Panel 2: The Role of Public Research Universities in the Total Educational System (including preK-12 and post-secondary, public and private)

• Public education finance is a patchwork of sources of funding and disconnected policy initiatives. Other countries such as Austria and Finland have much more integrated systems of public education, pre-K through post-graduate. Can the barriers to focusing public policy in the US be overcome?
• JIMMY CHEEK: Progress is being made in terms of coordination and collaboration between K-12 schools, community colleges, and universities. This is evident by new joint degree programs, course and degree transfer agreements and pathways, and various other partnerships. However, in order to experience transformational change, we must break the cycle where public education is a priority when policy makers and government bodies believe we can afford it.
  
  We must recognize that the continued trend of disinvestment in public education is unsustainable, particularly in higher education as enrollment growth and resource constraints threaten our public research universities' capacity to serve at the highest level of excellence. At the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK), for example, the state's investment in higher education has declined from $200M in 2000 to $150M in 2012 in real dollars. This decline in state support comes at a time when student demand exceeds our capacity to provide instruction, and our nation and state have set aggressive long-term goals for increased degree production.
  
  The barriers to focusing public policy in the U.S. can be overcome, but investments in public education must become an unwavering priority so that we can engage in serious discussions about P-20 integration and policy reform.
• PETER McPHERSON: There is no way the US could fully integrate its system of education, as is done in some countries, because of historical precedents, the legal rights and responsibilities of our various levels of governments, and the size and population of our country. In any case, many would be against a Ministry of Education that would stifle innovations as it "coordinates" efforts. However, tighter connections are certainly needed and the question is how to do this within the current structures at a state and federal level. Current efforts include:
  
  The common core standards for K-12 are important and have strong early support. Now they must be used and that must be done in coordination with higher education. That is the really hard work.
  
  Collecting common data sounds mundane but is important to understand the problems and then use the data to drive change. I wish we could have a national unit record system. However, the project of the six higher education presidential associations to use National Clearinghouse data for more accurate and completion information is an excellent step forward.
  
  Important strides are being made for credit transfers from community colleges but more needs to be done. The greater use of computer courseware by community colleges will augment transfers, though transfers cannot be limited to such courses.
  
  State governments are going to insist on more integration within their states and, if done with care and not intrusively, it can help.
• FAYNEESE MILLER: Over the last four years and even before with Spelling, whether we agree or not with the policies proposed and or implemented by the US Department of Education, there has been more national attention paid to the connection between Pre-K and post-secondary education. The Race for the Top initiative led many states to rethink the purpose of the Pre-k to 20 Councils and to work together to improve educational opportunities for students. Unfortunately, the message sent to higher education, given that we had to either be asked or look for ways to partner with Pre-K to 12, created more of a wedge rather than a sense of shared purpose and connectedness. Unless higher education is able to address the cost issue in a way that satisfies the public, the barriers will still exist. Even now, the US Department of Education is considering linking financial aid to institutional ranking. This does not suggest a move toward breaking down barriers, but a move toward making the barriers even more insurmountable. Is it possible to thin the barriers in such a way that Pre-K to post-secondary education policy encourages more intellectual and economic synergy? I would have to say, yes, it is pos-sible. The question is, Do we have the will to make it happen? Funding formulas, especially in states like Vermont, would need to be changed to include higher education as an important educational entity.
• DAVID WOLK: Having worked as a principal, superintendent, state education commissioner, governor's chief of policy and for the past eleven years as public college president, I have experienced this inequitable, disjointed patchwork up close and personal. My college, a relatively small public of 2000 students, receives 9% of its budget from all state sources, the lowest in the nation. The state appropriation is less than it was six years ago. Our Board of Trustees understandably restrains tuition increases. Consequently, there is significant pressure to become more entrepreneurial in raising revenues. There is no financial or policy connection, other than the good will of leaders, to collaborate among public and private colleges and the university. Budgets are tight, demographic changes predict continued retrenchment, and pressures mount on public colleges. The same factors describe K-12 public education, albeit better funded with relatively high state support. However, incentives for integration among pre-K through postgraduate education are not based on legal or policy requirements but instead predicated on the degree to which leaders at each level are collaborative, innovative and exemplary. The best hope to overcome these barriers, absent an infusion of funding at each level, is for leaders of good will to connect and collaborate.
• NANCY ZIMPHER: Policy barriers in the United States can be broken down once states have a clear idea of what constitutes a 21st-century education. That is, what do students in P-16 today need to be prepared for adulthood, and how does education need to change to meet those needs? In exploring such questions it is important to keep in mind the U.S.'s size and composition: countries like Austria and Finland have fractions of the population the U.S. has-all of Austria is about the size of New York City and Finland millions fewer than that. These are much smaller, less culturally diverse countries than the United States, and they do not face the same challenges we face.
  
