toward a strategic plan, 2000-2005

TOWARD A STRATEGIC PLAN, 2000-2005

NEW ENGLAND "OPINION LEADERS"CONSIDER PRIORITIES FOR NEBHE

Use Word 6.0c or later to

view Macintosh picture.

A PLANNING PROJECT

OF THE

NEW ENGLAND BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION

NOVEMBER 1999



Use Word 6.0c or later to

view Macintosh picture.

A PLANNING PROJECT

OF THE

NEW ENGLAND BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION

NOVEMBER 1999



INTRODUCTIONThe Strategic Planning InitiativePriority Issues in Higher Education, Economic Development,

Social Well-Being and Regionalism........................................ 2

NEBHE HISTORY AND PROGRAMS..................................................................... 10

STATE FOCUS GROUPSThe View from Connecticut................................................................. 17

Focus Group ReportWritten Responses to Questionnaire

The View from Maine........................................................................... 31Focus Group ReportWritten Responses to Questionnaire

The View from Massachusetts............................................................ 42Eastern Massachusetts Focus Group ReportWestern Massachusetts Focus Group Report

The View from New Hampshire.......................................................... 51Focus Group ReportWritten Responses to Questionnaire

The View from Rhode Island............................................................... 64Focus Group ReportRhode Island: Summary of Priorities

The View from Vermont....................................................................... 72Focus Group ReportWritten Responses to Questionnaire

PROGRAM-BASED FEEDBACKRegional Student Program.................................................................. 84Connection: New England's Journal of Higher Education and Economic Development............................................................. 89New England Public Policy Collaborative......................................... 97New England Technology Education Partnership...........................107Excellence Through Diversity Initiative............................................112New England Environmental Education Program...........................115

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?The View from the Board.....................................................................128

APPENDICESAPPENDIX A: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, FUTURE OF NEW ENGLAND SURVEY131APPENDIX B: NEBHE DELEGATES..........................................................138

THE STRATEGIC PLANNING INITIATIVE

The New England Board of Higher Education (NEBHE) intends to adopt a strategic plan for the first five years of the 21st century at its annual fall board meeting in November 1999.

An earlier strategic planning process completed in 1991 identified the following proposed priorities for NEBHE programming: working with two-year colleges to assess training programs; improving linkages between high schools and colleges; and promoting new initiatives in areas such as environmental technology and biotechnology. The identification of these priorities, in turn, has informed NEBHE programming during the 1990s.

The more recent planning process was initiated by board delegates meeting in York, Maine, in the fall of 1998. The board at that time formed an Ad Hoc Committee charged with overseeing the strategic planning process.

Around the same time, NEBHE and the John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Massachusetts-Boston began undertaking the Future of New England survey, which asked 1,000 New England “opinion leaders” and 1,000 New England households their opinions on pressing public policy issues, regional economic prospects and opportunities for interstate collaboration. NEBHE released the Future of New England survey report in February 1999, precipitating a flood of newspaper and radio reporting and editorializing across the region and nationally.

Over the following six months, NEBHE staff traveled to each of the New England states to conduct “focus groups” with leaders drawn from the state’s education, government, business and nonprofit communities. In addition, staff have interviewed selected NEBHE constituents to elicit feedback on a program-specific basis.

In October 1999, NEBHE delegates were asked to offer their opinions on the priority issues that had emerged from the state and program-specific focus group meetings. Delegates were asked to rate the priorities first in terms of their importance to the delegates from a professional perspective, and second, in terms of their importance to NEBHE for the next five years. A summary of the delegates’ responses will be disseminated at NEBHE’s annual fall board meeting and subsequently incorporated in the section of this report titled, “Where do We Go From Here? The View from the Board.”

NEBHE attempted to involve a broad cross-section of NEBHE staff, board delegates and constituents in the strategic planning process. Focus group meetings and interviews were managed by a variety of staff members serving as scribes, interviewers and note-takers. Though certain common questions were asked, no single style or approach was imposed on the focus group managers and interviewers.

Toward a Strategic Plan 2000-2005 1

Toward a Strategic Plan, 2000-2005 was edited by John O. Harney, who is executive editor of NEBHE's quarterly journal, Connection: New England's Journal of Higher Education and Economic Development. NEBHE intern Sean Bowditch provided valuable copyediting. NEBHE administrative assistant Teresa Batista transcribed much of the focus group material.

NEBHE wishes to express special thanks to the members of the Ad Hoc Committee and those delegates who took time to participate in state- and program-specific focus groups.

PRIORITY ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SOCIAL WELL-BEING

AND REGIONALISM

NEBHE staff facilitators generally posed four key questions to focus group participants.

What do you consider to be the most important higher education issue facing (your state) and New England in the next five years?

What do you consider to be the most important economic development issue facing (your state) and New England in the next five years?

What do you consider to be the most important social issue facing (your state) and New England in the next five years?

What do you consider to be the most important opportunities for regional collaboration in (your state) and New England in the next five years?

Following is a summary of the answers to these four questions.

HIGHER EDUCATION ISSUES

The high-stakes effort to encourage students to go to college in New England, stay through graduation and pursue careers in the region is New England’s most basic economic imperative.

• Despite compelling data and commentary showing higher education’s economic and social value to individuals and society, many New England communities are plagued by low college aspirations.

• In communities with a history of natural resource-based economies, higher education is considered a luxury. Many young people in these communities are unwilling to borrow for college. Or worse, parents discourage their children from going to college, knowing young people may never return once they’ve seen the bright lights.

• Once students enroll in college, they face new challenges. Many students must fit classes around part-time or full-time jobs as well as raising families. And because of limited capacity in higher education institutions, students may not be able to get into courses they need to graduate.


• In states where large numbers of high school seniors choose to attend out-of-state colleges, colleges may need to do a better job marketing themselves. In states where college aspirations are low, guidance counselors should advocate for higher education.

• New England’s knowledge economy demands that the region retain the talent produced by its colleges and universities. Rhode Island state Sen. Daniel Connors lamented that many Rhode Island college graduates move to Boston, New York and beyond lured by better-paying jobs.

Access to higher education is a matter of affordability, aspirations and preparation.

• The price of a college education effectively denies access to many nontraditional students and those raising families.

• A new version of the G.I. Bill is needed to make it possible for people to afford college.

• Access is not about cost only. Students must be academically prepared to go to college.

Uneven academic preparation of high-school graduates creates a host of problems ranging from lack of access to excessive demand for remedial programs.

• There is a mismatch between higher education’s expectations of freshmen and actual skill levels of high school graduates. One community college professor noted that some younger students cannot spell or do basic math.

• Many urban students do not graduate from high school or go on to college.

• Underinvestment in early childhood education is reflected in the poor level of preparation of high school students, particularly in urban areas.

• There is a bias toward serving the highest-achieving students, rather than all students.

• Many in the business community and elsewhere want higher education to set minimum standards for entry.

New England campuses depend on the quality of public schools, and New Englanders want higher education to get involved in school improvement.

• America will need an estimated 2 million new teachers by the year 2007. Meeting this demand will depend in part upon how effectively higher education encourages students to pursue teaching careers.

4 New England Board of Higher Education

• The quality of the new teacher corps will determine the public stature of the profession for years to come.

• The nature of the teacher shortage and the preparation and certification to teachers varies from state to state.

• A shortage of trained administrators is looming as well. Some superintendents have received only a handful of applicants for principals’ jobs.

Lifelong learning is integral to New England’s knowledge economy and civil society.

• There is a disconnect between K-12 and higher education. But the K-16 paradigm may also be too narrow insofar as it neglects early childhood education and adult literacy.

• Recent research on the importance of early brain development reinforces the importance of child care and early childhood education. “I’m hard-pressed to think of anything more important” said David Rahr, president of the Vermont Community Foundation. “If we took care of this problem, we wouldn’t have to incarcerate so many people or worry about whether undergraduates can write.”

Higher education’s role in workforce development is crucial to New England’s knowledge economy.

• New England companies in fields such as information technology cannot find qualified applicants. Higher education can serve labor market needs by ensuring technological readiness and applied experience of workers.

• A communications gap exists between industry and educators. Partnerships are needed to close the gap and ensure development of curricula that meet the needs of employers and facilitates technology transfer.

• Businesses seek college graduates with work experience. Higher education should further develop internships and school-to-work opportunities.

Balancing workforce development with the goals of liberal learning and the needs of civil society are perennial challenges for the region and its academic enterprise.

• Higher education must prepare New Englanders for “economic citizenship,” encompassing issues of fairness and civic engagement as well as economic development.


• Colleges should emphasize effective writing, critical thinking and analysis skills.

• Father Philip Smith, president of Providence College, suggested that the goal of higher education is to teach students how to live a meaningful life.

• The critical environmental issues facing the region—and the planet—put a premium on interdisciplinary programs interweaving sciences, economics and political science.

• Whether students pursue vocational or liberal arts fields, the importance of exposure to other cultures is indisputable. Former Vermont Gov. Thomas Salmon urged colleagues to find ways for more students to travel abroad, which he said would “contribute magically to their maturity.”

Rapidly advancing educational technologies present profound opportunities and challenges for higher education.

• Information technologies offer challenges to traditional methods of delivering education.

• Distance learning raises new questions about the cost and quality of higher education.

Despite its importance to New England’s economy and civil society, higher education has low stature on the region’s public agenda, resulting in underinvestment.

• Higher education is a major New England industry, responsible for at least $15 billion in annual expenditures and critical to the economic and social life of dozens of New England communities.

• Higher education needs are overshadowed by K-12 on the public agenda, resulting in less funding for higher education operating costs. Tom Horgan, executive director at New Hampshire College & University Council, noted that policies on higher education and K-12 need “alignment.”

• As fewer students can afford private college tuition, a growing number will seek education at public institutions, requiring additional state support.

• Inadequate physical plants and outdated technology improvements are a major concern for public higher education in several states. One Vermont official lamented that public college labs are often less well equipped than high school labs. Moreover, state institutions cannot compete with state-of-the-art labs in independent colleges.

• An aging population in New England may be less willing to spend tax dollars on education at any level.


Investment in higher education innovation is a chicken-egg proposition.

• Higher education is under increasing pressure from government, business and the public to innovate and change. Higher education officials say they cannot change until they have further resources. Funders counter that additional resources will not be forthcoming until they see the results of change.

Quality in higher education must be safeguarded.

• The trend toward replacing tenured, full-time professors with lower-paid adjunct faculty may hurt academic quality and contribute to stratification.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

New England society is increasingly polarized between haves and have-nots.

• Just as Mainers have long referred to the “two Maines” because of the cultural and economic differences between the rural north and the suburban south, focus group participants across New England say their states are divided into two parts: one doing well, the other struggling.

• Northern New England is nagged by rural decline and poverty. Local employers may not even advertise jobs locally because they perceive a lack of locally available skilled workers. Large numbers of seasonal workers receive low wages. Many display a "live for today" mindset that does not encourage forward-thinking, borrowing for higher education or training for new employment.

• The economic and demographic disparity between affluent communities and rural areas or old commercial centers is growing. Many urban areas are losing growing companies to suburban technology parks. The result: large numbers of unemployed, unskilled people in the midst of a knowledge-based economy increasingly starved for workers.


New England is a high-cost, slow-growth region.

• New England is an increasingly high-cost, aging, low-population-growth society, with declining research and development leadership, dwindling political clout, an eroding quality of life and an ongoing internal struggle between dwelling in the past and retooling for the future.

• College-educated young people feel they must leave the region in order to "make it" and to earn salaries high enough to pay off student loans.

Higher education should expand its role in New England’s economic renewal.

• High-growth, employee-starved companies fail to connect with large numbers of unemployed, low-skilled workers who could be trained for available jobs. A key economic development challenge is quality job creation and quality education and skills training in areas of high unemployment and underemployment.

• Christopher Allen, a scientist and interim president of the Vermont Technology Council, called for the “reinvention of the land-grant mission” stating that higher education needs to play a more effective role in economic development.

• One key way higher education impacts New England economic development is through university research and development (R&D). Such research activity advances knowledge, contributes mightily to graduate and undergraduate education, while it creates jobs and, in some cases, entire industries. But New England’s share of R&D dollars has plunged steadily since the mid-1980s.

SOCIAL ISSUES

New England faces a crisis of opportunity.

• Lack of access to higher education means lack of social mobility. The increasing economic stratification of society and widening gap between haves and have-nots corresponds to educational attainment.

• Relations between haves and have-nots are increasingly tense. Rahr of the Vermont Community Foundation warned of growing intolerance and lack of respect for differences—“not just obvious differences, but socioeconomic characteristics, too.”

• A “live for today” attitude discourages investing in higher education or training for new employment.


• Low aspirations are attributed partly to the primarily natural resources-based economies of New England’s rural areas and the economically distressed urban areas.

Equity and pluralism remain elusive goals.

• Vermont state Rep. Alice Miller noted that the “whiteness” of Vermont, for example, is a social problem, lamenting: “I think there’s a bit of xenophobia.”

• The division between haves and have-nots is often a division between whites and New Englanders of color.

Growth management is a major cross-cutting issue in New England, encompassing urban disinvestment, suburban sprawl, school construction, conservation of open space, transportation and housing issues.

• The question is not growth versus no-growth, but how best to manage growth.

• The myriad issues related to growth, by their nature, are best addressed by communities working together on a regional basis.

New Englanders are concerned about the state of civic engagement.

• People feel disconnected from one another and their communities.

• Higher education institutions should redouble efforts to promote community outreach and service among faculty, staff, students and trustees.

• New England’s significant nonprofit sector stands at the forefront of the region’s civil society. But the nonprofit world also is divided between haves and have-nots. Small nonprofit social service agencies are under pressure to have greater impact on communities, but the organizations have difficulty attracting resources and recruiting the brightest graduates.

Academic policy expertise on social issues must become “actionable.”

• Colleges and universities conduct policy analysis on a wide range of economic and social issues, but too often the results do not reach policy practitioners and the public.

REGIONAL COLLABORATION ISSUES


Most New Englanders heartily support the concept of regional collaboration, but acknowledge the difficulty of working together across state lines.

• The place called New England is palpable—more so than any other region of the United States. Indeed, New England is the nation’s only historically defined region.

• The region would benefit from practical, applied interstate action on a variety of fronts such as telecommunications, education, tourism and transportation.

• Regional initiatives gain support when states see advantages for themselves. Maine’s former House Speaker Elizabeth Mitchell warned: “Before Maine collaborates, there must be something in it for Maine.” Vermont’s former Gov. Thomas Salmon quipped: “When regional themes clash with individual survival, guess who wins?”


Access to higher education is a regional issue demanding interstate sharing of resources.

• A regional system of transfer agreements between two- and four-year colleges would enable students to continue their education at affordable prices.

• Regional and subregional telecommunications and distance learning initiatives could bring educational opportunities to placebound students.

Bringing people together across state lines lays the groundwork for regional action.

• One of NEBHE’s key strengths is its power to convene people across state lines.

• NEBHE should sponsor a Leadership New England program convening New England officials in a variety of fields, perhaps in the context of a bus tour across New England, to provide an understanding of how the region’s complex economy works.

Regional frameworks are needed to share ideas and best practices in education, economic development and social policy.

• NEBHE could be a “vehicle” for sharing information on best practices for addressing challenges such as the region’s looming teacher shortages. James Henkel, associate dean of the Graduate School at the University of Connecticut, proposed an “Academic Common Market” to tackle issues such as the teacher shortage, teacher recruitment and teacher education.

• Glen DuBois, Commissioner of New Hampshire’s Community-Technical College System suggested NEBHE develop a best practices model in areas such as “school to work.”

• NEBHE could take stock of existing collaborations between K-12, higher education and industry.

The erosion of New England’s political clout has long been recognized as a regional issue.

• The region’s declining representation in the population-based U.S. House of Representatives has resulted in the loss of federal funding to the region.

• New England has no national laboratory and has lost several military bases.

• New England’s six governors and members of Congress rarely pursue common legislative priorities.


New England’s knowledge economy requires high-quality labor market and economic policy analysis.

• New England’s rapidly changing demographics have profound implications for the region’s knowledge economy. Many New Hampshire officials, for example, conceded that they are not prepared for the influx of minority populations and the growing number of students enrolled in English-as-a-Second-Language programs in Manchester.

• NEBHE should undertake a regional review of the supply and demand of skilled workers.

• NEBHE should sponsor a regional caucus on job growth, the results of which would be conveyed to New England’s congressional delegation.

• NEBHE could convene New England’s public policy centers to examine welfare reform on a regional level.

New England organizations need to pay attention to the economic and social dynamics of regions within the region.

• The variety of problems associated with sprawl and the opportunities presented by the globalization of the economy demand a focus on metropolitan areas which may straddle state lines.

• In areas such as university research and development, the northern tier New England states—Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont—share much in common with one another but little in common with their famously research-intensive neighbors to their south. In these case, three-state cooperation may be more feasible than six-state cooperation. “Collaboration requires equals,” said Allen of the Vermont Technology Council. “We’d get swallowed by the southern tier.”


NEBHE HISTORY AND PROGRAMS

By the mid-1950s, the G.I. Bill’s fully paid tuition for veterans had changed the face of higher education. Indeed, from 1939 to 1954, college enrollment in New England nearly doubled, rising from about 88,000 to more than 172,000.

The economic role of New England colleges was changing too. University research had helped win World War II, and now it would be deployed in the Cold War. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a small number of other New England institutions emerged as the federal government's chief research partners.

At the same time, New England was losing textile jobs fast—more than 100,000 between the end of World War II and 1954. Also in 1954, Congress passed the St. Lawrence Seaway bill, opening the way for ocean vessels to reach the inland ports of the Great Lakes and raising doubts about the future of Boston and the other New England seaports that once sent Yankee traders around the globe.

The time was also ripe for regionalism. Southern states had formed the Southern Regional Education Board in 1948. Western counterparts followed with the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education in 1953. In the traditionally independent New England states, the beginnings of a similar interstate education compact began to take shape in 1953, when the Massachusetts Medical-Dental School Commission sponsored regional conferences at which representatives from the six states explored ways to expand training in medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine.

A year later, six visionary New England governors—Abraham A. Ribicoff of Connecticut, Edmund S. Muskie of Maine, Christian A. Herter of Massachusetts, Lane Dwinell of New Hampshire, Dennis J. Roberts of Rhode Island, and Joseph B. Johnson of Vermont—agreed to the New England Higher Education Compact. The compact was approved by the six state legislatures and authorized by the U.S. Congress. In 1955, the New England Board of Higher Education was established to pursue the compact's aims, namely to expand educational opportunity and foster cooperation among the region's colleges and universities.

Each of the six New England states is represented on the board by eight delegates appointed by the governors and legislative leadership. NEBHE is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. Basic funding to support NEBHE programs is provided by the six New England states. Supplemental funding is received from foundations, corporations and individuals.

NEBHE GOALS

• Increase educational opportunities and services for New England residents.

• Promote regional cooperation and the efficient use of educational resources among New England’s approximately 260 public and independent colleges and universities.


• Assess and strengthen the connection between higher education and economic development in New England.

• Sponsor policy research and conduct forums on higher education issues.

NEBHE PROGRAMS

NEBHE’S NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL STUDENT PROGRAM (RSP)

The RSP is the nation’s foremost interstate student exchange program. Established in 1957, the RSP provides New England residents with a tuition break at out-of-state public colleges and universities in the six-state New England region if they pursue certain academic programs not offered by their home institutions. Since its inception in 1957, the RSP has provided New Englanders with savings on more that 250,000 term bills. In the academic year 1998-99 alone, more than 7,300 New Englanders saved an average of $4,600 on annual tuition bills under the RSP with a total savings of more that $33 million. The RSP also saves taxpayers millions of dollars by helping New England avoid costly duplication of academic programs already offered at their campuses in the region.

Academic year 1957-58 marked the first year of RSP enrollment with 301 students and the six New England land-grant universities as the only participating institutions.

Academic year 1967-68, over 600 students were enrolled and the number of institutions increased dramatically with the addition of the region’s two-year public colleges.

Between 1970 and 1974, the region’s four-year public colleges joined the RSP and enrollments reached 2,710 students.

By 1986-87, enrollment had climbed to 5,102 students with all of New England’s public colleges and universities participating in the program.

In 1998-99, a total of 7,361 students were enrolled in 700 programs at New England’s 78 public colleges and universities.

The RSP provides accessibility to higher education at all levels, enrolling students in associate, bachelor and graduate degree programs at New England’s public colleges and universities. New Englanders also have access through the RSP to several first-professional programs which include the University of Connecticut School of Law, the University of Maine School of Law, the University of Connecticut schools of Medicine and Dental Medicine, and pharmacy programs at both the University of Connecticut and the University of Rhode Island.

The RSP addresses issues related to affordability by significantly reducing the cost of tuition. RSP students can save up to 75 percent on annual tuition bills. The 10-


year savings to New Englanders enrolled in the RSP between 1989 and 1999 exceeded $250 million.

NEBHE provides additional educational and cultural opportunities to New Englanders through the New England/Quebec Student Exchange and the New England/Nova Scotia Student Exchange Program. Over 32 public and private New England colleges and universities and 23 Quebec and Nova Scotia universities participate in this program.

CONNECTION: NEW ENGLAND’S JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Connection is NEBHE’s journal—and America’s only regional journal on higher education and economic development. Each quarter, Connection offers expert analysis and hard-hitting commentaries on topics such as workforce development, science policy, education funding, emerging industries, interstate regionalism and environmental technology. Connection's approximately 12,000 readers include all New England state legislators and members of Congress, the six governors and their staffs, corporate CEOs, college presidents and deans, high school guidance directors, editors and reporters, leaders of regional and national associations and members of higher education governing boards.

The special annual directory issue of Connection called Facts is the region's leading higher education directory. Facts provides comprehensive information on New England's 260-plus degree-granting institutions, as well as in-depth state, regional and national analysis of higher education data. For more than a quarter of a century, Facts has been the directory of record for college-bound students and their families and others seeking important information about New England colleges and universities.

Connection is also sold at selected bookstores and newsstands in New England. Connection is accessed by policymakers, researchers and others in a variety of ways. It is indexed by such national index services as the Public Affairs Information Service, and ERIC's Current Index to Journals in Higher Education. Connection is available in microform and electronically. The full text of Connection is also distributed via CD-ROM under a pilot program run by EBSCO Publishing. And selected Connection articles are accessible on CD-ROM and via the Internet under a similar PAIS program. Connection is also increasingly used in teaching. (One Johnson & Wales University professor requires all students in her doctoral program in higher education to subscribe to Connection!)

With each issue of Connection, NEBHE begins a regional discussion that is carried on by New England's newspapers and radio and TV programs. The region's newspapers frequently reprint Connection articles and report on issues broached in Connection.

New England companies in fields ranging from software to student lending have placed nearly $1 million in advertising in Connection since the journal began


publication in 1986. Connection ad revenue has grown by more than 25 percent since fiscal 1997, while production costs have increased by less than 5 percent.

In addition, NEBHE’s Office of Public Information serves as a regional and national clearinghouse for information on links between higher education and economic development. The office also disseminates timely, cost-saving information on New England higher education and illuminates NEBHE's mission and programs. Through its media relations efforts, the Office of Public Information regularly provides nearly 1,000 regional and national reporters and editors with news and vital background for major national, regional and local stories on issues ranging from enrollment trends to job market challenges. The office also generates media interest in NEBHE events such as conferences on workforce development and higher education policy.

WWW.NEBHE.ORG, WWW.NEWENGLANDONLINE.ORG

NEBHE's site on the World Wide Web, www.nebhe.org, and new “gateway to New England” site, www.newenglandonline.org, provide the region with an enhanced and growing Internet presence.

The NEBHE site welcomed more than 20,000 visitors during the last year. The site features a wealth of information on NEBHE programs and projects, including interactive information on tuition savings through the New England Regional Student Program, the latest on NEBHE conferences and programs and abstracts of recent Connection articles, as well as links to relevant higher education sites elsewhere on the Internet.

In 1999, NEBHE’s Office of Public Information and New England Public Policy Collaborative launched New England Online (www.newenglandonline.org) as a comprehensive gateway to New England on the Internet. The site on the World Wide Web features links to: New England’s 260-plus colleges and universities, sources of student financial aid, K-12 resources; state governments, trade groups, economic development organizations, community service organizations, media outlets and more.

NEW ENGLAND PUBLIC POLICY COLLABORATIVE (NEPPC)

The NEPPC provides a framework for coordinating the region's policy research expertise, while enhancing public access to timely policy research. The collaborative creates policy networks and builds policy infrastructure via the Internet and through an annual conference on the New England agenda.

Since its inception in early 1998, the New England Public Policy Collaborative has hosted two regional New England Agenda conferences, which have attracted several-hundred attendees from the government, education and business sectors, and have garnered considerable media attention throughout New England.


NEPPC is funded by a two-year project grant from the AT&T Foundation. The Collaborative is guided by a 27-member Steering Committee comprised of elected and appointed officials, heads of policy institutes and executives of private organizations.

In the summer and fall of 1998, NEPPC and the John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Massachusetts-Boston asked 1,000 New England leaders and 1,000 New England households their opinions on pressing public policy issues, regional economic prospects and opportunities for interstate collaboration. The NEPPC Web page on the NEBHE Web site now links more than 300 public policy research centers and institutes.

On Sept. 9, 1999, NEPPC and the Office of Public Information launched New England Online (www.newenglandonline.org), a virtual gateway to New England. The Web site provides information about the six-state region and hundreds of remote links to New England-related Web sites. New England Online is expected to serve as many as 50,000 visitors in its first year.

EXCELLENCE THROUGH DIVERSITY INITIATIVE

NEBHE’s Excellence Through Diversity Initiative (formerly called the Equity and Pluralism Program) aims to bolster the number and success of underrepresented minority students and faculty at New England colleges and universities. The program’s regionwide science and engineering network and smaller statewide networks provide special mentoring, community-building and internship opportunities for minority students at the high school through graduate school level. The Doctoral Scholars Program helps science departments recruit and retain underrepresented minority graduate students. The Dissertation Scholars Program in Humanities and Social Sciences enables advanced graduate students to spend a year in residence at host campuses in New England.

The program began in 1988 after a task force of minority and white leaders in New England and NEBHE staff issued a benchmark report entitled Equity and Pluralism: Full Participation of Blacks and Hispanics in New England Higher Education. This report documented severe underrepresentation of minorities in New England higher education and the skilled workforce, and offered major recommendations aimed at ensuring greater participation and success among African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans. In 1990, NEBHE launched the action phase of the program to implement the report’s recommendations.

The Science and Engineering Academic Support Network has served almost 3,000 New England minority students (high school, community college, undergraduate and graduate levels) since meeting for the first time in 1990 at MIT. These students have been mentored by more than 120 primarily minority scientists and engineers from government labs, colleges and universities throughout the region. A recent evaluation, underwritten by the GE Fund, shows the Network has been transforming in building students’ confidence and increasing their options in science studies and careers. The 10th annual meeting of the Science Network will take place on Oct. 23, 1999 at MIT, with over 300 students and 80 mentors


expected. An Internship Fair at the Network meeting will enable students to talk with more than 30 business and academic providers of science internships and jobs.

Beginning in 1990, NEBHE also helped community and academic leaders in each New England state organize smaller support networks for minority students in all academic disciplines. To date, approximately 2,000 students have been welcomed into these local support systems. Most recently, more than 300 high school students of color took part in the Rhode Island State Support Network meeting on Oct. 8, 1999 at Johnson and Wales University.

In late 1992, NEBHE received a planning grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Ford Foundation to lay the groundwork for the NEBHE Doctoral Scholars and Dissertation Scholars Program for underrepresented minorities. In 1994, NEBHE, the Southern Regional Education Board, and the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education received funding from Pew and Ford to launch the Compact for Faculty Diversity, an umbrella term for minority Doctoral Scholars Programs in the West, South and New England. NEBHE’s program has two components: the science-based Doctoral Scholars Program currently has 60 minorities working on doctorates in 10 science, math and engineering departments on New England campuses. The humanities and social science-based Dissertation Scholars-in-Residence Program has had 41 students spending a year-in-residence at seven New England host campuses while they complete their dissertations and undertake the academic job search. The student retention rate for both components is 90 percent. Several host campuses in New England—the University of Vermont, Simmons College, Boston College and the University of New Hampshire—have hired Dissertation Scholars as tenure-track faculty.

NEW ENGLAND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP (NETEP)

The NETEP unites educators and professionals from various sectors in an effort to improve New England’s two-year technology education programs. With support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the partnership has created innovative educational programming related to emerging and burgeoning industries ranging from aquaculture to telecommunications.

NETEP includes the Fiber Optics Technology Education Project (FOTEP), the New England Aquaculture Educators Network (AQUA) and the Northeast Center for Telecommunications Technologies (NCTT).

FOTEP reached 1,597 secondary school students at 23 secondary schools throughout New England and 2,634 college students at 24 postsecondary institutions across the region from 1995 to 1998. Each of the 47 participating schools received fiber optics lab equipment worth $4,000 per school. (Schools contributed 50 percent of the cost.) In terms of new curriculum, 25 new units were introduced from 1995 to 1998, while seven new courses and one new degree program were added. FOTEP was funded from 1995 to 1998 with $365,000 from the NSF’s Advanced Technological Education program. Schools made more than 72 contacts with industry, including site visits, lectures and


equipment donations, during the three-year grant period, and nine schools received additional funding from federal, state or local sources.

Through the AQUA program, 48 schools throughout New England received a recirculating system or equipment worth between $900 and $2,800 per school. (Schools contributed 50 percent of the cost.) In addition, representatives from more than 100 other schools in New England attended AQUA workshops. The full number of students and faculty impacted by the program has yet to be determined. AQUA is funded from 1997 to 1999 with $450,000 from the Advanced Technological Education program of the National Science Foundation.

Sponsored by NEBHE in collaboration with Springfield Technical Community College, the NCTT serves 23 secondary schools and postsecondary institutions across New England and two in New York state, which serve as beta test sites for new telecommunications curriculum in lightwave, networking and wireless technologies. NEBHE’s role in NCTT is funded from 1997 to 2000 with $450,000 from the Advanced Technological Education program of the National Science Foundation. Additional funding is expected for 2001 and 2002. The program served 1,472 students during the 1998-1999 academic year.

NEW ENGLAND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM

NEBHE’s New England Environmental Education Program is composed of the New England Environmental Internship Program and related environmental education research initiatives. Since its inception in 1995, the Internship Program has provided more than 200 New England students from 59 colleges and universities with jobs, academic counseling, professional development and leadership training through real-world environmental work experiences with New England corporations, state government agencies and nonprofit organizations. Related environmental education research initiatives examine ways in which New England colleges and universities support the region's environmental industry and environmental policymaking.

In 1999, nearly 200 college students applied for internships through the program. Of those, 73 students representing 40 institutions were selected and placed in corporations, government agencies and nonprofit organizations.

The program provides New England businesses and agencies with a screened source of talented, enthusiastic, and energetic interns, which forward-looking businesses may cultivate as future employees. The program also sponsors two professionally oriented workshops each year, providing supervisors, interns and faculty members with a rare opportunity to meet professional colleagues in other organizations and to discuss environmental problems and solutions. In addition, program staff have been invited by faculty and staff of approximately 25 colleges each year to make presentations, attend career fairs and assist in the academic and professional development of environmentally focused academic and career programs.


Fully 80 percent of the Environmental Internship Program, including intern stipends and two workshops, is funded by foundations, corporations and agency fees. Supporters of the program have included: Betterment Foundation; Champion International Corp.; Charles E. Culpeper Foundation; Davis Family Foundation; Dexter Corp.; Freeman Foundation; General Electric Foundation; Massachusetts Environmental Trust; Morton-Kelly Charitable Trust; Seth Sprague Educational & Charitable Foundation; Starr Foundation; Sudbury Foundation; and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Following is a five-year summary of the program’s growth:

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total

Applicants: 68 80 175 210 197 730

Interns Assigned: 15 17 40 62 73 207

Colleges Representedby Applicants: xx xx xx 56 67

Colleges Representedby Assigned Interns: 8 9 19 31 40

NEW ENGLAND TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND DISTANCE LEARNING PROGRAM

NEBHE’s Telecommunications and Distance Learning Program explores how the region’s campuses and businesses can make better use of telecommunications technology for education and training. Policy work focuses on regulation and accreditation of distance education, including computer-based, online educational programming.

