Strategic Plan Report

Introduction

IntroductionEven before there was an Ohio, those who settled here understood that public education was necessary to tame the wilderness, create jobs, and attract immigrant families.

Following statehood in 1803, the state legislature assumed responsibility for townships that had been set aside by Congress to support public education. In 1804, Ohio University opened with three students in Athens. Five years later, Miami University became only the seventh public college founded in the United States. The legislature vested one complete township in the district of Cincinnati to the school for its use, benefit and support.

The social and economic benefits that spring from education were clearly recognized by our founders. Governor Thomas Worthington argued the need to educate the poorer classes, who otherwise would be “unable to manage, with propriety, their private concerns, much less to take any part in the management of public affairs.”1

Ohio: The History of a People, Andrew R. L. Cayton, 2002.

On July 2, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Land-Grant Act, which paved the way for the next public college in Ohio. With funds from the sale of federal lands under the Act, the General Assembly chartered the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College, later to become The Ohio State University. The first 24 students began classes on the old Neil Farm, two miles north of Columbus, in 1873.

Some immigrants, particularly Catholics and members of other religious groups, were suspicious of public education, stemming from a belief that public schools promoted allegiance to the state over religion. This led to the establishment of many private and religious-affiliated colleges in the 19th century. Episcopalians founded Kenyon College in 1824; Presbyterians established Western Reserve in Hudson in 1826 and Muskingum College in 1837. Catholics opened The Athenaeum of Ohio in 1829, Xavier in 1831, and the University of Dayton in 1850.

Baptists founded Dennison in 1831. Congregationalists started Oberlin in 1833, Marietta in 1835, and Defiance in 1850. Methodists opened Ohio Wesleyan in 1842, Baldwin College in 1845, and Mount Union in 1846. Lutherans built Wittenberg in 1845 and Capital in 1850. The United Brethren established Otterbein in 1847. The Evangelical and Reformed Church opened Heidelberg in 1850, and the Swedenborgians founded Urbana in 1850.2

Knepper, George W. Ohio and Its People, George Knepper, 1998

Although some blacks enrolled in colleges in Ohio from the earliest days, Oberlin College encouraged black students to attend as a matter of policy and in 1837 opened its doors to women, becoming the first co-educational college in America. The Methodist Episcopal Church established the first predominantly black college at Wilberforce. The school was purchased by a black congregation, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, in the 1860s.

This rich diversity of public and private colleges was unprecedented in the United States at the time, and Ohio gained a reputation for the number and variety of its higher education institutions. In an era when professional education was quite limited, the Medical College of Ohio in Cincinnati was opened in 1819 and graduated 239 doctors over the course of the next 15 years. Cincinnati also became a center of legal studies, due in part to the talent of such luminaries as Alphonso Taft, father of future President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft.

The General Assembly began to provide biennial appropriations for operating purposes for public universities in 1878, giving them a stable source of funding for the first time. In 1913, the General Assembly decreed that any high school graduate in Ohio is entitled to admission to a state-sponsored college or university.

Following World War II, veterans flooded the colleges and universities on the GI bill. Over the next decade and a half, Ohio’s five state universities and one state college – Bowling Green, Central State, Kent State, Miami, Ohio University and Ohio State–opened 32 branches to accommodate the huge influx of students.3

Higher Education and the State of Ohio, John Millet, 1962

Public education expanded even more in the 1960s under Governor James A. Rhodes, who worked with the Ohio General Assembly to create a community college district in all single and contiguous counties with a population of more than 100,000 people. The original legislation limited course work to arts and sciences. After realizing this was short-sighted, Ohio added technical and vocational training facilities for work force development.

The promise by Governor Rhodes to locate a college within “30 miles of every boy and girl in Ohio” was fulfilled with the network of community colleges and branch campuses. The building boom was financed through state-issued bonds approved by voters.

Ohio’s universities were also greatly expanded in the 1960s with the creation of Cleveland State University, the Medical University of Ohio (Toledo), Wright State University, Youngstown State University, the University of Toledo and the University of Akron.

The point is clear – Ohio is no recent convert to the notion that higher education is important to the well-being of the state and the quality of life of its citizens. Our historic leadership in higher education once made us the envy of other states, gave us one of the world’s besteducated workforces, and contributed significantly to the prosperity we long enjoyed.

