View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Conclusion: Appraising Asset-Based Themes for Policy and Practice

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Conclusion: Appraising Asset-Based Themes for Policy and Practice
Language: English
Authors: Warshaw, Jarrett B., McClure, Kevin R., DeMonbrun, Matt
Source: New Directions for Higher Education. Sum 2020 (190):133-149.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Public Colleges, Universities, Institutional Mission, Access to Education, Equal Education, Undergraduate Students, Educational Finance, Institutional Characteristics
DOI: 10.1002/he.20372
ISSN: 0271-0560
Abstract: This chapter presents four central themes that are distilled from the volume. First, regional public universities (RPUs) are mission-centered as access- and teaching-oriented and civically engaged institutions. Second, no matter how RPUs are sampled and classified, they are at the center of college access and equity. Third, RPUs deploy lean resources to shoulder a strong share of undergraduate education in the 4-year sector, displaying some long-term financial ingenuity and resilience. Fourth, campus leaders have the power to shape and tell the story of the "positive core" of what RPUs are and do well in enriching the lives of their students and communities. These themes suggest that RPUs are positioning, based on strengths, to adapt to significant challenges in their external environments. Public and institutional policies may enhance RPUs and their unique contributions by rewarding these campuses for serving the broader public and economic good.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1272941
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGUBD-4nIlQVTf7S4nqNwLQAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHEIInT_hyMcNtVmNgIBEICBmsNHKVc5i_LCSOc2GXp74Njnpec4TmY5kLKbaFAaQYO03shzdlDzPKUh-AYQBJYnU0rMe89w6ISjPEgrE-M9p7c0jipUmQ8seZBHWWIFkq1LAHjT6IVkkj3wpb11VZia1EzY7dC_kYLyujzVOgU7KSWlGJeCo1fz10TdOR3nOKwwhtNhAwNsok6VU6mQ4MtzhBdbyK24M3uvlYw=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0146607774;ndh01jun.20;2020Oct27.03:54;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0146607774-1">Conclusion: Appraising Asset‐Based Themes for Policy and Practice </title> <p>This chapter presents four central themes that are distilled from the volume. First, regional public universities (RPUs) are mission‐centered as access‐ and teaching‐oriented and civically engaged institutions. Second, no matter how RPUs are sampled and classified, they are at the center of college access and equity. Third, RPUs deploy lean resources to shoulder a strong share of undergraduate education in the 4‐year sector, displaying some long‐term financial ingenuity and resilience. Fourth, campus leaders have the power to shape and tell the story of the "positive core" of what RPUs are and do well in enriching the lives of their students and communities. These themes suggest that RPUs are positioning, based on strengths, to adapt to significant challenges in their external environments. Public and institutional policies may enhance RPUs and their unique contributions by rewarding these campuses for serving the broader public and economic good.</p> <p>The chapters in this volume challenge various misconceptions about regional public universities (RPUs) and advance new understandings of them and their contributions. We have asked the chapter authors to address key assumptions about RPUs that have led to limitations in previous media accounts and research literature. Policymakers and stakeholders may have an incomplete view of these institutions due to the relatively few studies of RPUs in general and to the deficit‐based perspective on them in extant literature and in anecdotal reports in particular. Any policy decisions or strategic changes based on prior research may thus be limited in attending to the "positive core" of RPUs: their distinctive organizational character and strengths (McClure, 2018, p. 119). There have been missed opportunities, then, to study and support RPUs in the context of what they are and of what they do well as contributors to their regions and states and to the broader postsecondary system.</p> <p>The misconceptions addressed in this volume have persisted over time and are premised on assumptions about RPUs' ambiguous missions and prestige‐seeking priorities, lack of quality and effective performance, and tenuous enrollment and financial health. These assumptions focus on what RPUs are not (as compared to other institution‐types and sectors) and, by extension, exclude consideration of alternative, asset‐driven frameworks. We do not intend to suggest that various stakeholder groups are unaware of, or disinterested in, more nuanced accounts of institutions and the sector that can lead to effective changes. There are a number of public policy and institutional efforts, as recommended in this volume, which could expand and reward RPUs' work and mission as access‐ and teaching‐focused institutions. To counter the dominant perspective on RPUs is helpful because it broadens the research‐based concepts and information that can be applied to stewarding these institutions for the public good.</p> <p>This chapter presents four themes that cut across the works included in this volume and that highlight the project's main scholarly and practical contributions. First, RPUs are mission‐centered as access‐ and teaching‐oriented and civically engaged institutions. Second, no matter how RPUs are sampled and classified, they are at the center of college access and equity. Third, RPUs deploy lean resources to shoulder a strong share of undergraduate education in the 4‐year sector, displaying some long‐term financial ingenuity and resilience. Finally, campus leaders have the power to shape and tell the story of the "positive core" of what RPUs are and do well in enriching the lives of their students and communities. These themes, when taken together, suggest newer ways of thinking about, studying, and discussing RPUs: they foreground what we can learn about, and from, these institutions in relation to how modestly resourced access‐ and teaching‐based institutions are positioning to thrive amid significant external challenges.</p> <hd id="AN0146607774-2">Themes From an Asset‐Based Perspective on RPUs</hd> <p>We present below the four themes, as distilled from this volume's chapters, which indicate asset‐oriented perspectives on RPUs and opportunities for them as organizations. To be clear, the attention to what RPUs are and do well is important to highlight, yet it should not eclipse public policy and institutional efforts to support capacity‐building and to improve effectiveness. After we describe each theme, we then address, in the next section of this chapter, ways to reconcile what we perceive as RPUs' organizational strengths with their demographic, technological, political, and economic contexts and challenges.