My initial and most general thoughts regarding the most recent THEC
Draft shared by Dr. Friedl have to do with the refinement of this
draft, as opposed to the earlier version. It all sounds so logical, so
pure of intent, and therefore has the ring of well reasoned finality.
At its core however, the document remains essentially the same as the
earlier draft. This version reflects, in my opinion, an effort by THEC
to simply make the master plan more palatable rather than making any
serious effort to reconsider the plan in response to the various
legitimate concerns which were articulated from this campus (and
others, surely). It seems pretty clear that we have had (and will have)
very little sway over whatever is finally approved by THEC, and that
any further response is simply tilting at windmills. That said...

THEC plays lip service to the "intrinsic worth of education" on page 1
of the draft, and then spends the following 24 pages laying a case for
higher education (in particular) as, essentially, a source of revenue
for the state, and from that perspective, outlines the justification
for the operation of higher education as a marketplace populated by
human capital potential. This culminates in the bizarre but revealing
example of a hypothetical center for excellence entitled the "Center of
Workforce Preparation", wherein we are able to justify retaining a
History department not for its intrinsic value, but for it's potential
to "reflect a wider institutional view rather than a narrow
disciplinary one". One can only wonder what sort of Faustian deals some
of us may be asked to make to insure our survival in the educational
market economy.

The draft goes into some detail regarding "Mission Differentiation"
without really describing what that means, or how it might be achieved.
Taken at face value, I presume that it could mean that where there are
duplicate programs within the state system, someone would make a
determination about which of those programs should be targeted for
funding at the expense of the others. That's admittedly a micro view...
I suppose the macro view would have something to do with a more of a
mission differentiation from institution to institution? Who will
determine which programs should benefit from "institutional
reallocation and redirection of resources"? How do we establish which
programs are "mission critical" or which academic units are "highly
regarded"? How is that measured? Most fundamentally, (from my
perspective at least) is it possible, given the thrust of the draft
overall, to establish a program as "mission critical" unless it has
some direct and tangible public sector relevance, and if not what
ultimately becomes of those programs?

Astonishingly, the draft, through some kind of logical jujitsu,
attempts to make the case that channelling money to community colleges
at the expense of four-year institutions somehow promotes
"institutional revenue adequacy" by "allowing us" to shift the funding
burden onto students through a proportionally higher tuition rate.
Additional appropriations for community colleges are justified because
they are positioned as "major education access point[s]." This is a
self-fulfilling prophesy as the proposed state allocations formula
would potentially result in four-year colleges having to price
themselves out of reach of the majority entering freshman whose only
remaining higher education alternative is in the local community
college. Yes, it does cost more for four-year institutions to offer the
same credit hour. They are larger, more complex, more diverse
institutions, with a significantly more complex infrastructure. If THEC
truly believed in the intrinsic value of education, this would be a
case for increased state support for the states four-year institutions
rather than the opposite. A student should have an equal opportunity to
attend a two- or four- year institution (that means at least some
attempt at parity in both tuition and state support). The funding
formulas implicit in the THEC draft would, for many incoming students,
take that choice away.

I'm more than aware that I am, to a certain degree, naive with regards
to the politics and mechanics of appropriations and allocations, and
that the issues I've focused on are no doubt more complex than I can
appreciate. On the other hand, if it looks like a fish, and smells like
a fish, then maybe its a fish!

Best,

Matt Greenwell
Art