University System of Ohio: Structure

• Mission Differentiation
• Ohio's Public Universities
• Ohio's Community College Network
• Ohio's Adult Learners and Workforce
• Training Transfer and Mobility Funding Formulas: Alignment with State Priorities
• Funding Formulas: Alignment with State Priorities
• Affordability

Mission Differentiation

Some observers are surprised by the sheer number and breadth of Ohio’s public universities. The temptation is to conclude that we have too many, and to try and prune the system.

But the fact is that Ohio, the seventh largest state in the union, has about the average number of schools per capita. This plan calls for attracting more students to our campuses, graduating more people, and keeping them here after they graduate. Reducing the size of the system would work against these objectives.

The focus should not, therefore, be on the number of institutions, but on whether they are performing at the level that the state needs. Across the system, there are programs of national and even international, significance. Several Ohio schools, and many individual programs, regularly show up on widely accepted measures of research quality and scholarship. Many students are choosing Ohio schools over better known competitors. Nevertheless, Ohio’s public institutions have not, on the whole, distinguished themselves on national and international benchmarks of quality.

Centers of Excellence

For the University System of Ohio to be a magnet for talent and innovation, the quality and reputation of the universities must grow. It does Ohio no good to have 13 universities competing for resources, students and faculty. In a competitive global market for talent, the only way for the system as a whole to raise its quality is for each institution to develop distinctive missions and Centers of Excellence that are recognized by students, faculty and business leaders. If Ohio can boast of 13 distinct universities, collaborating to help build each other’s strengths – while competing globally to bring talent and resources to the state - then the state will enjoy the economic benefits that flow from a world-class system of public higher education. And the choice of 13 distinctive universities will give Ohio’s students and businesses a range of options that make the case for staying in Ohio.

Elements of this mission differentiation will develop over time. The goal for most schools will be to sharpen their focus. Others have not yet taken this path. For those schools, this plan will be more difficult and perhaps engender greater concern. But it is a necessary effort, and the state must support it by targeting resources to programs of excellence and linking subsidies to achieving mission-driven goals and metrics.

In a report to the Chancellor due at the end of 2008, each university will identify and establish goals for their Centers of Excellence. This report, which must be approved by the Board of Trustees, will also specify the externally-recognized standards that will be used to measure progress. The Chancellor, in consultation with the Director of Development, will approve or seek modifications in the reports to guarantee a range of academic strength sufficient to drive the global competitiveness of Ohio’s economy.

The Chancellor will take the final, approved Centers of Excellence into account in making all future funding decisions and recommendations.

Research and Innovation

The development of Centers of Excellence is the basic building block of universities as drivers of innovation and entrepreneurial activity. Nationally recognized programs in key areas of academic study serve as the platform for worldclass centers of research, which in turn are the home to remarkable collections of intellectual talent and attract public and private investment. Research centers attract private capital looking for inventions to build into businesses, creating jobs and economic prosperity. These activities fuel the exciting, entrepreneurial environments that attract and retain the young people that every state is seeking.

The University System of Ohio will be a leader in this form of economic development. The key to success is the willingness of university leaders to focus their academic and research activities so as to achieve true prominence in a particular area. Web sites, billboards and annual reports claiming national or international stature will not attract the researchers and investors who will create the jobs of the future, only true excellence will. And with so many colleges and universities seeking this talent and investment, those that succeed do so by understanding their core expertise clearly and focusing relentlessly on being better than anyone else in the field.

Colleges and universities have to pay attention to popular ranking systems like the ones developed by U.S. News & World Report because, like the Academy Awards, they are well known, widely promoted, and have influence on student and parent choices. For the purpose of measuring true quality in a given field, however, it is critical to rely on measures of success that are accepted nationally and are externally verifiable. That is why the report to be developed by each institution regarding Centers of Excellence will include the nationally comparable measurement systems that will be used to track progress. And that is why this plan uses, and the Board of Regents will continue to use, the measures of research activity compiled by the National Science Foundation (NSF) as its basic tool in comparing Ohio’s institutions to our national competitors. The NSF figures are credible, are widely accepted, and allow apples to apples comparisons between institutions. The Board of Regents will also rely on the project to assess U.S. research doctorate programs of the National Research Council.

The Chancellor is committed to working aggressively with presidents and trustees on achieving the needed focus and definitions of excellence. For the Chancellor to succeed, the state must have sufficient flexible funding to support and incentivize the push for quality and Centers of Excellence at our universities, as well as to encourage the establishment of collaborative relationships between the academic Centers of Excellence across the state.

An early model for such efforts was the Ohio Eminent Scholars Program, first established in 1983. Over the years, this program funded 51 faculty positions on a competitive basis. In recent years, however, the cost of recruiting such faculty members has increased, while the funds available diminished, leaving the program ineffective.

Another model is the Third Frontier Commission. The commission established a pattern of releasing requests for proposals that were clear about the economic goals of the program and encouraged collaboration between multiple partners to develop the highest quality responses. These responses were then submitted to a rigorous review process measuring the proposals against national and international standards by recognized, unbiased experts. The commission reviewed these results and had the final say to make sure that the state’s policy interests were served by the national expert review. What evolved is a highly respected process that serves Ohio’s economic development goals, but also serves to identify and support Centers of Excellence across higher education institutions in the state.

THE OHIO INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP

The Board of Regents built on both these models when Governor Strickland and the Ohio General Assembly created the Ohio Innovation Partnership in the most recent biennial budget. The Innovation Partnership was clearly intended by the political leaders of this state to increase the role of Ohio's higher education institutions in building the talent and research pipelines critical to the state’s economic success.

The Ohio Innovation Partnership included two distinct elements – scholarship funds to recruit talented students to the STEM disciplines (the Choose Ohio First Scholarship Program) and endowment funds to recruit faculty to academic Centers of Excellence tied to the strength of our regional economies (the Ohio Research Scholars Program). The legislative leaders and the Governor agreed that both these funds should be competitive in nature to ensure that the highest quality standards are met, but that the Board of Regents should also work with schools across the state to assist in the development of quality programs.

CHOOSE OHIO FIRST SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

Unlike most scholarship programs that direct funds to students or schools based on a formula or a set group of criteria, the Choose Ohio First Scholarship Program called for schools to submit proposals describing how they would go about recruiting students to the STEM disciplines, as well as the strategies they would employ to make sure that the students are successful once they enroll. It sought partnerships between public and private institutions, between community colleges and universities, between high schools and higher education, and between education and business to create internships and co-op programs. In short, the goal of the program is to recruit students to study in our best and most innovative programs. Following the Third Frontier model, the Board of Regents recruited a panel of national experts in STEM education to review the first set of proposals. Awards in the first round went to eight different collaborations with focuses ranging from the recruitment of underrepresented students, to building a pipeline of nursing educators, to an expansion of successful co-op education programs. Schools matched the state’s commitment of scholarship funds with funds of their own.

OHIO RESEARCH SCHOLARS PROGRAM

The Ohio Research Scholars Program is being implemented in a similar spirit. One significant development was the forging of a partnership with the Third Frontier Commission to both expand the amount of funds available and to ensure that the developing centers of research excellence across the state are fully aligned with the state’s economic development goals. To do so, each partner ceded some control, as all final awards will have to be approved both by the Third Frontier Commission and the Chancellor. In an equally significant move, the state’s public universities, through the Inter-University Council, and the state’s two private research universities, Case Western Reserve University and the University of Dayton, voluntarily agreed to contribute funds from established research incentive programs that would have otherwise been distributed according to a formula. This statement of support for a competitive program of excellence was powerful and bodes well for the future of this state’s academic research enterprise. While this report is being written before the first round of Research Scholar awards are announced, the process has been an enormous success in pointing the way to the value of excellence-based funding.

The Ohio Innovation Partnership represents a commitment to funding based on quality and alignment with the state’s economic priorities. The programs should continue to be funded in coming years, and increased as the state economic picture allows. While it is not possible or advisable to set a specific funding goal, it does seem clear that the goal of initiating $50 million in new scholarships per year under the Choose Ohio First Scholarship Program will make a real impact. Similarly, the $150 million in the biennium allocated to the Ohio Research Scholars Program (after all partnerships were formed) is a significant amount of money that, if available on a regular basis, could make a difference in our research quality across the state.