  Education in the U.S. today still hews closely to a nineteenth-century model that just doesn't cut it anymore. Technology has quickly changed the way we live, work, and learn, and all schools need to be resourced to make the best use of emerging technology. Further, and just as important, alignment between lower and higher education needs to be seamless. This goes for all disciplines but especially teacher preparation, which has for too long been considered a second- or third-tier study. Prospective teachers need clinical training that fully prepares them to work with all students.
  
  The best way to make this kind of radical, systemic change is to take a local approach-not top down but bottom up. Community stakeholders both in education and out, including business, government, civic, and not-for-profit leaders, need to come together around tables all over the country and face education challenges up close. This means engaging in honest and often uncomfortable discussions, not shying away from where schools are falling short. Everyone needs to look at data on how schools are performing and then make improvements around that data. "What are we doing that's working, and how can we do more of it?" This is the question communities need to start with. Once answers to these questions are demonstrated, the policy changes will follow-but we need to present the proof up front.
  
  The state and federal role in this is to offer incentive funding for organized efforts within communities that are committed to this collective approach to education at the local level, and to working toward specific, evidence-based student outcomes.
• What role should public research universities play in meeting national objectives for higher education opportunity and quality for all citizens of an increasingly diverse nation?
• JIMMY CHEEK: The U.S. has set aggressive goals for degree attainment of the population (ages 25 to 34) from the current level of 41.57% to 55% by the year 2025 with a particular interest in producing graduates in STEM related fields. This is no small task, particularly given the current capacity constraints that many universities face along with aging infrastructure, rising healthcare and utility costs, declines in state funding, and an emerging need for new classrooms and laboratory space necessary to advance STEM programs.
  
  At UTK, progress is being made with these na-tional objectives as we continue to improve our graduation and retention rates while increasing the number of students studying STEM disciplines (28% increase) and STEM graduates (18% increase) since 2005. UTK recently implemented a new 15/4 tuition plan that charges students for 15 credit hours per semester beginning in fall 2013 for newly enrolled undergraduate students. The purpose of this plan is to improve graduation rates by encouraging students to complete their degree in four years to avoid the costs associated with additional years of school. The new revenue generated from this plan will be reinvested to hire additional advisors, increase scholarships, address course bottlenecks, and to recruit and retain stellar faculty and staff.
  
