Higher education: other views on its governance system (and other issues)

Illinois Issues has received these responses to the articles by Albert Somit
("Illinois' system of systems: time for a change in higher education," October 1987)
and James M. Furman ("Higher education's system of systems: It works," November 1987).

The single most important issue in higher education in Illinois is the extent to which our universities are meeting the educational needs of the state's citizenry. Questions of structure do not bear heavily on this issue. Of far greater importance are discrete and clearly articulated institutional missions, a sense of statewide commitment to excellence in higher education, and the provision of resources adequate for the task at hand. With such imperatives before us, we cannot afford to waste our energies on provocative tangents.

Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville relies on and operates effectively in accordance with a relationship between state and higher education that has proved to be flexible, responsive and constructive. Indeed, it is within such an environment that SIU-E has developed into a model for regional state-supported universities.

Holding consistently to a high educational standard, SIU-E has engaged itself with the needs of a heterogeneous population. In pursuit of its commitment both to excellence and to accessibility, SIU-E has never lost sight of its overriding obligation to address the needs of southwestern Illinois. Through its success in addressing these needs, SIU-E has emerged as a force for change in its region and as a national leader among high quality regional universities.

Given a serviceable organizational structure in higher education, our universities should perhaps concentrate all the more closely on those issues which make the difference between mere effectiveness and undoubted excellence. Dedication to a clearly stated and widely acknowledged mission, commitment to the priority of undergraduate education, the creation of a hospitable but demanding academic climate, the uncompromising maintenance of academic freedom, the pursuit and enforcement of demanding qualitative standards, a constructive continuing engagement with governing bodies representing the public interest, and a willingness to respond effectively and cooperatively to the legitimate governance obligations of the state — such are the elements that underlie greatness in the contemporary public university.

Such elements can flourish only within a relationship between state and university characterized by common aspiration, respected tradition and effective leadership.

When the citizens of a state and the members of its university communities share a commitment to educational greatness, when that commitment stands on the twin pillars of trust and accountability, and when the quest for excellence attracts dedicated leaders within higher education and state government, the educational needs of the state can achieve wide recognition as a priority of the highest order.

Without shared aspirations, responsible governance and effective leadership, no organizational structure can make much of a difference. Endowed with these strengths, the present "system of systems" structure in Illinois may be seen to embody a salutary dedication to a responsive system of higher education, one capable of addressing both statewide and regional needs through distinctive and specialized means.

But the problems which beset higher education in Illinois are no less real than its potential for greatness. It is time to set aside speculative organizational visions in order to solve those problems and achieve that greatness.

Earl Lazerson, President
Southern Elinois University at Edwardsville

Al Somit's article shows once again our curious fascination with things Californian. There is some irony in seeing that state's system of higher education coordination suggested as a replacement for an Illinois system it helped to inspire in the first place. Master planning, separation of coordination and governance functions, mission stratification — all were California imports. Illinois even brought in Lyman Glenny, one of the best-known authorities on the California system, as the second Board of Higher Education executive director to guide us in our thinking.

In spite of its influence the California system has never been without its home-grown critics, probably as numerous as in Illinois. It is certainly not the neat and tidy world that one might guess, reading Somit's article. Institutions in both the University of California system and the State University system vary greatly in size, role and aspirations, and an uneasy relationship has long existed with the legislature and the governor.

While the Illinois system of systems was originally considered a variant on the California model, what has emerged over the last quarter century is a structure that is both substantially indigenous and functional. Every state provides for some form of higher education coordination. The Illinois system is unique in many regards and is widely considered to be one of the more successful. Why is this?

Higher education is by nature a decentralized enterprise. The action takes place in the classroom, and administration must be sensitive to that fact and in large part campus-based because

January 1988 | Illinois Issues | 21

of it. On the other hand, funding in the public sector is a substantially centralized activity focusing as it does on state decisionmaking. The same is true of new or expanded programming that has funding implications. What is called for is a structure which is sensitive to the need for balance between centralization and decentralization.

The Illinois system of systems with its split between coordination and governance and emphasis on modest-sized groupings of institutions has provided a sufficient amount of centralization to satisfy state level decisionmakers over the years while preserving much administrative decentralization, institutional diversity and regional responsiveness. It is a balancing act and a structural compromise, and balance and compromise are qualities that rarely inspire great fervor or admiration. Nonetheless they are administratively useful.