</p> <hd id="AN0146607774-3">Demonstrating Mission‐Centeredness</hd> <p>A growing body of evidence suggests that RPUs are more mission‐centered than what prior research and news media reports indicate (Campbell, Jimenez, & Arrozal, 2019; McClure, 2018; Orphan, 2018; Warshaw, McNaughtan, & DeMonbrun, 2019). Mission‐centeredness is reflected in commitments to access and equity, supportive teaching practices focused on diverse groups of undergraduate students, and, among other elements, strong civic engagement. There are some RPUs that may, because of their increasing selectivity, research efforts, and resources, pursue prestige in ways that prompt mission drift and conform to long‐standing assumptions about the sector (Crisp, Horn, Kuczynksi, Zhou, & Cook, 2019). Yet most RPUs—according to newer research—suggest characteristics and behaviors associated with institutions' historic roots of democratizing college opportunity and serving public purposes. The chapters in this volume offer additional support for adopting a mission‐centered view, suggesting that most RPUs may not be prestigious in the academic hierarchy but are, nevertheless, legitimate <emph>because of</emph> their values, processes, and practices.</p> <p>In Chapter 1, Orphan reminds us that prestige and legitimacy represent different types of organizational resources. Prestige indicates, as she notes, an institution's hierarchical position in ranking and rating systems. While isomorphic behaviors resulting in prestige can legitimate (Deephouse, 1996; O'Meara, 2007), they erode the legitimacy accrued through upholding values, trustworthiness, and integrity associated with and achieved through fulfillment of historic missions. Orphan's work points to inadequacies and inaccuracies in RPUs' portrayal in prior research and news media reports, and she calls critical attention to defining and adjudicating quality and effectiveness in suitable ways for the sector.</p> <p>As discussed in Orphan's chapter, Wayne State University in Detroit offers an illustrative example of processes and practices tied closely to mission. Through its Warrior Way Back (WWB) program, launched in 2018, the institution offers a debt‐forgiveness program that serves returning students with outstanding balances at the university (Kreighbaum, 2019). The university forgives debt (up to $1,500) over the course of three semesters or upon graduation for students in the program. Students may qualify for WWB when they have GPAs of 2.0 or higher, a balance of no more than $1,500, and have not enrolled in any classes at the university for at least 2 years. WWB highlights a mission‐centered approach to supporting undergraduate student access and success and to increasing social mobility and college completion for state citizens. Yet such a mission‐driven effort does not count in state performance‐based funding metrics (which concentrate on full‐time, first‐time degree‐seeking undergraduate students) and in ratings and rankings such as <emph>U.S. News & World Report</emph>. By adopting an asset‐based view of RPUs, Orphan concludes, external evaluators and funders could reward these institutions for their mission‐based processes and practices.</p> <p>Indeed, Campbell suggests in Chapter 6, that excellence in teaching is considered among many stakeholders as the <emph>most important factor</emph> in determining which institutions are the best. RPUs in her research displayed strong teaching‐supportive practices and, according to faculty and student assessments, high quality teaching. To put such a finding in cross‐institutional comparative perspective: RPUs' teaching practices differentiate them from more prestigious public institutions, where coursework is rigorous but not as supportive (Campbell et al., 2019).</p> <p>As Campbell observes in this volume, the general U.S. public values quality teaching in higher education, and RPUs in particular, she suggests, could highlight their robust commitments to this element of mission in their marketing and branding materials and in their institutional policies and practices. In addition to championing a teaching‐supportive culture on campus, Campbell notes, RPU stakeholders could tie reward systems and incentives to progress in instruction. They could encourage professional development and assessment‐related opportunities to help faculty grow as teachers and to acknowledge and model to other colleagues what they do well in classrooms. These external and campus‐based practices may affirm the pursuit of mission—of access and equity, undergraduate teaching, and civic engagement—as that which legitimates RPUs in higher education and in the broader society.</p> <hd id="AN0146607774-4">Distinguishing RPUs Based on Institutional and Student Diversity</hd> <p>RPUs in this volume feature notable institutional and student diversity. They encompass different types and forms of colleges and universities, which vary by Carnegie classification, geographical location, admissions selectivity, financial characteristics, and, among other elements, designation as Minority‐Serving Institutions (MSIs), including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic‐Serving Institutions (HSIs), and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander‐Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs), and as Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs). The institutional diversity in the sector challenges researchers and analysts and RPU stakeholders to articulate what RPUs <emph>are</emph>. Mission‐centeredness, as reflected in part through enrolling many low‐income students and students of color, entails a defining characteristic of RPUs. As chapters in this volume also suggest, organizational and student diversity can inform a way to classify RPUs and differentiate them and their sector from others.</p> <p>Figure 9.1 presents a typology of postsecondary sectors by organizational and student diversity. The <emph>X</emph>‐axis indicates the extent to which sectors are heterogenous or homogenous in institutions' formal characteristics, and the <emph>Y</emph>‐axis represents the degree of student diversity through broad‐access orientations or stratification privileging elite student populations (such as students from top high schools located in White, high‐income areas throughout the United States). RPUs are, on average, organizationally varied and access‐oriented, which differs from the relatively homogenous and access‐oriented (community colleges), homogenous and stratified (public flagship universities), and heterogenous and stratified (selective private colleges and universities).