EXCELLENCE FUND

While the Ohio Innovation Partnership provides a strong base of funding for Centers of Excellence and research, its focus in the STEM areas has the potential to leave Centers of Excellence in other areas underfunded. Therefore, this plan calls for the establishment of an Excellence Fund under the control of the Chancellor, funded through shared efforts of the state and the University System of Ohio institutions. Under this proposal, the state would first calculate the subsidy to be provided to each institution under the formula prevailing in a given budget cycle. The Excellence Fund should equal one percent of the amount, with half coming from the existing subsidy line intended for the institutions, and half coming from an additional state match. If the state is unable to fund the match, then the institution’s share should not be withheld. The Chancellor should also seek non-state funds to support the Excellence Fund.

The Excellence Fund will be used by the Chancellor to support Centers of Excellence that the Chancellor deems to be especially worthy or in need of additional support. The criteria for selection should be published by the Chancellor in an open and transparent manner, with appropriate external review procedures created and followed.

SUPPORTING ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Translating basic research into new businesses and industries that produce jobs for Ohioans is a growing economic strategy in Ohio and around the country. Specific strategies can be pursued to accelerate the process of creating entrepreneurial environments in and around our campuses. Like the entrepreneurial process itself, this is not a static subject, but one that will continue to change as smart, creative, ambitious people find new ways to extract value from their ideas.

While not yet a leader in the field of technology transfer, Ohio has a history of adopting best practices in this field. In May 2000, the General Assembly passed legislation allowing college and university faculty to reap financial rewards from research conducted at the university. This creates an economic incentive on the part of research faculty to focus on the commercial potential of their work. This incentive in state law should now be expanded to include graduate students and others who work on research projects that lead to commercialization activities.

[In 2005], the General Assembly created a pilot program allowing the Board of Regents to give universities incentives to turn research into new businesses. This program, known as the Technology Commercialization Incentive and funded at $500,000 per year, is helping the state focus schools on this important subject. And the Third Frontier Commission recently awarded over $85 million in entrepreneurial support grants, many of which went to organizations and incubators affiliated with colleges and universities in Ohio.

Graduate and Professional Education

Discussions of university quality often center on undergraduate education, but the reputation and impact of universities increasingly depends on graduate and professional education. Graduate and professional education develops the leadership, management, clinical, and research skills needed in the workplace of the 21st century, and is at the core of academic Centers of Excellence that provide nurturing environments where new ideas are incubated, developed, tested, and refined.

Over the past several decades, American higher education has mounted a vigorous and highly effective response to society’s growing need for workers with high level technical and professional skills by producing more and more graduates with advanced degrees. Master’s and professional degree graduates now make up fully onefourth of all degrees conferred at the bachelor’s degree level and higher. By 1960, our nation was producing a little more than 10,000 doctoral degree graduates each year, but since 2000 this number has increased to over 55,000.7 Despite this increase, the market demand for advanced degrees remains high and seems likely to increase in the years ahead.

Given the competitive nature of the global economy, Ohio’s future economic success will depend in large measure upon our ability to maintain strong centers of graduate and professional education. The production of graduate degrees is an important component of meeting the overall educational goal in this plan, while keeping and attracting graduate degree holders will also be closely measured and tracked. Successful graduate programs are, as noted, most often associated with academic Centers of Excellence. Accordingly, an important component of each university’s response to the development of Centers of Excellence will be the potential of those Centers of Excellence to include graduate programs with a sufficient national and international reputation to attract top students and faculty.

Role and Responsibilities of Boards of Trustees and Regents

State university systems are governed in many different ways. Some have argued that, for the University System of Ohio to be a success, the state must adopt the governance structure from one of our competitors. To the contrary, with the passage of H.B. 2 of the 127th General Assembly, Ohio now has a flexible yet accountable governance structure for its university system that will be a model for other states in the future.

Under H.B. 2, the Governor appoints the Chancellor with the advice and consent of the Ohio Senate. The Chancellor works with the governor to develop clear goals and policies, and to implement those policies. The governor also appoints members of the Board of Regents, who are charged by state law with providing an annual report that analyzes the condition of higher education in the state. Because the terms of the Regents are staggered, this review, as well as the annual evaluation of the chancellor’s performance, is independent and will be viewed credibly by the public. Finally, the governor appoints the trustees who have the responsibility for the individual institutions. This recognizes the need for alignment with the state on goals, but also the need for independent judgment to be exercised at the school level on how best to implement these goals.

The responsibility of running a public college or university is a position of high public trust. This trust is placed in the boards of trustees, who in turn select the presidents. Under Ohio law, trustees are appointed by the governor to nineyear terms, subject to the advice and consent of the Ohio Senate. (Community colleges that have local levies have a mix of locally chosen trustees and trustees appointed by the governor.)

While the trustees appropriately leave the day-today affairs of the school to the president and senior leadership, they are responsible for setting the overall direction of the institution and providing supervision and oversight of the president. Given the average tenure of presidents, and the length of a trustee’s term under Ohio law, odds are that most trustees will participate in the selection of a president at some point in their tenure. This is without question the most important duty they will shoulder, as the president must not only be highly capable, but must also share the same vision for the institution and be committed to the same goals as the trustees.

Trustees have a fiduciary duty to advance and protect the interests of the institutions they serve. It is the deeply held view of Governor Strickland that the best interest of each institution is served by being strong, collaborative members of the University System of Ohio. Therefore, the Governor has committed to appointing individuals of high skill and qualification who agree that the direction set forth in this plan is in the best interests of the institution, and will work to support that direction in all ways appropriate to the position of trustee.

Individuals with a wide range of personal and professional skills can capably fill the position of trustee. However, the size and complexity of the institutions, the competition they face in the marketplace, and the need for institutions to raise private funds, suggest the types of qualifications the Governor should consider in making appointments.

The need for our schools to be globally competitive also suggests that the state should revisit the question of residency, and permit the Governor to appoint trustees with strong ties and loyalty to the state and a particular institution, even if they do not currently live in the state. It is easy to imagine the talented alumni who could contribute great value as trustees from positions of responsibility and influence across the globe.

Input from trustees has been important in the development of this plan. Collaboration between the Chancellor and the trustees, all of whom are appointees of the governor and share the public trust to run the state’s public higher education system, is essential to the success of this plan and to the future growth and prosperity of this state.

The issuance of this plan and the Board of Regents’ first Report on the Condition of Higher Education in Ohio represent significant milestones in the implementation of H.B. 2 of the 127th General Assembly, the legislation that restructured the governance of higher education in Ohio. Since the passage of H.B. 2, the Chancellor and the Board of Regents have developed a constructive working relationship that both believe has benefitted the state greatly. The Chancellor and the Board of Regents also coordinated the development and release of these reports.

H.B. 2 required that the chancellor discuss the future role of the Board of Regents at the time of the issuance of this plan. It is clear that the Regents, both individually and collectively, have an important role to play in the future progress of higher education. That role should include an expansion of their advisory capacity to include participation in program development in ways that match the personal interests of individual Regents. In addition, the significant role to be played by university trustees under this plan would be greatly enhanced by the development of strong, collaborative working relationships between the Board of Regents and Boards of Trustees. Both Regents and trustees are leaders in the civic and business life of their communities. Their close working relationship would add another strong link to the collaborative spirit called for in this plan.

Finally, the annual Condition Report on Higher Education mandated by H.B. 2 presents an opportunity for the Regents to suggest changed circumstances that the Chancellor should consider in the implementation of this plan. Every plan is, to some extent, a work in progress, which should be regularly reviewed to keep it focused and relevant. The Condition Report is one important vehicle for such input.

back to top

Ohio’s Public Universities

All of the state’s public universities present opportunities for Ohio citizens, and they belong to all of us. Each institution’s success is critical to the growth of our state. Our ability to build and maintain support for higher education in Ohio depends on all institutions working together, and on helping each other succeed. We have made great progress in this direction in recent months, but it is easy to fall back. This plan is designed to put us on a permanent path of collaboration and mutual growth.

The Land Grant and National Research University

The Ohio State University

The Ohio State University is the seventh-ranked public research university among all public universities in the total amount of annual sponsored research expenditures.⁸ With respect to industrysponsored research, an excellent indicator of a university’s reputation in the business world, Ohio State is ranked second in the nation and first among all public universities. Ohio State is one of the largest and most comprehensive institutions in the country with nationally-ranked programs at the graduate, professional, and undergraduate levels. Moreover, the quality of the undergraduate student body has continued to improve over the last 13 years. Research, academic excellence, and the quality of the student body are appropriate measures for assessing the performance of an institution like Ohio State. Indeed, research and academic excellence constitute Ohio State’s major contributions to the state and to the University System of Ohio and continuing advancement along these dimensions must be paramount for the university, the system, and the State of Ohio. Because of its comprehensiveness, quality and statewide presence, Ohio State can also perform an important service to the University System of Ohio as a whole. The original intent of the land grant college was to spread knowledge about agricultural and industrial developments across the state. This was accomplished by establishing remote programs and “extension services.”