Would the Somit alternative strike a better balance? I doubt it. I suspect that two systems rather than four would promote more centralization. I also think the legislature would find the lack of an intersystem coordinating structure as unpalatable as it did back in the 1950s and early '60s. Finally, Jim Furman is surely correct when he suggests that there are more important things to be concerned about. Whatever gain that might be achieved by restructuring higher education would be so marginal as to hardly warrant distracting our attention from the real needs and challenges which higher education faces today in this state.

Roderick T. Groves, Chancellor
Board of Regents

Dr. Somit, the former president of Southern Illinois University-Carbondale, proposes a substantial restructuring of Illinois' "system of systems." He suggests that a "California model" consisting of two institutional groupings replace the four existing higher education boards. The first grouping, designed to replicate the University of California system, would contain both of the University of Illinois campuses, Northern Illinois University and Southern Illinois University-Carbondale. The remaining state universities would be lumped together in a second grouping, resembling the California State University system.

The universities in the California State University system do not have doctoral programs. I am surprised that Dr. Somit failed to recognize that Illinois State University has nine doctoral programs and a growing research emphasis, and I would be remiss if I did not note this oversight on his part.

However, even if ISU were included in the first grouping, I would be opposed to Dr. Somit's proposal. It would create an "elite" system and a second system (to use Somit's words) for "the remaining institutions." Such a configuration is certain to exacerbate the funding inequities of which he complains.

While I do not completely agree with the roseate views of James Furman as expressed in his article in the November issue, I do concur with him that we have far more important things to accomplish in Illinois than altering system alignments. First, we must achieve adequate funding for higher education. A recent report from ISU's Center for Higher Education notes that Illinois is now 44th among the 50 states in per capita expenditures for higher education, a disgraceful record for a wealthy state.

Second, we do need, as Somit points out, to remedy funding inequities among state universities. These concerns must be addressed, and they can be addressed within the current organizational pattern of higher education in Illinois. Admittedly, some changes must occur with regard to the funding philosophies which currently govern our higher education financing. We should spend our energies on these issues, not on opening a Pandora's box of system reconfiguration.

Lloyd Watkins, President
Illinois State University

We live in an imperfect world, and Dr. Somit is attentive to the symptoms of imperfection in Illinois higher education. But his assumptions respecting the underlying causes are analytically weak. The remedy he proposes is unresponsive to the maladies he posits and recalls the words of H.L. Mencken: "Politics, as hopeful men practice it in the world, consists mainly of the delusion that a change in form is a change in substance."

Jim Furman, as we would expect, offers a wise rejoinder. Furman said all that need be said about Somit's scheme, but in the process of acclaiming the achievements of the present system, he seems to subscribe to a prevailing notion in Illinois, one that presumably frustrated Somit as president of Southern Illinois University-Carbondale and in part motivated his call for a change in structure. It is the attitude that: There's the University of Illinois and then there are all the rest of you.

In fact, there are three public universities in Illinois classified by the Carnegie Commission as "research" universities: the two campuses of the University of Illinois and the Carbondale campus of Southern Illinois University. These three, and only these three, have been admitted to membership in the league of major state universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. SlU-Carbondale is not merely "one of the others." As an important research and doctoral university, but significantly scaled down from the University of Illinois, SIU-C occupies a special niche in the state, one that has not been defined and acknowledged, nor, as Somit contends, appropriately supported.

Northern Illinois University, while still considerably behind SIU-C in funded research and doctoral activity, is advantaged geographically and has aspirations that need to be taken into account in steering the future course of higher education in the state. Thus Somit's seemingly logical proposal to group NIU along with SIU-C and the University of Illinois as part of a new system.

There are many reasons (a recitation of which is beyond the reach of my allotted number of words here) why a simplistic change in structure would not realize Somit's intentions and would probably be worse for all parties involved. The current structure is as sensible as that of any of the states. Moreover, whatever the structure in higher education, all of the actors come at the process from different perspectives and with different agendas. None of us gets his way all the time; nor should one.

What is needed, I believe, rather than a change in structure is an infusion of strategic thinking. The state must develop a clear expectation of the role higher education plays in its destiny

January 1988 | Illinois Issues | 22

and must make its investment accordingly. In fashioning the kind of economic infrastructure that will make Illinois competitive, we should consider the several ways (through computing, telecommunications, etc.) that we could link and reinforce the state's major intellectual resources from Chicago to Urbana-Champaign to Carbondale, and then to Metro East, the state's second largest population, served by SIU-Edwardsville. Special university strengths in these areas, if properly sustained, would give the state a well distributed foundation for economic, social and cultural advancement.