But the state’s level of commitment in recent decades has not been sufficient to maintain this excellence. As Ohio’s manufacturing base eroded and the state lost thousands of jobs yearly due to the closing of factories and steel mills, spending on higher education lagged. Today, the state ranks 39th in higher education spending per fulltime equivalent student (FY 2006).4

State Higher Education Finance Report (SHEF) FY2006 report, State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), 2007 (Local support has been removed to provide only state support); US Census, July 1st 2006 state population estimates

But that bleak picture is starting to change. Tying Ohio’s future and economy directly to higher education, Governor Ted Strickland called for increased funding in his first budget, and the General Assembly responded by providing funds for a two-year tuition freeze at all public colleges and universities.

In his 2008 State of the State speech, Governor Strickland invoked the 40- year-old promise of the late Governor Rhodes to locate a campus near every Ohioan: “Thanks to Jim Rhodes’ foresight, we have a higher education infrastructure that rivals any state in the nation…We must provide Ohioans what they need to succeed in the 21st century – access to high-quality, affordable associate and bachelor’s degrees.”

Knowledge Is Currency

Knowledge is CurrencyThis renewed commitment to higher education comes at a particularly critical moment in the state’s history. Knowledge is the currency of the global economy, and our currency is getting weaker. The per capita income of Ohioans has been slipping relative to the rest of the nation for some time, and is now significantly below the national average. The only way to reverse this negative trend is to raise the overall educational attainment level of the state.

A comprehensive assessment of the current state of higher education in Ohio may be found in the Board of Regents’ Report on the Condition of Higher Education in Ohio: Meeting the State’s Future Needs, which is being released simultaneously with this plan. As both reports were mandated by the General Assembly, they should be read as companion reports that collectively answer the questions: “Where are we today?” and, “What should we do about it?”

The benefits of a vibrant system of higher education are many:

Higher education leaders have long argued that these undeniable contributions to Ohio’s economic future justify additional investments of state dollars. “If you give us more money,” it is said, “we will produce more.” A better approach, and the one embraced in this plan, is that higher education will organize itself to produce more graduates, create more jobs, and produce more tax dollars. This will, in turn, enable state leadership to invest more in higher education. In short, higher education holds the key to the state’s—and its own—future prosperity.

The benefits of a vibrant system of higher education are many

Higher education leaders have long argued that these undeniable contributions to Ohio’s economic future justify additional investments of state dollars. “If you give us more money,” it is said, “we will produce more.” A better approach, and the one embraced in this plan, is that higher education will organize itself to produce more graduates, create more jobs, and produce more tax dollars. This will, in turn, enable state leadership to invest more in higher education. In short, higher education holds the key to the state’s – and its own – future prosperity.

University System of Ohio

One of the fundamental organizing principles underlying this plan is the need to better coordinate the public institutions of higher education. A system of public colleges and universities – which emphasizes cooperation over competition and seeks to make the whole greater than the sum of its parts – should not be viewed as a controversial concept. Such systems are an important element in states like California, North Carolina and Texas, which have long demonstrated the merits of this approach. Brit Kirwan, chancellor of the University System of Maryland — and a former president of The Ohio State University — recently described his system's efforts to use tax dollars more efficiently:

“These achievements were made possible by our efforts to act together as a system, with our Board of Regents, campus presidents and their administrative teams, faculty, staff and student leaders, and the University System of Maryland office working in tandem.”5

Higher Education's "Accountability" Imperative: How the University System of Maryland Responded, William Kirwan, Change, March/April 2007: 21-25

While the benefits of such a system may be obvious, building one from a collection of institutions that traditionally have operated independently is very challenging.

Some see the development of a system as an effort to impose greater regulation on public institutions and to create a more powerful central bureaucracy. That is not the intent, and in fact this plan is designed to avoid those pitfalls. We currently have the worst of both worlds – highly regulated institutions that operate with little coordination or cooperation.

The University System of Ohio will eliminate, not create, levels of bureaucracy and regulation, while focusing all our institutions on accomplishing a single set of statewide goals. As will become clear, each institution will contribute in different ways to the achievement of these goals, and all will have a stake in our collective success.