REGIONAL CONFERENCES

NEBHE regularly convenes experts from New England’s education, business and government sectors to discuss such diverse issues as workforce development, minority access to education, college costs, arts and culture, environmental education, aquaculture, energy deregulation and distance learning.

Since November 1996, NEBHE has sponsored 23 conferences, bringing together more than 3,000 New England “opinion leaders,” including officials of 200 New England colleges, to share ideas and experiences. NEBHE conferences also garner significant media attention. (Seven additional conferences are scheduled for Spring 2000.)


NEBHE ALSO …

• Conducts and publishes state-by-state and regional analyses of trends related to New England colleges and universities, including the annual Student Vacancy Survey.

• Serves as an information clearinghouse for New England and beyond.

• Provides state policymakers and other officials with timely information through printed materials, Internet resources and state legislative briefings on issues ranging from student financial aid to the internationalization of the New England economy.

• Sponsors seminars and publishes reports for higher education administrators and others focusing on such critical issues as management of pension funds, campus debt financing and personal liability of college trustees and officers.


CONNECTICUT FOCUS GROUP MEETING

The following notes document NEBHE’s meeting with Connecticut leaders, which took place at the Connecticut State House in Hartford, Conn., on June 22, 1999.

Attendees

NEBHE DelegatesAndrew G. De Rocco, Former Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Higher Education Sen. Thomas P. Gaffey, Senate Chair, Joint Education Committee, Connecticut LegislatureJudith B. Greiman, President, Connecticut Conference of Independent CollegesAndrew C. McKirdy, Chancellor Emeritus, Connecticut Community-Technical CollegesRep. Cameron C. Staples, House Chair, Joint Committee on Education, Connecticut LegislatureCarolyn J. Thornberry, Educational Consultant

Other Distinguished Connecticut LeadersStephen Bieglecki, Director, Technical Education, United Technologies Corp.Tony Brescia, Executive Director of Finance and Administration, Connecticut

Department of Economic and Community DevelopmentTimothy Coppage, Deputy Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Economic

and Community DevelopmentDennis R. DeLong, Connecticut State University SystemDiane DelRosso, Connecticut Student Loan FoundationJudith Donnelly, Photonics Engineering Technology, Three Rivers Community-Technical CollegeMichael Dutton, Public Relations Department, Mashantucket Pequot TribeKarla Fox, Associate Vice Chancellor, University of ConnecticutJames Henkel, Deputy Provost for Research and Development, Associate Dean

of the Graduate School, University of ConnecticutDebra Hinck, Connecticut Learns Project Manager, Conn. Department of LaborLauren Kaufman, Director of Education, Connecticut Business and Industry CouncilLaura L. Kent, President, Connecticut Technology CouncilValerie F. Lewis, Acting Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Higher EducationHerman Lujan, Chief Academic Officer, Connecticut State University SystemTom Malone, Executive Scientist, Connecticut Academy of Science and EngineeringRep. Brian Mattiello, Joint Committee on Education, Connecticut LegislatureJake Mendelssohn, Field Engineer, Conn. State Technology Extension Program (CONN/STEP)


Robert Miller, Former President, Quinebaug Valley Community CollegeDeborah Pasquale, President, CUREIra Rubenzahl, President, Capital Community-Technical CollegeTheodore S. Sergi, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of EducationSen. Kevin Sullivan, President Pro Tempore, Connecticut SenateMark W. Valenti, President, Connecticut Student Loan Foundation

NEBHE StaffJohn C. Hoy, PresidentFenna Hanes, Director, New England Technology Education PartnershipRobert Kirkpatrick, Senior FellowOlga Klaus, Coordinator of Information Systems and ConferencesCarolyn Morwick, Director, Regional ServicesIntroduction

Staples expressed his thanks to NEBHE President Hoy for coming to Connecticut and for the opportunity to reflect on the larger issues facing higher education in Connecticut and the region.

Hoy noted that NEBHE was created almost 45 years ago when the region was in a very profound recession. Unemployment in Waterbury was over 20 percent and higher in the Massachusetts cities of Lowell and Lawrence. New England was in the midst of a recession, while the rest of the country was in a post World War II boom. New England also was experiencing extraordinary immigration from Europe.

Hoy added that New England governors of that era observed other parts of the country expanding their public higher education systems while New England was squeezing its own system in terms of budget and expectations. Christian Herter, a republican governor of Massachusetts approached two democratic governors, Abe Ribicoff, of Connecticut and Ed Muskie, of Maine to join him in creating an interstate compact. In 1955, the six governors created NEBHE to carry out a mandate to create educational opportunities in New England, to utilize the resources of higher education institutions and to encourage New England’s public and private higher education institutions to play a role in the economic development of the region. That has been the mandate for 40 years.

Hoy explained that on the eve of the new century, NEBHE is undertaking a planning process of which the focus groups are a part. He said that NEBHE surveyed 1,000 New England opinion leaders and 1,000 households, the results of which were mailed to Connecticut participants.

Hoy introduced Hanes who gave a summary of the Future of New England survey and Connecticut’s responses to the survey. Hoy referred the participants to a synopsis of the Connecticut portion of the summary.

Future of New England Survey


Hanes reported that the No. 1 issue across the region and in Connecticut was K-12 education. The second most important issue across the region and in Connecticut was infrastructure improvement. The third most important issue in the region was energy costs. In Connecticut, housing costs ranked third.

The survey revealed many similarities among the states but with some significant differences. For example, Connecticut, along with Rhode Island and Massachusetts, is more concerned about the deterioration of cities than are the other states. By contrast, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire are more concerned about the deterioration of rural communities.

Both on a regionwide basis and in Connecticut, the top-ranked ways to fix public education were: 1) improving local schools; 2) enhancing the analytical skills of graduates; and 3) building partnerships with business.

With respect to improving higher education, Connecticut agreed with New England in identifying the elimination of tenure as the No. 1 issue. The second most important issue for New England was improving credit transfer opportunities. In Connecticut, the second most important issue was improving student aid. The third issue for New England was increasing need based financial aid. In Connecticut, the third most important issue in improving higher education is to provide free access to community-technical colleges.

On the economy, everyone agreed that the growth industries for the future are biotechnology, software, telecommunications and environmental technologies. Connecticut put research and development high on the list (in Connecticut it was No. 4) as well as growth in the pharmaceutical industry (No. 5 in Connecticut).

In the region, 76 percent of respondents thought the cost of higher education was important as compared with 67 percent in Connecticut.

The No. 1 social concern for Connecticut was the economic abandonment of the cities which was number four in the region. The No. 1 issue in the region was expanding the skilled labor force which Connecticut ranked as number three in importance.

With respect to regional collaboration, 88 percent of opinion leaders felt it was a good idea. However, only 36 percent of those responding had ever been involved in such efforts. Areas where people felt collaboration could occur included enhancing a telecommunications network throughout the region, tourism, workforce training and health care access.

Hoy then asked the participants to answer the question, “In your view, what is the No. 1 issue confronting higher education in the region but more particularly, Connecticut?”

(Much of the tape recording of this part of the proceedings is inaudible. The following comes from flip charts which were used to record responses to questions.)


Higher Education Issues

Discussion focused on a major problem facing Connecticut, namely the “brain drain” of good students to other states. Reasons cited for this problem were that the state is small and students want more options for higher education and the high cost of living compared to entry-level salaries. Lewis suggested that Connecticut focus on particularly strong programs to entice students from other states. It was also noted that Connecticut students who left the state to receive their education frequently return when they begin to raise their families.

The issue of the importance of high expectations for students in K-12 was raised by both Bieglecki and Kaufman. Bieglecki stressed that higher education must set a minimum level of standards for entry, while Kaufman remarked on the variable level of performance between suburban and urban schools where levels for student expectations differed.

Other issues raised included the need fore a higher education agenda and the need for leadership from higher education in improving K-12 education. Malone pointed out that this issue is particularly urgent as it is expected that there will be a need for 2 million new teachers as a large portion of the current teaching workforce retires by 2007.

The cost of higher education, especially for students over age 30, who have entry-level jobs and are raising families, is a significant issue for individuals at the state’s community-technical college, according to Donnelly.

The need for partnerships with industry in order to assure developments curricula that meet the needs of employers and facilitate technology transfer was noted.

A finding from the Connecticut responses to the Future of New England survey found that Connecticut leaders and citizens thought that elimination of tenure was a solution to problems in higher education. Focus group participants strongly disagreed with this point. Fox stated that this survey response showed a misunderstanding of higher education, and many others agreed.

In response to the higher education question, the following responses were noted:

Connecticut needs to recruit and retain talent.

• Fifty percent of Connecticut students choose out-of-state colleges. • There is a perception that Connecticut has less to offer young people. • Students don’t return to Connecticut after graduating from college. • Connecticut is not attracting young professionals. • The cost of housing is very high.• The quality of programs offered at Connecticut colleges needs to be better defined to

attract Connecticut and other students.


Mattiello noted that higher education lacks a public agenda, which could be built around the following:

• Accessibility, cost of higher education• Cost for nontraditional students to continue education• Involvement of graduate education in economic development.• Need for more community college partnerships.• Disconnect between academic community and the public.• Tenure: perception that one can work in a job and not be expected to produce anything.

Staples felt the most important issue facing higher education was access to higher education for everyone, particularly those in the urban centers who are not graduating from high school or those who graduate but don’t plan to go to college. He said there was a need to reach out to students who are not college-bound.

Miller wondered what kind of leadership higher education could provide to K-12. He added that there was a need for technical upgrades for higher education.

McKirdy echoed Miller’s point about K-12 and the role that higher education can play in improving the system. As chair of a local board of education, he said there was difficulty in finding a diverse corps of quality teachers. The problem hinges upon what higher education does to encourage and prepare a diverse group of future teachers.

Fox observed that with the globalization of the economy everyone must be trained. What New England needs is a strategy to pair technology education and access.

Donnelly, who has taught for 20 years, says she sees differences in today’s younger students. They can’t spell and don’t know basic arithmetic.

Malone noted that at a major conference held several weeks ago with the U.S. Department of Education and the Science Committee it was revealed that by the year 2007, the U.S. will need 2 million new teachers. This is a key issue for higher education.

Miller observed that it isn’t just the shortage of teachers but also the shortage of trained administrators. Superintendents have conducted searches for principals and had two and three applicants. That could be part of higher education’s role.

Hinck suggested there has been very little communication, particularly related to labor market information, between the business sector and the academic sector. This should be looked at from a strategic perspective. Hinck also suggested we revisit what skills students need related to liberal arts, technology and critical thinking. She wondered aloud how higher education can speak with one voice relative to the expectations of K-12.

Social Issues


The Future of New England Survey found that the most important social issue is closely connected to the No. 1 economic issue: the economic decline of Connecticut’s cities. This problem translates into major societal concerns. Of primary importance is the issue of how to engage students in urban areas into the educational process. Kaufman related her successful experiences in connecting business and industry with education in the city of Hartford.

Hoy said Connecticut is experiencing more rapid demographic change than the other five New England states.

De Rocco returned to a question raised by Malone and Mattiello: If you want to let people in, you have to have a vision of what you are trying to do. There has to be a broadly gauged understanding of what a postindustrial, knowledge-based society looks like. How do you use education to create the equivalent of an industrial middle class with jobs that may lack the prestige of a CEO but are far more meaningful than flipping burgers at McDonald’s.

Hanes asked whether any other thoughts needed to be captured.

Kent observed that there is something unique about Connecticut in that very wealthy parts of Fairfield County don’t identify with Connecticut as much as they do with suburban New York. Fairfield County seems to be an entity unto itself and I think it makes Connecticut different.

Hanes asked: Isn’t that part of the notion that there are two societies?

Hoy noted that this bifurcation issue is part of every single state, including Rhode Island. It is very funny to hear Rhode Islanders talk about down county and the rest of Rhode Island. Then there are the two Maines with southern Maine the more prosperous. In Vermont, most of the affluence is in Burlington and Winooski, while southern Vermont has poorer sections. Meanwhile, much of southern New Hampshire is affluent; northern New Hampshire is poorer. This is reflected politically, economically and educationally both in terms of educational attainment and the geographic distribution of colleges and universities. Eastern Connecticut State University is anchoring a whole section of Connecticut, while Northwestern Connecticut is also basically underserved by four-year institutions.

Gaffey said Hartford, Bridgeport and other poorer Connecticut communities are not going to do as well as white, affluent suburbs. In the city of Hartford, the average educational achievement level is fifth grade—maybe. Also many households are non-English speaking. There are other challenges: the bifurcation issue, the census and Fairfield County. We have 169 school districts—fiefdoms. When you talk about a regional concept, that is a radical notion in this state. Home rule is a sanctified principle. Gaffey added that Trinity College’s revitalization project in Hartford is a stellar example of marrying higher education to K-12.

Kent, executive director of the Connecticut Technology Council, raised another issue of great concern, the increasing stratification of society. The initial discussion described a bifurcated society, but as the group delved into this issue it became clearer that there are several social structures. The essential development is that


the distance between the haves and have-nots is growing and the middle class is diminishing.

Economic Development Issues

Attendees agreed that the societal issue of urban decline translates into the serious issue of an increasingly knowledge-based economy without a skilled workforce. With a current workforce of 1.7 million people and a permanently unemployed group of between 50,000 and 60,000, Connecticut is facing a skilled worker shortage in a global market. One solution is to upgrade the current workforce using higher education resources. Another solution would be development of New England “Centers of Excellence” focused on developing a skilled workforce.

Hinck noted it is far more expensive for employers to train underprepared people on the job than it is to become engaged in the educational process to insure that emerging workers are adequately trained. From a cost-benefit perspective, it makes sense to engage in this process.

Coppage said there are 1.7 million people in the workforce in Connecticut. There are about 50,000 to 60,000 who are unemployed who have a number of issues to deal with including the need for additional training. There are people moving from lower skills to higher skills. The Capital Regional Growth Council worked with the Community Colleges to train 200 machinists. The program was very successful and there is new program to train people in financial services. Currently, there are 4,000 unfilled jobs in financial services in Hartford County.

Hoy said that with all of our problems, New England currently has the best-educated workforce of any region in the United States and thereby the world. We have the highest concentration of colleges and universities anywhere on earth. On a per-capita basis, we are still the R&D capital of the United States. Yet there are signs of a weakening in this preeminence we have enjoyed for a long time. Our economy is growing increasingly knowledge intensive. Our demography is running counter to what we would hope and we have some real issues that need us to collaborate in a variety of ways that we have not been able to do. Loss of another congressional seat, yet we still have 12 U.S. senators. Are they collaborating on the issues that have been addressed here today? Where is the New England business community? Has it been so preoccupied with quarterly reports that it cannot expend consistently, time, talent and resources in the direction of solving some of the problems. Those are a few things that have turned up already.

The question is how to train people and how to keep them in Connecticut, Hoy added, noting that the governor would announce a new initiative on July 1 aimed at keeping students in Connecticut.

When the state was in bad shape and thousands of jobs were lost in the defense industry, programs for diversification did not work. Now there are bright spots. In New London, the biomedical industry and greater Hartford, the insurance industry.


Kent observed there is a move toward a knowledge-based economy. It’s a fundamental truth across the country. It’s also been pointed out that Connecticut has centers of excellence at UConn’s School of Pharmacy but looking at the hundreds of academic institutions in New England, the opportunity for centers of excellence has barely been tapped in terms of what could be done. With a knowledge based economy and the technology that is available, there are tremendous opportunities. With distance learning, one can now sit at a PC and take a course at 2 in the morning. Now there is an opportunity to create New England “Centers of Excellence.” “We can’t all do it all and do it all well and at some point we have to accept it.”

Lewis said that in the last year, the bioscience community has come together with a reality that has exceeded even their leaders’ expectations as far as bringing players around the table from the small business to larger businesses, higher education. The lesson we have learned from them is that economic challenges are now global. The economic competition is not just in Connecticut and not only between us and the other New England states. We have to keep this in mind as we try to figure out how to work with our cities and towns and with the K-12 system. We have a phenomenal base of internationally recognized pharmaceutical companies here. But they can go elsewhere. Companies move in and out of Connecticut and New England and around the world. From our perspective, our corridor goes all the way to New Jersey and Maryland and to the National Institutes of Health.

Henkel suggested the New England populace is reluctant to change. He cited the case of a new Pfizer Research Center that was almost lost because of opposition from unexpected sources.

Regional Collaboration

Hoy asked participants to review the issues that had been discussed and consider possible areas of regional collaboration.

Malone asked Hoy how he envisioned NEBHE playing a role in regional collaboration.

Hoy described the Regional Student Program (RSP) model that has made higher education more accessible to students and shared educational resources to avoid duplication of expensive programs while making them available to more students. The issue of bringing independent colleges into the RSP was also discussed.

Hoy said there is a grappling with how higher education can address yet again the issue of K-12. There have been some fairly blunt comments about teachers—taking into account the fact that we have had several centuries of being responsible for educating the teachers of America. Therefore when you cry out for better teachers, you are pointing the finger at the capacity of higher education to do that job in the first place. There are a number of people who are tired of education reform efforts, commissions, task forces, councils and partnerships that are shallow and have little


impact. Maybe it isn’t the best thing to invite higher education (with its superior intelligence) to straighten out the problem. On the other hand, this region already faces a teacher shortage crisis, compounded by the rapid aging of the New England workforce and particularly a cadre of teachers who would like to take advantage of early retirement. I don’t know if we have an answer to that problem, but it has emerged as a high priority in earlier discussions.

New Englanders support regional collaboration to make sure we are on top of the international utilization of telecommunications technology. New England and the West Coast of are the hotbeds for telecommunications industries. But we are not the hotbed for distance learning in any way, shape or form. There is a lot of room for collaboration.

The other area involves the demographic issues confronting New England. The region’s smaller cities are in big trouble. If the patterns of immigration come close to projections over the next 10 years, we will not be prepared.

It was suggested that for regional collaboration to be successful, there must be benefits to all partners. The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) was cited as a model of successful collaboration. The federal EPSCoR program directs federal research and development toward states that historically have had difficulty competing for R&D grants.

Other areas that could benefit from higher education and regional collaboration include teacher preparation, alternative certification methods for teachers and raising the level of discourse regarding higher education’s role in K-12 and urban revitalization.

Rubenzahl made a case for greater accessibility for all students. He cited a need for better transfer agreements between two-and four-year colleges which would enable students to have greater access to higher education at price that was affordable without duplication of coursework. In addition he encouraged greater transfer options for students among New England colleges.

Malone asked whether there is a model New England could develop to address these areas.

Hoy said there is an uptightness about the teacher education issue. It is an area that needs national policy. One participant concluded that there appears to be a need to raise the level of discourse regarding the teacher shortage.

The issue of increasing access for placebound students, particularly at the community-technical college level, was also discussed. It was suggested that the community-technical colleges make courses available via telecommunications to increase accessibility to those who do not have the mobility to leave their home base. Henkel of the University of Connecticut suggested an academic “Common Market” model for access to higher education.


CONNECTICUT: WRITTEN RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE

Response to Future of New England Survey

Anonymous #1: Very good. Informative. Sometimes surprising but very encouraging; conveys a sense of the perceptions of leaders and households and their willingness to embrace regional approaches in addressing issues.

Kent: Excellent data, good to have

Fox: The survey seems to accurately reflect the perception of our constituencies, re. such issues as high cost of living, abandonment of cities. The need to abolish tenure response seems to reflect a misunderstanding of higher education.

DeLong: Interesting results—mostly expected. No. 1 ranking of tenure (elimination) was surprising and must “mask” the real problems.

DelRosso: I agree with some of the results but not all.

Dutton: I believe that the survey may not represent all points of view. It would be helpful to know the composition/demographics of the respondents. The issues raised should start the dialogue between groups with varied interests, not conclusively define issues that effect everyone.

Hinck: I found the results to be reinforcing of my personal observations. Of particular interest were the variations between Connecticut and New England opinion leaders regarding the issues of affordable housing and energy affordability and the need for a skilled workforce.

De Rocco: Consistent with my perception of the issues.

Mattiello: The issues identified lack definition and demonstrate that there lacks a public higher education agenda. We can’t identify issues if we don’t know what to expect from institutions.

Henkel: I thought many of the points were well-taken, but some showed a definite lack of understanding (e.g., abolish tenure). I expect that if further questions were asked, a different picture might have emerged.

1. What do you consider to be the most important higher education issue facing Connecticut and New England?


Anonymous : If the quality and effectiveness of K-12 education is the most important issues facing New England then the role which higher education can play in addressing this issue certainly must be one of the most important higher education issues—helping to attract good students to teaching, effective teacher training and professional development, hands-on assistance to K-12 schools in implementing effective educational strategies.

Miller: Since K-12 was identified as the No. 1 issue, not only in CT, but throughout New England, higher education needs to define its role in finding solution, providing leadership, training teachers, administration, etc.

Fox: Development of a strategy to create value-added by focusing on the type of training that will create an educated work force that can maintain the economic vitality of New England. This strategy needs to encompass kindergarten through graduate school.

Rubenzahl: Access to higher education to all, especially inner-city, ethnic minority, low-income students.

DeLong: Finding “the” appropriate roles in K-12..DelRosso: Training and retaining “good students.”

Valenti: Cost of education and development of significant distance learning programs.

Dutton: Retention of best and brightest students and faculty through quality of life and social environmental issues. Establish “centers of competency” in various institutions. Outreach to --- to increase accessibility to higher education to inner-city. More collaborative initiative with businesses.

Hinck: I believe higher education needs to be informed by labor market needs and business in developing its vision and strategic plan. Higher education should also play an active role in the improvement of the K-12 system through collaboration with state departments of education in standards for graduation/admissions (from K-12 and higher education) and in improving the quality of teacher education within the state.

De Rocco: Clarification of what it means to have a “system” of higher education, within which individual institutions play a well-defined role—allocation of resources.

Thornberry: Access to higher education institutions financially and academically.


Bieglecki: I believe their are two pressing issues: 1) the impact of distance education of Connecticut institutions particularly at the graduate level. 2) the need to change the higher education economic model to promote and motivate higher education to focus on the needs of industry.

Mattiello: Development of a public higher education agenda. What do we expect of our institutions? What do we hold them accountable to? What do we want them to look like? What do we want the student body to look like?

Henkel: I believe access to services is highest priority. This includes multicultural aspects, retention of all students and matching or preparing students for appropriate careers.

Malone: Facilitating the transition to a knowledge-based society marked by: 1) continuing advances in the physical sciences; 2) an explosion of knowledge in the biological and health sciences; and 3) revolutionary developments in the technologies for disseminating information and distributing knowledge. This will bring within reach an economically prosperous, environmentally sustainable, socially equitable politically stable society. No comparable issue in recent years.

2. What do you consider to be the most important social issue facing Connecticut and New England and how does it impact higher education?

Anonymous: Overcoming the economic/social bifurcation of society and finding the means to “bring along” disadvantaged classes into the economic/social mainstream. Obviously higher education can play an important role in education/training for employment.

Miller: Social, economic and quality of life issues in our cities. Higher education can provide expertise in a number of areas to develop and help implement strategies for improvement.

Kent: Gap between rich and poor.

Fox: The deterioration of the cities, with a concomitant need to educate individuals who have not traditionally thought of higher education.

Rubenzahl: Division of society into rich and poor is especially prominent in Connecticut, which has the highest per-capita income in the United States, but increasing child poverty rate and decaying cities.


DeLong: 1) Addressing solutions to the “two Connecticuts.” B) assisting in a redefinition of the role of work/career in the average life, research and community impact in a knowledge-based economy.

DelRosso: Disparity in educational basic skills throughout Connecticut. Basic skills should be redefined so students graduating from high school have more opportunities.

Valenti: Dealing with families with working parents/single parents and the issues surrounding after-school activities as well as day care.

Dutton: Reluctance to acknowledge and include different cultures in the decision-making process. Lack of tolerance. Clearly represented by participation in today’s focus group.; Too much focus on class: upper, lower, middle. All Connecticut residents should have access and inclusion; No standardization in academics K-12.

Hinck: I believe that the most important social issue confronting Connecticut and New England is the widening socioeconomic gap between the haves and have-nots and the vital role that education plays in addressing this increasing bifurcation of society.

De Rocco: On the southern tier, a growing segregation along economic, educational, social and class lines. The issue implies a need for “access” broadly defined.

Thornberry: 1. Increased number of children living in poverty; 2. Growing distance between rich and poor.

Bieglecki: The apparent deterioration of expectation in the feeder system (K-12). Higher education must have a voice in this system to set a minimum level of standards for entry. A reinforcement of skills development in K-12 by higher education would be a strong benefit.

Henkel: Diminishing middle class and loss of inclusiveness. This is the cause of many problems, including variability of quality in schools, crime/drugs, etc.

Malone: Narrowing the economic gap between the top quintile and the bottom quintile by narrowing the knowledge gap. No comparable issue in recent years.

3. What do you consider to be the most important economic development issue facing Connecticut and New England and how does it impact higher education?

Anonymous: Same as above


Miller: Maintaining and providing a trained work force to meet changing needs of business and industry.

Kent: acknowledge economy without knowledge workers

Fox: Maintaining a skilled work force to keep Connecticut and New England competitive in a global economy.

Rubenzahl: Jobs for all— wage levels for low-paying jobs. Higher education institutions can provide job training for specific job openings.

DeLong: Educating the workforce and society in general to harness technology to enhance the quality of life.

DelRosso: The higher education community should continue to develop specific programs that would benefit the area.

Valenti: Retention of companies and people. Also retraining.

Dutton: Revitalization of cities and improved mass transportation; clear understanding of what skills employees need; equal focus on training for jobs/careers and entrepreneurial/business development.

Hinck: The most important economic development issue facing Connecticut is the development and retention of a skilled workforce, comprised of individuals who have been adequately prepared academically, both at the K-12 and postsecondary levels to reflect the changing technical skills required by a rapidly evolving global economy.

De Rocco: Generating a competitive postindustrial economy with high “value added” goods and services. Question of how to provide learning that serves both civic and economic needs.

Thornberry: 1) Rebuilding cities; 2)Training programs

Bieglecki: There is no question in my mind that the renewal of our urban confers must take a high priority on the economic development agenda. The disparity of expectations and the social promotion issue is driving the challenges to higher ed.

Mattielo: Workforce development; short-term skill training

Henkel: Focusing development of skilled workforce and increasing the size of the pool for economic growth. Inclusiveness enters here as well.

4. : What are the opportunities for regional collaboration to address these issues?


Anonymous: If retaining Connecticut students is not possible because they want to leave home and too quickly cross the state line, Connecticut should utilize the original regional approach, the RSP, drop the NEBHE surcharge on tuition and become more financially attractive to students from the other New England states. That might at least replace the outflow of Connecticut students with those from elsewhere in the region.

Miller: NEBHE has the model in its RSP for encouraging and facilitating other areas of collaboration.

Kent: Distance learning; centers of excellence

Fox: Changes in teacher training and graduation requirements from high school.

Rubenzahl: Better student transfer among New England colleges and improved articulation between community colleges and senior colleges.

DeLong: Discussion among the leadership of New England higher education would be a start.

DelRosso: The states may collaborate in program development.

Valenti: Federal legislation

Dutton: Support at highest levels of business and government for fostering an environment conducive to leveraging academic resources to benefit the region.

Hinck: I believe that regional collaboration can only exist if there is a shared vision and commitment on the part of all states’ political, economic and academic leaders, and a willingness among states to give up their parochialism in addressing issues of workforce development.

De Rocco: “Region” as equal to “neighborhood.” Perhaps a sharing across state lines may be possible by means of electronically mediated options.

Thornberry: Promotion of interest in teacher education; Promotion of R&D cooperation.

Bieglecki: Before we come up with suggestions here we must explore the benefits, both economic and intellectual, to inst. of higher education. There has been so much resistance to this and wasted energy focused on defensive posturing. Without a clear vision of benefits, there is no chance to move this agenda forward.


Mattiello: Resource-pooling; student/teacher exchanges, joint internships; nonprofit capacity-building; use convening power around social/economic issues (focus groups).

Henkel: The idea of an academic “common market.” A regional cooperative/compact/confederation, is ripe for creation and nurturing. These can take many forms, including articulation, extension of RSP, strategies for access and retention, research collaboration, best practices initiatives.

Malone: Yes


MAINE FOCUS GROUP MEETING

The following notes document NEBHE’s meeting Maine leaders, which took place at the Maine Technical College System Offices in Augusta, Maine, on June 3, 1999.

Attendees

NEBHE DelegatesRep. Christina Baker, Representative, Maine LegislatureSen. Mary Cathcart, Senator, Maine LegislatureBennett Katz, Trustee, Maine Public Broadcasting Corp.Terrence MacTaggart, Chancellor, University of Maine System Harry Osgood, Higher Education Specialist, Maine Dept. of Education (Representing J. Duke Albanese, Commissioner)

Other Distinguished Maine LeadersWick Johnson, President, Kennebec Tool and DyeDavid Keeley, Maine State Planning OfficeMark Lapping, Provost and Vice President, Academic Affairs, University of Southern MaineDeirdre Mageean, Interim Director, Margaret Chase Smith Center for Public Policy,

University of Maine SystemRep. John Martin, Representative, Maine LegislatureElizabeth Mitchell, Former Speaker of the HouseRichard Pushard, Vice President, Maine Education Services (Representing Richard Pierce, President)Richard Sherwood, Policy Development Specialist, Maine State Planning OfficeChristopher St. John, Executive Director, Maine Center for Economic PolicyDianne Tilton, Executive Director, Sunrise County Economic CouncilBarton Wechsler, Dean of the Muskie School, University of Southern Maine

NEBHE StaffJohn C. Hoy, PresidentWendy Lindsay, Associate Director, Regional ServicesCarolyn Morwick, Director, Regional ServicesCharlotte Stratton, Director of Publications and Information SystemsNate Bowditch, Director, New England Public Policy Collaborative

Introduction

Hoy opened the meeting by briefly describing the history and structure of the New England Board of Higher Education. Hoy then noted that these discussions were intended to talk about Maine, aspirations and concerns of Mainers and areas where regional collaboration would be useful.


After participant and staff introductions, Hoy reviewed materials supplied to participants including the most recent issue of NEBHE’s quarterly journal Connection; the special Facts directory issue of Connection; a sheet outlining NEBHE programs and Maine-specific results of NEBHE’s recent Future of New England survey.


Bowditch noted that he planned to walk the participants through some results of the Future of New England Survey, particularly those results where responses from Mainers differed from their counterparts in the other New England states.

Bowditch noted that Mainers were more likely than their counterparts to point to Yankee Individualism as a trait that defines New England. Additionally, Mainers identified cost as a major obstacle to economic growth, as well as access to transportation. Issues that deserve attention from the point of view of Maine respondents were K-12 education and funding for Research and Development.

Mitchell pointed out that these issues are in the forefront of “public debate” and were put there by both political parties and the governor in Maine.

Hoy noted that R&D funding ranked as the third most important issue for Maine and number 8 for New England as a whole. Hoy also noted the prominence of K-12 and other postsecondary issues and said that he translates these specific concerns as those related to economic development.

Bowditch continued to review Maine-specific survey results including the fact that Mainers understandably “traded in” the issue of abandonment of the cites for abandonment of rural areas. Mainers also spoke of the differences between the New England states, higher education’s obligation to improve local schools and to attracting new businesses to Maine. These issues ranked lower elsewhere. Additionally, Bowditch noted that Maine respondents wanted regional solutions to economic, educational and social challenges but were also suspicious and concerned about “Boston dominance.”

Bowditch continued by pointing out that international trade was the No. 1 issue that deserved regional pursuit for Maine respondents.

MacTaggart asked Bowditch for specific information about the number of Maine respondents and their location. Bowditch replied that he did not know the specific number of responses from Maine, but that the total number of New England households polled was 1,000.

St. John noted that the sample was probably quite small and wondered whether that makes a difference in the value of the response.