All research statistics in this section are from: Academic Research and Development Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2006. The National Science Foundation, November, 2007

Today, we have significant universities and research centers across the state, though none have all the capacity and resources that Ohio State can muster. The 21st century version of the “land grant” mission should include Ohio State’s helping develop Centers of Excellence across the state and across the system wherever its expertise can be of use. Accordingly, we should judge Ohio State’s contributions not only by its own metrics of success but also by the extent to which its activities contributes to the success of the other institutions in the University System of Ohio.

The Historic "Four Corners"

Bowling Green State University, Kent State University, Miami University, Ohio University

Ohio’s historic “four corners” regions are home to Bowling Green State University, Kent State University, Miami University, and Ohio University, which are established comprehensive institutions situated in small town settings. They are residential in character, liberal arts in tradition, and have recognized academic and research strengths. Ohio University and Miami University are 200-years-old, while Bowling Green and Kent State are approaching their 100th anniversaries.

Ohio’s “four corner” universities offer an extensive portfolio of distinctive undergraduate programs, focused master’s and professional degrees, and a select number of nationally-recognized doctoral programs.

Bowling Green State University

Bowling Green State University, in the northwest, is nationally known for the quality of the living and learning communities that it provides for its students and for its first-year student success programs, its critical thinking about values, and serves as a model for cooperative learning experiences and student engagement with the community and region. Bowling Green is recognized by the Carnegie Foundation as a community engaged university.

Kent State University

Kent State University, in the northeast, has a robust set of undergraduate and graduate programs. It is a “high research activity” university and is recognized by the Carnegie Foundation as a community engaged university. Kent State’s collaborations with other higher education institutions, businesses and non-profit health and research centers have enabled it to play a significant role in the economy of the region while building programs that draw students from across the state and nation.

Miami University

Miami University, in the southwest, is nationally recognized as a leader in liberal arts education and student success. It ranks 9th among public universities in graduation rate and in the top 25 of all colleges and universities in placement of its students into graduate and professional programs. Miami’s deep commitment to student engagement with faculty, to student involvement in research, and to study abroad attracts significant numbers of students to Ohio from throughout the United States, as well as internationally, and is a model for the rest of the system in this regard.

Ohio University

Ohio University, in the southeast, is ranked fourth in the nation for exceeding its predicted graduation rate. It is the only institution in the United States with a degree-granting college incorporating all the essential features of the traditional tutorial system, contributing to a consistently outstanding performance in nationally-competitive awards. Ohio University is noted for developing the potential of undergraduate and graduate students from diverse backgrounds. The first institution of higher education in Ohio, Ohio University has a history of service to its region and the state that is a model for the rest of the system.

The Public, Historically Black University

Central State University

Enriching Ohio’s diversity of offerings is one of the country’s premier public, historically black universities, Central State University. For many students, studying at a university that gives them the freedom to explore academics in a uniquely supportive setting is a key contributor to success. Central State is pursuing a plan to dramatically increase its enrollment and academic offerings. This plan, approved by the Board of Regents and the Ohio General Assembly, is called “Speed to Scale,” and will help Ohio build a diverse workforce to support the needs of global businesses. Central State’s legacy and reputation also make it an importer of talent from out of state.

The Urban Research Universities

Ohio’s urban research universities constitute a significant foundation for economic development in the next century. They embody the opportunity, culture, excitement, vibrancy and vitality of Ohio’s cities, providing dynamic settings for experiential learning, service learning, undergraduate research, collaboration with industry, and ready access to major medical centers. These universities have evolved with their cities. Founded as municipal colleges and universities, they thrive today as engaged partners within our major metropolitan areas.

University of Cincinnati

The University of Cincinnati is Ohio’s premier urban research university. University of Cincinnati is one of the only three “very high research activity” universities in Ohio according to the Carnegie Commission, and ranks second among our state universities in research productivity. University of Cincinnati possesses academic and research strengths that place it among America’s leading research universities. University of Cincinnati has the largest program of cooperative education in Ohio and is ranked among the top five co-op education programs in the nation. The university is a major driver of the global competitiveness of the Greater Cincinnati region. Each year, this urban, public, research university graduates 5,000 students, adding more than 200,000 living alumni around the world. University of Cincinnati is the largest employer in the Cincinnati region, with an annual economic impact of more than $3 billion, and an endowment of more than $1.1 billion.

University of Toledo

The University of Toledo, as a consequence of its merger with the Medical University of Ohio, now ranks third among the state universities in total research, and is showing a dedication to becoming a model metropolitan university. The university is well-positioned to lead a resurgent, globally competitive, regional economy and to contribute to the state’s economic growth through its increasingly well-respected research and economic development portfolio, as well as its full complement of undergraduate and graduate programs. The University of Toledo has also demonstrated leadership in helping raise the educational attainment level of the region through its effective collaborations with other public and private institutions.

Wright State University

Wright State University is deeply involved in the economic future of the Dayton region. Its proximity to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and its willingness to shape its academic programs around the needs of this fast growing economic resource have created an admirable academic focus. Wright-Patterson is currently experiencing a significant period of growth as a result of the recent Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, which saw a large amount of Air Force research come to Wright-Patterson from San Antonio, Texas.

Wright State, which has a research portfolio placing it fourth among the state’s public universities, also partners closely with the University of Dayton in what is surely the state’s most collaborative region as measured by partnerships between higher education and economic development organizations.

University of Akron

The University of Akron, a STEM-intensive institution, has long focused on the industries that would transform Akron from the “Rubber Capital of the World” to a city and region brimming with potential in polymers, advanced materials and engineering. Over the last decade, it has significantly increased its research portfolio and gained national recognition as an exemplar institution for its productivity in technology transfer and commercialization. A continued strong focus on areas that integrate basic and applied research, entrepreneurial education, intellectual property law and technology transfer expertise is critical to the future of the city and Northeast Ohio.

Cleveland State University

Cleveland State University, the state’s 8th ranked public research university, is focused on contributing to the region’s growing health care and biomedical economy. This positive direction, which is a logical extension of its historic emphasis on the STEM disciplines and economic development studies, should be supported and encouraged by the state, business and civic leaders. Cleveland State is expanding its presence in downtown Cleveland, a critical development for the regional economy.

Youngstown State University

Youngstown State University must provide the Youngstown area with the talent and research base for the growth of new companies and industries to replace those that have been lost to a changing economy. Past practices in the state have discouraged the university from playing this vital role by restricting the growth of undergraduate and graduate programs that are an important component of a university’s skill base. With the expansion of community college education in the region, Youngstown State will be better able to focus on its indispensable role in the economic rebirth of the Mahoning Valley. The state will encourage this role by authorizing and supporting undergraduate and graduate programs that focus on quality and have relevance to economic rebirth.

Shawnee State University

A similar future awaits Ohio’s newest university, Shawnee State University in Portsmouth. The university’s role in the development of talent through new bachelor’s and graduate degree programming in applied research is vital in one of Ohio’s slowest growth regions. Its low cost is also a major attraction to students who come from throughout the nation to this university on the banks of the Ohio River.

Northeast Ohio Universities

As the preceding sections demonstrate, Ohio’s public universities have a logical way of differentiating by mission and region. Bowling Green and the University of Toledo, for example, both serve Northwest Ohio, but do so in very different ways. The collective contribution of the two distinct institutions is an enormous asset to the region. The same is true of Southwest Ohio, where Miami University and the University of Cincinnati each provide enormous benefit to the region. Wright State University and the University of Dayton are excellent examples of public and private institutions working together to benefit the local economy through collaboration rather than competition.

Yet questions about the missions of the distinct universities do arise in Northeast Ohio. The reason is plain – the state has four public universities in four contiguous counties (Cleveland State in Cuyahoga, Kent State in Portage, the University of Akron in Summit and Youngstown State in Mahoning), plus one of the last free standing medical schools in the country, the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine (NEOUCOM), in a region that has seen its overall share of the state’s population decline over the last several decades. The close proximity and the lack of population growth have made the schools intensely competitive, a competition which has not served the best interest of the state or the region.

During the same period this report was being prepared, a commission created by former Governor Taft and the Ohio General Assembly met to analyze the situation in Northeast Ohio and make recommendations for improvement. The Northeast Ohio Universities Collaboration and Innovation Study Commission took its work seriously, and the Board of Regents supported the effort with financial and technical assistance. The commission produced a report with important recommendations, including many on the subject of administrative consolidation and shared services that have statewide, as well as regional, implications.

