires for in-service educa-tion for career change or advancement Forthese students, graduate education maybest include general education or in-ser-vice professional education. And noncreditcontinuing education offers such studentspersonal development career enhance-ment or pleasure

Assisting in the social and economic mobil-ity of special categories of students willrequire special services to enhance par-ticipation and academic success of suchstudents. These students may include racialor ethnic minorities who have sufferedcultural disadvantages or handicappedstudents who have physical or emotionallimitations. Women. too, may need somespecial consideration to help overcome

historical educational and career stereo-types Supportive services especially areneeded to help ihose students who haveacademic deficiencies as they work to suc-ceed in individual educational programs.

A MO Quality ot SoniaIn higher education, defining "quality of ser-

vice" and measuring progress toward it arehighly important but vexing tasks As Ohio'ssystem phases down a long period of expansionand begins a period of possible enrollment insta-bility, how quality is defined and measured willdecide many necessary choices during the nextseveral years. Institutional managers and stateofficers should keep in mind criteria of excel-lence as they make their decisions To be sure,other factors such as a widespread student needfor a program. the social value of a service, thegeographical ease of access to education, andthe productivity of a program relative to its costare also essential to sound decisions But with thepressure of constant growth largely relieved anda highly diverse system of services already inplace, the years Just ahead offer a challenge toincrease quality through a process of deliberatechoice.

The Regents call for a concerted effort to defineexcellence of educational performance as abasis for sound choices among programs withinan institution, and among institutions whose ser-vices overlap, and for a parallel effort to seekmeans by which to encourage and rewardexcellence in higher education. The Regentsalso recognize that no single definition or stand-ard of excellence will be appropriate to thediverse purposes and audiences of highereducation in Ohio. The following sections reviewthe current status of individual access to highereducation in Ohio and incorporate recommen-dations of collaborative steps to clarify themeaning of excellence in various context& TheRegents make these recommendations as goalsfor institutions and state planning in the yearsahead

Accor to logogramColby* Preparation

Success in higher education requires ads-quate preparation Increasingly in recentdecades, students have been entering collegeunprepared to do college level work in

16

mathematics and English and consequentlywith diminished chances for success in college.Traditionally, individual colleges and univer-sities throughout Ohio have *Forked to meet theneeds of inadequately prepared new studentsby addressing the deficiencie& not the causes ofthose deficiencie&

More recently, the Board of Regents has joinedin an unprecedented liaison with the Ohio Boardof Education to provide leadership in addressingthis statewide educational concern and in help-ing students move from high school to collegewith a greater chance for success. In 1980, in aneffort to find a workable approach to this need.the two Boards appointed the Advisory Commis-sion on Articulation between Secondary Educa-tion and Ohio Colleges Charged with developing a college preparatory curriculum that, ifmastered, would prepare students tor college-level work. the Commission made recommen-dations regarding cuniculum. teacher educa-tion, and communication&

The recommendations formed a base for thecontinuing work of an Advisory Council on Col-lege Preparatory Program& Extensive efforts arenow underway to advise studen ts. teacher&administrators, college faculty, parent& and thegeneral public about college preparatory pro-grams in Ohio and to implement the ArticulationCommission's recommendations. And the resultsof these efforts are already being experienced incourse enr011ments within Ohio's high school&

Promoting adequate college preparation is acomplex task that no single agency or institutioncan accomplish alone. Cooperation betweenthe State Board of Education and the Board ofRegents should serve as a prototype for address-ing statewide problems in education Collegesand high schools should also work togetherclosely, since each has much to learn from theother. Together they can best advise college-bound students as to how best to prepare forhigher education. Beginning with discussionsbetween high school and college administra-tors. then between high school and collegefaculty, the collaborative process must eventual-ly involve parents, students, ahd communityrepresentatives. One outstanding example of thiscooperative approach is the Early MathematicsPlacement Test Program developed by one

university to assess the math competency ofhigh school juniors in relation to its own expecta-tions This allows time for corrective action duringhigh schooL This program should be consideredby all Ohio high schools, and a similar programmeasuring high school juniors' English composi-tion skills should be planned and implemented.Both programs merit legislative funding.

Undstgraduato ProgramsOhio's colleges and universities collectively

offer a comprehensive range of undergraduateprograms including virtually every recognizedbasic field of knowledge, and two-year pro-grams of a general or technical character arealso available in many disciplines Becausethere is little consensus as to the diverse purposesand expectations of these programs. however, itis difficult to encourage or reward outstandingperformance. Although in most programs themajor concentration is coherent and well-defined, general education course requirementsseldom reflect clear objectives or purposesTypically, requirements seek to assure thatstudents will be exposed to elements (physicalsocial cultural ethical) of the compiex environ-ment in which they will live, and to encouragemastery of skills in language and mathematic&They seek to provide exposure to the broadscope of knowledge and of relationshipsbetween disciplinesfostering the abilities tounderstand our world, to reason soundly, to actethically and wisely, and to communicate effec-tively. But a problem found all too often amonggeneral education requirements is lack ofcoherence in support of these themes, due to toobroad an elective choice for individual studentsFor the technician or paraprofessional who isacquiring education to support a professionalperson, general education has been morespecifically described as an introduction to thebroad context of the workplace. Unfortunately,the requirements defined to meet these goalsmany times bear little relationship to statedgoals

The Regents therefore encourage colleges anduniversities to study the purposes and expecta-tions of general education requirements and towork to assure that those purposes and expecta-tions are achieved Such study is essential toassuring the high quality of program& and, in atime of limited resource& can lead to cost savingsthrough tighter curricula Additionally, the

17

Regents recommend that the Chancellor exa-mine this Laue with the leadership of Ohio's col-leges and universities Such examination shouldinclude a study of the current role of generaleducationwithin diverse programs and institu-tionsand recommendations for more effectiveprograms of general education in Ohio.

Another critical issue relating to excellence ofundergraduate education is the developmentalsupport of students who come to college defi-cient in important educational skills Develop-mental education and its companion remedialeducation are designed to bridge the educa-tional gap many students find between highschool and college. These programs promoteaccess to another kind of higher education justas the physical construction of a statewide net-work of institutions has promoted access for thephysically handicapped. Developmental andremedial programs have focused on mathe-matics and Englishskills fundamental to col-lege success Since l976, in response to alegislative mandate, the Ohio Board of Regentshas reported for each Ohio high school systemthe percentage of students requiring remedialmathematics and English at Ohio's statecollegesand universities In the first year of the study,1978-79, 22 percent of all entering freshmenrequired remediation in mathematics and 15percent in English. In 1979-80. 19 percent tookremedial mathematics and 14 percent remedialEnglish. In 1980-81 20 percent enrolled inremedial mathematics and 16 percent inremedial English. The recent slight increasesmay be generally attributed to redefinition ofprograms, not to any changes in actual need forrernediation. This information will become morevaluable as follow-up studies permit evaluationof these students' success in different kinds andleveLs of program&

Recent changes in the subsidy formula havesought to regularize the funding of basic skillscourses and to channel the support of learninglaboratories and tutoring through categoricalfunding of Developmental Education. The con-tinued support of developmental and remedialcoursework will be vital as long as studentsremain academically underprepared Eventu-ally, if the articulation programs describedearlier are implemented, the demand for basicskills courses at the college level should bereduced Meanwhile, many students entering

s

college directly from high school and manyolder students who need to reclaim earlier skillswill need remedial college work. In the future,adult learners enrolling after several years awaytrom the classroom will probably show thegreatest continuing need for these services

graduat ProgramsOhio has a wide array of graduate programs

In the Master Plan of 1976, the Regents judgedthat the state's master's and doctoral levelresearch-oriented programs were wide rangingand fully developed, and concluded that fewnew programs could be justified Except forimproved procedures for program evaluationand review, no substantial change has occurredsince 1976, and the Regents remain committed toapproving new research-oriented graduate pro-grams only in very unusual circumstances Onthe other hand, the 1976 Master Plan called forestablishing practice-oriented graduate pro-grams where clear need could be shown, andnew programsboth interdisciplinary and infields where practice-oriented programs did notpreviously .existhave been adtively devel-oped The 1976 Plan advised that such newpractice-oriented programs must be clearlyneeded and of high quality, and the Regentsreaffirm this policy.

However, clearer definition of objectives andexpectations for graduate programs is neededLeaders of graduate education have found it dif-ficult to reach a working consensus about whatdistinguishes a graduate program from anundergraduate one. The question has provedespecially difficult to answer in the case ofmaster's programs designed tor the in-serviceeducation of working professionals Practice-oriented curricula frequently lack coherencearound central themes and purposes The diver-sity of objectives for graduate programs (as forundergraduate programs) implies diversity inthe measures of excellence, and consequentlyno single criterion or set of criteria of qualityseems universally applicable. But a consensusconcerning the possible varieties of excellenceof graduate programs is needed for makingcrucial program and curricular choice&

The Regents therefore recommend that col-leges and universitie& individually and col-laboratively, undertake studies designed to lay

13

a base for consensus regarding judgments ofquality in graduate programming. Such studiesshould define the purposes and expectations ofthe state's various kinds and levels of graduateprograms and should develop statements ofacceptable quality appropriate to those variouskinds and levels Individual institutions will likelyfind these studies valuable in reviewing pro-grams with a concern for quality, and suchstudies will also inform statewide policies regard-ing institutional missions, program changes, andfinancial support.

Noncredit Continuing Zducation ProgramA recent study conducted by the Board of

Regents found that Ohio's colleges and univer-sities serve approximately a quarter of a millionpeople annually with noncredit seminars con-ferences, courses. workshops. and the like. About80 percent of these offerings focus on improvingbasic skills upgrading professional competence,and increasing personal/intellectual develop-ment, while about 20 percent help individualsmake better use of leisure time. The Regents urgeeliminating leisure/recreational coursework,which tends to harm the image and the fundingof continuing education. However, the Regentsstrongly support noncredit offerings that assist inthe economic and community development ofthe stateincluding courses and workshopsdesigned for groups within business and indus-try, government and social service agenciesand offerings that provide for training, retraining,and upgrading of professional competencies.Ohio's colleges and universities should workeven more closely with area businesses todiscover which needs are compatible with themission of, and can therefore be met by. highereducation.