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NDH/01jun20/he20372-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="he20372-fig-0001.jpg" title="9.1 Postsecondary sectors, by organizational and student diversity." /> </p> <p></p> <p>In Chapter 7, for example, Commodore and Njoku focus on public HBCUs and on the subset that are also RPUs. As they observe in Mississippi, nearly half of the state's recent cohort of high school graduates are Black. Among the Black undergraduate students in the state, about half of them attend Mississippi's five public HBCUs; the enrollment share of Black students at the three HBCUs that are also RPUs (86%), meanwhile, is much larger than at the other two HBCUs. As their chapter suggests, HBCUs that are also RPUs are providing access to higher education for a sizeable portion of Black students in Mississippi, and, because of the demographics in the broader population, they are also providing critical postsecondary access to the students of that state more generally. An equity‐based implication of their work, then, entails increasing the allocation of state funds to public HBCUs, and especially to those that are also RPUs, to match the extent to which they are serving state citizens.</p> <p>DeMonbrun and Warshaw (Chapter 5), as well as Warshaw, DeMonbrun, and McNaughtan (Chapter 2), examined RPUs classified by Carnegie as public master's comprehensive institutions. The institutional sample included PWIs and MSIs: HBCUs, HSIs, and AANAPISIs. Numeric findings from each of these two chapters were largely consistent with Commodore and Njoku's work. DeMonbrun and Warshaw found that, from 2006 to 2016, RPUs in the analysis, on average, increased their in‐state undergraduate enrollment, maintained admission rates, and allocated more institutional resources to financial aid while becoming more dispersed in their state funding. Most RPUs, in other words, stewarded relatively scarce resources to expanding undergraduate enrollment over time for in‐state students. Meanwhile, as Warshaw, DeMonbrun, and McNaughtan found, RPUs from 2006 to 2016 increased, on average, their percentage of federal Pell grant recipients and students of color and enrolled more diverse groups of students. The expansion in access and equity was notable and evident across institution types (Land Grants, MSIs, and PWIs), geographical locations, and degrees of urbanicity. Such a pattern held, to varying extents, for RPUs in regions and states of the United States experiencing modest growth in the socioeconomic and racial diversity of the broader population.</p> <p>RPUs are not the only institutions that serve access and equity by enrolling low‐income students and students of color (Elliott, Warshaw, & deGregory, 2019; Hearn & Rosinger, 2014). But many RPUs are especially responsive to the increasing diversity in higher education and in the United States as a whole. Diversity in RPUs' organizational forms and student enrollment thus constitutes a suitable way to classify them. Rather than use RPUs' diversity to cast them as amorphous (and less‐reputable) access‐ and equity‐serving institutions, researchers and stakeholders could instead leverage such a characteristic to advance more nuanced understandings of them. Institutional and student diversity may thus be viewed as markers and strengths differentiating RPUs from others based on what <emph>they</emph> are. Other institutions and sectors can be classified in relation to <emph>them</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0146607774-6">Sustaining Heavy Workloads With Lean yet Resilient Finances</hd> <p>RPUs serve a robust share of undergraduate students attending 4‐year colleges and universities and thus carry relatively heavy workloads in the postsecondary system as a whole. As the chapters in this volume document, much of the work at RPUs occurs in the context of lean institutional resources squeezed by inequitable state funding allocations. The disequilibrium between enrollment share and nature and scope of educational services, on one hand, and the constraints on state funding, on the other, places many RPUs in precarious positions. Several chapters in this volume also highlight the notable productivity of these institutions, as well as their financial resilience. Their productivity and financial resilience are key strengths in the sector, and to find and enact ways to expand RPUs' capacity in these areas can help them establish new equilibria between workload and resources critical for long‐term sustainability.</p> <p>Koricich, Tandberg, Bishop, and Weeden capture well in Chapter 4 the demands on and expectations for rural RPUs that are misaligned with state funding models and allocations. They note how, from a national survey of state higher education system and agency leaders, only one‐fifth of states have special funding provisions for rural institutions. The lack of such provisions, more generally, is problematic because it results in underfunding for these institutions and constrains their productivity relative to their peers in suburban and urban contexts. Rural students typically rely on RPUs, the authors observe, for college access to the 4‐year sector and may require specialized forms of support due to unevenness in academic preparation. But longitudinal numeric data show that institutions in more populous areas have greater per‐student revenues and expenditures than institutions, such as RPUs, in small towns and rural areas. As the authors conclude, the public expects rural RPUs to achieve comparable outcomes as other institutions in the state, despite receiving less money and serving more students who need additional support. The use of special state funding provisions could thus serve to differentiate funding and achieve more equitable resource allocations by institutional mission.</p> <p>To return to Commodore and Njoku's work in Chapter 7, HBCUs that are also RPUs face funding challenges analogous to those in rural settings more generally. They examined public HBCUs in the South and Mid‐Atlantic and found strong evidence of intensive workloads, productivity, and underfunding. For example, in Mississippi, they found that the public HBCUs recently received 14.5% of the state's higher education appropriations yet were enrolling about 48% of all Black high school graduates and awarding 42% of all bachelor's degrees to Black college graduates. In Alabama, recent data showed public HBCUs receiving 7.5% of the state's higher education appropriations while enrolling about 40% of all Black undergraduates and producing 42% of undergraduate degrees for Black college graduates. There were trends analogous to those in Mississippi and Alabama, the authors noted, in North Carolina and in Maryland. Such data suggest that public HBCUs, and the subset of RPUs that are HBCUs in particular, have been especially productive in serving access and equity for Black students and, by extension large swaths of state citizens, <emph>in spite of</emph> chronic underfunding.