Had we started with a blank slate, we would not have drawn so many competing institutions in such close proximity to each other. There is no quick fix to the situation, but determined and steady effort, regularly reported and measured, is required.

Conversations with trustees and business leaders across the Northeast Ohio region suggest a growing recognition that clear differentiation between the universities is a necessity. The support of these leaders will be critical to the success of this effort. New trustees appointed by Governor Strickland will be chosen both on their qualifications and their commitment to further this goal.

REVIEWING PROGRESS

The Chancellor has accepted responsibility for the implementation of the Northeast Ohio Universities Collaboration and Innovation Study Commission. To that end, the Chancellor will convene a public session of the trustees of the four public universities and NEOUCOM at least annually to review the progress toward improving quality, increasing mission differentiation, increasing collaboration, increasing the contribution of the institutions to the regional and state economy, and decreasing competition among the institutions. The Chancellor will invite the business leadership in the region to participate in these sessions, and will engage outside experts as appropriate to review the region’s progress against other regions across the state and the nation. Following this session, the Chancellor will submit an annual report to the Governor and the General Assembly summarizing the progress made since the Northeast Ohio Universities Collaboration and Innovation Study Commission’s report.

CHANGING GOVERNANCE OF NORTHEASTERN OHIO UNIVERSITIES COLLEGE OF MEDICINE

The Northeast Ohio Universities Collaboration and Innovation Study Commission recommended that the Chancellor consider the issue of governance of NEOUCOM. NEOUCOM currently serves a consortium made up of Kent State University, Youngstown State University, and the University of Akron, each of which is entitled to send students to the combined BS/MD program in Rootstown. The three schools also control the board of trustees of NEOUCOM, with each president and two other appointees from each school serving. This board structure has not served the school well, as each member represents their own school, not the interests of NEOUCOM as a whole. The commission recommended that the Chancellor review the governance of NEOUCOM, and seek changes that include replacing the presidents of the individual universities with independent trustees. The commission also recommended adding Cleveland State to the consortium.⁹

Collaborate. Innovate. Educate. Report of The Northeast Ohio Universities Collaboration and Innovation Study Commission, The Northeast Ohio Collaboration and Innovation Study Commission, 2007

This report recommends that the board of NEOUCOM should be replaced with an independent nine member board appointed by the Governor, as is the case with all other universities. NEOUCOM should then be charged with adding Cleveland State to its list of schools that feeds students to the BS/MD program at its Rootstown campus and with expanding the schools presence in both Akron and Cleveland.

In Akron, this expanded presence should be through participation in the developing plan to create a center of excellence in orthopedics research, building on the related expertise in polymers at the University of Akron and the medical expertise at the Akron hospitals.

In Cleveland, this presence should take the form of additional capacity for training primary care physicians, a capacity that is called for by the need in Northeast Ohio and that is complementary to the existing medical schools in Cleveland. This presence would also make it easier for Cleveland State University and NEOUCOM researchers in molecular medicine studies to collaborate with the Lerner Research Institute at the Cleveland Clinic.

This strategy gives NEOUCOM its best chance to succeed as an independent entity, with access to increased research funding and student populations through its geographic reach and affiliations.

back to top

Ohio’s Community College Network

One of the most significant developments in higher education in recent years has been the growth of the community college. Ohio is fortunate to have a large number of community colleges that serves many different populations.

Providing a comprehensive community college education to every Ohioan is a cornerstone of this plan. Today, some Ohioans have access to extraordinary community college education, but others have fewer opportunities.

Creating a comprehensive community college network is important because community colleges have come to fill so many roles in our system of higher education. They provide the basic two-year technical education that is the gateway to many high paying jobs in our state’s economy. They also provide continuing education, both programmed and customized, for businesses in their service areas.

But community colleges also have become a gateway to degree attainment at all levels. The role they play in encouraging those who obtain a two-year degree to continue in school, or in providing a lower cost option for students beginning the road to a bachelor’s degree and trying to do so in a convenient, economical manner, is indispensable to meeting Ohio's educational attainment goals. On a practical level, we know that the vast majority of the new students who will enter the University System of Ohio in the coming years, particularly those who will represent the bulk of the 230,000 increased enrollment that Governor Strickland has called for, will come in through the community colleges.

With 23 community colleges, it is not possible in this report to cite the excellent programming that can be found in all of them. Two of our schools are part of the prestigious “League for Innovation,” a national network of community colleges that serves as an incubator for new ideas and a leader in performance and accountability. Five of our schools have participated in another leading national network known as “Achieving the Dream,” which is designed to help community college students succeed in completing courses, earning certificates and earning degrees.

But outsiders looking in are baffled by Ohio’s community college system, and rightly so. State law defines three different types of community colleges: community colleges (characterized by a local levy), state community colleges (the same as community colleges except without the local levy) and technical colleges (those schools that can offer only technical associate degrees, not the general associate degree).

Then there are the 24 regional campuses of universities, many of which are focused primarily on offering two-year degrees, while many universities still offer associate degrees at the main campus or in closely held subsidiaries nearby. Each of these schools offers a different mix of degrees at a different price.

There is also overlap with the adult career and technical education centers, many of which look like technical colleges, yet are not degree granting institutions.

Rationalizing this system to serve all students in Ohio with better, lower cost, more comprehensive options is a must. A long-term goal should also be to refer to all the different two-year schools as “community colleges,” which is how they are referred to in this plan.

Expanding Associate of Arts and Associate of Science Degrees to All Community Colleges

In H.B. 119, the Ohio General Assembly authorized the Chancellor to grant “state technical colleges” permission to offer the Associate of Arts and Associate of Science degrees. These are the degrees most easily transferrable to a university for two years of credit toward a bachelor’s degree.

The technical schools in Ohio have submitted a single, joint application to the Chancellor to implement the Associate of Arts and Associate of Science degree. As soon as all necessary steps have been taken in the process, the application will be approved.

Once the technical colleges have the ability to offer the Associate of Arts and Associate of Science degrees, there will be effectively no difference in academic level between the three types of community colleges defined by state law. This represents a significant expansion of the offerings available at eight of the 23 community colleges in the University System of Ohio, and an important step toward fulfilling the promise of access to a comprehensive community college education for all Ohioans.

Linking All Community Colleges into a Shared Course and Program Network

Even when all community colleges can offer the same degrees, it doesn’t mean they have the same resources to offer the full range of courses and specialized programs that the most comprehensive community colleges can offer. Realistically, it is not possible to have every school offer every degree program available anywhere in the state. The courses and programs offered in one region can and should reflect the needs of local industry and students.

But there may be a need on the part of local students or employers for a particular program for which the local community college does not have the resources to develop or offer the required courses. Even if a school can afford to develop the new program on its own, sharing the cost with other schools that also need the program can be far more cost-effective.

A similar situation might arise where there is some need and interest in a new program in one community, but perhaps not enough to justify the full cost of mounting the program. The presence of potential students in other service areas might justify going ahead with the investment in development costs. Finally, there is the need to continuously upgrade existing programs to meet the changing technological standards in a given industry. The costs of these upgrades can be prohibitive.

These issues will be addressed by linking all community colleges into an integrated course and program network. The network will help institutions address the policies associated with sharing of courses and programs, such as accreditation, program approval and developing inter-institutional agreements. It will also provide a database which will enable each school to offer programs developed at other schools within the system, and enable students at each school to see what courses and programs are offered throughout the system.

The manner in which programs developed at one school will be accessed by students at another school will be flexible. Courses may be offered online through distance learning, or the school that developed the course or program may “sell” the course materials to a second school, train its faculty and serve in a consulting role, or any combination of these options. The courses and materials may be “re-branded” by the receiving school or simply cross-listed between two schools. Each of these combinations will require the development of financial relationships that provide sufficient incentives on the part of the school and faculty members developing the courses and materials to share them with others and sufficient incentives for receiving schools to use courses and materials developed by another school to attract students. All of these transactions will be conducted electronically.

In effect, the network and its database create a marketplace for community college courses and programs that is statewide. In this marketplace, the local school will seek out students who need a higher education, and match them to appropriate courses and programs whether developed by their own school or others. It must also provide the support services needed to help students succeed.

Any school can also play the role of content developer, creating materials for its own students or to sell throughout the system. In this way, more students will have more choices, and faculty and schools will receive incentives to create new programs that meet emerging needs because they know they will have the opportunity to sell the courses not just in their immediate service area but to a statewide audience.