Illinois was smart in limiting itself to 12 public senior universities. As a result, each of them is an institution of which the state can be proud. Each plays an important role. Collectively, and especially if supported by a productive community college system and sound public schools, they will make more difference than anything else in the quality of the state's future. How they are grouped into "systems" is much less important than what is expected of them and how well they are supported.

Lawrence K. Pettit, Chancellor
Southern Illinois University

The structure of Illinois higher education has been the subject of a number of legislative proposals, studies and publications over the past 20 years or so, and I expect it will be the subject of future evaluations. In the two recent Illinois Issues articles the most important point may be Jim Furman's closing remark: "There are a number of important substantive issues and problems facing Illinois higher education. It would be a shame to divert the energy and intelligence needed to wrestle with those problems to a divisive debate over structural issues."

I agree wholeheartedly. I would cite four policy issues that are significantly more important than structural issues. One is improving the quality of all levels of education, which is an unfinished agenda for schools, colleges and universities in this state. A significant part of the agenda includes improving the academic achievement of the increasing numbers of minority students in Illinois. Finding ways to complete this agenda will require the best thinking and efforts of all institutions.

Another issue is providing higher education programs in areas of the state unserved or underserved by graduate and continuing education programs. Such programs ought to be provided on a cooperative basis involving both private and public institutions and without costly duplication of entire universities.

A third is contributing more to the competitiveness of the state's economy. Developing skilled manpower through customized training and instructional programs and developing new knowledge and technologies through research challenges colleges and universities to keep pace with the rapidly changing and increasingly competitive nature of the world's economy.

A fourth issue, and the most critical, is achieving the needed financial investment in education in Illinois. The fiscal base of our schools, colleges and universities is not adequate to provide the comprehensiveness and quality of programs and the access to programs that will meet the needs of the state's citizens and the state's economy.

These and other important issues like them would be before us even if some public universities had separate governing boards or the entire organization of Illinois higher education were different. These are the issues that require our attention and our sustained commitment, if they are to be addressed successfully.

This is not to say that restructuring should never occur. Future circumstances may make a change necessary or highly desirable. But in present circumstances such a change would only divert us from far more significant issues.

And to paraphrase my predecessor, Jim Furman, "When it ain't broke. . ."

Richard D. Wagner, Executive Director
Board of Higher Education

The recent Illinois Issues articles addressing the Illinois higher education "system of systems" provide an excellent opportunity for a discussion of the needs of higher education in the state of Illinois. Both Albert Somit and James Furman are highly respected and knowledgeable educators, and each made a thoughtful presentation of his views regarding the governance of higher education in Illinois.

Although both articles purported to focus on the governance of higher education, their titles would have been more descriptive if they had used the phrase "university systems" rather than "higher education." Somit mentioned community colleges only in passing which, in turn, imposed obvious limitations on Furman's response.

Though prudence dictates that a community college spokesman not become seriously involved in proposals to alter university governance, at least three observations seem to be in order. The first is that Somit failed to address higher education coordination in his proposal. Since the current Board of Higher Education would be assuming administrative responsibility for the "state university" system, it appears logical to conclude that there would be no coordination for all of higher education, including community colleges. However attractive this might seem at first glance, the political, fiscal and programmatic chaos that could quickly result in a system as large, diverse and complex as we have in Illinois would be a steep price to pay for a perception of increased operating freedom.

A second observation is that I am in essential agreement with Furman's contention that the present system works. Though there is great diversity among the higher education institutions in Illinois, there is an impressive degree of cooperation, a restraint on unnecessary duplication, and a forum for addressing issues and concerns.

My third observation is that although community colleges received

January 1988 | Illinois Issues | 23

scant attention in either article, their role in higher education is anything but scant. Considering that they enroll approximately two-thirds of all students in public higher education and provide the principal access to higher education for a variety of groups, including minorities and veterans, it is clear that any serious debate about governance in higher education must include thoughtful consideration of community colleges. It is also clear that community colleges have made a major contribution to the reputation enjoyed by higher education referred to by Furman when he stated: "Few, if any, states can match our higher education system."

The two articles have provided a stimulus for debate about higher education governance. This is healthy. Let us now hope that future editions of Illinois Issues will contain articles about other higher education issues such as minority access, program quality and cost. The ensuing debate would not only be healthy but also productive.

