Report on State System falls short |
Featured Commentary

Report on State System falls short


A management consultant’s study on how to rescue the badly flagging Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education is fraught with deficiencies that fail to address core problems, says the president of the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy.

Not only is the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems’ July 27 report filled with edu-jargon that lacks specificity, it automatically removes from consideration some of the very things that must be done, says Jake Haulk.

The study says problems at the 14 state-owned schools boil down to the “inadequacies of the governance structure for coping with converging pressures” that include combined double-digit enrollment declines projected to worsen, a dramatic increase in per-student spending at schools with the greatest declines, incredibly small class sizes and, thus, far more faculty than can be justified. The report also flags the system’s latest union contract — featuring $52 million in additional compensation and settled under strike duress — as far too generous for the schools to afford.

But while the consultant’s explanations are primarily focused on governance issues, they contain few clear-cut action steps. The report offers “a lot of governmentese-sounding items such as ‘adopt a strategic financing model that is better fit for varied circumstances,’ or ‘reorient the Board and Office of Chancellor toward greater responsibility for policy leadership’ (and) ‘retain and ensure stability,’” Haulk says. “Some specificity as ‘steps to take’ would be good.”

He says one of the biggest failings is the report’s recommendation of “what not to do” — “No institution should be closed; no mergers of any institutions; no attempt to undermine collective bargaining agreements or processes.”

“In other words, some of the dramatic actions needed to create a more robust and viable system are off the table, including taking a harder stance toward the faculty union,” Haulk says. “It is a moral failing of the state to permit state employees to create financial and undue academic stress on students. If faculty members are unhappy enough to walk off the job, they should find a new job.

Haulk finds two other glaring omissions. First, entrance requirements are declining or nonexistent at some of the 14 schools, leading to remedial classes that downgrade academic rigor, lengthen time to graduate and increase the dropout rate.

Second, the report fails to directly address the “calamity” of Cheney University. Enrollment has fallen by half since 2007, its 10-percent four-year graduation rate ranks dead last in the commonwealth and its annual state subsidy of $18,000 per student is far higher than its peer State System schools.

Haulk says the State System’s problems will have to be dealt with legislatively because there is no way the system can or will take dramatic steps necessary to right-size itself or ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely unless it’s ordered to do so.

“It will be very hard,” Haulk concludes. “But until they are remedied, the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education’s problems will fester and grow worse with more inter-institutional rancor and more calls for tax dollars.”

Colin McNickle is a senior fellow and media specialist at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy ([email protected]).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.