Bring Community College Education to the Mahoning Valley

Community College education has proven particularly beneficial to communities that are experiencing a transition from a heavy industrial economy to a more diversified employment base. One region of the state in which the challenges of expanding community college education is particularly challenging, but where the benefits of success will be immense, is the Mahoning Valley. Educational, civic and business leaders have called for the establishment of a community college in the Mahoning Valley. Particularly notable has been the leadership of Youngstown State University, whose enrollment and program mix will be affected by the introduction of community college education in the region. Similarly, leaders at Kent State University, with regional campuses in Trumbull and Columbiana counties, and officials at Jefferson Community College, headquartered in Steubenville, have understood the need and committed to working together collaboratively to broaden the educational offerings in the area. All of these schools could have many reasons to oppose the idea, but are not doing so. This approach is highly commendable.

With support from the Raymond John Wean Foundation of Warren, the Board of Regents has engaged state and national experts to help devise a plan to expand community college education that builds on existing assets in the region. The experts will be working with a local implementation committee, consisting of all important stakeholders, and will assist all the educational providers in meeting the challenging issues as the plan moves forward. The expansion of community college education in the Mahoning Valley should begin by the 2010-11 school year.

Dual Admission to Community Colleges and Universities

Students who know from the outset that they intend to use the community college as a stepping stone to a bachelor’s degree will be able to take advantage of dual admission, allowing qualified students to be admitted into a community college and university simultaneously. Upon application, students will be able to complete the admission and acceptance process for a community college and a university within the University System of Ohio.

Dual admission is intended to allow students to move seamlessly from a community college or two-year degree program into a university. The dual admission students will have a four-year plan for receiving their associate and bachelor’s degrees at their colleges of choice.

Students will select a community college and a university at the time of admission into a community college program. To receive dual admission, a student must meet the admission requirements of both the community college and university. Counselors and admission officers will provide information on curriculum and grade requirements for the university.

Upon successful completion of a two-year program, the student will not have to apply for admission into the university because that admission has been pre-approved. This will save students time and paperwork because the transfer will be automatic into the university.

Some students may wish to select more than one university upon admission to a community college. In these cases, students will receive information regarding the requirements of those universities but will not be considered duallyadmitted until they make a final selection.

At the end of the first year in a community college, students who are dually-admitted through a single application will be encouraged to pay a visit to the university to meet with officials and review course work and grades. Students may request a written assessment during this review at the university.

In the dual admission program, students who have met the requirements will move directly into the bachelor’s program. They will be able to continue into the upper level courses as easily as those who completed their first two years at the university. Dually-admitted students will be guaranteed spots and not be placed on a waiting list for admission.

Greater Access to Community College Education

The credits earned in an Associate of Arts or Associate of Science degree will be fully transferrable to a public university in the University System of Ohio. If students wish to transfer to a university before earning an associate degree, they will be able to do so with their credits also transferring. The exact mix of courses required at the university level to earn a bachelor’s degree will depend on what major the student selects. These differences will be clearly delineated and easily accessible through the University System of Ohio Web site.

Students who earn an applied degree such as an Associate of Applied Science, as opposed to the Associate of Arts or Associate of Science degree, will also be encouraged to continue their studies at a public university with the additional courses needed clearly delineated and readily available. This will require coordination and cooperation among the network of community colleges and universities, another benefit of a single, integrated higher education system.

Many students transferring between public and private institutions will enjoy similar transparency and flexibility. Though the state cannot require all private institutions to participate, many are eager to do so. Encouraging students to begin their college education at a community college is beneficial to students both academically and financially. This policy will also enable universities to have greater flexibility in setting admission standards. This flexibility is required if we are to meet our goal of increasing the quality and reputation of our university programs.

One of the challenges that public universities face in pursuing excellence is the perceived conflict between access to higher education and quality. To put it bluntly, universities that are “open admission” have a more difficult time attracting students with academic records that qualify them for more selective institutions, or hiring faculty with the capacity to attract significant research grants.

Given the commitment to guaranteeing access to higher education through the community college, and to extend the reach of community college education across the state, it is appropriate to allow universities to set admission standards that conform to their missions and developing Centers of Excellence. State law should clearly reflect this reality, with the Chancellor charged by law with reviewing admission policies set by the university boards of trustees to ensure that the policies are advancing the goals of the University System of Ohio and are increasing access, affordability and quality of higher education for all Ohioans.

back to top

Adult Learners and Workforce Training

This plan cannot succeed only by encouraging more high school students to go on to college. Rather, success depends on encouraging and supporting adults to go back to school to improve their skills and marketability. Studies show that older students are more motivated and focused than many younger students who do not have the same economic pressures to succeed. But motivation can only go so far without the support of the system to help them along the way. This plan seeks to provide the needed support.

Ohio’s Adult Education System Geared to the Adult Learner

Adult learners are often working parents or employed full-time and need flexibility in scheduling of classes. As a result of their experience in the workplace, they require more seasoned instructors.

Institutions must hire and train faculty who are prepared to integrate the older student into the system. This will require updating and modifying Ohio Board of Regents authorization processes to recognize and respect the important role of the part-time faculty member.

College Ready Courses Available to Adults

Policymakers have long been concerned about the extent to which students enrolling in college require remedial classes to reach beginning college level coursework. The Board of Regents used to issue annual reports on remediation rates to call attention to the issue. Regrettably, the response to such reports was to criticize the success of the primary and secondary education system in preparing students for college.

Higher education bears an equal part of the responsibility for the current state of affairs. The University System of Ohio will lead the way by taking greater responsibility for articulating what it takes for a high school student to be college ready and in helping students and their schools get students to that level.

But there is an even larger challenge. To increase the educational attainment of our workforce will require that greater numbers of adult students return to school. This means that the number of students coming to the doors of our community colleges and universities with a need for remedial education is going to increase, not decrease, over the course of this plan.

For this reason, we need to build a network of adult education programs focused on helping adults become college ready. By using the infrastructure of Ohio’s existing Adult Basic and Literacy Education structure, the University System of Ohio can offer adults convenient and affordable “college prep” opportunities around the state.

Under the current system, adult students can take "college prep" or "high school refresher" courses, but they do so at existing colleges or universities and thus pay full community college or university tuition for this remediation. Often times, they take out loans and use up financial aid eligibility. The state also expends subsidy dollars on such courses.

On top of the expense, under the current system, adult students get discouraged by being forced to take courses that are essentially a repeat of high school material, and are not quickly exposed to the type of exciting content that is a path to achieving career goals. That said, ensuring that adult learners are college ready is essential, for we know that the single greatest reason why adult students do not complete a degree is lack of preparation.

Under the new plan, the standard of college readiness will be the same for adults as it is for high school students, but the structure of the programs for adults will be quite different. By building on the ABLE network, the University System of Ohio will offer adults several choices with regard to taking “college prep” classes. Programs will be available in a wide range of locations–on and off college campuses–and in a variety of formats, including online or distance learning. This alternative path to college–providing college readiness programs for all adults desiring to return to school–expands opportunities, adds convenience, and helps adult students save real dollars in this vital arena.

College Credit for Apprenticeships and Adult Workforce Center Programs

There is a close relationship between programs offered at adult workforce centers and technical courses offered at community colleges, but these systems have often been more competitive than collaborative. In addition to the resources wasted, adults who take courses at adult workforce centers and then seek to obtain a college degree frequently have to start over again from scratch. Apprenticeship programs offered by labor unions and others often don’t count toward college credit, an issue addressed here.

The Ohio Board of Regents and the Ohio Department of Education are working to transition the state’s adult education programs, including adult career-technical education and Adult Basic and Literacy Education (ABLE) into the University System of Ohio. This will create a completely integrated workforce education system by January 1, 2009.

This integration will allow the Board of Regents to develop an efficient system for students who complete programs at adult workforce centers that are equivalent to technical programs offered at community colleges for college credit and develop clear pathways. The University System of Ohio will also make greater use of the excellent facilities available in the adult career network to further expand the locations at which higher education will be offered in Ohio.

In March 2008, the Board of Regents launched five regional transfer and articulation sites. These sites will be responsible for coordinating the articulation of programs between the career centers and the community colleges and universities. The funding consultation to be convened after the release of this report will recommend ways to fund community colleges and adult workforce and technical centers that support the needed collaboration between institutions. As with any transition of responsibility, there are concerns on both sides. Some adult and careertechnical centers have expressed concern that they would be “taken over” or “put out of business” by the community colleges, while some community colleges have expressed concern about the impact on their academic processes and accreditations. At the same time, examples of strong collaboration exist across the state. These examples offer clear models for how to proceed and sufficient assurance that this integration of programs can be accomplished.