The Regents also urge the elimination ofunnecessary duplication in noncredit continu-ing education programa Further, an institution'snoncredit programs should equal its credit offer-ings in quality and should be taught by itsregular faculty. An institution should considerways in which its full-time faculty can be used innoncredit instruction, especially in courses thatwill strengthen the economic and communitydevelopment of the state. Increased efforts toforge links between the academic communityand the business community should be recog-nized and encouraged

1 tj

Access to the Physical SystemGographic Access

Ohio's institutions of higher education arelocated conveniently for most Ohioans Virtuallyall residents of the state-99 percentlive withincommuting distance of a public or private col-lege or university that provides baccalaureateinstruction. And 96 percent of all Ohioans livewithin commuting distance of a two-year cam-pus offering either technical education orgeneral college courses accredited for transfer.A center of graduate education is within com-muting distance of 81 percent of all Ohioans.Additionally. Ohio institutions annually offerapproximately 4500 undergraduate course sec-tions and 1900 graduate-level course sectionsaway from their permanent campuses. Ofcourse, all Ohioans have access to residentialprograms of both the private colleges and thestate colleges and universities.

The Regents believe that because of financialconstraints, further geographical expansion willin most cases jeopardize the quality of existinginstitutions and that every effort must be made toavoid new permanent locations. The Regentsurge that wherever possible existing campusesbe used for additional program developmentthrough collaboration among colleges anduniversities whenever appropriate.

Teacher education business administration.and nursing are fields of study prominent in oft-campus offerings Elementary, middle, andsecondary school teachers and administratorscontinue to request that colleges of educationoffer off-campus graduate courses in theirdistricts. Middle-level management personnelregularly call upon schools of business adminis-tration to adjust course offerings locations andtimes, to their needs and schedules Manydiploma and associate degree nurses for exam-ple are seeking opportunities convenient to theirworkplaces and schedules so that they can corn-plete baccalaureate degrees. Each of thesecategories requires thorough and continuingreassessment by Ohio's colleges and universitiesand by the Board of Regents

Because of numerous immediate problemsand policy issues that have long-termsignificance, the Board of Regents and thehigher education community in general need

19

continuant to study off-campus and nontradi-tional instruction. The later topic, -The MaturingSystem." includes more extensive discussion ofthis issue.

Access for Physically Impaired StudntsThe federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973

guarantees specific rights in federally fundedprograms and activities to persons who qualifyas handicapped Section 504 of the Act statesthat "No otherwise qualified handicapped indi-vidual in the United Statesshall solely by reasonof his handicap be excluded from the participa-tion in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjectedto discrimination under any program or activityreceiving federal tinancial assistance." This flexi-ble principle allows institutions to comply basedon their existing conditions and the needs of theirhandicapped participants Often programs andactivities may be made accessible by changesin procedures, practice, and policies that ensureprogrammatic access In other instances build-ing modifications or construction may be re-quired to eliminate physical barriers, but struc-tural changes are required only in instanceswhere program accessibility cannot be effec-tively achieved through other means.

Ohio's colleges and universities have a proudrecord in this regard Many institutions havedeveloped plans and implemented structuralchanges to promote accessibility, and the OhioGeneral Assembly has appropriated $5,500,000to finance these modifications on state-supported campuses Many institutions havefinanced with internal tunds the removal ofphysical barriers to the handicapped, andextensive construction has reflected this concernfor physical access The Board of Regents willcontinue to seek funds for modifications neededto increase even further physical accessibilityand to encourage attitudes and policies thatopen doors to programs as well as buildings

Financial AccessBy easing the burden of heavy educational

costs, student financial aid programs provide formany students access to a choice of colleges andcareers Many financial asistance programsfederal, state, institutional, privateaim towardthis objective. Current federal programs includethe Pell Grant (formerly known as the BasicEducational Opportunity Grant) Program, whichprovides need-based grants to undergraduates

the Guaranteed Student Loan Prograift whichmakes available low-interest deferred paymentloans to undergraduate. graduate. and profes-sional students, the Supplemental EducationalOpportunity Grants Program, which assistsstudents with exceptional need the CollegeWork-Study Program, and the National Direct Stu-dent Loan Program. State programs include OhioInstructional Grants based on family income. theWar Orphans Scholarships and Police and FireFighter Fee Waivers based on special family cir-cumstances, the Central State University limited1\iition Waivers, the Ohio Academic Scholar-ships based on outstanding academic achieve-ment and ability, and the Ohio National GuardScholarships which link educational benefits toenlistment

College financial aid officers attempt todevelop a -financial aid package" for each stu-dent with demonstrated need. Need Ls the dif-ference between a student's educational costsand the amount the family can contribute asdetermined by a needs analysis process. TheOhio Instructional Grant Pell Grant, andGuaranteed Student Loan are first totaled in thefinancial aid package, and if there is remainingneed, the college financial office may draw oncampus-based programs or institutionalresources to complete the students package.

Currently several factors are straining financialaid resources and threatening access for needy

students. At Ohio's public colleges and univer-side& tuition costs have risen nearly 50 percentover the last two years and are likely to risefurther, and similar increasei have occurred inthe state's private schools. Federal financial aidprograms already have been reduced, andmany still face more substantial reductions, withthe result that fewer students will quality andfewer dollars will be available per student Theresult of such reductions Ls likely to be theredistribution of student populations from inde-pendent colleges and universities to the less cost-ly public institutions, and from the four-yearresidential campuses to urban universities andtwo-year campuses which otter the more eco-nomical live-at-home option In some cases,students may find it difficult to attend college atall. Long-established programs to provide stu-dent choice are clearly in jeopardy.

Many of the factors that will determine theadequacy of student financial assistanceavailable to Ohioans' are uncertain at thiswriting and, thus, a thorough analysis of state

. policies relating to continued financial access toeducation is not possible. The Board of Regentswill continue to review and study the impact oflising costs, rising fee level& and diminishing aidresources as it relates to student populations.Assuring financial access for Ohio students toboth state-supported and private colleges anduniversities in Ohio will remain an urgent priorityin the planning period ahead

20

STABILIZING THE BASE

The opening years of this decade have amplydemonstrated the susceptibility of colleges anduniversities to economic cycles In Ohio aselsewhere, the shortage of jobs has placed unex-pected enrollment demands on higher educa-tion at the same time that an economicdownturn has forced reductions in support fromthe state and other sources. Historically, theamount of state tax support for Ohio's public insti-tutions has been substantially lower than in com-parable states. However, recently the state'seconomic condition has started to erode eventhat support and the future of state finances istroubling. Inflation and shrinking federal supportcompound the threat to quality higher educa-tion tor Ohio citizen&

Adjusting to recent financial conditions hasrequired a host of temporary budget constraint&But a prolonged financial crisis resulting fromenrollment instability will require long-termstrategic planning by institutional managemSuch planning versus traditional budget balanc-ing was the topic of a series of managementstudies that the Regents undertook in 1979. TheRegents believe that for institutions to remainvitalindeed, in some cases, to survivewillrequire planning that includes a reallocation ofresources and that retains and strengthensstrong academic programs as lower priority pro-grams are phased out One result may well bethe emergence of stronger, more efficient institu-tions offering 'narrower curricular choicei, tosomewhat smaller student bodies

Selena a! flubetdy !uppedFor a number of years state levels of tax sup-

port have been based on an enrollment drivenformula in which the number of full-time-equivalent enrollments by level of instructionand the average costs of such instruction werethe sole determinants of institutional supportSome modifications were needed as early as1972 when enrollments unexpectedly fluctuatedbut these were handled as exceptions to thebudgetary system. These ad hoc modificationsand the prospect of prolonged enrollmentdecline for the system raised questions about the

suitability of that enrollment-driven system torbudgeting in the 1980's With the Regents' leader-ship in 1980, three committees representingvarious management perspectives, institutionalpresidents. academic officer& budget andfinance officers and planners, and state budgetofficers, began a year-long study of alternativeformulas.

The result has been a fundamental reform instate budgeting procedures, by which the Stateof Ohio continues to earn prominence in thedevelopment and use of higher educationbudget formula& At the heart of the formulareview, each function and activity typical of acollege or university was studied for ib respon-siveness to enrollment change. Examiners pur-sued such questions as what activities should bereduced ces the volume of service declines andhow rapidly such adjustments could be madewithout harming program quality.

By applying fixed and variable cost conceptsand marginal cost expectations. a new formulasystem was designed and incorporated into thestate's 1981-83 operating budget Componentsincluded,

Direct instructional cost which includesfaculty salcaies and comprises over 50 per-cent of all Instructional and General Expend-itures, is divided into fixed and variable com-ponents based on the incidence of singlesection courses To fulfill its obligations tostudents majoring in approved programs.an institution must offer all courses in itsrequired curriculum. Wherever courses areoffered in multiple sections, an institutionmay be able to reduce the number of sec-tions as enrollments decline, but the first sec-tion is basic to the curriculum andrepresents a fixed cost

In the new formula, the costs of the multiplesections are expected to vary according tothe number of students registered tor thecourse. The number of students enrolling inevening sections is also taken into account

since this service is basic and adds costsbeyond daytime operations. The system ofbasic prograthmatic protection furtherrecognizes that small campuses (thosebelow 1,000 full-time-equivalent enroll-ment) have less flexibility in adjusting toenrollment decline, since a large portion oftheir instruction is offered in single sectioncourses

Where multiple section costs should declineaccording to declining enrollment a one-year period of adjustment is provided. Toallow for orderly change. including the ter-mination of contractual employees, theRegents and institutions had recommendedan adjustment period of two years and con-tinue to pursue this formula revision.

Library acquisitions and related costsrepresent only 2.5 percent of Instructionaland General Expenditures but are critical tothe quality of academic programs. Indexedto the number and type of academic pro-grams, these expenditures are consideredas fixed costs and have been removedentirely trom the enrollment base. A newindex based on the number and range ofprograms at various institutions is weightedin favor of graduate programs, recognizingthe special demands such programs makeon library expenditures.

Plant operation and maintenance costs,nearly 13 percent of Instructional *andGeneral spending. are now based on theamount and character of space operatedby each institution. A new plant indexrecognizes standard space categories andstandard support allowances for utilities.custodial services, and buildingmaintenance. The formula recognizesspecial space usage patterns. includingextended hours of some classrooms, andlaboratories, and also provides anallowance for maintaining roads andgrounds. Plant costs are classified as fixed

Selected student services, representing 4percent of total spending. include studentadmissions. registration and record keep-ing, financial aid administration, counsel-ing. and career guidance. This category.classified as half-fixed and half-variable.

22

allows a one-year adjustment period for thevariable portion when enrollments decline.Head Count enrollments rather than full-time-equivalent enrollments determine thevariable portion of this budg at component

Administration and support 30 percent oftotal spending. include general administra-tive and support activitiesfiscal opera-tions. logistical services public relations anddevelopment, course and curriculumdevelopment and administrative com-puting support One-half of this category isconsidered fixed and one-half variable.with a one-year adjustment period forreduction of the variable portion whereenrollments may decline. Full-time-equivalent student counts are used toreflect student enrollments.