David R. Pierce, Executive Director
Illinois Community College Board

I have been invited to comment on recent Illinois Issues articles by Albert Somit and James M. Furman. Dr. Somit criticizes the Illinois Board of Higher Education and proposes a rearrangement of Illinois' "system of systems" of universities. Dr. Furman defends the board and argues for the status quo.

In the limited space available to me, I would like to declare myself generally sympathetic with Dr. Furman's views and to comment on just one of Dr. Somit's points.

Dr. Somit proposes joining the two campuses of the University of Illinois (UI at Chicago and UI at Urbana-Champaign) with Southern Illinois University at Carbondale and Northern Illinois University in one system, and forming a second system from the remaining public universities. Among his arguments in support of this proposal is that the first four " . ..are the only four public universities, according to the IBHE itself, which meet the criteria for classification as either a 'major research university' (UI at Urbana-Champaign) or a 'comprehensive university' (Northern at DeKalb, Southern at Carbondale and UI at Chicago)." Because Dr. Somit provides no references to the sources of any of the data in his paper, I am unable to check the nature of the referenced IBHE classification.

There is, however, a standard national classification of universities based on objective institutional characteristics (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press, in press. See also The Chronicle of Higher Education, 8 July 1987.). The Illinois institutions in the first five of ten Carnegie categories are, with the categories arranged in decreasing intensity of research/graduate character:

• Research I: University of Chicago, University of Illinois at Chicago, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Northwestern University.
• Research II: Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
• Doctoral I: Illinois Institute of Technology, Loyola University of Chicago, Northern Illinois University.
• Doctoral II: Illinois State University.
• Comprehensive I: Bradley University, Chicago State University, De Paul University, Eastern Illinois University, Governors State University, Northeastern Illinois University, Roosevelt University, Sangamon State University, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, Western Illinois University.

The logic path from this distribution of universities to Dr. Somit's conclusion is not obvious to me.

Though Dr. Somit's objective seems clear, his arguments do not in my opinion provide a sound basis for pursuing the action he seeks. What we need today is not rearrangement of our public universities but a recommitment to their support at levels which will permit them to fulfill their several responsibilities to Illinois and its citizens.

Donald N. Langenberg, Chancellor
University of Illinois at Chicago

It may be that the Somit/Furman "debate" in Illinois Issues is useful in some ways to Illinois public higher education. It is also a distraction, however, as it ignores the central public policy issues facing Illinois: strengthening the ability of universities to serve the state and its people and solving the fiscal crisis now before us.

Whatever our strengths and our respective missions, the challenge for Illinois is to advance a shared agenda — an educated and highly skilled citizenry, an informed and sensitive electorate, and a state that is an attractive and promising place to live and work. Governance and administration are not irrelevant to these questions of substance, but neither are they central, as Al Somit suggests.

No matter how we analyze the data, it is clear that state support for Illinois higher education over the last decade has been unstable and below par. In spite of that, our existing structure has given Illinois much to be proud of. We have a heritage of great universities and colleges in Illinois. The question is, can we keep them? And can we be even better?

The inadequacy and instability of state support for education sends mixed signals to the people of Illinois, to business, and certainly to faculty, staff and students. We praise the productive hard work and achievement of our faculty and then freeze their salaries. In so doing we invite raiding by institutions outside of Illinois. We ask more of our students and then raise their tuition midstream. We know libraries are central, but they face severe financial crises. And the problems of obsolete equipment and facilities roll on. Illinois is a state deeply in need of economic revitalization. This state is a great state, but a state in trouble. We need action. What we have is retreat.

The real agenda is one of educational reform. We need improvements in undergraduate education. We must bolster efforts to recruit and retain minority students as the best means of helping realize the full potential of that talent. We must join forces in strengthening the economic, civic and cultural life of this state. Every major industrial state faces the same agenda. Everyone is doing something about it — save Illinois at this moment. The issue is not governance. Our governance is relatively strong. The issue is the agenda and the will to provide the state revenues to accomplish it.

It is true that the graduate and research missions of the University of Illinois make our programs different from those of our colleagues at other Illinois public universities. Our facility

January 1988 | Illinois Issues | 24

pressures and equipment needs are different. But we have a history of working well together and allocating scarce dollars wisely and equitably.