The decision to include the adult workforce centers in the state’s higher education system was made carefully and deliberately by Governor Strickland and the Ohio General Assembly. The benefits to the University System of Ohio are obvious, providing an additional set of quality locations and facilities, established programs, and strong relationships with local employers to the overall offerings available for our students. This integration of programs will be accomplished with great care, but it will not be sidetracked by longstanding rivalries.

“Stackable Certificates”

As part of the transfer of adult career technical education to the University System of Ohio, the state will make it easier for adult learners to prepare themselves for satisfying and productive careers through the establishment of “stackable certificates”. This will offer adult learners an open door and will help them connect pre-college academic work to credit-bearing career and technical coursework that leads ultimately to a college degree.

Certificates will be developed statewide or regionally to reflect market needs. Certificates earned while an adult is enrolled in an institution of higher education will be eligible for college credit, subject to standards established by the University System of Ohio.

Stackable certificates will be based on demonstrated competencies, not just “seat time” spent in the classroom. This approach to learning is strongly favored by most employers. Adult learners, most of whom are “employees who learn” rather than “students who work,” will also benefit from the flexibility.

Transfer of Military Credits

Veterans of U.S. military service are sometimes unpleasantly surprised when they return to civilian life and find that credits earned while in uniform are not transferable to their college of choice. The military has a system for translating courses and training into potential college credit, and the American Council on Education analyzes and makes recommendations on how much credit should be awarded. But individual institutions are under no obligation to follow these recommendations and some do not. This forces veteran students to take more courses than they expected, lengthening their college careers and delaying their entries into the civilian workforce. From a standpoint of simple fairness, it is intolerable that veterans of our armed services, to whom we owe so much, should not receive every consideration when it comes to transferring military credits.

There is a matter of self-interest to consider as well. Veteran students bring maturity, motivation and leadership with them to campus. They are precisely the kind of students Ohio needs to keep and attract. The University System of Ohio, therefore, will encourage its member schools to accept credit programs received through military training and experience, as long as it is approved by the American Council on Education or a regional accrediting body, such as the Higher Learning Commission.

Nine Ohio universities and 14 community colleges currently are members of Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges, a consortium of more than 1,800 institutions dedicated to helping veterans succeed in their college careers.10 Member schools agree to a set of principles that call for providing flexible policies and procedures to assist veterans in gaining all the educational opportunities to which they are entitled. All University System of Ohio schools will be encouraged to join Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges. A state advisory council will be created to ensure that the University System of Ohio provides the best possible services to veterans.

Lifelong Learning

Mature adults at age 55 or older are returning to college for a host of reasons, including upgrading job skills as part of their final years in the workforce, learning new trades for a second or third career, wanting to take on a part-time position for supplemental income, or simply to continue their education and take classes of specific interest. The Lifelong Learning Initiative will actively promote returning to colleges and universities through special promotions, discounts, convenient locations and times. More online courses will be available to computer savvy mature adults geared to their interests.

The University System of Ohio recognizes the opportunity presented by older Ohioans who are seeking new opportunities for productive work that is personally fulfilling. Community colleges and universities will include older Ohioans in their for-credit recruitment activities in order to grow their enrollment, increase the overall education level in Ohio, and maintain a strong and viable older workforce.

Senior programs in Ohio have partnered with community colleges and universities to provide services that make it easier for this age bracket to take advantage of the wealth of courses offered by the University System of Ohio and private colleges. Many mature learners give back through volunteer tutoring and mentoring programs. The Ohio Department of Aging will work with the University System of Ohio to encourage more mature adults to work with young learners. The University System of Ohio schools can encourage these match-ups through discounted courses offered to the mature adult volunteers.

The University System of Ohio will encourage schools to modify student services to serve these adults. This requires flexibility beyond the classroom, to a wide range of services such as parking, food service, recreational and arts activities, libraries and the like. Appropriate financial aid and pricing strategies will also be needed to attract the thousands of potential learners to the system, often working closely with corporate partners on tuition reimbursement policies and incentives.

back to top

Transfer and Mobility

Guaranteed Credit Transfer System

Easy credit transfer and accelerated student mobility are the cornerstones of the University System of Ohio. They provide all citizens - newly minted high school graduates as well as returning adults – with a clear pathway for gaining the skills and knowledge necessary for productive and satisfying performance in the knowledge economy.

The Ohio Credit Transfer System was initiated by the Ohio General Assembly so constituents can transfer credit from one institution to another without retaking courses. The system produces a list of courses that have a statewide transfer guarantee.

It is impossible to overstate the role of faculty in the Ohio Credit Transfer System. Faculty members are responsible for Ohio’s higher education curriculum and are the stewards of their academic disciplines. Their leadership role in the development and review of courses is imperative for the success of the Credit Transfer System. Faculty expertise in the implementation of the transfer initiatives gives the process the required creditability for success. Their service and dedication to the Ohio Credit Transfer System is recognized by their institutions as vital components of the service and teaching mission of higher education. This work should be acknowledged in faculty performance reviews for promotion, staff development opportunities and salary increases.

This plan builds on the excellent work accomplished in recent years in two ways:

• After a date to be established in consultation with chief academic officers, no new courses appropriate to the statewide Articulation and Transfer System will be listed or offered at any University System of Ohio school before they are reviewed by statewide faculty and included in the Ohio Credit Transfer System.
• The Ohio Credit Transfer System will be integrated into a user friendly system that includes all relevant student support, admission, counseling and financial aid services.

Single Academic Calendar

The success of students, the integration of institutions, and opportunities to improve efficiencies and trim costs would be bolstered by a move toward a common academic calendar across all of the universities in the state. Having a common academic calendar would allow students greater ease in transferring to institutions that match their academic pursuits and personal circumstances. Their ability to undertake internships and co-ops would be bolstered, and it would provide the chance for all students to take courses that are academically comparable in the depth of instruction provided by semester coursework.

A common academic calendar will facilitate one of the most innovative aspects of the University System of Ohio, which is the opportunity to build multi-institutional academic programs. The creation of these programs at both the graduate and undergraduate level will bring significant gains in academic quality as well as system-wide efficiencies and cost savings. At a local level, substantial savings and efficiencies would accrue at those institutions that currently operate on a quarter system.

Given the significant benefits of a common academic calendar, the universities currently operating on a quarter system should give strong consideration to making the transition to a semester academic calendar. Once a timetable has been established by the universities for this transition, the community colleges not on the semester calendar should consider making the transition.

back to top

Aligning Funding Formulas and State Priorities

A core principle of higher education finance is that funding formulas must be systematically aligned with the goals and priorities of the state in order for colleges and universities to have the incentives and resources they need to achieve the targets set for them.

The state’s basic funding formula, the State Share of Instruction, is currently designed to reward enrollment growth and penalize enrollment decline. This formula, as much as any other factor, has contributed to the wasteful competition among state institutions. A new funding formula will be recommended to the Governor and the General Assembly in the next biennial budget that will be aligned with the goals of this plan. The funding that is currently provided through the “Challenges” – Jobs Challenge, Access Challenge, Success Challenge and Economic Growth Challenge – will be incorporated into the new formula to better incentivize the goals of this plan.

The formula itself will be developed in consultation with legislators and university officials who will be convened immediately after the release of this report. The following principles, adapted from lists of principles developed by the members of the Inter-University Council and the Ohio Association of Community Colleges, will guide the decision-making process as this plan becomes a reality.

1. The funding formula should only reward those educational outcomes that align with Ohio’s priorities.
2. The funding formula should be designed to continuously support and improve systematic, costeffective collaboration among state colleges and universities in the achievement of state goals.
3. The outcomes that are rewarded should take into consideration differences in institutional missions, including differences between community colleges and universities, and provide appropriate levels of state support for each mission, including not only the teaching mission of all colleges and universities, but other relevant contributions such as research, technology transfer, workforce development, globalization, and community revitalization.
4. Increases in enrollments or degrees granted, or improvements in other activities or outcomes that advance state goals, should be supported by appropriate increases in state funding. To determine what is an "appropriate" level of funding, the funding formula should be informed by systematic comparisons of Ohio institutions versus their peers across the nation, with the goal of making Ohio competitive with its peer states or peer-state institutions.
5. The funding formula should harmonize and integrate state policies regarding institutional subsidy, student tuition, student financial aid and institutional capital funding.
6. The funding formula should be designed to provide some level of predictability and financial stability for institutions.
7. The funding formula should include an incentive for each campus to develop excellence in academic programs and disciplines significant to its mission, region, and state priorities and goals.
8. The funding formula should recognize differences in academic program cost and should encourage cost efficiency among similar programs.
9. The details of the funding formula should be the outcome of an open consultative process with broad participation.

back to top

Affordability

The affordability of higher education is a matter of great concern in Ohio. Tuition has often been a contentious matter during the biennial budget process. The current budget established a twoyear tuition freeze, supported by increased appropriations, at all public colleges and universities. This tuition freeze was necessary after a decade in which tuition increases averaged nine percent, and it enjoyed broad bipartisan support.