This revised formula provides protection essen-tial to the financial stability of institutions withdeclining enrollments. Retaining and perlectingthis formula are critical to the extended plan-ning ahead And since some of the institutionswithin the system are anticipated to continuetheir program development and to experiencecontinued enrollment increases the revised for-mulas continue past commitments to providesupport essential for growth in the enrollmentrelated functions of instruction. student servicesand administration.

Process for Follow-UpFuture enrollment patterns and their timetables

remain unclear. It is certain. however, that institu-tions under pressure need flexibility, not con-straints, as they manage internal trade-offs ofavailable binds in response to enrollment orincome decline. By anticipating variable costchange while protecting the core of vital educa-tional services. the new funding strategy isintended to accommodate change withoutdisruption.

But change must come about and state policymust assure that it does or the promised stabilityduring changing circumstances will not beachieved Among the targets for longer rangechange aro

Program Reviews A process tor the reviewand evaluation of all instructional pro-grams is essential, with eventual reordering

of priorities and costs associated with thosepriorities. Program review must be centeredwithin each institution and must emphasizeinternal processes in evaluating instruc-tional programs. The Board of Regents' roleshould be to encourage that process butalso to lead in coordinating a state-levelreview which supplements on an interinsti-tutional bcsis the intemal evaluation doneby each institution. This state-level process isdiscussed further in 'The Maturing System"section.

Space Utilization Studies Where enroll-ments decline, the need arises for overtmanagement of facilities through longer-term space consolidation. reduction or alter-native uses of excess space, and normaliz-ing of operating costs. Future consultationson formula budgeting should fully explorethis issue and seek ways to reward etficientoperations.

Library Collaboration The higher educa-tion system in the State of Ohio has becomethe national leader in development of col-laborative university library projects suchas centralized cataloging, processing oflibrary acquisitions, and inter-libraryreference and exchange. Opportunities areavailable to extend these concepts intoadditional activities such as shared use andacquisition of specialized and researchcollections.

Perfecting Um ReformThe restudy of budgeting techniques reaf-

firmed several elements of past practice. Firstcreation of a generalized funding formula for thesystem as a whole was preferred to develop-ment of unique budgets for each institution. sincethis permits final allocation of appropriations byinstitutional officers and boards of trusteesSecond. the existing sixteen program expen-diture models which recognize different expen-diture demands of various instructional pro-grams will continue in use, to assure equity ofsupport among institutions tor similar programs.Third. the restudy confirmed the need torperiodic adjustment of brmulas. The basis forthese adjustments should be continuing costresearch into changing spending patterns. Thiswill assure that the formula reflects over time thereality of actual expenditure patterns.

11111111116.

During the year-long process of formula revi-sion. a broad consensus developed concerningthe concepts used to maintain a stable system ofhigh quality. The basic elements of this consen-sus form part of the 1981-83 operating budget TheRegents are pledged to a careful, collaborativefollow-up process to improve these elements ofdecision-making and to improve the data baseand the analysis upon which the reform rests.Further revisions are needed to provide ways toreward high quality programs and efficientoperations. This is a complex task, however andmay require several years of experience andconsultation to achieve.

Capital Improvements PlanningFor the 1980's, capital improvements in higher

education will be unlike those of the past twentyyears, which were decades of expansion andconstruction. The need tor carefully selected newconstruction will continue, but with enrollmentsstable or declining, new emphasis must be placedupon utilities and renovations equipmentreplacement energy conservation, selectedbuilding replacement and a general catch-upon needs that have accumulated in recentyears.

23

ar) .11

ow 1

Maintenance of the Systm Now in PlaceThe buildings and equipment on Ohio's 65campuses have an estimated replacementvalue of more than $il billion. and the firstpriority of campus administrators should beto maintain those facilities both on a day-to-day basis and with timely renovation tomeet the needs of safety, efficiency, andchanging instructional demands. Expen-ditures for plant operation andmaintenance represent a large share of thenonpersonnel portion of campus budgetsand every opportunity for reducing costsand improving efficiency must beusedincluding increased attention toenergy conservation.

New or Replacement FacilitiesSelected new facilities will probably beneeded to meet the demands of new andchanging programs. However, before con-structing new facilities, each institution mustweigh all optionsincluding the use ofrededicated space, community facilitiesand neighboring campuses Moreover, thelong-term availability of operating funds tor

such facilities must be assured When afacility has outlived its usefulness or is nolonger in sound operating condition.administrators should consider razing,renovation, or replacement Particularly inthose circumstances where the facility is notneeded for the long term, the opportunity toreduce square footage through razingshould be a prime consideration for cam-pus planner& But if alternate space isunavailable and programs served by anobsolete facility must be maintained.renovation or replacement should beevaluated and a decision made basedupon cost effectiveness

Replacement EquipmentThe major expansion of campus facilitiesduring the 1960's and 1970's also brought asubstantial increase in the amount ofinstructional equipment used to supportacademic programs housed in newfacilities. State policy generally allowednew equipment though not replacementequipment to be tunded as part of newconstmction and indeed clearly, requiredthe construction of facilities fully equippedand ready for occupancy. From 1965 to 1980,more than $120 million in state capitalimprovement funds was spent for movableequipment Assuming an average usefullife of 15 years for movable equipment the1980's will see a greatly increased demandfor replacement equipment And new up.to-date equipment will be needed to keeppace with technological change and tomaintain academic quality.

The enormous expenditures for equipmentpurchased through capital improvementfunds since the early 1960's has never beenrflected in the operating budgets of col-leges and universities and replacing theequipment by means of operating budgetsis not possibl because of the magnitude ofthe problem. The Regents urge funding of a

24

systematic program ot equipment replace-ment. within the state's capital improve-ments appropriation& perhaps through bor-rowing on a shorter term than commonlyused for state capital improvements.

Capital lutprovements AgetIngRather than planning for capital improve-

ments by reacting to building-by-buildingrequests of individual institutions (as has beenthe practice of recent years), the Regents seekthe participation and cooperation ot Ohio'shigher education institutions in developing asystematic method or formula for determiningcapital appropriation needs for utilities andrenovation& Such a budgeting approach shouldaddress ttp following components buildingrenovations, programmatic renovation: buildingreplacemonts, movable equipment replace-ment utility distribution renewal/replacementand street and bridge renewal/replacementThe responsibility for detailing campus utilities andrenovation programs should remain with ad-ministrators of the individual campuses, operatingwithin stale guidelines ot need determination

The state's investment in higher educationcapital improvements has been made possibleprincipally through the issuance of revenuebonds authorized by constitutional amendmentin 1968. This funding mechanism has workedwell during a period when immediacy of needwas clear and decisions had to be made quickly.Today, the debt service requirements of thesebonds have become a competitive item otincreasing prominence within the higher educa-tion operating budget In projected requirementsfor the 198143 biennium, debt t arvice will makeup more than ten percent of the entire highereducation budget For subsequent biennia pro-jects already authorized promise to raise this pro-portion of operating funds well toward thetwenty percent level The Board of Regents con-tinues to express serious concern over furtherencroachment of debt service on the highereducation operating budget

A CONSOLIDATION OF INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTH

Impend log to Chong*The 1980's. a decade of enrollment instability,

will very probably qlso be a time of limitedfinancial resource& The growth margin in fund-ing which has provided for educational innova-tions may well disappear, and state funding willnot likely increase at nearly the pace experi-enced in previous years "Growthmanship" asan institutional and administrative siylo-will behighly counterproductive in such an environ-ment since institutions will be challenged simplyto maintain the serviceS and programs theypresently provide. Different types of institutions indifferent regions of the state will experience dif-fering enrollment changes. but all institutions willrequire expert management and flexibility inmaking difficult choices among their programsand services in such circumstances

Consequently, the 1980's suggest a time of con-tinuing need for program review and revision.Existing programs will need to be updated con-tinually in response to new knowledge andchanging societal needs. And making such pro-gram revisions will require consolidating pro-gram and service strengths and freeing fundsnow tied to activities of lower priority andurgency.

Many institutions throughout the nation haveinitially responded to enrollment instability byseeking new enrollment markets throughaggressive recruiting, developing new "rele-vant- program& and, in general increasing inter-institutional competition. Ths Board of Regentssupports recruitment that enhances access andbreadth of service for Ohioans but believes thatsimply increasing or defending current enroll-ment levels by whatever measures is neither aresponsible nor meaningful reaction to therealities of the 1980's The Regents hope that par-ticipation rates of some groups can besignificantly increased in the corning year& Butth pools of prospective "nontraditional"students are not a panacea for the projecteddeclines of young students With a relativelyMite number of potential students, younger orolder, more aggressive recruiting may benefit

25

one institution but directly harm othea.to proliferate programs and services simply toattract students may in some cases greattharman institution by eroding its standards and thequality of its graduates which in tum mayweaken its ability to hold its traditional attractionfor students

Ohio institutions need..to plan stralegies asmembers of a state educational community.They must further learn tcrseek high qualitywithin available resources. knowing that fewerbut better programs and strviess may ban thebest strategy for coping with a steady-Male ordeclining enrollment In a later section a discus-sion is presented as to how institutions mui worktoward productive, creative collaboration withtheir , neighbors. in place of unrestrained.wasteful competition.

Clartlying butiutionsi abloothresThe task of clarifying institutional ablectives

and missions should, however difficult be chiefamong the priorities tor Waller edtrxitional insti-tutions in the 1960's. In some cases the:a missionsare less complex than in others.

A technical college provides to ik studentsnear-term "relevdnt skills" in appliedtechnologies It has almost entirely a localclientele, is dedicated to open adrilon forstudents, and has a broadly utilitarkm basicrationale. To reexamine this mission will, ingeneral, result in a reaffirmation of existingcommitments.

A university's mission may be relativelycomplex. with diverse competing elementswithin it And change in a university's mis-sion is likely to have an impact on manyother institutions. A university'sundergraduate admissions policy may benonselective while its graduate and profes-sional programs are selective lo varyingdegrees. A university may provide widelydiverse programs with studenb drawnlocally for some, and regionally. slalewide.or nationally for °them The nature andbreadth of ib research programs may affect

a university's mission. How these importantcomponenb relate is an important subjectfor study in any reexamination of a univer-sity's complex mission.