I was surprised and disappointed that Al Somit did not address the real issues facing Illinois universities head on: the substantive agenda and the financial crisis. Instead, he distracts our attention by citing confusing budget figures for all functions but in the context of instructional funding, producing a distorted and erroneous comparison of instructional resources per student. As he knows, far more accurate and refined comparison is available in the Board of Higher Education's Cost Study. That study shows clearly that, when instructional costs are compared by discipline and instructional level, most Illinois public universities spend about the same amount of money per credit hour. This formula demonstrates a remarkable degree of funding equity in instructional programs, given the diversity of Illinois' system of systems.

I tell you this: Illinois' current system of governance and the diversity it represents have served the people of Illinois well. It is not perfect; no structure of American higher education is. Yet, as time has shown, it guides the allocating of resources in accord with missions, avoids internecine conflicts, and provides a unifying force as we go about the important challenges confronting Illinois. As Al Somit well knows, the current configuration of Illinois higher education has been reviewed and rereviewed and probably will be again. But nothing signals that it's broken. At the moment it may be one of the few things that is working reasonable well.

Stanley O. Ikenberry, President
University of Illinois

Former President Somit has performed a valuable service by sharing with Illinois Issues' many influential readers his perspective on the organization of higher education in this state. Although I do not subscribe to all of Dr. Somit's conclusions, and I can find arguments to defend the current "system of systems," I do welcome his thoughtful essay and hope it will stimulate further consideration of the system and open discussion of its capacity to serve the state well.

Certainly, it is worth asking what kind of system best meets the needs of a society which requires an ever more educated citizenry, what kind of system will be able to respond most appropriately to the needs of the 21st century, what kind of system can fully realize the potential of a state which ranks 9th in the nation in per capita income. Somit's article points to the layered approach of the California system, suggesting that Northern Illinois University and Southern Illinois University at Carbondale become more like the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. This does have a certain appeal, especially to those concerned with their status in the academic pecking order. I recognize that concern and often share it, but I agree with former Executive Director Furman that uniformity is not an intrinsic good. Rather, we need a system which can support varying missions and which can accommodate change in those missions over time. Recognizing the importance of adaptability and flexibility, however, is not enough. The ultimate test of the system should be its effectiveness in meeting current and future needs.

I do not think Furman's article reflects an adequate appreciation of the degree of change which the state of Illinois has experienced in the past two decades. Since the 1960s, we have lost thousands of jobs in our basic industries. Our unchallenged leadership in technology and innovation has eroded dramatically. Our agribusiness sector is in a prolonged slump. Our citizens need more and more advanced education. Our work force needs continuing professional education to keep pace with the rapidly diminishing half life of knowledge in many fields. Responsibility for education is passing, perhaps by default, to the business sector as universities struggle to find the means to carry their teaching, research and service missions off campus. In my view, this represents a tragic waste of valuable resources developed over a long period of time. Unfortunately, state support for and recognition of the role of higher education have fallen far behind the zenith we reached as a state in the early 1970s.

Universities can change their missions in response to a changing society. Northern Illinois University and, I believe, Southern Illinois University as well have changed dramatically in the last quarter century. At Northern we have emphasized the application of our teaching and research programs and their demonstrable service to the northern Illinois region. NIU has, in my judgment, built upon traditional land-grant concepts but has focused on the requirements of a service and information society rather than on those of a society based on agriculture and heavy industry. This change has occurred, and can continue to occur, without detriment to the current mission of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which has become a national, indeed an international, university in which the state can take great pride. Many responsibilities which at one time quite legitimately accrued to the U of I can now be more effectively carried out by institutions with a stronger regional presence.

There are probably many different ways for a state to organize its higher education components to accomplish its educational objectives. To do so effectively, policymakers must be clear about what those objectives are. Thus it is perhaps premature to say that a new system of governance for higher education is necessary. It is, however, always appropriate to ask whether the system in place is sufficiently responsive to statewide needs and institutional capabilities. In our concern to minimize academic in-fighting, we may have developed a system which is more rigid than necessary and less able to accommodate the healthy diversity needed by a state as complex as Illinois. If so, we certainly need to change.

In my view, competition for status will be counter-productive, but competition for service to the state would be highly desirable. I would favor a system which recognized the diverse and changing missions of all Illinois institutions, minimized bureaucratic entanglement and maximized campus prerogatives. Such a system would, I believe, serve Illinois well, allow the higher education community to play a more active role in leading the state toward a more productive and satisfying future, and, as a consequence, promote the kind of public and legislative support which would regain for Illinois its reputation as a state which believes in investing in higher education.