Bowditch mentioned that the selection of respondents was random. Hoy then noted that from his perspective, survey responses from New England households were


impressive. Household responses reflected a healthy, progressive, caring set of attitudes while responses from opinion leaders generally reflected more self interest.

Keeley noted that it would be interesting to conduct the survey again when New England’s economy is not so strong.

Osgood asked if the survey would be repeated.

Hoy replied that a similar survey was conducted a decade ago and despite the fact that the current survey process took many man hours. If NEBHE’s New England Public Policy Collaborative project continues, the survey may become a component. Hoy continued by explaining that NEPPC inspired the survey due to the programs early recognition of the fact that despite the number of public policy institutes throughout the region, virtually none of them participate in any sort of collaboration.


Bowditch directed meeting participants to consider the first question on the agenda: “What are the most important higher education issues facing Maine and New England?” Bowditch asked participants to take a few moments to write responses to the question on the form supplied before discussing the topic.

Hoy noted that NEBHE wishes to engage in a program and priority review in order to set an agenda for the first five years of the new millennium. These focus group sessions were designed to help get a consensus on what NEBHE should focus on in the years targeted. Hoy explained that it is difficult to spin off successful NEBHE programs. He voiced concern about the rapidly aging New England workforce, the current weak “baby boomlet,” New England’s high cost of living and the departure of the region’s young people. The region is losing its edge in research and development and the decline has not stopped. Hoy concluded by saying that the challenge is how to tie these issues down and address them regionally. Recommendations from NEBHE are useless if the individual member states do not find them useful.

Hoy then solicited comments from the group regarding the first question.

Keeley began the discussion by saying that recruitment and retention is the No. 1 issue facing higher education in Maine. In response to Bowditch’s question about why this issue is central, Keeley responded that it is directly related to markedly low aspirations.

Pushard joined the discussion by remarking that access to life long learning is integral to a growing economy.

Mitchell noted that cost is a central issue and that the issue also points back to Future of New England survey results. She continued by saying that Mainers don’t like to borrow and that it is a reflection of attitudes fostered by low per-capita income and lack of education beyond high school. State debate is needed to draw


attention to these issues. Mitchell reminded participants about the connection between R&D funding high rank as an issue within the Future of New England survey results and her opinion that the issue was high is the public consciousness because it was frequently brought to the forefront by legislators and the governor.

Johnson decried the bias towards the top 20 percent of students and noted that all students must feel valued. Osgood agreed and suggested a new “mantra” focusing not on K-12, but K-16. Osgood noted that 68 percent of Maine high school students take the SAT but only 50 percent go on to higher education—a clear signal of confusion over the value of higher education. He noted that an interlinked incentive program is needed along the lines of 2-year to 4-year institution articulation based on performance or a system of “chits” redeemable for tuition.

Pushard asked if a reward system could be tied into funding for school systems and noted that a performance-based incentive system would change notions and attitudes.

Mitchell suggested that the guidance community rethink its role. Pushard agreed noting the need for professional counselors to advocate higher education.

Lapping stated that it is important to acknowledge that New England may have the finest higher education institutions, but that these institutions are not public. He noted that there is no tradition of support for public higher education and that this is tied to lack of aspirations.

Katz noted that a look at the Maine state budget will plainly reveal that higher education is of no importance within the state.

Tilton noted that investing in higher education is considered a luxury within communities that are economically strapped and where the residents are getting older and less willing to support all levels of education.

MacTaggart pointed out some signs of progress. Freshman enrollment is increasing. Six of seven public institutions in Maine have increased retention by 4 percent. UMaine Orono and the University of Southern Maine have experienced a 33 percent increase in federal R&D dollars. MacTaggart said these factors and others point to a genuine window of opportunity.

Social Issues

Bowditch turned the group’s attention to the second question. What are the most important social issues facing Maine and New England and how do they impact higher education?

Osgood began the discussion of this question by pointing to a crisis of opportunity, the disparity between northern and southern Maine and a mind set that fewer things are possible.

Sherwood pointed to prejudice and hate crimes as a serious social issue in Maine.


Mageean said social issues are easy to compartmentalize and harder to grasp. She noted that the overall quality of life is deteriorating and many people are being “left behind.”

Katz noted that people’s perceptions of “quality of life” have changed; so have their perceived needs.

Mitchell underscored the connection between social issues and higher education issues and noted that 24 percent of University of Maine students are nontraditional.

Tilton pointed to seasonal employment, low wages and low aspirations lead to a “live for today” mindset that does not encourage forward thinking, borrowing for higher education and training for new employment. She noted that these are cultural habits of the primarily natural resource-based economy of the Down East region.

Lapping bemoaned the lack of a “stay option” for Maine’s young people. Educated children must leave in order to pay back their college borrowing debt. Access to day care, health care, housing and well paying jobs must be available in order that students may stay in Maine.

Pushard suggested that NEBHE play a role in putting these issues into public consciousness.


Bowditch then posed the third question on the agenda to the group. What are the most important economic development issues facing Maine and New England and how do they impact higher education?

Pushard noted that one should not have to relocate for higher education or employment. Those types of transitions should not have to occur.

Johnson pointed to the economic disparity between communities noting that the most affluent communities get the best schools and that rural and commercial centers are left struggling.

Mitchell pointed to a theme that had been surfacing throughout the discussion: that many in Maine have a fear of investment in anything that does not promise an immediate return. Perception is also a problem according to Tilton who pointed out that young people assume there are no worthwhile jobs, businesses assume there are no worthwhile employees available locally. She noted that many companies do not even bother advertising positions in local or regional papers, the perception that there are no skilled workers is so strong.

Hoy asked Johnson what the “real truth” was about collaboration between businesses and the Maine Technical College System or the UMaine. Johnson


responded by saying that Kennebec Tool and Dye has a 25 year relationship with a local “technical center” and takes candidates out of those programs. These workers, who were once marginalized, grow within his company and become indispensable.

MacTaggart added that community college- business partnerships in Maine are profound and will be the most dramatic example of collaboration in the country.

Lapping noted the importance of New England shrinking national political power. Lapping cautioned that a real erosion of New England’s representation is taking place and that the impact will be dramatic with regard to R&D funding, among other things.

Keeley remarked that there is a real pull between staying in the past and moving forward. Keeley continued adding that the Maine economy must be retooled and revamped. Currently Maine has an economy like the 1940s while the entire world is rapidly changing.

Osgood closes this discussion by describing community involvement in Millinocket where parents and schools continually encourage higher education, reward strong performance, encourage all students and are currently surveying 64,000 6th-grade through 12th-grade students regarding their educational environment, aspirations, etc.


Bowditch introduced the final question for the day: Where are the opportunities for regional collaboration to address these issues as they relate to higher education?

Sherwood explained that he sees no value in the exercise, that Boston is not worth going to and that regional collaboration is useless. He did note that one avenue for regional collaboration would be a joint effort to stem the erosion of Washington representation for New England.

Katz noted that the U.S. population has doubled since he was in high school and will do so again soon. Katz describes regionalism as an “academic dream” that is rarely realized with the exception being NEBHE, whose most powerful purpose is to avoid duplication of costly resources.

Keeley agreed with Katz, but also pointed to examples of regionalism that work if financial best interest is the theme. He noted that coastal and ocean-related issues and efforts have always enjoyed collaborative efforts, especially in New England.

Mitchell pointed to NEBHE’s Regional Student Program and suggests that another avenue for collaboration may be a review of the educated workforce—does it really exist? Additionally, a regional examination of where workers are needed or where skills are “mismatched” may be called for. Mitchell emphasized that in order for Mainers to collaborate there has to be something in it for them.


Tilton noted that she recently took a graduate course via interactive television given by Michael Porter of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and was amazed that this course way being transmitted “all the way to Machias.” She suggested that clusters of institutions should be collaborating with technology and telecommunications.

Osgood echoed the concern that an obstacle in the way of collaboration is a “what’s in it for me attitude.” Osgood continued by noting that there is no vehicle for sharing information on best practices, major challenges, etc.

Mageean suggested that NEBHE gather policy centers together to look at welfare reform on a regional level. She remarked that policy centers are supposed to confront issues and noted the value of an “academy” of policy centers whose purpose is to act as a conduit to bring issues into the public consciousness.

Hoy thanked Mageean for her remarks and asked what issues are at the top of the state’s agenda? He suggested that the K-12 does not need another “crowd” to publish recommendations and perform studies. Hoy noted that both tourism and energy are important regional issues.

Lapping reminded the participants that the most significant events in higher education were generated by New England representatives in the nation’s capitol—the Morrill Act, Stafford Loans and Pell Grants. Lapping repeated his concern about eroding Washington representation and the subsequent decrease in federal funding. Lapping stated strongly that this is a very important issue and pointed out that New England is a region without a national laboratory (i.e. Los Alamos) and is continuing to lose military bases.

Pushard suggested that NEBHE needs to advance the case of New England and be the “gatekeeper” for collaboration.

Mitchell asked if NEBHE is considering where “New England is going.” Hoy described recent NEBHE conferences looking at issues such as distributed learning and briefly outlined NEBHE’s Regional Student Program and it’s historical impact on both students and participating states.

Bowditch adjourned the meeting, thanking all those who attended.


MAINE: WRITTEN RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE


Mageean: Informative, good foundation for expanded work, e.g., a regularly administered survey which would provide longitudinal data, as a springboard for a state specific administered survey to a much larger sample size (to include New England questions and more.)

St. John: Even after re-reading before coming today and having the summary, I don’t feel I have at all digested the survey. I find also striking Libby Mitchell’s point that what policymakers “make” the hot issues get fed back in the survey. I am sure it is useful to know what New Englanders and Mainers think but I am also concerned about trends that are less presently on public minds and agenda and how to get them on agenda, e.g., environment, wages/income disparities.

MacTaggart: A helpful starter for discussion of state and regional economic development.

Tilton: Not surprising—reflective of ongoing discussions/policies within the state.

Mitchell: The relationship of the public response to the agenda set and emphasized repeatedly in the media by leaders is more clearly aligned than I realized. Interesting, but needs follow-up and refinement to be useful. At this point, it ratifies where folks are already going. Need to probe specifics of regional collaboration.

Keeley: 1) Applaud collection of new data but need larger sample size; 2) Implications are broad and inconclusive - require focus group analysis;3) Need to interconnect w/non-education groups and disseminate results.

Pushard: Similarities within region. Awareness for continuing education/lifelong element. Need to operationalize results.

Katz: No great surprises. Education and money (costs) predictably come to the top. Regionalism is touted as a solution, but in the trenches, local control and local solution reign supreme.

Johnson: Maine is sometimes/often haunted by the dark side of its strong characteristics: individualism, thrift, and the challenge of maintaining a vision. The passage of the R&D bond issue is a bright light. The battle is always hard fought and the results are not always positive.


Lapping: Useful distinctions drawn between northern and southern New England; strong correlation between priorities of leaders in state and the public agenda here in Maine. North/South - rural/urban, rich/poor divides are strong here.

Sherwood: I was struck by both the similarity of opinion leader and household responses and the similarity of Maine and other New England responses.

1. What do you consider to be the most important higher education issue facing Maine and New England?

Mageean: Producing/molding an accessible and responsive system which provides a comprehensive flexible range of educational opportunities attractive enough to draw and retain students. This necessitates greater dialogue between education, business and policy leaders.

St. John: Reducing the financial barriers of getting more kids and adults into higher education, lifelong learning. Demonstrating career paths that show the higher education “pay off” in livelihoods that combine adequate living standard and traditional community values. Don’t know about the rest of the region.

MacTaggart: Increasing participation rates within Maine; matching curricula to future employment growth areas; using higher education system (all) to transform state’s economy.

Tilton: Consistency of public support and investment, both in terms of economic cycles and an aging, conservative population. Higher education (as well as K-12) must work to be fully integrated into the fabric of communities, and into as many people’s lives as possible to maintain public support.

Mitchell: Maine with its low per-capita income and vast geography continues to foster an attitude that higher education is either beyond their reach or not for everyone. In my opinion, the rest of New England appreciates higher education as growth industry and more acceptable.

Keeley: Student recruitment and retention.

Pushard: Access to lifelong learning to instill skill sets that create economic opportunity for a transitioning economy; partnership with business.


Katz: In Maine, the decrease is percent of state budget devoted to higher education year after year. In New England, our failure to meld K-12 into a seamless entity.

Johnson: In Maine, the largest issue is opening and maintaining access for students who have not traditionally received higher education, non traditional students and students from backgrounds who didn’t traditionally consider higher education in Maine. I think this is also true throughout New England, more so with minorities and immigrants for southern and urban areas.

Lapping: Lack of tradition of support/respect for public higher education in the region on a par with other areas/regions in United States—not just financial support but that figures in centrally.

Sherwood: Ensuring there are sufficient higher education and financial resources that every New Englander who ought to continue his or her formal schooling beyond high school can do so.

2. What do you consider to be the most important social issue facing Connecticut and New England and how does it impact higher education?

Mageean: As an umbrella term —quality of life—which can be defined by such issues as health care: (including sub-issues as long term care; care of aging parents, family) prospects for employment which are being severely reduced for sectors of the population.

St. John: Income disparity and declining proportion of “livable wage” jobs, declining median wages, consequent numbers of families unable to afford housing, health care, etc., higher education.

MacTaggart: Class structure.

Tilton: A culture of poverty, isolation and aversion to investment that continues to drag down rural areas and inner cities. Impacts higher ed. by keeping higher ed. (all education) undervalued.

Mitchell: Income gap between low wages, service sector employees and the wealthy.

Kelley: Ability to pay.

Pushard: Politicization of education.

Katz: The single-parent family, inadequate opportunities for quality child care, the economic burden of divorce.


Johnson: Decline of rural areas and traditional commercial centers because of the political strength of prosperous communities funding for school and programs for the rest has been put in a second class position.

Lapping: The rapidly aging nature of the state/region creates some new opportunities but also presents a large number of obstacles in terms of creating a consistent, long term strategy.

Sherwood: Prejudice and hate crimes. Higher education addresses the quality of life issues which breed prejudice and hate.

3. What do you consider to be the most important economic development issue facing Connecticut and New England and how does it impact higher education?

Mageean: Addressing disparities at a personal and regional level - to invest in human capital sufficiently to overcome these and to institute sufficient cooperation between business and training that there is a return on the investment - to ensure the “match” between opportunities and skills.

St. John: The problem of raising the quality of jobs, promoting effective management innovation of the many local medium-sized forums to make best use of employees and to liberate their talents and creativity . Desperation for jobs and income ironically and reluctance to make long-term investments in infrastructure including higher education which are chief way out.

MacTaggart: Adjusting Maine education-jobs-equation upward, e.g. education better jobs.

Tilton: A transitioning workforce—the ability of higher education to keep pace with rapid charges in technology and other factors will [be] enough to prepare a future workforce.

Mitchell: Lack of educated/trained workers. Higher education institutions with strong reputations attract business development; we need to enhance them.

Keeley: Transforming Maine’s economy from the 1990 model to 2000 and beyond.

Pushard: Advocate care for higher education. Develop regional partnership for programs; Northeastern Governors’ alliance compete on a regional basis; Regional concept need to extend from Maine to New England.


Katz: The creation and maintenance of a quality work force necessary to sustain a growing economy.

Johnson: Consistently and sustainable change don’t go for a rising tide but a higher water table. Economic development needs to be broad-based and sustained.

Lapping: The shrinking political power of Maine and New England in national politics—loss of grants, R&D investments, cuts in budget, infrastructure, etc.

Sherwood: Raising the earnings of New England workers to the national average. Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont all have average earnings below the national average. Higher education should explore the opportunities for New England states to introduce or expand employment in higher paying economic activities.

4. What are the opportunities for regional collaboration to address these issues?

Mageean: Need to create forums to first examine how many problems/issues we have in common; what they are and how they can be addressed—e.g., problem of de-industrialization and aging society and loss of power. These are all “opportunities” but hard to pull people together.

St. John: I confess a parochial attention to problems of getting Mainers to work together to address Maine problems and not thinking very creatively about how New England collaboration might take place. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston has done some great research—e.g., conference two years ago on state and local economic development strategies. Getting policy makers of region together to strategize how to advance regional political and economic development agenda together rather than competing or ignoring each other.

MacTaggart: Remains a puzzle.

Tilton: Developing technological links between higher education institutions to share programming, especially for those not available at a local institution. (But how does that impact tuition?) May only attract students who wouldn’t have gone out of state anyway.

Mitchell: 1) Identify reasons for “regional brain drain.” Is there a mismatch in opportunity and trained people?; 2) Industries of future depend on education technology. Are we promoting this resource?; 3) Develop leadership/educational role about value and availability of


education; 4) Does the Regional Student Program get enough visibility? Should it be re-vamped in any way as a resource allocation tool?

Keeley: Investments in R&D as they relate to a skilled workforce and economic development, must recognize the limitations that state boundaries impose. High technology, businesses, people and ideas flow freely and the new evolving states should collaborate to capture their benefits/results.

Katz: Identify and reduce institutional duplication that drains taxpayer dollars unnecessarily—municipal services—country irrelevancies, reduction in number of superintendents, multilayer police forces, regional mental health facilities.

Johnson: We need to understand and continue to support a regional agenda of enhancements to higher, applied research and extension/outreach. Regional collaborations to address myriad of K-2 problems and issues.

Sherwood: The board might identify some issues which are common to the six states and sponsor conferences in each state to highlight the issues and encourage discussion of common solutions.


EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS FOCUS GROUP MEETING

The following notes document NEBHE’s meeting with Massachusetts leaders, which took place at the Downtown Harvard Club in Boston, Mass., on Sept. 23, 1999.

Attendees

NEBHE DelegatesCarole A. Cowan, President, Middlesex Community CollegeSen. David Magnani, Chair, Science and Technology Committee, Massachusetts SenateJudy Gill, Vice Chancellor, Massachusetts Board of Higher Education (Representing

Chancellor Stanley Koplik)

Other Distinguished Massachusetts LeadersDaniel S. Cheever Jr., President, Simmons CollegeJoseph Cronin, Former President, Bentley College, and President, EdvisorsArthur Doyle, Senior Executive Director, The College Board-New England OfficeRuth Ferguson, Acting Director, Corporation for Business, Work and LearningDavid Garvey, Executive Editor, New England Nonprofit QuarterlyStephen Gorrie, President, Massachusetts Teachers AssociationPaul Harrington, Associate Director, Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern UniversityPaul Karoff, Vice President, Public Affairs, Lesley CollegeRonald J. Kraus, President, New England Colleges FundAndre Mayer, Senior Vice President, Associated Industries of MassachusettsDavid McCauley, Chief of Staff to Sen. David MagnaniIan Menzies, Former Senior Editor, Boston GlobeBlanca Valentin, Liaison to the Hispanic Community, Boston Mayor’s OfficeBlenda Wilson, President, Nellie Mae FoundationKatherine H. Sloan, President, Massachusetts College of Art

NEBHE StaffJohn C. Hoy, PresidentWilliam Fenstemacher, Director of Planning and Program DevelopmentJohn O. Harney, Executive Editor, Connection magazineFenna Hanes, Director, New England Technology Education PartnershipSondra Lage, Administrative Coordinator, Regional ServicesCarolyn Morwick, Director, Regional Services

Introduction


Magnani and Cowan opened the meeting by explaining to the group that NEBHE had gathered the group to solicit recommendations for the board’s focus in the new millennium.

Hanes gave a summary of the Future of New England survey and Massachusetts responses to the survey. Hanes reported that the No. 1 issue across the region and in Massachusetts was K-12 education.

Magnani invited attendees to break into three breakout groups to explore priority issues and possible responses by higher education in general and NEBHE in particular. One group focused on higher education issues; another on economic development issues and the third on social issues.

Economic Development Breakout Session

Ferguson said there were more jobs than people, that there were shortages of skilled workers.

Mayer mentioned the slow population growth and the high cost of housing and living as impediments to economic development. He also added that the challenge is a lack of local ownership which in turn causes a lack of leadership and leads to economic instability. Mayer also mentioned the difficulties in attracting people to the region, i.e. the cost of housing which is much higher than other parts of the country.

Magnani mentioned the weather, energy costs and transportation system in New England as major issues impacting economic development.

Magnani suggested that the challenge in addressing the mismatch of people and skills is to forge tighter links to labor and government programs in workforce development.

Gill said another challenge would be to develop effective partnerships between K-12 and higher education.

Kraus mentioned the “piracy” factor and increasing competition from other New England states other regions of the United States and the global economy. He observed that parts of New Hampshire were beginning to resemble New Jersey with numerous strip malls. He felt this was diminishing the quality of life which contributes to New England’s well-being.

Magnani felt the No. 1 challenge in addressing the “mismatch of people and skills” was to forge tighter links to labor and government programs in workforce development. He emphasized the need to create more partnerships between K-12 and higher education.

Ferguson stressed the need to enhance higher education’s role in lifelong learning.


Gill said in light of the challenges that a global economy presents, higher education should integrate international education into the curriculum.

Mayer stressed the need to promote civic leadership development and to have economic incentives for local controls and further that higher education should be engaged in these areas as a member of the community.

The discussion turned to roles for NEBHE to assist in the above area.

McCauley proposed that NEBHE sponsor a three-day institute for higher education and K-12. Participants would be teachers, school committee members, higher education faculty, policymakers. Part of the institute could be devoted to best practices.

Ferguson and Mayer felt that NEBHE could examine labor market needs in New England, taking demographics into account.

Gill said that NEBHE could take a leadership role in identifying the importance of the relationship between higher education and K-12.

Kraus proposed that NEBHE convene an institute for trustees in higher education to promote tighter links between higher education and industry.

Social Issues Breakout Session

Lindsay began by asking breakout session attendees which social issues they felt are the most pressing.

Harney noted that the growing gap between haves and have-nots has been a prominent theme as NEBHE has surveyed leaders across the region.

Cheever agreed, but added that issues related to haves and have-nots are mostly symptoms of underlying racism and failure to deal with diversity. He added that whites have a problem with diversity in that they expect every other group to assimilate rather than being equal partners in a truly multicultural society.

Valentin of the Boston mayor’s office noted that approximately 140 languages are spoken in Boston schools.

Menzies suggested that affordable housing and health care are major social problems and that the health care problem will be solved only with a single-payer system perhaps similar to Canada’s.

Valentin noted the high dropout rate among Latino high school students.

Garvey suggested that a lack of sense of community or disconnect is a serious social problem. “How do you bring people together?” he asked.


Cheever surmised: “Chat rooms don’t replace the post office”

Menzies emphasized the problem of unregulated growth and the various attendant issues such as quality of life, stress on communities, loss of green space, school enrollment pressures and water resource problems. He added that weak regional planning exacerbates the problem and communities and states need to work together to address it.

Garvey observed that the nonprofit sector—especially small social service agencies—has fewer resources to address these issues. The sector is under pressure to be more accountable and to do more with less. Nonprofit organizations are expected to have more impact on communities, but have difficulty attracting the brightest graduates with their lower salaries. How do we help the nonprofit sector do what it wants to do?

Cronin added that nonprofits in New England fall into two categories: the very wealthy Harvard and Museum of Fine Arts type and the small, struggling grassroots groups.

Several members of the group asked if NEBHE had considered studying the nonprofit sector. Harney noted that such a study is indeed under consideration.

Lindsay then guided the group through the process of determining which issues could be addressed by higher education and/or by NEBHE.

Cronin reminded the group that former Harvard President Derek Bok had written that higher education should be involved in addressing all these social issues.

Cronin suggested further that universities could conduct policy analysis and studies and making the results available those who can benefit: policy practitioners and the public. He further noted that NEBHE’s existing effort to coordinate think tanks and disseminate policy research information could fulfill this role.

Garvey suggested a vehicle to make academic policy analysis “actionable.” Menzies agreed, noting that the advice and knowledge coming out of the region’s universities has been obscured by corporate lobbying information and ignored by the media.

Cheever added: “Colleges and universities should ‘practice what they preach.’ For example, I may say I don’t want more cars in the city, but we’re going to build a big parking lot so faculty can live in the suburbs and drive to work.”

Valentin suggested that colleges recruit more minorities and become more welcoming of them. More minority faculty and staff are also needed, she said.


Cheever added that the institutions themselves need to be redefined as more “inclusive.”

Garvey suggested that faculty need incentives and rewards to get involved in their communities and do public service.

The breakout group then ranked the broad themes in the following order of priority:

• Gap between haves and have-nots• Coping with diversity• Strain on nonprofits• Need to manage growth• Disconnect: civic disengagement

Report from the Breakout Sessions

Focus group participants reconvened to hear reports from each of the breakout sessions.

Morwick reported that the key issues to emerge from the economic development breakout group were: 1) the mismatch of people and skills; and 2) the internationalization of the economy.

Morwick said the group suggested higher education: 1) forge links between labor and government; 2) encourage partnerships between K-12 and higher education; 3) enhance higher education’s role in lifelong learning; 4) integrate internationalization into all aspects of higher education; 5) promote civic leadership; and 6) encourage economic development.

Morwick noted that the group suggested that NEBHE: hold a three-day institute with K-12 and higher education officials; clarify higher education’s role in K-12 and identify best practices for K-12; assess labor market needs; and convene an institute for college trustees.

Cronin reviewed the findings of the social issues breakout session and quipped that it would be nice if NEBHE could: coordinate think tanks and their policy research; encourage diversity by compiling resources on minority faculty; and publishing analysis and research—all functions currently carried out by NEBHE.

Hanes noted that the higher education breakout session focused on: supply and demand issues in the K-12 system, including teacher competence; the disparity in needs of urban, suburban and rural schools; out-migration of students; and the importance of technology. She suggested higher education should play a role in the alignment of K-12 supply and demands; consider the dilemma of potential higher education resources being funneled to K-12 and look at teaching as an entry to other professions.


In addition, the group wondered whether there should be a K-12 analog to NEBHE, and whether NEBHE should play a role in establishing regional teacher certification and alternative certification, involving statutory and regulatory issues.

Ranking of Priorities

Cowan then led a discussion aimed at ranking the possible NEBHE initiatives that emerged from the breakout sessions. Following are potential initiatives and the number of votes each received:

• Sponsor college trustees and business leaders institute incorporating local

leadership training and civic engagement.(12)

• Serve as clearinghouse for best practices among partners. (9)

• Create incentives for faculty to do outreach to public. (9)

• Explore/coordinate K-12 collaborations (6)

• Establish 3-day institute with K-12 and higher education to forge linkages.(6)• Coordinate think tanks and disseminate their information.

(5)• Explore regional teacher certification, promote alternative certification. (statutory

and regulatory information issues need to be addressed). (4)

Magnani then suggested that the group reconsider the K-12-related items as a single item. Consolidated in this way, Magnani noted, the K-12 focus would rank among the top four items.


WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS FOCUS GROUP MEETING

The following notes document NEBHE’s meeting with Massachusetts leaders, which took place at the Springfield, Mass., on Sept. 22, 1999.

Attendees

NEBHE DelegatesCarole A. Cowan, President, Middlesex Community CollegeJudy Gill, Vice Chancellor, Massachusetts Board of Higher Education (Representing

Chancellor Stanley Koplik)Sen.. David Magnani, Chair, Science and Technology Committee, Massachusetts Senate

Other Distinguished Massachusetts LeadersDavid. M. Bartley, President, Holyoke Community CollegeAllan Blair, President and CEO, Economic Development Council of Western MassachusettsDeborah Boronski, Vice President, Springfield Chamber of CommerceJames D. Capistran, Director, Center for Research on Polymers, UMass-AmherstRichard B. Flynn, President, Springfield CollegeMarjorie Hurst, Springfield School CommitteeCarol Jobe, Provost, American International CollegeJoseph Joyce, Program Administrator, NEXT STEP ProgramFranklin M. Loew, President, Becker CollegeStephen M. Long, Exec. Assistant to the President, Massachusetts College of Liberal ArtsJames V. Masi, Executive Director, Northeast Center for Telecommunications TechnologiesDavid McCauley, Chief of Staff to Sen. David MagnaniRobert McCollum, Director, Center for Youth DevelopmentEdward Meyer, Dean, School of Arts and Sciences, American International CollegeWilliam Sipple, Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs, Bay Path CollegeFrederick Woodward, President, Westfield State College

NEBHE StaffJohn C. Hoy, PresidentWilliam Fenstemacher, Director of Planning and Program DevelopmentFenna Hanes, Director, New England Technology Education PartnershipCarolyn Morwick, Director, Regional ServicesWendy Lindsay, Associate Director, Regional Services

Proceedings

Hurst said there was a large influx of Spanish-speaking residents into the Springfield area and there were needs associated with this population.


Loew agreed with Hurst and said Worcester also has a large Hispanic population but that there are also other new populations such as Albanians residing in Worcester.

Hurst said that the Hispanic population made up 40 percent of Springfield’s population.

Sipple felt the biggest issue facing higher education was literary skills of all types or the lack of such skills. He said that higher education needed a new model. Business schools in particular needed to do a better job with communication skills. He cited a Price Coopers study which focuses on this problem. He mentioned that Harvard Business School had done a similar report.

Blair, president of the Western Massachusetts Economic Development Council, said that the biggest problem in higher education was the expectations of incoming students and what they were actually prepared to do upon graduation.

Boronski felt the biggest problem was the increasing number of unskilled workers and the need to upgrade skills for this population.

Blair said we need to do a better job of marketing New England. For example, we take for granted the fact that higher education defines New England as a region.

In summarizing the priorities of the above, all in this group agreed that: addressing the needs of changing demographics coupled with communication skills, literacy, English-as-a-Second-Language, cultural skills and job readiness were all related.

These were issues that were identified also with the underprepared student as well as the older nontraditional student.

The group then ranked priorities as follows (the number indicates votes received):

Haves/have-nots, changing demographics and related issuessuch communication skills, literacy and ESL. Unanimous

Teacher Education/Certification (13)Underprepared students (8)Adult Basic Education (7)Public/Private Partnership (higher ed.) (7)Access to Higher Education (6)Partnerships (6)Older students (4)


WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS:WRITTEN RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE


Doyle: Profound, on-target and timely. Should be a mandatory document for the region. Comments below are intended not to duplicate summary’s results.

Masi: If new data are in the bigger report, I’d like to see that.

Meyer: Even summary is too detailed in one setting. However, it would appear to be a “good start” for future planning.

Scibelli: Excellent commentary. Reinforces what many of us have articulated.

1. What do you consider to be the most important higher education issue facing Western Massachusetts and New England?

Doyle: Avoiding the underdevelopment of the regions “domestic” prospective college population through the (replenishment) recruitment or academically able students from out of state. This can also occur within the region.

Masi: Solving the bimodality of competencies in the classroom-peer mentoring.

Meyer: The need to tie higher education (& K-12) programs to societal needs and expectations.

Scibelli: A diminishing application pool of students interested in high demand fields.

Loew: Finding from employers the kinds of knowledge and skills they seek or will seek in employees.

2. What do you consider to be the most important social issue facing Western Massachusetts and New England and how does it impact higher education?

Doyle: Competition from other technologically based economic zones in the United States and overseas. Same with financial services zones.

Masi: Industry-education coops; Industry- driven curricula.


Meyer: Need to improve communication skills and population which communicates poorly will be an economic liability.

Scibelli: If we do not address issue now we will not be able to compete.

Loew: Student indebtedness.

3. What do you consider to be the most important economic development issue facing Western Massachusetts and New England and how does it impact higher education?

Doyle: Development of both workplace and college bound populations from socio-economically disadvantaged communities or geographic areas.

Masi: Cultural barrier removal.

Meyer: Providing access for all regardless of current economic status, ethnicity, etc.

Scibelli: A significant population of those who place little value on education.

Loew: Making sure new Americans (“immigrants”) have the language, social and other capabilities employers need.


Doyle: While much postsecondary collaboration occurs and will continue to improve with good advice and best practices it appeals the K-16 link is too weak for the region, possible because NEBHE has no K-12 counterpoint organization with which to practice.

Masi: Industrial collaboratives; Teachers of technology; Peer mentoring (ethnic, career)

Meyer: Still learning about New England.

Scibelli: Many. We are faced with same issues—strength in numbers!

Loew: Encouragement of more consortia, either geographic or programmatic; tougher rationalization of duplicated programs.