The Regenb firmly believe that each institutionmust examine 1 own mission with sensitivity toits impact on other institutions, and in so doingexercbe restraint when defining its institutionalobjectives within the context of the state% systemof colleges and-universities The next sectiondeals in greater detail with the larger context inwhich the Board hopes that institutional missiondecisions will be made during the planningperiod ahead.

Pursuing Ike& lenceOnce a college or university has reviewed its

objectives in light of the needs of the 1980s. theRegents urge it to define and pursue high qualityin its programs and services The Board joins inthe common hope that enrollment instability willnot be permitted to undermine institutionaldedication to high academic performance, andespecially the Bocud hopes that standards ofgraduate education and the coherence andeffectiveness of general education requirementswill receive careful study in the planning periodahead.

After objectives and standards have been,defined, many institutions, because of financialconstraint& may well need to choose their bestprograms and services from among the good.These choices should be based on relativeexcellence of performance, on the centrality ofprograms to institutional mission, on enrollments,on geographic accessibility, and on the impor-tance of programs to the larger public whichinstitutions collectively serve. Supporting non-academic services must also be evaluated. andan assignment of resources will need to bemade on the basis of prioritiesacademic andnonacademicestablished through ,theseevaluations.

Highly skillful management becomes evenmore essential to sustain quality in this cir-cumstance. The Board specifically encouragesinstitutions to study the recommendationsrelating to cost containment made earlier by theRegents' Management Studies Task Force. Theserecommendations include approaches forimplementing cost containment programs suited

26

to an institution's own circumstances as well asrecommended ways to motivate individualsand organizations to take advantage of oppor-tunities for saving costs Finially, the Regentsagain urge interinstitutional cooperation andcollaboration, which clearly offer significanthope for maintaining and enhancing quality inthe coming decade. Growing interest in andcommitment to such collaboration is evidentacross the state in the activities of severalregional consortia of colleges and universities,both public and private. The Board commendsand encourages the efforts of these consortia toachieve greater economies for their members,increased accessibility for residents of theirareas, and reduced conflict in the planning ofservices by member institutions. Refinements instatewide coordination of) institutional activitieswill be suggested later in this Plan.

Program ReviewPerhaps the most important longrange

strengthening of institutional planning for thecorning decade promises to flow from institu-tional program review. In the 1976 Master Planthe Board of Regents urged state-supported insti-tutions to undertake a systematic, periodic, inter-nal review of all academic programs. Workundertaken as a part of the Regents' Manage-ment Studies Task Force dealt at some lengthwith the objectives and processes which mightproductively be used by colleges and univer-sities to review academic programs. The 1981-83state appropriations act instructs state collegeand university boards of trustees to "initiate on-going processes for review and evaluation of allprograms of instruction presently conducted byinstitutions for which they are responsible." Pur-pose of the review is

. "among other things determined by suchboards of trustees the strengthening of pro-grams of special urgency to the institution'spurpose& the modification of programs bet-ter to serve the changing needs of students.the reduction of costs within programs ofcontinuing value to the institutions, and theelimination of programs which are too cost-ly for the benefits derived from such pro-grams. which are underproductivebecause ot changes in enrollment patternsor otherwise, or which are unnecessarilydirplicative of programs elsewhere avail-able within the universities and colleges ofOhio."

comrnend those institutions whichdeveloped procetnes for internal program

and which have established systematic*4ways to evaluate their institutional commitments.I conducted objectively and conscientiously,

pedadic internal program review will resultflexibility for efticiently managing

as well as a shazpening of the defini-Aan institution's mission.

Aar 121 mandating institutional program review, theappropriation act recognizes a state-level inter-est in the program review process

"Processes for the review and evaluation ofinstruCtional programs shall be developedin conjunction with the Ohio Board ofRegents and include use of peer reviewersselected. at the discr Ilion of the Board ofRegents. trom within or from outside theSlate of Ohio, and individual institutions

r shall look to the Ohio Board of Regents forassistance in identifying programs whichappear to be unduly costly, underproduc-tive as regards Changing enrollment pat-

, Omni or which appear unduly duplicativead programs elsewhere available to stu-dents and for the scheduling of review pro-cesses as among institutions conductingsimilar programs"

The Board believes that such state-level programreview, while essentially separate from internalreview processes, will provide a context withinwhich internal review will take on greatermeaning.

State-level program reawessment provides forcoordination of institutional responses to chang-

27

ing societal needs. For example, there may be aneed statewide tor the training of fewer medicaldoctors but more engineers. Also, state-levelmonitoring may help tc3 avoid simultaneousreductions of programs at several campuses.reductions necessitated by continuing financialconstraints. Without this coordination, productionof needed trained personnel and regionalaccess to certain academic offerings could bejeopardized. And finally, periodic revisiting ofprograms provides assurance that acceptablestandards of program quality are sustainedacross Ihe state for all its citizens.

Linkages to the SocietyAmong other institutional strategies which the

Board of Regents recommends for the 1980's isrenewed attention to services rendered to thelarger society. In particular, the Board urges thateach institution conduct a broad review of itsown instructional. research, and public serviceactivities with a view to enhancing relationshipswith the developmental interests of the state. TheBoard also encourages institutions to review per-sonnel policies relating to faculty activities in thearea of public service, and to modify suchpolicies where wananted, in order to makepublic service more attractive and more reward-ing to faculty members. The Board also urgesinstitutions to participate fully in the creation andoperation of new external linkages, includingthe work and learning councils, an extension ser-vice, and a statewide .research and develop-ment structure. Finally, the Board of Regentsurges institutional leaders to join together andwith the Regents in pooling their creative leader-ship capabilities to address and resolve com-plex issues of competing missions and of servicedelivery, in order best to serve the criticalinterests of Ohio's citizens during this decade.

THE MATURING SYSTEM

The uncertainty of enrollments throughout theyears and the long-term financial

pr lems facing the state pose urgent demandsfor state-level policy change. Without jeopardiz-ing the autonomy and diversity of individual col-leges and universities, such state-level policymust aim toward closer coordination betweeninstitutional performance and Ohio's interests'and needs

To be successful in the decade ahead, highereducation's managers must deal effectively withproblems whose solutions have system-wideimplications,

Any substantial alteration of an institution'smission may bring on direct conflict withneighboring institutions.

Questions of program need, duplication.quality, and cost effectiveness will increas-ingly require a regional or statewideperspective and sometimes even anational perspective.

Besides internal institutional options for pro-gram change, such interinstitutional optionsas collaboration, merger, or transfer of pro-grams should be examined.

011-campus and nontraditional educationwill require coordination and sharedresponsibility for developing new servicesto meet Ohio's needs.

Where educational and social objectivesintertwine, as they do in health-relatededucation, collaboration will be required toserve the interests of both the state and indi-vidual institutions.

Efforts to link higher education to the needsof business. industry, and government, willrequire interinstitutional collaborationtoavoid wasteful destructive competition. tobuild upon, existing institutional strengths.and to make best use of limited resourcesfor support

28

In sum, the price of continued institutional inde-pendence in difficult times will be the accep-tance of joint responsibility by institutions andthe Regents for addressing the statel problemsand meeting its needs. For only by joint effortscan the values of institutional independence ineducational matters be sorted out from urgentstate needs within limited resources, and both bebest served Without alteration of governanceHigher education has an opportunity to definethe values of its educational services to the stateand to enhance the willingness of the stategovernment and the public to sustain collegesand universities in a period of change. Clarifica-tion of what the state will faithfully support withinthe mission of each of its colleges and univer-sities is a goal to be aggressively sought for itsimportance to individual institutions.

The Board of Regents calls upon all of the col-leges and universities of Ohio to fashion with theBoard's support a new era of shared responsibil-ity for the maturation of Ohio's system of highereducation. This undertaking will require the faithand good will of all who are concerned withassuring the strength of higher education inyears ahead and will call for compromise andrestraint on the part of all institutions in theirscope of mission and program aspiration.

InsIthitional IlikedonsThe first step in fashioning an effective System

which acknowledges the individual missions ofinstitutions is to develop a simplified descriptionof the currently demonstrable service which con-stitutes each institution's mission to date. Thesecond step is to examine the effectiveness ofexisting programs of service within those iden-tified institutional missions. looking towarddesirable avenues of change. The third step is toaccept a concept of planning which places allfuture decisions about program change, missionchange, and financial support within thisframework for testing each action's impact onthe state's interests and needs.

Simple geographical service patterns appearto offer a good beginning point for the mission

descriptions needed for strategic planningBecause so much of higher education's value tothe society takes the form of personal services (tostudent& .to beneficiaries of direct services otherthan instruction, to the users of consultativeassistance, or to the consumers of researchknowledge possesed by individual faculty per-sonal much of higher education's service can becategorized and compared in geographicalterm& The instructional missions of the collegesand universities especially appear sharply dif-ferent in their geographical patterns of service. Itthis Ls so, and since all future planning mustrealistically move from the existing base, thesepatterns will provide the framework for review-ing current programs in light of the state's need&These patterns also will suggest the need forplanners to take into account the interests andconcerns of institutions which share a particulargeographic area and/or academic field ofservice.

These relationships among institutions and thedata for describing them are not new, nor does arecitation of them necessarily represent a con-straint on any institution's mission. It simply statesthe facts. But repeating these facts can help toseparate into manageable parts such complexissues as mission overlap and conflict and canbuild a framework for program review andevaluation and for the identification of availablestrengths on which to build collaborative ven-tures No good purpose may be served, for exam-ple, in debating the need for six existingacademic programs in a given field of study iffour of those programs have only part-timeenrollments of employed persons constrained totheir local service areas, while only two pro-grams serve a statewide market The reality ofneed for geographic access may dictate thatpurely local programs be judged within theirlocal area, quite apart from the statewide ser-vice needs of ftill-time residential student&Similarly, the realities of geographic serviceareas will raise the question of why the stateshould not look to the local institution best able tomeet a particular need rather than to the institu-tion which may historically or politically haveclaimed the service area in question.

To find existing service and resource strngthsmay simplify the selection of leadership centersin areas of new statewide service developmentAnther, enrollment forecast& which have earlier

been described as strikingly different in variousareas of the state, will take on meaning for institu-tional and state-level policy decisions only asthe probable enrollment impact on geographi-cally separated institutions is portrayed

Nab linimilty Ionian PaltiwasNearly all the planning issues requiring atten-

tion in the period ahead are illuminated andrelatively simplified when seen against therealities of alleady developed institutional mis-sions. For this reason, the undergraduate,graduate, and graduate/professional servicepatterns of each of the state universities areidentified in Tables I through 3 within a local. aregional. and a statewide geographical frame-work based upon origins of students served Forpurposes of definition. the "local" service area Lsthe home county of a university and those coun-ties contiguous to it The "regional" area expandsto include all counties surrounding the localarea The "statewide" areas include all territoryoutside the institution's regional service area.Out-of-state service is noted as well. For thcee in-stitutions which are located neaz the state'sborders, large numbers of students identified forout-of-state service may actually represent localor regional service by the above definition.