John E. La Tourette, President
Northern Illinois University

January 1988 | Illinois Issues | 25

My comments are offered on behalf of myself and the five presidents in the Board of Governors System. The issue of structure is a legitimate one for consideration, and Mr. Furman has stated the basic questions to be considered in any examination of structure.

Mr. Furman's case is more persuasive than that presented by Dr. Somit. It reflects a more accurate interpretation of the political process and the historical record.

One of Dr. Somit's major rationales for a change in structure is that the "system of systems" is so irrational as to make it impossible to develop a coherent educational strategy. This is simply not supported by the record. The development of the community college system, the creation of Governors State and Sangamon State universities, and in more recent years the emphasis on the improvement of undergraduate education are examples of major decisions arising from strategies developed within the "system of systems" structure. To be sure, differences of opinion have existed and will continue to exist about strategy, but the assertion that the structure prevents, or makes impossible, the development of a coherent strategy is not accurate.

Dr. Somit is correct in his assertion that there are revenue needs in the Illinois higher education community. The need for increased revenue exists in all segments of the higher education community. Our system, whose primary function is to provide undergraduate education, has significant needs for increased revenues. A serious examination of the need for increased revenues would be a more productive exercise than an examination of the governance structure.

Thomas D. Layzell, Chancellor
Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities

It is an affliction of orderly minds that leads them into the morass of structural analysis as a causal factor for relative deprivation. Dr. Somit's essay has many points that merit serious consideration, and of course, Mr. Furman's "rebuttal" has an unarguable point, namely, "the bumble bee flies." On the one hand, we have a cogent argument for change in order to enhance the "mission differentiation" and perhaps the fiscal support of some institutions of higher learning while making the structure neater in terms of mission similarity. On the other hand, there is the argument of pragmatism that says simply, "It must be all right, it works."

Public colleges and universities generally reflect the environment created by the social, economic and political society of which they are a part. The governmental structures within which they work are also reflections of that political and social environment and are designed for different purposes than organizational symmetry and effectiveness. Illinois' "system of systems" is a reflection of the state's political values that have also created the greatest number of local governmental entities, including public school districts, in the nation. It was designed in great measure to do exactly what it does. While that orderly part of my thinking would lead me to support Dr. Somit's proposal and some of his criticisms, pragmatic thought and experience cause me to pause in my enthusiasm for organization for mission differentiation in Illinois. I was deeply involved in the merger movement in Wisconsin, participated in consulting sessions about the Consolidated University of North Carolina and as the executive director of the 1970-72 Select Committee for the California Master Plan for Higher Education, resisted proposals to restructure that state's higher education systems from "mission differentiation" to "geographical unity." In each case, as now in Maryland, where a battle of restructuring is going on, there were and are important social and political forces and influences at work which go far beyond the academy's sense of orderly structure. So it is in Illinois.

Illinois' needs in higher education go much deeper than structure. Public higher education in Illinois needs more money, less bureaucracy and tighter policy that disciplines mission and assures a certain level of funding. But Illinois is not a "policy" state; it appears to use the political process rather than policy to reach major decisions one at a time and to set funding levels. The Illinois Board of Higher Education, for example, does not discipline entrepreneurial expansions by policy constraints. Rather it employs a case-by-case process that contains political elements as well as empirical analyses. But it appears to use informal formulae that assume the historical base budget is "a proxy for equity and fairness," thus enshrining the past relationships that breed relative deprivation into the future and avoiding political instability among the systems.

I agree that Dr. Somit's suggested changes would make the landscape neater. The structure suggested has the possibility of a reduction in overhead cost and clearer mission differentiation among institutions, but it in no way assures these results. It also has the possibility of forcing the trustees to focus on the large policy issues of governance in lieu of so much involvement with operational transactions. Would it improve funding, reduce bureaucracy and constrain educational free-booting? I doubt it. Would it bring major distractions and dislocations that would divert energy and concern toward structure and away from improving opportunity and quality education to which we have committed ourselves? That is most likely; but over the long run, it may produce worthwhile consequences if there are also policy changes that delineate the desired results. Such policy changes could possibly also accomplish the change without the dislocation of structural revision. In the final analysis, however, the state may benefit from a careful examination of the current system and proposed modifications, just as we reexamine the state constitution periodically, to determine whether the structure meets current needs.

Durward Long, President
Sangamon State University Sangamon

January 1988 | Illinois Issues | 26