Other comments:


Doyle: The Sept. 23 focus group was excellent. Very impressed with leadership, organization, composition and support. Good planning for good results. Pleased to have been included.

Meyer: A good format for these types of questions.

Scibelli: K-12 issued must be resolved. Focus on those who value and those who do not value education. Politics must not prevail—sound educational policy—reality-based must.

Loew: Many jobs/careers of the next decade or two will need new names—the old categories won’t work, esp. in health care and re-invented courses, etc.


NEW HAMPSHIRE FOCUS GROUP MEETING

The following notes document NEBHE’s meeting with New Hampshire leaders, which took place at the New Hampshire Technical Institute/Community College at Concord, N.H., on July 8, 1999

Attendees

NEBHE DelegatesRep. William Belvin, Representative, House Finance Committee, New Hampshire LegislatureSen. Lou D’Allesandro, Senator, New Hampshire Legislature (Alternate)Sen. George Disnard, Deputy Majority Leader, New Hampshire State LegislatureWilliam J. Farrell, Chancellor, University System of New Hampshire

Other Distinguished New Hampshire LeadersRobert Anderson, Corporate Communications, Cabletron Systems, Inc.Glen DuBois, Commissioner, New Hampshire Community Technical College SystemKathy Eneguess, Vice President, New Hampshire Business & Industry AssociationRoss Gittell, Associate Professor, Whittemore School of Business and Economics, UNHPat Gormley, Special Assistant to the President for Affirmative Action, UNHDavid Haney, Regional Director for Corporate Community Affairs, BankBostonThomas R. Horgan, Executive Director, New Hampshire College & University CouncilLucille Jordan, President, N.H. Community-Technical College at Nashua/ClaremontIngrid Lemaire, Director of Public Relations, N.H. Higher Education Assistance FoundationSusan MacDonald, Manager of Admin. and Public Relations, Pease Development AuthorityGeno Marconi, Operations Manager, New Hampshire Port AuthoritySen. Caroline McCarley, Chair, Senate Education Committee, New Hampshire LegislatureVictor Montana, President, College for Lifelong LearningRep. Jane O’Hearn, Chair, House Education Committee, New Hampshire LegislatureErle Pierce, Director of Public Relations, Bell AtlanticEugene Savage, Rath, Young and PignatelliDoug Scammon, Administration Director, New Hampshire Department of TransportationWilliam Simonton, President, N.H. Technical Institute/Community College at ConcordElizabeth M. Twomey, Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Higher EducationSen. Kate Wheeler, Senator, New Hampshire LegislatureRep. Ken Weyler, Representative, New Hampshire Legislature


NEBHE StaffJohn C. Hoy, PresidentFenna Hanes, Director, New England Technology Education PartnershipCarolyn Morwick, Director, Regional ServicesWendy Lindsay, Associate Director, Regional Services

Introduction

Belvin welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced Hoy.

Hoy described the history of NEBHE. Hoy noted that the six New England governors in signing the Compact hoped the states could share educational resources and expand opportunities that were responsive to a New England economy which was in significant difficulty at the time. He said that over the last 45 years the board has sought to bring the six states together around significant issues. He added that as New England enters into the passage of a new century, it seemed appropriate to meet with leaders of business, education, government and nonprofits who have a keen interest in the quality of human resources in the region.

Hoy explained that NEBHE undertook a survey of New England leaders and households on their views of a wide set of issues, and that interestingly, New Hampshire is closer to being a prototypical New England state, not the exception. Hoy then introduced Hanes, who highlighted a few of the New Hampshire survey findings.


Hanes pointed out a few of the differences in the New Hampshire survey findings. For example, New Hampshire leaders rated crime higher than did New England leaders as a whole. They rated workforce training lower—10th vs. 6th for New England as a whole; environmental was ranked 13th by New Hampshire respondents vs. ninth for New England respondents. Regarding the issues of higher education and K-12 education, New Hampshire leaders said first and second priority were stricter teacher certification and partnership with higher education. New England leaders as a whole picked those two, but their priority was flipped. New Hampshire. leaders showed lower support for vouchers and for for-profit schooling (ranked 34th).

Hanes added that New Hampshire leaders agreed with the rest of New England on the ways to improve higher education: (1) eliminate tenure, (2) increase transferability of credit and (3) increase student aid.

She said New Hampshire leaders cited the top three areas of economic development as (1) computer/electronics, (2) biotechnology and (3) telecommunications. New Hampshire leaders cited the environmental industry as eighth. Labor force expansion was cited as an important issue, also energy, housing costs, health insurance and economic abandonment of cities.


Hanes also reported that, when asked about collaboration, 88 percent of New Hampshire leaders said it was important, but 30 percent of those leaders had never engaged in collaboration.


Hoy then turned the discussion to the first question on the agenda: “What do you consider to be the most important higher education issue facing New Hampshire and New England?”

Savage said the real challenge is to keep college affordable for New Hampshire people. He pointed out that sometimes it’s more perception than fact in the minds of people that we have the highest tuition in the country.

D’Allesandro said he concurred with Savage that cost is the vital factor. He pointed out that New Hampshire has historically been a receiver state, especially from Massachusetts and Connecticut. He, himself, came from Massachusetts to attend the University of New Hampshire. He said New Hampshire hasn’t kept pace with Massachusetts. He cited as an example, University of Massachusetts President William Bulger’s promotion of the UMass campuses by highlighting graduates, lowering the tuition, and sending a clear message: ‘We want you.’ D’Allesandro pointed out: “We haven’t done that in New Hampshire. We need to provide documentation of excellence, that the institutions are doing an outstanding job. We need to catch up.”

Jordan said she agreed with D’Allesandro, and also pointed out that state and federal aid for higher education has been lacking.

Horgan, executive director of the New Hampshire College & University Council, said the overarching problem is that higher education is not really on the radar screen. He said, “K-12 gets the attention; New Hampshire is overwhelmed by K-12. Higher education is at the bottom of the list.” He said the impression is that colleges are managing OK.

Twomey added that another key issue in New Hampshire is the loss of students to other states.

Haney suggested that perhaps the education system is undergoing, or is about to undergo a huge change, like banking and the legal profession. He said higher education is being delivered the same way it has always been. Haney added, “Maybe this is a red flag that higher education is about to undergo a huge transformation like other industries.”

MacDonald pointed out that businesses are going in to New Hampshire looking for workers, but a lot of students are not graduating from college with experience in the workforce. She stressed that higher education should make students familiar with the workforce, through internships, school-to-work.


McCarley said K-12 and higher education should be able to tell their students: “We know what you’ll need when you graduate in skills and training.”

O’Hearn pointed out that K-12 should be viewed as K-16. She said there is a disconnect between levels 12 and 13; in addition, high schools often promote students leaving the state, which, in turn, sends them outside New Hampshire and potentially outside New England.

Twomey said she sees a disconnect regarding the recognition that higher education is important to the student and to the family. She said she hears from superintendents that they hear parents telling their kids, “Don’t worry about it...what was good enough for me is good enough for you.”

Pierce said he thinks New Hampshire has a great system, that we’re trying to be all things to all people, including providing for the adult learner, as well as instruction for a broader audience.

D’Allesandro referred back to Twomey’s comments, and said that mentality, is very pervasive in our communities, and it needs to fundamentally change. When you look at why child care is so important, he pointed out, for example, more married women are working in Manchester than any other U.S. city. Children are leaving at age 16 to work, which is one reason that K-12 is so much on the radar screen, he added. We need to work on this mentality/mindset. On the other hand, wealthy families are putting kids in private school.

Gittell said in terms of economic development, it’s important to note the in-migration of highly educated professionals. He pointed out that nearly three-quarters of the people with college degrees in New Hampshire come from other states. He noted that New Hampshire has benefited from the region’s workforce, mostly from Massachusetts, and that New Hampshire’s quality of life and tax advantage have drawn people from other states.

Eneguess added that quality education is more important than in the past; it’s a more mobile society.

Farrell noted that we’re all going to see more competition among states to keep their own students and their own workforce. He added that this is not generally understood.

Wheeler said she wanted to underscore the importance of access, affordability and quality. But she also pointed out that there is a lack of state funding and commitment to higher education; K-12 is taking the funding.

Hoy emphasized New England’s demography. New England experienced the lowest birth rate in the nation for 15 years. The graduating high school class in 1985 was 35 percent smaller than in 1979, and New England has also seen an out-migration of young people. Hoy stressed that New England needs to project its strengths in a new, vigorous way. New England has had the highest cost of higher education for several decades. New Englanders also have a higher level of commitment to higher education for their kids. New Englanders also have had


more ability to borrow funds for higher education. Students have immigrated to New England colleges and universities because of the image of quality. But other states, outside New England, are working harder than we are on their higher education systems and their economies.

Social Issues

Morwick initiated discussion of social issues facing the state and the region, and referred to the third question on the questionnaire: What do you consider to be the most important social issue facing New Hampshire and New England and how does it impact higher education?

Farrell pointed out that New Hampshire doesn’t have a significant number of minorities. Apart from that especially in the more northern regions of the state there are people who have not had the same social advantages and have difficulty getting the training they need. He added that colleges don’t have programs to attract them.

Lemaire identified the following pressing social issues in certain communities: low aspiration, child care and after school care.

Simonton identified the social issue as a problem of access—geographic, social and psychological. He noted that the Department of Employment Security has tried to address this by setting up offices within the welfare and unemployment offices. Definite outreach is needed like this. Some students don’t know how to access what they need.

Weyler mentioned that he lives in a small New Hampshire town and that New Hampshire politics are dominated by small towns. He added that in a small town, where homogeneity is common and maybe mitigates against the need for higher education, there is more equality.

Wheeler identified the need for adult basic education and welfare-to-work programs as key social issues. She pointed out that there are philosophical obstacles and attitudes against higher education.

McCarley, who represents cities—Berlin, Claremont, Manchester, Rochester—said no more than 25 percent from those cities are going on to college.

D’Allesandro noted that demographics in southern New Hampshire are changing. He said there has been an influx of minorities, Hispanics in particular, and 37 different languages are spoken at Manchester High School. One thousand students are in ESL programs and that number is growing. He concluded, we are not really prepared for all this.

Jordan pointed out that people are working longer hours; there are fewer volunteers and society is less connected. “It’s like we’ve lost the soul of the citizen,” Jordan said.


Belvin referred to a quote, “When you’ve forgotten your skills, you’re left with education,” and said education needs to engage in preparing people to be responsible members of civil society.

Savage added that he had often thought that if he’d had the time during his career, a good volunteer job would have been to work with maybe 12 high school students who had been identified as having potential but were at risk for falling through the cracks.

Gormley said a social issue to address is areas where low percentages of students are going on to higher education: Claremont, for example, in its heyday did well without higher education. People don’t realize the benefits of higher education; they like the idea of their children staying near home.

Hoy expanded on this issue, pointing out that this “good enough” thing is ubiquitous. We see it especially in Vermont and in Maine, inland and north, in Rhode Island and in southeastern and western Massachusetts. The “two New Englands”—how you get at that issue—and clarifying the difference between being educated and being trained.

Hoy the posed the question, “Who in this room are New Hampshire natives?” Only two of the 27 in the room raised their hands. “How many with mothers who graduated from college?” Answer: six. “How many with fathers who graduated from college?” Answer: seven. “How many with mothers who did not graduate from high school?” Answer: three.


Hoy asked the attendees to focus on the economic development question, the wherewithal to address society’s needs, and referred to the fourth question on the questionnaire: What do you consider to be the most important economic development issue facing New Hampshire and New England and how does it impact higher education?

Weyler pointed to the space race, the impact of MIT, guidance systems, electronics, etc. in the 1960s as the force that moved the United States and the economy forward. He stressed that this development has brought New England to the fore, and the reason that the region has prospered is a credit to higher education in the region.

Hoy noted that New England’s per-capita share of R&D has gone down the last 15 years. He added that there is less and less New England state money invested in R&D, and New England has become very dependent on federal R&D dollars.

Haney remarked that the economic reality is that it’s moving south, and the funding mechanisms for education will become even more of a problem.

D’Allesandro said that the number one economic problem facing the state is “not enough workers.” Farrell seconded that.


Horgan pointed out the fact that the need for workers to relocate is not as strong because of technology. More people can work from home, etc.

Scammon noted that we are not building the infrastructure we need for telecommunications for example. He said that we need a more flexible workforce, an educated workforce, not just a skilled workforce. He added, we also need more connection among communities.

Savage suggested that New England needs a vehicle like the G.I. bill— a new version of it—to make it possible for people to afford college.

Hoy noted that Massachusetts community colleges are now tuition-free for eligible state residents.

DuBois pointed out that it is cheaper for New Hampshire students to attend Mass. community colleges than the N.H. technical colleges. DuBois said Massachusetts has made higher education access a priority; they have organized resources for financial aid, whereas New Hampshire does not have a comparable tuition assistance program. Also, he commented that 50 percent of New Hampshire students leave the state to college and do not return—not even community college students. They end up doing internships while in college out of state, which turn into jobs.

Weyler commented that he went to MIT, but came to New Hampshire for quality of life. He said Massachusetts can afford to do more because of its tax base, but with no income tax in New Hampshire, we can’t do as much.

DuBois cited the SUNY system as another example of the state paying tuition. But he cautioned that there is no such thing as ‘free’; someone has to pay for it. He concluded: “We want everything, but we want someone else to pay for it.”

Belvin noted that he was a recipient of the GI bill, which was a federal voucher, and there was no restriction on the type of institution one could attend.

Pierce said he wanted to emphasize the importance of marketing New Hampshire colleges to young people. He noted that he has two children accepted at Mass. state colleges and universities, and they want to attend.

Farrell noted that there is no strategic marketing plan for New Hampshire higher education, public and private; there is no statewide web page.

Pierce commented that in Ohio for example kids proudly wear college T-shirts; they are proud of their colleges and universities.

Horgan pointed out that the funding of higher education forces state colleges and universities to draw out-of-state students.

O’Hearn, who has two children in college, commented that the global economy makes moving a much easier process.


Gittell referred to Whittemore School research showing that the quality of life in New England, more than the presence of higher education, is a big draw to industry. He said that the infrastructure for R&D, especially MIT and Lincoln Labs, is also a draw. However, his research had found little correlation between investment in higher education and economic performance. He said that the correlation instead is between higher education and R&D.

Hoy then asked the group: “What do you see for the next five years?”

Belvin said energy costs.

DuBois said we need to reorganize the higher education menu; we need to collaborate to deliver to rural areas, especially in the north.

Eneguess added that everyone needs more education.

MacDonald said that we need to market to young people, highlighting what businesses are there, what opportunities exist. The New England region could work together on this.

Farrell pointed out that access is important. UNH is the second most expensive public university in the United States That’s an issue.


Hoy asked the group to answer the final question on the questionnaire: “What are the opportunities for regional collaboration to address these issues?”

Hoy cited the RSP, R&D, the NEBHE grant-funded fiber optic program as examples of important regional collaboration. He asked: “With your motto being ‘Live free or die,’ do you see your neighbors as competitors or do you see them giving you something you need?

Farrell responded that the states are competitive in terms of getting students and getting workers. He said we are well aware of what UMass Amherst and UConn are doing, for example. He concluded, “In this competitive environment, how do we bring about collaboration?”

Jordan said that the N.H. Community Technical College at Nashua/Claremont has collaborated with Springfield with NYNEX. She said the college is also exploring collaboration to provide a dental hygienic program for residents of southern New Hampshire.

Weyler remarked that New Hampshire has a certain niche; it doesn’t need to be Massachusetts. He cited as an example that a suburb doesn’t wish to be like its neighboring city.


DuBois suggested some pragmatic possibilities that NEBHE could explore: 1) good business practices for colleges and universities throughout the region; for example, purchase as a group, software systems, share resources. 2) New England will soon have a problem with faculty retiring. NEBHE could do faculty recruitment for the region. 3) develop some best practice models, such as school-to-work. He concluded that the six states could cooperate regionally on more pragmatic issues such as these.

Hoy added that another area is teachers—improving the caliber and the numbers of teachers.

Horgan noted the importance of dialogue about what’s happening with higher education. He mentioned as an example the fact that Hesser College is now headquartered in Atlanta.

Montana mentioned that another issue is Internet delivery of education and how do colleges and universities compete in this area?


NEW HAMPSHIRE: WRITTEN RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE


Wheeler: I was pleased that there is little support for vouchers, but concerned that college teacher tenure and “seamless transfer” of credits rank high in importance. These are complex issues and not “quick fixes.”

O’Hearn: New Hampshire does think differently than other states in New England, especially the southern New England states. Needs are based on accessibility and transferability. Disconnect in our schools due to grade 12 to grade 13 and quality of how education needs to change.

Twomey: Pretty much in agreement. But in New Hampshire the cultural divide (a chasm really) between those who value education and those who do not and the attendant implications re: state monetary support and local support.

Belvin: How “mainstream” New Hampshire was/is in the survey results.

D’Allesandro: I was not surprised by the results.

Horgan: Very good job of focusing us on important issues.

Scammon: The summary reflects New Hampshire quite well.

Lemaire: Very useful information that should assist us in focusing on creating more awareness of higher education issues.

Eneguess: These are the issues being discussed in the media; perception becomes reality.

Anonymous #1: Statistics alarming and enlightening, however helpful in assessing areas where interest lies for New Hampshire vs. region.

Anonymous #3: An interesting survey that should be used as a source for future planning.

Anonymous #5: Need to get higher education and R&D on the radar screen; some of the issues that are lower than the rest of New England bespeak isolation, but commonality of responses could encourage push toward regional cooperation on many issues.

1. What do you consider to be the most important higher education issue facing New Hampshire and New England?


Wheeler: In New Hampshire lack of commitment by the state to funding higher education both through the operating budgets and through the capital budgets.

O’Hearn: Accessibility to education.

Twomey: Recognition of importance of education vis-à-vis “education” and economic development.

Belvin: Extent and nature of state’s aid/assistance obligation; K-12 and constitutional duty; duty to grades 13-16 and beyond.

D’Allesandro: Cost to value. This is a real problem. Why we need more education and what a person will gain from his/her education.

Weyler: The single most important higher education issue in New Hampshire and New England is cost. Cost is both an economic and a social issue. New England, as one of the high cost of living areas, must face the challenge first... While corporations are finding ways to eliminate levels of administration, our colleges have their greatest growth in administration. More use of technology, more productivity of faculty and far less administrative overhead would be a good place to start. Don’t ask for more public funds.

Pierce: Think K-16, not K-12. Access to a broader audience through various means of course delivery.

Horgan: Higher education is not on the radar screen for most citizens, business, etc. Lack of strategy for sharing resources, especially when you consider how rapidly technology will transform the delivery of education.

Scammon: To maintain quality in education. People throughout the U.S. and the world look to New Hampshire and more importantly to New England as an area of quality education.

Lemaire: Raising aspiration rates and ensuring access with scholarship funding.

Eneguess: Changing the message in public domain: It is about an individual and community and the state’s well-being. Build the equation that strong communities and states equal strong educational system (or vice versa). Use the demographic facts better in the message.

Anonymous #1: Funded education by state of New Hampshire is lacking. Qualified workforce for economic growth not readily available.


Anonymous #2: Preparation: Are our K-12 people receiving the education at that level to prepare them for higher education? This, I feel, is directly linked to the funding issue with regards to the quality of our teachers and the tools to work with.

Anonymous #3: The high cost first, and then the lack of support from some parents for higher education for their children.

Anonymous #4: Costs and access (access being involved with more than the financial issue of access).

Anonymous #5: Keeping students in New Hampshire to go to college/university; tie to investment in economic future.

2. What do you consider to be the most important social issue facing New Hampshire and New England and how does it impact higher education?

Wheeler: An important social issue is lack of adult literacy and a growing need for adult basic education. Also, the philosophy of the Dept. of Health and Human Services should change regarding welfare-to-work to recognize the importance of post secondary education for economic independence—salaries that support families.

O’Hearn: Change in population of Hispanic descent. Higher education needs to connect with K-12 to understand cultural needs and issues before they understand how to connect with the population.

Twomey: The schism between the “two New Hampshires.” Southern and Northern Tiers. The need to bridge the gap to produce a wider spread of substantial economic development.

Belvin: Access-affordability; preparation; expectation.

D’Allesandro: Dealing with the new population. Changing the attitude that education does not mean anything.

Weyler: Is college education worth it?

Pierce: The marketing of New Hampshire higher education to our students as a high quality choice for education.

Horgan: The sense that there is no need for some to seek higher education; and that you should only go to college at your own expense.

Scammon: We need to get more people to recognize the need to get and have more education to compete in the world economy.


Lemaire: Providing quality after-school care to all students that include mentoring and enrichment programs.

Eneguess: Facing the differences within parts of New Hampshire: town vs. city; ethnic and cultural differences. It’s not just about access, more about information access than financial access.

Anonymous #1: The false notion that women don’t need to work, and if they do, should expect less pay. Make education available to women who are contributing at an equal level to men in the workforce.

Anonymous #2: Maintaining the quality of lie. Why are the in-migrations here? Quality of life. What makes that? The people! Don’t lose them.

Anonymous #3: Creating parents who support higher education for their children. In the smaller and rural areas there is generally the belief that high school is more than enough.

Anonymous #4: We need to tell people why K-12 is no longer good enough and we need to provide the knowledge base for parents/adults to know that there are places to go for help.

Anonymous #5: Closing the education expectation gap for families without college/university in their background. Relate education to improvements in jobs/salaries/better life for their children.

3. What do you consider to be the most important economic development issue facing New Hampshire and New England and how does it impact higher education?

Wheeler: One issue is the lack of a highly educated workforce in New Hampshire. A concern is that in this time of economic prosperity, New Hampshire has not invested in its educational infrastructure so that we can be competitive in high tech/engineering education. New Hampshire needs an income tax and a willingness on the part of the state to contribute significant dollars to public higher education.

O’Hearn: Skilled and educated workforce, i.e. enough people working to keep or bring businesses to New Hampshire. Market higher education to population.

Twomey: The answer to Question 2 with the added component of addressing the lack of the valuing of education which is prevalent in the culture.

Belvin: Attract and retain knowledge industry participants—company, people, international. Maintain manufacturing base and energy costs. Civil infrastructure.


D’Allesandro: The need for people—educated, qualified people for the workforce.

Weyler: Keeping a lead in technological development that leads to new industry.

Pierce: An available workforce that knows how to learn!

Horgan: Need greater investment in training, high tech education, and in research/development.

Scammon: Lack of numbers and training of potential employees.

Lemaire: Ability to retain employers that provide higher skill jobs; they need educated New Hampshire workforce.

Eneguess: Connecting economic well-being for all citizens to educational change policies. Telecommunications infrastructure development.

Anonymous #1: Lack of comprehensive communication to young people what is available in business with large economic growth; Marketing higher education to stay in-state and work.

Anonymous #2: Making our industry globally competitive thereby creating jobs and stimulating the economy.

Anonymous #3: I believe that an educated and trained workforce is necessary to attract new industries into the areas. We need to sell ourselves and out workforce to advance economic development.

Anonymous #4: Providing the trained workforce to deal with the cyclical economic future that faces us in the next five years.

Anonymous #5: Technology industry workforce; can’t rely on in-migration for ever and must retain natives as students/workers.


Wheeler: In the 1960s and 1970s, faculty members at the six New England state universities were able to send their qualified children to any of the six state universities at in-state tuition or whatever faculty discount was given then. I forget the mechanism, but it was a powerful way to link the state universities.

O’Hearn: There is need to collaborate among ourselves—educational, business and industry. Efforts such as this should continue.


Twomey: We are anticipating a substantial shortage of teachers. The region could make it simpler for the portability of teacher certification.

Belvin: Environment (air, land, fresh and salt water); tourism; education (college/university; “Super RSP”; telecommunications; shared New England power generation and distribution. Geographic vs. public/private collaboration. (Cross enroll.)

D’Allesandro: Get the word out that NEBHE is a player and is willing to help.

Weyler: “Specifically for NEBHE, when my subcommittee in the finance committee reviewed the budget for this organization, we found great merit in the Regional Student Program. Nevertheless, the budget for preparing this information seemed high. Representative Belvin explained that this organization provided a home for various study grants. Not having any idea of the effectiveness of any of these grants, he was unable to support them. At the next budget cycle, I feel confident that the House Finance Committee would like to see a more detailed report of where the NEBHE dues are spent. I especially would like to see the RSP fiscally isolated and New Hampshire having the option of supporting just this one program.”

Pierce: Get together and develop common strategies.

Horgan: Keep up the dialogue and make sure every sector is represented.

Scammon: We need to sell and maintain the view that New England is a leader in quality education.

Lemaire: Better planning/collaboration by post secondary education institutions to offer needed programs and pool resources (lessen duplication and cost).

Eneguess: Best practices; teacher recruitment; Internet courses; issue forums on quality, flexibility, etc.

Anonymous #1: Collaboration for grant funding is top priority to aid students and make accessibility and affordability better for in-state attendance.

Anonymous #3: Since we are all competing for the same pool—students, teachers, research dollars—this is always going to be difficult.

Anonymous #5: Forums for strategic thinking, best practices forum. Continuing NEBHE leadership. Curriculum niches. Answering regional crisis in K-12 teachers. Higher education conferences and dialogues.


RHODE ISLAND FOCUS GROUP MEETING

The following notes document NEBHE’s meeting with Rhode Island leaders, which took place at the Providence Marriott in Providence, R.I., on April 16, 1999.

Attendees

NEBHE DelegatesSen. Tom Coderre, Senate Deputy Majority Whip, Rhode Island SenateSen. Daniel Connors, Senate Judiciary Committee, Rhode Island SenateRobert J. McKenna, President, Rhode Island Independent Higher Education AssociationEleanor M. McMahon, Distinguished Professor, Taubman Public Policy Center, Brown U.Mayor John O’Leary, Cranston, Rhode IslandRep. Paul V. Sherlock, Vice Chair, House Finance Committee, R.I. House of Representatives

Other Distinguished Rhode Island LeadersM. Therese Antone, RSM, President, Salve Regina UniversityKip Bergstrom, Executive Director, Rhode Island Economic Policy CouncilMichael Gallis, Economic ConsultantHarold Bibb, Associate Dean of the Graduate School, University of Rhode IslandRep. Paul Crowley, Vice Chair, House Finance Committee, R.I. House of RepresentativesWilliam A. Hurry, Executive Director, Rhode Island Higher Education Assistance AuthorityCharles Kelley, Executive Director, Rhode Island Student Loan AuthorityNancy Langrall, Policy Director, Office of U.S. Senator Jack ReedEdward Liston, President, Community College of Rhode IslandRonald Machtley, President, Bryant CollegePeter Marino, Director of Policy and Municipal Affairs, R.I. Public Expenditure CouncilEdward Quinlan, Executive Vice President, Hospital Association of Rhode IslandRev. Philip A. Smith, O.P., President, Providence CollegeThomas Rockett, Vice Provost, Graduate Studies and Research, University of Rhode IslandKeith Stokes, Executive Director, Newport Chamber of Commerce

NEBHE StaffJohn C. Hoy, PresidentNate Bowditch, Director, New England Public Policy CollaborativeJohn O. Harney, Executive Editor, Connection magazineOlga Klaus, Coordinator of Information Systems and ConferencesCarolyn Morwick, Director, Regional Services

Introduction


Hoy made brief introductory remarks to those attending the focus group. He said that the State of Rhode Island had been an extraordinarily effective member state of NEBHE since 1955. Gov. Dennis Roberts was the signatory in those days along with Christian Herter of Massachusetts, Edmund Muskie of Maine, Abe Ribicoff of Connecticut, Lane Dwinell of New Hampshire and Joseph Johnson of Vermont. From the outset, the Board’s work focused on participation and collaboration in higher education and in service to the New England society and economy that holds the region together.

Hoy noted that in the fall of 1998, the board embarked on a process to review its mission. Part of this process will be to hear from each state, starting with Rhode Island. He said that 21 years ago, NEBHE held its first meeting in Rhode Island. At that time, state Sen. John Revens chaired NEBHE, then-state Sen. Robert McKenna and Eleanor McMahon were board delegates. The discussion in 1978 centered on the relationship between higher education and the New England economy.

Hoy then mentioned the correspondence that those present had received prior to the meeting. Included in the correspondence were questions that were intended to elicit responses regarding a Rhode Island perspective. He said that their input today would be invaluable as NEBHE plans for the next five years. While collaboration is always difficult, whether it is collaboration among independent colleges, or public and independent colleges, or collaboration between communities such as Providence and Newport, or states, New England is a region that has always sought ways to collaborate.

He said that NEBHE’s public policy collaborative is based on the extraordinary number of public policy institutes, some 300, located on the campuses of colleges and universities in New England. These think tanks address areas ranging from international trade to homelessness and urban housing to economic development. Recently, the board, through its public policy collaborative, surveyed 1,000 New England policy makers and 1,000 households on a variety of issues and the results were most interesting. This material and Rhode Island’s responses to the survey was included in the information which each of those present received prior to the meeting.

Hoy then turned the discussion over to Bowditch and Harney.

Bowditch asked for each participant to respond to two questions: What is the single most important higher education issue facing Rhode Island? What is the single most important economic development issue facing Rhode

Island?

Bowditch and Harney recorded responses by Rhode Island participants on flip charts. (See Rhode Island Summary of Priorities.)



Stokes said the connection between higher education and employers with respect to technology industries must continue to be a priority.

Rockett indicated that access to higher education- the cost and debt associated with financing higher education was most important for Rhode Islanders. He said New England hasn’t done a good enough job of providing access. In Rhode Island, tuition has been frozen for the past five years, but this can’t go on forever. The state should recognize it has a responsibility to go beyond supporting K-12 and to K-16 in addressing workforce and economic needs.

Bibb said that the notion of access needed to be expanded beyond cost, that students must be prepared to go to college. He said that access, affordability and preparation for college were equally important and must be equally available.

Antone noted that higher education is expected to do more in delivering the educational product. Colleges and universities do what they have always done but more is required. Business is demanding more and consequently broader areas are expected to be covered by higher education. Antone views the business perspective as correct.

Machtley pointed to data from the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (RIPEC) which indicates that the per capita income in Rhode Island was projected to decline over the next decade. Even if the price was held constant, it would still be very tough. Rhode Island students account for 16 percent of Bryant enrollment and it will likely be less and less each year. Over the next 10 years, the population of students who can’t afford to come to Bryant will grow. The out-of-state students enrolled at Bryant and other colleges in Rhode Island, leave after they graduate, in search of jobs. This trend must be reversed.

Machtley said that legislators will see a growing number of students going to the public institutions. Rhode Island students will require increased support over the next decade.

Bowditch asked the group if it was the cost to or the quality of students that was of greatest concern.

The group response was that both were important challenges.

Smith said the corporate world was moving out of Rhode Island because there was lagging capability to provide jobs for people in the state. The perception is that the state is being drained of skilled young people. Signs of vitality that would be helpful are not apparent. He said that with respect to Rhode Island’s higher education institutions, the strength is in the diversity of its colleges and universities. Smith warned of the danger in providing well qualified people with teaching skills. Higher education’s job was to teach students how to think, not to educate them for jobs. The value of higher education is to learn how to live valuably for a lifetime.

Gallis said the programmatic structure of higher education, its academic and economic dimensions are what needs to be looked at in relationship of the current


economic structure to the regions of the state and the New England region at large.

Rockett remarked that the most important thing that universities do for industry is to supply people who can read, write, calculate and think. He noted that sustaining the college of humanities will be a genuine concern as we approach a new century.

Bergstrom said the No. 1 issue was to resolve the false choice between technology and liberal arts education. The question is how to scale up. Bergstrom said there are something like 500 information technology companies in Rhode Island which offer the highest paying (on average) jobs in Rhode Island. What Rhode Island is producing collectively (to fill positions in these companies) is 350 graduates a year. We’re missing the boat on 1,700 jobs that pay an average of $50,000 the required. Experience that students begin to acquire should occur in high school and college. The trick is to present this to them in grade 5, junior high and in high school. (And if the middle class whites think this is salt mining, then minorities will come forward.)

What should be noted is that this problem will not be solved in 12 months. It will be a 21st century issue.