Service differences are immediately apparentamong the universities Some institutions areshown to serve very largely a local area, othersare predominanlly statewide or national in theirservice patterns No two are closely alike, bely-ing earlier classification schemes which distin-guished residential !TOM urban institutions asthough they could easily be classified into suchgeneral categories Such classifications wereuseful in periods of general growth. However, amore detailed understanding of eachinstitution's circumstances and future prospectswill be essential to wise decision-making in thecoming period of adjustment and change.

As is shown in Table I the instructional serviceorieritations of Ohio's state universities are strik-ingly different The undergraduate orientationsof seven of the universitiesCleveland State,Akron. Wright State, Youngstown State, Toledo.Cincinnati. and Kent Stateare overwhelminglylocal and regional in character. Each drawsnearly 80 percent or more of its undergruduatestudents from within its local or regional servicearea 01 this group, only Cincinnati and Toledo

29

TABLE 1

State UniversitiesUndergraduate Service Patterns (Fa111960)*

Based Upon Origins of Students Served ,

Institution

Local

Local

and Regional

Regional Subtotal

State

Stat

and Out-of-State

Out-of-State Subtotal Total

Cleveland State 98.0% 0.5% 98.5% 0.4% 1.1% 1.5% 100%

Akron 89.0 5.8 94.8 2.9 2.5 5.4 100

Wright State 89.4 4.4 93.8 3.7 2.5 8.2 100

Youngstown State 87.9 1.8 89.7 1.7 8.8 10.3 100

Toledo 73.4 5.0 78.4 12.0 9.8 21.8 100

Cincinnati 72.8 4.8 77.8 15.7 8.7 22.4 100

Kent State 71.7 13.3 85.0 7.7 7.3 15.0 100

Ohio State 37.4 6.4 43.8 49.1 7.1 58.2 100

Central State 34.4 15.4 49.8 14.6 35.8 50.2 100

Miami 33.1 4.8 37.9 43.3 18.8 82.1 100

Bowling Green State 28.3 10.0 38.3 56.0 5.7 81.7 100

Ohio 12.2 7.3 19.5 81.8 18.7 80.5 100

TABLE 2

State UniversitiesGraduate Service Patterns (Fa111980)*Based Upon Origins of Students Served

Institution

Local

Local

and Regional

Regional Subtotal

State

State

and Out-of-State

Out-of-State Subtotal Total

Cleveland State 96.8% 0.8% 97.8% 0.8% 1.8% 2.4% 100%

Youngstown State 81.8 3.2 84.8 1.0 14.2 15.2 100

Wright State 80.3 8.9 87.2 6.0 8.8 12.8 100

Akron 79.5 8.5 88.0 1.8 12.2 14.0 100

Toledo 74.7 3.0 77.7 6.2 18.1 22.3 100

Kent State 74,4 10.9 85.3 5.7 9.0 14.7 100

Cincinnati 65.4 68.7 4.2 27.1 31.3 100

Bowling Green State 48.7 9.9 56.6 17.3 28.1 43.4 100

Ohio State 436 3.9 47.5 16.3 36.2 52.5 100

Miami 42.5 4.2 46.7 19.3 34.0 53.3 100

Ohio 19.0 7.3 26.3 18.5 55.2 73.7 100Compiled from Oh lo Board ol RogonW Unllorm Irdormation System

30

TABLE 3

Stat UniversitiesGraduate/Professional Service Patterns (Fall 1980)*

Based Upon Origins of Students Served ,

Institution

Local

Local

and Regional

RegiOnal Subtotal

State

State

and Out-of-State

Out-of-State Subtotal Total

Cleveland State 85.3% 4.5% 89.8% 2.3% = 7.9% 10.2% 100%

Akron 66.1 17.2 83.3 8.2 10.5 16.7 100

Wright State 59.9. 9.8 69.5 27.0 3.5 30.5 100

Cincinnati 50.2 8.3 56.5 31.3 12.2 43.5 100

Toledo 39.3 4.0 43.3 25.7 31.0 56.7 100

Ohio State 23.2 4.9 28.1 60.2 11.7 71.9 100

Ohio 2.5 1.5 4.0 84.0 12.0 96.0 100

Complied from Ohio Board of Repents' Uniform Information Brim

draw More than 10 percent of their under-graduate students from the statewide pool ofOhioans enrolling at a state university campusas well as substantial numbers of students fromtheir neighboring states of Kentucky andMichigan

Four senior institutions-Ohio State, Miami.Bowling Green State, and Ohio universities-while also drawing substantial proportions oftheir students from within their own regions, areoriented to serve the statewide student in propor-tions ranging from 43 to 62 percent Central Stateis unique in finding only about half of its studentswithin its region, only 15 percent from thebalance of the state, and more than 35 percentfrom outside of Ohio. Ohio University likewiseshows unique patterns in that only 19 percentcome from the immediate region, 62 percentcome from across the state, and nearly 19 per-cent are drawn from outside the State of Ohio.

The patterns of enrollment are not fixed Institu-tions need to study trends in these patterns overtime. However, given the length of time overwhich these patterns of service have developedit seems likely that significant changes would bevery difficult to achieve in the short term. It is alsoclear that the decision of any individual institu-tion to attempt to change those patterns insubstantial ways will have a direct impact uponother institutions with which it would increas-

31

ingly compete and which surely will be intentupon preserving existing patterns of their ownservice.

Patterns of graduate level instructional service(Table 2) are similar to those of undergraduateservice. The same seven universities notedabove draw heavily from their local andregional areas. and none of these draws morethan six percent of its graduate students fromstatewide pool& Ohio State, Bowling Green. andMiami again display substantial but smaller pro-portio ns from their immediate regions but rendersubstantially heavier service across the state.Five universities report proportions trom out-oVstate ranging from 26 to 55 percent with threeothers ranging from 12 to 16 percent Several ofthese universities drawing relatively highernumbers of out-of-state graduate students arelocated in counties contiguous to the borders ofother states suggesting that these patterns maybe a continuation of the local character of theirservice. Ohio University once more displays aunique pattern of light regional enrollment andheavy statewide and out-of-state service.

The influence of demographic change onexisting service patterns and existing padicipa-tion rates of younger and older students suggeststhat no university will be exempt from the needto deal with changing markets of student& Ex-hibit 2 illustrates the potential demographic

changes by 1990 in those markets from whichthree illustrative universities currently draw theirundergraduate and graduate students, takinginto account both the area of draw and age mixof students. Widely differing institutions wereselected as examples to show the diversity ofimpacts which might be anticipated. The com-muter university draws a high percentage of itsstudents from the local area. The residentialuniversity draws heavily from outside its ownregion. The third university attracts a strong mixof students from both the local and more distantpopulations

These examples simply illustrate the limitationof markets among which institutions will com-pete over the next ten yeaz period they do not

predict enrollments. Interestingly, the largestcurrent market in each case is the most threat-ened with decline. How enrollments actuallydevelop will depend on a number of variables,among which are the success of recmiting pro-grams in increasing participation rates. thereputation of institutions for strong programs. andthe availability of student financial aid. Someuniversities and programs may well experienceno decline in enrollments. However, their successin sustaining enrollments will likely affectadversely other institutions' markets for thosesame students.

If rates of participation remain at 1980 levels,by 1990 the university campuses will face thepossibility of aggregate declines in their tradi-

EXHIBIT 2

Possible Demographic Impact On Undergraduate Markets1980 - 1990

Institutional Exampl Younger Students Older Student;

Urban University

,.,

CurrentMarket 1960*

PossibleDemographicChange 1990**

CurrentMarket 1980*

PossiblDemographic

Change 1990**Local 67.0% - 32.7% 31.0% + 10.9%Regional 0.4% - 26.2% 0.1% + 16.1%Statewide 0.3% - 23.9% 0.1% + 18.9%Out-of-State 0.8% - 20.0% 0.3% + 22.8%

TOTAL 68.5% 31.5%

Residntial UniversityLocal 9.4% - 17.6% 2.8% + 25.7%Regional 6.4% - 16.6% 1.1% + 23.5%Statewide 58.8% - 27.2% 2.8% + 15.9%Out-of-State 16.9% - 20.0% 1.8% + 22.8%

TOTAL 91.5% 8.5%

Residential/CommuterUniversity

Local 28.0% - 20.0% 9.4% + 21.4%Regional 5.7% - 23.4% 0.7% + 19.9%Statewide 46.2% - 27.8% 2.9% + 15.4%Out-of-State 6.1% - 20.0% 1.0% + 22.6%

TOTAL 88.0% 14.0%

land on Ohio Board cd Rewords Unlit= Irdonnabon tyslem66 lamed on pro0clion cd data torn US. Ihusau ol Canna OM)

32

tional market& This suggestion is based upon thedifferential demographic changes likely tooccur in various Ohio counties trom whichstudents currently are drawn and upon the prox-imity of institutions to increasing numbers ofsomewhat older students. Several of the largetuban areasnotably the Cleveland. Akron.and Cincinnati areasface relatively severedeclines of young student pools but have heavyconcentrations of older prcepective studentsInstitutions located in these areas may at least tosome extent offset their young student losses byenrolling increasing numbers of older student&In no instance, however, except if participationrates substantially increase, does the size of theolder pool appear large enough to offset fullythe decline of young high school graduates

Two of the major urban areas, Columbus andToledo. will experience smaller declines in theirpools of high school graduate& The institutionsthat draw heavily from these areas will prob-ably experience less dramatic declines andwill also benefit by locally heavy concentrationsof somewhat older prospective student& Theinstitutions that serve relatively small numbers ofolder students appear less likely to be able todevelop such offsetting enrollment& especiallysince they are located outside major populationconcentration&

Five of the state's residential universities havelegislated constraints on their central campusenrollments. Thus, whatever steps these institu-tions may take to offset declines in younger stu-dent markets, there will be no opportunity toincrease enrollments beyond their statutoryceilings.