</p> <p>The lean resources of RPUs, in concert with their workload in higher education, indicate strong cost‐efficiencies in the sector (Titus, Vamosiu, & McClure, 2017). Even so, prior research and accounts in the popular press suggest some RPUs are not sustainable enterprises and some are likely to merge with other institutions or close their doors. McClure and Fryar, in Chapter 3, examined the financial health and overall sustainability of RPUs. Based on longitudinal numeric data, they confirmed that RPUs, on average, were receiving fewer state appropriations per FTE student over time, and these appropriations declined more steeply since the worldwide market collapse of 2008 and the ensuing global economic recession. As compared to RPUs, they found that public research universities experienced bigger drops in their average financial margins, but the operating margins for public research universities were still more than 2.5 times, on average, than the operating margins for RPUs. Specifically, very few RPUs had received negative ratings in the S&P Ratings system of financial health. McClure and Fryar conclude that most RPUs are financially stable, and while that stability does, of course, challenge assumptions about the sector's impending collapse, it should not preclude efforts to invest more in and thus strengthen RPUs for long‐term survival.</p> <hd id="AN0146607774-7">Championing and Leading the "Positive Core"</hd> <p>The "positive core" of RPUs is reflected in what they do well as organizations, and it provides a mechanism that RPU presidents can shape and harness to help their institutions thrive. As captured in prior research (McClure, 2018), and as supported by this volume's chapters, RPUs' positive core entails: serving marginalized student populations; transforming the lives of students through supportive practices; employing faculty who are mission‐driven teacher‐scholars; prioritizing low tuition (thus college access and affordability) and lean financial management; and promoting the economic and cultural welfare of their broader regions. Taken together, these elements offer focal points for institutional leaders and stakeholders to communicate with constituents about what RPUs are and why they merit support. Assertive advocacy, then, becomes rooted in asset‐based frameworks.</p> <p>In Chapters 1 and 6, Orphan and Campbell, respectively, encourage RPU presidents to champion institutional successes in areas such as access and teaching. Amid the escalating competition and market‐based pressures in higher education, Orphan declares that, for RPUs, "The time for modesty is over." Each author indicates ways that RPU presidents could advocate for newer ways of recognizing and rewarding legitimacy and quality in the postsecondary system, encouraging institutional leaders to become increasingly outspoken about their institutions' innovative strengths and student outcomes. Such outspokenness, the two chapters suggest, may help to resolve external and internal, campus‐based tensions. It can promote a more deliberate, positive image of RPUs—and their contributions—to general public audiences, while also motivating the realignment of organizational culture, structures, processes, policies, and practices to deepen the daily mission‐centered work that faculty and staff do.</p> <p>As Borsig discusses in Chapter 8, RPU presidents are storytellers‐in‐chief. He offers a unique perspective on <emph>how</emph> and <emph>to what effect</emph> institutional leaders can shape and champion the positive core of their campuses through storytelling and narrative. When he began his tenure in 2011 as president at Mississippi University of Women, Borsig joined a campus that had already faced significant challenges in earlier years. These challenges included an unsuccessful state legislative move, in the 1980s, to close the institution, as well as tornado‐inflicted damage, two decades later, requiring repairs to more than one‐third of the university's buildings and facilities. By 2010, the university was slated to have its name changed and to merge with another institution; those state‐policy efforts were not enacted due in part to extensive support from key stakeholders and alumni. Borsig initially perceived his leadership role, he noted, as one centered on using data and numeric information to guide and steward the university, and while he continued to draw on such data and information, he soon transitioned into a storyteller and sustained that emphasis until his presidential tenure concluded in 2018.</p> <p>Storytelling, his chapter indicates, is powerful. Through an elaborate and inclusive strategic planning process, initiated early in his presidency, Borsig describes storytelling as a way to confront what he calls a <emph>crisis of agreement</emph>. There was a strong consensus (agreement) about the campus' mission, values, and outcomes, but also a widening fissure (crisis) among different stakeholder groups that did not recognize that such an agreement already existed. By using narrative‐based approaches during interactions with various stakeholder groups, Borsig describes a growing unification crystallizing through shared meanings and felt beliefs about the campus. Such an approach, he found, was also helpful for working with policymakers; data and numeric information (such as graduation rates) were certainly critical in legislative testimony and interactions with elected officials, but so, too, were anecdotal accounts to contextualize statistics.</p> <p>In relation to shaping and harnessing RPUs' positive core through storytelling, it may be helpful to consider the sources and inspirations of stories and narratives. Recall how, in Borsig's chapter, stories and narratives emanated directly from the lives of students and graduates, yet also emerged in unstructured, informal ways beyond the boundaries of campus. Borsig had serendipitously met parents of students and graduates, as well as family members of prospective applicants, at gas stations and in grocery stores. That is, RPU presidents can become magnets for people and for their stories—of appreciation, of concern, of complaint. The implication for RPU leaders entails being prepared and ready to listen closely to them. While RPU presidents do shoulder responsibility for the institution as a whole, they are not the only stakeholders who can support and champion the positive core. More generally, the onus should not exclusively be on RPUs to self‐advocate and highlight what they do well; it also falls on researchers, constituents, policymakers, and journalists, who can each utilize asset‐driven frameworks to inform more balanced understandings of RPUs and their contributions.