Stokes said that Raytheon has 650 jobs that won’t be filled by Rhode Islanders. There is an urgency because from a programmatic standpoint, companies growing today have needs that must be met immediately or jobs will move else where.

McMahon mentioned that tech prep, 2+2, address some of what is being said.

Quinlan thought the funding of public institutions was a major issue, that Rhode Island and New England, lag behinds the rest of the country. Quinlan strongly believes additional skilled state funded student aid is important: Jobs are going wanting in Rhode Island.

Sherlock said there were two areas of concern connected with higher education. First, there is a major problem relative to higher education’s involvement with elementary and secondary education. A disconnectedness exists between K-12 and higher education. Second, higher education and business. Higher education needs to be connected to its communities in a variety of ways and the business community is a major part of this taking place. Both sectors need to understand each other and work together.

Bergstrom said that native Rhode Islanders tend to stay in Rhode Island more so than any other state. The problem is that Rhode Island is not producing enough trained people for industries in Rhode Island. Also, the average wage in Rhode Island is 30 percent lower than wages in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Higher Education has to help with this situation. We have a lower skilled workforce in a higher skilled economy.

Langrall noted there is a communication gap between industry and educators. Companies are not always talking to the schools and higher education. In a state as


small as Rhode Island, there shouldn’t be this vacuum in communication. The affordability issue and the quality issue are very important and linked.

Connors said he had just graduated from Providence College last year. He noted that the cost of college is astronomical and the loans are huge. Connors said students graduating from Rhode Island colleges are not staying in Rhode Island to work. If they want to make a decent wage they are going to Boston, New York and beyond.

Coderre thought a major issues for higher education in Rhode Island with respect to public higher education institutions was related to inadequate physical plants and technology improvements.

O’Leary said investments in higher education are often structured to facilitate entry into the local workforce. Consequently, higher education must be affordable.

Hurry said borrowing has reached counter productive levels. Higher education is the second or third largest component of the Rhode Island economy. Rhode Island has some of the worst demographics relative to the economic sector. We need to be concerned about the quality of this component.

Kelley noted that representatives of the business community identified the biggest challenge to higher education was going to be over enrollment.

Kelley also mentioned that Rhode Island has many immigrants working to put their children through school. The immigrants often don’t know how to apply, how to pay for college. They need our assistance.

McKenna emphasized importance of motivating people to save for their children’s education through college investment programs, payroll deductions, etc. He thought that an increase in funding from the state for scholarships should be one of the top priorities.

Marino mentioned the importance of teacher education, as well as adequate counseling and guidance capacities.

McMahon said that urban areas were a profound challenge for educators. Rhode Island doesn’t give priority to early childhood education. It is particularly critical in the urban areas and is reflected in poor level of preparation of high school students. She also thought that Rhode Island needed to invest in the expansion of R&D.

McMahon mentioned the need for cooperation and collaboration between the institutions of higher education. Many more programs and changes can be initiated through this type of collaboration.

Bibb thought it was especially important to advance minority education. He said we should build on Rhode Island’s valuing and teaching creativity—something that puts Rhode Island ahead of many states.


After a luncheon, Hoy noted the survey determined that higher education is more of a concern for Rhode Island than K-12. He asked the attendees to comment on this.


Harney presented results of the Future of New England survey in Rhode Island and mentioned Rhode Islanders would like higher education to influence all other areas: K-12, economic development, etc.

Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are interested in regional collaboration whereas Massachusetts and Connecticut may not to the same extent because of their larger and more complex status in the region.


Bowditch proposed to discuss the issues and priorities of economic development elevating those problems that had not been covered in the first half of the meeting.

Stokes said that to attract large corporations, Rhode Island must change its taxation policies for high earners.

Antone noted: “To make this change possible we need to educate the public.”

Machtley interjected that public discussion on the taxation of executive salaries could overshadow other problems—for example, tax policies for small business investment and low income family support.

O’Leary thought workers compensation was an important issue.

Kelley said that new knowledge and skills were imperative for economic development. They will replace such resources as traditional manufacturing.

McMahon posed the question: “To what extent should we invest in Rhode Island institutions of higher education as a primary vehicle for addressing this problem?”

Langrall said that sustained development of Quonset Point was important for bringing in industry, higher paying jobs and giving Rhode Island residents a higher level of income.

Machtley noted that small traditional manufacturing companies are losing market share. They know they are susceptible to intense international markets pressure. Yet historically Rhode Island has done business “all over the world” and must pursue new products.

Marino noted the importance of job growth to community development.


Machtley was deeply concerned about Rhode Island’s declining demographic profile.

Sherlock emphasized the importance of continuing education in order to retain new careers in growth fields.

McKenna said a regional caucus on job growth is needed to assess opportunities and develop an appropriate and targeted response. We need to provide regional support to our U.S. senators on regionwide issues.

Hurry asked Jack what relationship NEBHE had with the New England Governors’ Conference.

Hoy replied they had a good relationship, but reminded attendees that each year a new governor puts his or her lead issues on the agenda. Although there are issues that are discussed each year such as energy and transportation issues, the organization agenda frequently changes,

Hurry said because their schedule is intensely busy it is difficult to get governors’ participation in new programs. Can we help improve their collaboration on regional issues?

Machtley mentioned that the aforementioned problems were ongoing. Building a dynamic regional agenda is more important than an annual planning process which may come too little or too late.

McKenna said it was necessary to find the right leadership for all of the problems. He expressed his appreciation of NEBHE’s work and said he anticipated new projects.

Hoy closed the meeting by thanking everyone for their input.


RHODE ISLAND: SUMMARY OF PRIORITIES

Higher Education Issues and Priorities:

Connection between technology development among employers and needs for workforce preparation and retraining

Access to and affordability of college Adequate preparation for college Broadening demands on higher education for new programs Quality assurance Composition of academic programs Infrastructure including technology at public colleges and universities Controlling costs in higher education Taxpayers willingness to support increasing higher education costs Strategies for recruiting students/changing regional demographics Higher education as a lead component of regional economy College savings plans Need-based financial aid vs. merit-based aid Teacher and guidance counselors preparation Balance and diversity of academic offerings (technical training vs. liberal

arts) State funding of higher education More connection to communities (communication) and economic

development High skill/high wage vs. low skill/low wage workforce Transferable skills Retraining college graduates for higher skill positions Flexibility in continuing education programs Early childhood education/child care R&D (state investment) funding Interinstitutional cooperation in high demand fields Minority student access and affordability Teaching creativity and problem solving

Economic Development Issues and Priorities:

International opportunities not pursued Aging of New England population Small business development opportunities Tax policy on executive salaries Public education about economic development policy Small business taxation (investment incentives) Overall cost of doing business in New England Knowledge-based industries are today’s reality; higher education connection

is increasingly essential Development of Quonset Point (regional implications, Rhode Island/global

connection)

Opportunity for New England Collaboration:


RSP: attracting more students to New England specialized programs Attracting more out of region students Leadership around education of aging population Regional caucus(es) of governors and selected state legislators and officials Need not change NEBHE mission—it’s right on Governors created NEBHE, so explore opportunity of building closer

relationship with Governors’ Conference agenda International trade/opportunity Regional planning (i.e. regional higher education policy) Regional collaboration toward new ideas/new concepts/new opportunities Eliciting interest leaders in business community concerning previous points


VERMONT FOCUS GROUP MEETING

The following notes document NEBHE’s meeting with Vermont leaders, which took place at the Capitol Hill Plaza Hotel in Montpelier on June 10, 1999.

Attendees

NEBHE DelegatesCharles I. Bunting, Chancellor, Vermont State CollegesSen. Nancy Chard, Chair, Senate Education Committee, Vermont SenateThomas Salmon, Former Governor and Former President, University of Vermont

Other Distinguished Vermont LeadersChristopher Allen, Interim President, Vermont Technology CouncilLawrence Forcier, Senior Advisor to the President, University of VermontRichard Hansen, Senior Vice President, Norwich UniversityDonald Kelpinski, State Director, Vermont Small Business Development CenterBob McNamara, Vermont Department of EducationAlice Miller, Member, Education Committee, Vermont HouseRobert Miller, Commissioner of Economic Development, Agency of Commerce and Community Development (written)Marge Petit, Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of EducationDavid Rahr, President, President, Vermont Community FoundationCharlotte Tate, Geonomics Center for International Studies, Middlebury College

NEBHE StaffJohn C. Hoy, PresidentNate Bowditch, Director, New England Public Policy CollaborativeJohn O. Harney, Executive Editor, Connection magazineRosemary Maconochie, Director, New England Environmental Internship ProgramCarolyn Morwick, Director, Regional Services

Introduction

Hoy opened the meeting by briefly describing the overall NEBHE planning process and introducing Bunting, a longtime NEBHE delegate, and Chard, the board’s chair-elect.

Bunting noted that no other regional higher education compact has matched NEBHE’s Regional Student Program, which he called “a genuine value-add for all six New England states.” Bunting also cited NEBHE’s nationally unique leadership in connecting higher education to economic development—a linkage that began recognized, said Bunting, “long before it became fashionable.” He concluded that “NEBHE also reminds us to think regionally.”


Chard observed that it is rare for regional groups to travel to Vermont and she thanked the NEBHE staff for holding the meeting in Montpelier. She said the timing of the meeting is appropriate for Vermont because the state’s higher education communities—public and private—have only recently begun to work collaboratively. She noted that for her, one of NEBHE’s most important services is its research, including the Future of New England survey, which, she noted, a small, poor state cannot afford to do on its own.

After Bunting and Chard’s comments, all attendees briefly introduced themselves.

Hoy noted that NEBHE’s Environmental Internship Program began in Vermont with support from the Freeman family and that 28 NEBHE environmental interns were currently at work in the state. Hoy then turned over the program to Bowditch.


Bowditch reviewed the findings of NEBHE’s Future of New England survey. He gave special attention to those areas—very few in number—where responses from Vermonters differed from those of their counterparts in other New England states. Bowditch noted that Vermonters were more likely than other New Englanders to associate New England with images of thriftiness and Yankee individualism. Vermont opinion leaders were more likely than their counterparts regionally to cite access to transportation as policy priority, while Vermont households were more likely than those in other states to cite cost of higher education as an obstacle to economic growth. Bowditch also noted that despite their emphasis on transportation, Vermonters worried less than other New Englanders about infrastructure in general.

Referring to Spring 1999 Connection coverage of the Future of New England survey, Bunting said he was struck by the fact the Vermont opinion leaders ranked “the wage gap between workers with different educational levels” fifth among social and demographic concerns—higher than any other New England state.

Bowditch briefly revisited the purpose of the focus group meeting, then asked attendees to take a few minutes to complete the first two questions on a questionnaire provided in their packages. The questions were: What is your response to the summary of Vermont’s Future of New England Survey results? What do you consider to be the most important higher education issue facing Vermont and New England?


Salmon suggested the single most important higher education issue facing the region is the need to enhance the undergraduate experience with particular emphasis on effective writing, thinking and analysis. He suggested this was most likely to be achieved in small-class setting and that the first year of college would be crucial. Referring to NEBHE interns in attendance, he said nothing is more


useful than clinical experiences for undergraduate students. Finally, he urged colleagues to find ways for more students to travel abroad, which he said would “contribute magically to their maturity.”

Allen, a scientist, called for the “reinvention of the land-grant mission” for the contemporary economy. “How can higher education play a more effective role in economic development?” he asked. “And who is going to pay for it?”

Chard noted a disconnect between public expectations that higher education can solve a variety of problems, on the one hand, and the reality of higher education’s capacity, on the other. “The survey shows there’s an underlying assumption that higher education knows how to fix K-12 or that higher education can prepare the workforce, Chard observed, adding that resolving those problems will require higher education to change more profoundly than it is willing to change—indeed to change its product, rather than merely its way of delivering instruction.

Forcier responded that such change will not happen until higher education is given more resources. To which Chard countered that additional resources will not be forthcoming until funders see the results of change.

Hansen noted that the median income in Vermont is $25,000 to $30,000, which makes it a “stretch” for families to send their children to the University of Vermont or state colleges. He also worried about “out-migration” of Vermont students, particularly to the South where higher education is more affordable. Finally, he suggested that higher education needs to be more “visible” on economic development issues.

Kelpinski stressed higher education’s role in meeting labor market needs by ensuring technological readiness and applied experience of workers in the state.

Allen warned that the deteriorating condition of higher education infrastructure, especially science labs, is a hidden problem. He suggested—and several other attendees agreed—that science equipment at many public institutions is not as high-quality as that at local high schools. “What good is it to provide access to a place that’s falling apart?” Allen asked.

Salmon contrasted the plight of the publics’ science labs with the new state-of-the-art science facility at Middlebury College.

McNamara lamented that too many students don’t finish their college course of study and suggested that one problem is that it takes longer to finish a degree than it once did.

Forcier noted that one reason it is taking longer to complete degrees is that more students are working while in college. Chard suggested that another reason is higher education’s limited capacity means students are unable to take the necessary sequence of courses for graduation. Bunting added that some programs leave little room for electives.


Alice Miller noted that elimination of tenure and replacement of tenured faculty with adjuncts is a problem related to affordability and warned that you get what you pay for. She also worried that liberal arts programs are taking a beating, and workforce training programs will not prepare New Englanders for the future. She also stressed the importance of exposure to other cultures and developments in early childhood education.

Bunting pointed to affordability and responsiveness to state needs as the key higher education issues facing New England. He noted that there’s added pressure on colleges and universities now that higher education is seen as a necessity rather than an option and as a vehicle to address social problems.

Social Issues

Bowditch briefly explained how NEBHE staff wrestled with devoting some of the discussion to so-called social issues. He then asked attendees to take a few minutes to complete the third question on a questionnaire. The question was: What do you consider to be the most important social issue facing Vermont and New England and how does it impact higher education?

Hoy noted that NEBHE’s longstanding interest in economic development has focused “not on turning out people who can make widgets,” but on the capacity to educate people who can go out and make social change. “In a sense, the economic theme is really related to the commonwealth of New England.” Hoy added that he wished this broad aim showed up even more in NEBHE’s work.

Chard responded that it is perhaps in these areas where New England state-by-state differences are sharpest.

Forcier suggested that the key social issue facing Vermont is the sense of community among Vermont young people and the related “fragility of Vermont’s quality of life.

McNamara told of a recent Vermont survey (ASSET survey) showing that 65 percent of Vermont young people do not think their communities value them.

Chard added that the responses were similar when the young people were asked whether they thought they were listened to in their homes or in their schools. And the older the respondents, the worse the numbers, according to Chard. In other words, students feel they are listened to less and less as they progress through the grades.

Rahr warned of growing intolerance and lack of respect for differences—“not just obvious differences, but socioeconomic characteristics, too.”

Salmon lamented the lack of civility in public discourse. He also noted that the U.S. economy is “spectacular” and “even in New England,” the most vulnerable citizens are doing fairly well. This means we can no set to helping people succeed in their


work, he said. He noted the need for more continuing education and the indispensable role to be played by higher education.

Allen again stressed the transition from traditional economies to new economies. “Is Vermont going to become a theme park?” he asked. “Will the big question in life for our children be ‘paper or plastic?’ Do we lock Vermont into a future of rural poverty? Or will it be a place with real work?

Kelpinski noted that lack of access to higher education means lack of social mobility. Bunting added that no variable correlates as strongly between haves and have-nots than educational attainment

Chard said the biggest social problem is the “two Vermonts” phenomenon. She noted that people ages 18 and 23 make up the fastest-growing group of new prison inmates in Vermont.

Rahr observed that child care is also a major social problem. “I’m hard-pressed to think of anything more important” he noted, citing recent research on brain development in a child’s early years. If we took care of this problem, he noted, “we wouldn’t have to incarcerate people or worry about whether undergraduates can write.”

Bunting added that the poor pay and inadequate training of people working at child care centers is an important issue.

McNamara noted the pressure to focus K-12 curricula on math, science and core subjects and wondered whether schools are preparing students adequately to make the kinds of ethical decisions they will be faced with in the future. He cited Jeremy Rifkin’s predictions of profound ethical dilemmas in the area of biotechnology.

Alice Miller suggested that other serious social problems include: 1) drug and alcohol abuse; and 2) the “whiteness of Vermont.” She noted that Blacks and Hispanics are not accepted, adding, “I think there’s a bit of xenophobia.”

Hoy told the group that the highest SAT scores among any state, race, gender cohort in all New England were to be found among the African-American women of Vermont. Several members of the group noted that the very small number of test-takers undoubtedly inflated the figure.

Tate noted that California’s high school graduating classes are growing significantly and wondered if there was a way for New England higher education to attract those large numbers of students.


Bowditch thanked the participants for making the discussion of social issues so compelling, then asked attendees to take a few minutes to complete the fourth question on the questionnaire. The question was: What do you consider to be the


most important economic development issue facing Vermont and New England and how does it impact higher education?

Allen quipped that he wrote the same answer as for the earlier question about higher education: the most important economic development issue, he said, is the change in the nature of the economy and the attendant need to reinvent the land-grant mission.

Forcier suggested that the key economic development challenge is more quality job creation in areas where there are problems of unemployment. Kelpinski added that the problem may also be looked at in terms of a wage gap.

McNamara protested that Vermont’s economic development plan doesn’t adequately emphasize education, particularly compared with Oregon’s benchmarks and the Minnesota Milestones program, which he said include rich, comprehensive benchmarks.

Hoy interjected that NEBHE has long been concerned about New England losing its best-educated people and its leadership in higher education areas such as R&D. He noted that the New England population is older than that of other regions and that there is little growth among New England’s young population. He suggested that New England as a region needs to more vigorously project its quality of life and the role played by its extraordinary educational attainment. “We need to be a little less laid back about that,” Hoy said. “Have we fallen asleep at the switch? Have we forgotten how important the investment in higher education really is?”

Noting that both Vermont and Maine participate in the federal government’s EPSCoR program, Allen observed that “quality university facilities in science and engineering are economic magnets. If you don’t invest in research university infrastructure, you don’t attract industries that are part of the new economy.”

Chard noted: “We have not paid attention to the distinctiveness of higher education programs when we make investments.” She added that in Vermont, there is a lack of differentiation between public and private institutions. Allen noted that something along the lines of NEBHE’s Regional Student Program might be helpful within Vermont.

Bunting added that another important economic development issue relates to colleges or systems providing education and training to small businesses.

Chard complained: “We’re still describing education by the age of the student. Until we describe it based on learning, we won’t contribute to economic development.”

Hansen noted that there is relatively little higher education involvement in forums such as chambers of commerce. He suggested that college leaders and faculty need to see such activities as playing legitimate roles in economic development.

Forcier explained that in rural Vermont communities, it’s not unusual for people to have a negative attitude toward higher education: when a local kid goes off to


college, that’s the last they see of him. McNamara likened this to the story of Maine islands where parents don’t want their children to go off to high school for fear they will see the world and decide not to go home.

Allen suggested that the new economy offers the promise of economic salvation to rural places, allowing small businesses and e-commerce to locate anywhere. “You don’t need a forge,” he noted.

Tate suggested infrastructure is an important issue. If the new economy is to deliver, she observed, Vermont needs enhanced access including by rail and air.

Allen told the group that new broadband Internet service is available to Vermont.


Bowditch asked the attendees to review the group’s main points as listed on flipcharts. He then asked them to answer the final question on the questionnaire. The question was: What are the opportunities for regional collaboration to address these issues?

Salmon observed that when you talk about regional cooperation, you should talk about existing regional organizations, including the New England Governors’ Conference, the New England Council and the New England Board of Higher Education. Without dedicated people “driving the trains,” it’s very difficult to work regionally. Salmon noted that one governor he had worked with thought only of what his state could take out of the regional organizations. Salmon suggested that “tourism has a six-state meaning in this remarkable place on earth.” He explained that in Japan, Vermont means nothing, but Boston means a lot, suggesting a regional tourism effort.

Allen suggested that there may be opportunities for cooperation in academic R&D but within the northern tier of New England: Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. “Collaboration requires equals,” he said. “We’d get swallowed alive by the southern tier.” Allen noted that he has begun a three-state “mini-society” for specialized chemists.

Kelpinski also endorsed the northern tier scenario, explaining that the Small Business Development Centers run trade shows and professional development programs across the three states. He also suggested a regional effort in advertising the region.

Forcier added that there may be a role for NEBHE in taking stock of collaborations between K-12 and industry and other partners. McNamara suggested other groups may already be doing that.

Hoy noted the extraordinary power of Vermont’s two U.S. senators, but questioned how strong New England regionalism is among the region’s congressional delegation. Hoy observed that “New England is palpable as a real entity—more so than other regions of the United States. ”


Chard suggested that “New England’s intense identification with education is not reflected in our political action and political will.”

Hansen observed that there is little collaboration among higher education institutions in the area of health care cost containment.

Bunting suggested that the discussion was beginning to bog down and wondered whether this was due to the late hour or the difficulty of working on regionalism. Several attendees suggested that it is not the hour, but the difficulty of discussing regional efforts.

Allen likened the competitiveness of educational institutions to that of health care institutions.

McNamara suggested that there may be some regional benefit in encouraging consistency in treatment of Vermont assessment tests by New England admissions officers.

Salmon concluded: “When regional themes clash with individual survival, guess who wins?”

Allen added: “If you do something that challenges local pride, you need a poster child.”


VERMONT: WRITTEN RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE


Kelpinski: Excellent work. No surprises in differences from other New England states. Supports regionalization/collaboration on most issues.

Hansen: Issues reported do not surprise me. K-12 emphasis and relation to higher education as a solution will demand more collaboration among HE institutions in state and region.

Forcier: The overall response suggest Vermonters’ concern for their quality of life in a more holistic way than is necessarily captured in a single question. Perhaps there is a sense of fragility related to uncertainty about the economy, control of their sense of place and social/economic inequities that are counter to Vermont values.

Bunting: Generally accurate as to my perception of views and realities. Challenge to probe “regionalism” in such a survey.

Anonymous: Good overview, accurate evaluation. More specific—access to Vermont through air and rail links needs to be improved; wage gap between workers w/higher and less education is significant concern.

McNamara: 1) Not surprised by emphasis on K-12 across the board; 2) Pleased with recognition of importance of higher education role to improve K-12; 3) Surprised and worried by limited support of getting technology into high schools.

A. Miller: On target—some omissions surprised me re: concerns.

Chard: Not surprised—concern over actions/understanding behind words—i.e. higher education to K-12 assumes higher education knows how.

Allen: The results, as one would expect, mirror social and cultural situations in Vermont, e.g., high value on environment, etc. As with all surveys significant care needs to be exercised in interpretation, e.g., wage disparity vs. education—does this mean the more aggressive moves to increasing educational opportunity are needed or that these disparities should not exist and efforts should be made to suppress them?


Rahr: Fascinating study—am eager to spend more time with it. Would also like to share it with members of board and others; e.g. Snelling Center. Intrigued that 1. Vermont differs as little as it did from NE., 2. The high rank of international trade, international tourism, international economic development, etc. 3. Unanimity of opinion re: the plight of K-12 education.

Salmon: Interesting, well-crafted and not particularly surprising. Educational “partisanship” issues needs vetting. High costs as a determent needs reality check about those costs which do not lend themselves to easy remediation (energy). Romanticism about regionalism doesn’t implement only regional agenda.

1. What do you consider to be the most important higher education issue facing Vermont and New England?

Kelpinski: High cost/affordability and lack of state support. Significant issue is also changing needs of labor market as it relates to higher education. Portability of VSAC contributes significantly to the high cost issue.

Hansen: 1. Student cost/affordability—VT—out of state migration (perception), 2. Lack of partnerships among institutions that benefit entering students, 3. Economic. development. link

Forcier: The need to increase public funding is key. Institutions have cut costs, but affordability concerns in Vermont remain high and student debt loads have grown too much. To work more closely with all of education is very important but more resources are necessary to work as well and as rapidly as necessary. Similarly, improving the state’s human technical capacity will require more financial resources. Ditto with other aspects of higher education engagement with the community.

Bunting: a.) Affordability of college for Vermonters and family, b.) Responsiveness of higher education to address state needs.

Anonymous: State college system needs improvement with eye to increasing number of students attracted to it and increasing public funding to enable greater competitiveness with other state higher education systems.

McNamara: 1) Cost of public and private higher education/keeping undergraduates in college through graduation., 2) Aligning new K-12 standards and assessments with college entrance requirements—(Governor’s Diploma)., 3) Defining role and relationships in improving K-12.


A. Miller: 1) Elimination of tenure—college hiring adjuncts with no benefits. Related to affordability, 2) Affordability, 3)Liberal arts is taking a beating over professionalism, 4) Public support for higher education: financial, moral, quality of faculty, 5) Dropout rate advancing kids in 3rd grade when they are unable to read.

Chard: Ability to change what we (higher education) do—responsiveness—$—we have changed delivery but product remains much same.

Allen: Rediscovery of the land-grant mission in modern terms, i.e. how can higher education play a more significant role in economic development particularly in the “high technology” area. The ultimate goal being increasing the economic prosperity of Vermonters. Lack of investment of core infrastructure of higher education.

Rahr: The absence of common agenda or commitment or will to fix an obviously flawed system of education K-12 which in term impacts higher education. As someone said “Colleges cannot graduate quality if they don’t admit quality.” Too little collaboration among educators at all levels. Too much territorialism, bureaucracy, competition. Also cost and accessibility of higher education, affordability. Over-professionalism!

Salmon: Quantitatively enhancing the undergraduate experience with special emphasis on teaching effective writing and analytical skills. Enriching this exposure through externship and apprentice opportunities across the theoretical experience. Creating greater opportunities for studying abroad, which will enhance the early maturity and focus of the student.

2. What do you consider to be the most important social issue facing Vermont and New England and how does it impact higher education?

Kelpinski: Lack of access to higher education, creating limited social mobility.

Hansen: Economic cost—wages; Environmental; Sense of responsibility—breakdown—civility; Workplace and role of work.

Forcier: All citizens must feel that they have the opportunity for a high quality of life; e.g., youth should be engaged, with much adult interaction, meaningfully with their community’s development; people should feel they have reasonable access to life-long learning opportunities and being prepared to work; etc.

Bunting: The increasing gap between haves and have-nots (variously defined) which correlates more strongly with education


differences than any other variable. Higher education must commit (and have resources to commit) strengthening life opportunities of have-nots.

Anonymous: Changing national demographics—proportionally greater percentage of K-12 students now in California and other non-NE states. We need to be able to attract and retain more in our HE institutions.

McNamara: 1. Widening gap between well-educated and the poor and blue collar families; meaningful differences; 2. Development of moral and ethical knowledge and skills necessary to make critical social/ethical decisions. (Jeremy Rifkin-Biotechnical Century)

A. Miller: 1. Race problem: white community, culture, blacks, Hispanics not accepted, 2. drugs/alcohol-binge drinking.

Chard: Poverty-aspiration-classism: (have/have-nots) rising crime rate among adolescents.

Allen: For Vermont, the transition from traditional economies (tourism, agriculture, manufacturing) to the new economy. Will Vermont be left behind and become a “theme park?”

Rahr: 1. Commitment to quality child-care and a willingness (indeed a demand) to fund it. It is very hard to think of anything more important than school readiness. Impacts everything, K-12, higher education, economic development, et. al.; 2. Tolerance, respect for differences “Lack of civility.”

Salmon: Providing effective and affordable education and training in the workplace with emphasis on creative ways and means so to do through a variety of interactive and telecommunications approaches. Higher education is indispensable in crafting the videos and other products that make this happen.

3. What do you consider to be the most important economic development issue facing Vermont and New England and how does it impact higher education?

Kelpinski: Lack of skilled workforce, continuing or broadening wage gap issue. Skilled includes broader liberal studies issues.

Hansen: Workforce education; have/have-nots; Trade off environment/development; Higher education, wage/salary; State (regional competition)


Forcier: The creation of new high quality jobs, particularly in smaller communities and in areas of the state with high (relatively) unemployment.

Bunting: Need to expand and strengthen highly skilled workforce. Higher education needs to begin to improve.

Anonymous: Urban sprawl and access through air and rail links.

McNamara: Include a stronger emphasis on education as part of Vermont’s economic development strategy. Lack of a comprehensive performance-driven state-wide economic development strategy.

A. Miller: 1. Environmental vs. business interests; 2. Jobs—Northeast Kingdom?, Bennington Center., e.g. not keeping up with, when we lose jobs, we lose people; 3. Living wage.

Chard: High wage jobs, aspiration of Vermont’s rhetoric good.

Allen: Issue is my answer to question #2 and the relation to question #1 is the answer. The availability of a high quality research university is necessary for attracting high technology industries.

Rahr: 1. Need for broader array of jobs; 2. Need for more broadly/liberally educated work force; 3. The emphasis on technology is going to come back and bite us one of these days.

Salmon: Affordability, energy, having stock, commercial and individual space, health care, high taxes and overall high cost of living. We are isolated, remote and cold in the winter which with moved public infrastructure at the end of the energy pipeline. We must [emphasize] creativity, entrepreneurship, higher education, etc. to get us through the rain. Higher education can do the research which will optimize public policy.


Kelpinski: Regional collaboration in planning, problem-solving, marketing/public relations, recruiting, demonstration projects and Northern New England: Maine, New Hampshire & Vermont.

Hansen: Health care delivery and cost; distance learning; Power ,energy.

Forcier: This is without study of what now exists. 1) A regional clearinghouse/stimulant to describe/develop best practices


for universities and K-12 education synergy; 2) More exploration of selected areas for regional specialization in higher education within emerging areas of opportunity (e.g. subsets of biotechnology, environmental technology, etc. that are highly technical).

Bunting: 1) Research, analysis, information for institution, state and program development responsive to economic development; 2) Extension of philosophy to specialized programs.

McNamara: Alternative methods for college acceptance cross region based on successful performance on standard-based assessments. (in Vermont Standards Reference Exams and Governor’s Diploma)

A. Miller: College/high school; Business/schools

Chard: Distinctive programs shared. Research for common issues, data. Capacity building, best practices. Translate value of education to political responsiveness.

Allen: Real opportunity for shared R&D/higher education collaboration in Northern New England (ME/NH/VT). This allows us to maintain our valued independence by not being swallowed up by MA/CT but selectively invest & share programs/opportunities. More breadth.

Rahr: Had to leave at 1:30 p.m. Great session! Lively interesting discussion. Thanks for inviting me.

Salmon: Depends on leadership of the principal regional organizations: New England Governors’ Conference, the New England Congressional delegation, the New England Council and NEBHE. Regionalism as a romantic concept is a dog that doesn’t hunt. Workforce education and training and tourism represent two proactive opportunities.

Note: In separate written remarks to the board, Vermont Commissioner of Economic Development Robert Miller suggested that New England higher education institutions could:

• Become more aggressive in providing and facilitating information and analysis on current economic issues to a region.

• Build strong training and development partnerships with businesses early in student experience.

• Play the role of “strategic broker” by encouraging and facilitating consensus around strategies needed for economic development.


NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL STUDENT PROGRAM

FOCUS GROUP MEETING

The following notes document NEBHE’s New England Regional Student Program focus group meeting, which took place at the NEBHE Offices in Boston on Sept. 24, 1999.

Attendees

Distinguished GuestsGary Cilley, Associate Director of Admissions, University of New HampshireJames Collins, Associate Dean of Admissions, University of Maine at FarmingtonDan Jones, Executive Director of Student Services and Enrollment ManagementThomas LaGrasta, Superintendent of Schools, Sharon, Mass.Les La Fond, Dean of the College, Vermont Technical CollegeSally Maxwell, citizen, Portland, MaineHelen Niedermeier, Director of Student Services, Champlain Valley Union High School, VermontJames Plotner, Assistant Dean, Articulation & External Affairs, Bridgewater State CollegeDiane Reedy, Director of Academic Research and Planning, R.I. Office of Higher EducationJean Thomas, Assistant Dean of Libraries, University of Maine AugustaKarrin Wilks, Vermont State CollegesNeil Wylie, Executive Director, Council of Presidents, New England Land-Grant Universities

NEBHE Staff:John C. Hoy, PresidentCarolyn Morwick, Director, Regional ServicesWendy Lindsay, Associate Director, Regional ServicesSondra Lage, Coordinator, Regional ServicesCynthia Gately, Receptionist

Discussion

The following were responses to the question, “What is the most important issue facing higher education in your state? Does the New England Regional Student Program (RSP) address this issue? Or is there a way it could address this issue?”