State University Public Service and ResearchPattrns

The data presented so far in this chapter reflectonly instructional services of institution& Nosimilar data tor the research and public serviceactivities of Ohio institutions are available on auniform, statewide bad& Because these twokinds of activity are critical to the program oflinkages with business and industry detailedecclier in "Opportunity for a New Social Compact"cataloging of these activities will be neededAssessments of the local, regional andstatewidecharacter of such services can serve as a basisfor moving forward to form the linkages togovernment and business described herein, and

appropriate statewide and regional roles forindividual institutions should rest on that ate)*merit

Available data suggest that different state insti-tutions have very different research and publicservice strengths. Table 4. for example. displaysexpenditures for public service as reported byuniversities for ISM MO, and l0B1 Table 5 reportsexpenditures for separately budgeted researchin the same three years These expenditure dataare useful only for purposes of generalization. butthey do provide an initial factual basis forunderstanding and planning activities in thesetwo areas.

Twalrear College Service PatternsTo describe the service patterns of Ohio's two-

year campuses (including community college&technical college& and university branches), thesame analysis of service areas can beemployed The two-year campuses have definedtheir mission principally os providing instruc-tional and public services to a locally definedconstituency. The activities of each such campusare relatively more confined than the local andregional areas generally studied for four-yearinstitutions, however, since no two-year campusmust draw from only its local area it Ls useful torecord the actual patterns of geographicalenrollment service which have developed

Table 6 records the undergraduate service ofthe two-year campuses within local. regionatand statewide areas University branches mayalso offer selected graduate courses as anoutreach from the parent campus and Table 7displays the geographical patterns of service inthis regard

As these tables document the enrollment oftwo-year campuses is overwhelmingly local orregional in character. Most institutions draw wellover 90 percent of their students from countiesimmediately surrounding their campuses Clearexceptions to this pattern are evident howevpsat campuses near the borders of Ohio wheresubstantial out-of-state, enrollment hasdeveloped. Other exceptions are a few cam-puses with unique programs which draw fromacross the stale. Increased understanding ofthese patterns of service will be important tofuture decisions regarding desirable localregional statewide, and out-of-state services

4.) 4.c

TABLE 4

State UniversitiesEstimated Expenditures br Public Service Activities

Fiscal Years 1979-81(In Thousands)

Institution FY 79

Medicine

FY 80 FY al FY 79

Agriculture

FY 80 FY 81

AU Other AMU II

FY 79 FY 80 FY 81 FY 79

Total

FY 80 FY 81

ONo State $ 2,320.2 $ 2,258.8 $ 1,149.9 $21,633.0 $23,612.7 $24,953.1 $15,189.1 $16,107.4 $17,259.0 $39,142.3 $41,978.9 $43,362.0

Cincinnati 8,817.8 10,086.6 13,567.3 7,381.5 9,182.3 7,658.3 16,199.3 19,228.9 21,225.6

Wright Stale 116.0 97.7 1,020.4 985.3 1,295.2 1,768.7 1,061.3 1,392.9 2,787.1

Ohio University 2.672.1 3,446.8 3,173.4 2,672.1 3,446.8 3,173.4

Akron 2,380.3 2,489.4 2,792.6 2,380.3 2,489.4 2,792.6

Cleveland Stale 949.0 1,099.1 1,128.4 949.0 1,099.1 1,126.4

Kent Slate 3,738.8 4,575.5 3,830.7 3,738.8 4,575.5 3,830.7

Toledo 2,218.7 2,663.2 2,912.5 2,218.7 2,663.2 2,912.5

Miami 1,055.1 1,112.1 1,730.4 1,055.1 1,112.1 1,730.4

Bowling Green 3,341.1 4,210.0 4,779.4 3,341.1 4.210.0 4,779.4

Central Stale 591.7 514.3 599.8 591.7 514.3 599.8

Youngstown 967.7 1,235.1 1080.8 967.7 1,235.1 1,180.8

Medical Collegeat Toledo 434.2 344.6 913.6 434.2 344.6 913.6

Notthecniern Collegeol Medicine

..

TOTAL $11.811.2 $12.767.7 $11.11612 $21133.0 823.8123 1241831 $41.410.4 147.11104 $48.1100 Marla 11114.21101 O00414.3

Compiled Om Ohio Maid of Row* Una= Inloimation %Own

TABLE 5

State UniversitiesEstimated Expenditures tor Separately Budgeted Research

Fiscal Years 1979-81(in Thousands)

IMMO= FT 79

Medicine

FT 80 FY 61 FT 79

Agticulture

FT 80 FT 61

All Other Areas

FT 79 FT 80 Fr 61 FT 79

Total

FT 80 FT el

Ohio Sate $ 7,391.5 $ 9,3912 $ 9,760.2 $14,806.5 616,817.5 $16,889.7 629,977.5 $30,708.7 $35,500.8 152,1753 $56,977.4 $ 82,150.7

Cincinnati 14,6442 17,132.0 18,945.8 %._ 3,643.1 3,828.8 4,942.2 18,287.3 20,960.11 23188.0

Wright Slate 1,250.7 2,319.9 2,477.5 2,454.8 1,461.6 2,276.4 3,705.5 3,781.5 4,753.9

Ohio Untwally1,736.8 2,100.2 3,027.2 1,7361 2,100.2 . 2,0272

Akron1,320.9 1538.3 2,036.5 1,320.9 1,538.3 2,036.5

Cleveland Stale752.4 1,401.6 2,144.9 752.4 1,401.6 2,144.9

Kent Stale1,220.4 1,777.0 2,306.5 1,220.4 1,777.0 2,3063

roiedo973.5 1,07.6 1,276.5 973.5 1,207.8 1,2763

Wiarni1,276.3 1,073.9 1,005.1 1,276.3 14373.9 1,005.1

'bowling Green935.2 1,062.6 991.9 935.2 1,082.6 991.9

:antral stale81.6 232.0 101.0 81.6 232.0 101.0

foungmownAnna College

31.7 46.1 106.9 31.7 46.1 106.9

at Toledo

lathing= College2,574.2 2,952.7 3,268.9

2,574.2 2,952.7 3,268.9

ot Medicine 6751 6861 625.5 .575.8 OM 825.5

OTAL $1185114 $32462.11 $35,077.9 $14,806.5 $18,817.6 $16,111111.7 144400.2 MAKS 1647111 066.741.1 11.113M7 1107-111-1

1

Caupled lical Ohio 1101210 al Rem& Una= Inkanation Syriem

TABLE 6

Two-Tear CollegesUndergraduate Service Patterns (Fa111900)*

Based on Origin of Student Served

Indeed= Local

Local cod llegloaal

llecdocal Subbed

Slalewele and Out-o4-3Iale

Olcdoride OulodAkde Oubtolcd

CC11111110111TT=MSCuyahoga 111.1% 0.2% 011.3% 0.2% 1.5% 1.7%

&bon 91.4 33 911.7 0.2 0.1 0.3

Lakeland 96.9 OA 98.5 0.1 0.5 0.6

Loren 96.1 0.1 99.2 0.2 0.6 0.6

Rio Grande 762 4.0 82.2 174 17.1

Shawnee 85.7 2.5 91.2 2.2 6.6 6.6

Sinclair 911.4 0.7 99.1 0.4 0.5 0.9

Southern-Noah 95.4 2.1 97.5 1.1 1.4 2.5

SouleanSouth 911.5 0.2 06.7 0.2 0.2

TIOINICALCOILOGIS

Alvin Tech 21.4 29.5 50.9 44.4 4.7 46.1

Ileknore 112.9 0.6 63.5 2.2 14.3 18.5

Genital Ohio 98.6 0.2 9111 0.3 0.9 1.2

CUL 91.6 5.5 97.1 1.4 1.4 2.11

Columbus 92.3 1.9 94.2 33 2.5 5.11

ancinnall 00.1 0.7 90.6 0.6 6.5 9.1

Hocking 54.0 12.3 88.3 28.5 4.2 33.7

Mason 79.7 0.5 110.2 0.2 19.7 19.9

Marion U.4 1.6 16.2 0.11 1.1 1.9

MusiOnguso 92.5 31 96.4 30 0.5 3.5

Lima 92.2 6.9 ati ma 0.1 0.9

Noah Coto! 98.4 3.4 99.6 0.2 0.2

Hotness' 98.1 2.11 939 1.2 1.2

Owens 91.0 4.6 15.6 0.6 3.4 4.2

Slot 96.6 0.0 99.6 0.3 0.2 0.5

Una 93.3 5.3 96.6 0.5 0.5 1.3

Wohingion

lia.%/11311

90.7 1.5 92.2 0.2 7.6 7.6

CAMPUIIIArMabula 99.0 0.6 06.6 0.5 1.0 1.5

Belmont 91.5 1.5 93.0 0.6 6.2 7.0

Chillicothe 110.11 5.7 06.5 3.1 0.4 3.5

°emote 96.1 0.2 99.3 0.4 0.2 0.6

Eat Limped 96.5 0.3 96.6 0.5 2.7 3.2

ireelandi 119.7 7.1 96.6 2.4 0.11 3.2

Comm 96.6 OA 0.4 0.4

Monahan ISA 0.5 99.0 0.5 0.4 0.9

Ionian 67.5 2.9 90.4 0.3 9.3 .6Lamaist 98.4 2.2 96.11 1.3 0.1 1.4

Llma 90.11 1.0 116.11 3.1 0.3 3.4

hiandleid 12.4 2.9 111.3 4.3 0.5 4.9

Marion 92.2 3.9 98.1 3.4 0.01 3.9

Middlelown KO 0.6 96.6 0.4 0.4

*wadi 96.7 0.11 NA 2.6 OA 3.4

Salem 911.5 3.0 9115 0.6 asSok 11111 0.7 89.3 0.3 0.3 as?Nobel WA 0.3 111 02 0.7 0.9

niecaratins 117 0.6 K2 0.11 0.11

Wallas OLO 0.11 OSA 07 0.7 1.4

Wdell MI 05 99.7 0.3 0.3

Wale= Oldo 114.1 4.6 89.3 0.7 0.7

3anoville 90.7 11.6 81.3 2.9 0.7 3.11

Oupleil ion Ow Seem el meow utetene ~name Seam

36

fl

TOO

100%100100100100

100100100100

100100100100100

100' 100

100100100

100, 100

1oo100

I 100

100100

100100100100100

100100100100100

100100100100100

ionioo100 .100100

100100100

TABLE 7

Two:fear CollegesGraduate Service Patterns (Fall l9110)"

lased on Origin of Student Served

Local and Regional Statewide and Out-of-State

Institution Local Regional Subtotal Statewide Out-of-State Subtotal Total

BRANCHCAMPUSES,

Belmont 87.5% 12.5% 100.0% - % - - % 100%

Chillicothe 91.2 8.8 100.0 100

Fire lands 78.5 21.2 97.7 1.8 0.8 2.4 100

Geauga 100.0 100.0 100

Hamilton 90.5 4.8 95.3 4.8 4.8 100

Ironton 95.2 95.2 4.8 4.8 100

Lancaster 75.6 8.8 84.4 14.4 1.3 15.7 100

Lima 87.3 18.4 85.7 14.3 14.3 100

Mansteld 81.8 11.4 93.2 8.8 8.8 100

Marion 94.7 5.3 100.0 100

Middletown 96.8 1.1 97.7 2.3 2.3 100

Newark 99.0 1.0 100.0 100

Salem 100.0 100.0 100

Stark 95.7 4.3 100.0 100

Trumbull 87.5 12.5 100.0 100

tiscarawas 100.0 100.0 100

Wayne 100.0 100.0 100

Western Ohio 85.2 14.8 100.0ion

Zanesville 73.8 13.2 88.8 11.3 1.9 13.2 100

Complied from Ohio lloatd o ReclenW Uniform Iniormation Simian

As was shown earlier for university campusesindividual two-year campuses likewise willexperience the impact of demographic changedifferently, depending upon the geographicalareas from which they draw students The major-ity, however. will probably be less likely todecline than the university sectoz principallybecause of the historic attraction of older studentgroups to the two-year campus