  The challenge we all face in the future is finding new funding streams to cover the investments and sustain the progress being made toward these national educational objectives, while increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the university.
• PETER McPHERSON: Public universities need to increase their completion numbers while ensuring the quality of degrees. APLU and ASSCU are about to announce that more than 460 public universities and colleges have committed to do their share in reaching the goal of 60 percent of adults having a degree by 2025. The goal is a specific number of degrees between now and 2025. These numbers cannot be achieved without the important increase in degrees granted to minority and low-income students. Public universities and colleges are taking the commitment seriously, and work on the goal will be a primary purpose of the two organizations.
• FAYNEESE MILLER: The Morrill Act was one of the more significant social justice acts passed by Congress. The original act and that for 1890 institutions made higher education accessible and affordable for many who were previously "denied" the opportunity to attain a higher education degree. Although the Morrill Act, given the time, did not address the notion of separate but not equal, it did open the door for many who were perceived as on the margins, due to class, race, and/or gender. The intent of the Morrill Act is even more relevant today as it was 100 years ago because of the changing demographics in America. If the US is to maintain its prominence within a global context-that has become increasingly diverse-it is essential that public research institutions work with Pre-K to 12 to ensure that students are ready to do the work expected and succeed in higher education classrooms. Some within higher education need to rethink mode of delivery, assessment of students, and perception of students. Public research institutions, as in the past, are central to the economic stability and viability of the nation because they educate a significant number of the populace. If we fail to do our job, the nation fails.
• DAVID WOLK: Public research universities should mirror America and the world. In many ways they do. However, federal policy decisions and declining federal support have exacerbated the magnitude and complexity of the problem for the states and, ultimately, for public higher education. Governors and state legislators, facing revenue shortfalls and competing needs within their states, routinely slash state budget allocations to public colleges and universities while at the same time often voting against tuition increases. College officials are left to do more with less. Federal financial assistance has been frozen or cut, opportunity has been dampened, diversity has been diminished, and higher education is left with a Catch 22 of declining resources. It should be a national imperative to extend the long cherished dream of public research university education to a broader range of students. Given the rich history and valued traditions of state land grants, and the incomparable education provided to a diverse array of American and international students for centuries, there should be a new Marshall Plan of college assistance that opens up greater opportunity for more and diverse students to benefit from a high quality public higher education previously available to their predecessors. Our nation's future depends on it.
• NANCY ZIMPHER: America's public universi-ties were founded to be everyone's universities-places where everyone has a chance to get an education and build a better life. This assurance must remain at the core of everything that we do, and the key to this is accessibility. It has to be public universities' top priority to promote accessibility, and this can be done in two dove-tailing ways:
  
  First, public universities have a responsibility to help close the gap between P-12 and higher education so that students come to college ready to learn. We see from the too-high numbers of students who arrive at college needing remedial help and also from college drop-out rates that there is a disconnect between what is happening in lower school and higher education. Universities need to take the lead in engaging communities and working toward answering the questions "What can we do together to improve outcomes in P-12? What can we do to be sure students are ready to learn when they arrive on our doorstep?"
  
  Another thing universities need to do is be sure the application process is as straightforward as possible. We need to ensure no one is shut out of college, and not an ounce of talent wasted, because students did not have the guidance they needed to take all the necessary steps to apply to schools and for scholarships and financial aid.
  
  Once we have ensured greater access, we must increase opportunities for success. As we strive to produce a more successful student popu-lation, initiatives that focus on improving our college completion rates and retaining more students throughout the pipeline are paramount.
• What is the appropriate balance for public research universities among their responsibilities to their states, the nation, and the world? How is this changing?
• JIMMY CHEEK: To compete at the highest level, we must continue to provide world-class faculty, staff, programs, and facilities to a diverse and talented student body. Our challenge is finding the appropriate funding balance to support the needs of our state, address capacity constraints, invest in new technologies, provide need-based financial aid, upgrade research facilities, and recruit and retain the best faculty and staff available.
  