</p> <hd id="AN0146607774-8">Implications for RPUs' Positioning in External Contexts</hd> <p>In light of RPUs' strengths as identified and described through the above‐noted themes, we address here how these institutions are positioning to thrive in their respective contexts. These contexts entail demographic, technological, political, and economic forces that may exacerbate tensions between RPUs and their external environments and within RPUs. While RPUs may be situated in stronger positions than what prior literature suggests, they are far from being safe and secure. The ability to support and sustain them is contingent on funding and rewarding them for their distinctive contributions to regions and states and to the postsecondary system as a whole. Also, there is extensive nuance and variation among RPUs. Any responsive public policy and institutional efforts, aiming to help RPUs position to thrive, should thus be matched to and calibrated with specific local contexts and needs.</p> <hd id="AN0146607774-9">Demographic Changes</hd> <p>In Chapter 5, DeMonbrun and Warshaw noted that, between the years of 2007 and 2017 alone, the demographics of the college‐going population changed significantly, expanding to more diverse populations (such as increasing Hispanic/Latino students) and part‐time learners. Interestingly, as discussed in Chapters 2 (Warshaw, DeMonbrun, and McNaughtan), 3 (McClure and Fryar), and 7 (Commodore and Njoku), RPUs may be well positioned to lead the way in responding to these shifting demographics. For example, as discussed in Chapter 7, HBCUs that are also RPUs already serve a large share of the college‐going Black population, and, as discussed in Chapter 2, increases in tuition rates and unrestricted institutional aid have actually coincided with increases in the enrollment of low‐income students and students of color in the RPU sector. But RPUs should be cautious about such enrollment trends that seem to favor them: enrolling diverse groups of students should also include <emph>serving</emph> these students appropriately. As RPUs are being continually asked to "do more with less" (see Chapters 3 and 4), there is some concern that as RPUs increase tuition rates to meet decreasing revenue margins, this burden will be unfairly shifted to historically marginalized student populations.</p> <p>Despite being positioned to serve a growingly diverse population, there is also some concern that recent declines in student enrollment in higher education may signal hard times for some RPUs in the upcoming years. But, as McClure and Fryar note in Chapter 3, some of these concerns may be unfounded, and even in the wake of the COVID‐19 global pandemic, they suggest, RPUs may actually be better positioned to respond to these shifting demographics and enrollment trends than larger public research universities. However, no two state higher education systems, and no two RPUs, are identical. Colleges in the Northeast and Midwest may see declining enrollments as the traditional college‐going population decreases over time; coupled with smaller unrestricted assets and net financial positions, they may also find themselves in dire financial straits quickly. Moreover, states will undoubtedly seek to decrease state appropriations to higher education to meet shrinking budgets as a response to COVID‐19, and as has been shown in Illinois (Hancock, 2019) and in Alaska (Lederman, 2019), fiscal policy decisions can have a severe impact on the stability of many RPUs. But as has been shown in each of the chapters in this volume, RPUs are, on average, resilient and capable of adapting to these changing fiscal conditions to continue to serve the needs of their surrounding communities.</p> <hd id="AN0146607774-10">Technological Factors</hd> <p>In Chapter 6, Campbell provides evidence of the teaching‐supportive practices of many RPUs. Her analysis found evidence that faculty at one RPU reported high motivation for teaching, peer faculty support for teaching, and institutional reward structures that focused on teaching. This suggests that many RPUs have cultures enabling faculty to teach well, to try new pedagogical techniques, and to serve students' needs at a high level of quality. These attributes of RPUs position them well to adjust their teaching practices with changing technology. Many universities, including RPUs, have expanded online and hybrid modes of instruction. Faculty members at RPUs have either already taught online or are prepared to dedicate time and effort to learning how to teach online well. As online and hybrid modes of instruction continue to grow in higher education, we might reasonably expect RPUs to be thought‐leaders in providing high‐quality, accessible online teaching because of the central place of access and teaching in their missions. Campbell's chapter shows that many RPUs could indeed have the foundation in place to lead the nation in online teaching pedagogy and course design.</p> <p>However, the chapters in this volume point to two threats to RPUs' ability to leverage their teaching‐ and learning‐centered missions in response to technological changes. Many of the chapters' authors discussed how RPUs have been chronically underfunded. These institutions have, on average, fewer resources to spend on instruction, but also on information technology infrastructure. In a time when state funding is increasingly tied to outcomes, RPUs may struggle to invest in technologies that can help with retention and completion, such as integrated advising platforms, high‐quality learning management systems, and instructional designers. Although faculty are motivated to teach well, motivation can only go so far without proper resources. In Chapter 4, Koricich, Tandberg, Bishop, and Weeden highlight the second threat posed by technological changes: broadband accessibility. Many RPUs serve students who do not have reliable access to broadband internet, limiting their ability to take full advantage of online learning opportunities. Expanding broadband as an essential utility is critical for RPUs to capitalize on their strengths as teaching‐supporting institutions.</p> <hd id="AN0146607774-11">Political Dynamics</hd> <p>The desire for reform in pursuit of several goals (namely greater postsecondary attainment and affordability) is driving significant policy changes in higher education (Perna & Finney, 2014; Zumeta, Breneman, Callan, & Finney, 2012). Because of their reliance on state and federal funding, RPUs are certainly implicated in these policy changes. The chapters in this volume provide guidance for policies that can support RPUs, and they raise notes of caution about policies that threaten these institutions' ability to thrive. This volume provides ample evidence to justify that additional state investment in RPUs, which remain affordable, accessible, and mission‐centered institutions that serve significant numbers of students traditionally marginalized in higher education, including adults, veterans, low‐income students, and first‐generation students. In some states, as Commodore and Njoku note in Chapter 7, this may require that states address inequitable funding practices. By providing RPUs with additional state funding, states could potentially make faster progress on attainment goals and create robust pathways for upward social mobility. Simply put, moving the dial on college completion for more of a state's citizens will likely require expanding the resources and capacity of RPUs.