Pitva le ftilloge Monk" MinnsThe Board of Regents does not have definitive

data concerning the enrollment service patternsof private colleges in Ohio. However. the Regentsrecommend that private colleges and univer-sities join in this attempt to understand the west-ing service patterns of Ohio institutions and howthose patterns mesh across the slate This kind ofanalysis will clarify the impact at service deci-sions of both state-supported and privately-

37

organized campuses on each other and will illu-minate the value of the private colleges to thestate's higher educational system. The privatecolleges have expressed a desire to join theBoard of Regents' information gathering systemand to be included in these enrollment analysesAs funds become available, these institutions willbe incorporated into the data base. Theapproach to planning which has been nutlinedmakes it urgent to find the resources to includethese institutions within statewide dab collection

Salowkle beiplIcalions of filenDiffeamtessBecause long-established service patterns can

change only slowly, and bocauso all succhanges will encounter problems of conflictamong competing institutions each universitymust develop strategies tor coping with itsspecial circumstances of prospective change ILfor example, a commuter institution expanded

its market statewide by adding residence halls.other residential campuses traditionally draw-ing from the same statewide market wouldstand to lose both enrollments and residencehall occupancy. Or if in coming years a stronginstitution which has two applicants !or everyavailable space maintains its 1980-level enroll-ments, institutions which historically have beensecond choice favorites stand to lose thoseenrollments in a smaller market pool Therefore,it seems in the best interests of the State of Ohiothat enrollment strategies be coordinated so asto minimize wasteful and avoidable conflictamong the current missions of all institutions.Sharing the adjustment to decline may be judgedpreferable to unrestrained competition, whichcould result in some institutions protecting ex-isting enrollment levels in a market of generalshrinkage to the considerable expense of otherinstitutions. Such sharing may be the bestgeneral policy, because demographic changesbeginning in about 1993 will result in young stu-dent pools retuming to approximately the samelevel as in 1980, requiring essentially the sameenrollment capacity as now exists.

The Board of Regents proposes the formation ofan appropriate group (1) to refine the process ofmissions identification and (2) to develop reason-able guidelines within which individual institu-tions should pursue their own planning. Thework of this group will be critical to success ofOhio's colleges and universities in the fifteenyears of demographic change to come.

By retaining a Clear focus on local serviceneeds. Ohio's two-year campuses should faceless interinstitutional conflict in the period tocome, though the issue of minimum size willrequire advance planning on some campusesFor the most part two-year campuses will be suc-cessful in future years if they remain accessibleto older students and if they can increase par-ticipation of younger students in their servicemeas. As this plan has already recommendedtor private institutions, appropriate attention atthe state level should be given to the service pat-terns of two-year campuses

The diversity in service areas of different institu-tions has implications for state-level review of allexisting instructional programs Accordingly,and following the legislative mandate given by

38

the 114th Ohio General Assembly, the Board ofRegents proposes that collaborative efforts beundertaken to review the effectiveness of allinstructional programs withiri the patterns oflocal. regional, statewide, and out-of-state servicedescribed in this chapter.

Most of the concerns of state-level programreview will differ from those of individual institu-tions evaluating the internal effectiveness andimportance of their programs. Continuing inter-nal program review is urged as a necessarypreparation for changing circumstances withineach institution. Such review should deal withissries of centrality of programs to institutionalpurposes, relative quality of performance,relatiVe costs of program commitments, studentneed as perceived for the most part by the insti-tution itself, institutional perceptions of changingexternal circumttances and the availability ofresources to sustain instnictional programs Theseactivities should go on within individual institu-tions with limited outside involvement

It is unlikely, however, that individual institu-tions will be able to bring effective focus to suchstatewide concerns as the relationship of theirown programs to those of other institution& therelative importance of statewide versus localgeographical access to programs, the number otprograms of similar purpose reasonablyrequired by the state as a whole, the overallimplications of existing programs on the inter-related missions of individual institutions theoverall cost implications of duplicative pro-grams within the state, or the relative effec-tiveness and quality of similar programs offeredby several state institutions. Nor are individualinstitutions likely to form a balanced perspectiveon merger or interinstitutional collaboration.which are options that from the state perspectivemay appear to be viable alternatives to pro-gram discontinuance where too many pro-grams or too few enrollments may be shown toexist

Finally, the Regents strongly support new col-laborative ventures with business. industry, andgovernment built upon strengths where theynow exist within our system of universities andcolleges. Institutional roles and leadershipresponsibilities within the emerging service net-work, and collaborative university research onthe problems of Ohio businesses, industries, and

government should rest securely on the demon-strated geographical service patterns and onthe existing stzengths of public service andresearch structures and accomplishment&

Local and Ilegional huplicationaInstitutional missions and service patterns also

have implications for statewide policy con-sideration at the local and regional levels ofplanning. More needs to be known about therelationships among institutional serviceswherever institutions operate in close proximityto 'each other. Greater knowledge will lead tobetter assessments of the impact of program andmission changes on neighboring institutions andwill help distinguish minor conflicts from issues offundamental importance to individual institu-tions. The type of service area analysis set outabove for the state as a whole needs to be donewithin each of the major concentrations ofpopulation where institutional service areasoverlap significantly. Such analysis will beespecially usetul for the northeastern areaincluding Cleveland. Akron-Canton. andYoungstown. the Toledo area, and theCincinnati-Dayton area As private colleges anduniversities enter the planning system. similaranalysis in the central region surrounding Col-umbus will also be useful

approach cannot be complete withoutconsideration of the private college impact butsome general observations about the publicinstitutions in the northeastern region can illus-trate the value of such fa6tual analysis to futureplanning. In that region, tour state universities arelocated in the contiguous. populous counties ofCuyahoga. Summit Portage, and Mahoning.Exhibits 3 and 4 show for undergraduate and forgraduate enrollments the extent to which the 13

counties in that region are especially importantto each of the tour universities. Cleveland State,

Akron, Kent State, and Youngstown State. Exhibit

3 presents undergraduate enrollments in eachcounty, keyed to each university and notingonly those instances where 200 or more studentsare drawn to a given university. Exhibit 4 simi-

larly presents for graduate enrollments thosecounties where 100 or mo:e students are drawnto a given institution.

A simple analysis of these enrollment patternshelps sepazate important competition from lessimportant overlap and also reveals the sharply

39

different competitive position of each university.Each of these universities draws at least 85 per-cent of its enrollment from the region in questionand thus is critically influeqced by local andregional circumstances

The exhibits show that Cleveland State drawssignificant numbers of undergraduate studentsonly from its home county' of Cuyahoga andfrom the neighboring counties of Lake andLorain. Its graduate enrollments come almostentirely from the two counties of Cuyahoga andLake. While some enrollments indeed movefrom Cuyahoga to both Akron and KentCleveland State clearly dominates its imme-diate drawing area, enrolls 12,400 of its 13A00regional undergraduates and 2,860 of amograduate students from its home county. anddraws no substantial enrollment from any countyin which another university dominate& By thesame token, Cleveland State constitutes noimmediate competitive force in any but thethree counties noted.

Similarly. Youngstown' tate is relatively separ-ate from the other three universities, and itdominates its limited service area. Only threecountiesMahoning, Trumbull and Colum-bianaare vital sources of current enrollmentsfor Youngstown State, and virtually none of itsenrollment comes from counties dominated byanother university.

The University of Akron, by comparison, drawsimportantly from six counties in addition to itshome county-of Summit with 18,900 of its totalundergraduate count of 20.500 corning fromthese seven counties The pattern is similar forgraduate enrollment& However. nearly 13,000of its undergraduate students come from Akron'shome county and only ten percent of itsenrollments come from counties (Cuyahogaand Portage) which are dominated by anotheruniversity. Only two of its key counties overlapimportant interests of Cleveland State, and noneoverlaps counties important to YoungstownState.

The circumstances of Kent State. however, con-trast sharply with those of the other three north-eastern universities. Nearly every county in theregion is an important sourceof undergraduatesfor Kent State, and seven counties are importantsources of its graduate student& In nearly every

117003111 3

Northeastern Region UndergraduateEnrollments of Four State UniversitiesShowing Counties from which 200 or MoreStudents Are Drawn (Fall 1980)

Key.

A University at AkronC °lowland Stale UniversityK Kent Stale UniversityY Youngstown Slate University

LAKE ERIE uksz r-

CI-712juK-I GRA. GA

19111-----1

1 . -CUYAHOGA TMODELL e

e

LAKE ERIEASHTABULA

ZIK 904fe

GOMAC ros

K DS

LAZE I

iree-mra/YAHOGALORAD, C 12433

K 30311C 300 A 1331 PORTAGAI-1 V. 3432

A 22A fikED-11-1.1ASUMMIT. K 2725 I

I AA 12947K 2400

iTARE

TRUMBULL

A 1013K 210

17- WAYNE

ASHTABULA

c maAils

fJMDwk1A 190 A K K KOK

A 1334K OS7

PORTAGE If 317K 1N

A 421

4

A NS

PAAHONING-yoI

5440K 30111-1---

r-COLTDDIANAA 233$K ssi

K

al--

EXHIBIT 4

Northeastern Region Graduate Enrollmentsof Four State Universilies Showing Counties!Tom which 100 or More Students AreDrawn (Fall 1980)

Scum deo Board ot Regents* Uniform Inlormation System.