  To that end, there is one concerning trend occurring at public universities that we should carefully examine. This issue relates to some public universities' increasing dependence on the revenue from out-of-state students to offset the decline in their state appropriations. On one hand, an argument could be made that more out-of-states students allows a public university to subsidize the tuition costs of in-state students who pay lower tuition rates. While this is a benefit, we must be careful to not limit access for in-state students, particularly if demand is high. This balance is changing across the nation, so it important that we continue to en-gage in dialogue about the ramifications these decisions may have on access and opportunity in public higher education and our commitment to serve high quality in-state students.
• PETER McPHERSON: It is not practical or wise to clearly separate out the role with the state, nation and world. Public research universities must continue their major role in undergraduate and graduate education, research and problem-solving. An important part of this work will be for their states because universities will be responsive to state governors and legislatures and the needs of their physical location. It is true that a growing part of this work has a national and global benefit. That is the nature of a strongly engaged university, and these great universities do have a national and international responsibility. However, we cannot carve off something like graduate education as a national responsibility, i.e., obtain the money from the federal government. First of all, we probably would not get the federal funding for anything but a few areas of study, if that, and secondly there are clearly some important state benefits to graduation education/research. (You cannot really segregate graduation education and research.)
• FAYNEESE MILLER: Public research institu-tions, given the current funding streams and amount of state support, are beginning to look outside the state for revenue, especially tuition dollars. If the trend of reducing state support continues, public research institutions will begin to view their responsibility to the state in a more diminished way. It is the public research institutions, however, that have the ability to answer pressing questions for the state. I do not believe there is an appropriate balance for public research institutions in regard to their state, nation, or the world. Some faculty will engage in research that benefits the state, some the nation, and some globally-or that benefits all three. If the intent is to conduct research that has a benefit for the state, this will not take on more significance until changes are made in the reappointment, promotion and tenure process. Research that has local implications is often viewed as less important than that with national or global implications, especially if the outcome is publication in a journal with a low rejection rate or a project report. The appropriate balance, therefore, is dependent on who is hired, who already is part of the academic community, and what the incentives are for practical research.
• DAVID WOLK: Since many public research universities have essentially become privatized by the draconian cuts from federal and state sources previously counted on to provide open, accessible opportunity for capable and deserving students, the appropriate balance question begs another one. Public research universities have always served the public good. If the federal and state governments continue the trend of declining institutional support, leaving the state appropriation cut/restrained increase or lowered tuition levels dynamic in place, will colleges and universities understandably wonder about support for the public good? This may cause trustees, college and university leaders and faculty members to question the purposes of public higher education. The risk is that publics become quasi-private and further removed from the original land grant public mission. The question of balance may be answered by the degree to which these universities are supported by state, federal or international sources, through scholarships for students and grants to institutions. Scarce resources for research will lead to increased competition for external revenues from the corporate world and from foreign entities that place a higher value on re-search, and on education, than federal or state governments. The balance may tilt to entrepre-neurial corporations and international supporters of research and opportunity.
• NANCY ZIMPHER: I have said many times that every great city needs a great university. Universities in general, public or not, are anchor institutions in their home communities, and they are singular ones at that. Not only do they prepare students for careers, but they provide a wide range of jobs in themselves, from faculty and administration to the indispensable support staff. These institutions have deep roots in the community and they go far toward determining the quality of life. So on the most local level, colleges and universities have those responsibilities: to educate students, to provide employment, and to act as vibrant community bolsters.
  
  University systems, however, can take this mis-sion further, to serve and "vibrantize," as it were, entire regions or states. This is especially important in a troubled economy where we need to take an all-hands-on-deck approach to lifting the economy up. The larger the institution or system, the bigger bang it should supply to the region. This notion of university-as-economic engine has fluctuated over time. Obviously, the land-grant schools started on this principle-to serve local needs in practical applications. But even public colleges and universities have, at times, succumbed to ivory tower syndrome, when schools stand apart from their communities, erudite and aloof, rather than engaging with the real, local life and needs. I see that changing again now as many universities are trending back toward community engagement and in new and inspiring ways.
• What are the responsibilities of public research universities to relate to and become engaged with each element of the educational ecosystem? What are the greatest opportunities for improvement (e.g. teacher prep, STEM, technology support, etc.)? What are the major obstacles hindering progress?
• JIMMY CHEEK: I recently read an article about the critical need for computer science teachers in K-12 schools. This gap exists because most college graduates in this field are entering the private sector for jobs that pay much higher salaries than school teaching. Public research universities can and should help address this type of resource gap for K-12 schools. We have the resources on our campuses to provide support, so what is holding us back from engaging in more outreach and engagement activities? The simple answer is funding and capacity. Each component of the education system is struggling to respond to budget reductions while protecting the quality of existing pro-grams with fewer resources. Nevertheless, we must become more deliberate about developing and aligning the resources required for innovation, and this requires collaboration with each component of our educational system.
  
  At UTK, for example, we created VolsTeach, a program targeted for STEM majors who are interested in pursuing a career in secondary teaching. Through partnerships with local high schools, our students gain valuable classroom experience and are provided an opportunity to graduate in four years while obtaining licensure as highly qualified teachers in high-demand STEM disciplines.
  