In [early 2008], attention has focused nationally on the question of affordability. Congress and the president acted to increase Pell Grants, the largest single source of financial aid for college students in the United States.¹¹ While doing so, Congress continued to exert pressure on colleges and universities to control the growth of tuition. Leading private universities, responding to pressure about their costs and their growing endowments, have expanded financial aid to middle class students and families. Harvard University, for example, expanded its financial aid commitment to include families with income up to $180,000. Similar decisions have been announced at Duke, Yale, Stanford, Brown, Princeton and others.¹²

Colleges Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, Public Law No: 110-84, September 27th

Colleges and Universities Expand Efforts to Improve Access and Affordability, American Council on Education, 2008

Since the goal of this plan is to raise the educational attainment level of Ohio’s population, it goes without saying that lowering the cost of higher education to all Ohioans is an essential strategy. Indeed, making college more affordable is specifically mentioned in the legislative mandate that produced this report.

This plan fully responds to that mandate, recommending a series of administrative and legislative steps to make the cost of college education among the lowest in the nation. However, these recommendations will require the public and the legislature to think differently about how to lower college costs.

SEVERAL POINTS MUST BE KEPT IN MIND

• Affordability cannot be divorced from quality. Our goal is not a cheap, low-quality system, but an affordable, high-quality system.
• There are important differences in the cost of different types of a college education. No one would expect the cost of an associate degree from a community college to be the same as a Ph.D. at a comprehensive university. But students can also take different paths – some low-cost, some high-cost – to similar outcomes. For example, one student might pursue a bachelor’s of business at a university main campus, while another pursues the same degree by combining an Associate of Arts degree with a bachelor’s completion program offered on a community college or regional university campus. At the comprehensive campus, the student may participate in a full range of academic, athletic and social programs and can take courses outside the major in dozens of areas of academic study. Having different paths for different students – at different price levels - is an asset to the state, and a strength of the University System of Ohio. Encouraging growth in the lower cost delivery options is an important way of achieving efficiency in the system.
• The “sticker price” of a college education is frequently not what the student actually pays. Schools are very familiar with state and federal financial aid policies, and take these into account in setting prices. Additionally, schools have private endowments that enable them to offer scholarship funds on the basis of both need and merit. Nevertheless, the sticker price cannot and should not be ignored. Students want to know what they will pay, and deserve complete and transparent information about tuition and fees. Indeed, such a requirement – known as the “Truth in Tuition Guarantee” – was proposed by Governor Strickland and adopted by the General Assembly in H.B. 119 of the 127th General Assembly.
• Each school in the University System of Ohio already has different levels of tuition. Tuition freezes and across-the-board increases lock in differences between institutions that may or may not have a rational basis, favoring schools that had raised tuition more in the past. It is an asset, not a detriment, to have some public universities emphasize a low sticker price while others focus on providing aggressive financial aid packages to those who need them. These various strategies provide high-quality choices to students and families at all income levels.

Building a Low-Cost System

This plan seeks to establish policies on affordability that make the cost of obtaining a college education in Ohio among the lowest in the nation. This goal cannot be accomplished with a one-sizefits- all strategy, but rather through a series of inter-related strategies outlined in this report. These strategies include expanding high-quality, low-cost educational opportunities around the state, linking tuition increases on main campuses to the availability of financial aid so that out-ofpocket costs do not drive away qualified students, increasing private fundraising, and leveraging the University System of Ohio to lower costs through efficiencies.

It is critically important that the affordability policies established now be allowed to serve as a model for the next decade. Changing direction every two years is as detrimental to the state as having no policy at all. Any policy chosen must be given a chance to work.

It is the responsibility of the Chancellor, working with the trustees and presidents of our institutions, to clearly explain to the citizens and elected officials of this state what college actually costs, and what choices Ohio students have among the different types of college education offered in the University System of Ohio. To do so, we must have accurate data on what students actually pay. This is known as “net tuition”–the amount of money students or their families pay after subtracting out grants and other types of aid. All national surveys of college affordability agree that, in order to determine “net tuition,” detailed unit record data about student fees, and state, federal, and institutional grants and scholarships must be gathered. This is the most accurate way to assess the affordability of a state’s higher education system. Systems that gather unit record data such as this have sometimes made dramatic changes in policy once they understood what individual students were really paying. The University System of Ohio has begun gathering this unit record data from its institutions, and will begin using it to inform policymakers as quickly as possible. Early data should be available to assist in the development of the FY10-11 biennial budget.

Expand Degree Offerings by Creating Network of High-Quality, Low-Cost Campuses Offering Both Bachelor’s and Associate Degrees within 30 Miles of Every Ohioan

Making the widest range of associate degrees available at all community colleges–and then making certain that those degrees are fully transferable to a bachelor’s degree program – are important components of a comprehensive community college education. But there is one last piece of the puzzle. Not every part of the state has ready access to a community college education, nor to the bachelor’s degree programs they need. The solution is to tackle the somewhat daunting challenge of integrating our regional university campuses with our community college system.

Ohio’s 24 regional branch campuses, affiliated with eight different universities, are not monolithic. A small number serve as feeders to their main campuses for students who were not academically qualified to begin work on a bachelor’s degree directly at the main campus, or who chose to start at the regional campus for financial or personal reasons. Approximately 10 percent of regional campus students move onto the main campus for their next year.13 Others function much like community colleges, offering two-year degrees targeted to the needs of the community. Generally speaking, the cost of delivering an associate degree at a regional university campus has been higher than at a community college. Some have been able to charge these higher prices because there was no direct competition from a community college in a given community; others compete side by side with community colleges at co-located campuses and have therefore developed a set of programs that are distinct from the community college.

While there are some bachelor’s degrees available at regional campuses, delivering bachelor’s degrees has not been the main focus of their efforts. Indeed, universities have been discouraged by the state from expanding bachelor’s degree offerings at regional campuses, with the state arguing that such an expansion would represent wasteful duplication of effort instead of an efficient expansion of an accessible education. This plan represents a change in direction on this subject. There is ample evidence to suggest a demand for bachelor’s degrees by students who are unable to or are uninterested in attending a university main campus. A number of community colleges have adopted a “University Center” model, where they invite colleges and universities to offer the third and fourth year of a bachelor’s degree program on their campus, with the stipulation that these programs accept the associate degree earned in full as transfer credits.

One of the most aggressive uses of the University Center model has been at Lorain County Community College, where students can pursue a bachelor’s degree from eight different colleges and universities without leaving the Elyria campus. No doubt some of the students engaged in Lorain’s University Partnership would have pursued a bachelor’s degree anyway, but it seems clear that a much larger number than would otherwise do so are earning bachelor’s degrees because of the opportunity to do so right on the community college campus.

The University Center model also recognizes and takes advantage of another type of mission differentiation – that between community colleges and universities. The community college business model is designed to offer a lower cost associate degree, while the university business model is better designed to offer the bachelor’s degree. The university can do so cheaper at a regional campus because the overhead costs are lower than on a main campus, but it remains the case that the university’s costs to deliver a degree will be higher than the community college.

This plan will include a major effort to integrate our community college and regional campus networks around a common goal – to have available on as many campuses as possible across the state the comprehensive, low-cost offerings of a community college and the quality bachelors’ degrees available from our universities. Because the cost of delivering the bachelor’s degree at a regional campus or community college site will be lower than on a university main campus, the combined cost of the associate and bachelor’s degrees obtained on one of these joint campuses will be the lowest combined cost of a degree available to an Ohio student.

Forty years ago, Governor James A. Rhodes launched a plan to build a community college, technical center or branch campus within “30 miles of every boy and girl” in Ohio. Thanks to his efforts, we have an extraordinary network of campus facilities. In today’s world, however, students need access to associates and bachelor’s degrees in the core fields that are called for in a local economy. It is time, therefore, to update Governor Rhodes’ promise and offer low-cost, high-quality, associate and bachelor’s degrees within 30 miles of every Ohioan.