La Fond said state support for public higher education was the most important issue facing higher education in Vermont. The state is currently funding the public higher education system at 16 percent. The issue is acute. The public system has the highest tuition rates in the United States. Needless to say, the RSP is very important to Vermont.


La Fond said that according to national projections of the affordability of higher education, Vermont will “hit the wall” in 2015, when a student’s cost of higher education at Vermont’s public campuses will exceed the ability or willingness to pay. The state college trustees are working on a long terms solution to address this crisis but time is running out.

Wilks agreed that the legislature’s funding for higher education was the most serious issue. She didn’t think the RSP currently addresses this topic.

Niedermeier said there were several issues: the cost of tuition at the University of Vermont and the relatively low level of government financial support; the lack of diversity in the student population; and attrition. She felt the RSP could address the former by providing broader access to a wider variety of programs at reduced tuition.

Maxwell asked if Vermont had term limits for legislators. She explained in Maine that since term limits have been in effect, the attitude toward funding the university system has improved, “as the old guard leaves.” She said the cost of higher education for students is the number one issue in Maine. She felt the RSP was helpful in this area.

Jones said, “Things are very difficult in Maine.” He agreed with Maxwell’s comments about term limits bud added that the system was still catching up from being cut and then level-funded. He observed that it would be years before the system caught up. He felt the other serious issue facing the public higher education system was delayed maintenance of the buildings on campus. Many campuses are forced to use funding for maintenance instead of programs and faculty.

Jones emphasized that “When Maine residents do acquire college degrees, most leave the state. There are no jobs to hold them -- Maine’s economy offers almost nothing for college graduates.”

Reedy said that in Rhode Island, the last budget cycle for the public higher education system was the worst. She said that the RSP can reduce the need for additional programs which would address some of the funding issues facing the system.

Toro said that the cost of higher education is the most important issue facing Rhode Islanders.

Collins said public K-12 schools are primarily supported by local taxpayers with low incomes. There is insufficient funding at the K-12 level. He also mentioned that Maine has a high percentage of students graduating from high school but less than 50 percent go on to higher education. Those that do go on do not come back to Maine. However, the RSP is useful in encouraging students to go to college and to make college more affordable.

Cilley mentioned that “paying for education at all levels is the hottest topic. New Hampshire is notorious for not funding the cost of education; K-12 or


higher.” To date, nothing has been done to address the issue of inadequate funding raised by the Claremont Coalition.

Plotner said Massachusetts has put a lot of money into the physical plants at its state institutions. But he said morale is very low among faculty at public campuses because Massachusetts has not funded its college faculty and academic programs adequately. Also, accountability and the issue of teacher testing has dominated discussion across the state.

Dickinson felt the most important issue in Connecticut was raising performance standards.

The second question was: “Which current social or societal issue has the biggest impact on higher education in your state? Does the RSP address this issue? Could it address this issue?

LaGrasta observed: “We live in a society which is very self-centered and perceived as being very violent.” He said a high percentage of students going on to college from Sharon are “attending college within New England, within the state and often within commuting distance. Perhaps staying in their home community or state seems safer.”

La Fond noted that family income and the portability of state assistance (money going out-of-state with Vermont students) has an effect on Vermont’s public higher education system. “Our best and brightest kids are leaving and they don’t come back. We are losing our future leadership core.”

Reedy noted the region’s changing demographics, increasing numbers of immigrants and the challenge of educating people from different countries. Not sure the RSP can help in this area. It doesn’t appear to serve those at the lowest income levels.

Jones observed a tremendous selfishness in parents. The huge debt load that students are carrying is in part due to the parents not willing to share the debt. “Students are encouraged to get loans in their names.”

The RSP does keep the price down. There is also a lack of aspiration in high school graduates. This situation according to many financial aid directors drives students to stay closer to home.

Cilley observed that many professional fields are requiring higher levels of education and the cost of continuing education to enter these fields presents a financial burden to students. “Consequently, parents are looking at state colleges and universities for their children’s undergraduate degrees. ... Parents and students want to have some money left over for graduate school. . .”

He added, “We keep a top ten list. We keep in touch with students who apply to UNH and if they don’t choose UNH, we ask them why they are not


coming. We find that many of them are going to UMass-Amherst. All of New England’s land-grant campuses are now in the top 10 list.”

Plotner observed, “Out-of-state tuition at UNH is high for Massachusetts students.”

LaGrasta remarked that the percentages of students enrolling in public higher education from his school district were increasing. He noted that 25 percent of Sharon’s graduating seniors were going to the University of Massachusetts.

Maxwell suggested that mediocrity has become acceptable and taking responsibility for one’s well being and actions is “out.” This contributes to the lack of students and educators striving for excellence.

Neidermeier of Vermont said there was a need to re-engage the disenfranchised through greater access to financial support, outreach, varied training and technical programs. The RSP could help by doing more to recruit students and support these kinds of programs.

Collins said Maine is affected by the out-migration of educated citizens in search of better economic opportunities.

Plotner observed that the good economy was “tilting student’s perspective to particular areas such as business.”

He said bright kids go where the dollars are. They select careers where they will make money. Prospective teachers need to take two majors—and most don’t end up going into teaching. What we need is to encourage opportunities for “after-market people to enter teaching as a second career.”

LaGrasta remarked that teacher bashing is “in.” Why would students choose this as a field? Students are choosing careers to make money.

The third question presented to attendees was: “What is the most important economic development issues facing your state and does the RSP address this issue or is there a way it could address this issue?

Jones said there were no jobs in Maine. MBNA moved into Maine with a big splash and employed a large pool of low-skilled workers. There has been a loss of jobs in the three mainstays of the Maine economy: papermaking, fishing and shipbuilding.

“Parents don’t have advanced degrees, and it seems OK. If you can buy a new truck, and you can go fishing and you have a couple of snowmobiles, what else do you need? That is a prevalent attitude, especially when there are no obvious jobs for you if you do get that college degree.”


LaGrasta observed, “I see the same attitudes on Cape Cod. The haves and the have-nots in every state hold different attitudes regarding higher education.”

Reedy said in Rhode Island, most jobs require low levels of skill or high skills, but there is a lack of middle-skill jobs. She noted that it is hard to move from low-skilled jobs to high-skilled jobs without middle-skill (moderate income) jobs available.

Toro said the redevelopment of cities was the key issue in economic development.

Neidermeier noted that balancing growth and economic development, along with Vermont’s concern for the environment and the wish to control sprawl development, are the major economic development issue confronting Vermont. She thought targeting programs that train students for growing technological fields and environmentally friendly businesses would help address these issues.

La Fond said the focus should be on job training and the implementation of a workforce education program. He also noted that Vermont college graduates are unable to find good jobs. He did not see the RSP as a factor in this area.

Maxwell said that keeping good-paying jobs in Maine was a challenge. She wondered if the RSP addresses this issue in a negative way in that students educated out-of-state do not return.

Cilley said the question is: “Will it snow enough to pay the bills?” New Hampshire counts on tourists spending money on the seacoast, in the mountains and on the lakes to fund much of its budget.

The last question asked was: “Should the RSP be expanded and can you think of another regional initiative through which NEBHE could facilitate collaboration among the six New England states?”

Plotner said the RSP must stay in the forefront on issues such as distance learning and minority access to higher education.

Collins thought expanding any financial aid opportunities for the six New England states would be appropriate. He mentioned the Robert Byrd Scholarships.

Neidermeier wondered if it would be possible to develop consortia or to promote regional exchange programs for students and faculty.

Wilks suggested NEBHE have online tuition rates.

Reedy mentioned distance education as a way of expanding the RSP.


Maxwell suggested the RSP become involved in educating teachers. Perhaps a consortium of colleges and universities could offer such programs through the RSP.


CONNECTION: NEW ENGLAND'S JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT

FEEDBACK

The following notes document feedback on Connection magazine, which was collected via a fax and phone survey conducted during summer and fall 1999. In addition, because of the prominent role played by Connection and the Office of Public Information in NEBHE’s “new media” efforts, survey questions were posted briefly on NEBHE’s World Wide Web site.

Participants

Wendy Baker, Director, Babson College Center for Career DevelopmentJoseph M. Cronin, Former President, Bentley CollegeEleanor McMahon, Distinguished Professor, Taubman Center for Public Policy, Brown U.David Garvey, Executive Editor, New England Nonprofit QuarterlyDavid Luberoff, Assistant Director, Taubman Center for State and Local Government,

Kennedy School of GovernmentJean Plunkett, Assistant City Editor, Providence Journal-BulletinDiane Saunders, Vice President, Nellie Mae FoundationJohn C. Schneider, Historian and Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations,

Tufts UniversityRobert L. Woodbury, Former chancellor, University of Maine System, and Former Director,

John W. McCormack Institute for Public Affairs

What do you see as the three or four most important linkages between New England higher education and economic development over the next five to 10 years?

Baker: 1) Education, training, executive education: One of the most important linkages to provide for the education and development of human capital to create and maintain a high-functioning workforce. This might include linkages at the community college level, certificate programs, undergraduate and graduate education, continuing education and executive education. It may also include nondegree programs delivered on college campuses or at corporate sites via the World Wide Web. It is important that these linkages include dialogues around core competencies and curricular content so the education programs develop a


labor force able to foster and sustain economic development.

2) Research, new venture creation: Higher education can play a vital role in economic development through creation of new ideas, new ways of thinking and new enterprises. Consider the synergy between higher education and business in North Carolina’s Triangle Park or in Austin, Texas. It is vital that industry support research and new venture creation to fuel economic development.

3) Harnessing intellectual capital: With the World Wide Web creating the technological capability to share large volumes of information across multiple channels, there is an exciting opportunity for higher education to take a leadership role in developing means to capture and share knowledge. The role of technology, not only in knowledge creation, but also in the teaching and the dissemination of knowledge and information will be important.

Cronin: 1) electronic technology, software, imaging, storage; 2) biotech, bioengineering, genetics, medicine; 3) finance, mutual funds, business education; 4) production of professionals, managers, technicians

Garvey 1) spurring entrepreneurial growth; 2) partnering academic resources with local community development; and 3) encouraging regionalized growth strategies (industry clusters).

Luberoff Higher education is important to New England in three ways:

First is the traditional need to meet labor markets demands. To what extent are institutions of higher education producing graduates in tune with business needs? I don't know the answer to this and perhaps Connection can document where job growth is occurring and what kinds of people are being produced by the region's colleges and universities.

Second, it is clear that New England lacks natural resources, favorable geographic location or a low-priced labor force. Consequently, we seem to be relying on people attracting to our relatively high amenity lifestyle (culture, access to outdoors, etc.). These are folks who are mobile but choose to locate here in high wage high skill jobs (e.g. finance, medicine, etc.). I believe that top-tier universities play a major role in this process by attracting smart, driven folks from around the country and then, as those folks come


to like it here, convincing an inordinate number of them to stay in the region where they go to work, start businesses etc.

Third, it appears that as we look at cities, the two entities least likely and able to move are higher education institutions and hospitals (what some planners call “eds and meds”). Consequently, these institutions have a great stake in their cities' futures and the cities' have a great stake in making sure those institutions thrive. A good example of the former is Trinity College's efforts in Hartford; how Boston thinks about the Harvard land in Allston might be a good example of the latter. The general point is we may be looking at a new era in town/gown relations following an earlier postwar era in which some institutions such as Harvard basically took over some residential neighborhoods and then in the late 1960s and early 1970s were stopped by protest movements. Now it appears that some entities are finding creative ways to grow with support of local communities.

McMahon: Expansion of a skilled labor force; expansion of research in critical areas of potential economic growth such as biotechnology; related partnerships with business and industry; effective partnerships with K-12 schools and systems designed to improve elementary-secondary education; and focus on enhancing the effectiveness of teacher education and professional development.

Plunkett: Movement of teachers and students to the best schools in area and the best jobs. Schools able to educate for hot jobs, especially in technology fields. Quality of job applicants coming out of schools. Equal opportunity as economic leveler.

Saunders: 1) Tying in education curriculum closer to what needs of economy are; forecasting job needs and educational requirements in near future and working with colleges (and high schools) to provide training closer to what job needs will be. Making sure that business leaders understand the demographic changes in the region so that they see their role in helping minority and low income students attain quality K-12 education, and help in going to college, financial and otherwise, to ensure that they have a skilled workforce and strong communities.

2) Providing rewards for companies who are working hard to incorporate the new workforce into their organizations, not always an easy task, esp. when trying to integrate recent immigrants, former welfare recipients, minorities,


esp. when the company hasn't prepared its workforce for diversity, and for taking extra steps to ensure that a single mother coming off welfare is helped with a support system: one week of daycare problems for a former welfare mother returning to the workforce can be the end of a job and very discouraging.

3) Supporting nonprofit community and social service agencies who are training adults in literacy, English-as-a-Second-Language, helping them re-enter the workforce, and supporting entrepreneurs and small businesses who help build up communities. Big companies come and go, but small community companies tend to be there for the long run.

Schneider: As always, technology, management/business and teacher training. But in general, world-class education in any local area/region means spin-offs locally in expertise and entrepreneurship.

Woodbury: The linkages between higher education and economic development are probably a lot more complex than we think. Maybe the theme should be “Higher Education and the Future of New England” of which economic development is just one component.

Anonymous #1: Quality. I think that standards have fallen a bit over the last few years. Also, as a minority, I feel that a multicultural perspective can really enhance education programs across all levels. Funding for education keeps deteriorating, and this will have serious consequences in the future. Education must be a priority in New England (and the United States) to ensure economic development.

Anonymous #2: Financial aid for women and children from single[-parent] homes. Upgrading school curriculums to equal the rest of the country enabling us to be competitive. Getting the children of single[-parent] homes to further their education.'

How aware do you think New England opinion leaders are of the connections between higher education and economic development? How aware are New England households?

Baker: I believe there is increasing awareness of these connections among opinion leaders. This is evidenced by cooperative programs and corporate support for research and education programs. It is important to continue to foster this


awareness and perhaps consider ways in which the interaction might be heightened. In terms of households, I wonder if a high level of awareness is as critical. Connection would dilute its message by focusing on both opinion leaders and New England households. Opinion leaders are the critical audience.

Cronin: Moderately, thanks to NEBHE.

Garvey: On a scale of 1 to 10, opinion leaders’ awareness would be at 6; households’ awareness at 4. They should both be at 10.

Luberoff: I think people are growing more aware of this. Bill Guenther has survey data.

McMahon: I believe there is a degree of awareness on the part of New England opinion leaders on the connections between higher education and economic development which must be expanded. I believe there is less awareness on the part of New England households.

Plunkett: Although many families send children to college in New England, they don’t see the region’s higher education-economic development connection clearly. Opinion leaders and politicians barely see beyond their own borders.

Saunders: I think opinion leaders are aware, but not necessarily sure what they can do in their organization to support the education of their future workforce. Business leaders want fast results, and supporting a school-to-work program or internships, or scholarships doesn't always yield the instant results that CEOs need; they need to demonstrate, often to shareholders, that every dollar spent is providing a return on investment. Households are aware that education leads to job success, flexibility and security. Their concerns are cost of college; access to it; support for special needs and learners; and hope that what their kids study will still be relevant in the future. Lower-income families often hold onto bad information about college costs and access and can discourage their kids so that they "don't get their hopes up" since the family perceives that college is out of their financial reach.

Schneider: On a scale of 1-10, opinion leaders are about a 7 and households about a 4.

Woodbury: Very much more aware than they were 20 years ago and partly because of NEBHE.


What do you think will be the most important regional initiatives in New England over the next five to 10 years?

Baker: Assuming New England’s economy is based on high tech, financial services, higher education, health care and tourism. we have strong diversification. We need to work to maintain and enrich this diversity. We also need to create greater geographic/regional industrial diversity. Our industry is concentrated in the Boston area. We need to enhance economic development in other areas such as Portland, Providence, Hartford, and Burlington, Vt. We need to maintain quality of life in New England. This includes balancing economic development with environmental issues, cost of living, population growth and maintaining/improving the quality of education in the region. And we need to foster new venture creation through linkages of business and higher education.

Cronin: 1) Power grid (L.N.Gas); 2) Highways; and 3) Maybe Distance Learning.

Garvey: Regionalized economic growth through selected industry clusters

Luberoff: I have no idea but I'd keep my eye on “eds and meds” (higher education institutions and hospitals.

McMahon: Continuing development of consensus on regional priorities as suggested above; development of regional models for effective pursuit of priorities such as the improvement of K-12 education; focus on the development of initiatives directed toward the enhancement of urban communities.

Plunkett: Improving public schools; access to higher education for all students from all socioeconomic backgrounds and both genders.

Saunders: 1) More support for low-income and minority students to attend college; what NEBHE does with the interstate program is excellent; maybe more support to expand that network and advertise it. 2) Assessment of labor needs for both newer and older industries, such as biotech, high tech, manufacturing, etc., and ensure that teachers and educators understand what the future job needs will be so they can prepare students appropriately.

Schneider: 1) transportation, airports, railroads; 2) K-12 teacher training, reform


Woodbury: Higher education inequity and its role in moderating equality in society. Alexis De Toqueville talked about basic equality of Americans; general equality.

How would you describe New England opinion leaders’ level of interest in regionalism and interstate initiatives? What about interest among New England households?

Baker: Both opinion leaders and households tend to be very regionally focused in Boston and may not look at the broader issues facing New England.

Cronin: Opinion leader interest: modest. Household interest: low.

Garvey: On a scale of 1 to 10, opinion leaders’ level of interest would be 2 and households’ level would be 1. They should be at 10.

Luberoff: Rhetorically, interest is modest; practically, they will generally support efforts that don't undercut their local power bases.

McMahon: The Future of New England survey indicates a strong support for collaborative regional efforts to achieve regional goals but much narrower evidence of opinion leaders actively working on either regional or interstate initiatives. Further, it appears that household interest is significantly lower.

Plunkett: I don’t think leaders or average folks think this way now, but we should learn to.

Saunders: The New England states are very independent and don't tend to focus so much on regionalism. More work needs to be done to show the commonalities in terms of populations, problems, education needs, economic needs, etc. so that states can collaborate to a greater extent. The states need it "proven" to them that there is value in a regional mindset versus just concerns about their own state. A campaign on the downsides of myopic state-only views and how this harms their state economy should be initiated. For example, if Maine found out that tourists were staying away because of poor roads in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, it might be more willing to develop transportation solutions that were regional. I don't think that households hold on to a New England identity. Many are probably proud of their state, but even there, many are proud of their town or city versus thinking in a larger geographic context.


Schneider: Opinion leader interest: moderate. Household interest: minimal.

From what sources do you get information on the New England higher education-economic development nexus? From what sources do you get information on regionalism and interstate initiatives

Baker: Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, Chronicle of Higher Education, Boston Business Journal, Mass High Tech.

Cronin: Connection, of course. Boston Globe, Washington Post Weekly, TV, Radio (NPR), Conferences, especially NEBHE.

Garvey: Connection, New England Nonprofit Quarterly, Boston Federal Reserve Magazine. (There really isn’t much.)

Luberoff: I get my info from the Boston Globe and other papers plus my general rounds in the urban policy world.

McMahon: Connection, The New England Journal of Public Policy and The Chronicle of Higher Education are my major sources of information on New England higher education and economic development as well as regional and interstate initiatives.

Plunkett: Scattershot: Connection, newspapers, occasional television, magazine pieces.

Saunders: Sources on New England higher education, etc.: Connection magazine, Regional Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Boston), and Boston Globe. I don't see much on regionalism and interstate initiatives.

Schneider: Connection, Boston Globe and Down East.

What do you think of the way Connection magazine has covered the New England higher education-economic development nexus? What about the way Connection has covered regionalism and regional issues?

Baker: It is a challenge to create an “attention-getting” publication. Connection is competing for readers’ time in an increasingly information-rich environment.

Cronin: Excellent, brilliant.

Garvey: Wonderfully—to both questions


Luberoff: I generally browse Connection but I don't generally find that it really addresses my interests, which primarily concern urban development policies.

McMahon: The former has been effectively covered by Connection. As to coverage of regionalism and regional issues, I would hope to see expansion of these areas in response to the results of The Future of New England survey.

Plunkett: I think it’s very good overall. It could benefit from a clear and consistent voice—perhaps a column or essay in each issue on regionalism and regional issues specifically.

Saunders: I think that Connection has always done an excellent job covering the higher education and economic issues in the region. I’ve heard many compliments about your magazine and for good reason. Only comment, maybe have more articles written by business leaders and others, and not as much from academic types. Get some students to write as well, such as grad student leaders who have valid opinions; get a teacher's opinion piece in, and others who all of us need to hear from.

Schneider: In a class by itself.

Woodbury: Obviously Connection does a good job addressing themes of economic development. One of the positive things is that the articles aren’t too long. Audience wants a relatively quick read. Some are in-depth; some aren’t. Three departments I like best are: “Editor’s Memo,” “Data Connection” and “Campus.” . The “Campus” items are great because where else do you get them? Maybe the Chronicle of Higher Education, but “Campus” is much more New England “family” news. Also, “Data Connection” is a bundle of fun.”

What do you think Connection should cover that it has not covered?

Baker: Connection should be issues-focused. It should focus on political, educational and business issues in New England, presenting opinions rather than reporting events. It might also serve as a “digestive” source, directing readers to additional articles.

Cronin: Keep probing, questioning, describing, analyzing.

Garvey: Economic impact of educational institutions on New England economy. Economic impact of all nonprofits on New England economy.


Luberoff: It might interesting to look at Trinity, at Harvard in Allston (and around the square) and MIT's drawn-out fight over the Simplex land in Cambridgeport. I don't know if these issues resonate elsewhere. What is Clark doing in Worcester, for example.

McMahon: Specific examples of effective interstate and regional initiatives from states and regions beyond New England which might serve as models for New England initiatives.

Plunkett: I like to hear directly from college teachers—what they’re seeing, their thoughts and needs, etc. And to a limited nonbureaucratic extent, students, presidents on real issues affecting them. We need to learn from both genders, all races—to move “outside the circle” to pick up the analogy used by Lewiston, Maine, Mayor Kaileigh Tara in the Spring 1999 Connection.

Saunders: I'd love to see more on what foundations, education funds and other grantmakers are doing to work with education to solve regional and state problems; and how they can work more effectively with business, education and others to improve the region.

Woodbury: What about looking at town meetings? Immigration? Diversity of population? Communities of color have almost no leverage in Boston. Also I wish the executive editor wrote more—that he pick a subject and write thoughtfully about it in addition to “Editor’s Memo.” The higher education mission is part of the whole civic infrastructure. Understanding what it is to be a human being. Interested in the Future of New England survey finding that higher education’s main goal should be fixing K-12. Maybe best question for constituents is: What should Connection be focusing on that it’s not focusing on?


NEW ENGLAND PUBLIC POLICY COLLABORATIVE

FOCUS GROUP MEETING

The following notes document NEBHE’s New England Public Policy Collaborative focus group meeting, which took place at the NEBHE Offices in Boston on Sept. 14, 1999.

Attendees

Distinguished GuestsArnie Arnesen, Former State Representative, Host, WSMN Radio 1590Rep. William Belvin, Representative, New Hampshire LegislatureHenry Bourgeois, President, Maine Development FoundationSen. Mary R. Cathcart, Senator, Maine LegislatureCharles D. Chieppo, Director, Center for Reconstructing Government, Pioneer InstituteBadi G. Foster, Director, Lincoln Filene Center for Citizenship, Tufts UniversityYolanda Kodrzycki, Assistant Vice President and Economist, Federal Reserve Bank of BostonMike Levin, Chief Policy Specialist, Northeast Utilities Service Co.Sen. David Magnani, Chair, Science & Technology Committee, Massachusetts LegislaturePaula Rayman, Executive Director, Radcliffe Public Policy Institute, Radcliffe CollegeAndres Torres, Director, Gaston Institute, University of Massachusetts Boston

NEBHE StaffNate Bowditch, Director, New England Public Policy CollaborativeJohn O. Harney, Executive Editor, Connection magazineCarolyn Morwick, Director, Regional Services

Cathcart welcomed participants. She praised NEBHE’s focus on higher education and the economy and expressed interest in learning what other states are doing.

Belvin expressed the need to rethink NEBHE’s mission and emphasized the need for accountability for both private and public money.

Bowditch explained the state-by-state and project-specific focus group meeting process to assist in NEBHE’s plan to adopt a mission at the annual board meeting. He then briefly summarized the Future of New England survey results.



Bourgeois brought up increasing disparity in educational opportunity and attainment. The gap has widened due to issues of access, cost, and aspirations.

Levin also said the gap is widening in Connecticut, where an increasing number of people have advanced degrees, but a similarly increasing number have very little education.

Arnesen stressed affordability, accessibility, and relevance (to secondary education, the economy, the body politic, etc.). How do we become relevant to those who don’t think higher education is for them? We need to make kids understand how important education is. New Hampshire is helping by allowing high school students get credits toward technical colleges.

Bourgeois responded that a lot of it is cultural. If I am from Machias and I encourage my son to go to college, he will leave the community.

Cathcart said the rising college tuition limits access to higher education. Tuition has risen 80 percent in the 1990s. Fifty percent of the few who do go on to higher education go out of state. Young people have not seen the relevance of higher education because there were always mill jobs or fishing jobs. But the Maine economy is changing.

Levin cited Maine economist Charles Colgan’s finding that “call centers” have replaced natural resource-based industries in Maine. Call centers do not really require higher education degrees.

Torres expressed concern about the lack of educational attainment among native low-income and minority students in a state that imports college students, particularly since few Massachusetts students go to public institutions.

Chieppo stressed the relevance point. The need for remediation puts demand on higher education. One of the biggest demands on higher education is fixing K-12.

Kodrzycki emphasized: increasing access, costs and aspirations; Southern New England’s high housing costs and education costs; workforce retraining and the role higher education.

Foster expressed a need for discussion among shareholders about the mission of higher education in New England. Higher education’s primary responsibility should be to contribute to civic renewal, he said. Every graduate should be prepared to discharge his knowledge in service to the larger society.

Foster concluded that a broader discussion of re-engineering higher education is needed. We should engage faculty in a discussion of measurable outcomes, the role of higher education and civic renewal. What burden will institutions take on if they are to enjoy scarce resources?


Bourgeois said that in Maine, the strategic focus is on adults who are working. Only 19 percent of Maine adults have bachelor’s degrees.

Arnesen expressed a need to go into the workforce to attract students for continuing learning. She said Maine’s model could be duplicated elsewhere.

Belvin cited a need for continuous learning and encouragement for jobs. Students have degrees, but no skills. Also, how can you serve civil society?

Economic Development

Bourgeois said the goal should be for New England to have highest level of educational attainment in the world—to go 5 percent or 10 percent beyond its nearest competitor in educational attainment.

Arnesen stressed telecommunications and transportation. She pointed out that telecommunications technologies and distance learning can bring higher education to people in their communities, and that improved transportation could address issues related to urban disinvestment.

Kodrzycki said we need to continue to innovate in production techniques. Region won’t grow if we just expand the size of our labor pool. No natural resources. We need to keep doing things differently.

Cathcart cited the need for an educated, trained workforce. She said Maine is experiencing a shortage of workers in jobs ranging from science and math teachers to machinists, while dislocated workers need training for jobs.

Levin said we should balance economic development initiatives with quality of life concerns. Citizen groups and towns have attempted to block cluster economic development initiatives. He cited Pfizer’s plans in New London, Conn., as an example.

Foster expressed a need to improve the quality of “economic citizenship,” a notion that would include issues of justice, equity, fairness, the effectiveness of democratic institutions and management of growth.

Others in the group lamented that economic development is too often viewed apart from issues of fairness, quality of life and growth management.

Arnesen noted that Vermont approaches economic development and growth management more broadly as a state through Act 250. In order to accommodate changing economy, people need to go beyond local towns and look at the big picture. In New Hampshire have problem of tax policy.

Torres protested that the dominant voices have a pro-growth agenda and pay less attention to social issues. He urged attendees to imagine scenarios


of growth that are also fair. He cited Europe’s more generous vacation policies as an example.

Chieppo called for lower tax rates and an end to corporate welfare as in the cases of a proposed $250 million stadium for the Boston Red Sox and planned $1 billion convention center.

Belvin pointed to unfinished business, for, example transportation. They don’t even fix the potholes. The pollution problem in Maine and Nova Scotia is caused by automobile traffic in Boston.

Kodrzycki observed that focus group participants generally agree on higher education issues, but are far apart on economic development issues, particularly broad questions of growth vs. slow growth.

Magnani noted that in his district, growth is highly managed. Export-intensive, brainpower-driven, high-margin companies pay a lot of taxes and don’t use up a lot of resources. But there are two challenges: 1) That growth uses lots of open space; and 2) it produces jobs that encourage wage inequality; education and training are needed.

Arnesen said there is a need to define growth. Growth today can include underdevelopment, or redevelopment, rebuilding, fixing and recognizing we’re not realizing best use.

Bourgeois said we should play up New England’s environmental quality. Besides higher education, the other competitive advantage New England has is its environment, i.e., mountains, oceans, etc.

Magnani said we should make the catchment area bigger for suburban I-495 because they want employees who don’t want to live in the inner city. Challenge is for better public transportation, economic and environmental solution.

Foster expressed need to keep pushing economic citizenship. Need dialogue.

Rayman said she hears synergy (among focus group participants). How do you define growth? Integrate economy, environment, etc.? How to think in interdisciplinary, cross-boundary way?

Magnani said there is a dichotomy between growth and competition. Political economy is the 500 pound gorilla.

Social Policy

Foster mentioned mental health, rage, stress, loss of sense of community, dissatisfaction and gated communities.

Kodrzycki stressed lack of connection and growing inequality.


Arnesen asked how much inequality we are willing to tolerate. The average overworked American tolerates a great deal compared to Europeans. Can we catch up? Or is pot of gold out of our reach? Rayman said we need to rebuild a sense of “we”, not just “my child,” but “our children.” Think outside the box.

Cathcart said need to educate people to take a broader view of themselves and society.

Foster asked where are the Lincoln Filenes of today? We need cross-sectional leadership. Mission of higher education is that graduates should ask themselves what they owe themselves and the community.

Torres stressed changing demographics including growing numbers of minorities and immigrants. Are we ready as a region for in terms of health, work and education. Changing demographics will either be a source of stress or new opportunities.

Arnesen said a shrinking workforce demands more time working. What do we do with kids between 2:30 p.m. and 6 p.m.? If we address this, we address educational needs, crime, sex, etc. (Like the kindergarten movement before it.)

Foster added that people are working and living longer.


Levin cited a Connection piece in which University of New Hampshire Management Professor Ross Gittell called for cooperation in R&D. Levin noted, however, that regional efforts in some fields such as telecommunications are difficult because the industry is ruled by private sector.

Foster stated communities of practice should address certain issues such as “economic citizenship.” Learn from private sector as companies merge. Mystic Valley guy wants to know what happened on Connecticut River. NEBHE could celebrate small community improving quality of life and share across state boundaries.

Rayman said it is a question of process. Building on inclusion, access. Should have specific policy component and outcomes and measures. Should have reward system. Awards from NEBHE for “best practices” so they can be celebrated, get PR and stimulate replication.

Bourgeois proposed a “Leadership New England” program—a 10- or 12-day, issue-oriented bus tour to help decision-makers understand the New England economy. At the end of the tour, various “indicators” would be


published. Could be very controversial, don't have to reach consensus in all six states. A lot of homework, staff support. It’s a statement that we are a region. After 10 years, you will have 500 alumni who have been through the program. Make it precondition for being on NEBHE board. They are already have a leadership programs in Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

Arnesen brought up Leadership New Hampshire. Said members are looking for a way to move beyond state borders.

Foster said the real advantage of the leadership programs is that participants learn about each other.

Arnesen said that as collaborative, need to do something seen. Telecommunications and transportation are key issues. Should bring people to table on transportation so we can have regional approach and go to the feds as a region. Instead of 80-20 match, get the feds to do 90-10 if it’s regional approach.