</p> <p>At the same time, reform agendas can narrow the purposes of RPUs, focusing exclusively on their contributions to workforce development or credentials. This narrow focus on how RPUs can meet state college attainment goals may divert attention away from their contributions to the cultural and civic life of communities (Orphan, 2018). Performance‐based funding formulas can exacerbate this view of RPUs, evaluating them primarily in terms of outcome measures. Some performance‐based funding formulas do not account for the vastly different resources and student populations at institutions, meaning that already well‐resourced institutions serving more academically prepared students are rewarded. RPUs can be unfairly punished under such systems for their access missions. Thus, an important implication from this volume in terms of policy is that policymakers should recognize the full set of contributions that RPUs make to states—from workforce development to civic engagement—and ensure funding formulas reward RPUs important missions as accessible institutions.</p> <p>Finally, it is worth noting that policy creation is happening in an overtly partisan environment within states and nationally. Higher education has suffered in several ways due to this partisanship, including increased skepticism and lower confidence in the nation's colleges and universities (Pew Research Center, 2017). Partisan‐driven critiques often target the elite and wealthy institutions, which educate a tiny fraction of students but, as Orphan notes in Chapter 1, receive the most coverage in the media. RPUs are uniquely positioned to shape a more positive, constructive national conversation about higher education. As institutions that prioritize teaching, that accept the majority of applicants, that operate with lean management, and that work hard to keep tuition low, RPUs may illustrate what it means for higher education to serve the public good and restore public faith in colleges and universities. The fact that some RPUs are powerful engines of upward mobility positions them to garner bipartisan support (Chetty, Friedman, Saez, Turner, & Yagan, 2017).</p> <hd id="AN0146607774-12">Economic Conditions</hd> <p>Economic conditions may perhaps pose the most significant risk to RPUs' ability to leverage their positive core and thrive. Although many people may remember the Great Recession vividly, there has been significant and increasing economic volatility in the United States since the late 1970s (Zumeta et al., 2012). Economic recessions in the 1990s and early 2000s began what has become a familiar pattern: states have lost tax income, funding requirements for entitlement programs have increased, higher education appropriations have been slashed, and funding never fully recovers when the economy is growing again. McClure and Fryar, in Chapter 3, show the trend of declining state appropriations per student at RPUs. As states have cut funding for higher education, RPUs have become tuition dependent. In fact, RPUs have come even more dependent on tuition than public research universities.</p> <p>Tuition dependence means that RPUs, as DeMonbrun and Warshaw note in Chapter 5, increasingly pay attention to strategic enrollment management. Their ability to cover operational costs hinges upon meeting enrollment targets, both in terms of the number of students and the socioeconomic background of students. Competition for students has become fierce, with well‐resourced institutions being able to discount tuition prices and attract students. Rather than collaborating and coordinating activities in pursuit of common goals, public universities in some states compete intensively with one another. Although RPUs engage in research, field athletics teams, and pursue donors, the amount of revenue they bring in from these activities pales in comparison to state funding and tuition.</p> <p>As this volume shows, RPUs are making significant contributions to higher education, and they are doing so <emph>without</emph> sufficient resources. RPUs have been able to continue educating people in their communities year after year through no shortage of innovation and making do with what they have. Although McClure and Fryar found that only a small number of institutions were truly in financial dire straits, rising tuition dependence and economic volatility represent major risks to RPUs' ability to thrive. A shock to one of these revenue sources—or, in the case of the COVID‐19 pandemic, to both sources—would seriously undermine RPUs' ability to fulfill their missions and at great potential costs to U.S. economic, social, and cultural life.</p> <hd id="AN0146607774-13">Conclusion</hd> <p>This chapter highlights asset‐based themes about RPUs as synthesized from the authors' contributions to this volume and to the research literature more generally. The themes indicate mission‐centeredness in the sector, robust institutional and student diversity distinguishing RPUs from other institutions and sectors, heavy workloads and high levels of productivity stretching financial capacity, and strong institutional leadership using storytelling to champion RPUs' positive core. Despite the external challenges facing RPUs, such as changing demographic, technological, political, and economic contexts, many institutions in the sector are better positioned to adapt and persist than what prior research and media accounts suggest about them. There are, in turn, two concluding points that we offer in this section to support applying the above‐noted themes to considerations for policy and practice that enhance what RPUs do well.</p> <p>Our first point of consideration focuses on the need to <emph>tailor public and institutional policies and practices to build on RPUs' strengths</emph>. The average RPU may be seeking to become the best, most effective equity‐serving institution (Warshaw, McNaughtan, & DeMonbrun, 2019). Yet such efforts are likely constrained due to state funding and campus‐level initiatives that force a prestige‐centered model of excellence on them. For example, state performance‐based funding policies, despite their designers' intentions, move many public institutions to increase selectivity among more elite student populations; their academic preparation and financial resources become increasingly critical for institutional success on key metrics, such as retention and graduation rates (Hillman, 2016; Li, 2019). Meanwhile, campus stakeholders, including administrators and faculty, may aim to adopt organizational structures and processes based on assumptions linking prestige and legitimacy (Gonzales, 2013). Such state‐ and campus‐based efforts do not optimize RPUs' distinctive strengths and opportunities for innovation in access and equity, undergraduate teaching, and civic engagement. To emphasize these areas in public and institutional policies, and to ascribe to them additional weight in resource allocations and assessments of quality performance, may expand RPUs' capacity to serve public purposes and the broader good.