  Public research universities should continue to advance collaboration projects to address faculty gaps at local K-12 schools and community colleges. We must demonstrate how additional public investment in innovative collaboration projects can have a significant long-term return benefit to the public education system.
• PETER McPHERSON: Our universities must take real responsibility in building the K-12 system in their states because we have the standing and often expertise to make a difference. Public research universities have a critical role in educating more STEM majors and also STEM teachers. These universities have, in the view of NSF, a central role in educating STEM teachers because these universities usually have a major commitment to both the STEM disciplines and teacher education. These universities have an important role in creating technology pertinent to their state and region and may be one of the few places where some state or regional technology will be created. In fact, if they do not play that role states would often feel they need not be funded any differently than comprehensive universities. Also public research universities educate much of the faculty for the rest of the higher education institutions.
• FAYNEESE MILLER: More than 40 states have agreed to implement the Common Core Standards beginning in 2014. Most of the states have also agreed to a nationally developed test that would be given to students starting in grade 3. The purpose of this national initiative, one that began with state governors and has received approximately $170 million dollars to assist with the development of the assessment tools, is to prepare students who are college and/or career ready. Right now, higher education has had only minimal involvement in an initiative that could and should reduce the number of remedial course offered. The involvement that higher education does have centers on the assessment tools that are being developed. Higher education faculty are participating in the development of the items for the tests. With the implementation of the Common Core Standards, teacher preparation programs will need to align their curricula so that the graduates are ready and able to teach in the new environment. This is already happening in most teacher preparation programs. At UVM, we recently remodeled two classrooms and significantly enhanced the technology and made it easier to incorporate technology into the curriculum. At the University of Central Florida, and several other participating institutions, Avatars are being used as significant teaching tools. Research shows that using Avatars as a teacher training tool or clinical preparation tool has significant positive implications on the learning curve when in the clinical setting. Technology is increasing the opportunities for curriculum innovation, clinical preparation, and readiness for career participation. Often resources are made available to begin projects, but the resources to maintain and grown new and exciting opportunities are limited. On a federal level, moving more toward competitive grant funding and less toward funding that is distributed across states will either raise the overall quality of some programs or create a more pronounced divide among higher edu-cation institutions. In addition to resources, another obstacle is the speed at which change occurs within higher education. We have to become more nimble and embracing of change.
• DAVID WOLK: It is perhaps more fashionable to focus on STEM and technology support, given the national and corporate fascination with the connection of these important areas to higher education, but the critical emphasis should also be on research and practice related to teacher preparation. Preparing teachers, as is the case with preparing nurses and other health care professionals, is an expensive and labor intensive enterprise. Smaller private colleges and universities have retreated from both businesses for similar reasons. Public research universities have an inherent responsibility to study and implement best practices in preparing educators, arguably the most important role of higher education in our civic life. Outside the ivory tower, what is essential is direct and meaningful engagement with public and private schools, including the adoption of local schools by every college and university in the country as professional development schools, along the teaching hospital model, to provide on-site education and preparation for prospective and practicing teachers in the real world of schools. Inside the ivory tower, liberal arts and education faculty need to be married to provide rich content preparation and effective pedagogy with rigor and collaboration. Students need to know their teachers know a lot and care a lot.
• NANCY ZIMPHER: Public universities need to do a better job of actively engaging in the P-12 world. And I mean this from the stance of both how and what students are learning. The how is tied to teacher preparation, which happens at the higher ed level. Establishing teacher education programs that are clinically rich and rigorous-similar in intensity to training for other professions, like doctors or engineers-is critical to making sure teachers are entering 21st-century classrooms ready to meet the needs of today's students. The what speaks to curricular alignment. With college-level remediation and attrition being what they are, universities need to step up and partner with P-12 schools however they can with innovations in mentorships, curriculum planning, shared resources, and continual professional de-velopment to be sure what students are learning in P-12 is preparing them for college.
  