We are not without our strengths. The diversity of Ohio’s public institutions is a great asset, allowing us to offer different types of educational experiences to meet the needs of a diverse population of potential students. Community colleges and regional campuses offer low-cost, accessible, high-quality certificates and degrees, and our main university campuses provide a comprehensive set of undergraduate and graduate degrees.

Allowing this diversity to flower will achieve one of the state’s most cherished goals – lowering the cost of a college education. The current tuition freeze made a powerful, short-term statement of priority and positive impact on the system, but the long-term, sustainable path to affordability will require using all our educational assets to their fullest capacity, giving students as many high quality choices and options as possible, and giving institutions the incentives to create different paths to a higher education.

Competition From Other States

Ohio is not alone in coming to the realization that higher education holds the key to growth, prosperity and success. Similar conversations are taking place in all 50 states and in dozens of countries. As this report was being prepared, several states issued major new studies of their own, while others issued updates to existing plans or launched new initiatives in areas like affordability, research excellence, and talent retention.

Our response to such competition must combine urgency and caution. Clearly, there is no time to lose in taking steps to meet this challenge, but the answer is not a bidding war with other states. Yes, we must invest more dollars in education as we are able. But any credible plan must also recognize that the state will not be able to afford everything it would like, so ways to creatively and efficiently maximize our strengths must be found.

Beyond STEM

The University System of Ohio will eliminate, not create, levels of bureaucracy and regulation, while focusing all our institutions on accomplishing a single set of statewide goals.

In emphasizing economic development as the rationale for improving higher education, some inevitably misinterpret it to mean that we intend to focus only on science, technology, engineering and mathematics – the so-called STEM disciplines. To be sure, there is justified concern about the state of science and mathematics education not only in our state but in the nation as a whole. Ohio is taking creative steps to improve its performance in these areas and must take more. Success in the global economy, however, requires more than technical skills. It will take communication skills, creativity and innovation, an understanding of global cultures and history, and much more.

These skills are acquired through study in a wide range of disciplines, including the liberal arts and humanities, law and business, as well as science and math. Among employers and business leaders, concern over the basic reading, writing, and oral communication skills of the workforce is as deep as the concern over the technical skills workers bring to the job. Where this plan speaks of a comprehensive, quality education, it is meant in the broadest sense to include liberal arts, fine arts, and humanities. Where this plan speaks of developing Centers of Excellence, it fully contemplates that these centers can and will be established in fields commonly associated with these disciplines, as well as the STEM disciplines.

Private Schools

The plan also addresses the role of Ohio’s diverse group of private nonprofit and for-profit schools in advancing the state’s higher education goals. These schools range from major research institutions to nationally known liberal arts colleges to locally focused schools that specialize in adult career opportunities. Ohio is incredibly fortunate to be home to such a rich array of colleges and universities. Implicit in this plan is a respect for the right of private schools to operate according to their own missions and goals. Yet we also desire to maximize opportunities for partnerships between them and the state based on shared priorities.

A Better Ohio

John D. MelletIn 1962, the great educator John D. Millett, Ohio’s first Chancellor, issued a report much like this one. Millett believed the best way to increase college attendance was to bring the campus to the students rather than the students to the campus. It was on his recommendation that our network of community colleges was created.

He knew exactly how high the stakes were. As he wrote at the time:

“There is no need at this late date to assert the argument that higher education should be open to all those who can profit from it. That argument was won a hundred years ago.” 6

Millett

Forty-five years later, his words ring even more true. We are once more at a pivotal moment of change, and we face difficult choices. But we have faced such moments before, and met the challenge.

As a 10-year strategy, this plan takes a long view of the problem. The changes contemplated here will not happen overnight. They will require a long list of public policy and institutional decisions that will in some cases take many years to implement. Of course, some changes can be accomplished more quickly, and the people of Ohio will see a difference in a shorter time. We will measure our progress as we go.

Ten years is enough time to make the changes necessary to chart a course for Ohio well into the 21st century. This is Ohio’s plan, drawing upon our unique strengths, and if we implement it carefully and deliberately, it can light the path to a better Ohio for all of us.