"Field Notes" is an occasional Connect column covering practical and philosophical issues facing admissions and registrar professionals. The columns are authored by various AACRAO members. If you have an idea for a column and would like to contribute, please send an email to the editor at connect@aacrao.org.
By: Adrian Raul Cornelius, University Registrar, University of Maryland
The United States government has played a significant role in the development of American education and the formation of its unique character. This uniqueness has distinguished our system of higher education from other systems in the world, with one of these distinctive features being our manner of federal government funding.
From its very inception, higher education has been intricately linked to societal governance--the colonists recognized higher education as a right for the people, and therefore did not have a problem publicly funding the colleges (whether public or private). And, even though the colleges were not run by the government, they were chartered by, and received financial support, from the colonial legislature. Building upon this solid foundation of the American educational system’s unique historical governance and funding structure, the U.S. federal government further reinforced its role in education by enacting policies and forging relationships with the institutions.
In the contemporary era, as a college education continues defining upward social and economic mobility, American politicians face growing challenges in ensuring equality, access, and efficient outcomes of education as a common public good. Today’s state of constrained financial resources places additional pressure on state officials to guarantee legislative compliance with the equality of appropriations. Even in times of economic stability, seeking to balance school spending inequalities poses a problem for politicians as they grapple with taxation decisions and conflicts of interest among corporations, educators, and the electorate. Regretfully though, outcomes are too often politicized as politicians align themselves with their best options for re-election rather than with what is beneficial to the public good.
While corporations lobby for less taxes and more skilled workers, school officials clamor for additional funding and less government intrusion, and the citizenry dispute disproportionate spending between thriving and low-performing institutions. These arguments are further exacerbated by the growing internationalization of the American labor force, and while multicultural education has risen as a solution, it has also emerged as a source of socio-economic and political conflict as the United States enacts increasingly restrictive immigration laws. Consequently, corporations continue to explore cheap and capable labor in other parts of the world, while America grapples with finding the best solutions for efficiencies and slipping international prominence in the education arena.
Other concerns affecting the economics of education include the increasing dependency on regressive taxation for funds for education. In a still financially constrained economy, less expenditures are resulting in critical decreases in state taxes and lottery income. Businesses are becoming less disposed to offer grants and support private foundations. Budgetary cuts in higher education are also taking a tremendous toll on students’ academic standing while student services are being cut, or reduced. Quality of education is compromised with constrained course offerings, larger classes, over-extensive use of part-time faculty, and limitation of academic support services.
As the costs of higher education and federal and State expenditures have risen, so has the interest of politicians in education. Consequently, the "feds" and the states have created mechanisms of control to monitor budgets, influence the growth of colleges, and make institutions accountable for all the funds received. The government, especially through the creation of university systems as their agents, has instituted policies to regulate budgets, influence growth, and “trap” institutions into their web of self-serving accountability requirements, thus limiting the discretion and flexibility of administrative leaders and the autonomy of schools and campuses in advancing academic freedom and the free market approach of the American economy. Public universities are required, for example, to abide by federal and state legislation regarding admissions and retention criteria, academic standards, tuition limits, and funds must be used as mandated by the government.
Given the 380-year history of success of the American system of higher education, and its multitudinous value in spreading democracy throughout the world, on the eve of new national political leadership, I pose a few questions:
1) Will political conflicts related to educational funding be ameliorated and strategically re-engineered to procure equitable participations and benefits?
2) Will politicians put aside partisan differences in the interest of supporting education as a common good of national interest?
3) Might we successfully and promptly bridge the political divide that has placed us on the “slippery slope” of educational decline?
4) Will we recalibrate our level of education to ensure continuously increasing access AND quality outcomes? As a preeminent knowledge society, we can ill-afford for these to be seen as mutually exclusive.
5) Will the benefits of American education include the kinds of performance outcomes that will sustain the United States in its place of prominence in the global marketplace?
6) Will it take another “Sputnik moment” for us to wake up, or will we engender the “Sputnik moment … because we could and did?”