.1W=

,, 4,F,..

county which is a primary source of its students.Kent State confronts another university which isin the dominant position. Fully two-thirds of itsundergraduate students and an equal propor-tion of its graduate students within the regioncome from counties which are the homes ofother universities (Cuyahoga Summit Mahon-ing) or in which other universities clearlydominate in drawing enrollments (Stark,Medina. Trumbull, and Mahoning). These cir-cumstances appear to threaten Kent State veryseriously as in years ahead the other threeuniversities seek to offset student losses by inten-sifying efforts to enroll their home countystudent& Careful regional thought and col-laborative planning will be required to serve theState of Ohio's interests in these regard&

These comments about northeastern Ohio aresimply illustrations of the understanding whichshould come trom careful study of the facts ofcompeting service patterns throughout Ohio.Similarindeed, more intensiveanalysisshould be undertaken wherever institutionsshare common service areas. The Regentsrecommend that already developed institu-tional missions be used as the basis for suchanalysis and examination of policy issues.

Program **viewAs stated earlier, collaborative approaches for

state-level review of instructional programs mustbe developed. The Regents propose these guid-ing principles.

First that state-level review proceed separ-ately from the internal processes of individualinstitution& In this regard the following issuesshould be the principal concerns,

Interrelationships of programs havingsimilar purposes.Need for geographic access to programsthroughout Ohio.Programs of similar purpose reasonablyrequired by the state as a whole.Overall implications of existing programson the interrelated missions of individualinstitution*Over 4.cost implications of duplicative pro-grams within the state.Relative effectiveness and efficiency ofexisting programs

41

Relative quality of similar program&Available options for program elimination,merger or relocation where oversupply orunderdevelopmeni of enrollments mayexist

Second, that state-level program review bebased upon local, regional, statewide, andout-of-state patterns of developed service.Attention should be given to separating suchreviews according to differentials ingeographical service wherever possible andappropriate.

Third, that state-level review be undertakencollaboratively, involving all institutionsaffected by such review. However, externalassistance should be sought wherever groupjudgments are unlikely to be appropriate orproductive.

After consulting institutional leaders the Boardof Regents will empanel an ad hoc task force todevelop procedures, timetables, and appro.priate standing and special-purpose committeestor carrying out program review. The review cd

graduate programming is proposed as a firstorder of business, followed by selected com-ponents of undergraduate programming and cd

graduate-professional programming.

Subject to deliberations of the ad hoc task forceon program review, the Board suggests that thefollowing steps be developed and implemented

Identify and schedule fields of program-ming appropriate tor simultaneousstatewide review.

Characterize in a general way each fieldscheduled tor review, perhaps with con-sultative assistance, to identify issues of par-ticular pertinence to the field in question,including among other items,

fields of specialization and subspecializa-tion peculiar to the fieldkey determinants o: need as far asrelated fields are concerned within aninstitutionmanpower needs of the field,nature of professional practice ofgraduates,

critical size criteria appropriate to thefields and -criteria for judging relative excellence ofperformance within the field,

Gather data which establish the servicepatterns ct existing programs as related tolocal reglonal statewide and outofetateservice.

Gather data which relate existing programsto the needs of the general characterizationdescribed above and pertinent to the eightprincipal concerns of state-level reviewoutlined earlier.

Conduct visits, as appropriate, by externalreviewers and prepare a consolidatedreport of visitations and general conclusionsregarding the eight principal concerns.

Provide opportunity for institutional -

response to the report and conclusions ofreviewers.

Formalize recommendations to the Board otRegents regarding the results of the reviewprocess

Iladonded bubudional ServiceAs the colleges and universities of Ohio enter

into a new social compact with the citizens of thestate, the system will face new demands forextended instructional service. The respon-sivenessb relevance, and effectiveness of thesystem's responses to social demands will becritical factors aliecting the credibility of highereducation. Colleges and universities need tocontinue to respond through selected oil-campus courses to demonstrable regional needsfor extended services

In the past institutions have responded indivi-dually to regional and state requests forextended service. Every region of the staito offersphysical and programmatic access to a fullrange of central campuses and olicampusinstruction Now an appropriate question tor thestate is how institutions collectively can be mosteffective in response to legitimate demands forextended service Given the demands lor tist,vice, enrollment uncertainty, and limitedresources facing the institutions, it Is apparentespecially in the areas ot oli-carnpus and now

e-

-"N

traditional instructional activity, that the systemneeds to share responsibility for joint action andresponses to future service demands.

The Regents challenge Ohio's colleges andunivenities to seek cooperative solutions to com-mon problems through voluntary associationand compromise for the strength of the system.Such an approach is preferable to govern-mental mandate, intervention, or supervision.State and institutional priorities tor the use ollimited resources should be given careful con-sideration

In the planning period ahead. three questionswill be central to gle succest of off-campus andnontraditional prOgrams

Are services adequately coordinated torespond to identified needs within a givenregion without costly duplication or destruc-tive competition?

Are services consistent with the mission andresources of the central campus?

Is quality comparable to the programs onthe central campus?

Currently, the most pronounced needs for off-campus service appear to be br continuingteacher, business, and health education. butsuch job-related needs require continualreassessment Most of these needs can be met byoftering selected courses as opposed to com-plete degree programs.

every effort must be made to avoid costlyduplication of service and harmful competitionamong existing institutions and programs. Exist-ing campus facilities should be viewed as idealsites tor oftcamPus education within given ser-vice areas. In its coordinating role for highereducation, the Board of Regents will continue toformulate and revise state guidelines and fund-ing policies consistent with these extended ser-vice needs. But the Board also foresees an activerole for regional consortia in helping to assurecommunication of program intentions amongneighboring institutior s. consolidation of dis-jointed *Boris pooling of resources and theestablishment ot collaborative programs.

Primary service missions and areas should bedetermined tot each college and university.

42..

4

Pk-N*1',

diktat-

Only successful programs from the central cam-pus should be approved for extended serviceand then only when under central campus sup-port and control Baccalaureate institutionsshould exercise caution in expanding their mis-sions to include technical or graduatecoursework Only in circumstances where aspecial need has been identified should apublic university enable a student to take morethan a minor portion of upper division courses re-quired tor qbaccalaureate degree or more thanhalf the courses required tor a graduate degreeat a branch campus. And with the widespreadavailability of courses and programs throughoutthe state, most off-campus programs should berestricted to immediate service areas unlessfavorably reviewed by both the regional consor-tia affected and the Board of Regents.

02 critical importance is assurance that off-campus and nontraditional programs are com-parable in quality to traditional service on thecentral campus. There is particular need forstatewide criteria against which to judge credittor prior learning, television instruction, andcomputer-assisted learning. Full degree pro-grarns should be organized and offered byapproved central campus faculty working offcampus as part of their regular teachingassignments. Central campus library, academic,and student support resources should be madeavailable to extended service students Certainresearchbased graduate programs and certainprofessional pro&rms requiring special supportresources of the central campus should not betaken in significant portion off-campus or offeredthrough a nontraditional format. And finally, alloff-campus and nontraditional programs should

be offered exclusively on a site- and time-specific basis so the student is aware of the insti-tution's limited commitment for service at thatlocation. Local constituerit groups must under-stand that these off-campus centers aro notprecursors to new central campus facilities.

The Board of Regents will direct the Chancellorto appoint two ad hoc advisory committees, onefor traditional off-campus courses and programsand the other tor nontraditional programs. Eachadvisory committee will be assigned the tasks ofsurveying and cataloging current programs andcourses. assessing future demands tor extendedservices, evaluating resources available withinvarious regions, and suggesting standards andprocedures for the evaluation of need, effec-tiveness of services, moderation of interinstitu-tional conflict and initiation of collaboration inprogramming.

In addition. procedures and standards shouldbe developed for initial and periodic review,involving participation and program evaluationat three levels. At the institutional level eachpublic and private institution should use existingcriteria or, if not already in place, establish stand-ards of acceptable quality with consideration offaculty, curriculum, supporting resources, andacademic control At the regional level specificattention should be given to the need for pro-posed programs, availability of similar serviceson neighboring central campuses, andopportunities for service through joint action Atthe state level current standards and proceduresfor initial approval need to be further developedand new standards and procedures establishedtor periodic reexamination.

CONCLUSION

The rest of the 1960's and the early part of the19901 hold both risk and opportunity for Ohio'scolleges and universities. Uncertain enrollmentspaired with the likelihood of chronic financialconstraLnts will define the environment but neednot prescnbe higher education's agenda foraction

Large numbers of Ohioans will continue toneed .and deserve quality instructional service.The basic commitment of Ohio's residents andtheir leaders tO sustain the state's colleges unduniversities is unlikely to diminish despite theeconomic circumstances of the state. Clarifyinginstitutional missior* setting priorities of purpose,and sharpening management tools offer hopefor continued institutional vitality and enhancededucational quality. The opportunity, throughnew forms of collaboration between collegesand universitie s. to address forthrightly and toresolve the problems posed by the periodahead. is clear and should be seized in the com-mon interest of all institutions and the state.

44

Of special importance, the state's colleges anduniversities must Join and seek to support thestate's business and government leaders as theytake up the challenge of strengthening Ohio'seconomic base. This new partnership in serviceto Ohio's future holds great value for the stateand its people, and provides new opportunity forhigher education to demonstrate the soundnessof its claim to strong state support

Working in consort institutions of higher educa-tion have the opportunity to move forward anagenda of positive actions which can turn adecade and more of uncertainty into a period ofopportunity for enhanced service. The Board ofRegents calls upon institutional leaders andleaders of Ohio's businesses and governments tojoin in the common purposes set out in this Plan.Certainly, the Board of Regents pledges its fullcommitment to these goals and looks forward tObeing part of the cooperative efforts which willensure their achievement to the lasting benefitof the State of Ohio and its people.

Ohio Board of Aponte

Richard L Krabach, ChairmanN. Victor Goodman, Vice ChairmanC. MI horn Swank, SecretaryJames H. BrennanMichael F. ColleyRobert L. EvansHelen H. JamesKeith McNamaraEverett Ware SmithOakley C. Collins, Ex-OfficioThomas C. Sawyer, Ex-Officio

Edward Q. Moulton, Chancellor

OHIOBOARDOFREGENTS

3600 State Office Tower30 East Broad StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215614 466.6000 An Equal Opporlutuly Employer

_ -

Total cocoas ponied 7000Unit cost $61142PoOlcaltort data ,112(Excludes PAW cosill