Bourgeois suggested an annual set of key questions to higher education for long-term future. Look at Southern Growth Policies Board and other parts of the country.

Belvin lamented New England’s “placebound parochialism.” He added that New England is filled with newcomers. There is a very porous border between our states. Belvin said the 500 alumni of “Leadership New England” probably wouldn’t even be in New England a few years later.

Arnesen responded that we don’t need all 500 alumnus to stay in New England. The nation is too large, the states are too small, the region is the perfect size. There is something about New England—particularly geography and history— that lends itself to a natural conversation about regionalism.

Foster added that universities ought to be fostering a conversation about what it means to be in New England.

Levin said that noted economic consultant Michael Gallis identified what the new economy will look like in the next century: key economic regions based on economic activity. Levin suggested posting maps on regional Internet sites with new boundaries showing common regional economic interests.

Robert Woodbury, former director of the John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs at UMass Boston and NEPPC Steering Committee co-chair, was not able to attend meeting but submitted written responses to questions.

Woodbury said he is sure others will refer to issues of K-12, economic development, research and the like. His main concern to all these questions is an issue of equity. Higher education appears to be moving away from this issue: public schools are devastated by the gap between rich and poor and


the wealth and income gaps in society as a whole are increasingly obscene. This problem, however, is masked by the strength of today’s economy.

Bowditch adjourned the meeting.


NEW ENGLAND PUBLIC POLICY COLLABORATIVE: WRITTEN RESPONSES TO

QUESTIONNAIRE


Levin: Survey was enlightening in bringing to the forefront several issues now crucial to economic development, such as child care, health care, early childhood development, which previously were not central to economic growth concerns.

Belvin: Good effort to allow a vigorous discussion of those issues that are “regional” in nature (i.e. biology, tourism) and those that should be addressed in the “laboratories” of the six New England states.

Anonymous: Public opinion seems to follow policy priorities of state leaders e.g. Education is tops, in part, because that is what lawmakers and others have focused on and media have covered. The results were thus predictable, but very useful.

Foster: Strikes me as reasonable accurate. Would be nice to know respondents’ identification of effective University-K-12 partnerships and why they think they are successful. Examples of University/Civic Renewal Initiatives other than education?

Chieppo: Very interesting snapshot that hadn’t been taken before. Valuable as with any poll, it elicited “top-of-my-head” responses. Important to tease these responses out.

Bourgeois: 1. Common agenda/themes/issues among states.2. Top item same as 1987 survey-public education.3. Do more often- trend info is real value of survey.4. Maine responses are right on target.

Kodrzycki: Opportunity for NEBHE to play a role in advancing solutions to the concerns about education. Who can help with the family/community concerns?

Torres: On the issue of importance of regional approaches, I believe the expressed opinion (family high support) is greatly at variance with my perception of “where people are at.”


Arnesen: Most folks are more than receptive to working together as a region. They are not state-focused but result-focused. Borders only have meaning for “political types.”

1. What do you consider to be the most important higher education policy issue facing New England?

Levin: Maintaining or increasing the region’s share of federal R&D funding to universities in the six states.

Belvin: Access, cost, funding, preparation, paradigm for continuous learning, non-transit student, examined life vs. skills.

Anonymous: Rising cost of education limits access to education.

Foster: Fulfilling the civic renewal mission by better incorporating the knowledge, values, and skills of actively engaged citizenship and life time commitment of service to society into the teaching/learning and research outcomes of a university.

Chieppo: The increasing demands posed by the need for remediation. Taking a step back, this means the most important higher education policy issue is fixing K-12 education.

Bourgeois: Disparity of educational opportunity/aspirations. access-- geographically, gender, income.

Kodrzycki: Increase access to higher education, for high school students and existing work force.

Torres: Recruitment and retraction of underserved population, minorities and students from low income families.

Arnesen: Affordability, accessibility, relevance (to secondary education, to the economy, to the body politic). Communications to rural areas, transportation.

2. What do you consider to be the most important economic development policy issue facing New England?

Levin: Balancing economic growth with quality of life concerns (sprawl, gridlock, etc.) in order to be able to provide jobs to support (increased, hopefully) population increases.

Belvin: Technology development (primarily software) then “unfinished business” of energy, transportation, and environment.


Anonymous: The need for a trained and educated labor force is primary, from teachers to machinists. We must develop a continuum from K-12 through re-training programs.

Foster: Infrastructure: New London as example of strengthening the capital infrastructure of a specific locality. Capital refer to financial, human, and social forms. Economic Citizenship is the goal so that our democratic institutions can make better (fairer and efficient) allocation of scarce resources, i.e. making choices.

Chieppo: Making New England less high cost-tax cuts. Ending corporate welfare (stadiums and convention centers).

Bourgeois: 1) Achieving the highest level of resident participation in and achievement of post secondary education. 2) Sustainable Development: urban/rural, sprawl, environmental quality.

Kodrzycki: To continue to innovate, we will never complete effectively, improve standards of living, if we produce “commodity” or outmoded products.

Torres: Establishing realistic minimum standards in job creation strategies; standards relating to family wages, insurance benefits, vacation, leave, etc.

Arnesen: What to do with the children and the old people, so the workforce can provide for the rapidly growing economy.

3. What do you consider to be the most important social policy issue facing New England?

Levin: Improving educational and social support institutions that help individuals become full participants in the economic growth of the country/region.

Belvin: Resolve “common good” vs. “special interest” politics.

Anonymous: Educating people to take a broader view of themselves and society.

Anonymous: Rebuilding sense of “we.” Jefferson’s notion of democracy.


Foster: Individual alienators and group disintegration are reflected in higher levels of mental health illness, stress/rage, family strains, loss of sense of community even in “gated communities.”

Chieppo: Racial harmony. Implementation of welfare reform.

Anonymous: A lack of visionary leadership for a regional future.

Bourgeois: 1) Disparity of income by geography, gender, education.2) Demographic changes.3) Early childhood education/nurture/readiness.

Kodrzycki: Reverse the trend toward growing inequality (actually a national problem).

Torres: I can focus on two: 1) Preparing for the demographic changes (minority and immigrant population growth) that will take place in the next decade 2) family quality of life.

Arnesen: How much inequity will we tolerate based on our perception of opportunities.


Levin: Strong opportunities exist for regional collaboration on transportation issues and for higher education institutions to cooperate on increasing R&D grants to the region. It is less likely for significant regional cooperation to materialize to address thorny social issues. Also, public policy institutes can be important in publicizing and illuminating problems and their solutions.

Belvin: Empower the “individual”, so enhance the RSP, cross enrollment: private and public, high school/college credit, truly address energy, transportation, and environmental issues.

Anonymous: Transportation, telecommunications, and distance learning could be discussed and addressed regionally. Tourism also might benefit from a regional marketing plan. Perhaps New England could encourage discussion on sprawl?

Anonymous: Inclusion, opportunity for all. Partnerships. Policy practice awards. Life long education; part time options; mentoring.

Foster: Define communities of practice by using new info technology. Celebrate regional institutes, i.e. economic citizenship. Communities of practice and training institutes


that include policy makers, practitioners, citizens, i.e. broad representation.

Bourgeois: 1) “Leadership New England”; 2) “Outcome-based indicators of economic and educational performance”; 3) Collaborative: “Set the Agenda” for research related to the economy and higher education.

Kodrzycki: Create regional collaboration among higher education institutions (rather that relying on strong reputation of individual institutions within the region). Find opportunities to share resources- including via the Internet (create an electronic NE university? Provide regional funding for public higher education?

Torres: NEBHE’s Public Policy Collaborative might sponsor a conference to discuss action-oriented initiatives along the three themes addressed in this focus group.

Other comments:

Belvin: Do a few things well!

Foster: Create local teams that meet on a regular basis to review what works, why, etc. in terms of problems/policies. Communities of practice are individuals who share an interest in solving a particular set of problems.

Bourgeois: Purpose of “Leadership New England”: a) build New England constituency and alumni; b) Help leaders understand New England and its regions; c) Publish indicators of economic and educational performance.


NEW ENGLAND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP

FOCUS GROUP MEETING

The following notes document NEBHE’s New England Technology Education Partnership focus group meeting, which took place at the NEBHE Offices in Boston on Aug. 3, 1999.

Attendees

Gary Crocker, Director of State & Federal Programs, Maine Technical College SystemMary Jane Curran, Environmental Technology Coordinator, Cape Cod Community CollegeMartin Drexhage, President, CAFAKaren Grosz, Chief Academic Officer, Board of Trustees, Connecticut Community-

Technical College SystemJames McCrystal, School of Education, Rhode Island CollegeGregory M. Sheldon, President, Sheldon CollaborativeBob Simeneau, Professor, Keene State CollegeScott Soares, Aquaculture Coordinator, Mass. Dept. of Food & Agriculture (written)Barry Werner, Dean of Math, Science and Engineering, Middlesex Community College (written)Ann Whitney, Dean, Canton Campus, Massasoit Community College (written)Teresa Romanovich, Massachusetts Community CollegesAnn Gaulin, Associate Consultant, Connecticut Learns, Connecticut Department of EducationMartha Hass, Massachusetts Department of EducationDoug Webster, Vermont Department of EducationAnn Weddleton, Grants Program Coordinator, New Hampshire Postsecondary

Introduction

Hanes explained to the participants that NEBHE’s strategic planning process entails gathering information from NEBHE’s constituents in each state as well as those served by particular NEBHE programs. She asked participants to introduce themselves and then called upon Hoy to make remarks.

Hoy noted that NEBHE was a freestanding, nonprofit organization supported by the six New England states. In 1955, the six New England governors led by Christian Herter of Massachusetts formed a compact to


provide New England residents with increased access to education opportunities within the region. Out of this compact the New England Regional Student Program was established offering regional access to certificates and associate, bachelor’s and graduate degrees.

NEBHE’s New England Technology Education Partnership (NETEP) focuses on community technical colleges and the technical high schools. Demand for fiber-optics technicians was growing and only one two-year institution, Springfield Technical Community College in Massachusetts, offered a program in this field. To address this need, NEBHE sought funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to educate high school teachers and college faculty in fiber-optics technology and prepare them to instructing students in the technology. NEBHE’s efforts were successful. Hoy noted that when NYNEX (now Bell Atlantic) was creating a customized associate degree in telecommunications, it sought NEBHE’s assistance. This collaboration eventually led to the NSF-funded Northeast Center for Telecommunications Technologies at STCC. NEBHE is now responsible for research and dissemination for the center.

Another NETEP component focuses on aquaculture. The importance of marine science and technology to New England prompted NEBHE to seek grant funding for aquaculture education. The NSF responded by awarding a significant curriculum and professional development grant.

Hoy asked those present to respond to several questions designed to assist NEBHE in the planning process. He mentioned that New England could celebrate the fact that the region has the lowest unemployment of any U.S. region. At the same time, however, the region has slow population growth and a desperate shortage of skilled workers. This becomes a restraint to potential growth in technology areas. Workforce development is critical for New England.

Hanes directed the participants to look at some of the highlights of the Future of New England survey in which NEBHE surveyed 1,000 opinion leaders and 1,000 households. The No. 1 issue was K-12 and how to improve it—just as it had been when NEBHE did a similar survey in 1987. Hanes asked participants what they considered to be the most important higher education issues related to technological education and development of a technologically skilled workforce.


Inadequate preparation for higher education

Whitney said the K-12 education crisis is a cultural issue. Public education is not able to prepare students to go on to college. Students don’t have sufficient math and reasoning skills and so community colleges are not able to retain students in technology areas.


Werner said another significant problem is the lack of qualified students coming from lower-income cities and towns. This problem is reflected in the results of the state MCAS tests. As a result, fewer students from these lower income schools are interested and/or able to benefit from technology programs.

Crocker said Maine legislators are being made aware of the need for technology education and the fact that Maine students aren’t prepared to go on to higher education.

Inadequate resources

Drexhage said there is a tremendous need for technicians in the fiber-optics industry—50 percent of the workforce at some companies are technicians. CAFA is working with educational institutions to address this issue. He pointed out that the K-12 system suffers from a lack of hardware and students need to see the technology to get excited.

Curran said Cape Cod Community College was frustrated by the lack of space and funding in addressing and ultimately meeting this need.

Changing role of the community collegesCurran said that historically, the role of the community colleges has been to prepare students for four-year colleges. Slowly this role has begun to change, driven by the need for entry-level technical positions. Technicians now have a place in the New England workforce.

Sheldon agreed, noting that the telecommunications industry has high-paying jobs for technicians.

Teacher recruitment and preparation

The issue of teacher recruitment and preparation was raised. McCrystal raised the questions of what a technology teacher actually must be prepared to teach and described a successful teacher preparation courses at the college that offer technology components at the Community College of Rhode Island.

This solution was also mentioned by Werner who suggested using community colleges as student teaching sites.

Gaulin said the professional development model for K-12 teacher preparation programs is more effective than the best practice models.

Simeneau expressed his concern that colleges are not recruiting enough students who plan to prepare to teach technology.

Sheldon said the way to address this is to increase the number of students with math and science skills. He said that education must figure out a way to


subsidize teacher preparation. Industry cannot do this but could help bring pressure on legislators.

Gaulin said in Connecticut’s K-12 system, teachers are starting to teach differently, using more applied learning strategies. However, the postsecondary system has not yet embraced this approach.

Crocker said Maine has the same problem but is addressing these issues through Tech-Prep programs and through how and what is being taught. It will take time before all the faculty are educated in new teaching strategies.

Access and distance learning

The problem of access to higher education was raised and the solution of distance learning was mentioned.

Economic Issues

Skills mismatch

Sheldon said there is a serious disconnect between business and education. The top technology companies hire engineers and fully expect to have to train them for the first several years. They are not prepared to “hit the ground running.” He felt there was a need to identify problems early on in the educational process. Fifty percent of high school graduating seniors are functionally illiterate and never graduate from college. The challenge for industry is to address the needs of this huge pool of undereducated people and provide literacy education programs. He also noted that there is a large need to train incumbent workers and that overall industry is taking a more serious look at the issue of lifelong learning. He asked: “What business are you (educators) in?”

Weddleton repeated what Sheldon had asked earlier: “What is the business that higher education is in?” She said that higher education did not have a good record in skills education and the updating of skills. In the area of retraining, the two-year colleges are sensitive to changing but four-year college graduates need to return to a community college to gain technical skills.

Hass said that the programs that are the most successful are those where business is involved from the start. She said that education reform is very slow. At the high school level, in the vocational technical schools, broad-based changes are required.

Hoy asked: “What happens when a specific job that someone has been trained for is gone?” He said the corporate sector has to be able to define what they mean by skills. The four-year faculty do not want to hear about skills. The mismatches between education and job requirements are fairly profound. There is a need to have a New England vocabulary. He pointed


out that, at one point, the Massachusetts High Technology Council was crying for electrical engineers. Then the need dissipated. Corporate leaders are now requesting individuals who can think and write, while human resources people are looking for technicians.

Soares said that in aquaculture, the technology changes every day. Industry is looking for people who can adapt to new technologies. Students need to understand the importance of flexibility and the ability to use new technologies.

Skills standards

Webster said he came to the Vermont Department of Education from the business world. When it came to developing skills standards in Vermont, he went to industry and the National Skills Standards Board and began to build linkages, forming industry groups. This led to development of skill sets for business and identification of customer needs. Now businesses are using skills standards to measure worker performance.

Romanovich noted that this has helped to increase wages in industry. The standards are also being used to implement change in education, primarily at the high school level. Doug also stressed that skills standards are used as an assessment tool and can lead to articulated programs between secondary and postsecondary institutions.

Gaulin asked Webster to elaborate on skills standards. He responded that there are areas of specialization in vocational schools and there have been other areas identified which apply to many jobs. Academic standards are tied in to skills standards by defining what someone needs to know to be an effective worker.

Weddleton said industry has finally learned how to define its skill needs. What’s needed is a retooling of institutions and a redefinition of math and science curricula.

Hass said that until Massachusetts started with curriculum frameworks and MCAS tests, school systems were doing their own things. But with curriculum frameworks and MCAS, underperforming schools will now be accountable.

Societal Issues

Removing bias toward technical skills and community colleges

Curran said there is a need to educate parents about the value of a two-year degree. There is a mindset that students should have nothing less than a bachelor’s degree.


Grosz said all of society in New England has a hierarchical mindset. Until this changes, the community-technical colleges will not get the money they need. Dual enrollment programs are needed. Also, higher education’s reward system is based on academic instruction not applied learning.

Hass stressed that we need to change the image of the value of a community college education. We need to develop data that demonstrates why a community college education is desirable.

Werner added that we need to market the benefits of technology careers and the educational requirements to enter those careers.


EXCELLENCE THROUGH DIVERSITY INITIATIVE

FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS

The following notes document NEBHE’s Excellence Through Diversity Initiative focus group meetings, which took place at the University of Connecticut on Sept. 13, 1999, at Brown University on Sept. 14, 1999 and at NEBHE on Sept. 15, 1999.

Attendees (Sept. 13, 1999)

Distinguished GuestsJames Henkel, Deputy Provost for Research and Development, Associate Dean

of the Graduate School, UConnDavid Knecht, Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, UConnEdward Leadbetter, Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, UConnLinda Strausbaugh, Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, UConnPhilip Yeagle, Professor and Chair, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, UConn

NEBHE StaffAmanda Burton, Assistant Director, Excellence Through Diversity InitiativeJoAnn Moody, Vice President and Director, Excellence Through Diversity Initiative

DiscussionThe faculty participating in the discussion said improving K-12 public schooling is the No. 1 priority for New England, especially in math and science. The second priority is diversifying college enrollment and the faculty ranks in New England. Related to this, all the faculty praised NEBHE for its help in recruiting and retaining minority graduate students but said more could be done. Also, they are hopeful that NEBHE will help them recruit and retain minority faculty for their campuses. They recognized NEBHE’s expertise in this area.

Higher education, one faculty member pointed out, is headed into an “apartheid-like division.” Faculty are overwhelmingly white but the student body is becoming increasingly non-white. All the faculty members indicated that NEBHE should encourage the U.S. Congress to increase funding for university research and development. Such research and its applications have driven the success of the U.S. economy and improved the public’s health and standard of living.


Distinguished GuestsGeloniaDent, Professor, Applied Math Department, Brown University


David Gottlieb, Professor, Applied Math Department, Brown UniversityChistopher Jones, Professor, Applied Math Department, Brown UniversityMichael Plater, Associate Dean, Graduate School, Brown UniversityProfessor Chi-Wang Shu, Chair, Applied Math Department, Brown University



DiscussionThe faculty believed that diversifying college and graduate school enrollment was the top priority in New England. The faculty praised NEBHE for its commitment to helping science departments with its recruitment and retention. Also a top priority for the region, in their view, was the improvement of elementary and high schools, e.g. shifting away from rote-memory methods of learning in science to more hands-on and conceptual experiments and projects. “Students are turned off by math and science teachers at an early age in America. This is tragic for the students and for the nation,” one professor maintained. While American education may be the envy of the world, it is clear that math and science teaching at the early levels is not. “Whoever invented multiple choice tests for science classes deserves to burn in hell,” another professor quipped. He noted that the American Academy of Science recently issued a paper condemning the use of such testing in the younger grades and the concomitant emphasis on superficial, rote learning. Everyone concurred.

The faculty also mentioned that NEBHE would be wise to make Congress aware of the importance of R&D to universities and to the local and national economy. Increasing funds for science R&D must always be a priority, they said.


NEBHE’s 1999-2000 Dissertation ScholarsAlexandra CorneliusSheri CottonCassandra JacksonJohn LorenzJoan MedinaFrancisco OrtegaPeony SmithLeni Turner

These minority scholars are in the humanities and social sciences and will be completing their dissertations while in residence at one of NEBHE’s host campuses—University of Vermont, Boston College, Bridgewater State College, Simmons College, University of Maine System and Northeastern University. All eight scholars are preparing to enter the professoriate.


DiscussionThe students believed that New England had to improve its race relations. They noted significant segregation in housing and observe that very few minorities hold leadership positions in New England, and especially in academia.

They believe that K-12 public schools are failing to serve both white and minority students adequately. Minority students, in particular, often face stereotypical and


negative attitudes from teachers. This creates a hindrance to the academic achievement and self-confidence of many students. They believe all minority students must make more effort to close the gap between the haves and have-nots. The shifting of most wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people is “un-American,” according to one student, who asked: “What happened to the American Dream of a big middle class?”

The students also said they were worried that college students throughout the country seem to be “richer and richer”—they sense that far fewer low-income students attend college now that did in the 1960s. College is becoming resegregated according to class.

Following is a summary of JoAnn Moody’s August 1999 phone interview with University of Rhode Island Biology Professor and Associate Dean Harold Bibb and Mount Holyoke College Chemistry Professor Sheila Browne.

Both professors praised NEBHE for helping various department and campuses with the recruitment and retention of minorities. “This is the No. 1 problem in New England higher education,” according to Browne. “Faculty and departments really do not know what works to attract and keep minority students.”

Bibb agreed that diversifying is the key as well as somehow helping K-12 to do a better job in teaching students. “It is a brain drain when we push students to think that memory work is really learning. We must help students learn critical thinking and help them see that learning—especially science—is great fun. We are failing here.”


NEW ENGLAND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM

FEEDBACK

The following notes document feedback on the New England Environmental Education Program, which was collected via survey during summer and fall 1999. Supervisors and faculty members who have participated in NEBHE’s Environmental Internship Program in the past five years evaluated the program, its educational and professional workshops and its emphasis on interdisciplinary study. They were also asked to comment on their experiences with other NEBHE programs.

Participants

Corporate and Agency SupervisorsAndrea Asch, Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Ice Cream, VermontDavid C. Austin, Living Technologies Inc., VermontGail Benedict, Massachusetts Department of Environmental ManagementMichele Boomhower, Lamoille County Planning Commission, VermontJohn Bott, City of Lewiston, MaineDonna Barlow Casey, Central Vermont Solid Waste Management DistrictElisa Clancy, Vermont Department of AgriculturePeter G. Gregory, Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission, VermontDavid Healy, Stone Environmental Inc., VermontGlenn R. Hearn, Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School-Watershed Project, MassachusettsSami Izzo, Greater Upper Valley Solid Waste Management District, VermontJames Jutras, Village of Essex Junction, Vermont, Wastewater FacilityDavid Keeley, Maine State Planning OfficeScott A. Knowlen, Cianbro Corp., MaineEd Leary, Vermont Agency of Natural ResourcesPolly McMurtry, Vermont Department of Housing & Community AffairsLisa McNeill, Cape Cod Center for SustainabilityDon Martin, Champion International Corp., MaineMark DesMeules, Maine State Planning Office, Land for Maine’s Future ProgramArthur R. Menuten, Vermont Farm BureauJoanne Morin, Timberland New HampshireBud Newell, Epro MaineWendy Porter, Champion International Corp., MaineChris Rushton, Maine Department of Environmental ProtectionBill Sheehan, Massachusetts Department of Environmental AffairsElwood G. Trask, Gates Formed-Fibre Products, MaineStephanie Watson, Maine State Planning Office

Faculty MembersMaria A. Curtin, Stonehill College, MassachusettsMichelle Dumais, Boston University


Douglas Facey, Saint Michael’s CollegeRichard A. Fralick, Plymouth State College, New HampshireRobert Gardula, Fitchburg State College, MassachusettsMichael K. Heiman, Dickinson College, PennsylvaniaAnn Ingerson, Sterling College, VermontCathleen McAnneny, University of Maine, FarmingtonAlan McIntosh, University of VermontPatricia S. Reisert, Assumption College, MassachusettsJan Spencer, University of VermontDeane Wang, University of Vermont

1. Is the Environmental Internship Program the type of service that NEBHE should offer to the region? If yes, why? If no, why not?

McNeill: The program: 1. Fits into your organizational goals; 2. Provides a service/value to New England students; and 3. Provides a service/value to New England employers.

Benedict: It is hard for the students to know what kinds and variety of jobs are available in the environmental field. The program provides an important service for students and employers who want to encourage students to enter environmental fields.

Menuten: Job-seekers will fare much better having had the internship experience.

Boomhower: It provides students with an outstanding opportunity to network with regional professionals, thus enhancing future prospects for New England environmental programs.

Austin: Employers get high-quality interns who are worth taking a risk on. Students get to orient themselves to the reality of work.

Jutras: It provides qualified individuals with field-related work experience; in addition, it provides the employer with a talented individual who is able to provide specific work functions and study without a long-term commitment.

Clancy: These students represent the future of New England’s environmental workforce.

Knowles: Great value to both New England student and to companies in the region.


Healy: The benefits are greater than the investment. The learning/work experience creates a more valued and productive workforce.

Casey: It is extremely valuable to introduce students to real-world situations and offer them experiences that help foster a strong commitment to the environmental stewardship. The region needs all the help it can get. The student’s availability offers environmental agencies an opportunity to add important projects to their work plans.

Morin: Excellent source of qualified and environmentally minded interns.

Martin: There are significant environmental problems, issues and opportunities that are looking for solutions. These solutions will be provided by fresh approaches developed by today’s students.

Curtin: It is an excellent program. It gives students exposure to local industries and allows them to make a contribution to the environmental policies and programs sponsored by those industries.

Spencer: Broad-based regional coordination of this type is very valuable.

Heiman: It directs many New England natives to professional opportunities in their region. It helps prevent young graduates from leaving the area and, in addition, provides New England with a well-trained and eager pool of environmental professionals.

Ingerson: Increases relevance of students’ education; provides a service to the community; helps improve morale of environmental professionals.

McIntosh: Invaluable service to students and good networking opportunities for faculty and employers.

Dumais: It is one area that is central to all of the New England states and provides an opportunity to bridge gaps between higher education, government and private industry.

Gardula: In addition to providing hands-on experiences for students, the program encourages host firms to become more directly involved in the training of potential employees. The region benefits from the creation of an experienced workforce.


2. Please identify which NEBHE programs you have had experience with or have knowledge of:

Experience with or Knowledgeof NEBHE Programs among:

Program Supervisors Faculty Comments

Connection 8% 53% Well written

Excellence Through Diversity 28% 13%

Regional Student Program 28% 40%

Telecommunications 4% 0%

Aquaculture 4% 20%

Fiber-Optic Technology 0% 0%

Environmental Education 28% 40% ExcellentResearch Initiative Program

Public Policy Collaborative 0% 13%


3. What do you consider to be the most important social issues facing New England? How do those issues it impact higher education? What challenges and opportunities for service do they present to higher education?

Menuten: One major social issue is the weakened family structure and the corresponding decline in the generational transfer of values. Schools and teachers are challenged by behavioral problems among their students, ultimately affecting their teaching.

Benedict: Working parents trying to raise children need more part-time opportunities with less emphasis on 80+ h/wk jobs (children need their parents). The children of America are being terribly short-changed—what kind of adults will they become?

Trask: Children in dysfunctional and/or impoverished families are not being encouraged by parent(s) or family to pursue any education, let alone higher education. These children need to be identified and assisted in early socialization/education programs (e.g. Head Start).

Anonymous #3: We need to get people involved in the community. Higher education needs to prepare students for citizenship and improve the cultural literacy of graduates.

McNeill: Affordable housing, health insurance and a widening gap between rich and poor. These issues impact most people, and will certainly impact graduating students. Challenge: prepare students for their own experiences with these issues, as well as how these issues impact our society in general! These issues present many opportunities for service, including volunteer opportunities, as well as public policy and research work. (The Public Policy Collaborative?)

Anonymous #3: Poverty and population growth rate. Higher education has become inaccessible to many despite its increasing importance. It needs to be viewed as an investment in the world’s future.

Jutras: Educational financial resources. Technical Education must lose its stigma of being only for those who can’t make it in a four-year school. Tech Ed and a degree equals employable students ready to work.

Morin: Sustainable development and urban planning issues.

Bott: Urban sprawl.


Boomhower: The shift from an agrarian-based notion of Vermont to the reality of the character of Vermont/New England. Community sustainability and creation of culturally valuable jobs. Promotion of youth in career development programs.

Clancy: Sprawl, decline of farming and farm land, increased pollution. Higher education can address these with symposiums.

Martin: How to advance the economy and environmental protection without compromising the integrity of either.

Des Meules: Maintaining a balance between ecology and economy is highly important. We will need problem-solvers with ecological and economical backgrounds and experience with real life situations. Training individuals who can hit the ground running is the challenge. Good jobs are the opportunity.

Watson: Traditional coastal New England cultures being displaced by service-oriented economics for tourists and retirees. The challenge is how to maintain these traditional communities on the New England coast and providing students with the tools to make a living while staying there.

Asch: 1. Sprawl; 2. Consumerism; 3. Social responsibility; and 4. Loss of agriculture.

Fralick: The need for applied education to provide an intelligent workforce for the 21st Century. Higher education needs to move more rapidly into the technology (computer) sector. Excellent opportunities for two- and four-year colleges and vocational schools.

Wang: Consumption rather than community focus and values. Incorporate values into education.

McIntosh: Environment: 1. Sprawl: it’s impact on New England’s air and water; 2. Non-point source pollution. Combating sprawl will require substantial help from higher education.

Ingerson: Increasing diversity—campuses should be models of harmony!

Heiman: Social issues addressing high unemployment regionally and seasonally. Also maintaining quality of life, especially environmental/natural resources which will become increasingly important for future economic, as well as the social health of the region. The toxic


use-reduction/pollution prevention program at U. Mass Lowell is a fine example of what must be done.

Sheehan: Conflicts between expanding populations and natural resource based business/economics.

Curtin: Racial tolerance, youth crime and single-parent families.

Spencer: Lack of diversity of population—especially Vermont. Impacts recruitment to college campuses.

Facey: Widening gap between rich and poor. Many of those who want higher education can’t afford it. Bring together issues of economic growth and social fairness (including environmental quality).

Reisert: 1. Encroaching of development on open spaces; 2. Recruitment of excellent K-12 teachers; 3. Caring for the elderly; 4. Clean waste and air, and sufficient electric power.

McAnneny: Economic opportunities particularly in rural areas. How do we get young people in these areas to value education and to help employers see the value in locating in these regions?

Gardula: Acculturation of immigrant groups. The provision of equal opportunity and support for the education of all immigrants should be a priority for the region.

4. What do you consider to be the most important economic issues facing New England? How do they impact higher education? What challenges and opportunities for service do they present to higher education?

Menuten: The primary economic issue with higher education in New England is the cost of tuition. Who pays, how much and for what? For better or worse we are all in a global market.

Morin: Taxes: there are no broad-based taxes to support education.

Benedict: Affordable housing: rising prices that fewer and fewer will be able to afford. Protection of open space and quality of life amidst sprawling development. Job Skills: workers being able to pace themselves and stay competitive amidst technological developments. The need for continuing education.


Bott: Using education to reduce the gap between the top and bottom wage-earners.

Boomhower: Sustainable agriculture. Creating forestry jobs that offer opportunities for community involvement. Higher education will need to assist in market creation, new and innovative ideas, and one-on-one community out-reach.

McMurtry: Population growth leads to depletion of resources. Also, the lack of livable wages.

Austin: Attracting and retaining technical industries that can sell their products and services both internationally and nationally.

Jutras: Diversification of the workforce and employers that can weather changes in the economy. Also, over-capitalization of business.

Porter: 1. Changing workforce: aging, shrinking labor jobs, increasing service jobs, changing technology; 2. Need flexible workforce: incorporate training/education into job requirements and expectations.

Rushton: Lack of high-tech, unobtrusive industry; lack of training at the post-secondary level.

Clancy: Taxes—especially on inheritance—make large land holdings impossible to keep in the family. New policies need to be created.

Knowles: 1. Change in job structure: Loss of high-paying industrial jobs; 2. Increase in lower paying service jobs; 3. Increasing requirements for use of technology, i.e. computers, etc.

Des Meules: The transition from an oil-based economy to a renewable and non-polluting energy-based economy. The challenge is producing well-trained individuals in this field. The opportunities will come in good-paying and quality positions in the workplace.

Martin: Movement away from an industrial-based economy. Transition toward more technology-information as the basis for the US economy. Transfer our knowledge and experience to developing countries involved in their own industrial revolutions.