These expanded educational offerings will be particularly attractive to adult learners who have jobs to do and families to care for while they are going to school. These students need affordable, accessible higher education, exactly what this plan delivers.

Integrating the community college and branch campus networks into “two plus two” campuses will require careful planning and thoughtful transitions. Community support exists for regional campuses, and faculty members have devoted their careers to making opportunity available to students in traditionally underserved parts of the state. These will be respected and preserved. But Ohio must begin now to implement this element of the plan, moving as quickly and aggressively as possible.

Differentiated Tuition for Main University Campuses

With respect to the main university campuses, which must grow in quality and reputation and assume greater responsibility for the economic future of our state, setting a single tuition policy is unwise and counter-productive. Instead, the university trustees, applying guidelines established by the state, should be given greater responsibility and flexibility to design tuition policies leading to both affordability and quality. Trustees will be required to tie tuition policy to the ability of all students to pay the cost of higher education after taking into account federal, state, and institutional financial aid.

There are many benefits to this approach to setting tuition. The demand for programs and services varies widely from institution to institution, and even within institutions. These differences can and should be reflected in tuition policies.

A key element of cost-efficiency is the ability to offer students low-cost educational options. These options include the campuses on which an associate and bachelor’s degree is offered at a combined low cost, as well as the opportunity for students to begin their higher education at a community college or adult workforce center and transfer credits to a bachelor’s degree program at a university. It also includes offering discounts on the university main campuses for students who take courses during off-hours, on weekends and in the summer, or online where the online material is deemed equal in academic value to the live version of the same course.

There is, however, an important caveat to the flexibility sought in this plan. Tuition must be set at a level that results in all academically qualified students being able to afford the school of their choice without being burdened with unreasonable loan obligations. Therefore, in setting tuition policy, trustees must ensure that sufficient financial aid is available from federal and state programs, private scholarships or institutional endowments to enable all qualified students to attend.

The Chancellor, subject to appropriate legislative oversight, should have the responsibility to establish clear guidelines for the trustees to use in making these decisions. As will be described later in the report, the state will help with incentives to raise funds to increase institutional endowments that are targeted to need-based financial aid.

The challenge of moving to a system of differentiated tuitions from the state’s current practice is significant. The debate over tuition policy has generated ill-will on all sides. Institutions are often frustrated that the link between tuition and state aid is not acknowledged in the budget debate. Legislators feel that the institutions are not trying hard enough to hold costs down. And the students and their families are unhappy when tuition goes up.

To break this impasse, members of the General Assembly must be willing to focus on how much students in Ohio are actually paying for school, not on the sticker price at each school. In turn, the public institutions in this state must provide our elected officials with a clear demonstration of what this policy will accomplish for our state, and concrete assurances that the flexibility will not result in students being priced out of higher education.

To give these assurances, the public institutions will have to provide information about the intended pricing and financial aid policies for each biennium before the Governor and the General Assembly are asked to pass the biennial budget, not after the budget passes as is currently the case. This process will certainly seem awkward at first, but the benefits to the system will soon be clear. One of the goals of a differentiated tuition policy, and indeed this entire plan, is to provide greater stability in planning over time. The projections that will be developed by the institutions will help reinforce this goal.

University System of Ohio Support of Private Fundraising

Caught between demands for increased service and tight public budgets, state colleges and universities increasingly have had to diversify their revenue sources. Private donations are an important and growing source of such resources, and, if projections hold true, are expected to become more significant in the future when at least $41 trillion in wealth will transfer between generations by 2052.¹⁴

Why the $41 trillion Wealth Transfer Estimate is Still Valid: A Review of Challenges and Questions, John J. Havens and Paul G. Schervish, Boston College Social Welfare Research Institute, 2003

While Ohio’s public institutions have had some success in their ability to raise money from private donors, the state should play a bigger role in helping campuses leverage the future generosity of donors.

At least 23 states have launched programs that utilize state funds to match private donations to public colleges and universities.15 Challenge grants such as these generate publicity, and appear to be successful in tapping the generosity of the general public to donate funds.

Ohio began experimenting with the use of state funds to match private donations in the FY08-09 biennial budget. Governor Strickland requested, and the General Assembly agreed, to provide the Board of Regents with $8.5 million over the biennium to experiment with incentives for private fundraising for need-based scholarships.

The budget specified that the Board of Regents partner with the Ohio College Access Network (OCAN) in this effort. The Board of Regents and OCAN together developed a grant program available to nonprofit organizations, college foundations and similar organizations, which would provide funding for the staff necessary to raise additional funds and for matching grants. When the budget was passed, it was hoped that the program might raise as much as $100 million. As of this writing, it appears that the program is on track to raise at least $90 million, and may yet break the $100 million mark, more than a 10:1 return on the state’s investment.

Ohio also has experience using competitive scholarship and research programs as incentives for matching grants. The Third Frontier program has made extensive use of leveraging requirements to achieve an immediate return of more than 8:1 on its grants (including federal matching grants), before the expected long-term return on investment is even considered. A minimum of a 1:1 match is required under the Choose Ohio First Scholarship Program and the Ohio Research Scholars Program, with the actual results exceeding this amount. (The first eight awards under Choose Ohio First resulted in a leverage of nearly 2:1.)

Conversations with foundations, development officials and business leaders also confirm that matching grants are a very significant inducement, and can be used effectively to increase the private fundraising for scholarships, for endowed faculty positions, and for capital fundraising. Given the success of Ohio’s pilot project and the apparent success of such programs in other states, it seems clear that Ohio should utilize the strategy of seeking leverage from its financial support to colleges and universities in as many ways as possible, and should seek new funds that can be used to further the strategy of increasing the total amount of private fundraising in Ohio. In developing such a program, the state should make sure that it is a collaborative effort with school and campus officials, that it leverages new private dollars, and that it is designed to achieve state goals and needs. The state should also ensure that smaller schools are not systematically disadvantaged by the structure of incentives.

The state should also link incentive-based fundraising to a willingness on the part of smaller schools to aggregate their foundation funds for investment purposes. Virtually every public institution of higher education in Ohio has a foundation, and many of these foundations are relatively small. For example, the median fund balance of foundations for community colleges is about $2.3 million, but the total of all such foundations is in excess of $120 million. Smaller foundations cannot by themselves take advantage of a number of newer and more profitable investment instruments that are available to larger funds. The aggregation of many smaller funds for investment purposes will enable the collective fund to leverage relatively better returns and negotiate lower investment costs than they can achieve individually.

In moving forward, the state will consider both new programs that could create matching incentives and ways to turn existing programs into leverage opportunities. One such existing program that will be closely examined with this in mind is the Ohio College Opportunity Grant (OCOG) program. OCOG is the state’s principle need-based financial aid program for students attending both public and private institutions. While the amount each school receives is based on the total need of the students attending that school, the program actually takes the form of a payment to the college or university. It is, therefore, a part of the total funds that a college has available to offer need-based aid to its students. It seems likely that the state’s payments could be used to leverage private fundraising. Such a redesigned program could set a higher leverage requirement for schools with smaller alumni pools, or those located in communities with fewer potential donors.

Create University System of Ohio Endowment to Support Need-Based Scholarships

The idea of creating a system-wide scholarship endowment raises concerns among individual schools that the state will compete with them for private donations. This concern must be carefully addressed, but at the end of the day will be unwarranted. The tools and strategies that a University System of Ohio endowment can utilize are different than those that can be employed by individual schools, as is the pool of potential donors. These concerns can be further alleviated by appointing representatives of the individual universities to the board of the foundation, putting them in a position to help guide the foundation and make sure it is not supplanting individual school efforts but adding new value.

Therefore, the Board of Regents will create the University System of Ohio Foundation to raise funds for need-based scholarships. The board of the foundation will include representatives from member universities, the General Assembly and the business community. All transactions, budgets and meetings will be subject to appropriate open meetings and records laws.

The Chancellor will recommend that the state appropriate $10 million per year for the next 10 years to the University System of Ohio Foundation, with a match requirement of 10:1, thereby creating a $1 billion endowment. This endowment will then provide at least $50 million per year in need-based scholarships, increasing by 20 percent the total amount the state has available for need-based scholarships. The Chancellor will also recommend that the appropriation be contingent on the Board of Regents raising funds from private foundations or donors to underwrite the costs of all feasibility and marketing studies, and the administrative cost of the program.