  The largest obstacles to achieving seamless alignment might be, ironically, the very things that also give us strength: our size and diversity. And by "our" I mean both the country over all and also our large public research universities. Because with size and heterogeneity come inherent challenges. There is more to orchestrate, more to consider. Alignment becomes more difficult simply because there are more components to align. Discipline, persistence, and patience are key here, accepting that fostering new relationships that cross the lower school-upper school divide might not be easy but that it can be achieved and pays off in the long run.
• If public universities around the nation took one major step this next year towards improving their role within the overall education system, where should university leadership be focusing their efforts?
• JIMMY CHEEK: We must continue to improve retention and graduation rates at public universities. A major step for UTK was improving upon the transition from high school to the freshman year of college through proven strategies such as living-learning communities, a bridge program with a local community college, and improved support and resources in the area of student advising and mentoring.
  
  Two particular programs at UTK to mention include our new One Stop Student Services Center and UTracK advising program. The "One Stop" center was created to streamline the most common services students need to manage their enrollment, registration, financial aid, and bill payments. This service is designed to improve the overall student experience from the first day on campus through graduation. Similarly, UTracK charts academic progress, which helps students and advisors avoid pitfalls in students' academic plans, monitors progress with key courses for each major such as math and science courses for engineering majors, and requires academic advising for students who are not making sufficient progress towards their desired major.
  
  We are optimistic that UTK will continue to experience improvements in our student success rates as we provide more support and resources for students to understand academic expectations, discover the right major, and stay on track to graduate on time.
• PETER McPHERSON: Give me two wishes please: 1) build and use data-informed decision- making to allocate resources and drive outcomes, and 2) drive the use of computer-based courses, using hybrid courses or otherwise, to deliver a significant number of undergraduate credit hours. I believe universities that do not take these steps may find themselves in deeper trouble in just a few years.
• FAYNEESE MILLER: University leadership should focus its efforts on improving completion rates. Doing so will also allow for concerted efforts towards addressing the rising cost of higher education. Universities need to restore public trust in the "good" of higher education for the nation's future, the future of young people in terms of career and social success, and its overall relevance. With the emergence of such projects as the Thiel Fellowship that rewards young people under 20 for not going to college, but provides funds for them to pursue a project that has potential financial payoff, the message being sent is that higher education is no longer a necessary route for attaining one's goals. The problem with this line of thinking is those who have other options and access to opportunities are more able to take advantage of their fellowship and what it might offer than those with limited options and few contacts.
• DAVID WOLK: Education is global and local. Leaders of public research universities around the country could agree to simultaneously convene education practitioners and policy makers across their neighborhoods, not at the state or federal level, but at the most local venue, the neighborhood. This might be the first time that educators and leaders in the pre-K through graduate education worlds sit down together as neighbors and colleagues to envision practical ways to improve the quality and opportunity for learners of all ages. Imagine a public research university as a neighborhood school. Imagine the collaboration that could ensue from a rich discussion and strategic action planning, not a report that sits on a shelf but a specific, inclusive, collaborative plan that involves all neighbors and immerses all sectors in a common purpose. What might result? A new lab school? Well organized service learning opportunities as a requirement for university graduation, landing all students in the schools? Focused research projects that meet the needs of frustrated teachers and inquiring parents? A new legion of big brothers and big sisters? A renewed emphasis on research integrated with service? Making a difference in your university before you go out to make a difference in the world?
• NANCY ZIMPHER: Getting to work on building those bridges, those relationships with community stakeholders-that is the place to start. Because it's through those partnerships, which form powerful civic infrastructures, that communities will make the kinds of meaningful ground-level positive changes we are talking about: improving student outcomes all along the education continuum, from kindergarten readiness to being prepared for college and a career.
  
  Positive, active engagement with the community has to be at the forefront of any university's mission, so I would like to see more university heads reaching out to community leaders, inviting them to a table, starting discussions, and asking the important, tough questions. Do whatever it takes to keep those conversations going. Change has to start somewhere, and I think university leaders are in prime positions to start-and keep-the ball rolling.