Watson: 1. Concentrations of wealth; 2. Higher education can become very targeted to corporate entity’s needs versus community service needs; 3. Higher education can be


enhanced when the school is located near economically vital centers.

Trask: The decline of agriculture and fishing industries and increase in minimum wage-paying, service-based industries (i.e. telemarketing, fast food, etc.) that don't require higher education. Investment is needed in research to help drive high tech industries.

Asch: Urban sprawl and diversity of business opportunities. The rise in cost of living is out-pacing income. There is an increasing need to get a Master’s degree in order to get a decent job.

Reisert: The encroachment of development on open spaces, caring for the aging population, cleaning waste and air and providing sufficient electric power are clearly related to the economy. We need to educate young people about these issues and related careers.

Facey: Improving environmental quality while growing economically. We need to address this more in higher education.

Spencer: High tuition costs and low salaries (Vermont). Students leave the area after graduation because of low salaries and lack of opportunity.

Heiman: Implementation of NAFTA and trade and energy relations with Canada. Work towards energy self-sufficiency. Attracting more high-tech industry where quality of life is important for job seekers. New England has the natural beauty and resources to continue to attract those seeking high quality of life. The key is to make it affordable (taxes, rent, etc. ).

Ingerson: Growth of some communities and stagnation of others. Community volunteerism to plan for these issues is difficult to maintain because most adults are working. Students may be able to contribute research time.

McIntosh: How to provide livable wages for New Englanders without damaging New England’s natural resources—combating sprawl will require substantial help from higher education.

Wang: Globalization and lack of regional production, especially food. Learning a new economic model will be the challenge.

Anonymous #2 Loss of the fishery along the Atlantic coast. Fisheries science = ecological management; pollution prevention;


aquaculture; public education

Gardula: Preparation of a regional workforce that is technologically competent. Higher education can support this goal by sharing resources and personnel with high schools and other adult education organizations.

5. What can higher education institutions within New England do to better serve the higher education/research and knowledge sector of the New England economy?

Menuten: Raise your standards and demand higher levels of performance from students and teachers.

Bott: Continue to improve.

Benedict: More clarity, re: what educational path leads to what job opportunities, i.e. education + degree = jobs or job fields.

Jutras: Could provide students with basic, hands-on research skills—a tool noted as lacking in many surveys.

Knowles: Become better connected with the needs of oil industries/sectors in New England to identify research/knowledge needs.

Meules: Develop a list of emerging needs and what experience and academic background is needed to address these needs. Perhaps target the learning experience toward practical applications that result in greater conservation and sense of community versus abstract learning or research that is conducted without the social context in mind.

Trask: Promote partnering with industry to provide research and technical support that assists industry growth and fuels the need for some highly educated people.

Asch: Involve local businesses in the classroom. This would also go for NGOs (non-governmental organizations) in the area. There are an increasing number of alliances developing between these two. This should also happen within education.

Boomhower: Become involved in partnerships with state, regional and local agencies and organizations to extend potential funding and technical expertise for community sustainability.


McMurtry: Interact more with the real world, i.e. come out of Ivory Tower. They are doing this more since I went to college—but there can be much more.

Rushton: Provide information on how to access funding for higher education/research.

Martin: Can we establish relationships with industrial locations in developing countries to help them identify and solve significant environmental and occupational safety problems?

Fralick: Train people in technology.

Wang: Collaborate more to integrate curriculum both within and among New England universities. Interdisciplinary education is the challenge.

McIntosh: Economy: not my area of expertise.Environment: Issuer of sprawl, management, and he like are complex and involve many disciplines. We need to do a better job of interpreting education throughout New England to deal with these issues.

Ingerson: Gear research toward real community issues.

Heiman: NEBHE seems to be doing a fine job bringing various colleges and universities together—particularly to avoid a duplication of efforts. I just returned from Europe (Fulbright) and saw the potential at the national level for an extension of the European Union.

Curtin: Higher education institutions could focus more on solutions to immediate environmental threats by looking at the impact of industry on the environment.

Facey: Stronger emphasis on importance of fundamental math/science skills for all students—a better educated public.

Reisert: Build connections with industry, state agencies, etc. to provide internship opportunities for undergraduates.

McAnneny: Foster links between faculty and this sector.

Dumais: More cooperation between academic programs and employers.

Anonymous#2: Provide a broad background for students (math and science) in the undergraduate years. Students can focus


their education in graduate school.

Gardula: Keep the costs of attending colleges and universities down for all qualified students. Create and support programs which recognize intellectually-gifted students of all ages.

6. What can we do as a region to address those issues?

Benedict: Greater communication between students, faculty and employers, possibly via the Internet; use of career centers, libraries and career counselors.

Bott: Try to maintain quality.

Boomhower: Recognize that no single entity will be able to solve our pressing social and economic needs, and that as a consortium, organizations will improve communications and opportunities.

McMurtry: There are opportunities, such as governors’ summits; it appears that NEBHE can play a strong educational and lobbying role.

Jutras: Reach out to institutions and grass roots organizations to find placements for interested students.

Knowles: The environmental intern program is a good start. Involve sector/industry representatives more closely with higher education institutions.

Des Meules: Hold “Town Meetings” or “Discussion Groups” to flush out issues concerning students, teachers and current workplace professionals.

Watson: Enhance the connections between the natural world and communities. Make linkages between natural and social sciences through interdisciplinary education programs.

Trask: Encourage and support university/industry cooperative programs such as the University of Maine Cooperative Affiliate Program.

Asch: Encourage more cooperation between sectors.

Reisert: Stimulate interest in regional issues at the K-12 level.

Heiman: I like the idea of supporting a few regional leaders. UMass-Lowell’s Toxic Use Reduction Center has distinguished itself as a national model. By working with industry, state


and local government, the center has helped to protect jobs and the economic health of Mass. industry, as well as promote environmentally sustainable development.

Ingerson: Link university researchers with the communities who need research done.

McIntosh: Define the issues. Identify best approaches. Assemble terms to perfect approaches.

Wang: Work together to develop new curriculum models.

Fralick: Train people in technology.

Dumais: Create more programs like the environmental internship program.

Gardula: I’m not sure what “as a region” means. Certainly, the educational institutions within the region can exert a strong influence in the training of students.

7. Can NEBHE assist in addressing those issues?

Benedict: As an information clearing-house, or, as a provider of “links.” Build bridges between existing information sources/clearing houses. Study impacts of working parents on children’s performance/success in school, higher education and workplace.

Menuten: Be a spokesperson for higher standards.

Boomhower: Through workshops on integrative partnering.

Jutras: Network with participants in the program to establish contacts.

Des Meules: Hold “Town Meetings” with a carefully planned agenda and present the results at next year’s NEBHE conference.

Watson: Encourage environmental internships that blend the natural sciences and social sciences. Include this theme in workshops and other programs.

Asch: Encourage interaction between academics and businessmen at conferences.

8. If yes, how might NEBHE serve the region?


Reisert: Perhaps more focus on awareness of regional concerns at high school level?

Facey: Encourage institutions to expose non-science students to science and math.

Curtin: NEBHE is in a great position to work as a facilitator and even sponsor conferences. I suggest meetings between government agencies, industry and academia.

Heiman: Host tours and seminars at those regional research institutions already serving in the NEBHE mission. There are dozens of such institutions already established in the New England Region. This would be a first step.

Ingerson: Help network researchers with community groups in need of assistance.

McIntosh: Could be the facilitating mechanism that brings together New England’s academic expertise.

Wang: Facilitate collaborations and initial discussions.

Fralick: Gather groups of tech faculty and listen to them.

McAnneny: Foster stronger communication among the faculties especially between the private and public universities.

Gardula: Exert an even stronger influence on legislators throughout the region to increase their support for public colleges and universities.

9. What issues, problems or topics would you like the New England Board of Higher Education, as a regional organization, to address in the near future?

Menuten: Educational performance standards for students and teachers. Who are the leaders in the industry, and are they satisfied with your product?

McNeill: Perhaps the issue of the Labor Force leaping up with market demands. How to train more people—not necessarily through 4-year college degrees—to keep up in the technology sector. Also, how to work with businesses so that students are getting appropriate training in school, along with important liberal arts training, which develops a well-rounded, balanced employee.

Bott: Urban sprawl.


Clancy: Waste management, water quality, global warming.

Martin: Environmental “Life Cycle Assessments” to help people make informed decisions to help the environment. For example, is it better to use paper bags, plastic bags, or cloth bags? Is it better to use disposable diapers or cloth diapers? Evaluate economic and environmental consequences of decisions.

Watson: Sprawling development/losses of communities, displacement of farmers and traditional fishermen.

Fralick: Expand the aquaculture program. Organize an aquaculture symposium.

Wang: Conversations about the future of higher education in a changing world. How can universities be more flexible and adaptive?

McIntosh: Broad, region-wide problems like sprawl and watershed approaches—such problems also offer a variety of opportunities to educate out undergraduate/graduate students interested in the environment.

Heiman: Transportation, renewable and sustainable energy, solid waste management, phasing out incineration, addressing regional transfer of solid waste, looking at high seasonal unemployment/resource extraction and industries (fishing, logging, etc.).

McAnneny: Economic opportunity/sustainable development in the rural areas of New England.

Anonymous #2: Pollution prevention; ecological fisheries management.

10. Are there any other comments you would like to make?

Menuten: Our experience this summer continues to be very positive. We hope our intern feels the same way. Water quality issues have continued to be prevalent this summer and our intern has certainly been exposed to the issues and introduced to the players. I see this as one of the main benefits of an internship.

Bott: I continue to be impressed by the caliber of NEBHE interns and the program.


Des Meules: I would do more to encourage participants, especially supervisors, to set a goal of publishing joint articles with their interns.

Martin: Keep up the high energy and good work. It’s contagious!

Watson: Thank you for the opportunity to host such a talented intern, Joe Famely, with the Casco Bay Estuary Project. His skills and his perspective are a great resource and inspiration. Your internship program is a great service to students and organizations alike.

Spencer: The Environmental Internship Program is one of the best internship programs I have encountered in the field. Not only are the internships great experience, but the symposia and the leadership project add a dimension that other programs aren’t providing. Great job!

Heiman: Remember that a large number of New England students are getting their education just outside the region in schools of the Middle Atlantic, etc. Keep those people in mind as you continue to refine the internship program. They will, in all likelihood, be returning to lend their talent and energy to building a strong and sustainable New England economy/environment.

McIntosh: Why not reconstitute your environmental advisory group? A fall meeting to scope out issues/opportunities might be timely. I’d volunteer! Also, explore opportunities to bring in environmental expertise to NEBHE—I suspect there are others like myself who would consider six-month leaves working with NEBHE on issues of interest.

McAnneny: Keep up the good work!


WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?THE VIEW FROM THE BOARD

In October 1999, NEBHE delegates were asked to offer their opinions on the priority issues that had emerged from state and program-specific focus group meetings held by NEBHE during the summer and fall of 1999. Delegates were asked to rate the priorities, first, in terms of their importance to the delegates from a professional perspective, and second, in terms of their importance to NEBHE for the next five years. A summary of the delegates’ responses will be disseminated at NEBHE’s annual fall board meeting and subsequently incorporated in the section of this report titled, “Where do We Go From Here? The View from the Board.”

HIGHER EDUCATION ISSUES

1. Access and AffordabilityExpanding opportunity for all students in the land of American’s highest-priced higher education institutions.

2. Recruitment and RetentionAttracting students to enroll on New England campuses, stay through graduation and live and work in the region.

3. Uneven Academic PreparationNew England’s urban, rural and suburban school systems offer varying levels of quality—the implications for higher education are significant.

4. Role in K-12 ImprovementTeacher shortage, quality and performance of teacher education programs, school–college partnerships.

5. Workforce DevelopmentEducating and training a high-skills workforce for emerging industries in a rapidly changing economy.

6. Liberal LearningWhat is higher education’s role in preparing graduates for civic engagement, moral responsibility, appreciation for arts and culture and meaningful living.

7. Lifelong LearningLinking early childhood education, K-12, higher education, adult learning and relearning as parts of a single continuum.

8. Public Perception


Despite wide acknowledgment of the singular importance of higher education to New England, this regional asset has been takenfor granted, resulting in underinvestment.


9. Environmental EducationThe critical environmental issues facing the region—and the planet—put a premium on interdisciplinary programs interweaving sciences, economics and political science.

10. Distance LearningThe growing potential of educational technologies present new opportunities and challenges across the spectrum of higher education.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

11. Increased PolarizationThe growing gap between have and have-not populations and communities in the region.

12. Skills MismatchEmployers have difficulty filling high-skills jobs even as large segments of New England population lack the education and training to participate in knowledge economy. Implications for curricular change.

13. High-cost, Slow-Growth RegionRegion suffers from historical competitive disadvantages: high cost of housing, energy and higher education, and slow growth due to outflow of young people and aging of workforce.

14. Higher Education’s Economic RoleTapping higher education resources to prepare a highly skilled workforce and fuel technological competitiveness through R&D transfer and investment.

15. Crisis of OpportunityLack of access to higher education for many results in lack of social and economic mobility.

16. Equity and PluralismRacial inequities continue to plague New England’s education enterprise and broader economy.

17. Growth ManagementWith prosperity have come suburban sprawl, urban disinvestment and a host or related issues involving land-use, transportation, conservation and school construction.

18. Civic EngagementHigher education and the nonprofit sector can help New Englanders reconnect with one another and their communities.

19. Applied Policy Research


New England higher education’s nationally significant social and economic policy expertise must become more accessible and “actionable.”


OPPORTUNITIES FOR REGIONAL COLLABORATION

20. Promoting Regional CollaborationOpportunities for interstate cooperation abound in America’s only historically defined region. But cross-border, cross-sector (business, education, government, nonprofit) consensus-building is difficult.

21. Political CloutNew England’s declining influence in Washington suggests a need for regional cooperation on high-priority regional issues.

22. Sharing Higher Education ResourcesEnsuring access to new or high-cost higher education programs will increasingly demand interstate sharing of resources.

23. Sharing Best PracticesDeveloping regional frameworks to share best practices in higher education, economic development and social initiatives.

24. Economic AnalysisNew England’s knowledge economy requires world-class labor market and economic policy analysis as well as competitive assessment of strengths and challenges.

25. Regions within the regionUnderstanding the unique needs and divisions within the region reveals a complex and diverse set of opinions and priorities requiring creative solutions.


APPENDIX A: FUTURE OF NEW ENGLAND SURVEY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

___________________________________________________________________________

FUTURE OF NEW ENGLAND SURVEY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The role of nation-states is changing all around the globe as political boundaries give way to powerful regional initiatives. Meanwhile, profound technological and demographic changes are transforming New England's workplaces, schools and homes.

Which issues are most important to New Englanders? Which industries are most promising? Which problems most troubling? What does the future hold for America's smallest region? How can New Englanders work together to brighten their prospects?

The New England Board of Higher Education (NEBHE) and the John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Massachusetts-Boston recently undertook the Future of New England Survey in an effort to answer these questions.

During the fall of 1998 and early winter of 1999, NEBHE surveyed more than 1,000 New England "opinion leaders," including college presidents and academic vice presidents, New England state legislators, directors of public policy think tanks, foundation heads, school superintendents, mayors, newspaper editors, community leaders and business executives.

In January 1999, the McCormack Institute, in cooperation with NEBHE, developed a companion survey of 1,000 randomly selected New England households. This "public opinion" component of the Future of New England Survey was conducted Jan. 18-22, 1999 as part of the quarterly UMass poll.

Notably, NEBHE conducted a similar survey of business, higher education and government leaders approximately one decade earlier as New England was enjoying the economic boom known as the "New England Miracle."

KEY FINDINGS

Education Is the Hot Issue


NEW ENGLAND MEANS EDUCATION. Fully 96 percent of New England opinion leaders said educational institutions helped somewhat or very much to define New England as a region, second only to history and traditions, but ahead of climate and weather, geography and arts in contributing to the definition of the six-state region. Notably, 56 percent said New England was somewhat or very much defined by its sports teams, while 53 percent said labor market helped somewhat or very much to define the region.

• Opinion Leaders Speak Out: Some opinion leaders find the six-state region less defined than others do. One Massachusetts think tank director wrote in: "New England is nothing more than a geographic destination."

• The Public's View: Ninety percent of households said educational institutions helped somewhat or very much to define New England as a region. But just as many said the region was defined by its geography and climate, as well as quality of life issues. Like opinion leaders, the public suggested a relatively minor role for sports teams in defining the region.

NO ISSUE CONCERNS NEW ENGLAND OPINION LEADERS MORE THAN THE QUALITY OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Asked which policy issues need the most urgent attention, opinion leaders indicated: 1) education improvement (public K-12); 2) infrastructure improvement; 3) energy affordability; 4) health care access for the uninsured; and 5) education improvement (higher). Indeed, education improvement (public K-12) was considered the most pressing policy issue in every New England state!

• Flashback: New England's opinion leaders were concerned about the quality of K-12 education long before the recent spate of court challenges to school financing or the debate over student and teacher testing. Indeed, in 1987, New England business, higher education and government leaders surveyed by NEBHE ranked improving the public schools No. 1 among 19 public policy priorities.

• The Public's View: Asked which regional policy areas New England political leaders should tackle first, households ranked K-12 education No. 1, followed by:2) the economy and 3) the environment.

OPINION LEADERS WANT COLLEGES TO HELP FIX PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Dramatically underscoring the emphasis on K-12 improvement, New England opinion leaders said the single most important thing higher education could do to contribute to New England’s economic development would be to improve the quality of local schools. That was followed by


enhancing the analytical skills of undergraduates and developing student internship and school-to-work programs with area organizations.

PARTNERSHIPS TOUTED; LITTLE SUPPORT FOR SCHOOL VOUCHERS. Asked to indicate their level of support for specific proposals to reform public K-12 education, 86 percent of New England opinion leaders supported partnerships with higher education. Beyond partnerships, opinion leaders cite measures to improve teacher quality among the most important strategies for improving public schools. Fully 83 percent of respondents support stricter teacher certification standards and 81 percent support merit-based teacher pay scales. Just 34 percent said they support voucher programs and only 28 percent support for-profit schooling ventures.

• Opinion Leaders Speak Out: The current preoccupation with teacher standards has a flip side. Asked to rate various proposals to reform K-12 education, one Massachusetts college president wrote in: "Stop bashing teachers."

OPINION LEADERS WANT TO ELIMINATE TENURE FOR COLLEGE PROFESSORS, INCREASE STUDENT AID. Asked which strategies would do most to improve higher education, New England opinion leaders indicated: 1) eliminating the traditional tenure system; 2) improving credit transferability between institutions; 3) increasing need-based financial aid; 4) increasing merit-based financial aid; and 5) increasing federal financial aid.

• Opinion Leaders Speak Out: On the question of improving higher education, many respondents wrote in suggestions that higher education institutions lower their tuition. One Connecticut business person suggested that campuses "eliminate the 'party' atmosphere and increase the 'educational' atmosphere." A Massachusetts college administrator suggested the region "increase funding for research and dissemination [of research results] from laboratory to marketplace."

Prospects for New England's Knowledge Economy

INDUSTRIAL WINNERS AND LOSERS? New England opinion leaders are bullish about biotech and software. Fully 89 percent said they expected moderate or major growth in biotechnology, while 88 percent expected moderate or major growth in computer software. Those industries were followed by: telecommunications, computer hardware, research and development, and environmental technology. At the other end of the list,


opinion leaders said they expected moderate or major declines in agriculture, textiles, defense and fishing.

• Flashback: The economic potential of biotechnology has been recognized for at least a decade in New England. In 1987, biotech was one of only two industries in which New England opinion leaders surveyed by NEBHE said they expected major growth. The other was finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE).

ENSURING HIGH SKILLS. Asked specifically about social and demographic issues, New England opinion leaders rank expanding the skilled labor force first. Asked which workforce education and training issues need the most urgent attention in New England, opinion leaders indicated: 1) investing more in K-12 education; 2) ensuring the technical proficiency of the future workforce; 3) upgrading the basic skill level (reading, writing, math) of the present workforce; 4) providing professional and technical training for the present workforce; and 5) retraining displaced workers and providing job placement assistance.

• Flashback: The education of the workforce never fades completely from New England's policy consciousness. But the issues change. In the late 1980s, much attention was focused on rising high school dropout rates. In 1987, New England opinion leaders considered the education and training of high school dropouts to be the most serious education and training problem facing the region.

New England Leaders Worry About High Costs, Family Pressures, Distressed Cities

NEW ENGLAND OPINION LEADERS VIEW HIGH COSTS AS THE MOST SERIOUS OBSTACLES TO NEW ENGLAND'S FUTURE ECONOMIC GROWTH. A significant 77 percent said they viewed energy costs as an obstacle or major obstacle, 75 percent cited housing costs, 73 percent indicated cost of living, 70 percent indicated health insurance costs, and 67 percent indicated tax structure. Notably, opinion leaders ranked energy affordability third among the public policy issues in most urgent need of attention behind only K-12 improvement and infrastructure improvement.

• Flashback: New England is haunted by old ghosts. In 1987, New England opinion leaders said the cost of housing and a shortage of skilled labor were the two most important obstacles to the region's economic growth.


• Opinion Leaders Speak Out: Some respondents took the opportunity to write in obstacles beyond those listed on the survey questionnaire, including, for example, excessive regulation and corruption.

• The Public's View: Among households surveyed by the McCormack Institute, cost of living, including the cost of utilities and health care, ranked as the No. 1 obstacle to regional economic growth, with 82 percent of respondents citing costs as an obstacle or major obstacle, followed by housing costs (cited by 78 percent), cost of higher education (cited by 76 percent) and tax structure (cited by 76 percent).

FAMILY PRESSURES DOMINATE SOCIAL CONCERNS AMONG OPINION LEADERS. The opinion leaders ranked access to health and child care for the poor and middle classes second, and the impact of working parents on children and family third, among the most important social and demographic issues facing New England. Only expanding the skilled labor force was cited more frequently.

THE ECONOMIC ABANDONMENT OF INNER-CITIES IS ALSO ON THE MINDS OF OPINION LEADERS. Opinion leaders ranked the economic abandonment of inner-cities fourth among social and demographic issues. Asked specifically which strategies would most help New England’s distressed urban communities, New England opinion leaders indicated: 1) offering tax incentives or below-market financing for businesses to locate in urban areas; 2) attracting basic service providers (banks, supermarkets, health care facilities, etc.); 3) investing in urban infrastructure; 4) providing day care for working single parents; and 5) offering low-rate mortgages to permit increased home ownership.

Six States Working as One?

A COLLABORATIVE FUTURE? Eighty-eight percent of New England opinion leaders think the region should work collaboratively toward regional goals, but just 36 percent of opinion leaders say they have worked on projects with government entities and or organizations from other states or countries.

• Opinion Leaders Speak Out: Given the opportunity to make suggestions about regionalism, one Rhode Island business person went so far as to suggest that New England should "operate as a single, strong state." But hurdles to regionalism remain. One Maine news reporter wrote: "Impress Massachusetts with the


knowledge that Maine is not their state park to be managed by them. "A Maine legislator warned that regional efforts are needed for: "Keeping New England competitive as a region without Boston becoming an economic oasis in wasteland."

• The Public's View: Among New England households surveyed, 90 percent say regional solutions are somewhat or very important to the economic well-being of the six states, and 67 percent believe the region should work actively toward specific goals. Moreover, New Englanders think responsibility for regional cooperation lies primarily with political leaders, followed by business leaders and education leaders. At the same time, 65 percent of respondents cited the inability of New England elected officials to work together as an obstacle or major obstacle to economic growth.

FORGING REGIONAL RESPONSES. Asked which areas have the greatest potential for regional ventures by or within the New England states, opinion leaders ranked enhancing the regional telecommunications network first, followed by tourism, workforce training programs, and health care access. On another question about which sector should be primarily responsible for addressing specific policy issues, opinion leaders saw a regional role in: 1) environmental issues; 2) tourism attraction; 3) energy affordability; 4) infrastructure improvement; and 5) natural and agricultural resource conservation.

• Opinion Leaders Speak Out: Invited to offer suggestions for regional action, several respondents suggested that the six states might standardize certification of various professions, including teaching; some called for uniform tax policies and a regional minimum wage. Maine opinion leaders were particularly interested in transportation issues. One Maine college president wrote in: "Make New England the commercial hub of a combined New England-Ontario-Quebec-Maritimes regional economy by: a) expanding Searsport to a major deep-water port, b) building an East-West highway across northern New England; and c) upgrading heavy rail to handle more intermodal traffic."

• The Public's View: Households were asked how effective regional strategies among the six New England states might be in addressing important issues. Fully 84 percent said a coordinated effort to develop telecommunications infrastructure to improve access to workforce training and education courses would be effective or very effective. That was followed by 2) joint trade missions to promote international trade by New England companies (cited by 81 percent); 3) a regional agreement to support economic development efforts by neighboring New England states (cited by 80 percent); 4) the notion of a regional State University of New England System to share academic resources and reduce administrative costs (cited by 78 percent);


and 5) regional development of a high-speed rail network connecting New England's cities (cited by 76 percent).

REGIONAL APPROACHES TO TRADE SUPPORTED. Asked which international economic strategies would contribute most to the New England economy, opinion leaders indicated: 1) developing telecommunications infrastructure to create regional trade access to global markets; 2) attracting foreign firms to New England via interstate cooperation; 3) providing export assistance to New England firms via interstate cooperation; 4) integrating understanding of the global economy into New England classrooms; and 5) promoting international tourism into New England via interstate cooperation.

SIX STATES SEE COMMON CHALLENGES? Improvement of public schools tops the list of urgent policy issues in every New England state, while expanding the skilled labor force ranks first among social and demographic issues in half the states. Despite a few state-specific variations, however, New England opinion leaders appear to be in general agreement about the most urgent issues facing their states.

POLICY ISSUES SOCIAL/DEMOGRAPHIC ISSUES

Connecticut1) Education improvement (public K-12) 1) Economic abandonment of inner cities2) Infrastructure improvement 2) Access to health care for the poor & middle class3) Affordable housing 3) Expanding the skilled labor force4) Drug abuse 4) Helping welfare recipients become self-sufficient5) Workforce retraining 5) Impact of working parents on children & family

Maine1) Education improvement (public K-12) 1) Access to health care for the poor & middle class2) Infrastructure improvement 2) Expanding the skilled labor force3) Maintaining R&D funding 3) Economic differences between northern and southern New England4) Education improvement (higher) 4) Impact of working parents on children & family5) Health care access for the uninsured 5) Economic abandonment of rural areas

Massachusetts1) Education improvement (public K-12) 1) Access to health care for the poor & middle class2) Infrastructure improvement 2) Expanding the skilled labor force


3) Affordable housing 3) Impact of working parents on children & family4) Education improvement (higher) 4) Economic abandonment of inner cities5) Workforce retraining 5) Helping welfare recipients become self-sufficient

New Hampshire1) Education improvement (public K-12) 1) Expanding the skilled labor force2) Energy affordability 2) Access to health care for the poor & middle class3) Infrastructure improvement 3) Impact of working parents on children & family4) Health care access for the uninsured 4) Helping welfare recipients become self-sufficient5) Affordable child care 5) Economic abandonment of inner cities

Rhode Island1) Education improvement (public K-12) 1) Expanding the skilled labor force2) Infrastructure improvement 2) Economic abandonment of inner cities3) Energy affordability 3) Impact of working parents on children & family4) Workforce retraining 4) Access to health care for the poor & middle class5) Maintaining R&D funding 5) Helping welfare recipients become self-sufficient


Vermont1) Education improvement (public K-12) 1) Expanding the skilled labor force2) Energy affordability 2) Access to health care for the poor & middle class3) Environmental issues 3) Impact of working parents on children & family4) Infrastructure improvement 4) Helping welfare recipients become self-sufficient5) Health care access for the uninsured 5) The wage gap between workers with different education levels


APPENDIX B: NEBHE DELEGATES___________________________________________________________________________

David Knapp, President-Emeritus, University of Massachusetts (Chair)Eleanor M. McMahon, Distinguished Professor, Brown University (Past Chair)Sen. Nancy I. Chard, Chair, Vermont Senate Education Committee (Chair Elect)Bennett Katz, Trustee, Maine Public Broadcasting Corp. (Treasurer)

John C. Hoy, President, New England Board of Higher Education

ConnecticutSen. Thomas P. Gaffey, Deputy Majority Leader, Connecticut Senate

Judith B. Greiman, President, Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges

Andrew C. McKirdy, Interim Chancellor, Connecticut Community/Technical

Colleges

Christine Niekrash, Director, Student and Alumni Services Center, UConn Health

Center

William Schwab, President, Norwalk Community-Technical College

Rep. Cameron C. Staples, House Chair, Joint Committee on Education (Legislative

Vice Chair)

Carolyn J. Thornberry, Educational Consultant, West Hartford, Conn.

Vacancy (Awaiting Appointment by the Speaker of the House)

MaineJ. Duke Albanese, Commissioner, Maine Department of Education

Rep. Christina Baker, Joint Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs, Maine

House

Sen. Mary R. Cathcart, Member, Joint Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs(Legislative Vice Chair)

John Fitzsimmons, President, Maine Technical College System

Edward A. Fox, Retired Dean, The Amos Tuck School of Business Administration,

Dartmouth College

Bennett Katz, Trustee, Maine Public Broadcasting Corp. (NEBHE Treasurer)

Terrence J. MacTaggart, Chancellor, University of Maine System

Rachel Talbot Ross, Director of Equal Opportunity & Multicultural Affairs, City of

Portland


MassachusettsCarole A. Cowan, President, Middlesex Community College (State Chair)

Rep. Thomas P. Kennedy, Committee on Ways & Means, Massachusetts House

David C. Knapp, President-Emeritus, University of Massachusetts (NEBHE Chair)

Stanley Z. Koplik, Chancellor, Massachusetts Board of Higher Education (Judith

Gill, Alternate)

Jacqueline W. Liebergott, President, Emerson College

Sen. David Magnani, Chair, Science & Technology Committee (Legislative Vice

Chair)

Jack F. St. Clair, Attorney, Springfield, Mass.

Vacancy (Awaiting Appointment by the Governor)

New HampshireRep. William Belvin, Member, House Finance Committee (Legislative Vice Chair)

Sen. George F. Disnard, New Hampshire Senate (Sen. Louis D’Allesandro,

Alternate)

William J. Farrell, Chancellor, University System of New Hampshire (State Chair)

Joan R. Leitzel, President, University of New Hampshire

Walter Peterson, Former Governor of New Hampshire, Peterborough, NH

Evelyn Robbins, Durham, NH

Donald P. Wharton, President, Plymouth State College

Stanley Yarosewick, President, Keene State College

Rhode IslandSen. Tom Coderre, Senate Deputy Majority Whip, Member, Board of Governors for

Higher Education

Sen. Daniel P. Connors, Senate Judiciary Committee, Secretary, Senate Committee on SpecialLegislation Joint Committee on Small Business

Rep. Gordon Fox, House Finance Committee, Rhode Island House

William R. Holland, Commissioner, Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher

Education

Eleanor M. McMahon, Distinguished Professor, Brown University (NEBHE Past

Chair)


Robert J. McKenna, Chair, Rhode Island Higher Education Assistance Authority

(State Chair)

John R. O'Leary, Mayor, Cranston, R.I.

Rep. Paul V. Sherlock, Vice Chair, House Finance Committee (Legislative Vice

Chair)

Vermont Charles I. Bunting, Chancellor, Vermont State Colleges(State Chair)

Sen. Nancy I. Chard, Chair, Senate Education Committee (NEBHE Chair-Elect,

Legislative Vice Chair)

Ann E. Cooper, Editor/Writer, Historic Roots

Rep. Alice Miller, Member, Education Committee, Vermont House

Judith Ramaley, President, University of Vermont

Thomas Salmon, Former Governor of Vermont

David S. Wolk, Superintendent of Schools, Rutland Public Schools

Vacancy (Awaiting Appointment by the Governor)


toward a strategic plan, 2000-2005

Documents

new england households

new hampshire

new initiatives

nebhe programming

nebhe history

nebhe delegates138

nebhe staff

questionnairethe view