</p> <p>Our second concluding point of consideration centers on <emph>investing more in RPUs and their students as part of wealth‐generation strategies for society as a whole</emph>. Dominant beliefs and practices suggest that to generate wealth in the broader society, resources should be concentrated among select institutions that serve elite student populations. Such a perspective informs a "Matthew Effect" in which the rich get richer; the wealthiest, most prestigious institutions, which are the most stratified in higher education, receive the largest philanthropic gifts and other, scarce pools of resources (Clotfelter, 2017). Despite the resulting inequities for postsecondary institutions and students, there has been strong economic growth and innovation through higher education in the United States over time. Yet selected RPUs can and do offer unique "value‐added" contributions, relative to their cost structures, to graduates' social mobility and to the economy more generally (Chetty et al., 2017). Thus, evidence suggests that RPUs are increasingly vital to improving the cross‐generational wealth for families from disadvantaged backgrounds and to bolstering state and national workforce development and economic goals.</p> <p>Public policies that redistribute resources and power to RPUs and their students necessitate shifts in political‐ and economic‐based mindsets and actions. They entail associating investments in RPUs, and in their students, with achieving more socially just <emph>and</emph> economically viable outcomes. From a tactical perspective, to shift underlying policy frameworks and related political and economic actions requires sustained efforts across multiple levels (federal, state, and local) and stakeholder groups. RPUs, because of what they do well, are worth the fight.</p> <ref id="AN0146607774-14"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> As with any typology, the groupings here are based on modal characteristics that may eclipse some variation within categories (see, for example, Elliott et al., [7]). The axes of heterogeneous and homogeneous (<emph>X</emph>‐axis) and broad‐access and stratification (<emph>Y</emph>‐axis) are thus presented as continua on which institutions, in their sectors and categorical groupings, could fall more specifically. To elaborate on Figure 9.1: Regional colleges and universities are, on average, robust in their organizational and student diversity (Crisp, Horn, Kuczynksi, Zhou, & Cook, [5]). Many community colleges have evolved over time in comparable directions (Barringer & Jaquette, [1]), featuring notable homogeneity in organizational form and open‐access admissions. Public flagship universities increasingly reflect homogeneity in structures and processes and more selectivity and stratification in student enrollment (Jaquette, Curs, & Posselt, [12]). Selective private colleges and universities include small liberal arts colleges and large research universities, rural and urban institutions, denominational and secular campuses, and so forth; however, despite some variation in institutions' student diversity, they continue to serve, as a sector, more elite student populations (Hearn & Rosinger, [10]; Warshaw et al., [22]).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0146607774-15"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Barringer, S. N., & Jaquette, O. (2018). The moving mission of community colleges: An examination of degree‐granting profiles over time. Community College Review, 46 (4), 417 – 443.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Campbell, C. M., Jimenez, M., & Arrozal, C. A. N. (2019). Prestige or education: College teaching and rigor of courses in prestigious and non‐prestigious institutions in the U.S. Higher Education, 77 (4), 717 – 738.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Chetty, R., Friedman, J., Saez, E., Turner, N., & Yagan, D. (2017). Mobility report cards: The role of colleges in intergenerational mobility. Stanford, CA : The Equality of Opportunity Project.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Clotfelter, C. T. (2017). Unequal colleges in the age of disparity. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Crisp, G., Horn, C. L., Kuczynksi, M., Zhou, Q., & Cook, E. (2019). Describing and differentiating four‐year broad access institutions: An empirical typology. Review of Higher Education, 42 (4), 1373 – 1400.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Deephouse, D. L. (1996). Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of Management Journal, 39 (4), 1024 – 1039.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Elliott, K. C., Warshaw, J. B., & deGregory, C. A. (2019). Historically Black Community Colleges: A descriptive profile and call for context‐based future research. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 43 (10‐11), 770 – 784.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Gonzales, L. D. (2013). Faculty sensemaking and mission creep: Interrogating institutionalized ways of knowing and doing legitimacy. Review of Higher Education, 36 (2), 179 – 209.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Hancock, P. (2019). State lawmakers, university officials warn of higher ed cuts without new revenue. The Southern Illinoisan. Retrieved from https://thesouthern.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/state-lawmakers-university-officials-warn-of-higher-ed-cuts-without-new-revenue/article_99d57c99-6d56-51e0-9a7b-8cadf9f12841.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hearn, J. C., & Rosinger, K. O. (2014). Socioeconomic diversity in selective private colleges: An organizational analysis. Review of Higher Education, 38 (1), 71 – 104.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hillman, N. (2016). Why performance‐based college funding doesn't work. Washington, DC : The Century Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaquette, O., Curs, B. R., & Posselt, J. R. (2016). Tuition rich, mission poor: Nonresident enrollment growth and the socioeconomic and racial composition of public research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 8 7(5), 635 – 673.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kreighbaum, A. (2019). A second chance at Detroit colleges. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/10/07/detroit-colleges-tackle-dropout-challenge-offering-debt-forgiveness">www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/10/07/detroit-colleges-tackle-dropout-challenge-offering-debt-forgiveness</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lederman, D. (2019). Budget compromise in Alaska. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/08/14/alaskas-governor-and-university-reach-compromise-nearly-halve-budget-cut">www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/08/14/alaskas-governor-and-university-reach-compromise-nearly-halve-budget-cut</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, A. Y. (2019). The weight of the metric: Performance funding and the retention of historically underserved students. Journal of Higher Education, 90 (6), 965 – 991.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McClure, K. (2018). Institutions of opportunity: Using presidents' narratives to re‐tell the story of public regional universities. Journal for the Study of Postsecondary and Tertiary Education, 3, 117 – 134.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Meara, K. A. (2007). Striving for what? Exploring the pursuit of prestige. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XXII, pp. 121 – 179). Dordrecht, Netherlands : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orphan, C. M. (2018). Public purpose under pressure: Examining the effects of neoliberal policy on regional comprehensive universities. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 22 (2), 59 – 102.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perna, L. W., & Finney, J. E. (2014). The attainment agenda: State policy leadership in higher education. Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pew Research Center. (2017). Sharp partisan divisions in view of national institutions. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.people-press.org/2017/07/10/sharp-partisan-divisions-in-views-of-national-institutions/">www.people-press.org/2017/07/10/sharp-partisan-divisions-in-views-of-national-institutions/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Titus, M. A., Vamosiu, A., & McClure, K. R. (2017). Are public master's institutions cost efficient? A stochastic frontier and spatial analysis. Research in Higher Education, 58 (5), 469 – 496.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warshaw, J. B., Henne‐Ochoa, R. B., & Murray, J. L. (2017). Generativity or reproduction of privilege? How campus context and parental involvement affects legacy students. Journal of Student Affairs Inquiry, 2 (1), 1 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warshaw, J. B., McNaughtan, J., & DeMonbrun, M. (2019). Between two fields: US public master's institutions—Striving for prestige or equity? Higher Education Policy, 1 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-019-00137-1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zumeta, W., Breneman, D., Callan, P., & Finney, J. (2012). Financing American higher education in an era of globalization. Cambridge, MA : Harvard Education Press.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jarrett B. Warshaw; Kevin R. McClure and Matt DeMonbrun</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Jarrett B. Warshaw is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at Florida Atlantic University.</p> <p>Kevin R. McClure is an Associate Professor of Higher Education at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and founding co‐director of the Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges.</p> <p>Matt DeMonbrun is the Associate Director and Senior Statistician of the Enrollment Management Research Group at Southern Methodist University.</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1272941
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Conclusion: Appraising Asset-Based Themes for Policy and Practice
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Warshaw%2C+Jarrett+B%2E%22">Warshaw, Jarrett B.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McClure%2C+Kevin+R%2E%22">McClure, Kevin R.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22DeMonbrun%2C+Matt%22">DeMonbrun, Matt</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22New+Directions+for+Higher+Education%22"><i>New Directions for Higher Education</i></searchLink>. Sum 2020 (190):133-149.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Colleges%22">Public Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Mission%22">Institutional Mission</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Education%22">Access to Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Finance%22">Educational Finance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Characteristics%22">Institutional Characteristics</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/he.20372
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0271-0560
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This chapter presents four central themes that are distilled from the volume. First, regional public universities (RPUs) are mission-centered as access- and teaching-oriented and civically engaged institutions. Second, no matter how RPUs are sampled and classified, they are at the center of college access and equity. Third, RPUs deploy lean resources to shoulder a strong share of undergraduate education in the 4-year sector, displaying some long-term financial ingenuity and resilience. Fourth, campus leaders have the power to shape and tell the story of the "positive core" of what RPUs are and do well in enriching the lives of their students and communities. These themes suggest that RPUs are positioning, based on strengths, to adapt to significant challenges in their external environments. Public and institutional policies may enhance RPUs and their unique contributions by rewarding these campuses for serving the broader public and economic good.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1272941
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1272941
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/he.20372
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 133
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Public Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Mission
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Finance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Characteristics
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Conclusion: Appraising Asset-Based Themes for Policy and Practice
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Warshaw, Jarrett B.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McClure, Kevin R.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: DeMonbrun, Matt
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0271-0560
          Numbering:
            – Type: issue
              Value: 190
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: New Directions for Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1